PropertyValue
?:author
?:datePublished
  • 2016-12-05 (xsd:date)
?:headline
  • Is the Dakota Access Pipeline Continuing Despite a Denied Easement? (en)
?:inLanguage
?:itemReviewed
?:mentions
?:reviewBody
  • On 4 December 2016, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers denied an easement necessary for Energy Transfer Partners to complete the Dakota Access pipeline, seemingly bringing an end to months of protests over the project. By the next day, widespread rumors asserted that the decision was not as final as it seemed. In the above-reproduced examples from e-mail and social media, claims have appeared that DAPL was still under active construction, and that Energy Transfer Partner had opted to incur a $50,000 daily fine for continuing construction on the pipeline. No specifics accompanied the rumor, such as how the fine might be incurred, or what would happen if DAPL were constructed without the approval to do so. One version of the rumor referenced a statement purportedly issued by ETP on the ACOE's DAPL decision of 4 December 2016: Late on 4 December 2016, ETP did release a statement on the ACOE's denial of the necessary easement: The statement's final paragraph indicated that ETP was not giving up on DAPL, but in no part of that statement did they say that the company would continue to drill. However, it did say that they plan to finish construction of the pipeline as planned, without providing details: It is possible that the company's statement alongside a clearly speculative response shared (but not written) by prominent protester Dallas Goldtooth prompted the rumor: The earliest versions of the rumor that DAPL construction would continue unabated despite the Army Corps of Engineers' decision referenced the statement from ETP. Although the company said it is fully committed to ensuring that this vital project is brought to completion and that it expects to complete construction of the pipeline without any additional rerouting in and around Lake Oahe, it did not indicate any plans were in place to move ahead in violation of the referenced policy decision. The statement also did not indicate that the company intended to incur a $50,000 daily fine and continue DAPL construction without the easement. That aspect of the claim mirrored age-old urban legends involving a wealthy entity opting to pay fines to the detriment of public health, a rumor that dates back to at least 2005 and (falsely) attributes similar behavior to Coca-Cola. (en)
?:reviewRating
rdf:type
?:url