W&T (lease and facility map above) claims that insurers have colluded to damage the company by jointly demanding additional collateral and premiums.
Comments on excerpts from the W&T press release follow:
“At the heart of the dispute are rules from the federal Bureau of Ocean Energy Management – BOEM – which require energy producers in the Outer Continental Shelf to provide a bond to pay for well, platform, pipeline and facilities cleanup if the operating company fails to do so.”
Comment: Despite disagreeing with aspects of the BOEM financial assurance rule, this blog has defended the rule against unfair criticism. Better solutions are achievable, but that will require industry leaders from all factions to come to the table with a commitment to reach a balanced agreement that protects the public interest.
“These insurance companies and their unreasonable demands for increased collateral pose an existential threat to independent operators like W&T.”
Comment: If insuring offshore decommissioning is so risk-free and lucrative, why aren’t other companies entering the market?
“Several states, including Texas, are challenging the BOEM rule and in one case they specifically cite W&T as an example of how the rule could be misused to irreparably harm energy producers.“
Comment: As previously posted, the concerned States should propose alternative solutions that would promote production while also protecting taxpayer interests. Arguing that decommissioning financial risks are not a problem is neither accurate nor a solution.
“In over 70 years of producer operations in the Gulf of Mexico, the federal government has never been forced to pay for any abandonment cleanup operations associated with well, platform facility, or pipeline operations.”
Comment: Shamefully, from the standpoints of both the offshore industry and the Federal government, that statement is no longer true. The taxpayer has now funded decommissioning operations in the Matagorda Island Area offshore Texas (BSEE photo below) and more significant decommissioning liabilities loom.
Other thoughts:
- To what extent, if any, has W&T’s acquisition of certain Cox assets contributed to their increased insurance costs?
- My comments and John Smith’s comments on the BOEM’s draft financial assurance rule, which was essentially unchanged when published in final form, are relevant to this discussion.
- Also noteworthy in this discussion are BOEM’s lax financial assurance requirements for wind facility decommissioning. Has BOEM’s promotion of offshore wind influenced their financial assurance decisions, increasing the risks to taxpayers in the process?
Bud's Offshore Energy (BOE) 
Total wants to sit on their wind lease until the next administration (2029). Can they do that?
Posted in energy policy, Offshore Wind, tagged Attentive Energy, BOEM, CEO comments, COP deadline, diligent development, lease cancellation, OCSLA, Total, wind lease on December 3, 2024| Leave a Comment »
Impressive arrogance from the CEO of a foreign company that paid $795 million for a lease (OCS-A 0538) that was worth pennies on the dollar even before the Presidential election:
“Offshore wind, I have decided to put the project on pause” with Trump’s return, Total Chief Executive Officer Patrick Pouyanne said at an energy industry conference in London on Tuesday.
“I said to my team, the project in New York, we’ll see that in four years,” he said. “But the advantage is it’s only for four years.”
Perhaps Mr. Pouyanne thinks Total owns those 84,332 acres in the Atlantic or that they have the right to hold the leased area indefinitely. They do not. The OCS Lands Act calls for diligent development of leases and BOEM has promulgated implementing regulations.
The Total (Attentive Energy) lease was issued on 5/1/2022. Per 30 CFR § 585.235(a)(1), the company must submit a Construction and Operations Plant (COP) no later than 5/1/2027, more than 20 months before the end of the Trump administration. BOEM will have ample time to act on the plan prior to the next administration.
BOEM could also call for progress updates and an earlier COP submittal if there is evidence that the lessee is not moving forward with development plans (as would already seem to be the case given Mr. Pouyanne’s public statements in London).
In the absence of progress in developing the lease, BOEM could seek cancellation (§ 556.1102) for failure to comply with the diligence mandate in OCSLA (556.1102 (a)). Cancellation could also be pursued based on misrepresentations in acquiring the lease (556.1102 (c)) or the threat of unacceptable harm to the environment or national security (556.1102 (d)).
Rather than making rash comments at a public forum in London, perhaps Mr. Pouyanne would have been wise to first meet with energy officials of the new administration early next year. At a minimum, the CEO’s comments will help justify any attempts to cancel the Total (Attentive Energy) lease on diligence grounds.
Read Full Post »