SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
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.
(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.