The entire article reads like a classic PG "submarine article" from anti-pipeline activists, who use lawsuits, protests, and sabotage[1] to thwart the construct

The entire article reads like a classic PG "submarine article" from anti-pipeline activists, who use lawsuits, protests, and sabotage[1] to thwart the construction of new pipelines (even to replace old ones, like in the article) and upgrades or even necessary repairs to existing pipelines. It also hypocritically criticizes companies for considering abandoning aging pipelines, which these same activists fight to prevent them from upgrading or replacing. Clearly the goal is to make fossil fuels so expensive, to speed up adoption of renewables. But do these people not realize that these chemicals have other uses (e.g., plastics, rubbing alcohol), and that they need to be transported regardless, and pipelines are much safer (and cheaper) than rail or road transport? [1]https://www.desmoinesregister.com/story/news/2017/07/24/dakota-access-protesters-claim-responsibility-pipeline-sabotage/504136001/ https://www.desmoinesregister.com/story/news/2017/07/24/dako...