Sable Offshore’s celebratory lap after gaining approval from the Santa Barbara County Planning Commission on October 30 to transfer ownership of oil assets from ExxonMobil to themselves was cut short on November 7, when the Environmental Defense Center filed to appeal the commission’s decision. The formal lob to the Board of Supervisors will shake itself out during a soon-to-be-scheduled public hearing, where the supervisors will vote on whether Sable is capable, both financially and functionally, of safely operating Exxon’s assets off the Gaviota Coast.
Longstanding concerns from environmentalists regarding Sable’s oil spill contingency plans and financial standing were brought up by commissioners at the October 30 meeting. With the pipeline that ruptured in the Refugio Oil Spill being one of the assets on the line, tensions were high. However, probing questions into Sable’s plans to repair the pipeline and a reasonable worst-case spill scenario were met with statements that these aspects simply aren’t relevant to the decision at hand. In the end, the commissioners voted 3-1 to approve the transfer of assets.
In their appeal letter, the Santa Barbara–based Environmental Defense Center (EDC) argued that per the County Code, Sable’s financial capability and compliance plans are absolutely applicable here. Certain required findings for the transfer, as laid out in Chapter 25B, were either not found, misinterpreted, or ignored by commissioners when arriving at their decision, the EDC wrote.
“Sable has already shown that it can’t be trusted to operate responsibly or safely,” said Alex Katz, executive director of the EDC. In a press release announcing the appeal, the EDC highlighted what it called “Sable’s questionable track record as an operator,” referring to “its recent decision to ignore a direct order from the California Coastal Commission to stop unpermitted repair work on the corroded pipeline.”
“We urge the County Supervisors to deny these transfers and protect our coast,” Katz said.
Based on the recusal of Joan Hartmann, whose property lies near the pipeline, along with the previous 2-2 vote over the construction of safety valves on the pipeline, the reasonable expectation is another 2-2 vote on the transfer of assets at the Board of Supervisors. In this case, the Planning Commission’s decision would stand.
The final decision on Sable’s restart plans, however, still lies in the hands of the California Coastal Commission and State Fire Marshal.
