Sable Offshore Corp. got approval Wednesday to take over a set of oil and gas facility permits despite environmental groups’ pleas for Santa Barbara County officials to deny the transfer.
It was a packed house at the County Administration Building as opponents and supporters filled the room where the Planning Commission holds its meetings.
During the Wednesday hearing, the commission heard from Sable representatives who were seeking to gain ownership of permits that were previously held by ExxonMobil. Sable took over ownership of the Santa Ynez Unit — offshore platforms, processing facilities and transportation pipelines — and is working on restarting operations.
Included in the permits is the pipeline that ruptured and caused the 2015 Refugio Oil Spill that dumped 142,000 gallons into the shoreline and ocean. The pipeline and other facilities have been shut down since that spill.
The crowd was a mix of supporters wearing Sable hats and opponents who held a press conference before the meeting asking officials to deny the application to transfer the rights from ExxonMobil to Sable.
“I’m extremely concerned at the way that climate change is happening right now. Climate change is happening on our coast, and we need to do what we can to stop it,” said Chumash tribal member Maura Sullivan.
Supporters of the transfer say that the oil and gas operations will bring jobs to the northern section of Santa Barbara County. Environmental groups say the change in ownership is the first step to restarting the oil line, which they oppose.
During public comment, the commission heard testimonies about Sable’s high standard of safety and the need for oil. Opponents of the pipeline say that Sable does not have a safety plan to prevent spills.
Steve Rusch, Sable’s Vice President of Environmental & Regulatory Affairs, walked the commission through the changes it has made to the pipelines and how it intends to prevent more spills.
During their questioning, the commissioners focused on concerns raised by opponents – primarily the question of whether Sable has enough money on hand to properly manage the pipelines and potential spills, and the lack of submitted safety plans.
When pressed on the issue of Sable’s finances and who would be responsible for the pipelines if the company went under, county staff stated that ExxonMobil would be in charge of any cleanups or repairs.
On the issue of its safety procedures, Errin Briggs, the deputy director of planning and development, stated that Sable has submitted safety plans and is waiting for the safety certificates to be approved by the state.
Rusch also stated that the company is implementing its own safety standards.
“We will have safety and operational excellence on this project,” Rusch said.
Also discussed during the meeting was the California Coastal Commission’s notice of violation for Sable doing unpermitted work on the Gaviota portion of its pipeline.
Sable claimed it was doing repair and maintenance work that did not require new permits, but the Coastal Commission disagrees. Sable was ordered to stop by the Coastal Commission but did not cease operations until a week later, Coastal Commission enforcement staff said.
Rusch says that Sable is in the process of sorting the situation out with the Coastal Commission and met with staff earlier in the week.
Briggs pushed back on these questions, saying that these issues are not within the scope of the discussion or what the commission is meant to be voting on.
During their deliberations, the commissioners seemed sympathetic to the concerns of protestors and the environmental groups. Many of them referenced the Refugio Oil Spill and the devastating impact it had on the South Coast.
However, the commission acknowledged that their job was to vote on the transfer of permits to Sable and not the issue of finances or safety plans.
Commissioner Roy Reed pointed out that county residents have voted to support oil and gas in the past. Even though he acknowledged that voters have not had an oil measure to vote on in years, he said most residents still have gas-powered cars.
Reed continued by saying even though the 2015 oil spill was devastating, the commission had to decide on the issue of the permit transfer. He also said the commission should consider the effect on oil workers.
“With respect to the pipeline, we heard about the heartbreak and devastation from the oil spill, the animals, the birds, but I think you also need to consider the heartbreak and devastation of the families,” Reed said, “The contractors (and) all the people that were supported by the offshore oil operations in this county.”
Commissioners voted 3-1 to approve the permit transfer. Commissioners Reed, Vincent Martinez and Laura Bridley voted in favor, Commissioner John Parke voted against it and Commissioner Michael Cooney was absent.
In his comments, Parke stated that the commission had only received the documents on the Sable transfer on the previous Thursday. He expressed concern about whether he could make a proper decision on a case that involved billions of dollars and affected the lives of thousands of people in the county.
“I have a lot of questions and I’m somewhat annoyed that I’m asked to make a decision on this in just a matter of days,” Parke said.
After the meeting, Jeremy Frankel, a staff attorney for the Environmental Defense Center, said that the group was disappointed but not necessarily surprised.
He stated that the EDC disagreed with how the staff interpreted the county code and it limited the things that the commission could consider during its deliberations.
“We don’t think that’s an accurate reading of the actual code, and it’s not the purpose of the code. This was a code that was enacted specifically to prevent this situation,” Frankel told Noozhawk.
