Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
How the Pipeline Died—And How to Bury It For Good
Grassroots strategies paid off for the climate movement in a big way.
This Wednesday afternoon, the Obama administration rejected the permit for Keystone XL, a 1,700 mile oil pipeline that would have run from the tar sands of Alberta to refineries on the Gulf of Mexico. The announcement is a huge victory for the grassroots climate movement. As writer and Keystone XL protest leader Bill McKibben wrote,
(Photo by Christine Irvine/Tar Sands Action)
"This isn't just the right call, it's the brave call. The knock on Barack Obama from many quarters has been that he's too conciliatory. But here, in the face of a naked political threat from Big Oil to exact 'huge political consequences,' he's stood up strong. This is a victory for Americans who testified in record numbers, and who demanded that science get the hearing usually reserved for big money."
While the fight to stop the Keystone XL pipeline is over for now, the political battle over the consequences of Obama's decision is just beginning. Big Oil front groups like the American Petroleum Institute and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce are already spending millions of dollars on TV ads to bash the President over Keystone XL. Republicans in Congress have pledged to continue to use legislative tricks to pressure President Obama on the issue. And the mainstream media has vigorously picked up the pipeline as a key election issue in 2012.
As Keystone XL gets pulled into the center of the political battlefield, it's worth remembering how the pipeline became a national issue and the tactics and strategies that delivered the first significant victory in a fight to stop what Bill has called "a fuse to the largest carbon bomb in North America." The campaign against Keystone XL was not, after all, a traditional political lobbying effort or online petition drive, but something much more in the spirit of Dr. King's tactics of "creative nonviolence."
The fight against Keystone XL has its roots in the resistance to the Canadian tar sands led in large part by indigenous communities in Alberta and across western Canada. As news about the dangers of the pipeline spread along its proposed route, ranchers and farmers in states like Nebraska and Texas joined in the fight. National environmental groups and some progressive unions stepped in with additional resources to help the effort. The struggle against the pipeline remained a mostly regional effort until this summer, however, when a new coalition effort called Tar Sands Action sprung onto the scene to coordinate the August sit-ins against the project.
From the very beginning, Tar Sands Action was a distinctly grassroots effort. The website was hacked together on a Word Press platform with minimal design. The emails from the campaign were distinctly honest and straight to the point: We want you to come get arrested, because this is a time when online petitions just won't cut it. And the organizing was fast and furious: It was only a few weeks after the campaign's launch that people started getting pulled away from the White House in handcuffs.
The effort was also deeply grounded in the need for collaboration amongst environmental groups. While Tar Sands Action formed a progressive, action oriented edge for the campaign, groups like NRDC perfected policy arguments and lobbied on the Hill, online campaigns like CREDO sent tens of thousands of emails and phone calls to the White House, BOLD Nebraska led a strategy to block the pipeline on the ground in their state, Friends of the Earth focused on a conflict of interest scandal over the pipeline at the State Department, the Indigenous Environmental Network united native communities across North America, the Transit Workers Union and other labor groups came out against the project, the Energy Action Coalition organized young people, and many, many others stepped in with their unique contributions. We likened the approach to a "swarm," a team effort that was light on formal processes and meetings and dedicated above all to speed, efficiency, and an ambitious plan of attack.
By the end of August, the sit-ins had successfully launched the Keystone XL campaign into its second phase: nationwide protest. For the next two months, President Obama was met by protesters at nearly every public campaign stop. In Colorado, he was interrupted by a person in the crowd who demanded the president stop the pipeline. "I hear your concerns," he responded. "We're looking very closely at the issue." The next stop the president made, yet another group was there to make sure he was staying true to his word.
The coalition knew that it was going to take an even larger action to push the White House to make the right decision. So, on November 6, Tar Sands Action coordinated another massive protest at the White House, this time encircling the property with nearly 15,000 people a giant, blow-up pipeline that marched around the perimeter. The protest set off a chain reaction of comments from the State Department and White House, culminating in the announcement on November 10 that the administration would be delaying the permit for a year to consider a new route in Nebraska and take into better account the health, safety and climate concerns associated with the project.
The announcement was as major victory and one of the largest wins for the climate movement in recent history. It was also the validation of the coalition's new approach to campaigning. Keystone XL was not won because of massive spending on TV ads, highly polished talking points developed by consultants, or inside the beltway compromises and back-room deals. Instead, the campaign was successful because of its focus on grassroots mobilization, including the use of nonviolent civil disobedience, genuine and straight-forward communication with the public, a distinctly coalition approach, and a sharp political strategy that consistently turned up the pressure on President Obama.
The coalition's victory, of course, was a temporary one. This December, Republicans in Congress managed to pass a rider on the payroll tax-cut extension that forces President Obama to make a final decision on the pipeline by the end of February or find a way to further delay the permitting process. Today, the President fought back by announcing that the State Department would have no choice but to deny the permit because of the rushed timeline. Before the official announcement have even taken place, however, Rep. Boehner and his oil-soaked posse hosted a press conference to pledge to keep fighting for Keystone XL and other dangerous fossil fuel projects. No matter what happens, Keystone XL is going to be with us for the year and perhaps beyond.
With the political stakes increasing, it would be tempting to try and "win the win" on Keystone XL by falling back on traditional campaign strategies, the massive ad buys, talking points, and consultant driven campaigns that both sides use to battle out the latest hot button issues. This would be a mistake. Needless to say, some hard-hitting ads in swing states that tie pro-pipeline members of Congress to the dirty money they receive from Big Oil would be helpful, but in order to defeat Keystone XL once-and-for-all and use the win to build momentum for even more important victories in the future, we pipeline protesters need to remain bold, grassroots risk-takers. This January 23, we'll be taking the first step in this direction with another big, creative demonstration on Capitol Hill, with 500 referees "blowing the whistle" on oil money in Congress.
In this week in which we celebrate the legacy of Martin Lither King, Jr., what better inspiration could we ask for than his? King fundamentally understood the importance of an inside and outside game; he was just as comfortable lobbying for Civil Rights legislation in the White House as he was leading a sit-in or bus boycott. As we enter the next phase of the Keystone XL pipeline fight, we can look to King's Letter from a Birmingham jail for guidance. In the letter to his more mainstream detractors, King wrote:
"You may well ask: "Why direct action? Why sit ins, marches and so forth? Isn't negotiation a better path?" You are quite right in calling for negotiation. Indeed, this is the very purpose of direct action. Nonviolent direct action seeks to create such a crisis and foster such a tension that a community which has constantly refused to negotiate is forced to confront the issue. It seeks so to dramatize the issue that it can no longer be ignored. My citing the creation of tension as part of the work of the nonviolent resister may sound rather shocking. But I must confess that I am not afraid of the word "tension." I have earnestly opposed violent tension, but there is a type of constructive, nonviolent tension which is necessary for growth."
There's surely going to be some tension ahead for those of us working on Keystone XL. As a movement, we'll need to continue to find ways to work together as a swarm, each group and individual finding his or her unique way to make a contribution. And we'll need to be prepared for some brutal attacks from the other side: the American Petroleum Institute promised "major electoral consequences" if President Obama were to delay or deny the pipeline. But this sort of tension is exactly what movements are about.
So, as we celebrate today's announcement and prepare for the next phase of the fight to finally confront the climate crisis, we can only straighten our backs, look to some elders like King for guidance, and say, in the words of a certain young senator from Illinois, "Yes We Can."
47 Comments so far
Show AllThey will never say a definitive No to the pipeline, so that someday they can more easily say YES. A definitive No in an election year is a true victory, not the duplicitous doublespeak provided by mealy mouth Obama. I do admire the way he can say yes and no in any speech so that opponents hear exactly what they want. His words are like a prism that can diffuse the most piercing light. It's just I hate to watch Underdog get his hopes up, but the troops need to believe in something larger than themselves.
Actually this is of course not a definitive victory but every delay is a success.
Recall that very powerful interests were behind nuclear power in the 80's and
the anti nuclear power movement by persistent protests, civil disobedience,
legal challenges has prevented any new nuclear power plants from being built for
20 years. Even when OBomber offered billions of our federal tax dollars for
new nuclear power plants in Georgia, actual construction has not begun because
the 1% investors refused to pay for it without even more Federal dollars from our
pockets.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/29/business/energy-environment/29utility.html?_r=1&scp=1&sq=wald%20nuclear%20loan%20guarantees&st=Search
In the age of the Great Contraction due to peak oil and peak everything it is going to get more and more difficult to build any massive new projects.
This is why if we are serious about preventing the need for Tar Sands oil we
need to increase federal and state gas taxes, end oil subsidies and divert the
$140 Billion annually spent on roads to reviving Green transit in all its forms -
high speed rail,conventional rail, trolleys, lightrail, buses, shuttles, bikeways and safe sidewalks.
See "Transportation Revolutions: Moving People and Freight without Oil"
for details, especially the facts that increases in personal cars and auto mileage
has been the biggest contributor to increased greenhouse gases.
http://transportrevolutions.info
If we do not reduce the huge waste of oil for Auto Addiction we will find it very very expensive to get anywhere in the not too distant future...
The election's coming and Bama has to bring the original supporters back into the fold. All the environmentalists are returning to him with glee. 2 years for now, after he's reelected it will be the proverbial stab in the back. And all the while those who voted for him think the 2-party system still exists. IDIOTS.
impressively short and sweet
"jessia"
One thing.
"All" of the environmentalists do not, and have not, supported this corporate tool or his partners in criminality (republican, libertarian, and democrat).
Some of us are trying to have integrity. We are an extreme minority, but please don't dismiss us.
You're right. My apologies.
And you will stay a minority as long as nitwits like the author of this piece are allowed to publish and be taken seriously.
That's the whole idea of the First Amendment, that "nitwits like the author of this piece" are "allowed" to publish. Taking them seriously is each individuals responsibility and choice. And who would you entrust to disallowing pieces like this?
To paraphrase Galileo, "and still the ice shelf melts", "and still the ocean is being acidified", "and still drinking water is being contaminated". Obama, of course, is trying to bring some of his original supporters back into the fold. But to me that is almost irrelevant. He really does not need the environmentalists to get elected. The corporations, their money, their power, their media control are working to elect Obama and putting on a fake show that pretends there are viable opponents with real differences. The real show is in the ecosphere, the biosphere. So I think we should stop obsessing about this phony election and get out there and organize, or at least do somethng on a personal level like stop eating meat, or bike instead of drive. Something REAL.
"jclientelle"
I'm not so sure that Obama "does not need the environmentalists to get elected."
I strongly suspect that THAT is the only reason he postponed a decision. He did not postpone this decision to please the corporate controllers and he did not do it to please the knee-jerk democrats.
The voters in this nation are usually closely split between blatant idiotic republicans and delusional democrats in the recent elections. Obama needs the environmentalists, if for no other reason than to maintain the illusion which people, like the author of this pathetic article, are desperate to believe. If these so-called environmentalists were serious and condemned this game that Obama and his ilk are playing, other "liberals" would be forced to notice and Obama would lose to whichever of his twin republicans would get their dumbass party members endorsement.
This nation has almost always had a nearly 50/50 split between outright sadism and something more "progressive", whether it was the crushing of the indigenous peoples, slavery, women rights, whatever. We have a history of great difficulty with EQUAL JUSTICE and we have very little in the way of environmental awareness, but those with some awareness are now quite possibly Obama's only edge.
Accepting his devious maneuvering is just going to insure that the sadists will come out on top because Obama is one of them (as are most of his party).
These so-called environmentalists who are celebrating Obama are desperate fools at best and Obama knows it.
Nothing will improve with any major party candidate and that is what people need to recognize.
The only thing Obama wants is power and with the support of these dimwits, he'll probably keep ahead of his twins.
I totally agree with your last sentence.
Thank you.
Is it mandatory that to be a prominent member of 350.org you must be delusional?
This was NOT a rejection of the pipeline by Obama Inc.
It was another postponement of a decision because Obama needs to get the votes of these dimwitted liberal cheerleaders, nothing more.
These cheerleaders are only promoting another term for their lying, murdering, corporate-owned "Yes man" while foolishly patting themselves on the back for NOT seeing reality.
He's the yes man's version of maybe
McKibben sez: "Brave Obama stood up to big Oil."
.
I wonder what he will say in 2013 or 2014 when Obama approves the permit and construction on Keystone XL begins.
.
It is not over. Big surprise. But it has begun. And will continue.
let's not delude ourselves - the rich own and run this country
i suspect the xl contribution/bribe offered to obummer was not big enough and that is how it got stopped
they will have a better offer for him in the future
the tar sands are a disaster - the pipeline is one thing but we need to get this monstrosity stopped as well
the irony is that the oil is not for amerikan consumption - it is just being moved to refineries i believe in texas for processing, then it is being shipped abroad
i'm sure president gingrich will re-visit this beast first day in office...
and he'll say" pump baby pump"
"medmedude"
Any one of the "likely" next presidents will do the same. NONE of them are worth the time of day.
The only real difference between the democrats and the republicans is that the democrats lie to us before helping implement what the republicans openly want.
The two-party sham is largely there to postpone real action toward equal justice by the voters until the corporate owners can get their militarism entrenched and ready to physically destroy us, for money.
I agree with birdbrain. Some of us are not fooled by the postponement of the pipeline until after the election.
They will move the route and say that the environmentalists won, even though the environment is destroyed by tar sand mining even without any pipeline. It is one of the dirtiest,, most polluting techniques around.
Vote for Jill Stein if you want to make a difference. The Green Party was founded on environmental principles. No Green would ever approve destroying Alberta forests and water to get the last bits of fossil fuels from under our planet's surface.
So... people here are saying that the politicians and the companies for which they stand are duplicitous. Agreed. Then what? I used to think that if people only knew how stupid racism is, how destructive war is, how unjust the split of the power between workers and corporations, then everything would be solved. But it only starts with those realizations. There are powerful vested interests and ingrained practices supporting these stupidities. The realization is just the parting shot, then it takes organizing and work.
In my opinion, it is childish and spoiled, and even lazy, to mock and deride people who are struggling against the very things we all hate. It is necessary and inevitable that good people will have different ideas about how to proceed. So nobody says that there is only one way. I am assuming that we all have some confidence that large numbers of people in action are at the core, the only hope for solving these problems. I invite the critics to participate in their own ways to educate and organize the population about, in this case, fossil fuels and the environment. It takes perserverance and a certain amount of humility.
Under normal circumstances, I would agree. But, the Siberian arctic sea shelf is getting ready to suddenly blow 50 gigatons of methane into the atmosphere at any time. Humans emit about 0.25 gigatons annually. In this context, the distraction of one stinking pipeline does not matter. All this is according to Dr. Natalia Shakhova. In light of this, I can't help feeling we are mocking ourselves with feeble exclamations of victory.
The development of tar sands is quite key to global warming, ice melt, methane release etc. But as you say, time IS very short, so there is little room for sniping without action.
Agreed. Strategically, it makes more sense to feel a general sense of gratitude towards McKibben for what his efforts have helped create: a temporary delay in XL. It becomes harder to jump in and get involved if you have unrealistically high expectations of McKibben and/or yourself to do things perfectly. We are all human here - we do work we believe in, making mistakes along the way, sounding overly optimistic, whatever. He and others have given us a delay - what are we going to do to keep the momentum going?
I agree. Good post. We need to activate ourselves, and continue building momentum if we are to have any chance at long-term success.
I don't disagree with what you're saying ... but on the other hand McKibben (and Naomi Klein of all people) should be called out for naively claiming victory and especcily for saying that Obama bravely stood up to Big Oil. I mean that's just ludicrous.
OK - I agree that those statements do not accurately reflect reality, in my opinion. Whatever the mechanism that resulted in this welcome delay, other than massive actions, I think we should aim most of our vitriol at the oil companies and their political enablers and not so much at those who are trying to change our course for the climate. We need to encourage each other and have each other's backs as we will make many attempts to organize. I may disagree with Bill McKibben's statements on Obama, and do make my disagreements known now and then, but I support what McKibben does otherwise.
What's the worst that can happen? Romney or some R gets elected and goes full tilt for the tar sands development? Obama gets elected and tries to weasel his way to approving the tar sands after the elections? Then people who sincerely participated witll have to intensify the struggle, and will get schooled along the way.
I truly appreciate the thoughtful, non-dismissive responses. In the last six years we have made major efforts to initiate some of the largest and dirtiest projects on earth. We don't have time to focus on any single project. The only reason the pipeline protest did as well as it did was because it would run across a lot important people's backyard and was an expedient alliance. We have to do better than myopic shallow victories. Naomi and Bill have wasted a lot of goodwill capital on a symbol, not the problem.
"Naomi and Bill have wasted a lot of goodwill capital... "
I have to wonder at this; I think the logic is questionable. Did they waste the goodwill capital of big oil? Should we have allowed the pipeline to be built, the better to focus on the "real problem"? Who in the world should we be appeasing in terms of goodwill capital here?
Claiming victory prematurely may not be a sign of delusion, but a staking out of political supremacy, an establishing of a new status quo. If we don't claim our victories, notwithstanding their limited scope, we will guaranteeing a continuing string of defeats, won't we? In my view, this would seem to be a political no-brainer.
It is true that there are many other actions required. A victory here would seem to indicate the possibility of other victories, strengthening the grass roots effort necessary to achieve them.
Good advice, Jclientelle. There are more "Monday morning quarterbacks" here in these threads than there are football games.
I have nothing to say to because Birdbrain Alley has said it all for me. The XL Pipeline is merely delayed in an attempt to create an illusion of vigorous debate in D.C.
Corporate America's mantra... "We don't care who you vote for as long as its the Republican/Democrat/Tea Party...suckers!"
A "victory" for those who "demanded science get a hearing"?
Didn't the author read Obama's statement? This silly delusional celebration is a bad sign for ultimate victory. Ever hear that it is sometimes wise to hold your peace?
This victory will only be temporary unless an alternative comes forward. Since the US produces 50% of its own energy needs right now, the obvious solution is to double the fuel efficiency of automobiles. This could be done by promoting the production of hybrids, which would require a functioning auto industry. But that was saved by Obama. Thus there is a way to restructure the debate into a plan that is good for the economy and the environment.
To borrow from Obama's 2008 campaign slogan: YES WE CAN......DO IT LATER!
The elites throwing the people a bone divides us among those who race for the bone and those who reject it. Many a beemer-driving environmentalist will vote to re-elect the current throne-warmer, continue to plunder the earth at four times the world average rate, and continue to pretend he/she is not. Out of that we get further horrendous loss of civil/human rights, further encroachment of Wall-mart upon our towns, further escalation of militarism, etc. By deliberately splitting people from their very own conscience, through the pushing of addictive petro-opiates upon us, the elites wickedly split the people into the conscious and the unconscious. The large group of semi-conscious are known as liberals.
It's a tug-of-war between elites and the people, to get the liberals on their side. The elites dangle petro-opiates, and the people dangle universal truth, equity and justice. Which is it going to be for the liberals? Remember that the good dots connect with good dots, and the bad dots connect with bad dots. We can't do both. Good deeds cannot justify bad deeds.
The important thing for the people to do is hold fast to our far-left platform of localism (liberalism/conservatism are both far-right platforms). Localism brings all production and policymaking back to the local level. So nothing is decided by far-right wizards of oz (elites). Everything we put our energy into we consciously choose ourselves. Reconnect with your own conscience, people, and enjoy the many benefits.
For everyone who battled this pipeline congratulations, I hate to be cynical but...
The "death" of this project in the US will be used in Canada by the hyper sociopathic Harper regime to leverage approval of the even more environmentally diasterous "northern gateway" pipeline.1500 km of pipe accross countless mtns,rivers and salmon streams to be pumped onto tankers that will cruise a couple of hundred km of narrow fiord out into the Hecate straight considered one of the most turbulent pieces of ocean in the world.Think 25m swells and 150k winds as normal weather 6 months of the year.Harper who loves all things corporate oily and american will use jingoistic anti american(yes dig the irony)rhetoric to sell this to all to dopey canadians.Afterwards keystone will be built anyway.
Harper and Obama have likely colluded on this for what else do high criminals do?We as the ordinary will keep fighting on either side of the border and if the "demise" of keystone makes N gateway objectors embolded (however falsely) I guess thats something.
This piece makes about as much sense as McKibben's, but I agree with most on this string who note that we can't let these false claims of victory make us cynical, nor can we yield to the quite normal human response to turn on our own, as hard as they make it for us.
In the end, as many here say, we have no time left to do anything except organize as best we know how against the insanity that grips all elites currently running things.
I salute the clear-eyed and generous spirit of of those who are able to stay focused on the tasks of human decency and survival.
So a lot of commentators seem to understand that Obama's behavior in this election year is designed to gain favor with so-called progressives who apparently will now still support and vote for Obama in the coming election. So even though the awareness is present, I see no real discussion or movement towards supporting an independent or third party candidate. As long as the duopoly holds the White House and Congress, why would any conscious observer expect relief from the destructive forces now tearing apart the Constitution and the rule of law?
Maybe you don't see a third-party or independent movement, but I do. I think we can continue to support the third-party candidate of our choice, or whoever we choose to write in. It's not necessary, at this point, that the third-party candidate gain office. The presence of a voting constituency that is not pleased with the existing two-party candidates will result in a third-party movement. If Obama tries to move left to capture those votes, as in this case, that's a sign of the movement's strength-- and to the benefit of the movement as well, as long as it stays militant about its goals.
I would not crow about a victory yet.
Was listening to Radio Canada news last night. They mentioned that the pipeline company is now planning to build, as soon as possible, the southern half of the pipeline where they do not have problems building it. In english, that means that they are still building the pipeline. And they would not do that if they did not expect to be able to pressure the government for approval of the remainder. In the future which President will say no to approving the completion a half-finished pipeline that so much money has been invested in?
If you want to crow about a victory then get in the way of and stop the construction of the southern part of the Keystone Project, otherwise all that will have been accomplished is to affect the order in which the project gets completed with relatively little cost or annoyance or risk to any of the backers of the project.
So far it has not died - only been delayed. We will wait and see...
But it hasn't been delayed. Not at all. They can and will just adjust the sequence in which it is constructed. The main reason for building the border crossing first is to get the approval process for this, which can at times be tricky and political, out of the way. Then they would rush get the facts on the ground, but this delay is not much problem as construction will proceeded elsewhere on the line. There is enough flexibility for them to still complete the line as and when planned. Obama gets to look tough for a few months and will likely find a compromise or excuse or whatever next year in time for the project to stay on schedule.
"The announcement was as major victory and one of the largest wins for the climate movement in recent history."
I honestly did not think Obama was even going to agree on a delay so I was surprised a little by the decision. I also agree that it was an environmental victory but for the people in Nebraska, not the global community. As far as the oilsands are concerned, it is a non-event. Neither Syncrude nor Suncor are decreasing the amount of oil they are producing and both are still pumping out oil as fast as they can with further expansions ongoing. I have mentioned in other articles that if your focus is on stopping development of the tarsands, the XL pipeline, and any other pipeline for that matter, is a red herring.
The Wikipedia article for Syncrude says that it has the capacity to pump out 350,000 barrels per day and is planning on increasing that to 525,000 by 2020. Suncors website shows that their average daily production for December 2011 was 345,000 barrels per day. So that is 695,000 barrels per day being produced and sold on the market. Come back in 6 months and see if those numbers have gone any lower. If not, then is it fair to ask what this fight was all about?
Come on - wake up! The pipeline did not "die." It is just on hold until after the election. This is just ploy to get the gullible to vote again for this evil "lesser of evils."
Who wants to bet me a hundred bucks that the pipeline will come back to life and be approved by our illustrious president the day after he's re-elected? Any takers?
Well, I'm not taking the bet-- but I think "the day after" improves the odds.
They won't want to tarnish Obama's Legacy right out of the gate by repeating the "closing Gitmo" debacle. My guess is that they'll at least wait a couple of weeks before quietly greenlighting the project.
And when they do, True Believers will resolutely argue and scold that even so, the delay and subterfuge represents a substantial victory for progressive activism and the cause.
I'll be happy to take you up on that bet. It believe the political power being exerted today on the President of the US is community driven and he knows how powerful and important community organizing is. Whatever the naysayers say their delusions are simply that. Get with the program; seize the day and push for all you are worth to build the future we can be proud of. We are wrested it away from the war mongers. We must see victory when we get it otherwise we just go down in flames believing the lies that we had to see thru in the first place to achieve the justice we truly believe in.
comradlizard@hotmail.com
Take this to the bank....
The Pipeline is not dead.
The Pipeline will be built.
The Pipeline is not the problem, its the Tar Sands/Fracking
The Pipeline will be built
As soon as this election is over there will be a new energy program in this country that is going to make you nostalgic for the opportunity to approve and guide this pipeline.
Just call me Cassandra.
A point of correction, the tarsands are open-pit mined, not fracked. Explosives are not used and would be of no value digging this stuff up. They use a standard truck-and-shovel operation in both plants now, although they used to use draglines and bucketwheels that were so enormous it is hard to imagine if you have not seen them before.
I would probably also say that the method of extraction is less the problem (although I do accept it is problematic) than our collective refusal to change our habits. If we keep demanding the right to drive a vehicle that weighs tons, to a store that is only a mile away, in order to pick up a handful of items, and continue to be willing to pay a premium for that, then oil will always be made available to us by whatever means necessary.
A couple of victories for people power. Will this make the people complacent or will it energize the movement?