In 2015, an oil pipeline burst off the coast of Santa Barbara County. Over 450,000 gallons of heavy crude spilled into the surrounding environment, spreading out across 136 miles of coastline.

Now, a decade later, a hastily-formed speculative company, Sable Offshore Corp., wants to restart that pipeline. In a recent Independent op-ed, a company’s ally claimed — without evidence — that this would be a boon to California and the local community. My analysis tells a different story.

I’m a professor at UC Santa Barbara, where I direct the Energy Governance and Political Economy Lab. My expertise is in oil and gas policy, with extensive experience evaluating energy companies’ business plans.

The op-ed ranges from misrepresentative to downright false. Let’s introduce some actual evidence and see how each of the arguments hold up.

First off, the piece claims that restarting the pipeline will reduce imports of foreign oil. But based on both statistical analysis of the 2015 pause and an economic analysis of costs compared to major suppliers, it won’t. If the project reduced foreign oil imports, we would have seen an increase in imports after the pipeline was shut down back in 2015. But foreign oil imports to California didn’t change. Instead, we used less oil in favor of cleaner energy sources.

Also, Sable would need to sell its oil for cheaper than foreign suppliers to outcompete them and drive away their market share. But the oil produced by Sable’s fields will be more expensive than major foreign suppliers, and not even cost-competitive with oil produced elsewhere in California. So where will the company sell its oil if no one will buy it in California? Most likely, Sable will export it to other countries. So much for boosting California’s energy independence.

Which leads me to the second claim, that Sable’s project will make gas cheaper in California. But as I’ve just explained, the oil pumped off our coast will not end up in your gas tank. And it certainly won’t make your gas cheaper. It’s true that gas prices are a function of oil prices. But oil prices are largely set by global supply and demand, not local production. On top of its higher production costs, Sable’s contribution to global supply is a drop in the bucket that will not make a difference in what you pay at the pump.

Perhaps most absurd is the claim that restarting the pipeline will be good for the environment. When the very same pipeline burst in 2015, it contaminated 1,500 acres of coastline and 2,200 acres of ocean habitat. Beaches were closed and coated with oil. Fisheries shut down and fishers lost millions in economic productivity. Birds, sea lions, and dolphins washed up dead on the shore. It was nothing short of an environmental catastrophe.

But even if it doesn’t break again, the pipeline and the project would be disastrous for the climate. Sable’s oil is dirtier than the global average. Most of it is what geologists call “sour” and “heavy” due to its viscosity and high concentration of sulfur, which makes it more difficult to extract and refine. I projected that Sable’s normal production would increase planet-warming carbon and methane pollution by 2.5 million tons. That’s about equal to an additional 500,000 gas vehicles on the road. It’s no surprise that environmental groups are lining up to oppose the pipeline.

The op-ed also argues that restarting the pipeline would be “an economic shot in the arm.” But even the inflated claims pale in comparison to the jobs that could be created in clean energy. A research team at UCSB has shown that solar energy alone — both rooftop and utility scale — is expected to create nearly 5,000 construction jobs and 500 operations and maintenance jobs in Santa Barbara County over the next 20 years if California meets its deployment goals.

And what about if another spill happens? When the same pipeline burst a decade ago, it cost nearly $100 million to clean up. The company that operated the pipeline paid out $230 million to settle a class action lawsuit brought by residents and fishers. But since Sable operates at a deficit, it will — by design — not have the funds to cover the cost of the spill. That means you and me, the taxpayers, will have to pay to cover the cost of the company’s damages.

Restarting Sable’s pipeline isn’t an economic shot in the arm, it’s a gut punch.

Sable wants to extract especially dirty crude oil off our coast, export it to foreign markets, all to boost the bottom line of oil executives in Texas, while our communities pay the price. 

Santa Barbara cannot afford to let this happen.