Posted in California, pipelines, Regulation, tagged 9th circuit, Attorney General, California, consent decree, Los Flores pipelines, PHMSA, Sable Offshore on January 26, 2026| Leave a Comment »
The State has asked the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals to set aside these three PHMSA orders:
In light of the venue and the clear language in the 2015 Consent Decree regarding the California Fire Marshal’s jurisdiction, the State’s petition would seem to have a good chance of success.
Posted in California, energy policy, Offshore Energy - General, Regulation, tagged BSEE, Chris Wright, Jane Fonda, Julia-Louis Dreyfus, Phil Mickelson, PHMSA, Sable Offshore, Santa Barbara Channel, Santa Ynez Unit, Ted Danson on January 22, 2026| Leave a Comment »
“The Santa Barbara Channel has been dubbed the Galápagos of North America” ~ Maggie Hall, Environmental Defense Center attorney. (comments: 1. clever branding ala calling ANWR “America’s Serengeti!;” 2. no natural oil seeps in the Galapagos Islands; 3. 130 years of oil production history in the Channel)
Sable opponents organize entertaining rallies featuring famous celebrities:
Meanwhile, Sable has some starpower of its own with strong public support from golfer Phil Mickelson.
Senior Federal officials and key agencies are outspoken Sable supporters:
“Only in California! Newsom is blocking oil production off California’s coast from reaching their own refineries, driving gasoline prices even higher for Californians! Now, this oil production will have to be shipped elsewhere, lowering gas prices for other areas— just not for California! This is the opposite of common sense!” ~ Energy Secretary Chris Wright
BSEE declared victory 6 months ago: “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.”
on December 23, 2025, the Pipeline and Hazardous Material Safety Administration (PHMSA) declared jurisdiction over and issued an emergency special permit for the Santa Ynez Pipeline System.
Perhaps most entertaining are the exchanges on X between Sable bulls and short-sellers. A few examples are embedded below:
Posted in California, energy policy, Regulation, tagged California Coastal Commission, consent decree, PHMSA, Sable Offshore, Santa Ynez Unit on January 7, 2026| Leave a Comment »
The Commission’s letter to PHMSA is attached (click on pages to enlarge). The CCC asserts the right, pursuant to the Coastal Zone Management Act, to review Sable’s restart/special permit application and further asserts that PHMSA’s special permit should be stayed pending their review.
The Commission also raises NEPA and Consent Decree compliance issues, and implies that PHMSA’s designation of the pipeline as “interstate” is subject to consistency review.
The letter is dated 12/23/2025, one day prior to the 9th circuit filing by environmental groups, but has just surfaced online.
Posted in California, Offshore Energy - General, tagged 9th circuit, emergency permit, PHMSA, Sable Offshore, Santa Ynez Unit, stay denied on December 31, 2025| Leave a Comment »
Posted in California, energy policy, Offshore Energy - General, Regulation, tagged consent decree, emergency permit, PHMSA, Sable Offshore, Santa Ynez Unit on December 29, 2025| Leave a Comment »
Attached are PHMSA’s Christmas week Emergency Special Permit and Permit Analysis document. Is the path clear to restart SYU production before New Year’s day?
Three excerpts from the first attachment are pasted below. The last paragraph on p. 2 succinctly explains PHMSA’a emergency permit:
PHMSA was able to assume jurisdiction from the State because the pipeline transports Federal OCS oil and is thus inherently interstate. The perceived problem with a PHMSA takeover had been the court approved Consent Decree that was executed following the 2015 Refugio pipeline spill. That Decree specifies that the State Fire Marshal must approve a restart of the pipeline. The first paragraph on p. 2 of the permit explains PHMSA’s position that the Consent Decree has been superseded.
The provision pasted below (p. 4 of the permit) seems contradictory in that it stipulates compliance with the Consent Decree. However, PHMSA apparently sees no contradiction in that references to the Fire Marshal (OSFM) should now be read as references to PHMSA. PHMSA presumably included this provision to reaffirm the need to comply with the technical requirements in the Decree.
The second attachment is PHMSA’s analysis of the special permit. Note that the permit expires in 60 days. Public notice and opportunity for comment would be required for a renewal.
Environmental organizations reacted quickly to the PHMSA permit, filing an emergency motion in the 9th circuit (third attachment). Observations:
Barring an injunction, odds are that Sable restarts production prior to New Year’s Day, when a requirement (SB 237) for a new Coastal Development Plan, takes effect.
Posted in California, pipelines, Regulation, tagged California Fire Marshal, Las Flores Pipeline, PHMSA, production restart, Sable Offshore on December 23, 2025| 2 Comments »
See the letter below.
California and Santa Barbara County remain silent. Caught off guard before the holiday?
More from the Santa Barbara Independent.
Posted in California, energy policy, Offshore Energy - General, pipelines, Regulation, tagged California Fire Marshal, consent decree, OSFM, PHMSA, pipeline jurisdiction, Sable Offshore, Santa Ynez Unit on December 18, 2025| Leave a Comment »
The anticipated State-Federal jurisdictional battle over Sable’s Las Flores Canyon Pipeline is on! See the attached letter from the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA) declaring that the pipeline is under Federal jurisdiction.
The major hurdle for PHMSA/Sable is the court approved Consent Decree that was executed following the 2015 Refugio pipeline spill. The Decree, which designates the California Fire Marshal as the sole regulator for the pipeline, is not mentioned in the PHMSA letter. Needless to say, another major legal battle looms.
Excerpt from the PHMSA letter:
PHMSA’s evaluation of the Las Flores Pipeline confirms that it transports crude oil from the OCS to an onshore processing facility at Las Flores Canyon and continues the transportation of crude oil from Las Flores Canyon to Pentland, California. Consistent with Appendix A, the Las Flores Pipeline is an interstate pipeline. As portions of the Las Flores Pipeline were previously considered to be intrastate and regulated by OSFM, PHMSA is notifying OSFM that the Las Flores Pipeline is subject to the regulatory oversight of PHMSA.
Posted in accidents, California, Regulation, tagged California, consent decree, Fire Marshal, jurisdiction, PHMSA, pipeline, Refugio pipeline spill, Sable Offshore on December 5, 2025| Leave a Comment »
Sable Offshore oil believes the federal Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA) , not the California Fire Marshal, should have jurisdiction over the company’s onshore pipeline.
I once had the same opinion as Sable. Their pipeline is, by definition, an interstate line because it carries OCS production. Then I read Appendix D of the court approved Consent Decree that was executed following the 2015 Refugio pipeline spill. That Decree is quite clear regarding regulatory jurisdiction, and would have to be overturned to transfer authority to PHMSA.
The full Consent Decree is attached. Pasted below is an excerpt from Appendix D:
Posted in California, Offshore Energy - General, pipelines, Regulation, tagged California Fire Marshall, DOT, Gov. Newsom, PHMSA, pipeline, Sable Offshore, Santa Ynez Unit, State legislation on September 10, 2025| Leave a Comment »
Sables’ share price sank on Tuesday following reports from Bloomberg and others that Governor Newsom is proposing new restrictions on California’s offshore oil industry. With Sable Offshore as a primary target, stricter requirements for restarting inactive intrastate oil pipelines would be imposed. •
This could trigger yet another legal battle or increase the complexity of those that are ongoing. The onshore pipeline, now owned by Sable Offshore, was originally classified as an interstate pipeline under Federal jurisdiction. However, following the 2015 Refugio oil spill, it was reclassified as an intrastate pipeline via a 2016 letter of understanding signed by representatives of the Federal Office of Pipeline Safety (DOT-PHMSA) and the Office of the State Fire Marshal (pertinent text pasted below).
Given that the Sable pipeline will carry OCS production, it would seem to fundamentally be an interstate line (Federal jurisdiction), as it was when owned by Plains. Could DOT reverse the 2016 letter agreement? That is conjecture for the attorneys and courts to consider.
Meanwhile, below is an upbeat Sable video on the pipeline!
Posted in accidents, California, oil spill response, pipelines, tagged Amplify Energy, Beta Unit, BSEE, PHMSA, pipeline spill on April 12, 2023| Leave a Comment »
HOUSTON, April 10, 2023 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) — Amplify Energy Corp. (“Amplify” or the “Company”) (NYSE: AMPY) today announced that it has received the required approvals from federal regulatory agencies to restart operations at the Beta Field. Initial steps to resume full operations will involve filling the San Pedro Bay Pipeline with production, a process which commenced over the past weekend and is expected to take approximately two weeks to complete. Following the line fill process, the pipeline will be operated in accordance with the restart procedures that were reviewed and approved by the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA).
Amplify Energy
Odd that the news release didn’t mention BSEE, the agency which would have had to approve the resumption of production.
18 months after the pipeline spill near Huntington Beach, settlements have been reached, fines have been paid, and production from the Beta Unit has resumed, but the Federal investigation report is still unavailable. Why?
Also, per our 10/6/2021 post:
One would hope that this spill will lead to an independent review of the regulatory regime for offshore pipelines. Consideration should be given to designating a single regulator that is responsible and accountable for offshore pipeline safety (a joint authority approach might also merit consideration) and developing a single set of clear and consistent regulations.
Bud's Offshore Energy (BOE) 