The president of South Dakota’s Rosebud Sioux (Sicangu Lakota Oyate) tribe has called the House of Representatives’ vote to force approval of the Keystone XL pipeline an “act of war,” the Summit County Citizen’s Voice reported on Saturday.
“The House has now signed our death warrants and the death warrants of our children and grandchildren. The Rosebud Sioux Tribe will not allow this pipeline through our lands,” President Cyril Scott said in a statement. “We will close our reservation borders to Keystone XL.”
Scott said he and other tribal elders have not been appropriately consulted on the pipeline, which would run through the tribe’s land. He also contended the House vote violates the 1851 and 1868 Fort Laramie treaties, which gave the Black Hills to the Sioux Nation, according to the Summit County Citizen’s Voice.
We have been breaking treaties with the Indians for centuries. I doubt if this will stop us from doing it again if someone really wants that pipeline.
I think the questions to ask are as follows:
1. What will the Keystone XL pipeline do for the nation?
2. What is the impact on the environment?
3. What is the impact on the people where the XL actually goes through?
All of these questions need to have a positive answer before anyone approves this thing. I hope that the Keystone XL pipeline isn’t just another political consequence that has not been thought through thoroughly.
The building of the pipeline will directly generate about 10,000 short term (4-8 month) and 50 long term jobs to manage and operate the pipeline. IF the pipeline is being built as a jobs bill, it does not generate enough jobs for the ‘costs’ – taking of people’s land, the risk of spills, etc.
Should the pipeline be built – I do not know. The oil will be transported to refining facilities in the MidWest and Texas for export – what do we get other than a pipe through the US. The company (ERM) and authors that wrote the environmental impact statement is tainted with potential influence. So I do not know what the truth is.
What I find funny is all the people who and very vocal and ‘want’ the pipeline built will also tell me why Dominion should not be able to run a wire down 66 or through dominion valley. When the pipeline runs through some other state it is ok, but when the wire it close to home and impacts one, it is a different feeling. Am I minimizing the Dominion project by calling it a wire, probably, but so is calling Keystone XL a pipeline. http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-0ObtuAD0ZsU/Ty68iBBxO_I/AAAAAAAAF-8/AqTbmnWCMMQ/s1600/Pipeline-2.jpg Some will be buried and some will be above ground.
Sounds NAMBY to me.
It’s going to be hard not to make a joke about this, but the Sioux president is flat out lying.
The Keystone XL pipeline doesn’t run through any of the Rosebud Sioux territory. It runs through land that used to belong to the Sioux but doesn’t anymore. Look at the route maps. The dotted blue line on the first map is Keystone XL
http://keystone-xl.com/about/the-keystone-xl-oil-pipeline-project/
Now look at the current tribal lands of the Sioux:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Fort_Laramie_(1868)#mediaviewer/File:Siouxreservationmap.png
Notice how the Keystone XL pipeline weaves its way through the two main reservations. It’s almost like they designed it that way on purpose. The Sioux may not like that the pipeline runs through lands they lost over 100 years ago, but that has nothing to do with the Keystone pipeline. (News alert: The Sioux aren’t getting the Black Hills back.) Claiming this is a violation of their land is false because it isn’t Sioux land anymore.
Next, look at the map below of pipelines in the US. (green are oil pipelines) It’s not exactly like building oil pipelines is a new thing. We’ve been doing it for decades and while there have been spills, they have been minor compared to tanker and well problems. I’m old enough to remember all the gloom and doom about how the Alaska pipeline was going to cause all kinds of environmental damage. Didn’t happen. Pipelines are by far the safest way to transport oil.
http://www.theodora.com/pipelines/united_states_pipelines_map.jpg
How many jobs the pipeline creates through construction is largely irrelevant. The pipeline will “create or save” refining jobs in the US.
Most people who oppose Keystone XL oppose it because they want the oil to stay in the ground. That’s not going to happen. The oil is going to be drilled and used and there’s nothing the US can do about that. So given that, the oil can either be transported by pipeline in the US to US refineries in the Gulf, pipeline in Canada for export, or rail car in the US to US refineries. Which of these options is best for the environment and for the US?
The Souix have been getting screwed for years. Not sure how much they control now. I don’t think that Indian leadership is necessarily always looking out for the common man.
Going to be hard for the Sioux to blockade a pipeline on land that they do not control.
http://keystone-xl.com/clarification-tar-sands-blockade-facebook-post/
TransCanada Keystone XL Pipeline – South Dakota Map (Pine Ridge detailed). Click to download (2 MB, PDF)
In fact, the proposed Keystone XL Pipeline does not cross any Native American Reservations. We acknowledge that TransCanada’s proposed Keystone XL Pipeline does cross through historic Tribal territories, as do many other infrastructure projects in the United States, however TransCanada works closely with Tribal communities to address any concerns or issues that may arise through the planning, construction and operations of our planned project infrastructure.
– See more at: http://keystone-xl.com/clarification-tar-sands-blockade-facebook-post/#sthash.zViO9EI1.dpuf
Also
http://pipelineandgasjournal.com/keystone-xl-pipeline-wins-south-dakota-puc-approval
Brown areas are reservations.
I’m all for the tribes being sovereign. Let’s see how this plays out.
In the meantime, Warren Buffett is making money shipping that oil on his trains which have already had spills just last year.
http://insideclimatenews.org/news/20130219/oil-sands-mining-tar-sands-alberta-canada-energy-return-on-investment-eroi-natural-gas-in-situ-dilbit-bitumen
This is an interesting article on the EROI (Energy Return on Investment) for tar sands, which is 15 that of regular oil. Tar sands 5:1, Conventional oil 25:1. At the present rate of oil consumption, the tar sands oil will last about 6 years. So, they are going to destroy millions of acres of what was pristine land to mine tar sands that add to the greenhouse effect and really do nothing to offset the overall loss of crude oil.
After viewing all the links cited in Nos. 2 and 3, it does look to me like the president of the Rosebud Sioux may have been talking to some White environmentalists who oppose the Keystone project and will say anything to get their way. Sounds like some fear mongering among the tribes.
I wouldn’t want a pipeline going through my tribal lands. Are they being influenced by environmentalist groups or are there several organizations who share the same concern?
After seeing the results of that tank car explosion some months ago up in a small Canadian town in Quebec and another one later up in the Dakotas, I might prefer a pipeline to those big unit oil trains crossing the same territory through the prairie towns. And that comes from a rail fan of long standing.
@Moon-howler
The maps cited in the links certainly show that the Keystone project will not cross any reservation land, not even the Lower Brule (the Lakota kids from St. Joseph’s School). As for other “tribal lands”? No recourse that I can see, except to make misleading claims about the actual effects on contemporary tribal life.
If there is something in that area which I find startling and extremely negative, it is what the big oil boom in North Dakota has attracted as an unwanted adjunct to local prosperity. Apparently the scum buckets who control the illegal hard drug traffic in this country have discovered Fort Berthold Reservation, where the Mandan, Hidatsa, and Arikara live. It appears that the reservation police and other North Dakota law enforcement authorities are feeling somewhat overwhelmed by the flow of hard drugs, especially to vulnerable young people. And non-Indian communities are equally targets for this traffic. A pair of brothers named Lopez way out in California were recently arrested as part of the movement of these drugs to the Dakotas.
As if there is not already enough human tragedy on our reservations……….
That element certainly is not needed. I am surprised there is enough money on a reservation to sustain a drug trade like that.
1. What will the Keystone XL pipeline do for the nation?
A. Creates some much needed jobs, how is this any different from any infrastructure project that the Democrats are always saying we need to fund?
2. What is the impact on the environment?
A. Oil will be transported in a much safer way for the environment v.s. rail car.
3. What is the impact on the people where the XL actually goes through?
A. Nil, have you seen a map of existing pipelines in the United States? People act as if this is the first ever pipeline to be constructed.
#1 The majority of jobs are short term jobs. Not sure that should have any bearing on keystone XL or not.
#2 I tend to agree
#3 Not sure a map will tell the whole story. How about animals and indigenous people?
I have no answers, just questions.
Just interjecting to explain the Sioux point of view. The article refers to the Fort Laramie treaties which ceded parts of eastern Montana and western Dakotas to the Sioux. The Sioux still believe that land belongs to them and have sued in court. They actually received a favorable judgment, but they refused the money because they want the land. The money is actually being held in a trust fund. They still believe that all that land belongs to them. So when President Scott refers to “our land”, he’s speaking from his perspective, not ours.
@El Guapo
Yes, and from my perspective the Black Hills belong to me and my Nobel-prize winning, supermodel wife.
But in reality, the Black Hills is now as much “our land” as it is the Sioux. The Keystone pipeline doesn’t actually run over their land. The Sioux have as much right to complain as the Spanish, since the pipeline runs over land that centuries ago was part of New Spain.
Honestly, given all the problems the Sioux have, perhaps they need better leadership. Someone who would be interested in improving life for the Sioux, instead of nursing grudges from two centuries ago. Maybe they should look at using that trust fund money for education or jobs. Heck, instead of pointlessly complaining, they should try to get jobs for Sioux building Keystone XL.
I am not sure that the Keystone XL would really help the Sioux, but I sure agree with you about tribal leadership. I question how much money that actually comes in to the different Lakota tribes really gets to the people who need it the most. As you said, the Sioux have enough problems without inventing some.
@Jackson Bills
Please, read Wolve’s comment.
Lawlessness is rampant among the imported workers.
The workers live in, what’s more like, shanty towns.
After the oil is gone, there’ll be an ugly ghost town left for the residents.
Remember the gold rush?
Infrastructure projects include bridges and roads, not pipelines for taroil.
@punchak
Let me see if I understand what your saying….
1.) Pipelines are now not considered infrastructure because this one will be carrying ‘taroil’?
2.) We should not embark on any large scale building projects because one side effect could be lawlessness and shanty towns? You can apply that logic to ANY large building project and then nothing would get done. Would you feel the same way if there was all of the sudden mass building projects for windmills and solar farms that did the same?
Depends on the location.
There will always be sunlight and wind, while oil is a finite resource.
Sooooo…. pipelines are NOT infrastructure? And we shouldn’t ever embark on large scale building projects is it invites ‘shanty towns’ and ‘crime’?
Just curious because I just want to see if we apply that same rule to other projects if anything would ever get done, like the Hoover Dam for example.
There is a silver lining to the D’s voting no on this in the Senate. They have guaranteed that yet another D spot in the Senate will be turning over to R! Way to go D’s!
I’m very surprised that anyone who claims to be a conservative could be in favor of the Keystone XL pipeline for two reasons:
1. It gives a foreign government the power of eminent domain over American landowners: http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2014/02/24/foreign-company-tries-to-seize-u-s-land-for-keystone-pipeline/
2. It exempts a foreign corporation from American law: http://www.nationaljournal.com/library/204571
Seems to me that I’ve heard a lot from conservatives about the “rule of law,” American sovereignty and property rights. Why not now? Do we give up our rights and principles so a foreign corporation can pump oil through our country to other foreign nations? Why?
@middleman
I’m surprised that anyone who claims to be a liberal could NOT be in favor of the Keystone XL pipeline for two reasons:
1. It’s going to be transported either way you look at it, pipeline or rail car no matter where it ends up. Pipelines are vastly more efficient and have a much lower chance of an environmental disaster impact. Only those who don’t care about the environment would NOT want it.
2. Most labor unions, even the AFL-CIO support it. Only people who support old, rich white guys (Warren Buffet) who profit off of the dirty and barbaric means of rail transporting oil sands would stand in it’s way. If you don’t support it your for rich, old, white guys getting richer off of the 19th century way of doing things.
So in summary, if your against it then your a flat-earther living in the old 19th century steam engine era who just wants to see rich, old white people get richer. We could spread the wealth, give Americans some much needed jobs (even if semi-temp jobs) but noooooo. You just want the top 1% to spend nothing and gain all the profits. Shame on you!! A vote against the XL pipeline is a vote against the American worker, right?
Those are some fairly bold conclusions you come to. “Only those who don’t care about the environment would not want it?” That is such bull crap.
Warren Buffett statement was even more ridiculous.
@Jackson Bills
Once again, a transparent attempt to shift the conversation and not address the question at hand. Is that because the Keystone XL is obviously contrary to bedrock conservative beliefs and there is no “answer” to my query?
@middleman
Regarding your two points:
1) If you think the right is a fan of eminent domain, you must have been asleep during Kelo a couple of years ago. But the left won so the government can use eminent domain to enrich corporations. So why shouldn’t TransCanada do it if GM and Pfizer can? (Funny tidbit: The actual house from the Kelo decision was never actually torn down. Pfizer closed the plant instead of expanding it. So we shredded eminent domain for nothing.)
2) You realize your second link is just a press release from a Democratic Congressman, right? Thankfully, just because one congressman (of either party) says something doesn’t mean it’s necessarily true.
The problem here is a very different outlook on the entire situation. The Left seems to think that building Keystone XL should require some special permission from the government. The Right thinks that it should be built unless there is a compelling reason for the government to block it. The law is closer to the Right than the Left on this. Not 100%, but building oil pipelines used to be a very non-political thing. Until the Left decided that they wanted to make a point. So somehow building a 500 mile expansion of an existing pipeline system will be “Game over for the climate”
But getting back to the original topic of the Souix president’s fantasies about Keystone XL, I’ve come up with a perfect solution: Elizabeth Warren can move onto land where Keystone XL is going to be build. Then we can have a made-up Indian on made-up reservation land.
I think you are on very insecure grounds with Elizabeth Warren. That is just being purely partisan. Furthermore, prove she isn’t part native American. You can’t, especially with native people. The records simply weren’t kept like they were with European descendants.
@Furby McPhee
This is a common problem with many conservatives- they don’t believe anything unless it comes from a right-wing source. Here’s the quote:
“I am not opposed, in principle, to the building of the Keystone XL pipeline, and I look forward to the completion of the ordinary regulatory approval process for this project. However, I voted against this legislation because it would give the Keystone XL pipeline an unnecessary exemption from the environmental permitting processes, at a time when even the pipeline route is uncertain,” said Foster.
Foster also voted in favor of an amendment to require the project to pay into the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund, a fund which is used to clean up after pipeline oil spills and fires on U.S. soil. Unfortunately this amendment was defeated on a largely party-line basis.
“This legislation carves out special exemptions that would allow a Canadian company to cross the entire United States without complying with the environmental laws that U.S. energy companies abide by; without requiring that they pay into the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund; and without guaranteeing that any of the oil pumped through the Keystone XL pipeline would stay in the United States,” Foster added.
“The White House is taking a responsible approach to approving the Keystone XL pipeline and is on track to meet all of the regulatory obligations. Congress needs to allow the administration to complete the necessary reviews which ensure essential protections are in place.”
Furby, you don’t have to believe the quote, you can check the proposed legislation that was voted down yesterday.Check your facts. It exempted a foreign company from American law in a number of areas. Is that what conservatives want?
Well gee wisikers there Middle, why didn’t you say so. It has nothing to do with a phony land claim or the failed reservation system at all, its all about a poison pill placed by democrats in a democratic bill voted on in the Democratic Senate after what 6 years of Senate delay that was defeated by one Democratic vote. No, we know and the AFL-CIO knows that the highly unlikely environmental concerns gave the democrats a place to hide while they trumped jobs and economic growth.
Obama and Liberal Senate democrats, God’s gift to Republicans going into 2016. After tonights speech, he is going to be my favoite President, sort of my Carter to Reagan only better.
Why Blue? Is that really what you think will happen?
@middleman
I think it’s funny that someone who goes by “middleman” can’t seem to see any middle ground between thinking that a press release from a Democratic Congressman might have political spin and claiming that I won’t believe anything “unless it comes from a right-wing source” Apparently you consider anything to the right of a Democratic Congressman to be right-wing.
But I’ll go ahead and answer your question: No, I don’t have a problem with a Canadian company getting waivers from unduly burdensome US laws. So should US companies. I also think that US companies should get waivers from unduly burdensome laws in Canada or anywhere else. But I’m sure you think that is somehow hypocritical.
You do realize that we have trade treaties that say we cannot show favoritism towards US companies. Bill Clinton signed one of them, you remember NAFTA, right? I seem to remember it had something to do with Canadian companies. Or is Bill Clinton now right-wing too?
I find it amusing that Bill Clinton now gets the credit for NAFTA. That was George Bush’s baby from the git-go. It just didn’t pass while Bush was in office.
I consider NAFTA to be one of Clinton’s mistakes. He shouldn’t have signed off on that legislation.
George Bush deserves some credit for NAFTA, true. But it passed a Democratic House, a Democratic Senate and was signed by a Democratic President. So I give Clinton CREDIT for signing it, over the objections of the more radical wing of the Democrats.
But I’ll bite: Why shouldn’t Clinton have signed NAFTA?
“This is a common problem with many conservatives- they don’t believe anything unless it comes from a right-wing source.”
– says the person who quotes a Democratic Congress man as their ‘source’. Too funny 🙂
Yeah, the AFL-CIO, the right wing bastards!
@Jackson Bills
Shift, shift, shift. The root “source” is the actual House bill language, which you continue to try to dodge.
So to sum up, conservatives have bedrock principles, EXCEPT when it involves foreign oil.
For some reason, the post above combined my response with Furby’s quote- it should have been:
We also don’t have trade treaties that say we HAVE to show favoritism to foreign governments, which is what the bill would do, exempting a foreign company from rules American companies must follow. That’s an unfair trade advantage. Those “unduly burdensome” US laws you mention protect the US taxpayer from having to cover ALL the expenses from oil spills. So you’re in favor of Americans paying higher taxes so a foreign company can avoid their responsibilities?
I’m not sure if you folks realize that there is another (non-native american) lawsuit that could negate anything congress does: http://online.wsj.com/articles/lawsuit-by-nebraska-landowners-may-decide-keystone-pipelines-fate-1416508187
Btw, I’m not that wedded to either side- I don’t think the pipeline would be the worst disaster in history, but I don’t think it would benefit America that much, either. I’m just amazed at the flexibility of “bedrock” principles- and that goes for R’s AND D’s…
@Moon-howler
Actually, her ancestry was done….documenting whom she came from. No Indians. However, one grandfather did fight Indians…..
Frankly, no one has access to those old family bibles and other documents that help us verify who we are. I am simply not buying it. I can’t prove or disprove I am not descended from an Indian.