In reply to Wall-e:
/golf clap/ 
In reply to Wall-e:
/golf clap/
Someone has found another glittery thing to distract the general public.
It's working.
Also, is it bad that every time I glance at this thread title I think it says "Rolling Rock standoff?" I'd have a standoff over that, too; it's awful.
Seems to me regardless of who is "right" and who's "wrong", if your business plan pisses off that many people that much for this long, maybe you should re-think doing it. This isn't something that needs to be neatly divided into "sides" so that one can win and one can lose.
I have heard they are worried that the pipeline might leak and spill into the river, which runs into the reservations.
I would be curious what other things up stream that could possible leak into the river and the statistics on pipeline leaks at river crossings (as show previously, there are a LOT of them).
I am suspicious this has more to do with people have little else to do, then some huge danger.
Of course, it's not helping that "whitey" was worried about it leaking into their water, so they moved it south to make it the "red mans" problem...
A pics for reference (shows initial plan as noted in previous post):
Actually, the water intake that the reservation claims to be worried about, the one downstream of the pipeline, is scheduled to be permanently taken out of service by the end of next month. The reservation has a new $35+ million water treatment facility with its intake miles upstream of the crossing.
So the path was moved from everyone's problem to no one's problem.
The people of ND want the pipeline in a bad way. Almost every land owner in western ND is sitting on oil rights that only pay when they get the oil out. For poor rural farmers the outside protesters are just another example of city folk keeping them down. It helps, though, looking out their windows at the fields of wind turbines sending power to Minneapolis and Chicago.
In reply to SVreX:
Have you had property forcibly taken from you? My family has. Try it sometime. See how you like it.
"Taken" is a bit of an overstatement. "forcibly sold" might be more appropriate. Probably not so fun if it's a family estate or something.
I know someone's whose parents house was cleared for the 118 freeway (the one they shot CHiPs on).
SyntheticBlinkerFluid wrote: I'm not going to say I know all of what is going on, but the whole protesting aspect is another reason I quit Facebook. A lot of people jumped on the "Tag yourself at the reservation so the police can't track who is really protesting" crap, then later found out it actually didn't do anything. I honestly don't think we need another pipeline and if it is in fact going through Native American land, then they just should find another route. There is nothing stopping them from putting a couple bends in the pipeline.
In a nutshell this is how the country got where it is. Rather than refrain from getting involved like you are or doing some research and basing their arguments on facts they let half an Internet rumor and their emotions determine what policies should be. Pretty much the same thing the cry about the climate change deniers doing. The world would be a much better if we put as much emphasis on learning science and math as we do keeping up with sports and pop culture.
Here is a post that I found interesting:
big rock Nov 28, 2016 6:19 PM As noted before I live 25 miles from this "protest". I must say the above article is about as ill-informed, uninformed and moronic as any I've read about the issue. It's "factless". As an example, and I won't take anyones time for a hundred more, there was no "water cannon"; it was a fire truck called out-with small town volunteer firemen-to put out grass fires ignited by the "protesters"....who commenced to slash the tires on the fire truck. The fact is the protesters are on private property (not gov't. property). The pipeline is welded and in place on the west side of the river. The boring machine is in place on the east side of the river. It will take, upon Trumps order, 100 hours--70 hours to bore going west under the river and 30 hours pulling the pipe back..........and it's done. It will be there right next to the other three pipelines that are already located there. It will be a much better pipeline than the pipeline owned by th TAT tribe 50 miles upstream.....they love their crude oil pipeline.
A comment in this page: http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-11-28/tyranny-standing-rock-governments-divide-and-conquer-strategy-working
Couldn't they just build the pipeline inside of another larger pipe so it could catch any leaks? 
EastCoastMojo wrote: Couldn't they just build the pipeline inside of another larger pipe so it could catch any leaks?
Yo dawg, I...
...nah, too easy.
Easy? No, dawg, juss right. Juss right.
I'm wondering how much traction this would've gotten if the SouthEast pipeline hadn't broken twice in the past 6 months.
STM317 wrote:novaderrik wrote: Follow the money.. If the pipeline goes thru, BNSF wouldn't need to build railcars to haul the oil and would lose billions of dollars in lost revenue because of it.. i make parts for those railcars, and orders picked up dramatically for those parts just as the protests started kicking into high gear.. Warren Buffett is the controlling investor in the company that owns BNSF.. So i blame Warren Buffett, but also get to pay my rent because of Warren Buffett.. so i thank Warren Buffett..Berkshire Hathaway also owns several pipelines themselves, so it's not like Buffett is anti-pipeline.
But do they own this pipeline?
I genuinely don't know..
aircooled wrote: I have heard they are worried that the pipeline might leak and spill into the river, which runs into the reservations. I would be curious what other things up stream that could possible leak into the river and the statistics on pipeline leaks at river crossings (as show previously, there are a LOT of them). I am suspicious this has more to do with people have little else to do, then some huge danger. Of course, it's not helping that "whitey" was worried about it leaking into their water, so they moved it south to make it the "red mans" problem... A pics for reference (shows initial plan as noted in previous post):
And that's a good illustration that there are plenty of other places to put the pipeline.
Given the cost of gas that we have, there certainly isn't a national need for more.
Diffuse the whole thing and go the original route. Being closer to Bismarck, it will make for a shorter drive for the maintenance workers. Let alone remove 3 extra river crossings and make a fourth much shorter. And that will save construction money.
Seems like the whole goal of this project is to make people really mad. Which it has. Good job.
In reply to alfadriver:
It's already been stated in this thread that the pipeline has been constructed up to the river crossing. If that's true it's more than likely not going to be undone and rerouted to the original plan that was decided against many months ago.
If the Souix are concerned about potential leaks harming their water supply, then the original location seems to pose the same issue doesn't it? The oil would just contaminate Bismark and everything upstream of the reservation before it made it's way down and contaminated their supply.
In reply to STM317:
Tough. They took a chance, and now they lost.
This is 4 river crossings vs. one. Making the remote possibility of water pollution 4x of what it could be. That's not the same to me. It would be better to put the combined cost of the 4 into the safety of the one.
Again, this is totally for profit, and not really needed. So if they can afford to build the pipeline in the first place, they can afford to go back to the "low cost" one.
Heck, we (the auto industry) is still waiting for our profit sharing checks from the oil industry.
alfadriver wrote: In reply to STM317: Tough. They took a chance, and now they lost. This is 4 river crossings vs. one. Making the remote possibility of water pollution 4x of what it could be. That's not the same to me. It would be better to put the combined cost of the 4 into the safety of the one. Again, this is totally for profit, and not really needed. So if they can afford to build the pipeline in the first place, they can afford to go back to the "low cost" one. Heck, we (the auto industry) is still waiting for our profit sharing checks from the oil industry.
What chance did they take exactly? I'm not especially familiar with all of the details here but it seems to me like the pipeline company has gone through the proper channels, and done the environmental impact studies, etc required by law. When the original path was deemed unacceptable, they redid the necessary paperwork/studies, etc for an alternate route. It's not like they gambled and just started building this pipeline overnight without legal permission. This has been coming for years, and every legal step of the way, the protestors have been the ones that have lost. I'm not sure they have any legal standing at this point, which is why they've opted to protest in the fashion that they are.
I think KYAllroad brought up a good point about the oil reserves up there being utilized one way or another, and the other option for getting the oil out at this point is by rail, which is much more likely to have accidents than the pipeline would be.
The eminent domain for private gain bothers me. But it just seems like the only way the protestor's environmental concerns would be assuaged, is if the oil reserves are just left alone, and that's not going to happen. Way to many billions of dollars sitting there for that. If another route is deemed acceptable by the protestors, then it's just a case of NIMBY.
Starting to build without figuring that someone would try to block them? That's nuts.
And I certainly don't get the logic that adding 3 river crossings is better than one, in terms of environmental risk.
NIMBY prevented the pipeline from going near Bismarck. So it is again. This time, it's taken rather forceful protests for the people to be listened to vs. a simple assessment.
Again, one crossing of the Missouri is better than one wider one + one Heart River crossing and 2 Little Heart river crossings. How is it that it got to be that way? Seems pretty odd.
I'm fine with a pipeline. But don't make the path that illogical vs. the original one. I don't see any justification that ADDING water crossings is safer.
In reply to alfadriver:
Did they start to build without figuring that someone would try to block them though? There are usually public hearings about this sort of thing years in advance. If they legally acquired all of the land that the pipeline would be built on, and didn't get much resistance early in the planning stages, why should they assume that there would be so much resistance? If they've done everything they're legally obligated to do, why should they expect resistance? The time to fight this pipeline was in the planning/design stages months or years ago, and that battle is over.
From an outsider's perspective it seems like the people of Bismark got very organized and involved and very vocal from the start, and that resulted in the pipeline being moved. This may be more of a question for a local, but were the natives equally vocal from the start, or did they only start to protest when the bulldozers showed up out their backdoor after miles of pipeline had already been constructed?
They did it backwards. They should have started in Bismarck before anyone knew what was going on and worked outward to the ends. If anyone asks tell them you're putting in a bigger internet pipe.
STM317 wrote: The time to fight this pipeline was in the planning/design stages months or years ago, and that battle is over.
Sure, you're probably right, at least legally speaking. But I'm strongly reminded of this exchange:
“But the plans were on display…”
“On display? I eventually had to go down to the cellar to find them.”
“That’s the display department.”
“With a flashlight.”
“Ah, well, the lights had probably gone.”
“So had the stairs.”
“But look, you found the notice, didn’t you?”
“Yes,” said Arthur, “yes I did. It was on display in the bottom of a locked filing cabinet stuck in a disused lavatory with a sign on the door saying ‘Beware of the Leopard.”
Credit to Douglas Adams, Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy.
Notice periods and who they notify and how they do it are all pretty amusing. A legal notice in an obscure newspaper - locally it's "The Daily Reporter," but even if it's the big daily ... well, how many people read the classified notices - often suffices. I'm not sure what the answer is but I believe "posting a notice" on a project like this should involve actually informing people that will be affected by it. I bet most of the people affected by this pipeline found out about its route when construction equipment showed up, and not during the planning/design stages. Is that their fault? Do you expect them to read the notices in the newspapers for both their area and all neighboring counties? Do you do that? I sure don't.
In reply to dculberson:
The road in front of my house is going to be widened, from two lanes, to four, with a grassy median. I've been getting notices in the mail, from the city planning department, for a few years, about meetings/hearings regarding the plan.
I doubt the pipeline plan went without similar notifications.
RealMiniParker wrote: In reply to dculberson: The road in front of my house is going to be widened, from two lanes, to four, with a grassy median. I've been getting notices in the mail, from the city planning department, for a few years, about meetings/hearings regarding the plan. I doubt the pipeline plan went without similar notifications.
It's a good thing your front yard is so big, but that's still going to suck. How much of it are they taking?
You'll need to log in to post.
