Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Posts Tagged ‘litigation’

John Smith’s Sable litigation update

Posted in California, Offshore Energy - General, pipelines, Regulation, tagged , , , , , , on November 6, 2025| 1 Comment »

Attached is John Smith’s comprehensive summary of lawsuits related to Sable Offshore’s attempts to restart Santa Ynez Unit production.

If you are keeping score, there are 10 separate cases including a class action lawsuit filed by investors. New legal battles are sure to follow given Sable’s OS&T strategy. Per John:

“The combined legal challenges, injunctions, and restraining orders have significantly delayed Sable’s restart plans and prompted the company to pursue an Offshore Storage and Treatment Vessel (OS&T) strategy, which was utilized to process SYU production in federal waters from 1981 – 1994, and transport oil to markets using tankers.“

110525 Summary of Fed State Lawsuits Against Sable.docxDownload

Read Full Post »

Legal sharks smell Sable’s blood in SYU waters

Posted in California, Offshore Energy - General, Regulation, tagged , , , , , , on August 12, 2025| Leave a Comment »

In addition to the Johnson filing, at least 7 other law firms (links below) have announced class action litigation alleging that Sable Offshore made false or misleading statements regarding the restart of Santa Ynez Unit production.

Perhaps working in Sable’s favor is the fact that the Federal government (BSEE) made a similar production restart announcement nearly 2 months after Sable, declaring victory and seemingly taking credit for the achievement:

“This is a significant achievement for the Interior Department and aligns with the Administration’s Energy Dominance initiative, as it successfully resumed production in just five months.“

Will the Dept. of Justice intervene on behalf of Sable?

Meanwhile, Sable’s share price rebounded in mid-July and is holding up surprisingly well (see below). Perhaps investors don’t see the class action suits as a significant incremental threat given the risks associated with decisions by 8 California agencies, Santa Barbara County, and various judges, and the persistent challenges by well-organized opponents of offshore production.

Read Full Post »

Dept. of the Interior is reconsidering approval of US Wind Construction & Operations Plan

Posted in energy policy, Offshore Wind, Regulation, tagged , , , , , on August 7, 2025| Leave a Comment »

A new court filing (attached) informs that the Dept. of the Interior is reconsidering the Construction & Operations Plan (COP) approval for US Wind’s Maryland Offshore Wind (“MarWin”) Project (maps above). That approval is the subject of litigation filed by Ocean City MD and others.

The key section of the Federal government’s filing is pasted below.

  1. An extension in this case is necessary as Interior intends to reconsider its COP approval and move in the District of Maryland—the first-filed case—for voluntary remand of that agency action. See, e.g., Util. Solid Waste Activities Grp. v. EPA, 901 F.3d 414, 436 (D.C.Cir. 2018) (recognizing that administrative agencies have the authority to reconsider their decisions). The outcome of Interior’s reconsideration has the potential to affect the Plaintiff’s claims in this case.
Maryland Offshore WindDownload

Read Full Post »

Sable production restart: another step sideways?

Posted in California, Offshore Energy - General, Regulation, tagged , , , , on July 24, 2025| Leave a Comment »

In the Independent, Nick Welsh aptly described the latest court decision in the long and winding road that Sable Offshore hopes will lead to Santa Ynez Unit production:

“When Judge Donna Geck got through ruling on the latest showdown between Sable Offshore Oil and Santa Barbara’s environmental establishment last Friday morning, it wasn’t clear if the no-nonsense judge cut the proverbial baby in half or kicked the can down the proverbial road.” 

Bottom line: The judge will “continue to bar the Fire Marshal from taking any steps to process Sable’s restart application until 10 days after Sable had received all the necessary permits and approvals from the myriad of state, federal, and local agencies that enjoy some degree of regulatory oversight over the proposed project.” Does that mean any agency, even one with a minor or questionable role, can block the project?

As the author notes:

“As of this writing, it’s not entirely clear which of those agencies have yet to issue Sable the permits it needs to start the restart process and when they’re likely to do so, if at all. Even less clear is whether there’s any agreement among the dueling parties as to which agencies have standing to even weigh in.”

Read Full Post »

Rep. Chris Smith: “Radar interference alone enough to pull the plug on‘extremely dangerous’ Empire Wind project”

Posted in energy policy, Offshore Wind, tagged , , , on June 9, 2025| Leave a Comment »

Radar interference is one of the key issues in the law suit against the Empire Wind project. Congressman Smith’s press release (attached) focuses on that issue.

Rep. Chris Smith (R-NJ)_ Radar interference alone enough to pull the plug on ‘extremely dangerous’ Empire Wind project _ U.S. RepresentativeDownload

Read Full Post »

OCS oil and gas leasing provisions in the “Big Beautiful Bill” – good holiday reading 😀

Posted in Alaska, energy policy, Gulf of Mexico, Offshore Energy - General, Regulation, tagged , , , , , , on May 23, 2025| Leave a Comment »

Part VIII, Offshore OIl and Gas Leasing, is a good read for those interested in OCS leasing policy. This cleverly crafted part of the bill specifies leasing schedules, streamlines the leasing process, and minimizes litigation risks. Highlights:

  • Minimum royalty rates return to 12.5% from 16.67% post-IRA. (This is good for small, shelf producers.) The maximum rate remains 18.75%.
  • Requires a Gulf of America lease sale by 8/15/2025, a sale by 3/15 and 8/15 in each of the following 14 years (2026-2039), and a sale by 3/15/2040. 80+ million acres must be offered at each sale unless that amount of acreage is no longer available for leasing.
  • The lease form, lease terms, economic conditions, and stipulations 4 through 10 must be the same as for Lease Sale 254 (3/18/2020). Stipulations 1-3 may be updated.
  • Requires seven 1+ million acre (if available) Cook Inlet lease sales from 2026 – 2032. Beginning in 2035, 90% of the revenues go to the State of Alaska.
  • The required lease sales may be in addition to the lease sales held under the 2024-2029 National Outer Continental Shelf Oil and Gas Leasing Program.
  • Adherence with the Biological Opinion shall satisfy the Secretary’s obligations under the Endangered Species Act of 1973 and the Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972
  • Previous EIS’s for the Gulf of Mexico shall satisfy the Secretary’s NEPA obligation.
  • Consistency determinations prepared by BOEM for Lease Sale 261 for the States of Texas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, and Florida will satisfy the Secretary’s CZMA obligations.
  • The Secretary may waive any requirement under the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act that the Secretary determines would delay issuance of a lease.
  • A lease must be issued to the highest responsible qualified bidder not later than 90 days after the sale date.
  • The Secretary shall establish a process through which a Governor may nominate for leasing under a lease sale held under this section an area of the OCS that is adjacent to the waters of the State; and is unleased and available for leasing. If the Governor of a State nominates an area, the Secretary shall include the area in the next scheduled sale. (It appears that this provision applies only to the Gulf of America. Objective?)
  • G&G surveys must be approved within 30 days after a complete application is received.
  • A lease awarded under Lease Sale 259 or Lease Sale 261 shall not be set aside, vacated, enjoined, suspended, or cancelled except in accordance with section 5 the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (43 U.S.C. 1334). Also, new terms or conditions may not be added to these leases. (This protects lessees from pending litigation related to these leases).
  • Any action to approve, require modification of, or disapprove any exploration plan, development and production plan, bidding procedure, lease sale, lease issuance, or permit or authorization related to oil and gas exploration, development, or production, or any inaction resulting in the failure to hold a lease sale shall be subject to judicial review only in a United States court of appeals for a circuit in which an affected State is located.

Read Full Post »

Sable Offshore Sues Santa Barbara County over Blocked Transfer Permit

Posted in California, Offshore Energy - General, Regulation, tagged , , , , , on May 13, 2025| Leave a Comment »

A good Nick Welsh, Santa Barbara Independent article has been brought to my attention by John Smith. Bonus points for the baseball analogy:

“In baseball, ties famously go to the baserunner, but in county government it’s forced a legal fight in the courts.”

“The oil company Sable Offshore is insisting that when the County Board of Supervisors voted 2-2 on whether or not to allow another oil company, Exxon, to transfer its permits to Sable, the tie goes to Sable.”

“Accordingly, Sable — much in the limelight recently — just filed a lawsuit against the Santa Barbara County Board of Supervisors in federal court to make that point. Joining Sable in this dispute is ExxonMobil, the oil giant that sold Sable its three offshore platforms, its 120-mile pipeline, and its onshore oil storage and processing facilities known as the Santa Ynez Unit two years ago.”

Because the Planning Commission had voted  3-1 to allow the transfer, Sable argues that the 2-2 Supervisors vote upholds the Planning Commission decision.

Never a dull moment in the Santa Ynez Unit restart doneybrook. More on the tie vote here and here.

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 »

Nord Stream litigation: Insurers’ assertion is “embarrassing for want of particularity”

Posted in accidents, climate, pipelines, tagged , , , , , , on October 14, 2024| 4 Comments »

Jeffrey Brodsky, a journalist who traveled to all four Nord Stream blast sites, shared Nord Stream AG’s response (attached) to the 30 Sept. court filing by the insurers.

Particularly noteworthy is Nord Stream’s response to the insurers’ claim (par. 22.2 (a) of their filing) that the pipeline damage was the result of “the conflict between Russia and Ukraine.” In par. 13.1 of their response (attached), Nord Stream called the insurers’ assertion “embarrassing for want of particularity.” (clever wording that may prove useful in the future 😉)

Brodsky’s observations on the Nord Stream filing:

  • Nord Stream AG calls the insurers (Lloyd’s and Arch) failure to provide evidence for the country that blew up the pipelines “embarrassing.” (See above comment.)
  • Nord Stream argues that the insurers still must pay even if the sabotage was an act of war. This aligns with what legal scholar Said Mahmoudi told Brodsky.
  • Mahmoudi: “The defendants’ argument is prima facie irrelevant if one cannot prove that the damage is caused by a named government that has been directly involved in a war in the area. The burden of proof in this case is…on the defendant.”
  • Mahmoudi: “Even if the sabotage is an act of terrorism, the author of the act can be a state or a private entity.”
  • Mahmoudi: “If a private entity, the insurance company, is the only source for the compensation; if a state is responsible for the terrorist act, it is the insurance company & that state that have a legal obligation to compensate for the damage.”

Related comment by Erik Andersson: Nord Stream AG has consistently claimed they should receive compensation regardless of whether or not a government was responsible for the sabotage. Nord Stream AG does not seem interested in providing an alternative to Lloyds’ claim that Ukraine did this as an act of war. (That horse might be too big to ride 😉)

2024-10-07 – Nord Stream AG v (1) LIC and (2) Arch – CL-2024-000094 – Amended ReplyDownload

Read Full Post »

More offshore wind litigation: Save LBI to sue BOEM and NOAA over the Atlantic Shores South project

Posted in energy policy, Offshore Wind, tagged , , , , , , on October 4, 2024| Leave a Comment »

As a boy, my grandfather owned a home “down the shore” on Long Beach Island (LBI). From the beach, all we saw were swimmers, surf fishers, porpoises, and an occasional vessel on the horizon. The offshore wind industrialization will change the island dramatically.

Attached is the release announcing Save LBI’s intent to sue. Their issues are summarized below:

  • Constructing and operating hundreds of wind turbines directly in a prime migration path for the critically endangered North Atlantic right whale.
  • Operational noise from the larger and noisier turbines Atlantic Shores plans to build.
  • Cumulative impact of the East Coast wind-turbine projects on the right whale’s migration.
  • Interference with other uses of the ocean including fishing and national security.
  • No plan or capability, technically or monetarily, to remove turbines and other facilities at the end of their useful life, upon their failure during normal operation, or in the aftermath of a hurricane or other extreme storm event.
  • Failure to account for structural failures such as the Vineyard Wind turbine blade incident, the damage from such failures to the ocean and beaches, and how that damage will be remediated.
  • Excessive electric bill increases under the State’s Offshore Wind Energy Development Act.

The Endangered Species Act issues are similar to those that the Nantucket group ACK for Whales is trying to elevate to the Supreme Court.

Perhaps not the best choice of graphic if you want to sell the project as being environmentally benign and compatible with other uses.

2024-09-30_NoticeofIntenttoSue _PRDownload

Read Full Post »

Older Posts »