Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Posts Tagged ‘Santa Barbara County’

Santa Ynez Unit pipeline anomalies

Posted in California, pipelines, Regulation, tagged , , , , , , , , , on September 23, 2026| 2 Comments »

Inline inspections identified anomalies at multiple points in Segment 324 of Sable’s onshore pipeline. Sable is conducting validation digs.(Noozhawk image).

Sable Offshore has asked Santa Barbara County for approval to conduct exploratory digs to check anomalies at seven points along onshore Segment 324 of the Santa Ynez Unit pipeline system. This 10.86 mile segment runs from the Los Flores Canyon Processing Facility to the Gaviota Pump Station (map below).

According to the Emergency Special Permit issued by PHMSA, Sable is required to conduct in-line inspections (ILIs) with metal loss tools every 6 months for the first 2 years of operation.

Where metal loss is identified, immediate repair is required if the remaining strength of pipe shows a predicted failure pressure <1.39 times the maximum operating pressure (MOP).

Where direct field examinations indicate pipe wall loss of 40% or more, permanent repairs are required.

Comments:

Read Full Post »

Santa Barbara: South County Supervisors deny North County property rights

Posted in California, drilling, energy policy, Regulation, tagged , , , , , , , on September 18, 2026| Leave a Comment »

District Boundaries
Oil Wells

As expected, the Santa Barbara County Board of Supervisors voted 3-2 to ban new onshore oil and gas drilling. This is another example of the South County (Districts 1-3) majority voting to deny the rights of North County (Districts 4 and 5) property owners and workers. Keep in mind that oil has been produced in the County for more than 130 years.

Attached is a concise, powerful comment letter submitted to the Board by Californians for Property Rights. Excerpt (emphasis added):

“Property rights are key to our nation’s prosperity, and these rights have been shown to be foundational to building prosperity around the world. However, for Americans, these rights are not only integral to our economy but also, and even more importantly, to our Constitution.
Oil and gas mineral and royalty interests are private property. Minerals cannot be moved when government changes the rules. Their value depends upon the ability to access and responsibly produce them, and a government prohibition can effectively eliminate that value.
These impacts reach real families. Mineral and royalty income supports farmers, ranchers, retirees, small businesses, and other property owners. For some agricultural families, it helps keep working farms and ranches economically viable and in family ownership.”

Related constitutionality issues:

  • In July, the National Assoc. of Royalty Owners sent the Board a legal opinion challenging the constitutionality of such ordinances. NARO also sent a comment letter to the Board prior to their vote.
  • A suit filed by John and Melinda Morgan, who inherited the mineral rights to two parcels in the Cat Canyon Field (District 4). argues that a similar provision in CA Senate Bill 1137 amounts to an unconstitutional taking of their property.
  • California AB 1448 would limit the property rights of Federal lessees and deprive royalty owners – most notably the citizens of the United States – of revenue.
Public Comment – Californians for Property RightsDownload

Read Full Post »

Judge Gee backs County’s denial of title and permits transfer from Exxon to Sable

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

Image of Who Is Dolly Gee? A Look at the Judge Deciding the Fate of Trump’s Executive Order - The New York Times
Federal Judge Dolly Gee, Central District of California

Sable Offshore and Exxon had alleged that Santa Barbara County’s refusal to transfer title and permits for Santa Ynez Unit facilities from Exxon to Sable amounted to an unconstitutional taking of their property rights. Judge Gee disagreed.

As colorfully put by Nick Welsh at the Santa Barbara Independent, Judge Gee told Sable and Exxon to “go pound sand” (not literally, but the judicial equivalent). The judge refused to even allow Sable to amend their filing. The judge will however allow Exxon to file an amended complaint, given that the company still has vested rights to the facilities and is still on the hook for the decommissioning costs.

As always with these Santa Ynez Unit matters, there is much more to come!

Read Full Post »

If you care about property rights and Santa Barbara County history, this quote may concern you

Posted in California, energy policy, Regulation, tagged , , , , , , , on April 13, 2026| 1 Comment »

Background: By a 3-2 vote, the Santa Barbara County Planning Commission, acting under the direction of the Board of Supervisors (also by a 3-2 vote), passed ordinances to ban new onshore oil and gas wells and phase out old wells.

The quote:

“We keep discovering new oil and new techniques to recover it,” said Commissioner John Parke. “The only thing to stop the oil industry and the production of oil is legislation.”

Comments:

  • The first sentence is perceptive, acknowledging that resources are not really finite given the ingenuity of engineers and geologists.
  • The second sentence is disturbing. The Commissioner believes he is legally and morally entitled to terminate an industry that has been present in Santa Barbara County for >130 years. He believes the Commission can do so by a slim majority and without compensation to those whose property rights are being abrogated.
  • The 2 Commissioners voting against euthanizing the County’s oil industry represent Districts 4 and 5 (maps below) where most of the wells are located. In essence, South County Santa Barbara is terminating an industry that is important to North County.
  • Pertinent to the County’s action is a suit filed by John and Melinda Morgan, who inherited the mineral rights to two parcels in the Cat Canyon Field (District 4). They argue that a similar provision in CA Senate Bill 1137 amounts to an unconstitutional taking of their property.
District Boundaries
Oil Wells

Read Full Post »

County nixes transfer of licenses to Sable despite surprising re-recusal by Supervisor Hartmann

Posted in California, energy policy, Offshore Energy - General, tagged , , , , , , , on December 16, 2025| Leave a Comment »

The vote on the transfer of Santa Ynez Unit (SYU), Pacific Offshore Pipeline Company (POPCO) Gas Plant, and Las Flores Pipeline System permits from Exxon to Sable Offshore was the last item on the Board’s agenda, so those of us who were streaming the meeting for that topic had to be patient.

The Sable session began with a surprise announcement that opened the possibility that perhaps the outcome might not be as expected. Supervisor Hartmann, who owns property close to the pipeline, had once recused herself from voting on this matter. When it was thought that her property was ~900′ from the pipeline, the Fair Political Practice Commission (FPPC) cleared her participation. However, after a 12/3/2025 letter from Sable informed that her property was as close as 8′ from the pipeline, the FPPC reversed its position and Supervisor Hartmann again recused herself.

Supervisor Hartmann’s re-recusal added some drama to the session given that there were two sure votes against Sable and one sure vote in favor. The swing vote would be that of Supervisor Lavagnino, who was very much supportive of the oil industry, but not Sable.

After strong but predictable presentations by the Environmental Defense Center/Center for Biological Diversity team and Sable, the floor was open to public comments. Although there were more speakers opposed to the Sable position (13), this observer found the Sable supporters (7) to be more compelling. Most were California natives who worked on the project and demonstrated a sincere commitment to the safety and environmental values that we all support. One aptly noted that California unnecessarily imports 2/3 of its oil from foreign sources, some of which aren’t particularly friendly.

As an aside, a County staffer pointed out that 400,000 barrels of SYU oil were in storage as a result of the resumption of production in May prior to receiving the necessary approvals to transport oil through the onshore pipeline.

The vote opened with Supervisor Nelson supporting the transfer of permits to Sable. His commented that the County was “attacking Sable’s finances at the same time they were trying to bankrupt them.”

Sable opponents held serve with Supervisors Capps and Lee opposing the transfer. Ms. Capps deserves credit for the sincere respect she showed for the Sable workers who were present.

So Supervisor Lavagnino would cast the deciding vote. He once again voted against the transfer noting that he was a long time supporter of the oil industry, but that he had lost confidence in Sable.

Bottom line: The outcome was as expected, but the recusal drama and strong presentations made the stream worth watching.

Read Full Post »

Stunning Hunterbrook report suggests the end is near for Sable Offshore

Posted in California, decommissioning, Offshore Energy - General, tagged , , , , , , on November 19, 2025| Leave a Comment »

Excerpts from a stunning Sable update issued by Hunterbrook Media LLC (“Hunterbrook“) on November 14, 2025:

  • SEC filing reveals Sable entered October about a month from potential bankruptcy. The company had $41.6 million as of September 30, with $39.7 million in average monthly burn in 3Q25.  
  • When Sable announced its $250 million financing on November 10 at $5.50 per share, the company likely had single digit millions in the bank based on its reported burn, against over $163 million in accounts payable and accrued liabilities. Sable does not generate any revenue.
  • Sable needs to raise significantly more money: According to leaked audio of Sable’s CEO briefing for select investors, the company will require $2.3 billion to achieve commercial production of oil and gas from its three platforms off the coast of Santa Barbara.
  • That includes at least $900 million to buy out Exxon, to which Sable must pay 15% interest on debt due by March 31, 2027. By then, the loan would be about $1.1 billion, accruing $200 million in added debt.
  • One of Sable’s only known assets other than the oil and gas project is a private plane the company purchased from its CEO, Jim Flores. The plane recently flew round-trip from Houston, where Flores lives, to Louisiana, in time for a football game at the CEO’s alma mater.

Comments from Santa Barbara County Supervisor Steve Lavagnino, an oil industry supporter, that explain his opposition to the transfer of Exxon’s pipeline permit to Sable:

“The final straw for me was a Hunterbrook article, which was as disturbing as anything I’ve read. I have many friends in the oil industry and I will continue to support efforts to access our natural resources, but it has to be done responsibly by operators who put safety above profits.”

Sable’s limited response to the Hunterbrook report includes information on decommissioning financial assurance:

  • Sable’s original SYU Purchase and Sales Agreement (PSA) with Exxon required Sable to post a $350 million decommissioning bond “150 days following the resumption of production from the wells.”
  • According to Sable, production resumed on May 15, 2025. The bond would have thus been required in October. (SYU production was halted by court order on June 6, so that “resumption date” may be irrelevant. Regardless, the Oct. financial assurance deadline is immaterial given the recent update to the PSA.)
  • The PSA update extended the date for posting the decommissioning bond to three business days following the new Exxon Loan Maturity Date of March 31, 2027 or 90 days after first sales of hydrocarbons, whichever comes first. (Note the change in language from “resumption of production” to “first sales.” Brief well test production does not trigger posting of the decommissioning bond.)
  • Under certain circumstances after the bonding is in place Exxon may seek an increase in the bonding amount to $500 million.

The decommissioning obligations are moot if Sable runs out of funds or is unable to resume SYU production prior to the 3/31/2027 PSA deadline. Exxon would remain fully responsible for SYU decommissioning.

Is it time for a public statement from Exxon on the SYU and Sable?

Read Full Post »

John Smith’s Sable litigation update

Posted in California, Offshore Energy - General, pipelines, Regulation, tagged , , , , , , on November 6, 2025| 1 Comment »

Attached is John Smith’s comprehensive summary of lawsuits related to Sable Offshore’s attempts to restart Santa Ynez Unit production.

If you are keeping score, there are 10 separate cases including a class action lawsuit filed by investors. New legal battles are sure to follow given Sable’s OS&T strategy. Per John:

“The combined legal challenges, injunctions, and restraining orders have significantly delayed Sable’s restart plans and prompted the company to pursue an Offshore Storage and Treatment Vessel (OS&T) strategy, which was utilized to process SYU production in federal waters from 1981 – 1994, and transport oil to markets using tankers.“

110525 Summary of Fed State Lawsuits Against Sable.docxDownload

Read Full Post »

By a 3-2 vote, Supervisors cancel Santa Barbara County’s 130 year old oil industry

Posted in California, climate, energy policy, pipelines, Regulation, tagged , , , , on October 24, 2025| 1 Comment »

Board of Supervisors Image (PNG)

The Santa Barbara County Board of Supervisors voted 3-2 to proceed with developing a new ordinance that will ban new and operating oil and gas wells in the County.

In essence, the 3 Supervisors from South County (Districts 1-3) voted to euthanize an industry that is largely in North County (Districts 4 and 5). Those 3 supervisors, not the marketplace, are terminating a historically important industry. See the maps below.

District Boundaries
Oil Wells

Supervisors Laura Capps of the Second District, Joan Hartmann of the Third District and Roy Lee of the First District voted for the ordinance.

Supervisor Steve Lavagnino of the Fifth District, where I once lived, correctly noted that the North County only has two industries that allow people to support themselves well after high school: agriculture, and oil and gas.

Ah, but it’s the industry’s fault according to Supervisor Hartmann. She asserted that companies have known since the 1950s about the dangers of climate change, and could have led the way to be part of the solution. How dare they respond to market forces instead of climate ideologues!

Of course, this is the same three vote coalition that is aligned with the Coastal Commission in opposition to the restart of the Santa Ynez Unit, which would benefit the County significantly.

Finally, note that the three supervisors voting for the ordinance represent the districts with the highest income levels and lowest poverty rates. Those opposing the ordinance represent the districts that will be most affected, and have the lowest income levels and highest poverty rates. (See the table below; Information courtesy of Grok AI.)

DistrictApprox. Median Household Income (2022)Key Areas IncludedNotes
1$120,000–$140,000Carpinteria, Summerland, Montecito, parts of Santa BarbaraAffluent coastal communities; high home values (~$1.5M+ median)
2$95,000–$115,000Santa Barbara city, Goleta, Isla Vista
Mix of urban professionals, students, and tech; university influence lowers median slightly.
3$80,000-$95,000Santa Ynez Valley, Buellton, Solvang, Lompoc
Rural/agricultural with tourism; moderate incomes from wine industry and military base
4$70,000–$85,000Lompoc, Vandenberg area, parts of Santa Mariaindustrial and defense-related; higher poverty rates (~15–20%).
5
$60,000–$75,000		Santa Maria, Guadalupe
Agricultural North County; majority Latino population; lowest incomes due to farm labor.

Poverty rates: ~8–10% in Districts 1–2 vs. 18–25% in Districts 4–5

Read Full Post »

Back to the Future – Sable plays the OS&T card!

Posted in California, energy policy, Offshore Energy - General, pipelines, Regulation, tagged , , , , on September 30, 2025| Leave a Comment »

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.

Stay tuned!

Read Full Post »

Sable production restart: another step sideways?

Posted in California, Offshore Energy - General, Regulation, tagged , , , , on July 24, 2025| Leave a Comment »

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.”

Read Full Post »

Older Posts »