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

91–100 of 195 posts

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

#91

Post by [deleted] »

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.

[deleted]

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

#92

Post by trothamel »

socialentp wrote: post #34
trothamel wrote: post #9

Forgive 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 crossin…

From reading the article, it looks like one political appointee decided that additional review was required, and her replacement decided that the original review was convincing. Given that it would be the replacement that evaluated the new review, is there any reason to wait for it if the original one is already convincing to him?

More to the point, is there a reason to trust Jo-Ellen Darcy's opinion over that of Douglas Lamont and Colonel John W. Henderson, P.E.? (It seems like of the three, the Colonel's opinion is the least likely to be politically biased and most likely to be based on engineering judgement.)

EDIT: Actually, I think I might have been overly harsh on Mr. Lamont here. He is also a PE, and was appointed in 2004, which makes me think he might not be in a political job, either. http://asacw.hqda.pentagon.mil/Lamont.aspx

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

#93

Post by wheelerwj »

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…

why don't you go ask the people of Flint how symbolic their water supply is?

Maybe they can provide some concrete analysis of tainted water supplies.

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

#94

Post by wtf_is_up »

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?

Yes, it is approximately 4x "safer" to transport oil via pipeline than rail. And many times more safe than using trucks. In addition, most pipeline failures occur at compressor stations and processing stations, instead of along the pipeline itself. [1]

[1]: https://www.fraserinstitute.org/research/safety-transportati...

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

#95

Post by andy_ppp »

lucb1e wrote: post #2

Link without going to google.com: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/amp/38901498 Still has a dependency on resources from ampproject.org, though.

Yes, it would be preferable if AMP cache urls were banned from hacker news and only original sources were linked...

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

#96

Post by VickBear »

beat wrote: post #68
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.

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 "reser…

It isn't going through tribal lands.

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

#97

Post by wheelerwj »

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.

two wrongs make a right?

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

#98

Post by barney54 »

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…

Pipelines and trains and trucks have already been proven to be safe. There are hundreds of thousands of miles of pipelines in the U.S. today. The EIS showed this new pipeline would be safe.

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

#100

Post by VickBear »

KirinDave wrote: post #26
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.

Can you actually explain how it doesn't benefit USA? All the studies I read explained the economic impact it will have on the states it goes through after completion.
Post reply on HN