GatewayRedbirds.com

A Message Board Dedicated to Discussing St. Louis Cardinals Baseball!
It is currently March 21 19, 11:35 am

All times are UTC - 6 hours




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 37 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: December 5 16, 9:52 am 
Offline
Hall Of Famer
User avatar

Joined: April 18 06, 9:40 pm
Posts: 23800
Also not completely true that they didn't object until the last minute.

http://bismarcktribune.com/news/state-a ... user-share

I'm not sure what the specifics are on the meetings they didn't attend, how they were notified, etc...


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: December 5 16, 10:38 am 
Offline
GRB's most intelligent & humble poster
User avatar

Joined: April 17 06, 11:25 am
Posts: 26655
Schlich wrote:
I'm sure that editor for the Atlantic is just a dumb hippie tho


Probably not a dumb hippie. But when you start with getting even basic geography wrong, let's just say that several of the other facts could also be disputed.

I know you have some experience with news agencies and public opinion having some facts wrong/distorted on subjects you have some expertise with. Let's just say that I have a bit of expertise on this subject.

I apologize that I'm going to back out of this thread. Carry on.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: December 5 16, 1:31 pm 
Offline
Don't tone police me bro!
User avatar

Joined: July 1 06, 7:24 pm
Posts: 10388
Location: Lost in the Cloud
I have no doubt that public understanding probably doesn't align with the reality of the situation. You could lend your expertise here instead of making broad and refutable statements directed at strawmen


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: December 5 16, 3:22 pm 
Offline
MBA, CPA, CFA, CFP, JD, PE, MD
User avatar

Joined: March 7 07, 4:50 pm
Posts: 8354
Location: Tycho Crater, Luna
There are pipelines all the way across the US dating back to the 1940's. It'll be built, they'll just route it elsewhere.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Inch


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: December 5 16, 3:28 pm 
Offline
darjeeling sipping elite
User avatar

Joined: October 17 06, 11:19 am
Posts: 35914
Location: Huis Clos
Isn't there something to be said for finally not jerking off the oil companies?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: December 5 16, 4:53 pm 
Offline
GRB's most intelligent & humble poster
User avatar

Joined: April 17 06, 11:25 am
Posts: 26655
Schlich wrote:
I have no doubt that public understanding probably doesn't align with the reality of the situation. You could lend your expertise here instead of making broad and refutable statements directed at strawmen


I've had several paragraphs typed out that I've deleted. Professionally, I really shouldn't comment on this publicly. That's why I've kept things broad.

Let me at least simplify. Standing Rock had ample opportunities to work with ETP on routing for the pipeline, and they did not take advantage of those opportunities like several other tribes in the region did. I'll give at least some credence to the "sacred sites" arguments, though I'm extremely skeptical that there's a lot of wrongdoing here as most of the route through that area runs through an existing pipeline right-of-way (as in, the soil has already been disturbed at least once). See the Northern Border pipeline route on this map, approaching and crossing the river at the same location.

But that's a natural gas pipeline, which doesn't pollute streams and rivers. That's been the primary component of the protest. Protecting the drinking water. And the chances of that happening are pretty darn remote. Remote enough that thousands of communities downstream of the Mississippi River crossing (near the Iowa/Missouri border) of DAPL who rely on the Mississippi for drinking water are not protesting.

Is it a 100% risk free project? No. But we have a modern society that relies on infrastructure that is not 100% risk free. That's why we have engineers, to design most of the risk away. The arguments against this pipeline are based on emotion, not science.

If the Standing Rock Sioux have a land rights case for the property the pipeline travels on, then by all means they should pursue it. I certainly hope there can be some reasonable agreement reached on a route, because the vast majority of this pipeline has already been constructed at a considerable expense. Strip the evil oil company label off of this, and you see an approved and permitted multi-billion dollar project having a permit pulled at the last minute not because of technical merits, but due to political pressure. I'm a strong Obama supporter, but that's wrong. You can't change the rules of the game at the last minute.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: December 5 16, 5:04 pm 
Offline
Don't tone police me bro!
User avatar

Joined: July 1 06, 7:24 pm
Posts: 10388
Location: Lost in the Cloud
Popeye_Card wrote:
Schlich wrote:
I have no doubt that public understanding probably doesn't align with the reality of the situation. You could lend your expertise here instead of making broad and refutable statements directed at strawmen


I've had several paragraphs typed out that I've deleted. Professionally, I really shouldn't comment on this publicly. That's why I've kept things broad.

Let me at least simplify. Standing Rock had ample opportunities to work with ETP on routing for the pipeline, and they did not take advantage of those opportunities like several other tribes in the region did. I'll give at least some credence to the "sacred sites" arguments, though I'm extremely skeptical that there's a lot of wrongdoing here as most of the route through that area runs through an existing pipeline right-of-way (as in, the soil has already been disturbed at least once). See the Northern Border pipeline route on this map, approaching and crossing the river at the same location.

But that's a natural gas pipeline, which doesn't pollute streams and rivers. That's been the primary component of the protest. Protecting the drinking water. And the chances of that happening are pretty darn remote. Remote enough that thousands of communities downstream of the Mississippi River crossing (near the Iowa/Missouri border) of DAPL who rely on the Mississippi for drinking water are not protesting.

Is it a 100% risk free project? No. But we have a modern society that relies on infrastructure that is not 100% risk free. That's why we have engineers, to design most of the risk away. The arguments against this pipeline are based on emotion, not science.

If the Standing Rock Sioux have a land rights case for the property the pipeline travels on, then by all means they should pursue it. I certainly hope there can be some reasonable agreement reached on a route, because the vast majority of this pipeline has already been constructed at a considerable expense. Strip the evil oil company label off of this, and you see an approved and permitted multi-billion dollar project having a permit pulled at the last minute not because of technical merits, but due to political pressure. I'm a strong Obama supporter, but that's wrong. You can't change the rules of the game at the last minute.


I think this has a lot more to do with the sovereignty of native americans than the environmentalism, though obviously the nature of the thing and our politics is going to draw activists concerned about both. Government-to-government negotiations, yeah?. If any other Country X refuses to attend negotiations, we're still not going to run an infrastructure project through their land, and we don't ask if their reasoning for opposing it is scientifically justified or not. And I think the "is it "their" land or not "their land" is central to the moral and political argument. All of that being said, I can understand why you would be concerned about misunderstandings of the safety of the project.

What do you make of the Bismarck rerouting as discussed earlier?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: December 5 16, 6:07 pm 
Offline
GRB's most intelligent & humble poster
User avatar

Joined: April 17 06, 11:25 am
Posts: 26655
Schlich wrote:
Popeye_Card wrote:
Schlich wrote:
I have no doubt that public understanding probably doesn't align with the reality of the situation. You could lend your expertise here instead of making broad and refutable statements directed at strawmen


I've had several paragraphs typed out that I've deleted. Professionally, I really shouldn't comment on this publicly. That's why I've kept things broad.

Let me at least simplify. Standing Rock had ample opportunities to work with ETP on routing for the pipeline, and they did not take advantage of those opportunities like several other tribes in the region did. I'll give at least some credence to the "sacred sites" arguments, though I'm extremely skeptical that there's a lot of wrongdoing here as most of the route through that area runs through an existing pipeline right-of-way (as in, the soil has already been disturbed at least once). See the Northern Border pipeline route on this map, approaching and crossing the river at the same location.

But that's a natural gas pipeline, which doesn't pollute streams and rivers. That's been the primary component of the protest. Protecting the drinking water. And the chances of that happening are pretty darn remote. Remote enough that thousands of communities downstream of the Mississippi River crossing (near the Iowa/Missouri border) of DAPL who rely on the Mississippi for drinking water are not protesting.

Is it a 100% risk free project? No. But we have a modern society that relies on infrastructure that is not 100% risk free. That's why we have engineers, to design most of the risk away. The arguments against this pipeline are based on emotion, not science.

If the Standing Rock Sioux have a land rights case for the property the pipeline travels on, then by all means they should pursue it. I certainly hope there can be some reasonable agreement reached on a route, because the vast majority of this pipeline has already been constructed at a considerable expense. Strip the evil oil company label off of this, and you see an approved and permitted multi-billion dollar project having a permit pulled at the last minute not because of technical merits, but due to political pressure. I'm a strong Obama supporter, but that's wrong. You can't change the rules of the game at the last minute.


I think this has a lot more to do with the sovereignty of native americans than the environmentalism, though obviously the nature of the thing and our politics is going to draw activists concerned about both. Government-to-government negotiations, yeah?. If any other Country X refuses to attend negotiations, we're still not going to run an infrastructure project through their land, and we don't ask if their reasoning for opposing it is scientifically justified or not. And I think the "is it "their" land or not "their land" is central to the moral and political argument. All of that being said, I can understand why you would be concerned about misunderstandings of the safety of the project.

What do you make of the Bismarck rerouting as discussed earlier?


Like I've tried to say, if the argument centers around the land north of the reservation that the pipeline routes through *should* be part of the Standing Sioux land, then that's a seperate argument. One that was not made to my knowledge when the existing natural gas pipeline was routed through that area. If they don't have rights to that land, then it is really no different than development on any land formerly occupied by Native Americans. I'm sensitive to their concerns here--we took all their land away. But that's a land rights protest, not a DAPL protest.

I'm fine with the route north of Bismark. By my understanding, that route was evaluated and changed not due to public concerns, but because there was more significant environmental impact (increased number of stream crossings) and was difficult to pull off with state requirements for pipeline spacing from residences. It is just a bit late in the game to change that route now--it will take a couple of years to survey, get approvals, etc. for even that relatively short stretch. (If you ever want to feel what purgatory is probably like, apply for a federal permit.)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: December 12 16, 2:19 pm 
Offline
Hall Of Famer
User avatar

Joined: July 15 08, 8:24 pm
Posts: 18904
Location: Low A Minors
AWKWARD

CNBC - Pipeline spills 176,000 gallons of crude into creek about 150 miles from Dakota Access protest camp


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: December 12 16, 2:23 pm 
Offline
Hall Of Famer
User avatar

Joined: October 12 06, 2:21 pm
Posts: 15994
Location: Baseball Ref Bullpen
pioneer98 wrote:

That'll show 'em.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 37 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next

All times are UTC - 6 hours


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: G. Keenan, ThatGuy and 12 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group