Trump to approve Dakota Access Pipeline next week

a reply to: AVoiceOfReason

um the pipeline was originally going around the native Americans land.

The pipeline is not on native land, it is beside it. Even if it was on indian land, there are provisions in the treaty for eminent domain.

originally posted by: Reverbs

originally posted by: reldra


LOl, it has happened! If I understand what he is saying, which is rare, and I think I do this time, I agree as well.

we are living in very strange times.
between this and mandela effects,
and Trump being president..

I feel like I'm in a different world.

Totally true, I feel ya. lol

originally posted by: D8Tee
a reply to: AVoiceOfReason

um the pipeline was originally going around the native Americans land.

The pipeline is not on native land, it is beside it. Even if it was on indian land, there are provisions in the treaty for eminent domain.

FCK eminent domain, we have fckd them enough. And NEXT TO is too much. The thing leaks, which they always do and part of it already did...there goes their water.

How can you live with yourself?

originally posted by: AVoiceOfReason
a reply to: Nyiah

what people is it impacting?

The people who's water source this is. It's not a couple of far-flung farms, there are a lot of people that depend on that lake for their water.

If people really think it's no big deal, nature will take care of it, blah blah, just remember the havoc BP & Exxon wreaked on those spots. Can't drink sea water without serious help, but the point remains -- there's no need to risk FRESH water supplies for oil.

originally posted by: neo96
a reply to: Nyiah


It's actually kind of funny.

I am as far from a tree hugger as one can get.

It would be really weird if common sense started uniting us all together.
It could happen one day.

taking acceptable risks, but moving forward where things are safe.

It might be an effect of the fake media being exposed as just a machine to give 2 separate sides talking points that are sort of half baked. Every story I research is told wrong by both sides, and both sides it sounds like you are on the right side.. The way it's told...

I don't know it's kind of freeing for me. Though it is a lot of work to dig into all of this and think for yourself.

a reply to: reldra

FCK eminent domain

When you buy your own island and have your own country, you get to make the laws you wish to have, until then we are stuck working within the rule of this lands law.

a reply to: Nyiah

there's no need to risk FRESH water supplies for oil.

Yea, shut down ALL the pipelines tomorrow and see what happens, you have no clue do you? I hope Trump dumps money into the education system, cause this one has failed us.

originally posted by: reldra

You have to look up the laws on what he can and can't own. It is quite complicated for a President. As far as I know, he still holds the lease on the Post Office Hotel. Spicer, today, did not know right off if Trump had 'separated himself' completely, a woman off to the side said, "He did, it hasn;t been made public yet."

Well, how awfully transparent of him.

I mean to be fair it's a lot of work for him to not be invested in anything..
It's a lot happening all at once but if we are still having to hear things on the side like that in a month it might start looking fishy.

but isn't it like 500 companies or something goofy like that?
and things other than companies.

originally posted by: D8Tee
a reply to: UKTruth

Does Trump own stock or not?

www.snopes.com...

Really, who cares if he own stock. Non issue for me. I'm sure he's owned stock in many companies.

I am just wondering if someone is being sneaky by spreading lies in order to add some fuel to the ethics fire.
With all Trumps decisions this is likely to happen.

a reply to: Caver78

The Baaken oil field isn't pumping what it used to, this pipeline is intended to hook up to the Alberta Tar Sands. So buying CANADIAN OIL is using our own resources?

Keystone pipeline is being approved as well, it's a North American energy independence plan.

originally posted by: D8Tee
a reply to: Nyiah

there's no need to risk FRESH water supplies for oil.

Yea, shut down ALL the pipelines tomorrow and see what happens, you have no clue do you? I hope Trump dumps money into the education system, cause this one has failed us.

What's a;ready installed is already installed. Those can eventually be replaced with lines routed away from water sources. I will concede there are likely a few "rock and a hard place" spots where it's an under/over water route or no movement at all. But come the hell on, we could have planned for a route well away from the lake a long time ago out of principle to begin with.

a reply to: neo96

I am as far from a tree hugger as one can get.

Google EarthJustice, thats the masterminds behind the DAPL protest. Can trace them back to The Sierra Club. They have an agenda and they are well funded. People don't understand, this oil gets to where it's going one way or the other. There is money to be made by shipping it by rail.

originally posted by: Nyiah

originally posted by: AVoiceOfReason
a reply to: Nyiah

what people is it impacting?

The people who's water source this is. It's not a couple of far-flung farms, there are a lot of people that depend on that lake for their water.

If people really think it's no big deal, nature will take care of it, blah blah, just remember the havoc BP & Exxon wreaked on those spots. Can't drink sea water without serious help, but the point remains -- there's no need to risk FRESH water supplies for oil.

Pipe lines cause less damage. Yes it is closer to fresh water but the old out of site out of mind argument that tolerates tankers swimming up and down the coasts is bad enough, then add the risk while being trained inland.

I think the pipelines are fare less risky but they are a tough sell because it gives this image of permanent infrastructure to permanently rely on dirty oil. I get that but.... if your going to do it, do it right. Pussy footing is killing the ocean slow anyway. A lot of small spills along the coasts are quietly reported if at all.

a reply to: Nyiah

pipelines going through water are almost completely safe. they havent impacted anyone and probably never will with proper maintenance.

BP happened because of government regulations. first of all there are regulations that make it hard to drill on land where its safe. second of all there were regulations that made it impossible to drill near the shore, where its safe. third of all the government capped bp's liability allowing them to use accident prone machinery. the gulf spill would not have happened if the government got out of the way. i haven't looked into exxon but again we should be drilling on land where its much safer.

there are inherit risks with everything. so what do you propose we do. just stop everything and have the people of america suffer because we arent making any profit and are enslaved to foreign oil? yes accident happen. so what? we have to take risks. we cant just stop. the world doesn't work like that. and when it comes to building pipelines in water there are almost no risks. sure a pipe can burst and usually they dont. and even if they do we fix it and move on. no ones gonna die. no one is even going to get hurt.

the only impact we'll see is the american people benefiting from the US producing its own oil. there are numerous reasons to do this and almost no reasons not to.

originally posted by: D8Tee
a reply to: AVoiceOfReason

um the pipeline was originally going around the native Americans land.

The pipeline is not on native land, it is beside it. Even if it was on indian land, there are provisions in the treaty for eminent domain.

That`s right it`s not their land and that`s the end of story,anything else said after that is just irrelevant.

originally posted by: UKTruth


I am just wondering if someone is being sneaky by spreading lies in order to add some fuel to the ethics fire.
With all Trumps decisions this is likely to happen.

It's almost every news story. I've been spending an hour or so on each single topic and every thing I've looked into recently has some element of fakery to it. Some are more subtle than others like using the same 50,000 number but calling it interest instead of investment. Normal low information people won't get it..

And was that a bad pun man??

jeez!

a reply to: AVoiceOfReason

a reply to: MALBOSIA

You both have such a hard-on to plead your case that you failed to noticed I did not say drop the transportation method entirely. I said reroute them AWAY from fresh water sources. Is more distance between them really that much of an inconvenience? No really, is it? Some extra buffer zone space is just too much to ask?

a reply to: Nyiah

Exxon was a good example of why pipelines are superior to trucking or shipping.

They're everywhere, and inspected regularly. A functional pipeline is actually a fairly sophisticated piece of equipment.

a reply to: MALBOSIA

The biggest spill of all is the constant oil seepage near Santa Barbara, underwater.

originally posted by: neo96
a reply to: D8Tee

Airplanes don't have millions of gallons of crude pumping through them.

Do things the right way or not at all.

Why? Do you think someone is gonna poke a hole in the pipe?

All them protesters should guard it if they are afraid of that.

It's the newest pipeline so it should be better than that last one. It's been years in the making! A cast of thousands!