from the betcha-there-will-be-more-than-a-couple dept.
The Army Corp of Engineers is now accepting public comment until February 20th regarding the permits for the Dakota Access Pipeline.
You may mail or hand deliver written comments to Mr. Gib Owen, Office of the Assistant Secretary of the Army for Civil Works, 108 Army Pentagon, Washington, DC 20310-0108. Advance arrangements will need to be made to hand deliver comments. Please include your name, return address, and "NOI Comments, Dakota Access Pipeline Crossing" on the first page of your written comments. Comments may also be submitted via email to Mr. Gib Owen, at gib.a.owen.civ@mail.mil. If emailing comments, please use "NOI Comments, Dakota Access Pipeline Crossing" as the subject of your email.
The location of all public scoping meetings will be announced at least 15 days in advance through a notice to be published in the local North Dakota newspaper (The Bismarck Tribune) and online at https://www.army.mil/?asacw.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:Mr. Gib Owen, Water Resources Policy and Legislation, Office of the Assistant Secretary of the Army for Civil Works, Washington, DC 20310-0108; telephone: (703) 695-6791; email: gib.a.owen.civ@mail.mil.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:The proposed crossing of Lake Oahe by Dakota Access, LLC is approximately 0.5 miles upstream of the northern boundary of the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe's reservation. The Tribe protests the crossing primarily because it relies on Lake Oahe for water for a variety of purposes, the Tribe's reservation boundaries encompass portions of Lake Oahe downstream from the proposed crossing, and the Tribe retains water, treaty fishing, and hunting rights in the Lake.
The proposed crossing of Corps property requires the granting of a right-of-way (easement) under the Mineral Leasing Act (MLA), 30 U.S.C. 185. To date, the Army has not made a final decision on whether to grant the easement pursuant to the MLA. The Army intends to prepare an EIS to consider any potential impacts to the human environment that the grant of an easement may cause.
Specifically, input is desired on the following three scoping concerns:
(1) Alternative locations for the pipeline crossing the Missouri River;
(2) Potential risks and impacts of an oil spill, and potential impacts to Lake Oahe, the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe's water intakes, and the Tribe's water, treaty fishing, and hunting rights; and
(3) Information on the extent and location of the Tribe's treaty rights in Lake Oahe.
Those wishing to submit comments opposing the pipeline can do so directly at the email address listed above, or use web pages setup to do so by the following groups:
Likewise, if you support the pipeline you can comment as well and respond to the questions asked via email or letter to the addresses listed above.
Related Stories
The Guardian reports that the U.S. Army sent a letter, dated 7 February, to member of Congress Raúl Grijalva, saying it would grant a permit for the construction of the controversial Dakota Access Pipeline. Work could resume as early as 8 February.
"I have determined that there is no cause for completing any additional environmental analysis," wrote Douglas W Lamon, the senior official performing the duties of assistant secretary of the army, wrote in a notice to the federal register.
More recent news in Standing Rock from Feb 9:
The restarting of the drilling operation, which a pipeline spokeswoman confirmed on Thursday morning, began soon after the US government gave the oil corporation the green light to proceed on Wednesday. The controversial pipeline could be transporting crude oil from North Dakota to Illinois within three months.
At the Standing Rock camps in Cannon Ball – where activists have been stationed since last spring to fight the project – indigenous and environmental organizers vowed to stay put and continue opposing the pipeline.
[Continues...]
AlterNet reports
A federal judge ruled [June 14] that the Trump administration must conduct additional environmental review of the Dakota Access Pipeline, handing a limited victory to Native American tribes fighting the administration's decision to move forward with the project.
In an extensive opinion,[PDF][1] Washington, DC District Court Judge James Boasberg sided with the tribes by agreeing the Army Corps of Engineers "did not consider the impacts of an oil spill on fishing rights, human rights, or environmental justice."
[...] Boasberg did not order a shutdown of operations on the pipeline, which began pumping oil early this month. The tribes and pipeline owner Energy Transfer Partners are ordered to appear in court next week to decide next legal steps, and the tribes are expected to argue for a full shutdown of pipeline operations.
[1] Link in article redirects.
Previous coverage:
Dakota Access Pipeline Suffers Oil Leak Even Before Becoming Operational
Recent News Dispatches From Standing Rock (DAPL)
Army Corp of Engineers Now Accepting Public Comment on the Dakota Access Pipeline
Army Corps of Engineers Blocks the Dakota Access Pipeline
Standing Rock Protester May Lose Her Arm Because of Police Grenades
Water Cannons Used in Sub-Freezing Temperatures at Dakota Access Oil Pipeline Protest
Standing Rock Protestors Gassed and Attacked; Bundy Gang Acquitted [Updated]
Journalist Charged in North Dakota with Rioting; Case is Dismissed
(Score: 3, Insightful) by DeathMonkey on Thursday February 02 2017, @06:41PM
I wouldn't want to be in charge of THAT inbox!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 02 2017, @06:59PM
You could get a medal for it.
(Score: 5, Interesting) by Zz9zZ on Thursday February 02 2017, @06:58PM
At this point I would be worried about having the pipeline anywhere near the reservation. With how much media attention this has created there are bound to be a few crazies who would gladly cause a leak just to screw with the tribe.
While I understand the value of using a pipeline over rail / trucks, the impact on the tribe if anything goes wrong would be higher than any other area because that is the only land they have and they rely on it for survival. Also, the value of the pipeline is highly questionable especially now that the world is finally getting serious about going with electric vehicles and renewable power generation.
I am glad to see the Engineer Corps requesting feedback, I just hope it isn't a meaningless PR stunt with no hope of any impact. With the Corporate King now trying to rule the US it warms my heart to see government agencies caring more about the general public than the corporate bottom line. *tangent* Maybe that's why the media went so overboard against Trump, they realized he would cross the line and wake people with his blatant cronyism and abuse of the office to increase company profits. Everyone knew it before, but it was hidden well enough that we could never get enough public outrage, just a simmering resentment in a portion of the population.
~Tilting at windmills~
(Score: 0, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 02 2017, @07:11PM
Also, the value of the pipeline is highly questionable especially now that the world is finally getting serious about going with electric vehicles and renewable power generation.
I don't know what you are smoking, but in 30 years, that pipeline will remain full as people will continue to buy oil.
Not only have poor decisions, like not deploying more nuclear but turning it off (like Germany) resulted in more CO2 emissions, it basically guarantees that coal (for Germany) and oil and gas will remain main energy sources at least for remainder of this **century**. And pointing at the stupid headlines "at this second we made more solar energy than we used" doesn't add to credibility of carbonizing the economy. Current policies guarantee this will not happen for many decades.
here, some examples,
http://www.worldcoal.org/file_validate.php?file=WCA_Factsheet_Indonesia.pdf [worldcoal.org]
http://www.worldcoal.org/file_validate.php?file=Coal%20Facts%202015.pdf [worldcoal.org]
8,000,000,000,000 kg per year dug up and burned. 50% higher than 1990. Great "progress" right there right?
(Score: 2) by tibman on Thursday February 02 2017, @07:58PM
A lot of anti-nuclear seems to come from people who want "green energy". http://www.greenpeace.org/international/en/campaigns/nuclear/ [greenpeace.org]
SN won't survive on lurkers alone. Write comments.
(Score: 2, Troll) by Arik on Thursday February 02 2017, @08:53PM
If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
(Score: 2) by bob_super on Thursday February 02 2017, @10:14PM
A lot of anti-nuclear is indeed from people who do not understand how mindbogglingly immense the demand is, how gobsmackingly powerful nukes are, and how a few thousand cubic meters of steel, concrete and contaminated materials is many orders of magnitude safer and cleaner per GWh than the next best thing.
(Score: 5, Informative) by bzipitidoo on Thursday February 02 2017, @08:11PM
Your information is wrong. Energy companies themselves do not agree with those projections for coal. Here's an article my electricity provider linked to: https://singularityhub.com/2016/09/05/3-big-trends-shaking-up-the-energy-industry/ [singularityhub.com] They see that the cost of solar has fallen dramatically over the last 40 years, and will be half the cost of fossil fuels by 2020. That includes giving fossil fuels the break they've always had of externalizing disposal costs, Only things holding back solar are storage and transmission issues. There's lots of work being done on both, so don't count on those obstacles holding back renewable energy for long.
If finished, the Dakota Access Pipeline may be abandoned within another 20 years, sooner than most other pipelines, because the principle oil sources for it are tar sands which are so expensive to extract that their profitability is marginal or speculative now. It's become such a political hot potato, I wonder at the businesses still pushing it. Why don't they drop it and do something else? Controversy is very expensive.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 02 2017, @11:03PM
It's become such a political hot potato, I wonder at the businesses still pushing it. Why don't they drop it and do something else? Controversy is very expensive.
Oh? Speaking for myself, I can't name a single company pushing for the pipeline, so it can't be that toxic.
If I had to guess I'd just say "usual suspects" of places like Exxon Mobile... but then is anybody shocked that an oil and gas company is trying to increase oil and gas production and decrease costs? There is no more controversy than "M&M-Mars selling sugary snacks." People who hate them will hate them anyway, and people who like them will not care about this latest development. There are very few people for which this pipeline will change them from "like" to "dislike."
(Score: 2) by butthurt on Friday February 03 2017, @10:48AM
> [...] oil sources for it are tar sands oil sources for it are tar sands [...]
The Keystone XL pipeline would transport tar sands oil. DAPL, however, is to be fed by oil from the Bakken shale formation.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dakota_Access_Pipeline [wikipedia.org]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keystone_XL [wikipedia.org]
According to North Dakotan government figures, production from the Bakken formation peaked in December 2014.
https://web.archive.org/web/20170126092355/https://www.dmr.nd.gov/oilgas/stats/historicalbakkenoilstats.pdf [archive.org]
(Score: 2) by Zz9zZ on Thursday February 02 2017, @08:18PM
Apple meet orange. Nice marketing docs you supplied there.
~Tilting at windmills~
(Score: 3, Informative) by butthurt on Thursday February 02 2017, @09:37PM
The world's population has increased by 42% (from 5.3 billion to 7.5 billion) since 1990.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1990 [wikipedia.org]
http://www.worldometers.info/world-population/ [worldometers.info]
(Score: 2) by hemocyanin on Friday February 03 2017, @07:53AM
Holy fuck. That's just ridiculous.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday February 02 2017, @09:00PM
While I understand the value of using a pipeline over rail / trucks, the impact on the tribe if anything goes wrong would be higher than any other area because that is the only land they have and they rely on it for survival.
An alternate route had the pipeline running through the watershed for the city of Bismarck, North Dakota which with the surrounding area has well over an order of magnitude more people than the reservation. They depend on their water for their survival too. So I would consider the impact of an oil leak on Bismarck and surrounding areas to be a bigger deal than an oil in its present location.
Also, the value of the pipeline is highly questionable especially now that the world is finally getting serious about going with electric vehicles and renewable power generation.
Awww... so concerned for the profits of oil companies? My view is that the pipeline builder's willingness to invest in a pipeline is sufficient proof of value for me.
I am glad to see the Engineer Corps requesting feedback, I just hope it isn't a meaningless PR stunt with no hope of any impact.
You do know that this is like their third time doing this very same thing? Let's review the situation. The Army Corps of Engineers originally approved the necessary environmental permits in July and August, 2016 aside from one permit (which should have been approved at that time). Then in September, a significant part of the project was halted by being denied from running under Lake Oahe, a large snake-like lake running 230 miles (370 km) north to south, a major obstacle. The Obama administration then delayed and tarried on a decision, calling for more discussion (for the second time) until the beginning of December, when they refused to grant an easement (safely after the election was over, of course). Then three days before the transition to the Trump administration, they completely reset the process with the current feedback silliness (the third time) and imposing as much delay as possible yet again. For the last six months, this public review process has merely been used as an insincere stonewall of pipeline construction.
Also during this time, the administration has repeatedly called for construction to halt and been outright ignored by the pipeline owner without legal consequence. In other words, they were trying to delay construction even when they had no legal basis or lever for doing so.
So needless to say, I don't share your concern about it being a meaningless PR stunt. If there were real problems in the first place, it wouldn't have been dragged out like this and the Obama administration wouldn't have interfered like this.
And let us keep in mind that now that Obama has created a precedent for indefinitely postponing projects that a president doesn't like in this way, Trump can continue to exploit that. Imagine all the wind and solar projects that could be delayed for years while relevant agencies repeatedly seek public input into matters that should have been settled long ago. Fortunately, for those projects, Trump is unlikely IMHO to view them as something that warrants blocking. But there may be other projects which Trump or some future president can block indefinitely just because.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Zz9zZ on Thursday February 02 2017, @09:51PM
Obummer Obummer he's so mean! Profitz over humanity!!! Progressive about profit, regressive about humanity!
The simple fact that the pipeline endangers anyone's water supply is a problem. I'm glad Obama has managed to do a few decent things during his terms in office.
As for blocking the project here is what I found on it:
“Construction of the pipeline on Army Corps land bordering or under Lake Oahe will not go forward at this time,” said a joint statement from the Department of Justice, the Department of the Interior, and the U.S. Army. “We request that the pipeline company voluntarily pause all construction activity within 20 miles east or west of Lake Oahe.”
So this isn't some overreach of executive power like Trump seems fond of, it was halting construction (and supposedly voluntary agreement by the corp) on Army Corps land. If it was private land then you'd have a better argument for executive overreach, but in this case it falls directly under the jurisdiction of the government. If Trump wants to halt solar/wind projects on government land he is welcome to do so. Whether those orders hold up is another thing entirely. Will he do it to protect the environment or communities? Probably gets support. Will he do it to further his own / cronies business interests? Likely to get shot down and enrage the country to the point of impeachment.
Thankfully the world is moving to renewables and (hopefully) better nuclear power generation, then we can just stop dealing with environmental catastrophes and conflicts of interest.
~Tilting at windmills~
(Score: -1, Troll) by khallow on Thursday February 02 2017, @10:37PM
The simple fact that the pipeline endangers anyone's water supply is a problem.
Driving to work is a problem. Eating is a problem. Merely drawing air is a problem. Just because something is a problem doesn't mean that it isn't worth doing.
(Score: 3, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 02 2017, @10:58PM
In this case I disagree entirely. We have a number of alternative options that have been actively suppressed by energy companies for decades, and from all reports it sounds like this pipeline is not necessary to our energy security. The big upside of this pipeline is profit for a select few and a small number of jobs to build / support the pipe. Not exactly a crushing national emergency.
If there weren't more options, if this pipeline was the difference between some cities having electricity or not, then I might consider it more of a necessity. But its not, so I don't, and its obvious this is just corporate greed at work.
Also, after a little searching I found something rather intriguing. The train vs. pipeline safety metric is not even true!
http://www.iea.org/publications/freepublications/publication/MTOMR2013_free.pdf [iea.org]
Page 136:
Barrels spilled per 1 million barrels transported by rain: 8.6
Barrels spilled per 1 million barrels transported by pipe: 25.9
So the incident rate for trains is higher, but the actual amount of oil spilled is much lower. You can read more details in the PDF, but oh boy that sound-bite of the pipeline being safer is such a load of bullshit!!! Shoulda known, and I shoulda researched before now.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Saturday February 04 2017, @01:02AM
In this case I disagree entirely. We have a number of alternative options that have been actively suppressed by energy companies for decades, and from all reports it sounds like this pipeline is not necessary to our energy security. The big upside of this pipeline is profit for a select few and a small number of jobs to build / support the pipe. Not exactly a crushing national emergency.
Well, no energy infrastructure is necessary to "energy security". So why not get rid of it all? You're committing the fallacy of considering a component in isolation rather than as part of a whole.
Second, so what if it doesn't have your desired level or perception of value? The upside you mention, even if that were truly all there was, would be sufficient. I think it would be disastrous to prohibit all human activities that don't have value as decided by some dude on the internet.
So the incident rate for trains is higher, but the actual amount of oil spilled is much lower.
While it is interesting how the pro-pipeline side dances around this, it's not as good as you present. First, pipelines transport oil further on average, resulting in a signficantlybetter ratio [portofgraysharbor.com] of 1.25 gallons per billion barrel-miles for pipelines versus 1.13 per billion barrel-miles for rail (over the period 1990-2009). The same document makes the case that a more recent ten year period saw a much better ratio (0.88 gallons per billion barrel-miles for pipeline versus 0.38 for rail).
Sounds nice but it glosses over a number of important things. First, pipeline has far greater capacity than rail and is cheaper both in terms of cost and energy to move that oil. For example, it is claimed that rail is operating at capacity in Alberta from the oil being produced there. Second, it is safer despite your above observation. A number of people have died in rail accidents including 47 people in a single accident [businessinsider.com] in Quebec. An energetic train derailment of oil-filled tank cars in a town or city is more dangerous than an oil spill in an area (such as a pipeline's surroundings or the end points of the pipeine) designed to contain the oil spill and isolated from human habitation.
Finally, most oil pipelines are far older than rail cars. 55% [cnn.com] of currently used oil and gas pipelines were built before 1970. Meanwhile most rail cars have a mandated lifespan of 40 years. So when you're comparing the hazards of rail to pipeline, you're mostly comparing relatively new and improved tank cars to a pipeline environment where at least 55% of the pipelines are considerably older than a rail car can be. Sorry, a new pipeline following modern regulations isn't going to have the same failure rate as a grandfathered 1969 pipeline. Not even when it'll be 48 years old.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday February 02 2017, @10:50PM
If it was private land then you'd have a better argument for executive overreach, but in this case it falls directly under the jurisdiction of the government.
Doesn't matter as much as you think it does. They still should have a fair, consistent process for approving/disapproving activities on public land. Abandoning the rule of law and choosing favorites whenever it is convenient is a disaster waiting to happen.
“Construction of the pipeline on Army Corps land bordering or under Lake Oahe will not go forward at this time,” said a joint statement from the Department of Justice, the Department of the Interior, and the U.S. Army. “We request that the pipeline company voluntarily pause all construction activity within 20 miles east or west of Lake Oahe.”
I did mention this as well as several, more substantive tactics of obstruction. Here, the pipeline company simply ignored [dailykos.com] the request as is their right (since it is voluntary and the company has no common cause in hindering its own project). Given that Trump won (the request was even made weeks after the election), it would be rather dumb to comply with a demand that's going to be outright tossed in a couple of months.
Thankfully the world is moving to renewables and (hopefully) better nuclear power generation, then we can just stop dealing with environmental catastrophes and conflicts of interest.
Whistling past the graveyard.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Zz9zZ on Thursday February 02 2017, @11:04PM
So you make a big stink about Obama stopping them, but then it turns out to be a voluntary request, then you highlight "voluntary" (I pointed it out thank you very much) as if its a new point you insightfully came up with... Yeah you're not worth the time. I only respond for the benefit of other readers, so they don't think there is complicit agreement with your pro-corporate love affair.
~Tilting at windmills~
(Score: 1) by khallow on Friday February 03 2017, @12:37AM
So you make a big stink about Obama stopping them, but then it turns out to be a voluntary request, then you highlight "voluntary" (I pointed it out thank you very much) as if its a new point you insightfully came up with...
My point is that it is part of a pattern of delay and obstruction over the last six months. The Obama administration had no business publicly requesting them to delay their pipeline construction "voluntarily". I consider that like when Comey mentioned a "reopening" of the Clinton email server investigation shortly before a presidential election in a public letter to Congress when mildly relevant emails were discovered on a laptop. The request will still have obstructing effects if only because it's tax payer-paid, high publicity propaganda against the pipeline project.
(Score: 2) by Zz9zZ on Sunday February 05 2017, @07:54PM
I think the administration 100% had the obligation to request a delay, it was just good foreign policy. Native Americans have been steadily pushed back and had their reservations reduced repeatedly over the generations, and the wheels of government should be halted over legitimate concerns regarding the tribe's primary source of water. Corporations already buy legislation, and this pipeline apparently had a lot of opponents who were forced to give up their private land by eminent domain. If you want to complain about government overreach I think that should be a larger issue for you as it is straight up corporate fascism.
It isn't propaganda unless the government takes a solid position, so far it has only been a request for further assessment, and if that is what you call propaganda then I don't want to live in your ideal world.
~Tilting at windmills~
(Score: 1) by khallow on Monday February 06 2017, @02:44PM
I think the administration 100% had the obligation to request a delay, it was just good foreign policy.
You're really going to make that claim? Native Americans are citizens of the US too.
Native Americans have been steadily pushed back and had their reservations reduced repeatedly over the generations, and the wheels of government should be halted over legitimate concerns regarding the tribe's primary source of water.
Then by all means, let's halt these "wheels of government". But the pipeline is privately owned.
Corporations already buy legislation, and this pipeline apparently had a lot of opponents who were forced to give up their private land by eminent domain. If you want to complain about government overreach I think that should be a larger issue for you as it is straight up corporate fascism.
So we should simply never build infrastructure at all? Eminent domain happens because stuff has to go through someone's neighborhood and this case, wasn't due to eminent domain but rather legal activities on federally owned land.
It isn't propaganda unless the government takes a solid position, so far it has only been a request for further assessment, and if that is what you call propaganda then I don't want to live in your ideal world.
It's propaganda by definition [oxforddictionaries.com] any time there's information distributed of a "biased or misleading nature" used as in this case to "political cause or point of view". The solidity of the position is irrelevant. In fact, a lot of propaganda is very insubstantial such as FUD and vaporware. This "voluntary request" is clearly an example of FUD.
(Score: 2) by Zz9zZ on Monday February 06 2017, @08:19PM
You contradict yourself so much it is pointless to discuss most things with you. You flop more than pancakes, waffles, and omelettes all together! The government was in the right to request a halt and review, the section of the pipeline in question is on government land hence army corps of engineers.
As for FUD, you don't even know what the means apparently... arguing with a brainwashed person / corporate shill is so annoying. Like Trump you don't care about facts, you just twist everything around to suit your agenda and you have zero values beyond the bottom line of "profit". Your arguments are the worst, precisely because they are often grammatically well structured so you don't sound like an idiot, but as I said above you flop back and forth to suit your world view instead of actual facts. "Big government is bad, taxes are bad, government overreach is bad! Except here, because I want the pipeline, so big government overreach of eminent domain is suddenly totally fine." A request to voluntarily halt construction is a far cry from distributing biased information to suit an agenda, more of your crazy doublethink again.
~Tilting at windmills~
(Score: 1) by khallow on Friday February 10 2017, @04:29AM
You contradict yourself so much it is pointless to discuss most things with you.
Where did that happen?
The government was in the right to request a halt and review, the section of the pipeline in question is on government land hence army corps of engineers.
Why would a "halt and review" be warranted? Or are you speaking of the imaginary right of the government to be a dick just to further some agenda?
As for FUD, you don't even know what the means apparently... arguing with a brainwashed person / corporate shill is so annoying. Like Trump you don't care about facts, you just twist everything around to suit your agenda and you have zero values beyond the bottom line of "profit". Your arguments are the worst, precisely because they are often grammatically well structured so you don't sound like an idiot, but as I said above you flop back and forth to suit your world view instead of actual facts. "Big government is bad, taxes are bad, government overreach is bad! Except here, because I want the pipeline, so big government overreach of eminent domain is suddenly totally fine." A request to voluntarily halt construction is a far cry from distributing biased information to suit an agenda, more of your crazy doublethink again.
A classic case of straw man burning there. That isn't me.
Modern pipelines are heavily regulated. If there were really a problem here, then they could make a regulation for it.
(Score: 2) by Zz9zZ on Friday February 10 2017, @08:26PM
Modern pipelines are heavily regulated. If there were really a problem here, then they could make a regulation for it.
Mr. Corporate profits over here suddenly is totally ok with government regulation? These cognitive dissonances are maddening. Regulation == BAD until it suddenly helps your argument? Government overreach, until it lets you have your way? There is a perfect example. It is you, 100%. Moving the goalposts back and forth so much that it is impossible to pin down any argument. It is the same technique Trump uses (surprise?) all the time, just flat refusal of facts, denial of previous statements, and going along with any statement as long as it helps your specific cause. You have zero values except corporate interests and the bottom line. The "crazy" may just be intentional, not caring what facts you spout as long as all roads lead to profit.
I don't know how exhaustively I can point this stuff out, done it many times before and you still act all innocent. As for pipelines, there IS a problem. I don't recall if it is in this story's comments, but I did some digging and it turns out pipelines actually leak more oil into the environment than trains! It is just that some clever statistics hide that fact behind "number of incidents". Trains have more incidents of leakage, but pipelines leak way more per incident, to the tune of 3x more. So, if there really is a problem here then this pipeline that goes over a drinking water reservoir should be re-examined and preferably moved / closed down.
But lets see what madness you come up with this time to support the project...
~Tilting at windmills~
(Score: 1) by khallow on Saturday February 11 2017, @01:05PM
Mr. Corporate profits over here suddenly is totally ok with government regulation? These cognitive dissonances are maddening.
They are your cognitive dissonances. You are spending way too much time straw man building here.
Regulation == BAD until it suddenly helps your argument? Government overreach, until it lets you have your way?
The point here is that the pipeline builders are playing by the rules. Yet instead of allowing activities that jump through all the hoops, the Obama administration simply obstructed the activity on invented grounds. There is this thing called "rule of law" [oxforddictionaries.com] which is "the restriction of the arbitrary exercise of power by subordinating it to well-defined and established laws." The rules may suck, but it at least strongly prevents parties like the incoming Trump administration from just doing whatever they feel like, such as the recent example of preventing legal visitors and residents of the US from entering the US. If the Obama administration is allowed to prevent activities merely by inventing something, then the Trump administration and any further administrations, some which might be worse, can use the same trick for their own purposes.
Moving the goalposts back and forth so much that it is impossible to pin down any argument.
I think it would help here, if you actually tried to understand my arguments.
It is the same technique Trump uses (surprise?) all the time, just flat refusal of facts, denial of previous statements, and going along with any statement as long as it helps your specific cause.
Please remember that everything that hinders the Obama administration from doing the right thing also hinders the Trump administration from doing the wrong thing. There are a huge number of Pollyannas out there who just don't get that abuses of power and legal shortcuts can be used against them as well as for them.
I don't know how exhaustively I can point this stuff out, done it many times before and you still act all innocent.
It doesn't matter how deeply you hold an erroneous belief, how long you argue such a belief, or how many people agree with you. It's still erroneous.
As for pipelines, there IS a problem. I don't recall if it is in this story's comments, but I did some digging and it turns out pipelines actually leak more oil into the environment than trains!
A little over a factor of two [portofgraysharbor.com] more oil per barrel-mile due solely to the recent safety improvements in tanker railcar safety (notice that the two were near comparable until the last ten years). And it includes pipelines that are over 50 years old. That might not sound like a big deal, until you learn that most pipelines are over 50 years old (more accurately, 55% are over 47 years old [cnn.com] as of last year) while tanker rail cars are taken off the track at 40 years. So we really need to compare modern pipelines to modern rail cars.
But then we get into the problem that neither mode of transportation spill that much. And the whole point of this pipeline is that it moves a vast amount of material cheaply, while the rail system is at capacity. I think that's the real reason the pipeline is being obstructed here. It expedites more fracking of North Dakota oil and such, both by allowing more to move in the first place and second, by increasing to modest degree the profits that frackers receive. I don't have a problem with that, but it sounds like you do.
(Score: 2) by Zz9zZ on Monday February 13 2017, @12:17AM
There was no illegal obstruction, actual source please if I'm mistaken and not some alt-right inflammatory garbage. I understand your position, its just that I see through a lot of the BS that you apparently believe is legitimate. You have many times been against one thing, then suddenly for it when it suits your agenda.
I think you nailed it on the head here: "It expedites more fracking of North Dakota oil and such, both by allowing more to move in the first place and second, by increasing to modest degree the profits that frackers receive."
Fracking is terrible for the environment, pollutes aquifers with vague assurances that somehow they guarantee it won't... Corporate bullshit to silence the whiny environmentalists. I would vastly prefer the billions of dollars go into renewable energy farms and infrastructure improvements to match. The likes of you I don't consider evil, just so narrow minded that you would run the country into the ground because "profits!" This oil problem would be much smaller if the country had listened to the environmental scientists in the 70s, but that would have required investment of capital instead so they put a much smaller amount into PR and garbage research to sway public. And here we are, corporate interests have bought a grass roots movement most could only dream of.
~Tilting at windmills~
(Score: 1) by khallow on Monday February 13 2017, @02:30PM
There was no illegal obstruction, actual source please if I'm mistaken and not some alt-right inflammatory garbage.
It hasn't had time to go to court. And why again is legal abuse of power by the feds ok? Please let us all recall that Trump now has that power.
I think you nailed it on the head here: "It expedites more fracking of North Dakota oil and such, both by allowing more to move in the first place and second, by increasing to modest degree the profits that frackers receive."
Fracking is terrible for the environment, pollutes aquifers with vague assurances that somehow they guarantee it won't...
Well, an EPA study [epa.gov] says otherwise.
EPA found scientific evidence that hydraulic fracturing activities can impact drinking water resources under some circumstances. The report identifies certain conditions under which impacts from hydraulic fracturing activities can be more frequent or severe:
Water withdrawals for hydraulic fracturing in times or areas of low water availability, particularly in areas with limited or declining groundwater resources;
Spills during the handling of hydraulic fracturing fluids and chemicals or produced water that result in large volumes or high concentrations of chemicals reaching groundwater resources;
Injection of hydraulic fracturing fluids into wells with inadequate mechanical integrity, allowing gases or liquids to move to groundwater resources;
Injection of hydraulic fracturing fluids directly into groundwater resources;
Discharge of inadequately treated hydraulic fracturing wastewater to surface water;
and Disposal or storage of hydraulic fracturing wastewater in unlined pits resulting in contamination of groundwater resources.
None of those activities are necessary to fracking. One doesn't need, for example, wells with inadequate mechanical integrit or to inject wastewater into groundwater in order to frack.
(Score: 2) by Zz9zZ on Monday February 13 2017, @05:44PM
Such sweet innocence, keep living the dream guy.
~Tilting at windmills~
(Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday February 14 2017, @12:17AM
Such sweet innocence, keep living the dream guy.
Pretty heavy projection there. If the EPA under the Obama administration can't find these alleged problems with properly done fracking, the EPA under the Trump administration sure won't.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 02 2017, @07:47PM
My advice: Put the pipeline back on its original route - upstream of Bismarck.
If it poses no risk to the native people's land where it is now, then surely it poses no risk to Bismarck where it was originally planned to go. Right?
(Score: 2) by HiThere on Thursday February 02 2017, @08:09PM
Makes sense to me.
Javascript is what you use to allow unknown third parties to run software you have no idea about on your computer.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 02 2017, @10:50PM
Rights to dig on suburban land cost much more than rights to go through the middle of nowhere, and closer to cities there are more owners whose permission has to be obtained. Running pipelines through the countryside is largely about economics.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by fritsd on Thursday February 02 2017, @09:16PM
I don't understand why they feel the need to build a long pipeline to transport fuel from Canada to the Mexican Gulf.
Sure maybe a pipeline is safer for liquid fuel.
But the input material is "tar sands"
I have the understanding that this means it's chunks of asphalt bitumen with some sulphur and sandy rock (I could be wrong).
Why not transport that per train or riverboat to the refineries at the Mexican Gulf?
If there's a spill of a bitumen train waggon, send people with shovels to shovel it back in.
And if they say "well it's not cost-effective anymore, the EROEI [wikipedia.org] is too low", then how certain are they that it's really cost effective now?
It sounds like an elaborate scam to make a few hedge fund people filthy rich before it is obvious to every investor that it's an economic disaster.
If they converted the waste frying pan oil from all burger restaurants in North America to diesel [wikipedia.org], that would probably be a cheaper production method (AND renewable fuel!)
(Score: 3, Informative) by RedGreen on Thursday February 02 2017, @11:08PM
"I have the understanding that this means it's chunks of asphalt bitumen with some sulphur and sandy rock (I could be wrong)."
And indeed you are on pretty much the entire post. The oil sands are processed all that junk is removed so when it is put into pipeline it does have chance of flowing once diluted. Oh it is the keystone XL pipeline they want to build to move that stuff to the gulf states not this one here it is for a different formation mainly the shale fracking done in the mid-west I think it is/will be used for. Do believe it is Chicago area it ends up at as well.
"I modded down, down, down, and the flames went higher." -- Sven Olsen
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Scruffy Beard 2 on Friday February 03 2017, @01:57AM
As Elizabeth May likes to point out, once you treat it to flow through a pipe, it is almost impossible to clean up.
Oil sand? You can clean that up with a shovel.
(Score: 2) by fritsd on Friday February 03 2017, @11:53AM
Why are the oil sands processed?
Why not transport them safely to the refinery and then process them in that neighbourhood? (less risky)
(Score: 2) by Geezer on Friday February 03 2017, @02:57PM
Because it's cheaper than paying to transport the additional bulk of the soon-to-be waste material from the refining process?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 02 2017, @09:43PM
Run the damned pipeline. If someone gets in the way, shoot them. The greater good overrides snowflakes wants. Its always been that way, get over it.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 02 2017, @09:57PM
Maybe the greater good would be better served by shooting those who want the pipeline.
(Score: 3, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 02 2017, @10:21PM
Your version of "the greater good" is skewed. The greater good would be better served by moving to alternative energy sources, for the price of this pipeline we could build a few massive solar arrays and use any extra energy to produce biodiesel for emergencies. But hey, the American way is kill the opposition right? I won't shoot you since I don't condone murder, but I sure wouldn't be put out if you choke and die for your bullshit beliefs: valuing money over human life and making murder sound like some reasonable method to handle problems.
Who needs terrorists? We have conservative dickbags ready to shoot anyone that disagrees with them! Oh wait, isn't that what you're all calling terrorism??
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 02 2017, @10:33PM
Too bad there isn't a mod category for "sadistic douche".
(Score: 1) by boxfetish on Friday February 03 2017, @04:47AM
I can't think of a better definition of "snowflake" than someone who is so self-absorbed and gets so upset and hysterical when people disagree with them that they want those people shot.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 03 2017, @11:48PM
Who said disagree? I said *in the way*.
English not your first language i take it?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 03 2017, @07:57PM
s/Run/Ruin/
(Score: 3, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 02 2017, @11:01PM
I felt this should be on the main comment list and not buried in a thread. The safety of pipelines is actually very questionable. According to the International Energy Agency trains have more spill incidents, but overall they spill 3x less oil than pipelines. Read more if you'd like.
http://www.iea.org/publications/freepublications/publication/MTOMR2013_free.pdf [iea.org]
Page 136:
Barrels spilled per 1 million barrels transported by rain: 8.6
Barrels spilled per 1 million barrels transported by pipe: 25.9
So all you proponents of this pipeline, your biggest argument is full of shit. Anyone care to address this?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 03 2017, @12:10AM
Correction: Page 134 (as numbered at the bottom of the page)
(Score: 1, Flamebait) by aristarchus on Friday February 03 2017, @05:33AM
Correction?
Barrels spilled per 1 million barrels transported by rain: 8.6
Well obviously we would be better of transporting petroleum by rain. 'Cause when it rains, it pours. (Wait, wasn't that salt, and not sand?)
(Score: 3, Funny) by aristarchus on Saturday February 04 2017, @08:37AM
Alright, excessive ragging on a simple typo, completely off topic and a distraction. But this:
Well obviously we would be better of transporting petroleum by rain.
Gets modded "Flamebait"? Then the irony kicks in! Of course! Raining petroleum would be Flamebait! Literally!
Good call, modder!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 03 2017, @09:50AM
It could very well be the difference between how often and how much.
Trains may very well have accidents resulting in oil spills more often than pipes.
"How many leaks has your pipe had? Only one that we know of. Fixed it last months, though the locals say it has been leaking since 1986".
A train, on the other hand, very rarely disappears somewhere along the track without someone wondering why it hasn't yet arrived at its destination.
A leaking pipe is also easier to cover up (rather than clean up) than a train accident.
(Score: 2, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 03 2017, @01:48AM
Run the pipe inside another pipe, or even inside a larger multi-purpose tunnel. Have leak detection.
For example, pump dry nitrogen into the space between the inner and outer pipes. Go to a few hundred PSI. Wait, seeing if the pressure drops. Let the nitrogen out on the other side of the lake, checking for both hydrocarbons and water. Pump it down to negative 10 PSI. Wait, seeing if the pressure comes back up. Repeat.
(Score: 2) by Bot on Friday February 03 2017, @07:55AM
>Run the pipe inside another pipe
P|PECEPT|ON
They started caring about the environment now?
Account abandoned.