While plans for the portion of a petroleum pipeline that will pass through Woodbridge remain unclear, an environmental group is approaching local governments and residents to alert them of concerns regarding the project.
The Sierra Club’s Nov. 17 forum at the Woodbridge Library was set to discuss the Pilgrim Pipeline and its potential implications for residents.
“We think it’s very important to do this,” Kate Millsaps, conservation program coordinator for the club’s New Jersey chapter, said of beginning public discussion on the pipeline.
The project would also pass through Edison and Metuchen, she said.
Pilgrim Pipeline’s website describes the proposed project as a pipeline that would carry refined petroleum products — gas, diesel, heating oil, and jet and aviation fuel — north from New York Harbor to upstate New York. It would also carry crude oil from Albany to various refineries along the East Coast.
Woodbridge’s portion would be an offshoot of the pipeline, carrying refined product, according to Paul Nathanson, spokesman for Pilgrim Pipeline. That offshoot would end in Port Reading.
“We haven’t even submitted applications, so we don’t have a definite route yet,” he said, adding that Pilgrim is now conducting environmental studies.
The Sierra Club has obtained information indicating that a pumping station for the pipeline would be located in Woodbridge, according to Millsaps, who raised concerns about emissions from such a facility.
“I think that the community that would get this pump station … should know sooner rather than later,” she said.
Nathanson said that while a pumping station will be a necessary component of the project, its location has yet to be determined.
Woodbridge Mayor John McCormac declined to comment, saying that he has yet to be briefed on the project.
According to Pilgrim Pipeline, the Northeast lacks a direct pipeline connection for the delivery of refined petroleum products. This leaves the region reliant mostly on river barges, making it vulnerable to commerce disruptions because of freezing temperatures, along with shortages.
“The Pilgrim Pipeline will provide the region with a more stable supply of essential refined petroleum products, relieve supply chain congestion, and offer a safer, more environmentally sound way to deliver energy resources while creating jobs, boosting the region’s economy and enhancing energy security,” Pilgrim Pipeline states on its website.
The Sierra Club, however, says the project comes with serious consequences.
“Just because it’s a refined product does not mean the risk of leak or spill or human accident is any less,” Millsaps said, citing statistics from the federal Pipeline Hazardous Material Safety Administration (PHMSA) that show an annual average of 280 “significant” incidents stemming from pipelines between 1994 and 2013.
That 20-year time span has seen a total of 5,621 pipeline incidents nationwide, resulting in 362 deaths, 1,395 injuries and $6.7 billion in costs, according to PHMSA data.
The bi-directional Pilgrim Pipeline would transport Bakken shale oil, produced through hydraulic fracturing, or “fracking,” which not only draws ire from environmental advocates, but also has been shown to be more explosive than other types of oil, according to the Sierra Club.
“We have people out there who are trying to scare people about exploding pipelines and Armageddon,” Nathanson said.
According to the company, no U.S. instances of crude oil exploding during transport via pipeline have been recorded.
In addition, varying levels of volatility attributed to different types of crude oil become irrelevant when transported via pipeline, because air pressure and “jostling” — two things necessary to bring on an explosion — are absent, according to the company’s website. Bakken oil is currently moved between Albany and Linden by barge and train, and the pipeline would be the safest way to carry it along that route.
Statistics cited by the Sierra Club, however, tell a different story. The American Petroleum Institute’s “Analysis of U.S. Oil Spillage” shows a U.S. average of 76,754 barrels of oil spilled from pipelines between 1998 to 2007, a number greater than that from tanker trucks, rail cars, tank ships and tank barges combined. It’s a matter of context, according to Nathanson. With more than 70 percent of crude oil and petroleum products shipped via pipeline, and about 18 million barrels flowing through those pipelines each day, volumes being referenced in statistics are understandably higher, he said.
“A more telling safety measure for the various forms of petroleum transport is barrel miles, which incorporates distance and volume,” Nathanson said. “Using barrelmiles, where one barrel transported 1 mile equals 1 barrel-mile, pipelines had initial losses of about one gallon per million barrel miles over the 1997-2001 period. In household terms, this is less than one teaspoon per thousand barrel-miles.”
In addition, Nathanson said most spills happen from older pipelines.
Sierra Club has urged a number of municipalities to adopt resolutions stating opposition to the project. Five towns have thus far adopted resolutions based on Sierra Club’s model.
The club’s model resolution decries fracking as detrimental to the environment; states that PHMSA has 135 inspectors to oversee 2.6 million miles of pipeline, with only one-fifth of it having been inspected by the agency since 2006; and indicates that the pipeline will pass through New Jersey’s Highlands region and therefore could jeopardize drinking water.
“We see the resolutions as a first step to communities saying, ‘We will stand up … to oppose this project,’ ” she said.