Pixel Tracker

Tuesday, December 18 , 2018, 10:06 am | Fair 56º

 
 
 
 

Attorneys Give Closing Arguments After 3-Month Refugio Oil Leak Criminal Case

Jurors heard closing arguments this week after three months of testimony in the Refugio oil pipeline leak criminal trial against Plains All American Pipeline, the operator of the ruptured Line 901 that runs along Santa Barbara County’s Gaviota coast.

The Houston-based company operates two pipelines in the county, both of which were shut down after the May 19, 2015, breach leaked an estimated 123,228 gallons of crude oil. The oil oozed out from the underground pipeline north of Highway 101 and ran down into the ocean several hundred yards away.

Plains is charged with 15 criminal counts related to the leak, including that it knew or should have known its acts or omissions would cause a rupture, it knowingly discharged a pollutant into state waters, it deposited petroleum into the ocean, its oil caused the death of marine mammals and birds, and it failed to follow material provisions of its leak response plan, specifically failing to notify the U.S. Coast Guard National Response Center of a spill within an hour.

Trial testimony started May 14, when Santa Barbara County firefighters described finding oil in the ocean near Refugio State Beach about 15 miles west of Goleta, tracing it to the source uphill, and sounding the alarm with emergency notifications.

Attorneys from the prosecution and defense gave closing arguments Thursday and Friday, setting the stage for the jury to start deliberations.

Nothing the attorneys say is evidence in the case, but they used the time as a way to summarize the last three months of testimony, including pipeline inspection results, the company’s oil leak response plan, a timeline of the leak response, and other related issues.

Prosecuting attorneys, from the state Attorney General’s Office and county District Attorney’s Office, argued that Plains knew about the external corrosion on Line 901 — which was determined to have caused the rupture — and should have known that its actions, or failure to act, would cause a leak.

They also talked about the response timeline after the breach was discovered.

Plains personnel were on the scene of the leak fairly quickly since they had been in the area for a scheduled oil spill drill, but were not the ones to notify the National Response Center or the California Office of Emergency Services, according to previous testimony. Santa Barbara County officials made that notification.

Plains’ designated notification person did not notify the NRC until 2:54 p.m., which was more than an hour after Plains personnel knew Line 901 had ruptured, according to trial testimony.

Prosecutors have argued that the company failed to follow part of its own response plan by not making the notification within an hour, while defense attorneys have argued that the one-hour timeline was not as important since responders already knew about the leak.

Attorneys for Plains argued that the company did not knowingly cause the rupture, and that the case is not about hindsight.

The company’s most recent inspection results before the leak, from 2012, indicated the wall thickness at the rupture site was much thicker than it really was, according to testimony.

No individual employees are named as defendants in this case, although one, James Buchanan, had been charged for his alleged failure to notify authorities within one hour of the leak being confirmed.

The charges have since been dropped, and Buchanan testified in the case and appeared in the courtroom audience during closing arguments.

Noozhawk managing editor Giana Magnoli can be reached at .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address). Follow Noozhawk on Twitter: @noozhawk, @NoozhawkNews and @NoozhawkBiz. Connect with Noozhawk on Facebook.

Support Noozhawk Today

You are an important ally in our mission to deliver clear, objective, high-quality professional news reporting for Santa Barbara, Goleta and the rest of Santa Barbara County. Join the Hawks Club today to help keep Noozhawk soaring.

We offer four membership levels: $5 a month, $10 a month, $25 a month or $1 a week. Payments can be made using a credit card, Apple Pay or Google Pay, or click here for information on recurring credit-card payments and a mailing address for checks.

Thank you for your vital support.

Become a Noozhawk Supporter

First name
Last name
Email
Select your monthly membership
Or choose an annual membership
×

Payment Information

Membership Subscription

You are enrolling in . Thank you for joining the Hawks Club.

Payment Method

Pay by Credit Card:

Mastercard, Visa, American Express, Discover
One click only, please!

Pay with Apple Pay or Google Pay:

Noozhawk partners with Stripe to provide secure invoicing and payments processing.
You may cancel your membership at any time by sending an email to .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address).

  • Ask
  • Vote
  • Investigate
  • Answer

Noozhawk Asks: What’s Your Question?

Welcome to Noozhawk Asks, a new feature in which you ask the questions, you help decide what Noozhawk investigates, and you work with us to find the answers.

Here’s how it works: You share your questions with us in the nearby box. In some cases, we may work with you to find the answers. In others, we may ask you to vote on your top choices to help us narrow the scope. And we’ll be regularly asking you for your feedback on a specific issue or topic.

We also expect to work together with the reader who asked the winning questions to find the answer together. Noozhawk’s objective is to come at questions from a place of curiosity and openness, and we believe a transparent collaboration is the key to achieve it.

The results of our investigation will be published here in this Noozhawk Asks section. Once or twice a month, we plan to do a review of what was asked and answered.

Thanks for asking!

Click Here to Get Started >

Reader Comments

Noozhawk is no longer accepting reader comments on our articles. Click here for the announcement. Readers are instead invited to submit letters to the editor by emailing them to [email protected]. Please provide your full name and community, as well as contact information for verification purposes only.