Sable Offshore files suit against Santa Barbara County over permit transfers necessary to restart oil production
SANTA BARBARA COUNTY, Calif. – While Sable Offshore is looking to finish remaining construction projects to restart oil production by the end of this month, the transfer of permits for pipelines and facilities is now awaiting the results of a lawsuit filed last week in Santa Barbara County Superior Court between the Houston-based company and the County of Santa Barbara.
On May 8, Sable Offshore filed a lawsuit alleging that the County of Santa Barbara's Board of Supervisors has failed to comply with County Codes and violated sections of the U.S. and California Constitutions.
Those alleged violations of County-specific laws center around the oversight authority granted to the Board of Supervisors under the County's Petroleum Code.
Back in February of 2024, ExxonMobil sold existing infrastructure to produce oil in Santa Barbara County which included 114 wells, three offshore platforms, and an onshore oil and gas processing facility at Las Flores Canyon collectively called the Santa Ynez Unit to Sable Offshore.
The image below is an informational slide from an investor presentation by Sable Offshore and provided to the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) which shows the various parts of the Santa Ynez Unit.
In March of 2024, Sable Offshore applied for a Change of Owner, Operator, and Guarantor covering the purchased assets which were subject to approval by the County of Santa Barbara's Planning Commission.
The County Planning Commission approved the transfers on a three to one vote on Oct. 30, 2024, following an almost seven-hour meeting.
The County Planning Commission staff noted that Sable Offshore had satisfied County requirements to take ownership of the permits.
In response, environmental groups including the Center for Biological Diversity and the Environmental Defense Center filed two appeals of the decision to the County Board of Supervisors under County Code Chapter 25B.
County Code Chapter 25B, adopted in 2001, allows for the Board of Supervisors to conduct a review of already-issued Final Development Permits (FDP) for transfers or changes in ownership that have been approved by the County Planning Commission if an appeal is filed.
Notably, County Code Chapter 25B states that after receiving an appeal or appeals of a Planning Commission decision, the Board of Supervisors, "shall affirm, reverse, or modify the planning commission's decision at a public hearing."
In February, the County Board of Supervisors had just such a meeting, and came to a final vote of two denials of the appeals from Supervisors Lavignino and Nelson versus two votes to approve the appeals from Supervisors Capps and Lee with one voting member, Supervisor Hartmann, recusing herself as her home in Buellton has an associated pipeline running adjacent to her property.
According to procedural rules for the Board of Supervisors, the Board can not take an action without three votes and therefore the appeals were neither approved nor denied.
County spokesperson Kelsey Buttitta described the deadlocked result in February as, "It [the pending appeals of the Planning Commission's approval of permit transfers to Sable Offshore] hasn’t been approved or denied. It’s now up to Sable to decide what to do next."
In February and April of this year, Sable Offshore sent two letters to that effect arguing that the County should transfer the permits and if the County did not, the Houston-based company would seek a solution in court.
"The Santa Barbara County Planning Commission approved the change of owner, operator and
guarantor last fall, and the efforts to overturn that ruling failed at the Santa Barbara County Board of Supervisors earlier this year," said Sable Offshore's Vice President on Environmental and Governmental Affairs Steve Rusch. "The law is clear. The Planning Commission approved the permit transfer and its decision stands. Because the permits have yet to be transferred, Sable has asked a court to intervene and transfer the permits without delay."
While the County acknowledged receipt of the letters, it decided after a closed session on April 16, 2025, to take no reportable action.
Sable Offshore argued in its filing in May that the non-decision should have resulted in a follow-through on the Planning Commission's approval and that the County had functionally denied the transfers by taking no action, a violation of County Code Chapter 25B as well as prohibitions on the seizure of private property for a public purpose without compensation found in Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution and Article I, Section 19 of the California Constitution.
Sable Offshore noted in its May lawsuit that in 2023, the Planning Commission approved the transfer of permits from Plains Pipeline L.P. to ExxonMobil and its subsidiaries.
That decision was also appealed under County Code Chapter 25B and on Sep. 19, 2023, the Board of Supervisors approved the Planning Commission's decision with Supervisor Capps noting during the hearing that it was important that the, "County permit actually matches the company that owns the pipeline."
Previously, Sable Offshore reached a conditional settlement agreement on Aug. 30, 2024, with Santa Barbara County waiving County-specific safety requirements and permitting and the energy company is currently engaged in a lawsuit against regulatory hurdles and penalties imposed by the California Coastal Commission regarding work done in the Coastal Zone necessary to restart oil production.
