# Let's talk about the Dakota Access Pipeline and the Protests **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [November 24, 2016, 6:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-talk-about-the-dakota-access-pipeline-and-the-protests/772907 "2016-11-24T18:35:31Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 8
**Author:** ![drachillix](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/48db29/32.png) [@drachillix](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/drachillix)\ **Post date:** [November 30, 2016, 12:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-talk-about-the-dakota-access-pipeline-and-the-protests/772907/141 "2016-11-30T00:27:42Z")
> [@BrerRobert](#): > > I haven’t seen any evidence at all that her injuries were caused by the police. Do you have any reason, other than the claims of her father and the tribe, to believe that the police are using any sort of devices capable of causing the type of injuries she has? Contrary to the father’s statements, police do not use concussion grenades, those are military weapons. [Grenade - Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grenade#Concussion) During a discussion on FB I messaged a couple FB friends, one a 3 tour Marine infantryman and the other an army infantry battalion CO both in Iraq. The consensus was You would practically have to duct tape a flashbang to your arm to get that kind of damage. If it had been a concussion Mk3 concussion grenade that people keep citing as the weapon in question, she would be very very dead as well as have far more distributed damage across her body. Those grenades are designed to kill from concussion in enclosed spaces. its got half a pound of explosive in it. More than enough to do horrific damage to a human body. The Army guy stated he HAD seen bullets rip up sections of flesh like that, but that it would seem very odd to have an explosive device do that kind of damage, to that area, without other damage to surrounding parts of her body. ---
**Author:** ![Magiver](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/4491bb/32.png) [@Magiver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Magiver)\ **Post date:** [November 30, 2016, 12:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-talk-about-the-dakota-access-pipeline-and-the-protests/772907/142 "2016-11-30T00:30:29Z")
> [@davidm](#): > > Which ignores my point about whether or not the cause is just. No it doesn’t, I addressed it head on. If you don’t know what you’re talking about then it’s not a just cause. “I have concerns” is a rant and the protestors are rebels without a clue. To date they’ve done 100 million dollars of damage to the project and should be held to account for it. ---
**Author:** ![Northern\_Piper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/northern_piper/32/5304_2.png) [@Northern\_Piper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Northern_Piper)\ **Post date:** [November 30, 2016, 12:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-talk-about-the-dakota-access-pipeline-and-the-protests/772907/143 "2016-11-30T00:52:17Z")
Changing the subject slightly, I found it very odd that an inter-state pipeline apparently does not need general approval from any federal regulator. According to the District Court decision I linked to, the only reason federal law gets triggered is because a very small portion of the land (1%) is under federal jurisdiction. But for that, the Feds would not have any jurisdiction. Quite different from Canada, where an inter-provincial pipeline needs a federal approval, regardless who owns the land. ---
**Author:** ![Northern\_Piper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/northern_piper/32/5304_2.png) [@Northern\_Piper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Northern_Piper)\ **Post date:** [November 30, 2016, 1:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-talk-about-the-dakota-access-pipeline-and-the-protests/772907/144 "2016-11-30T01:45:23Z")
> [@Try2B\_Comprehensive](#): > > FWIW, this pipeline is designed to carry Bakken shale oil, not Canadian tar sands. In cases where oil interests want to pipe tar sands across America, my response is that they must either 1) refine it into oil in Canada first or 2) take a flying leap. > > Bakken oil is at least conventional oil, and therefore not as dangerous. But try telling that to people downriver from a spill… It was American Bakken oil which destroyed the town of Lac Mégantic in Quebec in 2013, resulting in the deaths of 47 people, who were burnt to death. > **[Lac-Mégantic rail disaster](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lac-M%C3%A9gantic_rail_disaster)** > > The Lac-Mégantic rail disaster occurred in the town of Lac-Mégantic, Quebec, Canada, on July 6, 2013, at approximately 1:14 a.m. EDT, when an unattended 73-car Montreal, Maine and Atlantic Railway (MMA) freight train carrying Bakken Formation crude oil rolled down a 1.2% grade from Nantes and derailed downtown, resulting in the explosion and fire of multiple tank cars. Forty-seven people were killed. More than thirty buildings in Lac-Mégantic's town centre (roughly half of the downtown a The Tr... That horrible accident is one of the reasons I’m asking what the protestors are suggesting as an alternative. Shipping oil by rail or truck, right through towns and cities, strikes me as more dangerous than shipping it in an underground pipeline. ---
**Author:** ![Northern\_Piper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/northern_piper/32/5304_2.png) [@Northern\_Piper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Northern_Piper)\ **Post date:** [November 30, 2016, 3:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-talk-about-the-dakota-access-pipeline-and-the-protests/772907/145 "2016-11-30T03:04:50Z")
This discussion has made me ask a question in GQ, which I hope can remain factual, to provide some context to this debate: [What is the fatality rate for oil pipelines?](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=812429) ---
**Author:** ![Fotheringay-Phipps](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/d9b06d/32.png) [@Fotheringay-Phipps](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fotheringay-Phipps)\ **Post date:** [November 30, 2016, 2:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-talk-about-the-dakota-access-pipeline-and-the-protests/772907/146 "2016-11-30T14:55:27Z")
> [@Northern\_Piper](#): > > As **Rickjay** commented, it would be awful reckless for a company to spend $100 million on something it doesn’t need… Possible worth noting that $100M is not the cost of the pipeline. That’s the amount of money the company (claims to have) lost due to the delays. The cost of the pipeline is $3.8B. ---
**Author:** ![moldmonkey](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/ee59a6/32.png) [@moldmonkey](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/moldmonkey)\ **Post date:** [November 30, 2016, 3:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-talk-about-the-dakota-access-pipeline-and-the-protests/772907/147 "2016-11-30T15:44:40Z")
Here’s an article from 2015 that shows 50% of Bakken oil moves by rail. It was higher but the drop in prices/production has allowed the percentage to drop. Basically the existing pipelines are maxed and right now during a period of lower production they still have to move 50% by rail. > **[Oil Shipments By Rail Declining | OilPrice.com](https://oilprice.com/Energy/Crude-Oil/Oil-Shipments-By-Rail-Declining.html)** > > The Association of American Railroads reported that oil shipments by rail are currently in decline after having peaked in October last year, returning to 2013 levels > [@](#): > > I am not sure about this. Already, the US has a glut, with oil in the price under $48/bbl. The oil companies, obviously, want better access to international markets, which DAPL will help facilitate. From a “I want cheap gas” perspective, this pipeline will not have that effect. Who said anything about the pipeline leading to cheap gas? Even at this time of low prices, they are moving a lot of oil by rail which is more expensive and has higher risks of accidents. My comment about all of us using oil is about our society being built around energy and materials that come from oil. In order for society to function, we need to have efficient and reliable infrastructure to move that oil. Pipelines in general are a better but not perfect answer. They need to be regulated and designed well and all affected people need to be taken into account but we still need them. Protests about specific pipelines are NIMBY. I see lots of comments about renewable energy in relation to the protests but we are long ways from being able to replace oil entirely. ---
**Author:** ![moldmonkey](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/ee59a6/32.png) [@moldmonkey](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/moldmonkey)\ **Post date:** [November 30, 2016, 4:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-talk-about-the-dakota-access-pipeline-and-the-protests/772907/148 "2016-11-30T16:04:12Z")
To clarify my position even though I think its NIMBY, I fully support the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe peacefully protesting and pursuing reviews & lawsuits. I don’t consider mock charging police officers on horseback looking for a reaction, vandalizing equipment, blocking a public highway with burned out vehicles, or throwing things at the police to be peaceful protest. > **[Tension Between Police and Standing Rock Protesters Reaches Boiling Point...](https://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/29/us/dakota-access-pipeline-protest.html?_r=0)** > > The tension had been building for months, with Native Americans who had camped out saying that the Dakota Access pipeline threatens the region’s water supply. ---
**Author:** ![Northern\_Piper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/northern_piper/32/5304_2.png) [@Northern\_Piper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Northern_Piper)\ **Post date:** [November 30, 2016, 4:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-talk-about-the-dakota-access-pipeline-and-the-protests/772907/149 "2016-11-30T16:06:12Z")
> [@Fotheringay-Phipps](#): > > Possible worth noting that $100M is not the cost of the pipeline. That’s the amount of money the company (claims to have) lost due to the delays. The cost of the pipeline is $3.8B. Thank you. I was mistaken. That higher amount makes the argument that the pipeline is not needed even more dubious, in my opinion. Why would a company that is in business to turn a profit spend $3.8 billion dollars for a new pipeline if existing transportation facilities were adequate to carry the load? ---
**Author:** ![Northern\_Piper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/northern_piper/32/5304_2.png) [@Northern\_Piper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Northern_Piper)\ **Post date:** [November 30, 2016, 4:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-talk-about-the-dakota-access-pipeline-and-the-protests/772907/150 "2016-11-30T16:07:14Z")
> [@moldmonkey](#): > > To clarify my position even though I think its NIMBY, I fully support the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe peacefully protesting and pursuing reviews & lawsuits. > > I don’t consider mock charging police officers on horseback looking for a reaction, vandalizing equipment, blocking a public highway with burned out vehicles, or throwing things at the police to be peaceful protest. > > [http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/29/us/dakota-access-pipeline-protest.html?\_r=0](http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/29/us/dakota-access-pipeline-protest.html?_r=0) No disagreement here with either statement. ---
**Author:** ![August\_West](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/august_west/32/18069_2.png) [@August\_West](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/August_West)\ **Post date:** [November 30, 2016, 5:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-talk-about-the-dakota-access-pipeline-and-the-protests/772907/151 "2016-11-30T17:21:29Z")
**Magiver** , you keep stating as fact that the tribe has been uninvolved and has not made their concerns known until it was “too late”. In fact, the tribe made it’s opposition to the pipeline very clear in September 2014 in a meeting with ETP (video [here](https://www.facebook.com/Standing-Rock-Sioux-Tribe-402298239798452/videos/)) and informed them that they considered that land to still belong to the tribe under treaty. The tribe also passed a moratorium on pipelines in their territory in 2012. The approval of the pipeline was “fast-tracked” through the Army Corps of Engineers, which necessarily limits the amount of time to voice concerns. I agree that the tribe could have done more in the initial stages of the process, but to say they did nothing and voiced no concerns prior to this year is false. ---
**Author:** ![davidm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/davidm/32/225_2.png) [@davidm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/davidm)\ **Post date:** [November 30, 2016, 7:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-talk-about-the-dakota-access-pipeline-and-the-protests/772907/152 "2016-11-30T19:24:34Z")
> [@Magiver](#): > > No it doesn’t, I addressed it head on. If you don’t know what you’re talking about then it’s not a just cause. “I have concerns” is a rant and the protestors are rebels without a clue. To date they’ve done 100 million dollars of damage to the project and should be held to account for it. The justness of the cause has nothing to do with the due diligence or lack thereof by the oil companies and government engineers. Their due diligence doesn’t change past history. It also has nothing to do with any damage caused by the influx of outsiders. If the protestors have truly caused $100 million in damages (cite please) then they are in the wrong also. But again, that doesn’t mean that the cause is unjust, just that some of the protestors for that cause are acting wrongly. But I really don’t want to get into a long back and forth about the definition of “just” or whether or not something meets that definition. Plainly, you and I aren’t going to agree on this. ---
**Author:** ![k9bfriender](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/k9bfriender/32/3283_2.png) [@k9bfriender](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/k9bfriender)\ **Post date:** [November 30, 2016, 7:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-talk-about-the-dakota-access-pipeline-and-the-protests/772907/153 "2016-11-30T19:29:44Z")
> [@davidm](#): > > The justness of the cause has nothing to do with the due diligence or lack thereof by the oil companies and government engineers. Their due diligence doesn’t change past history. It also has nothing to do with any damage caused by the influx of outsiders. If the protestors have truly caused $100 million in damages (cite please) then they are in the wrong also. But again, that doesn’t mean that the cause is unjust, just that some of the protestors for that cause are acting wrongly. > > But I really don’t want to get into a long back and forth about the definition of “just” or whether or not something meets that definition. Plainly, you and I aren’t going to agree on this. I haven’t tracked it down, but I am pretty sure that the bulk of the $100 mill being thrown about is loss of future revenue. If they are planning on making a million dollars a day off the pipeline, then every day of delay “costs” a million dollars. The protesters did not destroy millions of dollars worth of equipment. ---
**Author:** ![davidm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/davidm/32/225_2.png) [@davidm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/davidm)\ **Post date:** [November 30, 2016, 7:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-talk-about-the-dakota-access-pipeline-and-the-protests/772907/154 "2016-11-30T19:35:49Z")
> [@Northern\_Piper](#): > > Thank you. I was mistaken. That higher amount makes the argument that the pipeline is not needed even more dubious, in my opinion. > > Why would a company that is in business to turn a profit spend $3.8 billion dollars for a new pipeline if existing transportation facilities were adequate to carry the load? Perhaps to lure some of the oil transportation business away from competitors? Just because something is profitable for a business doesn’t necessarily mean that it’s needed by society. Competition causes lots of redundancy. Note that I’m not saying that the government should be trying to eliminate redundancy just for the sake of doing so. What I’m saying is that it is relevant to cost / benefit considerations. ---
**Author:** ![Snowboarder\_Bo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/snowboarder_bo/32/229_2.png) [@Snowboarder\_Bo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Snowboarder_Bo)\ **Post date:** [December 1, 2016, 12:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-talk-about-the-dakota-access-pipeline-and-the-protests/772907/155 "2016-12-01T00:47:07Z")
**Northern Piper** , thank you for the links. I haven’t had time to go thru them all yet (I am working a gig with long hours), but a friend did show me [this video by JP Sears making the case to support the oil companies](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CZJXvoxmR2I). ---
**Author:** ![levdrakon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/49beb7/32.png) [@levdrakon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/levdrakon)\ **Post date:** [December 1, 2016, 1:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-talk-about-the-dakota-access-pipeline-and-the-protests/772907/156 "2016-12-01T01:36:18Z")
> [@Snowboarder\_Bo](#): > > **Northern Piper** , thank you for the links. I haven’t had time to go thru them all yet (I am working a gig with long hours), but a friend did show me [this video by JP Sears making the case to support the oil companies](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CZJXvoxmR2I). LOL. Great, now I’m going to spend all evening watching his videos. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Stamos\_Left\_Ear](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_stamos_left_ear/32/3198_2.png) [@John\_Stamos\_Left\_Ear](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Stamos_Left_Ear)\ **Post date:** [December 5, 2016, 12:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-talk-about-the-dakota-access-pipeline-and-the-protests/772907/157 "2016-12-05T00:23:28Z")
> [@](#): > > The Army Corps of Engineers will not grant the permit for the Dakota Access pipeline to drill under the Missouri river, the army announced on Sunday, handing a major victory to the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe after a months-long campaign against the pipeline. > > Assistant secretary for civil works Jo-Ellen Darcy announced the decision on Sunday, with the army saying it was based on “a need to explore alternate routes” for the crossing. > > “Although we have had continuing discussion and exchanges of new information with the Standing Rock Sioux and Dakota Access, it’s clear that there’s more work to do,” Darcy said in a statement. “The best way to complete that work responsibly and expeditiously is to explore alternate routes for the pipeline crossing.” > > [The Guardian](https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/dec/04/dakota-access-pipeline-permit-denied-standing-rock) So chalk one up for activism and protest working to create awareness and change. ---
**Author:** ![JRDelirious](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jrdelirious/32/9531_2.png) [@JRDelirious](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JRDelirious)\ **Post date:** [December 5, 2016, 12:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-talk-about-the-dakota-access-pipeline-and-the-protests/772907/158 "2016-12-05T00:34:19Z")
May have only achieved a punt to the next administration. But still yes, it got the current authorities to pull back and rethink (and notice the big-picture project is NOT being abandoned, just “alternatives being explored”). ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [December 5, 2016, 12:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-talk-about-the-dakota-access-pipeline-and-the-protests/772907/159 "2016-12-05T00:36:29Z")
How does one get from Point A to Point B without crossing the Missouri River (or one of its tributaries)? I guess you could cross the Mississippi. ---
**Author:** ![Martin\_Hyde](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/47e85d/32.png) [@Martin\_Hyde](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Martin_Hyde)\ **Post date:** [December 5, 2016, 12:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-talk-about-the-dakota-access-pipeline-and-the-protests/772907/160 "2016-12-05T00:41:10Z")
Yeah, I’m interested to see what the Trump Administration does. I’ve spent a tiny bit of time since the announcement researching what Trump could actually do. Without some actual change to the law of the land, I don’t believe Trump can just swoop in on 1/20 and say “easement granted, keep drilling.” From what I have seen these would be the likely things he could do sans changes to the law: 1. Energy Transfer Partners could file some sort of legal action related to the denial of the easement, my understanding is the easement that the CoE declined to grant is a different matter from the permits to actually build the pipeline. ETP actually has the proper permits already, so if it find a legal way to contest the denial of the easement you could see a conservative version of “sue and settle” take place. For those that do not know, in the face of six years of a Republican Congress, an environmental strategy often followed by the Obama administration was to have environmental activists, with positions similar to those of the administration, sue the government over certain environmental causes. For example suing to say that x animal should be a protected species. The administration has broad discretion in what lawsuits it will choose to defend, it can always just offer to settle, or even just concede the case and “let” the other side win. Through this mechanism the Obama Administration has been able to “lose” a lot of lawsuits that have the effect of expanding environmental protections to various things. Trump could use a similar strategy with this, ETP could sue, and Trump’s lackeys could simply issue orders that the suit be settled. It’d never be decided in a court at all, and the rigorous NEPA stuff, the Environmental Impact Study, none of that would ever have to happen. 1. Trump could apply pressure to have the approvals for the alternate route fast tracked as much as possible. How much of an impact this would have would be hard to gauge, there are time lines involved for going the “new route”, an EIS has to be performed to determine which alternate route makes the most sense, and all potentially impacted parties have a 45 day comment period, and all submitted comments have to be read and dealt with to some level. Trump could order extraordinary bureaucratic resources be expended to see this process done as quick as possible, but this route would still likely delay completion of the pipeline for at least a year, which would have to be considered a meaningful victory for the protesters. 2. The “nuclear” option, and I’m less sure on the legality of this: It’s my understanding ETP already has permits to complete the pipeline, they just need an easement on Federal land overseen by the CoE to do the construction required to complete it. My understanding is that ETP could simply (assuming Trump clears the protesters and secures the site with Federal law enforcement) continue construction of the pipeline. They would be breaking the law the entire time that construction was ongoing, and the cost of this legal violation I believe would be $5,000/day. But there’s discretion in applying that law–my understanding is the actual protester encampment at Standing Rock is technically in violation of the very same law–and the current administration has declined to fine them, so Trump would even have some political cover for doing the same. Once the pipeline was actually finished and the construction site cleared, my understanding is they’d no longer be in violation of the law–if I understand correctly the permits to actually build the pipeline are already approved, it’s just that without the easement they can’t legally move their construction equipment and do their construction on the CoE managed land–but if the government just turns an eye and doesn’t levy the fines (basically what they’ve done with the protester’s encampment), then the pipeline gets finished, and importantly the anti-DAPL protesters have almost no legal leg to stand on. They can’t very well sue in Federal court and mandate the government stop something they’re choosing to allow. There are actually lots of uses of Federal land that exceed what is legal (like grazing livestock for example, is often done far beyond what is legally permitted, with no consequence for the vast majority of ranchers), and the government often just turns a blind eye. This third option is the one that I know the least about, but I’ve already seen it being bandied about on several environmental sites as something that might be done, and I’ve even heard (unsubstantiated) rumors that the CEO of ETP said he’s prepared to do just this _and pay the $5000/day fine_ if necessary. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-talk-about-the-dakota-access-pipeline-and-the-protests/772907.md?page=7) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-talk-about-the-dakota-access-pipeline-and-the-protests/772907.md?page=9)