“Those backward tree-huggers just don’t appreciate what’s best for them” has been used to fuck over native peoples since time immemorial.
Just because these protesters don’t share your values doesn’t mean they’re stupid.
23 Likes
Maybe tell that to the white people who got the pipeline moved away from their land and reroute the pipeline up there?
19 Likes
You’re right. What I wrote is too harsh.
4 Likes
There are probably levels of complications well beyond what can be read in the documents. I am pretty sure that there is disinformation coming from both sides, but I suppose that is normal in any political debate.
I do see the Tribe members and local residents as being victims no matter how this is resolved. Whether the primary villains are the pipeline people or the “keep it in the ground” people, is not yet obvious to me.
There has been some allegation of the police using illegal munitions, but I have not seen reliable proof of that yet. I think the ATF investigation results will be very important in that determination.
It is kind of depressing that the wisest route seems to be to assume that everything anyone on either side says is propaganda until proven to be true or false.
2 Likes
Exactly. If the invitation is to a meeting on location selection, and you say we’d rather not have it located anywhere, you get uninvited pretty quick. Or just ignored.
3 Likes
That, or because of the existing natural gas pipelines running there. We have a bunch of land on a flood plain along a river, and adjacent to a National Forest, but the only time we have to deal with the Corps of Engineers is when we want to move rocks in the river or build up the bank. FYI, what we do is for erosion control and to support the fish population. But it all has to be approved and permitted.
I agree. More than likely the pipeline eventually will be built one way or another. Short term (10-15 year range) economic interests tend to win over long term ones like not polluting groundwater or not accelerating climate change. Unlike airplanes, pipelines have a non negligible critical failure rate.
1 Like
My understanding of the issue is that a big motivator for pipeline construction is the higher cost and risk of transport by rail. But I do not have numbers on that, either way.
1 Like
What is the actual risk of the proposed pipeline? I’ve looked online for an engineering analysis of failure modes but haven’t found anything–just vague descriptions from both sides of the controversy.
1 Like
Well, in 2015 the US consumed more than 7 billion barrels of oil. Most of that was in a pipeline at some point.
Wikipedia has a pretty good list of US pipeline accidents.
Like aviation accidents, every incident is studied and knowledge gained is used to prevent future accidents. I think one big misconception is that the government regulations are what keep us safe and that’s true, but indirectly. It’s the insurance companies that seem to be doing the most to make sure companies are doing the necessary inspections and making the necessary upgrades. The government requires the operators to be insured and without that regulation, things would be worse.
That’s a good description of pipelines in general but I’d like to see the analysis for that particular pipeline. If lessons learned from previous pipeline failures are used to improve new pipelines then one can’t generalize from all pipelines to the newest one.
What are systems which prevent leakage? If one system fails what is its backup? What is the maximum amount of oil released for each failure mode?
I’d really rather not rely on government, the pipeline company, or insurance company to decide if the failure possibility is low enough. I’d like to be able to see the analysis and decide for myself.
1 Like
If I understand the court documents, the disputed water crossing will utilize a very deep and double-walled system. I don’t know if such systems are in common use, or if any have failed in the past.
1 Like
Maybe it isn’t just about the risk of the pipeline leaking after it’s built, but the native burial grounds they have desecrated, destroyed, and otherwise damaged while constructing the pipeline (without reporting any of them).
Then again, probably not. I’m sure you’d be fine with someone plowing through your ancestors cemetery with a bulldozer and then proceeding to cart their remains off to a dump, all without asking you first. All for the purpose of building a pipeline to transport a material that is simultaneously running out and destroying our planet.
15 Likes
Well, what is the actual risk? Let’s suppose the chance of a pipeline leak in any given year is only a fraction of a percent; one of the links above said the average is something like 0.4%, and presumably a new pipe will be lower still. Do you say that decades from now, it will be still be that low, because they can trust how such pipelines are maintained?
Say we expect a century or three before there is a leak. That’s certainly what most of us would consider negligible risk. Except I presume the Sioux are hoping to still be there, that being the only country they are likely to get. Should they hope the state or companies then, with everyone actually responsible for the pipeline long dead, will take that damage to their homeland more seriously than they are doing now? How much would you bet? Would you bet the one water supply you expect your children and grandchildren, the future of your nation, will still require?
@TailOfTruth justly points out that a great deal of this is about their awful treatment – and that sets bad precedent too; you can hardly imagine those who would bulldoze your land before allowing any risk to Bismarck will care as much if they spill on it. But even setting that aside, I don’t think they are wrong to be leery about how it may affect their homeland, if you consider the long run. And they probably have to.
12 Likes
The natives. As long as they can continue to impose costs on the project, it is in jeopardy. They live there: Advantage, natives. It’s a question of will and leverage rather than absolute power.
1 Like
It’s not just the risk of having a leak or not having a leak. There’s also the consideration of how much can leak before it’s shut off and if that leakage can make its way into the water supply. There are multiple failure modes to consider.
The pipeline company has a legal requirement to both allow tribal monitors and archaeologists during all construction. If it can be shown that this is not happening, that would show illegal activity on their part. Apparently they were not able to convince the presiding judge that this was the case. The following are from the District Court ruling:
"Most importantly, they instituted a “Tribal Monitoring Plan” that requires Dakota Access to allow tribal monitors at all PCN sites when construction is occurring. "
" In a map of the area, the company sought to demonstrate that many of the sites documented by Mentz were in fact well outside the pipeline route. See ECF No. 34 (Response to TRO) at 6-8. The rest, according to Dakota Access, were directly over the existing Northern Border Natural Gas Pipeline that runs through the area and thus could not have been historic artifacts. The company instead alleges that the route of the pipeline in this area proves its point: it twists and turns to avoid the finds that Mentz documented adjacent to the pipeline and thus demonstrates that Dakota Access did purposefully shift the route to avoid any sites of cultural significance in its planning phase.The Court acknowledges that the map provided by the company does seem to indicate that the pipeline curves to accommodate the cultural sites. "
The history of the area shows that there would be some question about the origins of any ancient remains found in the area. It has been settled by several cultures, who were displaced by new arrivals. There was quite a bit of genocide, especially when the nomadic tribes adopted Spanish horse culture and started raiding and killing the agrarian tribes that had settled and farmed the area. The Crow creek massacre is an example of archaeological evidence of this change.
Not that I pretend that the Plains Tribes have not been on the receiving end of genocidal abuse, and theft of territory. I only bring this up because it is easy to see the many cultures of Native American tribes as one monolithic people, when they were many different cultures, as different from and hostile to each other as the Goths and Romans were in Europe.
The area that is now in dispute was occupied by the Ancestors of the Standing Rock Sioux from about 1780 to the 1870s, which is about the same amount of time that the current residents of the land have owned it. This may have little to do with the resolution of the current conflict, but I think a realistic historic understanding helps put things into perspective. It also complicates the narrative of almost any contested place.
Sorry for the tangent.
2 Likes
If ordering thugs to assault civilians during a blizzard isn’t enough, following up by ordering emergency personnel to not help the victims should certainly merit an award for evil. I half expect the next announcement to be that the governor is making up for it by giving free blankets to the tribe. 
4 Likes
You know what I don’t like? Double speak. If you’re going to go all Ministry of Truth on me, then my part in this discussion is over. I’d rather have you act more in the line of the Ministry of Love, at least then we’ll both know where we really stand.
8 Likes
------oops, I made this @gadgetgirl02 instead of @amoose136. I don’t know how to fix that.
This is the current Colorado DOT plan regarding an interstate widening:
come up with a plan on their own (well, with $ interests)
have “public comment” meetings
ignore all public comments
full steam ahead
when anyone complains, they say “hey, we had a public comment meeting.”
So why go to the meeting, when you know your opinion will be utterly ignored?
8 Likes
