Becca Hedges
Dr. MacLean
Geo 3010-01
10 Mar. 2017
​
Reflection 9
​
The need for consumers to have what they need and want at their fingertips mean having a way to transport items. Oil, gas, and petroleum are one type of these commodities. There needs to be safe transportation to the refineries or else major environmental hazards could occur. One method of “safe” transportation is with pipelines. The first pipeline that was built in the US was in 1879 and it was for oil transportation. Since then the US has built the largest network of energy pipelines. There are more than 2.4 million miles of pipelines. Of that number 72,000 miles are designated for crude oil (www.pipeline101.com). Among the many different companies who own and operate the crude oil lines Energy Transfer Partners, a Texas based company operates more than 70,000 miles of them. This company wants to add 1,172 miles of pipes through the Dakota Access Pipeline known as DAPL (Thompson, 2). The intention is to get the oil to Illinois for refining.
​
From the beginning this pipeline has stirred up controversy. It is a $3.7 billion dollar project and is already about 70% completed. It is also expected to carry 470,000 to 570,000 barrels of oil per day (ProCon.org). There are three good points to discuss in favor of the pipeline which are jobs, energy independence, and environmentally friendly transportation. This pipeline has in fact created many jobs in the construction of it. So far it has provided roughly 12,000 people with work. By boosting the workforce money has been able to go into local economies thus boosting the nation’s economy. This has been said to increase $129 million in annual state and federal tax revenue (ProCon.org). However, after the pipeline construction has been completed Energy Transfer Partners will only have 40 permanent positions available to maintain and operate the lines (Thompson, 2).
​
With energy independence the ability to use our own country’s resources limits the need of importing. Annually the US’s imports 5.2 million barrels of oil. If this pipeline is expected to produce 470,000 barrels per day, that equates to over 171 million barrels per year. Now, just because we would be reducing the money spent on imports does not decrease the demand (Thompson, 7-9). According to the US Department of Transportation pipelines have a less spills and other incidents then road and rail transportation does (ProCon.org). This mean there is less environmental hazard potential as far as the transportation side goes. This does not account for the effects of mining, refining, and burning of the oil. Another aspect of oil spills is that it is not a matter of if one will happen, but when it will happen.
​
This becomes one of the major cons with any type of pipeline. Most pipelines within the US are old and made of material that we now know is not good for us to consume. When they begin to corrode and break down we have issues. Just look at the events in Flint, Michigan. While what’s happening in Flint is not with oil but water, if pipe corrode enough they will create a spill contaminating anything in the surrounding areas. If the Dakota Access pipeline were to have any unfortunate spillage it would contaminate the water source for millions of people downstream. The construction of this pipeline was also granted a fast-track permit which gave the builders an exemption from the Clean Water Act requirements (ProCon.org). Another con of this pipeline lies in the issue of consumption without regard for our climate. The amount of oil that would be generated and placed into the system will only allow for more use. This is estimated to release 101.4 million metric tons of CO2 each year (ProCon.org). Keeping in mind this amount will be released regardless of the oil coming from our country or others. The point is that consumption will only continue to grow so long as consumers believe there is always more.
​
One other con is that the planned route of this pipeline runs near the border of The Fort Laramie Treaty of 1868 with the Sioux Nation. The Sioux do not recognize this boarder. They distinguish that this pipeline runs through their land from a treaty attempt in 1851 (ndstudies.gov). The Fort Laramie treaty is not recognized by this tribe. They claim that they were not consulted before the pipeline route was approved (ProCon.org).
​
Given the amount of time and money which has already gone into this pipeline it would be such a waste to abandon the project. We might as well continue since it is so close to being completed. On a positive note, there are many advances being made to clean up oil spills when they do happen. While I fully believe that not one oil spill in the past has been 100% cleaned up, there is hope. In the future anyone wanting to build another pipeline should consider the numerous other pipelines already on and under our soils. The problem with looking into an alternative route is the current permitted route is an alternative. The original route was set to go through the town of Bismarck, North Dakota but was rejected on account of the community fearing their water supply would be contaminated if any spills were to occur (Bismarktribune.com). The same reason as to what started the protests by the Sioux Nation. The best thing that could come in the future is our switch to cleaner fuel sources.