Background: By a 3-2 vote, the Santa Barbara County Planning Commission, acting under the direction of the Board of Supervisors (also by a 3-2 vote), passed ordinances to ban new onshore oil and gas wells and phase out old wells.
“We keep discovering new oil and new techniques to recover it,” said Commissioner John Parke. “The only thing to stop the oil industry and the production of oil is legislation.”
Comments:
The first sentence is perceptive, acknowledging that resources are not really finite given the ingenuity of engineers and geologists.
The second sentence is disturbing. The Commissioner believes he is legally and morally entitled to terminate an industry that has been present in Santa Barbara County for >130 years. He believes the Commission can do so by a slim majority and without compensation to those whose property rights are being abrogated.
The 2 Commissioners voting against euthanizing the County’s oil industry represent Districts 4 and 5 (maps below) where most of the wells are located. In essence, South County Santa Barbara is terminating an industry that is important to North County.
Pertinent to the County’s action is a suit filed by John and Melinda Morgan, who inherited the mineral rights to two parcels in the Cat Canyon Field (District 4). They argue that a similar provision in CA Senate Bill 1137 amounts to an unconstitutional taking of their property.
Three wind turbines, including one with a damaged blade, at the Vineyard Wind offshore site in November 2024. Credit: Eleonora Bianchi / The New Bedford Light.
New Bedford Light:Vineyard Wind on Wednesday sued its turbine supplier, GE Renewables, in civil court in Boston, alleging GE is breaching its contract and planning to abandon the project by April 28 — during the critical final stage of coming fully online.
According to the complaint, GE filed a termination notice with Vineyard Wind in late February for its contracts to supply wind turbines and service and maintain them, citing more than $300 million in claims unpaid by Vineyard Wind.
If GE exits, Vineyard Wind says, the project “will likely fail, leaving the windfarm stranded.”
Some of us remember when the UK and Norway were friendly North Sea oil and gas rivals – competing to be tops in production, technology, safety, and even promotion at conferences like OTC. Take a look at the production chart below and note the UK’s production leadership followed by the extraordinary decline.
So what happened? Norway may have better oil and gas resource potential, but that is only part of the story. While Norway was managing their offshore sector to succeed, the UK was seemingly managing theirs to fail.
Norway’s North Sea remains far more active because the government promotes exploration through predictable licensing, cost-recovery incentives, and a focus on adding resources to existing infrastructure.
The UK, by contrast, has shifted toward limited development and decommissioning. In recent years, the UK’s windfall tax on oil and gas profits was raised to 78 percent, and licences for exploratory drilling in new areas were banned.
The stark policy differences are evident in the exploration drilling numbers – sustained drilling vs. sustained decline (charts below).
Norwegian Continental Shelf Directorate dataUK NSTA data:exploration wells spudded with original wellbore intent classified as “exploration” (offshore UK includes geological sidetracks).
“Claim: Hundreds of North Sea licences have delivered only “36 days of gas”, proving new drilling does not improve energy security.
“This actually proves the opposite. In a mature basin like the North Sea, you need a constant churn of investment and new licences just to stand still. Without ongoing activity, decline accelerates and import dependence rises faster. That is why countries like Norway continue to license and develop new projects. Their approach allows them to replace what they produce and manage decline more effectively. In industry terms, this is measured through the reserves replacement ratio – how much new resource is added compared with what is produced. Norway consistently produces a higher reserves replacement ratio than the UK. Over the 5 year period 2019-2024, through exploration, Norway replaced on average 46% of the reserves that were produced, the UK however, replaced just 14%.“
“Today, the North Sea still provides over half of the UK’s oil and gas needs. With the right conditions, we can sustain production for longer, reduce exposure to imports, and manage the transition more securely. Without licensing and investment, the UK simply becomes reliant on overseas supplies sooner – regardless of demand falling.“
Claim: 93% of UK North Sea oil and gas has already been extracted, so new drilling makes little difference.
“Official projections show several billion barrels of oil and gas still expected to be produced between now and 2050. Independent analysis commissioned by OEUK shows that, with the right conditions, significantly more could be delivered from known projects and discoveries.“
“And even beyond that, the UK’s own regulator identifies large volumes of oil and gas in:
approved projects
existing discoveries
areas that haven’t yet been developed“
Pressure is mounting on the UK govt to approve the Rosebank and Jackdaw projects and ease exploration restrictions. Will it work?
Wamsutta Frank James speaking in Plymouth, at the statue of Massasoit.
My wife has native American (Micmac) heritage. Her family has deep respect for the Wampanoag tribe, in part because of their friendship with Aquinnah Wampanoag elder and activist Frank B. (Wamsutta) James.
Frank rescued my father-in-law after a car crash on Cape Cod and was a close friend for the rest of his life. Frank and my father-in-law, who headed the Art Dept. at Barnstable H.S., had common interests in art and history. Frank was also a talented musician, and was my wife’s music teacher at Eastham Elementary School on the Outer Cape.
Frank fought for the rights of Native Americans long before it was fashionable. In 1970, the speech be wrote to commemorate the 350th anniversary of the arrival of the Mayflower was never delivered, because it was deemed to be inflammatory. In his draft remarks, Frank succinctly summarized the tribe’s recent history:
“Although time has drained our culture, and our language is almost extinct, we the Wampanoags still walk the lands of Massachusetts…. Our spirit refuses to die.”
This spirit is evident in their opposition to wind projects that impact their historic and cultural homeland.
If Frank was alive today, he would no doubt be tirelessly supporting the preservation efforts of the Aquinnah Wampanoag Tribe. Most recently, the tribe joined the Narragansett Tribe, Green Oceans, commercial fishermen, and others in a suit challenging federal approvals for the Sunrise Wind project. Green Ocean’s press release is attached.
“First, PHMSA is without authority to grant such a special permit because Lines CA-324/325 are intrastate pipelines and California regulators have sole regulatory oversight over any attempt to restart these Lines and issue state waivers. Second, California has vested interests in ensuring Lines CA-324/325 operate safely and PHMSA’s proposed special permit would dilute the higher state safety standards that were imposed on Sable and therefore it is inconsistent with pipeline safety. 49 C.F.R. § 190.341(d). Third, given the fact Line CA-324 already failed and caused a catastrophic oil spill in 2015 in Santa Barbara County, even if PHMSA had authority to issue a special permit (which it does not), a more robust environmental analysis needs to be performed. Fourth, PHMSA unlawfully invokes the Endangered Species Acts’s emergency consultation procedures and has given no indication that it will consult with the National Marine Fisheries Service, in violation of the Act. Finally, Secretary Wright’s March 13, 2026, order (“DPA Order”) does not change anything about the propriety of the Application, because the DPA Order itself is unlawful.”
Summary of Sable’s position (screenshot):
You can sample the other public comments, some of which are quite good, by visiting the Regulations.gov docket.
“The Department of the Interior today announced the start of a phased plan to establish the Marine Minerals Administration, bringing together the functions of the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management and the Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement. This action is intended to improve coordination and increase efficiencies across offshore leasing, permitting, inspections and environmental oversight, while maintaining all existing regulatory protections and rigorous safety standards.
This streamlined approach reflects the evolution of offshore energy development and the need for a more integrated approach to managing conventional and emerging resources such as critical minerals. By aligning planning, leasing and oversight functions, the Department is positioning the agency to better meet current and future energy demands.“
This is an excellent step that many OCS program veterans have been advocating. In addition to the inefficiencies associated with overlapping and intertwined BOEM and BSEE responsibilities, the associated regulatory fragmentationis a significant safety risk factor.
For those who haven’t suffered enough following the BOE blog😉, you can listen to me on the G’Day Mate podcast hosted by offshore industry veterans Evan Zimmerman and Tom Pado. You may also want to check out other episodes on their excellent podcast.
Companies seeking to acquire OCS leases are not only competing with each other, they are also competing with BOEM’s tract evaluations. In that regard, the bidders fared well at Sale BBG1. Only 3 of the 181 high bids were rejected by BOEM.and those rejections appear to be warranted.
MROV=Mean of the Range-of-Value; LBCI=Lower Bound Confidence Interval; KUSA=Karoon (Australia) Energy USA; EW=Ewing Bank; MC=Mississippi Canyon
LLOG submitted 9 other high bids (alone or with partners) that were accepted. KUSA did not submit any other bids. We’ll see if the rejected bids for these blocks are exceeded in future sales.
Nine other high bids (table below) were less than the MROV, but all were greater than the LBCI. Those bidders “beat the house,” acquiring leases for <MROV. In that regard, Equinor led the pack with no rejections even though 3 of their 7 bids were below MROV. Similarly, 2 of Beacon’s 4 bids were <MROV, with no rejections.
Block No.
Company
no. of bids
bid
MROV
LBCI
GC 345
Beacon
1
$5,302,358
$5,400,000
$4,200,000
GC 346
Beacon
1
$1,102,358
$1,500,000
$900,000
GC 547
Equinor
1
$3,200,067
$4,500,000
$2,600,000
GC 549
Equinor
1
$899,967
$1,500,000
$576,000
AT 64
LLOG
1
$7,997,018
$8,300,000
$6,700.000
KC 386
Oxy
2
$3,000,505
$3,500,000
$2,800,000
KC 429
Oxy
1
$600,505
$910,000
$470,000
KC 431
Woodside
1
$904,547
$1,200,000
$840,000
WR 56
Equinor
1
$904,547
$1,200,000
$576,000
MROV=Mean of the Range-of-Value; LBCI=Lower Bound Confidence Interval; AT=Atwater Valley, GC=Green Canyon, KC=Keathley Canyon, WR=Walker Ridge
Perhaps most interesting were the blocks that were highly valued by industry, but not by BOEM. Each of these blocks (table below) received multiple bids and high bids >$10 million. Conversely, BOEM valued the blocks at only $576,000, which (per the terms of the sale) equates to the minimum acceptable bid of $100/acre.
Block No.
high bidder
high bid
other bids
MROV
GC 845
Beacon
$11,802,358
LLOG: $613,008
$576,000
KC 25
Chevron
$18,592,086
BP: $11,507,770 Shell: $753,029
$576,000
WR 443
Woodside
$15,204,547
Chevron $1,596,189
$576,000
WR444
Woodside
$12,204,547
BP: $4,593,770 Chevron $1,482,378
$576,000
MROV=Mean of the Range-of-Value; LBCI=Lower Bound Confidence Interval; GC=Green Canyon, KC=Keathley Canyon, WR=Walker Ridge
All of this demonstrates yet again that:
the govt is leasing exploration and development opportunities, not confirmed resources,
commercial discoveries are far from certain,
informed assessments differ (I.e. great minds, and their computers, don’t always think alike 😀),
corporate priorities differ, and
exploration strategies evolve.
Superstition, tactic, AI, coded or subliminal message? 😉
All 58 BP bids end with 770. Examples: $1,707,770 and $807,770. (At Sale BBG2, all 5 BP bids ended with 990.)
All 18 Shell bids ended with 029. (At Sale BBG2, all 6 Shell bids ended with 240.)
13 of 15 Anadarko bids ended with 505, the other 2 ended with 101.
The ESA, which was enacted with good intentions, has perhaps been most effective in blocking, delaying, or complicating energy development. In the Gulf of America, the primary species in recent ESA battles has been the Rice’s whale.
While this blog was focused on the Santa Ynez Unit drama, a major ESA policy maneuver for the Gulf of America was in the works.
A provision of the ESA authorizes an Endangered Species Committee, known to critics as the “God Squad,” to grant exemptions to ESA requirements. The Committee is comprised of the Secretary of the Interior (chair), the Secretary of Agriculture, the Secretary of the Army, the Chairman of the Council of Economic Advisors, the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, and the Administrator of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.
Yesterday, the Committee met (notice attached) and agreed to exempt Gulf oil and gas operations from the Endangered Species Act.
Knowing the swings in the political pendulum, provisions for reversing this decision warrant attention. The applicable language from the statute is pasted below:
(B) An exemption shall be permanent under subparagraph (A) unless—
(i) the Secretary finds, based on the best scientific and commercial data available, that such exemption would result in the extinction of a species that was not the subject of consultation under subsection (a)(2) or was not identified in any biological assessment conducted under subsection (c), and
(ii) the Committee determines within 60 days after the date of the Secretary’s finding that the exemption should not be permanent.
So, barring legislation, the exemption would seem to be difficult to overturn.
Earthjustice is vowing to “go to court to stop this illegal order.”
Bud's Offshore Energy (BOE) 
Comments from the California AG and Sable Offshore on the special permit application to PHMSA
Posted in California, energy policy, Offshore Energy - General, pipelines, Regulation, tagged California AG, comment letters, PHMSA, pipeline, Rob Bonta, Sable Offshore, Santa Ynez Unit, special permit on April 8, 2026| 2 Comments »
I’m attaching the complete comment letters from Sable Offshore and their main antagonist, California Attorney General Bonta, in response to PHMSA’s public notice and request for comments on Sable’s special permit application.
Summary of the California AG’s assertions:
“First, PHMSA is without authority to grant such a special permit because Lines CA-324/325 are intrastate pipelines and California regulators have sole regulatory oversight over any attempt to restart these Lines and issue state waivers. Second, California has vested interests in ensuring Lines CA-324/325 operate safely and PHMSA’s proposed special permit would dilute the higher state safety standards that were imposed on Sable and therefore it is inconsistent with pipeline safety. 49 C.F.R. § 190.341(d). Third, given the fact Line CA-324 already failed and caused a catastrophic oil spill in 2015 in Santa Barbara County, even if PHMSA had authority to issue a special permit (which it does not), a more robust environmental analysis needs to be performed. Fourth, PHMSA unlawfully invokes the Endangered Species Acts’s emergency consultation procedures and has given no indication that it will consult with the National Marine Fisheries Service, in violation of the Act. Finally, Secretary Wright’s March 13, 2026, order (“DPA
Order”) does not change anything about the propriety of the Application, because the DPA Order itself is unlawful.”
Summary of Sable’s position (screenshot):
You can sample the other public comments, some of which are quite good, by visiting the Regulations.gov docket.
Read Full Post »