Get Oil Out! (GOO!) is a Santa Barbara based public interest group dedicated to the protection of the Santa Barbara Channel and coastline from the deleterious environmental, economic, and esthetic impacts of oil development. GOO!’s core membership is comprised of approximately 1500 politically, socially, and economically diverse individuals from the Santa Barbara area and surrounding counties.

GOO!’s primary activities include enhancing public awareness about oil related issues and impacts through education, and opposing the proliferation of oil development, or minimizing its impacts, by participating in the administrative and legislative process.

Recent Updates

Press Release

June 27, 2024

Congressman Cliff Bentz, Chair, Congressman Jared Huffman, Ranking Member
Subcommittee on Water, Wildlife and Fisheries
1522 Longworth House Office Bldg.
Washington, D.C. 20515

Re: H.R. 6814, Marine Fisheries Habitat Protection Act – OPPOSE

Dear Chair Bentz and Ranking Member Huffman:

On May 17, 2024 and May 29, 2024, respectively, the Boards of Directors of Get Oil Out! (GOO!) and Santa Barbara County Action Network (SBCAN) voted to opposed H.R. 6814. We are submitting this letter to your Committee urging that you not pass this bill out of Committee.

Get Oil Out! (GOO!) was founded in the aftermath of the tragic 1969 oil spill that devastated Santa Barbara’s beaches, as well as its local tourist economy. In addition to monitoring new proposals for oil development, as well as existing projects, GOO! reviews and takes positions on legislation it deems of importance to our mission. SBCAN is a countywide grassroots organization that works to promote social and economic justice, to preserve our environmental and agricultural resources, and to create sustainable communities.

GOO! and SBCAN are very concerned about H.R. 6814 for the following reasons:

This proposed legislation would disrupt existing federal law and regulations, impede ongoing decommissioning efforts to remove oil and gas infrastructure from the Pacific Coast, and hinder the implementation of existing California state law, which provides a balanced approach to creating artificial reefs from such infrastructure. There are already a number of oil facilities in the Santa Barbara Channel that are well into the decommissioning process which would be undermined. The system set up under H.R. 6814 would establish a system that favors leaving oil and gas infrastructure in place, in contradiction to promises made for full removal when many of these facilities were approved. Leaving these facilities in place will result in significant risks, including hazards to navigation and conflicts with commercial fisheries and marine wildlife, not to mention potential leaching of toxic chemicals from abandoned structures.
Comprehensive decommissioning activities, ensuring the removal of platforms, pipelines, and other facilities associated with oil and gas leases are already mandated in federal law and federal regulations, making H.R. 6814 unnecessary. This bill is also inconsistent with approved leases and permits for offshore oil and gas facilities which require safe and environmentally sound decommissioning in compliance with all applicable laws and regulations. H.R. 6814 would disrupt federal law, regulations, and lease conditions currently in place.
The federal Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement (BSEE) has already set a course for decommissioning of oil and gas infrastructure on the Pacific Outer Continental Shelf and completed a Programmatic EIS, an extensive document that examined at length various options for decommissioning. The PEIS and subsequent Record of Decision selected complete removal of oil and gas infrastructure as the Preferred Alternative to ensure that no infrastructure could remain on the Pacific Outer Continental Shelf seafloor that could later interfere with navigation, commercial fisheries, future oil and gas operations, and other users.
Finally, the State of California Marine Resources Legacy Act addresses the issues set forth in HR 6814. It provides a partial removal option for platforms that are decommissioned off the coast of California and requires site-specific studies on the impacts and benefits of various decommissioning options and addresses the issue of liability of structure left on the seafloor, including an indemnification provision.

Again, it is for all of these reasons that we urge you to oppose H.R. 6814. This bill disregards established federal and state laws and jeopardizes the marine environment and coastal communities.

To read more, click here.

Press Release

March 1, 2024

Chief Jim Hosler, Assistant Deputy Director
Pipeline Safety and CUPA
Office of the State Fire Marshal
715 P Street
Sacramento, CA 94244-2460

Re: Request for Public Hearings and Engagement on the Risk Analysis, State Waiver, and Restart Plan for Line 901/903

Dear Chief Hosler,

We, the undersigned 23 organizations, write to request from the Office of the State Fire Marshal (CalFIRE) more transparency and public engagement in evaluating the safety of the restart of pipeline 901/903, which caused one of the most disastrous oil spills in California history. Ultimately, this pipeline should be decommissioned and not returned to service. However, if CalFIRE continues to evaluate a restart request for this pipeline system, it must conduct more public outreach. The potential reactivation of this pipeline poses considerable risks to both public safety and environmental integrity, warranting thorough public scrutiny and input before any decision is made.

CalFIRE should ultimately deny requests to restart this unsafe pipeline, which should instead be decommissioned.

On May 19, 2015, Plains’ Line 901 ruptured and spilled over 450,000 gallons of crude oil into the surrounding environment (1). This rupture was caused in part by progressive external corrosion and ineffective protection against that corrosion (2). The pipeline failed despite receiving prior approvals from state and federal agencies, and it is increasingly likely to fail again with each passing year if allowed to resume operations. The previous owner of the pipeline was found criminally liable for failing to maintain the pipeline, and killing marine wildlife, among other charges. The report found that the company had allowed the pipeline wall to corrode to 1/16th of an inch before the spill occurred. The PHMSA failure investigation report states that “cathodic protections are required under the federal Pipeline Safety Regulations to prevent external corrosion of buried pipelines,” but that cathodic protections are not effective on a pipeline like Line 901/903, a buried insulated pipeline.

These extensive corrosion issues and coating/insulation failures were unknown and unaccounted for in the antiquated and inadequate 1986 Environmental Impact Report (EIR) (3). This EIR also indicated that the intended lifespan of the pipeline was 30 years, and that timeframe has now lapsed.

The pipeline has sat idle in the environment ever since that catastrophic rupture almost ten years ago. It has been deemed unsuitable for the generally required safety measures and should just be decommissioned. The outdated EIR for the pipeline’s operation, the lack of a clear and transparent plan to account for present and future external corrosion, and the urgency of securing a commitment and execution of pipeline decommissioning all serve as valid reasons for CalFIRE to reject any application for activities associated with Line 901/903. While they once pursued a new pipeline, its owners/operators have now doubled down on trying to restart the decaying pipeline. Restarting Line 901/903 risks more fouling of our beaches, waterways, wildlife, Tribal cultural resources, human health, ecosystems, and coastal economy and is contrary to California’s commitment to transition away from fossil fuels and their infrastructure.

For these reasons, we request that CalFIRE reject any state waiver, startup plan, or other authorizations that would allow restart of Lines 901/903. If despite all of this, CalFIRE proceeds, it must do so with full public participation and transparency.

Consideration of a Line 901/903 restart must be done with public transparency and engagement.

While our position is that CalFIRE should deny the applicant’s state waiver, startup plan, and other approvals required to restart pipeline 901/903, we request at minimum with this letter that CalFIRE be much more transparent with the public and actively engage stakeholders as this process unfolds. Appropriate public outreach should include:

Maintaining a publicly available dashboard for this process: the public deserves clear communication on the steps and timeline for restart. This pipeline is an issue of extreme concern for Santa Barbara, San Luis Obispo, and Kern County residents in particular, but it is of broader public interest as well. We urge CalFIRE to create a public, online dashboard with routine updates and relevant links and documents to keep the public informed about the processes underway and evaluations being made (for example, publicly available smart pigging data and hydrostatic testing results) for pipeline 901/903.
Providing documents to the public before decisions are made and without the need to submit public records act requests: these documents include any applications or requests submitted by the applicants/operators; draft and approved risk analyses; proposed pipeline corrosion prevention plans; integrity management plans; evidence of the applicants/operators financial assurances, including bonding, for pipeline accidents and decommissioning; operator communications; state waiver requests (from cathodic protection or any other requirements), analyses and documentation; proposed restart plans; all decision documents from reviewing agencies to the applicants/operators; and any other relevant documents or communications.
Holding multiple public hearings: CalFIRE should schedule several public hearings that provide the public with an opportunity to comment on the restart request, risk analysis, state waiver, restart plan, and any other approvals needed to return to service. The pipeline’s and industry’s history of environmental harm, highlighted by the disastrous spill in 2015, and their request for waivers from generally required technologies and processes underscores the critical need for transparency and community involvement in the decision-making process. It is imperative that affected communities, Tribes, scientists, state agencies including but not limited to the California Natural Resources Agency, the Office of Spill Prevention and Response (OSPR), California Coastal Commission (CCC), and the California State Lands Commission (SLC), and the public have the opportunity to voice their concerns, raise questions, and offer insights regarding the proposed restart plan.
A public hearing or meeting would provide a platform for stakeholders to engage in meaningful dialogue with CalFIRE officials, exchange vital information, and collectively explore alternatives that prioritize public safety and environmental protection. By fostering transparency, accountability, and inclusivity, such a forum would not only enhance the decision-making process but also reaffirm CalFIRE’s commitment to upholding the public interest and its public trust duties.

To read more about this group letter to CalFire, click here.

Press Release

February 16, 2024

ExxonMobil Drops Court Bid to Truck Oil in Santa Barbara

LOS ANGELES— ExxonMobil’s dangerous proposal to truck massive amounts of oil along California highways is dead after the company dropped its lawsuit challenging Santa Barbara County’s denial of the plan.

Exxon’s plan would have helped the company restart three drilling platforms off the Santa Barbara coast. The platforms, built in the 1980s, have been shut down since the disastrous 2015 Refugio oil spill that leaked more than 140,000 gallons of heavy crude on the Gaviota Coast and into the ocean. Exxon notified the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California late Thursday that the company is dismissing its lawsuit. The Environmental Defense Center and the Center for Biological Diversity successfully intervened in the lawsuit in 2022 on behalf of several environmental and Indigenous groups opposed to the trucking plan and the company’s intent to restart its platforms.

“ExxonMobil’s plan to restart its offshore platforms and truck millions of gallons per week through Santa Barbara County was reckless, dangerous, and totally unwelcome by this community,” said Linda Krop, chief counsel of the Environmental Defense Center, which represents Get Oil Out!, Santa Barbara County Action Network, Surfrider Foundation, and Sierra Club. “Recent oil tanker truck accidents and offshore oil spills show just how dangerous this plan was. Our research revealed that there have been eight serious accidents involving tanker trucks along the proposed route in the last several years, resulting in deaths, oil spills, injuries, fires, and road closures.

The county’s denial was based on the project’s significant and unavoidable harms to biological, water and cultural resources in the event of a spill, as well as threats to public safety.

“Santa Barbara hosts some of the most spectacular coastlines and natural coastal resources in our country. This dismissal affirms the action of the Santa Barbara County Board of Supervisors, protecting the area from the additional risks of oil spills, traffic accidents, as well as air and water pollution from ExxonMobil’s dangerous project to transport crude oil through this sensitive region,” states Angela Howe, Surfrider Foundation Senior Legal Director.

The court upheld the county’s rejection of the plan in a September 2023 decision but had not ruled on all the claims brought in the case. Exxon’s dismissal will terminate the lawsuit entirely. The company’s abandonment of its remaining claims coincides with its sale of its Santa Ynez Unit assets to Sable Offshore Corp.

“The dismissal of this case puts an end, once and for all, to this ill-conceived proposal. Each tanker truck and its full load of oil would have been a ticking time bomb, threatening the lives of those on the highways and our environment. An oil spill catastrophe has been prevented,” said Michael Lyons, Board President of Get Oil Out!.

ExxonMobil’s proposal would have allowed the company to truck vast quantities of oil on coastal Highway 101 and Route 166. The plan to haul millions of gallons of oil per week through Santa Barbara County would have been a step towards restarting the company’s offshore platforms and resuming operations at its Las Flores Canyon processing facility, which when operational was the largest emitter of greenhouse gases in the county.

“It’s welcome news that Exxon’s dangerous trucking scheme is done with, but the fight to keep California’s coast safe from oil spills is far from over,” said Julie Teel Simmonds, a senior attorney at the Center for Biological Diversity. “All oil companies should take note that California’s coastal communities don’t want oil drilling and transport that puts people and wildlife at risk. We’ll work hard to make sure no company has an opportunity to cause California’s next catastrophic oil spill or accident.”

“Exxon has long been one of the most heinous polluters of Chumash homelands,” said Mati Waiya, executive director of the Wishtoyo Chumash Foundation. “We celebrate this massive victory against Exxon and warn any and all future resource extractors that we will not stop fighting.”

“From corroded pipelines to tanker trucks to attempting to finance a sale of this troubled project to Sable to avoid direct liability, Exxon will stop at nothing to endanger the Santa Barbara coastline. The whole aging oil operation should be withdrawn along with the lawsuit,” said Sierra Club Santa Barbara-Ventura Chapter Director Jonathan Ullman.

California suffers hundreds of oil-truck incidents a year, and many result in oil spills. There were 258 trucking accidents along the planned route from 2015 to 2021; since 2007 eight oil tanker truck accidents have occurred that resulted in six deaths, multiple injuries, fires, road closures, and oil spills. In 2020 Santa Barbara County planning staff recommended a prohibition on oil tanker trucks on Route 166 after a major accident spilled more than 4,500 gallons into the Cuyama River.

Watch the video produced by @vacationland for @environmentaldefensecenter.

Directed by @offline.media.account and @nicholas_weissman.