Hi Kelleran, though not paid subscriber, I would like to thank you for the work you do and the amount of efforts you spend to educate others. Thanks once again!
It's obviously lawfare, this should have been filed months ago when the waivers were issued. I doubt there is a time limit but another check in the column of coordinated attempts to sabotage the Consent Decree just like the CCC Press Release. All these orgs and individuals are opening themselves up to liability and discovery at the Federal level. Not wise.
I skimmed the Consent Decree. The technical merits of the case seem dubious. The CD was supposed to be open to public comment. Hard to claim now that the pipeline is inherently unsafe; and bringing up the problems with cathodic protection again when that tech mitigation is specifically addressed by the CD.
They are going after the OSFM procedurally though. The CD specifically does not give the OSFM a pass on the rest of their responsibilities, only those specified in the CD, primarily around cathodic protection; but it is broader than that.
So the question is did the OSFM follow their legally required waiver procedures with respect to
1) Public notice & hearing or environmental review
2) Release of documentation\analysis
3) CEQA Review
If not, what's the harm and the remedy. Seems like a state issue on process not exempted by the CD.
But I think their lawyers blew it claiming the pipeline is inherently unsafe and their desire for an "alternative of not allowing the pipeline to restart'
Kick it Federal. It's a delaying tactic. They made it clear through the own words their intent is to bypass the CD and stop the pipeline, not objections to OSFM procedures.
Consent Decree is pretty clear, and the Fire Marshal has authority over all pipelines in the state. If they can't figure out something quickly, this will end up at the Federal level.
Agree but they still have to follow required processes. CD is clear about that, it's not a free pass. Not saying they didn't. But that's the target with this complaint.
The tanker operating in federal waters is THE margin of safety, you're right!..
And what about the other platforms off the coast from Mungerville to Montecito—there are eight of them on Google maps. Don’t they already have pipelines running to shore? They’re barely 20 miles from Goleta. Could building a pipeline to connect with them and negotiating a win-win agreement also be a viable option?
Building new pipelines at this stage is the least likely path. They have already done everything on their end to fulfill the Consent Decree. Just need to get a Federal court to get rid of the TRO to allow the OSFM to sign off.
There's a lot of stuff that is out there that is cheap. Warrior Met Coal is one that I would love to grab in the back half of this year.
The offshore names are still ridiculously cheap, but I don't exactly need more oil exposure, and they basically trade like levered oil. If oil is moving higher, and day rates are moving higher, the stocks fly. You need both things to line up though.
Likewise, not a paid subscriber and I would like to thank you for sharing this! Thanks once again!
I have two questions if you don't mind:
1. Regarding Option B. What's "unreasonable"? Have you thought about this? Who defines that and is that actually Option C, if unreasonable is a vague term?
2. How do you think about SBCC (which itself is part of the county)? Should SBCC work on behalf of the county, etc? Are they aligned with the county and/or OMF or? I am asking cause they did the following
Hi Kelleran, though not paid subscriber, I would like to thank you for the work you do and the amount of efforts you spend to educate others. Thanks once again!
It's obviously lawfare, this should have been filed months ago when the waivers were issued. I doubt there is a time limit but another check in the column of coordinated attempts to sabotage the Consent Decree just like the CCC Press Release. All these orgs and individuals are opening themselves up to liability and discovery at the Federal level. Not wise.
I skimmed the Consent Decree. The technical merits of the case seem dubious. The CD was supposed to be open to public comment. Hard to claim now that the pipeline is inherently unsafe; and bringing up the problems with cathodic protection again when that tech mitigation is specifically addressed by the CD.
They are going after the OSFM procedurally though. The CD specifically does not give the OSFM a pass on the rest of their responsibilities, only those specified in the CD, primarily around cathodic protection; but it is broader than that.
So the question is did the OSFM follow their legally required waiver procedures with respect to
1) Public notice & hearing or environmental review
2) Release of documentation\analysis
3) CEQA Review
If not, what's the harm and the remedy. Seems like a state issue on process not exempted by the CD.
But I think their lawyers blew it claiming the pipeline is inherently unsafe and their desire for an "alternative of not allowing the pipeline to restart'
Kick it Federal. It's a delaying tactic. They made it clear through the own words their intent is to bypass the CD and stop the pipeline, not objections to OSFM procedures.
Consent Decree is pretty clear, and the Fire Marshal has authority over all pipelines in the state. If they can't figure out something quickly, this will end up at the Federal level.
Agree but they still have to follow required processes. CD is clear about that, it's not a free pass. Not saying they didn't. But that's the target with this complaint.
The tanker operating in federal waters is THE margin of safety, you're right!..
And what about the other platforms off the coast from Mungerville to Montecito—there are eight of them on Google maps. Don’t they already have pipelines running to shore? They’re barely 20 miles from Goleta. Could building a pipeline to connect with them and negotiating a win-win agreement also be a viable option?
Building new pipelines at this stage is the least likely path. They have already done everything on their end to fulfill the Consent Decree. Just need to get a Federal court to get rid of the TRO to allow the OSFM to sign off.
Yes, I totally agree with you.
Just thinking worst case scenario, if the tree lovers win.
Assume #1 idea. What are your top 5 if I may ask.
There's a lot of stuff that is out there that is cheap. Warrior Met Coal is one that I would love to grab in the back half of this year.
The offshore names are still ridiculously cheap, but I don't exactly need more oil exposure, and they basically trade like levered oil. If oil is moving higher, and day rates are moving higher, the stocks fly. You need both things to line up though.
Spending too many brain cells on one idea. There must be more ideas with great upside that are less controversial to focus on.
Probably true. Have to see this one through at this point though. It's definitely controversial, but I think the upside will prove to be worth it.
Likewise, not a paid subscriber and I would like to thank you for sharing this! Thanks once again!
I have two questions if you don't mind:
1. Regarding Option B. What's "unreasonable"? Have you thought about this? Who defines that and is that actually Option C, if unreasonable is a vague term?
2. How do you think about SBCC (which itself is part of the county)? Should SBCC work on behalf of the county, etc? Are they aligned with the county and/or OMF or? I am asking cause they did the following
2.a decision to issue a preliminary injunction
2.b granted a TRO