All you need to know about the Dakota Access Oil Pipeline (DAPL) protests
cramer said:
paulsurovell said:Paul - The judge did say, pp. 2-3: "Despite this broad lawsuit however, the Standing Rock Sioux now seek a preliminary injunction ONLY on the alleged violation of the NHPA . . . . . .
BG9 said:I think the editorial actually put a somewhat positive spin on the decision by holding out the (unlikely) possibility that a more rigorous assessment (Environmental Impact Statement) might find a mutually-acceptable solution:
Washington Post editorial blasting the denial of the pipeline easement. A "false victory."
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/a-false-victory-at-standing-rock/2016/12/06/32c318b6-bb3d-11e6-94ac-3d324840106c_story.html
If this new process uncovers a Goldilocks route that everyone can
support, great. But, as with any infrastructure project, it is unlikely
there is a magic solution that satisfies every preference. Politicizing
the permitting process, moreover, is unlikely to make it fairer.
It bears noting that the Tribe does not press its environmental claims under the NEPA law.
Nor does it seek a preliminary injunction to protect itself from the environmental harms that might arise from having the pipeline on its doorstep.
Instead, it asserts only that the pipeline construction activities - specifically the grading and clearing of land - will cause irreparable injury to historic or cultural properties of great significance."
The judge then goes on in his decision to say that the Standing Rock Sioux had not shown that there would be any irreparable injury to historic or cultural properties. He does say that had the Standing Rock Sioux sought a preliminary injunction on the basis of the NEPA the result might have been different. .
https://ecf.dcd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/show_public_doc?2016cv1534-39
Not sure how relevant this is, if at all, but a two-year-old audio recording recently emerged in which tribal leaders met with DAPL officials and protested the pipeline, contradicting claims by DAPL that the Sioux never expressed their complaints.
Also in the tape are complaints by the Sioux about difficulties setting up a meeting with the Army Corps of Engineers, contradicting one of the points made by the judge in the preliminary injunction.
http://bismarcktribune.com/news/state-and-regional/audio-tribe-objected-to-pipeline-nearly-years-before-lawsuit/article_51f94b8b-1284-5da9-92ec-7638347fe066.html
Audio released by the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe from a September 2014
meeting with Dakota Access Pipeline representatives contradicts recent
claims made by a pipeline company executive.Kelcy
Warren, CEO of Energy Transfer Partners, the parent company of Dakota
Access LLC, told The Wall Street Journal the pipeline route that crosses
just north of the Standing Rock Sioux Reservation could have been
changed if the tribe had engaged in discussions sooner.
“I really wish for the Standing Rock Sioux that they had engaged in
discussions way before they did. I don’t think we would have been having
this discussion if they did,” Warren said in a Wall Street Journal
interview published Nov. 16. “We could have changed the route. It could
have been done, but it’s too late.”
[ . . .]
During the September 2014
meeting, Standing Rock officials also expressed frustration with the
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, the agency that has jurisdiction over the
pipeline crossing of Lake Oahe, a dammed section of the Missouri River.
“We have actually been having a hard time setting up a meeting with the
corps for this particular project,” said Win Young, who added that the
agency did not consult with the tribe on previous projects.
[ . . . ]
U.S. District Judge James Boasberg sided with the corps in a ruling on a
preliminary injunction last September, saying the agency “documented
dozens of attempts it made to consult with the Standing Rock Sioux from
the fall of 2014 through the spring of 2016.” Boasberg also noted
instances in which tribal leaders withdrew from meetings or didn’t
respond to opportunities to provide input in a timely manner.
Paul - I'm not sure how your argument that the Standing Rock Sioux had difficulties in setting up meetings with the Army Corps, contradicting what the judge said, is relevant to the fact that the judge said that had the Standing Rock Sioux sought a preliminary injunction on the basis of an environmental claim under the NEPA, the result might have been different.
Secondly, I was actually supporting your point that the judge held out hope that there might be a solution if the Standing Rock Sioux pursue its claim on the basis that there would be environmental danger under the NEPA. I'm really not sure why they didn't.
@Morganna picked this up in her post following mine where she pointed out that US Secretary of Interior said that a further review would take into account any possibility of environmental damage.
Having said that, the chance that Trump will not overrule any finding on the part of the Army Corps is slim and not likely.
paulsurovell said:
Dennis_Seelbach said:
I think there are really 3 separate issues in the discussion so far.
1- Routing of the pipeline through native lands.
2- Routing of pipelines to mitigate potential damages
3- Wisdom of pipelines in general.
We can all have our opinions, but I find the general anti-pipeline bent to be myopic. Common sense tells us that a pipeline is a preferable, and safer, method of moving large quantities of fossil fluids than the alternatives of train or truck. We can all cherry-pick scenes where there have been catastrophic accidents in all transit methods, but the record of pipelines is, I believe, far better than train/truck. Like it or not, we need those fossil fuels for the time being, and we need to make the most intelligent decisions as to how we transport. That, to me is pipeline.
Once we reach that conclusion, the other 2 issues then need to be addressed. Hopefully, NIMBYism can be avoided (that's a joke folks), and safe, efficient siting of these pipelines can then be done.
You omitted point 4: routing a pipeline through the water supply of a sovereign nation against its will.
I guess you can't read too well...see point #1.
Dennis_Seelbach said:
paulsurovell said:
Dennis_Seelbach said:
I think there are really 3 separate issues in the discussion so far.
1- Routing of the pipeline through native lands.
2- Routing of pipelines to mitigate potential damages
3- Wisdom of pipelines in general.
We can all have our opinions, but I find the general anti-pipeline bent to be myopic. Common sense tells us that a pipeline is a preferable, and safer, method of moving large quantities of fossil fluids than the alternatives of train or truck. We can all cherry-pick scenes where there have been catastrophic accidents in all transit methods, but the record of pipelines is, I believe, far better than train/truck. Like it or not, we need those fossil fuels for the time being, and we need to make the most intelligent decisions as to how we transport. That, to me is pipeline.
Once we reach that conclusion, the other 2 issues then need to be addressed. Hopefully, NIMBYism can be avoided (that's a joke folks), and safe, efficient siting of these pipelines can then be done.
You omitted point 4: routing a pipeline through the water supply of a sovereign nation against its will.
I guess you can't read too well...see point #1.
You didn't mention the water which is central to their struggle.
Here's an idea, perhaps naïve but there are posters on this thread who seem to know a great deal more than I about this issue, other than my philosophical approach so here goes.
If North Dakota is an excellent spot for wind power, and up thread there was a quote from a Congresswoman who said she was working on improving the lives of Native Americans, could the new administration invest in wind power on this land with some kind of payment to the Sioux Nation? Could they have part ownership or a share of the profits? Would it have to be a specific company who leased a part of the land? I have no idea what kind of ecological impact this would have on Sioux land. Of course as a birder I've heard the arguments but if we want to move away from our oil dependency, this would be a step in that direction and also offer an olive branch and financial incentive to Native Americans.
Folks, take a step back into the real world. Solar and wind are very promising renewable energy sources. Solar/wind are gradually taking share from coal and over time will take share from natural gas power plants. I hope there are breakthroughs in battery technology (and further improvements in panels/inverters) in my lifetime that enable solar/wind to become this country's primary energy sources. These breakthroughs are happening and will continue to happen, but not overnight. If DAPL gets built today and becomes obsolete in 50 years, that's great! But it needs to be built today... otherwise we are back to square 1--relying on rusty pipelines built in the 1950's and crude by rail.
If you're looking at North Dakota as the next big hope for wind, it's probably not gonna happen any time soon. North Dakota has 3.0% unemployment rate as of October 2016, 3rd lowest unemployment in the USA. Why? Oil production. You, Mr. SOMA resident, may want North Dakota to become a hub for wind.... but local government, local population, and local capitalists are far more pragmatic. Ain't gonna happen--come back to the real world so we can address this country's outdated energy infrastructure. What do you care about more: your idealism, or the environment?
Attached is a snapshot of the real world. Source: EIA.
Soverign Nation?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tribal_sovereignty_in_the_United_States
You omitted point 4: routing a pipeline through the water supply of a sovereign nation against its will.
But, I agree that at this point in time the legal argument is about land use rights and how they relate to indigenous populations.
It has been pointed out why "Keep it in the ground" is not in our nation's interest's as we (Hopefully) transition to a renewable energy system in the next 50 years because it would rely upon foreign oil harvested with unknown environmental consequences until the transition is complete.
So we are at a place where we are evaluating the rights of Native Peoples to disputed lands versus the increased potential impact to the environment and increased pupolation ce ters by re-routing the pipeline north of Bismark.
To some degree I don't care since I think the U.S. has the capacity to mitigate a pipleine rupture North or South of Bismark.
But a decision is being made to increase the environmental and population risk to address a land disput that is approximately 150 years old.
You omitted point 4: routing a pipeline through the water supply of a sovereign nation against its will.
I agree that at this point in time the legal argument is about land use rights and how they relate to indigenous populations.
It has been pointed out why "Keep it in the ground" is not in our nation's interest's as we (Hopefully) transition to a renewable energy system in the next 50 years because it would rely upon foreign oil harvested with unknown environmental consequences until the transition is complete.
So we are at a place where we are evaluating the rights of Native Peoples to disputed lands versus the increased potential impact to the environment and increased pupolation ce ters by re-routing the pipeline north of Bismark.
To some degree I don't care since I think the U.S. has the capacity to mitigate a pipleine rupture North or South of Bismark.
But a decision is being made to increase the environmental and population risk to address a land disput that is approximately 150 years old.
alias said:
Soverign Nation?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tribal_sovereignty_in_the_United_States
You omitted point 4: routing a pipeline through the water supply of a sovereign nation against its will.But, I agree that at this point in time the legal argument is about land use rights and how they relate to indigenous populations.
It has been pointed out why "Keep it in the ground" is not in our nation's interest's as we (Hopefully) transition to a renewable energy system in the next 50 years because it would rely upon foreign oil harvested with unknown environmental consequences until the transition is complete.
So we are at a place where we are evaluating the rights of Native Peoples to disputed lands versus the increased potential impact to the environment and increased pupolation ce ters by re-routing the pipeline north of Bismark.
To some degree I don't care since I think the U.S. has the capacity to mitigate a pipleine rupture North or South of Bismark.
But a decision is being made to increase the environmental and population risk to address a land disput that is approximately 150 years old.
"Sovereign nation" in the sense suggested by the National Congress of American Indians:
http://www.ncai.org/about-tribes
An Overview
There are 566 federally recognized Indian Nations (variously called
tribes, nations, bands, pueblos, communities and native villages) in the
United States. Approximately 229 of these ethnically, culturally and
linguistically diverse nations are located in Alaska; the other
federally recognized tribes are located in 33 other states.
Additionally, there are state recognized tribes located throughout the
United States recognized by their respective state governments.
A Culture of Tribal Governance
American Indians and Alaska Natives are members of the original
Indigenous peoples of North America. Tribal nations have been recognized
as sovereign since their first interaction with European settlers. The
United States continues to recognize this unique political status and
relationship.
A Political Relationship
Native peoples and governments have inherent rights and a political
relationship with the U.S. government that does not derive from race or
ethnicity. Tribal members are citizens of three sovereigns: their tribe,
the United States, and the state in which they reside. They are also
individuals in an international context with the rights afforded to any
other individual.
Tribes as Nations
The governmental status of tribal nations is at the heart of nearly
every issue that touches Indian Country. Self-government is essential if
tribal communities are to continue to protect their unique cultures and
identities. Tribes have the inherent power to govern all
matters involving their members, as well as a range of issues in Indian
Country.
The essence of tribal sovereignty is the ability to govern and to
protect and enhance the health, safety, and welfare of tribal citizens
within tribal territory. Tribal governments maintain the power to
determine their own governance structures and enforce laws through
police departments and tribal courts. The governments exercise these
inherent rights through the development of their distinct forms of
government, determining citizenship; establishing civil and criminal
laws for their nations; taxing, licensing, regulating, and maintaining
and exercising the power to exclude wrongdoers from tribal lands.
In addition, tribal governments are responsible for a broad range of
governmental activities on tribal lands, including education,
law enforcement, judicial systems, health care,
environmental protection, natural resource management, and the
development and maintenance of basic infrastructure such as housing,
roads, bridges, sewers, public buildings, telecommunications,
broadband and electrical services, and solid waste treatment and
disposal.
I'll respond to your other points tomorrow.
0dollars2cents said:
Folks, take a step back into the real world. Solar and wind are very promising renewable energy sources. Solar/wind are gradually taking share from coal and over time will take share from natural gas power plants. I hope there are breakthroughs in battery technology (and further improvements in panels/inverters) in my lifetime that enable solar/wind to become this country's primary energy sources. These breakthroughs are happening and will continue to happen, but not overnight. If DAPL gets built today and becomes obsolete in 50 years, that's great! But it needs to be built today... otherwise we are back to square 1--relying on rusty pipelines built in the 1950's and crude by rail.
If you're looking at North Dakota as the next big hope for wind, it's probably not gonna happen any time soon. North Dakota has 3.0% unemployment rate as of October 2016, 3rd lowest unemployment in the USA. Why? Oil production. You, Mr. SOMA resident, may want North Dakota to become a hub for wind.... but local government, local population, and local capitalists are far more pragmatic. Ain't gonna happen--come back to the real world so we can address this country's outdated energy infrastructure. What do you care about more: your idealism, or the environment?
Attached is a snapshot of the real world. Source: EIA.
Your "real world" premises are not real.
With regard to your idea that DAPL will make our pipeline system safer and therefore help "the environment" -- DAPL is a new pipeline delivering mostly new oil that is going to connect into the existing oil transport sector. So as far as safety is concerned, it just means more oil and oil products through the old system. DAPL creates more risk of oil spills, not less.
To the extent that DAPL replaces oil currently being shipped by rail and truck -- Whether there will be improved safety depends on a number of factors, especially on the precautions taken by rail and truck transport. The more precautions that are taken -- especially lowering speed -- the more expensive the transport costs. Generally, rail and truck are twice as expensive as pipeline costs, and would be even more expensive if speed were reduced and equipment upgrades made. Rail and truck result in smaller spills, but more injuries and deaths (from explosions). Long-term medical effects of the larger pipeline spills are assumed but difficult to measure. Safety comparisons between pipelines and rail/truck are thus complicated by cost comparisons, since greater safety with rail/and truck can more easily be achieved by simple cost measures like reducing speed.
On transition to renewables -- Solar and wind are already growing but can grow much faster and hasten the replacement of oil, coal and gas if we choose to make renewables a real national priority. That would be in everyone's interest, except for the fossil fuel industry. The crux of the problem is that what you call "the real world" is just a euphemism for a political system dominated by the fossil fuel industry that blocks a national agenda for creative and responsible solutions to switch to renewables at a faster pace to address global warming.
Regarding North Dakota's wind power industry -- it's already booming:
http://bismarcktribune.com/bakken/western-north-dakota-in-the-midst-of-a-wind-boom/article_e32568d7-4fc3-5f66-babf-e8395fa7babb.html
The funny thing about extremist Trumpers and extremist Progressives--both paranoid crazies. "Goldman Sachs is too powerful" "Exxon is too powerful" "NRA is too powerful" "Planned Parenthood is too powerful". So predictable and boring, you extremists with your conspiracy theories and fake news. Renewable energy is making incredible progress (I can do bold font too) and will continue to take share from coal/gas/oil for many years to come. Stop whining and appreciate the beauty of capitalism. If you actually opened and read the EIA report I linked to, you'd see pretty much every state in this country has targets for renewable energy growth, some like California for 50%. That's not enough of a "national priority" for u?
For the record, 92% of investment in power infrastructure is done by private enterprise*. Your dream of North Dakota ditching oil and going all-in on wind, Paul, is akin to central planning. If your idea of "national priority" is federal government takes over from private enterprise.... I'll take a pass, comrade.
*source: US Census Bureau construction spending report
paulsurovell said:
On transition to renewables -- Solar and wind are already growing but can grow much faster and hasten the replacement of oil, coal and gas if we choose to make renewables a real national priority. That would be in everyone's interest, except for the fossil fuel industry. The crux of the problem is that what you call "the real world" is just a euphemism for a political system dominated by the fossil fuel industry that blocks a national agenda for creative and responsible solutions to switch to renewables at a faster pace to address global warming.
0dollars2cents said:
The funny thing about extremist Trumpers and extremist Progressives--both paranoid crazies. "Goldman Sachs is too powerful" "Exxon is too powerful" "NRA is too powerful" "Planned Parenthood is too powerful". So predictable and boring, you extremists with your conspiracy theories and fake news. Renewable energy is making incredible progress (I can do bold font too) and will continue to take share from coal/gas/oil for many years to come. Stop whining and appreciate the beauty of capitalism. If you actually opened and read the EIA report I linked to, you'd see pretty much every state in this country has targets for renewable energy growth, some like California for 50%. That's not enough of a "national priority" for u?
For the record, 92% of investment in power infrastructure is done by private enterprise*. Your dream of North Dakota ditching oil and going all-in on wind, Paul, is akin to central planning. If your idea of "national priority" is federal government takes over from private enterprise.... I'll take a pass, comrade.
*source: US Census Bureau construction spending report
paulsurovell said:
On transition to renewables -- Solar and wind are already growing but can grow much faster and hasten the replacement of oil, coal and gas if we choose to make renewables a real national priority. That would be in everyone's interest, except for the fossil fuel industry. The crux of the problem is that what you call "the real world" is just a euphemism for a political system dominated by the fossil fuel industry that blocks a national agenda for creative and responsible solutions to switch to renewables at a faster pace to address global warming.
Apart from your reliance on Strawmen, you reveal a dependence on conventional "wisdom" that explains your low opinion of what our country is capable of.
Capitalism depends on government to function and in some instances -- like the climate crisis we face -- society as well as capitalism need bold government leadership for their survival. The "free market" and minimalist government goals will not prevent the ocean from rising and the threats therein.
Do not ever question my patriotism.
my agenda here on MOL politics board is to expose extremism, which exists in equal amounts on the political Right and Left and poses risks to social, economic, and environmental progress in this great country.
0dollars2cents said:
Do not ever question my patriotism.
my agenda here on MOL politics board is to expose extremism, which exists in equal amounts on the political Right and Left and poses risks to social, economic, and environmental progress in this great country.
An equal opportunity Joe McCarthy
0dollars2cents said:?
Do not ever question my patriotism.
0dollars2cents said:
my agenda here on MOL politics board is to expose extremism, which exists in equal amounts on the political Right and Left and poses risks to social, economic, and environmental progress in this great country.
I just skimmed through all of your MOL posts and found many containing slurs. smears and name-calling aimed at leftists and the political Left, but saw none (zero) aimed at rightists or the political Right. I didn't even see any polite arguments aimed at rightists or the political Right.
Did you mispeak or did I miss something?
0dollars2cents said:
The funny thing about extremist Trumpers and extremist Progressives--both paranoid crazies. "Goldman Sachs is too powerful" "Exxon is too powerful" "NRA is too powerful" "Planned Parenthood is too powerful". So predictable and boring, you extremists with your conspiracy theories and fake news. Renewable energy is making incredible progress (I can do bold font too) and will continue to take share from coal/gas/oil for many years to come. Stop whining and appreciate the beauty of capitalism. If you actually opened and read the EIA report I linked to, you'd see pretty much every state in this country has targets for renewable energy growth, some like California for 50%. That's not enough of a "national priority" for u?
For the record, 92% of investment in power infrastructure is done by private enterprise*. Your dream of North Dakota ditching oil and going all-in on wind, Paul, is akin to central planning. If your idea of "national priority" is federal government takes over from private enterprise.... I'll take a pass, comrade.
*source: US Census Bureau construction spending report
paulsurovell said:
On transition to renewables -- Solar and wind are already growing but can grow much faster and hasten the replacement of oil, coal and gas if we choose to make renewables a real national priority. That would be in everyone's interest, except for the fossil fuel industry. The crux of the problem is that what you call "the real world" is just a euphemism for a political system dominated by the fossil fuel industry that blocks a national agenda for creative and responsible solutions to switch to renewables at a faster pace to address global warming.
Is Strawberry back? (Boring)
fairplay said:
0dollars2cents said:
The funny thing about extremist Trumpers and extremist Progressives--both paranoid crazies. "Goldman Sachs is too powerful" "Exxon is too powerful" "NRA is too powerful" "Planned Parenthood is too powerful". So predictable and boring, you extremists with your conspiracy theories and fake news. Renewable energy is making incredible progress (I can do bold font too) and will continue to take share from coal/gas/oil for many years to come. Stop whining and appreciate the beauty of capitalism. If you actually opened and read the EIA report I linked to, you'd see pretty much every state in this country has targets for renewable energy growth, some like California for 50%. That's not enough of a "national priority" for u?
For the record, 92% of investment in power infrastructure is done by private enterprise*. Your dream of North Dakota ditching oil and going all-in on wind, Paul, is akin to central planning. If your idea of "national priority" is federal government takes over from private enterprise.... I'll take a pass, comrade.
*source: US Census Bureau construction spending report
paulsurovell said:
On transition to renewables -- Solar and wind are already growing but can grow much faster and hasten the replacement of oil, coal and gas if we choose to make renewables a real national priority. That would be in everyone's interest, except for the fossil fuel industry. The crux of the problem is that what you call "the real world" is just a euphemism for a political system dominated by the fossil fuel industry that blocks a national agenda for creative and responsible solutions to switch to renewables at a faster pace to address global warming.
Is Strawberry back? (Boring)
No...............not his style..........although he has fooled me before and I had to be clued in by other MOL'ers
85% of SOMA residents voted for Hillary (incl me). Not too many extreme Right folks on MOL or in SOMA. To clarify: Left and Right extremism exists in equal amounts in the US; not on MOL.
It's true I use strong language that borders (sometimes more than) on insults. Guess I'm just an a**hole like that. But my arguments are always grounded in facts, research and a centrist approach. I don't open my mouth about topics I don't understand and haven't researched in depth (eg I no-commented on the Pilgrim Pipeline).
Strong language is necessary to point out absurdity of extremist political views, imo. Otherwise, MOL Politics can be, at times, an extremist Left echo chamber ("Hasta la victoria siempre" Ugh).
I'm not on here to make friends or to be liked. Happy to get back to debunking anti-DAPL stuff. Any other 80-year old pipelines spill recently that "prove" DAPL should be blocked?
paulsurovell said:
0dollars2cents said:?
Do not ever question my patriotism.0dollars2cents said:I just skimmed through all of your MOL posts and found many containing slurs. smears and name-calling aimed at leftists and the political Left, but saw none (zero) aimed at rightists or the political Right. I didn't even see any polite arguments aimed at rightists or the political Right.
my agenda here on MOL politics board is to expose extremism, which exists in equal amounts on the political Right and Left and poses risks to social, economic, and environmental progress in this great country.
Did you mispeak or did I miss something?
This cartoon shows the absurdity of anti-pipeline sentiment. I explained (with government and industry data) that a pragmatic approach to energy infrastructure for the next 50 years is a balancing act btw (A) outdated pipelines + greater reliance on crude by rail/truck (B) building modern pipelines. I wish there was a way to press a button and replace all coal, oil, and gas with 100% renewables tomorrow--but such button does not exist. Shift to renewable energy in the US will take decades as major shifts of this kind always do. That's just.... reality.
While you guys protest profits of pipeline companies... Warren Buffet's Berkshire Hathaway mints huge profits every year from crude by rail. Rail is more dangerous than pipeline (especially modern pipeline). Here is one article on this topic--there are many more that come to same conclusion (look it up!).
Remember the time a bunch of misinformed hippies blocked a modern pipeline, just to put more money into Warren Buffet's pockets as he profits from crude by rail? LOL. Good times.
With Dakota Access in limbo, more Bakken crude to move on trains (reuters)
Morganna said:
l.facebook.com/?u=http%3A%2F%2Freadersupportednews.org%2Fpipeline.html&e=ATONc8IWeFxui_zh4hm-6DzOYPqEYmkHJKccz_-XVQ4M1gl35iu2ytoCTGUJsBu4LpiCUx6Ak8J0hGpQPdl6ba2JU3mhzhqi2HRXcT7S5WiAqm4s6CPEWZ1ld9eV3_HetkE3" target="_blank" rel="nofollow"> http://l.facebook.com/?u=http%3A%2F%2Freadersupportednews.org%2Fpipeline.html&e=ATONc8IWeFxui_zh4hm-6DzOYPqEYmkHJKccz_-XVQ4M1gl35iu2ytoCTGUJsBu4LpiCUx6Ak8J0hGpQPdl6ba2JU3mhzhqi2HRXcT7S5WiAqm4s6CPEWZ1ld9eV3_HetkE3
That's not new. It's referring to the 10 most read stories on Facebook in 2016. The Court of Appeals decision was in October and the article is from October 9, 2016.
Comment - "People are sharing this because the headine (10th most read) does
now show on FB so they are thinking this just happened today. More
confusion is not needed."
cramer said:
Morganna said:
l.facebook.com="">l.facebook.com/?u=http%3A%2F%2Freadersupportednews.org%2Fpipeline.html&e=ATONc8IWeFxui_zh4hm-6DzOYPqEYmkHJKccz_-XVQ4M1gl35iu2ytoCTGUJsBu4LpiCUx6Ak8J0hGpQPdl6ba2JU3mhzhqi2HRXcT7S5WiAqm4s6CPEWZ1ld9eV3_HetkE3" target="_blank" rel="nofollow"> l.facebook.com/?u=http%3A%2F%2Freadersupportednews.org%2Fpipeline.html&e=ATONc8IWeFxui_zh4hm-6DzOYPqEYmkHJKccz_-XVQ4M1gl35iu2ytoCTGUJsBu4LpiCUx6Ak8J0hGpQPdl6ba2JU3mhzhqi2HRXcT7S5WiAqm4s6CPEWZ1ld9eV3_HetkE3" target="_blank" rel="nofollow"> http://l.facebook.com/?u=http%3A%2F%2Freadersupportednews.org%2Fpipeline.html&e=ATONc8IWeFxui_zh4hm-6DzOYPqEYmkHJKccz_-XVQ4M1gl35iu2ytoCTGUJsBu4LpiCUx6Ak8J0hGpQPdl6ba2JU3mhzhqi2HRXcT7S5WiAqm4s6CPEWZ1ld9eV3_HetkE3
That's not new. It's referring to the 10 most read stories on Facebook in 2016. The Court of Appeals decision was in October and the article is from October 9, 2016.
http://nativenewsonline.net/currents/u-s-court-appeals-rules-standing-rock-tribe-dakota-access-pipeline-case/
Comment - "People are sharing this because the headine (10th most read) does
now show on FB so they are thinking this just happened today. More
confusion is not needed."
Thank you for clarifying and interesting because I looked at a date that was within the past few days. It was on FB in my newsfeed from a friend who has been following this. Then I did a search and found the article Well, glad there is no new bad news. At least in this arena. Back to the sit-ins and meetings and twitter storms.
I just saw this posted. Anyone else see this? After the last post which was not current I'm a bit wary.
https://www.yahoo.com/news/nd-senator-supported-dapl-called-231725924.html
Morganna said:
I just saw this posted. Anyone else see this? After the last post which was not current I'm a bit wary.
https://www.yahoo.com/news/nd-senator-supported-dapl-called-231725924.html
It looks credible and if true will likely set off a wave of protest among native Americans across the country. It would be on a par with the Sessions appointment as attorney general.
paulsurovell said:
Morganna said:
I just saw this posted. Anyone else see this? After the last post which was not current I'm a bit wary.
https://www.yahoo.com/news/nd-senator-supported-dapl-called-231725924.html
It looks credible and if true will likely set off a wave of protest among native Americans across the country. It would be on a par with the Sessions appointment as attorney general.
Here is another one.
http://theslot.jezebel.com/dakota-access-pipeline-supporter-will-head-the-senates-1790952005
and another so it looks legit.
Judge denies Energy Transfer Partner's request to stop Army Corps of Engineers from launching an environmental impact study of ETPs Dakota Access Pipeline (DAPL) crossing of Lake Oahe, the water source for the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe.
Trump just signed the executive order on the Dakota Pipeline and is ordering an expedited regulatory process.
Morganna said:
Trump just signed the executive order on the Dakota Pipeline and is ordering an expedited regulatory process.
There's a corporate and big money wish list. Trump is now signing the orders to make those wishes real.
Also, don't assume that the NAFTA renegotiation will be for our benefit.
For Sale
Free Items
Sponsored Business
Promote your business here - Businesses get highlighted throughout the site and you can add a deal.
Advertisement
So are you saying that the reason why Sunoco Logistics has the worst safety record in the country is because it operates the oldest pipelines?