I'm not sure I've ever seen a scene in recent memory with such ridiculously skewed viewpoints being put out by each "sides" media.
One side says "A", the other side says "B", and the Truth seems to have gotten pretty badly lost in the scrum between the two. Is there a Cliffs Notes version of the standoff somewhere with the Truth being the highest priority rather than a particular ax to grind skewing a viewpoint?
Good question. I've heard different stories. One is something about oil pipeline going through Indian burial grounds, the other has to do with poisoning drinking water. Iono if I'm crossing stories, though.
Here's a non-axe-grindey source:
http://abcnews.go.com/US/timeline-dakota-access-pipeline-protests/story?id=43131355
I will also say that both the Army Corps of Engineers and South Dakota's official archaeologist have stated that there are zero known burial grounds on the pipeline's route.
In reply to GameboyRMH:
Thanks for the education.
Is there a clear understanding of who has legal ownership of the land where the pipeline will be constructed? Seems like it would be a pretty open/shut case legally speaking depending on who owns the land where the pipeline is expected to be built.
In reply to STM317: As near as I can tell, the pipeline company bought the rights to much of the land but some parts are public land while others are being used via the enforcement of eminent domain. Like I said, it's a very murky subject with a lot of conflicting information out there.
I think the one side wants not to have something shoved upon them and the other would very much like to shove something upon them. One side has constructs like the law, money and force on their side and the other has zero berkeleys to give about those types of constructs. They do not want any foisting of things. THis results in a standoff.
Good? 
The issues with the ownership is based on some of the land being outside the current 1890-something reservation boundaries but inside the initial 1860-something Indian designated land boundaries. The current boundaries also don't include the Black Hills, and the original one did, so any expansion of boundaries or recognition of the original ones sets the precedent for getting those back.
Eminent Domain burns my ass in any form.
I once aggressively overheard a conversation between some oil zillionaires from Alberta about the Keystone XL pipeline, before it was rejected. They said a rejection would be no big deal because they had a backup plan. Wish I could remember the details now, something about running the pipeline under power lines.
Appleseed wrote: Eminent Domain burns my ass in any form.
I'll bet you don't mind the Interstate Highway System. How about the National Parks System? Government buildings? Railroads? How about electricity?
SVreX wrote:Appleseed wrote: Eminent Domain burns my ass in any form.I'll bet you don't mind the Interstate Highway System. How about the National Parks System? Government buildings? Railroads? How about electricity?
Which is all fine if there's an eminent NEED for it. But it's not like we have a shortage of fuel nor is there shortage of alternate places in the middle of nowhere to run a pipeline.
Eminent domain used for private profit is where it crosses the line for me.
Besides, that pipeline will be used to transfer the oil to a port to then export. Not helping our domestic oil shortage at all.
I'm curious how many people know why they are against it? I mostly hear from shouty people on the street here and angry young relatives who feel that pipelines are a recent invention whose sole purpose is to pour toxins into water supplies without any idea that there are pipelines all over the country.
STM317 wrote: Is there a clear understanding of who has legal ownership of the land where the pipeline will be constructed? Seems like it would be a pretty open/shut case legally speaking depending on who owns the land where the pipeline is expected to be built.
1 - Eminent domain kinds screws that theory up and
2 - We don't have a great track record of keeping promises made to the natives.
In reply to NEALSMO: See, that's what I'm talking about. You've been sold on the "oil is going to be exported" line. That's not how the commodity of oil works, it all goes on the global market no matter where it originates. So while some of it (may) be exported, that isn't the express purpose of a pipeline.
My takeaway is that the oil fields have been developed at enormous expense and will be mined until they are no longer profitable. What is safer, putting the oil on hundreds of trains or into a pipeline?
NEALSMO wrote: Eminent domain used for private profit is where it crosses the line for me. Besides, that pipeline will be used to transfer the oil to a port to then export. Not helping our domestic oil shortage at all.
what domestic oil shortage? We're currently one of the top producers of oil on the planet and a net EXPORTER because we make more oil than we can consume.
Are you just making stuff up at this point?
Are you a spambot?
In reply to Wall-e:
Yep. There are a few pipelines in the US:
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..
But i also think the protesters are misguided at best but at least they get to say that they "did something,..
NEALSMO wrote: Eminent domain used for private profit is where it crosses the line for me.
This bothers me, too. It's not that new pipelines are needed for some sort of national emergency or anything - there are existing pipelines that could be upgraded, alternative routes, whatever. But it makes a private enterprise more money to do it this way so they use the legal systems in place to their advantage to make more money. I think eminent domain outside of true public use needs to be banned.
The poster child for it, Kelo v. the City of New London, resulted in an empty lot generating zero taxes instead of a vibrant neighborhood. Serves the city right, but it's sad that it set such horrible precedent in our courts.
novaderrik wrote: But i also think the protesters are misguided at best but at least they get to say that they "did something,..
This. My friend's daughter has stopped going to class because she is so distraught by how her life has been ruined by the election. She's in a white upper middle class family who has never wanted for anything. Her life isn't going to change drastically no matter who was elected. She has been going to rallies to get the election overturned because she doesn't seem to understand how government works, and now she needs dad to up the limit on her credit card so she can travel to protest pipelines. It's been suggested that she may do more good by getting a degree in something that might actually help her get a job where she can work to make the changes she wants. She feels that standing in the street with a poorly made sign that does little more than show how much money her parents wasted on art school is a better way to change the world because she's doing something.
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.
The pipeline is on government owned land. The reservation is a bit of a trek away, but it comes close.
They have only protested on the last few miles of the pipeline. Other than this section, its all but complete.
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.
You'll need to log in to post.
