Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Dakota Access Pipeline to win US Army permit for completion

bbc.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

151–160 of 195 posts

Re: Dakota Access Pipeline to win US Army permit for completion

#151

Post by KevinEldon »

namesbc wrote: post #138
zenta wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Those FAQs/Facts are amusing. > Myth: Law enforcement officers deployed concussion grenades resulting in the grievous injury to a protester’s arm. > Fact: Law enforcement has at no time used concussion grenades during protest activities. Non-lethal munitions used include: impact sponge rounds, drag stabilizer bean bag rounds, riot control CS (tear gas) canister and water, Taser, and stinger balls, which are small rub…

Let me get this "Fact" straight. Law enforcement throws a "non-lethal munition" directly at a protester who subsequently loses her arm, but it was probably something else that just happened to coincide with the "non-lethal munition" explosion, and not their grenade? Right.

It would help your argument if you cited public records. Is there a news story, social media discussion, some other documentation of the incident? Do we know who was involved... was it law enforcement or private security? Was the protester in a space they legally had access to or had they moved onto privately owned land?

Re: Dakota Access Pipeline to win US Army permit for completion

#152

Post by cmrdporcupine »

matt_wulfeck wrote: post #119
protomyth wrote: post #14

At this point, the main concern is getting that camp cleaned up before the flood comes. It should be noted that the tribe has passed a resolution for protestors to go home[1] with no provisions for relocation. This isn't the only area of North Dakota that is going to flood this year and money spent on this foolishness is going to be missed. Devils Lake is going to rise about 4' under current estimates. The reporting…

> The reason this particular corridor is used is because it was initially cleared in 1982 for an existing gas pipeline. The DAPL pipeline runs parallel to that pipe So basically this pipe runs alongside an existing pipe? I feel like I can't trust anything I read anymore from either side.

gas pipeline. Not exactly in the same environmental threat level

Re: Dakota Access Pipeline to win US Army permit for completion

#153

Post by [deleted] »

matt_wulfeck wrote: post #119
protomyth wrote: post #14

At this point, the main concern is getting that camp cleaned up before the flood comes. It should be noted that the tribe has passed a resolution for protestors to go home[1] with no provisions for relocation. This isn't the only area of North Dakota that is going to flood this year and money spent on this foolishness is going to be missed. Devils Lake is going to rise about 4' under current estimates. The reporting…

> The reason this particular corridor is used is because it was initially cleared in 1982 for an existing gas pipeline. The DAPL pipeline runs parallel to that pipe So basically this pipe runs alongside an existing pipe? I feel like I can't trust anything I read anymore from either side.

[deleted]

Re: Dakota Access Pipeline to win US Army permit for completion

#154

Post by beat »

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #142
beat wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The debate is social. This is going through tribal lands because the tribes are poor and legally limited. They can't defend themselves. If you tried to run a pipeline under the water supply for 10,000 rich white people, it'd die before the first inch of pipe was laid. The very land it's going under is just a tiny fragment of low-value land left to the tribes, after multiple gunpoint-driven treaties left a tiny "reser…

> This is going through tribal lands because the tribes are poor and legally limited The pipeline runs close to , not "through tribal lands" [1]. The environmental concern is fair. If my neighbor builds a 300 dB speaker on their property, I have a reasonable claim to damages. The "sacred lands" and threat to "way of life" claims, however, seem disingenuous. It amounts to laying claims based on hypotheticals on someon…

"Disingenuous" is unfair. But symbolic, certainly. What this is really about, what I'm getting at, is that this is being done because no one actually gives a shit about the tribes, except the tribes. The state is more or less free to steal from the tribes, or endanger them. If anything of value is found in whatever land they have left, it's taken from them.

So this is symbolism. Standing in front of a bulldozer and saying "NO" is all they have left.

Re: Dakota Access Pipeline to win US Army permit for completion

#155

Post by jessaustin »

breatheoften wrote: post #127
jessaustin wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure, but don't we hear the same "propaganda" every time any group gathers anywhere? If it's not Soros, it's the Kochs; if it's not unions, it's the Russians: whatever boogieman gets you going. In future, can't we just take it as read that some percentage of any group is paid to be there and some higher percentage is accused by someone else of being paid to be there? Is it something we have to worry about?

Unfortunately yes we do have to worry about propaganda. An example: In Colorado where I live a large number of people contacted their republican senator Cory Gardner to express their disapproval of Betsy Davos for Secretary of Education. Gardner publicly ignored these voices with the claim that they were "paid protesters". Widespread claims that protesters can be ignored because of a claimed "paid protester" taint sh…

Frankly I would have expected most R's to vote for the confirmation of R cabinet nominations. One needn't invoke complicated rhetorical scenarios to explain such an action.

Some reportage of confirmation hearings might have left the impression that this particular nominee is some unhappy amalgamation of Satan, Brandine Spuckler, and Richie Rich as interpreted by Robot Chicken. That seems pretty unlikely! Probably this is a simple political disagreement, filtered through whatever media process maximizes those clicks and eyeballs.

Re: Dakota Access Pipeline to win US Army permit for completion

#156

Post by geofft »

zo1 wrote: post #149
geofft wrote: post #143

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's not what's being claimed: > paid protestors who are going to get in trouble for working in North Dakota and not filing their taxes The only way you'd be liable to state taxes in ND is if you are literally paid to do it like a job.

Isn't it more likely that that individual was just being a bit facetious rather than seriously claiming these people are getting a "paycheck" for protesting? That is how I took it, and was more trying to expound on how "paid protesting" could at the very least work hypothetically.

No, I don't think that's more likely. The accusations of "paid protesting" have been very consistent that they literally mean getting an individual paycheck to go and protest.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/jan/30/north-dakota...

The Washington Times (note that the Times is a Unification Church-run paper, not the Post) quotes the North Dakota Tax Commissioner as saying he's "looking at the entities that have potential paid contractors here on their behalf doing work," and writes that he's "keeping an eye out for tax forms from environmental groups that may have hired protesters to agitate against" the pipeline.

http://heatst.com/politics/north-dakota-may-take-tax-action-...

Heat Street also quotes a spokeswoman for the tax commissioner as saying, "Since the protesters earned income in North Dakota, they would owe income tax to the state on that income tax per North Dakota tax law. If they do not file for tax year 2016, they would be subject to penalties and interest."

https://twitter.com/foxandfriends/status/828570204670091264

Sean Spicer says that protesting is "a profession" and it's become an "astroturf-type movement", and specifically contrasts it with the Tea Party protests (which consisted of funded organizations, like you suggest—enough funded organizations that the IRS could flag them).

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/79690018395509555...

The president refers to "professional protestors".

http://abcnews.com.co/donald-trump-protester-speaks-out-i-wa...

Literal fake news website "abcnews.com.co" (i.e., not "abcnews.go.com") has a story about a protestor receiving a $3,500 check.

I appreciate that you're trying to extend good faith, but the way to do that is to believe they mean what they say. If the mechanics of "paid protesting" don't make sense to you, that's because the people you're arguing with are wrong, not because you're misunderstanding them.

Re: Dakota Access Pipeline to win US Army permit for completion

#157

Post by dang »

socialentp wrote: post #140
dang wrote: post #125

We changed the url from https://www.google.com/amp/www.bbc.co.uk/news/amp/38901498 , which points to this. The submitted title ("US Army approves Dakota Access Pipeline without required environmental review") rewrote the original when it wasn't misleading or linkbait. This breaks the HN guidelines ( https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html ), so please don't do that. Doing it to emphasize a contentious detail…

Understood, and that makes a lot of sense. I apologize for the mistake and will do better next time.

Great!

Re: Dakota Access Pipeline to win US Army permit for completion

#158

Post by knowaveragejoe »

adamsea wrote: post #136
protomyth wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Oh, I believe some of them believe in it, as I said I have relatives there. On the other hand, there are paid organizers from various groups here. One doesn't change the other. Plus, I'm just sick of articles like this that just lie and don't check facts. I expect better of the BBC.

The rightness of the cause can be discussed independently of the funding behind those taking action. Plus, "paid organizers from various groups" sounds weird, you mean, like, maybe the Sierra Club sent someone there to help the protests because the Sierra Club cares about the environment? Or do you mean, like, the evil George Soros sent his UN minions there to help advance the New World Order?

I'd love to hear more from this person, but it appears upon receiving any real skepticism of their claims they've gone silent.

Re: Dakota Access Pipeline to win US Army permit for completion

#159

Post by snuxoll »

cmrdporcupine wrote: post #152
matt_wulfeck wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The reason this particular corridor is used is because it was initially cleared in 1982 for an existing gas pipeline. The DAPL pipeline runs parallel to that pipe So basically this pipe runs alongside an existing pipe? I feel like I can't trust anything I read anymore from either side.

gas pipeline. Not exactly in the same environmental threat level

Certainly, although methane gas dissolving into drinking water certainly carries it's own risks. Those risks are more explosion and oxygen displacement, since AFAICT once coming through a faucet or whatever it should separate from the water (it is a gas).

Oil contamination will ruin a potable water supply for a long time to come, it will mix with the water and make it unusable for human, animal or plant consumption - outside of a complete drainage and refilling of the water table (hah, good one) it's just going to continue to be more and more diluted but still present until a very long period of time has passed.

This is the major fear of these pipelines, any leak could potentially do irreparable harm (in a human time frame) to a water supply - and oil pipelines have leaked before, we haven't suddenly got some new engineering magic to stop it.

Re: Dakota Access Pipeline to win US Army permit for completion

#160

Post by jadell »

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #148
eh78ssxv2f wrote: post #3

I always wonder what's the best way to assess environmental impact of the oil pipeline. Sure, it's going to leak at some point, and create a mess that may never get cleaned up. However, is it safer (or energy efficient) than carrying the oil on trains/trucks?

> is it safer (or energy efficient) than carrying the oil on trains/trucks? In essence, pipelines spill more across fewer locations while trains spill less across more locations: Our calculation implies 0.09 incidents and 26 barrels released per 1 billion barrel-miles of crude oil transported by pipeline during a 2004-12 period. Comparing that with figures for rail, we quantify the risk of a train incident to be 6-ti…

I'm all for "socializing the risk" of oil. If more people had the same worries about their water being contaminated, maybe more people would start to demand investment in cleaner sources of energy. As it is, most people don't live near pipelines or water sources that could be contaminated by them, and so the risk is largely abstract.
Post reply on HN