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

71–80 of 195 posts

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

#71

Post by jcoffland »

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!

Waiting generally has a very low environmental impact. Higher energy costs and a slower economy are not necessarily bad. Unbridled growth is not the only option.

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

#72

Post by adrr »

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…

The 1st article states that protestors should go home because an environmental review was going to be done. Now its not going to be done per executive order by trump.

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

#73

Post by adrr »

protomyth wrote: post #33
KirinDave wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Environmental review that should have happened.

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

#74

Post by protomyth »

jackbravo wrote: post #53
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.

http://rapidcityjournal.com/news/local/standing-rock-sioux-d... from the 3rd.

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

#76

Post by charia »

FireBeyond wrote: post #40
jadell wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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."

It also has to do with the fact that local communities had a significant population in comparison to the native american m tribes who lived in the area.

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

#77

Post by nightski »

tzs wrote: post #61
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. 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).

Modern pipelines have sensors that are monitored continuously and leaks can be detected incredibly quick.

The recent leak in ND was a little worse than normal because it was during a rough blizzard which made it rather difficult to respond quickly.

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

#78

Post by jcoffland »

maverick_iceman wrote: post #50
robertfw wrote: post #15

Earlier 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.

Ya, it would be more ecological if we leave modern civilization and go back to our hunter gatherer days.

Or if we just slow down a bit.

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

#80

Post by untog »

protomyth wrote: post #67
untog wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

> Just look at the organizers here and what groups pay them

That is the information I am asking for. A Google search for "soros site:www.kfyrtv.com" returns nothing.

The reason I ask is that "George Soros is funding protests" has become something of a meme in right-wing circles to dismiss anything from the Women's March, the airport protests to Standing Rock as being little more than some kind of left-wing conspiracy. To date, I have not seen any evidence backing up those assertions. It is entirely possible I have missed it, though, so I'd like to be filled in.

Post reply on HN