• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Merged Dakota Access Pipeline

plague311 said:
Looks like a pretty big win for the people against DAPL. Whether it will last or not is beyond me, but at least it's a step in the right direction.
Click to expand...

They've taken that step before - rerouted. The company thought the current route was the right direction. Looking at the map, I'm not sure what the next right direction will be, other than east, eventually.
 
A few notes:

The decision can be appealed.

They certainly won't hit their Jan 1st deadline if they abide the decision.

According to some currently at camp, work isn't stopping.
 
quadraginta said:
What do you figure the chances are that they'll go back to the original right direction?
Click to expand...

Don't know. It depends on too many things, like getting easements. Then you have the background worry of another protest (the pipe has to cross the water somewhere) from environmentalists, even if the Indians aren't involved.

It probably depends on how expensive it is to ship the oil by rail. With Trump as president, there's also the possibility of going north, into Canada, then east. But, since they already have so much of the pipeline built, there's a sunk cost which probably queers the calculations.

It might be cheaper to just pay off the Indians.
 
It's a fortune 500 company. It isn't like they can't afford to work round the land
 
Last edited:
marplots said:
Don't know. It depends on too many things, like getting easements. Then you have the background worry of another protest (the pipe has to cross the water somewhere) from environmentalists, even if the Indians aren't involved.

It probably depends on how expensive it is to ship the oil by rail. With Trump as president, there's also the possibility of going north, into Canada, then east. But, since they already have so much of the pipeline built, there's a sunk cost which probably queers the calculations.

It might be cheaper to just pay off the Indians.
Click to expand...

Perhaps you could explain the part I highlighted. Specifically - what to heck makes you think Canada would be likely to agree to such a thing. :boggled:
 
rockinkt said:
Perhaps you could explain the part I highlighted. Specifically - what to heck makes you think Canada would be likely to agree to such a thing. :boggled:
Click to expand...

I was thinking of the difference between this pipeline and the Keystone XL, which I though was made difficult because Obama didn't support it on a treaty basis. Nothing to do with Canada's feelings about this pipeline at all.

Don't put to much weight on my supposition here, it wasn't well thought out.
 
marplots said:
I was thinking of the difference between this pipeline and the Keystone XL, which I though was made difficult because Obama didn't support it on a treaty basis. Nothing to do with Canada's feelings about this pipeline at all.

Don't put to much weight on my supposition here, it wasn't well thought out.
Click to expand...

:thumbsup:
 
Let The Healing Begin

NoahFence said:
I'm just going to leave this here so the "Patriots" amongst us can flip their wig.

http://www.denverpost.com/2016/12/05/photos-standing-rock-native-americans-veterans/


Veterans ask for forgiveness for genocide against Native Americans.
Click to expand...

It's a start.

It is very important for the supporters and protectors of the systems of disparity to understand that Earth/resource cannot be owned, but can only taken care of and distributed with parity for the sake of the planet and all life upon it.

Any other way is only going to end in tragedy.
 
Navigator said:
It's a start.

It is very important for the supporters and protectors of the systems of disparity to understand that Earth/resource cannot be owned, but can only taken care of and distributed with parity for the sake of the planet and all life upon it.

Any other way is only going to end in tragedy.
Click to expand...

Good luck. I don't know if you've been following this thread, but there is no faction involved that isn't interested in owning at least part of some resource and using it for their own benefit. Whether it's the Indians who want to own/control the water rights and enforce treaty boundaries, or the energy company who wants to lay underground pipe, or environmentalists who want to preserve their idea of a status quo ante. No one comes to the issue agenda-free.
 
marplots said:
Good luck. I don't know if you've been following this thread, but there is no faction involved that isn't interested in owning at least part of some resource and using it for their own benefit. Whether it's the Indians who want to own/control the water rights and enforce treaty boundaries, or the energy company who wants to lay underground pipe, or environmentalists who want to preserve their idea of a status quo ante. No one comes to the issue agenda-free.
Click to expand...

You mean, the benefit you're referring to with regards to the Native Americans, is that they want what is rightfully theirs? Why would I side with a greedy ass oil company that is doing nothing to help me?

I never understand people that have no issues ******** on other people that live here just because....money.
 
plague311 said:
You mean, the benefit you're referring to with regards to the Native Americans, is that they want what is rightfully theirs? Why would I side with a greedy ass oil company that is doing nothing to help me?

I never understand people that have no issues ******** on other people that live here just because....money.
Click to expand...

Like the MHA nation tribe with their thousands of miles of pipes carrying oil and huge amounts of toxic wastewater from fracking under the river?

Are they greedy too? Why is no one protesting there?
Do you think Standing Rock, if they had oil too, would have said no to the $800 million to protect their water?
 
Sherkeu said:
Like the MHA nation tribe with their thousands of miles of pipes carrying oil and huge amounts of toxic wastewater from fracking under the river?

Are they greedy too? Why is no one protesting there?
Do you think Standing Rock, if they had oil too, would have said no to the $800 million to protect their water?
Click to expand...


My favorite kinds of tu quoque are the hypothetical ones, because people can make up anything at all that they want to, and then use that fantasy to somehow sling imaginary mud at their targets.
 
Sherkeu said:
Like the MHA nation tribe with their thousands of miles of pipes carrying oil and huge amounts of toxic wastewater from fracking under the river?

Are they greedy too? Why is no one protesting there?
Do you think Standing Rock, if they had oil too, would have said no to the $800 million to protect their water?
Click to expand...

Thankfully, one doesn't have to accept responsibility for what other members of one's ethnic or cultural group have done.

But I'll bite, is the MHA nation greedy? I can't say. I tend to think of greed more in terms of diminishing others in order to satisfy desires way beyond basic physical and emotional needs. Were they impoverished and desperate in a lonely pocket of America like most tribes and now have some new educational or medical facilities or were they getting along fine and everyone on the reservation has a Mercedes? So as not to be dichotomous about it, I understand there's a spectrum represented there. How 'greedy' of a decision it is depends on where in that spectrum their situation was/is.

Can't say what Standing Rock 'might have' done, though their resistance to even tacit participation in the (meaningful) consultation and consent process seems very intentional. The strictest reading of the treaties and laws, it should be noted, doesn't require successful agreement of the parties, it simply requires a process to have occurred (at that point, civil disputes and claims of obstructive acts or deliberate malfeasance can be made). This is why most of the suits are between the companies involved and some U.S. agency, suing the tribe is a much harder sell since they've worked to avoid being seen as official participants in the project at nearly every level, as any tacit interaction on those terms could be used to demonstrate they acknowledged the existence of a consultation and consent process.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom