California Superior Court Judge Donna Geck denies Sable’s motion to lift the preliminary injunction.
(1) For the reasons set forth herein, the motion of real parties in interest Sable Offshore Corp. and Pacific Pipeline Company to dissolve or modify the preliminary injunction issued in this case is denied.
(2) The application of petitioners for issuance of an order to show cause why real parties should not be found in contempt and to enter additional orders is continued to May 22, 2026.
The Judge concluded:
- The court is mindful that there are many moving judicial and administrative parts relating to the restart of the Las Flores Pipelines. (understatement of the year candidate? 😉)
- Sable has not persuaded the court that the DPA (Defense Production Act) Order renders compliance with Federal Consent Decree unnecessary.
- The Federal Consent Decree requires approvals from the OSFM (Office of the State Fire Marshal), which in turn must comply with state procedures in granting such approvals.
- Sable has not met its burden to show that the preliminary injunction should be dissolved or modified. Sable’s motion will therefore be denied.
On May 22, Judge Geck will consider whether Sable should be held in contempt for not complying with the preliminary injunction.
If you haven’t been keeping up 😉:
- Subsequent to Judge Geck’s preliminary injunction, the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA – a simpler agency name is long overdue!) asserted that the Las Flores Pipelines constitute an interstate pipeline subject to PHMSA’s exclusive jurisdiction.
- PHMSA issued their own approvals and an emergency special permit.
- The PHMSA approvals are the subject of proceedings in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, which has not issued a final ruling.
Undaunted, Sable reports (4/20/2026):
- The 40 wells currently online at Platform Harmony and Platform Heritage are producing an average of 750 gross barrels of oil per day per well. Once all 74 production wells on these two platforms are online, Sable expects the average production per well to be approximately 700 gross barrels of oil per day.
- Sable expects Platform Hondo to come online in June 2026 with an estimated fully ramped production rate of approximately 10,000 gross barrels of oil per day.
Hence, Sable production is estimated to reach ~60,000 bopd in June, which is about 6 times total California OCS production prior to the Sable restart!
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 »