Federal government blocks Dakota Access oil pipeline route

[webfact]

Federal government blocks Dakota Access oil pipeline route

By JAMES MacPHERSON

 

CANNON BALL, N.D. (AP) — The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers said Sunday that it won't grant an easement for the Dakota Access oil pipeline in southern North Dakota, handing a victory to the Standing Rock Sioux tribe and its supporters, who argued the project would threaten a water source and cultural sites.

 

North Dakota's leaders criticized the decision, with Gov. Jack Dalrymple calling it a "serious mistake" that "prolongs the dangerous situation" of having several hundred protesters who are camped out on federal land during cold, wintry weather. U.S. Rep. Kevin Cramer said it's a "very chilling signal" for the future of infrastructure in the United States.

 

The four-state, $3.8 billion project is largely complete except for the now-blocked segment underneath Lake Oahe, a Missouri River reservoir. Assistant Secretary for Civil Works Jo-Ellen Darcy said in a news release that her decision was based on the need to "explore alternate routes" for the pipeline's crossing.

 

"Although we have had continuing discussion and exchanges of new information with the Standing Rock Sioux and Dakota Access, it's clear that there's more work to do," Darcy said. "The best way to complete that work responsibly and expeditiously is to explore alternate routes for the pipeline crossing."

 

The company constructing the pipeline, Dallas-based Energy Transfer Partners, had said it was unwilling to reroute the project. It and the Morton County Sheriff's Office, which has done much of the policing of the protests, didn't have immediate comment.

 

U.S. Secretary for the Interior Sally Jewell said in a statement that the Corps' "thoughtful approach ... ensures that there will be an in-depth evaluation of alternative routes for the pipeline and a closer look at potential impacts."

 

Standing Rock Sioux tribal chairman Dave Archambault didn't immediately respond to messages left seeking comment.

 

The federal government has ordered people to leave the Oceti Sakowin, or Seven Council Fires, encampment on Army Corps of Engineers' land by Monday. But demonstrators say they're prepared to stay, and authorities say they won't forcibly remove them.

 

Attorney General Loretta Lynch said the Department of Justice will "continue to monitor the situation" and stands "ready to provide resources to help all those who can play a constructive role in easing tensions."

 

"The safety of everyone in the area - law enforcement officers, residents and protesters alike - continues to be our foremost concern," she added.

Earlier Sunday, an organizer with Veterans Stand for Standing Rock said tribal elders had asked the military veterans not to have confrontations with law enforcement officials, adding the group is there to help out those who've dug in against the project.

 

About 250 veterans gathered about a mile from the main camp for a meeting with organizer Wes Clark Jr., the son of former Democratic presidential candidate Gen. Wesley Clark. The group had said about 2,000 veterans were coming, but it wasn't clear how many actually arrived.

 

"We have been asked by the elders not to do direct action," Wes Clark Jr. said. He then talked about North Dakota authorities' decision to move away from a key bridge north of the encampment by 4 p.m. Sunday if demonstrators agree to certain conditions, saying the National Guard and law enforcement have armored vehicles and are armed.

 

"If we come forward, they will attack us," Clark said. Instead, he told the veterans, "If you see someone who needs help, help them out."

Authorities moved a blockade from the north end of the Backwater Bridge with the conditions that protesters stay south of it and come there only if there is a prearranged meeting. Authorities also asked protesters not to remove barriers on the bridge, which they have said was damaged in the late October conflict that led to several people being hurt, including a serious arm injury.

 

"That heavy presence is gone now and I really hope in this de-escalation they'll see that, and in good faith.the leadership in those camps will start squashing the violent factions," Cass County Sheriff Paul Laney said in a statement. Protesters also are not supposed to walk, ride or fly drones north of the bridge, and Laney said that any violation will "will result in their arrest."

 

Veterans Stand for Standing Rock's GoFundMe.com page had raised more than $1 million of its $1.2 million goal by Sunday — money due to go toward food, transportation and supplies. Cars waiting to get into the camp Sunday afternoon were backed up for more than a half-mile.

 

"People are fighting for something, and I thought they could use my help," said Navy veteran and Harvard graduate student Art Grayson. The 29-year-old from Cambridge, Massachusetts, flew the first leg of the journey, then rode from Bismarck in the back of a pickup truck. He has finals this week, but told professors, "I'll see you when I get back."

 

Steven Perry, a 66-year-old Vietnam veteran who's a member of the Little Traverse Bay band of Odawa Indians in Michigan, spoke of one of the protesters' main concerns: that the pipeline could pollute drinking water. "This is not just a native issue," he said, "This is an issue for everyone."

 

Art Woodson and two other veterans drove 17 hours straight from Flint, Michigan, a city whose lead-tainted water crisis parallels with the tribe's fight over water, he said.

 

"We know in Flint that water is in dire need," the 49-year-old disabled Gulf War Army veteran said. "In North Dakota, they're trying to force pipes on people. We're trying to get pipes in Flint for safe water."

 

On Monday, some veterans will take part in a prayer ceremony in which they'll apologize for historical detrimental conduct by the military toward Native Americans and ask for forgiveness, Clark said. He also called the veterans' presence "about right and wrong and peace and love."

___

Associated Press writers Jeff Baenen in Minneapolis and Jamie Stengle in Dallas contributed to this report.

 

-- © Associated Press 2016-12-05

[notmyself]

Company will drill and pay the fine is what I'm hearing.

[boomerangutang]

for reference:  The Alaska pipeline, when in proposal status, was long acrimonious political wrangling.  The senate voted. It was a tie.  Nixon's VP, Spiro Agnew voted in favor of the corporations (shortly after, Agnew was kicked out of the VP position, for other reasons).

 

As for the Dakota situation:  I side with the protesters who represent people who don't want pollution.  In the bigger picture, they want to wean Americans away from fossil fuel, and toward clean renewables.  

 

Note: if the Alaska pipeline hadn't have been built, the Exxon Valdez would not have happened, ....the massive oil spill which gravely polluted the Prince Williams Sound.    

[helpisgood]

I don't know anything about the company willing to pay fines, but I am sure that they are not going to give up so easily.  There's too much money involved. 

 

Also, there's also the issue(s) of alternative routes.  The City of Bismarck (capital city of that state) previously had the pipeline rerouted, so who gets the pipeline?

 

To be continued?

 

 

[mania]

[farcanell]

4 hours ago, notmyself said:

Company will drill and pay the fine is what I'm hearing.

 

The wells are drilled already... currently most product is moved by rail, which is more costly

 

but it's all good... as the oil is finally destined to reach the gulf state refineries... no oil... no petrol... price of oil goes back up

 

offshore oil rigs go back to drilling.... lots of job opportunities... I thank and back the Sioux nation for doing their bit to help drive up the cost of oil ( or at the very least, not let it slip further).

[farcanell]

2 hours ago, mania said:

 

I don't think they are foreign oil companies... this is a wholly US internal affair, aimed at a more economically based self reliance on fossil fuels, reducing import requirements from foreign (unstable) countries

[notmyself]

7 minutes ago, farcanell said:

 

The wells are drilled already... currently most product is moved by rail, which is more costly

 

 

Not the bit of the pipeline that goes under the river which is what the article is all about. The Army corp. have refused the license but the company will just drill under the river anyway and pay the fine which I understand doubles every day but is far cheaper than rerouting it since Trump will OK it when he gets in (Jan 20th?). All it means is that Obama can then say that it was not under his watch.

[farcanell]

9 minutes ago, notmyself said:

 

Not the bit of the pipeline that goes under the river which is what the article is all about. The Army corp. have refused the license but the company will just drill under the river anyway and pay the fine which I understand doubles every day but is far cheaper than rerouting it since Trump will OK it when he gets in (Jan 20th?). All it means is that Obama can then say that it was not under his watch.

 

Lol... right... sorry I was thinking of the wells, as I'm more used to the term "lay" in relation to laying down pipelines.

 

and your probably right regards trump giving it a presidential green light... after all, it's big business for big American companies.

 

 

[notmyself]

3 minutes ago, farcanell said:

 

Lol... right... sorry I was thinking of the wells, as I'm more used to the term "lay" in relation to laying down pipelines.

 

and your probably right regards trump giving it a presidential green light... after all, it's big business for big American companies.

 

 

 

They need an easement from the Army corp. so essentially the Pres. Plenty of money for big business and 40 jobs though the truckers and train driers will lose their jobs no doubt. Pipe was to go through Bismarck but the population said no so they ignored the treaty (1754) which states much of the land the pipeline goes through toward the river is Sioux tribal land. Interestingly the government tried to buy the land in the 50's (or maybe 60's) from them but the said no. They were offered many millions but refused so the money was put to one side in case they said yes and is now worth 1.2 billion. All this really came to a head when the company laying the pipes dug up graves on tribal sacred land. Government know full well that it is not their land but said they could lay the pipes anyway. White man speaks with forked tongue?

 

[farcanell]

Ah.... all very interesting, and undoubtedly some rail workers may suffer, but I think 40 only new jobs will be no were near enough people to run and inspect and maintain a pipeline, crossing four states.

 

many years ago I travelled down  one of the earliest production valleys.... I think it was in the dakotas... but not quite sure... anyway.... the devastion to the valley was extensive... irreparable... so I do understand the pollution issue

 

which is why, back to paragraph one, I think it will take more than 40 people to run. A properly built, inspected and maintained pipeline is ok.... but it must be properly built, inspected and maintained.... but there are no guarantees.

 

Edited December 5, 2016 by farcanell

[thai3]

 

[AgMech Cowboy]

4 hours ago, mania said:

 

I really can't believe you'd post this dumb-ass BS propaganda. No foreign oil companies are involved. The fires (and smoke you see) are being set by the protesters, burning up the sites that they claim to be protecting.

The pipe line will not cross the river.  It will be buried over 90 ft below. Pipe lines are so much more environmentally safe than the hundreds of rail cars used today to ship that oil over bridges that span this reservoir and river.

[AgMech Cowboy]

2 hours ago, notmyself said:

 

Not the bit of the pipeline that goes under the river which is what the article is all about. The Army corp. have refused the license but the company will just drill under the river anyway and pay the fine which I understand doubles every day but is far cheaper than rerouting it since Trump will OK it when he gets in (Jan 20th?). All it means is that Obama can then say that it was not under his watch.

You hit the nail on the head with this one. Well, about Obama.

Now if Trump will stand up to the refineries and impose restrictions on imports he can brign oil jobs back to the USA.

President Eisenhower imposed by executive order a restriction on importing crude oil. “He knew that we would buy that oil from anyone, and so he looked at the strategic importance of maintaining our own oil supply,” “That was not popular with Congress or the public, but who’s going to argue with Eisenhower? It’s not like Obama, Bush I, Bush II, Trump, Reagan, Carter or Nixon knew better than Eisenhower. These import restrictions raised the price of domestic crude... 

[notmyself]

6 hours ago, AgMech Cowboy said:

 

I really can't believe you'd post this dumb-ass BS propaganda. No foreign oil companies are involved. The fires (and smoke you see) are being set by the protesters, burning up the sites that they claim to be protecting.

The pipe line will not cross the river.  It will be buried over 90 ft below. Pipe lines are so much more environmentally safe than the hundreds of rail cars used today to ship that oil over bridges that span this reservoir and river.

 

Totally internal but there is the point about where the oil is going and that is to refineries in the gulf before being turned into noncrude petroleum liquid and by-products, for the export market.  The idea that protesters were starting fires comes from where? Mainstream media have reported it but admit that they have not sent any journalists to standing rock so how do they know? It all stems from what the cops said in a report but there is video evidence that shows that the fires were started by their various types of percussion grenades. During a press conference 5-7 days ago Gov. DAPL and his thugs said that the water cannons were there and only used to put out the fires that the protesters started. Video evidence shows that this is also a lie. The pipeline does cross the river which is why they need a permit and to say that it does not cross because it will be 6o feet below is as silly as saying that a bridge does not cross a river because it is 60 feet above. As for safety, how many oil pipeline leaks have there been in the U.S. this year? I'll give you a clue, it is in the thousands.

 

[boomerangutang]

        There's a larger paradigm:  Fossil fuels have a finite future.  No more are getting made, unless you count methane.   It's an out-moded dirty way to power things.   Note: diesel fuel-like liquid can be made from the nuts of jatropha tree.  I've grown hundreds of them, they grow like weeds.

 

         Burning dirty coal and tar-sands oil is going the way of whale oil.   It's passe.   So much is happening with clean renewables.  Solar, both PV and passive (heating water directly) is gaining momentum week by week, and its price is coming down.  

 

The protesters are doing all of us a favor:  they're putting their safety on the line (yes some have recently been gravely injured) and living in arctic conditions in tents and teepees, ....to take small steps towards a better, cleaner future.    Trump sees a tiny glint of a corner of the potential of clean renewables.  Hopefully, he'll embrace a cleaner future, and we can tuck fossil fuels back to the history books.

 

Note:  look under the hood of a regular vehicle with 100k, and under the hood of an electric car with same mileage.   One will be caked in black grease and soot.  The other will be clean enough to put your picnic sandwich upon.  

 

 

 

 

[farcanell]

While it may be true that no more fossil fuels are getting made, and that they are a finite reserve, it's equally true that oil companies are still making some of the biggest ever finds.

 

fossil fuels replaced the need to use whale oil....so.... until you can replace the actual power source, you can't remove the fuel.

 

an electric car, was probably recharged by power generated from fossil fuels, so that argument doesn't really fly

 

renwable energy sources are a wonderful thing, and more research should be encouraged, but they will still be making the parts to manufacture these resources from plastics and other hydrocarbon products.

 

flyash is a major part in cement works.... and a by product of burning coal

 

rightly or wrongly, the world has a very long way to go, before fossil fuels will become obsolete.... unless we start building more nuclear energy sources... because that's really the only short term solution.