Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Posts Tagged ‘DPA’

Two wild weeks for the Santa Ynez Unit

Posted in California, energy policy, Offshore Energy - General, pipelines, Regulation, tagged , , , , , , , on March 17, 2026| Leave a Comment »

Add the unprecedented events of the last two weeks to the long and troubled history of the Santa Ynez Unit dating back to the Offshore Storage & Treatment facility days. There are no parallels in the history of the US OCS program.

To date in March:

3/3/2026: The Dept. of Justice issues an opinion asserting that, under the Defense Production Act of 1950 (DPA), an order issued by the President or his delegee would preempt California laws currently impeding Sable from resuming production and operating the associated pipeline infrastructure.

3/13/2026: Secretary of Energy Chris Wright issues an order to Sable invoking the DPA to immediately prioritize and allocate pipeline transportation services for hydrocarbons from the SYU through the Santa Ynez Pipeline System (SYPS).

3/14/2026: A letter from California Parks and Recreation demands that Sable remove all four miles of its pipeline from Gaviota State Park.

3/14/2026: Sable resumes the transportation of Santa Ynez Unit oil through the SYPS from Las Flores Canyon (LFC) to Pentland Station. Prior to resuming hydrocarbon transportation from LFC to Sable’s sales point at Pentland Station, Sable had approximately 540,000 barrels of processed crude oil in storage at LFC, representing more than the line fill volume for the SYPS between LFC and Pentland Station.

3/16/2026: Sable resumes oil production at anticipated rate of 50,000 bopd and expects first sales by April 1, 2026. Production ramp-up is anticipated to proceed with full production resumption at Platforms Harmony and Heritage this month and Platform Hondo in June 2026

Read Full Post »

Dept. of Justice opinion boosts prospects for Santa Ynez Unit production

Posted in California, energy policy, Offshore Energy - General, pipelines, Regulation, tagged , , , , , , , , on March 6, 2026| Leave a Comment »

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.

2026-03-03-dpa-preemptionDownload

Read Full Post »