Midstream oil and gas infrastructure comprises vast networks of gathering and transmission pipelines that connect upstream extraction to downstream consumption. In the United States (US), public policies and corporate decisions have prompted a wave of proposals for new gathering and transmission pipelines in recent years, raising the question: Who bears the burdens associated with existing pipeline infrastructure in the US? With this in mind, we examined the density of natural gas gathering and transmission pipelines in the US together with county-level data on social vulnerability. For the 2,261 US counties containing natural gas pipelines, we found a positive correlation between county-level pipeline density and an index of social vulnerability. In general, counties with more socially vulnerable populations have significantly higher pipeline densities than with less socially vulnerable populations. In particular, counties in the top quartile of social vulnerability tend to have pipeline densities that are much higher than pipeline densities for counties in the bottom quartile of social vulnerability. The difference grows larger for counties at the upper extremes of pipeline density within each group. We discuss some of the implications for Indigenous communities and others affected by recent expansions of oil and gas infrastructure. We offer recommendations aimed at improving ways in which decision-makers identify and address the societal impacts and environmental justice implications of midstream pipeline infrastructure.

Federal agencies in the US must evaluate the environmental justice implications of regulatory actions. Environmental justice analyses frequently use demographic tests to determine whether regulated projects will disproportionately impact vulnerable communities, including American Indian communities. Demographic tests typically yield negative results, which are often cited as evidence of no environmental justice implications. However, susceptibility of demographic tests to false negative errors is unknown. In these cases, false negative errors occur when a test cannot identify a vulnerable population concentrated disproportionately within a project study area. We developed a technique to evaluate the susceptibility of demographic tests to false negative errors. We used the technique to assess a test commonly used by regulators to permit fossil fuel pipelines. The Atlantic Coast Pipeline served as a case study. The demographic test did not identify disproportionately large American Indian populations under any realistic scenario, a false negative error rate of 100%. In our case study, the test did not detect a disproportionately large American Indian population until the study area contained a four times greater fraction of American Indians than the reference area. We extend the results to study the test’s performance throughout the US. The test’s inability to detect disproportionately large American Indian populations calls into question the validity of negative results and the general ability of the test to inform conclusions about environmental justice or sustainability. We recommend abandoning the test in favor of more rigorous methods.

In the United States, federal policies exist to ensure environmental justice and to protect Indigenous rights. However, the effectiveness of these policies can be influenced by analytical tools chosen by decision-makers to study disproportionate impacts of federal actions, including environmental permitting, on Indigenous peoples in particular and marginalized communities in general. Strong analytics can help identify, early on, communities likely to be impacted by federal permitting and decision-making, providing opportunities to consult meaningfully with communities and address potential injustices or inequities prior to key planning and permitting decisions. In contrast, weak analytics can create blind spots to potential inequities and injustices that may not be revealed until late in planning and permitting processes if at all. Here we evaluate environmental justice analytics used in federal decision-making with particular attention to recent fossil fuel pipeline permitting. Using the Atlantic Coast Pipeline - a proposed shale gas project in West Virginia, Virginia, and North Carolina - as a case study, we identify methodological weaknesses that contribute to decision-making blind spots surrounding environmental justice, focusing especially on implications for American Indian tribes. We discuss findings in the broader contexts of public policies surrounding environmental justice and Indigenous rights. We offer recommendations for policy-makers, regulators, pipeline developers, and members of affected communities.

Midstream oil and gas infrastructure comprises vast networks of gathering and transmission pipelines that connect upstream extraction sites to downstream processors, exporters, and consumers. In the United States (US), public policies and corporate decisions continue to promote the extraction and consumption of oil and gas, and they have prompted a wave of proposals for gathering and transmission pipelines in recent years. The ongoing build-out of midstream infrastructure calls for close scrutiny of associated human health risks and related societal impacts. Urgency is warranted considering that at least part of this infrastructure, the US natural gas pipeline network, is concentrated more heavily in areas of high social vulnerability than areas of low social vulnerability, highlighting inequity in the distribution of societal harms. Emerging research on ways in which midstream pipelines affect Indigenous peoples and rural communities in the US demonstrates the complex nature of potential harms. The spatial distribution of midstream infrastructure, together with the complexity of societal impacts underscore the need to clearly understand and carefully consider these impacts during infrastructure planning and permitting. We offer recommendations for scientists and decision-makers who are interested in evaluating these impacts through the lens of environmental justice.