Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Posts Tagged ‘Equinor’

Major challenges for California offshore wind

Posted in California, energy policy, Offshore Wind, tagged , , , , , , , on July 27, 2026| Leave a Comment »

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.

Cancellation Letter OCS-P 0565Download

Read Full Post »

Are the days of big offshore finds over? No!

Posted in Offshore Energy - General, tagged , , , , , , , , on June 22, 2026| Leave a Comment »

Norwegian Minister of Petroleum and Energy, Terje Aasland, officially opened Johan Sverdrup Phase 2 – Equinor photo

JL Daeschler shared an interesting opinion piece. He and I are in general agreement with the author, Steve Sasanow. Key points:

  • Steve finds Equinor’s recent comment that the days of big offshore finds are over to be disingenuous. He correctly notes that this view has been echoed for decades. (Although the end of Gulf of America oil production has been predicted for 40 years, 2025 was a near record year.)
  • Offshore Norway, it was only in 2010 that the giant Johan Sverdrup field was ‘found’ by Equinor. Two super-majors – Exxon and Total – missed the reservoir and abandoned further exploration in the area. (How many times have we heard similar stories in the oil patch?) Equinor, then Statoil, made a relatively small find in the middle of the reservoir and was planning a limited subsea development. Geophysicists from partner Lundin created a better picture of what was in place – nearly 3 billion barrels with peak production of 750,000 b/d three years ago. Just this week, Equinor announced Phase 4 of production through further subsea development.
  • Who heard much about Guyana a decade ago?
  • How about the major new discoveries offshore Brazil? See the video below.
  • New production offshore Namibia, South Africa, and Mozambique looms. Finds off Indonesia and Timor Leste, and even the Falklands, await development.
  • “So guys, stop making out that life is tough. It might be challenging, but it has always been thus. Big risks and big rewards.”
  • On BP’s announcement that they were reorganizing into upstream and downstream divisions: “Wow – what a great idea! How come no one ever thought of this before? Imagine this scenario – oil companies making money on both sides of the price cycle – upstream when the price of oil is high and downstream when it is lower. Amazing – NOT!” 😉

Read Full Post »

West of Shetland – let’s go!

Posted in Offshore Energy - General, UK, energy policy, tagged , , , , , , , , on June 9, 2026| Leave a Comment »

North Sea pioneer JL Daeschler is among those lamenting the sad state of UK exploration and development, commenting that he is “green” with envy of Norway’s long term management of their oil and gas resources.

Researchers at the University of Aberdeen may be showing the way for exploitation of the West of Shetland area’s estimated 4.7 billion bbls of oil equivalent (boe). They are advocating a tailored management regime for this challenging area. Per the researchers:

“West of Shetland is not a depleted frontier – it is a technically demanding but strategically important energy province,” said Nick Schofield, Professor of Igneous & Petroleum Geology at the University of Aberdeen. “Our study highlights the remaining oil and gas potential in the area, which could extend the life of the UK’s oil and gas sector.”

John Underhill, Aberdeen University’s Director for Energy Transition said: “Failing to develop these domestic resources risks increasing the UK’s dependence on imports, with implications for emissions, costs, jobs, tax revenues and energy security.” 

The researchers argue that a “one-size-fits-all” approach to UKCS taxation fails to reflect the unique risks and costs associated with West of Shetland exploration, appraisal and development. As a result, they say projects that are technically viable may remain economically marginal under current conditions.

The University of Aberdeen paper (linked) advocates a tailored regime that would:

  • Recognize higher exploration and development costs
  • Account for increased geological and operational risk
  • Encourage investment in challenging projects
  • Enable tie-backs to existing infrastructure that would provide energy security, tax revenues, retain jobs and be better for the global climate than importing liquified natural gas (LNG), which carries a higher carbon footprint.
  • Support the development of already identified prospects within licensed areas

Rosebank update:

The West of Shetland area includes the controversial Rosebank project (map above), which has yet to receive environmental consent from the UK govt. Following a court ruling, Equinor (operator) was given permission to proceed with the project, including preparatory engineering and construction work, but no production is allowed pending final govt approval.

The PetoJarl Rosebank Floating Production Storage and Offloading (PFSO) vessel recently left its dry dock in Norway and has arrived in the West of Shetland basin. The vessel will undergo commissioning to be ready for production by the end of the year.

PetroJari Rosebank FPSO

Read Full Post »

Ørsted investors worried about Equinor’s change in emphasis. Implications for US wind leases?

Posted in Norway, Offshore Energy - General, Offshore Wind, tagged , , , , , , on May 1, 2026| Leave a Comment »

Equinor’s Atlantic wind leases

Equinor has cut planned investments in renewable energy by roughly EUR 3.5bn for 2026–2027, while the company maintains and expects growth in oil and gas production.

Cheap shot from panicked Ørsted investor:

“From a sustainability perspective, it’s certainly sad that one of the most ‘green’ fossil fuel companies now turns out to have merely been a ‘tourist’ in the green sector, but unfortunately, that’s just the way things are these days,” says Anders Schelde, investment chief at AkademikerPension, according to Finans.

Perhaps the premium for climate virtue signaling has shrunk, and Equinor, like other energy giants, is making a prudent business decision for its shareholders, which include the Norwegian govt.

Meanwhile, what are the implications for Equinor’s offshore wind investments in the US? Equinor’s embattled Empire Wind project is probably too far along to reverse course. Their Central Atlantic (Lease 0557) and California (Lease 0563, Atlas Wind) may be a different story. However, buyback negotiations would be complicated by the Empire Wind situation, and perhaps by the Norwegian government’s 2/3 ownership. On the other hand, Equinor is a significant oil and gas leaseholder in the Gulf of America, so they would have ample options for investing wind lease rebates.

Read Full Post »

Anti-oil activists target Israeli partner in the UK’s Rosebank project

Posted in energy policy, UK, tagged , , , , on February 2, 2026| Leave a Comment »

Is this a new low for the UK’s anti-oil mob? See this BBC article shared by JL Daeschler.

Campaigners against Rosebank, Britain’s largest untapped oil field, have told the UK government that approving the project would risk breaching international law.

They say profits would flow in part to the Israeli oil and gas company Delek Group, which the UN human rights commissioner accuses of “supporting the maintenance and existence” of illegal settlements in the West Bank.

Note that Delek is not a Rosebank partner, but is the majority shareholder in a 20% Rosebank partner, Ithaca Energy. The 80% owner and project operator is Equinor, which is 2/3 owned by the Norwegian govt. Apparently, neither Equinor nor Norway are troubled by Ithaca Energy’s 20% Rosebank share. (There is no indication that the BBC contacted Equinor prior to publishing the article.)

The most sensible quote in the article is from the govt of Israel which dismissed the accusations as “absurd and distorted.”

Which do left-wing activists hate more – oil or Israel?

Read Full Post »

Equinor wisely scraps plans to power some offshore facilities from shore

Posted in climate, energy policy, Norway, Offshore Energy - General, tagged , , , , , , , on October 14, 2025| Leave a Comment »

The Snorre field is in 300-380m of water in the North Sea ~200 km west of Floro.

According to Reuters and others, Equinor will no longer pursue electrification of Snorre A and B, Heidrun, Aasgard B, and Kristin platforms, but still plans to proceed with projects at Grane and Balder fields.

A number of BOE posts since Jan. 2022 have questioned Norway’s electrification strategy for offshore platforms. Our reasons:

  • Most offshore platforms produce sufficient gas to support their power demands
  • Assuming gas that is not used to power a platform is marketed and consumed elsewhere, the net (global) reduction in CO2 emissions from electrifying offshore platforms is negligible. (Perhaps there is actually a small increase in net emissions given the power required to transport the gas to markets and the emissions associated with onshore power generation).
  • Offshore power demands are highly variable, especially when drilling operations are being conducted.
  • Gas turbines are reliable, and capable of responding to variable power demand. Excess generation capacity is typically provided.
  • Power from shore increases the cost of platform operations and could decrease ultimate recovery of oil and gas resources.
  • Per NPD, electrification of the shelf will increase electricity prices for onshore consumers and increase the need for onshore facility investment.
  • Gas turbines or diesel generators are still necessary to satisfy emergency power needs at the platforms.
  • Long power cables are vulnerable to damage (accidental or intentional), as are onshore power stations.

The reliability, cost, and cable vulnerability concerns have clearly been validated. The reality is that powering distant platforms from shore increases operating costs, safety risks, and onshore electricity prices with no net environmental benefit.

It also seems rather hypocritical for a major natural gas exporter to prevent offshore operators from powering their platforms with gas produced at their platforms.

Read Full Post »

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

Posted in energy, Offshore Energy - General, Uncategorized, 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 »

Equinor ups its Ørsted ante. Good money after bad or shrewd contrarian investment?

Posted in Norway, Offshore Wind, tagged , , , , , on September 1, 2025| 1 Comment »

Equinor (2/3 Norwegian govt owned) is increasing its position in Ørsted (50.1% Danish govt owned). Given the ownership structure, public money is at risk for both countries.

The comments below are from a DN Norway article. They were made by CEO Torgrim Reitan after Equinor announced that the company will contribute NOK 10 billion (USD 1 billion) in Ørsted’s special share offering.

Given that the value of their initial NOK 26 billion (USD 2.6 billion) investment in Ørsted last fall has almost been cut in half, this is a bold move by Equinor. The company has been sharply criticized for its wind investments by private Norwegian investors.

“We want a closer partnership with Ørsted. We are two leading companies in offshore wind, and we believe a closer collaboration could create significant value for both Ørsted’s and our own shareholders.”

“This industry is now going through its first real crisis. That makes it quite clear what’s needed. We know a lot about this from oil and gas. What often happens in such times is consolidation.”

“We want a closer partnership with Ørsted. We are two leading companies in offshore wind, and we believe a closer collaboration could create significant value for both Ørsted’s and our own shareholders.”

“In recent weeks, we’ve had conversations with Ørsted management, and we’ve also had conversations with the Danish state. But the discussions have primarily been with Ørsted.”

“Ørsted is in a difficult situation right now. For us, as an industrial and long-term owner, it’s important to be supportive and helpful in such a situation. That’s why we’re putting in nearly a billion dollars.”

“This is a difficult decision, because clearly a lot of equity capital needs to be raised, but we have a fundamental belief in the industry, and also in the company. Ørsted’s underlying portfolio is a strong one.”

“Going forward, this will increase our debt ratio somewhat—maybe by about two percentage points. But we’re starting from a very low debt ratio. So we can manage this within our financial framework. As for capital distribution in 2026 and beyond, we will remain competitive.”

Meanwhile, Equinor is the only major oil company that remains invested in US offshore wind energy. Equinor’s Empire Wind project continues to be highly divisive.

Read Full Post »

Ørsted’s troubles and Atlantic wind decommissioning

Posted in decommissioning, Offshore Wind, tagged , , , , , , , , on August 14, 2025| 1 Comment »

Ørsted’s stock price plummeted on Monday following the announcement of a $9.4 billion rights issue to fund the Sunrise Wind project. The share price has remained depressed (chart below).

Also, although Ørsted attributes its financial woes to the change in US policies, it’s apparent in the second chart (5 year trend) that the decline in Ørsted’s valuation has been ongoing since 2021.

In March, Fitch downgraded Ørsted’s rating to BBB from BBB+, and its subordinated rating to BB+ from BBB-. Further downgrades would seem to be a distinct possibility.

Meanwhile, decommissioning financing for the 3 Ørsted projects under construction in the US Atlantic is far from assured:

  • Revolution Wind: As they did for Vineyard Wind, BOEM approved Ørsted’s request to defer full decommissioning financial assurance until 15 years after the beginning of construction (see attached letter). This approval was prior to the Renewable Energy Modernization Rule (effective June 29, 2024), which eliminated the need for such waivers.
  • Sunrise Wind: Ørsted is now solely responsible for funding and constructing this project given the company’s failure to find investment partners. Presumably, decommissioning financial assurance was not required given BOEM’s latitude under the so-called “Modernization Rule.”
  • South Fork Wind: As is the case with Sunrise Wind, BOEM presumably allowed Ørsted to defer financial assurance for decommissioning as permitted by the “Modernization Rule.”

According to Ørsted, almost 70% of the turbines are installed at Revolution Wind and the first foundations have been installed at Sunrise Wind. South Fork Wind, 12 turbines and an offshore substation, is complete.

Given Ørsted’s strained finances, will BOEM now opt to require decommissioning assurance as provided for in 30 CFR § 585.517?

Ørsted’s situation is atypical in that the Danish government owns a majority (50.1%) stake in the company and Equinor, which is 2/3 Norwegian govt owned, holds a 9.8% stake. How will government ownership factor into BOEM decisions regarding decommissioning assurance? Note that Norwegian govt lobbying may have been one of the factors influencing the decision to allow the resumption of construction on Equinor’s Empire Wind project.

Meanwhile, two Danish opposition parties are calling for the state to relinquish its ownership stake in Ørsted.

REV_0486_Fin Assur Decom Departure Appr LtrDownload

Read Full Post »

Norway named in Empire Wind complaint! Another first for the US OCS program.

Posted in energy policy, Norway, Offshore Wind, tagged , , , , , on June 5, 2025| Leave a Comment »

Protect Our Coast – NJ graphic

Along with other charges, the attached complaint asserts that awarding a wind lease to Norway’s Equinor, violates the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (OCSLA):

  1. As an agency or instrumentality of Norway, Equinor cannot receive a lease on the Outer Continental Shelf for offshore wind turbine development or generation of electric power.

While other elements of the complaint appear to have merit, the charge against Norway does not. Here’s why:

  • US subsidiaries of foreign companies have long held leases under the OCS Lands Act.
  • Equinor US Wind is the US subsidiary holding the wind lease.
  • Equinor USA E&P holds interests in OCS oil and gas leases in the Gulf of America. BOEM credits 548,389 barrels of oil production to Equinor for 2023.
  • Chinese state-owned CNOOC has been an oil and gas lessee in the Gulf of America.
  • US subsidiaries of Shell and BP, both foreign corporations, are the top 2 producers in the Gulf. Although not government owned, there is nothing in OCSLA that distinguishes between US subsidiaries of private and govt owned companies. Woodside (Australia) and Eni (Italy) are also important Gulf producers.

The plaintiffs second count (excerpt below) seems to have more merit. The bulk of the filing pertains to this count.

  1. BOEM never completed its “necessary review”, see Stop Work Order, April 16, 2025, and, instead, reinstated the Empire Wind work permit on May 19, 2025 without any explanation or finding, stating as follows:
    On April 16, 2025, the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management issued a Director’s Order to Empire Offshore Wind LLC to halt all ongoing activities related to the Empire Wind Project on the outer continental shelf. That Order is hereby amended to lift the halt on activities during the ongoing review.

The complaint goes on to discuss the reasons why the plaintiffs believe the review was indeed necessary and should have been conducted.

empirelawsuitDownload

Read Full Post »

Older Posts »