Thirty years ago, when industry majors shied away from exploration offshore Israel, Noble Energy (then Samedan) boldly stepped forward and partnered with the Delek Group to explore the Eastern Mediterranean.
Exploration success was accompanied by national security, legal, and regulatory challenges. Nonetheless, Israel’s gas production has grown rapidly and is expected to exceed 3 bcf/day in 2026, which is > current gas production in the Gulf of America.
Chevron is now the main operator in Israel, having purchased Nobleâs assets in 2020. The company has taken another major step by signing an MOU with Syrian Petroleum Co. and Qatar-based Power International Holding. The document is not currently accessible online, but appears to be substantive based on press reports.
The agreement focuses on preliminary cooperation for exploring and developing offshore oil and gas resources offshore Syria. It’s noteworthy that the MOU will only remain in effect for two months, after which “formal contracts and operational work are expected to follow.”
Having done some work for Noble Energy in the 2010s, I’m very impressed by the progress that has been made given the geopolitical challenges.
Production at Chevronâs Leviathan, a giant gas field offshore Israel
The EIA’s Eastern Mediterranean overview is attached.
Jarrod Agen is Deputy Assistant to the President and Executive Director, National Energy Dominance Council. A question about Sable Offshore’s Santa Ynez Unit project was raised at a Foundation for Defense of Democracies (FDD) event on “The State of American Energy Dominance.” See the Bloomberg blurb and X post below. The full event video is here.
Here is the extent to which the Trump administration is helping $SOC, from a talk w Trump lackey Jarrod Agen. Sounds convincing lol pic.twitter.com/1NrCmyY6jt
No bids were accepted during BBG1’s Phase 1 review. This means that none of the tracts receiving bids were determined to be nonviable as was the case for the 199 tracts that were improperly acquired for carbon disposal purposes in Sales 257, 259, and 261. (Unsurprisingly, neither of the acquiring companies has submitted an exploration plan for any of these CCS leases. The leases will likely expire without activity. Much to the dismay of the large and diverse group of opponents, the carbon disposal industry is focusing on onshore locations along the Gulf Coast.)
Attached isJohn Smith’s updated Sable litigation table. John is a BOEM retiree who has been closely monitoring Sable’s legal and regulatory challenges. His summary:
“Sable Offshore Corp. is involved either directly or indirectly in no less than 12 lawsuits that have been filed by environmental groups, state and county regulatory agencies, and the Attorney General of California, all of whom are committed to stopping Sable from restarting Santa Ynez Unit (SYU) oil and gas production. All of the lawsuits are active and many are likely to result in prolonged judicial proceedings extending over several years. Will Sable have the will and financial resources to continue these legal battles indefinitely? – that’s a multi-million dollar question.”
Pasted below are excerpts from Sable’s Prospectus Supplement. Is Sable serious about pursuing a Santa Ynez Unit strategy that employs a production and treatment vessel 3.5 miles from shore ala the development option that was reluctantly approved by the Federal govt in 1974, two decades before the onshore infrastructure was in place?
The OS&T option is inferior to onshore treatment and pipeline transportation in every way – spill risks, air emissions, economics, ultimate oil recovery, transportation to market, natural gas utilization, and public benefit.
This blogger supports a resumption of Santa Ynez Unit production. However, the only responsible path forward is to do the right thing and continue to pursue the onshore pipeline approvalsadministratively and legally. It is far better to defend a good project than a contrived workaround.Â
When will BOEM share Sable’s proposed “update”(actually a massive revision) to the SYU Development and Production Plan, as they are obligated to do?
Evaluation of the revised plan will require a detailed environmental review.
Operationally, BSEE and the Coast Guard will need to carefully consider vessel integrity, treatment capabilities, mooring and offloading plans, transportation schemes, gas utilization/injection, and many other technical details.
Meanwhile, does Exxon, the previous (and future?) owner, remain on the sidelines when the OS&T permitting circus begins in earnest?
On September 29, 2025, Sable announced that it is evaluating and pursuing an offshore storage and treating vessel (âOS&Tâ) strategy to provide access to domestic and global markets via shuttle tankers for federal crude oil produced from the SYU in the Pacific Outer Continental Shelf Area (the âOS&T Strategyâ). Continued delays related to the Santa Ynez Pipeline System have prompted Sable to evaluate and pursue the OS&T Strategy. On October 9, 2025, Sable submitted a Development and Production Plan update for the SYU to the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (âBOEMâ). Prior to implementation of the OS&T Strategy, regulatory authorizations are required, including clearance from BOEM.
Preparations for the OS&T Strategy include the acquisition of a suitable OS&T vessel, certain refitting and upgrades to the vessel and the SYU equipment, transportation of the vessel to SYU, and related installation. In connection with implementation of the OS&T Strategy, the Company expects to opportunistically acquire an existing OS&T in the first quarter of 2026, with delivery of the vessel to SYU expected in the third quarter of 2026. Following the acquisition of the vessel, and vessel and platform upgrades and installation, Sable would expect to begin sales from all SYU platforms in the fourth quarter of 2026, with expected comprehensive oil production rates of over 50,000 barrels of oil per day, utilizing the OS&T within the SYU federal leases, provided the Company receives regulatory clearances. Sable estimates that the total capital required to execute the OS&T Strategy is approximately $475.0Â million. The Company has already incurred a small portion of such capital expenditures, with the vast majority of such capital expenditures remaining, provided the Company receives regulatory clearances. See âRisk FactorsâRisks Associated with Our OperationsâIn order to commence operations pursuant to an OS&T offtake strategy, we will require clearances and permitting, including from BOEM.â
âWe have not been finding enough new fields.â Thatâs William DeMis, president of Richelle Court, LLC, who said that, in addition to not finding enough, we keep erecting new ways to export what weâre not finding.
The way, he said, to avert the coming shortage is for people to find new sources of gas outside of Haynesville field, which for years, considering its proximity to the Gulf Coast, and the petrochemical plants of Southwest Louisiana, as well as pipelines, made it a swing producer for natural gas.
âBut I can tell you from bitter experience over the last three years that finding people to fund greenfield exploration is darn near impossible. There is scant capital to drill natural gas wildcats in the U.S.â said DeMis.
Campaigners against Rosebank, Britain’s largest untapped oil field, have told the UK government that approving the project would risk breaching international law.
They say profits would flow in part to the Israeli oil and gas company Delek Group, which the UN human rights commissioner accuses of “supporting the maintenance and existence” of illegal settlements in the West Bank.
Note that Delek is not a Rosebank partner, but is the majority shareholder in a 20% Rosebank partner, Ithaca Energy. The 80% owner and project operator is Equinor, which is 2/3 owned by the Norwegian govt. Apparently, neither Equinor nor Norway are troubled by Ithaca Energy’s 20% Rosebank share. (There is no indication that the BBC contacted Equinor prior to publishing the article.)
The most sensible quote in the article is from the govt of Israel which dismissed the accusations as “absurd and distorted.”
Which do left-wing activists hate more – oil or Israel?
“The Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM) is initiating the first steps that could potentially lead to a lease sale for minerals on the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) offshore Alaska by publishing this request for information and interest (RFI).”
“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 âTeflonâ âeco-Nazi attitudeâ in a leaked call recording newly obtained by Hunterbrook. Because of these barriers â and despite Trump Administration intervention â Sableâs 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 ârestart productionâ by Mar. 31, Exxon can demand reassignment of the assets within 180 days, âwithout reimbursement of any Purchaser costs or expenditures.âÂ
In other words: Exxon can just take back the asset. For free.
And if Sableâs regulatory pathway is really just delayed, not denied â as Sable claims â 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.)
Bud's Offshore Energy (BOE) 