[ad_1]
More than 50 years ago, a catastrophic oil spill along the Santa Barbara coastline helped to revitalize the modern environmental movement and also helped to signal the arrival of California Coastal Law, one of the state’s most powerful conservation laws.
Now, as the Trump administration is trying to encourage oil and gas production within federal land and waters, its watershed conservation laws are being tested along the same coastline.
The Texas-based oil company rejected the powers of the California Coast Commission (an agency that is tasked with enforcing the law) and instead moved forward with a controversial plan to revive oil production from the Gabiota coast.
Ten years after another spill, after oil production halted here, Sable Offshore Corporation has begun repairs and upgrades to the oil pipeline network that caused the 2015 spill, without approval from the Coastal Commission, ignoring the commission’s repeated requests to stop work.
After a burst pipeline near Santa Barbara leaked an estimated 140,000 gallons of crude oil, crews painted oiled sand and kelp at Refugio State Beach in May 2015.
(Al Seib/Los Angeles Times)
“This is the first time a party has blatantly ignored such a suspension and destination order and refused to submit a permit application,” Cassidy Teufel, deputy director of the California Coastal Commission, told the Hall of General Town recently.
A proactive and impactful report on climate change, the environment, health and science.
Sable accused the committee of “overreaching” and claims it has obtained the necessary approvals for the work.
The company plans to revive operations with three oil platforms known as the Santay Nez Unit, the focus of ongoing repair work, after the corroded sections of the pipe burst near Refugio State Beach in 2015.
The new report argues that Sable’s activities, including excavation, grading, vegetation removal and placement of cement bags on the seabed, “continuing to negatively affect coastal resources and negatively affect them as a result of Sable’s complete refusal to complying with coastal conduct.”
The report recommends that committee members issue nearly $15 million for fine sables, another halt and desist order for all developments along the pipeline, requiring repair work.
The requested sanctions will be considered at the hearing next week. This is one of the first such venues about the revitalization of offshore oil rigs and how it affects the local environment that has long been interested in Santa Barbara residents and climate activists.
Sable argues that it is not necessary to follow the latest Coastal Commission’s requests.
“The repair and maintenance work carried out to ensure the safe condition of the Santa Naz Unit and the land pipeline has been fully approved by the Coastal Development Permit previously approved by the California Coastal Commission and Santa Barbara County,” said Steebrush, vice president of environmental and government affairs. “The unreasonable overview of the committee staff is an attempt to exert influence over the planned reopening of Santay Nez Unit’s oil production operations.”
In a defense statement submitted to the Coastal Commission, Sable noted that because of the updated requirements, “the pipeline meets more stringent environmental and safety requirements than any other pipeline in the state.”
The company exaggerated the committee’s findings on environmental impacts, saying it “has implemented several best construction management practices to limit the impact on coastal, biological and archaeological resources.”
After the 2015 oil pipeline rupture, stack the pile bags of clean-up workers at Levjo State Beach, Goleta.
(Melmercon/Los Angeles Times)
So who is in charge of such a project?
If Sable succeeds in reopening operations, it will provide an astonishing reversal of California’s oil and gas industry in recent years as climate-focused policies have gradually reduced the state’s fossil fuel production.
The Houston-based company estimates that when Santay Nez units are fully online, they can produce an estimated 28,000 barrels of oil per day, according to an investor presentation.
The unit will have three offshore platforms: Hondo, Harmony and Heritage in federal waters just a few miles from the coast. These platforms are connected to the Las Flores Canyon Processing Facility inland from El Pitan State Beach, as well as other distribution lines running on land. The 2015 Refugio oil spill was caused by a rupture of a buried land pipeline.
Sable says it expects to resume offshore oil production in the second quarter of this year, but the company acknowledges that there are some regulatory and monitoring hurdles remaining. Most notably, its reboot plan must be approved by the state fire service.
Sable has already cleared some of the agency’s major regulatory measures, but state firefighter Daniel Berlant said the company’s final reboot plan would not be approved without agreement from many other state agencies, including the Coastal Commission.
“Before you sign off to the pipeline, [we will make] Please make sure that each of these departments agrees to follow all rules,” Berland said at City Hall in March.
Berlant also assured Santa Barbarlands that since the 2015 spill, the firefighter s office has implemented stricter standards for oil infrastructure, which is part of Sable’s plan. He said his office is focusing on 67 new conditions, focusing on safety and corrosion protection, more stringent and more frequent monitoring and repair standards.
However, Sable relies most on recent approvals for the Santa Barbara County Plan and Development, saying in October that corrosion repair work could proceed under the original county permits of the 1980s pipeline. The company claims it remains relevant as it repairs and maintains only existing pipelines that do not build new infrastructure.
After concerns from the Coastal Commission and Environmental Group, county officials confirmed their position in February and concluded that Sable’s repair work on the corroded pipeline is “certified by existing permits”… [and] It was analyzed in previous Environmental Impact Reports/Environmental Impact Statements. ”
In 2015, workers clean oil from rocks and beaches in Lefjo State Beach, Goleta, California.
(Mark Ralston/AFP via Getty Images)
Coastal Commission staff questioned how the nearly 40-year-old permit could properly consider current technology, requirements to improve corrosion problems, and environmental conditions.
“The removal of insulation and implementation of this new strategy’s pipeline to manage corrosion risk represents a fundamental change in the design and operation of the pipeline that will resume operation under this new system. Also, do not consider current habitats or sensitive species in the area, including newly endangered or threatened such as steelheads, tidal water gobys and California red-legged frogs.
Ultimately, the matter may be decided in court. In February, Sable sued the Coastal Commission, claiming that he had no authority to oversee the work.
“Sable representatives say they will only stop if the court makes them, so we have been working with the Attorney General’s Office to move in that direction last month,” Teufel said last month at Santa Barbara City Hall. The event attracted hundreds of attendees. There is clearly a split between others with signs that read “no pollution pipeline” and “no coastal permits, no reboots.”
But it’s still California Atty. General Rob Bonta did not weigh in. A spokesman for the office referred to the Coastal Commission’s inquiries and declined to answer questions from the Times.
A controversial legacy
In 1969, when the blow-off of offshore oil platforms erupted over 3 million gallons of crude oil smashed into the Santa Barbara Channel and destroyed the coastline, environmentalists fought to close offshore oil rigs along Gabiota’s coast. In their view, Sable’s actions are beyond pale.
“The 1969 spills have been around for a long time,” said Alex Katz, executive director of the Environmental Defense Center, which was established after the 1969 spill. “For a project that’s big and has so much risk, it’s very strange.”
At the same time, other residents see economic value in oil extraction.
1
2
3
1. The boat and men on the coast gather in the straw, which is used to absorb oil in the port of Santa Barbara. The boom helps include the worst oil paintings that stained the 30-mile coastline. This photo was published in the Los Angeles Times on February 10th, 1969. 1969 Santa Barbara Oil Spill (Don Cormier/Los Angeles Times) This photo was published in the Los Angeles Times on February 10th, 1969. (Mary Frampton/Los Angeles Times) 3. Workman Dave Kirkwood cleans up oil smears by spraying live steamlocks at the port of Santa Barbara Breakwater. This photo was published in the Los Angeles Times on February 10th, 1969. Santa Barbara Oil Spill of 1969 (Don Cormier/Los Angeles Times)
Santa Barbara County director Bob Nelson calls many concerns about the pipeline “political theatre.” He generally agreed that Sable has the necessary permissions to resume oil production, and noted that local oil is better than the alternative, especially when there is still a demand for such fuel.
“If you really care about climate change, you’d want to use this oil,” Nelson said in an interview, arguing that it’s better to use local resources than oil shipped from around the world. Sable reports that the project will first generate $5 million a year in new county taxes, and will support another 300 jobs upon reboot.
At City Hall last month, Council member Greg Hart (D-Santa Barbara) called on the California Attorney General to be involved in the process, noting that there are similarly clear risks to offshore drilling projects in order to support the state’s environmental laws.
“It’s a false choice to say we have to choose to protect the environment and grow our economy,” Hart said during a packed hearing that included representatives from at least eight state agencies.
Some of these state agencies, including the California Department of Fish and Wildlife, the state’s Board of Water Resources Management, and the California Department of Parks and Recreation, have also expressed concern about Sable’s work. The Regional Water Committee in December warned the company about potential fish and game code violations, while Sable issued a non-violation notice of unauthorized discharge into the waterway. Sable’s response to these issues remains under review.
However, as Sable has not shared detailed plans or applied for permits, the Coastal Commission claims that the full extent of completed or possible environmental damage from the project remains unknown. And that is a precedent that should be of concern for all Californians, said Linda Klopp, chief advisor to the Center for Environmental Defense.
“This is the biggest threat to California’s coast,” Klopp said. “If they are violating state law, they should not be allowed to operate.”
Staff writer Tony Brisco contributed to this report.
[ad_2]Source link
