Chevron’s Giant Ocean Oil Rig Gets Go-Ahead
After months of controversy, Chevron Inc. has received the green light to build Platform Gail, a giant $150-million oil-drilling rig to be located in the Santa Barbara Channel near the Channel Islands National Park.
After construction of the platform was blocked twice by the California Coastal Commission, Chevron’s lawyers appealed to the U.S. secretary of commerce and filed suit in federal court challenging the commission’s authority to impose environmental standards on projects in federal waters.
Final approval for the project was virtually assured late Wednesday when the commission--meeting in an executive session--voted 5 to 4 to accept a complex out-of-court settlement that pledges Chevron to drop both the administrative appeal and its legal action.
Chevron officials confirmed Friday that they had accepted the settlement and dropped the appeal and suit. The Department of Interior’s Minerals Management Service is expected to give final approval to Platform Gail sometime next week.
Scaled-Back Package
As part of the settlement, the company has agreed to accept a scaled-back package of environmental “mitigations” that the commission wants to ensure that, among other things, the construction of the platform will not add to Ventura County’s air pollution or pose a traffic hazard in the channel’s busy shipping lanes.
The settlement was prompted when the commission was unable, after months of internal wrangling, to agree on the language of a document it had to file with the Interior Department explaining why it was rejecting the platform proposal, Commission Chairman Michael Wornum explained.
“It was like civil war, four (commissioners) wanted the platform without restrictions, four of us were opposed to it under any circumstances and four wanted the platform built, but with a package of mitigations that would soften its impact on the environment,” Wornum said of the 12-member commission’s deliberations.
Technically, it is the Interior Department’s Minerals Management Service that approves offshore oil leases in federal waters, but the Coastal Commission has a limited right of approval to ensure that oil platforms do not harm the environment or violate provisions of the state’s Coastal Protection Act. The secretary of commerce, however, can overturn a decision of the Coastal Commission.
“Because we couldn’t agree (on how to word the commission’s September decision rejecting the project) by our October meeting date, we technically took no action and this meant that we’d approved the project by default,” Wornum said.
While the voting breakdown was secret, The Times learned that Republicans Donald A. McInnis, Steve MacElvaine, Thomas McMurray and Dorrill B. Wright were joined by Democrat Leo King in voting for the settlement and approval of the project during the executive session. Those opposed were Duane Garrett, Susan McCabe, Robert Franco and Wornum.
Closed Session
Commission spokesman Jack Liebster said the panel was entitled to meet in closed executive session because it was discussing legal issues.
The commission’s vote surprised environmental groups opposed to the project.
“The idea that they’d do something like this behind closed doors after so many months of public hearings and twice turning the proposal down is outrageous,” said Natural Resources Defense Council’s Ann Notthoff.
“I imagine we will sue,” said Sierra Club spokesman Carl Pope. “Platform Gail is located in critical habitat and is too close to the shipping lanes. Even with the mitigations it can’t meet the policies of the Coastal Protection Act.”
Liebster said, “I think it’s fair to say the commissioners were trading certainty for uncertainty . . . . It is quite possible the mitigations would not have been included if Chevron had won its appeal or lawsuit.”
Liebster was referring to a complex package of mitigations that the commission staff worked out in July with Chevron. In exchange for approval, the company agreed to partially offset air pollution created by platform construction and operation. These mitigations also called for Chevron to set up a fund to reimburse any losses fishermen might sustain as a result of the project and for the installation of shipping lane traffic safety devices on the platform.
The staff recommended the commission approve the request, as mitigated. However, even with these mitigating factors, the commission rejected the proposal in July and again in September.
Complicating the deal for Chevron was the fact that it had expected prompt approval of the platform and had ordered the $25-million skeleton of the platform built and shipped over from Japan on a sea-going barge.
This giant, eight-legged skeleton--designed to stand in 750 feet of water--arrived off the California coast in mid-August and was left at sea while the controversy raged. The rig was towed in circles off the California coast during that period at a cost of $200,000 a day. When the company’s request was turned down again in September, its attorneys filed suit in U.S. District Court in San Francisco on Nov. 4. Settlement negotiations were begun soon after.
