For the second time in six weeks, the county supervisors voted to deny Sable Offshore’s application to transfer the title and permits to operate from Exxon Mobil. Sable, a new Houston-based oil company, purchased three offshore oil platforms, a processing and storage plant, and a 125-mile pipeline in February 2024 and now need the transfer documents to legally begin operations.
A staff report stated that “Sable has amassed a significant track record of systemic non-compliance,” demonstrating “… a lack of diligence and a pattern … of failing to notify regulatory agencies” of its proposed work. The supervisors found that the company repeatedly failed to obtain authorization before beginning the much-contested repair work on the badly corroded pipeline that ruptured in May 2015, resulting in a major oil spill in the waters along the Gaviota Coast.
The staff report accused Sable of ignoring regulatory directives, failing to provide accurate records to regulating agencies. This pattern of outright contempt prompted the supervisors to conclude that Sable lacked the “skills and training necessary to operate the permitted facility in compliance with all applicable county codes.”
In its two short years in existence, Sable has been fined $18 million by the California Coastal Commission for violating, among other things, two cease and desist orders for work on the pipeline until it secured a coastal development permit. It aroused the wrath of the California Attorney General for doing unpermitted repair work near coastal creeks and streams. And Santa Barbara’s District Attorney filed criminal charges against it for disregarding state environmental requirements.
Santa Barbara County is the only county on the planet with a law requiring that the transfer of a major oil operation be approved by county regulators. Enacted in the early 1990s, it was a time when large oil operators were selling to smaller companies — dismissively described as “fly-by-night” companies. The county feared that many of these companies lacked the resources to run a large industrial enterprise safely. Worse, they often did not have the financial wherewithal to clean up a spill, should one occur.
This marks the first time in county history that such an application has been rejected. Sable Offshore has always threatened to challenge the constitutionality of the ordinance in court, if the county denied the transfer. Considering that the law is untested, some supervisors who voted to block Sable remain uncertain what legal weight their decision will have.
At the very least, it will further fuel Sable’s efforts to secure federal offshore permits to bypass the pipeline altogether and move its oil — drilled from platforms in federal waters — via an oil treatment tanker also located in federal waters. What influence President Trump’s full-throated insistence on “energy dominance” will have on the situation has yet to be seen.
Even if Sable plays the tanker option, the Coastal Commission is required to determine if such a plan is consistent with state coastal policies. Also, the Santa Barbara County Air Pollution Control District must report on whether Sable’s offshore emissions will adversely affect the county’s air quality.
At the hearing, Sable packed the house with supporters, many of whom spoke eloquently about the company’s dedication to safety protocols. One argued that California oil policies put its economy at risk: The county would lose millions of dollars, school districts would suffer, and the state would have to import oil from third world countries where safety considerations were non-existent. Very few failed to mention that the same county planners who were now recommended denying Sable’s application, were the same ones who had written three previous reports saying just the opposite. Or as Supervisor Bob Nelson — who cast the sole vote in favor of the transfer to Sable — put it, “It’s political theater.”
Ironically, it would be Supervisor Steve Lavagnino — a historically vociferously pro-oil supervisor — now cast the deciding vote against Sable. “When you come to a tough decision, you either choose comfort or your conscience,” Lavagnino said. “Very rarely do you get to do both.” He would have loved to be able to vote for Sable. But given the company’s track record of contempt and non-compliance, he said to Sable representatives, “You just didn’t give me that opportunity.”
