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

51–60 of 195 posts

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

#51

Post by beat »

wang_li wrote: post #35
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?

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 tha…

Not in the middle of the water supply for 10,000 people.

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

#52

Post by cmdrfred »

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.

Coal isn't safe either, nor nuclear, hell even with solar someone might fall off a roof during maintenance or installation and the panels can be toxic. What perfectly safe energy source do you propose?

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

#53

Post by jackbravo »

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…

On the fortune.com link you posted says:

"The tribe has been encouraging protesters to go home since the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers agreed to an environmental review of the $3.8 billion project in December."

But now, the news is that it seems the environmental review won't be needed.

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

#54

Post by WillyOnWheels »

protomyth wrote: post #30
breatheoften wrote: post #17

Earlier 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 have never heard of people being paid to protest at Standing Rock under the table. "paid protestors at Standing Rock not filing their taxes" is a theme I have not heard of before. Congratulations.

From the Standing Rock protestors that I am personally acquainted with, the Indian tribes in the area recognize that the only reason the world cares about their problems is because a thousand white people showed up. I am being flippant of course and I realize that it's just not white people.

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

#55

Post by nightski »

KirinDave wrote: post #29
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.

Fracking isn't exactly zero impact on the water table.

Either way tell that to the communities which are having trains explode within city limits killing people. Or massive truck spills.

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

#56

Post by _delirium »

ars wrote: post #5

The 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.

The tribes' position, at least (not necessarily the position of everyone else opposing it) is that it should be rerouted so it isn't tunneled directly under Lake Oahe, their main water source. That's not inconsistent with completing it, since tunneling under the lake isn't the only possible route. Though the pipeline owner would prefer not to reroute it.

That was also the basis for the Army Corps of Engineers ordering a more extensive environmental review. My understanding is the review wasn't to determine whether the pipeline would be built at all (that question isn't even in their jurisdiction), but 1) to evaluate whether the proposed route under Lake Oahe, which requires an easement to be granted beneath a reservoir they're responsible for, is a suitable option, and 2) if yes, to determine whether conditions should be placed on the easement to minimize the likelihood and/or impact of a spill. Their press release at the time is here: http://www.usace.army.mil/Media/News-Releases/News-Release-A...

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

#57

Post by untog »

protomyth wrote: post #41
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 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.

To be clear: do you have evidence that George Soros is funding protests? If you do, you should tell someone in the media about it, as it would be a huge story.

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

#58

Post by protomyth »

beat wrote: post #46
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.

Friends of mine have been up there on their own, or donating money and goods. Blaming "paid protesters" is self-deception. What does it benefit you to believe that people aren't doing this because they believe in it?

Oh, I believe some of them believe in it, as I said I have relatives there. On the other hand, there are paid organizers from various groups here. One doesn't change the other. Plus, I'm just sick of articles like this that just lie and don't check facts. I expect better of the BBC.

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

#60

Post by tallanvor »

protomyth wrote: post #41
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 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.

Can you point to any legitimate source that says George Soros is funding the protests? Or are you suggesting real news outlets are purposefully not reporting this?
Post reply on HN