Dakota access Pipeline,
In Apr. 2016 members of the Standing Rock sioux city created the Sacred Stone Camp near where the pipeline was slated to cross under the protest impending construction of the DAPL because of concerns about environmental impact, possible water contamination, and destruction of sacred burial grounds. Since then conflicts between demonstrators and law enforcement resulted in injuries and hundreds of arrests.
Native American tribal leaders and activists wanted president to halt the DAPL, while North Dakota’s governor and two of its congressmen called on the president to approve the pipeline and end protests. President Obama indicated before the Nov. 8, 2016 election that alternate routes might be considered and said he would let the situation “play out for several more weeks.
In July 2016 the U.S granted the final permits for pipeline construction to Dakota Access, the subsidiary of Energy Transfer Partners building the pipeline. In response the Standing Rock Sioux filed a lawsuit in federal district court alleging multiple violations of federal law during the permitting process. However, construction of the pipeline began as scheduled, so the tribe filed a request for a preliminary injunction to halt construction until their court case was decided. On Aug. 10, 2016, to prevent continued construction.
Should the Dakota access pipline be completed, Building the pipeline is expected to create 8,000 to 12,000 new jobs and pump money into industries that manufacture steel pipes and other related materials. A Georgetown professor estimated that construction will add $129 million in annual tax revenue into local and state economies during construction. Once the pipeline is operational, North Dakota, South Dakota, Iowa, and Illinois may earn $50 million annually in property taxes and $74 million in sales taxes.
The increased revenue would improve schools, roads, and emergency services in those areas. Moving oil by pipeline instead of railroad will ease transportation shortages for other major regional industries including agriculture.The Dakota Access Pipeline was originally slated to cross under the Missouri river north of Bismarck, the state’s capital. However, DAPL was re-routed south of the city, half-mile upstream from the Standing Rock Sioux Reservation, due to concerns that a pipeline break could poison the city’s water source. A pipeline spill would imperil the drinking water of not just the Standing Rock Tribe, but also millions of people downstream. The construction of the pipeline was fast-tracked using a process called Nationwide Permit No. 12, exempting it from environmental reviews required by the Clean Water Act, adding further concerns about the safety of the pipeline.
A review of US Department of Transportation statistics proved that “pipelines result in fewer spillage incidents and personal injuries than road and rail,” according to the Manhattan Institute. Transferring oil by pipeline is less likely to result in spills or accidents, avoiding incidents like the May 2015 derailment of a train carrying crude oil that resulted in a fiery crash and forced the evacuation of a North Dakota town. Kelcy Warren, CEO of the company building the DAPL, told PBS NewsHour, “This pipeline is being built to safety standards that far exceed what the government requires us to do. Pipelines reduce transportation costs by $5 to $10 per barrel of oil, and have a lower carbon footprint than trains or trucks.
Do you think the Dakota access will benifical,Or do you think that they should not do it?
Replies
bump
Bump
Bump
bump
Bump