Jump to content

Dakota Access Pipeline

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Beagel (talk | contribs) at 21:08, 26 November 2016 (→Political ties: actually The Washington Post does not say $55,000). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

For the protest activity regarding the pipeline, see Dakota Access Pipeline protests.

Dakota Access Pipeline
Dakota Access Pipeline route (Standing Rock Indian Reservation is shown in orange)[1][2]
Dakota Access Pipeline route (Standing Rock Indian Reservation is shown in orange)[1][2]
Location
CountryUnited States
General directionSoutheastward
FromStanley, North Dakota
Passes throughStates of North Dakota, South Dakota, Iowa, Illinois.
ToPatoka, Illinois (oil tank farm)
General information
TypeCrude oil
PartnersEnergy Transfer Partners
Phillips 66
Enbridge (agreed)
Marathon Petroleum (agreed)
OperatorDakota Access Pipeline, LLC (an ETP subsidiary, development phase)
Sunoco Logistics Partners, L.P. (operational phase)
Expected2016
Technical information
Length1,134 mi (1,825 km)
Maximum discharge0.45 million barrels per day (~2.2×10^7 t/a)
Diameter30 in (762 mm)

The Dakota Access Pipeline or Bakken pipeline is a 1,172-mile-long (1,886 km) underground oil pipeline project in the United States. The pipeline is being planned by Dakota Access, LLC, a subsidiary of the Dallas, Texas corporation Energy Transfer Partners, L.P. It would begin in the Bakken oil fields in Northwest North Dakota and would travel in a more or less straight line south-east, through South Dakota and Iowa, and end at the oil tank farm near Patoka, Illinois. The pipeline is due for delivery on January 1, 2017.[3]

The $3.7 billion project became public in July 2014, and informational hearings for landowners took place between August 2014 and January 2015.[4] Dakota Access submitted its plan to the Iowa Utilities Board (IUB) on October 29, 2014, and applied for a permit in January 2015. The IUB was the last of the four state regulators to grant the permit in March 2016, including the use of eminent domain, after some public controversy. As of March 2016, Dakota Access had secured voluntary easements on 82 percent of Iowa land.

The pipeline has been controversial regarding its necessity, and potential harm to the environment. A number of Native Americans in Iowa and the Dakotas have opposed the pipeline, including the Meskwaki and several Sioux tribal nations. In August 2016, ReZpect Our Water, a group organized on the Standing Rock Indian Reservation, brought a petition to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers in Washington, D.C. and the tribe sued for an injunction. A protest at the pipeline site in North Dakota near the Standing Rock Indian Reservation has drawn international attention in response to the thousands of people who are protesting the pipeline construction and how they have been treated by local and state authorities.

Description

The pipeline would run from the Northwestern North Dakota Bakken formation and Three Forks hydrofracturing sites starting in Stanley, North Dakota and travel in a southeastward direction to end at the oil tank farm near Patoka, Illinois.[5]

Dakota Access, LLC plans a permanent 50 feet (15 m) easement and an up to 150 feet (46 m) construction right-of-way for the pipeline. It has said the 30-inch (760 mm) diameter pipeline would be at least 48 inches (1.2 m) underground from the top of the pipe or 2 feet (0.61 m) below any drain tiles.[6]

As of 2014, it projected that the pipe will carry in excess of 450,000 barrels per day (72,000 m3/d) of hydrofracked crude oil "based on contractual commitments to date".[5]

The company estimates the pipeline will cost $3.7 billion, including $189 million to pay landowners, and create up to 40 permanent jobs,[7] besides 8,200-12,000 temporary jobs. As of December 2014 informational meetings for landowners had been held in all counties of Iowa to explain right of way issues. The company was working on applications for a "hazardous liquid pipeline permit" with the four respective state agencies regulating utilities.[8] Unlike town meetings no record of the statements or objections is taken.[9] To petition for the pipeline permit Dakota Access LLC must wait until at least 30 days after the informational meetings.[citation needed]

Purpose

Bakken Oil being shipped by rail in Trempealeau, Wisconsin, a few feet from the Mississippi River.

Dakota Access spokespersons have argued the pipeline is needed to improve the overall safety to the public, it helps the US to attain energy independence, and it is a more reliable method of transport to refineries than by rail. Proponents also say the pipeline will free up railroads which will allow farmers to ship more Midwest grain.[10]

In January 2014, after rail derailments, the US Department of Transportation's PHMSA issued a safety alert because the Bakken crude may be more flammable than other grades.[11]

Ownership

Dakota Access, LLC, a fully owned subsidiary of Energy Transfer Partners LP (ETP), a master limited partnership based in Dallas, Texas, owns 75% of the pipeline, while Houston-based Phillips 66 owns a 25% stake. Phillips 66 also co-owns another part of the Bakken system, the Energy Transfer Crude Oil Pipeline which runs from Patoka to storage terminals in Nederland, Texas. It co-owns the storage terminals with Philadelphia-based Sunoco Logistics Partners.[5] Sunoco is a fully owned subsidiary of Energy Transfer Partners since 2012.[12]

In August 2016, the joint venture of Enbridge (75%) and Marathon Petroleum (25%) named MarEn Bakken Company agreed to purchase a 49% stake in Dakota Access, LLC for $2 billion. It gives to Enbridge a 27.6% indirect stake and to Marathon 9.2% indirect stake in the pipeline.[13][14] As of October 31, 2016, the deal was not completed.[15]

Financing

The pipeline project costs $3.7 billion. The stake of $2.5 billion is financed by the loans while the rest is financed by the sale of the stake in the pipeline to Enbridge and Marathon Petroleum.[16] The credit is provided by the group of 17 banks. Hugh McMillan stated that Citibank, Wells Fargo, BNP Paribas, SunTrust, Royal Bank of Scotland, Bank of Tokyo-Mitsubishi, Mizuho Bank, TD Securities, ABN AMRO Capital, DNB ASA, ICBC, SMBC Nikko Securities and Société Générale are among the creditors.[17] Due to protests against the pipeline, DNB, which has provided over $342 million credit to the project, announced that it was considering withdrawing the funding if its calls to respect indigenous rights were not met.[18][19]

Route

North Dakota

Map of Bakken wells in the Dakotas
Dakota Access Pipeline reroute, Carl Sack, CC-BY[20]

The project would consist of 143 miles (230 km) of oil gathering pipelines and 200 miles (320 km) of larger transmission pipeline. It would start with a terminal in the Stanley area, and run west with five more terminals in Ramberg Station, Epping, Trenton, Watford City and Johnsons Corner before becoming a transmission line going through Williston, the Watford City area, south of Bismarck, crossing the Missouri River again north of Cannon Ball.[21] Dakota Access intended to apply with the North Dakota Public Service Commission which as of December 3, 2014, had no such case on file.[22] In the early stages of route planning, Dakota Access proposed to lay the pipeline northeast of Bismarck. According to the North Dakota Public Service Commission, the Bismarck route was 10 miles longer and was rejected by the Army Corps of Engineers in an early environmental assessment before a request was made to the PSC for a permit.However, the decision to reroute the pipeline closer to the reservation was described by Jesse Jackson and other critics as "environmental racism".[23]

In January 2016, Dakota Access filed 23 condemnation suits in North Dakota "against 140 individuals, banks and a coal mine".[24] As of February 2016, all state regulators but Iowa had approved the pipeline.[25] As of March 2016, Dakota Access had secured voluntary easements on 97 percent of North Dakota land, the highest proportion of the four affected states.[26]

South Dakota

The pipeline would route through Campbell, McPherson, Edmunds, Faulk and Spink counties.[27] The South Dakota Public Utilities Commission first learned about the project from landowners three to four weeks before being contacted by company officials in August, which the PUC chairman called "unusual”.[27] Dakota LLC held informational meetings for landowners in October 2014[8] and, as of February 2016, it had approved the pipeline.[25] As of March 2016, Dakota Access had secured voluntary easements on 93 percent of South Dakota land.[26]

Iowa

Dakota Access Pipeline being built in central Iowa

As of September 2016 Bakken shale oil is transported through nine Iowa counties only via three freight trains per week. The pipeline would pass about 343 miles (552 km) diagonally through the following 18 Iowa counties of the state Lyon, Sioux, O'Brien, Cherokee, Buena Vista Sac, Calhoun, Webster, Boone, Story (which will have a pumping station), Polk, Jasper, Mahaska Keokuk, Wapello, Jefferson, Van Buren, and Lee.

Energy Transfer has said it expects the project to create between 12 and 15 permanent jobs and 2,000 and 4,000 temporary jobs. The $1.35 billion capital investment would generate $33 million in Iowa sales tax during construction and $30 million in property tax in 2017.[8] Energy Transfer requested the analysis, which was prepared by "Strategic Economics Group" in West Des Moines, per the Des Moines Register.[28] The group says "our research is data-driven, client-specific" on its website.[29] Dave Swenson, an Iowa State University research scientist in the department of economics, has said "the analysis overstates pipeline jobs and economic effects".[30]

Besides the Iowa Utilities Board, the pipeline needed to be approved by the Iowa Department of Natural Resources (DNR)[31] to obtain local-impact permits for air quality, water discharge, stormwater, flood plain and sovereign lands, as the pipeline runs through state parks or public lakes.[8] The Army Corps of Engineers needed to issue a permit, because the pipeline routes through watersheds, and the Corps was not expected to block the project.[32]

Illinois

Open House meetings for landowners took place in October 2014.[8] A webinar for Brown and Hancock County, Illinois took place in February 2015. Per filings before the Illinois Commerce Commission (ICC), Dakota Access still had no definite route, it made easements with only nine of 908 Illinois landowners, and it requested the ICC grant it eminent domain, according to the Illinois Farm Bureau attorney.[33] As of 12 March 2014, no documents had been filed with the ICC.[34] and as of February 2016, it had approved the pipeline.[25] As of February 2016, all state regulators but Iowa had approved the pipeline.[25] As of March 2016, Dakota Access said it had secured voluntary easements on 92 percent of Illinois land.[26]

History

On July 29, 2014, according to Dakota Access, it met with the Iowa Utilities Board (IUB) for a first meeting. Dakota Access wrote landowners in the path of the pipeline, requesting visits to survey or take soil samples in preparation for voluntary easement. The Iowa attorney general's chief deputy said that if the IUB approved, Dakota Access would have the right to use eminent domain to gain access through a government agency.[35]

In October 2014, Iowa Governor Terry Branstad "rejected pleas from a coalition of Iowa community and environmental activists who asked him to block plans".[9]

On October 29, 2014 Dakota Access submitted the project to the Iowa Utilities Board (IUB).[36]

Since December 1, 2014, informational meetings in each of the affected counties had been taking place,[37] where an official from the IUB, one from PMHSA, and one from Dakota Access presented information.[38] Some 350 people showed up for the informational meeting in Fort Madison, Iowa.[39] More than 300 people attended Sioux Center's information meeting.[40] About 200 people attended in Oskaloosa, Iowa.[41] Some attendees expressed opposition to the pipeline, and many questions remained unanswered at the meeting in Storm Lake, Iowa.[42]

In January 2015, Dakota Access filed its pipeline application with the IUB.[43] In February 2015, it planned to file applications with the Iowa Department of Natural Resources for sovereign land and floodplain permits.[44]

In April 2015, Iowa Senate Study Bill 1276 and House Study Bill 249 advanced with both Senator Robert Hogg, D-Cedar Rapids, and State Representative Bobby Kaufmann, R-Wilton, in support; it required Energy Transfer's subsidiary Dakota Access "to obtain voluntary easements from 75 percent of property owners along the route before eminent domain could be authorized".[45]

In May 2015, a private landowner along the path of the pipeline accused a contractor of trying to negotiate land rights for the pipeline by offering the services of a teenage prostitute in return for the landowner's cooperation.[46]

On November 12, 2015, the Iowa Utilities Board heard public testimony during one day with more than 275 people signed up opposing the pipeline. There were 10 days scheduled for hearings by Dakota Access.[47]

In February 2016, the IUB had not made a decision after four days of hearings.[25] Nick Wagner, one of the three members of the Iowa Utilities Board and a former Republican state legislator, was asked to recuse himself for a conflict of interest, but refused to do so.[48]

On March 10, 2016, the IUB approved the Bakken Pipeline, on a vote of 3-0.[49] under the following conditions: "liability insurance of at least $25 million; guarantees that the parent companies of Dakota Access will pay for damages created by a pipeline leak or spill; a revised agricultural impact mitigation plan; a timeline for construction notices; modified condemnation easement forms; and a statement accepting the terms and condition's of the board's order."[50] One day later Dakota Access stated it had secured voluntary easements on 82 percent of the 1,295 affected Iowa land parcels.[26]

In March 2016, Dakota Access filed motions with the IUB requesting expedited and confidential treatment to begin construction immediately, saying it met the conditions and that its liability insurance policies were trade secrets under Iowa law and "would serve no public purpose".[50]

In May 2016, the US Fish and Wildlife Service revoked the approval of an Iowa DNR sovereign lands construction permit in three counties, where the pipeline would cross the Big Sioux River and the Big Sioux Wildlife Management Area; these are historic and cultural sites of the Upper Sioux tribe.[51] Iowa farmers filed lawsuits to prevent the state from using eminent domain to take their land.[52]

In June 2016, the IUB voted 2 - 1 (Libby Jacobs and Nick Wagner in favor and Chairwoman Geri Huser against) to allow construction on non-sovereign lands to continue. The Sierra Club said this action was illegal before the US Corps of Engineers had authorized the project.[53]

In August 2016, 30 demonstrators were arrested in Boone, Iowa.[54]

According to state and federal authorities, there were several cases of arson that damaged pipeline construction equipment in Iowa during 2016. One deliberately set fire caused nearly $1 million in damage to construction equipment in August in Jasper County, Iowa. Two other fires involving pipeline construction equipment were set around the same time in the same county and another was set in Mahaska County.[55] In October, another arson fire caused $2 million worth of damage to pipeline construction equipment in Jasper County, Iowa.[56]

Federal agencies permissions

In March 2016, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service had issued a sovereign lands construction permit. In late May 2016, the permit was temporarily revoked because of information about an Upper Sioux tribe historic and cultural site including graves in Lyon County.[51] In late June 2016, construction was allowed to resume in Lyon County after plans were changed to route the pipeline 85 feet below the site using directional boring, instead of trenching and disturbing the soil on the surface.[57]

The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers conducted a limited review of the route, involving an environmental assessment of river crossings and portions of the project related to specific permits, and issued a finding of no significant impact. It did not carry out an area-wide full environmental impact assessment of the entire effects of the overall project through the four states.[58] Citing potential effects on and lack of consultation with the Native American tribes, most notably the Standing Rock Sioux, in March and April 2016 the Environmental Protection Agency, the Department of Interior, and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation asked the Army Corps of Engineers to conduct a formal Environmental Impact Assessment and issue an Environmental Impact Statement. In July, however, the Army Corps of Engineers approved the water crossing permits for the Dakota Access Pipeline under a “fast track” option, and construction of the disputed section of pipeline continued.[59][60] Saying "the Corps effectively wrote off the tribe’s concerns and ignored the pipeline’s impacts to sacred sites and culturally important landscapes," the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe then filed suit against the Army Corps of Engineers, accusing the agency of violating the National Historic Preservation Act and other laws.[61] As of November 14, 2016, the Army Corps of Engineers has stated that, "construction on or under Corps land bordering Lake Oahe cannot occur because the Army has not made a final decision on whether to grant an easement".[62][63]

In September the U.S Department of Justice received more than 33,000 petitions to review all permits and order a full review of the project’s environmental effects.[64] On November 1, President Obama announced that his administration is monitoring the situation and has been in contact with the Army Corps to examine the possibility of rerouting the pipeline to avoid lands that Native Americans hold sacred.[99]

Concerns

Environmental concerns

Cannonball River, North Dakota

Greenpeace and a group of 160+ scientists dedicated to conservation and preservation of threatened natural resources and endangered species have spoken out against the pipeline.[65][66][67] The Science & Environmental Health Network also rejects the pipeline.[68] Conservation groups worry about safety, and the impacts on air, water, wildlife and farming, because, they say, "pipelines break".[35] The Iowa Environmental Council has stated it is "concerned whether the state has enough protections — from state government oversight to ensuring the company has enough money in reserve to address any harm caused by a spill".[30] Iowa state laws require pipeline owners to have only a $250,000 reserve fund. The Iowa chapter of the Sierra Club is "worried about the rights of landowners [...] concerned about [their] Dakota Access LLCs economic projections and whether there are really any benefits to Iowa."[30] Iowa Citizens for Community Improvement (ICCI) has called the pipeline "all risk and no reward" and the $250,000 surety bond "fiscally irresponsible". It has suggested raising it to at least $1 billion, indexed to inflation, which would match Alaska's precautions of protection.[69]

Environmentalists and Native Americans have expressed their fears that the Missouri River might become contaminated in the event of a spill or leak, jeopardizing a source of drinking and irrigation water that affect thousands of people who depend on clean water.[65][70] They claim that the environmental review that has been performed to analyze the impact of the pipeline on its surroundings was incomplete, claiming that even much smaller, less risky development projects require more rigorous impact analysis than has been completed for the Dakota Access Pipeline.[70] They accuse the US Army Corps of Engineers of hastily approving each stage of the review process and ignoring federal regulations and established treaties between Native American tribes and claim there is a lack of environmental foresight and consideration.[71]

It remains unclear what specifically happens if the pipeline leaks, how residents would know of a leak, why the company asks for a permanent easement of farmland when oil rights can be obtained only for 25 years at a time, who the majority shareholders of Dakota Access are, and where Energy Transfer's guarantee of liability for newly established Dakota Access, LLC is, if it is required to have only a $250,000 bond in case of damages.[42] Sunoco Logistics, the future operator of the pipeline, has spilled crude oil from its onshore pipelines more often since 2010 than any other US pipeline operator, with at least 203 leaks disclosed to the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration.[72]

Disturbance of land

Trenching to install drainage tile in Iowa during the 1980s.

Farmers are concerned about the disturbance of the land, tiling, soil erosion, and soil quality.[40] Iowa fields contain a lot of drain tiles, which can be damaged. The pipeline company said they would repair any tile damaged during construction and place the pipeline 2 feet below drainage tiles.[6] Some farmers were concerned about soil disturbance, but a Dakota Access spokesman noted that the soil had already been disturbed during the installation of drainage tile in all of the contested farms the pipeline planned to cross.[73] Farmers are also concerned about leaks in the pipeline caused by destabilization in certain areas prone to flooding, which could cause an environmental disaster.[74]

Eminent domain

Highway sign objecting to the pipeline in Iowa

Landowners across Iowa are concerned about the implications of allowing the state to condemn privately owned land, particularly agricultural land, on behalf of a company that has not demonstrated any substantial public benefit to the residents of Iowa.[10] In March 2015, a Des Moines Register poll found that while fifty-seven percent of Iowans supported the Dakota Access Pipeline, seventy-four percent were opposed to the use of eminent domain condemnation on behalf of a private corporation.[75]

For pipelines, eminent domain is used to legally grant "right of way" to the land. In this situation, many people assume that "eminent domain" means land is being taken away from land owners.[76][77] Land owners are compensated for the long-term use of their land, and paid for the loss of the current crop on farmland, replacement of fences, and re-seeding of grass[78][79] in what is called a voluntary easement.[80] Across the four states on the pipeline's route, 99% of privately-owned properties involved are considered voluntary easements as of August, 2016; properties in all states but Iowa have been retained as voluntary easements at rates of 100%.[80]

Tribal opposition

The Meskwaki tribe opposes the Bakken pipeline through Iowa for numerous reasons; tribal chairwoman Judith Bender told the Iowa Utilities Board that she is concerned that the Bakken pipeline could be used as a replacement if the Keystone XL pipeline is not built.[81] The Standing Rock Sioux Tribe have also stated their opposition to the Dakota Access Pipeline on the grounds that the pipeline and its construction threatens the tribe's "way of life, [their] water, people, and land".[82]

Political ties

According to the 2016 federal disclosure forms, President-elect Donald Trump holds between $15,000 and $50,000 in stock in Energy Transfer Partners and between $100,000 and $250,000 in Phillips 66 which creates a conflict of interest when making presidential decisions affecting the pipeline project.[83] The Washington Post reported that Trump sold off his shares in Energy Transfer Partners in the summer of 2016.[84]

Trump is also indirectly linked to the project because Energy Transfer Partners CEO Kelcy Warren contributed $103,000 to the Trump campaign.[85][86] Trump has not taken a position on the project.[85]

In 2013, Iowa Governor Terry Branstad held a campaign fundraiser in Houston. He has subsequently said that he was unaware of Energy Transfer Partners pipeline proposal.[31] Texas governor Rick Perry, who is a close friend of Branstad and who has helped him draw donors,[87] is on on ETP's board of directors.[88] A former Branstad re-election campaign staffer, Susan Fenton, who is now the director of government affairs with Des Moines public relations firm LS2, is handling public relations for Energy Transfer. She met with IUB officials in July 2014.[5] In September 2014, Des Moines lobbyist and Republican Party campaign consultant Craig Schoenfeld joined an Energy Transfer representative at a meeting with Story County, Iowa Supervisor Paul Toot and County Engineer Darren Moon.[5]

Protests

Standing Rock solidarity march in San Francisco, November 2016.
Main article: Dakota Access Pipeline protests

Many Sioux tribes say that the pipeline threatens the Tribe’s environmental and economic well-being, and would damage and destroy sites of great historic, religious, and cultural significance. Protests at pipeline construction sites in North Dakota began in the spring of 2016 and drew indigenous people, calling themselves water protectors and land defenders,[89] from throughout North America as well as many other supporters, creating the largest gathering of Native Americans in the past hundred years.[90]

In April, a Standing Rock Sioux elder established a camp as a center for cultural preservation and spiritual resistance to the pipeline, and over the summer the camp grew to thousands of people.[91] In July, ReZpect Our Water, a group of Native American youth, ran from Standing Rock in North Dakota to Washington, DC to raise awareness of what they perceive as a threat to their people's drinking water and that of everyone who relies on the Missouri and Mississippi rivers for drinking water and irrigation.[6][61]

While the protests have drawn international attention and have been said to be "reshaping the national conversation for any environmental project that would cross the Native American land",[92] there was limited mainstream media coverage of the events in the United States until early September.[93] At that time, construction workers bulldozed a section of land that tribal historic preservation officers had documented as a historic, sacred site, and when protesters entered the area security workers used attack dogs, which bit at least five of the protesters. The incident was filmed and viewed by several million people on YouTube and other social media.[94][95][96][97] In late October, armed soldiers and police with riot gear and military equipment cleared an encampment that was directly in the proposed pipeline's path.[98][99]

On November 15, protesters in Chicago, Los Angeles, Manhattan, Denver, and other cities held protests against the pipeline in a coordinated protest which organizers called a "National Day of Action."[100] [101]

See also

Notes

References

  1. ^ Official "Dakota Access Pipeline" project maps; Energy Transfer.
  2. ^ Bakken Pipeline Map and Construction Progress; Nitin Gadia. (unofficial website)
  3. ^ Harte, Julia (October 5, 2016). "Federal appeals court hears arguments over Dakota Access pipeline". Reuters. Retrieved October 14, 2016.
  4. ^ "Dakota Access Pipeline". Energy Transfer. 2015. Retrieved November 25, 2016.
  5. ^ a b c d e Gavin Aronsen (October 28, 2014). "Energy Transfer, Phillips 66 partner on Iowa pipeline". Ames Tribune.
  6. ^ a b c Petroski, William (August 25, 2014). "Should farmers make way for the Bakken pipeline?". Press Citizen. Retrieved December 4, 2014.
  7. ^ Overview
  8. ^ a b c d e Chelsea Keenan (October 1, 2014). "Texas energy company releases more details on pipeline". Cedar Rapids Gazette. SourceMedia, Investcorp. Retrieved December 4, 2014.
  9. ^ a b William Petroski (October 14, 2014). "Branstad won't stop Bakken oil pipeline through Iowa". Des Moines Register. Retrieved December 1, 2014.
  10. ^ a b Petroski, William (February 9, 2016). "296 Iowa landowners decline Bakken pipeline". Des Moines Register. Retrieved November 6, 2016.
  11. ^ PMHSA (January 2, 2014). "Preliminary Guidance from OPERATION CLASSIFICATION" (Safety Alert). Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration. Retrieved December 2, 2014.
  12. ^ Gopinath, Swetha; Erman, Michael (April 30, 2012). "Energy Transfer Partners to buy Sunoco for $5.35 billion". Reuters. Retrieved December 12, 2015.
  13. ^ Cryderman, Kelly (August 2, 2016). "Enbridge, Marathon Petroleum buy Bakken pipeline stake for $2-billion". The Globe and Mail. Retrieved November 6, 2016.
  14. ^ Penty, Rebecca (August 3, 2016). "Enbridge, Marathon Agree to Buy $2 Billion Bakken Pipe Stake". Bloomberg. Retrieved November 6, 2016.
  15. ^ McCarthy, Shawn (October 31, 2016). "Enbridge remains set on Dakota Access pipeline stake". The Globe and Mail. Retrieved November 6, 2016.
  16. ^ Gallon, Kurt (August 8, 2016). "Energy Transfer Partners, Sunoco Logistics Announced Stake Sale". Market Realist. Retrieved November 11, 2016.
  17. ^ "Who's Investing in the Dakota Access Pipeline? Meet the Banks Financing Attacks on Protesters". Democracy Now!. September 6, 2016. Retrieved November 8, 2016.
  18. ^ "Norway's biggest bank may reconsider Dakota Access funding". CBC News. November 8, 2016. Retrieved November 8, 2016.
  19. ^ Geiger, Julianne (November 7, 2016). "Another Setback For DAPL As Norwegian Bank Rethinks Funding". oilprice.com. Retrieved November 8, 2016.
  20. ^ Sack, Carl (November 2, 2016). "A #NoDAPL Map". Huffington Post. Retrieved November 17, 2016.
  21. ^ Mike Nowatzki (August 30, 2014). "'Stealth' North Dakota Bakken oil pipeline project faces fight". Pioneer Press. Retrieved December 4, 2014.
  22. ^ "Case search". North Dakota Public Service Commission. The State of North Dakota. Retrieved December 4, 2014.
  23. ^ Thorbecke, Catherine (November 4, 2016). "Why Previously Proposed Route for Dakota Access Pipeline Was Rejected". ABC News. Retrieved November 6, 2016.
  24. ^ Lauren Donovan (January 1, 2016). "Dakota Access pipeline files condemnation lawsuits". Bismarck Tribune. Retrieved July 23, 2016.
  25. ^ a b c d e William Petroski, Iowa board struggles with pipeline decision, Des Moines Register, 12 February 2016.
  26. ^ a b c d William Petroski Bakken pipeline secures 82 percent of Iowa land parcels Des Moines Register, March 11, 2016
  27. ^ a b Connie Sieh Groop (September 15, 2014). "Bakken pipeline would cross northeastern South Dakota to get to Illinois". Aberdeen News. Schurz Communications. Retrieved December 4, 2014.
  28. ^ Donnelle Eller (November 12, 2014). "Pipeline could bring $1.1 billion to Iowa". Des Moines Register. Retrieved December 6, 2014.
  29. ^ economicsgroup.com (n.d.). "We are economic and planning consultants". Strategic Economics Group, Inc. Retrieved December 6, 2014.
  30. ^ a b c Douanne Eller (December 4, 2014). "Unlikely allies join to fight pipeline project". Retrieved December 4, 2014.
  31. ^ a b William Petroski (July 14, 2014). "Branstad undecided on Iowa oil pipeline plans". The Des Moines Register.
  32. ^ B.A. Morelli. Corps of Engineers unlikely to block Bakken pipeline through Iowa. The Gazette, March 11, 2016
  33. ^ "Two county Farm Bureaus to host crude oil pipeline webinar". Illinois Farm Bureau. February 6, 2015. Retrieved March 3, 2015.
  34. ^ "Search". Illinois Commerce Commission. Retrieved December 4, 2014.
  35. ^ a b William Petroski (July 10, 2014). "Oil pipeline across Iowa proposed". Des Moines Register. Gannett Company. Retrieved December 4, 2014.
  36. ^ Iowa Utilities Board (n.d.). "Docket Summary for Docket HLP-2014-0001". Retrieved December 1, 2014.
  37. ^ Rod Boshart (December 1, 2014). "Iowa Iowa oil pipeline meetings start today". The Gazette, Cedar Rapids.
  38. ^ Joyce Russell (December 2, 2014). "Landowners Question Bakken Pipeline". Iowa Public Radio. NPR.org. Retrieved December 3, 2014.
  39. ^ Associated Press (December 1, 2014). "Concerns voiced at oil pipeline meeting in S.E. Iowa".
  40. ^ a b Rachael Krause (December 1, 2014). "Hundreds Pack Inside Sioux Center Meeting On Proposed Dakota Access Pipeline Project". SiouxLandMatters.com. Nexstar Broadcasting, Inc. Retrieved December 4, 2014.
  41. ^ Mark Tauscheck (December 3, 2014). "Iowans pack meeting on new oil pipeline". KCCI-TV. Des Moines Hearst Television Inc. Retrieved December 4, 2014.
  42. ^ a b Megan Naylor (December 5, 2014). "Oil pipeline plan meets with BV resistance". The Daily Reporter. Northwest Iowa Publishing. Retrieved December 6, 2014.
  43. ^ William Petroski (January 20, 2015). "Bakken pipeline OK requested; setting up Iowa showdown". Des Moines Register. Retrieved February 10, 2015.
  44. ^ Jon Lloyd Proposed Bakken pipeline construction requires at least two DNR permits, Boone News Republican, (GateHouse Media, Inc.), 7 February 2015
  45. ^ William Petroski (April 28, 2015). "Iowa bills place hurdles for Bakken pipeline, powerline". Des Moines Regicter. Retrieved May 1, 2015.
  46. ^ O. Kay Henderson (May 11, 2015). "Southeast Iowa landowner accuses pipeline agent of improper offer". RadioIowa. Retrieved May 11, 2015.
  47. ^ Amy Mayer. Public Voices Support And Oppose Bakken Pipeline Across Iowa, Iowa Public Radio, 12 November 2015
  48. ^ William Petroski "Iowa regulator won't step down from pipeline case", Des Moines Register, 18 February 2016
  49. ^ Kim St. Onge IUB announces decision on oil pipeline KCCI, March 9, 2016
  50. ^ a b William Petroski, Bakken pipeline firm seeks expedited construction permit Des Moines Register, March 17, 2016
  51. ^ a b William Petrowski (May 27, 2016). "Tribal land issues block Bakken pipeline in Iowa". Des Moines Register. Retrieved June 8, 2016.
  52. ^ William Petroski (May 20, 2016). "Iowa farmers sue to block use of eminent domain for Bakken pipeline". Des Moines Register. Retrieved July 23, 2016.
  53. ^ William Petrowski (June 6, 2016). "Despite critics, Bakken pipeline gets go-ahead in Iowa". Des Moines Register. Retrieved June 8, 2016.
  54. ^ Pat Curtis (August 31, 2016). "Bakken oil pipeline protesters arrested in Boone". Radio Iowa. Retrieved September 25, 2016.
  55. ^ Petroski, William (August 1, 2016). "Nearly $1 million in arson reported on Bakken pipeline project". Des Moines Register.
  56. ^ Aguirre, Joey (October 17, 2016). "Dakota Access offers $100,000 for information leading to arson conviction". Des Moines Register.
  57. ^ Petroski, William (June 20, 2016). "Bakken pipeline will run under sacred tribal site". Des Moines Register. Retrieved November 26, 2016.
  58. ^ The Seattle Times staff (October 26, 2016). "Live updates from Dakota Access Pipeline protests: 'It will be a battle here'". The Seattle Times. Retrieved October 26, 2016.
  59. ^ Moyers, Bill (September 9, 2016). "What You Need to Know About the Dakota Access Pipeline Protest". Common Dreams. Retrieved October 26, 2016.
  60. ^ "Frequently Asked Questions DAPL". US Army Corps of Engineers, Omaha District. Retrieved November 25, 2016.
  61. ^ a b Amundson, Barry (July 29, 2016). "Standing Rock tribe sues over Dakota Access pipeline permits". Grand Forks Herald. Retrieved August 6, 2016.
  62. ^ "Statement Regarding the Dakota Access Pipeline". Headquarters U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Retrieved November 16, 2016.
  63. ^ "Frequently Asked Questions DAPL". US Army Corps of Engineers, Omaha District. Retrieved November 25, 2016.
  64. ^ Michael Leland, Iowa Public Radio (September 15, 2016). "Bakken pipeline opposition presents petitions to U.S. Justice Department". Radio Iowa. Retrieved September 25, 2016.
  65. ^ a b Dawson, Chester; Maher, Kris (October 12, 2016). "Fight Over Dakota Access Pipeline Intensifies; Company behind the project expects final approval; opponents vow to continue effort". The Wall Street Journal. Retrieved November 15, 2016.
  66. ^ Stephanie Januchowski-Hartley; Anne Hilborn; Katherine C. Crocker; Asia Murphy. "Scientists stand with Standing Rock". Science. No. 6307. p. 1506. Retrieved November 19, 2016.
  67. ^ Januchowski-Hartley, PhD, Stephanie (September 2016). "DAPL Scientist Sign-On Letter" (PDF). srjanuchowski-hartley.com. self-published. Retrieved November 14, 2016.
  68. ^ Carolyn Raffensperger (December 5, 2014). "A Legal and Political Analysis of the Proposed Bakken Oil Pipeline in Iowa". SEHN. Retrieved February 2, 2015.
  69. ^ Nathan Malachowski (January 17, 2015). "Branstad bullying Legislature over pipeline". Des Moines Register. Retrieved February 10, 2015.
  70. ^ a b Anonymous (August 1, 2016). "Standing Rock Sioux take action to protect culture and environment from massive crude oil pipeline". Earth Justice. Retrieved November 15, 2016.
  71. ^ Yan, Holly (October 28, 2016). "Dakota Access Pipeline: What's at stake?". CNN. Retrieved November 15, 2016.
  72. ^ "Sunoco, behind protested Dakota pipeline, tops U.S. crude spill charts". Reuters. September 23, 2016. Retrieved November 2, 2016.
  73. ^ Hardy, Kevin (August 24, 2016). "Dakota Access pipeline wrecking soil, farmers complain". Des Moines Register.
  74. ^ Lloyd, Jon (November 15, 2014). "Pipeline meeting to take place next month in Boone". Boone News Republican. Stephens Media LLC. Archived from the original on January 12, 2015. Retrieved December 4, 2014.
  75. ^ "Iowa Poll: Iowans back energy projects, but oppose eminent domain". www.desmoinesregister.com. March 2, 2015. Retrieved March 2, 2015.
  76. ^ For-Profit Pipelines Are Growing And So Are Eminent Domain Battles; Think Progress; June 7, 2016.
  77. ^ Invoking power of eminent domain, gas industry runs roughshod over private property; State Impact NPR; May 10, 2016.
  78. ^ Sample of an actual right-of-way agreement; Pipeline Safety Trust.
  79. ^ Landowner’s Guide to Pipelines; Pipeline Safety Trust.
  80. ^ a b "August 2016: Iowa Progress Report" (PDF). Energy Partners. Dakota Access, LLC. August 9, 2016. Retrieved November 15, 2016.
  81. ^ William Petroski (March 16, 2015). "Meskwaki tribe opposes Bakken oil pipeline through Iowa". USA Today. Retrieved April 8, 2015.
  82. ^ Archambault II, Dave (August 15, 2016). "Call to Action of Indigenous People's". Standing Rock Sioux Tribe. Retrieved November 15, 2016 – via Stand with Standing Rock.
  83. ^ "Trump's stock in Dakota Access pipeline raises concerns". Al Jazeera. November 25, 2016. Retrieved November 26, 2016.
  84. ^ Mufson, Steven (November 23, 2016). "Trump dumped his stock in Dakota Access pipeline owner over the summer". The Washington Post. Retrieved November 26, 2016.
  85. ^ a b Hampton, Liz; Volcovici, Valerie (November 25, 2016). "Top executive behind Dakota Access has donated more than $100,000 to Trump". Reuters. Retrieved November 26, 2016.
  86. ^ Milman, Oliver (October 26, 2016). "Dakota Access pipeline company and Donald Trump have close financial ties". The Guardian. Retrieved November 2, 2016.
  87. ^ Noble, Jason (May 29, 2014). "Rick Perry draws donors for Terry Branstad in Ames". The Des Moines Register. Retrieved September 25, 2016.
  88. ^ Sammon, Alexander (August 12, 2016). "The Government Quietly Just Approved This Enormous Oil Pipeline". Mother Jones. Retrieved September 25, 2016.
  89. ^ "#NoDAPL: Land Defenders Disrupt Gubernatorial Debate, Shut Down 5 Construction Sites". Democracy Now!. Retrieved October 29, 2016.
  90. ^ "Life in the Native American oil protest camps". BBC News. September 2, 2016.
  91. ^ Bravebull Allard, LaDonna (September 3, 2016). "Why the Founder of Standing Rock Sioux Camp Can't Forget the Whitestone Massacre". Yes! Magazine. Retrieved October 25, 2016.
  92. ^ Liu, Louise (September 13, 2016). "Thousands of protesters are gathering in North Dakota — and it could lead to 'nationwide reform'". Business Insider. Retrieved September 20, 2016.
  93. ^ Gray, Jim (September 8, 2016). "Standing Rock: The Biggest Story That No One's Covering". Indian Country Today Media Network. Retrieved October 25, 2016.
  94. ^ "VIDEO: Dakota Access Pipeline Company Attacks Native American Protesters with Dogs and Pepper Spray". Democracy Now!. Retrieved November 6, 2016.
  95. ^ McCauley, Lauren (September 5, 2016). "'Is That Not Genocide?' Pipeline Co. Bulldozing Burial Sites Prompts Emergency Motion". Common Dreams.
  96. ^ Staff, ICTMN (September 4, 2016). "What Dakota Access Destroyed: Standing Rock Former Historic Preservation Officer Explains What Was Lost [Video]". Indian Country Today Media Network. Retrieved October 25, 2016.
  97. ^ Manning, Sarah Sunshine (September 4, 2016). "'And Then the Dogs Came': Dakota Access Gets Violent, Destroys Graves, Sacred Sites". Indian Country Today Media Network.com. Retrieved September 6, 2016.
  98. ^ Silva, Daniella (October 27, 2016). "Dakota Access Pipeline: More Than 100 Arrested as Protesters Ousted From Camp". NBC News. Retrieved October 28, 2016.
  99. ^ "Developing: 100+ Militarized Police Raiding #NoDAPL Resistance Camp Blocking Pipeline's Path". Democracy Now!. October 27, 2016. Retrieved November 2, 2016.
  100. ^ "Dakota Access Pipeline Protests Spread to 300 Cities as Pipeline Owner Sues to Continue Construction". Democracy Now. November 16, 2016. Retrieved November 16, 2016.
  101. ^ Daniel A. Medina; Chiara Sottile (November 16, 2016). "Scores Arrested in Dakota Access Pipeline Protests Nationwide". NBC news. Retrieved November 22, 2016.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dakota_Access_Pipeline&oldid=751618729"