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.
Roughly 237 NARWs have died since the population peaked at 481 in 2011, exceeding the potential biological removal (PBR) level on average by more than 40 times for the past 5 years (Pace III et al. 2021).
Human-caused mortality is so high that no adult NARW has been confirmed to have died from natural causes in several decades (Hayes et al. 2023).
Most NARWs have a low probability of surviving past 40 years even though the NARW can live up to a century.
There were no first-time mothers in 2022.
About 42% of the population is known to be in reduced health (Hamilton et al. 2021)
A NASEM study confirmed that offshore wind has the potential to alter local and regional hydrodynamics
“Effects to NARWs could result from stressors generated from a single project; there is potential for these effects to be compounded by exposure to multiple projects.” (p. 14)
BOEM/NOAA strategy:
No new mitigation is recommended pending further study.
“BOEM and NOAA Fisheries will work together alongside our partners (including the OSW industry) to further develop the information and science the agencies will use to inform their decisions to responsibly develop OSW while protecting and recovering NARWs.” (Comment: While regulator-industry collaboration is essential for effective offshore development, be it wind or oil and gas, regulators and operating companies have distinctly different missions and responsibilities and should not be viewed as partners.)
(p. 15): “As the OSW industry continues to grow and as projects begin construction, BOEM and NOAA Fisheries will continue to work with our partners to evaluate existing strategies and to further collect and apply newly available information to inform future decisions. This Strategy is an integral step to organize BOEM, NOAA Fisheries, and their partners around a shared vision and clear path to effectively study and manage this issue moving forward.” (???)
(p.17): BOEM will “attempt to avoid issuing new leases in areas that may impact potential high-value habitat and/or high use areas for important life history functions such as NARW foraging, migrating, mating, or calving. For areas that are leased, permitting activities should minimize any known or potential threat to NARWs and their habitats, and developers and BOEM should support research and monitoring.”
Questions:
How are the NARW threats identified in the NASEM study being mitigated?
Why are the Rice’s whale litigants okay with the more compelling threat to the NARW?
What happens if the hydrodynamic threats identified by the NASEM panel are confirmed?
Why isn’t this collaborative approach being pursued in assessing and mitigating risks to the Rice’s whale?
Can we expect the Federal government’s leading offshore wind promoter to impose restrictions that further weaken the economics of offshore wind development?
Pictured below: density of NARWs near wind leases and hydrodynamic effects of turbines
15,531 of the 15,537 comments on the bid adequacy rule were from a single organization, Friends of the Earth. I have no problem with the Friends of the Earth campaign given that their comment letter is pertinent to the topic. Their main point is that the bid adequacy process fails “to factor in the climate and social costs of continued Outer Continental Shelf oil and gas lease sales into the bid process.” Although that may be a reasonable position, those issues are addressed in the programmatic and sale specific environmental reviews which factor into when and where sales are held, tract exclusions, special lease stipulations, and the comprehensive operating regulations. Once bids are submitted, the issue (and the sole purpose of the bid adequacy rule) is whether those bids represent fair market value for the oil and gas resource potential of the leases being offered.
The State of Alaska submitted very good comments (attached) that point to the historical differences in Gulf of Mexico and Alaska leasing. The State argues that a simpler approach to determining fair market value would encourage exploration and development on offshore lands that have seen little of either in recent years. Knowing BOEM’s expectations prior to the sale, perhaps through higher minimum bid requirements, would ensure that companies do not underbid and that tracts are successfully leased.
The Gulf of Mexico leasing program of today is looking more like the frontier area leasing of the past. As previously noted, the uncertainty regarding future sales changes the historic GoM leasing dynamic. The next opportunity for purchasing unleased GoM tracts is now a troubling unknown. This would seem to make it less prudent to reject bids based on uncertain prospect evaluations. Absent leasing and exploration, the true resource and revenue potential will never be known.
It was good to see the strong comments submitted by my former Minerals Management Service colleagues Dr. Marshall Rose and Ted Tupper. Marshall, who was our Chief Economist, commented that the proposed rule did not identify the problem and explain how the rule addressed that problem. Ted, a senior statistician, points to past failures of the bid adequacy process and proposes specific changes. It’s great to see the passion that our retired employees have for the program they were so instrumental in developing and managing.
Recent disclosures indicate that BOEM, which very publicly promotes the offshore wind projects that it regulates, has waived a fundamental financial assurance requirement at the request of Vineyard Wind (approval letter attached). Given its broad applicability, this precedential waiver could have the effect of revising a significant provision of the offshore wind decommissioning regulations without public review and comment.
The issue is the “pay as you build” financial assurance requirement at 30 CFR § 585.516, which was waived by BOEM. This requirement, which is intended to project the public from decommissioning liability, is fair and reasonable given that wind developers must only provide financial assurance “in accordance with the number of facilities installed or being installed.” Companies that don’t have sufficient financial strength to comply with this requirement should not be installing and operating offshore wind turbines.
Vineyard Wind was either unable or unwilling to comply with the requirement. They instead requested to defer providing the full amount of the required financial assurance until year 15 of actual operations. The waiver changes “provide assurance when you install” to provide assurance 15 years after installation if everything goes as planned (hoped?).
After their waiver request was denied in 2017, Vineyard Wind resubmitted the request in 2021 seeking a favorable decision from an administration concerned that project cancellation or delay might tarnish the program that they were enthusiastically promoting.
BOEM (as directed from above?) granted the waiver, citing the general departure authority at 30 CFR § 585.103. However, that authority is intended for special situations, not for broadly applicable waivers that have the effect of revising the regulations without the public review required by the Administrative Procedures Act and Executive Orders 12866 and 13563.
There are no criteria in the Vineyard Wind waiver approval that could not apply to other wind developers. Vineyard Wind has simply committed to the same “risk-reduction factors” that apply to all offshore wind projects: damage insurance, the “use of proven turbine technology,” and long-term power purchase agreements. How could BOEM deny the same request from other companies?
It’s noteworthy that the regulations specific to financial assurance at 30 CFR § 585.516 provide no criteria for waiving the assurance requirements; nor do the regulations provide for the 15-year payment plan approved by BOEM. Given the precedential nature of the BOEM action and its enormous financial implications, a revision to the decommissioning regulations that provides criteria for such payment schemes should be promulgating before any similar departures are approved.
In light of the waiver, the public will likely incur substantial costs if Vineyard Wind fails, walks away, doesn’t fully fund their decommissioning account in a timely manner, or seeks new concessions after some or all of the 62 turbines have been installed.
Given the decommissioning obligations, what company would want to step in and assume responsibility for a failing project 10-15 years from now? What happens if Vineyard Wind’s project revenues don’t meet expectations and contributions to their decommissioning account are insufficient or used improperly? More concessions? We’ve seen this dance before.
Whether the project is for oil, gas, or wind energy, protecting the public from decommissioning liabilities should always be prioritized over facilitating development.
The above map shows the offshore carbon disposal leases acquired by Repsol from the Texas General Land Office (GLO) and the adjacent Federal tracts Repsol bid on at OCS Lease Sale 261. There should be absolutely no confusion regarding Repsol intentions at Sale 261. They plan to develop a large CO2 disposal hub offshore Corpus Christi and bid improperly at an OCS oil and gas lease sale to support that objective.
So what about the Exxon nearshore Texas leases that have already been issued? Given that Exxon misled the Federal government and improperly acquired carbon disposal leases at an oil and gas lease sale, those bids should be cancelled pursuant to 30 CFR § 556.1102:
(c)BOEM may cancel your lease if it determines that the lease was obtained by fraud or misrepresentation. You will have notice and an opportunity to be heard before BOEM cancels your lease.
While Exxon’s oil production increases in the Permian Basin and offshore Guyana are impressive, is it not hypocritical for Exxon and other major producers to capitalize on the capture and disposal of emissions associated with the consumption of their products? Is it not just a bit unsavory for oil companies to cash in on (and virtue signal about) carbon collection and disposal at the public’s expense? Perhaps companies that believe oil and gas production is harmful to society should be reducing production rather than engaging in enterprises intended to sustain it.
26 companies participated (updated from pre-sale stats)
Strong participation by the GoM stalwarts: Shell, Chevron, Oxy/Anadarko, BP, Woodside (BHP), Equinor, Talos, LLOG, Walter, Kosmos, Beacon
Kudos to Arena, Byron, Cantium, Focus for keeping the shelf alive
Contrary to the regulations, it looks like we once again have a company seeking to acquire oil and gas leases for carbon disposal purposes. This time it’s Repsol which was the sole bidder for 36 low-value nearshore tracts in the Mustang Island and Matagorda Island areas (red blocks at the western end of the map above). At least Repsol also bid legitimately on 5 deepwater tracts.
Exxon was a complete no show, as was ConocoPhillips.
This should be an interesting sale. Below are some of the questions that may be answered:
Will the Rice’s whale issues affect bidding for deepwater leases? The 5th Circuit’s ruling removes the Rice’s whale lease stipulation. However, BOEM’s Notice to Lessees and Operators (NTL) includes the same provisions and still stands pending further consultations with NOAA. Although the NTL is a “guidance document” (wink-wink), there are ways of making it stick through the plan approval process. Even without binding requirements, companies might choose to fully comply with the NTL to minimize legal risks.
Will the uncertainty about future sales spur or constrain bidding? Absent legislative action, no sale will be held in 2025.
Will the 14 blocks with rejected high bids at Sale 259 receive bids at Sale 261? If so, will the bids be higher or lower? Is it prudent to reject high bids without knowing when the next sale might be held?
Will bp, Chevron, Shell, Equinor, Oxy, and Woodside continue to be bullish on the GoM?
Will Red Willow Offshore, owned by the Southern Ute tribe, again be an active bidder?
BOEM diminishes the credibility of their important (and generally excellent) scientific, lease administration, and regulatory work with over-the-top wind energy promotion. The tweet below is a recent example.
This is not a good look for the bureau that is expected to objectively evaluate offshore wind projects. Leave the hype to the wind industry and its NGO supporters.
Offshore wind is a once-in-a-generation opportunity to build a new clean energy industry, tackle the climate crisis, and create good-paying jobs, while ensuring economic opportunities for all communities.
Firstly, taking 2.5 years to publish an investigation report is unacceptable for an organization with BSEE’s talent, resources, and safety mandate. Unfortunately, such delays now seem to be the rule as the summary table (below) for the last 4 panel reports demonstrates. The most recent report implies that the actual investigation was completed in 2-3 months. Why were another 2+ years needed to publish the report? (Note that the lengthy and complex National Commission, BOEMRE, Chief Counsel, and NAE reports on the Macondo blowout were published 6 to to 17 months after the well was shut-in.)
incident date
report date
elapsed time (months)
incident type
5/15/2021
10/31/2023
29.5
fatality
1/24/2021
7/24/2023
30
fatality
8/23/2020
2/15/2023
30
fatality
7/25/2020
2/15/2023
31
spill
Four most recent BSEE panel reports
The subject (May 2021) fatality occurred during a casing integrity pressure test, and some of the risk factors were familiar:
The platform was installed 52 years prior to the incident, and had been shut-in for more than a year.
The well of concern (#27) was drilled in 1970, sidetracked in 1995, and last produced in February 2013.
Diagnostic tests clearly demonstrated communication between the tubing, production casing, and surface casing.
In light of the known well integrity issues and the absence of production for more than 8 years, the prudent action would have been to plug and abandon the well in a timely manner. However, under 30 CFR 250.526 as interpreted at the time, Fieldwood had another option – submit a casing pressure request to BSEE to confirm the integrity of the outermost 16″ casing and (per p. 10 of the report) “continue to operate the well in its existing condition.” Given that the well had not produced for 8 years and that the platform had been shut-in for more than a year, the option to continue operating the well should not have been applicable.
The only issue for Fieldwood to resolve with the regulator should have been the timing of the plugging operation. Additional well diagnostics would only serve to create new risks and further delay the well’s abandonment.
The resulting pressure test of the outermost (16″) casing was solely for the purpose of confirming a second well bore barrier. Per the report (p.10), there is a “known frequency of outermost casings in the GOM experiencing a loss of integrity as a result of corrosion.” Whether or not the 16″ casing passed the test, the inactive well had clear integrity issues and should have been plugged.
Fieldwood proceeded with the pressure test rather than correcting the problem. The regulations, as interpreted, thus facilitated the unsafe actions that followed. These factors heightened the operational risks:
Extensive scaffolding and a standby boat were needed for the test.
Process gas via temporary test equipment was used to conduct the test.
The Field-Person In Charge (PIC) heard about the test for the first time on the morning of the incident.
The PIC and victim had no procedures to follow, and had to figure out how to conduct the test on the fly.
A high pressure hose was connected without a pressure regulator or pressure safety valve.
The digital pressure gauge had two measurement modes, one to display pressure in psi and the other in bars. (One bar is equivalent to 14.5 psi. Assuming that the readings were in psi rather than bars would thus result in serious overpressure of the casing.)
Seconds after the victim told the field-PIC the pressure was 175 psi (presumably 175 bar and 2538 psi), the casing ruptured. The force of the explosion propelled the victim into the handrail approximately 4 feet away, which bent from the impact. The victim’s hardhat was projected 60 to 80 feet upwards, lodging into the piping.
The investigation report fails to address the wisdom of conducting the pressure test and the regulatory weaknesses that enabled Fieldwood to defer safety critical well plugging operations. The pressure test option in 30 CFR § 250.526, was not intended for long out-of-service wells with demonstrated well integrity issues. The only acceptable option was corrective action (plugging the well) without further delay. The pressure test option added risks without addressing the fundamental problem and helped enable the operator to further delay decommissioning obligations.
Postscript: According to BOEM data, the lease where the fatal incident occurred expired on 7/31/2021. Per the BSEE Borehole and structures files, neither the platform (#14) nor any of the other 4 structures remaining on the lease have been removed, and the well (#27) has yet to be plugged.
As a result of the order issued by the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit on Nov. 14, 2023, the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM) has scheduled Lease Sale 261 for Dec. 20, 2023.
The Gulf of Mexico oil and gas lease sale was originally scheduled for Sept. 27, 2023, and later scheduled for Nov. 8, 2023, in response to judicial orders.
Pursuant to direction from the Court, BOEM will include lease blocks that were previously excluded due to concerns regarding potential impacts to the Rice’s whale population in the Gulf of Mexico. BOEM will also remove portions of a related stipulation meant to address those potential impacts from the lease terms for any leases that may result from Lease Sale 261.
A Final Notice of Sale will be published in the Federal Register on Nov. 20, 2023, and will be available for public inspection on Nov. 17, 2023.
BOEM will live stream the opening of bids at 9 am CDT on Dec. 20, 2023. All terms and conditions of the lease sale are listed in the FNOS. For more information, go to: www.boem.gov/sale-261.
Bud's Offshore Energy (BOE) 