See the Block Island Wind Farm’s reef environment in the BOEM video below.
Posts Tagged ‘BOEM’
Rotors to Reefs? 😀
Posted in Offshore Energy - General, Offshore Wind, rigs-to-reefs, tagged Block Island Wind, BOEM, mussels, reef effect, rotors to reefs on August 7, 2023| Leave a Comment »
Further decline in GoM production in May
Posted in energy policy, Gulf of Mexico, Offshore Energy - General, tagged 5 year leasing plan, BOEM, EIA, Gulf of Mexico production, production forecast on August 3, 2023| Leave a Comment »
Gulf of Mexico 2023 oil production has dipped over the past 2 months, and is down 10% since January.
2023 production is reasonably well aligned with the EIA forecast which shows new production being offset by declines in existing fields.
Last year, BOEM forecast that production would average 2.0 million bopd in 2023. That forecast was justification for curtailing BOEM’s Proposed 5 Year Leasing Program. For the first time in the history of the OCS program, the primary concern of the program managers was that production might be too high for too long! This stunning quote from the 5 year leasing plan explains why so few lease sales were proposed:
“BOEM’s short-term (20-year) production forecast for existing leases shows steady growth from 2022 through 2024 and declining thereafter (see Section 5.2.1). The long-term nature of OCS oil and gas development, such that production on a lease can continue for decades makes consideration of future climate pathways relevant to the Secretary’s determinations with respect to how the OCS leasing program best meets the Nation’s energy needs.“
5 Year Leasing Program, p. 3

Settlement agreement threatens deepwater Gulf of Mexico operations
Posted in energy policy, Gulf of Mexico, Offshore Energy - General, Regulation, tagged BOEM, Gulf of Mexico, NOAA, Rice's whale, settlement agreement, vessel transit restrictions on July 31, 2023| Leave a Comment »

Attached is a settlement agreement between NOAA and 4 NGOs that could have major implications for deepwater oil and gas operations in the Gulf of Mexico.
As background, the Rice’s Whale (formerly Bryde’s whale) area has been expanded (see map above) such that it fences off deepwater leases by creating a barrier to vessel transportation. The expansion is based on a single study that concluded that Rice’s whales were “the most plausible explanation” for moan calls observed in the northwest GOM shelf break area. No Brice’s whales were sighted in the expanded area during this study. The authors do point to a 2017 sighting offshore Corpus Christi, which is apparently the only actual sighting of a Brice’s whale along the NW GoM shelf break.
The settlement agreement commits BOEM, presumably with their concurrence, to exclude the expanded area from future leasing, to issue a Notice to Lessees and Operators (exhibit 1 below) and to attach stipulations to new leases (exhibit 2). Because BOEM’s authority to impose major new requirements without proposing a regulation for public review and comment is questionable, the Notice (NTL) describes the restrictions as “recommended measures.” However, the liability risks associated with the failure to comply with this “guidance” would be unacceptable to most companies. Adding to the muddle, the language in the lease stipulation differs by making it perfectly clear that compliance is required.
The most troubling restriction from an operational standpoint:
“To the maximum extent practicable, lessees and operators should avoid transit through the Expanded Rice’s Whale Area after dusk and before dawn, and during other times of low visibility to further reduce the risk of vessel strike of Rice’s whales.“
Comments:
- Deepwater facilities are typically far from shore, and a requirement to transit only between dusk and dawn, particularly in the winter, is unrealistic and onerous. This is further complicated by the speed limit provision.
- Those who have worked offshore know that periods of low visibility are unpredictable and can extend for days. The low visibility transit restriction is thus highly punitive and increases operational risks on the vessels and at the facilities they serve.
- The vague “to the maximum extent practicable” caveat provides little comfort for planners, managers, and crews, and is a de facto acknowledgement that the requirement is unreasonable.
- These restrictions, coupled with the required Automatic Identification System data, open the door to endless challenges, especially given the keen interest of the litigious organizations that are parties in the settlement agreement.
- Deepwater GoM operations are few in number and highly dispersed, which is a more important mitigating factor than those included in the agreement. More on this tomorrow.
- In addition to the deepwater operations that will be much more difficult to supply, there are currently 81 production platforms within the expanded Rice’s whale area (100 to 400 m water depth).These include important facilities like Amberjack, Cognac, Cerveza, and Lobster. What are the implications for these platforms? Will they be required to have full-time whale observers? Can they only be supplied during daylight hours with good visibility? Why not consider using these platforms as bases for more definitive studies?
- Further to the previous point, there are 103 existing leases in the 100-400 m depth zone that is now excluded from leasing? 90 of these leases are still in their primary term, and 21 were issued in the past 2 years. How will the contractual rights of these leaseholders be protected? (In fact, the value of all 1550 active leases in >100 m water depth is affected by this agreement.)
- Have BSEE and Coast Guard been consulted on the practicality and safety implications of these requirements?
- Deepwater operations have been ongoing in the GoM for 50 years, and there is no apparent evidence of impacts to this species. Why can’t the consultation process and any necessary followup studies be completed before decisions are made regarding operating restrictions?
- These types of restrictions, coupled with the diminished state of the Strategic Petroleum Reserve and tightening oil markets, raise serious energy security and economic concerns.
Finally, BOEM’s third footnote in the NTL (pasted below), doesn’t demonstrate great confidence in the need for the onerous requirements that are being imposed.
“This is not meant to be construed as a blanket determination as to whether BOEM, at present, has determined that there is a “reason to believe” that incidental take may occur, within the meaning of the ESA, the consultation regulations, or BOEM’s regulations. Those decisions will be made on a case-by-case basis in accordance with BOEM regulations referenced below.” Comment: Huh??? How are these blanket restrictions case-by-case, and how are they being imposed without public review?
Lease Sale 259: bid rejections and interesting outcomes
Posted in Gulf of Mexico, Offshore Energy - General, tagged bid rejections, BOEM, bp, Chevron, Lease Sale 257, Lease Sale 259, resource evaluation on July 20, 2023| Leave a Comment »
As previously posted, 14 of the 244 (not counting the 69 CCS bids) Sale 259 high bids were rejected. BOEM has published their bid evaluations for all of the tracts, and the 14 rejections are listed below.
| lease # | block | high bid ($) | BOEM MROV ($) | no. of bids |
| G37496 | DC 622 | 2,101,836 | 9,100,000 | 1 |
| G37515 | GC 173 | 307,107 | 1,300,000 | 1 |
| G37534 | GC 547 | 1,783,498 | 12,000,000 | 1 |
| G37538 | GC 591 | 1,291,993 | 5,200,000 | 1 |
| G37543 | GC 642 | 605,505 | 3,400,000 | 1 |
| G37548 | GC 777 | 583,103 | 4,200,000 | 1 |
| G37562 | AT 5 | 1,551,130 | 4,700,000 | 3 |
| G37565 | AT 133 | 607,107 | 2,600,000 | 1 |
| G37616 | KC 745 | 707,777 | 3,600,000 | 1 |
| G37617 | KC 789 | 707,777 | 2,100,000 | 1 |
| G37647 | WR 750 | 724,744 | 3,500,000 | 1 |
| G37646 | WR 794 | 724,744 | 3,200,000 | 1 |
| G37648 | WR 795 | 774,242 | 5,000,000 | 1 |
| G37649 | WR 796 | 774,242 | 4,000,000 | 1 |
Observations:
- Keathley Canyon (KC) Block 96, the tract receiving the highest bid in the entire sale ($15,911,947 by Chevron), had a BOEM MROV of only $576,000. Clearly, Chevron and the government have a very different view of the value of this tract. BP was the second bidder for KC 96, and their bid ($4,003,103) was also considerably higher than BOEM’s MROV. This one will very interesting to follow.
- The only bid that was rejected in Sale 257 was the BP/Talos bid of $1.8 million for Green Canyon Block 777. BOEM’s MROV in the Sale 257 evaluations was $4.4 million. BP again bid on GC 777 in Sale 259, but their bid was only $583,000 (even though BOEM’s Sale 257 evaluation was public information). BOEM’s MROV was reduced only slightly to $4.2 million, and they again rejected BP’s bid. We’ll see what happens in the next sale.
- 51 of the 230 accepted bids were >$1 million, all for deepwater tracts. All of the rejected bids were for deepwater tracts, and a higher percentage (4/14) were >$1 million. This makes sense given that the higher potential prospects are in deepwater.
- These results demonstrate again that resource evaluation is far from an exact science. BOEM is not selling barrels of oil and cubic feet of gas. BOEM is evaluating prospects, and companies are bidding on the opportunity to explore these prospects.
- Bidding strategies differ; the more companies participating, the better the long-term prospects for the OCS program.
BOEM’s proposed financial assurance rule (decommissioning): preliminary observations
Posted in California, decommissioning, energy policy, Gulf of Mexico, Regulation, tagged BOEM, decommissioning, financial assurance, proposed rule, reverse chronological order on July 10, 2023| Leave a Comment »
Some preliminary thoughts about BOEM’s proposed revision to the decommissioning financial assurance regulations for US offshore oil and gas operations:
- BOEM has rather surprisingly proposed to eliminate consideration of a company’s compliance record in determining the need for supplemental financial assurance. An opposing view will be posted tomorrow.
- If a lease has proved reserves with a value of at least three times that of the estimated decommissioning cost, no supplemental financial assurance would be required. Comparing two imprecise and variable estimates is neither a simple nor reliable method for determining the need for supplemental financial assurance. BOEM should look at the history of the Carpenteria field (Santa Barbara Channel) and the reserve estimates that were provided to discount decommissioning risks. More on this at a later date.
- Transferor liability applies only to those obligations existing at the time of transfer; new facilities, or additions to existing facilities, that were not in existence at the time of any lease transfer are not obligations of a predecessor company and are considered obligations of the party that built such new facilities and its co- and successor lessees. This is a good policy, but is difficult to implement. Some of the complexities may need to be addressed. More later.
- The “reverse chronological order” provision was withdrawn in April, so there is no defined process for issuing decommissioning orders to predecessor lessees. Is it good policy to first issue such orders to companies who may have owned leases decades ago, in some cases prior to the establishment of transferor liability in the 1997 MMS “bonding rule?”
- The proposed rule would clarify that BOEM will not approve the transfer of a lease interest until the transferee complies with all applicable regulations and orders, including the financial assurance requirements. BOEM needs to be firmly enforce this policy. See tomorrow’s post.
- The proposed rule would not allow BOEM to rely upon the financial strength of predecessor lessees when determining whether, or how much, supplemental financial assurance should be provided. This is a good provision.
- BOEM proposes to use the P70 probabilistic value to set the amount of any required supplemental financial assurance. These estimates do not seem sufficiently conservative to protect other parties and the public in the event of default. This is particularly true after storm damage which can increase plugging costs more than tenfold.
- The probabilistic cost estimates were updated in 2020 and are based on data submitted subsequent to 2016 and 2017 NTLs. How often will these estimates be updated?
- The final rule should specify that funds may not be withdrawn from decommissioning accounts for operational purposes, and that BOEM approval is required for such withdrawals.
Proposed financial assurance decommissioning rule
Posted in California, decommissioning, Gulf of Mexico, Offshore Energy - General, tagged BOEM, decommissioning, financial assurance, proposed rule on June 29, 2023| Leave a Comment »
Another proposed decommissioning financial assurance rule is about to be published
Posted in California, decommissioning, Gulf of Mexico, Offshore Energy - General, tagged BOEM, decommissioning, financial assurance, predecessor liability on June 27, 2023| Leave a Comment »

The Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM) today announced proposed changes to modernize financial assurance requirements for the offshore oil and gas industry, in order to better protect American taxpayers from incurring the costs associated with the oil and gas industry’s responsibility to decommission offshore wells and infrastructure, once they are no longer in use. The proposed changes will publish in the Federal Register on June 29, which will open a 60-day public comment period that ends on August 28.
It looks like BOEM punted on the contentious issue of considering predecessors when determining financial assurance requirements:
The proposed regulatory changes would provide additional clarity and reinforce that current grant holders and lessees bear the cost of ensuring compliance with lease obligations, rather than relying on prior owners to cover those costs. BOEM is interested in public comments on the costs and benefits of considering predecessors when determining how much financial assurance a company must provide.
On that point, comments will differ 😉.
Congratulations Jim Bennett!
Posted in Offshore Wind, Uncategorized, tagged 43 years, BOEM, James F Bennett, MMS, Offshore Wind on June 23, 2023| Leave a Comment »

Last week I had the privilege of attending a retirement party for Jim Bennett. Jim spent most of his 43 year Federal career in the OCS program focusing on environmental reviews and offshore wind. Most recently he served as Chief of the Offshore Renewable Energy Program. Congratulations to Jim on a long and very successful career!







