Skip to main content

Two members of the Tar Sands Blockade have Occupied the pipe itself in an effort to stop the destruction that will result when this pipeline is completed. Every effort must be made to stop it.

Two Tarsands blockaders have sealed themselves inside a pipe meant for the pipeline. Police threatened teargas, and now they are threatening to release a canine unit inside the pipe to go after the blockaders. Brave resistance.
BREAKING: 2 people barricade themselves inside a mile long section of Keystone XL pipe and have halted construction. Early this morning Matt Almonte and Glen Collins locked themselves inside the pipe between two barrels of concrete weighing over six hundred pounds each. Police are on the scene and threatening to use tear gas and K-9 units. Follow the breaking updates on our live blog: Click LIKE and SHARE to stand with Matt and Glen and their brave action. We must demonstrate that doing nothing is a greater danger than the risks of taking direct action against this toxic pipeline.
BREAKING: 2 people barricade themselves inside a mile long section of Keystone XL pipe and have halted construction.

Early this morning Matt Almonte and Glen
Collins locked themselves inside the pipe between two barrels of concrete weighing over six hundred pounds each.

Police are on the scene and threatening to use tear gas and K-9 units. Follow the breaking updates on our live blog:

Click LIKE and SHARE to stand with Matt and Glen and their brave action. We must demonstrate that doing nothing is a greater danger than the risks of taking direct action against this toxic pipeline.

Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags


More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  2 brave people having all the fun. We need a way (3+ / 0-)

    to protest this tar sands project in every city and burb in the country (and in Canada too).  Maybe put two pieces of a broken black PVC pipe on all our cars?

    When life gives you wingnuts, make wingnut butter!

    by antirove on Mon Dec 03, 2012 at 08:46:55 AM PST

  •  Are they going to protest and stop... (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Roadbed Guy, condorcet

    ...the 3-4 tar sands pipelines coming into the US already?  Or is this just against the new one?

    TransCanada already has a TarSands pipeline coming into the US down through the Dakotas to refineries in IL, OK, and TX.  Stopping this one pipeline is not going to stop the refineries from using this crude derived from TarSands

    FYI...Enbridge also has one...they are the ones that had the spill in Michigan.

    •  Are you saying this action is stupid (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      wu ming, Horace Boothroyd III

      or that there should be more actions?

      I'd agree with the latter myself.

      •  IMHO... (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        I think the focus is in the wrong place. To me, this pipeline is a distraction to energy issues as a whole. Protesting this pipeline, or any other pipeline, does not resolve the greater issue.

        I'll be honest, I do not see how this pipeline will be stopped. The Canadian government wants it, as do many within our own government.

        I believe our energy should be focused on ways to reduce the need for Tarsands, and petroleum based products in general.

        If this pipeline does not get built, adn we stop all tarsand imports into the US, this is not going to stop the extraction of the tarsands. It will instead be refined in Canada, and exported to other countries.

        The only way to reduce or stop the extraction and use of Tarsands would be to reduce or end the need for oil worldwide.

        Until that happens, Phillips 66, BP, Marathon, Exxon, Shell, and other refining companies will demand access to tarsands, and they will get it.  They have power, not just with our government, but Canada's government and many other governments worldwide.

      •  Yes, it is stupid (4+ / 0-)

        For some of the reasons mentioned above: supply-side protests rarely work. For all the media attention it gave them, Greenpeace in the past (and Paul Watson and his ego now) didn't do a damn thing to stop whaling with their inflatable boats, it was pressure on land with politicians that had real effects. Whether one agrees or not with the ban on seal products in some countries, that had more of an effect  than did all the protests on the ice trying to screw with the hunts by reducing the demand for sealskin.

        They're great for media attention, and I suppose they give a feeling of warm fuzziness to the people carrying them out, but in the end they typically don't work compared to the far less glamorous and media-less work on dealing with reducing the demand.

        I'll let you in on a secret: resource companies are not, in fact, villains from Captain Planet who do what they do for the shits and giggles, it's because there's a demand. You take away the demand so there's no profit, they don't do whatever it is you are opposed to.

        •  There's no logical connection (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:

          between virtue and demand, sorry.  There's a demand for chocolate; there's a demand for contract killers.

          Otherwise I'd say that such actions are indeed "great for media attention," which has an at least indirect effect on such matters as demand, mass action, legislation, etc.

    •  So, sort of like rape (of the earth)... (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Horace Boothroyd III

      it's going to happen, might as well enjoy it?


      Progressive Candidate Obama (now - Nov 6, 2012)
      Bipartisan Obama returns (Nov 7, 2012)

      by The Dead Man on Mon Dec 03, 2012 at 09:06:50 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  The bigger point is that this will never (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        condorcet, limpidglass

        be stopped on the supply side.

        But that seems to be an easier approach than confronting demand.

        It's like 30 or 40 years of the "war on drugs" has taught us nothing!  (which of course it hasn't).

        •  stopping pipelines (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Horace Boothroyd III

          is about making it harder for supply to be exported to china, which is ultimately a strategic question of reducing their demand as well. see also: powder river basin, cherry point coal terminal.

          yes, we need to drastically reduce american demand, but not just so that the fossil fuel can be sent to china. it's a global problem and anything burned anywhere is a threat to everyone.

          •  Oil is a global commodity, it will just go (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            condorcet, Patrick is Lucky

            someplace else.

            for example, if the Canadians can't sell to China, they'll build pipelines (or re-fit existing pipelines) to central and eastern Canada to use the tar sands oil to displace oil that they currently import from the middle east.

            Canada has invested so much into the development of the tar sands that they are going forward one way or another, there is essentially zero political opposition (heck, even the NDP is on record favoring their continued development).

            The only way to thwart this is if demand for oil dropped so precipitously that it would be uneconomical to extract the tar sands oil.

            •  oil is a global commodity only if it can get (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Horace Boothroyd III, AoT

              to market. frustrating that process by opposing pipelines and export terminals to the best of our ability is one part of keeping that oil off the global market.

              obviously, getting our economy largely off of coal, oil and eventually natural gas is a critical part of crashing our carbon emissions and saving the planet from ecological and thus economic collapse. but to do so while allowing infrastructure that enables the slack we've created just to be turned around and sent to china merely displaces the problem.

              stopping coal exports is even more important, but the tar sands matter as well.

        •  a carbon tax is the only reasonable way (3+ / 0-)

          to affect demand that doesn't require governments to monitor every action undertaken by every human being on planet Earth that might possibly contribute carbon dioxide to the atmosphere.

          Of course such taxes will have to be integrated into a binding international climate agreement to prevent carbon offshoring in nations with laxer enforcement standards.

          That and removing those outdated subsidies for development of fossil fuel energy. They were useful 80 years ago, not now.

          When fossil fuels are correctly priced in such a way that takes their true costs into account, then we will see a huge swing towards renewables (aided, of course, by subsidizing their development).

          Supply-side protests are useful for raising public consciousness of the problem, and then perhaps legislators will finally take notice and feel some pressure to solve the problem.

          "In America, the law is king." --Thomas Paine

          by limpidglass on Mon Dec 03, 2012 at 01:22:39 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Yes, exactly (0+ / 0-)

            and it could be phased in over time so that it is not immediately onerous, but will soon become that way if ignored.

            I suspect that an ever accumulating $0.25 a gallon per year (for gasoline - adjusted proportionately based on energy content for coal, diesel, ethanol, etc) would do the trick.

      •  Not at all... (0+ / 0-)

        Like rape, we need to find ways to prevent it from happening.

    •  tar sands are also being carried to louisiana now (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Patrick is Lucky

      by train.

      Southern Pacific Resources, which began trucking out initial production from its new McKay Thermal Project three weeks ago, will open a dedicated rail terminal in a few weeks just south of Fort McMurray and ship its product in leased tanker cars via CN Rail all the way to Natchez, Miss.

      From there, it's just a short barge ride down the Mississippi River to one of the eight refineries in Louisiana, where the crude will fetch $20 to $30 a barrel more than it could at the congested terminal hub in Cushing, Okla.

      While Canadian and U.S. railways are scrambling to meet demand, opening small terminals close to production in locations such as the Bakken area of southern Saskatchewan and North Dakota, the Athabasca oilsands have not been part of the rush. Until now.


      attacking supply rarely works, as we saw in prohibition, drug war, etc.

      imo, this focus on KXL is basically a waste of time and resources.  all of canada's major parties are in favor of exploiting tar sands (NDP seems to be split, though), and several countries have billions invested in canada's tar sands.  china also invested $6 billion in venezuela's tar sands last year.

      it seems much wiser to me to focus all this attention and effort on the demand side: improving energy efficiency, especially of buildings and machinery; eliminating various uses of plastic like shopping bags and unnecessary wrapping.

      stopping tar sands on the supply side would probably require various forms of sabotage, but i guess we are not supposed to advocate violence of any kind.

  •  How clever (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Patrick is Lucky

    of them to get inside the pipe.  I am curious how the managed to drag in 600 lb cement blocks from both directions. Guess I'll look up the links.

    I hope the company doesn't just plan to starve them out.

    Folks, please stop using the word "rape" to refer to greedy consumption of natural resources, or for anything other than forcible sexaul assault.  Rape is a highly charged word, and deserves its evocative reaction.  To use it for other offenses degrades its power, in my opinion.

  •  Its hard to say for sure (0+ / 0-)

    But I don't plainly see any erosion controls, such as silt fences, along the pipeline route as shown in the links.  If Texas ever gets any rain there may be some stormwater pollution runoff violations.  It looks like there are miles of torn up lands along the route.

  •  If the pipeline was built (0+ / 0-)

    in the United States instead of Texas, it probably would be violating its stormwater permit already, because generally you are only supposed to disturb the minimal amount of land necessary to complete your immediate work.

    Instead they've exposed bare lands for miles,  for months, unnecessarily but cheaply. I've gotten pipelines and highways construction projects fined for that very violation.

    Again, if it ever rains hard, you got bigger-than-necessary runoff problems.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site