Offshore Oil & Gas

 

Biden Administration Moves Toward Oil Lease Sale Off Alaska. According to Politico, “The Biden administration is moving forward with a proposed oil and gas lease sale in Alaska’s Cook Inlet. A draft environmental impact statement released Friday by the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management lays out the proposal and alternatives for the potential 2022 sale in the Gulf of Alaska waters south of Anchorage. If the sale moves forward, it will be among the first for the climate-focused Biden administration, which began its oversight of the federal oil program in January by instituting a freeze on new leasing. A court ruling this summer ordered the leasing program to temporarily restart while a judge weighs the legality of the moratorium. To comply with that ruling, the Interior Department has proposed oil and gas lease sales on public lands in several states and in federal waters, including the Cook Inlet auction. The draft EIS says the proposal would not affect critical habitat for the Steller sea lion and mostly avoid habitat for the beluga whale and northern sea otter. The sale in Cook Inlet could contribute to the release of 88.3 million metric tons of greenhouse gas emissions, the document says. It also says that not holding the auction would result in ‘slightly higher’ oil prices. Interior also considered the social cost of greenhouse gas emissions for alternative plans, including those that would shift foreign consumption of fuels, according to a statement.” [Politico, 10/25/21 (=)]

 

Cooking Up A Sale. According to Politico, “The Biden administration is making moves toward new fossil fuel leases in the Cook Inlet in Alaska, with the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management publishing a draft environmental impact statement for public comment. The draft doesn’t mean the Interior Department is set on holding new lease sales, and the department will weigh the public comments in its decision making. BOEM added in its Friday announcement of the draft that it was acting in compliance with a federal court order: a U.S. district court in Louisiana ruled the administration’s temporary pause on new oil and gas leases on federal lands unlawful back in June. Even though it is only in its exploratory phase, environmentalists have denounced the administration’s moves toward restarting federal lease sales. BOEM plans to hold a lease sale for drilling in the Gulf of Mexico next month. ‘It’s incredibly disturbing to see the Biden administration proposing yet another offshore oil lease,’ Kristen Monsell, oceans legal director at the Center for Biological Diversity, said in a statement following BOEM’s Friday announcement. ‘The administration has the authority not to hold this lease sale. For the sake of our climate, endangered wildlife and frontline communities, Biden must choose the no action alternative, cancel this lease sale and phase out oil drilling in our oceans for good.’” [Politico, 10/25/21 (=)]

 

Feds File Environmental Review For Cook Inlet Lease Sale. According to KDLL-Radio, “The federal government has filed another draft environmental impact statement for a federal oil and gas lease sale in Cook Inlet and is asking for comments from the public. It’s the second time in less than a year that the feds have put out an environmental review on a potential Cook Inlet sale, since the Biden Administration halted the process leading up to the auction earlier this year. That pause was part of a larger executive order aimed at fighting climate change. The leasing process resumed this summer when a Louisiana district court judge ordered programs to resume in Cook Inlet and the Gulf of Mexico, following a lawsuit from Alaska and several other states. The states argued the Biden Administration’s decision was bad for economic development and that the feds bypassed the public process when they hit pause on the sales. The potential auction includes 224 blocks across one million acres in Cook Inlet, from the southern end of Kalgin Island down to Augustine Island. The department can still decide to cancel a lease sale after an environmental impact statement is filed. The Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, which oversees the offshore leasing program, canceled sales in 2006, 2008 and 2010 in Cook Inlet due to lack of industry interest.” [KDLL-Radio, 10/23/21 (=)]

 

U.S. Takes Step Toward Oil And Gas Auction Off Alaska Coast Next Year. According to Reuters, “The Biden administration on Friday took a procedural step towards holding an auction for oil and gas drilling rights in the Cook Inlet off the coast of Alaska next year.” [Reuters, 10/22/21 (=)]

 

California Oil Spill

 

Impacts

 

More Than 80 Birds, Fish Affected By OC Oil Leak Recovered, But Half Die. According to News Nation USA, “More than 80 birds and fish affected by oil from a pipeline leak off the shores of have been recovered, with more than half dying, officials said Tuesday. A total 73 birds were recovered, with 45 dying, according to the Oiled Wildlife Care Network. Nine dead fish have also been recovered. Meanwhile, environmental activists pressured Orange County Rep. Michelle Steel to join efforts to ban offshore oil drilling, but the Republican congresswoman said she has introduced legislation to crack down on the traffic jam of cargo ships along the coast. The Stopping Hazardous Incidents in the Pacific Act, or SHIP Act, would prohibit cargo ships from idling or anchoring within 24 nautical miles of the Southern California coast. Steel said she introduced the legislation after learning that investigators suspect an anchor from a ship may have caused the Oct. 2 Orange County leak. The ban would last for six months or until President Joe Biden declares that a backlog in the ports was over. ‘Cargo ships idling for months off the Orange County coastline have become an environmental and public health crisis,’ Steel said in a statement. ‘It’s time to get the ports working again and get these ships moving and out of our waters. This crisis could have been prevented and it’s important that we protect our waters and coastline.’” [News Nation USA, 10/22/21 (=)]

 

Analysis & Opinion

 

Op-Ed: Will Those Responsible For O.C. Oil Spill Pay For The Damage? It Could Be A Battle. According to Los Angeles Times, “Six years ago, a ruptured oil pipeline in Santa Barbara County sent 140,000 gallons of crude oil gushing onto the sands of Refugio State Beach. The company that owned the pipeline survived the onslaught of lost revenue and lawsuits that followed, but the offshore producer that used the line to transport its oil did not. After twice seeking Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection, Venoco Inc., eventually walked away from its drilling operation in Southern California, leaving the state to deal with millions of dollars in costs to close down the inactive wells. This month’s spill off the shore of Orange County, which dumped an estimated 25,000 gallons into the ocean, could become an expensive repeat of the Refugio spill, some experts say. The firm that operates the San Pedro Bay pipeline is facing intense pressure from federal regulators as well as businesses and residents suing over the effects of the spill. Filing for bankruptcy protection, as Venoco did, could become an attractive option for the pipeline’s parent company, granting it temporary reprieve from financial and legal duress. But it’s too early to tell if Amplify Energy Corp. will take that step. Its oil production is less dependent on California than Venoco, but it’s also a relatively small player in an industry in which the financial blow from an environmental disaster can be devastating. ‘They can easily throw their hands up and declare bankruptcy,’ said longtime energy markets analyst and advisor Stephen Schork.” [Los Angeles Times, 10/24/21 (+)]

 

Op-Ed: If Our Oil Jobs Are Ending, We Need Safety Nets And Good Replacement Work. According to an op-ed by Norman Rogers in Los Angeles Times, “Just days after the latest oil spill off the Huntington Beach coast, Gov. Gavin Newsom came to Orange County. In response to renewed calls to ban offshore drilling after about 25,000 gallons of crude oil poured into the Pacific Ocean, the governor commented, ‘Banning new drilling is not complicated. The deeper question is how do you transition and still protect the workforce?’ I belong to the workforce Newsom speaks of. I’ve worked at a Los Angeles oil refinery for over 22 years as a member of United Steelworkers Local 675. USW represents thousands of workers across Los Angeles, Kern and Contra Costa counties who run refineries, oil wells, pipelines and terminals. Over the last 100-plus years, our workers have shown up and labored without fail through earthquakes, riots, world wars, fires and most recently the pandemic. We supply fuel for plane trips, backup generators for hospitals and materials for syringes that have been crucial as we contain the coronavirus crisis. Even before the renewed calls to halt drilling, we have felt like our jobs are threatened. When we watch football, we see repeated ads for hybrid and electric cars and now electric trucks like the Ford F-150 Lightning. In California, every new car sold after 2035 is to be an electric vehicle. The writing is on the wall. As California pursues our goal of cutting emissions 40% by 2030, the resulting closure of the oil and gas industry means about 37,000 fossil fuel workers will need reemployment, while an additional 20,000 workers or so will voluntarily retire in the next nine years.” [Los Angeles Times, 10/22/21 (+)]

 

Op-Ed: When We Drill, We Spill. According to an op-ed by Johanna Neumann in Greenfield Recorder, “The news of the California spill brought back memories of a 10-year-old me crying at the images of oiled sea otters and birds left behind after the 1989 Exxon Valdez oil tanker spill. It also brought back memories of Deepwater Horizon, an oil spill nearly 20 times larger than the Exxon Valdez spill, where for 16 agonizing weeks, we watched helplessly as 210 million gallons of oil gushed from the deep ocean through the water column, into wetlands and onto Gulf coast beaches. These horrific, but memorable, spill events are almost routinely joined by thousands of smaller oil spills that happen in the United States every year, each bringing its own environmental crisis on a smaller scale. Time and time again, the saying rings true: When they drill, they spill. It’s becoming increasingly clear that oil’s impacts aren’t just catastrophic when it’s spilled. Even when oil reaches its destination safely, it’s either burned for energy, contributing to global warming pollution and unhealthy air, or turned into plastic bottles and packaging, which exacerbates our single-use plastic waste crisis. When you look at the overall ecological impacts of oil production, extraction and consumption, the choice to keep drilling becomes increasingly absurd given the viability and abundance of clean renewable energy.” [Greenfield Recorder, 10/24/21 (+)]

 

Op-Ed: California’s Oil Spill Reminds Us Of The Dangers Facing Florida’s Beaches. According to an op-ed by Robin Miller and Kelsey Lamp in Tampa Bay Times, “Tar balls are once again washing ashore on America’s beaches. A decades-old pipe that began leaking earlier this month off California’s coast in Orange County spilled about 25,000 gallons of oil into the ocean. The catastrophe led to a fishing ban, beach closures and dead fish drifting ashore.” [Tampa Bay Times, 10/23/21 (+)]

 

Marine Renewable Energy

 

Offshore Wind Grid Fixes Could Cost $3B — Report. According to Politico, “The nation’s largest power region may need to spend up to $3.2 billion upgrading its grid over the next 14 years to accommodate an influx of offshore wind projects, according to a first-of-its-kind analysis. Released last week by PJM Interconnection LLC, the analysis is the first to estimate the cost of maintaining reliable power across the region as offshore wind develops along the East Coast. Although no offshore wind farms have been built in the region, Maryland, Virginia and Delaware have goals to develop a combined 14,268 megawatts of offshore wind over the next nine to 14 years. PJM, which includes all or part of 13 states and the District of Columbia, modeled the cost of transmission upgrades for five different scenarios. The scenarios made various assumptions about how much generation would be built and where projects would connect to the grid. In the first scenario, which extended through 2027, transmission upgrades would cost an estimated $627 million. In the other scenarios, which extended through 2035, upgrade costs would range between $2.1 billion and $3.2 billion, according to the analysis. ‘The study does not commit any state to any transmission upgrade,’ the report says, ‘but rather it serves as an opportunity to identify what a potential set of coordinated transmission solutions could be and to help inform state policymakers as they advance their current and any future offshore wind endeavors.’” [Politico, 10/25/21 (=)]

 

Offshore Wind Industry Leaders Ask Congress To Back Long-Term Plans To Increase Production. According to NC Policy Watch, “The Biden administration is making a significant push for new offshore wind development to meet ambitious climate goals, but industry leaders say they also need long-term commitments and support from Congress to reach their potential. Leaders of the burgeoning U.S. offshore wind industry called on Congress to invest in renewables at a hearing of a House Energy and Commerce Committee panel Thursday. The hearing comes as the Biden administration aims to ramp up offshore wind development from pilot projects to a viable power source. It is an opportunity for Democrats to address two major goals: reducing carbon emissions and creating jobs. The Biden administration set an ambitious goal earlier this year to generate 30 gigawatts of offshore wind power by the end of the decade, enough to power more than 10 million homes and cut 78 million metric tons of carbon dioxide emissions. That’s roughly the carbon equivalent of taking 17 million cars off the road for a year.” [NC Policy Watch, 10/22/21 (=)]

 

The New Offshore Wind Seascape. According to Axios, “Global offshore wind heavyweight Ørsted already sees a regulatory sea-change (sorry!) under President Biden, but also says Congress has an important role to play, Ben writes. Why it matters: A number of companies are planning to build what will be the first large-scale U.S. offshore projects. Ørsted, the global market leader, has a big project pipeline with four gigawatts of projects planned off New York, New Jersey and other Atlantic states throughout this decade. What they’re saying: David Hardy, CEO of Ørsted Offshore North America, sat down with Axios after testifying Thursday in Congress. They’re making up for lost time in the lengthy regulatory process. ‘The biggest short-term challenges are that these projects were delayed under the previous administration. And so we’re trying to kind of make up for lost time. And now under this administration, we get we’re getting quite a bit of positive support.’ He said there was ‘very little progress’ in permitting in the Trump era.” [Axios, 10/21/21 (=)]

 

Floating Offshore Wind Turbines Could Bring New Power To Maine. According to WCSH-TV, “On Oct. 1st, the Governor’s Energy Office (GEO) submitted an application to the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM) to lease federal ocean waters to be used for floating offshore wind research. The GEO asked for a 15.2-square-mile offshore area in the Gulf of Maine. If approved, this would be the country’s first floating offshore wind research site located in federal waters. Habib Dagher, Ph.D., executive director for the Advanced Structures and Composites Center at the University of Maine, said their plan is to first build a single turbine off Monhegan Island by 2024. That turbine would be the only one allowed in Maine’s state waters, according to a bill signed by Governor Mills in July. The bill prevents new offshore wind turbines to be deployed in state waters, which is within 3 miles of the coastline. Once that turbine is installed and tested, the next step involves launching the Maine Research Array, or the application just submitted by the Governor’s Energy Office. This project, if approved, would deploy no more than 12 floating wind turbines developed and created at the University of Maine’s Alfond W2 Ocean Engineering Lab. The lab features a wave basin and wind machine that simulates powerful and severe storms. It allows researchers at the university to test how these wind turbines would fair in ocean waters in various conditions. If approved, these floating wind turbines would be installed at least 28 miles off the nearest mainland point of Cape Small in Sagadahoc County, 23 miles south of Monhegan Island, and 45 miles off the coast of Portland.” [WCSH-TV, 10/22/21 (=)]

 

Southcoast Lawmakers Respond To Gov. Baker's Offshore Wind Bill. According to The Standard-Times, “SouthCoast lawmakers say a bill proposed by Gov. Charlie Baker would establish Massachusetts as a leader in the wind energy sector and would be the largest investment in clean energy ever made by the commonwealth. The offshore wind price cap will be removed and Massachusetts will invest $750 million from the American Rescue Plan Act into the commonwealth’s clean energy industry, according to Baker’s recent proposal. The wind price cap debate has been going on since 2016, and while it was recognized that wind energy was the way to go, the governor wanted to do so with the stipulation of a specified price, according to Rep. Chris Hendricks, D-New Bedford. ‘It was a short-sighted thing to be concerned about,’ Hendricks said. ‘There wasn’t much demand for it so the price wasn’t going to be low, but over time the price did go down.’ Massachusetts clung to low energy prices at the expense of missing out on invested economic development from wind companies, according to Rep. Patricia Haddad, D-Somerset. Other states such as New York, New Jersey, Connecticut and Rhode Island took to higher prices to get companies to invest. ‘Yes, the developers have offices in Boston, but the real job-creating parts of offshore wind have gone to New York and New Jersey,’ Haddad said. ‘New York has made it clear that [investment] is part of the process. They’ve all realized that regardless they are going to get a low price because wind is just getting cheap, though wind itself is free.’” [The Standard-Times, 10/23/21 (=)]

 

Fisheries & Marine Life

 

SC’s Seafood Capital Is Thriving. But Things Could Change If Village’s Marshes Drown. According to News And Observer, “The marsh at Murrells Inlet is among the most endangered from sea level rise in South Carolina. Ringed by bulkheads, creek houses, docks and restaurants, Murrells Inlet’s marsh is at risk of drowning, converting from a verdant wetland of spartina grasses to an open bay filled with mudflats. If seas rise by four feet in the next 80 years, as some scientific forecasts show, it could kill the marsh grasses that hold the wetlands together, a change that could damage the tourism economy, upset the balance of nature and leave the mainland more vulnerable to hurricane-driven storm surges. Some of the loss of salt marsh at Murrells Inlet should become evident in the next 20 to 30 years if the ocean continues to swell as expected, according to a sea-level rise forecast system maintained by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. ‘Murrells Inlet will become an open water basin at some point because those marshes will drown with accelerated sea level rise,’ said Erik Smith, a scientist who studies salt marshes at the University of South Carolina’s Baruch Marine Laboratory.. Researchers at NOAA say the marshes at Murrells Inlet, and nearby Pawleys Island, are the least resilient to sea level rise -- the ability to fend off increasing ocean levels -- of any in South Carolina.” [News And Observer, 10/24/21 (+)]

 

Sea-Level Rise

 

A Million Acres Of ‘Priceless’ Marshes Protect NC, SC, GA. Will They Perish In Rising Tides? According to News And Observer, “Fins surfaced in the tidal creek, drawing Matt Wright’s attention away from the boat in the growing dusk. The 48-year-old Illinois resident was on his first tour of a salt marsh when dolphins appeared around the vessel, gently swimming through the estuary as shadows advanced across the tideland. Brilliant green spartina grass stood in the marsh mud, contrasting sharply with the dark water. The red-orange sun sank lower on the horizon, refracting light through the tall grass. It’s a peaceful image Wright still can’t get out of his head, months after seeing the spectacular landscape that day in June. ‘People think that if you are looking for really beautiful scenery, you’ve got to go to the Rockies,’ Wright said. ‘But being out there in the creek and having the sunset cruise with all the scenery -- and all the wildlife, was a very memorable experience.’ Salt marshes like the one Wright visited are segments of the Carolinas and Georgia that many people find hard to forget. The briny wetlands provide food and shelter to marine life, fuel local economies, draw recreational anglers and commercial oystermen, and provide scenery that distinguishes them as unparalleled in the eastern United States. But these expanses of grass, which cover 1 million acres from the Outer Banks to north Florida, face danger from the earth’s changing climate and rising seas. Higher ocean levels threaten to erode marsh banks and kill tidal grasses.” [News And Observer, 10/24/21 (=)]

 

Ocean Health & Management

 

Huffman, Graves Reestablish Congressional Marine Sanctuary Caucus. According to Seafood Source, “In advance of next year’s golden anniversary for the National Marine Sanctuaries Act, two congressmen representing key fishery regions have joined forces to relaunch a bipartisan caucus to promote and continue protecting habitats crucial for coastal economies. U.S. Reps. Jared Huffman (D-California) and Garret Graves (R-Louisiana) will serve as co-chairs for the reestablished caucus, which according to the National Marine Sanctuary Foundation was first formed 15 years ago. The foundation noted that 30 members have already signed up to join the group. In a joint release, the caucus leaders said marine sanctuaries generate USD 8 billion in economic impact (EUR 6.9 billion). Besides fishing, sanctuaries also boost economies by attracting tourists, visitors enjoying recreational activities, and scientific research. ‘Just off Louisiana’s coast, the coral reefs and algal sponges of the Flower Garden Banks National Marine Sanctuary demonstrate how marine conservation can support these activities,’ Graves said. ‘This caucus expands on these conservation efforts and is a great example of how an additional educational opportunity can lead to tourists and anglers getting more opportunities to enjoy fishing in south Louisiana.’ According to NOAA, there are 13 freshwater and saltwater national marine sanctuaries, created through a processes established under the 1972 Sanctuaries Act. The Office of National Marine Sanctuaries has oversight over more than 600,000 square miles of protected area located off both coasts and in the Great Lakes.” [Seafood Source, 10/22/21 (=)]

 

 

Please do not respond to this email.

If you have questions or comments please contact mitch@beehivedc.com