So why didn’t they participate in the review process to try to get changes?
There are two possibilities I could see. One would be that the NAs are so accustomed to being ass-fucked-sideways-with-cholla by the white man that they figured any participation in the process would amount to assenting to more of that.“We respectfully oppose being sodomized with spiny vegetation”
Thank you for your input. The committee rules in favor of continued spiny sodomy, done sideways.So you have played the game properly and lost. That kind of leaves the notion of protest rather flat.
The other possibility is bullshit. Which is to say, there is quite a lot of that flying back and forth over this. The claim is that the tribe was invited to participate. Do we have this in black and white? Did the planners really do due diligence? I suppose we ought to believe them on that point, because they say they did, but right now, it is hard to know whom we can believe.
The eco-idiots abound, pretty hard to miss them. But thanks for your snarky little insinuation about the veracity of my claim that I am familiar with their ignorance. Such a valuable addition to the discussion. We must be hitting pretty close to home for you to respond in such a manner. It’s obviously personal. Did you get tricked into signing a petition to ban water or something? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yi3erdgVVTw 
Nope.
“In the meantime, rail is the go-to substitute for missing infrastructure to ship oil from Canada to the U.S. Sixty percent of Alberta’s unprocessed oil already makes its way to American refineries by rail and pipelines. And in 2012, Canada exported 16,000 barrels of oil per day by rail to the U.S. In the first quarter of 2015, it exported 120,000 barrels per day, which might rise depending on whether global oil prices begin to increase again.”
That would fit if they were protesting oil in general, rather than one specific project. Perhaps you were unaware of why they were protesting?
Do I misunderstand? You formed your objective opinion of “eco-idiots” from repeated close observation? Your wording did imply some considerable experience, as well as a breezy contempt, as if to say you know for a fact that most ecologically concerned people are crunchy nutbars.
Not what you were trying to say? Well, then, maybe try again.
Where did you get the absurd idea that I was speaking about “most ecologically concerned people”? Most ecologically concerned people don’t join mobs intent on forcefully preventing the construction of modern, efficient, and relatively safe energy infrastructure. Those mobs are composed of people more concerned with feeling important and belonging to a group that is sticking it to the man than actually accomplishing anything beneficial to our environment.
Your post displays the same sort of logical failings that cause people to expect special status and privileges simply because they have appointed themselves “water protectors”. It is infantile.
And yes I have formed my opinion based on actual interactions with such people. Your silly questions are premised on the false notion that the only way to have such interactions are at actual protests, as if such people and their profound ignorance only exist at these protests, rather that being widely and annoyingly dispersed throughout society.
North Dakota is already blanketed with crude pipelines. They do not need to use trains at all. DAPL is superfluous.
I think this is as much a lashing out at their historical treatment in general, and the illegal theft of their land (not by foreign conquest but by repeated violation of treaties enacted subsequent to that conquest), as much as it’s about environmental concerns; although those concerns are certainly a part of it.
It has to hurt terribly to see someone using what they see as their land in a way that they feel threatens damage to the rest of their land and what’s left of their way of life, and to have absolutely no say in it.
Whatever the arguments about the necessity of oil and all of the risks that come with it, I have to sympathize with these people.
And I commend Bricker for his surprisingly liberal (and entertaining!) viewpoint on this.
Holy shit!
Some one questioned the veracity of your claim in a debate?
Say it ain’t so.
I have to say, I’m damn skeptical someone would spend millions and millions of dollars building a pipeline for no reason.
Showing a map with colorful lines and saying “look at all the lines, any more pipelines are superfluous” would be like showing a subway map of a large city and saying “obviously this city needs no more mass transit, because there are already subways.”
Just to be clear, the pipeline comes close to, but does not enter, land controlled by the tribe. At issue (I did some digging this morning) is where to cross the Missouri River. If the pipeline is to be built, it has to cross somewhere. The only question (assuming the pipeline is to be built) is where and how. The current proposal is to dig deep below the river and run the pipeline under it.
I have a lot to do today. Would you mind pointing out which of my claims are pretty bold?
“I don’t see a real need for this pipeline other than to increase profits for some companies”
It sounds like the protesting could be about more than one issue (environmental) as is shown in their complaint filed on 7/27/16 for declaratory and injunctive relief.
The lawsuit notes that :
It further states:
Which seems like a blanket coverage that all of the land that the tribe has ever been on could be of significance. Further, according to the complaint:
And the problem could be compounded since:
The complaint then states:
But according to this, 100% of the landowners in North Dakota voluntarily signed easements allowing the pipeline to be constructed through their property.
So the NIMBY thing doesn’t apply to the personal/business landowners, however, what seems to be missing is what percentage of that land is owned by the government.
Do you think I do see such a need? I assure you I don’t. If there is such a need please point it out.
This article popped up on one of my news sites last week. Basically, the Army Corp of Engineers tried multiple times to meet with tribal leaders, only to be ignored. Permits were not obtained illegally and the pipeline was not rushed.
This is from federal court documents.
I like you too much as a poster to carry on like this. I apologize if I somehow misrepresented what you were trying to say. Let’s just drop it.
I understand what you’re getting at. My primary concern is the way the protesters are being treated. I think they have a legitimate concern, but concern doesn’t necessarily translate to reality. I do not see what I consider a true need for this pipeline, i.e. I don’t see that there is a benefit that outweighs the potential danger from the low safety standards that have been applied in some cases in the past. In the end if enough diligence and due process has been applied by government I don’t have a strong case to make against the pipeline itself, but they may just have to wait out the protesters.
And I like you as a poster also and keep forgetting to say that I hope you had nice Thanksgiving.
Thanks. Hope you had a nice New England Thanksgiving as well. Having been in CA for so long, that’s one thing I often miss.
And yes, per my earlier response, I do agree with you about the treatment of the protestors.