Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Posts Tagged ‘Sable Offshore’

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 »

According to the WSJ, Sable has resumed the transport of SYU oil

Posted in California, energy policy, Offshore Energy - General, pipelines, Regulation, Uncategorized, tagged , , , on March 16, 2026| Leave a Comment »

This follows the directive from Energy Secretary Chris Wright on Friday.

However, quoting Nick Welsh of the Santa Barbara Independent: “With Sable Offshore, one thing’s for certain; there’s always more to come.”

Read Full Post »

Friday Night Lights – Secretary Chris Wright directs Sable to resume SYU production!

Posted in California, energy policy, Offshore Energy - General, pipelines, Regulation, tagged , , , , , , on March 13, 2026| Leave a Comment »

(Bloomberg) — The Trump administration on Friday took action to clear the way for oil production off the California coast in a bid to ease the global fuel pressures created by the war with Iran.

The announcement by Energy Secretary Chris Wright follows an executive order signed by President Donald Trump on Friday and directs Sable Offshore Corp., a Houston-based company, to begin restoring operations for the Santa Ynez Unit and Santa Ynez Pipeline System in California.

What about Judge Geck’s injunction and the case before the 9th Circuit? How are they affected by the EO and DOJ opinion?

Perhaps Four World Capital Management wasn’t crazy after all.

More Santa Ynez Unit posts.

Read Full Post »

Sable shares pop following DOJ opinion

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

Big move by SOC following the issuance of the DOJ opinion. Justified optimism or irrational exuberance?

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 »

Losses mounting for Sable: $408 million in 2025 following $327 million in 2024

Posted in California, energy policy, Offshore Energy - General, pipelines, Regulation, tagged , , , on March 5, 2026| Leave a Comment »

The potential rewards are great – 500+ million barrels of oil, 3 major production platforms, associated pipelines, onshore processing facilities – but can Sable survive the costly legal and administrative challenges? What is Exxon’s plan for the Santa Ynez Unit if Sable should fail?

Read Full Post »

Sable Offshore: go figure

Posted in California, energy policy, Offshore Energy - General, pipelines, Regulation, tagged , , , , on March 2, 2026| Leave a Comment »

Judge Donna Geck upholds restraining order
large investment in Sable

On Friday, California Superior Court Judge Donna Geck upheld the restraining order that blocks Sable Offshore from restarting Santa Ynez Unit production. She scheduled a followup court hearing for June 27. Meanwhile, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeal’s hearing on PHMSA’s assertion of Federal jurisdiction over the onshore pipeline segments is scheduled for July.

Can Sable survive financially until those hearings are concluded?

Contradictorily, we learn that FourWorld Capital Management just purchased 8 million shares of Sable. Is that the financial equivalent of Pickett’s Charge or does FourWorld have good reasons for their optimism?

Prior Sable Santa Ynez Unit posts.

Read Full Post »

PHMSA Environmental Assessment for the Sable Special Permit

Posted in California, energy policy, Offshore Energy - General, pipelines, Regulation, tagged , , , , , on February 26, 2026| Leave a Comment »

John Smith has shared the Environmental Assessment (attached) associated with PHMSA’s Special Permit for segments 324 and 325 of Sable’s Santa Ynez Unit (SYU) pipeline system. The document is an interesting read for those following Sable’s attempt to restart production from the SYU.

PHMSA-2026-0464-0005_DEA attachment_1Download

Read Full Post »

PHMSA notice – special permit for Sable’s onshore pipeline segments

Posted in California, energy policy, Offshore Energy - General, pipelines, Regulation, tagged , , , , , on February 25, 2026| Leave a Comment »

PHMSA’s public notice (attached) is required because Sable’s Emergency Special Permit expired on 21 FEB. Comments are due by 26 MAR. More background.

“PHMSA is publishing this notice to solicit public comments on a request for a special permit submitted by Sable Offshore Corp. (Sable). Sable is seeking relief from compliance with certain requirements in the Federal pipeline safety regulations. PHMSA has proposed conditions to ensure that the special permit is not inconsistent with pipeline safety. At the conclusion of the 30-day comment period, PHMSA will review the comments received from this notice as part of its evaluation to grant or deny the special permit request.“

PHMSA Sable permitDownload

Read Full Post »

Good Bloomberg article on the Federal-State Sable pipeline jurisdiction dispute

Posted in California, energy policy, pipelines, Regulation, tagged , , , , , , , , , on February 19, 2026| 2 Comments »

As posted on 9/10/2025 (prior to PHMSA’s assertion of jurisdiction): 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.

A new Bloomberg Law article explains PHMSA’s position after a challenge by the California AG:

PHMSA said state-based hurdles are preempted by federal authorizations in the emergency permit notice letter the agency sent to Sable last year. Because the pipeline originates on the Outer Continental Shelf, the system automatically comes under federal oversight, the agency said.

A law professor adds the following:

The administration is invoking interstate commerce to classify the pipeline as a federal issue, “arguing that this is between a place in a state and outside that state,” said Hannah Wiseman, a professor at the Penn State Dickinson Law.

They are claiming this under their interpretational authority, as opposed to the actual language of the Pipeline Safety Act,” she said.

The language of the law only assigns PHMSA jurisdiction over oil operations that run outside or between state lines, but here the agency is arguing the pipeline’s start point is on the OCS, not at the onshore processing facility, she said.

Not mentioned in the article but pertinent:

  • In PHMSA’s favor, the onshore pipeline was initially under their jurisdiction.
  • In California’s favor, a court approved Consent Decree clearly identifies the California Fire Marshal as the sole oversight authority.

Meanwhile, Kruti Shah cleverly summarizes the Santa Ynez Unit story in a series of posts on X. Click on the post below to get the full thread. Great read for Sable/SYU followers:

Read Full Post »

Older Posts »