John Smith has highlighted the attached bill that could, if passed, further derail Sable’s plans to restart Santa Ynez Unit (SYU) production.
This provision appears to target Sable:
Section 3(b)(2): Repair, reactivation, and maintenance of an oil and gas facility facility, including an oil pipeline, that has been idled, inactive, or out of service for five years or more shall be considered a new or expanded development requiring a new coastal development permit consistent with this section.
The legislation would be effective on 1/1/2026 so perhaps Sable will already be producing. Sable may also explore the jurisdictional and interstate commerce issues touched on in this post.
This LA Times update adds to the confusion as to the implications for Sable.
Sables’ share price sank on Tuesday following reports from Bloomberg and others that Governor Newsom is proposing new restrictions on California’s offshore oil industry. With Sable Offshore as a primary target, stricter requirements for restarting inactive intrastate oil pipelines would be imposed. •
This could trigger yet another legal battle or increase the complexity of those that are ongoing. The onshore pipeline, now owned by Sable Offshore, was originally classified as an interstate pipeline under Federal jurisdiction. However, following the 2015 Refugio oil spill, it was reclassified as an intrastate pipeline via a 2016 letter of understanding signed by representatives of the Federal Office of Pipeline Safety (DOT-PHMSA) and the Office of the State Fire Marshal (pertinent text pasted below).
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.
Meanwhile, below is an upbeat Sable video on the pipeline!
Eloquent eulogy by DCOR (platform operator) CEO Alan Templeton: “Last Sunday, August 10, I joined a small group of DCOR personnel on Platform Esther to witness her final moments of operation. At exactly 3:00 p.m., we pressed the ESD on the production deck, and one by one, the sounds of compressors and pumps faded until the platform fell silent — a profound and bittersweet moment in California’s energy history.
For over half a century, Esther stood off the coast of Orange County, first installed in the early 1960s as one of California’s iconic man-made oil islands. She blended into the horizon while quietly producing oil and gas, surviving storms, and later being rebuilt in 1985 into the platform we know today. More than just steel and pilings, Esther was a proving ground for innovation, a dependable asset, and a source of pride for the men and women who worked safely on her decks.
While she has now been permanently shut in, her legacy remains — a testament to the ingenuity, resilience, and dedication that have defined California’s offshore industry for generations.“
Litigation prematurely ended production at Esther, which would have had an estimated 15 more years of operative life. The attached settlement agreement, shared by John Smith, ends a dispute between the State Lands Commission and DCOR over repurposing a pipeline to transport oil from state Platform Eva to Federal Platform Edith (diagram above).
In exchange for relinquishing its mineral rights and decommissioning Platform Esther, the settlement grants DCOR a $10 million royalty credit on future oil produced from Platform Eva. This credit is significantly less than the value of remaining production from Esther.
Platform Esther, is one of three remaining oil production platforms in California state waters.
On July 25, 2025, more than 2 months after Sable’s brief production restart and 7 weeks after a court decision halted further production, BSEE surprisingly announced the resumption of Santa Ynez Unit (SYU) production boasting:
“This is a significant achievement for the Interior Department and aligns with the Administration’s Energy Dominance initiative, as it successfully resumed production in just five months.“
Were the authors of the press release unaware that the SYU production, which was largely from well tests, was halted by court order shortly after it began? More philosophically, is such cheerleading appropriate for the principal safety regulator, particularly given that BSEE is engaged in litigation over its practices in facilitating SYU production?
Ironically, just 3 days after BSEE hailed the resumption of production, the attached lawsuit was filed on behalf of investors who purchased Sable Offshore securities between May 19, 2025 and June 3, 2025. BOE contributor John Smith shared the filing.
The plaintiffs allege misleading statements regarding the resumption of production. Some of the key points cited in the filing:
On May 19, 2025, before the market opened, the Company issued a press release entitled “Sable Offshore Corp. Reports Restart of Oil Production at the Santa Ynez Unit and Anticipated Oil Sales from the Las Flores Pipeline System in June 2025.”
The release informed that Sable expected to fill the ~540,000 barrels of crude oil storage capacity at LFC (Los Flores Canyon onshore processing facility) by the middle of June 2025 and subsequently recommence oil sales in July 2025.
Following the May 19 Press Release, Sable Offshore stock climbed from a closing price of $28.86 per share on May 16, 2025 to $33.02 per share on May 19, 2025, a 14.4% climb in share price.
Contrary to Defendants’ representations, Sable Offshore had not resumed commercial production off the coast of California.
Defendants then used the share price appreciation following the May 19 Press Release to conduct a secondary public offering (or “SPO”) at a higher offering price per share than would have otherwise been possible.
State Lands Commission staff informed the Lt. Gov./Commission Chair that the limited oil flows were the result of well-testing procedures required by BSEE prior to restart. These activities did not constitute a resumption of commercial production or a full restart of the SYU.
Characterizing testing activities as a restart of operations is not only misleading but also highly inappropriate –particularly given that Sable has not obtained the necessary regulatory approvals to fully resume operations at SYU.
Any attempt to restart commercial operations at the SYU without final regulatory approvals may place the company in violation of its lease terms and jeopardize the status of Sable’s holdover State lease.
Santa Barbara County Judge Thomas Anderle granted a preliminary injunction requested by the California Coastal Commission against Sable Offshore for alleged violations of The California Coastal Act.
Attached is the full NTSB report. Here’s what happened:
In May 2024, the Baylor J. Tregre tugboat was towing a platform on the barge MARMAC 27 to Brazos Block 538 in the Gulf of America.
The tug capsized in stormy conditions.
The 4 crew members were rescued by the Coast Guard.
The NTSB determined that the probable cause of the capsizing was “the mate’s inability to maneuver the tow into the wind due to the overwhelming towline force generated by the towed barge during the sudden onset of severe weather, resulting in unrecoverable heeling.”
Comments:
Who knew? When a tugboat capsizes while towing a platform on a barge, endangering the crew, that’s a very serious incident. Yet there was no public announcement by the companies involved or the Coast Guard, and there was no media coverage following the incident (May 2024). The NTSB docket includes only the final investigation report.
The NTSB report says a production platform was being towed, but it was actually a gas transmission platform owned by Transco Gas Pipe Line Co. There is no production in Brazos Area Block 538, an unleased block.
Here and here are bits of information on the Transco’s Brazos Area 538 Platform modification project.
Per a 2007 article, Williams’ Seahawk gathering system, which collects deepwater gas production, connects at Brazos Block 538 with a pipeline that transports gas to the Transco processing plant in Markham, TX (see map below).
The NTSB report lacks contextneeded to understand the planning process, organizational factors, and timing/urgency of the project.
The NTSB report attributes the failure to the mate’s inability to respond to the weather conditions, but provides no information on the safety management system, risk assessment, job safety job planning process, crew training, and other project management factors.
Two of the crew members are suing Trinity Tugsalleging that they suffered personal injuries resulting from the negligence of Trinity and the unseaworthiness of the M/V BAYLOR J. TREGRE.
Deepwater gas gathering system connects with Brazos 538 transmission platform at the “Y” in the center of the screen.
John Smith informs me that today (6/6/2025), a Santa Barbara Superior Court issued an order preventing the restart of the Santa Ynez Unit’s onshore pipeline pending Court resolution of the dispute.
Sable’s shares plunged 18% in response to the news.
Stop the bluster about annexation of Canada. Almost no one on either side of the border supports this. Focus instead on strengthening strategic alliances – most notably with regard to energy supply.
Both the US and Canada are energy powerhouses. Both countries are also energy underachievers relative to their potential. The more efficiently our pipelines and transmission systems can be integrated, the better that potential can be realized and the more both countries can prosper.
See the attached energy trade map to get a better understanding of our integrated energy economies.
For the reasons set forth herein, the application of the California Coastal Commission for issuance of a preliminary injunction is granted. No bond is required. The Commission shall present a written order for entry by the court.
The roller coaster ride continues. Sable Offshore’s stock price plunged in response to the latest order.
Legal/regulatory: Although lease cancellation is not a reasonable option at this time, a pause for further review of the environmental and procedural issues is justified. During the previous Administration, the regulators seemed to function primarily as cheerleaders, as evidenced by the departures (examples here and here), the BOEM/NOAA strategy document, and the promotional tweets. Also, where is the long awaited report on the turbine blade failure? How do you proceed with development before that has been released for public review?
Norwegian govt intervention: Some would argue that Empire Wind was a bad investment by Equinor (2/3 govt owned) and it would have been better to take the losses and move on.
Trade unions: Concerns about the job losses are warranted, but the long term viability of the subsidy dependent offshore wind industry is in doubt, and important industries (e.g. fishing and tourism) may be negatively impacted. Other job losses could occur if offshore wind drives up electric prices and decreases grid reliability.
Pipeline deal: The regionally important Constitution natural gas pipeline is still very much in doubt despite reports of a deal with Governor Hochul. With or without her support, climate-ultras are driving NY/New England energy policy and will, at a minimum, stall this project. Fisheries Nation was particularly blunt in criticizing fishermen being “used as a poker chip” to gain tepid support for the pipeline project.
Following the reversal of the Empire Wind decision, Green Oceans, ACK for Whales, Long Island Commercial Fishing Association, Protect Our Westport Waters, Save Greater Dowses Beach, Save Right Whales Coalition, and the Wampanoag Tribe of Gay Head/Aquinnah petitioned Secretary Burgum to halt all wind construction in New England coastal waters and begin a “complete reevaluation” of their permits under applicable federal laws. In addition to right whale and tribal cultural resources concerns, the letter cited:
Bud's Offshore Energy (BOE) 