Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Posts Tagged ‘Santa Ynez Unit’

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:

Read Full Post »

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.

Read Full Post »

Back to the future? Santa Ynez Unit OS&T – 1981-1994

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.”

Read Full Post »

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.)

Read Full Post »

The Santa Barbara Channel has been dubbed the Galápagos of North America” ~ Maggie Hall, Environmental Defense Center attorney. (comments: 1. clever branding ala calling ANWR “America’s Serengeti!;” 2. no natural oil seeps in the Galapagos Islands; 3. 130 years of oil production history in the Channel)

Sable opponents organize entertaining rallies featuring famous celebrities:

Meanwhile, Sable has some starpower of its own with strong public support from golfer Phil Mickelson.

Senior Federal officials and key agencies are outspoken Sable supporters:

Only in California! Newsom is blocking oil production off California’s coast from reaching their own refineries, driving gasoline prices even higher for Californians! Now, this oil production will have to be shipped elsewhere, lowering gas prices for other areas— just not for California! This is the opposite of common sense!” ~ Energy Secretary Chris Wright

BSEE declared victory 6 months ago: “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.”

on December 23, 2025, the Pipeline and Hazardous Material Safety Administration (PHMSA) declared jurisdiction over and issued an emergency special permit for the Santa Ynez Pipeline System.

Perhaps most entertaining are the exchanges on X between Sable bulls and short-sellers. A few examples are embedded below:

Read Full Post »

Unsurprisingly, President Trump was not particularly pleased with Darren Woods’ “uninvestable” quote, the main media takeaway from Friday’s meeting on redevelopment of Venezuela’s oil and gas resources.

Exxon CEO Darren Woods: “If we look at the legal and commercial constructs and frameworks in place today in Venezuela — today, it’s uninvestable.”

The response from President Trump: “I didn’t like Exxon’s response,” Trump said to reporters on Air Force One as he departed West Palm Beach, Florida. “They’re playing too cute.” He told reporters he was inclined to deny Exxon any role in rebuilding Venezuela’s oil industry.

If Exxon is now in the President’s doghouse, what does this mean for the Santa Ynez Unit, an Exxon orphan that was adopted by Sable Offshore? Given Sable’s financial challenges, the SYU may soon be returning to Exxon.

Regardless of ownership, an SYU production restart faces strong opposition in California and is fully dependent on an assertive and supportive Federal government. Meanwhile, an injunction on SYU production remains in place, and despite rumors to the contrary, Sable confirms they are complying with that order.

If not already dead, another Exxon initiative, Gulf of America carbon disposal, may now be a step closer to extinction. Does Exxon, which has not drilled an exploratory well in the Gulf since 2018 or a development well since 2019, think the Gulf is only investable for carbon disposal?

Lastly, it’s noteworthy that Hilcorp, the only Alaska OCS producer, is all-in on Venezuela!

Read Full Post »

The Commission’s letter to PHMSA is attached (click on pages to enlarge). The CCC asserts the right, pursuant to the Coastal Zone Management Act, to review Sable’s restart/special permit application and further asserts that PHMSA’s special permit should be stayed pending their review.

The Commission also raises NEPA and Consent Decree compliance issues, and implies that PHMSA’s designation of the pipeline as “interstate” is subject to consistency review.

The letter is dated 12/23/2025, one day prior to the 9th circuit filing by environmental groups, but has just surfaced online.

Read Full Post »

Read Full Post »

All eyes are on the 9th Circuit. No injunction yet. Will the Court intervene to block Sable?

No evidence of intervention by the State.

Does Sable restart production tomorrow?

Traders on edge. Bulls are feeling optimistic. See X post below. 😉

Spend my barrel, parked in a harbor
‘Neath the platform spotlight
Pump it up tight, let the oil start flowin’
A little crude movin’ on a federal green light
Fits my life, oh so right

My Sable Offshore Delight— Victory II (@VictoryII1) December 30, 2025

Read Full Post »

Attached are PHMSA’s Christmas week Emergency Special Permit and Permit Analysis document. Is the path clear to restart SYU production before New Year’s day?

Three excerpts from the first attachment are pasted below. The last paragraph on p. 2 succinctly explains PHMSA’a emergency permit:

PHMSA was able to assume jurisdiction from the State because the pipeline transports Federal OCS oil and is thus inherently interstate. The perceived problem with a PHMSA takeover had been the court approved Consent Decree that was executed following the 2015 Refugio pipeline spill. That Decree specifies that the State Fire Marshal must approve a restart of the pipeline. The first paragraph on p. 2 of the permit explains PHMSA’s position that the Consent Decree has been superseded.

The provision pasted below (p. 4 of the permit) seems contradictory in that it stipulates compliance with the Consent Decree. However, PHMSA apparently sees no contradiction in that references to the Fire Marshal (OSFM) should now be read as references to PHMSA. PHMSA presumably included this provision to reaffirm the need to comply with the technical requirements in the Decree.

The second attachment is PHMSA’s analysis of the special permit. Note that the permit expires in 60 days. Public notice and opportunity for comment would be required for a renewal.

Environmental organizations reacted quickly to the PHMSA permit, filing an emergency motion in the 9th circuit (third attachment). Observations:

  • Impressive effort given the time crunch. The PHMSA permit was issued on 12/23, just 3 days prior to the court filing. No Christmas break for those folks!
  • If you wonder why the petition was filed with the 9th Circuit (seemed convenient given the 9th Circuit’s reputation), a filing at the Circuit level is required for appeals of PHMSA orders.
  • Petitioners strongest argument: Sable is not entitled to emergency relief, as there is no real emergency. PHMSA asserts that EO 14156, which declared a National Energy Emergency, supports the emergency permit.
  • The petitioners environmental doom prediction is not compelling. PHMSA’s position is that the mitigations they are imposing (reduced operating pressure, inline inspections, testing and sampling, etc) provide protection equal to or greater than than the corrosion remediation requirement that is being waived.
  • The petitioners asked the Court for relief no later than 12/26. That date has passed. Will there be a ruling today?

Barring an injunction, odds are that Sable restarts production prior to New Year’s Day, when a requirement (SB 237) for a new Coastal Development Plan, takes effect.

Read Full Post »

Older Posts »