Pros And Cons Of Dakota Access Pipeline

The Dakota access pipeline has much risk in the aspects of environmental impact and the thousands of people protesting for the protection indian reservation, but these pipelines bring in huge economic gain. In the article, “Dakota Access Pipeline: What's at stake?” Written by Holly Yan, she explores the possible pros and cons of piping oil through North Dakota to Illinois. People are arguing that piping oil could be hazardous to native american land, but others say the U.S. needs the money. While some people see disaster government officials see dollar signs. In this article there's a battle between Native Americans and activists, and U.S. officials on weather piping crude oil underground through four states is a good or bad thing. Some say that it can
help us rely less on foreign oil and become more financially stable, while others say it will destroy native american burial grounds, prayer sites, and cultural artifacts. Developers say, “the pipeline would provide a safer, more environmentally friendly way of moving crude oil compared to other modes of transportation, such as rail or trucks.”(Yan). However many people still do not agree with piping oil under North Dakota. Local governments are looking at a potential $156 million with the sales the pipelines oil will make, but the activists will not stop at nothing until the pipeline construction is shut down. This article is mostly fact based, but also has options to allow you to decide if the Dakota access pipelines are a good or a bad thing.
They say that the pipelines can carry 470,000 barrels of oil a day, which is 374.3 million gallons of gas a day. These pipelines will drastically help with the fact that the U.S. relies so much on foreign countries for oil. Activists believe that the pipelines could be dangerous: “threatens the Tribe's environmental and economic well-being, and would damage and destroy sites of great historic, religious, and cultural significance to the Tribe."(Rock Sioux Tribe). The Sioux tribe is convinced that the building of the pipeline will destroy their burial and prayer sites along with having environmental concerns such as releasing greenhouse gasses. The developers of the pipeline and Midwest Alliance for Infrastructure insure that it is much safer than old methods of oil transportation; eliminating any chance of the 2013 incident in Quebec, Canada involving a train transporting crude oil that derailed and destroyed the town Lac-Megantic. There are many bad things this construction could do to the Sioux reservations, but this provides much safer means of transporting oil the U.S.
needs. This article is an informational article so the author's purpose is to inform the readers. Holly Yan is telling us about the Dakota access pipeline, and the two sides of the story. One side is pros where people think that it will be an “economic boon that makes the country more self-sufficient,” and have a safer way to transporting oil (Yan). The other side however is cons, it's concerned with the unknown toles it could take on Native american land. Yan did a good job explaining the two sides of the argument without showing any bias towards one side, and informed the reader about this topic very well. The arguments made in this article made me think that the Dakota access pipeline could really help the U.S. with money. Advocacy groups say that it does not cross Native American reservations, and that if it did it wouldn’t cause much harm. It's a much safer way to transport it rather than by train or truck. Overall it can help the U.S. rely less on foreign countries for oil and we will make a huge profit. Even though it could hurt the Sioux reservation it’s a risk the U.S. needs to take.