- Dołączono
- 11 Lis 2013
Except it's being built entirely on privately owned land that was legally purchased.
Standing Rock Protests and DAPL
- Twórca wątku ASoulMan
- Data rozpoczęcia
-
🇵🇦 Nuestro primer dominio localizado está en español en kiwifarms.pa. Our first localized domain is on Spanish on kiwifarms.pa.
-
Want to keep track of this thread?
Accounts can bookmark posts, watch threads for updates, and jump back to where you stopped reading.
Create account
- Dołączono
- 14 Mar 2014
U guys do know that there are already tons of pipelines that are in this area right?
These people are just a bunch of attention whores on the same level as Trump Protesters.
There was nothing wrong with the legal grounds for this and there is nothing that can be done.
Deal with it.
These people are just a bunch of attention whores on the same level as Trump Protesters.
There was nothing wrong with the legal grounds for this and there is nothing that can be done.
Deal with it.
- Dołączono
- 1 Lut 2015
And the only alternative to pipelines is mobile transport via crude rail tanker. You know, those train cars that keep derailing, exploding, and burning down towns across Canada and the US with their atrocious safety record.
- Dołączono
- 14 Mar 2014
Look at how many awful pipelines there are in North Dakota ruining the environment, there are so many compared to the rest of the USA. It's one step from being turned into an inhospitable wasteland.
WE NEED TO STOP IT RIGHT NOW GUYS.
/sarcasm
Ostatnio edytowane:
- Dołączono
- 11 Lis 2013
http://www.wsj.com/articles/what-th...x_picks&cx_tag=poptarget&cx_artPos=2#cxrecs_s
What the Dakota Access Pipeline Is Really About
The standoff isn’t about tribal rights or water, but a White House that ignores the rule of law.
A little more than two weeks ago, during a confrontation between protesters and law enforcement, an improvised explosive device was detonated on a public bridge in southern North Dakota. That was simply the latest manifestation of the “prayerful” and “peaceful” protests against the Dakota Access Pipeline.
Escalating tensions were temporarily defused Sunday when the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, at the direction of the Obama administration, announced it would refuse to grant the final permit needed to complete the $3.8 billion project. The pipeline, which runs nearly 1,200 miles from the Bakken Shale in North Dakota to Illinois, is nearly complete except for a small section where it needs to pass under the Missouri River. Denying the permit for that construction only punts the issue to next month—to a new president who won’t thumb his nose at the rule of law.
Like many North Dakotans, I’ve had to endure preaching about the pipeline from the press, environmental activists, musicians and politicians in other states. More often than not, these sermons are informed by little more than a Facebook post. At the risk of spoiling the protesters’ narrative, I’d like to bring us back to ground truth.
• This isn’t about tribal rights or protecting cultural resources. The pipeline does not cross any land owned by the Standing Rock Sioux. The land under discussion belongs to private owners and the federal government. To suggest that the Standing Rock tribe has the legal ability to block the pipeline is to turn America’s property rights upside down.
• Two federal courts have rejected claims that the tribe wasn’t consulted. The project’s developer and the Army Corps made dozens of overtures to the Standing Rock Sioux over more than two years. Often these attempts were ignored or rejected, with the message that the tribe would only accept termination of the project.
• Other tribes and parties did participate in the process. More than 50 tribes were consulted, and their concerns resulted in 140 adjustments to the pipeline’s route. The project’s developer and the Army Corps were clearly concerned about protecting tribal artifacts and cultural sites. Any claim otherwise is unsupported by the record. The pipeline’s route was also studied—and ultimately supported—by the North Dakota Public Service Commission (on which I formerly served), the State Historic Preservation Office, and multiple independent archaeologists.
• This isn’t about water protection. Years before the pipeline was announced, the tribe was working with the Bureau of Reclamation and the Army Corps to relocate its drinking-water intake. The new site sits roughly 70 miles downstream of where the pipeline is slated to cross the Missouri River. Notably, the new intake, according to the Bureau of Reclamation, will be 1.6 miles downstream of an elevated railroad bridge that carries tanker cars carrying crude oil.
Further, the pipeline will be installed about 100 feet below the riverbed. Automatic shut-off valves will be employed on either side of the river, and the pipeline will be constructed to exceed many federal safety requirements.
Other pipelines carrying oil, gas and refined products already cross the Missouri River at least a dozen times upstream of the tribe’s intake. The corridor where the Dakota Access Pipeline will run is directly adjacent to another pipeline, which carries natural gas under the riverbed, as well as an overhead electric transmission line. This site was chosen because it is largely a brownfield area that was disturbed long ago by previous infrastructure.
• This isn’t about the climate. The oil that will be shipped through the pipeline is already being produced. But right now it is transported in more carbon-intensive ways, such as by railroad or long-haul tanker truck. So trying to thwart the pipeline to reduce greenhouse gas could have the opposite effect.
So what is the pipeline dispute really about? Political expediency in a White House that does not see itself as being bound by the rule of law. The Obama administration has decided to build a political legacy rather than lead the country. It is facilitating an illegal occupation that has grown wildly out of control. That the economy depends on a consistent and predictable permitting regime seems never to have crossed the president’s mind.
There is no doubt that Native American communities have historically suffered at the hands of the federal government. But to litigate that history on the back of a legally permitted river crossing is absurd. The Obama administration should enforce the law, release the easement and conclude this dangerous standoff.
Mr. Cramer, a Republican, represents North Dakota in the U.S. House. As a member of the North Dakota Public Service Commission (2003-12) he helped site the original Keystone Pipeline completed in 2010.
What the Dakota Access Pipeline Is Really About
The standoff isn’t about tribal rights or water, but a White House that ignores the rule of law.
A little more than two weeks ago, during a confrontation between protesters and law enforcement, an improvised explosive device was detonated on a public bridge in southern North Dakota. That was simply the latest manifestation of the “prayerful” and “peaceful” protests against the Dakota Access Pipeline.
Escalating tensions were temporarily defused Sunday when the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, at the direction of the Obama administration, announced it would refuse to grant the final permit needed to complete the $3.8 billion project. The pipeline, which runs nearly 1,200 miles from the Bakken Shale in North Dakota to Illinois, is nearly complete except for a small section where it needs to pass under the Missouri River. Denying the permit for that construction only punts the issue to next month—to a new president who won’t thumb his nose at the rule of law.
Like many North Dakotans, I’ve had to endure preaching about the pipeline from the press, environmental activists, musicians and politicians in other states. More often than not, these sermons are informed by little more than a Facebook post. At the risk of spoiling the protesters’ narrative, I’d like to bring us back to ground truth.
• This isn’t about tribal rights or protecting cultural resources. The pipeline does not cross any land owned by the Standing Rock Sioux. The land under discussion belongs to private owners and the federal government. To suggest that the Standing Rock tribe has the legal ability to block the pipeline is to turn America’s property rights upside down.
• Two federal courts have rejected claims that the tribe wasn’t consulted. The project’s developer and the Army Corps made dozens of overtures to the Standing Rock Sioux over more than two years. Often these attempts were ignored or rejected, with the message that the tribe would only accept termination of the project.
• Other tribes and parties did participate in the process. More than 50 tribes were consulted, and their concerns resulted in 140 adjustments to the pipeline’s route. The project’s developer and the Army Corps were clearly concerned about protecting tribal artifacts and cultural sites. Any claim otherwise is unsupported by the record. The pipeline’s route was also studied—and ultimately supported—by the North Dakota Public Service Commission (on which I formerly served), the State Historic Preservation Office, and multiple independent archaeologists.
• This isn’t about water protection. Years before the pipeline was announced, the tribe was working with the Bureau of Reclamation and the Army Corps to relocate its drinking-water intake. The new site sits roughly 70 miles downstream of where the pipeline is slated to cross the Missouri River. Notably, the new intake, according to the Bureau of Reclamation, will be 1.6 miles downstream of an elevated railroad bridge that carries tanker cars carrying crude oil.
Further, the pipeline will be installed about 100 feet below the riverbed. Automatic shut-off valves will be employed on either side of the river, and the pipeline will be constructed to exceed many federal safety requirements.
Other pipelines carrying oil, gas and refined products already cross the Missouri River at least a dozen times upstream of the tribe’s intake. The corridor where the Dakota Access Pipeline will run is directly adjacent to another pipeline, which carries natural gas under the riverbed, as well as an overhead electric transmission line. This site was chosen because it is largely a brownfield area that was disturbed long ago by previous infrastructure.
• This isn’t about the climate. The oil that will be shipped through the pipeline is already being produced. But right now it is transported in more carbon-intensive ways, such as by railroad or long-haul tanker truck. So trying to thwart the pipeline to reduce greenhouse gas could have the opposite effect.
So what is the pipeline dispute really about? Political expediency in a White House that does not see itself as being bound by the rule of law. The Obama administration has decided to build a political legacy rather than lead the country. It is facilitating an illegal occupation that has grown wildly out of control. That the economy depends on a consistent and predictable permitting regime seems never to have crossed the president’s mind.
There is no doubt that Native American communities have historically suffered at the hands of the federal government. But to litigate that history on the back of a legally permitted river crossing is absurd. The Obama administration should enforce the law, release the easement and conclude this dangerous standoff.
Mr. Cramer, a Republican, represents North Dakota in the U.S. House. As a member of the North Dakota Public Service Commission (2003-12) he helped site the original Keystone Pipeline completed in 2010.
- Dołączono
- 29 Lis 2015
I think the main issue is that the pipeline is running close to tribal land.
http://www.cnn.com/interactive/2016/12/us/dapl-protests-cnnphotos/
There's a thing called a 'sovereign nation'--tribes that have tribal lands have their own government, and a sovereign nation is not under the US' jurisdiction.
- Dołączono
- 14 Mar 2014
If you don't own the land you cannot do anything about it.
You said it yourself, they do not own it. Complaining about them doing the pipeline is the same as bitching about your neighbor building a pool in the yard that they own. There is 100% no legal standing in any way, shape, or form for these protests. At all.
Really all these protesters are just a bunch of attention whores who will never benefit society in any way, shape, or form their entire lives along with those Trump protesters and the Occupy Now retards.
Looks like we need to finish the job that our White ancestors started.
Ostatnio edytowane:
- Dołączono
- 29 Lis 2015
Ow, the edge.
If the pipeline risks the safety and drinkability of their water, it's their problem. If the government came walking in and started building a pipeline close to your house and your property, and it ran the risk of tainting your water supply, you'd probably pitch a fit too.
- Dołączono
- 18 Maj 2014
he's right though the pipeline is on federally owned land and Indian tribes are sovereign entities. They don't get to derail U.S energy policy with woo hoo spirit crap Just like I don't get to march onto a reservation and start telling them what to do.
- Dołączono
- 29 Lis 2015
- Dołączono
- 18 Maj 2014
Please link me to credible peer reviewed studies that clearly show a correlation between the pipeline and environmental damage. And make it an academic journal too, no rags or statements from chief Screeching Vulture or whatever.
- Dołączono
- 31 Sie 2015
$10 says you're not even white
R
RI 360
Guest
kiwifarms.net
Let's send them blankets.
- Dołączono
- 29 Lis 2015
- Dołączono
- 18 Maj 2014
Of course they do however the authorities also have every right to remove them from illegally occupying federal property and threatening people. Find a legitimate way to air your grievances, don't break the law.
- Dołączono
- 6 Lis 2014
But doing it legitimatly is HARD work yall!
- Dołączono
- 29 Lis 2015
Tell that to the autistic, non-native protesters who are legitimately shitting up the place.
http://m.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/nov/28/complaints-whites-co-opting-dakota-access-protest/
- Dołączono
- 18 Maj 2014
Those people need to fuck off. I would have zero complaints if the cops maced all of the college idiots treating this controversy like Burning Man.
- Dołączono
- 30 Lis 2016
My main concern: How the FUCK do people afford to go protest for this shit? I can't just quit my goddamn job and go to goddamn North Dakota. I barely afford to do the things I enjoy doing while making car/rent/ect payments. Holdin' picket signs don't keep milk in the fridge. How the fuck are there people from like the east coast or whatever that just have time to do this shit. I feel like it just has to be your life. Like people ages 18-30 going there to protest and they say bullshit like "I care because I'm like barely any significant fraction of Cherokee/Random Tribe" How the fuck do they pay for that shit? What do they do? How are they doing it? What about their fucking lives outside of the protest? Even being half Ho-Chunk, I simply could not bring myself to just drop everything and go protest this even as sad as I think it is.
- Dołączono
- 18 Maj 2014
That's a big part of why the natives are pissed. College assholes with trust funds are coming and going "we understand your struggle lol" while they scarf take out and shitpost on their Iphones.