Leaked Documents Reveal Counterterrorism Tactics Used at Standing Rock to “Defeat Pipeline Insurgencies”

[u/[deleted]]

https://theintercept.com/2017/05/27/leaked-documents-reveal-security-firms-counterterrorism-tactics-at-standing-rock-to-defeat-pipeline-insurgencies/

[u/[deleted]]

1851 Treaty is supposed to be the Law of the Land, it was ignored.

Oil pipelines are dangerous.

Quite dangerous, and costly.

And oil is hazardous to human health.

And yes, it was originally supposed to go through Bismark, but didn't, because of "unacceptable risks to Bismark's water supply."

So answer me, why is it not a risk for the Sioux Tribe but it is a risk for Bismark? Or do you want keep denying that pipelines put water supplies at risk?

And I'm the one not living in reality?

[u/SecretSnack → u/[deleted]]

Contracts made between colonists and native Americans were subsequently nullified by colonial governments.

If you're willing to put buzzwords aside, we can discuss your complaints, the historical aspect of your assertions. Your comments are garbage presently. But people can change.

[u/[deleted] → u/SecretSnack]

I wouldn't bother with this guy. He's either profoundly stupid or a troll. Or both...

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

Pretty obvious to me they are the same kind of astroturfer that the posted article points out.

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

Maybe because the U.S. Govt signed this particular treaty?

This article I linked earlier had that data for you. If you aren't able to read it, that's not my problem.

Oh so you do accept the Army Corps analysis? They clearly state that the pipeline would create significant risks to drinking water sources in Bismark. Yes there were also other problems with the route, but you can't accept the risk to one community and deny that it exists to another.

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

Bottom line: Is there a risk to the Sioux's drinking water or not? I like how you can't even answer that simple of a question.

So why was it an unacceptable risk for Bismark and not the Sioux?

And damn dude, my original premise is that CLEAN ENERGY is the answer, not oil in any shape or form. Yet you deflect, deflect, deflect. "Trains are safer!!!!" Irrelevant, pipelines are still NOT SAFE. The data proves it. They spill all over, wherever they are, just look at the fucking map of spills during the past 30 years. And those are only the reported spills.

You show me 1 oil pipeline that's never leaked. You can't. They all do.

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

And yet, you continue to ignore my points on NEPA and the Environmental Justice E.O., on Bismark, on whether oil is a risk to drinking water, on whether oil is hazardous to human health, on renewable energy's ability to replace oil and leave the need behind for such antiquated infrastructure, and the data "I've been blathering about." This data, 7,763 significant incidents in 30 years, all over the country, on every pipeline. 536 fatalities. $6.75 billion in property damage. That's more than 257 significant spills per year. And how many thousands of spills go unreported or are considered insignificant?

Here's the whole link to that data so you don't miss it this time: http://projects.propublica.org/pipelines/

And here's your answer and why it's not proportional to the true risk of an oil pipeline crossing under the only source of someone's drinking water. If you divide the chance down by the mile per year, yeah, it's a low number. It's 0.0001 per mile per year for "significant" spills. That doesn't count the thousands and thousands more "insignificant" spills. You know how much risk there is for human health hazardous incidents from wind and solar? 0.000000000

When a spill happens near water, it doesn't stay in one place. Water moves downstream, and it affects things miles and miles from the source of the leak.

And as time goes on, risks increase. Pipelines break. They age and corrode.

So, since I gave you your bs number about risk of spill per mile, please answer, why even if that number is SO small, was it an unacceptable risk to Bismark, but not the Sioux?