Posted on 01/24/2024 12:31:38 PM PST by george76
Due to the Biden administration's decision to waive financial assurance fees, should Vineyard Wind fail and not fully fund their decommissioning account in a timely manner, the public will likely have to pick up the tab..
Biden administration reportedly waived fees for an offshore wind project that are in place to ensure that the infrastructure is removed and the site reclaimed at the end of the project’s life..
Joe Biden, as part of his climate agenda, is pushing an aggressive buildout of offshore wind projects along the East Coast. With the offshore wind industry struggling financially, the waiving of these fees raises concerns about what would happen if these companies go bankrupt and leave behind wind farms they can’t afford to remove.
Protect The Public Trust (PPT), a government watchdog group, obtained documents showing that the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM) informed Vineyard Wind had approved the company’s request to waive fees for financial assurances that goes toward decommissioning costs.
...
The Department of Interior requires these bonds from oil and gas producers, as taxpayers have been stuck decommissioning the projects of companies that go bankrupt or were operating prior to bonding requirements.
California, for example, is trying to decommission 23 federal offshore platforms at a cost of $1.7 billion, and the liability for those costs remain unresolved. There are also thousands of onshore orphaned wells across the country that the federal government is trying to plug. In some cases, these wells were drilled a century or more ago before bonding requirements, and there’s no solvent owner of record to hold accountable for the costs.
In Wyoming, an industry sprang up a decade ago hoping to tap coal beds for natural gas, but after natural gas prices collapsed, the entire industry collapsed with it. The state was left with a lot of wells to plug and no companies to hold accountable.
While the Biden administration is granting waivers for these protections to offshore wind projects, it’s proposing steep increases in bonding requirements for oil and gas operations. While that proposal is met with support from environmentalists, industry groups have criticized the measure.
Kathleen Sgamma, president of the Western Energy Alliance, told Reuters in July that rather than trying to ensure funding for reclamation efforts, the administration was raising the costs so high as a means to reduce the number of operations.
Elmer Peter Danenberger III, a petroleum engineer with decades of experience in the oil and gas industry, explained on his “Bud’s Offshore Energy” blog that BOEM’s decision to waive Vineyard Wind’s obligations significantly increases the public’s risk exposure. Danenberger wrote that BOEM, in granting the waiver, cited a general departure authority, which was intended for special situations and not for waivers that could be applied broadly.
“There are no criteria in the Vineyard Wind waiver approval that could not apply to other wind developers,” Danenberger wrote. Due to this waiver, he explained, should Vineyard Wind fail and not fully fund their decommissioning account in a timely manner, the public will likely incur substantial costs to remove the wind towers.
“Whether the project is for oil, gas, or wind energy, protecting the public from decommissioning liabilities should always be prioritized over facilitating development,” Danenberger added.
What are the chief duties of the President?
make treaties with the approval of the Senate.
veto bills and sign bills.
represent our nation in talks with foreign countries.
enforce the laws that Congress passes.
act as Commander-in-Chief during a war.
call out troops to protect our nation against an attack.
More items...
This diaper-wrapped demented clown is a walking disaster.
Everything he touches turns to...well, you know.
“protecting the public from decommissioning liabilities should always be prioritized over facilitating development”
This is one of those things that has the potential to be a lead blanket over any energy development. Wind is the leading edge. The bigger precedent will affect oil and gas, and the article points it out. If this goes somewhere its likely that there will be some sort of levy (tax) on new development. There already is in some places.
- The first significant issue is that when there is a pot of money available regulatory opportunists (politicians, regulators, “consultants”, “activists”) will swarm in to inflate costs of compliance. This is already happening, and has happened before - in re nukes for instance.
- Compliance burdens will escalate until the shift in economic breakeven for new development will suppress it. That is a really good way to turn the US back into a net energy importer.
BULLSH&T, The House should reduce the Budget of the EPA by whatever funds are necessary and an additional 30% just to be assholes.
Well, its not him, personally. Its a collective that pushes for this stuff. He is a figurehead at best, just a puppet probably.
“BULLSH&T, The House should reduce the Budget of the EPA by whatever funds are necessary and an additional 30% just to be assholes.”
The EPA jus bought 3 million in arms and ammo.
“The House should reduce the Budget of the EPA by whatever funds are necessary and an additional 30% just to be assholes.”
This is a very good idea, on its own, but the EPA is just a small part of the regulatory-industrial complex.
Anyway you slice it, we Taxpayers will foot the bill for clean-up/ removal, whether it’s US Govt or US Govt-Taxpayer subsidized, phony-baloney “green” companies doing it. We get stuck for the install, repair, clean-up and removal, lawsuits, damage etc.
Wassamatter? Wind not good enough?
Northeast and area around Martha’s Vineyard is where I MOST want windmills !
-fJRoberts-
Vineyard Wind hasn’t failed and is still under construction. Should be finished this year. If it does fail and there are no funds for removal, just leave them out there as a monument to green energy fails.
Who wipes his ass????
WIND and SOLAR are bad deals.......and are NOT green.
Yeah...there’s that...@!!!
“WIND and SOLAR are bad deals.......and are NOT green.”
Well, mostly yes, they are uneconomic and not “green”. On a total cost (or total impact) basis nothing at all is “green”, and wind & solar are less green than a bunch of other things.
There are cases where wind or solar make some sense, but these are pretty special ones. Smaller islands say, or other isolated places.
My point is about the general principles discussed, which include all generation sources and energy development.
>Well, its not him, personally. Its a collective that pushes for this stuff. He is a figurehead at best, just a puppet probably.<
We know, but we have to call out someone. His name is just as dirty.
“..Who wipes his ass????...”
Most likely, a cute little secret service girl...with nice-smelling hair.
LOL!!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.