SRST Council Meeting with DAPL Representatives, Sept 30 2014
Uprising Media https://youtu.be/GiFNVgsX77s
....or....
https://youtu.be/GiFNVgsX77s?list=PL9wOa6XS-y5o1_GCNo1tSiF1CEInvD6iI
Uprising Media https://youtu.be/GiFNVgsX77s
....or....
https://youtu.be/GiFNVgsX77s?list=PL9wOa6XS-y5o1_GCNo1tSiF1CEInvD6iI
Energy Transfer Partners CEO Kelcey Warren stated November 11-16-16. “I really wish for the Standing Rock Sioux that they had engaged in discussions way before they did,” he said. “I don’t think we would have been having this discussion if they did. “We could have changed the route,” Mr. Warren added. “It could have been done, but it’s too late.”
The audio file below is from a Standing Rock Tribal Council meeting with ETP/DAPL representatives that occurred September 30th 2014. A meeting that occurred before permits were submitted and more than a year before the Draft Environmental Assessment was released. A document prepared by DAPL that never mentions any of the concerns stated in this meeting, nor does it mention Standing Rock. Energy Transfer Partners assertion that they "didn't know" of our concerns is false.
The audio file below is from a Standing Rock Tribal Council meeting with ETP/DAPL representatives that occurred September 30th 2014. A meeting that occurred before permits were submitted and more than a year before the Draft Environmental Assessment was released. A document prepared by DAPL that never mentions any of the concerns stated in this meeting, nor does it mention Standing Rock. Energy Transfer Partners assertion that they "didn't know" of our concerns is false.
Over the past several weeks there have been a ton of things said on this DAPL issue and I haven’t really engaged much. I’m not one that looks forward to all the polarizing negative sentiment seen on social media. I’ve actually only been on fb for about a month now! I was following a discussion group started by my old friend from Devils Lake, ND currently living in Bismarck, Clifton Erickson, that seemed a bit different and more constructive and inclusive with people that actually know what they are talking about and have ‘local’ skin in the game. Not ‘fringe’ people from the far right or left that only want a platform to either vent or to soapbox. Many are actually from my hometown of Devils Lake, ND so I thought I would put a few thoughts out there with the good intention of just highlighting some professional observations.
I’m a registered member of the North Dakota Turtle Mountain band of Ojibwe/Chippewa Nation near Belcourt, ND so I am naturally sensitive to the issues surrounding my Indian brothers and sisters but I will keep this discussion purely technical and as objective as possible and leave those debates to people more capable on those subjects. If I have bias its in favor of local stakeholders, both native and non-native.
I’m also a Mechanical Engineer and an energy exec that has been working on various power plant and pipeline projects throughout Europe and Africa for the past 25 years. I left my home and moved overseas in 1992 and embarked on a long career with various companies, including GE until 2005. In 2005 I left GE and became a partner in an independent energy development firm focused primarily on energy development in Africa.
I’m not from the camp that is anti-pipeline no matter what. I agree with Clifton Erickson that this pipeline is almost certain to happen, no matter what. I wish we lived in a time when we didn’t have so much dependency on fossil fuel but the reality is that the World needs fossil fuel today and until energy sources like renewables can displace fossil fuel we will need pipelines. Pipelines are still the safest technical solution to transporting oil. Safer than rail, road or ship.
I have worked on pipeline projects outside of the US and can say that this DAPL solution is not something I would have approved or endorsed in its current form for technical reasons that I will try to summarize in non-tech language. DAPL owner Energy Partners have had several opportunities to do the right things along the way and they have seriously botched it up. I suspect that when they rerouted the pipeline away from Bismarck, southerly, they did so with the primary intention of making the pipeline the shortest possible route possible, which would normally be the right decision, but in this case the new route is the issue being contested. If they had moved further away from Bismarck by moving the pipeline a little further north and crossing the Missouri then winding its way southerly it could have been a better solution in my opinion. Yes, the actual pipeline would have cost Energy Partners a bit more because it would be longer, but if you consider the off-set of not having to lay it under Lake Oahe like they are trying to do now, the cost difference wouldn’t have been enough to significantly impact the financial success of their project. Throw in the current and probably ongoing delays and one can assume that a northerly routing further away and around Bismarck that the original route would have been less costly. I can’t imagine the cost overruns they are facing having all that expensive horizontal drilling equipment laying around idle pending decisions from the Army Corps of Engineers ‘ACE’ on whether they will actually be able to drill under Lake Oahe.
I’ve read the DAPL EIA report and other various expert reports on the web and have had our pipeline engineers review and provide me feedback in order to educate myself with the hope that if I can add value on this subject, I wouldn’t hesitate to do so. I’m considering coming back to ND if there are stakeholder meetings on this subject but so far, I haven’t been able to find any announcements or invitations that would make it worth my time to come. If anybody knows otherwise, please let me know. I feel a debt to both my fellow Indian people and to my friends and family in ND and I’ve had the good fortune of directly working on these subjects professionally. Its sad to see the tragic reports coming out and I fear that unless some of us take positive action to find an amicable solution then even more tragic events are on the horizon. I have no other interest than that stated above.
Since, pipelines have very long routes, they cross rivers, roads, railways, etc. inevitably. DAPL pipeline also crosses federal flowage easements near the upper end of Lake Sakakawea, Missouri River and Lake Oahe. The EIA report says “The proposed pipeline route and installation method were selected to minimize impacts to sensitive resources, and the applicant is required to comply with all applicable federal, state, and local laws and regulations, all management and response plans referenced in the EA, as well as the conditions attached to the Corps outgrants”. On the other hand, I have to say that in many places around the World the regulations don’t allow pipelines to pass through lakes and certainly not over, under or near manmade reservoirs like Lake Oahe. Lake Oahe is the fourth largest dammed reservoir in the US.
For those that have thought ‘whats the difference if it crosses further north above Bismarck or where it is currently proposed, its still crossing the river’? Water still flows south! That's technically true but it's a much bigger technical risk crossing a lake that is perhaps a mile across or a river that is maybe 100-200 feet across or. In this case of crossing Lake Oahe, the EIA states the horizontal crossing is about 7,500 ft (1.42mi) across and 90+ ft below the lake.
In order to lay a pipeline below Lake Oahe they must drill a horizontal lateral that is about 1.5 miles long and then pull a 30 inch pipe all the way through that hole. That is a very thick wall metal pipe that is extremely heavy and hard to pull over that long a distance in a hole. Not to mention the added stresses of having to go around the two corners depicted in the diagram I copied from the EIA below. As each section goes under ground into the lateral a new section is welded on and the pipe becomes heavier and heavier increasing the stresses on the pipe materials and workmanship. Imagine how much the forces are to pull the 30 inch pipe through that hole near its completion. The risks of damage to the pipe due to construction risks is not insignificant and once its in the hole, its there forever and there is really no way to completely remedy major problems that would require replacement of sections. The same goes for any damage to that pipe over the years of operation. All that fluid in the pipe causes significant stress to the pipe over time through vibrations, pressure, temperature and certainly any movement that may happen due to earth moving. Earth movement is a risk. The North Dakota Geological Survey has noted for the DAPL “High concentrations of landslides have been mapped in many regions along the proposed route centerline...”. According to the EA, some of these high risk areas are in close proximity to or could affect Lake Oahe.
Imagine that a future problem requires a major replacement to a portion of the pipeline. If it's a relatively short section over land or under a river you could fairly easy replace that portion. If its a section inside the 1.5 mile horizontal lateral under Lake Oahe it would require that entire section to be removed and replaced. The costs associated not only with the repair but the time the pipeline would be down (loss of revenue) would cause the operator to make this an absolute last resort remedy and the risk that they would continue limping along with potential problems / leaks rather than take the difficult decision is significant. I fear the temptation to avoid these catastrophic costs could even cause them to hide or mask problems rather than transparently disclose them in the future.
Considering the potential damage to the pipeline during the construction of the long horizontal section under Lake Oahe together with the long term operational risks stated above, it seems that Energy Partners have not taken the least risk alternative.
On paper, it seems a well equipped project with scada system (scada is the computer controls and communication system), leak detection system, cathodic protection system, qualified personnel, trainings, standards to be applied, best available technology, etc. However, accidents can occur any time and response time for remediation is important in that case. At best, we can hope for is that nothing ever happens but we must plan for the situation that something may happen. If / when it does, and if its below Lake Oahe, do we really believe any out of state corporate entity is going to be there to undertake this huge burden? As is unfortunately too often the case, these things get tied up in courts for years and it becomes the burden of the local communities and tax payers to clean up. That's why we have to make sure that we hold them to the best technical solutions to do these projects. Its good for them to do these projects that help the economy of ND but not at all costs. Do the projects right the first time so that we can all enjoy the benefits without having to fight later.
The report also explains spill prevention, leak detection and spill response measure and says “Based on a worst case discharge (WCD) scenario specific to Lake Sakakawea and Lake Oahe, a largest possible release volume was determined specific to the segment of the pipeline that would cross Corps-managed lands… It is important to note, this WCD scenario is also calculated on the assumption that the pipeline is on top of the river verses down in the horizontal lateral 90+ feet below the lake. Because the proposed pipeline would be installed at a minimum depth 92 feet below the lakebed of Lake Oahe, there is a greater response time combined with the use of the automated SCADA system... This could likely result in much more significant leakage/damage before detection. While the potential risk for a WCD scenario may be relatively low, such a spill would result in extremely high consequences.
A risk analysis takes place in the report, and it says “While an oil spill is considered unlikely and a high precaution to minimize the chances has been taken, it is still considered a low risk/high consequence event”.
There are a number of other technical issues that are red flags to me, but this post is already too long to go into further details. In summary:
1. Normally, any project of this size and magnitude must complete not only the Environmental Impact Assessment (or EA) that this project has, but once that phase is approved, it must then complete and have approved a much more onerous Environmental Study (ES) where the real meat and potatoes are analyzed, reviewed and the project can only proceed once this has received full approval. It was concluded in the EA that not enough risk existed to warrant a detailed environmental study be performed. HOGWASH!!! They are trying to avoid doing the ES and we must push back on this and ensure that they follow the same stringent environmental procedures that other infrastructure projects are forced to adhere to. I’ve read in other posts that Energy Partners are attempting to break this pipeline project into much smaller segments that allows them to enact this sort of loophole to avoid full reviews & approvals. I don’t know whether or not that's true, but this is the sort of accusation they will face if they don’t go through the normal and more stringent environmental reviews and this is my red flag.
2. EIA also states that it was deemed that the sponsor of the project made enough significant attempt to engage the local tribe and that their lack of comments are somehow interpreted as a silent acceptance or such.
a. This means that the EIA was approved without ever actual physically engaging with the tribe, other than sending them a letter and not getting a reply. That is another red flag for me.
b. I’m not an expert on US regulation but am with equivalent International regulations and simply sending an email or letter informing/inviting is not enough. Project sponsors are obliged to actually schedule and conduct stakeholder meetings in the community, invite and travel there to conduct the meetings and then document them. Covering all costs, etc. Basically, they have the burden of responsibility to sell their project to the local community and then gain their reasonable approval for the project to go ahead. Of course, ‘reasonable’ is the key operative and no community is allowed to hold a project hostage but the sponsors have a tremendous burden to conduct these reviews and it doesn’t seem that Energy Partners did an adequate job of doing this.
i. In the event that a pipeline failure occurs and product is released into the Missouri River at either crossing, future stakeholder engagement will also be required.
ii. DAPL has committed to additional full scale open water and full scale winter/ice exercises that will be conducted at Lake Sakakawea and Lake Oahe. Stakeholder (federal, state, local, and Tribal) involvement will be solicited for each exercise. The first exercise will occur within the first 3 years after the pipeline becomes operational.
iii. Do we really believe DAPL will adhere to these stakeholder engagement commitments once the pipeline is in the ground if this is the best they have done in the initial project selling or approval stages? It seems to me their behavior shows that this is more lip service than real intention.
In conclusion, I wouldn’t call for this pipeline to be cancelled but the Army Corps of Engineers should not approve this specific Lake Oahu crossing. That will force Energy Partners to come up with a more amicable solution, like rerouting a portion even further North and away from Bismarck. After considering the risks appropriately, I think those pushing back on this issue today have just cause.
I also don’t like the tone of ND politicians taking the position of supporting this project while not doing their own deep dive due diligence. It seems to me they are too quick to support these out of state interests just for the sake of getting the investment done. I get it.. the investment is great for ND but don’t you think the project sponsors would still do the investment even if our lawmakers held them to higher standards? Of course they would. We need politicians and decision makers that are both inviting to these type investments that benefit the local ND economy but take a responsible long term protectionist view on our lands. They need to behave as the owners of these lands and waters, not simply trying to take short term political or other gains.
Steve Martin
I’m a registered member of the North Dakota Turtle Mountain band of Ojibwe/Chippewa Nation near Belcourt, ND so I am naturally sensitive to the issues surrounding my Indian brothers and sisters but I will keep this discussion purely technical and as objective as possible and leave those debates to people more capable on those subjects. If I have bias its in favor of local stakeholders, both native and non-native.
I’m also a Mechanical Engineer and an energy exec that has been working on various power plant and pipeline projects throughout Europe and Africa for the past 25 years. I left my home and moved overseas in 1992 and embarked on a long career with various companies, including GE until 2005. In 2005 I left GE and became a partner in an independent energy development firm focused primarily on energy development in Africa.
I’m not from the camp that is anti-pipeline no matter what. I agree with Clifton Erickson that this pipeline is almost certain to happen, no matter what. I wish we lived in a time when we didn’t have so much dependency on fossil fuel but the reality is that the World needs fossil fuel today and until energy sources like renewables can displace fossil fuel we will need pipelines. Pipelines are still the safest technical solution to transporting oil. Safer than rail, road or ship.
I have worked on pipeline projects outside of the US and can say that this DAPL solution is not something I would have approved or endorsed in its current form for technical reasons that I will try to summarize in non-tech language. DAPL owner Energy Partners have had several opportunities to do the right things along the way and they have seriously botched it up. I suspect that when they rerouted the pipeline away from Bismarck, southerly, they did so with the primary intention of making the pipeline the shortest possible route possible, which would normally be the right decision, but in this case the new route is the issue being contested. If they had moved further away from Bismarck by moving the pipeline a little further north and crossing the Missouri then winding its way southerly it could have been a better solution in my opinion. Yes, the actual pipeline would have cost Energy Partners a bit more because it would be longer, but if you consider the off-set of not having to lay it under Lake Oahe like they are trying to do now, the cost difference wouldn’t have been enough to significantly impact the financial success of their project. Throw in the current and probably ongoing delays and one can assume that a northerly routing further away and around Bismarck that the original route would have been less costly. I can’t imagine the cost overruns they are facing having all that expensive horizontal drilling equipment laying around idle pending decisions from the Army Corps of Engineers ‘ACE’ on whether they will actually be able to drill under Lake Oahe.
I’ve read the DAPL EIA report and other various expert reports on the web and have had our pipeline engineers review and provide me feedback in order to educate myself with the hope that if I can add value on this subject, I wouldn’t hesitate to do so. I’m considering coming back to ND if there are stakeholder meetings on this subject but so far, I haven’t been able to find any announcements or invitations that would make it worth my time to come. If anybody knows otherwise, please let me know. I feel a debt to both my fellow Indian people and to my friends and family in ND and I’ve had the good fortune of directly working on these subjects professionally. Its sad to see the tragic reports coming out and I fear that unless some of us take positive action to find an amicable solution then even more tragic events are on the horizon. I have no other interest than that stated above.
Since, pipelines have very long routes, they cross rivers, roads, railways, etc. inevitably. DAPL pipeline also crosses federal flowage easements near the upper end of Lake Sakakawea, Missouri River and Lake Oahe. The EIA report says “The proposed pipeline route and installation method were selected to minimize impacts to sensitive resources, and the applicant is required to comply with all applicable federal, state, and local laws and regulations, all management and response plans referenced in the EA, as well as the conditions attached to the Corps outgrants”. On the other hand, I have to say that in many places around the World the regulations don’t allow pipelines to pass through lakes and certainly not over, under or near manmade reservoirs like Lake Oahe. Lake Oahe is the fourth largest dammed reservoir in the US.
For those that have thought ‘whats the difference if it crosses further north above Bismarck or where it is currently proposed, its still crossing the river’? Water still flows south! That's technically true but it's a much bigger technical risk crossing a lake that is perhaps a mile across or a river that is maybe 100-200 feet across or. In this case of crossing Lake Oahe, the EIA states the horizontal crossing is about 7,500 ft (1.42mi) across and 90+ ft below the lake.
In order to lay a pipeline below Lake Oahe they must drill a horizontal lateral that is about 1.5 miles long and then pull a 30 inch pipe all the way through that hole. That is a very thick wall metal pipe that is extremely heavy and hard to pull over that long a distance in a hole. Not to mention the added stresses of having to go around the two corners depicted in the diagram I copied from the EIA below. As each section goes under ground into the lateral a new section is welded on and the pipe becomes heavier and heavier increasing the stresses on the pipe materials and workmanship. Imagine how much the forces are to pull the 30 inch pipe through that hole near its completion. The risks of damage to the pipe due to construction risks is not insignificant and once its in the hole, its there forever and there is really no way to completely remedy major problems that would require replacement of sections. The same goes for any damage to that pipe over the years of operation. All that fluid in the pipe causes significant stress to the pipe over time through vibrations, pressure, temperature and certainly any movement that may happen due to earth moving. Earth movement is a risk. The North Dakota Geological Survey has noted for the DAPL “High concentrations of landslides have been mapped in many regions along the proposed route centerline...”. According to the EA, some of these high risk areas are in close proximity to or could affect Lake Oahe.
Imagine that a future problem requires a major replacement to a portion of the pipeline. If it's a relatively short section over land or under a river you could fairly easy replace that portion. If its a section inside the 1.5 mile horizontal lateral under Lake Oahe it would require that entire section to be removed and replaced. The costs associated not only with the repair but the time the pipeline would be down (loss of revenue) would cause the operator to make this an absolute last resort remedy and the risk that they would continue limping along with potential problems / leaks rather than take the difficult decision is significant. I fear the temptation to avoid these catastrophic costs could even cause them to hide or mask problems rather than transparently disclose them in the future.
Considering the potential damage to the pipeline during the construction of the long horizontal section under Lake Oahe together with the long term operational risks stated above, it seems that Energy Partners have not taken the least risk alternative.
On paper, it seems a well equipped project with scada system (scada is the computer controls and communication system), leak detection system, cathodic protection system, qualified personnel, trainings, standards to be applied, best available technology, etc. However, accidents can occur any time and response time for remediation is important in that case. At best, we can hope for is that nothing ever happens but we must plan for the situation that something may happen. If / when it does, and if its below Lake Oahe, do we really believe any out of state corporate entity is going to be there to undertake this huge burden? As is unfortunately too often the case, these things get tied up in courts for years and it becomes the burden of the local communities and tax payers to clean up. That's why we have to make sure that we hold them to the best technical solutions to do these projects. Its good for them to do these projects that help the economy of ND but not at all costs. Do the projects right the first time so that we can all enjoy the benefits without having to fight later.
The report also explains spill prevention, leak detection and spill response measure and says “Based on a worst case discharge (WCD) scenario specific to Lake Sakakawea and Lake Oahe, a largest possible release volume was determined specific to the segment of the pipeline that would cross Corps-managed lands… It is important to note, this WCD scenario is also calculated on the assumption that the pipeline is on top of the river verses down in the horizontal lateral 90+ feet below the lake. Because the proposed pipeline would be installed at a minimum depth 92 feet below the lakebed of Lake Oahe, there is a greater response time combined with the use of the automated SCADA system... This could likely result in much more significant leakage/damage before detection. While the potential risk for a WCD scenario may be relatively low, such a spill would result in extremely high consequences.
A risk analysis takes place in the report, and it says “While an oil spill is considered unlikely and a high precaution to minimize the chances has been taken, it is still considered a low risk/high consequence event”.
There are a number of other technical issues that are red flags to me, but this post is already too long to go into further details. In summary:
1. Normally, any project of this size and magnitude must complete not only the Environmental Impact Assessment (or EA) that this project has, but once that phase is approved, it must then complete and have approved a much more onerous Environmental Study (ES) where the real meat and potatoes are analyzed, reviewed and the project can only proceed once this has received full approval. It was concluded in the EA that not enough risk existed to warrant a detailed environmental study be performed. HOGWASH!!! They are trying to avoid doing the ES and we must push back on this and ensure that they follow the same stringent environmental procedures that other infrastructure projects are forced to adhere to. I’ve read in other posts that Energy Partners are attempting to break this pipeline project into much smaller segments that allows them to enact this sort of loophole to avoid full reviews & approvals. I don’t know whether or not that's true, but this is the sort of accusation they will face if they don’t go through the normal and more stringent environmental reviews and this is my red flag.
2. EIA also states that it was deemed that the sponsor of the project made enough significant attempt to engage the local tribe and that their lack of comments are somehow interpreted as a silent acceptance or such.
a. This means that the EIA was approved without ever actual physically engaging with the tribe, other than sending them a letter and not getting a reply. That is another red flag for me.
b. I’m not an expert on US regulation but am with equivalent International regulations and simply sending an email or letter informing/inviting is not enough. Project sponsors are obliged to actually schedule and conduct stakeholder meetings in the community, invite and travel there to conduct the meetings and then document them. Covering all costs, etc. Basically, they have the burden of responsibility to sell their project to the local community and then gain their reasonable approval for the project to go ahead. Of course, ‘reasonable’ is the key operative and no community is allowed to hold a project hostage but the sponsors have a tremendous burden to conduct these reviews and it doesn’t seem that Energy Partners did an adequate job of doing this.
i. In the event that a pipeline failure occurs and product is released into the Missouri River at either crossing, future stakeholder engagement will also be required.
ii. DAPL has committed to additional full scale open water and full scale winter/ice exercises that will be conducted at Lake Sakakawea and Lake Oahe. Stakeholder (federal, state, local, and Tribal) involvement will be solicited for each exercise. The first exercise will occur within the first 3 years after the pipeline becomes operational.
iii. Do we really believe DAPL will adhere to these stakeholder engagement commitments once the pipeline is in the ground if this is the best they have done in the initial project selling or approval stages? It seems to me their behavior shows that this is more lip service than real intention.
In conclusion, I wouldn’t call for this pipeline to be cancelled but the Army Corps of Engineers should not approve this specific Lake Oahu crossing. That will force Energy Partners to come up with a more amicable solution, like rerouting a portion even further North and away from Bismarck. After considering the risks appropriately, I think those pushing back on this issue today have just cause.
I also don’t like the tone of ND politicians taking the position of supporting this project while not doing their own deep dive due diligence. It seems to me they are too quick to support these out of state interests just for the sake of getting the investment done. I get it.. the investment is great for ND but don’t you think the project sponsors would still do the investment even if our lawmakers held them to higher standards? Of course they would. We need politicians and decision makers that are both inviting to these type investments that benefit the local ND economy but take a responsible long term protectionist view on our lands. They need to behave as the owners of these lands and waters, not simply trying to take short term political or other gains.
Steve Martin