Stick that in your peace pipe and smoke it.

Quote:The Dakota Access Pipeline should be approved and President-elect Donald Trump will review the decision to deny a permit for the project once it takes office, a spokesman for Trump’s transition team said.

After weeks of protests from Native Americans and environmental activists, the Army Corps of Engineers announced Sunday that it was denying Energy Transfer Partners LP approval to build a section of the project under Lake Oahe in North Dakota, and said the agency would begin a lengthy environmental review to determine whether the pipeline route should be changed.

The pipeline “is something we support construction of, and we will review the situation when we are in the White House to make the appropriate determination at that time,” Jason Miller, the transition spokesman, told reporters Monday.

Trump has pledged to overhaul the nation’s energy policy in a way that favors energy companies, and a reversal of the pipeline decision would fulfill that pledge. He has also said he will find a way to reverse the Obama administration’s rejection of TransCanada Corp.’s Keystone XL pipeline.

Easement Issuance

The Trump administration can probably overturn the Corps’ decision in Dakota and issue the required easement soon after taking power, Elvira Scotto, an analyst at RBC Capital Markets, said in a note Sunday night.

Congress, too, may get involved. Asked Monday if lawmakers will challenge the Army Corps decision, House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy said, “I think we’ll get a new administration, we’ll get new eyes, and there’s always a possibility.”

Protests against the crude-oil pipeline have resulted in hundreds of arrests and drawn support from celebrities. But Trump has pledged quicker approval of pipeline projects, saying its key to unleashing more oil and natural gas production in the U.S.

The standoff over the Dakota Access pipeline is emblematic of a broader effort by environmentalists to stall those pipelines, which they say hurt the nation’s progress in reducing its reliance on fossil fuels. Protesters who have camped for months in North Dakota had been told the area would be closed on Monday and they would have to move to designated protest zones.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/...ipe-permit

Why can't the pipelines be run along side or under current interstate highways since the Government owns the right a ways anyway ? medians and areas next to pull off lanes are available now.

Well yeah, he's got an investment in it

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G935A using CSNbbs mobile app

(12-06-2016 06:36 AM)CardFan1 Wrote:  Why can't the pipelines be run along side or under current interstate highways since the Government owns the right a ways anyway ? medians and areas next to pull off lanes are available now.

That's a nice idea until you get to the onramps, offramps, bridges, and overpasses. Then it becomes prohibitively expensive and inefficient. And road building has become so bad, that even if the money was spent, you are looking at shutting down these exit ramps for minimum 2 months just to tear it up, dig the trench, bury the pipe, and rebuild the ramp where as 50 years ago it could have been accomplished over a weekend.

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk

(12-06-2016 06:51 AM)EverRespect Wrote:  

(12-06-2016 06:36 AM)CardFan1 Wrote:  Why can't the pipelines be run along side or under current interstate highways since the Government owns the right a ways anyway ? medians and areas next to pull off lanes are available now.

That's a nice idea until you get to the onramps, offramps, bridges, and overpasses. Then it becomes prohibitively expensive and inefficient. And road building has become so bad, that even if the money was spent, you are looking at shutting down these exit ramps for minimum 2 months just to tear it up, dig the trench, bury the pipe, and rebuild the ramp where as 50 years ago it could have been accomplished over a weekend.

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk

I was thinking more along the right of ways and there is equipment that can quickly bore tunnels under roadways like those on /off ramps. And really there are areas of the country where there are no on/off ramps for miles and miles. Aren't these lines supposed to be underground anyway? You would have that issue anywhere else you built it. This way you won't have much private land to have to buy , unlike the other option. Even if it's run above ground You can place it along the fence lines that run along side most interstates. Not much tree lines to clear out of the way either.

(12-06-2016 08:22 AM)CardFan1 Wrote:  

(12-06-2016 06:51 AM)EverRespect Wrote:  

(12-06-2016 06:36 AM)CardFan1 Wrote:  Why can't the pipelines be run along side or under current interstate highways since the Government owns the right a ways anyway ? medians and areas next to pull off lanes are available now.

That's a nice idea until you get to the onramps, offramps, bridges, and overpasses. Then it becomes prohibitively expensive and inefficient. And road building has become so bad, that even if the money was spent, you are looking at shutting down these exit ramps for minimum 2 months just to tear it up, dig the trench, bury the pipe, and rebuild the ramp where as 50 years ago it could have been accomplished over a weekend.

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk

I was thinking more along the right of ways and there is equipment that can quickly bore tunnels under roadways like those on /off ramps. And really there are areas of the country where there are no on/off ramps for miles and miles. Aren't these lines supposed to be underground anyway? You would have that issue anywhere else you built it. This way you won't have much private land to have to buy , unlike the other option. Even if it's run above ground You can place it along the fence lines that run along side most interstates. Not much tree lines to clear out of the way either.

If it is feasible and cost effective, I'm all for it. I am not an engineer, just naming some potential issues that came to mind. With an easement on miles and miles of private farmland, it takes little time and money to run a trench and bury a pipeline. I honestly have no idea how much more time and effort it would be to do it alongside a road. Another potential problem could be sabotage. I would imagine a pipeline built along the interstate would have to be exposed pretty often. Blow it up and whoever it serves would be out of water. Again, I am no expert on this, just brainstorming.

Everyone knows pipelines destroy our environment.

(12-06-2016 09:27 AM)EverRespect Wrote:  

(12-06-2016 08:22 AM)CardFan1 Wrote:  

(12-06-2016 06:51 AM)EverRespect Wrote:  

(12-06-2016 06:36 AM)CardFan1 Wrote:  Why can't the pipelines be run along side or under current interstate highways since the Government owns the right a ways anyway ? medians and areas next to pull off lanes are available now.

That's a nice idea until you get to the onramps, offramps, bridges, and overpasses. Then it becomes prohibitively expensive and inefficient. And road building has become so bad, that even if the money was spent, you are looking at shutting down these exit ramps for minimum 2 months just to tear it up, dig the trench, bury the pipe, and rebuild the ramp where as 50 years ago it could have been accomplished over a weekend.

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk

I was thinking more along the right of ways and there is equipment that can quickly bore tunnels under roadways like those on /off ramps. And really there are areas of the country where there are no on/off ramps for miles and miles. Aren't these lines supposed to be underground anyway? You would have that issue anywhere else you built it. This way you won't have much private land to have to buy , unlike the other option. Even if it's run above ground You can place it along the fence lines that run along side most interstates. Not much tree lines to clear out of the way either.

If it is feasible and cost effective, I'm all for it. I am not an engineer, just naming some potential issues that came to mind. With an easement on miles and miles of private farmland, it takes little time and money to run a trench and bury a pipeline. I honestly have no idea how much more time and effort it would be to do it alongside a road. Another potential problem could be sabotage. I would imagine a pipeline built along the interstate would have to be exposed pretty often. Blow it up and whoever it serves would be out of water. Again, I am no expert on this, just brainstorming.

There is a lot of stuff already located in some of those interstate rights of way. It doesn't matter if it is pretty empty for nine miles, for instance. If it gets crowded in mile number 10, it still can't get through. Plus, there is likely some calculus on the cost to acquire farmland for the new pipeline in the most direct route, versus chasing a longer distance to use an interstate/tollway right of way. It actually takes quite a bit of space to install these pipelines too. Interstate rights of way aren't as wide and open as they appear to be, considering all these issues.

(12-06-2016 03:56 PM)GeorgeBorkFan Wrote:  

(12-06-2016 09:27 AM)EverRespect Wrote:  

(12-06-2016 08:22 AM)CardFan1 Wrote:  

(12-06-2016 06:51 AM)EverRespect Wrote:  

(12-06-2016 06:36 AM)CardFan1 Wrote:  Why can't the pipelines be run along side or under current interstate highways since the Government owns the right a ways anyway ? medians and areas next to pull off lanes are available now.

That's a nice idea until you get to the onramps, offramps, bridges, and overpasses. Then it becomes prohibitively expensive and inefficient. And road building has become so bad, that even if the money was spent, you are looking at shutting down these exit ramps for minimum 2 months just to tear it up, dig the trench, bury the pipe, and rebuild the ramp where as 50 years ago it could have been accomplished over a weekend.

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk

I was thinking more along the right of ways and there is equipment that can quickly bore tunnels under roadways like those on /off ramps. And really there are areas of the country where there are no on/off ramps for miles and miles. Aren't these lines supposed to be underground anyway? You would have that issue anywhere else you built it. This way you won't have much private land to have to buy , unlike the other option. Even if it's run above ground You can place it along the fence lines that run along side most interstates. Not much tree lines to clear out of the way either.

If it is feasible and cost effective, I'm all for it. I am not an engineer, just naming some potential issues that came to mind. With an easement on miles and miles of private farmland, it takes little time and money to run a trench and bury a pipeline. I honestly have no idea how much more time and effort it would be to do it alongside a road. Another potential problem could be sabotage. I would imagine a pipeline built along the interstate would have to be exposed pretty often. Blow it up and whoever it serves would be out of water. Again, I am no expert on this, just brainstorming.

There is a lot of stuff already located in some of those interstate rights of way. It doesn't matter if it is pretty empty for nine miles, for instance. If it gets crowded in mile number 10, it still can't get through. Plus, there is likely some calculus on the cost to acquire farmland for the new pipeline in the most direct route, versus chasing a longer distance to use an interstate/tollway right of way. It actually takes quite a bit of space to install these pipelines too. Interstate rights of way aren't as wide and open as they appear to be, considering all these issues.

I don't think you have to acquire the farmland. I guess it depends on the state, but in Virginia, you get an utility easement. I own my property, but the power company can enter it work on the lines that are on it. They can even cut down my trees if they determine they are at risk of coming down on the lines. But they don't own any of my land.

(12-06-2016 04:37 PM)EverRespect Wrote:  

(12-06-2016 03:56 PM)GeorgeBorkFan Wrote:  There is a lot of stuff already located in some of those interstate rights of way. It doesn't matter if it is pretty empty for nine miles, for instance. If it gets crowded in mile number 10, it still can't get through. Plus, there is likely some calculus on the cost to acquire farmland for the new pipeline in the most direct route, versus chasing a longer distance to use an interstate/tollway right of way. It actually takes quite a bit of space to install these pipelines too. Interstate rights of way aren't as wide and open as they appear to be, considering all these issues.

I don't think you have to acquire the farmland. I guess it depends on the state, but in Virginia, you get an utility easement. I own my property, but the power company can enter it work on the lines that are on it. They can even cut down my trees if they determine they are at risk of coming down on the lines. But they don't own any of my land.

Right. They acquire an easement for the pipeline, not fee simple ownership and all the underlying rights.

I work in the public sector. Frequently, for us, the cost to purchase a permanent easement is essentially the same as buying the property outright, so we just buy it outright and have all rights.

In the case of a pipeline company, they may or may not, depending on the terms of their easement, have to pay crop damage if they do work on their facilities during growing season for instance. All this stuff obviously figures into costs and most feasible routes.

(12-06-2016 04:58 PM)GeorgeBorkFan Wrote:  

(12-06-2016 04:37 PM)EverRespect Wrote:  

(12-06-2016 03:56 PM)GeorgeBorkFan Wrote:  There is a lot of stuff already located in some of those interstate rights of way. It doesn't matter if it is pretty empty for nine miles, for instance. If it gets crowded in mile number 10, it still can't get through. Plus, there is likely some calculus on the cost to acquire farmland for the new pipeline in the most direct route, versus chasing a longer distance to use an interstate/tollway right of way. It actually takes quite a bit of space to install these pipelines too. Interstate rights of way aren't as wide and open as they appear to be, considering all these issues.

I don't think you have to acquire the farmland. I guess it depends on the state, but in Virginia, you get an utility easement. I own my property, but the power company can enter it work on the lines that are on it. They can even cut down my trees if they determine they are at risk of coming down on the lines. But they don't own any of my land.

Right. They acquire an easement for the pipeline, not fee simple ownership and all the underlying rights.

I work in the public sector. Frequently, for us, the cost to purchase a permanent easement is essentially the same as buying the property outright, so we just buy it outright and have all rights.

In the case of a pipeline company, they may or may not, depending on the terms of their easement, have to pay crop damage if they do work on their facilities during growing season for instance. All this stuff obviously figures into costs and most feasible routes.

Thanks for the info.

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk

Native Americans sure have a lot of land they call "sacred."

(12-06-2016 05:47 PM)Lord Stanley Wrote:  Native Americans sure have a lot of land they call "sacred."

The pipeline doesn't cross any land owned by the Standing Rock Sioux. The land under discussion belongs to private owners and the federal government.

And for those worried about the environment, this pipeline will replace the truly dangerous train transport of the oil from the Bakken field which now crosses the Missouri on a trestle.

Build the pipeline.

They lost the war.

(12-06-2016 02:25 PM)TechRocks Wrote:  Everyone knows pipelines destroy our environment.

I have 3 Natural Gas transmission lines that run across my property. You wouldn't even know they are there if it wasn't for the signs.

(12-07-2016 09:39 AM)QuestionSocratic Wrote:  

(12-06-2016 05:47 PM)Lord Stanley Wrote:  Native Americans sure have a lot of land they call "sacred."

The pipeline doesn't cross any land owned by the Standing Rock Sioux. The land under discussion belongs to private owners and the federal government.
And for those worried about the environment, this pipeline will replace the truly dangerous train transport of the oil from the Bakken field which now crosses the Missouri on a trestle.

Hush.

Facts aren't allowed in this discussion.

I believe that we should honor all native American sacred grounds. That's sort of the least we should do for them, actually it's probably less than the least.

But this pipeline is both good and necessary, as is XL. A leader in the white house would find a way to get the parties together and make both of them happen. But what we have in the white house is a scumbag who is more interested in counting votes than doing what is good for the country.