Merged Dakota Access Pipeline

[Jrrarglblarg]

The comparison between risks of gas station USTs and an above ground pipeline is invalid for a multitude of reasons, not least of which is legal definitions.

But here's the EPA page for USTs.
https://www.epa.gov/ust

Starting in the late 80s older style tanks, prone to eventual corrosion and inevitable leaks, have been required to be removed and the contaminated soil remediated by any new owner or by the original owner when remodeling the facility; and the costs/red tape of replacement UST on the site has led many older gas stations to be bulldozed and repurposed. We have had two properties go through this in my little town just in the last several years; one became part of a larger parcel of land for a bigger development project and the other was paved over and turned into a Starbucks.

The potential contamination footprint of a gas station UST is a known factor in a singular location. Pipelines have an obviously larger potential contamination footprint, are usually exposed to the environment vs buried, and the footprint is unlikely to get routine attention.

 

[NoahFence]

I guess the "when" matters after all.

How are you feeling about having a gas station on the reservation? The one with the underground tanks full of gasoline? Any concern about one of those leaking into the ground water?

My guess is having the gas station available is an acceptable risk, even though we know that those tanks can leak. A sort of cost v. benefit thing in an environment with uncertainty. The sort of thing we do all the time: analyze risk and try to mitigate it.

But I fear no such compromise is in the offing for the pipeline. Because it really isn't about estimating risk and mitigation. It's really about taking advantage of the poor, helpless indians. Pretending it's about risk of a leak is a red herring, because no solution will do and no compromise is possible. If they wanted to build a power line, then some property of power transmission would be the objection. Windmills? Same thing.

So long as the real topic is oppressing native peoples, no discussion about the pipeline will go anywhere at all.

You are correct that it isn't my water. It isn't my gas either. And I understand that, as a Native American who lives in the area, you have a vested interest which I do not share. It is also possible that the same vested interest bestows an emotional bias against the pipeline.

All that gibberish falls apart when you understand that the gas station benefits those who use it, while the pipeline does not benefit those in the affected area.

 

[Delphic Oracle]

There are other property owners who have had properties (they live on and farm) condemned and seized (well, forced to accept an easement) as well. I saw a story about an Iowa couple yesterday. I'm on my phone so not sure I want to dig it up this moment.

But eminent domain being used as a bludgeon for private interests is not exactly unheard of for students of history.

ETA: Obama's statement was as useless and hollow as Hillary's. "Let it play out a few weeks" means "let the next president deal with it." The project as a whole is on shaky legal footing with permits still under review while they roll ahead. Despite the Army Corp not having issued approval yet, Obama's first statement several weeks ago was "pretty please voluntarily stop." Not exactly playing the hand strong.

He's done almost zip in terms of legacy building in his final year. Just kinda quietly riding out the clock.

 

[marplots]

All that gibberish falls apart when you understand that the gas station benefits those who use it, while the pipeline does not benefit those in the affected area.

That's an interesting take on capitalism and the profit motive. If you have a corporation running a chain of gas stations, that's a benefit, but shipping the gas around in a pipeline isn't. Now I'm wondering how the indians feel about tanker trucks running on the roads near them. Or trains.

I can't think of a clearer case of NIMBY except maybe when the Kennedys came out against offshore windmills.

I could see a valid argument about pipelines as a viable means of transporting fuel, but singling out this pipeline, in this location, seems a bit of special pleading to me. How's that Alaskan pipeline doing? I remember a similar doom and gloom scenario being painted by opponents.

 

[NoahFence]

That's an interesting take on capitalism and the profit motive. If you have a corporation running a chain of gas stations, that's a benefit, but shipping the gas around in a pipeline isn't. Now I'm wondering how the indians feel about tanker trucks running on the roads near them. Or trains.

I can't think of a clearer case of NIMBY except maybe when the Kennedys came out against offshore windmills.

I could see a valid argument about pipelines as a viable means of transporting fuel, but singling out this pipeline, in this location, seems a bit of special pleading to me. How's that Alaskan pipeline doing? I remember a similar doom and gloom scenario being painted by opponents.

I think a more clear case of NIMBY was in Bismark when they told the oil company morons that they didn't want it.

To me, this isn't about doom and gloom. Its about adhering to a treaty the US signed with Native Americans.

I'm fully aware you don't give a **** about anybody but you, but there are others who do care about what we're doing to these people.

 

[Jrrarglblarg]

I think a more clear case of NIMBY was in Bismark when they told the oil company morons that they didn't want it.

To me, this isn't about doom and gloom. Its about adhering to a treaty the US signed with Native Americans.

I'm fully aware you don't give a **** about anybody but you, but there are others who do care about what we're doing to these people.

I've been mostly avoiding this topic because I have strong, semi-informed opinions on this matter, and due to the lack of Native members on the forum I fear i would be arguing about that point all on my lonesome, with belligerant disagreement by people informed exclusively by speedreading whatever wiki article they found five minutes ago.

 

[marplots]

I think a more clear case of NIMBY was in Bismark when they told the oil company morons that they didn't want it.

To me, this isn't about doom and gloom. Its about adhering to a treaty the US signed with Native Americans.

I'm fully aware you don't give a **** about anybody but you, but there are others who do care about what we're doing to these people.

OK, I'll bite. What exactly do you think "we're doing to these people?"

I'm open for a round of SJW virtue signalling. Or is it big government conspiracy instead? States rights could probably work too. Even a treaty violation if we could figure out what exactly the violation was.

I'm willing to look at any specifics at all. There has to be a decent argument of some sort or other. People wouldn't just support protestors because they've seen footage of a security company misbehaving. Let's cut to the meaty issues.

 

[NoahFence]

OK, I'll bite. What exactly do you think "we're doing to these people?"

I'm open for a round of SJW virtue signalling. Or is it big government conspiracy instead? States rights could probably work too. Even a treaty violation if we could figure out what exactly the violation was.

I'm willing to look at any specifics at all. There has to be a decent argument of some sort or other. People wouldn't just support protestors because they've seen footage of a security company misbehaving. Let's cut to the meaty issues.

You think I'm into SJW virtue signalling?

Native Americans don't want this pipeline to ruin their water, and they don't want the construction companies trampling on their sacred land.

That's not SJW Virtue Signalling, that's just common *********** courtesy.

You don't get to tell them what they should be fighting for. You don't have the authority. You don't mean ****.

 

[Maya22]

???

Forever as in since the Earth was created? No.

At least 13,000 years.

 

[marplots]

Native Americans don't want this pipeline to ruin their water, and they don't want the construction companies trampling on their sacred land.

Ok, that's clear enough. Should the indians have to justify those fears or is it enough that they have them? Because if we are going to accept their fears as asserted, without any justification, the argument stops there. The purpose of not building the pipeline is to keep indians from being afraid.

However, we could examine things more closely to see if the fears have a basis in reality. We can start with the "sacred lands" bit. That's crap. The pipeline is not crossing their reservation and their religious beliefs become meaningless just as soon as those beliefs start interfering with the land usage rights of others. Unless we are going to allow priests and the like to merely step forward and assert claims based on their primitive superstitions? Not a strong claim to make on a skeptics forum.

How about the water claim? The pipeline is on the Missouri river, so upstream of the entire Mississippi watershed. It's not just the locals who have a stake in this. Typically, an environmental impact statement is provided to get an easement to cross the water from the Army Corps of Engineers. This hasn't yet been granted (per Wiki).

Are we allowed to consider what the impact of a leak would actually be on the locals, or is the possibility of any leak enough to shut down the conversation?

How far south of the proposed crossing point would the tribe's water intake have to be to allay concerns?

 

[NoahFence]

Ok, that's clear enough. Should the indians have to justify those fears or is it enough that they have them?

Its enough that they have them.

We do what they say, full-stop. That's my view.

They've earned that much after what we've done to them.

 

[marplots]

Its enough that they have them.

We do what they say, full-stop. That's my view.

They've earned that much after what we've done to them.

Good enough. I don't think that's a strong argument, but it's certainly an honest one.

Side note: Found out today that one of my nephews headed out to North Dakota to join the protest. Not sure if I'll get any insider info though.

 

[Delphic Oracle]

If you want the NIMBY charge to stick, you'd have to demonstrate that there were no prior objections on their part to hydrocarbon usage, environmental stewardship, and there was no advocacy from them for more sustainable practices.

Good luck.

ETA: I guess the point I'm driving at is people with a high carbon footprint have less right to object to being potentially exposed to the dangers of hydrocarbon infrastructure than those with a small carbon footprint. NIMBY isn't solely about not wanting to avoid potentially harmful unintended consequences of things, it is an accusation meant to demonstrate that a person wants a benefit of some kind AND wants someone else to pay the price for it.

 

[eirik]

There's an awful lot of land in the world "owned by an ethnic group".

Most of it, maybe.

Maybe you can enlighten me. ( National sovereignty is not based on ethnicity)

 

[marplots]

If you want the NIMBY charge to stick, you'd have to demonstrate that there were no prior objections on their part to hydrocarbon usage, environmental stewardship, and there was no advocacy from them for more sustainable practices.

Good luck.

ETA: I guess the point I'm driving at is people with a high carbon footprint have less right to object to being potentially exposed to the dangers of hydrocarbon infrastructure than those with a small carbon footprint. NIMBY isn't solely about not wanting to avoid potentially harmful unintended consequences of things, it is an accusation meant to demonstrate that a person wants a benefit of some kind AND wants someone else to pay the price for it.

Good point. I should instead ask what realistic damage, what reasonable damage can they argue they are preventing. The water issue fails for me because, not only is the main supply some 50 miles from where the pipeline crosses, it's being moved (or has already been moved) to 70 miles away. Yes, it's downstream, but at some point the tribe's immediate connection fades into some general stance on the environment.

I think the tribe is being used symbolically in a cause célèbre for environmentalists who oppose the pipeline on general principles. That's where the real arguments should be. I've read, for instance, that the tribe isn't united in their opposition to the pipeline, something not well covered in new reports. There also seems to be a reaction from the indians about outsiders coming to protest and then squatting on reservation land.

In the end, most of this doesn't matter, because of the "perception becomes reality" recipe.

 

[NoahFence]

Good point. I should instead ask what realistic damage, what reasonable damage can they argue they are preventing. The water issue fails for me because, not only is the main supply some 50 miles from where the pipeline crosses, it's being moved (or has already been moved) to 70 miles away. Yes, it's downstream, but at some point the tribe's immediate connection fades into some general stance on the environment.

The environment isn't their only concern. The hill in the background is their sacred land. It's basically a cemetery. The pigs on top of it and on the shore of this river maced them, shot them with rubber bullets, basically treating them like dogs. Why?

Because they wanted to go to that site, and because they can. They are trespassing on sacred land.

 

[quadraginta]

Maybe you can enlighten me. ( National sovereignty is not based on ethnicity)

It certainly can be. Perhaps not necessarily as law, but simply because of history.

How much land in Japan is not owned by Japanese?

 

[quadraginta]

The environment isn't their only concern. The hill in the background is their sacred land. It's basically a cemetery. The pigs on top of it and on the shore of this river maced them, shot them with rubber bullets, basically treating them like dogs. Why?

Because they wanted to go to that site, and because they can. They are trespassing on sacred land.

Superstitious savages.

No Christian would ever complain about some oil company ramrodding a pipeline through one of their graveyards.

 

[marplots]

The environment isn't their only concern. The hill in the background is their sacred land. It's basically a cemetery. The pigs on top of it and on the shore of this river maced them, shot them with rubber bullets, basically treating them like dogs. Why?

Because they wanted to go to that site, and because they can. They are trespassing on sacred land.

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/picture.php?albumid=1270&pictureid=11056[/qimg]

Does it matter if the land in the picture is on the reservation or owned by someone else? It matters to me. I don't think that someone's superstitions should outrank my property rights.

We probably disagree on this point. I do, however, agree that the matter of enforcement against trespassing should be handled as gently as possible.

By the way, does it matter if the people in that picture are actually indians or not?

 

[marplots]

Superstitious savages.

No Christian would ever complain about some oil company ramrodding a pipeline through one of their graveyards.

Generally, you'd move the graves somewhere else. I'm not sure if you can do that with land though.