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.
On July 25, 2025, more than 2 months after Sable’s brief production restart and 7 weeks after a court decision halted further production, BSEE surprisingly announced the resumption of Santa Ynez Unit (SYU) production boasting:
“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.“
Were the authors of the press release unaware that the SYU production, which was largely from well tests, was halted by court order shortly after it began? More philosophically, is such cheerleading appropriate for the principal safety regulator, particularly given that BSEE is engaged in litigation over its practices in facilitating SYU production?
Ironically, just 3 days after BSEE hailed the resumption of production, the attached lawsuit was filed on behalf of investors who purchased Sable Offshore securities between May 19, 2025 and June 3, 2025. BOE contributor John Smith shared the filing.
The plaintiffs allege misleading statements regarding the resumption of production. Some of the key points cited in the filing:
On May 19, 2025, before the market opened, the Company issued a press release entitled “Sable Offshore Corp. Reports Restart of Oil Production at the Santa Ynez Unit and Anticipated Oil Sales from the Las Flores Pipeline System in June 2025.”
The release informed that Sable expected to fill the ~540,000 barrels of crude oil storage capacity at LFC (Los Flores Canyon onshore processing facility) by the middle of June 2025 and subsequently recommence oil sales in July 2025.
Following the May 19 Press Release, Sable Offshore stock climbed from a closing price of $28.86 per share on May 16, 2025 to $33.02 per share on May 19, 2025, a 14.4% climb in share price.
Contrary to Defendants’ representations, Sable Offshore had not resumed commercial production off the coast of California.
Defendants then used the share price appreciation following the May 19 Press Release to conduct a secondary public offering (or “SPO”) at a higher offering price per share than would have otherwise been possible.
State Lands Commission staff informed the Lt. Gov./Commission Chair that the limited oil flows were the result of well-testing procedures required by BSEE prior to restart. These activities did not constitute a resumption of commercial production or a full restart of the SYU.
Characterizing testing activities as a restart of operations is not only misleading but also highly inappropriate –particularly given that Sable has not obtained the necessary regulatory approvals to fully resume operations at SYU.
Any attempt to restart commercial operations at the SYU without final regulatory approvals may place the company in violation of its lease terms and jeopardize the status of Sable’s holdover State lease.
Santa Barbara County Judge Thomas Anderle granted a preliminary injunction requested by the California Coastal Commission against Sable Offshore for alleged violations of The California Coastal Act.
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.”
Bud's Offshore Energy (BOE) 