At this point, the main concern is getting that camp cleaned up before the flood comes. It should be noted that the tribe has passed a resolution for protestors to go home[1] with no provisions for relocation. This isn't the only area of North Dakota that is going to flood this year and money spent on this foolishness is going to be missed. Devils Lake is going to rise about 4' under current estimates.
The reporting has been so bad and at times just stupid[2] that the state had to setup a FAQ[3] just to combat some of the foolishness. Point 14 directly contradicts this article and pretty much shows how bad the reporting has been.
[edit]The reason this particular corridor is used is because it was initially cleared in 1982 for an existing gas pipeline. The DAPL pipeline runs parallel to that pipe. [/edit]
> Myth: Law enforcement officers deployed concussion grenades resulting in the grievous injury to a protester’s arm.
> Fact: Law enforcement has at no time used concussion grenades during protest activities. Non-lethal munitions used include: impact sponge rounds, drag stabilizer bean bag rounds, riot control CS (tear gas) canister and water, Taser, and stinger balls, which are small rubber balls and CS gas emitted from the device. It makes a loud noise and emits small rubber balls which are meant to cause people to be startled and therefore disperse. It contains no shrapnel.
Let me get this "Fact" straight. Law enforcement throws a "non-lethal munition" directly at a protester who subsequently loses her arm, but it was probably something else that just happened to coincide with the "non-lethal munition" explosion, and not their grenade? Right.
It would help your argument if you cited public records. Is there a news story, social media discussion, some other documentation of the incident? Do we know who was involved... was it law enforcement or private security? Was the protester in a space they legally had access to or had they moved onto privately owned land?
They're even very clear as to who says what. Note, I never claimed to be providing a fact check entry. Rather, the post I was responding to requested, "Is there a news story, social media discussion, some other documentation of the incident?" The answer is, "yes, lots." Depending on where you source your news, you either heard about it a ton or heard about it none, but rarely in between.
Again, only protester accounts, claiming that police threw a weapon with which they weren't even equipped.
The punctured-tanks-as-weapons theory sounds credible, and I doubt any of those protesters could properly identify a concussion grenade if they saw one (nor could most people in the general population).
> Non-lethal munitions used include: impact sponge rounds, drag stabilizer bean bag rounds,
That's an interesting definition of "non-lethal". "Non-lethal" in this case apparently does not mean "cannot kill the target", because bean bag rounds absolutely can be lethal when shot at someone. They're shot fast enough that they can easily damage internal organs or even fracture your skull.
Given that (paid) journalists covering the event have been charged as protesters, implying that at least law enforcement lumps the journalists in with the protesters -- there is no doubt a way to support the claim that "at least one 'protester' is paid".
The suggestion that a significant number of the 10s of thousands are being paid is just propaganda though and deserves to be challenged.
Sure, but don't we hear the same "propaganda" every time any group gathers anywhere? If it's not Soros, it's the Kochs; if it's not unions, it's the Russians: whatever boogieman gets you going. In future, can't we just take it as read that some percentage of any group is paid to be there and some higher percentage is accused by someone else of being paid to be there? Is it something we have to worry about?
Unfortunately yes we do have to worry about propaganda.
An example: In Colorado where I live a large number of people contacted their republican senator Cory Gardner to express their disapproval of Betsy Davos for Secretary of Education.
Gardner publicly ignored these voices with the claim that they were "paid protesters". Widespread claims that protesters can be ignored because of a claimed "paid protester" taint should be challenged when false because these claims spread and make it easier to normalize this kind of democracy eroding response from representatives.
Frankly I would have expected most R's to vote for the confirmation of R cabinet nominations. One needn't invoke complicated rhetorical scenarios to explain such an action.
Some reportage of confirmation hearings might have left the impression that this particular nominee is some unhappy amalgamation of Satan, Brandine Spuckler, and Richie Rich as interpreted by Robot Chicken. That seems pretty unlikely! Probably this is a simple political disagreement, filtered through whatever media process maximizes those clicks and eyeballs.
I brought up this situation because it's an example of a "paid protesters" claim being falsely used in other contexts as a reason to ignore actual human interactions.
I think you are trying to invalidate the notion that there can be a reason for people to disagree other than media manipulation.
I disagree with that argument and I will not attempt to engage with you on the basis of fact until and unless you walk it back.
Uhhh... I'm not sure how to proceed here. I don't intend to upset anyone. My point was that R's will vote for R's. If that weren't the intention of the electorate, they would have elected a D. (Isn't the "two-party system" fun!) I don't why we'd need to invoke a conspiracy theory, even one offered up by the R in question, to understand why an R would vote for an R. That is, don't believe everything that politicians tell you, even (especially?) about their motivations for the actions they take.
Perhaps mistakenly, I anticipated an objection to this simple scenario along the lines of "this person is really extra super bad, so normal Congress-critters even from the same party would never have voted for her without being fooled by evil memes, and that's why we should believe that this Congress-critter really does believe in the evil meme of the Soros Army". If you wouldn't have objected thus, I apologize for making an uncharitable assumption.
I definitely will agree with you about the existence of horrible flaws in the "two-party system" - I don't want to put words in your mouth but if you have it, then I share the belief that large improvements to our voting processes are possible. For my part, I'd like to see innovations like instant run-off voting, mathematically fair drawing procedures for the regional boundaries that determine the shape of geographic voting precincts, strict campaign finance regulations, and deployment of an automatic methodology to turn certain flavors of congressional deadlock into public referendum rather than the baroque set of tie-breaker rules/conventions dominating the strategy behind congressional procedures (in my opinion, the possibility of injecting a little bit of stochastic noise from the electorate into the law-making process would provide a much better incentive structure for how congress critters should think about their differences than the overly deterministic incentives currently in place).
But back to the point - I brought it up not to argue that this particular appointee was any better or worse than some standard, but to support the notion that it is correct to object to propaganda that attempts to discredit voices due to false accusations that those voices are only the voices of paid protesters with a corrupt financial agenda rather than the opinions of actual people who formed those opinions based on their real-life experiences. Deploying this strategy falsely to discredit legitimate opposition groups is inherently anti-democratic, corrupt, polarizing, and very dangerous (in my opinion).
You responded to this expression with a claim that I interpreted as expressing that the only possible disagreement about a particular appointee is a product of partisan media manipulation and therefore its fair game to insinuate that any opposition voices are entirely partisan in nature. Within the context of the thread, I understand you attempted to establish that point in order to suggest that it is 'OK' to spread false caricatures of the opposition voices to the portion of the electorate that is prepared to receive that message regardless of veracity.
I understand the desire to be jaded about politics -- I typically try to ignore as much of politics as I can and tend to think that's the best possible strategy for me. It appears to me though that you take your cynicism further by asserting that there is basically no role in the political process for decision making beyond the level of team sports. All disagreement between members of A and members of B is inherently only about media manipulation rather than the possibility that such disagreement could express something rational about the real world.
I think that world-view (as understood by me) is inherently anti-rational-discourse and is worth disagreeing with.
Your "team sports" caricature isn't completely inaccurate, if only because my perception of D-vs-R is that of two ants contending furiously over a postage stamp, while a whole continent of political possibility languishes unnoticed. Sure, if we look close enough, there's probably a difference between one SecEd and another. She'll open a few more charter schools, so a few hundred kids will get a slightly better education and a few dozen teachers will be replaced by their essentially indistinguishable equivalents. That's probably an improvement, on balance, but not one to celebrate in the context of all the rest of the crap that rolls downhill from our rulers.
The paid protestor story is bait and switch as if to imply no, it's not the for profit corporation doing the pipeline that's in it for the money, it's the protestors - they are the ones in it for the money here!
One side is trying to make billions and someone is falsely claiming the other side is trying to make hundreds and That becomes the story. What immoral, outrageous, reprehensible nonsense.
I know people on both sides. I have relatives on both sides. I was pretty neutral until the latest round of reporting and looking at what's going to happen this spring with the flooding. The long term business impact on all reservations is problematic.
Interestingly enough, I trust my relatives and friends words more than yours.
Soros is the biggest, and yes, the money spent here is a major drag on the state.
Can you point to any legitimate source that says George Soros is funding the protests? Or are you suggesting real news outlets are purposefully not reporting this?
To be clear: do you have evidence that George Soros is funding protests? If you do, you should tell someone in the media about it, as it would be a huge story.
Forget about the media. I would love to get into the paid protest game. Not for me, personally, but I know a few people with reasonably flexible work/school schedules and some sign-painting skills, who could really use another source of income.
So how exactly does one get paid for attending a protest? What's the going rate? Is there a bonus for being shown on television or getting arrested? Will any chant phrases be provided beforehand, or are they ad hoc? Will they get a 1099, or is it cash under the table?
If the hypothesis is that some protesters are paid, wouldn't it be prudent to at least test that hypothesis by trying to get paid for doing one yourself?
[Edit:] I have seen multiple instances, from multiple sources, where people are claiming that protesters are literally being paid with actual dollars--not in warm fuzzies or in social justice scrip, but actual spendable cash. They will respond to a crowd photo by saying, "That must have cost [Soros|The Koch Bros.|Murdoch|Redstone|The Illuminati] a few million." I am aware that organizing events costs money, but they seem to think that every individual in the photograph actually got a check for showing up.
You're caricaturing the actual dynamic of astroturfing. The individual protesters only ever get paid in mere goodfeels. If you want actual cash, you'd have to either work your way up the organizing chain or independently consult and convert dollars into "outreach" more efficiently than your colleagues.
What huge story? KFYR has had it on daily for months. Just look at the organizers here and what groups pay them. I don't get why you think this would be huge?
> Just look at the organizers here and what groups pay them
That is the information I am asking for. A Google search for "soros site:www.kfyrtv.com" returns nothing.
The reason I ask is that "George Soros is funding protests" has become something of a meme in right-wing circles to dismiss anything from the Women's March, the airport protests to Standing Rock as being little more than some kind of left-wing conspiracy. To date, I have not seen any evidence backing up those assertions. It is entirely possible I have missed it, though, so I'd like to be filled in.
http://kfyr.iheart.com is the radio - they don't have transcripts as far as I can see - I will look when I have time and after I decide if I really want to spend more time on it. At this point we have a flood coming, and the likelihood that no one will want to do business on any of the reservations.
Frankly, when you know people and have relatives on both sides and get told a lot but keep getting called and voted as a liar really doesn't make me want to bother anymore. People forget the problems we are having with rail transport and one of the other tribes being dragged out of poverty because of the oil. I still love my relatives doing the protesting, but they would have been better served if the tribe had bother to do its paperwork years ago.
> and get told a lot but keep getting called and voted as a liar
I'm sorry, but that's what happens when you make accusations without any evidence. If your relatives are telling you that George Soros is funding protests, ask them why they think that. Or don't - I know what relatives can be like - but don't blankly repeat their claims when you know you do not possess any evidence to back up the assertion.
That's a sham to discredit legitimate dissent. People are doing immense and terrible sacrifices. The constant propaganda technique is to trivialize the nobility of the actors as if they're paid shills.
No evidence needed - just a slander and move on. Such PR hoodwink tactics by big energy are disgraceful. Stop falling for it.
I know you're getting downvoted to #FFF, but you would you mind expanding on the purported business motives behind this?
I'm more than sympathetic to the idea that advocacy campaigns are useful idiots being steered by business interests (and that if you don't see who's doing the steering, then you're likely being steered). But I am also sympathetic to the neoliberal idea that financial alchemists can be on the side of good, profiting from pushing then riding the market into a better local optimum.
And so tossing out "Soros" just triggers my redgroupthink detector - his funding itself wouldn't invalidate the protest (if this were the case, then neither side has any moral authority), but the actual cui bono could.
If the pipeline makes the end-to-end cost more effective (which is the only reason pipelines get built; they aren't gratuitous or altruistic ventures by the forms building them), it decreases the minimum market price at which oil will even be extracted from the field it serves.
So it is absolutely not the case, that "if oil doesn't move by pipeline it will move by rail", since, depending on market conditions, if oil doesn't move by pipeline it will sit in the ground.
Giving GP the benefit of the doubt means interpreting the comment as "Much oil that currently moves by rail will move by the pipeline", which is valid.
Still that seems like a relatively small business interest, relative to the overwhelming behemoth implied by "astroturfing". The presence of some amount of self-interested business funding cannot invalidate the legitimacy of a point of view, or there would be no such thing as a legitimate point of view. So what I look for is a severe power disparity between the two sides which would swamp the smaller side's point of view.
In this situation, that seems like the oil companies and the legible-business-interest preference of state and federal governments. Railroads being on the opposing side doesn't really alter my appraisal of that balance. But I'd be interested in hearing the involvement of a larger entity that I've missed.
Friends of mine have been up there on their own, or donating money and goods. Blaming "paid protesters" is self-deception. What does it benefit you to believe that people aren't doing this because they believe in it?
Oh, I believe some of them believe in it, as I said I have relatives there. On the other hand, there are paid organizers from various groups here. One doesn't change the other. Plus, I'm just sick of articles like this that just lie and don't check facts. I expect better of the BBC.
The rightness of the cause can be discussed independently of the funding behind those taking action.
Plus, "paid organizers from various groups" sounds weird, you mean, like, maybe the Sierra Club sent someone there to help the protests because the Sierra Club cares about the environment?
Or do you mean, like, the evil George Soros sent his UN minions there to help advance the New World Order?
I've heard a lot of rumblings from the right about Soros etc being behind any real protest activity on the left. In particular with the DAPL, I'm left wondering what he would have to gain from supporting said protest at all, let alone the suggestion that the protest is entirely manufactured to begin with to further his interests.
"Paid organizers from various groups" sounds to me like "people that work full time for NGOs that protect the environment". Which is very different from "people who don't care about the issue at all, and wouldn't be protesting there if not for the paycheck".
Do you have any independent evidence suggesting that protesters were paid? Citing the North Dakota government page is kind of like citing Sean Spicer on inauguration crowd sizes.
I have never heard of people being paid to protest at Standing Rock under the table. "paid protestors at Standing Rock not filing their taxes" is a theme I have not heard of before. Congratulations.
From the Standing Rock protestors that I am personally acquainted with, the Indian tribes in the area recognize that the only reason the world cares about their problems is because a thousand white people showed up. I am being flippant of course and I realize that it's just not white people.
An easy way to demonstrate the truth of the "paid protesters" claim is to show any way one can sign up to be a paid protestor. I have been doing some unpaid protesting and wouldn't mind a check, to be honest.
I don't think it's the same as getting paid to do it like a job. It's more along the lines of your group or committee or activism organization gets sponsorship from someone. The assumption being that now you(the group) are getting money, you're 'funded' therefore you need to 'do something' that your group advocates or represents. If you are a pro environmental rights organization you would have to send someone to protest a pipeline for example.
Isn't it more likely that that individual was just being a bit facetious rather than seriously claiming these people are getting a "paycheck" for protesting? That is how I took it, and was more trying to expound on how "paid protesting" could at the very least work hypothetically.
No, I don't think that's more likely. The accusations of "paid protesting" have been very consistent that they literally mean getting an individual paycheck to go and protest.
The Washington Times (note that the Times is a Unification Church-run paper, not the Post) quotes the North Dakota Tax Commissioner as saying he's "looking at the entities that have potential paid contractors here on their behalf doing work," and writes that he's "keeping an eye out for tax forms from environmental groups that may have hired protesters to agitate against" the pipeline.
Heat Street also quotes a spokeswoman for the tax commissioner as saying, "Since the protesters earned income in North Dakota, they would owe income tax to the state on that income tax per North Dakota tax law. If they do not file for tax year 2016, they would be subject to penalties and interest."
Sean Spicer says that protesting is "a profession" and it's become an "astroturf-type movement", and specifically contrasts it with the Tea Party protests (which consisted of funded organizations, like you suggest—enough funded organizations that the IRS could flag them).
Literal fake news website "abcnews.com.co" (i.e., not "abcnews.go.com") has a story about a protestor receiving a $3,500 check.
I appreciate that you're trying to extend good faith, but the way to do that is to believe they mean what they say. If the mechanics of "paid protesting" don't make sense to you, that's because the people you're arguing with are wrong, not because you're misunderstanding them.
You're 100% correct, but even if there are "paid protestors" I really don't get why that's a bad thing. Everyone working for the pipeline is getting paid!
It discredits the protests: it implies that opposition isn't coming from a large number of intrinsically motivated people, but from a small number of people with money.
It's the same philosophy behind paid votes being a bad thing. Even in our capitalist society, we believe that one-person-one-vote leads to a better society than one-dollar-one-vote. You can imagine systems that aren't one-person-one-vote (and they exist; see e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Functional_constituency_(Hong_... in which one real estate chairperson has equivalent voting power to fifteen thousand private citizens), but for whatever reason, America's ideal is one-person-one-vote.
In particular, when the opposition holds adherence to one-person-one-political-voice as one of its own principles, the opposition can't say "So what" without appearing hypocritical. They have to actually address that criticism directly.
Would you say the same if said "paid" action was driving/directing public policy? There is a reason there are strict laws regulating money in regulations and public service. This is of course not quite the same but it essentially boils down to "money buys votes". The assumption being that who sends more money wins. That is why I would argue it bothers people.
Paid action drives public policy every day, it's the normal way things work. Do you think the people who are fighting for the pipeline are doing it for fun? Like these guys:
Business interests have a huge leg up here because there is money to be made, anti-business interests like not building a pipeline are the ones that have to rely on volunteers. I sure hope there are some paid organizers helping out because they're up against a machine.
"The tribe has been encouraging protesters to go home since the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers agreed to an environmental review of the $3.8 billion project in December."
But now, the news is that it seems the environmental review won't be needed.
I think the concern is that the environmental impact of the prior pipeline is non-zero on the local water table. A scale up of this operation is unlikely to improve this situation.
> 2) There are no friggin wild buffalo roaming North Dakota - they are all on ranches, preserves, or the national park land.
Thank you. I grew up on a ranch near there (about 30 minutes from where the protests are happening) and I know ranchers who have had tractors and combines (clearly not a piece of machinery involved in laying a pipeline) ruined because protestors put sugar and dirt in the gas tanks. The people out there... "protecting the water" aren't being nearly as careful as they need to be around destruction of private property. It's disgusting. Ranchers out there tend to be "family farms" / small businesses that don't have insurance for the kinds of damages the protestors are doing.
I don't know how many, but I think it was 6-7 buffalo died during the stampede. A stampede caused by protestors who cut fences and used four-wheelers to scare the buffalo into charging towards the police line. These protestors put the animals at risk -- and the news covers it as, "Oh look at the majestic spirt animals coming to the rescue!" Total BS. Buffalo... are just big dumb animals. With horns. When you scare them, they run their horns into other buffalo... anyway it's a mess. I think a few horses died too. These aren't "wild" animals, they're someone's livestock.
The fact of the matter is the protestors can't tell the difference between a local rancher, and someone who is involved with the pipeline. They block roads, and harass anyone in a pickup truck. I went home to visit and wanted to see what all the fuss was about... when we drove over there it was clear they were antagonizing anyone who came near... and a lot of people who have nothing to do with this still had to use that road. Very clear too that the protesters aren't locals.
I can't find any reports claiming that any buffalo died during the stampede which reportedly involved a cut fence enclosing a herd of livestock buffalo. I read about a horse death that appears to have been a protester's horse that was shot by a bullet -- seems like the protesters involved with the stampede were on horseback and the police who chased them were on ATVs.
The accounts of buffalo/bison death I find are claims by ranchers that buffalo have been stolen/slaughtered by out of state protesters and that buffalo near the protest areas have been killed after being spooked within their enclosure by loud noises that resulted from clashes between protesters and law enforcement.
I'm not finding the media bias you claim from any reputable sources.
Check post history, I've written about growing up on a ranch in a bunch of my posts here. My family ranch is near Shields, ND -- it's a few towns over from Cannon Ball.
Whoa -- that is a very small town in a low population density area. I apologize for asking -- my question does a lot more to attach identity to you than I'd realized. I would delete my question if I still could.
> The reason this particular corridor is used is because it was initially cleared in 1982 for an existing gas pipeline. The DAPL pipeline runs parallel to that pipe
So basically this pipe runs alongside an existing pipe? I feel like I can't trust anything I read anymore from either side.
Certainly, although methane gas dissolving into drinking water certainly carries it's own risks. Those risks are more explosion and oxygen displacement, since AFAICT once coming through a faucet or whatever it should separate from the water (it is a gas).
Oil contamination will ruin a potable water supply for a long time to come, it will mix with the water and make it unusable for human, animal or plant consumption - outside of a complete drainage and refilling of the water table (hah, good one) it's just going to continue to be more and more diluted but still present until a very long period of time has passed.
This is the major fear of these pipelines, any leak could potentially do irreparable harm (in a human time frame) to a water supply - and oil pipelines have leaked before, we haven't suddenly got some new engineering magic to stop it.
The 1st article states that protestors should go home because an environmental review was going to be done. Now its not going to be done per executive order by trump.
That article doesn't mention anything that you mention here. Also, I certainly haven't heard any real news or information outlet making claims like you've described.
That was the initial assessment completed in July of last year, but further environmental study was deemed required:
http://bigstory.ap.org/article/87381a7d1abd4817a8991b0c8caea...
"An assessment conducted last year determined the crossing would not have a significant impact on the environment. However, then-Assistant Army Secretary for Civil Works Jo-Ellen Darcy on Dec. 4 declined to issue permission for the crossing, saying a broader environmental study was warranted."
From reading the article, it looks like one political appointee decided that additional review was required, and her replacement decided that the original review was convincing. Given that it would be the replacement that evaluated the new review, is there any reason to wait for it if the original one is already convincing to him?
More to the point, is there a reason to trust Jo-Ellen Darcy's opinion over that of Douglas Lamont and Colonel John W. Henderson, P.E.? (It seems like of the three, the Colonel's opinion is the least likely to be politically biased and most likely to be based on engineering judgement.)
EDIT: Actually, I think I might have been overly harsh on Mr. Lamont here. He is also a PE, and was appointed in 2004, which makes me think he might not be in a political job, either. http://asacw.hqda.pentagon.mil/Lamont.aspx
The submitted title ("US Army approves Dakota Access Pipeline without required environmental review") rewrote the original when it wasn't misleading or linkbait. This breaks the HN guidelines (https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html), so please don't do that.
Doing it to emphasize a contentious detail in the story is editorializing, which is particularly bad. On HN, unlike some other social news sites, submitters have no special rights over the story and don't get to frame it for everyone else. If you'd like to say what you think is important about a story you've submitted, please do so by commenting in the thread. Then you're on a level field with everyone else.
I haven't struck this with google before. Gruber had a critical post about it yesterday so I assume it's new. Does the BBC get to object? How do page views get tracked?
I always wonder what's the best way to assess environmental impact of the oil pipeline. Sure, it's going to leak at some point, and create a mess that may never get cleaned up. However, is it safer (or energy efficient) than carrying the oil on trains/trucks?
As far as I understand it, the pipeline being fought over symbolically rather than for reasons that make analytic sense. If there's an environmental argument, it's that the pipeline will make using shale sands oil from Canada cheaper which is a Bad Thing because we use more stuff when it's cheaper.
The correct approach would be to make fees and penalties for environmental impact higher (carbon tax, EPA able to levy big fines for oil spills, etc.) and then let the market figure it out rather than fight like crazy over specific cases.
Now, as to the subject of the pipeline running through native american territory because white people were (justifiably) worried about their drinking water if it ran through their watershed -- that's a whole different issue.
> As far as I understand it, the pipeline being fought over symbolically rather than for reasons that make analytic sense. If there's an environmental argument, it's that the pipeline will make using shale sands oil from Canada cheaper which is a Bad Thing because we use more stuff when it's cheaper.
Your last argument suggests you are conflating aspects of the Dakota Access Pipeline (which is for domestic shale oil from a particular field) with the Keystone XL pipeline (which is for Canadian oil sands oil).
The environmental argument about Dakota access is that the pipeline, which was rerouted from its original route because of an unacceptable threat to a mostly White community that it would have crossed just upstream of the water supply of, and it's been rerouted to run just upstream of the water supply of the Standing Rock reservation.
Which is why the protesters style themselves "Water Protectors".
> Now, as to the subject of the pipeline running through native american territory because white people were (justifiably) worried about their drinking water if it ran through their watershed -- that's a whole different issue.
No, it's actually the whole issue with Dakota Access. Keystone XL is a whole different pipeline.
Existing pipelines within a few hundred miles of this site have recently leaked into water supplies. This is not symbolic; it's about where the tribe gets their water from.
This is very valid. But I think there's _also_ an important symbolic goal here.
"This pipeline was moved because local communities feared the risk to the water supply. So the company felt it was appropriate to move it into the tribal community area."
"Water risk to white people? No no no. Water risk to Native communities? Well, we can live with that."
I'm not sure the Army Corps was involved until after the reroute, and, in any case, it had publicly announced that it would not approve the easement on the current route because of the issues raised relating to Standing Rock and was conducting environmental impact reviews of alternative routes prior to the Trump executive order directing approval of the current route, so, yes, I'll agree that the Army Corps of Engineers itself is not indicated to be the source of the problem.
It also has to do with the fact that local communities had a significant population in comparison to the native american m tribes who lived in the area.
credit where credit is due - I blame the British empire. NZ, Australia and other former colonies have done it as well, getting slightly less vicious and slight more manipulative with time. Dodgy treaties with locals etc.
> As far as I understand it, the pipeline being fought over symbolically rather than for reasons that make analytic sense. If there's an environmental argument, it's that the pipeline will make using shale sands oil from Canada cheaper which is a Bad Thing because we use more stuff when it's cheaper.
> The correct approach would be to make fees and penalties for environmental impact higher (carbon tax, EPA able to levy big fines for oil spills, etc.) and then let the market figure it out rather than fight like crazy over specific cases.
I think you are totally correct, except that the `correct approach` only works if you have a functioning and independent (of the regulated) regulatory system able to assess the impact, and levy taxes, fees, and fines to price in all the externalities.
Defunding / freezing these agencies certainly doesn't help their ability to function, and funding the campaigns of (or challengers in the primaries of if need be) the regulators as well as having sympathetic people placed at the top of the regulatory enforcement agencies destroys independence.
There are regulations proposed in Congress to make it illegal for regulators to consider results from all studies of ecological effects after "one off" events such as the Gulf Oil spill. I presume it also applies to smaller events like a pipeline leak.
The stated motivation for this banning of research is because these studies are not "repeatable". This seems like a pretty blatant attack on the potential for the entities which benefited from the activity that led to the accident to be held accountable.
With a rule like this on the horizon, there's no way I'd be willing to allow any oil company to pursue any construction with any risk of an ecological effect anywhere near my back yard.
Considering they had a completely adequate water supply until their local government decided to switch to using the Flint River directly [1], I don't think this is a remotely accurate comparison.
There are people who live in the pipeline's projected path and their water will be poisoned if/when the pipeline leaks. That's not symbolism, that's life and death.
The debate over the pipelines seems to be largely symbolic. The oil is going to get pulled out of the oilsands and transported either way, it only seems logical (and probably more ecological) to use a giant pipe instead of trucks/trains.
The debate is social. This is going through tribal lands because the tribes are poor and legally limited. They can't defend themselves. If you tried to run a pipeline under the water supply for 10,000 rich white people, it'd die before the first inch of pipe was laid. The very land it's going under is just a tiny fragment of low-value land left to the tribes, after multiple gunpoint-driven treaties left a tiny "reservation".
Power. It's about power. And power is tied to race. It's morally disgusting, and a lot of this talk is just misdirection, avoiding the real, valid source of anger and rebellion.
> This is going through tribal lands because the tribes are poor and legally limited
The pipeline runs close to, not "through tribal lands" [1]. The environmental concern is fair. If my neighbor builds a 300 dB speaker on their property, I have a reasonable claim to damages.
The "sacred lands" and threat to "way of life" claims, however, seem disingenuous. It amounts to laying claims based on hypotheticals on someone else's property.
"Disingenuous" is unfair. But symbolic, certainly. What this is really about, what I'm getting at, is that this is being done because no one actually gives a shit about the tribes, except the tribes. The state is more or less free to steal from the tribes, or endanger them. If anything of value is found in whatever land they have left, it's taken from them.
So this is symbolism. Standing in front of a bulldozer and saying "NO" is all they have left.
"Disingenuous" seems fair to me. The land is suddenly sacred and inviolable when someone asks to build a pipeline near it (not on it), but the massive casinos these tribes erect on their "sacred" land isn't an issue.
I would be more amenable to the tribes if they were honest and upfront about what they're doing: a form of collective bargaining to maximize compensation from the government.
Now that is disingenuous. There's no casino there. Not all land is sacred, but some is. Casinos aren't built on land that might face internal opposition within a tribe.
This has absolutely nothing to do with race. We would probably see LESS outrage if this was happening in a rural white community. But somehow because this is in "Indian lands" that are sacred we all claim "race" and "evil white people" again. Please stop infantilising these native American individuals, they are people.
Oklahoma, Texas, and Louisiana must have no drinking water by now, right?
The protest has garnered the support that it has mostly because it's a Native American community (and I for one do support them - they've been screwed over too many times in the past).
The debate is because the pipeline got rerouted - was going to threaten a mostly-white area, now will threaten a native american reserveation.
The "symbolism" is - if you're poor or under-represented you will be poisoned. Why did we even create reservations if we can poison them at will for the profits of the greedy?
Supply and demand don't only flow in one direction. Oil demand is absolutely responsive to price (and thus supply), in the form of energy users turning to alternative sources of energy, focusing more on energy efficient machinery, using less energy (driving less when the cost of driving rises).
You are assuming no one else would sell them oil. This is incorrect.
The is currently enough oil supply for everyone. Reducing/removing an oil source just means the oil comes from somewhere else, but it does NOT reduce oil consumption.
No, I'm not. But I am assuming that access to the source we're talking about would have an appreciable effect on global supply. This isn't the first time this has happened: the plummet in oil prices in the last few years is in large part attributed to an increase in supply of US oil production. I don't remember the details off the top of my head but I recall reading that the drop in prices has also been accompanied by a halting of the momentum of consumer interest in things like fuel efficiency.
Which are still oil, just from elsewhere. The Saudis are quite happy to sell you as much oil as you want.
> limiting the supply is one way to do it by not extracting it in the first place.
I covered that - all that would happen is people would get the oil from elsewhere.
You can only induce people to pump less oil by increasing supply of other forms of energy, or by reducing demand.
If you are going to pump oil at least do it where people actually care about the environment - don't make things so hard you just push production to places with less oversight.
This only works if you're confident you can force every nation on earth to stop or slow down extraction from their oil reserves. Let me assure you, the resultant wars would be far more damaging to the environment than otherwise.
In my view, each method needs to be justified on its own merits, since there is no a priori entitlement to extract and ship the oil in the first place. There's also no good justification for burdening the public with the risk of the pipeline, just because it replaces a greater risk somewhere else.
If the pipeline is safe, prove it. If the trains and trucks are safe, prove it. If neither, then leave the oil in the ground.
Nothing is ever perfectly safe. Nothing you do ever has no impact. Everything in life is about tradeoffs, and the right thing to do is pick the best one. NOT wait for the perfect one!
Waiting generally has a very low environmental impact. Higher energy costs and a slower economy are not necessarily bad. Unbridled growth is not the only option.
> Higher energy costs and a slower economy are not necessarily bad.
Said no poor person ever. You can't just bury your head in the sand and pretend your policies/idea don't impact anyone.
If you understand that and choose to do so anyway because you feel it's better, fine, at least you understand that you are making a tradeoff. But just pretending there is no harm is disingenuous.
>Higher energy costs and a slower economy are not necessarily bad
Are you going to be the person who tells families around the country that their grandmother had to freeze to death this winter for the greater good?
How about the young couple that just had a kid and is suffering from stagnant wages. Are you going to come around and tell them to "tough it out" to prevent a catastrophic event a century or two from now?
All the while the smokestacks in the 3rd world just keep growing, and thanks to the lack of demand in the US they can consume even more petroleum products (and in a far less efficient manner) due to the lower cost globally.
Delays in, and cancellations of, nuclear projects for political reasons have had a huge environmental impact, resulting in billions of tons of CO2 release that would not have happened (counting just one pollutant).
(Also, premature decommissioning for political reasons, (e.g. Rancho Seco)
their point is that it's a false choice. perhaps those resources are better spent developing energy technology that does not require that we accept a certain amount of "unavoidable" environmental damage. it is avoidable, but perhaps a completely free market does not encode that effectively
Pipelines and trains and trucks have already been proven to be safe. There are hundreds of thousands of miles of pipelines in the U.S. today. The EIS showed this new pipeline would be safe.
Coal isn't safe either, nor nuclear, hell even with solar someone might fall off a roof during maintenance or installation and the panels can be toxic. What perfectly safe energy source do you propose?
Comparing rail to pipelines, with the same amount of oil moved the same distance, trains cost 2x more and use more energy. Most years trains spill less per oil moved than pipelines, which is their one win.
Unfortunately, when trains have accidents, they tend to be both in towns and have fire. 45 people died in a single Canadain oil train accident in 2013.
Pipelines have great record in terms of human safety.
Yes, it is approximately 4x "safer" to transport oil via pipeline than rail. And many times more safe than using trucks. In addition, most pipeline failures occur at compressor stations and processing stations, instead of along the pipeline itself. [1]
It's certainly safer for the environment in general in terms of oil spills but the communities that would suffer from truck or trail spills are different from the communities that would suffer from pipeline spills. And since the former don't get to sue but the later do there's a certain pressure against pipelines in general.
But on the other hand pipelines are more cost effective than other means of transport. That means the oil gets to market more cheaply and that will tend to decrease the price of oil, meaning more is used, meaning more CO2 in the air. Raising the price by taxing oil would mean that we would get the double benefit of less oil use and government money to pay down the debt or whatever but that's harder to do politically than just block pipelines.
It's higher profit for extracting that would mean that more oil would be extracted, not higher prices to the consumer. Higher transport prices decrease ROI.
You have a point about transport CO2 use but I'd expect that would use a small amount proportionally.
It used to be that oil would just seep to the surface. That generally stopped once we figured out we could usefully burn it and began draining the easily access sources. I wonder which is "worse" what there was prior to petroleum becoming a commodity or the pipeline leaks that happen now.
There are well known ocean seeps that have been ongoing for tens or hundreds of thousands of years[1]:
>Researchers have found that natural offshore seeps near Goleta, California, alone have leaked up to 25 tons of oil each day – for the last several hundred thousand years.
The difference is that on the scale of tens or hundreds of thousands of years, wildlife populations have a chance to adapt or relocate. We are causing oil leaks in areas that have been historically relatively pristine, resulting in severe damage to sensitive ecosystems.
Pipelines are much safer than trains or trucks at delivering oil or LNG. That subject is not up for debate.
The problem is that when you build this infrastructure, it comes along with long-term financial contracts. Which is to say, if you build it, you're gonna use it.
As a result, it discourages investments in other energy infrastructure projects. Once the pipeline is in, we are stuck with it until it ages out of usefulness or if green energy radically undercuts the profitability of fossil fuels such that the pipeline is abandoned. But because of those long-term financial contracts, the likelihood of the pipeline being abandoned is far less than it would have been if trucks were used instead.
Small short-to-medium-term risk, larger long-term risk.
Once installed, pipelines can be -- and are -- used to transport any fluid; they're not limited to oil and natural gas. They can also be used for other purposes: the Williams Companies ran fiber-optic cable through decommissioned pipelines in the 1990s, drastically improving coast-to-coast network connectivity.
Also, remember the article from yesterday about how utilities are building solar plants to insulate themselves from swings in the price of oil and natural gas. The current round of pipeline building and the current round of solar-building are complementary; both are about moving away from coal.
Wind has arrived, solar is arriving, and geothermal and pumped hydro are probably next. The future of the world's energy supply looks pretty bright, and it looks likely that the Saudis were right back in the 1970s when they predicted that the oil age wouldn't end when we ran out of oil, just as how the stone age didn't end when we ran out of stones.
> Pipelines are much safer than trains or trucks at delivering oil or LNG.
What does it mean to be safer in this context? Pipelines have fewer spills than trucks, but a truck spill is generally limited to one truck's worth of oil whereas a pipe can spill a huge amount.
> Pipelines are much safer than trains or trucks at delivering oil or LNG. That subject is not up for debate.
Safer by what measure? Pipelines have fewer spills than trucks, but a truck spill is generally limited to one truck's worth of oil whereas a pipe can spill a huge amount. (I'm not sure where trains fit in. A train carries more oil than a truck, but train accidents won't always break every car).
Notice how many failure reports are not the sensor, but are due to humans checking up on the pipeline. The conditions these pipelines are installed in can be pretty hostile to equipment and monitoring. Going by those numbers, I'd say sensor systems have a ways to go.
The debate that usually goes around is that pipelines fail less often, but their failures tend to spill more oil, in more sensitive areas.
The other dimension, that isn't often talked about, is which transport system has the best chance to improve. Despite their current shortcomings, I think that a system that is dedicated to one job (moving dangerous fluids) has a better safety ceiling than shared systems, like trains and roads.
I definitely agree. I think instead of spending so much time debating over pipeline vs. rail/truck we should be focusing on how to make our pipelines better and safer. I mean sensor failure detection is pretty common in all the embedded systems I have worked on.
It is indeed up for debate. I would like to see sources backing that up. I can find sources saying just the opposite. I think it comes down to what you mean by safe. Safer for humans in the immediate area of an accident, safer for the environment, safer for humans as a whole. I would indeed argue that is loses in the later two.
... we should be resisting any and all modalities of future fossil fuel exploitation. who cares if pipelines are "safer" when we know that there is no planet-safe way to burn the oil they carry. if pipelines are the most efficient way to move the resource of oil, we need to be preventing their deployment because oil will kill us if we let it.
we're in the midgame of climate change... better to take radical action to prevent the worst possible end case.
So shoot yourself in the foot and hope to fly? No, the tech will be ready when its ready. The production tech is not ready. Free electricity will always win in a free market, so there is literally no radical fight needed, or wanted. If you actually want influence, buy teslas, build solar panel building machines, refine electric motor and storage tech. Shutting down the infrastructure that gets you there is asinine and counter productive.
Or we could decline to expand our oil industry further, on the grounds that the long term economics of the industry are a poor prospect and it makes little sense to continue encouraging its growth in the US.
This project really doesn't have many positive externalities for its host nation. For an administration that's "America First" they're been very quiet about who actually benefits. Some few Americans do.
Can you actually explain how it doesn't benefit USA? All the studies I read explained the economic impact it will have on the states it goes through after completion.
Sure, it'll benefit executives at Energy Transfer Partners, Phillips 66, etc. since they'll have an easy way to transfer oil to be shipped overseas. The states as a whole? Please. The number of permanent jobs this pipeline will create are pathetically low, a couple of people to man an oil field and a couple dozen to deal with the pipeline itself.
Eventually there's going to be less reliance on the USA for refined petrol as more nations move towards renewable energy sources, so the market will eventually correct itself I suppose - but I don't see any reason to help the oil companies make one last push to milk it for all they can before the money dries up.
> is it safer (or energy efficient) than carrying the oil on trains/trucks?
In essence, pipelines spill more across fewer locations while trains spill less across more locations:
Our calculation implies 0.09 incidents and 26 barrels released per 1 billion barrel-miles of crude oil transported by pipeline during a 2004-12 period. Comparing that with figures for rail, we quantify the risk of a train incident to be 6-times higher than that of a pipeline, while pipelines spill 3-times more per 1 billion barrel-miles of crude oil transported, over the 2004-12 period.
I'm all for "socializing the risk" of oil. If more people had the same worries about their water being contaminated, maybe more people would start to demand investment in cleaner sources of energy. As it is, most people don't live near pipelines or water sources that could be contaminated by them, and so the risk is largely abstract.
Yes. Trains and trucks use up more fuel and are much more dangerous than pipelines. Look up "oil train derailment". Oil trains can and do explode when they derail, and they pass through population centers.
One reason existing pipelines have a lot of problems today is because a lot of them are very old, which makes them much more dangerous than any pipeline built today. This is a good article about that: http://insideenergy.org/2014/08/01/half-century-old-pipeline...
A brand new pipeline would be less dangerous than the existing pipeline infrastructure we use today.
The tribes' position, at least (not necessarily the position of everyone else opposing it) is that it should be rerouted so it isn't tunneled directly under Lake Oahe, their main water source. That's not inconsistent with completing it, since tunneling under the lake isn't the only possible route. Though the pipeline owner would prefer not to reroute it.
That was also the basis for the Army Corps of Engineers ordering a more extensive environmental review. My understanding is the review wasn't to determine whether the pipeline would be built at all (that question isn't even in their jurisdiction), but 1) to evaluate whether the proposed route under Lake Oahe, which requires an easement to be granted beneath a reservoir they're responsible for, is a suitable option, and 2) if yes, to determine whether conditions should be placed on the easement to minimize the likelihood and/or impact of a spill. Their press release at the time is here: http://www.usace.army.mil/Media/News-Releases/News-Release-A...
That was also the basis for the Army Corps of Engineers ordering a more extensive environmental review.
No, that was a purely political decision that gave absolutely no indication of specific deficiencies in the original EIR, nor did it spell out any specific requirements for a "new" EIR.
Argument from final consequence aside, much of that work was was ongoing before the legality AND environmental impact was fully realized, on the expectation that the locals did not have the resources to fight its construction.
Even if the pipeline is ultimately established, winning damages for the local people would help them relocate away from resources tainted by the previous pipeline (who's legality is also very questionable).
From looking at the map, it seems like the pipeline could have been built heading south-east directly from Stanley, avoiding crossing the river at all. Does anyone have any insight as to why it was built west first, then swing to the south-east?
The route is interesting. First it goes west apparently to get around a body of water. Then it goes under the water at this location anyway. It would have been shorter to go south-east so I wonder what prevented that.
The title seems incorrect; it doesn't match the article's title, the article mentions the environmental review once and not prominently, and the article doesn't say the review is required.
Well, Trump could withdraw support for DACA as he promised, but he's now signed off on thousands of new DACAs, so he's in no hurry to change the program.
The reporting has been so bad and at times just stupid[2] that the state had to setup a FAQ[3] just to combat some of the foolishness. Point 14 directly contradicts this article and pretty much shows how bad the reporting has been.
1) http://fortune.com/2017/01/21/standing-rock-sioux-pipeline/
2) There are no friggin wild buffalo roaming North Dakota - they are all on ranches, preserves, or the national park land.
3) https://ndresponse.gov/dakota-access-pipeline/myth-vs-fact
[edit]The reason this particular corridor is used is because it was initially cleared in 1982 for an existing gas pipeline. The DAPL pipeline runs parallel to that pipe. [/edit]