BOE contributor John Smith has shared (attached) his highlighted version of the 89 page California Coastal Commission staff report recommending imposition of a $15 million fine.
John finds it noteworthy that the report documents that Santa Barbara County did not concur with the CCC, and that the California State Lands Commission approved the span remediation work. John thinks this raises legitimate questions as to whether the CCC is overreaching in terms of asserting permitting authority for the repair and maintenance work.
John thinks it will be interesting to see how the Courts rule on this and expects an appeal regardless of the outcome. He points to the Court ruling against the CCC on Pismo Beach offroading case as being pertinent to the Sable-CCC dispute. (“Is the Friends of Oceano Dunes court victory a good omen for Sable?“)
In particular, note the text John has highlighted in green. These issues will likely be central to the Court deliberations.
The 2024 Gulf of America Safety Compliance Leaders are ranked below according to the number of incidents of non-compliance (INCs) per facility inspection. To be ranked, a company must:
operate at least 2 production platforms
have drilled at least 2 wells during the year
average <1 INC for every 3 facility inspections (0.33 INCs/facility inspection)
average <1 INC for every 10 inspections (0.1 INCs/inspection). Note that each facility inspection may include multiple types of inspections (e.g. production, pipeline, pollution, Coast Guard, site security, etc). In 2024, there were on average 3.4 inspections for every facility inspection.
District investigation reports are more timely and provide additional insights into safety performance. Impressively, Hess had no incidents warranting a District investigation, and was the only ranked operator with this distinction. I will comment more on the District reports in a future post
Chevron’s 2024 compliance record was among the best in the history of the US OCS oil and gas program. Was it the absolute best? Were it not for the FSI INC at a Unocal (Chevron) facility, one could unequivocally assert that it was. Further evaluation of that INC would be helpful. However, details on specific INCs are not publicly available, so the significance of that violation cannot be evaluated.
operator
W
CSI
FSI
total INCs
facility insp
INCs/ fac insp
insp
INCs/ insp
Chevron
1
0
1
2
117
0.02
311
0.006
BP
2
3
0
5
93
0.05
251
0.02
Anadarko
8
9
1
18
143
0.13
344
0.05
Hess
2
3
0
5
26
0.19
67
0.07
Walter
6
4
1
11
50
0.22
161
0.07
Shell
23
17
5
45
199
0.23
495
0.09
Cantium
24
8
0
32
123
0.26
537
0.06
Murphy
8
9
1
18
70
0.26
191
0.09
Arena
29
28
3
60
189
0.32
803
0.07
Gulf-wide
957
398
109
1464
3133
0.47
10664
0.14
Notes: Numbers are from published BSEE data; INC=incident of non-compliance; W=warning INC; CSI=component shut-in INC; FSI=facility shut-in INC; INCs/fac insp= INCs issued per facility inspection; each facility-inspection may include multiple types of inspections (e.g. production, pipeline, pollution, Coast Guard, site security, etc), in 2024, there were on average 3.4 inspections for every facility inspection
Not meeting the production facilities requirement to be ranked among the top performers, but nonetheless noteworthy, was the compliance record of BOE Exploration & Production (no relation to the BOE blog 😀). See their impressive inspection results below:
W
CSI
FSI
total INCs
facility insp
INCs/ fac insp
insp
INCs/ insp
BOE
1
1
0
2
21
0.1
48
0.04
Transparency on inspections and incidents is important for a program that is dependent on public confidence. For independent observers to better evaluate industry-wide and company-specific safety performance, publication of the following information should be considered:
quarterly updates of the incident tables, as was once common practice
posting of violation summaries for inspections resulting in the issuance of one or more INCs
“The State Fire Marshal stated on February 25 — during a packed-house meeting at La Cumbre Junior High School — that he would not issue Sable authorization to restart production at the Santa Ynez Unit until all outstanding permit issues between Sable and the eight state agencies with oversight authority are resolved.“
Although Sable has a good defense against the Coastal Commission’s accusations, that statement by the Fire Marshal is ominous.
More bad news for Sable: The Center for Biological Diversity suit challenging the Federal government’s extension of the 16 Santa Ynez Unit leases is not going well. The government requested a voluntary remand of BSEE’s 2023 approval because “BSEE plans to reconsider its decision in light of Plaintiffs’ claims and conduct additional analysis, as warranted, under OCSLA and NEPA.”
In the attached decision, shared by John Smith, the judge denied the Federal government’s request. This does not bode well for the Federal government’s case going forward.
In June 2023, Cox and affiliates operated 435 platforms in the Gulf.That number is now only 46, all of which are on relinquished or terminated leases.
Cox Operating LLC and affiliates were once again the violations leaders in 2024 accounting for 50% (479/957) of the warnings, 12% (47/398) of the component shut-ins, and 7.3% (8/109) of the facility shut-ins.
All but 3 of the Cox enforcement actions were during the first half of the year. This is presumably because of the termination of Cox operations and the ongoing divestiture of their assets.
According to BOEM’s platform data base, Cox (43) and affiliates Energy XXI (3) and EPL (0) now operate only 46 platforms. This is a big decline from Sept. 2024 and June 2023 when the Cox companies operated 243 and 435 platforms respectively. All of the remaining Cox platforms are non-producing and are on relinquished or terminated leases.
The curtailment of Cox operations is no doubt an important factor in the sharp decline in Gulf of America violations in the second half of 2024. Per the data below, total GoA wide violations declined by 58% (1031 vs. 433) in the second half of 2024 as Cox violations essentially disappeared:
Gulf of America inspection data
warnings
component shut-ins
facility shut-ins
facility inspections
first half 2024
725
243
63
1586
2nd half 2024
232
155
46
1546
reduction
493 (68%)
88 (36%)
17 (27%)
40 (2.5%)
Cox companies inspection data
warnings
component shut-ins
facility shut-ins
facility inspections
first half 2024
478
46
7
404
2nd half 2024
1
1
1
174
Some Cox assets have been acquired by W&T and Natural Resources Worldwide. BOEM records indicate that 8 record title assignments and 3 operating rights assignments from Cox to W&T were approved in the first half of 2024. W&T currently operates 116 platforms, but it’s unclear how many are former Cox facilities.
The acquisition of Cox properties does not appear to have significantly affected W&T 2024 inspection results, which were respectable:
W&T insp. data
warnings
component shut-ins
facility shut-ins
facility inspections
first half 2024
12
31
0
83
2nd half 2024
17
14
2
105
Additional record title and operating rights assignments to Natural Resources Worldwide (NRW) were approved in 2025, but NRW does not appear to be operating any platforms.
Ironically, NRW was cited for 1 warning and 1 facility shut-in without a single inspection. Presumably, these violations were the result of administrative issues.
Online data are insufficient to account for the 435 platforms that were on the Cox ledger in June 2023 or determine the remaining decommissioning liabilities. Per the platform database, no Cox, Energy XXI, or EPL platforms were removed in 2023, 2024, or 2025.
On a more positive note, most GoA operators had good safety and compliance records in 2024. One major producer had a historically significant record. More on that to follow.
Sustaining or preferably increasing production rates will be dependent on a reliable schedule of lease offerings and a consistent regulatory regime based on best safety management principles and continuous improvement in technology, practices, and culture. Poorly considered operating restrictions imposed by activist judges are a major risk to both safety and production.
The organization Friends of Oceano Dunes is determined to preserve the long history of off-road vehicle use on Pismo-Oceano beach. See the video below and the historic photos from Bob2000.com.
The Coastal Commission, which dislikes off-road vehicles as much as they dislike offshore oil and gas operations (well maybe not quite that much! 😉) lost a court case with some similarities to the suit filed by Sable Offshore.
Noozhawk: In an opinion filed Monday, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals found that the commission’s attempt to ban off-road vehicles at the Dunes contradicts the language of the Local Coastal Plan put in place by San Luis Obispo County.
The Court ruled that the decision to open or close the Dunes to vehicles fell under the jurisdiction of the county, not the Coastal Commission.
Sable’s dispute with the Commission is similar in that Sable contends that their pipeline repair and maintenance activities are in compliance with Santa Barbara County’s Coastal Zoning Ordinance, Local Coastal Program (LCP), and the Coastal Act. Will Sable also be victorious in Court?
In February, EPA Region 2 asked the agency’s Environmental Appeals Board to remand Atlantic Shores’ air emissions permit back to the Region for reconsideration. That remand (attached) was granted on 14 March over the objections of Atlantic Shores Offshore Wind.
Atlantic Shores Offshore Wind still exists despite the exit of 50% partner Shell and a $940 million write down by the remaining owner EDF. The diagram depicts Atlantic Shores South (0499) and North (0549) lease areas.
EDF intends “to preserve the company and its future development.” Whether or not they can hold the leases indefinitely without pursuing development remains to be seen. BOEM’s diligence regulations for offshore wind projects are vague, and neither the Construction and Operations Plans nor BOEM’s Record of Decision (Atlantic Shores South) include work schedules.
Does EDF have the right to sit on the lease until the financial and regulatory environment is attractive? That is not allowed for oil and gas leases, and rightfully so. (See a related post on Total’s wind lease.)
The analysis does account for emissions related to and resulting from blade failures, which would warrant emergency repairs or replacement activities.
The decision to group Vineyard Wind 1, New England Wind 1 and New England Wind 2, as a single stationary source is both legally questionable and could have the effect of masking localized emission spikes.
Insufficient consideration of cumulative vessel emissions could lead to 1-hour NO₂ exceedances.
The emissions from pile driving are not adequately modeled in isolation or synergistically.
Attached is a recent Sable Offshore presentation for investors. Notably, Sable is now projecting to resume Santa Ynez Unit production in Q2 2025 (see slide below). John Smith thinks this is unrealistic, and I have to agree.
It’s tough for an offshore producer to succeed in California, but Sable is making a strong effort. Exxon must agree, because they have extended Sable’s first production deadline to 3/1/2026, which reflects a more plausible Q1 2026 restart. Additional extensions seem likely if necessary given that Exxon’s other options aren’t very attractive.
Exercising authority granted in the Congressional Review Act (Chapter 8 of Title 5 of the United States Code), Congress passed Joint Resolution 11 nullifying the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management rule titled “Protection of Marine Archaeological Resources” (Sept. 3, 2024).
Nullification of a final rule is not common. Since its Enactment in 1996, the CRA has been used to overturn only 20 rules. This is the first time an OCS energy rule has been nullified.
Enactment of a CRA resolution of disapproval is unlikely in most circumstances, because a President would be expected to veto a joint resolution disapproving a rule issued by the President’s own Administration.
There are also time limitations for nullifying a rule. The joint resolution must be introduced during a 60-days- of-continuous-session period beginning when the rule has been published in the Federal Register and been received by Congress. However, if within 60 session days after a rule is submitted, Congress adjourns its session, the periods to introduce and act on a disapproval resolution reoccur in their entirety in the next session of Congress.
It’s also noteworthy that a CRA resolution cannot be filibustered if the Senate acts on the resolution during a 60-days-of-Senate-session period beginning when the rule has been received by Congress.
Most of the 20 nullifications involved rules finalized at the end of a previous administration that were nullified at the beginning of a new administration with a majority in both chambers of Congress. That is the case for the Marine Archaeology Rule, which was published at the end of the Biden administration and nullified at the beginning of the Trump administration. .
The nullified OCS rule required operators to submit an archaeological report identifying potential archaeological resources with any exploration or development plan. The rule modified regulations that only required such a report only when a BOEM regional director had reason to believe that an archaeological resource may be present in the lease area.
Archaeological survey requirements have been somewhat contentious since they were introduced in the 1970s. There were concerns about decisions to require the protection of speculative, low probability sites that could significantly alter operating plans.
A reasonable balance and an apparent consensus was achieved by limiting the report requirements to areas where studies and other information indicated the potential for such resources. BOEM’s new rule tightened the requirement considerably, which led to opposition and ultimately nullification.
The Commission staff appears to be asserting Commission jurisdiction over already permitted activities in order to attempt to exert influence over Sable’s planned restart of the Santa Ynez Unit oil production operations. Jurisdiction over restart activities is entirely outside of the Commission’s jurisdiction and is separately regulated by other agencies.
Sable’s repair and maintenance activities (anomaly repairs, safety valve installation, and span remediation) are in compliance with applicable provisions of Santa Barbara County’s Coastal Zoning Ordinance (CZO), certified Local Coastal Program (LCP), and the Coastal Act. As such, no cease and desist order is warranted – whether issued by the Executive Director or the full Coastal Commission.
The onshore and offshore repair and maintenance work is fully authorized by coastal development permits previously approved by Santa Barbara County and the Commission. Therefore, those activities do not require new or amended coastal development permits and are not otherwise subject to the Commission’s jurisdiction or enforcement authority.
Onshore anomalies: Santa Barbara County reviewed the detailed information Sable submitted with Zoning Clearance applications in 2024 and confirmed in a letter dated February 12, 2025, that the anomaly repair work is authorized by the pipelines’ existing coastal development permits and, consistent with past practice, no new or separate Coastal Act authorization is required for Sable to perform the work. Commission staff has repeatedly ignored that the County — as the applicable agency with delegated LCP authority under the Coastal Act — expressly has confirmed that the anomaly repair work was authorized by the onshore pipelines’ existing Coastal Development Permit, Final Development Plan, and Conditions of Approval.
Onshore safety valves: Sable was required to undertake safety valve repair and maintenance activities pursuant to state law that the Coastal Commission supported. The safety valve repair work involves the exact same type of work as pipeline anomaly repairs, and Sable completed the safety valve work only after the County confirmed in writing that no further authorization from the County was required for the safety valves.
Offshore span remediation: Sable’s span remediation maintenance activities were fully contemplated and authorized within the original coastal development permit approved by the Coastal Commission for the Offshore Pipelines in 1988 and the Development and Production Plan approved by the Department of the Interior. The span remediation maintenance activities involve the placement of sand-cement bags beneath certain segments of the offshore pipelines to provide additional pipeline support. The exact same support enhancement (span remediation) activities have been performed in the past on these same offshore pipelines without requiring any new Coastal Act authorizations.
Sable has filed a lawsuit against the Commission in Superior Court in Santa Barbara County where it has asked the Court for damages and declaratory and injunctive relief to protect its vested rights to repair, maintain and operate the Santa Ynez Unit and Las Flores Pipeline Systems.
Bud's Offshore Energy (BOE) 