A federal court granted five local environmental groups the right to intervene in an ongoing lawsuit between Sable Offshore and the County of Santa Barbara concerning the transfer of leases required to restart oil production at the Santa Ynez Unit.
The decision, issued Friday, comes as the U.S. Department of Interior announced the restart of oil production in Santa Barbara County, a move drawing sharp criticism from environmental organizations and local leaders.
“The Court’s decision gives the nonprofit groups a voice in the case, ensuring the Court is able to hear environmental and community perspectives—not just those of the fossil fuel industry and the County,” said Alex Katz, Executive Director of the Environmental Defense Center, one of the nonprofits permitted to intervene.
Deadlines have been set for respondents’ filings by August 4, 2025, and for petitioners by August 25, 2025.
The Complex Battle Over Santa Ynez Unit Leases
The legal tussle stems from ExxonMobil’s February 2024 sale of the Santa Ynez Unit — including 114 wells, three offshore platforms, and the Las Flores Canyon onshore processing facility — to Houston-based Sable Offshore for $625 million. The deal was financed by a $622 million loan secured from ExxonMobil.
In October 2024, the Santa Barbara County Planning Commission approved the transfer of Final Development Permits (FDPs), a key step for Sable Offshore to restart oil drilling, transportation, and processing that had been dormant since the 2015 Refugio oil spill—one of the worst oil disasters in state history.
However, the transfer has faced significant pushback from environmental groups and local residents, citing Chapter 25B of the Santa Barbara County Code, which allows the Board of Supervisors to review FDP transfers to ensure environmental protections are upheld.
Following a tied vote on the transfer appeal in February — with one supervisor recusing — no action was officially taken, leaving the approval in limbo.
In response, Sable Offshore filed a lawsuit in May 2025 against the County’s Board of Supervisors, alleging non-compliance with County Petroleum Code and violations of the U.S. and California Constitutions. Additionally, the company became embroiled in another legal battle with the California Coastal Commission regarding unauthorized work and fines.
Federal and Local Reactions
Friday’s announcement of restarted oil production by the Department of Interior has drawn ire from environmental advocates and lawmakers. U.S. Representative Salud Carbajal voiced strong opposition, referencing the devastating impacts of past oil spills on the Central Coast.
“This is a deeply concerning development for Central Coast residents, many of whom vividly remember the devastating impacts of the 1969 Santa Barbara and 2015 Refugio oil spills, from oil-slicked beaches to the piles of dead marine wildlife,” said Rep. Carbajal in a written statement on Monday. “Time and time again, our community has experienced the acute dangers that come with Big Oil’s reckless extraction practices, which jeopardize our coastal ecosystems, public health, and outdoor recreation economy. And let’s be clear: if energy independence were truly the goal, the current Administration would be investing in cleaner—and often more affordable—energy sources like solar and wind, not gutting their federal support. Restarting these rigs only enriches Big Oil, while sacrificing the Central Coast’s environmental and public health. I will continue working with state and local partners to fight back against efforts to expand offshore oil drilling on the Central Coast.”
In a press release, the U.S. Department of Interior stated this is a significant achievement that aligns with the Trump Administration’s “Energy Dominance initiative” that has been steadfastly repealing long-held environmental protections.
“President Trump made it clear that American energy should come from American resources,” said Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement (BSEE) Principal Deputy Director Kenneth Stevens. “Thanks to his leadership and Secretary Burgum’s commitment, we’ve turned a decade-long shutdown into a comeback story for Pacific production. In just months, BSEE helped bring oil back online safely and efficiently—right in our own backyard. That’s what Energy Dominance looks like: results, not delays.”
Sable Offshore has repeatedly defended its actions stating the company’s application and the Planning Commission’s approval align with legal requirements.
Next Steps
While litigation continues, the final decision on the lease transfers may prove decisive in determining the future of oil production in the region. The outcome is expected to have significant implications for Santa Barbara’s coastal ecosystems, economy, and energy policy.
Local environmental groups remain resolute in their opposition, citing the risks of oil spills and calling for greater investment in renewable energy solutions.
Also Read
- Ventura County Bookkeeper Pleads Guilty to Embezzling Over $550,000
- Ventura-Based Company Patagonia Files Trademark Infringement Lawsuit Against Drag Queen
- New American Airlines Routes to Take Off From Chicago and Los Angeles
- Southern California Event and Entertainment Venue Files Chapter 7 Bankruptcy
- Rivian Sets Its Sights on Goleta, Begins Design Review Process
The operators that bought this from Exon are some of the shadiest people possible.
I’m guessing those shady people are really just a ghost subsidiary of theirs.
Well, not exactly, In fact, Exxon “sold” the rights to Sable, owned by a father and son from Texas. They did this because “selling” the rights and infrastructure to these guys shields Exxon from potentially billions of dollars in risk. They sold it to Mr. Flores and son for 625 million dollars. And 622 million dollars of that was a loan to Mr. Flores and his son. In short, they want to offload a risky asset and found some guys willing to operate illegally and take the risk on. They’ve already been fined 18 million by the Coastal Commission but they don’t care because they are going to make a mountain of money–and also if they have another big spill, what do they care? They will be personally shielded by the corporate structures.
That was kinda my point.
Great! Stop the insanity of fossil fuels!
Two oil spills here in 56 years? That’s a terrible thing? Your alternative? Get it shipped across the world (carbon footprint = giant, sorry to tell you) from somewhere else that has less concern for the environment, we pay them and their workforce, we get less jobs, etc. Hmm. Easy to say “no oil in our backyard”. It’s very NIMBY.
Fossil fuels degrade everyone’s back yard. Wind and solar are cheaper and less destructive.
Why do you constantly cling to the past, post falsehoods, and advocate for sociopathic things?
basic, we all know you’ll say some seriously dumb things…
California doesn’t really want oil or big oil or any oil. you don’t seem to grasp that. we as a state have passed laws and regulations preventing more natural disasters from occurring. 56 years. How long does the damage take to completely heal? Probably longer than that.
If you want oil so bad and to support it, feel free to move to Texas. We won’t miss you.
What’s dumb is getting all your oil from somewhere else (who will have spills) all the while not realizing how much you’re consuming whether you drive a Tesla or not, wearing your NIMBY blinders, patting yourself on the back because you don’t have to see an oil rig offshore, and supporting overdevelopment in your backyard that will exceed the infrastructure and water supply very soon. Right?
You’re literally the biggest NIMBY on this site, BASIC. Not to mention rat tattle tale too. Go cry some more.
You do realize that all the oil pumped HERE IN THE US is sold on the world market, right? If the US kept all of it’s own oil, we wouldn’t have to import a single drop. We’d still actually be able to export. That’s the biggest problem with your argument. You just don’t know or care about the facts. It’s just another face of the tesseract of greed.
That’s reinforces my argument, prelim. Thanks.
Buries it under reinforced concrete, you mean.
How exactly?
Realizing isn’t Basic’s thing.
Wait, you still getting triggered by Teslas?
and hey Basic another cool thing about moving to Texas, or Louisiana, Kentucky, Arkansas, Florida, etc, is that along with fewer environmental quality restrictions giving you dirtier air & water, but you can still go on EdHat and complain about cannabis farms, or harbor fees, or those dang kids on Ebikes. It’s a win-win for you and a win for SB!
Thank you for your consideration of this matter.
Are those the “dumb red states” we’ve heard about? Must be full of “dumb people” that need to be told what to by CA ultraliberals like you because you know better than them. Riiiight…
Yep, you’ll fit right in! All your friends are there, man! Do it! Ya can’t lose!
They didn’t say anything about them being dumb, dummy, nor about telling them what to do. You are utterly incapable of comprehending anything.
Like I said, he’s utterly incapable of comprehending anything.
Two MAJOR oil spills. Hundreds of smaller ones. Greka, anyone?
But, with BI Guy’s willful ignorance, he’ll ignore them.
Two brain cells? Is that all you’ve got?
“Get it shipped across the world”
It gets piped from here to refineries down south and then shipped across the world, so apparently 2 brain cells is generous.
And we profit. We control it. It’s a resource we have.
Why attempt to discuss a valid topic with those who have nothing but 5th grader insults…..
BASIC – you complaining about insults is one of the funniest things I’ve read today.
Th oil companies profit. The citizens get left holding the bag, given all the subsidies, environmental degradation, and cleanup costs.
BASIC – “Two oil spills here in 56 years? That’s a terrible thing?”
LOL of course BASIC is one of the first to come here to complain about efforts to keep our water clean.
A true “outdoorsman” and “aquatic biologist” or “stream ecologist” (who knows anymore with all the lying) who thinks Reef Balls are “not artificial reefs.”