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

111–120 of 195 posts

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

#111

Post by criddell »

FireBeyond wrote: post #40
jadell wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Existing pipelines within a few hundred miles of this site have recently leaked into water supplies. This is not symbolic; it's about where the tribe gets their water from.

This is very valid. But I think there's _also_ an important symbolic goal here. "This pipeline was moved because local communities feared the risk to the water supply. So the company felt it was appropriate to move it into the tribal community area." "Water risk to white people? No no no. Water risk to Native communities? Well, we can live with that."

> "Water risk to white people? No no no. Water risk to Native communities? Well, we can live with that."

I don't think the Army Corps is that corrupt. I'm guessing it went more like "Water risk to 50,000 people or water risk to 5,000 people?"

This history of the US government relations with native people makes any object assessment suspect though.

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

#112

Post by cmdrfred »

jcoffland wrote: post #71
ars wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If neither, then leave the oil in the ground. Nothing is ever perfectly safe. Nothing you do ever has no impact. Everything in life is about tradeoffs, and the right thing to do is pick the best one. NOT wait for the perfect one!

Waiting generally has a very low environmental impact. Higher energy costs and a slower economy are not necessarily bad. Unbridled growth is not the only option.

>Higher energy costs and a slower economy are not necessarily bad

Are you going to be the person who tells families around the country that their grandmother had to freeze to death this winter for the greater good?

How about the young couple that just had a kid and is suffering from stagnant wages. Are you going to come around and tell them to "tough it out" to prevent a catastrophic event a century or two from now?

All the while the smokestacks in the 3rd world just keep growing, and thanks to the lack of demand in the US they can consume even more petroleum products (and in a far less efficient manner) due to the lower cost globally.

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

#113

Post by jessaustin »

andy_ppp wrote: post #95
lucb1e wrote: post #2

Link without going to google.com: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/amp/38901498 Still has a dependency on resources from ampproject.org, though.

Yes, it would be preferable if AMP cache urls were banned from hacker news and only original sources were linked...

It seems that OP could just be more careful?

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

#114

Post by ars »

wutbrodo wrote: post #39
ars wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You are arguing the wrong side. What would be more ecological is using less oil. You can't block supply while demand is there, because the demand will be filled by someone, only this time by someone with less oversight [from you]. You want to make a difference add more "good" supply, or reduce demand. Bad supply will automatically go down if you do this, with no extra effort.

Supply and demand don't only flow in one direction. Oil demand is absolutely responsive to price (and thus supply), in the form of energy users turning to alternative sources of energy, focusing more on energy efficient machinery, using less energy (driving less when the cost of driving rises).

You are assuming no one else would sell them oil. This is incorrect.

The is currently enough oil supply for everyone. Reducing/removing an oil source just means the oil comes from somewhere else, but it does NOT reduce oil consumption.

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

#115

Post by zo1 »

geofft wrote: post #42
protomyth wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"unanimously passed" - the only false flag is the outside pundits and paid protestors who are going to get in trouble for working in North Dakota and not filing their taxes. The state is rather unhappy, particularly given who the likely donors are and this is causing a budget problem for the state.

An easy way to demonstrate the truth of the "paid protesters" claim is to show any way one can sign up to be a paid protestor. I have been doing some unpaid protesting and wouldn't mind a check, to be honest. Until then: FAKE NEWS!

I don't think it's the same as getting paid to do it like a job. It's more along the lines of your group or committee or activism organization gets sponsorship from someone. The assumption being that now you(the group) are getting money, you're 'funded' therefore you need to 'do something' that your group advocates or represents. If you are a pro environmental rights organization you would have to send someone to protest a pipeline for example.

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

#116

Post by cjf101 »

nightski wrote: post #77
tzs wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Pipelines are much safer than trains or trucks at delivering oil or LNG. That subject is not up for debate. Safer by what measure? Pipelines have fewer spills than trucks, but a truck spill is generally limited to one truck's worth of oil whereas a pipe can spill a huge amount. (I'm not sure where trains fit in. A train carries more oil than a truck, but train accidents won't always break every car).

Modern pipelines have sensors that are monitored continuously and leaks can be detected incredibly quick. The recent leak in ND was a little worse than normal because it was during a rough blizzard which made it rather difficult to respond quickly.

Those sensors do fail, however.

http://globalnews.ca/news/2117570/alberta-oil-spill-when-fai... (2015)

Notice how many failure reports are not the sensor, but are due to humans checking up on the pipeline. The conditions these pipelines are installed in can be pretty hostile to equipment and monitoring. Going by those numbers, I'd say sensor systems have a ways to go.

The debate that usually goes around is that pipelines fail less often, but their failures tend to spill more oil, in more sensitive areas.

The other dimension, that isn't often talked about, is which transport system has the best chance to improve. Despite their current shortcomings, I think that a system that is dedicated to one job (moving dangerous fluids) has a better safety ceiling than shared systems, like trains and roads.

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

#117

Post by lostlogin »

andy_ppp wrote: post #95
lucb1e wrote: post #2

Link without going to google.com: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/amp/38901498 Still has a dependency on resources from ampproject.org, though.

Yes, it would be preferable if AMP cache urls were banned from hacker news and only original sources were linked...

I haven't struck this with google before. Gruber had a critical post about it yesterday so I assume it's new. Does the BBC get to object? How do page views get tracked?

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

#118

Post by Natsu »

geofft wrote: post #42
protomyth wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"unanimously passed" - the only false flag is the outside pundits and paid protestors who are going to get in trouble for working in North Dakota and not filing their taxes. The state is rather unhappy, particularly given who the likely donors are and this is causing a budget problem for the state.

An easy way to demonstrate the truth of the "paid protesters" claim is to show any way one can sign up to be a paid protestor. I have been doing some unpaid protesting and wouldn't mind a check, to be honest. Until then: FAKE NEWS!

There was a place to sign up, but it was totally fake and it got exposed in this hilarious interview:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kGxwizzUbfw

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

#119

Post by matt_wulfeck »

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…

> 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

So basically this pipe runs alongside an existing pipe? I feel like I can't trust anything I read anymore from either side.

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

#120

Post by kristopolous »

forgetsusername wrote: post #47
breatheoften wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I personally know people who went to the Standing Rock camp that were not paid protesters. Interestingly enough, I trust their words more than yours. For the sake of clarity -- who are the outside donors that are funding the protest and bringing the state government to its knees?

> I personally know people who went to the Standing Rock camp that were not paid protesters. I didn't see OP claim that there weren't "real" protesters, only that some were paid.

The paid protestor story is bait and switch as if to imply no, it's not the for profit corporation doing the pipeline that's in it for the money, it's the protestors - they are the ones in it for the money here!

One side is trying to make billions and someone is falsely claiming the other side is trying to make hundreds and That becomes the story. What immoral, outrageous, reprehensible nonsense.

Post reply on HN