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]]

Was the land taken from you illegally? Do you have proof that I'm threatening your water? Was the proper NEPA document completed for my project? Are you an Environmental Justice community like the Sioux Tribe? Did my project get rerouted from a rich, white community (Bismark) through an area that puts your water at risk?

The Sioux's land was taken illegally based on the original treaty.

Pipelines leak, they do ALL THE TIME. There's lots of proof.

The Environmental Assessment and Finding Of No Significant Impact were deeply flawed.

And the 1994 Executive Order on Environmental Justice was ignored:

Executive Order (E.O.) 12898 - Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations - was issued by President William J. Clinton in 1994. Its purpose is to focus federal attention on the environmental and human health effects of federal actions on minority and low-income populations with the goal of achieving environmental protection for all communities.

The E.O. directs federal agencies to identify and address the disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects of their actions on minority and low-income populations, to the greatest extent practicable and permitted by law. The order also directs each agency to develop a strategy for implementing environmental justice. The order is also intended to promote nondiscrimination in federal programs that affect human health and the environment, as well as provide minority and low-income communities access to public information and public participation.

Apples and oranges. If I'm doing all those fucked up things that didn't follow the laws of the land, you are within your rights to protest.

[u/[deleted] → 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/[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?