Protest Situation in Standing Rock, ND Over Oil Pipeline Turning Violent

Unfortunately things have taken a turn for the worse with a group of protestors against a pipeline that is scheduled to be built from ND to IL. Militarized police have apparently fired rubber bullets and stun grenades into the crowd, injuring over 150 across many weeks of this. One woman apparently had her arm nearly blown off from one of the grenades, and was hurt so bad they had to amputate it.


And now some military veterans have just announced their intent to go in and protect the protestors from the police:


And just yesterday, the Army Corp of Engineers issued an eviction notice for the encampment where many of the out of state protestors are staying:

The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers issued a letter Friday announcing its plan to close land that has been the campsite for months-long protests against the North Dakota Access oil pipeline, according to Dave Archambault II, chairman of the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe.

Protesters, or “water protectors,” were notified that land north of the Cannonball River will be closed on Dec. 5, in roughly 10 days, he said.

The Oceti Sakowin camp, which rests on the banks of the river, contains a loose collective of tribal nations and out-of-state supporters opposing the 1,172-mile pipeline. The camp is about 45 minutes south of Bismarck, the state capital.

www.pbs.org...

Before anyone comments, I'd advise you to get some more facts about this story, and especially if you are planning on choosing sides. It is a complicated situation. Apparently the tribe was going to get $30,000,000 for use of the land to build this pipeline, but then the company decided to route it just outside of the Reservation land.

So some are saying now that everything was ok as long as the tribe was going to be paid for it, but when company took another route, now they are protesting, claiming it may endanger their land and water. And to some degree, they may be right. There have been many, many oil pipeline, and train accidents all over the US which have done just that. But were they protesting when they were going to get paid? I don't know.

Another more broad angle on this to consider is Trump and his desire to move away as much as possible from foreign oil dependency, having stated recently about wanting to halt or reduce trade with Saudi Arabia for oil. So that immediately begs the question of what his position on this might be. And having seen some of his statements on eminent domain, to me he will probably side with the company. But that's just my guess. I could be wrong. He tends to say things in haste, but it also must be said that before an actual decision is made, he appears to consider as much information as he can. And he is even willing to consider previous detractors, as is evidenced by his cabinet selections.

And then there is the issue of out of state protestors. Some accuse them of being paid Soros shills and agitators, sticking their noses in where they don't belong. And then you have the local property owners, who have been blocked from going to their own homes because the protestors have attempted to block roads and on occasion are coming on to private property. So now you have fed up home owners locking and loading and daring another protestor to step foot on their land.

Deep situation here with a lot to consider. And there is plenty more about the pipeline deal to know. But people are getting brutalized, and that in itself is worthy of news. Or it seems that's what it takes to make the news these days, because this news seems to be mostly circulating on the "Russian Propaganda" websites. The MSM seems to be mostly disconnected from it. Seen it on Young Turks... But now that people are getting water hosed, grenaded, and shot with rubber bullets, soon we should see the wolves from CNN and the rest take over to spin it in the most politically expedient form.

There are many youtube videos about this:
www.youtube.com...

From wiki:

The Dakota Access Pipeline protests, also known by hashtags such as #NoDAPL, are a grassroots movement that began in the spring of 2016 in reaction to the proposed construction of Energy Transfer Partners' Dakota Access Pipeline. The proposed pipeline would run from the Bakken oil fields in western North Dakota to southern Illinois, crossing beneath the Missouri and Mississippi rivers, as well as part of Lake Oahe near the Standing Rock Indian Reservation. In April, LaDonna Brave Bull Allard, a Standing Rock Sioux elder, established a camp as a center for cultural preservation and spiritual resistance to the pipeline.[4] Over the summer the camp grew to thousands of people.[5][6]

The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers conducted a limited review of the route and issued a finding of no significant impact. They have not conducted an area-wide full environmental impact assessment.[7] In March and April 2016 the Environmental Protection Agency, the Department of Interior, and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation asked the Army Corps of Engineers to conduct a formal Environmental Impact Assessment and issue an Environmental Impact Statement. In July, the Army Corps of Engineers approved the water crossing permits for the Dakota Access Pipeline under a "fast track" option, and construction of the disputed section of pipeline continued.[8] The Standing Rock Sioux Tribe filed suit against the Corps of Engineers, accusing the agency of violating the National Historic Preservation Act and other laws.[9] On November 14, the The Army Corps of Engineers said it needed more time to study the impact of the plan. In a news release they said: “The Army has determined that additional discussion and analysis are warranted in light of the history of the Great Sioux Nation’s dispossessions of lands, the importance of Lake Oahe to the Tribe, our government-to-government relationship, and the statute governing easements through government property."[75]

While the protests have drawn international attention and have been said to be "reshaping the national conversation for any environmental project that would cross the Native American land",[5] there was limited mainstream media coverage of the events in the United States until early September.[6] On September 3, construction workers bulldozed a section of land the tribe had identified as sacred ground in an amendment to the federal injunction a day earlier. When protesters entered the area, security workers used attack dogs, which bit at least six of the protesters and one horse. The incident was filmed and viewed by several million people on YouTube and other social media.[10][11][12][13] In late October, armed soldiers and police with riot gear and military equipment cleared an encampment that was directly in the proposed pipeline's path.

More at link:
en.wikipedia.org...

a reply to: TrueAmerican

For all the millions being spent, just re-route the pipeline.

Leave the Indians alone, don't do anything that may damage their drinking water, their burial grounds.

Just leave them alone.

a reply to: DBCowboy

Ahh, but see, there are many existing pipelines already there, right next to where this is going to be built, that have had no problems supposedly for nearly 40 years. But yes, a reroute seems to me to be a viable solution. Just as long as I won't have to pay for it. And of course, I will, in the form of increasing oil prices and possibly taxes. But independence costs money. And it is projects like this that are going to bring it closer to home- in the absence of a green energy solution. Nonetheless, the best solution is one that takes into account all sides, and serves them in the best way possible. And if that means a reroute costing many more millions, then so be it.

Apparently the tribe was going to get $30,000,000 for use of the land to build this pipeline, but then the company decided to route it just outside of the Reservation land.

Well if that is true, the tribe still has valid reason to protest. If they had been paid 30 million, and something happened they would have the resources to fix or contain the problem, or at least some counter measures and to provide clean drinking water from other sources.

Without being paid the threat of a spill is just as real but they would not have the money to protect themselves from any spill.

a reply to: TrueAmerican

There probably are many more pipelines, many more issues involved with this.

And I know it's just a drop in the proverbial bucket, but someone, somewhere, somehow, has got to start respecting another nation sometime.

They are a separate nation.

It's long past the time we start respecting them.

Donald Trump’s stock in Dakota Access oil pipeline company raises concern

a reply to: DerBeobachter

Well, I guess that answers that, huh.

a reply to: DerBeobachter

That's not fair.

I have diversified accounts. Hell, I may even be a shareholder.

Doesn't mean I support it.

a reply to: DBCowboy

Oh you did not just try and play that card!

Look, if you have diversified accounts, do you know what your responsibilities are? I will let you know, in case you missed it. If you MUST make or protect your investments via diversification or have ANYTHING to do with investment (when it is a deplorable way to make or protect money, because the only legitimate way to make money is with physical labour) then you have a duty to ensure that no matter how diversified your investments get, you NEVER allow a single percentage point of a cent to get into anything you do not agree with.

Military industrial complex, oil companies, big pharma... allowing these people to utilise your resources, no matter how temporarily, IS support, whether you know they are doing it or not. Keep a better grip on your diversification level!

a reply to: TrueBrit

Yes I "played that card".

You're British, does that mean you support everything your country does? If not, why are you still a citizen?

I read somewhere that Trump has a full legal team trying to sort out his investments to make sure he doesn't break any laws but it's going to take a while to do.
The pipeline needs to be finished as it nearly is anyway and the river they are whining about is a long way from their reservation anyway. Our family farm we found a burial site that took a few weeks to make legally right before we could continue construction.

a reply to: DBCowboy

This is nothing at all to do with what my country does. This is to do with what you choose to do with money you control, not your taxes, not your federally mandated taxes, but your investments. If I had money to invest, and could stand to make money like one of those dirt eating tower dwellers, like Trump or Blair or some other horrific monster of a person, then you can bet your bottom dollar I would be tracking every single penny in real time, and vetoing any investment my broker intended to make on my behalf, which violated or went against my political beliefs.

Why aren't you prepared to take responsibility for your investments, for who the dollars you have control of, support?

a reply to: TrueBrit

If a shareholder vote comes up, I'll offer my vote.

But I won't apologize for making money off of investments made from money I earned.

a reply to: TrueAmerican

Thank you for an excellent summary of the various angles and factions at play. It's not as simple as it might seem.

My greatest concern at this point is for the safety of the protesters. I worry about fake protesters hired to cause trouble and give them all a bad name, I worry about agent provacateurs sent in by government, I worry about the militarized police, and especially the private militarized police... Too many people playing dirty with little to no regard for the life and limb of others.

a reply to: DBCowboy

I am not asking for an apology.

What I am asking is that you do your due diligence and prevent your money ever winding up being used to bolster immoral and corrupt businesses.

originally posted by: TrueBrit
If you MUST make or protect your investments via diversification or have ANYTHING to do with investment (when it is a deplorable way to make or protect money, because the only legitimate way to make money is with physical labour)...

I would ask you if you are joking but it appears you are not.

Hopefully you do not have a savings or checking account because which ever bank you happen to patronize is taking that money and investing it in other instruments which, using the law of averages, go against your sensibilities.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

That is as maybe, but that is different to ME personally earning money from business practices I consider immoral. There are NO banking institutions which do not do these things with the money in savings and checking accounts. That is not as it ought to be, but at least I do not profit from it.

However, if I had investment money to personally control, I would be under an obligation to prevent that money being invested in companies and industries which do not conform to proper standards of conduct, both economically and ethically.

originally posted by: TrueBrit
That is as maybe, but that is different to ME personally earning money from business practices I consider immoral. There are NO banking institutions which do not do these things with the money in savings and checking accounts. That is not as it ought to be, but at least I do not profit from it.

Huh? A savings account is a for profit account. You earn interest on it, hence why it is a savings account. You buy a CD? Same thing.

However, if I had investment money to personally control, I would be under an obligation to prevent that money being invested in companies and industries which do not conform to proper standards of conduct, both economically and ethically.

Your splitting hairs dude, unless you are completely divested from banking at any level your money is somehow, in some form, going to companies you are philosophically opposed to, it is a fact.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

With respect, you know full well that there is a difference between a savings account, and an investment account. Investment accounts are accounts which are there PURELY to be invested, require personal contact with a broker, and allow you to control the direction in which your money flows. Split hairs? No. If you stop comparing apples to oranges, then I will stop pointing the fallacy out.