U.S. Army to grant final permit for controversial Dakota pipeline

[Spike]

Go Army!



The U.S. Army will grant the final permit for the controversial Dakota Access oil pipeline after an order from President Donald Trump to expedite the project, despite opposition from Native American tribes and climate activists.

The protest against the $3.8 billion pipeline drew thousands of people to the North Dakota plains last year and attracted high-profile political and celebrity support.

The administration of former President Barack Obama delayed completion of the line pending a review of tribal concerns and last year ordered an environmental study.

But in a Tuesday filing in U.S. District Court in Washington D.C., the U.S. Army, which oversees the Corps of Engineers in charge of permits for the project, said it would cancel the study and grant the final permit to tunnel under Lake Oahe, a reservoir that is part of the Missouri River, allowing completion of the line.

http://mobile.reuters.com/article/idUSKBN15M2DU

 

[Spike]

Winning Oil!


Dakota pipeline builder says oil could flow in as few as two weeks

On the eve of the deadline for anti-Dakota Access Pipeline protesters to vacate camps in North Dakota, the company in charge of construction said in a court filing on Tuesday that oil could start flowing in as early as two weeks, beating previous estimates.

Texas-based developer Energy Transfer Partners, the builder of the pipeline whose construction has sparked protests since last August over its location, said in the filing to the U.S. District Court in Washington, D.C., that the company "estimates and targets that the pipeline will be complete and ready to flow oil anywhere between the week of March 6, 2017 and April 1, 2017.

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/dakota-pipeline-builder-oil-flow-weeks/story?id=45649701

--------------------

Flush them out

 

[hamster]

Drill baby, drill.

 

[Stewey]

Go Army!



The U.S. Army will grant the final permit for the controversial Dakota Access oil pipeline after an order from President Donald Trump to expedite the project, despite opposition from Native American tribes and climate activists.

The protest against the $3.8 billion pipeline drew thousands of people to the North Dakota plains last year and attracted high-profile political and celebrity support.

The administration of former President Barack Obama delayed completion of the line pending a review of tribal concerns and last year ordered an environmental study.

But in a Tuesday filing in U.S. District Court in Washington D.C., the U.S. Army, which oversees the Corps of Engineers in charge of permits for the project, said it would cancel the study and grant the final permit to tunnel under Lake Oahe, a reservoir that is part of the Missouri River, allowing completion of the line.

http://mobile.reuters.com/article/idUSKBN15M2DU

Wait...there are 7 other pipelines that cross this lake in near proximity and they're whining about this one?

 

[Stewey]

Expect soon a shallow and irrelevant thread from Elfie about how the white man did bad things to the Indians.

 

[CoolieMan]

Wait...there are 7 other pipelines that cross this lake in near proximity and they're whining about this one?

that is why this damn protest never made any damn sense.

 

[Spike]

Wait...there are 7 other pipelines that cross this lake in near proximity and they're whining about this one?

Other pipelines already cross UNDER

Amazing how the Headline News companies never tell anyone that, isn't it?

baaa say the sheep

 

[Spike]

Expect soon a shallow and irrelevant thread from Elfie about how the white man did bad things to the Indians.

Pale faces not wanted - ruin big Casino wampum


Pipeline Protesters Ruin Tribe’s Casino Revenue and Set Fire to Camp

The Dakota Access Pipeline protesters are being forced to abandon their camp today, and rather than allow the site to be properly cleaned up, they decided to light it on fire

Burning sections of the camp will most likely make a sanitary and efficient cleanup more difficult for the authorities, which have repeatedly clashed with protesters over the camp’s threat to the environment.

An even bigger reason many in the Standing Rock tribe won’t be sorry to see visiting agitators go: The pipeline protest has been detrimental to their most important source of revenue, the Prairie Knights Casino & Resort

http://www.nationalreview.com/corne...line-protests-hurt-casino-revenue-environment

 

[Steeltime]

Expect soon a shallow and irrelevant thread from Elfie about how the white man did bad things to the Indians.

Well, elfiePolo is 1/64th Bitchalot - a tribe that nobody ever liked. ******* never stopped complaining.

 

[Ron Burgundy]

For a bunch of Greenies that's a pretty big carbon footprint.

 

[Steel Vanguard]

I don't care about the pipe either way. But it's a joke to suggest that this is anything more than a money grab for oil companies. It will not create large numbers of permanent jobs for American workers, as has been stated.

Build it or don't, it's effect on the overall economy will be minimal.

 

[Spike]

I don't care about the pipe either way. .

How dare you smear the loyal toxic waste producing environmental protesters!


Dakota Pipeline Protesters Remain, Despite Deadline to Leave

The protesters have spent months demanding a halt to construction and a full environmental review of the project, which became central to national debates about energy, the environment and the rights of Native Americans.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/22/...dakota-protesters-to-leave-campsite.html?_r=0

 

[Steel Vanguard]

I'm not sold on the idea that the pipeline is bad for the environment. I do have a problem with the use of Imminent Domain to take tribal lands. Treaties were violated. Having said that, all three sides have been belligerent. The Native tribes, the oil companies and the government. A fair and reasonable settlement could have been reached if more responsible actors had been involved.

 

[Tim Steelersfan]

I don't care about the pipe either way. But it's a joke to suggest that this is anything more than a money grab for oil companies. It will not create large numbers of permanent jobs for American workers, as has been stated.

Build it or don't, it's effect on the overall economy will be minimal.

Really, this is your issue?

Here's mine. I'm sick and tired of being tied to OPEC and the middle east. I'm sick and tired of our environmentalists and the green side of the Liberal party suing non-stop and stopping us from using the oil we have, or next door in Canada because of spotted ******* owls. They don't give a **** about the damage oil drilling does in other countries. I digress.

I'd absolutely LOVE to stop being dependent on the Middle East for oil. I would think you would be too.

So build the pipeline. Build 1,000 of them, and oil rigs all over the country. That's my choice.

 

[Steel Vanguard]

Really, this is your issue?

Here's mine. I'm sick and tired of being tied to OPEC and the middle east. I'm sick and tired of our environmentalists and the green side of the Liberal party suing non-stop and stopping us from using the oil we have, or next door in Canada because of spotted ******* owls. They don't give a **** about the damage oil drilling does in other countries. I digress.

I'd absolutely LOVE to stop being dependent on the Middle East for oil. I would think you would be too.

So build the pipeline. Build 1,000 of them, and oil rigs all over the country. That's my choice.

From an economic standpoint you've misidentified the problem. First of all, we've already reached oil independence. That's why gas got cheaper since the crash. When oil reaches 70$ per barrel, alternative production (like oil sands) becomes economically viable. When the very first of these projects began producing the OPEC countries immediately opened up production (which they had been strangling for years). They did this because they knew that they would lose market share the the US and Canada if they tried to compete at a higher price point. At oil's 141 dollar per barrel peak price, the United States could compete with the cheaper pump oil from the Middle East sufficiently to price them right out of the market.

Environmentalists have not one damn thing to do with it. So long as the Mid East producers keep the price of oil artificially low (under $70 dollars) it's simply cheaper to buy if from them. That's economics, not environmentalist.

 

[CharlesDavenport]

Fringe groups have been stalling the pipeline. That **** don't fly anymore.

 

[Steeltime]

I'm not sold on the idea that the pipeline is bad for the environment. I do have a problem with the use of Imminent Domain to take tribal lands.

It's "eminent domain." And the Federal government cannot use and did not use eminent domain relative to this pipeline.

Eminent Domain Was Never Used On The North Dakota Route

Energy Transfer Partners relied on voluntary easements, which are non-possessory rights to use the property of a landowner without owning the land itself, to construct the pipeline’s southern route near Standing Rock Sioux’s reservation. Much of the land that protesters are occupying during their demonstrations is private property owned by farmers.

http://dailycaller.com/2016/11/06/t...kota-access-pipeline-explained/#ixzz4ZTbL63c3

Read the linked article. It will show you why I have ZERO faith, at all, in the mainstream media. ******* NEVER reported any of the numerous facts showing that the protest is a show, and nothing else.

 

[Tim Steelersfan]

From an economic standpoint you've misidentified the problem. First of all, we've already reached oil independence. That's why gas got cheaper since the crash. When oil reaches 70$ per barrel, alternative production (like oil sands) becomes economically viable. When the very first of these projects began producing the OPEC countries immediately opened up production (which they had been strangling for years). They did this because they knew that they would lose market share the the US and Canada if they tried to compete at a higher price point. At oil's 141 dollar per barrel peak price, the United States could compete with the cheaper pump oil from the Middle East sufficiently to price them right out of the market.

Environmentalists have not one damn thing to do with it. So long as the Mid East producers keep the price of oil artificially low (under $70 dollars) it's simply cheaper to buy if from them. That's economics, not environmentalist.

Yeah, about those theories. Ahem. I encourage you to read the entire article, including studying the graphs, beyond the excerpt I provided below. We are FAR from being oil independent (that's a Liberal talking point unsubstantiated with facts).

From the uber-Liberal CNBC itself: http://www.cnbc.com/2016/10/10/hillary-clinton-said-america-is-energy-independent-it-is-not.html

Hillary Clinton said America is energy independent. It is not

In response to a town hall question on how she would meet America's energy needs, Clinton said: "You know that we are now for the first time ever energy independent. We are not dependent upon the Middle East."

"We've got to remain energy-independent. It gives us much more power and freedom than to be worried about what goes on in the Middle East," she added.

The United States imported 9.4 million barrels of crude and petroleum products in 2015, and imports are on the rise this year, according to U.S. Energy Information Administration data. Of the 2015 total, 2.9 million barrels came from OPEC countries, and 1.5 million came from Persian Gulf countries.

To be sure, U.S. energy independence has advanced. Last year, about 24 percent of petroleum consumed in the United States came from abroad, the lowest level since 1970, according to the EIA.

But while a revolution in U.S. and Canadian oil drilling has significantly reduced the country's reliance on imports from OPEC since 2007 — when annual imports from the cartel were nearly 6 million barrels a day — the United States is far from energy independent.

 

[Steel Vanguard]

Yeah, about those theories. Ahem. I encourage you to read the entire article, including studying the graphs, beyond the excerpt I provided below. We are FAR from being oil independent (that's a Liberal talking point unsubstantiated with facts).

From the uber-Liberal CNBC itself: http://www.cnbc.com/2016/10/10/hillary-clinton-said-america-is-energy-independent-it-is-not.html

Hillary Clinton said America is energy independent. It is not

You posted this thing, but I'm not sure you read it. From the article...



"That said, while the Obama administration has ratcheted up regulations and limited drilling on federal land, it also presided over a 75 percent increase in U.S. crude output in its first seven years. The boom continued until a sharp oil price downturn forced American producers to cut back output."

Which is exactly what I said. We have the capacity. We have the resources and technology. But it's simply not cost effective to implement with crude trading under $70. OPEC has gone from maintaining an artificially high price to maintaining an artificially low price and the reason is obvious: we're already independent and they're desperate to maintain market share. We don't need them and the second they stop glutting the market with cheap oil they know we'll drop them like a bad habit.

 

[Steel Vanguard]

According to this article eminent domain was used for the pipeline in Iowa.

https://www.radioiowa.com/2017/02/2...ppeal-of-dakota-access-eminent-domain-ruling/

Iowans are appealing.

 

[Tim Steelersfan]

You posted this thing, but I'm not sure you read it. From the article...



"That said, while the Obama administration has ratcheted up regulations and limited drilling on federal land, it also presided over a 75 percent increase in U.S. crude output in its first seven years. The boom continued until a sharp oil price downturn forced American producers to cut back output."

Which is exactly what I said. We have the capacity. We have the resources and technology. But it's simply not cost effective to implement with crude trading under $70. OPEC has gone from maintaining an artificially high price to maintaining an artificially low price and the reason is obvious: we're already independent and they're desperate to maintain market share. We don't need them and the second they stop glutting the market with cheap oil they know we'll drop them like a bad habit.

Yes, I read it. And now you're trying to backtrack. That is NOT what you said. You said: "First of all, we've already reached oil independence." That is the only sentence I took issue with and why I rebutted.

Apparently you don't understand the definition of the word. Dependence: the state of relying on or being controlled by someone or something else.


You stated OPEC manipulates prices (yes, we are all aware) to keep us from utilizing our own capacity, just as they did when fracking was really making a mark. That is "controlling" the market. See above, being controlled by someone or something else.

OPEC controls us with their pricing. They damn near put fracking out of existence with it.

Now, add in Obama's regulations, the Alt Left Liberal environmentalists, and their lawyers. We are not accessing the capacity we have. We are not producing as much as we need. And we are still utilizing more oil from the Middle East than anywhere else. Why? Because they control the market, making us dependent on them.

We are NOT oil independent. Having the "capacity" doesn't make one oil independent. Accessing it and delivering it to the market would allow us to be.

 

[Steeltime]

According to this article eminent domain was used for the pipeline in Iowa.

https://www.radioiowa.com/2017/02/2...ppeal-of-dakota-access-eminent-domain-ruling/

Iowans are appealing.

The land that was subjected to eminent domain was not Indian land, and was instead owned by 14 non-Native Americans.

 

[Spike]

For a bunch of Greenies that's a pretty big carbon footprint.

Burning down their camp down while protesting pollution?

there's that irony again

 

[CharlesDavenport]

I think I like "Imminent Domain" better.

 

[Steel Vanguard]

We are NOT oil independent. Having the "capacity" doesn't make one oil independent. Accessing it and delivering it to the market would allow us to be.

This makes no sense. We aren't dependent on them, because we have our own capacity. If they want to basically give away oil then we should gladly take it because low oil prices are good for the economy. Becoming independent is what drove oil prices down, that is demonstrated fact. I don't get why you're trying to deny that. OPEC DOESN'T CONTROL THE OIL SUPPLY ANYMORE. They can no longer choke it off and **** with our economy. That's what matters.

In the immortal words of George W. Bush...