Addressing Misconceptions About The Dakota Access Pipeline

Map of the Dakota Access Pipeline on private land

There are a number of misconceptions and myths about the Dakota Access Pipeline Project. Unfortunately, a number of media outlets, bloggers, opinion writers, and social media accounts have spread a number of similar misconceptions. Here are the facts.

  • The Dakota Access is one of the most technologically advanced and safest pipelines ever built. It is entirely underground and surpasses federal safety requirements.
  • The pipeline does not encroach or cross any land owned by the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe.
  • The Dakota Access Pipeline is entirely underground and will cross under Lake Oahe at a minimum depth of 95 feet below the riverbed.
  • The Dakota Access Pipeline does not endanger water; the Standing Rock Sioux water inlet by early 2017 will be moved to a location more than 70 miles away from the pipeline.
  • The majority of protesters are not there to protect water, as they claim, but are actually extremists opposed to any and all use of fossil fuels.

Notably, by contrast, rail cars transporting crude oil from wells owned by Native American Tribes currently cross the Standing Rock Sioux reservation without objection.

Lake Oahe, the final portion of the pipeline’s path to be constructed is also home to eight pipelines.

Many of the protesters on-site are not Standing Rock Sioux, but outsiders with a different more extremist agenda that is simply opposed to the use of all fossil fuels. They have provoked multiple dangerous and criminal confrontations with law enforcement, and caused significant damage to property, which have led local agencies to ask for extra federal help.

More Here: https://daplpipelinefacts.com/common-misconceptions/

Advertisements

Federal Permits Will Allow Wind Farms to Kill More Bald Eagles

 Save the fuckin Delta Smelt and Snail Darter but kill the Bald Eagle!!! This country is so fucked up I can’t believe it. Thank God we have a chance to change some things with the election of Donald J Trump for POTUS.

By Barbara Hollingsworth | December 21, 2016 | 12:45 PM EST

Bald eagle. (AP photo)

 

(CNSNews.com) — New 30-year permits that will be issued next month by the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service (FWS) will quadruple the number of bald eagles that wind farms will collectively be allowed to kill per year and avoid prosecution under the 1940 Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act.

Under the new $36,000 “incidental take permits” – which are to be reviewed every five years by an independent third party – the number of bald eagles that can be killed by permit holders will increase from 1,100 currently allowed under 2009 regulations to 4,200 when the Final Rule goes into effect on Jan. 17, 2017, according to the Associated Press.

“The Service’s emphasis on eagle incidental take permits for wind facilities reflects [Obama] Administration priorities for expanded wind energy development and a desire to minimize the impacts of that growth on eagles,” FWS noted. “It does not reflect a belief that wind development poses a disproportionate risk compared to other activities that may incidentally take eagles.”

The FWS explained that the new National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) regulations are intended to “minimize the impacts” of wind farms on the eagle population. “There is nothing in the revised regulations that will increase take, though we hope more ongoing unpermitted take will be captured under permits in the future,” the agency said.

The new regulations will require long-term permit holders to “search for injured and killed eagles” and then “estimate total take using methods approved by the Service,” according to the Final Rule published in the Federal Register on December 16th.

Permit holders will “be required to provide compensatory mitigation to offset predicted take over each 5-year period.”

Potential permittees will also have to “implement all practicable best management practices and other measures that are reasonably likely to reduce eagle take” to less than 5 percent of the LAP [local area population] for a project already in operation.  The “practicable” standard is a modification of the current “unavoidable” standard.

Any permitted facility that exceeds its authorized eagle kill limit would not be fined or criminally prosecuted, although it could still be “subject to an enforcement action at any time for unpermitted prior take of eagles,” according to the Final Rule.

“Only applicants who commit to adaptive management measures to ensure the preservation of eagles will be considered for permits with terms longer than five years,” according to FWS.

But Garry George, Audubon California’s director of renewable energy, pointed out that none of the new technologies used by the wind farm industry to lessen bird deaths “has been proven to work.”

The FWS “may be giving the industry certainty in a permit that allows them to kill eagles for 30 years, but they’re not giving us any certainty that it’s not going to send the population into a spiral,” George said.

Michael Hutchins, director of the American Bird Conservancy’s (ABC) Bird-Smart Wind Energy Campaign, also noted that the “lack of an opportunity for public input [during the five-year reviews] makes the rule vulnerable to legal challenges” under NEPA.

After being removed from the Endangered Species Act list of threatened species in 2007, the population of bald eagles is now estimated at 143,000 in the lower 48 states and Alaska. FWS estimates that it “will continue to increase until populations reach an equilibrium at about 228,000.”

But FWS believes the current stable population of 41,000 golden eagles “might be declining toward a lower equilibrium size of about 26,000 individuals.” For that reason, the permitted number of golden eagles killed “would still be set at zero, requiring that all authorized take be offset by compensatory mitigation,” according to the new regulations.

Under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, it’s illegal to kill or injure eagles – even unintentionally – without a permit. The penalties can range up to a $500,000 fine and two years in prison.

FWS says that “no progress has been made” in its efforts to create an “accurate estimate of collision probability” for eagles at wind farms because “to date, so few incidental take permits have been issued at wind facilities.”

In response to comments from the public, FWS noted that “in the last 18 months, the Service has resolved five civil enforcement actions concerning unauthorized incidental take of eagles… at 15 different wind- energy facilities,” resulting in $55,000 in civil penalties and another $1.8 million to develop technologies to reduce the number of bird deaths.

In 2013, North Carolina-based Duke Energy Renewables became the first wind power company to be found criminally liable under MBTA for killing 163 protected birds, including 14 golden eagles, at two of its wind farms in Wyoming. The company pleaded guilty and agreed to pay a $1 million fine and another $900,000 in restitution and compensatory mitigation.

Last year, Oregon-based PacifiCorp became the second wind energy company to be prosecuted. It was fined $2.5 million for killing 38 golden eagles and hundreds of other protected migratory birds at its wind energy projects in Wyoming.

“No animal says America like the bald eagle, and the Service is using the best available science to make eagle management decisions that promote eagle conservation,” FWS Director Dan Ashe said in a statement.

“Our success in recovering this bird when its populations plummeted in the lower 48 nearly a half-century ago stands as one of our greatest national conservation achievements. The final revised regulations build on this success, taking a comprehensive approach to eagle conservation and demonstrating the Service’s longstanding commitment to bald and golden eagles, responsible industry operations, and the interests of the American people.”

http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/barbara-hollingsworth/new-regulations-will-allow-wind-farms-kill-4200-bald-eaglesyear?utm_source=facebook&utm_campaign=n-eagles-permits&utm_medium=CNS&utm_term=facebook&utm_content=n-eagles-permits

Al Gore Doesn’t Want You To Know This

While all eyes are on the health care ripoff, regular business is ignored in hopes you will not notice. Pay some attention to this.

Whether or not we drill for more American oil and gas before at least 2015 could be decided in 20 days.
DHDN Logo
And Al Gore and his environmental allies are working hard behind the scenes to make sure that we don’t drill.  So we need to work even harder.

The U.S. Department of Interior decides when and where we drill, and they decide based on public feedback.

This means that if they hear from more people that are opposed to drilling than are for it, then no new drilling will happen until at least 2015. And they’re only accepting comments until September 21.

Those of us who want to drill now must rule the day.

The environmental groups are already collecting hundreds of thousands of signatures and we need to surpass them to win the public comment period.

The way for you to help right now is to submit your comment at YourEnergyOpinion.com.

Everything is pre-written for you, so all you have to do is enter your information and hit “Submit Letter.”

This is about creating more American jobs by developing more American energy. This is about making sure that our energy needs are never held hostage to foreign countries that don’t like us.

Please submit your comments right now at YourEnergyOpinion.com and ask your friends to do the same.

Thanks so much for your time and participation.

Sincerely,
Dan-V-Signature
Dan Varroney
Senior Vice-President & COO
American Solutions for Winning the Future

Obama Kills Offshore Drilling

Gateway Pundit has it, and I can’t add a thing without blowing a gasket.

Gee… We’re All Shocked.
More hope and change for America.

For decades, Democrats have blocked efforts to responsibly develop this nation’s energy resources, transforming vast areas of opportunity into “The No Zone.”

Over the past 30 years:

Democrats have blocked the development of new sources of petroleum.
Democrats have blocked drilling in ANWR.
Democrats have blocked drilling off the coast of Florida.
Democrats have blocked drilling off of the east coast.
Democrats have blocked drilling off of the west coast.
Democrats have blocked drilling off the Alaskan coast.
Democrats have blocked building oil refineries.
Democrats have blocked clean nuclear energy production.
Democrats have blocked clean coal production.

Already this year democrats scrapped oil and gas leases in Utah and opened the 111th Congress by introducing a bill to permanently prohibit drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR).

Today, the Obama Administration blocked offshore drilling.
SFGate reported:

President Obama is shelving a plan announced in the final days of the Bush administration to open much of the U.S. coast to oil drilling, including 130 million acres off California’s coast from Mendocino to San Diego.

On Tuesday, Interior Secretary Ken Salazar ordered the plan be put on hold while his agency conducts a 180-day review of the country’s offshore oil and gas resources. Salazar’s critical comments about the plan signaled that the new administration will seek to rewrite it if not completely scrap it.

The Bush proposal “opened the possibility of oil and gas leases along the entire Eastern seaboard, portions of offshore California and the far eastern Gulf of Mexico with almost no consultation from states, industry or community input,” Salazar said at a news conference in Washington. “In my view it was a headlong rush of the worst kind.”

But, honestly… Barack Obama is going to free America from our dependence on foreign oil.
He’s going to create or save(?) 4 million jobs.

Remember this the next time gas prices go to $4.00 per gallon.

Well There’s Yer Problem

The problem with Democrats

The problem with Democrats

California is broke. You hear the Guvenator hollering about it all the time. Now here’s an opportunity for more cash flow into the state, but right away the obstructionist Democratic government uses the same tired rhetoric to say no to oil drilling. There is so much oil off the coast of Santa Barbara it bubbles up from the bottom of the ocean and fouls the beaches. Some extra drilling could probably help with that too. Now I don’t know how much money expanding an oil drilling operation might bring in, but keep in mind, this is California, you need to pay for an EPA study and a permit just to fart.

LOS ANGELES —- Lt. Gov. John Garamendi said Thursday he opposes allowing a company to expand oil drilling off the coast of Santa Barbara because it could signal that California wants to renew offshore drilling.

Garamendi chairs the three-member State Lands Commission, which is set to consider a request next week to lease land to Plains Exploration & Production Co. for the drilling project.

“It raises many issues, doesn’t it?” he asked. “It’s been a long, long time since there’s been new leases in California, so the precedent is really, really important.”

Garamendi said revenue from any new offshore drilling should be used to reduce the state’s dependency on oil.

“I’m a no vote unless and until the revenue from any new lease goes to reduce greenhouse gas emission issues,” he said.

Even the environmentalists are for the expanded drilling.

In a landmark partnership, several anti-oil groups supported the drilling plan in exchange for promises by the company to shut down its local operations within 14 years and give away thousands of acres of land.

The criticism came as a surprise to the Santa Barbara environmental groups that lobbied hard for the project.

Linda Krop, an attorney representing the Environmental Defense Center, Get Oil Out! and the Citizens Planning Association of Santa Barbara, hopes the panel can be persuaded to issue permits to drill.

“Our fear is that we’ll lose all these benefits if this project is denied,” Krop said.

So what’s the problem? Democrats. They are always the problem.

Critics in the state Assembly and Coastal Commission recently challenged the proposal, saying it could encourage even more drilling in the future.

Garamendi said he has spoken with Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., as well as other members of the California congressional delegation who expressed “significant concern” that approving a drilling proposal could undercut their efforts to reintroduce a federal moratorium on the practice.

State Lands executive officer Paul Thayer said staff’s recommendation came in part because the proposal violated a long-standing position held by the commission.

“The commission has established a policy that offshore oil drilling in California is less beneficial to the state than the things that might be harmed by it,” Thayer said.

So there you have it. The problem is, as always, Democrats and their tired old rhetoric. It’s their policy, what the majority of people may want means nothing to them.

Source

Using The Polar Bear Once Again

Dude....we still got it

Dude....we still got it

Let me point out right here, this ruling was not about oil companies. It was about global warming and the effect it would have on the poor polar bears. See how fast the subject changes?

ANCHORAGE, Alaska – The US Interior Department will designate within two years protected areas of the Arctic that are considered critical habitat for polar bears and cannot be harmed by oil development as part of a legal settlement with environmental groups on Monday.

The Interior Department formally listed polar bears as threatened in May, but did not create protected areas for them.

Environmental groups said the threatened listing needed to be coupled with habitat designations to protect polar bears from spreading oil development or other industry impacts.

“You can’t protect a species without protecting the place where it lives,” said Kassie Siegel, a staff attorney for the Center for Biological Diversity, one of the three groups who sued the Bush administration to secure the designation.

“After global warming, oil development is the biggest threat to polar bears,” said Siegel.

Oil companies, looking for untapped resources, are turning to the ice-filled waters of the Arctic as potentially lucrative areas for development. Environmentalists see oil development disturbing a delicate habitat for many Arctic wildlife.

The Center for Biological Diversity, Greenpeace and the Natural Resources Defense Council are still suing the government to have polar bears listed as “endangered,” a more critical classification than the current “threatened” listing.

The groups are also seeking to force the Interior Department to mandate regulation of greenhouse gas emissions, which the environmentalists argue are the root cause of the polar bears’ problems.

When it designated the bears as threatened, the Interior Department acknowledged that the rapidly warming Arctic climate has damaged polar bears’ habitat and the species’ chances to avoid extinction.

The partial settlement, filed on Monday in US District Court in Oakland, California, establishes a June 30, 2010, deadline for the critical habitat designation that was considered important to the species.

“We certainly intended to make a decision on critical habitat anyway,” said Bruce Woods, spokesman for the US Fish and Wildlife Service’s Alaska headquarters.

source

So now the truth comes out. It had nothing to do with global warming, it was all to do with stopping the drilling. I told you so. If you doubt me, or even if you don’t,  Read This.

Offshore Oil Still Years Away?

From those optimists at Associated Press.

A quarter-century ban on offshore exploration expires in this coming week, but don’t expect to see a chain of drilling platforms from the beaches anytime soon.

It will take a couple of years, at least, before any oil or natural gas leases are issued, years more before any oil is found and perhaps a decade before any of it begins to flow to refineries.

And what if Congress, after completing a bill Saturday that removes the freeze, changes its mind next year and again puts some of the coastal waters off-limits?

Who wins the Nov. 4 presidential election is the biggest factor.

It’s the government’s oil and gas. The Interior Department, directed by the White House, will have wide discretion over where leases will be made available and how soon.

If McCain is President:

“We will drill offshore and we will drill them now,” Republican nominee John McCain proclaimed at the GOP convention. He probably would direct the department to accelerate its leasing schedule to include the newly opened regions.

If Obama is President:

Democratic Barack Obama is certain to take a more measured approach if elected. While Obama has said he favors limited expansion into areas that have been off-limits, he has given no specifics, and insists it should be done only as part of a broader agenda that promotes alternative energy and conservation.

The oil isn’t 10 years away as they like to say. I’ve heard it said that oil can be flowing in as little as 3-4 years. It’s no time to be a wimp. Drill It Now! Drop the regulations, issue the permits, and let’s get on with it. We need to get out of this mess now, and fix it for good. With the current economic trouble, this could save us in two ways, more jobs and less dependence on countries that would like to think they can bloody our nose while we are weak. We can still develop alternative power while we drill our own oil. In my opinion, everything needs to be fast tracked like we did during WW2. And that also means a President that has determination and a mind of his own. Not one that waits to see what Soros and the daily kos wants him to do.

Source

%d bloggers like this: