Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by cmn32480 on Thursday February 02 2017, @06:29PM   Printer-friendly
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:

Action Network

Sierra Club

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.


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.
  • (Score: 2, Insightful) by fritsd on Thursday February 02 2017, @09:16PM

    by fritsd (4586) on Thursday February 02 2017, @09:16PM (#462107) Journal

    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!)

    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   0  
       Insightful=1, Overrated=1, Total=2
    Extra 'Insightful' Modifier   0  
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   2  
  • (Score: 3, Informative) by RedGreen on Thursday February 02 2017, @11:08PM

    by RedGreen (888) on Thursday February 02 2017, @11:08PM (#462168)

    "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

      by Scruffy Beard 2 (6030) on Friday February 03 2017, @01:57AM (#462205)

      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

      by fritsd (4586) on Friday February 03 2017, @11:53AM (#462330) Journal

      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

        by Geezer (511) on Friday February 03 2017, @02:57PM (#462390)

        Because it's cheaper than paying to transport the additional bulk of the soon-to-be waste material from the refining process?