A Texas oil company attempting to restart a defunct oil and gas operation near Santa Barbara lost in court this week after a Superior Court judge ruled that the company did large-scale digging and other work on the Gaviota coast to repair a defective pipeline without the required permits.
Earlier this year, the California Coastal Commission sued Sable Offshore Corp. for openly ignoring multiple cease-and-desist orders and making extensive, unpermitted repairs to the pipeline—the same one that ruptured in 2015, causing the massive Plains oil spill at Refugio State Beach. The Coastal Commission said much of Sable’s unpermitted work destroyed or disrupted sensitive habitats and species in the area.
Judge Thomas Anderle sided with the Coastal Commission and adopted his tentative ruling issued Tuesday. The ruling says that coastal development permits were required for Sable’s work both onshore and offshore and that Santa Barbara County was incorrect that permits issued in 1986 covered the work.
The ruling means that Sable cannot conduct any more repairs without permits and must apply for permits for the work already done. It also means Sable will have to pay a record $18 million fine issued by the Coastal Commission in April.
“Today’s ruling again shows that Sable is unwilling or unable to follow the most basic laws for protecting public safety and the environment on our coast,” said Linda Krop, Chief Counsel for the Environmental Defense Center (EDC). “We hope that any state agencies still considering approvals for this dangerous project will consider Sable’s track record and the fact that it is barred from making further repairs to the pipeline without the required permits.”
“This ruling is a total smackdown of Sable’s argument that its extensive pipeline work was covered by approvals from the ‘80s,” said Julie Teel Simmonds, senior counsel at the Center for Biological Diversity. “The judge thankfully recognized that this post-spill work on the idled pipelines was no ordinary repair and maintenance and that the Coastal Commission acted squarely within its authority by ordering Sable to stop. This is a victory for California’s precious coastal resources and the rule of law.”
On Wednesday, Sable Offshore issued a statement on the verdict claiming the company vigorously disagrees with the court’s tentative ruling and it would have no impact on the resumption of oil transportation through the Las Flores Pipeline System. Sable nevertheless intends to appeal this ruling to the California Court of Appeal if the ruling is adopted by the Santa Barbara Superior Court.
“Although the tentative ruling is disappointing, it has no impact on Sable’s business strategy of either resuming petroleum transportation through the Las Flores Pipeline System or selling its Santa Ynez Unit production through an [Offshore Storage & Treating Vessel]. California has an opportunity to authorize the resumption of petroleum transportation through the Las Flores Pipeline System per its obligations in the Federal Consent Decree and lower gasoline prices for California residents,” said Jim Flores, Chairman and CEO of Sable. “Sable is very concerned about the state’s crumbling energy complex. California’s economy will face dire consequences if refineries continue to close due to the lack of domestic production, which should be a major concern for the bondholders of the State of California. The Las Flores Pipeline System offers a California-based solution benefitting workers, state and local government revenues and the environment that can almost immediately serve to reverse this trend.”
The decision comes one week after the state Attorney General filed a separate lawsuit against Sable, alleging the company repeatedly broke the law by discharging waste into streams, wetlands, and habitats along the pipeline route.
In September, the Santa Barbara County District Attorney’s Office filed 21 criminal charges against Sable, including five felony counts. The complaint accuses Sable of violating the law while excavating and making repairs to the severely corroded pipeline that ruptured and spilled onto Refugio State Beach in 2015.
Charges include five felony counts of knowingly discharging a pollutant into a waterway and sixteen misdemeanor counts of unlawfully obstructing a streambed and discharging materials harmful to wildlife.
Sable is also suing the Coastal Commission for the alleged damages it has caused the company through the cease and desist orders. Sable claims the anomaly repair program and hydrotesting of the Las Flores Pipeline System was completed in May 2025 in accordance with the Federal Consent Decree and it intends to continue its pursuit of the writ of mandate in the Court of Appeal as well as declaratory relief and inverse condemnation claims in excess of approximately $347 million.
The Office of the State Fire Marshal and the State Parks Department are considering Sable’s request for final approvals to restart the pipeline and operate it through Gaviota State Park.
Also Read
- 5.7 Magnitude Earthquake Rattles Nevada With Tremors Felt Across Northern California
- Montecito Estate Once Owned By Architect A. Eugene Kohn Lists for Nearly Four Times Its Last Sale Price
- Plenty On Bell Enters New Chapter as Rowles Family Takes Over Ownership After Legal Dispute
- Large Apartment Community With 340 Units Opens for Leasing in Santa Maria
- Oceano Dunes Shuts Down Camping and Off-Highway Vehicle Use After Court Ruling
Outstanding judgment against these dirtbag criminal carpetbaggers.
Toast those oily bastards!
Sable trashed Refugio Beach and then hid behind a forty year old permit, shameless.
And now, allegations of insider trading
https://www.houstonchronicle.com/business/energy/article/sable-mickelson-insider-hunterbrook-investigation-21135886.php
Trump Is Said to Propose Opening California Coast to Oil Drilling
free link:
https://www.nytimes.com/2025/11/11/climate/offshore-drilling-california-trump-newsom.html?unlocked_article_code=1.0k8.kO4e.muL4myuJwSUs&smid=url-share
“The Trump administration plans to allow new oil and gas drilling off the California coast for the first time in roughly four decades, according to three people briefed on the matter.
Speaking at a news conference in Brazil, he said it was “remarkable” that Mr. Trump did not call for drilling near Mar-a-Lago, the president’s Florida resort. “He didn’t promote it off the coast of Florida,” Mr. Newsom said. “That says everything about Donald Trump.”
The proposed lease sales in the Pacific Ocean would primarily be off Santa Barbara County, Calif., where a small amount of drilling is already occurring, according to two of the people familiar with the Interior Department’s draft plan.
During Mr. Trump’s first term, the Interior Department initially proposed to open nearly all U.S. coastal waters to drilling. But, in response to concerns from Republicans in the Southeast who worried that oil spills could damage tourism and fishing, the agency enacted a moratorium on drilling off Florida, Georgia and South Carolina through 2032.
Senators Ashley Moody and Rick Scott, Republicans of Florida, last month introduced legislation that would codify the moratorium into law. “I will always work to keep Florida’s shores pristine and protect our natural treasures for generations to come,” Mr. Scott said in a statement.
It was unclear whether the draft plan would allow drilling in the Atlantic Ocean off Florida and South Carolina. Gov. Henry McMaster of South Carolina, a Republican, wrote a letter to Interior Secretary Doug Burgum in June saying that his state’s coastline was “one of the most pristine in the country, and offshore drilling is simply not in its best interest.”
WOW. Now that is some classic NIMBYism. Protect the shores of red states and his home state, but open up California (a state which is in its entirety his arch nemesis) to destructive drilling.
Hey BASIC. Where are you on this one? You still cool with drilling here but not off red states?
Come on, let’s hear it!