Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Archive for the ‘Offshore Energy – General’ Category

Taylor Energy’s Mississippi Canyon Block 20 “A” platform was destroyed by a massive mudslide during Hurricane Ivan in 2004 (see illustrations below). Per Naval Research Laboratory sensors, “Ivan the Terrible” generated freak waves as high as 91 feet, and NRL computer models suggest that wave heights may have exceeded 130 feet. The changes in pressure resulting from the motion of the huge waves triggered the flow of the unstable Mississippi delta sediments. The platform was swept 500 feet downslope and the wells were severed and buried under a deep layer of sediment. That was essentially the end for Taylor Energy, as the company would spend the next 17 years locating and plugging wells, decommissioning piping, collecting seepage, and mitigating pollution. Since 2008, when Taylor sold its remaining oil and gas assets, the company has been solely engaged in the MC-20 response.

Illustration of the collapsed well jacket and damaged pipes from Taylor Energy’s Mississippi Canyon 20 Platform in the Gulf of Mexico.
NOAA illustration

Last week, Taylor and the Justice Department signed a consent degree that transfers the company’s remaining assets and control of the decommissioning trust fund to the Federal government. Questions remain as to whether the platform and wells could have been better designed to withstand the mudslide (note that the platform was installed and operated by BP prior to being sold to Taylor), and whether more should have been done to mitigate the seepage. Taylor does a good job of making its case at their response website.

Few offshore operators would argue that what happened to Taylor couldn’t happen to them. That would be brash and foolish. Hopefully, the companies that remain have absorbed the lessons of MC-20 and are applying them to their operations and management programs.

Read Full Post »

An old offshore platform in the U.S. Gulf of Mexico is set to be converted into a working fish farm, creating a blueprint for future aquaculture re-use projects and providing repurposing options for old oil and gas assets.

offshore-energy.biz
Creating blueprint for reusing old oil & gas assets in Gulf of Mexico
Station Padre

Congratulations to the Gulf Offshore Research Institute (GORI) and Innovasea on their plans to transform an offshore Texas gas platform into a working fish farm.

For the complete list of alternative uses for offshore oil and gas platforms, see our Rigs-to-Reefs+++ page.

Read Full Post »

Norway's Supreme Court set to rule on whether the country can keep  searching for new Arctic oil
V. Belov, Shutterstock photo, Norway

Read Full Post »

Carbon capture and storage
NPD

Several actors have approached the ministry with a desire to be allocated two specific areas for storage of CO 2 . One area in the North Sea and one in the Barents Sea were therefore announced on 10 September in accordance with the storage regulations.

By the application deadline of 9 December, the ministry had received applications from five companies. The Ministry will process the received applications and allocate area in accordance with the storage regulations during the first half of 2022.

Ministry of Petroleum and Energy, Norway

Contrast the situation in Norway with Exxon’s apparent attempt to acquire 94 Gulf of Mexico leases at Oil and Gas Lease Sale 257 solely for CCS purposes. BOEM’s Notice of Sale made no mention of CCS, and there had been no environmental or economic assessment of CCS activity.

And how much will the public pay for grand CCS ventures that (although interim measures) will take years to initiate, add new safety and environmental risks, and may never achieve their objectives? The public burden will no doubt include direct subsidies, tax credits, increased petrochemical prices, and the erosion of purchasing power associated with the resulting inflation pressures.

More on Sale 257 and the CCS bidding.

Read Full Post »

Sen. Joe Manchin III (D-W.Va.), a critical swing vote, has rejected a provision (in the “Build Back Better Bill”) that would prohibit all future drilling off the Atlantic and Pacific Coasts, as well as the eastern Gulf of Mexico, according to three people familiar with the matter

Washington Post

New oil and gas leasing is unlikely in these areas, but broad permanent bans are never a good idea.

Read Full Post »

Offshore gas production (see chart below) has declined for the past 20 years and now accounts for only 4% of total US gas production, down from 20% in 2005 and 25% in the 1990s. Associated gas production (oil-well gas) has remained relatively constant owing to the strength in deepwater GoM oil production. 73% of 2020 gas production was from deepwater wells, and was mostly oil-well gas. Associated gas production surpassed nonassociated gas production (gas-well gas) in 2016 and the latter has continued to decline.

The case for natural gas has been well documented (see the EQT letter linked below). Recent natural gas advocacy has emphasized the carbon/GHG advantages given that methane (CH4) is essentially a hydrogen transporter that emits far less CO2 than other fossil fuels when burned. However, natural gas’s other important air quality advantages – low NOx. SO2, and particulate emissions – have greater local significance from a human health standpoint. Those who have ridden a bike behind a natural gas powered bus have no doubt experienced the natural gas advantage firsthand. These buses are literally a breath of fresh air!

Other environmental advantages of offshore natural gas, particularly nonassociated gas, receive less attention but are nonetheless significant. Advantages of nonassociated offshore gas include the following:

  • Fewer wells required than for shale gas
  • No risk of fresh water contamination
  • Platforms provide beneficial reef effects
  • Minimal space preemption and land disturbance relative to onshore gas production and wind/solar operations
  • Low facility density and navigation risks relative to wind operations;
  • Lower elevation and fewer view-shed, aesthetic, and aviation issues than for wind
  • Minimal avian risks relative to on- and offshore wind operations
  • Minimal spill risk relative to oil and associated gas production
  • Significantly less flaring than for oil well gas. While the overall % of US offshore gas production that is flared is low (approx. 1.0 -1.5% from 2016-2020 per EIA data), the % of gas-well gas that is flared has historically been less than 0.5%.

Low natural gas prices and competition from nimble and efficient shale operations have constrained offshore gas exploration. Ultradeep (subsurface) drilling has shown promise from a gas resource perspective but has proven to be expensive and operationally challenging. Some independent producers are still acquiring gas prone shelf tracts and that needs to be encouraged. Consideration should be given to incentives such as making nonassociated gas production royalty free. That would certainly seem preferable to subsidizing complex, expensive, and uncertain carbon disposal operations on offshore leases.

Read Full Post »

Charles Smith

I’m very sad to report the passing of a leading offshore safety researcher and long-time colleague, Dr. Charles Smith. Charles was a pioneering structural engineer who joined the US Geological Survey’s Conservation Division (then the offshore safety regulator) in ~1977 to establish the Technology Assessment and Research (TAR) Program.  With the thinnest of budgets, Charles formed partnerships that addressed the gamut of offshore safety issues. Some of his accomplishments:

  • Working with the Offshore Technology Research Center (Texas A&M) and others, Charles sponsored projects that led to the successful investigation of deepwater production concepts including TLPs, Spars, FPSOs, and semisubmersibles.  These designs are now the mainstays of deepwater development worldwide.
  • Organized well control projects that included the establishment of the deepwater well control research facility at Louisiana State University. 
  • Established the first ever offshore earthquake measurement network in the Pacific Region. The measurement system at Platform Grace in the Santa Barbara Channel successfully recorded 5 earthquakes and the structural responses at multiple locations on the platform.
  • Conducted research that led to new hurricane design standards for offshore structures and topsides equipment.
  • Working with colleagues at Berkeley and Stanford, conducted groundbreaking research on human and organizational factors affecting offshore safety. This was the basis for important safety culture studies that followed.
  • Studied pipeline risks and corrosion management for structures and pipelines.
  • Studied decommissioning options and their comparative environmental effects. 
  • Assessed arctic development options including gravel and ice islands and monopod concepts.
  • Conducted structural reviews leading to the renovation of the Ohmsett spill response test facility.
  • Participated on organizing committees for the International Conference on Ocean, Offshore, and Arctic Engineering (OMAE).
  • Along with representatives from Norway, the UK, Brazil. Canada, Mexico, Australia, and New Zealand, founded the International Committee on Regulatory Authority Research and Development (ICRARD).

Charles was the only offshore regulatory engineer to be selected as one of 10 finalists for the prestigious NSPE Federal Engineer of the Year award. (Keep in mind that the US government employs more than 130,000 engineers.) In 2009, the year of his retirement from Minerals Management Service, he was inducted into the Offshore Energy Center’s Hall of Fame (Galveston, TX) as as a Technology Pioneer for Health, Safety, and the Environment.   

After retirement Charles moved to Newfoundland and continued working on offshore safety issues with Memorial University, Canadian regulators, and industry representatives.  He and his wife Elaine built a lovely home overlooking the water in Bay Roberts. He was proud to be a citizen of both the US and Canada, and both countries were beneficiaries of his long and enormously successful career. Here is his obituary.

IMG_1766.JPG
Charles and his wife Elaine with my wife and me and John Gregory and his wife at the Offshore Energy Center Hall of Fame induction gala (Houston, 2009). Bud

Read Full Post »

BEIJING photo
Vessel Finder

According to the Coast Guard, investigators determined the ship “was involved in an anchor dragging incident on Jan. 25, 2021 during a heavy weather event that impacted the Ports of L.A. and Long Beach.” The anchor- dragging occurred “in close proximity” to an underwater pipeline later determined to be the source of the October leak that spilled thousands of gallons of oil into the ocean, forcing the closure of beaches and harbors across Orange County.

CBS-LA

The hearings and the liability battles that follow will be most interesting. Those lined up to sue the pipeline operator (Amplify), such as this Huntington Beach disc jockey, may have difficulties.

Read Full Post »

Per Offshore-Energy.biz, BP’s semi-submersible Argos production platform has arrived on location in the Gulf of Mexico. The floating platform will operate in 4500′ of water as part of BP’s Mad Dog 2 project. Production, which is expected to reach 140,000 boe/d, should begin in the 2nd quarter of 2022.

Per BOEM’s platform data base, this will be the 58th surface production facility in the deepwater (>1000′) GoM and the first such facility installed since Shell’s Appomattox in June, 2018. These platforms account for more than 90% of US offshore oil production.

BP photo: Argos at Ingleside, TX
BP graphic

Read Full Post »

What, if anything, will the Judge say about the leases that are intended to be carbon sequestration sites? How can BOEM sell OCS leases for purposes that were neither announced nor environmentally assessed? What do EarthJustice and the other plaintiffs think about the sequestration bids given that the environmental community is split on CCS?

Who is going to pay the enormous cost of sequestration on the Outer Continental Shelf – platforms, wells, pipelines, processing equipment, maintenance, monitoring, decommissioning, and more? The Federal government (i.e. taxpayers) features large in this grand scheme, and will no doubt be assuming most of the economic and performance risks. And all of these costs are for disposal purposes, not for offshore energy production of any kind.

Together with the bipartisan infrastructure bill enacted in November, which included more than $12 billion in funding for carbon capture and carbon removal technologies, the Build Back Better legislation would hand fossil fuel companies nearly every item on their carbon capture wishlist.

Inside Climate News

The reality of offshore CCS is not anywhere near as simple as portrayed in the slick graphic below:

houston ccs hub
ExxonMobil

Read Full Post »

« Newer Posts - Older Posts »