Sable Offshore Corp. is refusing to back down in its escalating legal war with California after suffering a major courtroom setback, signaling it may take its fight all the way to the state’s highest court while continuing to move oil through its Santa Barbara pipeline.

The Houston-based energy company struck a defiant tone days after the California Second District Court of Appeal upheld a lower court ruling favoring the California Coastal Commission in a dispute over pipeline repair work.

“Sable is disappointed by the ruling of the Court of Appeal,” company attorney Jeffrey Dintzer told the California Post, adding that “significant issues” still must be resolved before any final determination is made regarding the legitimacy of the Coastal Commission’s cease-and-desist orders and financial penalties.

The latest ruling marks only the latest chapter in a battle that has stretched back more than a decade and centers on whether Sable could rely on decades-old permits to repair and restart pipelines that were shut down following the catastrophic 2015 Refugio oil spill.

The roots of the dispute date back to 1986, when coastal development permits were issued for the Santa Ynez pipeline system connecting offshore oil platforms to processing facilities and refineries outside the region.

That network was effectively mothballed after Pipeline 324 ruptured in May 2015, spilling crude oil along the Santa Barbara County coastline and triggering one of California’s most notorious environmental disasters.

After years of inactivity and several ownership changes, Sable acquired the pipeline assets in 2024 with plans to restart domestic oil production from the Santa Ynez Unit.

The company, through subsidiary Pacific Pipeline Company, launched an extensive repair and upgrade effort that included replacing sections of pipe and installing additional safety equipment.

The California Coastal Commission, however, argued that the work constituted new development requiring fresh state approvals rather than relying on permits issued nearly four decades ago. The agency issued cease-and-desist orders in late 2024 and early 2025 and later imposed an $18 million penalty after alleging Sable continued work despite regulatory directives.

Sable challenged those actions in court, arguing it had been denied due process and maintaining that the repairs were authorized under existing permits.

But on June 21, the Court of Appeal rejected those arguments and upheld an injunction sought by the Coastal Commission, handing regulators a significant victory in the high-stakes dispute.

Despite the ruling, Dintzer emphasized that oil production and transportation operations remain ongoing.

“With respect to the production of oil from the federally leased offshore platforms, that will continue, as will the flow of oil through the pipeline to Kern County and ultimately to El Segundo, where it is being purchased by Chevron,” he said.

Dintzer also argued that the appellate court decision does not represent the final word on the broader dispute.

“This court case involves only the commission’s issuance of a cease and desist order having to do with the repair of anomalies that have already taken place,” he said. “They were completed almost a year ago.”

According to the attorney, the Coastal Commission’s enforcement case is still in its early stages because Sable intends to conduct discovery and challenge both the basis for the cease-and-desist orders and the penalties imposed by regulators.

The company is now weighing several potential legal paths.

“There are several options,” Dintzer said. “One is that we can appeal to the California Supreme Court. Another is that we could ask for a rehearing in the Court of Appeal.”

He added that Sable could also choose to return to the trial court and continue litigating the Coastal Commission’s underlying case before pursuing another appeal later if necessary.

The company is also pinning hopes on a broader collection of lawsuits pending in state and federal courts.

“There are a lot of cases, many of which are in the Central District of California. One of them is in the Ninth Circuit, so there are a number of important cases pending resolution in other courts and jurisdictions,” Dintzer said.

“We are optimistic that we will prevail in those matters, particularly since the federal government has preempted the State of California’s efforts to forestall our operations.”

That federal argument has become a key pillar of Sable’s defense.

In separate litigation, the company has argued California regulators are improperly interfering with federally regulated energy infrastructure. The dispute has drawn support from the federal government, which has sided with Sable in court filings challenging California’s authority over certain aspects of offshore oil transportation and production.

The confrontation has increasingly become a flashpoint in the broader clash between California’s aggressive environmental policies and efforts to expand domestic energy production.

For now, Sable remains embroiled in more than a half-dozen lawsuits and enforcement actions tied to the pipeline restart. While state regulators scored a major victory in the appellate court, the company appears determined to keep pumping oil and continue its legal offensive.