The unintended consequences of pipeline fights
Add Axios as your preferred source to
see more of our stories on Google.
Illustration: Lindsey Bailey/Axios
When activists protest oil pipelines with the slogan "keep it in the ground," they don't end up keeping most oil in the ground — and their efforts may even have side effects, like increasing air pollution when the oil is transported in other ways.
Why it matters: These unintended consequences show just how hard it is to curb oil and gas by targeting supply alone.
Driving the news: For the "Shocked" podcast's latest episode, we look at the Dakota Access Pipeline protests of nearly 10 years ago and contrast them with today's energy landscape, which shows oil and natural gas' continued dominance.
The big picture: U.S. oil and natural gas production are at record highs. The last decade makes clear that only two forces consistently bring down production: falling demand and falling prices.
- We saw this during the 2020 pandemic, when demand collapsed, oil prices plunged — and production briefly followed.
Catch up fast: Despite the massive 2016–17 protests, Dakota Access was built. It now moves roughly 500,000 barrels a day of North Dakota crude more than 1,000 miles to Illinois.
How it works: University of Chicago professor Ryan Kellogg wanted to find out what would have happened if the pipeline hadn't been built.
- Eighty percent of the oil would have gone out via trains instead, while 20% would have stayed in the ground, Kellogg said, citing his research.
Threat level: Moving oil by rail can cause explosions, like one in 2013 that destroyed a Canadian town.
- But "the biggest cost of crude by rail in terms of local impacts, really, is air pollution from particulate matter and nitrogen oxides," said Kellogg, who earlier worked as an engineer for BP.
Friction point: We put this dilemma to Jade Begay, a climate justice advocate and policy expert: Even if a fossil fuel project is stopped, the fuel would move by other, possibly more dangerous ways.
- "Why transport the oil at all?" Begay said. "Why are we not investing in the kind of energy we know to be safer?"
Reality check: Activists fight fossil fuel projects for reasons well beyond supply impacts.
- The Dakota Access protests were also a battle for tribal sovereignty — specifically the Standing Rock Sioux.
- Raising awareness of society's deep dependence on fossil fuels is another central goal.
The bottom line: Systematically lowering oil demand — such as with more electric cars — would likely prove a more successful way to stem pipeline projects. But a lack of policy is stalling such trends in the U.S.
Editor's note: This article was written partly based on content from the "Shocked" podcast, which was created by a team including experts at the University of Chicago's Institute for Climate and Sustainable Growth and producers at Magnificent Noise. Amy is the host and the institute's inaugural journalism fellow.
Sign up here for Axios' Future of Energy newsletter.
