Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Archive for the ‘Regulation’ Category

BOEM’s 2024 Marine Archaeology Rule

Exercising authority granted in the Congressional Review Act (Chapter 8 of Title 5 of the United States Code), Congress passed Joint Resolution 11 nullifying the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management rule titled “Protection of Marine Archaeological Resources” (Sept. 3, 2024).

Nullification of a final rule is not common. Since its Enactment in 1996, the CRA has been used to overturn only 20 rules. This is the first time an OCS energy rule has been nullified.

Enactment of a CRA resolution of disapproval is unlikely in most circumstances, because a President would be expected to veto a joint resolution disapproving a rule issued by the President’s own Administration.

There are also time limitations for nullifying a rule. The joint resolution must be introduced during a 60-days- of-continuous-session period beginning when the rule has been published in the Federal Register and been received by Congress. However, if within 60 session days after a rule is submitted, Congress adjourns its session, the periods to introduce and act on a disapproval resolution reoccur in their entirety in the next session of Congress.

It’s also noteworthy that a CRA resolution cannot be filibustered if the Senate acts on the resolution during a 60-days-of-Senate-session period beginning when the rule has been received by Congress.

Most of the 20 nullifications involved rules finalized at the end of a previous administration that were nullified at the beginning of a new administration with a majority in both chambers of Congress. That is the case for the Marine Archaeology Rule, which was published at the end of the Biden administration and nullified at the beginning of the Trump administration. .

The nullified OCS rule required operators to submit an archaeological report identifying potential archaeological resources with any exploration or development plan. The rule modified regulations that only required such a report only when a BOEM regional director had reason to believe that an archaeological resource may be present in the lease area. 

Archaeological survey requirements have been somewhat contentious since they were introduced in the 1970s. There were concerns about decisions to require the protection of speculative, low probability sites that could significantly alter operating plans.

A reasonable balance and an apparent consensus was achieved by limiting the report requirements to areas where studies and other information indicated the potential for such resources. BOEM’s new rule tightened the requirement considerably, which led to opposition and ultimately nullification.

Resolution Timeline

2/4/2025SenateResolution Introduced by Sen. Kennedy
2/25/2025SenatePassed by Yea-Nay Vote 54 – 44
3/6/2025HousePassed by Yea-Nay vote: 221 – 202, 1 Present
3/13/2025Presidentsigned

Read Full Post »

See the attached letter from Sable’s attorneys; highlights below:

  • The Commission staff appears to be asserting Commission jurisdiction over already permitted activities in order to attempt to exert influence over Sable’s planned restart of the Santa Ynez Unit oil production operations. Jurisdiction over restart activities is entirely outside of the Commission’s jurisdiction and is separately regulated by other agencies.
  • Sable’s repair and maintenance activities (anomaly repairs, safety valve installation, and span remediation) are in compliance with applicable provisions of Santa Barbara County’s Coastal Zoning Ordinance (CZO), certified Local Coastal Program (LCP), and the Coastal Act. As such, no cease and desist order is warranted – whether issued by the Executive Director or the full Coastal Commission.
  • The onshore and offshore repair and maintenance work is fully authorized by coastal development permits previously approved by Santa Barbara County and the Commission. Therefore, those activities do not require new or amended coastal development permits and are not otherwise subject to the Commission’s jurisdiction or enforcement authority.
  • Onshore anomalies: Santa Barbara County reviewed the detailed information Sable submitted with Zoning Clearance applications in 2024 and confirmed in a letter dated February 12, 2025, that the anomaly repair work is authorized by the pipelines’ existing coastal development permits and, consistent with past practice, no new or separate Coastal Act authorization is required for Sable to perform the work. Commission staff has repeatedly ignored that the County — as the applicable agency with delegated LCP authority under the Coastal Act — expressly has confirmed that the anomaly repair work was authorized by the onshore pipelines’ existing Coastal Development Permit, Final Development Plan, and Conditions of Approval.
  • Onshore safety valves: Sable was required to undertake safety valve repair and maintenance activities pursuant to state law that the Coastal Commission supported. The safety valve repair work involves the exact same type of work as pipeline anomaly repairs, and Sable completed the safety valve work only after the County confirmed in writing that no further authorization from the County was required for the safety valves.
  • Offshore span remediation: Sable’s span remediation maintenance activities were fully contemplated and authorized within the original coastal development permit approved by the Coastal Commission for the Offshore Pipelines in 1988 and the Development and Production Plan approved by the Department of the Interior. The span remediation maintenance activities involve the placement of sand-cement bags beneath certain segments of the offshore pipelines to provide additional pipeline support. The exact same support enhancement (span remediation) activities have been performed in the past on these same offshore pipelines without requiring any new Coastal Act authorizations.
  • Sable has filed a lawsuit against the Commission in Superior Court in Santa Barbara County where it has asked the Court for damages and declaratory and injunctive relief to protect its vested rights to repair, maintain and operate the Santa Ynez Unit and Las Flores Pipeline Systems.

Read Full Post »

Senator Schiff and 22 California representatives sent the attached letter to Gov. Newsome urging him to:

  • Require the Fire Marshal to reconsider the state waiver for the pipeline, conduct environmental review, and hold a public hearing;
  • Require a coastal development permit for restart of the pipeline;
  • Require State Parks to conduct environmental review and hold a public hearing prior to deciding whether to approve a new easement for the pipeline through Gaviota State Park.

The good news for Sable: Despite the bluster in the letter’s opening paragraphs, none of the requests to Gov. Newsome are knockout punches. The first two relate to matters that have already been addressed and Sable is in a favorable position. The third, the Gaviota State Park easement renewal, is currently under review and should not be a decisive blow.

The bad news for Sable: Punches will continue to be thrown even after production resumes (should that ever actually happen.)

Much more on Sable

Read Full Post »

Historically, falls are the most common cause of offshore injuries and fatalities, and hazardous grating is a leading contributing factor to these incidents.

BSEE’s risk-based inspection and safety alert programs have effectively drawn attention to grating risks. Attached is a recent alert describing a grating incident that could have been fatal.

A worker installing a pump in a skid above unsafe grating was kneeling on scaffolding boards. The tip of his boot was on the corroded grating when it suddenly gave way. The worker was able to grab a nearby section of piping to support himself. The 36″ x 36″ piece of grating collapsed and fell into the water.

Read Full Post »

Orsted photo: wind wakes trailing turbines at Vattenfall’s Horns Rev wind farm offshore Denmark

The oil industry has a long history of dealing with the correlative rights issues associated with oil drainage from competitive reservoirs. Similar issues are arising in the offshore wind industry.

Orsted believes ‘catastrophic wake losses’ threaten the existence of their Irish Sea wind farms, claiming that wakes from EnBW, BP, and RWE projects could shorten the life of Orsted’s assets. Note that wind wakes can stretch as far as 100 km.

Orsted claims that four nearby wind farms in the Irish Sea could result in a drop in Orsted’s annual energy production of up to 5.34%, and is seeking mitigation or compensation.

This is all rather familiar to the oil industry and its regulators, particularly the call for compensation!

Read Full Post »

The California Coastal Commission is simply out of control and has veered far from its purpose of protecting the coast,” said Rep. Kiley. “From blocking SpaceX rocket launches to obstructing fire prevention projects, the Commission has repeatedly threatened the safety of Californians and weakened our national defense, while needlessly undercutting innovation and economic progress. The need to rein in the Commission has become urgent as we face the challenge of rebuilding Los Angeles following the fires.

The bill (attached), introduced by Kevin Kiley (CA), would amend the Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA) to expedite important coastal activities, including national security initiatives, critical infrastructure development, and disaster mitigation and recovery efforts. Key provision:

‘‘(2) LIMITATION ON OBJECTION.—An objection or other challenge by a coastal state to an activity subject to a conclusive presumption of concurrence under paragraph (1) may not delay or otherwise prevent the activity from proceeding.”

While perhaps unlikely to be enacted, the bill addresses regulatory authority that many perceive to be unchecked and abusive. Congressional attention is clearly warranted.

Read Full Post »

The recent Rosebank and Jackdaw decision in the UK is similar to the OCS Sale 257 fiasco in the US. In both cases, the court ruled that downstream GHG emissions weren’t adequately considered in the environmental reviews.

In the case of the Rosebank and Jackdaw fields, Lord Ericht ruled that the environmental assessment must take into account the climate effect of downstream emissions resulting from the consumption of oil and gas produced at those fields.

The Sale 257 decision was even more extreme in that Judge Contreras ruled that BOEM failed to consider the “positive” effect that higher prices (which might result from lower US offshore production) would have in reducing worldwide demand and the associated GHG emissions.

Regardless of one’s opinion on the extent to which GHGs affect the climate, halting UK and US projects will have virtually no effect on international oil and gas demand. That demand will be satisfied by other suppliers who will reap the economic benefits.

The Sale 257 decision was overturned by legislative action.

Presumably, revised environmental assessments, will allow the previously approved UK projects, for which some facilities have already been constructed and installed, to go forward. The UK government has been considering how to calculate downstream emissions. The model will no doubt yield outcomes that are highly uncertain.

In the meantime, the UK sector of the North Sea, unlike its Norwegian counterpart, continues to flounder.

Wisdom from the Scotsman regarding UK offshore production:

We need more of it because even the most ardent supporters of renewable energy, the most vocal proponents of net zero, quietly admit oil and, especially, gas will be needed for a couple of decades at least. That obvious truth, that inarguable necessity, is not, apparently, enough for ministers to encourage UK production, however, or temper their rhetoric around renewables.

Allowing our rigs and refineries to power down and relying on other countries to keep the lights on still seems a little, well, counter-intuitive. We will import oil and gas but not produce it while happily exporting contracts, skills and jobs overseas? The practical impact of Labour’s refusal to grant new exploration licences in the North Sea might remain unclear but the message it sent was absolutely crystal.

Read Full Post »

Check it out!

Of particular interest are mandated reviews of the:

  • RIsk Management and Financial Assurance Rule: Those who want to gut this rule should come to the table with proposals that better protect the taxpayer from decommissioning liabilities. Pretending that decommissioning financial risks don’t exist or that they are someone else’s (or the govt’s) problem is unacceptable.
  • 5 Year leasing program – This review is urgently needed. See this and this!
  • BOP/Well Control Rule – This keystone safety rule has undergone multiple reviews in recent years. Because of the rule’s importance, further review for continuous improvement purposes may nonetheless be warranted. Here are the blog comments on the current version of the rule.

Not on the list, but should have been: A review of the fragmented regulatory regime for offshore pipelines, and the outdated and inconsistent regulations.

Read Full Post »

Pioneering offshore engineer J.L. Daeschler, a Frenchman who lives in Scotland and has worked on drilling rigs worldwide, shared his 1974 training certificate signed by Bill Hise, the first director of the Blowout Prevention and Well Control Training Center at LSU. JL recalls his training:

The LSU well control course was new and very well organized. Training options were limited at that time. LSU took a step forward and incorporated equipment donated by Cameron Iron Works, Armco Steel /National, VETCO, and others.

The course was split between indoor class room style and outdoor training on a live well to remind us of the real things, like hard hats, tally books, and safety shoes.

LSU had a 1200 ft vertical well and a small 2″ diameter gas injection line to create a bottom hole gas kick, using a nitrogen truck as the supply. (note: the live well was a first for any well control school.) You had a choice of several manual chokes.  I selected the Cameron Willis choke to circulate the gas kick out with no increase in mud weight (drillers method).

The mud return level, kick detection, and general management of the operation were realistic as if on a rig. The gas would whistle and escape thru a vent line.

The training was simple and effective in that proper well control procedures were learned. In the process, there were many errors. Mud was seen flying out of the mud shaker/pits. School management would bring things under control and explain the errors that were made !!!

Given the importance of minimizing drilling risks, the Minerals Management Service (MMS) was the primary funder of the LSU facility. MMS predecessor, the Conservation Division of USGS, first established well control training requirements in 1975 (pasted below).

LSU’s well control center video:

Read Full Post »

… Union Oil Company’s reckless well plan forever scarred the U.S. offshore program. Learn more about the details.

Santa Barbara blowout

Examinations of the Santa Barbara, Montara, and Macondo blowouts, the Piper Alpha fire, and other major incidents should be a part of every petroleum engineering curriculum, and should be mandatory for those who conduct and regulate offshore oil and gas operations.

There is no better learning experience than studying the failures that had such enormous human and economic consequences.

Read Full Post »

« Newer Posts - Older Posts »