Oil company fined record $18 million for defying state orders to stop
work on pipeline
[April 12, 2025] By
ALEJANDRO LAZO/CalMatters
The California Coastal Commission fined an oil company a record $18
million on Thursday for repeatedly defying orders to stop work on a
corroded pipeline in Santa Barbara County that caused a major oil spill
nearly a decade ago.
The vote sets the stage for a potentially high-stakes test of the
state’s power to police oil development along the coast. The onshore
pipeline in Gaviota gushed more than 100,000 gallons of crude oil onto
coastal land and ocean waters, shutting down fisheries, closing beaches
and harming marine life and coastal habitats in 2015.
Sable Offshore Corp., a Houston-based company, purchased the pipeline
from the previous owners, Exxon Mobil, last year, and is seeking to
restart the Santa Ynez offshore oil operation.
The Coastal Commission said Sable has done something no alleged violator
has ever done before: ignoring the agency’s multiple cease-and-desist
orders and continuing its work.
“Our orders were valid and legally issued, and Sable’s refusal to comply
is a refusal to follow the law,” said Commissioner Meagan Harmon, who
also is a member of the Santa Barbara City Council. “Their refusal, in a
very real sense, is a subversion of the will of the people of the state
of California.”
The company argued it can proceed using the pipeline’s original county
permit issued in the 1980s. In February, Sable sued the Coastal
Commission saying the state is unlawfully halting the company’s repair
and maintenance work.
At a 5-hour public hearing in Santa Barbara, more than 100 speakers
lined up, many of them urging the commission to penalize Sable and stop
its work. Some invoked memories of the 2015 Refugio Oil Spill as well as
the massive 1969 Santa Barbara oil spill caused by a blowout on a Union
Oil drilling rig. Public outrage over that spill helped shape the
environmental movement, led to the first Earth Day and contributed to
the enactment of many national environmental laws.
“I’ve never taken how special this area is for granted,” said Santa
Barbara County resident Carol Millar. “As a kid, I was traumatized by
the ’69 oil spill, and in 2015, I had to watch my own kids go through
the same trauma.”
Steve Rusch, Sable’s vice president of environmental and governmental
affairs, said the commission was overreaching because of the spill
caused by the previous owners.
“We are proud of our good-paying, skilled jobs that our project has
brought to the region,” he told commissioners. “It’s not about the 2015
Refugio oil spill. It’s not about the restart of the pipeline …it’s not
about the future of oil production or fossil fuel in California.”
In repairing the former, corroded pipelines, the company is seeking to
restart production of the Santa Ynez oil operation, which includes three
offshore rigs, according to an investor presentation by the company.
Operations stopped after the 2015 spill.
Sable had been excavating around the former pipelines and placing cement
bags on the seafloor below its oil and water pipelines.
The Coastal Commission’s fine levied against Sable is the highest ever
levied against a company, according to a commission spokesperson. The
commission voted to lower the $18 million fine to potentially just under
$15 million if Sable complies with the state’s orders and applies for a
coastal development permit.
In addition to the penalty, the commissioners voted to order Sable to
cease its work and restore land and offshore areas, including replanting
vegetation and erosion control, where the unauthorized work occurred.
Beginning last year, commission staff charged the company with multiple
violations of coastal laws, including unpermitted construction and
excavation using heavy equipment along the 14-mile oil pipeline on the
Gaviota Coast, including in waters offshore.
The enforcement division of the commission said Sable undertook major
work at multiple locations without securing the required coastal
development permits.
[to top of second column] |
 The company dug large pits, cleared
vegetation, graded and widened roads, placed cement and sandbags in
ocean waters and drained water sources, among other damage,
according to a staff presentation. Commission staff said these
actions went beyond routine maintenance and amounted to a full
rebuild of the pipeline.
Coastal Commission officials emphasized that the work posed serious
risks to the environment, including wetlands and other sensitive
habitats, potentially harming protected species, including western
pond turtles and steelhead.
“The timing of the implemented development is particularly
problematic, as much of this development has been during bird
nesting season, as well as red-legged frog breeding season and
Southern Steelhead migratory spawning season,” said Stephanie Cook,
an attorney with the commission. “This work has a high potential to
adversely impact these habitat areas.”
The staff said it spent months trying to get Sable to cooperate but
the company provided incomplete or misleading information.
Rusch, in a statement issued after the hearing, said the company is
conducting routine pipeline repair and maintenance, and said the
actions were allowed under old permits issued by Santa Barbara
County. The work is taking place in areas already affected by
previous construction and use, and the company says the state cannot
override the county’s interpretation of its permits.
“Sable is dedicated to restarting project operations in a safe and
efficient manner,” Rusch said in the statement. “No California
business should be forced to go through a protracted and arbitrary
permitting process when it already has valid permits for the work it
performed.”
However, the validity of the county permit for the pipeline is in
dispute. The Santa Barbara County Board of Supervisors in a February
vote did not approve transferring the county permit to Sable, the
new owner. The vote was 2-2, with one member abstaining because the
pipeline runs through her property. County officials are still
trying to decide their next step.
One concern of county officials is whether Sable has the financial
ability and adequate insurance to handle a major oil spill.
The pipeline dispute comes as the Trump administration moves to
boost domestic oil and gas production while sidelining efforts to
develop wind and solar.
Several workers who said they were affiliated with the company spoke
out in support along with others who said the company would boost
the local economy.
Evelyn Lynn, director of operations at Aspen Helicopters in Oxnard,
said she supported Sable’s efforts because it would give her company
a boost. “If they’re not allowed to start their efforts again, this
will have huge collateral damage to all of our local businesses, and
also to our company in particular, and all of our local people who
live here,” Lynn said. “All of our employees are required to live in
California. They are all local, and they are all affected.”
The Coastal Commission’s permits are not the only step the company
has to take to operate the pipeline. Multiple state agencies
regulate pipelines, including the California Department of Fish and
Wildlife’s Office of Oil Spill and Prevention Response and the
Office of the State Fire Marshal.
Environmental groups have called for a full environmental review of
the pipeline under the California Environmental Quality Act.
National environmental organizations such as the Center for
Biological Diversity have weighed in, along with local advocates, to
support the Coastal Commission. A group born out of the original
Santa Barbara oil spill — the Environmental Defense Center — opposes
the project and efforts to restart drilling. The Surfrider
Foundation also launched a “Don’t Enable Sable” campaign, and
several beachgoers spoke out against the project.
All contents © copyright 2025 Associated Press. All rights reserved |
