Home | About | Donate

Who's Banking on the Dakota Access Pipeline?


#1

Who's Banking on the Dakota Access Pipeline?

Jo Miles, Hugh MacMillan

When the Army Corps of Engineers issued a permit for the 1,100-mile Dakota Access Pipeline in July, executives at the corporations behind the plan probably thought their path forward was clear. They’d moved easily through the permit process, seemingly dodging the concerns of people affected by the pipeline, and were ready to go ahead with construction.


#2

" We owe all these activists our support."

Even though my spouse who is Native American, and I cannot get to North Dakota, we both stand in solidarity with these protectors and will do whatever we can to support their cause. Excellent article by Jo Miles and Hugh Macmillen.


#5

Thank you for clearly showing the multi-tenticled bank$ter octopus that funds this environmental horror.


#7

and Energy Transfer Partners is touting it as a key element of its future plans to “capitalize on U.S. energy exports.”

Once the right wing conservatives understand that this is not oil intended for the US market, but instead is intended purely to increase profits for the already obscenely wealthy, maybe they too will fight this.


#8

Don't hold your breath.
Conservatives all agree that unregulated Capitalism and the profits it brings are the greatest gifts that God ever bestowed upon mankind.


#9

"Governor Dalrymple has declared a state of emergency, removing water and sanitation resources from the reservation"

As if that's a normal response to a 'state of emergency.' It would be more accurate to say that Governor Dalrymple is attempting to create a state of emergency by removing water and sanitation resources from the reservation...


#10

Is Dalrymple a Republican?


#11

Going back to ancient mythology, stories featuring a clash of the Titans became legend.

What's needed is for today's Titans: The Energy moguls (and their banking creditors) to challenge the Insurance company moguls.

After all, it's inevitable that the more fracking that continues, the more earthquakes, poisoned lands, and poisoned water tables will result. (In other words, massive losses to Big Insurance.)

So, perhaps it would help the Cause of Life if the energy moguls duked it out with the Insurance moguls.

Ralph Nader came to the conclusion--after years of selfless activism and endless efforts aimed at taming the captains of industry--that "only the rich can save us."

When one rich sector's interests sufficiently challenge that of another, a 21st century rendition of a Clash of the Titans may well begin.

In this case, I'd cheer for the Insurance companies!


#12

There is such a debt owed to the Native Americans.

This indeed COULD be an opportunity for The White Man (and his culture based on dominating persons, places, nature, and things) to begin the overdue process of restorative justice, retribution, and at last HONORING those who understand the human being's relationship to the land (as well as the natural world, taken as a whole).


#14

from article: " We need to keep fossil fuels in the ground,......"

I just deduced a few weeks ago why the "keep-it-in-the- ground" people will never succeed: how can the US keep producing and selling its prime export (weapons) and continue its atrocious foreign policy of killing people all over the world without having oil to fuel those weapons? What a country we pay taxes to!!!


#15

The wages of quite a few workers get paid to move the oil from point A to point B. Some of them unionized workers who get good wages from it. Profit is what's left over from revenue after paying expenses. (A year ago there wasn't much profit when the price of oil fell by 50% or more. - thus why there has been a pullback on extraction for now.)
-- Take some time to consider your own biases, in considering 'profit' to be a dirty word, (when you don't scorn a farmer making some profit at the farmers' market...), and at what point and how so "wealthy" is considered "already obscenely wealthy".


#16

Quoted from the article,

This is typical article hyperbole. It is neither possible or politic to cut off water and sanitation to the whole reservation. If the governor has "cut off..." then it is cut off to the activists' encampment where activists are blocking work on the pipeline with their bodies.


#17

I will bet that the article, and the other one on DAPL in this week's Common Dreams don't tell the whole story.

From my understanding of how business operates, there was work before the route was approved by the Federal government.
(It was not like the story of the Moscow-St. Petersburg railroad. The Czar's government ministers presented the plan to Czar Nicholas, and gave, or deferred, to him a say in the routing of the railroad. The Czar called for a straight edge and a pen, laid it on the map and drew a straight line, and more or less that was where it was built.)

Before the route for DAPL was approved, the company, with its bankers looking over its shoulder, considered what route, considering the environmental risks, and costs of mitigating them, considering the problems of securing right of way, and the costs, several other things, considering the problems of securing government and regulatory permissions and those costs, and totaling the costs to see if it was within budget. They talked with the local government units along the way. I will bet that they talked with the tribal leaders at Standing Rock, and they and the tribal government agreed to money to the tribe for the right of way. (Which can also be considered to be a bribe to the tribe's leaders. Most things can be seen in two different lights.) And I will bet that the tribal government changed its mind when public sentiment against DAPL raised its head.


The article and many others claim that pipelines are dangerous. To allude to Einstein, everything is relative. Pipelines are lower cost and safer than railroads. The very safest, in the alpha error sense, is to leave the oil in the ground and not transport it or use it at all. That has a considerable beta cost, of all the things we could do with oil and can not if it is left in the ground. Easy for most Common Dreamers to say that we can and must and should live without fossil fuel, and fossil fuel can be adequately substituted with wind solar and conservation (The Sierra Club also opposes hydropower.). But do Common Dreamers already live that? And they have to answer to the rest of the public for depriving them of cheap easy fuel and forcing on them "energy poverty".


#18

Siouxrose11, here is an article on just such a thing:

www.commondreams.org/news/2016/08/29/mother-all-risks-insurance-giants-call-g20-stop-bankrolling-fossil-fuels


#19

These conditions exist on many reservations across Indian Country. So, given the poverty found on the Standing Rock Sioux Reservation this is probably "normal."


#23

I will bet that they did not. Lots of eminent domain at below fair value (in the eyes of the community) rouses a lot of public opposition. They know that and seek to avoid that.

My mother told that a pipeline company ran a pipeline across her father's farm land, and that, this was the Great Depression, her father was happy to receive a yearly check from the pipeline company. Also, apparently, the pipeline was buried deep enough that he could do regular farming over it.


#24

I wish.


#25

Water is a HUMAN RIGHT. Not that anyone cares a rat's ass, but isn't removing water AGAINST INTERNATIONAL LAW?

Again, not that it will matter, but this should be brought up at the U.N.


#26

Can eminent domain be used on Native American reservations?


#27

Maybe someday your grandchildren will regret that their grandfather TROLLED for the energy companies when they can no longer breathe clean air anywhere on the planet.