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

161–170 of 195 posts

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

#161

Post by MK999 »

mindslight wrote: post #135
protomyth wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I know people on both sides. I have relatives on both sides. I was pretty neutral until the latest round of reporting and looking at what's going to happen this spring with the flooding. The long term business impact on all reservations is problematic. Interestingly enough, I trust my relatives and friends words more than yours. Soros is the biggest, and yes, the money spent here is a major drag on the state.

I know you're getting downvoted to #FFF, but you would you mind expanding on the purported business motives behind this? I'm more than sympathetic to the idea that advocacy campaigns are useful idiots being steered by business interests (and that if you don't see who's doing the steering, then you're likely being steered). But I am also sympathetic to the neoliberal idea that financial alchemists can be on the side o…

If oil doesn't move by pipeline it will move by rail.

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

#162

Post by breatheoften »

jessaustin wrote: post #155
breatheoften wrote: post #127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Unfortunately yes we do have to worry about propaganda. An example: In Colorado where I live a large number of people contacted their republican senator Cory Gardner to express their disapproval of Betsy Davos for Secretary of Education. Gardner publicly ignored these voices with the claim that they were "paid protesters". Widespread claims that protesters can be ignored because of a claimed "paid protester" taint sh…

Frankly I would have expected most R's to vote for the confirmation of R cabinet nominations. One needn't invoke complicated rhetorical scenarios to explain such an action. Some reportage of confirmation hearings might have left the impression that this particular nominee is some unhappy amalgamation of Satan, Brandine Spuckler, and Richie Rich as interpreted by Robot Chicken. That seems pretty unlikely! Probably thi…

I brought up this situation because it's an example of a "paid protesters" claim being falsely used in other contexts as a reason to ignore actual human interactions.

I think you are trying to invalidate the notion that there can be a reason for people to disagree other than media manipulation.

I disagree with that argument and I will not attempt to engage with you on the basis of fact until and unless you walk it back.

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

#163

Post by dragonwriter »

MK999 wrote: post #161
mindslight wrote: post #135

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I know you're getting downvoted to #FFF, but you would you mind expanding on the purported business motives behind this? I'm more than sympathetic to the idea that advocacy campaigns are useful idiots being steered by business interests (and that if you don't see who's doing the steering, then you're likely being steered). But I am also sympathetic to the neoliberal idea that financial alchemists can be on the side o…

If oil doesn't move by pipeline it will move by rail.

If the pipeline makes the end-to-end cost more effective (which is the only reason pipelines get built; they aren't gratuitous or altruistic ventures by the forms building them), it decreases the minimum market price at which oil will even be extracted from the field it serves.

So it is absolutely not the case, that "if oil doesn't move by pipeline it will move by rail", since, depending on market conditions, if oil doesn't move by pipeline it will sit in the ground.

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

#164

Post by snuxoll »

VickBear wrote: post #100
KirinDave wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Or we could decline to expand our oil industry further, on the grounds that the long term economics of the industry are a poor prospect and it makes little sense to continue encouraging its growth in the US. This project really doesn't have many positive externalities for its host nation. For an administration that's "America First" they're been very quiet about who actually benefits. Some few Americans do.

Can you actually explain how it doesn't benefit USA? All the studies I read explained the economic impact it will have on the states it goes through after completion.

Sure, it'll benefit executives at Energy Transfer Partners, Phillips 66, etc. since they'll have an easy way to transfer oil to be shipped overseas. The states as a whole? Please. The number of permanent jobs this pipeline will create are pathetically low, a couple of people to man an oil field and a couple dozen to deal with the pipeline itself.

Eventually there's going to be less reliance on the USA for refined petrol as more nations move towards renewable energy sources, so the market will eventually correct itself I suppose - but I don't see any reason to help the oil companies make one last push to milk it for all they can before the money dries up.

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

#165

Post by [deleted] »

geofft wrote: post #156
zo1 wrote: post #149

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Isn't it more likely that that individual was just being a bit facetious rather than seriously claiming these people are getting a "paycheck" for protesting? That is how I took it, and was more trying to expound on how "paid protesting" could at the very least work hypothetically.

No, I don't think that's more likely. The accusations of "paid protesting" have been very consistent that they literally mean getting an individual paycheck to go and protest. http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/jan/30/north-dakota... The Washington Times (note that the Times is a Unification Church-run paper, not the Post ) quotes the North Dakota Tax Commissioner as saying he's "looking at the entities that ha…

[deleted]

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

#166

Post by cloakandswagger »

beat wrote: post #154
JumpCrisscross wrote: post #142

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> This is going through tribal lands because the tribes are poor and legally limited The pipeline runs close to , not "through tribal lands" [1]. The environmental concern is fair. If my neighbor builds a 300 dB speaker on their property, I have a reasonable claim to damages. The "sacred lands" and threat to "way of life" claims, however, seem disingenuous. It amounts to laying claims based on hypotheticals on someon…

"Disingenuous" is unfair. But symbolic, certainly. What this is really about, what I'm getting at, is that this is being done because no one actually gives a shit about the tribes, except the tribes. The state is more or less free to steal from the tribes, or endanger them. If anything of value is found in whatever land they have left, it's taken from them. So this is symbolism. Standing in front of a bulldozer and s…

"Disingenuous" seems fair to me. The land is suddenly sacred and inviolable when someone asks to build a pipeline near it (not on it), but the massive casinos these tribes erect on their "sacred" land isn't an issue.

I would be more amenable to the tribes if they were honest and upfront about what they're doing: a form of collective bargaining to maximize compensation from the government.

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

#167

Post by mindslight »

dragonwriter wrote: post #163
MK999 wrote: post #161

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If oil doesn't move by pipeline it will move by rail.

If the pipeline makes the end-to-end cost more effective (which is the only reason pipelines get built; they aren't gratuitous or altruistic ventures by the forms building them), it decreases the minimum market price at which oil will even be extracted from the field it serves. So it is absolutely not the case, that "if oil doesn't move by pipeline it will move by rail", since, depending on market conditions, if oil…

Giving GP the benefit of the doubt means interpreting the comment as "Much oil that currently moves by rail will move by the pipeline", which is valid.

Still that seems like a relatively small business interest, relative to the overwhelming behemoth implied by "astroturfing". The presence of some amount of self-interested business funding cannot invalidate the legitimacy of a point of view, or there would be no such thing as a legitimate point of view. So what I look for is a severe power disparity between the two sides which would swamp the smaller side's point of view.

In this situation, that seems like the oil companies and the legible-business-interest preference of state and federal governments. Railroads being on the opposing side doesn't really alter my appraisal of that balance. But I'd be interested in hearing the involvement of a larger entity that I've missed.

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

#168

Post by r00fus »

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.

The debate is because the pipeline got rerouted - was going to threaten a mostly-white area, now will threaten a native american reserveation.

The "symbolism" is - if you're poor or under-represented you will be poisoned. Why did we even create reservations if we can poison them at will for the profits of the greedy?

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

#169

Post by Zaskoda »

KevinEldon wrote: post #151
namesbc wrote: post #138

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Let me get this "Fact" straight. Law enforcement throws a "non-lethal munition" directly at a protester who subsequently loses her arm, but it was probably something else that just happened to coincide with the "non-lethal munition" explosion, and not their grenade? Right.

It would help your argument if you cited public records. Is there a news story, social media discussion, some other documentation of the incident? Do we know who was involved... was it law enforcement or private security? Was the protester in a space they legally had access to or had they moved onto privately owned land?

Not OP but I know how to Google: http://www.snopes.com/2016/11/22/standing-rock-protester-in-...

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

#170

Post by nightski »

cjf101 wrote: post #116
nightski wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 pipel…

I definitely agree. I think instead of spending so much time debating over pipeline vs. rail/truck we should be focusing on how to make our pipelines better and safer. I mean sensor failure detection is pretty common in all the embedded systems I have worked on.
Post reply on HN