Slash Boxes

SoylentNews is people

posted by martyb on Monday December 05 2016, @01:13PM   Printer-friendly
from the embrace-extend-extinguish? dept.

According to an article at

The Army Corps of Engineers has denied the easement needed to complete the Dakota Access Pipeline, according Colonel Henderson, who notified Veterans for Standing Rock co-organizer Michael A. Wood Jr on 4 December 2016.

More than 3,000 veterans had converged at the Standing Rock camp to support the Sioux in their ongoing opposition to the building of a $3.7 billion pipeline that would cross through disputed land managed by the Army Corps of Engineers. Wood said upon learning of the move, "This is history."

From a report in Al Jazeera :

The US Army Corps of Engineers has turned down a permit for a controversial pipeline project running through North Dakota, in a victory for Native Americans and climate activists who have protested against the project for several months, according to a statement released.

The 1,885km Dakota Access Pipeline, owned by Texas-based Energy Transfer Partners LP, had been complete except for a segment planned to run under Lake Oahe, a reservoir formed by a dam on the Missouri River.

"The Army will not grant an easement to cross Lake Oahe at the proposed location based on the current record," a statement from the US Army said.

The Standing Rock Sioux tribe, along with climate activists, have been protesting the $3.8bn project, saying it could contaminate the water supply and damage sacred tribal lands.

[...] "Today, the US Army Corps of Engineers announced that it will not be granting the easement to cross Lake Oahe for the proposed Dakota Access Pipeline," said Standing Rock Chairman Dave Archambault II, in a statement.

"Instead, the Corps will be undertaking an environmental impact statement to look at possible alternative routes."

Original Submission

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 2) by jmorris on Monday December 05 2016, @06:27PM

    by jmorris (4844) on Monday December 05 2016, @06:27PM (#437297)

    The trade off is making sure our world is built well and taken care of in the long term but in return you have to meet a bunch of standards.

    Ok, Disneyland was built in a year and still operates today, as perfectly safe as any human activity has ever been. So what was so wrong about its construction practices? What has been gained by making the regulatory environment so complex that such a thing simply could not be built today? We announced a plan to land on the Moon in under a decade and did it not so long ago, now we announce twenty year plans that go nowhere, replaced with fresh twenty year roadmaps that everyone understand will also just waste money going nowhere. Again, you seem to see these as improvements, I see it as a major step backwards. Why am I wrong?

    You guys are so terrified that any activity MIGHT have a negative side effect that you prefer doing nothing, refusing to realize that too is a choice and has consequences, many of which are bad. Our infrastructure is in a sad state of disrepair because at the current rate it can't be maintained as fast as it wears out, even if money were no object.

    Take it to space guys, go mine up some asteroids and build us a space station!

    Thou art an innumerate fool. Math, try it sometime. Until we reduce the cost to orbit by a LOT we will never send enough people into space to even make a dent in the population here on Earth or their resource consumption. Especially with your morons regulating the holy hell out of any attempt. Good luck getting a real spaceport permitted these days and can you imagine the environmental impact studies and protests a space elevator project would fire up in the current political environment?

    Starting Score:    1  point
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   2  
  • (Score: 2) by Zz9zZ on Monday December 05 2016, @08:53PM

    by Zz9zZ (1348) on Monday December 05 2016, @08:53PM (#437378)

    I'm all for investigating regulation which is really just government corruption, but I'm not willing to take the stance of complete de-regulation. Down that road we have already been, and it is ugly.

    As for space, that was a projection into the future of where you "builders and doers" can be productive since progress/growth must be made at all times... Stop treating the planet as an expendable source of material, we need to carefully recycle/reuse, energy cost is the biggest barrier there at the moment. As for this pipeline, the protesters simply want less oil. Stop the tar sands, stop the fracking, invest in sustainable energy already! Real investment, not token projects and meager private home subsidies.

    As for campaign rhetoric, we would be better off funding renewable energy projects than building a 2k mile wall... Real, tangible energy independence. Oil markets going nuts? That sucks, but renewables would alleviate the impact and put the US in a better position in the future.

    ~Tilting at windmills~