Group opposes Leech Lake oil pipeline

A grass-roots group on the Leech Lake Indian Reservation is mounting a petition campaign against a proposed oil pipeline across northern Minnesota. Full Story
gtVoyageur

Minneapolis, MN

#1 Jul 23, 2009
Why oppose the new pipeline that runs parallel with the present pipeline? Since it is tax-free capital gains [leasing] revenue to a reservation, the money could be beneficial to all the Leech Lake Band?
From a public relations and good will standpoint, keeping your corporate business agreements regarding such projects will immensely promote the image of the Leech Lake Native Americans. Also, this wouldn't be gambling moneys that at times can be rather unstable income.
Unless there are very compelling or hazardous reasons to prevent this pipeline crossing the reservation, be a good neighbor and honorably let this much needed pipeline be built.

“Live Life with GUSTO!!!”

Since: Jun 08

St. Paul, MN

#2 Jul 23, 2009
Why oppose the new pipeline that runs parallel with the present pipeline? Since it is tax-free capital gains [leasing] revenue to a reservation, the money could be beneficial to all the Leech Lake Band?

From a public relations and good will standpoint, keeping your corporate business agreements regarding such projects will immensely promote the image of the Leech Lake Native Americans. Also, this wouldn't be gambling moneys that at times can be rather unstable income.

Unless there are very compelling or hazardous reasons to prevent this pipeline crossing the reservation, be a good neighbor and honorably let this much needed pipeline be built for the benefit of the many in the Midwest.
JohnJ

Minneapolis, MN

#3 Jul 23, 2009
I wish I was an indian!
NORTH

Gatzke, MN

#4 Jul 23, 2009
the only reason they want it stop is they want per barrel. and everyone out of work go find some were else to cry about it.you took payment for the leaseso shut up
colorblind

Saint Paul, MN

#5 Jul 23, 2009
One reason that this pipeline is objectionable is that the tribes (and their members) have not received payments for having them run through their land for decades. The US BIA has "mishandled" billions of dollars of tribal money and is unable to provide accurate accounting of these funds they "managed" for Indians. The tribal governments have seen their share of corruption too. Federal officials refuse to step in and correct matters. Meanwhile, US govt. continues to exercise "regulatory takings" (i.e. the "imminent domain" conservatives are always whining about, except when it applies to minorities). Kinda sux for them, no?
Mike Eshoff

Saint Paul, MN

#6 Jul 23, 2009
Worried about leaks from a brand new pipeline? They should be glad that there's a new one, so they can keep warm if something does break in the old one. Not that a leak would be allowed to run for long, the fuel is too valuable, so it would quickly be dug up, repaired, the area pumped out, and the problem would be fixed.

They should be glad they're not living on land full of oil, leaking all over the place until someone can pump it away to where it is needed.
p t bull

Minneapolis, MN

#7 Jul 23, 2009
colorblind wrote:
One reason that this pipeline is objectionable is that the tribes (and their members) have not received payments for having them run through their land for decades. The US BIA has "mishandled" billions of dollars of tribal money and is unable to provide accurate accounting of these funds they "managed" for Indians. The tribal governments have seen their share of corruption too. Federal officials refuse to step in and correct matters. Meanwhile, US govt. continues to exercise "regulatory takings" (i.e. the "imminent domain" conservatives are always whining about, except when it applies to minorities). Kinda sux for them, no?

So Custer made them do this? I agree that the defrauding of the indians due to the trust fund is a horrible crime, and it would have been better to compensate them rather than a trillion dollars of porkulus--talk to the democrats about that--they always spend money on things they want.

Having said that, I think this issue is specific to the here and now and the entirety of our regrettable history with the indians is not the proper analytical tool.
colorblind

Saint Paul, MN

#8 Jul 23, 2009
p t bull - I'm glad to read that you acknowledge fradulent treatment of the original americans, however Custer doesn't have much to do with the matter.... I'm not sure what your point is, but it's getting late....

The injustice they've experience is compounded by the fact that we prefer to route new lines along these existing corridors. Meanwhile, there has been little or no attention paid to previous malfeasance either by the media or the legislature. The US Senate Committee on Indian Affairs always seems to be the last one to be filled (as it turns out recently occupied by MN's junior senator for example).

You may feel that an issue is "here and now" but many of us prefer to learn from the past and respect future generations when making policy decisions.

Respectfully,
cb
Mad in Minnesota

Bemidji, MN

#9 Jul 24, 2009
Enbridge is not as good as you all think. There is currently over 48,000 gallons of oil in the ground in west of the town Cass Lake from a 2002 spill. There is also the St. Regis Superfund site that is in Cass Lake from over 25 years ago that needs to be cleaned up. Oh yes, the proposed pipeline is due to run right by the Superfund Site. We, and the MN DNR fear that disturbing the soils already terribly currupt soils will act as a conduit for the chemicals to flow more easily in Cass Lake, the lake.

MCT Constitution allows for a referendum vote by the people to overturn this agreement. It is there right do fight for what they believe in.

This isn't going to effect the price per gallon either as some "no nothings". Enbridge only provides 1-2 % of the US Oil supply. Even Enbridge officials state that the US demand for oil will remain the same or decline over the next 20 years. So why do we need this line?

As far as the 3,000 jobs, in the Federal EIS it states that they will have 4 spreads working in the summer and fall and 2 spreads in the winter. It continues to say that each spread will employ 300 people. Ok, so that makes it between 1,200 - 1,800 people as I'm sure most of the summer workers will work during the winter.

I just saw inthe paper on Monday that Enbridge (Can) is funding the US pipeline. They are paying for 2/3 of the costs and will take 2/3 of the profits. I would be nervous of that deal if I owned stock in Enbridge.
i agree

Minneapolis, MN

#10 Aug 13, 2009
JohnJ wrote:
I wish I was an indian!
close your eyes and click your heels together, may it will happen for you ,:))))

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Enbridge Energy Partners LP Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Sunken Great Lakes oil pipeline raises spill fears (Mar '14) Apr '14 Edward Abbey 10
Man Arrested For Trespassing on Own Land (Dec '09) Apr '14 Edward Abbey 17
Enbridge may move part of new Minn. pipeline route (Nov '13) Nov '13 Harry 1
Susan Rice's Conflict of Interest - Major Holdi... (Dec '12) Apr '13 fukuda 2
2 Minn. refineries object to 'pay-for-pipeline' (Dec '12) Dec '12 PAUL ARTs shykora 2
Alberta mayors straight talk on Enbridge pipeline (Dec '12) Dec '12 Lamont Alberta de... 1
Line 9 pushes tar sands politics to Finch Avenue (Dec '12) Dec '12 Lamont 1

Enbridge Energy Partners LP People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE