Total Posts:25|Showing Posts:1-25
Jump to topic:

North Dakota Pipeline.

Stupidape
Posts: 171
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/4/2016 3:30:11 AM
Posted: 1 month ago
Hey, I wanted your thoughts on the North Dakota pipeline. I am neutral, in the sense that I am incredibly uninformed about the subject and therefore have no opinion. I wish to become informed and choose sides. I do not think it is wise to stay neutral. Thank you.
yourgodisdead
Posts: 5
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/4/2016 10:20:22 AM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 11/4/2016 3:30:11 AM, Stupidape wrote:
Hey, I wanted your thoughts on the North Dakota pipeline. I am neutral, in the sense that I am incredibly uninformed about the subject and therefore have no opinion. I wish to become informed and choose sides. I do not think it is wise to stay neutral. Thank you.

I say we shoot all the tree huggers. But that's just my style.... Efficient.
Bennett91
Posts: 4,225
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/4/2016 1:09:01 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 11/4/2016 3:30:11 AM, Stupidape wrote:
Hey, I wanted your thoughts on the North Dakota pipeline. I am neutral, in the sense that I am incredibly uninformed about the subject and therefore have no opinion. I wish to become informed and choose sides. I do not think it is wise to stay neutral. Thank you.

Here's an interesting discussion on reddit about the subject: https://www.reddit.com...

My thoughts on the issue is that pipelines tend to leak, and this pipeline will be going through a water source that is important to natives (and everyone down stream) so in general instead of trying to sell Canadian oil to the global market (no net benefit to the US) while incurring all of the ecological risks we should be trying to invest in more green energies and reducing our reliance on fossil fuels.
Skepsikyma
Posts: 8,280
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/4/2016 1:28:34 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 11/4/2016 1:09:01 PM, Bennett91 wrote:
At 11/4/2016 3:30:11 AM, Stupidape wrote:
Hey, I wanted your thoughts on the North Dakota pipeline. I am neutral, in the sense that I am incredibly uninformed about the subject and therefore have no opinion. I wish to become informed and choose sides. I do not think it is wise to stay neutral. Thank you.

Here's an interesting discussion on reddit about the subject: https://www.reddit.com...

My thoughts on the issue is that pipelines tend to leak, and this pipeline will be going through a water source that is important to natives (and everyone down stream) so in general instead of trying to sell Canadian oil to the global market (no net benefit to the US) while incurring all of the ecological risks we should be trying to invest in more green energies and reducing our reliance on fossil fuels.

There are benefits. We buy a huge slice of our oil from Canada, and if there were not an overland route then the Canadians would have pumped it to the coast, where it would have been sold to the Chinese and loaded into tankers (much more risky, environmentally speaking). Having China exerting control over vital oil in our own backyard would have been unacceptable; Chinese companies have already started investing pretty heavily in Albertan oil extraction companies as part of a worldwide resource scramble.

What I think is wrong about this is that they essentially brazenly privileged a bunch of NIMBY protests over the native interests.
"The Collectivist experiment is thoroughly suited (in appearance at least) to the Capitalist society which it proposes to replace. It works with the existing machinery of Capitalism, talks and thinks in the existing terms of Capitalism, appeals to just those appetites which Capitalism has aroused, and ridicules as fantastic and unheard-of just those things in society the memory of which Capitalism has killed among men wherever the blight of it has spread."
- Hilaire Belloc -
Robkwoods
Posts: 570
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/4/2016 1:29:56 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 11/4/2016 3:30:11 AM, Stupidape wrote:
Hey, I wanted your thoughts on the North Dakota pipeline. I am neutral, in the sense that I am incredibly uninformed about the subject and therefore have no opinion. I wish to become informed and choose sides. I do not think it is wise to stay neutral. Thank you.

The pipeline is on private property. The pipeline route follows several other pipelines already in place. The pipeline section going under the river is over and beyond the federal requirements for a pipeline near a water source. The pipeline was approved over a year ago. The pipeline is nowhere near reservation land or sacred burial sites.
Bennett91
Posts: 4,225
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/4/2016 1:43:31 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 11/4/2016 1:28:34 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 11/4/2016 1:09:01 PM, Bennett91 wrote:
At 11/4/2016 3:30:11 AM, Stupidape wrote:
Hey, I wanted your thoughts on the North Dakota pipeline. I am neutral, in the sense that I am incredibly uninformed about the subject and therefore have no opinion. I wish to become informed and choose sides. I do not think it is wise to stay neutral. Thank you.

Here's an interesting discussion on reddit about the subject: https://www.reddit.com...

My thoughts on the issue is that pipelines tend to leak, and this pipeline will be going through a water source that is important to natives (and everyone down stream) so in general instead of trying to sell Canadian oil to the global market (no net benefit to the US) while incurring all of the ecological risks we should be trying to invest in more green energies and reducing our reliance on fossil fuels.

There are benefits. We buy a huge slice of our oil from Canada, and if there were not an overland route then the Canadians would have pumped it to the coast, where it would have been sold to the Chinese and loaded into tankers (much more risky, environmentally speaking). Having China exerting control over vital oil in our own backyard would have been unacceptable; Chinese companies have already started investing pretty heavily in Albertan oil extraction companies as part of a worldwide resource scramble.

If I'm not mistaken most of the oil from this pipeline specifically is meant for export. Well at least that what it appears for given its going to be transported to the Gulf coast of Texas where it has the great potential to be exported [https://theintercept.com...]. So in terms of benefits v risk I'd say the benefits go to the oil companies while the risk goes to the people. As for chinese oil tankers, I don't see why US tankers couldn't do the job, not that I'm advocating for a sea route as an alternative.

What I think is wrong about this is that they essentially brazenly privileged a bunch of NIMBY protests over the native interests.

Even the Natives are in a sense NIMBY protestors. But if no one wants the pipeline then again perhaps we ought to shift away from the desire for oil. Yes it'll be a bumpy long transition, but it should be done sooner rather than later before we're scraping the bottom of the oil barrel. My general point is instead of building new piplines we should be getting off the need for oil asap.
Bennett91
Posts: 4,225
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/4/2016 1:48:30 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 11/4/2016 1:29:56 PM, Robkwoods wrote:
At 11/4/2016 3:30:11 AM, Stupidape wrote:
Hey, I wanted your thoughts on the North Dakota pipeline. I am neutral, in the sense that I am incredibly uninformed about the subject and therefore have no opinion. I wish to become informed and choose sides. I do not think it is wise to stay neutral. Thank you.

The pipeline is on private property. The pipeline route follows several other pipelines already in place. The pipeline section going under the river is over and beyond the federal requirements for a pipeline near a water source. The pipeline was approved over a year ago. The pipeline is nowhere near reservation land or sacred burial sites.

Ummmm ...

On Saturday, September 3, 2016, the company behind the contentious Dakota Access Pipeline project bulldozed land containing Native American burial grounds, grave markers, and artifacts - including ancient cairns and stone prayer rings. http://www.dailykos.com...
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,268
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/4/2016 2:02:22 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 11/4/2016 1:29:56 PM, Robkwoods wrote:
At 11/4/2016 3:30:11 AM, Stupidape wrote:
Hey, I wanted your thoughts on the North Dakota pipeline. I am neutral, in the sense that I am incredibly uninformed about the subject and therefore have no opinion. I wish to become informed and choose sides. I do not think it is wise to stay neutral. Thank you.

The pipeline is on private property. The pipeline route follows several other pipelines already in place. The pipeline section going under the river is over and beyond the federal requirements for a pipeline near a water source. The pipeline was approved over a year ago. The pipeline is nowhere near reservation land or sacred burial sites.

How difficult would it be to reinforce the structure of the pipeline just in that small area where it meets the water source so that there is no expectation of a leak?
kevin24018
Posts: 1,827
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/4/2016 2:20:01 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 11/4/2016 2:02:22 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 11/4/2016 1:29:56 PM, Robkwoods wrote:
At 11/4/2016 3:30:11 AM, Stupidape wrote:
Hey, I wanted your thoughts on the North Dakota pipeline. I am neutral, in the sense that I am incredibly uninformed about the subject and therefore have no opinion. I wish to become informed and choose sides. I do not think it is wise to stay neutral. Thank you.

The pipeline is on private property. The pipeline route follows several other pipelines already in place. The pipeline section going under the river is over and beyond the federal requirements for a pipeline near a water source. The pipeline was approved over a year ago. The pipeline is nowhere near reservation land or sacred burial sites.

How difficult would it be to reinforce the structure of the pipeline just in that small area where it meets the water source so that there is no expectation of a leak?

we manage to have roads/tunnels under water sources all over the U.S. seems it could be done.
BrendanD19
Posts: 2,047
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/4/2016 3:39:18 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 11/4/2016 10:20:22 AM, yourgodisdead wrote:
At 11/4/2016 3:30:11 AM, Stupidape wrote:
Hey, I wanted your thoughts on the North Dakota pipeline. I am neutral, in the sense that I am incredibly uninformed about the subject and therefore have no opinion. I wish to become informed and choose sides. I do not think it is wise to stay neutral. Thank you.

I say we shoot all the tree huggers. But that's just my style.... Efficient.

Yes because last time we did that it wasn't a stain on our nations history
https://en.wikipedia.org...
Robkwoods
Posts: 570
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/4/2016 3:43:35 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 11/4/2016 1:48:30 PM, Bennett91 wrote:
At 11/4/2016 1:29:56 PM, Robkwoods wrote:
At 11/4/2016 3:30:11 AM, Stupidape wrote:
Hey, I wanted your thoughts on the North Dakota pipeline. I am neutral, in the sense that I am incredibly uninformed about the subject and therefore have no opinion. I wish to become informed and choose sides. I do not think it is wise to stay neutral. Thank you.

The pipeline is on private property. The pipeline route follows several other pipelines already in place. The pipeline section going under the river is over and beyond the federal requirements for a pipeline near a water source. The pipeline was approved over a year ago. The pipeline is nowhere near reservation land or sacred burial sites.

Ummmm ...

On Saturday, September 3, 2016, the company behind the contentious Dakota Access Pipeline project bulldozed land containing Native American burial grounds, grave markers, and artifacts - including ancient cairns and stone prayer rings. http://www.dailykos.com...

Whoopsie

"...pipeline developers contacted the tribe and offered them the opportunity to survey the land, which the tribe rejected. Planners also made a total of 140 route changes to avoid "potential cultural resources.""

"100 percent of affected landowners in North Dakota have signed voluntary easements allowing construction to move forward"

Read more: http://dailycaller.com...

Sucks to suck
Robkwoods
Posts: 570
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/4/2016 3:47:57 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 11/4/2016 2:02:22 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 11/4/2016 1:29:56 PM, Robkwoods wrote:
At 11/4/2016 3:30:11 AM, Stupidape wrote:
Hey, I wanted your thoughts on the North Dakota pipeline. I am neutral, in the sense that I am incredibly uninformed about the subject and therefore have no opinion. I wish to become informed and choose sides. I do not think it is wise to stay neutral. Thank you.

The pipeline is on private property. The pipeline route follows several other pipelines already in place. The pipeline section going under the river is over and beyond the federal requirements for a pipeline near a water source. The pipeline was approved over a year ago. The pipeline is nowhere near reservation land or sacred burial sites.

How difficult would it be to reinforce the structure of the pipeline just in that small area where it meets the water source so that there is no expectation of a leak?

Not difficult at all with current tech. Also a simple monitoring system is all that is needed. I believe the requirement is 90 ft below a water source. DAPL is planned for 200ft below. I will have to find my source on that.
Robkwoods
Posts: 570
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/4/2016 3:53:42 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 11/4/2016 3:39:18 PM, BrendanD19 wrote:
At 11/4/2016 10:20:22 AM, yourgodisdead wrote:
At 11/4/2016 3:30:11 AM, Stupidape wrote:
Hey, I wanted your thoughts on the North Dakota pipeline. I am neutral, in the sense that I am incredibly uninformed about the subject and therefore have no opinion. I wish to become informed and choose sides. I do not think it is wise to stay neutral. Thank you.

I say we shoot all the tree huggers. But that's just my style.... Efficient.

Yes because last time we did that it wasn't a stain on our nations history
https://en.wikipedia.org...

http://townhall.com...

How far back in history would you like to go?
Bennett91
Posts: 4,225
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/4/2016 7:11:49 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 11/4/2016 3:43:35 PM, Robkwoods wrote:
At 11/4/2016 1:48:30 PM, Bennett91 wrote:
At 11/4/2016 1:29:56 PM, Robkwoods wrote:
At 11/4/2016 3:30:11 AM, Stupidape wrote:
Hey, I wanted your thoughts on the North Dakota pipeline. I am neutral, in the sense that I am incredibly uninformed about the subject and therefore have no opinion. I wish to become informed and choose sides. I do not think it is wise to stay neutral. Thank you.

The pipeline is on private property. The pipeline route follows several other pipelines already in place. The pipeline section going under the river is over and beyond the federal requirements for a pipeline near a water source. The pipeline was approved over a year ago. The pipeline is nowhere near reservation land or sacred burial sites.

Ummmm ...

On Saturday, September 3, 2016, the company behind the contentious Dakota Access Pipeline project bulldozed land containing Native American burial grounds, grave markers, and artifacts - including ancient cairns and stone prayer rings. http://www.dailykos.com...

Whoopsie

"...pipeline developers contacted the tribe and offered them the opportunity to survey the land, which the tribe rejected. Planners also made a total of 140 route changes to avoid "potential cultural resources.""

"100 percent of affected landowners in North Dakota have signed voluntary easements allowing construction to move forward"

Read more: http://dailycaller.com...

Sucks to suck

I already know the Standing Rock tribe has been uncooperative. You just said there where no destroyed burial sights, which is false.
Robkwoods
Posts: 570
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/4/2016 7:36:11 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 11/4/2016 7:11:49 PM, Bennett91 wrote:
At 11/4/2016 3:43:35 PM, Robkwoods wrote:
At 11/4/2016 1:48:30 PM, Bennett91 wrote:
At 11/4/2016 1:29:56 PM, Robkwoods wrote:
At 11/4/2016 3:30:11 AM, Stupidape wrote:
Hey, I wanted your thoughts on the North Dakota pipeline. I am neutral, in the sense that I am incredibly uninformed about the subject and therefore have no opinion. I wish to become informed and choose sides. I do not think it is wise to stay neutral. Thank you.

The pipeline is on private property. The pipeline route follows several other pipelines already in place. The pipeline section going under the river is over and beyond the federal requirements for a pipeline near a water source. The pipeline was approved over a year ago. The pipeline is nowhere near reservation land or sacred burial sites.

Ummmm ...

On Saturday, September 3, 2016, the company behind the contentious Dakota Access Pipeline project bulldozed land containing Native American burial grounds, grave markers, and artifacts - including ancient cairns and stone prayer rings. http://www.dailykos.com...

Whoopsie

"...pipeline developers contacted the tribe and offered them the opportunity to survey the land, which the tribe rejected. Planners also made a total of 140 route changes to avoid "potential cultural resources.""

"100 percent of affected landowners in North Dakota have signed voluntary easements allowing construction to move forward"

Read more: http://dailycaller.com...

Sucks to suck

I already know the Standing Rock tribe has been uncooperative. You just said there where no destroyed burial sights, which is false.

They have no idea if burial sites were destroyed. The pipeline doesn't not cross reservation land, it is all private land. Based on this I am guessing, the Sioux are just being assh0les because they are not getting paid by this particular oil competitor.
1Percenter
Posts: 781
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/4/2016 8:26:40 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 11/4/2016 2:02:22 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 11/4/2016 1:29:56 PM, Robkwoods wrote:
At 11/4/2016 3:30:11 AM, Stupidape wrote:
Hey, I wanted your thoughts on the North Dakota pipeline. I am neutral, in the sense that I am incredibly uninformed about the subject and therefore have no opinion. I wish to become informed and choose sides. I do not think it is wise to stay neutral. Thank you.

The pipeline is on private property. The pipeline route follows several other pipelines already in place. The pipeline section going under the river is over and beyond the federal requirements for a pipeline near a water source. The pipeline was approved over a year ago. The pipeline is nowhere near reservation land or sacred burial sites.

How difficult would it be to reinforce the structure of the pipeline just in that small area where it meets the water source so that there is no expectation of a leak?

The Standing Rock's beef with DAPL has nothing to do with potential leaks from the pipeline, rather it is the grading and clearing process they are worried will lead to the destruction of sacred sites.
Robkwoods
Posts: 570
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/4/2016 8:49:07 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 11/4/2016 8:26:40 PM, 1Percenter wrote:
At 11/4/2016 2:02:22 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 11/4/2016 1:29:56 PM, Robkwoods wrote:
At 11/4/2016 3:30:11 AM, Stupidape wrote:
Hey, I wanted your thoughts on the North Dakota pipeline. I am neutral, in the sense that I am incredibly uninformed about the subject and therefore have no opinion. I wish to become informed and choose sides. I do not think it is wise to stay neutral. Thank you.

The pipeline is on private property. The pipeline route follows several other pipelines already in place. The pipeline section going under the river is over and beyond the federal requirements for a pipeline near a water source. The pipeline was approved over a year ago. The pipeline is nowhere near reservation land or sacred burial sites.

How difficult would it be to reinforce the structure of the pipeline just in that small area where it meets the water source so that there is no expectation of a leak?

The Standing Rock's beef with DAPL has nothing to do with potential leaks from the pipeline, rather it is the grading and clearing process they are worried will lead to the destruction of sacred sites.

Actually they are complaining about the water now too. They had to switch it up when everyone found out they were full of sh!t
1Percenter
Posts: 781
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/4/2016 10:07:02 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 11/4/2016 8:49:07 PM, Robkwoods wrote:
At 11/4/2016 8:26:40 PM, 1Percenter wrote:
At 11/4/2016 2:02:22 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 11/4/2016 1:29:56 PM, Robkwoods wrote:
At 11/4/2016 3:30:11 AM, Stupidape wrote:
Hey, I wanted your thoughts on the North Dakota pipeline. I am neutral, in the sense that I am incredibly uninformed about the subject and therefore have no opinion. I wish to become informed and choose sides. I do not think it is wise to stay neutral. Thank you.

The pipeline is on private property. The pipeline route follows several other pipelines already in place. The pipeline section going under the river is over and beyond the federal requirements for a pipeline near a water source. The pipeline was approved over a year ago. The pipeline is nowhere near reservation land or sacred burial sites.

How difficult would it be to reinforce the structure of the pipeline just in that small area where it meets the water source so that there is no expectation of a leak?

The Standing Rock's beef with DAPL has nothing to do with potential leaks from the pipeline, rather it is the grading and clearing process they are worried will lead to the destruction of sacred sites.

Actually they are complaining about the water now too. They had to switch it up when everyone found out they were full of sh!t

Indeed, but their complaints regarding water concerned only the construction and permit-granting process of the Army Corps for the Oahe Lake area. The potential damages of pipeline rupture has nothing to do with what they are litigating for.
Bennett91
Posts: 4,225
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/4/2016 11:30:45 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 11/4/2016 7:36:11 PM, Robkwoods wrote:
At 11/4/2016 7:11:49 PM, Bennett91 wrote:
At 11/4/2016 3:43:35 PM, Robkwoods wrote:
At 11/4/2016 1:48:30 PM, Bennett91 wrote:
At 11/4/2016 1:29:56 PM, Robkwoods wrote:
At 11/4/2016 3:30:11 AM, Stupidape wrote:
Hey, I wanted your thoughts on the North Dakota pipeline. I am neutral, in the sense that I am incredibly uninformed about the subject and therefore have no opinion. I wish to become informed and choose sides. I do not think it is wise to stay neutral. Thank you.

The pipeline is on private property. The pipeline route follows several other pipelines already in place. The pipeline section going under the river is over and beyond the federal requirements for a pipeline near a water source. The pipeline was approved over a year ago. The pipeline is nowhere near reservation land or sacred burial sites.

Ummmm ...

On Saturday, September 3, 2016, the company behind the contentious Dakota Access Pipeline project bulldozed land containing Native American burial grounds, grave markers, and artifacts - including ancient cairns and stone prayer rings. http://www.dailykos.com...

Whoopsie

"...pipeline developers contacted the tribe and offered them the opportunity to survey the land, which the tribe rejected. Planners also made a total of 140 route changes to avoid "potential cultural resources.""

"100 percent of affected landowners in North Dakota have signed voluntary easements allowing construction to move forward"

Read more: http://dailycaller.com...

Sucks to suck

I already know the Standing Rock tribe has been uncooperative. You just said there where no destroyed burial sights, which is false.

They have no idea if burial sites were destroyed. The pipeline doesn't not cross reservation land, it is all private land. Based on this I am guessing, the Sioux are just being assh0les because they are not getting paid by this particular oil competitor.

Lol are you kidding me? The sent a letter to Obama telling him about the destroyed site.

"These documents provided some of the first evidence that state authorities had missed major archeological discoveries in the path of the pipeline. For instance, they described a large stone feature that depicted the constellation Iyokaptan Tanka (the Big Dipper)"a sign that a major leader, likely a highly respected Chief, was buried nearby."

"[Dakota Access Pipeline] consultants would have had to literally walk directly over some of these features. However, reviewing DAPL"s survey work, it appears that they did not independently survey this area but relied on a 1985 survey." http://www.theatlantic.com...

And when it comes to the history of Natives in the US you think they are being the @ssholes? Seriously.
Robkwoods
Posts: 570
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/4/2016 11:44:04 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 11/4/2016 11:30:45 PM, Bennett91 wrote:
At 11/4/2016 7:36:11 PM, Robkwoods wrote:
At 11/4/2016 7:11:49 PM, Bennett91 wrote:
At 11/4/2016 3:43:35 PM, Robkwoods wrote:
At 11/4/2016 1:48:30 PM, Bennett91 wrote:
At 11/4/2016 1:29:56 PM, Robkwoods wrote:
At 11/4/2016 3:30:11 AM, Stupidape wrote:
Hey, I wanted your thoughts on the North Dakota pipeline. I am neutral, in the sense that I am incredibly uninformed about the subject and therefore have no opinion. I wish to become informed and choose sides. I do not think it is wise to stay neutral. Thank you.

The pipeline is on private property. The pipeline route follows several other pipelines already in place. The pipeline section going under the river is over and beyond the federal requirements for a pipeline near a water source. The pipeline was approved over a year ago. The pipeline is nowhere near reservation land or sacred burial sites.

Ummmm ...

On Saturday, September 3, 2016, the company behind the contentious Dakota Access Pipeline project bulldozed land containing Native American burial grounds, grave markers, and artifacts - including ancient cairns and stone prayer rings. http://www.dailykos.com...

Whoopsie

"...pipeline developers contacted the tribe and offered them the opportunity to survey the land, which the tribe rejected. Planners also made a total of 140 route changes to avoid "potential cultural resources.""

"100 percent of affected landowners in North Dakota have signed voluntary easements allowing construction to move forward"

Read more: http://dailycaller.com...

Sucks to suck

I already know the Standing Rock tribe has been uncooperative. You just said there where no destroyed burial sights, which is false.

They have no idea if burial sites were destroyed. The pipeline doesn't not cross reservation land, it is all private land. Based on this I am guessing, the Sioux are just being assh0les because they are not getting paid by this particular oil competitor.

Lol are you kidding me? The sent a letter to Obama telling him about the destroyed site.

"These documents provided some of the first evidence that state authorities had missed major archeological discoveries in the path of the pipeline. For instance, they described a large stone feature that depicted the constellation Iyokaptan Tanka (the Big Dipper)"a sign that a major leader, likely a highly respected Chief, was buried nearby."

"[Dakota Access Pipeline] consultants would have had to literally walk directly over some of these features. However, reviewing DAPL"s survey work, it appears that they did not independently survey this area but relied on a 1985 survey." http://www.theatlantic.com...

And when it comes to the history of Natives in the US you think they are being the @ssholes? Seriously.

Ok I will accept that as new information. I am skeptical, but I will research further. Dailykos and Atlantic tend to be bias sources.

The land is private land. The Tribe was invited on multiple occasions to help with the survey. If I told my kid everything in the garage was getting thrown out and for him to make sure he check there is nothing he wanted and he didn't. He doesn't get to cry if he didn't take the given opportunity.

If I bought your house and then knocked it down, you can't come back and complain about it.

Native Americans were killing themselves long before we got here. Yes they are assh0les.
Bennett91
Posts: 4,225
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/5/2016 12:40:52 AM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 11/4/2016 11:44:04 PM, Robkwoods wrote:
At 11/4/2016 11:30:45 PM, Bennett91 wrote:
At 11/4/2016 7:36:11 PM, Robkwoods wrote:
At 11/4/2016 7:11:49 PM, Bennett91 wrote:
At 11/4/2016 3:43:35 PM, Robkwoods wrote:
At 11/4/2016 1:48:30 PM, Bennett91 wrote:
At 11/4/2016 1:29:56 PM, Robkwoods wrote:
At 11/4/2016 3:30:11 AM, Stupidape wrote:
Hey, I wanted your thoughts on the North Dakota pipeline. I am neutral, in the sense that I am incredibly uninformed about the subject and therefore have no opinion. I wish to become informed and choose sides. I do not think it is wise to stay neutral. Thank you.

The pipeline is on private property. The pipeline route follows several other pipelines already in place. The pipeline section going under the river is over and beyond the federal requirements for a pipeline near a water source. The pipeline was approved over a year ago. The pipeline is nowhere near reservation land or sacred burial sites.

Ummmm ...

On Saturday, September 3, 2016, the company behind the contentious Dakota Access Pipeline project bulldozed land containing Native American burial grounds, grave markers, and artifacts - including ancient cairns and stone prayer rings. http://www.dailykos.com...

Whoopsie

"...pipeline developers contacted the tribe and offered them the opportunity to survey the land, which the tribe rejected. Planners also made a total of 140 route changes to avoid "potential cultural resources.""

"100 percent of affected landowners in North Dakota have signed voluntary easements allowing construction to move forward"

Read more: http://dailycaller.com...

Sucks to suck

I already know the Standing Rock tribe has been uncooperative. You just said there where no destroyed burial sights, which is false.

They have no idea if burial sites were destroyed. The pipeline doesn't not cross reservation land, it is all private land. Based on this I am guessing, the Sioux are just being assh0les because they are not getting paid by this particular oil competitor.

Lol are you kidding me? The sent a letter to Obama telling him about the destroyed site.

"These documents provided some of the first evidence that state authorities had missed major archeological discoveries in the path of the pipeline. For instance, they described a large stone feature that depicted the constellation Iyokaptan Tanka (the Big Dipper)"a sign that a major leader, likely a highly respected Chief, was buried nearby."

"[Dakota Access Pipeline] consultants would have had to literally walk directly over some of these features. However, reviewing DAPL"s survey work, it appears that they did not independently survey this area but relied on a 1985 survey." http://www.theatlantic.com...

And when it comes to the history of Natives in the US you think they are being the @ssholes? Seriously.

Ok I will accept that as new information. I am skeptical, but I will research further. Dailykos and Atlantic tend to be bias sources.

The land is private land. The Tribe was invited on multiple occasions to help with the survey. If I told my kid everything in the garage was getting thrown out and for him to make sure he check there is nothing he wanted and he didn't. He doesn't get to cry if he didn't take the given opportunity.

The land was stolen through a broken treaty. If you had a history of abusing your son and he didn't trust you telling him you're going to build a pipeline that has the potential to poison his only water source - your son might have reason to cry.

If I bought your house and then knocked it down, you can't come back and complain about it.

Ahhaahahaha yea bought with lead and broken promises.

Native Americans were killing themselves long before we got here. Yes they are assh0les.

Native flower wars were no where close to the scale of European wars of conquest.
imabench
Posts: 21,216
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/5/2016 1:29:13 AM
Posted: 1 month ago
Gas is fuckin $2 a gallon. If a proposed pipeline construction causes too much of a controversy then scrap it, its not that necessary or vital. If a proposed pipeline doesnt cause any controversy or protests, then go ahead and build away.
Kevin24018 : "He's just so mean it makes me want to ball up my fists and stamp on the ground"

7/14/16 = The Presidency Dies

DDO: THE MOVIE = http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...

VP of DDO from Dec 14th 2014 to Jan 1st 2015
Skepsikyma
Posts: 8,280
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/5/2016 1:43:34 AM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 11/4/2016 1:43:31 PM, Bennett91 wrote:
At 11/4/2016 1:28:34 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 11/4/2016 1:09:01 PM, Bennett91 wrote:
At 11/4/2016 3:30:11 AM, Stupidape wrote:
Hey, I wanted your thoughts on the North Dakota pipeline. I am neutral, in the sense that I am incredibly uninformed about the subject and therefore have no opinion. I wish to become informed and choose sides. I do not think it is wise to stay neutral. Thank you.

Here's an interesting discussion on reddit about the subject: https://www.reddit.com...

My thoughts on the issue is that pipelines tend to leak, and this pipeline will be going through a water source that is important to natives (and everyone down stream) so in general instead of trying to sell Canadian oil to the global market (no net benefit to the US) while incurring all of the ecological risks we should be trying to invest in more green energies and reducing our reliance on fossil fuels.

There are benefits. We buy a huge slice of our oil from Canada, and if there were not an overland route then the Canadians would have pumped it to the coast, where it would have been sold to the Chinese and loaded into tankers (much more risky, environmentally speaking). Having China exerting control over vital oil in our own backyard would have been unacceptable; Chinese companies have already started investing pretty heavily in Albertan oil extraction companies as part of a worldwide resource scramble.

If I'm not mistaken most of the oil from this pipeline specifically is meant for export.

Nope, I actually just looked into this more (I only had passing familiarity with it.)

It's actually not from Canada at all, it's from Bakken, a very oil-rich region in the US, and runs to Illinois, not the gulf, where it will be refined/enter into a transport hub.

So, basically, it will enter the general US transport system, some will be consumed domestically, some will actually be exported.

Well at least that what it appears for given its going to be transported to the Gulf coast of Texas where it has the great potential to be exported [https://theintercept.com...]. So in terms of benefits v risk I'd say the benefits go to the oil companies while the risk goes to the people.

We're piping crude there because that's where a lot of our refineries are. It's next to impossible to build new refineries in the US, so the Gulf will always be a 'hub' for this sort of thing.

As for chinese oil tankers, I don't see why US tankers couldn't do the job, not that I'm advocating for a sea route as an alternative.

Well, we're talking about Keystone here, but it's because China was actually funding the pipeline to the Pacific Northwest but backed out of the deal because it saw Venezuela as more promising once we started to compete for access to those resources. Basically, Obama's administration deftly caused political holdups over the Enbridge pipeline by inflaming tensions with natives, causing China to become frustrated with the constant roadblocks and opening the way for Keystone. It wouldn't make much sense for us to fund a pipeline to an area where we don't have any export infrastructure when we could just pipe it south, where we can both refine the oil and load it on to tankers.

http://oilsandstruth.org...
http://www.straight.com...

What I think is wrong about this is that they essentially brazenly privileged a bunch of NIMBY protests over the native interests.

Even the Natives are in a sense NIMBY protestors. But if no one wants the pipeline then again perhaps we ought to shift away from the desire for oil.

I don't think they're really equivalent. Americans by and large want energy independence as a country, but nobody wants oil fields and pipelines behind their house. Native American tribes, however, are semi-autonomous political entities with no real dog in that race, so it makes sense for them to be upset over bearing the potential cost of something like this.

Yes it'll be a bumpy long transition, but it should be done sooner rather than later before we're scraping the bottom of the oil barrel. My general point is instead of building new piplines we should be getting off the need for oil asap.

Global warming will open up lots of arctic reserves; I don't think we'll be running out any time soon. I think it's more important to make sure that we're spending the energy that we're burning on important stuff that will eventually let us live without it, not mindless consumerism. But yeah, I'm really cynical about our prospects to reach 'Star Trek'-style utopia, so bring on the new dark age and the consolidation of the Servile State. Yay.
"The Collectivist experiment is thoroughly suited (in appearance at least) to the Capitalist society which it proposes to replace. It works with the existing machinery of Capitalism, talks and thinks in the existing terms of Capitalism, appeals to just those appetites which Capitalism has aroused, and ridicules as fantastic and unheard-of just those things in society the memory of which Capitalism has killed among men wherever the blight of it has spread."
- Hilaire Belloc -
Bennett91
Posts: 4,225
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/5/2016 2:14:20 AM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 11/5/2016 1:43:34 AM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 11/4/2016 1:43:31 PM, Bennett91 wrote:
At 11/4/2016 1:28:34 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 11/4/2016 1:09:01 PM, Bennett91 wrote:
At 11/4/2016 3:30:11 AM, Stupidape wrote:
Hey, I wanted your thoughts on the North Dakota pipeline. I am neutral, in the sense that I am incredibly uninformed about the subject and therefore have no opinion. I wish to become informed and choose sides. I do not think it is wise to stay neutral. Thank you.

Here's an interesting discussion on reddit about the subject: https://www.reddit.com...

My thoughts on the issue is that pipelines tend to leak, and this pipeline will be going through a water source that is important to natives (and everyone down stream) so in general instead of trying to sell Canadian oil to the global market (no net benefit to the US) while incurring all of the ecological risks we should be trying to invest in more green energies and reducing our reliance on fossil fuels.

There are benefits. We buy a huge slice of our oil from Canada, and if there were not an overland route then the Canadians would have pumped it to the coast, where it would have been sold to the Chinese and loaded into tankers (much more risky, environmentally speaking). Having China exerting control over vital oil in our own backyard would have been unacceptable; Chinese companies have already started investing pretty heavily in Albertan oil extraction companies as part of a worldwide resource scramble.

If I'm not mistaken most of the oil from this pipeline specifically is meant for export.

Nope, I actually just looked into this more (I only had passing familiarity with it.)

It's actually not from Canada at all, it's from Bakken, a very oil-rich region in the US, and runs to Illinois, not the gulf, where it will be refined/enter into a transport hub.

So, basically, it will enter the general US transport system, some will be consumed domestically, some will actually be exported.

It looks like I got the DAPL confused with the XL pipeline.

Well at least that what it appears for given its going to be transported to the Gulf coast of Texas where it has the great potential to be exported [https://theintercept.com...]. So in terms of benefits v risk I'd say the benefits go to the oil companies while the risk goes to the people.

We're piping crude there because that's where a lot of our refineries are. It's next to impossible to build new refineries in the US, so the Gulf will always be a 'hub' for this sort of thing.

As for chinese oil tankers, I don't see why US tankers couldn't do the job, not that I'm advocating for a sea route as an alternative.

Well, we're talking about Keystone here, but it's because China was actually funding the pipeline to the Pacific Northwest but backed out of the deal because it saw Venezuela as more promising once we started to compete for access to those resources. Basically, Obama's administration deftly caused political holdups over the Enbridge pipeline by inflaming tensions with natives, causing China to become frustrated with the constant roadblocks and opening the way for Keystone. It wouldn't make much sense for us to fund a pipeline to an area where we don't have any export infrastructure when we could just pipe it south, where we can both refine the oil and load it on to tankers.

http://oilsandstruth.org...
http://www.straight.com...

What I think is wrong about this is that they essentially brazenly privileged a bunch of NIMBY protests over the native interests.

Even the Natives are in a sense NIMBY protestors. But if no one wants the pipeline then again perhaps we ought to shift away from the desire for oil.

I don't think they're really equivalent. Americans by and large want energy independence as a country, but nobody wants oil fields and pipelines behind their house. Native American tribes, however, are semi-autonomous political entities with no real dog in that race, so it makes sense for them to be upset over bearing the potential cost of something like this.

The sense I was talking about is the natives don't want it in their back yard either, they clearly do have a dog in the race if they're protesting. And as a side note if the there was more infrastructure on reservations that oil could potential power their homes too. But that's besides the point.

Yes it'll be a bumpy long transition, but it should be done sooner rather than later before we're scraping the bottom of the oil barrel. My general point is instead of building new piplines we should be getting off the need for oil asap.

Global warming will open up lots of arctic reserves; I don't think we'll be running out any time soon. I think it's more important to make sure that we're spending the energy that we're burning on important stuff that will eventually let us live without it, not mindless consumerism. But yeah, I'm really cynical about our prospects to reach 'Star Trek'-style utopia, so bring on the new dark age and the consolidation of the Servile State. Yay.

Lol by the time we're tapping arctic reserves it'll way too late and only the rich people who live in their evil mountain hide outs will be able to use it. But generally I agree with you.
Robkwoods
Posts: 570
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/5/2016 6:39:50 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 11/5/2016 12:40:52 AM, Bennett91 wrote:
Lol are you kidding me? The sent a letter to Obama telling him about the destroyed site.

"These documents provided some of the first evidence that state authorities had missed major archeological discoveries in the path of the pipeline. For instance, they described a large stone feature that depicted the constellation Iyokaptan Tanka (the Big Dipper)"a sign that a major leader, likely a highly respected Chief, was buried nearby."

"[Dakota Access Pipeline] consultants would have had to literally walk directly over some of these features. However, reviewing DAPL"s survey work, it appears that they did not independently survey this area but relied on a 1985 survey." http://www.theatlantic.com...

And when it comes to the history of Natives in the US you think they are being the @ssholes? Seriously.

Ok I will accept that as new information. I am skeptical, but I will research further. Dailykos and Atlantic tend to be bias sources.

The land is private land. The Tribe was invited on multiple occasions to help with the survey. If I told my kid everything in the garage was getting thrown out and for him to make sure he check there is nothing he wanted and he didn't. He doesn't get to cry if he didn't take the given opportunity.

The land was stolen through a broken treaty. If you had a history of abusing your son and he didn't trust you telling him you're going to build a pipeline that has the potential to poison his only water source - your son might have reason to cry.

hahaha, you obviously have no idea what the treaty of 1851 says. The pipeline doesn't penetrate reservation land. Easements were given for the land that the pipeline is going through. The natives are out of line on this one.

If I bought your house and then knocked it down, you can't come back and complain about it.

Ahhaahahaha yea bought with lead and broken promises.

Who's fault is it that you accepted lead? What broken promises?
sidenote there are documents showing the tribe accepted the DAPL. They literally agreed to the construction.

Native Americans were killing themselves long before we got here. Yes they are assh0les.

Native flower wars were no where close to the scale of European wars of conquest.

by what metric can you make that assertion?