De Blasio Threatens Wells Fargo Over Dakota Access Pipeline
Authored by 
Kerry Picket | Reporter | 6:14 PM 02/19/2017
URL of the original posting site: http://dailycaller.com/2017/02/19/de-blasio-threatens-wells-fargo-over-dakota-access-pipeline/#ixzz4ZM79IhUd
New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio threatened Wells Fargo bank for its investment in the North Dakota Access Pipeline.
In a February 17 letter to Wells Fargo CEO Timothy Sloan, de Blasio said he wanted to “express my deep concern about your involvement, and the involvement of other banks, in financing the Dakota Access Pipeline,” noting his concern is partly based on being a Mayor of a “coastal city threatened by climate change.” De Blasio claimed the pipeline would violate “human and tribal rights of the Standing Rock Indian Reservation” and would have “negative environmental consequences” to the land and water of the area.
“As someone with a leadership role in funds that are long-term investors in shares of your bank, I am profoundly troubled by the risks you are taking by involving your institution in this controversial project,” the liberal mayor of New York wrote. “Beyond the potential direct financial costs to the bank if Energy Transfer Partners is unable to repay the financing you have provided for the pipeline, I am apprehensive about the risks to your reputation.”
De Blasio stated three times in the letter that he is a person in charge of the funds of “long-term investors” with more than $165 billion in assets established to pay for the benefits of over 700,000 active and retired New York City workers. De Blasio suggested Wells Fargo reconsider its investment in the Dakota Access Pipeline and seek out and “finance profitable clean energy projects” instead.
New York is not the first city to seemingly threaten a bank connected to the financing of the much-debated pipeline. The Seattle City Council voted unanimously last Tuesday to cut banking ties with Wells Fargo, which would mean divesting $3 billion over the Dakota Access Pipeline.
President Donald Trump ordered the revival of both the Dakota Access and Keystone XL Pipelines in January when he first took office, a dramatic change in policy from his predecessor Barack Obama.
Following the Seattle vote, the Davis City Council in California dropped Wells Fargo as a means of protesting the pipeline. Other city governments that divested or are considering divesting from Wells Fargo over the pipeline include: Santa Monica, Calif., Iowa City, Iowa, Alameda, Calif., East Orange, N.J.
What Did You Say? 
The celebrities, political activists, and anti-oil extremists who are blocking the pipeline’s progress are doing so based on highly charged emotions rather than actual facts on the ground.
This 1,172-mile Dakota Access pipeline will deliver as many as 570,000 barrels of oil a day from northwestern North Dakota through South Dakota and Iowa to connect to existing pipelines in Illinois. It will do this job far more safely than the current method of transporting it by 750 rail cars a day.
The protesters say they object to the pipeline’s being close to the water intake of the Standing Rock Sioux Reservation. However, this should be of no concern as it will sit approximately 92 feet below the riverbed, with increased pipe thickness and control valves at both ends of the crossing to reduce the risk of an incident, which is already low.
Just like the companies that run the 10 other fossil-fuel pipelines crossing the Missouri River upstream of Standing Rock, Energy Transfer Partners—the primary funder of this pipeline—is taking all necessary precautions to ensure that the pipeline does not leak.
But even if there were a risk, Standing Rock will soon have a new water intake that is nearing completion much further downstream near Mobridge, South Dakota.
From the outset of this process, Standing Rock Sioux leaders have refused to sit down and meet with either the Army Corps of Engineers or the pipeline company. The Army Corps consulted with 55 Native American tribes at least 389 times, after which they proposed 140 variations of the route to avoid culturally sensitive areas in North Dakota. The logical time for Standing Rock tribal leaders to share their concerns would have been at these meetings, not now when construction is already near completion.
The original pipeline was always planned for south of Bismarck, despite false claims that it was originally planned for north of Bismarck and later moved, thus creating a greater environmental danger to the Standing Rock Sioux.
The real reasons for not pursuing the northern route were that the pipeline would have affected an additional 165 acres of land, 48 extra miles of previously undisturbed field areas, and an additional 33 waterbodies.
It would also have crossed zones marked by the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration as “high consequence” areas, and would have been 11 miles longer than the preferred and current route.
North Dakotans have respected the rights of these individuals to protest the pipeline, but they have gone beyond civil protesting. Though these protesters claim to be gathered for peaceful prayer and meditation, law enforcement has been forced to arrest more than 400 in response to several unlawful incidents, including trespassing on and damaging private land, chaining themselves to equipment, burning tires and fields, damaging cars and a bridge, harassing residents of nearby farms and ranches, and killing and butchering livestock. There was even at least one reported incident where gun shots were fired at police.
The recent vandalization of graves in a Bismarck cemetery and the unconscionable graffiti marking on the North Dakota column at the World War II Memorial in Washington, D.C., are examples of how the protesters’ actions do not match their claims of peaceful demonstration.
Equally disturbing is the meddling by the Obama administration in trying to block this legally permitted project through executive policymaking. This has encouraged more civil disobedience, threatened the safety of local residents, and placed an onerous financial burden on local law enforcement—with no offer of federal reimbursement for these increasing costs.
All that remains for the pipeline project to be completed is for the Army Corps of Engineers to issue a final easement to cross the Missouri River at Lake Oahe. With no legal reason remaining to not issue it, I am confident the Trump administration will do what’s right if it’s not settled before President Donald Trump takes office.
The simple fact is that our nation will continue to produce and consume oil, and pipelines are the safest and most efficient way to transport it. Legally permitted infrastructure projects must be allowed to proceed without threat of improper governmental meddling.
The rule of law matters. We cannot allow lawless mobs to obstruct projects that have met all legal requirements to proceed.
ABOUT THE AUTHOR: Rep. Kevin Cramer/ @RepKevinCramer