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

191–195 of 195 posts

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

#191

Post by Tloewald »

dragonwriter wrote: post #108
Tloewald wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> 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. Your last argument suggests you are conflating aspects of the Dakota Access Pipeline (which is for domestic shale oil…

You're right, I was conflating the two. So yes it's mainly about whose water is at risk.

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

#192

Post by wutbrodo »

ars wrote: post #114
wutbrodo wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

No, I'm not. But I am assuming that access to the source we're talking about would have an appreciable effect on global supply. This isn't the first time this has happened: the plummet in oil prices in the last few years is in large part attributed to an increase in supply of US oil production. I don't remember the details off the top of my head but I recall reading that the drop in prices has also been accompanied by a halting of the momentum of consumer interest in things like fuel efficiency.

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

#193

Post by Zaskoda »

DrScump wrote: post #187
Zaskoda wrote: post #169

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

This is a Snopes news article, not a Fact Check entry. It has a lone author who only quotes "protester" accounts.

Ok, I'll try using Google again. This time I'll go with the NPR article because they're widely considered a reliable source:

http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2016/11/23/503120449/...

They're even very clear as to who says what. Note, I never claimed to be providing a fact check entry. Rather, the post I was responding to requested, "Is there a news story, social media discussion, some other documentation of the incident?" The answer is, "yes, lots." Depending on where you source your news, you either heard about it a ton or heard about it none, but rarely in between.

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

#194

Post by DrScump »

Zaskoda wrote: post #193
DrScump wrote: post #187

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is a Snopes news article, not a Fact Check entry. It has a lone author who only quotes "protester" accounts.

Ok, I'll try using Google again. This time I'll go with the NPR article because they're widely considered a reliable source: http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2016/11/23/503120449/... They're even very clear as to who says what. Note, I never claimed to be providing a fact check entry. Rather, the post I was responding to requested, "Is there a news story, social media discussion, some other documentation of the…

Again, only protester accounts, claiming that police threw a weapon with which they weren't even equipped.

The punctured-tanks-as-weapons theory sounds credible, and I doubt any of those protesters could properly identify a concussion grenade if they saw one (nor could most people in the general population).

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

#195

Post by LungButta »

cmdrfred wrote: post #63
gr3yh47 wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Pipelines are much safer than trains or trucks at delivering oil or LNG. That subject is not up for debate. source(s)?

A pipeline is 4.5 times safer. https://www.fraserinstitute.org/research/safety-transportati...

I think we need better sources than research coming from a conservative/libertarian think tank.
Post reply on HN