Dakota Access Pipeline protests - Talk About Marriage
Politics and Religion This is the place to discuss politics, morality, religion, and anything controversial.

User Tag List

 27Likes
Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread
post #1 of 25 (permalink) Old 11-27-2016, 07:15 PM Thread Starter
Moderator
 
EleGirl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: New Mexico
Posts: 32,345
Dakota Access Pipeline protests

I'm not sure what to think about this. It's hard to find info that is not from the view point of the protesters.

I would like to see more about the entire picture instead. Here is one article that I found.


"What those Dakota Access Pipeline protesters don’t tell you

With the help of celebrities and professional activists, protests of the Dakota Access Pipeline in North Dakota have attracted international attention. The shouting and violence have drawn sympathy from people who are hearing only one side of the story — the one told by activists. Were the full story to be heard, much, if not all, of that sympathy would vanish.

The activists tell an emotionally charged tale of greed, racism and misbehavior by corporate and government officials. But the real story of the Dakota Access Pipeline was revealed in court documents in September, and it is nothing like the activists’ tale. In fact, it is the complete opposite.

The record shows that Energy Transfer Partners, the company building the pipeline, spent years working diligently with federal, state and local officials to route the pipeline safely and with the fewest possible disruptions. The contrast between the protesters’ claims and the facts on record is stunning.

Protesters claim that the pipeline was “fast-tracked,” denying tribal leaders the opportunity to participate in the process. In fact, project leaders participated in 559 meetings with community leaders, local officials and organizations to listen to concerns and fine-tune the route. The company asked for, and received, a tougher federal permitting process at sites along the Missouri River. This more difficult procedure included a mandated review of each water crossing’s potential effect on historical artifacts and locations.

Protesters claim that the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers failed to consult tribal leaders as required by federal law. The record shows that the corps held 389 meetings with 55 tribes. Corps officials met numerous times with leaders of the Standing Rock Sioux tribe, which initiated the lawsuit and the protests.

Protesters claim that the Standing Rock Sioux pursued meetings with an unresponsive Army Corps of Engineers. Court records show that the roles in that story were in fact reversed. The corps alerted the tribe to the pipeline permit application in the fall of 2014 and repeatedly requested comments from and meetings with tribal leaders only to be rebuffed over and over. Tribal leaders ignored requests for comment and canceled meetings multiple times.

In September 2014 alone, the corps made five unsuccessful attempts to meet with Standing Rock Sioux leaders. The next month, a meeting was arranged, 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,” according to a federal judge. At a planned meeting the next month, the tribe took the pipeline off the agenda and refused to discuss it. This stonewalling by tribal leaders continued for a year and a half.

Typical of the misinformation spread during the protests is a comment made by Jesse Jackson, who recently joined the activists in North Dakota. He said the decision to reroute the pipeline so that it crossed close to the Standing Rock Sioux tribe’s water intake was “racism.”

He did not mention, possibly because he did not know, that the company is paying to relocate the tribe’s water intake to a new spot 70 miles from the location of the contested pipeline crossing.

The pipeline route was adjusted based on concerns expressed by locals — including other tribal leaders — who met with company and Army Corps of Engineers officials. The court record reveals that the Standing Rock Sioux refused to meet with corps officials to discuss the route until after site work had begun. That work is now 77 percent completed at a cost of $3 billion.

In response to a lawsuit filed by the Standing Rock Sioux, the court documented “dozens of attempts” by the corps to consult with the tribe. It documented the legal and proper approval process the corps used to permit all of the contested construction sites the tribe claimed were improperly permitted. It even documented evidence that the corps had exceeded the minimum legal requirements during its earnest and lengthy efforts to receive the input of tribal leaders on the pipeline.

Pipeline protesters may have a tight grip on media coverage of the pipeline, but they have a demonstrably loose grip on the facts. The truth — as documented not by the company but by the federal court system — is that pipeline approvals were not rushed, permits were not granted illegally, and tribal leaders were not excluded. These are proven facts upheld by two federal courts.

If only this side of the story were getting the same attention as the other side. Perhaps judges should start announcing their rulings by megaphone while standing beside a few media-attracting celebrities."

What those Dakota Access Pipeline protesters don?t tell you - Orlando Sentinel

EleGirl is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #2 of 25 (permalink) Old 11-27-2016, 11:26 PM
Member
 
john117's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2013
Location: Midwest USA
Posts: 11,417
Re: Dakota Access Pipeline protests

Can't help but wonder if the purpose of the pipeline is to move oil south for refining and eventually export...


Sent from my Moto G (4) using Tapatalk
john117 is online now  
post #3 of 25 (permalink) Old 11-27-2016, 11:37 PM Thread Starter
Moderator
 
EleGirl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: New Mexico
Posts: 32,345
Re: Dakota Access Pipeline protests

Quote:
Originally Posted by john117 View Post
Can't help but wonder if the purpose of the pipeline is to move oil south for refining and eventually export...
I would think that was part of it. Aren't most refineries in the south too?
EleGirl is offline  
 
post #4 of 25 (permalink) Old 11-27-2016, 11:57 PM
Member
 
Rubix Cubed's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2016
Posts: 292
Re: Dakota Access Pipeline protests

More info in this link than you probably want , but it is not from the protesters and involves the court hearings and reviews of the DAPL.
https://www.facebook.com/notes/scott...54529600627457
Rubix Cubed is offline  
post #5 of 25 (permalink) Old 11-28-2016, 12:07 AM
Member
 
john117's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2013
Location: Midwest USA
Posts: 11,417
Re: Dakota Access Pipeline protests

Quote:
Originally Posted by EleGirl View Post
I would think that was part of it. Aren't most refineries in the south too?
Many are there, but only historically. Here in the Midwest we have lots of them esp Illinois, or Indiana (Whiting).

The consequences of exporting US oil in terms of higher gas prices in the US are far worse than annoying a few tribes or what not. I'm more opposed to that.

And, maybe I'm a bit insensitive. I've driven thru the area a couple of times (Kansas to Nebraska to South Dakota). It's pretty empty.. I think the pipeline is not the real issue there.

Sent from my Moto G (4) using Tapatalk
john117 is online now  
post #6 of 25 (permalink) Old 11-28-2016, 11:42 AM
Member
 
Anon Pink's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 10,155
Re: Dakota Access Pipeline protests

Quote:
Originally Posted by EleGirl View Post
I'm not sure what to think about this. It's hard to find info that is not from the view point of the protesters.

I would like to see more about the entire picture instead. Here is one article that I found.

Quote:
"What those Dakota Access Pipeline protesters don’t tell you

With the help of celebrities and professional activists, protests of the Dakota Access Pipeline in North Dakota have attracted international attention. The shouting and violence have drawn sympathy from people who are hearing only one side of the story — the one told by activists. Were the full story to be heard, much, if not all, of that sympathy would vanish.

The activists tell an emotionally charged tale of greed, racism and misbehavior by corporate and government officials. But the real story of the Dakota Access Pipeline was revealed in court documents in September, and it is nothing like the activists’ tale. In fact, it is the complete opposite.

The record shows that Energy Transfer Partners, the company building the pipeline, spent years working diligently with federal, state and local officials to route the pipeline safely and with the fewest possible disruptions. The contrast between the protesters’ claims and the facts on record is stunning.
This is nothing more than propaganda put out by company sympathizers. "Working diligently" is a qualifier that reveals bias. Whether or not the company worked with government officials is not in question.


Quote:
Protesters claim that the pipeline was “fast-tracked,” denying tribal leaders the opportunity to participate in the process. In fact, project leaders participated in 559 meetings with community leaders, local officials and organizations to listen to concerns and fine-tune the route. The company asked for, and received, a tougher federal permitting process at sites along the Missouri River. This more difficult procedure included a mandated review of each water crossing’s potential effect on historical artifacts and locations.

Protesters claim that the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers failed to consult tribal leaders as required by federal law. The record shows that the corps held 389 meetings with 55 tribes. Corps officials met numerous times with leaders of the Standing Rock Sioux tribe, which initiated the lawsuit and the protests.
What this part fails to mention is that the part of the pipeline in question was originally to be built closer to Bismarck. But, it was moved closer to Standing Rock because it was considered too risky to place the pipeline so close to a major metropolitan area endangering the drinking water to the whole area should an oil leak occur.

This is the crux of the debate that often gets over looked. Why is it too risky for the pipeline to be located so close to Bismarck but not too risky for it to be so close to the Souix's tribal lands?

The Sioux claim that the corp did not consult with them AFTER the corp decided to move the pipeline away from Bismarck.

Funny how the article fails to mention BOTH important facts.



Quote:
Protesters claim that the Standing Rock Sioux pursued meetings with an unresponsive Army Corps of Engineers. Court records show that the roles in that story were in fact reversed. The corps alerted the tribe to the pipeline permit application in the fall of 2014 and repeatedly requested comments from and meetings with tribal leaders only to be rebuffed over and over. Tribal leaders ignored requests for comment and canceled meetings multiple times.

In September 2014 alone, the corps made five unsuccessful attempts to meet with Standing Rock Sioux leaders. The next month, a meeting was arranged, 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,” according to a federal judge. At a planned meeting the next month, the tribe took the pipeline off the agenda and refused to discuss it. This stonewalling by tribal leaders continued for a year and a half.
Again, the Sioux claim they were NOT consulted after the pipeline was moved away from Bismarck.


Quote:
Typical of the misinformation spread during the protests is a comment made by Jesse Jackson, who recently joined the activists in North Dakota. He said the decision to reroute the pipeline so that it crossed close to the Standing Rock Sioux tribe’s water intake was “racism.”
Who give a sh!t what Jesse Jackson has to say? The man has zero credibility except that the right likes to trot him out as an example of how crazy the left is.

Quote:
He did not mention, possibly because he did not know, that the company is paying to relocate the tribe’s water intake to a new spot 70 miles from the location of the contested pipeline crossing.
The Sioux seek to protect their land. While drinking water plays a part, it is not the whole of the concern of a contaminated body of water running through their land.

Quote:
The pipeline route was adjusted based on concerns expressed by locals — including other tribal leaders — who met with company and Army Corps of Engineers officials. The court record reveals that the Standing Rock Sioux refused to meet with corps officials to discuss the route until after site work had begun. That work is now 77 percent completed at a cost of $3 billion.
This whole paragraph is spin!

The locals in question were the residents of Bismarck. Standing Rock Sioux did not become involved until the pipeline was relocated to their land!

Quote:
In response to a lawsuit filed by the Standing Rock Sioux, the court documented “dozens of attempts” by the corps to consult with the tribe. It documented the legal and proper approval process the corps used to permit all of the contested construction sites the tribe claimed were improperly permitted. It even documented evidence that the corps had exceeded the minimum legal requirements during its earnest and lengthy efforts to receive the input of tribal leaders on the pipeline.
The tribe doesn't claim there were improper permitting. The proper permitting is what the company is saying in their defense to block the injunction request.

The tribe claims 2 things:
1. The pipeline would cross under a body of water 1/2 mile from Standing Rock Sioux tribal land and that an oil spill at that location would be catastrophic for the tribe.
2. The pipeline would pass through areas of great cultural significance that the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe demands be left unmolested.

Quote:
Pipeline protesters may have a tight grip on media coverage of the pipeline, but they have a demonstrably loose grip on the facts. The truth — as documented not by the company but by the federal court system — is that pipeline approvals were not rushed, permits were not granted illegally, and tribal leaders were not excluded. These are proven facts upheld by two federal courts.

If only this side of the story were getting the same attention as the other side. Perhaps judges should start announcing their rulings by megaphone while standing beside a few media-attracting celebrities."

What those Dakota Access Pipeline protesters don?t tell you - Orlando Sentinel


Uggghhhhh can you hear my painful groan? Again with the biased media? This article claims to be the sole source of fact, but it is not at all factual! It is misinformation aka spin.


Understanding the Controversy Behind the Dakota Access Pipeline | Smart News | Smithsonian

Please don't tell me the Smithsonian is biased!

"Some women are blessed with multi-orgasmic ability for a reason and I'm damn sure not going to waste a blessing" ~FrenchFry


"Vaginas are tricky creatures." ~Lucy999
Anon Pink is offline  
post #7 of 25 (permalink) Old 11-28-2016, 11:46 AM
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 589
Re: Dakota Access Pipeline protests

Native Americans mistrustful of the US government? Can't imagine why that would be...
zookeeper is online now  
post #8 of 25 (permalink) Old 11-28-2016, 12:31 PM
Member
 
bandit.45's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 17,269
Re: Dakota Access Pipeline protests

Quote:
Originally Posted by john117 View Post
Can't help but wonder if the purpose of the pipeline is to move oil south for refining and eventually export...


Sent from my Moto G (4) using Tapatalk
NO!

The problem is the EPA and their environmental Nazis have not allowed any refinery to be built in the lower 48 for over twenty years. If they did, we wouldn't have to be piping oil and gas in from Canada. We would not be having this problem.
bandit.45 is online now  
post #9 of 25 (permalink) Old 11-28-2016, 12:32 PM
Member
 
bandit.45's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 17,269
Re: Dakota Access Pipeline protests

Fvcking corporations screwing over the Indians again and the Feds just standing there with their thumbs up their asses.

Obama is such a coward. "Heh heh...well....we'll just wait and see how it plays out. Heh, heh...." No spine at all.

This is going to be another 1975 Wounded Knee all over again. Someone is going to get hurt. THEN the Feds will step in.
bandit.45 is online now  
post #10 of 25 (permalink) Old 11-28-2016, 12:38 PM
Member
 
katies's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2015
Posts: 338
Re: Dakota Access Pipeline protests

Quote:
Originally Posted by EleGirl View Post
I'm not sure what to think about this. It's hard to find info that is not from the view point of the protesters.

I would like to see more about the entire picture instead. Here is one article that I found.


"What those Dakota Access Pipeline protesters don’t tell you

With the help of celebrities and professional activists, protests of the Dakota Access Pipeline in North Dakota have attracted international attention. The shouting and violence have drawn sympathy from people who are hearing only one side of the story — the one told by activists. Were the full story to be heard, much, if not all, of that sympathy would vanish.

The activists tell an emotionally charged tale of greed, racism and misbehavior by corporate and government officials. But the real story of the Dakota Access Pipeline was revealed in court documents in September, and it is nothing like the activists’ tale. In fact, it is the complete opposite.

The record shows that Energy Transfer Partners, the company building the pipeline, spent years working diligently with federal, state and local officials to route the pipeline safely and with the fewest possible disruptions. The contrast between the protesters’ claims and the facts on record is stunning.

Protesters claim that the pipeline was “fast-tracked,” denying tribal leaders the opportunity to participate in the process. In fact, project leaders participated in 559 meetings with community leaders, local officials and organizations to listen to concerns and fine-tune the route. The company asked for, and received, a tougher federal permitting process at sites along the Missouri River. This more difficult procedure included a mandated review of each water crossing’s potential effect on historical artifacts and locations.

Protesters claim that the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers failed to consult tribal leaders as required by federal law. The record shows that the corps held 389 meetings with 55 tribes. Corps officials met numerous times with leaders of the Standing Rock Sioux tribe, which initiated the lawsuit and the protests.

Protesters claim that the Standing Rock Sioux pursued meetings with an unresponsive Army Corps of Engineers. Court records show that the roles in that story were in fact reversed. The corps alerted the tribe to the pipeline permit application in the fall of 2014 and repeatedly requested comments from and meetings with tribal leaders only to be rebuffed over and over. Tribal leaders ignored requests for comment and canceled meetings multiple times.

In September 2014 alone, the corps made five unsuccessful attempts to meet with Standing Rock Sioux leaders. The next month, a meeting was arranged, 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,” according to a federal judge. At a planned meeting the next month, the tribe took the pipeline off the agenda and refused to discuss it. This stonewalling by tribal leaders continued for a year and a half.

Typical of the misinformation spread during the protests is a comment made by Jesse Jackson, who recently joined the activists in North Dakota. He said the decision to reroute the pipeline so that it crossed close to the Standing Rock Sioux tribe’s water intake was “racism.”

He did not mention, possibly because he did not know, that the company is paying to relocate the tribe’s water intake to a new spot 70 miles from the location of the contested pipeline crossing.

The pipeline route was adjusted based on concerns expressed by locals — including other tribal leaders — who met with company and Army Corps of Engineers officials. The court record reveals that the Standing Rock Sioux refused to meet with corps officials to discuss the route until after site work had begun. That work is now 77 percent completed at a cost of $3 billion.

In response to a lawsuit filed by the Standing Rock Sioux, the court documented “dozens of attempts” by the corps to consult with the tribe. It documented the legal and proper approval process the corps used to permit all of the contested construction sites the tribe claimed were improperly permitted. It even documented evidence that the corps had exceeded the minimum legal requirements during its earnest and lengthy efforts to receive the input of tribal leaders on the pipeline.

Pipeline protesters may have a tight grip on media coverage of the pipeline, but they have a demonstrably loose grip on the facts. The truth — as documented not by the company but by the federal court system — is that pipeline approvals were not rushed, permits were not granted illegally, and tribal leaders were not excluded. These are proven facts upheld by two federal courts.

If only this side of the story were getting the same attention as the other side. Perhaps judges should start announcing their rulings by megaphone while standing beside a few media-attracting celebrities."

What those Dakota Access Pipeline protesters don?t tell you - Orlando Sentinel
I've done extensive research on this because it is coming perilously close to family property and this is the truth. People protesting don't really know what they're protesting.

standingrockfactcheck.org

katies is online now  
post #11 of 25 (permalink) Old 11-28-2016, 12:39 PM
Member
 
katies's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2015
Posts: 338
Re: Dakota Access Pipeline protests

Quote:
Originally Posted by bandit.45 View Post
Fvcking corporations screwing over the Indians again and the Feds just standing there with their thumbs up their asses.

Obama is such a coward. "Heh heh...well....we'll just wait and see how it plays out. Heh, heh...." No spine at all.

This is going to be another 1975 Wounded Knee all over again. Someone is going to get hurt. THEN the Feds will step in.
Nothing is going to happen or will happen by the Feds because THEY actually did their homework this time.
katies is online now  
post #12 of 25 (permalink) Old 11-28-2016, 12:57 PM
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 589
Re: Dakota Access Pipeline protests

Quote:
Originally Posted by katies View Post
I've done extensive research on this because it is coming perilously close to family property and this is the truth. People protesting don't really know what they're protesting.

standingrockfactcheck.org
That site belongs to the Midwest Alliance for Infrastructure Now. It is heavily funded by petroleum industry concerns. I hope you'll forgive me if I don't take their word for it.
zookeeper is online now  
post #13 of 25 (permalink) Old 11-28-2016, 01:23 PM
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 100
Re: Dakota Access Pipeline protests

The woman who was injured, has been on a protesting circuit. This is just another in a long line for her. Some people need to get a real job.
WayUpNorth is offline  
post #14 of 25 (permalink) Old 11-28-2016, 01:43 PM
Member
 
ButtPunch's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 1,606
ButtPunch is offline  
post #15 of 25 (permalink) Old 11-28-2016, 01:45 PM
Member
 
john117's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2013
Location: Midwest USA
Posts: 11,417
Re: Dakota Access Pipeline protests

Quote:
Originally Posted by bandit.45 View Post
NO!

The problem is the EPA and their environmental Nazis have not allowed any refinery to be built in the lower 48 for over twenty years. If they did, we wouldn't have to be piping oil and gas in from Canada. We would not be having this problem.
Let's not get carried away with the above fairytale.

It was not the evil EPA that closed, yes, closed, a bunch of refineries to increase margins. That happened many years ago.

Here in the rust belt we were told that our volatile gas prices would stabilize if BP was allowed to expand their Whiting refinery. They did, and now the prices are even more volatile than ever.

Senator Wyden of Oregon pointed this out a decade or two ago, in a famous but unnoticed Senate report.

Refineries are being consolidated, small refineries closing but existing refineries upgraded to more than take up the slack.

In the Midwest, however, for some reason(*) oil is a bit of a monopoly so we pay higher prices... And refineries are usually the stated reason.

(*) Look up "The Gas Game" for details.



Sent from my Moto G (4) using Tapatalk
john117 is online now  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Reply

Quick Reply
Message:
Options

Register Now



In order to be able to post messages on Talk About Marriage, you must first register. Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.

Important! Your username will be visible to the public next to anything you post and could show up in search engines like Google. If you are concerned about anonymity, PLEASE choose a username that will not be recognizable to anyone you know.

User Name:
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.

Password:


Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.

Email Address:
OR

Log-in









Human Verification

In order to verify that you are a human and not a spam bot, please enter the answer into the following box below based on the instructions contained in the graphic.



Thread Tools Search this Thread
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search



Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Can't access account because of setting RainbowBrite2 Technical Difficulties? 7 08-04-2016 01:27 PM
Husband "demands" access to text messages toomuchlove87 General Relationship Discussion 26 04-03-2016 12:01 PM

Posting Rules  
You may post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off

 
For the best viewing experience please update your browser to Google Chrome