How Pipelines Affect Water Quality And Safety

Oil and gas pipelines are a highly controversial topic, with many people concerned about their environmental impact. While they are designed to transport oil, gas, and related products, pipelines have been linked to water pollution, air pollution, soil pollution, and climate pollution. Pipeline spills and leaks have contaminated drinking water sources and rivers, including the Yellowstone River, the Susquehanna River, and the Kalamazoo River. They have also been responsible for the destruction of farms and landscapes, the endangerment of wildlife, and the violation of indigenous treaty rights. With the availability of cleaner alternatives, the continued construction and approval of pipelines have raised concerns about the prioritization of corporate profits over potential environmental harm.

Pipeline leaks, spills, ruptures, and explosions

Pipeline spills are frequent and have severe ecological and community impacts. Oil spills are the most common, followed by natural gas and gasoline. Oil clings to everything, killing wildlife, poisoning the ground, and polluting water sources. Crude oil is particularly challenging to clean up and can persist in the environment for years. Natural gas leaks, while less visible, pose an explosion risk without warning, as seen in the 2018 incident in Prince George, Canada.

The United States has a troubling history of pipeline spills, with an average of 76,000 barrels or over 3 million gallons of spills per year since 1986. Notable incidents include the 2010 Kalamazoo River oil spill, which released over 840,000 gallons of oil, and the 2011 Enbridge Line 3 pipeline rupture in Minnesota, which spilled 1.7 million gallons of crude oil, the largest inland oil spill in U.S. history.

The causes of pipeline spills and ruptures vary and include damage during excavation, metal failure, improper operation, and corrosion. Aging pipelines are more prone to leaks, breaks, and corrosion, but even newer pipelines experience similar failure rates. In addition to the environmental and safety risks, pipeline incidents have significant economic impacts, with nearly $7 billion in damages from 1986 to 2013.

Abandoned pipelines polluting oceans

Oil and gas pipelines are prone to leaks, spills, ruptures, and explosions, which can have devastating impacts on the environment, wildlife, and local communities. While pipelines that are actively in use pose these risks, abandoned pipelines can also cause significant harm by polluting oceans and other water bodies.

Abandoned pipelines left on the ocean floor or seafloor can continue to leak oil and chemicals, posing a significant risk to the health of marine ecosystems. Over time, these pipelines become more susceptible to corrosion and deterioration, increasing the likelihood of spills. The problem is exacerbated when pipelines are left without active monitoring, as is often the case with decommissioned pipelines. This negligence allows pollutants to continuously leak into the ocean, damaging marine life and the environment.

The Gulf of Mexico, for instance, is burdened by thousands of miles of abandoned oil and gas pipelines. Since the 1960s, over 97% of decommissioned pipelines in this region have been left on the seafloor, amounting to approximately 18,000 miles of abandoned infrastructure. This situation is not unique to the Gulf of Mexico. In the North Sea, scientists have warned that decaying pipelines could release toxic chemicals, including mercury, radioactive lead, and polonium-210, into the marine environment.

The presence of these abandoned pipelines not only poses an immediate threat of pollution but also hinders coastal restoration efforts. In Louisiana, for example, efforts to rebuild lost coastal land by moving sand to create new wetlands and barrier islands are impeded by the extensive network of oil and gas pipelines in the region. This includes both active and decommissioned pipelines, highlighting the enduring impact of these structures even after they are no longer in use.

The issue of abandoned pipelines polluting oceans underscores the need for responsible decommissioning practices. Properly decommissioning pipelines can create jobs, support local economies, facilitate environmental recovery, and promote the transition to clean energy sources. It is crucial that governments and companies prioritize the safe removal and disposal of defunct pipelines to mitigate the risks they pose to the oceans and the planet.

Pipeline construction and the Clean Water Act

The Clean Water Act (CWA) is a half-century-old law that protects bodies of water from pollution, including fossil fuel development. The CWA regulations are in 40 C.F.R. Parts 104-108, 110-117, 122-140, 230-233, 401-471, and 501-503. Under the CWA, it is unlawful for any person to discharge any pollutant into waters in the US without authorization under specific provisions of the CWA. Despite the CWA, pipelines still pose a significant risk of polluting water sources.

Pipelines carry oil, gas, wastes, and related products to and from drilling, processing, and distribution areas under high pressure. As a result, they are prone to leaks, spills, ruptures, and explosions, which can cause immense destruction to the surrounding communities and wildlife. In the case of the Mariner East 2 pipeline, construction led to the contamination of drinking water sources for dozens of families and farms along the pipeline route. The pipeline was also responsible for 320 spills between 2017 and 2020, releasing up to 405,990 gallons of drilling fluid, with more than 260,000 gallons spilled illegally into Pennsylvania waterways.

In addition to the direct impact of spills and leaks, pipelines also require a wide buffer of land for maintenance, which can disturb the soil and destroy trees, vegetation, and wildlife habitats. In the case of the Hollerans, they lost their court battle to save their maple trees from eminent domain seizure for the construction of the Constitution Pipeline.

Despite the risks posed by pipelines, government agencies have continued to approve new pipeline projects. For example, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) has approved dozens of new interstate gas pipelines in the past five years. This has led to concerns about the potential for environmental harm and the disregard for the knowledge and requests of farmers and local communities.

In an attempt to address the concerns related to pipeline construction and the protection of water sources, the Trump administration directed federal agencies to take steps to ease permitting for gas pipelines and other energy infrastructure. The administration instructed agencies to use the emergency authorities of the Clean Water Act to the "fullest extent possible" to speed up the construction of pipelines. This move was justified by declaring a national energy emergency and citing the need to meet the predicted spikes in energy demand. However, this decision has been controversial, with critics arguing that it prioritizes corporate profits over the potential environmental and community impacts of pipeline projects.

Pipeline permits and environmental impact

Pipeline projects must undergo a rigorous permitting process that involves multiple federal and state agencies. This process includes environmental impact and compliance assessments to ensure that projects meet applicable laws, regulations, and environmental standards.

In the United States, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) plays a crucial role in coordinating the permitting process for interstate natural gas pipelines. Before granting approval for a project, FERC must ensure compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and other relevant statutes. This involves assessing the project's potential impacts on natural resources, wildlife, habitats, and cultural resources.

One of the key permits required for pipeline projects is the Right-of-Way (ROW) permit. When a pipeline project crosses lands under the jurisdiction of federal agencies, such as the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), the project developers must secure a ROW permit from the respective agency. The agency will conduct a thorough analysis, considering the project's environmental impacts and compliance with applicable laws and regulations.

For example, the BLM must complete a NEPA analysis and confirm compliance with federal, state, and local laws and regulations before granting a ROW. Additionally, if the project crosses lands under the jurisdiction of multiple federal agencies, the BLM must receive concurring records of decision (RODs) from these agencies before approving the ROW. These RODs outline the agency's decision, reasoning, alternatives considered, and measures to avoid or minimise environmental impacts.

Another important permit relates to waterbody crossings and the Clean Water Act (CWA). Under the CWA, project developers must apply for permits from the US Army Corps of Engineers when their pipelines cross streams, wetlands, or other waterbodies. This permit process ensures that appropriate measures are taken to protect water quality and minimise environmental impacts associated with the pipeline construction and operation.

Despite the stringent permitting and environmental impact assessment processes, there have been concerns and incidents related to pipeline projects. Some pipelines have been associated with leaks, spills, ruptures, and explosions, resulting in environmental damage, contamination of water sources, and harm to surrounding communities and wildlife. These incidents highlight the importance of rigorous permitting processes, frequent monitoring, and adherence to environmental standards to minimise risks and protect the environment.

Pipeline projects threatening indigenous lands

Pipeline projects have long been a source of contention, with environmental, safety, and property rights issues. They pose a significant threat to indigenous lands and communities, impacting their safety, autonomy, and access to natural resources.

In Minnesota, the Enbridge Line 3 replacement project cuts through an area of northern Minnesota on and near treaty lands belonging to the Ojibwe and Anishinaabe First Nations. Despite the requirement for an analysis under the Clean Water Act, the Environmental Policy Act, and tribal treaty rights, no such examination of the project's impacts has been conducted. This project has faced tremendous public pushback, with demonstrations defending water and land resources critical to Indigenous communities.

The Coastal GasLink pipeline in Canada has also been the subject of controversy. The decision to construct this pipeline on Wet'suwet'en lands without the free, prior, and informed consent of the Wet'suwet'en Hereditary Chiefs is seen as a violation of the community's right to self-determination and a step backward in Canada's reconciliation with Indigenous peoples. The pipeline project threatens the Wedzin Kwa (Morice River), one of the last remaining clean sources of drinking water and salmon spawning grounds in the territory.

In North Dakota, the Dakota Access Pipeline (DAPL) has faced opposition from Native American nations citing tribal land rights. While President Biden has pulled back on the project, it has not been shut down entirely. The Standing Rock tribe and other nearby communities remain at risk of water contamination and explosions.

The Mariner East 2 pipeline, a 350-mile gas liquids pipeline from Ohio and West Virginia through Pennsylvania, has contaminated drinking water sources and caused numerous spills, including into Pennsylvania waterways.

The Midship pipeline in Oklahoma, built by Cheniere Energy, has also been accused of destroying farmland, flooding fields, and removing topsoil without restoring the land.

These are just a few examples of pipeline projects that threaten indigenous lands and communities. The issues range from contamination of water sources and destruction of farmland to violations of treaty rights and human rights abuses.

Frequently asked questions