Efforts to reactivate ExxonMobil’s onshore and offshore operations off the coast of Santa Barbara County via Sable Energy, a relatively brand-new operator, got dealt a serious setback by the Office of California Fire Marshal. According to a letter issued by the State Fire Marshal dated July 10, Sable’s revised Risk Analysis and Implementation Plan submitted on April 11, 2024, was deemed “inadequate” for two basic reasons.
Those reasons are explained in only the murkiest of detail in the two-page letter issued by the Fire Marshal. First, the Fire Marshal concluded that the size of the oil spill contemplated in the proposed risk assessment plan was too large and that Sable has focused too much of its planning on responding to the spill once it’s been released rather than minimizing the size of the spill in the first place.
“The focus is on spill volume reduction, not on spill containment and response,” explained James Hosler, assistant deputy director for the Fire Marshal’s Pipeline Safety Program.
The other major problem identified by the Fire Marshal was Sable’s failure to secure the necessary construction permits to install best available control technology on the oil pipeline in the form of automatic shutoff valves.
ExxonMobil had sought permission for such control valves from the county Planning Commission and the county supervisors. Last year, the Planning Commission voted 3-2 to deny the permits, and the supervisors voted 2-2 — with Supervisor Joan Hartmann abstaining due to a conflict of interest. (A portion of the pipeline runs too close to Hartmann’s property in the Santa Ynez Valley for her to be allowed to vote.)
In such cases, a tie does not go to the runner, as in baseball. Because the supervisors were split 2-2 over the valves, they technically took no action, leaving the proposal in a legal limbo in which the state-mandated safety valves have neither been approved nor denied.
Exxon has since filed legal action against the supervisors in federal court, claiming its rights have been violated and due process ignored. A mandatory settlement conference between the parties has been scheduled sometime in the next two months.
But without those valves included as part of the new risk analysis plan, the Fire Marshal determined that Sable’s proposal remains inadequate.
“It is our understanding that Pacific Pipeline currently possesses the valves required for installation and that discussions around permitting issues between the County of Santa Barbara and Pacific Pipeline are being held to resolve the differences between parties,” wrote Assistant Deputy Hosler. “No other pipeline in the State has been denied construction permits for valves to comply with State law and reduce spill volumes and we see no difference here.”
Where all this leaves Sable remains unclear. In shareholder statements submitted to the Securities Exchange Committee, Sable has promised investors to have ExxonMobil’s former operations back up and operating no later than October 2024.
Sable’s aggressive timeline has been dismissed by county energy analysts as highly unrealistic and improbably optimistic in the extreme. It has succeeded, however, in stirring up environmental activists who remain concerned about the safety of the pipeline that sprung a major leak in 2015 due to widespread corrosion, resulting in the Refugio Oil Spill. With or without the safety valves, they argue, the pipeline remains unsafe and the causes of corrosion inadequately addressed.
Given the heated urgency with which climate change is now regarded, any effort by Sable to restart ExxonMobil’s former offshore platforms, onshore processing plants, and pipelines promises to become the focus of vehement opposition.
Sable’s first mandatory step out the starting blocks is to get clearance for its risk management analysis. While this is normally a federal function, responsibility for this review has been delegated to the Office of the State Fire Marshal. What information Sable provides the State Fire Marshal is deemed proprietary, meaning it is not open for public review, scrutiny, and comment.
One option open to the company is to file yet another amended risk analysis with the Fire Marshal for restarting what formerly had been Exxon’s operations — both onshore and off. Another is to pursue its litigation against the county regarding permits for safety valve installation. Both appear to be arduous and time consuming.
The Environmental Defense Center (EDC), which represents many of the organizations fighting efforts to restart Exxon’s former assets, applauded the Fire Marshal’s decision. “The analysis failed to adequately address a worst-case scenario,” said Alex Katz, EDC’s executive director. “We already know the risk,” he stated, listing the 150-mile stretch of coastline that was impacted by the spill, “the untold number of animals killed,” and the “hundreds of millions” spent on cleaning up the mess. Restarting the pipeline, he charged, would invite further disasters and generate the single largest source of greenhouse gases in the county.
