Commentary: Pipeline, Standing Rock conflict is all about power


The recent decision by President Barack Obama’s administration, via the Army Corps of Engineers, to ask for a more in-depth environmental impact statement regarding a final section of the Dakota Access oil pipeline represents a clash of power. The simple story is one of environmental and health concerns, but in reality the full story is much more. It is a continuation of the populist fervor building up in the United States. It is a continuation of the pursuit of infinite growth. It is a story of physical power, political power and economic power.

The pipeline is designed to transport 570,000 barrels per day of U.S. light sweet from the Bakken and Three Forks production region of North Dakota to Patoka, Ill. That is 40 gigawatts of power — or the output of 20 nuclear power plants. A power level equal to more than half of the peak electric load in Texas on the hottest summer day, an amount of power that is not trivial.

This amount of physical power flow does not go unnoticed by those who lack economic and political power. In the early days of the Fossil Fuel Age, a small group of people could restrict the flow of coal and thus significant physical power. Those who can restrict or control physical power can command economic power, and those in control of economic power can command political power. The Dakota Access pipeline is no different.

In short, it is all about power.

Thus, by challenging the physical flow of power, the Standing Rock tribe challenged the current economic and political power. After months of protest, they saw local law enforcement treat them as the first African-Americans integrated into southern universities were treated: with tear gas, rubber bullets and water cannons. These Native Americans and those joining them were on a slow path to defeat, with orders to vacate the protest camp. They simply did not represent enough political or economic power.

However, the power struggle turned in their favor as soon as a new political power arrived in the form of a group of 2,000 military veterans. Firing tear gas and water cannons at Native Americans is bad for business. Doing the same to military veterans is a public relations nightmare for business and politicians.

Obama’s decision on Dakota Access is an easy one to make as the outgoing president — and at the onset of winter in North Dakota.

As President-elect Donald Trump discusses approving the Dakota Access pipeline route, attempting to reverse the decision of his predecessor as quickly as possible, it will test his populist credentials that he sold to the American public. More physical power — oil flow — does translate to a larger economy. The oil in the ground is no use if it cannot flow to the pump. But alas, there is also less use in gasoline flowing to the pump if fewer and fewer people can afford to use it. More power flowing to fewer pockets is not what Trump claims to promote.

The Keystone XL oil pipeline debate centered on carbon and climate concerns and from where our physical power originates. The voters in Wisconsin, Ohio and Michigan who helped put Trump in White House were not thinking about climate change. These Americans felt left behind by increased global competition. They lost economic power and control over their lives. Trump told them he would give both back to them. Whether that actually happens remains to be seen.

The Dakota Access pipeline concerns the same story. It’s about the power of people to be in control of decisions that affect their lives. The Native Americans, protesters and veterans in North Dakota showed up as a test of power of the local people against broader business interests. They won this battle, but if history is any indication, they likely will not win the war for stopping or rerouting the pipeline. Obama bought them some time. Only time will tell just exactly what Trump will buy for them, and thus, which citizens of America he is helping to be great again. Trump needs to let us know if he thinks there is equal power for ensuring a right of way versus the right to get in the way.

King is a research scientist and the assistant director of the Energy Institute at the University of Texas.



Reader Comments ...


Next Up in Opinion

TWO VIEWS: Austin policies are making affordability crisis worse

Paying more for housing? Blame City Hall. In spite of paying regular lip service to affordability, city officials continue to push big government policies that make it more expensive to live in Austin. In fact, officials are exploring a new one now. Earlier this month, Austin’s Code Department began seeking public input on a proposal requiring...
TWO VIEWS: “No more cane on the Brazos” or affordable housing in Austin
TWO VIEWS: “No more cane on the Brazos” or affordable housing in Austin

How hard is it to find affordable housing these days? Let’s start in Sugar Land, where the old bones of more than 30 newly disinterred, turn-of-the-20th-century prison inmates can no longer afford their final resting places. The bodies have to move to make way for the local school district’s “new career center.” Figures. The...
Letters to the editor: April 23, 2018
Letters to the editor: April 23, 2018

I know this is the wrong media to reach the audience that I want to hear this, but here it goes. Students, let me tell you that what you say does not matter! You are not putting your efforts to good use. Politicians do not care what you have to say. You do not contribute to their campaigns, you do not have any lobbyist in your back pocket, and most...
Opinion: Foes of renewable energy increase risk of climate catastrophe

Peter Thiel, Facebook investor and Donald Trump supporter, is by all accounts a terrible person. He did, however, come up with one classic line about the disappointments of modern technology: “We wanted flying cars, instead we got 140 characters.” OK, now it’s 280, but who’s counting? The point of his quip was that while we&rsquo...
Facebook comments: April 22, 2018
Facebook comments: April 22, 2018

As reported by the American-Statesman’s Jonathan Tilove, Alex Jones and InfoWars have been sued by the parents of children killed in the 2012 shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newton, Conn. The lawsuit centers on Jones suggesting the death of their children was a “hoax.” Tilove wrote the case “could be a landmark Austin...
More Stories