Amazon tribe attacks oilfield in Ecuador

[Potoooooooo]

http://news.mongabay.com/2015/0115-waorani-vs-petrobell.html
Indigenous leaders are calling for the release of six tribesmen implicated in a raid on an oilfield in Eastern Ecuador that left six soldiers injured, reports Andina and El Comercio.

According to Ecuador's defense ministry, on January 6th a group of Waorani (Huaroani) tribesmen armed with spears, bows and arrows, blowguns, and firearms seized a facility run by Petrobell in Arajuno canton, in Pastaza province. The action shut down production at the oilfield, which normally produces 3,200 barrels a day.

 

[Derec]

3,200 bbl/day seems like a really low production oilfield unless it's a typo or something.
That said, I see no possible grounds for the "indigenous" leaders demanding those criminals' release. They are violent criminals and should go to prison for a long time.

 

[fromderinside]

3,200 bbl/day seems like a really low production oilfield unless it's a typo or something.
That said, I see no possible grounds for the "indigenous" leaders demanding those criminals' release. They are violent criminals and should go to prison for a long time.

Are you kidding? Six armed soldiers were injured by six tribesmen with blowguns and spears and you want them put in jail. How3 did they do it? Did they use incantations and magic? I see no way where six poorly armed men can hurt six well armed men unless those well armed men were asleep on the job.

What should happen is that those soldiers should be discharged under other than honorable conditions and the tribesmen given everything they used except the guns and released with the thanks of the people of Ecuador.

 

[KeepTalking]

3,200 bbl/day seems like a really low production oilfield unless it's a typo or something.
That said, I see no possible grounds for the "indigenous" leaders demanding those criminals' release. They are violent criminals and should go to prison for a long time.

Are you kidding? Six armed soldiers were injured by six tribesmen with blowguns and spears and you want them put in jail. How3 did they do it? Did they use incantations and magic? I see no way where six poorly armed men can hurt six well armed men unless those well armed men were asleep on the job.

What should happen is that those soldiers should be discharged under other than honorable conditions and the tribesmen given everything they used except the guns and released with the thanks of the people of Ecuador.

The article specifically mentions that the tribesmen also had firearms.

 

[funinspace]

3,200 bbl/day seems like a really low production oilfield unless it's a typo or something.

Uhm...3,200 bbl/day is perfectly within normal, not that I know if this is accurate for this particular field. That output could be worth $50 to $60 million a year even at recent prices, depending on the grade. There are lots of factors that impact the output. And as opposed to fracked wells, the old fashioned kind can go on for decades, usually with slowly decreasing output. They typically keep on pumping as long as the output pays out more than the ongoing maintenance costs.

 

[Derec]

Are you kidding? Six armed soldiers were injured by six tribesmen with blowguns and spears and you want them put in jail.

Also firearms, as you conveniently omitted. And non-firearms can be effective (not to mention silent) weapons when used by people who know how.

How3 did they do it? Did they use incantations and magic? I see no way where six poorly armed men can hurt six well armed men unless those well armed men were asleep on the job.

What should happen is that those soldiers should be discharged under other than honorable conditions and the tribesmen given everything they used except the guns and released with the thanks of the people of Ecuador.

This position baffles me, even for you. Do you take the same position for other violent crimes? Do bank robbers deserve "thanks of the people" if they manage to injure or kill security guards or the police?

 

[Derec]

Uhm...3,200 bbl/day is perfectly within normal, not that I know if this is accurate for this particular field. That output could be worth $50 to $60 million a year even at recent prices, depending on the grade. There are lots of factors that impact the output.

It would be on the very bottom of the scale, hence my skepticism. Of course it would be possible, just not likely. And revenue of $50-60 million doesn't mean much without knowing the cost.

And as opposed to fracked wells, the old fashioned kind can go on for decades, usually with slowly decreasing output. They typically keep on pumping as long as the output pays out more than the ongoing maintenance costs.

Well there is such a thing as stripper wells (producing 10 bbl/day or less), which prevalent in dying fields and as you implied can be economical as all the expensive work of drilling the wells and laying down infrastructure has been done. Ecuador doesn't strike me as a mature enough oil region to rely on those though.

 

[bilby]

Also firearms, as you conveniently omitted. And non-firearms can be effective (not to mention silent) weapons when used by people who know how.

How3 did they do it? Did they use incantations and magic? I see no way where six poorly armed men can hurt six well armed men unless those well armed men were asleep on the job.

What should happen is that those soldiers should be discharged under other than honorable conditions and the tribesmen given everything they used except the guns and released with the thanks of the people of Ecuador.

This position baffles me, even for you. Do you take the same position for other violent crimes? Do bank robbers deserve "thanks of the people" if they manage to injure or kill security guards or the police?

Do you take this position for other acts of resistance by invaded peoples? Did the French Resistance deserve prison or a firing squad if they managed to injure or kill soldiers of the occupying forces, or to sabotage infrastructure built by the Nazis?

 

[Testy Calibrate]

3,200 bbl/day seems like a really low production oilfield unless it's a typo or something.
That said, I see no possible grounds for the "indigenous" leaders demanding those criminals' release. They are violent criminals and should go to prison for a long time.

God that's twisted.

 

[DBT]

3,200 bbl/day seems like a really low production oilfield unless it's a typo or something.
That said, I see no possible grounds for the "indigenous" leaders demanding those criminals' release. They are violent criminals and should go to prison for a long time.

Maybe they were just defending their homeland from intruders/trespassers?

 

[Earl IV]

3,200 bbl/day seems like a really low production oilfield unless it's a typo or something.
That said, I see no possible grounds for the "indigenous" leaders demanding those criminals' release. They are violent criminals and should go to prison for a long time.

Interesting, I can only assume you're pretty pissed about the freedom of Native Americans as well?

 

[Frikki]

3,200 bbl/day seems like a really low production oilfield unless it's a typo or something.
That said, I see no possible grounds for the "indigenous" leaders demanding those criminals' release. They are violent criminals and should go to prison for a long time.

Interesting, I can only assume you're pretty pissed about the freedom of Native Americans as well?

Well he probably is.

He should also have condemned the Boston Tea Party.

 

[Derec]

Interesting, I can only assume you're pretty pissed about the freedom of Native Americans as well?

Well I certainly do not think they should have the "freedom" to commit crimes, including attacking oil fields. In general I object to giving certain people special rights based on their ethnicity.
Oh and they are not really "native". "Siberian Americans" would be more accurate.

 

[Derec]

Maybe they were just defending their homeland from intruders/trespassers?

Nope, they are violently attacking an oil field.
Do you think Indians in US should have the right to attack oil fields as well?

- - - Updated - - -

Do you take this position for other acts of resistance by invaded peoples?

How are they "invaded"? Do you have any shred of evidence that this oil development was done illegally?

Did the French Resistance deserve prison or a firing squad if they managed to injure or kill soldiers of the occupying forces, or to sabotage infrastructure built by the Nazis?

Except that this territory is genuinely part of Ecuador and it was not occupied by Ecuador. Also as much as I disagree with certain aspects of the Ecuadorian government (El Presidente is too much of a mini Chavez) they are hardly comparable to the Nazis.

 

[arkirk]

Nope, they are violently attacking an oil field.
Do you think Indians in US should have the right to attack oil fields as well?

- - - Updated - - -

Do you take this position for other acts of resistance by invaded peoples?

How are they "invaded"? Do you have any shred of evidence that this oil development was done illegally?

Did the French Resistance deserve prison or a firing squad if they managed to injure or kill soldiers of the occupying forces, or to sabotage infrastructure built by the Nazis?

Except that this territory is genuinely part of Ecuador and it was not occupied by Ecuador. Also as much as I disagree with certain aspects of the Ecuadorian government (El Presidente is too much of a mini Chavez) they are hardly comparable to the Nazis.

So, Dismal, is you is or is you ain't? It looks like the only thing you regularly support is oil extraction...even if it is done under a commie pinko government...as long as it isn't Venezuela. Fossil fuel extraction in Ecuador has created huge dead zones, polluted with crude oil where people can no longer live. Indigenous people are displaced with a paperwork fiction and at some point, when they get desperate enough they attack. I know you would not understand this because you refuse to consider other peoples' lifestyles and ways of life. Expropriation of Indian lands for oil exploitation is a worldwide phenomenon...just like the pollution and global warming it causes. This friction between the pumpers and the locals is in every country of any size. You are so quick to assume the oil guys are always right.

 

[Jarhyn]

Nope, they are violently attacking an oil field.
Do you think Indians in US should have the right to attack oil fields as well?

- - - Updated - - -


How are they "invaded"? Do you have any shred of evidence that this oil development was done illegally?

Did the French Resistance deserve prison or a firing squad if they managed to injure or kill soldiers of the occupying forces, or to sabotage infrastructure built by the Nazis?

Except that this territory is genuinely part of Ecuador and it was not occupied by Ecuador. Also as much as I disagree with certain aspects of the Ecuadorian government (El Presidente is too much of a mini Chavez) they are hardly comparable to the Nazis.

So, Dismal, is you is or is you ain't? It looks like the only thing you regularly support is oil extraction...even if it is done under a commie pinko government...as long as it isn't Venezuela. Fossil fuel extraction in Ecuador has created huge dead zones, polluted with crude oil where people can no longer live. Indigenous people are displaced with a paperwork fiction and at some point, when they get desperate enough they attack. I know you would not understand this because you refuse to consider other peoples' lifestyles and ways of life. Expropriation of Indian lands for oil exploitation is a worldwide phenomenon...just like the pollution and global warming it causes. This friction between the pumpers and the locals is in every country of any size. You are so quick to assume the oil guys are always right.

Didn't Derec make some sort of oil fortune at one point? The thing is, people who have such money for doing nothing and merely raping the society of it's mineralogical wealth (or for that matter, any lottery winner) tends to feel an entitlement to what he has, regardless of whether it is true. Such people tend to argue in favor of the 'rightness' of such rape and lottery, because if they don't, they might have to face the fact that they are terrible people.

 

[fast]

Often times, I think we should temper our emotions and side not with what is right but instead with what is legal. For instance, if the oil extraction is wrong yet legal, then our emotions should fuel our intellect to change the law. However, sometimes we feel so strongly about something that we side with what is right despite its legality. I understand that, but if you fight for what is right and do so illegally, then you should suffer the consequences of your illegal actions. So many people, however, don't want to see others suffer the full blunt of the consequences of their illegal actions when their actions appear justifiable on moral grounds.

If we fight for what's right with disregard to the legal implications, then we need to stand prepared for the legal consequences. Knowing that, it shouldn't be a surprise to see people hold ill-will for lawbreakers that injure others, even when they're standing up for what's right.

 

[Derec]

So, Dismal, is you is or is you ain't?

I ain't dismal.

It looks like the only thing you regularly support is oil extraction...

In general.

even if it is done under a commie pinko government...as long as it isn't Venezuela.

I object to many things in Venezuela - currency controls, price controls, crackdown on dissenters and on free media. But I have never objected to them extracting oil. As a matter of fact, one thing where I criticized Venezuela is that they divert too much oil revenue toward the social programs leaving necessary investments unfunded which led to reduction of their oil production capacity. Which now bites them in the ass even more when they get far less money per barrel.

Fossil fuel extraction in Ecuador has created huge dead zones, polluted with crude oil where people can no longer live.

Citation needed.

Indigenous people are displaced with a paperwork fiction and at some point, when they get desperate enough they attack. I know you would not understand this because you refuse to consider other peoples' lifestyles and ways of life.

It's not that I do not consider other people's lifestyles, it's that I do not think certain kinds of lifestyles should be privileged over others just by calling them "indigenous".
Ecuador's Last Uncontacted Tribes Face the Familiar Promise of Jungle Oil
This is an article from last year on the issue of oil developments and the Hourani tribe. The author is opposed to oil developments and it shows, but what comes through is that most Hourani seem to have embraced the fruits of oil development. Parts of the article read like the "What have the Romans ever done for us" bit. The opposition seems to come as much from "traditionalists" detesting people embracing outside things than anything else.

The feeling isn't mutual. The next morning, an hour before I am set to leave Guiyero, Luis Ahua, and a group of older Huaorani pull me aside.

“You wanted to know about the violence?” he asks. “I’m ready to talk about the violence. I’m ready to talk about war.”

For months, he tells me, he and others in his tribe have been stockpiling spears and ammunition. They have been stockpiling oil. They’ve worked on a new formula for their blow darts that can kill a person in a matter of minutes. They are, he says, waiting for a time to use it.

“An attack,” he says. “On an oil rig.”

Earlier in the day, a Huoarani woman named Weya Cahuiya, who is a representative with one of the tribe's few organized groups, the Nacionalidad Waorani de Ecuador, leaned against a concrete house and, with reggaeton blasting in the background, told me they’re fed up.
“We live in the jungle. We don’t need concrete houses, we need typical Huaorani houses. The government tells us we need education, but we need Huaorani education,” she said. “Before, we lived with clean trees, with clean air to breathe, with clean water. This is not our music, this is not our dance, this is not our language, this is not our food."

I wonder if this Louis fellow was among the attackers captured.

Expropriation of Indian lands for oil exploitation is a worldwide phenomenon...

Surely only the Americas and India, not worldwide.

just like the pollution and global warming it causes.

Well we still need the oil to run the global economy. Attacking a minor field is certainly not going to change the demand side.

This friction between the pumpers and the locals is in every country of any size. You are so quick to assume the oil guys are always right.

No, the "oil guys" are not always right. But armed bandits attacking an industrial facility are almost always wrong.
Besides, as can be seen in North America, Indians are always against projects like these. Canadian Indians are against tar sands projects. Sioux are against the Keystone XL. Shoshones are against gold mines. Apaches are against the Mt. Graham observatory even.

- - - Updated - - -

Didn't Derec make some sort of oil fortune at one point?

I wish!

 

[Jarhyn]

Often times, I think we should temper our emotions and side not with what is right but instead with what is legal. For instance, if the oil extraction is wrong yet legal, then our emotions should fuel our intellect to change the law. However, sometimes we feel so strongly about something that we side with what is right despite its legality. I understand that, but if you fight for what is right and do so illegally, then you should suffer the consequences of your illegal actions. So many people, however, don't want to see others suffer the full blunt of the consequences of their illegal actions when their actions appear justifiable on moral grounds.

If we fight for what's right with disregard to the legal implications, then we need to stand prepared for the legal consequences. Knowing that, it shouldn't be a surprise to see people hold ill-will for lawbreakers that injure others, even when they're standing up for what's right.

Except that this is not what such people do, nor is it correct on it's face. Instead of doing the whole 'working to correct the law' thing, which is what you seem to think people have an obligation to do, you and others fight for the law as it is. There is a fight by conservatives for the status quo. Not only that the things done are legal, but no acknowledgement to state that such things SHOULD NOT be legal.

It was legal for many people to do many awful things throughout history and the only thing that changed that in the face of such 'slippery' assholes, crusading for the rule of law as a proxy for the rule of unjust law, was the wholesale and illegal and entirely justified revolution against those unjust laws.

Revolution and rebellion is just when the laws are not. Anyone supporting the injustice needs to be led, pulled, bent, or broken to follow what is right, and to call that is right 'the law'.

 

[fast]

Often times, I think we should temper our emotions and side not with what is right but instead with what is legal. For instance, if the oil extraction is wrong yet legal, then our emotions should fuel our intellect to change the law. However, sometimes we feel so strongly about something that we side with what is right despite its legality. I understand that, but if you fight for what is right and do so illegally, then you should suffer the consequences of your illegal actions. So many people, however, don't want to see others suffer the full blunt of the consequences of their illegal actions when their actions appear justifiable on moral grounds.

If we fight for what's right with disregard to the legal implications, then we need to stand prepared for the legal consequences. Knowing that, it shouldn't be a surprise to see people hold ill-will for lawbreakers that injure others, even when they're standing up for what's right.

Except that this is not what such people do, nor is it correct on it's face. Instead of doing the whole 'working to correct the law' thing, which is what you seem to think people have an obligation to do, you and others fight for the law as it is. There is a fight by conservatives for the status quo. Not only that the things done are legal, but no acknowledgement to state that such things SHOULD NOT be legal.

It was legal for many people to do many awful things throughout history and the only thing that changed that in the face of such 'slippery' assholes, crusading for the rule of law as a proxy for the rule of unjust law, was the wholesale and illegal and entirely justified revolution against those unjust laws.

Revolution and rebellion is just when the laws are not. Anyone supporting the injustice needs to be led, pulled, bent, or broken to follow what is right, and to call that is right 'the law'.

If a revolution or rebellion successfully brings about a different law, then that's all fine and well; that law, then, will mark the basis for accountability. If, however, the revolution or rebellion fails to alter the laws to which are demanded of us to obey, then I expect to be held accountable for my actions, and I expect anyone illegally leading, pulling, bending, or breaking another to be held accountable for their actions as well.

A judge once said he doesn't care about right and wrong; only about what is legal and what is not. So, fight for what's right, or fight to maintain a morally corrupt status quo ... either way, don't he dare hold one accountable for immoral yet legal deeds, and may the righteous lawbreaker suffer.

I expect for slippery assholes who legally act within the confines of the law to be held harmless, and I expect victims of immoral yet legal deeds to suffer the wrath and might of the prevailing legal system.

If someone kills my loved one, and if I'm sitting behind him in a courtroom, I will have no qualms being held accountable for my subsequent disobedience of the law, and when someone tresspasses because they have no where to go, I expect them to be held legally accountable.

Don't get me wrong. I don't like my view, but whether you're doing wrong under the cover of darkness or doing right in the bright of day, you're going to suffer the consequences if you get caught breaking the law, so so long as you and I are going to pay, and since the judge don't care about right and wrong, may as well enjoy the irony of the scum that win and the good folk that lose.

PS: don't hold me to all that; I'm just upset with a woman at the moment.