Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Archive for the ‘California’ Category

Santa Ynez Unit pipeline anomalies

Posted in California, pipelines, Regulation, tagged , , , , , , , , , on September 23, 2026| 2 Comments »

Inline inspections identified anomalies at multiple points in Segment 324 of Sable’s onshore pipeline. Sable is conducting validation digs.(Noozhawk image).

Sable Offshore has asked Santa Barbara County for approval to conduct exploratory digs to check anomalies at seven points along onshore Segment 324 of the Santa Ynez Unit pipeline system. This 10.86 mile segment runs from the Los Flores Canyon Processing Facility to the Gaviota Pump Station (map below).

According to the Emergency Special Permit issued by PHMSA, Sable is required to conduct in-line inspections (ILIs) with metal loss tools every 6 months for the first 2 years of operation.

Where metal loss is identified, immediate repair is required if the remaining strength of pipe shows a predicted failure pressure <1.39 times the maximum operating pressure (MOP).

Where direct field examinations indicate pipe wall loss of 40% or more, permanent repairs are required.

Comments:

Read Full Post »

Santa Barbara: South County Supervisors deny North County property rights

Posted in California, drilling, energy policy, Regulation, tagged , , , , , , , on September 18, 2026| Leave a Comment »

District Boundaries
Oil Wells

As expected, the Santa Barbara County Board of Supervisors voted 3-2 to ban new onshore oil and gas drilling. This is another example of the South County (Districts 1-3) majority voting to deny the rights of North County (Districts 4 and 5) property owners and workers. Keep in mind that oil has been produced in the County for more than 130 years.

Attached is a concise, powerful comment letter submitted to the Board by Californians for Property Rights. Excerpt (emphasis added):

“Property rights are key to our nation’s prosperity, and these rights have been shown to be foundational to building prosperity around the world. However, for Americans, these rights are not only integral to our economy but also, and even more importantly, to our Constitution.
Oil and gas mineral and royalty interests are private property. Minerals cannot be moved when government changes the rules. Their value depends upon the ability to access and responsibly produce them, and a government prohibition can effectively eliminate that value.
These impacts reach real families. Mineral and royalty income supports farmers, ranchers, retirees, small businesses, and other property owners. For some agricultural families, it helps keep working farms and ranches economically viable and in family ownership.”

Related constitutionality issues:

  • In July, the National Assoc. of Royalty Owners sent the Board a legal opinion challenging the constitutionality of such ordinances. NARO also sent a comment letter to the Board prior to their vote.
  • A suit filed by John and Melinda Morgan, who inherited the mineral rights to two parcels in the Cat Canyon Field (District 4). argues that a similar provision in CA Senate Bill 1137 amounts to an unconstitutional taking of their property.
  • California AB 1448 would limit the property rights of Federal lessees and deprive royalty owners – most notably the citizens of the United States – of revenue.
Public Comment – Californians for Property RightsDownload

Read Full Post »

Comments on brief supporting California’s challenge to the use of the DPA to restart SYU production

Posted in California, energy policy, Offshore Energy - General, pipelines, Regulation, tagged , , , , , , on September 14, 2026| 2 Comments »

Twenty Members of Congress (17 from California) filed the attached amicus brief in support of California’s challenge to the use of the Defense Production Act (DPA) to facilitate the restart of production at the Santa Ynez Unit (SYU) in the Santa Barbara Channel.

Per their filing:

“This case is not about national defense. It is about a heavily leveraged, crude oil company asking the President to transform the DPA from a statute designed to“assure the availability of domestic energy supplies for national defense needs,” 50 U.S.C. § 4502(a)(5), into a corporate rescue operation for political allies; a rescue that advances the Administration’s political preference for fossil-fuel development at the expense of all other concerns. The Department of Energy’s (“DOE”) March 13, 2026 order (the “Wright Order”) comes nowhere close to identifying a need for Sable crude oil or pipelines in the Order’s generalized invocation of California’s military presence and increased reliance on foreign crude.”

Comments:

  • The brief includes no new arguments or information.
  • Is it not disingenuous to raise concerns about Sable’s financing when these critics and their allies spent a decade blocking Exxon, one of the world’s strongest companies, from restarting SYU production? Exxon’s frustration led to the ownership transfer to Sable, even though Exxon could still be held liable for some obligations, most notably decommissioning.
  • Given the conflict-driven turmoil in the energy markets and the risk of shortages affecting military operations, how is it a stretch to issue a DPA order directing the restart of an important onshore pipeline?
  • A Federal judge for the Central District of California has already opined that the DPA is a “significant statutory grant of authority to the executive, giving the President substantial discretionary power to compel private industry, allocate resources, and incentivize domestic production for national defense.”
  • With oil prices soaring, this is a bad time to attempt to halt a 20+% increase in California oil production.
us_dis_cacd_2_26cv3396_d31306472e4249_notice_of_motion_and_motion_to_file_amicus_brief_iDownload

Read Full Post »

California Assembly Bill 1448 – OCS production blockade

Posted in California, energy policy, Offshore Energy - General, pipelines, tagged , , , , , , , , , on September 9, 2026| Leave a Comment »

Attached is the final version of AB 1448, which is among the stack of bills awaiting Gov. Newsome’s signature. John Smith has highlighted provisions of concern.

If enacted and upheld in the courts, the bill would serve as a blockade on new Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) production. The bill would:

  • prohibit pipelines and other infrastructure located within state waters from being used to support Pacific Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) leases issued after January 1, 2026.
  • prohibit the State Lands Commission from entering into any lease authorizing new construction of oil- and gas-related infrastructure within state waters for the purpose of supporting Pacific OCS leases issued after January 1, 2026.
  • prohibit any existing leases and oil- and gas-related infrastructure located within state waters from being used to support Pacific OCS leases issued after January 1, 2026.
  • require a separate process for the approval of any lease extension that would increase the volume of oil and gas transported across state waters “including by commencing, increasing, intensifying, or restarting production” from the OCS. This would presumably include pipelines transporting Santa Ynez Unit production and production increases at other OCS facilities.

It’s hard to believe these provisions would survive legal challenges given their constraint on interstate commerce and Federal OCS activities.

On a related note, California royalty owners are actively challenging Santa Barbara County and Los Angeles proposals that would prohibit new oil and gas wells and ultimately phase out all existing production. AB 1448 would have a similar effect on OCS royalty owners – namely the citizens of the United States.

AB 1448 Ban on Infratructure useDownload

Read Full Post »

EIA raises the Gulf’s all-time monthly production record (April 2026) to 2.123 million bopd! Sable effect evident in the Pacific.

Posted in California, Gulf of Mexico, Offshore Energy - General, tagged , , , , , , , on September 3, 2026| Leave a Comment »

Raising the bar! The EIA’s August data release (delayed until 9/2) upped the Gulf’s all-time monthly production record (April 2026) by 14,000 bopd to 2,123,000 bopd. June production settled in just below the 2 million bopd mark.

Meanwhile, Pacific production has tripled this year reflecting the Sable SYU effect. Note that Sable reported Santa Ynez Unit production of 38,000 bopd in July and 42,000 bopd for the first week in August. This should push total Pacific production for July and August to over 50,000 bopd.

EIA explains (sort of) the delay in their June data release (only 2 days late, but enough to trigger a few conspiracy theories).

‘

Read Full Post »

Rigs (barges) to Reactors in Long Beach?

Posted in California, energy policy, rigs-to-reefs, tagged , , , , , , on September 2, 2026| Leave a Comment »

Bluecore Energy, with the support of the Port of Long Beach, is proposing nuclear reactors on barges. The Mayor of Long Beach is all-in!

“There is no better place to launch the next generation of zero-emission maritime energy than the world’s first Green Port. Long Beach has always been where global trade meets innovation, and today we’re becoming the place where the technologies that will power the future of the maritime economy are developed.BLUECORE ENERGY’s decision to build here reflects the momentum we’re creating by bringing together clean technology, advanced manufacturing, and world-class talent to grow the industries that will define the next generation.”

The State moratorium on new nuclear plants is still in place and the California Coastal Commission has yet to be heard from.

The Federal govt (MMA) has expressed an interest in responsible nuclear power generation on the OCS. Perhaps the parties should consider that alternative.

Related opportunity: Offshore Data Centers

Platforms offshore Long Beach and Orange County

Read Full Post »

Fish Reef Project explores the marine habitat at Platforms Ellen and Elly

Posted in California, decommissioning, energy policy, Offshore Energy - General, Regulation, rigs-to-reefs, tagged , , , , , , , , , , on September 1, 2026| 1 Comment »

Chris Goldblatt, CEO of the Fish Reef Project shared this impressive new video on the habitat beneath Platforms Ellen and Elly in the Beta Unit offshore Huntington Beach, CA. As Chris explains in the video, such valuable habitat will be needlessly lost if companies are required to remove structures down to the seafloor.

Platforms Ellen and Elly

A National Geographic article discussed the marine life beneath Eureka, the third platform in the Beta Unit:

“Every square inch is covered in marine life,” says Milton Love, biologist at the Marine Science Institute at University of California, Santa Barbara. “Sometimes there are so many fish that you can’t even see through them to the platform. It’s overwhelmingly striking.”

Jeremy Claisse, Cal Poly Pomona, called Eureka “as productive as any other marine fish habitat that has been studied around the world.”

Sea lion beneath Platform Eureka. Photo by Joel Platko

Read Full Post »

California State Lands Commission study targets offshore pipelines

Posted in California, energy policy, Offshore Energy - General, pipelines, Regulation, tagged , , , , on August 31, 2026| Leave a Comment »

John Smith informs us that the California State Lands Commission is developing an Analysis of Impacts to Public Trust Resources and Values (APTR) for the remaining offshore oil and gas pipeline leases under its jurisdiction. See the attached slides.

The APTR will assess the risks and impacts of continued offshore pipeline use and will include additional analyses related to pipeline integrity, cultural resources, ocean and coastal uses, and economic resources.

John suspects the primary underlying purpose of this study is to build a case for terminating all offshore oil and gas production by imposing requirements that would make offshore oil and gas production uneconomic. This could be accomplished by significantly increasing lease rental and bonding requirements, imposing more stringent pipeline inspection and repair requirements, or requiring operators to shut down or replace pipelines and other aging infrastructure considered by the state to pose an unacceptable risk to the environment.  

Also, given that Platform Irene is on a terminated OCS lease and is no longer producing, John and I are wondering why the Irene pipelines are included in the APTR study.

o-g-aptr-presentationDownload

Read Full Post »

Big win for Sable!

Posted in California, energy policy, Offshore Energy - General, pipelines, Regulation, tagged , , , , , , , on August 20, 2026| Leave a Comment »

Sable Offshore Corp. may use an emergency restart order from Energy Secretary Chris Wright as legal authority to continue transporting Santa Ynez Unit production through the onshore pipeline system.

Judge Stephen V. Wilson said the Defense Production Act (DPA) is a “significant statutory grant of authority to the executive, giving the President substantial discretionary power to compel private industry, allocate resources, and incentivize domestic production for national defense.”

The opinion also granted the Trump administration’s request to modify a federal consent decree entered in 2020 which governs the restart of the Las Flores pipeline system.

The order removes the California Office of the State Fire Marshal as the primary agency responsible for Sable’s compliance with the oil spill consent decree, and substitutes the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration.

Here is the 45 page decision.

Read Full Post »

“Offshore fracking”

Posted in California, energy policy, Offshore Energy - General, Regulation, tagged , , , , , , , , on August 18, 2026| Leave a Comment »

Despite favorable environmental reviews from both the Obama and Trump Administrations, the California Coastal Commission, empowered by the Courts, voted last week to prohibit the resumption of hydraulic well stimulation at DCOR’s Platform Gilda (map above).

Of course, as is always the case offshore California, the regulatory and legal battles will continue. The Secretary of Commerce may choose to overrule the CCC, in which case further litigation is certain.

This dispute comes at a time when the CCC, which operates with extraordinary autonomy, is undergoing a performance review by Commerce. Needless to say, the Commission and its supporters are not thrilled with the oversight.

In light of the spotlight on “offshore fracking,” I wanted to draw attention to a 2019 National Academies workshop that considered this very issue. I had the opportunity to participate in this workshop and was impressed by the input from industry and govt representatives.

Key points from the workshop:

  • If wells are not completed effectively, the value of drilling is negated, and it is impossible to deliver the oil or gas production needed to make the wells economically sustainable.
  • The frac pack (as is proposed for Platform Gilda) is one of the most commonly used completion techniques worldwide.
  • A gravel pack uses sieved sand as a filter to prevent formation sand from entering the wellbore, while the frac pack combines the gravel pack with hydraulic fracturing to create wide fractures filled with sieved sand that aid in connecting the reservoir to the wellbore.
  • Frac packs can create 50- to 250-foot fractures to stimulate production in a well.
  • Well stimulation offshore, which has been in practice for decades, has far less negative impact potential than well stimulation onshore.
  • Hydraulic fracturing minimizes the number of wells needed to develop a reservoir with the result being less environmental impact potential. This completion technique allows for the development of natural resources not previously considered commercially viable.
  • Offshore California, oil and gas formations typically have low permeability, and production is dependent on natural fractures. The objective is to enhance the flow of oil and gas from the tight matrix pores into the fractures.

The workshop graphic below highlights the differences in well stimulation risks onshore vs. offshore. The graphic is a bit unfair in that the onshore risks are being effectively mitigated. The main point is that much of the onshore risk potential doesn’t exist for offshore well stimulation.

Read Full Post »

« Newer Posts - Older Posts »