Investor’s Business Daily Editorial Board: Trump’s Energy Revolution Can’t Come Soon Enough

An Investor’s Business Daily editorial noted the politics at play surrounding the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers’ decision to not release the easement for the Dakota Access Pipeline.

“Politics: If you want to know why the economy has been struggling so much under President Obama, look no further than the arbitrary and capricious decision by his Army Corps of Engineers to block the Dakota Access pipeline it had already approved.”

The board touches a theme we have remained concerned about throughout the federal review of the Dakota Access Pipeline, the arbitrary proverbial hand of government, quashing an established process if it conflicts with a political agenda. These types of government interferences are dangerous for investors, who can be threatened with project cancellation despite following all state and federal laws and receiving approvals.

Dalrymple: Setting Record Straight On Dakota Access Pipeline

The Dakota Access Pipeline, an oil pipeline which starts in North Dakota and will route to Illinois, has been marred by a steady stream of misinformation and rumor. As governor of North Dakota, I feel it is important to share the facts of how the route was permitted through our state, as well as our North Dakota law enforcement’s exemplary management of protesters who have made national headlines.

Recently, many around the world have come to know this project as simply “DAPL” and have used limited information shared through traditional and social media to form opinions about the pipeline, and North Dakota as a whole. Much of this information is neither accurate nor fair.

North Dakota’s connection to the pipeline began in 2014 when Energy Transfer Partners officially filed its application for corridor compatibility and route permit through our Public Service Commission. It is the job of our three-person elected PSC to handle all such matters according to state law. A 13-month review process included public input meetings which were held across the state. As a result of these meetings, the route was modified 140 times to ensure environmental safety, including a shift to follow an existing gas pipeline corridor so as not to create an entirely new pathway. The final route was legally approved and permitted by the state of North Dakota, the location for the crossing of the Missouri River was approved by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, and the easement was forwarded to the assistant secretary of the Army for signature.

Continue Reading >>

Boston Herald Editorial: Editorial: An oil pipeline puzzle

The Boston Herald editorial board questioned the decision by the Obama Administration to not issue the easement for the Dakota Access Pipeline at Lake Oahe making reference to a recent op-ed in the Wall Street Journal by North Dakota Representative Kevin Cramer.

“According to U.S. Rep. Kevin [C]ramer [sic] (R-N.D.) writing in The Wall Street Journal, the original 1,142-mile route (from North Dakota oil fields to Illinois refineries) was modified 140 times in response to comments from other tribes and commenters in a process the tribe said was not “real” consultation. The tribe’s participation consisted mostly of statements that it didn’t want the pipeline around.

Various other Missouri crossings are nearby, Kramer wrote. The oil pipeline was to have been placed beside an existing natural gas pipeline 100 feet below the riverbed. None of the affected land is owned by the tribe.”

There are many questions left unanswered, including the legality of such an action after an entire review process was completed. As the board notes, “Answers would be good. A plan B for safely getting the oil to market would be even better.”

Bismarck Tribune Editorial: Decision on easement is lousy policy

A recently published Bismarck Tribune editorial heavily criticized the Obama Administration for its handling of the ongoing Dakota Access Pipeline protests. The editorial board called the decision not to grant the easement “bad policy” and one that “has the fingerprints of politics on it.” Additionally, “the decision by groups involved in the protest to maintain a presence at the camps until the pipeline issue is resolved means law enforcement resources will continue to be strained. It means continued problems for the SRST Reservation. The corps decision to conduct an additional review of the project means there will be likely more protests, more costs for law enforcement and more damage to SRST reputation in North Dakota. The responsibility falls on the corps and administration.”

According to the editorial, “The Tribune has been supportive of pipelines as a means of moving oil since the oil boom began. Pipelines are more efficient for moving oil than railroads and trucks.”

The article went on to praise Dakota Access “as the safest river-crossing pipeline ever built.”

Richard Epstein: Lawless Bureaucratic Obstruction Is No Substitute for the Rule of Law in the Dakota Access Decision

In a piece published in Forbes, Richard Epstein, an NYU law professor, senior fellow at the Hoover Institution, and senior lecturer at the University of Chicago Law School examines the Army Corps of Engineers Nov. 14 and Dec. 4 memoranda regarding the easement for the Dakota Access Pipeline at Lake Oahe and discusses how the Corps in fact favors the granting of the easement and completion of the project.

Following an in depth legal analyses of the rulings previously put forward by Judge Boasberg of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, as well as the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, in addition to the memos issued by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Mr. Epstein finds the December 4th memo, “wholly flawed, manifestly political, and insufficient.”

What is surprising is that from a legal sense this case is indeed groundbreaking, because to Mr. Eptseing’s “knowledge there has never been a situation where a project has lost its permits after the government, through the Army Corps, won its litigation against an opponent to the project.”

Despite multiple straightforward findings addressed in the memos, that oftentimes support the final construction of Dakota Access at Lake Oahe, the Corps has found reasons to dig deeper that are less than satisfactory and in fact offer no real solution or alternative other than further study, despite the fact in-depth analyses have already taken place over two years.

As the legal case draws on, it becomes more clear that death by delay appears once again to be a favored tactic, as no real solutions are offered by project opponents. But within a few short weeks, the Corps arguments may be moot as a new presidential administration prepares to take office, and new pro-infrastructure orders are handed down.

NY Post Editorial “Pipelines Are the Safest Form of Moving Gas and Oil”

A recent editorial from the New York Post highlighted the stacked deck that pipeline companies often face in New York, a movement that seems to be permeating the greater discussion on pipelines nationwide.

In fact, according to the editorial board “the Dakota fight was complicated by supposed wrongs to one Native American tribe, but plenty of the protesters were driven by green ideology: a movement that slams every pipeline as an “environmental threat.”

The reality is that pipelines are in fact the safest means of transporting oil and gas, and where pipelines do not exist the oil and gas does not stop, it simply is moved on less safe forms of transportation. In many cases this is also more expensive, a cost passed along to regular folks at the pump or in our heating bills.

In the words of the editorial, the protests surrounding the pipeline are a hysteria, with little thought given to the long term cost implications that will unfortunately be borne by working men and women throughout the country.

Major Media Outlets Say Dakota Pipeline Concerns Are Overblown

Various mainstream media outlets believe the recently rejected Dakota Access Pipeline should be completed even as environmentalists continue to fight the multi-billion-dollar project.

Major newspapers such as The Wall Street Journal, The Washington Post, and the USA Today, among others, have run headlines arguing the so-called DAPL’s previously approved route should be completed.

Their support comes after the project’s current route was rejected Dec. 4 after previously being approved by the Army Corps of Engineers in early July.

The pipeline was sidelined after months of opposition from environmentalists and Standing Rock Sioux, who believe the pipeline would trample on the tribe’s lands and poison its water supply.

Continue Reading >>

USA Today Editorial Supports Completion of Dakota Access

The USA Today Editorial Board called for the completion of the Dakota Access Pipeline in a piece published on December 5th.

According to the board’s piece, despite attempts to block the project, oil produced in North Dakota will not be kept in the ground.

“The issue of where to route pipelines is always going to be a sticking point. Native tribes are not the only ones who would prefer to not have them in or near their backyards. But pipelines fill a vital need for the economy and for America’s energy security, and therefore need to be built.

As for combating climate change, the ultimate goal of many environmental groups, taking on individual pipelines is not the answer. The answer is to impose costs on carbon emissions so polluters can’t keep using the atmosphere as a free dumping ground for greenhouse gases. That way, markets can figure out the best way to adapt.

Pipeline fights can make for a great spectacle. But, no matter which side wins, they will have little impact on the environment beyond their immediate environs.”

Standing Rock Protesters Learn that Violence Yields Results

Over the weekend, the Obama administration denied a key permit necessary to complete the controversial Dakota Access pipeline.

This overtly political decision not only ignores the facts about the Dakota Access pipeline; more dangerous, the Obama administration has rewarded the violent tactics used by some of the pipeline’s most radical protesters.

Since the protests began, a staggering 566 people have been arrested for charges ranging from attempted murder to rioting to conspiracy to endanger by fire or explosion.

A 37-year-old Colorado woman allegedly fired her .38-caliber pistol three times at a sheriff’s deputy. She was arrested after a struggle, and law enforcement said they found marijuana on her person.

In addition to bullets, law-enforcement officials have dodged protesters’ other projectiles, which have ranged from Molotov cocktails to wood and stones to feces. A drone endangered a police helicopter, and the sheriff’s department said arrows were also shot at it.

Continue Reading >>

 

Wall Street Journal Op-Ed Highlights Inaccuracies In Dakota Access Reporting

A recently published Wall Street Journal op-ed from Congressman Kevin Cramer of North Dakota dispels many of inaccuracies being reported about the project and highlights the extensive process and review of the Dakota Access Pipeline project.

In the op-ed Congressman Cramer states the following facts:

  • This isn’t about tribal rights or protecting cultural resources. The pipeline does not cross any land owned by the Standing Rock Sioux. The land under discussion belongs to private owners and the federal government. To suggest that the Standing Rock tribe has the legal ability to block the pipeline is to turn America’s property rights upside down.
  • Two federal courts have rejected claims that the tribe wasn’t consulted. The project’s developer and the Army Corps made dozens of overtures to the Standing Rock Sioux over more than two years. Often these attempts were ignored or rejected, with the message that the tribe would only accept termination of the project.
  • Other tribes and parties did participate in the process. More than 50 tribes were consulted, and their concerns resulted in 140 adjustments to the pipeline’s route. The project’s developer and the Army Corps were clearly concerned about protecting tribal artifacts and cultural sites. Any claim otherwise is unsupported by the record. The pipeline’s route was also studied—and ultimately supported—by the North Dakota Public Service Commission (on which I formerly served), the State Historic Preservation Office, and multiple independent archaeologists.
  • This isn’t about water protection. Years before the pipeline was announced, the tribe was working with the Bureau of Reclamation and the Army Corps to relocate its drinking-water intake. The new site sits roughly 70 miles downstream of where the pipeline is slated to cross the Missouri River. Notably, the new intake, according to the Bureau of Reclamation, will be 1.6 miles downstream of an elevated railroad bridge that carries tanker cars carrying crude oil.
  • This isn’t about the climate. The oil that will be shipped through the pipeline is already being produced. But right now it is transported in more carbon-intensive ways, such as by railroad or long-haul tanker truck. So trying to thwart the pipeline to reduce greenhouse gas could have the opposite effect.

What’s left that this issue could be about? Politics.

Unfortunately all the processes and laws in the world could not stop the politics of an outgoing administration attempting to cement a legacy. But the beauty of politics is that they are hardly permanent.

In 44 days a new presidential administration will have the opportunity to do the right thing; enforce the law, end a dangerous standoff, and release the final easement for Dakota Access to continue construction.