Diamond Ocean Blackhawk is drilling MC 40 well for Anadarko
Following up on last year’s deepwater diligence post, 4 recent deepwater exploratory wells (table below) were spudded within 4.5 years of the effective date of their leases.
Particularly noteworthy is Anadarko’s well on newly acquired Mississippi Canyon Block 40, which was spudded only 18 months after the lease was acquired. Everything has to be in place for such an outcome: corporate priority, data gathering and analysis, well plan, permitting, and rig contract/availability.
The well was apparently a high priority not just for Anadarko, but also for Chevron and Murphy. MC 40 was acquired by Chevron (bidding alone) at Sale 257 for $4,409,990, the third highest bid at the sale. Murphy had submitted a losing bid of $3 million, but was assigned a 33% share of the lease by Chevron on 12/15/2023. One month earlier, Anadarko had been assigned a 33% interest and became lease operator.
Interestingly, BOEM’s Mean Range of Value (MROV) estimate for the block was only $576,000, so the three companies are seeing something that BOEM doesn’t. We’ll see how this plays out.
According to rig tracker data the Ocean Blackhawk is still on location at MC 40. Per BSEE permitting data, the well was approved to be bypassed in mid-May.
Decommissioning financial assurance issues are complex!
This blog has raised significant concerns about BOEM’s decommissioning financial assurance rule, and will continue to comment on decommissioning policy. That said, decommissioning issues are complex and have challenged industry and government in the US and internationally for decades. Add well plugging practices, corrosion, storm risks, reefing vs. total removal, alternative uses for old platforms, and pipeline and seafloor equipment abandonment to the myriad of financial issues and you get a sense of the breadth and complexity of decommissioning issues.
Decommissioning is unique in that the issues divide sectors of the offshore industry that are typically aligned (majors vs. smaller producers). The environmental community is also divided with the reefing and fishing advocates opposing those who insist on complete removal.
Given these divisions, and decommissioning’s operational, environmental, and political complexities, highly partisan assertions are common. A recent article about the financial assurance rule includes a number of such assertions, and provides a framework for discussing some of the more prominent issues. Excerpts from the article and my comments follow.
“This costly rule became final on April 15, 2024, but in the 10 months since its initial proposal, BOEM did nothing to alleviate concerns for smaller companies that comprise of 76 percent of oil and gas operators in the Gulf.“
Comments:
While I concur that shelf operations and the independent companies that conduct them are important, 94% of OCS oil production and 80% of the gas (2023 data) were from deepwater facilities (>1000′ WD) which are largely the domain of the majors (although the participation of independents in the deepwater sector is increasing).
In 2023, four majors – Shell, bp, Oxy (Anadarko) and Chevron – accounted for 2/3 of the Gulf’s total oil production.
1467 of the remaining 1527 GoM platforms are in <1000 feet of water and are almost exclusively operated by small producers. So 96% of the platforms are producing only 6% of the oil and 20% of the gas.
This dichotomy presents a major challenge for BOEM which must protect the public from decommissioning liabilities without unfairly penalizing small producers.
Having worked for respected political appointees from both parties, my experience has been that the smaller producers (somewhat surprisingly) have more political influence than the majors. For this reason, along with the general lack of attention to financial assurance issues in the early years of the offshore program, the standard bond requirement was ridiculously low for much of the program’s history, and supplemental financial assurance assessments were typically inadequate (and still are which is why the new rule was promulgated).
Attention to decommissioning issues grew exponentially in the early 1990s. Prior to that time, platform removal, like well plugging, was classified as “abandonment,” a term that was considered too harsh when bankruptcy issues and the Brent Spar controversy in the North Sea attracted worldwide attention.
“Records obtained via the Freedom of Information Act show private meetings between Interior officials and representatives of the major oil companies as they cooperated on this rule.“
Comments:
The linked FOIA records are not at all problematic. They pertain to meetings prior to the publication of the draft rule, which are appropriate and desirable.
Some of these meetings were in response to BOEM’s request for input regarding their review of the OCS oil and gas program. Such meetings are particularly helpful when a new administration is trying to assess the direction of the program.
Indeed 42 of the 71 pages in the FOIA were official industry comments in response to the BOEM request.
Per the Regulations.gov docket on the financial assurance rule, BOEM also met with stakeholders after the proposed rule was published. Those meetings are allowed as long as the regulator simply receives input and does not signal decisions regarding the content of the final rule.
The docket shows that BOEM had 8 listening sessions with advocates for independent producers. These included 2 sessions with the Gulf Energy Alliance and 6 sessions with individual independent producers.
BOEM also had 2 listening sessions with Oceana, a prominent environmental organization, and multiple sessions with tribal organizations.
The only sessions with representatives from major producers were a single session with API and a single session with Shell, the Gulf’s largest producer.
These meetings (after the proposed rule was published) are noted in the docket as required.
I am concerned that many listening session documents (from all sides of the decommissioning financial assurance issue) were removed from the docket at the direction of OIRA/OMB, purportedly because they included privileged information. This is rather troubling given the number of deletions and the complete absence of information about those meetings. What types of privileged information were these organizations providing and why is there no information whatsoever on these meetings? At a minimum, a list of attendees and general summary for each meeting should have been posted, as was our practice in the past.
“Big Oil must think it won’t miss the small competitors the rule will drive from the market.“
Comments:
There is important synergy between the major producers and independents, and no reason for driving smaller companies from the market.
The independents are critical to sustaining the shelf infrastructure and the associated service companies, which helps to facilitate deepwater development. Majors also benefit from partnering with independents on lease acquisitions, development projects, and lease assignments.
Financial assurance for decommissioning of transferred assets is the one area of significant conflict, particularly when there have been multiple ownership changes since the facilities were initially transferred.
“Historically, joint and several liability protected these small businesses from the financial demands of surety bonds.”
Comments:
Surety bonds, or other forms of financial assurance, have always been required. As previously noted, the amounts were often inadequate.
Joint and several liability was not established in the regulations until May 22,1997. Whether companies are liable for facilities transferred prior to that date has yet to be considered in court.
1130 of the 1527 remaining GoM platforms were installed prior to May 22,1997. Many of these platforms were no doubt transferred prior to that date, which means the liability of the initial owner is uncertain.
Predecessor liability does not apply to new wells and platforms constructed by the current lessees.
Joint and several liability was never intended to relieve current lessees from their financial assurance responsibility, which is why assignors were required to provide such assurance. BOEM is correct in strengthening their enforcement of this requirement.
“The new rule is largely silent on joint and several liability, causing some uncertainty.”
Comment: The joint and several liability provision remains in place at 30 CFR 250.1701(a) BOEM has added language to part 556.704, to clarify, correctly in my opinion, that they may withhold approval of any transfer or assignment of any lease interest if the financial assurance requirements have not been satisfied.
Companies may not be able to acquire the needed financial assurances because the market likely will not even exist.
Comment: The history of small producer failures is no doubt a concern to financial institutions. BOEM offers multiple financial assurance options, some of which have been questioned on this blog. If a company can’t qualify, it’s not the responsibility of the public to assume their decommissioning risks.
What makes matters worse is that all this cost covers a risk that is effectively a rounding error historically and in the context of the royalties flowing from the offshore oil and gas industry. According to BOEM, taxpayers have borne decommissioning liability totaling $58 million – from a single company that lacked predecessor owners of the platform to call on to cover unfunded cleanup costs.
Those who seek to minimize the Federal government’s risk exposure should consider the findings in the 2024 GAO report. Per that report, “BOEM held about $3.5 billion in supplemental bonds to cover between $40 billion and $70 billion in total estimated decommissioning costs as of June 2023.”
When will we find out who will be paying the hundreds of millions needed to decommission long-idled Platforms Hogan and Houchin in the Santa Barbara Channel?
Decommissioning financial assurance is a responsibility of lessees, not the taxpayer.
As summarized below and explained in the attachment, the more realistic independent estimates were 2-3 times higher than the operators’ “high end” estimates.
BOEM’s “Rule to Streamline and Modernize Offshore Renewable Energy Development” is intended to “make offshore renewable energy development more efficient, [and] save billions of dollars. Unfortunately, the savings associated with relaxed decommissioning financial assurance requirements translates to increased risk for customers and taxpayers.
BOEM signaled their intentions on offshore wind (OSW) decommissioning three years ago when they granted a precedent setting financial assurance waiver to Vineyard Wind. Despite compelling concerns raised by commenters, the “streamlining” regulations have codified this decision.
Cape May County, New Jersey, was among the commenters objecting to BOEM’s departure from the prudent “pay as you build” financial assurance requirement. The County commented as follows (full comment letter attached):
“[e]nergy-utility projects are in essence traditional public-private partnerships where technical and financial risks are transferred to the private sector in exchange for the opportunity to generate revenues and profit. Under the proposed rule, the Federal government is instead transferring risks associated with decommissioning to the consumer rather than to the private sector.”
Cape May added:
“[w]hile BOEM believes that if a developer becomes insolvent during commercial activity that a solvent entity would assume or purchase control, the County believes this is a risky assumption as the most likely reason for default is that a constructed wind farm developer is unable to meet its contractual obligations set forth under a Power Purchase Agreement (PPA) because its energy production revenues are not in excess of its operating costs. A change of hands would not remove these circumstances or make the project profitable.”
Cape May and others also commented on the threat of premature decommissioning as a result of storm damage. In response, BOEM asserts that these risks have been addressed in the latest standard for North American offshore wind turbines (Offshore Compliance Recommended Practices: 2022 Edition (OCRP-1-2022)). However, design standards, particularly those for offshore facilities, are not static. The recommended practice for OSW is likely to change multiple times in the coming years as storm, operating, and turbine performance data are updated and analyzed. The design standard for Gulf of Mexico platforms has been repeatedly refined and improved and is now in its 22nd edition.
In their response to public comments on the decommissioning risks, BOEM repeatedly asserts that they can adjust the amount and timing of required financial assurance as they monitor a lessee’s financial health. Unfortunately, a company’s finances can change quickly and BOEM’s options will be limited when it does. Increasing the financial burden on a struggling company that is providing power to a regional power grid will not be a simple proposition.
Proved reserves should not be a basis for reducing supplemental assurance. The uncertainty associated with reserve estimates and decommissioning costs can easily negate the assumed buffer in BOEM’s 3 to 1 reserves to decommissioning costs ratio. That approach failed completely at the Carpinteria Field in the Santa Barbara Channel (Platforms Hogan and Houchin). See other points on this issue.
Given that the reverse chronological order process for determining predecessor liability was dropped from consideration last April, there is no defined procedure for issuing decommissioning orders to prior owners. The absence of such a procedure increases the likelihood of confusion, inequity, and challenges, particularly when orders are first issued to companies that owned the leases decades ago, in some cases prior to the establishment of transferor liability in the 1997 MMS “bonding rule.”
BOEM’s concern (below) about investment in US offshore exploration and production is interesting given that their 5 year leasing plan strongly implies otherwise.
BOEM’s goal for its financial assurance program continues to be the protection of the American taxpayers from exposure to financial loss associated with OCS development, while ensuring that the financial assurance program does not detrimentally affect offshore investment or position American offshore exploration and production at a competitive disadvantage
I’m just guessing here, but my sense is that BOEM was pressured to finalize this rule in a timely manner (<10 months is timely for such a complex rule) and was thus reluctant to make any significant changes to the proposal published last summer. A public workshop during the comment period would have been a good idea to facilitate informed discussion on the important issues addressed in this rule. Such workshops were once commonplace for major rules.
Bayou Bend CCS LLC commenced drilling an offshore (Texas State waters) and an onshore stratigraphic well for carbon sequestration in the first quarter 2024.
Is offshore carbon disposal ocean dumping?One of the provisions that was slipped into the “2021 Infrastructure Bill” exempted carbon sequestration from the Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act of 1972 (Ocean Dumping Act). This exemption revises the OCS Lands Act and thus does not apply to State offshore lands. The Texas offshore wells must therefore be permitted by EPA as “Class VI wells,” as is the case for onshore disposal wells. However, Texas and Louisiana have asked the EPA for “primacy,” which would allow state agencies to approve and oversee these operations.
Meanwhile, the regulations for carbon disposal on the OCS, which the Infrastructure Bill mandated by November 2022, have yet to be published for comment. The latest Federal regulatory agenda indicates a publication date of 12/00/2023 for these regulations. Presumably the staff work has been completed and the rule is stalled in the review process.
Despite the absence of a regulatory framework, BOEM has accepted sequestration bids at the last three oil and gas lease sales. These bids were evaluated as if the leases were being acquired for oil and gas exploration and production, even though the bidders’ intentions were widely known. Why was BOEM a willing participant in this charade, not just at one sale, but at three sales in succession?
Given that the perceived carbon disposal bonanza is dependent on mandates and subsidies, one has to wonder about the massive revenue projections for this industry and raise concerns about the associated public and private financial risks. What is the long term business plan for this industry? Who will be monitoring the offshore wells (in perpetuity)? How will the public be protected from financial assurance and leakage risks? We will see how the myriad of carbon sequestration issues are addressed in the proposed regulations.
John Smith, a decommissioning specialist who retired from BOEM, has published numerous professional papers on the topic. He has kindly shared his comments (below) on the new GAO report.
The Appeal Process is Broken – The GAO should have emphasized this point. Companies routinely appeal orders to decommission platforms to forestall having to spend money on plugging wells and removing platforms, pipelines and other facilities. The appeal process commonly takes 5 or more years to reolove (e.g., DCOR appeal of BSEE order to decommission Platform Habitat).
Well P&A – BSEE has been negligent in requiring operators to plug and abandon wells no longer useful for operations. I’m shocked BSEE has curtailed or stopped issuing Inc’s for the failure of operators to P&A wells. That’s a major failure on the part of BSEE management. That may explain why operator performance criteria was proposed to be eliminated for financial assurance.
Failure to Issue Civil Penalties for Well P&A – From GAO Report “BSEE officials explained that their reluctance to pursue civil penalties stems in part from concerns about whether inducing financial harm against an operator is an effective approach to compel decommissioning. They expressed reservations about taking actions—such as issuing civil penalties—that might strain the financial resources of operators to the point of pushing them into bankruptcy.” This attitude underscores a real problem – an abrogation of regulatory and enforcement responsibility by BSEE.
POCS Well P&A – More than 700 wells have been drilled from the 23 California OCS platforms. The GAO report notes that approximately 200 are in the process of being plugged and abandoned – about 50% of those are probably associated with Gail, Grace, Harvest, Hermosa, Hidalgo, where P&A work has largely been completed by Chevron and Freeport McMoRan. The vast majority of the remaining 500 wells are no longer useful for operations and have been idle for several decades. Note POCS was never part of the Idle Well and Idle Iron Program, which was exclusive to the GOM. GAO gave POCS BSEE a pass by not highlighting that problem in POCS. It would have been interesting to know how many of the remaining 500 POCS wells are considered no longer useful for operations, and how many of those have been temporarily plugged and abandoned pursuant to regulations. The GAO report broke that down for the GOM.
Footnote 46 of GAO Report – “Two of the eight platforms due for decommissioning in the Pacific—platforms Hogan and Houchin—have posed serious safety, environmental, and financial risks, including poor safety compliance records, severe corrosion, and ongoing disputes about who will assume decommissioning liabilities for the platforms and their associated wells, according to BSEE officials and documentation. According to BSEE, these platforms are currently being attended, monitored, and maintained as part of an agreement between BSEE, BOEM, Interior’s Office of the Solicitor, and the three predecessor operators pending a decision from the Interior Board of Land Appeals on the predecessors’ appeal. BSEE estimates that approximately $5 million of the estimated costs to decommission 21 orphaned sidetrack wells associated with these platforms are uncovered by financial assurances.” $5 million divide 21 = $238,000 per well – extremely conservative cost estimate given age of wells, likely collapsed casing, and downwhole equipment that needs to be removed. The cost could easily be 3-4 times higher and there is no bonding so the federal government and taxpayers are on the hook for those costs.
Platform Hogan and Houchin Wells – approximately 75 wells were drilled from the platforms. It would be interesting to know the status of those wells. How many have been properly temporarily plugged and abandoned with long-term barriers installed to prevent leaks before decommissioning pursuant to OCS regulations? Are the 21 orphaned wells mentioned above the Signal wells? What about the other 54 wells? Have the predecessor lessees agreed they are responsible for plugging and abandoning those wells?
Platform Habitat – GAO could have noted this is another example of the broken appeal process. It would be interesting to know whether the 21 wells (primarily if not all gas wells) on Habitat have been temporarily abandoned. There are likely to be significant fugitive emission levels at the platform. Hopefully the APCD is on top of that. Note – the platform is unmanned and as I previously mentioned a potential catastrophe was avoided several years ago when a fire broke out on the platform.
Offshore facility decommissioning is a frequent target of Federal auditors given the complex financial and regulatory challenges. Unfortunately, the reviews have done little to better protect the public interest. As have previous inquiries, the new GAO report (attached for your convenience) calls for improved regulations and enforcement practices. That, of course, has been the objective for decades, but the problems have only worsened.
While the GAO recommendations are unsurprising, the body of the report is informative. Most notably, GAO (p. 29) raises a significant inconsistency on a key provision in the proposed decommissioning financial assurance regulations published last year:
One of the five criteria BOEM would no longer use under the proposed rule is demonstrated reliability, as shown by record of compliance with laws, regulations, and lease terms, among other factors. BOEM’s June 2023 regulatory analysis concluded this criterion is not a good predictive indicator of default on decommissioning obligations. However, BOEM and BSEE officials we spoke with told us that poor compliance records—such as safety and maintenance issues or delayed decommissioning obligations—can be an indicator of potential decommissioning noncompliance or financial stress.
Why was there such a disconnect between the opinions of BOEM and BSEE officials (who are directly involved with decommissioning) and BOEM’s decision not to include a company’s compliance record among the factors to be considered in determining the need for supplemental financial assurance? As pointed out here and here, safety performance is arguably the most important predictor of financial failure and decommissioning noncompliance.
The GAO report correctly acknowledges the difficulties in disqualifying operating companies. However, the regulations at 30 CFR § 250.135 specifically provide for disqualification for poor performance. While the regulations could be tighter, enforcing disqualifications regulations is dependent on persistence and strong support from management and DOI attorneys. Given the political risks associated with disqualifying operators, that support is often lacking.
Disqualification difficulties make it imperative that BOEM carefully consider past performance before approving lease assignments or determining financial assurance amounts. Provisions in 30 CFR §585.408 and §585.107 could have been used to disapprove assignments to Signal Hill, Fieldwood, Cox, and other problem operators. The failure to do so has significantly delayed decommissioning and increased public exposure to financial risks.
In some cases, lease assignments to unqualified companies have not only been approved but they have been facilitated by BOEM/MMS. The case of Platforms Hogan and Houchin, in the Santa Barbara Channel, is a particularly good example. (Did GAO inquire about the Inspector General report on this matter or ask why that report has still not been released?)
Most operating companies are responsible about planning for and fulfilling their decommissioning obligations. The problem is the exceptions, and they are not difficult to identify if you look at compliance data and obtain input from BSEE inspection personnel.
Other important decommissioning questions that need to be considered:
Given that decommissioning responsibility is divided between BSEE and BOEM, is regulatory fragmentation limiting their efficiency and effectiveness? Is coordination between BSEE and BOEM delaying action on fitness to operate and disqualification matters?
Bud's Offshore Energy (BOE) 