Monthly Archives: April 2020

Dive Brief:

Action was expected from regulators to hasten offshore wind development. New York needs to solicit 1,800 MW more of the resource to meet its 2,400 MW goal by 2030.

The PSC comment period for the order closed just three days before regulators finalized it, which was faster than anticipated. Clean energy advocates applauded regulators for acting so quickly.

"The quick pace is a happy surprise for many in the industry who had urged the commission to move quickly in light of the expiring tax credit and other factors," Noah Shaw, partner at Hodgson Russ and former general counsel at NYSERDA, told Utility Dive.

However, NYSERDA put the brakes on a potential solicitation this summer."While NYSERDA fully supports and is poised to execute on this authorization, based on industry input and a careful assessment of New Yorks COVID-19 status, we feel that issuing a near term solicitation would not be responsible nor advisable at this time," according to a statement from the agency.

Regulators view the accelerated cost reductions for the technology combined with its environmental attributes and economic development benefits as "an overall benefit to New Yorkers," according to the order.

The Phase 1 procurement of contracts for 1,696 MW of offshore wind "are expected to range between a net direct cost of approximately $0.4 billion and a net direct benefit of approximately $1.9 billion, based on contracted prices and depending on future market prices," according to a NYSERDA report.

While the second solicitation is not expected this summer, New York is positioning itself as a leader in the market.Gov. Andrew Cuomo mentioned the pursuit of 1,000 MW or more of additional offshore wind this year in his annual address and the state is targeting 9,000 MW of the resource by 2035. New Jersey is pursuing a 3,500 MW goal by 2030 and Massachusetts is targeting 3,200 MW by 2035.

This would be the largest solicitation for offshore wind capacity in the U.S., according to the New York Offshore Wind Alliance.

New York "is also focused on positioning itself at the forefront of the Northeast market to, among other things,maximize economic benefits to New Yorkers and attract the regional supply chain a jobs opportunity that is even more needed as the State will look to boost its economy after the COVID shutdown," Shaw said.

"Given the dynamic nature of the situation,NYSERDA is closely monitoring the ongoing crisis to determine the best time to issues this solicitation in coordination with a $200 million opportunity to upgrade New Yorks ports," NYSERDA said.

Others in the nascent U.S. offshore wind industry voiced concerns that the safety restrictions and economic downturn anticipated with COVID-19 would scatter the growing supply chain in the region. Having New York double down on its investment in offshore wind will "ensure the pipeline to U.S. small business suppliers stays open and ready for business," Liz Burdock, president and CEO of the Business Network for Offshore Wind, said in a statement.

The order did not set a deadline for the next round of proposals, but advocates "anticipate timely action by NYSERDA," according to Jeff Vockrodt, executive director of Climate Jobs NY.

More:

New York hits the brakes on 2.5 GW solicitation of offshore wind due to COVID-19 - Utility Dive

In a public letter to a New Hampshire newspaper in early 1948, General Dwight D. Ike Eisenhower, then Chief of Staff of the Army, poured cold water on the burgeoning movement, spearheaded by prominent U.S. citizens and politicians, to persuade the countrys most preeminent soldier to enter politics beginning with the states Republican primary in March of the same year. [L]ifelong professional soldiers, in the absence of some obvious and over-riding reason, [should] abstain from seeking high political office, the general emphatically stated.

Yet less than three years later, in January 1951, such an overriding reason emerged in the nations presidential political fray of 1952. The Grand Old Party (GOP) gathered around Robert A. Taft, the Republican Senator from Ohio. Nicknamed Mr. Republican, Taft was the leader of the partys nationalist Old Right or Republican Old Guard, principally known for their strong anti-statist and anti-interventionist positions in domestic and foreign policies perhaps most evident in their opposition to New Deal liberalism and U.S. entry into World War II. Eisenhower, in April 1951, had assumed his role as the first NATO supreme commander. Tafts known hostility to NATO in conjunction with public opposition in the country to sending U.S. ground troops to Europe, however, concerned Eisenhower that whatever he would accomplish diplomatically and militarily abroad would be nullified politically at home. Eisenhowers sentiment was reinforced by some of his closest friends, who were alarmed at the prospect of a Taft presidency. We cannot let the isolationists gain control of government if we are to endure as a free people over the years, General Lucius Clay wrote to Ike, stressing in a separate note that nothing accomplished there [NATO] would have any real permanency, should the senator from Ohio enter the White House.

Eisenhower invited Taft to a tte--tte at the Pentagon in early 1951 to convince him of the need for a NATO buildup to confront the growing Soviet menace on the old continent. According to Eisenhowers account, he asked Taft whether he and his Old Right congressional associates would support a bipartisan policy of collective security for the United States and Europe. If Taft were to answer yes, then Eisenhower would remain in Europe as supreme commander for the next years, if no then NATO would be set back, and I would probably be back in the United States, the general recalled. Taft declined, arguing that then U.S. President Harry Truman had no constitutional right to send troops to Europe. The conversation, Eisenhower said, aroused my fears that isolationism was stronger in the Congress than I had previously suspected. After the meeting, he tore up a prepared statement disavowing politics. Eisenhower later claimed that this marked the beginning of his presidential ambitions.

Yet Taft was no longer an isolationist. While it was true that the senator, elected to the U.S. Senate ten months before the outbreak of World War II, was one of the leading voices of the nationalist anti-interventionist wing of the GOP in the early 1940snotably opposing the Lend-Lease Act of 1941by the time of the long talk between him and Eisenhower in 1952, his foreign policy position had matured and shifted from isolationism to what realist international relations scholars have labeled offshore balancingthough neither Taft nor any other policymakers labeled it as such. An offshore balancing strategy recognizes spheres of influence, regional balances of power, and pushes for burden-shifting away from the United States to its allies and partners. John J. Mearsheimer and Stephen M. Walt summarized the strategy thus in 2016: Instead of policing the world, the United States would encourage other countries to take the lead in checking rising powers, intervening itself only when necessary. Conversely, Hal Brands offers a more critical definition: In its simplest form, offshore balancing envisions slashing U.S. force posture and alliance commitments overseas, and undertaking a market retrenchment in U.S. policy more broadly. Its guiding premise is that such retrenchment can lead to greater security at a lesser costthat less, in other words can really be more. At the core, an offshore balancing strategy for the United States means maintaining regional hegemony in the Western hemisphere while maintaining a balance of power in Asia and Europe, chiefly through allied nations buoyed by U.S. military aid, thus preventing any other great power from dominating these geo-strategically important regions.

Taft pushed exactly such a strategy in the 1950s, although never formally naming it so. Inspired by the lessons of Great Britain during the Napoleonic Wars, the senator proposed a continental defense and selective containment strategy that connected key strategic points across the globe underpinned by U.S. air and naval power, all reinforced by balance-of-power politics and the deterrent effect of nuclear weaponsin short, an offshore balancing strategy. As Colin Dueck in his study of Republican foreign policy since World War II notes, by 1951, Taft had come a long way from his prior isolationism. Given his eminent standing within the GOP, the 1952 Republican primary was the only window for such a strategy at the national political level as an alternative to the bipartisan internationalist consensus and containment strategy that emerged following the 1947 announcement of the Truman Doctrine. Unfortunately, Taft poorly promoted his vision. Given ongoing debates about the future direction of U.S. foreign policy ranging from a new isolationism to continued liberal hegemony, it may be opportune to reexamine Tafts ideas from the 1950s.

A Foreign Policy for Americans

Tafts transformation from isolationist to an advocate for offshore balancing is best illustrated by analyzing the only book the senator wrote in his lifetime: A Foreign Policy for Americans. Published in November 1951, the book, according to the author of the authoritative Taft biography, Mr. Republican, is the most reliable single guide to his thinking. In it, Taft laid out his blueprint for a new global U.S. strategy and defense policy to confront the Soviet Union while keeping defense spending and global U.S. commitments relatively low. Tafts principal concern was that U.S. over-commitment abroad would lead to the erosion of limited government at home and, most importantly for Taft, and increase executive authority.

The book was partially influenced by a great congressional debate over Trumans decision in the fall of 1950 to commit several U.S. divisions to a new NATO defense force in Europe and overall increases in defense spending amidst the Korean War. U.S. military planners in the late 1940s and early 1950s were aiming to create a 76th division NATO army, including forty-five hundred aircraft, by 1957, with a sizeable U.S. contingent. (The eventual U.S. contribution would be the 7th Army.)

Tafts principal concern was that such a force committed the United States to a land war in Europe and Asia. What I object to is undertaking to fight that battle () primarily on the vast land areas of the continent of Europe or the continent of Asia, where we are at the greatest possible disadvantage in a war with Russia, Taft writes. The first principle of military strategy is not to fight on the enemys chosen battleground, where he has his greatest strength. This was also informed by recent U.S. experiences in North Korea. Exactly a year prior to the books publication date in November 1950, the 8th U.S. Army and its South Korean allies were routed by Chinese and North Korean troops at the Yalu River on the border between North Korea and China and were forced to retreat to below the 38th parallel bisecting the Korean Peninsula.

Yet, Tafts reluctance to commit ground troops did not mean abandoning allies. Taft, noting that the United States is of course, interested in the defense of Europe emphasized that it is ultimately within their national interest for European countries to provide not only the bulk of the troops but also the bulk of the interest and initiative () [but] finally take over the responsibilitya refrain heard to this day. Aware of his reputation as an isolationist, Taft reiterated, however, that he did not agree with those who think we can completely abandon the rest of the world and rely solely on the defense of this continent. He merely questioned those who had equated not sending U.S. ground troops to the old continent with running out on Europe despite the United States having definitely agreed to go to the defense of these countries if they are attacked. What Taft suggested instead was an offshore balancing strategy for the United States that does not rely on sending large ground forces overseas as part of long-term defense pacts, but rather relies on U.S. air and maritime power, paired with the United States burgeoning nuclear arsenal, to deter and, if need be, defend against Communist military actions.

At the core was the idea of the United States acting as an independent arbiter of power similar to Great Britain, which brought about the balanced peace of the last half of the 19th century. Driving home his point about ground troops, Taft also noted that London seldom committed any considerable number of British land troops to continental warfare (). Instead, it relied on its powerful Royal Navy. The United States, even beyond its considerable naval fleet, would principally rely on the nuclear-capable air force, the best possible defense for the United States and also the best deterrent to war. This air-atomic force, as he called it in a January 1951 Senate speech, would have global reach and would act as the prime deterrent against Communist aggression.

See more here:

How the 1952 Republican Primary Killed Offshore Balancing - The National Interest

Dive Brief:

BOEM considers applications as they come in and progress on the Skipjack application is therefore queued behind Vineyard Wind, Liz Burdock, president of the Business Network for Offshore Wind told Utility Dive. She said the Network and others in the offshore wind industry have asked BOEM to let Skipjack jump ahead and decouple projects in different offshore leasing areas from its review of Vineyard Wind.

BOEM is currently reviewing the Construction and Operations Plan (COP) for Skipjack and a handful of other projects planned for Atlantic. After completing the COP review, the agency would issue a Notice of Intent to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement.

"At this time, we don't have an anticipated date for completing [the Skipjack COP] review," a BOEM spokesperson told Utility Dive.

The notice sent to the Maryland PSCabout the project doesn't state a reason for a date revision."Skipjack remains committed to developing, constructing, and operating the Project to enable Maryland both to achieve its renewable energy goals and to benefit from the in-State economic activity associated with the Project," Christopher Gunderson, attorney with the Baltimore firm Venable, wrote in the letter.

However, the developer has been clear in a subsequent statement about the timeline revision.

"As the federal permitting timeline evolves,rstedis now receiving its federal Notice of Intent for the Skipjack Wind Farm later than originally anticipated,"Gabriel Martinez, company spokesperson, told Utility Dive.

Project delays can sometimes be due to technical reasons, but that's apparently not the case with Skipjack.

PSC staff filed testimony on Friday about the project's switch from 8 MW to 12 MW wind turbines, which concluded among other things that "the turbine selection does not impact the scheduled commercial operations date."

Burdock also confirmed, from rsted's conversations with the Network, that the delay was not due to technology. However, the one-year delay will give developers an opportunity to figure out how to bring suppliers together "in the new normal" as expectations for social distancing evolve, she said.

"From my understanding, and talking to them,[the delay] does have to do with the BOEM process and some impacts from COVID," she said.

rsteddid not respond to questions about the role of COVID-19 on project delays, which will be based off the coast of Delaware in the Delmarva region.

But project permitting work for offshore wind in general could encounter some hurdles during the novel coronavirus pandemic. For example, some leasing areas require impact studies of marine life that only comes into the region in the spring. According to the American Wind Energy Association, a developer that needs a permit regarding wildlife in the springtime could be delayed for a year, to conduct such studies the following spring if current pandemic-related work restrictions delay activities.

The vast majority of BOEM's workforce is on telework status and the agency continues to accept and process COPs as offshore wind developers submit them, according to a BOEM spokesperson.

BOEM has adjusted very efficiently to remote work, according to Burdock. "BOEM has said that they are figuring out how to use virtual tools to engage with stakeholders."

Excerpt from:

Skipjack offshore wind announces 1 year delay due to federal permitting holdups - Utility Dive

Three European countries have moved to restrict companies that keep large sums of money overseas in tax havens from accessing stimulus funds.

Business Insider reported Thursday that France's top finance minister said on a radio show that his goal was to prevent such companies from being eligible to receive any government stimulus.

"It goes without saying that if a company has its tax headquarters or subsidiaries in a tax haven, I want to say with great force, it will not be able to benefit from state financial aid," said Bruno Le Maire.

"If your head office is located in a tax haven, it is obvious that you cannot benefit from public support," he added

His announcement follows similar declarations from officials in Denmark and Poland.

Denmark's government ended support for companies with overseas fortunes in an order issued days ago by the country's finance ministry extending a government bailout program into July, according to Business Insider.

"Companies based on tax havens in accordance with EU guidelines cannot receive compensation, insofar as it is possible to cut them off under EU law and any other international obligations," a translation of the Danish order read.

Poland's prime minister reportedly went a step further earlier this month, calling for an end to all tax havens, according to the news outlet: "end tax havens, which are the bane of modern economies."

Prominent media figures in the U.K. and Italy have also blasted companies for not paying taxes, pointing to underfunded public services amid the coronavirus outbreak.

"It has become evident that those who do not pay their taxes are not only guilty of a crime, but of murder: if the beds and the respirators are not there they are partly to blame," wrote one Italian broadcaster in an op-ed for La Repubblica.

Here is the original post:

European countries exclude companies registered in offshore tax havens from coronavirus stimulus | TheHill - The Hill

At the Manora platform in the Gulf of Thailand, operator Mubadala Petroleum has put in place plans and procedures for business continuity, infection control, pandemic response, infectious disease outbreak managements, logistics, and aviation.

(Courtesy Tap Oil)

Offshore staff

PERTH, Australia Tap Oil and partner Mubadala Petroleum have implemented protocols to reduce the risk of the coronavirus spreading among personnel involved in activities offshore Thailand.

Both companies corporate staff in Bangkok are now working remotely from home. At the Manora platform in the Gulf of Thailand, Mubadala, as operator, has put in place plans and procedures for business continuity, infection control, pandemic response, infectious disease outbreak managements, logistics, and aviation.

In additional, crew changes onto the Manora offshore facilities have been extended by two weeks to ensure staff undertake a period of 14 days quarantine before going offshore.

Discussions continue on a planned three-well development drilling and workover program this year at Manora, with Mubadala and Tap aligned on the choice of wells, drilling locations, volumes, and risks.

Initiatives include cancellation of one planed exploration well and a planned opex/workover program, with brownfield capex costs of $2.8 million deferred until 2021.

The overall 2020 Manora work program and budget in total has now been reduced by $14 million.

Production at the end of March 2020 averaged 5,536 b/d, 5% above the base plan for the year.

04/24/2020

See the article here:

Partners assessing Manora well options offshore Thailand amid cutbacks - Offshore Oil and Gas Magazine

VIRGINIA BEACH, Va. Parts for Dominion Energy's planned offshore wind project are making their way across the globe.

They're being built in Germany -- shipped through Denmark -- and are now on their way to Canada.

Work on the first two wind turbines is expected to begin this summer. When completed, they'll be pumping power from about 27-miles offshore of Virginia Beach.

rsted, a power company based in Denmark, will lease a portion of the Portsmouth Marine Terminal for offshore wind staging materials and equipment.

The turbines are part of Governor Ralph Northam's plans to have Virginia run on renewable energy. Last year he enactive Executive Order 43, which sets new statewide clean energy goals for the Commonwealth, including having 30 percent of Virginias electric system powered from renewable sources by 2030, and 100 percent of electricity coming from carbon-free sources by 2050.

See the rest here:

Offshore wind turbines on their way to Virginia - 13newsnow.com WVEC

Attendees from across the globe, including Europe, China, Mexico, Canada, and the US, heard 30 expert speakers and provided feedback on time-sensitive information affecting the offshore wind industry.

The Networks IPF Virtual (also known as the International Partnering Forum), featured leading government regulators seeking input from the industry. Jim Bennett, chief, Office of Renewable Energy Programs, Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM) told participants that the overall demand for offshore wind energy is high and growing, and that the industry is mostly on course to maintain its rapid development.

Offshore wind energy will make a major contribution to this countrys economic revival in the coming months and years said Liz Burdock, President and CEO of the Business Network. She added that lowering IPFs carbon footprint was a fitting way to celebrate the 50th anniversary of Earth Day. The silver lining of our current circumstances is the over 119,000 pounds of carbon emissions saved on air travel, hotels, and food.

States from Massachusetts to Virginia have already made major commitments to offshore wind energy, led by New York Gov. Andrew Cuomos commitment of 9 gigawatts (GW) by 2035 and New Jersey Gov. Phil Murphys commitment by 7.5 GW by then. Speakers addressed challenges that the US industry must overcome to get there, including some related to the coronavirus pandemic:

On permitting, James Bennett said that the US Interior Department of Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM) employees have not been hindered by teleworking, and the much-anticipated Environmental Impact Statement for the Vineyard Wind 1 project is on track to be done by the end of the year. Stakeholder input can be gathered through videoconferencing and written comments, he said; in-person events are not required. Burdock said that with timely action by the federal government on seven pending permit applications, as many as 10 GW can be built by 2030.

On acceleration of jobs and investment, tens of thousands of American jobs and billions of dollars a year in private investment would swiftly follow final action on the permits. That economic boost could come at a very timely moment for the US economy said Matthew Palmer, vice president, Offshore Wind Manager, WSP.

On obtaining leases, Bill White, president and CEO of EnBW North America, said that fulfilling on governors ambitious commitments to offshore wind will require opening more areas for leasing. He expressed concern that there will not have enough bidders for offshore wind energy solicitations in 2020, 22, 24, 26 and 28, if BOEM holds too few auctions in the region. The lack of competition problem gets worse over time if these auctions dont take place, he said, and could affect the entire East Coast.

On attractive pricing, John Dalton of Power Advisory said pricing for ratepayers is key and that these costs have been coming down in recent agreements. Philipp Beiter, Energy Markets and Policy Analyst for the National Renewable Energy Laboratory, predicted the levelized cost of power from floating turbines, too (such as would be used off the West Coast), could fall as low as $53-$74/MwH by 2032.

On transmission bottlenecks, Eric Hines, director of the Offshore Wind Energy Graduate Program at Tufts University, noted that a tremendous amount of offshore wind power is already in the queues for the regional electric grids, with more to come, and that utilities must start preparing for this volume. He presented two scenarios, one with an offshore grid backbone, and one without it.

The next US offshore wind turbines will arrive soon. Virginia utility Dominion Energy Inc. announced yesterday that it will soon start construction on its two-turbine demonstration project, using components en route from Denmark and Germany via Canada. They will be the first since five were built off Block Island, Rhode Island, in 2016.

This is a monumental step toward the installation of the first offshore wind turbines in federal waters, which will deliver clean, renewable energy to our customers said Mark Mitchell, Dominions vice president of Generation Construction, in a statement. The utility has partnered with rsted on the project, to be completed this year.

Off the West Coast, virtually all the sites will be developed with floating wind turbines anchored in up to 1,300 meters of water. Chris Potter of the Ocean Protection Council moderated a wide-ranging discussion on the potential in California, Oregon and Hawaii. It covered future statewide commitments by California; the closely watched BOEM auction of the Morro Bay Wind Energy Area; negotiations with the Department of Defense; and make-or-break transmission issues.

Other sessions covered developments in resource assessment such as with Lidar buoys; underwater inspections by divers and increasingly, by Remotely Operated Vehicles (ROVs); hiring practices, worksite safety, and job opportunities for engineers and surveyors.

Next up, the Network is hosting Pitch and Brew events that will connect individuals in the industry virtually by video and phone calls.

For additional information:

Business Network for Offshore Wind

Excerpt from:

Wind - US offshore wind will make major contribution to economic recovery say speakers in IPF Virtual Conference - Renewable Energy Magazine

Three persons were injured, one seriously, after a crew transfer vessel (CTV) allided with a wind turbine at the Borkum Riffgrund 1 offshore wind farm in the German North Sea.

The 26-metre CTV Njord Forseti reported the incident at 6:25 pm local time, Thursday, 23 April, German Maritime Search and Rescue Association (Deutsche Gesellschaft zur Rettung Schiffbrchiger (DGzRS)) said.

The 24 PAX vessel, located some 45 kilometres north of the island of Borkum, also reported taking on water.

The rescue services contacted the crew of the nearby multi-purpose offshore vessel Siem Baracuda. The vessels emergency medic started the initial care of those injured in the accident within minutes, Dirk Lindemann, guard manager in the SEENOTLEITUNG BREMEN of the DGzRS, said.

The customs ship Helgoland and the multi-purpose ship Mellum also went to the scene of the accident.

DGzRS dispatched a new SK 40 sea rescue cruiser to the wind farm.The rescue team also alerted a Northern HeliCopter emergency helicopter that was manned by an emergency doctor.

The rescue helicopter flew the seriously injured from the Siem Barracuda to the University Hospital Groningen in the Netherlands, and then one person with less serious injuries to Westerstede.The CTV Njord Zephyr took over the third injured person which had minor injuries.

Meanwhile, the crew of Njord Forseti, which was taking on water through a half-metre crack in the bow, managed to keep the water ingress under control using on-board equipment.To be on the safe side, the SK 40 accompanied the vessel on her trip to Lauwersoog, the Netherlands.

The 312 MW Borkum Riffgrund 1 wind farm comprises 78 4 MW wind turbines which were officially commissioned in October 2015. The wind farm is operated by rsted.

Read the original post:

Three Injured after CTV Hits Wind Turbine at German Offshore Wind Farm - Offshore WIND

Text size

Offshore oil drilling has been declining for more than five years, but the industry took a sharper turn south in the past few weeks. The companies still standing are now facing more existential questions. Several are carrying debt loads that look unsustainable at current prices.

The shakeout is starting. On Thursday, Diamond Offshore Drilling (ticker: DO) elected not to make an interest payment and said it would work with advisors to evaluate its capital structure. The company isnt in defaultit has a 30-day grace periodbut the market is registering skepticism. Shares are trading at 79 cents, down from $12 a year ago.

More such announcements are likely in the months ahead. Producers are cutting back on drilling to conserve cash now that oil prices are below $30 per barrel. On Friday, West Texas crude futures closed at $18.27, a new 18-year low. Day rates for drilling, which had been rising at the start of the year, are once again tumbling. Several companies that had once been worth several billion dollarslike Noble Corp. (NE), Nabors Industries (NBR) and Transocean (RIG) have now dipped below $1 billion or even $100 million.

Evercore analyst James West says there are two companies that have strong enough balance sheets and operations to weather the storm, though he doesnt think the stocks are buys. Transocean has contracts with major producers Equinor (EQNR) and Royal Dutch Shell (RDS.A) that give it several years of runway. Meanwhile Maersk Drilling (DRLCO) has a balance sheet that gives it similar ballast. But he rates both In-line instead of Outperform, given the prolonged downturn and uncertainty ahead.

On the other side, Valaris (VAL), Pacific Drilling (PACD), and Noble are likely restructuring candidates. Each of those stocks trades under $1 and faces serious challenges ahead.

Noble declined to comment. Pacific Drilling and Valaris didnt respond to a request for comment.

Offshore oil drilling doesnt look like it is going away entirely, of course. Major oil companies like Exxon Mobil (XOM) and Shell have been betting big on offshore projects and have kept them going, even as they cut other spending to deal with the oil price downturn.

If the offshore companies werent so leveraged youd say they were in a better position, West said. Utilization and pricing will drop, but not nearly as bad as a U.S. land fracking company. Offshore spending may be down 10%-15%, but thats not as bad as the 40% expected drop in U.S. land drilling. Oil service giant Schlumberger (SLB) said on its earnings call Friday that it is seeing pockets of resilience in offshore drilling in places like Australia.

The problem is several offshore drillers have too much leverage, and their coming debt maturities and lack of free cash flow mean that the stocks likely wont work well as investments.

West expects multiple companies to restructure and for the industry to consolidate aggressively afterward. Its too early to bet on the winners in this case. Bankruptcies could wipe out the equity of some companies. The industry could fall from 15 sizable players to between three and five. The bigger get bigger and stronger and gain more market share and the weaker get smaller and weaker and get forced out of the market, West said.

He thinks that the major oil service companies are in relatively better shape, making their stocks worth buying at these levels. That includes Schlumberger, which drills on land and in the ocean. Its decision to cut its dividend pleased Wall Street, because the business looks much more sustainable now. And as the shakeout comes closer, Schlumberger is likely to be a winner, along with fellow major service company Baker Hughes (BKR), West predicts. Oil inventory is piling up so fast that it will likely be a year at least before business picks up, so investors will have to be patient. These are fantastic opportunities to get in, but youve got a waiting period before you get paid, he said.

He also rates Halliburton (HAL) at Outperform, but sees it as less attractive than the other two.

Meanwhile, people comfortable investing in risky debt may see more opportunities in offshore drilling companies.

The credit investors are much more interested here than the equity investors, says West. The market caps are so low that if you take any kind of real position you basically own the company or at least get a board seat.

Write to Avi Salzman at avi.salzman@barrons.com

Visit link:

Offshore Oil Stocks Are Sinking. Heres What to Buy. - Barron's