Federal Judge: Public Has No Right To Know About Dakota Pipeline Spill Risks

Energy Transfer Partners, the pipeline’s developer, has argued that keeping information regarding spill risks from the public is essential, as it could be “useful to vandals and terrorists.” However, the move is looking more like a way to hide any potential negative impact on the environment.

America Indians and their supporters protest outside of the White House, Friday, March 10, 2017, in Washington, to rally against the construction of the disputed Dakota Access oil pipeline. ( AP/Jose Luis Magana)

America Indians and their supporters protest outside of the White House, Friday, March 10, 2017, in Washington, to rally against the construction of the disputed Dakota Access oil pipeline. ( AP/Jose Luis Magana)

MINNEAPOLIS– While the fight to prevent the controversial construction of the Dakota Access pipeline has largely faded from the minds of most Americans, the pipeline’s parent company – Energy Transfer Partners – is still hard at work seeking to further undermine civilian and environmental protections to ensure the “smooth” operation of their $3.8-billion-investment in the project.

In spite of long-standing concerns that the pipeline could threaten the safety of drinking water for 17 million people, a federal judge has now given Energy Transfer Partners legal permission to hide information about which areas of the pipeline are at risk for spills.

Last Friday, U.S. District Judge James Boasberg ruled that information regarding these risks should be shielded from public view, but added that Energy Transfer Partners must make public certain details related to spill response measures, as well as the names of waterways that could be affected.

Energy Transfer Partners previously argued in court that keeping such information private was essential, as it could be “useful to vandals and terrorists” or others “with malicious intent to damage the pipeline.” The Standing Rock Sioux and Cheyenne River Sioux indigenous American tribes, whose primary water sources are directly threatened by the pipeline, have argued that the disclosure of such information is essential, as it would strengthen their call for a more extensive environmental review of the project.

Boasberg rejected the tribes’ arguments, stating “the asserted interest in limiting intentionally inflicted harm outweighs the tribes’ generalized interests in public disclosure and scrutiny,” despite that fact that pipeline safety experts have repeatedly found the environmental review of the Dakota Access pipeline to have been “seriously deficient.”

This latest court case mirrors the back-and-forth that took place between Energy Transfer Partners and indigenous tribes last year, resulting in an intense public protest where indigenous people were supported by environmental and social justice groups. Encampments were formed in areas where the pipeline was set to cross under the Missouri River, with the intention of preventing the pipeline’s full completion and forcing the company to reroute the pipeline around the primary water source for the Sioux and millions of others who rely on the river for drinking water.

Protesters gather at an encampment on Saturday, Nov. 26, 2016, a day after tribal leaders received a letter from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers that told them the federal land would be closed to the public on Dec. 5, near Cannon Ball, N.D. The protesters said Saturday that they do not plan to leave and will continue to oppose construction of the Dakota Access oil pipeline. (AP photo/James MacPherson)

Protesters gather at an encampment on Saturday, Nov. 26, 2016, a day after tribal leaders received a letter from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers that told them the federal land would be closed to the public on Dec. 5, near Cannon Ball, N.D. (AP/James MacPherson)

These camps united the tribes, military veterans and foreign activists, but were met with opposition by private security officers hired by Energy Transfer Partners, as well as state police. By the time this latest court hearing was under way, 750 anti-pipeline protesters had been arrested.

The Obama administration had attempted to calm the situation by issuing “voluntary” injunctions on the pipeline’s construction, but since these injunctions were not legally binding, construction continued anyway, allowing the full blame for the advancement of the project to be placed on Trump, a strong advocate for the fossil fuel industry. Trump had between $500,000 and $1 million invested in Energy Transfer Partners in 2015, which many took as a conflict of interest, considering the controversial nature of the issue. Trump did, however, divest his stake in the company before becoming president.

Despite the words of politicians and assurances from Energy Transfer Partners, oil spills in North Dakota are commonplace, with the Center for Biological Diversity estimating that the state has averaged around four major pipeline spills annually since 1996. This latest ruling is set to create even more risks for those who stand to lose the most in the event of more spills.

http://www.mintpressnews.com/federal-judge-public-no-right-know-dak...

We don't have enough judges like Scalia and Gorsuch...

Image result for justice symbols

Views: 19

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Transporting oil from one location to another is not an environmental hazard as Progressive Liberal Democrats would have you believe.

Any and all means available will be used by the left to diminish, curtail, or reduce the ability of America to remain sovereign and independent.

Earth day is today. I celebrate it, as I have for years, by pouring a can of oil in the lake below my house. This demonstrates MY concern, in an extremely small way, for that of the EPA and the dumb-asses that support it.

Look. I am just as environmentally concerned as anybody. Any person who loves to hunt and fire guns is pretty much concerned about the preservation of the outdoors and the wildlife supported by it. I don't need some panty waist organization to tell me how to protect it run by idiots who know nothing about it.

Furthermore, if the Indians don't like it then let them walk rather than ride. I am not a big fan of the airlines either. Hell, one could fall from the sky on my head, but I don't go around seeking to ban airplanes. I don't eat pork either, but I am not protesting pig farmers.

Get real.

RSS

LIGHTER SIDE

Facebook & Twitter

ALERT ALERT

BREAKING: Hillary Admits She Was Wrong About ‘Deplorables,’
White Nationalists Only ‘0.15%’ Of U.S. Population

(TeaParty.org) – Hillary Clinton, the failed liberal presidential candidate who sealed her fate by slamming half of U.S. voters as a load of racist, sexist, xenophobic “deplorables,” just came out and admitted she was wrong, Breitbart reports.

Speaking with Hugh Hewitt on his radio show about her book “What Happened,” he asked her if she actually believes that half of the American population are white nationalists and racists.

“Of the 62.9 million people who voted for President Trump, do you have a number in your mind that you think are actually white nationalist racists of that 62.9 million, a real number?” he asked.

“No, I don’t,” she said.

Still have any doubts? Later in the conversation, Hewitt asked the same question again. “Do you think there are more than a half million, you know, honest-to-God white nationalists running around the United States?”

Clinton: “Probably not, no.”

A white nationalist would like to establish a sovereign country for people of white European heritage, an idea everyone across the political spectrum finds unspeakably intolerable and offensive. Now, the woman who declared that this was the desire of more than half of Americans is saying that virtually nobody wants it. On both counts, she’s completely wrong.

There’s no doubt that Clinton is probably going to try running again for president in 2020 – if she’s even alive that long – and might be trying to absolve her guilt and pander to all those “undecideds” who instantly went MAGA the second she blasted them as no-good racist deplorables for not voting Democrat.

However, Clinton did later admit that there were more white nationalists in America than she had thought. Expressing her worries that the internet and the presidency of Trump is giving them a voice and a platform, she hinted that under her iron scepter, she will attempt to silence them.

“Unfortunately, their views, which used to be quite beyond the mainstream, you know, have a much broader audience now, because you know, of being online and having outlets and media presence that can promote those attitudes,” she said.

How many white nationalists are there in the United States? That’s a question with troublingly few answers, since for some mysterious reason the liberal mainstream media – even though it claims all the time that white supremacy is on the rise – hasn’t actually bothered to take polls and just ask people whether they are white nationalists.

Actually, there’s a simple answer to that. If such a poll were to be taken, our bet is that liberals would be very disappointed to discover that almost nobody is actually a white nationalist, and so there would be no way they could continue scaring people with those fears. A tactic Clinton has apparently given up on.

Left-wingers are entirely convinced that some vague but large majority of people who say they aren’t racists or white nationalists, actually share a lot of views with them – which is why Nazi and white supremacist have become interchangeable with Republican and libertarian.

An article by Newsweek, which polled around 5,000 in order address this very question, came up with this response:

About 70 percent of respondents strongly agreed that people of different races should be “free to live wherever they choose” and that “all races are equal,” and 89 percent agreed that all races should be treated equally. At the same time, 31 percent of respondents said they strongly or somewhat agreed that the country needs to “protect and preserve its White European heritage,” while 34 percent strongly or somewhat disagreed and 29 percent said they neither agreed nor disagreed.

Reality is, it’s a little true that some Americans do have overlapping views with white nationalists, but the overwhelming majority of respondents STRONGLY believe that the races should be free, are equal, and should be treated equally. Sounds like none of these respondents would be joining a lynch mob or waging a second Holocaust any time soon – trying to equate the preservation of white heritage with support for slavery and genocide is obviously one of the Left’s biggest lies, and the very reason why 39 percent of people in this same survey believe white people are under attack.

So Clinton changes her mind, and now says she believes less than one percent of the American population are white nationalists – did she believe there were even LESS than that during the campaign trail? Either way, she’s either just lying or plain stupid.

YES PATRIOT STORE

© 2017   Created by Steve - Ning Creator.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service