Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

SoylentNews is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop. Only 15 submissions in the queue.
posted by martyb on Monday December 05 2016, @01:13PM   Printer-friendly
from the embrace-extend-extinguish? dept.

According to an article at Snopes.com:

The Army Corps of Engineers has denied the easement needed to complete the Dakota Access Pipeline, according Colonel Henderson, who notified Veterans for Standing Rock co-organizer Michael A. Wood Jr on 4 December 2016.

More than 3,000 veterans had converged at the Standing Rock camp to support the Sioux in their ongoing opposition to the building of a $3.7 billion pipeline that would cross through disputed land managed by the Army Corps of Engineers. Wood said upon learning of the move, "This is history."

From a report in Al Jazeera :

The US Army Corps of Engineers has turned down a permit for a controversial pipeline project running through North Dakota, in a victory for Native Americans and climate activists who have protested against the project for several months, according to a statement released.

The 1,885km Dakota Access Pipeline, owned by Texas-based Energy Transfer Partners LP, had been complete except for a segment planned to run under Lake Oahe, a reservoir formed by a dam on the Missouri River.

"The Army will not grant an easement to cross Lake Oahe at the proposed location based on the current record," a statement from the US Army said.

The Standing Rock Sioux tribe, along with climate activists, have been protesting the $3.8bn project, saying it could contaminate the water supply and damage sacred tribal lands.

[...] "Today, the US Army Corps of Engineers announced that it will not be granting the easement to cross Lake Oahe for the proposed Dakota Access Pipeline," said Standing Rock Chairman Dave Archambault II, in a statement.

"Instead, the Corps will be undertaking an environmental impact statement to look at possible alternative routes."


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 05 2016, @07:48PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 05 2016, @07:48PM (#437346)

    What's puzzling to me is that the current proposed crossing is where the river is ~1/2 mile wide (800 meters?). Not too far north of this, and still south of Bismarck, the river is a few hundred feet wide.

    So why did Dakota Access Pipeline choose this option that called for much more expensive boring under the wide spot in the river?

    Are there actual geological or other reasons, or did it just look like it might be easier to get the Indians to give them a Right of Way, instead of other land owners?

  • (Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday December 07 2016, @10:51PM

    by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday December 07 2016, @10:51PM (#438542) Journal
    Narrower rivers generally are faster flowing ones with more capability to erode. A longer stretch of tunnel might be a good trade off for not having the river cut into your pipeline.