Dakota Access Pipeline Getting National Attention in the US

Efforts to continue construction on the Dakota Access Pipeline in spite of the concerns and protests of the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe have finally reached national consciousness in the United States. The Standing Rock Sioux Tribe  has been raising concerns about the pipeline for months. This blog has been following the developments and concerns raised about the pipeline since March of this year.

There is a growing camp of supporters and protesters in North Dakota. There is also a law suit that has been filed, with a ruling expected than “no laterthan Sept. 9 on a request by the Standing Rock Sioux to stop construction andreconsider permits the project has received.” 

The comparisons to the controversial Keystone XL pipeline are inevitable, with this story noting that  the Dakota Access pipeline is “quickly emerging as a sort of Keystone XL Part 2.”

TransCanada's Keystone XL Pipeline costs

TransCanada, the company that had pursued permission to build the controversial Keystone XL pipeline, has posted a $2.5 billion loss in the fourth quarter of 2015. A "non-cash charge" of $2.9 billion is attributed to the Keystone XL pipeline, according to this article. 

Editorial Comment about Keystone XL Pipeline Litigation

Not surprisingly, the TransCanada litigation against the United States about the Keystone XL pipeline has drawn editorial comment. The contentious plans to build the pipeline leave a legacy in the litigation, and also in the discussion about it. 

This editorial written by the Sierra Club Senior Managing Attorney and Sierra Club Research Analyst is dismissive of the litigation, referring to it as out of step with the realities of climate change and of the implications of the December 2015 Paris Climate Agreement. 

Dispute over Keystone XL Pipeline Rumbles On

After President Obama denied the approval needed for the Keystone XL pipeline to be built, in November 2015, it might have been thought that the matter would be finally over. It had, after all, been in dispute for an extended period over seven years.


Opposition to the pipeline galvanized an unlikely coalition of environmental activists, indigenous advocates, and farmers and ranchers, as this article details. 



But what had been claimed as a victory for these interests is now clouded by the news that a lawsuit has been filed against the US government. TransCanada, the company that has been seeking permission to build the pipeline is quoted in this article as saying that the denial of permission to build the pipeline was a political one, fuelled by concerns about  an international image  on climate change policies.

It would appear the battle over the Keystone XL pipeline is not yet finished. 

   

And the debate continues...the Keystone XL pipeline

Presidential Veto for Keystone XL Pipeline, and Concerns that the Oil Industry Brings an Increased Risk of Risk and Sexual Assault.

President Obama vetoed the Keystone XL pipeline on February 24. This is the first time in 5 years that he used his veto powers, CNN notes.  But this does not mean that the issue has ended, as the six yearlong battle over the pipeline is set to carry on, with political proponents of the pipeline seeking to override the Presidential veto. It would appear at the moment that there are insufficient votes to accomplish that.

This article (here) explains that the strong indigenous opposition to the Keystone XL pipeline construction involves more than environmental and sovereignty issues. “Community safety” is an additional concern that is noted—where the concern is that workers on the pipeline “could cause an uptick in sexual assaults against area women.|” Native American women already experience a disproportionately high rate of sexual assault. The perpetrators of the sexual assault are non-Native men, “in at least 86 per cent of the reported cases of rape or sexual assault” according to Amnesty International (here).

Links between the oil industry and an increased risk of sexual assault and rape have been raised (here and here), but this is a message that somehow seems to have attracted very little discussion. The concerns that are raised are ones that need to be addressed in any future debates about the construction of the Keystone Pipeline.

Post written by Dr Sarah Sargent.

Hunger Strike by Lakota Nation: "Protect Our Sacred Water Rally"

OklahomaCitizen.org calls attention to rally and protest held from April 1-3 On April 1, 2012, a rally was held by members of the Lakota Nation to bring attention to the importance of water, and the damage that would be done to water supplies if plans for the Keystone XL Pipeline construction went through. A 48 hour hunger strike was held, with protest and rally ending on April 3.

According to "Switchboard", a blog of the Natural Resources Defense Council staff blog, the event was coordinated to be timed with another protest against the Keystone XL pipeline and the water and environmental damage it would cause-- this protest of indigenous peoples in Canada. The "Switchboard" account of the Lakota Nation rally comments that
" Lakota supporters built a sweat lodge and elders sang songs and prayers in support of hunger strikers in Canada over a thousand miles away. They were there to support and protect Mother Earth, a powerful Lakota tradition passed down through the generations, long before oil and mining companies came and polluted their land."

Tar Sands Keystone XL Pipeline Update

Last Monday, dramatically, there was a human blockade on the Pine Ridge Reservation to prevent trucks carrying heavy loads of parts intended for the Keystone XL pipeline (previous blog post at this link) Though the passage of the trucks was prevented, five people were arrested. This raises some perplexing questions about sovereignty on the Lakota Nations land. Who has the say about what happens on these lands? Whose laws were broken and who is enforcing them? It is also clear that the trucks desired to go through the Lakota Nations land in order to avoid payment of $100,000 of fees for the use of state highways. Heavy trucks do a great deal of damage to roads—thus the high cost of permits. So the route through the Lakota Nation lands was a clear attempt to avoid paying for damage that the trucks would cause—and never mind the great deal of harm that will be caused if the plans for the pipeline were to go through as planned—danger to drinking water, to human health, to the environment. Pipeline proponent thinking at least remains consistent.


This video –showing the protest in action—presents a very clear picture of the arguments against the trucks passing through. If there are standing resolutions which would forbid the trucks to use the Lakota Nations roads, why was it the protesters who were in the end arrested? Does it not matter if the law of the Lakota Nation is violated?

There is at least some good news to report on the latest attempt to push approval of the Tar Sands pipeline through the US Senate. A vote taken last Thursday, March 8, in the US Senate defeated legislation that would have permitted the construction of the tar sands pipeline. Politicians however apparently do not intend to have this as the final fate of the tar sands pipeline, according to comments in this news story on the outcome of the Senate vote.

For those not familiar with the debate on the tar sands and the proposed Keystone XL pipeline, the video “Downstream” presents information on the hazards that the plans present.

Human Blockade in Lakota Nation land: blocking transport of parts for Keystone XL Pipeline

Lastrealindians.com is carrying a story about a human blockade that was formed yesterday-- March 5-- on the Pine Ridge Reservation, South Dakota. The human blockade prevented trucks carrying parts for the contested Keystone XL pipeline from travelling on Oglala Lakota lands. The route through the Oglala Lakota homelands was planned without consultation with the indigenous groups, and further, planned the route to try to evade paying a significant sum for the use of state roads, according to the post at Lastrealindians.com: “The heavy-hauling trucks were allegedly cutting through Oglala country in attempts to avoid a $50,000.00 fee to pass through using State of South Dakota roadways.”

If the trucks had crossed the Lakota lands, it would also have been in violation of several resolutions that have been adopted by indigenous governance bodies. The story in full is at the Lastrealindians.com website.