Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Posts Tagged ‘California’

A leaked Dept. of the Interior (DOI) document will likely have little in common with the Draft Proposed Program (DPP, step 2 above). The DPP decisions will be made by the President, not by DOI staffers or managers.

According to media reports, the leaked document includes lease sales offshore New England, the Carolina’s and California.  Unless the President revokes his own 2020 withdrawals, the Carolina’s are off-limits until 2032. Ditto for the Eastern Gulf within 125 miles from Florida. (See the map below.)

Including North Atlantic and offshore California in the DPP would unleash a firestorm of opposition. In the case of the North Atlantic, the acreage may not be sufficiently prospective to justify the fight.

To the extent that marine sanctuary determinations do not preclude California offshore leasing, the litigation and legislative battles probably would. In the unlikely event that a sale could be held, who would bid? Who wants to be the next Sable?

The Beaufort Sea is the most likely frontier area to be included in the DPP given plans to open ANWR, operational history, resource potential, and State support.

Assuming the South Atlantic withdrawal could be partially lifted, a small, targeted lease sale would be of great interest to petroleum geologists and could have significant economic and national security implications. The late Paul Post, the foremost expert on the petroleum geology of the US Atlantic, saw great potential in the paleo deep- and ultra-deepwater areas. He advocated exploration concepts proven successful in analogous West African and South American settings where massive discoveries have been made. Samuel Epstein, another prominent petroleum geologist, also believes the deepwater Atlantic has great resource potential.

Finally, the extent of the Florida buffer needs to be considered given the high resource potential of the Eastern Gulf. Be it 75, 100, or 125 miles, leasing beyond that buffer should be a priority.

Read Full Post »

John Smith shared the attached Santa Ynez Unit regulatory update for the 8 state agencies that have oversight roles (see regulatory fragmentation).

John notes that Exxon’s March 26 contractual deadline for Sable to have the SYU up and running is fast approaching.  What will Exxon do in the likely event that Sable fails to meet that deadline? Does Exxon want to re-enter the SYU legal and regulatory quagmire?

The SYU’s 500+ million barrels of oil, 3 deepwater platforms, and onshore processing facilities are an enormous prize, but is that prize attainable?

Meanwhile, the latest skirmish between Sable and the Office of the State Fire Marshal (OFSM) pertains to metal loss anomalies and inspection tool tolerances. The dispute is summarized in the linked filing.

Sable contends that the Fire Marshal’s letter contradicts guidance from OSFM staff and provides examples. Sable goes a step further at the end of their response by calling for the FIre Marshal to coordinate better with the experts on his staff:

We respectfully request that, given this background, you coordinate further with the expert team at OSFM and revisit the statements in your October 22nd letter.”

It’s not looking good for a quick resolution of these issues.

Read Full Post »

Thumbs up to Santa Ynez Unit production from Phil Mickelson!

Phil also believes SYU production would reduce natural seepage:UCSB and State Lands Commission studies (Quigley, Luyendyk, Hornafius, Peltonen, and others) have shown that when oil production is active, reservoir pressure is reduced and natural seepage declines by up to 50%. That means: •Cleaner beaches (less tar and oil) •Cleaner ocean surface (fewer sheens) •Healthier marine life with reduced chronic stress

Note that those studies are specific to Platform Holly and the Coal Oil Point area. To the best of my knowledge, no studies have associated SYU production with a reduction in natural seepage.

From a related 2010 BOE post entitled “Slick Talk About Seeps” (note that production at Platform Holly has since been terminated):

While Platform Holly may be a negative spillage facility (i.e. Holly’s seep reduction may significantly exceed the platform’s production spillage), this type of seepage reduction has not been demonstrated at other platforms.  Decisions on offshore exploration and development should be driven by the economic, energy security, and environmental benefits.  To the extent that production reduces natural seepage, all the better.  However, seepage reduction is not a primary reason for producing offshore oil and gas.

Thoughts on Sable’s production options:

Option 1 (use of existing onshore infrastructure) is preferable from cost, air emissions, spill risk, State and local revenue, and regional energy supply standpoints. This is the only option that makes sense despite the enormous permitting challenges.

Option 2 (floating processing facility and tankers) would literally be an “in your face” act of defiance given the coastal visibility of the offshore facilities. Supporters of this option should be aware that there was no Coastal Zone Management Act when Exxon produced from Platform Hondo (the only SYU platform at the time) to the Offshore Storage and Treatment (OS&T) vessel in the 1980s. An EIS would not favor this option, and the California Coastal Commission would surely rule that this option was inconsistent with their CZM plan. The Secretary of Commerce could overrule the Commission’s decision, but legal objections to the override would seem to have a good chance of success.

The only reasonable path forward is to do the right thing and continue to pursue the State pipeline/onshore approvals. Although these approvals are substantively warranted, more litigation is probably inevitable. It will be far better to defend a good project (option 1) than a contrived workaround (option 2).

Read Full Post »

Those of us who were involved with OCS oil and gas operations in the 1970s remember the heated battles between Exxon and Santa Barbara County that led to the installation of the infamous Offshore Storage & Treatment (OS&T) facility in Federal waters. This was the first floating production, storage, and offloading facility (FPSO) in US waters by 3 decades!

In light of Sable’s difficult (bordering on impossible) onshore permitting challenges, the company resurrected the OS&T option in a recent presentation to investors (pertinent slide pasted above). The extent to which this is purely a tactical maneuver remains to be seen, but this option would be very difficult to execute, even with a supportive Federal regulatory environment.

Stay tuned!

Read Full Post »

Gov. Newsom and Danish Foreign Minister Lars Løkke Rasmussen

As is the case for most MOUs, the attached 8/22/2025 agreement between California and Denmark is long on promotion and short on substance. No funds are obligated and there are no work commitments.

The MOU made sense for Gov. Newsom in that he strengthened his green credentials by aligning with the country that is the spiritual leader for climate activists.

The benefits for Denmark were unclear, but the risks should have been apparent. The White House is fundamentally opposed to the climate and energy objectives identified in the MOU. Ørsted (50.1% govt owned) and other Danish business interests are very much dependent on decisions made by the US Federal govt.

Work on Ørsted’s Revolution Wind project has been halted by Interior Secretary Burgum. His decision is being challenged in court, but no matter what the outcome, offshore wind development will be difficult for Ørsted and other foreign companies going forward. The Secretary has broad regulatory authority under the OCS Lands Act, under which there is no such thing as “a fully permitted project.”

Meanwhile, California’s green status has taken a hit with the passage of S 237, which pragmatically authorizes new onshore drilling.

Lastly, as the chart below illustrates, Orsted’s problems didn’t begin in 2025.

Read Full Post »

California Senate Bill 237, the compromise oil legislation supported by Gov. Newsom, Assembly Speaker Rivas, and Senate President McGuire, opens up Kern Co. drilling in exchange for pipeline safety measures that will doom the Santa Ynez Unit (SYU) if Sable fails to restart production by Jan. 1.

Particularly intriguing is the the list (below) of SB 237 supporters and opponents. The Western States Petroleum Assoc. (WSPA), is aligned with the unions for onshore drilling and against the SYU. Note that Exxon is a prominent WSPA members! Exxon assigned the SYU to Sable and is on the hook for massive decommissioning costs if production is not resumed. Perhaps Exxon has a backup plan for the SYU?

Also note that all of the environmental groups are aligned against SB 237. Compromise is not in their playbook.

John Smith’s highlighted summary of SB 237 is attached. Here is the provision that would seem to doom Sable:

Clarifies in the Coastal Act that development associated with the repair, reactivation, or maintenance of an oil pipeline that has been idled, inactive, or out of service for five years or more requires a new CDP, as provided.

REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION:
Support
Associated Builders and Contractors of California
Berry Petroleum Company, LLC
California Conference of Carpenters
California Independent Petroleum Association
California Resources Corporation and Subsidiaries
California state Pipe Trades Council
California State Association of Electrical Workers
City of Bakersfield
Consumer Watchdog
County of Kern
State Building & Construction Trades Council of California
Western States Petroleum Association

Opposition
Asian Pacific Environmental Network Action
California Environmental Justice Alliance Action
California Environmental Voters
Campaign for a Safe and Healthy California

Center for Biological Diversity
Center on Race, Poverty & the Environment
Central California Environmental Justice Network
Clean Water Action
Climate First: Replacing Oil & Gas
Communities for a Better Environment
Earthjustice
Leadership Council for Justice and Accountability
Physicians for Social Responsibility Los Angeles

Read Full Post »

John Smith has highlighted the attached bill that could, if passed, further derail Sable’s plans to restart Santa Ynez Unit (SYU) production.

This provision appears to target Sable:

Section 3(b)(2): Repair, reactivation, and maintenance of an oil and gas facility facility, including an oil pipeline, that has been idled, inactive, or out of service for five years or more shall be considered a new or expanded development requiring a new coastal development permit consistent with this section.

The legislation would be effective on 1/1/2026 so perhaps Sable will already be producing. Sable may also explore the jurisdictional and interstate commerce issues touched on in this post.

This LA Times update adds to the confusion as to the implications for Sable.

Read Full Post »

John Smith’s excellent decommissioning presentation at the recent Western States Petroleum Assoc. luncheon in Santa Barbara is attached. John used an amended version of Bob Byrd’s OTC powerpoint, adding slides on the proposed California Marine Legacy Act amendments.

For those who have been following the Santa Ynez Unit story, Harmony, Heritage, and Hondo are the platforms in that unit. Platform Harmony, where production resumed on the date of John’s presentation (5/15), is in 1198′ of water and is one of the world’s largest offshore structures.

Read Full Post »

John Smith shared an outstanding paper (attached) that was presented by co-author Robert Byrd at the SPE Regional Meeting in Garden Grove, CA last week.  

 

John Smith: “My objective in writing the paper is to hopefully spur legislators to recognize the benefits of reefing and the legislative fixes required to facilitate reefing and the removal of aging infrastructure.  The California Department of Fish and Wildlife Habitat Lead was very complimentary of the paper and has distributed it to the Interagency Team which is developing a California Artificial Reefing Plan.”  

John adds: “They are in the process of creating a statewide artificial reef plan and you can sign up for updates and get more information. The California Artificial Reef Program (CARP) Plan won’t discuss the specifics of Rigs-to-Reefs but will be compliant with the National Fisheries Enhancement Act and National Artificial Reef Plan and meet the BSEE requirement of having an adopted state artificial reef plan. The intent is to add an addendum to the plan when resources become available to move Rigs-to-Reefs forward in California. You can check out the latest program update that further discusses the CARP Plan and Rigs-to-Reefs.”

Read Full Post »

the early years

Remember that Chevron was once Standard Oil of California. The attached WSJ article discusses the ugly divorce after all these years.

Chevron tired of California’s attempts to dictate corporate strategy. Per Chevron CEO Mike Wirth:

“Putting bureaucrats in charge of centrally planning key segments of the economy hasn’t worked in other socialist states,” Wirth said in a Nov. 1 call with investors. “I doubt it will be any different in California.”

California wanted Chevron to commit to the State’s energy agenda:

Chevron has a future in clean energy in California. They can join us in our steady, long-term transition to a state powered by clean energy,” said Daniel Villaseñor, a spokesman for the governor’s office.

California wanted the interests of shareholders to be subordinate to the State’s carbon goals:

Newsom said Wirth had invested far more in shareholder payouts than in developing low-carbon energy.

Other State actions that contributed to the divorce:

  • accused Chevron and other companies of price gouging
  • accused Chevron, as a fossil fuel producer, of indirectly causing tragic fires
  • banning the sale of gasoline-powered cars by 2035
  • rules that increased gasoline prices
  • lawsuit alleging climate change deception

Not mentioned in the article are the costly challenges Chevron and others are experiencing in decommissioning offshore platforms.

Read Full Post »

« Newer Posts - Older Posts »