|
|
 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
| |
| |
| |
Folks on-line