Archive for the ‘Wind Energy’ Category
Tough day for Orsted
Posted in Offshore Wind, tagged 2024 election, bad day, Offshore Wind, Orsted on November 6, 2024| Leave a Comment »
The 2024 election results will have major implications for the OCS program
Posted in energy policy, Offshore Energy - General, Offshore Wind, tagged 2024 elections, endangered species, Gulf of Mexico leasing, implications for offshore oil and gas, implications for offshore wind on November 6, 2024| Leave a Comment »
Offshore oil and gas:
- The current 5 year OCS oil and gas leasing plan, which provided for the fewest sales in history, will be rewritten.
- The new program will include at least one Gulf of Mexico lease sale annually.
- Where there is State support (e.g. Alaska), other offshore areas may be added to the program.
- Reversal of the Beaufort Sea Presidential withdrawals, either by executive order or, if necessary, by congressional action, is a distinct possibility.
- A Gulf of Mexico oil and gas sale will be held during the first half of 2025. This can be accomplished under the Biden administration’s 5 year plan.
- Judge Boardman’s ruling requiring a new biological opinion under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) has created some uncertainty regarding the timing of a GoM sale. Her decision is being litigated and the effective date of her ruling is now 5/21/2024 (see attached). Congressional action could also reverse this decision.
- Expect other litigation on NEPA and ESA grounds with the intent of stalling oil and gas leasing. Congressional action could reverse or limit such litigation.
Offshore wind:
- Expect offshore wind leasing to be “paused.”
- Current leaseholders are contractually entitled to continue developing and operating their leases. Expect construction and operation plans to be more closely scrutinized.
- Expect BSEE’s report on the Vineyard Wind turbine blade failure to receive added attention and publicity.
- Expect considerable tension between North Atlantic governors, strong supporters of offshore wind, and the new administration.
Expect less babble about absurd topics like “petro-masculinity.” 😉
Atlantic wind lease bids have declined by 99.4%. Is $50/acre fair market value?
Posted in Offshore Wind, tagged Avangrid, BOEM, declining bids, fair market value, Gulf of Maine, Invenergy, Offshore Wind on November 1, 2024| Leave a Comment »
The table below illustrates the dramatic decline in bidding for Atlantic wind leases over the past 2 years. (The California sale is also included in the table.)
| offshore area | sale date | leases sold | acres leased | bonus bids ($ millions) | $/acre |
| NY/NJ | 2/2022 | 6 | 488,000 | 4,370 | 8955 |
| California | 12/2022 | 5 | 373,268 | 757.1 | 2028 |
| Central Atl. | 8/2024 | 2 | 277,948 | 92.65 | 333 |
| Gulf of Maine | 10/2024 | 4 | 439,096 | 21.9 | 50 |
Accepting that bidding at the 2/2022 sale, which averaged nearly $9000/acre, was irrationally exuberant, bidding at this week’s sale was still incredibly weak. Even the bids at the Central Atlantic sale, just 2 months ago, averaged $333/acre, 6.7 times higher than the Gulf of Maine bids.
Energy giants Equinor, Repsol, and Total were among the eligible Gulf of Maine bidders that opted not to participate.
Do the Gulf of Maine bids pass BOEM’s fair market value tests? Apparently so; the sale notice established $50/acre as the minimum bid, and that is where the bidding started and ended. Invenergy and Avangrid had no competition and presumably got the tracts they wanted at the lowest possible price. We’ll see how this works out for the companies and power consumers.
Ocean City MD et al sue to vacate Maryland Offshore Wind approval
Posted in energy policy, Offshore Wind, tagged BOEM, COP, law suit, Maryland Offshore Wind, NEPA, Ocean City MD on October 30, 2024| Leave a Comment »
As promised, Ocean City, Maryland, neighboring towns, counties, fishing groups, the Save Right Whales Coalition, and a long list of commercial entities have sued BOEM for approving the Construction and Operations Plan (COP) for the Maryland Offshore Wind project. The complete filing is attached.
The plaintiffs’ discussion of BOEM’s failure to consider true alternatives (begins on p. 43) is particularly interesting. They contend that “BOEM rejected out-of-hand all true alternatives, and selected alternatives with only minor differences in number of turbines and the route for the power cables from the proposed action.“
The plaintiffs also assert (p. 44) that “BOEM flatly rejected the option of not authorizing the Maryland Offshore Wind Project—as though approval were foreordained, with only the details to be determined.“
The plaintiffs’ argue further (p. 46) that BOEM failed to analyze the 3 phases of the project, particularly the third phase which is open-ended at this time.
Blade failure concerns are discussed beginning on p. 49. Excerpt:
“Missing from BOEM’s Final EIS is any discussion or analysis of the environmental impacts in the event of blade and turbine failure and the degradation of Project components, which are known and foreseeable possibilities that should have been reviewed and analyzed by BOEM. Risks of blade and turbine failure and component degradation are not hypothetical. Rather, they pose real dangers to the water quality of the ocean, fish and essential fish habitats, marine mammals, benthic resources, and recreational and commercial boaters.”
As previously recommended, wind leasing and plan approvals should be paused until BSEE’s investigation of the Vineyard Wind blade failure and the associated environmental damage study have been completed.
There is much more in this filing for those who want to take a closer look.
Gulf of Maine wind lease sale results
Posted in Offshore Wind, tagged Avangrid, BOEM, Gulf of Maine, Invenergy, results, wind lease sale on October 29, 2024| Leave a Comment »
Four of the eight tracts that were offered received bids. Only two companies participated, and the amounts were a fraction of the bids submitted for just two leases at the last Central Atlantic sale.
Today’s Gulf of Maine offering may be the last wind sale for some time.
Posted in Offshore Wind, tagged 5 year leasing plan, BOEM, Gulf of Maine, Inflation Reduction Act, last sale, offshore wind lease sale, ruling against offshore oil and gas leasing on October 29, 2024| 2 Comments »
Gulf of Maine Final Lease Areas, Acres, and Assigned Region
| Lease Area ID | Total Acres | Developable Acres |
| OCS-A 0562 | 97,854 | 97,854 |
| OCS-A 0563 | 105,682 | 105,682 |
| OCS-A 0564 | 98,565 | 93,756 |
| OCS-A 0565 | 103,191 | 103,191 |
| OCS-A 0566 | 96,075 | 96,075 |
| OCS-A 0567 | 117,780 | 113,208 |
| OCS-A 0568 | 124,897 | 116,363 |
| OCS-A 0569 | 106,038 | 101,757 |
| Total | 850,082 | 827,886 |
| Average | 106,260 | 103,486 |
Today’s Gulf of Maine sale will likely be the last wind lease sale for at least a year.
Per a provision in the “Inflation Reduction Act,” no offshore wind leases may be issued after 12/20/2024, the one year anniversary of the last oil and gas lease sale (no. 261).
Perhaps as a result of the legislative restriction, their desire to maximize wind leasing, and their plan to hold the fewest oil and gas lease sales in the history of the OCS program, BOEM front-loaded the 5 year wind leasing plan to include 4 sales from Aug. – Sept. 2024 (see schedule below). However, contrary to plan, the Gulf of Mexico sale was cancelled for lack of interest and the Oregon sale was cancelled at the request of the Governor in response to tribal and coastal county opposition.
The date of the next oil and gas lease sale is anyone’s guess. Next week’s elections are, of course, the elephant in the room. However, there is also an enormous ruling by a Federal judge in Maryland that would halt the issuance of Gulf of Mexico oil and gas leases and the approval of operating plans effective Dec. 20, 2024. Ironically (or perhaps not?), this is the same date after which no wind leases may be issued absent an oil and gas lease sale.
Chevron and industry trade associations have appealed Judge Boardman’s ruling. (Given the enormous implications of that ruling on current and future Gulf of Mexico production, I’m curious as to why Chevron is the only major producer that is a party in this appeal. Chevron was also the only producer that was a party in the litigation overturning the restrictive Sale 261 lease sale provisions. I’m assuming there is some legal or tactical reason for the absence of participation by Shell, bp, and Oxy?)
Finally, given the legislation linking future wind sales with oil and gas sales, are the Sierra Club et al, the plaintiffs in this case, comfortable with Judge Boardman’s decision? Perhaps they are okay with the judge’s ruling given the absence of any planned Atlantic wind leasing until 2026?
NJ poll finds that offshore wind is not a high priority
Posted in Offshore Wind, tagged Cape May County, coastal residents, decline in support, full results, New Jersey, offshore wind poll, Stockton Univ. on October 28, 2024| Leave a Comment »
Attached are the full results of a Stockton University poll that assessed New Jersey voters’ support for offshore wind development. Stockton’s methodology is explained on the last page of the attachment (also pasted below).
Observations:
- The poll does not appear to be agenda driven, either for or against offshore wind development.
- The sharp decline in public support (first slide below) was contrary to the advocacy flow in that it occurred during a period of strong and persistent State and Federal promotion of offshore wind energy.
- More than half of the respondents were from North Jersey, the region that is more closely aligned politically with the Governor and the Federal Administration. Only 16% of the respondents were from South Jersey where opposition to offshore wind projects is the strongest. The imbalance is understandable in that it is consistent with the regional imbalance in population.
- Unsurprisingly, support for offshore wind is lowest in coastal counties. In that regard, more granularity would have been nice. Cape May County is the US epicenter of resistance to offshore wind development and is engaged in litigation with the Federal government over the Ocean Wind 1 project. Polling specific to Cape May and each of the other coastal counties would be beneficial.
- The polling data suggest that offshore wind projects are not a priority for most New Jersey voters. Only 24% of both coastal and non-coastal residents view offshore wind as a major priority (third slide below).
Methodology
The poll of New Jersey registered voters was conducted by the Stockton Polling Institute of the William J. Hughes Center for Public Policy from Oct. 10-14, 2024. Stockton University students texted cell phones with invitations to take the survey online and Opinion Services supplemented the dialing portion of the fieldwork, which consisted of cell and landline telephone calls. Overall, 91% of interviews were conducted on cell phones and 9% on landline phones. In terms of mode, 65% were reached via dialing and 35% were reached via text-to-web. A random sample of 616 New Jersey registered voters were interviewed. Both cell and landline samples consisted of random digit dialing (RDD) and voter list sample from MSG. Data are weighted based on U.S.Census Bureau ACS 2023 data for the citizen voting age population in New Jersey on variables ofage, race, education level, and sex. The poll’s margin of error is +/- 3.9 percentage points at a95% confidence level. MOE is higher for subsets. Sampling error does not account for other potential sources of bias in polls such as measurement error or non-response.
Preservation Society of Newport County asks court to vacate Revolution Wind approvals and permits
Posted in Offshore Wind, tagged BOEM, historic landmarks, Newport Cliff Walk, Newport cottages, Preservation Society of Newport County, Revolution Wind, Southeast LIghthouse Foundation on October 27, 2024| Leave a Comment »
“Defendant Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (“BOEM”), acting as lead federal agency, violated federal law when it approved an industrial-scale energy project known as Revolution Wind. BOEM approved this project without considering its adverse effects on National Historic Landmarks (NHLs) and other historic properties within one of the most historically and culturally significant communities in the country. BOEM also failed to take a “hard look” at Revolution Wind’s impacts on the environment, leaving unanswered questions even though the law required BOEM to inform the public about the project’s environmental benefits and costs.“
Those who have visited the Newport Cliff Walk and historic “cottages” are likely to appreciate the concerns of the Preservation Society. Their court filing is attached.
Amicus brief filed by Aquinnah Wampanoag Tribe of Gay Head in support of Nantucket Residents Against Turbines
Posted in Offshore Wind, tagged Ack for Whales, Aquinnah Wampanoag, SCOTUS on October 25, 2024| Leave a Comment »
The attached brief was filed in the Supreme Court today by the Aquinnah Wampanoag Tribe of Gay Head in support of the Nantucket group ACK for Whales petition that was previously posted.
Vineyard Wind status: BSEE statement vs. GE Vernova’s spin
Posted in Offshore Wind, tagged BSEE, GE Vernova, investigation, risk analysis, turbine blade failure, Vineyard Wind on October 24, 2024| 2 Comments »
Comparing the above BSEE statement with recent GE Venova (GE) statements:
- BSEE: Vineyard Wind is still prohibited from installing blades, producing power or conducting any activity on the damaged A-38 turbine.
- GE: We are “really now getting to a point of shifting back to execution out at sea.” (Not at all what BSEE said.)
- BSEE: BSEE may permit other specific activities after a risk analysis has been performed and mitigations adopted.
- GE: We were “granted approval to return to installing new blades on turbines at the project once stringent safety and operational conditions are met.” (Positive spin of the BSEE statement implying that approval is assured.)
- BSEE: Root cause analysis of the blade failure has not yet been provided to BSEE.
- GE: “We have finalized root cause analysis and confirm the blade at issue at Vineyard Wind was caused by a manufacturing deviation from our factory in Canada.” (Then why doesn’t BSEE have the analysis? Is the Canadian plant being scapegoated?)
- BSEE: No timetable for completion of BSEE investigation (This could present a dilemma for BSEE. How do you allow the resumption of blade installation and power generation before the investigation has been completed? Will the report be held until the Harris or Trump administration gives the go-ahead?)
Finally, as expected, we can now conclude that the blades being shipped from New Bedford to France were defective.
Bud's Offshore Energy (BOE) 