Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Posts Tagged ‘Chevron’

Chevron continues to build on Noble Energy’s Eastern Mediterranean legacy

Posted in energy policy, Offshore Energy - General, tagged , , , , , , , , , on February 17, 2026| Leave a Comment »

Thirty years ago, when industry majors shied away from exploration offshore Israel, Noble Energy (then Samedan) boldly stepped forward and partnered with the Delek Group to explore the Eastern Mediterranean.

Exploration success was accompanied by national security, legal, and regulatory challenges. Nonetheless, Israel’s gas production has grown rapidly and is expected to exceed 3 bcf/day in 2026, which is > current gas production in the Gulf of America.

Chevron is now the main operator in Israel, having purchased Noble’s assets in 2020. The company has taken another major step by signing an MOU with Syrian Petroleum Co. and Qatar-based Power International Holding. The document is not currently accessible online, but appears to be substantive based on press reports.

The agreement focuses on preliminary cooperation for exploring and developing offshore oil and gas resources offshore Syria. It’s noteworthy that the MOU will only remain in effect for two months, after which “formal contracts and operational work are expected to follow.”

Having done some work for Noble Energy in the 2010s, I’m very impressed by the progress that has been made given the geopolitical challenges.

Production at Chevron’s Leviathan, a giant gas field offshore Israel

The EIA’s Eastern Mediterranean overview is attached.

eastern-mediterraneanDownload

Read Full Post »

2025 Safety Compliance – Shell tops the Gulf of America performance list

Posted in Gulf of Mexico, Offshore Energy - General, Regulation, tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , on February 5, 2026| Leave a Comment »

The 2025 Gulf of America Safety Compliance Leaders are ranked below according to the number of incidents of non-compliance (INCs) per facility inspection. To be ranked, a company must:

  • operate at least 2 production platforms
  • have drilled at least 2 wells during the year
  • average <1 INC for every 5 facility inspections (0.20 INCs/facility inspection). This is a higher standard (fewer INCs) than in previous years.
  • average <1 INC for every 10 inspections (0.1 INCs/inspection). Note that each facility inspection may include multiple types of inspections (e.g. production, pipeline, pollution, Coast Guard, site security, etc). In 2025, there were on average 3.2 inspections for every facility inspection.
operatorWCSIFSItotal INCsfacility inspINCs/
fac insp		inspINCs/
insp
Shell381122310.055570.02
Chevron1080182600.077720.02
Oxy26191330.073250.03
BP820101220.083040.03
Murphy6208700.111770.05
Cantium574161210.134880.03
Gulf-wide 202581544584134431790.42102180.13
Gulf-wide 2024957398109146431330.47106640.14
Notes: Numbers are from published BSEE data; INC=incident of non-compliance; W=warning INC; CSI=component shut-in INC; FSI=facility shut-in INC; INCs/fac insp= INCs issued per facility inspection; each facility-inspection may include multiple types of inspections (e.g. production, pipeline, pollution, Coast Guard, site security, etc), in 2025, there were on average 3.2 inspections for every facility inspection

Criteria: This ranking is based solely on BSEE’s published compliance data. The absence of timely public information on safety incidents (e.g. injuries, fires, pollution, gas releases, property damage) precludes inclusion of these data. Although Panel Investigations are conducted for fatalities, serious injuries, and significant pollution events, the last panel report was for an incident on 3/25/2022, and no information is available for any ongoing investigations. BSEE District offices investigate the more significant incidents that don’t qualify for panel investigations. These District Investigation reports are more timely, but some are not issued within 90 days of the incident. The District reports will be reviewed later in the year. Note that there were no occupational fatalities in 2025.

Observations:

  • The overall inspection and INC results for 2025 were similar to those for 2024.
  • The top companies performed better in 2025 than in 2024. In 2024, only 2 companies had INC/facility inspection ratios of <0.10 and only 3 had ratios <0.15. In 2025, all 6 of the performance leaders had ratios <0.15.
  • All 6 of these top companies were also on the 2024 top performers list.
  • Shell’s total INCs and INCs/facility inspection decreased by 73% and 78% respectively vs. 2024
  • Cantium, which operates 85 shallow water platforms, has demonstrated that a shelf operator can be an outstanding safety performer. Cantium’s total INCs and INCs/facility inspection decreased by 50% vs. 2024
  • Should fewer inspections be conducted at facilities that have such low INC rates? On the one hand, fewer inspections would reduce regulatory costs and transportation risks. On the other hand, there are benefits from BSEE inspection visits besides compliance enforcement. These include direct communication with offshore workers (including contractors) regarding regulatory policies and safety practices, witnessing safety tests, evaluating new technology, and assessing management system implementation and corporate culture at the facility level.
  • Absent specific details on the violations, no attempt was made to weight the INCs. Although shut-in INCs are generally considered to be more significant than warnings, that is not always the case. For example, a component shut-in INC for a safety device that is marginally out of tolerance and is corrected on the spot may be less serious than a warning that is indicative of structural deterioration, poor maintenance, or organizational shortcomings.

Not meeting one of the activity level requirements, but nonetheless noteworthy, were the compliance records of LLOG and BOE Exploration & Production (younger than and unrelated to the BOE blog 😀). See their impressive results below:

operatorWCSIFSItotal INCsfacility inspINCs/
fac insp		inspINCs/
insp
BOE0011330.03780.01
LLOG1113290.10780.04

Read Full Post »

Six Gulf of America operators had outstanding safety compliance records in 2025

Posted in Gulf of Mexico, Offshore Energy - General, Regulation, tagged , , , , , , , , , on February 4, 2026| Leave a Comment »

Shell topped the list followed by Chevron, Oxy/Anadarko, bp, Murphy, and Cantium.

Details and observations will be posted tomorrow.

Read Full Post »

Only 6 days until the long-awaited Gulf lease sale. Will it be big and beautiful?

Posted in energy policy, Gulf of Mexico, Offshore Energy - General, tagged , , , , , , , , , , , on December 4, 2025| Leave a Comment »

Big Beautiful Gulf of America

Will the oil and gas lease sale boldly named Big Beautiful Gulf 1 (BBG1) live up to its grand name? Given the more favorable lease terms and the 2 year gap since the last sale, BBG1 should surpass the previous 3 sales (table below). Questions:

  • Which majors will be the most active bidders? Chevron? Shell? BP? Oxy/Anadarko?
  • Will former Gulf of Mexico stalwarts Exxon and Conoco Phillips participate for the first time in years? Probably not, but US super-majors should participate in the US offshore program.
  • How many companies will submit bids? Would like that to be a number >35.
  • How many tracts will receive bids? A number >300 would be very encouraging.
  • Will the total high bids exceed $400 million?
  • Will we see an increase in shelf interest?
  • Which independents will be the most active?
  • After the not-so-clever carbon disposal acquisitions in the last 3 sales, will the number of carbon disposal bids be zero? For the first time ever, the Federal government felt compelled to stipulate the obvious (see the proposed notice for OCS Sale 262) – that an Oil and Gas Lease Sale is only for oil and gas exploration and development.

See the summary data below for the last 3 Gulf lease sales. We’ll fill in the blanks next week.

Sale No.257259261BBG1
date11/17/20213/29/202312/20/202312/10/2025
companies
participating		333226
total bids223328423161
tracts receiving bids214324422751
sum of all bids
$millions		198.5309.8441.9
sum of high bids
($millions)		101.7263.8382.2
highest bid
company
block		$10,001,252.00
Anadarko
AC 259		$15,911,947
Chevron
KC 96		$25,500,085
Anadarko
MC 389
most high bids
company
sum ($millions)		46
bp
29.0		75
Chevron
108.0		65
Shell
69.0
sum of high bids ($millions)
company
47.1
Chevron		108
Chevron		88.3
Hess
most high bids by independent14-DG Expl.13-Beacon
13-Red Willow		22-Red Willow
1excludes 36 leases improperly acquired for carbon disposal purposes; 2excludes 69 leases improperly acquired for carbon disposal purposes; 3excludes 94 leases improperly acquired for carbon disposal purposes

Read Full Post »

Gaza Marine Gas Field should be a development priority. Which companies will be involved?

Posted in Uncategorized, Offshore Energy - General, energy, tagged , , , , , , , , , , on October 10, 2025| Leave a Comment »

In light of the fantastic Middle East news, planning for the redevelopment of Gaza is underway. The Gaza Marine Gas Field should be a high priority given the power generation and revenue potential.

The field, which was discovered in 1999 by British Gas (now part of Shell), is located approximately 30-36 km off the coast of Gaza in the eastern Mediterranean and has estimated natural gas reserves of ~ 1 Tcf.

Who should be licensed to develop the field? In June 2023, there was a proposed agreement between the Palestinian Authority and an Egyptian consortium led by state-owned Egyptian Natural Gas Holding Company (EGAS). A resurrection of this arrangement may align with Palestinian interests. EGAS has experience in Mediterranean gas projects including the giant Zohr field (see map below).

Other candidates for developing the Gaza Marine field (pure speculation):

  • Chevron would be a logical choice given their extensive eastern Mediterranean experience as a result of their acquisition of Noble Energy. However, there might be concerns about undue US and Israeli control of this important resource.
  • Regional giants like Saudi Aramco, Qatar Energy, and Abu Dhabi National Oil Company (ADNOC) would be good candidates.
  • Another interesting possibility might be Equinor, which is 2/3 owned by the Norwegian govt. Equinor seems to sometimes make socially desirable investments that are less profitable.

Some combination of the above companies might also be a possibility. In any event, it’s critical to manage this resource in a manner that best benefits the recovery effort.

Read Full Post »

FPUs rule! Add Shenandoah and Salamanca to the producing list; bp commits to Tiber.

Posted in Gulf of Mexico, Offshore Energy - General, tagged , , , , , , , , , , on October 3, 2025| Leave a Comment »

Salamanca FPU (Repsol photo)

Every deepwater platform installed since Feb. 2018, when Chevron installed its Big Foot tension leg platform (TLP), has been a Floating Production Unit (aka FPU or production semisubmersible). During that period, no new SPARs, FPSOs, or TLPs were installed.

The list (below) of these simpler, safer, greener FPUs has grown by two with the initiation of production at Shenandoah and Salamanca. Note the water depth range from 3725 to 8600 ft.

platformoperatorwater depth (ft)first production
AppomattoxShell7400May 2019
King’s QuayMurphy3725April 2022
VitoShell4050Feb 2023
Argosbp4440April 2023
AnchorChevron4600Aug 2024
WhaleShell8600Jan 2025
ShenandoahBeacon5840July 2025
SalamancaLLOG6405Sept 2025

The efficiencies achieved with the simpler platform designs combined with the high pressure (>15,000 psi) technology developed over the past 2 decades is facilitatihg production from the highly prospective Paleogene (Wilcox) deepwater fans. (For those interested in learning more about the geology, see the excellent presentation by Dr. Mike Sweet, Univ. of Texas, that is embedded in this post.)

With bp’s commitment to Tiber, 3 new high-pressure projects, ala Chevron’s Anchor, are in the pipeline:

platformoperatorwater depth (ft)discovery datefirst production
Kaskidabp600020062029
SpartaShell470020122028
Tiberbp413020092030
All of the operators note the cost-saving similarities in their FPU designs. For example, Vito and Whale are very much the same despite the 4550′ difference in water depth.

Read Full Post »

Only 10 active rigs in the Gulf of America

Posted in drilling, energy policy, Gulf of Mexico, Offshore Energy - General, tagged , , , , , , , , , , , on September 3, 2025| Leave a Comment »

Deepwater Titan, Gulf of America

The latest Baker Hughes Rig Count Report shows only 10 rigs actively drilling in the Gulf. All are at deepwater locations – 7 in the Mississippi Canyon area, 2 in Green Canyon, and 1 in Alaminos Canyon. Per the BSEE borehole file, Shell accounts for most of the current MS Canyon wells and the Alaminous Canyon well. Beacon is also drilling in the MS Canyon, and the Green Canyon well appears to be a Chevron operation.

This current rig count, which has hovered between 9 and 12 all year, is troubling if you are concerned about long-term production. By comparison the Gulf rig count reached 22 last year and was 100+ during the 10 year period from 1994 to 2003.

Only Anadarko/Oxy, Beacon/BOE, BP, Chevron/Hess, Shell, and Talos have spudded deepwater exploratory wells in 2025 YTD. Arena and Cantium are the only shelf drillers – all development wells.

Technological advances and extensions of past discoveries have sustained Gulf production, but declines are certain over the longer term if drilling activity doesn’t increase. Oil price uncertainty is an issue, but that’s always the case. Semiannual lease sales are now legislatively required and the terms will be attractive, so those issues are off the table. Let’s see what the bidding looks like at the upcoming sale.

The decline in deepwater discoveries (BOEM data below) is particularly discouraging. Per BOEM, the last deepwater field discovery was in March 2023.

Read Full Post »

As expected, the ICC arbitration panel ruled in Chevron’s favor in the Stabroek case

Posted in Guyana, Offshore Energy - General, tagged , , , , , , on July 19, 2025| Leave a Comment »

As posted in January, most analysts predicted that Chevron and Hess would prevail. Now that the arbitration panel has ruled, Chevron’s acquisition of Hess can be completed.

The position of Exxon and its partner, Chinese govt owned CNOOC, never made much sense given that Chevron was not buying the Stabroek share, they were buying the company that holds that share.

The CNOOC position was rather hypocritical given that they acquired their share of Stabroek by buying Nexen, the company that owned it.

Not much attention has been paid to the importance of Chevron’s acquisition of Hess’s Gulf of America assets. The combined company will be the 3rd largest GoM oil producer (behind Shell and bp) and the second largest gas producer (behind only Shell). Hess acquired 20 GoA leases in Sale 261, ranking first in total high bids ($88 million) among all participants.

Lots more on Stabroek.

Read Full Post »

Zinc disrupts Gulf production; SPR to the rescue

Posted in Gulf of Mexico, Offshore Energy - General, tagged , , , , , , , on July 16, 2025| Leave a Comment »

Reuters and others report that zinc from a new Chevron well has contaminated oil production destined for an Exxon refinery via Shell’s Mars Pipeline System. Because contaminated crude may cause maintenance issues and reduces the quality of refined products, Exxon will not accept crude from the Mars system until the zinc issue has been resolved.

The Mars system delivers about 575,000 bopd raising concerns about supplies to Gulf Coast refineries. But fear not, DOE authorized the delivery of up to 1 million barrels of oil from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve to the Exxon’s Baton Rouge refinery.

(Ironically, yesterday’s post pointed to the importance of the SPR and questioned the decision to drastically reduce crude oil purchases. This zinc incident is likely to be minor, and Exxon will repay the SPR in kind. However, more serious regional, domestic, and international events could call for much greater SPR withdrawals.)

The above map shows Chevron platforms that connect with the Mars system at Port Fourchon.

Speculation/commentary:

  • The well/platform responsible for the zinc contamination has not been identified. Given that production is ramping up at Chevron’s Anchor facility, a new well on that platform may be the source of the zinc. Other Chevron platforms that connect to the Mars system are indicated in the diagram above.
  • Given that zinc in crude oil is rare, a well completion fluid containing zinc bromide may be the culprit.
  • Note the integration of offshore production streams, and the involvement of 3 industry super-majors. These companies are highly competitive, as evidenced by the Chevron-Exxon Stabroek dispute, but are also cooperative in producing, transporting, and refining oil and gas. However, they and other majors are restricted (rather illogically) from bidding jointly for leases.

Read Full Post »

Total couldn’t bid jointly with Chevron for leases they now own jointly. Time to ditch the joint bidding restrictions!

Posted in energy policy, Gulf of Mexico, Offshore Energy - General, Regulation, tagged , , , , , , , on June 20, 2025| Leave a Comment »

This week Total announced the acquisition of a 25% working interest in 40 Chevron leases in the Gulf of America. Total already owned interest in Chevron’s producing Ballymore (40%), Anchor (37.14%), Jack (25%), and Tahiti (17%) fields. Ironically, Federal regulations prohibited Total from jointly bidding with Chevron for any of those leases at the time of the sales. How does that make sense?

Restrictions limiting joint bidding by major oil companies date back to the Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 1975. Although these restrictions were intended to increase competition and revenues, OCS program economists have asserted, and studies have shown, that the ban results in fewer bids per tract and lower bonuses to the government.

Total did not submit a single bid in any of the past 4 Gulf of America lease sales. Perhaps they prefer to acquire interest in blocks previously leased to companies like Chevron. That is a reasonable acquisition strategy. However, farm-in acquisitions yield no bonus dollars to the Federal government. Wouldn’t it have been in the government’s best interest if some of those acquisition dollars were spent at lease sales where the bonus bids go to the US Treasury? It’s long past time to remove the joint bidding restrictions!

Read Full Post »

Older Posts »