Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Archive for the ‘California’ Category

Platform Holly in the Santa Barbara Channel

John Smith informs us that the California State Lands Commission (CSLC) is moving forward with the environmental review for decommissioning Platform Holly. This would be the first platform decommissioning project offshore California since the 1996 Chevron 4-H project which involved the removal of Platforms Hope, Heidi, Hilda and Hazel in state waters.

John comments that the project description, which calls for removing the jacket, seep tents and pipelines, and partially removing the upper 5 feet of the 23-foot-high shell mounds, does not make much sense given the abundant fish and invertebrates that reside on or around the platform jacket. Cutting the jacket off 85 feet below the water line and converting the remaining structure to an artificial reef would make more sense and should have been designated the proposed project. 

The plan is to send the materials to the Ports of Long Beach, Los Angeles or Hueneme or possibly Ensenada, Mexico. The project involves complex logistics and is going to be a very long (3 years), ambitious and expensive project that will likely set a precedent for future platform decommissioning projects.

It’s noteworthy that Platform Holly’s oil and gas production effectively reduced natural seepage and methane emissions from shallow formations beneath the Channel. Holly was thus a “net negative” hydrocarbon polluter.

According to their agreement with the CSLC, Exxon is responsible for the decommissioning costs.

Scientific American: The steel “jackets” that support California’s offshore oil platforms are covered in millions of organisms and provide habitat for thousands of fishes. Joe Platko

Read Full Post »

The State has asked the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals to set aside these three PHMSA orders:

  • PHMSA order to assume exclusive jurisdiction over the Los Flores Canyon pipelines
  • PHMSA order approving the restart plan for those pipelines
  • PHMSA order issuance of an Emergency Special Permit to Sable Offshore

In light of the venue and the clear language in the 2015 Consent Decree regarding the California Fire Marshal’s jurisdiction, the State’s petition would seem to have a good chance of success.

Read Full Post »

Updated Hunterbrook Media summary of Sable’s prospects for restarting Santa Ynez Unit production:

Exxon spinoff Sable Offshore faces seven barriers to restart its pipeline, idled since a major oil spill in 2015. One of those approvals needs to come from the California Coastal Commission, which Sable CEO Jim Flores criticized for its “Teflon” “eco-Nazi attitude” in a leaked call recording newly obtained by Hunterbrook. Because of these barriers — and despite Trump Administration intervention — Sable’s project, originally scheduled to go online in Jan 2024, may never sell oil. At least not under the ownership of Sable ($SOC), which is quickly running out of cash.

Exxon’s options per Hunterbrook:

The Exxon purchase agreement gives Exxon a free reassignment option: If Sable fails to “restart production” by Mar. 31, Exxon can demand reassignment of the assets within 180 days, “without reimbursement of any Purchaser costs or expenditures.” 

In other words: Exxon can just take back the asset. For free.

And if Sable’s regulatory pathway is really just delayed, not denied — as Sable claims — that may be a more appealing proposition for Exxon than it once was.

Or, perhaps, Exxon will decide to retire the project, recognizing the Sisyphean path to production. (Exxon already took a $2.5 billion write-down as part of exiting offshore operations in California.)

Read Full Post »

The Santa Barbara Channel has been dubbed the Galápagos of North America” ~ Maggie Hall, Environmental Defense Center attorney. (comments: 1. clever branding ala calling ANWR “America’s Serengeti!;” 2. no natural oil seeps in the Galapagos Islands; 3. 130 years of oil production history in the Channel)

Sable opponents organize entertaining rallies featuring famous celebrities:

Meanwhile, Sable has some starpower of its own with strong public support from golfer Phil Mickelson.

Senior Federal officials and key agencies are outspoken Sable supporters:

Only in California! Newsom is blocking oil production off California’s coast from reaching their own refineries, driving gasoline prices even higher for Californians! Now, this oil production will have to be shipped elsewhere, lowering gas prices for other areas— just not for California! This is the opposite of common sense!” ~ Energy Secretary Chris Wright

BSEE declared victory 6 months ago: “This is a significant achievement for the Interior Department and aligns with the Administration’s Energy Dominance initiative, as it successfully resumed production in just five months.”

on December 23, 2025, the Pipeline and Hazardous Material Safety Administration (PHMSA) declared jurisdiction over and issued an emergency special permit for the Santa Ynez Pipeline System.

Perhaps most entertaining are the exchanges on X between Sable bulls and short-sellers. A few examples are embedded below:

Read Full Post »

Unsurprisingly, President Trump was not particularly pleased with Darren Woods’ “uninvestable” quote, the main media takeaway from Friday’s meeting on redevelopment of Venezuela’s oil and gas resources.

Exxon CEO Darren Woods: “If we look at the legal and commercial constructs and frameworks in place today in Venezuela — today, it’s uninvestable.”

The response from President Trump: “I didn’t like Exxon’s response,” Trump said to reporters on Air Force One as he departed West Palm Beach, Florida. “They’re playing too cute.” He told reporters he was inclined to deny Exxon any role in rebuilding Venezuela’s oil industry.

If Exxon is now in the President’s doghouse, what does this mean for the Santa Ynez Unit, an Exxon orphan that was adopted by Sable Offshore? Given Sable’s financial challenges, the SYU may soon be returning to Exxon.

Regardless of ownership, an SYU production restart faces strong opposition in California and is fully dependent on an assertive and supportive Federal government. Meanwhile, an injunction on SYU production remains in place, and despite rumors to the contrary, Sable confirms they are complying with that order.

If not already dead, another Exxon initiative, Gulf of America carbon disposal, may now be a step closer to extinction. Does Exxon, which has not drilled an exploratory well in the Gulf since 2018 or a development well since 2019, think the Gulf is only investable for carbon disposal?

Lastly, it’s noteworthy that Hilcorp, the only Alaska OCS producer, is all-in on Venezuela!

Read Full Post »

The Commission’s letter to PHMSA is attached (click on pages to enlarge). The CCC asserts the right, pursuant to the Coastal Zone Management Act, to review Sable’s restart/special permit application and further asserts that PHMSA’s special permit should be stayed pending their review.

The Commission also raises NEPA and Consent Decree compliance issues, and implies that PHMSA’s designation of the pipeline as “interstate” is subject to consistency review.

The letter is dated 12/23/2025, one day prior to the 9th circuit filing by environmental groups, but has just surfaced online.

Read Full Post »

Read Full Post »

All eyes are on the 9th Circuit. No injunction yet. Will the Court intervene to block Sable?

No evidence of intervention by the State.

Does Sable restart production tomorrow?

Traders on edge. Bulls are feeling optimistic. See X post below. 😉

Spend my barrel, parked in a harbor
‘Neath the platform spotlight
Pump it up tight, let the oil start flowin’
A little crude movin’ on a federal green light
Fits my life, oh so right

My Sable Offshore Delight— Victory II (@VictoryII1) December 30, 2025

Read Full Post »

Attached are PHMSA’s Christmas week Emergency Special Permit and Permit Analysis document. Is the path clear to restart SYU production before New Year’s day?

Three excerpts from the first attachment are pasted below. The last paragraph on p. 2 succinctly explains PHMSA’a emergency permit:

PHMSA was able to assume jurisdiction from the State because the pipeline transports Federal OCS oil and is thus inherently interstate. The perceived problem with a PHMSA takeover had been the court approved Consent Decree that was executed following the 2015 Refugio pipeline spill. That Decree specifies that the State Fire Marshal must approve a restart of the pipeline. The first paragraph on p. 2 of the permit explains PHMSA’s position that the Consent Decree has been superseded.

The provision pasted below (p. 4 of the permit) seems contradictory in that it stipulates compliance with the Consent Decree. However, PHMSA apparently sees no contradiction in that references to the Fire Marshal (OSFM) should now be read as references to PHMSA. PHMSA presumably included this provision to reaffirm the need to comply with the technical requirements in the Decree.

The second attachment is PHMSA’s analysis of the special permit. Note that the permit expires in 60 days. Public notice and opportunity for comment would be required for a renewal.

Environmental organizations reacted quickly to the PHMSA permit, filing an emergency motion in the 9th circuit (third attachment). Observations:

  • Impressive effort given the time crunch. The PHMSA permit was issued on 12/23, just 3 days prior to the court filing. No Christmas break for those folks!
  • If you wonder why the petition was filed with the 9th Circuit (seemed convenient given the 9th Circuit’s reputation), a filing at the Circuit level is required for appeals of PHMSA orders.
  • Petitioners strongest argument: Sable is not entitled to emergency relief, as there is no real emergency. PHMSA asserts that EO 14156, which declared a National Energy Emergency, supports the emergency permit.
  • The petitioners environmental doom prediction is not compelling. PHMSA’s position is that the mitigations they are imposing (reduced operating pressure, inline inspections, testing and sampling, etc) provide protection equal to or greater than than the corrosion remediation requirement that is being waived.
  • The petitioners asked the Court for relief no later than 12/26. That date has passed. Will there be a ruling today?

Barring an injunction, odds are that Sable restarts production prior to New Year’s Day, when a requirement (SB 237) for a new Coastal Development Plan, takes effect.

Read Full Post »

See the letter below.

California and Santa Barbara County remain silent. Caught off guard before the holiday?

More from the Santa Barbara Independent.

Read Full Post »

Older Posts »