Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Posts Tagged ‘Kern County’

Kern County judge strikes down California ban on well stimulation

Posted in California, Regulation, tagged , , , , , on October 14, 2026| Leave a Comment »

The attached order by Kern County Superior Court Judge Bernard C. Barmann Jr.:

  • Declares the California Geologic Energy Management Division (“CalGEM”) 2021-2024 policy of denying all well stimulation treatment (WST) permit applications invalid.
  • Declares the 2024 Rule (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 14, § 1780, subd. (d)) invalid because CalGEM’s determination that the categorical ban is reasonably necessary is not supported by substantial evidence and lacks a rational connection to the statute’s GHG-reduction purpose.
  • Directs CalGEM to set aside the 2024 Rule and the challenged permit denials; reconsider the denied applications; and consider the pending applications under section 3160 and applicable regulations, without reliance on the invalid underground policy or the invalidated Rule.
  • The Court does not direct issuance of any permit or impose additional denial-letter or deadline requirements.

The ruling could unlock oil resources in in Kern County’s diatomite formations estimated at up to a billion barrels.

Will this decision have any effect on the dispute related to the California Coastal Commission’s prohibition against the resumption of hydraulic well stimulation at Platform Gilda?

CA_fracking_ban_tentative_decisionDownload

Read Full Post »

Newsom’s California compromise sacrifices the SYU (Sable) to boost Kern County drilling.

Posted in California, drilling, energy policy, Offshore Energy - General, tagged , , , , , , , on September 12, 2025| Leave a Comment »

California Senate Bill 237, the compromise oil legislation supported by Gov. Newsom, Assembly Speaker Rivas, and Senate President McGuire, opens up Kern Co. drilling in exchange for pipeline safety measures that will doom the Santa Ynez Unit (SYU) if Sable fails to restart production by Jan. 1.

Particularly intriguing is the the list (below) of SB 237 supporters and opponents. The Western States Petroleum Assoc. (WSPA), is aligned with the unions for onshore drilling and against the SYU. Note that Exxon is a prominent WSPA members! Exxon assigned the SYU to Sable and is on the hook for massive decommissioning costs if production is not resumed. Perhaps Exxon has a backup plan for the SYU?

Also note that all of the environmental groups are aligned against SB 237. Compromise is not in their playbook.

John Smith’s highlighted summary of SB 237 is attached. Here is the provision that would seem to doom Sable:

Clarifies in the Coastal Act that development associated with the repair, reactivation, or maintenance of an oil pipeline that has been idled, inactive, or out of service for five years or more requires a new CDP, as provided.

REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION:
Support
Associated Builders and Contractors of California
Berry Petroleum Company, LLC
California Conference of Carpenters
California Independent Petroleum Association
California Resources Corporation and Subsidiaries
California state Pipe Trades Council
California State Association of Electrical Workers
City of Bakersfield
Consumer Watchdog
County of Kern
State Building & Construction Trades Council of California
Western States Petroleum Association

Opposition
Asian Pacific Environmental Network Action
California Environmental Justice Alliance Action
California Environmental Voters
Campaign for a Safe and Healthy California

Center for Biological Diversity
Center on Race, Poverty & the Environment
Central California Environmental Justice Network
Clean Water Action
Climate First: Replacing Oil & Gas
Communities for a Better Environment
Earthjustice
Leadership Council for Justice and Accountability
Physicians for Social Responsibility Los Angeles

Senate Bill 237 Summary (1)Download

Read Full Post »