A few days after a Texas oil company shocked California environmentalists and regulators by announcing the reopening of offshore oil production along the Santa Barbara County coast, the court ordered the company to halt further construction or repairs until official approval was obtained.
Sable Offshore Corp. has denied the California Coastal Commission’s authority to oversee and approve a network of oil pipelines that was closed after a major spill in 2015.
The company argues that it doesn’t require a new permit, as it repairs and maintains existing pipelines rather than building new lines, and therefore the Coast Commission has not spoken about the issue, so it doesn’t require a new permit. Sable sued the committee in February, claiming its powers were overdue.
However, on Wednesday, Santa Barbara County Superior Court Judge Thomas Andal stood on the coastal committee, supporting the suspension and removal order committee issued in April, and ordered Sable to comply with the interim injunction. The action would require Sable to obtain the necessary permission from the Coastal Commission or further halt coastal work until ongoing lawsuits are resolved.
“The committee has presented reliable evidence of a violation of coastal law,” Andal wrote in his ruling. Landscape grading and other pipeline work sables “fall straight down within the definition of “development” in coastal law,” he found.
Sable claims it is still operating within the original permit since the 1980s. However, the committee opposed it and ordered the company to seek new permission.
“It’s a huge victory not just for the Coastal Commission, but for the environment, the nation, the people, and frankly for the rule of law,” said Alex Herpelin, aide to the Coastal Commission.
“We have never seen anyone completely ignore one of our orders before. …This is unprecedented for us; [the judge’s ruling is] A truly important indication of the rule of law and the idea that we must take our orders seriously. ”
Commission officials welcome the judge’s decision as a victory, but how it will affect the oil operation remains unclear. Sable has already completed what the Labor Commission, if not all, is protesting.
Still, Sable officials say they plan to appeal the judge’s decision.
“We look forward to overturning today’s decision, but it has little to do with Sable’s plan to encourage oil sales by July,” read a statement from Steve Rush, Sable’s vice president of environmental and government affairs. “Sable will continue to actively defend its vested interest in pursuing low-carbon California oil and natural gas, which are needed to stabilize supply and lower consumer gas prices.”
In April, the California Coastal Commission discovered that Sable repeatedly violated coastal law by repairing and upgrading its oil pipeline without the necessary permit or approval. The company was fined $18 million, issued a ceasefire and repeal order, and was directed to restore the areas that suffered environmental damage.
Sable ignored these findings and filed a lawsuit against the committee.
The interim injunction issued Wednesday does not resolve the case, but could indicate how the court will tilt in the final decision.
Sable last week infuriated environmentalists and officials, announcing that it had resumed oil production at a rate of around 6,000 barrels per day on one of its offshore platforms (in federal waters), and plans to rapidly increase extraction. The company said the oil was being sent to the Las Flores Canyon Processing Facility on the Land for storage, but it was clear that the full use of the land pipeline had not yet begun.
However, among those surprised by the announcement was Lt. Col. Eleni Kunarakis, who chairs the California Land Committee and monitors the offshore oil pipeline. Sable had to and did not, she said, need to update the state land commission on oil flows.
“Sable, unable to communicate these activities clearly and in a timely manner to the committee, undermines confidence in Sable’s motivation, shows a lack of understanding of the important concerns many have about resuming activities, and raises serious questions about Sable’s willingness to become a transparent operator.”
Kounalakis also accused the company of misleading the public. She said that land committee staff told her that the new oil flow was the result of proper testing procedures required by the Safety Environment Enforcement Bureau before reopening.
“These activities do not constitute a resumption of commercial production or a full resumption… Characterizing the resumption of testing activities as a resumption of operations is not only misleading, but also very inappropriate.
She said the company must resolve all pending legal challenges and regulatory requirements before attempting to fully resume commercial operations in order to comply with offshore pipeline leases.
Committee spokesman Sheri Pemberton said Sable had not yet responded to the lieutenant governor’s letter.
Sable’s representatives did not answer any letters or questions regarding concerns raised by the Chairperson of the State Land Commission.
Environmental activists argued that the judge’s ruling and Kunarakis’ letter further demonstrate that Sable cannot be trusted to safely carry out previously failed operations.
“We’ve seen a lot of effort into the development of our environment,” said Alex Katz, executive director of the Environmental Defense Center.
Source link
