Sable Offshore disclosed that the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) and U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York (SDNY) have served the company with subpoenas in response to allegations of advance information being shared selectively among company insiders late last October.
In financial statements submitted with investors and the SEC on February 3, Sable confirmed the existence and cause of these subpoenas. “The company is providing documents and cooperating with the government requests,” the report stated.
Last October, Sable downplayed the significance of the revelations — first reported in the online financial news source and trading operation Hunterbrook Media — while announcing an internal review of what happened. But in this week’s filing —also reported by Hunterbrook—the company stated, “If the SEC or SDNY were to conclude that an enforcement action is appropriate, the SEC could impose civil penalties and fines, and other sanctions against our current and former officers and directors. The SDNY could impose criminal penalties.”
These subpoenas were served December 2, 2025. These disclosures were included in the fine print of yet another major stock offering the company announced to raise an additional $250 million. (It was a prior stock offering — also for $250 million — that gave rise to Hunterbrook’s story alleging that advance notice of that sale was selectively afforded to some shareholders.) In the most recent filings, Sable also disclosed it currently has $98 million cash on hand but is spending $25–$30 million a month in operating expenses.
As Sable is approaching the two-year mark on its very rocky road to possibly restarting Exxon’s former Los Flores Canyon facility, Sable’s own disclosures itemize how many legal battles with environmental opponents and multiple regulatory agencies still lie ahead. Based on past experience, none of these disputes are likely to be resolved quickly.
One new one involves the California Department of Geologic Energy Management Division (CalGEM), which, on January 27, notified Sable that it needed to secure a $57 million bond to cover the cost of “Facility Decommissioning and Site Remediation.” That’s a sizable increase from the $31 million that CalGEM originally said the company owed.
In its financial filings, Sable asserts CalGEM lacks the legal authority to impose such requirements. Perhaps in response or anticipation, Doug Ito of CalGEM concluded his letter, stating, “Failure to comply with the bonding requirement will result in CalGEM initiating enforcement action.” If that were to occur, Sable would find itself waging legal warfare with three state agencies at the same time — the California Coastal Commission, the California Attorney General, and CalGEM.
In addition, Sable disclosed that it petitioned the Department of Justice to terminate the 2020 consent decree, a major legal document arrived at by an alphabet soup of state and federal regulatory agencies and Plains All American Pipeline company — the owner of the badly corroded pipeline when it ruptured in 2015, thus precipitating the 143,000-gallon oil spill that effectively brought all offshore oil production off the coast to a standstill. To date, that consent decree has been the governing document on what has to happen for the pipeline, now owned by Sable, to be deemed safe and for restart to happen.
