After an intense seven-hour hearing on Tuesday marked by a divide between environmentalists and supporters of the oil industry, the Santa Barbara 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, a decision hailed as a victory by environmental advocates.
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.
More than 100 public comments were heard during the session, which Supervisor Laura Capps acknowledged was not directly about stopping or starting the pipeline, saying, “It’s not fair for some folks to walk out of here and think, okay, we stopped the pipeline or we started the pipeline. That is not what we’re doing here. And that is completely unfair.”
It’s ultimately up to state and federal agencies that oversee pipeline operations and restart plans, while in this instance, the Board of Supervisors were tasked with interpreting ordinances to decide whether to transfer the permit.
Supervisor Rob Nelson echoed the sentiment of misinterpretation with his remarks on the nature of the proceedings stating the younger speakers were being “gaslit” and this was merely “political theater.”
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.
Despite the county Planning Commission’s approval in October, the decision faced pushback from environmental groups due to the potential risks associated with Sable, which already owns three offshore platforms and the the Las Flores Canyon processing facility in Gaviota.
While environmental advocates warned of the ecological dangers, proponents of the transfer argued the economic advantage and job opportunities it could bring, creating a division rooted in concerns for both environmental protection and economic growth.
Environmental groups such as the Environmental Defense Center and Center for Biological Diversity had previously appealed the Planning and Development staff’s approval of the permit transfer on the grounds of safety concerns, specifically the pipeline’s history of corrosion and the potential risk of a spill like at Refugio in 2015.
The groups opposing the transfer have claimed victory with the deadlock vote being interpreted as a denial of the transfer.
“I’m really relieved the county decided against approving the transfer of permits for an operation that might result in another disastrous oil spill,” said Brady Bradshaw, senior oceans campaigner at the Center for Biological Diversity. “A massive group of Santa Barbarans made it clear that they expect strong leadership and careful decision-making from the county, and fortunately the supervisors avoided a bad decision.”
“We applaud the Board of Supervisors’ decision to NOT transfer permits to Sable to operate a defective pipeline and dangerous processing facilities on our shores. The Board was right to effectively deny the transfer to Sable, which has been rushing to complete repairs despite multiple notices of violation and stop work orders from the Coastal Commission and other state agencies. An oil company with clear disregard for state law cannot be trusted to operate a high-risk project with potentially disastrous consequences if and when something goes wrong,” said Linda Krop, chief counsel of the Environmental Defense Center.
Although Sable has issued their own statement of victory following the Board of Supervisors meeting.
“Sable is pleased the appeals failed and the Planning Commission’s approval of the Santa Ynez Unit permit transfer to Sable stands. We look forward to continuing to work with the county to finalize the permit transfer and to safely restart production as soon as possible,” said Steve Rusch, Sable’s vice president of environmental and governmental affairs,
The stalemate vote means Sable’s application remains pending with the next steps to be determined by the company.
In the meantime, Sable remains entangled in a lawsuit with the California Coastal Commission that was filed last week immediately following the Commission’s issuance of a second cease-and-desist order to the oil company on February 18. The dispute centers on Sable’s ongoing repair and maintenance activities on its two oil pipelines—a project the Commission deems as development, thereby requiring new coastal development permits.
Related Articles
https://www.edhat.com/news/sable-entangles-with-california-coastal-commission-in-legal-dispute-over-pipeline-repairs/
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
Yeah, too bad this doesn’t actually stop Sable’s efforts to continue abusing the environment.
As long as there’s a profit to be made, Big Oil will continue to drill/pump. The world, especially Southern California, is addicted to oil. It will probably be another century at least before we completely get off off fossil fuels. Good to see from the photos that there were many young(ish) folks that showed up to protest. We need the participation of the younger generation to fight against the oil companies, otherwise, we face a very dark future.
BEES – “especially Southern California, is addicted to oil?” How so? How is what is generally the most liberal and pro-renewable/pro-environment region in the USA “especially” addicted to oil?
California is only second to Texas in fossil fuel consumption in the US. Add on the massive consumption of other goods (and services) which all involve the use of oil and I’d venture to say we’re #1 on the list.
“Pro-Environment”? Hah. Not even. Slap a bumper sticker on your car? You can’t be pro environment and pro more people and pro high density housing all at once. It’s absurd.
Costco? Plastics? Car washes every week? Gas? Paper towels? Cosmetics? New cars? Cell phones? Building renovation? Avocados from Mexico? Imported fish? Trader Joe’s anything? It’s all using fossil fuels and CA tops it off as THE heaviest consumer state. Buy Buy Buy!
The funny part is that you saying you’re the most liberal and anti-oil doesn’t actually mean jack unless you actually live it. Politics are ine thing and lifestyles and consumption are another. And oh yeah, toss in the afforadble housing for all and see what happens with our water supply, infrastructure, carbon footprint, and quality of life here.
SB used to be “Slow Growth”. That was a great philosophy. It worked for many many years.
Lotta nonsense right there. We’re not “pro-environment” here in So Cal? Google “where did Earth Day start.”
What a joke.
…the only information offered I deemed worthy?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth_Day#:~:text=In%201969%20at%20a%20UNESCO,the%20event%20%22Earth%20Day%22.
?
Drilling bans are so last year.
Only for those who don’t care about tomorrow.
I am sure my comment won’t make it on because Edhat doesn’t like to hear the other side much.
I live over the Sable pipeline and I am for it. The spill ten years ago caused people to get hysterical and say Gaviota was ruined forever. It was back to its pristine beauty within a year.
The oil companies are supplying what the country and the world demand: power. I am sure the lady with the “Drilling is Killing” got in her car and drove off after. Oil is in EVERYTHING!
Until we agree to go nuclear with new tech OR find an alternative, there is no other solution. By the way, even if electrical could work we don’t have the infrastructure to support it yet.
I suggest you all watch the series, Landman and get a clue.
SusieQ – you aren’t being “censored” because edhat doesn’t like to hear the other side. You’re being moderated because you frequently post racist, sexist, xenophobic, and homophobic comments. That’s why.
“Landman” is fiction, full of sparky dialogue meant to grab your attention. It is not a source of information, and if you think it is then it is you who needs a clue.
So here are just two of many easy-to-find and factual responses to the absurd claims made in that show.
https://www.newsweek.com/fact-check-taylor-sheridan-landman-hit-writing-misleads-1995622
https://poweralliance.org/2024/11/26/landman-misses-the-facts-on-texas-wind-energy/
Put a layer of dirt on a puddle of oil, or submerge globs of it in the ocean, and superficial people will say everything is beautiful.
This is hilarious to me because I am ‘That Lady’ holding the Drilling is Killing sign. I didn’t drive. I walked over. Thanks for playing!
SZQ is “sure” about a lot of her fantasies.
Bravo ThatLady! Good values and great sign!