Category Archives: Offshore

BERKELEY, Calif. A federal district court judge ruled today in favor of a coalition of individuals and environmental groups and ordered the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to update its decades-old regulations on the use of toxic chemical dispersants in oil spill responses.

The lawsuit was filed in early 2020 in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California by Earth Island Institutes ALERT Project, Alaska Community Action on Toxics, Cook Inletkeeper, the Center for Biological Diversity, an Alaskan Native health aide and a Gulf Coast commercial fisher. The lawsuit sought to require the EPA to update its regulations governing offshore oil spill planning and response to take into account current science on the use of chemical dispersants in response to oil spills.

Instead of mitigating environmental harm, chemical dispersants have proven when mixed with oil to be more toxic to humans and the environment than the oil alone. In the 2010 BP Deepwater Horizon disaster, coastal communities along the Gulf of Mexico, many of which were communities of color and/or low income, suffered from serious dispersant-induced health effects.

First responders to the spill, including many Coast Guard workers, suffered negative health impacts. Their ailments included respiratory problems, severe skin blistering and other debilitating conditions, some of which persist to this day. Judge William Orrick has now ruled that the EPA has violated the Clean Water Act in failing to update dispersant regulations issued in 1994 that are demonstrably inadequate. Todays ruling also notes that the agency violated the Administrative Procedure Act in failing for years to finalize draft regulations issued in 2015.

Dr. Riki Ott, director of Earth Island Institutes ALERT Project, the lead plaintiff in the case, was a commercial fisher and marine toxicologist who witnessed firsthand the health and environmental impacts of the dispersants in the nations two largest maritime oil disasters.

In 1989, Exxon Valdez response workers called the ubiquitous cold- and flu-like symptoms among frontline workers the Valdez Crud. Two decades later, the BP Deepwater Horizon disaster response workers called the same symptoms the BP Syndrome. It turned out that these symptoms were early warnings of chemical illnesses that often led to disabling diseases, cancers and early deaths, Dr. Ott said. Exposed children were among the victims. This ruling means we just might be able to prevent a similar human health tragedy during the next big oil spill.

Kindra Arnesen, a plaintiff and community activist in Louisiana, likewise was hopeful about todays ruling.

Dispersant use in the wake of the BP spill took a huge toll on my community. From 2005 to 2010, my community was healthy. There were a couple of families that had a family member fighting cancer of some sort, but things really changed after the spill, Arnesen said. Ive witnessed my community experience an explosion of cancer cases. I know I went to 22 funerals in 18 months. Then, I stopped counting.

Plaintiff Rosemary Ahtuangaruak is an Iupiat tribal leader and activist who lives in the now oil-industrialized zone of the North Slope in Alaska. Ahtuangaruak has worked with tribal councils to pass resolutions banning dispersant use in Arctic waters where Alaskan Natives hunt and fish.

The protection of life, health and safety is important, Ahtuangaruak said. My Elders have asked that we protect our tradition and culture. We depend on our food for our strength in the cold. I worry for the generations to come because some of our traditional foods live for centuries, meaning they may migrate through many oil spills during their lifespan. That's why standing up against dispersants was important. We cant allow toxic chemicals to be added to a toxic oil spill for the benefit of the spillers.

Existing and expanding oil and gas operations in U.S. waters run the ongoing risk of an oil spill. This is particularly concerning in the Arctic, where ice cold water may further reduce the effectiveness of dispersants, and where geographic remoteness makes manual removal of oil difficult.

Oil corporations and shipping companies cant clean up oil with traditional tools in the dark, cold and unforgiving waters of the Alaska Arctic, said Bob Shavelson, executive director of Cook Inletkeeper. Thats why they want free rein to spray toxic dispersants, to keep the oil out of sight, out of mind.

This ruling sets us on a path toward protecting the health and wellbeing of our waters, wildlife and people from exposure to dangerous dispersant chemicals that exacerbate the toxicity of oil, said Pamela Miller, executive director of plaintiff Alaska Community Action on Toxics. Oil corporations have a vested interest in perpetuating the massive use of dispersant chemicals without consideration of the long-term harm they cause. This decision marks the end of the collusion of EPA with the oil industry in allowing this destructive practice to continue without consideration of our understanding of the science and adverse health consequences. Hopefully this will also inspire our society toward prevention and an end to oil dependence.

This is a great win in the fight to protect people and marine life from toxic oil dispersants, said Kristen Monsell, oceans program legal director at the Center. Were thrilled to have the court recognize that the EPAs ongoing failure to update its offshore oil-spill response plan is unreasonable and unlawful. Offshore drilling is inherently dirty and dangerous, and it should be phased out. But while it continues, we need smart spill responses that use the best available science. Oil spills are bad enough. We cant have the EPA adding insult to injury by allowing the use of harmful chemicals afterward that put wildlife and people at even more risk.

We are delighted, although not really surprised, with the courts finding that oil spill response regulations enacted more than 15 years before the BP Deepwater Horizon disaster are no longer aligned with current science and technology and are overdue for an update, said Sumona Majumdar, general counsel for Earth Island Institute. We urge the EPA to quickly issue a final rule that properly regulates these dangerous chemicals.

In June 2020, U.S. District Court Judge William H. Orrick ruled, as part of this case, that the Clean Water Act imposes on the EPA a mandatory duty to maintain an up-to-date oil spill response plan that reflects current science and technology. This includes science demonstrating that dispersant chemicals are far more toxic to humans and more ecologically damaging than their manufacturers admit.

Todays further ruling by Judge Orrick declares that the EPA violated that duty by failing to update the regulations in more than 25 years, despite significant advancements in both scientific and technological knowledge. The ruling also finds that the EPA violated the Administrative Procedure Act by failing to finalize its 2015 draft regulations in a timely manner despite two long-pending petitions by plaintiffs requesting this update.

The EPA must now update and finalize its regulations by May 31, 2023. In light of the agencys past dereliction, the court further ordered the EPA to file status reports every 180 days.

UC Berkeley Environmental Law Clinic (ELC) served as lead counsel in this matter and represented most plaintiffs; the Center for Biological Diversity served as co-counsel and represented itself.

The use of toxic chemicals to address marine oil spills is a largely unrecognized societal cost of Americas ongoing oil dependence, said Claudia Polsky, ELC director and lead counsel. The human health toll of dispersant-intensive spill responses is a story that needs to be told alongside stories of marine creatures harmed by spilled oil. We hope the EPAs final rule regarding chemical dispersants will reflect the agencys mission, which is to prevent human and environmental harm.

Individuals whose health and lives have been severely impacted by chemical dispersants are available for interview upon request.

Go here to read the rest:

Court Orders EPA to Address Use of Oil Dispersants on Offshore Spills - Center for Biological Diversity

For an industry in trouble, the oil and gas industry is doing pretty well in terms of discoveries and final investment decisions. So far this year, 21 new offshore projects received a final investment decision, according to Westwood Global Energy Group. At the same time, a number of discoveries were made, tapping billions in new oil reserves.

The Middle East and Latin America are the leaders in final investment decisions, to the tune of a $20 billion, Offshore magazine reports, citing Westwood analyst Joe Killen.

In the Middle East, one of the highlights is the Farzad B natural gas field offshore Iran. Initially discovered by Indian state major ONGC Videsh, the field will now be developed by Iranian Petropars as U.S. sanctions made international participation in Irans oil and gas industry problematic.

Farzad B is estimated to hold some 22 trillion cubic feet of natural gas, with 16 trillion cubic feet of recoverable gas. It should produce about 1 billion cubic feet daily five years from now, according to the developer. The contract Irans government has signed with Petropars for Farzad B is worth $1.78 billion.

The other big project in the Middle East that got its FID this year is also a gas one: Karish North in Israeli waters. Earlier this month, developer Energean said it planned to drill five more wells in the Karish field, aiming to tap an additional 1 billion barrels of oil equivalent in reserves. Karish North holds an estimated 1.2 trillion cubic feet of natural gas and 31 million barrels of natural gas liquids.

Related: Shell Reports $5.5 Billion Net Profit And Hikes Dividends

In Latin America, Brazil rules the new oil project ranking. Despite the energy transition push, despite the devastation that the pandemic wrought on the industry, Brazils pre-salt zone remains an attractive investment destination.

The Bacalhau project is one that got its final investment decision this year. The $8-billion project in the Santos Basin has Norways Equinor as its leader. When Equinor made the final investment decision in June this year, executive VP Arne Sigve Nylund told media that Bacalhau had a breakeven level of just $35 per barrel and estimated recoverable reserves of over 1 billion barrels. Commercial production should start in 2024.

Story continues

Another pre-salt project that got its final investment decision this year was an expansion of production at the Mero field, also in the Santos Basin, which is turning into a focal point for pre-salt oil development in Brazil.

The Mero field is operated by a consortium led by local Petrobras and involving Shell, TotalEnergies, CNPC, and CNOOC. The consortium already operates the Libra field, also in the Santos Basin. At Mero, the consortium already has three floating production, storage, and offloading vessels in operation at the field, each with a daily capacity of 180,000 bpd.

Meanwhile, further to the north, BHP recently announced plans to spend $544 million on developing the Shenzi North oil field in the Gulf of Mexico, eyeing daily production of 30,000 barrels of crude. The company also said it would move forward with the Trion project, also in Mexican waters, to the design and engineering phase. BHPs partner in Shenzi North, Repsol, is set to make the final investment decision on the project later this year.

Shell is also doubling down on the Gulf of Mexico. In July, the Anglo-Dutch supermajor announced the final investment decision on the Whale deepwater project. The company boasted projected internal rates of return of over 25 percent thanks to what the company calls a simplified, cost-efficient host design.

The Whale fieldShells 12th deepwater project in the Gulf of Mexicohas estimated recoverable reserves of some 490 million barrels of oil equivalent. Peak production is seen at 100,000 bpd, with commercial production set to begin in 2024.

Related: Why Big Oil And Environmentalists Need To Support This Climate Tech

As companies made FID after FID on new oil and gas projects, noting their low-carbon footprint and low cost, Exxon continued discovering oil offshore Guyana. The Whiptail-1 well produced oil last month, and a second well is currently being drilled in the area. Exxon expects to have t least six operating wells in the Stabroek Block by 2027, with a potential for another four.

In Africa, meanwhile, Namibia has emerged as a new hot spot in oil, with a discovery made earlier this year by a junior energy company. Soon after beginning exploratory drilling, the company, ReconAfrica, announced the discovery could hold as much as 31 billion barrels of crude. It is still early days, but theres already talk about the latest country to join the oil club.

Namibia is also a rare case these days, with its discovery made onshore. Offshore seems to rule right now, with most of the new oil being found or developed across the world lying underwater. According to Westwood, offshore activity during the first half of the year was up by 60 percent on the year - a clear sign oil and gas were on a strong rebound despite the clouds looming on the horizon from the energy transition.

By Irina Slav for Oilprice.com

More Top Reads From Oilprice.com:

Read this article on OilPrice.com

Link:

2021 Has Been A Blockbuster Year For Offshore Oil And Gas - Yahoo Finance

Introduction

On 14 July 2021, Ofgem published the firstconsultation(the Consultation) in a series that will be launched as part of theOffshore Transmission Network Review(the OTNR). The OTNR aims to bring about greater co-ordination in the design and delivery of offshore energy network infrastructure (our commentary on the launch of OTNR can be foundhere), in support of the UK governments wider ambitions to procure 40GW of offshore wind capacity by 2030, and reach net-zero carbon emissions by 2050.

The Consultation covers three key components of the OTNR as follows:

Early opportunitiesthe objective of this area is to identify and facilitate opportunities for increased coordination in the near term, with a focus on in-flight offshore wind projects;

Pathway to 2030 the objective of this workstream is to drive coordination of offshore projects that will connect before 2030, including projects that were successful in the ScotWind and Crown Estate Round 4 leasing rounds; and

Multi-purpose interconnectors(MPIs) the objective here is to make tactical changes to facilitate early opportunity MPIs and develop an enduring MPI regime for 2030 onwards.

This article is the second in a series of three articles looking at the above areas of consultation. We set out in further detail below Ofgems proposed delivery models under its Pathway to 2030 framework.

Proposed delivery models under the Pathway to 2030 framework

The Pathway to 2030 workstream covers offshore projects that aim to be operational by 2030, but which are not currently in-flight. Under this workstream, Ofgem are considering moving away substantially from the existing model for design and delivery of offshore transmission and have focused work in this regard on three areas:

Developing a generation map showing where offshore wind projects (in particular projects from Round 4 and ScotWind) are expected to be located and when they are expected to connect to the system;

Producing a design for network infrastructure which is based on the generation map and other relevant information this design work may also include work detailing where changes might be required to industry codes; and

Considering options for the efficient delivery of the coordinated infrastructure required to connect offshore generation. This workstream comprise three elements:

a holistic network design (HND), proposed to be delivered by ESO

detailed designs (DNDs) for the offshore network assets. The responsibility for the offshore DND will depend on the delivery model (set out below) that will be employed; and

DNDs for the onshore assets, which will be delivered by the electricity network transmission owners (TOs) under their existing price controls and the DND for offshore network assets.

The Consultation specifically seeks stakeholder views on the network design and delivery of offshore elements as well as the delivery of HND and offshore DND.

Where the HND indicates that a traditional radial connection would be the most economic and efficient solution, the Consultation proposes continuing with the existing OFTO regime. However, where the HND indicates a non-radial connection, the Consultation sets out six potential models for delivery of offshore network infrastructure:

Option 1: TO to build and operate

The TO would undertake the offshore DND, develop, construct and operate all shared connection infrastructure in their licence area. Infrastructure and delivery can be co-ordinated easily as the same parties will be responsible for the whole chain of development potentially increasing the speed at which the connection infrastructure could be taken from design and delivery. However, this approach would be a significant move away from the existing independent OFTO regime and would require substantial further legislative reform, including consideration of how these assets are categorised and how they would be licensed for operation.

Option 2: TO to build and OFTO to operate

The TO undertakes the offshore DND, develops and constructs the shared connection infrastructure, but an OFTO would acquire the assets for the operation phase. At or near asset completion, a tender process would be run to transfer ownership of the assets built by the TO to the OFTO. As it stands, this would be a tender process. If this model is adopted, consideration will need to be given to the appropriate transfer value of any offshore transmission assets in a similar way to the assessment of the transfer value in the current generator-build OFTO model.

As Options 1 and 2 would involve amendments to the incumbent TOs licences and funding arrangements, this would impact the timing of delivery of these models.

Option 3: TO to design and OFTO to build and operate

The ESO would undertake the HND, the TO would undertake the detailed design and consent work on the shared infrastructure with an OFTO being appointed to construct and operate the infrastructure. This model has many similarities with the Late OFTO Build model under the current regime, however this model has not been pursued by offshore generators for any project to date.

Option 4: Early OFTO competition

The TO or ESO would carry out the offshore DND for any shared infrastructure before a competitive tender process to appoint an OFTO to consent, build and operate the transmission assets. The ESO would however need to develop competence in the detailed technical design of network assets.

Option 5: Very Early OFTO Competition

A competitive tender process for the appointment of an OFTO would be implemented after the HND has been completed, with the appointed OFTO responsible for undertaking the DND, consenting, financing, construction, and operation of infrastructure. This option brings maximum scope for competition including a greater role for innovation at the detailed design phase.

Options 4 and 5 are similar to the early CATO model. However, the existing regulatory framework does not allow for a tender process to be held this early in a projects development. Significant work would therefore be required to apply these options within the offshore transmission frameworks.

Option 6: Developer to design and build, OFTO to operate

This is equivalent to the generator-build OFTO option currently used in the GB offshore wind sector. For shared infrastructure, HND would be carried out by the ESO with the offshore generator undertaking DND, consenting and construction of shared infrastructure and a competitive tender process. This is the simplest option in terms of implementation, however there is a perception that this option provides less scope for early-stage innovation or to exert competitive pressure.

All of the above approaches will require changes to the regulatory regime (with option 6 being the closest to the current system) as well as accounting for the competence and incentives of the party designing and building the assets. The Consultation states that the time likely to be required to implement changes to regulatory frameworks will be a factor informing which delivery model is selected as the preferred model.

The responsibilities in each of the proposed delivery models are summarised visually as follows:

Following feedback on the above models, Ofgem will issue its minded-to decision on the delivery model before the end of the year and will then run a further consultation on the detailed implementation of the preferred delivery model.

Charging arrangements and code changes

The Consultation notes that subject to the complexity of the network design outputs, this workstream might require fundamental changes to existing charging arrangements given that the Pathway to 2030 may result in offshore transmission infrastructure that is increasingly shared, resembling the onshore network. While this is likely to be an area of further consultation, Ofgem have set out some high level principles to be considered in this regard:

Charging arrangements should be reviewed to enable the locational differences in charges for offshore users to better reflect the differences in costs that different offshore users confer on the system;

Network users should face cost-reflective charges for network access; and

Charging arrangements should ensure that charge avoidance isnt enabled or incentivised.

In addition, wider changes to the industry codes are also anticipated as part of this workstream in order to support the implementation of network design and delivery options. The Consultation notes that the identification of changes to codes for the Pathway to 2030 workstream will take place in parallel to the development of the HND.

Comment

The existing approach to the connection of offshore wind has had to evolve alongside the UKs current ambitions and targets for offshore wind. Some stakeholders have expressed concerns as to whether the UK, quite simply, has enough space to accommodate all the infrastructure required to deliver on its ambitions. In particular, a key challenge in respect of offshore transmission networks is managing the environmental and physical impacts of existing offshore radial point-to-point connections at their landfall, which are only anticipated to become further congested with the expected scale up in offshore transmission infrastructure being deployed to support the construction of new offshore wind farms.

On the other hand, while it is recognised that greater coordination and collaboration could have a range of benefits, the implementation of the Pathway to 2030 delivery models needs to be carefully managed to avoid it becoming a cause for concern for the industry. It is anticipated that NGESO will publish its HND by the end of January 2022 with implementation of the Pathway to 2030 reforms taking place during 2022. However, as the Consultation recognises, depending on the delivery model selected, substantial amendments to legislation and industry codes could be required. As a result, the process will need to think carefully about how it can proceed without creating delay or hiatus impacts on projects looking to connect in the mid to late 2020s. To keep the projects on track will require such projects to progress consenting and project design in parallel over the next 18 months or so.

Further, if a delivery model utilising a competitive tender is selected, we have seen with the current OFTO tender processes that the timing of such tenders can slip for reasons outside of the control of the offshore developer. Any timing risks in the project development cycle are problematic for developers, but even more so in the current environment as development programmes are compressed to mitigate the substantial costs of any delay.

We also note that the majority of the delivery model options under consideration would require the generator to be reliant on another party to deliver transmission assets in a timely and effective manner, creating new interfaces that would need to be considered from (among other things) a risk allocation perspective. Whilst mechanisms for mitigating this risk e.g. appropriate penalties for late delivery will be consulted upon, this structure has not yet been utilised in the UK offshore wind market, and we anticipate will be scrutinised closely as the first tranche of these projects look to achieve financial close.

Next steps

The deadline for responses to the Consultation is 8 September 2021. In addition to the previous industry consultation, Ofgem intends to hold structured engagement with stakeholders throughout the course of the consultation window and beyond.

In respect of the Pathway to 2030 workstream, further policy consultation is expected in December 2021 January 2022 with decisions and implementing consultations issued in May/June 2022. Changes to facilitate the Pathways to 2030 delivery model are expected to be in place by July-September 2022.

See more here:

Delivering 40GW of offshore wind: Offshore Transmission Network Review Consultation - proposals for the Pathway to 2030 - Lexology

Norwegian shipbuilder Vard has signed contracts for the design and construction of two Construction Service Operations (CSV) vessels for Rem Offshore, also of Norway.

The VARD 4 19 design, developed by Vard Design in lesund, serves as a versatile offshore windfarm operations support vessel, focusing on onboard logistics, security, comfort, and operability.

The two vessels come with a price tag of 100 million euros. The contracts include an option for two additional vessels.

The first vessel will be delivered from Vard in Norway in first half of 2023, while the hull will be built at Vard Braila in Romania. The second vessel will be built and delivered by Vard Vung Tau in Vietnam, scheduled for delivery in 2024.

With a length of 85 meters and a beam of 19.5 meters, the vessels will have a height-adjustable motion-compensated gangway with elevator system, a height-adjustable boat landing system, and a 3D-compensated crane. The CSOVs will also come with accommodations for 120 persons on board.

Rem Offshore has during the last few years increasingly focused attention on building a sustainable platform for growth in offshore wind, said Rem Offshores Chairman, Aage Remy. Our shareholders are driving this development together with our Rem colleagues onshore and offshore. We are proud to continue our newbuild programme in Norway and support the local maritime industry.

We are proud to be chosen as the preferred partner for Rem Offshore in this exciting project, and we are looking forward to working together with their team. These contracts confirm VARDs leadership in the CSOV market, both in terms of innovative ship design, breakthrough technologies and shipbuilding quality, added Vard CEO Alberto Maestrini commented.

Here is the original post:

Vard to Construct Two Offshore Wind Operations Vessels for Rem Offshore - gcaptain.com

Chubb has announced the launch of an insurance solution for offshore wind farms.

Chubbs Offshore Wind Farm policy has been developed to support green energy providers through the entire offshore wind farm process from project inception through to energy production, storage and distribution.

The policy offers Construction All Risks, Delay in Start-Up and Operation All Risks cover, in addition to business interruption, third-party liability and terrorism.

It has been developed by the Energy team at Chubb Global Markets (CGM), which comprises Chubbs London market wholesale and specialty business.

The development of renewable offshore wind energy has become a key aspect of the green energy strategy of many countries around the world. This year global offshore wind capacity additions are expected to increase 60% to more than 10 GW, according to the International Energy Agencys Renewable Energy Market Update 2021.

Countries involved in offshore wind production include the UK, U.S., Netherlands, France, Germany, Denmark, Poland and Ireland.

This new product line will help us provide underwriting solutions for clients evolving towards more green technology, in addition to those who may have been operating in this space for some time, commented Melanie Markwick-Day, head of Upstream Energy and Offshore Renewables, Chubb Global Markets.

In the context of decarbonization, a supportive regulatory framework, low interest rates and lenders more confident with associated risks, we will be providing valued support to green energy producers by offering certainty of cover from when they start the project planning phase to when their offshore wind farms become fully operational and beyond, said Andrew Brown, head of Energy, Chubb Global Markets.

Source: Chubb

Topics Agribusiness Chubb

Get automatic alerts for this topic.

Link:

Chubb Launches Insurance for Offshore Wind Farms - Insurance Journal

The UK is planning to install 40 gigawatts of offshore wind power by 2030 enough to provide electricity to every home in the country. This would require 5,000 wind turbines double the number installed offshore worldwide at the end of 2020. Current projections indicate 234 gigawatts of offshore wind energy will be installed globally by 2030, which could mean around 30,000 turbines.

Green energy developers hope to exploit the faster winds that blow offshore and allow larger turbines to generate more electricity than their onshore equivalents. Supplying the equivalent of a UK homes worth of electricity for nine billion people by 2050 would require something like half a million offshore wind turbines. Besides the more than two million fishing vessels, industrial activity in the ocean on this scale is unprecedented. Over the last 70 years, only around 5,000 offshore oil and gas rigs have been installed at sea, and many of these have since been removed.

Developing oil and gas offshore has helped engineers learn how to design ocean structures that remain fixed in one place, far from land, for decades. As the world transitions from low numbers of oil and gas installations to large numbers of renewable energy devices, how engineers design in the ocean must evolve too. Just as fossil fuel extraction must end, so should the design philosophy which sustained this industry. That is, meeting narrowly defined human need and a high return on investment.

To make wind turbines work offshore, great technological advances have been made. Using remote sensors, engineers can precisely control the angle of 80 metre-long blades to maximise how much energy they generate, or prevent damage in bad weather. Steel tubes ten metres wide can be hammered vertically into the seabed to support wind turbines installed over vast areas.

Engineers are working to design yet bigger turbines, operating more efficiently and for longer, which can be installed further from shore, like floating turbines for waters deeper than 50 metres. All this innovation has been driven with one job in mind: making electricity. In common with the oil and gas industry (and most others), the prevailing design philosophy of offshore wind is to build something that achieves this purpose while meeting environmental and safety obligations for the lowest price.

This story is part of Oceans 21Our series on the global ocean opened with five in-depth profiles. Look out for new articles on the state of our oceans in the lead up to the UNs next climate conference, COP26. The series is brought to you by The Conversations international network.

However, the price of offshore wind turbines, along with the price of most produced goods, overlooks a range of costs involved in the life cycle of the product. Turbines are up to 70% steel, which is made from recycled or newly extracted iron, which is processed from ores. These ores are removed from rocks by blasting causing disruption to the natural environment, and often from sites with cultural significance to indigenous people. The mined ores are then transported by large trucks, crushed, refined, processed and shipped.

Whether its emissions from machines processing and transporting the ores or air and water contaminants released during extraction, mining creates pollution. Converting the iron into steel also contributes to climate change. Globally, the iron and steel industry is responsible for 11% of CO emissions.

Steel plates are shipped and then rolled into curved sections, people and machines weld these to form long tubes, which are loaded onto vessels, transported to sea and assembled, processes which are largely powered by fossil fuels.

The world needs more wind turbines, and fast. But clearly, the environmental and social consequences of making and installing them reduces their positive potential. Currently, the most ambitious designs seek to minimise these negative impacts.

Can we think deeper? Everything we engineer, whether its clothes, mobile phones or offshore wind turbines needs resources from Earths biological and physical systems, which are taken, made into these things we use everyday and then discarded as waste. A landmark report recently showed that this way of exploiting nature is outstripping its ability to recover.

What if, as well as building useful infrastructure for society, engineers sought to tie their work into ecological processes? We would need to shift our thinking from simply limiting damage to the natural world, to including its needs, so that we reciprocate and support the natural world as it supports us, and help regenerate these natural systems.

Design principles which aim to meet human needs alongside the needs of the planet have recently been applied successfully to city planning in Amsterdam. Applying similar principles to planning in the ocean might start with a single question: what would it mean for both a windfarm and the habitat it is in to thrive?

In Sweden, a study found that redesigning the foundations of wave energy installations benefited brown crab populations. Simply adding holes in the structure provided shelter for the crustaceans. These foundations can also be designed to cause seawater upwelling, moving nutrients and food up from the deep sea for fish to feed on. Offshore structures could even suck carbon from the air. These examples are just a glimpse of how the windfarms of the future could be designed to support life, both human and non-human.

Technology could help create new relationships between people and offshore windfarms. Apps and smart meters could show energy users how weather patterns and the environment influence the windfarms powering their homes. This could help them understand when it is good to use power and when it is less so, and to use just what is needed.

But what would it mean for the windfarm to support the wellbeing of people touched by each link in its supply chain? This provokes even more questions about how and where steel is sourced from and shipped, or how financial returns from the windfarm support workers to leave the fossil fuel industry as part of a just transition.

Ocean engineers must think ecologically to help species live and evolve through the difficult decades ahead. We will need to challenge the status quo, be open to collaboration and reimagine how we can work with the ocean.

See the original post here:

Offshore wind turbines could number 30,000 by 2030 new ideas in ocean engineering are needed to install them - The Conversation UK

RWE, Shell, Gasunie and Equinor have confirmed their joint collaboration which aspires with the AquaSector project to take the next step towards a massive offshore hydrogen park off the coast of Germany. The project is part of the AquaVentus initiative, a partnership of dozens of companies, governments and research institutes. They have set a goal of achieving electrolysis capacity of 10 gigawatts in the German North Sea by 2035.

This entails generating electricity from wind farms. The hydrogen is then transported via the island of Helgoland to the mainland. This will be done by means of a system of pipelines hat have been dubbed AquaDuctus.

The first few years are primarily intended as a study. This will be concentrating on a 300 megawatts of electrolysis capacity by 2028. This is good for 20,000 metric tons of green hydrogen per year which will be collected on Helgoland and mainly used there as well.

Your weekly innovation overviewEvery sunday the best articles of the week in your inbox.

he project aims to demonstrate that in Germany offshore-based hydrogen production enables an efficient, cost-effective and sustainable way to produce green hydrogen. RWE said in their press release.

The major advantage of offshore hydrogen production, according to the German energy group, is that it requires fewer high-voltage direct current cables. One hydrogen pipeline can replace five of these (very expensive) high-voltage cables. That is according to RWE, consequently it not only makes it financially attractive, but also more ecologically responsible. This is because the most likely route from Helgoland to the mainland will pass through the German Bight and the vulnerable Wadden Sea.

The AquaVentus initiative is a kind of 5-stage rocket made up of AquaPrimus, AquaCampus, AquaPortus, AquaSector and AquaDuctus.

AcuaPrimus is the very first pilot plant with 14 megawatts of electrolysis capacity that should be in operation by 2023. However, that plant will still run on solar energy and be located on the mainland. To be precise, in the town of Sassnitz on the Rgen peninsula.

AquaCampus is home to an R&D center 45 kilometers from Helgoland. This is where all technologies are tested and further developed by scientists. Initially, hydrogen will be produced here with the electricity from 2 wind turbines. The plan is that this will then increase more and more with the aid of the AquaProcess. It is not yet entirely clear how many electrolysis stations there will be nor how big they will be. Most likely they will end up being large stations the size of drilling rigs.

AquaPortus will run from 2024 to 2029. It is mainly concerned with the expansion of harbor capacities on Helgoland and making the island CO2-free. The first volumes of hydrogen will be used on the island itself. Thereafter, it will be used as fuel for ships and/or further transported to the coastal region.

AquaDuctus is charged with installing hydrogen pipelines between electrolysis platforms at sea, AquaCampus, Helgoland and the mainland.

Also read the article: Energy islands in the North Sea: good news for the climate and an opportunity for Dutch entrepreneurs

More here:

On the way to 10 gigawatts of offshore electrolysis capacity with project AquaSector - Innovation Origins

Remove homeless from Penn Station

I appreciate Newsdays editorial drawing attention to the "Problems at Penn" [July 18]. However, it is a lukewarm, tiptoeing commentary that does not represent the sad and dramatic reality that is Penn Station today.

People seem to have forgotten that it is a commuter rail station. It is not a drug den, homeless shelter or a halfway house. Penn Station is a place where some advocates of the homeless huddle safely in groups hiding out in a drug store while the homeless people are begging, defecating, screaming, doing drugs and harassing pedestrians waiting for trains.

Until we actually change the perverse narrative that since Penn Station is a public place we cant move people out because we are infringing on their rights if they do not wish to leave, the situation will never improve.

These people are not commuters. Many are sick people who suffer from mental illness and/or substance abuse and do not understand that they need help.

Therefore, the only humane thing for us to do as reasonable, civilized people would be to remove them and provide social services and housing for them and tell them they cannot live in Penn Station, period.

Susan LoGiudice, Bayport

I believe the Long Island Power Authority was transparent in its investigation of PSEG Long Islands failures following Tropical Storm Isaias ["No lights: Who get the blame?," Editorial, July 15]. LIPAs investigations revealed that virtually all delays and poor communication resulted from ineffective PSEG Long Island management.

Go inside New York politics.

By clicking Sign up, you agree to our privacy policy.

LIPA worked to resolve these issues by publishing a 30- and 90-day report that listed 85 recommendations to address management, emergency management and information technology shortfalls. The board also adopted another 79 recommendations concerning non-storm areas of management and demanded the public receive quarterly updates.

With these shortcomings in mind, the board reviewed the best alternatives for customers. The board held public hearings and issued an analysis of the options based on fact. We discussed areas of concern in the current PSEG Long Island contract and the non-negotiable changes needed to ensure more accountability.

Last month, LIPAs management delivered the strongest contract in our 22-year history. In my opinion, this agreement met all eight of the boards criteria for a reformed contract with PSEG LI, including placing significantly more of their compensation at risk and restructuring management to place greater control on Long Island.

The option for LIPA to become fully municipal, subject to policy makers consent, is still a possibility. But for now, I feel we have a stronger contract to drive long-term results for customers.

Laureen Harris, Plandome

The writer is a LIPA board member.

I found Michael Dobies column "When solutions are problems" eye-opening [Opinion, July 18]. With no clear path to avoiding an avalanche of life-altering, storage-battery-materials mining waste, we may be jumping from the frying pan into the fire of toxic choices. I suppose we can always pretend its cleaner, to assuage the current zeitgeist. Waste that is out of sight, tends to become out of mind.

David Rogers, Northport

Kyle Strobers essay "Unfair cost to LI for offshore wind" [Opinion, July 14] unfortunately focuses solely on the cost of necessary transmission upgrades on Long Island, which the state Public Service Commission is considering be borne by 75% of Long Island ratepayers and 25% by statewide ratepayers.

He completely ignores the fact that all the costs of offshore wind projects, many of which will directly benefit Long Island, will be paid for by ratepayers across the state. Further, the PSC is reevaluating the 75/25 split and may adjust its proposed cost-sharing arrangement. The transmission upgrades are necessary, will strengthen the downstate grid, will make it more resilient and help avoid the type of power outages that recently wreaked havoc in Texas.

Its true that Long Island and downstate ratepayers are currently subsidizing nuclear power plants in upstate New York, but the converse is also true when it comes to offshore wind, which all New York ratepayers will share in the cost of building.

Long Island will enjoy enormous benefits when it comes to offshore wind, which will inject billions of dollars into the economy, create thousands of good-paying jobs, and help revitalize ports and other infrastructure.

Joe Martens, Albany

The writer is director of the New York Offshore Wind Alliance.

Originally posted here:

Penn Station's homeless, utility issues, battery waste and offshore wind - Newsday

Former Interior Secretary David Bernhardt defended the Trump administrations lengthy review of Americas first offshore wind farm in an interview yesterday, saying the additional environmental analysis he ordered was intended to strengthen the project against legal challenges rather than kill it.

The Trump administration had initially planned to complete a review of Vineyard Wind in the summer of 2019. But Bernhardt surprised the projects developers, who proposed a $2.8 billion wind farm near Marthas Vineyard, Mass., by expanding a government study of the project to consider other wind farms proposed along the East Coast.

The announcement cast a pall over the wind industry. It slowed planning work on other projects and raised questions about the viability of offshore wind in the United States. Many industry supporters suspected the move was a reflection of former President Trumps disdain for wind power, which he regularly lambasted as an eyesore and a danger to birds. Trump erroneously claimed wind turbines could cause cancer.

But in a phone interview yesterday while vacationing at a North Carolina beach, Bernhardt said it was "fundamentally false" that the administration was playing politics with Vineyard Wind. Instead, he said his call for more analysis was driven by the growing number of wind projects proposed along the East Coast and by divisions among federal agencies over Vineyard Winds potential impact on commercial fishing and marine navigation.

You cant proceed with federal agencies warring with each other, he said. I was like, Look, we dont have our ducks in a row.

He added, The last thing we wanted to do is put out a finalized program that wasnt legally sustainable."

Bernhardts comments came hours after the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management released more than 500 pages of documents in response to a Freedom of Information Act request by E&E News. The documents were related to the permitting process of Vineyard Wind.

They show that BOEM officials were nearing completion of the projects environmental impact statement in the summer of 2019. It was the final step before approval.

Then Bernhardt got involved.

BOEM briefed the DOI Executive review team on the Vineyard Wind Final EIS on Friday, June 28th (this briefing is required prior to publication of a Final EIS for all DOI agencies), Brian Krevor, an environmental protection specialist at BOEM, wrote to other federal officials involved in the permit review on July 1, 2019.

The Secretary of the Interior is now personally reviewing the Final EIS and associated materials," he added. "As a result, the Final EIS was not filed with the EPA on the 28th and will not be published on July 5th. I currently do not have a date for when the document will be published.

Bernhardt said he had promised Massachusetts Gov. Charlie Baker, a Republican who has championed offshore wind, that he would personally read Vineyard Winds EIS. He said he was extremely troubled by what he read.

A growing number of states along the East Coast had signed contracts to buy electricity from offshore wind projects by the time Interior officials were finalizing the Vineyard Wind study. But the cumulative impact of those projects on other ocean users like the fishing industry was not considered in the study, Bernhardt said yesterday.

He was also concerned about issues raised by other agencies. NOAA Fisheries, a division of the Commerce Department that oversees federal fisheries, had informed BOEM it did not agree with the bureaus impact analysis of Vineyard Wind. The U.S. Coast Guard had raised separate issues about the safety of marine vessels transiting the projects towers.

It was very important to me that we not have conflict between the agencies when you go out for the first project, Bernhardt said. People have to have faith the government is doing the job it is required to do and managing the varying interests we had. We couldnt be shooting at each other.

Trump critics saw the delay as an attempt to kill the project, but Bernhardt said he has a long-standing interest in offshore wind. In 2005, he helped draft the Energy Policy Act as Interiors congressional liaison. The law gave Interior oversight of offshore wind permitting.

I think where I depart from perhaps some is that because I was actually involved in the development of the legislation, it is my view that a high bar was set in the standards that the secretary must meet to move forward both in preventing waste but also in protecting other uses, Bernhardt said.

I think the legislation that was created was intended to be cautionary. It is important to make these projects work in areas and places where they dont do harm to others," he said. "That was what Congress was trying to do, because it was developed in context of the Cape Wind situation.

Cape Wind was a 130-turbine project proposed in Nantucket Sound. The federal government lacked regulations for permitting offshore wind projects when it was initially proposed. It was ultimately abandoned in 2017 after years of lawsuits from residents who worried about the sight of turbines and their impact on environmental and cultural resources.

Fearing a similar outcome, Vineyard Wind went back to the drawing board after Bernhardts unexpected announcement in 2019.

It revamped the layout of its project, agreeing to space its turbines 1 nautical mile apart in a grid. The move was intended to address concerns from fishermen and the Coast Guard about transiting between the turbines. Other offshore wind developers said they would follow the same pattern.

Vineyard Wind also increased the size of its turbines, from 9.5 megawatts to 12 megawatts, enabling it to reduce the number of towers from 84 to 62. The companys initial plan called for 104 turbines. The project has a capacity of 800 MW, enough to power 400,000 homes.

When BOEM released a draft review of the cumulative impact of all proposed offshore wind projects in the summer of 2020, it found the industry would have an adverse effect on fishermen. But it also concluded that fishermen would be affected by climate change and that the burden of the turbine would be concentrated on different parts of the fishing fleet. Squid boats, it found, would be most impacted by Vineyard Wind. It also determined that the wind industry stood to create thousands of jobs.

BOEM subsequently missed a November deadline to finish its review. Instead, it would announce its final decision on Jan. 15, five days before Trump was scheduled to leave office. In response, Vineyard Wind announced in December that it was withdrawing its permit application, saying it needed to consider the impact of using larger turbines as part of the project.

It quickly refiled its application after Biden took office, concluding the larger turbines did not alter the projects impact. BOEM approved a final EIS in March and stamped Vineyard Winds permit in May. The final decision said it expected the project would have a negligible to moderate impact on fishermen but that the impact could become major as a result of future offshore projects. A 2020 study by the Coast Guard concluded that the updated grid layout addressed many of the navigation concerns.

But the permitting snafu may yet plague the project.

A lawsuit filed this week challenging the projects permit said BOEM erred when it decided to re-accept the application without considering the impact of the larger turbines.

Bernhardt, for his part, said Interior was committed to finishing its review under his watch, saying a tremendous amount of work was done to ensure that when this program went forward it would be defensible and stand the test of time.

A tremendous amount of work on this project was happening up to the moment they chose to terminate, he added.

Asked if the final EIS released by the Biden administration differed from the one being prepared by the Trump administration, Bernhardt said it was difficult to evaluate because his team never finished its review.

But, he added, I would be very skeptical that it looks dramatically different.

More here:

Bernhardt: Trump tried to boost offshore wind, not kill it - E&E News

There has been a lot of buzz lately aroundthe Port ofNew Bedford. From theOffshore Wind Institutetothe power plant redevelopmentand the landmark project labor agreement with Vineyard Wind, New Bedford is on the precipice of making its port a national leader not just in fishing, but in clean energy as well.

Recently, I was joined on-air by Mayor Jon Mitchell to talk about the recent big announcementsatthe waterfront. Mayor Mitchell has repeatedly calledoffshore wind an opportunity for New Bedford to capitalize on what it does best,which is fostering a thriving port economy and leveragingour shoreline assets to createmarketable economic development opportunities.

While there may be tensions between ourgreat fishing industry and offshore wind, it is important to stress that this will be a mutually beneficial relationship.

Offshore wind isn'tjust an economic opportunity for New Bedford and the region, but a necessary measure in mitigating the disastrousresults of our seemingly intractable climate crisis, which is already having a noticeable impact on our marine ecosystem and fishing.

Mitchell and I discussed these topics, as well as the recent survey his office released asking New Bedford residents how they would like to see the city's nearly $65 million relieffrom theAmerican Rescue Plan Act spent, which he described as a "once in a generation opportunity."

You can listen to the full conversation here:

Marcus Ferro is the host of The Marcus Ferro Show airing Saturdays on 1420 WBSM from 1 p.m. to 4 p.m. Contact him at marcusferrolaw@gmail.com. The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of the author.

See more here:

Mayor Mitchell on Offshore Wind, How to Spend New Bedford's COVID Relief [OPINION] - wbsm.com