In the face, the Texas-based company along Santa Barbara’s coast is now considering plans to maintain a controversial project entirely in federal waters, a move that appears to eschew California’s surveillance.
Sable Offshore Corp. is that rather than relying on a network of pipelines that still require some critical approvals to operate, it has begun pursuing the option of transporting crude oil using “offshore floating vessels” to process and transport crude oil.
The pivot marks a major change in the push of sables to bring the pipeline back online. The line has been idle since 2015, when it burst near Lefjo State Beach, creating one of the worst oil spills in the state. State officials and local environmentalists have the ability to run safely in the pipes and their attempts to quickly track last year’s revitalization.
Sable’s announcement came about a week after Santa Barbara County prosecutors on the company, claiming they intentionally violated the state’s environmental laws while completing pipeline repairs, months after the California Coastal Commission complied with the state’s coastal law despite repeated warnings and fined $18 million.
Sable continues to claim that it follows all necessary protocols and meets all legal requirements. Both issues remain bound by court.
Sable points out that the use of floating treatment containers will dramatically expand the project timeline and will likely increase the company’s costs after it has already been repeated. Switching to floating containers to process and transport offshore-produced oil will push back a potential start to oil sales for at least a year until the end of 2026.
The company still says that if California regulators are OK to restart the pipeline, they can start selling oil by the end of this year. Sable reported that it is still pursuing that option “in parallel” with the floating container.
However, the remaining approvals face uncertainty, especially after California officials targeted offshore projects in legislative packages.
In a letter this week to the U.S. Department of Interior calling for “quick assistance” in floating ship planning, Sable said the new state law “creates barriers that require the need for alternative offshore solutions.”
It also pointed out that the project “aligns with the President’s Trump direction” to increase US energy production, with a renewed focus primarily on oil.
With that announcement, the company also appeared to threaten what the move would mean for California. Sable said switching to floating ships for treatment and transportation would give the company the freedom to “sell production outside of California.” However, it is not clear whether this is any different to the way the company sells land-based processed oil.
Sable is working on rebooting the Santa Ynez Unit, a three-offshore platform complex in federal waters, as well as the land processing facility and pipeline. All of these have been closed since the 2015 spill. This business was owned by another company at the time.
The floating vessel will provide workarounds for land processing facilities and pipelines under California surveillance, but some environmental groups and state officials worry that the plan will only expand the footprint of the company they say could not operate responsibly.
“The dangerous pivot to SABLE’s floating processing plant looks like a “hall mary” for a company that has failed to obtain the necessary approvals at the state and local levels for good reason,” says Alex Katz, executive director of the Center for Environmental Defense, a Sousble-Barbara-based nonprofit, which is one of Soo Blue’s most vocal contests. “This needs to be made clear enough that we are not a company we can trust to operate safely or responsibly, especially when we are talking about the risks of another environmental disaster on the California coast.”
State Sen. Monie Crimon (D. Santa Barbara), who led the law focused on increasing offshore regulations, agreed.
“When Sable Offshore owned the pipeline, they have yet to pay a $18 million fine to break the law, avoid multiple suspensions and orders, and ignore suspension work orders,” Limón said in a statement. “Whether they use the Las Flores (Onshore) pipeline or try to advance offshore storage and treatment containers, the threat surrounding public health and well-being still exists.”
Industry experts say offshore oil vessels are less common than pipelines, and some are associated.
Andrew Lipow, president of Houston-based consulting firm Lipow Oil Associates, said large vessels are normally used when it makes no sense to set up a pipeline.
“These aren’t unusual,” Lipou said. “We’re going to do that in parts of the world that don’t have pipeline infrastructure.”
He said that depending on the specific project and market details, it may not be as economical as using pipelines (especially ones already installed), but oil prices can make up for it.
