[Noozhawk’s note: An earlier version of this commentary stated that the state Office of Spill Prevention and Response had an oversight and/or jurisdictional role in the pipeline transfer. The agency had no such role, and the commentary has been corrected.]
The Santa Barbara County Planning Commission’s Oct. 30 vote to allow ExxonMobil to transfer ownership of the Plains All-American Pipeline to Sable Offshore Corp. was a serious dereliction of responsibility.
Before it, the commission had documentation that both the Transportation Department’s Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration and its independent in-line inspection expert found the Plains All-American Pipeline to be defective (the company’s failure to detect and respond to the pipeline rapture).
This strongly suggests that ExxonMobil’s proposed sale to Sable was an attempt to avoid financial responsibility for the 2015 Plains All-America Pipeline rupture that spilled 142,000 gallons of crude oil on the Gaviota coast, with much of it going into the Pacific Ocean.
The transfer should have been denied.
ExxonMobil, in a 2022 attempt to move its offshore oil drilling to processing facilities in Kern County, purchased the ruptured pipeline.
In doing so, the company was aware of the 2015 spill and that Plains was in the midst of a permit application with Santa Barbara County on a plan to rebuild and reopen the pipeline.
ExxonMobil chose to take over that proposal.
The fact that ExxonMobil now wants to transfer its asset to Sable, after lending Sable 97% of the $643 million purchase price is suspect, at best.
It should have been investigated by the Planning Commission. Especially so in that this attempt at a transfer comes after ExxonMobil’s failed attempt, before the same commission, to restart offshore oil production and truck the oil to Kern County.
While the commission’s vote was 3-1 in favor of the transfer, two planning commissioners expressed serious misgivings about what they didn’t know.
For example, would the insurance policies Sable carried be sufficient to cover the costs of another spill? What was Sable’s spill contingency plan? Was it even adequate?
When one commissioner asked what the worst-case oil spill scenario was, the county energy staff and county counsel told the commissioners that it was not their purview to render an assessment on questions on whether Sable had submitted insurance documents and spill response plans.
This response by county counsel was an oxymoron.
The Planning Commission patently has the ability and responsibility to rule on issues of environmental concern: “The Santa Barbara County Planning & Development Department plans, supports, and promotes sustainable land uses and development. They provide services such as policy development, permitting and inspection, and conducting environmental reviews under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).”
The 2015 pipeline rupture was one of the worst oil spills in California history. It spilled some 142,000 gallons of crude oil, killing hundreds of animals, closing beaches, shutting down fisheries, and costing $750 million to clean up and mitigate.
Absent an independent review by the Planning Commission of both the environmental impacts and financial implications of the requested transfer, the commission’s approval to transfer responsibility was a dereliction of duty.
Approving the transfer from a deep-pockets oil company to one with questionable financial ability to insure yet another spill again puts our coastal waters at risk — especially so in that the county estimated a new spill would be twice the size of the 2015 spill.
This issue now goes to the county Board of Supervisors where — because of Third District Supervisor Joan Hartmann’s recusal because her property lies close to the pipeline — the vote will be 2-2, leaving the commission’s decision in place.
This will ensure that this will be resolved by the California Coastal Commission and the Office the State Fire Marshal, which has announced it will decide the issue behind closed doors and thereafter inform the public of its decision.