Per PHYS.ORG: Researchers at the Helmholtz Center Hereon have analyzed the long-term overall impact of this large number of wind farms on the hydrodynamics of the North Sea for the first time. They found that the current pattern could change on a large scale.
The peer reviewed German study is attached. Excerpt:
The near- and far-field wake effects affect vertical mixing and surface heat fluxes – primarily driven by large-scale wind stress reductions – leading to shallower mixed layers and long-term surface warming of up to 0.2 deg. C in wind farm areas. Our findings reveal a basin-scale physical footprint of offshore wind energy and highlight the need to account r hydrodynamic impacts in future offshore wind farm planning.
Updatedincident tables for OCS oil and gas operations. The most recent data are for 2023! Providing timely details on incidents is a fundamental responsibility of a safety regulator.
A summary of incidents associated with the OCS wind program. From press reports, we know about the fatality during Empire Wind construction. What other incidents have occurred to date?
Information on the mysterious sinking of the Aban Pearl semi-submersiblein May 2010. An investigation was conducted, but the report was never shared. In the interest of offshore safety, the new regime in Venezuela should release this report.
Judge Patti Saris vacated part 2 of Trump’s 1/20/2025 “Wind Memo.”Part 1, which withdrew all OCS lands from wind leasing, was not in dispute. Part 2 suspended issuing wind energy permits and other authorizations.
The judge ruled (full order attached) that the suspension of wind permitting violates Administrative Procedures Act provisions requiring agencies “to proceed within a reasonable time and to set and complete proceedings expeditiously.”
She concluded further that “the moratorium halts all wind energy authorizations indefinitely, pending a comprehensive assessment with no timeline, which is inconsistent with statutory deadlines and general commands for prompt processing in laws like OCSLA, the Clean Water Act, and others governing wind projects.”
Although the judge’s assessment of the permitting moratorium seems sound, the merits of offshore wind as a primary energy source remain very much in doubt.
Member companies, which include major players such as Ørsted, Equinor, Vattenfall, RWE, and CIP, report quarterly data on accidents, near-misses, hazardous observations, and equipment damage. As is the case with most industry reporting schemes, anonymity is prioritized over transparency.
Sørensen asserts that the G+ wind industry data are incomplete: ”It shows that what is reported under the guidelines has gone down, and also that there is a cut off on what is being reported that does not include the full value chain on the industry.” He notes that a contractor to Northland Power from Canada, a member of G+, was involved in a 2024 workplace accident in Taiwan that resulted in three fatalities. (It’s also noteworthy that Equinor’s 2024 Empire Wind fatality was not included.)
Sørensen: ”There have been no significant improvements in the last 10 years. Safety in offshore wind is neither getting worse nor better. There are no signs of that.”
”I’m speaking up because we owe people the truth. If we’re not honest about the actual safety conditions in offshore wind, we can’t change them. Misinformation about workplace safety creates a dangerous illusion that everything is “under control”, while too many people are getting hurt. But when we dare to speak about reality as it is, we create the foundation for a safer, faster, and truly sustainable energy transition,” Sørensen says.
”And then it becomes difficult to learn if you have to wait for something to go through 57 gates and down past legal,” he says. (Sound familiar?)
This study provides the first evidence that EMFs typical of SPCs elicit sex-specific behavioral responses in C. maenas. Females exhibited significantly greater attraction to EMF zones and avoidance of low-field zones, suggesting higher exposure risk. These differences could affect migration, mating, and larval release, with consequences for population dynamics.
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.
“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.
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” rule
current language
Approve your COP
A 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 COP
A 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.
A new court filing (attached) informs that the Dept. of the Interior is reconsidering the Construction & Operations Plan (COP) approval for US Wind’s Maryland Offshore Wind (“MarWin”) Project (maps above). That approval is the subject of litigation filed by Ocean City MD and others.
The key section of the Federal government’s filing is pasted below.
An extension in this case is necessary as Interior intends to reconsider its COP approval and move in the District of Maryland—the first-filed case—for voluntary remand of that agency action. See, e.g., Util. Solid Waste Activities Grp. v. EPA, 901 F.3d 414, 436 (D.C.Cir. 2018) (recognizing that administrative agencies have the authority to reconsider their decisions). The outcome of Interior’s reconsideration has the potential to affect the Plaintiff’s claims in this case.
Bud's Offshore Energy (BOE) 