They came by the dozen and filed in front of the county Engineering Building in Santa Barbara just as the sun began to set on July 11. Armed with signs and shouting slogans decrying fossil fuels, the protesters then marched haphazardly inside, squeezing into the small meeting room that was quickly packed to near capacity.
“I think we got our message across loud and clear,” The Center for Biological Diversity’s Kristen Monsell told the Sun. The anti-oil activists gathered that day for one reason: to let the Santa Barbara County Planning Commission know that environmental groups would fiercely oppose any effort to approve a proposed plan from ExxonMobil that would restart three offshore rigs and facilitate the transportation of untold gallons of oil by semi trucks throughout its jurisdiction.
“This plan will have a significant impact on neighborhood and regional air quality,” said Kimberly Rivers, executive director of Citizens For Responsible Oil and Gas. “The many risks associated with this plan are not worth it, and our region needs to begin shifting our economy and land use away from fossil fuel-based sectors.”
Exxon’s proposal involves a “phased restart” for its Santa Ynez Unit production facility in Las Flores Canyon on the Gaviota Coast. The site is fed oil from three platforms the company owns–Heritage, Harmony, and Hondo–that ceased operation after the Refugio Oil Spill in May 2015. Like the facility, the platforms have sat idle since the pipeline owned by Plains All American Pipeline ruptured, spilling more than 100,000 gallons of crude oil along the coast.
After the spill, the two pipelines responsible for transferring the oil from Las Flores to refineries in Maricopa and Santa Maria also shut down. Plains All American Pipeline applied to replace the pipeline in August of 2017, and the county determined the application complete in April of this year. But construction will take time, even if the application is ultimately approved.
Until then, Exxon is banking on its current proposed plan that would transport the oil by as many as 70 tanker trucks “per 24-hour period” from Las Flores to the two refineries. The trucks would mainly travel via Highway 101 and parts of Highway 166, but also would use several Santa Maria roads, including Betteravia and Rosemary, near East Battles Road. The current application seeks permission to send tanker trucks loaded with a total of nearly 500,000 gallons per day, environmental groups say.
In a statement, Exxon argued its plan would bring jobs to the local economy, “until a pipeline option becomes available.”
The company added that tax revenues would provide funding for school districts and emergency services.
“We continue to evaluate options, including temporary trucking, as part of a phased approach to resume safe operation and [bring] revenue to the community,” Exxon said.
Its opponents were unmoved.
“Santa Barbara County should focus on a just transition to real, clean, renewable energy infrastructure that can bring local jobs to our community,” Alena Simon, with Food and Water Watch, told the Sun. She said the organization and its allies opposed any new infrastructure “that would deepen our dependence on dirty fossil fuels–whether it is trucks, pipelines, or trains.”
The newest effort marks the second time ExxonMobil has sought a permit to truck oil so the company could continue its offshore drilling. Monsell said the dangers did not justify the means found in the proposal.
“These huge trucks full of highly flammable crude would pose an unacceptable threat on Santa Barbara’s coastal highways,” she added. “The planning commission should reject this dangerous proposal. It’s unfair for county residents to shoulder this risk just so ExxonMobil can bring its decrepit drilling platforms back online.”
In its proposal, Exxon claimed truck deliveries were safe.
“Routes for the transportation of oil and gas by truck are proposed and planned with safety in mind and must be approved by the county,” the company stated, adding it would provide officials with “an extensive transportation safety plan.”
Simon argued that the plan was a recipe for disaster.
“Trucking highly flammable crude oil is one of the most dangerous modes of transport and would pose an unacceptable risk to our community,” she said.
At the meeting, the county announced a tentative timeline for the project. The window included a public comment period on scoping for environmental review, which ended on July 16. A draft environmental impact report is set to be released in the fall and will have a 45-day public comment period. The Planning Commission will then host a hearing and recommendation in Spring 2019 that will be followed by another hearing and final decision by the Board of Supervisors.
This article appears in Jul 19-26, 2018.