Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Dakota Access Pipeline to win US Army permit for completion

bbc.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 195 posts

Re: Dakota Access Pipeline to win US Army permit for completion

#11

Post by Tloewald »

eh78ssxv2f wrote: post #3

I always wonder what's the best way to assess environmental impact of the oil pipeline. Sure, it's going to leak at some point, and create a mess that may never get cleaned up. However, is it safer (or energy efficient) than carrying the oil on trains/trucks?

As far as I understand it, the pipeline being fought over symbolically rather than for reasons that make analytic sense. If there's an environmental argument, it's that the pipeline will make using shale sands oil from Canada cheaper which is a Bad Thing because we use more stuff when it's cheaper.

The correct approach would be to make fees and penalties for environmental impact higher (carbon tax, EPA able to levy big fines for oil spills, etc.) and then let the market figure it out rather than fight like crazy over specific cases.

Now, as to the subject of the pipeline running through native american territory because white people were (justifiably) worried about their drinking water if it ran through their watershed -- that's a whole different issue.

Re: Dakota Access Pipeline to win US Army permit for completion

#12

Post by ika_ »

eh78ssxv2f wrote: post #3

I always wonder what's the best way to assess environmental impact of the oil pipeline. Sure, it's going to leak at some point, and create a mess that may never get cleaned up. However, is it safer (or energy efficient) than carrying the oil on trains/trucks?

Yes. Trains and trucks use up more fuel and are much more dangerous than pipelines. Look up "oil train derailment". Oil trains can and do explode when they derail, and they pass through population centers.

One reason existing pipelines have a lot of problems today is because a lot of them are very old, which makes them much more dangerous than any pipeline built today. This is a good article about that: http://insideenergy.org/2014/08/01/half-century-old-pipeline...

A brand new pipeline would be less dangerous than the existing pipeline infrastructure we use today.

Re: Dakota Access Pipeline to win US Army permit for completion

#14

Post by protomyth »

At this point, the main concern is getting that camp cleaned up before the flood comes. It should be noted that the tribe has passed a resolution for protestors to go home[1] with no provisions for relocation. This isn't the only area of North Dakota that is going to flood this year and money spent on this foolishness is going to be missed. Devils Lake is going to rise about 4' under current estimates.

The reporting has been so bad and at times just stupid[2] that the state had to setup a FAQ[3] just to combat some of the foolishness. Point 14 directly contradicts this article and pretty much shows how bad the reporting has been.

1) http://fortune.com/2017/01/21/standing-rock-sioux-pipeline/

2) There are no friggin wild buffalo roaming North Dakota - they are all on ranches, preserves, or the national park land.

3) https://ndresponse.gov/dakota-access-pipeline/myth-vs-fact

[edit]The reason this particular corridor is used is because it was initially cleared in 1982 for an existing gas pipeline. The DAPL pipeline runs parallel to that pipe. [/edit]

Re: Dakota Access Pipeline to win US Army permit for completion

#15

Post by robertfw »

cloakandswagger wrote: post #7
eh78ssxv2f wrote: post #3

I always wonder what's the best way to assess environmental impact of the oil pipeline. Sure, it's going to leak at some point, and create a mess that may never get cleaned up. However, is it safer (or energy efficient) than carrying the oil on trains/trucks?

The debate over the pipelines seems to be largely symbolic. The oil is going to get pulled out of the oilsands and transported either way, it only seems logical (and probably more ecological) to use a giant pipe instead of trucks/trains.

What would be more ecological is to leave the stuff in the ground in the first place. This is not a symbolic fight.

Re: Dakota Access Pipeline to win US Army permit for completion

#16

Post by KirinDave »

trothamel wrote: post #9

Forgive me, but isn't this the final environmental assessment the Army Corps of Engineers produced? http://cdm16021.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/p16021...

This one has been called into question. It was expected that the Army would do a fully independent study.

Re: Dakota Access Pipeline to win US Army permit for completion

#17

Post by breatheoften »

protomyth wrote: post #14

At this point, the main concern is getting that camp cleaned up before the flood comes. It should be noted that the tribe has passed a resolution for protestors to go home[1] with no provisions for relocation. This isn't the only area of North Dakota that is going to flood this year and money spent on this foolishness is going to be missed. Devils Lake is going to rise about 4' under current estimates. The reporting…

As far as I can tell -- there's some evidence of false flag operations regarding the "stand down and go home" resolution.

There seems to be plenty of voices from the Standing Rock Sioux tribe leadership calling for continued peaceful protest.

Re: Dakota Access Pipeline to win US Army permit for completion

#18

Post by aaronbrethorst »

Tloewald wrote: post #11
eh78ssxv2f wrote: post #3

I always wonder what's the best way to assess environmental impact of the oil pipeline. Sure, it's going to leak at some point, and create a mess that may never get cleaned up. However, is it safer (or energy efficient) than carrying the oil on trains/trucks?

As far as I understand it, the pipeline being fought over symbolically rather than for reasons that make analytic sense. If there's an environmental argument, it's that the pipeline will make using shale sands oil from Canada cheaper which is a Bad Thing because we use more stuff when it's cheaper. The correct approach would be to make fees and penalties for environmental impact higher (carbon tax, EPA able to levy b…

There are people who live in the pipeline's projected path and their water will be poisoned if/when the pipeline leaks. That's not symbolism, that's life and death.

Re: Dakota Access Pipeline to win US Army permit for completion

#19

Post by KirinDave »

ars wrote: post #5

The review is pointless anyway, it's just useless stalling. They already built 1,171 miles of it - do you think an environmental review is going to make a difference for the last 1 mile? It doesn't matter if you are for or against this, the time to protest it was before they built it, not when it's basically done.

Argument from final consequence aside, much of that work was was ongoing before the legality AND environmental impact was fully realized, on the expectation that the locals did not have the resources to fight its construction.

Even if the pipeline is ultimately established, winning damages for the local people would help them relocate away from resources tainted by the previous pipeline (who's legality is also very questionable).

Post reply on HN