Will Santa Barbara Supervisors Shut Down Onshore Oil?

The Santa Barbara County supervisors took a small but pivotal baby step last week toward shutting down the county’s existing onshore oil and gas operations, albeit it gradually and eventually, as a way to reduce greenhouse emissions. 

By the vote of 3-2, the supervisors voted to spend $250,000 on what’s called an “amortization study” to determine just how long existing oil and gas operators must be allowed to continue producing to recoup their sunk and ongoing costs of production and also to make a reasonable rate of return. The study will also examine how to turn out the lights on all the mineral rights owners who have made money leasing their rights to oil producers. 

This gradual phaseout period is necessary to inoculate the supervisors against the inevitable accusations that they’ve violated the wholesale property rights of an entire industry. The company the supervisors agreed to hire — CJM Petroleum Consulting — appears to have considerable experience working on similar studies in Los Angeles and Culver City. The company has also provided technical and engineering support for the abandonment of 35 wells in Santa Barbara County.

As of 2023, state records indicate that 2.4 million barrels of oil were being pumped from Santa Barbara County oil fields. That’s down 26 percent from in 2018, when the amount pumped was 3.3 million barrels. That translates to 106,000 metric tons of greenhouse gases in 2023, down 13 percent from 122,000 metric tons in 2018.

Two years ago, the governor signed legislation empowering local governments to phase out existing onshore oil and gas development. 

While the supervisors were far from unanimous, they proved conspicuously agreeable in voicing their disagreements. 

The two North County supervisors — where all the onshore oil production takes place — asked the sharpest questions. Supervisor Bob Nelson from Orcutt wondered whether that $250,000 would not be better spent restoring one of the Isla Vista Foot Patrol officers — or a child protective services worker — who are now slated for layoffs in the face of $70 million in looming cuts. 

South County supervisors Laura Capps and Joan Hartmann were not inclined to budge and said so, citing the deleterious health impacts of operating oil wells on nearby residents and surrounding populations. 

“Hey, nice try,” Supervisor Steve Lavagnino said of Nelson’s argument, knowing the outcome was never in doubt. 

UCSB Professor Paasha Mahdavi, a reliable voice for stricter environmental regulation,  reminded the supervisors that countywide, 60 percent of the 2,714 residents he surveyed support phasing out the oil industry. He said more than a majority of the voters in four of the five districts — even Lavagnino’s — favored the ban. 

Supervisor Nelson bristled a bit, dismissing the survey results as outside the professor’s field of expertise. Lavagnino said the only poll that counted was crushing defeat of Measure P, a countywide anti-oil ballot initiative in 2014 that would have banned onshore fracking. Lavagnino objected that the board majority was intent on shutting down a long-established industry with deep ties to the community and eliminating the revenues and jobs it generated without providing any replacement.

“The real issue is this,” he added. “This measure does nothing to curb the consumption of oil.” 

Supervisor Hartmann, outspoken about climate change, argued the supervisors must take steps to expedite the transition from fossil fuels to cleaner sources of energy. 

“Today, we have more EV charging stations in the state than we have gas stations,” she noted in counterpoint to Lavagnino’s concerns. “We are making the transition.” 

The supervisors actions comes at a time when gasoline prices are hitting new record highs in response to the war on Iran and when Sable Offshore is suing the county for $100 million, claiming that’s the cost the company absorbed because of the supervisors refusal to provide the company the permits needed to restart the Santa Ynez Unit plant that Sable bought from Exxon two years ago. Sable is suing the Coastal Commission $347 million on similar grounds. How that litigation plays out remains anyone’s guess, but in Santa Barbara courts — in front of judges Thomas Anderele and Donna Geck — Sable has consistently lost making such arguments. 

Sable started production early this year absent such approvals after the Trump administration asserted it had the authority to preempt both local and state control and that such production was in the national interest for a host of reasons. Local environmental activists seeking to block Sable have filed legal papers against Sable, charging the company is in violation of court orders issued by local judges. 

In the meantime, the county’s planning commission approved a proposal to block any new onshore oil and gas development within county lines earlier this month. That matter next goes to the supervisors, where if present alignments prevail, the vote is likely to also be 3-2 in favor.