Anti-pipeline radicals at it again; Activists protesting In North Dakota opposing Energy Independence

pipelineheader_new

And here we go again. It seems that the scenes emerging from Morton County North Dakota resemble something a little more sinister than what many of us would consider a “Spirit Camp” protest, because they’re looking like a North Dakota/South Dakota version of the types of protests we’re seeing in St. Louis, Minneapolis, and other places. In fact, the protests have gotten so out of hand that the company was asked to stop construction, so county governmentsScreen Shot 2016-08-24 at 11.14.52 AM and the state of North Dakota have been forced to allocate emergency financial resources to bolster local law enforcement.

In a place where protestors hurl both bottles and insults at police officers, lasers are pointed at aircraft, construction equipment is occupied, and horseback charges out of the 19th century have replaced civil discourse, we have to decide if we’re a country of laws, or a country of mob rule. If we’re still a country of laws, then the protest of the Dakota Access Pipeline should no longer be allowed to continue.

What originally began as a protest regarding the location of a river crossing site for the pipeline project, has morphed into a display of radical environmentalism that threatens the future economic development of our country. This protest is halting the entirely legal, and properly vetted construction of a pipeline system that is part of the oil and gas infrastructure necessary to safely store and transport energy resources produced within the state.

Why are environmental radicals howling about this? It certainly isn’t the first time a pipeline has crossed a river. And it’s not the first time a pipeline is going to go across private land. But the protest of this pipeline project is part of a rising trend of environmental activists who are playing on the public sympathies for the plight of some of the most impoverished people in America to gain national attention for their cause of stopping the development of out energy infrastructure.

As the protest has swelled and conditions deteriorated, rhetoric toward the project has shifted among many of the environmental activists, who originally stood beside the tribe on their claim of water supply safety. Now as the opposition pivots toward an anti-fossil fuel agenda, the influence of groups like EarthJustice becomes apparent.  (You remember that group. I wrote about them earlier.)

As a key group in the radical environmental lobby, EarthJustice – who has sued to block energy projects across North America – is now suing the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers on behalf of the Standing Rock Sioux Tribes. Why? They claim construction of the pipeline will endanger the water supply in Lake Oahe.

Should I also note that neither EarthJustice, nor the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe decided to participate in the open public hearings held on the pipeline?

The simple fact is, these scare tactics are meant to do just that, scare up opposition to the pipeline, whip up protestors, and make the construction of this project something for people to fear. But when you look below the surface nonsense, it’s clear that this meant to paralyze decision makers as well as taxpayers who will be left holding the bag when the protest is over and the costs are tallied.

The bottom line is that we went through the process, and this project should be allowed to proceed along the route that was approved by the each of the four state’s involved in the approval process.

Pipelines such as Dakota Access and Keystone XL do bring jobs and economic opportunity to thousands from communities along the route, and will provide an invaluable service through the safe and reliable transportation of energy produced in our country.

In the case of this pipeline, they followed the rule of law, and were given the green light to proceed. It’s time to make it so.

50 thoughts on “Anti-pipeline radicals at it again; Activists protesting In North Dakota opposing Energy Independence

  1. Adam Zobel

    It’s hard for us to be a nation of laws when the DoJ cherry picks which laws to enforce.

    1. Springer

      Nobody has to take anyone’s land to build the pipeline. It goes UNDER the ground, and you get paid for that use. It doesn’t harm your ability to farm the land or whatever. And just why are they protesting this one pipeline when there are already so many already underground all over?

    1. Anonymous

      Boy, are you thick, JD. Why don’t you just say that you don’t want pipelines because you’re an overzealous eco-freak type?

  2. Troy Jones

    Springer you nailed it. We have millions of miles of pipelines in this country and they are proven safer and more environmentally friendly mode of transporting oil and gas than alternatives. The farmer is paid for the easement and loses no productive capacity of the land.

    This is nothing more than an effort to deprive Americans of cheap energy to further their political agenda.

      1. Anonymous

        You’re comparison isn’t valid as they are seeking easements on bare farmland. I don’t think they are trying to place pipelines under the homes of the land owners. You’re just a hysterical person, apparently.

        1. Anonymous

          Well, I can be funny. Thanks for the compliment! Are you sure all the farmland is bare? Because when Keystone 1 was installed several years ago, I saw sections of corn crops in mid-summer just east of Emery removed so the trench could be dug and pipe installed.

          So are you sure? Really sure? If not, don’t state it.

    1. Daniel Buresh

      It’s not their choice. It’s on private property outside of control of their sovereign nation. Their opinions shouldn’t matter at all.

    2. Anonymous

      What are you trying to say? With no punctuation or coherent stream of thought it is a little hard to interpret your statement.

  3. Anonymous

    Absolutely. North and South Dakota are simply sacrifice zones in flyover country. Let’s dig those deep boreholes East River and bury radioactive waste from the Bakken, too. Jobs are just too precious to waste on environmental protection. The Big Sioux River is already a sewer: why worry now?

    1. Daniel Buresh

      Of course we should be doing risky experiments in low population areas. Would you rather they were done in the middle of cities? The advancement of our species and the ability to survive are dependent on it. Reducing it down to just “jobs” shows how ignorant you really are.

      1. Anonymous

        American Indians have nothing to lose by embracing the Alt Right and accepting conservatism as the true savior of democracy, right?

        1. Daniel Buresh

          American indians will continue to lose if they continue to acknowledge themselves as a separate class of people. If you want to get political, what has the left done for their cause? How have their people advanced compared to other minorities?

    2. Anonymous

      Why don’t you go live at the North pole to save mother earth from your flatulence and hot air? What a whiny eco-freak.

  4. Anonymous

    Absolutely. The GOP nominee should fly into Indian Country to remind those people that they have nothing but poor schools, no future and should accept colonialism as the gift it is.

    1. Anonymous

      Don’t forget those schools, hospitals, law enforcement are run by the Federal BIA not the states . . . and, oh yeah, how many tribal leaders end up being arrested and convicted of embezzlement. It ain’t always our fault.

  5. Anonymous

    Isn’t this the same blog that defended the occupation of a wildlife refuge in Oregon by white supremacists as a valid protest against a repressive federal government?

    1. Pat Powers Post author

      How do you get referring to them as a “pack of idiots” as defending them? Apparently, reading comprehension is not a strong point.

    2. Pat Powers Post author

      Apparently Kurtz managed to get a couple of comments around his permanent ban. Sorry about that.

  6. Troy Jones

    Anonymous said “Invite Dakota Access to run the pipeline under your home.”

    They aren’t under my home but I have electricity, natural gas, and cable all running somewhere on my property serving my neighbors. I had no choice of the matter and I understand why not. A few years ago when the cable company needed a bigger “pipe” to handle all the new houses and probably greater data demands, they came into my yard, dug up the old and put in new. While at first I had a little bump and a seem, today you can’t tell they have ever been there.

    Admit it for what this is: Its not about property rights (liberals against this don’t give a lick about property rights when it serves their purpose). Its not about risk to the land (there is insurance to compensate one for the damage) because the farmer exposes his land to chemical spill risk all the time. And its not about safety because rail transport is more likely in resulting in an accident. This is about symbolic opposition to fossil fuels (symbolic because the oil will get out of there anyway and be added to the world supply).

    1. Springer

      I agree. Part of the Dakota Access pipeline has been and is being laid within a few miles of our place. It didn’t cross any of our land so we didn’t get any money for it, but a relative of ours did and he was glad to get it. Some of the pipeline has been laid and the ground leveled and seeded, which is already coming up, and the fences restored better than original. I am sure if there is a leak, systems are in place to contain it and repair it in a very timely fashion. It’s just one more pipeline in the maze already buried in our ground and working well.

      1. Anonymous

        And along comes springer with her same old “I know someone who …”, “I’ve seen …” mantras. Yawn.

        “I am sure if there is a leak, systems are in place to contain it and repair it in a very timely fashion.”

        Oh. You’re sure. Absolutely 100% sure? Remember that Keystone 1 pipeline oil leak earlier this year near Freeman, SD? Who was it that discovered that leak? Who was the person driving along the country road and noticed the oil oozing from the ground? A lonely Keystone pipeline repairman? No. The landowner called Keystone. A similar situation occurred in North Dakota during the first year of the pipeline’s operation. A rancher checking on his cattle herd discovered an oil geyser coming from the pipeline under his land. He had to call Keystone to notify them. You would have read about that in the link provided a few posts above but clearly you didn’t read it. Or you did and choose not to believe it. Because the truth can be inconvenient. For some people.
        http://time.com/4292856/south-dakota-oil-spill/

    2. Anonymous

      Clearly you don’t understand. If you are for the pipeline and want it built, then invite them to install it under your property and under your home. I do have some other suggestions as to where you can put the pipeline but it’s not fit for print.

      I didn’t state my issue with the pipeline is related to property rights. My opposition is none of your business.

  7. Anonymous

    Really do you expect the native americans to trust the big oil and the government. We have helped them so much.Look at the land treaties we have broken, and tried to wipe them off the planet.

    1. Anonymous

      Isn’t it ironic that as the Sioux Indians were pushed out of their lands in eastern and northern Minnesota by the Cree Indians and they then fought with and pushed out the Omaha Indians from SE South Dakota. Then the Sioux proceeded against the Cheyenne who were driven west out of SD, and the Arikara into ND. Another interesting item is the Crow Creek Massacre site near Chamberlain where 486 Indians were slaughtered in 1325 . . . long before white man landed in the new world. Whites only did to the Sioux what they had done to other tribes. It is too bad though. Source: Wikipedia

      1. Ree

        Don’t forget the slaughter of Crow Indians by the Sioux at Crow Butte north of Belle Fourche. Millions more Indians have been killed by Indians than by whites. We’re all humans and this racism crap is getting tiresome.

      2. Maukwa

        And Europe, Africa, Asia and the Middle East never had wars? What is stopping us from going there and taking their oil, and pushing all European, African, Asian, and Middle Eastern people onto reservations, after we kill 95% of them? This argument is idiotic and always has been…because you killed your neighbor, I get to kill you…I am Lenni Lenape, and I can tell you that there is much more to what happened in the Americas than a bunch of foreigners taking over the lands of warring Indians. It was a gradual genocide that is still going on today, and there was more than one enemy fighting over land that wasn’t even theirs…scavengers…vultures…here for the pick’ins….and then government came into play, and you all know that kind of corruption….Just wait until the Aliens come here and do all of this to you…and they will say: “Well, didn’t they all fight each other? I mean just look what they did in Iraq and Japan. I guess we shouldn’t feel so bad about destroying their culture and killing women, children, old people, all of them if we have to.”

  8. Springer

    I think it’s past time that the Native Americans join the rest of the USA as complete citizens of the USA, get rid of the reservation system and all its inherent problems. That system has destroyed the Native American’s dignity and self-esteem and made them essentially wards dependent on the state. Bring them into complete citizenship just like every other citizen, treat them the same, no worse, no better. I think they would be much better off.

      1. Springer

        Why not get rid of the reservations and be treated like full and equal, not special, citizens of the USA?

    1. Anonymous

      The courts have ruled, but the tribes refused the money, so don’t bring that crap up. They want the land back, which they had stolen from other tribes in the first place.

  9. Charlie Hoffman

    Many of us personally know friends who have this BIG OIL pipeline running through their property. Most of those AFFECTED are in the business of AGRICULTURE.
    And we out here on the edge of things who work the land and love this business know that without petroleum we are out of business. The folks who need a crisis to maintain a profile go to the same gas pumps and grocery stores we do yet seem unable to connect the dots and admit that for now without another mobile high energy source available oil is running the show. Electricity is wonderful to have green or otherwise but we cannot grow food with it. Every judge and politician and farmer and rancher gets it.
    The political will to eat will always outshine the political arena to protest.

    1. Cliff Hadley

      Hello Charlie!

      Re your closing sentence, don’t bet the farm on that. Environmentalists hate all things normal humans do, and that includes eating. They think “Soylant Green” was a documentary, for Pete’s sake.

      1. Anonymous

        “They think “Soylant Green” was a documentary, for Pete’s sake.”

        Have a source for that statement? And your misspelled Soylent. And you’re a former newspaper editor.

        1. Cliff Hadley

          You are soy, soy right on the spelling. Many thanx!

          And mockery doesn’t require a source.

          1. Anonymous

            Well that’s a convenient way to step around a challenge. “They think Soylant [sic] Green was a documentary, for Pete’s sake.” Mockery, huh? Perhaps you should take your one-man comedy show on the road. You might be more successful mocking people.

      2. Charlie Hoffman

        Hey there Cliff! Since the beginning American politicians have known that hungry masses revolt. Then along comes Obama and expounds every crisis possible to incite violence. I hope he isn’t stupid enough to mess with our food supply. A loss of petroleum would do just that. The whacko nut jobs who think we can live without carbon energy will be the first ones rioting when the grocery stores run out of their favorite soy dish and eggplants.