People have asked me: "But they took precautions! They attended safety classes. They called ahead to the 800# and reported their intentions".
Sorry, that is not good enough to mitigate the risk of causing extreme environmental catastrophe:
a) What is your proof the lines were shut down?
b) More importantly, what is your proof the saboteurs knew that the lines were shut down?
c) EVEN IF an order had been given to shut down the lines, this DOES NOT necessarily remove all risk!
As i have been saying, there are PHYSICS involved.
Dilbit is very heavy, and was under high pressure. Kinetic energy is m*v^2.
Its like putting a child in front of a freight train moving at 80MPH and claiming that its safe because you called the operator.
No, you cannot stop a 11,000 ton train instantly due to stored kinetic energy. The same with a high pressure dilbit pipeline.
If I announced I didn't like shopping malls, and that I was going in to a mall and start shooting off automatic weapons randomly, and then actually do it, the fact that I called ahead does not necessarily mitigate the risk involved.
Deia and these others were not "filming a protest". She was filming intentional sabotage of a live, high pressure dilbit pipeline. Which carries extreme risk of causing environmental harms and not what I would call nonviolent.
I believe strongly in the freedom of the press, and I have been a videographer at dozens of NVDA actions, and even participated in a few, was arrested once for such.
But turning valves on an active pipeline is beyond putting your own life on the line.
It is putting the lives of many beings on the line.
I do not approve of what these people did, but I do understand why some people could justify it, due to the climate emergency.
There are many ways this can produce harmful blowback.
1) really bad press: labeling environmentalists as terrorists and saboteurs, and not protectors, poisoning our movement in the minds of many people
2) Risk of real grave environmental harms
3) It was widely reported that this action was taken "In solidarity with Standing Rock". Almost every news story had an association with "Standing Rock".
However, a principle of the Jemez Principles of Democratic Organizing says,
"Let People Speak for Themselves"
As far as I can see, Standing Rock is a legitimate movement based on the principles of nonviolence to a high degree.
So what if people are engaging in intentional sabotage of active pipelines, and claiming an association with Standing Rock, yet their actions are such which would never be undertaken or condoned by the Standing Rock leadership? How could this impact the police response at Standing Rock? We are already seen an extreme escalation of violence against them.
4) How will this impact the ability of legitimate researchers such as myself to gain access to technical data regarding pipelines? The NPMS system is already badly broken in several ways, *intentionally*, to dissuade "terrorists" from learning about critical infrastructure. I note here that NPMS has been down for two days. Related?
May you, and all beings
be happy and free from suffering :)
-- ancient Buddhist Prayer (Metta)