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This discussion has been archived.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: 3, Insightful) by wisnoskij on Saturday May 13 2017, @12:35PM (8 children)

    by wisnoskij (5149) <jonathonwisnoskiNO@SPAMgmail.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.

    --
    Respect my Authoritah!!!
    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   +1  
       Insightful=1, Total=1
    Extra 'Insightful' Modifier   0  
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   3  
  • (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

      --
      "I'd rather take a political risk for peace rather than risk peace in pursuit of politics" - President Donald J. Trump