A federal court July 6 ordered the Dakota Access crude oil pipeline must be shut down within 30 days pending completion of a study of the line’s potential environmental impacts.
The US Army Corps of Engineers has told the court it can complete an environmental impact statement (EIS) on the pipeline—specifically on an easement allowing the line to pass under the Missouri River at Lake Oahe in North Dakota—in 13 months.
Judge James Boasberg, named to the court by President Obama, had earlier ordered the EIS be prepared but had required more argument before deciding whether to vacate the easement or allow the pipeline to continue operating as the EIS is developed. The decision to require vacatur means the pipeline must be shut down after 3 years of operation.
The pipeline, operated by Energy Transfer LP, carries 570,000 b/d of crude oil more than 1,000 miles from North Dakota to a pipeline hub at Patoka, Ill. Connections there allow the oil to flow as far as the US Gulf Coast.
The case is Standing Rock v. US Army Corps of Engineers. While the Corps of Engineers is the primary defendant, Energy Transfer is an intervenor defendant.
Energy Transfer to fight decision
“We intend to immediately file a motion to stay this decision and if not granted, to pursue a stay and expedited appeal with the Court of Appeals,” Energy Transfer said in a statement issued later July 6.
“We believe that the ruling issued this morning from Judge Boasberg is not supported by the law or the facts of the case,” Energy Transfer said, adding that it is “confident that once the law and full record are fully considered Dakota Access Pipeline will not be shut down and that oil will continue to flow.”
Mike Sommers, president and chief executive officer of the American Petroleum Institute, issued a statement lamenting that “our nation’s outdated and convoluted permitting rules are opening the door for a barrage of baseless, activist-led litigation.”
Rep. Raul Grijalva (D-Ariz.), chairman of the House Natural Resources Committee, led 29 congressional representatives and eight senators in the filing May 20 of an amicus brief in the case that urged Boasberg to shut down the pipeline. He issued a statement July 6 saying the Dakota Access ruling proved the “importance and beneficial impact of public scrutiny.”
Consequences of ruling debated
Energy Transfer warned of harmful economic and environmental impacts from the ruling.
“Billions of dollars in tax and royalty revenue will be lost by state, local and trial governments,” the company said. “Farmers will suffer as crude transportation will move to rail, displacing corn, wheat and soy crops that would normally be moved to market. Ironically, the counties along these rail lines will face increased environmental risks.”
Grijalva saw no reason to trust industry estimates about impacts.
“Think of all the doom and gloom we heard for years about the need to rush these projects through, and all the completely unrealistic job numbers we kept getting shoved down our throats as we asked simple questions about environmental impacts,” the congressman said.
Grijalva has introduced a bill, the Environmental Justice for All Act, that would, among other things, allow greater opportunity for private citizens and organizations to seek legal remedies in their fights against such projects as Dakota Access.
