Senate Standing Rock showdown; Dakota Access Pipeline protest

Well, reading that was unsettling. I'm having a hard time living with myself just being a bystander to all these troubles, I have no idea how those cops are going to live with themselves after what they've done to their own people, and with basically no justification.

 

Supposedly some have protested and quit, but I can't find a reliable source on that so take it with a pile of salt.

 

Protesters have been given a Dec 5 deadline to leave... it's going to get a lot uglier.
http://www.denverpost.com/2016/11/28/dakota-access-pipeline-protesters-leave-dec-5/

 

I support pipelines.

1. Less pollution than trucks or trains.

2. Cheaper to send oil so less money out of your pocket.

3. Safer then trucks or trains.

But when they spill, whoa man.

 

Well now I don't want anything historic, cultural or natrual destroyed in the process!

 

Okay so I still haven't bothered to look up much information about what's going on about this...how hard can it be just to reroute the pipeline around the disputed land?

 

Depends on the terrain, & of course $$$$.

 

Tell a corporation to spend more money for the good of regular people? Not happening. They'll eventually get what they want.

 

I've seen that from a few people, too, mostly in facebook comments. My coworker just got back from spending Thanksgiving there, and she said it's exploded in size. When she went in August, it was about 2000 people. Now she said there were 10000. There have been people asked to leave, for various reasons--not being in spirit with the prayerful, protective mission of the camp being foremost.

I have to agree that I support not polluting drinking water or desecrating sacred sites. I guess you didn't specify that you supported this pipeline, but then why else would you be in this thread?

 

Are pipelines really more cost effective and safer? I've read information to the contrary, but I admittedly don't know enough about the pros and cons.

But I have been following this particular issue, and it's disturbing on a deeply human level, imo.

 

The President has asked them to reroute. No dice. The Army Corps of Engineers issued an order to stay construction while they review permitting. Construction is still going on. Rumor is if it's not moving oil by the beginning of the year major investors will back out.

It's never not been all about the money.

 

As far as I know, the most cost-effective way to transport oil is pipelines, followed by tanker ships, then trains and lastly trucks. Not sure about safety though.

But yeah, if a pipeline is going to run across multiple states, then I don't see why going around the disputed land would increase the length or cost by that much.

 

I work in the greater, inter-modal global trade industry. I hAve a vested intrest.

 

Iirc Alabama was recently in a state of emergency because of a pipeline incident. And, correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't Gasland address the safety concerns with pipelines? Nothing I've read suggests that they're safer (actually, the opposite is suggested) and I'm not certain that presumed corporate cost savings do get passed on to the consumer.

It just seems like the consumer absorbs all the risk (by way of having dangerous pipelines running beneath them and their families) and feel no benefits (if any do actually exist).

But like I said before, I've only dabbled into the subject and haven't researched it thoroughly. So the pieces I read (I think from NPR) might not be the whole story.

 

Just my very limited experience listening to some of the people who worked on the Alaskan oil pipeline and seeing it when I visited suggests very strongly that pipelines are more cost effective and potentially less environmentally destructive than truck transport. Trucks put a massive strain on roads and infrastructure, as well as their own pollutants.
There can be environmental side benefits as well to a pipeline.The Caribou herds in Alaska benefit from the line due to its heat and they follow it during the coldest months. The pipe is also incredibly flexible so it can expand as more oil is pumped through. They also have monitors all along the length to indicate leaks or failures and they can shut down lengths of it at a time.

However, my main problem with this pipe is where it is being built: on sovereign Indian land and even sacred burial grounds.

There are environmental concerns too as well but the Native American peoples right to refuse access to their land for a pipeline has to be respected. That's what sovereignty of the tribes is: they get to make the decisions.

It should be respected.

 

This controversy (from the perspective of someone majoring in Global Management) is a case of incompetence at the corporate level. Despite what many might believe, a damaged reputation and a loss of social license can do a considerable amount of damage to a corporation's bottom line. All of this could have been avoided if they actually planned to adjust for the location of the burial grounds in the first place. Think about it. You don't even have to approach it from a moralistic standpoint.

Even from a sole business standpoint, the lack of preparation, the lack of communication with the local populace of the land they're putting construction in, and the lack of foresight when it comes to thinking of the consequences are all inexcusable oversights. Companies invest a lot of money into people who do consider these things so they don't end up getting hit with the negative repercussions later. Another great example of this is the Newmont Mining Corporation when it first began building in Peru. They didn't consider where they were actually mining and ended up having to deal with a lot of mistrust from the community which heavily impeded their ability to do business there, despite being given permission to do so by the government. This was due to protesting freezing all of their mining operations.

As anakinfansince1983 stated, this should have all been thought of before they began infringing on people's rights and it IS only going to get uglier because they've essentially put themselves between a rock and a hard place. They either back out and lose their major investors or they have to end up having to force protesters to leave the grounds (with all the implications that brings).

 

This has been going on for what, a couple months now? If they believed that they made a mistake, haven't they had plenty of time to reverse their decision?

 

Yeah the people have been protesting the action since April.

 

If there was an opportunity, they've clearly missed it. It will only get more and more difficult from here because either choice comes at a cost.

 

What's the cost for pulling out, or rerouting it? Did they already start building?

 

Yeah it was clearly mishandled. The company thought they could simply proceed with the backing of local and state authorities and it would be fine.

They were wrong.

Alpha-Red, they started moving earth when they ran across the burial grounds. That was when things basically ground to a halt.

 

The cost of pulling out would mean that all their major investors would pull out, remember? Besides, they can't start doing all of that within the course of a month. They waited way too long.

 

Yeah it is a PR and financial disaster at this point.

 

Pipeline construction has been stopped

The Army announced Sunday that it has denied the final easement required for the $3.8 billion project to cross under Lake Oahe in North Dakota. Instead, it will conduct an Environmental Impact Statement to examine the impacts and explore alternative routes, it said.


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/obama-dakota-access-pipeline-halt_us_5844882be4b0c68e04817323?