SANTA BARBARA, Calif. — A controversial oil project on California’s Central Coast remains unresolved after the Santa Barbara County Board of Supervisors deadlocked 2-2 on a vote regarding a permit transfer for a pipeline linked to the 2015 Refugio oil spill. The stalemate means Sable Offshore Corp.’s application remains pending without approval or denial, leaving the next steps up to the company.
“They still have a pending application with no action taken on it,” said Kelsey Gerckens Buttitta, public information officer with Santa Barbara County. “It hasn’t been approved or denied. It’s now up to Sable to decide what to do next.”
The Board voted 2-2 to uphold the approval of the transfer of permits from Exxon to Sable. The tie vote meant the appeal of the previous approval failed.
Interestingly, one of the Supervisors reportedly slammed the California Coastal Commission for being politically motivated and abusing the law.
This will be the Board’s “first and last chance to have any influence over restarting the pipeline, and thus allowing the three offshore platforms to begin drilling again.” (Expect initial production to be from existing wells supplemented over time with new drilling, well workovers, and recompletions.)
The Board has limited authority in this matter: “The county’s legal advisors and energy planners have told the supervisors that there are no grounds to say no. It is not up to them to determine whether Sable’s liability insurance is enough to cover the costs of a reasonable worst-case oil-spill scenario; it’s only up to them to ascertain whether Sable has filed a certificate of insurance with the proper state agency.“
“All the essential questions regarding the pipeline’s safety measures are in the hands of California state agencies, headquartered in cities far away, with names so confusing that even people working there can’t tell you what the acronyms mean.” (see Regulatory fragmentation)
Interesting tidbits: “Danielson (the Sable representative) let me know that he would not be answering these questions. He was cordial, but he was not happy about a recent Independent story featuring attorney Linda Krop of the Environmental Defense Center perhaps Sable’s most implacable and formidable opponent, expounding in an unchallenged format on what a threat the pipeline still posed. Interviewing Krop was Victoria Riskin, herself a committed anti-oil advocate. Actress and Montecito resident Julia Louis-Dreyfus — of Seinfeld and Veep fame — apparently liked the article enough to send it to her social media followers.“
Below are the pros and cons of the SYU restart as cited by the Independent. (Clarification: The 10 billion bbl oil reserves number (“pros” slide) is at least an order of magnitude too high and is perhaps a typographical error. BSEE’s June 2023 data sheet (excerpt pasted at the end of this post) indicates remaining oil reserves of 190 million bbls for the 3 SYU fields. Adding the gas reserves ups the total to 243 million bbls of oil equivalent (boe). Additional reserves could likely be confirmed with new extended reach wells, but anything more than 1 billion bbls would be highly unlikely. Sable’s investor presentation (p.5) indicates 646 million bbl of Remaining Total Net Estimated Contingent Resources.)
John Smith forwarded Sable’s court filing (attached) and highlighted important text.
The Coastal Commission has asserted that anomaly repair work on Sable’s onshore pipeline, which was required by the California Fire Marshall and approved by Santa Barbara County, constitutes a violation of the Coastal Act.
Santa Barbara County had confirmed in writing that Sable’s repair work is authorized by the pipeline’s existing coastal development permits and, consistent with the County’s past practices, no new or separate Coastal Act authorization is required.
John and I believe Sable has a strong case, but you can be the judge. For the Commission and County to have such divergent opinions is rather surprising.
Among other assertions, Sable argues (par. 115) that the Coastal Commission violated the takings clause of the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, as incorporated by the Fourteenth Amendment, which prohibits the temporary or permanent taking of private property for public use without prior, just compensation. This could lead to significant liability costs for the State.
Sable’s stock soared on Thursday following a favorable Santa Barbara County decision (letter pasted below).
Sable’s path is still rocky. Decommissioning specialist John Smith notes that “Sable faces a number of permitting obstacles not to mention litigation by the Environmental Defense Center and others who are committed to trying to stop the SYU restart. The next hurdle will be a Feb 25 Santa Barbara County hearing on an appeal of the ownership transfer from XOM to Sable. And we should not overlook the OCS related litigation on ownership transfer, SYU Development and Production Plan updates, and Court ordered prohibition on fracking absent a Fracking EIS and consultation.”
The County’s letter is pasted below. Note the diverse responsibilities of this SBC division: Energy, Minerals, Compliance & Cannabis 😀
The Santa Barbara County Planning Commission has approved the transfer of the onshore pipeline from Exxon to Sable Offshore. Although the Environmental Defense Center (EDC) is appealing that decision to the Board of Supervisors, the Board’s vote will likely be a 2-2 tie. Supervisor Hartmann’s property is close to the pipeline and she has recused herself from votes on the matter. A 2-2 vote would be a win for Sable, because a tie vote means the planning commission decision stands.
As an investment, Sable is a “pure California permitting play,” which means the risks are high. The company’s chances for success are almost entirely dependent on receiving the necessary approvals from State and local agencies.
Sable’s share price soared to $23.43 on 9/3 after the company reached agreement with Santa Barbara on the installation of required pipeline valves. The price bounced further to $28.30 on 9/19 before falling sharply to $19.43 on 10/9 after being cited for failing to get California Coastal Commission approval to install the required valves. The price rebounded to $24 following the County Planning Commission’s approval of the transfer from Exxon to Sable before settling at $23 on Friday, the date of the EDC appeal.
Expect the financial and psychological roller coaster ride to continue.
Almost 40 years ago, four large oil and gas platforms were installed in the beautiful offshore area that was part of our Santa Maria District (Pacific Region of the Minerals Management Service). Those platforms are now within the boundaries of the Chumash Heritage National Marine Sanctuary (see map above).
We watched those platforms being installed, inspected the drilling and production operations, and performed a myriad of other duties including the curtailment of offshore operations prior to launches from Vandenberg AFB. Those Vandenberg launches weren’t always perfect as this link clearly demonstrates. Even knowing that, it was still a bit unnerving when missiles were recovered during post-abandonment site clearance trawls.
All four of those Santa Maria District platforms are now on terminated OCS leases. All were installed by companies that are now part of Chevron Corp. (Chevron, Texaco, and Unocal). They are currently maintained by Freeport-McMoRan Oil & Gas, with Chevron retaining financial responsibility for decommissioning.
Platform
Install yr.
installed by
water depth (ft)
Est. removal weight (short tons)
wells drilled
Harvest
1985
Texaco
675
35,150
19
Hermosa
1985
Chevron
603
30,868
13
Hidalgo
1986
Chevron
430
23,384
14
Irene
1985
Unocal
242
8,762
26
BSEE reports that the 46 wells on Harvest, Hermosa, and Hidalgo have been plugged and tested, and that the well conductors have been removed. No information has been posted on the status of the wells at Platform Irene, but presumably they are (or will soon be) plugged in accordance with BSEE regulations.
Will the inclusion of these platforms in the Chumash Marine Sanctuary further complicate the already difficult decommissioning process? Decommissioning specialist John Smith thinks it may:
“In addition to the BOEM and BSEE approval process, Chevron and FMC are going to be dealing with the NOAA permitting regime for Sanctuaries. Those permitting and environmental compliance requirements are extensive. NOAA’s NEPA documentation for West Coast marine sanctuaries will also need to be amended to include the Chumash.”
So the “Mission Impossible” that is California OCS decommissioning now has yet another complex regulatory element.
“Even though most of the SYU facilities are outside the Sanctuary, the proximity of the operations to the Sanctuary is problematic. The Chumash are now going to be a co-manager of the Sanctuary, adding another player in the process. Sable is going to obtain multiple Federal, State and local permits to restart SYU, and law suits are likely at every stage of the process.”
The California Coastal Commission, which exercises enormous power and limited restraint, is making headlines for preventing SpaceX, arguably America’s most extraordinary company, from increasing the number of satellite launches from the Vandenberg Space Force Base, a Federal facility. The Coastal Commission made this decision just 3 days before SpaceX’s awe inspiring rocket booster catch in Texas:
Sable Offshore, despite being spawned by super-major Exxon, is a relative minnow compared to SpaceX, at least politically. The restart of production from Sable’s Santa Ynez Unit is facing another obstacle now that the Coastal Commission has entered the fray.
Sable argues that repair and maintenance activities are exempt from Coastal Act permitting requirements, and have been conducted under their existing permits for 35+ years.
The Commission does not like to see its authority questioned, and is influenced by groups whose sole objective is to prevent the restart of production. We’ll see how this sorts out.
Center for Biological Diversity photo of pipeline repair work as published by Noozhawk
Meanwhile, Elon Musk did not hold back after the Commission’s decision not to allow an increase in the number of launches from Vandenberg:
“The California Coastal Commission should be dissolved as an organization. An utterly insufferable and misanthropic group of Karens if there ever was one! Their idea of the perfect coastline is one where there are zero humans or even signs of human! Anyone who has had any dealings with them will attest to this. They should not exist.”
“If we continued to fight this out in court, [Sable] likely would have sought to recover lost revenue from the pipeline not being in operation,” said Supervisor Steve Lavagnino. “That could amount to millions of dollars the County would be on the hook for.”
The Environmental Defense Center and others are calling for the County to retract their agreement with Sable and hold a public hearing on the matter. That appears to be unlikely.
Remaining hurdles for Sable include approval by the State Fire Marshall after the valves are installed and operational, State Lands Commission approval of lease assignments from Exxon to Sable, and approval of the oil spill contingency plan by the State Dept. of Fish and Wildlife.
Sable believes they can resume production this year. That seems unlikely, but a 2025 restart is now a distinct possibility.
Sable’s stock price soared after the company reached an agreement with Santa Barbara County that will allow them to comply with the California Fire Marshall’s requirement to install shutdown valves on the onshore pipeline that failed in 2015. That pipeline is necessary to transport production from the Santa Ynez Unit, which is currently operated by Sable.
The significance of a resumption of SYU production is illustrated in the chart below. The 3 SYU platforms accounted for more than 2/3 of Pacific OCS production before the Refugio pipeline spill in June 2015.
This agreement with the County is a major step forward, but there are still regulatory and legal hurdles to clear before production resumes.
In the SEC filing that announces the agreement with Santa Barbara County, Sable affirms their 2024 restart expectations. However, a resumption of production in 2024 is highly unlikely given the administrative challenges that remain. A restart in 2025 would be a major accomplishment and a very good outcome for Sable.
Pasted below is the full text of the SEC filing (emphasis added):
Santa Barbara County (the “County”), on August 30, 2024, acknowledged that the County does not have jurisdiction over Pacific Pipeline Company’s (“PPC”) installation of 16 new safety valves in the County along PPC’s Las Flores Pipeline System (the “Pipeline”) in accordance with Assembly Bill 864. The County’s acknowledgement was delivered in the form of a conditional settlement agreement dated August 30, 2024 (the “Safety Valve Settlement Agreement”) among the County, PPC and PPC’s parent company Sable Offshore Corp. (“Sable”), and a subsequent acknowledgement by the County’s planning and development staff.
The Safety Valve Settlement Agreement is predicated upon a prior settlement agreement between PPC’s predecessor in interest, Celeron Pipeline Company, and the County in a federal case styled Celeron Pipeline Company of California v. County of Santa Barbara (Case No. CV 87-02188), which was executed in 1988.
Pursuant to the Safety Valve Settlement Agreement, PPC agreed to the following additional surveillance and response enhancements in the County:
i. PPC will create a Santa Barbara County-based Surveillance and Response Team, trained in PPC’s Tactical Response Plan, which will be responsible for timely initial incident response and equipped with key resources to deploy in early containment, particularly for those regions of the Pipeline between Gaviota and Las Flores Canyon;
ii. PC will provide Santa Barbara first responders with additional training and equipment to assist in PPC’s incident response efforts; and
iii. PPC will undertake the following Pipeline system enhancements: (1) install and operate and maintain primary and secondary Operations Control Centers in Santa Barbara County, and (2) refurbish the Gaviota pump in its existing station.
PPC, Sable and the County have further agreed, in the Safety Valve Settlement Agreement, to file a stipulation to dismiss the pending lawsuit, Pacific Pipeline Company and Sable Offshore Corp. v. Santa Barbara County Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors (Case No. 2:23-cv-09218-DMG-MRW) within 15 days of final installation of all 16 underground safety valves in the County.
Sable affirms that initial restart of production from Sable’s Santa Ynez Unit is expected in fourth quarter 2024.
Bud's Offshore Energy (BOE) 