Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Posts Tagged ‘California Coastal Commission’

SYU restart: Mission Impossible for Sable?

Posted in California, Offshore Energy - General, pipelines, Regulation, tagged , , , , , , on April 3, 2025| Leave a Comment »

It’s starting to look that way.

“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.

Court Denies BSEE Motion for Remand of SYU Lease extensions 032125Download

Read Full Post »

Is the Friends of Oceano Dunes court victory a good omen for Sable?

Posted in California, Regulation, tagged , , , , , on March 27, 2025| Leave a Comment »

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?

Read Full Post »

Sable states its case

Posted in California, Offshore Energy - General, Regulation, tagged , , , , , on March 14, 2025| Leave a Comment »

Platform Heritage

See the attached letter from Sable’s attorneys; highlights below:

  • 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.
Sable-Statement-of-Defense-and-Attachments-A-D-Final-3-10-2025Download

Read Full Post »

Coastal Commission Accountability Act 

Posted in California, energy policy, Regulation, tagged , , , on March 6, 2025| Leave a Comment »

“The California Coastal Commission is simply out of control and has veered far from its purpose of protecting the coast,” said Rep. Kiley. “From blocking SpaceX rocket launches to obstructing fire prevention projects, the Commission has repeatedly threatened the safety of Californians and weakened our national defense, while needlessly undercutting innovation and economic progress. The need to rein in the Commission has become urgent as we face the challenge of rebuilding Los Angeles following the fires. ”

The bill (attached), introduced by Kevin Kiley (CA), would amend the Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA) to expedite important coastal activities, including national security initiatives, critical infrastructure development, and disaster mitigation and recovery efforts. Key provision:

‘‘(2) LIMITATION ON OBJECTION.—An objection or other challenge by a coastal state to an activity subject to a conclusive presumption of concurrence under paragraph (1) may not delay or otherwise prevent the activity from proceeding.”

While perhaps unlikely to be enacted, the bill addresses regulatory authority that many perceive to be unchecked and abusive. Congressional attention is clearly warranted.

CZMA-Amendment-KileyDownload

Read Full Post »

Sable Offshore sues the California Coastal Commission!

Posted in California, energy policy, pipelines, tagged , , , , , , on February 19, 2025| Leave a Comment »

John Smith forwarded Sable’s court filing (attached) and highlighted important text.

The Coastal Commission has asserted that anomaly repair work on Sable’s onshore pipeline, which was required by the California Fire Marshall and approved by Santa Barbara County, constitutes a violation of the Coastal Act.

Santa Barbara County had confirmed in writing that Sable’s repair work is authorized by the pipeline’s existing coastal development permits and, consistent with the County’s past practices, no new or separate Coastal Act authorization is required.

John and I believe Sable has a strong case, but you can be the judge. For the Commission and County to have such divergent opinions is rather surprising.

Among other assertions, Sable argues (par. 115) that the Coastal Commission violated the takings clause of the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, as incorporated by the Fourteenth Amendment, which prohibits the temporary or permanent taking of private property for public use without prior, just compensation. This could lead to significant liability costs for the State.

Much more on Sable’s Santa Ynez Unit challenges.

Sable Suite CCC 021825 highlightedDownload

Read Full Post »

Another small step toward the resumption of Santa Ynez Unit production

Posted in California, energy policy, Offshore Energy - General, Regulation, tagged , , , , , , on November 11, 2024| Leave a Comment »

The Santa Barbara County Planning Commission has approved the transfer of the onshore pipeline from Exxon to Sable Offshore. Although the Environmental Defense Center (EDC) is appealing that decision to the Board of Supervisors, the Board’s vote will likely be a 2-2 tie. Supervisor Hartmann’s property is close to the pipeline and she has recused herself from votes on the matter. A 2-2 vote would be a win for Sable, because a tie vote means the planning commission decision stands.

As an investment, Sable is a “pure California permitting play,” which means the risks are high. The company’s chances for success are almost entirely dependent on receiving the necessary approvals from State and local agencies.

If Sable is able to navigate the permitting gauntlet, the company’s prospects are good. The Santa Ynez Unit, Sable’s only asset, has substantial oil and gas resources and well-maintained production facilities.

Sable’s share price soared to $23.43 on 9/3 after the company reached agreement with Santa Barbara on the installation of required pipeline valves. The price bounced further to $28.30 on 9/19 before falling sharply to $19.43 on 10/9 after being cited for failing to get California Coastal Commission approval to install the required valves. The price rebounded to $24 following the County Planning Commission’s approval of the transfer from Exxon to Sable before settling at $23 on Friday, the date of the EDC appeal.

Expect the financial and psychological roller coaster ride to continue.

Read Full Post »

SpaceX lawsuit against the California Coast Commission: Many long-time offshore industry observers are nodding approval.

Posted in California, Regulation, tagged , , , , on October 21, 2024| Leave a Comment »

Per a related post, the full SpaceX lawsuit is attached. It’s mostly exhibits, so don’t be intimidated by the length.

This excerpt summarizes the case nicely:

“Rarely has a government agency made so clear that it was exceeding its authorized mandate to punish a company for the political views and statements of its largest shareholder and CEO. Second, the Commission is trying to unlawfully regulate space launch programs—which are critical to national security and other national policy objectives—at Vandenberg Space Force Base (the Base), a federal enclave and the world’s second busiest spaceport.”

Even Gov. Newsome sides with SpaceX saying “I’m with Elon.”

Will this case teach the Commission some humility? Probably not, but we shall see.

spacex-v-california-coastal-cmmissionDownload

Read Full Post »

California Coastal Commission to Sable: How dare you!

Posted in California, Offshore Energy - General, tagged , , , , , , on October 15, 2024| Leave a Comment »

The California Coastal Commission, which exercises enormous power and limited restraint, is making headlines for preventing SpaceX, arguably America’s most extraordinary company, from increasing the number of satellite launches from the Vandenberg Space Force Base, a Federal facility. The Coastal Commission made this decision just 3 days before SpaceX’s awe inspiring rocket booster catch in Texas:

Sable Offshore, despite being spawned by super-major Exxon, is a relative minnow compared to SpaceX, at least politically. The restart of production from Sable’s Santa Ynez Unit is facing another obstacle now that the Coastal Commission has entered the fray.

The Coastal Commission has ordered Sable to stop the installation of pipeline shutdown valves that are not only prudent, but required by the California Fire Marshall, the State’s safety authority for pipelines. The Commission has intervened by asserting that the pipeline upgrades require a coastal development permit.

Sable argues that repair and maintenance activities are exempt from Coastal Act permitting requirements, and have been conducted under their existing permits for 35+ years.

The Commission does not like to see its authority questioned, and is influenced by groups whose sole objective is to prevent the restart of production. We’ll see how this sorts out.

Center for Biological Diversity photo of pipeline repair work as published by Noozhawk

Meanwhile, Elon Musk did not hold back after the Commission’s decision not to allow an increase in the number of launches from Vandenberg:

“The California Coastal Commission should be dissolved as an organization.  An utterly insufferable and misanthropic group of Karens if there ever was one! Their idea of the perfect coastline is one where there are zero humans or even signs of human! Anyone who has had any dealings with them will attest to this.  They should not exist.”

Ouch! Tell us what you really think Elon! 😉

Read Full Post »

« Newer Posts