Oil Company Faces Legal Pushback for Attempted Restart of Santa Barbara Pipeline

On June 3rd, 2025, a California court ordered the Houston-based oil company Sable Offshore Corp. (Sable) to halt the opening of the Las Flores Pipeline System in Santa Barbara, California.¹ This is a significant blow to Sable’s attempt at revitalizing and reopening the Santa Ynez Unit (Unit), the oil platforms and pipes responsible for the 2015 Refugio oil spill.

The 2015 Refugio oil spill was a result of a corroded onshore pipe rupturing and spilling over 100,000 gallons of crude oil onto the coast and into the ocean, ruining numerous natural habitats and killing hundreds of animals.² After the incident, Exxon Mobil shut down the whole Unit and sold it. In 2024, Sable bought the Unit with plans to repair the onshore pipes and once again extract offshore oil.

Supporters of Sable’s plans claim that the oil drilling will make California gas cheaper for consumers while also providing jobs and revenue for the area. For example, Jeremy Willett, the operations manager for the Pacific Pipeline Company, perfectly summarizes this view when he said in an op-ed for the Santa Barbara Independent that the county has “a chance to improve our self-reliance, create jobs, and stimulate the economy—all while reducing our carbon footprint.”³ Many opponents, however, doubt these claims. One such opponent, UC Santa Barbara professor Paasha Mahdavi, asserted in an op-ed in that same newspaper that these operations will “extract especially dirty crude oil off our coast, [and] export it to foreign markets, all to boost the bottom line of oil executives in Texas, while our communities pay the price.”⁴

Sable has quickly worked to make the onshore pipes ready for use, though it has not been easy. For many months, Sable and Santa Barbara County could not agree on whether the work Sable was doing on the onshore pipes was legal. Sable claims they were working under the original 1980s permit for the site—issued long before Sable was even a company. Even if this permit is not valid, Sable claims that they are not doing any “developing” and therefore do not even need a permit. After the county seemingly appeared to side with Sable in February 2025, the California Coastal Commission stepped in and issued two separate cease-and-desist orders to Sable. Eventually, the Commission issued a third order along with an $18 million fine following an April 2025 public hearing.⁵

About a month later, in May 2025, Sable announced that they had begun drilling for oil off one of the three platforms that comprise the Unit.⁶ At this point, Sable is storing the oil from this platform onshore while they continue to conduct tests on the pipeline.⁷ Regardless of their plans, however, Sable would have their hand forced.

Multiple lawsuits have been filed by environmental organizations to try and prevent Sable from restarting the pipelines and Unit. The Center for Biological Diversity (the Center) filed suit in Santa Barbara Superior Court against the California State Fire Marshal, arguing that Sable should not have been given a safety waiver by the State.⁸ In early June 2025, the Santa Barbara Superior Court granted the Center’s request for a restraining order, and ordered Sable to not open the onshore Las Flores pipeline while litigation is still ongoing.⁹ That same month, the Environmental Defense Center (EDC), and other environmental organizations, filed a similar suit against the State Fire Marshal for not considering the risks associated with restarting the pipeline. In their lawsuit, EDC alleges that the State Fire Marshal improperly issued the waivers without doing any environmental review or allowing public comments.¹⁰ Summarizing EDC’s concerns, Chief Counsel Linda Krop stated in a press release that “restarting this defective pipeline with no review and no way for the public to weigh in is a danger to our coast, our climate, and people on the Central Coast.”¹¹

If these lawsuits succeed, it could mean an end to Sable’s attempt at reopening the Santa Ynez Unit by denying them the required safety permits to operate. While Sable has shown resistance to complying with the orders of the Coastal Commission, it would certainly be very risky to defy a court order of this magnitude. Combined with the fact that Sable is now currently being investigated for potentially violating federal securities laws, it seems the company has put themselves in ‘hot water.’¹²

¹ Nick Welsh, Sable Offshore Gets Spanked Twice in One Week, Santa Barbara Indep. (May 28, 2025).
² Refugio Beach Oil Spill, Nat’l Oceanic Atmospheric Admin., (last visited Jun. 10, 2025); Refugio Oil Spill, Ctr. Biological Diversity, (last visited Jun. 10, 2025).
³ Jeremy Willett, Creating Jobs and Energy Independence in Santa Barbara, Santa Barbara Indep. (Apr. 3, 2025).
⁴ Paasha Mahdavi, Restarting Sable’s Pipeline Would Harm our Communities, Environment, and Economy, Santa Barbara Indep. (Apr. 25, 2025).
⁵ Margaux Lovely, Sable Offshore Slammed with $18 Million Fine at Marathon Coastal Commission Meeting in Santa Barbara, Santa Barbara Indep. (Apr. 10, 2025).
⁶ Nick Welsh, Oil Drilling and Pumping Already Underway off Coast of Santa Barbara County, Sable Offshore Announces, Santa Barbara Indep. (May 19, 2025).
⁷ Id.
⁸ Press Release, Ctr. Biological Diversity, Lawsuit Challenges Pipeline Safety Waivers Related to 2015 Santa Barbara Oil Spill, Santa Barbara Indep. (Apr. 15, 2025).
⁹ Court Bars Restart of Santa Barbara Pipeline While Lawsuit Proceeds, Ctr. Biological Diversity (Jun. 3, 2025).
¹⁰ Press Release, Env’t Defense Center, Environmental Defense Center Files Lawsuit Challenging State Waivers For Defective Oil Pipeline (Apr. 15, 2025).
¹¹ Press Release, Env’t Defense Center, Court Grants Temporary Restraining Order Delaying Restart of Failed Oil Pipeline (Jun. 3, 2025).
¹² Investigations: Sable Offshore Corp., Kirby McInerney LLP, (last visited Jun. 10, 2025).