It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable 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: 4
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in


posted on Dec, 4 2016 @ 01:57 AM
All I can say is why wouldn't he its jobs its American

I'm not pro Trump nor anti trump I really don't care one way or the other

But if he wants usa jobs than he has to be for this

I'm not going into all the protest or problems with the pipeline

Just it be hard to be all for making more American jobs and than making some jobs go away

posted on Dec, 4 2016 @ 05:38 AM

originally posted by: everyone
a reply to: Miracula2

What woman?

posted on Dec, 4 2016 @ 02:55 PM

originally posted by: everyone
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.

Because money is more important than water? Can you drink money? Can you water your crops with money? Why don't you ask the people of Flint, Michigan if they'd rather have money than water?

The pipeline is, technically, still on Sioux land. The Supreme Court agreed, back in the 1980's, that the US violated the 1851 treaty and the government had to pay the Sioux fair-value for the land. The Sioux didn't accept the money because they wanted the land. It's their land, the Black Hills them, their holy land.

If you want to make some argument about the Sioux wanting money or more money then you don't know what you're talking about. The Sioux are standing on over $1 billion that the government is holding for them. Yes, the Sioux nation has over $1 billion just waiting for them to say, 'yes, we accept this.' So it's not about some measly $35 million from a pipeline company, it's about their land and the land of their ancestors, it's about their main water supply, it's way beyond money.

posted on Dec, 5 2016 @ 01:33 AM

originally posted by: CynConcepts

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!


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

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 surprise.

Yes, had read and commented about that one or another one than what you're mentioning. One specifically was a Facebook post putting together what they deemed as an issue with the tribe's claims, etc. Basically the claims of not crossing their location or using water from it were false. May have been from an pro pipeline invested interest source.

If you haven't seen yet here's the update:

Army Corp Of Engineers deny's permit and shuts down Pipeline!

The Corp has denied the permit for the last stretch of pipeline. They called the head of the Standing Rock and made the announcement. It will no longer run under the Missouri River.

MSNBC /thread:

"The thoughtful approach established by the Army today ensures that there will be an in-depth evaluation of alternative routes for the pipeline and a closer look at potential impacts, as envisioned by NEPA," Jewell said.
Alternative routes instead of going under the river.

While they say it's far from being over, it's a positive step.

posted on Dec, 5 2016 @ 01:58 AM

originally posted by: everyone

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?

There are many, here are some and as been discussed over and over again in these threads on the topic:

Source 1

Pennsylvania Pipelines Bursts, Leaks 55,000 Gallons Of Gas Into One Of US’ Most Endangered Rivers

A pipeline owned by the same company behind Dakota Access leaked 55,000 gallons of gasoline into a major river, endangering the drinking water of six million people. A pipeline managed by Sunoco logistics burst Thursday night after heavy rainfall in Pennsylvania. The spill dumped 55,000 gallons of gasoline into Wallis Run, a tributary of the Loyalsock Creek that drains into the Susquehanna River.

Source 2

Leak spills 2,000 barrels of source water into Bowman County creek

Source 3

Wiki List:

Further information about the issue:

Friends of the Earth: One press release rejected the State Department findings: “Friends of the Earth’s initial analysis is that the State Department’s updated environmental impact review failed to acknowledge the true extent of the project’s threats to the climate, to drinking water and to the health of people who would breathe polluted air from refineries processing the dirty tar sands oil, among other glaring oversights.” Another press release accused the State Department of bias in cooperating with TransCanada to push through approval of the project.


Past pipeline spills show that accidents do happen, and that the concerns about impacts on water, wildlife, greenhouse gas emissions, ecosystems, and neighboring communities are not without merit. In the end, we will see how much these issues influence the final decision on approval or rejection of the KeystoneXL pipeline project, and how much of it will be just plain politics.

Natural Resources Defense Council staffer, attorney Anthony Swift, said, “TransCanada has admitted that Keystone XL’s real time leak detection system will not detect pinhole leaks and can’t be relied upon to detect leaks smaller than about 700,000 gallons a day… An undiscovered three week spill could contaminate a large three dimensional chunk of the Ogallala Aquifer nearly half a mile long. And responders will not be able to simply remove the contaminated soil – they will have to pump contaminated water out, which will draw more water into the area of the contamination. In short, a Keystone XL tar sands spill in the Ogallala Aquifer would be a disaster.”


Another Source

Enbridge had originally reported that only four barrels of oil leaked from its Norman Wells pipeline on May 9. But the company revised its estimate on Monday, saying 700 to 1,500 barrels had spilled.

top topics
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in