1. Introduction

On June 15, 2023, EPA inspectors observed visible smoke continuously flowing from a flare at one of Arrow Pipeline’s compression stations, a direct violation of both Clean Air Act (CAA) regulations on emissions control. Even more alarming, inspectors also recorded fugitive hydrocarbon emissions from natural gas condensate tanks at two of their compressors, revealing that the company had apparently failed to route the emissions through a closed-vent system that would have saved us from the toxic emissions. These concerns were not isolated incidents but tied to systemic permit and operational lapses that, collectively, signal a deeper pattern of potential negligence or willful disregard for public health, corporate social responsibility, and environmental stewardship.

The official legal complaint details a constellation of alleged violations that took place across multiple Arrow Pipeline compressor stations—labeled Stations 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 7—on the Fort Berthold Indian Reservation in North Dakota. According to EPA, Arrow Pipeline did not consistently monitor or maintain the pressure drop across engine catalysts at these stations. The purpose of that pressure drop monitoring is crucial: it ensures that the catalytic emissions control system on each compressor engine is functioning effectively, helping to reduce harmful pollutants such as nitrogen oxides (NOx) and volatile organic compounds (VOCs). Each incidence of failure—be it not measuring the pressure drop at all or exceeding allowable thresholds without corrective actions—represents a major shortfall in meeting basic regulatory standards.

This article goes far beyond a simple “caught red-handed” narrative. Arrow Pipeline lapses reflect a broader set of features under neoliberal capitalism, where the drive to maximize profit can overshadow the industry’s duty of care to local communities, workers, and the environment. In the bigger picture, one sees a pattern that is neither aberrant nor random, but rather indicative of a systemic environment of weak enforcement, regulatory capture, and the insidious cost-benefit calculations that can lead corporations to cut corners on safety and compliance.

Although Arrow Pipeline ultimately agreed to pay a $450,000 settlement against these charges—this actually simultaneously highlights the failures of the regulatory architecture to consistently deter repeat violations, and the inherent economic incentives that make wrongdoing profitable. In short, “crime pays” if the bottom line so dictates. Communities, on the other hand, endure the economic fallout and potential health risks of avoidable pollution events.

In this long-form investigation, we will take a peek at how Arrow Pipeline’s noncompliance actions illustrate broader concerns over corporate accountability, corporate ethics, and the intersection of corporate greed with the public’s right to clean air. We will proceed through eight sections:

1. Introduction
2. Corporate Intent Exposed
3. The Corporate Playbook / How They Got Away with It
4. Crime Pays / The Corporate Profit Equation
5. System Failure / Why Regulators Did Nothing
6. This Pattern of Predation Is a Feature, Not a Bug
7. The PR Playbook of Damage Control
8. Corporate Power vs. Public Interest

Each section will weave together the facts of Arrow Pipeline’s specific misconduct, the legal context of the Clean Air Act, and a broader analysis of how neoliberal capitalism’s structures often foster or facilitate these types of violations. While we cannot invent admissions or data not provided in the official record, the complaint itself offers abundant examples of how alleged misconduct can lead to significant environmental harm and health risks—risks that local communities and tribal nations bear when industry players skirt regulatory requirements.

---

2. Corporate Intent Exposed

“We Value Safety”—But Do They Really?

Many large corporations proclaim a commitment to safety, environmental excellence, and corporate social responsibility in their public relations statements. Arrow Pipeline, in its own prior public-facing statements, presumably would have similarly emphasized operational integrity and a commitment to safe, compliant operations—although the Consent Agreement does not provide direct PR statements to quote. Regardless of any claimed commitments, the June 2023 EPA inspection revealed serious alleged lapses.

The type of repeated or prolonged violation pattern described in the complaint underscores a major question: did these failures result from simple oversight or reflect a deeper, intentional cost-cutting measure?

Although the official Consent Agreement does not assert that Arrow’s executives sat down in a boardroom and plotted out how to break the law, it documents that these permit exceedances and recordkeeping failures happened over extended periods of time, in multiple stations, and in multiple ways.

For instance, “engine unit 562 at Compressor Station 5” allegedly did not have the pressure drop measured properly during the most recent performance tests, indicating that the control device might have been operating at subpar conditions without correction. Meanwhile, repeated monthly data show that many engines across Stations 1, 2, 3, and 4 also exceeded the permissible +/- 2 inches of water from baseline pressure drop limits.

That these issues persisted over so many months—and frequently without the legally required corrective actions—begs the question: What does this pattern reveal about the company’s true corporate ethics? If a company wants to preserve a properly functioning emissions control system, it invests in systems and staff training to maintain and monitor that system meticulously. The repeated nature of these alleged infractions suggests, at the very least, a management culture that deprioritized strict compliance.

The Violations as a Window into Corporate Strategy

Under environmental regulations, major sources of air pollution—including large compressor stations—are required to meet rigorous monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting standards. The stated purpose is to control emissions of volatile organic compounds (VOCs), nitrogen oxides (NOx), and other dangerous pollutants that pose known threats to public health. Yet Arrow Pipelinesystematically failed to conduct required monthly pressure-drop measurements on numerous engines, or, when it did measure them and found them out of range, it did not always take the corrective actions mandated by permit.

Compressor engines function similarly to car engines in that they require catalytic converters to remove harmful pollutants. Any significant variation from the baseline “pressure drop” across the catalytic device can indicate a range of problems—from equipment fouling or clogging, to mechanical failures in the system. These problems can quickly translate into higher emissions. Under normal maintenance protocols, a company must respond by shutting down the engine, cleaning or replacing the catalyst, or otherwise rectifying the problem. Repeatedly ignoring such obligations can save a company money in the short term because it avoids the operational downtime associated with repairs, but it comes at a clear cost to local air quality and public health.

Likewise, the presence of continuous smoke from the flare at one of their compressors, as noted by the EPA inspectors, is significant.

Flares are designed to combust hydrocarbon vapors, turning them mostly into harmless CO₂ and water, and thus reduce more hazardous pollutants. However, “continuous visible smoke emissions” indicates incomplete combustion—leading to higher outputs of particulate matter and potential toxins. The complaint’s mention of flares is especially damning because flaring that fails to operate in a smokeless manner can lead to drastically elevated emission rates of black carbon, hydrocarbons, and other dangerous compounds. Operating a flare in a way that continuously emits visible smoke strongly suggests either a malfunction, a design flaw, or neglect in the operation—again, raising questions about what resources and attention Arrow Pipeline dedicated to ensuring compliance.

Finally, the venting or fugitive emissions from natural gas condensate tanks is another major red flag. The EPA asserts that the tanks at two of Arrow’s compressors were not properly sealed and vented through a “closed-vent system” to a pipeline for beneficial use or to a legally permitted control device. Recorded by an EPA’s infrared camera, these hydrocarbon plumes represent direct, avoidable releases into the atmosphere. Because these releases happened at multiple sites under Arrow Pipeline’s control, they paint the picture of an organization that might have deemed ongoing emissions “unavoidable” or just a cost of doing business.

Controlling these emissions is well within the capacity of modern pipeline operators—if management invests appropriately in infrastructure, training, and compliance systems. Which Arrow Pipeline very clearly did not.

The Role of Intent in Regulatory Violations

Legally, “intent” does not necessarily need to be proven for the EPA to cite a company for violations of the Clean Air Act. The Act’s strict liability provisions hold operators responsible for ensuring their air emissions do not exceed permitted limits, whether or not they intended to break the law. Yet from the vantage point of corporate accountability and corporate social responsibility, the question of intent or willful disregard is paramount. It speaks to whether the alleged violations are honest mistakes or reflect a broader corporate culture that places profit or convenience above regulatory compliance.

The EPA references data going back many months—even up to a year or more for certain repeated violations—and indicates that these oversights could hardly be considered a single mistake. This cyclical pattern suggests that insufficient resources or attention were being devoted to compliance. Did the company’s management weigh the costs of the potential fines against the profits from continuous operation?

While the Consent Agreement does not provide a “smoking gun” memo or direct admissions from executives, the allegations in the complaint strongly suggest that internal policies or oversight structures allowed systematic noncompliance—compliance that was possible had the will and financial investment been there.

Corporate ethics under neoliberal capitalism often boil down to a baseline question: “Will compliance hamper profits?” If the answer is yes, there may be a pressure to deflect or delay compliance solutions. Within that framework, Arrow Pipeline’s behavior might be viewed as consistent with the well-documented approach of externalizing costs onto communities and the environment until regulators clamp down. This section underscores that the alleged wrongdoing wasn’t merely about a minor slip in recordkeeping; it was about repeated, systematically consistent behavior that endangered public health by allowing more pollution than permitted under federal law.

---

3. The Corporate Playbook / How They Got Away with It

A. Systemic Noncompliance Through “Innocuous” Omissions

When investigating corporate misconduct, one quickly finds that the easiest way to “get away with it” is to normalize it. The Arrow fiasco included many small procedural omissions that add up to a significant regulatory failure.

For example, the EPA mentions that Arrow Pipeline “failed to monitor or maintain records for engine pressure drop across each catalyst bed” for certain compressor units. On paper, that might look like a minor administrative oversight; in reality, failing to conduct or record these measurements systematically can obscure evidence that the company is routinely exceeding emission thresholds.

Similarly, not taking corrective actions when pressure-drop readings stray more than 2 inches of water from the baseline effectively allows the engines to operate with compromised emissions controls. These small, day-to-day decisions accumulate to form a pattern of noncompliance. In the simplest sense, the easiest path to evading detection is to ensure that the data required to confirm violations is never properly generated or archived. Without data, it’s challenging for regulators to prove wrongdoing, especially in the short term.

B. Complex Permitting: An Ally for Companies or Communities?

Under neoliberal capitalism, a hallmark phenomenon is the proliferation of complex regulations, which on the surface appear to control corporate behavior but can, in practice, be manipulated by well-resourced companies. The Clean Air Act’s Title V and Synthetic Minor New Source Review (NSR) Permits are not short documents; each includes reams of specific obligations. For instance, in the case of Arrow Pipeline’s Title V Permit, sections concerning the pressure drop, routing of volatile organic compounds, and flare emission standards are described in detail. These requirements might read like fail-safes, but without robust oversight and genuine corporate buy-in, they can end up as yet another stack of paperwork overshadowed by day-to-day production priorities.

Historically, many corporations in the fossil fuel and petrochemical industries have found ways to exploit these dense regulations by focusing on minimal surface compliance. They can rely on an assumption that agencies lack the manpower to consistently inspect. Or they might produce incomplete data sets, bank on the fact that most regulatory agencies do not have a staff that can thoroughly comb through every detail. The EPA strongly suggests Arrow Pipeline was not providing the full measure of required pressure-drop data, and in some cases, was found by inspectors to be in direct violation during unannounced visits. This indicates an alleged reliance on “compliance by default”—meaning if no one checks, the company continues to operate as it sees fit.

C. Safety Measures vs. Downtime: Cost-Benefit Arithmetic

One of the most revealing aspects is how corporate strategy can revolve around cost-benefit calculations. Every time an engine shows a pressure drop reading out of compliance, the permit demands immediate corrective action, which could mean shutting down the engine temporarily or investing in immediate repairs. Shutting down an engine in a compressor station means reduced throughput, which translates to lost revenue for the duration. If management is laser-focused on maximizing shareholder profit, there may be an institutional push to keep that engine running until an outside force (like a regulator or a catastrophic malfunction) compels change.

In a typical corporate playbook, the risk of regulatory fines is weighed against the potential profits. If fines are small relative to the money gained by operating in noncompliance, the purely economic logic might favor continuing to pollute. The structure of neoliberal capitalism arguably fosters this approach: because environmental externalities and public health costs do not appear on the company’s financial statements, there is an inherent incentive to push boundaries. The EPA’s allegations—that numerous engines across multiple stations were frequently out of range but remained operational for months—hint strongly at a scenario where corporate leadership or local management took that gamble.

D. Limited Enforcement Windows

Another general pattern in the industry is to exploit the difficulty regulators have in proving ongoing violations. Although the Title V permit demands continuous compliance, in practice, regulators rely on site inspections and mandatory reporting. By the time an inspection occurs, a company might have partially corrected the most glaring issues, or it might claim it is “in the process” of remedying them. This cat-and-mouse dynamic can be exacerbated by a corporate legal strategy that seeks to challenge or minimize the significance of findings. The repeated nature of Arrow Pipeline’s violations suggests that management may have believed they could address matters sporadically without investing in systematic compliance. Indeed, the consent agreement references the same patterns at multiple stations, underscoring the notion that Arrow Pipeline’s approach was not limited to an isolated incident but was spread across its operational footprint.

In short, “how they got away with it” ties back to typical tactics—under-reporting, inadequate self-monitoring, and a cost-benefit approach that often concludes paying the occasional fine is cheaper than robust compliance. While the Consent Agreement does not explicitly state that Arrow Pipeline engaged in all these tactics consciously, the pattern of alleged noncompliance across multiple locations lines up with these well-known corporate strategies.

---

4. Crime Pays / The Corporate Profit Equation

A. The Economic Incentives at Play

When dissecting the repeated violations that Arrow Pipeline engaged in, it’s important to examine the economic backdrop. Arrow’s operations—compressor stations, gathering lines, and processing facilities—are designed to move large volumes of natural gas and associated liquids. Every hour a compressor is offline equates to lost revenue and potential contractual penalties. Therefore, from a purely financial perspective, any unplanned downtime can be extremely costly. By failing to take an out-of-compliance engine offline, Arrow Pipeline could theoretically keep pushing product and racking up revenue, even as emissions soared above permit limits.

Similarly, installing or maintaining robust emissions control equipment on tanks—ensuring closed-vent systems remain sealed and operational—costs money. Each pressure relief valve, thief hatch, or gasket must be carefully installed and periodically replaced to prevent leaks. Ongoing compliance programs also demand training staff to perform frequent visual or infrared (FLIR) inspections, detect leaks, and fix them promptly. All these steps eat into profit margins. In a fiercely competitive energy sector guided by neoliberal capitalism’s “race to the bottom” cost structures, the incentive to minimize overhead is enormous.

B. Fines vs. Gains

The $450,000 civil penalty that Arrow Pipeline agreed to pay under the Consent Agreement might sound substantial in isolation. However, it must be weighed against the potential years of extra revenue the company may have accumulated while operating out of compliance. If the monetary benefits from avoiding repeated shutdowns, maintenance costs, and staff hours exceeded $450,000, the net result is a profit. This is the very definition of how “crime pays” under an economic system that inadvertently rewards short-term profit over long-term responsibility.

Past corporate scandals (again, as general context, not in the complaint) show that large organizations sometimes treat environmental penalties like routine business expenses, folded into budgets. This phenomenon is especially troubling in industries with high revenue streams. For Arrow, or any similar pipeline operator, the question is whether the impetus to remain in compliance can truly compete with the impetus to keep production lines operating. Without significantly higher fines, the risk of being caught might be perceived simply as a cost of doing business.

C. Passing the Costs to Communities

The real “externalized” costs—such as the public health impacts and potential corporate pollution—are borne by local communities, in this case the Fort Berthold Indian Reservation. If the allegations are correct and Arrow Pipeline indeed allowed higher VOC emissions, local residents and workers may have suffered from degraded air quality. Possible side effects include respiratory issues, aggravation of asthma, and other health complications that often come with elevated levels of fugitive hydrocarbons. In economic terms, these negative externalities are not reflected in the price of Arrow Pipeline’s services. The cost is effectively shifted onto the community.

This is precisely how corporate corruption and corporate greed embed themselves into everyday life. Communities near these facilities may see the direct dangers to public health that come from living close to unmitigated emissions. Meanwhile, the wealth disparity between corporate owners, who profit from continuing operations, and the average residents, who lack the resources to litigate or relocate, deepens. The system is rigged toward maximizing shareholder value rather than ensuring that the public interest or the environment is adequately safeguarded.

D. The Broader Neoliberal Capitalism Framework

Under a neoliberal framework, the repeated calls for deregulation enable corporate players to minimize costs. Regulatory bodies like the EPA are perpetually underfunded or face political attacks, making thorough oversight challenging. The cost-benefit calculus for many industries shifts even further in favor of risking violations. Even though this case ended in a penalty, if the penalty is dwarfed by the financial upsides of continuing business as usual, one can see how the system effectively incentivizes these “violations as strategy.”

The fact that the official complaint cites multiple stations for the same or very similar alleged violations underscores the idea that these are not “rogue” events. Instead, they might be standard operating procedure, indicating that “crime pays” is not merely a rhetorical flourish; it is a real phenomenon in industries where profit is paramount and enforcement is sporadic.

---

5. System Failure / Why Regulators Did Nothing

A. Resource Limitations for the EPA

It is important to note that the official complaint does not claim the EPA was aware of these violations and chose to ignore them. On the contrary, it took an inspection to document them, after which the agency initiated the enforcement action culminating in the Consent Agreement. Still, from a bigger perspective, local communities might reasonably ask: “Why did it take so long for regulators to catch these ongoing lapses?”

Historically, the EPA has been tasked with overseeing thousands of facilities, each with complex operations. Even with well-intentioned staff, the agency’s capacity for unannounced inspections is limited. The resource constraints multiply in vast areas like the Fort Berthold Indian Reservation, where industrial activity can be spread across wide geographies. Even the best rulebooks will fail if there is no consistent on-the-ground enforcement to back them up. This structural weakness is part of a broader pattern often associated with neoliberal capitalism, wherein public agencies are systematically downsized or underfunded, leaving them struggling to monitor corporate behavior effectively.

B. Delay Between Violations and Action

The complaint references alleged violations occurring in 2022 and early 2023—pressure drop record gaps, incomplete performance tests, etc. The Notice of Violation (NOV) was not formally issued until June 6, 2024, indicating a time lag between the actual alleged wrongdoing and the moment the government steps in. During such gaps, a facility can continue profitable operations. Even though the complaint specifically notes that the U.S. Department of Justice and the EPA both determined that administrative penalty assessment was suitable, the legal system inevitably operates at a measured pace. By the time the hammer comes down, a company may have already harvested the benefits of noncompliance.

C. Regulatory Capture and Industry Influence

Large corporations often exercise significant influence over the legislative and regulatory processes, a phenomenon described as “regulatory capture.” While there is no direct claim in the complaint that Arrow Pipeline lobbied regulators to look the other way, industry-wide patterns show that oil and gas companies wield powerful clout. Through industry associations, political contributions, and negotiations with state and federal policymakers, companies can shape the rules to be more lenient or push for delayed or less severe enforcement.

This structural dynamic fosters a climate where agencies may be reluctant—or simply too underfunded—to press vigorously for compliance until a situation becomes untenable. The EPA’s allegations against Arrow , therefore, fit neatly into an already established pattern of delayed enforcement that arises from institutional inertia and the political power of the fossil fuel industry. This is the tragic synergy of corporate corruption and neoliberal capitalism: a system in which the public expects robust enforcement but ends up with checks that are either too little or too late.

D. The Challenges of Policing Corporate Goliaths

Another aspect is that even when regulators do act, big companies often have more resources for legal battles than government agencies. Although Arrow is smaller than some multinational oil giants, it is still a subsidiary or affiliate of significant energy groups (the complaint does not specify the corporate structure, but it references prior ownership changes). High-powered legal teams can bury regulators in motions, appeals, and demands for technical clarifications. That can stall enforcement. Meanwhile, the emissions continue. This systemic friction further explains why repeated violations might go unnoticed or unaddressed for extended periods.

Thus, “Why regulators did nothing” is not always a question of negligence; it is just as often a question of capacity, competing priorities, and the broader economic environment. Given that even the best-intentioned regulators can be stymied, local communities can end up feeling abandoned and forced to endure the economic fallout of corporate misconduct that seems unstoppable until it’s too late.

---

6. This Pattern of Predation Is a Feature, Not a Bug

A. Repeated Environmental Violations in the Energy Sector

I frequently argue that the pattern of recurrent environmental violations is not an unexpected glitch but a core feature of how certain profit-driven systems operate. Arrow’s disregard for mandatory CAA obligations is reminiscent of other well-known controversies in the fossil fuel sector (as general context, companies from Exxon to BP have faced various enforcement actions over the years). The logic is always the same: as long as short-term gains from noncompliance exceed the long-term costs of potential penalties, the rational corporate actor will test the boundaries.

B. The Political Economy of Extractive Industries

Under neoliberal capitalism, sectors like oil and gas extraction and pipeline operations benefit immensely from deregulation and minimal oversight. Policymakers often champion the expansion of domestic energy infrastructure, focusing on job creation or energy independence—frequently with inadequate emphasis on stringent environmental oversight. Within that climate, stories like Arrow Pipeline’s wrongdoing become almost predictable. The piece of “public interest” legislation, the Clean Air Act, is thus caught in a crossfire: on the one hand, it is mandated to protect communities from corporate pollution and corporations’ dangers to public health; on the other hand, it must operate within a political ecosystem that consistently tries to limit or undermine its enforcement powers.

C. Normalizing Noncompliance and the Culture of Minimizing Risk

A major danger is that once such alleged violations become normalized within a corporate culture, the workforce may come to see them as standard operating procedure. For compressor station operators on the ground, “the boss says keep it running” can overshadow any inclination to shut down an engine for compliance reasons. Once employees see that managers are unconcerned about apparently out-of-range catalysts or smoky flares, it fosters a sense that compliance is optional. That normalization can degrade worker morale, as those who do care about corporate ethics face pressure to stay quiet or fear retaliation for speaking out.

Moreover, when the larger political and economic context punishes labor slowdowns more harshly than it punishes environmental harm, the pattern will persist. The facts in Arrow Pipeline’s complaint highlight how easy it can be for a midsize or large operator to systematically circumvent or neglect compliance, especially if employees believe the corporate brass is only concerned with maximizing throughput.

D. Wealth Disparity and the Burden on Marginalized Communities

It’s important not to overlook how the distribution of these negative externalities often disproportionately affects marginalized communities, in this case tribal lands on the Fort Berthold Indian Reservation. For communities facing other socioeconomic challenges and lacking resources, the fight against corporate pollution often feels stacked against them. Where do they secure expensive lawyers or commission their own environmental studies to challenge well-funded corporations?

So if we look at the bigger picture: This is not a “bug” in the system but a “feature” of the profit-driven approach, which externalizes costs onto the vulnerable. As wealth disparity grows, accountability becomes more elusive. This is exactly what critics of neoliberal capitalism warn about: a race to exploit cheap resources and minimal oversight, all under the banner of “efficiency.” Meanwhile, local communities pay the price in compromised air quality and potential health issues.

---

7. The PR Playbook of Damage Control

A. Typical Corporate Strategies

Historically, corporations in similar lawsuits have used several well-trodden methods of public relations damage control. Though the Consent Agreement does not quote Arrow Pipeline executives or PR specialists, the industry’s standard approach often includes:

1. Minimal Acknowledgment of Wrongdoing: If forced to comment, companies typically issue a statement emphasizing their commitment to safety and corporate social responsibility, while neither confirming nor denying the allegations.
2. Highlighting “Technical Complexity”: They may claim that compliance standards are highly technical and that any lapses are due to confusion about rules or administrative oversights.
3. Blaming “Prior Ownership”: Notably, the complaint references that, at the time of the violations, “Respondent was under prior organizational ownership.” This sets up a scapegoat scenario where the current leadership can distance itself from the wrongdoing.

B. The “Few Bad Apples” Defense

Another staple of corporate PR is to point to “isolated incidents” or “human error.” The repeated nature of the violations across multiple stations, however, undercuts that narrative. The consent decree reveals that the same patterns—failing to measure, failing to keep records, failing to route VOC emissions—happened at Station 1, Station 2, Station 3, Station 4, Station 5, and Station 7. Nonetheless, companies often rely on the idea that a few local staff made mistakes, thus minimizing the notion of a systemic problem.

C. Appealing to the Public Good of Energy Production

“America needs energy,” or “We help keep the lights on”—these statements are commonly invoked in the PR sphere to suggest that certain environmental trade-offs are inevitable. The inherent message is that, in the national interest of energy independence and economic growth, the public must tolerate some level of corporate pollution or “operational mishaps.” However, that narrative conveniently obscures the fact that federal law (the Clean Air Act) does not require trade-offs that put communities at risk when compliance technology and procedures are readily available.

D. Token Environmental Projects

In the aftermath of enforcement actions, companies sometimes launch small “green initiatives” or donate to local community causes to mitigate reputational damage. While philanthropic gestures can benefit the community, they often pale in comparison to the scale of the harm allegedly caused or the revenues reaped. If the EPA’s allegations are fully accurate, then the negative health and environmental impacts from months of excessive air pollution could be far more significant than any goodwill project can cover. Still, in the realm of corporate PR, such philanthropic gestures are frequently used to mollify public opinion without addressing root causes—particularly the fundamental profit motives driving repeated noncompliance.

---

8. Corporate Power vs. Public Interest

A. The Tensions and the Stakes

The Consent Agreement that Arrow Pipeline, LLC ultimately signed, which includes a $450,000 penalty and an admission of the facts (though not an admission of wrongdoing), serves as a microcosm of the ongoing struggle to enforce corporate accountability. This outcome highlights a fundamental question: Are such penalties adequate deterrents within a framework of neoliberal capitalism where profit maximization often overrides corporate ethics?

From the vantage point of local communities on the Fort Berthold Indian Reservation, the ephemeral nature of permit compliance directly intersects with day-to-day realities—such as family members with asthma, or the intangible unease that comes from living near ongoing fugitive emissions. Over time, small repeated releases of VOCs, NOx, and other pollutants can degrade regional air quality. Meanwhile, the pipeline energy industry, often championed for “economic development,” might be delivering disproportionate harm.

B. Is Genuine Reform Possible?

Corporate social responsibility initiatives often promise that companies will police themselves and adopt best practices. Yet as shown by the alleged lapses at Arrow Pipeline, self-regulation can fail spectacularly when short-term financial incentives conflict with robust emissions controls.

While the Consent Agreement requires compliance, sets a financial penalty, and presumably compels Arrow Pipeline to upgrade or fix their equipment monitoring processes, critics ask: “What about tomorrow?” If the underlying market incentives remain skewed—if externalities continue to be offloaded to the environment—then the structural impetus for wrongdoing remains.

True reform, in the eyes of many environmental justice advocates, would require amplifying the cost of noncompliance to outweigh the cost of compliance. That might include higher fines, more frequent inspections, or stricter laws that tie compliance to an operator’s ability to do business at all. Even so, the political challenges to strengthening regulations are substantial. Industry lobbying, anti-regulatory rhetoric, and resource limitations for agencies like the EPA all conspire to make lasting change elusive.

C. The Consumers’ Role and Public Awareness

In the broader scheme, consumers also play a role. The natural gas that Arrow Pipeline helps transport supports everything from home heating to electricity generation. If the general public demanded more stringent corporate accountability from all energy producers—or if local communities more effectively mobilized consumer advocacy—companies would face increased pressure to meet higher standards. This sort of shift requires not just top-down regulation but also bottom-up activism and consumer pressure.

The user’s interest in wealth disparity, corporate corruption, and corporations’ dangers to public health resonates here: the cost of corporate misdeeds can reverberate for years, burdening the least powerful stakeholders. The question remains whether the public has the resources and willpower to push back against powerful energy interests operating under a profit-driven model.

D. Beyond Compliance: The Future of Corporate Accountability

The Arrow Pipeline case is part of a persistent tapestry of alleged corporate misconduct that underscores the vulnerabilities of an economic system that privileges profit above all else. If Arrow Pipeline corrects its practices, invests in updated technology, and truly commits to corporate social responsibility, that would be a positive outcome. But deeper structural issues remain:

1. Regulatory agencies must be adequately funded and empowered to conduct routine, surprise inspections and enforce meaningful penalties.
2. Legislators need to address the imbalance that allows regulatory capture to flourish, ensuring that public health and environmental safeguards are not undermined by corporate lobbying.
3. Communities require better access to legal and scientific resources to hold corporations accountable when they suspect wrongdoing.
4. Companies themselves must internalize the belief that compliance is not an optional line item, but an ethical and operational imperative.

The structural realities of neoliberal capitalism often create an environment where corporations can and do weigh the human health costs of noncompliance against profitability. If the Arrow case teaches us anything, it’s that the fight for corporate accountability extends far beyond a single settlement. It calls into question the entire economic system that makes such incidents predictable rather than surprising.

---

Final Reflections

The narrative of Arrow Pipeline, LLC—facing an EPA enforcement action for violations of the Clean Air Act—is, in many respects, typical of how environmental regulation confronts corporate greed, corporate pollution, and profit-driven negligence. The official complaint and consent decree details an array of allegedly faulty operations: incomplete or nonexistent emissions-control monitoring, recordkeeping lapses, and direct releases of volatile organic compounds into the air. Yet the implications ripple out beyond the immediate fines, pointing to the deeper moral hazard built into a system that allows short-term profits to supersede robust corporate social responsibility.

Local communities, particularly those on the Fort Berthold Indian Reservation, remain the frontline victims of any corporate corruption that elevates share prices at the expense of public health. Economic fallout can include elevated healthcare costs and environmental degradation that hamper traditional ways of life. When regulators and the public ask why these violations are so pervasive, the answer lies in the neoliberal capitalism framework itself, with its emphasis on deregulation, minimal oversight, and profit maximization.

Yes, the Consent Agreement imposes a penalty and prescribes corrective measures. But the broader question is whether this settlement genuinely changes the calculus for Arrow and similarly situated corporations. Will they conclude that noncompliance is too risky, or continue to weigh potential fines against the spoils of continued production?

The continuing struggle to balance corporate accountability with an economic system that prizes wealth accumulation highlights the urgent need for systemic reforms. Real accountability demands more robust enforcement mechanisms, more stringent penalties, and a proactive stance that disincentivizes corner-cutting before it occurs—rather than punishing it after the fact. Until that happens, local communities will continue to shoulder disproportionate burdens, and the cycle of alleged violations will remain, in many ways, a “feature, not a bug,” in the world of corporate power.

sauces:

https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2018-01/documents/final_permit_arrow_pipeline_station_7_smnsr-tat-000661-2017.003.pdf

https://www.epa.gov/newsreleases/epa-resolves-arrow-pipeline-air-pollution-violations-north-dakota

Arrow is owned by Crestwood Equity Partners LP