Santa Barbara supervisors block Sable Offshore oil permits tied to Refugio spill, dealing blow to plans to restart Santa Barbara offshore oil operations
The Santa Barbara County Board of Supervisors voted 4-1 to deny transfer of oil and gas permits from ExxonMobil to Sable Offshore, effectively preventing Sable from operating assets tied to the 2015 Refugio spill and halting plans to restart offshore production.
- Board vote: 4-1 to uphold an appeal and deny the permit transfer — reporting from KCBX and Noozhawk.
- Permits affected: Operational authority over the Santa Ynez Unit, including offshore platforms, onshore processing at Gaviota, and the Las Flores Pipeline (Daily Nexus).
- Concerns cited: Legal troubles, large fines, alleged regulatory failures and lack of decommissioning bonds — see Noozhawk and Center for Biological Diversity.
Boardroom clash and how the vote unfolded
After hours of testimony and debate, supervisors voted to block the permit transfer. The meeting was sharply divided: supporters of Sable attended wearing company hats; opponents wore red shirts and held signs urging caution.
Supervisor Steve Lavagnino switched his earlier position, citing what he called “misguided management” and saying facts had changed since a February deadlock. The lone vote in favor came from Supervisor Bob Nelson, who described the hearing as “political theater.” Reporting: Noozhawk, KCBX.
Why supervisors said no: safety, fines and legal exposure
Board members listed multiple issues that drove the decision:
- Criminal and regulatory cases: Sable faces dozens of legal actions, including 21 criminal charges brought by the Santa Barbara County district attorney and state regulatory proceedings (Noozhawk, Daily Nexus).
- Massive fine: The California Coastal Commission assessed an $18 million penalty against Sable (Noozhawk).
- Decommissioning and financial assurance: County officials said Sable had not posted required performance bonds or shown financial capacity to decommission aging platforms or pay for potential cleanup (Center for Biological Diversity).
- Reputation and disclosures: Board members raised allegations that management leaked sensitive information to investors, undermining confidence (Noozhawk).
The Refugio spill and the Las Flores Pipeline
At the heart of the dispute is the Las Flores Pipeline, which ruptured in 2015 and caused the Refugio oil spill, releasing an estimated 142,000 gallons of crude and fouling beaches and marine habitat. The pipeline and related infrastructure are part of the Santa Ynez Unit that Sable sought to operate (Noozhawk, Daily Nexus).
Legal background and procedural history
This decision follows a 2-2 stalemate in February 2025. After that tie, Sable sued the county and the Santa Barbara County Superior Court ordered a new hearing and vote. The board’s action is a preliminary decision; county staff will prepare written findings and the board will take a final vote on Dec. 16, 2025 (KCBX, Noozhawk).
Industry response and local implications
ExxonMobil and Sable warned the county that blocking the transfer could violate contracts and constitutional protections, and signaled intent to sue for damages if the permits are not transferred (KCBX).
“We must ensure adequate insurance, bonds and plans to respond to spills,” said Supervisor Joan Hartmann, who was later allowed to participate in the vote after a state review of a prior recusal (Noozhawk, Daily Nexus).
Local effects: Paso Robles and San Luis Obispo County contractors may lose potential offshore work if operations remain stalled, while taxpayers could face litigation costs should Sable or ExxonMobil sue. The decision reflects a tension between economic interests and environmental oversight (KCBX).
Voices on both sides
Environmental groups — including the Environmental Defense Center, Center for Biological Diversity, Santa Barbara Channelkeeper and the Wishtoyo Foundation — urged denial, calling Sable “unfit to operate.”
Sable supporters argued the action harms contracts and property rights, could scare off investment and risk jobs, and said blocking the transfer risks prolonged legal battles (KCBX).
Broader regulatory context
Observers say the decision fits a trend of sharper scrutiny of offshore oil operations in California, with regulators pushing for more oversight of aging platforms and pipelines near the Santa Barbara coast. Coverage: E&E News, The Santa Barbara Independent.
What to watch next
- County staff’s written findings and the final board vote on Dec. 16, 2025 (KCBX, Noozhawk).
- Potential litigation by ExxonMobil or Sable claiming breach of contract or constitutional violations (KCBX).
- State regulator actions or enforcement by the California Coastal Commission related to fines and broader offshore policy (Noozhawk, E&E News).
Sources and reporting
This article draws on reporting and public records from: KCBX, Noozhawk, Center for Biological Diversity, Daily Nexus, E&E News, The Santa Barbara Independent, the Environmental Defense Center, and public video of the hearing (YouTube).
