Political War Bubbling to Surface Over Oil Pipeline

The Angeles Pipeline would begin just south of Bakersfield in the rustic farmlands of Emidio where the vista of cotton fields, carrot rows and table grapes is interrupted by the occasional cluster of oil wells and storage tanks.

Here is where 330,000 barrels a day of crude oil--transported from the waters off Santa Barbara and the fields of the San Joaquin Valley--would start a 135-mile underground journey to the Los Angeles Basin, flowing below residential streets, near high-rises and beneath school crossings.

As envisioned by pipeline planners, the cargo of crude would be encased in 30-inch steel pipes and run almost parallel to Interstate 5 heading south down the Grapevine. Crossing the Tehachapi Mountains, the pipeline would enter the San Fernando Valley at Sylmar, proceed beneath sections of Glendale and Burbank and into East, Central and South Los Angeles, buried under the city’s densely populated boulevards.

Exists Only on Paper

Near its end, the pipeline would fork into three branches en route to a tank farm in Long Beach and refineries in the South Bay area, finally dumping its flow of crude oil into waiting storage tanks.

Although the Angeles Pipeline exists only on paper, the consortium of oil companies behind the proposal--Shell Oil Co., Chevron Pipe Line Co., Texaco Refining and Marketing Inc. and the Four Corners Pipe Line Co., an ARCO subsidiary--has already spent $5 million on its planning.

“I think we’ve got a great project, and anyone who gives us a fair shake in talking about it is going to reach the same conclusion,” says Allen F. Swanson, a Chevron executive and spokesman for the Southern California Pipeline System, which plans to build the $225-million project.

Budding Political Battle

But not everyone agrees. In what looms as a budding political battle, a vocal group of dissidents including some residents along the proposed pipeline route have joined a handful of elected officials in expressing concerns about a project they contend is environmentally unsound and potentially unsafe.

“We don’t want this (crude oil) down here, period. We don’t want it refined (in Los Angeles), and we don’t want the oil companies to shove it down our throats,” says Michele Grumet of the Coalition Against the Pipeline.

For the last two years, Grumet and members of her group have sparred with oil company officials and denounced the pipeline at every opportunity. They warn of disastrous oil spills and fire hazards, of oil lines rupturing during a strong earthquake and of the added air pollution and traffic congestion that they argue the project would bring.

Resolution Against Pipeline

They are not alone with their fears. The Burbank City Council, representing one of 13 cities and two counties along the route, last year passed a resolution saying it did not want the project to pass through the city.

The Los Angeles City Council, though months away from a decision to grant construction permits and franchises, has already received two requests from council members urging the body to reject the pipeline. Before the pipeline can be built, the companies must obtain state and federal permits, as well as the approval of all the cities and counties through which it would pass.

“It gets to the point where you ask yourself whether this is the politically smart move: to build a pipeline and disrupt these communities,” says Councilman Robert Farrell, who warns that a pipeline accident could cause “a spill of unprecedented proportions in an urbanized area.”

Councilman John Ferraro, who is calling for diverting the pipeline through less populated areas, adds that laying the pipe under busy city streets would further clog already choked thoroughfares.

But supporters of the project insist that the pipeline is the safest and most economical way to transport oil that will be heading for Los Angeles by some means anyway and not much different from the smaller underground utility pipes and gas lines that already crisscross the basin. They also point to a recently completed draft Environmental Impact Report, prepared by a consulting firm for the oil companies, that identified some risks but concluded they could be minimized.

“I think the EIR has to be reassuring to people,” Swanson says.

Others, however, argue that the draft environmental report does not allay fears over the pipeline, and some opponents, including members of the Coalition Against the Pipeline, promise to show up in force during the three days of public hearings on environmental consequences, which begin Tuesday evening in downtown Los Angeles and resume the following nights in Granada Hills and in Carson.

Among the concerns that have been raised are:

- Earthquake hazards. Critics note that the proposed pipeline route sits on active faults, including the San Andreas Fault where a major temblor is predicted. Oil company officials, however, claim that the pipes are designed to be flexible and cushioned enough in the soil to withstand a major shock, and the environmental statement by the proponents reports that there have been no incidents of pipeline failure because of earthquakes. The pipes would be at least three feet below the surface and deeper in most urban areas, according to planners.

- Oil spills. The most common causes of oil spills are corroded pipelines and such outside forces as workers accidentally rupturing a line, according to the draft report. But coated pipes and a special technique using electric currents to ward off metal corrosion would reduce the chances of oil leaks, pipeline officials say. Warning markers, shut-off valves and a computer monitoring of the entire pipeline would also limit spills and speed reaction to any trouble area, they add.

Opponents contend that despite those precautions spills are still likely and could contaminate waterways and residential neighborhoods, and they refer to such past accidents as the 1986 rupture of a 10-inch Mobil Oil pipeline that spilled 690 barrels of crude oil in Granada Hills. The environmental findings also predict the likelihood of at least three spills over the 50-year life of the project.

- Fire or explosion. The proponents say in their impact report that an accidental oil spill could pose the potential risk of fire or explosion, although with crude oil’s high flash point “these risks are minimal.” Critics, however, claim that oil could vaporize during a spill, increasing the risk of explosions, and that blending natural gas liquids into the offshore crude oil increases the possibility of fire--a view disputed by pipeline engineers. Oil company officials also say the pipelines do not endanger nearby homes, businesses and schools.

- Air quality. Councilman Farrell calls the air quality issue the major reason for his opposition to the pipeline, claiming that it would encourage the growth of refineries and produce more emissions. But Chevron’s Swanson insists that local air quality would not worsen because of the Angeles Pipeline and calls the issue “a red herring” in the pipeline debate.

Still, Catherine Tyrrell, energy program manager for the Southern California Assn. of Governments, says her staff is opposed to the pipeline because oil spills would threaten area ground water and refining the “heavier, tar-like” Santa Barbara crude oil would release more pollutants than the crude oil now shipped to the Los Angeles Basin from Alaska’s North Slope.

- Traffic congestion. Some streets that would undergo construction are lightly traveled, but the pipeline would also be under some busy streets where traffic would be restricted. San Fernando Road in Glendale, for example, carries more than 30,000 vehicles per day at Brand Boulevard, while Western Avenue carries 40,000 vehicles a day in some segments. But pipeline officials say the streets were carefully picked not only for economic reasons and safety considerations but also for their ability to handle traffic disruptions. They add that construction would last no more than three weeks per block and would not be any more disruptive than the work done in placing other utilities in city streets.

Next week’s sessions follow hearings held last Friday by the state Senate Committee on Toxic Waste and Public Safety, where Sen. Art Torres (D-Los Angeles), who chairs the panel, sharply questioned Swanson on the project.

As first outlined by the Southern California Pipeline System in 1985, the Angeles Pipeline was promoted as a way to increase the supply of crude oil to the Los Angeles Basin, where vehicles consume about 15 million gallons of gasoline a day and more than 90% of the gasoline is produced at local refineries.

In San Francisco, project engineer John Moffitt says the crude oil is needed in Los Angeles because of the reliance of local motorists on the automobile.

“That’s the dilemma that they’re in,” he says. “They need the gasoline, and that’s why we’re proposing the pipeline: to supply that need.”

By linking up with an existing pipeline or a new line--dubbed the Las Padres Pipeline in Santa Barbara County--the Angeles Pipeline would transport oil from offshore wells and from the Kern County oil fields to Los Angeles.

Environmental Reviews

The pipeline would be designed to carry 200,000 barrels a day of offshore crude and 130,000 barrels a day of San Joaquin Valley crude to refineries along the Texas Gulf Coast and in Southern California. At the earliest, the environmental reviews and the permit process would be completed late this year and construction would begin in mid-1988. By 1990, the Angeles Pipeline would be operational, according to the scenario.

But opponents of the pipeline hope to disrupt that timetable and they have embarked on a lobbying campaign to try and sway local, state and federal officials who must review the project and grant approval before it can be built.

“What the oil companies are saying is that we know what’s best for you, and the hell with the rest of the people,” says Richard Adams, a coalition member who lives in Atwater near the proposed route. “That’s what they are telling us with this pipeline proposal.”

But opponents such as Adams are facing an uphill battle against a well-financed, experienced and politically influential adversary.

As part of a $500,000 public relations campaign, the consortium of oil companies hired the firm of Braun and Co. and has gone on an aggressive drive to sell the pipeline to local residents, community groups and government officials. They have put together an eight-minute slide presentation extolling the virtues of the pipeline and a “facts” booklet on the Angeles Pipeline that can be mailed from their La Habra office. And they have reminded city officials that the pipeline can mean hefty franchise fees to local city treasuries--more than $800,000 annually to the City of Los Angeles alone.

In contrast, members of the anti-pipeline coalition have operated out of their homes, made do largely with photocopied flyers, hand-lettered picket signs and relied on the telephone to drum up support. According to oil company executives, pipeline foes also tap the emotions of worried residents frustrated by traffic congestion and air pollution.

“They’re not focusing on pipeline safety. They’re not focusing on reality. They’re focusing on their frustration,” says Dave Hylton, project manager for the Angeles Pipeline.

“I think it’s that frustration that they feel, and they’re lashing back at what they can visualize, and they’re saying, ‘We want to see those refineries go away because they’re polluters.’ But the vast majority of polluters are the automobiles,” he says.

Although the oil companies made it clear that they have a preferred route, they also submitted two alternative stretches in the Los Angeles area.

The 36-mile Westerly alternative, for example, crosses the Santa Monica Mountains along Sepulveda Boulevard and parallels the San Diego Freeway to Crenshaw Boulevard, cutting through Culver City. The 22-mile Easterly alternative would encompass neighborhoods in East Los Angeles and communities such as Bell, Downey and Paramount.

‘It’s Dangerous’

“I’m against this pipeline because it should not come through any populated area,” says Ricardo Gutierrez of Boyle Heights, whose house would be half a block from the pipeline. “I think it’s dangerous, and we’re going to fight it.”

But Chevron’s Swanson says no matter what happens with the Angeles project, the crude oil from Kern County will be coming to Los Angeles--either by marine tanker, rail car, tanker truck or pipeline.

“When you compare these systems, the pipeline comes out the safest and the least environmentally damaging,” Swanson says.