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.
Phil also believes SYU production would reduce natural seepage: “UCSB and State Lands Commission studies (Quigley, Luyendyk, Hornafius, Peltonen, and others) have shown that when oil production is active, reservoir pressure is reduced and natural seepage declines by up to 50%. That means: •Cleaner beaches (less tar and oil) •Cleaner ocean surface (fewer sheens) •Healthier marine life with reduced chronic stress“
Note that those studies are specific to Platform Holly and the Coal Oil Point area. To the best of my knowledge, no studies have associated SYU production with a reduction in natural seepage.
While Platform Holly may be a negative spillage facility (i.e. Holly’s seep reduction may significantly exceed the platform’s production spillage), this type of seepage reduction has not been demonstrated at other platforms. Decisions on offshore exploration and development should be driven by the economic, energy security, and environmental benefits. To the extent that production reduces natural seepage, all the better. However, seepage reduction is not a primary reason for producing offshore oil and gas.
Option 1 (use of existing onshore infrastructure) is preferable from cost, air emissions, spill risk, State and local revenue, and regional energy supply standpoints. This is the only option that makes sense despite the enormous permitting challenges.
Option 2 (floating processing facility and tankers) would literally be an “in your face” act of defiance given the coastal visibility of the offshore facilities. Supporters of this option should be aware that there was no Coastal Zone Management Act when Exxon produced from Platform Hondo (the only SYU platform at the time) to the Offshore Storage and Treatment (OS&T) vessel in the 1980s. An EIS would not favor this option, and the California Coastal Commission would surely rule that this option was inconsistent with their CZM plan. The Secretary of Commerce could overrule the Commission’s decision, but legal objections to the override would seem to have a good chance of success.
The only reasonable path forward is to do the right thing and continue to pursue the State pipeline/onshore approvals. Although these approvals are substantively warranted, more litigation is probably inevitable. It will be far better to defend a good project (option 1) than a contrived workaround (option 2).
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.
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.
The Santa Barbara Independent doesn’t pull any punches in this article about the once invincible California Coastal Commission. I recommend that you read the entire article, but here are some choice excerpts (emphasis added):
Lastly, it’s totally unprecedented for members of the commission to verbally eviscerate energy planners with Santa Barbara County at a public hearing for refusing to provide them requested planning documents having to do with Sable no fewer than seven times. While the county has denied this charge, no one from the county showed up for last week’s meeting to explain their actions. One commissioner termed this absence a “dereliction of duty.”
What actions and outcomes ultimately emerge from this rancor remain far from obvious. That’s in part because the political support enjoyed by the Coastal Commission — long regarded as one of California’s many “third rails” of state politics — has never been so uncertain. By “uncertain,” I mean rarely has any state agency been so reviled by such a wide swath of political players and stakeholder groups.
The question has become not so much who hates the Coastal Commission — it’s who doesn’t. Donald Trump has hated the commission since it objected to a 70-foot flagpole Trump planted on a beachfront golf course he owned back before he became president.
Elon Musk, Trump’s alter ego, sued the Coastal Commission — and lost — over the commission’s outspoken refusal to grant him the “consistency determination” he needed to increase the number of SpaceX rocket launches from Vandenberg Space Force Base from 35 to 50. Although a federal judge would rule in the commission’s favor, Governor Gavin Newsom, a noted Democrat, announced he was siding with Musk on this one.
So, what happens if Sable doesn’t pay the fine? Or keeps on working despite three cease-and-desist orders? The key question — still loudly unanswered — is what Attorney General Rob Bonta will do. Will Bonta throw his considerable heft behind the commission? He hasn’t yet. And it’s been several months. Does the governor want to pick his battles with the Trump-Musk White House for causes that enjoy more broad public support?
Yesterday, the California Coastal Commission voted 8-3 to fine Sable Offshore $18,022,500 for performing pipeline repairs necessary to minimize operating risks and comply with the FIre Marshall’s requirements.
“We have not gotten a foothold with Sable, and we’ve not gotten a foothold with Santa Barbara County either. So, we are where we are, and because of this absolute failure of communication and Sable’s, to be frank, absolute failure to follow the law, this hearing has become necessary,” Harmon said.
We’ll see how this gets sorted out in the courts. Sable appears to have a strong case against the Commission, but litigation in California courts is not exactly ideal for oil companies.
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.
In a peer reviewed paper, AI (Grok-3) debunks the man-made climate crisis narrative.
Doug Burgum: Hydraulic fracturing technology is “one of the reasons why the U.S. shale revolution is a miracle. But that miracle keeps on getting better and better. It’s the thing that has literally turned around the economy.” Posted here 15 years ago: Natural Gas Bonanza – Why Aren’t We Celebrating?
Bud's Offshore Energy (BOE) 