Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Posts Tagged ‘Secretary Burgum’

Dept. of the Interior Announcement and leasing plan development process

Notably, BOEM’s jurisdiction on the OCS has recently changed. A new planning area offshore Alaska—the High Arctic—is being established as the 27th OCS planning area. Additionally, boundaries of other existing planning areas are being updated to align with BOEM’s revised jurisdiction. Details on these changes will be included in a forthcoming Federal Register notice and posted to BOEM’s website. 

Read Full Post »

Equinor’s Empire Wind project had been challenged by New Jersey congressmen and questioned by Norwegian investors. I suspect that Equinor saw the writing on the wall.

Read Full Post »

A letter from Congressman Chris Smith (NJ) to Sec. Burgum is attached. Excerpt:

I am writing to advise you that Equinor, a Norwegian Energy multinational is planning to move forward with construction of its Empire Wind 1 project off the coast of New Jersey and New York as early as this April.
This is an alarming development and should not be allowed before the comprehensive review of offshore wind ordered by President Trump’s January 20th executive order is completed. The executive order states that the assessment is needed to review the many shortcomings of the Federal wind leasing process including, “potential inadequacies in various environmental reviews required by the National Environmental Policy Act.”

Meanwhile, Norwegian investors have expressed dissatisfaction with Equinor’s renewable energy ventures. This Norwegian article raises concerns about Empire Wind 1, saying the project “could become a new industrial scandal.”

Based on the respective financial performance of oil producers, I think it’s fair to say that investors aren’t attracted to those companies because of their wind projects.

Read Full Post »

Now that the favored wind industry is struggling, the Washington Post is conveniently endorsing an “all of the above” energy policy and urging Interior Secretary Burgum to “stand up for wind energy.” Where was this support for “all of the above” when offshore oil and gas leasing was halted, important pipeline approvals were being denied, States were banning hydraulic fracturing, nuclear plants were stalled, and coal workers were being told to “learn how to code?”

Additional comments on the Post’s opinion piece:

WP: “Opponents of wind power — many of them tied to the fossil fuel industry — have taken note and are furiously lobbying the government to block projects already under construction, as well.”

Comments:

  • The fossil fuel industry is frequently accused of supporting groups that oppose wind energy, yet names and details are never provided.
  • Most opponents of offshore wind are members of grass roots groups that have no connection to the oil and gas industry.
  • Supporting anti-wind groups would be foolish from legal, political, and public relations standpoints.
  • Wind opposition would also be contrary to the business plans of most oil and gas companies, some of which are/were major wind energy investors.
  • Lastly, most anti-wind groups are also opposed to offshore drilling. Would “Big Oil” fund groups like this?

WP: “China’s capacity for wind power is already three times that of the United States.”

Comment: Does this make China an environmental leader? Does the WP also support China’s world-leading and still growing coal consumption (see below)?

WP: “Denmark derives about 60 percent of its total energy from wind.”

Comment: Is the WP unconcerned about the intermittency of wind power, the dramatic fluctuations in capacity factors, and the need for alternate power sources, typically coal and natural gas? How do these wind capacity factors look (chart below)? Does the WP support other Danish climate policies like the tax on cow emissions?

Read Full Post »