Category Archives: Offshore

Groups that rallied coastal residents last year to stop offshore drilling will hold another rally Aug. 7.

This time, they're pushing for Gov. Henry McMaster to do what he can to block the reopening of the state's coast to seismic testing and drilling for oil and natural gas.

Don't Drill Lowcountry and Oceana's South Carolina chapter will host other conservation groups and Sen. Chip Campsen, R-Isle of Palms, at the informational update rally, which takes place 6 p.m. at the Yacht Club, Charleston Harbor Resort, 20 Patriots Point Road, Mount Pleasant.

It is free and open to anyone interested.

The federal government and Trump administration recently reopened the exhaustive process to decide whether to open areas offshore to leasing. The Obama administration had shut it down in late 2016.

"This is the point in the process that governors have a huge role. South Carolina has the potential to be removed if Gov. McMaster sends in a letter of opposition on the record," said Samantha Siegel of Oceana.

Five companies have filed permit requests to explore for oil and gas, and all of them want to explore at least part of the waters off South Carolina. The National Marine Fisheries Service in June issued the rules for how the tests would take place regarding the safety of marine mammals. Those rules are up for public comment.

The work must not conflict with the coastal zone management plans of individual states, according to federal law. South Carolina could stop it if the governor and his administrative agency, S.C. Department of Health and Environmental Control, made that call.

Seismic testing entails firing powerfully loud sonic guns underwater every 16 seconds to read echoes from the bottom geology. The tests take place over miles of ocean for months at a time. It is the first step to opening the areas for drilling, and can include drilling test wells.

Industry representatives say it's been done for a half-century without any demonstrated real world harm. Controlled studies have indicated it harms sea life as basic as vital zooplankton food organisms.

McMaster has tended to oppose the work, most recently telling a Beaufort County group in June he was against it. But McMaster also has broadly supported President Donald Trump, who favors both testing and drilling.

Reach Bo Petersen Reporter at Facebook, @bopete on Twitter or 1-843-937-5744.

Read more:

Groups rally to push South Carolina Gov. Henry McMaster on offshore drilling - Charleston Post Courier

In most industries, the presence of a healthy number of original equipment manufacturers (OEMs) can increase competition and cut costs. That may not hold true in offshore wind.

Because offshore wind cost reduction is heavily dependent on experience, it could be an advantage to only have a handful of OEMs, said Jonny Allen, underwriter at the renewable energy insurance firm GCube.

Weve seen a wide range of expertise being utilized for offshore wind, and thats produced a very stark contrast in performance, he said. For any new entrant to get into offshore successfully, the experience and balance sheet of contractors is going to be absolutely key."

Maximizing offshore wind plant profits is achieved by picking teams that already know the ropes, he said. In terms of OEM selection, that means eliminating from consideration companies beyond the top tier of turbine makers. As it is, there isnt much to choose from.

According to the European wind industry association WindEurope, at the end of 2016, just one OEM, Germanys Siemens Wind Power, accounted for nearly 69 percent of all offshore capacity, with almost 8.6 gigawatts of generation installed.

Trailing behind it were Denmarks MHI Vestas Offshore, with more than 2 gigawatts and 16 percent of the market; then Senvion of Germany, with 783 megawatts and just over 6 percent; and Adwen of Spain, with 660 megawatts and around 5 percent.

Three other OEMs, including GE Renewable Energy, offshore wind development pioneer BARD and former Finnish manufacturer WinWinD, accounted for a meager 4 percent of capacity, or 502 megawatts, between them.

It seems unlikely that other OEMs could now enter the market without having to charge a premium, putting them at a severe disadvantage.

At the same time, offshore wind developers are likely to put a dual emphasis on high quality and low costs as a way of meeting highly aggressive cost-reduction targets.

Experience is not just key when it comes to selecting OEMs. It's also important for project development teams, Allen said.

Poorly performing projects have been developed by companies that were either too small to have a well-rounded team, or too large to have a tight focus on offshore wind development, he said.

Skills and experience are extremely important for an insurance company like GCube, which provides cover for more than 30 gigawatts of wind generation worldwide. GCube actively tracks what happens to people who have worked on plants with suboptimal track records, Allen revealed.

Similarly, offshore wind farm performance tends to improve when the team that built the project remains on board to oversee its operations and maintenance.

Where weve seen issues is when one part of an organization builds a wind farm and then new personnel comes in, said Allen. Those companies that develop and continue to operate [the plant] tend to have better availability, and the performance of the asset is better.

There are two other factors that GCubeidentifies as important for success in offshore wind. One is spending time and money on site assessments and other planning activities.

In Europe, for example, some German projects had seen large development overruns after unexploded ordnances were discovered on the seabed during construction.

The other success factor is relying on outside support for the creation of a competitive supply chain.

Investment and support, especially from government and trade bodies, is key to giving developers efficient and economic access to the local supply chain, whether this be skills, resources or direct manufacturing, said Allen. China is a good example of this utilization, which could be replicated in other industrial powerhouses, such as France and India, both of which we will be closely monitoring in the coming years.

The rest is here:

Having Fewer Offshore Wind Equipment Manufacturers May Be a ... - Greentech Media

Jessica Clark looks into a man's mission to take advantage of the beautiful under water nature in Jacksonville.

Jessica Clark, WTLV 6:13 PM. EDT July 28, 2017

Joe Kistel (Photo: WTLV)

JACKSONVILLE, Fla. -- When people think about Jacksonville, most don'tthink about off-shore fishing and diving on reefs? Joe Kistelis on a mission to change that.

When he's not at a computer, he's often diving, running his reef non-profit organization called TISIRI, or shooting underwater video.

He is taking that video, shooting more of it, and is creating a marketing video campaign called UWJax, which stands for Underwater Jacksonville. "It's a web platform to create awareness for offshore Jacksonville opportunities," Kistel said.

He's talking about fishing and diving. The videos will pop up in search engines when people look for places in Florida to dive and fish. "We have an abundance of (marine life) here. We have unique life forms that you can only find here in Jax, and the average person is innocently ignorant of it," Kistel noted.

For instance, did you know there are all kinds of sponges here? There is also a WWII wreck that is teeming with wildlife. "Many of the videos will focus on particular reef sites," Kistel said.

Offshore diving and fishing is a multi-million dollar industry in Florida, "but I guarantee you right now that not much of that is going to Jacksonville," Kistel said.

Visit Jacksonville, the areas tourism agency, is getting behind the effort by supporting the UWJax online video campaign.

"For every percentage we can attract of the fisherman and divers, that's a direct benefit to Jacksonville because now we're getting a piece of the economic pie." Kistel said.

Kistelhopes getting more people underwater will also encourage them to protect the wildlife underwater.

"You always get a gee whiz feeling underwater and I want to share that gee whiz feeling with everybody."

2017 WTLV-TV

See the article here:

Online campaign to lure offshore divers and fisherman to Jacksonville - First Coast News

(Updated 07/27/17 7:15 PM ET)

Teekay Corporation (TK), Teekay Offshore (TOO), and Brookfield Business Partners (BBU) announced a $640 equity injection to Teekay Offshore from the other two. This should stabilize Teekay Offshore finances enough to relieve any anxiety about a potentially worse solution. On the other hand, the large equity investment in Teekay Offshore clearly demonstrates how dire the financial situation had become. If the lenders were willing to solve the problem, they would have long ago. The equity was needed to meet additional prepayment demands as well as start the order process for more shuttles. Clearly the lenders were not happy and were probably concerned before the large cash injection.

Teekay had about 150 million common units outstanding before the investment. The $640 million investment at $2.50 per share means that there will be another 256 million units issued. Brookfield will receive 244 million for their $610 million portion and Teekay will receive 12 million shares for its $30 million investment in Teekay Offshore. Another 65 million warrants distributed proportionately between Teekay Corporation and Brookfield brings the total shares outstanding to 471 million diluted shares outstanding. That is a lot of necessary dilution to clean up the mess that was created by the parent company.

Brookfield also will obtain a 49% interest in the general partner with an option to acquire another 2%. This is a huge vote of no confidence in the management abilities of the current general partner. If Brookfield has more faith in the general partner, then there would be no need to try and obtain control. In addition, Brookfield will also obtain 4 seats on the board. It is very clear that Brookfield will be actively involved in the management of Teekay Offshore Partners. What is interesting is that major shareholders chose to not get involved so far. So how this figures into the future will be interesting.

The lenders for their part wanted more cash to extend the loan mandatory prepayment of the Arendal Spirit about a year to September 30, 2018. This gives Teekay Offshore more time to find a suitable contract for this ship. In fact, Teekay Offshore Partners now has the additional cash to handle the cost overruns without additional loans from the lenders. In the future, Teekay Offshore is going to be run a little more conservatively with a cash cushion. Also expect Brookfield to review current profit margins by ship and find ways to improve those margins.

Investors will have to wait and see if the additional upfront cash becomes required throughout the corporation. Clearly, Teekay Corporation nearly let things get almost beyond fixable. The usual penalty for that is either more interest, larger down payments, or both in the future.

Teekay Corporation was also the beneficiary of some of the investment process. The parent company sold $200 million inter-company loans to Brookfield for $140 million and received 11.4 million warrants that went to Brookfield. The whole transaction relieves Teekay Corporation of a lot of liability and allows the corporation to concentrate on its future. The parent corporation got off much better than it deserved.

However, Teekay Corporation appears likely to lose control of Teekay Offshore Partners. That in itself is a significant "slap in the face". The distress sale of the bonds will result in a $60 million charge. It is clearly a distressed sale within the meaning of the financial ratings companies. So the exchange may have some future financing implications for the Teekay Corporation and its entities. Teekay Corporation did receive a much needed cash injection from this transaction. But for the time being, the parent company is still cash flow negative until that bright future arrives. As shown by the $30 million investment in Teekay Offshore, clearly the parent company could not rescue Teekay Offshore by itself.

But this could have been far worse for Teekay Corporation. Letting debt problems go as long as they did is very dangerous. Now if that promised future from the other subsidiaries is still available, then all this may become a bad memory down the road. But if management slips up again, then Brookfield is in a very good position to take another bite. Brookfield obviously sees some assets and a future that it likes. The big question for shareholders will be if they get to share in that future with an investor like Brookfield around. Now that Brookfield has warrants, it may attempt to acquire Teekay Parent company at some point.

Teekay Offshore Partners will probably have a solid and much less risky future with the Brookfield involvement. An actual acquisition of the 2% to obtain control of the general partner would probably be greeted as a positive event by the market. The common distribution was reduced. Two classes of preferred will be redeemed and retired. The other two classes will receive cash dividends and are probably much safer investments than they were before. But the future of the common units is much better than it was. A company such as Brookfield generally knows how to use leverage for decent gains. So when the dust clears, all the refinancing is complete, and all the facts become known, the Teekay Offshore units will probably be worth a look.

Disclaimer: I am not a registered investment advisor and this article is not advice to buy or sell stock in any company. The investor needs to do his own independent investigation that includes reading the company governmental filings and press releases, as well as anything else relevant to determining if this company fits the investor's risk profile.

Disclosure: I/we have no positions in any stocks mentioned, and no plans to initiate any positions within the next 72 hours.

I wrote this article myself, and it expresses my own opinions. I am not receiving compensation for it (other than from Seeking Alpha). I have no business relationship with any company whose stock is mentioned in this article.

Original post:

Teekay Offshore Dodges A Bullet - Seeking Alpha

By Coastal Review Online staff

A majority of North Carolina residents are concerned about the federal governments plan to begin drilling for oil and natural gas off the states coast and the risks it poses to the environment and the economy, according to a new poll.

Public Policy Polling conducted the survey July 21-23, in the days following Gov. Roy Coopers announcement June 20 of his plan to oppose offshore drilling expansion along the Atlantic coast. PPP conducted the survey on behalf of the Natural Resources Defense Council and released the results Thursday.

According to the results, seven out of 10 North Carolinians are either very concerned, 51 percent, or somewhat concerned, 19 percent, about offshore drilling off the coast of North Carolina.

Also, 56 percent of residents surveyed are very concerned and another 16 percent are somewhat concerned about the risk of an oil spill.

More than three-quarters of those surveyed, or 77 percent, said the tourism-related economic downturn from an oil spill on North Carolina beaches would be harmful, including 58 percent who say it would be very harmful.

See the article here:

Poll: NC residents worry about offshore drilling :: WRAL.com - WRAL.com

Earlier this week, it was widely reported that the worlds first floating windfarm is currently being installed off the coast of Peterhead in Scotland.

Statoil, which is developing the pilot Hywind windfarm, says the project aims to demonstrate the feasibility of future commercial, utility-scale floating windfarms.

Floating windfarms could have a number of advantages over conventional offshore windfarms. They can be placed in deeper waters where the wind is stronger and less variable. The turbines can be fully assembled close to shore before being towed out to sea and they could have less impact on wildlife than other types of wind turbine.

But with the technology still in its infancy and the costs relatively high, the question remains when, or if, they will be able to compete against fixed offshore wind turbines or other sources of energy.

Carbon Brief takes a look at the status of floating windfarms and their potential to provide renewable energy in the future.

Just as oil and gas started with easier-to-access onshore developments, before moving to near offshore and, finally, to deeper locations, floating turbines represent a next phase in the location of wind turbines.

A floating wind turbine mounts a standard offshore model on a floating structure, rather than the fixed-bottom towers typically used for conventional offshore schemes. This allows floating windfarms to be located in depths far greater than the 50m-or-so limit of conventional offshore wind.

There are three dominant designs for floating wind structures: spar, tension leg platform (TLP), and semi-submersible, shown left to right in the image below.

Spar, tension leg platform, and semi-submersible floating wind turbines. Image courtesy of ORE Catapult.

Each of these turbines gain their stability in different ways.

Spar-buoys rely on having the centre of gravity lower in the water than the centre of buoyancy. This is done by adding a heavy weight to the lower part of the structure.

Tension leg platforms currently, the least advanced design are anchored to the seabed and stabilised using tensioned mooring lines.

Semi-submersible platforms meanwhile are stabilised by buoyancy. They have 3-5 cylindrical platforms connected by tubes and float half submerged on the surface of the ocean whilst anchored to the seabed with mooring lines.

Rhodri James, a manager in Carbon Trusts policy and innovation team, says these designs have been adapted from oil and gas technologies. He tells Carbon Brief:

The key difference is that, whereas oil and gas consists of a small number of very large platforms, floating offshore wind requires a larger number of smaller platforms.

(Its worth noting the relative use of the word small here. The structures used for floating turbines still reach up to around 3,000 tonnes for steel designs and roughly 12,000 tonnes for concrete designs.)

The wind turbines used for floating windfarms are nearly identical to fixed-bottom structures.

The promise of floating offshore wind turbines lies in their ability to be tethered in deep waters of 50-1,000 metres. These are not suitable for conventional fixed-turbine offshore wind structures, which are constrained to water depths of less than 50 or 60 metres because of the need to embed foundations in the sea floor.

Therefore, they open up areas of sea not previously suitable for offshore wind power, including areas where the continental shelf drops off too fast for fixed turbines to be viable, such as off the US west coast, Japan and, in this case, Aberdeen.

According to a 2015 review by the Carbon Trust, floating turbines could become increasingly important as the world exhausts the low hanging fruit of shallow near-shore sites and moves outwards from the coast.

The deeper waters where floating wind turbines can be located also have higher average wind speeds than closer to shore. This could lead to floating windfarms producing more electricity per gigawatt (GW) of installed capacity, increasing revenues. Higher capacity factors could also benefit onshore transmission networks by reducing variability.

They can also be almost completely put together close to shore before being towed out to their destination by simple, low-cost ships. This avoids the need to use expensive, heavy vessels to construct the wind turbines out at sea on top of permanent foundations.

The five turbines of the Scottish Hywind project, for instance, have been assembled in Norway and are in the process of being towed to the Scottish coast off Peterhead. This mobility could also be an advantage for heavy maintenance operations, where the turbines could be towed back to port.

Watch video!

Finally, their location further out to sea could offer a remedy for some public opposition to windfarms. Visually they would be even less prominent, while, according to RSPB, they could also be less harmful to birds than farms placed closer to the coast and, thus, seabird nesting sites.

In addition, they avoid the need to pile-drive a large foundation into the seabed, as well as lengthy offshore construction activity, both of which can be temporarily disruptive to sea life, including whales and birds.

Aside from the cost due to being a nascent technology (see below), there are several technical challenges floating windfarms are faced with.

The floating nature of the turbines themselves could pose some problems. Bobbing of the turbine about on the water could reduce its capture of wind energy and risk damaging windmill components. However, this is not believed to be a major challenge since tools have been designed to mitigated it by making alterations to the turbine control system.

However, several bespoke elements will need to be developed before they are used at large scale. These include dynamic electrical cables, mooring and anchoring systems, and floating substations.

According to James, while these are not necessarily going to be showstoppers, they will still require further research and development before large scale deployment can be achieved.

As a young technology not yet commercially deployed, the costs of floating wind currently remain high. Early projects will need to be subsidised, meaning the rate of progression will depend to a large extent on political support. (Its worth noting that the Hywind pilot is currently heavily subsidised by the Scottish government.)

If this support is given, costs are expected by several experts to fall in line with conventional offshore wind, as designs are optimised and the technology is deployed at scale.

A 2015 Energy Technologies Institute (ETI) report found that large-scale floating windfarms could deliver a levelised cost of electricity of around 85 per megawatt hour (MWh) by the mid 2020s.

The Carbon Trust study similarly concluded leading floating wind concepts could reach a levelised cost of electricity of 85-95/MWh in large-scale commercial projects in the 2020s, with further innovation potentially seeing costs fall still further.

For comparison, the Hinkley Point strike price was set at 92.50 MWh in 2012 prices, a figure that is index linked so will rise with inflation over its 35-year contract.

Meanwhile, in the UKs 2015 Contracts for Difference (CfD) auction, offshore winds status as a less established technology meant it was granted the higher-than-average strike price of 117/MWh in 2012 prices, also index linked.

Its worth noting that conventional offshore wind costs are also rapidly falling, however. A 2017 Dong Energy report found offshore wind projects in the UK fell to an average of 97/MWh during 2015-16. The results of the forthcoming auction for additional UK offshore wind capacity are widely expected to deliver costs below 85/MWh, beating a 2026 cost target set by the government by nine years.

James argues floating wind could be competitive with other energy technologies within the next decade if it is deployed at scale, particularly in markets with high energy demand in coastal areas with deep continental shelves.

Comparing conventional and floating windfarms, while the cost of the substructures for floating turbines the spar buoy, for example will likely remain higher than for fixed foundations, this may be negated to some extent by the advantages of floating windfarms listed above.

The IEA has said the cost of floating turbines today is the same as fixed-bottom ones a decade ago.

Aasta Hansteen substructure upending. Credit: Espen Rnnevik og Roar Lindefjeld/Statoil.

Any attempts to estimate the costs of future commercial projects will inevitably contain a great deal of uncertainty, since the technology is still in its infancy with few demonstrations actually in the water. Peter Stansby, professor of hydrodynamics at Manchester University, tells Carbon Brief:

These figures are always quoted as improvements. Its very hard nobody I dont think predicted that [the cost of] fixed structure, monopile offshore wind platforms would actually drop the way they have. So its like putting your finger in the wind.

According to an article published last month by researchers from Offshore Renewable Energy Catapult in WindTECH International, once floating wind technology matures, the cost of substructures is the only area where cost or risk will lag materially behind monopiles.

Statoil, the developers of the Hywind pilot project currently being installed off the coast of Peterhead, claims it is the worlds first commercial floating windfarm.

The 30 megawatt (MW) farm will be powered by five giant turbines made by Siemens Gamesa, distributed across around four square kilometres. These will be placed in an area of sea 25 km offshore from Peterhead with a depth of between 95 and 120 metres.

For now, just one of the turbines has been moved to Scotland, with the rest expected to be in place by the end of August. Generation is expected to begin later this year.

The 253m-tall turbines are of the spar-buoy design (see above), with 175m above the water and 78m below. According to a BBC article, Statoil claims the blades harness breakthrough software which holds the tower upright by twisting the blades to dampen motions from wind, waves and currents.

Infographic: How Hywind offshore windfarm compares to other tall landmarks. Credit: Statoil.

The 190m pilot windfarm follows six years of testing by Statoil of a 2.3MW Hywind prototype installed off the island of Karmy in Norway in 2009. During this time, Statoils design optimisation allowed it to tripled the power output of the turbine.

Statoil says the project aims to show cost efficiency and feasibility of multiple floating wind turbines in a region with optimal wind conditions, with its end goal being large scale floating offshore wind parks of 500-1,000MW. James says:

Hywind Scotland is a major step forward to the industry as it will demonstrate the technology in an array layout for the first time (as opposed to the single prototype demonstrations to date). This will deliver important learnings in the construction and installation of multiple units and the interactions between turbines in a single windfarm.

Hywind is subsidised under the UKs Renewable Obligation Certificate (ROC) scheme, through which it will receive160/MWh on top of the wholesale price of electricity (currently around 40/MWh). Statoil claims the costs of projects such as Hywind can be reduced by 40-50% by 2030. This could bring the cost down to around 100/MWh, similar to conventional offshore today. Given conventional offshore wind costs are also expected to fall, Statoils floating turbines would therefore remain more costly.

Its worth noting that despite their generally favourable outlook on floating windfarms, the RSPB was opposed to the Hywind project as it is concerned that too many offshore turbines in the area have already been approved.

Research and development into floating offshore wind turbines has been going on for around a decade, with a range of studies, prototypes and pilots tested in the UK and further afield.

According to the Carbon Trust, there are over 30 concepts currently under development, although only five have been demonstrated at full scale in an offshore environment.

US firm Principle Power installed a prototype of its WindFloat semi-submersible design in Portugal in 2011 and plans to mount pilots in Portugal in 2019 and France in 2020/21. SBM Offshore, meanwhile, aims to install a pilot farm of its tension-leg platform design in France in 2020/21.

While a nascent technology, floating offshore windfarms could open up areas of deeper sea not previously suitable for wind energy and show promise of some advantages over conventional offshore wind.

In 2013, the EWEA said the energy produced from turbines in deep waters in the North Sea alone could meet the EUs electricity consumption four times over. (The variable output of wind means this would only be true across a full year, with other sources needed to fill in when the wind doesnt blow).

Meanwhile, Scotlands considerable natural wind resources, along with its well-developed supply chain and infrastructure developed for the offshore oil and gas sector, offer potential as a market for floating wind technology.

This could also open up further markets for the UK: another Carbon Trust paper, published in 2014, said Europes more developed offshore wind industry could be leveraged to speed up deployment in Japan, highlighting floating wind as a key area.

According to James, current market signals suggest that the first large-scale floating windfarms could be installed by 2025. This could pave the way for considerable growth over the coming decades, he says.

The development of floating wind could see wind power expanded to areas in the northern part of the North Sea, the Mediterranean and Atlantic coastlines of Western Europe, as well as locations outside Europe with deep continental shelves, such as parts of Japan, Taiwan, South Korea and the US.

This story was updated on 28/7/2017 to include the cost of the subsidy Hywind will receive under the ROC.

Sharelines from this story

Read the rest here:

Q&A: How viable are floating offshore windfarms? | Carbon Brief - Carbon Brief

On April 28, President Donald Trump signed an executive order that overturned restrictions on offshore drilling and seismic testing (blasting) in several bodies of water in the U.S. including middle and southern parts of the Atlantic Ocean.

Those who may not know much about dangers and concerns regarding offshore oil and gas drilling and seismic testing in the Atlantic will soon get the chance to learn about them at a community forum in Carolina Forest.

The program will be hosted by the group Stop Offshore Drilling in the Atlantic (SODA), a local group originally based out of Georgetown County but that has since expanded to Charleston and Horry counties.

The nonprofit grassroots organization is comprised solely of volunteers with its mission, as its name suggests, to prevent offshore seismic testing and drilling for oil and gas along the Atlantic coast.

The event, the organizations first in Carolina Forest, is part of a series of forums centering on educating local residents on those subjects as well as providing updates on SODA.

The forum will be held on Aug. 1 at 7 p.m. at the Carolina Forest Recreation Center located on Carolina Forest Boulevard.

Speaking at the event will be SODA leader and Georgetown County resident Peg Howell, a former petroleum engineer, who will educate attendees, speak on the status of SODAs resistance against the federal government and talk about how they can join the fight against offshore drilling.

Howell recently spoke out against offshore drilling and seismic testing in the Atlantic and President Trumps executive order before the U.S. House Subcommittee on Energy and Mineral Resources in Washington, D.C.

Looking at the entire Atlantic coast economy, nearly 1.4 million jobs and over $95 billion in gross domestic product rely on a healthy coast and ecosystem, mainly through fishing, tourism and recreation, Howell told the subcommittee during her testimony.

It is not in the economic interest of the state of South Carolina or its residents to support drilling in the Atlantic.

Members of SODA have said that some of the issues concerning offshore drilling for oil and gas and seismic blasting deal with endangering marine life and spills like the BP oil spill that happened in 2010.

We always say, where you drill, theres a spill, SODA spokesperson Joan Furlong of Myrtle Beach said.

Furlong recently spoke to Horry County Council at their meeting on July 11. She encouraged Council Chairman Mark Lazarus to draft a letter to the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM) in opposition to offshore drilling in the Atlantic during their public comment period.

I dont have to tell you how devastating one oil spill would be, Furlong told Lazarus, to our beaches, to our fisheries and our thriving tourist economy.

Lazarus agreed to send a letter to BOEM with assistance from the councils attorney, as well as draft a resolution that would oppose offshore drilling and seismic testing that will have a reading when council reconvenes in August.

We wouldnt want to be in support of something that could affect our [fishing] and tourism economies, Lazarus said.

Furlong said SODA members were thrilled with Lazarus reply and feels the support from S.C. officials including Governor Henry McMaster and U.S. congressmen Mark Sanford, Tom Rice, and Jim Clyburn, all of whom represent South Carolina, has been nearly unanimous.

Were very excited that council has taken this position and has stepped up to the plate, Furlong said. Chairman Lazarus has been very responsive.

The cities of Myrtle Beach and North Myrtle Beach have already passed resolutions opposing offshore drilling and seismic testing, joining over 100 other S.C. municipalities and councils.

Here is the original post:

Group resisting offshore drilling and seismic testing in Atlantic hosting community forum in Carolina Forest - Myhorrynews

Why would Congressman Andy Harris (R-MD1) want to stand in the way of bringing clean, renewable offshore wind power to his home state of Maryland by trying to stop two projects that would create nearly 10,000 good jobs and revitalize Marylands ports? This is the question that Maryland citizens should be asking after Rep. Harris inserted an amendment into the 2018 House Interior-EPA spending package last week that would imperil the first two offshore wind projects that Maryland has approved.

Deepwater Wind

With the support of Republican Governor Larry Hogan, Maryland is moving ahead with an ambitious offshore wind program. In May, after a lengthy review process that offered a wide range of opportunities for public participation, the Maryland Public Service Commission (PSC) gave the green light to two offshore wind projects to be located in federal waters off the Maryland and Delaware coasts. Environmentalists and many in Marylands business and labor communities have been big boosters.

The projects are being developed by two separate companies: U.S. Wind and Deepwater Wind. U.S. Wind plans a 248-megawatt project to be located at least 17 miles east of Ocean City, Maryland. Deepwaters project would include 15 turbines and would be sited at least 19.5 miles from shore and 26 miles from the Ocean City Pier. Both projects will be subject to the federal governments Bureau of Ocean Energy Management permitting and environmental review process. Together, they can generate enough renewable electricity to power more than 100,000 homes and can create almost 9,700 Maryland jobs. They can add $74 million in tax revenue over the next 20 years, will result in more than $1.8 billion in in-state investment, and will help make the areas electric supply more reliable and resilient. As part of a package of conditions required by the Maryland PSC, U.S. Wind and Deepwater have also agreed to: (1) use port facilities in the Baltimore region and in Ocean City for construction, operations and maintenance; (2) a joint investment of at least $76 million in a steel fabrication plant in Maryland; and, (3) finance almost $40 million in upgrades to the Tradepoint Atlantic Shipyard in Baltimore County.

By jumpstarting offshore wind power in Maryland, these projects can help the state earn the important first-mover advantage in the growing offshore wind power industry that is now gaining traction along the East Coast. Last December, off Rhode Island, the nations first offshore wind power project came online, the Block Island Wind Farm. In Massachusetts, Republican Governor Charlie Baker has signed legislation that will bring 1,600 megawatts of offshore wind power to the Bay State by 2027. New York State plans to get 2,400 megawatts by 2030enough to power 1.25 million homes. And Virginia is involved, too, with utility Dominion Energy Virginia two weeks ago announcing a plan to build a 12-megawatt project in nearby federal waters. Whichever state moves fastest and furthest in attracting the needed port and supply facilities will also be the first to reap the benefits from an industry that can employ as many as 160,000 by 2050, the U.S. Department of Energy estimates.

Rep. Harris rider would stop the use of federal funding for reviewing site assessments or construction plans for turbines located within 24 nautical miles of the Maryland shoreline. This would imperil at least one, if not both, of these projects. Harris maintains that the projects could impact tourists enjoyment of the beaches in Ocean City, Maryland. Thats hard to credit. Both projects will be located so far from shore that they will be hard to see under most conditions. And the Deepwater project, 26 miles northeast of Ocean City, will barely be visible, if at all. The Maryland Public Service Commission has already required U.S. Wind, the developer of the larger project, to locate its turbines as far away from shore as possible and has required that each developer to use the best available technology to lessen views of the wind turbines by beach-goers and residents, both during the day and at night. Any remaining concerns about visibility can be addressed as part of the upcoming federal environmental review and permitting process.

Maryland has crafted a well-thought-out, bipartisan plan to advance offshore wind responsibly, a plan the Harris amendment now endangers. But the harm from the amendment, if it becomes law, could be broader and impact the U.S. offshore wind industry as a whole by disrupting investor confidence. That would be a grave mistake. Both Republican and Democratic governors want to move forward with offshore wind power, as does U.S. Department of the Interior Secretary Zinke, who has called offshore wind one tool in the all-of-the-above energy toolbox that will help power America with domestic energy, securing energy independence, and bolstering the economy. Under Secretary Zinkes watch, the federal government moved ahead this year with awarding offshore wind leases in the waters off North Carolina.

An irrational, last-minute amendment in a little-discussed appropriations bill shouldnt stand in the way of the development of a major new source of American-made renewable energy, renewable energy that has a promising level of bipartisan support. Neither should this amendment jeopardize the infrastructure jobs that offshore wind power can create. Congress should ensure that Harris damaging amendment does not become law.

Director, Energy & Transportation program

See the article here:

How Congress Can Protect Maryland's Offshore Wind Projects - Natural Resources Defense Council

The Santa Barbara City Council approved a resolution Tuesday opposing new drilling off the California coast and fracking in existing offshore oil and gas wells. The resolution is the first in a new statewide campaign to rally local governments against proposals to expand offshore fossil fuel extraction in federal waters.

The votewhich makes Santa Barbara the first California city to oppose both fracking and new offshore drillingfollows President Trump's April 28 executive order urging federal agencies to expand oil and gas leasing in federal waters. The order could expose the Pacific Ocean to new oil leasing for the first time in more than 30 years.

"I'm thrilled to be part of this community effort to protect natural resources, the water supply and community health," said Santa Barbara City Council member Jason Dominguez, who sponsored the resolution. "At the same time, we can improve our economy, develop green markets, and bring quality jobs and living wages to the area."

Today's resolution, cosponsored by Dominguez and Santa Barbara City Council member Harwood "Bendy" White, is supported by more than 20 local businesses, the Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen's Associations, Wishtoyo Chumash Foundation and several environmental organizations, including the Center for Biological Diversity and Food & Water Watch. The groups are working with other California cities to pass similar resolutions.

"The last thing Californians want is more drilling and fracking off our coast," said Blake Kopcho, an organizer with the Center for Biological Diversity's oceans program. "Santa Barbara took a stand because the city has seen the horrific damage offshore drilling can cause. Trump is delusional if he thinks we'll stand idly by and let him recklessly endanger wildlife and our communities with oil spills and toxic fracking chemicals."

The Santa Barbara Channel has some of richest biological diversity on the planet, along with significant fossil fuel deposits and dozens of oil and gas wells. A massive offshore oil spill in 1969 helped create the modern environmental movement and led California to ban new offshore leasing in state waters. In 2015 the Plains All American oil spill covered Santa Barbara area beaches and killed hundreds of seabirds and marine mammals.

"Santa Barbara residents know firsthand the devastation that can come from offshore drilling," said Alena Simon of Food & Water Watch. "This City Council resolution is the first step in shutting down all drilling and fracking off our coast and another step in transitioning to a 100 percent renewable energy economy."

The Santa Barbara resolution calls for:

The last offshore lease in federal waters off California was granted in 1984, but Trump's order seeks to renew the leasing program. There are more than 30 offshore drilling platforms and hundreds of miles of underwater oil and gas pipelines off California's coast. Operators want permits to frack offshore wells using chemicals that are toxic to wildlife. Separate lawsuits filed by the state of California and the Center for Biological Diversity challenging the federal government's approval of offshore fracking are pending in federal district court.

Read the original here:

Santa Barbara Becomes First California City to Pass Resolution Against Offshore Oil and Gas Drilling - EcoWatch

I have been following with strong interest recent articles about Teekay Corporation (TK) and Teekay Offshore Partners, LP (TOO), especially the deep concerns that TOO will somehow not be able to refinance upcoming maturities and even hints of a possible bankruptcy. Since I follow these names as part of my active management in fixed income issues, I have looked closely at the TOO situation, and I believe that TOO is virtually certain to take care of upcoming maturities, assuming no major meltdown in the overall credit markets. I offer my views as a former commercial banker directly involved in originating, negotiating and executing, as the lead banker, well over a billion dollars in credit facilities for companies ranging from middle market to publicly-traded large corporate. My former professional work as a banker was admittedly not in the shipping industry, which usually is handled by specialized groups, but the fundamental credit analysis cuts across most industries. Listed below are the reasons why TOO is very likely to obtain the necessary financings/refinancings and/or amendments to its various credit facilities:

In conclusion, there is really little to indicate that TOO is somehow facing a major liquidity crisis or worse, some kind of bankruptcy event. The loss of the Arendal Spirit UMS contract appears overblown. Companies lose business representing 5% of their cash flow all the time, it's hardly a crisis. $120 million of debt is small relative to the company size. A quick scan of financial performance shows that operations are normal. Cash flow from operations and after cap-ex is nicely positive in Q1-17 (and for all of 2016 as well) and CVFO has shown stability, especially in the core segments. The outlook is positive with contracted projects expected to grow CVFO by 35%, including a $1 billion project coming on line now under a 12-year contract (Libra FPSO). To assess the likelihood of refinancing, put yourself in the shoes of the banker: there is little incentive to put unnecessary pressure on TOO and its parent, TK. There is certainly enough good news on the horizon to work constructively with the company. The broader Teekay entity is a cash cow for the banks, and as long as leverage is within normal range and operations show stability and growth potential, the banks will amend & extend.

Where is the risk? The key risk I see is that since TOO is highly leveraged there is little cushion for future bad outcomes. A major credit crisis would be the biggest near-term threat to TOO. In credit crises, typical bank behavior, like what I outlined above, is abandoned, and fear takes over. When fear takes over, banks are willing to accept irrational losses, just to "get out." Upper management effectively shuts down operations and removes any flexibility bankers have to work with companies in amending credit facilities or closing new business (I have personally experienced this). These actions are usually short sighted, but it happens. Banks tend to act like a herd, and this has ripple effects across the credit industry. Another oil crash could also force some lenders to cut back on oil exposure (especially if leverage starts to tick up due to declines in EBITDA), even if not a rational move.

While I do believe that assuming a normal credit market environment TOO will be able to refinance, banks will certainly use any excuse to charge higher fees and higher rates, and perhaps force other actions, like an equity raise or dividend cut. There may be a negative impact to common shareholders if refinancing rates are high, a secondary offering or a preferred offering is required, or a JV or asset sale is completed at a discounted value. High leverage by definition means less cushion to withstand adversity and volatile equity valuations, and I do not recommend the stock of TOO for these reasons. But I also consider it extremely likely that TOO solves upcoming maturities, assuming normally functioning credit markets.

Author's note: Please consider Downtown Investment Advisory's subscription service through Seeking Alpha, The High Yield Bond Investor. The newsletter offers deep analysis of three recommendations per month, focused on yields in the 6-8% range, with maturities of four to seven years, for the buy-and-hold investor, as well as regular exclusive insights on High Yield Bonds and related investments such as Exchange Traded Debt, Preferred Stock and Closed End Funds. We seek to uncover undervalued and "off the radar" opportunities. I offer my 20 years of professional expertise in credit and high yield to subscribers. Read subscriber reviews here. Please see our profile page for important disclaimers.

Disclosure: I/we have no positions in any stocks mentioned, and no plans to initiate any positions within the next 72 hours.

I wrote this article myself, and it expresses my own opinions. I am not receiving compensation for it (other than from Seeking Alpha). I have no business relationship with any company whose stock is mentioned in this article.

Read the original post:

Teekay Offshore - Refinancing Risks Appear Overblown - Seeking Alpha