Big move by SOC following the issuance of the DOJ opinion. Justified optimism or irrational exuberance?
Archive for the ‘pipelines’ Category
Sable shares pop following DOJ opinion
Posted in California, energy policy, Offshore Energy - General, pipelines, Regulation, Uncategorized, tagged Dept. of Justice, irrational exuberance, legal opinion, Sable Offshore, Santa Ynez Unit on March 6, 2026| Leave a Comment »
Dept. of Justice opinion boosts prospects for Santa Ynez Unit production
Posted in California, energy policy, Offshore Energy - General, pipelines, Regulation, tagged 9th circuit, DOE, DOJ Opinion, DPA, Federal supremacy, PHMSA, Sable Offshore, Santa Ynez Unit, SCOTUS on March 6, 2026| Leave a Comment »
Attached is an opinion prepared by the Assistant Attorney General, Office of Legal Counsel, for the General Counsel, Dept. of Energy. This opinion may boost prospects for Santa Ynez Unit (SYU) production, either by Sable Offshore or a successor.
BOE SYU watchers see this State-Federal battle ultimately ending up in the Supreme Court, perhaps following the 9th Circuit’s ruling on PHMSA’s preemption of State authority over the onshore pipeline segments.
A few key excerpts from the DOJ opinion (emphasis added):
p. 1: You have asked whether an order issued under the Defense Production Act of 1950 (“DPA” or “Act”), Pub. L. No. 81-774, 64 Stat. 798 (codified as amended at 50 U.S.C. § 4501 et seq.), to Sable by the President or his delegee would preempt the California laws currently impeding Sable from resuming production and operating the associated pipeline infrastructure. We conclude that it would.
p. 6: As the Supreme Court has explained, executive orders “may create rights protected against inconsistent state laws through the Supremacy Clause,” especially when such orders are issued pursuant to “congressional authorization.”
p. 20: State law, we have been advised, is not currently the only impediment to Sable’s ability to resume production and transportation of oil. A consent decree entered in United States v. Plains All American Pipeline L.P., No. 20-cv-02415 (C.D. Cal. Oct. 14, 2020), Dkt. 33 (“Consent Decree”), “currently vests authority over resumption of transportation through the onshore portions of the Santa Ynez Pipeline System with the California Office of the State Fire Marshal.” Sable Letter at 9. We have been advised that, in addition to the United States and various State of California entities, Sable is a party to the Consent decree as a result of an acquisition. You have asked whether an executive order under the DPA would displace these provisions of the Consent Decree, even though there are both federal- and state-law claims at issue in that case. For three reasons, we think it would.
Losses mounting for Sable: $408 million in 2025 following $327 million in 2024
Posted in California, energy policy, Offshore Energy - General, pipelines, Regulation, tagged $408 million loss, Exxon, Sable Offshore, Santa Ynez Unit on March 5, 2026| Leave a Comment »
The potential rewards are great – 500+ million barrels of oil, 3 major production platforms, associated pipelines, onshore processing facilities – but can Sable survive the costly legal and administrative challenges? What is Exxon’s plan for the Santa Ynez Unit if Sable should fail?
Sable Offshore: go figure
Posted in California, energy policy, Offshore Energy - General, pipelines, Regulation, tagged Sable Offshore, Santa Ynez Unit, Judge Geck, NInth Circuit, FourWorld Capital Management on March 2, 2026| Leave a Comment »
On Friday, California Superior Court Judge Donna Geck upheld the restraining order that blocks Sable Offshore from restarting Santa Ynez Unit production. She scheduled a followup court hearing for June 27. Meanwhile, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeal’s hearing on PHMSA’s assertion of Federal jurisdiction over the onshore pipeline segments is scheduled for July.
Can Sable survive financially until those hearings are concluded?
Contradictorily, we learn that FourWorld Capital Management just purchased 8 million shares of Sable. Is that the financial equivalent of Pickett’s Charge or does FourWorld have good reasons for their optimism?
PHMSA Environmental Assessment for the Sable Special Permit
Posted in California, energy policy, Offshore Energy - General, pipelines, Regulation, tagged environmental assessment, PHMSA, pipeline, Sable Offshore, Santa Ynez Unit, special permit on February 26, 2026| Leave a Comment »
John Smith has shared the Environmental Assessment (attached) associated with PHMSA’s Special Permit for segments 324 and 325 of Sable’s Santa Ynez Unit (SYU) pipeline system. The document is an interesting read for those following Sable’s attempt to restart production from the SYU.
PHMSA notice – special permit for Sable’s onshore pipeline segments
Posted in California, energy policy, Offshore Energy - General, pipelines, Regulation, tagged onshore pipeline, PHMSA, public notice, Sable Offshore, Santa Ynez Unit, special permit on February 25, 2026| Leave a Comment »
PHMSA’s public notice (attached) is required because Sable’s Emergency Special Permit expired on 21 FEB. Comments are due by 26 MAR. More background.
“PHMSA is publishing this notice to solicit public comments on a request for a special permit submitted by Sable Offshore Corp. (Sable). Sable is seeking relief from compliance with certain requirements in the Federal pipeline safety regulations. PHMSA has proposed conditions to ensure that the special permit is not inconsistent with pipeline safety. At the conclusion of the 30-day comment period, PHMSA will review the comments received from this notice as part of its evaluation to grant or deny the special permit request.“
Good Bloomberg article on the Federal-State Sable pipeline jurisdiction dispute
Posted in California, energy policy, pipelines, Regulation, tagged Bloomberg Law, California, consent decree, Fire Marshal, Hannah Wiseman, Kruti Shah, PHMSA, pipeline jurisdiction, Sable Offshore, Santa Ynez Unit on February 19, 2026| 2 Comments »
As posted on 9/10/2025 (prior to PHMSA’s assertion of jurisdiction): Given that the Sable pipeline will carry OCS production, it would seem to fundamentally be an interstate line (Federal jurisdiction), as it was when owned by Plains. Could DOT reverse the 2016 letter agreement? That is conjecture for the attorneys and courts to consider.
A new Bloomberg Law article explains PHMSA’s position after a challenge by the California AG:
PHMSA said state-based hurdles are preempted by federal authorizations in the emergency permit notice letter the agency sent to Sable last year. Because the pipeline originates on the Outer Continental Shelf, the system automatically comes under federal oversight, the agency said.
A law professor adds the following:
The administration is invoking interstate commerce to classify the pipeline as a federal issue, “arguing that this is between a place in a state and outside that state,” said Hannah Wiseman, a professor at the Penn State Dickinson Law.
They are claiming this under their interpretational authority, as opposed to the actual language of the Pipeline Safety Act,” she said.
The language of the law only assigns PHMSA jurisdiction over oil operations that run outside or between state lines, but here the agency is arguing the pipeline’s start point is on the OCS, not at the onshore processing facility, she said.
Not mentioned in the article but pertinent:
- In PHMSA’s favor, the onshore pipeline was initially under their jurisdiction.
- In California’s favor, a court approved Consent Decree clearly identifies the California Fire Marshal as the sole oversight authority.
Meanwhile, Kruti Shah cleverly summarizes the Santa Ynez Unit story in a series of posts on X. Click on the post below to get the full thread. Great read for Sable/SYU followers:
Still waiting for the report on the turbine blade failure and much more!
Posted in accidents, decommissioning, energy policy, Offshore Energy - General, pipelines, Regulation, tagged aban pearl, California, decommissioning, investigation, liftboat, Nord Stream sabotage, OCS incident data, Offshore Wind, pipeline regulation, Platforms Hogan and Houchin, Russell Peterson, turbine blade, Vineyard Wind on February 18, 2026| Leave a Comment »
Important and long overdue:
- BSEE investigation report on the 7/13/2024 Vineyard Wind turbine blade failure and subsequent lightning strike. Will we see the report before the 2nd anniversary of this economically and environmentally significant incident?
- Updated incident tables for OCS oil and gas operations. The most recent data are for 2023! Providing timely details on incidents is a fundamental responsibility of a safety regulator.
- A summary of incidents associated with the OCS wind program. From press reports, we know about the fatality during Empire Wind construction. What other incidents have occurred to date?
- Coast Guard report on the May 2008 Russell Peterson liftboat tragedy. A crew member died in what is believed to have been the first OCS wind program fatality. Some of us haven’t forgotten this horrible incident.
- Hogan and Houchin decommissioning update, most notably the financial responsibility aspects. Why hasn’t the 2020 Inspector General’s report been released?
- Updated DOI-DOT offshore pipeline regulations.
- Workable California decommissioning legislation.
- Information on the mysterious sinking of the Aban Pearl semi-submersible in May 2010. An investigation was conducted, but the report was never shared. In the interest of offshore safety, the new regime in Venezuela should release this report.
- Report on the 9/26/2022 Nord Stream sabotage. 3.5 years have now elapsed since the pipeline bombing. Sweden and Denmark have conveniently opted not to issue reports. Germany continues to investigate, but politically sensitive questions about the responsible party may never be answered.
John Smith: “Sable Remains Mired in a Cobweb of Lawsuits – Can it Survive?”
Posted in California, energy policy, Offshore Energy - General, pipelines, Regulation, tagged Can Sable survive?, John B Smith, litigation table, Sable Offshore on February 10, 2026| 1 Comment »
Attached is John 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.”
California sues Federal govt over PHMSA pipeline orders
Posted in California, pipelines, Regulation, tagged 9th circuit, Attorney General, California, consent decree, Los Flores pipelines, PHMSA, Sable Offshore on January 26, 2026| Leave a Comment »
The State has asked the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals to set aside these three PHMSA orders:
- PHMSA order to assume exclusive jurisdiction over the Los Flores Canyon pipelines
- PHMSA order approving the restart plan for those pipelines
- PHMSA order issuance of an Emergency Special Permit to Sable Offshore
Bud's Offshore Energy (BOE) 