The most conventional method for dealing with "frost heaving" that one would encounter in ground that freezes and thaws annually is to build footings as deep as necessary to avoid this process. Cold climate construction almost always involves building on footings or piles that are below the frost line, the point of deth where annual soil freeze/thaw does not occur. It is possible this elaborate method is used to stabilise some pipeline footings but I'd bet that the great majority of pipeline footings are simply piles with footings set deep enough to be on bedrock or permafrost. I'd guess that costs for footings don't approach those for pipe and welding labour - especially these days. (anyone know better?) The latter presents major problems for pipeline stability if annual soil thaw begins to move deeper and deeper. These piles will need to be rebuilt even deeper (on bedrock or deeper frost). I can't imagine how expensive this could be. Then again, what is the cost of not being able to deliver fuel?

one way heat pipes? finned heat sinks? some sort of captured ammonia system? we're talking half a million/ footing here easy.

Actually, you're talking about a welded steel tube through the concrete pier (could be used as part of the reinforcing steel) which terminates in some sheet-metal fins, which might be steel or might be aluminum.  The tube has maybe a pound or two of anhydrous ammmonia in it (costs about 25¢/lb even at today's ridiculous prices), or you could use propane.  The "one way" effect is achieved by simple physics:  liquid pools at the bottom, while vapor condensing at the top runs down the sides (to make it run both ways you need a wick to get capillary action).  The finned heat sink at the top could be more steel (but requires rustproofing) or an aluminum extrusion (much less money in fabrication but pricier material).

You're talking more like a hundred bucks a footing, or a small multiple thereof.