{"id":389826,"date":"2026-07-07T23:14:08","date_gmt":"2026-07-07T23:14:08","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us-ca\/389826\/"},"modified":"2026-07-07T23:14:08","modified_gmt":"2026-07-07T23:14:08","slug":"ninth-circuit-asked-to-shut-down-california-offshore-oil-drilling-operation","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us-ca\/389826\/","title":{"rendered":"Ninth Circuit asked to shut down California offshore oil drilling operation"},"content":{"rendered":"

LOS ANGELES (CN) \u2014\u00a0Seven environmental groups and the state of California asked a Ninth Circuit panel on Tuesday to block the federal government\u2019s approval of a pipeline that connects oil drilling operations off the coast of Santa Barbara with onshore oil processing facilities.<\/p>\n

The line had been shut down for more than a decade, following the Refugio oil spill in 2015. It was abruptly restarted in March, thanks to intervention by the Trump administration and much to the dismay of environmental groups, who say the line didn\u2019t complete the approval process and wasn\u2019t fully repaired.<\/p>\n

\u201cThe oil is flowing through the pipelines as of March 13,\u201d attorney Jeremy Frankel, who represents the seven nonprofits, told the three-judge panel. \u201cEvery day, they become more and more dangerous, as they continue to corrode.\u201d<\/p>\n

But the central legal issue in the case is whether or not the underground, onshore pipeline qualifies as interstate commerce, and is thus subject to federal oversight, or if it simply delivers crude from one processing facility to another, and is thus only intrastate commerce.<\/p>\n

The federal government has argued that the once-badly corroded pipeline is just a small piece of a large system responsible for transporting oil from the platforms in international waters all the way inland to be refined. The facility just off the coast \u2014 which removes water and gas from the crude oil before sending it to the next stop \u2014 is merely a \u201cway station,\u201d it says.<\/p>\n

California Deputy Attorney General Michael Dorsi disagreed, arguing that the oil is fundamentally changed at the Las Flores Canyon oil processing facility, coming in as \u201ccrude crude oil\u201d and coming out as \u201csweetened oil.\u201d<\/p>\n

\u201cThat facility is not pipeline transportation,\u201d Dorsi said.<\/p>\n

\u201cDoesn\u2019t it make it flow better, when heated?\u201d U.S. Circuit Judge Richard Charles Tallman, a Bill Clinton appointee, asked, wondering if it isn\u2019t the facility\u2019s job to make sure the oil keeps moving.<\/p>\n

\u201cIt probably does make it easier,\u201d Dorsi said. But, he later added, \u201cNo court has ever ruled that you can have the same pipeline on both sides of a facility.\u201d<\/p>\n

The cases is just one of a complex thicket of federal lawsuits relating to the Santa Ynez Unit, comprising three offshore oil platforms off the coast of Santa Barbara, a long underwater pipeline that sends the crude oil ashore, the Las Flores Canyon oil processing facility, and the onshore pipeline at the heart of the case, which ruptured in 2015.<\/p>\n

The disastrous spill sent than 100,000 gallons crude oil flowing through a drainage culvert, underneath Highway 101, onto Refugio State Beach and into the Pacific Ocean. The spill killed hundreds of birds and marine mammals and blackened miles of coastline.<\/p>\n

Plains All American, the company which owned the pipeline, was convicted by a jury of one felony and eight misdemeanors, and was fined $3.3 million. It also agreed to pay $230 million to settle a class action, and in 2020 signed onto a consent decree, part of which laid out a plan to repair and restart the pipeline.<\/p>\n

The oil rigs languished in non-operation for four years, until Sable Offshore purchased it \u2014\u00a0the platforms, the pipelines and a facility in between \u2014\u00a0in 2024. A year later, Sable applied for a permit to restart drilling, but the state fire marshal rejected it, finding that the company hadn\u2019t made the pipeline thick enough.<\/p>\n

Sable then asked the federal government to intervene. The Pipelines and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration only has jurisdiction over pipelines the go between different states, or that connect international waters and the mainland.<\/p>\n

But Sable asked the agency to treat the entire system \u2014 that is, the offshore oil platforms, the underwater pipelines, an onshore facility and the newly repaired onshore pipelines \u2014\u00a0as one. Since the oil platforms are in international waters, that system would, in theory, be an international one, and subject to federal regulation.<\/p>\n

The Pipelines and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration quickly agreed and \u2014 citing President Donald Trump\u2019s executive order declaring an \u201cenergy emergency\u201d in response to the closing of the Strait of Hormuz \u2014 allowed Sable to restart oil drilling operations.<\/p>\n

A number of lawsuits were filed to block the flow of crude, one by a pair of nonprofits which was rejected<\/a> for lack of standing, and one by the state of California.<\/p>\n

California has asked the federal judge who has jurisdiction over the consent decree to shut down the oil drilling operation, while the federal government has asked the judge to vacate the consent decree. That case is still pending. In May, the judge declined<\/a> the state\u2019s request to issue a preliminary injunction.<\/p>\n

The state also filed a petition for review, asking the appeals court to overturn the federal agency\u2019s actions, which was the subject of Tuesday\u2019s hearing. Dorsi suggested that the Ninth Circuit could use the consent decree as an \u201coff-ramp,\u201d an easy way to make a decision in the case without setting a precedent about interstate commerce.<\/p>\n

\u201cThe United States lacks the power to contravene a consent decree,\u201d Dorsi said. \u201cThey are therefore unlawful.\u201d<\/p>\n

U.S. Circuit Judge Richard Paez, another Clinton appointee, put that to U.S. Deputy Assistant Attorney General Robert Stander. \u201cWhy can\u2019t I look at it and say, this violates the consent decree wholesale? It\u2019s unlawful.\u201d<\/p>\n

That, Stander said, was an issue for U.S. District Judge Stephen Wilson, who oversees the consent decree. Paez pointed out that the federal government had already ignored Wilson once.<\/p>\n

\u201cYou went ahead and just did what you thought you were going to do and then went to the district court,\u201d Paez remarked.<\/p>\n

\u201cIf that\u2019s an issue, Judge Wilson has that before him,\u201d Stander said. \u201cHe is deciding that as we speak. Judge Wilson perfectly capable of handling that on his own.\u201d<\/p>\n

The panel, rounded out by U.S. Circuit Court Judge Mark Bennett, took the case under advisement. They said they may ask for additional briefing, or possibly even wait for further developments in Wilson\u2019s case, before issuing a ruling.<\/p>\n


\nFollow @hillelaron<\/a>Subscribe to our free newsletters<\/p>\n

Our weekly newsletter Closing Arguments offers the latest about ongoing
\ntrials, major litigation and rulings in courthouses around the U.S. and the world,
\nwhile the monthly Under the Lights dishes the legal dirt from Hollywood,
\nsports, Big Tech and the arts.<\/p>\n