In a hotly contentious debate over oil vs. environment, the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe and a team of demonstrators have battled proponents of the plan over the course of a few months. Those against the pipeline – which would connect oil-rich areas in the Midwest for transportation to coastal refineries – argue that implementation of such a system would affect life on various Indian reservations. By contaminating an already limited supply of drinking water and placing downstream communities at risk of oil spills, the pipeline would alter the environmental factors that play an integral role in many tribe members’ daily lives. The proposal is expected to cost $3.7 billion, and would cross states such as North Dakota, South Dakota, Iowa, and Illinois. Prominent celebrities like actresses Shailene Woodley and Jane Fonda, actors Leonardo DiCaprio and Mark Ruffalo, and musician Pharrell Williams among others have all voiced their displeasure with the federal government’s decision to permit the project. With both sides having firm roots in either side of the issue, it is important to take a look at the advantages and disadvantages of taking either stance.
“For” the Dakota Access Pipeline
In July of 2016, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers approved the Dakota Access Pipeline and permitted such an action by granting final permits for developers to begin the process of construction. The four states that are included in the Dakota Access Pipeline plan are part of a 1,172 mile stretch called the Bakken formation. According to the United States Geological Survey, Bakken has enormous potential for oil discovery, with an estimated 7.4 billion barrels of untapped oil at stake. If the pipeline were to be finished and its construction completed, it would transport 470,000 barrels of crude oil a day, which would be enough to make 374.3 million gallons of gas every day. This data is in accordance with the plan laid out by the developer of the Dakota Access Pipeline, Energy Access Partners. An according to the Midwest Alliance for Infrastructure Now, 100% of the affected landowners in the state of North Dakota have signed off on the project, excluding those living on the Native American reservations.
“Against” the Dakota Access Pipeline
Opponents of the Dakota Access Pipeline contend that if implemented, the pipeline would infringe on the rights of those living on indigenous lands, and that those residing in affected territories would be taken advantage of by the federal government. Water safety would also be put at risk, with the potential contamination of the Missouri River – a major source of water – on the line if the pipeline were to be established. In addition, the pipeline would possibly damage Native American burial sites, and is said to fuel climate change, according to those in favor of blocking the pipeline. The rights of Native American tribes, (especially those of the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe) would be neglected as a result of the construction, being that the land is considered to be part of both the Fort Berthold Indian Reservation and the Standing Rock Indian Reservation. Hundreds of protesters have taken action on site, with many being arrested by law enforcement in the process.
No matter which side of the issue one may choose to take, the potential impact of the Dakota Access Pipeline will have a jurassic effect on the lives of those living in the Midwest. A balance of environmental concern versus potential for growth in the oil industry will be difficult to reach, and only one side will march from the turmoil victorious.
Articles Analyzed:
“For” the Dakota Access Pipeline
In July of 2016, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers approved the Dakota Access Pipeline and permitted such an action by granting final permits for developers to begin the process of construction. The four states that are included in the Dakota Access Pipeline plan are part of a 1,172 mile stretch called the Bakken formation. According to the United States Geological Survey, Bakken has enormous potential for oil discovery, with an estimated 7.4 billion barrels of untapped oil at stake. If the pipeline were to be finished and its construction completed, it would transport 470,000 barrels of crude oil a day, which would be enough to make 374.3 million gallons of gas every day. This data is in accordance with the plan laid out by the developer of the Dakota Access Pipeline, Energy Access Partners. An according to the Midwest Alliance for Infrastructure Now, 100% of the affected landowners in the state of North Dakota have signed off on the project, excluding those living on the Native American reservations.
“Against” the Dakota Access Pipeline
Opponents of the Dakota Access Pipeline contend that if implemented, the pipeline would infringe on the rights of those living on indigenous lands, and that those residing in affected territories would be taken advantage of by the federal government. Water safety would also be put at risk, with the potential contamination of the Missouri River – a major source of water – on the line if the pipeline were to be established. In addition, the pipeline would possibly damage Native American burial sites, and is said to fuel climate change, according to those in favor of blocking the pipeline. The rights of Native American tribes, (especially those of the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe) would be neglected as a result of the construction, being that the land is considered to be part of both the Fort Berthold Indian Reservation and the Standing Rock Indian Reservation. Hundreds of protesters have taken action on site, with many being arrested by law enforcement in the process.
No matter which side of the issue one may choose to take, the potential impact of the Dakota Access Pipeline will have a jurassic effect on the lives of those living in the Midwest. A balance of environmental concern versus potential for growth in the oil industry will be difficult to reach, and only one side will march from the turmoil victorious.
Articles Analyzed:
Written By: Robby Ackles