EIA:Per capita CO2 emissions from primary energy consumption decreased in every state from 2005 to 2023, according to recently released data in our State Energy Data System. Total energy-related CO2 emissions in the United States fell 20% over that time, and the population grew by 14%, leading to a 30% decrease in per capita CO2 emissions.
John Smith shared the attached letter from Senators Adam Schiff and Alex Padilla, and members of the California congressional delegation. The letter questions BSEE’s inexplicable announcement about the resumption of Santa Ynez Unit (SYU) production. That announcement boasted:
“This is a significant achievement for the Interior Department and aligns with the Administration’s Energy Dominance initiative, as it successfully resumed production in just five months.“
BSEE’s announcement, which has not been explained and is still featured on their homepage, served only to further complicate the resumption of production from the SYU, which has reserves in excess of 500 million barrels.
ANP (Agência Nacional do Petróleo, Gás Natural e Biocombustíveis) nicely organizes and presents Brazil’s production data. Their 30-page monthly bulletin includes field specific information. The US does not have an equivalent publication.
Brazil produced 5.16 million boe/day in July, 97.7% of which was from offshore fields. Oil production was 3.959 million bopd, making Brazil the no. 1 offshore producer. Brazil’s offshore oil production is approximately the equivalent of the combined offshore production of the US and Norway.
How important is Brazil’s offshore sector? Their offshore production is from 568 wells. Assuming all 568 wells were actively producing oil wells (no gas or service wells), the average production rate was ~7000 bopd plus associated gas. More than 10 times as many wells (6033) produced Brazil’s limited onshore production. So <10% of Brazil’s wells (all offshore) account for nearly 98% of their production.
How important is pre-salt exploration and production technology? Pre-salt production (only 169 wells) accounted for 79.1% of the national total of 5.16 million boe/d.This means that pre-salt wells averaged 24,000 boe/d.
Room for improvement? 2.9% of the produced gas was flared (queima) in July (first chart). Over the past year, Brazil’s flaring volumes ranged from 2.2 to 3.9% of gas production. The fact that nearly all of their gas production is from oil wells, the growth in production (2nd chart), and the higher upset potential (perhaps) for FPSOs, may help explain the relatively high flaring numbers. 1.3% of Gulf of America gas production was flared or vented in 2024 (still too high). <1% flaring rates should be the target for all offshore producers.
…and should be an integral part of Job Safety Analyses!
According to BSEE, there is a recurring trend of equipment misuse contributing to fire and explosion hazards during offshore oil and gas operations in the Gulf of America.
Workers have used tools not rated for electrical work on live circuits (Figure 1) and mismatched hydraulic or pneumatic tools for high-pressure systems (Figure 2). In several cases, non-intrinsically safe hand tools were used in explosive atmospheres, including mudrooms and drilling floors.
California Senate Bill 237, the compromise oil legislation supported by Gov. Newsom, Assembly Speaker Rivas, and Senate President McGuire, opens up Kern Co. drilling in exchange for pipeline safety measures that will doom the Santa Ynez Unit (SYU) if Sable fails to restart production by Jan. 1.
Particularly intriguing is the the list (below) of SB 237 supporters and opponents. The Western States Petroleum Assoc. (WSPA), is aligned with the unions for onshore drilling and against the SYU. Note that Exxon is a prominent WSPA members! Exxon assigned the SYU to Sable and is on the hook for massive decommissioning costs if production is not resumed. Perhaps Exxon has a backup plan for the SYU?
Also note that all of the environmental groups are aligned against SB 237. Compromise is not in their playbook.
John Smith’s highlighted summary of SB 237 is attached. Here is the provision that would seem to doom Sable:
Clarifies in the Coastal Act that development associated with the repair, reactivation, or maintenance of an oil pipeline that has been idled, inactive, or out of service for five years or more requires a new CDP, as provided.
REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION: Support Associated Builders and Contractors of California Berry Petroleum Company, LLC California Conference of Carpenters California Independent Petroleum Association California Resources Corporation and Subsidiaries California state Pipe Trades Council California State Association of Electrical Workers City of Bakersfield Consumer Watchdog County of Kern State Building & Construction Trades Council of California Western States Petroleum Association
Opposition Asian Pacific Environmental Network Action California Environmental Justice Alliance Action California Environmental Voters Campaign for a Safe and Healthy California
Center for Biological Diversity Center on Race, Poverty & the Environment Central California Environmental Justice Network Clean Water Action Climate First: Replacing Oil & Gas Communities for a Better Environment Earthjustice Leadership Council for Justice and Accountability Physicians for Social Responsibility Los Angeles
John Smith has highlighted the attached bill that could, if passed, further derail Sable’s plans to restart Santa Ynez Unit (SYU) production.
This provision appears to target Sable:
Section 3(b)(2): Repair, reactivation, and maintenance of an oil and gas facility facility, including an oil pipeline, that has been idled, inactive, or out of service for five years or more shall be considered a new or expanded development requiring a new coastal development permit consistent with this section.
The legislation would be effective on 1/1/2026 so perhaps Sable will already be producing. Sable may also explore the jurisdictional and interstate commerce issues touched on in this post.
This LA Times update adds to the confusion as to the implications for Sable.
Sables’ share price sank on Tuesday following reports from Bloomberg and others that Governor Newsom is proposing new restrictions on California’s offshore oil industry. With Sable Offshore as a primary target, stricter requirements for restarting inactive intrastate oil pipelines would be imposed. •
This could trigger yet another legal battle or increase the complexity of those that are ongoing. The onshore pipeline, now owned by Sable Offshore, was originally classified as an interstate pipeline under Federal jurisdiction. However, following the 2015 Refugio oil spill, it was reclassified as an intrastate pipeline via a 2016 letter of understanding signed by representatives of the Federal Office of Pipeline Safety (DOT-PHMSA) and the Office of the State Fire Marshal (pertinent text pasted below).
Given that the Sable pipeline will carry OCS production, it would seem to fundamentally be an interstate line (Federal jurisdiction), as it was when owned by Plains. Could DOT reverse the 2016 letter agreement? That is conjecture for the attorneys and courts to consider.
Meanwhile, below is an upbeat Sable video on the pipeline!