|
By: Cassidy Mullins Summary: The Trans-Alaska Pipeline System is an oil transportation system which spans over 800 miles over Alaskan wilderness and carries on average 1.8 million gallons of crude oil every day. Construction began in 1975, and finished in 1977. The pipeline cost $8 billion, and 20,000 people worked on it daily. Seven oil companies make up a group called the Alyeska Pipeline Service Company, who paid for the pipeline. It was built in part as a response to the 1973 oil crisis, which caused a spike in oil prices in the US. Since the Trans Alaska Pipeline was completed, the state government of Alaska has relied on taxes paid by oil producers. Alaska is now the most tax-free state due to being able to cut out personal income tax as a result of taxing oil companies. There are over 800 rivers and streams crossing the pipeline, some of which are used for fishing and water collection. There is a lot of opposition to the pipeline, mainly coming from conservationists and Alaska Natives. The pipeline crosses Native land, but does not benefit them directly. The pipeline also impacts caribou herds, and blocks migration routes, making caribou herds smaller. There have been crossing points built into the pipeline to limit the effects. Natives also rely on caribou for food, as well as whales that may be scared away by the pipeline. The pipeline has been damaged by natural disasters, human error, as well as sabotages. In March of 1989, an oil tanker helping to transport oil spilled between 260,000 to 750,000 of crude oil in Prince William Sound, Alaska. Some of that oil still remains to this day. While this spill doesn’t directly involve the pipeline, it is the most famous case of oil spills in Alaska. The most recent pipeline leak occurred in April 2020, where fifty thousand gallons gallons of oily water had to be recovered to prevent damage to wildlife. Why we should care? In 2010, it was estimated that the pipeline would be working through at least 2032. Alaska is legally required to remove all traces of the pipeline once it is shut down, but the damage has already been done to the environment.  Photo Credit: STANLEY45/ISTOCK/GETTY IMAGES PLUS Example Article. https://www.adn.com/opinions/2020/03/20/alaska-has-a-big-economic-problem-that-isnt-the-coronavirus/ Anchorage Daily News ran an opinion piece in March about how a large problem facing Alaska's economy is their declining oil industry. This was written at a time where many were worried about an economic collapse due to COVID. People staying home leads to less oil being used, and Alaska isn't sure when, or if, a full recovery will be made. This could lead to an earlier shut down of the Trans-Alaska Pipeline than what is currently expected. Closing the pipeline down voluntarily, rather than when it is no longer functional, will likely lead to less oil spills as the pipe corrodes. While there is no evidence right now of the pipeline shutting down, it is likely that in the future a decision will have to be made if it is no longer profitable. Science in Action.
Dr. Erin Pulster is a Scientific Researcher at the University of South Florida, College of Marine Science. While not directly researching the Trans-Alaska Pipeline, Dr. Pulster has recently concluded a study on long-term effects of an oil spill on marine life. After the Deepwater Horizon oil rig exploded, researchers from University of South Florida (USF) began a study to determine how badly the spill affected marine life. They found that there was a 50 to 80 percent population decrease in deep water fish near the rig site. There has been a new study started by USF to track fish eggs and understand how spawning sites may have been impacted throughout various species. The results of these studies could be beneficial to better understand how past oil spills (such as the Prince William Sound Exxon Valdez spill) and possible future spills will affect the Alaskan environment.
6 Comments
Molly McKeon
12/4/2020 13:01:32
This is terrifying to me. I have always wanted to move to Alaska for the landscape, beauty and ruggedness of it all. I have never thought about the pipeline and what it could do to the environment. The weather is so harsh there, especially in the winter. I can only imagine that the weathering on the pipeline helps degradation speed up. I wonder how expensive the repairs and maintenance on the pipeline are. I hope some day I can go and work on the long term effects when I graduate.
Alvin George
12/14/2020 18:23:08
Alaska has always seemed like this place one can go to get away from all the down sides of urbanization. Even though there hasn't been a direct oil spill due to the pipes, the area they cover leads to a lot of areas something could go wrong. I always forget to take into account the impact on indigenous people since we don't hear much from them in the mainstream media. Their lifestyle should be respected and we should try to come to a compromise before just setting sites up like this.
Ben Matthews
12/15/2020 17:59:52
The idea of transporting 1.8 million gallons of crude oil every day over 800 miles scares me. This could be an environmental disaster waiting to happen if the pipeline is not immaculate. The sheer amount of land and the potential for error involved only adds to my skepticism. Also, the pipeline paid for by the oil companies crosses native land but doesn’t benefit them in any way. Why not compensate the group most at risk? The oil industry is driven by greed. 12/16/2020 16:45:01
I knew that Alaska had a lot of oil being pumped there, but I didn't know it was that much. It is insane how much and how fast they are able to pump the oil. However, with this amount of oil going through the pipeline it's no wonder there have been spills. While oil is important, so is the environment and I feel that the pipeline isn't the best solution to get oil.
Ethan Schiffour
12/17/2020 12:54:46
This was a very well written article. I agree that a pipeline filled with oil sounds like a disaster waiting to happen. Hearing about oil spills in the ocean is one environmental topic that comes up often I feel like. We know how hard it is to remove from the ocean so I can only imagine the effects it would have on the wildlife that is inland. Especially when you consider that it spans over 800 miles leaving such a large range that if there is a spill it could have effects almost anywhere in Alaska. Plus, just the pipe being there has an effect on the wildlife when it comes to something like migration.
Lucas LaForte
12/22/2020 04:08:12
This reminds me a lot of the line 5 here in Michigan. The potential for disaster of that pipeline could be catastrophic just like this one. It runs along some incredibly ecologically sensitive areas that could be so damaging to the wildlife in the area. These pipelines are built by these oil companies knowing full well the risks involved. On top of that, these pipelines were never intended to last forever, and are incredibly hard to service. Line 5, just like the Alaskan pipeline, runs through a lot of wilderness, cutting through pristine landscape that could be severely compromised if disaster stuck. Another similarity between the two is the impact it could have if it were to burst into water. You state that the Alaskan pipeline crosses over 800 rivers and streams, while line 5 runs through the straights of Machinack. If you ask me, things like this are just an environmental disaster waiting to happen. The push for renewable energy is long overdue, and it is sad to see the environmental impacts already happening in Alaska. We can only hope the nothing like that happens here, and that line 5 is shut down and replaced with renewable energy. If this interests you, and you are not familiar with what is going on with line 5 here in Michigan, I highly suggest looking into it, as the similar potential for environmental catastrophe is equally as scary, while being only being a few hours up north, practically in our back yard. Leave a Reply. |
AuthorStudents of ESG 1500 Archives
December 2021
Categories |
RSS Feed