ND Republicans demand Obama approve Dakota Access pipeline

by TIMOTHY CAMA AND DEVIN HENRY | TheHill.com  |  published on November 24, 2016

dakota_pipeline

Two North Dakota lawmakers and its governor are pushing President Obama to approve the Dakota Access pipeline and help law enforcement deal with protesters there.

The politicians said both actions would help restore the rule of law.
A Wednesday letter from Sen. John Hoeven, Rep. Kevin Cramer and Gov. Jack Dalrymple, all Republicans, came in response to the latest violence between law enforcement and protesters near Lake Oahe, where the pipeline’s developer, Energy Transfer Partners, is seeking a final easement to build.

“We call on you again to direct the Army Corps of Engineers to approve, without further delay, the final federal easement for the Lake Oahe crossing of the Dakota Access Pipeline,” the members said.

The Obama administration this month said it had followed proper procedure when it approved the Lake Oahe easement for the pipeline, but that it wouldn’t issue it until officials consult further with the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe.

The members also said the Obama administration should support law enforcement policing protesters in the region.

  • CharlieSeattle

    I see the The Dakota Access Pipeline problem very clearly. It took me 20 minutes online to figure this out. It is the oil pipeline path, not the pipeline, that is the issue!

    So, it’s OK to run the pipeline west of Minot and Bismark and then south and twice, TWICE!! across the Missori river and next to the Standing Rock Reservation water intake.

    What was NOT done was run the pipeline straight south near Milot and east around Bismark and never, NEVER!! cross the Missori river. But that would be to close to white people.

    Check the map out here. Do you agree the route is wrong?

    https://insideclimatenews.org/news/08092016/standing-rock-sioux-tribe-energy-transfer-dakota-access-pipeline-oil-environmental-justice

    The Indian’s have every right to protest this!

    Treaty of Fort Laramie (1868)

    https://ourdocuments.gov/doc.php?flash=true&doc=42

    In this treaty, signed on April 29, 1868, between the U.S. Government and the Sioux Nation, the United States recognized the Black Hills as part of the Great Sioux Reservation, set aside for exclusive use by the Sioux people.

    A conference was held at Fort Laramie, in present day Wyoming, which resulted in a treaty with the Sioux. This treaty was to bring peace between the whites and the Sioux who agreed to settle within the Black Hills reservation in the Dakota Territory.

    Less than a decade later when gold was discovered in the Black Hills the US Gov. per President Grants illegal order choose to violate the treaty and launch a war against the Sioux.

    >> Custer met his end later, because of it. He was an idiot also.

  • PPTA

    Ask[ng Obama will not solve or help anything. Maybe Trump, when he is President will help them. It means a lot of well paying Jobs, and oil Independence from Arab Nations oil. We can become a oil and coal rich nation and export finished fuel , help pay off the National Debt.

    • bobnstuff

      Why risk a major water source? Move the pipeline thirty miles north and there is no problem. This isn’t about oil independence, It’s about saving a buck on building the pipeline and risking the water. We are a oil rich nation and we have oil wells not producing because the price of oil is to low. Now and as far as coal, it cost more to use then natural gas, destroys the land and costs lives. If you want to see your electric bill go up push for using coal. This is what a coalmine today looks like.

      and this is what a gas well looks like

      • goldie

        There is no risk to a major water source, nor is there a risk to the Standing Rock Sioux water source. Many of the Sioux wish the protestors would leave. 90% of arrests are out-of-staters there to incite violence. If the Standing Rock reservation had so many concerns, how come they didn’t voice them 2 years ago when they were asked? BS about the coal. They are able to burn it very cleanly now and the mined land looks natural when they are done. The real reason obama does not want the pipeline is warren buffet and george soros; they stand to lose a lot of money in their railroad when they start using the pipeline. The pipeline is 90 feet below the riverbed, btw, its double-walled with sensors in the second wall. Of course, when they get it installed finally, one of these earth-loving hypocrites will probably sabotage it and pollute the river just to “prove” their point. They are low-life forms.

        • bobnstuff

          You have a lot more faith in those building this pipeline then I do. Anytime you cross water there is a risk. There is a much narrower spot up river that would be safer, it would cost more but it’s a shorter crossing. It’s not just the Sioux water source but everyone down stream, what is it 6,000,000 people. I’m not saying don’t build it, I’m saying move it to a safer location.

          You know nothing about coal and burning it cleanly or the damage done by mining. I live in coal country and have see first had what happens. The level off the tops of hills take the coal and the kind off bring it back, just enough to be legal. In the mean time the water table is destroyed and the land become just about useless. The coal industry claims that it’s the regulations that are unneeded that are hurting them but those regulations are the only thing keeping them from doing damage to everyone. People die mining it people get sick near where the burn it. It pollutes the air and the water no matter how you do it. Coal has seen it’s end. Let it die. Natural gas is a much better energy source. It burns cleaner, it doesn’t destroy the land and it’s cheaper. The town I live in once had one of the largest coal mines in the country, we have the sink holes to prove it. Now it’s natural gas, and it’s much more profitable and cleaner. All those good paying jobs in coal, $21.00 per hour average. Is $42,000 a year a good paying job?

  • bobnstuff

    The President should not approve the pipeline. Two reasons here. One he is only president for a short time and it’s not all that important, kind of like filling a seat on the SCOUS, it can wait. Second is that building a pipeline under a main water source is stupid. In case you haven’t noticed pipelines leak and can cause big problems. Forget the Indian land thing and look at what they want to do.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_pipeline_accidents_in_the_United_States_in_the_21st_century
    So far this year we are at 28 leaks and counting.

  • American Me

    Obama does not want this pipeline.Hopefully after Trump is sworn in he will approve it and the Keystone XL pipeline.We need both.It is safer and it keeps a lot of Trucks off the highway using a pipeline.The complaint is that a pipeline might leak and contaminate the soil and water.With current technology that would be near impossible.A Truck could Crash and leak and on the highway it could kill others and contaminate the soil and water.It is much more dangerous.There are already hundreds of pipelines all over our country.How many leaks,fires or explosions have you heard of?Me Too

    • bobnstuff

      Why do we need the last part of the Keystone Pipeline? The part that transports American oil is in place. Why do we want to transport Canadian oil to other countries? Lets put America first and forget about Canada’s needs. It’s not our problem. You do know that there is a pipeline in use right now and they could have just added to it without all the drama.

    • Karll

      Buffet invested heavily in western railroads a few years ago,
      the same railroads used to haul crude oil to refineries on
      the coasts. That’s why there’s no pipeline.

Google Analytics Alternative