Santa Barbara District Attorney John Savrnoch just slapped Sable Offshore Corp. with 21 criminal charges on Tuesday, adding to the heap of legal roadblocks in the way of the company's plans to restart oil production on the Gaviota Coast.
The 21 counts are in response to Sable's repair work to revive the ruptured pipeline that caused the 2015 Refugio Oil Spill.
Sable is calling it a "politically motivated" attack. Environmental advocates -- who oppose Sable's restart of oil and gas facilities formerly owned by ExxonMobil, including three offshore platforms, onshore processing stations, and the ruptured pipeline -- are calling it justice.
Charges include five felony counts of "knowingly" discharging material into nearby creeks and waterways, such as Arroyo Quemada and Nojoqui Creek. The complaint also alleges that the pipeline repair work, started in 2024, violated the California Fish and Game Code and the Water Code.
Sable argues that it had the right to patch up the pipeline, claiming it was completing necessary repairs so it may resume pumping oil from Santa Ynez to Kern County. However, the California Coastal Commission said Sable needed to obtain updated permits and complete a new environmental review.
Sable went ahead and dug up parts of the Gaviota Coast to pursue repairs anyway, without permits -- insisting it already had the green light to complete the work under existing permits.
The commission and environmentalists protested that it was dredging up sensitive habitats, potentially harming endangered species and poisoning nearby waterways in the coastal zone. The California Coastal Commission subsequently saddled Sable with three cease-and-desist orders and a $18 million fine (which Sable is fighting in court).
Savrnoch's recent charges seem to agree with the environmentalists' assessment.
In addition to the felony counts, charges include 16 misdemeanor counts of unlawfully obstructing a streambed and discharging materials harmful to wildlife. (The DA's Office could not comment on the pending litigation as the investigation remains ongoing.)
In a statement, Sable called the allegations from the Santa Barbara County DA's Office "inflammatory and extremely misleading."
"All of the repairs and excavations were supervised by a certified independent biologist and cultural resource professional and Office of State Fire Marshal personnel," the statement continues. "No wildlife were adversely affected. All of these previously disturbed areas have been or are being remediated in accordance with state and local erosion control mitigation measures."
The Environmental Defense Center (EDC) -- which is leading the charge against Sable's restart -- retorted that the charges only add more fuel to the flames opponents have lit under Sable's feet.
Linda Krop, EDC's chief counsel, argues that the charges give all the more reason to suspend trust in the company's ability "to operate safely, responsibly, or even legally in California.
"No matter how Sable spins it, these are serious charges, and they raise big questions about the company's integrity and its ability to operate risky facilities without causing more harm to our state," Krop said.
"The company is still asking state agencies for approvals to restart this failed pipeline and operate it through Gaviota State Park," she continued. "However, the criminal charges make it even more clear that the state must conduct a full environmental review and allow for a transparent, public process before considering whether this project should move forward."
The criminal case is set for a Nov. 4 hearing in Santa Barbara County Superior Court.
The timing of the charges is notably striking -- additional legislative obstacles fell on Sable's head this week in the form of Governor Gavin Newsom's big oil bill that includes new regulatory hurdles for Sable's restart tacked on by Santa Barbara representatives.
Further, on Thursday morning, September 19, Judge Donna Geck's courtroom hosted the most recent hearing in the legal battle between Sable, the County of Santa Barbara, and the EDC.
The hearing that preceded it, concerning the EDC's attempt to prevent the restart of the Las Flores Canyon oil processing facility over a lack of environmental review, held by Geck in July, resulted in nothing but a baby cut in half or a can kicked down the road -- depending on whichever metaphor you prefer from Independent Executive Editor Nick Welsh.
According to Krop, Thursday's hearing saw no major developments and the court set another case management conference for Dec 5.
Overall, it's a complex dispute involving a web of lawsuits and bureaucracy that makes any idea of the "who, what, and when" of the restart process difficult to determine. What is clear is that the path forward will be anything but smooth.