John notes that Exxon’s March 26 contractual deadline for Sable to have the SYU up and running is fast approaching. What will Exxon do in the likely event that Sable fails to meet that deadline? Does Exxon want to re-enter the SYU legal and regulatory quagmire?
The SYU’s 500+ million barrels of oil, 3 deepwater platforms, and onshore processing facilities are an enormous prize, but is that prize attainable?
Meanwhile, the latest skirmish between Sable and the Office of the State Fire Marshal (OFSM) pertains to metal loss anomalies and inspection tool tolerances. The dispute is summarized in the linked filing.
Sable contends that the Fire Marshal’s letter contradicts guidance from OSFM staff and provides examples. Sable goes a step further at the end of their response by calling for the FIre Marshal to coordinate better with the experts on his staff:
“We respectfully request that, given this background, you coordinate further with the expert team at OSFM and revisit the statements in your October 22nd letter.”
It’s not looking good for a quick resolution of these issues.
“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!”
BOE was a fan of Chris Wright long before he became Energy Secretary, and I agree that the resumption of Santa Ynez Unit production is economically desirable for California and the nation. However, his comment implies that OS&T processing and tanker transport is a realistic option, and I do not believe that is the case.
John Smith and I have discussed Sable’s OS&T announcement on a number of occasions, and we don’t see a reasonable path forward for this option. In addition to the significantly higher capital and operational costs and the need to acquire and retrofit a suitable floating production, storage, and offloading vessel (FPSO), the legal and permitting challenges could be even more complex than for the pipeline option (as daunting as that may sound).
The OS&T option would require a revised development and production plan, and the associated environmental review (almost certainly an EIS). An EIS would not favor this option, and the California Coastal Commission would surely rule that the OS&T/tanker alternative was inconsistent with their CZM plan. (Keep in mind that the SYU/OS&T production in the early 1980’s was approved prior to the passage of the Coastal Zone Management Act.) The Secretary of Commerce could overrule the Commission’s consistency determination, but legal objections to the override would likely delay the project for years and have a good chance of success.
Onshore processing and pipeline transportation using existing facilities is clearly the environmentally and economically preferable option. The only reasonable path forward for Sable or Exxon is to continue to pursue the onshore pipeline approvals. Federal attention should focus on jurisdiction over that pipeline, which is inherently an interstate line because it transports OCS production, and State actions that are blocking interstate commerce.
Finally, keep in mind that the SYU would still be producing today were it not for the entirely preventable pipeline rupture and the resulting Refugio oil spill. Plains Pipeline, the party responsible for this ugly incident, is no longer the owner, but that doesn’t comfort coastal residents; nor does it absolve the companies that transported their oil through the line from all responsibility.
The Refugio spill will be discussed further in an upcoming post.
As the above discussion demonstrates, the issue before the Court is not whether the specific work conducted by Sable was or is ultimately necessary or appropriate for pipeline safety. The issue before the Court is whether the Commission abused its discretion in issuing the April 10 Orders under the standards for review by petition for administrative writ of mandate.
Based on the foregoing analysis and a review of all of the arguments of the parties and the AR, the Court finds the Commission’s factual findings are supported by substantial evidence and that Sable has not met its burden to show an abuse of discretion by the Commission in issuing the April 10 Orders.
Accordingly, the petition for administrative mandate as set forth in the first cause of action of Sable’s FAP will be denied.
The road ahead for Sable continues to get rockier, and their share price took a major hit today.
As a result, on Sept. 29 Sable Offshore filed a declaratory judgement action against the State of California in Kern County. Sable is asking the court to confirm that the objectionable permitting provisions of SB 237 do not apply to their Las Flores Pipeline System.
Also, on Oct. 6 Sable filed a motion increasing the monetary damages in its ongoing case against the California Coastal Commission to $347 million. Sable asserts that their pipeline repair program was authorized by existing permits issued by the County of Santa Barbara under its Local Coastal Program and delegated Coastal Act authority.
These seem like good tactical moves on the part of Sable.
Those of us who were involved with OCS oil and gas operations in the 1970s remember the heated battles between Exxon and Santa Barbara County that led to the installation of the infamous Offshore Storage & Treatment (OS&T) facility in Federal waters. This was the first floating production, storage, and offloading facility (FPSO) in US waters by 3 decades!
In light of Sable’s difficult (bordering on impossible) onshore permitting challenges, the company resurrected the OS&T option in a recent presentation to investors (pertinent slide pasted above). The extent to which this is purely a tactical maneuver remains to be seen, but this option would be very difficult to execute, even with a supportive Federal regulatory environment.
John Smith shared the attached letter from Senators Adam Schiff and Alex Padilla, and members of the California congressional delegation. The letter questions BSEE’s inexplicable announcement about the resumption of Santa Ynez Unit (SYU) production. That announcement boasted:
“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.“
BSEE’s announcement, which has not been explained and is still featured on their homepage, served only to further complicate the resumption of production from the SYU, which has reserves in excess of 500 million barrels.
John Smith has highlighted the attached bill that could, if passed, further derail Sable’s plans to restart Santa Ynez Unit (SYU) production.
This provision appears to target Sable:
Section 3(b)(2): Repair, reactivation, and maintenance of an oil and gas facility facility, including an oil pipeline, that has been idled, inactive, or out of service for five years or more shall be considered a new or expanded development requiring a new coastal development permit consistent with this section.
The legislation would be effective on 1/1/2026 so perhaps Sable will already be producing. Sable may also explore the jurisdictional and interstate commerce issues touched on in this post.
This LA Times update adds to the confusion as to the implications for Sable.
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!
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.
“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.
Bud's Offshore Energy (BOE) 