Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

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 Snopes.com:

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This discussion has been archived.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 butthurt on Wednesday December 07 2016, @03:08AM

    by butthurt (6141) on Wednesday December 07 2016, @03:08AM (#438186) Journal

    That does sound contradictory. Earlier they say:

    [...] Mr. Soros gave at least $33 million in one year to support already-established groups that emboldened the grass-roots, on-the-ground activists in Ferguson, according to the most recent tax filings of his nonprofit Open Society Foundations.

    which doesn't sound like an oxymoron. Perhaps the passage you quoted is a poorly-worded restatement of that.

    They print the claim of a director of Soros' organisation, who said

    [...] although groups involved in the protests have been recipients of Mr. Soros' grants, they were in no way directed to protest at the behest of Open Society.

    Starting Score:    1  point
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   2  
  • (Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Wednesday December 07 2016, @03:21AM

    by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday December 07 2016, @03:21AM (#438190) Homepage Journal

    [...] although groups involved in the protests have been recipients of Mr. Soros' grants, they were in no way directed to protest at the behest of Open Society.

    There's that "plausible deniability" thing. No officer of the US Navy ever "directed" me to wound a civlian. But, the day we had to clear a riot demanding entry to the ship, my squad went out on the quay, and moved the riot off of the quay. In the process, some civilians were incidentally wounded. (no fatalities, thank God)

    All that is needed, is a "gentleman's understanding" that people who participate in approved activities are more likely to be granted money or positions by the organization.

    --
    There is a supply side shortage of pronouns. You will take whatever you are offered.
    • (Score: 2) by butthurt on Wednesday December 07 2016, @11:53PM

      by butthurt (6141) on Wednesday December 07 2016, @11:53PM (#438555) Journal

      [...] my squad went out on the quay, and moved the riot off of the quay [...]

      ...and perhaps the secretary of the navy, the secretary of defence, the president, and the public (your ultimate employers) never knew about your efforts in more detail than the fact that your ship was at a certain port on a certain date, and left on a certain date?

      Earthjustice say their goals are "to protect people’s health, to preserve magnificent places and wildlife, to advance clean energy, and to combat climate change" (http://earthjustice.org/tags/oil [earthjustice.org]). I would think that that may be specific enough for Mr. Soros; it aligns perfectly with his intention "to undermine and destablize the United States [soylentnews.org]." Earthjustice are a non-profit; if he wrote them a cheque and accompanied it with a note saying "I hope you'll do something about the Dakota Access Pipeline" would that be improper?

      • (Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Thursday December 08 2016, @01:15AM

        by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Thursday December 08 2016, @01:15AM (#438576) Homepage Journal

        Maybe improper, maybe not. But that sort of detail isn't going to be made public, and I'm not in a position to ever learn about it.

        --
        There is a supply side shortage of pronouns. You will take whatever you are offered.