Just in: Construction of Dakota Access Pipeline Will Stop - Polidicks

Is there a reason the pipe had to go under the river instead of over it, where a leak would be easier to notice?

[QUOTE=OvB;51475901]Is there a reason the pipe had to go under the river instead of over it, where a leak would be easier to notice?[/QUOTE] I imagine that would hugely increase the risk that it would leak. That's just my guess.

[QUOTE=Svinnik;51475586]How stupid of them. If you looked at the base facts, they were never near grounds that were owned by the Indian tribe. The entire thing is environmentalists and people obsessed with identity politics automatically assuming that the Indians were automatically right because they were a minority.[/QUOTE] so I see you're familiar with the topography of the area but not the geography at all

[QUOTE=geel9;51475830]Obviously it was just costing too much money to deal with the protesters. As far as I'm aware the protesters had absolutely no legal basis for their protest so I'm surprised they got their way, but oh well. People can be dumb.[/QUOTE] according to what ive read they had till january to complete it or else the whole contract system for it falls apart. basically they garenteed oil distribution through contracts before it was even completed to secure financing and passage, but it had to be completed by january and they will not do it by then on the current schedule. the protestors knew this of course and only needed to stall until then [editline]4th December 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=OvB;51475901]Is there a reason the pipe had to go under the river instead of over it, where a leak would be easier to notice?[/QUOTE] probably because the river has to have some clearance issues

Wow this is huge. Happy to see some good news coming out of 2016.

[QUOTE=FingerSpazem;51475909]so I see you're familiar with the topography of the area but not the geography at all[/QUOTE] Except he's right. The pipe wasn't on Indian land. They don't have a legal basis. They might have had something if they had been able to prove there were any protected culturally sacred sites to Standing Rocks but Standing Rocks failed to prove that.

[QUOTE=geel9;51475830]Obviously it was just costing too much money to deal with the protesters. As far as I'm aware the protesters had absolutely no legal basis for their protest so I'm surprised they got their way, but oh well. People can be dumb.[/QUOTE] what's with this fetish people have for the status quo law always being what's right?

[QUOTE=bitches;51475947]what's with this fetish people have for the status quo law always being what's right?[/QUOTE] You're going to have to point me to where I said that the law is the same as morals. I'll wait.

[QUOTE=bitches;51475947]what's with this fetish people have for the status quo law always being what's right?[/QUOTE] Have you bothered to read the official document regarding Standing Rocks v Army Corps or are you just assuming that people are picking sides arbitrarily? He said legal basis.

[QUOTE=Svinnik;51475586]How stupid of them. If you looked at the base facts, they were never near grounds that were owned by the Indian tribe. The entire thing is environmentalists and people obsessed with identity politics automatically assuming that the Indians were automatically right because they were a minority.[/QUOTE] I've known all along that the pipeline went around native burial grounds and was outside of native territory - that never bothered me. What bothered me, as an "environmentalist," is that [I]there's a very long track record of these things leaking[/I] and it was planned to run [I]directly underneath a river that is a critical part of the fifth largest drainage basin in the world[/i]. I'm fine with a pipeline, but the planned route was idiotic. A single unnoticed leak and you could contaminate the Missouri down to the Mississippi all the way to fucking Louisiana in days. It'd be like running your drinking water pipe suspended [I]inside[/I] of a larger sewage pipe. It's [I]begging[/I] for contamination.

[QUOTE=geel9;51475955]You're going to have to point me to where I said that the law is the same as morals. I'll wait.[/QUOTE] yeah man you were just innocently saying how dumb it is for them to protest an upstream pipeline that would damage their community and way of life you totally didn't imply that they were wrong to protest just because it's legal to build the pipeline

[QUOTE=bitches;51475974]yeah man you were just innocently saying how dumb it is for them to protest an upstream pipeline that would damage their community and way of life you totally didn't imply that they were wrong to protest just because it's legal to build the pipeline[/QUOTE] Correct. Good job!

[QUOTE=Worstcase;51475946]Except he's right. The pipe wasn't on Indian land. They don't have a legal basis. They might have had something if they had been able to prove there were any protected culturally sacred sites to Standing Rocks but Standing Rocks failed to prove that.[/QUOTE] In my opinion, the pipeline land reaches as far as the oil can spill. Legally is a different manner of coarse, but the pipeline activist have a strong and legit moral basis for protesting this.

Finally, fuck those right wing corporate lovers.

[QUOTE=rampageturke 2;51475882]They had presidential campaigns to run :)[/QUOTE] they both supported the pipeline because one is in bed with wallstreet and one wants to be.

Okay, lets get real. How will they not go under or over the Missouri, Mississippi or any of it's tributaries? Is it suppose to be built with fairydust and pixie sticks?

[QUOTE=JoeSkylynx;51476053]Okay, lets get real. How will they not go under or over the Missouri, Mississippi or any of it's tributaries? Is it suppose to be built with fairydust and pixie sticks?[/QUOTE] I think the idea is that they don't want it built at all.

[QUOTE=AngryToad;51476062]I think the idea is that they don't want it built at all.[/QUOTE] It'll still be built, and more then likely in the same area, if not just a few miles northward to protect the pipeline builders.

[QUOTE=JoeSkylynx;51476053]Okay, lets get real. How will they not go under or over the Missouri, Mississippi or any of it's tributaries? Is it suppose to be built with fairydust and pixie sticks?[/QUOTE] [t]https://img.washingtonpost.com/rf/image_1484w/2010-2019/WashingtonPost/2016/09/07/National-Enterprise/Graphics/2300-NDpipelineMAP-v2.jpg?uuid=s5besnVEEeaXgUnlkXgXVA[/t] Initially, they looked at going through/around Bismarck and avoiding the river entirely, but the locals basically said no. So they chose to use the current route and go under the river. You can't avoid all the tributaries, obviously, but the Missouri is a massive river and it's idiotic to go [I]directly under it[/I] when if you just turn north and go past Bismarck and Minot you can avoid that problem entirely. It's also [I]literally shorter[/I] and doesn't involve going underneath any major rivers.

This is great news to hear despite 2016 being a bad year. I believe the Indians should have some sort of financial compensation for the police brutality and poor treatment that they had to endure during this protest.

As someone whos been studying groundwater contamination and such, that is a pretty fucking stupid pipeline route If there was a multiple choice question for routing the pipeline on a basic Physical Geology 101 test that would be the wrongest possible answer

tbh I dont care about what's the right or wrong route for the pipeline, if that many people believe that seriously that something shouldn't be done, it should at least be taken into serious consideration

[QUOTE=.Isak.;51476083] Initially, they looked at going through/around Bismarck and avoiding the river entirely, but the locals basically said no. So they chose to use the current route and go under the river.[/quote] That is not true. They originally intended on going through the native land, but the natives wanted far more cash for it's existence as well as royalties. Pipeline company said no, and came to us, as we already have two pipelines running north of our water intake in Bismarck and Mandan. The problem is that are current pipeline feeds directly to a Tesoro Refinery, and construction would require far more investment in both property rights and simply building into the steep cliff-faces of our area. So they went back south, talked up a few of the local farmers and ranchers in that area nearby to the tribal reservation, and the farmers willingly took half the cost originally proposed to the natives. [QUOTE=.Isak.;51476083] You can't avoid all the tributaries, obviously, but the Missouri is a massive river and it's idiotic to go [I]directly under it[/I] when if you just turn north and go past Bismarck and Minot you can avoid that problem entirely.[/QUOTE] This is not economically feasible. Not only would the pipeline need to be dug up across the entire state, but we'd also have to add extra baggage and length to reroute it. Another thing is the pipeline which already exists at Williston, which in the case of an oil spill, would go into the Fort Berthold Reservation's water supply. The route also proposed would still go over several tributaries, lakes, and otherwise in the vicinity of Minot. Realistically speaking, it must go under the Missouri. It already has at certain points with her tributaries, including the Heart River, which feeds directly into the Missouri.

[QUOTE=JoeSkylynx;51476053]Okay, lets get real. How will they not go under or over the Missouri, Mississippi or any of it's tributaries? Is it suppose to be built with fairydust and pixie sticks?[/QUOTE] I know you're in shock because you were rooting for water contamination and oil spills, but let's get really real here. The pipeline is finished. It's not happening.

[QUOTE=LTJGPliskin;51476145]I know you're in shock because you were rooting for water contamination and oil spills, but let's get really real here. The pipeline is finished. It's not happening.[/QUOTE] It's going to most likely happen as the pipeline is already in place. Pulling out now destroys a few companies here, and makes a lot of pissed off people.

[QUOTE=.Isak.;51476083] Initially, they looked at going through/around Bismarck and avoiding the river entirely, but the locals basically said no. So they chose to use the current route and go under the river.[/QUOTE] No we didn't [url]http://www.snopes.com/dapl-routed-through-standing-rock-after-bismarck-residents-said-no/[/url] The core of engineers determined that it would need to cross several more waterways and go an additional 11 miles if they chose that route

[QUOTE=.Isak.;51475973]I've known all along that the pipeline went around native burial grounds and was outside of native territory - that never bothered me. What bothered me, as an "environmentalist," is that [I]there's a very long track record of these things leaking[/I] and it was planned to run [I]directly underneath a river that is a critical part of the fifth largest drainage basin in the world[/i]. I'm fine with a pipeline, but the planned route was idiotic. A single unnoticed leak and you could contaminate the Missouri down to the Mississippi all the way to fucking Louisiana in days. It'd be like running your drinking water pipe suspended [I]inside[/I] of a larger sewage pipe. It's [I]begging[/I] for contamination.[/QUOTE] This is the thing that everyone seems to selectively ignore in favor of the narrative of protesters vs legalisms. Something to keep in mind is that the companies that build these pipelines fully expect them to spill and frankly don't give a shit about any leakage less than 10k gallons. Sometimes can take several days for the company to notice, if only because a passerby reported it. I was going to find some nice hot data for everyone but the PDF reports on pipeline company websites and even the EPA all 404 which is [I]suspicious as fuck[/I] All I found was [URL="http://watercenter.unl.edu/downloads/2011-Worst-case-Keystone-spills-report.pdf"]this study[/URL] about possible Keystone XL spills, to help put into perspective how bad of an idea pipelines are.

[QUOTE=Worstcase;51475946]Except he's right. The pipe wasn't on Indian land. They don't have a legal basis. They might have had something if they had been able to prove there were any protected culturally sacred sites to Standing Rocks but Standing Rocks failed to prove that.[/QUOTE] In the event of a leak their water supply will be fucked because of the geographical placement of this pipeline. He's saying that they have no right to protest because they don't technically own that land, but if shit goes down it still greatly negatively affects them so I think that's a dumb reason to discredit the whole protest.

[QUOTE=plokoon9619;51475559]One victory against the corporate oligarchy but the war isn't over yet.[/QUOTE] The war will never be over. But there will always be battles to win none the less. [editline]4th December 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=.Isak.;51476083][t]https://img.washingtonpost.com/rf/image_1484w/2010-2019/WashingtonPost/2016/09/07/National-Enterprise/Graphics/2300-NDpipelineMAP-v2.jpg?uuid=s5besnVEEeaXgUnlkXgXVA[/t] Initially, they looked at going through/around Bismarck and avoiding the river entirely, but the locals basically said no. So they chose to use the current route and go under the river. You can't avoid all the tributaries, obviously, but the Missouri is a massive river and it's idiotic to go [I]directly under it[/I] when if you just turn north and go past Bismarck and Minot you can avoid that problem entirely. It's also [I]literally shorter[/I] and doesn't involve going underneath any major rivers.[/QUOTE] Judging by that map, why doesn't it just go east to Minot and then down south? It looks like that route would completely bypass all of the Missouri and its tributaries?

[QUOTE=rampageturke 2;51475882]They had presidential campaigns to run :)[/QUOTE] You'd think something like water contamination of the Missouri river that could affect hundreds of thousands would be something that the presidential campaigns would be jumping at the bit to talk about. Who was the only candidate who spoke about the Flint water crisis that is STILL affecting people today? But no, let's talk about who's truly a puppet :)