Exxon Mobil and Sable Offshore have filed a lawsuit against Santa Barbara County, alleging that the county is unlawfully withholding permits essential for restarting operations on dormant offshore platforms and onshore processing facilities following a recent asset transfer.
The lawsuit, filed Thursday in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, accuses Santa Barbara County and its Board of Supervisors of delaying the transfer of valid final development permits for operations tied to the Santa Ynez offshore units, the Las Flores Pipeline, and onshore production facilities.
According to Exxon and Sable Offshore Corp., these facilities were sold to Sable in 2023 by Exxon and Mobil Pacific Pipeline Co., yet the companies claim that Santa Barbara has failed to process the proper approvals necessary for resuming operations.
The plaintiffs allege that the county’s inaction amounts to an unlawful seizure of private property in violation of legal protections. The companies contend that by failing to issue the permits, the county is standing in the way of legitimate efforts to resume energy production activities tied to the assets.
In February, the Santa Barbara County Board of Supervisors ended in a deadlock over the transfer of a pipeline permit to Sable Offshore. The tie vote of 2-2 meant that the transfer of permits from ExxonMobil to Sable Offshore did not occur.
Supervisors Roy Lee and Laura Capps voted to support the appeals and deny the permit transfers, while Supervisors Bob Nelson and Steve Lavagnino voted to approve the transfers. Supervisor Joan Hartmann recused herself due to a conflict of interest as the pipeline runs through her property.
The controversial pipeline, previously managed by ExxonMobil, was the culprit of the disastrous Refugio Oil Spill leaking over 140,000 gallons of oil into the sea and affecting 150 miles of coastline.
The case (No. 2:25-cv-04165) is ongoing in the U.S. federal court system, with the companies pushing for resolution on the stalled permits. Santa Barbara County has not issued a public statement regarding the lawsuit.
California Department of Parks and Recreation Grants Sable Environmental Review Exemption
On Friday, May 9, the California Department of Parks and Recreation issued a notice of exemption to Sable Offshore from environmental review for construction work on the Refugio oil pipeline.
The exemption grants Sable a right-of-entry to allow the excavation and repair of eighteen discrete pipeline anomaly sites along the existing crude oil pipeline known as Line 325.
The notice states the footprint of the pipeline will remain the same and all work will be performed in accordance with applicable environmental regulations and State Parks’ stipulated requirements, conditions, and restrictions to avoid and/or minimize the potential for environmental impact.
“It’s absurd that at each turn California is skipping environmental review for the pipeline system that caused the devastating Refugio oil spill 10 years ago. This construction work threatens sensitive habitat in a state park filled with wildlife,” said Brady Bradshaw, senior oceans campaigner at the Center for Biological Diversity. “It’s tremendously disappointing to see Gov. Newsom sacrificing his environmental legacy and one of California’s beautiful state parks for the fossil fuel industry. The governor and the parks commission are taking a huge risk with our coasts.”
Related Articles
https://www.edhat.com/news/santa-barbara-supervisors-reach-stalemate-on-sable-pipeline-permit-amid-public-outcry/
https://www.edhat.com/news/coastal-commission-slaps-18-million-fine-on-sable-offshore-for-unauthorized-work/
Also Read
- Santa Barbara County Planning Commission Unanimously Approves Los Alamos Mixed-Use Project
- Stenner Creek Road Bridge in San Luis Obispo County to Close for Repairs in Mid-November
- Slope Stabilization Work Continues at Regent’s Slide as Caltrans Targets March 2026 Reopening
- Charlie Sheen Cancels November 18 Live Show in Santa Barbara
- Churros 805 Expands to Lompoc with Second Dessert Shop
GOO
After many/many years of trying to g.et o.il o.ut, the oil industry in California is on the run and on its way out. Everything that has been put in place to make this a reality is finally paying off. The Phillips 66 refinery in LA is closing by the end of this year, and Valero plans to shut down their Benicia refinery in 2026. That means there will be 20-25% less gasoline available with continued high demand. Gasoline/diesel prices are expected to rise $3 to $5 per gallon, which translates into somewhere between $8 to $10 per gallon. This all points to an increase in e-car sales and public transportation usage. Just imagine how well the economy of California will be doing in just a couple of years with these positive changes. More jobs will be created, housing costs should stabilize and come down significantly, and finally we’ll have fresh clean air.
BEES – $8-$10 per gallon? Where does that figure come from?
And “20-25% less gasoline available?” Where do you get that from? Do you think we’ll just say “oops, a couple refineries closing down in CA means no more oil at all from CA which means we can’t get it anywhere else!”
Sacjon: I hope you’re okay after falling off the turnip truck.
Instead of insulting, how about you provide some evidence.
This time, with actual links.
Here’s your evidence….[grillos]…
Of course you have nothing.
The source of all this Chicken Little nonsense is:
Senate Minority Leader Brian W. Jones (R-San Diego) is sounding the alarm on a looming energy and economic crisis, warning that California gas prices could soar 75% to $8.43 per gallon in 2026 due to shutdowns of two major in-state refineries, according to a recent analysis by USC Professor Michael Mische.
That professor is backed by Saudi oil money. No surprise there.
Credibility level – akin to anything Trump says.
https://consumerwatchdog.org/energy/failure-to-disclose-ties-to-saudi-arabia-on-paper-advocating-loopholes-for-refiners-and-oil-producers-is-a-violation-of-uscs-conflict-of-interest-code-watchdog-says/
Just more Bends Knees muddled nonsense.
Here’s some bended knees for you:
KTLA 6 days ago
“The estimated average consumer price of regular gasoline could potentially increase by as much as 75% from the April 23, 2025, price of $4.816 to $7.348 to $8.435 a gallon by calendar year end …”
Potentially….I get it….
Hey, that should be some good news for all the Tesla owners who’ve been spazzing out!
Provide the cite/link. What’s the context? What is causing that?
That would be a good thing. We need to price petroleum products to account for all the true costs of utilizing them, instead of massively subsidizing toxic garbage.
Anon: Exactly! Now you are catching on!!! I bend my neez and salute you….(imagine one of them English soldier salutes with the hand sort of upside-down and sideways…or something like that).
Provide reputable sources for your ridiculous claim of 8-10 a gallon or shut it.
Not sure if the SJ Mercury News is reputable enough, but they also report:
Mercury News “7 days ago (The Center Square) – A new analysis has found California gasoline prices could rise to $8.44 per gallon by the end of 2026 after the pending closure of two refineries….
I get it….”could rise”….
Well, speculation is your thing.
Bended kneez iz my phang and you donut have to speculate about that….see you at the “communion rail” (LOL!)….
Living in the Bubbleverse seems to really be exacerbating your neuoatypical state rather profoundly.
ok boomer
You’re a case study in why courses in critical thinking should be required. Articles from SJ Mercury News, KTLA, etc. that “a new analysis” made some claim is (convincing) evidence that there is such an analysis that made that claim, but it is not at all evidence for the claim itself. It’s also evidence that these news outlets don’t do careful vetting of the “analyses” and “studies” that they report on, as they generally ignored the reports of conflict of interest of the author of the “analysis”, and they ignored that the “analysis” was largely a call for massive subsidies of the fossil fuel industry, which should concern you as someone who wants to g.o.o. … the “analysis” aims for the opposite.
“I personally want the price to skyrocket, so it’s not like a potential price increase will be unfavorable to most Californians and Cali-based businesses.”
How in the world does your personal desire for the price to skyrocket make it not unfavorable? Your “so” is a complete logical disconnect. Of course this would cause a regressive hardship for many Californians, on top of all the other economic disasters coming our way via Project 2025.
It is, however, true that fossil fuels are a financial dead end: https://mailchi.mp/1db41213882c/renewable-power-is-the-answer-to-surging-utility-bills-in-the-us?e=1c3609db82
MarcelK: Possibly you missed the point, except the part where fossil fuels are a financial “dead” end.
There was no point to your comment.
And yet you can’t articulate what I missed or how my comment is in any way incorrect, troll.
MARCELK is back! Funny, I was looking at some old comments on an article from a year ago and saw yours and was wondering where you’ve been. Good to see some more common sense and critical thinking on this site again!
I personally want the price to skyrocket, so it’s not like a potential price increase will be unfavorable to most Californians and Cali-based businesses. And if the bogus study funded by the oil companies is 100% false, then I will stand corrected. The LA refinery closure is a done deal as far as I know. The Benecia refinery is scheduled to close in April 2026, but Governor Newsom is begging them to stay. Like hands and KNEES type of begging. He cannot afford to look any worse on the national level if he plans to run for POTUS (I believe his chances were greatly reduced after everyone pointed the finger at him during/after the LA fire disasters….which, of course, he had nothing to do with at all).
Continued Muddle FUDdle from Bends Knees.