Seeing Green: XL-size me: pipelines, pinholes and ethical spillover

Opinion by Holly Moeller
Oct. 7, 2011, 12:27 a.m.

Seeing Green: XL-size me: pipelines, pinholes and ethical spilloverWhen I was little, I really wanted to go to Prudhoe Bay, on Alaska’s northern shoreline. Not because I wanted to see pristine coastline or frolicking wildlife, but because I wanted to see the place that could destroy all that.

In 1989, a tanker accident in Prince William Sound spilled 11 million gallons of oil into Alaska’s coastal waters, creating a slick the size of Massachusetts and a toxic legacy still felt today, more than two decades later. The oil originated in Prudhoe Bay, where it began an 800-mile journey through the TransAlaska Pipeline to the hold of the Exxon Valdez, the vessel that would go on to create the largest spill in American history. (Of course, the record was bested last year by BP’s Deepwater Horizon escapade.)

The 1989 spill was the result of a shipping error, but not all oil transport mishaps happen afloat. Five years ago, in Prudhoe Bay itself, a dime-sized hole in one of BP’s pipelines spilled 269,000 gallons of oil before it could be controlled. That 2006 spill became infamous not just for its damage to a pristine landscape, but also because it highlighted glaring shortfalls in equipment maintenance and preparedness on the part of BP and other companies operating on Alaska’s slopes.

This year, there have been dozens of spills from pipelines criss-crossing American soil. Among the more noteworthy: a 42,000 gallon release into Montana’s Yellowstone River in July (courtesy, once again, of Exxon Mobil), and a May spill of 21,000 gallons in southeast North Dakota.

While smaller in volume, the latter might be more troubling. It’s one of 14 spills from TransCanada’s brand-new Keystone I line, all within the first year of operations.

Keystone carries highly viscous bitumen, forced from Alberta’s infamous tar sands and diluted with kerosene to pump-able consistency, to U.S. refineries. And despite heated debate over Alberta’s extraction methods (mowing down boreal forest and pumping steaming water deep underground, all to the tune of massive carbon emissions), TransCanada has spent the last two years aggressively lobbying to expand.

The proposed Keystone XL expansion would double existing capacity (adding another 510,000 barrels of flowthrough per day), and extend it to Gulf Coast refineries hungry for crude after recent shutdowns of offshore drilling. It would, according to TransCanada, add 120,000 American jobs, and stimulate $20 billion in economic growth. And (although the refined oil is already earmarked to fill foreign contracts), processing fossil fuels from our friendly Northern neighbor would, according to some politicians, increase national security and relieve dependence on OPEC.

The economic argument is usually a good one to hang your political hat on these days, so I was surprised at how few people were buying it. The Sierra Club and Natural Resources Defense Council, of course, objected to further development of fossil fuels. The New York Times ran a scathing editorial. But this time, environmental groups and the so-called “Liberal media” have been joined by the conservative heart of the Midwest. One by one, local news agencies, community leaders and politicians are voicing their objections.

You see, the Keystone XL would traverse Nebraska’s precious Sandhill region (20,000 square miles of utterly unique wetlands) and sprawl above the Ogallala Aquifer (drinking water for two million residents; irrigation for $20 billion-worth of crops). And with TransCanada’s leaky track record, the locals aren’t too sure they want to take a chance with the high levels of carcinogens and other toxins flowing alongside Alberta’s bitumen.

It’s amazing what close-to-home dangers will do. No one breathes a word about Nigeria, which has experienced the equivalent of an Exxon Valdez spill every year for the last fifty years, all in the course of supplying oil to first-world nations. And a year after Deepwater Horizon, those of us who don’t own Gulf shrimp boats are filling our gas tanks as frequently as ever. Today, the State Department predicts “no significant impact” from the Keystone XL project, and our national government is likely to approve construction by the end of the year.

It seems we’ll have to wait for economics to force us to have an environmental conscience. Fears of climate change, images of disaster–all of these have had no effect. But the recent global recession produced the steepest drop in greenhouse gas emissions in 40 years.

On Monday night, as my roommate accelerated down Palm Drive, we felt the car slip briefly into a skid. The roads were slick with oil residues brought to the surface by the first good rain we’ve seen in months. I’d been telling my friend Luke about the Keystone XL pipeline, venting my frustration with the political system and the short memories of our social consciousness. As we regained traction I remembered that every eight months we create another Valdez spill on our own streets–little dribs and drabs that, across America, add up to 260,000 barrels of oil.

I could suggest that you call your politicians and demand they oppose Keystone XL. I could recommend that you join a protest or donate to cleanup efforts. Instead, I think I’ll just ask you not to spill gas at the pump and to dispose of your oil changes properly.

Waste not, want not.

Holly is a Ph.D. student in Ecology and Evolution, with interests that range from marine microbes to trees and mushrooms to the future of human life on this swiftly tilting planet. She's been writing "Seeing Green" since 2007, and still hasn't run out of environmental issues to cover, so to stay sane she goes for long runs, communes with redwood trees and does yoga (badly).

Login or create an account