Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Archive for the ‘pipelines’ Category

Per EIA data, the Appalachia, Permian, and Haynesville regions accounted for 67% of the total marketed gas production in the US in 2025 and 81% of the growth last year.

In 2025, more natural gas was produced in the Appalachia region of the Northeast than in any other US region, accounting for 31% of marketed natural gas production. (See the chart below.) Were it not for pipeline capacity limitations, recent growth in Appalachia production would have been greater.

Appalachia production is primarily from the Marcellus and Utica shales in PA, WV, and Ohio.

OCS gas production, 80% of which is now associated gas from deepwater oil wells, continues to lag the shale basins. This is a big change from 25 years ago when the OCS produced more gas than any state but Texas. (See the chart below.) Interest in ultradeep (subsurface) OCS shelf gas prospects remains scant despite favorable demand forecasts and technological advances.

.

Meanwhile, New York continues to block development of the State’s ample shale gas resources. foregoing the economic and environmental benefits.

Read Full Post »

Add the unprecedented events of the last two weeks to the long and troubled history of the Santa Ynez Unit dating back to the Offshore Storage & Treatment facility days. There are no parallels in the history of the US OCS program.

To date in March:

3/3/2026: The Dept. of Justice issues an opinion asserting that, under the Defense Production Act of 1950 (DPA), an order issued by the President or his delegee would preempt California laws currently impeding Sable from resuming production and operating the associated pipeline infrastructure.

3/13/2026: Secretary of Energy Chris Wright issues an order to Sable invoking the DPA to immediately prioritize and allocate pipeline transportation services for hydrocarbons from the SYU through the Santa Ynez Pipeline System (SYPS).

3/14/2026: A letter from California Parks and Recreation demands that Sable remove all four miles of its pipeline from Gaviota State Park.

3/14/2026: Sable resumes the transportation of Santa Ynez Unit oil through the SYPS from Las Flores Canyon (LFC) to Pentland Station. Prior to resuming hydrocarbon transportation from LFC to Sable’s sales point at Pentland Station, Sable had approximately 540,000 barrels of processed crude oil in storage at LFC, representing more than the line fill volume for the SYPS between LFC and Pentland Station.

3/16/2026: Sable resumes oil production at anticipated rate of 50,000 bopd and expects first sales by April 1, 2026. Production ramp-up is anticipated to proceed with full production resumption at Platforms Harmony and Heritage this month and Platform Hondo in June 2026

Read Full Post »

This follows the directive from Energy Secretary Chris Wright on Friday.

However, quoting Nick Welsh of the Santa Barbara Independent: “With Sable Offshore, one thing’s for certain; there’s always more to come.”

Read Full Post »

(Bloomberg) — The Trump administration on Friday took action to clear the way for oil production off the California coast in a bid to ease the global fuel pressures created by the war with Iran.

The announcement by Energy Secretary Chris Wright follows an executive order signed by President Donald Trump on Friday and directs Sable Offshore Corp., a Houston-based company, to begin restoring operations for the Santa Ynez Unit and Santa Ynez Pipeline System in California.

What about Judge Geck’s injunction and the case before the 9th Circuit? How are they affected by the EO and DOJ opinion?

Perhaps Four World Capital Management wasn’t crazy after all.

More Santa Ynez Unit posts.

Read Full Post »

Big move by SOC following the issuance of the DOJ opinion. Justified optimism or irrational exuberance?

Read Full Post »

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.

Read Full Post »

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?

Read Full Post »

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?

Prior Sable Santa Ynez Unit posts.

Read Full Post »

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.

Read Full Post »

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.

Read Full Post »

Older Posts »