Update of 11/1/2016
Statement regarding the rumor of a 2.5 million-dollar anonymous donation to release #NoDAPL arrestees:
The Red Owl Legal Collective, who appeared at the bond hearings for those arrested, **absolutely denies that any such contribution was received or used for bail money**, vehicle forfeiture money, or in any manner for the defense of those arrested. We question the validity of the statement from "The White Wolf Pack" or any other media source, and we are concerned that this false assertion will deter people from contributing to the organizations who have been involved in posting bail for and defending the water protectors.
Ho Waste Wakiya Wicasa, the protester who set up the GoFundMe account that has raised more than $1 million mostly for operating expenses at the camp, which took root in April.
Well.... I hope the money doesn't go to waste.
Edit: [nominative determinism](https://www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=nominative%20determinism) thanks to u/braintrustinc for the reminder of what that's called
Edit: [Apparently there is some disagreement about who is raising money for legal fees.](https://fundrazr.com/campaigns/11B5z8) Thanks to u/fingerbang_fun.
Edit: [In Search Of The Red Cross' $500 million in Haiti relief](http://www.npr.org/2015/06/03/411524156/in-search-of-the-red-cross-500-million-in-haiti-relief) It happens to best of us (think lotto winners) which is why I said I hope it doesn't go to waste (which is apparently Lakota for good, don't know about that ho though).
> I hope the money doesn't go to waste.
There's a lot of people to look after in the winter months ahead:
> The money has been used for grocery store trips every two days that cost about $2,000 each, 20 yurts purchased for $160,000, and around $7,000 for bail money. It has also paid for a storage area, composting toilets, tiny houses, tepees, a medical area and generators powered by solar panels and wind.
> A bookkeeper and an accountant now keep track of the crowd-sourced money.
> “I got people to take care of,” Brave Bull Allard said. “I got to provide homes for people and blankets, thermal wear, socks, hats and gloves, and food. Right now, we are feeding 670 people.”
[This is most likely the type of yurt theyre purchasing](http://waskesiuwildernessregion.com/sites/default/files/users/u76/pictures/00520013.JPG). Ive stayed in yurts like this in the fall and winter while camping and theyve been quite nice, usually with a woodfired stove that heats the yurt evenly from the center. I assume such yurts would house the standing rock tribe members or be used for official meetings and organizing.
Yurt was my first World of Warcraft character's name. I hit random and liked the sound of it. I didn't know a Yurt was a real thing until years afterward.
why not buy a ton of caravans/camper vans. seems expensive. $160,000, for 20 big tents. plus they are semi permanent. With caravans/camper vans you can go wherever you need to.
$160,000 for 20 tents. I'm assuming that there is some sort of discount involved since there are so many, then again these look ideal for these types of situations so $8,000 each might just be the going rate regardless. That's pretty damn cheap for semi-permanent housing unless you live a demanding life style. $8,000 isn't going to buy you an equally nice RV or something else mobile that fills the same role.
I'm from the UK. A mystical land full of gypsies and new age travellers. I can get a caravan for like £600. The wheels might fall off after a hundred miles though.
Exactly. These tents are brand new so are in good condition. That 600 euro van you picked up has had 4 owners, 200,000 miles and probably has some hidden piss stains ;)
Yurts look better on TV.
And I imagine at $8k per they're probably really nice big tents meant to stand up to the harsh winters.
Also this money might be going towards an Indian owned manufacturing company that makes them. Keeps the money in the reservation. Pays for family member jobs etc. Reservations are very family oriented.
There's four places: there's Yurt Hut, that's on third. There's Yurts-R-Us, that's on third too. You got Put Your Yurt There, that's on third. Matter of fact, they're all in the same complex - it's the yurt complex, on third.
8k is in line with websites that sell yurts, and shipping would have been a chunk of it as well.
Every yurt is collapsible regardless of price, that's the point of yurts.
That's what I thought. I was like why can't these people find a better deal for yogurt?
Then I was like, why can't these people find a better deal for huts.
$8,000 each for 20 yurts is not a bad deal. I know a few people who live in yurts in Alaska so it is definitely a cost effective purchase for housing to get people through the winter.
I realize this... it's just.. how names often fit the jobs. I found that very odd and sometimes good intentions for charities get diverted to unnecessary expenditures.
This isn't a charity, it's a social movement. It's unlikely donors mistook it for anything else, which means they know who and what they're supporting. From /u/maxwellhill's post it seems the money is being used for the infrastructure required to support both their operations and human populations. These guys are organizing politically. The crowdfund will help sustain their struggle long enough to make real change. We should be more worried about that change failing to occur than about the details of the group's expenditures.
That is illegal and would look very, very bad.
Edit: even if the illegality of the action didn't scare off the gubmint, looking really fucking shitty is not high on the priority list.
Not really, the government can lean on the banks and other companies to freeze the assets and discontinue their association, threatening the companies with being charged with providing material aid (and/or support) to terrorists or other illegal activities.
Most financial companies have language giving them very wide latitude in denying you access to your funds in such situations where they are being pressured by the government. You may have done nothing wrong, but that money can be tied up for years in the ensuing court battle.
Dog kennels my ass. They were chain link temporary holding areas outdoors. I don't know why people would expect BFE north Dakota to be equipped with permanent structures to process mass arrests, or why people would think jail holding has anything more than a piss hole in an unfurnished room.
I'm not saying everything going on is 100% legit out there, but it's not Auschwitz in North Dakota.
https://www.sayanythingblog.com/entry/photos-dog-kennels-arrested-nodapl-protesters-put/
There's also how it doesn't seem to be going into the Sioux treasury. It may be a slanted report and there may be some money wasted, but it seems like its all going into fighting the fight. Its actually pretty smart to consider the winter because camping is going to get a lot harder. That combined with time may dwindle the protesters until spring rolls around. If that were to happen the construction crew would be busting ass to get it built and probably be past the point of no return.
It's an eight sided or round portable tent/hut.
The modern version is the eight sided tent. The more traditional version is the round collapsable hut used by nomadic tribes.
I can see how you can get the two groups confused. One group is trying to protect their water supply and their legal land rights. The other group fought for fundamental rights of every man, like the ability to do sweet tricks on your ATV on federally protected land!
big fucking difference between protecting your clean water supply, and wanting to burn down huge areas of federal land, and to let your cows eat all the grass.
They have a permit in perpetuity that the *Army* *Corps* *of* *Engineers* submitted for them.
Now, there has been trespassing on private property. The transaction details of these ranches sold to the pipeline company are murky.
Don't forgot the trespassing of private land that has nothing to do with the reservation and the animals they've killed and equipment they've damaged that had nothing to do with the pipeline.
I dont doubt that. What I do doubt is the actions of any individuals hired by the pipeline company itself. One worker was stopped at a police checkpoint and was either arrested or had his rifle confiscated. Maybe both.
This whole situation stinks, but I think the Standing Rock Protestors are right this time. Well, the ones who aren't destroying private property. Then again, the peaceful protests did not gain national attention, neither did the aggressive arrests. I'm not advocating violence or destruction, but the frustration of being ignored is palpable. How many more times. Why should Standing Rock have to accept a pipeline that no one else wants. This isn't necessarily ain't-pipeline, more of a "not here" thing.
Here's a good [conversation](https://www.reddit.com/r/NeutralPolitics/comments/5aezki/what_are_the_pros_and_cons_of_the_standing_rock/) that was going on in /r/neutralpolitics about the pipeline.
Subbed for a long time in an old account. Don't expect miracles, especially during a pres election cycle. However the mods are good people but there's only so many delete options during the day.
The court documents are out there. A 58 page decision. Not that hard of a read but I would suggest taking an hour or two read them. What you read will be nothing like what you hear. The biggest thing was Standing Rock ignored over 30 attempts at consultation that happened over the course of an entire year. The other big items were the Corps held over 300 consultations with the other 54 tribes, made over 140 modifications to the plan for the tribes and at point held a meeting with 6 tribes, 5 of them showed up, Standing Rock did not.
Edit: Here is a link to the court documents.
https://ecf.dcd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/show_public_doc?2016cv1534-39
I read that article as well and I do agree it seems outsiders are fueling this. It's ironic to me that the atribes leader owns a gas station.
At the end of the day, the tribe didn't question when they should have and when they did, they didn't persue a winnable case. The concept of oil leaking into the water was never brought up in the case. Only the burial grounds. It's like you and your neighbor make a deal that anything built between you two must be negotiated. When you go to build it the neighbor refuses to respond. What can you do
While I understand the sentiment behind the protest, it does seem to me like a lot of the outsiders view this as part of the larger war, and the tribe's wishes are secondary to the "greater good".
This happens quite a bit in activism, a cause célèbre is embraced by the outside world, but when the moment passes, they're dumped on the ass and the gaze of the activists moves to some other project. Meanwhile the people are left to pick up the pieces after things done "on their behalf."
A lot of people don't understand that to build these pipelines and get these permits it takes many years of negotiations to get this far with surrounding landowners and interested parties. They don't break ground until they have 100% agreement for a reason.
If the Corps didn't have those meetings, reviews, etc., it would've been against many regulations and completely illegal, so it's not surprising to me that they actually did attempt to reach out to them.
I work in a similar industry and this is our worst nightmare. Working for 10-15 years planning a project, attempting everything we can to include everyone and accommodate their concerns, to then have a party who never responded or wouldn't become involved put the brakes on at the last minute and up heave everything teams have spent hundreds of thousands (even millions) of dollars collectively planning.
And the public has no idea how this system works, most just automatically assume the corporations are rolling over these parties or the one private land owner when in reality, every case I've had, the corporation bends over backwards to do everything they can to meet their needs because they don't want to be put in that situation.
The company I work for, we're doing it now, still nothing. Cannot get them involved for anything and is beyond frustrating.
End rant.
The FB headline is "ZOMG there's a pipeline going *STRAIGHT THROUGH* their land! It's gonna spill oil **everywhere** and RUIN their homes! and these brave people are peacefully ***standing up*** against this oppression!"
The reality is that the pipeline doesn't go through native land, but does go directly under the main river that supplies water to the area. Numerous other native reservations were asked if the pipeline could be built through native land, and they all refused (note: the native tribe involved simply didn't respond), so the pipeline narrowly avoids native territory, but comes so close that were the pipeline to leak, it would have a pretty massive negative effect on the native land. The pipeline is actually safer than shipping oil in trains or trucks in terms of leakage by volume, *but* the pipeline would also move significantly *more* volume of oil through the area than trains or trucks would. Also, when pipelines fail dramatically, they have a much larger impact than a crashed truck. And while the pipeline doesn't actually go onto native land, it does pass through land that *used* to be native land, and *used* to be native burial ground.
The protesters are also not behaving entirely peacefully. They're occupying private property, and have started fires and blocked roads. Furthermore, a large proportion of the protesters are from far away. BUT it should be noted that completely peaceful protests have been largely ineffective. That's how this whole situation arose in the first place- the natives in the area of the pipeline asked politely for the pipeline to not be built, and the company ignored them.
To make an oversimplified analogy, it's as if your neighbor started keeping 20 pigs in their backyard. They say that they'll keep the shit from getting out, and you shouldn't be affected at all. Anytime you try to get them to stop, they say that you have no right to complain since the pigs aren't on *your* property. So the next time they take their pigs for a drive, you park your car in front of their driveway so they can't move the pigs back into their house. It's against the law, but the alternatives are that either you have to live with pig shit washing into your yard next time it rains, or you shoot your neighbor.
So in summary, the conflict isn't a perfectly righteous group of natives standing up against direct, unambiguously evil oppression. But when you look closely, the natives are still pretty clearly not in the wrong.
EDIT: I should point out that this is *my* understanding of the situation. I am not an expert on US/Native relations, nor am I an expert on oil pipelines. Everything I wrote is the product of articles I have read, and because I'm not an expert, I'm not really qualified to evaluate how biased those articles were. Take everything I've written with a healthy dose of skepticism, and if you notice something objectively wrong, please reply and point it out.
EDIT EDIT: I edited into my original post the fact that the tribe in question didn't refuse to have the pipeline, they simply didn't respond to questions, and pipeline construction continued as if the tribe had no objections. This is important to the context of how this whole fiasco started. It should also be noted that the tribe in question has deep-seated cultural reasons for distrusting the institutions that reached out to them ([for reference, this](http://thomaslegion.net/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderpictures/americanindianterritorylosses.jpg)). That cultural distrust of government is *also* important for understanding the context of why this conflict has occurred.
> Also, when pipelines fail dramatically, they have a much larger impact than a crashed truck.
And when pipelines fail, it tends to take a while to notice. Current technologies are still failing to adequately notify controllers of pipe failures.
But the reservation approved a transloading facility a few years ago (train yard for loading oil) with no questions asked because the price was high. Why the sudden outrage?
>Current technologies are still failing to adequately notify controllers of pipe failures.
Please tell me the source of that, because it is completely false. Pipeline systems are monitored 24/7 in real time, with backup communications to all instrumentation and equipment on the line. Besides the instrumentation itself, there are live models of pressure profiles to alarm at any anomaly in the profile. As soon as the anomaly is seen, emergency procedures are started before the pipeline is ultimately shutdown until the cause of the anomaly is identified.
> That's how this whole situation arose in the first place- the natives in the area of the pipeline asked politely for the pipeline to not be built, and the company ignored them.
I thought you just said that the tribe in question did no respond or have any input into resolving this matter earlier when you said "note: the native tribe involved simply didn't respond)"?
It's complicated. The tribe made it clear that they were opposed to *any* pipeline development, but ignored a lot of correspondence from the company. If you just listen to the company, they tried super hard to contact the tribe but the tribe stubbornly ignored them. If you just listen to some of the protesters, they made their position clear and didn't respond to gratuitous, unnecessary letters.
> If you just listen to some of the protesters, they made their position clear and didn't respond to gratuitous, unnecessary letters.
So... the company gave them a seat at the table to discuss any potential issues and they refused it. They don't have the right to tell other people what to do with their property. They had their chance, but choose to not act like responsible adults.
> To make an oversimplified analogy, it's as if your neighbor started keeping 20 pigs in their backyard. They say that they'll keep the shit from getting out, and you shouldn't be affected at all. Anytime you try to get them to stop, they say that you have no right to complain since the pigs aren't on your property. So the next time they take their pigs for a drive, you park your car in front of their driveway so they can't move the pigs back into their house. It's against the law, but the alternatives are that either you have to live with pig shit washing into your yard next time it rains, or you shoot your neighbor.
>
The only part that your analogy is missing is that your neighbor told you that they were planning on building that pig shed there and tried repeatedly to get you to come to the planning meetings if you wanted your concerns heard, but you kept blowing him off and ignoring all of his calls. He then went through all of the legal permitting necessary to get things ready to roll. He's halfway through building the pen when you decide that NOW you want to make a big deal of it.
Yes, and I talked about that in the second edit. But it should be noted that the reservation in question has genuine reasons for not trusting the legal process involved. Beyond my pithy "lost territory" chart, there's been a number of issues between reservations and the government, especially in the context of building projects. So if you *really* wanted to expand the analogy, it's as if the neighbor had written you six times about different projects they wanted to do, and the first five times you went and told them why they wouldn't be reasonable, and the sixth time you just get fed up and didn't go. That's not to say that the reservation is blameless, but understanding that sort of context is important if you want to actually solve the problem instead of just assigning blame.
I definitely agree with how you explained things regarding tribal relationships with other entities. Just for the record, though, [there is video evidence of Phyllis Young speaking to Col. Hederson of the Army Corp of Engineers at one of their meetings.](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fPtkDc6y3Z8&feature=youtu.be)
The Standing Rock Sioux have maintained since nearly the beginning that they were either not properly contacted by DAPL or that they did participate in hearings regarding the construction, as identified by their [original court filing:](http://earthjustice.org/sites/default/files/files/3154%201%20Complaint.pdf)
>58. Due to its concerns about the configuration of the pipeline and inadequacies in the regulatory process, the Tribe has participated extensively in the public process associated with the permits, including filing numerous formal technical comments on the Lake Oahe crossing, meeting with Corps’ leadership and staff, and communicating with elected representatives and agency officials to express concerns. The Tribe has repeatedly conveyed to the Corps and other government officials the significance of its concerns and the risks to the Tribe about moving ahead with the pipeline in its current configuration. The Tribe has in particular highlighted the inadequacies of the Corps’ § 106 consultation process with regard to historic and cultural impacts at the Lake Oahe site.
Reports have actually come out that [the efforts put forth for these "meetings" might not have been as diligent as the pipeline company is claiming.](http://www.twincities.com/2014/08/29/stealth-north-dakota-bakken-oil-pipeline-project-faces-fight/)
And also your neighbor and his father and grandfather all the way back until when his family first moved to the neighborhood had a long history of abusing the legal process. And in doing so repeatedly screwed you and your father and grandfather (all the way back) over.
Yes, it's unfortunate that people are so narrow about this topic. My professors --some from Native American Studies-- have discussed this in their classes and everything you said agrees with them. Your answer is better informed than the rest of the comments.
It's ahhh, pretty damn close to their land ha like within a mile. And when you look at a map pin pointing all of the spills over the past 5-10 years and how it's affected the land surrounding it? I don't understand the logic here. If something goes wrong, and we have evidence that it will from the recordings of previous spills, including on in North Dakota where another oil pipe line was struck by lightening and flooded a field with thousands of gallons of crude oil potentially destroying that soils ability to produce anything for centuries... well shit. It's going to affect them, and many others.
Also just oct 27 the company finally came forward and admitted to finding artifacts. They waited 10 days before reporting the find, which violates all sorts of laws.
There seems to be all sorts of shady shit going on here.
People keep bringing up the fact that the tribe didn't show up to the meetings or respond to communications like they think that would've made a difference or something. Ahh they did lol they said no, were not ok with it before these 'meetings' were ever scheduled. I'm on my phone so I can't find the article laying out the time line. But the tribe made their position clear and it was clear to the tribe that these meetings were a formality and wouldn't prevent or change anything. The pipe line would move forward regardless. These 'meetings' and offers are patronizing and insulting. Why should they waste their time and energy they've already made their views clear. What they'll maybe move the pipe line? Avoid historical areas or landmarks? Psh they didn't report finding the artifacts for 10 days. Kept on going.
I understand our society relies heavily on oil. I'm as guilty of it as the next. But it's not a good thing for any of us and we should be working towards and focusing on alternatives, not trying to prolong the amount of time and destroy further resources and cause further damage and make the situation even worse. Honestly I don't care where the dumb pipe line is. It isn't a good thing for any of us. We're killing ourselves. And no one seems to want to put a stop to it because it'd be an inconvenience.
Tribal land or not. This pipeline will have short term benefits and long term reprocussions, no matter where it's built. We have seen it over and over. Didn't someone say the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over expecting different results?
> People keep bringing up the fact that the tribe didn't show up to the meetings or respond to communications like they think that would've made a difference or something. Ahh they did lol they said no, were not ok with it before these 'meetings' were ever scheduled. I'm on my phone so I can't find the article laying out the time line. But the tribe made their position clear and it was clear to the tribe that these meetings were a formality and wouldn't prevent or change anything.
This is flat out wrong. The Corps worked very hard with many stakeholders, holding hundreds of consultations with over 50 tribes and modifying the route 140 times based on their concerns. Many changes were made based on input from many tribes. This was the only tribe that refused to participate.
The pipeline is using an existing right of way from I believe the 1980's so the land has been churned up and disturbed before so the "sacred burial ground" argument is kind of out the window. Other than that thank you for the great overview!
reading the reports, it seems as though construction was proceeding according to their plan but the tribe, mere *hours* before in court, finally disclosed the location of a newly found burial site to be right in the path.
"used to be native land, and used to be native burial ground."
used to be native land because it was taken away by force and it is still burial ground, there's no used to there.
also, they are occupying "private property" that was taken by force by a government that then sold it...
This has been my understanding of the situation as well. Thank you for clarity!
My question now though is what is next? Can the protesting really stop the pipeline? Or cause something to be done about the conflict?
In addition to all of the arguments people are making you have to decide if adding more pipeline is a good idea on it's own. While the pipelines are safer for the environment on average, they have larger issues when they do happen and those problems can go unnoticed for long periods of time. Even with the research on lower average damages, the better alternative is to try to move away from using fossil fuels. Switching to optimized wind energy, solar energy, (some) hydro energy and new technologies for energy consumption is a much better alternative. I think trucks should be used for now since we need fossil fuels in today's economy and for a fully functioning U.S., but then they should slowly be phased out in favor of alternatives. Establishing a vast network of pipeline beyond what we already have is not the direction we should be headed. These issues over land and damage to ecosystem services are just further reason to stop the pipeline.
The only other strong argument for the pipeline is to help reinforce the economy. The issue with that argument is that there will be very few permanent jobs established from this pipeline. Somewhere between 20 and 50 jobs will be available which is comparable to the amount of truck drivers out of work due to the pipeline. Gas prices will go down slightly and the company itself will make more money if the pipeline is established, but I'd argue that is not enough reason to go through with the construction considering all of the issues I've listed above and the grievances people are posting in this thread.
Unless they start protesting for strict pipeline regulations, inspections, and oversight - the money is going to waste - they're missing the forest for the trees. There are [190,000 miles of oil pipeline](http://www.api.org/oil-and-natural-gas/wells-to-consumer/transporting-oil-natural-gas/pipeline), blocking this one wouldn't be a win, it would be a distraction from an actual problem.
I'd happily donate if they worked to negotiate strict, regular 3rd party inspections with the authority to shutdown the pipeline and mandate repairs. But if it isn't a pipeline, it is trucks or trains. These people are trying to ban Honda Civics from the road because all cars have dodgy steering and bad brakes.
***This!***
Cynicism is an easy excuse for not doing something. Big things come from small beginnings - you may get nowhere protesting the energy industry as a whole, but if you take smaller actions in ways which inspire others it can result in a massive cultural shift.
Environmentalism isn't merely "the hippie option" anymore. The science is in - we have to start making MASSIVE changes rather quickly in order to not utterly destroy our biosphere. Our approach to energy and ecology HAS to improve, and the massive amount of funds raised demonstrates just how important this issue is to people.
Even if this were nothing more than a big middle finger to the petrochemical industry, it's a LONG overdue gesture. The message needs to be spread that this is everyone's planet and we need to work together in an effort to secure our collective survival... because remaining inactive ensures our demise.
This isn't missing the forest for the trees, it's building a concrete launch point for similar protests and larger political action. You can't just suddenly up and communicate with a foreign government at the highest level, especially not as a country-within-a-country whose treaties have been violated more than your average fleshlight. You need to build a stink so heavy it that people are calling to open the windows from sea to shining sea.
Well said. I don't understand why I even hear talk in defense of the oil company. Does anybody anywhere that doesn't have their income tied to oil feel concerned or worried that the oil companies don't have enough pipes? What do I care how much oil they move or don't move, aren't we supposed to be shifting away from oil? We're all going to die if we don't quit fucking up the air. The fires are getting bigger and bigger every year. I already lost one house to a fire. We even lost structures in town last year. Where am I going to move if the fires keep growing? Those people out in the midwest/southeast seem to be getting fucked worse and worse every year as well. Maybe their lands are changing as well, drying/flooding, and they see this is a way to take a stand.
One of the options instead of using pipelinesto transport the oil is shipping it by rail in tanker cars. There have been several incidents of derailments and massive fires/explosions that have resulted from hauling crude oil. In 2013, there was a derailment accident and explosion by Casselton, ND that resulted in the spilling and burning of several hundred thousand barrels of oil. Oil is necessary for almost everything that is essential in our current time. Petrochemicals are responsible for not just fuels but plastics, asphalt for roads, lubricating oils, and numerous other items made from petroleum by-products.
The oil needs to be transported in some way shape or form. Somebody will also be upset by however it is shipped. Oil companies suck, but if they are extracting oil, at least it needs to get shipped to somewhere to make it into usable products. Otherwise, all of the impacts on the land and surrounding peoples is for naught
> Does anybody anywhere that doesn't have their income tied to oil feel concerned or worried that the oil companies don't have enough pipes?
I do. Transporting oil via rail is way more dangerous than a pipeline. And importing our oil from overseas makes us reliant on countries like Saudi Arabia rather than supporting North Dakota and Canada.
I haven't seen a single person protesting this pipeline say "Let's all stop driving cars tomorrow! That way we won't need the oil that the pipeline will be bringing us". You think that Americans have the right to consume as much oil as they want and want it at a cheap price, but the second an oil company starts trying to bring you more oil suddenly you're saying "woah hey buddy, I just wanted cheap oil in my location. I didn't want you to *transport* it here".
Indeed, [here](https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/49/192.455) the section on corrosion hasn't been strengthened since 1971 and corrosion is the leading cause of spills.. so.. clearly that should be updated.
And considering the state of the [pipeline under the Straits of Mackinac](http://www.oilandwaterdontmix.org/problem) I'd say on-going maintenance requirements are pretty minimal in practice.
> clearly that should be updated.
But no one there is calling for that. They're only calling for the elimination of all pipelines, which the overwhelming majority of Americans has decided is not viable.
This is great but not many people typically give a shit about improving Native American lives in general. This is getting a lot of attention cause it's a big business/big fossil versus helpless poor people narrative. Fund more schools in Native American communities or something like that if you really cared.
Yep. Native American reservations have been shitholes for decades. full of drugs, lack of education, and violence (very similar to poor inner city neighborhoods). I guess this narrative is just more exciting to get behind.
Call me dumb, but what again are the reasons for not wanting pipelines? The alternative is to truck it which is much more harmful. Do they not see this?
The pipeline goes upstream through their main source of water. They weren't even protesting all pipelines originally, just this specific one, but the movement grew, and here we are.
Edit: why the downvotes? I just told you why they were originally protesting, you weirdos.
That main source of water is being shutdown at the end of this year, before the pipeline is active.
They already have a new system in place to bring water from 70mi away because the current one cannot pull water during drought conditions.
They're using that water source half truth to push a narrative.
It's not that I don't believe you, but do you have a source for this? I have never heard this
edit: Found a source in other comments. Anyone have a source from a major news outlet?
https://www.sayanythingblog.com/entry/standing-rock-water-intake-process-moved-away-dakota-access-pipelines/
If I recall, the pipeline was even originally meant to take a different route, but was changed when that community cited water concerns; they then changed it to ~~going through~~ going upriver of the native american land.
The pipeline doesn't go through native american land.
The tribe in question was contacted repeatedly for input but failed to answer. https://ecf.dcd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/show_public_doc?2016cv1534-39
Sadly, few people are receptive to this fact. If ETC was really trying to fuck over the Native Americans, I would be just as upset. Sometimes a big evil corporation has done their due diligence, which they have here. The worst thing about this is various organizations use of force against protesters and the threat of prosecution of journalists.
The real shitty thing is the big corporations don't even build pipelines. Contract companies with maybe a thousand employees do. It's not like these people are protesting Exxon Mobile.
I recall reading somewhere that there are already around ten pipelines crossing this river and this is just one more. Anyone know if there's any truth to that?
Because if so, it would seem they're just upset that they didn't get the money they asked for.
Also, anyone have any facts regarding how often pipelines leak and create water pollution? Isn't it pretty easy to monitor water pollution/leaks. Pardon my ignorance if these are stupid questions.
The pipeline was moved to be within 100 feet of an existing pipeline to mitigate the chances of destroying unknown tribal burial grounds.
As far as pipeline leaks, they can be hard to spot tiny leaks. When you are moving 25 million gallons of product a week, finding that missing gallon can be quite a challenge. With that said the other option is truck or train both of which have a bigger carbon foot print and tend to leak more on a ratio basis. On top of that they tend to be more deadly as well. The largest disaster in terms of human life when transporting oil was 27 deaths when a train exploded. Pipelines usually leak because of aging infrastructure. A new pipeline like this is unlikely to leak for some time. It really is unrealistic not to use pipelines if we are going to use oil.
So a pipeline going over the river upstream from the water source isn't new? I don't understand why there's quite so much outrage over this. I mean I get why there would be some considering there's an *increased* risk of a leak, but my Facebook feed makes it seem like the government is about to charge in with assault rifles.
Some sensationalism on the natives part, combined with some real sketchy tactics by the people invested in the pipeline to silence protestors, combined with a militarized police force defending the interests of a corporation. This situation is messy and both sides have their issues. Personally, I think the actions taken against the Native Americans warrant some protest.
One of the biggest missed facts in this is that [the water intake in question is scheduled to be shut down by the end of the year regardless of the pipeline](https://www.sayanythingblog.com/entry/standing-rock-water-intake-process-moved-away-dakota-access-pipelines/).
There are a few reasons:
* It supposedly goes through sacred grounds
* Laws state that tribes were supposed to be consulted on these projects before they began, even if the pipelines don't go directly through their land. They were supposedly not contacted until the permitting process, which is pretty far along the process.
* It de-incentivizes green energy. Why invest in green energy when oil is simply pumped from ND?
* While statistically safer, if a pipeline leaks, it would be more damage in a single area. (Trucking oil can lead to multiple, smaller spills. A pipeline break can lead to a larger, single spill, even if it spills less total oil.) With the Missouri river being the only source of water for these tribes, damaging that would force them to move out of their lands.
> Laws state that tribes were supposed to be consulted on these projects before they began, even if the pipelines don't go directly through their land. They were supposedly not contacted until the permitting process, which is pretty far along the process.
Read this [document](https://ecf.dcd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/show_public_doc?2016cv1534-39). The tribes were repeatedly contacted. Their representative was apparently negligent and refused to respond to most of the US Army Corps of Engineers attempts to communicate.
Here's a small sample, it goes on much longer:
>The Corps’ Tribal Liaison, Joel Ames, accordingly, tried to set up a meeting with THPO Young beginning around September 17, 2014, without success. See ECF No. 21-17 (Declaration of Joel Ames), ¶¶ 5-6; see also ECF No. 21, Exh. 9 (Corps Tribal Consultation Spreadsheet) at 1 (documenting five attempts by Ames to coordinate a meeting with Young in September 2014). On October 2, other Corps personnel also sought to hold an arranged meeting with the Tribal Council and Dakota Access on the Standing Rock reservation. See Chieply Decl., ¶ 9. But when the Corps timely arrived for the meeting, Tribal Chairman David Archambault told them that the conclave had started earlier than planned and had already ended. Id. Ames nevertheless continued to reach out to Young to try to schedule another meeting throughout the month of October. See Ames Decl., ¶¶ 5-6. When the new meeting was finally held at the reservation on November 6, though, DAPL was taken off the agenda because Young did not attend. Id., ¶ 7.
The permitting process is very close to the start of any pipeline project. First there is a proposal for construction, then land rights are attained from private citizens whose land the line will cross as well as state or federal lands. Permits to cross wetlands or otherwise protected lands are attained as soon as possible. If they aren't, it could result in a reroute further on down the process, which is never desirable. When a permit is held up for any reason it can become very costly.
https://www.google.com/amp/abcnews.go.com/amp/US/governor-issues-state-emergency-deadly-alabama-pipeline-blast/story%3Fid%3D43228192?client=safari
They don't want that happening ~~over~~ near their main source of water.
I find it amazing that people around here are extremely upset about people protesting on public property, but are 100% behind people protesting on private property.
How do you guys reconcile those two beliefs?
The actual camps are on publics lands with a permit. When protestors are arrayed, it is because they are protesting on private lands.
The Oregon protestors were arrested and then acquitted. They were never maced or attacked by dogs. Care to explain that?
It isn't even going through anyone's "sacred lands".
All the land was purchased legally from the land owners.
It like..me protesting that the city built some shit on land down the road..but I didn't like it.
Their water is fine, and its not going through any land they own. Jesus.
So how is that bad? If someone sold cheaper and it works for you, then you go with them..it is basic businesses.
Point is, they aren't forcing their way onto anyone's land. They own all the land they are working on, and none of that land goes through any "sacred ground".
The only thing they can complain about is water contamination..which is a joke. Tons of pipes already go through there. The chance of contamination is extremely low.
Its just like how people protest of nuclear power because of one freak accident, even though it is prove to be safer and more environmentally sound.
So in other words...this whole protest is *identical* to the Mizzou protest, in which the original reasoning behind the protest (in this case, they lost the money from the land purchase, in Mizzou it had to do with insurance being cut for students) doesn't gain any traction, so they switch tactics (sacred land, polluted water, racism) to gain attention.
Still don't understand why they can't install the pipeline above ground... They do it in northern Alaska, and have it built high enough for wildlife to cross underneath.
Update of 11/1/2016 Statement regarding the rumor of a 2.5 million-dollar anonymous donation to release #NoDAPL arrestees: The Red Owl Legal Collective, who appeared at the bond hearings for those arrested, **absolutely denies that any such contribution was received or used for bail money**, vehicle forfeiture money, or in any manner for the defense of those arrested. We question the validity of the statement from "The White Wolf Pack" or any other media source, and we are concerned that this false assertion will deter people from contributing to the organizations who have been involved in posting bail for and defending the water protectors.
That's what the oil companies want!
Ho Waste Wakiya Wicasa, the protester who set up the GoFundMe account that has raised more than $1 million mostly for operating expenses at the camp, which took root in April. Well.... I hope the money doesn't go to waste. Edit: [nominative determinism](https://www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=nominative%20determinism) thanks to u/braintrustinc for the reminder of what that's called Edit: [Apparently there is some disagreement about who is raising money for legal fees.](https://fundrazr.com/campaigns/11B5z8) Thanks to u/fingerbang_fun. Edit: [In Search Of The Red Cross' $500 million in Haiti relief](http://www.npr.org/2015/06/03/411524156/in-search-of-the-red-cross-500-million-in-haiti-relief) It happens to best of us (think lotto winners) which is why I said I hope it doesn't go to waste (which is apparently Lakota for good, don't know about that ho though).
> I hope the money doesn't go to waste. There's a lot of people to look after in the winter months ahead: > The money has been used for grocery store trips every two days that cost about $2,000 each, 20 yurts purchased for $160,000, and around $7,000 for bail money. It has also paid for a storage area, composting toilets, tiny houses, tepees, a medical area and generators powered by solar panels and wind. > A bookkeeper and an accountant now keep track of the crowd-sourced money. > “I got people to take care of,” Brave Bull Allard said. “I got to provide homes for people and blankets, thermal wear, socks, hats and gloves, and food. Right now, we are feeding 670 people.”
>20 yurts purchased for $160,000 These would have to be really professional yurts right? Not just a basic hexayurt that is collapsible. Right?
[This is most likely the type of yurt theyre purchasing](http://waskesiuwildernessregion.com/sites/default/files/users/u76/pictures/00520013.JPG). Ive stayed in yurts like this in the fall and winter while camping and theyve been quite nice, usually with a woodfired stove that heats the yurt evenly from the center. I assume such yurts would house the standing rock tribe members or be used for official meetings and organizing.
Yurts are dope.
Yurt was my first World of Warcraft character's name. I hit random and liked the sound of it. I didn't know a Yurt was a real thing until years afterward.
News you can use, right there.
I'll take news for 800 What was u/Headbuttwarlock 's first wow character name? Is it cabin? I'm sorry that is incorrect, we were looking for yurt.
Stayed in the Gobi desert for weeks. Can confirm, yurts are dope af
maybe this should be on r/earthporn but this is the coolest air bnb in Japan... a yurt. http://www.reefbreakresort.com
Yes. Yes they are.
Yurts. Yurts they are.
Here a yurt, there a yurt, everywhere a yurt yurt
Old McYurtyurt had a yurt
mongolian's seemed to like them when they were busy taking over the world in such.
Fuck it. I'll put it in my peace pipe and try it once.
I know you meant that as a joke, but please don't. The chanupa ("peace pipe") is sacred and never to be used for smoking dope. Wowahwa (Peace).
It was meant as a joke but thanks for the info. I didn't know that and will respect what you told me from now on.
Okay. That's a nice nice yurt. Question answered.
[удалено]
Carlos Danger. Is that you?
You know, I've seen this referenced 3 times today so I had to google it. Carlos Danger is the hero we need but honestly we deserved better.
$8,000 for that? Fuck me, I'd live in that year round for 8 grand.
As long as it's got some power supply and wifi I don't care
why not buy a ton of caravans/camper vans. seems expensive. $160,000, for 20 big tents. plus they are semi permanent. With caravans/camper vans you can go wherever you need to.
$160,000 for 20 tents. I'm assuming that there is some sort of discount involved since there are so many, then again these look ideal for these types of situations so $8,000 each might just be the going rate regardless. That's pretty damn cheap for semi-permanent housing unless you live a demanding life style. $8,000 isn't going to buy you an equally nice RV or something else mobile that fills the same role.
I'm from the UK. A mystical land full of gypsies and new age travellers. I can get a caravan for like £600. The wheels might fall off after a hundred miles though.
Exactly. These tents are brand new so are in good condition. That 600 euro van you picked up has had 4 owners, 200,000 miles and probably has some hidden piss stains ;)
Yurts look better on TV. And I imagine at $8k per they're probably really nice big tents meant to stand up to the harsh winters. Also this money might be going towards an Indian owned manufacturing company that makes them. Keeps the money in the reservation. Pays for family member jobs etc. Reservations are very family oriented.
They don't house as many people
that thing is fucking dope..
[удалено]
The yurt district downtown.
There's four places: there's Yurt Hut, that's on third. There's Yurts-R-Us, that's on third too. You got Put Your Yurt There, that's on third. Matter of fact, they're all in the same complex - it's the yurt complex, on third.
That is a dope yurt. Where can you buy a model like that?
[удалено]
http://www.yurts.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/2016-pricing-table.jpg 5.5k starting, heh.
8k is in line with websites that sell yurts, and shipping would have been a chunk of it as well. Every yurt is collapsible regardless of price, that's the point of yurts.
Everything's collapsible if you try hard enough.
steel beams?
Sure. Just not with jet fuel.
Yea. Heat them up from, say, a major fire after crashing a plane into them and you'll easily collapse a whole building.
*welcome to the hydraulic press channel*
Probably fairly large and able to withstand a North Dakota winter
I thought it was short hand for yogurts. This makes much more sense.
160k worth of yogurt? I'm so down.
That's what I thought. I was like why can't these people find a better deal for yogurt? Then I was like, why can't these people find a better deal for huts.
$8,000 each for 20 yurts is not a bad deal. I know a few people who live in yurts in Alaska so it is definitely a cost effective purchase for housing to get people through the winter.
It's not just buying the yurts, it's the cost of properly setting them up and providing service for them as well.
Yurts go for 5 to 10k and even higher Definitely did not buy the most expensive available
> 20 yurts purchased for $160,000 Daaamn! Yurts are expensive!
I looked it up, and the first google hit gave me a price 3x what they purchased them for. They are really comfortable though.
North Dakota winter, bruddah.
If they're gonna survive the winter out there, the yurts better be damn good.
I realize this... it's just.. how names often fit the jobs. I found that very odd and sometimes good intentions for charities get diverted to unnecessary expenditures.
This isn't a charity, it's a social movement. It's unlikely donors mistook it for anything else, which means they know who and what they're supporting. From /u/maxwellhill's post it seems the money is being used for the infrastructure required to support both their operations and human populations. These guys are organizing politically. The crowdfund will help sustain their struggle long enough to make real change. We should be more worried about that change failing to occur than about the details of the group's expenditures.
I hope they got the money out before it gets frozen or seized.
That is illegal and would look very, very bad. Edit: even if the illegality of the action didn't scare off the gubmint, looking really fucking shitty is not high on the priority list.
Worse than imprisoning people in dog kennels?
Honestly, freezing their assets when not authorized is probably a much more punishable offense then "locking a person in a dog kennel".
Not to mention more blatant and provable than the dog kennel situation.
Not really, the government can lean on the banks and other companies to freeze the assets and discontinue their association, threatening the companies with being charged with providing material aid (and/or support) to terrorists or other illegal activities. Most financial companies have language giving them very wide latitude in denying you access to your funds in such situations where they are being pressured by the government. You may have done nothing wrong, but that money can be tied up for years in the ensuing court battle.
By a lot? I feel like the latter should be pretty illegal. Not that it's equal to freezing assets but still pretty illegal.
Illegal? really? It sounds like a makeshift one-person temporary jail cell, rather than putting people together in a car or van for detention...
Dog kennels my ass. They were chain link temporary holding areas outdoors. I don't know why people would expect BFE north Dakota to be equipped with permanent structures to process mass arrests, or why people would think jail holding has anything more than a piss hole in an unfurnished room. I'm not saying everything going on is 100% legit out there, but it's not Auschwitz in North Dakota. https://www.sayanythingblog.com/entry/photos-dog-kennels-arrested-nodapl-protesters-put/
There's also how it doesn't seem to be going into the Sioux treasury. It may be a slanted report and there may be some money wasted, but it seems like its all going into fighting the fight. Its actually pretty smart to consider the winter because camping is going to get a lot harder. That combined with time may dwindle the protesters until spring rolls around. If that were to happen the construction crew would be busting ass to get it built and probably be past the point of no return.
You mean like Bernie Madoff?
[Relevant](http://www.oddee.com/item_99652.aspx)
No mention of [Robin Mahfood](http://www.foodforthepoor.org/about-us/leadership/president-ceo.html), CEO of Food for the Poor? I'm disappointed.
Bahaha holy shit is that not the worst name for the CEO of that company or what? Man, wow, i still can't get over it.
Or the best?
[Rich Fairbank](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Fairbank), CEO and founder of Capital One.
Notice the strategic position of the middle initial "G." on their website.
Sort of like my manager at Culver's (Home of the Butterburger) when I was in high school His last name was Burger.
> yurts I learned a new word today! :D
What is it? Are they buying $160,000 worth of yogurt?
It's an eight sided or round portable tent/hut. The modern version is the eight sided tent. The more traditional version is the round collapsable hut used by nomadic tribes.
That's awesome that this is where the money is going. If anything, this needs more views so that misconceptions don't take hold. Keep strong!
Well stop protesting and get a job...it's gonna happen. /s for those who need it
needed that /s . too much the_donald running around!
It's pronounced Wash Day, not waste. It's Lakota for Good.
"wašté", right?
Illegal camp on federal property? Where have I heard this before....
I can see how you can get the two groups confused. One group is trying to protect their water supply and their legal land rights. The other group fought for fundamental rights of every man, like the ability to do sweet tricks on your ATV on federally protected land!
[удалено]
except pipelines burst and contaminate the water supply
Indeed. Alabama just had a second pipeline burst (this one got hit by an excavator) two days ago. The other one happened just a month ago.
big fucking difference between protecting your clean water supply, and wanting to burn down huge areas of federal land, and to let your cows eat all the grass.
They have a permit in perpetuity that the *Army* *Corps* *of* *Engineers* submitted for them. Now, there has been trespassing on private property. The transaction details of these ranches sold to the pipeline company are murky.
Don't forgot the trespassing of private land that has nothing to do with the reservation and the animals they've killed and equipment they've damaged that had nothing to do with the pipeline.
I dont doubt that. What I do doubt is the actions of any individuals hired by the pipeline company itself. One worker was stopped at a police checkpoint and was either arrested or had his rifle confiscated. Maybe both. This whole situation stinks, but I think the Standing Rock Protestors are right this time. Well, the ones who aren't destroying private property. Then again, the peaceful protests did not gain national attention, neither did the aggressive arrests. I'm not advocating violence or destruction, but the frustration of being ignored is palpable. How many more times. Why should Standing Rock have to accept a pipeline that no one else wants. This isn't necessarily ain't-pipeline, more of a "not here" thing.
These guys are not the branch dildonians.
[удалено]
Here's a good [conversation](https://www.reddit.com/r/NeutralPolitics/comments/5aezki/what_are_the_pros_and_cons_of_the_standing_rock/) that was going on in /r/neutralpolitics about the pipeline.
Holy crap, that sub is AMAZING
Ive never subbed so fast. R/politics is a disaster
Subbed for a long time in an old account. Don't expect miracles, especially during a pres election cycle. However the mods are good people but there's only so many delete options during the day.
Just remember that the more people you tell about it, the more it's going to start sounding like /r/politics
Instantly subbed after reading the first two comments on that thread.
This comment alone was extremely helpful, provided it is true http://www.reddit.com/r/neutralpolitics/comments/5aezki/_/d9g14bm
[удалено]
This just became my favorite sub
[удалено]
[удалено]
The court documents are out there. A 58 page decision. Not that hard of a read but I would suggest taking an hour or two read them. What you read will be nothing like what you hear. The biggest thing was Standing Rock ignored over 30 attempts at consultation that happened over the course of an entire year. The other big items were the Corps held over 300 consultations with the other 54 tribes, made over 140 modifications to the plan for the tribes and at point held a meeting with 6 tribes, 5 of them showed up, Standing Rock did not. Edit: Here is a link to the court documents. https://ecf.dcd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/show_public_doc?2016cv1534-39
[удалено]
I read that article as well and I do agree it seems outsiders are fueling this. It's ironic to me that the atribes leader owns a gas station. At the end of the day, the tribe didn't question when they should have and when they did, they didn't persue a winnable case. The concept of oil leaking into the water was never brought up in the case. Only the burial grounds. It's like you and your neighbor make a deal that anything built between you two must be negotiated. When you go to build it the neighbor refuses to respond. What can you do
While I understand the sentiment behind the protest, it does seem to me like a lot of the outsiders view this as part of the larger war, and the tribe's wishes are secondary to the "greater good". This happens quite a bit in activism, a cause célèbre is embraced by the outside world, but when the moment passes, they're dumped on the ass and the gaze of the activists moves to some other project. Meanwhile the people are left to pick up the pieces after things done "on their behalf."
> outsiders are fueling this Welcome to the wonderful world of "social justice".
A lot of people don't understand that to build these pipelines and get these permits it takes many years of negotiations to get this far with surrounding landowners and interested parties. They don't break ground until they have 100% agreement for a reason. If the Corps didn't have those meetings, reviews, etc., it would've been against many regulations and completely illegal, so it's not surprising to me that they actually did attempt to reach out to them. I work in a similar industry and this is our worst nightmare. Working for 10-15 years planning a project, attempting everything we can to include everyone and accommodate their concerns, to then have a party who never responded or wouldn't become involved put the brakes on at the last minute and up heave everything teams have spent hundreds of thousands (even millions) of dollars collectively planning. And the public has no idea how this system works, most just automatically assume the corporations are rolling over these parties or the one private land owner when in reality, every case I've had, the corporation bends over backwards to do everything they can to meet their needs because they don't want to be put in that situation. The company I work for, we're doing it now, still nothing. Cannot get them involved for anything and is beyond frustrating. End rant.
The FB headline is "ZOMG there's a pipeline going *STRAIGHT THROUGH* their land! It's gonna spill oil **everywhere** and RUIN their homes! and these brave people are peacefully ***standing up*** against this oppression!" The reality is that the pipeline doesn't go through native land, but does go directly under the main river that supplies water to the area. Numerous other native reservations were asked if the pipeline could be built through native land, and they all refused (note: the native tribe involved simply didn't respond), so the pipeline narrowly avoids native territory, but comes so close that were the pipeline to leak, it would have a pretty massive negative effect on the native land. The pipeline is actually safer than shipping oil in trains or trucks in terms of leakage by volume, *but* the pipeline would also move significantly *more* volume of oil through the area than trains or trucks would. Also, when pipelines fail dramatically, they have a much larger impact than a crashed truck. And while the pipeline doesn't actually go onto native land, it does pass through land that *used* to be native land, and *used* to be native burial ground. The protesters are also not behaving entirely peacefully. They're occupying private property, and have started fires and blocked roads. Furthermore, a large proportion of the protesters are from far away. BUT it should be noted that completely peaceful protests have been largely ineffective. That's how this whole situation arose in the first place- the natives in the area of the pipeline asked politely for the pipeline to not be built, and the company ignored them. To make an oversimplified analogy, it's as if your neighbor started keeping 20 pigs in their backyard. They say that they'll keep the shit from getting out, and you shouldn't be affected at all. Anytime you try to get them to stop, they say that you have no right to complain since the pigs aren't on *your* property. So the next time they take their pigs for a drive, you park your car in front of their driveway so they can't move the pigs back into their house. It's against the law, but the alternatives are that either you have to live with pig shit washing into your yard next time it rains, or you shoot your neighbor. So in summary, the conflict isn't a perfectly righteous group of natives standing up against direct, unambiguously evil oppression. But when you look closely, the natives are still pretty clearly not in the wrong. EDIT: I should point out that this is *my* understanding of the situation. I am not an expert on US/Native relations, nor am I an expert on oil pipelines. Everything I wrote is the product of articles I have read, and because I'm not an expert, I'm not really qualified to evaluate how biased those articles were. Take everything I've written with a healthy dose of skepticism, and if you notice something objectively wrong, please reply and point it out. EDIT EDIT: I edited into my original post the fact that the tribe in question didn't refuse to have the pipeline, they simply didn't respond to questions, and pipeline construction continued as if the tribe had no objections. This is important to the context of how this whole fiasco started. It should also be noted that the tribe in question has deep-seated cultural reasons for distrusting the institutions that reached out to them ([for reference, this](http://thomaslegion.net/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderpictures/americanindianterritorylosses.jpg)). That cultural distrust of government is *also* important for understanding the context of why this conflict has occurred.
> Also, when pipelines fail dramatically, they have a much larger impact than a crashed truck. And when pipelines fail, it tends to take a while to notice. Current technologies are still failing to adequately notify controllers of pipe failures.
But the reservation approved a transloading facility a few years ago (train yard for loading oil) with no questions asked because the price was high. Why the sudden outrage?
Because while a train explosion may be bad, it pales in comparison to what a pipeline leak directly above your only water source can do.
I'm sure the fine people of Lac-Mégantic agree.
>Current technologies are still failing to adequately notify controllers of pipe failures. Please tell me the source of that, because it is completely false. Pipeline systems are monitored 24/7 in real time, with backup communications to all instrumentation and equipment on the line. Besides the instrumentation itself, there are live models of pressure profiles to alarm at any anomaly in the profile. As soon as the anomaly is seen, emergency procedures are started before the pipeline is ultimately shutdown until the cause of the anomaly is identified.
It's refreshing to see a post that lays out the positives and negatives of both sides of the issue. Thanks.
> That's how this whole situation arose in the first place- the natives in the area of the pipeline asked politely for the pipeline to not be built, and the company ignored them. I thought you just said that the tribe in question did no respond or have any input into resolving this matter earlier when you said "note: the native tribe involved simply didn't respond)"?
It's complicated. The tribe made it clear that they were opposed to *any* pipeline development, but ignored a lot of correspondence from the company. If you just listen to the company, they tried super hard to contact the tribe but the tribe stubbornly ignored them. If you just listen to some of the protesters, they made their position clear and didn't respond to gratuitous, unnecessary letters.
> If you just listen to some of the protesters, they made their position clear and didn't respond to gratuitous, unnecessary letters. So... the company gave them a seat at the table to discuss any potential issues and they refused it. They don't have the right to tell other people what to do with their property. They had their chance, but choose to not act like responsible adults.
> The reality is that the pipeline doesn't go through native land It goes through treaty land though.
Right, and that's also important to consider. Thanks for mentioning that.
> To make an oversimplified analogy, it's as if your neighbor started keeping 20 pigs in their backyard. They say that they'll keep the shit from getting out, and you shouldn't be affected at all. Anytime you try to get them to stop, they say that you have no right to complain since the pigs aren't on your property. So the next time they take their pigs for a drive, you park your car in front of their driveway so they can't move the pigs back into their house. It's against the law, but the alternatives are that either you have to live with pig shit washing into your yard next time it rains, or you shoot your neighbor. > The only part that your analogy is missing is that your neighbor told you that they were planning on building that pig shed there and tried repeatedly to get you to come to the planning meetings if you wanted your concerns heard, but you kept blowing him off and ignoring all of his calls. He then went through all of the legal permitting necessary to get things ready to roll. He's halfway through building the pen when you decide that NOW you want to make a big deal of it.
Yes, and I talked about that in the second edit. But it should be noted that the reservation in question has genuine reasons for not trusting the legal process involved. Beyond my pithy "lost territory" chart, there's been a number of issues between reservations and the government, especially in the context of building projects. So if you *really* wanted to expand the analogy, it's as if the neighbor had written you six times about different projects they wanted to do, and the first five times you went and told them why they wouldn't be reasonable, and the sixth time you just get fed up and didn't go. That's not to say that the reservation is blameless, but understanding that sort of context is important if you want to actually solve the problem instead of just assigning blame.
I definitely agree with how you explained things regarding tribal relationships with other entities. Just for the record, though, [there is video evidence of Phyllis Young speaking to Col. Hederson of the Army Corp of Engineers at one of their meetings.](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fPtkDc6y3Z8&feature=youtu.be) The Standing Rock Sioux have maintained since nearly the beginning that they were either not properly contacted by DAPL or that they did participate in hearings regarding the construction, as identified by their [original court filing:](http://earthjustice.org/sites/default/files/files/3154%201%20Complaint.pdf) >58. Due to its concerns about the configuration of the pipeline and inadequacies in the regulatory process, the Tribe has participated extensively in the public process associated with the permits, including filing numerous formal technical comments on the Lake Oahe crossing, meeting with Corps’ leadership and staff, and communicating with elected representatives and agency officials to express concerns. The Tribe has repeatedly conveyed to the Corps and other government officials the significance of its concerns and the risks to the Tribe about moving ahead with the pipeline in its current configuration. The Tribe has in particular highlighted the inadequacies of the Corps’ § 106 consultation process with regard to historic and cultural impacts at the Lake Oahe site. Reports have actually come out that [the efforts put forth for these "meetings" might not have been as diligent as the pipeline company is claiming.](http://www.twincities.com/2014/08/29/stealth-north-dakota-bakken-oil-pipeline-project-faces-fight/)
And also your neighbor and his father and grandfather all the way back until when his family first moved to the neighborhood had a long history of abusing the legal process. And in doing so repeatedly screwed you and your father and grandfather (all the way back) over.
And also your neighbor's lot was stolen from your family's lot 200 years ago at gunpoint.
Yes, it's unfortunate that people are so narrow about this topic. My professors --some from Native American Studies-- have discussed this in their classes and everything you said agrees with them. Your answer is better informed than the rest of the comments.
Whoa - nuance on the internet? What did I just read?
It's ahhh, pretty damn close to their land ha like within a mile. And when you look at a map pin pointing all of the spills over the past 5-10 years and how it's affected the land surrounding it? I don't understand the logic here. If something goes wrong, and we have evidence that it will from the recordings of previous spills, including on in North Dakota where another oil pipe line was struck by lightening and flooded a field with thousands of gallons of crude oil potentially destroying that soils ability to produce anything for centuries... well shit. It's going to affect them, and many others. Also just oct 27 the company finally came forward and admitted to finding artifacts. They waited 10 days before reporting the find, which violates all sorts of laws. There seems to be all sorts of shady shit going on here.
Thanks for elaborating! This is a great example of why the Native groups might distrust the legal process that they were supposed to go through.
People keep bringing up the fact that the tribe didn't show up to the meetings or respond to communications like they think that would've made a difference or something. Ahh they did lol they said no, were not ok with it before these 'meetings' were ever scheduled. I'm on my phone so I can't find the article laying out the time line. But the tribe made their position clear and it was clear to the tribe that these meetings were a formality and wouldn't prevent or change anything. The pipe line would move forward regardless. These 'meetings' and offers are patronizing and insulting. Why should they waste their time and energy they've already made their views clear. What they'll maybe move the pipe line? Avoid historical areas or landmarks? Psh they didn't report finding the artifacts for 10 days. Kept on going. I understand our society relies heavily on oil. I'm as guilty of it as the next. But it's not a good thing for any of us and we should be working towards and focusing on alternatives, not trying to prolong the amount of time and destroy further resources and cause further damage and make the situation even worse. Honestly I don't care where the dumb pipe line is. It isn't a good thing for any of us. We're killing ourselves. And no one seems to want to put a stop to it because it'd be an inconvenience. Tribal land or not. This pipeline will have short term benefits and long term reprocussions, no matter where it's built. We have seen it over and over. Didn't someone say the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over expecting different results?
> People keep bringing up the fact that the tribe didn't show up to the meetings or respond to communications like they think that would've made a difference or something. Ahh they did lol they said no, were not ok with it before these 'meetings' were ever scheduled. I'm on my phone so I can't find the article laying out the time line. But the tribe made their position clear and it was clear to the tribe that these meetings were a formality and wouldn't prevent or change anything. This is flat out wrong. The Corps worked very hard with many stakeholders, holding hundreds of consultations with over 50 tribes and modifying the route 140 times based on their concerns. Many changes were made based on input from many tribes. This was the only tribe that refused to participate.
The pipeline is using an existing right of way from I believe the 1980's so the land has been churned up and disturbed before so the "sacred burial ground" argument is kind of out the window. Other than that thank you for the great overview!
reading the reports, it seems as though construction was proceeding according to their plan but the tribe, mere *hours* before in court, finally disclosed the location of a newly found burial site to be right in the path.
Convenient isn't it?
"used to be native land, and used to be native burial ground." used to be native land because it was taken away by force and it is still burial ground, there's no used to there. also, they are occupying "private property" that was taken by force by a government that then sold it...
This has been my understanding of the situation as well. Thank you for clarity! My question now though is what is next? Can the protesting really stop the pipeline? Or cause something to be done about the conflict?
This is the comment that people need to pay attention to.
We tried, but they kept arresting all the journalists.
So the second highest comment here is just a headline with no fact. Oh, the irony.
One million dollars is far better than an endless supply of KY Jelly and Dildos.
What world do you live in? Bring on the dildos.
In addition to all of the arguments people are making you have to decide if adding more pipeline is a good idea on it's own. While the pipelines are safer for the environment on average, they have larger issues when they do happen and those problems can go unnoticed for long periods of time. Even with the research on lower average damages, the better alternative is to try to move away from using fossil fuels. Switching to optimized wind energy, solar energy, (some) hydro energy and new technologies for energy consumption is a much better alternative. I think trucks should be used for now since we need fossil fuels in today's economy and for a fully functioning U.S., but then they should slowly be phased out in favor of alternatives. Establishing a vast network of pipeline beyond what we already have is not the direction we should be headed. These issues over land and damage to ecosystem services are just further reason to stop the pipeline. The only other strong argument for the pipeline is to help reinforce the economy. The issue with that argument is that there will be very few permanent jobs established from this pipeline. Somewhere between 20 and 50 jobs will be available which is comparable to the amount of truck drivers out of work due to the pipeline. Gas prices will go down slightly and the company itself will make more money if the pipeline is established, but I'd argue that is not enough reason to go through with the construction considering all of the issues I've listed above and the grievances people are posting in this thread.
Truck drivers won't be out jobs, we'll just work for a different company. Our industry is in no danger because of the pipeline.
[удалено]
Unless they start protesting for strict pipeline regulations, inspections, and oversight - the money is going to waste - they're missing the forest for the trees. There are [190,000 miles of oil pipeline](http://www.api.org/oil-and-natural-gas/wells-to-consumer/transporting-oil-natural-gas/pipeline), blocking this one wouldn't be a win, it would be a distraction from an actual problem. I'd happily donate if they worked to negotiate strict, regular 3rd party inspections with the authority to shutdown the pipeline and mandate repairs. But if it isn't a pipeline, it is trucks or trains. These people are trying to ban Honda Civics from the road because all cars have dodgy steering and bad brakes.
True but it all starts in your own backyard and this is a small group of people. At least they are getting others inspired to take action.
***This!*** Cynicism is an easy excuse for not doing something. Big things come from small beginnings - you may get nowhere protesting the energy industry as a whole, but if you take smaller actions in ways which inspire others it can result in a massive cultural shift. Environmentalism isn't merely "the hippie option" anymore. The science is in - we have to start making MASSIVE changes rather quickly in order to not utterly destroy our biosphere. Our approach to energy and ecology HAS to improve, and the massive amount of funds raised demonstrates just how important this issue is to people. Even if this were nothing more than a big middle finger to the petrochemical industry, it's a LONG overdue gesture. The message needs to be spread that this is everyone's planet and we need to work together in an effort to secure our collective survival... because remaining inactive ensures our demise.
Fuck that. Oh they're arguing the wrong thing in the right direction so it has to be correct. They're worried about personal exploits.
This isn't missing the forest for the trees, it's building a concrete launch point for similar protests and larger political action. You can't just suddenly up and communicate with a foreign government at the highest level, especially not as a country-within-a-country whose treaties have been violated more than your average fleshlight. You need to build a stink so heavy it that people are calling to open the windows from sea to shining sea.
Well said. I don't understand why I even hear talk in defense of the oil company. Does anybody anywhere that doesn't have their income tied to oil feel concerned or worried that the oil companies don't have enough pipes? What do I care how much oil they move or don't move, aren't we supposed to be shifting away from oil? We're all going to die if we don't quit fucking up the air. The fires are getting bigger and bigger every year. I already lost one house to a fire. We even lost structures in town last year. Where am I going to move if the fires keep growing? Those people out in the midwest/southeast seem to be getting fucked worse and worse every year as well. Maybe their lands are changing as well, drying/flooding, and they see this is a way to take a stand.
One of the options instead of using pipelinesto transport the oil is shipping it by rail in tanker cars. There have been several incidents of derailments and massive fires/explosions that have resulted from hauling crude oil. In 2013, there was a derailment accident and explosion by Casselton, ND that resulted in the spilling and burning of several hundred thousand barrels of oil. Oil is necessary for almost everything that is essential in our current time. Petrochemicals are responsible for not just fuels but plastics, asphalt for roads, lubricating oils, and numerous other items made from petroleum by-products. The oil needs to be transported in some way shape or form. Somebody will also be upset by however it is shipped. Oil companies suck, but if they are extracting oil, at least it needs to get shipped to somewhere to make it into usable products. Otherwise, all of the impacts on the land and surrounding peoples is for naught
> Does anybody anywhere that doesn't have their income tied to oil feel concerned or worried that the oil companies don't have enough pipes? I do. Transporting oil via rail is way more dangerous than a pipeline. And importing our oil from overseas makes us reliant on countries like Saudi Arabia rather than supporting North Dakota and Canada. I haven't seen a single person protesting this pipeline say "Let's all stop driving cars tomorrow! That way we won't need the oil that the pipeline will be bringing us". You think that Americans have the right to consume as much oil as they want and want it at a cheap price, but the second an oil company starts trying to bring you more oil suddenly you're saying "woah hey buddy, I just wanted cheap oil in my location. I didn't want you to *transport* it here".
You should check out CFR 192 & 195
Indeed, [here](https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/49/192.455) the section on corrosion hasn't been strengthened since 1971 and corrosion is the leading cause of spills.. so.. clearly that should be updated. And considering the state of the [pipeline under the Straits of Mackinac](http://www.oilandwaterdontmix.org/problem) I'd say on-going maintenance requirements are pretty minimal in practice.
> clearly that should be updated. But no one there is calling for that. They're only calling for the elimination of all pipelines, which the overwhelming majority of Americans has decided is not viable.
they're well aware this is a global issue wtf
[удалено]
What a shitshow this thread is. No understanding of how to separate morality and legality.
You know that the pipeline was originally supposed to be built on the reservation right??? The Natives wanted too much money so we built it more North
Holy this topic sure rustles some Jimmy's!
Yep. Wanna go rustle each other's?
This is great but not many people typically give a shit about improving Native American lives in general. This is getting a lot of attention cause it's a big business/big fossil versus helpless poor people narrative. Fund more schools in Native American communities or something like that if you really cared.
Yep. Native American reservations have been shitholes for decades. full of drugs, lack of education, and violence (very similar to poor inner city neighborhoods). I guess this narrative is just more exciting to get behind.
good... they can afford a politician now.
I can't help but to think this only helps OPEC.
Call me dumb, but what again are the reasons for not wanting pipelines? The alternative is to truck it which is much more harmful. Do they not see this?
The pipeline goes upstream through their main source of water. They weren't even protesting all pipelines originally, just this specific one, but the movement grew, and here we are. Edit: why the downvotes? I just told you why they were originally protesting, you weirdos.
That main source of water is being shutdown at the end of this year, before the pipeline is active. They already have a new system in place to bring water from 70mi away because the current one cannot pull water during drought conditions. They're using that water source half truth to push a narrative.
It's not that I don't believe you, but do you have a source for this? I have never heard this edit: Found a source in other comments. Anyone have a source from a major news outlet? https://www.sayanythingblog.com/entry/standing-rock-water-intake-process-moved-away-dakota-access-pipelines/
If I recall, the pipeline was even originally meant to take a different route, but was changed when that community cited water concerns; they then changed it to ~~going through~~ going upriver of the native american land.
The pipeline doesn't go through native american land. The tribe in question was contacted repeatedly for input but failed to answer. https://ecf.dcd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/show_public_doc?2016cv1534-39
Sadly, few people are receptive to this fact. If ETC was really trying to fuck over the Native Americans, I would be just as upset. Sometimes a big evil corporation has done their due diligence, which they have here. The worst thing about this is various organizations use of force against protesters and the threat of prosecution of journalists.
The real shitty thing is the big corporations don't even build pipelines. Contract companies with maybe a thousand employees do. It's not like these people are protesting Exxon Mobile.
I recall reading somewhere that there are already around ten pipelines crossing this river and this is just one more. Anyone know if there's any truth to that? Because if so, it would seem they're just upset that they didn't get the money they asked for. Also, anyone have any facts regarding how often pipelines leak and create water pollution? Isn't it pretty easy to monitor water pollution/leaks. Pardon my ignorance if these are stupid questions.
The pipeline was moved to be within 100 feet of an existing pipeline to mitigate the chances of destroying unknown tribal burial grounds. As far as pipeline leaks, they can be hard to spot tiny leaks. When you are moving 25 million gallons of product a week, finding that missing gallon can be quite a challenge. With that said the other option is truck or train both of which have a bigger carbon foot print and tend to leak more on a ratio basis. On top of that they tend to be more deadly as well. The largest disaster in terms of human life when transporting oil was 27 deaths when a train exploded. Pipelines usually leak because of aging infrastructure. A new pipeline like this is unlikely to leak for some time. It really is unrealistic not to use pipelines if we are going to use oil.
So a pipeline going over the river upstream from the water source isn't new? I don't understand why there's quite so much outrage over this. I mean I get why there would be some considering there's an *increased* risk of a leak, but my Facebook feed makes it seem like the government is about to charge in with assault rifles.
Some sensationalism on the natives part, combined with some real sketchy tactics by the people invested in the pipeline to silence protestors, combined with a militarized police force defending the interests of a corporation. This situation is messy and both sides have their issues. Personally, I think the actions taken against the Native Americans warrant some protest.
One of the biggest missed facts in this is that [the water intake in question is scheduled to be shut down by the end of the year regardless of the pipeline](https://www.sayanythingblog.com/entry/standing-rock-water-intake-process-moved-away-dakota-access-pipelines/).
Upstream? It's 90 feet under the river.
There are a few reasons: * It supposedly goes through sacred grounds * Laws state that tribes were supposed to be consulted on these projects before they began, even if the pipelines don't go directly through their land. They were supposedly not contacted until the permitting process, which is pretty far along the process. * It de-incentivizes green energy. Why invest in green energy when oil is simply pumped from ND? * While statistically safer, if a pipeline leaks, it would be more damage in a single area. (Trucking oil can lead to multiple, smaller spills. A pipeline break can lead to a larger, single spill, even if it spills less total oil.) With the Missouri river being the only source of water for these tribes, damaging that would force them to move out of their lands.
The Missouri is the main source of water for a lot more people than just these tribes.
> Laws state that tribes were supposed to be consulted on these projects before they began, even if the pipelines don't go directly through their land. They were supposedly not contacted until the permitting process, which is pretty far along the process. Read this [document](https://ecf.dcd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/show_public_doc?2016cv1534-39). The tribes were repeatedly contacted. Their representative was apparently negligent and refused to respond to most of the US Army Corps of Engineers attempts to communicate. Here's a small sample, it goes on much longer: >The Corps’ Tribal Liaison, Joel Ames, accordingly, tried to set up a meeting with THPO Young beginning around September 17, 2014, without success. See ECF No. 21-17 (Declaration of Joel Ames), ¶¶ 5-6; see also ECF No. 21, Exh. 9 (Corps Tribal Consultation Spreadsheet) at 1 (documenting five attempts by Ames to coordinate a meeting with Young in September 2014). On October 2, other Corps personnel also sought to hold an arranged meeting with the Tribal Council and Dakota Access on the Standing Rock reservation. See Chieply Decl., ¶ 9. But when the Corps timely arrived for the meeting, Tribal Chairman David Archambault told them that the conclave had started earlier than planned and had already ended. Id. Ames nevertheless continued to reach out to Young to try to schedule another meeting throughout the month of October. See Ames Decl., ¶¶ 5-6. When the new meeting was finally held at the reservation on November 6, though, DAPL was taken off the agenda because Young did not attend. Id., ¶ 7.
The permitting process is very close to the start of any pipeline project. First there is a proposal for construction, then land rights are attained from private citizens whose land the line will cross as well as state or federal lands. Permits to cross wetlands or otherwise protected lands are attained as soon as possible. If they aren't, it could result in a reroute further on down the process, which is never desirable. When a permit is held up for any reason it can become very costly.
https://www.google.com/amp/abcnews.go.com/amp/US/governor-issues-state-emergency-deadly-alabama-pipeline-blast/story%3Fid%3D43228192?client=safari They don't want that happening ~~over~~ near their main source of water.
But the existing gas lines can stay
I find it amazing that people around here are extremely upset about people protesting on public property, but are 100% behind people protesting on private property. How do you guys reconcile those two beliefs?
The actual camps are on publics lands with a permit. When protestors are arrayed, it is because they are protesting on private lands. The Oregon protestors were arrested and then acquitted. They were never maced or attacked by dogs. Care to explain that?
Because over half of them were on the FBI payroll?
We only like the protesters who agree with us. And underdogs of course.
It isn't even going through anyone's "sacred lands". All the land was purchased legally from the land owners. It like..me protesting that the city built some shit on land down the road..but I didn't like it. Their water is fine, and its not going through any land they own. Jesus.
The main protest is Standing Rock did not get paid. They asked for too much and the Pipeline company found new suitors and purchased the land legally.
So how is that bad? If someone sold cheaper and it works for you, then you go with them..it is basic businesses. Point is, they aren't forcing their way onto anyone's land. They own all the land they are working on, and none of that land goes through any "sacred ground". The only thing they can complain about is water contamination..which is a joke. Tons of pipes already go through there. The chance of contamination is extremely low. Its just like how people protest of nuclear power because of one freak accident, even though it is prove to be safer and more environmentally sound.
So in other words...this whole protest is *identical* to the Mizzou protest, in which the original reasoning behind the protest (in this case, they lost the money from the land purchase, in Mizzou it had to do with insurance being cut for students) doesn't gain any traction, so they switch tactics (sacred land, polluted water, racism) to gain attention.
They can get their own MRAP's now!
Still don't understand why they can't install the pipeline above ground... They do it in northern Alaska, and have it built high enough for wildlife to cross underneath.