Pipelines, Tar Sands Oil, and the Health of Minnesotans
Bruce D. Snyder, MD, FAAN
There are moments when a single decision can have a very large impact on events. Such a moment is facing Minnesota (MN) regulators as they consider whether to allow Enbridge Energy to build Replacement Pipeline 3 that will double the amount of tar sands oil carried across treaty-protected native lands, pristine natural areas, and the headwaters of the Mississippi. These MN concerns are reason enough to deny this project but there are larger issues.
Health Professionals for a Healthy Climate, a MN organization, recently provided testimony before the MN Public Utilities Commission recommending against approval of this project because it will contribute to serious health risks for patients and communities. The problems extend beyond Minnesota to the Canadian Tar Sands that will supply the product transported in this line. The Alberta Tar Sands mines are one of the largest sources of microparticulate air pollution in North America generating pollutant levels greater than the Northeast US (1,2). And Tar Sands oil is a thick sandy mix requiring energy intensive processing that emits twice the greenhouse gas emissions per barrel than oil from other sources (3).
Weather extremes related to Minnesota’s changing climate have damaged homes, businesses, and crops and threaten the hospitals and clinics we rely on. Minnesota’s warming climate and fossil fuel generated pollution effect and worsen many aspects of health including heart and lung diseases; asthma and allergies; cancers; stroke and mental decline; infectious diseases; and developmental disorders. We must also consider that likely pipeline ruptures will release highly toxic substances into surface and ground waters in the especially sensitive areas crossed by the selected pipeline route. Denying this pipeline project would be an important step in slowing investment and development of the Alberta Tar Sands.
The environmental damage from Tar Sands oil will adversely impact current and future generations of Minnesotans. Reason enough for physicians to express our concerns.
1) Oil sands found to be a leading source of air pollution in North America. https://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/oil-sands-found-to-be-a-leading-source-of-air-pollution-in-north-america/article30151841/
2) Air Pollution and the Tar Sands - Canadian Association of Physicians. https://cape.ca/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/AirandTarSandsReport_FINAL.pdf
3) Oil Sands Development – A Health Risk Worth Taking? D Tennebaum. Environmental Health Perspectives 117:A150-6 ,2009
Bruce D. Snyder, MD, FAAN
There are moments when a single decision can have a very large impact on events. Such a moment is facing Minnesota (MN) regulators as they consider whether to allow Enbridge Energy to build Replacement Pipeline 3 that will double the amount of tar sands oil carried across treaty-protected native lands, pristine natural areas, and the headwaters of the Mississippi. These MN concerns are reason enough to deny this project but there are larger issues.
Health Professionals for a Healthy Climate, a MN organization, recently provided testimony before the MN Public Utilities Commission recommending against approval of this project because it will contribute to serious health risks for patients and communities. The problems extend beyond Minnesota to the Canadian Tar Sands that will supply the product transported in this line. The Alberta Tar Sands mines are one of the largest sources of microparticulate air pollution in North America generating pollutant levels greater than the Northeast US (1,2). And Tar Sands oil is a thick sandy mix requiring energy intensive processing that emits twice the greenhouse gas emissions per barrel than oil from other sources (3).
Weather extremes related to Minnesota’s changing climate have damaged homes, businesses, and crops and threaten the hospitals and clinics we rely on. Minnesota’s warming climate and fossil fuel generated pollution effect and worsen many aspects of health including heart and lung diseases; asthma and allergies; cancers; stroke and mental decline; infectious diseases; and developmental disorders. We must also consider that likely pipeline ruptures will release highly toxic substances into surface and ground waters in the especially sensitive areas crossed by the selected pipeline route. Denying this pipeline project would be an important step in slowing investment and development of the Alberta Tar Sands.
The environmental damage from Tar Sands oil will adversely impact current and future generations of Minnesotans. Reason enough for physicians to express our concerns.
1) Oil sands found to be a leading source of air pollution in North America. https://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/oil-sands-found-to-be-a-leading-source-of-air-pollution-in-north-america/article30151841/
2) Air Pollution and the Tar Sands - Canadian Association of Physicians. https://cape.ca/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/AirandTarSandsReport_FINAL.pdf
3) Oil Sands Development – A Health Risk Worth Taking? D Tennebaum. Environmental Health Perspectives 117:A150-6 ,2009