Pollution occurs in every phase of the oil refining process. In this series, we analyze the impacts of pollution in three categories: direct pollution from the refinery operations themselves; “upstream” and “downstream” pollution from transporting crude oil and refined products;1Upstream” refers to oil extraction and transportation to the refineries. “Downstream” refers to transportation of refined products from refineries to consumers and beyond. and indirect pollution from consuming the refineries’ products. It’s important to consider all three categories because Northwest refineries do not exist in isolation. Rather, they sit at the center of a sprawling web of petroleum infrastructure.
The coming decades will bring increasingly volatile oil markets as well as promising boosts in energy efficiency, vehicle electrification, and a shift to cheaper clean energy. As demand for oil drops, Puget Sound refinery communities can plan ahead for a smooth transition—protecting workers, local economies, and the environment to build a thriving and resilient future. This article is part of a special series on the issue.
Northwest refineries receive crude oil—the raw material they use to manufacture consumer fuels—via three modes of transportation: pipeline, trains, and marine vessels. After the refining process, the refined products are transported to consumers by pipelines, trains, marine vessels, and trucks. In this chapter, we discuss the upstream and downstream impacts of maritime shipping of crude and refined products.
The track record for—and the potential risk of—maritime shipping of oil is even worse than the often-dismal records of pipelines and trains.
To understand the risk, it helps to start with the numbers. A single oil tanker may carry 400,000 barrels (16.8 million gallons!) of crude or more, while tank barges may have 150,000 barrels in tow. These vessels make nearly 4,000 trips each year on the Salish Sea. And although the vast majority of these transits happen without incident, the historical record shows that Washington has seen multiple spills of thousands of barrels of fuel. The region has been fortunate to avoid a truly major spill for the last two decades.
Disasters and Close Calls
Sightline has documented 50 years of oil spills in Washington’s waters. It’s an alarming history of mishaps, most of which could have been far worse. And the risk goes beyond Puget Sound. Because the oil industry’s reach extends to all of the region’s population centers, there is meaningful risk extended to Grays Harbors and the Columbia River as far inland as Lewiston, Idaho, where the port is visited by petroleum tank barges.
Here we highlight three examples of oil spills that happened as a direct result of moving oil to and from Northwest oil industry facilities:
Ecologic and Economic Costs of Spills
Oil spills are never easy to clean up, but some of the oil transported to Washington’s refineries is especially dangerous, such as the tar sands (sometimes known as “dilbit,” or diluted bitumen) that comes from Alberta. Research shows that dilbit is particularly hard to recover in the event of a spill, an appalling prospect given how little oil is recovered even from spills of conventional crude. In fact, according to Transport Canada, only 10 to 15 percent of a marine oil spill is likely to ever be recovered from open water.
According to an authoritative 2015 report from the US National Academies of Sciences and Engineering, a significant fraction of a tar sands spill would likely sink to the sea floor and remain unrecoverable for decades, if not centuries, harming Dungeness crab, rockfish, sand lance, and other bottom-dwellers. It would also seriously threaten migrating salmon and the endangered Southern resident orcas. Orcas have skin that is surprisingly resistant to oiled waters, but scientists have found that consuming prey that has absorbed oil from a spill or breathing in toxic oily vapors near the water’s surface while breaching can, depending on the level of petroleum exposure, cause lung congestion, pneumonia, liver disorders, and neurological damage. A major Salish Sea oil spill could be devastating to orcas and could trigger an ecological catastrophe.
In fact, something similar occurred in 2012 near Marshall, Michigan, when an Enbridge pipeline ruptured, releasing nearly a million gallons of dilbit into a tributary of the Kalamazoo River. Ultimately, dilbit contaminated 25 miles of the Kalamazoo River’s riverbed. A large portion sank, evading recovery efforts designed for floating oils. That’s because, when dilbit enters water, it separates into its primary components. The original tar-like bitumen sinks, and volatile components such as benzene rapidly evaporate. Airborne benzene, a carcinogen, makes dilbit spill recovery extremely difficult for early responders, who would require artificial breathing apparatuses to work near the spill.
In addition to posing a clear danger to the Northwest’s ecology, oil spills can be incredibly costly. Though it is surprisingly difficult to estimate what the costs could be, it is reasonable to assume that the bill could range into the hundreds of millions or billions of dollars.
Our work is made possible by the generosity of people like you!
Thanks to Joel H. Reynolds and Carol Ann Woody for supporting a sustainable Northwest.
A 2019 study by Earth Economics modeled a spill in the San Juan Islands, concluding that a spill of 4 million gallons (or about 95,000 barrels) of diluted bitumen could cost $142 million to $510 million, while a spill of 1 million gallons (or about 24,000 barrels) of heavy fuel oil could cost $84 million to $243 million. And a November 2019 study commissioned by California’s Office of Spill Response and Prevention used historical data from oil disasters to estimate a per-barrel cost for a marine spill. It found that a spill of heavy persistent oil—the type of crude that is often transported in the Salish Sea—could cost more than $700 million for a 10,000-barrel spill.
One estimate sometimes used by the Washington Department of Ecology pegs of the cost of a Salish Sea spill at $10.8 billion. (As far as we can tell, no one knows exactly where that figure comes from.) The Ecology estimate is probably 16 years old at least, which is a problem because the new California report suggests that per barrel costs have increased by a factor of four and it is accepted that response costs have been rising since the 1970s, well outpacing inflation. Whether that means a Salish Sea spill might now cost a mind-bending $40 billion-plus is unclear, but it does suggest the need for updated estimates.
Yet, troublingly, even these daunting estimates may be too cautious. The Earth Economics study does not account for impacts beyond the San Juan Islands, nor do they tally the costs to marine transportation, science and education, endangered species, human health, or tribal treaty rights. Just so, the California modeling exercise did not account for wider economic costs beyond the clean-up efforts and liabilities, such as losses to recreation or ecological value, or to tourism, or for the many marine-dependent jobs that are impacted indirectly.
Whether by pipeline, train, or vessel, transporting crude oil and refined petroleum products presents an ever-present risk. Despite ever more stringent regulations, spills continue to happen, causing harm to our environment and our health. It is simply impossible to eliminate the potential risk as long as oil is being transported. The best way to reduce the number and severity of oil spills is to reduce the amount of oil being transported, and ultimately to retire our oil refineries and transition away from our carbon economy.
This article benefited from past research by Ahren Stroming, Tarika Powell, Michael Riordan, and Paelina DeStephano.