Keystone Pipeline and the Lakota Nation
#21
(11-19-2014, 11:01 AM)cletus1 Wrote:
(11-19-2014, 09:35 AM)Tiamat Wrote:
(11-19-2014, 09:27 AM)Wonky3 Wrote:
(11-19-2014, 08:15 AM)Tiamat Wrote:
(11-18-2014, 04:30 PM)Wonky3 Wrote: "The Lakota people have always been stewards of this land,”


Yeah, pop into any one of the many reservations on Lakota land and have a look at that "stewardship". Laughing


Wow. Do you really think that is a fair comment? This line of thought will completely divert the topic.

But at any rate, The senate did not vote this through.

Perhaps it wasn't fair Tai. But since you didn't express anything explaining why you thought it unfair, I can't be sure. And I don't think it diverted the topic because I responded to a comment already made.

I've long felt there is a disconnect between the often claimed "stewardship of the land" from Native Americans and the reality of the behavior I've read about. I even wonder about building casinos on "Indian land" and how that translates to "stewardship".

And the fact that the it didn't pass congress is only a temporary ruling. Most pundits who follow this think it's a slam dunk to pass after the new congress is seated.

Way too complex a topic for this thread. But here's a good article. http://www.forbes.com/sites/johnkoppisch...-bottom-1/

That is an interesting article Tia. I had not considered that individual Native Americans don't own the land on reservations for the most part. And like the article states, it provides one reason for the trailers many choose to live in on reservations.

Anyway, I am interested to see how the government will force the tribes to except the pipeline. Maybe we will see some modern day cowboys and Indians at war.

How many NA's believe in owning land? And if they are their OWN sovereign nation then why can't THEY finance there own homes or mobile homes or whatever with their OWN banks?
Pretty strange. They unlike any other Americans get free land but just not individually.
Here's a thought. If living on a res makes you poor like the article says then why not get a job and buy land OFF the RES like everyone else?
Reply
#22
(11-19-2014, 12:17 PM)tvguy Wrote:
(11-19-2014, 11:01 AM)cletus1 Wrote:
(11-19-2014, 09:35 AM)Tiamat Wrote:
(11-19-2014, 09:27 AM)Wonky3 Wrote:
(11-19-2014, 08:15 AM)Tiamat Wrote: Wow. Do you really think that is a fair comment? This line of thought will completely divert the topic.

But at any rate, The senate did not vote this through.

Perhaps it wasn't fair Tai. But since you didn't express anything explaining why you thought it unfair, I can't be sure. And I don't think it diverted the topic because I responded to a comment already made.

I've long felt there is a disconnect between the often claimed "stewardship of the land" from Native Americans and the reality of the behavior I've read about. I even wonder about building casinos on "Indian land" and how that translates to "stewardship".

And the fact that the it didn't pass congress is only a temporary ruling. Most pundits who follow this think it's a slam dunk to pass after the new congress is seated.

Way too complex a topic for this thread. But here's a good article. http://www.forbes.com/sites/johnkoppisch...-bottom-1/

That is an interesting article Tia. I had not considered that individual Native Americans don't own the land on reservations for the most part. And like the article states, it provides one reason for the trailers many choose to live in on reservations.

Anyway, I am interested to see how the government will force the tribes to except the pipeline. Maybe we will see some modern day cowboys and Indians at war.

How many NA's believe in owning land? And if they are their OWN sovereign nation then why can't THEY finance there own homes or mobile homes or whatever with their OWN banks?
Pretty strange. They unlike any other Americans get free land but just not individually.
Here's a thought. If living on a res makes you poor like the article says then why not get a job and buy land OFF the RES like everyone else?

Because it is easier to cry victim....
Reply
#23
OK anyway back to the topic. I don't drink Keystone but if they are building a pipeline clear across the country it must be some damn good beer.
And what's to stop rednecks from tapping in to the pipeline?
Reply
#24
This pipeline is gonna happen.
Big money with the support of some big politics will make this a done deal.


those (of us?) who have real concerns should get off the dime and join groups that have good records of protecting our land.

There have already been several (lots?) of leaks from that part of the line from Oklahoma to the Gulf. We can expect the new part of the line will drip a bit too. And the tar sands oil is nasty stuff compared to the oil we get from deep underground.

So, could we poll the group here and see if we can find an environmental group we can trust and support? Maybe a couple. Constant montoring and other kinds of over site might make clean up less a tragic blunder that the Gulf Spill.

I'm willing to send a couple of bucks to a good outfit that could help with this.

Anyone have a favorite group other than the Koch Brothers?
Reply
#25
What part of the line from Oklahoma to the Gulf? It hasn't been built yet.
Reply
#26
(11-30-2014, 12:08 PM)bbqboy Wrote: What part of the line from Oklahoma to the Gulf? It hasn't been built yet.

The Gulf Coast Extension (Phase III), running 784-kilometre (487 mi) from Cushing to refineries at Port Arthur, Texas was completed in January 2014,[4][5]
Reply
#27
(11-30-2014, 01:29 PM)tvguy Wrote:
(11-30-2014, 12:08 PM)bbqboy Wrote: What part of the line from Oklahoma to the Gulf? It hasn't been built yet.

The Gulf Coast Extension (Phase III), running 784-kilometre (487 mi) from Cushing to refineries at Port Arthur, Texas was completed in January 2014,[4][5]

Barbie has spent a lot of time in hospitals and they don't always show up with the paper.
Reply
#28
Officials say 9,700 barrels of oil leaked in the Nov. 16 spill. The original estimate was 5,000 barrels.

(Reuters) ― The Keystone crude oil pipeline leak in November in rural South Dakota was nearly double the original estimate, making it one of the largest U.S. inland spills since 2010, a newspaper report on Saturday said.
Robynn Tysver, a spokeswoman for Calgary-based TransCanada Corp, which owns the pipeline, told the Aberdeen American News some 9,700 barrels of oil leaked in the Nov. 16 spill, the South Dakota paper reported. The original estimate was 5,000 barrels.

The spill gave further ammunition to environmental groups and other U.S. opponents of another pipeline the company has proposed, the long-delayed Keystone XL.
TransCanada had shut down the 590,000 barrel-per-day pipeline, one of Canada’s main crude export routes linking Alberta’s oil fields to U.S. refineries, immediately following the spill. Operations were restarted less than two weeks later.
TransCanada officials were not immediately available for comment.
Reply
#29
Life is over as we know it..... do you think we can ever recover from this? Or is life over as I just said in the previous line...

Sent from my SM-G920R4 using Tapatalk
Reply
#30
(04-09-2018, 08:35 PM)capitalist pig Wrote: Life is over as we know it.....  do you think we can ever recover from this? Or is life over as I just said in the previous line...

Sent from my SM-G920R4 using Tapatalk


for some, yes
[Image: o01_23681845.jpg]
Reply
#31
(04-09-2018, 09:59 PM)chuck white Wrote:
(04-09-2018, 08:35 PM)capitalist pig Wrote: Life is over as we know it.....  do you think we can ever recover from this? Or is life over as I just said in the previous line...

Sent from my SM-G920R4 using Tapatalk


for some, yes
[Image: o01_23681845.jpg]
Thats it!!! I'm parking my car.....how about you chucky???

Sent from my SM-G920R4 using Tapatalk
Reply
#32
(04-09-2018, 05:24 PM)Valuesize Wrote: Officials say 9,700 barrels of oil leaked in the Nov. 16 spill. The original estimate was 5,000 barrels.

(Reuters) ― The Keystone crude oil pipeline leak in November in rural South Dakota was nearly double the original estimate, making it one of the largest U.S. inland spills since 2010, a newspaper report on Saturday said.
Robynn Tysver, a spokeswoman for Calgary-based TransCanada Corp, which owns the pipeline, told the Aberdeen American News some 9,700 barrels of oil leaked in the Nov. 16 spill, the South Dakota paper reported. The original estimate was 5,000 barrels.

The spill gave further ammunition to environmental groups and other U.S. opponents of another pipeline the company has proposed, the long-delayed Keystone XL.
TransCanada had shut down the 590,000 barrel-per-day pipeline, one of Canada’s main crude export routes linking Alberta’s oil fields to U.S. refineries, immediately following the spill. Operations were restarted less than two weeks later.
TransCanada officials were not immediately available for comment.

So is this news because the spill was more than original news said? Did the injuns lose their water forever?
Reply
#33
(04-09-2018, 10:24 PM)capitalist pig Wrote:
(04-09-2018, 09:59 PM)chuck white Wrote:
(04-09-2018, 08:35 PM)capitalist pig Wrote: Life is over as we know it.....  do you think we can ever recover from this? Or is life over as I just said in the previous line...

Sent from my SM-G920R4 using Tapatalk


for some, yes
[Image: o01_23681845.jpg]
Thats it!!!  I'm parking my car.....how about you chucky???

Sent from my SM-G920R4 using Tapatalk

Better yet, why don't we pay a fair price for oil technology, that takes in the damage to the enviroment.

Say $20 a gallon. If we can stop spills like this, we could get the cost down to $18.
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)