Dakota Access Pipeline Route Denied Near Standing Rock

[Derec]

#nodapl people set fire to structures ahead of eviction of the main camp (which sits on federal land and also on a flood plane).
Standing Rock protesters arrested after defying deadline

Some of the last remnants of the camp went up in flames when occupants set fire to makeshift wooden housing as part of a leaving ceremony. Authorities later said about 20 fires were set and two people -- a 7-year-old boy and a 17-year-old girl -- were taken to a Bismarck hospital to be treated for burns. Their conditions weren’t given.

A child and a teen suffered burns from these intentional fires. Will anybody be held accountable for this?


P.S.: Why did the protesters even erect actual structures? Did they not know the camp lies on a flood plane?

 

[Nice Squirrel]

You should have gone and spoke to them about flood plains and the dangers of fire.

Missed opportunity.

 

[fromderinside]

P.S.: Why did the protesters even erect actual structures? Did they not know the camp lies on a flood plane?

Wow. Seven inches of rain a year and you're criticizing because they built on a flood plane? Why not share that thought with your rural conservative friends who keep rebuilding along the Mississippi? Much worse than the urban liberal dummies who build along the east coast.

So with the go given to builders by SubPOTUS does that nullify court decisions stopping build near reservation land under a river?

 

[Derec]

You should have gone and spoke to them about flood plains and the dangers of fire.

- I assumed they knew that much.
- As if they would listen to me!

Missed opportunity.

I never had sex with a Sioux squaw. I am sure some are working in the Bismarck area. Missed opportunity indeed.

 

[Derec]

Wow. Seven inches of rain a year and you're criticizing because they built on a flood plane? Why not share that thought with your rural conservative friends who keep rebuilding along the Mississippi? Much worse than the urban liberal dummies who build along the east coast.

There is a big difference between areas that are at higher risk for flooding and thus flood insurance is recommended and areas that flood most years in the springtime due to snow melt and are thus unsuitable for any permanent structures. The Oceti Sakowin area is the latter. And yet they built several wood-frame structures that they either ended up burning or that got demolished.

Also, there is a big difference between building structures on your land vs. federal land you and your buddies are illegally occupying. Not even the Bundy Bunch was so brazes as to start construction in the Malheur Refuge!

So with the go given to builders by SubPOTUS does that nullify court decisions stopping build near reservation land under a river?

There was no court decision stopping pipeline cosntruction. Just Corps of Engineers decision which got reversed by the new management of the same.
And the drilling seems to be going great. Pretty soon the oil will be flowing. Great victory for the Black Snake!
Dakota Access Pipeline Ahead of Schedule
The only potential snag is that there is still a pending lawsuit, but I can't imagine that having any merit whatsoever.

Also, I have long claimed that the protest were by those generally opposed to all pipelines, not due to any specific problems they have with DAPL or DAPL's current route. This article bolsters that.
Dakota Protesters Regroup, Plot Resistance to Other Pipelines
So rerouting the pipeline would not have accomplished anything. The same idiots would have been protesting regardless.

It is also idiotic to be against pipelines. The oil and gas has to be moved somehow, and pipelines are best option.

 

[Derec]

So the Standing Rock/#nodapl idiots have wasted more barrels of oil derivatives to go to Washington and protest there.
Native Americans march to White House against Dakota pipeline

Another useless protest.

 

[Arctish]

So the Standing Rock/#nodapl idiots have wasted more barrels of oil derivatives to go to Washington and protest there.
Native Americans march to White House against Dakota pipeline

Another useless protest.

So you've posted another Excluded Middle fallacy.

Another useless argument.

 

[Derec]

So you've posted another Excluded Middle fallacy.

Not a fallacy on my part. It's a fallacy on the part of the protesters. Some of their signs proclaims that "keep it in the ground" because "we cant' drink" it.

But they themselves show, by using large quantities of it to drive/fly all over the place to protest, that oil has a great deal of utility even if we can't drink it.
Their own behavior belies their idiotic claims.

 

[Arctish]

So you've posted another Excluded Middle fallacy.

Not a fallacy on my part. It's a fallacy on the part of the protesters. Some of their signs proclaims that "keep it in the ground" because "we cant' drink" it.
But they themselves show, by using large quantities of it to drive/fly all over the place to protest, that oil has a great deal of utility even if we can't drink it.
Their own behavior belies their idiotic claims.

Yes it is a fallacy on your part. You keep framing the argument as though the only two positions are 1) bent over with your buttcheeks spread so the petroleum industry can have its way with you or 2) doing without petroleum products entirely, and completely overlooking all the positions in-between such as objecting to specific plans for specific reasons but not being opposed to all oil extraction everywhere.

 

[Juma]

So you've posted another Excluded Middle fallacy.

Not a fallacy on my part. It's a fallacy on the part of the protesters. Some of their signs proclaims that "keep it in the ground" because "we cant' drink" it.

But they themselves show, by using large quantities of it to drive/fly all over the place to protest, that oil has a great deal of utility even if we can't drink it.
Their own behavior belies their idiotic claims.

so what should they have done? Walked there?
We MUST stop using oil as a fuel, but to do that we need changes in infrastructure that you cannot require individual responsiblility for.

 

[Derec]

Yes it is a fallacy on your part.

No it is not.

You keep framing the argument as though the only two positions are 1) bent over with your buttcheeks spread so the petroleum industry can have its way with you or 2) doing without petroleum products entirely, and completely overlooking all the positions in-between such as objecting to specific plans for specific reasons but not being opposed to all oil extraction everywhere.

The point is that the #nodapl protesters are radically against oil. "You can't drink oil, keep it in the soil" chants that they kept yelling during their DC protest is firmly in the 2) category, whether you like it or not. They are also incredibly stupid, implying that things we can't drink (or presumably eat) should not be extracted from the ground. There goes the entire history of civilization!

Now I understand your position is against the DAPL pipeline in particular but not against oil extraction and pipelines in general. Ok. But you must realize that this position is small minority among the protesters, who tend to be radical ecomentalists.
Also, what is so especially bad about DAPL that you would oppose it but not other pipelines?

P.S.: I am not even in he 1) camp. I support reasonable environmental regulations as well as a carbon tax to incentivize transition to a lower carbon economy.

 

[Derec]

so what should they have done? Walked there?

It would not only be consistent with their ridiculous positions, it would also make a stronger. Otherwise it's "do as I say not do as I do".

We MUST stop using oil as a fuel, but to do that we need changes in infrastructure that you cannot require individual responsiblility for.

It will also take decades even under most optimistic of scenarios. And in the meantime we need oil. And ways to move that oil of which pipelines are the best option.
Which renders their entire position ridiculous. If they are really interested in reducing our economy's carbon footprint something like a carbon tax would be much more meaningful than protesting oil transport, oil extraction and even all extraction industries (many of which such as copper, rare earths or lithium are essential to transition to a low carbon future).

 

[Juma]

It would not only be consistent with their ridiculous positions, it would also make a stronger. Otherwise it's "do as I say not do as I do".

We MUST stop using oil as a fuel, but to do that we need changes in infrastructure that you cannot require individual responsiblility for.

It will also take decades even under most optimistic of scenarios. And in the meantime we need oil. And ways to move that oil of which pipelines are the best option.
Which renders their entire position ridiculous. If they are really interested in reducing our economy's carbon footprint something like a carbon tax would be much more meaningful than protesting oil transport, oil extraction and even all extraction industries (many of which such as copper, rare earths or lithium are essential to transition to a low carbon future).

Bullshit. If the gov really wanted to you would have banned burning oil long ago.
There are a lot of alternatives. Electricity, Vegetable oil., ethanol, biogas etc

 

[Derec]

Bullshit. If the gov really wanted to you would have banned burning oil long ago.

U-huh.

There are a lot of alternatives. Electricity, Vegetable oil., ethanol, biogas etc

Only recently has battery technology improved sufficiently to enable mass-market electric vehicles. And even now there are drawbacks to the technology that impede quick adoption. High cost, long charging times, and limited range mean that at this time electric cars will be adopted the more affluent people and for local commute uses rather than road trips. They also do not perform too well in very cold weather. It will take a couple of decades from now for EVs to become a majority of new cars sold.

Vegetable oil is good on small scales. People driving oil turbo diesels with old fryer oil with their exhaust smelling like french fries. But it doesn't scale up. Making vegetable oil just to be burned in an engine is not effective neither cost-wise nor regarding the environment. Ethanol is a big boondoggle and only exists because of ridiculous subsides. It also has its own environmental problems and it takes up arable land. Biogas is a good supplemental technology - it uses gas that would escape into the atmosphere otherwise - but it is limited by the availability of suitable biomass. Good for methane burning buses for example but can't really replace oil for cars or planes.

So your assertion that oil burning could have been banned "long time ago" is ridiculous.

 

[Arctish]

No it is not.

You keep framing the argument as though the only two positions are 1) bent over with your buttcheeks spread so the petroleum industry can have its way with you or 2) doing without petroleum products entirely, and completely overlooking all the positions in-between such as objecting to specific plans for specific reasons but not being opposed to all oil extraction everywhere.

The point is that the #nodapl protesters are radically against oil. "You can't drink oil, keep it in the soil" chants that they kept yelling during their DC protest is firmly in the 2) category, whether you like it or not. They are also incredibly stupid, implying that things we can't drink (or presumably eat) should not be extracted from the ground. There goes the entire history of civilization!

I don't think the majority of people opposed to the DAPL project are radically against oil. I think the radicals get the lion's share of the attention because they show up to protest no matter how inclement the weather, they like pithy slogans, and they generate more commentary than the more moderate factions. But even if they are the majority, there is a significant number of people opposed to the project that have a more reasonable, nuanced view. Every time you frame the argument as though people must either support every oil development project that comes along or do without oil entirely, you exclude all the varying positions in between and all the people who hold them.

Now I understand your position is against the DAPL pipeline in particular but not against oil extraction and pipelines in general. Ok. But you must realize that this position is small minority among the protesters, who tend to be radical ecomentalists.
Also, what is so especially bad about DAPL that you would oppose it but not other pipelines?

I don't think it's needed, I don't think it's worth the risk to the Missouri River, and I don't trust the future operators. They already have a bad reputation for oil spills on the surface:

Sunoco Logistics, the future operator of the pipeline, has spilled crude oil from its onshore pipelines more often since 2010 than any other US pipeline operator, with at least 203 leaks disclosed to the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration,[99] with a total of 3,406 barrels (143,100 US gal; 541.5 m3) of crude oil spilled.

Pipeline ruptures underwater are even harder to fix than the ones on dry land, and do far more environmental damage. I don't see how anyone could think it's a good idea to have that company operating that pipeline in that location. Anyone who doesn't stand to take in a shit ton of money in profits and payoffs, that is.

P.S.: I am not even in he 1) camp. I support reasonable environmental regulations as well as a carbon tax to incentivize transition to a lower carbon economy.

I'm with you there, but I also think we need to incentivize oil transport operators to properly maintain their existing equipment by limiting their ability to write it off and walk away, and by keeping new pipeline construction to a bare minimum.