Environmental conflict
Lori’s Intro:
There is an important product being built that thousands of people are protesting against. The project is the “The Dakota Access Pipeline.” This project is being built across 4 states the costs $3.7 billion to help change the U.S crude oil supply. Many people are talking about this topic many The Rock Sioux Tribe and Dakota Access,LLC. These two groups have two different sides and opinions of this topic.
Ashley’s Intro:
There is much controversy surrounding the construction of the Dakota Access Pipeline. First of all, what is it? It’s the Dakota Access, LLC, ongoing project to build a pipeline that will transport oil. The pipeline will be 1,172 miles long, and 30 inches in diameter, and extend across
…show more content…
four states. It will also transport 470,000 barrels of crude oil a day. But the overall question people are asking is whether or not the pipeline will benefit the environment. Lori’s Claim: The Dakota Access Pipeline has many positive factors that may help the environment.
The stakeholder that supports this claim is the company called Dakota Access,LLC. Based on the article, “Dakota Access Pipeline: What’s at Stake?” the company said “decrease reliance on foreign oil.” This means that we don’t have to always depend on foreign oil because we have our oil when the pipeline is built. Dakota Access, LLC. also stated in the same article that it will help create many jobs for people. This shows that if there are more jobs, our economy will become better. The company also stated that when the pipeline is built it will be an easier way to transport the oil. This means that we will have easier access and it will not affect the environment around …show more content…
it. Alexis’s Counter Claim: Although the company, Dakota Access LLC, makes many important points about the benefits of the pipeline, they have not sufficiently addressed the views of those who oppose the project. The Rock Sioux tribe, for example have many concerns about the cultural as well as the environmental effects of the pipeline. Environmentally the tribe views this project as a disaster waiting to happen. The pipeline goes under the Mississippi River and the Rock Sioux water reserve. If the pipe malfunction thousands of gallons of oil would be released into the water making it unusable. The world as already seen the type of damage an oil spill can have on marine life during the 2010 BP Oil Disaster. In a speech addressing the country, President Obama described the BP Oil Spill as,”This oil spill is the worst environmental disaster America has ever faced”.(Obama) The Dakota Access Pipeline is just another BP disaster waiting to happen.Not only could this problem happen in the future but the construction of the pipe will disrupt the environment. Another issue the tribe has with the pipeline is that it will go through the reserve. This means the construction project will destroy countless sacred burial sites and protected lands. This land is culturally very important to the Rock Sioux and is a key point of the controversy. Until the Dakota Access Company can address the issues of the tribe, the protest will continue. Ashley’s Rebuttal However, this argument is invalid because it will overall improve and promote the country and therefore the environment. Although the Rock Sioux tribe claims that it will ruin the reserve, the pipeline isn’t actually going through the reserve. The pipeline will also be an overall safer way to transport oil because there is a less likelihood for accidents, which occur in other methods of transporting it. There was one accident where a train that was transporting oil blew up. The tribe also brings up important points such as the possibilities for breaches or contamination, but like anything of this sort these are common risk factors that the engineers have taken into consideration, and taken the correct safety measures and precautions. As you can see the pipeline will evidently help our environment. Alexis’s Conclusion The Dakota Access Pipeline is a controversial project but one that can have many benefits.
On one hand the pipeline will increase jobs and decrease reliance on foreign oil. On the other hand the only water supply for a native american tribe is at risk. It is up to each individual person to decide if the benefits of the many outweigh the loss of the few. Hopeful the Dakota Access Company and the Rock Sioux tribe will be able to reach a compromise. Perhaps by change in the course of the pipeline so that it no longer puts the Missouri River at risk. Whatever changes needed to reach a compromise, until they are made the protest are sure to
continue.
On the 9th of February 2004 TransCanada Corporation, an energy company based in Alberta, Canada proposed a plan for the installation and use of a pipeline that would stretch from Alberta, Canada to oil refineries in the Gulf Coast of Texas in the United States. The pipeline, titled the Keystone Pipeline, would be installed in four separate phases and once completed would transport up to 1.1 million barrels of synthetic crude oil per day. Phases two through four of the pipeline encompass the parts of the pipeline that would be installed in the United States and would be located in the states of North and South Dakota, Nebraska, Missouri, and Illinois. TransCanada is currently awaiting approval from the US government in order to begin the installation of the US portion of the pipeline.
The Dakota Access Pipeline and the Keystone XL Pipeline are two pipeline projects that were suspended in the past. These pipelines were stopped because they could have a big impact of people and the environment. The making of these pipelines would cause a great amount of carbon pollution. Recently, President Trump signed the orders to approve the pipeline project. The projects have pros and cons, the people in favor of the pipelines think we would be able to rely less on foreign oil. The people against the pipeline believe that the pipelines would cause the release of gases into the air that could be harmful for other people.
A little back ground about the Keystone XL Pipeline. TransCanada located in Calgary, Alberta, Canada is proposing to build the Keystone XL Pipeline to carry primarily oil extracted from tar sands. The pipeline is a 36” wide and will be approximately 1,661 miles in length (Palliser 8). The proposed pipeline “will run from Hardisty, Alberta, to Nederland, Texas, and traverse Montana, South Dakota, Nebraska, Kansas, Oklahoma and Texas” (Palliser 8). The Keystone XL pipeline will carry up to 900,000 barrels a day of synthetic crude oil or diluted bitumen (Palliser 8).
Kinder Morgan has proposed the idea of building a twin pipeline for that of the Trans Mountain pipe line. And the clear question for all Canadians especially in the lower main land of British Columbia is this proposition to twin the pipe line safe, economical for British Columbia, and reliable way to transport fossil fuel in the form of crude oil? Or is this just business as usual?
and Henry David Thoreau’s ideas of how government should not be followed if laws are morally unjust according to religion are reflected in the Dakota Access Pipeline protests at Standing Rock, South Dakota. They are a form of independent action and nonconformity that are quite distinct in their nature because they truly mirror ideas of great transcendentalist thinkers, unlike other protests in this era that seem to be unorganized and without clear purpose. The protests at Standing Rock are over the proposed Dakota Access Pipeline that would have to run through Sioux territory. The nonconformity seen at the Standing Rock protests is due to a feeling of a greater purpose due to religion. As a part of the Sioux religion, the people “[attach] religious and cultural significance to properties with the area” (Bailey). Therefore, any changes to the land around them goes against their morals and their religion, so action must be taken. This applies the principles of Thoreau because people are protesting the naturally unjust government, and the ideas of Martin Luther King Jr. can be seen because people are making their own decisions over whether or not the rule of government is just. Furthermore, it is not just the Sioux who are protesting, but also “religious communities such as the United Methodist Church and the Nation of Islam” (Bailey) This is because people of other religions also recognize the plight of unjust laws and act independently. They also
The Keystone XL Pipeline Imagine the world not as how it is now, but as how people wish it could be. There is no pollution, everyone has a job, the world is at peace and a safe place to live, and most importantly, everyone is happy. This is but a mere dream. Now open your eyes and look at it. See the reality of what the world truly is: we are intentionally hurting the environment, many people in the world are unemployed, many different countries are at war and people are dying because of it.
From the arguments, it is evident that the negative effects of the construction of Keystone XL Pipeline supersede its positive impacts, both on the United States of America’s economy and environment. Therefore, it is important that the country takes into consideration the negative effects that might be associated with the pipeline before embarking on its construction.
The Keystone XL pipeline continues dividing the opinion of the people and being a controversial issue. The precious “black gold”, represents one of the main factors that moves the economy, nationally and globally. This extra-long pipeline will transport oil all the way from Canada to Texas. Some experts and the private oil corporation, who is the one in charge of this project, point to the benefits of this project, for example, will make the USA more independent from foreign oil, will create thousands of jobs and improve the economy. Nevertheless, are experts revealing how the pipeline is an unnecessary risk and will be negative for the environment, dangerous for the population living close to the big pipes, and long-term negative for the
The Keystone Pipeline started construction in 2008 for the main purpose of connecting Canadian and American oil refineries to transport crude oil from the oil sands of Canada faster and more efficient. So far the first three phases of the pipeline have been completed but the proposed and most controversial is Phase IV. It connects Hardisty, Alberta to Steele City, Oklahoma which requires a presidential permit and it also connects the 485-mile southern leg known as the Gulf Coast Project between Steele City and Port Arthur, Texas, which is now operating (Eilperin). The benefits of the pipeline include an increase in jobs, contribute $3.4 billion to the U.S economy and also save time and money from transporting the oil by pipeline instead of tanks and rails. At the same time it would be a great harm to the environment, making the climate unstable, and could cause possible future oil spills. The articles covering the Keystone Pipeline generally list out the same points, covering the same benefits and consequences of building the pipeline. Sources like Fox News and CNS have more of an opposition towards the pipeline and narrow in on the risks and of the effects it would have on the people. Whereas news stations such as CNN and The Washington Post address both sides of the controversy but are subtle about being in favor of the pipeline. The international sources such as Al Jazeera and Reuters oppose the pipeline and are more open with supporting the environmentalists.
In today's global economy, energy is one of the most crucial and sought after commodities. Who supplies it and how much they supply determines how much influence they have over other countries as well as the global economy. This is why hydraulic fracturing is currently such an important and controversial topic in the United States. Hydraulic fracturing, more commonly known as "fracking" or hydrofracturing, is the process of using pressurized liquids to fracture rocks and release hydrocarbons such as shale gas, which burns more efficiently than coal. This booming process of energy production provides a much needed economic boost, creating jobs and providing gas energy for Americans. The efficiently burning shale gas reduces carbon emission from electricity production plants, reducing carbon footprints on the environment. However, the process of hydraulic fracturing uses millions of gallons of pressurized liquid, which contains toxic chemicals, and some of this water is left over undealt with. The air near fracking sites is often also polluted and unsafe for nearby community residents. Injecting millions of gallons of water laced with toxic chemicals into the rock thousands of feet deep can cause earthquakes, causing a safety hazards for all nearby areas. Hydraulic Fracturing makes rare natural gases easily attainable, boosting the economy and reducing carbon emissions. However, the negative side effects such as contaminated water and air, make hydraulic fracturing a process that may not be worth the benefits.
As a tribal member it is very important to care for nature and respect the land. With the recent problems Michigan has faced, including but not limited to, the Enbridge 5 pipeline that runs under the straights of mackinaw and the Flint water contamination, it is important to me that we do what we can to be a part of the solution verses the problem. No matter what the amount of recycling Bay Mills Community College accumulates, with no recycling plan set in place the tribal college of Bay Mills will remain a part of the problem.
Have you ever been to Hell? No one is quite sure how far underground you have to go to get there or what you have to do to be sent there, but no one truly wants to go. Fracking might be putting people closer to Hell than the government thinks. What is fracking? “…hydraulic fracturing… as a means of extracting natural gas and oil from shale formations located deep underground (Davis and Fisk 1). Fracking has caused many ethical issues due to the many problems it has caused for the people who live around the fracking sites. “…, it has become increasingly controversial because of rising public concerns about drilling-related impacts on environmental quality, local government infrastructure, and public health” (Davis and Frisk 1). The fracking
As mentioned previously, the ACE approved the DAP in refusal of the EPA. They argued in a case of an oil spill the risk to water supplies and potential incompetent emergency preparedness can lead to damaging environmental impacts. Supporting why the Dakota Access Pipeline should not be built are for those who live on the Standing Rock Reservation, the Standing Rock Sioux tribe. Although the DAP is not directly on the reservation it is located on the Missouri River that does border the reservation. The Sioux depends on the Missouri river for their needs like fresh drinking water, fish for food, and
The Keystone XL project is the laying of a 36-inch diameter crude oil pipeline from Hardisty, Alberta to Steele City, Nebraska to transfer a huge amount of crude oil from tar sands in Canada in order to refine it at the Gulf Coast (“About the Project.”). The pipeline project was proposed in 2008 by the energy company TransCanada. The pipeline would connect to an already built section running from Cushing, Oklahoma to Port Arthur, Texas. The Keystone XL would give the crude oil a more direct pathway to the gulf coast. It is 1,179 miles long and is essentially a shortcut from the first Keystone pipeline project which runs from Canada into North Dakota to Cushing, Oklahoma. This new proposition would cut through Montana and go directly to
The article, ‘I want to win someday’: Tribes make stand against pipeline by Jack Healy is primarily towards the Native American tribes in North Dakota. This articles purpose is to explain the situations between the Native American tribe members and Energy Transfer Partners behind the pipeline in North Dakota. The author, Jack Healy, shows the purpose and serious tone of his article by gathering facts and combining those with tribe members experience to clarify the tension there is between the two. He believes the pipelines shouldn’t be built, so they can conserve the sacred land of the Native Americans. The Native American Tribes that are surrounding the construction for the pipeline are protesting against the project because the tribes feel that the construction will destroy the sacred land. Past problems have happened to members of a tribe, such as member Verna Bailey, “Fifty years ago, hers was one of hundreds of Native American families whose homes and land were inundated by rising waters after the Army Corps of Engineers built the Oahe Dam along the Missouri River” (Healy 2016). This historical