Who Gets to Say What About Sable

When Martha (yes, the dog from the PBS Kids series Martha Speaks) ate from a bowl of alphabet soup, she lifted her head and began spewing well-constructed English sentences. I’m somewhat jealous of Martha, because when I tried a spoonful of California’s alphabet soup — that is, the mix and mash of regulatory agencies involved in overseeing Sable’s proposed oil pipeline project — I went mute. Maybe it was shock. Maybe it was karma for not watching enough PBS. 

For those who have had similar bad luck trying to figure out who gets to say what about Sable’s restart plans, here’s what’s what.

The Office of the State Fire Marshal (OSFM)

A branch of Cal Fire, OSFM has the most regulatory sway over engineering standards on the pipeline. They will have the final say on whether Sable can restart. Their office requires that a hefty list of conditions be met before the pipeline can start, and Sable has met many of them to date: Sable has installed automatic shutoff valves and received first-of-their-kind state waivers, holding the oil company to different operational safety standards due to a lack of corrosion protection along the pipeline. Currently, an approved risk analysis that former owner Exxon submitted in 2021 still applies, but an amended risk analysis submitted by Sable in April 2024 was denied by the Fire Marshal. OSFM requires that Sable submit and abide by an integrity management plan, complete all deferred maintenance items and the conditions laid out in the Consent Decree, and gain approvals from other involved agencies before the Fire Marshal can approve their restart plan, which has already been submitted.

California Department of Fish and Wildlife’s Office of Spill Prevention and Response (OSPR)

OSPR deals with prevention, preparedness, and response to potential oil spills. Sable has submitted a few versions of their oil spill contingency plans, most of which OSPR has ruled deficient. Fish and Wildlife — separate from OSPR — also issued a notice to Sable for Fish and Game code violations in December. This forced Sable to stop work on Fish and Wildlife property. OSPR determined in October that Sable has financial responsibility for up to $101 million to respond to a spill from each of the three pipeline portions (subsea pipeline from offshore wells to Gaviota, Gaviota to Sisquoc, and Sisquoc to Pentland). It took two emails, three follow-up texts, and 10 days (six of which were past our initial deadline) for OSPR to confirm this information.

The California Coastal Commission (CCC)

CCC deals with all work in the coastal zone. It issued Sable its first cease-and-desist order in November because they were working on the Gaviota Coast part of the pipeline without permits. The commission told Sable to apply for after-the-fact permits and for any future work along the coast. Sable contends the work is routine maintenance allowed under their current permits. Santa Barbara County agrees with Sable, but the CCC does not. The original cease-and-desist order expired on February 10. Sable began working in the coastal zone again without applying for permits. The CCC then issued a second cease-and-desist order on February 18. The same day, Sable filed a complaint against the commission in Santa Barbara Superior Court, claiming they overstepped their jurisdiction in issuing a second stop-work order.  Both parties are coordinating with the federal government to determine how a federal consistency review might look.

California State Lands Commission (SLC)

State Lands has not yet decided whether to approve the transfer of state water leases from Exxon to Sable despite months of closed-session discussions with property negotiators. Their next meeting is scheduled for February 25 — the same day the Board of Supervisors is set to vote on a similar matter. However, Sable’s ability to restart operations is not contingent on the SLC’s decision.

California Department of Parks and Recreation

The department is in charge of granting easements for pipelines through State Parks’ property — in this case, a four-mile stretch of the Gaviota State Park. Sable’s easement expired in 2016. Since then, State Parks has been granting permits for repair work on a case-by-case basis. In December, it requested a full project description from Sable to evaluate their request for a new easement.

Regional Water Quality Control Boards

The Central Coast and Central Valley water boards are tasked with ensuring the region’s water supply remains clean and abundant. After discovering unauthorized waste discharge into Santa Barbara County’s waterways, the Central Coast board issued violation and noncompliance notices to Sable in December. They also requested Sable apply for the appropriate permits.

California’s Geologic Energy Management Division (CalGEM)

CalGEM must ensure that oil facilities comply with federal, state, and local regulations. Their approval is not necessary for Sable to restart their pipeline. However, CalGEM is working with other listed agencies to ensure that Sable’s facilities have an adequate oil spill contingency plan, a pipeline management plan, and adhere to stringent testing and monitoring standards. In December, CalGEM notified Sable that its facilities would need additional inspections, and informed them of production and bonding requirements. 

This section on offshore oil development was first published in the Santa Barbara Independent in partnership with Bluedot Living.

See also:

Will Sable Oil Begin Drilling Offshore? Is It Safe?

Eyewitness to Disaster