Do the Benefits of Pipelines Outweigh the Destruction?
The use of oil and gas pipelines in the United States has been growing since the 1800s when they were first put into effect. Since then, they have had a significant influence on our economy, but more importantly the environment. The U.S., being the world’s largest crude oil producer since 2018, has contributed massively to the negative environmental effects that come with pipeline usage. The potential of spills creates a huge risk to surrounding communities and environments which would face huge consequences resulting from a leak. Not only do they create environmental risks, but many pipelines have been constructed violating the rights of indigenous communities and contributing to their cultural genocide. The construction, use, and decommissioning of pipelines in the U.S. and globally are significantly detrimental to the environment and neighboring communities, because of these negative effects their use should be minimized to prevent further damage.
Effects on Indigenous communities:
Pipelines have always been highly controversial and new construction projects often come with protest. Most significantly, protests come from indigenous communities whose rights and land are being violated. Some of the most prominent pipeline objections were related to the Dakota Access Pipeline and the Keystone XL. Both oil pipelines ran through indigenous land, violated land treaties, and proved to be an environmental hazard for the communities. In the case of the DAPL, the Standing Rock Sioux were protesting to protect their water. In the event of a spill, it would harm a large number of Americans, “it would basically ruin or at least cause major issues for Lakota drinking water and the main drinking water supply for about a third of the country”. This potential issue is not something to take lightly. For everyone, water is life, and it is especially sacred to the Indigenous people who are most often exposed to possible contamination.
In addition to pollution and water risks, these pipelines also promote the desecration of sacred lands. The Treaty of Fort Laramie was directly violated by the Dakota Access Pipeline which was supposed to guarantee “undisturbed use and occupation” of their reservation lands. The Lakota also have a mythology of a “black snake” that would be a threat to their land, this pipeline was that snake. The U.S. government has ignored the cultural genocide enacted on Native Americans for centuries, and these pipelines feed into that. Their property, identity, history, and heritage have been stolen from them on multiple occasions, and the DAPL and Keystone XL contribute to that. The New Yorker even reported that originally the DAPL was supposed to cross a different section of the Missouri River, but its route was moved due to concern for a spill at the state capital’s main water source. This is more evidence of how Indigenous lives and rights are put in harm’s way in favor of progress. The risk that pipelines bring to these communities greatly outweighs any economic benefits. The number of miles that run across the country doesn’t need to be grown any further and continues to risk the health and safety of underrepresented communities.
CO2 Ruptures:
There are currently 5,300 miles of CO2 pipelines in the U.S. and they are projected to grow to be over 65,000 miles as the Biden Administration announced expansion would be a part of their upcoming climate projects. Despite their construction to help combat climate change and emissions in the U.S. these gas pipelines can prove to be incredibly dangerous. In the event of a spill, carbon dioxide poisoning is a huge threat to surrounding communities. When a pipeline ruptured in Iowa, it resulted in mass poisoning that sent 45 people to the hospital. The effects of the rupture lasted multiple years, some victims were on oxygen for months following the spill while others faced neurological issues years later. Proper safety precautions aren’t put in place to prevent these ruptures, and with the potential of miles of new pipelines, there isn’t a significant guarantee that neighboring communities will be properly protected. The risk of these CO2 lines outweigh the potential positive effects of carbon capture. They are meant to be committed to mitigating the impact of climate change, but in actuality, they are extending the life of fossil fuel operations. To meet zero net emissions within the next 27 years, it’s going to take more than carbon capture pipelines. It is an incredibly complicated issue to address, and the risk of these lines could potentially set us back rather than moving forward to zero emissions.
Another element of these CO2 lines that is worrying farmers in the U.S. is the fact that they would run directly through their farmland. Many of the farmers oppose the pipelines not because they care about the emissions, but because they are skeptical about their property rights. One farmer stated that he thought it was a “shame to think that — just for private gain, that they’re going to put that scar across our land”. These fears have brought together environmentalists and farmers in Iowa. This technology has way more risks than benefits. Running these pipelines in their backyards, thus destroying farmland, and providing severe health risks further shows the need to move away from gas and oil lines.
Decommissioning Dangers:
With the steady growth of pipelines in the past 45 years, many are reaching their operational capacity. This means they are no longer economically viable and need to be decommissioned. Decommissioning is an incredibly complicated and expensive process. The predicted cost of decommissioning by 2030 amounts to 104.5 billion USD. These processes also prove to have significant environmental impacts. With over 3000 petroleum industries requiring decommissioning in the next two centuries, this means a massive amount of environmental risks. Because they run through both populated and isolated areas, it poses multiple risks to the nearby communities and biodiversity. Decommissioning involves waste disposal of unwanted materials that end up in landfills and the release of hydrocarbons and industrial chemicals into the environment. Wildlife, especially offshore, becomes displaced as existing coral and fish grow accustomed to living on the pipelines further disrupting their ecosystems.
Get Talia DeBenedette’s stories in your inbox
Join Medium for free to get updates from this writer.
Decommissioning creates threats to biodiversity, water resources, seabed life, waste disposal, and air quality. This is another example of how pipelines prove to have significant environmental consequences. They create a myriad of risks in their construction and actual use, but the process of decommissioning can be just as risky. One solution for this is leaving the non-operational pipelines in situ instead of attempting removal. The problem with leaving offshore structures is the threat it can pose as a disrupter. They can upset fishing, navigation, habitats, and other sea activities. The time to dispose of these lines grows closer, and as construction continues the new lines will eventually exceed their production capacity as well. Their further implementation should be minimized so that the environment won’t have to face the consequences of construction as well as removal that damages the integrity of the planet.
Potential Economic Development:
While there is a significant amount of pushback for the pipeline industry due to its environmental impacts, some argue that its economic benefits outweigh that. Canada contains a third of the world’s largest oil reserves, so it’s no shock that the oil industry employs thousands. There is an argument that the protest of this industry could potentially increase job loss among indigenous communities. One newspaper stated that “Many Indigenous communities have shamefully low standards of living” and they should be attempting to integrate themselves into the pipeline industry to increase their revenue and economy. This statement inaccurately credits the low quality of living in indigenous communities to their lack of participation in industries like the pipeline industry. In reality, they have faced inequalities and discrimination from multiple government powers that have lowered their level of living. Creating more jobs through the pipeline industry won’t solve their economic and development problems.
In October 2019, an initiative led by the former chief of Thunderchild First Nation was formed. Project Reconciliation’s mission was to purchase a 51 percent stake in the Trans Mountain Oil Pipeline in hopes of increasing First Nation collaboration in pipeline expansion. The reason for this was to improve job access and grow their energy economy. This would also allow First Nations to “have a seat at the table” when making decisions that affect their environment. While this may be a positive way to approach the ever-growing pipeline industry, one community of indigenous people having a voice doesn’t mean they all will. The cases in the U.S. with the Dakota Access Pipeline and the Keystone XL show that indigenous voices are consistently disregarded in favor of pipeline progress. The oil and gas industry holds a massive amount of power that realistically won’t involve First Nations on a large enough scale that will combat negative environmental impacts.
Conclusion:
The Pipeline industry is incredibly complex. Globally, many nations depend on it economically and a majority of the energy industry in the U.S. and Canada is reliant on gas and oil production. Unfortunately, this industry comes with irreversible consequences on both the environment and underrepresented communities. Indigenous peoples, being the main voice of protest, often have their rights and resources affected by pipelines. Their cultural heritage and water resources are put at risk in favor of the economy, and continue to face a cultural genocide. In addition, the construction and deconstruction of pipelines promotes huge environmental risks. Oil spills, CO2 leaks, biodiversity loss, water pollution, and air pollution are all at a much higher risk in areas that pipelines pass through. The economic benefits of pipelines don’t outweigh the suffering and destruction that they can bring. Therefore, their use should be minimized and a global reliance on oil and gas lines should be decreased.
Works Cited:
Coates, Ken, and J P Gladu. “How Canada’s Oil and Gas Industries Assist in Indigenous Reconciliation.” Globe and Mail, 4 Sept. 2020. SIRS Issues Researcher, Accessed 12 Apr. 2024. https://explore.proquest.com/sirsissuesresearcher/document/2544303001?accountid=8337
Genova, Alexandra. “A Crude Awakening: A Visual Exploration of the Pipeline Controversies.” Time, Time, time.com/pipeline/. Accessed 11 Apr. 2024.
Kelly, Mary L., “With the Expansion of CO2 Pipelines Comes Safety Fears”. Consider This, May 23, 2023. National Public Radio, https://www.npr.org/transcripts/1177764825.
Shams, Shahriar, et al. “An assessment of environmental impact on offshore decommissioning of oil and Gas Pipelines.” Environments, vol. 10, no. 6, 20 June 2023, p. 104, https://doi.org/10.3390/environments10060104.
Simon, Julia. “The U.S. is expanding CO2 pipelines. One poisoned town wants you to know its story”. Environment, September 25, 2023. National Public Radio, https://www.npr.org/2023/05/21/1172679786/carbon-capture-carbon-dioxide-pipeline.
Vredenburg, Harrie. “Pipeline Deal Would Benefit First Nations.” Calgary Herald, 6 Apr. 2019. SIRS Issues Researcher, Accessed 12 Apr. 2024. https://explore.proquest.com/sirsissuesresearcher/document/2267908555?accountid=8337
