The $3.8 billion pipeline which runs 1,172-mile underground crosses beneath the Missouri River, just north of the Standing Rock Sioux Reservation. …
Nov 04, 2016 · “This pipeline was rerouted towards our tribal nations when other citizens of North Dakota rightfully rejected it in the interests of protecting their communities and water. We seek the same consideration as those citizens," Dave Archambault II, chairman of the Standing Rock Sioux tribe, said in a statement on Sunday.
Feb 19, 2020 · The $3.8 billion, 1,172-mile (1,886 kilometer) underground pipeline was subject to prolonged protests and hundreds of arrests during its construction in North Dakota in late 2016 and early 2017 because it crosses beneath the Missouri River, just north of the Standing Rock Sioux Reservation.
Feb 22, 2022 · WASHINGTON (Reuters) -The U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday rejected a bid led by Dakota Access oil pipeline operator Energy Transfer LP to avoid additional environmental review of a section that runs under an artificial lake and is opposed by nearby Native American tribes, leaving the pipeline vulnerable to being shut down. The justices left in place a lower court's …
After a lengthy process that involved hundreds of public meetings and thousands of study documents, the Dakota Access Pipeline was approved by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and in all four states where the pipeline will operate.
Protests of the Dakota Access Pipeline occurred at several places because of concerns about the pipeline's impact on the environment and to sites sacred to Native Americans. Indigenous nations around the country opposed the pipeline, along with the Sioux tribal nations.
This guide aims to provide Native American perspectives on the Dakota Access Pipeline, a 1,200 mile oil pipeline built through the land of the Standing Rock Sioux people and across the Missouri River which provides drinking water and water for agriculture for millions of Americans.
Leaks and the pipeline Less than two years before the project was finally pulled, the Keystone tar sands pipeline was temporarily shut down after a spill in North Dakota of reportedly more than 378,000 gallons in late October 2019.Mar 15, 2022
The Dakota Access pipeline presents a danger to Iowa rivers and drinking water, long-term damage to Iowa farmland, and contributes to the impacts of climate change. Sierra Club recognizes that we need to move away from fossil fuels and transition to renewable energy and energy efficiency.
Pipeline construction was completed by June of 2017. The Standing Rock Sioux Tribe challenged the permits in court and won. The court ruled then that the environmental analysis had been insufficient because it failed to account for consequences facing the Tribe, and ordered the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to redo it.Jul 6, 2020
Between 2017 - 2020, Dakota Access Pipeline has paid more than $113 million in property taxes including: North Dakota: $27+ million. South Dakota: $17.8+ million. Iowa: $68+ million.
The pipeline would travel underneath the Missouri River, the primary drinking water source for the Standing Rock Sioux, a tribe of around 10,000 with a reservation in the central part of North and South Dakota.Oct 28, 2016
The Dakota Access Pipeline is built to be one of the safest, most technologically advanced pipelines in the world. Its safety factors and state-of-the-art construction techniques and redundancies, including construction and engineering technology, meet or exceed all safety and environmental regulations.
“The Keystone XL Pipeline Project was terminated in June 2021,” TC Energy said in an email. The existing Keystone pipeline system, which was built before the XL expansion was proposed, “will continue to provide unique, stable and safe source of energy to meet increasing U.S. energy demands.”Mar 7, 2022
TC Energy confirms termination of Keystone XL Pipeline Project. On June 9, 2021, TC Energy confirmed that after a comprehensive review of its options, and in consultation with its partner, the Government of Alberta, it has terminated the Keystone XL Pipeline Project (the Project).
Keystone XL and Wildlife No matter how you look at it, Keystone XL would be bad for wildlife, especially endangered species. Many imperiled species live along the proposed pipeline's path and in areas where tar-sands oil is produced. If the pipeline were built, it would decimate habitat these species rely on.
Prominent activist Rev. Jesse Jackson, who joined protesters in North Dakota last week, called the reroute "the ripest case of environmental racism I've seen in a long time.". Protesters of the Dakota Access pipeline encampment sit on private property near Cannon Ball, North Dakota, owned by the pipeline developer, ...
The North Dakota Public Service Commission (PSC) refuted allegations of environmental racism, saying that the Bismarck route proposal was never submitted to the agency because permits for it were denied by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers during its environmental assessment.
But it also prompted some to point out that the current path of the pipeline is actually a reroute itself, with critics calling this reroute an act of "environmental racism.". A previously proposed route for the 1,172-mile pipeline had it crossing the Missouri River north of Bismarck, North Dakota, according to a document filed as part ...
It had been eliminated by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers during their environmental assessment, " North Dakota Public Service Commission Chair Julie Fedorchak said in statement on Oct. 27. "The final permitted route follows an existing pipeline corridor that has been previously disturbed,” added Fedorchak, who also serves as ...
However, President Obama's comments on a possible reroute come at a time when the pipeline is nearing completion, meaning there may be major hurdles to rerouting it now, according to some experts. "For Dakota Access, time is money," Tyler Priest, a professor at the University of Iowa who served as a senior policy analyst for ...
From the time it was proposed in 2008, through more than 10 years of dogged citizen protest and various conflicting legislative and executive orders by the federal government, the path for this controversial oil pipeline has never been smooth.
When the Obama administration refused to grant the cross-border permit necessary to build TC Energy’s Keystone XL oil pipeline in November 2015, it struck a blow against polluting powers and acknowledged the consensus on this misguided project from a wide swath of people and organizations. “America is now a global leader when it comes to taking serious action to fight climate change,” President Obama said. “And, frankly, approving this project would have undercut that global leadership.” The Obama-era decision echoed a seven-year State Department review process with EPA input that concluded the pipeline would fail to serve national interests.
To be precise, it would transport 830,000 barrels of Alber ta tar sands oil per day to refineries on the Gulf Coast of Texas. Some 3 million miles of oil and gas pipelines already run through our country. But Keystone XL wouldn’t be your average pipeline, and tar sand oil isn’t your average crude.
And when tar sands oil does spill, it’s more difficult to clean up than conventional crude because it immediately sinks to the bottom of the waterway. People and wildlife coming into contact with tar sands oil are exposed to toxic chemicals, and rivers and wetland environments are at particular risk from a spill.
A fully realized Keystone XL would lead to more mining of that “nasty stuff” by accelerating the pace at which it’s produced and transported. (Indeed, Keystone XL was viewed as a necessary ingredient in the oil industry’s plans to triple tar sands production by 2030.)
Opposition to Keystone XL centers on the devastating environmental consequences of the project. The pipeline has faced years of sustained protests from environmental activists and organizations; Indigenous communities; religious leaders; and the farmers, ranchers, and business owners along its proposed route. One such protest, a historic act of civil disobedience outside the White House in August 2011, resulted in the arrest of more than 1,200 demonstrators. More than 90 leading scientists and economists have opposed the project, in addition to unions and world leaders such as the Dalai Lama, Archbishop Desmond Tutu, and former president Jimmy Carter (together, these and other Nobel laureates have written letters against the project). In 2014, more than two million comments urging a rejection of the pipeline were submitted to the State Department during a 30-day public comment period.
Most recently, on October 31, 2019, the Keystone tar sands pipeline was temporarily shut down after a spill in North Dakota of reportedly more than 378,000 gallons. And the risk that Keystone XL will spill has only been heightened: A study published in early 2020, co-authored by TC Energy’s own scientists, found that the anti-corrosion coating on ...