Activists and tribal groups prepare Minnesota pipeline protests

  

Category:  News & Politics

Via:  hallux  •  one week ago  •  23 comments

By:   SOURCE: AP

Activists and tribal groups prepare Minnesota pipeline protests
Activists and tribal groups opposed to Enbridge Energy’s project to replace its aging Line 3 crude oil pipeline are planning large protests in northern Minnesota in the United States on Monday.

S E E D E D   C O N T E N T



Environmental and tribal groups opposed to Enbridge Energy’s ongoing effort to replace its aging Line 3 crude oil pipeline in the United States are planning large protests in northern Minnesota on Monday as the Canadian-based company gears up for a final construction push.

Organisers say they expect hundreds of people to participate in the “Treaty People Gathering”, which they are billing as the largest show of resistance yet to the project. They plan to march to the headwaters of the Mississippi River, one of the water crossings for the pipeline, where they will deliver speeches and participate in organised civil disobedience.



Environmental and tribal groups opposed to Enbridge Energy’s ongoing effort to replace its aging Line 3 crude oil pipeline in the United States are planning large protests in northern Minnesota on Monday as the Canadian-based company gears up for a final construction push.



Organisers say they expect hundreds of people to participate in the “Treaty People Gathering”, which they are billing as the largest show of resistance yet to the project. They plan to march to the headwaters of the Mississippi River, one of the water crossings for the pipeline, where they will deliver speeches and participate in organised civil disobedience.


Opponents of the project have said they will do whatever it takes to block completion of it, even if it risks arrest. Among those they say will be on hand on Monday will be actors Jane Fonda, Catherine Keener, Rosanna Arquette and Taylor Schilling, as well as environmentalist and author Bill McKibben.

Line 3 carries Canadian crude from Alberta. It clips a corner of North Dakota on its way across northern Minnesota to Enbridge’s terminal in Superior, Wisconsin. The Canadian and Wisconsin replacement segments are already carrying oil. The Minnesota segment is about 60 percent complete.

Project opponents say the replacement pipeline, which would carry Canadian tar sands oil and regular crude, would worsen climate change and risk spills in sensitive areas where Native Americans hunt, fish, harvest wild rice, gather medicinal plants – and claim treaty rights.

Minnesota Governor Tim Walz told Minnesota Public Radio News that he doesn’t plan to deploy the US National Guard during the event, saying he doesn’t expect protesters to “interfere with lawful construction or lawful practices”.



Tags

jrDiscussion - desc
[]
 
Hallux
Freshman Principal
1  seeder  Hallux    one week ago

Jane Fonda is showing up ... better call out the fire department, heads will spontaneously combust.

 
 
 
Kavika
Professor Principal
1.1  Kavika   replied to  Hallux @1    one week ago

In addition, a lot of my relatives will be there.

 
 
 
Kavika
Professor Principal
1.1.1  Kavika   replied to  Kavika @1.1    one week ago

For all of our experts that are pushing this line they should note that it crosses both the Leech Lake Ojibwe reservations and the Fond du Lac Ojibwe reservation. Both fall under the treaties of 1842, 1854 and 1855.

You know what SCOTUS called the highest law in the land, treaties.

 
 
 
Kavika
Professor Principal
1.1.2  Kavika   replied to  Kavika @1.1.1    one week ago

2019_Thunderbird_%28Water_is_Life%29%28Decal%29.png?1565183122

 
 
 
Hallux
Freshman Principal
1.1.3  seeder  Hallux  replied to  Kavika @1.1    one week ago

I sent a donation.

 
 
 
Kavika
Professor Principal
1.1.4  Kavika   replied to  Hallux @1.1.3    one week ago
I sent a donation.

Thank you, so did I, and of course all of my relatives that could not be there did the same.

 
 
 
1stwarrior
Professor Expert
2  1stwarrior    one week ago

The governor obviously needs to read the court decisions of 1974 and 2018 before he opens his mouth about "lawful construction".  The courts, even though in Washington, state, very specifically, that is it the owner of the project to ensure, through environment enforcement, that the properties being impacted will not, in any way, harm the environment's natural progressions nor the livelihoods of treaty rights and obligations.

Hell, Washington state and Oregon both have to refurbish the properties/lands to its "original" state by moving/repairing/replacing all aqueducts/water transmission to ensure those standards are met for the salmon and other species to propagate and migrate as they have done since time immemorial.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
3  JohnRussell    one week ago

Such protests need more national media exposure. Hopefully they will get it this time. 

 
 
 
evilgenius
Professor Participates
4  evilgenius    one week ago

Good luck. Perhaps this can get diverted around some of richest waterways the US currently has. I doubt it will be stopped completely, including where it crosses under the Mississippi. 

 
 
 
Kavika
Professor Principal
5  Kavika     one week ago

Enbridge Line 3 will cross many lakes and rivers. It will cross the Mississippi River twice once very close to the headwaters of the largest and one of the most important rivers in North American. 

This is a photo of the actual headwaters of the Mississippi as it starts its 2500 mile journey to the Gulf of Mexico.

512

And this is Animikii Zaagijiwan (Thunder that flows from the River) walking into the headwaters, a very spiritual experience.

512

 

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
Professor Principal
6  Perrie Halpern R.A.    one week ago

Why should Canada benefit from ruining our water and land? And a treaty is more than just a contract. 

If they want to replace them, they should move them somewhere else.

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
Junior Expert
6.1  Just Jim NC TttH  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @6    one week ago

If it is already there, why not just put it adjacent and follow the same route? Seems the "groundwork" (mapping) is already done and it wouldn't intrude on any appreciable amount of new land. If the route it takes now is that established, it shouldn't be a problem. 

What the hell am I missing?

 
 
 
igknorantzrulz
Masters Participates
6.1.1  igknorantzrulz  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @6.1    one week ago
What the hell am I missing?

the trick of understanding a treaty

 
 
 
1stwarrior
Professor Expert
6.1.2  1stwarrior  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @6.1    one week ago

Time, method, exposure, lack of environmental documentation and record of previous exposure.

Other than that - not much :-)

 
 
 
Hallux
Freshman Principal
6.2  seeder  Hallux  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @6    one week ago
Why should Canada benefit from ruining our water and land?

We should not.

 
 
 
Greg Jones
Masters Expert
7  Greg Jones    one week ago

How many pipelines already underlie those tribal lands?

Pipelines are safer than rail cars or tanker trucks.

The oil will be shipped somewhere...doesn't make sense to leave the line uncompleted.

 
 
 
igknorantzrulz
Masters Participates
7.1  igknorantzrulz  replied to  Greg Jones @7    one week ago
he oil will be shipped somewhere...doesn't make sense to leave the line uncompleted.

does it make sense to you to risk the US water ways/supply to enrich a Canadian Company that would ship oil via a pipeline that "  would carry Canadian tar sands oil and regular crude, would worsen climate change and risk spills in sensitive areas where Native Americans hunt, fish, harvest wild rice, gather medicinal plants – and claim treaty rights."

Cause i don't see how the US benefits

 
 
 
Ronin2
Masters Quiet
7.1.1  Ronin2  replied to  igknorantzrulz @7.1    one week ago

Because trains carrying tanker cars never derail and affect the environment adversely./S

Of course the Democrats are all for oil moving by rail. Two of their biggest contributors hold major stock in the BNSF, CP, and CSX. They are making millions every time the Democrats shut down an oil or gas pipeline.

 
 
 
igknorantzrulz
Masters Participates
7.1.2  igknorantzrulz  replied to  Ronin2 @7.1.1    one week ago

How much oil is in a tanker car of a train, and what happens when a pipeline is ruptured...?

 
 
 
Kavika
Professor Principal
7.1.3  Kavika   replied to  Ronin2 @7.1.1    one week ago

Being a law and order person that you are Ronin the areas are protected by treaty rights and don't have a damn thing to do with your bullshit comment.

 
 
 
1stwarrior
Professor Expert
7.2  1stwarrior  replied to  Greg Jones @7    one week ago

Greg - we've had this discussion before.  Under the treaties signed by the U.S. and Indian Nations/Tribes - and under NUMEROUS Fed laws, if a project has the "POTENTIAL" of impacting the health, safety and welfare of persons/environment, it is not to be continued unless/until mitigation has been drafted/approved by the project manager, the affected plaintiffs, and possibly the Council on Environmental Quality (National Environmental Policy Act, 1969).

Under NEPA, the project managers are REQUIRED to conduct consultation with the Nations/Tribes on each and every step of the project, as explained and defined in the Environmental Impact Statement.   More powerful than that though are all the treaty requirements that clearly protect the health, safety and welfare of the Nations/Tribes - all rights supported/protected by various laws passed by Congress, but primarily by the U.S. Constitution.

Remember the statement "Treaties are the law of the land"? Our constitution declares a treaty to be the law of the land. It is, consequently, to be regarded in courts of justice as equivalent to an act of the legislature, whenever it operates of itself, without the aid of any legislative provision.  Treaties with the Indian Nations/Tribes hold much more power/strength than your basic Congressional laws.

Meaningful coordination with Tribal entities, and analysis of a proposed action's potential affect on Tribal lands, resources, or areas of historic significance is an important part of Federal agency decision making. In addition to provisions in Sections   1501.2   and   1501.7   of the CEQ Regulations that call for the involvement of Tribes that may be affected by a Federal proposal, CEQ issued a Memorandum to the Heads of Federal agencies encouraging more active solicitation of Tribal entities for participation as cooperating agencies in NEPA documents.

In addition, Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments (November, 6 2000), outlines requirements for consultation with Tribal Governments. Finally, most Federal agencies have policy documents that provide agency-specific provisions for coordination with Tribal entities. All of these requirements are applied, when appropriate, during the NEPA process.

If the Indian Nations/Tribes and the environmental community believe and support the potential for environmental consequences to the health, safety and welfare of persons/environment, treaty rights give the Indian Nations/Tribes a much more powerful position than does a contract for construction/maintenance.

Pipelines are far from being "safer than rail cars or tanker trucks".  That is ludicrous - they are cheaper, but far from safer.

Table 2: Incident Counts and Volume of Crude Oil Shipped per Incident show that pipelines have had, over a 9 year period, over 1 BILLION gallons of crude spilled/leaked while rail had 23 million gallons and truck had almost 48 million gallons spilled/leaked during that same timeline.  None of them are acceptable per the phmsa, but pipelines are the most destructive.

 
 
 
Greg Jones
Masters Expert
8  Greg Jones    one week ago

.

 
 
 
Greg Jones
Masters Expert
9  Greg Jones    one week ago

.

 
 
Loading...
Loading...

Who is online

Sunshine
Trotsky's Spectre
evilgenius
Paula Bartholomew


55 visitors