1.60 to 1.74 million BOPD were shut-in from 8/28 to 8/31, reducing the average daily production for August to 1.535 million barrels per day, a net reduction of 312,000 BOPD from July. The September production figure will be significantly lower given that more than half of the GoM production was shut-in for 13 days in September and several hundred thousand BOPD were shut-in for the rest of the month. September production will be released at the end of November.
According to ExxonMobil Guyana, the Liza Unity FPSO is the world’s first FPSO to be awarded for its sustainable design, documentation and operational procedures. The vessel has been awarded the SUSTAIN-1 notation by the American Bureau of Shipping (ABS), which is the Classification Society for the unit.
Based on the schematic for the sister FPSO Liza Destiny (below), gas that is not used to power the vessel will be reinjected.
The quality of offshore facilities and the attention to safety and environmental details have improved dramatically over time. The offshore industry deserves recognition for their efforts in that regard.
Due to water currents and a robust emergency clean-up effort, local beaches and ocean were re-opened on Oct. 11. By mid October, walking along the wide, sandy beaches there’s no sign of the spill as dolphins and surfers share the waves against a backdrop of cargo ships, oil rigs and the soft silhouette of Catalina Island.
“Right now, there’s high confidence that the spill was approximately 24,696 gallons. The exact number won’t be able to be verified until the investigation has been completed. But there’s high confidence in that number,” Shaye said.
“Our world environment is very resilient, which is a positive thing,” Shaye said. “As far as the birds and wildlife; there have been some deaths, as happens in this kind of situation. But quite a few have been rehabilitated and released back into their environment.
This decision is more about exercising political power than advancing our energy future, which is dependent on collaboration among all sectors of the energy industry.
Oil and gas producers are “banned,” but major energy consumers are welcome to support the conference.
The 3 oil companies mentioned in the article are major investors in offshore wind and other renewable energy projects. These companies have spent hundreds of millions of dollars to purchase US offshore wind leases and will spend much more on the projects that follow. They are also major investors in low carbon intensity offshore oil and gas production.
Does the US government, which (at taxpayers expense) is sending a very large delegation to COP26, support this type of discriminatory behavior toward major contributors to our economy?
While the delegates are attending the conference, the folks at home are seething about gasoline prices and inflation.
A group of environmental organizations demanded Wednesday that the Biden administration suspend and cancel oil and gas leases in federal waters off the California coast after a recent crude oil spill.
While not the disaster that some had predicted, this spill is another setback for California offshore production. However, cancellation of the remaining producing leases would be a very difficult and costly proposition for the Federal government. At this time, the Beta Unit operator appears to be minimally responsible for the spill, so what would be the basis for cancelling those leases? Cancelling other producible leases would be even more problematic.
With regard to air emissions, the advantages of deepwater Gulf of Mexico production are rather obvious:
High production rates per well
Few surface facilities (57 deepwater platforms, 3% of GoM total, produce 90+% of oil)
Modern gas turbines for power generation
Tightly enforced restrictions on flaring and venting
Better control of fugitive emissions
Distant from shore (not a factor for GHG effects)
Wood Mackenzie, NOIA, and others contend that restrictions on GoM leasing are contrary to carbon reduction goals.
An important and unintended consequence of enacting more restrictive policies such as a lease ban or increase in royalty rate in the Gulf of Mexico is that it could give rise to carbon leakage to countries that export crude to US.
In light of the policy implications of GHG emissions, a Carbon Intensity Workshop is highly recommended. The estimates generated by Wood Mackenzie, Rystad, and others need to be explored in depth. Is data quality an issue? How are the data verified? Is there regulator or third party oversight? What are the assumptions behind the estimates? Also, for the purposes of US policy decisions, product transportation emissions should certainly be included. A barrel produced in the Middle East is not the same as a barrel produced in the GoM.
Looking at the chart above, I have immediate questions about the drilling emissions (blue). What wells are included? What about workovers and other well operations? I’m surprised that the deepwater GoM drilling emissions are so high relative to the other regions. While dynamically positioned MODUs have high fuel consumption rates, deepwater wells are few in number relative to shale drilling. Also, why are Brazil’s drilling emissions, which I assume are primarily associated with deepwater operations, so much lower that those for the GoM.
BOEM/BSEE and/or the Gulf Research Program (NASEM) would seem to be good sponsors for such a workshop.
Overall Conclusion Currently, there are no regulations that require removal of subsea pipelines if they are not an obstruction to navigation. Based on the high costs for removing the pipelines, the personnel risk involved in the removal operations, the negative effect on overall emissions to air and the very limited reduction in discharges to sea, the overall conclusion is that it is better to leave the pipelines in place. If possible, re-use of the pipelines is the optimal solution.
Environmental Impacts The impacts on the environment and the marine environment from pipelines and cables left in place were found to be very minor. Conversely recovery operations will have a negative impact on the environment. The number of vessels required for removal operations and long operating hours will result in considerably more releases and emissions than leaving the pipelines in place. In addition the energy savings benefit from recycling the pipeline materials will be exceeded by the energy required to remove the pipelines and separate the materials.
The “Habitat” impacts row seems questionable. Pipeline removal certainly has a greater impact on habitat than abandonment in place, particularly for buried pipelines.
This quote from an AP article is consistent with the view expressed here after our review of the inspection reports for the Beta Unit (Platform Elly to shore) pipeline. Further per the AP article:
Safety inspections in 2015, 2017 and 2019 found anomalies in Amplify’s pipeline, including instances of metal loss and three dents that were previously repaired. But several experts who reviewed the reports said the metal loss — which can be a sign of a pipe wall thinning as it corrodes with age — was relatively minor. The dents were not in the same area as the spill.
The Ondjaba-1 well will be drilled at a new world record water depth of 3,628 m. The current world record is 3,400 m, set by Maersk Voyager’s sister drillship Maersk Venturer when it drilled the Raya-1 well for TotalEnergies offshore Uruguay in 2016.
The record US water depth well (3051m/10,011′) was drilled in 2003 by Transocean for Chevron in Alaminos Canyon Block 951 the Gulf of Mexico. The deepest well drilled in US GoM in 2021 YTD was for Shell in 9352′ of water in Alalminos Canyon Block 815.
While brief celebrity space flights are major news stories, these economically important and technical challenging accomplishments by the offshore industry receive very little attention even as oil prices pierce the $82/bbl mark.
Bud's Offshore Energy (BOE) 