ETP dead wrong on case for "public need" of Bakken Pipeline

On July 14, Energy Transfer Partners (ETP) responded to the Iowa Utilities Board’s questions about the Bakken Pipeline’s impact on public convenience and necessity. Perhaps predictably, the pipeline company’s points are riddled with false assumptions, which ignore the inherent threat this hazardous project poses to Iowa communities.

ETP consistently pushes rhetoric that pipelines are the safest way to transport crude oil, even though ETP has no say in whether or not constructing this pipeline will reduce the amount of oil being transported by rail. There has been no official announcement the construction of this pipeline would reduce rail use.

ETP claims the main reason this pipeline needs to be built, is due to “a significant increase in the production of crude oil, from 309,000 barrels per day in 2010 to more than 1 million barrels per day in 2014” in the Bakken and Three Forks production area. The intention of the project is to aid in the expansion of oil production, not to shift oil transportation away from rails to make the process safer.

This calls into question the company’s argument this project “will free-up rail capacity for the transportation of crops and other commodities currently held up by crude oil cargos, and reduce price pressure for shipping those commodities,” as there is no proof rail transport of oil will be reduced as a result of the pipeline’s construction. ETP and Dakota Access simply have no say in what is transported by rail or by truck.

Not to mention, pipeline leaks and spills do and will happen, as seen in last week’s spill of 4,200 gallons of crude oil from a Plains All American Pipeline pump station in Illinois and the 100,000 gallon spill in two Southern California beaches near Santa Barbara from a different plains pipeline two months ago. Taking into consideration the Bakken Pipeline traverses every major watershed in Iowa, this threat to the state’s already polluted water supply is not worth the risk.

ETP only deals with the construction and maintenance of the pipeline. Regardless of their claims, ETP has no say in whether or not the oil being transported through their systems, remain in the United States or is shipped overseas. However, as a Fortune 500 company, they do have close ties to Phillips 66, Sunoco, and other large oil companies who ultimately determine the fate of this oil and would see greater profits if invested in the international market.

It is safe to assume oil companies will vie for a self-interested business decision, which is most profitable to their shares. Unfortunately for U.S. citizens, oil companies do not have national security and energy independence in mind when making these decisions.

Perhaps most importantly, the entire debate about this pipeline detracts from investments in sustainable alternative energy sources. The argument is therefore not about whether or not pipelines are safe, but rather if pipelines are the right infrastructure investment in the first place.

As the U.S. energy industry alone produces 12.62 percent of all global greenhouse gas emissions, it is outrageous to think further investment in polluting industries will increase national security. If anything, it threatens global security, putting all human life at risk to the severe environmental impacts of climate change. If we wish to work toward a world where every person has access to pollution-free energy system before it is too late, investing in oil pipelines is simply an illogical investment in old technology, which provides little to no public benefit, and a large threat to public health and the environment.