Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Posts Tagged ‘Keathley Canyon’

Lease Sale BBG2 decision matrix; BOEM’s KC Block 828 bid rejection is interesting

Posted in energy policy, Gulf of Mexico, Offshore Energy - General, tagged , , , , , , , , on June 24, 2026| Leave a Comment »

The Buckskin field (LLOG) is located in Keathley Canyon blocks 785, 828, 829, 830, 871, and 872 in 6,800 ft (2,073 m) of water. The KC 828 lease expired last year and LLOG’s bid for that block at the BBG2 sale was rejected.

BOEM’s Decision Information Matrix for Sale BBG2 is attached. As previously noted, 2 of the 25 high bids were rejected: Keathley Canyon Block 828 ($1,101,202) and Atwater Valley Block 63 ($650,018).

The rejected bids were significantly below both BOEM’s Mean of the Range-of-Value and Lower Bound Confidence Interval for these single bid tracts (table below).

Block No.Companyno. of bidsbidMROVLBCI
AT 63LLOG1$650,018$2,400,000$1,800,000
KC 828LLOG1$1,101,202$24,000,000$23,000,000
MROV=Mean of the Range-of-Value; LBCI=Lower Bound Confidence Interval

In the case of Keathley Canyon 828, BOEM’s valuation is more than 20 times the high bid. BOEM valued this block far higher than any other block in the sale.

KC 828 had been previously leased and that lease expired on 9/3/2025. The lease block was part of LLOG’s Buckskin field. Apparently, the lease expired due to inactivity given that the last well reached total depth more than a year prior to the expiration date. LLOG wanted the lease back. BOEM’s rejection sends a message that the price went up (by a lot 😉).

Finally, why didn’t any other company bid on KC 828, a block that has been publicly reported as being part of the Buckskin field?

BBG2-Phase-2-Decision-MatrixDownload

Read Full Post »

How did the govt fare on the Sale 259 bid rejections?

Posted in energy policy, Gulf of Mexico, Offshore Energy - General, tagged , , , , , , , , on January 2, 2024| Leave a Comment »

Keathley Canyon and Walker Ridge bids at Sale 259: blue=1 bid, red=2 bids, green=3 bids

Based solely on a comparison of the bids (Sale 261 vs. Sale 259), the Sale 259 rejections were, on balance, to the benefit of the public (table below). On the plus side:

  • Assuming all of the high Sale 261 bids are accepted, the net gain to the US Treasury is $8,749,365
  • Of the 14 tracts with rejected high bids at Sale 259, 8 received bids at Sale 261
  • Seven of those 8 bids were higher than the Sale 259 high bids, and 5 of those 7 were more than $1 million higher.
  • The Sale 259 bid rejections in the Keathley Canyon and Walker Ridge areas proved to be 100% beneficial. All 6 of those tracts received much higher bids at Sale 261.
  • The best BOEM decisions were the rejections of the Sale 259 bids for AT 5 and WR 795 and 796. The Sale 261 high bids on these 3 tracts were $10.8 million higher than the Sale 259 bids.
  • WR 795 and 796 were single bid tracts at Sale 259.
  • AT 5 received 3 bids at Sale 259. BOEM rejected the high bid despite the competitive bidding. That proved to be the right call given that the Sale 261 high bid was $3.5 million higher.

On the other hand:

  • None of the 5 Green Canyon rejections received any bids at Sale 261.
  • The high bid for GC 777 was rejected twice (Sales 257 and 259) at a cost of $1.8 million, the BP/Talos high bid at Sale 257. At sale 259, BP was the sole bidder for GC 777, and their bid was only $583,000, less than 1/3 of their Sale 257 bid. GC 777 received no bids at Sale 261.
  • The worst BOEM Sale 259 decisions were the rejections of the DC 622, GC 547, and GC 591 bids at a cost of $4.6 million ($5.2 if the Sale 261 bid for DC 622 is rejected).
  • This is not to say that the tracts with rejected bids will not ultimately be leased. However, the uncertainty regarding future sales changes the historic GoM leasing dynamic. The next opportunity for purchasing unleased tracts is a troubling unknown. Absent leasing and exploration, their resource and revenue potential will never be known.
area and blockSale 259 high bid – companySale 261 high bidgovt gain (loss)
DC 6222,101,836 – Shell615,628* – Shell(1,486,208)
GC 173307,107 – Woodsideno bid(307,107)
GC 5471,783,498 – Chevronno bid(1,783,498)
GC 5911,291,993 – Chevronno bid(1,291,993)
GC 642605,505 – Anadarkono bid(605,505)
GC 777583,103 – bpno bid(583,103)
AT 51,551,130 – Anadarko5,215,628* – Shell3,664,498
AT 133607,107 – Woodsideno bid(607,107)
KC 745707,777 – Beacon2,422,222 – Beacon1,714,445
KC 789707,777 – Beacon2,143,299 – Beacon1,435,522
WR 794724,744 – Beacon1,487,624 – Beacon762,880
WR 795774,242 – Beacon5,301,107 – Woodside4,526,865
WR 796774,242 – Beacon3,310,107 – Woodside2,535,865
WR 750724,744 – Beacon1,498,555 – Beacon773,811
*The BOEM sale 261 bid summary misidentifies the DC 622 and AT 5 bids as being for MC 622 and GC 5 respectively. The corrected identification above is based on the “Blocks Receiving Bids” file correlated with the block number and company code.

Read Full Post »