Congressional Inquiry Into Cooperation Between Sable Offshore and Trump Administration Opened
SANTA BARBARA COUNTY, Calif. (KEYT) – A bicameral Congressional investigation was announced this week into the steps that led to the forced restart of oil production locally.
In a letter sent to the CEO of Sable Offshore, Jim Flores, members of California's Congressional delegation raised multiple issues with the process leading up to a forced restart of production at local oil producing infrastructure known as the Santa Ynez Unit including contributions to Super PACs including Right to Rise USA and Senate Leadership Fund which made contributions to President Trump's 2016 and 2024 campaigns.
"We write to express our grave concern over the restart of Sable Offshore Corporation's Santa Ynez Unit offshore oil activities near the coast of Santa Barbara, California, and your company's disregard for California law and the well-being of our constituents," opened Wednesday's letter. "To help Congress better understand this effort to circumvent California law and coastal protections, we seek detailed information on the company's role in this decision, and your communications with the Trump administration in relation to Sable Offshore’s SYU project. We also demand that all relevant documents and records pertaining to the SYU project as described in detail below be preserved."
Background
In 2024, court documents show that Sable secured a $622,000,000 loan from ExxonMobil to fund the purchase of offshore and onshore oil production infrastructure that is collectively referred to as the Santa Ynez Unit.
After the purchase of the Santa Ynez Unit, which includes onshore pipelines shuttered since a massive oil spill from a ruptured pipeline in 2015, Sable Offshore was complying with the conditions of a federal court order which required the Houston-bases energy company to cooperate with state agencies up until late last year.
The ruptured pipeline, formerly known as Line 901 and now referred to as Line CA-324, impacted 150 miles of California coastline and destroyed thousands of acres of shoreline habitats.
It and its sister pipeline, which was also shut down at the same time, Line 325, runs from the Gaviota Coast to Pentland Station in Kern County.
The pipelines and connected oil-generating system, have remained dormant since the spill and oversight of its restart was assigned to the Office of State Fire Marshal through an agreement in federal court.
Legal and Regulatory Hurdles
Wednesday's letter noted a series of legal hurdles that Sable Offshore encountered as it attempted to restart oil production.
In a Notice of Violation issued on Sep. 27, 2024, the California Coastal Commission stated that Sable Offshore's work along the shuttered pipelines mentioned above were in violation of sections of the California Public Resources Code and Santa Barbara County Local Coastal Program.
The notice required Sable to stop all ongoing construction and submit an application for a Coastal Development Permit with Santa Barbara County for after-the-fact authorization.
However, a representative of the Center for Biological Diversity shared images with Your News Channel that showed excavators working in the area of pipelines on Friday, Oct. 4, 2024, a week after the notice of violation was sent to Sable Offshore.
In April of 2025, the Coastal Commission issued an $18 million fine and a third cease and desist order to Sable Offshore regarding its construction work in the Coastal Zone.
Instead of complying, Sable Offshore filed a lawsuit seeking $347 million in damages for "unlawful delays" which the Santa Barbara County Superior Court later denied.
"Today's announcement from Sable is related to a restart of the offshore section of pipeline not subject to OSFM’s [Office of State Fire Marshal] authority. For the OSFM-regulated segments of the lines, there remain a number of conditions that must be met prior to authorization of restart. This includes, but is not limited to, repair work, hydrotesting of the lines, and a submission and OSFM approval of a pipeline startup plan."
Additionally, the California State Lands Commission noted that the announcement and lack of advanced notice violated the terms of the lease governing the energy infrastructure.
"The [May 19] press release appears to mischaracterize the nature of recent activities, causing significant public confusion and raising questions regarding Sable’s intentions," read the State Lands Commission's letter issued days after the announcement. "[State Lands] Commission staff has informed me [Lt. Governor of California and Chair of the California State Lands Commission Eleni Kounalakis] that the limited volume oil flows are the result of well-testing procedures required by the Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement prior to restart. These activities do not constitute a resumption of commercial production or a full restart of the SYU [Santa Ynez Unit]. Characterizing testing activities as a restart of operations is not only misleading but also highly inappropriate – particularly given that Sable has not obtained the necessary regulatory approvals to fully resume operations at SYU."
Those claims also resulted in an investor rights law firm to file one of multiple class action lawsuits on behalf of purchasers of Sable Offshore securities in July of 2025 and triggered an ongoing investigation by federal regulators and prosecutors the energy company later revealed to investors.
"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," stated the U.S. Department of Interior in July of 2025. "With production now underway at Sable's Platform Harmony, the Interior's Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement (BSEE) continues to work with Sable to bring additional production online."
"Sable is also currently under investigation by the SEC for allegations of advance information being shared selectively among company insiders in October 2025, right before Sable raised $250 million by selling shares of its common stocks to private investors to help keep the company afloat," Wednesday's letter from members of California's Congressional delegation noted. "The Trump administration has clearly been working hand in glove with Sable to try to force the restart of SYU. For example, the Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement made misleading statements about SYU oil production in July 2025 that paralleled statements made by Sable, the same statements that resulted in securities class action lawsuits by your [Sable's] shareholders."
Sable eventually walked back those restart claims explaining in a disclaimer to investors that, "The Santa Ynez Unit assets discussed in this press release have not sold commercial quantities of hydrocarbons since such Santa Ynez Unit assets were shut in during June of 2015 when the only onshore pipeline transporting hydrocarbons produced from such Santa Ynez Unit assets to market ceased transportation. There can be no assurance that the necessary approvals will be obtained that would allow the onshore pipeline to recommence transportation and allow the Santa Ynez Unit assets to recommence sales."
Ownership Retention
ExxonMobil sold existing infrastructure to produce oil in Santa Barbara County, which included 114 total wells, three offshore platforms, and an onshore oil and gas processing facility at Las Flores Canyon collectively called the Santa Ynez Unit to Sable Offshore in February of 2024.
The line of credit had a very important condition.
Ownership of the Santa Ynez Unit would revert back to ExxonMobil unless oil from the Santa Ynez Unit under Sable's management entered the open market.
Those claims in May of last year about a restart and the sale of oil to Chevron in late March of this year after the forced restart, may have satisfied the conditions for Sable Offshore to retain ownership.
Your News Channel reached out to ExxonMobil about the retention of ownership and the oil giant declined to comment.
That impact of sales were noted not just by Your News Channel author, but also by California's Attorney General Rob Bonta when the state filed a lawsuit regarding the forced restart of oil production in mid-March of this year.
"As a condition of the acquisition [of the Santa Ynez Unit], if Sable did not restart production by January 1, 2026, ExxonMobil had the right of reversion," stated the state's lawsuit in mid-March. "[T]he Wright Order [directing a restart] does not say, and no public information indicates, that Sable holds a Title I government contract or that Sable is required to sell its crude to the government in a Title 1 contract. The Wright Order also fails to state where, or to whom, Sable will sell the crude oil it produces."
Restart Process
In September of last year, Sable Offshore submitted a Request for Approval of Restart Plans to the California Office of State Fire Marshal in accordance with the consent decree agreed to by the previous owner of the pipelines.
The state safety regulator found that there were still outstanding steps required before approving restart the following month.
Instead of conducting the requested safety actions, Sable Offshore instead informed investors in December of last year that it had determined that pipelines connecting the onshore oil processing plant on the Gaviota Coast to Pentland Station in Kern County are technically interstate pipelines under the Pipeline Safety Act and requested that federal regulators take over its restart plans.
That designation of intrastate pipelines (meaning they are inside of one state) versus interstate pipelines (meaning they cross into multiple states) was specifically established through the same federal consent decree, rendering the onshore pipelines that cross through three California counties subject to state jurisdiction exclusively.
Despite the court order and location of the pipelines, the Department of Transportation agreed with Sable Offshore's assessment and promptly asserted its authority over restart plans in mid-December.
In early March of this year, the U.S. Department of Justice issued a slip opinion that argued the President or a designated person, could order Sable Offshore to begin oil production immediately -skirting federal, state, and local regulatory authority- for national security purposes.
On March 13, 2026, the Trump Administration ordered the private energy company to restart oil production despite the conditions detailed by a federal court order.
"The Trump Administration remains committed to putting all Americans and their energy security first," stated Secretary Wright at the time of the forced restart in March. "Unfortunately, some state leaders have not adhered to those same principles, with potentially disastrous consequences not just for their residents, but also our national security. Today's order will strengthen America’s oil supply and restore a pipeline system vital to our national security and defense, ensuring that West Coast military installations have the reliable energy critical to military readiness."
The company shared with investors that it has resumed production of hydrocarbons from Platform Harmony and will ramp up to full production from platforms Harmony and Heritage by the end of this month. Platform Hondo is expected to join its sister platforms at full production by June of this year.
Notably, the Trump Administration's order to restart did not explicitly direct crude oil from the Santa Ynez Unit for exclusive military use nor limit its destination to the nation's strategic petroleum reserve and even if it had, those national security claims do not hold up to scrutiny.
"The pipeline operator [Sable Offshore] then relied on the [U.S. Secretary of Energy] Wright Order, and a contemporaneous opinion from the U.S. Department of Justice's Office of Legal Counsel, to argue that any state laws or existing court orders standing in the way of restart could be ignored and set aside," detailed a lawsuit filed by California Attorney General Bonta. "The very next day, on March 14, 2026, the pipeline operator restarted pumping oil through pipelines despite an outstanding preliminary injunction in state court, despite not having necessary permits from either the state or the federal government for pipeline operation, despite still not having approval from several state agencies, and despite not having a current or valid easement to keep or utilize the segment of its pipeline crossing California state property."
Wednesday's letter also noted that repair work completed last year is also subject to civil charges brought by the California Attorney General and criminal charges brought by the Santa Barbara County District Attorney's Office.
"We just want them to follow the law," argued Sable Offshore CEO Jim Flores in March of this year during an interview with Fox News' Laura Ingraham. "[Oil produced in California] is used by the 50 military bases in California, Nevada, and Arizona. And that's the reason why Trump invoked the Defense Production Act...He has to make sure those military bases and those sailors and airmen and so forth have fuel for their jets and their boats and so on."
Secretary Wrights's order did not explicitly direct crude oil from the Santa Ynez Unit for exclusive military use nor limit its destination to the nation's strategic petroleum reserve and Your News Channel has repeatedly reached out to Sable Offshore and its representatives regarding those claims and have not received a direct response.
Post-Restart Regulatory and Legal Actions
While the agreement in federal court required state regulators to manage restart plans at the Santa Ynez Unit, Secretary of Energy Chris Wright argued that the federal government forced the restart oil production under the authority of the Defense Production Act of 1950 and the authority to do so was delegated to the Energy Secretary by Executive Order 13603 "National Defense Resources Preparedness" -skirting federal, state, and local regulatory authority- for national security purposes.
California Attorney General Bonta has filed multiple lawsuits in federal court, arguing that orders issued by federal regulators about restarting oil pipelines including taking over exclusive regulatory authority of restart plans on Dec. 17, issuing an approval of restart plans on Dec. 22, and granting an Emergency Special Permit to restart pipelines on Dec. 24, were all unlawful.
"The Wright Order is an affront to, and usurpation of, the traditional police powers delegated to the states, in that it seeks to override any and all California laws that stand in the way of the restart of the Pipelines," stated the latest lawsuit challenging the forced restart filed by the state's Attorney General. "The Wright Order also does not allege that Sable is part of a national energy program or a national defense program...The Wright Order also fails to provide any rational basis that connects how ordering Sable to 'require acceptance and prioritize performance' [a quote from the Defense Production Act] of 'contracts' or 'allocations' would promote the national defense with respect to energy. The Secretary fails to rationally explain why the Wright Order only favors Sable, nor does it provide any credible information to support the restart of Sable’s pipeline in a manner that is 'immediate' and circumvents state and federal law, as well as existing court orders."
Indeed, broad statements about a domestic energy crisis do not match the same Administration's recent actions including cutting billions in energy investments, potentially outside of its legal authority, rescinding over 3.5 million acres of offshore waters leased for energy generation and cutting deals to terminate offshore wind leases for projects on both coasts, and even spending almost a billion dollars to halt plans to build offshore wind farms, an action that is now subject to a Congressional inquiry and multiple Freedom of Information Act requests by Your News Channel author.
These unilateral exemptions to federal laws on behalf of private oil and natural gas companies and explicit prohibition of alternative sources of energy all under the umbrella of national security are both not new and ongoing.
"The pipeline operator [Sable Offshore] then relied on the [U.S. Secretary of Energy] Wright Order, and a contemporaneous opinion from the U.S. Department of Justice's Office of Legal Counsel, to argue that any state laws or existing court orders standing in the way of restart could be ignored and set aside," detailed the Attorney General's lawsuit. "The very next day, on March 14, 2026, the pipeline operator restarted pumping oil through pipelines despite an outstanding preliminary injunction in state court, despite not having necessary permits from either the state or the federal government for pipeline operation, despite still not having approval from several state agencies, and despite not having a current or valid easement to keep or utilize the segment of its pipeline crossing California state property."
Earlier this month, the Trump Administration filed to have the Justice Department step in to defend Sable Offshore in federal court.
Compounding the state's legal claims in federal court, Wednesday's Congressional inquiry specifically detailed allegations of financial ties between Sable Offshore and President Trump's campaigns.
"Executives at Sable have directly contributed to President Trump's campaigns...contributed over $300,000 to Super PACs like Right to Rise USA and Senate Leadership Fund which made contributions to President Trump’s 2016 and 2024 campaigns. Additionally, Gregory Patrinely, Executive Vice President and CFO of Sable, contributed thousands of dollars to Trump-aligned committees in 2020 and 2024," stated Wednesday's letter to Sable Offshore's CEO. "During his campaign, President Trump promised to reverse environmental rules for your industry in exchange for $1 billion in donations. It is difficult to avoid the inference that actions like the use of DPA [Defense Production Act] to overcome state laws on behalf of an oil producer represents a fulfillment of that 'pay to play' promise."
Congressional members then requested that all records and communications between Sable Offshore and the Trump Administration and presidential campaign from January 1, 2024, going forward be preserved including the cessation of any auto-delete measures being used.
"We urge you to pause and consider the long-term legal and financial ramifications of collaborating with the Trump administration to circumvent California law. We also advise you that we will continue our oversight and investigative efforts in the next Congress," the California Congressional delegation members warned. "We look forward to your response and acknowledgement of compliance with this preservation request by June 10, 2026."
Your News Channel reached out to Sable Offshore regarding the Congressional inquiry and its response will be added to this article when it is received.
