It's hard to believe I didn't post these to Steemit when I joined in March of 2017 but apparently, I had largely forgotten about it by then and had more pressing matters on my mind. While this is old news it is still relevant to future discussions about pipeline protests in particular and the nature of land conflicts and rights in general through a georgist lens. This post contains my initial observations as well as further in-depth research and my first expose of corporate shills posing as so called "fact checkers", which is contained in the 3-part series Corporate Propaganda About DAPL Exposed. I deleted this blog a while ago so I had to use the webarchive to retrieve the content.
Amerindian Tribe voice grievances over the construction of a pipeline that crosses their main water source
Originally posted on August 30, 2016
The proposed pipeline, being built by Dakota Access LLC, a subsidiary of Energy Transfer Partners, would run from the Bakken oil fields in North Dakota, to a terminus in Illinois. The Pipeline route would go under the Missouri river, the main source of water for the Standing Rock Sioux Reservation and would run only half a mile from their reservation border. Given the history of pipeline leaks, and especially given the fact that it was only a few months ago that the Key Stone pipeline in South Dakota leaked 17,000 gallons of tar sands oil, one of only thirty-five such leaks since 2010, the tribal nations have legitimate grievances that have yet to be addressed. This of course is not the extent of the case against the proposed Dakota Access Pipeline. It is also worth mentioning that even though the proposed pipeline is being built on 'federal land', technically the property of the Army Corps of Engineers, the Federal government does not have a legitimate exclusive claim to the land, according to their own laws. Article IV clause II establishes that treaties ratified by congress, including the 400 or so broken Indian treaties, are the supreme law of the land.
'This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.'
Thus, the federal government not only has no moral claim to the land on which the pipeline is being built, since they acquired the land, like all landed property, through initiatory violence against previous inhabitants, but they also have no legal claim to the land either, because it was acquired by breaking their own laws. The informed consent of the party with the greatest stake in the matter is imperative not only because the pipeline threatens to diminish their natural right to the use of the earth and its resources, particularly water, but they have as good a claim to the land as the federal government.
Update on Dakota Access Pipeline protest
Originally posted on September 7, 2016
It seems my earlier remarks about the ongoing struggle between Energy Transfer Partners and the Standing Rock Sioux nation have only been reinforced by the latest developments. Keep in mind this is treaty land that the federal government acquired by breaking its own laws and the pipeline is planned to run across and under the Missouri river, the main source of water for the Sioux and Lakota people, not but half a mile from their reservation.
24 hours after the tribal nation's former historic preservationist surveyed burial sites and filed court documents concerning said burial sites, Dakota Access employees drove bulldozers 20 miles from the nearest construction site and razed the burial grounds. When protesters attempted to stop the razing of burial grounds, the hired thugs of Energy Transfer Partners unleashed attack dogs and assailed protesters with tear gas and pepper spray.
This pipeline protest isn't just about amerindians because ultimately all of our interests are at stake in Cannonball, North Dakota. If you are of the persuasion that rule of law and constitutionally limited government should be the order of the day, then which side you sympathize with should be a no brainer. If you are of the persuasion that countries should abide by international law and especially the UN Declaration of the rights of indigenous people, then which side you sympathize with should also be a no brainer. If you are a Stein supporting democratic socialist who believes renewable energy and protecting traditionally marginalized groups is the way forward, then which side you sympathize with is just as much a no brainer. Only neoliberal dupes or shills who like unabated corporate capitalism with government handouts to prop it up side with Energy Transfer Partners.
Corporate Propaganda About DAPL Exposed (Part 1)
Originally posted on October 20, 2016
If you want to make it obvious that you have an ulterior motive but want to pretend that other people won't catch on, you should name your material "The truth about ___" or my favorite "Fact Checker", so that in your attempt to appear as an objective bystander, less naive people will notice that you're trying too hard to appear objective. standingrockfactchecker.org is a laughable example of corporate propagandists trying to pretend that they are objective bystanders. The impression that they're trying to give is that there is no legitimate reason to protest the DAPL construction, using the standard msm tactic of lying by omission and tearing down strawmen. A few excerpts illustrate the lengths these people will go to distort reality.
"1. CLAIM: The pipeline encroaches on indigenous lands.
TRUTH: The Dakota Access Pipeline traverses a path on private property and does not cross into the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe’s reservation. 100% of landowners in North Dakota voluntarily signed easements to allow for construction of the pipeline on their property. Nearly the entire route of the 1,172 mile pipeline has been sited and approved by relevant state and federal agencies and more than 22% of the pipeline has already been completed. To the extent possible, the Dakota Access Pipeline was routed to parallel existing infrastructure, such as the Northern Border Pipeline, to avoid environmentally sensitive areas and areas of potential cultural significance."
The Standing Rock Sioux has made no such claim; their claim is that it endangers their only source of water: the Missouri river that passes through their reservation. Perhaps someone in the comments section of some YouTube video mistakenly made this claim, but that doesn't make it relevant to the issue at hand. And since they didn't provide a source for this claim, I have no recourse expect to assume they pulled it out of their ass. It is even more disingenuous to pretend that the Indian tribes are the only obstacle in the way of the pipeline when there are several white farming families who are still fighting DAPL in Iowa and nearly three quarters of their peers are opposed to using eminent domain to seize private property for private corporations. It's not just a few disgruntled Indian tribes; everyone has a stake in this.
The real kicker is that if you dig far enough, that is to say not very far at all, you'll find that the source for all of their claims is the same corporation building the pipeline. That would be like me citing myself as proof of my own claims.
One of their claims is that Dakota Access received near unanimous consent from landowners across all four states and unanimous consent from landowners in North Dakota and South Dakota. In other words, the corporate propagandist would have you believe that every single landowner, along DAPL trajectory, in North Dakota and South Dakota, signed a voluntary easement agreement and welcomed DAPL with open arms. What they don't tell you is that DAPL intimated landowners into giving up their land by threatening to file a lawsuit against them in 2015.
'Dakota Access filed suit against the Minnehaha County landowners in April (2015), saying its surveyors need to check all properties along the proposed route to determine if the land is suitable for an underground crude oil line. The company has filed similar legal action in Lincoln County against others.’
Minnehaha County, SD judge, Mark Salter, granted DAPL the right of way to survey the property of 24 landowners months before the PUC even permitted construction, which suggests the PUC hearing was nothing more than a formality, and Judge Mark Salter was simply streamlining the construction process i.e. the landowners who “voluntarily" agreed to easements didn’t have any other choice.
'Joy Hohn, one of the landowners involved in the case, said she was "highly disappointed" by the ruling.'"An oil leak to the west of Sioux Falls could run through farm drainage tiles and tributaries that go through the Sioux River, Skunk Creek and Wall Lake," Hohn said. "This would affect the water aquifers for Sioux Falls and surrounding communities.”Joy's husband Rod Hohn said after the hearing that he feels as though opponents are "fighting a losing battle.”"They're just pushing this thing through with an iron fist," he said.
The Lincoln County Judge denied DAPL the right of way to survey property owner’s land before the PUC permitted construction.
'A dozen Lincoln County landowners opposing the project asked the court to stop the company from going onto their land to survey it for the pipeline. Judge Brad Zell agreed with the landowners under South Dakota's eminent domain laws, saying a permit would be required.’
These landowners 'voluntarily' agreed to easements in the same way that they 'voluntarily' pay income taxes. A more likely explanation is that they couldn't afford to fight DAPL's legal team in court.
DAPL doesn't shy away from using brute force wherever they meet resistance. Landowners that aren't willing to 'voluntarily' allow construction on their land, which is agricultural for the most part, actually don't have a choice after all; the holdouts in Iowa found this out the hard way.
'Dick and Judy Lamb, a farm couple with land west of Ames (Iowa) that will be cut diagonally by the pipeline, said they were informed Monday that their crops had been cut but were told they would not be notified 48 hours prior to construction commencing on their land.’
"There just aren't words to describe having the government seize your land and destroy it and have no recourse and nothing you can do. It's an anger and a hopelessness that I have difficulty expressing," Dick Lamb said.
Censoring protesters isn't off limits either; even people who protest against construction on their own property are subject to arrest. Just recently an Iowa woman was arrested, on her own property, for blocking construction crews from leveling her family's crops, and not too long ago, a man was arrested for protesting the placement of the pipeline through his well. It seems Dakota Access will go to any length to put their pipeline in the ground, even if it means treading on the rights of people who don't comply with them. Where are the Tea Party protesters with their Gadsden flags when you need them?
Corporate Propaganda About DAPL Exposed (Part 2)
Originally posted on October 27, 2016
"Pipelines are – by far – the safest way to transport energy liquids and gases. Already, 8 pipelines cross the Missouri River carrying hundreds of thousands of barrels of energy products every day. That includes the Northern Border natural gas pipeline – built in 1982 – that parallels the planned crossing for Dakota Access for 40 miles as well as high voltage transmission power lines. Once completed, the Dakota Access Pipeline will be among the safest, most technologically advanced pipelines in the world."Source: Standing Rock "Fact Checker"
Pipelines are not safe by any stretch of the imagination, and they aren't getting any safer. Pipeline leaks are neither infrequent nor decreasing in frequency. The number of pipeline leaks has increased 60% since 2009, corresponding to the increase in domestic oil production. From 2010 to 2015, over 1,000 crude oil pipeline leaks occurred, which released over 7,000,000 gallons of crude. The largest spill, which released 840,000 gallons, occurred in North Dakota in 2013 and destroyed a wheat field.
One of the talking points that the Big oil lobby and their useful idiots (neoliberal dupes) like to tout is that pipelines are the safest way to transport oil. This of course is nothing more than a sleight of hand. If by safer, they mean that pipeline leaks occur less frequently than rail and truck spills, then they are correct.
According to the 2013 Oil Medium - Term Market Report, produced by International Energy Agency, the rail versus pipeline incident ratio is 2:1, that is to say, the risk of a train spill is two times higher than that of a pipeline leak.
'Our calculation implies 0.09 incidents and 26 barrels released per 1 billion barrel-miles of crude oil transported by pipeline during a 2004 - 2012 period. Comparing that with figures for rail, we quantify the risk of a train incident to be 6 times higher than that of a pipeline, while pipelines spill 3 times more per 1 billion barrel miles of crude oil transported, over the 2004 - 2012 period. '
'Any spill constitutes a railway incident in these calculations, while only spills over 5 gallons constitutes a pipeline spill. Putting both modes of transport on a level playing field by considering spills over 5 gallons only, the rail versus pipeline incident ratio would be only 2:1.
However, if by safer they mean the amount of crude spilled is less, then rail and truck transportation is safer than pipeline transportation.
'Increasing volumes of crude oil transported by rail raise questions of safety. Our analysis reveals that compared to pipelines, rail incident rates are higher (2 times higher) while the opposite holds for spill rates.'
'Our calculation implies 0.09 incidents and 26 barrels released per 1 billion barrel-miles of crude oil transported by pipeline during a 2004 - 2012 period. Comparing that with figures for rail, we quantify the risk of a train incident to be 6 times higher than that of a pipeline, while pipelines spill 3 times more per 1 billion barrel miles of crude oil transported, over the 2004 - 2012 period. '
Pipelines spilled 25.9 barrels per 1 billion barrel miles of crude, while trains spilled 8.6 barrels per 1 billion barrel-miles of crude oil. Within in the same time period, pipelines released 424,000 barrels of crude while trains released 2,269 barrels of crude. Clearly transporting crude by pipeline is less safe than transporting crude by rail car, and neither is safe in the long run. Perhaps when they said 'safer' they meant cheaper.
Corporate Propaganda About DAPL Exposed (Part 3)
Originally posted on November 3, 2016
Energy Transfer Partners likes to tout the slogan "100% domestic production, for 100% domestic consumption," but their stated goal of bringing energy independence to the US appears dubious at best when we examine what they've said and done after congress lifted the ban on exporting unrefined crude in December 2015
“We will not own the oil that is transported through the pipeline. We are like FedEx. We will deliver the oil to the refineries for the producers.”- ETP spokesperson, Vickie Granado
Now how could Energy Transfer Partners make such a guarantee when 1) it's not their oil and 2) the company that will be refining the oil and shipping it to the Port of Beaumont has considered exporting and was one of the few refiners that supported lifting the export ban.
Phillips 66 is in a joint venture agreement with ETP and Sunoco Logistics Partners on two pipelines that would transfer Bakken crude to Beaumont, Texas. The Illinois-to-Texas portion of the pipeline route would retrofit an existing natural gas line to handle crude.
Phillips 66 President Tim Taylor believes the North Dakota-to-Illinois portion of the pipeline route will be able to supply the company’s Bayway refinery in New Jersey. From there it could be moved via tanker to Texas. Once you get the Bakken crude there, Taylor said, it “creates the opportunity to export should that develop.”
Know Nothing Bimbo Regurgitates Exploded Corporate Propaganda Talking points about DAPL
Originally posted on December 2, 2016
Taken from a Youtube video posted by then up and coming tradthot Tomi Lahren, who is now a regular on Fox, I debunked the parroted talking points from the "Fact Checker" website but will only include the new lies introduced in her video. I have been unable to find the original video
400 meetings in two years? And the tribal leaders never bothered to show up to any of them? Wherever Tomi got her numbers, and I suspect she got them from the same site I debunked back in October, the fact of the matter is that tribal council members met with DAPL representatives as early as September 30, 2014: 3 months before the company applied for a permit and 20 months before they began construction.
The Tribal Historic Preservation Office contacted the Army Corps as early as February 2015, several months before construction began, and again in April of the same year, without receiving a response to any of the concerns they raised, their request for an environmental impact statement and their request for tribal consultation.
Oddly enough, the former Stand Rocking historic preservation officer did file court documents in the beginning of August that provided details concerning culturally and historically significant sites.