It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Trump team says he supports construction of Dakota Access oil pipeline

page: 3
27
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 2 2016 @ 11:55 PM
link   

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: dreamingawake

When you figure out what you are talking about clue the rest of us in because it has nothing to do with my comment as a response to your post.

Huh, okay you are saying Liberal/Democrat therefore it is why Swills and I have I no idea what we're talking about. I'm not, not sure about him.

Plus the pipeline going under the river poses a threat. Do you have sources of it not doing such?
edit on 2-12-2016 by dreamingawake because: (no reason given)

edit on 3-12-2016 by dreamingawake because: (no reason given)




posted on Dec, 2 2016 @ 11:59 PM
link   

originally posted by: Kettu
Well, of course he supports it.

He's invested in it.



According to his Public Financial Disclosure Report, Trump has investments worth between $500,000 and $1 million in Dallas-based Energy Transfer Partners, whose subsidiary, Dakota Access, is building the four-state crude oil pipeline.

Link


No, because January 20th!

LOL



posted on Dec, 2 2016 @ 11:59 PM
link   

edit on 3-12-2016 by dreamingawake because: double post



posted on Dec, 3 2016 @ 12:02 AM
link   

originally posted by: dreamingawake

originally posted by: Gothmog

originally posted by: spirit_horse
It is not on Sioux land. It is on private property. It is not going over rivers, but under them.

The tribe wanted $35 million to run through their land. The company decided to go around their land and on private property. Then the protests began.

Best post on this topic ever....
Mods , this deserves an applause

Ah, that gets the dumbass award.

What a gem!


LOL

Name calling - yep that shows an extreme lack of intellectual ability
And , careful , your extreme ignorance on the subject is showing
The Native Americans Do Not own the land.
There are app 300 more pipelines on the same route.
They wanted millions to put the pipeline on the property
This was the only pipeline of hundreds protested.
Now , who gets your illustrious award now ?
Looks as if you get your own award
I am done with you
next



posted on Dec, 3 2016 @ 12:07 AM
link   

originally posted by: Gothmog

originally posted by: dreamingawake

originally posted by: Gothmog

originally posted by: spirit_horse
It is not on Sioux land. It is on private property. It is not going over rivers, but under them.

The tribe wanted $35 million to run through their land. The company decided to go around their land and on private property. Then the protests began.

Best post on this topic ever....
Mods , this deserves an applause

Ah, that gets the dumbass award.

What a gem!


LOL

Name calling - yep that shows an extreme lack of intellectual ability
And , careful , your extreme ignorance on the subject is showing
The Native Americans Do Not own the land.
There are app 300 more pipelines on the same route.
They wanted millions to put the pipeline on the property
This was the only pipeline of hundreds protested.
Now , who gets your illustrious award now ?
Looks as if you get your own award
I am done with you
next


Where's your sources? That pipeline goes under river that sources their drinking water. You do not understand. Also, going under is quite possibly more dangerous than over.

Blabbing but making no sense. Brush up on the topic because that is beyond ignorant. All this because of blind Trump support.




Speaking of name calling you sure do it to members but have a problem when it comes full circle? Need a safety pin?
edit on 3-12-2016 by dreamingawake because: (no reason given)

edit on 3-12-2016 by dreamingawake because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 3 2016 @ 12:20 AM
link   
a reply to: Kettu

I understand all the spills. Not good. Since they use rail cars to ship it if there isn't a pipeline to send it through, which one is safer?

I have seen pipelines run over many waterways. At least it is supposed to go under most likely through a tunnel because they have to be able to go in and work on it. I would hope they would have leak sensors anywhere near a waterway. It is a necessary evil we have to go through because we need the energy production until other sources are developed. It will take a long time once the new energy technology is available before you can phase out all the current machines on the planet that are in the system operational.

And really my main concern isn't on the pipelines running through the land, but all the underwater wells and platforms in the Gulf. After Deep Water Horizon reared it's ugly head I got to thinking about all the distribution wells and lines. If something like an EMP attack hit or a major seafloor quake happens and there are many breaks it would be very damaging. There is a prophecy I either read or heard about a time when the seas would turn black. If you look at the map you can see all the pipelines in the Gulf of Mexico. And those are well regulated in US waters. Think about Venezuela, Brazil, and all the countries around the world. If they break on land, they break under the GoM and all the other oceans. I wonder how many incidents we don't know about? I see your map shows incidents in the GoM.
edit on 3/12/16 by spirit_horse because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 3 2016 @ 02:30 AM
link   
the "truth" doesnt matter, PERCEPTION is reality.


Trump must win the perception war, or else he will find himself with even less support than he already has.

If he has any brain in that head he will find a way to re route the pipeline no matter how much the up front costs are. If its true that the Indians were willing to allow the pipeline for money then that would seem to destroy the purity of their protest a little bit. However, like i said, none of that matters. People are choosing to believe whatever narrative they want.



posted on Dec, 3 2016 @ 05:34 AM
link   
a reply to: spirit_horse

I was very divided on the issue, and I wanted the pipeline rerouted.
Then I found out about the pipeline being on private land and not touching the reservation. After further investigation, it looks like the Native Americans wants much wampum for nothing. A sad state of affairs.



posted on Dec, 3 2016 @ 05:56 AM
link   

originally posted by: dreamingawake

originally posted by: Gothmog

originally posted by: dreamingawake

originally posted by: Gothmog

originally posted by: spirit_horse
It is not on Sioux land. It is on private property. It is not going over rivers, but under them.

The tribe wanted $35 million to run through their land. The company decided to go around their land and on private property. Then the protests began.

Best post on this topic ever....
Mods , this deserves an applause

Ah, that gets the dumbass award.

What a gem!


LOL

Name calling - yep that shows an extreme lack of intellectual ability
And , careful , your extreme ignorance on the subject is showing
The Native Americans Do Not own the land.
There are app 300 more pipelines on the same route.
They wanted millions to put the pipeline on the property
This was the only pipeline of hundreds protested.
Now , who gets your illustrious award now ?
Looks as if you get your own award
I am done with you
next


Where's your sources? That pipeline goes under river that sources their drinking water. You do not understand. Also, going under is quite possibly more dangerous than over.

Blabbing but making no sense. Brush up on the topic because that is beyond ignorant. All this because of blind Trump support.




Speaking of name calling you sure do it to members but have a problem when it comes full circle? Need a safety pin?


Wasn't their an earlier thread here on ATS showing that their drinking water on the reservation would not be effected since the Reservoir will be officially closed in 2017? This water rerouting has been in the works since 2003 or 2009 and known by the tribal leaders. So, the pipeline will not effect their water because their water will be coming from a completely different and newer reservoir miles away from this location.

I will see if I can find that thread.

Edit add: ugh! The search function here is not too productive. Sigh. I guess it is my own fault for not participating in the thread...just reading and following the links.
.

As far as Trump's position on this pipeline...seriously...no surprise.
edit on 12 3 2016 by CynConcepts because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 3 2016 @ 10:14 AM
link   
a reply to: Swills
Well, according to this, he owns stock in the company that's building the pipeline. It seems like a huge conflict of interest.



posted on Dec, 3 2016 @ 02:42 PM
link   

originally posted by: spirit_horse
It is not on Sioux land. It is on private property. It is not going over rivers, but under them.

The tribe wanted $35 million to run through their land. The company decided to go around their land and on private property. Then the protests began.


That's some interesting info I haven't heard from the Native American tribe leaders.



posted on Dec, 3 2016 @ 03:07 PM
link   
a reply to: Swills

1. It is not even on their land to begin with, so they are not forced to accept that and give up any land.

2.They only started protesting when they decided to go around them. Probably becausee they expected they could negotiate monetary compensation if it had to go over their legal ownership (and they would have been right about that)

3. They are now demanding 55 million in advance and that is what they are protesting for.
The claim is the pipe could burst. Have they researched and delivered any evidence with projections of probability for this before they protested for this? Because that is extremely unlikely since we have age old pipelines under the u.s everywhere.

So it stands more to reason that it would be more practical from any legal standpoint to only start claiming financial compensation when their river would in fact at some point in time be contaminated because of one of these pipelines that is not running through their property of actually bursting instead of "what if".

Or should i start demanding money from my neighbor because his water line runs under my house which is my actual property even just in case it bursts at some point in time ?



posted on Dec, 3 2016 @ 03:09 PM
link   

originally posted by: Nickn3
a reply to: spirit_horse

I was very divided on the issue, and I wanted the pipeline rerouted.
Then I found out about the pipeline being on private land and not touching the reservation. After further investigation, it looks like the Native Americans wants much wampum for nothing. A sad state of affairs.


Yes that is in fact the case here.



posted on Dec, 3 2016 @ 03:12 PM
link   

originally posted by: dreamingawake

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: dreamingawake

When you figure out what you are talking about clue the rest of us in because it has nothing to do with my comment as a response to your post.

Huh, okay you are saying Liberal/Democrat therefore it is why Swills and I have I no idea what we're talking about. I'm not, not sure about him.

Plus the pipeline going under the river poses a threat. Do you have sources of it not doing such?


How many sources do you have of oil pipelines in the U.S breaking and contaminating drinking water?



posted on Dec, 3 2016 @ 03:17 PM
link   

originally posted by: odzeandennz

originally posted by: hellobruce

originally posted by: Swills
The oil company is encroaching on Sioux land


Please show exactly what Sioux land it is being built on.
Unless.....

yea, their lands were taken centuries ago whilst they were massacred.


Go ahead, give it all back to them and not 1 square meter less, all of it.



posted on Dec, 3 2016 @ 05:23 PM
link   

originally posted by: Nickn3
After further investigation, it looks like the Native Americans wants much wampum for nothing. A sad state of affairs.


That seems to happen quite a bit.

Facts vs Greed
edit on 3-12-2016 by Annee because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 3 2016 @ 06:15 PM
link   

originally posted by: everyone
The claim is the pipe could burst. Have they researched and delivered any evidence with projections of probability for this before they protested for this? Because that is extremely unlikely since we have age old pipelines under the u.s everywhere.


Pipelines burst all the time. Sometimes they leak a little, other times they're gushing thousands of gallons of oil and gas. There's even a nice list.

But this pipeline will be different because it's new and improved, right?
Sunoco, behind protested Dakota pipeline, tops U.S. crude spill charts


Sunoco Logistics (SXL.N), the future operator of the oil pipeline delayed this month after Native American protests in North Dakota, spills crude more often than any of its competitors with more than 200 leaks since 2010, according to a Reuters analysis of government data.


Technology designed to detect U.S. energy pipeline leaks often fails



posted on Dec, 3 2016 @ 07:49 PM
link   

originally posted by: everyone
2.They only started protesting when they decided to go around them.




So, this respectable looking, clean shaven Indian chief with a conservative haircut who said no one needs to get hurt to protect their water. So, they decided to go around them because the 35 million dollars was to high and not even build on Indian land.

And this woman lost her arm from a concussion grenade due to Indian chiefs lies.

I think the next time I see an Indian I'm going to spit on the ground in front of them out of respect for this woman's arm that was lost due to lies from this Indian chief.



posted on Dec, 3 2016 @ 08:57 PM
link   
a reply to: Miracula2

Indians said they did not want it over their land but did want a 35 million dollar deal. Now they get 1 wish fulfilled (its a bit hard to fulfill both dont you agree?) but now they dont like that either 5 years after thy agreed on it.


What woman?



posted on Dec, 3 2016 @ 09:00 PM
link   
a reply to: links234

Like i said, if it ever contaminates their river they can get the money.
Or they should have made a different deal years ago.



new topics

top topics



 
27
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join