Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Posts Tagged ‘California’

Attached is the final version of AB 1448, which is among the stack of bills awaiting Gov. Newsome’s signature. John Smith has highlighted provisions of concern.

If enacted and upheld in the courts, the bill would serve as a blockade on new Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) production. The bill would:

  • prohibit pipelines and other infrastructure located within state waters from being used to support Pacific Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) leases issued after January 1, 2026.
  • prohibit the State Lands Commission from entering into any lease authorizing new construction of oil- and gas-related infrastructure within state waters for the purpose of supporting Pacific OCS leases issued after January 1, 2026.
  • prohibit any existing leases and oil- and gas-related infrastructure located within state waters from being used to support Pacific OCS leases issued after January 1, 2026.
  • require a separate process for the approval of any lease extension that would increase the volume of oil and gas transported across state waters “including by commencing, increasing, intensifying, or restarting production” from the OCS. This would presumably include pipelines transporting Santa Ynez Unit production and production increases at other OCS facilities.

It’s hard to believe these provisions would survive legal challenges given their constraint on interstate commerce and Federal OCS activities.

On a related note, California royalty owners are actively challenging Santa Barbara County and Los Angeles proposals that would prohibit new oil and gas wells and ultimately phase out all existing production. AB 1448 would have a similar effect on OCS royalty owners – namely the citizens of the United States.

Read Full Post »

Raising the bar! The EIA’s August data release (delayed until 9/2) upped the Gulf’s all-time monthly production record (April 2026) by 14,000 bopd to 2,123,000 bopd. June production settled in just below the 2 million bopd mark.

Meanwhile, Pacific production has tripled this year reflecting the Sable SYU effect. Note that Sable reported Santa Ynez Unit production of 38,000 bopd in July and 42,000 bopd for the first week in August. This should push total Pacific production for July and August to over 50,000 bopd.

EIA explains (sort of) the delay in their June data release (only 2 days late, but enough to trigger a few conspiracy theories).

Read Full Post »

Sable Offshore Corp. may use an emergency restart order from Energy Secretary Chris Wright as legal authority to continue transporting Santa Ynez Unit production through the onshore pipeline system.

Judge Stephen V. Wilson said the Defense Production Act (DPA) is a “significant statutory grant of authority to the executive, giving the President substantial discretionary power to compel private industry, allocate resources, and incentivize domestic production for national defense.”

The opinion also granted the Trump administration’s request to modify a federal consent decree entered in 2020 which governs the restart of the Las Flores pipeline system.

The order removes the California Office of the State Fire Marshal as the primary agency responsible for Sable’s compliance with the oil spill consent decree, and substitutes the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration.

Here is the 45 page decision.

Read Full Post »

Per EIA, Gulf of America oil production declined in May by over 200,000 bopd from April’s record production, which was corrected upward by 2000 bopd. Was the April number anomalous? We’ll need additional monthly data and the audited ONRR numbers to get a better read.

EIA posted corrected April and May totals of 30,000 bopd for the Pacific (California OCS), a 150% increase from February owing to the Sable Santa Ynez Unit restart. Although Pacific OCS production has been in the doldrums for years, the region has an impressive record of 202,000 bopd from Dec 1995.

Meanwhile EIA has still not corrected their 2025 OCS production totals to correspond with the audited ONRR data.

2025 OCS total – ONRR2025 OCS total – EIA2025 Gulf only – ONRR2025 Gulf only – EIA
713,673,419697,020,000708,803,859692,634,000

Read Full Post »

GWEC, the voice of the wind industry, continues to scale down estimates for floating turbines. In 2024, the GWEC expected 835MW of floating wind to be installed in 2027. Last year, this was lowered to 278MW, and expectations dropped further in the 2026 report to just 42MW. A similar trend applies to GWEC’s forecasts for the following years.

Despite strong support from the State, California’s offshore wind sector faces major challenges:

  • Deepwater technology: California offshore wind development is totally dependent on expensive and still unproven floating turbine technology. Norway, once a world leader in floating wind, has lost enthusiasm and is now requiring floating projects to be ‘quality-assured.’
  • Infrastructure: Major port upgrades, new transmission lines to bring power ashore, and specialized vessels are required. The supply chain is immature.
  • Costs: High capital costs plus storage costs (e.g. batteries) for reliability.
  • Environmental and stakeholder issues: Opposition to industrializing the coast.
  • Worldwide struggles for the wind industry.

Two of the three Central Coast wind lessees (diagram below) have agreed to lease buyback deals. A lease cancellation letter is attached. The State is challenging the buyback agreements, and is thus in the difficult position of opposing deals that the wind developers voluntarily agreed to and believe are in their best interest. Does the State lose regardless of the outcome of their challenge?

The third Central Coast lessee, Equinor, is curtailing wind investments and has no plans to pursue new offshore wind projects in the US. A buyback deal with Equinor would be complicated by the company’s Empire Wind commitments, and is probably unnecessary given that Equinor has taken itself out of the game.

The two Northern California leases are still active, but the focus has been on regional planning. Funding for necessary infrastructure projects is uncertain and any wind lease development is far in the future.

Read Full Post »

WASHINGTON  Today, the Department of the Interior announced a settlement agreement with affiliates of Invenergy, North America’s largest privately held developer, owner, and operator of independent power infrastructure, aimed at strengthening American security and lowering costs, advancing goals central to President Donald Trump’s Energy Dominance Agenda.

As part of the settlement agreement, Invenergy will voluntarily terminate its affiliates’ four offshore wind leases located in the New York Bight, Central Coast of California and the Gulf of Maine totaling $765 million, and redirect that amount towards other domestic energy sources with the demonstrated capability to deliver reliable, affordable power, including the development of natural gas-fired power plants in Indiana, Wisconsin, Iowa, Kansas, and Missouri and geothermal power generation projects in the Western U.S.

Read Full Post »

SYU near-term workover plan; estimated reserve additions exceed production.

Those who have been following the Santa Ynez Unit saga should take a look at Sable’s informative PowerPoint update (attached). The presentation includes reserve data, well operation plans, production forecasts, financial and legal updates, and regional energy supply information.

Also, Sable CEO Jim Flores has announced that Energy Secretary Wright and Interior Secretary Burgum will be visiting the project this week. Transportation Secretary Duffy was also expected, but he will not be attending.

Read Full Post »

Sable Offshore (SOC) surged 12% on Thursday. Here’s why:

Judge Stephen V. Wilson, US District Court for the Central District of California ruled that Sable’s pipeline doesn’t imminently harm Gaviota Park. Judge Wilson said the state “is grasping at straws,” for evidence of real environmental harm, and the federal consent decree governing the terms of the system’s restart is controlled by the California Office of the State Fire Marshall, not the parks department.

The judge didn’t rule on the larger question of whether the Defense Production Act order to restart the Las Flores pipeline system was lawful.

Read Full Post »

John Smith’s update on California OCS Decommissioning Obligations is attached. His comments:

Chevron and FMC hold joint and several liability responsibilities for many platforms and all of those operated by DCOR. This reflects Chevron’s long history in developing CA onshore and offshore oil and gas resources. A 2020 report issued by BSEE estimated the nine platforms operated by DCOR had a combined decommissioning cost of $397 million. The actual cost could be 2-3-fold higher based on estimates for decommissioning California state water platforms prepared by experienced decommissioning consultants.

Chevron may be checking out of California by moving its corporate offices to Houston, but as someone once said about decommissioning – referring to the popular Eagles Hotel California song “You can check out but you can never leave.”

Official decommissioning anthem 😉: Hotel California

Excerpt from the lyrics – Hotel California, Eagles, 1976

Last thing I remember
I was running for the door
I had to find the passage back
To the place I was before
“Relax, ” said the night man
“We are programmed to receive
You can check out any time you like
But you can never leave”

Read Full Post »

At a minimum, the fire will further delay and increase the cost of well plugging operations on Platform Habitat. Per BSEE’s borehole file, 17 wells remain to be permanently abandoned, 3 of which have yet to be temporarily abandoned. These wells are 23-44 years old, and have been inactive for 11 years.

If there is significant platform damage, the remediation delays and costs would be substantial, comparable to those associated with major Gulf platforms damaged by hurricanes. Structural damage could increase the urgency of removing the platform. Given California’s decommissioning quagmire, this would be a major challenge.

Who pays, and what does the financial assurance picture look like? Per the attached BOEM spreadsheet (excerpt pasted below):

  • The 2020 cost estimate for decommissioning Habitat was $44.3 million. That number is optimistic even if platform damage is minimal.
  • $13.6 million in supplemental assurance has been provided.
  • A third party guarantee has been secured.
  • The guarantee was provided by Freeport-McMoRan Oil & Gas (FMOG)
  • Per BOEM, FMOG is the guarantor for all DCOR leases. Unless BOEM has allowed otherwise, the guarantor pays all costs not covered by the lessees. Given the number of old platforms and California decommissioning challenges, the risks for FMOG are indeed large.

Although DCOR LLC is the current Habitat operator, the company owns only a 4.18% share of the project. CHANNEL ISLANDS CAPITAL, L.L.C., a private company about which little is known, holds a 95.82% share.

Should the 2 owners default, BOEM/MMA will look to the guarantor and predecessor lessees (see the chart below). Unfortunately for FMOG, they are both the guarantor and the predecessor lessee. FMOG acquired Plains Exploration & Production (PXP), the operator prior to DCOR. Nuevo Energy was acquired by PXP and thus also tracks back to FMOC. (This may explain FMOC’s decision to be a guarantor!).

Should FMOC fail to fulfill their obligation. Chevron would likely be the next target. The original Harvest partners were Texaco (operator) and Union Oil, both of which were acquired by Chevron.

TEPI=Texaco Expl. & Production. Nuevo Energy was acquired by Plains Expl.&Production (PXP), which was acquired by Freeport McMoRan Oil & Gas (FMOG)


Read Full Post »

Older Posts »