Chevron Sues to Ship Oil From Point Arguello : State Coastal Commission Has Banned Using Tankers in Santa Barbara Channel

A consortium of oil companies led by Chevron U.S.A. sued the California Coastal Commission for permission to transport oil by tanker from Chevron’s operations at Point Arguello to its refinery in El Segundo, the company said Monday.

The suit is the latest action by the company in its decade-long effort to produce oil from a 300-million-barrel field off Santa Barbara County, a project that the company estimated has cost the consortium about $2 billion without producing a drop of crude.

But opponents viewed the suit as another tactic by the company to avoid dealing with questions raised by the Coastal Commission about the hazards of shipping oil through the environmentally sensitive Santa Barbara Channel, site of a devastating platform blowout in 1969.

“I think it’s a bad move on their part, and won’t get them anywhere at all,” said Henry Feniger, president of Get Oil Out, or GOO, a citizens group opposed to offshore oil development.

Decision Challenged

The question of how to transport oil from the area is one of the last remaining obstacles to the project, which includes three offshore platforms, 26 miles of pipelines and onshore marine terminals.

The suit, filed Friday in Santa Barbara County Superior Court, challenges a decision by the Coastal Commission in August that overruled a permit by the county allowing temporary tanker transportation from the project’s marine terminal near Gaviota to Chevron’s refinery.

The commission, acting on appeals by GOO and the League of Women Voters of Santa Barbara County, argued that Chevron had not sufficiently demonstrated it could handle a massive oil spill from a tanker. The decision came in the wake of the disastrous Exxon Valdez oil spill last March in Prince William Sound in Alaska.

The commission also argued that Chevron had not sufficiently explored using environmentally safer pipelines to transport oil from the Point Arguello project, including one pipeline project that could be available in a few months.

In its suit, Chevron objected to the commission’s findings. “We believe the Coastal Commission ignored numerous prior findings made by itself and the county in previous permit proceedings and approvals concerning our project,” said Richard T. Hughes, Chevron’s offshore district land supervisor, in a statement.

Pipeline Opposed

Officials of the Coastal Commission could not be reached to comment on the suit because of the Columbus Day holiday.

The Santa Barbara County Board of Supervisors originally granted a permit in May to allow tanker transportation until Chevron could arrange to move the oil by pipeline.

Chevron originally proposed a pipeline to move the oil south, but that project was dropped after legal challenges from municipalities and opposition from elected officials, said Chevron spokesman G. Michael Marcy.

The county felt that its Marine Emergency Management Study adequately addressed the question of how to deal with a major oil spill.

But GOO and the League of Women Voters appealed the tanker permit, and the Coastal Commission upheld their appeals. Among other things, the league argued that the Marine Emergency Management Study was too new and that many of its recommendations would not be in place before Chevron proposed to begin tanker traffic.

The league also argued that Chevron had not considered alternative oil transportation arrangements. Those included shipping oil from Santa Barbara County to Texas refineries on Celeron Corp.’s All-American Pipeline. In turn, Alaska North Slope crude intended for Texas could be diverted to El Segundo in a trade.

Marcy argued that such an arrangement could significantly increase shipping costs. But he added that Chevron would await the findings of a county-commissioned study on alternative shipping arrangements, which is still pending.

While Chevron pursues its lawsuit, it has also filed a new permit application with Santa Barbara County. That application has been returned to Chevron for additional information, said Catherine Callahan, an energy specialist in the energy division of the county’s resource management department.