Construction Crews at Work Near Oil Pipeline in Gaviota After State Orders Sable to Cease Unpermitted Work 

Sable Offshore was issued a notice of violation by the California Coastal Commission on September 27 for failing to obtain the proper coastal development permits for construction work on oil pipelines on the Gaviota Coast. While the notice ordered Sable to cease their unpermitted activities in the area immediately, construction crews remained active on the Gaviota hillside on Friday, October 4. Sable has been working to restart pipeline 901/903 (now Line 324/325), which has been stagnant since its rupture in the Refugio Oil Spill nearly a decade ago. 

Two Caterpillar excavators and multiple pickup trucks with the letters “PCS” written on the sides were mobile at Sable’s sites, with at least 20 construction workers present. One excavator was moving a large pile of dirt directly next to a sign that read “Warning: Crude Oil Pipeline.” Line 901/903 is the only crude oil pipeline in the immediate vicinity, according to the United States Department of Transportation’s National Pipeline Mapping System.

The September 27 notice stated that Sable was conducting a “pipeline upgrade project to address pipeline corrosion in locations within the Coastal Zone and to install new safety valves in portions of the pipeline” — all actions that must adhere to coastal development permit requirements. Sable must obtain authorization under the California Coastal Act in the Coastal Commission’s jurisdiction, and/or Santa Barbara County’s Local Coastal Plan under the county’s jurisdiction. In the meantime, the Coastal Commission’s notice told Sable to “please cease immediately any unpermitted activities/development in the Coastal Zone.” 

This comes after Santa Barbara County entered into a settlement agreement with Sable on August 30, stating they were preempted from having any jurisdiction over a potential pipeline restart. 

Jo Ginsberg, enforcement analyst for the Coastal Commission, recommended in the notice that Sable apply for an “after-the-fact” coastal development permit from Santa Barbara County, the regulating authority in this case. She also mentioned that the Coastal Commission was “uncertain … whether Santa Barbara County would be able to approve [an after-the-fact coastal development plan] from Sable,” or authorization going forward, for that matter. 

Even if Santa Barbara County were to grant an after-the-fact permit to Sable, Ginsberg added that the Coastal Commission reserves the right to appeal the decision for portions of the project within their appeals jurisdiction.

The notice also mentioned that Santa Barbara County declined to enforce Sable’s violations, leaving enforcement actions to the Coastal Commission. 

Santa Barbara County declined to provide additional details regarding their jurisdiction.

“Sable Offshore is working with all agencies to ensure all of our work is in compliance with our existing permits and federal and state statutes,” said Steve Rusch, Sable’s vice president of environmental and regulatory affairs. “We look forward to being an important part of the California energy solution and working through these issues, which come with increased scrutiny.”