• 16 hours Oil Prices Rise After U.S. API Reports Strong Crude Inventory Draw
  • 17 hours Oil Gains Spur Growth In Canada’s Oil Cities
  • 17 hours China To Take 5% Of Rosneft’s Output In New Deal
  • 18 hours UAE Oil Giant Seeks Partnership For Possible IPO
  • 19 hours Planting Trees Could Cut Emissions As Much As Quitting Oil
  • 19 hours VW Fails To Secure Critical Commodity For EVs
  • 20 hours Enbridge Pipeline Expansion Finally Approved
  • 21 hours Iraqi Forces Seize Control Of North Oil Co Fields In Kirkuk
  • 22 hours OPEC Oil Deal Compliance Falls To 86%
  • 2 days U.S. Oil Production To Increase in November As Rig Count Falls
  • 2 days Gazprom Neft Unhappy With OPEC-Russia Production Cut Deal
  • 2 days Disputed Venezuelan Vote Could Lead To More Sanctions, Clashes
  • 2 days EU Urges U.S. Congress To Protect Iran Nuclear Deal
  • 2 days Oil Rig Explosion In Louisiana Leaves 7 Injured, 1 Still Missing
  • 2 days Aramco Says No Plans To Shelve IPO
  • 4 days Trump Passes Iran Nuclear Deal Back to Congress
  • 5 days Texas Shutters More Coal-Fired Plants
  • 5 days Oil Trading Firm Expects Unprecedented U.S. Crude Exports
  • 5 days UK’s FCA Met With Aramco Prior To Proposing Listing Rule Change
  • 5 days Chevron Quits Australian Deepwater Oil Exploration
  • 5 days Europe Braces For End Of Iran Nuclear Deal
  • 5 days Renewable Energy Startup Powering Native American Protest Camp
  • 6 days Husky Energy Set To Restart Pipeline
  • 6 days Russia, Morocco Sign String Of Energy And Military Deals
  • 6 days Norway Looks To Cut Some Of Its Generous Tax Breaks For EVs
  • 6 days China Set To Continue Crude Oil Buying Spree, IEA Says
  • 6 days India Needs Help To Boost Oil Production
  • 6 days Shell Buys One Of Europe’s Largest EV Charging Networks
  • 6 days Oil Throwback: BP Is Bringing Back The Amoco Brand
  • 6 days Libyan Oil Output Covers 25% Of 2017 Budget Needs
  • 6 days District Judge Rules Dakota Access Can Continue Operating
  • 7 days Surprise Oil Inventory Build Shocks Markets
  • 7 days France’s Biggest Listed Bank To Stop Funding Shale, Oil Sands Projects
  • 7 days Syria’s Kurds Aim To Control Oil-Rich Areas
  • 7 days Chinese Teapots Create $5B JV To Compete With State Firms
  • 7 days Oil M&A Deals Set To Rise
  • 7 days South Sudan Tightens Oil Industry Security
  • 8 days Over 1 Million Bpd Remain Offline In Gulf Of Mexico
  • 8 days Turkmenistan To Spend $93-Billion On Oil And Gas Sector
  • 8 days Indian Hydrocarbon Projects Get $300 Billion Boost Over 10 Years
Is OPEC Considering Deeper Output Cuts?

Is OPEC Considering Deeper Output Cuts?

You could argue OPEC and…

Kuwaiti Minister: OPEC Deal Extension May Be Unnecessary

Kuwaiti Minister: OPEC Deal Extension May Be Unnecessary

Kuwaiti Oil Minister Al-Marzouk has…

Dakota Access Protest Backfires For Standing Rock

Standing Rock

The months-long protests against the Dakota Access oil pipeline project has seriously hurt the revenues of a casino operated by the Standing Rock Sioux tribe – the tribe that initiated the protests as a portion of the DAPL will pass through its territory.

The casino is facing a shortfall of US$6 million, in part because the protests blocked the main road leading customers from towns in the area to the complex, according to tribal officials involved in running the business. The casino funds social programs across the Standing Rock territory and the shortfall is certain to be felt in the community.

Despite the tribe’s best efforts and the help of other Native American tribes and environmental groups, the Dakota Access got the go-ahead from the White House earlier this month after President Trump signed an executive order allowing the US$3.8-billion project to proceed. The U.S. Army agreed to issue the final permit for the project, allowing construction to start.

The Standing Rock Sioux argued that the pipeline will pass through sacred lands and pose a threat to its drinking water supply as it would pass under the Lake Oahe. Prompted by the opposition, the then Assistant Army Secretary for Civil Works Jo-Ellen Darcy refused to grant the Army’s permit to Energy Transfer Partners, the company behind the Dakota Access project, on the grounds that a new environmental study was necessary.

Related: Oil Leaps Higher As OPEC Pushes For 100% Compliance

The decision was made despite the findings of an earlier 2016 study, which concluded that the pipeline would pose no significant threat to the local community’s drinking water.

Protesters are still at the site, although North Dakota’s Governor Doug Burgum and the U.S. Army Corps. have set a deadline for today for the vacation of the Oceti Sakowin camp. The site needs to be vacated due to the growing risk of floods from the Missouri River as spring begins and ice starts to melt.

By Irina Slav for Oilprice.com

More Top Reads From Oilprice.com:



Join the discussion | Back to homepage

Leave a comment
  • Vugg on February 23 2017 said:
    It never was about the pipeline. It was just a way for eco-terrorists to riot with the support of the world's smartest man ever, oblamer. With funding help from Russia, soros, etc.
  • Elise DV on February 22 2017 said:
    I guess some people believe that some things are more important than money. What a crazy concept huh? I wonder what you'll drink and bathe in when all the clean water is gone. To say nothing of your children and your children's children. Do you think that technology will save you?

    What you are doing to the earth is disgusting and criminal. http://e360.yale.edu/features/with_tar_sands_development_growing_concern_on_water_use

    We who live downstream are in debt to the water protectors. Thank you and many blessings to Standing Rock. We will continue to stand by your side.
  • Mark Rockhound on February 22 2017 said:
    The cost to American taxpayers is over 10 times that amount, so who is really being economically hurt? Though what you appear to not understand is that this is not about money, this is about respecting treaties and people's right to not have their water poisoned. The pipeline was rerouted away from Bismarck because of concern over poisoning the drinking water of the town. This means that there is certainly a valid worry that the new direction will poison the drinking water of the reservation.

    America has already repeatedly broken treaties, stolen land and murdered women and children for that land in the 1800s. Will we continue to do so in this modern age?
  • paul r. jones on February 22 2017 said:
    This article is an astonishing piece of a deplorable lack of journalist curiosity regarding U.S./State citizens with “Indian ancestry/race” since The Indian Citizenship Act of 1924! That single Indian Citizenship Act of 1924, made moot all previous common law-state and federal-including Presidential Executive Orders, Commerce Clause and Treaty Clause alleged Indian Treaties (if any U.S. Senate confirmed Indian treaties actually existed pre-1924 Citizenship) regarding U.S./State citizens with “Indian ancestry/race” so often touted by politicians and Indian advocates as being legitimate law.

    And yet, MSM continue to perpetuate willful blindness to the Constitutional absurdity that Congress, Presidents/Governors, Initiatives and Referendums can make distinguishable the metes and boundaries of a select group of U.S./State citizens with “Indian ancestry/race” post citizenship.
    The Constitution makes for no provisions for:
    1. Indian sovereign nations. None of the asserted tribes possess any of the attributes of being a ‘sovereign nation:’ a. No Constitution recognition b. No international recognition c. No fixed borders d. No military e. No currency f. No postal system g. No passports
    2. Treaties with its own constituency
    3. Indian reservations whereby a select group of U.S./State citizens with “Indian ancestry/race” reside exclusively and to the exclusion of all others, on land-with rare exception-that is owned by the People of the United States according to federal documents readily available on-line that notes rights of ‘occupancy and use’ as renters by these distinguished U.S./State citizens with “Indian ancestry/race” only with the land owned by the People of the United States.
    4. Recognition of ‘Indian citizenship’ asserted by various tribes. There is no U.S. Constitution/international recognition of “Indian citizenship” as there is no ‘nation’ from which citizenship is derived.
    A simple question for politicians and MSM to answer…a question so simple, it is hard:
    “Where is the proclamation ratified by 1/3rd of the voters of the United States that amends the Constitution to make the health, welfare, safety and benefits of a select group of U.S./State citizens distinguishable because of their “Indian ancestry/race?”
  • Charlie on February 22 2017 said:
    It only backfires if you consider the protesters position wrong. This protest is about much more than just one pipeline and water sources have been polluted throughout the country by leaks in pipelines. Plus the Missouri and Mississippi rivers are already polluted. Its time to have a real conversation in our country about how we can shift off of an oil economy and create good jobs in renewable energy sources like wind, solar, etc...

Leave a comment

Oilprice - The No. 1 Source for Oil & Energy News