The Santa Barbara County Planning Commission has approved the transfer of the onshore pipeline from Exxon to Sable Offshore. Although the Environmental Defense Center (EDC) is appealing that decision to the Board of Supervisors, the Board’s vote will likely be a 2-2 tie. Supervisor Hartmann’s property is close to the pipeline and she has recused herself from votes on the matter. A 2-2 vote would be a win for Sable, because a tie vote means the planning commission decision stands.
As an investment, Sable is a “pure California permitting play,” which means the risks are high. The company’s chances for success are almost entirely dependent on receiving the necessary approvals from State and local agencies.
Sable’s share price soared to $23.43 on 9/3 after the company reached agreement with Santa Barbara on the installation of required pipeline valves. The price bounced further to $28.30 on 9/19 before falling sharply to $19.43 on 10/9 after being cited for failing to get California Coastal Commission approval to install the required valves. The price rebounded to $24 following the County Planning Commission’s approval of the transfer from Exxon to Sable before settling at $23 on Friday, the date of the EDC appeal.
Expect the financial and psychological roller coaster ride to continue.
Almost 40 years ago, four large oil and gas platforms were installed in the beautiful offshore area that was part of our Santa Maria District (Pacific Region of the Minerals Management Service). Those platforms are now within the boundaries of the Chumash Heritage National Marine Sanctuary (see map above).
We watched those platforms being installed, inspected the drilling and production operations, and performed a myriad of other duties including the curtailment of offshore operations prior to launches from Vandenberg AFB. Those Vandenberg launches weren’t always perfect as this link clearly demonstrates. Even knowing that, it was still a bit unnerving when missiles were recovered during post-abandonment site clearance trawls.
All four of those Santa Maria District platforms are now on terminated OCS leases. All were installed by companies that are now part of Chevron Corp. (Chevron, Texaco, and Unocal). They are currently maintained by Freeport-McMoRan Oil & Gas, with Chevron retaining financial responsibility for decommissioning.
Platform
Install yr.
installed by
water depth (ft)
Est. removal weight (short tons)
wells drilled
Harvest
1985
Texaco
675
35,150
19
Hermosa
1985
Chevron
603
30,868
13
Hidalgo
1986
Chevron
430
23,384
14
Irene
1985
Unocal
242
8,762
26
BSEE reports that the 46 wells on Harvest, Hermosa, and Hidalgo have been plugged and tested, and that the well conductors have been removed. No information has been posted on the status of the wells at Platform Irene, but presumably they are (or will soon be) plugged in accordance with BSEE regulations.
Will the inclusion of these platforms in the Chumash Marine Sanctuary further complicate the already difficult decommissioning process? Decommissioning specialist John Smith thinks it may:
“In addition to the BOEM and BSEE approval process, Chevron and FMC are going to be dealing with the NOAA permitting regime for Sanctuaries. Those permitting and environmental compliance requirements are extensive. NOAA’s NEPA documentation for West Coast marine sanctuaries will also need to be amended to include the Chumash.”
So the “Mission Impossible” that is California OCS decommissioning now has yet another complex regulatory element.
“Even though most of the SYU facilities are outside the Sanctuary, the proximity of the operations to the Sanctuary is problematic. The Chumash are now going to be a co-manager of the Sanctuary, adding another player in the process. Sable is going to obtain multiple Federal, State and local permits to restart SYU, and law suits are likely at every stage of the process.”
Equinor reports that all 5 Hywind turbines have been returned to service after being towed to Norway as part of a 4-month maintenance campaign.
Even though the turbines had only been in operation since 2017, Equinor puts a positive spin on the 4-month maintenance outage, declaring total victory:
“The successful completion of the maintenance campaign on Hywind Scotland is a testament to the collaborative efforts of our teams and partners. As the world’s first floating offshore wind farm, Hywind Scotland has demonstrated the immense potential of floating wind. Through this maintenance campaign, we’ve gained valuable insights that will help us refine maintenance practices and optimise this technology for the future. By sharing our learnings, we aim to contribute to the growth and development of the floating wind industry.”
Some of the folks in Scotland have a different take as evidenced in this video:
Meanwhile, the turbines planned for offshore Central California will also have to be towed to shore for major maintenance. Nearby harbor areas like Morro Bay (pictured below) would be overwhelmed by the large structures and the maintenance and repair operations. Central Coast residents are not enamored with “another attempt to industrialize the coast.” Towing the towers to LA/Long Beach, albeit rather distant from the leases, would seem to be the preferred option for such work.
Looking forward, the first power generation from floating wind turbines on the Central Coast is forecast for 2034. Betters may want to take the over!
Per a related post, the full SpaceX lawsuit is attached. It’s mostly exhibits, so don’t be intimidated by the length.
This excerpt summarizes the case nicely:
“Rarely has a government agency made so clear that it was exceeding its authorized mandate to punish a company for the political views and statements of its largest shareholder and CEO. Second, the Commission is trying to unlawfully regulate space launch programs—which are critical to national security and other national policy objectives—at Vandenberg Space Force Base (the Base), a federal enclave and the world’s second busiest spaceport.”
Even Gov. Newsome sides with SpaceX saying “I’m with Elon.”
Will this case teach the Commission some humility? Probably not, but we shall see.
The California Coastal Commission, which exercises enormous power and limited restraint, is making headlines for preventing SpaceX, arguably America’s most extraordinary company, from increasing the number of satellite launches from the Vandenberg Space Force Base, a Federal facility. The Coastal Commission made this decision just 3 days before SpaceX’s awe inspiring rocket booster catch in Texas:
Sable Offshore, despite being spawned by super-major Exxon, is a relative minnow compared to SpaceX, at least politically. The restart of production from Sable’s Santa Ynez Unit is facing another obstacle now that the Coastal Commission has entered the fray.
Sable argues that repair and maintenance activities are exempt from Coastal Act permitting requirements, and have been conducted under their existing permits for 35+ years.
The Commission does not like to see its authority questioned, and is influenced by groups whose sole objective is to prevent the restart of production. We’ll see how this sorts out.
Center for Biological Diversity photo of pipeline repair work as published by Noozhawk
Meanwhile, Elon Musk did not hold back after the Commission’s decision not to allow an increase in the number of launches from Vandenberg:
“The California Coastal Commission should be dissolved as an organization. An utterly insufferable and misanthropic group of Karens if there ever was one! Their idea of the perfect coastline is one where there are zero humans or even signs of human! Anyone who has had any dealings with them will attest to this. They should not exist.”
Platform Holly, California State waters in the Santa Barbara Channel, formerly operated by Venoco
Platform Holly sits immediately offshore from the Univ. of California at Santa Barbara, and UCSB scientists have studied the platform and surrounding ecology extensively. Multiple studies have shown that production from Holly reduced natural seepage and methane pollution from shallow formations beneath the Channel. Platform Holly was thus a “net negative” hydrocarbon polluter.
The natural seepage in the Santa Barbara Channel was important to the earliest inhabitants of the area. The Chumash used the tar for binding and sealing purposes, including caulking their canoes. Since Holly shut down in 2015 following the Refugio pipeline spill, offshore workers and supply boat crews have reported a considerable increase in gas seepage.
Earlier this month, it was reported that well plugging operations at Holly had now been completed, but decisions regarding the final decommissioning of the platform remain.
Venoco declared bankruptcy in 2015 and the State of California became the platform owner. According to the State Lands Commission, Exxon will pay the costs for decommissioning the platform. This is because Exxon acquisition Mobil operated the platform from 1993-1997 before Venoco became owner.
The most recent Holly development is that Venoco has settled its law suit with Plains, the company responsible for the 2015 Refugio pipeline spill that halted production from Holly. Terms of the settlement have not been disclosed.
Note: As an aside, I’m curious as to whether Mobil provided a decommissioning guarantee as part of the sale to Venoco or whether the State is simply holding ExxonMobil accountable as a legacy owner. If it’s the latter, why isn’t bp (bp acquisition Arco was Holly’s operator from 1966-1993) also liable? Is it a matter of Mobil being the more recent predecessor owner?
“If we continued to fight this out in court, [Sable] likely would have sought to recover lost revenue from the pipeline not being in operation,” said Supervisor Steve Lavagnino. “That could amount to millions of dollars the County would be on the hook for.”
The Environmental Defense Center and others are calling for the County to retract their agreement with Sable and hold a public hearing on the matter. That appears to be unlikely.
Remaining hurdles for Sable include approval by the State Fire Marshall after the valves are installed and operational, State Lands Commission approval of lease assignments from Exxon to Sable, and approval of the oil spill contingency plan by the State Dept. of Fish and Wildlife.
Sable believes they can resume production this year. That seems unlikely, but a 2025 restart is now a distinct possibility.
Sable’s stock price soared after the company reached an agreement with Santa Barbara County that will allow them to comply with the California Fire Marshall’s requirement to install shutdown valves on the onshore pipeline that failed in 2015. That pipeline is necessary to transport production from the Santa Ynez Unit, which is currently operated by Sable.
The significance of a resumption of SYU production is illustrated in the chart below. The 3 SYU platforms accounted for more than 2/3 of Pacific OCS production before the Refugio pipeline spill in June 2015.
This agreement with the County is a major step forward, but there are still regulatory and legal hurdles to clear before production resumes.
In the SEC filing that announces the agreement with Santa Barbara County, Sable affirms their 2024 restart expectations. However, a resumption of production in 2024 is highly unlikely given the administrative challenges that remain. A restart in 2025 would be a major accomplishment and a very good outcome for Sable.
Pasted below is the full text of the SEC filing (emphasis added):
Santa Barbara County (the “County”), on August 30, 2024, acknowledged that the County does not have jurisdiction over Pacific Pipeline Company’s (“PPC”) installation of 16 new safety valves in the County along PPC’s Las Flores Pipeline System (the “Pipeline”) in accordance with Assembly Bill 864. The County’s acknowledgement was delivered in the form of a conditional settlement agreement dated August 30, 2024 (the “Safety Valve Settlement Agreement”) among the County, PPC and PPC’s parent company Sable Offshore Corp. (“Sable”), and a subsequent acknowledgement by the County’s planning and development staff.
The Safety Valve Settlement Agreement is predicated upon a prior settlement agreement between PPC’s predecessor in interest, Celeron Pipeline Company, and the County in a federal case styled Celeron Pipeline Company of California v. County of Santa Barbara (Case No. CV 87-02188), which was executed in 1988.
Pursuant to the Safety Valve Settlement Agreement, PPC agreed to the following additional surveillance and response enhancements in the County:
i. PPC will create a Santa Barbara County-based Surveillance and Response Team, trained in PPC’s Tactical Response Plan, which will be responsible for timely initial incident response and equipped with key resources to deploy in early containment, particularly for those regions of the Pipeline between Gaviota and Las Flores Canyon;
ii. PC will provide Santa Barbara first responders with additional training and equipment to assist in PPC’s incident response efforts; and
iii. PPC will undertake the following Pipeline system enhancements: (1) install and operate and maintain primary and secondary Operations Control Centers in Santa Barbara County, and (2) refurbish the Gaviota pump in its existing station.
PPC, Sable and the County have further agreed, in the Safety Valve Settlement Agreement, to file a stipulation to dismiss the pending lawsuit, Pacific Pipeline Company and Sable Offshore Corp. v. Santa Barbara County Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors (Case No. 2:23-cv-09218-DMG-MRW) within 15 days of final installation of all 16 underground safety valves in the County.
Sable affirms that initial restart of production from Sable’s Santa Ynez Unit is expected in fourth quarter 2024.
An assessment prepared for Hunterbrook Capital draws the same conclusions regarding the prospects for production, calling the restart “a pipe dream” (presumably the pun was intended given the pipeline permitting quagmire). Hunterbrook’s chart (pasted below) illustrates the regulatory labyrinth facing Sable.
Hunterbrook has also flagged Sable’s ability to continue as a “going concern.” That may be a valid concern, but Sable’s success is very much in Exxon’s best interest. Exxon must have evaluated Sable and been comfortable with their management. Otherwise, they wouldn’t have made the deal.
Does Exxon want the massive SYU headache to revert back to their portfolio, as provided for in their agreement with Sable, if production doesn’t restart by January 1, 2026? Unless Exxon thinks they have a better option than Sable, they will presumably be flexible about the deadline.
Meanwhile, a judge denied the temporary restraining order requested by Sable to prohibit release of redacted portions of their oil spill contingency plan. Sable had argued that revealing “trade secrets” and specific locations and vulnerabilities of the pipelines could pose a “threat to national security.”
Earlier this month we awarded a Chutzpah Award to groups that helped block every attempt to resume production in the Santa Ynez Unit and are now suing to terminate the leases for non-production.
We now learn that the State Fire Marshall has rejected the resumption of production because Sable, the current operator, is not installing automatic shutdown valves on the oil pipeline. The catch is that Sable was denied permits needed to install the valves. So, on the one hand the Fire Marshall is requiring shutdown valves (a reasonable requirement), and on the other hand the County is prohibiting the installation of those valves!
According to the Fire Marshall’s office, this is the first time a company has been denied permits to install valves mandated by the State – yet another dubious distinction for the Santa Ynez Unit.
Bud's Offshore Energy (BOE) 