Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by mrpg on Saturday May 13 2017, @11:58AM   Printer-friendly
from the of-course dept.

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

 
This discussion has been archived.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: 4, Informative) by wisnoskij on Saturday May 13 2017, @12:27PM (17 children)

    by wisnoskij (5149) <{jonathonwisnoski} {at} {gmail.com}> on Saturday May 13 2017, @12:27PM (#509114)

    Pump stations get slight spillage, they are designed to handled them, up to thousands of gallons with less environmental impact than my spilling a table spoon of oil when I go to change my oil.

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

    Total Score:   4  
  • (Score: 3, Informative) by its_gonna_be_yuge! on Saturday May 13 2017, @12:31PM (11 children)

    by its_gonna_be_yuge! (6454) on Saturday May 13 2017, @12:31PM (#509116)

    Pump stations get slight spillage, they are designed to handled them, up to thousands of gallons with less environmental impact than my spilling a table spoon of oil when I go to change my oil.

    That's not really the point though, is it? Forcing this pipeline through was done under the "it's all safe - look ma, no leaks" banner. This slight spill puts an end to that ridiculous lie.

    • (Score: 3, Insightful) by wisnoskij on Saturday May 13 2017, @12:35PM (8 children)

      by wisnoskij (5149) <{jonathonwisnoski} {at} {gmail.com}> on Saturday May 13 2017, @12:35PM (#509117)

      No.
      No oil spilled into the environment.
      And we we know that pipelines are the absolute safest and most environmentally friendly way of transporting oil known to man by a long shot. Spills and environmental damage are possible, but are way lower than any other method.

      • (Score: 2) by its_gonna_be_yuge! on Saturday May 13 2017, @12:53PM (3 children)

        by its_gonna_be_yuge! (6454) on Saturday May 13 2017, @12:53PM (#509126)

        No. No oil spilled into the environment.

        Again, that simply isn't the point. If you state there will be no leaks, and then rely on retaining structures to hold in leaks that do happen, it still means there are leaks.

        • (Score: 1) by khallow on Sunday May 14 2017, @03:58AM (2 children)

          by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Sunday May 14 2017, @03:58AM (#509337) Journal
          As wisnoskij noted, it's not a leak into the environment. So no, you don't have a point here.
          • (Score: 2) by jasassin on Sunday May 14 2017, @04:36AM (1 child)

            by jasassin (3566) <jasassin@gmail.com> on Sunday May 14 2017, @04:36AM (#509346) Journal

            I take no pleasure in saying wait for it to happen.

            I wish you were right, no problems at all. I will not apologize for my foreboding thoughts.

            --
            jasassin@gmail.com Key fingerprint = 0644 173D 8EED AB73 C2A6 B363 8A70 579B B6A7 02CA
            • (Score: 1, Disagree) by khallow on Sunday May 14 2017, @04:50AM

              by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Sunday May 14 2017, @04:50AM (#509356) Journal

              I take no pleasure in saying wait for it to happen.

              And when "it" does, so what? We already know what large oil spills do and how to contain them. Meanwhile the benefits of this pipeline are roundly ignored. Are you going to take pleasure in discussing the benefits of this pipeline?

      • (Score: 2) by driven on Saturday May 13 2017, @01:14PM (3 children)

        by driven (6295) on Saturday May 13 2017, @01:14PM (#509129)

        "And we we know that pipelines are the absolute safest and most environmentally friendly way of transporting oil known to man by a long shot"

        Depends where you run the pipelines. Pipeline planners have no qualms about routing piping next to (or even through) fresh water bodies. Environmental catastrophe is inevitable.

        • (Score: 3, Informative) by butthurt on Saturday May 13 2017, @02:11PM (1 child)

          by butthurt (6141) on Saturday May 13 2017, @02:11PM (#509153) Journal

          > Pipeline planners have no qualms about routing piping next to (or even through) fresh water bodies.

          DAPL’s route crosses agricultural land, protected wildlife habitats, and three major rivers: the Missouri, the Mississippi, and the Big Sioux.

          -- https://grist.org/justice/theres-a-new-mega-pipeline-in-town-heres-why-it-has-so-many-protesters-in-the-trenches/ [grist.org]

          Its opponents have called themselves "water protectors" to highlight their concern about contamination of water.

          https://www.wired.com/2016/12/standing-rock-safe-dapl-still-needs-cross-river/ [wired.com]

          This small leak onto what I'm guessing was a concrete apron with a lip is inconsequential. Leaks elsewhere along the pipeline could be uncontained and could go unnoticed until large amounts of oil escaped. If oil got into a waterway, it could spread out into a thin film on the surface, and could be transported with the water's flow. Those factors would add to the difficulty of cleaning it up. Events of those sorts are what the fuss was about, if I'm not mistaken--not events like this.

          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 13 2017, @03:24PM

            by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 13 2017, @03:24PM (#509175)

            Don't worry friend, we will install a nice thick lead lining to contain the oil spills.

        • (Score: 2) by Sulla on Saturday May 13 2017, @03:30PM

          by Sulla (5173) on Saturday May 13 2017, @03:30PM (#509177) Journal

          Huh, sounds like of like rail

          --
          Ceterum censeo Sinae esse delendam
    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 13 2017, @06:07PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 13 2017, @06:07PM (#509221)

      Actually that isn't true, a worldwide oil/energy reporting agency (not government affiliated) says that trains are actually a slight bit more friendly. Now, this may be taking into account older pipeline tech, but at the current point in time pipelines are not magically safer as a whole. Welcome to being a victim of corporate propaganda :D

    • (Score: 2) by gman003 on Saturday May 13 2017, @06:10PM

      by gman003 (4155) on Saturday May 13 2017, @06:10PM (#509222)

      Is it really a "leak" if it did not enter the ecosystem, and was fully contained by safety measures? I suppose it's a leak from the "shipping oil to sale" standpoint, but not the "keep the oil out of the drinking water" one that everyone really cares about.

      Anyone with a middle-school level of engineering knowledge knows about defense in depth. This is evidence of the system working - a defect in one component did not cause a failure.

  • (Score: 3, Informative) by zocalo on Saturday May 13 2017, @12:47PM (2 children)

    by zocalo (302) on Saturday May 13 2017, @12:47PM (#509123)
    The same applies to non-pollutant liquids being pumped as well, right down to potable water. You generally expect some leakage and the occassional accidental spill at pumping stations so design for it; that generally means sitting all your pumping equipment in a bunded pit with facilities for drainage and easier retrieval of split liquid for whatever disposal or reclaimation processes you have in place. While there are absolutely valid concerns for the construction and operation of the Dakota pipeline, this seems much more like business as usual being spun into something it isn't to try and generate an "I told you so" story for those opposed to the pipeline. Not exactly fake news, but definitely not the major incident and sign of things to come that some of the reporting is portraying it as.
    --
    UNIX? They're not even circumcised! Savages!
    • (Score: 2) by butthurt on Saturday May 13 2017, @02:29PM (1 child)

      by butthurt (6141) on Saturday May 13 2017, @02:29PM (#509161) Journal

      > [...] to try and generate an "I told you so" story for those opposed to the pipeline.

      The article quotes one opponent who claims the company said there would be no leaks. If they really said that, this event refutes it.

      > Not exactly fake news, but definitely not the major incident and sign of things to come that some of the reporting is portraying it as.

      Who has called it a major incident? The AP story linked from the Guardian article says:

      The April 4 spill was relatively small and was quickly cleaned up, and it didn't threaten any waterways.

      The Guardian article says

      [...] an environmental scientist with the South Dakota department of environment and natural resources, said the spill was relatively minor [...]

      Democracy Now!--whose reporter was charged with trespassing--emphasises how soon the leak happened:

      [...] Dakota Access pipeline has already had its first leak—and the pipeline is not yet even in operation. The 84-gallon oil spill [...]

  • (Score: 2) by chewbacon on Saturday May 13 2017, @03:33PM (1 child)

    by chewbacon (1032) on Saturday May 13 2017, @03:33PM (#509178)

    This is analogous to finding fecal coliform in your kitchen and saying you have shit all over your house. Fucking whiney babies reporting.

    • (Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday May 14 2017, @12:59AM

      by Anonymous Coward on Sunday May 14 2017, @12:59AM (#509306)

      finding fecal coliform in your kitchen

      ...the day after you bragged to the press that your place was so clean that folks could eat off the floor, whereupon the county inspector shows up (on his usual schedule) and shuts down your place (of business) because of the contamination.

      -- OriginalOwner_ [soylentnews.org]