Dakota Access Pipeline to win US Army permit for completion • Hacker News Board

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

#21

Post by ars » Wed, Feb 08, 2017, 5:04 PM UTC

analog31 wrote: post #10

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?

In my view, each method needs to be justified on its own merits, since there is no a priori entitlement to extract and ship the oil in the first place. There's also no good justification for burdening the public with the risk of the pipeline, just because it replaces a greater risk somewhere else. If the pipeline is safe, prove it. If the trains and trucks are safe, prove it. If neither, then leave the oil in the gro…

> 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!

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

#22

Post by gr3yh47 » Wed, Feb 08, 2017, 5:04 PM UTC

rm_-rf_slash wrote: post #8

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?

Pipelines are much safer than trains or trucks at delivering oil or LNG. That subject is not up for debate. The problem is that when you build this infrastructure, it comes along with long-term financial contracts. Which is to say, if you build it, you're gonna use it. As a result, it discourages investments in other energy infrastructure projects. Once the pipeline is in, we are stuck with it until it ages out of us…

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

source(s)?

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

#23

Post by protomyth » Wed, Feb 08, 2017, 5:04 PM UTC

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?

North Dakota has some recent oil spills with trains.

http://articles.latimes.com/2014/jan/13/nation/la-na-nn-nort...

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/north-dakota-town-evacuated-afte...

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

#24

Post by jeffdavis » Wed, Feb 08, 2017, 5:05 PM UTC

analog31 wrote: post #10

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?

In my view, each method needs to be justified on its own merits, since there is no a priori entitlement to extract and ship the oil in the first place. There's also no good justification for burdening the public with the risk of the pipeline, just because it replaces a greater risk somewhere else. If the pipeline is safe, prove it. If the trains and trucks are safe, prove it. If neither, then leave the oil in the gro…

Roads/rails already exist, as do standards about safe transport of oil by train/truck.

What are you suggesting, exactly? That each locality can block whatever transport goes through it? Maybe put up a tollbooth?

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

#25

Post by jadell » Wed, Feb 08, 2017, 5:05 PM UTC

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…

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.

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

#26

Post by KirinDave » Wed, Feb 08, 2017, 5:05 PM UTC

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?

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.

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

#27

Post by cryoshon » Wed, Feb 08, 2017, 5:05 PM UTC

rm_-rf_slash wrote: post #8

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?

Pipelines are much safer than trains or trucks at delivering oil or LNG. That subject is not up for debate. The problem is that when you build this infrastructure, it comes along with long-term financial contracts. Which is to say, if you build it, you're gonna use it. As a result, it discourages investments in other energy infrastructure projects. Once the pipeline is in, we are stuck with it until it ages out of us…

... we should be resisting any and all modalities of future fossil fuel exploitation. who cares if pipelines are "safer" when we know that there is no planet-safe way to burn the oil they carry. if pipelines are the most efficient way to move the resource of oil, we need to be preventing their deployment because oil will kill us if we let it.

we're in the midgame of climate change... better to take radical action to prevent the worst possible end case.

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

#28

Post by ars » Wed, Feb 08, 2017, 5:06 PM UTC

robertfw wrote: post #15

cloakandswagger wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

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.

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

#29

Post by KirinDave » Wed, Feb 08, 2017, 5:07 PM UTC

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…

I think the concern is that the environmental impact of the prior pipeline is non-zero on the local water table. A scale up of this operation is unlikely to improve this situation.

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

#30

Post by protomyth » Wed, Feb 08, 2017, 5:07 PM UTC

breatheoften wrote: post #17

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.

"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.