Santa Barbara County Supervisors Deny Permit Transfer to Sable Offshore Citing Operator, Financial Issues

The Santa Barbara County Board of Supervisors on December 16, 2025, denied Sable Offshore Corporation’s request to transfer county permits from ExxonMobil, primarily based on Sable’s failure to meet the required operator capability finding.

The Texas-based oil company, Sable, is attempting to restart the Santa Ynez Unit (SYU), which includes three old offshore platforms, onshore oil and gas processing stations, and the same defective pipeline responsible for one of the worst oil spill disasters in state history—the 2015 Plains oil spill at Refugio State Beach.

The hearing was to consider the appeals of the Planning Commission’s approval of the transfer of permits covering changes of ownership, operator, and guarantor for three facilities. 

Earlier this year, the Board had considered the matter and voted 4-1 to continue the hearing. The Board had also directed the County staff to return with findings for the denial of the permit transfer. 

County staff later recommended approving the appeals, which would result in denying the transfer applications.

During Tuesday’s meeting, the Board voted 3-1 to approve the staff recommendation and deny the permit transfers. Supervisor Bob Nelson was the lone vote to approve the permit transfer.

During deliberations, Supervisor Joan Hartmann recused herself from the vote after new information showed that the pipeline runs within eight feet of her property. This created a disqualifying conflict of interest.

Prior to the vote, Supervisor Steve Lavagnino said he has supported oil projects by numerous companies, but Sable is different. “There is just too much evidence in the record that shows a pattern of noncompliance and either ignorance of our rules or just blatant disregard,” Lavagnino said.

This vote was the final denial of Sable’s application to take over the permits, concluding more than a year of county hearings on the transfer. Under County law, Sable cannot operate its onshore facilities—including the pipeline—without these permits.

Arguments Supporting Denial

Appellants, including the Santa Barbara Channelkeeper and the Environmental Defense Center (EDC), argued that evidence backed the denial of transfer rights on three grounds: operator capability, financial guarantees, and compliance with existing permit conditions. 

Sable was found to have conducted unauthorized excavation, grading, dewatering, pipeline repairs, and offshore sandbag placement without Coastal Act authorization, despite receiving formal notices and cease and desist orders from the Coastal Commission. 

The District Attorney has filed felony and misdemeanor environmental charges against Sable for illegal stream bed alterations and discharges.

Appellants said Sable failed to comply with state waivers required to address insufficient pipeline protection, resulting in the California Office of the State Fire Marshal issuing a notice of deficiency.

“The evidence confirms that Sable is either unwilling or unable to follow fundamental environmental protections under the law,” said Tara Rengifo, Senior Attorney at the EDC. “Yesterday’s decision by the Board has real teeth—without those permits Sable cannot lawfully operate the oil and gas facilities on the Gaviota Coast.”

In addition, the State Lands Commission noted that the company undermined trust, raising concerns about its willingness to operate transparently. 

Sable was accused of violating County rules by unloading 57 diesel trucks to fill crude oil tanks without notifying the County, appellants said.

The Water Board had sent notices of violations on three occasions for unauthorized waste discharges into the County’s waterways. 

“We can’t afford to take major risks with the health of our coastline and wildlife, and the board was right not to give these permits to Sable,” said Talia Nimmer, an attorney at the Center for Biological Diversity. “Sable hasn’t shown it would be a responsible operator and it hasn’t put up any money to guarantee it’ll clean up these facilities once it’s done profiting from the oil. That’s not good enough for California’s irreplaceable coast.”  

Financial Capacity Concerns

Sable’s financial capacity was one of the key concerns supporting the denial. According to Sable’s SEC filings, the company’s available cash had dropped from $247 million to $41 million in one quarter, and had almost $900 million in debt, appellants said. 

They also noted Sable’s acknowledgment of “substantial doubt” in its ability to continue as a going concern. 

Sable was yet to post the $350 million decommissioning bond required by ExxonMobil, as well as the $31.9 million bond mandated by CalGEM. 

Sable’s Arguments

Urging the Board of Supervisors to reject the appeals and approve the permit transfers, Sable and its supporters said the alleged violations were minor, technical issues that were often self-reported.

They described the company’s management team as highly qualified. 

Terming the appeals as political motives to end oil and gas production, they said that the denial would lead to job losses, potential hikes in gas prices, and the loss of more than $50 million in county tax revenue over the next 10 years. 

Sable has been facing challenges in its attempt to revive oil production at the Santa Ynez Unit near Santa Barbara. Earlier this month, the company sought federal approval to restart the defunct pipeline. 

Claiming the pipeline qualifies as an interstate facility under the Pipeline Safety Act, Sable requested guidance from the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA) on shifting regulatory oversight from the California Office of the State Fire Marshal to PHMSA.