What Should Happen to the Dakota Access Pipeline?

Parallax News presents big debates broken down into multiple perspectives.

Thousands of protesters in North Dakota, many of them from Native American tribes, are facing off against a Texas oil company, Energy Transfer Partners, as well as police in military and riot gear. The aim of the protests, which began in recent months and have at times become violent, is to stop construction of the Dakota Access Pipeline (DAPL). The 1,172-mile pipeline, nearing completion, is slated to carry almost 500,000 gallons of shale oil from North Dakota’s Bakken Formation to the Midwest on a daily basis. The #NoDAPL movement says the pipeline will threaten local water and compromise sacred Native American sites.

I. Barack Obama

President Obama believes DAPL should be completed in a manner that “is properly attentive to the traditions of the First Americans.” Especially concerning to these Americans is the section planned to go under Lake Oahe. The man-made lake, along the Missouri River, is the fourth-largest reservoir in the U.S. and a water source for multiple reservations. In September, President Obama requested a voluntary construction halt around Lake Oahe, and last week he suggested re-routing the pipeline to avoid it entirely. Whether or not this is possible, he says, will have to be determined by the Army Corps of Engineers over the next several weeks. In the meantime, Obama says those active in demonstrations should refrain from violence. “There is an obligation for protesters to be peaceful,” Obama said, “and there is an obligation for authorities to show restraint.”

II. Energy Transfer Partners

Kelcy Warren, the CEO of Energy Transfer Partners, says fears are unfounded regarding DAPL and its current construction route. He insists the pipeline, which will add billions of dollars to the U.S. economy, lower America’s petroleum costs, and create thousands of jobs, is built with state-of-the-art technology. Warren argues that this makes it the most environmentally safe means of transporting Bakken oil. The CEO notes that his company also designed the pipeline route to avoid Native sites and previously received approval from numerous authorities, including all four host states and the Army Corps of Engineers. Most recently, a federal judge ruled that opponents failed to show evidence that the pipeline would harm Native American interests. In fact, Warren points out, there are already gas pipelines that run the length of the route, including through the most controversial sections.

III. Bill McKibben

Bill McKibben, one of America’s foremost environmentalists, argues that the White House hasn’t gone far enough in opposing DAPL. He sees the #NoDAPL movement as part of an essential struggle against environmental racism, in which the disadvantaged are made to face the worst effects of pollution. McKibben notes that the original pipeline route through North Dakota would have affected more pre-dominantly white areas, but it was redirected toward much poorer Native American communities partly due to fears of oil spillage. McKibben also points to recent promises by Obama that all projects with a major carbon footprint would be subject to extensive federal reviews. He says DAPL has remained on a fast-track path, however, despite being the kind of project “that climate science tells us can no longer be tolerated” due to man-made global warming.

***

Further Reading: Fusion / New York Times / Red River Valley News

This brief was written by Jared Metzker.

Parallax News has been able to grow because of our readers. If you have friends who like to see more than one side to a story, tell them to subscribe to the brief.