Platform Holly sits immediately offshore from the Univ. of California at Santa Barbara, and UCSB scientists have studied the platform and surrounding ecology extensively. Multiple studies have shown that production from Holly reduced natural seepage and methane pollution from shallow formations beneath the Channel. Platform Holly was thus a “net negative” hydrocarbon polluter.

The natural seepage in the Santa Barbara Channel was important to the earliest inhabitants of the area. The Chumash used the tar for binding and sealing purposes, including caulking their canoes. Since Holly shut down in 2015 following the Refugio pipeline spill, offshore workers and supply boat crews have reported a considerable increase in gas seepage.

Earlier this month, it was reported that well plugging operations at Holly had now been completed, but decisions regarding the final decommissioning of the platform remain.

Venoco declared bankruptcy in 2015 and the State of California became the platform owner. According to the State Lands Commission, Exxon will pay the costs for decommissioning the platform. This is because Exxon acquisition Mobil operated the platform from 1993-1997 before Venoco became owner.

The most recent Holly development is that Venoco has settled its law suit with Plains, the company responsible for the 2015 Refugio pipeline spill that halted production from Holly. Terms of the settlement have not been disclosed.

Note: As an aside, I’m curious as to whether Mobil provided a decommissioning guarantee as part of the sale to Venoco or whether the State is simply holding ExxonMobil accountable as a legacy owner. If it’s the latter, why isn’t bp (bp acquisition Arco was Holly’s operator from 1966-1993) also liable? Is it a matter of Mobil being the more recent predecessor owner?

Read Full Post »