edc-logo
edc-logo
Say NO to ExxonMobil Trucking

ExxonMobil Seeks to Restart Three Offshore Platforms & Transport Oil by Tanker Truck

A dangerous oil proposal threatens the health of Santa Barbara County’s residents, businesses, and beautiful coastline.

By Kathryn Parsons, Lauren Lankenau, and Kela Megorden
Environmental Defense Center Interns

On September 13, 2016, an oil tanker accident occurred on Hwy 166 involving multiple vehicles and spilling 150-200 gallons on fuel.

The driver of the tanker truck died on September 13, 2016 when a multi-vehicle accident occurred on Highway 166, spilling 150-200 gallons of fuel. Photo by Santa Barbara County Fire Department.

Tasked with the quest to analyze ExxonMobil’s proposal to restart offshore platforms (shut down since the 2015 Plains Pipeline spill that devastated the coastline) and truck oil along our precious coast, we set off on a collective years-long journey riddled with unrest at the thought of a significant increase in the amount of oil tanker trucks in our community. It truly baffles us that there is a proposition to extract oil, then use trucks—that need oil to move—as a transportation method. It seems like a get one fish hook unstuck by using another fish hook type of situation. With headlines like 105 Freeway Reopens Hours After 2 Are Killed in Fiery Tanker Truck Crash in Hawthorne, or Oil Tanker Crash: “Everything It Touched Was on Fire”, to Two Killed in Head-On Collision, Tanker Explosion on HWY 20 in Sierra, it is a true quandary that this proposal is even on the table. Since the start of our internships at the Environmental Defense Center we have found almost 80 recent tanker truck crashes in California alone.

Let’s Explore The Facts:

  • ExxonMobil proposes to add 70 round-trip truck trips every 24 hours
  • The trucks would travel along Highway 101 and Route 166
  • Each truck will carry 5,040 to 6,720 gallons of oil
  • At least 79 tanker truck crashes have occurred in California in the last 21 years, including 12 in Santa Barbara County
  • These accidents left 56 people injured and 28 people dead
  • Over 100,000 gallons of oil spilled
  • Accidents caused countless hours of commuter traffic and road closures
  • Countless ecosystems impaired by spills

So, Are The Impacts Really Worth It?

We would argue definitely not. The truck routes that ExxonMobil proposes pass schools, the Gaviota Coast, numerous houses, businesses, water systems, preserves, vineyards, and other assorted agricultural areas. The resulting environmental damage from the accidents we’ve found include fires leading to home evacuations, burning of storm drains in the Los Angeles River, oil migrating through storm drains into the San Diego River and adjoining shorelines, burning of hundreds of acres in the Rose Fire, disintegration of roadways, creek and soil contamination, as well as drinking water contamination. Most recently, an oil tanker truck crashed on Route 166, spilling oil into the Cuyama River.

Truck Crashes Aren’t All Preventable

Aside from a mistake on the tanker truck driver’s part, these crashes aren’t always due to human error; we have read of tanker tires blowing out, spontaneous combustion after impact, and unknown reasons causing trucks to overturn. Additionally, the most common causes are other cars losing control, and drunken drivers crashing into tanker trucks. We even found an instance of a tanker truck colliding with a cow, spilling 10,000 gallons of fuel, killing the driver, and knocking out power to 400 people.

Some Crashes To Learn From

The first tanker truck crash we found was in between our neighbors of Carpinteria and Ventura in the year 2000. It shut down both sides of the freeway, spilled 5,000 gallons, and reached the ocean, killing crabs, fish, and birds, forcing a hotel evacuation, and delaying train travel. All of this because the driver fell asleep behind the wheel.

On December 12, 2018, a driver died in a fiery head-on collision. This photo shows Santa Barbara emergency responders inspecting the vehicle involved in the tanker trucker crash on Highway 166 east of Santa Maria. A Ford F-250 pickup truck was eastbound when it drifted into the westbound lanes and into the path of semi tractor-trailer loaded with crude-oil. Oil from the tanker-truck leaked out onto the dirt and the roadway during recovery operations. Photo by Santa Barbara County Fire Department.

On April 29, 2007, an oil tanker truck crash in the Bay Area snarled the commute of the MacArthur Maze, where several freeways assemble to approach the San Francisco-Oakland Bay Bridge that connects San Francisco with the cities on the east side of San Francisco Bay. The truck driver lost control in a curve, hit a guardrail, and flipped the truck onto its side. This led to an explosion and the collapse of Interstate 580 onto some lanes of Interstate 880 below, complicating commutes for months. It was a truly frustrating experience for all in the area.

Fast-forward 10 years and hop back down south to Santa Barbara when another 5,000 gallons of gasoline spilled onto Highway 101. This crash disintegrated the concrete, necessitating the closure and repaving of the freeway during an active wildfire evacuation. The efficiency of evacuation during the Thomas Fire—the largest fire in California history at the time—was severely impacted by this spill. All northbound lanes of Highway 101 were closed into the next day, and evacuees were diverted off the freeway at Turnpike Road, while State Route 154 was closed to through traffic between Santa Barbara and State Route 246 in the Santa Ynez Valley. This was not the best situation to be dealing with when residents were quite literally running for their lives.

Santa Barbara County experienced one of its worst oil tanker accidents on March 21, 2020. A tanker truck on Route 166 overturned down an embankment causing 6,600 gallons of crude oil to spill into the Cuyama River, ten miles away from Twitchell Dam and reservoir. The spill harmed wildlife, as several mallard ducks died and other animals, including turtles and birds, were rescued and cleaned up. Three species of special concern included the California red-legged frog, western pond turtle, and arroyo toad.

6,600 gallons of crude oil spilled from a tanker truck accident on HWY 166 spilling into the Cuyama River

The clean-up efforts from the March 21, 2020 oil spill in Cuyama River, due to a tanker truck accident along Highway 166 near Santa Maria. A tanker truck overturned down the embankment, spilling 6, 600 gallons of crude oil. Photo by OSPR.

On April 16, 2020, a tanker truck crashed into the guardrail and center divider near the Arroyo Hondo Bridge on Highway 101. Sixteen gallons of oil spilled onto the roadway and southbound lanes were closed for several hours. The Arroyo Hondo Bridge lays above sensitive habitat and territory of the endangered Steelhead found in the Arroyo Hondo Creek.

This map shows ExxonMobil’s proposed oil tanker truck route overlaid with recent tanker accidents.

The Implications of ExxonMobil’s Proposed Project

Adding 140 tanker truck trips daily to Highway 101 between ExxonMobil’s Gaviota oil processing facility and the Santa Maria Pump Station poses significant public safety and environmental concerns for Santa Barbara County. Not only will the tanker trucks have to travel on windy, gusty roads, but also through the Gaviota Tunnel, the narrow Gaviota Pass, and over the Nojoqui grade. These areas have poor cell reception, making 911 calls difficult. In addition, the roads on either side of the Gaviota Pass straddle a river, meaning spilled oil will impact the waterway and eventually reach the Pacific Ocean.

Adding these trucks to Route 166 as proposed is also extremely dangerous. Cell coverage is also spotty on this road, which is known for having frequent accidents. For this reason, in August 2020, Santa Barbara County staff recommended prohibiting tanker trucks on this road. As County staff stated, this proposal would increase the risk of truck accidents and oil spills. However, the staff position has changed and in their most recent report they are now recommending approval of this dangerous route.

Climate Change Impact – CO2

Each truck that ExxonMobil will use can transport 120 to 160 barrels of oil (5,040 to 6,720 gallons), with one gallon of gas being equivalent to 20 pounds of CO2. The lowest estimate of the weight of the CO2 in one truck is 100,800 pounds. If we multiply that by 70 round-trips a day you get 7,056,000 pounds of CO2 as the most conservative estimate of CO2 that will end up pumped into the atmosphere per day. Multiplying this by 365 days results in 2,575,440,000 pounds of CO2 (or 1,168,000 MTCO2/yr) that will be emitted down-stream of this project yearly, in addition to the approximately 9,000 MTCO2/yr from the trucking operations.

Platform Heritage

Platform Heritage is one of three platforms in the Santa Barbara Channel that ExxonMobil would be restarting as part of this project. These three platforms are among those that have not been operating since the devastating 2015 Plains All American Pipeline oil spill at Refugio. Photo by Erin Feinblatt.

This estimate does not even include emissions from restarting the three offshore oil platforms and the onshore processing plant. According to the County’s Environmental Impact Report, these facilities will generate more than 300,000 tons of carbon emissions per year.

With the recent news from Mauna Loa of atmospheric CO2 reaching 415 ppm—an amount that the earth has not experienced in over 2.5 million years—the climate implications themselves warrant denying this project. The most recent IPCC report, published in August 2021, confirms the magnitude and existence of “human-induced climate change” and its future impact on the environment. The IPCC validates previous claims that human impact on the climate is apparent and current warming patterns are inconsistent with those of the past 2,000 years. Additionally, the recent report indicates the estimation of future warming and the irreversible, and direct, impacts these changes have, such as extreme weather patterns.

What’s Next?

Say NO to ExxonMobil TruckingWe need your help to protect our coast and communities from ExxonMobil’s dangerous project.

Please join us today by sending comments to the Santa Barbara County Planning Commission, dvillalo@co.santa-barbara.ca.us. Ask the Planning Commission to recommend denial of the project in order to protect the environment, public safety, and our climate. The Planning Commission will hold public hearings on this project on September 29 and October 1. Be sure to sign up for EDC’s e-newsletter to receive details on how you can help speak up at these hearings.


Lauren Lankenau was an intern at the Environmental Defense Center and majored in Environmental Studies & Geography (UCSB class of 2019). Kathryn Parsons was also an intern while attending UCSB and majored in Environmental Studies and Communication (class of 2021). Kela Megorden is a current intern who is majoring in Environmental Studies and Communication. Their work on this blog was supported by the EDC and UCSB Coastal Fund.

Trackback from your site.

Comments (9)

  • Avatar

    Alex Spataru

    |

    Excellent work. Well prepared paper.
    Kela – when you have a moment – please call (310) 892-9977

    Reply

  • Avatar

    Janet Blevins

    |

    Thank you so much for this report. Exxon WILL NOT get their way!!

    Reply

    • Avatar

      Betsy Weber

      |

      Thanks Janet

      Reply

  • Avatar

    Steve Ferry

    |

    In a brief search I was unable to find the calculated probability of a tanker truck crash over the life of the project. This is obviously an important parameter. Is it stated in the EIR or has someone else calculated it?

    Reply

    • Avatar

      Betsy Weber

      |

      Hi Steve, thanks for this question. The EIR states that a tanker truck accident/spill could occur every 17 years (longer than the life of the project, which is 7 years), but our research shows several tanker truck accidents along the route just in the last few years. Please see the map we added to the blog showing the recent accidents along the proposed route.

      Reply

      • Avatar

        John Ulloth

        |

        Forgive me for going wonky, but though I’m no “Intuitive” that 17-year number doesn’t feel right. How much do you trust Exxon? About as much as you’d trust RJR-Reynolds to report on lung cancer stats for those cigarettes they profited from?

        Steve Ferry asked about the probability of A TANKER truck crash over the life of the project…
        to me his question of “A TANKER” = “1 TANKER”… which may be the question you answered,
        but that’s useless information to anyone except a tanker driver’s insurance company!
        To evaluate the entire project’s tanker-crash risk, don’t we need to know
        exactly what question Exxon’s study answered?

        Was EXXON’S answer about ANY SINGLE tanker that would crash (in 17 years) (that’s Insurance Co. data), OR was it the probability of ANY OF THEIR 140/ day x 7 years NEW TANKER-TRIPS to crash? (data worth basing EIR Evaluation on):

        Assuming no massive changes made to County roads, 12 tanker crashes in SB County/ 21 years = .571 probable tanker crashes/ year. x Exxon’s 7 year project life = 4 crashes likely in SB County in the next 7 years without Exxon’s project (= SB County tanker-crash Baseline).

        Simply, WHAT INCREASED PERCENTAGE OF TANKER TRIPS in 7 years (above Baseline = 4) WILL EXXON’S PROJECT ADD to SB County? Should be somewhat easy to calculate- Tanker drivers are not tourists; they’re going to specific Customers & Shippers (water, oil, propane, other liquids/ gases/ chemicals…) in SB County; & others on 101 may be just passing through. CalTrans/ CHP should have exhaustive historic quantities (not just newspaper accounts, good for qualitative evaluation) for the Hwy. 101 portion, SB County Sherriffs for Route 166.

        Did Exxon leave anything out? Like: Unless it’s right on the described route, where would these
        tankers be stored (parked) when not in use? Where would they be serviced? Were these mileages included?

        But that’s not any more sophisticated than calculating “Simple Interest” vs. “Compound Interest” on an investment; like Compounding:

        What is the projected GENERAL INCREASE IN TRAFFIC from new SB County residents & businesses over the next 7 years a tanker could hit?

        And if approved, the percentage of tankers in traffic countywide would be going up, What’s the probability an Exxon tanker could hit another tanker; OR an Exxon tanker hit could another Exxon tankers (= a “double whammy”)?

        If this is interesting, you might hire a Prof. of Mathematics or Business Accounting from UCSB to investigate what other tanker risks there might be.

        Reply

  • Avatar

    Melissa Bower

    |

    Excellent report – I will plan on submitting comments to the County. Thanks.

    Reply

    • Avatar

      Betsy Weber

      |

      Thank you, Melissa. We will also be sending out an action alert early next week with more information on how our supporters can speak up on this issue!

      Reply

  • Avatar

    Lila Trachtenberg

    |

    Deny ExxonMobil’s ability to truck oil on county roads. This would risk spills and accidents which would be disastrous for our environment

    Reply

Leave a comment

Join our Mailing List