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 to approve Dakota Access Pipeline next week

page: 6
16
<< 3  4  5    7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 23 2017 @ 11:30 PM
link   

originally posted by: Bramble Iceshimmer
a reply to: D8Tee

This is great. We need to maximize the use of our natural resources. This and other projects will create jobs, energy independence and help Make America Great Again.

Really, close all national parks and wildlife preserves, screw the animals and the planet and the people and make jobs digging holes all over for oil and destroying our planet for the quick buck ignorant greedy pigs!
Yay!
Help Make Amerikkka..... makes me want to puke!




posted on Jan, 23 2017 @ 11:33 PM
link   
a reply to: namelesss

Live without fossil fuels for one month and get back to me on that 'greedy pig" part! Unless you are living it, you have no right to ask others to do so



posted on Jan, 23 2017 @ 11:37 PM
link   
a reply to: Tardacus

if my understanding is right, ownership of that land is rather questionable?
if I came up to you and told you I wanted to buy your house for $20,000, and you refused...
and then a few days later you receive a check for the $20,000... but you still refuse, and don't cash that check...
and you are still refusing decades, or not a century or more later, and that check still isn't cashed...
who owns your home???
I think that land is kind of similar to the home... the gov't agreed that they would pay for the land, and deposited the money into an account for the tribe, which is still untouched, but the danged tribe never agreed!

oh, and by the way, the US has sent people over to investigate the human rights abuses going on there, not sure if they are still there..
they called is environmental genocide.. lol... I mean, how else can you explain why the plans of where to put it was changed so that it didn't go by that predominantly white town north of them and is now being run through land that they still claim as theirs...


edit on 23-1-2017 by dawnstar because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 23 2017 @ 11:46 PM
link   
I have a sneaky notion the 'pipeline' may well be constructed.....

but it may be years IF 'Ever'....when product is actually sent through the pipeline to the polluted Gulf Area which itself may become a 'No-Go Zone' and only Haz-Mat qualified personnel are allowed to enter or work in the Dead-Zone



posted on Jan, 23 2017 @ 11:47 PM
link   

What’s to Gain From Building the Dakota Access Pipeline? Profit


If you are getting a 404 from my link on pg 5 , pls copy and paste the above title from Goole and read the full article.
edit on 23-1-2017 by Spider879 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 24 2017 @ 12:18 AM
link   
a reply to: Spider879

I have read the article and its just about as biased as biased can be.

We have already discussed the risks of moving oil by trains, planes and automobiles. Demand for oil will never cease all together.

We build infrastructure of many kinds (ie roads), eventually it all reaches a point where maintenance is no longer adequate and replacement is the only viable option.

Glad to see that this article thinks 13 million dollars in taxes per state is nothing. but how long must each taxpayer work to pay that much taxes?

try this link

daplpipelinefacts.com...

of course the pipeline is being built by the company for profit but who else profits? why every person who uses fossil fuel be it for home heating or manufacturing.

Pipelines are privately owned but are, in fact, infrastructure used to service the needs of the public



posted on Jan, 24 2017 @ 12:22 AM
link   
a reply to: Spider879
Your link is broken but I found the Slate article.
What’s to Gain From Building the Dakota Access Pipeline? Profit


So how about price? The Dakota Access Pipeline is expected to carry a half-million barrels of oil per day to refineries and market hubs in Illinois. Moving a barrel of oil on the pipeline is expected to cost about $8, compared to approximately $15 for shipping it via rail. That is, if the producer would have received $34 per barrel for rail-shipped oil, it will get $41 per barrel for Dakota Access Pipeline–shipped oil.

The decrease in price to ship the oil will be substantial. At 470,000 barrels a day, that is 3.29 million dollars a day that the producers will gain. Think that will spin off any jobs in the oil patch there? You bet it will.
The 40 jobs figure we see is the staff working directly for the pipeline company only. There will be of course job losses in the rail transport sector, that new rail car loading facility may have to get cancelled as well.


Now, what could anyone have to gain by not building the Keystone and the DAPL? We know pipelines are a safer method of transport than rail, even more so for a new state of the art pipeline. We know pipelines have an economic advantage. So why not build a pipeline?

When President Obama announced he was killing the Keystone XL pipeline, he said he was agreeing with the State Department’s assessment that the pipeline from Canada “would not serve the national interests of the United States.” The fact is that it would not have benefitted the personal financial interests of friend and economic mentor, Warren Buffett, who can rest assured that oil from Canada and the nearby Bakken formation in North Dakota will continue to be transported by a railroad he owns. As Investor’s Business Daily noted in a 2011 editorial:

Buffett's Berkshire Hathaway has agreed to buy Burlington Northern Santa Fe in a deal valuing the railroad at $34 billion.
Doubling a $34 billion investment in just four years is huge.
When you hear a smart fella like Buffet say something like this, "Buffet added that he wasn’t sure if it would be cheaper to transport millions of barrels of oil by pipeline or rail over the course of 100 years.". You can rest assured he's lying.


edit on 24-1-2017 by D8Tee because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 24 2017 @ 12:30 AM
link   
a reply to: dawnstar


I mean, how else can you explain why the plans of where to put it was changed so that it didn't go by that predominantly white town north of them and is now being run through land that they still claim as theirs...

It was the best route, it followed an existing pipeline corridor.

WHAT'S TRUE: The U.S Army Corps of Engineers originally considered a Dakota Access Pipeline route north of Bismarck but abandoned the idea, citing eleven miles of additional pipeline length and dozens more crossings.

WHAT'S FALSE: "Mostly white" residents of Bismarck did not refuse to accept the threat to their water supply, and the project was not subsequently forced upon tribes at Standing Rock because white people rejected the risk.


Snopes
edit on 24-1-2017 by D8Tee because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 24 2017 @ 12:56 AM
link   
a reply to: D8Tee

A lot of the protest is also linked to climate change. Some celebrity's (like Leonardo DiCapprio) think that if the price of fossil fuel is artificially increased (say by carbon taxation) or by increasing the cost of transportation, people will be forced to use less fossil fuel and the planet will be saved.

Let me know when leo stops jetting around the world.



posted on Jan, 24 2017 @ 01:06 AM
link   
a reply to: St Udio


I have a sneaky notion the 'pipeline' may well be constructed.....

but it may be years IF 'Ever'....when product is actually sent through the pipeline to the polluted Gulf Area


The pipeline is already built, the Lake Oahe crossing just needs to be tied in. The DAPL terminates at a tank farm in Illinois.



posted on Jan, 24 2017 @ 01:10 AM
link   
a reply to: TiredofControlFreaks


A lot of the protest is also linked to climate change.

A lot of the protest is also linked to ignorance and lack of knowledge. It's surprising to find how how firm of a stance people will take when they know literally nothing about the topic. I say a reality show where these people get to live for a year without fossil fuels of any sort would wake them up.



posted on Jan, 24 2017 @ 01:22 AM
link   

originally posted by: starwarsisreal
a reply to: D8Tee

It seems like Trump decides to screw over the Native American Community there.

I wonder what do Trump supporters say now that their Messiah is attacking innocent people.


Simple...... cut them in with the profits. I dont think they will be too mad with billions in their bank accounts....



posted on Jan, 24 2017 @ 01:47 AM
link   

originally posted by: TiredofControlFreaks
a reply to: namelesss

Live without fossil fuels for one month and get back to me on that 'greedy pig" part! Unless you are living it, you have no right to ask others to do so

Nonsense!
I'll spend an hour teachibng you about greedy pigs whose selfishness knows no bounds, who will eviscerate all environmental protections for all the filthy lucre that they can!
I can sit here with a cigarette dangling from my cancer ridden face and still be speaking truth when I tell you that smoking cigarettes will kill you!
Your argument is inane.
How long do you think all this fossil fuel is going to last?
How long before replaced by something efficient.
Any leader with any ethics at all would spend the money on the necessary research, rather than opening our lands to corporate rape by the obsolete oil companies!
And COAL?!
Seriously?
We going back to the disgusting ignorant clueless 50s?
Make Amerikkka Great for the Elite, again, as if it has ever not been!



posted on Jan, 24 2017 @ 01:51 AM
link   

originally posted by: namelesss

originally posted by: Bramble Iceshimmer
a reply to: D8Tee

This is great. We need to maximize the use of our natural resources. This and other projects will create jobs, energy independence and help Make America Great Again.

Really, close all national parks and wildlife preserves, screw the animals and the planet and the people and make jobs digging holes all over for oil and destroying our planet for the quick buck ignorant greedy pigs!
Yay!
Help Make Amerikkka..... makes me want to puke!





Do you live in a cave and make a fire to keep warm? OOOOOO, carbon tax!

Kill animals for their pelts with sticks for your clothes? PETA!





If not,





posted on Jan, 24 2017 @ 01:53 AM
link   
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?

The DAPL is intended for Light Sweet Crude from the Bakken formation. The Keystone will be approved shortly, it will transport the Tar Sands oil from Canada. This administration recognizes North American Energy independence as an important goal.
The Bakken isn't running out of oil anytime soon. Production is increasing. Cheaper shipping rates will lead to more drilling to replace lost production. Price increases for crude are pretty much guaranteed for the next few quarters.

The Bakken is up 70,798 bpd to 991,722 bpd and all North Dakota was up 71,447 bpd to 1,043,207 bpd.

Dec 14, 2016 Bakken Oil Production Soars



Something everyone keeps forgetting is "You Can't Drink Oil".

I can believe that, I think it's something to do with the current education system, the lack of knowledge and ignorance on matters of vital importance is astounding nowadays.



posted on Jan, 24 2017 @ 02:02 AM
link   

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.





You are absolutely correct, the education system has failed but not for the reasons you are thinking of.....

Water is far more precious and worth far more money than oil will ever be, if you cannot see that, the education system has failed you as well.



posted on Jan, 24 2017 @ 02:11 AM
link   
a reply to: hopenotfeariswhatweneed


Water is far more precious and worth far more money than oil will ever be, if you cannot see that, the education system has failed you as well.

Clean water and fossil fuels are both vital for society as we know it. I don't wanna go back to hunting whales.
edit on 24-1-2017 by D8Tee because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 24 2017 @ 02:24 AM
link   

originally posted by: D8Tee
a reply to: hopenotfeariswhatweneed


Water is far more precious and worth far more money than oil will ever be, if you cannot see that, the education system has failed you as well.

Clean water and fossil fuels are both vital for society.




That's half right and half true...society as we know it depends on fossil fuels ...

This is only because those invested in the market are both greedy and stubborn and sadly for the most part are far too greedy to invest in clean energy to replace the need for fossil fuels....

You can argue semantics all you want but the stark reality is there...



posted on Jan, 24 2017 @ 02:29 AM
link   
a reply to: hopenotfeariswhatweneed


This is only because those invested in the market are both greedy and stubborn and sadly for the most part are far too greedy to invest in clean energy to replace the need for fossil fuels....

We are not capable of moving to alternative forms of energy as fast as some would like. It's going to take time to transition. You don't think those same 'greedy and stubborn people' would jump in and switch over if it was economical? They are in charge right? They could still generate income no matter what source of energy is developed. It just isn't happening on your timetable so you are angry.



posted on Jan, 24 2017 @ 02:31 AM
link   
Dec. 2016

Pipeline spills 176,000 gallons of crude into creek about 150 miles from Dakota Access protest camp



North Dakota officials estimate more than 176,000 gallons of crude oil leaked from the Belle Fourche Pipeline into the Ash Coulee Creek. State environmental scientist Bill Suess says a landowner discovered the spill on Dec. 5 near the city of Belfield, which is roughly 150 miles from the epicenter of the Dakota Access pipeline protest camps.

[url=http://www.cnbc.com/2016/12/12/pipeline-spills-176000-gallons-of-crude-into-creek-about-150-miles-from-dakota-access-protest-camp.html]Source[/ur l]
It was unknown why the equipment didn't detect the leak that was discovered hours after it started.



new topics

top topics



 
16
<< 3  4  5    7  8 >>

log in

join