Bloomberg Editorial Highlights Facts on Dakota Access
In the latest editorial to address the Dakota Access Pipeline, Bloomberg highlighted some of the more important points to remember about the project and other energy infrastructure projects.
According to Bloomberg:
“Reducing emissions — is the right one, but their methods –opposing and sabotaging pipelines — are wrong.”
Net emissions will be reduced via the Dakota Access project and protestors have no right to illegally and violently protest a project that has been fully approved over the past two years.
“The main problem with the movement to block new oil and gas projects is that it ignores two basic facts. First, the U.S. still needs fossil fuels, and getting gas and oil domestically helps the U.S. move toward energy security. And second, the increased production of natural gas has done more than any government policy to reduce the use of coal in America. And coal is the dirtiest fossil fuel.”
The Dakota Access project will grow America’s sorely needed energy infrastructure without increasing production out of the Bakken.
It is worth noting however that the editorial also gives credence to President Obama’s “reroute” comment.
“Maybe the pipeline…needs to be rerouted to protect sources of local drinking water, or to respect the rights of a nearby Sioux Native American tribe. President Barack Obama suggested as much last week.
As emphasized earlier this week, the reroute would be an ineffective approach to protecting waterways in North Dakota as the alternative route crosses 27 more. As the US Army Corps of Engineers has made clear, the methods used to cross the Missouri River will take every safety precaution into account and will drastically reduce the risk to drinking water compared to crude by rail.
“Given the HDD approach used for both crossings and the avoidance of impacts that results from this technique, the attempt to cross at a narrow expanse of the river further limiting risk, the reduced potential for impacts resulting from the HDD process, movement of a pump station away from the River at the request of the Corps, the necessity to cross the Missouri River in at least one location, and the federal programs governing response actions, the risk to water resources from this crossing are minimal.”