Introduction.
The cross-country pipelines, which cover most parts of US transverse through terrains of forests, crop fields, rivers, deserts, off shores, hills, and populated areas. Any malfunction of these pipelines implies a devastating effect on the environment. This means that designing the pipelines require skills, and a consideration of social and environmental aspect along with other technological alternatives. Environmentalists view pipelines as high risk potential sources of environmental degradation from oil spillages and raptures (Flora, 2005). Economists and policy makers, on the other hand, view them as the cheapest and safest means of fossil fuel delivery. This has posed a debate on environmental sustainability on oil transportation and its economic rationality. An analysis of alternatives such as trains poses more threat than what the risk that pipelines pose to the environment. The direct risks to the environment posed by pipelines are relatively low compared to other alternatives. Given the increased demand of oil and petroleum products, pipelines remain as the most efficient means of transportation despite their environmental impacts.
About pipelines.
Pipelines are by far, America’s most crucial petroleum supply lines, which move almost two-thirds of America’s oil and petroleum products, reined fuels and raw materials. Due to the massive amounts of quantities required by the state each day, pipelines are considered as the most feasible means as they are cheap and fast. In addition to their efficiency, pipelines depend on a relatively small working force, yet the workforce manage to transport and distribute over 600 billion ton-miles of petroleum products each year.
Pipeline opposition links to the indirect effects that are associated with the source of the liquids being transported, and what happens at the end of the pipes. However, for an environmental risk assessment, the risks link to pipeline proposals, and how they are designed. Flora (2005) argues that, the potential or risks on environment depend on the specifics indicated in the proposals. A pipeline project consists of construction, operation and decommissioning processes. This is inclusive of installation across a designated route, as well as associated pumping stations. This implies that if proposals are not environmental conservative, then such projects remain as environmental hazards. Such elements as the commodity to be transported, and the risks inherent to the routes to be used, should be considered to reduce the risks.
Most environmental assessments do not consider the potential risks associated with development and consumption of petroleum as at obligated by EPA (National Research Council, 2003). Such considerations as its effects on air, water and land are ignored or overlooked. Most of them consider the sources and terminals, and forget about the dangers of such projects to land, water and air (Harrison, 2011). The general public also assumes its part when it comes to pipeline construction. The provincial regulatory inspectors may not be in a position to inspect and offer surveillance of all pipeline routes due to the distance that they cover.
The members of the public are the most affected by environmental issues triggered by pipelines, and therefore, should be on the forefront in identifying these risks and alerting the appropriate regulatory staff. To reduce the effects, best management practices, and skills are also required. This ensures minimal and avoidance of the adverse effects. Some recent innovative technologies that can be considered as management practices in achieving this objective are; pipe boring (on water crossings), use of frozen topsoil salvage procedures and equipment, partial or full sod salvage procedures and equipment, pipe plough-in, and precision grading.
Environmental effects of pipelines.
The Environmental Assessment Agency defines environmental effects as any change that a pipeline project may cause to the environment, including its effects on the socio-economic status, as well as change in heritage and/or use of lands for traditional purposes. The environmental effects of pipeline projects are the risks that such projects impose to land, water, and air, which in turn affect the social and economic status in a region.
The design of construction, operation, and how pipelines are decommissioned associate with a number of environmental factors and effects. Most of the environmental risks are posed by accidents or malfunctions, or pipeline ruptures. This poses risks to land productivity, water pollution, and atmospheric pollution (Flora, 2005).
Environmental effects of pipeline construction and operation.
Pipeline construction and operation activities that impact on the environment include clearance process, construction of corridors (Right of Way, ROW), and installation of the pipes. The procedure involves an excavation process, and restoration of the ROWs (Goodrich-Mahoney, Abrahamson, and Ballard, 2008). There is also an installation of compression equipment and facilities, which are inclusive of water management systems, power generation equipment, pressure management equipment, and the construction of an onsite evaporation pond. The construction of such a site takes at a minimum of 18 months and may continue to 2 years depending on the vulnerability of the area.
The construction of a pipeline starts with the installation of drainage systems on the upper side to divert water, which would otherwise make the process difficult. In the UK, for example, construction starts with digging of trenches and burying drainage pipes with drainage machines. This operation conflicts with wetland habitats, and agricultural stewardship schemes. The post construction of these drainage systems also threatens such schemes and the flow of water, which impact on habitat and marine life. There are also conflicts arising from the difficulties in maintaining such trenches dry, and the existing lack of policy in improving agricultural drainage leading to the damaging of wetland habitats (Harrison, 2011).
Ground clearance includes translocation of valuable woody vegetation and herbs, also exposes land to damage. To reduce such effects, some professionals have started to double strip whereby the uppermost layers of topsoil are removed separately from the lower topsoil: The intention being taking off the seed bank. However, this measure has been criticized on exposing the seed bank layer to weathering, desiccation and wash downs (Goodrich-Mahoney, Abrahamson, and Ballard, 2008).
All operating pipelines have some environmental effects complied at the beginning of an environmental assessment in an environmental impact statement. The effects considered by the statement are inclusive but not limited to; atmospheric environment i.e. effect on quality of air by dust during construction, or by air contaminants emitted by combustion of fossil fuels and hydrocarbons used for equipment construction and in pumping stations (Lawrence, 2011). The statement also considers acoustic environment, i.e. the effects of the construction on noise. Soils are also part of consideration as the construction is done on land; during construction and after, soils can be eroded, mixed and compacted, removed, contaminated, or acidified by emissions of chemicals causing acidic rain.
Geology and terrain of the pipeline coverage should also be considered as possible alterations may cause landslides alongside risks such as safety and environment to habitat. Construction of pipelines poses a significant risk to wildlife. The risks are elevated by removal, fragmentation and alterations of habitat, noise, and creation of movement barriers. Surface waters are also affected as their quality and quantity is compromised by erosion, corrosion, and by herbicides applied to clear the intended construction areas. Deep sea waters suffer vegetation clearing, grading and placement of pipeline structures (Weaver, 2012). This affects the productive capacity of aquatic habitat, their migration, health and mortality. Blasting, tunnel construction and grading alter the flow of both surface and ground water and expose rock formations. This has a potential to leach metals and acids leading to water contamination that has adverse effects on marine, as well as human life (Flora, 2005).
The potential environmental impacts that pipeline construction imposes on the environment cannot be entirely avoided, but can be reduced to acceptable levels. What is deemed as valuable and a point of contention is the value judgment to those who use the land through which the pipelines pass. Operators and constructors have an obligation to disturb the smallest area possible while setting up the pipes while still having safe access to the corridors in case of equipment installations (Lawrence, 2011).
Pipeline leaks and ruptures.
Most environmentalists are not concerned with the construction of pipelines more that they are to the functioning pipelines. A primary environmental concern on pipelines should be on the risks imposed by such pipes in cases of spills and ruptures. The operating parameters of pipelines and the material being transported impose a significant risk of spills. Functioning pipelines are vulnerable to leaks and ruptures from increased amounts of pressure, climatic and weather influence, or human activity. This cause accidents and risks such as spills to land and adjacent waters leading to pollution.
The accidental release or spillage of crude oil to environment causes a number of problems both to the environment and life. Crude oil and petroleum products are highly compounded with hydrocarbons, which vary in combustion potentials, creating an immediate hazard to the environment and human life. They also contain high levels of toxic chemicals such as Hydrogen Sulphide, Benzene, Xylene and Toluene which cause respiratory infections, retard plant growth, and form other hazardous compounds when mixed with atmospheric components (Weaver, 2012). Additionally, the physical properties of oil interfere with the functioning of organisms, for instance birds lose their floating capacity.
Oil spillages also lead to emission of green house gases from the oil sands crude, which are components of crude oil (Flora, 2005). Oil sands are heavy soils that have a high viscosity that requires a lot of energy and resource intensive measures for extraction (Weaver, 2012). Industry stakeholders argue that the green house gases emitted from sand oils may be comparable to other heavy crudes, which are produced and consumed in US. Opponents argue that oil sand crudes account for the increased consumption of petroleum over time, and this makes the emission of green house gases increase. Such emissions contribute to global warming and the current climatic changes being experienced across the world.
The environmental effect of a rupture or spill depends on the vulnerability of a region, its features and characteristics, and ease of response. A small amount of spillage in an unintended place has a significant amount of environmental impact, which leads to increased costs on maintenance and the environment. In the end, the pipeline may be recovered, but the cost and results to the environment can be significant in terms of clean ups, and health effects (Harrison, 2011). The National Energy Board provides that old pipelines have a higher probability of rapture that newly installed pipelines. This is as a result of technology and management practices that differ with technology and demand levels. Lacks of proper maintenance of pipelines, use of substandard technology, and incomplete records which hinder locating the pipelines, are among the reasons provided by NEB on why pipelines explode.
When an oil slick reaches a water surface, it coats and cling every grain of sand and rock. The oil washes coastal marshes, fibrous plants, mangroves, and grass making the area unsuitable for wildlife. This may have a prolonged effect as the oil coats the sand at the river beds or ocean beds (Lawrence, 2011). A significant example is on the Exxon Valdes oil spill that happened in 1989. A study conducted in 2007 by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) revealed that at least 26000 gallons of oil are still trapped on the shorelines of Alaska. This is despite the massive cleanup that was done by the company in collaboration with environmental agencies. Scientists involved in the analysis of this report indicated that the residues of the oil were declining at a rate of less that 4% annually (National Research Council, 2003). This is because most of sand that can be used for natural clean up has been covered by the oil (Lawrence, 2011).
Pipeline ruptures are not an uncommon feature in America. In Northern America, for instance, the pipeline constructed on Kalamazoo River near Marshall in Michigan ruptured in July 2010. In April 2011, another one broke on the northern side of Peace River in Alberta. These ruptures released 3000 cubic meters and 4000 cubic meters of crude oil respectively leading to economic loss. Adjacent features also suffered degradation and corrosion from the crude oil (National Research Council, 2003).
Alternatives.
As a result of current demand and economic pressures, and lack of pipeline capacity, there is an increasing use of alternatives to pipelines. The most alternative being used for petroleum transportation is shipment by rail (Wakeley, 2008). Rails play an increasing role in exporting petroleum from Western Canada to other North American regions. The Canadian Energy Pipeline provides that its entire rail network transports over 3 million barrels every day, an equivalent of 5000 rail cars.
Trains are more expensive than pipelines, and also come with a range of environmental concerns, which may not be associated with pipelines. They have a higher maintenance cost than pipelines, and also require expertise, and higher number of employees. This implies increased costs over the use of pipelines. They too have accidents, which lead to release of environmental hazards into the atmosphere, land or water. Rail shipment is also limited on the high costs of equipment needed for loading and off loading the products.
Across land, petroleum can also be transported using trucks. Just as in the use of trains, trucks are also considered expensive as they require loading and offloading equipment, and increased levels of labor (Wakeley, 2008). Additionally trucks may also cause accidents, which increase on environmental degradation and loss of lives. Another option to oil and petroleum transport is across the water in tankers and burgers (Harrison, 2011). Tankers have been in use in Middle East, Africa, Latin America, and North Sea. Tankers come in a large range and Very Large Crude Carriers (VLCC). Shipment through water is, however, limited on time as the means of transport is slow. Although they get most of the publicity, oil spillages through water shipment only account for only 12% of the total spills. The publicity may be due to the risks that extend from such spills as they cause a lot of damage to aquatic life.
There is no research that has come up with a better means of petroleum and crude oil products transportation other than pipelines. Most of the alternatives such as shipment by rail and water end up being more expensive than pipelines. The advantage over pipelines over these alternatives is on its maintenance costs as after construction they require minimal surveillance and maintenance. However, the limitation with pipelines is on instances of raptures and spillages as they cause more harm to the environment than the alternatives.
Conclusion.
The direct risks that pipelines have to the environment are relatively low if they were to be assessed with the alternatives. Pipelines are only limited to leaks and ruptures. Establishing acceptable levels of risks involves choosing routes that reduce the risks, but this has always been considered as a challenge in pipeline construction and operation. Indirectly, pipelines play a crucial role in facilitating transportation of petroleum around the globe. Most of the arguments rose against pipelines associate to exploitation and disturbance of large scale land. This has increased their potential to environmental degradation, and has been listed among the contributors of global warming. Given the increasing dependence of petroleum and oil products, and the time required to shift this increasing trend of dependence, there is a possibility that pipelines are here to last. There is, therefore, need to have policies on their construction, maintenance, and surveillance to avoid the risks that they expose to the environment.
Reference.
Flora, S. (2005). Environmental Information Sources. Electronic Green Journal, Vol 1 (21).
Goodrich-Mahoney, J. W., Abrahamson, L., & Ballard, J. (2008). Environment Concerns in Rights-of-Way Management: 8th International Symposium. Burlington: Elsevier.
Harrison, L. (2011). “Riding the Rails: Oil Companies climb abroad potential alternatives to pipelines” Oil and Gas Inquirer, Vol. 1.
Lawrence, M. (2011). Crude: The Real Price of Oil (2009). Films and History, Vol41(1).
National Research Council. (2003). Cumulative environmental effects of oil and gas activities on Alaska's North slope. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
Wakeley, H. L. (2008). Alternative transportation fuels: Infrastructure requirements and environmental impacts for ethanol and hydrogen.
Weaver, A. (2012). “Our New Study: Global Warming From Coal Worse than Oil Sands” The Huffingom Post Canada, Vol 2.
