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.
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.
In light of the surge in art vandalism, admirers of “Rig at Sunset” have expressed concern about this priceless and symbolic masterpiece.😉
“Rig at Sunset”
Rest assured that “Rig at Sunset” is not being targeted. Climate activists believe the painting is disturbingly visionary and is thus socially important. Even those who are less appreciative of great artwork are reluctant to damage “Rig at Sunset,” fearing that their vandalism might actually improve its quality. So friends of this beloved masterpiece have nothing to fear! 😉
If you are unfamiliar with “Rig at Sunset,” here is a brief summary of the history:
“Rig at Sunset” was painted nearly 50 years ago by a US Geological Survey (USGS) employee who chose to remain anonymous. Initially, the masterpiece was presented to USGS (later MMS) engineers and scientists who had made important contributions to the offshore oil and gas program. Understandably, the intended recipients were so humbled by the magnificence of the painting that they could not accept it. As the painting grew in value and international prominence, framed copies were presented to retirees and the original painting was kept at a secure, undisclosed location.
The CNLOPB has announced contingent resources of 340 million bbls for the Cambriol discovery which would be co-developed with 2 nearby discoveries as part of Equinor’s Bay du Nord project. Per CNLOPB estimates, this brings the Bay du Nord resource total to 1.132 billion bbls. Equinor has announced that 2 exploratory wells will be spudded this summer. Positive results would further strengthen the case for Bay du Nord development.
contingent resources per CNLOPB (million bbls)
Bay du Nord
407
Cappahayden
385
Cambriol
340
project areatotal
1132
“Contingent Resources” are volumes of hydrocarbons, expressed at 50% probability, assessed to be technically recoverable that have not been delineated and have unknown economic viability.
Meanwhile, Terra Nova production is ramping up after a long hiatus for FPSO refurbishment, remarkable Hibernia has produced more than double the original resource estimate of 520 million bbls and is still producing about 60,000-70,000 bopd, and Hebron is impressively producing about 120,000 bopd on average.
There is indeed reason for optimism about North America’s only Atlantic production in what is arguably the continent’s (world’s?) most challenging operating environment.
As concerns about wind leasing mount, it is becoming increasingly apparent that the rush to hold auctions may not be in the best long-term interest of the wind program. The primary objective should be cost-effective and responsible development, not gigawatt deadlines.The administration’s vision for wind energy capacity, particularly the 15 GW goal for floating turbines by 2035, is unlikely to be achieved and rushing the process is not helpful.
The Confederated Tribes of Coos, Lower Umpqua and Siuslaw tribal council unanimously passed a resolution opposing offshore wind energy development off the Oregon coast.
The federal government states that it has ‘engaged’ with the Tribe, but that engagement has amounted to listening to the Tribe’s concerns and ignoring them and providing promises that they may be dealt with at some later stage of the process. The Tribe will not stand by while a project is developed that causes it more harm than good – this is simply green colonialism.
Last summer, Trident Energy exercised multiple options for the use of the Island Innovator semi-submersible (pictured above), extending the duration of the Equatorial Guinea contract to approximately 230 days.
The rig arrived in Equatorial Guinea in Nov. 2023.
On 7 Feb, a Trident team briefed Equatorial Guinea Minister of Mines and Hydrocarbons Antonio Oburu Ondo about problems with the Innovator’s BOP system. Apparently, Island Drilling, the rig owner, was not present at that meeting.
Mr. Ondo subsequently reported that the BOP had serious problems and failed to respond to control system commands.
Trident terminated the rig contract on safety grounds.
Island has publicly responded that (1) the Trident statements are inaccurate, (2) there have been no critical safety incidents, (3) the BOP has been checked and tested by the OEM representative on the rig and declared safe and ready for operations, and (4) they will challenge the contract termination.
Questions & comments:
Since the rig had just arrived on location, the BOP issues were presumably identified during onboard stump testing. Were corrective measures discussed? Why was contract termination deemed necessary?
Island’s statement indicates that the rig was tested with the OEM representative present. Presumably those tests were in accordance with API S53 or the ISO equivalent.
Had inspections and maintenance also been conducted in accordance with the standard? Did Trident inspect the rig and review maintenance and testing records before signing the contract?
Have other companies had similar issues with the Innovator? None have been identified in my web search.
Was a bridging document in place to address differences in Trident/Island management systems? If so, what does that document say about BOP inspection and oversight.
Why was the drilling contractor not present at the meeting with the Equatorial Guinea authorities? Was Island advised that the contract was being terminated prior to that meeting? Did the authorities speak with Island to hear their side of the story?
Does the contract provide for mandatory arbitration in the event of such disagreements?
Could other factors have influenced the cancellation decision? I was involved with an arbitration case involving an operator that used safety issues as the reason for terminating an expensive long-term rig contract. The arbitration panel ruled in favor of the drilling contractor resulting in a very large payment to the rig owner. Ironically, serious safety violations by the operating company (but not the drilling contractor) were identified during the arbitration process.
Island Drilling is a Norwegian Company with an experienced management team. The Innovator has conducted operations in the Norwegian and UK offshore sectors. These factors typically imply a strong commitment to safe operations.
Hopefully, we’ll be able to learn more about the specifics of this dispute in the near future.
Exxon’s Santa Ynez Unit facilities are now owned by Sable Offshore, a company headed by offshore production veteran Jim Flores. Apparently Exxon had suffered enough, and Flores accepted the challenge. Sable hopes to restart production in July, but has some big permitting hurdles to clear before that can happen.
Flores and his company are indeed the underdogs in this story. Pending are the pipeline CBAT (coastal best available technology) plan being reviewed by the Office of the State FIre Marshall and approvals by Santa Barbara County. Administrative and legal appeals are a given.
Flores is saying the right things and seems undaunted by the massive challenge. He may just pull this off. We’ll be watching.
Sable Offshore Corp. is going to do it right!
Our proven track record of responsible operations in Santa Barbara County at Point Arguello and Point Pedernales fields over the past couple of decades reflects our commitment to safe, reliable operations at SYU.
Less than a month ago BSEE issued an alert that addressed chronic and persistent helideck safety issues. This week BSEE again issued an alert (attached) following yet another near-miss. Per BSEE:
After receiving clearance for landing at an offshore helideck, the aircrew noticed upon landing that a section of the helideck’s safety skirting was not properly secured to the support structure and was blowing upward and downward due to the helicopter’s rotor downwash. This created an imminent hazard to safe helicopter operations with potentially catastrophic results.
The latest near-miss is yet another reminder that the muddled regulatory regime for helideck safety needs to be addressed. The most recent Coast Guard – BSEE MOA for fixed platforms only added to helideck regulatory uncertainty by assigning decks and fuel handling to BSEE and railings and perimeter netting to the Coast Guard. What about safety skirting? As is the case with all safety regulations, a holistic, systems based approach to helideck safety oversight is needed.
To their credit, BSEE has been addressing these helideck issues with safety alerts. Since they are bearing the responsibility for these incidents, they should have the unambiguous authority needed to take enforcement actions regardless of which helideck elements are involved.
Expected appeals by API (first attachment) and Earth Justice et al (second attachment) were filed on 12 Feb, 60 days after Secretary Haaland approved the 5 year plan and thus the first day appeals could be filed pursuant to 43 U.S. Code § 1349.
The statute (language below) requires that leasing program appeals be filed in the DC Court of Appeals. API would have undoubtedly rather filed in Louisiana while Earth Justice is likely content with the DC venue.
43 U.S. Code § 1349 (c)(1)Any action of the Secretary to approve a leasing program pursuant to section 1344 of this title shall be subject to judicial review only in the United States Court of Appeal for the District of Columbia.
The filings don’t include any arguments except for API’s general assertion that “the Record of Decision and Approval is arbitrary, capricious, and not in accordance with law.”
Earth Justice presumably filed for defensive reasons given that the 5 year plan has the fewest lease sales in history and would seem to be favorable to their point of view.
API will likely contend that the plan is not balanced as require by the statue:
43 U.S. Code § 1344 (a)(3)The Secretary shall select the timing and location of leasing, to the maximum extent practicable, so as to obtain a proper balance between the potential for environmental damage, the potential for the discovery of oil and gas, and the potential for adverse impact on the coastal zone.
Bud's Offshore Energy (BOE) 