Hillary refuses to stand with Standing Rock. I refuse to stand with her

[Green Arrow]

This will be my last thread on the election until it is over. I'll cover the results on Election Night but that's it.

I early-voted for Jill Stein for president this past Tuesday. I did this for multiple reasons. My vote does nothing to change the outcome of the election because my state, Tennessee, is a guaranteed red state. Donald Trump wins my state's 11 electoral votes regardless of how I or anyone else I know votes. Those electoral votes are the only votes that matter for the election of president.

It's more than that, though. If the Libertarian and Green parties can get 5% of the vote, they are guaranteed ballot access in all 50 states and upwards of $12 million in federal funding. This is a necessary milestone to make our country's elections more open and free and give Americans real choices. Gary Johnson of the Libertarian Party is already well set up to get over the 5% hurdle, but Stein is close to missing it, so I voted for her. Plus, ideologically she is closer to me than Johnson.

I also voted for Jill Stein because while the media is trying desperately to ignore the NODAPL movement, and neither major party candidate has said a word about it, Jill Stein has put her life and safety on the line, without Secret Service protection, to join in the protests in protection of Standing Rock Sioux land and lives.

Donald Trump hasn't done this for obvious reasons, he doesn't care. One of his first actions as president will probably be to greenlight DAPL and suppress the protests. But Clinton is supposed to be different. Clinton claims she wants an America that is "stronger together," and claims she is the champion of the downtrodden and forgotten. Yet she's never made it a point of her campaign to stand up for the ultimate downtrodden and forgotten in America, our First Nations people. She has not made a point in any speeches to support their fight. She has not forced the media to cover their fight. She has not once been to the protest sites to stand with them.

The reality is Clinton doesn't care about the Standing Rock Sioux and their plight anymore than Donald Trump does. She only cares about herself and her endless quest for power.

So, yeah. I'm with another her, because Jill Stein means what she says she believes and she's not afraid to put her well-being on the line to stand with regular Americans and, most importantly, the forgotten First Nations.

[resister]

That should be her campaign slogan"The Other Her"

[Ethereal]

I saw a debate between Stein and Johnson on Tavis Smiley's show the other day. Stein really impressed me with her foreign policy views and her passion. She's a real person. Very refreshing.

[Green Arrow]

I saw a debate between Stein and Johnson on Tavis Smiley's show the other day. Stein really impressed me with her foreign policy views and her passion. She's a real person. Very refreshing.
I highly respect both of them. Johnson has a great sense of humor and a real concern about this country.

[Ethereal]

I highly respect both of them. Johnson has a great sense of humor and a real concern about this country.
Johnson is a decent guy, but a terrible representative for libertarianism. He's made a complete fool of himself numerous times and is not very good at spreading the message.

[resister]

Johnson is a decent guy, but a terrible representative for libertarianism. He's made a complete fool of himself numerous times and is not very good at spreading the message.
Whats Allepo?Cant name a world leader he respects...A third grader is an intellectual match for him

[Green Arrow]

Johnson is a decent guy, but a terrible representative for libertarianism. He's made a complete fool of himself numerous times and is not very good at spreading the message.
And yet, he's gotten the Libertarian Party farther than it has ever gotten, first with a historic showing in 2012 and now polling as well as Perot did in 1992 (though I doubt he'll see 18% of the final tally like Perot did).

He's honest and accepts his mistakes with humility. People like that, even if he isn't the most well-spoken communicator.

At any rate, we're getting a bit off subject.

[Green Arrow]

Whats Allepo?Cant name a world leader he respects...A third grader is an intellectual match for him

If you want to make uninformed comments about Johnson start a thread.

[resister]

If you want to make uninformed comments about Johnson start a thread.Uninformed?The uninformed one here is you my friend.Do you ever watch the news?

[Ethereal]

Whats Allepo?Cant name a world leader he respects...A third grader is an intellectual match for him
None of that bothers me. It's his bizarre, kooky behavior that I find problematic. Libertarians are battling a stereotype of being unserious and Johnson basically plays into that stereotype by acting like a goofball.

[Chris]

None of that bothers me. It's his bizarre, kooky behavior that I find problematic. Libertarians are battling a stereotype of being unserious and Johnson basically plays into that stereotype by acting like a goofball.

Was he always like this or was it a strategy that backfired? I never paid attention to him before this election cycle.

[Green Arrow]

So...back to Hillary and Standing Rock.

[MRogersNhood]

Well thanks for posting that and I appreciate your perspective!
Especially the part about opening up elections to parties other than Democrat and Republican.
Why not pick the best person for the job who may not fit into a neat little box?
I think Trump broke the box then put it in a crusher.

[FindersKeepers]

I also voted for Jill Stein because while the media is trying desperately to ignore the NODAPL movement, and neither major party candidate has said a word about it, Jill Stein has put her life and safety on the line, without Secret Service protection, to join in the protests in protection of Standing Rock Sioux land and lives.
Donald Trump hasn't done this for obvious reasons, he doesn't care. One of his first actions as president will probably be to greenlight DAPL and suppress the protests. But Clinton is supposed to be different. Clinton claims she wants an America that is "stronger together," and claims she is the champion of the downtrodden and forgotten. Yet she's never made it a point of her campaign to stand up for the ultimate downtrodden and forgotten in America, our First Nations people. She has not made a point in any speeches to support their fight. She has not forced the media to cover their fight. She has not once been to the protest sites to stand with them.
The reality is Clinton doesn't care about the Standing Rock Sioux and their plight anymore than Donald Trump does. She only cares about herself and her endless quest for power.
I was interested in Jill Stein's comment about how Obama and Clinton both knew the House of Saud was funding ISIS, and yet they both supported Saudi. Stein nailed it on that one.

On the Standing Rock Sioux -- not so much. Not in my opinion, anyway. But, I grew up in fossil fuel so you can't really expect me to go along with protests I think are silly.

The Sioux have been browbeat into opposing the pipeline. There is no real danger to the land or underground water table. One of the biggest polluters of our water is agricultural -- nearly every well in the Heartland is polluted due to carcinogens that leeched from farm chemical applications. Any risk of leak from a pipeline is minute.

I live in Kansas. We don't have a problem with pipelines. One crosses the corner of my land -- and it doesn't bother m, although there are markers where it crossed the roadway and I'm constantly reminded that I need to contact the pipeline before I dig within 75 feet of the line so they can come out and be here while I dig.

Eco-determined individuals have been convinced that there is great danger to the environment from pipelines.

There isn't.

Granted, there have been a few leaks here and there that had to be dealt with, but it's rare.

Here's a map of current US buried pipelines. Look at how many are in KS. No trouble at all.

Stein was right about the Saudi thing -- but the pipline fiasco is just hooey.

https://www.propublica.org/images/ngen/gypsy_big_image/pipeline_line_map-630x420.gif

[Green Arrow]

I was interested in Jill Stein's comment about how Obama and Clinton both knew the House of Saud was funding ISIS, and yet they both supported Saudi. Stein nailed it on that one.

On the Standing Rock Sioux -- not so much. Not in my opinion, anyway. But, I grew up in fossil fuel so you can't really expect me to go along with protests I think are silly.

The Sioux have been browbeat into opposing the pipeline. There is no real danger to the land or underground water table. One of the biggest polluters of our water is agricultural -- nearly every well in the Heartland is polluted due to carcinogens that leeched from farm chemical applications. Any risk of leak from a pipeline is minute.

That is, unfortunately, not correct. The pipeline had already been directed to Standing Rock and away from Bismarck, ND (a majority white town) because the wealthy whites of Bismarck were concerned about a leak impacting their drinking water.

I live in Kansas. We don't have a problem with pipelines. One crosses the corner of my land -- and it doesn't bother m, although there are markers where it crossed the roadway and I'm constantly reminded that I need to contact the pipeline before I dig within 75 feet of the line so they can come out and be here while I dig.

That's because the pipelines near your land haven't busted yet. People who live near pipelines that bust have a different perspective.

Eco-determined individuals have been convinced that there is great danger to the environment from pipelines.

There isn't.

Granted, there have been a few leaks here and there that had to be dealt with, but it's rare.

It's not rare. Since 2009 alone, pipeline spills have shot up 60%. (http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/ct-oil-pipeline-leaks-20150522-story.html) We're averaging 120 spills a year for the last two years and it's trending upward, not downward. These are facts, not my opinion.

[JDubya]

Eco-determined individuals have been convinced that there is great danger to the environment from pipelines.

There isn't.

Granted, there have been a few leaks here and there that had to be dealt with, but it's rare.


Wow. You really do guzzle the conservative corporate Kool Aid by the 55 gallon oil drum, don't you?

List of pipeline accidents in the United States in the 21st century (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_pipeline_accidents_in_the_United_States_in _the_21st_century)

[JDubya]

So...back to Hillary and Standing Rock.
Like she has the time to include every issue of every special interest in her campaign...

C'mon dude. I know you look for convenient reasons to h8 Hillary but use some reasoning. There are only 24 hours in a day and there are a lot of issues to address.

Not to mention the distraction of that stupid, trumped up email nonsense.

[Green Arrow]

Like she has the time to include every issue of every special interest in her campaign...

C'mon dude. I know you look for convenient reasons to h8 Hillary but use some reasoning. There are only 24 hours in a day and there are a lot of issues to address.

Not to mention the distraction of that stupid, trumped up email nonsense.
Not even mentioning it once, even as a throw away, is indicative of a bigger problem.

[JDubya]

It's more than that, though. If the Libertarian and Green parties can get 5% of the vote, they are guaranteed ballot access in all 50 states and upwards of $12 million in federal funding. This is a necessary milestone to make our country's elections more open and free and give Americans real choices. Gary Johnson of the Libertarian Party is already well set up to get over the 5% hurdle, but Stein is close to missing it, so I voted for her. Plus, ideologically she is closer to me than Johnson.

Third parties would accomplish nothing more than ensuring that we get elected leaders with the support of significantly less than 50% of voters.

We could conceivably get a President who only had the support of about 1/3 of the country, or even less if there were more than three parties represented. It could turn into a "hot mess".

Anyone who doesn't fall pretty squarely on one side or the other of our current two party, liberal vs conservative ideology system, IMO is just being too picky and fussy.

[Chris]

Third parties would accomplish nothing more than ensuring that we get elected leaders with the support of significantly less than 50% of voters.

We could conceivably get a President who only had the support of about 1/3 of the country, or even less if there were more than three parties represented. It could turn into a "hot mess".

Anyone who doesn't fall pretty squarely on one side or the other of our current two party, liberal vs conservative ideology system, IMO is just being too picky and fussy.


Presidents for some time now have been elected by around 25% of eligible voters.

[Peter1469]

Without third parties the numbers of people who would not vote would skyrocket.


Third parties would accomplish nothing more than ensuring that we get elected leaders with the support of significantly less than 50% of voters.

We could conceivably get a President who only had the support of about 1/3 of the country, or even less if there were more than three parties represented. It could turn into a "hot mess".

Anyone who doesn't fall pretty squarely on one side or the other of our current two party, liberal vs conservative ideology system, IMO is just being too picky and fussy.

[Green Arrow]

Third parties would accomplish nothing more than ensuring that we get elected leaders with the support of significantly less than 50% of voters.

We could conceivably get a President who only had the support of about 1/3 of the country, or even less if there were more than three parties represented. It could turn into a "hot mess".

Anyone who doesn't fall pretty squarely on one side or the other of our current two party, liberal vs conservative ideology system, IMO is just being too picky and fussy.

Presidents have been elected for at least the last twenty years with roughly 1/4 (that's less than 1/3) of the nation voting for them. Hillary is about to win (if she wins) with less than 50% of the vote.

So I don't see the problem.

[Cletus]

Johnson is a decent guy, but a terrible representative for libertarianism. He's made a complete fool of himself numerous times and is not very good at spreading the message.

He may not be a great speaker, but he was a very good Governor.

[Cletus]

Presidents have been elected for at least the last twenty years with roughly 1/4 (that's less than 1/3) of the nation voting for them. Hillary is about to win (if she wins) with less than 50% of the vote.

If Clinton wins, your vote for Stein will have helped her do so.

[Green Arrow]

Cletus, I can't quote your post because you put your comment within my quote tags.

But you're incorrect. My vote will not impact the outcome of the election in any way. Trump wins my state's 11 electoral votes regardless of how I vote.

[Chris]

He may not be a great speaker, but he was a very good Governor.

I'd asked earlier about that. Can you briefly explain how he was a great governor.

[stjames1_53]

This will be my last thread on the election until it is over. I'll cover the results on Election Night but that's it.

I early-voted for Jill Stein for president this past Tuesday. I did this for multiple reasons. My vote does nothing to change the outcome of the election because my state, Tennessee, is a guaranteed red state. Donald Trump wins my state's 11 electoral votes regardless of how I or anyone else I know votes. Those electoral votes are the only votes that matter for the election of president.

It's more than that, though. If the Libertarian and Green parties can get 5% of the vote, they are guaranteed ballot access in all 50 states and upwards of $12 million in federal funding. This is a necessary milestone to make our country's elections more open and free and give Americans real choices. Gary Johnson of the Libertarian Party is already well set up to get over the 5% hurdle, but Stein is close to missing it, so I voted for her. Plus, ideologically she is closer to me than Johnson.

I also voted for Jill Stein because while the media is trying desperately to ignore the NODAPL movement, and neither major party candidate has said a word about it, Jill Stein has put her life and safety on the line, without Secret Service protection, to join in the protests in protection of Standing Rock Sioux land and lives.

Donald Trump hasn't done this for obvious reasons, he doesn't care. One of his first actions as president will probably be to greenlight DAPL and suppress the protests. But Clinton is supposed to be different. Clinton claims she wants an America that is "stronger together," and claims she is the champion of the downtrodden and forgotten. Yet she's never made it a point of her campaign to stand up for the ultimate downtrodden and forgotten in America, our First Nations people. She has not made a point in any speeches to support their fight. She has not forced the media to cover their fight. She has not once been to the protest sites to stand with them.

The reality is Clinton doesn't care about the Standing Rock Sioux and their plight anymore than Donald Trump does. She only cares about herself and her endless quest for power.

So, yeah. I'm with another her, because Jill Stein means what she says she believes and she's not afraid to put her well-being on the line to stand with regular Americans and, most importantly, the forgotten First Nations.

anything that comes out of Hillary's mouth is anything but the truth.................

[resister]

anything that comes out of Hillary's mouth is anything but the truth.................Dat be mouth full right there:grin:

[Green Arrow]

I'd asked earlier about that. Can you briefly explain how he was a great governor.

The topic is not Gary Johnson.

[exploited]

Clinton is going to make a terrible President. There is no doubt about that.

[Cletus]

I'd asked earlier about that. Can you briefly explain how he was a great governor.

He kept the Democrat Roundhouse (State Legislature) in check.

[JDubya]

Presidents for some time now have been elected by around 25% of eligible voters.
Even if that's true, which I would like to see the numbers on, with third parties, it would drop to even fewer.

We'd start getting Presidents who represent wacko fringe groups.

[Green Arrow]

Even if that's true, which I would like to see the numbers on, with third parties, it would drop to even fewer.

We'd start getting Presidents who represent wacko fringe groups.

"Wacko fringe groups" have just as much a right to representation in our government as you and I do.

[JDubya]

Without third parties the numbers of people who would not vote would skyrocket.

How so, when only a handful of people are voting for them now?

[resister]

Even if that's true, which I would like to see the numbers on, with third parties, it would drop to even fewer.

We'd start getting Presidents who represent wacko fringe groups.
Such as your queen bee?Killary Shillary dock tik tok

[Chris]

Even if that's true, which I would like to see the numbers on, with third parties, it would drop to even fewer.

We'd start getting Presidents who represent wacko fringe groups.


Figure voter turnout for some time has hovered around 55%, going back even further around, what 60%:

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-nPb_Jpzhq48/UJpTXBuF80I/AAAAAAAAGDA/W5Ji7b6lZlA/s1600/Screen+Shot+2012-11-07+at+8.24.13+AM.png

Say 5-10% went to third parties and the rest split between Dems and Reps, with the last several elections split very close.

So, yes, Presidents win with approx 25% of the vote.


For a third party candidate to win they would have to get a majority of the vote, electoral vote, but just the same, they would have do better than either duopoly candidate.

This they'd end up bell-curve normal and not wacko fringe.

Which would, imo, be self-defeating.

[MRogersNhood]

Like she has the time to include every issue of every special interest in her campaign...

C'mon dude. I know you look for convenient reasons to h8 Hillary but use some reasoning. There are only 24 hours in a day and there are a lot of issues to address.

Not to mention the distraction of that stupid, trumped up email nonsense.
https://global3.memecdn.com/its-over-9000_o_187288.jpg

And they're all in her campaign..donors list.

[JDubya]

Figure voter turnout for some time has hovered around 55%, going back even further around, what 60%:
Say 5-10% went to third parties and the rest split between Dems and Reps, with the last several elections split very close.
So, yes, Presidents win with approx 25% of the vote.
For a third party candidate to win they would have to get a majority of the vote, electoral vote, but just the same, they would have do better than either duopoly candidate.
This they'd end up bell-curve normal and not wacko fringe.
Which would, imo, be self-defeating.
Having three, four, five, six parties represented in a Presidential election would still divide the number of registered voters up into small groups with narrow and disparate agendas. The winner would represent only one of those narrow agendas while the rest of the country would be angry and feel unrepresented.

And forget about Congress. Imagine how effed up that place would be with several parties represented. It would be an asylum choked in perpetual gridlock.

There is no need to start messing around with what we've got here for the sake of some grand experiment. Break it once and it can never be fixed.


Besides, it's obvious that they just aren't that popular.

[Tahuyaman]

I think it's time that the various reservations around the country joined the 21st century with the rest of us. Progress and modernization can exist even on a reservation.

[Chris]

Having three, four, five, six parties represented in a Presidential election would still divide the number of registered voters up into small groups with narrow and disparate agendas. The winner would represent only one of those narrow agendas while the rest of the country would be angry and feel unrepresented.

And forget about Congress. Imagine how effed up that place would be with several parties represented. It would be an asylum choked in perpetual gridlock.

There is no need to start messing around with what we've got here for the sake of some grand experiment. Break it once and it can never be fixed.


Besides, it's obvious that they just aren't that popular.


They could become more popular as the duopoly becomes unpopular.

Say the GOP declines after this election and the Libertarian Party rises. It could be getting 50% and Dems 50% of the 50% of eligible voters who vote. A spreading of votes is not a likely outcome in a winner-take-all system like ours.

[PolWatch]

I have a different view about the safety of pipelines. Alabama is now dealing with the second explosion & leak of gas pipelines in 2 months.

November 4, 2016
'The gasoline pipeline that exploded and erupted in flames in Helena, Ala., this week should be back in service Sunday, the pipeline company said.'
http://www.knoxnews.com/story/money/business/2016/11/04/alabama-gas-pipeline-expected-reopen-sunday/93293606/

September 21, 2016 'Colonial Pipeline has restarted the gasoline pipeline in Alabama that was shut down after a major leak, which caused shortages and surging fuel prices across the South.'
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2016/09/21/company-restarts-gasoline-pipeline-after-leak-in-alabama.html

The Gulf Coast is still dealing with the BP oil spill

'Barisich is among thousands considering claims under a medical settlement BP reached with cleanup workers and coastal residents. The settlement, which could benefit an estimated 200,000 people, received final approval in February from a federal court.
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/bp-oil-spill-4-years-later-long-term-health-questions-linger/

The deaths of stillborn and recently born bottlenose dolphins (http://search.nola.com/bottlenose+dolphins/?date_range=all) found stranded on beaches and in coastal waters along the shores of Louisiana, Mississippi and Alabama during the four years after the BP Deepwater Horizon (http://topics.nola.com/tag/oil%20spill%20gulf%20of%20mexico%202010/)oil spill were likely the result of chronic health problems of their mothers and linked their exposure to oil from the spill, according to a new research paper published Tuesday (April 12.)
http://www.nola.com/environment/index.ssf/2016/04/stillborn_juvenile_dolphin_dea.html

Stein's position and willingness to stand up to the big oil companies is one of the reasons I will vote for her Tuesday. My vote won't matter because Alabama will go red (as usual). However, I won't have to disinfect my hands after pulling the voting lever for one of the major party candidates.

[Dr. Who]

I was interested in Jill Stein's comment about how Obama and Clinton both knew the House of Saud was funding ISIS, and yet they both supported Saudi. Stein nailed it on that one.

On the Standing Rock Sioux -- not so much. Not in my opinion, anyway. But, I grew up in fossil fuel so you can't really expect me to go along with protests I think are silly.

The Sioux have been browbeat into opposing the pipeline. There is no real danger to the land or underground water table. One of the biggest polluters of our water is agricultural -- nearly every well in the Heartland is polluted due to carcinogens that leeched from farm chemical applications. Any risk of leak from a pipeline is minute.

I live in Kansas. We don't have a problem with pipelines. One crosses the corner of my land -- and it doesn't bother m, although there are markers where it crossed the roadway and I'm constantly reminded that I need to contact the pipeline before I dig within 75 feet of the line so they can come out and be here while I dig.

Eco-determined individuals have been convinced that there is great danger to the environment from pipelines.

There isn't.

Granted, there have been a few leaks here and there that had to be dealt with, but it's rare.

Here's a map of current US buried pipelines. Look at how many are in KS. No trouble at all.

Stein was right about the Saudi thing -- but the pipline fiasco is just hooey.

https://www.propublica.org/images/ngen/gypsy_big_image/pipeline_line_map-630x420.gif
Eventually, they all leak. That doesn't mean it's an environmental catastrophe every time, but hopefully, you aren't one of those unfortunate landowners who only find out that it's leaking because their cattle are mysteriously dropping dead. Pipelines can have a slow leak for years and by the time cattle are dropping dead, it's a huge environmental disaster. Unfortunately, the equipment that monitors pipelines can only really detect a major breach, because they measure the pressure in the pipeline. A slow leak doesn't register. That pipeline on your property could be leaking now and unless you have a well that is getting water from a contaminated aquifer or livestock that are getting sick, you won't know until your entire property is an environmental disaster zone. You are unlikely to get what you think your property is worth in a settlement with the oil company. Take my word for it, those are some of the kinds of claims I see in my line of work. We generally stay away from oil and gas but we do write pipelines. The newer pipelines are better lined to avoid corrosion, but I'm afraid the older ones are a disaster just waiting to happen. There is a bacteria that lives in that oil rich environment that eats metal. It's the same reason that oil tanks for home heating corrode from the inside out. I don't know how old the pipeline is that is crossing your property, but I hope it's fairly recent.

[FindersKeepers]

That is, unfortunately, not correct. The pipeline had already been directed to Standing Rock and away from Bismarck, ND (a majority white town) because the wealthy whites of Bismarck were concerned about a leak impacting their drinking water.



Wealthy whites can be just as uninformed as rural dwellers. Bismark draws from the Missouri river and the odds of a spill or leak, at the very spot where the pipeline crosses the river is astronomically low. These pipelines run for thousands of miles and they're concerned about a few hundred foot stretch? This is the hysteria I'm talking about. It's just all silliness with no real thinking behind it.

That's because the pipelines near your land haven't busted yet. People who live near pipelines that bust have a different perspective.

Occasionally, there's a small leak here or there. The one that crosses my land is high-pressure natural gas so the risk is from explosion -- not contamination. A Canadian company bought the line a few years ago and they fly the line weekly, looking for any signs of dead vegetation or "steam" that indicates a leak.


It's not rare. Since 2009 alone, pipeline spills have shot up 60%. (http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/ct-oil-pipeline-leaks-20150522-story.html) We're averaging 120 spills a year for the last two years and it's trending upward, not downward. These are facts, not my opinion.

Spills of any consequence are rare. The increase is in proportion to the increase in crude production. It's not outpacing it.

There's always a small risk -- there's a greater risk every time you step in your car, but you know that the benefit of hauling kids to ballet or picking up groceries outweighs the risk of an auto accident. So, you get in your car and you do your best to drive carefully. That's what the pipelines are doing -- constantly monitoring their lines and improving the technology by which they transport their product.

The alternative to pipelines is to put thousand more tanker-trucks on our roads where spills are more likely to occur and accidents involving smaller autos are more deadly. We could also rebuild our rail infrastructure, and haul by tanker-car but, there again, it's a greater risk.

Spills, when they occur on water can be very problematic but spills that occur a few feet under the surface of the earth are less damaging.

Someone, for whatever their agenda might be, has convinced the Standing Rock Sioux that the pipeline stands to damage their land and livelihood. Nothing could be further from the truth.

[FindersKeepers]

Eventually, they all leak. That doesn't mean it's an environmental catastrophe every time, but hopefully, you aren't one of those unfortunate landowners who only find out that it's leaking because their cattle are mysteriously dropping dead. Pipelines can have a slow leak for years and by the time cattle are dropping dead, it's a huge environmental disaster. Unfortunately, the equipment that monitors pipelines can only really detect a major breach, because they measure the pressure in the pipeline. A slow leak doesn't register. That pipeline on your property could be leaking now and unless you have a well that is getting water from a contaminated aquifer or livestock that are getting sick, you won't know until your entire property is an environmental disaster zone. You are unlikely to get what you think your property is worth in a settlement with the oil company. Take my word for it, those are some of the kinds of claims I see in my line of work. We generally stay away from oil and gas but we do write pipelines. The newer pipelines are better lined to avoid corrosion, but I'm afraid the older ones are a disaster just waiting to happen. There is a bacteria that lives in that oil rich environment that eats metal. It's the same reason that oil tanks for home heating corrode from the inside out. I don't know how old the pipeline is that is crossing your property, but I hope it's fairly recent.

Oil tends to stay on the surface of water -- it doesn't seep down so much. It would take a massive spill in order to saturate the ground so much to seep down into an aquifer. A greater risk to aquifers is contamination at the level of the aquifer, from, say bad drilling practices of not sealing the shaft, that can contaminate the water.

Pipelines use thermographic imaging to pinpoint small leaks. The oil near the surface of the ground heats up during the day and doesn't cool as quickly as the surrounding ground. When the flow drops at a collection point, it indicates that oil is going somewhere besides where it should be going, and then they use the thermographic imaging to find "hot spots."

I have to clarify again that the pipeline crossing my land is high-pressure natural gas. Not crude. I live in oil country, though. You can see pumping units any direction you go in the country. They don't bother anyone. If there's a small leak, it's addressed quickly. I have yet to see an area damaged by a large leak, but that doesn't mean there isn't one somewhere around here.

More than 99% of crude that travels in a pipeline reaches its destination safely. Because it does -- we all drive our cars and, those who use oil to heat, stay warm in the winter.

There will come a day when we have reliable (non-fossil fuel) energy to heat and cool our homes and power our vehicles. That day has not come yet and it's just not logical to try and shut down the fossil fuel industry until it arrives.

The danger of the pipeline is being blown out of all proportion.

[FindersKeepers]

Wow. You really do guzzle the conservative corporate Kool Aid by the 55 gallon oil drum, don't you?

List of pipeline accidents in the United States in the 21st century (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_pipeline_accidents_in_the_United_States_in _the_21st_century)

Seriously?

Your list includes things like:


Workers in Topeka, Kansas (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Topeka,_Kansas) were installing a yard sprinkler system on January 30, hit a gas line. Gas from the leak later on exploded in a nearby house, burning a 73-year-old woman, who died several weeks later.

Are you going to advocate that communities abandon all their underground utilities and start using wood-burning stoves to cook and heat their homes again?

Your list is a perfect example of the melodrama surrounding this issue. Creating lists that include things like workers hitting gas lines is just ludicrous when we're talking about major pipelines that transport fuel across the nation.

[JDubya]

Seriously?
Your list includes things like:
Are you going to advocate that communities abandon all their underground utilities and start using wood-burning stoves to cook and heat their homes again?

Your list is a perfect example of the melodrama surrounding this issue. Creating lists that include things like workers hitting gas lines is just ludicrous when we're talking about major pipelines that transport fuel across the nation.

Yeah, tell these people about it...

Pipeline Explosion Kills 10 Campers in N.M. (http://abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=96090&page=1)

Or at least their surviving family members anyway.


Federal, state and local authorities are investigating the cause of Saturday’s natural gas pipeline explosion that killed five adults and five children and left two other people in critical condition in southeast New Mexico.

The victims, members of two extended families, were camping early Saturday morning near the Pecos River, about 200 to 300 yards from the below-ground explosion.

Authorities said one end of the ruptured line became a virtual flame-thrower, showering fire on the victims camped beneath a bridge about 200 yards away.

“The evidence out there at the scene indicates it was horrendously hot,” State Police Capt. John Balderston said. “It incinerated everything in its path.

A New Mexico State Police spokesman said most of the victims were up and some were fishing when the explosion occurred. But they were helpless to escape the inferno.

“They were consumed by a huge ball of fire,” state police Lt. Larry Rogers said.

....one survivor recalled being awakened by a man yelling fire.

“She stands up and discovers she’s on fire and jumps in the river,” Balderston said. “Then returns to get her children and can’t, because it’s so intense.”

Down by the water, investigators found sleeping bags and tents melted, he said.

“The only reason we could tell it was a tent was the geometric design of the poles,” Balderston said.

Six people died at the scene and three others died Saturday night at University Medical Center in Lubbock. A 5-year-old girl died late Saturday while en route by air ambulance to a Shriners Hospital in Galveston, Texas.

Those who died at the Lubbock hospital were Roy Lee Heady, 20, his wife, Amy, 18, and Glenda Sumler, 47. Kirsten Sumler, 5, was pronounced dead on arrival at Shriners Hospital in Galveston. She was Glenda Sumler’s granddaughter.

The Headys’ three girls, 22-month-old Kelsey and 6-month-old twins Timber and Tamber, died in the explosion. Also killed at the campsite were Terry Smith, 23, and his son, Dustin, 3, and father-in-law Don Sumler.



So, I guess these things are perfectly safe, right?


Right.


The point here being, that if smaller, underground natural gas pipelines have corrosion issues and issues related to damage by being struck by other objects, then large oil pipelines that are either above or below ground have just as much risk of damage and leakage associated with them.


Just a few years ago, the Kalamazoo River oil spill (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kalamazoo_River_oil_spill)provided us with a perfect example of the serious environmental risks associated with pipelines.


http://media.mlive.com/kalamazoogazette/photo/8755006-large.jpg

And there have been many more.

[resister]

Seriously?

Your list includes things like:



Are you going to advocate that communities abandon all their underground utilities and start using wood-burning stoves to cook and heat their homes again?

Your list is a perfect example of the melodrama surrounding this issue. Creating lists that include things like workers hitting gas lines is just ludicrous when we're talking about major pipelines that transport fuel across the nation.
They call me a prepper but it seems they would return to the stone age

[FindersKeepers]

They call me a prepper but it seems they would return to the stone age

Exactly.

They're ready to banish our entire energy structure without having a workable alternative in place. I guess that's the definition of "cutting off one's nose to spite one's face."

Seriously though, I think they're just bandwagon-riders that don't have a clue as to how dependent they are on the energy they profess to hate.

[resister]

Exactly.

They're ready to banish our entire energy structure without having a workable alternative in place. I guess that's the definition of "cutting off one's nose to spite one's face."

Seriously though, I think they're just bandwagon-riders that don't have a clue as to how dependent they are on the energy they profess to hate.Show me a lefty that's not a hypocrite and ill be back in one hour with a unicorn horn and bigfoot will be carrying it

[JDubya]

Exactly.

They're ready to banish our entire energy structure without having a workable alternative in place. I guess that's the definition of "cutting off one's nose to spite one's face."

Seriously though, I think they're just bandwagon-riders that don't have a clue as to how dependent they are on the energy they profess to hate.

Hyperbolic much??


I think this is about one pipeline on Indian land, not "banishing our entire energy structure" as you so over dramatically put it.

:Skeert:

[Chris]

Slippery slope.

[FindersKeepers]

Yeah, tell these people about it...

Pipeline Explosion Kills 10 Campers in N.M. (http://abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=96090&page=1)

Or at least their surviving family members anyway.

A bad situation to be sure, but since that explosion, 16 years ago, many advances in detecting weak areas of the pipelines have been developed, making them safer.



The point here being, that if smaller, underground natural gas pipelines have corrosion issues and issues related to damage by being struck by other objects, then large oil pipelines that are either above or below ground have just as much risk of damage and leakage associated with them.


In life, there are no guarantees of total safety, but one of the main causes of gas explosions is folks trying to illegally tap into the lines.

Just a few years ago, the Kalamazoo River oil spill (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kalamazoo_River_oil_spill)provided us with a perfect example of the serious environmental risks associated with pipelines.
And there have been many more.

Not as many as you'd like us to believe.

Meanwhile, how many Americans have been kept warm in the winter from that oil and gas that travels through those lines?

[JDubya]

Show me a lefty that's not a hypocrite and ill be back in one hour with a unicorn horn and bigfoot will be carrying it
Show me a righty that's not a hypocrite and he'll be a lefty.

[Adelaide]

I don't think Clinton gains much by supporting the protestors. I think she would have more to lose if she did. The goal right now is probably to be as uncontroversial as possible and let Trump continue to sink his own ship with his controversial statements.

[JDubya]

Slippery slope.

Slippery because it's covered with spilled oil from a leaking pipeline.

[PolWatch]

Seriously though, I think they're just bandwagon-riders that don't have a clue as to how dependent they are on the energy they profess to hate.
I don't hate energy or the infrastructure necessary to provide it. I DO hate those that are willing to ignore safety in favor of profits. The BP oil spill happened because our oil-industry-owned politicians allowed rigs in the Gulf of Mexico without safety valves that are required everywhere else in the world. That little profit producing ruling caused one of the worse disasters in the history of energy production.

[FindersKeepers]

Hyperbolic much??


I think this is about one pipeline on Indian land, not "banishing our entire energy structure" as you so over dramatically put it.

:Skeert:


I'm not the one being overly dramatic here. You submitted a list that included incidents where landscapers accidentally hit a residential gas line while installing a sprinkler system. That's overly dramatic.

The oil pipeline poses no great risk to the water tables, the land nor the economy near Standing Rock.

The simple fact is that we can't get by without these buried pipelines. A better approach is to support technology that more carefully monitors the lines, rather than trying to shut them down.

[FindersKeepers]

I don't hate energy or the infrastructure necessary to provide it. I DO hate those that are willing to ignore safety in favor of profits. The BP oil spill happened because our oil-industry-owned politicians allowed rigs in the Gulf of Mexico without safety valves that are required everywhere else in the world. That little profit producing ruling caused one of the worse disasters in the history of energy production.

True, but the BP incident followed a waiving of safety inspections/tests that should have been required before the derrick started operating. Off-shore rigs are notoriously dangerous. Those safety tests were waived at the highest level of our government, and the result was unfortunate, indeed.

Peoples' lives are worth more than taking shortcuts, and I agree that profits should not take precedence.

But, I don't think it's wise to throw the baby out with the bathwater.

[FindersKeepers]

I don't think Clinton gains much by supporting the protestors. I think she would have more to lose if she did. The goal right now is probably to be as uncontroversial as possible and let Trump continue to sink his own ship with his controversial statements.

True. Plus, I wouldn't be surprised to see her come out more in favor of fossil fuel rights than her predecessor did.

Didn't Sanders accuse Hillary of taking around 4 million in campaign contributions from those in the fossil fuel industry?

[JDubya]

I'm not the one being overly dramatic here. You submitted a list that included incidents where landscapers accidentally hit a residential gas line while installing a sprinkler system. That's overly dramatic.

The oil pipeline poses no great risk to the water tables, the land nor the economy near Standing Rock.

The simple fact is that we can't get by without these buried pipelines. A better approach is to support technology that more carefully monitors the lines, rather than trying to shut them down.
I submitted a list that provided a wide spectrum of pipeline accidents at all levels of seriousness. I'm not going to spend an hour editing the minor examples out or searching for a list that meets your requirements for level of seriousness.


And I don't see Republicans pushing the oil industry very hard to improve their safety technology.


As for the risk to water tables, what do you think happens to ground water after toxic petrol chemicals leach down through the soil and make it into underground aquifers?


It becomes healthier?

[FindersKeepers]

I submitted a list that provided a wide spectrum of pipeline accidents at all levels of seriousness. I'm not going to spend an hour editing the minor examples out or searching for a list that meets your requirements for level of seriousness.

I certainly don't expect you to edit out those entries, but their inclusion undermines the seriousness of your argument. There were many, many of those included in your list and none of them have anything to do with the Standing Rock story.

A good deal of those entries are handled by local codes and OSHA regulations.



And I don't see Republicans pushing the oil industry very hard to improve their safety technology.

Then you're not looking very hard.



As for the risk to water tables, what do you think happens to ground water after toxic petrol chemicals leach down through the soil and make it into underground aquifers?
It becomes healthier?

It's rare for that to occur. We have plenty of groundwater contamination - - but that's not one of the main causes.

[JDubya]

True, but the BP incident followed a waiving of safety inspections/tests that should have been required before the derrick started operating. Off-shore rigs are notoriously dangerous. Those safety tests were waived at the highest level of our government, and the result was unfortunate, indeed.

Peoples' lives are worth more than taking shortcuts, and I agree that profits should not take precedence.

But, I don't think it's wise to throw the baby out with the bathwater.
Oh, so now it's Obama's fault? :facepalm:

[JDubya]

I certainly don't expect you to edit out those entries, but their inclusion undermines the seriousness of your argument. There were many, many of those included in your list and none of them have anything to do with the Standing Rock story.

A good deal of those entries are handled by local codes and OSHA regulations.

Then you're not looking very hard.

It's rare for that to occur. We have plenty of groundwater contamination - - but that's not one of the main causes.

Typical shill job complete with flimsy rationale.

[FindersKeepers]

Oh, so now it's Obama's fault? :facepalm:

The waiver came from the Department of the Interior.

Make what you will of that.

[FindersKeepers]

Typical shill job complete with flimsy rationale.

Are you done trying to present your case? Because this post sure looks as if you are.

[PolWatch]

But, I don't think it's wise to throw the baby out with the bathwater.

I agree (believe it or not!). The problem is Big Oil/Gas will not listen unless they see their bottom line being affected. Sometimes people have to plant their feet & say 'NO' before they will be listened to. That safety equipment was eliminated quietly, with no publicity or warnings about what could happen. I don't think that will happen at Standing Rock....because of the protesters.

[FindersKeepers]

I agree (believe it or not!). The problem is Big Oil/Gas will not listen unless they see their bottom line being affected. Sometimes people have to plant their feet & say 'NO' before they will be listened to. That safety equipment was eliminated quietly, with no publicity or warnings about what could happen. I don't think that will happen at Standing Rock....because of the protesters.

Big corporations, as a rule, tend to be less "people inclined" if they can get away with it -- I completely agree with that. Many mistakes were made on the Deepwater Horizon rig that should not have been made.

I also agree that people have to stand up for their rights, but sometimes, the issues get contorted, like what's happening at Standing Rock. The known risks just do not justify stopping the pipeline. Yet, it's become a massive public issue now and everyone wants to jump on the bandwagon, without really knowing the true risks.

[Green Arrow]

I'm not the one being overly dramatic here. You submitted a list that included incidents where landscapers accidentally hit a residential gas line while installing a sprinkler system. That's overly dramatic.

The oil pipeline poses no great risk to the water tables, the land nor the economy near Standing Rock.

The simple fact is that we can't get by without these buried pipelines. A better approach is to support technology that more carefully monitors the lines, rather than trying to shut them down.

None of the oil going through that pipeline will be ours, it's being exported to other countris.

Regardless, even if you want to ignore the environmental impact, you still have the problem of the government and the construction company tearing down homes and destroying major archaeological sites, not to mention the fact that the government is arresting protesters and journalists. One journalist faced up to 45 years for doing nothing but videotaping what was happening.

[Tahuyaman]

Most of these protesters at standing rock have no skin in the game there. They come from all over the world. They might not be motivated by empathy for the people who call that their home.

Many of the people who live there want that pipeline. They want the protesters to go back home. They say it will be good for them in an economic sense. The media mostly ignores those people.

[Dr. Who]

Oil tends to stay on the surface of water -- it doesn't seep down so much. It would take a massive spill in order to saturate the ground so much to seep down into an aquifer. A greater risk to aquifers is contamination at the level of the aquifer, from, say bad drilling practices of not sealing the shaft, that can contaminate the water.

Pipelines use thermographic imaging to pinpoint small leaks. The oil near the surface of the ground heats up during the day and doesn't cool as quickly as the surrounding ground. When the flow drops at a collection point, it indicates that oil is going somewhere besides where it should be going, and then they use the thermographic imaging to find "hot spots."

I have to clarify again that the pipeline crossing my land is high-pressure natural gas. Not crude. I live in oil country, though. You can see pumping units any direction you go in the country. They don't bother anyone. If there's a small leak, it's addressed quickly. I have yet to see an area damaged by a large leak, but that doesn't mean there isn't one somewhere around here.

More than 99% of crude that travels in a pipeline reaches its destination safely. Because it does -- we all drive our cars and, those who use oil to heat, stay warm in the winter.

There will come a day when we have reliable (non-fossil fuel) energy to heat and cool our homes and power our vehicles. That day has not come yet and it's just not logical to try and shut down the fossil fuel industry until it arrives.

The danger of the pipeline is being blown out of all proportion.
Aquifers don't run at a specific depth. Some are deep and some are pretty shallow. It also depends on the composition of the land under the pipeline. You can have significant layers of shale, with vertical cracks, where oil can easily migrate downward and hit aquifers. Proximity to rivers or tributaries is also a problem because the oil can migrate into those as well and this creates a cleanup nightmare.

I'm not saying get rid of all pipelines, but neither would I be complacent about having a pipeline crossing my land.

[FindersKeepers]

Aquifers don't run at a specific depth. Some are deep and some are pretty shallow. It also depends on the composition of the land under the pipeline. You can have significant layers of shale, with vertical cracks, where oil can easily migrate downward and hit aquifers. Proximity to rivers or tributaries is also a problem because the oil can migrate into those as well and this creates a cleanup nightmare.

I'm not saying get rid of all pipelines, but neither would I be complacent about having a pipeline crossing my land.

It's true that aquifers run a various depths, but the Ogallala is one of the deeper ones at approximately 500 feet. It's virtually impossible for a spill a few feet below the surface to seep that deep.

I agree that surface spills in close proximity to rivers and tributaries present a larger problem, but those are uncommon enough that they aren't considered a substantial risk. Not from underground lines anyway. A potentially larger problem from mom and pop drilling operations that aren't closely monitored.

I'm not denying that there are risks to the environment from fossil fuel production -- I know there are. But, those risks need to be put into perspective, in my opinion.

[Tahuyaman]

Oh, so now it's Obama's fault? :facepalm:
For the same reason Obama's doubling of the national debt is George Bush's fault.

[Dr. Who]

It's true that aquifers run a various depths, but the Ogallala is one of the deeper ones at approximately 500 feet. It's virtually impossible for a spill a few feet below the surface to seep that deep.

I agree that surface spills in close proximity to rivers and tributaries present a larger problem, but those are uncommon enough that they aren't considered a substantial risk. Not from underground lines anyway. A potentially larger problem from mom and pop drilling operations that aren't closely monitored.

I'm not denying that there are risks to the environment from fossil fuel production -- I know there are. But, those risks need to be put into perspective, in my opinion.
It is my understanding that this pipeline will run perilously close to Lake Oahe. It is also my understanding that the only other potential route was nixed because it would jeopardize Bismarck's water supply (http://bismarcktribune.com/news/state-and-regional/pipeline-route-plan-first-called-for-crossing-north-of-bismarck/article_64d053e4-8a1a-5198-a1dd-498d386c933c.html). I can see why the Sioux might take exception to the notion that risking Bismarck's water supply is unthinkable, but risking the water supply of the people of Standing Rock doesn't apparently rate the same care and concern. Were I a member of the Standing Rock Tribe, I would certainly be saying, "what are we, chopped liver"?