Louisiana Sheriff Shares Testimony from North Dakota [pipeline] Experience

a reply to: Boadicea

IIRC from FB video's posted by various people at Red Warrior Camp some of the groups who first showed up for the protest were from Earth Justice and the more radical SWJ types. In one of my links to the Camp being asked to leave was an attachment to minutes of the Tribal Council meeting and in that was an accounting of some of the donations.

From what I saw they are just covering expenses for the massive influx of people? If I read it correctly.

originally posted by: Caver78
a reply to: Boadicea

IIRC from FB video's posted by various people at Red Warrior Camp some of the groups who first showed up for the protest were from Earth Justice and the more radical SWJ types. In one of my links to the Camp being asked to leave was an attachment to minutes of the Tribal Council meeting and in that was an accounting of some of the donations.

From what I saw they are just covering expenses for the massive influx of people? If I read it correctly.

That sounds reasonable. You're probably right. It can't be cheap (or easy) to take care of that many people -- especially people who have dropped everything and left all their own resources behind to be there for the cause. I can't begrudge them that!

This Standing Rock protest has the same stench of the Occupy Wall Street protests and some of the extended BLM protests--it has lasted long enough that the original message has been lost and the professional protestors have usurped the protest, bringing with them violence, destruction, and other illegal activities that have destroyed any credibility that accompanied the protest at the beginning.

I am like quite a few other people whose threads and comments I have been reading all over the place--they have reset their stance from defending the protestors to being disappointed in them and, frankly, disgusted at their tactics and changing stories as to what, exactly, the reasoning is for their opposition.

It has turned into a clusterfunk, and honestly, I've moved on from the issue. I'm glad to see that they're trying to remove the more unruly people from the protest, but coupling the behavior up until now, the possible monetary motives behind the protest (knowing that they already had plans to move their water intake more than 100 miles downstream from the pipeline that will be more than 90 feet below the surface), and the apparent collusion with the media to spin the actions of the police and to subdue the actions of the some of the protestors, and I just can't take this seriously anymore.

I'm all for protecting natural resources, but damn, this is just getting disappointingly comical at this stage of the game.

Thank you to all who have done the research to enlighten us on the details of the original reason behind the protest versus where it's at now, but also the story behind what is really happening there versus what is being fed through social media and television "reports."

a reply to: SlapMonkey

Well said -- thank you.

What you have now is a battle between big oil and and the railroad barons.
BNSF Railroad presently transports all the oil the pipe line will carry in the future.

Second, Energy Transfer Partners ( owners of the pipeline ) has merged with Sunco oil.
ETP is owned mostly by major hedge funds.

Being a native American I hate the fact that the Sioux originally went in with good intentions, but the facts don't agree with what they have wrongly been told.

There are no burial grounds or other sacred grounds affected or any reservation land affected.

The water supply will also not be effected. The intake near the crossing will be shut down in a few weeks.

I have access to a enormous amount of intel that so far has not been made public to my knowledge.
It tells a much different story, especially on the financial side.

Protesters over reacted and so did law enforcement and security personnel.
Its a bad deal all the way around.
And its time to shut the whole mess down before it really gets deadly.

Since the Left has over ran the location with violent non-native protesters, things have changed completely.

Of course, common sense will not come into play and people will needlessly die.

That's human nature.

Buck

a reply to: flatbush71

Well said -- thank you.

Many good people with good hearts and good intentions were exploited here and it's a darn shame.

a reply to: flatbush71

Exactly!


But...
I think the altruism in disputing the pipeline however is amazing!
So many pipelines are aging and will leak. No company yet has been forced to set aside near enough money to cover clean up costs, and no site yet has been remediated satisfactorily.

One thing that's been bothering me is why not cross the Missouri River above ground with an outter shell that could funnel off any failures into a pre made containment pond? Other than the whining that exposure to the weather would damage the line faster I'm not seeing how this couldn't be a satisfactory compromise?

Thoughts?

originally posted by: flatbush71

What you have now is a battle between big oil and and the railroad barons.
BNSF Railroad presently transports all the oil the pipe line will carry in the future.

Just in case anyone is unaware, BNSF is a wholly owned subsidiary of Warren Buffet's Berkshire Hathaway.

a reply to: Boadicea

I believe the Northern Border Pipeline is natural gas, not liquid oil.

Pipeline is a pipeline. First it was about it going through sacred land, then, it was about polluting the water. Natural gas is what people are complaining about when they show those videos of themselves igniting their tap water no? I wonder where they get their supply from. Link seems to show that they have a new water intake that reduces concerns that in the event of an oil leak, that the tribes water would be affected.
9-14 hours lead time before it could get to the new intake.

Seems like they are protesting a moot point. This has been in the works since 2009.

Still think it's not about money?

a reply to: superman2012

Still think it's not about money?

Big sigh. I never said otherwise.

Not sure why you thought that was necessary or appropriate to say in a post in which those key facts were made known, but okay. Glad you got to say it.

originally posted by: Boadicea
a reply to: superman2012

Still think it's not about money?

Big sigh. I never said otherwise.

Not sure why you thought that was necessary or appropriate to say in a post in which those key facts were made known, but okay. Glad you got to say it.

Sorry, I guess I got confused when you decided to tell me the differences between the pipelines (as though a pipeline isn't a pipeline). At least you got to say it.

a reply to: flatbush71

I have access to a enormous amount of intel that so far has not been made public to my knowledge.
It tells a much different story, especially on the financial side.

Would like to see any of this that is made public, if any. It's always about the money, that's why (imo) they refused to sit in on any meetings they were invited to attend. Waiting for the payday, just like any other tribe when there is a big stink. They didn't get what they wanted so they make a big stink.

I'm not saying all are this way, but people will take it that way.

a reply to: superman2012

Sorry, I guess I got confused when you decided to tell me the differences between the pipelines (as though a pipeline isn't a pipeline). At least you got to say it.

My apologies for noting the distinction, as was noted by the protesters as a relevant difference. The difference between a fluid and a gas seems significant to me (which is why I noted that difference). If you disagree, okay. You are welcome to tell me why you don't think that is a relevant difference. I would be happy to know.

originally posted by: Boadicea
a reply to: superman2012

Sorry, I guess I got confused when you decided to tell me the differences between the pipelines (as though a pipeline isn't a pipeline). At least you got to say it.

My apologies for noting the distinction, as was noted by the protesters as a relevant difference. The difference between a fluid and a gas seems significant to me (which is why I noted that difference). If you disagree, okay. You are welcome to tell me why you don't think that is a relevant difference. I would be happy to know.

As was first reported by the media, it was about a pipeline, then it changed to a potential source of water pollution. Both pipelines have the ability to pollute the waterway if they break. The decision to move the intake for their water supply was made in 2009, to give them the ability to shut it down in the event of a spill. This was way before the Dakota Access Pipeline was even in the planning stages. This is the reason that makes me believe it is more about the money, than about environmentalism (is that a word? ).

I haven't heard that the protesters noted that it was a relevant difference and I would then have to say that the majority of them don't understand (or don't care to understand). As stated by someone else, I also believe that there are quite a few people that are there just to protest. They don't care what they are protesting, nor any reasons behind it (other than what social media has told them) but they want to feel like they are making a difference. That isn't a bad or wrong reason (trying to make a difference) but I wonder if the majority of the people there can explain (from both sides of the argument) why they are actually there.

a reply to: superman2012

As hard as it was for the rest of us to get facts and information, I'm not surprised the folks there were equally uninformed -- and misinformed. We were all treated like mushrooms.

The kicker for me was when I learned that the water access was in the process of being moved, and that they would no longer even be getting their water from that source. Pretty much blew the entire "water protecters" meme out the window.

And we'll probably never know the many agendas that were being fed with this protest. From those at the top trying to manipulate the people, to the "professional" (and violent) protesters that came running just to cause trouble. I'm sure most of the protesters had their hearts in the right place, but never really knew the real deal. What a crying shame.