NO DAPL and other pipeline concerns - Keystone, etc.

they'll be fine, they can just threaten to drill in another country and then accept trump's deal to give them a bunch of tax breaks and go ahead and finish DAPL

yeah i'm skeptical of this being an actual victory -- even if they don't just drill and pay the fines, they might also just wait it out, see what the EIS finds, let the story fall out of the headlines (to the extent it was at all) and then go ahead later

The DAPL is going to Illinois. Begin putting pressure on the Democratic-majority Illinois state legislature for them to rethink the agreement with the oil company if the pipeline is done by breaking the law and the ACE guidelines.

Dave Archambault II on Democracy Now saying the protesters can go home now to enjoy winter with their families. Five minutes later (in a separate interview), Remy is saying he's not going anywhere until the project is over.

Tara Houska: some people can probably use a break, but we have to stay vigilant bc this could all start up again in a couple of months.

(I'm paraphrasing)

The station in Patoka, Illinois is really only a smart part of the project, the real destination is already existing pipeline owned by ETC to carry crude to the Sunoco terminal in Nederland, TX, there it will be available for sales to the refineries in Port Arthur and to Freeport Tx for export to Europe. ETC isn't really an oil company, they have no production facilities, well or leases. They are what we call a Midstream company. One thing no one has mentioned is the what happens before a pipeline is built. They open a bidding season where producers give shipping agreements that will bind them to produce a certain amount of product through the line, this is largely settled by current storage standing and well capacities. Before the DAPL was even submitted for approval, the companies were already in agreement to sell ETC how ever much was agreed upon. Continental Resources, EOG, HESS Oil, Conocophillips, and probably a few more companies are the actual oil companies saying oil to ETC to transport to refineries who have also agreed to receive a certain daily amount. All of this is decided before anything permit or construction wise is begun. This is why the Keep It In The Ground fraction of the protest confused me. Shouldn't they protest producers instead of a midstream company who is essentially a toll company?

or even better shouldn't they protest at all gas stations?

i don't know what this is, some kind of supply chain pass-the-buck?

protest whoever the fuck they want to

Ok, I should not tell anyone where or what to protest. I was wrong in suggesting anything of that sort.

When ever I have talked about DAPL, I've assumed people know I support the concerns of treaty rights and I have viewed the need for this pipeline and treaty rights as two separate issues. This has been a fallacy that I now see.

Jacob, I've appreciated your additions to this thread. I've only really expressed this to one person outside of ilx, mainly because I don't feel the arguments are worth the energy to me at the moment. Like, there are something like 15-20 people on my fb feed who post about Standing Rock stuff and even with the perspectives you've brought to this thread, I just bite my tongue and back away. But you've helped me gain new perpectives, so thank you

agreed, Jacob's perspective has been valuable and educational

After the events over the Thanksgiving holiday, it's all disgusting. A girl might lose her arm, and certainly will be hospitalized and never the same. I wasn't there and don't know what happened but there really is no excuse.

The writing on the whole DAPL thing is bizarre to me because I live in the state with the longest stretch of the pipeline, there have been multiple acts of sabotage destroying equipment (!), our governor is an assclown, the approval process was by a three-person utilities board of which one member may have had a conflict of interest, and farmers have been complaining about the (largely out of state, contract) construction group leaving debris all over and screwing up their water drainage tile.

A larger percentage of people signed the contract than I thought, but polling showed a majority of people disagreed with imminent domain laws being used for a non-utility. I'm not against a pipeline entirely, and undoubtedly any endeavor like this will have protests and actions perceived as ugly, but the shit going on in ND, juxtaposed with the lack of action (or completely underreported action) in Iowa just kills me

btw the Iowa governor recently said that Obama and the Army Corps of Engineers blocking that permit was "bowing to a few billionaires" (?!?)

dog whistle for Soros

also, thanks for the Iowa perspective, very interesting

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/steve-horn/as-dakota-access-protests_b_12100184.html

A few people have protested/sabotaged efforts where they're drilling under a river, one of the very last sections not completed in the state. But afaik that has had very little coverage and it's either nearly done or will be within the month

Do you know who the contractor is?

fwiw Iowa's third in the nation in wind energy, and I've wondered (but haven't found anything about) whether there are any rural areas where a landowner has both windmills and the pipeline on the same section of property

Precision Pipeline, I believe? Maybe a few contractors

http://www.desmoinesregister.com/story/news/politics/2015/09/22/contractors-hired-bakken-pipeline-project/72630434/

If I were to cross what I know about this with what I know about farming, I would say that it's good it's a buried pipeline because it'd be a matter of time before someone's auto-steer farm equipment didn't have the pipe on their map and a tractor would drive right through it

If it's Precision Pipeline then I'm sorry. I did one job with that company in Southwest Texas and never wanted to work for them again. They have many great experienced operators for heavy equipment, but they quality control department for environmental specs is nearly nonexistent. At least it used to be that way. I keep thinking with pipelines getting so much attention and people are talking about them, questioning them that companies would really step up everything they do. Why not show how it can be completed correctly with regard to the locals and the their concerns. It's fucking simple.

ugh, I know that feeling. Some industries have very large companies or specific contractors because some tasks can only be done at scale, and there are nearly always mediocre actors in all of those spaces

but they quality control department for environmental specs is nearly nonexistent.

Jacob have you ever watched the documentary "The Corporation"? I feel like sometimes your posts don't really take into account the that (imo) corporations are psychopaths by definition. Of course they will cut corners wherever they can, short term profit is the only thing that matters to these people.

http://thecorporation.com/

the

I have not seen The Corporation and I'm sure many corporations are psychopaths but by definition seems a little like a blanket characterization? I do know that if energy companies want to have long term goals they must have stronger mandated operator qualifications. In my company once a person is operator qualified, that person assumes full responsibility for the completion of that job and all people working underneath him or her. There are now paper trails for every tasked performed. Accountability is as big as safety for my company. If something I do fails to meet the standards I have in my credentials, such as I fail to correct and or find corrosion and it leads to a leak that affect the public, I would face fines or jail time. This goes for anyone who has OQ's. I can't speak for all companies but our vendors can not be on any site without at least one person with these. Also if energy companies want to continue they must fund exploration towards renewables, it's happening right now, but not enough. Exxon-Mobile is holding out, BP is going back to the gulf.

imo the problem with the waste left in fields is less a problem of corporations per se and more an issue with subcontracting and what is actually accounted for as part of the job. I would imagine sign-off is done on the pipeline itself by the corporation before the contractor doing construction clears the area, so any materials laying around are assumed to be part of clean-up, but if sign-off is complete...

there's also the issue of just driving over junk and burying it in the mud on accident. In farm fields that is a hazard, but a bunch of farmers do it all the time out of productive areas for sure

xp Jacob I agree that I was generalizing, but stuff like this:

the waste left in fields is less a problem of corporations per se and more an issue with subcontracting and what is actually accounted for as part of the job.

kinda reinforces my point - the problems always come when costs are cut, and subcontracting contributes to that.

the company you work for sounds like a responsible corporation, and that documentary does have some good interviews with responsible CEOs.

maybe getting a bit off topic, sorry.

It's not off topic at all. Precision should be contacted and asked if they have a clean up punch list for whatever county this is in. GPS coordinates would be useful to give them.
Precision Pipeline, LLC
3314 56th Street
Eau Claire, WI 54703
p: 715-874-4510

nice

If something I do fails to meet the standards I have in my credentials, such as I fail to correct and or find corrosion and it leads to a leak that affect the public, I would face fines or jail time.

BP is going back to the gulf.

imo the fines/jail time aren't enough. it should be so punitive that BP can't go back to the gulf. the way it is now seems more like companies just build-in these potential fines and see them as another cost of business rather than a real risk or punishment.

Podcast interview/convo with Cody Snider(son of Dee) who went out there with a film crew to shoot footage for a vid and arrived right as the water cannon assaults were starting.

It's something to hear this comfortable sorta-hippie white dude be completely radicalized by the experience and awed at the daily ordeal and level of tight organization at the camp.

https://www.thenation.com/article/inspired-by-standing-rock-west-texans-take-action-to-fight-another-pipeline/

xxp I think the problem is that due to a consistent demand for oil and the ability to lean on an energy independence stance, there will be _someone_ drilling in the gulf

the number of large entities (there are subcontractors in play) able to do so in capability and administration is very low. it's one of those "it's this guy or the other guy" situations

http://www.cnbc.com/2016/12/12/pipeline-spills-176000-gallons-of-crude-into-creek-about-150-miles-from-dakota-access-protest-camp.html

just the cost of doing business

there's nothing that can be done about it

no other way to get energy, no point in fighting it

chlidren starving in africa, why fight this

oh yeah, and i forget, modern pipelines are very safe and strictly regulated, and the vast majority of spills are 5 gallons or less, more or less routine

shouldn't the protesters be somewhere else? there are a million other pipelines, why this one. shouldn't there be one protester at each of the pipelines instead?

what does everybody think of this editorial

http://www.wsj.com/articles/what-the-dakota-access-pipeline-is-really-about-1481071218

can you c+p

that sub-hed is already p comical tho

disqualified from the very first sentence IMO, can't read the rest due to paywall but that IED argument has been proved false afaik

A little more than two weeks ago, during a confrontation between protesters and law enforcement, an improvised explosive device was detonated on a public bridge in southern North Dakota. That was simply the latest manifestation of the “prayerful” and “peaceful” protests against the Dakota Access Pipeline.

Escalating tensions were temporarily defused Sunday when the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, at the direction of the Obama administration, announced it would refuse to grant the final permit needed to complete the $3.8 billion project. The pipeline, which runs nearly 1,200 miles from the Bakken Shale in North Dakota to Illinois, is nearly complete except for a small section where it needs to pass under the Missouri River. Denying the permit for that construction only punts the issue to next month—to a new president who won’t thumb his nose at the rule of law.

Like many North Dakotans, I’ve had to endure preaching about the pipeline from the press, environmental activists, musicians and politicians in other states. More often than not, these sermons are informed by little more than a Facebook post. At the risk of spoiling the protesters’ narrative, I’d like to bring us back to ground truth.

• This isn’t about tribal rights or protecting cultural resources. The pipeline does not cross any land owned by the Standing Rock Sioux. The land under discussion belongs to private owners and the federal government. To suggest that the Standing Rock tribe has the legal ability to block the pipeline is to turn America’s property rights upside down.

• Two federal courts have rejected claims that the tribe wasn’t consulted. The project’s developer and the Army Corps made dozens of overtures to the Standing Rock Sioux over more than two years. Often these attempts were ignored or rejected, with the message that the tribe would only accept termination of the project.

• Other tribes and parties did participate in the process. More than 50 tribes were consulted, and their concerns resulted in 140 adjustments to the pipeline’s route. The project’s developer and the Army Corps were clearly concerned about protecting tribal artifacts and cultural sites. Any claim otherwise is unsupported by the record. The pipeline’s route was also studied—and ultimately supported—by the North Dakota Public Service Commission (on which I formerly served), the State Historic Preservation Office, and multiple independent archaeologists.

• This isn’t about water protection. Years before the pipeline was announced, the tribe was working with the Bureau of Reclamation and the Army Corps to relocate its drinking-water intake. The new site sits roughly 70 miles downstream of where the pipeline is slated to cross the Missouri River. Notably, the new intake, according to the Bureau of Reclamation, will be 1.6 miles downstream of an elevated railroad bridge that carries tanker cars carrying crude oil.

Further, the pipeline will be installed about 100 feet below the riverbed. Automatic shut-off valves will be employed on either side of the river, and the pipeline will be constructed to exceed many federal safety requirements.

Other pipelines carrying oil, gas and refined products already cross the Missouri River at least a dozen times upstream of the tribe’s intake. The corridor where the Dakota Access Pipeline will run is directly adjacent to another pipeline, which carries natural gas under the riverbed, as well as an overhead electric transmission line. This site was chosen because it is largely a brownfield area that was disturbed long ago by previous infrastructure.

• This isn’t about the climate. The oil that will be shipped through the pipeline is already being produced. But right now it is transported in more carbon-intensive ways, such as by railroad or long-haul tanker truck. So trying to thwart the pipeline to reduce greenhouse gas could have the opposite effect.

So what is the pipeline dispute really about? Political expediency in a White House that does not see itself as being bound by the rule of law. The Obama administration has decided to build a political legacy rather than lead the country. It is facilitating an illegal occupation that has grown wildly out of control. That the economy depends on a consistent and predictable permitting regime seems never to have crossed the president’s mind.

There is no doubt that Native American communities have historically suffered at the hands of the federal government. But to litigate that history on the back of a legally permitted river crossing is absurd. The Obama administration should enforce the law, release the easement and conclude this dangerous standoff.

Mr. Cramer, a Republican, represents North Dakota in the U.S. House. As a member of the North Dakota Public Service Commission (2003-12) he helped site the original Keystone Pipeline completed in 2010.

http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/dakota-pipeline-protests/pipeline-spills-176-000-gallons-oil-creek-150-miles-dakota-n695111?cid=sm_fb_msnbc shit like this happening should be enough to shut this down

http://www.reuters.com/article/north-dakota-pipeline-idUSL1N1E20T7
This is a better article about Belle Fourche Pipeline Company who should have been shut down years ago.
The federal agency has also issued six warning letters to the pipeline company regarding integrity issues and safety procedures.

The larger problem that is never addressed is the function of the EPA and how permitting is handed out. Whenever a HDD has a frack out or if a spill occurs, what happens. Fines. Companies pay. Paying money to break laws is at best far from sustainable, it encourages cost cutting short cuts. I've seen it happen time and time again. Instead, the EPA should have the regulatory power to shut a company down, entirely, instead of just pay us this sum of money. I was hopeful this would happen with the upcoming new regulation of all existing pipelines will fall under federal mandates. But with Trump coming into office, I fear the new laws will be postpone or worst vetoed. Fines are not regulating anything, completed shut down is the only way to make companies comply. And I hear your sarcasm Karl, I get it.