Sec. 12(a) of the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (OCSLA, 43 U.S. Code § 1341(a)): “The President of the United States may, from time to time, withdraw from disposition any of the unleased lands of the outer Continental Shelf.”
As previously posted, the Sec. 12(a) authority has been cynically exercised by Presidents from both parties and should be repealed or revised.
Unsurprisingly, there are now reports that President Biden intends to permanently withdraw large areas of the OCS from leasing consideration before he leaves office in 2 weeks. Apparently, the leasing ban will include large segments of the Atlantic, Pacific, and the eastern Gulf of Mexico.
Sec. 12(a) facilitates (encourages?) rash, politically motivated decisions that could have major long-term implications for energy security and the economy, and allows Presidents to ignore the deliberate, multi-phase review and comment process that has been established for making leasing decisions.
Can a President reverse a Sec. 12(a) decision made by a predecessor? That is a massive legal question that has yet to be fully considered by the legal system.
Could legislative action reverse a Sec. 12(a) decision? Yes, but such legislative action would be difficult to enact (just as it would have been difficult for any of the Sec. 12(a) withdrawals to have been enacted legislatively).
Is a revision to Sec. 12(a) being considered? Not that I am aware of. Given that the authority has been exercised by both parties and that strong opposition is likely, a revision would be challenging.
JL Daeschler, a BOE contributor, subsea engineer, and resident of Scotland, warned 11 years ago (see clip below) about the demise of North Sea infrastructure and the exit of important companies. JL now comments as follows:
“We have unfortunately taken down all the support facilities needed to conduct a complete offshore sequence – finding, engineering, and producing – even under a more favorable tax climate. We will have to call on Norway to do anything!”
Commonwealth Fusion Systems (CFS) will independently finance, build, own, and operate a grid-scale fusion power plant in Chesterfield County, Virginia.
Dominion Energy will provide non-financial collaboration, including development and technical expertise as well as leasing rights for the proposed site.
This pioneering plant will generate 400 MW of continuous energy on 25 acres (total site is 100 acres). By comparison, Dominion Energy’s offshore wind project, which will include 176 turbines and 3 offshore substations, will intermittently produce (on average) 1092 MW (2600 MW x 0.42 capacity factor).
Gov. Youngkin emphasized that the project will be financed entirely by CFS, with no costs passed on to Dominion Energy ratepayers. (Good news for us Dominion Energy customers! 😀)
Fusion technology works by combining hydrogen isotopes — deuterium extracted from water and tritium from lithium — under extreme heat and pressure, using powerful magnets to fuse the elements. The process generates heat, which boils water to create steam that spins a turbine, producing electricity. The byproduct is helium.
Why BOE, and most everyone else, likes nuclear fusion:
Clean and sustainable power source.
Unlike traditional nuclear power plants that rely on fission, fusion replicates the energy-producing process of the sun.
Modest space requirements.
Generates four times more energy per kilogram of fuel than fission and nearly four million times more energy than burning oil or coal.
No radioactive waste
Safe energy source; no risk of a meltdown event
Nuclear Regulatory Commission has determined that fusion technology, unlike fission, does not require a federal license.
The implications of advanced nuclear technology, not only the holy grail of fusion energy, but also modular fission reactors, for intermittent wind and solar power are substantial.Ultradeep geothermalis on a similar timeframe, and could also supersede wind and solar.
The logic behind costly offshore wind projects is therefore questionable, and the regulators better make sure that the decommissioning of these facilities is fully funded. The most likely long-term scenario is for natural gas to continue meeting most power generation needs as the nuclear and ultradeep geothermal alternatives are phased in.
More about fusion. Most of you can start at Level 3. 😉
Following the 200,000 bopd decline in Sept. because of Tropical Storms Francine and Helene, Oct. GoM oil production was once again in the normal range for 2024. With the exception of Sept., average 2024 production has been remarkably consistent from month to month.
Opinions on Jimmy Carter’s presidency vary, but he merits praise for his administration of the OCS program from 1/1977 to 1/1981. Carter oversaw an active leasing program in all OCS regions. On the operations side, he appointed Don Kash to head the Conservation Division of the US Geological Survey, the OCS regulator at the time. Dr. Kash was an outstanding leader and a gifted communicator and program manager.
Some of the Carter administration’s impressive accomplishments during his 4 year term:
15 lease sales including 3 offshore Alaska, 3 in the Atlantic, and 1 offshore California
Drilling activity in all 4 regions: GoM, Pacific, Alaska, and Atlantic
North, Mid, and South Atlantic District offices for permitting and inspections
5300 well starts including 97 in water depths > 1000′
314 new platforms including Cognac, the world’s first platform in > 1000′ of water
Comprehensive amendments to the OCS Lands Act (1978)
Annual natural gas production reached nearly 5 tcf (approximately 6 times current OCS gas production)
Annual oil production was approximately 1/2 current levels which is impressive given that the deepwater era was just beginning and shelf wells had relatively low productivity.
The response by the Nantucket group’s attorneys is attached. Key excerpt:
“NMFS absurdly argues that agency officials, in preparing a biological opinion for a project, must ignore information about impacts on endangered species from other offshore wind turbine projects that are planned and in various stages of development and governmental review. Perhaps even more bizarrely, NMFS contends that, in preparing a biological opinion for a project, it must consider the cumulative impacts of planned state and local projects but ignore the impacts of planned federal projects.“
This important S&P Global study is particularly breathtaking for those of us who remember when Gulf of Mexico LNG import facilities were in the advanced planning stages. The shale gas pioneers completely reversed the scenario!
“The LNG industry is critical to serving the world’s energy needs and has rapidly become an integral contributor to the US economy.”
Let’s not repeat the harmful pause in the construction of LNG export facilities. Per S&P Global:
“The impact of an ‘extended halt’ in new US LNG development due to legal and regulatory risks is striking. In this scenario, more than $250 billion in lost contribution to GDP and an average of >100,000 US jobs are at risk. Gas price savings in an ‘extended halt’ are minimal for domestic consumers, with less than 1% gas cost impact per household. Furthermore, 85% of the energy gap from lost US LNG is expected to be filled by fossil fuels from non-US sources.”
With the collapse of Bundeskanzler Scholz’s governing coalition, elections set for 23 Feb, and the Alternative für Deutschland (AfD) party gaining support, perhaps there is a chance for more rational German energy policy.
Seattle Times: “Don’t block the will of voters on natural gas”
“Nearly 2 million residents voted to approve Initiative 2066, which aims to protect the use of natural gas as an energy source in state law and within Washington’s building codes. This month, climate advocates, joined by King County and the City of Seattle, filed suit in court to block the will of those voters.“
“While the courts will have final say, Gov. Jay Inslee and Democratic legislative leaders support killing off what they see as a misguided and overly broad initiative. Their view brushes aside the concerns of the majority of state voters. Those leaders fail to see a genuine fear that, during the clean energy transition, the fundamental supply of energy to homes and businesses — the basic ability to stay warm, cook food and bathe — is under threat.”
Kudos to the Seattle Times for their common sense editorial. In addition to noting the economic and social necessity of natural gas, it would have been nice if the editorial board had also acknowledged natural gas’s environmental benefits. However, that would have probably been a bridge too far in Seattle.
The reasons for transitioning to natural gas are arguably clearer and better substantiated than the reasons for transitioning from natural gas.
Forbes (USGS map of active wind turbines): “The U.S. Wind Turbine Database contains more than74,695 wind turbines built since 1980, spread between 1,699 wind power projects in 45 states. However, thousands of wind turbines are reaching the end of their operational lifespan and need to be either repowered to make way for updated (often larger) turbines or entirely decommissioned to allow for new uses of the land they occupy. Unfortunately, there is no uniform legal framework to regulate the steps involved, nor is there an accepted industry-wide set of best practices, and the environmental costs are considerable.”
Forbes: “As is often the case when new technologies come to market, unintended downstream consequences are not always immediately obvious to the players. Enthusiasm for clean energy initially pushed the first wind turbines into existence in the U.S. without considering the environmental and monetary costs that would be involved in either upgrading or bringing projects to a close later in their life cycle. “
Bud's Offshore Energy (BOE) 