President Donald Trump on Friday invoked the Defense Production Act (DPA) to clear the way for restarting oil production and pipeline operations tied to the Santa Ynez Unit off the Gaviota Coast, prompting immediate backlash from California officials and environmental groups who called the move unlawful and dangerous.
In an executive order issued late Friday morning, Trump authorized the Secretary of Energy to greenlight Sable Offshore Corp.’s efforts to resume operations at the long-idled offshore unit and its associated pipeline network.
U.S. Energy Secretary Chris Wright followed with a directive instructing Sable to restore operations of the Santa Ynez Unit and the Santa Ynez (Las Flores) Pipeline System, citing national security and energy supply concerns.
“The Trump Administration remains committed to putting all Americans and their energy security first,” Wright said in a Department of Energy (DOE) press release. He argued that California policies have contributed to supply vulnerabilities, leaving the region and West Coast military installations overly reliant on foreign oil. The department said the action was taken under authorities provided by the DPA and delegated through a standing executive order on national defense resources, as amended by Trump’s new directive.
DOE framed the move as a response to “supply disruption risks,” noting its view that more than 60 percent of oil refined in California is imported and a significant share moves through the Strait of Hormuz.
The department said Sable’s facilities could produce about 50,000 barrels of oil per day—a roughly 15 percent boost to in-state production—displacing up to 1.5 million barrels of foreign crude each month. The order also prioritizes pipeline transportation capacity to move crude from offshore through the Las Flores Pipeline System to Pentland Station and into interstate pipelines, the agency said.
DOE added that Sable employs more than 100 workers and about 400 contractors in Santa Barbara County and predicted the restart would create “hundreds” of additional jobs and generate “millions” in local economic activity.
The administration’s announcement pointed to a recent Department of Justice legal opinion asserting that the President can use the DPA to preempt conflicting state laws and other barriers. It was not immediately clear how Friday’s orders would interact with existing court injunctions and pending state permits tied to the project.
Sharp opposition from environmental groups and California lawmakers
Environmental advocates condemned the action as an abuse of emergency powers to benefit a private oil company with a troubled record.
“This is a revolting power grab by an extremist president,” said Talia Nimmer, an attorney with the Center for Biological Diversity. “Mandating a restart of these defective oil pipelines won’t curb high gas prices, but it will put coastal wildlife at huge risk of another oil spill. Overriding state law to let an oil company restart pipelines sets a radically dangerous precedent.” Nimmer said her group is “exploring all legal avenues” to block the order.
Linda Krop, chief counsel of the Santa Barbara-based Environmental Defense Center (EDC), said, “Restarting a failed pipeline with no legal or regulatory guardrails puts Californians in harm’s way,” pointing to what she described as Sable’s record of “felony criminal charges, court injunctions, a record $18 million fine from the California Coastal Commission, and broad opposition across the state.” EDC Executive Director Alex Katz added, “This will have zero impact on gas prices and puts our state at risk of another environmental and economic disaster.”
California’s congressional delegation also criticized the move. Rep. Salud Carbajal (D-Santa Barbara) said Trump is “using the war in Iran as a pretext to override the will of Santa Barbara County residents and the state of California,” adding that the restart would not meaningfully lower fuel prices. “Once again, the President is prioritizing Big Oil over the well-being of our community,” he said, pledging to fight the order in Congress and support legal challenges.
Sen. Alex Padilla (D-Calif.) called the action an attempt to “exploit this crisis to further enrich the oil industry at the expense of our communities and our environment,” citing California’s history of opposing offshore drilling and the state’s investments in clean energy. “We’ve seen firsthand the devastation oil spills cause to our oceans, our communities, and our economy,” Padilla said, vowing to contest the orders and “continue to protect our coast.”
California Governor Gavin Newsom issued a strong rebuke on Friday encapsulating a global purview of the entire situation. Newsom called Trump’s move desperate, reckless, and illegal. He stated this move is Trump’s political attempt to point the finger at California to divide and distract the American people from his wartime failures and the massive spike in oil and gasoline prices his war has caused.
Oil from the Sable Offshore pipeline would be a “drop in the bucket,” according to Bloomberg—0.05% of total oil production—that would have no impact on lowering global oil prices. Experts and national security planners have warned that any conflict in the Persian Gulf risked closing the Strait of Hormuz and triggering a global oil supply shock. “Trump went to war either unprepared or willfully ignorant of what came next,” Newsom stated.
“Donald Trump started a war, admitted it would spike gas prices nationwide, and told Americans it was a small price to pay. Now he’s using this crisis of his own making to attempt what he’s wanted to do for years: open California’s coast for his oil industry friends so they can poison our beaches. This wouldn’t lower prices by a cent. This is an attempt to illegally restart a pipeline whose operators are facing criminal charges and prohibited by multiple court orders from restarting,” Newsom stated. “California will not stand by while the Trump administration attempts to sacrifice our coastal communities, our environment, and our $51 billion coastal economy. The Trump administration and Sable are defying multiple court orders, and we will see them back in court.”
Santa Barbara native and California Senate President pro Tempore Monique Limón said the Trump administration has attempted to drill along the Santa Barbara coastline despite decades of bipartisan opposition. “This move will not address the volatile market being made more chaotic by the actions of this administration in Iran. This overreach can and will have serious implications throughout the state. Just like their actions have had an overnight impact on raising gasoline prices and increased security concerns for Californians,” said Limón.
Long-running legal, regulatory hurdles
The Santa Ynez Unit—which includes three offshore platforms, offshore pipelines, and onshore processing facilities—has been shut down since May 2015, when a corroded onshore pipeline ruptured and released an estimated 450,000 gallons of oil near Refugio State Beach, fouling about 150 miles of coastline, killing marine mammals and birds, and closing fisheries and beaches. Texas-based Sable Offshore purchased the assets from ExxonMobil in 2024 and has since sought to revive operations.
Those efforts have faced widespread public opposition, multiple lawsuits, and enforcement actions. Environmental groups including the Center for Biological Diversity, the Wishtoyo Foundation, and EDC have sued state agencies over corrosion-related waivers and permitting decisions. In July 2025, a judge granted a preliminary injunction—recently upheld—aimed at preventing a restart while legal challenges proceed, after Sable announced it had resumed production from one offshore platform and was storing oil onshore pending a pipeline restart.
State regulators have also raised concerns. The California State Fire Marshal told Sable late last year that the pipeline requires additional repairs before it can safely operate, according to the groups. The California Coastal Commission has cited Sable for unlawful work in sensitive coastal habitat, and the California attorney general and Santa Barbara County district attorney have sued over alleged unlawful discharges into creeks and waterways.
Under California law, Sable still needs key approvals, including an easement to operate through Gaviota State Park and a new Coastal Development Permit from the Coastal Commission. To date, environmental groups say no comprehensive environmental review or public hearings have been conducted as required for the restart.
In December, the Trump administration moved to assert federal control over the pipeline system from the State Fire Marshal and issued Sable an emergency special permit despite what critics describe as ongoing design defects—a step the state of California and environmental organizations are challenging in court.
What’s next
DOE did not provide a public timeline for when production or pipeline flows might resume. Given the outstanding state permits and court orders, the practical impact of Friday’s directives may hinge on how federal authorities seek to implement the DPA authority and how quickly courts rule on pending and likely new challenges.
Sable Offshore did not immediately issue a public statement on Friday. The company’s proponents in the administration say the restart would bolster energy security and military readiness on the West Coast; opponents counter that it risks another catastrophic spill and undermines state authority and environmental laws.
This is a developing story.
Hooray for California State Parks!
Gaviota Park has notified Sable to remove their four miles of pipeline from the park, since their easement has expired and will not be renewed.
This is a wild state/federal legal crisis. The question is how will they enforce it.
Resist the oily bastards!
We need oil locally. Think jobs taxes etc. Will be a great thing for SB County.
HAMMONDS – this oil won’t go to our local gas stations or whatever you think “oil locally” means.
If you like “jobs [sic] taxes, etc,” why do you presumably (since you’re pro-oil and MAGA) oppose wind and solar farms here? Those create jobs, contribute directly to our local grid and when there’s an accident, they don’t kill millions of organisms and ruin our beautiful coastline. Also, they don’t produce cancer-causing sludge that ruins our air.
So, what is your beef with renewable sources of energy?
If you think, you know that the bad outweighs any potential good from fossil fuel use.
I’m on board if everyone else stops driving flying using plastic and rubber, we all agree correct?
That old canard again. Why don’t you stop exhaling CO2?
tu quoque fallacy, Mr. Gotcha:
https://truthout.org/art/mister-gotcha/
KEVIN – then I’ll stop bugging you for opposing wind/solar energy if you stop going outside during the day to enjoy the sun.
Same, stupid and faulty logic, Smart Guy.
So all or nothing is the best approach? Why are you people so extreme in your thinking?
Isn’t it better to diversify our energy sources? Isn’t it better to invent and use cleaner sources of energy when possible?
Internationally, Trump is considered an absolute joke. Our allies are turning to China. It is pathetic when European countries see China as a better trading partner than the US He has made some of the worst foreign policy decisions in the history of our country. Trump asked allies for help in the Strait of Hormuz and everyone stepped away. I wonder what dirt Putin has on Trump to get him to be a puppet. I am guessing something with the Epstein files. Trump has ruined the job market and started an unwinnable war – real losers of support around the dinner table. I suppose his followers would cut off a toe if he asked them to, but that is how cults work.
First, let me state unequivocally, that the earth is definitely warming. Anyone who says it’s not is either ignorant (not knowledgeable), or a denier. The primary debate is how much and how soon it becomes critical. Couple of facts. In 2025 China brought online 78 Gigawatts of new coal-powered capacity. That amounts to at least 50 large coal units. In addition, China is the largest builder of coal-fired power plants outside their own country – with over 1,195 plants worldwide as of July 2025.
In 2025, India increased their coal-fired power plant capacity by 14 gigawatts – a significant increase from the prior year. To put it in perspective, China and India accounted for 87% of all new coal-fired power plants put into operation in the first half of 2025.
Another patsy for big carbon spews their propaganda.
Now, like it or not, here comes the hard truth! A country of 350 Million people (USA), no matter what they do, cannot offset 2 countries with a combined 2.88 billion people building and operating coal-fired power plants at the rate China and India are! In addition, because of the earth’s rotation, the USA is continually rotating under the coal-fired pollution generated by said countries. Wind and Solar are definitely NOT the answer.
Small Nuclear reactors will begin coming online in the next few years. Currently, the USA has 97 GW of nuclear power – and leads the world! China and India are working hard to catch up. China has 59 operational reactors generating 53.2 GW. There are an additional 32.31 GW under construction. India has 8.8 MW of nuclear power aiming for 100 GW by 2047. Thus, endeth the lesson.
Another con social media inspired rant, exhorting us to continue adding to the problem.
Did you look at how much clean energy came online in China in the last two years, and how much they have committed to research and development of green technologies?
With our troglodyte administration, they will be the ones to dominate the future global economy.
Fission power is a fool’s errand, promoted by the fossil fuel industries to delay their own demise.
ROBERT E BARWICK – Now, just what “lesson” do you believe you have provided us all here? A lesson in how to completely ignore and omit critical and easily verifiable facts that dismantle your argument? If so, well don, Professor!
To say “wind and Solar are definitely NOT the answer” is categorically false and ignores the fact that grid scale renewable energy production is rapidly becoming viable (and SAFE) alternative. Of course, this current administration doesn’t want you to know that as they (likely illegally) force oil production despite court orders and cancel leases for renewable energy products around the country putting thousands of Americans out of work.
Worldwide….
“For the first time, renewable energy has overtaken coal as the primary source of electricity around the world, a new report says, indicating a shift in the global reliance on environmentally harmful fossil fuels.” — https://www.npr.org/2025/10/09/nx-s1-5564746/renewable-energy-coal-electricity-first
“Renewable energy overtook coal as the world’s leading source of electricity in the first half of this year…” — https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cx2rz08en2po
In China alone…..
“China’s clean energy industries drove more than 90% of the country’s investment growth last year, making the sectors bigger than all but seven of the world’s economies, a new analysis has shown.” — https://www.theguardian.com/world/2026/feb/05/china-green-energy-sector-investment-growth
“China is set to have more solar power capacity than coal for the first time this year, marking a “historic” milestone in the country’s energy transition.” — https://www.independent.co.uk/climate-change/news/china-solar-power-capacity-coal-first-time-b2912940.html
Nuclear, even small reactors, are almost prohibitively expensive, slow to come on line and actually generate power and carry the SEVERE risk of wide spread death and destruction, especially when unqualified toddlers in the White House show a tendency to favor immediate outcomes over proper procedure and safeguards. Look at the war in Iran….
So, thank you for the “lesson” in how to conveniently ignore the truth.
> Wind and Solar are definitely NOT the answer.
Give us an actual argument for that claim that isn’t ignorant or dishonest. China and the Earth’s rotation aren’t one.
And this is not even remotely an argument for approving and opening the Sable pipeline, which is what this article is about.
wrong. wind and solar ARE the answer. coal/oil is not. its outdated science, similar to doctors saying smoking cigarettes is ok. that happened too.
Just trying to imagen what the Santa Barbara and California perspective on in-state oil production would be if oil imports the this state were embargoed — no outside oil allowed into CA.
“imagen” says it all about your thoughts on the subject.
DEADBIRD (like the band? If so, cool!)
Cool hypothetical, but will never happen.
Some perspective on the Refugio spill disaster:
The Refugio spill released about 3,400 barrels of crude oil.
Natural seepage into those same waters releases about 100-150 barrels of crude oil per day. That’s ~45,625 barrels per year.
Seepage also releases 40 metric tons of methane per day or 14,600mt/year — Santa Barbara County’s single largest source of hydrocarbon air pollution and greenhouse gas.
Natural seepage of crude oil per year is roughly 13.4 times the amount released in the Refugio spill, so the spill was the equivalent of just less than a month’s worth of natural seepage — which continues to occur today — month after month.
The Gaviota Coast, Santa Barbara Channel and Northern Channel Islands remain amazingly beautiful and the site of some of the richest natural biodiversity on the planet.
This seepage has been going on for thousands of years along the beautiful Gaviota Coast. It slowed some to the current levels, when extraction was taking place but is now increasing slightly as reservoir pressures recover.
Those are the numbers. Think about them in the context of the various narratives you hear today.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coal_Oil_Point_seep_field
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Refugio_oil_spill
DEADBIRD – I get it now, your handle reflects the think you are OK with on a massive scale.
Not only is wikipedia not a real “source,” but comparing natural seepage to offshore oil spills is so wildly illogical it doesn’t bear much rebuttal.
Click the links, see the references in the wiki, check those out, dig if you doubt and care. Not taking a position here. Just suggesting those who care consider who’s saying what and why they’d say it. Those are as good of numbers as exist, as far as I can tell. The big difference between the spill and seepage is the spill happened right in the surf and all in a day or two rather than daily increments from a few yards to miles offshore.
DEAD – cool info about dog training!
But yeah, your last sentence above about the massive difference between seepage and oil spills is why I said what I did. They’re really not comparable in terms of destruction to the ecosystem.
By the way, I train dogs to do what most don’t think a dog is capable of. Deadbird is how you tell the dog there’s something to find they didn’t see fall — a “blind retrieve.” The dog has to go out and trust your directions, whistle and hand signals, from a hundred to hundreds of yards away to lead them to the thing they’re supposed to get. -Leading the unknowing but willing to their target. Dogs are a whole lot smarter than most people think. Not only do dogs do this successfully — a whole lot of them do — But they do it while remembering where several they did see fall are and yet follow directions to the one they didn’t, before being allowed to go for the others.
Blind retrieving is what you’re doing: Seeing only what you want to believe, and shilling for oil.
Lots of dead birds is what you get with offshore oil extraction.
This is not even remotely an argument for approving and opening the Sable pipeline, which is what this article is about.
To begin with, I know nothing about the science of oil seeps. I know they exist and that’s about it. I’m really curious about something that you’ve said which doesn’t seem to follow logic;
“It slowed some to the current levels, when extraction was taking place but is now increasing slightly as reservoir pressures recover.”
If extraction removes material from underground and the removal of that material decreases the pressure of the deposit and therefore decreases seepage, why would pressure increase when extraction stops?
Extraction–remove material–decrease in pressure.
Is new material being added to the deposits and therefore the deposit can recover pressure? That doesn’t seem possible.
So how’s that work?
ALEX – great question. It would seem for this “theory” of seepage increasing once drilling stops to work, the oil deposits would need to be refilled with oil within years. Problem is, oil is not increasing. It is basically a finite resource, meaning once we extract it then it’s removed from its source without (timely) replenishment. Sure, we will ALL turn to oil in a few million years, but where is this new oil material suddenly coming from?
I may just Google this, as now I’m really curious!
I asked Gemini and this is what it said. The usual caveats about LLMs apply.
While it seems counterintuitive, the recovery of reservoir pressure after extraction stops is a well-documented geological phenomenon. In the context of Santa Barbara’s oil seeps, the pressure doesn’t “increase” in the sense of new oil being created; rather, it re-equilibrates due to the natural movement of fluids and geological forces that were previously being “drained” by the oil wells. [1, 2]
Here is the step-by-step breakdown of how that pressure recovery works:
1. Identify the natural drive mechanisms [3]
Oil in the Santa Barbara Channel is held in porous rock under immense pressure from three main natural sources: [4, 5]
* Water Drive (Aquifers): Large bodies of pressurized water sitting beneath or beside the oil.
* Gas Expansion: Natural gas dissolved in the oil or trapped in a “cap” above it.
* Overburden Pressure: The sheer weight of thousands of feet of rock and ocean pressing down on the reservoir. [3, 6, 7, 8, 9]
2. Understand the extraction “drain”
When a platform like Platform Holly extracts oil, it acts like a drain in a bathtub. It removes the pressurized fluids faster than the natural environment can replace them. This creates a local “pressure sink,” which physically sucks nearby oil and gas toward the well instead of allowing it to leak out of natural vents (seeps). [1, 3, 10, 11]
3. Account for fluid encroachment
The reason the pressure recovers is that the reservoir is not a sealed tank. When the “drain” (the oil well) is plugged:
* Water Influx: The surrounding high-pressure aquifers begin to push water into the empty pore spaces left by the extracted oil.
* Gas Migration: Dissolved gases continue to expand and move into the area.
* Tectonic Shifting: Santa Barbara is a tectonically active area; shifting faults can compress the reservoir or open new pathways, effectively “squeezing” the remaining fluids and increasing the pressure they exert against the sea floor. [3, 5, 11, 12, 13, 14]
4. Observe the impact on seepage
As these natural forces refill or re-compress the reservoir, the internal pressure rises back toward its original state. Once that pressure exceeds the “capillary resistance” of the seabed rocks, the oil and gas are once again forced out through natural fissures, leading to the “increasing slightly” seepage levels mentioned in your conversation. [1, 3, 13]
Answer
The pressure increases because external forces—primarily high-pressure water from surrounding aquifers and tectonic compression—re-fill the “voids” left by extraction, pushing the remaining oil back up through natural vents once the wells are no longer draining the system.
[1] [https://boles.faculty.geol.ucsb.edu](https://boles.faculty.geol.ucsb.edu/library/pdf/Boles_Seeps_Write_Up_Final_April_20-1+figures.pdf)
[2] [https://www.scribd.com](https://www.scribd.com/document/699947503/drive-mechanisms-for-reservoir-engineering)
[3] [https://www.e-education.psu.edu](https://www.e-education.psu.edu/png301/node/595)
[4] [https://petrolyte.blogspot.com](http://petrolyte.blogspot.com/2011/02/oil-extraction-and-recovery.html)
[5] [https://www.sciencedirect.com](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/am/pii/S0264817223000934)
[6] [https://www.britannica.com](https://www.britannica.com/technology/petroleum-production/Recovery-of-oil-and-gas)
[7] [https://www.sciencedirect.com](https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/engineering/oil-recovery)
[8] [https://wiki.aapg.org](https://wiki.aapg.org/index.php?title=Reservoir_drive_mechanisms&mobileaction=toggle_view_desktop)
[9] [https://www.quora.com](https://www.quora.com/How-is-the-vacuum-filled-after-all-the-oil-is-extracted-from-the-ground-Is-there-no-any-danger-of-the-land-caving-in)
[10] [https://www.slc.ca.gov](https://www.slc.ca.gov/wp-content/uploads/sites/355/2018/08/PF2014_Offshore-Reduction.pdf)
[11] [https://californiapolicycenter.org](https://californiapolicycenter.org/oil-extraction-reduces-methane-seepage/)
[12] [https://www.slb.com](https://www.slb.com/resource-library/oilfield-review/defining-series/defining-reservoir-drive-mechanisms)
[13] [https://www.quora.com](https://www.quora.com/As-oil-and-gas-in-the-ground-are-under-pressure-why-dont-we-have-major-leaks-naturally-from-the-ground)
[14] [https://www.researchgate.net](https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Reservoir-pressure-trends-by-drive-mechanism-2_fig1_282393049)
MARCEL – very helpful.
It’s still baffling to me how some can defend oil drilling by saying, “If we don’t, there will be more tar on the beaches.” Oh effing well, I guess. I’d rather have some naturally seeping tar that our ecosystem has successfully handled for millenia than the risk of another blow out destroying our coast for years, not to mention the pollution and cancer the end use of the oil (in addition to all other stages of the oil processing lifespan) will cause.
I don’t see how there will be any legal way to get around Trump’s executive order. I believe that privately, many (D) pols are not against the idea of lowering skyrocketing gasoline prices. Doubtful that the small amount of oil extracted locally will have much of an impact on said prices.
Your usual wishy-washy mishmash with a con tinge.
BEES – “I don’t see how there will be any legal way to get around Trump’s executive order.” – it’s a good thing you’re not a lawyer then.
Possibly legal action has taken place in the last 24 hours to stop Sable from pumping oil, but I have yet to hear/read that as of this morning . As far as I know, the reporting by the SB Independent is still accurate:
“Sable Offshore announced on Monday, March 16, 2026, that it has resumed oil production at Platform Harmony (above) off the Gaviota Coast and is currently transporting oil via pipeline to Pentland Station in Kern County.”
BEES – it was an executive order that only the Sable entity is now following. It does not override any court orders that were in place. There will be a LOT of litigation to stop this and it will likely be successful.
Trump has boasted that we don’t need more oil, multiple times. If that were true, why is he declaring an emergency to force the state of CA to allow drilling?
Words matter. When Trump lies, people and animals die. Every. Time.
Sacjon: What you are saying is true and what I am saying is true. At the end of the day, Sable is pumping oil (as far as I know). Oil is “gold” and will continue to be pumped here and elsewhere for many/many years to come.
It’s not Sable that is following this EO–Sable is a private entity and EOs direct the behavior of the executive branch of the federal government. The EO invoked the Defense Production Act (which is supposed to be for wartime production) and delegated its authority to the Department of Energy, which “ordered” Sable (because otherwise Sable would be so unwilling /s) to start oil production through the pipeline. The DPA, being a federal law, overrides any California state law under the Supremacy Clause (https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/artVI-C2-1/ALDE_00013395/)
None of us are lawyers, but I too don’t see any legal way to overcome this. Someone can try to bring a case on the basis of this being an invalid use of the DPA, but the ultimate legal authority under our ancient Constitution (as interpreted by Marbury v Madison, which is bedrock Constitutional case law) is the SCOTUS, and we know how that will go.
MARCEL – good points, but the litigation I see as being possible is in regard to the existing court ordered injunction. I think there is a viable case to make against an EO overriding an existing court order, Marbury notwithstanding.
My point about Marbury v Madison is that it ruled that the SCOTUS is the ultimate arbiter of such things, and the current SCOTUS is dominated by GOP operatives, religious extremists, and thugs hand picked by Trump (or rather Leonard Leo). (Those three types of people are the same six people.)
And again, it’s *the DPA* that the regime will argue overrides California law and California court orders. Alex notes that the SCOTUS shot down Truman’s use of it, but that was a very different SCOTUS.
Look, there are all sorts of viable cases to be made against everything the Trump regime does, but we’re in a situation where legal viability simply doesn’t matter because Americans put fascists in charge. Maybe we will at least be able to pry control of Congress away from them, but fascists generally don’t give up power, and they cheat.
MARCEL – correct. What I’m saying is that a local judge issued an injunction preventing Sable from restarting operations until multiple criteria were met. They have not yet been met but Sable restarted again pursuant to the EO. That does present a legal issue as their specific actions would appear to violate the court order.
It will be interesting to see how this plays out.
Why do you say this? Executive Orders are only directives, i.e., “requests”. They are not a law unto themselves, they must be based in clear legal precedent.
EOs are not “requests”. An EO may invoke powers of the President granted to him by the Constitution or Congress, and/or they may be directives from the head of the executive branch to those under him, as part of his executive duties. This EO invoked the Defense Production Act (on highly dubious grounds, but that’s the law involved) and delegated DPA powers to the Secretary of Energy. The SCOTUS could rule against this but of course won’t, and California courts aren’t likely to touch it due to the Supremacy Clause–the DPA overrides any state law.
That’s fair. However, the directive must be based in law and precedent. DPA is broad and in 1950 Truman tried to seize the steel mills because of a strike that he claimed was holding back the Korean War effort and SCOTUS shot him down.
I understand that this will probably be a political decision from SCOTUS if it goes that far, and not a legal one, however, the argument of an imminent threat to national security or readiness doesn’t hold up on the facts as Sable is relatively small amounts and in the context of fighting in the Middle East we use regional oil sources for the majority of fuel.
Of course, none of this is about our security or safety or that of our military forces, it is simply about a couple of crooks from Texas putting a call in to another crook at the White House who is currently looking for every way to screw California possible.
And none of the MAGA cult members posting here will understand any of this.
Looks like our Honorable Judge Geck just upheld the injunction against Sable despite the EO. I’m pretty sure an EO doesn’t take precedence over a court order.
Again, it is the DPA–a federal law–which takes precedence over California law; the EO merely invoked the DPA. Judge Geck’s ruling, as I understand it, said that the DPA can’t nullify state safety injunctions and Sable must still comply. I don’t know whether that’s a correct interpretation of the law. But unfortunately, even if valid, Geck’s ruling doesn’t stop Sable … oil is flowing through the pipeline. And with the Trump administration backing Sable, it would be a very bold move for a judge to hold them in contempt when they can argue that they are being compelled by the federal government under the DPA to produce oil–I seriously don’t think she would do that. Yes it’s “interesting” to watch but I have no appetite for popcorn when the Trump is abusing his power to hurt CA and us specifically.
Darn, hit post too soon.
Given this injunction, I wonder if Sable can be held in contempt. It will be interesting to see how it plays out.
Yes, of course the DPA is being abused every way from Sunday … but it *is* being abused and Sable is producing oil that is flowing through the pipeline, at our expense.
I was wrong that CA courts won’t touch it, as Judge Geck did … but the oil is still flowing and the Trump regime will fight to keep it flowing, and again if this goes to his hand-picked SCOTUS we know what will happen.
And of course MAGA cult members are ignorant filth, and not just ours … on the Noozhawk FB page about this there is post after post from these creeps saying “drill, baby, drill” and other disgusting nonsense.
MARCEL – the mindless comments from poorly educated MAGAts and their attempts at arguing them are proof positive of my theory about why Cons/MAGAts hate renewable energy – they could care less, they just hate it because it’s something they think “liberals” like.
Like every topic on earth from health to sports, Trump has politicized the MAGA base and any dumb Cons who still listen to him. They don’t know anything about renewables other than they’re not supposed to like them.
I have yet to find a MAGAt who can actually hold a debate using real science and facts. They truly are the dumbest of what humanity has become.
Bees “many (D) pols are not against the idea of lowering skyrocketing gasoline prices. ”
Absolutely IDIOTIC remark. How moronic and intellectually childish and ninny-like comments you make. I am guessing you were asked to leave teaching.
> I believe that privately, many (D) pols are not against the idea of lowering skyrocketing gasoline prices. Doubtful that the small amount of oil extracted locally will have much of an impact on said prices.
It’s because of this sort of nonsense that some here are so contemptuous of your comments. Of course Dems aren’t against lowering skyrocketing gasoline prices–publicly and privately. Their main recommendation is to STOP WAGING ILLEGAL WAR IN THE MIDDLE EAST. And as your second sentence acknowledges, the Sable issue HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH IT (forget about “much of an impact”–it will have NO impact) … so what is even the point of your first sentence? It’s certainly not true the Dems privately support opening the Sable pipeline, but there doesn’t seem to be any other way to interpret it.
[A caveat: some people on the left are all for skyrocketing gasoline prices, in order to suppress the use of fossil fuel, and they argue that the prices are lower than they should be due to massive subsidies from the federal government. That’s a separate complex conversation.]
SABLE spilled 140,000 gallons last time. When they spill 500,000 the next time we can just kiss our beaches and tourism goodbye for a couple years.
Trump’s DOGE Cuts Slashed Staff That Handled Middle Eastern Oil and Gas Crises
https://www.notus.org/trump-white-house/trump-doge-cuts-middle-eastern-oil-gas-crises
MAGA supports corporate oil forever wars and the brutalization of minorities – MAGA does not support the environment, education, or science. Because, own the libs.