Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Posts Tagged ‘Santa Barbara County’

The Santa Barbara Independent has published a long, balanced article on Sable’s Santa Ynez Unit production restart which has reached a critical juncture. Today (2/25/2025), the Santa Barbara County Board of Supervisors will be asked to approve the transfer of the project from Exxon to Sable.

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.)

Read Full Post »

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.

Much more on Sable’s Santa Ynez Unit challenges.

Read Full Post »

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 😀

Background on the SYU

Santa Ynez Unit posts

Read Full Post »

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.

If Sable is able to navigate the permitting gauntlet, the company’s prospects are good. The Santa Ynez Unit, Sable’s only asset, has substantial oil and gas resources and well-maintained production facilities.

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.

Read Full Post »

As previously posted, Santa Barbara County reached an agreement with current SYU operator Sable Offshore that will allow the installation of pipeline shutdown valves. Given that the valves are required by the State Fire Marshall, the County was not likely to win this dispute. The County wisely decided that the financial risks were too high:

“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.

Read Full Post »

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.

Read Full Post »

Earlier this year John Smith correctly commented that a Santa Ynez Unit (SYU) production restart in 2024 was not possible. Last month, BOE reported on the regulatory “catch 22” facing Sable Offshore, the current operator under an agreement with Exxon.

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.”

The Santa Barbara Independent also alludes to “pending litigation with Santa Barbara County over automatic shut-off valve permits.” Although litigation would seem likely if the County continues to deny permits for valves required by the Fire Marshall, BOE was unable to confirm any such litigation plans.

Read Full Post »

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.

Read Full Post »

Sable Offshore is still planning to resume Santa Ynez Unit production by October. However, according to John Smith, production in 2024 is not a possibility. The following permitting gauntlet remains:

  • State Fire Marshal permit for onshore pipeline.
  • Santa Barbara Planning and Development permit.
  • 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:

Read Full Post »

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.

Jim Flores to NoosHawk

Read Full Post »

« Newer Posts