The Jim Bakker Show

U.S. Army, Interior Dept call for more review on Dakota pipeline

People march during a protest in Bismarck against plans to pass the Dakota Access pipeline under Lake Oahe and near the Standing Rock Indian Reservation, North Dakota

By Ernest Scheyder and Liz Hampton

(Reuters) – Federal authorities deferred a final decision on a controversial North Dakota section of the Dakota Access Pipeline on Monday in a statement that highlighted concerns about the “repeated” dispossession of tribal lands in the country’s past.

The Departments of the Army and Interior, in a joint statement, said that while their previous decisions to grant construction were consistent with legal requirements, they wanted to have additional discussions with the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe due to concerns about protecting Lake Oahe, a culturally sensitive and federally owned water source.

The $3.7 billion Dakota Access construction project has drawn steady opposition since last summer from the Standing Rock Sioux, along with environmental activists, who claim it could pollute nearby water supplies and destroy sacred historical sites.

Standing Rock Sioux Chairman Dave Archambault II said on Monday that he was “encouraged” by the decision, even though it was not 100 percent what the Tribe had hoped for.

Most of the construction of the proposed 1,172-mile (1,885 km) line, which will stretch from North Dakota to Illinois, has been completed. However, Energy Transfer Partners LP, which is building the line, has yet to receive approval for an easement to tunnel under Lake Oahe, which is part of the Missouri River and is adjacent to the Standing Rock Sioux Nation.

“This action is motivated purely by politics at the expense of a company that has done nothing but play by the rules it was given,” said Kelcy Warren, Chief Executive Officer of Energy Transfer Partners.

“To propose, as the (Army) Corps (of Engineers) now does, to further delay this pipeline and to engage in what can only be described as a sham process sends a frightening message about the rule of law.”

Dakota Access will vigorously pursue its legal rights in this matter, Energy Transfer Partners said in a joint statement with Sunoco Logistics Partners

People march during a protest in Bismarck against plans to pass the Dakota Access pipeline under Lake Oahe and near the Standing Rock Indian Reservation, North Dakota, U.S. November 14, 2016. REUTERS/Stephanie Keith

Demonstrations continued on Monday as more than 500 Dakota Access Pipeline protesters tried to gain entry to the capitol in Bismarck. Officials put the building in a “soft lockdown,” in which all doors were locked and guarded, at 11:30 a.m. CST (1830 GMT), said Lieutenant Tom Iverson, spokesman for the Highway Patrol.

Completion of the pipeline was delayed in September so federal authorities could re-examine permits required by the Army Corps of Engineers.

In its statement, the Army said that its previous decisions “comported with legal requirements.” However, it added that it was “mindful of the history of the Great Sioux Nation’s repeated dispossessions, including those to support water-resources projects.”

It said its additional analysis and discussion with the tribe will include conditions in an easement for the pipeline crossing that might reduce the risk of spills, along with an assessment of how such a spill could affect the tribe.

“This delay provides an opportunity for the U.S. government to resolve outstanding issues to the full satisfaction of the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe and end this pipeline project,” said Amanda Starbuck, climate and energy program director at the Rainforest Action Network, an environmental group.

“DEATH BY DELAY”

Shares of ETP dipped about 1 percent in after-hours trading. Officials at Energy Transfer Partners were not immediately available for comment.

The line has been billed as a cost-effective and efficient way to bring North Dakota oil through Illinois, en route to the Gulf of Mexico.

It is unclear how long the review will take.

The Obama Administration has been supportive in the past of the protection of tribal lands. President-elect Donald Trump has voiced support for infrastructure projects, including pipelines, though he has not specifically addressed Dakota Access.

The likelihood of different government policies in two months could make for a limited delay in the project, said Rick Smead, Managing Director of Advisory Services for RBN Energy in Houston.

The MAIN Coalition, which represents groups that support the pipeline, called Monday’s action another “attempt at death by delay” of the pipeline, saying the administration “has chosen to further fan the flames of protest by more inaction.”

With Trump’s inauguration a little more than two months away, they said they hoped “this is not the final word on the Dakota Access Pipeline.”

More than 200 protests against the pipeline are planned across U.S. cities on Tuesday, according to organizers of the demonstrations.

Protests were a factor in the Obama administration’s decision to delay the line’s completion in September and ask for further review from the U.S. Army.

Previous demonstrations, which have drawn celebrities including actors Shailene Woodley and Susan Sarandon, have occasionally turned violent.

(Reporting by Ernest Scheyder and Liz Hampton in Houston; Additional reporting by Nallur Sethuraman in Bengaluru; Editing by Alan Crosby and Andrew Hay)

Dakota access Pipeline protests planned across United States

People march past the North Dakota State Capitol building during a protest in Bismarck against plans to pass the Dakota Access pipeline under Lake Oahe and near the Standing Rock Indian Reservation, North Dakota,

By Liz Hampton

HOUSTON (Reuters) – Demonstrators across U.S. cities will gather outside offices of the Army Corps of Engineers, banks and energy companies on Tuesday in the largest protest against the Dakota Access Pipeline since the U.S. government halted the project in September.

More than 200 protests are set to take place in a “Day of Action” called for by indigenous leaders in support of the Standing Rock Sioux tribe and in an effort to urge the Army Corps of Engineers and U.S. government to stop the pipeline, according to Dallas Goldtooth, a spokesman for Indigenous Environmental Network, one of the organizers.

The $3.7 billion Dakota Access project has drawn steady opposition since last summer from the tribe, along with environmental activists, who claim it could pollute nearby water supplies and destroy sacred historical sites.

“The purpose is to elevate the issue and to encourage the Army Corps to exert its power to stop this pipeline,” Goldtooth said of Tuesday’s protests in which more than 30 groups, including Greenpeace and CREDO Action, are participating.

The Army Corps and Department of Interior on Monday delayed a decision on whether to grant an easement to Energy Transfer Partners, the main company behind the pipeline, for an easement to tunnel under Lake Oahe, the water source that is the focus of protests.

Construction of the 1,172-mile (1,885-km) pipeline is about 85 percent complete, Phillips 66, one of the pipeline’s investors, said last week. The only outstanding construction work to be done in North Dakota is the segment of the line that would run under the lake, Energy Transfer said last week.

Energy Transfer has said the pipeline would be a more efficient and safer way to transport oil from the Bakken shale of North Dakota to the Midwest and onto the U.S. Gulf Coast. The company last week said it was confident the Army Corps would grant the easement, allowing it to begin drilling under the lake about two weeks later.

Tuesday’s protests will be focused outside Army Corps offices throughout the country, and at major banks financing construction of the pipeline. Norwegian bank DNB this month said it would reconsider financing the project if the concerns of the Standing Rock Sioux were not addressed. In Houston, Texas, demonstrators will gather outside Energy Transfer Partners’ office.

Although the protests were planned in advance of the November presidential election, they come as groups opposed to the Dakota Access line could face headwinds following the election of Republican Donald Trump.

While the president-elect has not weighed in on the Dakota Access specifically, he has expressed strong support for development of energy infrastructure projects, including oil pipelines.

Kelcy Warren, the top executive at Energy Transfer, donated more than $100,000 to the Trump campaign.

(Reporting by Liz Hampton; Editing by Andrew Hay)

Decision on Dakota Access pipeline due in next few days

Tipi at sunset protesting against Dakota Access Pipeline

By Stephanie Keith

MANDAN, N.D. (Reuters) – A decision on whether the Dakota Access Pipeline will be allowed to tunnel under a lake near sacred tribal lands in North Dakota will come in the next few days, possibly by Monday, a U.S. government spokeswoman said on Friday.

The statement by spokeswoman Amy Gaskill of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers came as police again confronted protesters at a construction site on the controversial pipeline, which has drawn steady opposition from Native American and environmental activists since the summer.

At least 39 protesters were arrested on Friday at the construction site, and deputies took pictures of vandalized equipment, which had wires cut and was spray-painted, Morton County Sheriff’s Department spokeswoman Donnell Preskey said.

She said police confronted about 100 protesters at the scene.

Smoke was seen billowing from a large excavation machine near a site off Route 6 in rural North Dakota, and protesters had also climbed into other equipment, according to a Reuters witness. Two workers were seen leaving the scene.

Completion of the $3.7 billion Dakota Access Pipeline, set to run 1,172 miles (1,885 km) from North Dakota to Illinois, was delayed in September so federal authorities could re-examine permits required by the Army Corps of Engineers.

Plans called for the pipeline to pass under a federally owned water source, Lake Oahe, and to skirt the Standing Rock Sioux Reservation by about a half-mile (one km). Most of the construction has been completed, save for this area under the lake.

The Standing Rock tribe and environmental activists said the project would threaten water supplies and sacred Native American sites and ultimately contribute to climate change.

The Obama administration requested a voluntary halt to construction within 20 miles of the lake on each side.

Energy Transfer Partners <ETP.N>, which owns the line, continued to build to the edge of the federal land where the lake is located.

The company earlier this week said it was “mobilizing” drilling equipment to prepare to tunnel under the lake. That has angered protesters, who planned more protests in coming days.

An ETP spokeswoman said, “Construction is actually complete in North Dakota, except for the bore under the lake, so there is nothing for them to stop.”

Pipeline supporters say the project offers the fastest and most direct route for bringing Bakken shale oil from North Dakota to U.S. Gulf Coast refineries and would be safer than transporting the oil by road or rail.

(Reporting by Stephanie Keith in Mandan, North Dakota; additional reporting by Liz Hampton in Houston and Steve Gorman in Los Angeles; Editing by Chizu Nomiyama and Cynthia Osterman)

U.S. government mulling alternate routes for North Dakota pipeline

A North Dakota law enforcement officers stands next to two armored vehicles just beyond the police barricade on Highway 1806 near a Dakota Access Pipeline construction site.

By Valerie Volcovici

WASHINGTON (Reuters) – President Barack Obama has weighed in on the ongoing protests against the construction of an oil pipeline in North Dakota, saying the U.S. government is examining ways to reroute it and address concerns raised by Native American tribes.

Obama’s comments late on Tuesday to online news site Now This were his first to directly address the escalating clashes between local authorities and protesters over Energy Transfer Partners’ $3.8 billion Dakota Access pipeline project.

“My view is that there is a way for us to accommodate sacred lands of Native Americans. And I think that right now the Army Corps is examining whether there are ways to reroute this pipeline,” Obama said in the video interview.

The U.S. Justice and Interior Departments along with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers halted construction of part of the pipeline in September due to protests by Native American tribes who contend the pipeline would disturb sacred land and pollute waterways supplying nearby homes. The affected area includes land under Lake Oahe, a large and culturally important reservoir on the Missouri River where the line was supposed to cross.

Construction is continuing on sections of the pipeline away from the Missouri River, U.S. refiner Phillips 66 said.

Obama said government agencies will let the situation “play out for several more weeks and determine whether or not this can be resolved in a way that I think is properly attentive to the traditions of First Americans.”

The fight against the pipeline has drawn international attention and growing celebrity support amid confrontations between riot police and protesters.

The 1,172-mile (1,885-km) pipeline, being built by a group of companies led by Energy Transfer Partners, would offer the fastest and most direct route to bring Bakken shale oil from North Dakota to U.S. Gulf Coast refineries.

At a Sept. 27 White House summit for tribal nations, Obama did not directly comment on plans to deal with the pipeline protests but acknowledged the swell of support for the Standing Rock Sioux tribe.

“This moment highlights why it’s so important that we redouble our efforts to make sure that every federal agency truly consults and listens and works with you, sovereign to sovereign,” he said at the event.

(Reporting by Valerie Volcovici; Editing by Will Dunham)

Facebook users ‘check in’ to support North Dakota pipeline protests

A log adorned with colorful decorations remains at a Dakota Access Pipeline protest encampment as construction work continues on the pipeline near the town of Cannon Ball, North Dakota, U.S.,

By Timothy Mclaughlin and Amy Tennery

(Reuters) – Thousands of supporters of a Native American tribe and environmental activists fighting construction of an oil pipeline in North Dakota turned to social media on Monday in a bid to confuse police who they believe are using it to track the protesters.

More than 4,600 people used Facebook’s location tagging feature to “check in” on Monday afternoon at the Standing Rock Indian Reservation, near the site of the $3.8 billion Dakota Access pipeline, vastly boosting the numbers actually there.

The local sheriff’s department denied it is using social media to keep tabs on demonstrators, and said the online actions by the protesters’ supporters were unnecessary.

“The Morton County Sheriff’s Department is not and does not follow Facebook check-ins for the protest camp or any location. This claim/rumor is absolutely false,” Donnell Preskey, a spokeswoman for the department, said in an email.

The Standing Rock Sioux Tribe and other opponents say the pipeline threatens sacred sites and local water supplies. Supporters say it would be safer and more cost-effective than transporting oil by road or rail. The 1,172-mile (1,885-km) pipeline is being built by a group of companies led by Energy Transfer Partners LP.

The vast majority of new check-ins at the site in rural southwestern North Dakota appear to have been made remotely.

Ironically, using social media from the protest camp is hard due to poor cellphone reception. To get a signal, people walk up a small mound that has been dubbed “Facebook Hill.”

Variations on the search term “check in at Standing Rock” were among the most popular searches on Facebook on Monday afternoon, with more than 10,000 people talking about them.

Mekasi Camp Horinek, a protest leader from Bold Oklahoma, an environmental advocacy group, said he did not know who started the online movement, but he welcomed it.

“It is a lot of people showing their support for Standing Rock,” Horinek said on Monday by telephone from North Dakota. “They can’t be with us here physically, but they are with us in spirit and prayer.”

Horinek was among the 142 protesters arrested by police last week at an encampment set up on private land.

There were also demonstrations at banks linked to the pipeline’s financing on Monday. Twelve people were arrested in San Francisco for demonstrating in the Citigroup Center, according to protest organizers, and demonstrators occupied the lobby of the Wells Fargo Center in Salt Lake City.

(Reporting by Timothy Mclaughlin in Chicago and Amy Tennery in New York; Additional reporting by Ernest Scheyder in Houston and Devika Krishna Kumar in New York; Editing by James Dalgleish)

Dakota Access pipeline opponents occupy land, citing 1851 treaty

(Reuters) – Native American protesters on Monday occupied privately owned land in North Dakota in the path of the proposed Dakota Access Pipeline, claiming they were the land’s rightful owners under an 1851 treaty with the U.S. government.

The move is significant because the company building the 1,100-mile (1,886-km) oil pipeline, Dallas-based Energy Transfer Partners LP, has bought tracts of land and relied on eminent domain to clear a route for the line across four states from North Dakota to Illinois.

Video posted on social media showed police officers using pepper spray to try to disperse dozens of protesters, who chanted, beat drums and set up a makeshift camp near the town of Cannon Ball in southern North Dakota, where the $3.8 billion pipeline would be buried underneath the Missouri River.

The area is near the reservation of the Standing Rock Sioux tribe. It was not immediately known who owns the occupied land.

In September, the U.S. government halted construction on part of the line. The Standing Rock Sioux and environmental activists have said further construction would damage historical tribal sacred sites and spills would foul drinking water.

Since then, opponents have pressured the government to reroute construction. The current route runs within half a mile of the reservation.

Protesters on Monday said the land in question was theirs under the Fort Laramie Treaty of 1851, which was signed by eight tribes and the U.S. government. Over the last century, tribes have challenged this treaty and others like it in court for not being honored or for taking their land.

“We have never ceded this land. If Dakota Access Pipeline can go through and claim eminent domain on landowners and Native peoples on their own land, then we as sovereign nations can then declare eminent domain on our own aboriginal homeland,” Joye Braun of the Indigenous Environmental Network said in a prepared statement.

Energy Transfer could not be reached for comment.

Dave Archambault II, chairman of the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe. said the proposed route should be changed.

“The best way to resolve this is to reroute this pipeline and for the (Obama) administration to not give an easement to build it near our sacred land,” Archambault said in an interview.

In filings with federal regulators, the company said at one point it considered running the line far north of the reservation and close to Bismarck, the state capital.

(Reporting By Terry Wade and Ernest Scheyder; Editing by Cynthia Osterman)

Dozens of demonstrators arrested at North Dakota pipeline

(Reuters) – More than 80 protesters were arrested on Saturday after clashing with police near a pipeline construction site in North Dakota, according to the local sheriff’s department, which said pepper spray was used on some demonstrators.

The 83 protesters were arrested near the site of the Dakota Access pipeline on numerous charges ranging from assault on a peace officer to rioting and criminal trespass, the Morton County Sheriff’s department said in a statement.

Law enforcement was alerted early Saturday morning to an SUV on private property near the pipeline construction site and found that four men had attached themselves to the vehicle, according to the sheriff’s department. Police removed the men from the SUV before arresting them.

Later, around 300 protesters marched toward pipeline construction equipment and tried to breach a police line keeping them from the equipment, the sheriff’s department said.

Some were pepper sprayed by law enforcement. One protester attempted to grab a can of pepper spray from an officer, resulting in the officer being sprayed.

The demonstration closed a section of a local highway, but it was reopened on Saturday afternoon.

“Today’s situation clearly illustrates what we have been saying for weeks, that this protest is not peaceful or lawful,” sheriff Kyle Kirchmeier said in a statement.

“It was obvious to our officers who responded that the protesters engaged in escalated unlawful tactics and behavior during this event. This protest was intentionally coordinated and planned by agitators with the specific intent to engage in illegal activities.”

The Standing Rock Sioux tribe and environmental activists have been protesting construction of the 1,100-mile (1,886-km) pipeline in North Dakota for several months, saying it threatens the water supply and sacred sites. Numerous protesters have been arrested near the pipeline.

It was unclear who organized and led the protest. A spokesman for the Standing Rock Sioux could not immediately be reached for comment.

The pipeline, being built by a group of companies led by Energy Transfer Partners LP, would be the first to bring Bakken shale from North Dakota directly to refineries on the U.S. Gulf Coast.

Supporters say it would provide a safer and more cost-effective way to transport Bakken shale to the U.S. Gulf than by road or rail.

Earlier this week, pipeline equipment in Iowa was intentionally lit on fire causing about $2 million in damage, according to local authorities and company officials.

(Reporting by Timothy Mclaughlin in Chicago; Editing by David Gregorio)

Tribal service deals dould help Dakota pipeline impasse

Dave Archambault II, chairman of the Standing Rock Sioux tribe, waits to give his speech against the Energy Transfer Partners' Dakota Access oil pipeline during the Human Rights Council at the United Nations in Geneva, Switzerland

By Ernest Scheyder

SAN FRANCISCO (Reuters) – The chief executive of North Dakota’s largest oil producer, Whiting Petroleum Corp, says the standoff over the $3.7 billion Dakota Access pipeline could be solved by giving economic opportunities, including supply and delivery contracts, to the Standing Rock Sioux and other Native Americans.

Thousands of protesters from all over the world have joined with the Sioux to oppose the pipeline, which would transport oil within half a mile of tribal land in North Dakota. Federal regulators temporarily blocked construction of the pipeline earlier this month under the Missouri River, mollifying opponents but irking the fossil fuel industry.

The Standing Rock Sioux say the pipeline’s construction would destroy tribal burial sites. They also worry that any future leaks would pollute their water supply.

Jim Volker, Whiting’s CEO, said those concerns would be best addressed through economic opportunities, including contracting with American Indian-owned firms for water hauling and other oilfield service needs across oil-producing regions.

“We as an industry like to see them provide those services,” Volker said in an interview on the sidelines of the Independent Petroleum Association of America’s OGIS conference in San Francisco.

“It does provide a better standard of living for them. It does provide a direct tie to the energy business and makes them and their tribal leaders more inclined to want to have more energy development.”

When fully connected to existing lines, the 1,100-mile (1,770 km) pipeline would be the first to carry crude oil from the Bakken shale directly to the U.S. Gulf. The project is being built by the Dakota Access subsidiary of Dallas-based Energy Transfer Partners LP.

Contracts between Native American-owned firms and oil and natural gas producers are not uncommon on reservations. Indeed, the MHA Nation, whose members live on a reservation in western North Dakota where about a third of the state’s crude is pumped, requires oil producers operating on their land to contract with American Indian-owned businesses.

But the requirement cannot apply outside the reservation’s borders and many oil companies, Whiting included, do not have oilfield service and supply contracts with a large number of Indian-owned firms.

Dave Archambault II, chairman of the Standing Rock Sioux, said he appreciated the suggestion from Volker, but that his opposition to the pipeline has little to do with economics.

“It’s going to be very difficult for us to allow this line to come through just because some indigenous-owned company may benefit,” Archambault said in an interview. “If this pipeline goes through, we will be the first to pay the cost.”

Dakota Access first contacted the Sioux about the pipeline in October 2014 and continued reaching out to the tribe through March 2016, according to a report from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.

Volker, who has worked at Whiting for more than 30 years, said he was sensitive to the tribe’s concerns that construction of the Dakota Access pipeline would disturb ancestral burial sites and other historical areas.

“I wouldn’t want necessarily a pipeline to go through the cemetery where all my relatives are buried,” he said.

But he added that he expects the situation to be resolved by November. “I’m pretty sure there will be a pretty good resolution to this.”

Volker called a move last week by the owners of the Dakota Access pipeline to buy more than 6,000 acres of land adjacent to the line’s route a “pretty good move.” Federal oil pipeline regulators do not have authority over private land and cannot block construction on it.

“It just increases the odds that things get done,” he said.

The Dakota Access pipeline would, if finished, help North Dakota oil producers transport their product to refiners and other customers cheaper and faster.

Volker said he estimates the pipeline would cut the differential for North Dakota oil – that is, the extra cost needed to get the oil to market due to its distance – from about $8.50 per barrel to around $5.50.

Federal regulators are expected to rule soon on whether the pipeline’s construction can proceed, though the Standing Rock Sioux and environmental groups have vowed to oppose it.

(Editing by Matthew Lewis)

White House seeks improved tribal relations as pipeline fight lingers

Protesters demonstrate against the Energy Transfer Partners' Dakota Access oil pipeline near the Standing Rock Sioux reservation, in Los Angeles

By Valerie Volcovici

WASHINGTON (Reuters) – The leaders of hundreds of Native American tribes will meet with President Barack Obama at his eighth and final Tribal Nations Conference at the White House next week, while thousands of activists are encamped on the North Dakota prairie protesting a $3.7 billion oil pipeline.

The conference, designed to improve the relationship between Washington and the tribes, offers the last chance for this administration to hear from tribal leaders about the shortcomings of the current consultation system, which has been a source of conflict over the pipeline and other projects.

Federal agencies take different approaches to consulting with the tribes.

Obama, who will leave office in January, likely wants to do what he can before his term ends to fix the consultation system.

The North Dakota encampment represents the largest Native American protest in decades.

Along with environmentalists, the tribes say the 1,100-mile (1,886-km) Dakota Access pipeline, being developed by Energy Transfer Partners LP <ETP.N>, would threaten the water supply and sacred sites of the Standing Rock Sioux.

The administration stepped in unexpectedly on Sept. 9 to temporarily block construction of the pipeline and called for “a serious discussion” about how the tribes are consulted by the government in decisions on major infrastructure projects.

“There are going to be hundreds of tribes interested in this consultation process. It will not be easy logistically, politically or substantively,” said Gabe Galanda, an attorney in Seattle who represents tribal governments.

VARYING APPROACHES

At present, the Army Corps of Engineers, which manages many infrastructure projects for the government, takes one approach to consulting Native American tribes. The Interior Department and its Bureau of Indian Affairs take another. Laws overlap.

The result can be confusion and sometimes anger, as with Dakota Access, said Bryan Newland, a lawyer and former adviser to the assistant secretary for Indian Affairs at the Interior Department until 2012.

A goal of the upcoming discussions will likely be simply to clarify what is meant by “consultation.”

The Interior Department and Bureau of Indian Affairs tend to hold face-to-face bilateral meetings with tribal leaders. The Corps often is accused of “checking marks on a checklist and moving on with what the developer intends to do,” said Galanda.

Ron His Horse is Thunder, spokesman for the Standing Rock Sioux, said: “There’s an issue between what the Corps believes is consultation and what the tribe believes is consultation.”

Before the Dakota Access protest erupted, tribe members voiced specific concerns with the government about the proximity of the pipeline to sacred burial sites, but these concerns were ignored, according to His Horse is Thunder.

But Amy Gaskill, public affairs chief for the Corps’ northwest division, said the tribe canceled several scheduled meetings. This was documented in a judge’s decision to reject the tribe’s request for an injunction, she said.

“We redoubled our efforts to work with the tribe to make sure their voice was heard in the process,” Gaskill said.

Energy Transfer Partners said last week it remained committed to the pipeline project, which had been slated to begin carrying oil south from the Bakken shale field by the end of 2016.

TOWARD REFORM

Sixteen years ago, President Bill Clinton issued an executive order requiring agencies to consult with Native Americans on matters affecting them. Obama in 2009 issued a memo intended to strengthen consultations with the tribes.

But doing that requires constant attention, said David Hayes, a former deputy secretary of the Interior under Clinton and Obama. “It is the kind of thing that requires diligence in terms of federal officials ensuring they are not simply treating tribes like any other stakeholder,” Hayes said.

Some agencies do not treat the tribes as sovereign nations, as they should under law, said Wizipan Garriott Little Elk, a former Department of Interior official.

“So often you see the agency request the consultation with the president of a tribal nation, but the agency will send a low-level bureaucrat to the meeting and simply check off the consultation box,” Garriott said.

The Corps also weighs a narrower geographic scope for projects than other agencies, so it can overlook impacts outside the immediate range of a reservation, Newland said.

Talks between tribal leaders and the administration are likely to expose a consultation system that makes tribes feel disadvantaged, said Emily Mallen, a lawyer with Van Ness Feldman specializing in pipelines.

“It is unknown how the federal government might seek to resolve this issue. The only thing that is sure is that the tribal consultation process will likely see significant changes as a result,” she said.

(Additional reporting by Ruthy Munoz in Washington; Editing by Kevin Drawbaugh and Matthew Lewis)

Easy resolution unlikely for contentious Dakota pipeline

By Catherine Ngai and Ernest Scheyder

NEW YORK/CANNON BALL, NORTH DAKOTA (Reuters) – A potential rerouting of a long-anticipated pipeline at the center of a protest in North Dakota would be a laborious and costly task, possibly delaying a startup by months and provoking further opposition from Native American and environmental groups who were instrumental in halting construction.

The 1,172-mile (1,886 km) Dakota Access pipeline was slated to start up by the end of the year, transporting more than 470,000 barrels per day of crude oil through four states into Illinois before it hooks up to another pipeline down to Texas.

But in a stunning twist last week, the U.S. Justice Department and other federal agencies intervened to delay construction in what industry and labor representatives called an “unprecedented” move.

The halt on the $3.7 billion project was the result of a groundswell of protest from Native American tribes and environmentalists, some of whom now are vowing to continue the fight until the project is permanently suspended.

While there are a few options for rerouting the line, most still cross either culturally important lands to Native Americans or large waterways. The more extensive a reroute, the more likely it is that regulatory obstacles crop up.

“We’re entering unchartered waters if a reroute happens at this stage and I can’t think of another example of a case where this has happened,” said Afolabi Ogunnaike, a senior analyst at consultancy Wood Mackenzie. “Should a reroute take place, there are some major challenges.”

Protesters demonstrate against the Energy Transfer Partners’ Dakota Access oil pipeline near the Standing Rock Sioux reservation, in Los Angeles, California, September 13, 2016. REUTERS/Lucy Nicholson

North Dakota’s governor, Jack Dalrymple, told Reuters on Friday that he hoped regulators would give the go-ahead for construction to resume shortly. If that does not happen, an alternative solution does not appear to be easy to come by.

Energy Transfer Partners, the company constructing the line, declined to comment. It had said it is committed to completing the project.

The protest is concentrated in Cannon Ball, North Dakota, near Lake Oahe, a large and culturally-important reservoir located on the Missouri River in central southern North Dakota, where the line was supposed to cross.

The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers now needs to decide whether it correctly followed the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and other federal laws. If they did not, the permit process may need to be restarted, which could take at least 120 days. It is unclear when the NEPA review will be finished.

The other option — rerouting the pipeline — also presents substantial challenges. The surrounding land where the pipeline could cross has a number of national parks or wetlands, commercial and residential uses, or Native American reservations.

An early proposal involved sending the pipeline from the Bakken shale, where more than a million barrels of oil is produced daily, a bit further north and crossing the Missouri north of the state capital of Bismarck. The current crossing is about 30 miles south of the state capital. http://tmsnrt.rs/2cqkRJ7

“Knowing that the destination of the pipeline is to the east and looking at where the majority of the oil is sourced from, at some point, you have to cross the Missouri River,” said Eric Hansen, director of environmental services at Westwood Professional Services, a surveying and engineering firm that works in North Dakota.

Activists have said they will continue their protest, fearing damage to the water supply in the event of a leak, though there are many pipelines in the United States that carry fuel under waterways.

“No one can live without water. We just want this to stop. We won’t leave until it does,” said Valerie Eagle Shield, a member of the Standing Rock Sioux tribe, the Native American tribe whose lands would be directly affected.

Energy Transfer Partners preferred the more southerly route eventually decided upon because it was 11 miles shorter and would have less impact on the land, according to a U.S. Army Corps environmental assessment from July. It also cost $23 million less than the first proposed pipeline route.

The path with fewest obstacles, experts say, is even further north, heading from the small town of Stanley, located in the Bakken, due east, avoiding the Missouri River altogether.

However, that would require substantial changes and new state and federal permits, and would make it difficult to gather oil from the Bakken, which is not an issue for the current pipeline path. The state and federal regulatory review for the current pipeline took more than two years, according to North Dakota officials.

“A permitting process is quite complicated,” Hansen said. “As they come up with alternatives, they’ll have similar issues to face and re-permitting for any reroutes.”

In addition, winter is coming, which will make construction a challenge if the situation is not resolved.

Meanwhile, protesters, emboldened by their success, are prepared to take their opposition into the cold winter months, while locals in a section of the line in Iowa are also stepping up their pressure.

“This is a large issue, and why expedite it when we have to sit down and consider the ways to move forward. Why rush?” said Dave Archambault II, chairman of the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe, in Fort Yates, North Dakota.

(Additional reporting by Valerie Volcovici in Washington; Editing by David Gaffen and Edward Tobin)

Sign up for Jim Bakker Show