Hubbry Logo
Dakota Access PipelineDakota Access PipelineMain
Open search
Dakota Access Pipeline
Community hub
Dakota Access Pipeline
logo
8 pages, 0 posts
0 subscribers
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Dakota Access Pipeline
Dakota Access Pipeline
Dakota Access Pipeline
View on Wikipedia
from Wikipedia

Dakota Access Pipeline
Dakota Access Pipeline route (Standing Rock Sioux Reservation is shown in orange, affected states are outlined in black)[1]
Dakota Access Pipeline route (Standing Rock Sioux Reservation is shown in orange, affected states are outlined in black)[1]
Location
CountryUnited States
General directionsoutheastward
FromStanley, North Dakota
Passes throughStates of
North Dakota (Bismarck)
South Dakota (Redfield, Sioux Falls)
Iowa (Sioux Center, Storm Lake, Ames, Oskaloosa, Ottumwa, Fort Madison)
Illinois (Jacksonville)[2]
ToPatoka, Illinois (oil tank farm)
General information
TypeCrude oil
PartnersEnergy Transfer Partners
Phillips 66
Enbridge
Marathon Petroleum
OperatorDakota Access Pipeline, LLC (development phase)
Energy Transfer Partners (operational phase)
Construction started2016
CommissionedJune 1, 2017; 8 years ago (2017-06-01)
Technical information
Length1,172 mi (1,886 km)
Maximum discharge0.47 million barrels per day (~2.3×10^7 t/a)
Diameter30 in (762 mm)
Websitedaplpipelinefacts.com
Pipeline logo

The Dakota Access Pipeline (DAPL) or Bakken pipeline is a 1,172-mile-long (1,886 km) underground pipeline in the United States that has the ability to transport up to 750,000 barrels of light sweet crude oil per day. It begins in the shale oil fields of the Bakken Formation in northwest North Dakota and continues through South Dakota and Iowa to an oil terminal near Patoka, Illinois. Together with the Energy Transfer Crude Oil Pipeline from Patoka to Nederland, Texas, it forms the Bakken system. The pipeline transports 40 percent of the oil produced in the Bakken region.

The $3.78 billion project was announced to the public in June 2014 with construction beginning in June 2016. During the Obama presidency the State Department estimated the project would create up to 3,900 temporary construction jobs and 35 permanent full-time jobs. During the Trump presidency the State Department estimated the project would create 42,000 direct and indirect jobs.[3] The pipeline was completed in April 2017 and became operational in May 2017. The pipeline is owned by Dakota Access, LLC, controlled by Energy Transfer Partners, with minority interests from Phillips 66, and affiliates of Enbridge and Marathon Petroleum.

Protests against the pipeline occurred from 2016 to 2017, organized by those opposing its construction, including the Standing Rock Sioux Reservation.

History

[edit]

Planning, 2014–2016

[edit]
Treaty of Fort Laramie (1851) boundary which Dave Archambault II invoked, opposing any pipeline construction within that area.[4]

Prior to the Dakota Access Pipeline, light sweet crude oil from the Bakken Formation was transported mainly by rail during the North Dakota oil boom.[5][6] Extraction from the area increased from 309,000 barrels a day in 2010 to more than 1 million in 2014, with insufficient pipeline infrastructure to transport the increased extraction.[6] Plans for the pipeline were announced by Energy Transfer Partners in 2014,[7] with Phillips 66 acquired 25% stake in the project later that same year.[8] Energy Transfer Partners estimated that the pipeline would create between 12 and 15 permanent jobs and from 2,000 to 4,000 temporary jobs in Iowa. The $1.35 billion capital investment in Iowa was projected to generate $33 million sales tax in Iowa during construction and $30 million property tax in 2017.[9] Energy Transfer hired "Strategic Economics Group" in West Des Moines to prepare this analysis.[10][11]

In September 2014, Dakota Access held an initial informational meeting with the Standing Rock Sioux Tribal Council. Informational meetings for South Dakota and Illinois landowners were held in October 2014,[9] and starting on December 1, 2014, in each of the affected counties in Iowa.[12] Meetings in Fort Madison, Sioux Center, Oskaloosa and Storm Lake brought out hundreds of people expressing their support and/or opposition to the pipeline.[13][14][15][16] A webinar for Brown and Hancock County, Illinois took place in February 2015.[17]

On October 29, 2014, Dakota Access submitted the project to the Iowa Utilities Board (IUB),[18] after Iowa Governor Terry Branstad rejected requests from community and environmental activists who asked him to block plans.[19] In December 2014 Dakota Access submitted an application for a permit from the North Dakota Public Service Commission for the proposed route.[20] In January 2015, Dakota Access filed the application with the IUB.[21] In February 2015, it filed applications with the Iowa Department of Natural Resources for sovereign land and floodplain permits.[22] 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 Dakota Access "to obtain voluntary easements from 75% of property owners along the route before eminent domain could be authorized".[23]

The Iowa Utilities Board approved the pipeline on March 10, 2016, on a vote of 3 to 0, being the last of four states utility regulators granting its approval. The approval came after 18 public information meetings, pre-filled testimony, thousands of public comments, and 12 days of public hearings.[24] Conditions of the approval included 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."[25][26] The IUB stated that with the conditions, the pipeline would promote public convenience and necessity.[24] The following day, the company stated it had secured voluntary easements on 82% of the 1,295 affected Iowa land parcels.[27] A week later, 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".[26] Dakota Access also filed 23 condemnation suits against 140 individuals, banks, and a coal mine to gain easements through North Dakota.[28]

A 2015 poll showed that fifty seven percent of Iowans favored the construction of the pipeline.[29] Construction of the pipeline was also estimated to create 42,000 jobs with a total of $2 billion in wages.[30]

Construction, 2016–2017

[edit]
Presidential Memorandum Regarding Construction of the Dakota Access Pipeline (2017)

In March 2016, the United States Fish and Wildlife Service issued a sovereign lands construction permit. In late May 2016, the permit was temporarily revoked in three counties of Iowa, 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, including graves in Lyon County.[31] Also in May 2016, Iowa farmers filed lawsuits to prevent the state from using eminent domain.[32]

In June 2016, the IUB voted 2 to 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 U.S. Corps of Engineers authorized the project.[33] In late June 2016, construction was allowed to resume in Lyon County after plans were changed to route the pipeline 85 feet (26 m) below the site using directional boring, instead of trenching and disturbing the soil on the surface.[34] In December 2016, the approval was disputed in the Polk County District Court.[35] In July and August 2016, The United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) approved the water crossing permits and issued all but one permission necessary for the pipeline construction.[36][37]

On July 27, 2016, the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe sued the USACE in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia.[38][39][40] The motion for preliminary injunction was denied in the U.S. District Court in September 2016. In September 2016, the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe filed an appeal which was denied a month later.[41]

In August 2016, the joint venture of Enbridge (75%) and Marathon Petroleum (25%) agreed to purchase a 49% stake in Dakota Access, LLC for $2 billion.[42][43] The deal was completed in February 2017 after the final easement was granted.[44]

In September 2016 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.[45] On September 9, 2016, the U.S. Departments of Justice, Army, and Interior issued a joint statement to temporarily halt the project on federal land bordering or under the Lake Oahe reservoir. The U.S. federal government asked the company for a "voluntary pause" on construction near the area until further study was done in the region extending 20 miles (32 km) around Lake Oahe.[40][46] Energy Transfer Partners rejected the request and resumed construction.[47] On September 13, 2016, chairman and CEO of Energy Transfer Partners Kelcy Warren said concerns about the pipeline's impact on the water supply were "unfounded", that "multiple archaeological studies conducted with state historic preservation offices found no sacred items along the route" and that the company would meet with officials in Washington "to understand their position and reiterate our commitment to bring the Dakota Access Pipeline into operation."[48]

On November 1, 2016, President Obama announced his administration was monitoring the situation and had been in contact with the USACE to examine the possibility of rerouting the pipeline to avoid sacred lands.[49] On November 14, 2016, the USACE announced that "the Army has determined that additional discussion and analysis are warranted in light of the history of the Great Sioux Nation's dispossessions of lands, the importance of Lake Oahe to the Tribe, our government-to-government relationship, and the statute governing easements through government property."[50] Energy Transfer Partners responded by criticizing the Obama administration for "political interference" and said that "further delay in the consideration of this case would add millions of dollars more each month in costs which cannot be recovered." North Dakota Governor Jack Dalrymple criticized the decision saying the pipeline would be safe and that the decision was "long overdue".[51] Craig Stevens, spokesman for the Midwest Alliance for Infrastructure Now (MAIN) Coalition, called the Corps's announcement "yet another attempt at death by delay" and said the Obama administration "has chosen to further fan the flames of protest by more inaction." North Dakota Senator John Hoeven said in a statement that the delay "will only prolong the disruption in the region caused by protests and make life difficult for everyone who lives and works in the area."[52] Speaking to CBS News in November, Kelcy Warren said that it would be "100 percent that the easement gets granted and the pipeline gets built" when newly elected president elect Donald Trump came into office on January 20, 2017.[53]

On December 4, 2016, the USACE announced, it would not grant an easement for the pipeline to be drilled under Lake Oahe and was undertaking an environmental impact statement to look at possible alternative routes.[54][55][56] The Assistant Secretary of the Army (Civil Works), Jo-Ellen Darcy said that "the best way to complete that work responsibly and expeditiously is to explore alternate routes for the pipeline crossing".[57] Energy Transfer Partners and Sunoco Logistics Partners issued a same-day response saying that the White House's directive "is just the latest in a series of overt and transparent political actions by an administration which has abandoned the rule of law in favor of currying favor with a narrow and extreme political constituency." They said that the companies "fully expect to complete construction of the pipeline without any additional rerouting in and around Lake Oahe. Nothing this Administration has done today changes that in any way."[58]

President Donald Trump signing the Presidential Memoranda to advance the construction of the Keystone XL and Dakota Access pipelines. January 24th, 2017

On January 18, 2017, the USACE filed its formal Notice of Intent to conduct the Environmental Impact Statement process.[59] The notice opened a thirty-day comment on the scope of the EIS, addressing the crossing of Lake Oahe. The proposed EIS was to consider "Alternative locations for the pipeline crossing the Missouri River", direct and indirect risks and impacts, as well as their treaty rights to the lake.[59] The same day U.S. District Judge James Boasberg denied ETP's request to delay the EIS process.[60]

Following the inauguration of Donald Trump in January 2017, he signed a presidential memorandum to advance approval of pipeline construction, while stating his intention to "renegotiate some of the terms" of the pipeline bill.[61] The order would expedite the environmental review that Trump described as an "incredibly cumbersome, long, horrible permitting process."[62][63] These executive orders, which also included the Keystone XL Pipeline, outlined how the completion of the pipeline would create more jobs.[64]

On February 7, 2017, the USACE sent a notice of intent to the United States Congress to grant an easement under Lake Oahe 24 hours following notification of the delivery of the notification.[65][66] On February 9, 2017, the Cheyenne River Sioux sued the easement decision, citing an 1851 treaty and interference with the religious practices of the tribe.[67][68][69]

The Dakota Access Pipeline had temporary workforce housing for the pipeline workers.[70] Construction of the pipeline was completed in April 2017.[71]

Operation, 2017 to present

[edit]

The first oil was delivered through the pipeline on May 14, 2017.[71] On June 1, 2017, testing was completed and the pipeline became commercially operational.[72][73]

After the pipeline's first year of operation, Forbes reported that it was transporting over 500,000 barrels per day (79,000 m3/d) and had transported approximately 182.5 Mbbl (29.02 million m3) of oil.[74] By 2021, the pipeline had the ability to transport 750,000 barrels of oil per day[75] and was accounting for 40 percent of oil produced in the Bakken region.[76]

United States District Judge James Boasberg ruled in March 2020 that the government had not studied the pipeline's "effects on the quality of the human environment" enough, ordering the United States Army Corps of Engineers to conduct a new environmental impact review.[77] In July 2020, Judge Boasberg ordered the pipeline to be shut down and emptied of oil pending a new environmental review.[78][79] The temporary shutdown order was overturned by a U.S. appeals court on August 5, 2020 though the environmental review is expected to continue.[80] In 2021, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit sided with the Standing Rock Sioux and other tribes that there should have been a thorough environmental review (there was only a 2015 preliminary review) for the 2-mile pipeline section below Lake Oahe. In February 2022, the U.S. Supreme Court let this decision stand by declining to hear the case.[81] Despite these rulings, the pipeline still remains fully operational to this day.[82]

Technical description

[edit]

The pipeline cost $3.78 billion, of which $1.4 billion was invested in the North Dakota portion, $820 million was invested in the South Dakota portion, $1.04 billion was invested in the Iowa portion, and $516 million was invested in the Illinois portion.[83]

The pipeline has a permanent easement of 50 feet (15 m) and a construction right-of-way of up to 150 feet (46 m). The 30-inch-diameter (760 mm) pipeline is at least 48 inches (1.2 m) underground from the top of the pipe or 2 feet (0.61 m) below any drain tiles.[84] At the length of 1,172 miles (1,886 km) and diameter of 30 inches (760 mm), the entire pipeline volume is 30,214,400 cubic feet (855,576 m3). At the stated daily transport volume of 2.6 million cubic feet (75,000 m3), the discharge time to empty the whole pipeline is estimated at 11.4 days.[85]

Capacity expansion construction was undertaken by Energy Transfer Partners in 2021, which increased the line's capacity from 570,000 bpd to its current nameplate of 750,000.[86]

Comparison to rail transport

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

The developer argued that the pipeline improves the overall safety to the public, would help the U.S. to attain energy independence, and is a more reliable and safer method of transport to refineries than rail or road. Proponents have argued that the pipeline will free up railroads, which will allow farmers to ship more Midwest grain.[87] As of July 2014, Bakken shale oil was transported through nine Iowa counties exclusively via three freight trains per week.[88] As of June 2014, 32 trains per week carrying Bakken oil traveled through Jo Daviess County in northwestern Illinois.[89]

Ownership

[edit]

The pipeline is owned by Energy Transfer (36.4% stake), MarEn Bakken Company LLC, and Phillips 66 Partners. MarEn Bakken Company LLC is an entity owned by MPLX LP (an affiliate of Marathon Petroleum) and Enbridge Energy Partners L.P.[90]

Bakken Holdings Company and Phillips 66 also co-own another part of the Bakken system, the Energy Transfer Crude Oil Pipeline which runs from Patoka to storage terminals in Nederland, Texas.[8][90]

Financing

[edit]

The pipeline project cost $3.78 billion, of which $2.5 billion was financed by loans, while the rest of the capital was raised by the sale of ownership in Dakota Access, LLC to Enbridge and Marathon Petroleum.[91] The loans were provided by a group of 17 banks, including Citibank, Wells Fargo, BNP Paribas, SunTrust, Royal Bank of Scotland, Bank of Tokyo-Mitsubishi, Mizuho Bank, TD Securities, ABN AMRO Capital, ING Bank, DNB ASA, ICBC, SMBC Nikko Securities and Société Générale.[92]

Due to pressure resulting from the Dakota Access Pipeline protests, some banks decided to pull funding in the project. This included DNB ASA Financial services group.[93][94] In February 2017, Seattle, Washington's city council unanimously voted not to renew its contract with Wells Fargo "in a move that cites the bank's role as a lender to the Dakota Access Pipeline project as well as its "creation of millions of bogus accounts" and saying the bidding process for its next banking partner will involve "social responsibility." The City Council in Davis, California, took a similar action, voting unanimously to find a new bank to handle its accounts by the end of 2017.[95] In March 2017, ING sold its stake in the loan, while retaining a potential risk in case of non-payment under the loan.[96][97]

Thirteen of the 17 banks that financed the pipeline were signatories to the Equator Principles. Despite concerns being raised that the project could threaten the water supply from Lake Oahe and the Missouri River if a leak occurred, project financing was still approved.[98][99]

Route

[edit]
Map of Bakken wells in North Dakota and Montana

The pipeline route runs from the northwestern North Dakota Bakken and Three Forks sites. It starts in Stanley, North Dakota, and travels in a southeastward direction to end at the oil tank farm near Patoka, Illinois.[8] It crosses 50 counties in four states,[100] and is built on private land with portions crossing waters of the United States and flood control areas managed by the United States Army Corps of Engineers.[101]

In North Dakota, the 346-mile (557 km) route traverses seven counties.[83] The project consists of 143 miles (230 km) of oil-gathering pipelines and 200 miles (322 km) of larger transmission pipeline. The route starts with a terminal in the Stanley area and runs 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, and crossing the Missouri River again north of Cannon Ball.[102] It also includes six tank farm locations and one electric pump station.[83]

In the early stages of route planning, it was proposed laying the pipeline 10 miles (16 km) northeast of Bismarck, North Dakota.[103][104] The United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) evaluated alternative routes as part of compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act, including one route north of Bismarck, North Dakota. This alternative was determined not to be a viable alternative because of multiple factors, including that it was not co-located with other infrastructure, the route's impacts to wellhead water resources, constraints on the route from the North Dakota Public Service Commission's 500-foot residential buffer requirement and the route's additional impacts to areas identified as High Consequence areas under Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration regulations.[105]

The Bismarck route was rejected by the United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) before submitting a request to the North Dakota Public Service Commission (NDPSC) for a permit.[104][106] This decision was described by Jesse Jackson as environmental racism.[106] The change of the route put the pipeline into the existing pipeline corridor parallel to the already existing Northern Border Pipeline, a natural gas pipeline built in 1982.[106][107] The Dakota Access pipeline selected a "nearly identical route" and planned to cross the Missouri River near the same point.[107] The plans called for the pipeline to be directionally bored so that it would not come in contact with the Missouri River. It is planned to be "as deep as 90 feet (27.4 m)" below the riverbed.[108][109]

In South Dakota, the pipeline travels 274 miles (441 km) through 12 counties: Campbell, McPherson, Edmunds, Faulk and Spink.[110] The system includes one electric pump station.[83]

Dakota Access Pipeline being built in central Iowa

In Iowa, the pipeline extends about 347 miles (558 km) diagonally through 18 Iowa counties: 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.[111][112] The system includes one electric pump station.[83]

In Illinois, the 177-mile (285 km) route traverses 12 counties.[83]

Federal agencies permissions

[edit]

Most of the pipeline was built with permits issued under state law. Federal jurisdiction arises through the United States Army Corps of Engineers for 37 miles of the pipeline where it passes over or under streams, rivers, and federal dams.[113] The USACE has 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.[114] The USACE was authorized to grant the following:

  • verification of Nationwide Permit #12 permits for 202 crossings of jurisdictional waters under Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act and Section 404 of the Clean Water Act;
  • permissions for consent to cross flowage easements acquired and administered by USACE at Lake Sakakawea and Carlyle Reservoir, under Section 14 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899, codified 33 U.S.C. Section 408 (Section 408)
  • permissions to modify the Oahe Dam/Lake Oahe project by granting easements to cross federal property administered by USACE for the flood control and navigation project, under Section 408;
  • permissions to cross the McGee Creek Levee, the Illinois River navigation channel and the Coon Run Levees, under Section 408;
  • permission to horizontally directionally drill under the Mississippi River navigation channel, under Section 408.[36]

On June 14, 2017, a federal judge ordered the federal government to conduct further reviews of the pipeline but did not halt pumping operations.[115] On March 25, 2020, a U.S. District judge ordered the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to conduct a full environmental review.[116]

Concerns

[edit]

Health and environment

[edit]
Cannonball River, North Dakota

Prior to construction, some farmers expressed concern about the disturbance of the land, including tiling, soil erosion, and soil quality.[15] They also expressed concerns about potential leaks in the pipeline caused by destabilization in certain areas prone to flooding, which could cause an environmental disaster,[117] as well as the spread of invasive weeds into surrounding land.[118]

In 2014, conservation groups raised concerns about safety, and the impacts on air, water, wildlife and farming, because of the risk of the pipeline disruption.[119] Groups such as Greenpeace, the Science & Environmental Health Network,[120] and in 2016 a group of more than 160 scientists spoke out against the pipeline.[121][122][123]

In 2016, environmentalists and Native Americans expressed concerns the Missouri River might become contaminated in the event of a spill or leak.[121][124] Sioux tribes expressed concern over leaks because the pipeline passes under Lake Oahe, which serves as a major source of water.[125]

Trenching to install drainage tile in Iowa during the 1980s

Eminent domain

[edit]
Highway sign objecting to the pipeline in Iowa

In March 2015, a Des Moines Register poll found that while 57% of Iowans supported the Dakota Access Pipeline, 74% were opposed to the use of eminent domain condemnation on behalf of a private corporation.[29] In 2016, landowners across Iowa expressed concern about allowing the use of eminent domain to condemn privately owned land, particularly agricultural land.[87]

In August 2016, Dakota Access, LLC stated that it had already executed easement agreements with 99% of the landowners whose properties were along the four-state route and, with regards to the landowners along the pipeline's route in Iowa, 99% had entered voluntary easements.[126]

Tribal positions

[edit]

The pipeline was opposed by the Standing Rock Sioux and the Cheyenne River Sioux tribes,[127] despite it not crossing tribal lands.[128] In September 2014, Standing Rock Chairman Dave Archambault II indicated the tribe's opposition to any pipeline within treaty boundaries encompassing "North Dakota, Montana, Wyoming and South Dakota."[4] The tribe contended that the route would run across sacred sites and be a potential hazard to its water supply.[129] Dakota Access stated the route was chosen based on it running alongside existing infrastructure including railways and other pipelines.[129]

The Mandan, Hidatsa, and Arikara Nation (known as the Three Affiliated Tribes) originally supported the Standing Rock Sioux tribe in its protest of the pipeline.[130] The tribe later argued against shutting down the pipeline, citing significant financial harm to the tribe who uses the pipeline to transport 60 percent of oil produced on its land.[131]

The Meskwaki tribe opposed the pipeline citing concerns that the pipeline could be used as a replacement if the Keystone XL Pipeline is not built.[132]

Saying that "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 has sued the USACE in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, accusing the agency of violating the National Historic Preservation Act and other laws, and seeking declaratory and injunctive relief to stop the pipeline.[38][39][40][133] This claim was rejected by the court. U.S. District Judge James E. Boasberg said in the ruling that the USACE "likely complied" with its obligation to consult the tribe and that the tribe "has not shown it will suffer injury that would be prevented by any injunction the Court could issue."[134]

On September 20, 2016, Dave Archambault II addressed the UN Human Rights Council in Geneva, Switzerland, where he called "upon all parties to stop the construction of the Dakota Access Pipeline." Citing the 1851 Treaty of Traverse des Sioux and 1868 Treaty of Fort Laramie, two treaties ratified by the U.S. Senate that recognize the Sioux's national sovereignty, Archambault told the Council that "the oil companies and the government of the United States have failed to respect our sovereign rights."[135] On September 22, 2016, Victoria Tauli-Corpuz, a United Nations expert on the rights of indigenous peoples, admonished the U.S., saying, "The tribe was denied access to information and excluded from consultations at the planning stage of the project, and environmental assessments failed to disclose the presence and proximity of the Standing Rock Sioux Reservation." She also responded to the rights of pipeline protesters, saying, "The U.S. authorities should fully protect and facilitate the right to freedom of peaceful assembly of indigenous peoples, which plays a key role in empowering their ability to claim other rights."[136] According to the USACE's data there had been 389 meetings with more than 55 tribes, including nine meetings with The Standing Rock Sioux Tribe.[137] Kelcy Warren has stated that the company is not on any Native American property.[138]

In December 2016, Trump's Native American Coalition held a meeting where members, American Indian and Alaska Native Tribal leaders, and activists could be present to discuss a wide variety of topics that concerned the effects and implications of the pipeline construction as well as environmental protections and safety concerns.[139]

Archaeological surveys

[edit]

Several groups, including the Standing Rock Sioux and the Society for American Archaeology, have raised concerns over the thoroughness of archaeological surveys conducted along the pipeline's corridor. These surveys were carried out under the direction of the USACE, in compliance with the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA).[140] The NHPA requires consideration of archaeological sites and traditional cultural properties.[141][142] The initial survey showed 149 sites and the pipeline was subsequently moved to avoid 140 of them.[143][144] The Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, which oversees compliance with the NHPA, raised two primary concerns to the USACE about the surveys.[140][145] They criticized the scope of the investigation, which defined each water crossing as a separate project, and therefore failed to consider the pipeline as a whole.[140][145] They also criticized the lack of tribal involvement in the surveys.[140][145]

Tribal consultants help archaeologists identify sites that may be harder to see within the archaeological record, such as traditional cultural properties.[143] A traditional cultural property is a property whose "significance derived from the role the property plays in a community's historically rooted beliefs, customs, and practices."[141] The USACE reached out to the Standing Rock Sioux on several occasions for consultation, but were denied.[143] The Sioux refused to participate unless they could consult on the whole pipeline.[143] One instance of tribal consultation at Lake Oahe pointed out several cultural sites and a cemetery that the USACE were previously unaware of.[143]

On September 2, 2016, Tim Mentz, a former historic preservation officer for the Standing Rock Sioux, testified in DC District Court that 27 graves and 82 sacred sites were to be disturbed by the Cannonball river section of the pipeline.[143][146] That weekend this area was bulldozed.[143][146][147][148] On September 21, 2016, 1,281 anthropologists, archaeologists, museum officials, and others signed and released a letter in support of the tribal community, calling for further study of the area to be affected by the pipeline in South Dakota.[149] The Society for American Archaeologists also sent a letter to the USACE, detailing their organizations concerns over the project.[149][150]

According to the North Dakota State Historic Preservation Office, the areas highlighted by Tim Mentz were evaluated by state officials on both September 21 and October 20, 2016.[143] They found that only four stone features would be directly impacted by the pipeline.[143] However, many are still concerned about the cumulative effect the project may have on sites that lie outside the 150-foot corridor.[143][145] Jon Eagle, a Historic Preservation Officer for the tribe, was invited to participate in the evaluation on September 23, but was not allowed access to the areas of the corridor on private property.[148] The tribe insists that evidence was destroyed by the construction company, as grading had gone on in the area previously.[143][146][147][148]

Political ties

[edit]

According to his federal disclosure forms, filed in May 2016, President Donald Trump held between $15,000 and $50,000 in stock in Energy Transfer Partners—down from $500,000 to $1 million in 2015—and between $100,000 and $250,000 in Phillips 66. The Washington Post reported that Trump sold off his shares in Energy Transfer Partners in the summer of 2016.[151] The senior Democrat on the Public Resources Committee, Raúl Grijalva, called this appearance of conflict of interest "disturbing".[152]

Energy Transfer Partners CEO Kelcy Warren contributed $6 million to the Rick Perry 2016 presidential campaign,[153] as well as $103,000 to the Donald Trump 2016 presidential campaign.[154][155]

Protests

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

In the spring of 2016 protests began at pipeline construction sites in North Dakota and drew indigenous people, calling themselves water protectors and land defenders,[156] from throughout North America as well as many other supporters, creating the largest gathering of Native Americans in the past hundred years.[157]

In April 2016, a Standing Rock Sioux elder established a camp near the Missouri River at the site of Sacred Stone Camp, located within the Standing Rock Sioux Reservation, as a center for cultural preservation and spiritual resistance to the pipeline, and over the summer the camp grew to thousands of people.[158] 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.[84][133]

While the protests drew international attention and were said to be "reshaping the national conversation for any environmental project that would cross the Native American land",[159] there was limited mainstream media coverage of the events in the United States until early September 2016.[160] 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.[161][162][163][164] 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.[165][166]

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.[167] In October, another arson fire caused $2 million worth of damage to pipeline construction equipment in Jasper County, Iowa.[168]

See also

[edit]

References

[edit]
[edit]
Revisions and contributorsEdit on WikipediaRead on Wikipedia

Dakota Access Pipeline

View on Grokipedia
from Grokipedia

The Dakota Access Pipeline (DAPL) is a 1,172-mile-long, 30-inch-diameter underground that transports crude oil from the Bakken and Three Forks production areas in northwestern to a delivery point in Patoka, . Owned and operated by Dakota Access, LLC—a subsidiary of Energy Transfer—the pipeline has a capacity of 570,000 barrels per day and has been safely transporting over 500,000 barrels per day of light, sweet crude oil from North Dakota since June 2017. The project was developed to provide a more efficient and safer alternative to rail and truck transport for Bakken , reducing logistical risks and costs associated with moving domestic production to refineries. began in 2016 following federal approvals, including environmental assessments by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, but encountered delays due to protests led by the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe over potential impacts to water sources and cultural sites near the crossing at . Despite rerouting to minimize risks and extensive reviews finding low spill probabilities, opposition persisted, resulting in a temporary easement denial in late 2016. in 2017 expedited completion, and the pipeline has operated without major incidents since, contributing to regional economic activity exceeding $1 billion annually and bolstering U.S. by enabling reliable crude oil delivery. In December 2025, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers published a final environmental impact statement recommending continued operation with safeguards including groundwater monitoring wells and enhanced leak detection, setting the stage for final approval in the first quarter of 2026. Ongoing legal challenges, including recent dismissals of tribal lawsuits, affirm its compliance and safety record after nearly nine years of service.

History

Planning and Route Selection (2014-2015)

The Dakota Access Pipeline project was announced by Energy Transfer Partners, L.P. (ETP) in 2014 as a means to transport crude oil from the Bakken shale formation in North Dakota to refining markets, forming joint ventures with partners including Phillips 66, which acquired a 25% stake on October 28, 2014. Dakota Access, LLC, a subsidiary wholly owned by ETP, served as the project developer and operator, with an estimated cost of $3.78 billion for the approximately 1,172-mile underground pipeline originating near Stanley, North Dakota, and terminating at Patoka, Illinois. A binding open season for shipper commitments commenced on September 23, 2014, to secure demand for up to 570,000 barrels per day capacity. Route selection emphasized minimizing environmental and land use impacts through GIS-based analysis, paralleling existing utility corridors, power lines, and pipelines where feasible, including co-location with U.S. of Engineers (USACE) flowage easements at key crossings like . The process involved field surveys starting in September 2014 and continuing through 2015, evaluating major alternatives such as rail or trucking transport, which were rejected due to higher safety risks, logistical demands (e.g., requiring 750 rail cars or 2,045 trucks daily), and economic inefficiencies compared to conveyance. An early alternative routing the north of , across the was considered but discarded because it would traverse environmentally sensitive areas, violate residential buffer requirements, impact cultural sites, and pose greater risks to Bismarck's municipal wells from potential spills. The selected route, finalized in July 2015, crossed the via horizontal (HDD) 60 feet below the bed and 92 feet below, avoiding open-cut methods and federal lands where practicable to reduce wetland and waterbody disruptions. Regulatory submissions began in fall 2014, including a petition to the on October 9 for declaratory order on interstate commerce aspects, and an application to USACE on for approvals on over 200 water crossings under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act and Sections 10/113 of the Rivers and Harbors Act. Tribal consultations under Section 106 of the initiated in November 2014, with initial outreach to the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe in October 2014; these concluded in January 2015 before resuming in July amid ongoing cultural resource surveys that identified and mitigated potential historic sites. A draft Environmental Assessment under the , addressing air quality, noise, wetlands, and wildlife, was completed in November 2015, finding no significant impacts with mitigation measures like HDD for sensitive crossings. In , the route incorporated 31 mainline valves for safety.

Construction Phase and Initial Opposition (2016)

Construction of the advanced significantly in after Energy Transfer Partners, the project's lead developer, secured key state and federal approvals, including from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Pipeline trenching and installation began in mid-May in , with simultaneous work starting in and by late May, enabling rapid progress on the 1,168-mile route. The effort employed thousands of workers, generating an estimated 8,000 to 12,000 local construction jobs across the four affected states. Initial opposition crystallized in April 2016 when youth from the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe initiated a prayer ride to protest the pipeline's path, establishing the first encampment near Cannon Ball, North Dakota, to highlight potential risks to the —the tribe's primary drinking water source—and nearby ancestral sites. The Standing Rock Sioux Tribe contended that the pipeline's crossing under , a Missouri River reservoir, posed spill hazards that could contaminate water supplies drawn from the river downstream, despite the pipeline's method designed to minimize surface disruption. Critics, including tribal leaders, further alleged insufficient consultation by the under the , though federal officials maintained compliance through prior notifications and reviews. By July 2016, the tribe filed a lawsuit against the Army Corps, seeking to halt pending fuller environmental review, amid growing encampments that drew Native American activists from multiple tribes and non-Native supporters. Tensions escalated on September 3, 2016, when protesters confronted workers near a proposed drilling site, leading to clashes with private security personnel who deployed dogs and ; the incident followed reports of bulldozing activity on sites the tribe claimed held burials and artifacts. Energy Transfer Partners asserted the land was cleared in coordination with authorities and lacked verified archaeological significance, emphasizing the project's adherence to safety standards exceeding federal requirements. Protests continued into the fall, with camps swelling to thousands, prompting increased presence from Morton County and state authorities to secure construction zones and public roads. Despite disruptions, construction progressed on non-disputed segments, reaching the vicinity of by November 2016, as the company reaffirmed commitments to complete the line while addressing legal challenges. Opposition focused on empirical risks of pipeline failures—citing historical spill data from similar —over abstract safety assurances, though proponents highlighted the Bakken region's need for safer crude transport alternatives to rail, which had recorded over 10 fatalities and numerous derailments in prior years. On January 24, 2017, President issued a directing the Secretary of the to expedite the and approval process for the Dakota Access Pipeline, aiming to facilitate its completion after previous administrative delays under the prior administration. This action addressed the project's stalled final segment crossing , a federal reservoir managed by the U.S. Corps of Engineers. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers granted the required easement for the crossing on February 8, 2017, with specified conditions for monitoring and mitigation. Construction crews promptly completed horizontal under the lake in March 2017, followed by mechanical completion of the entire 1,172-mile pipeline in April 2017. The pipeline began transporting crude oil on May 14, 2017, and entered full commercial service on June 1, 2017, moving approximately 500,000 to 570,000 barrels per day from the in to delivery points in . Legal challenges persisted from the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe, Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe, and environmental organizations, who argued that the Corps violated the (NEPA) by relying on an abbreviated environmental assessment rather than a full and by insufficiently consulting tribes on potential impacts to cultural sites and water resources. In March 2017, U.S. District Judge denied preliminary requests to prevent the pipeline from being filled with oil, finding that plaintiffs had not demonstrated irreparable harm likely to outweigh the in energy infrastructure. The pipeline operated without reported major incidents through 2020, transporting Bakken crude safely via buried, leak-detected infrastructure designed to federal standards. On July 6, 2020, Judge Boasberg ruled in Standing Rock Sioux Tribe v. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers that the Corps' NEPA compliance remained deficient due to inadequate analysis of spill risks and cumulative impacts, vacating the easement and ordering the pipeline drained and operations halted within 30 days pending a comprehensive . The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit issued a stay shortly thereafter, allowing the pipeline to continue operating during the appeals process, which extended beyond 2020. This ruling highlighted ongoing disputes over regulatory shortcuts, though empirical data from operations to that point showed no spills affecting the or adjacent tribal lands. The Dakota Access Pipeline has continued uninterrupted operations since 2021, transporting up to 750,000 barrels per day of Bakken crude oil from to following a capacity expansion completed in August 2021 that added approximately 180,000 barrels per day. No major spills or operational incidents involving the pipeline were reported during this period, contrasting with leaks from other regional pipelines such as Keystone. Energy Transfer, the operator, maintains that the pipeline has operated safely, with automated shut-off valves and monitoring systems mitigating risks, though tribal groups continue to cite potential threats to water sources like . In January 2021, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit reversed a lower court's order to shut down the pipeline, ruling that the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers could prepare a full (EIS) without halting operations, despite vacating the easement in 2020. The Corps completed a supplemental EIS in 2023 affirming no significant new impacts, but the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe challenged this, arguing inadequate tribal consultation and spill risks. Federal courts rejected further attempts to halt operations in 2025. On March 28, 2025, U.S. District Judge dismissed the tribe's claiming illegal operation without an , deeming it premature pending administrative processes. The tribe appealed this dismissal on June 2, 2025, reiterating violations of and , with the case ongoing as of October 2025. Concurrently, Energy Transfer secured a $667 million jury verdict in March 2025 against for damages from 2016-2017 protests, highlighting judicial scrutiny of activist disruptions rather than pipeline safety. A separate April 2025 ruling ordered the to pay $28 million in damages for underestimating protest-related costs and burdens during the 2016-2017 encampments, underscoring federal liability in prolonged legal aftermaths. In December 2025, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers published a final environmental impact statement recommending continued operation of the pipeline, which has transported over 500,000 barrels per day safely since 2017, with safeguards including groundwater monitoring, setting the stage for final approval in the first quarter of 2026. These developments reflect persistent tribal opposition rooted in claims, balanced against courts' emphasis on operational continuity absent proven imminent harm.

Technical Specifications

Route Description and Infrastructure

The Dakota Access Pipeline (DAPL) is an underground crude oil pipeline extending 1,172 miles (1,886 km) from the Bakken and Three Forks production areas in northwestern , specifically originating in Mountrail and Williams counties, to the Patoka, , terminal and rail facility. The route traverses four states: approximately 346 miles (557 km) through seven counties in , followed by segments in , 347 miles (558 km) diagonally across 18 counties in (including , , O'Brien, , Buena Vista, Sac, Calhoun, Webster, Story, Marshall, Tama, Benton, , Johnson, Washington, Louisa, Des Moines, and ), and into . Key crossings include horizontal directional drilling under the near the Standing Rock Sioux Reservation (under ), the again in , and the in , designed to minimize surface disruption. The pipeline infrastructure comprises 30-inch (760 mm) diameter high-strength steel pipe conforming to 5L specifications, with a design factor of 0.72 for pressure containment and corrosion-resistant coatings on welds. The pipe is buried at depths of at least 48 inches (1.2 m) from the top, or deeper (up to 92-150 feet under water bodies via ) to protect against external damage and comply with federal safety regulations under 49 CFR Part 195. Original infrastructure included pump stations to maintain flow—such as one in interconnecting with existing lines—and tank terminals, with the system initially supporting a capacity of 570,000 barrels per day before later expansions added additional stations in , , and to reach up to 1.1 million barrels per day.

Capacity, Technology, and Safety Engineering

The Dakota Access Pipeline consists of a 30-inch diameter steel line constructed from API 5L high-strength pipe with a design factor of 0.72, enabling it to transport Bakken crude oil under pressures compliant with federal standards set by the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA). The pipeline's initial design capacity was 570,000 barrels per day, achieved through a combination of mainline flow dynamics and strategic pump station placements; subsequent additions of booster pump stations have elevated operational capacity to 750,000 barrels per day without altering the core infrastructure. These stations, numbering five primary facilities along the route, employ electric-driven centrifugal pumps to maintain flow velocity and pressure, minimizing energy use while adhering to acoustic and emission controls for environmental integration. Engineering incorporates corrosion-resistant coatings on welds, systems, and burial depths exceeding minimum requirements—typically 48 inches below grade, with greater separation from agricultural drain tiles to prevent interference. All mainline girth welds undergo 100% non-destructive testing via or , surpassing the regulatory 10% threshold, followed by hydrostatic testing to verify before commissioning. The system relies on a supervisory control and (SCADA) network for continuous real-time monitoring of flow rates, pressures, and temperatures, integrated with in-line inspection devices (smart pigs) for internal assessment of wall thickness and anomalies. Safety features include remotely actuated mainline block valves classified as Emergency Flow Restriction Devices (EFRDs), enabling automated or manual shutdowns, supplemented by routine aerial and ground patrols for external . The leak detection system uses computational monitoring to identify deviations exceeding approximately 2% of flow rate, though independent analyses indicate potential limitations in detecting smaller leaks promptly, with response times targeted under 10 minutes for verifiable events. Since commencing operations in June 2017, the pipeline has recorded 12 PHMSA-reportable incidents, primarily small leaks contained without significant environmental release, reflecting standard industry rates for new hazardous liquid lines but underscoring ongoing reliance on operator maintenance for long-term reliability.

Ownership and Economic Structure

Corporate Ownership

The Dakota Access Pipeline is owned by Dakota Access, LLC, a formed as a to develop, construct, and operate the project. Energy Transfer LP holds the largest stake at approximately 38.25%, serving as the primary operator responsible for day-to-day management and maintenance. Phillips 66 Partners owns 25% of Dakota Access, LLC, contributing expertise in refining and midstream logistics aligned with the pipeline's delivery to terminals. The remaining interest, about 36.75%, is held by MarEn Bakken Company, LLC, a partnership between Inc. (75% of MarEn) and Corporation (25% of MarEn), providing additional capacity for crude transport from the Bakken region. This structure was established prior to in 2014-2015, with no major changes reported through 2025, enabling coordinated investment in the 1,172-mile infrastructure.

Financing and Investment Details

The Dakota Access Pipeline project had a total estimated cost of $3.78 billion. Of this amount, approximately $2.5 billion was financed through a loan syndicate involving 17 banks, including , , , , ING, Deutsche Bank, and , among others. The remaining capital was raised through equity contributions from the project's partners and commitments to purchase pipeline throughput capacity, which provided a stable to support the . Dakota Access, LLC, the entity owning and operating the pipeline, was structured as a joint venture initially formed by Energy Transfer Partners (now part of Energy Transfer LP) and , with Energy Transfer holding the majority equity stake of around 60% following subsequent transactions, at 25%, and the remainder owned by MarEn Bakken Company LLC—a joint venture between Inc. and Corporation (via MPLX LP). These partners provided the equity backing, leveraging their midstream infrastructure expertise to underwrite the project's development and mitigate risks through long-term shipper contracts that covered a significant portion of the capacity. The debt financing was arranged as a with a maturity aligned to the project's operational life, drawing on Energy Transfer's existing facilities and the syndicate's commitments, despite protests that led some banks like and to later withdraw from related exposures. This structure reflected the high of the 1,172-mile pipeline, with returns predicated on transporting Bakken crude to reduce reliance on and capture regional differentials. Delays from regulatory and legal challenges inflated carrying costs on the debt, contributing to an estimated $7.5 billion in total project expenses including overruns, though core financing remained intact post-completion in 2017.

Regulatory Approvals and Compliance

Federal Agency Permissions

The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) held primary responsibility for federal permissions related to the Dakota Access Pipeline (DAPL), evaluating over 200 water crossings under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act and Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899. Dakota Access, LLC applied for these approvals on October 21, 2014, seeking verification of Nationwide Permit 12 (NWP 12), a general permit for utility line activities with minimal individual environmental impact. The USACE verified NWP 12 for most crossings, including the Missouri River at Lake Oahe, on July 25, 2016, following an environmental assessment that concluded no significant impacts warranted a full environmental impact statement (EIS). The crossing required a separate across federal flowage lands administered by the USACE Omaha District, as it involved tunneling 92 feet beneath the reservoir bed. On December 4, 2016, amid protests and tribal concerns, the Obama administration directed the USACE to withhold the and prepare a full EIS, halting final approval despite prior verifications. Following a January 24, 2017, by President Trump expediting infrastructure reviews, the USACE granted the conditional on February 8, 2017, allowing construction to proceed while committing to an EIS process. The Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA), under the U.S. Department of Transportation, did not issue construction permits but required compliance with federal safety standards for hazardous liquid pipelines under 49 CFR Part 195, including integrity management programs and spill response plans submitted prior to operation. DAPL achieved operational certification through state-level oversight coordinated with PHMSA, with no federal interstate commerce permit needed as the pipeline transports domestic crude oil primarily on private lands. Subsequent PHMSA enforcement actions, such as a July 23, 2021, notice of probable violation for alleged construction and operational deficiencies, did not revoke underlying permissions but imposed . No other major federal agencies granted standalone construction permissions; the U.S. Department of the Interior managed limited federal land crossings outside USACE jurisdiction, while tribal consultation requirements under the were addressed through USACE processes, though contested in litigation. The 2017 permissions enabled completion and initial operations in June 2017, subject to ongoing judicial reviews that affirmed agency authority but mandated supplemental EIS analyses without immediate shutdown.

Environmental Impact Reviews and NEPA Compliance

The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) initially evaluated the Dakota Access Pipeline's crossings under its jurisdiction, including 202 water bodies and the segment, through an Environmental Assessment (EA) completed on December 9, 2015. This EA assessed potential environmental impacts from construction and operation of the 1,168-mile crude oil pipeline's relevant segments, concluding there would be no significant effects after mitigation measures such as horizontal under major water crossings and spill prevention protocols. Based on this Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI), USACE issued a Nationwide Permit (NWP) on July 25, 2016, determining that a full (EIS) under the (NEPA) was not required. Legal challenges from the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe and environmental groups contended that the EA inadequately addressed cumulative impacts, tribal consultation under NEPA and the 1851 Treaty of Fort Laramie, and risks to and cultural sites near . In December 2016, amid protests, USACE announced it would voluntarily prepare a full EIS for the Lake Oahe crossing rather than proceed solely under the EA. Following the 2017 easement issuance under the Trump administration, USACE issued an August 31, 2018, memorandum reaffirming that no EIS was needed for the easement itself, citing updated analyses of , spill risks, and alternatives. On March 25, 2020, the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia ruled in Standing Rock Sioux Tribe v. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers that the 2016 EA and 2018 memorandum violated NEPA by failing to take a "hard look" at direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts, including potential oil spills affecting downstream water supplies and insufficient evaluation of route alternatives. The court vacated the easement and remanded to USACE to prepare a full EIS, though it initially declined to order a pipeline shutdown. A subsequent July 6, 2020, district court order mandated cessation of operations pending the EIS, stayed by the D.C. Circuit on August 11, 2020. The D.C. Circuit, in a January 26, 2021, decision, upheld the vacatur and EIS requirement due to NEPA deficiencies in impact analysis and tribal engagement but reversed the shutdown order, citing equitable factors including the pipeline's safe operation since June 1, 2017, and substantial reliance interests by operators and stakeholders. USACE issued a Notice of Intent for the EIS in June 2020, with a Draft EIS released in January 2023 analyzing alternatives, spill modeling (estimating a maximum credible spill volume of 1.5 million barrels under worst-case scenarios), and mitigation. The Final EIS process has been delayed, with USACE projecting completion in amid criticisms from some lawmakers that the draft underestimates climate emissions from transported Bakken crude (approximately 500,000 to 570,000 barrels per day). As of March 2025, the pipeline continues operating under the vacated easement while the EIS proceeds, with a federal district court dismissing the tribe's latest NEPA-based challenge on procedural grounds. The Standing Rock Sioux Tribe and Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe initiated legal challenges against the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers in July 2016, arguing that the Corps' reliance on a nationwide permit and environmental assessment for the Dakota Access Pipeline violated the (NEPA) due to insufficient analysis of impacts on tribal lands, water resources, and cultural sites near the reservoir. These suits contended that a full (EIS) was required rather than the abbreviated review conducted, highlighting failures in tribal consultation under the . Following the Trump administration's reversal of the Obama-era easement denial and issuance of the crossing permit in 2017, consolidated litigation proceeded in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. On July 6, 2020, Judge ruled in Standing Rock Sioux Tribe v. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers that the Corps' 2017 approvals were arbitrary and capricious under NEPA, vacating the and ordering the pipeline shut down and drained pending a comprehensive EIS, as the prior assessment inadequately addressed cumulative risks to downstream water supplies and tribal interests. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit partially affirmed this decision on August 10, 2021, upholding the vacatur and remand for a new EIS due to procedural deficiencies in the ' review but reversing the immediate shutdown order, allowing the pipeline to continue operations during the administrative process, as the tribes had not demonstrated irreparable harm warranting cessation absent a finalized remand. The declined Energy Transfer's petition for on February 21, 2022, letting stand the requirement for additional environmental without resolving the merits of the 's or necessity. The Army completed a supplemental EIS in January 2024, concluding no significant new impacts justified rerouting, but withheld reissuing the amid ongoing litigation. In March 2025, Judge Boasberg dismissed the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe's renewed suit seeking to halt operations without a valid , ruling that the retained authority to maintain the status quo pending final administrative action, though the tribe appealed the decision in June 2025. Separate state-level challenges, such as disputes in , were resolved in favor of the pipeline, with the upholding condemnation awards in 2022 as consistent with public use under state . These rulings emphasized procedural compliance over substantive environmental opposition, with the pipeline sustaining full operations transporting approximately 570,000 barrels of per day as of October 2025.

Economic Contributions and Trade-offs

Job Creation, Revenue, and Energy Independence

The construction phase of the Dakota Access Pipeline employed an average of 8,000 to 12,000 workers at peak, including skilled union labor in roles such as welders, pipefitters, electricians, and heavy equipment operators across four states. In North Dakota, the project specifically generated nearly 7,700 jobs and $450 million in labor income during construction. Operationally, the pipeline requires a small direct workforce for maintenance but sustains broader employment through facilitated upstream oil production; analyses indicate that disrupting DAPL flows could eliminate 3,000 direct jobs and 7,400 indirect jobs in the Bakken region due to reduced drilling and production. The pipeline has generated substantial fiscal revenues, particularly for . Since commencing operations on June 1, 2017, DAPL contributed approximately $19 million in state tax revenue during its first three months, equating to about $6 million monthly from enhanced oil transport efficiencies. Annual projections estimated up to $100 million in additional taxes from lowered producer transportation costs of $2.40 per barrel, which boost taxable production volumes at a 10% rate. It also produces royalty payments for the based on oil extracted from tribal mineral estates. By transporting up to 570,000 barrels per day of Bakken crude—representing about 40% of regional output—to Patoka, , for refining and distribution, DAPL bolsters U.S. through efficient domestic supply chains. This infrastructure addresses prior constraints, enabling higher domestic production that contributed to the U.S. achieving net exporter status in and reducing overall reliance on foreign crude imports. The pipeline's capacity mitigates production bottlenecks, supporting the boom's causal role in enhancing national by prioritizing safer logistics over riskier alternatives like rail .

Infrastructure Benefits vs. Delay Costs

The Dakota Access Pipeline (DAPL), with an initial capacity of 500,000 barrels per day expandable to 750,000 barrels per day, facilitates the efficient transport of Bakken crude oil from to refining markets in and beyond, reducing reliance on rail and truck alternatives. This lowers transportation costs by approximately $5 to $10 per barrel compared to rail shipments, enabling oil producers to capture higher net proceeds and enhancing regional economic viability for shale production. Pipeline transport also mitigates highway and rail congestion, as rail alternatives require unit trains that tie up significant track capacity and increase maintenance demands on infrastructure. Safety data underscores pipelines' advantages over rail for crude oil: pipelines exhibit an incident rate of 0.58 per million barrel-miles, compared to 2.08 for rail, making rail over 4.5 times more prone to occurrences when normalized for volume transported. This disparity arises from pipelines' enclosed, pressurized systems and continuous monitoring, versus rail's exposure to derailments and human error, as evidenced in Bakken oil shipments where rail volumes surged pre-DAPL, correlating with elevated spill risks. Delays in DAPL's completion, stemming from regulatory reviews and protests between 2015 and 2017, imposed substantial costs by prolonging dependence on costlier rail transport, estimated at $15 per barrel versus $8 for pipeline. Each month of delay incurred approximately $4.5 million in direct project losses for developer Energy Transfer, while North Dakota producers faced suppressed revenues from discounted Bakken crude prices due to rail bottlenecks. State-level policing of 2016-2017 protests exceeded $22 million, diverting resources without resolving underlying transport inefficiencies. Postponed operations amplified environmental and economic risks from rail alternatives; without DAPL, Bakken export capacity constraints could elevate production costs by over $1.6 billion annually through forced rail reliance and potential output curtailments. Operational since June 2017, DAPL has since yielded average transportation savings of $2.40 per barrel for producers, translating to roughly $750 million in additional state proceeds by shifting volumes from rail. These outcomes highlight how exacerbated short-term inefficiencies, contrasting with the pipeline's long-term infrastructure advantages in cost, safety, and reliability.

Environmental and Safety Evaluations

Risk Assessments and Mitigation Measures

The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' Environmental Assessment for the Dakota Access Pipeline evaluated potential risks including seismic hazards, landslides, inadvertent releases during horizontal directional drilling (HDD), and operational spills, concluding that implementation of mitigation measures would result in no significant environmental impacts. Seismic risks were assessed using the U.S. Geological Survey's 2014 hazard maps, identifying peak ground accelerations of 2-4% gravity along the route, deemed insufficient to compromise pipeline integrity given design standards exceeding Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA) requirements under 49 CFR Part 195. risks affected approximately 59.2 acres of flowage easements and 1.2 acres of classified as moderate to high susceptibility, but geotechnical analyses indicated low probability of failure impacting the pipeline due to burial depths and HDD techniques. Spill risks during HDD crossings of the and were rated low, with setbacks of 900-1,400 feet from waterbodies and monitoring protocols minimizing fluid migration potential. Operational spill risks were addressed through pipeline design features and monitoring systems compliant with PHMSA standards, including hydrostatic pressure testing per 49 CFR Part 195 and a computational pipeline monitoring (CPM) system capable of detecting leaks at or above 1% of flow rate within one hour and ruptures within 1-3 minutes. The pipeline incorporates remote shut-off valves, for 24/7 oversight, , and internal inspection tools, supplemented by aerial patrols at least every 10 days. Worst-case discharge scenarios were modeled in the Facility Response Plan, accounting for full pipeline segment volumes near sensitive areas like Cannon Ball, , with certified equipment from U.S. Coast Guard-classified response organizations available for Tier 1-3 responses. Mitigation measures encompassed construction and operational phases, including HDD for major water crossings—placing the 24-inch diameter pipe 60 feet below the bed and the 30-inch segment 92 feet below —to avoid trenching disturbances to aquatic habitats. The Spill Prevention, Control, and (SPCC) Plan, Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP), and Environmental Plan (ECP) mandated erosion controls such as silt fences, vegetative buffers, and topsoil segregation in agricultural areas, with post-construction revegetation per federal and state guidelines. Emergency response follows the under the , with notifications to agencies like the National Response Center within one hour of detection, containment via booms and berms, and recovery using skimmers, vacuum trucks, and sorbents tailored to land, water, or wetland spills.

Comparative Safety Data vs. Rail Transport

Data from the U.S. , analyzing hazardous liquid pipeline incidents reported to the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA) from 2002 to 2009 alongside rail data, shows pipelines have a spill rate of about 0.6 incidents per billion ton-miles for crude oil transport, compared to roughly 2 incidents per billion ton-miles for rail. This normalization accounts for and volume, revealing pipelines' lower frequency of releases despite rail's smaller average spill sizes. A analysis of U.S. data over the same period further quantifies this, finding pipelines experience 0.0006 releases per million ton-miles versus 0.0033 for rail—making rail approximately 5.5 times more prone to releases on a per-ton-mile basis. Human safety metrics reinforce pipelines' edge, with linked to higher fatalities and injuries due to dynamics. For instance, U.S. rail averaged 94 fatalities and 712 injuries annually from to in oil and gas transport contexts, while pipelines averaged 2 fatalities and 3 injuries per year; substituting pipelines with rail equivalents would elevate these figures significantly. The Lac-Mégantic rail in , involving Bakken-like crude, exemplifies rail's risks, spilling 1.5 million gallons and causing 47 deaths—contrasting with rare pipeline fatalities even in major spills like Enbridge's 2010 Kalamazoo incident (over 1 million gallons, zero deaths). Government Accountability Office assessments note pipelines' underground design reduces exposure compared to rail's vulnerability to derailments, which surged with crude-by-rail volumes (from 9,700 carloads in 2008 to 236,000 in 2012).
MetricPipelinesRailSource
Spill Incidents per Billion Ton-Miles0.62CRS (2002–2009)
Releases per Million Ton-Miles0.00060.0033 (2002–2009)
Occurrences per Million Barrels Oil Equivalent0.0490.227 (2003–2013, Canada/U.S.)
Avg. Annual Fatalities (Oil/Gas Transport)294 (2003–2013)
These figures underscore pipelines' empirical safety advantages for Bakken crude, as transported by the , over rail alternatives that proliferated pre-construction amid pipeline delays. While advocacy groups like the Pipeline Safety Trust emphasize absolute pipeline spill volumes, normalized data consistently favor pipelines for minimizing both environmental releases and human harm.

Operational Incident Record

The Dakota Access Pipeline, operational since June 1, 2017, has recorded 12 reportable incidents to the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA) as of late 2023, all occurring at aboveground facilities such as pump stations rather than the underground mainline. These incidents met PHMSA's reporting thresholds, which include releases of hazardous liquids exceeding certain volumes or causing other specified impacts, but none involved mainline ruptures or significant environmental releases beyond contained at sites. A specific example occurred on , 2017, at a pump station in Cambridge, Iowa, where excessive vibration caused a crack in a weld connection, resulting in a 21-gallon leak of crude oil that was fully contained on-site with no off-site migration or wildlife impact reported. PHMSA data indicates that such facility-based leaks typically involve equipment failures or maintenance issues, with remediation focused on cleanup under federal oversight. In July 2021, PHMSA issued a notice of probable violation to operator Energy Transfer for operational and procedural deficiencies related to integrity management, proposing a $93,000 that was later settled for $20,000 after partial dismissal of charges; these violations did not stem from acute incidents but from compliance lapses. No major spills, ruptures, or fatalities have been documented in PHMSA records or federal reports through 2025, contrasting with broader industry trends where hazardous liquid average hundreds of incidents annually nationwide. The operator maintains that all incidents were promptly addressed per response protocols, with no long-term ecological or consequences.

Tribal Engagement and Land Issues

Consultation Processes and Tribal Claims

The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) initiated tribal consultations for the Dakota Access Pipeline (DAPL) as required under the (NEPA), Section 106 of the , and 13175 on Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, beginning in 2014 during the environmental assessment phase. USACE identified and engaged over a dozen federally recognized tribes potentially affected by the project, including the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe (SRST), Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe, and others in the region, through formal government-to-government meetings, site visits, and invitations to comment on route alternatives and cultural resource surveys. Cultural resource surveys covered USACE jurisdictional areas, such as water crossings, and incorporated tribal input on potential impacts to sacred sites, though SRST did not participate in early surveys despite invitations. The SRST filed a against USACE on July 27, 2016, alleging inadequate consultation and violations of , claiming the pipeline's route under —formed by the Missouri River upstream of the reservation—threatened drinking water sources and sacred sites without sufficient tribal input or environmental impact analysis. SRST invoked Article II of the 1851 Treaty of Fort Laramie, which reserved unceded lands for the Great Sioux Nation including hunting and fishing , arguing the pipeline encroached on these territories and posed spill risks to the , vital for over 17,000 residents' . USACE responded that consultations provided reasonable opportunities for engagement, with over 50 documented attempts to meet with SRST between 2014 and 2016, though the tribe's formal comments arrived late in the process after initial approvals. Federal courts have evaluated the adequacy of these processes in multiple rulings. In Standing Rock Sioux Tribe v. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (2016), the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia found USACE acted in but remanded for further environmental review due to incomplete impact assessments, not outright consultation failures. A 2017 remand by the same court highlighted gaps in spill risk modeling affecting downstream tribes, leading USACE to prepare a supplemental completed in July 2020, which reaffirmed no significant tribal impacts after additional consultations. The D.C. Circuit upheld this in 2021, ruling USACE's consultations met legal standards despite SRST's objections. Tribal claims persisted post-approval, with SRST filing a new lawsuit on October 14, 2024, asserting DAPL operates on unceded 1851 treaty lands without a valid easement, violating the Treaty of Fort Laramie and federal trust responsibilities by allowing private infrastructure on reserved territories. USACE denied easement violations, noting the pipeline avoids reservation boundaries and treaty lands were ceded or altered by subsequent agreements like the 1868 Fort Laramie Treaty, which courts have interpreted as not extending to modern subsurface rights without explicit reservation. A federal judge dismissed a related SRST suit in March 2025, finding no basis for halting operations based on consultation or treaty claims after extensive reviews. These disputes underscore tensions between federal permitting efficiency and tribal sovereignty assertions, with USACE emphasizing empirical risk data showing low spill probabilities (less than 0.0003% annually at based on 2020 modeling) against tribal arguments prioritizing precautionary cultural protections over probabilistic safety metrics. While SRST and allies frame the project as environmental rooted in historical land dispossession, court records indicate route adjustments—shifting north of the original path to avoid initial SRST land concerns—were made in response to early consultations, though not deemed sufficient by the tribe. Ongoing claims, including a December 2024 intervention by pipeline operator Energy Transfer defending easement validity, reflect unresolved interpretations of 19th-century in contemporary energy infrastructure contexts.

Eminent Domain Applications


Dakota Access LLC invoked eminent domain authority under state laws to secure permanent and temporary easements across private lands where voluntary negotiations failed, primarily in Iowa, to construct the 1,172-mile pipeline transporting Bakken crude oil. In North Dakota, where the pipeline originates, all private land easements were acquired voluntarily without resort to eminent domain proceedings. The North Dakota Public Service Commission issued a siting permit in 2015, facilitating these agreements without condemnation actions. In , the Iowa Utilities Board (IUB) granted Dakota Access a hazardous liquid pipeline permit on March 6, 2015, which included authority to exercise for acquiring necessary easements across approximately 343 miles of the route. Landowners challenged the permit and condemnations, arguing the pipeline did not serve a sufficient public use to justify taking private farmland. The rejected these claims in Puntenney v. Iowa Utilities Board on May 31, 2019, ruling that the IUB's determination of public convenience and necessity met constitutional standards, as the pipeline functioned as a providing economic benefits through energy transport. Subsequent appeals, including compensation disputes, were largely affirmed, with courts upholding condemnation awards based on assessments. Eminent domain applications in and were minimal, with the majority of easements obtained through rather than forced takings, reflecting less landowner resistance compared to Iowa. State regulatory approvals in these jurisdictions, including South Dakota Public Utilities Commission certification, enabled construction without widespread condemnation litigation for Dakota Access. Overall, the process ensured compensated transfers of easements, aligning with statutory requirements for pipeline infrastructure deemed essential for regional .

Archaeological and Cultural Site Protections

The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), responsible for permitting water crossings along the Dakota Access Pipeline route, conducted cultural resource surveys in compliance with Section 106 of the , which mandates federal agencies to identify and mitigate impacts on historic properties, including archaeological sites and tribal cultural resources. These surveys covered USACE jurisdictional areas, such as 202 water crossings over 37 miles, and involved facilitating site-specific tribal surveys requested by affected tribes, including the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe. Over 250 consultations occurred with the Advisory Council on , state and tribal historic preservation offices, and individual tribes prior to the July 25, 2016, conclusion of the Section 106 process by the Assistant Secretary of the Army for Civil Works. The pipeline route was selected and adjusted to avoid known cultural sites, with tribal monitors present during construction activities to oversee potential discoveries. No Native American artifacts or human remains were disturbed or discovered during construction, according to post-construction assessments and monitoring reports. However, the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe contended that the route, particularly the crossing approximately 0.5 miles upstream from their reservation boundary, posed risks to unidentified sacred sites and ancestral burial grounds within their treaty-recognized territory. A notable incident occurred on September 3–4, 2016, when Dakota Access LLC cleared approximately 185 feet by 0.5 miles of land near using bulldozers, prior to completing requested tribal surveys in that segment. The tribe and over 90 archaeologists asserted this area contained sacred features and potential graves, urging an immediate halt due to non-compliance with survey protocols. Construction was paused by USACE and the company on September 5, 2016, pending review; subsequent investigations found no artifacts or graves in the cleared area, though the event prompted broader scrutiny of survey adequacy and led to temporary injunctions. Federal courts later ruled that USACE's environmental assessment inadequately addressed cumulative cultural impacts under the and NHPA, remanding the matter for supplemental review in 2017 and vacating the easement in 2020 for insufficient tribal consultation on potential effects to traditional cultural landscapes. Despite these findings, the pipeline has operated since June 2017 following reissuance of permits, with ongoing tribal lawsuits alleging persistent risks to unmitigated sites.

Protests and Sociopolitical Dynamics

Protest Organization and Activities

The protests against the Dakota Access Pipeline were primarily organized by the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe, in coordination with allied indigenous nations, environmental advocates, and supporters, emphasizing prayer-based resistance on lands adjacent to the reservation. Tribal Chairman Dave Archambault II played a central role in guiding the effort, framing it as a defense of tribal sovereignty and while calling for non-violent actions rooted in cultural traditions. The movement drew participants from over 100 tribes and international allies, operating through a decentralized structure of camps that functioned as semi-autonomous communities with communal kitchens, medical tents, and council meetings to coordinate logistics and strategy. The initial encampment, Sacred Stone Camp, was established on April 1, 2016, by LaDonna Brave Bull Allard, a Standing Rock Sioux tribal historian, on her private property near Cannon Ball, , to serve as a spiritual base for opposing pipeline construction under . This was followed by the formation of the Oceti Sakowin camp—representing the seven council fires of the Great Sioux Nation—nearby, which expanded to house up to 10,000 people at its peak in late 2016, including families, youth groups, and veterans committed to non-violent principles. Camp governance relied on elder-led councils and volunteer rotations for security, sanitation, and resource distribution, with donations funding supplies amid harsh winter conditions. Activities centered on non-violent direct actions, including daily sunrise and sunset ceremonies, horse-mounted patrols to monitor , and blockades of at work sites using bodies, tipis, and sacred fires to symbolize resistance. Participants underwent orientations in peaceful tactics, such as chaining to machinery or forming human chains, coordinated by indigenous-led groups like the International Indigenous Youth Council to avoid escalation while drawing media attention. Additional efforts involved educational workshops on treaty rights, cultural revitalization through song and dance, and relay runs—like the 2,000-mile youth run to —to amplify demands for rerouting the pipeline away from tribal water sources. These actions, sustained from April 2016 through February 2017, temporarily halted segments and mobilized global solidarity, though internal debates arose over tactics and external funding influences.

Law Enforcement Responses and Public Safety Incidents

Law enforcement agencies, primarily the Morton County Sheriff's Office and Highway Patrol, responded to the Dakota Access Pipeline protests at Standing Rock from August 2016 to February 2017 by enforcing state laws against illegal encampments, highway blockades, and trespassing on private and construction sites, which posed risks to public safety including disrupted emergency services and threats to infrastructure workers. Authorities established checkpoints and used less-lethal munitions such as , , and bean bag rounds only after repeated warnings and declarations of unlawful assemblies or riots, in response to protester actions like throwing rocks, igniting fires, and deploying improvised weapons including Molotov cocktails and arrows. Over the protest period, officials reported approximately 761 arrests for offenses ranging from trespass to charges for obstructing highways and assaulting officers, with many involving non-local participants. A significant public safety incident occurred on October 27, 2016, when 141 protesters were arrested during the clearance of an illegal encampment on private land near the pipeline route, following court orders to remove blockades that had halted and endangered workers; officers faced thrown projectiles during the operation, resulting in minor injuries to . On November 20-21, 2016, at the Backwater Bridge, hundreds of protesters advanced on a police line after igniting multiple fires on the structure and hurling incendiary devices and rocks, prompting a six-hour standoff in sub-freezing temperatures (around 20°F); authorities deployed water cannons primarily to extinguish the blazes and disperse the crowd after declaring a , leading to protester reports of over 300 injuries including and impacts from less-lethal rounds, while several officers sustained wounds from projectiles. One protester, Sophia Wilansky, suffered severe arm trauma that night, attributed by her to a police concussion but disputed by investigations finding no such grenades used and evidence suggesting injury from a protester-thrown . Additional incidents included protester attacks on survey crews and equipment, such as slashing tires and arrows at guards in September 2016, which necessitated escalated patrols to protect . During the February 2017 evacuation of the main Oceti Sakowin camp, ordered due to spring flooding risks and sanitation hazards, holdout protesters set fires in abandoned structures, endangering firefighters and requiring additional arrests; at least 40 individuals were detained for refusing to leave federal and state lands. reported multiple officer injuries, including a Morton County deputy permanently blinded in one eye by an during clashes. The state incurred over $38 million in policing costs, later partially reimbursed at $27.8 million by a federal ruling that criticized U.S. Corps delays for prolonging the disruptions.

Political Influences and Narrative Framing

The political trajectory of the Dakota Access Pipeline reflected partisan divides on and development. The Obama administration initially permitted through U.S. Army of Engineers approvals in 2015 and 2016, but amid intensifying protests at Standing Rock, the Corps denied the final easement under on December 4, 2016, citing the need for additional environmental impact assessments. This decision aligned with Democratic emphases on environmental consultations and tribal concerns, though it delayed a project already routed to avoid direct reservation crossings following earlier risk evaluations near . President Trump's administration reversed course via a January 24, 2017, presidential memorandum expediting federal reviews for pipelines, enabling the to grant the and facilitating completion in April 2017 with operations commencing in June. This move supported Republican priorities of domestic energy production, estimating up to 42,000 jobs from the Bakken transport to markets, reducing reliance on riskier rail alternatives. Under President Biden, the was revoked on January 20, 2021, prompting shutdown orders, yet federal courts repeatedly upheld operations amid appeals; a March 2025 ruling dismissed Standing Rock Sioux Tribe challenges, with the pipeline transporting approximately 570,000 barrels daily as of September 2025 while the finalizes a supplemental expected in 2025. Narrative framing diverged sharply along ideological lines, with opponents leveraging indigenous sovereignty and ecological risk motifs to depict the pipeline as emblematic of colonial disregard and overreach, often amplified by celebrity endorsements and calls for Democratic-led shutdowns. outlets, characterized by systemic progressive leanings, frequently adopted sympathetic portrayals of protesters as "water protectors" resisting existential threats to the , emphasizing unverified spill risks and sacred site disruptions despite the route's upstream positioning from primary tribal intakes and archaeological mitigations. Proponents countered with frames of economic necessity and safety, highlighting the pipeline's role in curtailing hazardous rail shipments—responsible for prior Bakken crude incidents—and bolstering North Dakota's GDP contributions exceeding $1.5 billion annually, critiques often marginalized in dominant coverage favoring dynamics over operational data. This selective emphasis underscores institutional media tendencies to prioritize activist narratives over balanced empirical scrutiny, including the protests' inclusion of non-tribal elements and instances of encampment-related hazards like fires and spills.

References

  1. https://www.daplpipelinefacts.com/
  2. https://www.gem.wiki/Dakota_Access_Oil_Pipeline_%28DAPL%29
  3. https://pipelinefighters.org/pipelinefights/dakota-access-oil-pipeline-dapl/
  4. https://www.usace.army.mil/Dakota-Access-Pipeline/
  5. https://www.nwo.usace.army.mil/Missions/Dam-and-Lake-Projects/Oil-and-Gas-Development/Dakota-Access-Pipeline/
  6. https://docs.house.gov/meetings/IF/IF03/20170215/105567/HHRG-115-IF03-20170215-SD036.pdf
  7. https://www.governor.nd.gov/news/burgum-submits-states-official-comments-urging-army-corps-engineers-maintain-existing-dapl
  8. https://www.nwo.usace.army.mil/Media/News-Releases/Article/4364837/usace-publishes-nal-dakota-access-pipeline-environmental-impact-statement/
  9. https://northdakotamonitor.com/2025/03/28/federal-judge-dismisses-standing-rocks-latest-lawsuit-over-dakota-access-pipeline/
  10. https://investor.phillips66.com/financial-information/news-releases/news-release-details/2014/Phillips-66-Becomes-Joint-Venture-Partner-with-Energy-Transfer-to-Build-Bakken-Crude-Oil-Pipelines/default.aspx
  11. https://www.mcguirewoods.com/client-resources/alerts/2016/12/dakota-access-pipeline-down-but-not-out/
  12. https://ir.energytransfer.com/news-releases/news-release-details/energy-transfer-commences-binding-expansion-open-season-bakken
  13. https://www.usace.army.mil/Dakota-Access-Pipeline/FAQs/
  14. https://abcnews.go.com/US/previously-proposed-route-dakota-access-pipeline-rejected/story?id=43274356
  15. https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2014/10/09/2014-24105/dakota-access-llc-energy-transfer-crude-oil-company-llc-notice-of-petition-for-declaratory-order
  16. https://aglaw.psu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2020/06/The-Untold-Story-of-the-Dakota-Access-Pipeline_-How-PoliticsAlmo.pdf
  17. https://puc.sd.gov/commission/dockets/HydrocarbonPipeline/2014/HP14-002/final121514.pdf
  18. https://www.inforum.com/news/a-dakota-access-pipeline-timeline
  19. https://www.aberdeennews.com/story/business/2016/05/20/dakota-access-pipeline-construction-begins/116693428/
  20. https://www.govloop.com/community/blog/dakota-access-pipeline-brief-history/
  21. https://ictnews.org/news/dakota-access-pipeline-timeline/
  22. https://americanindian.si.edu/nk360/plains-treaties/dapl
  23. https://www.daplpipelinefacts.com/thefacts.html
  24. https://apnews.com/general-news-1a00f95c83594dac931796a332540750
  25. https://abcnews.go.com/US/timeline-dakota-access-pipeline-protests/story?id=43131355
  26. https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2016/12/02/timeline-dakota-access-pipeline-and-protests/94800796/
  27. https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/DCPD-201700067/pdf/DCPD-201700067.pdf
  28. https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/memorandum-construction-the-dakota-access-pipeline
  29. https://www.nsenergybusiness.com/projects/dakota-access-pipeline/
  30. https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/cadc/20-5197/20-5197-2021-01-26.html
  31. https://www.npr.org/2020/07/06/887593775/court-rules-that-dakota-access-pipeline-must-be-emptied-for-now
  32. https://www.mprnews.org/story/2025/04/10/cleanup-underway-keystone-oil-pipeline-spill-in-north-dakota
  33. https://eelp.law.harvard.edu/tracker/dakota-access-pipeline/
  34. https://northdakotamonitor.com/2025/06/02/standing-rock-appeals-dismissal-of-latest-dakota-access-pipeline-lawsuit/
  35. https://nsglc.olemiss.edu/blog/2025/may/19/index.html
  36. https://northdakotamonitor.com/2025/04/23/judge-blasts-army-corps-for-pipeline-protests-orders-28m-in-damages-to-north-dakota/
  37. https://www.everycrsreport.com/reports/IN10567.html
  38. https://daplpipelinefacts.com/about.html
  39. https://www.daplpipelinefacts.com/docs/DAPL_Pump_Station_Fact_Sheet_7-24-19.pdf
  40. https://www.daplpipelinefacts.com/Safety.html
  41. https://insideclimatenews.org/news/09032018/dakota-access-oil-pipeline-leak-detection-technology-standing-rock-water-safety-energy-transfer-partners/
  42. https://www.nrdc.org/stories/stopping-dakota-access-pipeline-leak-under-10-minutes-fairy-tale-say-standing-rock-sioux
  43. https://www.eenews.net/articles/this-little-known-pipeline-could-spell-trouble-for-dakota-access/
  44. https://www.phmsa.dot.gov/data-and-statistics/pipeline/pipeline-incident-20-year-trends
  45. https://ir.energytransfer.com/news-releases/news-release-details/energy-transfer-and-sunoco-logistics-announce-sale-minority
  46. https://www.reprisk.com/insights/case-studies/dapl
  47. https://www.enbridge.com/media-center/news/details?id=2075874&lang=en&year=2016
  48. https://nyujlpp.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/Fredericks-Social-Cost-and-Material-Loss-22-nyujlpp-563.pdf
  49. https://ieefa.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/The-High-Risk-Financing-Behind-the-Dakota-Access-Pipeline_-NOV-2016.pdf
  50. https://investor.phillips66.com/financial-information/news-releases/news-release-details/2016/Energy-Transfer-Sunoco-Logistics-and-Phillips-66-Announce-Successful-Completion-of-Project-Financing-for-Bakken-Pipeline-Joint-Ventures/default.aspx
  51. https://www.ing.com/Newsroom/News/Features/ING-and-the-Dakota-Access-pipeline.htm
  52. https://www.banktrack.org/success/three_banks_step_away_from_dakota_access_pipeline_backers_v
  53. https://www.colorado.edu/today/2018/11/26/dakota-access-pipeline-controversy-cost-companies-least-75-billion-study-finds
  54. https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2017/02/22/514988040/key-moments-in-the-dakota-access-pipeline-fight
  55. https://www.phmsa.dot.gov/news/phmsa-notice-proposed-violation-proposed-civil-penalty-and-proposed-compliance-order-energy
  56. https://www.nrdc.org/stories/dakota-access-pipeline-what-you-need-know
  57. https://www.nwo.usace.army.mil/Missions/Civil-Works/Planning/Project-Reports/Article/633496/dakota-access-pipeline-environmental-assessment/
  58. https://harvardlawreview.org/print/vol-135/rock-sioux-tribe-v-us-army-corps-of-engineers/
  59. https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/LSB10457
  60. https://www.jw.com/news/insights-dakota-access-pipeline-shutdown/
  61. https://cdxapps.epa.gov/cdx-enepa-II/public/action/eis/details?eisId=428178
  62. https://www.eenews.net/articles/army-corps-pushes-dakota-access-environmental-review-to-2025/
  63. https://michiganadvance.com/2025/03/31/federal-judge-dismisses-standing-rocks-latest-lawsuit-over-dakota-access-pipeline/
  64. https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/us-supreme-court-turns-away-dakota-pipeline-operators-appeal-2022-02-22/
  65. https://www.calt.iastate.edu/article/iowa-court-affirms-condemnation-award-dakota-access-pipeline-case
  66. https://www.texansfornaturalgas.com/benefits_of_dakota_access_and_keystone_xl_by_the_numbers
  67. https://www.api.org/-/media/files/policy/infrastructure/2020/api-dapl-shutdown-impacts-memo.pdf
  68. https://apnews.com/b478052a6a3b4fbbabd06386c72caa2f
  69. https://www.inforum.com/news/nd-could-gain-up-to-100m-a-year-from-dakota-access
  70. https://www.grandforksherald.com/news/north-dakota/dapl-related-savings-for-oil-producers-adding-up-to-millions-more-for-state-coffers
  71. https://www.climatecentral.org/news/dakota-pipline-greenlighted-fossil-fuels-21149
  72. https://yipinstitute.org/article/dakota-access-pipeline-pros
  73. https://www.brookings.edu/articles/five-things-to-know-about-the-north-dakota-access-pipeline-debate/
  74. https://cms.energytransfer.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/DAPL_Capacity_Optimization_01-07-2020.pdf
  75. https://www.hcn.org/issues/48-21/the-twisted-economics-of-the-dakota-access-pipeline/
  76. https://www.chicagobooth.edu/review/why-transporting-oil-rail-popular-despite-cost
  77. https://auduboncompanies.com/study-shows-pipelines-are-safest-way-to-transport-oil/
  78. https://www.fraserinstitute.org/studies/safety-transportation-oil-and-gas-pipelines-or-rail
  79. https://www.fraserinstitute.org/sites/default/files/safety-in-the-transportation-of-oil-and-gas-pipelines-or-rail-rev2.pdf
  80. https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/dec/29/standing-rock-activists-dakota-access-pipeline-delay
  81. https://northdakotamonitor.com/2025/03/10/dakota-access-pipeline-developer-outlines-damage-claims-rests-case-against-greenpeace/
  82. https://www.governor.nd.gov/sites/www/files/documents/State%2520of%2520North%2520Dakota%2520comments%2520on%2520DAPL%2520DEIS%252012.13.2023.pdf
  83. https://www.phmsa.dot.gov/sites/phmsa.dot.gov/files/2023-06/1-DAPL-North-FRP-20230420-Rev1-Redacted.pdf
  84. https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2018/10/11/which-is-safer-for-transporting-crude-oil-rail-truck-pipeline-or-boat/
  85. https://www.gao.gov/assets/gao-14-667.pdf
  86. https://pstrust.org/rail-vs-pipelines/
  87. https://theintercept.com/2018/01/09/dakota-access-pipeline-leak-energy-transfer-partners/
  88. https://www.vnf.com/federal-intervention-in-dakota-access-pipeline-project-highlights
  89. https://www.modrall.com/2018/01/17/black-snakes-essential-infrastructure-dakota-access-pipeline-standing-rock-sioux-tribe-v-u-s-army-corps-engineers-federal-governments-tribal-consultation-obligations-m/
  90. https://www.standingrock.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/10/SRSTnoDAPLLawsuit.pdf
  91. https://southdakotasearchlight.com/2024/12/24/pipeline-owner-joins-lawsuit-over-dakota-access-pipeline/
  92. https://psc.nd.gov/public/FAQs.pdf
  93. https://www.calt.iastate.edu/post/iowa-supreme-court-says-condemnation-farmland-dakota-access-pipeline-was-constitutional
  94. https://www.iowacourts.gov/iowa-courts/supreme-court/supreme-court-opinions/case/17-0423
  95. https://narf.org/nill/bulletins/federal/documents/standing_rock_v_army_corps.html
  96. https://www.vox.com/2016/9/9/12862958/dakota-access-pipeline-fight
  97. https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/sep/22/archeologists-denounce-dakota-access-pipeline-artifacts
  98. https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/jun/14/dakota-access-pipeline-environmental-study-inadequate
  99. https://northdakotamonitor.com/2025/01/23/corps-of-engineers-says-standing-rock-cant-sue-over-pipeline-inaction/
  100. https://insideclimatenews.org/news/13112017/dakota-access-pipeline-protests-standing-rock-chairman-dave-archambault-interview/
  101. https://jia.sipa.columbia.edu/news/standing-rock-protests-and-struggle-tribal-sovereignty
  102. https://www.npr.org/sections/codeswitch/2016/09/10/493110892/at-the-sacred-stone-camp-a-coalition-joins-forces-to-protect-the-land
  103. https://www.democracynow.org/2016/9/21/watch_is_this_america_co_founder
  104. https://www.mprnews.org/story/2021/04/01/i-live-with-standing-rock-in-my-heart-massive-pipeline-protest-resonates-5-years-later
  105. https://digitalcommons.macalester.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1069&context=soci_honors
  106. https://www.greenpeace.org/usa/time-standing-rock/
  107. https://wagingnonviolence.org/2016/09/nodapl-unites-movement-indigenous-rights/
  108. https://standingrock.org/topics/press-release/
  109. https://ndresponse.gov/2016/dakota-access-pipeline/myth-vs-fact
  110. https://edition.cnn.com/2016/11/21/us/dakota-access-pipeline-protests
  111. https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/oct/25/north-dakota-oil-pipeline-protest-arrests-journalists-filmmakers
  112. https://abcnews.go.com/US/tensions-mount-protesters-police-controversial-pipeline/story?id=43078902
  113. https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/nov/21/dakota-access-pipeline-water-cannon-police-standing-rock-protest
  114. https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2016/11/21/502865857/police-protesters-clash-near-dakota-access-pipeline-route
  115. https://insideclimatenews.org/news/23022017/dakota-access-pipeline-standing-rock-protest-donald-trump/
  116. https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/judge-rules-federal-government-owes-nearly-28-million-north-dakota-pip-rcna202738
  117. https://www.politico.com/story/2016/12/us-army-corps-blocks-dakota-access-pipeline-232172
  118. https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/feb/09/dakota-access-pipeline-biden-harris-letter-celebrities-indigenous-leaders
  119. https://www.mediacloud.org/blog/fighting-for-not-fighting-against-media-coverage-and-the-dakota-access-pipeline
Add your contribution
Related Hubs
User Avatar
No comments yet.