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

61–70 of 195 posts

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

#61

Post by tzs »

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.

Safer by what measure? Pipelines have fewer spills than trucks, but a truck spill is generally limited to one truck's worth of oil whereas a pipe can spill a huge amount. (I'm not sure where trains fit in. A train carries more oil than a truck, but train accidents won't always break every car).

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

#62

Post by disantlor »

ars wrote: post #21
analog31 wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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!

their point is that it's a false choice. perhaps those resources are better spent developing energy technology that does not require that we accept a certain amount of "unavoidable" environmental damage. it is avoidable, but perhaps a completely free market does not encode that effectively

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

#63

Post by cmdrfred »

gr3yh47 wrote: post #22
rm_-rf_slash wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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)?

A pipeline is 4.5 times safer.

https://www.fraserinstitute.org/research/safety-transportati...

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

#64

Post by clock_tower »

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…

Once installed, pipelines can be -- and are -- used to transport any fluid; they're not limited to oil and natural gas. They can also be used for other purposes: the Williams Companies ran fiber-optic cable through decommissioned pipelines in the 1990s, drastically improving coast-to-coast network connectivity.

Also, remember the article from yesterday about how utilities are building solar plants to insulate themselves from swings in the price of oil and natural gas. The current round of pipeline building and the current round of solar-building are complementary; both are about moving away from coal.

Wind has arrived, solar is arriving, and geothermal and pumped hydro are probably next. The future of the world's energy supply looks pretty bright, and it looks likely that the Saudis were right back in the 1970s when they predicted that the oil age wouldn't end when we ran out of oil, just as how the stone age didn't end when we ran out of stones.

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

#65

Post by rgbrgb »

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.

Do you have any independent evidence suggesting that protesters were paid? Citing the North Dakota government page is kind of like citing Sean Spicer on inauguration crowd sizes.

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

#66

Post by danielvf »

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?

Trucks are the worst in every way, by a lot.

Comparing rail to pipelines, with the same amount of oil moved the same distance, trains cost 2x more and use more energy. Most years trains spill less per oil moved than pipelines, which is their one win.

Unfortunately, when trains have accidents, they tend to be both in towns and have fire. 45 people died in a single Canadain oil train accident in 2013.

Pipelines have great record in terms of human safety.

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

#67

Post by protomyth »

untog wrote: post #57
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.

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.

What huge story? KFYR has had it on daily for months. Just look at the organizers here and what groups pay them. I don't get why you think this would be huge?

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

#68

Post by beat »

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 social. This is going through tribal lands because the tribes are poor and legally limited. They can't defend themselves. If you tried to run a pipeline under the water supply for 10,000 rich white people, it'd die before the first inch of pipe was laid. The very land it's going under is just a tiny fragment of low-value land left to the tribes, after multiple gunpoint-driven treaties left a tiny "reservation".

Power. It's about power. And power is tied to race. It's morally disgusting, and a lot of this talk is just misdirection, avoiding the real, valid source of anger and rebellion.

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

#69

Post by breatheoften »

forgetsusername wrote: post #47
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 personally know people who went to the Standing Rock camp that were not paid protesters. I didn't see OP claim that there weren't "real" protesters, only that some were paid.

Given that (paid) journalists covering the event have been charged as protesters, implying that at least law enforcement lumps the journalists in with the protesters -- there is no doubt a way to support the claim that "at least one 'protester' is paid".

The suggestion that a significant number of the 10s of thousands are being paid is just propaganda though and deserves to be challenged.

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

#70

Post by [deleted] »

wutbrodo wrote: post #39
ars wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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).

[deleted]
Post reply on HN