Dakota Access Pipeline protests

Political and religious discussions go here. Tread lightly.
User avatar
lukethedrifter
darjeeling sipping elite
Posts: 37361
Joined: October 17 06, 11:19 am
Location: Huis Clos

Re: Dakota Access Pipeline protests

Post by lukethedrifter »

Yeah but Warren Buffett
Socnorb11
The Last Word
Posts: 19893
Joined: June 21 06, 8:45 am

Re: Dakota Access Pipeline protests

Post by Socnorb11 »

pioneer98 wrote:

Not exactly:

http://bismarcktribune.com/news/state-a ... c933c.html

In addition, the Bismarck route would have been 11 miles longer with more road crossings and waterbody and wetland crossings. It also would have been difficult to stay 500 or more feet away from homes, as required by the North Dakota Public Service Commission, the corps states.

The Bismarck route also would have crossed an area considered by federal pipeline regulators as a “high consequence area,” which is an area determined to have the most significant adverse consequences in the event of a pipeline spill.
User avatar
Schlich
Don't tone police me bro!
Posts: 10547
Joined: July 1 06, 7:24 pm
Location: Lost in the Cloud

Re: Dakota Access Pipeline protests

Post by Schlich »

User avatar
Joe Shlabotnik
Hall Of Famer
Posts: 17386
Joined: October 12 06, 2:21 pm
Location: Baseball Ref Bullpen
Contact:

Re: Dakota Access Pipeline protests

Post by Joe Shlabotnik »

Schlich wrote:
Thats really only good til January 21 right? Trump acn order whatever the hell he wants just like Obama asked the Corps to look for these alternate routes. Whats to stop that? I see this as a 'soft' way of getting the protesters to leave before the hammer comes down next month.
User avatar
Schlich
Don't tone police me bro!
Posts: 10547
Joined: July 1 06, 7:24 pm
Location: Lost in the Cloud

Re: Dakota Access Pipeline protests

Post by Schlich »

Joe Shlabotnik wrote:
Schlich wrote:
Thats really only good til January 21 right? Trump acn order whatever the hell he wants just like Obama asked the Corps to look for these alternate routes. Whats to stop that? I see this as a 'soft' way of getting the protesters to leave before the hammer comes down next month.
From what I've read (on Vox I believe), an Obama ruling would be really hard to overturn.
User avatar
ghostrunner
Hall Of Famer
Posts: 24920
Joined: April 18 06, 9:40 pm

Re: Dakota Access Pipeline protests

Post by ghostrunner »

Read a supposedly knowledgeable lawyer's tweet that said it would be 3-4 years before they could get it going again. Trump reverses, a (new, I guess?)environmental study goes ahead and takes a year or so. Lawsuits follow which take another 1-2 years.

Can't find it now, but something like that.
User avatar
Popeye_Card
GRB's most intelligent & humble poster
Posts: 27280
Joined: April 17 06, 11:25 am

Re: Dakota Access Pipeline protests

Post by Popeye_Card »

This situation couldn't have been handled more poorly.

The feds have no real grounds for rejecting this route. There's no way it will stand up in court.

My stance on this is that if the Standing Rock Sioux thinks they have rights to the land that the pipeline routes through, then that needs to be a seperate conversation with the state and federal governments. If they don't have rights to that land, then they really have no say in whether or not a pipeline routes through a property adjacent to theirs. The drinking water argument is bologna. The Missouri River crossing is one of the least likely places for that pipeline to leak. Meanwhile, several other pipelines already cross the Missouri River upstream of where they are. Heck, several pipelines cross the Mississippi River just upstream of St. Louis--should St. Louisans be protesting that those lines be shut down before they contaminate the drinking water supply for a major metropolitan area?

If the argument is against oil itself, oil is going to be produced in the Bakken region whether this pipeline is built or not. Right now most of it is shipped out by rail (which cross the Missouri River), which carries more danger with it than pipelines do. Accident rate is higher, and train tracks route through far more towns and cities. Recall the train derailment of a Bakken crude shipment in Quebec in 2013. Why is the oil still going to be produced? Because people still use a ton of oil products. They like to drive in cars and fly in planes and have big fancy boats (I'm picking on Leo here because he's been a vocal opponent of fossil fuels). People also like things made out of plastic. It takes all sorts of -ene's and -ane's to make plastic. That stuff all gets pulled out of the ground and shipped on pipelines.

It is simply bad policy to choose particular projects to shut down because people create a ruckus. Especially when said project has gone through all of the proper regulatory and permitting channels. It is anti-corporate terrorism--a vocal minority makes a huge scene to get their way. As much as I distrust corporations, it still isn't right. The Standing Rock Sioux had years to petition against this pipeline being routed near them. They chose to wait until the 11th hour.

All that said, law enforcement has not handled these protests properly. Even if at times they escalate beyond what should be considered "peaceful", they should still exercise far more restraint. But again, that is seperate from the decision on whether or not to approve the permit to cross the river. If everything is acceptable on a technical basis for the project (which it is), then the permit should be approved. All we are going to end up with is a project that ends up tied up in courts for a couple more years, is eventually approved because there's no way this decision should stand up. Or the pipeline is re-routed at considerable time and expense. But the line will be built, just delayed. And during the delay more oil will be transported by rail, across old railroad bridges and right through towns and cities.

Finally, all of this is completely disconnected from a larger conversation about climate change. This one pipeline isn't going to impact climate change at all. Everyone is going to have to have a shift away from using fossil fuels. As a global economy--and more locally an economy of convenience in the US--we simply aren't ready for that. If oil is going to be used, pipelines are the safest and most efficient way to transport it.

I've said far more on this than I should. This whole situation just pisses me off, and I'm tired of seeing my facebook feed filled with misinformation about it.
User avatar
ghostrunner
Hall Of Famer
Posts: 24920
Joined: April 18 06, 9:40 pm

Re: Dakota Access Pipeline protests

Post by ghostrunner »

I think this was a practical decision. Either people were about to freeze or there was physical conflict coming which would have involved a historically oppressed minority and veterans. Whether or not the protestors are right, they think they are and they were determined. I think they were probably in the wrong (in terms of the risks), but I still find it encouraging that they prevailed for the time being. I'd also say that once water cannons were used in freezing temperatures, it became something else.
Last edited by ghostrunner on December 5 16, 9:53 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Schlich
Don't tone police me bro!
Posts: 10547
Joined: July 1 06, 7:24 pm
Location: Lost in the Cloud

Re: Dakota Access Pipeline protests

Post by Schlich »

Anti-corporate terrorism. Lol. That's a new one.

You're completely wrong that they don't have any legal ground to stand on. Why are you so charged up about this, exactly?
User avatar
Schlich
Don't tone police me bro!
Posts: 10547
Joined: July 1 06, 7:24 pm
Location: Lost in the Cloud

Re: Dakota Access Pipeline protests

Post by Schlich »

I'm sure that editor for the Atlantic is just a dumb hippie tho
Post Reply