Posted in California, energy policy, Offshore Energy - General, pipelines, Regulation, tagged Exxon, Sable Offshore, Santa Ynez Unit, $408 million loss 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?
Posted in California, energy policy, Offshore Energy - General, pipelines, Regulation, tagged FourWorld Capital Management, Judge Geck, NInth Circuit, Sable Offshore, Santa Ynez Unit 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?
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.
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.“
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:
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:
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:
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.”
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:
Posted in California, pipelines, Regulation, tagged California Fire Marshal, Las Flores Pipeline, PHMSA, production restart, Sable Offshore on December 23, 2025| 2 Comments »
See the letter below.
California and Santa Barbara County remain silent. Caught off guard before the holiday?
More from the Santa Barbara Independent.
Posted in California, energy policy, Offshore Energy - General, pipelines, Regulation, tagged California Fire Marshal, consent decree, OSFM, PHMSA, pipeline jurisdiction, Sable Offshore, Santa Ynez Unit on December 18, 2025| Leave a Comment »
The anticipated State-Federal jurisdictional battle over Sable’s Las Flores Canyon Pipeline is on! See the attached letter from the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA) declaring that the pipeline is under Federal jurisdiction.
The major hurdle for PHMSA/Sable is the court approved Consent Decree that was executed following the 2015 Refugio pipeline spill. The Decree, which designates the California Fire Marshal as the sole regulator for the pipeline, is not mentioned in the PHMSA letter. Needless to say, another major legal battle looms.
Excerpt from the PHMSA letter:
PHMSA’s evaluation of the Las Flores Pipeline confirms that it transports crude oil from the OCS to an onshore processing facility at Las Flores Canyon and continues the transportation of crude oil from Las Flores Canyon to Pentland, California. Consistent with Appendix A, the Las Flores Pipeline is an interstate pipeline. As portions of the Las Flores Pipeline were previously considered to be intrastate and regulated by OSFM, PHMSA is notifying OSFM that the Las Flores Pipeline is subject to the regulatory oversight of PHMSA.
Bud's Offshore Energy (BOE) 