The Effects of Oil/Natural

Gas Pipelines on Habitats

of Indigenous Species
CHARLES HIVELY 2017 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE / BIO-349
 Hively 1

Introduction

To determine whether anything has a valuable contribution to the public good, one must

first critically analyze both costs and benefits before arriving at a reasonable conclusion. The

purpose of this paper is to answer the question, “What are the ecological impacts of oil/natural

gas pipelines on indigenous species?”

In answering this question, it will provide costs that can, at some time, be compared to

benefits. From this point forward, oil/natural gas pipelines will be simply addressed as

‘pipelines’, and will also represent gas and petroleum-based transport, as many simultaneously

transport multiple products in one pipeline.

1. Effects of Pipeline Construction on Soil and Water

The first analysis of the effects of pipelines is the initial damage they present to the

environment. This includes clearing of forest for transportation of machinery, as well as the

effect of materials on the soil and surrounding ecosystem. Pipeline construction in the United

States requires an assessment of the possible direct and indirect, one-stage or compounding, and

short-term and long-term effects on the environment for project approval (Chen et al, 2012).

Welding and trenching operations that occur in and around the path of pipelines are likely

potential heavy metal contamination sources. The construction vehicles carrying materials have

discharges that are another possible source of metal pollution (Shi et al, 2014). These vehicles

travel during construction as well as maintenance. The most pertinent reason for identifying the

root cause of metal pollution, as well as the amount of spreading, is that many pipelines seek

right-of-way through agricultural and wildlife areas. These areas are incredibly important, as

they provide food, and heavy metals are known to bioaccumulate. Pipelines could introduce

heavy metals into the food chain, thus exposing many species to health risks associated with
 Hively 2

higher levels of heavy metals (Shi et al, 2014). In recent studies, trenches and working zones in

pipeline right-of-way and piling areas had much higher concentrations of heavy metals than the

background amount found in soil within corresponding regions. Cadmium and Nickel were

found to be almost double the amount compared to the background amount. Lead was found to

be over twice the background amount, up to 50 meters from the pipeline right-of-way, at around

35 mg/kg (Shi et al, 2014). This level is considered moderately polluted, and the State of

California sets the toxicity benchmark for lead at 77 mg/kg.

2. Effects of Oil Pipeline Failures

The U.S. Department of Transportation has a branch that deals specifically with hazards

associated with pipelines, called the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration

(PHMSA). The PHMSA has collected data from 1997-2016 regarding pipeline incidents, such as

leaking and explosions. In those 20 years, 11,461 incidents were reported by the PHMSA to have

occurred in the U.S. alone. Of those incidents, there were 1,331 reported injuries, as well as 324

deaths (USDOT, 2017). This is representative of merely the initial damage to people from

pipeline incidents. Pipeline incidents, such as leaking, can go undetected for several days, or

even months. The degradation of surrounding soil can be devastating. According to estimates

“… the cleanup of 32 cubic meters’ leakage from the TransCanada pipeline spill could require

the removal of up to the equivalent land area of 0.91 meters in depth over 1,618,743 square

meters or about 1,530,084 cubic meters of soil” (Xu et al, 2872). Outside North America, these

problems take on a different scale. The amount of ecological damage in countries with less or no

regulation is exponentially devastating. It has been reported that “…spills from ageing, ill-

maintained or sabotaged pipelines have increased, and places like Arctic Russia, the Niger Delta,
 Hively 3

and the northwestern Amazon have become sites of reoccurring oil pollution” (Jernelv, 2010). In

fact, the soil and groundwater were significantly affected in Ijegun, Lagos Nigeria due to

petroleum product spillage. An investigation in 2014 showed that the impacted area was highly

contaminated with total hydrocarbon content and monoaromatic hydrocarbons BTEX. As a result

of the high concentration of hydrocarbon in the groundwater (higher than the WHO limit l2 years

after the explosion), it is no longer potable and indigenous species are in danger of immediate

health complications associated with BTEX compounds (Doherty et al, 2013).

3. Pipelines Contribute to Habitat Fragmentation and Degradation

Much of the development of shale gas and pipelines is occurring in areas of high

biodiversity and areas where there are species that are especially sensitive to habitat

fragmentation as well as degradation (Milt et al, 2016). In Pennsylvania, well permits accounted

for 32 % of state-owned public land area in 2013. However, higher conservation value exists in

much of the private lands, which remain unprotected and where more development is occurring.

The problem is that these developments fragment forests and habitats. Pipeline right-of-way and

construction routes reduce connectivity within streams, risk spillage, and increase the delivery of

sediments to streams due to erosion runoffs. When a spillage occurs, soil and streams could

experience loss of native species due to the contamination (Milt et al, 2016).

The highly linear clearings that are created as the result of oil pipelines influence species

distribution and biodiversity in forests. Boundaries to forest areas are commonly called “edge”.

These edges are exponentially increased when oil pipelines and their corresponding maintenance

roads are installed. A majority of pipelines are along previously cut seismic lines and are not

required to be reforested (MacFarlane, 2003). This has an effect on the indigenous species

because some of those species rely on large areas of forest that are far away from edges, while
 Hively 4

other species that are edge specialists move in (Hanus, 2005). For example, the Woodland

Caribou is being extirpated because linear corridors are increasing accessibility for the wolf,

which is both an edge specialist and their primary predator (Hanus, 2005). There also exists an

effect on species that have specialization in older growth forests. In Alberta, research involving

forested landscape change revealed that species familiar with young forest growth were moving

in and thriving, while species that specialized in old forest were struggling (Schneider, 2002).

Species diversity also increases as the forest age increases, and if the amount of older forests

decrease, so does the abundance of species that live within those habitats (Hanus, 2005). Thus,

even if reforesting of areas cleared for construction is achieved, it may still have an effect on

indigenous species, as well as biodiversity. Also, it has been shown that road density and the

distance to nearest well pads have negative impacts on wildlife at values that can be reached

relatively quickly (Wilbert, 2008). This means that even at low gas and oil development

densities, the impact on wildlife can be relatively high.

Fragmentation also introduces invasive species. The most common is the planting of non-

native grasses on pipeline right-of-way. These are grasses that are intentionally selected because

of their resiliency and quick growth. As such, they are difficult to control and have a competitive

advantage over the native species of grass (Hanus, 2005). Some invasive species are the result of

being adapted to human presence. Many fauna fill vacancies left by species that are human

avoidant. Worse still, are the adapted species that aggressively edge-out or marginalize the

indigenous species. An example of this is the brown cowbird’s range expansion. Its range is

moving into many other forests and parasitizes nests by depositing its own eggs while harming

indigenous songbirds (Hanus, 2005).

4. Humans as Indigenous Species

 Hively 5

A majority of pipelines are rerouted from initially planned routes because of affluent

residents’ opposition. As a result, pipelines disproportionately affect people of lower

socioeconomic status. The broader health concern is that poorer populations, given exposures,

are less likely to seek treatment because they cannot afford treatment. “Pipelines and compressor

stations bring with them a host of health risks and dangers. Communities of color and low

income have long been targeted for disruptive infrastructure projects and polluting facilities -

including pipelines and compressor stations - that cause health problems for the surrounding

community. The specific volatile organic compounds that are emitted by compressor stations

have been associated with several serious health problems, including cancers, respiratory and

cardiovascular illness, and birth defects” (CWFNC, 2016). Though the CWFNC stated what the

specific compounds are, they did not include concentration amounts. They simply stated that the

existence of the compounds are found at every compressor station.

5. Conclusion

Ultimately, the recent increase in pipelines is the result of an increase in hydraulic

fracturing. This method presents many potential ecological problems, but will not be addressed

here. It is pertinent to note that, without pipelines, the cost of transportation of goods from

hydraulic fracturing increases, thereby decreasing overall construction of facilities. However, the

intent of this examination was to present a short list of possible ramifications for comparative

purposes. In analyzing the effects of pipelines, it has been shown that pipelines degrade and

separate habitats of native species and contribute to an overall loss of species. It has also been

shown that pipelines pollute soil and water, not only from incidents such as spillage and

explosion, but also from construction materials. To truly grasp the full scale of ecological

damage to the habitats of indigenous species, it might be necessary to implement a closer

 Hively 6

examination of placement of wells and access roads. These variables are closely related to oil

pipelines and, as such, should warrant further examination before a conclusion can ultimately be

made. Although contractors are required to perform an environmental assessment prior to

construction, these typically include immediate impacts on habitats, such as immediate

destruction of a specific tree housing an endangered species, or immediate effects of

contamination on groundwater (Milt et al, 2016).

The argument supporting pipeline construction is that it is an economically viable way to

power the United States while simultaneously promoting energy independence. However, not all

pipelines are carrying only oil/natural gas. Another argument supporting pipeline construction is

that the amount of carbon emissions from other forms of transport (e.g. truck) would be far

greater than the emissions from constructing a pipeline. However, relying on a source of energy

that is not a fossil fuel would more effectively reduce these types of emissions. Perhaps an

assessment of the feasibility of fossil fuels in the future would nullify this entire issue, as there

would cease to be a need to analyze the effects of oil/natural gas pipelines on habitats.
 Hively 7

Works Cited

Chen, L., Tian, H., Zhang, X., Feng, X., Yang, W. 2012. Public attitudes and perceptions to the

West-to-East Pipeline Project and ecosystem management in large project construction.

International Journal of Sustainable Development and World Ecology. 19.3:219-228.

CWFNC. 2016. Dangerous Neighbors: Pipelines, Compressor Stations, and Environmental

Injustice. Clean Water for North Carolina.

Doherty, et al. 2013. Monitoring of soil and groundwater contamination following a pipeline

explosion and petroleum product spillage in Ijegun, Lagos Nigeria. Environmental

Monitoring and Assessment. 185.5: 4159-4170.

Hanus, S. and Braun, T. 2005. Forest Fragmentation: Effects of Oil and Gas Activities on

Alberta Forests. BUEC Report.

Jernelv, A. 2010. The threats from oil spills: Now, then, and in the future. Ambio. 39.6: 353-366

MacFarlane, A.K. 2003. Vegetation response to seismic lines: edge effects and on-line

succession. M.Sc. thesis, University of Alberta, Edmonton.

Milt, Austin W., Tamara Gagnolet, and Paul R. Armsworth. 2016. Synergies and Tradeoffs

among Environmental Impacts Under Conservation Planning of Shale Gas Surface

Infrastructure. Environmental management. 57.1: 21-30.

Schneider, R. 2002. Alternative Futures: Alberta's Boreal Forest at the Crossroads. Federation of

Alberta Naturalists.

Shi, P., Xiao, J., Wang, Y., Chen, L. 2014. Assessment of ecological and human health risks of

heavy metal contamination in agriculture soils disturbed by pipeline construction.

International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. 11.3: 2504-2520.

 Hively 8

US DOT. 2017. Pipeline Incident 20 Year Trend. Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety

Administration. https://hip.phmsa.dot.gov/analyticsSOAP/saw.dll?Portalpages

Wilbert, M., Thomson, J., Culver, N.W. 2008. Analysis of Habitat Fragmentation from Oil and

Gas Development and Its Impact on Wildlife: A Framework for Public Land

Management Planning. The Wilderness Society.

Xu, Z., Chai, J., Wu, Y., & Qin, R. 2015. Transport and biodegradation modeling of gasoline

spills in soil-aquifer system. Environmental Earth Sciences. 74.4: 2871-2882.