The Environmental and Financial Costs of Petroleum-Related Disasters
In our discussions of the externalities associated with fossil fuels, we sometimes leave out the cost of cleaning up disasters, e.g., oil spills. For those wishing to see some sort of quantification of the problem, here is a map displaying the location of each such spill over the last five years.
Craig, in one of your previous posts I was asked to comment on the “Safety” of Railroads vs pipelines. It taking a a very brief look at the studies it became apparent that the term referred to human accidents not environmental safety. Environmental impact was never a part of the studies.
Another aspect of that brief look was that pipeline incidents frequently take place at the beginning and ends rather than in the middle. With this in mind I took a look at the cite and map. NYC was not noted yet it now has been designated a superfund site for its own oil spill: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/04/science/earth/04newtown.html If this superfund cite is not on the map then I wonder what else was missed.
One local quietly described the problem saying that an underground pipelines come into the city from refineries in NJ. Some of the fuel then follows another underground pipeline to the two airports located within the NYC limits. The pipelines have been leaking for decades.
Breath,
It is quite alarming to learn that pipelines in NYC have been leaking for decades. NYC has been strongly opposed to fracking because of concern of what it could do to its water supply. It seems inconsistent to be concerned with fracking while not doing enough about leaking pipelines.
Although it appears that railroads are much more risky than pipelines, at least when a railroad accident results in an oil spill, we know about it whereas pipeline leaks, which can be serious over a period of time, may be undetected.
Here in Albuquerque NM, some years ago fuel tank leaks were discovered at the air force base AFTER the tanks had been leaking for years. To make matters worse, the leaked fuel contains ethylene dibromide which is carcinogenic. And, if the plume of leaked fuel spread far enough, it would contaminate the aquifer on which Albuquerque depends for most of its water supply. It took years before political pressure finally and belatedly forced the AFB to do anything except repeat over and over that they didn’t know what to do and were studying the situation.
The ultimate solution would be to phase out fossil fuels entirely, but meanwhile we have to deal with the fact that it will be some time before we can phase them out.
Craig,
Any industrial infrastructure will have drawbacks. Like all industrial infrastructure, pipelines need to be rigorously regulated and monitored by independent authorities.
However,simply refusing to build pipelines and adopting a far riskier form of transporting oil is irresponsible!
Every so often an ambulance or Fire tender traveling at high speed will be involved in a collision. Should we do away with these vehicles for fear of the occasional collision?
There’s no question that the oil oil industry creates some environmental damage. Although such incidents are often sensationalized out of proportion by the media and anti-oil advocates for political purpose.
When assessing the negative ” externalities “, shouldn’t you also include the positive ” externalities ” ?
It’s generally accepted by dispassionate observers positive externalities far exceed negative, so trying to assess the value of both externalities can be unduly complex and unnecessary.
Bolstering anti-fossil fuel advocacy with such complications is pointless in the absence of any practical replacement technology. It’s counter-productive distracting and eroding public support for less dramatic but more practical clean technology which can be realistically implemented.
As I have said before, each year American’s spill more two and four stroke fuel filling motor mowers than the Exxon Valdez disaster! Why is this information ignored by environmental advocates? For many years electric lawn maintenance has been a commercially viable and mature technology.
The environmental impact of such spillage is probably greater (especially for human health) than all the pipeline accidental discharges put together, yet this completely preventable environmental menace attracts very little attention because of the focus on fighting unwinnable battles for largely political purpose. Even a “victory’, where the pipeline is not built, is only a Pyrrhic victory for the environment!
The result isn’t a reduction in oil usage, just a more risky method of transport (and more oil used in transport).
Even worse is the alienation of a great many people who might support practical environmental action, but are put off by the strident politically motivated preaching by impractical advocates.
Can you provide some examples of “positive externalities,” please? I’m having trouble wrapping my wits around that concept.
Marcopolo,
No doubt some gasoline and oil are spilled when filling power lawn mowers (motor mowers for the Brits). However, because each spill is very small and the spills are widely spaced, it probably has a much smaller effect on the environment than a single large spill like the Exxon Valdez. Of course that should not be used as an excuse for ignoring any size spills. There are constant admonitions not to dispose of drain oil, antifreeze, and other damaging substances improperly.
Many of us urbanites with small lawns use corded electric lawn mowers. I myself did when I had my previous house because, in spite of xeriscaping, there was still a significant amount of grass. The trend now in dry parts of the U. S. of A. is to do away with grass, or at least minimize the amount of grass, to conserve water because grass is very thirsty which is why, even though I really like grass, I have none at my present house.
In both of these cases it seems that undisclosed leaks were from underground pipelines. Railroad transport seems to involve more human involvement and therefore correspondingly more human accidents, but it also seems to have the benefit of more eyes directly involved to discover problems and more contained units of transport.
Perhaps there is no one good answer to the question of transporting fuels and best decisions must be made on an ad hoc basis.
I am not sure if the best people to make that decision including the taking of public and private land are the people who would benefit from the least financially costly method. Part of the present problem is that the DAP agreed to not work within 30 miles of a river and they are now in violation and within 2 miles. They are additionally on land that is part of an Indian Reservation. The locals have had enough of such violations. Regardless of other considerations they seem to have a point with even the US president suggesting an alternative routing for the pipeline.
NYC does not generally depend upon wells for its water. It does not depend upon local rivers like some cities. It depends upon pipelines from the Catskill Mountains and beyond. The water is so relatively clean and pure that water purification is a fraction of the expense of other cities.
A major concern with fracking was that it would be in the watershed area (upstate) for the NYC water supply and any environmental pollution may require not only cleaning of the environment but a new water treatment facility costing billions of dollars. If the problem were bad enough how would you provide an alternative water source for 9 million people. So NY concerns about fracking are not so high minded and environmentally pure that they are devoid of a bottom line or some very practical considerations.
The superfund site in Queens and Brooklyn is a disaster that many have been quietly ignoring while the business of being an international city goes on. NYC doesn’t generally approach the same kind of environmental concerns that might be felt in NM.
It is a city of intensity and business. In several industries they say that there are rules for NYC and then there is the rest of the country. Which is one reason I find it amusing when someone tries to label me as a “typical” tree-hugging, liberal, environmentalist. They usually just have completely no idea both generally and specifically.