Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Archive for the ‘pipelines’ Category

Our last Nord Stream pipeline post discussed the Nord Stream AG suit to recover damage costs from insurers Lloyd’s and Arch.

In a court document (excerpt below) obtained by Swedish engineer Erik Andersson, Lloyd’s and Arch assert that the damage was inflicted by, or under order of, a government , and therefore the insurers are not liable.

Given that the suspect governments have denied responsibility, shouldn’t the insurers have to prove that a government did it, and identify the government? That is what Nord Stream AG is asserting in their filing (except below).

Long, but interesting video with Erik Andersson:

Read Full Post »

After 5 months of investigation, the Main Pass Oil Gathering (MPOG) system has finally been cleared for production. (The Coast Guard update only says that the pipeline passed the integrity test, but I assume the operators may resume production though the MPOG system.)

Only a small connector leak that was previously reported was identified during the extensive integrity testing. The Coast Guard had advised that the connector leak was not the source of the large sheen that was observed in November.

So what was the source of the November sheen and what was the basis for the 1.1 million gallon spill volume estimate? The sheen was not indicative of a spill of that magnitude. Did the Coast Guard et al assume a worst case loss from the MPOG system, even though no leak had been identified?

Is this the most oversight ever for a pipeline integrity test?

The removal and replacement of the spool piece and the subsequent integrity test of the MPOG line were conducted under the close supervision of the Unified Command and Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration. During both operations, spill response vessels were on site, along with divers, remotely operated vehicles, helicopters equipped with trained oil observers and multi-spectral imaging cameras, and other containment and recovery equipment. No material discharge of oil was observed during these operations.

Unified Command

The NTSB has the lead in the investigation into the source of the sheen. Don’t expect any findings soon.

Read Full Post »

Average GoM oil production from Nov. to Jan. was more than 130,000 BOPD below the July to Oct. average. Production in Jan. 2024 was 245,000 BOPD lower than Sept. 2023 production. (See the table and chart below.)

The production shut-ins associated with the mysterious November sheen in the Main Pass area were no doubt a contributing factor to the decline, but the magnitude and duration of those shut-ins has not been disclosed. The source of the sheen has apparently still not been determined, nor has any information been provided on the status of the Federal investigation. The absence of transparency is disappointing.

production monthGoM oil production (BOPD, 1000’s)
Jan. 20241752
Dec. 20231829
Nov. 20231845
Oct. 20231950
Sept 20231997
Aug. 20231890
July 20231935
EIA data

Read Full Post »

Pictured: pig for cleaning gas pipelines. Will Nord Stream’s suit against the insurers unplug investigation findings?

Nord Stream AG has sued insurers Lloyds and Arch in the English High Court for failing to pay for pipeline damage incurred during the Sept. 2022 Baltic Sea explosions. The estimated pipeline repair costs range from €1.2 to €1.35 billion, and Nord Stream is seeking €400 million from the insurers.

Could this litigation help us learn more about the findings of the official Nord Stream investigations? After 17 months of investigation, Denmark recently concluded that “there are not sufficient grounds to pursue a criminal case in Denmark.” Only nineteen days before Sweden had announced that “Swedish jurisdiction does not apply and that the investigation therefore should be closed.” These weak announcements at the end of lengthy investigations seem too convenient, and may lend credence to Hersh’s Nord Stream account or a recent variation that implicates the UK. Germany is presumably still investigating, and it remains to be seen whether they will release findings.

Could the parties in the Nord Stream case pursue documents or testimony from the Swedish, Danish, or German investigation teams? Both sides in this case, Nord Stream AG and the insurers, would benefit from details that could help identify the responsible parties.

It’s more than a little hypocritical for Western governments and their NGO partners to rail against offshore oil and gas operations while quietly accepting (without investigation) the economic and environmental consequences of the Nord Stream sabotage. Compare the Nord Stream methane emissions with those associated with Gulf of Mexico operations.

Read Full Post »

from EIA data

Reports in Nov. indicated that ~60,000 bopd were shut-in as a result of the presumed Main Pass Oil Gathering system pipeline leak. The Coast Guard subsequently reported that other pipelines in the area were shut-in as the search for a leak continued. The bulk of the Nov./Dec. production decline of ~80,000 bopd (from Oct. levels) was probably attributable to those pipeline system shut-ins.

Read Full Post »

Either the investigators were incompetent (unlikely) or the political pressure was too great (likely).

“The investigation has led the authorities to conclude that there was deliberate sabotage of the gas pipelines. However, the assessment is that there are not sufficient grounds to pursue a criminal case in Denmark,” a Copenhagen police statement said.

Reuters

After 17 months of investigation, that’s a pretty lame statement. Will we see their report?

The ball is now in Germany’s court. Should we expect more of the same?

Our June 2023 summary remains unchanged.

Read Full Post »

After 3 months of investigation, only a small connector leak has been identified in or near the Main Pass Oil Gathering system. According to the Coast Guard, that leak was not the source of the large November spill (pictured). The absence of findings raises many questions:

  • Is the Main Pass Oil Gathering system still being implicated? Surrounding pipelines?
  • Was a vessel or some other source responsible?
  • Were sheen samples fingerprinted and are those results definitive?
  • Given that the source has not been identified, what was the basis for the large (and rather sensational) spill volume estimate? The sheen was not indicative of a spill of that magnitude.
  • How much production has been shut-in since the slick was first identified? November production data indicate a GoM-wide oil production decline of ~80,000 bopd decline from September.

Given the public claims that were made about the size and potential implications of this spill, the authorities need to be more forthcoming regarding their findings to date.

Read Full Post »

Still waiting for:

Read Full Post »

Here is the entire interview. The Nord Stream sabotage discussion begins just after the 1:11 mark.

Putin suggests that people consider who had an interest in sabotaging the pipelines and who had the capability. He also asks why Germany isn’t allowing gas to flow through the one Nord Stream line that wasn’t damaged. 

Read Full Post »

The conclusion of the investigation is that Swedish jurisdiction does not apply and that the investigation therefore should be closed,” the Swedish Prosecution Authority said in a statement.

Reuters

Weak, very weak. Instant Not My Job Award classic.



Read Full Post »

« Newer Posts - Older Posts »