Obama Dakota Pipeline Case Study

Thesis Statement: In the U.S, the Keystone XL Pipeline is doing more harm than good.

The history of oil pipelines in the U.S. supports both sides of the argument, but in the end one must not rely on history to decide whether or not to implement such a controversial pipeline. The Keystone XL Pipeline could be beneficial to the US economy but the dangers to the environment must be weighed in order to decide if the new oil pipeline is necessary. We live in a world that is trying to switch over to renewable energy and help reduce global warming. The increased production of oil in the United States might not be needed even though it might be beneficial to economic

With an increasing global population and ever industrializing society 's, environmental concern is rarely given priority over economic incentive. But what people fail to realize is that our environmental failures, and relative apathy about it set up a plethora of problems for future generations to deal with. One of the most important decisions president Obama will face in the next year will be whether or not to approve the building of the Keystone XL pipeline, a massively sized, and massively controversial oil pipeline that would stretch all the way from Alberta Canada, to American oil refineries along the Gulf Of Mexico. Despite the economic incentive present, the building of the Keystone XL pipeline should not happen because of the

The Standing Rock Sioux tribe in North Dakota has made headlines throughout the US because of their reaction to what they feel is a threat to not only their sacred lands but also the water source of the whole tribe, along with many others. The construction of an oil pipeline going through North and South Dakota while going under the Missouri River has caused this major controversy. This pipeline that is soon being built has been a project that was halted before by the past president Obama in late 2016. The project called Bakken or better known as the Dakota Access Pipeline, is being built by Energy Transfer Partners. This is a 3.8 billion dollar oil pipeline that would stretch over 1,100 miles long through North

In the article, The Legal Case for Blocking the Dakota Access Pipeline by Robinson Meyer, the author opposes the

“’An old Sioux prophecy says that a black snake will come to destroy the world at a moment of great uncertainty,’ he said. ‘Unless the youth stop it’” (Enzinna 35). The Standing Rock Sioux tribe believe the “black snake” has arrived in the form of the Dakota Access Pipeline. The Dakota Access Pipeline is a pipeline that originates in North Dakota and stretches across four states. The pipeline is roughly 1,000 miles long and would carry up to 600,000 barrels of domestically produced oil each day. This pipeline would run above the surface, but at certain points would run under lakes and rivers. In the beginning of the year 2016, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers released a rough draft of its proposed plan to begin construction of the Dakota Access

Many people are taking a stand with the Standing Sioux tribe to stop the construction of an oil pipeline. Worland addresses this issue by informing readers the recent facts about the Dakota Access Pipeline. Many protesters are using this opportunity to address other issues that Pipeline will create in the long run. Meanwhile, the Energy Transfer Partners company will not let protesters stop the construction from happening. The construction still continues despite the current Administration’s request for a pause. As a result, the fight between the Standing Rock Sioux and Energy Transfer Partners has sparked warmth throughout the bitter North Dakota

Davenport, Coral. “Oil Pipeline Presents Dilemma for Obama.” National Journal. Gale Opposing Viewpoints In Context. (2011) Web. 16 Mar. 2012.

Protect the native’s land and the planet! The Dakota Pipeline project is not going to be as beneficial as it’s made out to be. “It’s a 3.7 billion dollar project that would cross four states. The results could be an economic boon that makes the country more self-sufficient or an environmental disaster that destroys sacred Native American sites” (Yan). Construction of the Dakota pipeline does not only violate the Fort Laramie Treaty of 1851, but implementing this pipeline will release more pollution, risk contamination of the water supply, and provide temporary jobs.

The Dakota Access Pipeline is a pipeline that moves crude oil from the west side of North Dakota to the border of Illinois and Canada. There is a lot of controversy around it because it runs right past The Great Sioux Reservation. The Reservation has had many problems with the US Government throughout the years. Many people are protesting the construction of it, much to their prevail, Obama’s administration delayed its construction.

The origination of this case study begins on one brisk morning back on the 19th of September in 2008 when TransCanada first submitted their application to the U.S. State Department to build the Keystone XL pipeline. The Canadian based energy infrastructure company proposed a 1,179-mile, 36-inch diameter pipeline that would transport crude oil from Canada, through Montana, South Dakota, and Nebraska. Along with transporting oil from producers in Texas, Oklahoma, Montana and North Dakota (Figure 1).

(Sills) Therefore, the pipeline would create further problems in the future involving enviromental issues which is why it shouldn’t be built at all. Another piece of evidence from an article provided by CNN claiming how the pipeline endangers wildlife habitat. The Dakota Access pipeline would carry 450,000 barrels of dirty oil per day from North Dakota to Illinois and cut through fragile wildlife habitat, enviromentally sensitive areas and sovereign tribal property. (Yan) The pipeline not only endangers people’s land but animals habitat and potentially their lives. It shows the ignorance of damaging wildlife and adding on to the enviromental problems we as a community already have to be concerned over. These evidentail pieces provide the ways the Dakota Access pipeline could potentially endanger are enviroment now and in the upcoming months ahead. While thousands of protesters contribute to refusing the Dakota Access pipeline construction to continue because of enviromental issues as well as invading the Sioux tribes land, the Army Corps of Engineers claims that not only will it benefit more oil but the route is a safer and more enviromentally friendly way of moving oil to other transportations such as railroads and

But, according to Yan (2016) the pipeline can have either a great economic benefit for the United States or it can cause an environmental disaster. The pipeline also is going to run through sacred Native American land and water source (Jensen 2016). This brings in protestors that range from humanist, Native Americans, environmentalist, state residents and even Hollywood celebrities (Yan 2016). According to Jensen (2016), these peaceful protestors are being treated harshly by law enforcement, which makes the pipeline even more controversial. The police are trying to run out the protestors by “using freezing water and concussion grenades” during winter conditions to get them to leave Cannon Ball, ND (Jensen 2016). Law enforcement doesn’t want the area to “swell” with protestors again when it comes spring (Reuters 2017). These protestors just want to be heard, which they were in Obama’s administration, but Trump’s administration wants to continue construction with or without the support of the community. This could be due to Trump’s investment and profit in the pipeline (Mufson 2016). On the another hand, the pipeline can help the economy by making the United States more independent on oil and reducing the use of trains. In some cases, trains that are carrying oil cargo has been derailed and exploding. This would also bring down cost for shipments with

He said that those who were for it highly exaggerated the amount of jobs it would create, and those who were against it exaggerated the hazardous effect that it would have on the environment. State Department reports how that the pipeline would contribute to climate change, but not anymore than the alternative ways of transporting the oil. Barrack Obamas decision won’t affect the export of oil from Canada, it would just increase the distance it would have to travel through the already existing pipelines. Ultimately his main reason for rejecting the pipeline was based on the fact that he wants to establish himself as the first sitting president to ever address global climate change in a big way, and the passing of the pipeline would have hurt his credibility.

The article: “I Want to Win Someday” focuses mainly on the construction of North Dakota Pipeline on Native American land, and the tribe’s protest against it. The construction of this pipeline is under heavy scrutiny. Especially politically, as the Republican party agrees that they should continue the construction despite the protests. However, I understand that both sides are acting for good reasons; The Energy Transfer Partners must create this pipeline to transport oil to citizens (much like ourselves) to create more jobs, increase the economy, etc, and the Standing Rock Sioux tribe is rightfully angry over the possible egregious effects of an oil spill, and the repeat of the American government