The Dakota Access pipeline is a 1,172 mile oil pipeline that stretches through North Dakota, South Dakota, Iowa and southern Illinois. The pipeline would allow oil companies to transport crude oil from North Dakota to oil refineries along the Eastern Seaboard. The pipeline’s construction was permitted by the participating state governments under eminent domain. Opponents of the pipeline (including several Native American tribes, including the Meskwaki and Sioux tribal nations) argue that the pipeline has the potential to pollute their water supply and destroy Native American burial sites. Proponents argue that the pipeline is necessary for the U.S. to achieve energy independence.
Narrow down which types of responses you would like to see.
Narrow down the conversation to these participants:
Discussions from these authors are shown:
@9VJX4XZLibertarian8mos8MO
No, but offer tax incentives to encourage energy companies to practice regular and thorough safety and efficiency standards.
@9TJQJHFLibertarian8mos8MO
The pipeline was built after years of discussion. The pipeline should be built to help lower emissions from rail ways and over the road transportation. The pipeline is safe.
@9T5VWSZLibertarian9mos9MO
No, charge the companies more in taxes, increase the fines if the company has an accident and give some money back to native Americans/ reservations.
@9RNBSHKLibertarian10mos10MO
No, it should not be stopped...but compensation and/or royalty percentages should be paid to the native tribes it effects.
@9KC893XLibertarian 1yr1Y
No, there are a lot of benefits to the pipeline. Much of the opposition does not actually come from the people who occupy the affected lands. With the continuance, the affected tribes should receive a fair financial compensation as well as support in building and strengthening their communities.
@9JJ9TT4Libertarian1yr1Y
Only use the pipeline if absolutely necessary, other than that we should be finding something that's more environmental friendly to have the impact that the pipeline has
The Government should not be involved with the North Dakota Access Pipeline. not at the Federal level, not at the state level, and not at the local, and county levels of government whether or not the pipeline gets done, should be between the community, including the Native American communities, and the community at large and the Free Market, they're the ones that need to work out whether the pipeline can be built here in the United States, The Free Market needs to be fully involved with this project and the community and not the government.
@9GHD83JLibertarian 2yrs2Y
The Dakota Pipeline should be used until we switch to a significantly clean source of energy that gives a sustainable output like Nuclear Energy.
@9G385PVLibertarian2yrs2Y
Its a contentious issue with deferent viewpoints. Some argue for stopping the construction, while others have different perspectives.
@9FHPKDTLibertarian 2yrs2Y
No, but they should move it elsewhere, through land not acquired by eminent domain, as the government should never be allowed to take land from the people, regardless of compensation or public purpose.
@9FGRGGKLibertarian2yrs2Y
No, they should increase work on the route for higher protection
@9D4ZMSQLibertarian2yrs2Y
This is not an environmental question. The only consideration should be that of the tribal council. If they approve the current path, allow it. If they don't approve, find another route. In either case, the pipeline should continue.
@9FZPLPBLibertarian2yrs2Y
No the government should not stop it of be involved. And the government especially should not engage in acquiring property via eminent domain. The company should redirect the pipeline.
@9FCB642Libertarian2yrs2Y
No, as long as it is not funded by the government
@94JH5Y6Libertarian3yrs3Y
No, but reroute the pipeline away from Native American lands and the government should not have eminent domain.
@9498CXWLibertarian3yrs3Y
No, but eminent domain should not be used
@JasenmaseLibertarian3yrs3Y
No, pipelines are the most environmentally safe and cost-effective means of transporting fuel
@92K2FCTLibertarian3yrs3Y
No, but reroute the pipeline away from Native American land and dramatically increase the amount of fines the company must pay in the event of an accident.
@924YMGYLibertarian3yrs3Y
Yes because Native Americans were here first so it should be their decision
@8ZYWJB2Libertarian3yrs3Y
No, but reroute and drastically increase the amount of fines the company must pay in the event of an accident
@8YQH48ZLibertarian3yrs3Y
No, but compensation should be paid to landowners in the event of an accident
@8YKNGGWLibertarian3yrs3Y
they already started so might as well finish it
@8YFD5QGLibertarian3yrs3Y
Buffet, and his toy trains!!!
@8Y6RX7PLibertarian3yrs3Y
No, but make certain that there are proper safety regulations
@8XPDYJ8Libertarian3yrs3Y
Yes, the government shouldn't mine on sacred and protected grounds or at least profit off the materials without giving back to those whose land it is.
@8XHG5WMLibertarian4yrs4Y
Yes, Native American reservations are governments of their own. The US should not under and circumstance be allowed to take more land from them. Additionally, yet not less importantly, clean fresh water must be preserved for the future generations.
@8XFKRWVLibertarian4yrs4Y
Okay it’s kinda good, kinda bad. We need clean water in those states but we also need that pipeline. Plus the burial sites being destroyed is sad but still we need the pipeline. That’s over a millions gallons of oil.
@8X7VX68Libertarian4yrs4Y
Auction the pipeline to the private sector.
@8WY8N57Libertarian4yrs4Y
No, but reroute the pipeline away from Native American land and drastically increase the amount of fines the company must pay in the even of an accident.
@8WBZP6YLibertarian4yrs4Y
The government said he’s to the project then no. This is not fair to those who invested in the project.
@8VGHZVWLibertarian4yrs4Y
I would have to do adequate research to have an informed stance.
@8T4PN3RLibertarian4yrs4Y
Its irrelevant at this point. It's been shut down
@8SZ8283Libertarian4yrs4Y
Not unless those put out of work are set up with new jobs
@8SXS8Z9Libertarian4yrs4Y
@8SX7HCDLibertarian4yrs4Y
No, but incentivize cleaner energy
@8SWTPKKLibertarian4yrs4Y
I don't mind what the government does with this, as long as it doesn't affect me.
@8S64VPGLibertarian4yrs4Y
No, the government should stay out of private business and allow landowner and those effected by accidents to sue with Civil Lawsuits
@8S3L8C3Libertarian4yrs4Y
If it really has to happen it should be rerouted away from native land and wildlife refuge.
@8RQV52ZLibertarian4yrs4Y
No, but reroute it away from Native American land and the private land owners must be subsidized
@8R25G26Libertarian4yrs4Y
The pipeline should be turned over to private businesses.
@8QNBS3GLibertarian4yrs4Y
If people did not consent to land being taken and it can polute people's land, perhaps yes
@8QMH6BNLibertarian4yrs4Y
Let the free market decide what is best.
@8PSS7PMLibertarian4yrs4Y
Yes, if it really pollutes the water.
@8PPPJXCLibertarian4yrs4Y
Don’t know enough about the issue.
@8NMRZZYLibertarian5yrs5Y
No, but the Government should reroute the pipeline away from rivers, canals, and should not be in contact with water where it could cause a irreversible issue on some county's water supply.
@8H36K8ZLibertarian5yrs5Y
No, but end eminent domain and reroute the pipeline away from Native American land while increasing the amount of fines that the company must pay in the event of an accident. If Native American lands are negotiated to be used, the government should pay a recurring fee to Native American tribes for the ongoing use of their land with an end date of no fewer than 100 years.
@8DRGS9TLibertarian5yrs5Y
Yes, it should stop and eminent domain should never be used for things like pipelines, only for things like National Parks or preservation of locations with historic significance.
@7GQ7HP8Libertarian5yrs5Y
@8D37GYLLibertarian5yrs5Y
Yes, however, if a private company would like to continue it, they can
@8CF69MRLibertarian5yrs5Y
I think you mean the Keystone pipeline; the DAPL is already done.
No, but reroute the pipeline away from Native American land. Also, the government should not be allowed to acquire land by eminent domain.
@84ZWD6LLibertarian2yrs2Y
No, but reroute the pipeline away from Native American land, and increase fines for incidents that harm the environment
@84ZWD6LLibertarian2yrs2Y
No, but only if the project can be rerouted away from Native American land, and fines are increased for incidents that harm the environment
@987RXPRLibertarian2yrs2Y
It should get no help from government, but rather fully privatized
@9446422Libertarian3yrs3Y
No, but the government should re-route the pipe away from Native American Land and should never be allowed to acquire land by eminent domain for any purpose other than creating national and state parks along with wildlife reserves.
@92L8W56Libertarian3yrs3Y
No The government should never be allowed to acquire land eminent domain. Reroute away from Native American land.
@8V8XG5XLibertarian4yrs4Y
No, there can be a way to find a solution that will satisfy the most while getting oil from here and not relying on foreign oil
@8M4VHZ3Libertarian5yrs5Y
No, but they shouldn’t build on Native American land, either.
@38LNC72Libertarian5yrs5Y
No, because it has already started and should be finished - but this should be the last pipeline and afterwards we should pursue sustainable energy solutions.
@PepperflyLibertarian5yrs5Y
I have do not have an educated opinion.
@8FJ52WDLibertarian5yrs5Y
Federal government does not have business there.
@8FCYDY6Libertarian5yrs5Y
Reroute the pipeline away from Native American land--the government shouldn't be able to destruct sacred land. AND increase amount of fines in the event of an accident.
@8DM9FFYLibertarian5yrs5Y
Look into other ways to transport crude oil that doesn't affect Native American land.
@85JC5ZXLibertarian5yrs5Y
No, but again, there needs to be some serious liability and control for negative externalities. Future projects should avoid eminent domain
@8QM9QMRLibertarian4yrs4Y
i do not have enough information to conduct a stance.
Loading the political themes of users that engaged with this discussion
Loading data...
Join in on more popular conversations.
