There’s a major development in the fight to restart the Santa Barbara County oil pipeline, which ruptured in 2015, causing a 140,000-gallon oil spill.
A judge issued a temporary restraining order Tuesday to suspend Sable Offshore Corporation’s effort to restart the pipeline and three offshore oil platforms off the Santa Barbara County coastline.
The Santa Barbara-based Environmental Defense Center sued the State Fire Marshal’s Office, which oversees pipeline safety.
"The Environmental Defense Center, on behalf of five organizations, filed a lawsuit against the Fire Marshal, challenging the Fire Marshal's approval of the waiver of some of the safety requirements for the pipeline which ruptured in 2015," said Linda Krop, who is the EDC’s Chief Counsel.
"When we learned Sable was actually planning on restarting the pipeline imminently, we went in for a restraining order to prevent that from happening. The judge agreed and she scheduled a hearing on July 18th on a preliminary injunction," said Krop. "In the meantime, she told Sable and the Fire Marshal that they could not do anything related to the potential restart of the pipeline."
In federal filings, Sable said it’s completed and tested repair work on the pipelines. It said it’s already pumping oil from some offshore wells, which it is currently storing.
Sable didn't initially respond Tuesday to KCLU's request for comment on the ruling.
Then on Wednesday, Steve Rusch, the company's Vice President of Environmental and Government Affairs, issued the following statement:
"This court decision does not impede Sable's preparations for restarting the flow of oil critical to lowering California's gas prices, and stabilizing supply. Restart of the Las Flores Pipeline System is governed by a federal consent decree, approved by a federal judge and agreed to by the United State of America and 10 other federal and state agencies. Sable is in full compliance with that consent decree and will seek to protect our rights and enforce the legal process."
Krop said the order issued by Santa Barbara County Superior Court Judge Donna Geck should bring the restart efforts to a temporary halt.
"After the judge said that she was going to put out the restraining order, the Deputy Attorney General representing the State Fire Marshal asked if they could continue doing some other pre-start activities, like testing sections. She said no, they could not," said Krop.
There’s a huge backstory to the controversy.
The pipeline, three platforms, and other facilities date back nearly four decades. When the pipeline ruptured in 2015, it was owned by Plains All American Pipeline, which initially proposed replacing it with a new pipeline. But it then sold it to Exxon-Mobil, which eventually sold it to the current owner, Sable. They decided that rather than trying to replace the pipeline, they would make repairs. The company also said it would make a number of safety improvements.
The pipeline is key to getting Sable’s three oil platforms off the Santa Barbara County coast back into operation. Without it, there’s no way to move the oil to refineries.
Krop said what they really want is more environmental review and a chance for the public to comment during a public hearing. She and other opponents have argued that restarting the aging pipeline, even with repairs, sets the stage for another environmental disaster.
Sable contends that repairs to the pipeline and operation of the oil facilities are already permitted through the decades-old original permits for the system. It says the pipeline has been repaired and tested, and has additional safety features.
In Security and Exchange Commission filings, Sable said it had six wells on Platform Harmony operational in mid-May, pumping oil to a storage facility. It said it was planned to have just over 100 wells on the three platforms in operation by the end of the summer. It said it expects to have the pipeline moving oil this summer, with a new SEC filing saying the target date is August 1.
Attorneys will be back in Santa Barbara County Superior Court on July 18 to argue whether a preliminary injunction should be granted.
