> presidential-directed review
Welp.
Dakota Access Pipeline to win US Army permit for completion
31–40 of 195 posts
Re: Dakota Access Pipeline to win US Army permit for completion
#32Earlier 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.
But that's not a proposal on the table, so it is a symbolic fight.
Re: Dakota Access Pipeline to win US Army permit for completion
#33At 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.
Please site the source for this statement.
Re: Dakota Access Pipeline to win US Army permit for completion
#34Forgive me, but isn't this the final environmental assessment the Army Corps of Engineers produced? http://cdm16021.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/p16021...
That was the initial assessment completed in July of last year, but further environmental study was deemed required:
http://bigstory.ap.org/article/87381a7d1abd4817a8991b0c8caea...
"An assessment conducted last year determined the crossing would not have a significant impact on the environment. However, then-Assistant Army Secretary for Civil Works Jo-Ellen Darcy on Dec. 4 declined to issue permission for the crossing, saying a broader environmental study was warranted."
Re: Dakota Access Pipeline to win US Army permit for completion
#35I 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?
It used to be that oil would just seep to the surface. That generally stopped once we figured out we could usefully burn it and began draining the easily access sources. I wonder which is "worse" what there was prior to petroleum becoming a commodity or the pipeline leaks that happen now.
There are well known ocean seeps that have been ongoing for tens or hundreds of thousands of years[1]:
>Researchers have found that natural offshore seeps near Goleta, California, alone have leaked up to 25 tons of oil each day – for the last several hundred thousand years.
Re: Dakota Access Pipeline to win US Army permit for completion
#36I 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.
Water pollution from leaks, as pointed out elsewhere in the comments here, is more than symbolism
Re: Dakota Access Pipeline to win US Army permit for completion
#37Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
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?
Re: Dakota Access Pipeline to win US Army permit for completion
#38The 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.
It's been protested the entire time, just only recently receiving attention
Re: Dakota Access Pipeline to win US Army permit for completion
#39Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
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).
Re: Dakota Access Pipeline to win US Army permit for completion
#40Earlier 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…
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."