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

Well damn, seems my wish from the last thread came true. Though this is far from over, given Trump's investments in the company, although I'm sure the protesters have contingencies in mind if/when the next round comes. If they started building again and I have the means at the time, I'd go join the camp myself.

I do not have a problem with it being stopped. I just hope they find a better route.

[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] problem, they've already built every length up to standing rock. now they can't just turn around and start over and head east probably like they should have [editline]4th December 2016[/editline] [url]http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/11/23/us/dakota-access-pipeline-protest-map.html[/url] according to the NYT, this doesn't even connect to existing pipelines, also its already crossing mississippi and several other large rivers but hilariously the original route was diverted because of fears over contamination [editline]4th December 2016[/editline] aaaaand its already obama's fault [quote]But Craig Stevens, a spokesman for the MAIN Coalition, a pro-infrastructure group, condemned the move as “a purely political decision that flies in the face of common sense and the rule of law.” “Unfortunately, it’s not surprising that the president would, again, use executive fiat in an attempt to enhance his legacy among the extreme left,” Mr. Stevens said in a statement. “With President-elect Trump set to take office in 47 days, we are hopeful that this is not the final word on the Dakota Access Pipeline.”[/quote] [url]http://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/04/us/federal-officials-to-explore-different-route-for-dakota-pipeline.html?rref=us&module=ArrowsNav&contentCollection=U.S.&action=click&region=FixedRight&pgtype=Multimedia[/url] ya because Obama is in charge of this and somehow trump would have done something to get it through, even though that action would reek of conflict since he's directly benefitting from it because... ya know... his stock in the company building the damn thing [url]http://www.cnbc.com/2016/11/25/donald-trumps-stock-in-oil-pipeline-company-raises-concern.html[/url]

[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;51476269]The war will never be over. But there will always be battles to win none the less. [editline]4th December 2016[/editline] 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] Because everyone else who lived in/near planned routes complained so they ended up routing it near Indian land.

[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] [/QUOTE] Speaking as someone who is neutral on the pipeline, this map really torpedoes the whole "It's not on Indian land so whey are they angry?" argument. Yeah it's not technically on their land but it goes right beneath a river that presumably is very important for drinking water and the economy.

[QUOTE=JoeSkylynx;51476154]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] It won't destroy anything TBH because we're going to pay for it out the ass once the lawsuit comes down.

[QUOTE=Raidyr;51476676]Speaking as someone who is neutral on the pipeline, this map really torpedoes the whole "It's not on Indian land so whey are they angry?" argument. Yeah it's not technically on their land but it goes right beneath a river that presumably is very important for drinking water and the economy.[/QUOTE]There should really be a minimum limit as to how close it can be outside the area. The pipe being right next to it is like tailgating someone and saying "but I'm not hitting you!"

[QUOTE=JoeSkylynx;51476131]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. 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] Is there a cost to human life that will make you actually care?

[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;51476695]Is there a cost to human life that will make you actually care?[/QUOTE] Has any human life been lost? No. Well, I find no reason to care then.

[QUOTE=JoeSkylynx;51476724]Has any human life been lost? No. Well, I find no reason to care then.[/QUOTE] Care to provide any evidence or actual studies that prove that the pipeline is safe under water?

[QUOTE=Chaitin;51476781]Care to provide any evidence or actual studies that prove that the pipeline is safe under water?[/QUOTE] I have a study that was commissioned by the EXXON and Haliburton joint environmental impact studies effort. It says don't worry, Oil is safe to drink in amounts that could potentially leak, which it won't because pipelines never leak and oil is safe. Oh and btw Global Warming is a myth perpetuated by the Liberal media shh.

[QUOTE=Raidyr;51476676]Speaking as someone who is neutral on the pipeline, this map really torpedoes the whole "It's not on Indian land so whey are they angry?" argument. Yeah it's not technically on their land but it goes right beneath a river that presumably is very important for drinking water and the economy.[/QUOTE] As has been said by Standing Rocks themselves. They don't really use the Missouri for much of anything. They are almost entirely reliant on well-water for drinking and irrigation. There is a difference between arguing about the impact on the environment vs. the impact on health and economy. The former is a legitimate concern, the ladder is not (in this situation).

[QUOTE=JoeSkylynx;51476724]Has any human life been lost? No. Well, I find no reason to care then.[/QUOTE] Are safety concerns are irrelevant unless someone dies? Where does sickness come into the equation? Is becoming extremely ill from drinking trace amounts of crude okay as long as you don't actually die?

[QUOTE=Chaitin;51476781]Care to provide any evidence or actual studies that prove that the pipeline is safe under water?[/QUOTE] How many pipelines do you think cross the Missouri and Mississippi? Why is it only this pipeline comes to immediate concern when we have roughly 2.5 million miles of pipeline. [editline]4th December 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=Mr. Someguy;51476906]Are safety concerns are irrelevant unless someone dies? Where does sickness come into the equation? Is becoming extremely ill from drinking trace amounts of crude okay as long as you don't actually die?[/QUOTE] We have plenty of safety measures in place, but safety measures never can guarantee 100% safety. When the risk is below 1% at best though, it's insignificant.

[QUOTE=JoeSkylynx;51476724]Has any human life been lost? No. Well, I find no reason to care then.[/QUOTE] So a scenario involving the potential for oil leaks, coming from an industry known for devastating natural disasters (Exxon, Deepwater Horizon, three in North Dakota in the past 3 years, [url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_oil_spills]among others[/url]), in an area not only upstream of a piece of land belonging to historically fucked-over people but upstream of the confluence with the Mississippi (the combination of which is one of the biggest river systems in the world) which vast numbers of people rely on for agriculture, industry, drinking water, trade, etc., doesn't pose any sort of concern whatsoever? There's absolutely [I]no[/I] risk here at all to anyone?

[QUOTE=ElectricSquid;51476971]So a scenario involving the potential for oil leaks, coming from an industry known for devastating natural disasters (Exxon, Deepwater Horizon, three in North Dakota in the past 3 years, [url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_oil_spills]among others[/url]), in an area not only upstream of a piece of land belonging to historically fucked-over people but upstream of the confluence with the Mississippi (the combination of which is one of the biggest river systems in the world) which vast numbers of people rely on for agriculture, industry, drinking water, trade, etc., doesn't pose any sort of concern whatsoever? There's absolutely [I]no[/I] risk here at all to anyone?[/QUOTE] We have several pipelines which go over several points of the Missouri and Mississippi, all of which directly could cause catastrophic spills. Almost all of them do not, while the very rare few sometimes break over time. You cannot move forward without taking risks.

[QUOTE=Matthew0505;51476980]They unnecessarily redirect it through a river because locals near the safe route complained and yet the natives are somehow the whiny ones.[/QUOTE] Yeah this is the part that gets me the most. They didn't even have to go through the river at all if they just East and then South but people who [B]aren't[/B] native complained and they respected the fuck out of them [B]insantly[/B] and instead opted for this insanely longer route that cuts through a river and could potentially fuck up the natives drinking supply, they don't get to just complain though they have to go through this huge fuck fest to get them to stop. It's a fucking stupid double standard is what just happened [editline]4th December 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=JoeSkylynx;51477000]We have several pipelines which go over several points of the Missouri and Mississippi, all of which directly could cause catastrophic spills. Almost all of them do not, while the very rare few sometimes break over time. You cannot move forward without taking risks.[/QUOTE] Why did we respect the complaints of other neighborhoods and communities though that were on much less risky routes?

[QUOTE=Worstcase;51476905]As has been said by Standing Rocks themselves. They don't really use the Missouri for much of anything. They are almost entirely reliant on well-water for drinking and irrigation. There is a difference between arguing about the impact on the environment vs. the impact on health and economy. The former is a legitimate concern, the ladder is not (in this situation).[/QUOTE] If groundwater contamination is a legitimate concern on top of contamination of the Missouri, then well-water would be affected by potential leaks as well.

[QUOTE=FingerSpazem;51477015] Why did we respect the complaints of other neighborhoods and communities though that were on much less risky routes?[/QUOTE] Because we never complained? We have several pipelines in Bismarck-Mandan, as well as Minot. It's not some case of evil whitey saying that the dumb brown injuns shouldn't drink water, but more of a case of, "Hey, we can shave about 20 miles off the pipeline if we go with the natives, oh wait they want double what we offered and to have royalties every year, yeah fuck that noise" and then going northward to farmers willing to take half of what was originally offered. The writing is on the wall already, and the pipeline is already in the ground. It'll most likely be finished by the end of the first quarter of next year, if not sooner.

[QUOTE=JoeSkylynx;51476929]We have plenty of safety measures in place, but safety measures never can guarantee 100% safety. When the risk is below 1% at best though, it's insignificant.[/QUOTE] Well I just learned about Nationwide Permit 12, which the DAP used instead of the proper Environmental Impact Statement. The EIS review takes a 'bigger picture' approach, the path and related areas are mapped out and any relevant laws, regulations, and protections are taken into consideration. If the line is deemed safe enough and a leak won't cause considerable damage to the environment, it is approved for construction. Nationwide Permit 12 is a 'fast-track' authorization that bypasses standard regulations in favor of a short 'small picture' review. This is intended to be used for smaller pipelines that are incapable of doing much damage even if they leak, so further considerations aren't particularly necessary. NWP 12 is issued by the Army Corps of Engineers. The problem is the DAP is not a small pipeline, so rather than obtaining EIS review, they used a loophole to secure hundreds or thousands of NWP 12's for every water crossing along the length of the pipeline. So the DAP is probably not compliant with environmental regulations or tribal protections, since these were not even considered when construction was approved. [editline]4th December 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=JoeSkylynx;51477145]The writing is on the wall already, and the pipeline is already in the ground. It'll most likely be finished by the end of the first quarter of next year, if not sooner.[/QUOTE] Well you see, the thing is the Army Corps of Engineers are the ones that approved all the permits that let them avoid our nation's laws. The Army Corps of Engineers are also the ones that just told them to stop, so that means unless the Corps change their mind again, DAP cannot proceed without proper authorization. They must either convinced the Corps to allow construction, or go through EIS review like they are supposed to.

The day I say no to a pipeline is the day there's a better alternative. In the meantime if you cite by rail, ship or road is better (spoiler: they are not) or that we don't need it at all because green energy will somehow make it obsolete overnight (*sitcom laughter*) please do yourself a favor and go munch on damp hay. Living under the path of both the TransMountain line and Terasen's natural gas line, both have been there for decades you will find me hard pressed to say the technology is bad.

[QUOTE=pentium;51477312]The day I say no to a pipeline is the day there's a better alternative. In the meantime if you cite by rail, ship or road is better (spoiler: they are not) or that we don't need it at all because green energy will somehow make it obsolete overnight (*sitcom laughter*) please do yourself a favor and go munch on damp hay. Living under the path of both the TransMountain line and Terasen's natural gas line, both have been there for decades you will find me hard pressed to say the technology is bad.[/QUOTE] That makes sense if they're shipping liquid crude, but a lot of these pipelines ship dilbit which is far, far worse of a situation if it ever spills. The risks do not outweigh the cost in this case.

[QUOTE=AtomicWaffle;51478075]That makes sense if they're shipping liquid crude, but a lot of these pipelines ship dilbit which is far, far worse of a situation if it ever spills. The risks do not outweigh the cost in this case.[/QUOTE] Truth but a spill is gonna cause an issue no matter what. And I xan garuntee that the next proposed route ain't gonna be fought and it'll be in a really inopportune spot still. I agree with the environmental concerns involving the pipeline but the protesters using a minority that had no business being involved as leverage was pretty awful.

[QUOTE=Svinnik;51475625]that is a legitimate concern but as long as we're talking about water contamination, why care about somewhere in the middle of nowhere? Flint's water is still poisoned, as are tons of inner city plumbing systems.[/QUOTE] flint's water is fucked, why not fuck the natives too lmao!!!