3

CLAIM SUMMARY / DETERMINATION FORM

Claim Number A15017-0006 

Claimant 

Type of Claimant Private (US)

Type of Claim Loss of Profits and Earning Capacity 

Claim Manager 

Amount Requested $42,600.00 

FACTS 

On May 19, 2015, USCG Sector LA/Long Beach (LA/LB) received a report of an oil spill that 

originated from Plains Pipeline line 901 onto the shore side of Highway 101 in Santa Barbara, 

CA. The ruptured pipeline discharged approximately 746 barrels of crude oil into the Pacific 

Ocean, a navigable waterway of the United States.1

 

Following the discharge, the U.S. Department of Transportation’s Pipeline and Hazardous 

Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA) issued a corrective action order to Plains Pipeline, LP 

to suspend operations and make safety improvements to line 901.2 Shortly thereafter, PHMSA 

amended their corrective action order to Plains Pipeline, LP, suspending operations of line 903 as 

line 903 was connected to line 901 and showed similar corrosion characteristics to line 901.3 As 

a result of these line closures, ExxonMobil suspended operations on their offshore platforms 

Hondo; Harmony; and Heritage as they were dependent on Plains Pipeline lines 901 and 903 to 

transport their crude oil from their platforms to refineries in Kern County, CA.4 Following the 

closure, ExxonMobil identified and selected bargaining unit employees from their local Santa 

Ynez Unit to fill assignments outside of their bargaining unit but still within the Company.5

CLAIM AND CLAIMANT

On May 14, 2018, Mr. (Claimant) presented a claim to the NPFC seeking 

$42,600.00 in lost profits. Claimant states that he was employed by ExxonMobil and was 

working on the Hondo platform at the time of the closure. Claimant also states that he was 

offered and accepted a position to transfer to the ExxonMobil refinery in Baytown, TX, to avoid 

being laid off. However, that new position included a decrease in hourly pay rate. As such, 

Claimant’s lost profit claim is based upon the cumulative difference in base pay he received in 

2015 as a full time employee of ExxonMobil on the Hondo platform in Bakersfield, CA, as 

compared to the cumulative base pay he received since transferring and becoming a full time 

employee at the ExxonMobil refinery in Baytown, TX.6

 

1 See CG District 11 - Potential Medium Coastal Spill - Refugio Beach, CA dated May 25, 2015. 2 See PHMSA corrective action order issued to Plains Pipeline, LP dated May 22, 2015.

3 See Plains Pipeline Information website dated June 3, 2015.

4 See Noozhawk online article written by dated October 8, 2015. 5 See letter from Mr. , ExxonMobil USP HR Advisor dated September 7, 2016 included with claim 

submission dated May 5, 2018. 6 See letter from Mr. submitted as part of claim submission dated May 5, 2018.
4

APPLICABLE LAW 

Under 33 C.F.R. 136.105(a) and 136.105(e)(6), the claimant bears the burden of providing to the 

NPFC, all evidence, information, and documentation deemed necessary by the Director, NPFC, 

to support the claim. 

The OSLTF which is administered by the NPFC, is available, pursuant to 33 U.S.C. § 2713 and 

the OSLTF claims adjudication regulations at 33 C.F.R. Part 136, to pay claims for 

uncompensated damages. One type of damages available pursuant to 33 C.F.R. §136.231 is a 

claim for loss of profits or impairment of earning capacity due to injury to or destruction of 

natural resources.

Under 33 C.F.R. § 136.233 a claimant must establish the following:

(a) That real or personal property or natural resources have been injured, 

destroyed, or lost.

(b) That the claimant’s income was reduced as a consequence of injury to, 

destruction of, or loss of property or natural resources, and the amount of that 

reduction.

(c) The amount of the claimant’s profits or earnings in comparable periods and 

during the period when the claimed loss or impairment was suffered, as 

established by income tax returns, financial statements, and similar 

documents. In addition, comparative figures for profits or earnings for the 

same or similar activities outside of the area affected by the incident also must 

be established.

(d) Whether alternative employment or business was available and undertaken 

and, if so, the amount of income received. All income that a claimant 

received as a result of the incident must be clearly indicated and any saved 

overhead and other normal expenses not incurred as a result of the incident 

must be established. 

Under 33 C.F.R. 136.235, the amount of compensation allowable for a claim involving loss of 

profits or impairment of earning capacity is limited to the actual net reduction or loss of earnings 

or profits suffered. Calculations for net reductions or losses must clearly reflect adjustments for-

(a) All income resulting from the incident;

(b) All income from alternative employment or business undertaken;

(c) Potential income from alternative employment or business not undertake, but 

reasonably available;

(d) Any saved overhead or normal expenses not incurred as a result of the 

incident; and

(e) State, local, and Federal taxes.

NPFC DETERMINATION 

Claimant asserts losses in the amount of $42,600.00 due to the Plains Pipeline oil spill based 

upon the cumulative difference in base pay he received in 2015 as a full time employee of 
5

ExxonMobil on the Hondo platform in Bakersfield, CA, as compared to the cumulative base pay 

he received since transferring and becoming a full time employee at the ExxonMobil refinery in 

Baytown, TX. Claimant also asserts other lost profits to include the loss of cost of living 

increases at the Hondo platform in Bakersfield, CA, as well as decreases to holiday pay and 401k 

matching in Baytown, TX, but doesn’t’ support those losses in this claim submission. As such, 

those claimed losses aren’t evaluated in this determination.

Claimant provided the following to support his claim: 

1. Pay Statement – payment date 31 Dec 2013 in the amount $3,336.00 (CA)

YTD Amount for 2013 - $125,922.17; 

2. Pay Statement – payment date 15 Jan 2014 in the amount $3,603.46 (CA); 

3. Pay Statement – payment date 31 Dec 2014 in the amount $3,378.50 (CA)

YTD Amount for 2014 - $137,146.53; 

4. Pay Statement – payment date 15 Jan 2015 in the amount $3,137.87 (CA); 

5. Pay Statement – payment date 31 Dec 2015 in the amount $3,014.93 (CA)

YTD Amount for 2015 - $133,962.67; 

6. Pay Statement – payment date 15 Jan 2016 in the amount $3,754.43 (CA); 

7. Pay Statement – payment date 23 Dec 2016 in the amount $2,384.34 (TX) 

YTD Amount for 2016 - $118,588.52; 

8. Pay Statement – payment date 6 Jan 2017 in the amount $2,860.52 (TX); 

9. Pay Statement – payment date 22 Dec 2017 in the amount $2,427.15 (TX) 

YTD Amount for 2017 - $130,807.78; 

10. Pay statement – payment date 5 Jan 2018 in the amount $1,986.74 (TX); 

11. Pay statement – payment date 27 Apr 2018 in the amount $5,698.80 (TX) 

YTD Amount for 2018 - $68,532.36; 

12. Plains Pipeline, LP, claim denial letter addressed to Mr. dated 

August 10, 2016, claim number 090167846. 

13. ExxonMobil letter from Mr. , USP HR Advisor dated September 7, 

2016. 

14. Letter from Mr. outlining his asserted loss.

NPFC Analysis 

Under 33 U.S.C. § 2702(b) and 33 C.F.R. Part 136, a claimant must prove that its loss of income 

resulted from injury to or destruction of a natural resource. No evidence provided by the 

Claimant indicates that the loss of wages was due to the oil spill from Plains Pipeline, L.P. The 

NPFC obtained information from the PHMSA website that Plains Pipelines lines 901 and 903 

were shut down as a direct result of their poor condition as well as the need to purge, test and 

repair the lines to the satisfaction of PHMSA.78

 Therefore, any stoppage of work or transfer of 

employees due to the stoppage of work and potential loss profits and earnings associated with 

those actions are considered a consequence of PHMSA’s order to close lines 901 and 903. As 

such, the asserted losses associated with this claim are not the result of an Oil Pollution Act of 

1990 (OPA) incident or injury to a natural resource and are therefore not compensable under 

OPA.

 

7 See PHMSA Corrective Action Order issued to Plains Pipeline, LP dated May 21, 2015.

8 See PHMSA Amended Corrective Action Order issued to Plains Pipeline, LP dated November 21, 2015.