Gotta wait for Trump to take office so the liberal rage can be fully unleashed.
They are practicing the ancient principle of “nimby.”
:rolleyes:
Again, they had 13 months of open discussion to vent their spleen. It’s been approved and it is being built along the same path as an existing gas pipeline which for some reason they didn’t protest.
Their call for boycotts of Bismark businesses is going to backfire on them when people start boycotting casinos.
Did the oil companies not comply with all the requirements necessary to get the permit to build this pipeline? Because if they did, it would seem that the problem here is between the protesters and the government. Every project like this poses some risk to the environment and offers some benefit to society. It would be helpful in understanding this if someone could explain the details such as:
-
The permit process and whether or not the oil companies did what they were required to do.
-
Is the permit process (including environmental review) sufficient to weight the benefits against the risks?
-
How does this compare to other, similar projects.
I’m not saying that you, Bricker, owe us those details, but your summary isn’t really very useful without them. It would be great if someone more expert in the field could chime in and help fight some ignorance.
Except that argument is increasingly being made against all pipelines. Every pipeline will go near someone’s land. Pipelines are essential for the transportation of petroleum, upon which our modern civilization depends. “Depending on local resources” is a complete non-starter if you want a modern lifestyle, if you also oppose the extraction, transportation and use of petroleum products.
I don’t see this as a “liberal hypocrisy” issue (sorry, luci!). I am genuinely puzzled: how do those who oppose pipelines propose that our modern civilization will continue, if the oil stays in the ground? (which I have also seen as a catchphrase by opponents of pipelines).
Egotist te absolvo. Go, and sin somewhat less.
Is it your understanding that without this pipeline, our nation will grind to a halt? Can I sell you some clean coal?
I’m open to opposing this project, but I need a good reason for doing so. I just spent an hour reading the Sunday paper, and while there were several articles about the protest, none delved into the actual issues at hand. One did imply that this was more about the Indians not wanting the pipeline on their sacred land than any actual worry about water pollution.
So, let the information flood begin. How is this pipeline different from every other pipeline (to borrow a question from our Jewish friends)? What happens if this pipeline isn’t built? Did the government give the oil company a valid permit to build the pipeline? Are the engineering measures adequate to protect the drinking water?
Let’s get Longhorn Dave in here, or anyone else who is experience in this field.
Waiting for GIGO?
Has he been beckent?
The young woman whose arm was mangled by the “grenade” is a family friend 
Crony capitalist Warren Buffet will get even wealthier.
If the oil doesn’t come by way of pipeline, it will be shipped by train and Buffet owns those trains. There have been a number of train derailments that have not received much publicity because it would hurt Buffet’s business. He’s a good liberal, don’t you know.
See if he was really a great investor, all we would have to do is mimic what he does and we’d all be rich. The secret of his success is leverage and bending the rules. The war on coal was also designed to have the coal shipped to China by trains making him even wealthier. It also seems to me a pipeline is better than a train for carbon emissions.
No, this one pipeline is not crucial. However, as a form of transportation, pipelines are crucial. I have been seeing the same type of objections to any pipeline, in Canada and in the US. It’s always framed as a “local issue”, but if the same argument gets traction across the continent, then it is more than a local issue.
I was also indirectly responding to Leaper’s comment that the Indian group wants to develop local self-sufficiency. That’s a good thing, to a point, and that point is that any modern community that wants economic development needs petroleum and petroleum products.
I grew up in southern rural Saskatchewan, which is very similar to North Dakota. And our communities could not thrive locally without refined petroleum, which was not a local commodity.
If pipelines generally are now a rallying point , to be opposed as a matter of principle, how will local economies flourish? That is my point, not liberal hypocrisy, which is not my point.
Loving Bricker’s summary, BTW.
I am not sympathetic to some people’s notion that as long as all the papers are in order objectors should not protest at all or merely make a token demonstration and slink away, or go protest the government while the project itself goes ahead, or that if the protest goes on they should be penalized. That has been abused too often. As others have put it, in this case “we’re getting screwed again, aren’t we” is not something merely to yawn at, considering prior history.
But that said, yes, you gotta put the pipelines, railroads, etc. somewhere. The question becomes, *could *this pipe have been routed elsewhere, that did not raise these issues? What do the assesment documents say about the decision making process (cost-benefit, safety, land availability) to use this route? Because surely that is in writing somewhere, they did not just throw darts at a map. Were the Lakota asked then? Were they yawned at then?
This pipeline has been re-routed, based on issues raised earlier in the planning process.
Yes, excellent summary.
The Tribe Never Took Part In The Initial Consulting Process
“The Army Corps of Engineers attempted more than a dozen times between 2014 and 2016, according to court documents, to discuss the DAPL route with the Standing Rock. The tribe either failed to respond to requests for consultation or dragged its feet during the process.”
Can’t really map it to the prairies’ situation, but around here opposition to fossil-fuels infrastructure seems at times to have an element of seeking to make fossil fuel use less economically advantageous, in the face of how the market alone does not seem to be driving us towards conservation or use of renewables as much or as fast as some prefer.
Curiously, when one looks at the map, the pipeline originates in Stanley, north of the river, goes westward to cross it just downriver from the Yellowstone confluence, then runs southeastward to where it crosses the river again, near where the protest is taking place.
The pipeline is routed next to an existing pipeline where it crosses the river. It’s following an established route.