Amy Dalrymple/Forum News Service
Native American Residents
The potential for oil to spill via pipeline is extremely likely, and the undisclosed information highlights the potential for spills, only reflected more in the public attitude.
While the vast amount of spills on land in North Dakota are usually small and do not immediately affect wildlife or groundwater, the combined capacity of oil that will be transported via Dakota Access and the increasing reputation of pipeline spills creates an unbelievable risk. The usual cause of spills in pipelines is poor construction or corrosion. Selam Gebrekidan, a journalist for Reuters business news, says corrosion led to the aforementioned Tesoro spill in 2013, a 20 year old pipeline with “a small hole that got bigger.” Though the cause of the Tesoro spill was corrosion, initial investigations into the spill assumed the pipeline was “punctured by nearby residents.” The fact that investigation would suspect anything about vandalism suggests a deeper understanding of what the public attitude is towards the pipeline. In terms of potentially destroying farmland, it is easy to understand why landowners would be upset about nearby construction, not to mention the seemingly sneaky way oil regulators do not disclose oil spill information to the public.
While the vast amount of spills on land in North Dakota are usually small and do not immediately affect wildlife or groundwater, the combined capacity of oil that will be transported via Dakota Access and the increasing reputation of pipeline spills creates an unbelievable risk. The usual cause of spills in pipelines is poor construction or corrosion. Selam Gebrekidan, a journalist for Reuters business news, says corrosion led to the aforementioned Tesoro spill in 2013, a 20 year old pipeline with “a small hole that got bigger.” Though the cause of the Tesoro spill was corrosion, initial investigations into the spill assumed the pipeline was “punctured by nearby residents.” The fact that investigation would suspect anything about vandalism suggests a deeper understanding of what the public attitude is towards the pipeline. In terms of potentially destroying farmland, it is easy to understand why landowners would be upset about nearby construction, not to mention the seemingly sneaky way oil regulators do not disclose oil spill information to the public.
The potential threat of infiltrating drinking water is high, meaning a direct attack on Natives.
When applying this to Dakota Access Pipeline, the public attitude is much heavier in consideration due to the planned route of the pipeline established just above the Standing Rock Sioux Reservation. Pipeline construction would not only result in disturbance of tribal lands but also the crossing of the Missouri River, which is the source of drinking water to the reservation. Though infiltration of drinking water is not a definite consequence of the pipeline, it is the vast history of spills via pipelines in North Dakota alone that poses a threat to the public eye. |
New York Times Alyssa Schukar
|
The rerouting of the DAPL reflects the government attitude towards indigenous peoples
To understand how the rerouting reflects the government attitude towards indigenous peoples, we can turn to Bill McKibben, a well known writer in the environmentalist and activist communities, distinguished environmental studies professor at Middlebury College, and founder of 350.org, an international climate campaign. In his article “Why Dakota Is The New Keystone” for the New York Times, he claims, “The solution, in keeping with American history, was obvious: make the crossing instead just above the Standing Rock reservation, where the poverty rate is nearly three times the national average.” In the act of changing the route from the second biggest city in North Dakota, McKibben illustrates that the government is parallelling the entire course of dislocation and containment of Native Americans in the United States. The pipeline is implicitly affecting a group already vulnerable from years of increasingly shrinking land due to government jurisdiction, so any Native resentment that was already there will continue, and build up with the construction of this pipeline.
To understand how the rerouting reflects the government attitude towards indigenous peoples, we can turn to Bill McKibben, a well known writer in the environmentalist and activist communities, distinguished environmental studies professor at Middlebury College, and founder of 350.org, an international climate campaign. In his article “Why Dakota Is The New Keystone” for the New York Times, he claims, “The solution, in keeping with American history, was obvious: make the crossing instead just above the Standing Rock reservation, where the poverty rate is nearly three times the national average.” In the act of changing the route from the second biggest city in North Dakota, McKibben illustrates that the government is parallelling the entire course of dislocation and containment of Native Americans in the United States. The pipeline is implicitly affecting a group already vulnerable from years of increasingly shrinking land due to government jurisdiction, so any Native resentment that was already there will continue, and build up with the construction of this pipeline.
Natives feel unvalued in the face of the government.
We can see how the government disvalues indigenous peoples by seeing through the pipeline construction. The government is devaluing months of protests that have been held up in the name of land and water, and the endless amount of arrests that have been made on native and non-native protesters that have done nothing wrong but claim the small amount of land they own as sacred. Rob Hotakainen, a journalist from McClatchy Washington Bureau, spoke to Sioux Tribal Elder Faith Spotted Eagle about the lack of input Natives have in the use and potential destruction of their own land. “There is no way for Native people to say no – there never has been…Our history has caused us not to be optimistic. . . . When you have capitalism, you have to have an underclass – and we’re the underclass.
We can see how the government disvalues indigenous peoples by seeing through the pipeline construction. The government is devaluing months of protests that have been held up in the name of land and water, and the endless amount of arrests that have been made on native and non-native protesters that have done nothing wrong but claim the small amount of land they own as sacred. Rob Hotakainen, a journalist from McClatchy Washington Bureau, spoke to Sioux Tribal Elder Faith Spotted Eagle about the lack of input Natives have in the use and potential destruction of their own land. “There is no way for Native people to say no – there never has been…Our history has caused us not to be optimistic. . . . When you have capitalism, you have to have an underclass – and we’re the underclass.
Environmentalists; Non-Native Residents
What makes pipelines so risky is their intensifying reputation to spill. Spills and leaks from the vast amount of pipelines in the United States have already polluted streams and rivers, drinking water, and farmland, not to mention residential areas (Sierra Club), which may be the most concerning factor for many land-owning Americans (McKibben).
Derrick Braaten is a lawyer in Bismark, North Dakota, specializing in representing farmers, ranchers and landowners in issues involving environmental, agricultural, real estate and energy law (Braaten). His article “This Land is not for Sale” from a law review outlines why “Big Oil” has no way of compensating landowners for possible detrimental effects on their land. His article defends the land itself, claiming that the potential effects of environmental damage would result in a loss of livelihood for a rancher or farmer, on or off an indian reservation. Obviously non natives and natives alike were upset about this potentially detrimental environmental issue.
Derrick Braaten is a lawyer in Bismark, North Dakota, specializing in representing farmers, ranchers and landowners in issues involving environmental, agricultural, real estate and energy law (Braaten). His article “This Land is not for Sale” from a law review outlines why “Big Oil” has no way of compensating landowners for possible detrimental effects on their land. His article defends the land itself, claiming that the potential effects of environmental damage would result in a loss of livelihood for a rancher or farmer, on or off an indian reservation. Obviously non natives and natives alike were upset about this potentially detrimental environmental issue.
American Oil
Paul Towne is a former oil man and supporter of the Dakota Access Pipeline construction, and not just because of the jobs and other “obvious economic benefits” that he mentions would come along with it in the beginning of his article, “What are the arguments in support of the Dakota Access Pipeline?” (Towne) Those “obvious” economic benefits could include the property tax revenues that landowners would see at a local level, or the jobs created during pipeline construction that could boost the economy. But the most prominent benefit of the pipeline that keeps supporters close is that it is here. Towne argues that the media chooses to leave out the unethical ways in which the US treats foreign countries in order to avoid extracting resources on domestic soil. He claims that in order to have transparent government, the United States must stay out of the extraction of foreign oil and remain at home instead. By remaining at home, the United States could avoid altercations in the Middle East; fighting over a valuable resource that is bountiful on the home front. Further extraction of foreign oil could lead to further resentment of United States business and government from foreign leaders, which in turn, could lead to the possibility of war (Towne).
Towne also examines that transportation of oil via pipeline is a much safer alternative to oil transported via rail (Towne). Installing the pipeline would mean less transportation of crude oil by truck or rail, which is much more likely to spill. In this way, the pipeline would be a better environmental choice, seeing as the current state of oil transportation results in more spills than if a pipeline were to take its place.
Towne also examines that transportation of oil via pipeline is a much safer alternative to oil transported via rail (Towne). Installing the pipeline would mean less transportation of crude oil by truck or rail, which is much more likely to spill. In this way, the pipeline would be a better environmental choice, seeing as the current state of oil transportation results in more spills than if a pipeline were to take its place.