Supporters of the pipeline claim that the construct meets all of the safety regulations, thus there is no need to worry about the water supply. In an issue of the Oil Spill Intelligence Report, pipelines are described as “the safest, most efficient, and cost effective way to move oil to the market.” The president of the North Dakota Petroleum Council said products reach their destination virtually all of the time and the pipe lays 90 feet under the river, so “it’s not going to leak right into the river”. The pipe also has detection equipment and shutoff valves on each side of the pipeline. The source also includes arguments voice by the opposition of the pipeline including: that the Tribe was never consulted for the project and that the proposed route of the pipeline would desecrate sacred tribal lands. …show more content…
The layer of soil that filters water is called an aquifer and this layer is found 50 to 300 feet below the surface. If a spill were to occur at a depth of 90 feet, it would seep into the groundwater filtration system, which would most definitely affect the drinking water of the Indigenous Nations. The author provides no background to any of the claims in the article, he or she merely includes the assertions of both sides. This article would be useful in a persuasive paper that is against the Dakota Access Pipeline because it would help to discredit those that support the continuation of construction. This source would help to prove that the information that the supporting side is using is not credible.
In an article written by Ellen Powell Staff titled, “What does the Dakota Access Pipeline pause mean for the oil industry?”, the effect a halt on the DAPL has on the entire oil industry is discussed. The article quotes Brigham McCown, an industry consultant, who says, “We don’t know what the implications are, other than that it’s going to have a huge chilling
Tribal activists say that the pipeline could pollute their main water supply and would destroy a historic burial ground.
The North Dakota Access Pipeline is a topic of controversy because it is economically beneficial for the oil and energy industry, but environmentalists claim that the construction and presence of this access pipe is damaging to the surrounding environment
Everyone has at least seen or heard of an argument or dispute involving the environment. Whether it was from your teacher, the news or something on the internet that you glanced at then moved on to watch more cat videos, you still noticed it. In today’s time, these feuds are highly controversial. One of the more recent conflicts is the Keystone XL Pipeline. The pipeline is essentially the fourth step of the Keystone Pipeline System.
As The Assembly of The First Nations Regional Chief for British Columbia, I say that the Enbridge Pipeline is a risk to the environment, the ecosystems, the health and the safety to the First Nations and the citizens of British Columbia. We First Nations have had 21,000 people sign off on the online petition “hold the wall”. The pipeline route will interfere homes of where six First Nations live and their willing to put their lives on hold to fight against the Enbridge Pipeline.
The environmental argument is coming from a clash over the fact they are basically stripping the canadian boreal forest, the path of the pipeline extends across major aquifers, and pipelines tend to leak and destroy surrounding environments. In addition ccording to The Center for Climate and Energy Solutions State, “epartment’s draft SEIS found that oil from the Canadian oil sands is 17 percent more carbon-intensive than the average oil consumed in the United States... It is estimated that the U.S. greenhouse gas footprint would increase by 3 million to 21 million metric tons per year, or around 0.04 percent to 0.3 percent of the 2010 levels, if Keystone is built. Fortunately on November 6, 2015, President Barack Obama’s administration rejected the Keystone Pipeline XL after 7 years of dispute. As mentioned in the Wall Street Journal, Obama stated “the project would not have lowered gas prices, improved energy security or made a meaningful long-term contribution to the economy
It would transport crude oil from North Dakota to Illinois. The project developer, Dakota Access, says the pipeline would help the U.S. become less dependent on importing energy from precarious regions throughout the world. They also say a pipeline is the safest, most cost effective, and environmentally responsible way to transport crude oil. Although some view this pipeline as an asset, and something that would bring in millions of dollars along with thousands of jobs, many neglect to perceive the blatant racism involved in this act. The pipeline would be dug under the Missouri River, potentially affecting the Standing Rock Sioux Indians drinking water supply and seventeen million Americans.
The Dakota Access Pipeline is a underground oil pipeline. Part of the pipeline is on Native American territory. To get access to the pipeline, burial grounds of the Natives Americans would have to be annihilated, going against the tradition of Native American culture. In the article,”
Over the past years Native Americans had cared for their own sacred lands, the story and religion that their primogenitors had taught them. The Native Americans had still carried the strong belief, that their land shall stay the same as if it should've been until new people had come in from elsewhere to change the land to something we all see outside till this day. However, there is a new project “The Dakota Access Pipeline” that had crossed the line of Native American trust between the new people that had changed everything the Natives had had since their ancestors were still living. No matter what effect the pipeline puts on most people there are some positive causes that can change a person such as protesters to think positive towards the pipeline being built on Indian reservation land. Even if the pipeline can cause many people to have a thought that the pipeline should not be built, only if they can hear from both sides, they can have a second thought and allow the pipeline to be built.
In recent years in can be noted that civil disobedience is prominent in American culture. This can be portrayed in the recent events of the Keystone Pipeline activists. Many activists have blamed the government for their problems just as Thoreau did in his essay “Civil Disobedience”. There can be a parallel drawn between these two topics even though they have decades between them. In these times it is still logical to believe that civil disobedience is the right course of action.
A lot of people enjoy smoking because it is relaxing. Cigarettes is one way people like to take advantage of the calming effects of smoking, but there are many who prefer to smoke from a glass pipe. Should you choose to purchase yourself a pipe, it is important that you take not of the fact that there is maintenance required, and that without it, your smoking experience just won't be what you expected. Here's why you should regularly clean your glass pipes in Scottsdale, AZ. Taste: When smoking from your pipe, you will actually want to taste the flavor of the smoke coming through.
“Benefits of Governmental Compromise Regarding the Dakota Access Pipeline” Nations all have unique governments and differences necessary for demonstrating successful leadership. Every country needs different assistance from their leadership, such as Rio requiring infrastructure or Somalia lacking political power. Some governments concern themselves with their politicians’ well-being more so than the people they lead, which creates a relevant problem in America. The United States Government can easily forget about Native American Reservations, or even ignore the people living on them. Recently, the United States Army Corps of Engineers has worked on the Dakota Access Pipeline project, which would cross over Native American ancestral lands,
Controversy Surrounding the Keystone XL Pipeline To build or not to build, this choice will impact the relationship between the US and Canada and determine the level of dependence the US will have on countries that are not so friendly. “TransCanada’s proposed Keystone XL Pipeline would transport oil sands crude from Canada and shale oil produced in North Dakota and Montana to a market hub in Nebraska for delivery to Gulf Coast refineries. The pipeline would consist of 875 miles of 36-inch pipe with the capacity to transport 830,000 barrels per day” (Parfomak, Pirog, Luther and Vann 4). The construction of the Keystone XL Pipeline would strengthen the United States economy, provide energy security and have minimal environmental impact. “The Keystone XL project would create $1.1 trillion in private capital investment at no
TAPS transports 17% of the United State’s domestic petroleum. If the pipeline were to stop, “A loss of that production would increase prices by at least 10 to 16 percent” (Balan). This is very important, as the majority of the American population is in constant need of these resources. A shift this dramatic in the economy would lead to outrage and possible changes in economic inflation. All in all, the Trans Alaska pipeline has provided for a great number of people and has not failed to let them down.
Researchers have “requested data from Pennsylvania, Ohio, West Virginia, and Texas, all states heavily involved in the recent surge of oil and gas drilling, about complaints related to hydraulic fracking for oil and gas” for their research on fracking (Dechert). The research collected was shocking, over 2,000 complaints in Texas alone and several cases on well water contamination within the states mentioned in Decherd’s article. People need to be alerted about how real fracking is and the damages it is doing. These complaints and cases should be a wakeup call to the world and say that we should put it to a
For the citizens, “fracking will give them jobs so they can make money and support their families” (Rogowsky). Furthermore, with the addition of fracking “the United States can get about 1.8 trillion barrels of shale (“sedimentary rocks that have rich sources of petroleum and natural gas” (Rogowsky)) a year compared to Saudi