Consider this scenario: a petroleum pipeline crosses a political entity. Its charge of crude oil originates outside that state, destined for use perhaps in that state or, more likely, beyond its borders. There is a break in the pipe, and large quantities of oil leak onto the land and into the water table of this in-between state. Sensitive ecological systems are damaged or threatened, economic costs are large and political oversight is revealed to be compromised.
It sounds like the basis for the plot of a political thriller or a scenario concocted by opponents of the XL Pipeline in the United States, the Northern Gateway project in British Columbia or Enbridge’s Line 9 through Toronto. But in fact, just such an event occurred in the south of Israel last month.
On Dec. 3, a breach in a 42-inch pipe of the Trans-Israel Pipeline began leaking crude oil near the small Arava community of Be’er Ora. Almost immediately, Israel’s Ministry of Environmental Protection called the situation “one of the gravest pollution events in the country’s history.” There were at least three major reasons for such an assessment: environmental, economic and political.
Some 5 million litres of oil leaked nearly seven kilometres south into the Evrona Nature Preserve. The Arava is extremely arid. Lines of acacia trees mark the dry watercourses, which flood in rare rain events. Acacias are an important food resource for desert insects, rodents, larger mammals and birds, including the vast number of migrants that follow the valley twice a year. Acacias are also shallow-rooted, so even if quick action is successful in vacuuming most of the oil that has pooled on the surface, residual oil that seeps into the soil may threaten their survival.
It was feared the oil might also reach Eilat, some 20 kilometre away, threatening the Red Sea coral reefs. Hard work succeeded in building containment berms, spreading absorptive materials, and pumping up pooled oil to avert this threat. However, environmental damage was done at Evrona, and the long-term prospects are unclear.
Economic concerns are multi-faceted. There is the lost revenue from those millions of litres of oil and the costs of emergency response. The company and the ministry may be sued for damages. Hidden costs may also include long-term health effects. Although air quality monitoring suggests there was no threat to residents in Eilat, high levels of benzene were noted at the site of the spill. And there was at least one report of 80 people being hospitalized in Aqaba, Jordan, due to exposure to hydrogen sulphide.
The Eilat-Ashkelon pipeline was built in the 1960s to transport Iranian oil across Israel, mostly for sale to European markets. Although that arrangement with Iran ceased with the overthrow of the Shah in 1979, oil continues to enter the pipeline. The Eilat-Ashkelon Pipeline Company (EAPC), established to market Persian oil via Israel, is a private company that operates opaquely due to outdated laws: the 1952 oil law did not contemplate environmental concerns, and a 1968 government order declares EAPC’s operations confidential (supposedly for geopolitical security reasons), which also protects it from enforcement of environmental regulations. Indeed, the Nature and Parks Administration and the city of Eilat, professed ignorance of what the pipeline carries. Interlocking relationships between members of the government and civil service and the directorship of the EAPC further complicate the situation.
Pipelines will leak. No mechanical system lasts without constant maintenance and oversight. On the scale of known oil disasters elsewhere, the Arava leak is quite small. But the damage to local environment, the costs of clean-up and remediation, and the damage to political relationships – and the trust of citizens in government – are nonetheless important to consider.
We need to get oil from source to point of use. But we must do so in a trustworthy and environmentally conscious way. n
Paul Kay is associate professor emeritus of environment and resource studies at the University of Waterloo.