NO DAPL and other pipeline concerns - Keystone, etc.

Here we go!

thanks Jacob

https://www.fractracker.org/a5ej20sjfwe/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/pipeline_incidents.png

https://www.fractracker.org/2013/04/us-pipelines-average-incidents-are-a-daily-occurrence/

thanks sleeve, great website.

pipelines and fracking will be one of those things they will mock us for in 200 years.

And that's the best-case scenario

One disclosure that the article fails to mention is that an incident reported to PHMA does not qualify as a pipeline failure. Any time any amount of product is released a report has to be made, this often happens when a pig trap is opened and condensate is released or a gasket fails at a flange. I just spent two hours reading through the reports I downloaded from PMSA. Yes accidents often happen, but on the whole saying that pipeline failures are a daily occurrence is very misleading and shows a misunderstanding of daily routine maintenance. The main issue with actual failures involving pipelines in the ground is aging infrastructure. With the rate of shale play activity it is very important for companies not to rely on aging pipelines, and this is why the DAPL is important for the Bakken shale.

There is a current estimate of 2.6 million miles of both gas and liquid pipelines, this includes crude oil, sour gas, wet gas, condensate, salt water, carbon dioxide, NGLs such as ethanes, methane, propane, butane and ammonia.

As far as the police being involved, using dogs and arresting people, it's become standard procedure when ever protester enter a right of way. When I was working for TransCanada, we had protesters who would at night would take out pins on equipment, pour sand into diesel tanks on backhoes, and cause major safety concerns. One labor was seriously hurt due to tampering with heavy equipment. Since then the industry has taken any trespassing or protest seriously. If the protesters thought they would enter a row and not have a confrontation with private security and/or police then they didn't really understand industry policy. A row on a transmission pipeline is not a place for children, pregnant women or people without proper safety awareness. It's a dangerous job. I'm not justifying the actions of any side, just providing the view of the contractors and the companies involved.

I still am confused on the exact purpose of protesting new pipeline construction.

do you live on the standing rock reservation, hold the land to be sacred, or own a home that's being seized through eminent domain? the army corps of engineers weren't willing to put the water supply of bismarck at risk, so they altered the route to pass through the standing rock sioux tribe instead. the corps determined that was an acceptable risk. apparently the people living there don't agree. That seems worth protesting to me.

there's also the larger issue of connecting these things to climate change. those arguments have been been made a million times so it's probably useless to go through it again. if you think like an engineer, it makes no sense to protest pipelines like this (or keystone) because the industry is enormous and influential, corporations like dakota access worth billions of dollars and are owned by other corporations worth billions of dollars. they will find a way to extract energy and sell it at a massive profit. people protesting the pipeline are like little gnats nibbling away at the hind leg of a moose.

on the other hand, there is the reality that we can't continue to burn GHGs at anything close to the current rate. new pipelines like DAPL are investments in a foolish path of infrastructure. we are shooting ourselves in the face. some people who feel the same way look at new pipeline construction and just get really depressed and throw their hands up in the air (that is my current way of living). other people get out and try to do something about it, no matter how long the odds. those are the protesters. some of them are fighting on a very personal scale to protect lands that they hold sacred, and to fight against a risk to their water supply that was approved by an organization (the army corps) that has historically been incredibly racist and biased toward tribes and first nations. other people are fighting on a global scale, trying to make connections between the abstract hyperobject (word of the day) of climate change that most people still don't fully understand VS the day to day reality of how our fossil fuels are delivered and the impacts that they have on real people who happen to be in the line of sight of corporations.

i do feel bad for the pipeline workers. i feel bad for the coal miners as well. i understand why they'd want to fight back, hard, against all the protesters. i wish there was a way to somehow train everyone to make some fucking wind turbines and solar panels instead, but that's not realistic. some other people will get those jobs. the coal miners are fucked. i feel bad for everyone involved, except for the corporations signing everyone's paychecks.

sorry for a stream of sanctimonious bullshit. i don't know how to write about this stuff without coming off that way. when i was younger i thought it would be exciting to get into a field and grasp with the really difficult issues with no easy answers. as i get older i just want it all to end.

hey Jacob I wanted to say that I knew we would disagree on some parts of this but I really appreciate your informed perspective on this issue, you know a lot more about the actual mechanics and operation of pipelines than anyone else I know. and yes, that map makes very minor incidents appear more alarming than they are, agreed.

i don't know how anyone could be behind riding roughshod over native rights and lands in 2016, but here we are.

xp that being said I think you are taking a very short term view here (economically, politically, and environmentally) w/r/t pipeline necessity.

jim OTM

I can not speak to the concerns of the standing rock reservation because I don't know enough about it. I have read the Army Corps' Environmental assessment: Dakota Access Pipeline and nothing seemed different than any other assessment I have read. The DAPL route was approved where the disputed land is in question now because it uses the previous row of the Northern Border Pipeline built in 1982. If a company can use a portion of another row, it's not only more cost effective, it's easier to get permits approved. The Northern Border Pipeline is currently underneath the Missouri River. It's the dotted line on this map.
https://c5.staticflickr.com/6/5502/30505363692_d884a2b076_c.jpg

When I use to build pipelines there were many instances of where we had to shut down work due to items found in the ground. All of the jobs I worked on were very similar to this one, FERC, DOT, EPA, everyone was regulated everything we did, and I worked for Michels the company being protested. Something seems off about this because contractors are not allowed to dig where you aren't supposed to. Even stepping off a row will get one fired. If this site is a sacred ground, which I'm not claiming it's not, I can't imagine how construction is progressing. This is unheard on jobs like this.

The reason I don't understand protesting this pipeline is due to the fact that even if the permit is pulled on the DAPL, the products being taken out of the ground will continue to be shipped by tanker trucks and rail. I was recently working in North Dakota and new leases are being signed off on every month. The company I was working for currently has 18 wells in production and has that many planned before the close of the year. Shutting down this pipeline won't halt production. When Obama vetoed the Keystone XL, we had already bought the Gulf Coast expansion into Port Arthur and Houston. Oil is currently being shipped via the keystone pipeline. And because the XL was vetoed, TransCanada bought out Tennessee Gas's pipelines as well as Columbia Gas. Those are now being flushed and repurposed for oil. New lines are better than using older ones.

Don't ban me, I'm only explaining what I know by working in the industry. I'm not a Trump supporter.

we're good, as I said before you have a unique and valued perspective here

I submit to you that the issue is a flashpoint that has drawn support from a broad coalition of native rights activists, people opposed to fracking and pipelines, and others. It's that people are sick of pipelines in general, this just happened to be the one that things coalesced around.

also, trying to see things from the perspective of the reservation people and stuff I have read coming out of the Standing Rock camp organization, I don't think they are so naive that they think stopping the pipeline will stop the oil from being transported - they just don't want a pipeline in their watershed, which I think is completely understandable.

also "new lines are better than using older ones" assumes that the industry itself is still viable and useful, which I would disagree with even on a purely economic basis (hint hint - massive federal subsidies are the only thing keeping those razor thin profit margins alive). no offense to yr profession, but y'all are the new coal miners or whale blubber renderers, about to be left behind by history and progress.

btw the per-watt cost of solar panels dropped 50% this year.

I need to walk away from the internet for a couple of days and go to an old-friend reunion, but thanks again for starting the thread and for your input

I am not certified that in the upcoming decades those newer pipelines will be taken care of properly. Older private and public infrastructure has been real pain to update and maintain, what with austerity, rising costs of material and the hunt for margins by shareholders. I would rather have that headache as far from the actual soil as possible. Soil is key. Train and trucks seems to be a good mid-term solution before we move on to better sources of energy, if only because that infrastructure already exists.

fuck it I'm just gonna c&p this long thing from a friend's FB page because it gets to the nitty gritty of a lot of this. On a NODAPL thread but relating also to the Bundy case...

Point:

interesting article. Here is my take, and please excuse the grammar and spelling. Doing this on a phone and sometimes I miss things. ;)

The difference is that one is a state/federal issue, the other is a private company.

Bundy and his group formed a "well regulated militia", as allowed by 2A. They then protested and occupied PUBLIC lands. The deal with public lands is that according to the laws they are "owned" by the people. So you really can't get them for trespassing. OR allows for the open and conceal carry of weapons, and they have no evidence of the militia pointing firearms at anyone.

Legally they rebelled against an "unjustice", but they rebelled using the federal goverment as there target not private companies or citizens, that's why it goes under the well regulated militia clause.

I don't agree with how they did this at all, but I understand how under the constitution and current laws they got away with it.

On to the pipeline. . . . So the first thing to realize for me, is that when we came to America we are basically an invading force. And we "dominated" the country and took it over in the end. Just like any other "Army" attempting to invade. I know that, that isn't why our ancestors came to America, but litterally, that's what happened.

Generally when you take over land of a country it becomes the occupying forces goverment land. Treatys are arranged and modified all the time with tribes. This isn't an uncommon thing in any state that has reservations. In fact most tribes are trying to grow "treaty" land.

Part two of this. . . The pipeline at no time enters or crosses lands directly owned in any treaty. The pipeline crosses private land approved by the goverment to build on.

The tribes are hitting resistance because they aren't fighting the state they are fighting a private company in the wrong way. The private company hired security contractors who became overrun by people illegal passing "no trespassing" signs and then committing acts of Voilence and vandalism. So like you or I would do if someone was entering our property illegally you would call the police. The private company did, and under law the police are required to enforce the state laws which don't allow for trespassing on private property. Since the protesters refuse to leave, law enforcement is forced to stay and enforce the law (remove trespassers).

I agree that we need different fuels, however I think protesting the pipeline because your afraid it's going to leak is idiotic. They already have trains filled with hundreds of thousands of gallons of fossil fuel crossing the river every single week. Trains are 400% more likely to have a spill or collapse than a pipeline. The damage of a failed train vs. a failed pipeline is significant.

In the end it comes down to a group protesting the goverment and forming a militia which is covered under the constitution of the USA, and the constitution of OR state, and a protest that is entering privately owned and controlled property which is against the law in multiple ways. They need to fight it in court not on the street. In the end, it will be lots of people arrested, charged, and serving time for committing a crime that won't stop anything because it's a private company.

Counterpoint:

Thanks for the detailed response, xxxxx. Not surprisingly, I have slightly opposing views on many of those points, but I very much appreciate your input!

Re: the state/federal vs private company issue: the government nearly always hires private contractors to do their dirty work. If there is something terrible happening, that goes against the moral code of a very large number of people, then I believe they have a right and an obligation to protest it, whether it is on private land or being done by a private company, or whether it is on public land and being done by the government. I am sorry when private individuals are inconvenienced or prevented from doing their jobs because of this, but if their job is literally destroying something irreplaceable, which the majority of citizens oppose but the government pushes forward on because it is corrupt, then the people have no recourse but to protest it.

Which brings me to "fighting a private company in the wrong way". If the government is corrupt and the courts will not resolve the situation fairly, what other way would you propose that the tribes aren't doing? And while I'm sure some individuals have behaved belligerently at Standing Rock, it should be remembered that at least they are unarmed, can you imagine the hubbub if they were decked out like the Bundy guys?

The trains versus pipelines point is valid, however. I simply feel we need to stop all new construction and put full energy into renewables, right now, full stop.

Re: the treaties - they didn't "adjust" them, they systematically broke them, practically every one, when the treaties said the land belonged to the Natives and then whites moved in anyway, and they had to keep "adjusting" them and marching the surviving natives for hundreds of miles to ever dwindling reservations. What you say is true about invading nations, but you are skipping over the fact that making aggressive war and invading and taking someone else's country is the most evil thing human beings are capable of doing, it is not morally neutral. I recognize that it was a different time, but it doesn't change the gross injustice of the entire situation.

btw in the original "Point" post above, I think he meant The damage of a failed train vs. a failed pipeline is INsignificant.

RE: the trains vs pipelines thing

https://thinkprogress.org/data-oil-trains-spill-more-often-but-pipelines-spill-bigger-9533009d4aba#.fcxaeb3nr

That thinkprogess article reads like an opinion piece.
When a pipeline bursts, it can be harder to contain than a leaking oil tanker — only a certain, contained amount can spill out of a single punctured rail car. A pipeline can just keep spilling until the operator shuts down the flow, and will usually continue to gush until it’s empty.
Where are her case studies and sources, did she do any real research? This might be the case on pipelines built before 1980, but even many of those have implemented automated pressure valves. It started in 1982 that PHMSA started regulating valve placement and type. The company I work for places pressure sensor valves on either side of every water crossing and at a certain mileage markers. Here's the first report from 82.
http://www.phmsa.dot.gov/staticfiles/PHMSA/DownloadableFiles/Files/Press%20Release%20Files/Final%20Valve_Study.pdf
and here's one example from 2011
http://www.pgecurrents.com/2011/10/10/pge-adding-automated-and-remote-valves-as-part-of-pipeline-safety-plan/

And Van Horn, I can assure you future pipelines will be taken care of properly. It's a federal law, that's what my job is. And every company has specialize employees like me. I cover six hundred miles of gathering lines in South Texas, and I meet with other corrosion technicians from Murphy, BHP, Kinder Morgan and list goes on. We share cathodic protection data, ACVG surveys, and find coating anomalies and correct them before they can lead to a serious problem. There are other employees at my company who monitor other aspects of the lines, monthly valves inspection, smart pigging, leak detection surveys and coupon analysis. All of this information is written up and turned into the government. It is accessible for anyone to read and review.
Each state has a similar website and court documents, but here's Texas
http://www.rrc.state.tx.us/about-us/resource-center/research/online-research-queries/

isn't the important thing the actual outcome: that there are fewer pipeline incidents than rail incidents, but they result in much higher spill rates per spill, much greater amounts of crude oil spilled in total? and from the perspective of environmental and drinking water quality, that pipelines create the risk for major spill events?

the fact that pipelines have been regulated to some extent since the Natural Gas Pipeline Safety Act of 1968, with such poor results, causes me more concern than comfort. it's great that containment procedures are in place, and i'm sure some companies have better safety records than others. but taken as a whole, the results are still dismal and the people in standing rock have good reason not to trust the regulators and the companies that everything will be ok.

i can see the argument that effort should be spent in improving infrastructure, like you said upthread - The main issue with actual failures involving pipelines in the ground is aging infrastructure. With the rate of shale play activity it is very important for companies not to rely on aging pipelines, and this is why the DAPL is important for the Bakken shale but the counterargument is that the fossil fuel industry has been exceptionally well-subsidized, and that the money is better spent on infrastructure for energy sources that don't cause climate change. fossil fuels get around $550 billion subsidies, globally, compared to $120 billion for renewables. i think it would be reversing those figures. give the lion's share to the kind of energy you want to use over the next century, and spend the remaining money improving infrastructure on existing pipelines, not building new ones.

Whoa, this thread is amazing. Thanks so much. I'm pretty confused about this issue so this is great.

i don't know how anyone could be behind riding roughshod over native rights and lands in 2016, but here we are.

― harold melvin and the bluetones (jim in vancouver), Friday, 28 October 2016 11:43 (two days ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

You obv don't read Canadian politics boards (not counting the ILE thread or rabble). Btw, it seems like the NDP might tear itself apart over pipelines, with environmentalists against the AB NDP (their only provincial govt atm) and some of the labour wing.

Karl, I agree with everything you wrote above. I am all for alternative energy sources other than oil and coal. My company powers all of their compressors with solar and air, no diesel is use. We are heavily invested in using green energy to minimize our output of greenhouse gases.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/nov/27/cop-21-paris-climate-talks-low-carbon-oil-statoil

http://www.cnn.com/2016/10/29/us/dakota-pipeline-standing-rock-sioux/index.html

Jacob I used to also wonder what the point was of pipeline protests, since stopping a pipeline wouldn't actually reduce our usage of fossil fuels.* Since then I've come to think that they're just sort of symbolic proxies of the fight against climate change. You can't effectively focus on "climate change" as much as you can focus on a specific thing being built, especially when it also happens to coincide with infringement on native american rights and have immediate potential environmental dangers (though honestly probably smaller and more isolated ones, and as noted an old pipeline is going to have even more risks).

I guess what I'm saying is that I'm reaching a point where I'm more worried about keeping the heat on our continued push into carbon-intensive fuel sources than I am about rationalistically getting things exactly right in terms of protest focus. Although I sort of go back and forth on it.

* in some remote way, it actually might, if it contributes to higher prices for fossil fuels, which would (1) impact usage directly and (2) make other fuel sources more competitive

I am all for a smart dialogue about the issues and if that involves a protest then I have no problem with that. Many long over due social injustices have been brought about through social protest. I have friends who work for Michels and friends who are at Standing Rock protesting. But I had to remove a few face books friends once they attempted to shut down valves on major transmission lines. http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-canada-pipelines-idUSKCN12B26O This is the sort of action that endangers everything I thought the protest was about. The amount of misinformation out there about the practices of oil & gas companies is staggering and no one seems to care to find reliable sources of data. Like this article
http://missoulian.com/news/state-and-regional/after-spill-federal-officials-not-sure-how-many-pipelines-cross/article_b23b48e0-b411-11e0-bc74-001cc4c002e0.html
I became furious reading it because of out right lies.

I do believe we need the DAPL, not because I work in oil and am an oil apologist. I look at the world we live in and can see that independance from fossil fuels is still not here. Do we have alternatives for jet fuel? Or http://www.ranken-energy.com/products%20from%20petroleum.htm It's terrifying when I really look around my house, even the records I love so much are ethylene and chlorine.

this 'checking in on facebook to foil the police/investigators' thing is totally fake right

Sorry to post a Ranken Energy list, f@ck those guys anyway. It would be easy to replace a lot of those items with non-petroleum made products.

I'm not jumping that train, but a credible friend of mine who is really involved with various strains of activism has, which leads me to think there may be something to it.

xp

yeah, it seems like a real thing, though who knows how effective

even if it doesn't foil the police, it has caught the attention of a lot of people who hadn't learned much about the issue before, so that's good. and also, as everyone starts hopping in on facebook comment threads to tell everyone that social activism is lame and that they'd be better off just donating directly one of several different funds set up to support standing rock, i'm sure it's led to a wave of donations that wouldn't otherwise have occurred. so, indirectly, that's a positive outcome.

but yeah, just wait for this to be complete and then we can sort the lazy gullible selfish dumbasses of the world vs the righteous: http://www.snopes.com/facebook-check-in-at-standing-rock/

This is a valuable read. http://mapabing.org/2016/09/09/dapl-is-the-biggest-issue-in-public-archaeology-right-now/

Whoa, this thread is amazing. Thanks so much. I'm pretty confused about this issue so this is great.

i don't know how anyone could be behind riding roughshod over native rights and lands in 2016, but here we are.
― harold melvin and the bluetones (jim in vancouver), Friday, 28 October 2016 11:43 (two days ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

You obv don't read Canadian politics boards (not counting the ILE thread or rabble). Btw, it seems like the NDP might tear itself apart over pipelines, with environmentalists against the AB NDP (their only provincial govt atm) and some of the labour wing.

― Spiritual Hat Minimalism (Sund4r), Sunday, October 30, 2016 10:09 AM (yesterday) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

oh I'm very aware! literally every energy project we hear about here in b.c. goes through traditional native land, often to which the local band holds title*, and the majority of the time the band opposes to no avail.

it is def a problem in the ndp/labour movement. in b.c. alone our biggest union opposes the Site C dam - our second biggest union will have lots of workers on the project and so supports it - while the provincial NDP are real flip floppers on energy issues - the ineffectual leader John Horgan suggesting he's "open to persuasion" to pipeline expansion in Metro Vancouver.

*aboriginal title is a sui generis piece of nonsense where despite holding title the band doesn't have the final say on what is done on their land, this is up to the federal government who have a "fiduciary duty" (i put that in scare quotes because while this is the legal wording this duty really does not resemble a fiduciary duty and essentially amounts to "have to hold some sort of consultation with the band before building a pipeline through their land with or without their consent")

http://m.motherjones.com/blue-marble/2016/10/video-dakota-access-pipeline-protest-absolutely-nuts-total-war-zone

I know those videos are meant to advocate the protestors point of view, but... no.

Personally, I'm with the commenters above that note this pipeline is greener than shipping the same Bakken oil via rail and truck.

I wonder how far some have thought about returning to the 1851 Treaty of Ft. Laramie to define Native American land rights.

http://www.ndstudies.org/resources/IndianStudies/threeaffiliated/images/laramie_large.gif

The treaty itself was a truce, soon broken, in which other tribes (Mandan, Hidatsa, Arikara, Assiniboine and Crow) attempted to corral the Lakota Sioux, who were considered a greater threat than white man.

Meanwhile, here's a PBS America by the Numbers Frontline episode about an Indian reservation (for the Mandan, Hidatsa, and Arikara) that benefited from the Bakken below their feet:

Native American Boomtown

^ Frontline

My kingdom for a WYSIWYG editor...

President Obama, in his first remarks on the violent standoff over an oil pipeline near the Standing Rock Sioux Reservation in North Dakota, called on both sides to show restraint and revealed that the Army Corps of Engineers was considering an alternative route for the project.

In an interview with NowThis news that was published on Tuesday, Mr. Obama said: “We are monitoring this closely. I think as a general rule, my view is that there is a way for us to accommodate sacred lands of Native Americans.

“I think that right now the Army Corps is examining whether there are ways to reroute this pipeline.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/03/us/president-obama-says-engineers-considering-alternate-route-for-dakota-pipeline.html

As of this afternoon the contractors building the pipeline haven't heard of any rerouting of the line. It's over 70% complete. Everything about this is weird to me.

This is a very enlightening thread and has made me learn much more about this than I already knew.
Popping in to say I love you Jacob and I hope you are well and I still have some records to send to you soon.

It seems to me that if the pipeline is rerouted at this late a date, SOMEONE is going to be taking a huge monetary loss.

Hi Ian!! When will you come to Texas??
http://www.npr.org/2016/11/02/500331158/north-dakota-commissioner-standing-rock-souix-sat-out-the-state-process

the

I have not seen The Corporation and I'm sure many corporations are psychopaths but by definition seems a little like a blanket characterization? I do know that if energy companies want to have long term goals they must have stronger mandated operator qualifications. In my company once a person is operator qualified, that person assumes full responsibility for the completion of that job and all people working underneath him or her. There are now paper trails for every tasked performed. Accountability is as big as safety for my company. If something I do fails to meet the standards I have in my credentials, such as I fail to correct and or find corrosion and it leads to a leak that affect the public, I would face fines or jail time. This goes for anyone who has OQ's. I can't speak for all companies but our vendors can not be on any site without at least one person with these. Also if energy companies want to continue they must fund exploration towards renewables, it's happening right now, but not enough. Exxon-Mobile is holding out, BP is going back to the gulf.

imo the problem with the waste left in fields is less a problem of corporations per se and more an issue with subcontracting and what is actually accounted for as part of the job. I would imagine sign-off is done on the pipeline itself by the corporation before the contractor doing construction clears the area, so any materials laying around are assumed to be part of clean-up, but if sign-off is complete...

there's also the issue of just driving over junk and burying it in the mud on accident. In farm fields that is a hazard, but a bunch of farmers do it all the time out of productive areas for sure

xp Jacob I agree that I was generalizing, but stuff like this:

the waste left in fields is less a problem of corporations per se and more an issue with subcontracting and what is actually accounted for as part of the job.

kinda reinforces my point - the problems always come when costs are cut, and subcontracting contributes to that.

the company you work for sounds like a responsible corporation, and that documentary does have some good interviews with responsible CEOs.

maybe getting a bit off topic, sorry.

It's not off topic at all. Precision should be contacted and asked if they have a clean up punch list for whatever county this is in. GPS coordinates would be useful to give them.
Precision Pipeline, LLC
3314 56th Street
Eau Claire, WI 54703
p: 715-874-4510

nice

If something I do fails to meet the standards I have in my credentials, such as I fail to correct and or find corrosion and it leads to a leak that affect the public, I would face fines or jail time.

BP is going back to the gulf.

imo the fines/jail time aren't enough. it should be so punitive that BP can't go back to the gulf. the way it is now seems more like companies just build-in these potential fines and see them as another cost of business rather than a real risk or punishment.

Podcast interview/convo with Cody Snider(son of Dee) who went out there with a film crew to shoot footage for a vid and arrived right as the water cannon assaults were starting.

It's something to hear this comfortable sorta-hippie white dude be completely radicalized by the experience and awed at the daily ordeal and level of tight organization at the camp.

https://www.thenation.com/article/inspired-by-standing-rock-west-texans-take-action-to-fight-another-pipeline/

xxp I think the problem is that due to a consistent demand for oil and the ability to lean on an energy independence stance, there will be _someone_ drilling in the gulf

the number of large entities (there are subcontractors in play) able to do so in capability and administration is very low. it's one of those "it's this guy or the other guy" situations

http://www.cnbc.com/2016/12/12/pipeline-spills-176000-gallons-of-crude-into-creek-about-150-miles-from-dakota-access-protest-camp.html

just the cost of doing business

there's nothing that can be done about it

no other way to get energy, no point in fighting it

chlidren starving in africa, why fight this

oh yeah, and i forget, modern pipelines are very safe and strictly regulated, and the vast majority of spills are 5 gallons or less, more or less routine

shouldn't the protesters be somewhere else? there are a million other pipelines, why this one. shouldn't there be one protester at each of the pipelines instead?

what does everybody think of this editorial

http://www.wsj.com/articles/what-the-dakota-access-pipeline-is-really-about-1481071218

can you c+p

that sub-hed is already p comical tho

disqualified from the very first sentence IMO, can't read the rest due to paywall but that IED argument has been proved false afaik

A little more than two weeks ago, during a confrontation between protesters and law enforcement, an improvised explosive device was detonated on a public bridge in southern North Dakota. That was simply the latest manifestation of the “prayerful” and “peaceful” protests against the Dakota Access Pipeline.

Escalating tensions were temporarily defused Sunday when the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, at the direction of the Obama administration, announced it would refuse to grant the final permit needed to complete the $3.8 billion project. The pipeline, which runs nearly 1,200 miles from the Bakken Shale in North Dakota to Illinois, is nearly complete except for a small section where it needs to pass under the Missouri River. Denying the permit for that construction only punts the issue to next month—to a new president who won’t thumb his nose at the rule of law.

Like many North Dakotans, I’ve had to endure preaching about the pipeline from the press, environmental activists, musicians and politicians in other states. More often than not, these sermons are informed by little more than a Facebook post. At the risk of spoiling the protesters’ narrative, I’d like to bring us back to ground truth.

• This isn’t about tribal rights or protecting cultural resources. The pipeline does not cross any land owned by the Standing Rock Sioux. The land under discussion belongs to private owners and the federal government. To suggest that the Standing Rock tribe has the legal ability to block the pipeline is to turn America’s property rights upside down.

• Two federal courts have rejected claims that the tribe wasn’t consulted. The project’s developer and the Army Corps made dozens of overtures to the Standing Rock Sioux over more than two years. Often these attempts were ignored or rejected, with the message that the tribe would only accept termination of the project.

• Other tribes and parties did participate in the process. More than 50 tribes were consulted, and their concerns resulted in 140 adjustments to the pipeline’s route. The project’s developer and the Army Corps were clearly concerned about protecting tribal artifacts and cultural sites. Any claim otherwise is unsupported by the record. The pipeline’s route was also studied—and ultimately supported—by the North Dakota Public Service Commission (on which I formerly served), the State Historic Preservation Office, and multiple independent archaeologists.

• This isn’t about water protection. Years before the pipeline was announced, the tribe was working with the Bureau of Reclamation and the Army Corps to relocate its drinking-water intake. The new site sits roughly 70 miles downstream of where the pipeline is slated to cross the Missouri River. Notably, the new intake, according to the Bureau of Reclamation, will be 1.6 miles downstream of an elevated railroad bridge that carries tanker cars carrying crude oil.

Further, the pipeline will be installed about 100 feet below the riverbed. Automatic shut-off valves will be employed on either side of the river, and the pipeline will be constructed to exceed many federal safety requirements.

Other pipelines carrying oil, gas and refined products already cross the Missouri River at least a dozen times upstream of the tribe’s intake. The corridor where the Dakota Access Pipeline will run is directly adjacent to another pipeline, which carries natural gas under the riverbed, as well as an overhead electric transmission line. This site was chosen because it is largely a brownfield area that was disturbed long ago by previous infrastructure.

• This isn’t about the climate. The oil that will be shipped through the pipeline is already being produced. But right now it is transported in more carbon-intensive ways, such as by railroad or long-haul tanker truck. So trying to thwart the pipeline to reduce greenhouse gas could have the opposite effect.

So what is the pipeline dispute really about? Political expediency in a White House that does not see itself as being bound by the rule of law. The Obama administration has decided to build a political legacy rather than lead the country. It is facilitating an illegal occupation that has grown wildly out of control. That the economy depends on a consistent and predictable permitting regime seems never to have crossed the president’s mind.

There is no doubt that Native American communities have historically suffered at the hands of the federal government. But to litigate that history on the back of a legally permitted river crossing is absurd. The Obama administration should enforce the law, release the easement and conclude this dangerous standoff.

Mr. Cramer, a Republican, represents North Dakota in the U.S. House. As a member of the North Dakota Public Service Commission (2003-12) he helped site the original Keystone Pipeline completed in 2010.

http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/dakota-pipeline-protests/pipeline-spills-176-000-gallons-oil-creek-150-miles-dakota-n695111?cid=sm_fb_msnbc shit like this happening should be enough to shut this down

http://www.reuters.com/article/north-dakota-pipeline-idUSL1N1E20T7
This is a better article about Belle Fourche Pipeline Company who should have been shut down years ago.
The federal agency has also issued six warning letters to the pipeline company regarding integrity issues and safety procedures.

The larger problem that is never addressed is the function of the EPA and how permitting is handed out. Whenever a HDD has a frack out or if a spill occurs, what happens. Fines. Companies pay. Paying money to break laws is at best far from sustainable, it encourages cost cutting short cuts. I've seen it happen time and time again. Instead, the EPA should have the regulatory power to shut a company down, entirely, instead of just pay us this sum of money. I was hopeful this would happen with the upcoming new regulation of all existing pipelines will fall under federal mandates. But with Trump coming into office, I fear the new laws will be postpone or worst vetoed. Fines are not regulating anything, completed shut down is the only way to make companies comply. And I hear your sarcasm Karl, I get it.

http://marfapublicradio.org/blog/activists-look-to-repeat-standing-rock-success-in-west-texas/

Meanwhile
https://www.texasobserver.org/dos-republicas-ancestors-culture-feature/

http://earthfirstjournal.org/newswire/2017/03/15/from-the-ashes-of-standing-rock-a-beautiful-resistance-is-born/

Also just last week a lone pipeline resister was killed by police after fleeing the scene of an effective sabotage action against the pipeline.
Is effective sabotage shooting pieces of the pipeline and heavy equipment with a rifle?

the wording is weird but I would assume attempting sabotage would be not harming something, and anything that causes damage is sabotage, regardless whether it stops things from working?

What exactly constitutes an action? I've been reading through the website linked above and to me it makes very loose justifications for various illegal activity. Please correct me if I'm reading this wrong?

"direct action" does tend to equate to "illegal", yes.

for further discussion may I recommend:

http://www.ifatreefallsfilm.com/

civil disobedience implies illegal activity

I feel so square. In mind my using any techniques that could possibly harm the public goes against anything I can get behind.

that film does really grapple with those issues, I seriously recommend it.

Going to watch this tonight. Thanks!

After watching If A Tree Falls I'm further perplexed by this whole idea of actions. There seems to be a disrupt between reality and what these people want the world to be. By burning down offices or equipment, shooting at offices, stopping traffic or any of these actions, to me it seems the only long term consequences are certain individuals feel good and that are doing "something" then they are unable to deal with the criminal consequences of what those actions entail. But what have they really achieved aside from ending up in prison or with a record?

isn't it up to the individual how far they wanna take things and what price they are willing to pay as a potential consequence?

I think McGowan (subject of film) would argue exactly what you do here - his actions didn't really accomplish that much, nor did the other ones. the only one that seems to have had total local support was the horse meat factory (which was particularly horrifying and egregious if you look up the history, the locals were glad to see it burn). There's a good reason why he has focused his post-release activism around prisoner's rights as opposed to environmental direct action, he feels it's more worthwhile to pursue.

my POV is that raising awareness of an issue can be worth doing time. I mean, are you familiar with the Plowshares movement? totally nonviolent, but they get long prison sentences. isn't that their choice, to raise awareness?

(disclaimer: a lot of those people are/were personal friends)

and a few of those people are friends of friends of mine. I had many heated debates with those friends years ago. One close friend was wire tapped by the guy. But that friend had broken the law and got caught and I warned her that the police aren't just going to give up on searching for you. My main problem with these actions is the amount of misinformation that propels their ideals. One of the places they burned down was unrelated to their hostiles.

unrelated to what they thought was going on I meant.

definitely, I agree.

https://theintercept.com/2017/05/27/leaked-documents-reveal-security-firms-counterterrorism-tactics-at-standing-rock-to-defeat-pipeline-insurgencies/

Internal TigerSwan communications describe the movement as “an ideologically driven insurgency with a strong religious component” and compare the anti-pipeline water protectors to jihadist fighters. One report, dated February 27, 2017, states that since the movement “generally followed the jihadist insurgency model while active, we can expect the individuals who fought for and supported it to follow a post-insurgency model after its collapse.” Drawing comparisons with post-Soviet Afghanistan, the report warns, “While we can expect to see the continued spread of the anti-DAPL diaspora ... aggressive intelligence preparation of the battlefield and active coordination between intelligence and security elements are now a proven method of defeating pipeline insurgencies.” [...] In an October 3 report, TigerSwan discusses how to use its knowledge of internal camp dynamics: “Exploitation of ongoing native versus non-native rifts, and tribal rifts between peaceful and violent elements is critical in our effort to delegitimize the anti-DAPL movement.” On February 19, TigerSwan makes explicit its plans to infiltrate a Chicago protest group. “TigerSwan collections team will make contact with event organizers to embed within the structure of the demonstration to develop a trusted agent status to be cultivated for future collection efforts,” the report notes, later repeating its intent to “covertly make contact with event organizers.”

TigerSwan consistently describes the peaceful demonstrators using military and tactical language more appropriate for counterterrorism operations in an armed conflict zone. At times, the military language verges on parody, as when agents write of protesters “stockpiling signs” or when they discuss the “caliber” of paintball pellets. More often, however, the way TigerSwan discusses protesters as “terrorists,” their direct actions as “attacks,” and the camps as a “battlefield,” reveals how the protesters’ dissent was not only criminalized but treated as a national security threat. A March 1 report states that protesters’ “operational weakness allows TS elements to further develop and dictate the battlespace.”

TigerSwan pays particular attention to protesters of Middle Eastern descent. A September 22 situation report argues that “the presence of additional Palestinians in the camp, and the movement’s involvement with Islamic individuals is a dynamic that requires further examination.” The report acknowledges that “currently there is no information to suggest terrorist type tactics or operations,” but nonetheless warns that “with the current limitation on information flow out of the camp, it cannot be ruled out.” [...] Such ethnic and religious profiling of protesters was not unusual. An October 12 email thread shared among members of the intel group provides a striking example of how TigerSwan was able to cast suspicion on specific individuals and communicate it to law enforcement officials. Cass County Sheriff’s Deputy Tonya Jahner emailed several other officers, including two FBI agents, with an overview of information provided by “company intel.” The information pertained to a woman whom Jahner labeled as a “strong Shia Islamic” with a “strong female Shia following.” The woman had “made several trips overseas,” Jahner wrote.

fuckheads

jesus christ

fwiw, a fair number of those "terrorists" would have been US combat veterans from Vietnam, the Gulf War, Afghanistan and Iraq.

nothing matters

who could have guessed

http://www.ksfy.com/content/news/Crews-cleaning-up-Keystone-Pipeline-leak-in-Marshall-County-458046943.html

"at least 210,000 gallons of oil "

goddamn it

actually this is great timing, the board's vote on Keystone XL is just a few days away and this is extra ammo against it

I added Keystone to the thread title to make this thread more searchable because qualmsley started a separate Keystone thread. Open to suggestions on the name change though.

https://www.ecowatch.com/transcanada-pipeline-explodes-west-virginia-2576042392.html?xrs=RebelMouse_fb&ts=1528427379