“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.
An assessment prepared for Hunterbrook Capital draws the same conclusions regarding the prospects for production, calling the restart “a pipe dream” (presumably the pun was intended given the pipeline permitting quagmire). Hunterbrook’s chart (pasted below) illustrates the regulatory labyrinth facing Sable.
Hunterbrook has also flagged Sable’s ability to continue as a “going concern.” That may be a valid concern, but Sable’s success is very much in Exxon’s best interest. Exxon must have evaluated Sable and been comfortable with their management. Otherwise, they wouldn’t have made the deal.
Does Exxon want the massive SYU headache to revert back to their portfolio, as provided for in their agreement with Sable, if production doesn’t restart by January 1, 2026? Unless Exxon thinks they have a better option than Sable, they will presumably be flexible about the deadline.
Meanwhile, a judge denied the temporary restraining order requested by Sable to prohibit release of redacted portions of their oil spill contingency plan. Sable had argued that revealing “trade secrets” and specific locations and vulnerabilities of the pipelines could pose a “threat to national security.”
Earlier this month we awarded a Chutzpah Award to groups that helped block every attempt to resume production in the Santa Ynez Unit and are now suing to terminate the leases for non-production.
We now learn that the State Fire Marshall has rejected the resumption of production because Sable, the current operator, is not installing automatic shutdown valves on the oil pipeline. The catch is that Sable was denied permits needed to install the valves. So, on the one hand the Fire Marshall is requiring shutdown valves (a reasonable requirement), and on the other hand the County is prohibiting the installation of those valves!
According to the Fire Marshall’s office, this is the first time a company has been denied permits to install valves mandated by the State – yet another dubious distinction for the Santa Ynez Unit.
California State Lands Commission decision on the pipeline right of ways (ROWs) in state waters. (Those ROWs had expired.)
Transfer of leases to Sable – Environmental groups, the California Coastal Commission and/or other parties could file suit challenging the transfer of the leases to Sable.
According to John, the question is not whether production will resume in 2024, but whether it will ever resume. And John reminds us that as of 1/1/2026, the SYU and all of the headaches revert to Exxon. See the SYU overview below:
Exxon’s Santa Ynez Unit facilities are now owned by Sable Offshore, a company headed by offshore production veteran Jim Flores. Apparently Exxon had suffered enough, and Flores accepted the challenge. Sable hopes to restart production in July, but has some big permitting hurdles to clear before that can happen.
Flores and his company are indeed the underdogs in this story. Pending are the pipeline CBAT (coastal best available technology) plan being reviewed by the Office of the State FIre Marshall and approvals by Santa Barbara County. Administrative and legal appeals are a given.
Flores is saying the right things and seems undaunted by the massive challenge. He may just pull this off. We’ll be watching.
Sable Offshore Corp. is going to do it right!
Our proven track record of responsible operations in Santa Barbara County at Point Arguello and Point Pedernales fields over the past couple of decades reflects our commitment to safe, reliable operations at SYU.
Bud's Offshore Energy (BOE) 