More than 80,000 chemicals are produced, used, and present in the United States. This is one of their stories.A new study says picture-perfect lips may be nothing to smile about.
I suspect that most people would be surprised to know that lipstick contains toxic metals. It was...
Some quotes from the April 25th Subcommittee on Environment hearing entitled "Policy Relevant Climate Issues in Context."
I testified in front of the House Subcommittee on Environment last week. Here’s some...
Herculean effort by scientific community yields new insight on long-term climate trends.
Deducing the long-term changes in atmospheric temperatures is a complicated and difficult undertaking, requiring careful analysis to piece together many, many bits of data from a variety of proxies (such as ice cores, pollen, ocean and lake...
Two news items surrounding greenhouse gas emissions moved over the past week. One on the trajectory of said emissions from government number-crunching. The other on what the proposed Keystone pipeline might mean for emissions.
We start with Keystone. On Monday the Environmental Protection Agency weighed in [pdf] on the...
Clear signals about climate change appear in the science literature, but from the White House the signals seemed mixed.
Lonnie Thompson of Ohio State University and co-authors wrote in a paper published this week in the online version of the journal Science: "Radiocarbon dates on wetland plants exposed along...
Map shows the segment of the proposed Keystone XL Pipeline assessed in a new environmental analysis conducted for the State Department. (Map used with permission. Credit: National Geographic and International Mapping)
The latest event: the pipeline rupture in Arkansas. On Friday, an Exxon Mobil pipeline running from Illinois to Texas ruptured and spilled an undetermined amount of heavy crude from western Canada near the town of Mayflower, Arkansas.
The Environmental Protection Agency has reportedly classified the event as a "major spill" -- a definition [pdf] that indicates a spill greater than 10,000 gallons or one that regardless of size "poses a substantial threat to public health or welfare of the United States or the environment or results in significant public concern."
Exxon Mobil officials say they are preparing for a spill of as big as 420,000 gallons; as of Tuesday, EPA had reportedly estimated it to be around 84,000 gallons. (See Exxon Mobil press release [pdf] and the National Response Center's incident report.)
The Enbridge Kalamazoo Spill ... Still Going
The last time we experienced a pipeline rupture of this magnitude was in the summer of 2010, when an estimated 819,000 gallons of oil spilled from an Enbridge pipeline into Michigan's Kalamazoo River. As of last month, submerged oil remained in the river, and on March 14, 2013, EPA ordered the company "to do additional dredging in Michigan's Kalamazoo River to clean up oil from the ... July 2010 ... spill" to "prevent [it] from migrating to downstream areas where it will be more difficult or impossible to recover." (See Enbridge's response to the order.)
Okay, some might say, these spills are unfortunate but given the tens of thousands of miles of crude oil pipelines crisscrossing the United States, two spills in almost three years is pretty good. Some might say that, but they'd be misinformed. In fact between January 2002 and June 2012, the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration database reveals that there were almost 1,700 crude oil pipeline incidents in the United States. (See ProPublica's interactive map of pipeline incidents.) About 4 percent of these were categorized as "large spills," meaning between 42,000 and 840,000 gallons [pdf] were released. That translates into a large spill about every two months and that's not good.
In the meantime, TransCanada folks are assuring us that their proposed Keystone XL pipeline is safe. And proponents are pointing to the State Department's recent draft supplemental environmental impact statement to validate their arguments -- see here, here and here. This statement in particular is being quoted to bolster support for the project:
"The analyses of potential impacts associated with construction and normal operation of the proposed [Keystone Pipeline] Project suggest that there would be no significant impacts to most resources along the proposed Project route."
"No Significant Impacts" -- Really?
Well, even though I haven't carried around a protest sign in a long time, I am bothered. We're talking about an 875-mile pipeline segment with the capacity to carry about 830,000 barrels of crude oil per day. Could such a facility really not pose a significant environmental impact? Seems like a stretch to me. Maybe the devil's in the detail of "most" -- "there would be no significant impacts to most resources." Or maybe it's something else.
I decided to dig deeper into the report, and you know what? The bulk of its analysis doesn't seem to support the "no significant impact" statement from Section 4.16. Here are some reasons why.
Analysis Not Complete
Turns out that some potential environmental impacts have yet to be fully analyzed. For example, assessments of the impacts of the pipeline and possible accidents on so-called high consequence areas from both a drinking-water and ecological perspective are "pending and will be included in the Final Supplemental EIS." (Source)
How can you conclude there will be no significant impacts when you have yet to complete the analyses for high consequence areas? I don't think you can.
Significant Consequences Listed in Report
The report lists some pretty serious environmental consequences of the pipeline operation -- consequences that are not singled out to be likely but are also not characterized as highly unlikely. These include having to provide a "supplemental drinking water supply" to residents because of contamination, the "complete loss of habitat" and/or "permanent loss of land use." (Source [pdf])
If I lived near the projected pathway of the pipeline, I'd find those impacts to be quite significant.
There Will Be Accidents
Okay, you may say, the consequences could be serious but they will only happen if there is an accident, a spill. How do you know that will happen?
Obviously nobody knows for sure what will actually happen, but if history is any indication, I'd say it's pretty certain that there will be accidents. According to the State Department report, the historical incident rate per pipeline mile per year is 0.003 (see Table 4.13-1 [pdf]). This means that a 300-mile pipeline will have on average about one incident per year. The expanded Keystone pipeline would traverse about 875 miles, so, on average, we could expect almost three incidents each year of the pipeline's operation.
But not all incidents are that serious. What about large oil spills (defined in the report as those involving 42,000 gallons to 840,000 gallons of oil)? Can we expect any of those? It turns out that only about 4 percent of pipeline incidents are categorized as "large," so those spills would be much less frequent. But less frequent is not never. For the Keystone Pipeline we could expect on average a large spill every 10 years or so. Bottom line: over the lifetime of the pipeline, there will be many accidents and probably at least one large spill.
Now, the State Department points out that TransCanada promises to take extra measures to mitigate the impact of any spill, but the history of both governmental and industry oversight of pipelines is not terribly encouraging.
So those are some of the reasons I question the "no significant impacts" statement in the environmental impact report, but I gotta take this a little further because I find the statement itself and its appearance hidden away in Section 4.16 to be suspect.
Why Is the "No Significant Impacts" Statement Buried?
Think about it. A conclusion that the pipeline will have no significant environmental impacts is huge. So huge that you'd think the authors would want to feature it prominently in the report, like in the executive summary, the only part of the document that many high-level policymakers and lawmakers will read. Right?
Strangely enough, nothing close to the "no significant impacts" statement appears there. Why not?
And then there's the State Department's press briefing on the analysis. This exchange from the transcript of the teleconference between reporters and Kerri Ann-Jones, assistant secretary of the Bureau of Oceans and International Environmental and Scientific Affairs, struck me as especially interesting (emphasis added):
QUESTION [from Jo Biddle of Agence France-Presse]: ... We literally have only just opened this report up and it's very dense and very comprehensive. But could you tell us, overall, if you found the environmental impact of the pipeline would be significant or would it meet the standards that you need for an eventual approval to go ahead?
ASSISTANT SECRETARY JONES: Well, as I said in my opening remarks, again, this is a draft. And so while there is a section where there is a summary discussion, I don't think it's - I think it's somewhat premature to get into that, because we feel that we need to have a public debate. We covered a range of issues regarding what could be environmental impacts, covering what's been already mentioned on this call - greenhouse gases and climate considerations - as well as groundwater, as well as the ability when you're passing through somewhat fragile areas, the effects on threatened and endangered species.
So I would just refer you to the summary piece and just say I think it's premature at this point to really try to come down with strong conclusions, as we want to make sure we get a lot of comments on this and we have a full public debate about the document.
Here's what I think. The report's seemingly lone (and in my opinion bizarre) statement about "no significant impacts" notwithstanding, of course there are potential environmental consequences of an oil pipeline of the scope of the proposed Keystone XL. To suggest otherwise is to strain credulity. Does that mean we should not go ahead with the project? Not necessarily.
As a democratic society, we should have a discussion about the potential consequences and benefits -- and risks -- of the pipeline and then decide what to do. (The quasi-public comment period, now open until April 22, is part of that discussion, as is the public hearing on the environmental analysis in Grand Island, Nebraska, slated for April 18.) Any attempt, intentional or not, to short-circuit this discussion by portraying the pipeline as being environmentally benign, is counterproductive and should be treated as such.
Crossposted with TheGreenGrok | Find us on
Is there a connection? And if so, how does it work? Does a warming world lead to more El Ninos? More La Ninas? Or more intense El Ninos and La Ninas?
Lots of processes affect the climate. Certainly greenhouse gases have an effect and it's clear that rising atmospheric concentrations...
The Energy Information Administration is touting the fact that "heating and cooling" now comprise less than half of our residential energy usage. But that's only half the story.
A continuing series on what folks in the public sphere have said about climate change mostly over the past week.On Thursday March 7, Sally Jewell, the president and chief executive officer of Recreational Equipment Inc. (REI), appeared before the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee at her...
Hot and humid does not make for good working conditions. Welcome to the future.
I've been down and out with a flu-like bug for the past five days and so have been anything but a worker bee. This morning I awoke feeling a bit more chipper and resolved to make...
The oil and gas industry promises "a few days of fracking" for "decades of... production." But is it true?
Thanks in large part to fracking, the production of...
Can we compost our way out of landfills?
The idea struck me during a meeting. While thoughts of waste don't routinely course through my brain, trash was the subject matter at a meeting of Duke's Campus Sustainability Committee whose broad focus is to maximize the sustainability of all...
Can we lower carbon emissions and also push more and more oil and gas production?
The environmental community got a shot in the arm following the 2012 election. After it had languished as a non-issue throughout the presidential campaign, Obama gave a shout-out to climate change in his victory speech...
A continuing series on what folks in the public sphere have been saying about climate change this week.Several items for the "Things that make you go Hmm ..." file.
"[The United States has] reduced carbon emissions in this country more than any other country in...