Dakota Access company seeks to block pipeline study

[IsailedawayfromFR]

company building the Dakota Access oil pipeline wants a federal judge to block the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers from launching a full environmental study of the $3.8 billion pipeline's disputed crossing of a Missouri River reservoir in North Dakota.

Texas-based Energy Transfer Partners asked U.S. District Judge James Boasberg on Tuesday to stop the Corps from publishing a notice in the Federal Register on Wednesday announcing the study. ETP wants any further study put on hold until Boasberg, in Washington, D.C., rules on whether ETP already has the necessary permission to lay pipe under Lake Oahe — the reservoir that's the water source for the Standing Rock Sioux tribe.

ETP wants to block further study so that the decision on the permitting, which is likely weeks away, will be "free from the risk that its ruling will be frustrated or thwarted by new governmental actions." The Corps did not immediately respond to ETP's request. The stretch under Lake Oahe is the last big chunk of construction for the 1,200-mile pipeline. The Corps wants to look at alternate routes, the potential for a pipeline leak and tribal treaty rights in the wake of opposition by the Standing Rock Sioux and its supporters who believe a pipeline leak would contaminate the tribe's drinking water.


ETP maintains the pipeline is safe and that the Corps gave it permission in July to proceed with the Lake Oahe stretch, but the Corps says all of the necessary steps have not yet been completed — including an easement to work on federal land and the notification of Congress.An environmental assessment conducted by the Corps last year determined that the Oahe crossing would not have a significant impact on the environment. However, Assistant Army Secretary for Civil Works Jo-Ellen Darcy said in December that a broader environmental impact statement was warranted. Such a statement can take up to two years to complete, according to the U.S. Department of Energy.
http://www.tylerpaper.com/TP-News+National/269447/dakota-access-company-seeks-to-block-pipeline-study

[Suppressed]

@Smokin Joe
@thackney

Ping

[thackney]

An environmental assessment conducted by the Corps last year determined that the Oahe crossing would not have a significant impact on the environment.

The first assessment didn't give the liberals the results they wanted, so they pushed to have it done again.

AlGoreithm:
Repeating a calculation until a prior desired result is produced.

[thackney]

President Donald Trump intends to sign two executive actions today that would advance construction of the Keystone XL and Dakota Access pipelines, according to a person familiar with the matter.

Keystone was rejected under former President Barack Obama. Trump’s move on Energy Transfer Partners LP’s 1,172-mile Dakota Access project aims to end a standoff that has stalled the $3.8 billion project since September, when the Obama administration halted work on land near Lake Oahe in North Dakota.

https://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2017-01-24/trump-said-to-plan-orders-approving-keystone-dakota-pipelines

[IsailedawayfromFR]

President Donald Trump intends to sign two executive actions today that would advance construction of the Keystone XL and Dakota Access pipelines, according to a person familiar with the matter.

Keystone was rejected under former President Barack Obama. Trump’s move on Energy Transfer Partners LP’s 1,172-mile Dakota Access project aims to end a standoff that has stalled the $3.8 billion project since September, when the Obama administration halted work on land near Lake Oahe in North Dakota.

https://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2017-01-24/trump-said-to-plan-orders-approving-keystone-dakota-pipelines

With this move, he is accomplishing a number of objectives, including adding jobs to the economy, padding our abilities to have cheap energy supplies, stating the Corps of Engineers will no longer be a political machine and developing an improved relationship with Union rank and file that helped propel him into office.

He also is saying he refuses to pay blackmail to Indian brass and enviro-wackos.

[Smokin Joe]

With all but a couple of miles done and in the ground, they want to change the pipeline route?

They want ETP to wait even though the permits were in?

The pipeline will pass below the lake bottom, by between (depending on who is reporting it) 40 and 80 feet, again, BELOW THE BOTTOM OF THE LAKE, in a hole drilled directionally for that purpose. As designed, the pipe will not come into contact with the lake water. In the event of a catastrophic failure of the Lake Oahee dam, not even erosion from the voiding lake water would cut down to the level of the pipe well below the old Missouri River bed, now flooded to form the lake.

The 'protesters' have done over two million dollars damage to equipment and facilities, and the ACOE wants to give them a couple more years? They have burned dump trucks in the middle of the road and damaged the bridge which is on a locally important highway. Costs to local and state government exceed 22 million dollars.

Most of the protesters are from elsewhere, and the tribe wants them to leave. http://hotair.com/archives/2017/01/22/even-the-standing-rock-tribe-is-sick-of-the-dakota-pipeline-protesters/

The 'water protectors' are encamped in an area very likely to flood when the snow melts this spring, and will pollute the water with the residues of the camp, trash, and human waste.

Can someone tell me if this land is too sacred to put a pipeline under, why are these people from elsewhere being allowed to camp there?

This will be the second pipeline to cross (after the Northern Border Gas Pipeline), and there is a high tension power line crossing there, too. All the various surveys were done on those projects, there was no howling about 'sacred ground' then, so why now?

Every day the project is delayed, the additional cost to ship oil to refineries runs about 2.3 million dollars--money that does not go to royalty owners, the State (in the form of taxes), to the property tax abatement fund that reduces taxes on real property (state wide, not just in the oil producing counties), or to the oil producers.

The economic impact is staggering, and the lost revenue to ETP is even greater.

Overall, aside from direct damage to equipment, facilities, infrastructure and the environment, the cost of this protest is well over $5 Million a day, and that doesn't include whatever Soros' minions are paying protesters.

[Smokin Joe]

Unless I do not remember correctly, the pipeline does not cross any sacred ground whatsoever.  I believe it is just a ploy to postpone.

It crosses no reservation land, it crosses private land, and that has been surveyed for cultural remains and items of significance, with archaeological people on site as construction proceeds. Changes were made to the pipeline route in order to avoid areas of cultural significance. None of these areas had been designated culturally significant when the other pipeline was put in, nor the power lines.

I think there may have been a basic ploy to hold up the pipeline company, and it got out of hand. There are a few environmental extremist groups involved now, and they are using this to raise money. check out the go fund me site, enter 'standing rock' and see how much has been raised just there. I have little doubt the environmental extremist groups who have weighed in are using this as a fundraising cause du jour, too.

[Smokin Joe]

Little sympathy for protesters here...

http://www.wptv.com/news/national/running-over-protesters-on-roadways-could-soon-be-legal-in-north-dakota

Protesters may want to think twice about blocking roads in North Dakota.

Republican lawmakers in the state introduced a bill last week in the legislature that would not hold motorists liable for negligently running over someone obstructing a roadway. The bill was introduced in response to a year of protests over a proposed pipeline near the Standing Rock Indian Reservation.

> snip >
"It’s shifting the burden of proof from the motor vehicle driver to the pedestrian,” Rep. Keith Kempenich told the paper. "(Roads) are not there for the protesters. They’re intentionally putting themselves in danger."

The bill will be heard by the North Dakota's House Transportation Committee on Friday.

[IsailedawayfromFR]

Little sympathy for protesters here...

http://www.wptv.com/news/national/running-over-protesters-on-roadways-could-soon-be-legal-in-north-dakota

Hillarious.

Idiots fulfill Darwin's theory of natural selection.

[Smokin Joe]

Hillarious.

Idiots fulfill Darwin's theory of natural selection.

I believe the idea is to keep people from being sued by protesters who threw themselves in front of vehicles to block the highway. One cannot intentionally run them down (something hard to prove, anyway), but the idea that someone should lose everything they own over some jackass intentionally blocking a road just over a hill or around a turn would be prevented. Not so far different from laws which prevent a person engaged in a criminal act from benefiting from whatever consequences of their own actions, and release the property owner from liability for any injury which occurs to the criminal.

So, if the bill goes through, if someone is standing in the road trying to block it and you hit them, tough for them.

Link to HB 1203: http://www.legis.nd.gov/assembly/65-2017/documents/17-0351-01000.pdf  (North Dakota Legislative session)

[Smokin Joe]

Trump executive orders may revive Dakota Access, Keystone XL projects
WASHINGTON, DC, Jan. 24
01/24/2017
By Nick Snow
OGJ Washington Editor

US President Donald J. Trump signed executive orders aimed at reviving the Dakota Access and Keystone XL crude oil pipeline projects, but it was not immediately clear how quickly their consequences will be felt. Oil and gas industry groups and others that supported the projects applauded the Jan. 24 move nevertheless as environmental organizations and other opponents expressed their disgust.

More at:
http://www.ogj.com/articles/2017/01/trump-executive-orders-may-revive-dakota-access-keystone-xl-projects.html?cmpid=enl_ogj_ogjdailyupdate_2017-01-25&email_address=joeb@midrivers.com&eid=288225004&bid=1645806

[IsailedawayfromFR]

I believe the idea is to keep people from being sued by protesters who threw themselves in front of vehicles to block the highway. One cannot intentionally run them down (something hard to prove, anyway), but the idea that someone should lose everything they own over some jackass intentionally blocking a road just over a hill or around a turn would be prevented. Not so far different from laws which prevent a person engaged in a criminal act from benefiting from whatever consequences of their own actions, and release the property owner from liability for any injury which occurs to the criminal.

So, if the bill goes through, if someone is standing in the road trying to block it and you hit them, tough for them.

Link to HB 1203: http://www.legis.nd.gov/assembly/65-2017/documents/17-0351-01000.pdf  (North Dakota Legislative session)

There are already laws in ND against obstructing public roadways, so not much to worry about here other than some more gratification one does not get sued by idiot's survivors.

[Smokin Joe]

There are already laws in ND against obstructing public roadways, so not much to worry about here other than some more gratification one does not get sued by idiot's survivors.

An absolution of criminal and civil liability is a nice thing to have in the event someone hits one of these fools. Malicious intent would have to be proven for any redress, legal or civil, as negligence is also covered in the waiver of liability.

Basically, if this passes and you want to stand in the road and shout, it's on you to not get hit. If you do, well, duh, what did you expect?

[IsailedawayfromFR]

An absolution of criminal and civil liability is a nice thing to have in the event someone hits one of these fools. Malicious intent would have to be proven for any redress, legal or civil, as negligence is also covered in the waiver of liability.

Basically, if this passes and you want to stand in the road and shout, it's on you to not get hit. If you do, well, duh, what did you expect?

Perhaps we can persuade some more Dakota Access protesters to participate in road blocking?

Would accelerate some needed change in some other areas....

[Smokin Joe]

Perhaps we can persuade some more Dakota Access protesters to participate in road blocking?

Would accelerate some needed change in some other areas....

It isn't law yet, but just the introduction of the bill should make a point. People are tired of this crap.
Keep in mind that in this state, the concept that pedestrians always have the right of way is pretty much drummed into people's heads when they learn to drive, and it isn't uncommon in town to see people stop to let someone cross the street--even if there is no crosswalk there (mid-block). This is a serious reversal of that policy for those who would intentionally block the road.
I would hope that while it isn't open season on protesters, the idea they should GTH out of the way would sink in.

Actually, as frustrating as those folks have been, I seriously doubt anyone wants to run anyone over. However, the idea that a motorist should imperil or sacrifice themselves to avoid hitting someone intentionally blocking the road or face being sued or prosecuted for hitting them doesn't fly, either.