Exxon CEO Darren Woods’ is concerned that US withdrawal from the Paris climate agreement would threaten carbon capture and sequestration (CCS), the foundation for which is government mandates and generous taxpayer subsidies.
Exxon sought an edge over CCS competitors by improperly acquiring 163 OCS oil and gas leases (map below) for carbon disposal purposes. Conversion of these leases is not authorized, which means they will expire at the end of their primary (5 year) term absent legislative or regulatory action.
The only solid support for CCS is from companies hoping to benefit from subsidies and charges to industries and individual energy consumers. It’s time to end the Federal government’s CCS programs.
199 oil and gas leases were wrongfully acquired at Sales 257, 259, and 261 with the intent of developing these leases for carbon disposal purposes. Repsol was the sole bidder at Sale 261 for 36 nearshore Texas tracts in the Mustang Island and Matagorda Island areas (red blocks at the western end of the map above). Exxon acquired 163 nearshore Texas tracts (blue in map above) at Sales 257 (94) and 259 (69).
At Sale 261, Repsol was the sole bidder for 36 nearshore Texas tracts in the Mustang Island and Matagorda Island areas (red blocks at the western end of the map above). Exxon acquired 163 nearshore Texas tracts (blue in map above) at Sales 257 (94) and 259 (69).
The 199 oil and gas leases that were wrongfully acquired for carbon disposal purposes remain idle with the government collecting rental payments at the rate of $10/acre/yr ($7 for Sale 257 leases). Collectively, this amounts to approximately $10 million/yr.
Presumably, the lessees cannot claim CCS tax credits for their bonus and rental payments.
The primary term for these leases is only 5 years, and the clock is ticking. The 94 oil and gas leases acquired by Exxon at Sale 257 for carbon disposal purposes are approaching the end of their second year. They would be almost a year older if litigation hadn’t delayed the issuance of Sale 257 leases (break for Exxon?).
No exploration plans have been filed for any of these leases. Presumably Exxon and Repsol do not intend to drill any wells unless the leases are converted to authorize carbon disposal.
The “Infrastructure Bill,” signed 2 days before Sale 257, required the Secretary of the Interior to promulgate regulations not later than one year after the date of enactment (11/15/2021). That deadline has long passed.
The delay in the regulations is understandable given the complex lease management, operational, and environmental issues.
Like the practices and operations they are intended to enable, the regulations are certain to be divisive. Neither the offshore industry nor the environmental community are of one mind on these issues, particularly with regard to the acquisition of oil and gas leases for carbon disposal purposes.
Energy Intelligence suggests that final carbon disposal regulations will be promulgated this year. This is highly unlikely, given that a proposed rule must first be published for public comment.
Publication of a proposed rule prior to the election is unlikely – too controversial.
Presumably, the regulations will establish a competitive process for the conversion of any oil and gas leases.
The leases that were wrongfully acquired at Sales 257, 259, and 261 should not be extended for any period of time, even if their expiration date approaches before a competitive process is established.
“Exxon Mobil has led a persistent and apparently successful lobbying campaign behind the scenes to push the US federal government to adopt rules that would allow the conversion of existing oil and gas leases in the Gulf of Mexico into offshore carbon capture and storage (CCS) acreage, according to documents seen by Energy Intelligence and numerous interviews with industry players.”Energy Intelligence
The Energy Intelligence article documents the ongoing carbon disposal lobbying by Exxon and others. Those meetings are okay prior to publishing a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) for public comment. However, the article implies that the next step is a final rule: “Whether or not Exxon succeeds will become fully clear when the US issues final rules guiding CCS leasing, expected sometime this year.”
A final rule this year is unlikely, because an NPRM has to be published first for public comment. The only exception would be if BOEM was able to establish “good cause” criteria for a direct final or interim final rule in accordance with the Administrative Procedures Act. Such an attempt at corner cutting seems unlikely, especially in an election year when all regulatory actions are subject to additional scrutiny.
Exxon must have thought they had a clear path forward after 11th hour additions to the “Infrastructure Bill” authorized carbon disposal on the OCS, exempted such disposal from the Ocean Dumping Act, and provided $billions for CCS projects. Keep in mind that the Infrastructure Bill was signed just two days before OCS Oil and Gas Lease Sale 257, at which Exxon acquired 94 leases for carbon disposal purposes.
What the Infrastructure Bill did not provide is authority to acquire carbon disposal leases at an oil and gas lease sale. Now the lobbyists are apparently scrambling to overcome that obstacle administratively.
A single company or small group of companies should not be dictating the path forward for the Gulf of Mexico. Super-major Exxon is a relative minnow in the Gulf of Mexico OCS. They have not drilled an exploratory well since 2018, not drilled a development well since 2019, operate only one platform (Hoover, installed in 2000), ranked 11th in 2023 oil production, and ranked 29th in 2023 gas production.
Lastly, and most importantly, public comment on the myriad of technical, financial, and policy issues associated with GoM carbon disposal is imperative. That input is essential before final regulations are promulgated.
At Sale 261, Repsol was the sole bidder for 36 nearshore Texas tracts in the Mustang Island and Matagorda Island areas (red blocks at the western end of the map above). Exxon acquired 163 nearshore Texas tracts (blue in map above) at Sales 257 and 259.
ENERGYWIRE has reported that the Department of the Interior will publish the legislatively mandated carbon sequestration rule later this year. Given that even close followers of the OCS program were completely unaware of the enabling legislative provisions prior to their enactment, the proposed DOI rule will provide the first opportunity to formally comment.
Within the oil and gas industry and the environmental community, there are considerable differences of opinion about carbon sequestration in general, and more specifically, offshore sequestration. All interested parties are encouraged to submit comments on these important regulations.
Some background information on the sequestration legislation and subsequent actions:
amend the OCS Lands act to authorize “the injection of a carbon dioxide stream to sub-seabed geologic formations for the purpose of long-term carbon sequestration.”
exempt CO2 injection from the restrictions on ocean dumping by stipulating that such injection “shall not be considered to be material (as defined in section 3 of the Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act of 1972.” Without this exemption, CO2 streams would clearly be “material,” as defined in 33 U.S.C. 1402, and would be subject to the stringent requirements of that act.
direct that “not later than 1 year after the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary of the Interior shall promulgate regulations to carry out the amendments made by this section.” (This deadline has been missed, which is rather common for such directives.)
3/29/23: Exxon bid at Sale 259 on 69 nearshore tracts with little oil and gas potential. Once again, this was strictly an oil and gas lease sale and Exxon’s CCS intentions were clear. Nonetheless, the leases were awarded.
Exxon and other companies intend to commercialize carbon sequestration, and Exxon projects an astounding $4 trillion CCS market by 2050. Such a market will of course be dependent on mandates and subsidies, and the costs will ultimately be borne by taxpayers and consumers.
Is it not a bit unsavory and hypocritical for hydrocarbon producers to capitalize on the capture and disposal of emissions associated with the consumption of their products? Perhaps companies that believe oil and gas production is harmful to society should exit the industry, rather than engage in enterprises that sustain it.
The subject legislation requires the Secretary of the Interior to accept the highest valid bid that was received for each tract offered in OCS Lease Sale 257. Exxon was the sole bidder on 94 tracts on the nearshore Texas shelf. The leases were to be acquired for carbon sequestration purposes.
The CCS bids should not be considered valid given that:
Sale 257 was an oil and gas lease sale. The Notice of Sale said nothing about carbon sequestration and did not offer the opportunity to acquire leases for that purpose. Therefore, the public notice requirements for CCS leasing (30 CFR § 556.308) were not fulfilled.
Because there was no draft or final Notice of Sale, interested parties and the public did not have the opportunity to consider and comment on CCS leasing, tract exclusions, bidding parameters, and other factors.
30 CFR § 556.308 requires publication of a lease form. No CCS lease form was posted or published for comment.
CCS operations were not considered in the environmental assessments conducted prior to the sale.
No evaluation criteria for CCS bids have been published.
Unexpectedly, the Infrastructure Bill, signed on 11/15/2021 (just 2 days before Sale 257) included a provision for OCS carbon sequestration. However, that legislation did not require CCS leasing or authorize DOI to sell CCS leases as part of an oil and gas lease sale; nor did it exempt DOI from complying with its leasing regulations. Instead, It gave the Secretary a year (until 11/15/2022) to promulgate necessary implementing regulations. If carbon sequestration in the Gulf of Mexico is deemed to be desirable, a separate CCS sale should be held when the regulatory framework has been established.
These provisions were added to the bill without debate and their inclusion was a surprise to most observers. Presumably, DOI had the opportunity to review the text, because that is standard practice.
Sale 257 was vacated by the DC Federal Court for reasons unrelated to the sequestration bids.
Questions:
What are the costs per ton of offshore carbon sequestration including emissions collection, offshore wells and platforms, the associated pipeline infrastructure, ongoing operational and maintenance costs, and decommissioning?
What is the timeframe given that the starting point is likely years away?
How long would CO2 sequestration continue.
Who pays? Polluters? Federal subsidies? Tax credits?
Who is liable for:
safety and environmental incidents associated with these projects?
CO2 that escapes from reservoirs, wells, and pipelines (now and centuries from now)?
decommissioning?
hurricane preparedness and damage?
For Gulf of Mexico sequestration, how much energy would be consumed per ton of CO2 injected? Power source? Emissions?
To what extent will these operations interfere with other offshore activities?
Relatively speaking, how important is US sequestration given:
the steady progress that is being made via natural gas and renewables?
What are the benefits of offshore sequestration relative to investments in other carbon reduction alternatives?
Will BOEM conduct a proper carbon sequestration lease sale with public notice (as required by BOEM regulations) such that all interested parties can bid?
What will be the lease terms?
Environmental assessment?
How will bids be evaluated?
What happens to the Exxon bids if the Judge’s Sale 257 decision is reversed?
What is the status of the DOI regulations mandated in the legislation with an 11/15/2022 deadline?
When will we see an Advanced Notice or Notice of Proposed Rulemaking?
Given that DOI has no jurisdiction over the State waters and onshore aspects of these projects, what is the status of parallel regulatory initiatives?
Finally and most importantly, how does drilling offshore sequestration wells instead of exploration and development wells increase oil and gas production?
DOE provided nearly $684 million to eight coal projects, resulting in one operational facility. Three projects were withdrawn—two prior to receiving funding—and one was built and entered operations, but halted operations in 2020 due to changing economic conditions. DOE terminated funding agreements with the other four projects prior to construction.
DOE provided approximately $438 million to three projects designed to capture and store carbon from industrial facilities, two of which were constructed and entered operations. The third project was withdrawn when the facility onto which the project was to be incorporated was canceled.
So DOE’s actual success ratio was 0.182 (2 for 11) – not very compelling.
With regard to proposals for offshore carbon sequestration, who will be liable for future cost overruns, operating losses, infrastructure failures including pipeline and well leaks, and decommissioning costs? Who ensures that there will never be any leakage from CO2 disposal reservoirs? Does all of this fall on the Federal government?
Corporations that want to engage in carbon sequestration for commercial or other purposes should fund the projects with their own revenues or fees charged to the companies whose emissions they are collecting. The Outer Continental Shelf is publicly owned and those wishing to dispose of substances should pay a usage fee, be responsible for all costs, and be liable for pollution and damages.
What, if anything, will the Judge say about the leases that are intended to be carbon sequestration sites? How can BOEM sell OCS leases for purposes that were neither announced nor environmentally assessed? What do EarthJustice and the other plaintiffs think about the sequestration bids given that the environmental community is split on CCS?
Who is going to pay the enormous cost of sequestration on the Outer Continental Shelf – platforms, wells, pipelines, processing equipment, maintenance, monitoring, decommissioning, and more? The Federal government (i.e. taxpayers) features large in this grand scheme, and will no doubt be assuming most of the economic and performance risks. And all of these costs are for disposal purposes, not for offshore energy production of any kind.
Together with the bipartisan infrastructure bill enacted in November, which included more than $12 billion in funding for carbon capture and carbon removal technologies, the Build Back Better legislation would hand fossil fuel companies nearly every item on their carbon capture wishlist.
The text below, excerpted from the Infrastructure Bill (signed 2 days before Sale 257), requires the Federal government to provide funding for commercial CCS projects. $2.5 billion is appropriated. Given these incentives, how does BOEM possibly issue leases for CCS purposes when there was no public notice (as required by 30 CFR § 556.308) that CCS bids would be accepted at the oil and gas lease sale?
SEC. 40305.
e) Large-scale Carbon Storage Commercialization Program.--
``(1) In general.--The Secretary shall establish a commercialization program under which the Secretary shall provide funding for the development of new or expanded commercial large-scale carbon sequestration projects and associated carbon dioxide transport infrastructure, including funding for the feasibility,site characterization, permitting, and construction stages of project development.
(h) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized to be appropriated to the Secretary to carry out this section $2,500,000,000 for the period of fiscal years 2022 through 2026.
(b) Leases, Easements, or Rights-of-way for Energy and Related Purposes.--Section 8(p)(1) of the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (43 U.S.C. 1337(p)(1)) is amended--
(1) in subparagraph (C), by striking ``or'' after the semicolon;
(2) in subparagraph (D), by striking the period at the end and inserting ``; or''; and
(3) by adding at the end the following:
``(E) provide for, support, or are directly related to the injection of a carbon dioxide stream to sub-seabed geologic formations for the purpose of long-term carbon sequestration.''.
(c) Clarification.--A carbon dioxide stream injected for the purpose of carbon sequestration under subparagraph (E) of section 8(p)(1) of the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (43 U.S.C. 1337(p)(1)) shall not be considered to be material (as defined in section 3 of the Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1402)) for purposes of that Act (33 U.S.C. 1401 et seq.).(d) Regulations.--Not later than 1 year after the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary of the Interior shall promulgate regulations to carry out the amendments made by this section.
This will be an interesting challenge for the DOI folks (BSEE/BOEM?) charged with writing the regulation given the jurisdictional issues related to capturing onshore CO2 and transporting it to the OCS. Also, when was this provision added to the infrastructure bill and did its apparent obscurity and delayed enactment give certain parties some type of competitive advantage at the sale?
Bud's Offshore Energy (BOE) 