SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
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
(Score: 4, Informative) by wisnoskij on Saturday May 13 2017, @12:27PM (17 children)
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.
(Score: 3, Informative) by its_gonna_be_yuge! on Saturday May 13 2017, @12:31PM (11 children)
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)
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)
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)
(Score: 2) by jasassin on Sunday May 14 2017, @04:36AM (1 child)
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 GPG Key ID: 0xE6462C68A9A3DB5A
(Score: 1, Disagree) by khallow on Sunday May 14 2017, @04:50AM
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)
"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)
> 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
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
Huh, sounds like of like rail
Ceterum censeo Sinae esse delendam
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 13 2017, @06:07PM
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
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)
UNIX? They're not even circumcised! Savages!
(Score: 2) by butthurt on Saturday May 13 2017, @02:29PM (1 child)
> [...] 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 butthurt on Saturday May 13 2017, @02:31PM
link to that last story:
https://www.democracynow.org/2017/5/12/headlines/dakota_access_has_already_leaked_oil_and_its_not_yet_even_operational [democracynow.org]
(Score: 2) by chewbacon on Saturday May 13 2017, @03:33PM (1 child)
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
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]