Tag Archives: Missouri River

Construction resumes on Dakota pipeline despite tribe’s challenge

police vehicles monitoring construction of pipeline

By Terray Sylvester and Liz Hampton

CANNON BALL, N.D./HOUSTON (Reuters) – The company building an oil pipeline that has fueled sustained public protests said on Thursday it has started drilling under a North Dakota lake despite a last-ditch legal challenge from a Native American tribe leading the opposition.

Energy Transfer Partners LP <ETP.N> is building the $3.8 billion Dakota Access Pipeline (DAPL) to move crude from the Northern Plains to the Midwest and then on to the Gulf of Mexico, now saying it could be operational by early May.

The project had been put on hold under the administration of former Democratic President Barack Obama, but new President Donald Trump, a Republican, helped put it back on track.

The federal government this week cleared way for the project to resume, leading the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe to file a court challenge on Thursday seeking a temporary restraining order to halt construction and drilling for the pipeline.

The court set oral arguments on the legal challenge for Monday.

Legal experts say the tribe faces long odds in convincing any court to halt construction,

Energy Transfer Partners needs only to cross beneath Lake Oahe, part of the Missouri River system, to connect a final 1,100-foot (335 meter) gap in the 1,170-mile (1,885 km) pipeline, which will move oil from the Bakken shale formation to a terminus in Patoka, Illinois.

From there the oil would flow to another pipeline connecting south-central Illinois to the Gulf of Mexico and that region’s numerous oil refineries.

Native American tribes and climate activists have vowed to fight the pipeline, fearing it will desecrate sacred sites and endanger a source of the country’s largest drinking water reservoir.

“This administration (Trump’s) has expressed utter and complete disregard for not only our treaty and water rights, but the environment as a whole,” the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe said on Thursday in a statement on its website.

Supporters say the pipeline will be safer than transporting oil by rail or road, and industry leaders have praised the project for creating high-paying jobs

With work on the final tranche now under way, Energy Transfer Partners expects the Dakota Access Pipeline to begin operations in approximately 83 days, according to a company spokeswoman.

“We have started to drill to go beneath Lake Oahe and expect to be completed in 60 days with another 23 days to fill the line to Patoka,” spokeswoman Vicki Granado said in an email.

She declined to specify when drilling began except that it was after the company received federal permission on Wednesday.

Public opposition drew thousands of people to the North Dakota plains last year including high-profile political and celebrity supporters. Large protest camps popped up near the site, leading to several violent clashes and some 700 arrests.

A few hardy protesters have remained camped out near the lake, braving sub-freezing temperatures.

Among them is Frank Archambault, 45, who has lived in the camp since August when he left his home on the Standing Rock reservation.

“It angers me. It angers me because people are pushing other people around, breaking laws,” Archambault said. “They’re trying to kill us off by contaminating the water. We’ve had enough.”

Ptery Light, 55, of Portland, Oregon, who has lived in the main camp since Oct. 31, said he was not giving up hope.

“I just pray that there’s no oil spill,” Light said. “This is purely about greed.”

For now, their hopes are pinned on the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe winning a legal victory.

To obtain the temporary restraining order, the tribe must convince the judge there will be immediate harm suffered and prove it has a strong overall case should its lawsuit to halt the project result in a full trial.

The U.S. district judge in the case, James Boasberg, previously rejected the tribe’s request to block the project, ruling in September that the Army Corps of Engineers likely complied with the law in permitting the pipeline to go forward.

(Additional reporting by Daniel Wallis in New York)

North Dakota tribe says running out of options to stop pipeline

Protesters raise a banner regarding Dakota Access Pipeline

By Ernest Scheyder and Terray Sylvester

HOUSTON/CANNON BALL, N.D. (Reuters) – The leader of a Native American tribe attempting to block the Dakota Access oil pipeline said on Wednesday the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe may have exhausted legal options to stop the project after the company building it won federal permission to tunnel under the Missouri River.

Legal experts agreed the tribe faces long odds in convincing any court to halt the $3.8 billion project led by Energy Transfer Partners LP, which could now begin operation as soon as June.

The U.S. Army said on Wednesday it had granted the final permit for the pipeline after an order from President Donald Trump to expedite the project. The army owns the land through its Corps of Engineers.

“We’re running out of options, but that doesn’t mean that it’s over,” David Archambault II, chairman of the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe, told Reuters in a telephone interview. “We’re still going to continue to look at all legal options available to us.”

Native American tribes and climate activists have vowed to fight the pipeline, fearing it will desecrate sacred sites and endanger drinking water. Supporters say the pipeline is safer than rail or trucks to transport the oil.

The 1,170-mile (1,885-km) line will move crude from the shale oilfields of North Dakota to Illinois en route to the Gulf of Mexico, where many U.S. refineries are located.

Public opposition has drawn thousands of people to the North Dakota plains, including high-profile political and celebrity supporters. Large protest camps popped up near the site, leading to several violent clashes and some 600 arrests.

The opposition sensed victory last year when the administration of President Barack Obama, a Democrat, delayed completion of the pipeline pending a review of tribal concerns and in December ordered an environmental study.

But those fortunes were reversed after Trump, a Republican, took office on Jan. 20. Trump issued an order on Jan. 24 to expedite both the Dakota Access Pipeline (DAPL) and to revive another multibillion-dollar oil artery, Keystone XL. The Obama administration had blocked that project in 2015.

On Wednesday, some 350 people converged in lower Manhattan, hoisting signs such as “Water is Life,” “Dump Trump” and “Respect Native Sovereignty.”

“This isn’t just a Native American problem, this isn’t just an issue over race, this goes way beyond that,” said Matene Strikefirst, who said he is a member of the tribe of Ojibwe and Dakota. “We need to get over our dependence on fossil fuels; we need to ensure drinking water for everyone.”

Another 100 gathered near the White House, denouncing

Trump.

“We know there is going to be bloodshed,” said Eryn Wise, spokeswoman for the International Indigenous Youth Council.

“This is cultural genocide,” said Linda Black Elk, a resident of the Standing Rock Indian Reservation.

BIG HURDLE

In a court filing on Tuesday, the Army said it would allow the final section of the DAPL to tunnel under Lake Oahe, part of the Missouri River system. The permit was the last bureaucratic hurdle to the pipeline’s completion.

The tribe said on Wednesday it would attempt to use a “legal battle and temporary restraining order” to shut down pipeline operations.

But Wayne D’Angelo, an energy and environmental lawyer with Kelley Drye & Warren in Washington, said he believed the Trump administration was on “pretty solid legal ground.”

The tribe would have to prove a very difficult standard: that approval for the pipeline was “arbitrary and capricious, an abuse of discretion or inconsistent with the record before the agency,” D’Angelo said.

The protest camps dwindled after the Obama administration ordered the environmental review in December as the tribe urged people to leave due to concerns about trash buildup in a flood plain.

But a few holdouts have remained, including some who braved temperatures of minus 9 Fahrenheit (minus 23 C) on Wednesday.

(Additional reporting by Brendan Pierson and Tina Bellon in New York and Tom Ramstack in Washington; Writing by Daniel Trotta; Editing by Matthew Lewis and Leslie Adler)

With Dakota denial, outlook for U.S. pipelines turns murky

People celebrate the temporary win of the North Dakota Pipeline

By Liz Hampton

HOUSTON (Reuters) – The U.S. Army’s denial of an easement for the Dakota Access Pipeline, after permitting and legal obligations were followed, sets an uncertain precedent for new projects despite President-elect Donald Trump’s promise to support energy infrastructure.

The decision came after months of protests by the Standing Rock Sioux tribe and others who said the line could desecrate tribal grounds, or a spill could contaminate drinking water.

While most of the 1,172-mile (1,885-km) pipeline is complete, Energy Transfer Partners, the line’s owner, needed an easement from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) to drill under Lake Oahe. The lake, a water source formed by a dam on the Missouri River, has been the focus of protesters.

The Army’s intervention sets an unsettling precedent, analysts and industry groups told Reuters, because Energy Transfer had undergone the necessary environmental reviews and permitting processes to move ahead with construction.

“I think it sends a horrible signal to anyone wanting to invest in a project and I strongly suspect those policies will be discontinued on Jan. 20th,” said Brigham McCown, the former head of the U.S. Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA) under George W. Bush, referring to the inauguration of President-elect Donald Trump.

Still, the decision to deny the easement tempers some of the optimism pipeline companies assumed following the election of Trump, who is seen as more supportive of oil and gas projects.

Energy Transfer Partners said in a statement the decision was politically motivated and it did not intend to reroute the line.

(For graphic on the Dakota Access Pipeline, click http://tmsnrt.rs/2cqkRJ7)

DELAYS &amp; RISING COSTS

Beyond the federal approval issues, state and local governments have also mobilized against pipelines. Earlier this year, Georgia’s state legislature passed a bill to restrict pipeline developments, stopping a gasoline line from Florida to South Carolina from being built.

Energy Transfer chief executive Kelcy Warren, a donor to Trump’s campaign, said his election was a positive. Last week Trump for the first time voiced support for the Dakota Access project.

Trump has also said he would support TransCanada Corp’s Keystone XL, which the Obama Administration rejected last year.

Denying permits for an already-approved pipeline adds a new level of uncertainty to projects. Oil companies have already been facing growing resistance from environmental groups that have resulted in delays or unanticipated costs.

Equipment used for the Dakota Access line has been set on fire, and in October, a group of protesters turned off valves on pipelines transporting oil from Canada to the United States. Together, those lines had capacity to move some 2.8 million barrels per day of oil.

“Until you see that Trump has a track record of approving things and showing that things can get built in time, it’s tough to say it’s not a murky environment for pipelines,” said Sarp Ozkan, manager of energy analytics for Drillinginfo.

That means pipelines could face higher risk premiums and have a harder time getting volume commitments from shippers that underpin such projects, Ozkan said.

Energy Transfer has said it expects to lose almost $84 million each month the Dakota Access pipeline is delayed, and that losing shippers could result in its cancellation, according to a court filing.

“I think midstream companies will hope that each project can be decided based on necessary permitting approvals, but there will be increased risk where agencies like USACE are involved,” said Sandy Fielden, director of research in commodities and energy at Morningstar.

While the Standing Rock Sioux have said they would support a rerouting of the line, others, such as the Indigenous Environmental Network (IEN), want it canceled.

“Given Trump’s support of the Dakota Access, and the Keystone XL, we remain cautious,” said Dallas Goldtooth, a spokesman for IEN.

(Reporting by Liz Hampton in Houston; Editing by Tom Hogue)