Frank Watson: Standing Rock Protest

It looks like the weather will bring the protests in North Dakota to a halt – at least until spring.

I have been trying unsuccessfully to make some sense out of the controversy, but I haven’t heard anything that says the pipeline is not a good idea.

The United States uses more oil than any other country in the world.

To fill our requirements, we have had to import crude from countries that are not always friendly.

Some are downright hostile.

Before we began development of the North Dakota oil fields, we were dependent on foreign sources for two thirds of our needs.

We are down to 35 percent today.

Increasing domestic production decreases the potential that we could be blackmailed or that our economy could be held hostage.

The proposed pipeline makes national security sense.

Prior to the recent development in fracking and extraction from oil shale formations, most of our oil came from the oil fields in Texas, the associated offshore wells and by tanker ships from foreign sources.

Thus, most of our refineries are in Texas.

These refineries are the center of an extensive network to deliver fuel and natural gas to consumers throughout America.

It is much cheaper to deliver the crude to the refineries than it is to move the refineries.

The proposed pipeline makes economic sense.

The primary argument against the pipeline is safety concerns.

Studies by the U.S. Department of Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, the Manhattan Institute and Canada’s Frazier Institute all conclude that the safest way to move crude oil is by pipeline.

The pipeline is scheduled to cross the Missouri River between Bismarck and the Standing Rock Reservation.

The Protesters claim that the pipeline route was changed from its original route due to concerns about potential danger to Bismarck’s water supply.

I can find no evidence to support this claim.

The protesters cite a list of pipeline accidents to support their argument.

The only applicable one that I can find is the 2011 Exxon leak of 1,500 barrels of gasoline into the Yellowstone.

It was cleaned up with no long-term environmental damage.

The proposed pipeline makes safety sense.

The claim that the proposed pipeline violates some sacred Native American sites is hard to get a handle on. On the farm where I grew up, a large sycamore tree grows near a pool in the creek where I used to play. When my mother died, I revisited that site and was comforted. I consider it a place of special memories, but I have no right to dictate to the current landowners as to how they manage property my ancestors used to own. Construction is completed over most of the line. I’m sure it crosses other places of special memories. The pipeline will not cross Native American property. It is on property that their ancestors used to own.

After much consideration, I put this protest in the same category as those who protested building a prison in Airway Heights a few years ago. They realized that a new prison was needed but not close to where they live. The city of Spokane used similar logic last year when they tried, unsuccessfully, to pass an ordinance forbidding the railroads from moving oil through the city. The Spokane City Council was successful, however, in passing an ordinance supporting the protesters in North Dakota even though the controversy is 1,500 miles from Spokane, and the pipeline is in the best interests of our nation. That doesn’t make any sense at all.

(Frank Watson is a retired school teacher and long-time resident of St. John.)