DAPL: coward pipe defeats water protectors

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > DAPL: coward pipe defeats water protectors

Condiv: May 7, 2008; Sorry to undo the effort of paying a domestic abuser $10 to own this poster, but I am going to lose my dang mind if I keep seeing multiple posters who appear to be Baloogan.

With love,
a mod

Fluffy Chainsaw posted:

You don't want to move oil by train, especially US shale oil - it's very rich in methane, which is highly combustible should there be an incident.

on the other hand, if there's an incident with a train it's much more likely to be recognized and reported than a pipeline

# ¿ Sep 12, 2016 13:46

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ May 17, 2024 14:59

Condiv: May 7, 2008; Sorry to undo the effort of paying a domestic abuser $10 to own this poster, but I am going to lose my dang mind if I keep seeing multiple posters who appear to be Baloogan.

With love,
a mod

rudatron posted:

Isn't there's a compelling strategic & economic interest in something like a pipeline? Even if you grant native ownership, won't that just mean it gets eminent-domained? Though considering the impacts of something like a pipeline, you may have to compensate at an above market rate, for possible long term damage. I'm not sure what a reasonable dollar figure would be, per hectare.

edit:

Uhhhh, that may not be the best example here, buddy.

there's neither compelling strategic or economic interest in building it near the reservation. there's only a political interest in that (signaled by the pipeline being moved away from whitey cause of pollution concerns)

# ¿ Nov 4, 2016 18:20

Condiv: May 7, 2008; Sorry to undo the effort of paying a domestic abuser $10 to own this poster, but I am going to lose my dang mind if I keep seeing multiple posters who appear to be Baloogan.

With love,
a mod

rudatron posted:

You got to build it somewhere, and you're probably going to have to payoff someone wherever you decide to build it.

i question this. first of all, i don't think there's a valid strategic or economic concern to build this pipeline. the pipeline is not going to increase employment much at all, and i don't see that the US as a whole would benefit enough from its construction to justify its constuction, even if you think eminent domain for economic reasons is valid. as for strategic reasons, i don't see how a pipeline is strategically better for the us than the railways we already have, especially considering pipelines are much less secure than rail transit. second of all, i don't think eminent domain for economic reasons is ever justifiable. from an economic standpoint you prevent those who would sell from maximizing the return on their property, and from a justice standpoint money is a poo poo analog for property for those who would never sell.

quote:

The issue with placing it next to the reservation, and then having that be used as grounds for a payoff, sets a bad precedent when it comes to any future pipelines, or really any large projects that use eminent domain at all. If having a pipeline near you means you deserve compensation, what about people near a dam, or near a highway? It would quickly blow up. On those grounds alone, I don't think you can grant them a payoff.

as someone mentioned, all those examples are externalities. we are in the ecological mess we are because of our refusal to appropriately price poo poo for externalities, so you can imagine that I would in fact like such things to be factored into eminent domain IF we are going to allow it for the idiot reasons we use it for today.

Condiv fucked around with this message at 18:58 on Nov 4, 2016

# ¿ Nov 4, 2016 18:55

Condiv: May 7, 2008; Sorry to undo the effort of paying a domestic abuser $10 to own this poster, but I am going to lose my dang mind if I keep seeing multiple posters who appear to be Baloogan.

With love,
a mod

Civilized Fishbot posted:

If the tribe actually legally owned the land (which of course they don't), the federal government would probably just expect Dakota Access LLC to buy the land from the tribe the way that it's bought the land from everyone else. And if the project were really worth more as a pipeline than it's worth to the tribe, that transaction would happen.

if they don't legally own the land does eminent domain even enter into play? anyway, this

quote:

And if the project were really worth more as a pipeline than it's worth to the tribe, that transaction would happen.

is what should be happening. there would probably be people who refused to sell, but the government should not be in the business of forcefully taking land for the economically powerful of the day, such power is way too prone to abuse.

# ¿ Nov 4, 2016 19:01

Condiv: May 7, 2008; Sorry to undo the effort of paying a domestic abuser $10 to own this poster, but I am going to lose my dang mind if I keep seeing multiple posters who appear to be Baloogan.

With love,
a mod

in any case, i stand with the sioux on this. even in the worst case where they truly have no legal recourse against this, it's unconscionable to continue to practice the oppression of minorities like this.

# ¿ Nov 4, 2016 19:13

Condiv: May 7, 2008; Sorry to undo the effort of paying a domestic abuser $10 to own this poster, but I am going to lose my dang mind if I keep seeing multiple posters who appear to be Baloogan.

With love,
a mod

Liquid Communism posted:

Yet they still would anyway. Sections of this very pipeline through Iowa were obtained via eminent domain because there were holdouts who refused to sell.

i doubt the need of such a pipeline, and the people who refused to sell should not be forced to sell (especially at "fair market value") to suit the needs of private interests

# ¿ Nov 4, 2016 20:31

Condiv: May 7, 2008; Sorry to undo the effort of paying a domestic abuser $10 to own this poster, but I am going to lose my dang mind if I keep seeing multiple posters who appear to be Baloogan.

With love,
a mod

blowfish posted:

because it's 2016 and they listened to five other reservations' concerns and repeatedly asked if standing rock had concerns maybe?

according to the achp the standing rock sioux did communicate with the corps and were ignored:

quote:

Additionally, we remain perplexed by the Corps� apparent difficulties in consulting with the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe. We are in receipt of letters from both the THPO and the Chairman sent to the Corps throughout 2015, informing you of the tribe�s interests and concerns regarding this project, and requesting Section 106 consultation meetings. The THPO clearly objected to the Corps� determinations, which should have triggered further review and consultation pursuant to the Section 106 regulations. The THPO
also pointed out the fact that there was no tribal participation in the identification efforts, and suggested that an inventory of traditional cultural properties (in statutory terms, historic properties of religious and cultural significance) be conducted given the location of burials and other types of historic properties in the project vicinity.

http://indigenousrising.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/nd-sd-ia-il-coe-r-dakota-access-pipeline-project-con-15mar16.pdf

# ¿ Nov 4, 2016 20:58

Condiv: May 7, 2008; Sorry to undo the effort of paying a domestic abuser $10 to own this poster, but I am going to lose my dang mind if I keep seeing multiple posters who appear to be Baloogan.

With love,
a mod

Dead Reckoning posted:

Most utilities are semi or wholly privately owned these days, and eminent domain is more or less essential to having a functional utility infrastructure.

utilities are arguably a public good (though I still disagree wholly with eminent domain conducted in the name of economic interest). the dap will not serve any public good, it only exists to bolster profits for private entities.

# ¿ Nov 4, 2016 21:01

Condiv: May 7, 2008; Sorry to undo the effort of paying a domestic abuser $10 to own this poster, but I am going to lose my dang mind if I keep seeing multiple posters who appear to be Baloogan.

With love,
a mod

Dead Reckoning posted:

Because they wanted the Corps to review construction outside of the river crossings, which is not their jurisdiction per the denial of their motion. The fact that the Corps has no basis for adjudicating their claims outside of areas identified by the Corps as being impacted by the river crossings is something the tribe seems unable to accept.

the achp is a part of the federal government and not associated with the standing rock sioux, so would you kindly explain why they can't accept the corps' explanation instead of deflecting to "well the tribe is just wrong"?

quote:

You could say the same about any energy infrastructure project. Your distinction is arbitrary, and eminent domain has no bearing on the Sioux claim because the land adjacent to their reservation was sold willingly by the previous owners.

it may not have an effect on land adjacent to the sioux, but there is plenty of private owners along the pipeline that are having eminent domain used to seize their lands against their will.

quote:

Landowners across Iowa are concerned about the implications of allowing the state to condemn privately owned land, particularly agricultural land, on behalf of a company that has not demonstrated any substantial public benefit to the residents of Iowa. In March 2015 a Des Moines Register poll found seventy-four percent of Iowans opposed to the use of eminent domain condemnation on behalf of a private corporation.

as for the distinction, it is not arbitrary. please explain how a pipeline meets the public use requirement of the 5th amendment?

blowfish posted:

yeah the point of contention should be "less oil pipelines" not "no oil pipelines within sight of this specific reservation"

disagreed. i agree "less oil pipelines" is a good thing to argue for, but environmental racism is something we have to combat specifically by making it harder to put potential pollutants near oppressed groups. in fact, doing so would probably help a lot making "less oil pipelines" a reality

Condiv fucked around with this message at 21:27 on Nov 4, 2016

# ¿ Nov 4, 2016 21:20

Condiv: May 7, 2008; Sorry to undo the effort of paying a domestic abuser $10 to own this poster, but I am going to lose my dang mind if I keep seeing multiple posters who appear to be Baloogan.

With love,
a mod

Dead Reckoning posted:

CoE: "Our remit is to assess and permit places where the pipeline crosses waterways."
ACHP: "But the pipeline wouldn't be built without the 209 permitted crossings, so you should expand the scope of your remit to include the entire pipeline."
CoE: "No, because that isn't our jurisdiction."
ACHP: "But whhhhy? It would be so much easier to challenge in court if it was!"

and this?

quote:

The THPO clearly objected to the Corps� determinations, which should have triggered further review and consultation pursuant to the Section 106 regulations

it seems to be their wheelhouse tbh, so I assume the achp knows what they're talking about here.
.

# ¿ Nov 4, 2016 21:39

Condiv: May 7, 2008; Sorry to undo the effort of paying a domestic abuser $10 to own this poster, but I am going to lose my dang mind if I keep seeing multiple posters who appear to be Baloogan.

With love,
a mod

blowfish posted:

ehhh a nuclear waste dump isn't the best example to support your argument here. it's the #1 example of nimby bait that sounds scary but won't actually affect anyone negatively (unless your house got eminent domain'd for being within the actual facility's area) so choosing the path of least resistance and building it wherever is totally fine

no, choosing the path of least resistance is not fine. it leads to poo poo this:

quote:

A recent report from the NAACP entitled �Coal Blooded: Putting Profits Before People,� found that among the nearly six million Americans living within three miles of a coal plant, 39% are people of color � a figure that is higher than the 36% proportion of people of color in the total US population. The report also found that 78% of all African Americans live within 30 miles of a coal fired power plant.

In an interview for Yale Environment 360, Jacqueline Patterson, the Environmental and Climate Justice Director for the NAACP commented on the disproportionate burden faced by communities of color:

�An African American child is three times more likely to go into the emergency room for an asthma attack than a white child, and twice as likely to die from asthma attacks as a white child. African Americans are more likely to die from lung disease, but less likely to smoke. When we did a road tour to visit the communities that were impacted by coal pollution, we found many anecdotal stories of people saying, yes, my husband, my father, my wife died of lung cancer and never smoked a day in her life. And these are people who are living within three miles of the coal-fired power plants we visited.�

http://www.goldmanprize.org/blog/en...ental-policies/

http://www.naacp.org/climate-justice-resources/coal-blooded/

Condiv fucked around with this message at 22:05 on Nov 4, 2016

# ¿ Nov 4, 2016 21:58

Condiv: May 7, 2008; Sorry to undo the effort of paying a domestic abuser $10 to own this poster, but I am going to lose my dang mind if I keep seeing multiple posters who appear to be Baloogan.

With love,
a mod

blowfish posted:

uhhh

how does a three percentage point (or like 9%) difference in living next to coal plants lead to a 200% asthma difference

I mean clearly something is wrong for that level of asthma difference to be there but it's something additional besides coal

and again because living next to a modern nuclear waste dump has negligible health effects unlike living directly downwind of a modern coal plant the path of least resistance has no harms other than pr for nuclear waste

reading the report, it seems a lot of really badly maintained and lovely coal plants just happen to be near low-income colored peoples. for example, the top 12 worst environmental justice offenders (e.j. is defined in the report, but basically measures the plant's impact on low-income people of color) produce .8% of america's power from coal while producing 1.8% of the total pollution from coal plants.

Condiv fucked around with this message at 02:39 on Nov 5, 2016

# ¿ Nov 4, 2016 23:29

Condiv: May 7, 2008; Sorry to undo the effort of paying a domestic abuser $10 to own this poster, but I am going to lose my dang mind if I keep seeing multiple posters who appear to be Baloogan.

With love,
a mod

yeah i should've italicized that

# ¿ Nov 5, 2016 02:00

Condiv: May 7, 2008; Sorry to undo the effort of paying a domestic abuser $10 to own this poster, but I am going to lose my dang mind if I keep seeing multiple posters who appear to be Baloogan.

With love,
a mod

rudatron posted:

Oil doesn't move itself, and rail transport of oil has one very big problem - derailment. I don't think rail transport of oil is actually any safer than pipeline transport, in fact I'd probably guess it's more likely to gently caress up, on account of having more points of failure.

edit: yeah I'm definitely right here,

you missed this part of your article:

quote:

Trains tend to spill a smaller amount of oil than other forms of transport. An International Energy Agency study said that from 2004-12 there were six times as many rail spills as pipeline spills, but �the average pipeline spill was far graver.� For instance, Ed Greenberg, spokesman for the Association of American Railroads, says that for trains last year �84% of the nonaccident releases involved spills of less than five gallons.�

another problem with pipelines is spill detection. if a railroad car is leaking or spills oil, it's many more times more likely to be noticed and fixed since there are a good number of people about to observe such things. pipelines on the other hand are not nearly as observable and so when their leak reporting sensors fail they can leak for quite a long time before they're noticed (part of the reason why pipeline spills are almost always graver).

Condiv fucked around with this message at 03:52 on Nov 5, 2016

# ¿ Nov 5, 2016 03:48

Condiv: May 7, 2008; Sorry to undo the effort of paying a domestic abuser $10 to own this poster, but I am going to lose my dang mind if I keep seeing multiple posters who appear to be Baloogan.

With love,
a mod

rudatron posted:

Does having less regular, less overall spilled, but a greater catastrophe when ir does spill, make pipelines worse? Another thing that should be considered against rail (and trucks) - they tend to travel through urban areas directly, and can also do things like explode. So if we're valuing human life, we should minimize rail and road transport. The trade off there means you'll get more boat and pipeline transport, which means more environmental damage (especially boats + barges, because then you have oil released into an aquatic environment). But I can't in good conscience say that that is better than having more people die from trucks + rail causing problems in urban areas.

So, how much are human lives worth, how much is the environment worth, and how much is native title worth? You have to make a tradeoff, and I think the only moral one is minimize the loss of first one, even if that maximizes damage the later two.

according to my sources, rail spills less in total than pipelines too.

quote:

For every million barrels moved by rail an estimated 0.38 gallons were spilled, compared an estimated spill rate of 0.88 gallons were spilled for every million barrels moved.

http://247wallst.com/energy-business/2013/04/23/railroads-may-be-safer-than-pipelines-for-transporting-crude-oil/#ixzz2THmO6VNp

also, as commiegir mentioned, pipelines never actually replace railroad for oil delivery, they always supplement it. so advocating for pipelines to be built is advocating for greater environmental damage with no reduction in human life lost from train accidents

also, lets not pretend pipelines are explosion free

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-11-03/what-happens-when-the-most-important-pipeline-in-the-u-s-explodes

we just had one of the largest pipelines in the us explode yesterday

Condiv fucked around with this message at 04:13 on Nov 5, 2016

# ¿ Nov 5, 2016 04:08

Condiv: May 7, 2008; Sorry to undo the effort of paying a domestic abuser $10 to own this poster, but I am going to lose my dang mind if I keep seeing multiple posters who appear to be Baloogan.

With love,
a mod

i found an interesting article last night that i neglected to post:

https://www.wired.com/2016/11/dismal-science-standing-rock-pipeline-protests/

lorne stockman is the research director for oil change international, a nonprofit that tracks fossil fuel economics

quote:

The first thing to consider is the Dakota Access Pipeline�s cost�$3.8 billion to connect the Bakken oil fields in North Dakota to another pipeline (leading to refineries on the Gulf Coast) in Pakota, Illinois. An analysis by RBN Energy says oil producers will pay around $8 per barrel to move their crude through Dakota Access. At max capacity, the pipeline could carry about 570,000 barrels per day. So, if the pipe runs at peak, the pipeline will earn its owners, Energy Transfer Partners, roughly $1.7 billion a year. That means the pipeline only needs a few years to put the investment back into the black.

No surprise there: Moving oil makes money. But the Dakota Access Pipeline was built on promises, and can only move oil (and make money) if it delivers. Energy Transfer Partners promised to have the pipeline finished by the end of December 2016. In return, oil refiners promised to buy oil delivered through the pipeline for a certain cost. That stuff is in contracts, signed back in 2014.

Do you know what the price of oil was back in 2014? Seventy to 80 bucks a barrel, buddy! Currently, oil prices are way down, and profit margins in the oil industry are (by oil standards) pretty thin. Prices hover around $40 or $50 a barrel. �For sure, Energy Transfer Partners are concerned with delivering the pipeline by the end of the year, because otherwise they have to renegotiate their contracts, and no shipper who made terms in 2014 wants to renegotiate in 2017,� says Stockman. Energy Transfer Partners probably can�t count on making $8 per barrel.

i really doubt they can complete construction in time safely

quote:

Stockman estimates that shutting down the pipeline would keep nearly 30 coal-fired power plants worth of CO2 from the atmosphere each year. But really, that�s only if some other, cheaper-to-ship oil-producing region doesn�t pick up the slack.

so building this thing will most likely up our carbon footprint too at a time where we desperately need to be reducing our CO2 emissions

Condiv fucked around with this message at 11:44 on Nov 5, 2016

# ¿ Nov 5, 2016 11:41

Condiv: May 7, 2008; Sorry to undo the effort of paying a domestic abuser $10 to own this poster, but I am going to lose my dang mind if I keep seeing multiple posters who appear to be Baloogan.

With love,
a mod

blowfish posted:

Shut up you pedants, nobody cares if rubber bullets technically are bullets. The average person understands "shot" to imply "shot at with a gun that kills".

# ¿ Nov 5, 2016 21:21

Condiv: May 7, 2008; Sorry to undo the effort of paying a domestic abuser $10 to own this poster, but I am going to lose my dang mind if I keep seeing multiple posters who appear to be Baloogan.

With love,
a mod

blowfish posted:

ok let me amend my statement

Shut up you pedants, nobody cares if rubber bullets technically are bullets. The average person understands "shot" to imply "shot at with a gun that kills as its primary purpose (and not merely as an occasional accident)".

i can't believe you doubled down on this

# ¿ Nov 6, 2016 14:17

Condiv: May 7, 2008; Sorry to undo the effort of paying a domestic abuser $10 to own this poster, but I am going to lose my dang mind if I keep seeing multiple posters who appear to be Baloogan.

With love,
a mod

aclu is getting involved

please sign their petition: https://action.aclu.org/secure/Standing-Rock?redirect=StandingRockTW&ms=tw_161105_freespeech_policemilitarization

# ¿ Nov 6, 2016 14:35

Condiv: May 7, 2008; Sorry to undo the effort of paying a domestic abuser $10 to own this poster, but I am going to lose my dang mind if I keep seeing multiple posters who appear to be Baloogan.

With love,
a mod

Absurd Alhazred posted:

Could this derail about whether or not the bullet was bullety enough please cease?

Thank

tfw a foreign bank is doing more about the DAPL than the potus

quote:

"DNB is concerned about how the situation surrounding the oil pipeline in North Dakota has developed. The bank will therefore use its position as lender to the project to encourage a more constructive process to find solutions to the conflict that has arisen. If these initiatives do not provide DNB with the necessary comfort, DNB will evaluate its further participation in the financing of the project."

http://www.dallasnews.com/business/...ansfer-partners

# ¿ Nov 8, 2016 08:32

Condiv: May 7, 2008; Sorry to undo the effort of paying a domestic abuser $10 to own this poster, but I am going to lose my dang mind if I keep seeing multiple posters who appear to be Baloogan.

With love,
a mod

rudatron, usually you seem like a pretty good poster, which is why i'm not sure why you think forcefully building poo poo on native american lands will build trust. it seems they've made pretty clear they don't want the pipeline anywhere near them, not that they want some special assurance that they'll get a payout if damage occurs. especially since they're pretty used to getting dicked over on said assurances (hell, you're advocating for ignoring one and swapping it out for this other).

by the way, there's no reason to trust the company behind the dakota access pipeline

quote:

North Dakota regulators are filing a complaint against the oil company building the Dakota Access pipeline for failing to disclose the discovery of Native American artifacts in the path of construction.

The allegations mark the state�s first formal action against the corporation and add fuel to the claims of the Standing Rock Sioux tribe, which has long argued that the $3.7bn pipeline threatens sacred lands and indigenous cultural heritage.

Julie Fedorchak, chair of the North Dakota public service commission, told the Guardian that on 17 October, pipeline officials found a group of stone cairns �symbolic rock piles that sometimes mark burial grounds � on a site where construction was planned.

The firm, however, failed to notify the commission, in violation of its permit, and only disclosed the findings 10 days later when government workers inquired about it, she said.

�I was very disappointed,� said Fedorchak. �We found out from our inspectors. Who knows when we would�ve found out?�

The rebuke is significant given that public officials in North Dakota have repeatedly criticized Native American leaders protesting against the pipeline and have gone to great lengths to protect the construction sites from demonstrations. The commission will file a complaint this week and the company could face a maximum fine of $10,000 per day for the 10 days without a disclosure, according to Fedorchak.

Native American protesters, who call themselves �water protectors�, said a reprimand from regulators was too little too late and lamented that the state had consistently failed to work with the tribe to prevent the destruction of sacred burial grounds and historic artifacts.

�They are digging up our sites. They are not following the law,� said LaDonna Brave Bull Allard, a Standing Rock Sioux tribe member and founder of the Sacred Stone camp, which activists formed in the spring to fight the pipeline.

Over the last week, construction of the 1,172-mile pipeline � which would carry 470,000 barrels a day from North Dakota to Illinois � has gotten very close to the Missouri river where the tribe fears it would contaminate the regional drinking water.

Indigenous activists, who have faced Mace, rubber bullets, mass arrests and questionable jail conditions, say the project has already bulldozed sacred grounds.

Energy Transfer Partners, the company behind the pipeline, did not respond to a request for comment on Friday, but a lawyer for the firm claimed in a letter to the commission that the construction crew rerouted around the cairn artifacts and filed a report with the state historic preservation office.

The attorney further claimed that the failure to disclose the findings to the commission was due to the fact that the company was busy coordinating a site visit for public officials.

�What we�re concerned about is transparency,� said Fedorchak.

President Obama recently said the US government was exploring ways to reroute the pipeline, but said he would �let it play out for several more weeks�. Indigenous leaders have urged him to permanently save the native lands and surrounding areas from further destruction.

Cheryl Angel, a Sicangu Lakota tribe member who has been at the Standing Rock camps since April, said she has personally seen what appear to be indigenous artifacts in the line of construction and that she believes the pipeline operators have intentionally hidden discoveries of sacred sites and knowingly destroyed them.

�It�s a tremendous blow to our history. They are trying to erase our existence,� said Angel, 56. �That�s a blatant disregard for our culture. That hurts when someone purposefully tries to erase you as people from � the land we�ve occupied for centuries.�

Allard said she suspected the state might be taking action against the company simply because there is now international attention on the conflict.

�They have no choice now, because the world is watching.�

Given the extent to which the government has allowed the pipeline to rapidly progress, Angel said she did not believe regulators wanted to help preserve artifacts.

�It�s almost as if they are working hand in hand with the oil company to go ahead and let them start drilling.�

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/nov/05/dakota-access-oil-pipeline-native-american-artifacts-discovered

so it turns out the oil company was in fact destroying sacred sites and trying to hide it. thanks obama for letting "it play out for several more weeks". maybe the company can destroy even more artifacts while obama decides whether or not to do something

Condiv fucked around with this message at 18:15 on Nov 8, 2016

# ¿ Nov 8, 2016 18:05

Condiv: May 7, 2008; Sorry to undo the effort of paying a domestic abuser $10 to own this poster, but I am going to lose my dang mind if I keep seeing multiple posters who appear to be Baloogan.

With love,
a mod

wateroverfire posted:

Umm... read the article, I guess, and the linked letter. The site in question was identified, construction was routed around, the ND State Historic Preservation Office signed off on the changes... everything was done above board except that whoever was responsible for notifying the ND Public Service Comission dropped the ball (and I can only imagine how much they are hating life now) because that person was hand holding a bunch of VIPs visiting the site.

A random protester claimed to have seen something and believes the pipeline operators are evil. No follow up by the Guardian to verify whether the sites exist, whether the construction plan routes around them if they do, etc. Just really lovely clickbait reporting.

you take a letter to the commission from the companies' lawyer that makes excuses for their fuckup at face value, but the protestor must be lying. please note that the company did not notify NDPSC even after an inspector noticed the site and the reroute. the commission had to contact the company about what the hell was going on.

http://www.psc.nd.gov/database/documents/14-0842/225-010.pdf

the NDSPC learned about all of this from that report, not the company, which is why they're loving pissed

here's part of the company's permit requirements:

quote:

. Company understands and agrees that if any cultural resource, paleontological site, archeological site, historical site, or grave site is discovered during construction, it must be marked, presen/ed and protected from further disturbances until a professional examination can be made and a report of such examination is filed with the Commission and the State Historical Society and clearance to proceed is given by the Commission

as you can see, they massively failed their requirements, almost certainly because they did not want to halt construction and they would've had to if they followed the law and reported to the commission.

also what are you on about follow up? the guardian has contacted whoever they can. they attempted to contact the company and get their side of things, but got no comment and so had to rely on their lawyer's letter. they got the NDPSC's side, which is pissed off, and they got the protestors' side, which is also pissed off. the site is on private property and the guardian can't just go in there and start investigating without the permission of the company that refused to speak to them, so exactly what follow up did you expect them to do?

Condiv fucked around with this message at 22:34 on Nov 8, 2016

# ¿ Nov 8, 2016 22:16

Condiv: May 7, 2008; Sorry to undo the effort of paying a domestic abuser $10 to own this poster, but I am going to lose my dang mind if I keep seeing multiple posters who appear to be Baloogan.

With love,
a mod

so with hillary having lost is obama gonna do the right thing and reroute the pipeline or is he gonna sit back and let the standing rock sioux get trumped?

# ¿ Nov 9, 2016 08:28

Condiv: May 7, 2008; Sorry to undo the effort of paying a domestic abuser $10 to own this poster, but I am going to lose my dang mind if I keep seeing multiple posters who appear to be Baloogan.

With love,
a mod

coyo7e posted:

Looking at my post I should have used "criminals" instead of "rebels". I apologize for whitewashing the militiamen even more than they already are

also notice how easily the bundys got their message out to the media, while the DAPL protesters are still suffering a media blackout

# ¿ Nov 24, 2016 02:21

Condiv: May 7, 2008; Sorry to undo the effort of paying a domestic abuser $10 to own this poster, but I am going to lose my dang mind if I keep seeing multiple posters who appear to be Baloogan.

With love,
a mod

the aclu has weighed in

# ¿ Nov 25, 2016 00:56

Condiv: May 7, 2008; Sorry to undo the effort of paying a domestic abuser $10 to own this poster, but I am going to lose my dang mind if I keep seeing multiple posters who appear to be Baloogan.

With love,
a mod

imo, the dapl should be built, but only if it's routed through the richest and most affluent neighborhoods

# ¿ Dec 5, 2016 19:40

Condiv: May 7, 2008; Sorry to undo the effort of paying a domestic abuser $10 to own this poster, but I am going to lose my dang mind if I keep seeing multiple posters who appear to be Baloogan.

With love,
a mod

drilldo squirt posted:

So what's going on with the coward pipe besides a lot of words about philosophical theory that I'm not going to read?

not much. a pipe near it leaked near 200k gallons before an unrelated citizen noticed the leak and reported it to the pipeline company and now the pipe lovers are arguing about how this one will never leak ever unlike all the others

# ¿ Dec 17, 2016 05:07

Condiv: May 7, 2008; Sorry to undo the effort of paying a domestic abuser $10 to own this poster, but I am going to lose my dang mind if I keep seeing multiple posters who appear to be Baloogan.

With love,
a mod

Recoome posted:

Dead Reckoning has never heard of the Heinz Dilemma, apparently

that's when you run out of ketchup for your chicken tenders right?

# ¿ Dec 17, 2016 09:14

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ May 17, 2024 14:59

Condiv: May 7, 2008; Sorry to undo the effort of paying a domestic abuser $10 to own this poster, but I am going to lose my dang mind if I keep seeing multiple posters who appear to be Baloogan.

With love,
a mod

^ it wasn't particularly unexpected sadly :smith:

# ¿ Jan 24, 2017 17:44

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > DAPL: coward pipe defeats water protectors