Dakota Access Pipeline approved 2-1.

@SoDakCampaigns

From the Associated Press:

State regulators have granted a construction permit for a pipeline that will cross through South Dakota as it carries North Dakota oil to Illinois.

The South Dakota Public Utilities Commission voted 2-1 to approve the 1,130-mile Dakota Access Pipeline at a meeting on Monday.

Read it here.

What are your thoughts?

50 thoughts on “Dakota Access Pipeline approved 2-1.”

  1. I feel that people who don;t want pipelines running through their land,should be upheld but what do you expect from these guys who think they know best.

    1. I would be interested to know if Sattgast has any interest in running for PUC in 2020 when Hanson is done. He seems like a very friendly and intelligent guy who would do well in that capacity.

  2. Somehow the one product which propelled America into and through the industrial revolution by changing it from an intensive human labor force into one powered by hydraulic energy has become anti-American and anti-third world. I am not sure who wants the Industrialized world to revert back to the Dark Ages with human capital being expended for our energy needs but people need to know what this change will cost them. And America’s media is not being honest in the loss of affordable technology this change will absolutely insue.

    1. Charlie, I wish you would put on your thinking cap and look into the future. What sort of an energy world will we live in twenty-five years from now? Fifty?

      The change to a different energy economy is inevitable. An energy economy that is renewable and far less polluting than burning fossil fuels. That is the reality. In the future, we will get our energy from the sun and the wind and probably from extracted hydrogen – all sources that have shown huge promise.

      I think it’s mildly funny that you think the advancement of renewable, clean energy is somehow hurling anyone back into the dark ages.

      I would recommend that rather than fear-mongering over something you know won’t happen that you act like a real Capitalist and figure out how to exploit the coming inevitable change. I know the status quo makes a lot of people feel all warm and fuzzy inside. Until they get trampled by progress.

      You’re fitting yourself into the wrong end of the future:

      The horse people fought tooth and nail against the horseless carriage.

      The train people fought tooth and nail against commercial air travel.

      The kerosene people scoffed at the idea that people could put light in their houses by that new-fangled thing called electricity.
      .
      The Swiss watch makers laughed at the idea of digital watches.

      Holly Carburetor scoffed at the stupid idea of fuel injection.

      Kodak knew that digital images had no future.

      And on and on and on ad nauseum.

      You see, Capitalism always leaves victims in its wake. So if you’re a Capitalist, embrace and exploit the coming change. If you’re a shill for the fossil fuel corporations, carry on as you are now. But you know you’ll lose in the medium term and especially the long term. Choice is yours.

      1. No one is saying that energy sources will change in the future. And there is nothing wrong with looking for more economical or safe or whatever sources of energy. But demonizing fossil fuels and making them more and more expensive (and hurting mostly the lower income people BTW) before any replacement is economically feasible is the epitome of stupidity. People didn’t sell the horse before they could economically buy a horse; people continued to use kerosene until electricity was viable.

        Oh, and the polar ice caps are NOT melting, which is one of the chief lies told by the global warming/fossil fuel hating alarmists. http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2015/05/19/updated-nasa-data-polar-ice-not-receding-after-all/

          1. Still lost in the wet paper bag … turn round and head for the light. Go into the light, springer!

        3. You obviously didn’t watch the CBS Evening News Monday night. If you know how, you can probably find it on CBS’s website.

              1. http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2015/05/19/updated-nasa-data-polar-ice-not-receding-after-all/

                “The timing of the 1979 NASA satellite instrument launch could not have been better for global warming alarmists. The late 1970s marked the end of a 30-year cooling trend. As a result, the polar ice caps were quite likely more extensive than they had been since at least the 1920s. Nevertheless, this abnormally extensive 1979 polar ice extent would appear to be the “normal” baseline when comparing post-1979 polar ice extent.

                “A 10-percent decline in polar sea ice is not very remarkable, especially considering the 1979 baseline was abnormally high anyway. Regardless, global warming activists and a compliant news media frequently and vociferously claimed the modest polar ice cap retreat was a sign of impending catastrophe. Al Gore even predicted the Arctic ice cap could completely disappear by 2014.

                “In late 2012, however, polar ice dramatically rebounded and quickly surpassed the post-1979 average. Ever since, the polar ice caps have been at a greater average extent than the post-1979 mean. Now, in May 2015, the updated NASA data show polar sea ice is approximately 5 percent above the post-1979 average.”

    1. Congratulations. You must feel accomplished being able to put your entire thought on a bumper sticker. You get a gold “Thinker” star for that!

      1. I prefer observing liberals “raising awareness” with their mindless “COEXIST” bumper stickers…and laughing at their couch potato faux activism.

      2. They whine about everything and are an unhappy group. No wonder it’s all they talk about gettin stoned all the time.

      3. Different Anonymous here-I didn’t know that there was a rule that required more lengthy comments-thanks for letting Anonymous 8:23 p.m. and me know that, Heisenberg.

        I guess we could all blather on and on like you and push a socialist agenda that will ruin the country and make life worse for my children, but I think I’ll forego that method and try to put intelligent and morally-grounded posts on here instead of the humanistic tripe that so often comes from your keyboard.

        1. OUCH! That was one hard-hitting retort!

          Of course, the implication is that Republicans like their political concepts the size that would fit on a bumper sticker.

          Like:
          “I want my country back.”
          “Obama is a Muslim.”
          “They can pry my gun from my cold, dead hands.”
          “Climate change is not real.”
          “Mission Accomplished.”

          So there is really no length requirement on this blog to say that. A great example: Troy Jones, blog pundit, has been known to use a thousand words to say “climate change is not real.” In fact, the more wrong Troy knows he is, the longer his treatise.

          So you can use as many words as you want as long as you keep the premise simple. Very simple.

          I’m sorry the future is ruined for your children. It is a shame that they won’t be able to be kicked off their insurance if they get sick.

          Even more rotten if your daughter someday is in a position to earn as much as a man doing an identical job.

          How horrible that the stupid EPA wants to protect the water and air (a former Republican concept) so your kids can have a cleaner future. In fact, I saw some footage from Beijing yesterday and really wished for the old America back where we could look at the lovely effects produced by acid rain. I’m sure you really yearn for that.

          I also miss the days that Homestake could run cyanide down Whitewood creek and actually hated it when the EPA came in and cleaned up Homestake’s mess. I hate seeing trout in that stream.

          Yeah. Sorry your kids’ futures are ruined.

          1. –Troy Jones, blog pundit, has been known to use a thousand words to say “climate change is not real.” In fact, the more wrong Troy knows he is, the longer his treatise.

            True words there.

            But you must be careful, Heisy. Once the Fauxologian of the Plains hears of your challenges, he’s likely to delete your posts in a fit of juvenile wrath.

          2. — has been known to use a thousand words

            First nominee:

            I’ll bet you can’t find a single statement on here or anywhere else where I profferred an statement about climate change either way with regard to it being “real” beyond laughing at the “bumper sticker” hyperbole of those who consider it the most important issue defining this next century and linking it to a multitude of tangential issues at best like the litany you ran down.

            I count 65 words in a single [meaningless] sentence.

            Not quite a thousand, but your point is proven Heisy.

            1. I scrolled down and yes – the point is proven. The Pundit bloviates. Again. And again. And again….

              Have you noticed also that the more wrong Mr. Jones is, he tends to double, triple or even quadruple the amount of words he uses?

              I think Mr. Jones might be the stupid man’s idea of what a smart man sounds like.

              1. –Wow, you guys sure use a lot of words to criticize me personally vs. the idea/thought.

                And now he’s wearing his cloak of victimhood. How cute.

                –What’s not,

                You have never said truer words.

                –Heisenberg,

                You are funny.

                Yep, it’s okey-dokey if Troy engages in personal, off-topic attacks, but he’s the victim when others do it!

                Heisy, good luck with our little boy blowhard.

    1. Maybe if Keystone is revived in the future, the route will change and it can run through your backyard.

      1. That would be fine with me. There are umpteen pipelines already crisscrossing the state – why all the hoopla about the Keystone pipeline, if not for political reasons?

        1. How many people are employed by those ‘umpteen’ pipelines? How much tax revenue do they generate?

  5. Heisenberg you are obviously of the Dream Team energy crew. In any energy situation the outcome must be to equal or be greater than the input needed for sustainable economic life. (Simple words for all to understand.)
    Above all is Nuclear, next carbon based, solar third, hydro fourth with wind bottoming out the choices. Just guessing here but you don’t have a cost analysis on just what dropping carbon produced energy will cost the Third World in terms of food production???

    1. Hardly a Dream Team, Charlie. And since you’re on the side that’s been wrong just about every time, let’s explore your cost/benefit analysis comment.

      Just think how your argument was so accurate when people went from burning whale oil for light to petroleum. Or when people went from burning petroleum for light in their homes and businesses to using electricity. The unimaginable costs of building power generation plants and all the transmission lines, plus all the revamping they had to do on buildings.

      The whale oil guys fought against the advent of petroleum. The petroleum guys fought against electricity. And like I mentioned earlier in this post, if you were a true Capitalist, you would be encouraged and finding a way to exploit this incredible new economy. Instead, it sounds more like a shill for a fossil fuel industry that is losing relevance by the day.

      Certainly, the world will not make this switch-over in a year or two or a decade or two. But it is coming.

      I really enjoyed your incredible concern for the third world people. That was touching and so….genuine.

      As far as numbers go – I don’t have them. And you don’t either. At least be forward-thinking enough to agree that some day in the future, we will have a different energy economy.

      The way we have Republicans shilling the fossil fuel corporations and adamently resisting any attempts to do anything smart in this country, we will continue to trail the third world on energy development.

      2. I wish that was so, Charlie, but CH would not be so kind and gentle on you as I have been. He really can’t tolerate such blatant wrongness, so he would probably be disembowling you with his superior argumentation skills.

        While as you can see I try to turn others’ wrongness into yet another teaching opportunity. And I’m going to stick with you because I do believe that you, unlike many of the genii in here, do have potential.

  7. Well said, Mr. Heisenberg.
    Burning oil, gas and coal kills fish and pheasants. A steady transition is inevitable. Trying to convince those so often on the wrong side of history isn’t necessary for change to happen… But I like that the polar ice caps aren’t melting. All this time I’ve been mistaken.

    1. Your president wants to yank the rug out from under the middle classes and make energy costs skyrocket, as he himself said. He doesn’t want a steady transition, he wants his way or the highway as he is a petulant child and is determined to get HIS way as he is sooooooo smart. I can’t wait till he gets off the public dole and goes and organizes something instead of trying to ruin the entire country.

      1. A couple points that will make you lose sleep tonight, so I’m going to warn you in advance that if you continue reading here you will probably be groggy when you tune in to Fox and Friends tomorrow morning.

        Obama is also YOUR President. haha… that’s horrible, isn’t it?

        Your President did say that expensive fossil fuel energy costs would speed the transition to the new energy economy. Here’s the sleep-loser for you: One day very little fossil fuels will be consumed and the world will be powered by the sun, wind, nuclear and extracted hydrogen.

        You complain that your President Obama is soooooooo smart. And he is soooooooo much smarter than you.

        Why do Republicans hate smart people?

    2. Comrade Lansing the tasty pheasants, deer and other game are thriving around the area surrounding Big Stone power plant. Fish are plentiful and mercury is not an issue. We need fossil fuels for our economy and everyday life not some socialist self-destructive planned economy that has failed.

    1. Why not address his points instead of dismissing them with some not-so-clever non-response?

      What are you afraid of?

  9. I agree that capitalism depends on constant reordering that puts some businesses into the dustbin of history. I am glad we have auto mechanics vs. blacksmiths, light bulbs instead of candles, and Kindles instead of bookshelves.

    If the investors in Dakota Access go broke, I know there will be some other business delivering energy to me in a cheaper form than they. If they get rich, I know they have delivered energy to me cheaper than Warren Buffet’s trains are. The winner is always the one who does it better and cheaper.

    It is the story of economic history. It is the story of American ingenuity and the source of our ability to have our standard of living. And it is the story of the American Dream. I love this story.

  11. @What’sKnot ….. I’m not very competitive. Your “wits” stand without reserve, sir or m’ame.

  12. Heisenberg,

    You are funny. I’ll bet you can’t find a single statement on here or anywhere else where I profferred an statement about climate change either way with regard to it being “real” beyond laughing at the “bumper sticker” hyperbole of those who consider it the most important issue defining this next century and linking it to a multitude of tangential issues at best like the litany you ran down.

  13. Wow, you guys sure use a lot of words to criticize me personally vs. the idea/thought.

    Heisenberg: “Capitalism always leaves victims in its wake. So if you’re a Capitalist, embrace and exploit the coming change.” (18 words in a post of hundreds of words)

    Response: “If Dakota Access goes broke or gets rich, it doesn’t concern me either way.” (14 words).

    Heisenberg: “So there is really no length requirement on this blog to say that. A great example: Troy Jones, blog pundit, has been known to use a thousand words to say “climate change is not real.” (35 words in a post of hundreds of words)

    Response: False Charge (2 word).

    1. Troy, I am helping you already. And that’s because I’m a giver.

      To get a pontificator like you to start tallying words is one of my finer accomplishments in this echo chamber.

      I told you a while back that I was not going to give up on you and I am so proud that with your word tally we now have proof of the progress we have made in here together.

      Now if I can just get you straightened out in your wrong-headed political thinking I will reward myself with a cruise. Or a Diet Coke.

      Onward and Upward, my friend!!!

  14. The “market” or “capitalism” have zero intersection with “green” energy. It’s all a subsidized Ponzi scheme of cronies. Even Warren Buffett readily admits that wind energy is a terrible investment, “On wind energy, we get a tax credit if we build a lot of wind farms. That’s the only reason to build them. They don’t make sense without the tax credit.” Who owns Burlington Northern Santa Fe and what is the footprint of their coverage ? And the original “green”, ethanol, is beginning to rival the popularity of Woodrow Wilson at Princeton !

Comments are closed.