Standing Rock-Dakota Access Dispute: Regardless Whether Protest Actions are Lawful or Not, Human Rights, Personal Safety, and Yes Even Tribal History, Archaeology, and Past Relations with the U.S. Government Need to Be Considered

Standing Rock-Dakota Access Dispute: Regardless Whether Protest Actions are Lawful or Not, Human Rights, Personal Safety, and Yes Even Tribal History, Archaeology, and Past Relations with the U.S. Government Need to Be Considered

The use of private security firms (or mercenaries as some have called them) using trained attack dogs and pepper spray to subdue protesters seems both bold and unprecedented in recent times. Disputes at this level need constant law enforcement presence and involvement at the local, state, and possibly federal levels. Private security hired by the pipeline owners should be no substitute or trained government police forces. If an incident arises they should have let law enforcement handle it. Such actions are not going to bode well for the oil and gas industry as a whole and I think apologies are in order, regardless of whether protesters were trespassing. The industry does not need confirmations of its mostly not warranted reputation as a ruthless greedy industry.

Personal safety of law enforcement and security personnel also need to be considered. Recently, it was also reported that protesters knocked down a fence and entered active construction areas with vehicles, on horseback, and on foot carrying fence posts, knives, and flag poles and using them to attack and intimidate security people and injuring some. The videos I have seen suggest that both sides were provocative. I saw one video where a Native America man was making a speech to a line of police who were stoically remaining unaffected which is commendable. Their cooperative role in a peaceful protest should also be acknowledged.

Energy Transfer Partners’ decision to work on the section of the pipeline near the tribal protest and employ security with dogs was a bad one. They stated that they expected more people at the protests during the weekend that there was a pow-wow and large native gathering an hour or so away in Bismarck and wanted to work on that section while there were less people at the protest site. The Standing Rock Sioux had their own historian/archaeologist identify what they say are sacred sites and burial cairns, apparently from a distance and some with permission of the landowner, which is admittedly suspect. On that basis they filed an injunction to temporarily halt work in that area to their overall case. Also, since Dakota Access volunteered to temporarily halt work and then snuck into that area without warning, it basically pissed off the protesters. None of this bodes well for oil and gas interests. These are not anti-fracking protesters although many are allied with them. These are indigenous peoples which have special rights regarding their lands which refer to treaties of the past even if the land in question is privately owned. Even if previous archaeological surveys revealed no such burial sites and even if permits were granted by the Army Core of Engineers it was a bad decision. Oil and gas PR is very important these days and must be handled better than this. I have seen dozens of social media posts on this issue from those who lean left and some from those who lean right. Every one of them favored the Native American protest. What people don’t generally realize is that land and place is extremely important in many indigenous cultures. Before the advent of writing there was story and stories were referenced by lands, land features, and water features such as rivers. Another issue with Native Americans is that many were moved onto reservations, some marched to lands they had no specific connections with but others in their ancestral lands. So there are two separate important issues with land regarding Native Americans. The land in question was once part of treaty lands but was renegotiated under dubious circumstances in the late 1800’s. The Standing Rock Sioux historian/archaeologist noted significant finds and if found to be true would likely negate the current pipeline path but since topsoil was removed on part of that land it may not be possible to verify. In any case their decision to do it will not help them and may provide fodder for a legal case against them. I have some Native American ancestry as do many Americans so that is also a point of support. I am also landowner and have an old gas transmission line running through my property. Accessible resource-rich land is required for most fossil fuel projects and the tribes have been granted significant tracts of land for their “tribal nations” by the U.S. government. There is also some evidence that tribes have been ill-treated by fossil fuel companies in the past in terms of royalties and right-of-ways, possibly with the Bureau of Indian Affairs aiding the companies. No matter how this turns out it is a bungle by Energy Transfer Partners, the ACOE, and Dakota Access. More consulting and more attempt at understanding the tribes and willingness to compromise should have been/should be exhibited. It may be too late now. 

The tribes are calling themselves “protectors” with the rallying cry – ‘Water is Life.’ They say that their drinking water sources are under threat. However, if a spill were to occur affecting any of the rivers it is not likely that people would end up drinking poison water. Water from other sources would be brought in until the spill is cleaned, which could take quite a while. However, any spill would be a mark on their ancestral historical lands and bring strong public outcry.

While I am generally no fan of protesters and climate radicals who fight all fossil fuel infrastructure I think this case and others like it are different. There is certainly a good argument that pipelines are needed to carry Bakken crude as they are safer than trucking it out or crude-by-rail which has its own recent checkered safety history. Other tribes, some who host Bakken wells as landowners, have noted that there are other ways than the DAPL to transport oil but it seems like an altered route of some sort would be the best compromise. In one statement by one of those tribes they mentioned the specific Missouri River crossing being the issue so perhaps crossing at a different place will be the solution.  

    

Recent History of Indigenous Protest against Fossil Fuel Infrastructure and Large Power Projects

The Standing Rock protest is strongly galvanizing Native Americans with more tribal unity displayed than has been in many decades. Some are calling it the last Indian War and some are attributing it to prophecy fulfillment. Others are calling it the greatest moment of Native American solidarity ever. This is big, bigger than anti-corporate activism. These are ethnic and religious issues and even if it is unfair to others see it that way, these views must be considered. Canada has had quite a bit of First Nations successful disruption of energy projects, many which have to do with treaty interpretations. Yes, environmentalists have co-opted their struggles, unfortunately. Throughout the world indigenous peoples have been against large energy projects: dams which have displaced them and submerged their lands (including the Sioux and many other tribes) and now any oil, gas, or coal infrastructure, especially as they are informed by environmentalists that their water will be poisoned. Currently the Mapache tribe in Argentina is protesting fracking for shale gas – no doubt due to the negative publicity regarding alleged water contamination. There are pipeline spills, quite a few of them. They are rare compared to the amount of product flowing but they do happen enough that there are always risks. How risks are assessed varies among people, governments, and corporations. Dakota Access and the Army should have been better prepared and more open to what the people had to say, especially after the Keystone XL Pipeline was halted.

Now it may be argued that First Nations peoples are being ill-advised by radical environmentalists who not only support them but encourage them, giving them a somewhat skewed version of the overall effects of fossil fuels on the environment, particularly with fracking. Be that as it may this is a separate issue from environmentalism – even if environmentalists paint it as a related issue because both seek to protect land. Just today, the chairman of the Standing Rock tribe noted that they had long known of the sacred sites on the land in question by the Missouri River. He also pointed out that the ancestral lands of the local tribes had in the past been subjected to inundation by hydroelectric projects (renewable energy) and he noted how their land, the Black Hills was taken when gold was found there in the 19th century. He also noted the solidarity of the protest with other indigenous peoples around the country and around the world.

Update: Yesterday’s ‘Joint Statement from the Dept. of Justice, Dept. of the Army, and Dept. of the Interior seems to trump today’s ruling by a district court judge to deny halting of the pipeline construction – by “requesting” that Dakota Pipeline not work on the area in question until further consultations between parties occurs. They also pledged to work on tribal relations with infrastructure projects in general. I believe this to be the best way forward at present for all parties, including the pipeline owners, investors, and workers. To me this seems reasonable and offers a chance for all parties to come to an agreement. 

Dakota Access, which is a subsidiary company of Energy Transfer Partners - whose CEO is Kelsy Warren, 86th on Forbes list of the wealthiest Americans, has stated that the pipeline is about 60% complete and that they will lose hundreds of millions of dollars even if the project is delayed due to contracts to flow oil by Jan. 2017 and workers and equipment demobilization. Since all permits have been received by the company there is no reason to think the project as a whole won't go forward but there could be some route changes around the lands in question.