The stories you want. The opinions that matter.
No, thanks
Tag: energy transfer partners
Judge Denies Tribes’ Request To Block Final Link In Dakota Pipeline

Judge Denies Tribes’ Request To Block Final Link In Dakota Pipeline

WASHINGTON (Reuters) – A U.S. federal judge on Monday denied a request by Native American tribes seeking to halt construction of the final link in the Dakota Access Pipeline, the controversial project that has sparked months of protests by activists aimed at stopping the 1,170-mile line.

At a hearing, Judge James Boasberg of the U.S. District Court in Washington, D.C., rejected the request from the Standing Rock Sioux and Cheyenne River Sioux tribes, who argued that the project would prevent them from practicing religious ceremonies at a lake they contend is surrounded by sacred ground.

With this decision, legal options for the tribes continue to narrow, as construction on the final uncompleted stretch is currently proceeding.

Last week, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers granted a final easement to Energy Transfer Partners LP, which is building the $3.8 billion pipeline (DAPL), after President Donald Trump issued an order to advance the project days after he took office in January.

Another hearing is scheduled for Feb. 27, as the tribes seek an injunction ordering the Army Corps to withdraw the easement.

Lawyers for the Cheyenne River Sioux and the Standing Rock Sioux wanted Judge Boasberg to block construction with a temporary restraining order on the grounds that the pipeline would obstruct the free exercise of their religious practices.

“We’re disappointed with today’s ruling denying a temporary restraining order against the Dakota Access Pipeline, but we are not surprised,” Chase Iron Eyes, a member of the Standing Rock Sioux tribe, said in a statement.

The company needs to build a 1,100-foot (335 meter) connection in North Dakota under Lake Oahe, part of the Missouri River system, to complete the pipeline.

The line would run from oilfields in the Northern Plains of North Dakota to the Midwest, and then to refineries along the Gulf of Mexico, and could be operating by early May.

Judge Boasberg ordered Energy Transfer Partners to update the court on Monday and every week thereafter on when oil is expected to flow beneath Lake Oahe.

The company did not respond to requests for comment.

Iron Eyes said during an earlier conference call that the pipeline would also cause economic harm to Native Americans.

In his statement, he said the tribe was still seeking an injunction against the pipeline, which would also be heard in Boasberg’s court. They also are continuing to push for a full environmental impact statement that was ordered in the last days of the Obama Administration.

“We continue to believe that both the tribes and the public should have meaningful input and participation in that process,” he said.

Thousands of tribe members, environmentalists, and others set up camps last year on Army Corps land in the North Dakota plains as protests intensified. In December, the Obama Administration denied the last permit needed by Energy Transfer Partners, but with Trump’s stated support of the pipeline that victory was short-lived for the tribes.

The Army Corps has said it would close remaining camps on federal lands along the Cannonball River in North Dakota after Feb. 22.

Tom Goldtooth, executive director of the Indigenous Environmental Network, one of the primary groups protesting the pipeline, said people would continue to leave the main camp. He said he expected more demonstrations around the country.

Only a few hundred protesters remained, and crews have been removing tipis and yurts. The Standing Rock tribe has asked protesters to leave.

(Reporting by Timothy Gardner; Additional reporting by Terray Sylvester in Cannon Ball, North Dakota; Editing by Nick Zieminski, Toni Reinhold)

IMAGE: Crews remove waste from the opposition camp. REUTERS/Terray Sylvester

Construction Resumes On Dakota Pipeline Despite Tribe’s Challenge

Construction Resumes On Dakota Pipeline Despite Tribe’s Challenge

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 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)

IMAGE: Police vehicles idle on the outskirts of the opposition camp against the Dakota Access oil pipeline near Cannon Ball, North Dakota. REUTERS/Terray Sylvester

U.S. Army To Grant Final Permit For Controversial Dakota Pipeline

U.S. Army To Grant Final Permit For Controversial Dakota Pipeline

WASHINGTON/HOUSTON (Reuters) – The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers will grant the final easement needed to finish the controversial Dakota Access Pipeline, according to a court filing Tuesday.

The line had been delayed for several months after protests from Native American tribes and climate activists. The $3.8 billion line, which is being built by Energy Transfer Partners, needed a final permit to tunnel under Lake Oahe, a reservoir that is part of the Missouri River.

The Standing Rock Sioux tribe, whose reservation is adjacent to the line’s route, has said they will fight the decision. The Army Corps had previously stated that they would undertake further environmental review of the project. The tribe was not immediately available for comment.

The 1,170-mile (1,885 km) line will bring crude oil from North Dakota’s Bakken shale region to Patoka, Illinois, and from there connect to the Gulf of Mexico, where many U.S. refineries are located. The tribe had fought the line for months, fearing contamination of their drinking water and damage to sacred sites on their land.

Numerous activists who have been protesting in North Dakota have vowed to stay, although the primary protest camp is located on a flood plain on Army Corps land and is in the process of being cleared.

Their protests, along with those of climate activists, resulted in the Obama administration’s decision to delay a final permit that would allow construction under the Missouri River.

“The discord we have seen regarding the Dakota Access Pipeline doesn’t serve the tribe, the company, the Corps or any of the other stakeholders involved. Now, we all need to work together to ensure people and communities rebuild trust and peacefully resolve their differences,” said John Hoeven, Republican senator from North Dakota, in a statement.

The Army informed the chairs and ranking members of the House Natural Resources and Senate Energy & Natural Resources committees of their intent in a letter on Tuesday.

President Donald Trump, days after being sworn in, issued an executive order directing the U.S. Army Corps to smooth the path to finishing the line. Tuesday’s filing was made in U.S. District Court in Washington D.C.

(Reporting By Valerie Volcovici; editing by Diane Craft and Cynthia Osterman)

IMAGE: A North Dakota National Guard vehicle idles on the outskirts of the Dakota Access oil pipeline protest camp near Cannon Ball, North Dakota, U.S., January 29, 2017. REUTERS/Terray Sylvester

If You Use One Of These Banks, You’re Helping Fund The Dakota Access Pipeline

If You Use One Of These Banks, You’re Helping Fund The Dakota Access Pipeline

Reprinted with permission from AlterNet.

At a recent Standing Rock benefit in New York City for opponents of the Dakota Access Pipeline, co-hosts Mark Ruffalo and Josh Fox were clear about what people should do if they want to help stop the pipeline: Take your money out of the banks that are funding it.

Fox, an Academy Award-nominated filmmaker whose 2010 documentary Gasland helped launch the anti-fracking movement, called Wells Fargo, Chase, CitiBank, TD Bank and Bank of America “the biggest fracking sites that we have.” But they’re not the only ones: 17 banks are directly funding the pipeline, having given a total of $2.5 billion to Dakota Access LLC, the subsidiary of Energy Transfer Partners developing the pipeline. In addition, according to research conducted by Food & Water Watch, the companies involved in building the pipeline have been extended a credit line of $10.25 billion from 38 banks.

The 17 banks are Bank of Tokyo-Mitsubishi UFJ, BayernLB, BNP Paribas, BVA Securities, Citibank (CitiGroup), Credit Agricole, DNB Capital, ING Bank, Natixis, Intesa SanPaolo, ICBC London, Mizuho Bank, SMBC Nikko Securities, Societe General, Sun Trust, TD Bank and Wells Fargo.

The graphic shows which banks are involved in funding the entire Bakken pipeline.

Image © Foodandwaterwatch.org (click to enlarge).

If completed, the $3.8 billion, 1,172-mile pipeline would transport 500,000 barrels of crude oil every single day from the Bakken oil fields in North Dakota south to Illinois en route to terminals in the Gulf of Mexico.

Mark Ruffalo, an actor and activist who was instrumental in the successful movement to ban fracking in New York state, was confident that withdrawing money from pro-pipeline banks is a successful strategy. “This is real. We can stop this pipeline by doing this,” he told the benefit attendees, who were gathered at Deepak HomeBase, at ABC Carpet and Home in downtown Manhattan. “You want to know how we can stop it? We stop it by doing this. This is the soft, gooey underbelly of the beast, of the black snake. The more pressure we put on them financially, the harder it is to move forward. It doesn’t mean a damn thing what Trump does.”

Last month, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers announced it would not grant the final permit the Dakota Access Pipeline needs to be completed. Instead, officials said, an environmental impact review will be conducted to investigate the possibility of routing the pipeline in a way to prevent it from crossing the Missouri River. While the decision is a big victory for the Standing Rock Sioux tribe and its allies, who say the pipeline threatens drinking water supplies, proponents of the pipeline have a powerful ally in President-elect Donald Trump, who said he supports its completion. But without funding from banks, the pipeline is endangered.

But it’s not only the pipeline that the banks—and possibly your money—is funding. Fox connected that money to the official violence being committed against the peaceful Standing Rock protesters and the environment at large. If you’ve got money in these banks, “you’ve got rubber bullets in the bank account that are being shot at these people, you’ve got tear gas that is being sprayed at the water protectors. You’ve got concussion grenades being hurled at your fellow New Yorkers. That’s what’s in the bank. You have an oil spill happening when you put that ATM card in. That has become an act of violence. That is our system.”

Tokata Iron Eyes, a 13-year-old water protector who came to New York for the benefit, asked attendees to be vocal about taking their money out. “When you are pulling your money from the banks, be sure to be public about it because we need that message to spread. … They’re paying for the traumas and the atrocities that children have to witness. I’ve had to see my mom be arrested, taken away from me. I’ve had to see my aunts and uncles on the front lines being beaten and maced. That’s something that no kid should have to see, but that’s what these banks are paying for.”

Fox suggested recording the event. “When you walk into the bank, and you have your livestream going from your iPhone or whatever, or you just take a selfie with your banker, and you say, I don’t want my money to be supporting these pipelines. I want the bank here to know.”

Ruffalo advocated a harsher tone, suggesting the following statement as you withdraw your money: “I’m taking every dime out of this bank if by the 21st, you guys haven’t made a formal statement to take the money out of this brutal, bloodless, taking of our health and the health of our future generations.”

The call to withdraw money from the banks follows a letter signed by more than 400 environmental, human rights and other social organizations from more than 50 countries demanding that the banks pull their financial support from the project. The campaign is working: More than $45 million has been divested from the Dakota Access Pipeline so far, according to the activist group DefundDAPL. And the figure continues to rise as more people withdraw their money.

In an article last year, 350.org founder Bill McKibben put it bluntly. He said that although “most Americans live far from the path of the Dakota Access pipeline,” if you keep your money in one of these banks, “you inadvertently helped pay for the guard dogs that attacked Native Americans as they tried to keep bulldozers from mowing down ancestral grave sites.” McKibben suggested that withdrawing money from these banks is more effective than campaigning against the companies building the pipeline.

“Many of these banks may be vulnerable to pressure,” he said. “For one thing, they’re eager to appear green: Bank of America, for instance, recently announced plans to make all its bank branches ‘carbon-neutral’ by 2020.”

Instead of keeping your money in pro-fossil fuel banks, consider credit unions, which are nonprofit cooperatives that pool deposits so that members can borrow at low interest rates and generally invest in local projects. Another type of bank worth looking into is a community development bank, which often invests in socially responsible projects. In New York, Fox recommended Amalgamated Bank. If you’re on the West Coast, check out Beneficial State Bank, which supports local communities and the environment. Native American Bank, which is run and operated by Native Americans, is another option. For a list of alternatives, check the DefundDAPL website.

Watch the video “Who’s Investing in the Dakota Access Pipeline? Meet the Banks Financing Attacks on Protesters,” by Democracy Now:

Reynard Loki is AlterNet’s environment and food editor. Follow him on Twitter @reynardloki. Email him at reynard@alternet.org.

IMAGE: Dakota Access Pipeline protesters square off against police near the Standing Rock Reservation and the pipeline route outside the little town of Saint Anthony, North Dakota, U.S., October 5, 2016. REUTERS/Terray Sylvester