It's not exactly a full stop. This can only be considered as a delay at most, as the reason stated was, "The consideration of alternative routes would be best accomplished through an environmental impact statement with full public input and analysis. "That should be a normal part of any extensive project. I think "somebody" just underestimated the time needed to finish that task and somebody else said "let's go now, or you'll go now."

After downloading and reading the environmental impact assessment, or at least what seems to pass for one, I have changed my opinion. I believe it to be wholely below the level of any acceptable international standard. In fact it is far less the amount of work than what is normally submitted for any FERC regulated gas pipeline.. within the USA. Oddly enough, or maybe not in the case of USA oil pipelines, in this case the COE is the only federal authority that has any jurisdiction at all, which is why the spotlight has focused on them. There is nobody else on stage. Oil pipeline routings are not regulated by any fed agency (no FERC is only gas pipelines. Go figuare.), so I guess you could say that only the foxes are watching this chickenhouse.

One very interesting thing I noticed, since only COE water crossing permits are required, most of the current problems could easily have been avoided by what I would consider as only minor reroutings that would have cost far less than these delays to the project will entail. IMO somebody needlessly shot themselves in their own foot. To quote Forest Gump, "Stupid is, as stupid does."

I haven't read the environmental impact statement so I can't comment on your value judgement, but I did read the decision of the district court that cited the Corps of Engineers had held nearly 400 open meetings on this line (which the Standing Rock Sioux refused to attend, and which caused the line to be rerouted 140 times); that the company had far exceeded all relevant state and federal requirements; that the line was in an existing disturbance; that both the Arch report from the original line, the arch report from the power line on the same ROW, and the current arch report were without any sites of historic interest in the area of the river; and that the bore plan for the line had the bore 90 ft below the riverbed. The court did review the environmental impact statement and found it to be competent and adequate.

David Simpson, PE
MuleShoe Engineering

In questions of science, the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual. Galileo Galilei, Italian Physicist

Just saying that what they did here would not reach anywhere near the customary work which is done for every FERC regulated pipeline. Just wondering why?

On the other hand, I can see the landowner's point too. It's their land nation. They said that they didn't want it. Now it appears that they weren't kidding. The real shame is that a quick little relatively inexpensive reroute or two would probably have avoided all this mess. Even Forest would have understood that. Now everybody loses. Way to go.

The "landowner" is an actual private land owner who felt like the surface damages offered were adequate compensation.

David Simpson, PE
MuleShoe Engineering

In questions of science, the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual. Galileo Galilei, Italian Physicist

Anyone know why the Army has anything to do with this?

Keith Cress
kcress - http://www.flaminsystems.com

To cross navigable waters, designated wetlands and federal dams and their flow easements, and cross through dredged channel approaches (such as the Gulf of Mexico entrance to the Houston Ship Channel) and the Intercostal Canal, you must first obtain a permit to do so from the Corps of Engineers. This pipeline attempts to cross through flow easements and under a gov reservoir, so they need a COE permit.

Keith
in general, Section 404 of the clean water act requires the corps of engineers to evaluate and permit any project that impacts Waters of the United States. Given that the pipeline went below a lake, presumably that was considered to be a potential "impact to WUS". It is likely that the pipeline has impacts to other WUS also which requires that a 404 permit address the cumulative impacts to all waters for the entire project. Contrary to previous posts, the corps is required to go through the public involvement process and consult with all environmental agencies which includes USFW, USFS, et al, even though these other agencies may not technically have any jurisdiction. It appears that they did this but got hung up on the public comment process since the tribe objected to it and refused to meet and discuss it. I think this is one of those cases where the can is being kicked down the road until the new administration comes in.

Somebody must have taken my advice! Just this very minute a flash headline on Euronews said "Protestors rejoice as the Dakota Access Pipeline was redirected away from tribal land."

CVG,
The tribe did not object. They didn't bother to attend. Finally the head guy of the tribe was paid a lot of money by several eNGO's to put the Standing Rock Sioux name on the paid-protesters actions. 80% of the people arrested so far have been from out of state. 3% of the people arrested are from various Indian tribes in North Dakota.

BigInch,
It isn't on tribal land. The protesters are "rejoicing" because their checks from Soros came through.

David Simpson, PE
MuleShoe Engineering

In questions of science, the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual. Galileo Galilei, Italian Physicist

I agree the tribes didn't attend. And I agree, many of the protesters are paid. However, it appears, at least from the published accounts that the tribes did object because of long standing bad feelings going back to the 1960's when the dams were built, flooding parts of the reservation. Apparently, they claim Sitting Bull is buried somewhere along the lake.

http://ktla.com/2016/12/05/protesters-rejoice-as-o...

I posted this for information. A personal opinion is that I think pipelines are the safest manner of transportation of fossil fuels... if they must be transported...

Dik

The tribes feeling is that they do not have to attend any meeting to make an objection. They objected before meetings began, apparently totally and made that well known to both ET and the COE. Afterwards they did not choose to attend meetings aimed to resolve "outstanding issues", as their was nothing to resolve. No means no, right?

1960s, yes definitely, however bad feelings go back at least another 100 years.

We can discuss politics around this for the next year, but at a different website. Don't miss the real engineering issue here. What I object to is the pipeline company's previously chosen route. As I understand they could have avoided all of this simply by a few reroutes costing at most 1.25% of the cost of the project. Apparently Energy Transfer, for some reason, was not willing to do that. This controversy has already lost them more in delay time.

Engineering Issue is
Why was this not rerouted before?

Thanks BI and cvg for clarifying the ACoE aspect.

Keith Cress
kcress - http://www.flaminsystems.com

BigInch,
I don't get the revisionist history you are posting. The facts are:

1. The line is not on the land of the Standing Rock Sioux land
2. The various agencies held 389 public meetings on this line, failing to give input does not give the tribe a veto on a line that is not on their land
3. The route was changed 140 times in response to public input
4. There is no archaeology around the river crossing
5. The river crossing takes place where another pipeline and a power line crosses the river (no new disturbance)
6. The bore is designed to be 90 ft below the river
7. The Standing Rock Sioux tribe does not have standing to stop the line since it isn't on their land, doesn't disturb their sacred sites, and has a much lower than normal risk of polluting the river
8. The Federal courts ruled that the protest did not have standing for a number of reasons including that the actual land owner was fine and remains fine with the pipeline.

In other words, both the camps and the administration actions are illegal, ill conceived, and simply staged for media attention.

David Simpson, PE
MuleShoe Engineering

In questions of science, the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual. Galileo Galilei, Italian Physicist

Not relevant.

And you didn't read enough. The tribe does not recognize the present supposed border of their lands. They claim land as deliniated in previous treaties (that were also ignored).

If they made 140 reroutes, why couldn't they make 141?

Along the lines of not recognizing the supposed borders, there was a 80's Supreme Court Decision (448 U.S. 371 (1980)) pertaining to the Sioux Nation and the Badlands (SD) where it was decided the US had to repay (with interest) for taking lands from the Sioux Nation which had been allotted to them in the Ft Laramie Treaty. Since the Sioux Nation did not want the money, but the land, the money owed was put into an interest bearing account and as of 2011, exceeds $1,000,000,000.

That tells me they value the land of their ancestors more than money.

When will the US stop the policy of dealing unfairly with the Native American?

Not relevant my aching butt. I don't recognize my neighbor's fence as being on his land. I can just tear it down? Nonsense. Bloody Nonsense.

Another reroute to WHERE. The site under contention has been under the ownership of the current family for nearly 100 years and the title is free and clear and has been reviewed by the court. For today's activists to say "those guys 100 years ago didn't know what they were doing so we are repudiating that agreement" is just not the way it works. The site under construction has previous disturbance and has been cleared by arch three times. The water issue is identical to saying "a comet may hit the earth tomorrow so all contracts can be voided". Garbage.

I've been watching this pipeline for a couple of years and Energy Trading Partners has done an outstanding job of trying to satisfy the demands of people who just hate mankind and manifest that hatred in the guise of "love for the environment". If I was running that company I would have declared bankruptcy 5 years ago and gone to live on a mountaintop with guns and trip wires. I guess they are more tolerant of an adversarial government and dishonest press than I would have been in their place. They are going to start having contracts cancelled in early 2017 and the ultimate viability of the line comes into question shortly after that. The alternative to the pipeline is putting the oil on trains which reminds me of the short period of time that the people of the west coast put their dirty laundry on clipper ships and sent it to Hawaii for processing. Then they found out that there was a better way. The "Save the Planet, kill a human" crowd seems to have won this round because they own this President every bit as much as his ancestors might have been owned by a Plantation-Owner. He is willing to break the law to further the agenda of criminals and terrorists. I am sickened by this process as much as I'm sickened by this discussion.

This really is a black-and-white issue. Energy Trading Partners exceeded the letter and the intent of all state and federal regulations. They had valid permits and ROW agreements in hand prior to starting construction. They went way beyond any rational requirement to engage the affected communities. And then the eNGO's and their paid activists stepped in with a sympathetic government and press. The facts were distorted (search back to the first news stories--the narrative as morphed from the "sacred sites" lie, to the "repudiated sale of the land" lie, to the "fear of water contamination" lie, to the "save the earth" lie, to whatever lie will get them column inches in the world press. The people telling these lies know full well that they are lying and don't care. When the lies were thrown in their face in the courtroom they said "so? we are fighting the good fight and any tactic necessary will be used". Rather than putting that statement under press scrutiny, the sympathetic world press ignored it. Just like they've ignored every swing in the narrative. It is like a weatherman saying "it WILL rain tomorrow" and then the next day saying "another beautiful day" without apology for his previous incorrect assertion.

The rule of law has meaning. Or at least it has had meaning for 232 years of our history. Maybe it will have meaning again under the next administration.

David Simpson, PE
MuleShoe Engineering

In questions of science, the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual. Galileo Galilei, Italian Physicist

zdas04,

If you want "rule of law", then what about all the convenient treaties which the US broke in the interest of desirable land for settlers, manifest destiny, gold rush, and other things the US citizens wanted.

Heck, the land in SD is called Bad Land for a reason.

The Native American has absolutely no trust in the US rule of law.

I am not Native American, so I don't have a dog in that fight, but am a student of history.

I agree there has been misrepresentation on both sides, environmentalists have joined the fight for nefarious reasons, it is not a simple situation, and likely will end with the pipeline being built where it is intended, but please do not throw rule of law.

That argument has absolutely no leg to stand on.

PEDARRIN2,
I live in an area with 5 reservations within 100 miles of me. All of them have Oil & Gas production on them so I spend from $500 to $2700 per reservation to be able to drive my vehicles to wellsites on the reservations. My daughter-in-law grew up in a town in the midst of the Navajo Nation and has spent her whole life being a second-class citizen. My sons were not allowed to take certain class in the public schools because they have less than 1/8 "Native Americian" blood (their mother is 1/8). I have had to hire tribal members to "watch the parking area" on projects to satisfy "tribal preference laws". This is a field of discussion where the reality is vastly different from the narrative.

While I know that there have been abuses and sharp dealing (actually on both sides), for the 26 years I've been working in this area EVERYONE outside the tribe jumps through myriad hoops to ensure that violating agreements with the tribes does not happen without significant ramifications. Everyone, but especially government entities bends over backwards to guarantee tribal rights. If I sell a car to a tribal member and he takes it onto the reservation and never makes a payment I HAVE ZERO RECOURSE, he keeps the car and I keep the note. If he decides to sell the car to another tribal member, the tribe will issue him a clear title. A trivial example of general atmosphere in "Indian country", but one that illustrates the waterfront.

It is very unlikely that any tribal member living today has been directly harmed by that history you are talking about. It is much like descendants of slaves in the U.S. demanding reparations for slavery--only the very oldest of that community have any recollection of having known someone who was a slave, and no former slaves are currently alive. I refuse to pay for the sins of my fathers. I am absolutely willing to pay for my own sins, but their sins are their own. There is a point where wrongs done in the 19th century become history and not something to currently apologize for.

David Simpson, PE
MuleShoe Engineering

In questions of science, the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual. Galileo Galilei, Italian Physicist

"It is very unlikely that any tribal member living today has been directly harmed by that history you are talking about."

Until attitudes like that change, nothing will change.

It is accepted that any individual of a previously discriminated group has not been "directly" harmed by the history, but it is a fact that these same individuals have (and continue) to be indirectly harmed by that history and directly harmed by those whom have not learned from that history.

I do not know if my ancestors were directly or indirectly responsible, but I do apologize for the actions which my group (white, male, "rich") did in the past.

Quote (BigInch)

"It is very unlikely that any tribal member living today has been directly harmed by that history you are talking about."

Until attitudes like that change, nothing will change.

I simply do not know how to deal with that statement. The culture of fashionable outrage and protected speech has gotten way beyond destructive. Until people return to identifying themselves as "People" instead of "butt hurt disenfranchised victims" nothing will change. Living in close proximity to large numbers of people who were born on the reservations, I can tell you that the subset who decided to participate in the American dream are simply "folks". Some are outstanding at what they do. Some are not. Some are happy. Some are not. Some are good neighbors. Some are not. Some are good employees. Some are not. They are just like anyone else you meet in your everyday life. I am yet to meet that legendary "Noble Savage".

Then there is the subset that is making hay on anglo-guilt. They are the ones who take offense if you can't identify their tribe while never even starting to attempt to identify what kind of Caucasian they are talking to (i.e., all whites are the same, but you better not ever call a member of the Southern Ute Tribe "Mountain Ute"). They are the ones that accosted a young man of my acquaintance who happened to have long straight hair and beat him up for "cultural appropriation". These are the ones that object to the names of sport teams that "degrade" their heritage while getting falling down drunk on St Patrick's Day and trying to talk in some gibberish that is supposed to be an Irish accent. The things that separate us are way less important that the things that connect us.

On average the subset that joined the United States of America is markedly happier than the subset that posts on their i-Phone that they want all whites to leave this continent, preferably in boxes.

PEDARRIN2,
I have to ask: Where do you stop apologizing? I don't know your heritage, so I'll use myself as an example. Somewhere in my ancestry, say around 1200 AD, there is a young woman in eastern Europe. One day a Mongol rider came across her in a field and raped her. The child of that event is another of my ancestors. I have a couple of drops of blood from that rapist. Does that obligate me to apologize for the excesses of Genghis Khan and his troops? Maybe pay reparations? It doesn't matter that one ancestor was the rapist and the other was the victim of rape does it? I have genetic material from a 10th century rapist. I should show shame? Think that one is a stretch? I am pretty sure that there are Roman Centurions in my ancestry. Those guys were pretty rapey, burney, killey too. It shames me that those guys were my fore-fathers. Maybe I should pay reparations to the Gauls? Oh, yeah, they were pretty nasty in their turn as well.

My point is that if I act in a way that respects the rights of people currently alive and respect the potential for future generations then I'm done. I don't have any obligation to atone for anyone else's sins. I don't apologize for slavery in the U.S. or for the blacks in Africa that rounded up the people to sell into slavery. I don't apologize for Wounded Knee or the Little Big Horn. They are past and everyone directly affected is long dead--I can honor their memory by not committing rape or murder, not by apologizing for something that I had nothing to do with.

David Simpson, PE
MuleShoe Engineering

In questions of science, the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual. Galileo Galilei, Italian Physicist

I did not want to enter this discussion for reasons BI stated - this is not a political forum.

However, some of the comment is over the top.

If the Native Americans life is so unaffected by history why do they live on "RESERVATIONS" ?

I am a New Zealander so a million miles away from what is going on but I am an avid reader of history.
Americans past treatment of Native Americans does not make pretty reading.

I don't mean this in any way offensive, but yes, I do believe that you don't know how to deal with it. Question now is, do you want to learn how to deal with it, or are you happy as things are?

zdas04, your comment about the Southern Utes caught my attention. I see we are near neighbors, I live just north of the Southern Ute reservation.
There has to come a time when the past is history and we live in the present for the future.

Ted

DekDee,
First, about 22% of people derived from 8 full-blooded "Indian" great grand parents live on the reservations. That percentage gets smaller every year. If you drop the number to 4 or more full-blooded Indian great grandparents the percentage drops to under 1%. The other 99% have elected to join the United States. These numbers are similar for the Palestinians that elected to enter the camps in 1948 rather than live in Israel. Second, the people who have elected to remain have done so for their own reasons and I've had many conversations with people in this category and have found that their reasons make sense to them (taking care of their mother, taking care of their siblings, can't imagine a different life, as many reasons as there are people).

The world has seen the poverty on the reservations, and gauged it against first world values. I know many people who don't see their personal lot as impoverished, the things they have are more important to them than the things they don't have, family is a really big deal for many of the people I know. I also know many people who do live in what they consider to be squalor because of their life choices (alcoholism and drug addiction are higher on several of the reservations than the population at large). Just like any culture there is no one answer to any question. Many people live on RESERVATIONS because the RESERVATION is their HOME, and it is inappropriate for anyone to sneer at them for that choice.

Western culture has not been kind to the people who were here when Europeans arrived. Just like the people who were here when the Europeans arrived were not kind to the people who were here when those people arrived. Just like Western culture was not kind to the Polynesians or the Australian Aborigines. Just like the 10th century Jhidists were not kind to Europe. Just like the Apache Tribe was not kind to the Navajo peoples. Expanding cultures are not kind. Never have been. Never will be.

BigInch,
There never was a statement that started with "I don't mean this in any way offensive" that wasn't offensive in the next breath. Go ahead, be offensive. Tell us how your vision from across the sea provides answers that people living in close proximity with the issues can't see. But first. Please define what "it" is? I don't think I follow the referent. Are we still talking about DAPL or "how the white man continues to wrong the Noble Savage"? I just wrote several thousand dollars worth of checks to purchase permission to drive on several reservations while the tribal members have free access to roads that my tax dollars built and maintain so maybe I am too close to the issues to see how very wronged they must be. Please tell us what the problem is and how to fix it.

David Simpson, PE
MuleShoe Engineering

In questions of science, the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual. Galileo Galilei, Italian Physicist

Why write the cheques?

The problem is not unique to the zdas cabbage patch. There are people, native or otherwise, in many parts of the world, that I have personally rerouted pipelines to avoid entirely. What I don't understand is the tendency of the majority of American and Canadian pipeline companies to attempt to ignore serious cultural aspects and the consequences of poor pipeline routing. It is nothing short of rediculous. It is obvious why there are so many protests.

No check, no crossing permit. No crossing permit and if you visit a well on that reservation they confiscate your vehicle. Kind of a big price to pay.

I also have rerouted pipelines to avoid problem land owners and surface issues. I have never seen a pipeline company "ignore serious cultural aspects". Ever.

The DAPL was VERY carefully routed to avoid the current limits of the Standing Rock Sioux reservation. And instead of the Class 2 archaeological survey (i.e., literature search coupled with surface observation around the documented sites) required by law they did a class 3 survey that required walking the entire route and preliminary excavation of any questionable sites, they rerouted to avoid dozens of them. At the site of the protest there have been extensive previous surveys that found nothing. The fabricated issue of the Ft. Laramie treaty of 1868 was an 11th hour Hail Mary when none of their other fabricated issues were carrying water. In 1877, the treaty was changed from "the government will leave them alone" to "the government will feed them" and one of the considerations for the change was an alteration of the boundaries. Without the change most of them would have starved. In previous centuries the drought that caused the problems would have set the tribe off on a mission of conquest. Instead they traded land for food. Seems like adequate compensation to me. Seemed like adequate compensation to a dozen courts as well.

There are so many protests because the eNGO's and the Democrat machine are providing a salary to the organizers and agitators of the protests, and hundreds of well-meaning idiots will pile onto any fabricated band wagon. On the DAPL, 80% of the people who have been arrested and/or cited for little things like shooting handguns at police from very short range and destroying private property and cattle rustling have been from out of state. Only 3% are Indians. None were from the Standing Rock tribe. Go back and look at photos from the Keystone XL "protests" and compare the faces to the DAPL "protests". It is impressive how many of the same faces, vehicles, and licence plates you see. The protesters are simply paid activists.

David Simpson, PE
MuleShoe Engineering

In questions of science, the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual. Galileo Galilei, Italian Physicist

What kind of trade is land for food? Killing all the buffalo put them in that situation. Land for food is adequate compensation? That's fair? Afraid not. That's just stealing land. Arguments based on reasons that today are recognized as genocide and war crimes isn't going to get you far.

Democrats? Yes. I guess they are at the bottom of everything.

I'd still like to know why they couldn't manage to make one or two more reroutes. On the BTC project (Turkey) I had 750 archaeologic reroutes alone, not counting all the others for Anatolian faulting and the usual mountains, rivers, modern villages and cemetaries, in 1400 km, that's about 1/mile. Where is the report? Has it been published. Why has North Dakota keep the route as secret as possible. South Dakota has published the route and even provided the Google Earth file. Energy Transfer's website shows county maps, but the scale of the map is so small you can hardly tell what counties it goes through. BTW that is common to all pipeline company website maps. Where's the KML file. Isn't it a bit strange that there are so many reroutes off the reservation, but they can't make a couple more when they get near the reservation. What's going on there?

zdas,
While you are quoting figures of how many people are "rent a protesters" can you please let us know how many Maori (New Zealands indigenous people) have travelled half way around the world to join the protest and support the Sioux people.

Can you also please explain if this is just a protest organised by Democrats with paid activists why the motion to support this protest was tabled in the NZ parliament by two of the minor political parties .
Obviously this motion was never passed as the NZ government would be stupid to try and get involved in Americas internal politics but it shows that this issue is being seen world-wide at the moment.

I have worked on many pipelines as a welder, welding inspector and radiographer and one question that has come up many a time in discussions is "Would you build a house on or next to the pipeline easement" (we call it ROW) and the answer was a resounding - No !

So what is wrong with the Sioux saying "You can have your pipeline but you go around us, not under us" ?

6.The bore is designed to be 90 ft below the river

90 ft or 900 ft - if there is a leak it will still make it's way to the surface or into the water table/aquifier !

DekDee,
When you bore under a river you have a hole in the ground that the pipe goes through. A leak in the pipe will take the easiest path which of course is along the pipe instead of through the rock. 90 ft of separation is about 50 ft more than is necessary to keep a leak out of the river.

THE PIPELINE DOES GO AROUND THE RESERVATION. Why can't you understand that. They are protesting a route on a rancher's property, said rancher was compensated for the disruption of his property and has stated that he is satisfied with the compensation. The claim that this was once their land and that their ancestors made a bad deal when they released it is just so much nonsense that they thought up after the other 8 excuses were debunked. EVERY PLACE ON EARTH was once someone else's property that was taken from them by force or fast dealing. I bet the house you live in is on land that was once considered the property of the Maori. What would you do if someone from the tribe knocked on your door and said that he didn't like the deal from 200 years ago and you have to get out?

I have absolutely no idea how many people have traveled from New Zealand at their own expense to join this Burning Man (look it up) like event. I know a woman who drove to the party from California in a 1960's vintage VW van (and she didn't see the irony in driving a gas guzzler to what is basically a "keep it in the ground" protest). So what? A party will attract party goers.

As to what fringe politicians will do? Who can explain anything they do? Not me.

BigInch,
I trade my labor for food. My parents sold their farm because it couldn't feed our family. That was trading land for food. What the heck are you talking about? This revisionist history is getting tedious. It is so very easy to apply 21st century sensitivities to 18th and 19th century decisions, but it is so very inappropriate.

What part of "if they move the line one more time the protesters would simply move the protest camp" are you not understanding? There is a point where giving in to criminals and terrorists is far worse than standing your ground.

I don't work for Energy Trading Partners or the state of Norh Dakota. I don't have any information about their databases or their web sites or their maps. They have done 140 re-routes AFTER THEY STARTED PURCHASING Right of Way and had permits in hand. I have no information on how many changes to the route they made to avoid faults and known arch sites before the first preliminary route was chosen, it wouldn't surprise me if it was a similar number to your Turkey project. I don't know where the report is, I've never made that kind of report public, have you? I have seen very detailed maps of the pipeline route in North Dakota, but I'm not working on that project so I didn't care. Why do you? Are you going to re-route it for them? I'm sure they would appreciate the input since they are clearly too stupid to know how to route a pipeline that is nearly finished. This is way past ludicrous.

David Simpson, PE
MuleShoe Engineering

In questions of science, the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual. Galileo Galilei, Italian Physicist

You can see how complex this issue is in the US, where there were actual wars of conquest, i.e. the US Army was deployed against groups of native people in battle, defeated them, and drove them by force off the land they had previously possessed.

Imagine how much more complex it is in Canada, where other than the Metis uprising in Manitoba in the 1890s, there were just alliances and treaties made between the French and English with one First Nation or another, generally in aid of a war between the French and the English or later the Canadians and the Americans. There really wasn't a war of conquest by the Europeans over the First Nations- the actual "conquest" wasn't a conquest at all, but rather a series of treaties made between nations. That's why we call them the First Nations- and most people don't understand the fullness of what that means- in a sense, Canada is a federation which includes thousands of nations, some of which have tens of thousands of members, and others which are really just an extended family group who have historically lived in a particular geographic region.

If you look at human history, there are numerous places where conquests happened and are now permanent and more or less forgotten. There are numerous others where conquests happened centuries ago, but the local population do not accept it, with the results ranging from merely being impolite to one another in conversation to actual armed insurrection. So it goes in the relationship between the First Nations and the governments and populations of the US and Canada. I would expect that there will still be major problems related to this relationship a century from now.

End of story.

Protesting is free speech, but this is vandalism.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/feb/14/da...

It's not that simply delineated. Maybe it's collateral damage that could have been easily avoided entirely with a relatively simple route change. It did not have to happen. I've been doing pipelines for 40 years and I have never seen a more stubborn approach to routing than was taken there. There is no excuse for selecting the final route that they did. Tell me what reason they had to say the route had to be pegged as they did? Because they could? All pipelines will have to overcome the bad publicity. Bad Business!

Reaction to change doesn't stop it

I think, in regard to the rubbish, it is that simple. Regardless of the pipeline routing decision, there is no excuse for that sort of behaviour. Those who left that behind were not genuine environmentalists, or genuine Sioux. These people have done nothing to even make the most of us consider their cause, whatever it is.

I think you're needlessly focusing on some relatively minor (but I do agree inexcusable) results, while not giving much thought to the cause, or preventing such things in the future. I'm interested to see if we can we (re)learn some lessons from this?

Actually we know all the lessons already and have learned all the preventative measures. It's clear that here some players did not want to apply the lessons learned. Bad Business! Maybe if we offer them tax credits they'll come around. Nothing else seems to work.

Bad Business! Seattle and NYC are already looking to boycott banks that have anything to do with this project. Not very effective at this point, because the deals have already been done a long time ago, but I think they will certainly look for these things in the future. I'm sure others will be thinking the same thing. If you think pipelines are good, why aren't you interested in eliminating bad business practices. This kind of stuff only makes it that much harder for us pipeline engineers to design and build new pipelines next year.

Reaction to change doesn't stop it

I freely admit that I don't know much, if anything, about pipeline routing. But I do find that the crowds who protest about this type of thing invariably include a lot of ratbags.

On the BTC pipeline back in 2002 I made over 300 reroutes for the 1400 km pipe in Turkey. Not usually a big deal. It might have something to do with them being treated like rats.

I would be most interested for someone that truely knows this pipeline routing criteria to tell me WHY this pipeline had to cross the contested land where it did and why there were no viable alternatives. That's the key to pipeline routing.

Reaction to change doesn't stop it

And that question was "why not one more pipeline reroute?" I wasn't in the meetings any more than you were, but there noes come a point where you decide to stop negotiating with terrorists. I could see this playing out as:

• The pipeline company gives in and moves the line 5 miles upstream (requiring extensive and expensive new environmental assessment and removing miles of pipe.
• The terrorists declare victory, have a party and move their camp 5 miles upstream on some other made up pretext.
• The pipeline never gets built, 5 billion dollars gets written off, Baaken producers continue to pay $30/bbl to transport crude by rail into a $50 market (makes the returns kind of skinny).

There is a point where giving in is far worse than standing your ground. I'm thinking I'm about to find that point myself.

David Simpson, PE
MuleShoe Engineering

In questions of science, the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual. Galileo Galilei, Italian Physicist

hokie66,

Do you really think that 200 people are going to abandon their vehicles there? You are quoting radicalized "news" from a reliable source of fake news, the Washington Times.

https://www.splcenter.org/fighting-hate/intelligen...

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Washington_Ti...

The protesters have actually set up a fund to pay for the cleanup:

http://bismarcktribune.com/news/state-and-regional...

http://www.cnbc.com/2017/01/30/veterans-raise-fund...

http://www.kfyrtv.com/content/news/Standing-Rock-S...

It's more interesting and important that they are not using any engineering direction. Bad times coming.

Dik

Regarding: I would be most interested for someone that truely knows this pipeline routing criteria to tell me WHY this pipeline had to cross the contested land where it did and why there were no viable alternatives. That's the key to pipeline routing.

THe reason for the selected route was to save money on the cost of r/w aquisition and permitting and also save time on the construction. It appears that the strategy for the routing of the pipeline involved use of existing pipeline corridors to expedite permitting and r/w costs. However, the existing pipelines are oil and gas pipelines. The Dakota Access pipeline will transport oil that is mixed with diluent so that the oil can be pumped.

There are many complaints around the country as pipeline operators have been adding new pipelines into existing r/w.

Chairman Archambault's interpretation: "Perhaps only in North Dakota, where oil tycoons wine and dine elected officials and where the governor, Jack Dalrymple, serves as an adviser to the Trump campaign, would state and county governments act as the armed enforcement for corporate interests."

bimr,

I hope you are contributing to the fund.

Where do you expect me to get my news, the Washington Post? Not happening.

Don't care where you obtain your opinions, but the posting of conspiracy theories (written by a woman sitting in a Denver basement) as facts reflects poorly on one's character.

People that lack critical thinking skills generally go to websites like snopes for verification of outlandish tales:

http://www.snopes.com/2017/02/10/standing-rock-tra...

I am aware of Snopes. As to the first four links you provided above, they won't improve your "critical thinking skills" or "character" any more than the Washington Times will mine.

bimr,
Because it is "Snopes" you find it credible? I just followed your link and found it to be at odds with what I've seen on the local TV news, police press conferences, and reports from friends working in the area. All three of which have more credibility than Snopes ever had (and the National Enquirer has more credibility than Snopes has after their election "fact checking" that used the DNC as their only source).

David Simpson, PE
MuleShoe Engineering

In questions of science, the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual. Galileo Galilei, Italian Physicist

zdas,

What was posted is that the washington times is not credible, with 4 different sources offering a rebuttal to the article, and 2 credible sources saying that the washington times has a history of crap.

Believe what are seeing with your own eyes (news from the local news team):

http://www.kfyrtv.com/content/news/Cleanup-continu...

bimr,

I suppose this is also a disreputable source? Seems strange that this is reported so differently in various places, but of course I know the leftstream press does its best to change the narrative to fit its objectives.



http://westernwire.net/abandoned-vehicles-pose-new...

This from Forbes. Another alt-something report?

http://www.forbes.com/sites/davidblackmon/2017/02/...

Regarding:

I suppose this is also a disreputable source? Seems strange that this is reported so differently in various places, but of course I know the leftstream press does its best to change the narrative to fit its objectives.

http://westernwire.net/abandoned-vehicles-pose-new...

Unfortunately, it is another example of a pay for play right wing disreputable source. Just follow the money.

Written by a "Simon Lomax"

Simon Lomax contracts with the Independence Institute as an Associate Energy Policy Analyst. Of course, he has zero experience in the energy business!

https://www.i2i.org/about/our-people/simon-lomax/

The Independence Institute is a free-market, libertarian think tank based in Denver, Colorado. The non-profit is a member of the State Policy Network. Independence Institute states its mission as "to empower individuals and to educate citizens, legislators and opinion makers about public policies that enhance personal and economic freedom."[1]

Don't confuse this Coors-funded Independence Institute with the similarly-named Independent Institute.

http://www.politicalresearch.org/2013/11/25/expose...

The Independence Institute has ties to ALEC through membership in "task forces." Barry Poulson, a senior fellow at the institute's Fiscal Policy Center, is an advisor to ALEC's Tax and Fiscal Policy Task Force.[17][18] Mr. Poulson participates in the Public Pension Reform Working Group. He gave a report on their behalf to the task force at the 2011 Annual Meeting.[19]

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Independence_...


Look at the Forbes disclaimer:

Opinions expressed by Forbes Contributors are their own.

You really think that the forbes clown went out to Standing Rock?


It is easy to find unemployed liberal arts majors to write these non-sense essays to confuse the public.

Now I suppose you are going to name drop George Soros. Okay, here is the comparison of Soros to the right wingers:

http://planetsave.com/2011/02/17/soros-vs-koch-bro...

No, I'm not going to bite and change the subject. This is a continuing story, and I am sure there will be some reports from what even you would consider "credible sources". What about this one from the AP today? Doesn't mention abandoned vehicles, but lots of rubbish and contaminants, too much for the locals to cope with.



http://staging.hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_...

Most people would agree that the AP is a credible new source.

NPR had the same story on the radio this morning; the cleanup is going too slow.

hokie can't tell when he's being punked.
Look at the Forbes' reporter's credentials. He actally listed them, which really was quite helpful. That's the CV of a career oily-gassy swamp resident. A professional lobbiest! Association, Committee, Committee, Association. Nothing named company or corporation anywhere in his CV.

Reaction to change doesn't stop it

I was just trying to find a source that bimr would accept. He likes the AP, so we'll stick with them.

I didn't know there was a word "punked", and won't look it up. I do know when my "character" and "critical thinking skills" are disparaged, and don't like it. Just like millions of people didn't like being referred to as "deplorables".

Not a really big deal. It's like getting one put over on you. Tricked? Professional lobbiests not known for being the most objective sources.

Reaction to change doesn't stop it

It was the same story, reported in lots of places, with a different spin. Not surprising, as I don't think there are any unbiased sources.

Finding unbiased these days is as rare as merry-go-round horse droppings. Ain't easy.

Reaction to change doesn't stop it

Let this be a guide:

Who are you going to believe, me or your own eyes? - Groucho Marx

That is indeed the problem. In the few cases in my life when I have witnessed something that made the news, it was never reported the way my eyes saw it.

My brother was often interviewed by the press. He used to say that if they got the story more than half right, it was a victory.

Gentlemen,
For anyone on this forum who believes the AP is a credible news source please take note that I am in the real estate business specializing in Arizona ocean front properties. Please contact me if interested.

Tolerance & apathy are the last virtues of a dying society -Aristotle

I'm not sure political debates really have any good end, so oh well I will at least start with the obligatory. My sister-in-law is a Native American (making my nephew half-native American), and I have been told my whole life my brothers and I had some Native American blood of our own from at least my mothers side. I also believe many Native Americans have been treated very badly in history, whether it be through subjugation of conquerors seemingly long ago (as have incidentally many other peoples in world history since time immemorial) and/or use as pawns plied with beads, guns, firewater or even up to the present day protest expenses or worse. Early on I guess it was we're the White Man and we're here to help, but now some also "we are the Government and we're here to help". I also believe we should protect the land, as best we can leaving it as we found it (as I have attempted to teach my own children), and think that many Native Americans and environmentalists around the world feel the same. My aunt was furthermore from North Dakota and she and my uncle loved the quite rough/wild outdoor country of there, and later Northern Minnesota. I've spent some time there myself. It is also quite possible many past protests, environmental impact and archaeological reviews etc. have been significant factors in the end (at least where prolonged/total obstruction was not the result) in a result of better routing, as well as better, safer pipelines.

That doesn't mean I don't have conflicting opinion in these cases, as one might just as easily say why would extremely rich, modern-day railroad barons cozy up to previous administrations and their collective special interests (using their influence to effectively prevent or delay completion of pipelines?), even to the point of going along with or blessing their seemingly popular with the left/progressives schemes of "soak the rich"!
In most cases of even best intentions, when it gets right down to it it costs money to protest and live (and most of us have a job, limiting how much protest we can do or want to do!) and maybe particularly in rough/remote country, so one probably/unfortunately has to "follow the money" and that every which way, to have any hope of understanding what is really going on? There is also a fine line between help and enabling. I wouldn't be a bit surprised however if my more Native-American relatives, who incidentally are as well or likely more educated than I am, disagree with me. Whoever is heavily funding the protests should probably at least help with the cleanup of the protesters mess when it is all over.

While it can be argued we all have special interest, I also believe pipelines are a quite efficient and generally at least to the present day relatively safe way of delivering the goods (that are likely to be delivered one way or another, that might in the end be worse, at least until better energy source is available for transport etc.) An interesting case study was/is of course the massive Trans-Alaska Pipeline system, that I believe is now in its 40th year of service (as ALYESKA"), and that has delivered more than seventeen billion barrels of oil in that time frame. The oil and pitch from the rich North Alaska site was incidentally being used by natives long before anyone ever thought of piping it. While I know the pipeline had its own protests and no doubt some "environmental impacts" and other bad effects that continued or continue for a quite long time, and there have also been relatively few incidents involving same over the years, it is nevertheless hard to argue with at least the economic impact of same (that can be observed on Wikipedia and many other sites - and I believe has been in decades since also been a major factor in why Alaska for decades and to the present day has the very lowest combined/effective state and local tax rates in our nation)!
All have a good weekend.

At the risk of the above question,
why would extremely rich, modern-day railroad barons cozy up to previous administrations and their collective special interests (using their influence to effectively prevent or delay completion of pipelines?), even to the point of going along with or blessing their seemingly popular with the left/progressives schemes of "soak the rich"!
being rhetorical, or for the informatin of any news reporters reading this later, it is

BECAUSE, pipelines are really not in the oil and gas business. They are extremely efficient, cut throat competitors to railroads, ... both of which are in the transporation business. If the commodity is oil and the pipeline is installed first, you will likely never see a railroad constructed there at all, ever. Since rail is there now, railroad barons want to block any new pipelines at any cost.

Reaction to change doesn't stop it

Most interesting to me is the concept that the oil pipeline route is considered a safe route because an electrical transmission line and a natural gas pipeline are already there. It seems weird to think that either of those is a comparable water or soil pollution hazard. I get that gas pipelines sometimes detonate in spectacular fashion, but it doesn't seem like the logic works.

"The bad times coming statement" was a concern about politicians overriding, what hopefully was a well thought out engineering opinion on, a significant topic with little or no thought except that 'we want to do this'.

Dik

3DDave, I agree that parallel routing in a designated utility corridor is not necessarily safer, even more so when the pipeline carries oil and the risk is contamination of water supplies. Perhaps the only reason it might be safer is that people might be more aware that pipelines are there and be more careful, but I think "people" don't know a whole heck of a lot about anything, especially when digging around pipelines. There is also more potential for adjacent pipeline's cathodic protection systems to interfere with each other as well as nearby high voltage cables inducing voltages and current into adjacent pipe. These things can be mitigated, but only if potential problems are picked up in time. Work conducted on an adjacent pipeline might also damage both pipelines. It wouldn't be the first time that happened. Contractors working near and around pipelines do cause a high percentage of pipeline damages, some of which does not become apparent until years afterward.

Reaction to change doesn't stop it

Regarding: Tolerance and apathy are the last virtues of a dying society.”

This phrase stinks of fakery and was obviously never written by Aristotle. It is commonly misattributed to Aristotle, by white supremacists, neo nazis and their ilk. He never said that.

https://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20090...

Maybe a bit of levity would help this thread. Reportedly a Corps of Engineers plane.

Not the worst.

Fair enough bimr. I'll replace this disputed/misattributed quote with one that is not. Hopefully the tolerant liberals will tolerate this one. Cheers bud!

Tolerance is the virtue of the man without convictions -GK Chesterton

• http://files.engineering.com/getfile.aspx?folder=30b0d22c-c91a-4f5c-b25a-9a

bimr, good call. Quote stank to high heaven.

Pictures are both FAKES.
Where's the "N" numbers.

Reaction to change doesn't stop it

Of course mine is a fake. Geez.

Not sure about the grated one.

The airplane photos are air exhibits not fakes.

Second one is horrifically real. A plane was started in a hanger and got away.

I came across this extract from testimony from Joey Mahmoud, Energy Transfer Partners’ Project Director for the Dakota Access Pipeline before the U.S. House of Representatives’ Energy and Commerce Committee (transcript should be available on committee's web site). The only non-subscription source I've found was Natural Gas Now. I found the testimony to be enlightening.

David Simpson, PE
MuleShoe Engineering

In questions of science, the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual. Galileo Galilei, Italian Physicist

"the recently departed Administration" is the best news in that story.

zdas04, that article may be true, but it can clearly be labeled as preaching to the evangelical choir.

Unfortunately, science seems to be antithetical to most of the majority party. Mr. barton (U.S. House of Representatives’ Energy and Commerce Committee) does not have that humble reasoning you desire.

Chairman barton is notarious for making this statement.

"Now, wind is God’s way of balancing heat. Wind is the way you shift heat from areas where it is hotter to areas where it is cooler. That is what wind is. Wouldn’t it be ironic if in the interest of global warming we mandated massive switches to energy, which is a finite resource, which slows the winds down, which causes the temperature to go up? Now, I am not saying that is going to happen, Mr. Chairman, but that is definitely something on the massive scale. I mean, it does make some sense. You stop something. You can’t transfer that heat and the heat goes up. It is just something to think about."

bimr,

I think a 2000 mile wall would slow the wind down even more. Barton is going to go ballistic when he finds out who is trying to defy God.

bimr,
Every single assertion of fact in that article is verifiable from independent sources. Every one. Some of the discussion on internal conversations within the company cannot be verified and can be ignored and the rest stands up to any scrutiny that you apply to it. How is that "preaching"?

David Simpson, PE
MuleShoe Engineering

In questions of science, the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual. Galileo Galilei, Italian Physicist

The testimony jumps the shark when it conflates shutting down pumping stations with terrorism.

Industrial sabotage, terrorism...why quibble about the words?

Don't like the word preaching? Then use the word rant.

Competing groups are trying to define the Dakota Access pipeline debate. So where does the truth lie?

However, the actions of this same pipeline company has developed into controversies elsewhere, so they are not blameless:

http://michiganradio.org/post/questions-remain-abo...

Most importantly, it appears that the pipeline is no longer needed:

"Moreover, if oil prices remain low, as projected, Bakken oil production will continue to decline, and existing pipeline and refinery capacity in the Bakken will be more than adequate to handle the region’s oil production. If production continues to fall, DAPL could well become a stranded asset — one that was rushed to completion largely to protect favorable contract terms negotiated in 2014."

http://ieefa.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/The-Hi...

As I suspect most know it nevertheless appears SR has sort of turned up in last month - saw interesting photo in article a couple days ago at http://www.reviewjournal.com/opinion/editorials/ed....
[The article at http://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/31974... from a House hearing a few days ago said project is going ahead - and reported representatives of both parties now saying the government is responsible for the tense debate on this subject.

The city of Bismark is a greater ecological disaster; it just doesn't get called that because it suits the people who live there.

Two widely divergent videos about the shutdown of the protest camp. Not surprising.

http://edition.cnn.com/2017/02/22/us/dakota-access...

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2017/02/22/arrests-made-...

From the Associated Press, "A U.S. federal judge has handed a lifeline to efforts to block the Dakota Access pipeline, ruling Wednesday that the Army Corps of Engineers didn't adequately consider the possible impacts of an oil spill where the pipeline passes under the Missouri River.

District Judge James Boasberg said in a 91-page decision that the corps failed to take into account how a spill might affect 'fishing rights, hunting rights, or environmental justice, or the degree to which the pipeline's effects are likely to be highly controversial.'"

Dik

I think he's right. USA gas pipelines usually do a far more detailed EIA than the minimal amount that was done here, yet they are likely to have far less damaging consequences should a leak develop. MO is the EIA work done here was very much well below the level normally expected in the international theater for similar projects.

BTW, the recent executive order requiring American-made pipe for American pipelines only applies to future projects. No existing project will be affected.

Richard Feynman's Problem Solving Algorithm
1. Write down the problem.
2. Think very hard.
3. Write down the answer.

Just a bit more work for the Corps, ordered by another activist judge. Meanwhile, the oil flows.

The producers might turn it off themselves after their curent contracts expire. WTI price fell to $43.25. Down 20% from this year's high. Hedgers say upper 30's in view. New drilling wouldn't be happening at all, if drilling efficiency didn't increase and drilling prices hadn't been cut in half. Lots of the drilling that is being done right now is in the very low cost Permian Basin. Initial output of shale wells has been increased, but production falloffs are still as much as 50% during the first year. Shale oil isn't turning out to be a renaissance nearly as much as it is a retirement party.

Losses for crude oil are accelerating

Richard Feynman's Problem Solving Algorithm
1. Write down the problem.
2. Think very hard.
3. Write down the answer.

Good to hear from someone actually involved with the industry...

Dik

I'm not directly involved with the production side, but ... you see and hear things, plus there's lots of data on the net, if you know where to look .. and you do look.

Future gas prices curently below gas spot prices are forcing hard decisions. There must be a number of companies facing this dilema right now. Should we lock in today's low prices on long term contracts and have some certainty of barely scraping by during the next few years, or not lock in any long term contract price and take the risk of going broke, if spot prices actually follow futures prices. Oil futures prices are still slightly higher than today's spots, but that might change now that this pipeline ups deliveries of crude to market. The USA is displacing Saudi Arabia as the swing producer controlling spot price.

Richard Feynman's Problem Solving Algorithm
1. Write down the problem.
2. Think very hard.
3. Write down the answer.

Some added information on surveillance:

https://theintercept.com/2017/06/21/as-standing-ro...

Dik