Der "Steckbrief" » fected contribution to the violatio

Introduction
Dakota Access is an 1170 mile pipeline that will at peak capacity deliver 570 barrels of Bakken crude oil daily from the North Dakota to Illinois. The pipeline tends to be slightly shorter than the proposed 1179 mile Keystone XL projects; however; it will transport less oil than the planned 800 000 barrel keystone. The company that is building the pipeline is Dakota Access LLC and are an offshoot of a larger company called Energy transfer that does control about 114 000 kilometers of pipeline across the US (Henry Zach Gentry Jersey , 2016). The company had been building the pipeline since 2016; however, the building of the pipeline has encountered several protests. The aim of the case study is to present an argument against the building of the pipeline. The paper will support the claims presented by Native Americans that the pipeline should not be built.
Discussion
The Native Americans have been protesting the building of the pipeline for about two years. However, the intensity of the protests increased when the US Army Corps of Engineers granted the builders permission allowing the pipeline to cross under Missouri River at a place called Lake Oahe (Henry Benny Snell Jr. Jersey , 2016). The place is about half a mile North of the Standing Rock Sioux Indian Reservation. Indians claims that they get water from the Missouri River and any oil spill will affect their supply. Another claim is that the construction threatens to dig up areas the Sioux claim to be sacred archaeological and burial sites. The protesters also claim that they were not consulted when plans were being made about the pipeline.
The Army Corps claimed that it had evaluated the construction of the pipeline and found that the risks were not severe. However, a consulting firm that does advise the government agencies and industries regarding pipelines analyzed the government鈥檚 environmental assessment (Webster, 2016). Based on the findings of the agency Justin Layne Jersey , the Corps failed to address the pipeline safety and the risk that it poses to the waters of Oahe. The environmental assessment underestimated the risk of the oil spill to sensitive areas. Based on the report provided by the agency, the risks posed by landslides were underestimated, lack of proper safety construction to contain the spills Diontae Johnson Jersey , and also a risk review of the spills and containment at sites documenting problematic regulatory oversight of industry in North Dakota. The information from then report provides a lot of reason as to why the building of Dakota accessed pipeline should be stopped (Webster, 2016). The lack of Army Corps to assess the oil spills risk from the pipeline does raise significant questions about whether the review by Corps is legally adequate.
One argument against the construction of the pipeline is that the Army Corps failed to consult the Native Americans regarding the building of the pipeline. In the land where Native Americans do not occupy, in maybe areas where they buried their dead or raised their families Devin Bush Jersey , they tend to consider the places as of great religious and archeological significance. The Indian tribes that do attach to such significance, but live at great distances need to be consulted when such plans are being made about digging up their land (Plummer, 2016). It is important that the company should have consulted with people who were to be affected by the construction before making any decisions to dig up the land. Lack of consulting with the people affected contribution to the violation of their rights; hence James Conner Jersey , I do not support the construction of the pipeline.

Conclusion
Although building the Dakota Access Pipeline has some benefits, the risk tends to outweigh the positive. The pipeline does pose a risk to the environment and the religious and archeological significance of the sites to Sioux tribe. Despite the risk, the construction of the pipeline is also a backward step towards shifting to renewable energy in the United States. Encouraging the development of fossil fuels tend to be a wrong way to ac