Between various state agencies’ ongoing legal battles with a Texas-based oil producer, at least one chapter of the Sable fable came to an end in mid-October.
While Sable Offshore Corp. is currently seeking more than $300 million in damages from the California Coastal Commission for delaying its restart work on the Santa Ynez Unit, the company insisted that a recent judicial ruling—which upholds the commission’s decision to fine Sable $18 million for breaking environmental protocols—has no impact on its plans to reboot the Las Flores Pipeline system.
On Oct. 15, Santa Barbara County Superior Court Judge Thomas Anderle denied Sable’s petition of the $18 million fine, which the Coastal Commission issued in April for pipeline reconstruction work completed in 2024 without proper permitting.
“The issue before the court is not whether the specific work conducted by Sable was or is ultimately necessary or appropriate for pipeline safety,” Anderle wrote in his ruling. “The issue before the court is whether the commission abused its discretion in issuing the April 10 orders.”
Anderle sided with the commission and described its findings as being supported by substantial evidence.
“Sable has not met its burden to show an abuse of discretion by the commission in issuing the April 10 orders,” Anderle wrote.
One of Sable’s arguments against the $18 million fine was that the commission mislabeled its replacement of certain portions of the Las Flores Pipeline—inactive since 2015 when one of the system’s lines ruptured and caused the Refugio oil spill—as “reconstruction,” one of the company’s attorneys stated.
“There is no evidence that the repair and maintenance activity reaches the level of reconstruction,” Los Angeles-based attorney Jeffrey Dintzer wrote in court documents. “[Sable] did not modify the path of pipeline, did not replace major sections of the pipeline, did not alter the elevation of the pipeline, did not increase the size of the pipeline, did not change the character of the pipeline, nor the performance standards of the pipeline.”
In his ruling, Judge Anderle said that “while there are some factual disputes regarding the scope and nature of the work performed by Sable,” he agreed with the commission’s determination that the pipeline replacements exceeded the scope of regular construction work.
“The work in 2024 was significantly more intense than prior maintenance activities,” Anderle wrote. “The work done by Sable involved work at 121 sites done during a single year, rather than limited work done throughout nearly a decade.”
Anderle said that the amount of work done would have fit under the definitions of regular construction or general maintenance if it occurred at a slower, incremental pace over multiple years.
“Doing all of that work in the space of a few months has a cumulative effect of a substantially increased intensity of use of the land that is more consistent with ‘reconstruction’ than maintenance ‘construction,’” Anderle wrote.
In an Oct. 15 memo to its investors, Sable stated that the company intends to appeal Anderle’s ruling to the California Court of Appeal.
Sable Chairman and CEO Jim Flores described the ruling as disappointing, adding that it wouldn’t ultimately impact the company’s restart plans for the Santa Ynez Unit.
Resuming oil production through the unit will help solve “the state’s crumbling energy complex,” while lowering gasoline prices for California residents, Flores wrote in the memo.
“California’s economy will face dire consequences if refineries continue to close due to the lack of domestic production,” Flores stated.
This article appears in Oct 23 – Oct 30, 2025.