What do rubber bullets, sacred ground, and economic dependency have in common? They are all at the mouth of the Dakota Access Pipeline Project. Over the past few months, there have been many news reports about the pipeline, the Standing Rock Sioux, and peaceful protest being literally shot down.
However, with all the jumbled news it can be hard to form an accurate opinion on who’s right, who’s wrong, or if there is a middle ground between both sides of the argument.
What does the pipeline have to offer?
In 2013, 7.7 million barrels of crude oil was imported to the United States to keep up with consumer demands. It is estimated that 7.4 billion barrels of oil lay under the US portion of Bakken. The Dakota Pipeline will significantly reduce the amount of foreign oil needed for consumers.
The pipeline would be able to move approximately 470,000 barrels of crude oil; creating 374.3 million gallons of gasoline per day according to Energy Access Partners. This pipeline would not only reduce the need for foreign oil, it would also reduce consumer gas prices.
Locally, the pipeline should create 8,000 to 12,000 jobs. A demand for supplies and equipment will be needed to create and complete an operable pipeline. The pipeline will also boost the economies of North Dakota, South Dakota, Iowa, and Illinois with the estimated $124 million annually in property and income tax.
With the use of pipeline, the crude oil no longer needs to be transported by rail or truck, allowing the agricultural roots of the Dakotas to once again easily transport their goods. Currently, there is a $1,400 charge per car for agricultural goods.
Although the thought of cheaper gas, less dependency on foreign nations, and American produced goods all sound beneficial to the nation, what is the social cost of the project?
The sacred sacrifice.
The creation of the pipeline has been protested since its proposal. The 1,172-mile pipeline is close to two Native American reservation.
As reported by CNN, the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe sued the US Army Corps of Engineers claiming the pipeline, “Threatens the Tribe’s environmental and economic well-being, and would damage and destroy sites of great historic, religious, and cultural significance.”
Ironically, the developers claim that that the pipeline is more environmentally friendly due to it removing the need to transport the crude oil by rail or truck. Standing Rock Sioux Chairman David Archambault II and more than 274,000 online petitioners agree that the pipeline would fuel climate change, rather than improve it.
Another concern is that of the water. The pipeline is designed to transport oil under the Missouri River. On small rupture would contaminate the Missouri and its tributaries, causing many Tribes and residences to go without clean water.
However, not all Standing Rock Sioux oppose the pipeline. Many towns are blocked off due to police checkpoints. Some residents have to take 40 miles worth of detours to get home.
The protest is peaceful, but is on private land and often blocks state and county roads. So far 141 protestors have been arrested.
