Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Posts Tagged ‘financial assurance’

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 »

Offshore wind: End of the decommissioning free ride?

Posted in decommissioning, Offshore Wind, Regulation, tagged , , , , on August 11, 2025| Leave a Comment »

The Dept. of the Interior is reviewing offshore wind regulations including “the Renewable Energy Modernization Rule, as well as financial assurance requirements and decommissioning cost estimates for offshore wind projects…”

Concerns about offshore wind financial assurance were first raised on this blog in response to a precedent setting waiver of the “pay as you build” requirement. Vineyard Wind was authorized to defer providing the full amount of required decommissioning financial assurance until year 15 of actual operations.  The waiver request, which had been denied in 2017, was resubmitted in 2021 and approved. This questionable decision was consistent with the administration’s enthusiastic promotion of accelerated offshore wind development.

BOEM’s streamlining rule codified the deferred financial assurance option. The rule authorizes the transfer of decommissioning risks from developers to taxpayers and consumers by (1) not requiring any additional supplemental financial assurance at the Construction and Operations Plan (COP) approval stage, (2) not requiring supplemental assurance at the installation stage, and (3) providing for incremental supplemental assurance post-installation (e.g. for Vineyard Wind, the full amount is not due until 15 years after installation). See the rule’s previous and current language in the table below (emphasis added).

30 CFR 585.516 – What are the financial assurance requirements for each stage of my commercial lease?

financial assurance required before BOEM will: language prior to 4/24/2024 “modernization” rulecurrent language
Approve your COPA supplemental bond or other financial assurance, in an amount determined by BOEM based on the complexity, number, and location of all facilities involved in your planned activities and commercial operation. The supplemental financial assurance requirement is in addition to your lease-specific bond and, if applicable, the previous supplement associated with SAP approval.There is no supplemental bond requirement at the COP approval stage.
Allow you to install facilities approved in your COPA decommissioning bond or other financial assurance, in an amount determined by BOEM based on anticipated decommissioning costs. BOEM will allow you to provide your financial assurance for decommissioning in accordance with the number of facilities installed or being installed. BOEM must approve the schedule for providing the appropriate financial assurance coverage.A supplemental bond or other authorized financial assurance in an amount determined by BOEM based on anticipated decommissioning costs of the proposed facilities. If you propose to incrementally fund your financial assurance instrument, BOEM must approve the schedule for providing the appropriate financial assurance.

The current financial assurance language is fuzzy enough that BOEM could deny deferred funding requests and require full financial assurance at the time facilities are installed. However, revising the language to clearly require that assurance be fully demonstrated prior to installation would provide clarity and eliminate the deferral option going forward.

The more difficult challenge may be adjusting financial assurance requirements for the projects already under construction. It’s also important to ensure that parent corporations are not shielded from decommissioning and other liability risks.

Read Full Post »

MV Times raises more Vineyard Wind transparency questions

Posted in decommissioning, energy policy, Offshore Wind, Regulation, tagged , , , , , on August 4, 2025| Leave a Comment »

MV Times -blade replacement continues

MV Times: “The recent site visit raised questions on the production of the wind farm. The Times has been able to neither verify the report independently nor confirm disparities between visuals on the ground and the Iberdrola report.”

  • Avangrid, an Iberdrola subsidiary and one of Vineyard Wind’s developers, reported that 17 out of 62 turbines were currently sending power to the Massachusetts grid.
  • The MV Times counted between five and nine turbines spinning at different points, and for different intervals, in their two hour visit.
  • BOE comment: Although there are many possible reasons for this discrepancy, it’s reasonable to question the absence of turbine output data. Developers assert that generator specific data are sensitive and could have market implications. However, these turbines are operating on public lands and were in part publicly funded. Output data and other performance metrics clearly have policy implications.
  • Note that Iberdrola “expect[s] no impact from new federal budget legislation, as it doesn’t impact 1,000 megawatts under construction.”

An MV Times photo of a Vineyard Wind substation is pasted below. These substations are large structures. Per the Construction and Operations Plan (COP) for Vineyard Wind, the topsides for a conventional electrical service platform (ESP) (also known as an offshore substation or OSS) are 45 x 70 x 38 m, which is larger in surface area than a typical 6-pile oil and gas platform (~30 x 30 m), and is comparable in size to a large jackup drilling rig.

Decommissioning financial assurance requirements were relaxed to reduce development costs, thus increasing taxpayer liability risks. This policy decision should be reviewed.

Vineyard Wind substation

Read Full Post »

Why timely well plugging and financial assurance rules must be strictly enforced!

Posted in decommissioning, energy policy, Gulf of Mexico, Offshore Energy - General, Regulation, well control incidents, tagged , , , , , , , on May 5, 2025| Leave a Comment »

Coast Guard photo. Thanks to Lars Herbst for bringing this incident to my attention.

In what the Coast Guard is describing as an “uncontrolled discharge” (euphemism for blowout), an 82-year-old oil well has been spewing oil, gas, and water into the coastal marshes of southern Plaquemines Parish, Louisiana, for more than a week.

In hopes of future production, prior and current owners had elected not to permanently plug the well, apparently with the State’s acquiescence.

The well is currently operated by an affiliate of Spectrum Energy. Typical of these situations, the previous owner, Whitney Oil and Gas, was in bankruptcy.

The Coast Guard has taken over the response and has accessed the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund.

We don’t need relaxed decommissioning and financial assurance requirements. We need a cooperative Federal, State, and industry effort to ensure that wells are plugged in a timely manner and that financial assurance is provided to protect the public interest.

Read Full Post »

DOI intends to revise offshore financial assurance rule. Is this cause for concern?

Posted in decommissioning, energy policy, Offshore Energy - General, Regulation, tagged , , , on May 3, 2025| Leave a Comment »

The U.S. Department of the Interior today (5/2/2025) announced its intent to “update” the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management’s 2024 Risk Management and Financial Assurance for OCS Lease and Grant Obligations Rule. 

Those who are concerned about minimizing the Federal government’s decommissioning risk exposure should closely monitor this process. Some companies and their political allies have sought to minimize the financial risks associated with plugging wells and removing facilities. As a result, it has been necessary to defend BOEM from unwarranted commentary about decommissioning issues and the financial assurance rule. Stay tuned!

Read Full Post »

SECRETARIAL ORDER NO. 3418: Unleashing American Energy

Posted in decommissioning, energy policy, Offshore Energy - General, Regulation, tagged , , , , , , , on February 5, 2025| Leave a Comment »

Check it out!

Of particular interest are mandated reviews of the:

  • RIsk Management and Financial Assurance Rule: Those who want to gut this rule should come to the table with proposals that better protect the taxpayer from decommissioning liabilities. Pretending that decommissioning financial risks don’t exist or that they are someone else’s (or the govt’s) problem is unacceptable.
  • 5 Year leasing program – This review is urgently needed. See this and this!
  • BOP/Well Control Rule – This keystone safety rule has undergone multiple reviews in recent years. Because of the rule’s importance, further review for continuous improvement purposes may nonetheless be warranted. Here are the blog comments on the current version of the rule.

Not on the list, but should have been: A review of the fragmented regulatory regime for offshore pipelines, and the outdated and inconsistent regulations.

Read Full Post »

Forbes: “Hidden Costs, Rusting Relics: Decommissioning Wind Turbines In The US”

Posted in decommissioning, energy policy, Offshore Wind, Wind Energy, tagged , , , , on December 26, 2024| 1 Comment »

Forbes (USGS map of active wind turbines): “The U.S. Wind Turbine Database contains more than 74,695 wind turbines built since 1980, spread between 1,699 wind power projects in 45 states. However, thousands of wind turbines are reaching the end of their operational lifespan and need to be either repowered to make way for updated (often larger) turbines or entirely decommissioned to allow for new uses of the land they occupy. Unfortunately, there is no uniform legal framework to regulate the steps involved, nor is there an accepted industry-wide set of best practices, and the environmental costs are considerable.”

Forbes: “As is often the case when new technologies come to market, unintended downstream consequences are not always immediately obvious to the players. Enthusiasm for clean energy initially pushed the first wind turbines into existence in the U.S. without considering the environmental and monetary costs that would be involved in either upgrading or bringing projects to a close later in their life cycle. “

Similarly, BOEM’s enthusiasm for offshore wind projects has increased decommissioning financial assurance risks for power customers and taxpayers. Their “Rule to Streamline and Modernize Offshore Renewable Energy Development” is intended to “make offshore renewable energy development more efficient, [and] save billions of dollars.” The savings associated with relaxed financial assurance requirements come at the expense of transferring decommissioning risks to those who have received little or no financial benefit from the projects.

Related story: “Osage Tribe Wins Again, Federal Judge Orders “Ejectment” Of 84 Wind Turbines By Next December”

Read Full Post »

W&T sues insurers and related decommissioning comments

Posted in decommissioning, energy policy, Gulf of Mexico, Offshore Energy - General, Offshore Wind, Regulation, tagged , , , , , , , on December 17, 2024| Leave a Comment »

W&T (lease and facility map above) claims that insurers have colluded to damage the company by jointly demanding additional collateral and premiums.

Comments on excerpts from the W&T press release follow:

“At the heart of the dispute are rules from the federal Bureau of Ocean Energy Management – BOEM – which require energy producers in the Outer Continental Shelf to provide a bond to pay for well, platform, pipeline and facilities cleanup if the operating company fails to do so.”

Comment: Despite disagreeing with aspects of the BOEM financial assurance rule, this blog has defended the rule against unfair criticism. Better solutions are achievable, but that will require industry leaders from all factions to come to the table with a commitment to reach a balanced agreement that protects the public interest.

“These insurance companies and their unreasonable demands for increased collateral pose an existential threat to independent operators like W&T.”

Comment: If insuring offshore decommissioning is so risk-free and lucrative, why aren’t other companies entering the market?

“Several states, including Texas, are challenging the BOEM rule and in one case they specifically cite W&T as an example of how the rule could be misused to irreparably harm energy producers.“

Comment: As previously posted, the concerned States should propose alternative solutions that would promote production while also protecting taxpayer interests. Arguing that decommissioning financial risks are not a problem is neither accurate nor a solution.

“In over 70 years of producer operations in the Gulf of Mexico, the federal government has never been forced to pay for any abandonment cleanup operations associated with well, platform facility, or pipeline operations.”

Comment: Shamefully, from the standpoints of both the offshore industry and the Federal government, that statement is no longer true. The taxpayer has now funded decommissioning operations in the Matagorda Island Area offshore Texas (BSEE photo below) and more significant decommissioning liabilities loom.

Other thoughts:

Read Full Post »

“Plug Offshore Wells Act”

Posted in decommissioning, energy policy, Offshore Energy - General, Offshore Wind, tagged , , , , , , , on September 17, 2024| Leave a Comment »

Federally funded decommissioning in the Matagorda Island area of the Gulf of Mexico. Not a success story.

I’m not typically aligned with the sponsors of the attached “Plug Offshore Wells Act,” but the call for transparency is understandable given that taxpayer funds are, for the first time, being used to decommission offshore platforms in the Matagorda Island area of the Gulf of Mexico, massive liabilities associated with the Cox bankruptcy loom, and the Hogan and Houchin saga drags on without resolution.

The bill would require an annual report on well, platform, and pipeline decommissioning including applications, deadlines, and enforcement actions. BSEE does have a good facility infrastructure page for the GoM, but much of the information called for in H.R. 9168 is not publicly available.

Improved oversight of decommissioning requirements for offshore wind projects should also be considered in light of the precedent setting waiver granted to Vineyard Wind and BOEM’s “modernization rule” that relaxes financial assurance requirements for wind development.

BILLS-118hr9168ihDownload

Read Full Post »

Vineyard Wind’s financial assurance waiver cites robust insurance policies, proven technology, and guaranteed electricity sales

Posted in accidents, decommissioning, Offshore Wind, tagged , , , , , on July 22, 2024| 2 Comments »

Nantucket Current photo: damaged Vineyard Wind turbine

Pasted below is an excerpt from the BOEM letter waiving the“pay as you build” financial assurance requirement for the Vineyard Wind project.

Comments on the 3 risk reduction factors cited in the letter:

Factor 1: Those “robust insurance policies” may soon be tested given the costs associated with the turbine blade incident and potential law suits. (The notice pasted below informs that Nantucket officials will meet on Tuesday to consider litigation. A question for attorneys is the extent to which Nantucket is compromised by their good “Good Neighbor Agreement” with Vineyard Wind. That agreement essentially calls on Nantucket to promote the Vineyard Wind projects in return for payments that seem modest relative to the economic benefits from tourism and fishing.)

Factor 2: To the extent that GE Vernova Haliade-X 13 megawatt turbines are proven technology (and that is very much in doubt), the use of proven technology doesn’t prevent premature abandonment associated with unexpected incidents.

Factor 3: Reliable power generation and predictable long-term income remain to be demonstrated.

Read Full Post »

« Newer Posts - Older Posts »