Dakota Access Pipeline: Authorities, Protesters brace for showdown. They may lose this round but hopefully they will fight on.
They are fighting for the rest of us. Maybe we can at least send some moral support.
What is the Dakota
Access Pipeline?
It's a $3.7 billion project that would cross
four states and change the landscape of the US crude oil supply. Depending on
who you ask, the results could be an economic boon that makes the country more
self-sufficient or an environmental disaster that destroys sacred Native
American sites.
The 1,172-mile pipeline, currently under
construction, would stretch from the oil-rich Bakken Formation -- a vast
underground deposit where Montana and North Dakota meet Canada -- southeast
into South Dakota, Iowa and Illinois.
The oil potential in Bakken is massive. An
estimated 7.4 billion barrels of undiscovered
oil is believed to be in its US portion, according to the US
Geological Survey.
After the pipeline is completed, it would
shuttle 470,000 barrels of crude oil a day, developer Energy Access Partners
said. That's enough to make 374.3 million
gallons of gasoline per day.
From Illinois, the oil could go to markets and
refineries across the Midwest, East Coast and Gulf Coast.
Who approved it?
The US Army Corps of Engineers approved the
project and granted final permits in July.
By the numbers
1,172 miles: Length of
Dakota Access Pipeline
30 inches: Width of
the pipeline
470,000: Barrels of
crude oil to be moved daily
374.3 million:
Equivalent gallons of gasoline per day
Sources: Energy Access Partners, US Energy
Information Administration
But the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe sued the Corps, saying
the pipeline "threatens the Tribe's environmental and economic well-being,
and would damage and destroy sites of great historic, religious, and cultural
significance to the Tribe."
The Army Corps of Engineers has declined to
comment to CNN, citing pending litigation.
But an advocacy group says the tribe's claims
are misleading, saying the pipeline "does not cross into the Standing Rock
Sioux Tribe's reservation."
The Midwest Alliance for Infrastructure
Now also said 100% of the affected landowners in
North Dakota, where part of the tribe lives, voluntarily signed
easements to allow for construction.
What's the argument
for and against?
83 protestors were arrested Saturday, the
Morton County Sheriff's Department said.
Pro: The pipeline wouldn't just be an economic boon, it would also
significantly decrease U.S. reliance on foreign oil, the developer Energy
Transfer Partners said. The pipeline would also help free up railways to
transport "crops and other commodities currently constrained by crude oil
cargos."
Con: Construction for the pipeline will "destroy our
burial sites, prayer sites and culturally significant artifacts," the
Standing Rock Sioux tribe said. Opponents also cite environmental concerns,
including possible contamination due to
breaches and eventual greenhouse gas emissions.
What's the
environmental impact?
Depends on who you ask.
The developer says the pipeline would provide
a safer, more environmentally friendly way of moving crude oil compared to
other modes of transportation, such as rail or trucks.
Pipeline supporters cite the 2013 disaster in
Quebec, Canada, where a train carrying crude oil derailed and destroyed downtown Lac-Megnatic.
2013: Crude oil train derails in Canada, decimates town 01:49
But Standing Rock Sioux Chairman David
Archambault II said he doesn't support moving more crude oil from North Dakota.
He told CNN affiliate KFYR that
Americans should look for alternative and renewable sources of energy.
More than 271,000 online petitioners agree.
"The Dakota Access pipeline would fuel
climate change, cause untold damage to the environment, and significantly
disturb sacred lands and the way of life for Native Americans in the upper
Midwest," a petition on CredoAction.com states.
America's aging pipelines 03:08
Opponents also say they're worried what would
happen if the pipeline, which would go under the Missouri River, ruptured and
contaminated the water supply.
But the Midwest Alliance for Infrastructure
Now backed the developer's claim that pipelines are a safe way of moving crude
oil.
"Already, 8 pipelines cross the Missouri
River carrying hundreds of thousands of barrels of energy products every
day," the group said in a statement.
What's the economic
impact?
Energy Transfer Partners estimates the
pipeline would bring an estimated $156 million in sales and income taxes to
state and local governments. It'll also add 8,000 to 12,000 construction jobs,
the developer said.
The US Energy Information Administration shows
the network of existing crude oil pipelines across the country.
But Archambault said his tribe will settle for
nothing less than the stop of the pipeline's construction.
"We're not opposed to energy
independence. We're not opposed to economic development," he told CNN.
"The problem we have -- and this is a long history of problems that
evolved over time -- is where the federal government or corporations take
advantage of indigenous lands and indigenous rights."
Native Americans march to a burial ground site
they say was disturbed by bulldozers building the Dakota Access Pipeline.
What do the landowners
get?
Energy Transfer Partners said it has tried to
steer the pipeline away from residential areas and has tried to reach voluntary
deals with property owners "at a fair price."
But Archambault, the tribal chairman, said he
thinks the Native Americans are getting short-changed once again.
"What we're opposed to is paying for all
the benefits that this country receives," he said. Whenever there's a
benefit, whether it's energy independence ... whether it's economic
development, tribes pay the cost. And what we see now are tribes from all over
sharing the same concern that we have, saying, 'It's enough now. Stop doing
this to indigenous people. Stop doing this to our indigenous lands.'"
CNN's Marlena
Baldacci, Madison Park and Alberto Moya contributed to this report.
No comments:
Post a Comment