Sunday, January 15, 2017

Russian Hacking links

IMO the best analysis on this stuff is coming from bloggers and podcasters, with a small number of real journalists.

Most of these folks have multiple blogs, videos, or podcasts on this subject. So these links are representative:

Sane Progressive

Jimmy Dore

Tim Black and HA Goodman

Corbett Report 

Glenn Greenwald

Chris Hedges


John McAfee

Abby Martin and Ben Norton

Ben Swann

John Kiriakou (former CIA official)

All of these folks have a slightly different take, but most all are in unison: 

1) there is no evidence of Russian hacking 

2) lots of evidence this is a Deep State (CIA, corporate media, DHS, DNC, etc) hacked the Democratic Primary, but little official media attention here

3) Lots of stories connected to the contents of the DCLeaks, the Wikileaks (Podesta and DNC emails), and the FBI dumps of the Clinton emails not being covered. Important in assessing root causes of how we got here.

May you, and all beings
be happy and free from suffering :)
-- ancient Buddhist Prayer (Metta)

May you, and all beings
be happy and free from suffering :)
-- ancient Buddhist Prayer (Metta)

Wednesday, January 11, 2017

PHMSA underground gas storage rules PUBLIC COMMENT

Friends, forgive the cross posting. But I have seen zero discussion about this on any lists. 

From Porter Ranch to Seneca Lake... This is a huge opportunity to influence out national gas pipeline/storage safety regulator.

Public comments on PHMSA Interim Final Rule for the safety of Underground NatGas Storage facilities due Feb 17.  

May you, and all beings
be happy and free from suffering :)
-- ancient Buddhist Prayer (Metta)

Thursday, December 29, 2016

Climate Heroes? or Dangerous Saboteurs? An evaluation schema for potential Direct Actions

Climate Heroes?  or Dangerous Saboteurs? 
An evaluation schema for potential Direct Actions 

I hope this generates some positive discussion. 

IMO, the issue around the Oct 2016 shutdown of 5x Dilbit Pipelines is a microcosm which illustrates certain concerns affecting the greater environmental and climate movements, and should call us all into examining our core values.   

We are living in a new age now. 

If we cannot stop Trump and growing Fascism, then I fear the threats against climate activists will here approach what we see in S. America, and W. Africa. 

Thus, it is of UTMOST importance that our actions are of the highest moral integrity, and UNAMBIGUOUSLY nonviolent. 

Gandhi's Satyagraha, Women Suffragettes, MLK, "My Name is Allegany County", "We are Seneca Lake", the Water Protectors at Standing Rock-- all examples of successful and TRUE nonviolent action campaigns.

We must be motived by a sense of protection and care for all beings. We must treat each other with kindness both at the gate and in our groups. 

These "valve turners" are being almost universally and uncritically celebrated in the alt-left press as being Climate Heroes. 

People who know me know I am a vocal evangelist for Nonviolent Direct Action, since it is clear administrative remedies do not work.

However, IMO, their actions were quite unlike other NVDA actions which I have both documented, organized, and participated in. 

for evaluating potential direct actions:

We need to closely examine: 

a) what were the goals of this action? 
b) a fair assessment of what the risks were, 
c) how the decision was made,
d) does it meet the definition of nonviolent action, 
e) does it follow the precautionary principle, or 
f) if there were potentially better ways to meet the goals?

My intention here is not to attack these people. They seem like they did not undertake this lightly. They planned it for months, took certain precautions, they seem thoughtful and motivated by deep concern for the environment. 

Although I admit I do feel a certain connection to the 2013 spill in Mayflower AR, and the people who live there who are still suffering health impacts 3 years later. So such a risky action does raise a certain anger in me. 

But I DO hope this critique causes groups to use the Six Questions above or similar evaluation schema for future possible direct actions.


The essence of Nonviolent Action is putting YOUR OWN body at risk. What gives someone the right to to put OTHER LIVES in the line of harm? Were those potentially impacted others involved in the decision?

May you, and all beings
be happy and free from suffering :)
-- ancient Buddhist Prayer (Metta)

Climate Heroes? Or Dangerous Saboteurs?

The essence of Nonviolent Action is putting YOUR OWN body at risk. What gives someone the right to to put OTHER LIVES in the line of harm? Were those potentially impacted others involved in the decision?

In October 2016, a team of people associated with the Climate Disobedience group, shut down all 5 pipelines carrying Tar Sands products into the USA from Canada. 

Starting up & shutting down a high pressure crude oil(*) pipeline is a very tricky business. It requires specialized knowledge, interconnect diagrams, etc. it requires coordinated efforts of dozens of people spanning hundreds of miles.
(* Product was actually Tar Sands Dilbit)

There are massive  forces involved, and flammable, toxic materials, which if spilled, can poison a watershed for generations. 

Closing block valves on active pipelines improperly can CAUSE a rupture! Pipeline safety historian Michael Holmstrom​​ has documented a dozen examples. A dozen experts on the Pipeline Safety Trust listserv all said this was dangerous and foolish. There was perfect consensus and no dissent. 

Does it make sense to risk spoiling the Earth (killing the patient) in order to save Her?  

Did these people fully understand the RISK OF GRAVE HARM they were creating? What about the negative PR had there been a spill? The grave damage in public opinion had there been a ruture? 

IMO, what these people did was NOT nonviolent action. It fails the Precautionary Principle. It fails the Prime Directive of all environmental activism (protection, nonharming). 

There is ONE argument which might justify such industrial sabotage, but I have not heard them make it. 

They have a great PR team, they are doing podcasts and conference calls and public events. Are they acknowledging the risk they took? No! 

They supposedly took precautions to mitigate the risk. Are they discouraging others from doing these same actions, who might not take the same precautions? No!

They are NOT doing this in the materials I've witnessed.   

IMO, It is essential that these people 

A) publicly acknowledge and disclose the grave risk of harm in such action

B) Generally discourage copycat actions

These folks should visit Mayflower Arkansas and talk with people there and see the damage caused by the EMPCO Pegasus ruptured first hand. There is a chance this incident was caused by an improperly closed block valve on an active, high pressure Dilbit pipeline--EXACTLY what these "valve turners" did.  

If they took this action which put the lives of many beings at risk, without understanding the risk at the time, then they should apologize and beg for mercy from the court and maybe ask acknowledgement their intention to do good work to save the Earth.

If they cannot understand the possible grave consequences of their actions, then they are non compos mentis, criminally insane.  

If they understood the risk and acted anyway, this seems like a criminal act, by definition!!

 Or do they have a damn good reason? What is that reason?
The overall potential harm of climate change is far worse?

 Yes, I agree that climate change risks mass extinction. It may already be underway. 

But did they survey every other living being potentially impacted by their actions? NO. 

This is why I believe this is a criminal act and suggest that you DO NOT DO THIS!!!!!! 

I do believe in NVDA and radical action to save the planet, but MUST be UNAMBIGUOUSLY nonviolent action. 

Gandhi's Satyagraha, Women Suffragettes, MLK, "My Name is Alleganey County", "We are Seneca Lake", the Water Protectors at Standing Rock-- all examples of TRUE and unambiguous nonviolent action. 

-- William Huston (climate activist, pipeline safety researcher, videographer)

May you, and all beings
be happy and free from suffering :)
-- ancient Buddhist Prayer (Metta)

Sunday, December 25, 2016

Let's Take over the Democratic Party!

David Cobb:

Let's just be honest.
This idea of creating another organization
and taking over the Democratic Party...
Let's just be clear...

Bernie Sanders galvanized a mass movement in this country progressive ideology springing up.

The leadership of the corporate Democratic Party destroyed them, and Bernie Sanders
and others said,

I know what let's do....
let's form an organization called "Our Revolution" and take over the Democratic Party and move it to the left.
Bernie Sanders: Our Revolution

It reminded me of my experience,
as a young anti-apartheid activist,
who then went on to work for Jesse Jackson in 1984 and 1988.

Because in that election
cycle, here's what we experienced:
A progressive upwelling from within the Democratic Party process,
the corporate leadership crushed us.
Jesse Jackson said,
I know what let's do,
let's form a new organization
and take over the Democratic Party
and move it to the left.
That was called "Rainbow Push".
Jesse Jackson: Rainbow Push

Four years later, Jerry Brown
inspired a progressive movement within,
it was crushed by the corporate leadership
of the Democratic Party.

He said,
I know what let's do:
Let's create another organization,
take over the Democratic Party and take it to the left.
That was called "We the People".
Jerry Brown: We the People

Four years later, Dennis Kucinich came along. inspired a progressive movement within,  it was crushed by the corporate leadership of the Democratic Party.

He said,
I know what let's do: 
 (can you guess?)
Let's form an organization,
take over the Democratic Party and take it to the left.

That was called "Progressive Democrats of America".
Dennis Kucinich: Progressive Democrats for America
Four years later, Howard Dean came along.
Can you tell the story?
Rose up a progressive movement within the Democratic party.
it was crushed by the corporate leadership
He said, 
I know what let's do: 

Let's form an organization,
take over the Democratic Party and take it to the left.

That was called "Democracy for America".
Howard Dean: Democracy for America


Commentary by Bill Huston:

The Democratic Party has abandoned the poor and the working class for FORTY FIVE YEARS!
This began in 1971 with the Powell Memo:

Ralph Nader explains to Chris Hedges
the history of corruption of the Democratic Party
beginning in 1971 with the Powell Memo.

The last major environmental laws were passed by Richard Nixon.
Since then, the Democrats have pushed upon us
  • Jobs exporting free trade agreements
  • Privatization of everything, from Charter Schools to our National Parks
  • Undeclared Wars
  • Labor abuses, such as Taft-Hartley
  • Bank bailouts 
  • Domestic Spying
  • Deregulation of Industry
  • Evisceration of the EPA 
  • Fracking, Pipelines, and dirty energy policy
  • ..... just like the Republicans!

"Insanity is doing the same thing over and over,
yet expecting different results."
-- Albert Einstein:

Friends, Let's BE SMART! !

Please let us ABANDON ALL HOPE in reforming the Democratic Party. 
It is a BROKEN MACHINE and it should be dismantled. 

Please help me build a party where Progressive Principles are Front and Center.


Wednesday, December 21, 2016

Inadequate and Ineffective: EPA & FERC

This was sent to me today by David Sligh of Wild Virginia, who wrote, 

"The Dominion Pipeline Monitoring Coalition is releasing the attached report today.  Thought it might be of interest to some of you."

Inadequate and Ineffective: 
A Review of the U.S. EPA's Responses to Draft Environmental Impact Statements Issued by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission    

Dominion Pipeline Monitoring Coalition  
December 21, 2016 


The Dominion Pipeline Monitoring Coalition studied eighteen cases in which the U.S Environmental Protection Agency ("EPA" or the "Agency") commented on Environmental Impact Statements prepared by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission ("FERC" or the "Commission") for natural gas projects, in accordance with requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA).  The main conclusions from this study:  

 EPA, in every case, identified important information and analyses that should have been included in the Draft Environmental Impact Statements (DEISs) but was not, assigning ratings of "insufficient information" for each of the eighteen project reviews.    

 The data and analyses EPA found missing from the FERC DEISs were often critical to support valid environmental assessments and to ensure environmental and human health protections.  

 EPA acknowledged that FERC's omissions prevented the public, EPA, and other agencies from properly understanding impacts from the projects or making effective comments - yet EPA did not insist upon revised or supplemental DEISs to remedy these situations. 

 FERC often disregarded EPA's comments and suggestions on the DEISs and continued to omit necessary information from the Final Environmental Impact Statements (FEISs), illustrating the ineffectual nature of EPA's comments and ratings.  

 EPA has failed in its duty as a "watchdog" over FERC's implementation of NEPA - the Agency must take more forceful action or continue to fail in this mission. 

Full Document:

May you, and all beings
be happy and free from suffering :)
-- ancient Buddhist Prayer (Metta)

May you, and all beings
be happy and free from suffering :)
-- ancient Buddhist Prayer (Metta)

Thursday, December 15, 2016

The main cause of gas pipeline explosions is....?

Just found this article where Williams' Chris Stockton is quoted:

:: Gas pipeline explosions are not unheard of, but adding a compressor station does not increase the risk of an explosion,  he added. "The main cause for gas explosions is people digging and accidentally striking the line,"

So there are two statements here I would like to fact check.

1) Adding compression does not add additional risk of pipeline failure, 

2) External strikes are the primary cause of failure. 

Does anyone have any data to confirm or refute these statements? 

#1 is counterintuitive, and I have data which seems to refute both. 

In my project to calibrate the federal PIR formula, I have collected data on several of the largest or most recent pipeline failures:
  • 1: Edison NJ 3/23/1994 *S
  • 2: Carlsbad NM 8/19/2000 *SC
  • 3: Appomattox VA 9/14/2008 *SC
  • 4: Cleburne TX 6/7/2010 *E
  • 5: San Bruno, CA 9/9/2010 *S
  • 6: Sissonville WV 12/11/2012 *SC
  • 7: Salem PA 4/29/2016 *SC
  • 8: Unityville PA 6/9/2016 *SC
Note: I did not make any effort to cherry-pick these to prove any point. I only selected these because they were major or recent failures, and where I could learn the diameter, MAOP, and learn the impact radius from published reports. 

*S: Spontaneous Failure (not external strike)
*C: Within 4 miles downstream of a compressor
*E: External Strike

So from this somewhat small sample, I find that:

  * 7/8 (87.5%) were spontaneous failures (related to corrosion, operator error, equipment failure, materials defect, etc)
  * 1/8 (12.5%) were from an external strike
  * 5/8 (62.5%) were within 4 miles downstream from a compressor where pressure is generally nearest MAOP. 

This seems to me fairly convincing evidence Stockton is wrong on both counts. 

I would appreciate any evidence or commentary which sheds more light on this. 


May you, and all beings
be happy and free from suffering :)
-- ancient Buddhist Prayer (Metta)

May you, and all beings
be happy and free from suffering :)
-- ancient Buddhist Prayer (Metta)

Sunday, December 11, 2016

Puzzle! (for the Zeitgeist)


Your Name is Zeitgeist.
You are the Spirit of the Age.
You are the eyes the ears and voice
of the Collective Consciousness.

You find yourself at the precipice of the Void.
You are teetering at the Bridge of Death.

How you act now will not only determine your own fate,
but the fate of Uncountable Living Beings.

The fate of entire Civilizations lies at the outcome of this moment.

It's all up to YOU!

Everything depends on your next choices.
So you should choose wisely,
With the great attention and care now...

Do I have your attention? OK,
Good ;)

Dear Zeitgeist, you are sitting in front of the Unhappiest Man in the World.
A man with insatiable greed, who also has unimaginable powers,
controls the largest military on Planet Earth.

This man has the power to destroy EVERY Living Thing 100 times over.

This man is angry and afraid and confused.
He is surrounding himself with other greedy, violent, and unhappy people.

YOU are sitting in front of the Unhappiest man in the Solar System,
and he has his hand on the button which can blow up world.

He thought having a beautiful wife would make him happy. He got that!
A Supermodel! A porn star.

Do you think this brought him lasting happiness?
No. It satisfied him for a while, and then he wanted more.

He thought having a BILLION DOLLARS would make him happy.
He got that!!

Do you think all his money makes him happy?


He wanted to have GIANT buildings, with his name emblazoned
In major cities all over the world. He got that!!

He wanted to play golf at the most exclusive resorts,
with famous people and movie stars and heads of state...

He wanted to be the Star of a Hit TV show,
A REALITY show where he played himself, a man with so much power
that he gets to decide the fate of many people,
like an Emperor who can send people to the lions.


Do you think he is happy now? No.
He only wants more fame, more money, more power...

He thought being President of the UNITED STATES
would make him happy.

He now has so much power he can destroy entire nations!!!
Everyone will have to bow before him,
and kiss his ass in order to live or die.

He has acquired fortune and fame, he shits on a Gold Toilet.

He owns helicopters and yachts and jumbo jets.
He has servants who attend to his every need or desire.
He can and has destroyed the reputations, careers, and lives, of many people

He has hunted and eaten rare creatures, nearly extinct, 
and kept their heads as trophies.

But nothing has made him happy.

Now he has the nuclear launch codes.

You find yourself kneeling before him.
He wants you to explain why he should not push the button.

What do you do?

Do you spit in his face?
Do you say he is worse than Hitler?
A monster, the Devil Incarnate? Pure Evil!
Do you curse him to Hell and beyond?

Many people have been saying this!
Painting pictures of the man as a Nazi or Devil.
Do you think he has not seen these things?
Do you think these pictures have made him joyful?
Or brought him more happiness?
Or did it only increase his pain, his burden, his unhappiness.

YOU are sitting, kneeling before the UNHAPPIEST MAN IN THE WORLD.
He knows that you hate him and want him dead.
He knows you think he is a creature so ugly that you want nothing
more than that his soul is punished in Hell Realms for eternities.

So OK he tells you.
You will get your wish.

The man says, He will kill himself,
by pushing the button.

He will kill himself and you too and every living thing.
He will destroy the Earth so utterly it will be dead for 100 Million Years.

The Earth is nearly there anyway. Every living system in breakdown.
Already in the middle of a mass extinction the scale of the Permian-Triassic.
Polar ice caps melting which will cause feedback loops
which will cook the oceans and all life.

But he hasn't pushed the button yet. You have an audience with the man.
Maybe there is something you can say to him to get him to change his mind?

So what do you say to him?
If not a curse, then what?

What do you say to the Richest, Most Powerful, and Unhappiest Man in the
Galaxy to get him to save the Earth?

Do you say Fuck It! Push the Damn Button already.
Get it over with. We are already in Hell!

Do you try to persuade him that life is worth living?
Even for a man who has done despicable things?
Who has committed unspeakable violence?

How do you heal the Unhappiest Man in the Galaxy,
to heal his heart so that he saves you and me and everyone in Four Directions,
from the Graves of our Ancestors to Seven Generations?

Can you heal him with compassion, with kindness?
Can you heal him with forgiveness?
Do you say you are sorry for the pain he feels,
for the pain he has caused?

Do you wish that he is happy and free from suffering?
Will that make a difference?

Whether you like it or not, you are HERE-NOW, dear Zeitgeist!

Dear friend, this is all up to you.

Your speech, your soliloquy, your song begins now.

Thursday, December 8, 2016

The Legal Reasons DAPL Is Not Dead

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Anne Marie Garti
Date: Thursday, December 8, 2016
Subject: The Legal Reasons DAPL Is Not Dead

Please read this important analysis, act on it, and educate others as well.

Anne Marie


The Legal Reasons DAPL Is Not Dead

by Daniel E. Estrin
Dec 8 2016

Daniel E. Estrin is General Counsel and Legal Director for Waterkeeper Alliance.

Like many concerned citizens, I initially felt great relief on December 4th when the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers announced that it will not grant Energy Transfer Partners an easement for the Dakota Access Pipeline (DAPL) to cross the Missouri River at Lake Oahe, the sacred grounds and drinking water supply of the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe. But history teaches that the devil is often in the details, and I immediately noted troubling language in the Corps' public statement, i.e., that the Corps did not say it had "denied" the request for an easement, but rather that it "will not grant" the request. Reading between the lines, it seemed conceivable that the Corps might only be kicking the proverbial can down the road, and that what it really meant was that it will not grant the easement at this time. I immediately began searching for the Corps' decision document (Corps' Decision), which would provide a more detailed explanation of exactly what the Corps had decided, and what might come next.

Let's pause for a bit of legal background: In an nutshell, the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) requires that, before federal agencies take certain actions such as issuing permits, they must first analyze the impacts of those actions on the human and natural environment. Under NEPA and its implementing regulations, the first step of compliance is to prepare an Environmental Assessment (EA), wherein the agency superficially reviews the proposal and makes a threshold determination whether the project has potential to cause any significant environmental impacts. If the agency decides there will be no significant impacts, it may issue the EA, accompanied by a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI). If it decides there may be significant impacts, preparation of a more thorough and time-consuming Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) is required. Importantly, NEPA mandates that preparation of an EIS include, among other stringent requirements, meaningful and expanded opportunities for public engagement via formal notice and comment processes.

The Corps' consideration of whether to grant Energy Transfer Partners permission for DAPL to cross Lake Oahe requires at least three distinct Army Corps authorizations: a Rivers and Harbors Act section 408 permission, an easement for the pipeline right-of-way to be located on federal lands, and a Clean Water Act section 404 "dredge and fill" permit. The Corps' receipt of these applications and requests triggered NEPA, and an EA was prepared and finalized during the summer of 2016. Unfortunately, as a result of unwise and controversial Army Corps "nationwide permitting" policies, the DAPL EA considered only the impacts of the pipeline crossing at Lake Oahe, and did not consider any of the other massive, cumulative impacts of the entire 1,172-mile pipeline proposed to cross hundreds of waterbodies in four states, including indisputable and enormous climate change impacts. Along with its EA, the Corps ultimately issued a FONSI, effectively ending the NEPA process for the project.

It is only with this legal background and factual context that the problems with the Corps Decision become clear; contrary to what seems to be popular belief, the December 4th Corps' Decision did not correct or reverse the prior, erroneous, determination that the Dakota Access pipeline does not have potential to cause any significant environmental impacts. More specifically, it did not withdraw or retract the EA and FONSI issued by the Corps over the summer:

"I want to be clear that this decision does not alter the Army's position that the Corps' prior reviews and actions have comported with legal requirements." – Corps' Decision ¶ 15

Thus, while I do share the Tribe's appreciation for the "pause" that the Corps' Decision has provided, and I do believe that a good faith, thorough, technical review of alternative DAPL routes via a robust EIS process would be highly beneficial to all involved, I have concerns with the Corps' new approach that make me extremely uneasy.

First, as noted above, NEPA requires federal agencies to initially decide whether a proposed project has potential to cause any significant environmental impacts. If not, issuance of an EA and FONSI is legal and appropriate. If so, an EIS must be prepared. I'm concerned that the Corps' attempt to have it both ways here – i.e., to leave the FONSI in place, while at the same time purporting to require preparation of an EIS – leaves the status of the Corps' Decision in "limbo" and vulnerable to legal challenge by Energy Transfer Partners. Indeed, on December 5, just one day after the Corps announced its decision, <>the company filed a motion in federal court seeking a ruling that it already has all of the authorizations it requires from the Corps for the pipeline to be constructed across Lake Oahe.

Second, the discretionary nature of the Corps' Decision, which is expressed as a "judgment" call by the Assistant Secretary for Civil Works, may leave it open for reconsideration and potential reversal by the Corps under the new presidential administration that will take power on January 20. Such a reversal might require no more than another memorandum decision reaching a different conclusion upon further consideration. While such a reversal might ultimately be found by a court to be "arbitrary and capricious" (the legal standard under which the legality of most agency actions is measured), the discretionary nature of the Corps' Decision, and the odd FONSI-EIS dichotomy discussed above, may ultimately render the decision unviable.

Third, for several months, the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe, Waterkeeper Alliance, and many other indigenous people, environmental groups, and concerned citizens have been demanding that an EIS be prepared for the DAPL project. An EIS is typically a lengthy environmental review document that contains, at minimum, at least the following elements:
   * A purpose and need statement, i.e., an explanation of the reasons the agency is proposing the action and what the agency expects to achieve;
   * Review of alternatives, i.e., consideration of a reasonable range of alternatives that can accomplish the purpose and need of the proposed action, including a "no action alternative";
   * Description of the affected environment, i.e., discussion regarding the environment of the area to be affected by the alternatives under consideration;
   * Analysis of environmental consequences, i.e., a discussion of the direct and indirect environmental effects and their significance; and
   * Meaningful and expanded opportunities for public engagement via formal notice and comment processes.

All of these components of a NEPA EIS are intended to accurately inform government decision-makers and the public about all of the true costs and benefits of a project under consideration. Unfortunately, the Corps' Decision does not direct that the newly-required EIS for the Missouri River/Lake Oahe portion of the pipeline will contain any or all of the above EIS components. Rather, it simply requires that the Corps engage in the following "additional review and analysis":
   * "A robust consideration and discussion of alternative locations for the pipeline crossing the Missouri River, including, but not limited to, more detailed information on the alternative crossing that was considered roughly ten miles north of Bismarck;
   * Detailed discussion of potential risk of an oil spill, and potential impacts to Lake Oahe, the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe's water intakes, and the Tribe's water rights as well as treaty fishing and hunting rights; and
   * Additional information on the extent and location of the Tribe's treaty rights in Lake Oahe." – Corps' Decision ¶ 14.

The concern here is that the Corps' Decision essentially suggests that eventual approval of DAPL is still a strong probability and that the "EIS" the Corps' Decision purports to require will be used only for the purpose of determining the optimal pipeline route in light of the Tribe's rights. It's also notable that nowhere in the Corps' Decision does the Corps suggest that the optimal route will not be at Lake Oahe.

All of these concerns ultimately leave me with the belief that the DAPL project is still very much alive, and that we need to continue to pressure President Obama and the Army Corps to build on the December 4th Decision with important additional actions.

So how can you help? Formally changing the NEPA status of DAPL is the #1 thing we can do to win this fight! Write to <>President Obama and respectfully request:
   * That the Army Corps make a formal finding pursuant to NEPA that DAPL does have potential to result in significant environmental impacts.
   * That the Army Corps immediately issue a legally binding order withdrawing the EA, retracting the FONSI, and requiring the preparation of an EIS for the project.

This is the single most important thing the Army Corps can do to ensure that a valid NEPA EIS will be prepared, and that all of the potential impacts to human health and the environment will be carefully considered, before any final decision is made to approve or disapprove authorization for DAPL to cross the Missouri River.

May you, and all beings
be happy and free from suffering :)
-- ancient Buddhist Prayer (Metta)

NYS DEC approves permits for Dominion New Market

Dominion New Market CWA 401 and CAA certificates silently approved by NYS DEC. This was discovered by Dennis Higgins​​ and has not been reported by any news outlet.  Adding compression to 60 y/o rusty pipes is really stupid.  Prediction (which I really hope does NOT come true): Within 24 months of completion, there will be a massive explosion within 5 miles downstream of one of the sites with added compression: Veteran, Chemung Co; Sheds, Madison Co.; or Minden, Montgomery Co. This is based on my analysis of 8 of the worst pipeline accidents in US history.
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Dennis Higgins
Date: Wednesday, December 7, 2016
Subject: [stop-ned] dominion 

I know Cuomo told Trump "hands off New York", but with no fanfare, he just sent Trump a different message: that NY does not care about its citizens' air quality any more than Trump does. DEC awarded needed air permits for Dominion New Market expansion. The 33,000hp of additional compression will will generate 200,000 tons of pollution a year. The 112,000 dt/d additional gas in the line, when burned will generate millions of tons of CO2E. Using PSC's own CO2 costing, and Dr Howarth's leakage estimates, the fugitive methane from Dominion will cost everyone from wellhead to gas-fired plant, half a billion dollars annually in climate impacts. This was a pipeline DEC could have said 'no' to. DTI used non representative wind data from Rome and Albany to justify particulate dispersal at Brookman Corners, a location surrounded by Amish farms and subject to frequent inversions. DTI used flawed acoustic data, challenged by an independent report. DTI failed to count 4 dozen homes in the vicinity of the Veteran compressor station and omitted mention of microturbines for onsite electric generation at Brookman Corners. Bottom line - an incomplete, flawed, if not criminal application.  Please go post something on DEC's FB page, and Cuomo's too, send them a note, phone them, to let them know how disappointed you are with this gift to Dominion and Donald Trump's kind of America.

Veterans and Sheds
This looks like the permit for Brookman Corners 

May you, and all beings
be happy and free from suffering :)
-- ancient Buddhist Prayer (Metta)