Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Posts Tagged ‘9th circuit’

Attached is an opinion prepared by the Assistant Attorney General, Office of Legal Counsel, for the General Counsel, Dept. of Energy. This opinion may boost prospects for Santa Ynez Unit (SYU) production, either by Sable Offshore or a successor.

BOE SYU watchers see this State-Federal battle ultimately ending up in the Supreme Court, perhaps following the 9th Circuit’s ruling on PHMSA’s preemption of State authority over the onshore pipeline segments.

A few key excerpts from the DOJ opinion (emphasis added):

p. 1: You have asked whether an order issued under the Defense Production Act of 1950 (“DPA” or “Act”), Pub. L. No. 81-774, 64 Stat. 798 (codified as amended at 50 U.S.C. § 4501 et seq.), to Sable by the President or his delegee would preempt the California laws currently impeding Sable from resuming production and operating the associated pipeline infrastructure. We conclude that it would.

p. 6: As the Supreme Court has explained, executive orders “may create rights protected against inconsistent state laws through the Supremacy Clause,” especially when such orders are issued pursuant to “congressional authorization.”

p. 20: State law, we have been advised, is not currently the only impediment to Sable’s ability to resume production and transportation of oil. A consent decree entered in United States v. Plains All American Pipeline L.P., No. 20-cv-02415 (C.D. Cal. Oct. 14, 2020), Dkt. 33 (“Consent Decree”), “currently vests authority over resumption of transportation through the onshore portions of the Santa Ynez Pipeline System with the California Office of the State Fire Marshal.” Sable Letter at 9. We have been advised that, in addition to the United States and various State of California entities, Sable is a party to the Consent decree as a result of an acquisition. You have asked whether an executive order under the DPA would displace these provisions of the Consent Decree, even though there are both federal- and state-law claims at issue in that case. For three reasons, we think it would.

Read Full Post »

The State has asked the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals to set aside these three PHMSA orders:

  • PHMSA order to assume exclusive jurisdiction over the Los Flores Canyon pipelines
  • PHMSA order approving the restart plan for those pipelines
  • PHMSA order issuance of an Emergency Special Permit to Sable Offshore

Read Full Post »

Read Full Post »

All eyes are on the 9th Circuit. No injunction yet. Will the Court intervene to block Sable?

No evidence of intervention by the State.

Does Sable restart production tomorrow?

Traders on edge. Bulls are feeling optimistic. See X post below. 😉

Spend my barrel, parked in a harbor
‘Neath the platform spotlight
Pump it up tight, let the oil start flowin’
A little crude movin’ on a federal green light
Fits my life, oh so right

My Sable Offshore Delight— Victory II (@VictoryII1) December 30, 2025

Read Full Post »

A full EIS is needed!

Further to the summary from the 2016 EA announcement, it appears that the only Pacific Region well operations over the past 2 years have been for plugging and abandonment purposes. The legal circus continues with or without actual operations.

There have been 24 well stimulation treatments (21 of which involved hydraulic fracturing) on the OCS offshore California between 1982 and 2014, and these were conducted on four of the 23 platforms. Reservoirs on the OCS off Southern California tend to be much more permeable than onshore reservoirs, and are already highly naturally fractured. Therefore, little permeability enhancement has been required for their development. As described in the scenario evaluated in the EA, the future use of Well Stimulation Treatments is expected to continue to be occasional rather than essential to hydrocarbon production from these platforms.

BOEM, 2016

Read Full Post »