Serhii Kusnetzov (center), Ukrainian army officer, at his trial in Hamburg-Reuters photo
In July, German state prosecutors accused Ukrainian “state authorities” of ordering the attacks on the Nord Stream and Nord Stream 2 lines: “The aim was to permanently halt gas supplies via the pipelines and prevent Russia from using the revenue from natural gas trade to finance its war effort.”
Wednesday (10/14) was day one of the trial of Serhii Kuznetsov for leading the pipeline sabotage.
The trial will resume on 10/27.
Kuznetsov’s lawyers argued that the trial should not be taking place at all. They said the defendant had been held almost entirely in solitary confinement for 11 months, and that he was being treated “like a pawn on a chessboard.”
The attorneys argued that he could not defend himself in the conventional manner because he was an army officer, which forbade him from speaking.
The Alternative für Deutschland (AfD) party, which has soared in popularity and is currently leading in German polling:
Argues that German aid for Ukraine must cease and the pipeline be reinstated.
Asks why Germany poured billions of euros into a political regime that deprived them of cheap energy.
Calls this an attack on German sovereignty.
Has requested the establishment of an investigative committee to clarify what the federal government knew and to what extent Ukrainian authorities were involved.
The AfD supports “Protection of the Environment”, but not the “German Climate Protection Policy” and plans for “decarbonization” and the “Transformation of Society”. They want to end the perception of CO² as an exclusively harmful substance and stop Germany’s maverick policy in the reduction of CO² emissions.
Because the average output is so variable, renewable energy generators are not viable replacements for conventional large power stations.
Renewable sources necessitate a massive expansion of the electric grid systems and jeopardize grid stability.
Fracking: Explore Opportunities and Risks, Involve Citizens
Nuclear Energy: Explore Alternatives, Grant Lifetime Extensions in the Interim
Yesterday, the trial of a Ukrainian officer began in a Hamburg courtroom. See the X post and video below.
The big issue, of course, is the extent of Ukrainian govt involvement in the sabotage.
🇩🇪🇺🇦Germany puts a Ukrainian officer on trial for blowing up Nord Stream as a WAR CRIME ordered by Kyiv
Serhii K. will walk into a Hamburg courtroom today as the first person ever tried for the 2022 blasts that cut Germany off from the pipeline that once carried half its gas… pic.twitter.com/nBWPKWAPzj
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has not yet ruled on the merits of the challenge to PHMSA’s assertion of exclusive Federal jurisdiction over Sable Offshore Corp.’s Las Flores (Santa Ynez) pipeline segments (CA-324 and CA-325) or related restart approvals. A three-judge panel ordered additional briefing after a status conference, and a decision is expected to take months.
The 9th Circuit panel held a video status conference on 10/5/2026, and consolidated petitions from the Environmental Defense Center (and other groups) and the State of California. The panel ordered further briefing rather than issuing an immediate decision on the core jurisdictional question—whether the onshore pipeline segments engage in “interstate commerce” under the Pipeline Safety Act (making them subject to exclusive PHMSA authority rather than California’s Office of the State Fire Marshal).
Concise background summary from Grok: PHMSA reclassified the pipelines as interstate in late 2025 (asserting jurisdiction because they transport crude from Outer Continental Shelf platforms through California to a Kern County terminal, with arguments that onshore processing does not break the flow of interstate commerce). This enabled restart approvals and special permits (initially emergency, later a longer-term one) that environmental groups and California challenge as unlawful, preemptive of state authority, and deficient under the Pipeline Safety Act, NEPA, and ESA. Sable restarted operations earlier in 2026 amid related litigation (including Defense Production Act issues and consent-decree matters in district court). The Ninth Circuit cases are Environmental Defense Center et al. v. PHMSA (No. 25-8059) and the consolidated California petition (originally No. 26-508 / related Nos.).
Inline inspections identified anomalies at multiple points in Segment 324 of Sable’s onshore pipeline. Sable is conducting validation digs.(Noozhawk image).
Sable Offshore has asked Santa Barbara County for approval to conduct exploratory digs to check anomalies at seven points along onshore Segment 324 of the Santa Ynez Unit pipeline system. This 10.86 mile segment runs from the Los Flores Canyon Processing Facility to the Gaviota Pump Station (map below).
According to the Emergency Special Permit issued by PHMSA, Sable is required to conduct in-line inspections (ILIs) with metal loss tools every 6 months for the first 2 years of operation.
Where metal loss is identified, immediate repair is required if the remaining strength of pipe shows a predicted failure pressure <1.39 times the maximum operating pressure (MOP).
Where direct field examinations indicate pipe wall loss of 40% or more, permanent repairs are required.
Comments:
On the plus side, it appears that the ILIs identified anomalies as intended.
The number of anomalies that have been identified is concerning. (Per PHMSA, the last ILI was on 12/10/2022, several years prior to the restart of production.)
Note that external corrosion caused the failure leading to the 2015 Refugio spill. The followup excavations should be effective in confirming such corrosion.
If the County releases a high-profile applicant’s letter to local media and NGOs, they should also post the letter on the County website so that other interested parties have access.
Twenty Members of Congress (17 from California) filed the attached amicus brief in support of California’s challenge to the use of the Defense Production Act (DPA) to facilitate the restart of production at the Santa Ynez Unit (SYU) in the Santa Barbara Channel.
Per their filing:
“This case is not about national defense. It is about a heavily leveraged, crude oil company asking the President to transform the DPA from a statute designed to“assure the availability of domestic energy supplies for national defense needs,” 50 U.S.C. § 4502(a)(5), into a corporate rescue operation for political allies; a rescue that advances the Administration’s political preference for fossil-fuel development at the expense of all other concerns. The Department of Energy’s (“DOE”) March 13, 2026 order (the “Wright Order”) comes nowhere close to identifying a need for Sable crude oil or pipelines in the Order’s generalized invocation of California’s military presence and increased reliance on foreign crude.”
Comments:
The brief includes no new arguments or information.
Is it not disingenuous to raise concerns about Sable’s financing when these critics and their allies spent a decade blocking Exxon, one of the world’s strongest companies, from restarting SYU production? Exxon’s frustration led to the ownership transfer to Sable, even though Exxon could still be held liable for some obligations, most notably decommissioning.
Given the conflict-driven turmoil in the energy markets and the risk of shortages affecting military operations, how is it a stretch to issue a DPA order directing the restart of an important onshore pipeline?
A Federal judge for the Central District of California has already opined that the DPA is a “significant statutory grant of authority to the executive, giving the President substantial discretionary power to compel private industry, allocate resources, and incentivize domestic production for national defense.”
With oil prices soaring, this is a bad time to attempt to halt a 20+% increase in California oil production.
Attached is the final version of AB 1448, which is among the stack of bills awaiting Gov. Newsome’s signature. John Smith has highlighted provisions of concern.
If enacted and upheld in the courts, the bill would serve as a blockade on new Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) production. The bill would:
prohibit pipelines and other infrastructure located within state waters from being used to support Pacific Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) leases issued after January 1, 2026.
prohibit the State Lands Commission from entering into any lease authorizing new construction of oil- and gas-related infrastructure within state waters for the purpose of supporting Pacific OCS leases issued after January 1, 2026.
prohibit any existing leases and oil- and gas-related infrastructure located within state waters from being used to support Pacific OCS leases issued after January 1, 2026.
require a separate process for the approval of any lease extension that would increase the volume of oil and gas transported across state waters “including by commencing, increasing, intensifying, or restarting production” from the OCS. This would presumably include pipelines transporting Santa Ynez Unit production and production increases at other OCS facilities.
It’s hard to believe these provisions would survive legal challenges given their constraint on interstate commerce and Federal OCS activities.
On a related note, California royalty owners are actively challenging Santa Barbara County and Los Angeles proposals that would prohibit new oil and gas wells and ultimately phase out all existing production. AB 1448 would have a similar effect on OCS royalty owners – namely the citizens of the United States.
John Smith informs us that the California State Lands Commission is developing an Analysis of Impacts to Public Trust Resources and Values (APTR) for the remaining offshore oil and gas pipeline leases under its jurisdiction. See the attached slides.
The APTR will assess the risks and impacts of continued offshore pipeline use and will include additional analyses related to pipeline integrity, cultural resources, ocean and coastal uses, and economic resources.
John suspects the primary underlying purpose of this study is to build a case for terminating all offshore oil and gas production by imposing requirements that would make offshore oil and gas production uneconomic. This could be accomplished by significantly increasing lease rental and bonding requirements, imposing more stringent pipeline inspection and repair requirements, or requiring operators to shut down or replace pipelines and other aging infrastructure considered by the state to pose an unacceptable risk to the environment.
Also, given that Platform Irene is on a terminated OCS lease and is no longer producing, John and I are wondering why the Irene pipelines are included in the APTR study.
Judge Stephen V. Wilson said the Defense Production Act (DPA) is a “significant statutory grant of authority to the executive, giving the President substantial discretionary power to compel private industry, allocate resources, and incentivize domestic production for national defense.”
The opinion also granted the Trump administration’s request to modify a federal consent decree entered in 2020 which governs the restart of the Las Flores pipeline system.
The order removes the California Office of the State Fire Marshal as the primary agency responsible for Sable’s compliance with the oil spill consent decree, and substitutes the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration.
A 7/28/2026 Dept. of Justice brief submitted to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals cites the 5/28/2026 Supreme Court decision in Flowers Foods Inc. v. Brock in asserting that Sable’s onshore pipeline segments are interstate and subject to Federal jurisdiction.
This filing is part of multi-faceted litigation involving Federal preemption, a 2020 Consent Decree, emergency special permits, and state environmental concerns. The Ninth Circuit is handling the expedited briefings and consolidation of petitions.
DoJ’s core argument is that Sable’s onshore segments do not interrupt the continuous “flow of commerce” from Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) offshore extraction → onshore processing → further transport to terminals (e.g., in Kern County). Thus, the system qualifies as interstate commerce subject to Federal (PHMSA) oversight rather than state regulation.
The Flowers Foods Inc. v. Brock case considered similar flow of commerce issues. The SCOTUS agreed with the Tenth Circuit that Brock delivery franchisees were engaged in interstate commerce even if they never cross State lines. The gist of the decision is as follows (emphasis added, full decision attached):
The Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) requires courts to enforce many private arbitration agreements, but it also provides that “nothing” in the law shall be used to compel arbitration in disputes involving the “contracts of employment” of any class of workers “engaged in . . . interstate commerce.” 9 U. S. C. §1. This case poses the question whether someone can qualify as a worker under the §1 exemption if he never crosses state lines and never interacts with vehicles that do. Flowers Foods, Inc., is a large producer of packaged baked goods with bakeries in 19 States. To get its products to market, the company depends in part on franchisees who buy the distribution rights to Flowers’s products in specific geographic territories. Angelo Brock is one such franchisee serving the Denver area; he picks up Flowers’s products from a warehouse in Colorado and delivers them to local stores, all without leaving the State. In 2022, Brock sued Flowers in federal district court alleging that the company had underpaid him and other distributors in violation of various federal and state laws. Flowers moved to compel arbitration, arguing that the FAA generally requires courts to stay or dismiss cases when the parties have agreed to resolve their disputes by arbitration and that Brock had signed a distribution agreement promising to arbitrate any disagreement. The district court denied Flowers’s motion, and the Tenth Circuit affirmed. Resting its decision on 9 U. S. C. §1, the Tenth Circuit reasoned that Brock belonged to a class of workers engaged in interstate commerce and thus the court lacked authority to compel arbitration.
We should soon find out what the Ninth Circuit thinks!
Federal Judge Dolly Gee, Central District of California
Sable Offshore and Exxon had alleged that Santa Barbara County’s refusal to transfer title and permits for Santa Ynez Unit facilities from Exxon to Sable amounted to an unconstitutional taking of their property rights. Judge Gee disagreed.
As colorfully put by Nick Welsh at the Santa Barbara Independent, Judge Gee told Sable and Exxon to “go pound sand” (not literally, but the judicial equivalent). The judge refused to even allow Sable to amend their filing. The judge will however allow Exxon to file an amended complaint, given that the company still has vested rights to the facilities and is still on the hook for the decommissioning costs.
As always with these Santa Ynez Unit matters, there is much more to come!
