John Smith forwarded Sable’s court filing (attached) and highlighted important text.
The Coastal Commission has asserted that anomaly repair work on Sable’s onshore pipeline, which was required by the California Fire Marshall and approved by Santa Barbara County, constitutes a violation of the Coastal Act.
Santa Barbara County had confirmed in writing that Sable’s repair work is authorized by the pipeline’s existing coastal development permits and, consistent with the County’s past practices, no new or separate Coastal Act authorization is required.
John and I believe Sable has a strong case, but you can be the judge. For the Commission and County to have such divergent opinions is rather surprising.
Among other assertions, Sable argues (par. 115) that the Coastal Commission violated the takings clause of the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, as incorporated by the Fourteenth Amendment, which prohibits the temporary or permanent taking of private property for public use without prior, just compensation. This could lead to significant liability costs for the State.
Remember that Chevron was once Standard Oil ofCalifornia. The attached WSJ article discusses the ugly divorce after all these years.
Chevron tired of California’s attempts to dictate corporate strategy. Per Chevron CEO Mike Wirth:
“Putting bureaucrats in charge of centrally planning key segments of the economy hasn’t worked in other socialist states,” Wirth said in a Nov. 1 call with investors. “I doubt it will be any different in California.”
California wanted Chevron to commit to the State’s energy agenda:
“Chevron has a future in clean energy in California. They can join us in our steady, long-term transition to a state powered by clean energy,” said Daniel Villaseñor, a spokesman for the governor’s office.
California wanted the interests of shareholders to be subordinate to the State’s carbon goals:
Newsom said Wirth had invested far more in shareholder payouts than in developing low-carbon energy.
Other State actions that contributed to the divorce:
accused Chevron and other companies of price gouging
accused Chevron, as a fossil fuel producer, of indirectly causing tragic fires
Sable’s stock soared on Thursday following a favorable Santa Barbara County decision (letter pasted below).
Sable’s path is still rocky. Decommissioning specialist John Smith notes that “Sable faces a number of permitting obstacles not to mention litigation by the Environmental Defense Center and others who are committed to trying to stop the SYU restart. The next hurdle will be a Feb 25 Santa Barbara County hearing on an appeal of the ownership transfer from XOM to Sable. And we should not overlook the OCS related litigation on ownership transfer, SYU Development and Production Plan updates, and Court ordered prohibition on fracking absent a Fracking EIS and consultation.”
The County’s letter is pasted below. Note the diverse responsibilities of this SBC division: Energy, Minerals, Compliance & Cannabis 😀
Inexplicably, BSEE’s ROD designates the most environmentally harmful, unsafe, and costly alternative as the “preferred alternative.” The decision is contrary to the opinions expressed by the leading experts on the ecology of California offshore platforms, most notablyDr. Milton Love of the University of California at Santa Barbara.
Why did BSEE select alternative 1 (complete removal) when their $1.6 million EIS acknowledges that alternative 2 (partial removal) is environmentally preferable? Was their decision influenced by activists who support the alternative that is most punitive to the industry they despise?
“On December 7, 2023, the Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement (BSEE) issued a Record of Decision (ROD) recommending the full removal of California’s 23 offshore oil platforms in federal waters, following a Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement (PEIS) conducted to assess decommissioning options for platforms, pipelines, and other related infrastructure. However, upon close review, the PEIS and ROD appear to have reached misguided and detrimental conclusions due to critical oversights in their analyses.” Asher Radziner, Montecito Journal
In the case of the Rosebank and Jackdaw fields, Lord Ericht ruled that the environmental assessment must take into account the climate effect of downstream emissions resulting from the consumption of oil and gas produced at those fields.
The Sale 257 decision was even more extreme in that Judge Contreras ruled that BOEM failed to consider the “positive” effect that higher prices (which might result from lower US offshore production) would have in reducing worldwide demand and the associated GHG emissions.
Regardless of one’s opinion on the extent to which GHGs affect the climate, halting UK and US projects will have virtually no effect on international oil and gas demand. That demand will be satisfied by other suppliers who will reap the economic benefits.
Presumably, revised environmental assessments, will allow the previously approved UK projects, for which some facilities have already been constructed and installed, to go forward. The UK government has been considering how to calculate downstream emissions. The model will no doubt yield outcomes that are highly uncertain.
In the meantime, the UK sector of the North Sea, unlike its Norwegian counterpart, continues to flounder.
“We need more of it because even the most ardent supporters of renewable energy, the most vocal proponents of net zero, quietly admit oil and, especially, gas will be needed for a couple of decades at least. That obvious truth, that inarguable necessity, is not, apparently, enough for ministers to encourage UK production, however, or temper their rhetoric around renewables.“
“Allowing our rigs and refineries to power down and relying on other countries to keep the lights on still seems a little, well, counter-intuitive. We will import oil and gas but not produce it while happily exporting contracts, skills and jobs overseas? The practical impact of Labour’s refusal to grant new exploration licences in the North Sea might remain unclear but the message it sent was absolutely crystal.“
Germany’s national elections are on 23 FEB. The Alternative für Deutschland (AfD) party, which has gained strength in the polls, supports a Nord Stream restart.
–Denmark’s energy agency granted Nord Stream AG permission to conduct preservation work on the Nord Stream 2 gas pipeline in the Baltic Sea (Reuters). One of the two Nordstream 2 lines is undamaged.
-An Equinor executive stated on February 5, 2025, that the Nord Stream 1 pipeline is “permanently destroyed.”
-The Swiss canton of Zug extended the moratorium on debt restructuring for Nord Stream AG until May 9. The moratorium is seen as a way for the German government to preserve its influence over the future of the pipeline. If the company is liquidated, investors, including the German state-owned energy firm Uniper, would lose control over the pipeline and the considerable funds invested by German taxpayers in its construction.
WSJ: “How many multibillion-dollar projects must go bust before a Governor comes to his senses? The answer is blowing in the wind, but New Jersey’s Phil Murphy doesn’t seem to be listening.”
Ouch!:Note how it’s always the developers that give up on these projects and never the state, despite the awful prospects for ratepayers. Gov. Murphy has treated renewable energy as a sacred cause no matter the costs since 2018. That includes a bill he signed to let Ørsted pocket federal credits it had promised to pass on to customers, though he clawed money back when the projects died.”
Government’s backing of unproven, first-of-a-kind technology to reach net zero is high-risk.
Government should assess whether its full carbon capture, usage and storage (CCUS) program will be affordable for taxpayers and consumers, given wider pressures on energy bills and the cost of living.
There are no examples of CCUS technology operating at scale in the UK.
CCUS may not capture as much carbon as expected.
International examples show that CCUS performanc expectations are far from guaranteed.
3/4 of the almost £22bn envisaged to support the projects will come from levies on consumers who are already facing some of the highest energy bills in the world.
The Government’s downgraded target of storing 20 to 30 million tonnes per year of CO2 by 2030 is now seen as no longer achievable
How will the Trump administration view offshore carbon disposal? Some elements of the oil industry see CCUS as a lucrative business opportunity. Budget and inflation hawks, along with most environmental organizations, are strongly (and rightfully in my opinion) opposed.
“The NJ Board of Public Utilities will not proceed with an award in New Jersey’s fourth offshore wind solicitation,” said Christine Guhl-Sadovy, President, New Jersey Board of Public Utilities.
Not a single offshore wind turbine will be installed offshore New Jersey during the reign of Gov. Murphy, a leading proponent of offshore wind. How much did his wind advocacy cost NJ taxpayers?
Bud's Offshore Energy (BOE) 