EDC Appeals to County Supervisors to Deny Permits for Dangerous Oil Plan

Sable Offshore Corp. is seeking permits to restart the same pipeline that caused the 2015 Refugio oil spill

The Environmental Defense Center (EDC) and its clients [Thursday] appealed to the County Board of Supervisors to deny permits for a massive oil drilling and processing operation on the Gaviota Coast, which includes the same failed pipeline that already caused one of the worst oil spills in California history.

Last week, the Santa Barbara County Planning Commission approved the transfer of permits to Sable Offshore, a new Texas oil company that is attempting to restart three offshore drilling platforms, onshore processing facilities, and pipelines formerly owned by ExxonMobil.

The Commission voted October 30 to approve the transfer despite testimony that Sable does not have an approved Oil Spill Contingency Plan, did not demonstrate the financial ability to remediate another spill, and cannot be trusted to operate responsibly, all of which are required for the transfer of permits under County law and policy.  EDC and its clients, Get Oil Out! (GOO!) and the Santa Barbara County Action Network (SBCAN), submitted a detailed comment letter and testified to the Commission urging denial of the transfer.

“There is a long history of oil companies telling our community that they are safe, reliable operators. But we have learned the hard way, over and over again, that they were not, and the consequences have been devastating for our coast, for wildlife, for our economy, and for the health of people living near toxic oil spills,” said Alex Katz, EDC Executive Director. “Sable has already shown that it can’t be trusted to operate responsibly or safely. We urge the County Supervisors to deny these transfers and protect our coast.”

“We remain concerned about the risks of operating these dangerous facilities, which have already caused a catastrophic oil spill, and entrusting them to a speculative company like Sable,” said SBCAN Director Ken Hough. “Approval of the transfers was not only inconsistent with County requirements, but a grave dereliction of the Commission’s duty to protect the public and ensure oil and gas facilities are responsibly operated.”

In 2015, the heavily corroded Plains All-American pipeline ruptured near Refugio State Beach. The spill devastated 150 miles of the California coast, destroyed thousands of acres of shoreline and subtidal habitat, killed untold numbers of animals, including marine mammals, shut down fisheries and beaches, cost hundreds of millions to clean up, and resulted in criminal convictions for the former owner.

According to a draft Environmental Impact Report released by Santa Barbara County, restarting this pipeline likely would result in a spill every year, and a major rupture every four years. The County predicted that ruptures could be nearly twice the size of the Refugio spill, even if Sable installs modern safety valve technology.

The restart also would bring back the single largest stationary source of greenhouse gas emissions in Santa Barbara County, compromising air quality and directly impairing the County’s ability to meet its climate goals. When operational, the facilities were responsible for more than half of all emissions in the County.

“Given its weak financial stability, it would be a grave mistake to transfer responsibility for these facilities to Sable,” said Michael Lyons, President of GOO! “Time and again, we have seen how taxpayers must foot the bill for decommissioning of oil and gas facilities after operators have gone bankrupt.”

Earlier this year, Sable acquired the Gaviota Coast platforms and facilities known as the Santa Ynez Unit (SYU) from Exxon. Sable must secure Exxon’s permits before it can restart, but the company still needs additional approvals from various state agencies, including CalFIRE and the California Coastal Commission. Sable has told its investors that it plans to restart the SYU, including the pipeline responsible for the Refugio spill, before the end of the year.

At its October 30 hearing, the Planning Commission was required to evaluate Sable’s financial stability, operational capacity, compliance with existing permit conditions, and ability to respond to an oil spill.

A coalition of Central Coast environmental groups and community members opposed the transfer. Speakers pointed out that Sable is a speculative company with no revenue stream, and likely would be unable to remediate another spill if and when it occurs. They also pointed to Sable’s questionable track record as an operator – including its recent decision to ignore a direct order from the California Coastal Commission to stop unpermitted repair work on the corroded pipeline – as evidence it would not be a safe or reliable operator.

Noncompliance with the County permits was also at issue: to date, Sable still does not have an approved Oil Spill Contingency Plan, and its onshore pipelines still lack effective protection from corrosion – the cause of the 2015 spill. The permits at issue require the pipeline to have effective protection against corrosion before a transfer can be approved.

During the hearing, several commissioners acknowledged that the County was not independently analyzing Sable’s financial capacity, despite the fact that the County is clearly responsible for “ensuring … adequate financial responsibility” under its own ordinance.

For more information, see EDC’s appeal letter.