ON COVER—Graphic representation of Independence Hub. 
OCS Report 

MMS 2007-021 

Deepwater Gulf of Mexico 2007: 

Interim Report of 2006 Highlights 

Authors 

Robert H. Peterson 

G. Ed Richardson 

Christy M. Bohannon 

Eric G. Kazanis 

Tara M. Montgomery 

Lesley D. Nixon 

Mike P. Gravois 

Gregory D. Klocek 

U.S. Department of the Interior 

Minerals Management Service New Orleans 

Gulf of Mexico OCS Region May 2007 
PREFACE 

This is the seventh publication that the Minerals Management Service (MMS) has 

released chronicling the levels of deepwater exploration, development, and production 

activities in the Gulf of Mexico (GOM). 

This past year has seen significant advances in exploration and development. In 2006, 

twelve new deepwater discoveries were announced by industry as a result of ambitious 

exploration programs. These discoveries are estimated to add approximately 1.3 billion 

barrels of oil equivalent (BOE) to the GOM reserves base. Some of these discoveries were 

located in the new Lower Tertiary trend, where large oil and gas volumes have been 

encountered, but have only been lightly tested. The first sustained well test in the trend, 

the Jack 2 well, occurred last year and its results are being carefully analyzed. Data from 

this test were highly publicized and are very encouraging; however, many questions remain 

to be answered before it is determined whether the hydrocarbon resources throughout the 

trend will be economically recoverable. Over the next few years, it is anticipated that one 

or more fields will be producing from this large deepwater trend. 

Deepwater production has continued to be a very important part of the total GOM 

production, providing 70 percent of the oil and 40 percent of the gas in the region. Since the 

year 2000, more oil has been produced in the deepwater areas of the GOM than from 

shallower waters. Nineteen of the 20 highest producing blocks in the GOM were in the 

deepwater area. 

Several other noteworthy events occurred in 2006. The passage of the Gulf of Mexico 

Energy Security Act of 2006 late last year will open two new areas in the deepwater GOM 

to leasing activities; it placed leasing moratoria on other areas; and it increases the 

distribution of offshore oil and gas revenues to coastal producing states. New planning 

area/sale boundaries were established, and the royalty rate for deepwater leases was 

increased to 16.7 percent (up from 12.5%). 

The oil and gas industry is “pushing the envelope” of technology in drilling wells in water 

depths of over 10,000 feet (ft) (3,048 meters (m)); and with well depths in excess of 30,000 ft 

(9,144 m), many are under high temperature and high pressure conditions. State-of-the-art 

technologies must be developed and implemented. Last year, MMS approved 30 new 

technologies for use in the deepwater GOM. To ensure safe drilling and production 

operations in the GOM, MMS continues to work with the American Petroleum Institute 

(API) to write and update standards for offshore activities. 

The MMS plays a critical role in the sound development of energy resources in the 

deepwater GOM. By ensuring the receipt of fair market value for the sale of leases, 

encouraging conservation, evaluating and approving new technology, and regulating the 

drilling and production of fields in ever deepening water depths, MMS is a responsible 

steward of U.S. offshore resources. 

Lars Herbst

Acting Regional Director

Minerals Management Service

iii
v

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

Page 

PREFACE .................................................................................................................................. iii

FIGURES...................................................................................................................................vii

TABLES ......................................................................................................................................ix

ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS .....................................................................................xi

INTRODUCTION........................................................................................................................1

BACKGROUND...........................................................................................................................3

Definitions..............................................................................................................................3

Change in Administrative Boundaries (Sale Boundaries) ..................................................3

Expanding Frontier ...............................................................................................................3

Exploration Activity ..............................................................................................................3

Challenges and Rewards.......................................................................................................9

LEASING AND ENVIRONMENT ...........................................................................................13

Introduction .........................................................................................................................13

Leasing Activity...................................................................................................................13

Leasing Trends ....................................................................................................................14

Future Lease Activity..........................................................................................................15

Regulatory Issues ................................................................................................................17

Royalty Rate Increases .............................................................................................17

Gulf of Mexico Energy Security Act of 2006 ............................................................17

Environmental Issues .........................................................................................................21

Ocean Current Monitoring .......................................................................................21

Grid Programmatic Environmental Assessments...................................................23

DRILLING AND DEVELOPMENT .........................................................................................25

Drilling Activity...................................................................................................................27

New Technology...................................................................................................................29

High Integrity Pressure Protection System (HIPPS) for Pipelines........................29

Pre-set Polyester Moorings for MODU’s ..................................................................30

Subsea Separation and Boosting System.................................................................30

Floating Production, Storage, and Offloading (FPSO) Facility ..............................30

Review Process ..........................................................................................................30
vi

Development Systems .........................................................................................................31

Fixed Platform...........................................................................................................31

Compliant Tower.......................................................................................................31

Tension-Leg Platform................................................................................................32

Semisubmersible Production Facility ......................................................................32

Spar............................................................................................................................32

Subsea Systems.........................................................................................................33

Independence Hub...............................................................................................................34

RESERVES AND PRODUCTION............................................................................................37

Discoveries ...........................................................................................................................37

Reserve Potential.................................................................................................................37

Production Trends ...............................................................................................................38

Production Rates .................................................................................................................39

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS..........................................................................................41

Development Cycle ..............................................................................................................42

Expanding Frontier .............................................................................................................44

CONTRIBUTING PERSONNEL..............................................................................................45

REFERENCES ..........................................................................................................................47

APPENDICES ...........................................................................................................................51

Appendix A. Development Systems of Productive Deepwater GOM Projects ..............51

Appendix B. Average Annual GOM Oil and Gas Production.........................................57

Appendix C. A Modification of the June 12, 1998, Withdrawal of Certain Areas of 

the United States Outer Continental Shelf from Leasing Disposition ....59

Appendix D. Selected NTL’s with 2006 Effective Dates.................................................61

Appendix E. Lease Sale Related Information.................................................................63

Appendix F. Gulf of Mexico Energy Security Act of 2006..............................................67
vii

FIGURES 

Page 

Figure 1. Current planning areas in the Gulf of Mexico. ..........................................................4 

Figure 2. New planning areas in the Gulf of Mexico................................................................4 

Figure 3. Lower Tertiary trend stratigraphic section in the deepwater Gulf of Mexico. ..........5 

Figure 4. Lower Tertiary trend in the deepwater Gulf of Mexico.............................................5 

Figure 5. Lower Tertiary trend seismic line. (Data shown by permission from 

CGGVeritas.) .............................................................................................................6 

Figure 6. The Cajun Express rig used for the Jack 2 well production test. (Photo courtesy 

of Chevron.) ...............................................................................................................8 

Figure 7. Deepwater discoveries by year. ...............................................................................10 

Figure 8. Estimated volume of proved deepwater fields.........................................................10 

Figure 9. Gulf of Mexico deepwater royalty relief zones. ......................................................13 

Figure 10. Active leases by water depth....................................................................................14 

Figure 11. Number of leases issued each year, subdivided by DWRRA water-depth 

categories. ................................................................................................................16 

Figure 12. Number of leases bid on for each deepwater interval..............................................16 

Figure 13a. Anticipated lease expirations from 2007 to 2012 in the Gulf of Mexico. ...............18 

Figure 13b. Anticipated lease expirations from 2013 to 2016 in the Gulf of Mexico. ...............19 

Figure 14. Map of the 181 Area and the 181 South Area. ........................................................20 

Figure 15. General bathymetric map showing the location of various instrument sites used 

during the Exploratory Study (Donohue et al., 2006b)............................................22 

Figure 16. Grid PEA status........................................................................................................24 

Figure 17. Deepwater EP’s, DOCD’s, and DWOP’s received in the Gulf of Mexico since 

1992..........................................................................................................................26 

Figure 18. Maximum number of deepwater rigs operating in the Gulf of Mexico...................27 

Figure 19. All deepwater wells drilled in the Gulf of Mexico, subdivided by water depth......28 

Figure 20. Deepwater exploratory wells drilled in the Gulf of Mexico, subdivided by water 

depth.........................................................................................................................28 

Figure 21. Deepwater development wells drilled in the Gulf of Mexico, subdivided by 

water depth...............................................................................................................29 

Figure 22. Location map of deepwater structures by type. .......................................................33 

Figure 23. Current, potential, and future hub facilities in the Gulf of Mexico. ........................34 
viii

Figure 24. Number of deepwater discoveries (MMS reserves, MMS resources, and 

industry-announced discoveries). ............................................................................37 

Figure 25a. OCS production as a percent of U.S. oil production................................................39 

Figure 25b. OCS production as a percent of U.S. gas production. .............................................39 

Figure 26. Contribution of DWRRA oil production to total oil production in water depths 

greater than 200 m (656 ft). .....................................................................................40 

Figure 27. Contribution of DWRRA gas production to total gas production in water depths 

greater than 200 m (656 ft). .....................................................................................40 

Figure 28. Deepwater projects starting production in 2005 and 2006 and those expected to 

begin production by yearend 2010...........................................................................42 

Figure 29. Deepwater lease activity and oil/natural gas prices. ................................................43 

Figure 30. Average lag times from lease acquisition to first production for producing 

deepwater fields. ......................................................................................................44 
ix

TABLES 

Page 

Table 1 2006 Announced Deepwater Discoveries in the Gulf of Mexico............................. 2 

Table 2 List of Deepwater Discoveries in Water Depths Greater than 

7,500 ft (2,286 m) ................................................................................................... 11 

Table 3 Number of Active Leases by Water-Depth Interval ............................................... 14 

Table 4 Grid PEA’s Status Within the Central and Western Planning Areas of the Gulf 

of Mexico................................................................................................................ 24 

Table 5 Top 20 Producing Blocks for the Years 2004-2005 ............................................... 38 
xi

ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS 

ac acres 

AC Alaminos Canyon 

AL Alabama 

API American Petroleum Institute 

AT Atwater Valley 

ATB articulated tug barge 

bbl barrel 

BBOE billion barrels of oil equivalent 

Bcf billion cubic feet 

Bcfpd billion cubic feet per day 

BOE barrels of oil equivalent 

BP British Petroleum 

Call/NOI Call for Information and 

Nominations/Notice of Intent 

CASE Climate and Simulation of 

Eddies 

cfpd cubic feet per day 

CFR Code of Federal Regulations 

CGOM Central Gulf of Mexico 

CICESE Centro de Investigación 

Científica y de Educación 

Superior de Ensenada 

CID Conservation Information 

Document 

CPA Central Planning Area 

DC DeSoto Canyon 

DOCD Development Operations 

Coordination Document 

DWOP Deep Water Operations Plan 

DWRRA Deep Water Royalty Relief Act 

EA environmental assessment 

EB East Breaks 

EGOM Eastern Gulf of Mexico 

EIA Energy Information 

Administration 

EIS environmental impact 

statement 

EJIP Eddy Joint Industry Project 

EP Exploration Plan 

EPA Eastern Planning Area 

EW Ewing Bank 

FL Florida 

FPS floating production system 

FPSO floating production, storage, 

and offloading 

FPU floating production unit 

FSHR free-standing hybrid risers 

ft feet 

GB Garden Banks 

GC Green Canyon 

GOM Gulf of Mexico 

GOMESA Gulf of Mexico Energy Security 

Act of 2006 

HEAT Hurricane Evacuation and 

 Assessment Team 

HIPPS high integrity pressure 

protection system 

ITB integrated tug barge 

KC Keathley Canyon 

km kilometers 

kn knots 

LA Louisiana 

LL Lloyd Ridge 

LSU Louisiana State University 

LWCF Land and Water Conservation 

Fund 

m meters 

Mbopd thousand barrels of oil per day 

MC Mississippi Canyon 

Mcf thousand cubic feet 

Mcfg thousand cubic feet of gas 

mi miles 

MMbbl million barrels 

MMcfpd million cubic feet per day 

MMS Minerals Management Service 

MODU mobile offshore drilling unit 

MS Mississippi 

MTLP mini-tension-leg platform 

NDBC National Data Buoy Center 

NEPA National Environmental Policy 

Act 

NTL Notice to Lessees and 

Operators 

OCS Offshore Continental Shelf 

PDQ production, drilling, and 

quarters 

PEA programmatic environmental 

assessment 

PIES inverted echo sounder with 

pressure 

RP recommended practices 
xii

SBS separation and boosting 

system 

SEBCEP Sigsbee Escarpment Bottom 

Current Enhancement Project 

SEIS supplemental environmental 

impact statement 

SITP shut-in tubing pressure 

ST South Timbalier 

TLP tension-leg platform 

TX Texas 

U.S. United States 

USDOE United States Department of 

Energy 

USDOI United States Department of 

the Interior 

VK Viosca Knoll 

WGOM Western Gulf of Mexico 

WR Walker Ridge 
1

INTRODUCTION 

The Deepwater Gulf of Mexico 2007 report is a condensed and updated edition of the 

biennial deepwater report published by MMS. The 2007 report provides an up-to-date 

review of activities in the deepwater GOM, including highlights from 2006. 

With the passage of the Gulf of Mexico Energy Security Act of 2006, new areas will be 

opened for leasing in the Central and Eastern Planning Areas. The MMS also altered the 

boundaries for all three planning areas in the GOM. These new boundaries will go into 

effect on July 1, 2007, concurrently with the new 5-Year Program (2007-2012), which 

establishes the offshore lease sales for the Nation. 

Exploration activity was strong again in the deepwater GOM. Deepwater exploratory 

drilling increased in 2006 with 101 wells drilled, compared with 93 wells drilled in 2005. 

The number of exploratory wells drilled in greater than 5,000 ft (1,524 m) of water rose 

from 25 in 2005 to 35 in 2006. Recent exploration efforts resulted in the announcement of 

12 new deepwater field discoveries (see table 1). Four of these discoveries were drilled in 

water depths greater than 5,000 ft (1,524 m). 

Significant milestones have also occurred in deepwater development activity. In 

addition to first production from 10 new deepwater fields, MMS approved 30 new 

technology applications. These technology advancements include a High Integrity Pressure 

Protection System (HIPPS), a conceptual plan for a Floating Production, Storage, and 

Offloading (FPSO) vessel, and the use of subsea boosting and processing equipment. The 

MMS and the oil and gas industry have continued to work together to revise and improve 

many of the API documents that serve as recommended practices to guide operational 

activities. 

This report is divided into five sections. 

The Background section 

• explains administrative boundary changes, 

• highlights exploration activity in the Lower Tertiary trend, and 

• provides information on current deepwater GOM discoveries. 

The Leasing and Environment section 

• depicts leasing activities and trends, 

• explains future leasing activities, including anticipated lease 

expirations, and 

• discusses regulatory and environmental issues. 

The Drilling and Development section 

• provides information on operational plans, 

• deepwater drilling activities, 

• approval of new technologies, and 

• deepwater development systems. 
2

The Reserves and Production section 

• explains large, new discovered volumes in 2006, 

• shows production rates and trends, 

• explains the importance of the deepwater areas to GOM production, 

and 

• discusses production recovery from Hurricanes Katrina and Rita. 

The Summary and Conclusions section 

• highlights activities that occurred in 2006, 

• shows the impact of oil and gas prices on lease activities, 

• explains drilling to production lag times, and 

• describes difficulties in evaluating deepwater leases before their lease 

terms expire. 

See table 1 below for a listing of the 2006 announced deepwater discoveries in the GOM. 

Table 1 

2006 Announced Deepwater Discoveries in the Gulf of Mexico 

Prospect Operator Area/Block Water Depth* 

(ft) 

Gotcha TOTAL E&P USA Alaminos Canyon 856 7,600 

Mission Deep Anadarko Green Canyon 955 7,300 

Kaskida BP Keathley Canyon 292 5,860 

Thunder Bird Murphy Mississippi Canyon 819 5,673 

Caesar Anadarko Green Canyon 683 4,457 

Friesian Shell Green Canyon 599 3,800 

Claymore Anadarko Atwater Valley 140 3,700 

Pony Hess Corporation Green Canyon 468 3,440 

Raton Noble Energy Mississippi Canyon 248 3,400 

Redrock Noble Energy Mississippi Canyon 204 3,334 

Ringo Nexen Mississippi Canyon 546 2,500 

Longhorn North Eni Mississippi Canyon 502 2,330 

* Water depths are approximate. 
3

BACKGROUND 

DEFINITIONS

For purposes of this report, deepwater is defined as water depths greater than or equal 

to 1,000 ft (305 m). More detailed definitions may be found in the annual Estimated Oil 

and Gas Reserves, Gulf of Mexico, December 31, 2003 report (Crawford et al., 2006). 

This 2007 report refers to deepwater developments by field names and operatordesignated project names. Appendix A, Development Systems of Productive Deepwater 

GOM Projects, provides locations and additional information regarding these fields and 

projects. All production volumes and rates reflect data through December 2005, unless 

otherwise noted. 

CHANGE IN ADMINISTRATIVE BOUNDARIES (SALE BOUNDARIES) 

On January 3, 2006, MMS published a notice in the Federal Register (2006; 71 FR 1) 

announcing the setting of Federal Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) offshore administrative 

boundaries beyond State submerged lands for planning, coordination, and administrative 

purposes. As a result, the GOM planning area boundaries have been moved to correspond 

to the new administrative lines. The planning area boundary change will take effect with 

the 2007-2012 5-Year Program on July 1, 2007. Lease Sales for the 2007-2012 5-Year 

Program are based on these new administrative boundaries. More information on how the 

administrative boundaries were developed can be found on the MMS’s Internet website at 

http://www.mms.gov/ld/AdminBoundaries.htm. Figures 1 and 2 show the changes in the 

planning area boundaries. The new planning area boundaries will appear on all pertinent 

maps in this report; however, historic data will refer to the old planning area boundaries. 

EXPANDING FRONTIER

At the end of 2006, there were 122 producing projects in the GOM’s deepwater areas, up 

from 118 producing projects as of March 2006. Over the last 15 years, there has been an 

expansion in many phases of deepwater activity. There are approximately 7,855 active 

leases in the Gulf of Mexico OCS, 54 percent of which are in deepwater. (Note that lease 

status may change daily, so the current number of active leases is an approximation.) 

Contrast this to approximately 5,600 active GOM leases in 1992, only 27 percent of which 

were in deepwater. On average, there were 30 rigs drilling in deepwater in 2006, compared 

with only 3 rigs in 1992. 

EXPLORATION ACTIVITY

Exploration drilling in the deepwater GOM has found oil and gas resources totaling 

more than 5 BBOE since 2002, double the amount reported in the 2005 Deepwater Interim 

Report (French et al., 2005). Recent discoveries in new deepwater plays continue to expand 

the exploration potential of the GOM. Several recently announced deepwater discoveries 

encountered large potential reservoirs in sands of Lower Tertiary age (Oligocene, Eocene, 

and Paleocene). 
4





 	












 	






	

 	

 
	

 
	

 
		

 
		



Figure 1. Current planning areas in the Gulf of Mexico. 

	

	







 	






	

	

	









 	






	



Figure 2. New planning areas in the Gulf of Mexico. 

This older portion of the Tertiary section has been lightly tested in the GOM, and the 

discovery of reservoirs of this geologic age has opened wide areas of the GOM to further 

exploration. The stratigraphic section in figure 3 shows that there are few current proved 

reserves in the Lower Tertiary trend, but newly announced discoveries (with an estimated 

potential 1.3 billion barrels of producible hydrocarbons) may represent a nearly 10 percent 

addition to total GOM oil and gas volumes. 
5

Figure 3. Lower Tertiary trend stratigraphic section in the deepwater Gulf of Mexico. 

Figure 4 illustrates the extent of the Lower Tertiary trend. The trend stretches from 

west to east over 450 mi and may reach up to 100 mi from north to south. The trend may 

cover over 30,000 mi2 (77,700 km2) at an average depth of 25,000 ft (7,620 m) subsea, much 

of it hidden below a thick canopy of salt. With only 12 announced discoveries and one 

extended well test to date, defining and delineating this trend will be an active exploration 

and appraisal activity for several years to come. 

Figure 4. Lower Tertiary trend in the deepwater Gulf of Mexico. 
6

Figure 5 is a depth-migrated seismic line across the Lower Tertiary trend. The first 

section identified in light blue in the graphic is the overlying salt. The salt has a very high 

velocity when compared with the surrounding rocks, and a correction for this high velocity 

zone must be made to best image the sediments below the salt. This correction is essential 

to generate an accurate depth map, locate wells, and delineate the limits of a potential oil 

and gas field. The objective lower Tertiary section is depicted in light gray and, at least on 

this single line, many trapping opportunities may be identified. This seismic line 

demonstrates the complex shape of the overlying salt and the difficulty of correcting for its 

high velocity. This line also demonstrates the challenges in drilling and testing many of the 

lower Tertiary prospects (also true for similar upper Tertiary subsalt wells). These 

challenges include 

• very deep waters, 

• a thick overlying salt layer, 

• target depths below 25,000 ft (7,620 m), and 

• the potential for high pressure and high temperature conditions. 

Figure 5. Lower Tertiary trend seismic line. (Data shown by permission from CGGVeritas.) 

The Lower Tertiary trend lies mostly in water depths of 4,000 to over 7,500 ft (1,219 to 

over 2,286 m) (figure 4). Drilling depths greater than 32,000 ft (9,754 m), high 

temperature, high pressures, and thousands of feet of overlying salt can drive well costs to 

$80-120 million. The availability of rigs capable of drilling these wells is limited, and with 

rig-on-location times of 3-6 months to drill each well, further delays in drilling additional 

prospects are created. This delay results in greater demands for rigs and is likely to lead to 

even higher well costs. 
7

In 2006, British Petroleum (BP) announced that a well drilled at their Kaskida prospect 

encountered a significant amount of hydrocarbon-bearing section. Located in the northcentral part of Keathley Canyon Block 292, the Kaskida prospect bridged the gap between 

the earlier Alaminos Canyon discoveries to the west and the more recent Walker Ridge 

discoveries to the east, as well as extended the play northward. Below are excerpts from 

BP’s news release of August 31, 2006, regarding their Kaskida prospect. 

BP America Inc. announced an oil discovery on an exploration well which tested the Kaskida 

prospect in the Gulf of Mexico. The well, located on Keathley Canyon block 292, is in about 

5,860 feet of water and is about 250 miles southwest of New Orleans. Kaskida was drilled to a 

total depth of approximately 32,500 feet in the lower tertiary and encountered 800 net feet of 

hydrocarbon-bearing sands. 

“Appraisal will be required to determine the size and commerciality of the discovery,” said 

David Rainey, Vice President Gulf of Mexico Exploration. “We expect to return to Kaskida 

later this year to commence appraisal activity.” (BP, 2006) 

Last year, too, Chevron used the Transocean Inc.’s Cajun Express drilling rig to perform 

an extended well production test on the Jack 2 well in Walker Ridge Block 758 (figure 6). 

Results from this test were eagerly awaited by companies involved in the Lower Tertiary 

trend. The discovery at the Jack prospect was announced in September 2004 and the 

results of the extended well test at Jack 2 were announced by Chevron in September 2006. 

This extended well test set depth and pressure records and took three months to complete 

at an estimated cost of $100 million (Mufson, 2006). An excerpt from Chevron’s September 

5, 2006, news release follows. 

Chevron Corporation announced today that it successfully completed a record setting 

production test on the Jack #2 well at Walker Ridge Block 758 in the U.S. Gulf of Mexico. The 

Jack well was completed and tested in 7,000 feet of water, and more than 20,000 feet under 

the sea floor, breaking Chevron’s 2004 Tahiti well test record as the deepest successful well 

test in the Gulf of Mexico. The Jack #2 well was drilled to a total depth of 28,175 feet. 

The test was conducted during the second quarter of 2006 and was designed to evaluate a 

portion of the total pay interval. During the test, the well sustained a flow rate of more that 

6,000 barrels of crude oil per day with the test representing approximately 40 percent of the 

total net pay measured in the Jack #2 well. Chevron and its co-owners plan to drill an 

additional appraisal well in 2007. (Chevron, 2006) 

The Jack 2 test results are being analyzed to determine if these Lower Tertiary trend 

reservoirs are capable of sustained production at economic rates. 
8

Figure 6. The Cajun Express rig used for the Jack 2 well production test. (Photo courtesy of Chevron.) 

The results of the Jack 2 test re-intensified industry’s interest surrounding the Lower 

Tertiary trend. The extended production test at the Jack 2 well provides encouragement 

that this trend will be able to produce very large hydrocarbon volumes. There are several 

contributing factors to support optimism about the Lower Tertiary trend’s true hydrocarbon 

potential. The estimates of billions of barrels of producible oil and gas are justified, given 

the ratio of discoveries to dry holes, the thickness of the hydrocarbon-bearing columns 

encountered, the size and number of untested structures, and the recent Jack 2 well test 

results. 

Industry has responded to the encouraging news from the Jack and the Kaskida 

discoveries not only by leasing new blocks but also by paying some of the highest bonuses 

ever seen in the adjacent areas. The Keathley Canyon area had five of the largest bids in 

Sale 200, with BP’s Keathley Canyon Block 58 bid of $21 million the largest bonus offered. 

In fact, 38 percent of the tracts bid on in Sale 200 had Lower Tertiary potential, and these 

high bids represent approximately 63 percent of all dollars bid in the sale (USDOI, MMS, 

2006a). Industry’s very active acquisition of new, high bonus leases is indicative of the 

potential many companies see in the trend. 

The infrastructure needed to develop and deliver the deepwater production from these 

remote areas to market remains in the planning stages and will require a consortium of 

companies to dedicate hundreds of millions of dollars in capital expenditures. Shell and its 

partners have plans for the “Perdido Regional Development” located in Alaminos Canyon 

Block 857 for the Great White, Silver Tip, and Tobago discoveries. Highlights from the 

Shell press release for the Great White development follow. 

Shell Offshore Inc. (Shell) announced today that it will develop the Great White, Tobago and 

Silvertip Fields via a Perdido Regional Development host, located in Alaminos Canyon, 

offshore Gulf of Mexico, approximately 200 miles south of Freeport, TX. Moored in about 8,000 

feet of water, the regional DVA (direct vertical access) spar will be the deepest spar production 

facility in the world. First production from Perdido is expected around the turn of the decade, 

with the facility capable of handling 130,000 boe/d. 
9

The concept for regional development includes a common processing hub in Alaminos Canyon 

Block 857 near the Great White discovery that incorporates drilling capability and 

functionality to gather, process and export production within a 30-mile radius of the facility. 

This concept will provide regional synergies, reduced cost and lower risk. This regional 

concept will also reduce the number and size of the facilities and operations in this challenging 

frontier area, resulting in a lower environmental impact than would otherwise be achieved. 

“The Perdido Foldbelt is remote and is located in ultradeep waters from about 7,500-10,000 

feet, with rugged seafloor terrain,” explained Marvin Odum, Executive Vice President, EP 

Americas. “This geologic setting is different from what has previously been produced in the 

Gulf of Mexico and will establish the first production from the Lower Tertiary (Paleogene) play 

in the Gulf of Mexico.” (Shell, 2006) 

Petrobras is planning to use an FPSO vessel to develop the Cascade and Chinook fields 

in Walker Ridge. Petrobras’ FPSO may be ready for deployment in late 2009. The press 

release for the Cascade and Chinook developments reads in part as follows. 

The plan consists of the installation and operation of a FPSO vessel in approximately 8,200 

feet of water. The plan provides for at least two subsea wells in Cascade and one subsea well 

in Chinook, each drilled to an approximate depth of 27,000 feet and to be tied back to the 

FPSO. Based on reservoir performance, the development plan could be expanded to include 

additional wells on each unit. (Petrobras, 2006) 

In summary, the presence of pre-Miocene reservoirs and discoveries in the ultradeepwater demonstrates the continuing exploration and development potential in the 

deepwater GOM. These new plays are large in areal extent, have multiple opportunities, 

and contain potentially huge traps with the possibility of billions of barrels of hydrocarbons. 

CHALLENGES AND REWARDS

Deepwater operations are very expensive and often require significant amounts of time 

from the initial exploration activities to first production from the fields. Despite these 

challenges, deepwater operators often reap great rewards. Figure 7 shows the history of 

discoveries in the deepwater GOM. There has been a shift toward deeper water over time, 

and despite the challenges of deepwater drilling, the number of deepwater discoveries 

continues to increase, with 12 discoveries added in 2006, as seen in table 1 (in the 

Introduction). 

In addition to the significant number of deepwater discoveries, the flow rates of 

deepwater wells and the field sizes of deepwater discoveries are often quite large (figure 8). 

These factors are critical to the economic success of deepwater development. In addition to 

their large sizes, deepwater fields have a wide geographic distribution and range in geologic 

age from Pleistocene through Paleocene. 
10

Figure 7. Deepwater discoveries by year. 

Figure 8. Estimated volume of proved deepwater fields. 
11

Table 2 depicts the deepwater discoveries in the Gulf in water depths greater than 7,500 

ft (2,286 m). Note that many of these discoveries are associated with Independence Hub. 

Table 2 

List of Deepwater Discoveries in Water Depths Greater than 7,500 ft (2,286 m) 

Project Name Area/Block Water Depth (ft) Discovery Year 

Camden Hills MC 348 7,530 1999 

Merganser* AT 37 8,064 2001 

Trident AC 903 9,816 2001 

Cascade WR 206 8,143 2002 

Vortex* AT 261 8,422 2002 

Atlas* LL 50 9,180 2003 

Chinook WR 469 9,104 2003 

Jubilee* AT 349 8,891 2003 

Spiderman/Amazon* DC 621 8,100 2003 

Atlas NW* LL 5 8,810 2004 

Cheyenne* LL 399 8,987 2004 

Mondo Northwest* LL 2 8,340 2004 

San Jacinto* DC 618 7,850 2004 

Silvertip AC 815 9,226 2004 

Tiger AC 818 9,004 2004 

Tobago AC 859 9,627 2004 

Mondo NW Extension* LL 1 8,340 2005 

Jubilee Extension* LL 309 8,774 2005 

Stones WR 508 9,556 2005 

Q* MC 961 7,925 2005 

Gotcha AC 856 7,600 2006 

AC = Alaminos Canyon AT = Atwater Valley DC = DeSoto Canyon 

LL = Lloyd Ridge MC = Mississippi Canyon WR = Walker Ridge 

*Projects associated with Independence Hub 
13

LEASING AND ENVIRONMENT 

INTRODUCTION

The Gulf of Mexico OCS is divided into the three sectors—the Western, Central, and 

Eastern Planning Areas (figure 9). Note that this figure displays the new planning area 

boundaries recently designated in the Federal Register (2006; 71 FR 1) by MMS. 

Many of the data presented in this report are subdivided according to water depth. 

These divisions (1,000, 1,500, 5,000, and 7,500 ft) are also illustrated in figure 9, along with 

the new deepwater royalty relief zones (400, 800, 1,600, and 2,000 m) of the Energy Policy 

Act of 2005 for reference. Not all leases within a colored area are eligible for royalty relief 

because of the differing vintage of leases included within the area. As a whole, the new 

relief zones have not been incorporated into the statistical analyses in this report. Royalty 

relief volumes were changed with the passage of the Act. 

Figure 9. Gulf of Mexico deepwater royalty relief zones. 

LEASING ACTIVITY

Figure 10 depicts all active leases in the GOM at the end of calendar year 2006. Note 

the great extent of leased blocks within the deepwater region. The pie chart inset in this 

figure highlights the relative percentage of active leases in each water-depth category. The 

limited number of active leases in the Eastern GOM is related to leasing restrictions. The 

approximate number of active leases for certain water-depth ranges is shown in table 3. 
14





 	


















 	










	




	


	


	

 


 	


 



 


 



 


  

  

	

	


	 

	


	 

	


	 
		


	 
		


	 	

	


	

Figure 10. Active leases by water depth. 

Table 3 

Number of Active Leases by Water-Depth Interval 

Number of Water Depth 

Active Leases ft m 

3,606 <1,000 <305 

172 1,000-1,499 305-457 

1,984 1,500-4,999 457-1,524 

1,435 5,000-7,499 1,524-2,286 

658 >7,500 >2,286 

Data compiled as of 12/31/2006. 

After enactment of the Deep Water Royalty Relief Act (DWRRA), deepwater leasing 

activity exploded in the Gulf. Other factors contributing to the increased activity included 

several key deepwater discoveries (including those recent discoveries in the Lower Tertiary 

trend), the recognition of high deepwater production rates, the evolution of deepwater 

development technologies, and a rise in oil and gas prices. 

LEASING TRENDS

The water-depth categories depicted in figure 11 reflect the divisions used in the 

DWRRA. In 2006, two lease sales were held—Sale 198 (Central GOM) and Sale 200 

(Western GOM). Figure 11 includes the 763 leases issued from these sales. 
15

Two water-depth ranges in figure 11 are worthy of discussion. The first is the less-than200-m (656-ft) interval (the shelf). From 2000 through 2001, industry interest was 

rekindled in the traditional shelf blocks. From 2002, leasing activity at this water depth 

increased slightly through 2004. In 2005 and 2006, the number of leases issued on the shelf 

declined. 

The second trend of note involves the greater-than-800-m (2,625-ft) interval. In 2006, 

the number of leases issued in water depths of greater-than-800 m eclipsed those in the 

less-than-200-m interval. From 2000 to 2003, a steady increase in the number of leases 

issued occurred in the greater-than-800-m water-depth interval (the peak in 2001 was the 

result of the addition of 95 Eastern GOM leases to those from the annual Central GOM and 

Western GOM sales). From 2004 to 2005, there was a leveling off of interest in the deeper 

waters. However, in 2006, the greater-than-800-m (2,625-ft) water-depth interval 

experienced a 17 percent increase from its 2005 level. That same year, the number of 

leases issued in the greater-than-800-m interval outpaced the number of leases issued in 

the less-than-200-m range by more than 30 percent. 

Figure 12 was derived from the data in figure 11, but displays the deepwater categories 

used elsewhere in this report. (Shallow-water data are excluded from figure 12.) These 

deepwater data show the rapid increase in leasing activity that began in 1995 and 

continued through 1998. Although leasing activity plummeted in 1999, higher levels of 

leasing activity returned after 2000. Several factors initiated this resurgence, including 

high oil and gas prices and several major discoveries, such as Mad Dog and Thunder Horse. 

Two intervals are worthy of note—the 1,500-4,999 ft and 5,000-7,499 ft ranges. These 

intervals generally parallel each other with the 1,500-4,999 ft outpacing the deeper water 

range. From 1999 through 2003, the ranges steadily increased, then leveled off in 2004 and 

2005, and began to climb again in 2006. From 2005 to 2006, the 1,500-4,999 ft interval 

increased 32 percent while the 5,000-7,499 ft range increased by 29 percent. These 

increases were likely caused by industry showing particular interest in Garden Banks and 

Keathley Canyon—more than 50 percent of the tracts that received bids in Sale 200 were 

located in these two areas. In this sale, about 38 percent of these tracts are believed to 

have a Lower Tertiary target, and the high bids on these tracts totaled 63 percent of all 

dollars bid in the sale (USDOI, MMS, 2006a). 

FUTURE LEASE ACTIVITY

Since the deepwater arena in the GOM is already heavily leased, the number of leases 

that will be relinquished, terminated, or expire will influence activity in future lease sales. 

Given the fact that most companies can drill only a small percentage of their active leases, 

it is likely that many high-quality leases will expire without being tested. The impending 

turnover of these leases often results in “farm-outs” to non-majors, opportunities for 

different companies to gain a lease position and, potentially, a more rapid exploration and 

development of the acreage. Ultimately, an untested and undeveloped lease will expire and 

possibly be leased again. Appendix E contains information about future sale dates. 

Sale 200 (Western GOM) may be indicative of this trend. The high level of activity in 

this sale was sparked by the large number of newly available tracts offered for lease. There 

were 445 newly available tracts and, of them, 130 received bids in this sale. The Garden 

Banks and Keathley Canyon areas accounted for 61.5 percent (80 of the 130 newly available 

tracts) of those blocks that received bids. 
16

0

200

400

600

800

1,000

1,200

Lease Sale Year

Number of Leases Issued

< 200 m 466 509 620 525 265 165 325 453 418 474 464 336 292

200 - 400 m 25 52 66 44 35 16 14 33 37 15 51 26 29

400 - 800 m 30 103 110 99 58 17 28 74 68 67 57 67 61

> 800 m 39 171 712 1,110 771 135 186 382 281 333 316 326 381

1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006

DWRRA post-DWRRA

Figure 11. Number of leases issued each year, subdivided by DWRRA water-depth categories. 

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

Lease Sale Year

Number of Leases Bid On

1,000 - 1,499 ft 5 7 11 30 54 27 23 7 10 23 23 16 28 27 31

1,500 - 4,999 ft 25 62 58 217 423 543 289 87 125 270 206 236 220 210 278

5,000 - 7,499 ft 1 0 13 49 310 503 307 45 72 101 128 144 125 108 139

> 7,500 ft 0 0 0 7 61 148 222 16 11 76 6 10 16 58 6

1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006

DWRRA post-DWRRA

Figure 12. Number of leases bid on for each deepwater interval. 
17

Figures 13a and 13b show leases that will expire from 2006 to 2016 in two-year 

intervals. The data used in creating figures 13a and 13b assume that each lease expires at 

the end of its primary lease term (without a lease-term extension). Note that lease terms 

vary according to water depth. Primary lease terms are 5 years for blocks in less-than400 m (1,312 ft), 8 years for blocks in 400-799 m (1,312-2,621 ft), and 10 years for blocks in 

800 m (2,625 ft) or greater. The availability of previously leased blocks is expected to 

increase dramatically as a result of the leasing boom that began in 1996 and continued 

through 1998. For example, as a result of the large number of leases acquired in 1996 (see 

figure 11), there will be a proportionally large number of blocks available in the sales 

during 2007. An examination of the map for years 2007-2008 (figure 13a) provides a 

picture of the number and extent of the deepwater blocks that will be available for the first 

time in a decade. 

Traditionally, the Central GOM lease sales have transpired in the spring of each year. 

However, the next sale, Sale 205, has been delayed and is tentatively scheduled for 

October 3, 2007. The MMS established a cutoff deadline of February 14, 2007, for inclusion 

of expired, relinquished, or terminated lease blocks for Sale 205. Central Planning Area 

(CPA) blocks that became available after that date were deferred until the next Central 

GOM lease offering (Sale 206). 

The MMS has also begun its proposed OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program: 2007-2012 

(5-Year Program). The 5-Year Program is the basis for the MMS’s overall leasing activities 

on the OCS. It identifies the areas to be offered for leasing during the 5-year period and it 

establishes the schedule for individual lease sales. The Program proposes 11 oil and gas 

lease sales in the GOM—5 sales in the Western Planning Area (WPA) and 6 in the CPA. 

More information on the 5-Year Program may be gleaned from the following MMS web site: 

http://www.mms.gov/5-year/WhatIs5YearProgram.htm. 

REGULATORY ISSUES

Royalty Rate Increases 

On January 9, 2007, the Secretary of the Department of the Interior, Dirk Kempthorne, 

announced an increase in the royalty rate for new offshore deepwater Federal oil and gas 

leases (Kemthorne, 2007). The royalty rate was increased to 16.7 percent (1/6th) from the 

present 12.5 percent (1/8th) on deepwater leases. The change in rate will take effect with 

the first 2007 GOM lease sale. 

Gulf of Mexico Energy Security Act of 2006 

On December 20, 2006, President Bush signed into law the Gulf of Mexico Energy 

Security Act of 2006 (GOMESA). Appendix F contains excerpts from the Act. The 

GOMESA removed leasing restrictions on certain areas of the GOM, it extended leasing 

moratoria on other areas in the GOM (figure 14), and it increased the distribution of 

offshore oil and gas revenues to producing coastal States. 

The GOMESA defines two areas of the GOM—the 181 Area and the 181 South Area. 

Approximately 2 million acres (ac) of the 181 Area are located within the CPA and this area 

was included in the recent draft and final Multisale EIS’s. The CPA portion of the 181 

Area may be available for lease in Sale 205, which is tentatively scheduled for October 3, 

2007. 
18





 	


















 	


















 	


























Figure 13a. Anticipated lease expirations from 2007 to 2012 in the Gulf of Mexico. 
19





 	


















 	


















	



Figure 13b. Anticipated lease expirations from 2013 to 2016 in the Gulf of Mexico. 
20

Figure 14. Map of the 181 Area and the 181 South Area. 

The remaining portion of the GOMESA-defined 181 Area is located in the Eastern 

Planning Area (EPA) and it lies more than 125 mi from Florida. This area contains 

approximately 500,000 ac, is located west of the Military Mission Line (a north-south line at 

86o 41’ W longitude), and is tentatively scheduled to be offered in Lease Sale 224 in midMarch 2008. Sale 224 is planned to occur simultaneously with Sale 206, a CPA lease 

offering. The MMS announced in the Federal Register on February 14, 2007, its intent to 

prepare a supplemental EIS for Sale 224 (Federal Register, 2007; 72 FR 30). 

The other area the GOMESA removed from leasing restriction is referred to as the 181 

South Area. This area is located in the CPA and contains approximately 5.8 million acres. 

The MMS has not yet decided which proposed CPA lease sale would be the first to be 

expanded to include the 181 South Area. There are limited geological and geophysical data 

available to industry for this area and MMS believes that it would be premature to include 

the 181 South Area in either of the first two proposed CPA lease sales (Sale 205 in 2007 and 

Sale 206 in 2008). Prior to the GOMESA, the 181 South Area was under lease restrictions 

and was not included in the CPA proposed actions that were analyzed in the EIS. Once a 

decision is made to offer the 181 South Area, MMS will conduct a separate NEPA review to 

reevaluate the expanded CPA sale area. 

President Bush modified the presidential withdrawal of the 181 South Area to be 

consistent with the GOMESA (Bush, 2007). (See appendix C.) 

The GOMESA establishes a moratorium on leasing, pre-leasing, and other activities in 

the following areas until June 30, 2022: 
21

• the area within 125 mi of the State of Florida in the EPA; 

• the 181 Area in the CPA that is within 100 mi of the State of Florida; and 

• the area east of the Military Mission Line (a north-south line at 86o 41′ W 

longitude). 

The GOMESA also mandates that MMS provide an option to exchange existing leases 

located in the unavailable areas listed above for leases in the available areas of the GOM. 

Prior to the GOMESA, affected States received recurring annual disbursements of 

27 percent of royalty, rent, and bonus revenues received within each State’s 8(g) zone. 

Beginning in FY 2007, and thereafter, Gulf producing States (i.e., Texas, Louisiana, 

Mississippi, and Alabama) will receive 37.5 percent of revenue from new leases issued in 

the 181 Area and 181 South Area. Beginning in FY 2016 and thereafter, Gulf producing 

States will receive 37.5 percent from new leases in the existing areas available for leasing. 

The remaining 50 percent and 12.5 percent of the total revenues would be distributed to the 

U.S. Treasury and the Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF), respectively. 

ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES

Ocean Current Monitoring 

The most energetic currents in the Gulf of Mexico affect the ocean from its surface down 

to approximately the 3,281-ft (1,000-m) water-depth level with varying speeds. Currents as 

high as 4 knots (kn) have been observed from the surface to 1,000-ft (305-m) water depths. 

These upper currents taper off between 1,000- and 3,281-ft (305- and 1,000-m) depths. 

Beneath the 3,281-ft (1,000-m) water-depth level, other currents migrate around the 

deep waters of the GOM. These deep currents were once thought to be minimal and were 

not a major consideration in most structure designs. In 1999, industry reported significant 

currents below 3,000 ft (914 m). This information led to a Safety Alert (USDOI, MMS, 

2000; Notice No. 180) and subsequent studies of deep currents by MMS (Hamilton et al., 

2003; Hamilton et al., 2000). These studies revealed significant deep currents of up to 2 kn 

at some locations. 

The Hamilton et al. investigations spawned another deepwater current study funded by 

MMS—the “Exploratory Study of Deepwater Currents in the Gulf of Mexico” (Donohue et 

al., 2006a; Donohue et al., 2006b). Figure 15 shows the location of various instrument sites 

used during this study. 

In the study, oceanographers investigated an area off the Mississippi Delta, where 

deepwater currents are known to concentrate. In this area, high-velocity currents develop 

in waves lasting for different periods. Those currents that developed in waves that peaked 

every 10 days are reflected into the deepwater Gulf rather than moving west along the 

coast as would typically be expected. However, there are less powerful currents that 

develop in waves peaking every 20 or 30 days. The initial findings indicate that these 

longer period waves move westward. 

The study confirmed that there are two layers of currents. The top layer is more 

powerful. In motion near the bottom, however, there are “small” eddies some 50-70 km in 

size. The study also confirmed that there is a high energy current in front of and over the 

Sigsbee Escarpment, a steep section of the continental slope offshore Louisiana and Texas. 

The escarpment blocks that high energy current from moving onto the Continental Slope. 
22

Figure 15. General bathymetric map showing the location of various 

instrument sites used during the Exploratory Study (Donohue et al., 

2006b). 

“This new study has added significant findings to the growing knowledge of physical 

oceanography,” states Chris Oynes, Associate Director of Offshore Minerals Management. 

“It is very useful because engineers can use this information to design offshore platforms 

and facilities that can withstand these deepwater currents.” The study also made use of 

bottom current measurements collected by the oil and gas industry as part of the study’s 

database. Additional information is available at the Region’s website, http://

www.gomr.mms.gov. 

Incidents have occurred in the deepwater areas of the Gulf that demonstrate the need 

for more accurate data in hindcasting and forecasting events and in daily operations. The 

MMS initially issued a Notice to Lessees and Operators (NTL) (2004-G21) in November 

2004, which was superseded by NTL 2005-G02 (USDOI, MMS, 2005), “Deepwater Ocean 

Current Monitoring on Floating Facilities.” The NTL implemented a program where 
23

operators of deepwater offshore production facilities and mobile offshore drilling units 

(MODU’s) collect data on ocean currents and submit them for publication on an industrysponsored Internet website. Data collected on currents may improve fatigue forecast 

models and help establish responsible design criteria, resulting in increased reliability of 

deepwater structures, thereby reducing risk to human lives, offshore facilities, and the 

ocean environment. 

To understand better the physical oceanographic conditions in the GOM, MMS has 

participated in two industry groups since 1998—the Climate and Simulation of Eddies 

group (CASE) and the Eddy Joint Industry Project group (EJIP). The efforts of these two 

groups have been merged and their assets combined to form a single new group, 

CASE/EJIP. The group sponsors numerical modeling of the GOM deepwater circulation, 

which helps MMS understand important processes when observations are limited or 

unavailable. It also helps MMS to construct a robust climatology of deepwater processes. 

The group maintains a database that is very useful in supplementing other deepwater data 

available to MMS. 

Grid Programmatic Environmental Assessments 

A biologically based grid system was developed by MMS as part of its comprehensive 

strategy to address deepwater issues. The grid system initially divided the Gulf into 

17 areas or “grids” of biological similarity (figure 16). Another grid was added to the 

system to address the modified Sale 181 area, making a total of 18 grids for the Gulf. 

Under this strategy, MMS will prepare a Programmatic Environmental Assessment (PEA) 

that analyzes a proposed development project within each of the grids and that 

characterizes the whole grid. These grid PEA’s are comprehensive in terms of the impactproducing factors and in terms of the environmental and socioeconomic resources described 

and analyzed for the entire grid. They also address potential cumulative effects of proposed 

projects within the grid. Other information on publicly announced projects within the grid 

is discussed, as well as any potential effects expected from future developmental activities. 

Projects selected for the PEA’s are representative of the types of development expected for 

the grid. For example, a good candidate for a PEA would be a proposed development of a 

new surface structure that might serve as a “hub” for future development within the grid. 

Once a grid PEA has been completed, it will serve as a reference document to implement 

the “tiering” and “incorporation by reference” concepts detailed in the implementing 

regulations of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). Future environmental 

evaluations may reference appropriate sections from the PEA to reduce duplication of 

issues and effects addressed in the grid NEPA document. This will allow the subsequent 

environmental analyses to focus on specific issues and effects related to the proposals. 

Table 4 shows the status of the grid PEA’s. 
24

Figure 16. Grid PEA status. 

Table 4 

Grid PEA’s Status Within the Central and Western Planning Areas of the Gulf of Mexico 

Grid Project Name Company Plan Area and Blocks 

3 Gunnison Kerr-McGee N-7625 GB 667, 668, & 669 

4 Nansen Kerr-McGee N-7045 EB 602 & 646 

5* Perdido Shell N-8809 AC 812, 813, 814, & 857 

7 Magnolia Conoco N-7506 GB 783 & 784 

10 Holstein BP N-7216 GC 644 & 645 

12 Medusa Murphy N-7269 MC 538 & 582 

13 Marco Polo Anadarko N-7753 GC 608 

15 Matterhorn TotalFinaElf N-7249 MC 243 

16 Thunder Horse BP N-7469 MC 775-778 & 819-822 

* Grid 5 PEA is in progress AC = Alaminos Canyon EB = East Breaks 

GB = Garden Banks GC = Green Canyon MC = Mississippi Canyon 
25

DRILLING AND DEVELOPMENT 

The MMS continually evaluates its regulations to determine which ones need revisions. 

The latest sets of updates occurred in the 30 CFR 250 and 282 regulations: Oil and Gas 

and Sulfur Operations in the Outer Continental Shelf—Plans and Information (Federal 

Register, 2005; 70 FR 167). These changes are effective for all plans received after 

January 1, 2006. The MMS has also prepared two NTL’s that further clarify the 

informational requirements for plans—NTL 2006-G14 (Information Requirements for 

Exploration Plans and Development Coordination Documents) (USDOI, MMS, 2006b) and 

NTL 2006-G15 (Guidelines for Submitting Exploration Plans and Development Operations 

Coordination Documents) (USDOI, MMS, 2006c). A list of selected NTL’s with 2006 

effective dates is included in appendix D. 

Figure 17 shows the number of deepwater Exploration Plans (EP’s), deepwater 

Development Operations Coordination Documents (DOCD’s), and Deepwater Operations 

Plans (DWOP’s) received each year since 1992. Note that DWOP’s requirements were 

initiated in 1995. The number of EP’s, DOCD’s, and DWOP’s includes only the initial 

plans, not revisions or supplements to plans. In addition, the number of DWOP’s received 

includes only initial Conceptual Plans or combined Conceptual Plans/DWOP’s as allowed by 

the revised 30 CFR 250 Subpart B regulations. The MMS requires DWOP’s for 

developments in water depths greater than 1,000 ft (305 m) and Conservation Information 

Documents (CID) for developments in water depths greater than 1,312 ft (400 m). Some 

shallow-water activities are included in the data because all subsea developments, 

regardless of water depth, must file a DWOP. The discussion of subsea wells that occurs 

later in this report will address the significance of shallow-water subsea tiebacks—the 

effective use of deepwater technologies in marginal developments. 

One indicator that MMS has found useful in projecting activity levels is the number of 

plans received. Although the order of plan submission and drilling activities can vary with 

projects, operators generally proceed as follows: 

• file an EP, 

• drill exploratory wells, 

• file a Conceptual Plan, 

• file a DOCD and CID, 

• file a DWOP, 

• install production facilities, 

• drill development wells, then 

• begin first production. 

There was a marked increase in EP’s, DOCD’s, and Conceptual Plans or combined 

Conceptual Plans/DWOP’s beginning in 1996. Submittals of EP’s reached a peak of 92 in 

1999 and then hovered near 70 per year except for counts of 51 in 2004 and 2006. The 

number of DOCD submittals reached a high of 28 in 2005. There was an increase in the 

number of initial Conceptual Plans or combined Conceptual Plans/DWOP’s submitted from 

2004 to 2006 (from 29 to 43). 
26

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Year

Number

DOCD 2 3 2 4 8 6 9 7 12 18 23 10 13 28 10

EP 13 13 20 19 29 69 80 92 76 67 69 75 51 69 51

DWOP 5 19 32 24 26 35 40 30 33 29 42 43

1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006

Figure 17. Deepwater EP’s, DOCD’s, and DWOP’s received in the Gulf of Mexico since 1992. 

The number of deepwater rigs operating in the GOM was 26 in 2004 and 2005, but rose 

slightly in 2006 to 30, as seen in figure 18. It should be noted that this figure includes rigs 

operating on deepwater production facilities and MODU’s. 

Numerous deepwater prospects will go undrilled as the primary lease terms expire 

caused, in part, by industry decisions to drill higher grade prospects, as well as the limited 

number of rigs available for deepwater drilling in the GOM. While many deepwatercapable drilling rigs are under long-term contractual agreements, efforts began in early 

2005 to move rigs from other parts of the world to the GOM and to upgrade existing rigs. 

Four more rigs became available in 2006 as a result of these efforts. 
27

3

6

11

14

18

26

28 28

33

41

36

30

26 26

30

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

Maximum Number of Deepwater Rigs Operating

1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006

Year

Figure 18. Maximum number of deepwater rigs operating in the Gulf of Mexico. 

DRILLING ACTIVITY

The number of deepwater wells drilled generally increased from 1992 through 2001, 

declined slightly to 2003, and has remained fairly flat since that time (figure 19). 

Only original boreholes and sidetracks (a new bottomhole location) are included in the 

well counts used in this report. Wells defined as “by-passes” are specifically excluded. A 

“by-pass” is a section of well that does not seek a new objective; it is intended to drill 

around a section of the wellbore made unusable by stuck pipe or equipment left in the hole. 

Figures 20 and 21 further delineate the deepwater well counts into exploratory and 

development wells, respectively. This report uses the designation of exploratory and 

development wells provided by the operators. The data reflect the variations among 

operators in classifying wells as either development or exploratory. After a decrease in 

2002 and 2003, there was a significant increase in the number of exploratory wells drilled 

in 2004 through 2006. Exploratory drilling in all water depths increased in 2006. In the 

ultra-deepwater (> 7,500 ft or 2,286 m), 35 wells of all types were drilled in 2006, just 

missing the record set in 2004 by one well. There were nine exploratory wells drilled in the 

greater-than-7,500-ft (>2,286-m) water depth, a decrease of seven wells for that water 

depth since 2004. Although 2006 saw an increase in development wells over 2005, it was 

still below the peak reached in 2002. 
28

0

50

100

150

200

250

Number of Wells Drilled

Year

> 7,500 ft 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 9 6 10 13 17 12 9

5,000 - 7,499 ft 1 1 1 3 6 12 10 35 25 53 35 22 49 14 34

1,500 - 4,999 ft 10 13 44 56 75 130 123 118 144 127 126 92 68 88 83

1,000 - 1,499 ft 21 26 18 22 24 32 33 15 29 25 20 20 15 6 10

1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006

Figure 19. All deepwater wells drilled in the Gulf of Mexico, subdivided by water 

depth. 

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

Number of Exploratory Wells Drilled

Year

> 7,500 ft 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 8 5 10 11 16 11 9

5,000 - 7,499 ft 1 0 1 2 6 9 9 29 17 30 19 13 20 14 26

1,500 - 4,999 ft 3 13 38 37 49 79 87 61 67 74 44 43 44 64 60

1,000 - 1,499 ft 1 3 8 8 7 17 20 10 8 5 10 7 10 4 6

1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006

Figure 20. Deepwater exploratory wells drilled in the Gulf of Mexico, subdivided 

by water depth. 
29

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

Number of Development Wells Drilled

Year

> 7,500 ft 000000101102110

5,000 - 7,499 ft 0 1 0 1 0 3 1 6 8 23 16 9 29 0 8

1,500 - 4,999 ft 7 0 6 19 26 51 36 57 77 53 82 49 24 24 23

1,000 - 1,499 ft 20 23 10 14 17 15 13 5 21 20 10 13 5 2 4

1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006

Figure 21. Deepwater development wells drilled in the Gulf of Mexico, 

subdivided by water depth. 

NEW TECHNOLOGY

The year 2006 was a banner year for the number of new technologies evaluated for use 

in offshore exploration and production operations. The MMS approved approximately 30 

new technologies for use in the GOM. In addition, MMS and members of the industrial 

community have updated API recommended practices and other regulatory documents to 

accompany the technological advances. 

Four examples of technology advancements that MMS approved in 2006 include a High 

Integrity Pressure Protection System (HIPPS); the use of pre-set polyester moorings for 

deepwater drilling rigs; various forms of subsea boosting, including a subsea pump that 

allows enhanced oil recovery; and a Conceptual Plan for a Floating Production, Storage, 

and Offloading (FPSO) facility. 

High Integrity Pressure Protection System (HIPPS) for Pipelines 

Although a HIPPS system has not been proposed for a specific development, MMS did 

approve the general concept of a HIPPS system in July 2006, allowing the use of pipelines 

not rated for the well’s full shut-in tubing pressure (SITP). The HIPPS employs valves, 

logic controllers, and pressure transmitters to protect the unrated section before the 

pipeline is over-pressured and/or ruptured, rather than relying on the physical strength of 

steel to withstand a well’s SITP. The section of pipe upstream of the well and downstream 

of the HIPPS valves, as well as a short section of pipe upstream of the HIPPS valves, will 

be rated to the full SITP. This safety feature will provide an additional level of protection 
30

in case of a pressure spike and will allow time for the HIPPS logic system/valves to respond. 

Design and testing specifications have been defined for each section of the HIPPS system. 

Pre-set Polyester Moorings for MODU’s 

Although use of polyester mooring lines on production facilities is still considered new 

technology in the GOM, it is common practice to use this type of mooring line on MODU’s. 

One stipulation for allowing the use of polyester moorings has traditionally been that the 

polyester rope may not come in contact with the seafloor in order to limit particle migration 

into the load-bearing fibers. In recent years, industry has requested that they be allowed to 

pre-set the mooring lines for MODU use since the lines can be inspected more frequently 

than for permanently fixed facilities. After conducting extensive research and studies on 

the jacket and filter layer of the polyester rope, MMS has granted approval for MODU’s to 

pre-set polyester mooring lines with the stipulation that the lines be inspected and tested 

approximately every six months. 

Subsea Separation and Boosting System 

A subsea separation and boosting system has also received conceptual approval to be 

used in the GOM. Shell Exploration and Production Company (Shell) has proposed a 

Separation and Boosting System (SBS) that will separate production fluids at the seafloor 

and direct them to the surface host via a pump at the base of a production riser for use at 

their Perdido Regional Development. BP Exploration & Production Inc. (BP) has also 

submitted and received approval to use electrically driven, subsea multi-phase pumps at 

their King field. The pumps will boost the operating system pressure, lowering flowing 

tubing pressures at each well, thereby increasing flow rates. This production increase will 

extend the field’s life by approximately two years and increase ultimate recovery. 

Floating Production, Storage, and Offloading (FPSO) Facility 

Another significant new technology application was approved in late 2006. A Conceptual 

Deepwater Operations Plan (Conceptual Plan) was approved for the use of an FPSO vessel. 

The Conceptual Plan, submitted by Petrobras America Inc., contained development 

information for Phase 1, which includes installation of an FPSO with two wells in the 

Cascade field and one well in the Chinook field. An FPSO is a ship-shaped vessel with a 

topside crude oil process plant and oil storage located in the hull. Oil will be offloaded from 

the vessel via a shuttle tanker, integrated tug barge (ITB), or articulated tug barge (ATB). 

A single point, disconnectable turret mooring system will be used to ensure the FPSO can 

sail away during hurricanes. The conceptual plan also incorporated other new technologies, 

including the use of free-standing hybrid risers (FSHR), and torpedo piles. Initial 

production from these fields is expected in 2009. 

Review Process 

The four new technologies mentioned above are just a few that have been reviewed by 

MMS’s petroleum and structural engineers. Approval was granted only after significant 

research and hazard analyses were conducted. The engineers considered many different 

conditions that can exist offshore and also confirmed that there was a proven effective

method to shut-down operations in the case of a failure. 

In 2006, MMS spent approximately $1.8 million funding research in offshore technology, 

which can range from developing improvements in design standards to studying the 
31

effectiveness of a testing methodology. Some of the results from these studies aided MMS 

engineers in approving new technologies. Other results have paved the way for updates 

and revisions to existing regulations and recommended practices. 

Engineers at MMS participated in over 15 API committees and are actively involved in 

updates to the API’s recommended practices (RP) and special projects. Examples of these 

efforts include API RP 2SK (Design and Analysis of Stationkeeping for Floating 

Structures), API RP 2I (In-Service Inspection of Mooring Hardware for Floating 

Structures), API RP 2T (Planning, Designing, and Constructing Tension Leg Platforms, 

Rev. 10 [Draft]), and the Hurricane Evacuation and Assessment Team (HEAT) document. 

The acceptance of new technologies and practices in 2006 was the result of Federal 

Government and industry cooperation supporting safe and efficient energy exploration and 

development. 

DEVELOPMENT SYSTEMS

Development strategies, including choice of platform type, must consider issues such as: 

• reserve size and distribution, 

• proximity to existing infrastructure, 

• operating considerations such as well interventions (ability to re-enter a 

well for repairs and re-completions), 

• prior company expertise with similar structures, 

• economic considerations, and 

• an operator’s interest in establishing a production hub for the area. 

Appendix A lists the systems that have begun production in the GOM. Fixed platforms 

(e.g., Bullwinkle) have economic water-depth limits of about 1,400 ft (427 m). Compliant 

towers (e.g., Petronius) may be considered for water depths of approximately 1,000-3,000 ft 

(305-914 m). Tension-leg platforms (e.g., Brutus and Marco Polo) are frequently used in 

1,000- to 5,000-ft (305- to 1,524-m) water depths. Spars (e.g., Genesis), semisubmersible 

production units (e.g., Na Kika), and FPSO systems (e.g., Cascade/Chinook) may be used in 

water depths ranging up to and beyond 10,000 ft (3,048 m). 

Fixed Platform 

A fixed platform consists of a welded tubular steel jacket, deck, and surface facility. The 

jacket and deck make up the foundation for the surface facilities. The jacket is secured by 

piles driven into the seafloor. The height of the platform is dictated by the water depth at 

the intended location. Once the jacket is secured and a deck installed, additional modules 

are added for drilling, production, and crew operations. Large, barge-mounted cranes are 

used in positioning and securing the jacket and for the installation of the topside modules. 

Economic considerations hinder development of fixed (rigid) platforms in water depths 

greater than 2,000 ft (610 m). 

Compliant Tower 

A compliant tower consists of a narrow tower and a piled foundation. Unlike a fixed 

platform, a compliant tower has greater flexibility and can withstand large lateral forces by 
32

sustaining significant lateral deflections. It is usually deployed in water depths between 

1,000 ft (305 m) and 2,000 ft (610 m). 

Tension-Leg Platform 

A tension-leg platform (TLP) is a compliant structural system vertically moored and 

using buoyant components to maintain tension in the mooring system. ConocoPhillips 

successfully installed the deepest TLP in the world at Magnolia (Garden Banks Block 783) 

in December 2004 in 4,674 ft (1,425 m) of water. 

Semisubmersible Production Facility 

A semisubmersible production facility is a floating system that may have drilling 

capabilities. It comprises the following major components: pontoons, columns, and a large 

deck. The pontoons and columns provide buoyancy to the system. Production equipment, 

living quarters, and storage space are assembled on the deck. Semisubmersibles are 

permanently moored, using various anchoring techniques, and can be operated in a wide 

range of water depths. 

The world’s largest semisubmersible production facility, the 59,500-ton Thunder Horse 

production, drilling, and quarters (PDQ) unit, arrived in the GOM in 2004 from Korea. The 

topside modules, fabricated in Morgan City, Louisiana, were installed in Ingleside, Texas. 

The sheer size of the Thunder Horse project has garnered worldwide interest. The distance 

from the base of the hull to top of the drill rig is just over 450 ft (137 m). The immense deck 

area is approximately 3 ac in area. The Thunder Horse unit was nearly four years in the 

making and will develop the largest discovery ever made in the GOM. When fully 

operational, the unit will be capable of producing an astounding 250 thousand barrels of oil 

per day (Mbopd) and 200 million cubic feet per day (MMcfpd). The installation of Thunder 

Horse (Mississippi Canyon Block 778) was delayed by Hurricane Dennis in 2005 and was 

installed in 2006. 

The semisubmersible for the Atlantis project was moored in the fourth quarter of 2006 in 

Green Canyon Block 787 in a record water depth of 7,074 ft (2,156 m). Atlantis is the 

second largest semisubmersible in the world, smaller only than Thunder Horse. The 

Atlantis mooring system includes the longest continuous wire mooring ropes ever built. 

Twelve large steel canisters, called suction piles, are embedded in the ocean floor to anchor 

the facility in place. Part of the chain used in this mooring system is the largest of its type 

in the world. 

Spar 

A spar is a vessel with a circular cross-section that sits vertically in the water and is 

supported by buoyancy chambers (hard tanks) at the top, a flooded midsection structure 

hanging from the hard tanks, and a stabilizing keel section at the bottom. A spar is held in 

place by a catenary mooring system, providing lateral stability. There have been three 

generations of spar designs in the GOM—classic spar, truss spar, and cell spar. 

The first classic spar was installed in 1996 in 1,935 ft (590 m) of water in the Neptune 

field (Viosca Knoll Block 826). Other examples of a classic spar are Genesis and HooverDiana. The second generation of spar design is the truss spar. An example of a deepwater 

project using a truss spar design is Mad Dog (Green Canyon Block 782), which went on 

production in 2005. The third generation of spar design is the cell spar. In July 2004, KerrMcGee began production from the world’s first cell spar at Red Hawk (Garden Banks Block 
33

877) in 5,334 ft (1,626 m) of water. Red Hawk is capable of producing 120 MMcfpd, with 

the flexibility to expand to 300 MMcfpd. 

Subsea Systems 

Subsea systems are capable of producing hydrocarbons from reservoirs covering the 

entire range of water depths explored and developed by industry. Subsea systems continue 

to be a key component in the success in deepwater development. These systems are 

generally multi-component seafloor facilities that allow the production of hydrocarbons in 

water depths that would normally preclude installing conventional fixed or bottom-founded 

platforms. The subsea system can be divided into two major components: the seafloor 

equipment and the surface equipment. The seafloor equipment will include some or all of 

the following: one or more subsea wells, manifolds, control umbilicals, and flowlines. The 

surface component of the subsea system includes the control system and other production 

equipment located on a host platform that itself could be located many miles from the 

actual well locations. 

Figure 22 shows the location of the various structure types in the deepwater GOM. Note 

that many of these structures support tiebacks from subsea completions. 

Figure 22. Location map of deepwater structures by type. 

Some field discoveries in the deepwater GOM are too small to be economically developed 

as stand-alone projects. However, if they are located near an existing structure, they may 

use subsea completions that tieback their production to a hub facility. For purposes of this 

report, deepwater hubs are defined as surface structures that host production from one or 

more subsea projects. These hubs represent the first location where subsea production 

surfaces and are the connection point to the existing pipeline infrastructure. Note that 
34

hubs are moving into deeper waters, expanding the infrastructure, and facilitating 

additional development in the ultra-deepwater frontier. Most hubs begin as stand-alone 

facilities (such as the Auger field) with later subsea tiebacks. Notable exceptions include 

Na Kika and Independence Hub, which were designed and located to support many smaller 

fields. Figure 23 shows the location of hub facilities in the deepwater GOM. 

Figure 23. Current, potential, and future hub facilities in the Gulf of Mexico. 

INDEPENDENCE HUB

Independence Hub, LLC, an affiliate of Enterprise Products Partners L.P., has entered 

into agreements with the Atwater Valley Producers Group to gather natural gas from seven 

fields in the deepwater GOM. Atwater Valley Producers Group includes Anadarko 

Petroleum Corporation, Dominion Exploration & Production, Inc., Kerr-McGee Oil & Gas 

Corporation, Spinnaker Exploration Company, and Devon Energy Corporation. Enterprise 

Products Partners will design, construct, install, and own Independence Hub, and 

Anadarko will operate it. 

Independence Hub is located on an unleased block, Mississippi Canyon Block 920, in a 

water depth of approximately 8,000 ft (2,438 m). The MMS granted a right of use and 

easement for this location. The selection of the location for the permanently moored host 

facility was based on seafloor conditions and proximity to these anchor fields: Atlas (Lloyd 

Ridge 50), Atlas NW (Lloyd Ridge 5), Jubilee (Atwater Valley 349), Merganser (Atwater 

Valley 37), San Jacinto (DeSoto Canyon 618), Spiderman (DeSoto Canyon 621), and Vortex 

(Atwater Valley 261). Murphy Oil’s South Dachshund (Lloyd Ridge Block 2) discovery is 

also expected to be tied back to Independence Hub. The 105-ft (32-m) deep-draft, 

semisubmersible platform will have excess payload capacity that will allow the tieback of 
35

additional fields from other deepwater projects. The facility will have capacity to produce 

approximately 1 billion cubic feet per day (Bcfpd). The front cover of this report features a 

graphical representation of Independence Hub. 
37

RESERVES AND PRODUCTION 

DISCOVERIES

Figure 24 shows the number of deepwater discoveries each year since 1995. In an 

attempt to capture the impact of the deepwater exploratory successes, figure 24 includes 

industry-announced discoveries as well as MMS-known proved reserves, unproved reserves, 

and resource estimates. The industry-announced discovery volumes contain considerable 

uncertainty, are based on limited drilling, include numerous assumptions, and have not 

been confirmed by independent MMS analyses. They do, however, illustrate recent activity 

better than using only MMS-proved reserve numbers. The apparent decline of proved 

reserve additions in recent years is caused by the lag between discovery and development. 

-

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

2,500

1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006

Discovery Year

Million Barrels of Oil Equivalent

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

Number of Discoveries

Proved reserves

Unproved reserves, resources, and industryannounced discoveries

All discoveries

DWRRA Post-DWRRA

Figure 24. Number of deepwater discoveries (MMS reserves, MMS resources, and industryannounced discoveries). 

RESERVE POTENTIAL

A geologic-based estimate of future discoveries in the GOM is the 2000 Assessment (Lore 

et al., 2001). According to this document, the deepwater is expected to have ultimate 

reserves of approximately 71 BBOE, of which 56.2 BBOE remains to be discovered.1 These 

 

1 The forecasts were based on the MMS report Atlas of Gulf of Mexico Gas and Oil Sands (Bascle et 

al., 2001). 
38

estimates compare favorably with the shallow-water ultimate reserves of approximately 65 

BBOE, of which 15.2 BBOE remains to be discovered. Note that the 2000 Assessment uses 

the DWRRA criteria (i.e., less than 200-m water depth is shallow water and greater than or 

equal to 200 m is deepwater). 

PRODUCTION TRENDS

Table 5 shows that 19 of the 20 most prolific producing blocks (on a BOE basis) are 

currently located in deep water. 

Table 5 

Top 20 Producing Blocks for the Years 2004-2005 

Block Project Name Operator Water Depth (ft) Production (BOE)* 

MC 807 Mars Shell 2,933 67,421,013 

MC 809 Ursa Shell 3,800 47,560,888 

MC 127 Horn Mountain BP 5,909 33,046,538 

GB 215 Conger Hess 1,500 29,666,210 

MC 383 Kepler (Na Kika) BP 5,759 29,302,884 

MC 765 Princess Shell 3,600 26,821,862 

MC 763 Mars Shell 3,261 26,378,385 

EB 602 Nansen Kerr-McGee 3,675 24,834,539 

MC 522 Fourier (Na Kika) BP 6,950 24,342,357 

VK 786 Petronius ChevronTexaco 1,753 19,613,070 

GB 668 Gunnison Kerr-McGee 3,100 18,100,007 

MC 429 Ariel (Na Kika) BP 6,274 17,582,369 

EB 643 North Boomvang Kerr-McGee 3,650 17,168,413 

GC 644 Holstein BP 4,344 16,591,153 

EB 646 Nansen Kerr-McGee 3,675 15,850,555 

MC 85 King BP 5,689 14,603,185 

VK 915 Marlin BP 3,236 13,897,605 

GC 243 Aspen Nexen 3,065 13,722,419 

GB 341 Habanero Shell 2,015 13,429,796 

ST 37 Unnamed ChevronTexaco 59 12,971,079 

*Cumulative production from January 2004 through December 2005. 

EB = East Breaks GB = Garden Banks GC = Green Canyon 

MC = Mississippi Canyon ST = South Timbalier VK = Viosca Knoll 

Figures 25a and 25b illustrate the importance of the GOM to the Nation’s energy supply. 

In 2005, the GOM supplied approximately 25 percent of the Nation’s domestic oil and 16 

percent of the Nation’s domestic gas production. A significant portion of these volumes 

comes from deepwater. The slight reductions in the 2005 numbers result from the effects of 

Hurricanes Katrina and Rita. 
39

 Deepwater

GOM

17.7% 

 Shallow-water

GOM

7.6% 

 Other U.S.

74.7% 

Deepwater

GOM

6.2% 

 Shallow-water

GOM

10.2% 

 Other U.S.

83.6% 

Figure 25a. OCS production as a percent of 

U.S. oil production. 

Figure 25b. OCS production as a percent of 

U.S. gas production. 

PRODUCTION RATES

Numerous projects with royalty relief eligibility have come online in recent years. The 

impact of the DWRRA on deepwater production began to have its effect in 2002. Figure 26 

uses a definition of 200 m (656 ft) for “deepwater” in order to compare the contribution from 

DWRRA leases where 200 m (656 ft) is the minimum water depth for which incentives are 

offered. In general, DWRRA oil reached its maximum contribution in 2004. Note the preDWRRA production refers to production from leases that have been approved to receive 

royalty relief but were issued before November 28, 1995. 

A very similar comparison is seen in figure 27, where DWRRA gas is compared with total 

“deepwater” gas. 

The declines of DWRRA production and total “deepwater” production in 2005 were 

hurricane related. Note the rapid rebound that continues to the end of the data on 

December 1, 2005. As of June 19, 2006, shut-in oil production is equivalent to 

approximately 12 percent of the daily oil production in the GOM and shut-in gas production 

is equivalent to approximately 9 percent of the daily gas production in the GOM (USDOI, 

MMS, 2006d). Appendix B contains data on the average annual GOM oil and gas 

production. 
40

0

200,000

400,000

600,000

800,000

1,000,000

1,200,000

Jan-92 Jan-93 Jan-94 Jan-95 Jan-96 Jan-97 Jan-98 Jan-99 Jan-00 Jan-01 Jan-02 Jan-03 Jan-04 Jan-05

Date

Barrels of Oil per Day

Total oil production >200 m (656 ft)

Contribution of pre-DWRRA production

Contribution of DWRRA production

Data through 12/1/2005

Figure 26. Contribution of DWRRA oil production to total oil production in water depths 

greater than 200 m (656 ft). 

0

500,000

1,000,000

1,500,000

2,000,000

2,500,000

3,000,000

3,500,000

4,000,000

4,500,000

5,000,000

Jan-92 Jan-93 Jan-94 Jan-95 Jan-96 Jan-97 Jan-98 Jan-99 Jan-00 Jan-01 Jan-02 Jan-03 Jan-04 Jan-05

Date

Thousand Cubic Feet per Day

Total gas production >200 m (656 ft)

Contribution of pre-DWRRA production

Contribution of DWRRA production

Data through 12/1/2005

Figure 27. Contribution of DWRRA gas production to total gas production in water depths 

greater than 200 m (656 ft). 
41

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS 

Highlights from the 2007 deepwater report include the following. 

• Twelve new deepwater discoveries were announced. 

• Significant new discoveries and advances occurred in the Lower Tertiary 

trend. 

• The Kaskida discovery was made. 

• The Jack 2 well test was conducted. 

• Great White and Chinook/Cascade developments were announced. 

• Congress passed the Gulf of Mexico Energy Security Act of 2006 that 

― opens two new areas in the GOM for leasing, 

― places a leasing moratorium on some areas in the GOM, and 

― increases the distribution of offshore oil and gas revenues to 

coastal producing States. 

• The royalty rate for deepwater leases was increased. 

• New planning area/sale boundaries were announced. 

• The spring 2007 Central GOM Lease Sale (Sale 205) is now tentatively 

scheduled for early October 2007. The MMS established a cutoff deadline 

of February 14, 2007, for inclusion of expired, relinquished, or terminated 

lease blocks for this sale. 

• Increased deepwater tract availability is expected for future lease sales as 

a result of anticipated lease expirations, relinquishments, and 

terminations. 

• The MMS approved 30 new technologies for use in the GOM. 

• Nineteen of the top 20 producing blocks in the GOM for 2004-2005 were 

in deep water. 

• Deepwater areas are responsible for approximately 70 percent of the oil 

and 40 percent of the gas produced in the GOM. 

• Industry-announced discoveries in 2006 are estimated to total over 1.3 

BBOE. 

• Oil and gas prices averaged near $58.50 per barrel and $6.40 per Mcfg 

(USDOE, EIA, 2006). 

The remainder of this section summarizes the development cycle and the challenges and 

rewards of the expanding deepwater frontier in the Gulf. 

Figure 28 illustrates deepwater projects that began production in 2005-2006 and those 

expected to commence production in the next four years. The eastern concentration of 

projects expected to start production in 2007 is associated with Independence Hub. 
42

Figure 28. Deepwater projects starting production in 2005 and 2006 and those expected to begin 

production by yearend 2010. 

In addition to the projects shown in figure 28, many more are likely to come online in the 

next few years. However, they are not shown in these figures because operators have not 

yet announced their plans. It is important to note that, in the next two years several very 

large developments will begin production. They include Thunder Horse at Mississippi 

Canyon Block 778, (250,000 barrels per day of oil and 197 million cubic feet per day of 

natural gas), Atlantis at Green Canyon Block 787 (200,000 barrels per day of oil and 180 

million cubic feet per day of natural gas), and Tahiti at Green Canyon Block 640 (125,000 

barrels per day of oil and 70 million cubic feet per day of natural gas).

DEVELOPMENT CYCLE

Historic deepwater leasing activities do not show a strong relation to average oil or gas 

prices (figure 29). (Note that data in the last bar of figure 29 are reflective of 2006 

information only.) There was considerable lease activity in the late 1980’s despite low oil 

and gas prices. The very large increase in leasing activity beginning in 1996 was caused in 

part by the combination of 

• DWRRA incentives, 

• high production rates encountered at early deepwater fields, and 

• several large early deepwater discoveries. 

The sustained high levels of leasing activities in recent years are likely the result of a 

combination of continued exploration successes and high oil and gas prices. 
43

30 4 10 33

201

530

341

863

428

79

395

2,076

1,002

697

773 801

459

0

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

2,500

1974-751976-771978-791980-811982-831984-851986-871988-891990-911992-931994-951996-971998-992000-012002-032004-052006-072008-09

Lease Sale Year

Number of Leases

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

Dollars per bbl and Dollars per Mcf (U.S. wellhead) 

Number of leases

Average U.S. oil price

Average U.S. natural gas price (wellhead)

Auger leased (1985)

1st Auger well (1987)

Thunder Horse leased (1988)

1st Auger production (1994) 

1st Thunder Horse well (1999) 

Anticipated 1st Thunder Horse production (2008) 

2006 onl

.

y

Figure 29. Deepwater lease activity and oil/natural gas prices. 

There were approximately 3,000 leases issued during the record lease sales from 1996 to 

1998. The available deepwater rig fleet is being challenged in its ability to evaluate the 

lease inventory. Other factors have also played a significant role in the industry’s ability to 

evaluate their GOM lease inventory. These include alternative deepwater exploration and 

development targets throughout the world, capital limitations, rigs committed to 

development drilling on GOM deepwater discoveries, and limited qualified personnel. 

Many leases are now nearing the end of their primary terms, and operators are facing key 

decisions—which leases must be drilled prior to their lease expiration, which leases should 

be “farmed-out” to another company, or which leases should be relinquished without being 

“tested” (drilled). 

Annotated also on figure 29 are key milestones at two important deepwater fields—

Auger (Garden Banks Block 471) and Thunder Horse (Mississippi Canyon Block 778). The 

annotated milestones illustrate the lag time that can exist between the leasing of a prospect 

and first production. These long lag times are not unusual with complex deepwater 

developments. 

Figure 30 does indicate that, as industry gains experience in the deepwater areas of the 

Gulf, the time between leasing and production is reduced. Developments near accessible 

infrastructure and the use of proven development technologies can also reduce the lag 

between leasing and production. However, as new discoveries move into dramatically 

deeper water depth, and with many new discoveries being far from existing infrastructure, 

an increase in lag time between leasing and production should be anticipated. Conditions 

such as high temperature and high pressure in wells will complicate drilling and 

development operations, resulting in longer lags as well. 
44

The figure uses data from only productive deepwater leases and illustrates the lags 

between leasing and qualification and from qualification to first production. Operators 

sometimes announce discoveries to the public long before qualifying the lease as productive 

with MMS (and thereby granted field status). Note that, since deepwater leases are in 

effect for 8 or 10 years, the data are incomplete beyond 1996. 2.8 1.1 0.71.2 5.56.36.5 5.5 3.74.1

2.7

2.3

1.5

0.8

1.9

2.8

3.6

0.9

2.3

1.7

3.9

1.8

0.9

1.1

1.6

1.5

1.4

1.1

0.9

6.5

3.4

2.4

8.5

5.2

4.9

4.5

3.4

1.9

2.3

1.3

1.7

1.3

1.6

0.9

0

0.3

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

1974-751976-771978-791980-811982-831984-851986-871988-891990-911992-931994-951996-971998-992000-012002-032004-052006-07

Year Lease Acquired

Number of Years

Additional time to first production

Additional time to qualify

Years to first well

Leases still in primary termNo production from leases acquired post-2003

Figure 30. Average lag times from lease acquisition to first production for producing deepwater fields.

EXPANDING FRONTIER

The future of deepwater GOM exploration and production remains very promising. 

Traditional deepwater mini-basin plays are far from mature, as several recent discoveries 

attest, and new deepwater plays near and even beyond the Sigsbee Escarpment, beneath 

thick salt canopies, and in lightly explored lower Tertiary reservoirs show that the 

deepwater GOM continues to be an expanding frontier. The 2000 Assessment (Lore et al., 

2001) indicates that more than 50 billion recoverable BOE remains to be discovered. Since 

the start of 2000, new deepwater drilling has added over 6.5 BBOE to the Gulf. 

The deepwater GOM continues to increase in its importance to the Nation’s energy 

supply. The large number of active deepwater leases, the drilling of important new 

discoveries, the growing deepwater infrastructure, and the increasing deepwater production 

are all indicators of this maturing and yet still expanding frontier. 
45

CONTRIBUTING PERSONNEL 

This report includes contributions from the following individuals: 

Pat Adkins 

Pat Bryars 

Michael Dorner 

Deborah Miller 

Michelle Morin 

Terry Rankin 

Linda Wallace 
47

REFERENCES 

Bascle, B.J., L.D. Nixon, and K.M. Ross. 2001. Atlas of Gulf of Mexico Gas and Oil 

Reservoirs as of January 1, 1999. U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Minerals Management 

Service, Gulf of Mexico OCS Region, New Orleans, LA. OCS Report MMS 2001-086, 

CD-ROM. 

British Petroleum America Inc. (BP). 2006. BP Announces Gulf of Mexico Discovery. 

Press Release, August 31, 2006. Houston, TX. Internet website: http://www.bp.com/

genericarticle.do?categoryId=2012968&contentId=7022449. 

Bush, G.W., President. 2007. Memorandum for the Secretary of the Interior. Modification 

of the June 12, 1998, Withdrawal of Certain Areas of the United States Outer 

Continental Shelf from Leasing Disposition. Office of the Press Secretary, January 9, 

2007. Internet website: http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/01/

20070109.html.

Chevron Corporation (Chevron). 2006. Chevron Announces Record Setting Well Test at 

Jack. Press Release, September 5, 2006. San Ramon, CA. Internet website: http://

www.chevron.com/news/press/2006/2006-09-05.asp. 

Crawford, T.G., G.L. Burgess, C.J. Kinler, M.T. Prendergast, K.M. Ross, and N.K Shepard. 

2006. Estimated Oil and Gas Reserves, Gulf of Mexico, December 31, 2003. U.S. Dept. 

of the Interior, Minerals Management Service, Gulf of Mexico OCS Region, New 

Orleans, LA. OCS Report MMS 2006-069. 48 pp. 

Donohue, K., P. Hamilton, K. Leaman, R. Leben, M. Prater, D.R. Watts, and E. Waddell. 

2006a. Exploratory Study of Deepwater Currents in the Gulf of Mexico. Volume I: 

Executive Summary. U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Minerals Management Service, Gulf of 

Mexico OCS Region, New Orleans, LA. OCS Study MMS 2006-073. 86 pp. 

Donohue, K., P. Hamilton, K. Leaman, R. Leben, M. Prater, D.R. Watts, and E. Waddell. 

2006b. Exploratory Study of Deepwater Currents in the Gulf of Mexico. Volume II: 

Technical Report. U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Minerals Management Service, Gulf of 

Mexico OCS Region, New Orleans, LA. OCS Study MMS 2006-074. 430 pp. 

Federal Register. 2005. Oil and Gas and Sulphur Operations in the Outer Continental 

Shelf—Plans and Information; Final Rule. Tuesday, August 30, 2005. 70 FR 167, pp. 

51477-51519. 

Federal Register. 2006. Federal Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) Administrative Boundaries 

Extending from the Submerged Lands Act Boundary Seaward to the Limit of the United 

States Outer Continental Shelf. Tuesday, January 3, 2006. 71 FR 1, pp. 127-131. 

Federal Register. 2007. Outer Continental Shelf (OCS), Eastern Gulf of Mexico (GOM), Oil 

and Gas Lease Sale 224 for 2008 (Call for Information and Nominations/Notice of Intent 

(Call/NOI) to Prepare a Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (SEIS)). 

Wednesday, February 14, 2007. 72 FR 30, pp. 7070-7073. 

French, L.S., E.G. Kazanis, L.C. Labiche, T.M. Montgomery, G.E. Richardson. 2005. 

Deepwater Gulf of Mexico 2005: Interim Report of 2004 Highlights. U.S. Dept. of the 

Interior, Minerals Management Service, Gulf of Mexico OCS Region, New Orleans, LA. 

OCS Report MMS 2005-023. 48 pp. 
48

Hamilton, P., T.J. Berger, J.J. Singer, E. Waddell, J.H. Churchill, R.R. Leben, T.N. Lee, and 

W. Sturges. 2000. DeSoto Canyon Eddy Intrusion Study: Final Report. Volume II: 

Technical Report. U.S. Dept of the Interior, Minerals Management Service, Gulf of 

Mexico OCS Region, New Orleans, LA. OCS Study MMS 2000-80. 275 pp. 

Hamilton, P., J.J. Singer, E. Waddell, and K. Donohue. 2003. Deepwater Observations in 

the Northern Gulf of Mexico from In-Situ Current Meters and PIES, Volume II: 

Technical Report. U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Minerals Management Service, Gulf of 

Mexico OCS Region, New Orleans, LA. OCS Report MMS 2003-049. 95 pp. 

Kempthorne, D. 2007. Kempthorne May Offer Areas in the North Aleutian Basin, Central 

Gulf of Mexico for Leasing; Increase Royalty Rate for Offshore Oil and Gas Leases. 

Press Release, January 9, 2007. Washington, DC. Internet website: http://

www.mms.gov/ooc/press/2007/pressdoi0109.htm

Lore, G.L., D.A. Marin, E.C. Batchelder, W.C. Courtwright, R.P. Desselles, Jr., and R.J. 

Klazynski. 2001. 2000 Assessment of Conventionally Recoverable Hydrocarbon 

Resources of the Gulf of Mexico and Atlantic Outer Continental Shelf as of January 1, 

1999. U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Minerals Management Service, Gulf of Mexico OCS 

Region, New Orleans, LA. OCS Report MMS 2001-087. 652 pp. CD-ROM only. 

Mufson, S. 2006. U.S. Oil Reserves Get a Big Boost. washingtonpost.com, Wednesday, 

September 6, 2006. Washington, DC. Internet website: http://

www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09/05/AR2006090500275.html

Petroleo Brasileiro (Petrobras). 2006. US Regulators Approve Petrobras Plans to Bring 

First FPSO to the Gulf of Mexico. Press Release, December 11, 2006. Rio de Janeiro, 

Brazil. Internet website: http://www2.petrobras.com.br/publicacao/imagens/

2885_chinook_e_cascade_final_ing.pdf. 

Shell Offshore Inc. (Shell). 2006. Shell Announces Plans to Develop in the Ultra 

Deepwater of the Gulf of Mexico. News and Media Release, October, 26, 2006. Houston, 

TX. Internet website: http://www.shell.com/home/Framework?siteId=media-en&FC2=/

media-en/html/iwgen/news_and_library/press_releases/2006/zzz_lhn.html&FC3=/mediaen/html/iwgen/news_and_library/press_releases/2006/

deepwater_gulf_mexico_26102006.html.

U.S. Dept. of Energy. Energy Information Administration. 2006. Monthly Energy Review, 

December 2006. Oil prices: http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/dnav/pet/hist/wtotusaw.htm. 

Natural gas prices: http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/dnav/ng/ng_pri_sum_dcu_nus_m.htm.

U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Minerals Management Service. 2000. Deepwater Gulf of Mexico 

OCS Currents. U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Minerals Management Service, Gulf of 

Mexico OCS Region, New Orleans, LA. MMS Safety Alert Notice No. 180. 

U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Minerals Management Service. 2005. Deepwater Ocean Current 

Monitoring on Floating Facilities. U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Minerals Management 

Service, Gulf of Mexico OCS Region, New Orleans, LA. NTL 2005-G02. 

U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Minerals Management Service. 2006a. The Lower Tertiary 

Trend. U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Minerals Management Service, Gulf of Mexico OCS 

Region, New Orleans, LA. MMS Ocean Science, November/December 2006. 3(6):4-7. 

Internet website: http://www.gomr.mms.gov/homepg/whatsnew/newsreal/2006/

061010.pdf. 
49

U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Minerals Management Service. 2006b. Information 

Requirements for Exploration Plans and Development Operations Coordination 

Documents. U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Minerals Management Service, Gulf of Mexico 

OCS Region, New Orleans, LA. NTL 2006-G14. 

U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Minerals Management Service. 2006c. Guidance for Submitting 

Exploration Plans and Development Operations Coordination Documents. U.S. Dept. of 

the Interior, Minerals Management Service, Gulf of Mexico OCS Region, New Orleans, 

LA. NTL 2006-G15. 

U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Minerals Management Service. 2006d. Hurricane 

Katrina/Hurricane Rita Evacuation and Production Shut-in Statistics Report as of 

Monday, June 19, 2006. Press Release #3528, June 21, 2006. U.S. Dept. of the Interior, 

Minerals Management Service, Gulf of Mexico OCS Region, New Orleans, LA. Internet 

website: http://www.mms.gov/ooc/press/2006/press0621.htm.
51

APPENDICES 

APPENDIX A. DEVELOPMENT SYSTEMS OF PRODUCTIVE DEEPWATER GOM

PROJECTS

Year of 

First 

Production 

Project Name3 Operator Block 

Water 

Depth 

(ft)4

System Type DWRR5 

1979 Cognac Shell MC 194 1,023 Fixed Platform 

1984 Lena ExxonMobil MC 280 1,000 Compliant Tower 

19881 GC 29 Placid GC 29 1,154 Semisubmersible/ 

Subsea 

19881 GC 31 Placid GC 31 2,243 Subsea 

1989 Bullwinkle Shell GC 65 1,353 Fixed Platform 

1989 Jolliet ConocoPhillips GC 184 1,760 TLP 

1991 Amberjack BP MC 109 1,100 Fixed Platform 

1992 Alabaster ExxonMobil MC 485 1,438 Subsea 

19931 Diamond Kerr McGee MC 445 2,095 Subsea 

1993 Zinc ExxonMobil MC 354 1,478 Subsea 

1994 Auger Shell GB 426 2,860 TLP 

1994 Pompano/ 

Pompano II BP VK 989 1,290 Fixed Platform/ 

Subsea 

1994 Tahoe/SE Tahoe Shell VK 783 1,500 Subsea 

19951 Cooper Newfield GB 388 2,600 Semisubmersible 

19951 Shasta ChevronTexaco GC 136 1,048 Subsea 

1995 VK 862 Walter VK 862 1,043 Subsea 

1996 Mars Shell MC 807 2,933 TLP/Subsea 

1996 Popeye Shell GC 116 2,000 Subsea 

1996 Rocky Shell GC 110 1,785 Subsea 

1997 Mensa Shell MC 731 5,318 Subsea 

1997 Neptune Kerr McGee VK 826 1,930 Spar/Subsea 

1997 Ram-Powell Shell VK 956 3,216 TLP 

1997 Troika BP GC 200 2,721 Subsea 

1998 Arnold Marathon EW 963 1,800 Subsea 

1998 Baldpate Amerada Hess GB 260 1,648 Compliant Tower 

1998 Morpeth Eni EW 921 1,696 TLP/Subsea 

1998 Oyster Marathon EW 917 1,195 Subsea 

1999 Allegheny Eni GC 254 3,294 TLP 

1999 Angus Shell GC 113 2,045 Subsea 

19991 Dulcimer Mariner GB 367 1,120 Subsea Yes 

1999 EW 1006 Walter EW 1006 1,884 Subsea 

1999 Gemini ChevronTexaco MC 292 3,393 Subsea 

1999 Genesis ChevronTexaco GC 205 2,590 Spar 
52

Year of 

First 

Production 

Project Name3 Operator Block 

Water 

Depth 

(ft)4

System Type DWRR5 

1999 Macaroni Shell GB 602 3,600 Subsea 

1999 Penn State Amerada Hess GB 216 1,450 Subsea 

1999 Pluto Mariner MC 674 2,828 Subsea Yes 

1999 Ursa Shell MC 809 3,800 TLP 

1999 Virgo TotalFinaElf VK 823 1,130 Fixed Platform Yes 

2000 Black Widow Mariner EW 966 1,850 Subsea Yes 

2000 Conger Amerada Hess GB 215 1,500 Subsea 

2000 Diana ExxonMobil EB 945 4,500 Subsea 

2000 Europa Shell MC 935 3,870 Subsea 

2000 Hoover ExxonMobil AC 25 4,825 Spar 

2000 King Shell MC 764 3,250 Subsea 

2000 Marlin BP VK 915 3,236 TLP 

2000 Northwestern Amerada Hess GB 200 1,736 Subsea Yes 

2000 Petronius ChevronTexaco VK 786 1,753 Compliant Tower 

2001 Brutus Shell GC 158 3,300 TLP 

2001 Crosby Shell MC 899 4,400 Subsea 

2001 Einset Shell VK 872 3,500 Subsea Yes 

2001 EW 878 Walter EW 878 1,585 Subsea Yes 

2001 Ladybug ATP GB 409 1,355 Subsea Yes 

2001 Marshall ExxonMobil EB 949 4,376 Subsea 

20011 MC 68 Walter MC 68 1,360 Subsea 

2001 Mica ExxonMobil MC 211 4,580 Subsea 

2001 Nile BP VK 914 3,535 Subsea 

2001 Oregano Shell GB 559 3,400 Subsea 

2001 Pilsner Unocal EB 205 1,108 Subsea Yes 

2001 Prince El Paso EW 1003 1,500 TLP Yes 

2001 Serrano Shell GB 516 3,153 Subsea 

2001 Typhoon ChevronTexaco GC 237 2,679 TLP Yes 

2002 Aconcagua TotalFinaElf MC 305 7,100 Subsea Yes 

2002 Aspen BP GC 243 3,065 Subsea Yes 

2002 North Boomvang7 Kerr McGee EB 643 3,650 Spar Yes 

2003 West Boomvang7 Kerr McGee EB 642 3,678 Subsea Yes 

2003 East Boomvang7 Kerr McGee EB 688 3,795 Subsea Yes 

2002 Madison ExxonMobil AC 24 4,856 Subsea 

2002 King’s Peak BP DC 133 6,845 Subsea Yes 

2002 Lost Ark Samedan EB 421 2,960 Subsea Yes 

2002 Nansen Kerr McGee EB 602 3,675 Spar Yes 

2002 Navajo Kerr McGee EB 690 4,210 Subsea Yes 

2002 Tulane Amerada Hess GB 158 1,054 Subsea Yes 

2002 Manatee Shell GC 155 1,939 Subsea Yes 
53

Year of 

First 

Production 

Project Name3 Operator Block 

Water 

Depth 

(ft)4

System Type DWRR5 

20021 Sangria Spinnaker GC 177 1,487 Subsea Yes 

2002 King Kong Mariner GC 472 3,980 Subsea Yes 

2002 Yosemite Mariner GC 516 4,150 Subsea Yes 

2002 Horn Mountain BP MC 127 5,400 Spar Yes 

20022 Camden Hills Marathon MC 348 7,216 Subsea Yes 

2002 Princess Shell MC 765 3,600 Subsea 

2002 King BP MC 84 5,000 Subsea 

2003 Falcon Marubeni EB 579 3,638 Subsea Yes 

2003 Tomahawk Marubeni EB 623 3,412 Subsea Yes 

2003 Habanero Shell GB 341 2,015 Subsea 

2003 Durango8 Kerr McGee GB 667 3,105 Subsea Yes 

2003 Gunnison Kerr McGee GB 668 3,100 Spar Yes 

2003 Dawson8 Kerr McGee GB 669 3,152 Subsea Yes 

20032 Boris BHP GC 282 2,378 Subsea Yes 

2003 Matterhorn TotalFinaElf MC 243 2,850 TLP Yes 

20032 Pardner Anadarko MC 401 1,139 Subsea Yes 

2003 Zia Devon MC 496 1,804 Subsea 

2003 Herschel/Na Kika Shell MC 520 6,739 FPS/Subsea6 

2003 Fourier/Na Kika Shell MC 522 6,950 FPS/Subsea6 

2003 North Medusa Murphy MC 538 2,223 Subsea Yes 

2003 Medusa Murphy MC 582 2,223 Spar Yes 

2003 East Anstey/ 

Na Kika Shell MC 607 6,590 FPS/Subsea6 

2004 South Diana ExxonMobil AC 65 4,852 Subsea 

2004 Hack Wilson Kerr-McGee EB 599 3,650 Subsea Yes 

20042 Raptor Marubeni EB 668 3,710 Subsea Yes 

20042 Harrier Marubeni EB 759 4,114 Subsea Yes 

2004 Llano Shell GB 386 2,663 Subsea Yes 

2004 Magnolia ConocoPhillips GB 783 4,674 TLP 

2004 Red Hawk Kerr-McGee GB 877 5,334 Spar Yes 

2004 Glider Shell GC 248 3,440 Subsea 

2004 Front Runner Murphy GC 338 3,330 Spar Yes 

2004 Marco Polo Anadarko GC 608 4,320 TLP Yes 

2004 Holstein BP GC 645 4,344 Spar 

2004 Kepler/Na Kika BP MC 383 5,759 FPS/Subsea6 

2004 Ariel/Na Kika BP MC 429 6,274 FPS/Subsea6 

2004 Coulomb/Na Kika Shell MC 657 7,591 FPS/Subsea6 Yes 

2004 MC 837 Walter MC 837 1,524 Subsea 

2005 GC 137 LLOG GC 137 1,168 Subsea Yes 

2005 Citrine LLOG GC 157 2,614 Subsea Yes 
54

Year of 

First 

Production 

Project Name3 Operator Block 

Water 

Depth 

(ft)4

System Type DWRR5 

2005 K2 ENI GC 562 4,006 Subsea 

2005 Mad Dog BP GC 782 4,428 Spar 

2005 Triton/Goldfinger Dominion MC 728 5,610 Subsea Yes 

2005 Swordfish Noble VK 962 4,677 Subsea 

2005 Baccarat W and T 

Offshore GC 178 1,404 Subsea Yes 

2006 K2 North Anadarko GC 518 4,049 Subsea Yes 

2006 Constitution Kerr-McGee GC 680 5,071 Spar Yes 

2006 Ticonderoga Kerr-McGee GC 768 5,272 Subsea Yes 

2006 Rigel Dominion MC 252 5,225 Subsea Yes 

2006 Gomez ATP MC 711 3,098 Semisubmersible 

2006 Seventeen Hands Dominion MC 299 5,881 Subsea Yes 

2006 Lorien Noble GC 199 2,315 Subsea 

2006 SW Horseshoe Walter EB 430 2,285 Subsea Yes 

2006 Dawson Deep Kerr McGee GB 625 2,965 Subsea 

2006 Allegheny South ENI GC 298 3,307 Subsea 

2007 Genghis Khan Anadarko GC 652 4,300 Subsea 

2007 Vortex Anadarko AT 261 8,344 FPS/Subsea9 

2007 Jubilee Anadarko AT 349 8,825 FPS/Subsea9 

2007 Spiderman Anadarko DC 621 8,087 FPS/Subsea9 

2007 Merganser Anadarko AT 37 8,015 FPS/Subsea9 

2007 Mondo NW Anadarko LL 1 8,340 FPS/Subsea9 

2007 Cheyenne Anadarko LL 399 8,951 FPS/Subsea9 

2007 Atlas/Atlas NW Anadarko LL 50 8,934 FPS/Subsea9 

2007 Neptune BHP AT 575 6,220 TLP 

2007 Atlantis BP GC 699 6,133 Semisubmersible 

2007 San Jacinto Dominion DC 618 7,850 FPS/Subsea9 

2007 Cottonwood Petrobras GB 244 2,130 Subsea 

2007 Deimos Shell MC 806 3,106 Subsea 

2007 Q Spinnaker MC 961 7,925 FPS/Subsea9 

2007 GB 302 Walter GB 302 2,410 Subsea 

2007 MC 161 Walter MC 161 2,924 Subsea 

2008 Mirage ATP MC 941 3,927 Subsea 

2008 Thunder Horse BP MC 778 6,089 Semisubmersible 

2008 Tahiti ChevronTexaco GC 640 4,292 Spar 

2008 Blind Faith ChevronTexaco MC 696 6,989 Semisubmersible 

2008 Thunder Hawk Murphy MC 734 5,724 Semisubmersible 

2009 Morgus ATP MC 942 3,960 Subsea 

2009 Telemark ATP AT 63 4,385 TLP 

2009 Navarro ATP GC 37 2,019 
55

Year of 

First 

Production 

Project Name3 Operator Block 

Water 

Depth 

(ft)4

System Type DWRR5 

2009 Cascade Petrobras WR 206 8,143 FPSO/Subsea 

2009 Chinook Petrobras WR 469 8,831 FPSO/Subsea 

2009 Shenzi BHP GC 653 4,238 TLP 

2009 Puma BP GC 823 4,129 

2009 Tubular Bells BP MC 725 4,334 

2009 Great White Shell AC 857 8,717 Spar 

2010 Silvertip Shell AC 815 9,226 Subsea 

2010 Tobago Shell AC 859 9,627 Subsea 

2010 Gotcha Deep TotalFinaElf AC 856 7,815 

2013 Not releasable 

2013 Not releasable 

1

 Off production – Lease(s) expired. 

2

 Off production – Lease(s) active. 

3

 Editions of this report prior to 2004 listed deepwater fields rather than projects. A block may be listed under more than one

project name because of lease relinquishment, expiration, or termination and subsequent re-leasing. Some announced 

discoveries never reached the project stage and are listed under their prospect names. 4

 Water depths shown reflect depth at facility. If the project is subsea or undeveloped, water depth reflects depth of deepest well 

location in project.

5

 Indicates projects with one or more leases approved to receive Deep Water Royalty Relief. 

6

 Na Kika FPS is located in Mississippi Canyon Block 474 in 6,340 ft (1,932 m) of water. 

7 2004 Report referred to entire area as Boomvang. 

8

 Included in 2004 Report with Gunnison. 

9

 Independence Hub FPS is located in Mississippi Canyon Block 920 in 7,920 ft (2,414 m) of water. 

AC = Alaminos Canyon AT = Atwater Valley DC = DeSoto Canyon EB = East Breaks 

EW = Ewing Bank GB = Garden Banks GC = Green Canyon LL = Lloyd Ridge 

MC = Mississippi Canyon VK = Viosca Knoll WR = Walker Ridge 
57

APPENDIX B. AVERAGE ANNUAL GOM OIL AND GAS PRODUCTION

Year 

Shallowwater Oil 

(MMbbl) 

Deepwater 

Oil 

(MMbbl) 

Total 

GOM Oil 

(MMbbl) 

Shallowwater Gas 

(Bcf) 

Deepwater 

Gas 

(Bcf) 

Total GOM 

Gas 

(Bcf) 

1947 0 0 0 0 0 0

1948 0 0 0 0 0 0

1949 0 0 0 0 0 0

1950 0 0 0 0 0 0

1951 0 0 0 2 0 2

1952 1 0 1 19 0 19 

1953 1 0 1 25 0 25 

1954 2 0 2 60 0 60 

1955 4 0 4 87 0 87 

1956 7 0 7 91 0 91 

1957 12 0 12 93 0 93 

1958 20 0 20 144 0 144 

1959 30 0 30 224 0 224 

1960 41 0 41 281 0 281 

1961 56 0 56 335 0 335 

1962 77 0 77 451 0 451 

1963 96 0 96 561 0 561 

1964 111 0 111 645 0 645 

1965 136 0 136 743 0 743 

1966 175 0 175 992 0 992 

1967 210 0 210 1285 0 1285 

1968 254 0 254 1600 0 1600 

1969 292 0 292 1950 0 1950 

1970 329 0 329 2402 0 2402 

1971 376 0 376 2729 0 2729 

1972 373 0 373 3004 0 3004 

1973 366 0 366 3312 0 3312 

1974 338 0 338 3418 0 3418 

1975 310 0 310 3427 0 3427 

1976 301 0 301 3556 0 3556 

1977 284 0 284 3767 0 3767 

1978 276 0 276 4244 0 4244 

1979 263 1 263 4671 0 4672 

1980 260 5 265 4762 4 4766 

1981 260 4 263 4886 3 4888 

1982 273 13 286 4651 16 4666 

1983 294 26 320 4034 41 4075 

1984 330 25 355 4525 39 4564 

1985 329 21 350 4024 34 4058 
58

Year 

Shallowwater Oil 

(MMbbl) 

Deepwater 

Oil 

(MMbbl) 

Total 

GOM Oil 

(MMbbl) 

Shallowwater Gas 

(Bcf) 

Deepwater 

Gas 

(Bcf) 

Total GOM 

Gas 

(Bcf) 

1986 336 19 356 4006 37 4043 

1987 310 17 328 4481 44 4525 

1988 288 13 301 4539 38 4577 

1989 271 10 281 4604 32 4636 

1990 262 12 275 4877 31 4908 

1991 272 23 295 4649 58 4708 

1992 268 37 305 4563 87 4651 

1993 272 37 309 4536 120 4656 

1994 272 42 314 4664 159 4824 

1995 290 55 345 4598 181 4779 

1996 297 72 369 4799 278 5077 

1997 303 109 412 4764 382 5146 

1998 285 159 444 4481 560 5042 

1999 270 225 495 4212 846 5058 

2000 252 271 523 3959 999 4958 

2001 243 315 558 3877 1178 5054 

2002 219 349 567 3237 1287 4524 

2003 211 350 561 3001 1425 4426 

2004 187 348 535 2604 1396 4000 

2005 141 325 466 1954 1187 3142 
59

APPENDIX C. A MODIFICATION OF THE JUNE 12, 1998, WITHDRAWAL OF 

CERTAIN AREAS OF THE UNITED STATES OUTER CONTINENTAL 

SHELF FROM LEASING DISPOSITION

For Immediate Release 

Office of the Press Secretary 

January 9, 2007 

Memorandum for the Secretary of the Interior 

SUBJECT: Modification of the June 12, 1998, Withdrawal of Certain Areas of the United States Outer 

Continental Shelf from Leasing Disposition 

Under the authority vested in me as President of the United States, including section 12(a) of the Outer 

Continental Shelf Lands Act, 43 U.S.C. 1341(a), I hereby modify the first sentence of the withdrawal of 

June 12, 1998, of certain areas of the United States Outer Continental Shelf from leasing disposition to 

read as follows: 

Under the authority granted in section 12(a) of the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act, 43 U.S.C. 1341(a), 

I hereby withdraw from disposition by leasing through June 30, 2012, (1) those areas under moratoria 

pursuant to sections 104 and 106 of Public Law 109-54, and (2) those areas under moratoria pursuant to 

section 105 of Public Law 109 54, excluding that portion of the Central Gulf of Mexico planning area 

defined as the “181 South Area” in section 102(2) of title I (“Gulf of Mexico Energy Security”) in Division C 

of Public Law 109 432, the Tax Relief and Health Care Act of 2006. 

GEORGE W. BUSH 

# # # 

Internet Website:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/01/20070109.html 
61

APPENDIX D. SELECTED NTL’S WITH 2006 EFFECTIVE DATES

Selected Notices to Lessees and Operators (NTL) of Federal Oil and Gas Leases in the Outer 

Continental Shelf (OCS) with Effective Dates in 2006. 

NTL Number Title Effective Date 

2006-G01 

Royalty Relief for Gulf of Mexico OCS Oil and Gas Leases 

with Facilities Damaged by Hurricane Katrina or Hurricane 

Rita 

February 1, 2006 

2006-G02 Suspensions of Operations Based on Rig Delays, Lack of 

Rig Availability and Procurement of Long Lead Equipment February 10, 2006 

2006-G03 Lease Term Extensions Pursuant to 30 CFR 250.180(e) 

Because of Hurricane Damage February 10, 2006 

2006-G07 Revisions to the List of OCS Lease Blocks Requiring 

Archaeological Resource Surveys and Reports March 16, 2006 

2006-G12 Ancillary Activities July 3, 2006 

2005-G20 

(Addendum 1) 

Damage Caused by Hurricanes Katrina and Rita 

(Addendum No. 1) June 12, 2006 

2006-G14 Information Requirements for Exploration Plans and 

Development Operations Coordination Documents July 12, 2006 

2006-G15 Guidance for Submitting Exploration Plans and 

Development Operations Coordination Documents July 12, 2006 

2006-G16 Well Records Submittal (Updated) Elimination of Paper 

Copy Data Submittals July 15, 2006 

2006-N05 Payment Method for New and Existing Cost Recovery Fees September 1, 2006 

2006-G17 Conducting Platform Operations Before MMS Approval September 7, 2006 

2006-G19 Hurricane and Tropical Storm Evacuation and Production 

Curtailment Statistics October 25, 2006 

2006-G20 Mudline Suspension Wells: Dry Tree Tiebacks and 

Conversion to Subsea Wells October 25, 2006 

2006-G21 Regional and Subregional Oil Spill Response Plans October 26, 2006 

2006-N07 Participation in Post-Mortem Hurricane Initiatives December 15, 2006 

2006-N06 Flaring and Venting Approvals December 19, 2006 

For a listing of all NTL’s and electronic access to the full text of each, please go to the following MMS 

Internet website: www.gomr.mms.gov/homepg/regulate/regs/ntlltl.html. 
63

APPENDIX E. LEASE SALE RELATED INFORMATION

Table E-1 

Chronological Listing of GOM Lease Sales by Sale Location and Sale Date 

Sale 

Number Sale Location Sale Date 

1 LA1 10/13/1954

1S LA 10/13/1954

2 TX 11/09/1954

3 TX, LA 7/12/1955

6 LA2 8/11/1959

7 TX, LA 2/24/1960

8 LA3 5/19/1960

9 LA 3/13/1962

10 TX, LA 3/16/1962

11 LA2 10/09/1962

12 LA2 4/28/1964

13 SUL-TX4 12/14/1965

14 LA2 3/29/1966

15 LA2 10/18/1966

16 LA 6/13/1967

17 SA-LA5 9/05/1967

18 TX 5/21/1968

19 LA2 11/19/1968

19A LA2 1/14/1969

20 SUL-LA6 5/13/1969

19B LA2 12/16/1969

21 LA2 7/21/1970

22 LA 12/15/1970

23 LA2 11/04/1971

24 LA 9/12/1972

25 LA 12/19/1972

26 TX, LA 6/19/1973

32 MAFLA7 12/20/1973

33 LA 3/28/1974

34 TX 5/29/1974

S1 TX, LA 7/30/1974

36 LA 10/16/1974

37 TX 2/04/1975

38 TX, LA 5/28/1975

38A TX, LA 7/29/1975

41 GOM 2/18/1976

44 TX, LA 11/16/1976

47 GOM 6/23/1977

45 TX, LA 4/25/1978

65 GOM 10/31/1978

Sale 

Number Sale Location Sale Date 

51 TX, LA 12/19/1978

58 GOM 7/31/1979

58A GOM 11/27/1979

A62 GOM 9/30/1980

62 GOM 11/18/1980

A66 GOM 7/21/1981

66 GOM 10/20/1981

67 GOM 2/09/1982

69 GOM 11/17/1982

69A GOM 3/08/1983

72 CGOM 5/25/1983

74 WGOM 8/24/1983

79 EGOM 1/05/1984

81 CGOM 4/24/1984

84 WGOM 7/18/1984

98 CGOM 5/22/1985

102 WGOM 8/14/1985

94 EGOM 12/18/1985

104 CGOM 4/30/1986

105 WGOM 8/27/1986

110 CGOM 4/22/1987

112 WGOM 8/12/1987

SS CGOM 2/24/1988

113 CGOM 3/30/1988

115 WGOM 8/31/1988

116 EGOM 11/16/1988

118 CGOM 3/15/1989

122 WGOM 8/23/1989

123 CGOM 3/21/1990

125 WGOM 8/22/1990

131 CGOM 3/27/1991

135 WGOM 8/21/1991

139 CGOM 5/13/1992

141 WGOM 8/19/1992

142 CGOM 3/24/1993

143 WGOM 9/15/1993

147 CGOM 3/30/1994

150 WGOM 8/17/1994

152 CGOM 5/10/1995

155 WGOM 9/15/1995
64

Sale 

Number Sale Location Sale Date 

157 CGOM 4/24/1996

161 WGOM 9/25/1996

166 CGOM 3/05/1997

168 WGOM 8/27/1997

169 CGOM 3/18/1998

171 WGOM 8/26/1998

172 CGOM 3/17/1999

174 WGOM 8/25/1999

175 CGOM 3/15/2000

177 WGOM 8/23/2000

178-1 CGOM 3/28/2001

178-2 CGOM 8/22/2001

180 WGOM 8/22/2001

Sale 

Number Sale Location Sale Date 

181 EGOM 12/05/2001

182 CGOM 3/20/2002

184 WGOM 8/21/2002

185 CGOM 3/19/2003

187 WGOM 8/20/2003

189 EGOM 12/10/2003

190 CGOM 3/17/2004

192 WGOM 8/18/2004

194 CGOM 3/16/2005

196 WGOM 8/17/2005

197 EGOM 3/16/2005

198 CGOM 3/15/2006

200 WGOM 8/16/2006

1 Sale 1 was an oil, gas, and sulfur lease sale offshore Louisiana. 2 These were oil and gas drainage lease sales offshore Louisiana. 3 Sale 8 was a salt lease sale offshore Louisiana. 4 Sale 13 was a sulfur and salt lease sale offshore Texas. 5 Sale 17 was a salt lease sale offshore Louisiana. 6 Sale 20 was a sulfur and salt lease sale offshore Louisiana. 7 Sale 32 was an oil and gas lease sale offshore Mississippi, Alabama, and Florida. 

LA = oil and gas lease sale offshore Louisiana (unless otherwise footnoted) 

TX = oil and gas lease sale offshore Texas 

GOM = oil and gas lease sale in the Gulf of Mexico 

CGOM = oil and gas lease sale in the Central Gulf of Mexico Planning Area 

EGOM = oil and gas lease sale in the Eastern Gulf of Mexico Planning Area 

WGOM = oil and gas lease sale in the Western Gulf of Mexico Planning Area 

Table E-2 

Lease Sale Schedule from the Proposed 5-Year Program for 2007-2012 

(Until the Proposed 5-Year Program has been approved, the data 

in the table must be considered tentative and subject to change.) 

Sale 

Number Sale Location Sale Date 

204 WGOM 2007 

205 CGOM 2007 

206 CGOM 2008 

207 WGOM 2008 

208 CGOM 2009 

210 WGOM 2009 

Sale 

Number Sale Location Sale Date 

213 CGOM 2010 

215 WGOM 2010 

216 CGOM 2011 

218 WGOM 2011 

220 Mid-Atlantic* 2011 

222 CGOM 2012 

* This lease sale would only be held if the President chooses to modify the withdrawal in the area and Congress discontinues 

the annual appropriations moratorium in the Mid-Atlantic. 
65

NEWS RELEASE

FOR 

RELEASE:

January 9, 2007 CONTACT: Gary Strasburg, 202-208-3985 

Shane Wolfe, 202-208-6416 

Nicolette Nye, 703-787-1011

Kempthorne May Offer Areas in North Aleutian Basin, 

Central Gulf of Mexico for Leasing; 

Increases Royalty Rate for Offshore Oil and Gas Leases

WASHINGTON—Interior Secretary Dirk Kempthorne today announced that President George 

W. Bush has modified the leasing status of two areas in the Outer Continental Shelf in response 

to Congressional action and the requests of state leaders. In addition, Kempthorne announced 

that he has increased the royalty rate for most new offshore deepwater federal oil and gas 

leases to 16.7 percent (1/6th).

“Together, these actions will enhance America’s energy security by improving opportunities for 

domestic energy production, and will also increase the revenues that the federal government 

collects from oil and gas companies on behalf of American taxpayers,” Kempthorne said.

New Areas

The areas were withdrawn from consideration for leasing through 2012 by President Bill Clinton 

in 1998. By modifying that Presidential withdrawal to remove these two areas, President Bush’s 

action allows the Secretary of the Interior the option of offering these areas during the Minerals 

Management Service’s next five-year OCS oil and gas leasing program (2007-2012).

“Both OCS areas—one in the North Aleutian Basin of Alaska, known as Bristol Bay, and the 

other in the Central Gulf of Mexico—would receive thorough environmental reviews,” 

Kempthorne said. “There will be significant opportunities for study and public comment before 

any oil and gas development could take place in these areas.”

Congress had imposed moratoria on oil and gas activities in the North Aleutian Basin from FY 

1990 through FY 2003, but discontinued the yearly moratorium in FY 2004. In 2006, thenAlaska Governor Frank H. Murkowski and other local government and Native Alaskan leaders 

expressed support for modifying the Presidential withdrawal in the North Aleutian Basin.

Accordingly, the 2007-2012 OCS Oil and Gas Proposed Program, developed by Interior’s 

Minerals Management Service (MMS), includes options for one or two lease sales in a small 

portion of the North Aleutian Basin—an area of about 5.6 million acres that was previously 

offered during Lease Sale 92 in 1988. The area would be subject to environmental reviews, 

including public comment, before any lease sale proceeds. There are no existing leases in the 

North Aleutian Basin.
66

The area in the Central Gulf of Mexico, referred to as the 181 South Area, comprises about 5.8 

million acres in the Central Gulf of Mexico Planning Area, south of the181 Area and west of the 

Military Mission Line and more than 125 miles from the coast of Florida. The 181 South Area 

was included in the 2007-2012 OCS Oil and Gas Proposed Program. In December 2006, 

Congress passed and President Bush signed the Gulf of Mexico Energy Security Act, which 

requires leasing in that area. MMS must conduct a detailed environmental review of the area 

before any leasing can occur there.

The 2007-2012 OCS Oil and Gas Proposed Final Program and Final Environmental Impact 

Statement are scheduled to be released in spring 2007.

Royalty Rate Increase

The royalty rate increase to 16.7 (1/6th from the present 1/8th) percent for new offshore 

(excluding Alaska) deepwater federal oil and gas leases will take effect with the first 2007 Gulf 

of Mexico lease sale scheduled for late August.

Most federal oil and gas is leased at a 12.5 percent royalty rate both onshore and offshore. The 

Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (OCSLA) grants the Secretary of the Interior discretion to 

establish a higher royalty rate.

MMS estimates that the increased royalty rate of 16.7 percent for new deepwater offshore Gulf 

of Mexico leases will increase revenue from royalty payments by $4.5 billion over 20 years. 

MMS estimates that, by 2017, this increased revenue would offset any decline in bonus and 

rental revenues and any revenue losses from a decline in production. MMS estimates a decline 

of bonus and rental revenues at $820 million over 20 years and decline in production at 5 

percent, or 110 million barrels of oil equivalent, over 20 years.

More information, including a fact sheet, maps of the areas and the President’s memorandum is 

at http://www.mms.gov.
67

APPENDIX F. GULF OF MEXICO ENERGY SECURITY ACT OF 2006 

TITLE I—GULF OF MEXICO ENERGY SECURITY 

SEC. 101. SHORT TITLE. 

This title may be cited as the ‘Gulf of Mexico Energy Security Act of 2006’. 

SEC. 102. DEFINITIONS. 

In this title: 

(1) 181 AREA—The term ‘181 Area’ means the area identified in map 15, 

page 58, of the Proposed Final Outer Continental Shelf Oil and Gas 

Leasing Program for 1997-2002, dated August 1996, of the Minerals 

Management Service, available in the Office of the Director of the 

Minerals Management Service, excluding the area offered in OCS Lease 

Sale 181, held on December 5, 2001. 

(2) 181 SOUTH AREA—The term ‘181 South Area’ means any area— 

(A) located— 

(i) south of the 181 Area; 

(ii) west of the Military Mission Line; and 

(iii) in the Central Planning Area; 

(B) excluded from the Proposed Final Outer Continental Shelf Oil and 

Gas Leasing Program for 1997-2002, dated August 1996, of the 

Minerals Management Service; and 

(C) included in the areas considered for oil and gas leasing, as identified 

in map 8, page 37 of the document entitled ‘Draft Proposed Program 

Outer Continental Shelf Oil and Gas Leasing Program 2007-2012’, 

dated February 2006 . 

(3) BONUS OR ROYALTY CREDIT—The term ‘bonus or royalty credit’ 

means a legal instrument or other written documentation, or an entry in 

an account managed by the Secretary, that may be used in lieu of any 

other monetary payment for— 

(A) a bonus bid for a lease on the outer Continental Shelf; or 

(B) a royalty due on oil or gas production from any lease located on the 

outer Continental Shelf. 

(4) CENTRAL PLANNING AREA—The term ‘Central Planning Area’ means 

the Central Gulf of Mexico Planning Area of the outer Continental Shelf, 

as designated in the document entitled ‘Draft Proposed Program Outer 

Continental Shelf Oil and Gas Leasing Program 2007-2012’, dated 

February 2006. 
68

(5) EASTERN PLANNING AREA—The term ‘Eastern Planning Area’ means 

the Eastern Gulf of Mexico Planning Area of the outer Continental Shelf, 

as designated in the document entitled ‘Draft Proposed Program Outer 

Continental Shelf Oil and Gas Leasing Program 2007-2012’, dated 

February 2006. 

(6) 2002-2007 PLANNING AREA—The term ‘2002-2007 planning area’ 

means any area— 

(A) located in— 

(i) the Eastern Planning Area, as designated in the Proposed 

Final Outer Continental Shelf Oil and Gas Leasing Program 

2002-2007, dated April 2002, of the Minerals Management 

Service; 

(ii) the Central Planning Area, as designated in the Proposed Final 

Outer Continental Shelf Oil and Gas Leasing Program 2002-

2007, dated April 2002, of the Minerals Management Service; 

or 

(iii) the Western Planning Area, as designated in the Proposed 

Final Outer Continental Shelf Oil and Gas Leasing Program 

2002-2007, dated April 2002, of the Minerals Management 

Service; and 

(B) not located in— 

(i) an area in which no funds may be expended to conduct offshore 

preleasing, leasing, and related activities under sections 104 

through 106 of the Department of the Interior, Environment, 

and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2006 (Public Law 

109-54; 119 Stat. 521) (as in effect on August 2, 2005); 

(ii) an area withdrawn from leasing under the ‘Memorandum on 

Withdrawal of Certain Areas of the United States Outer 

Continental Shelf from Leasing Disposition’, from 34 Weekly 

Comp. Pres. Doc. 1111, dated June 12, 1998; or 

(iii)the 181 Area or 181 South Area. 

(7) GULF PRODUCING STATE—The term ‘Gulf producing State’ means 

each of the States of Alabama, Louisiana, Mississippi, and Texas. 

(8) MILITARY MISSION LINE—The term ‘Military Mission Line’ means the 

north-south line at 86o 41′ W longitude 

(9) QUALIFIED OUTER CONTINENTAL SHELF REVENUES— 

(A) IN GENERAL—The term ‘qualified outer Continental Shelf revenues’ 

means— 

(i) in the case of each of fiscal years 2007 through 2016, all 

rentals, royalties, bonus bids, and other sums due and payable 

to the United States from leases entered into on or after the 

date of enactment of this Act for— 

(I) areas in the 181 Area located in the Eastern Planning Area; 

and 
69

(II) the 181 South Area; and 

(ii) in the case of fiscal year 2017 and each fiscal year thereafter, 

all rentals, royalties, bonus bids, and other sums due and 

payable to the United States received on or after October 1, 

2016, from leases entered into on or after the date of enactment 

of this Act for— 

(I) the 181 Area; 

(II) the 181 South Area; and 

(III) the 2002-2007 planning area. 

(B) EXCLUSIONS—The term ‘qualified outer Continental Shelf revenues’ 

does not include— 

(i) revenues from the forfeiture of a bond or other surety securing 

obligations other than royalties, civil penalties, or royalties 

taken by the Secretary in-kind and not sold; or 

(ii) revenues generated from leases subject to section 8(g) of the 

Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (43 U.S.C. 1337(g)). 

(10) COASTAL POLITICAL SUBDIVISION—The term ‘coastal political 

subdivision’ means a political subdivision of a Gulf producing State any 

part of which political subdivision is— 

(A) within the coastal zone (as defined in section 304 of the Coastal Zone 

Management Act of 1972 (16 U.S.C. 1453)) of the Gulf producing State 

as of the date of enactment of this Act ; and 

(B) not more than 200 nautical miles from the geographic center of any 

leased tract. 

(11) SECRETARY—The term ‘Secretary’ means the Secretary of the 

Interior. 

SEC. 103. OFFSHORE OIL AND GAS LEASING IN 181 AREA AND 181 

SOUTH AREA OF GULF OF MEXICO. 

(a) 181 Area Lease Sale—Except as provided in section 104, the Secretary 

shall offer the 181 Area for oil and gas leasing pursuant to the Outer 

Continental Shelf Lands Act (43 U.S.C. 1331 et seq.) as soon as 

practicable, but not later than 1 year, after the date of enactment of this 

Act. 

(b) 181 South Area Lease Sale—The Secretary shall offer the 181 South Area 

for oil and gas leasing pursuant to the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act 

(43 U.S.C. 1331 et seq.) as soon as practicable after the date of enactment 

of this Act . 

(c) Leasing Program—The 181 Area and 181 South Area shall be offered for 

lease under this section notwithstanding the omission of the 181 Area or 

the 181 South Area from any outer Continental Shelf leasing program 

under section 18 of the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (43 U.S.C. 

1344). 
70

(d) Conforming Amendment—Section 105 of the Department of the Interior, 

Environment, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act , 2006 (Public 

Law 109-54; 119 Stat. 522) is amended by inserting ‘(other than the 181 

South Area (as defined in section 102 of the Gulf of Mexico Energy 

Security Act of 2006 ))’ after ‘lands located outside Sale 181’. 

SEC. 104. MORATORIUM ON OIL AND GAS LEASING IN CERTAIN 

AREAS OF GULF OF MEXICO. 

(a) In General—Effective during the period beginning on the date of 

enactment of this Act and ending on June 30, 2022, the Secretary shall 

not offer for leasing, preleasing, or any related activity— 

(1) any area east of the Military Mission Line in the Gulf of Mexico; 

(2) any area in the Eastern Planning Area that is within 125 miles of the 

coastline of the State of Florida; or 

(3) any area in the Central Planning Area that is— 

(A) within— 

(i) the 181 Area; and 

(ii) 100 miles of the coastline of the State of Florida; or 

(B)(i) outside the 181 Area; 

(ii) east of the western edge of the Pensacola Official 

Protraction Diagram (UTM X coordinate 1,393,920 (NAD 27 

feet)); and 

(iii) within 100 miles of the coastline of the State of Florida. 

(b) Military Mission Line—Notwithstanding subsection (a), the United States 

reserves the right to designate by and through the Secretary of Defense, 

with the approval of the President, national defense areas on the outer 

Continental Shelf pursuant to section 12(d) of the Outer Continental 

Shelf Lands Act (43 U.S.C. 1341(d)). 

(c) Exchange of Certain Leases— 

(1) IN GENERAL—The Secretary shall permit any person that, as of the 

date of enactment of this Act , has entered into an oil or gas lease with 

the Secretary in any area described in paragraph (2) or (3) of 

subsection (a) to exchange the lease for a bonus or royalty credit that 

may only be used in the Gulf of Mexico. 

(2) VALUATION OF EXISTING LEASE—The amount of the bonus or 

royalty credit for a lease to be exchanged shall be equal to— 

(A) the amount of the bonus bid; and 

(B) any rental paid for the lease as of the date the lessee notifies 

the Secretary of the decision to exchange the lease. 

(3) REVENUE DISTRIBUTION—No bonus or royalty credit may be used 

under this subsection in lieu of any payment due under, or to acquire 

any interest in, a lease subject to the revenue distribution provisions 
71

of section 8(g) of the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (43 U.S.C. 

1337(g)). 

(4) REGULATIONS—Not later than 1 year after the date of enactment of 

this Act, the Secretary shall promulgate regulations that shall provide 

a process for— 

(A) notification to the Secretary of a decision to exchange an 

eligible lease; 

(B) issuance of bonus or royalty credits in exchange for 

relinquishment of the existing lease; 

(C) transfer of the bonus or royalty credit to any other person; and 

(D) determining the proper allocation of bonus or royalty credits to 

each lease interest owner. 

SEC. 105. DISPOSITION OF QUALIFIED OUTER CONTINENTAL 

SHELF REVENUES FROM 181 AREA, 181 SOUTH AREA, AND 2002-

2007 PLANNING AREAS OF GULF OF MEXICO. 

(a) In General—Notwithstanding section 9 of the Outer Continental Shelf 

Lands Act (43 U.S.C. 1338) and subject to the other provisions of this 

section, for each applicable fiscal year, the Secretary of the Treasury shall 

deposit— 

(1) 50 percent of qualified outer Continental Shelf revenues in the general 

fund of the Treasury; and 

(2) 50 percent of qualified outer Continental Shelf revenues in a special 

account in the Treasury from which the Secretary shall disburse— 

(A) 75 percent to Gulf producing States in accordance with 

subsection (b); and 

(B) 25 percent to provide financial assistance to States in 

accordance with section 6 of the Land and Water Conservation 

Fund Act of 1965 (16 U.S.C. 460l-8), which shall be considered 

income to the Land and Water Conservation Fund for purposes 

of section 2 of that Act (16 U.S.C. 460l-5). 

(b) Allocation Among Gulf Producing States and Coastal Political 

Subdivisions— 

(1) ALLOCATION AMONG GULF PRODUCING STATES FOR FISCAL 

YEARS 2007 THROUGH 2016— 

(A) IN GENERAL—Subject to subparagraph (B), effective for each 

of fiscal years 2007 through 2016, the amount made available 

under subsection (a)(2)(A) shall be allocated to each Gulf 

producing State in amounts (based on a formula established by 

the Secretary by regulation) that are inversely proportional to 

the respective distances between the point on the coastline of 

each Gulf producing State that is closest to the geographic 

center of the applicable leased tract and the geographic center 

of the leased tract. 
72

(B) MINIMUM ALLOCATION—The amount allocated to a Gulf 

producing State each fiscal year under subparagraph (A) shall 

be at least 10 percent of the amounts available under 

subsection (a)(2)(A). 

(2) ALLOCATION AMONG GULF PRODUCING STATES FOR FISCAL 

YEAR 2017 AND THEREAFTER— 

(A) IN GENERAL—Subject to subparagraphs (B) and (C), effective 

for fiscal year 2017 and each fiscal year thereafter— 

(i) the amount made available under subsection (a)(2)(A) from 

any lease entered into within the 181 Area or the 181 South 

Area shall be allocated to each Gulf producing State in 

amounts (based on a formula established by the Secretary 

by regulation) that are inversely proportional to the 

respective distances between the point on the coastline of 

each Gulf producing State that is closest to the geographic 

center of the applicable leased tract and the geographic 

center of the leased tract; and 

(ii) the amount made available under subsection (a)(2)(A) from 

any lease entered into within the 2002-2007 planning area 

shall be allocated to each Gulf producing State in amounts 

that are inversely proportional to the respective distances 

between the point on the coastline of each Gulf producing 

State that is closest to the geographic center of each 

historical lease site and the geographic center of the 

historical lease site, as determined by the Secretary. 

(B) MINIMUM ALLOCATION—The amount allocated to a Gulf 

producing State each fiscal year under subparagraph (A) shall 

be at least 10 percent of the amounts available under 

subsection (a)(2)(A). 

(C) HISTORICAL LEASE SITES— 

(i) IN GENERAL—Subject to clause (ii), for purposes of 

subparagraph (A)(ii), the historical lease sites in the 2002-

2007 planning area shall include all leases entered into by 

the Secretary for an area in the Gulf of Mexico during the 

period beginning on October 1, 1982 (or an earlier date if 

practicable, as determined by the Secretary), and ending on 

December 31, 2015. 

(ii) ADJUSTMENT—Effective January 1, 2022, and every 5 

years thereafter, the ending date described in clause (i) 

shall be extended for an additional 5 calendar years. 

(3) PAYMENTS TO COASTAL POLITICAL SUBDIVISIONS— 

(A) IN GENERAL—The Secretary shall pay 20 percent of the 

allocable share of each Gulf producing State, as determined 

under paragraphs (1) and (2), to the coastal political 

subdivisions of the Gulf producing State. 
73

(B) ALLOCATION—The amount paid by the Secretary to coastal 

political subdivisions shall be allocated to each coastal political 

subdivision in accordance with subparagraphs (B), (C), and (E) 

of section 31(b)(4) of the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (43 

U.S.C. 1356a(b)(4)). 

(c) Timing—The amounts required to be deposited under paragraph (2) of 

subsection (a) for the applicable fiscal year shall be made available in 

accordance with that paragraph during the fiscal year immediately 

following the applicable fiscal year. 

(d) Authorized Uses— 

(1) IN GENERAL—Subject to paragraph (2), each Gulf producing State 

and coastal political subdivision shall use all amounts received under 

subsection (b) in accordance with all applicable Federal and State 

laws, only for 1 or more of the following purposes: 

(A) Projects and activities for the purposes of coastal protection, 

including conservation, coastal restoration, hurricane 

protection, and infrastructure directly affected by coastal 

wetland losses. 

(B) Mitigation of damage to fish, wildlife, or natural resources. 

(C) Implementation of a federally-approved marine, coastal, or 

comprehensive conservation management plan. 

(D) Mitigation of the impact of outer Continental Shelf activities 

through the funding of onshore infrastructure projects. 

(E) Planning assistance and the administrative costs of complying 

with this section. 

(2) LIMITATION—Not more than 3 percent of amounts received by a 

Gulf producing State or coastal political subdivision under subsection 

(b) may be used for the purposes described in paragraph (1)(E). 

(e) Administration—Amounts made available under subsection (a)(2) shall— 

(1) be made available, without further appropriation, in accordance with 

this section; 

(2) remain available until expended; and 

(3) be in addition to any amounts appropriated under— 

(A) the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (43 U.S.C. 1331 et seq.); 

(B) the Land and Water Conservation Fund Act of 1965 (16 U.S.C. 

460l-4 et seq.); or 

(C) any other provision of law. 

(f) Limitations on Amount of Distributed Qualified Outer Continental Shelf 

Revenues— 

(1) IN GENERAL—Subject to paragraph (2), the total amount of qualified 

outer Continental Shelf revenues made available under subsection 

(a)(2) shall not exceed $500,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2016 

through 2055. 
74

(2) EXPENDITURES—For the purpose of paragraph (1), for each of fiscal 

years 2016 through 2055, expenditures under subsection (a)(2) shall 

be net of receipts from that fiscal year from any area in the 181 Area 

in the Eastern Planning Area and the 181 South Area. 

(3) PRO RATA REDUCTIONS—If paragraph (1) limits the amount of 

qualified outer Continental Shelf revenue that would be paid under 

subparagraphs (A) and (B) of subsection (a)(2)— 

(A) the Secretary shall reduce the amount of qualified outer 

Continental Shelf revenue provided to each recipient on a pro 

rata basis; and 

(B) any remainder of the qualified outer Continental Shelf 

revenues shall revert to the general fund of the Treasury. 
The Department of the Interior Mission

As the Nation's principal conservation agency, the Department of the Interior has responsibility 

for most of our nationally owned public lands and natural resources. This includes fostering 

sound use of our land and water resources; protecting our fish, wildlife, and biological diversity; 

preserving the environmental and cultural values of our national parks and historical places; 

and providing for the enjoyment of life through outdoor recreation. The Department assesses 

our energy and mineral resources and works to ensure that their development is in the best 

interests of all our people by encouraging stewardship and citizen participation in their care. 

The Department also has a major responsibility for American Indian reservation communities 

and for people who live in island territories under U.S. administration. 

The Minerals Management Service Mission 

As a bureau of the Department of the Interior, the Minerals Management Service's (MMS) 

primary responsibilities are to manage the mineral resources located on the Nation's Outer 

Continental Shelf (OCS), collect revenue from the Federal OCS and onshore Federal and Indian 

lands, and distribute those revenues. 

Moreover, in working to meet its responsibilities, the Offshore Minerals Management Program 

administers the OCS competitive leasing program and oversees the safe and environmentally 

sound exploration and production of our Nation's offshore natural gas, oil and other mineral 

resources. The MMS Minerals Revenue Management meets its responsibilities by ensuring the 

efficient, timely and accurate collection and disbursement of revenue from mineral leasing and 

production due to Indian tribes and allottees, States and the U.S. Treasury. 

The MMS strives to fulfill its responsibilities through the general guiding principles of: (1) being 

responsive to the public's concerns and interests by maintaining a dialogue with all potentially 

affected parties and (2) carrying out its programs with an emphasis on working to enhance the 

quality of life for all Americans by lending MMS assistance and expertise to economic 

development and environmental protection.