|
|
 Extreme Veteran
Posts: 595
 
Location: North Dakota | Living in ND I hear about the Dakota Access Pipeline(DAPL) almost daily and the riots going on there. Anyone else around the other parts of the country hearing about it?
If you don't know... there is tons out there on it. A simple google search will fill you in right quick. Celebrities have come to help the protesters and the size of the crowd out there hasn't weakened even in our now freezing temps. This has been going on for months out there... things only seem to be getting worse with a state wide call of all available law enforcement sent out tonight as things are turning even more violent.
Would love to hear some opinions from others around the country. | |
| | |
 BHW's Lance Armstrong 
Posts: 11134
  
Location: Somewhere between S@%&# stirrer and Saint | I try to see it from both sides but I tend to lean more towards the pipeline going under the river. There are millions of miles of pipelines in the USA. It is the safest way to transport liquids. Yes there are leaks and they get cleaned up.
The tribes had more land in the 1851 treaty and for some reason the Government reduced land and reservations for some reason. I know my tribes land was reduced also. I think most reservations were reduced. This pipeline is going north of the reservation but they are protesting that it may affect drinking water but a new water plant is being put in for the reservation. This pipeline will paralell a gas line under the river 100 feet deep.
I think they have the right to protest but not damage private property, stop traffic or harrass locals.
I personally did not like when the natives were going across Cannon river to go up on Turtle Hill supposedly to pray and the cops stopped them from crossing the river and mased them. This Turtle Hill is no where close to the pipeline and I felt the cops were over doing their power. The Natives and supporters are trepassing on some properties and that should not allowed. They can't claim 1851 treaty land until that is proven in court so they have to abide by current boundries. The pipeline will go through. I personally look at it as a bunch of PC Indians | |
| | |
 BHW Resident Surgeon
Posts: 25351
Location: Bastrop, Texas | I'm not following real closely, but I see that they used a water cannon last night with the temperatures in the 20's. | |
| | |
I just read the headlines
Posts: 4483
| I just saw where the protesters set trucks on fire. I asked some one supporting the protesters if the protesters had set the trucks on fire and was told they were just trying to stay warm and were on protester land and that is when they water cannoned them. Was this done on the protester's land? We are not hearing about this here | |
| | |
 Porta Potty Pants
Posts: 2600
| 1DSoon - 2016-11-21 7:29 AM
small pox worked the first time.
Really? This is a very sad statement reflecting on your character and is not funny at all - even if you were being sarcastic.
Edited by azsun 2016-11-21 10:10 AM
| |
| | |
Porta Potty Pants
Posts: 2600
| I have followed this story. The tribe started to protest because tribes have a right to meaningful consultation when an action concerns the tribe, treaty or reservation land or potentially impacts the health, safety and welfare of the tribe. Here, there was no meaningful consultation when the decision was made to reroute the pipeline from it's original route near the city of Bismark to it's current proposed route. The pipeline was rerouted because the residents of Bismark objected because a leak could potentially impact their water supply. The exact same reason the tribe is objecting. Secondarily, the route was proposed to dig up the tribe's sacred sites and burial grounds. Construction started before permits were properly received and the tribe objected. The company didn't care and started to dig anyway. When the tribe tried to use legal recourse, citing the sacred sites, the company jumped ahead to the sites and destroyed the burial grounds. This is oil that is not intended for US consumption but will be sold out of the country by a private company. The Army Corps of Engineers has issued a ruling that construction should halt until meaningful consultation can occur. Instead, the company brought in a drill and is attempting to continue construction. The "protestors' are not armed. They are concerned about a leak that could impact the water supply not only for the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe but for all of those millions of people whose water supply is the Missouri River. It's really a sad situation. LE agencies from surrounding areas have assisted and then pulled back because what was reported is not what was happening. Last night, they were using water cannons and rubber bullets against the 'protestors'. I would urge anyone to look at all sides of the story before judging or suggesting that "small pox worked last time". Think about all the earthquakes that are going on around the country that have been attributed to fracking. This is in addition to the potential risk of harm to the drinking water. It has been suggested that the pipeline be re-routed, but the company involved in under a timeline to get it done or lose financing. Thus the tactics.
Edited by azsun 2016-11-21 10:09 AM
| |
| | |
 Elite Veteran
Posts: 933
Location: north dakota | From what I understand standing rock leaders were given the chance for 2 years to meet with the corp of engineers and the pipeline company and gave them the run around. Here is an article with links to follow to verify the authors claims
https://m.facebook.com/notes/scott-gates/on-the-standing-rock-tribes...
I feel bad for all the ranchers and farmers in the area that have been effected by the protestors. I also feel bad for law enforcement that is not getting the federal help to help with upholding the law in the area.
Edited by ndcowgirl 2016-11-21 10:38 AM
| |
| | |
 Hummer's Hero
Posts: 3071
Location: Smack Dab in the Middle | azsun - 2016-11-21 10:06 AM
I have followed this story. The tribe started to protest because tribes have a right to meaningful consultation when an action concerns the tribe, treaty or reservation land or potentially impacts the health, safety and welfare of the tribe. Here, there was no meaningful consultation when the decision was made to reroute the pipeline from it's original route near the city of Bismark to it's current proposed route. The pipeline was rerouted because the residents of Bismark objected because a leak could potentially impact their water supply. The exact same reason the tribe is objecting. Secondarily, the route was proposed to dig up the tribe's sacred sites and burial grounds. Construction started before permits were properly received and the tribe objected. The company didn't care and started to dig anyway. When the tribe tried to use legal recourse, citing the sacred sites, the company jumped ahead to the sites and destroyed the burial grounds. This is oil that is not intended for US consumption but will be sold out of the country by a private company. The Army Corps of Engineers has issued a ruling that construction should halt until meaningful consultation can occur. Instead, the company brought in a drill and is attempting to continue construction. The "protestors' are not armed. They are concerned about a leak that could impact the water supply not only for the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe but for all of those millions of people whose water supply is the Missouri River. It's really a sad situation. LE agencies from surrounding areas have assisted and then pulled back because what was reported is not what was happening. Last night, they were using water cannons and rubber bullets against the 'protestors'. I would urge anyone to look at all sides of the story before judging or suggesting that "small pox worked last time". Think about all the earthquakes that are going on around the country that have been attributed to fracking. This is in addition to the potential risk of harm to the drinking water. It has been suggested that the pipeline be re-routed, but the company involved in under a timeline to get it done or lose financing. Thus the tactics.
I'm curious as to where you've found some of these things, because I have been doing my research and not found any of what you stated...
My knee jerk reaction was to side with tribe members. But, I'm a realist and know that not only do we need oil to function in our everyday lives, but that this oil WILL be brought to market one way or the other, so what is the safest way?
My research revealed that all "sacred" sites were identified and the pipeline was re-routed to avoid them. The company constructing the pipeline has self imposed above industry standard protocols to insure water safety and land respect.
A US district court confirmed that the tribe has failed to prove any of it's claims.
The tribe was offered ample time to consult with the US Army Corps of Engineers, but refused, instead opting to boycott the entire process.
There is ALREADY and existing pipeline on the same land, parallel to the new one.
The DAPL's path is on privately owned land, not the Sioux Reservation, and 100% of the ND land owners signed contracts allowing the pipeline to be built.
Now these land owners are experiencing criminal trespassing, destruction and defacement of land and personal property, stress and death to livestock, and more from these "peaceful" protestors. Landowners have stated that the actual tribe members have remained peaceful for the most part...it is the protestors that do not have personal stake that are causing the problems. I saw pictures of cattle that had arrows or spears hanging from their sides, and reports of bison being butchered and barbequed. Pictures of a pickup that was parked on railroad tracks and set on fire in order to stop transport trains. How is that unarmed and peaceful?
Edited by RockinGR 2016-11-21 10:36 AM
| |
| | |
Location: Not Where I Want to Be | azsun - 2016-11-21 11:06 AM I have followed this story. The tribe started to protest because tribes have a right to meaningful consultation when an action concerns the tribe, treaty or reservation land or potentially impacts the health, safety and welfare of the tribe. Here, there was no meaningful consultation when the decision was made to reroute the pipeline from it's original route near the city of Bismark to it's current proposed route. The pipeline was rerouted because the residents of Bismark objected because a leak could potentially impact their water supply. The exact same reason the tribe is objecting. Secondarily, the route was proposed to dig up the tribe's sacred sites and burial grounds. Construction started before permits were properly received and the tribe objected. The company didn't care and started to dig anyway. When the tribe tried to use legal recourse, citing the sacred sites, the company jumped ahead to the sites and destroyed the burial grounds. This is oil that is not intended for US consumption but will be sold out of the country by a private company. The Army Corps of Engineers has issued a ruling that construction should halt until meaningful consultation can occur. Instead, the company brought in a drill and is attempting to continue construction. The "protestors' are not armed. They are concerned about a leak that could impact the water supply not only for the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe but for all of those millions of people whose water supply is the Missouri River. It's really a sad situation. LE agencies from surrounding areas have assisted and then pulled back because what was reported is not what was happening. Last night, they were using water cannons and rubber bullets against the 'protestors'. I would urge anyone to look at all sides of the story before judging or suggesting that "small pox worked last time". Think about all the earthquakes that are going on around the country that have been attributed to fracking. This is in addition to the potential risk of harm to the drinking water. It has been suggested that the pipeline be re-routed, but the company involved in under a timeline to get it done or lose financing. Thus the tactics.
mostly they are concerned they are not getting paid.
| |
| | |
 The Original Cyber Bartender
Location: Washington | azsun - 2016-11-21 7:56 AM 1DSoon - 2016-11-21 7:29 AM small pox worked the first time.
Really? This is a very sad statement reflecting on your character and is not funny at all - even if you were being sarcastic.
This takes some kind of special....W0W! | |
| | |
 Straight Shooter
Posts: 5725
Location: SW North Dakota | RockinGR - 2016-11-21 9:33 AM azsun - 2016-11-21 10:06 AM I have followed this story. The tribe started to protest because tribes have a right to meaningful consultation when an action concerns the tribe, treaty or reservation land or potentially impacts the health, safety and welfare of the tribe. Here, there was no meaningful consultation when the decision was made to reroute the pipeline from it's original route near the city of Bismark to it's current proposed route. The pipeline was rerouted because the residents of Bismark objected because a leak could potentially impact their water supply. The exact same reason the tribe is objecting. Secondarily, the route was proposed to dig up the tribe's sacred sites and burial grounds. Construction started before permits were properly received and the tribe objected. The company didn't care and started to dig anyway. When the tribe tried to use legal recourse, citing the sacred sites, the company jumped ahead to the sites and destroyed the burial grounds. This is oil that is not intended for US consumption but will be sold out of the country by a private company. The Army Corps of Engineers has issued a ruling that construction should halt until meaningful consultation can occur. Instead, the company brought in a drill and is attempting to continue construction. The "protestors' are not armed. They are concerned about a leak that could impact the water supply not only for the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe but for all of those millions of people whose water supply is the Missouri River. It's really a sad situation. LE agencies from surrounding areas have assisted and then pulled back because what was reported is not what was happening. Last night, they were using water cannons and rubber bullets against the 'protestors'. I would urge anyone to look at all sides of the story before judging or suggesting that "small pox worked last time". Think about all the earthquakes that are going on around the country that have been attributed to fracking. This is in addition to the potential risk of harm to the drinking water. It has been suggested that the pipeline be re-routed, but the company involved in under a timeline to get it done or lose financing. Thus the tactics. I'm curious as to where you've found some of these things, because I have been doing my research and not found any of what you stated... My knee jerk reaction was to side with tribe members. But, I'm a realist and know that not only do we need oil to function in our everyday lives, but that this oil WILL be brought to market one way or the other, so what is the safest way? My research revealed that all "sacred" sites were identified and the pipeline was re-routed to avoid them. The company constructing the pipeline has self imposed above industry standard protocols to insure water safety and land respect. A US district court confirmed that the tribe has failed to prove any of it's claims. The tribe was offered ample time to consult with the US Army Corps of Engineers, but refused, instead opting to boycott the entire process. There is ALREADY and existing pipeline on the same land, parallel to the new one. The DAPL's path is on privately owned land, not the Sioux Reservation, and 100% of the ND land owners signed contracts allowing the pipeline to be built. Now these land owners are experiencing criminal trespassing, destruction and defacement of land and personal property, stress and death to livestock, and more from these "peaceful" protestors. Landowners have stated that the actual tribe members have remained peaceful for the most part...it is the protestors that do not have personal stake that are causing the problems. I saw pictures of cattle that had arrows or spears hanging from their sides, and reports of bison being butchered and barbequed. Pictures of a pickup that was parked on railroad tracks and set on fire in order to stop transport trains. How is that unarmed and peaceful?
RockinGR, your statement is absolutely correct. The out-of-state "hired" protestors are really the heart of the problem and they are NOT peaceful. The protestors, IMO, are different from the Protectors. Although, the tribal protectors failed to participate in ANY of the public comment periods, they (for the most part) started with peaceful prayer and minor tresspassing. This thing has since elevated, with the protestors causing more harm to the environment at this point than the construction crew. They are burning tires and trash, dumping used oil at the capital grounds, slaughtering livestock... the list goes on.
The DAPL doesn't cross the reservation. All of the required archey surveys were done, including SHPO and THPO, as part of the arduous NEPA process- which takes YEARS for permitting. As RockinGR stated, the line runs right beside an existing line- that was installed in the 80s.
The whole thing is messy and confusing. The media is making it worse, and facebook is a NIGHTMARE- please don't take the Facebook crap as gospel! Look at the public records, if you want to know the "truth." Please!
| |
| | |
 Experienced Mouse Trapper
Posts: 3106
Location: North Dakota | Is there anyone on this site that knows what is north of Bismarck? Besides the wetlands and Bismarcks water intake?? I am seriously irritated with the idea that the "ONLY" sacred sights seem to be located RIGHT where the pipeline is going UNDER the river. Please people OPEN your eyes and minds to what is REALLY going on here!!!!!
http://www.history.nd.gov/historicsites/doubleditch/index.html | |
| | |
BHW Resident Surgeon
Posts: 25351
Location: Bastrop, Texas | fatchance - 2016-11-21 12:02 PM
azsun - 2016-11-21 7:56 AM 1DSoon - 2016-11-21 7:29 AM small pox worked the first time.
Really? This is a very sad statement reflecting on your character and is not funny at all - even if you were being sarcastic.
I don't think you understand what he was really saying. What he was saying is factually correct, but I don't believe that's the sort of thing he was suggesting. | |
| | |
 Owner of a ratting catting machine
Posts: 2258
| First of all, if I didn't know about the years put into the surveys, assemblies, and thousands and thousands of man hours put into getting a project like this permitted, I might be against it.
Secondly, if I didn't know that this line parallels an existing line, I might be against it.
Thirdly, if I didn't know how an HDD (horizontal directional drill) works to pull the pipe 80-90 ft below the river bed, I might be against it.
Fourthly, if I didn't know a company's response to supe up environmental and construction standards in areas of contention, I might be against it.
Fifth, if I didn't know about the hundreds of thousands of dollars invested in third party professional inspectors during construction, who insure absolute and total compliance to every industry standard, along with landowner, county, state, and federal requirement, I might be against it.
Sixth, if I hadn't personally been present during HDD activity under rivers that are the drinking water source of several major US cities, I might be against it.
Seventh, if I hadn't read and watched interviews of local Native Anericans regarding the pipeline, who basically indicated they're not concerned and they're sick of the community upheaval, I might be against it.
Eighth: If I didn't know the huge budget of maintenance, corrosion professionals, and monitoring that goes on after the line is built, I might be against it. These lines aren't just left to their own devices to leak and pump product into the surrounding area. All the whistles and bells and flashing lights go off at any change in pressure, and the emergence shut down system takes over.
Stories like this aren't about a pipeline, they're about war on American oil. People that protest here against our industry are protesting against American regulation and American cleanup and spill management practices, which are absolute. People don't get that when we buy foreign oil, there's little to NO environmental requirement. The Middle East is fine with destroying major ecosystems, at the cost of water, plants, air, and wildlife, not to mention civilian and worker safety.
I'd rather drill and transport here at home, under heavy regulations and a more principled industry, then buy oil and gas from somewhere that probably did poison somebody to get it, with no chance of remedy.
Edited to add the eighth.
Edited by classicpotatochip 2016-11-21 1:46 PM
| |
| | |
 Transplant Okie
Posts: 1206
Location: Always on call..... | I am very interested to hear from people who live in the area - what their thoughts and perceptions of this situation are. RockinGR and I have debated it a bit on FB. :-).
As a Native American my first impulse is to side with/believe all the reports of the Natives. However I am trying to be objective and find true facts. I agree with others to not just believe all you see on social media about the situation, but that goes for both sides.
I do have personal friends who have been there protesting. One of which was tasered by police while he was kneeling in the water praying. I don't know if he was on private land at the time. I believe it was during the protest at Turtle Hill.
Also from my research I thought the new pipeline was going to run parallel to an existing natural gas line? Not another oil pipeline? Not sure this makes a difference but just curious.
What I can't seem to find for sure is if the Standing Rock tribe actually did voice their concerns during the planning period? I've read accounts both ways - that they did and their concerns were ignored, and I've read that they didn't they never objected to the pipeline during that planning period. I found the proposal for the pipeline that the private company submitted to the Army Corp of Engineers for approval (it's on theACOE website). I didn't read all of it (70+ pages) but it inferred from that document the tribes concerns were addressed. If someone has proof one way or another I'd love to see it.
My main question at this time is why is Energy Access Partners (the private company building the pipeline) is still going ahead with construction if the Army Corp of Engineers has asked for a temporary halt? Is that legal? I understand from a business standpoint they lose of money if they stop, but this is such a charged issue it seems to be in their best interest to follow the ACOE requests.
The use of water cannons in 25 degree weather seems excessive and brutal.
| |
| | |
Location: Not Where I Want to Be | classicpotatochip - 2016-11-21 2:30 PM First of all, if I didn't know about the years put into the surveys, assemblies, and thousands and thousands of man hours put into getting a project like this permitted, I might be against it. Secondly, if I didn't know that this line parallels an existing line, I might be against it. Thirdly, if I didn't know how an HDD (horizontal directional drill) works to pull the pipe 80-90 ft below the river bed, I might be against it. Fourthly, if I didn't know a company's response to supe up environmental and construction standards in areas of contention, I might be against it. Fifth, if I didn't know about the hundreds of thousands of dollars invested in third party professional inspectors during construction, who insure absolute and total compliance to every industry standard, along with landowner, county, state, and federal requirement, I might be against it. Sixth, if I hadn't personally been present during HDD activity under rivers that are the drinking water source of several major US cities, I might be against it. Seventh, if I hadn't read and watched interviews of local Native Anericans regarding the pipeline, who basically indicated they're not concerned and they're sick of the community upheaval, I might be against it. Stories like this aren't about a pipeline, they're about war on American oil. People that protest here against our industry are protesting against American regulation and American cleanup and spill management practices, which are absolute. People don't get that when we buy foreign oil, there's little to NO environmental requirement. The Middle East is fine with destroying major ecosystems, at the cost of water, plants, air, and wildlife, not to mention civilian and worker safety. I'd rather drill and transport here at home, under heavy regulations and a more principled industry, then buy oil and gas from somewhere that probably did poison somebody to get it, with no chance of remedy.
 | |
| | |
Straight Shooter
Posts: 5725
Location: SW North Dakota | Dr. J - 2016-11-21 12:30 PM I am very interested to hear from people who live in the area - what their thoughts and perceptions of this situation are. RockinGR and I have debated it a bit on FB. :-).
As a Native American my first impulse is to side with/believe all the reports of the Natives. However I am trying to be objective and find true facts. I agree with others to not just believe all you see on social media about the situation, but that goes for both sides.
I do have personal friends who have been there protesting. One of which was tasered by police while he was kneeling in the water praying. I don't know if he was on private land at the time. I believe it was during the protest at Turtle Hill.
Also from my research I thought the new pipeline was going to run parallel to an existing natural gas line? Not another oil pipeline? Not sure this makes a difference but just curious.
What I can't seem to find for sure is if the Standing Rock tribe actually did voice their concerns during the planning period? I've read accounts both ways - that they did and their concerns were ignored, and I've read that they didn't they never objected to the pipeline during that planning period. I found the proposal for the pipeline that the private company submitted to the Army Corp of Engineers for approval (it's on theACOE website). I didn't read all of it (70+ pages) but it inferred from that document the tribes concerns were addressed. If someone has proof one way or another I'd love to see it.
My main question at this time is why is Energy Access Partners (the private company building the pipeline) is still going ahead with construction if the Army Corp of Engineers has asked for a temporary halt? Is that legal? I understand from a business standpoint they lose of money if they stop, but this is such a charged issue it seems to be in their best interest to follow the ACOE requests.
The use of water cannons in 25 degree weather seems excessive and brutal.
There was a journal artical that posted the timeline and notes during the NEPA process; it documented the communication with all parties during the process of completing the EIS. The notes from either the communication or the attempts were all listed.
I grew up near another ND reservation, and have many dear friends who still live there. They have been active in supporting the Standing Rock Water Protectors. While, I can appreciate their viewpoint, but I have yet to be able to wrap my mind around the emotions. Probably because I am familiar with the depth and difficulty of getting a FONSI through the NEPA process, and I work in the O&G industry. I want to sympathize with the Protectors, but from sifting through the propaganda to get to the facts, there is no part of me that supports the protestors.
I think the Supreme court overruled the "cease" on ETP, and they are cleared for work, but as I can't site the source, I will just leave it as a thought.
I have largely kept very quiet about the DAPL, but it's getting harder as I see all of the impact to my friends who live in the area. It is BAD. The protestors are way outside their legal rights, IMO.
| |
| | |
Straight Shooter
Posts: 5725
Location: SW North Dakota | classicpotatochip - 2016-11-21 12:30 PM First of all, if I didn't know about the years put into the surveys, assemblies, and thousands and thousands of man hours put into getting a project like this permitted, I might be against it. Secondly, if I didn't know that this line parallels an existing line, I might be against it. Thirdly, if I didn't know how an HDD (horizontal directional drill) works to pull the pipe 80-90 ft below the river bed, I might be against it. Fourthly, if I didn't know a company's response to supe up environmental and construction standards in areas of contention, I might be against it. Fifth, if I didn't know about the hundreds of thousands of dollars invested in third party professional inspectors during construction, who insure absolute and total compliance to every industry standard, along with landowner, county, state, and federal requirement, I might be against it. Sixth, if I hadn't personally been present during HDD activity under rivers that are the drinking water source of several major US cities, I might be against it. Seventh, if I hadn't read and watched interviews of local Native Anericans regarding the pipeline, who basically indicated they're not concerned and they're sick of the community upheaval, I might be against it. Eighth: If I didn't know the huge budget of maintenance, corrosion professionals, and monitoring that goes on after the line is built, I might be against it. These lines aren't just left to their own devices to leak and pump product into the surrounding area. All the whistles and bells and flashing lights go off at any change in pressure, and the emergence shut down system takes over. Stories like this aren't about a pipeline, they're about war on American oil. People that protest here against our industry are protesting against American regulation and American cleanup and spill management practices, which are absolute. People don't get that when we buy foreign oil, there's little to NO environmental requirement. The Middle East is fine with destroying major ecosystems, at the cost of water, plants, air, and wildlife, not to mention civilian and worker safety. I'd rather drill and transport here at home, under heavy regulations and a more principled industry, then buy oil and gas from somewhere that probably did poison somebody to get it, with no chance of remedy. Edited to add the eighth.
100% agree. Great post. | |
| | |
Transplant Okie
Posts: 1206
Location: Always on call..... | ndcowgirl - 2016-11-21 10:31 AM
From what I understand standing rock leaders were given the chance for 2 years to meet with the corp of engineers and the pipeline company and gave them the run around. Here is an article with links to follow to verify the authors claims
https://m.facebook.com/notes/scott-gates/on-the-standing-rock-tribes...
I feel bad for all the ranchers and farmers in the area that have been effected by the protestors. I also feel bad for law enforcement that is not getting the federal help to help with upholding the law in the area.
Good link, very informative. That helped answer several of my questions. Thanks for sharing. | |
| | |
Elite Veteran
Posts: 1079
| I live in ND. I have NOTHING nice to say on the topic except:The media sucks and winter can't come soon enough. period. | |
| | |
Porta Potty Pants
Posts: 2600
| I know people who are actually there ... on site. I have colleagues working for the tribe and other colleagues that are volunteering their legal services. | |
| | |
I just read the headlines
Posts: 4483
| From what I have read and watched on video, both sides are behaving badly at times. I feel bad for the private land owners and ranchers. | |
| | |
Extreme Veteran
Posts: 595
Location: North Dakota | RockinGR - 2016-11-21 10:33 AM
azsun - 2016-11-21 10:06 AM
I have followed this story. The tribe started to protest because tribes have a right to meaningful consultation when an action concerns the tribe, treaty or reservation land or potentially impacts the health, safety and welfare of the tribe. Here, there was no meaningful consultation when the decision was made to reroute the pipeline from it's original route near the city of Bismark to it's current proposed route. The pipeline was rerouted because the residents of Bismark objected because a leak could potentially impact their water supply. The exact same reason the tribe is objecting. Secondarily, the route was proposed to dig up the tribe's sacred sites and burial grounds. Construction started before permits were properly received and the tribe objected. The company didn't care and started to dig anyway. When the tribe tried to use legal recourse, citing the sacred sites, the company jumped ahead to the sites and destroyed the burial grounds. This is oil that is not intended for US consumption but will be sold out of the country by a private company. The Army Corps of Engineers has issued a ruling that construction should halt until meaningful consultation can occur. Instead, the company brought in a drill and is attempting to continue construction. The "protestors' are not armed. They are concerned about a leak that could impact the water supply not only for the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe but for all of those millions of people whose water supply is the Missouri River. It's really a sad situation. LE agencies from surrounding areas have assisted and then pulled back because what was reported is not what was happening. Last night, they were using water cannons and rubber bullets against the 'protestors'. I would urge anyone to look at all sides of the story before judging or suggesting that "small pox worked last time". Think about all the earthquakes that are going on around the country that have been attributed to fracking. This is in addition to the potential risk of harm to the drinking water. It has been suggested that the pipeline be re-routed, but the company involved in under a timeline to get it done or lose financing. Thus the tactics.
I'm curious as to where you've found some of these things, because I have been doing my research and not found any of what you stated...
My knee jerk reaction was to side with tribe members. But, I'm a realist and know that not only do we need oil to function in our everyday lives, but that this oil WILL be brought to market one way or the other, so what is the safest way?
My research revealed that all "sacred" sites were identified and the pipeline was re-routed to avoid them. The company constructing the pipeline has self imposed above industry standard protocols to insure water safety and land respect.
A US district court confirmed that the tribe has failed to prove any of it's claims.
The tribe was offered ample time to consult with the US Army Corps of Engineers, but refused, instead opting to boycott the entire process.
There is ALREADY and existing pipeline on the same land, parallel to the new one.
The DAPL's path is on privately owned land, not the Sioux Reservation, and 100% of the ND land owners signed contracts allowing the pipeline to be built.
Now these land owners are experiencing criminal trespassing, destruction and defacement of land and personal property, stress and death to livestock, and more from these "peaceful" protestors. Landowners have stated that the actual tribe members have remained peaceful for the most part...it is the protestors that do not have personal stake that are causing the problems. I saw pictures of cattle that had arrows or spears hanging from their sides, and reports of bison being butchered and barbequed. Pictures of a pickup that was parked on railroad tracks and set on fire in order to stop transport trains. How is that unarmed and peaceful?
I agree 100% RockinGR.
I tried not to put my opinion into my original start to this post because I really wanted others thoughts on the issue. My thoughts though are right with you. I have friends who ranch in that area and they have been harassed, property stolen and vandalized. We are dependent on oil here in the US and a pipeline is the safest way to transport. | |
| | |
Extreme Veteran
Posts: 595
Location: North Dakota | classicpotatochip - 2016-11-21 1:30 PM
First of all, if I didn't know about the years put into the surveys, assemblies, and thousands and thousands of man hours put into getting a project like this permitted, I might be against it.
Secondly, if I didn't know that this line parallels an existing line, I might be against it.
Thirdly, if I didn't know how an HDD (horizontal directional drill) works to pull the pipe 80-90 ft below the river bed, I might be against it.
Fourthly, if I didn't know a company's response to supe up environmental and construction standards in areas of contention, I might be against it.
Fifth, if I didn't know about the hundreds of thousands of dollars invested in third party professional inspectors during construction, who insure absolute and total compliance to every industry standard, along with landowner, county, state, and federal requirement, I might be against it.
Sixth, if I hadn't personally been present during HDD activity under rivers that are the drinking water source of several major US cities, I might be against it.
Seventh, if I hadn't read and watched interviews of local Native Anericans regarding the pipeline, who basically indicated they're not concerned and they're sick of the community upheaval, I might be against it.
Eighth: If I didn't know the huge budget of maintenance, corrosion professionals, and monitoring that goes on after the line is built, I might be against it. These lines aren't just left to their own devices to leak and pump product into the surrounding area. All the whistles and bells and flashing lights go off at any change in pressure, and the emergence shut down system takes over.
Stories like this aren't about a pipeline, they're about war on American oil. People that protest here against our industry are protesting against American regulation and American cleanup and spill management practices, which are absolute. People don't get that when we buy foreign oil, there's little to NO environmental requirement. The Middle East is fine with destroying major ecosystems, at the cost of water, plants, air, and wildlife, not to mention civilian and worker safety.
I'd rather drill and transport here at home, under heavy regulations and a more principled industry, then buy oil and gas from somewhere that probably did poison somebody to get it, with no chance of remedy.
Edited to add the eighth.
Yes! | |
| | |
Expert
Posts: 1432
| star1218 - 2016-11-21 12:58 PM I live in ND. I have NOTHING nice to say on the topic except:The media sucks and winter can't come soon enough. period.
I live in SD and totally agree. Im sick to death of hearing about it. | |
| | |
BHW Resident Surgeon
Posts: 25351
Location: Bastrop, Texas | Is it true that Warren Buffet has a lot to gain financially if oil is continued to be transported by rail? Isn't BNSF rail owned by Berkshire Hathaway? Most oil is transported by rail. Why would Obama want to delay or block the development of these pipelines?
Doesn't this make you want to follow the money?
Edited by Bear 2016-11-21 10:40 PM
| |
| | |
Experienced Mouse Trapper
Posts: 3106
Location: North Dakota | Bear - 2016-11-21 10:32 PM Is it true that Warren Buffet has a lot to gain financially if oil is continued to be transported by rail? Isn't BNSF rail owned by Berkshire Hathaway? Most oil is transported by rail. Why would Obama want to delay or block the development of these pipelines? Doesn't this make you want to follow the money?
Your question is answered with a simple google search. I realize many things online are not true, however, if BNSF was less occupied with oil tankers our farmers could transport their grain much easier-I haven't been by too many elevators in ND that don't have a huge pile of grain sitting outside their elevators. Point being there is soooo many facets to this story and so much outside help to the protestors I think it would honestly make our heads spin-just how deeply rooted much of this unrest is! I sincerely hope that this is "resolved" without someone being killed. | |
| | |
BHW Resident Surgeon
Posts: 25351
Location: Bastrop, Texas | LMS - 2016-11-22 8:01 AM
Bear - 2016-11-21 10:32 PM Is it true that Warren Buffet has a lot to gain financially if oil is continued to be transported by rail? Isn't BNSF rail owned by Berkshire Hathaway? Most oil is transported by rail. Why would Obama want to delay or block the development of these pipelines? Doesn't this make you want to follow the money?
Your question is answered with a simple google search. I realize many things online are not true, however, if BNSF was less occupied with oil tankers our farmers could transport their grain much easier-I haven't been by too many elevators in ND that don't have a huge pile of grain sitting outside their elevators. Point being there is soooo many facets to this story and so much outside help to the protestors I think it would honestly make our heads spin-just how deeply rooted much of this unrest is! I sincerely hope that this is "resolved" without someone being killed.
The connection can't be disputed, that's for sure. They try to get the word out that "debunks" the notion that Buffet's BNSF benefits from blocking those pipelines. The fact that Buffet is a huge Democrat donor and Obama supporter is common knowledge.
Oh wait, "Truth and Fiction", a "fact checker" debunks this.
Nevermind. | |
| | |
I just read the headlines
Posts: 4483
| LMS - 2016-11-22 8:01 AM
Bear - 2016-11-21 10:32 PM Is it true that Warren Buffet has a lot to gain financially if oil is continued to be transported by rail? Isn't BNSF rail owned by Berkshire Hathaway? Most oil is transported by rail. Why would Obama want to delay or block the development of these pipelines? Doesn't this make you want to follow the money?
Your question is answered with a simple google search. I realize many things online are not true, however, if BNSF was less occupied with oil tankers our farmers could transport their grain much easier-I haven't been by too many elevators in ND that don't have a huge pile of grain sitting outside their elevators. Point being there is soooo many facets to this story and so much outside help to the protestors I think it would honestly make our heads spin-just how deeply rooted much of this unrest is! I sincerely hope that this is "resolved" without someone being killed.
If the BNSF is too preoccupied with oil tankers to transport farmers' grain, then that supports the argument for the pipeline.
The farmers may not be ready to sell their grain if prices are low ( I have no idea what prices are) and that will cause grain elevators to be full and make them store the overflow outside.
But the fact of the matter is that the Protectors didn't go to the meetings even though they knew about them. The pipeline will not be on their land. The protesters are on private property and damaging the property by driving livestock off their grazing land, cutting fences and scaring the land owners when they meet on the land owners land. None of that is peaceful. These are facts as I understand them. If I am wrong educate me. | |
| | |
Experienced Mouse Trapper
Posts: 3106
Location: North Dakota | GLP - 2016-11-22 8:47 AM LMS - 2016-11-22 8:01 AM Bear - 2016-11-21 10:32 PM Is it true that Warren Buffet has a lot to gain financially if oil is continued to be transported by rail? Isn't BNSF rail owned by Berkshire Hathaway? Most oil is transported by rail. Why would Obama want to delay or block the development of these pipelines? Doesn't this make you want to follow the money? Your question is answered with a simple google search. I realize many things online are not true, however, if BNSF was less occupied with oil tankers our farmers could transport their grain much easier-I haven't been by too many elevators in ND that don't have a huge pile of grain sitting outside their elevators. Point being there is soooo many facets to this story and so much outside help to the protestors I think it would honestly make our heads spin-just how deeply rooted much of this unrest is! I sincerely hope that this is "resolved" without someone being killed. If the BNSF is too preoccupied with oil tankers to transport farmers' grain, then that supports the argument for the pipeline. The farmers may not be ready to sell their grain if prices are low ( I have no idea what prices are ) and that will cause grain elevators to be full and make them store the overflow outside. But the fact of the matter is that the Protectors didn't go to the meetings even though they knew about them. The pipeline will not be on their land. The protesters are on private property and damaging the property by driving livestock off their grazing land, cutting fences and scaring the land owners when they meet on the land owners land. None of that is peaceful. These are facts as I understand them. If I am wrong educate me.
I agree with all that you have said. | |
| | |
Location: Great Places Great Faces | MidWest1452 - 2016-11-21 6:36 PM classicpotatochip - 2016-11-21 1:30 PM First of all, if I didn't know about the years put into the surveys, assemblies, and thousands and thousands of man hours put into getting a project like this permitted, I might be against it. Secondly, if I didn't know that this line parallels an existing line, I might be against it. Thirdly, if I didn't know how an HDD (horizontal directional drill) works to pull the pipe 80-90 ft below the river bed, I might be against it. Fourthly, if I didn't know a company's response to supe up environmental and construction standards in areas of contention, I might be against it. Fifth, if I didn't know about the hundreds of thousands of dollars invested in third party professional inspectors during construction, who insure absolute and total compliance to every industry standard, along with landowner, county, state, and federal requirement, I might be against it. Sixth, if I hadn't personally been present during HDD activity under rivers that are the drinking water source of several major US cities, I might be against it. Seventh, if I hadn't read and watched interviews of local Native Anericans regarding the pipeline, who basically indicated they're not concerned and they're sick of the community upheaval, I might be against it. Eighth: If I didn't know the huge budget of maintenance, corrosion professionals, and monitoring that goes on after the line is built, I might be against it. These lines aren't just left to their own devices to leak and pump product into the surrounding area. All the whistles and bells and flashing lights go off at any change in pressure, and the emergence shut down system takes over. Stories like this aren't about a pipeline, they're about war on American oil. People that protest here against our industry are protesting against American regulation and American cleanup and spill management practices, which are absolute. People don't get that when we buy foreign oil, there's little to NO environmental requirement. The Middle East is fine with destroying major ecosystems, at the cost of water, plants, air, and wildlife, not to mention civilian and worker safety. I'd rather drill and transport here at home, under heavy regulations and a more principled industry, then buy oil and gas from somewhere that probably did poison somebody to get it, with no chance of remedy. Edited to add the eighth. Yes!
This is so correct!! I'm so tired of people who aren't from here acting like they know the story! Thank you for your post!! | |
| | |
BHW's Lance Armstrong
Posts: 11134
Location: Somewhere between S@%&# stirrer and Saint | Bear - 2016-11-21 7:03 AM I'm not following real closely, but I see that they used a water cannon last night with the temperatures in the 20's.
They were protesting about a 1/2 mile north of the reservation and they were trespassing so the authorities were controling the crowd with tear gas and water cannon.
| |
| | |
BHW's Lance Armstrong
Posts: 11134
Location: Somewhere between S@%&# stirrer and Saint | There were hundreds of meetings on this pipeline and the tribe was invited but they chosenot to be represented. | |
| | |
Porta Potty Pants
Posts: 2600
| This is not true. There are requirements that must be met with regard to consultations with tribes. Public meetings do not meet those requirements. Therein lies one of the first problems.
With regard to the water cannons, concussion bullets, etc. A woman from NY was severely injured an may need to have her arm amputated. If you want to watch and see what weapons the protestors had or did not have, whether there were fires or not, there are several videos on Facebook that are taken live.
It's really a sad situation all the way around. | |
| | |
I just read the headlines
Posts: 4483
| azsun - 2016-11-23 9:47 AM
This is not true. There are requirements that must be met with regard to consultations with tribes. Public meetings do not meet those requirements. Therein lies one of the first problems.
With regard to the water cannons, concussion bullets, etc. A woman from NY was severely injured an may need to have her arm amputated. If you want to watch and see what weapons the protestors had or did not have, whether there were fires or not, there are several videos on Facebook that are taken live.
It's really a sad situation all the way around.
There are public documents that say otherwise.
There wrong things going on on both sides, and it looks to me that the private landowners are the ones who are getting the most screwed. | |
| | |
Location: Not Where I Want to Be | azsun - 2016-11-23 10:47 AM This is not true. There are requirements that must be met with regard to consultations with tribes. Public meetings do not meet those requirements. Therein lies one of the first problems. With regard to the water cannons, concussion bullets, etc. A woman from NY was severely injured an may need to have her arm amputated. If you want to watch and see what weapons the protestors had or did not have, whether there were fires or not, there are several videos on Facebook that are taken live. It's really a sad situation all the way around.
you seem to be in the minority here.
the only real sad thing about this is that LE hasn't turned their backs and let the land owners take care of it.
| |
| | |
Extreme Veteran
Posts: 380
| Yeah, let's just shoot em!/s
Edited by SloRide 2016-11-23 10:56 AM
| |
| | |
Extreme Veteran
Posts: 507
Location: Lost in the corn of Iowa. | I'm gonna chime in on this. First off, we have had protestors in our area. SE Iowa. My husband about ran them over because they were practically on the highway in the dark blocking a local company access to their own property. All that company was doing was hauling dirt from the pipeline sites and dumping the dirt onto property that they owned. And has anyone ever wondered how much other product is run underneath our feet?
This first picture is a map of the ammonia pipeline that is by the way far more dangerous than an oil pipeline
http://energyfromthorium.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/AmmoniaPipe...
This is a map of the dakota access pipeline.
http://mediad.publicbroadcasting.net/p/wium/files/styles/x_large/pu...
They are making a big stink about this and though I'm sure they feel that it is valid to them, they also need to start protesting all the other pipelines that run under their feet. If you're gonna protest one then by god protest them all. JMO.
ETA - The group that was protesting around my area wasn't even from the indian population to begin with. To me it just seems like the entitled generation want something to do because they are bored. (I know I'm gonna get flamed for that)
Edited by Girls_Gotta_Jet 2016-11-23 11:13 AM
| |
| | |
Extreme Veteran
Posts: 507
Location: Lost in the corn of Iowa. | LMS - 2016-11-22 8:01 AM Bear - 2016-11-21 10:32 PM Is it true that Warren Buffet has a lot to gain financially if oil is continued to be transported by rail? Isn't BNSF rail owned by Berkshire Hathaway? Most oil is transported by rail. Why would Obama want to delay or block the development of these pipelines? Doesn't this make you want to follow the money? Your question is answered with a simple google search. I realize many things online are not true, however, if BNSF was less occupied with oil tankers our farmers could transport their grain much easier-I haven't been by too many elevators in ND that don't have a huge pile of grain sitting outside their elevators. Point being there is soooo many facets to this story and so much outside help to the protestors I think it would honestly make our heads spin-just how deeply rooted much of this unrest is! I sincerely hope that this is "resolved" without someone being killed.
Actually, I hope BNSF becomes more occupied with hauling oil than grain. Because over the past 4 years I have seen so many hopper haulers fail because of this. I hope that the grain becomes moved by the trucks again instead on rail or barge personally. And because of the increased rail transport the price to have your grain trucked has fallen so much it isn't funny. Those hoppers running up and down the road aren't called welfare wagons for nothing. It's true. Why go broke hauling grain at $0.12/bushel when you can go haul something else and actually pay your bills. That is why a lot of overflow is setting on the ground around my area, can't find the trucks to haul it becuase grain is too cheap to haul. | |
| | |
Hummer's Hero
Posts: 3071
Location: Smack Dab in the Middle | Girls_Gotta_Jet - 2016-11-23 11:21 AM
LMS - 2016-11-22 8:01 AM Bear - 2016-11-21 10:32 PM Is it true that Warren Buffet has a lot to gain financially if oil is continued to be transported by rail? Isn't BNSF rail owned by Berkshire Hathaway? Most oil is transported by rail. Why would Obama want to delay or block the development of these pipelines? Doesn't this make you want to follow the money? Your question is answered with a simple google search. I realize many things online are not true, however, if BNSF was less occupied with oil tankers our farmers could transport their grain much easier-I haven't been by too many elevators in ND that don't have a huge pile of grain sitting outside their elevators. Point being there is soooo many facets to this story and so much outside help to the protestors I think it would honestly make our heads spin-just how deeply rooted much of this unrest is! I sincerely hope that this is "resolved" without someone being killed.
Actually, I hope BNSF becomes more occupied with hauling oil than grain. Because over the past 4 years I have seen so many hopper haulers fail because of this. I hope that the grain becomes moved by the trucks again instead on rail or barge personally. And because of the increased rail transport the price to have your grain trucked has fallen so much it isn't funny. Those hoppers running up and down the road aren't called welfare wagons for nothing. It's true. Why go broke hauling grain at $0.12/bushel when you can go haul something else and actually pay your bills. That is why a lot of overflow is setting on the ground around my area, can't find the trucks to haul it becuase grain is too cheap to haul.
Yes!! Ten thousand times, YES! Coming from the wife of a truck driver--who happens to pull a grain trailer...YES! We are lucky because my husband typically hauls food grade enough miles per week (NE to AR) to make a little better money, but he's been stuck doing the "Elevator Grain Shuffle" the past 10 days or so. I'm gonna feel it when I have to do books and budget next week...
Edited by RockinGR 2016-11-23 12:04 PM
| |
| | |
 Champ
Posts: 19623
Location: Peg-Leg Julia Grimm | classicpotatochip - 2016-11-21 11:30 AM
First of all, if I didn't know about the years put into the surveys, assemblies, and thousands and thousands of man hours put into getting a project like this permitted, I might be against it.
Secondly, if I didn't know that this line parallels an existing line, I might be against it.
Thirdly, if I didn't know how an HDD (horizontal directional drill) works to pull the pipe 80-90 ft below the river bed, I might be against it.
Fourthly, if I didn't know a company's response to supe up environmental and construction standards in areas of contention, I might be against it.
Fifth, if I didn't know about the hundreds of thousands of dollars invested in third party professional inspectors during construction, who insure absolute and total compliance to every industry standard, along with landowner, county, state, and federal requirement, I might be against it.
Sixth, if I hadn't personally been present during HDD activity under rivers that are the drinking water source of several major US cities, I might be against it.
Seventh, if I hadn't read and watched interviews of local Native Anericans regarding the pipeline, who basically indicated they're not concerned and they're sick of the community upheaval, I might be against it.
Eighth: If I didn't know the huge budget of maintenance, corrosion professionals, and monitoring that goes on after the line is built, I might be against it. These lines aren't just left to their own devices to leak and pump product into the surrounding area. All the whistles and bells and flashing lights go off at any change in pressure, and the emergence shut down system takes over.
Stories like this aren't about a pipeline, they're about war on American oil. People that protest here against our industry are protesting against American regulation and American cleanup and spill management practices, which are absolute. People don't get that when we buy foreign oil, there's little to NO environmental requirement. The Middle East is fine with destroying major ecosystems, at the cost of water, plants, air, and wildlife, not to mention civilian and worker safety.
I'd rather drill and transport here at home, under heavy regulations and a more principled industry, then buy oil and gas from somewhere that probably did poison somebody to get it, with no chance of remedy.
Edited to add the eighth.
 | |
| | |
 Hugs to You
Posts: 7550
Location: In The Land of Cotton | RockinGR - 2016-11-23 1:02 PM Girls_Gotta_Jet - 2016-11-23 11:21 AM LMS - 2016-11-22 8:01 AM Bear - 2016-11-21 10:32 PM Is it true that Warren Buffet has a lot to gain financially if oil is continued to be transported by rail? Isn't BNSF rail owned by Berkshire Hathaway? Most oil is transported by rail. Why would Obama want to delay or block the development of these pipelines? Doesn't this make you want to follow the money? Your question is answered with a simple google search. I realize many things online are not true, however, if BNSF was less occupied with oil tankers our farmers could transport their grain much easier-I haven't been by too many elevators in ND that don't have a huge pile of grain sitting outside their elevators. Point being there is soooo many facets to this story and so much outside help to the protestors I think it would honestly make our heads spin-just how deeply rooted much of this unrest is! I sincerely hope that this is "resolved" without someone being killed. Actually, I hope BNSF becomes more occupied with hauling oil than grain. Because over the past 4 years I have seen so many hopper haulers fail because of this. I hope that the grain becomes moved by the trucks again instead on rail or barge personally. And because of the increased rail transport the price to have your grain trucked has fallen so much it isn't funny. Those hoppers running up and down the road aren't called welfare wagons for nothing. It's true. Why go broke hauling grain at $0.12/bushel when you can go haul something else and actually pay your bills. That is why a lot of overflow is setting on the ground around my area, can't find the trucks to haul it becuase grain is too cheap to haul. Yes!! Ten thousand times, YES! Coming from the wife of a truck driver--who happens to pull a grain trailer...YES! We are lucky because my husband typically hauls food grade enough miles per week (NE to AR ) to make a little better money, but he's been stuck doing the "Elevator Grain Shuffle" the past 10 days or so. I'm gonna feel it when I have to do books and budget next week...
That has been going on for a long time - we had 26, walking floors, hoppers and end dumps. Feed was all we hauled - to lots and dairy farms.
You have ADM to thank for that - our motto was about ADM - Feed the World, starve the trucker.
We dead headed rather than haul for them. | |
| | |
Experienced Mouse Trapper
Posts: 3106
Location: North Dakota | RockinGR - 2016-11-23 12:02 PM Girls_Gotta_Jet - 2016-11-23 11:21 AM LMS - 2016-11-22 8:01 AM Bear - 2016-11-21 10:32 PM Is it true that Warren Buffet has a lot to gain financially if oil is continued to be transported by rail? Isn't BNSF rail owned by Berkshire Hathaway? Most oil is transported by rail. Why would Obama want to delay or block the development of these pipelines? Doesn't this make you want to follow the money? Your question is answered with a simple google search. I realize many things online are not true, however, if BNSF was less occupied with oil tankers our farmers could transport their grain much easier-I haven't been by too many elevators in ND that don't have a huge pile of grain sitting outside their elevators. Point being there is soooo many facets to this story and so much outside help to the protestors I think it would honestly make our heads spin-just how deeply rooted much of this unrest is! I sincerely hope that this is "resolved" without someone being killed. Actually, I hope BNSF becomes more occupied with hauling oil than grain. Because over the past 4 years I have seen so many hopper haulers fail because of this. I hope that the grain becomes moved by the trucks again instead on rail or barge personally. And because of the increased rail transport the price to have your grain trucked has fallen so much it isn't funny. Those hoppers running up and down the road aren't called welfare wagons for nothing. It's true. Why go broke hauling grain at $0.12/bushel when you can go haul something else and actually pay your bills. That is why a lot of overflow is setting on the ground around my area, can't find the trucks to haul it becuase grain is too cheap to haul. Yes!! Ten thousand times, YES! Coming from the wife of a truck driver--who happens to pull a grain trailer...YES! We are lucky because my husband typically hauls food grade enough miles per week (NE to AR ) to make a little better money, but he's been stuck doing the "Elevator Grain Shuffle" the past 10 days or so. I'm gonna feel it when I have to do books and budget next week...
My point in this respect is that hauling grain on trains is a heck of a lot safer than hauling oil on trains. BUT much cheaper too-which makes BNSF want to do everything they can to stop the pipeline.
I do hear regularly complaints about hauling prices from farmers around here-so there's a little bit of both sides of the story going on. | |
| | |
 Born not Made
Posts: 2931
Location: North Dakota | I just would really like to get back to "life as usual".
Today there was more activity all over the city. One location that protesters were gathered were in front of a church .... that has a daycare in it .... that has ZERO to do with the pipeline.
It seems like more and more, the events organized by the protesters have less to actually do with stopping the pipeline. At this point, it needs to be stopped by stopping easements, permits, etc. Attempting to remove a road blockade of torched trucks (put there in the first place by protest activity) at 8:30 PM in the dark on a Sunday night doesn't do anything except escalate tensions.
I have a bad feeling that something "big" is going to happen tomorrow, on Thanksgiving. I hope I am wrong.
| |
| | |
Extreme Veteran
Posts: 507
Location: Lost in the corn of Iowa. | RockinGR - 2016-11-23 12:02 PM
Girls_Gotta_Jet - 2016-11-23 11:21 AM
LMS - 2016-11-22 8:01 AM Bear - 2016-11-21 10:32 PM Is it true that Warren Buffet has a lot to gain financially if oil is continued to be transported by rail? Isn't BNSF rail owned by Berkshire Hathaway? Most oil is transported by rail. Why would Obama want to delay or block the development of these pipelines? Doesn't this make you want to follow the money? Your question is answered with a simple google search. I realize many things online are not true, however, if BNSF was less occupied with oil tankers our farmers could transport their grain much easier-I haven't been by too many elevators in ND that don't have a huge pile of grain sitting outside their elevators. Point being there is soooo many facets to this story and so much outside help to the protestors I think it would honestly make our heads spin-just how deeply rooted much of this unrest is! I sincerely hope that this is "resolved" without someone being killed.
Actually, I hope BNSF becomes more occupied with hauling oil than grain. Because over the past 4 years I have seen so many hopper haulers fail because of this. I hope that the grain becomes moved by the trucks again instead on rail or barge personally. And because of the increased rail transport the price to have your grain trucked has fallen so much it isn't funny. Those hoppers running up and down the road aren't called welfare wagons for nothing. It's true. Why go broke hauling grain at $0.12/bushel when you can go haul something else and actually pay your bills. That is why a lot of overflow is setting on the ground around my area, can't find the trucks to haul it becuase grain is too cheap to haul.
Yes!! Ten thousand times, YES! Coming from the wife of a truck driver--who happens to pull a grain trailer...YES! We are lucky because my husband typically hauls food grade enough miles per week (NE to AR ) to make a little better money, but he's been stuck doing the "Elevator Grain Shuffle" the past 10 days or so. I'm gonna feel it when I have to do books and budget next week...
My husband gave up the hopper hauling for this very reason. He has switched over to hauling ammonia, nitrogen and aircraft de-icer and he loves it. We have no regrets, during the slow season he will pull a hopper just to have something to do and man he is one grumpy SOB when he's doing it. He has to work twice as hard to make half the money. And when he does the fill in work it's always the elevator shuffle. | |
| | |
Veteran
Posts: 116
| And, yet . . . they leak. | |
| | |
Expert
Posts: 1432
| r_beau - 2016-11-23 2:39 PM I just would really like to get back to "life as usual".
Today there was more activity all over the city. One location that protesters were gathered were in front of a church .... that has a daycare in it .... that has ZERO to do with the pipeline.
It seems like more and more, the events organized by the protesters have less to actually do with stopping the pipeline. At this point, it needs to be stopped by stopping easements, permits, etc. Attempting to remove a road blockade of torched trucks (put there in the first place by protest activity) at 8:30 PM in the dark on a Sunday night doesn't do anything except escalate tensions.
I have a bad feeling that something "big" is going to happen tomorrow, on Thanksgiving. I hope I am wrong.
Apparently, Jane Fonda is providing a turkey dinner for them. yay... not.. So maybe they'll behave for ONE day. They need to go home and stop this nonsense before somebody gets killed. I live on a Rez and am sick to death of hearing about it. | |
| | |
 Nicknameless
Posts: 4565
Location: I can see the end of the world from here! | azsun - 2016-11-23 8:47 AM This is not true. There are requirements that must be met with regard to consultations with tribes. Public meetings do not meet those requirements. Therein lies one of the first problems. With regard to the water cannons, concussion bullets, etc. A woman from NY was severely injured an may need to have her arm amputated. If you want to watch and see what weapons the protestors had or did not have, whether there were fires or not, there are several videos on Facebook that are taken live. It's really a sad situation all the way around.
As sad as that is, the fact is, if you lay on the railroad tracks in front of an oncoming train...you will get squashed.
The protesters have an option, they can go home. The Leo's cannot.
This is part of the divide/conquer in America.
George Soros has made it very plain that his plan for a One World Order cannot be complete until State Sovereignty in the United States is abolished. Soros...he backs the Black Lives Matter, Occupy, Dump Trump, Democrats Untied...and NODAPL movements among others.
It is a game to him and the people are the pawns.
The amount of hate is building...especially against all white people.
All we can do is...resist! Do NOT fall for it.
Tribal lands are not sovereign nations...never have been, never will be. Furthermore, our federal gov't is not a sovereign nation...it's made up of sovereign states that form the Union. THIS is the issue.
Land 'ownership'.
The tribes receive monies from the fed...with neither being 'sovereign'...yet, they are creating issues throughout the west, in my back yard we're fighting a national monument, one that would give 5 different tribes 'co-managment', tribes that have no 'connection' to the 1.9 milliom acres the fed plans on stealing from the state of Utah.
Get educated...read the Federalist Papers, the Declaration of Indepence, our Constitution and Bill of Rights.
Then...assert your inalienable rights every chance you get and then some.
Stand up for the rights of the Natives to own their own land!!! INDIVIDUALLY. As citizens vs subjects.
| |
| | |
Porta Potty Pants
Posts: 2600
| I have read the federalist papers and the constitution, among other things ... including case law .. it's all required reading in law school. My over 20 years of legal practice is almost exclusively in the field of Indian law, so I have more than just a basic understanding. I think it's fair to say I'm very educated.
Article I, Section 8 of the US Constitution states Congress has "the power to regulate Commerce with foreign nations and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes” In doing so, the US entered treaties with individuals tribes. There are treaties with this tribe and others that give them the right to certain things, including clean water, water rights, hunting and fishing rights, health care, education etc. These treaty rights continue to survive, even if the land isn't "tribal" (and regardless of whether one is sovereign or not.) They are called usufructory rights. There are also reserved rights. Both are guaranteed in perpetuity by the US. The US entered treaties with tribes to acquire land as the settlers were expanding needed across the land. These agreements are protected by Article VI, Clause 2 of the US Constitution which states that the US Constitution is the supreme law of the land. All of this eventually lead to the "meaningful consultation" requirement that was not completed in this situation. Not to mention the fact the ACE permits have not been issued. Similarly, if you had a property interest in a piece of land and the government wanted to put a highway right through your property, they would have to either get you to agree to grant an easement or they would have to take the land by eminent domain. They couldn't just start building the roadway. There is a process that must and should be followed. It's a basic tenant of the law called due process ... also guaranteed by the Bill of Rights. It requires, at it's basic core, meaningful notice and opportunity to respond.
The point is .. there should be no train ... the tracks should not have been put down without meaningful consultation. Several LEO agencies have gone home and refused to return or their home agencies have refused to return as the agency has concluded that any mutual aid agreement utilized to bring in LEOs was inappropriate in this situation. One ND Sheriff, Gary Schwartzenberger was removed from duty by the Governor of North Dakota for "harassment and intimidation" and "fostering a quasi-military environment" in working the DAPL site.
This is such a tragic situation, no matter what happens. Sadly, the result of miscommunication and misinformation - regardless of what happens.
Edited by azsun 2016-11-27 1:59 PM
| |
| | |
 Take a Picture
Posts: 12838
| OregonBR - 2016-11-23 12:19 PM
classicpotatochip - 2016-11-21 11:30 AM
First of all, if I didn't know about the years put into the surveys, assemblies, and thousands and thousands of man hours put into getting a project like this permitted, I might be against it.
Secondly, if I didn't know that this line parallels an existing line, I might be against it.
Thirdly, if I didn't know how an HDD (horizontal directional drill) works to pull the pipe 80-90 ft below the river bed, I might be against it.
Fourthly, if I didn't know a company's response to supe up environmental and construction standards in areas of contention, I might be against it.
Fifth, if I didn't know about the hundreds of thousands of dollars invested in third party professional inspectors during construction, who insure absolute and total compliance to every industry standard, along with landowner, county, state, and federal requirement, I might be against it.
Sixth, if I hadn't personally been present during HDD activity under rivers that are the drinking water source of several major US cities, I might be against it.
Seventh, if I hadn't read and watched interviews of local Native Anericans regarding the pipeline, who basically indicated they're not concerned and they're sick of the community upheaval, I might be against it.
Eighth: If I didn't know the huge budget of maintenance, corrosion professionals, and monitoring that goes on after the line is built, I might be against it. These lines aren't just left to their own devices to leak and pump product into the surrounding area. All the whistles and bells and flashing lights go off at any change in pressure, and the emergence shut down system takes over.
Stories like this aren't about a pipeline, they're about war on American oil. People that protest here against our industry are protesting against American regulation and American cleanup and spill management practices, which are absolute. People don't get that when we buy foreign oil, there's little to NO environmental requirement. The Middle East is fine with destroying major ecosystems, at the cost of water, plants, air, and wildlife, not to mention civilian and worker safety.
I'd rather drill and transport here at home, under heavy regulations and a more principled industry, then buy oil and gas from somewhere that probably did poison somebody to get it, with no chance of remedy.
Edited to add the eighth.
Classic, you know I totally agree. I have lived surrounded by pipelines my entire life. There is a defunct one in my front yard. I live at the end of a dead end road. At the other end (beginning) of the road there is a high pressure gas line. The operating company sends out info all the time about their safety procedures and how to voice concerns. I really don't worry about it too much. People who have never been around pipelines are the ones causing the fuss
Edited by streakysox 2016-11-27 10:34 PM
| |
| | |
Elite Veteran
Posts: 933
Location: north dakota | azsun - 2016-11-27 1:58 PM
I have read the federalist papers and the constitution, among other things ... including case law .. it's all required reading in law school. My over 20 years of legal practice is almost exclusively in the field of Indian law, so I have more than just a basic understanding. I think it's fair to say I'm very educated.
Article I, Section 8 of the US Constitution states Congress has "the power to regulate Commerce with foreign nations and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes” In doing so, the US entered treaties with individuals tribes. There are treaties with this tribe and others that give them the right to certain things, including clean water, water rights, hunting and fishing rights, health care, education etc. These treaty rights continue to survive, even if the land isn't "tribal" (and regardless of whether one is sovereign or not.) They are called usufructory rights. There are also reserved rights. Both are guaranteed in perpetuity by the US. The US entered treaties with tribes to acquire land as the settlers were expanding needed across the land. These agreements are protected by Article VI, Clause 2 of the US Constitution which states that the US Constitution is the supreme law of the land. All of this eventually lead to the "meaningful consultation" requirement that was not completed in this situation. Not to mention the fact the ACE permits have not been issued. Similarly, if you had a property interest in a piece of land and the government wanted to put a highway right through your property, they would have to either get you to agree to grant an easement or they would have to take the land by eminent domain. They couldn't just start building the roadway. There is a process that must and should be followed. It's a basic tenant of the law called due process ... also guaranteed by the Bill of Rights. It requires, at it's basic core, meaningful notice and opportunity to respond.
The point is .. there should be no train ... the tracks should not have been put down without meaningful consultation. Several LEO agencies have gone home and refused to return or their home agencies have refused to return as the agency has concluded that any mutual aid agreement utilized to bring in LEOs was inappropriate in this situation. One ND Sheriff, Gary Schwartzenberger was removed from duty by the Governor of North Dakota for "harassment and intimidation" and "fostering a quasi-military environment" in working the DAPL site.
This is such a tragic situation, no matter what happens. Sadly, the result of miscommunication and misinformation - regardless of what happens.
The sheriff that was removed from duty was from a different part of the state and was removed for reasons that happened in his county and not with anything to due about the protest. He was there helping when authorities notified him.
http://www.thedickinsonpress.com/news/north-dakota/4136333-mckenzie...
Edited by ndcowgirl 2016-11-28 10:48 AM
| |
| | |
Location: Not Where I Want to Be | ndcowgirl - 2016-11-28 11:44 AM azsun - 2016-11-27 1:58 PM I have read the federalist papers and the constitution, among other things ... including case law .. it's all required reading in law school. My over 20 years of legal practice is almost exclusively in the field of Indian law, so I have more than just a basic understanding. I think it's fair to say I'm very educated. Article I, Section 8 of the US Constitution states Congress has "the power to regulate Commerce with foreign nations and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes” In doing so, the US entered treaties with individuals tribes. There are treaties with this tribe and others that give them the right to certain things, including clean water, water rights, hunting and fishing rights, health care, education etc. These treaty rights continue to survive, even if the land isn't "tribal" (and regardless of whether one is sovereign or not.) They are called usufructory rights. There are also reserved rights. Both are guaranteed in perpetuity by the US. The US entered treaties with tribes to acquire land as the settlers were expanding needed across the land. These agreements are protected by Article VI, Clause 2 of the US Constitution which states that the US Constitution is the supreme law of the land. All of this eventually lead to the "meaningful consultation" requirement that was not completed in this situation. Not to mention the fact the ACE permits have not been issued. Similarly, if you had a property interest in a piece of land and the government wanted to put a highway right through your property, they would have to either get you to agree to grant an easement or they would have to take the land by eminent domain. They couldn't just start building the roadway. There is a process that must and should be followed. It's a basic tenant of the law called due process ... also guaranteed by the Bill of Rights. It requires, at it's basic core, meaningful notice and opportunity to respond. The point is .. there should be no train ... the tracks should not have been put down without meaningful consultation. Several LEO agencies have gone home and refused to return or their home agencies have refused to return as the agency has concluded that any mutual aid agreement utilized to bring in LEOs was inappropriate in this situation. One ND Sheriff, Gary Schwartzenberger was removed from duty by the Governor of North Dakota for "harassment and intimidation" and "fostering a quasi-military environment" in working the DAPL site. This is such a tragic situation, no matter what happens. Sadly, the result of miscommunication and misinformation - regardless of what happens. The sheriff that was removed from duty was from a different part of the state and was removed for reasons that happened in his county and not with anything to due about the protest. He was there helping when authorities notified him. http://www.thedickinsonpress.com/news/north-dakota/4136333-mckenzie...
there is no reason to cloud the agenda with facts.
Please stop doing so.
| |
| | |
Elite Veteran
Posts: 1079
| ITS SNOWING!! WHOOOP!! 
ND is NOT kind in the winter and for once I say bring it on. Those southerners will not know what hit them. Whatever motivation they have for being here will not matter anymore when it's 5 degrees with a 30 below windchill. Buh Bye.
I read a very interesting article today that asked the important question where is the outrage amongst all these tribes about true Native issues? Poverty? Suicide? Child neglect? Rapes? Obesity? Diabetes? Etc. Etc. Etc. The reservations are a FAR FAR FAR cry from a sanctity for life and protection of all things nature/water/etc.
I am sorry if this offends anyone but i am FROM ND AND LIVE ADJACENT to a Reservation. So, I've seen it. | |
| | |
Porta Potty Pants
Posts: 2600
| star1218 - 2016-11-28 11:27 AM
ITS SNOWING!! WHOOOP!! ND is NOT kind in the winter and for once I say bring it on. Those southerners will not know what hit them. Whatever motivation they have for being here will not matter anymore when it's 5 degrees with a 30 below windchill. Buh Bye.
I read a very interesting article today that asked the important question where is the outrage amongst all these tribes about true Native issues? Poverty? Suicide? Child neglect? Rapes? Obesity? Diabetes? Etc. Etc. Etc. The reservations are a FAR FAR FAR cry from a sanctity for life and protection of all things nature/water/etc.
I am sorry if this offends anyone but i am FROM ND AND LIVE ADJACENT to a Reservation. So, I've seen it.
This is a very true statement. There is quite a bit of poverty and other terrible living conditions on the reservations. I honestly don't know if I personally would be able to live throughout the winter conditions there. But, I'm guessing only time will tell. | |
| | |
Straight Shooter
Posts: 5725
Location: SW North Dakota | I really have appreciated this thread. I don't know how to feel about the whole situation, other than frustrated. The "professional protestors" have made the big mess of it all- even Standing Rock agrees with that.
This is one of the most "grown-up" debates I've seen on the subject, and for that, THANKS! | |
| |
|
DAPL