Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by mrpg on Sunday November 19 2017, @04:25AM   Printer-friendly
from the color-me-oil dept.

Keystone Pipeline leaks 210,000 gallons of oil in South Dakota

Keystone Pipeline leaks 210,000 gallons of oil in South Dakota

"A total of 210,000 gallons of oil leaked Thursday (Nov 16, 2017) from the Keystone Pipeline in South Dakota, the pipeline's operator, TransCanada, said.

Crews shut down the pipeline Thursday morning, and officials are investigating the cause of the leak, which occurred about three miles southeast of the town of Amherst, said Brian Walsh, a spokesman for the state's Department of Environment and Natural Resources.

This is the largest Keystone oil spill to date in South Dakota, Walsh said. The leak comes just days before Nebraska officials announce a decision on whether the proposed Keystone XL Pipeline, a sister project, can move forward."

Keystone pipeline - major leak/spill

Elsewhere there are notes of smaller spills in the same pipeline--this AC submitter is wondering about the long term use of a pipeline that is leaking when it's nearly brand new. Doesn't sound good for the long term.

PBS has a followup article from today (Saturday), 'We need to know' more about Keystone oil pipeline leak, tribal chairman says

The leak comes as the debate over the proposed path of the Keystone XL pipeline rages on. Nebraska's Public Service Commission is scheduled to announce its decision Monday on whether to permit TransCanada to build Keystone XL along its proposed route in the state, the Omaha World-Herald reported. A spokeswoman for the commission told the AP that the board's members will only use information provided during public hearings and official public comments in order to make their decision.

Related:
US District Court: Approval of Dakota Access Pipeline Violated the Law
Dakota Access Pipeline Suffers Oil Leak Even Before Becoming Operational
Company Behind Dakota Access Oil Pipeline Sues Greenpeace


Original Submission #1Original Submission #2

Related Stories

Dakota Access Pipeline Suffers Oil Leak Even Before Becoming Operational 38 comments

Submitted via IRC for TheMightyBuzzard

The Dakota Access pipeline already had its first leak – 84 gallons of oil – at a pump station in South Dakota in early April, sparking outrage and calling into question its environmental safety.

[...] The report of the spill can be found on the Department of Environmental and Natural Resources website. The agency apparently did not make any official announcement on the incident as it was relatively minor and had no environmental impact, according to Brian Walsh, a scientist with the department, as cited by the Guardian. The site "was cleaned up right away," the official added as quoted by ABC news.

The spill occurred less than 110 miles from Lake Oahe, which supplies Sioux tribes with water.

Source: Dakota Access pipeline suffers oil leak even before becoming operational


Original Submission

US District Court: Approval of Dakota Access Pipeline Violated the Law 32 comments

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


Original Submission

Company Behind Dakota Access Oil Pipeline Sues Greenpeace 19 comments

The company that built the disputed Dakota Access oil pipeline filed a lawsuit against Greenpeace and other groups on Tuesday, alleging that they disseminated false and misleading information about the project and interfered with its construction.

In its lawsuit, which was filed in federal court in North Dakota, Texas-based Energy Transfer Partners requests damages that could approach $1 billion.

The company alleges that the groups' actions interfered with its business, facilitated crimes and acts of terrorism, incited violence, targeted financial institutions that backed the project and violated racketeering and defamation laws. The company seeks a trial and monetary damages, noting that disruptions to construction alone cost it at least $300 million and requesting triple damages.

The group of defendants "is comprised of rogue environmental groups and militant individuals who employ a pattern of criminal activity and a campaign of misinformation for purposes of increasing donations and advancing their political or business agendas," the company said in a statement.

Greenpeace attorney Tom Wetterer said the lawsuit is "meritless" and part of "a pattern of harassment by corporate bullies."

The lawsuit is "not designed to seek justice, but to silence free speech through expensive, time-consuming litigation," Wetterer said.

http://www.foxbusiness.com/markets/2017/08/22/company-behind-dakota-access-oil-pipeline-sues-greenpeace.html


Original Submission

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
(1)
  • (Score: 2) by frojack on Sunday November 19 2017, @04:42AM (62 children)

    by frojack (1554) Subscriber Badge on Sunday November 19 2017, @04:42AM (#598840) Journal

    Not your typical puncture, just bad welding.

    That would be about the only cause worth considering, were it not for the timing and the fact that this is such a contentious issue located so close to tribal property.

    --
    No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
    • (Score: 2, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday November 19 2017, @04:58AM (2 children)

      by Anonymous Coward on Sunday November 19 2017, @04:58AM (#598845)

      But I thought these welds were 100% inspected. Is that not true? Or has someone been paying off the inspectors?

      • (Score: 2) by frojack on Sunday November 19 2017, @05:52AM (1 child)

        by frojack (1554) Subscriber Badge on Sunday November 19 2017, @05:52AM (#598854) Journal

        On some pipelines, every weld is x-rayed. Trans Alaska was.
        I don't know about this particular pipe.

        --
        No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
        • (Score: 5, Interesting) by PinkyGigglebrain on Sunday November 19 2017, @07:14AM

          by PinkyGigglebrain (4458) on Sunday November 19 2017, @07:14AM (#598870)

          You never watched "China Syndrome" did you? In the movie it was discovered that the welds on a back up cooling pump at a nuclear power plant had not been checked. The inspector submitted copies from another inspection instead, he said it would have taken too long and he was over worked enough as it was. They might say the welds on this pipe where x-rayd but can we be sure without a full review of all the x-rays, including taking some new x-rays and comparing them to what is on file for that joint?

          --
          "Beware those who would deny you Knowledge, For in their hearts they dream themselves your Master."
    • (Score: 5, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday November 19 2017, @05:13AM (19 children)

      by Anonymous Coward on Sunday November 19 2017, @05:13AM (#598846)

      Umm, bad welding is way worse than a puncture! That means shoddy quality control and its likely other parts of the pipeline will fail as well. A puncture would be sabotage or accidents which are not something that can be controlled for.

      Actually, how come there isn't an oilduct underneath the pipe to catch and divert any spills?

      • (Score: 3, Insightful) by mhajicek on Sunday November 19 2017, @08:18AM (18 children)

        by mhajicek (51) Subscriber Badge on Sunday November 19 2017, @08:18AM (#598880)

        Money.

        • (Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday November 19 2017, @08:46AM (17 children)

          by Anonymous Coward on Sunday November 19 2017, @08:46AM (#598881)

          Ah yes, the fake point system we concocted that prevents humanity from doing things in the best manner possible.

          • (Score: 3, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday November 19 2017, @10:17AM (3 children)

            by Anonymous Coward on Sunday November 19 2017, @10:17AM (#598895)

            Ah yes, the fake point system we concocted that nudges humanity to doing things in a manner which benefits the least amount of people.

            There, fixed that for you...

            • (Score: 2, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday November 19 2017, @01:32PM (2 children)

              by Anonymous Coward on Sunday November 19 2017, @01:32PM (#598917)

              Ah yes, the fake point system we concocted that nudges humanity to doing things in a manner which benefits the people with the most fake points.

              FTFY

              • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 20 2017, @06:27AM (1 child)

                by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 20 2017, @06:27AM (#599167)

                Oh yes, let's just all go back to our fucking caves and foraging for food.

                And the first motherfucker that responds with any sentiment that glorifies the caveman life style is fucking welcome to go right now and try it.

                • (Score: 3, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 20 2017, @03:53PM

                  by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 20 2017, @03:53PM (#599270)

                  Oh yes, let's just all go back to our fucking caves and foraging for food.

                  Hey binary-thinking troll, let me introduce you to the concept of gray areas. Society does not have to be one extreme of cave-dwelling _or_ the other economic extreme of robber-barons. There's a concept of a dynamic, self-correcting political-economic system with strong controls on pricing, quality (warranties), employment, etc. It's working well all around the world. It is not working well in USA and other countries where the ultra-rich control too much of the government and have no concern for who they trample. I invite you to quickly leave our civil society in any way you choose while the rest of us try to improve life on Earth.

          • (Score: 2, Informative) by fustakrakich on Sunday November 19 2017, @03:45PM (10 children)

            by fustakrakich (6150) on Sunday November 19 2017, @03:45PM (#598937) Journal

            Actually it exists to fortify coercive social hierarchies. You know, trickle down...

            • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 20 2017, @02:13AM (9 children)

              by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 20 2017, @02:13AM (#599109)

              Where does this money that fortifies coercive social hierarchies come from?

              • (Score: 1) by fustakrakich on Monday November 20 2017, @02:17AM (8 children)

                by fustakrakich (6150) on Monday November 20 2017, @02:17AM (#599114) Journal

                Where does a circle begin?

                • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 20 2017, @02:41AM (7 children)

                  by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 20 2017, @02:41AM (#599120)

                  Where the pen touches paper, or where the press strikes the page.

                  Where did the money you view as a problem come from? There is a valid answer. Money did not "always exist".

                  • (Score: 1) by fustakrakich on Monday November 20 2017, @03:53AM (6 children)

                    by fustakrakich (6150) on Monday November 20 2017, @03:53AM (#599130) Journal

                    Money did not "always exist".

                    Yes it did. It existed as land and crops and livestock. And the theft through conquests and subsequent subservience to the new owners is the coercion and resulting hierarchies. Now we can do it on paper, and on the internet!

                    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 20 2017, @03:57AM (5 children)

                      by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 20 2017, @03:57AM (#599132)

                      Yes [money] did [always exist]. It existed as land and crops and livestock

                      Wrong, money did not always exist. Land and crops and livestock all had an origin. However, that's a misdirection, as most all trade today is not conducted in "land and crops and livestock". In the USA for example, there exists a little thing called a "US Dollar". The current US Dollar (there have been several versions of the US Dollar) has a very specific and identifiable origin; it did not always exist. Where did it originate?

          • (Score: 2, Insightful) by khallow on Monday November 20 2017, @01:42AM (1 child)

            by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Monday November 20 2017, @01:42AM (#599095) Journal
            Your ass must be near omniscient for you to pull so many great ideas from it. Alas, I'm having this contrary thought though. Maybe your ass doesn't know what is the "best manner possible".

            Consider this. Is it really in our best interests to deny transportation and life-saving chemicals to millions of people because of a 210,000 gallon spill which will likely be cleaned up shortly? Even in the likely event that we'll see these sorts of spills on an infrequent but regular basis, so what? We're doing a lot more with this oil on an ongoing basis than contaminate some minor part of the environment.
            • (Score: 3, Insightful) by edIII on Monday November 20 2017, @11:29PM

              by edIII (791) Subscriber Badge on Monday November 20 2017, @11:29PM (#599438)

              Consider this. Is it really in our best interests to deny transportation and life-saving chemicals to millions of people because of a 210,000 gallon spill which will likely be cleaned up shortly?

              YES!!!!!!!!!!!! Jesus fucking Christ dude, pull your head out of your ass. Life-saving chemicals? Bullshit, no you are just really reaching there. WATER is a fucking live-saving chemical. Tar sands are not. Whatever materials could be gained by those resources, could probably be manufactured differently and not require it.

              When the consequences outweigh the benefits, you DO NOT proceed, unless the risk assessment gave us the confidence to "roll the dice". I don't think you would disagree with that statement.

              Even in the likely event that we'll see these sorts of spills on an infrequent but regular basis, so what? We're doing a lot more with this oil on an ongoing basis than contaminate some minor part of the environment.

              Fuck you man. You just literally said it was a means to an end, and that's okay for fuck up that particular area of nature, because the people aren't really equal to the rest of us. Who cares if some native child has to drink tar sands polluted water? If you feel that it is okay, would you continue to live in a place that experienced the spill? Would you drink the well water? Basically, would you live in that "minor part" of the environment?

              Also, what credentials do you have to determine "minor" parts of the ecosystem in any particular area? Did you really mean that it wasn't on the West/East coast, and instead was in fly-over country, so why give a fuck?

              That "lot more with it", is really just some people getting mega rich. You made it sound like we are also getting "life-saving" life altering medicines and materials out of it. You were speaking out your butt unless you can cite examples that have far more benefit to society other than avaricious financial ones. So don't fucking come back with me that Capitalism itself is a sufficient reason to proceed. It ain't ever going to be.

              This is not the only place, and the only way, to get those materials.

              In the end, it very much is in our best interests to not let incompetent, avaricious, negligent people to be controlling infrastructure with critical and devastating consequences. A couple hundred thousand gallons of tar sands released into the water is going to be a problem. Not some minor problem that you seem to want to turn it into.

              The pumping station spill was minor. A spill in the middle of the line, only due to a failed weld, is MAJOR and clear evidence that they are not taking the steps they said they would, and they say they do. All of those MRI/CAT pigs that can be routinely sent down the pipes absolutely would've detected a failed weld. By now, there should've been multiple passes, and not just one to satisfy the regulators, that they never even looked at completely themselves.

              So far the only thing this pipeline does is some make some evil men richer. That's it. If it were really that good for our country, then we need to construct pipelines safely. I already outlined what would be needed to do it, and that all of it is on market now. Not demanding that "science be applied cuz we have to have it right?", but that we force them to buy from other well established companies offering advanced testing and diagnostics for that particular kind of infrastructure they've already brought to market. I can already hear you complaining about "force", but there really is no excuse to use economically viable testing methods on market. Not any good ones at least.

              You can buy a smart pig now, and they're routinely used to help test and maintain our infrastructure.

              Maybe your ass doesn't know what is the "best manner possible".

              Perhaps not, but mine does. Along with many, many, many engineers in the industry. Safe pipelines are not impossible, but I would not roll the dice so close to waterways. They would get extra protection if required. Fuck, just use excellent QA on all of the materials, inspect, x-ray, and continually certify the welds and welders. Then add redundancy and countermeasures. It's really not all that hard. Really.

              It's just not done because the oil executives don't give a fuck. You see it elsewhere. That Dupont board was caught recording a board meeting where they discussed the ongoing poisoning of a farm and family that owned the farm. Lawyer basically gave the "My ass is already toast, so fuck it, I'm not coming back till the morning anyways".

              This is one of those instances were need to assiduously avoid some of the pitfalls of Capitalism, namely corruption and the negligence caused by avarice.

    • (Score: 4, Insightful) by Arik on Sunday November 19 2017, @05:29AM (13 children)

      by Arik (4543) on Sunday November 19 2017, @05:29AM (#598848) Journal
      "Not your typical puncture, just bad welding."

      Assuming you are correct, that's actually much worse. That would indicate substandard construction, not a one-off accident.
      --
      "This font is your font, you can't see my font."
      • (Score: 2) by frojack on Sunday November 19 2017, @05:50AM (12 children)

        by frojack (1554) Subscriber Badge on Sunday November 19 2017, @05:50AM (#598851) Journal

        Yes, it could be worse.
        But chances are it forces a review of all the weld x-ray images. And that might turn up other suspect joints.
          Baring a leak, there's no reason to do this kind of a review.

        --
        No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
        • (Score: 2, Insightful) by fustakrakich on Sunday November 19 2017, @06:06AM (9 children)

          by fustakrakich (6150) on Sunday November 19 2017, @06:06AM (#598856) Journal

          Baring a leak, there's no reason to do this kind of a review.

          I thought the idea was to prevent leaks, not to be fixing them all the time, but maybe they have other plans.

          • (Score: 1) by khallow on Monday November 20 2017, @01:43AM (8 children)

            by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Monday November 20 2017, @01:43AM (#599096) Journal
            That's what maintenance is about. You don't make a perfect pipeline. Instead, you keep a pipeline in good, working order.
            • (Score: 1) by fustakrakich on Monday November 20 2017, @02:04AM (7 children)

              by fustakrakich (6150) on Monday November 20 2017, @02:04AM (#599105) Journal

              Instead, you keep a pipeline in good, working order.

              Only if it's cheaper than fixing it when it breaks. That's how business is done [wfu.edu]. You do what's "cost effective", not what's best. That is a fundamental of capitalism.

              • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 20 2017, @02:08AM (2 children)

                by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 20 2017, @02:08AM (#599107)

                You do what's "cost effective", not what's best. That is a fundamental of capitalism.

                Market bad?

                I thought you say market good! [soylentnews.org]

                • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 20 2017, @02:14AM (1 child)

                  by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 20 2017, @02:14AM (#599111)

                  That's what you get for thinkin'! You're only gonna hurt yourself

                  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 20 2017, @05:26AM

                    by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 20 2017, @05:26AM (#599156)

                    You should get together with fustakrakich. He has the exact same view as you!

              • (Score: 1) by khallow on Monday November 20 2017, @02:51AM (3 children)

                by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Monday November 20 2017, @02:51AM (#599123) Journal

                Only if it's cheaper than fixing it when it breaks.

                That is maintenance too.

                As to the Pinto example, it turned out to not be cost effective. Ford lost a lot of money, customers, and reputation on that.

                • (Score: 1) by fustakrakich on Monday November 20 2017, @03:35AM (2 children)

                  by fustakrakich (6150) on Monday November 20 2017, @03:35AM (#599128) Journal

                  Well, there is that little thing called preventative maintenance that nobody wants to pay for because it's more expensive than damage repair to property.

                  As to the Pinto example, it turned out to not be cost effective. Ford lost a lot of money, customers, and reputation on that.

                  No, it was only that the lawsuits were more expensive than anticipated. Both Ford (Grand Vic) and GM (Some pickups) had subsequent flaws that were similar. Business practices have not changed one bit. The bottom line is all there is. Everything is built to be marginally serviceable when new instead of robust and durable. That includes pipelines.

                  • (Score: 2, Informative) by khallow on Monday November 20 2017, @03:55AM (1 child)

                    by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Monday November 20 2017, @03:55AM (#599131) Journal

                    Well, there is that little thing called preventative maintenance that nobody wants to pay for because it's more expensive than damage repair to property.

                    When true, that's a good reason not to pay for it.

                    No, it was only that the lawsuits were more expensive than anticipated.

                    And if those lawsuits weren't, it would be because the Pinto wasn't as dangerous as it ended up being.

                    Business practices have not changed one bit.

                    Yet somehow some businesses have more difficulties with preventative maintenance than others.

                    Everything is built to be marginally serviceable when new instead of robust and durable. That includes pipelines.

                    Except when they don't do that. For all your talk, I don't see the indications that the Keystone XL pipeline has been poorly constructed or has a poor preventative maintenance to post-accident maintenance balance. One leak (or even the modest sequence of leaks mentioned in the story) doesn't indicate a problem.

                    • (Score: 2) by drussell on Monday November 20 2017, @06:08AM

                      by drussell (2678) on Monday November 20 2017, @06:08AM (#599164) Journal

                      Just for clarification, this leak was in the Keystone pipeline, not the proposed Keystone XL pipeline, which is to be an expansion leg phase added to the existing system. The XL expansion is intended to increase the coverage area and total capacity as the current pipeline but via a different route to be able to also pick up US-origin oil from the Baker, Montana terminal to send it to refineries further south as well as increase the capacity from Alberta to those same US refineries.

                      https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/43/Keystone-pipeline-route.png [wikimedia.org]

        • (Score: 5, Informative) by Arik on Sunday November 19 2017, @06:20AM (1 child)

          by Arik (4543) on Sunday November 19 2017, @06:20AM (#598858) Journal
          "But chances are it forces a review of all the weld x-ray images. And that might turn up other suspect joints.
            Baring a leak, there's no reason to do this kind of a review."

          Huh?

          Granted I've never worked on a pipeline, but I'd expect higher standards there not lower. The practice I've seen and would expect is that x-rays are reviewed before the weld is considered to have passed inspection, not that it gets filed without anyone looking at it. That sounds like a massive, systematic failure at QA.
          --
          "This font is your font, you can't see my font."
          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 20 2017, @03:24PM

            by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 20 2017, @03:24PM (#599258)

            I believe he is rationalizing the sin, due to the sin of neglect being the most convenient and profitable outcome for those responsible, considering the facts.

            remember, those in charge of the pipeline place no value on the land the pipe goes through. that's someone else's problem and valuation, and the laywers already know how to tie up small claims like this forever. someone might get a pay out somewhere, but that's just to keep the PR from going entirely negative. mostly negative is OK.

    • (Score: 5, Insightful) by edIII on Sunday November 19 2017, @05:52AM (23 children)

      by edIII (791) Subscriber Badge on Sunday November 19 2017, @05:52AM (#598852)

      Surely you don't mean that somebody from tribal lands would sabotage it? If so, that's so incredibly and offensively full-retard. I guess they're just kiiiiding about all that belonging to the land, harmony with nature crap, and decided to fuck up their own backyard? Is that what you mean by that?

      Secondly, bad welding would be EXACTLY the reason why the whole thing should be shutdown, executives fined *and* jailed, the whole company forfeited, and the entirety set aside for the tribe and cleanup operations. I say that, because when the industry claims opponents (such as myself) are just ignorant hicks, they trot out the impressive Star Trek science and shame us like cave living idiots. Stuff like MRI/CAT pigs being sent down the pipes, extensive QC on the pipes, INSPECTED FUCKING WELDS on the pipes, and a few other genuinely advanced scientific diagnostics would be in use.

      They always make it sound like they've got NORAD going on in their operations center, and it's a NASA level competency infrastructure in play. Yet, it's not, IS IT? Nope, they're fucking off, shaving off costs, not using the scientific equipment, because if they fucking did, how did bad welding occur? Just what fucking welders did they hire? The CHEAP ones with poor experience and little certifications? I bet some professional welders could educate you here about how a bad weld job is so, so, so, so, much fucking worse than an accidental puncture. Like the difference between a gentle hill and Mt. Fucking Everest.

      Uh huh. I told you so, I told you so, I told you so, ♪♫♬ ♪♫♬ I Told You So♪♫♬♪♫♬♪

      :D

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday November 19 2017, @06:35AM (13 children)

        by Anonymous Coward on Sunday November 19 2017, @06:35AM (#598861)

        There are lots of potential reasons for punctures other than sabotage. Accidents happen.

        Bear in mind, this is equally true whether your contention is that a few spills is no big deal, or whether your contention is that a few spills are reason enough to shut all the everything down.

        Of course, while we're about it, we should probably also do a comparison with the risks and costs of other forms of shipping, like rail - or just simply stop all the oil all the time (although given that we're shutting down nukes, odds are we're going to see plenty more oil and coal before the solar systems save us).

        • (Score: 5, Insightful) by edIII on Sunday November 19 2017, @07:04AM (4 children)

          by edIII (791) Subscriber Badge on Sunday November 19 2017, @07:04AM (#598866)

          Accidents can be meticulously and thoroughly prepared for so that the consequences are mitigated as much as possible. When the consequences are really, seriously, tremendously fucking bad for us, we need to ask ourselves is it worth it? When we do that, we need to completely ignore the oil executives and investors that blindly say yes cuz the billions.

          No, I don't have a problem with pipelines. As long as they're made safe, as long as their continually inspected, and as long as their maintained with government oversight. That little spill months back was at a pumping station that can handle it. The real catastrophe is when something happens in the middle of the piping in between pumping stations. You need irises and valves that can isolate that part of the line immediately so the whole volume of the pipe can't flow out. Ohhh, and it goes without saying, not violating any of our treaties. So the DAPL line is instantly disqualified, and the investors and everyone else can go fuck themselves. It's sovereign land, and it ain't ours. Fuck off.

          You can also have a ditch below the pipe to at least divert the oil, and it can be made with dual pipes (one within another). If they actually used all the scientific instruments the way they could be, that would mean regular inspections of the line from within the pipe itself. As I stated before, the little trivial leak at the pumping station was no big deal, and a thousand gallons lost in an accident is capable of being handled. It's when you lose 210,000 fucking gallons into nature, or waterways, that it becomes an issue worth putting people in jail for and you might want to just shut the whole line down. It should've never happened if they were behaving, and if they were behaving and a major accident happened, then I'll agree it's an act of God and we can learn and move forward. Although, again, I'm not sure we're really weighing the risks to nature appropriately here.

          It's not a technical issue why the lines shouldn't be allowed, it's a humanity issue. Specifically, that the oil executives and investors have none of it, and I think this is possible proof of that. At the very least I expect an investigation into the cause, and if negligence is found, then people need to "hang".

          • (Score: 5, Insightful) by sjames on Sunday November 19 2017, @08:08AM (3 children)

            by sjames (2882) on Sunday November 19 2017, @08:08AM (#598878) Journal

            It's funny how the executives never find their own water supply or property threatened by a pipeline. I have to wonder how much more safety they would demand if they faced the danger.

            • (Score: 2) by HiThere on Sunday November 19 2017, @06:00PM (1 child)

              by HiThere (866) Subscriber Badge on Sunday November 19 2017, @06:00PM (#598980)

              Well, before the current route it was going to be routed through an area inconvenient for some city (forget which city and inconvenient in what way). That was the route the engineers thought best. It got rerouted through Indian lands. Possibly because the land would have been too expensive, but I don't think I ever knew exactly why.

              --
              Put not your faith in princes.
              • (Score: 2) by frojack on Sunday November 26 2017, @02:28AM

                by frojack (1554) Subscriber Badge on Sunday November 26 2017, @02:28AM (#601567) Journal

                It got rerouted through Indian lands.

                You lie!

                --
                No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
            • (Score: 1) by khallow on Monday November 20 2017, @02:13AM

              by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Monday November 20 2017, @02:13AM (#599110) Journal

              It's funny how the executives never find their own water supply or property threatened by a pipeline.

              How would you know?

              Let's also suppose that this pipeline is as threatening to water supplies as you think it is. Where should we route pipelines when we have the choice? High population density areas or low population density areas? Which areas are likely to generate higher risk?

        • (Score: 4, Insightful) by fritsd on Sunday November 19 2017, @11:16AM (7 children)

          by fritsd (4586) on Sunday November 19 2017, @11:16AM (#598901) Journal

          Of course, while we're about it, we should probably also do a comparison with the risks and costs of other forms of shipping, like rail (...)

          Well, that's what I thought (nobody listens to me boohoo): why not ship the bitumen by rail from Canada to Texas? It sounds like it's just chunks of dirty asphalt, after all. No need to make it liquid and spillable first.

          • (Score: 2) by dry on Monday November 20 2017, @05:37AM (5 children)

            by dry (223) on Monday November 20 2017, @05:37AM (#599158) Journal

            They have to dilute it and pipe it to the rail head as far as I know.
            The real question, which is safer, the odd big bitumen pipeline leak, perhaps in an out of the way spot where the leak isn't noticed or more train accidents that release small amounts of bitumen beside the railroad and are noticed quick.

            • (Score: 2) by drussell on Monday November 20 2017, @05:59AM (4 children)

              by drussell (2678) on Monday November 20 2017, @05:59AM (#599162) Journal

              No, any significant leak in a pipeline will be noticed right away. It is the tank cars that are dangerous and unpredictable. The size of the Keystone pipeline leak is only about 8 tank cars worth. It doesn't take much to have eight cars derail and spill their contents all around and there is a much greater chance of that bursting into flames somehow when hastily moving train cars smash, bash, bend, split and spill. Sometimes it takes hours for a full response to a train accident in a remote area. A pipeline will be shut down and isolated quickly, though at the pressures and flow rates in that size of pipe with a large rupture some is still going to spill. They do actually consider all this, contrary to what you may think, and try to make it as unlikely as possible and any potential impact from any problems as small and easy to deal with as possible.

              • (Score: 2) by dry on Monday November 20 2017, @07:05AM

                by dry (223) on Monday November 20 2017, @07:05AM (#599176) Journal

                I'll be the first to say I don't know the numbers, but I'm pretty sure that multiple times I've heard about pipeline spills not being noticed for much too long. My google-fu is failing me but there is this from the wiki,

                A recent Wall Street Journal review found that there were 1,400 pipeline spills and accidents in the U.S. 2010-2013. According to the Journal review, four in every five pipeline accidents are discovered by local residents, not the companies that own the pipelines.[46][47]

                unluckily the original page won't load for me.

              • (Score: 3, Informative) by fritsd on Monday November 20 2017, @04:54PM (2 children)

                by fritsd (4586) on Monday November 20 2017, @04:54PM (#599288) Journal

                It doesn't take much to have eight cars derail and spill their contents all around and there is a much greater chance of that bursting into flames somehow when hastily moving train cars smash, bash, bend, split and spill.

                We're not talking about an ethylene or chlorine train derailing here; we're talking about a freight train with this type [wikipedia.org] of wagons filled with smelly rocks.

                In case of spill, bring people with shovels.

                • (Score: 2) by drussell on Tuesday November 21 2017, @12:07AM (1 child)

                  by drussell (2678) on Tuesday November 21 2017, @12:07AM (#599445) Journal

                  Whaaaaa?.... Huh??!

                  We're talking about moving crude oil not some kind of ore...

                  • (Score: 2) by fritsd on Tuesday November 21 2017, @04:38PM

                    by fritsd (4586) on Tuesday November 21 2017, @04:38PM (#599716) Journal

                    It could well be that I'm confused; in that case, I'm sorry for the misinformation.

                    I thought that Canadian crude oil came from here:

                    Athabasca oil sands [wikipedia.org]

                    Where "oil sands" actually means: some kind of ore, if I understand the Wiki page correctly. I mean: they don't normally use open pit mining methods for crude oil, amirite?

                    picture [bloomberg.com]

                    So.

                    When (not if) the post-Peak Oil Athabasca bitumen is no longer profitable, they can use the 3456 km pipeline to export maple syrup to the south, or maybe coca-cola to the north :-)

                    (from the Bloomberg article:)

                    Almost all of Canada’s reserves (and production) are in the form of oil sands, which are among the most expensive types of crude to produce.

                    (The Bloomberg article from December 2014 has a handy graph that made me laugh: crude bitumen production from January 2010 to December 2019)

          • (Score: 2) by drussell on Tuesday November 21 2017, @10:23AM

            by drussell (2678) on Tuesday November 21 2017, @10:23AM (#599604) Journal

            You don't ship the ore from a gold mine to somewhere else to have the gold extracted, that would be silly. You always do at least the first stage of separation right close to where you mine.

            The same goes for oil. When you mine the raw ore, you process it into at least a reasonably well separated product to ship out and put the remaining sand, rocks and debris that are not hydrocarbons back where you mined it from.

            Shipping out raw ores or bitumen contaminated with all kinds of other junk would be kind of insane and obviously not cost effective... :)

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday November 19 2017, @10:19AM (1 child)

        by Anonymous Coward on Sunday November 19 2017, @10:19AM (#598896)

        ...you dilute your honesty too much. ;)

      • (Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Monday November 20 2017, @02:07PM (6 children)

        by Phoenix666 (552) Subscriber Badge on Monday November 20 2017, @02:07PM (#599234) Journal

        Surely you don't mean that somebody from tribal lands would sabotage it? If so, that's so incredibly and offensively full-retard. I guess they're just kiiiiding about all that belonging to the land, harmony with nature crap, and decided to fuck up their own backyard? Is that what you mean by that?

        Why is that necessarily retarded to suppose that the tribe would sabotage the pipeline to score political points or get money? They tried that tactic before when there was an "OMG!!!" spill of, what, 50,000 gallons that when you looked at it was about the size of a half lot next to a gas station. And that was supposed to be the absolute proof that pipelines are dangerous and will destroy all life on Earth as we know it.

        Further, all that "belonging to the land, harmony with nature crap" is crap. It's designed for white liberal consumption. Actually go to a reservation and observe how well they belong to the land and live in harmony with nature. Any Indian property, from the Blackfeet in North Central Montana, to the Crow Agency in South Eastern Montana/NE Wyoming/NW South Dakota, to the Navajo in AZ, etc. etc. and there will be minimum 3 junk cars and crap piled to the heavens without one thought for aesthetics or nature spirits. If they are so careless with their own personal property that they own, how can we believe they treasure the rest of the land?

        Archaeological evidence of what Indians did before European contact is not particularly complimentary either. It's not conclusive, but there was a mass die-off of major fauna in the Americas around the time humans are reckoned to have arrived. Over-hunting, perhaps? We further know that around the time of the earliest European contact in what is now the United States the Iroquois had so persecuted the Algonquin peoples to their east and depopulated their lands that the ones who were left under King Phillip ran into the arms of the Pilgrims hoping for new allies to help them turn the tide. In other words, systematic warfare and ethnic cleansing had already been long practiced in the Americas. No innocents, they.

        --
        Washington DC delenda est.
        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 20 2017, @03:27PM

          by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 20 2017, @03:27PM (#599261)

          you seem to have a dim view of the natives. they arent allowed to be on the land they were forcibly moved from under the threat of death and now the white people want to poison the shitty land they were given due to the white people's liberal consumption taking precedence for the good land.

          there's no pleasing people like you if someone objects to your conveniences

          you take examples of object poverty enforced upon them as reasons to keep them poor. nice logic

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 20 2017, @05:13PM

          by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 20 2017, @05:13PM (#599299)

          Have you been playing the long con? Now your narrative switches to a more conservative pro-business one after years building up social credit? It sure would be a good tactic to try and sway those that give your words consideration.

        • (Score: 2) by edIII on Monday November 20 2017, @10:26PM (3 children)

          by edIII (791) Subscriber Badge on Monday November 20 2017, @10:26PM (#599423)

          Why is that necessarily retarded to suppose that the tribe would sabotage the pipeline to score political points or get money?

          Yes. That level of self harm is extreme. Literally cutting off your nose to spite your face. So I don't believe it, unless it was one random pissed off guy that is NOT a tribe member. An organized sabotage because they protest DAPL, because it might fail? No, that is not all that credible to begin with. Certainly not because some natives had derelict cars in their front yards.

          That makes no sense dude. No, I'm not saying that I have the delusion that the natives were perfect, or are perfect. They are, however, the ones consistently speaking on behalf of nature. You're correct, I don't know if right after the loving nature speech some natives go back to their properties filled with pollution and garbage. For the record, having a few derelict cars in your front yard can also be attributed to the redneck stereotype. "If you cut your lawn, and find three vehicles.... you might be a redneck".

          Oh, by the way, in the end none of it matters. We had a treaty, it was signed, it IS sovereign land. Just because our government isn't representative of us any longer, or gives a shit about the environment, does it mean that it's okay to throw away our national honor.

          So no, I don't believe Frojack's implications that members of the tribe might have sabotaged it. That would be like me sabotaging the sewage lines near my place so I can enjoy the fetid wastewater in my own home. Just to spite the landlord. Unless there is evidence of sabotage, negligence and mechanical failure are the most likely culprits. It's just offensive to make that claim without any proof at all to back it up, beyond some stereotypes and derelict cars.

          If they are so careless with their own personal property that they own, how can we believe they treasure the rest of the land?

          Simply because I don't think normal people will shit in their own backyard, to complain to others about the shit in their own backyard, or blame strangers for it. These are the words and actions of more than on native as well. I doubt that the tribe itself would sanction any action that might release tar sands into the same environment they need to live in.

          50,000 gallons that when you looked at it was about the size of a half lot next to a gas station.

          Okay. Twenty-five 2k gallon containers might fit on half a lot, but that much seeping into nature and the waterways is still bad. This leak is over four times as bad, so let's just say an entire lot and the gas station peppered with 2,000 gallon containers.

          Spilling onto the surface of the ground might not seem so bad at first, but this shit ain't biodegradable like a banana peel you know. Nature will start to distribute that in ground water, and just rains on the surface transporting the pollution into a larger area.

          What if that spill was IN the waterways? You think 50,000 gallons is innocent? This is tar sands too, that amount of it, WILL have a negative impact on nature. You seem to want to downplay that as if it's not that big a deal. IT IS.

          The accidents I'm not concerned about are the pumping station accidents that can easily mitigate a thousand gallons or so because of a leak at the station. In the middle of the line is a whole different story. Straight into nature, and not into a concrete retaining area around the pump. No biggie, and not really even news. What we are talking about is so much worse, because it was a failed weld in a system they promised would be free of such things. With all the advanced tech available on market, there is absolutely zero excuse for a failed weld beyond negligence of some kind. This wasn't a weld in a fence where failure isn't catastrophic, but similar to a critical weld failing on a space station.

          Regardless of the tribe, they failed.

          • (Score: 2) by drussell on Tuesday November 21 2017, @12:19AM (2 children)

            by drussell (2678) on Tuesday November 21 2017, @12:19AM (#599451) Journal

            This is tar sands too, that amount of it, WILL have a negative impact on nature. You seem to want to downplay that as if it's not that big a deal. IT IS.

            I don't understand what you're saying here... We're talking about the transportation of crude oil. I fail to see what the origin of that crude has to do with your argument. I'm not saying we should go around randomly spilling any mix of hydrocarbons around into nature willy-nilly, but implying it is somehow worse because it is from the oilsands is silly.

            The crude we're talking about was extracted from bitumen, which in some places is so abundant that is is right on the surface. Gooey black oily sand to essentially natural asphalt pavement. The natives in the area used to caulk their canoes and such with it... In some places it oozes right out of the ground into puddles! How is it so horrible if a little bit of it ends up on the ground somewhere else temporarily until they clean it up? There are literally thousands of square miles of it in Northern Alberta... It is just sitting there in the ground. You dig it up, slurp out the oily goo and return the nicely cleaned sand and earth back to the forest. I would think the trees and the woodland critters probably like the after-soil better than the before-soil when it comes to the oilsands people slurping the black goo out....

            • (Score: 2) by edIII on Tuesday November 21 2017, @12:39AM (1 child)

              by edIII (791) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday November 21 2017, @12:39AM (#599465)

              I'm not saying we should go around randomly spilling any mix of hydrocarbons around into nature willy-nilly, but implying it is somehow worse because it is from the oilsands is silly

              Not at all silly. It's what the experts say. No, HuffPost isn't an expert, but this does a decent job of explaining it the difference between tar sands and regular oil. Having physically seen both, yeah, there is a pretty big difference. Regular oil is a lot more easier and safer to transport, in particular because tar sands actually contain sand. It's fucking abrasive as hell to the pipes. At least more so than regular oil, making tar sands pipelines inherently more dangerous. Yet, I'm still not against it if the proper measures are taken, and triple that at waterway crossings or anyplace it traverses groundwater too close to the surface.

              Why Tar Sands Are Worse [huffingtonpost.com]

              Tar sand spills prove even more toxic and difficult to clean up than typical oil spills. That’s because the heavy mixture of oil sand sinks in water, which means that tactics like skimming the surface can’t be used. Instead, remediators must try to recover the oil from the bottoms of rivers, reservoirs, or wherever it has spilled — a far more difficult task. Tar sands already contain high concentrations of heavy metals, and chemical diluents mixed in for transport are also known to be carcinogenic. EPA lab tests following a December 2011 oil leak in Colorado found concentrations of cancer-causing benzene as high as 2,000 parts per billion in the creek where the leak occurred — well above the 5 ppb national drinking water standard.

              Yeah, it's Greenpeace, but it's a good explanation [greenpeace.org]...

              So, absolutely yes, it's worse. Not somehow worse, but worse in known and quantified ways.

              I can see your point about land, but you need to remember that it has been modified. That shit don't flow through a pipe, unless you make enough into a liquid to flow under pressure. So when the pipe breaks, it isn't natural bitumen finding a new place in nature with human assisted migration. It's what bitumen becomes after the process to prep it for shipping via pipeline.

              The part that is really horrible is when this modified shit gets into a waterway, or seeps into ground water. I'm betting your average Canadian doesn't drink well water that is really close to these bitumen fields. In this modified state it has the potential, and has already happened, to cause vastly increased (200x) levels of carcinogens in the water supply.

              Moreover, why do we need to ship this shit thousands of miles again? Canada isn't land locked or some shit. They could make it traverse their entire country to the Atlantic, or even better, perform the refining locally. After processing into regular product they could ship that far more safely.

              Only reason why we are taking the risks are the monetary rewards for the few.

              • (Score: 2) by drussell on Tuesday November 21 2017, @10:48AM

                by drussell (2678) on Tuesday November 21 2017, @10:48AM (#599606) Journal

                Having physically seen both, yeah, there is a pretty big difference. Regular oil is a lot more easier and safer to transport, in particular because tar sands actually contain sand. It's fucking abrasive as hell to the pipes. At least more so than regular oil, making tar sands pipelines inherently more dangerous. Yet, I'm still not against it if the proper measures are taken, and triple that at waterway crossings or anyplace it traverses groundwater too close to the surface.

                That mostly applies to stuff moving around right near the mines, getting it to the upgrader, etc. You do realize we don't ship the actual sandy goo over long distances, right? That isn't what spilled out of the Keystone Pipeline. It only has any significant sand and crap in it at the first stages of production. The goo is extracted and via various different possible processes is turned into what is called "synthetic crude" so it is still "heavy" in oil parlance, but it isn't like asphalt anymore...

                Tar sand spills prove even more toxic and difficult to clean up than typical oil spills. That’s because the heavy mixture of oil sand sinks in water, which means that tactics like skimming the surface can’t be used. ...

                Yeah, but that isn't what spilled! That applies mostly to the original goo that is processed here in Alberta, not the synthetic crude we ship out for further processing and refining. Sure, it has some nasty hydrocarbon fractions in it but so does other crude. As long as you keep it out of waterways and clean up anything else that ends up back on the ground it's not nearly as nasty as the zealots would have you believe.

                I can see your point about land, but you need to remember that it has been modified. That shit don't flow through a pipe, unless you make enough into a liquid to flow under pressure. So when the pipe breaks, it isn't natural bitumen finding a new place in nature with human assisted migration. It's what bitumen becomes after the process to prep it for shipping via pipeline.

                Crude of any type has all sorts of nasties in it. Cracking some long hydrocarbon chains or adding a bunch of lighter ones doesn't in and of itself make it any worse than some of the random blends that come out of some traditional wells. That's why we no longer dump any of them it into streams and rivers (like the early refiners in the US did with the "waste" gasoline, for example) and clean it up if it ends up in the soil. I'd be much more worried about the consequences of fracking mixing everything up in the geology than extracting some of the goo from the oilsands.

                Moreover, why do we need to ship this shit thousands of miles again? Canada isn't land locked or some shit. They could make it traverse their entire country to the Atlantic, or even better, perform the refining locally. After processing into regular product they could ship that far more safely.

                Yes, we could sell it abroad, however, it makes far more sense to send it safely through a pipe to the US for use instead of the US importing oil from abroad too. Shipping large quantities of crude by sea is really one of the worst ideas, IMHO.

                Only reason why we are taking the risks are the monetary rewards for the few.

                So, you don't ever use any oil or oil-related products? Kudos!

    • (Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Sunday November 19 2017, @02:08PM

      by JoeMerchant (3937) on Sunday November 19 2017, @02:08PM (#598920)

      If you want to start covering all possibilities, Leonids peaked on November 17th... even if the welds were x-rayed a sufficiently large strike (which surely would have been noticed?) could break the pipe.

      However, with the political decision around the corner, human factors would seem to be much more likely.

  • (Score: 4, Insightful) by boxfetish on Sunday November 19 2017, @05:14AM

    by boxfetish (4831) on Sunday November 19 2017, @05:14AM (#598847)

    Thanks Obama!

  • (Score: 5, Insightful) by https on Sunday November 19 2017, @05:52AM

    by https (5248) on Sunday November 19 2017, @05:52AM (#598853)

    I seem to remember that over the past year people were being imprisoned, shot at, doused with water in freezing weather, and so on, just for saying that this exact sort of thing would happen.

    TransCanada - what a bunch of cloaca fuckers.

    --
    Offended and laughing about it.
  • (Score: 2, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday November 19 2017, @06:32AM (7 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday November 19 2017, @06:32AM (#598860)

    The hole is in a section built from 2008 to 2010. You'll have to blame a different president for that one!

    The leak is marked by an 'X' on this map, and the section Trump approved is a red dashed line:
    https://i.redd.it/vjo9y82bpgyz.jpg [i.redd.it]

    Unmarked map:
    http://www.keystone-xl.com/kxl-101/maps/ [keystone-xl.com]

    Wikipedia about the pipeline:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keystone_Pipeline [wikipedia.org]

    FWIW, this is about 4 train cars worth. George Soros encouraged the protests because he makes lots of money shipping the oil via train. Trains derail and spill all the time.

    • (Score: 4, Insightful) by FatPhil on Sunday November 19 2017, @11:29AM (6 children)

      by FatPhil (863) <reversethis-{if.fdsa} {ta} {tnelyos-cp}> on Sunday November 19 2017, @11:29AM (#598903) Homepage
      So if it was being built in 2008..., then it was approved before 2008? So which president should I blame?

      (It was September 21, 2007 to be precise, in case you care about facts.)
      --
      Life is a precious commodity. A wise investor would get rid of it when it has the highest value.
      • (Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Sunday November 19 2017, @02:12PM (5 children)

        by JoeMerchant (3937) on Sunday November 19 2017, @02:12PM (#598921)

        Clue: Presidents don't control issues like these. If a President spent enough political capital to do anything other than tie-break an issue like this, they would be giving up far more power in decisions that matter more for their future. There may be days that gas prices have just surged up and the President comes out in favor of a pipeline to gain a point or two in the polls, but that's not actual influencing, that's political profiteering on an existing situation.

        • (Score: 1) by khallow on Monday November 20 2017, @02:24AM (4 children)

          by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Monday November 20 2017, @02:24AM (#599117) Journal

          Clue: Presidents don't control issues like these.

          Obama controlled the issue well enough that he delayed approval (from the US Army Corps of Engineers) for the final sections of the Dakota Access pipeline for the better part of a year. With another term, he probably could have delayed approval of the project long enough that it wouldn't be economically viable.

          • (Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Monday November 20 2017, @04:14AM (3 children)

            by JoeMerchant (3937) on Monday November 20 2017, @04:14AM (#599139)

            Of course, Obama already had all the terms allowed by law - so, even if this was a personal goal of his - blocking it didn't cost him re-election. But, was this a presidential action, or just a delay by the bureaucracy? If the Army Corps of Engineers didn't think it was ready to approve, is that a presidential responsibility to override, or is it just the system functioning as designed?

            • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 20 2017, @06:29AM

              by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 20 2017, @06:29AM (#599169)

              Of course, but the plan was for Hillary to demand a huge bri... I mean donation or she would keep delaying it.

            • (Score: 1) by khallow on Monday November 20 2017, @03:29PM (1 child)

              by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Monday November 20 2017, @03:29PM (#599262) Journal

              But, was this a presidential action, or just a delay by the bureaucracy?

              Yes. There was even a point where the bureaucracy called [justice.gov] for a "voluntary pause" to construction outside the critical area. In other words, no legal basis for interference and yet they were still interfering. The company naturally ignored the call and continued construction.

              The Army will not authorize constructing the Dakota Access pipeline on Corps land bordering or under Lake Oahe until it can determine whether it will need to reconsider any of its previous decisions regarding the Lake Oahe site under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) or other federal laws. Therefore, construction of the pipeline on Army Corps land bordering or under Lake Oahe will not go forward at this time. The Army will move expeditiously to make this determination, as everyone involved — including the pipeline company and its workers — deserves a clear and timely resolution. In the interim, we request that the pipeline company voluntarily pause all construction activity within 20 miles east or west of Lake Oahe.

              The problem here is that the Army Corps of Engineers didn't have a reason for the delay that they couldn't use over and over again. There was no corrective action that would make sense in the situation because the problem can't be resolved without permanently halting the project. They even pulled delaying actions [federalregister.gov] (link is to a call for input into yet another environmental impact statement, with 30 day waiting time) up to the last week of the Obama administration.

              As to Obama's involvement. He's the one in charge. It is trivial for him to pretend that he had nothing to do with the mess, but as we see when Trump became president, it was simple for a president to straighten out the mess.

              • (Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Monday November 20 2017, @11:11PM

                by JoeMerchant (3937) on Monday November 20 2017, @11:11PM (#599436)

                it was simple for a president to straighten out the mess.

                I'd rather say it was simple for a president's staff to carry out general policy direction. That's what's really going on - just as Ronald Reagan didn't decide much, if anything, for himself - he was a figurehead for a large apparatus of policy execution. Trump does indeed have his own ideas and make statements about direct action on them, things like a border wall, but he's not really working within the system and as such his specific ideas aren't moving very fast, if at all.

                So, bring in the party of "favors for oil" and the pipeline construction is no longer blocked - I wouldn't expect anything else.

                As for federal agencies asking for extra-legal control of things in their purview, that happens quite a lot - I worked with a company that had a medical device approved by the FDA, they had no reason to block it, but tried anyway. The company pushed really hard and they eventually signed off, because they had no legal reason not to, but... by raising all this fuss, the insurance companies then refused to reimburse the device and its associated surgical costs - so the FDA's foot dragging effectively sank the devices' marketability and profitability by raising flags to the insurance industry. 10 years before that, the FDA simply flat-out ignored the law and was taking 3+ years to review new devices for 510(k) clearance when they were (and still are) required by law to expeditiously review and respond to applications within 90 days or less. That dragged on for 3+ years until the political back-pressure finally resulted in a top-to-bottom personnel rotation at the agency. Everybody from the head down to our reviewers were replaced in a very short time span, and, miraculously, less than 90 days later our application was approved (along with hundreds, probably thousands of applications from other companies as well.)

  • (Score: 2, Funny) by realDonaldTrump on Sunday November 19 2017, @11:08AM

    by realDonaldTrump (6614) Subscriber Badge on Sunday November 19 2017, @11:08AM (#598899) Homepage Journal

    Thank you, everybody. Thank you. Some great tweets, smart & great support. So interesting!

    So sad that Obama rejected the Keystone XL Pipeline. Which could be up and running right now, if he'd said "yes." And the oil would be flowing. While this very old Keystone Pipeline is being repaired. The oil would be going in the XL while they fix this small leak in the old pipeline. It's very small because they caught it right away and they stopped it. Great job!

    I promised I would approve the Dakota Access and Keystone XL pipelines. And I did both. Thousands of jobs, good for the environment, no downside! First couple of days in office, those two, 48,000 jobs. Tremendous thing. I think environmentally better. I really believe that -- environmentally better. So I'm keeping my promises to the American people. I do what's right. That's all. I just do what's right. I don't think about it. I just close my eyes and do what's right.

    We're seeing the results all across the country. Already, unemployment is near a 16-year low. African American unemployment is at its lowest point since almost the turn of the millennium. Wages are rising. Optimism among manufacturers is at an all-time high. That's something I'm very proud of. And they're moving back. I tell you, the companies are moving back. The car companies are coming back. They're going back into Ohio and Michigan and Pennsylvania, and lots of places -- Kentucky. We're bringing back our manufacturing. For which we'll need a lot, a lot of oil.

    Crooked Hillary Clinton is the worst (and biggest) loser of all time. She just can't stop, which is so good for the Republican Party. Hillary, get on with your life and give it another try in three years! #MAGA 🇺🇸

    --
    #StopTheBias [twitter.com]
  • (Score: 3, Insightful) by drussell on Sunday November 19 2017, @03:18PM (10 children)

    by drussell (2678) on Sunday November 19 2017, @03:18PM (#598930) Journal

    Though it may seem like a lot at first glance, 5000 barrels of oil isn't actually a very large spill. The pressure drop in the pipeline would have been noticed virtually instantly by the monitoring systems and the line shut down and isolated automatically. It looks bad for TCPL on the publicity front and it certainly IS a bad thing but it isn't nearly as horrifying as some people would love for you to believe. Compared to something like the Exxon Valdez which dumped 260,000 barrels into the ocean, cleaning up 5000 barrels on land is a piece of cake. Even more distressing is something like the Deepwater Horizon spill which spewed more like 5,000,000 barrels into the ocean. You need to keep it in perspective. Energy generation and distribution is always problematic in one way or another, even the "green" kinds.

    5000 barrels is actually quite a small spill in the grand scheme of things and pipelines really are a pretty safe way to move oil around the land compared to things like train tank cars. Much less chance of large spills, fires, explosions and the like.

    • (Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday November 19 2017, @03:31PM (8 children)

      by Anonymous Coward on Sunday November 19 2017, @03:31PM (#598934)

      'cleaning up 5000 barrels on land is a piece of cake'

      What does this say about where the pipeline goes near water?

      Seems like:
      1) Stuff happens, so we closely monitor the pipeline and shut it down quickly when there is a problem.
      2) The line moves a LOT of product, so 'quick' means we only spill 5k barrels.
      3) The impact on land is self contained, so the best plan is to just let is spill and clean up afterwords.
      4) The impact near water is not self contained, so our plan there is [insert and answer that works here].

      What do they do differently near rivers and lakes?

      • (Score: 3, Interesting) by drussell on Sunday November 19 2017, @03:37PM (6 children)

        by drussell (2678) on Sunday November 19 2017, @03:37PM (#598935) Journal

        I'm all for a double-wall pipe to help with containment of potential spills where it goes anywhere near a waterway.

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday November 19 2017, @05:00PM (5 children)

          by Anonymous Coward on Sunday November 19 2017, @05:00PM (#598960)

          I don't really get it. Why not just everywhere? It should at most double the price, is an oil pipeline really something they have to be so penny-pinching about?
          If the answer is "yes", I'd say the easiest solution is to not have one, since it doesn't really seem to be much needed.
          Also should be having e.g. water in the outer part of the pipe, so that leaks in either one are more easily detected instead of detecting the outer one being broken only when the inner one breaks - air would also be an option, but making it airtight might be overdoing it.

          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday November 19 2017, @06:00PM (1 child)

            by Anonymous Coward on Sunday November 19 2017, @06:00PM (#598981)

            It doesn't double the price. It more than doubles it because of the complexities of construction, the outer layer containing more steel than the inner, the raise cost of doing external inspections and so on and so forth.

            Good idea, some hitches in implementation.

            • (Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 20 2017, @12:57AM

              by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 20 2017, @12:57AM (#599083)

              i could see that a double wall pipe would more than double the cost of the actual pipe. But the rest of the job should be about the same -- surveying/route selection, purchasing the right-of-way, clearing land, digging the trench (or putting in supports for aboveground) and cleaning up after the installation crew comes through. All those cost a good bit and should be about the same for either single or double pipe.

          • (Score: 1) by khallow on Monday November 20 2017, @02:26AM (2 children)

            by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Monday November 20 2017, @02:26AM (#599119) Journal

            is an oil pipeline really something they have to be so penny-pinching about?

            I guess you don't own one then. The answer is "yes" as it would be for anything that we want to do economically rather than because we're spending a lot of money to show how awesome we are. Do a cost-benefits analysis, not some "cost doesn't seem important" rationalization.

            • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 20 2017, @02:08PM (1 child)

              by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 20 2017, @02:08PM (#599235)

              I agree, but the implementation of the cost-benefits analysis should include,
              if a spill happens the company cleans up everything and pays everyone all the way down for 99 years for any inflicted damage.

              The problem is that the cost-benefit analysis usually only includes the costs of how to build this thing as cheaply as possible to have it work and generate revenue. It rarely includes proper cost analysis for risks, risks that are all to often dumped on the community instead of the original company. Or when that risk strikes, the liability falls on some small sub-company that has no resources and goes bankrupt, ...

              • (Score: 1) by khallow on Monday November 20 2017, @03:12PM

                by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Monday November 20 2017, @03:12PM (#599253) Journal

                if a spill happens the company cleans up everything and pays everyone all the way down for 99 years for any inflicted damage.

                What inflicted damage? Your post has inflicted damage on the internet by making it dumber. Pay up to the 99 years of people who will use the internet and might one day stumble across your post.

                The problem with imaginary damage, is that one can imagine a lot of it.

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday November 19 2017, @05:57PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Sunday November 19 2017, @05:57PM (#598979)

        'cleaning up 5000 barrels on land is a piece of cake'
        What does this say about where the pipeline goes near water?

        It says "do not fret"; much worse spills happen every year [wikipedia.org] in less PR-worthy locations, and the nature crunches them up and continues on.
        This planet was having oil seeps in hundreds of places for millions of years, till greedy humans went and pumped out all surface reservoirs first thing. The nature naturally hadn't lost any of its coping mechanisms in the half-century since then.

    • (Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday November 19 2017, @03:57PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Sunday November 19 2017, @03:57PM (#598940)

      Yeah, it's not rape. I didn't put my whole penis in. She didn't resist that much.

      *just a little spill* Damn thing was hardly worth fixing, right? Fuck off!

  • (Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday November 19 2017, @05:11PM (1 child)

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday November 19 2017, @05:11PM (#598966)

    Spoonful by spoonful until it is all gone. That will get the message across about oil spills, and pipelines.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday November 19 2017, @06:02PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Sunday November 19 2017, @06:02PM (#598984)

      See, here's the problem with that.

      Every gas station owner will end up, under the same logic, having to consume every fuel or lubricant spill on their forecourt. Every refinery owner, ditto on their refinery, and so on and so forth.

      Oh yay, nobody wants to invest in oil! We're FREE!

      ... uh, wait, why's everybody so mad now?

  • (Score: 0, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday November 19 2017, @11:54PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday November 19 2017, @11:54PM (#599066)

    Guess it was worth it to crack all of those native's skulls. They were holding up progress. Our pipeline would never spill, it was built and inspected by top minds.

(1)