Experts Favor Building New Pipeline to Move Oil to L.A.

In the first public workshop on a proposed crude-oil pipeline across Ventura County, experts said Monday that the project would be a safer long-term alternative to using a patchwork system of existing pipelines.

Citing conclusions from an extensive study, environmental consultant Hamid Rastegar said the chance of a major oil leak from a state-of-the-art pipeline was half what it would be in an older pipeline.

Meeting with the public at the Ventura County Government Center, the California Public Utilities Commission used charts, maps and an aerial photo of the proposed Pacific Pipeline route to explain the phone-book thick environmental impact report. The workshop was the first of several leading to public hearings in June on the massive project.

The California Coastal Commission recently gave oil companies permission to use ocean-going tankers in the Santa Barbara Channel with understanding that the companies build a pipeline and phase out tankers by Jan. 1, 1996.

Until the commission approved the use of tankers, oil producers had to pipe oil to San Francisco and then ship it back down the coast by tankers to refineries in Los Angeles County.

The proposed $215-million pipeline would be 171 miles long, including 53 miles though Ventura County. Once completed, it would pass through 18 cities and three counties and carry 130,000 barrels of heavy crude a day.

Originating at the Gaviota Marine Terminal north of Santa Barbara, the pipeline would follow the coastline to Ventura, head inland along the Santa Clara River to Newhall before jogging south through Los Angeles to refineries in Wilmington.

The Pacific Pipeline route is preferred by the oil companies over several alternatives. Another potential new route would snake south of the Pacific Pipeline route, going through Ventura, Oxnard and Simi Valley, but it is considered more environmentally damaging.

It is also thought preferable to a circuitous, 540-mile route that would be patched together using existing pipe that goes through Kern, San Bernardino and Riverside counties.

About 11 miles of the proposed Pacific Pipeline would be existing pipeline that begins in Seacliff, hugs the coast, crosses the Ventura River by Main Street and winds up at an oil facility at the Ventura Marina. If a new pipeline is built, experts said, the old pipe would undergo a needed overhaul that would reduce the chance of a leak along the coast or in the Ventura River.

Owned by Mobil, the 10.5-mile pipeline was built in 1969. Three years ago, an electronic device threaded through the pipe found 50 possible problem spots; 19 have been repaired. The environmental study recommends repairing all of them, testing for leaks and using a substance that inhibits corrosion in the pipe.

About 700 feet of the existing pipe crosses under the Ventura River but some of it is either exposed or not buried deep enough, creating potential danger, the experts said. A pipe rupture could unleash about 2,000 barrels of oil into the river, foul the estuary and flow out to sea, the experts said. They said they want the old pipe to be strengthened and buried deeper than five feet below the river bottom if the new pipeline is built.

The report says any environmental harm from constructing the Pacific Pipeline would be minimized because the route is generally confined to existing railroad right of way.

Where the route crosses streams and rivers, disturbances could be reduced by avoiding construction during wildlife breeding seasons and rainy winter months, the report said. Although construction of the 171-mile pipeline is expected to last a year, digging the trench and laying pipeline through sensitive habitats could be reduced to only about a week, the experts said.

“They’ve been very thorough with the EIR,” said Fillmore Mayor Pro Tem Linda Brewster, one of 50 members of the public attending the meeting. “But some of the things they’re using for mitigation are not going to please everybody. I’d like them to do more.”

Brewster expressed concern about the contingency plan for spills in some ecologically sensitive areas. If the spill is small, the report suggests leaving it alone instead of sending in equipment and workers who could do more damage with their cleanup efforts.

To guard against catastrophic spills in the county, the Pacific Pipeline would be equipped with seven valves which would be shut off automatically if a spill occurs.

Six years ago, another pipeline proposal was scrapped because of public opposition. If the Pacific Pipeline is approved, construction would begin early next year. The overall project would create more than 400 construction jobs. In addition, 24 permanent workers would be hired in the county to operate two pumping stations.

About a dozen construction workers were on hand Monday to listen to the experts and show support for hiring local workers. But afterward, they had mixed feelings on the issue of jobs versus the environment.

“I’m glad about the jobs but wondering about the safety of the pipeline over the Ventura River,” said Jeff McDuffie, a 33-year-old construction worker from Port Hueneme. “But overall, I’d say they’re trying to do the right thing.”

A public hearing is scheduled June 17 at 10 a.m. at the county Government Center.