Dakota Access Pipeline Research Papers

First of all, the Dakota Access Pipeline can threaten Native American health and welfare, especially if it is forced into their environment. According to the New Yorker,

A new rising issue is the North Dakota Access Pipeline v. Native American tribe, Standing Rock. The main reason for the pipeline is to transport crude oil through four states more safely than the current way of transporting it through 750 railroad cars daily. In the same fashion, the pipeline will convert the 750 carts to 470,000 barrels of crude oil traveling 1,172 miles a day. Under those circumstances, the line will start in Montana, traveling through North Dakota reaching Canada, then heading southeast to South Dakota and finishing up in Illinois. On the positive side, it will make 374.3 million gallons per day, resulting in giving America an economic boom. The pipeline project is predicted to be a $3.7 billion investment and producing

The Dakota Access Pipeline is a pipeline that moves crude oil from the west side of North Dakota to the border of Illinois and Canada. There is a lot of controversy around it because it runs right past The Great Sioux Reservation. The Reservation has had many problems with the US Government throughout the years. Many people are protesting the construction of it, much to their prevail, Obama’s administration delayed its construction.

The likelihood of this pipeline bursting and spilling oil into the land and water it passes through is not completely out of the picture. Although trucks or trains transporting oil have a higher chance of spilling, according to the article, "the International Energy Agency found that pipelines spill much more in term of volume." This could be very bad news in terms of polluting the land and water used everyday. Some of the land this line is set to run through is farmland. Even if a spill never occurred, this farmland would still be damaged during the installment of the pipeline when having to dig it up. Among this land is private property, whose land is unwillingly being used for the implication of the pipeline (Sammon). Not only are farmers' lands at risk of damage, but sacred ground of Native Americans are in the middle of the crossfire as well. "The Standing Rock Sioux tribe says the project threatens its drinking water source and could destroy ancient sacred sites," explains Agence France-Presse. The installment of the pipeline will damage their sacred grounds, and if it would even spill, would pollute their only water source for drinking and irrigation as well as the land they live off

If it is built it could create climate change which affects the environment very harshly. Also, there could be a possible risk of a leak in the pipeline making it even more detrimental on the environment. If it is built then it could help the economy and help prices go decrease on products. But on the other hand, the path of the pipeline is making Native Americans give up their sacred land and possibly their water supply if a leaks happens. The pipeline has many different perspectives toward it and how it should be handled; because of this, the pipeline that Obama’s administration has paused the construction of the pipeline. But, Trump is determined to keep it going once he is in office, which is coming to the attention to more protesters. Many of the protesters of the pipeline come from many different backgrounds, social location and religion, but they all think the pipeline will be hazardous. This current event is very controversial, in which there is no side that is right or

To explain, local water sources will be majorly affected due to the Dakota Access Pipeline. “The Standing Rock Sioux and supporters say the $3.8 billion oil pipeline disrupts sacred burial grounds and threatens the tribes main source of drinking water.” (Source 2) The DAPL will harm multiple Native American water sources, which is why it should be built on another route to protect the Native Americans. Putting $3.8 billion into a project that may later on, need more money to support the funding of the Native Americans water supply is ridiculous. The most reasonable option is to reroute the pipeline and save the water source of the native tribes. “The tribes say the pipeline would threaten their cultural sites and water supply.” (Source 3) Many

Oil is a significant essential in this society because it runs automobiles such as cars, buses, truck etc. Without oil, transportation, business and economic trade wouldn’t be possible. “The Dakota Access Pipeline Project is a $3.78 billion conduit being built from the oil-rich Bakken fields in North Dakota. .transport up to 570,000 barrels a day of crude to refineries and markets in the Gulf and on the East Coast” (Ablow). The Dakota Access Pipeline is funded by Energy Transfer Partners. They believe that will have a huge impact on the economic state of the United States because it will “bring an estimated $156 million in sales and income taxes to state and local governments as well as add 8,000 to 12,000 construction jobs”(Park). With over 10,000 of jobs and $150 million dollars that would bring into this country, The Dakota Access Pipeline is a project that is beneficial to the local and national economy of the country. “In addition, the Dakota Access Pipeline will improve overall safety to the public and environment. It will reduce crude oil shipped by truck and by rail and increase the amount shipped by pipeline” (Energy Transfers). Minimizing the trucks in delivering oil will help to prevent global warming and climate change. After the pipeline was approved by the government, The members of the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe protested near the construction of The Dakota Access Pipeline. The tribe members are deeply against the project because it would damage their

Because of this very reason, many citizens, especially passionate environmentalists, have taken interests on this matter because it jeopardizes our environmental welfare in exchange for mere money. This claim is actually possible concerning that nothing can really be perfect; that this pipeline will eventually have problems that can significantly affect us. As said before, professionals have worked and are currently working on this pipeline plan. Trusting someone who is credible enough to be a specialists on something is better than judging based on one’s unproven probability. Since the US Army Corps Engineers, the federal government, and oil company who is in charge for this claim that DAPL, “ will be among the safest, most technologically advanced pipelines in the world,” and still pushes for this project to continue, when the worst actually happens they can be sued for the infringement of: National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Clean Water Act of 1972, Endangered species act of 1973, National Environment Policy Act of 1969, and Safe Drinking Water Act of 1974 (“Checking the Facts Once Again”). Knowing that they will be facing these charges if,

Since July of 2016, there has been an extensive amount of tension between protesters and law enforcement over an oil pipeline near the Standing Rock Sioux Reservation. The Dakota access pipeline is a 3.7 billion investment project that would carry 470,000 barrels of oil a day from the oil fields of western North Dakota to Patoka, Illinois. The Dakota access pipeline is a stirring issue and is causing thousands protesters to camp out in rural North Dakota to protest for what they believe. The Dakota access pipeline is to be built by Texas energy transfer partners to move a massive amount of crude oil a day. This pipeline is 1,172 miles long, thirty inches in diameter. It will connect the expanding Bakken and Three Folks Production areas in North Dakota to Illinois. The pipeline will allow domestically produced oil from North Dakota to reach larger markets in a more direct, safer, and cost-effective manner. The issue with the pipeline is it would have to cross under the

To me, it just seems as though the pipeline will only give the government more power. The fact that the government will be able to possess private property needed for the pipeline without the owner's consent, (The Government Quietly Just Approved This Enormous Oil Pipeline, 2016), doesn't seem right. I'm also very concerned about the affect it will have on the native people. I don't think it's a good idea to put the water supply of the Native American Sioux Tribe in danger. It's not right to put their lives on hold just because this pipeline is being built. Considering the fact that the Dakota Access DAPL may have exaggerated the amount of jobs that the pipeline will create, (The Government Quietly Just Approved This Enormous Oil Pipeline, 2016), I don't think the Dakota Access pipeline is worth

“Chief Obama and the Dakota Pipeline: A Case Study in Why The US Doesn’t Build more infrastructure”

The Dakota pipeline potentially risks destroying countless miles of land and water, since it will be built underneath

Advocates for the Keystone XL pipeline claim that it would permit the United States to upsurge energy security and diminish foreign oil as a necessity. The United States alone requires more than eight million barrels of imported oil per day and the dispute over the projected Keystone XL pipeline isn’t a dispute of fossil fuels against alternative resources. An ample percentage of the produced oil that will flow through the Keystone XL pipeline will most likely wind up being used up outside the U.S. This project will raise the weighty value of oil in the Central region of the U.S. by rerouting oil from the refineries located in the Midwest to the Gulf of Mexico and other exporting

Robert Samuelson's article, "Let's export oil," is a brilliant opinion on the macroeconomic advantages of exporting oil in the international markets and the need to lift the ban on the export of crude oil. The application of new drilling techniques has resulted in an exponential increase in the production of crude oil. This increased production has given us the opportunity to reevaluate our position on the ban on the export of crude oil, because with this new capability comes a responsibility of stabilizing the global oil market as a responsible member of the global community, not to mention our responsibility towards the American people by curbing our import dependence. The author details how this ban is handing an unfair advantage to hostile countries such as Russia and Iran, while severely limiting the options to oil producers in the States, who would eventually reduce, if not stop, new exploration because the ban makes it a less lucrative project which is not worthy of investing time and resources on it. While trying to be fair and balanced, he highlights the risks involved in transporting oil by trains and inadequate pipelines, while explicitly mentioning the environmental worries about fracking. He clearly points out the microeconomic implications by mentioning that the quadrupling of oil prices in the early 1970s led to the ban on oil exports. He understands that persuading the public may be difficult, and that is where political leadership needs to bridge this divide by explaining to the public in the most efficient way possible that despite the risks involved, the gains outweigh the costs.

In 1973, the United States government restricted the export of domestically produced crude oil. At the time, this was largely regarded as a sound decision. Not only was domestic production in a decline, but the global political climate was fundamentally inhospitable. However, in recent years, the oil and gas industry has exploded into a huge upswing, due in no small part to the evolving technologies surrounding hydraulic fracturing and horizontal drilling. Between 2009 and 2013, crude oil production in the United States increased by roughly 2.1 million barrels per day and, according to ICF estimates, is projected to increase another 3.2 million barrels per day through 2020 (ICF International 2014). This has led to a high profile discussion regarding the removal of the export ban which peaked in October of this year when President Barack Obama stood firm against repealing the ban, even threatening to veto the bill completely, despite the House of Representatives voting to pass it. With domestic oil and gas production at an all-time high, continuing with the ban makes little economic sense, and this report will further explain the belief behind why the ban should be repealed and why it would make a positive impact on independent exploration and production companies.