More than a pipeline is at stake in Dakota Access fight

In just a few brief words, President Obama made the situation surrounding the Dakota Access Pipeline much more dangerous. Further, he demonstrated that he continues to put politics over the interests of the public. 

In a recent interview, the president indicated that the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers “is examining whether there are ways to reroute the pipeline,” which the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe says threatens sacred sites and a water source near their reservation in North Dakota. 

{mosads}Keep in mind that the Dakota Access pipeline was fully permitted by the regulating bodies in each of the four states impacted by the project. It was also approved by the U.S Army Corps of Engineers, following a thorough and intensive two-year review process that included 389 meetings on cultural surveying results and 11 meetings between the USACE and Standing Rock Sioux Tribe. The project was allowed to move forward because it met or exceeded all environmental and cultural laws and regulations. 

But now, Obama wants to reroute a pipeline that is already 75 percent constructed and has invested as much as $3 billion in the U.S. economy. His remarks will have two impacts: encouraging anti-energy, keep-it-in-the-ground protesters and causing any company building a much-needed energy infrastructure project to reconsider such an investment.

In fact, his words and efforts to just “reroute” a costly energy infrastructure project by executive decree could have a chilling effect on any private infrastructure development that has to go through the long, drawn out and thorough regulatory and permitting process, including roads, bridges, airports, ports and even utility transmission lines. If the administration can simply go back on its prior approvals, what private company would be willing to work in that uncertain environment?

Many opponents erroneously believe that if stopping the pipeline results in stopping the use of oil. However, demand for the energy resources that would be transported by Dakota Access will not change. In 2014, total U.S. petroleum consumption was about 19 million barrels per day, or 35 percent of all the energy consumed in the United States. In addition, oil and its byproducts create plastics and other basic materials that are part of the everyday products we use in our daily lives, like our smartphones, clothes and even medicines.

Shutting down Dakota Access will not change the demand for oil, but it will make shipping crude much more dangerous. North Dakota is the second largest producer of oil and the state’s oil producers are desperate to move away from oil-by-rail shipments which are not only expensive, but subject to a higher rate of leaks and accidents. In fact, Dakota Access would replace the need for up to 700 rail cars a day – a much less safe and more carbon emissions-intensive mode of transportation – that currently carry crude oil from the Bakken region to markets across the country.

Meanwhile, pipelines have consistently proven to be the safest, most efficient, and most environmentally friendly means of transporting the resources that our nation needs. Approximately 70 percent of crude oil and petroleum products in our country are shipped by pipeline. More than two million miles of pipeline carry these and other energy products across America every day.

Once operational, Dakota Access will be among the safest, most technologically advanced pipelines ever constructed, able to ship 450,000 barrels of oil a day safely.

Our energy renaissance of the past decade has created a tremendous opportunity for America. Through innovation and entrepreneurship, the U.S. energy conversation now emphasizes abundance instead of scarcity. But we won’t be able to take full advantage of that blessing if anti-energy activists are able to block energy infrastructure projects that keep American energy from going to where it’s needed.

President Obama’s latest comments could set a tremendously dangerous precedent, fueling the flames of anti-energy activists while simultaneously extinguishing the willingness of companies to invest in infrastructure projects. However, his administration can reverse that trend by granting Dakota Access its final construction permits and allowing the project to successfully reach completion. 

Dr. Jack Rafuse is the former energy adviser in the Nixon administration, and heads the Rafuse Organization, an independent consultancy on energy, trade and security issues.