ExxonMobil (Exxon) is seeking an emergency permit to truck 425,000 barrels of oil from its Las Flores Canyon facility to refineries in Santa Maria and Kern County, pending Santa Barbara County approval.
Exxon applied for the permit on Jan. 4, requesting to send up to 30 trucks per day on Highway 101 to remove oil from its current storage facility, which the company claims is unsafe for long-term use.
Exxon would normally use Plains All American Pipeline Line 901 to move its oil, but the line remains closed for repairs following last year’s oil spill at Refugio State Beach. This leaves the company with two options: Either keep its oil in storage or choose an alternative means of transportation, and Exxon wants its crude to hit the road.
The Center for Biological Diversity’s staff attorney Kristen Monsell argued that trucking the oil would be riskier than leaving it in storage.
“The proposal is extremely dangerous,” Monsell said. “Transporting oil by trucks is one of the most dangerous forms of transporting oil there is, and that’s why the county generally prohibits the transport of oil by trucks.”
Research backs up her claim. According to the website oilprice.com, between trucking, boating, pipelines, and trains, trucking is considered the most dangerous option for oil transportation with regard to human death and property destruction. Trucking is also the riskiest option when considering oil spillage, according to the Congressional Research Service.
But an emergency could warrant the risk. The law defines “emergency” in the case of an emergency permit as “a sudden unexpected occurrence demanding immediate action to prevent or mitigate loss or damage to life, health, property, or essential public services.”
In Exxon’s application, the company claimed to meet the definition’s standards because “the lack of a pipeline to quickly empty the LFC Crude Storage Tanks during a natural disaster or unforeseen circumstance could potentially result in the loss or damage to property, the environment, or essential public services,” and taking preventative action to remove the crude from the storage site would eliminate that risk.
But Monsell said Exxon’s worry is over a potential emergency, not an actual one.
“We don’t think this situation constitutes an emergency situation as defined by law,” she said. “Their justification is entirely speculative.”
She added that the storage tank in Las Flores Canyon is permitted to house up to 540,000 barrels of oil, and its current inventory doesn’t exceed that amount.
“We think Exxon’s proposal is actually more dangerous than the current situation, and is more likely to lead to an emergency situation given how inherently dangerous trucking oil is,” Monsell said.
The county received public comments on the issue between Jan. 5 and Jan. 20, and many wrote in favor of Exxon’s case, saying moving the oil will improve local air quality and help the economy.
Cased hole sales engineer Erik Kroh wrote in his comment that the market has been especially difficult for those working in the oil and gas industry, like him. He argued that by granting Exxon the emergency permit, the county would relieve some of this economic tension.
“By helping ExxonMobil you will also be helping a great number of possible workers make some much-needed hours and income in a time when most companies in our industry are closing doors or cutting hours or letting people go,” Kroh wrote.
Dianne Black, the county’s planning and development assistant director, will get the final say on whether Exxon’s case calls for an exception to the county’s usual rule. Last time Exxon applied for an emergency permit to truck crude through the county, Black blocked the request. Exxon filed that application on June 4, 2015. Black denied it on June 9.
Her letter of denial justified the decision, saying Exxon’s application lacked adequate evidence of a defined emergency, among other reasons. However, the county’s energy specialist Errin Briggs said this time could be different.
Last year’s emergency permit application was for continued production, Briggs said, whereas this year’s is for a limited period of time. Exxon estimates in its current application that the trucking would take three to four months, though the company is requesting six months to complete the transportation.
Now, more than three weeks after Exxon filed its application, Black has yet to reveal a timeline for her decision. Briggs said the county must first complete its investigation of Exxon’s claims and consider public comments.
This article appears in Jan 28 – Feb 4, 2016.