On my favorite holiday, I’m sending best wishes to BOE readers of all persuasions. Offshore energy issues can be divisive, even among friends, and I’m grateful for the opportunity to share information and opinions.
My wife and I will be spending Thanksgiving with my daughter’s family including our 6 grandchildren, none of whom have expressed interest in being offshore safety regulators (no higher calling 😉).
Belated holiday wishes to our friends in Canada where Thanksgiving is celebrated in October, and cheers to those living where a similar fall holiday is observed.
To date, BSEE has used carryover funds and offsetting collections from inspection, rental, and cost recovery fees to continue their priority permitting and inspection programs during the govt shutdown. However, these funds are limited.
At some point, BSEE will have to stop issuing new permits. If the shutdown continues, the next step could be to curtail drilling and production operations. Needless to say, this would not be completely unacceptable.
In the meantime, BSEE employees continue to work without pay. Flying offshore everyday to inspect operations is no picnic and can be hazardous. I lost a colleague in a helicopter crash and others have been injured. It’s shameful that these people are not being paid while members of congress are!
Attached is John Smith’s comprehensive summary of lawsuits related to Sable Offshore’s attempts to restart Santa Ynez Unit production.
If you are keeping score, there are 10 separate cases including a class action lawsuit filed by investors. New legal battles are sure to follow given Sable’s OS&T strategy. Per John:
“The combined legal challenges, injunctions, and restraining orders have significantly delayed Sable’s restart plans and prompted the company to pursue an Offshore Storage and Treatment Vessel (OS&T) strategy, which was utilized to process SYU production in federal waters from 1981 – 1994, and transport oil to markets using tankers.“
Attached is a court filing challenging Delaware’s approval of the Coastal Construction Plan for that project. Some interesting points from the filing:
Maryland local governments declined to allow the transmission lines from the Maryland Offshore Wind Project to come ashore in their jurisdictions.
The Governor of Delaware agreed to allow the transmission lines to make landfall at the Delaware Seashore State Park.
The transmission pipelines would then traverse the adjacent Delaware Bays, to an inland substation, from which the power would be sent to Maryland.
US Wind applied for a number of permits from the Delaware Department of Natural Resources (DNREC) specific to horizontal directional drilling, laying cable pipelines, and other coastal construction activity.
The approval process, including provisions for public input, was not consistent with State regulations.
The Secretary’s decision to issue the beach construction permit is supported virtually exclusively by documents which were submitted by US Wind after the close of public comment.
Decommissioning and financial assurance information, a favorite BOE topic for both wind and oil/gas, was submitted after the close of the public record.
John notes that Exxon’s March 26 contractual deadline for Sable to have the SYU up and running is fast approaching. What will Exxon do in the likely event that Sable fails to meet that deadline? Does Exxon want to re-enter the SYU legal and regulatory quagmire?
The SYU’s 500+ million barrels of oil, 3 deepwater platforms, and onshore processing facilities are an enormous prize, but is that prize attainable?
Meanwhile, the latest skirmish between Sable and the Office of the State Fire Marshal (OFSM) pertains to metal loss anomalies and inspection tool tolerances. The dispute is summarized in the linked filing.
Sable contends that the Fire Marshal’s letter contradicts guidance from OSFM staff and provides examples. Sable goes a step further at the end of their response by calling for the FIre Marshal to coordinate better with the experts on his staff:
“We respectfully request that, given this background, you coordinate further with the expert team at OSFM and revisit the statements in your October 22nd letter.”
It’s not looking good for a quick resolution of these issues.
In essence, the 3 Supervisors from South County (Districts 1-3) voted to euthanize an industry that is largely in North County (Districts 4 and 5). Those 3 supervisors, not the marketplace, are terminating a historically important industry. See the maps below.
District BoundariesOil Wells
Supervisors Laura Capps of the Second District, Joan Hartmann of the Third District and Roy Lee of the First District voted for the ordinance.
Ah, but it’s the industry’s fault according to Supervisor Hartmann. She asserted that companies have known since the 1950s about the dangers of climate change, and could have led the way to be part of the solution. How dare they respond to market forces instead of climate ideologues!
Of course, this is the same three vote coalition that is aligned with the Coastal Commission in opposition to the restart of the Santa Ynez Unit, which would benefit the County significantly.
Finally, note that the three supervisors voting for the ordinance represent the districts with the highest income levels and lowest poverty rates. Those opposing the ordinance represent the districts that will be most affected, and have the lowest income levels and highest poverty rates. (See the table below; Information courtesy of Grok AI.)
District
Approx. Median Household Income (2022)
Key Areas Included
Notes
1
$120,000–$140,000
Carpinteria, Summerland, Montecito, parts of Santa Barbara
Affluent coastal communities; high home values (~$1.5M+ median)
2
$95,000–$115,000
Santa Barbara city, Goleta, Isla Vista
Mix of urban professionals, students, and tech; university influence lowers median slightly.
3
$80,000-$95,000
Santa Ynez Valley, Buellton, Solvang, Lompoc
Rural/agricultural with tourism; moderate incomes from wine industry and military base
4
$70,000–$85,000
Lompoc, Vandenberg area, parts of Santa Maria
industrial and defense-related; higher poverty rates (~15–20%).
5
$60,000–$75,000
Santa Maria, Guadalupe
Agricultural North County; majority Latino population; lowest incomes due to farm labor.
Poverty rates: ~8–10% in Districts 1–2 vs. 18–25% in Districts 4–5
Good: OCS oil and gas permitting and inspections appear not to be significantly affected by the govt shutdown to-date. 14 planning documents were approved on Oct. 21, and 37 drilling permits have been approved in Oct. (through 10/21).
Bad: This level of effort is not sustainable given limits on offsetting funds from fees, rentals, etc.
Ugly: The personnel who are performing these duties are not being paid during the shutdown. The longer the shutdown drags on, the greater the hardship on those individuals and their families. Shameful!
Warren Buffett’s proposal would stop deficit spending and address the root cause of shutdowns:
Buffett: “I could end the deficit in five minutes. You just pass a law that says that any time there’s a deficit of more than three percent of GDP, all sitting members of Congress are ineligible for re-election.“
As the above discussion demonstrates, the issue before the Court is not whether the specific work conducted by Sable was or is ultimately necessary or appropriate for pipeline safety. The issue before the Court is whether the Commission abused its discretion in issuing the April 10 Orders under the standards for review by petition for administrative writ of mandate.
Based on the foregoing analysis and a review of all of the arguments of the parties and the AR, the Court finds the Commission’s factual findings are supported by substantial evidence and that Sable has not met its burden to show an abuse of discretion by the Commission in issuing the April 10 Orders.
Accordingly, the petition for administrative mandate as set forth in the first cause of action of Sable’s FAP will be denied.
The road ahead for Sable continues to get rockier, and their share price took a major hit today.
As a result, on Sept. 29 Sable Offshore filed a declaratory judgement action against the State of California in Kern County. Sable is asking the court to confirm that the objectionable permitting provisions of SB 237 do not apply to their Las Flores Pipeline System.
Also, on Oct. 6 Sable filed a motion increasing the monetary damages in its ongoing case against the California Coastal Commission to $347 million. Sable asserts that their pipeline repair program was authorized by existing permits issued by the County of Santa Barbara under its Local Coastal Program and delegated Coastal Act authority.
These seem like good tactical moves on the part of Sable.
Bud's Offshore Energy (BOE) 
Interesting case: Delaware litigation on approval of the Coastal Construction Permit for the Maryland Offshore Wind Project
Posted in decommissioning, energy policy, Offshore Wind, Regulation, tagged Coastal Construction Plan, court filing, decommissioning, Delaware litigation, Maryland Offshore Wind, public comment, US Wind on October 29, 2025| Leave a Comment »
The Dept. of the Interior is currently reconsidering approval of the Construction and Operations Plan for the Maryland Offshore Wind Project (US Wind).
Attached is a court filing challenging Delaware’s approval of the Coastal Construction Plan for that project. Some interesting points from the filing:
Read Full Post »