Big move by SOC following the issuance of the DOJ opinion. Justified optimism or irrational exuberance?
Posts Tagged ‘Santa Ynez Unit’
Sable shares pop following DOJ opinion
Posted in California, energy policy, Offshore Energy - General, pipelines, Regulation, Uncategorized, tagged Dept. of Justice, irrational exuberance, legal opinion, Sable Offshore, Santa Ynez Unit on March 6, 2026| Leave a Comment »
Dept. of Justice opinion boosts prospects for Santa Ynez Unit production
Posted in California, energy policy, Offshore Energy - General, pipelines, Regulation, tagged 9th circuit, DOE, DOJ Opinion, DPA, Federal supremacy, PHMSA, Sable Offshore, Santa Ynez Unit, SCOTUS on March 6, 2026| Leave a Comment »
Attached is an opinion prepared by the Assistant Attorney General, Office of Legal Counsel, for the General Counsel, Dept. of Energy. This opinion may boost prospects for Santa Ynez Unit (SYU) production, either by Sable Offshore or a successor.
BOE SYU watchers see this State-Federal battle ultimately ending up in the Supreme Court, perhaps following the 9th Circuit’s ruling on PHMSA’s preemption of State authority over the onshore pipeline segments.
A few key excerpts from the DOJ opinion (emphasis added):
p. 1: You have asked whether an order issued under the Defense Production Act of 1950 (“DPA” or “Act”), Pub. L. No. 81-774, 64 Stat. 798 (codified as amended at 50 U.S.C. § 4501 et seq.), to Sable by the President or his delegee would preempt the California laws currently impeding Sable from resuming production and operating the associated pipeline infrastructure. We conclude that it would.
p. 6: As the Supreme Court has explained, executive orders “may create rights protected against inconsistent state laws through the Supremacy Clause,” especially when such orders are issued pursuant to “congressional authorization.”
p. 20: State law, we have been advised, is not currently the only impediment to Sable’s ability to resume production and transportation of oil. A consent decree entered in United States v. Plains All American Pipeline L.P., No. 20-cv-02415 (C.D. Cal. Oct. 14, 2020), Dkt. 33 (“Consent Decree”), “currently vests authority over resumption of transportation through the onshore portions of the Santa Ynez Pipeline System with the California Office of the State Fire Marshal.” Sable Letter at 9. We have been advised that, in addition to the United States and various State of California entities, Sable is a party to the Consent decree as a result of an acquisition. You have asked whether an executive order under the DPA would displace these provisions of the Consent Decree, even though there are both federal- and state-law claims at issue in that case. For three reasons, we think it would.
Losses mounting for Sable: $408 million in 2025 following $327 million in 2024
Posted in California, energy policy, Offshore Energy - General, pipelines, Regulation, tagged $408 million loss, Exxon, Sable Offshore, Santa Ynez Unit on March 5, 2026| Leave a Comment »
The potential rewards are great – 500+ million barrels of oil, 3 major production platforms, associated pipelines, onshore processing facilities – but can Sable survive the costly legal and administrative challenges? What is Exxon’s plan for the Santa Ynez Unit if Sable should fail?
Sable Offshore: go figure
Posted in California, energy policy, Offshore Energy - General, pipelines, Regulation, tagged Sable Offshore, Santa Ynez Unit, Judge Geck, NInth Circuit, FourWorld Capital Management on March 2, 2026| Leave a Comment »
On Friday, California Superior Court Judge Donna Geck upheld the restraining order that blocks Sable Offshore from restarting Santa Ynez Unit production. She scheduled a followup court hearing for June 27. Meanwhile, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeal’s hearing on PHMSA’s assertion of Federal jurisdiction over the onshore pipeline segments is scheduled for July.
Can Sable survive financially until those hearings are concluded?
Contradictorily, we learn that FourWorld Capital Management just purchased 8 million shares of Sable. Is that the financial equivalent of Pickett’s Charge or does FourWorld have good reasons for their optimism?
PHMSA Environmental Assessment for the Sable Special Permit
Posted in California, energy policy, Offshore Energy - General, pipelines, Regulation, tagged environmental assessment, PHMSA, pipeline, Sable Offshore, Santa Ynez Unit, special permit on February 26, 2026| Leave a Comment »
John Smith has shared the Environmental Assessment (attached) associated with PHMSA’s Special Permit for segments 324 and 325 of Sable’s Santa Ynez Unit (SYU) pipeline system. The document is an interesting read for those following Sable’s attempt to restart production from the SYU.
PHMSA notice – special permit for Sable’s onshore pipeline segments
Posted in California, energy policy, Offshore Energy - General, pipelines, Regulation, tagged onshore pipeline, PHMSA, public notice, Sable Offshore, Santa Ynez Unit, special permit on February 25, 2026| Leave a Comment »
PHMSA’s public notice (attached) is required because Sable’s Emergency Special Permit expired on 21 FEB. Comments are due by 26 MAR. More background.
“PHMSA is publishing this notice to solicit public comments on a request for a special permit submitted by Sable Offshore Corp. (Sable). Sable is seeking relief from compliance with certain requirements in the Federal pipeline safety regulations. PHMSA has proposed conditions to ensure that the special permit is not inconsistent with pipeline safety. At the conclusion of the 30-day comment period, PHMSA will review the comments received from this notice as part of its evaluation to grant or deny the special permit request.“
Good Bloomberg article on the Federal-State Sable pipeline jurisdiction dispute
Posted in California, energy policy, pipelines, Regulation, tagged Bloomberg Law, California, consent decree, Fire Marshal, Hannah Wiseman, Kruti Shah, PHMSA, pipeline jurisdiction, Sable Offshore, Santa Ynez Unit on February 19, 2026| 2 Comments »
As posted on 9/10/2025 (prior to PHMSA’s assertion of jurisdiction): 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.
A new Bloomberg Law article explains PHMSA’s position after a challenge by the California AG:
PHMSA said state-based hurdles are preempted by federal authorizations in the emergency permit notice letter the agency sent to Sable last year. Because the pipeline originates on the Outer Continental Shelf, the system automatically comes under federal oversight, the agency said.
A law professor adds the following:
The administration is invoking interstate commerce to classify the pipeline as a federal issue, “arguing that this is between a place in a state and outside that state,” said Hannah Wiseman, a professor at the Penn State Dickinson Law.
They are claiming this under their interpretational authority, as opposed to the actual language of the Pipeline Safety Act,” she said.
The language of the law only assigns PHMSA jurisdiction over oil operations that run outside or between state lines, but here the agency is arguing the pipeline’s start point is on the OCS, not at the onshore processing facility, she said.
Not mentioned in the article but pertinent:
- In PHMSA’s favor, the onshore pipeline was initially under their jurisdiction.
- In California’s favor, a court approved Consent Decree clearly identifies the California Fire Marshal as the sole oversight authority.
Meanwhile, Kruti Shah cleverly summarizes the Santa Ynez Unit story in a series of posts on X. Click on the post below to get the full thread. Great read for Sable/SYU followers:
White House official responds briefly to a question about Sable
Posted in California, energy policy, Offshore Energy - General, tagged FDD, Jarrod Agen, National Energy Dominance Council, Sable Offshore, Santa Ynez Unit, White House on February 13, 2026| Leave a Comment »
Jarrod Agen is Deputy Assistant to the President and Executive Director, National Energy Dominance Council. A question about Sable Offshore’s Santa Ynez Unit project was raised at a Foundation for Defense of Democracies (FDD) event on “The State of American Energy Dominance.” See the Bloomberg blurb and X post below. The full event video is here.
Santa Ynez Unit production: an OS&T is not the solution!
Posted in Offshore Energy - General, California, Regulation, energy policy, tagged BOEM, Exxon, offshore storage and treatment, OS&T, Sable Offshore, Santa Ynez Unit on February 4, 2026| 1 Comment »
Pasted below are excerpts from Sable’s Prospectus Supplement. Is Sable serious about pursuing a Santa Ynez Unit strategy that employs a production and treatment vessel 3.5 miles from shore ala the development option that was reluctantly approved by the Federal govt in 1974, two decades before the onshore infrastructure was in place?
The OS&T option is inferior to onshore treatment and pipeline transportation in every way – spill risks, air emissions, economics, ultimate oil recovery, transportation to market, natural gas utilization, and public benefit.
This blogger supports a resumption of Santa Ynez Unit production. However, the only responsible path forward is to do the right thing and continue to pursue the onshore pipeline approvals administratively and legally. It is far better to defend a good project than a contrived workaround.
When will BOEM share Sable’s proposed “update”(actually a massive revision) to the SYU Development and Production Plan, as they are obligated to do?
Evaluation of the revised plan will require a detailed environmental review.
Operationally, BSEE and the Coast Guard will need to carefully consider vessel integrity, treatment capabilities, mooring and offloading plans, transportation schemes, gas utilization/injection, and many other technical details.
Meanwhile, does Exxon, the previous (and future?) owner, remain on the sidelines when the OS&T permitting circus begins in earnest?
Excerpts from Sable’s Prospectus Supplement (emphasis added):
On September 29, 2025, Sable announced that it is evaluating and pursuing an offshore storage and treating vessel (“OS&T”) strategy to provide access to domestic and global markets via shuttle tankers for federal crude oil produced from the SYU in the Pacific Outer Continental Shelf Area (the “OS&T Strategy”). Continued delays related to the Santa Ynez Pipeline System have prompted Sable to evaluate and pursue the OS&T Strategy. On October 9, 2025, Sable submitted a Development and Production Plan update for the SYU to the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (“BOEM”). Prior to implementation of the OS&T Strategy, regulatory authorizations are required, including clearance from BOEM.
Preparations for the OS&T Strategy include the acquisition of a suitable OS&T vessel, certain refitting and upgrades to the vessel and the SYU equipment, transportation of the vessel to SYU, and related installation. In connection with implementation of the OS&T Strategy, the Company expects to opportunistically acquire an existing OS&T in the first quarter of 2026, with delivery of the vessel to SYU expected in the third quarter of 2026. Following the acquisition of the vessel, and vessel and platform upgrades and installation, Sable would expect to begin sales from all SYU platforms in the fourth quarter of 2026, with expected comprehensive oil production rates of over 50,000 barrels of oil per day, utilizing the OS&T within the SYU federal leases, provided the Company receives regulatory clearances. Sable estimates that the total capital required to execute the OS&T Strategy is approximately $475.0 million. The Company has already incurred a small portion of such capital expenditures, with the vast majority of such capital expenditures remaining, provided the Company receives regulatory clearances. See “Risk Factors—Risks Associated with Our Operations—In order to commence operations pursuant to an OS&T offtake strategy, we will require clearances and permitting, including from BOEM.”
Hunterbrook – “Zombie Pipeline: Why Sable is Still a Pipe Dream”
Posted in California, energy policy, Offshore Energy - General, Regulation, tagged Exxon Hoover, Hunterbrook, pipeline, production restart, Sable Offshore, Santa Ynez Unit on January 26, 2026| Leave a Comment »
Updated Hunterbrook Media summary of Sable’s prospects for restarting Santa Ynez Unit production:
“Exxon spinoff Sable Offshore faces seven barriers to restart its pipeline, idled since a major oil spill in 2015. One of those approvals needs to come from the California Coastal Commission, which Sable CEO Jim Flores criticized for its “Teflon” “eco-Nazi attitude” in a leaked call recording newly obtained by Hunterbrook. Because of these barriers — and despite Trump Administration intervention — Sable’s project, originally scheduled to go online in Jan 2024, may never sell oil. At least not under the ownership of Sable ($SOC), which is quickly running out of cash.“
Exxon’s options per Hunterbrook:
The Exxon purchase agreement gives Exxon a free reassignment option: If Sable fails to “restart production” by Mar. 31, Exxon can demand reassignment of the assets within 180 days, “without reimbursement of any Purchaser costs or expenditures.”
In other words: Exxon can just take back the asset. For free.
And if Sable’s regulatory pathway is really just delayed, not denied — as Sable claims — that may be a more appealing proposition for Exxon than it once was.
Or, perhaps, Exxon will decide to retire the project, recognizing the Sisyphean path to production. (Exxon already took a $2.5 billion write-down as part of exiting offshore operations in California.)
Bud's Offshore Energy (BOE) 