No Excuses Posted December 5, 2016 Share Posted December 5, 2016 It's not a good look when you originally planned to route the pipeline through Bismarck and then cancelled because of concerns over water safety. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AsburySkinsFan Posted December 5, 2016 Share Posted December 5, 2016 2 minutes ago, No Excuses said: It's not a good look when you originally planned to route the pipeline through Bismarck and then cancelled because of concerns over water safety. That's because it's a city and there are businesses there. No one cares about the Native Americans and all that empty land. Plus, there's a long precedent of taking Native land, and since Japanese internment is a legal precedent for registering religious people then this all makes total sense. I for one HATE that our courts have expanded eminent domain to allow corporations to steal land. Why is it that the Right has a love affair with the free market and supply and demand right up until it comes to someone else's land? Screw that! You want my land? Then you better be writing a check with MY number on it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
s0crates Posted December 5, 2016 Share Posted December 5, 2016 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AsburySkinsFan Posted December 5, 2016 Share Posted December 5, 2016 Oh nice, there was no Environmental Impact Study performed before the work began. Trump is financially invested in the pipeline. I hate these people. Seriously, these corpratists suck! They are vampires that leech on the blood of America. Thank god for the Young Turks! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Springfield Posted December 5, 2016 Author Share Posted December 5, 2016 What's the problem with re-routing the pipeline around this area? Is there a way that causes less political opposition for nearly the same price? Seems like both sides have dug their heels in without a thought for a third option. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AsburySkinsFan Posted December 5, 2016 Share Posted December 5, 2016 2 minutes ago, Springfield said: What's the problem with re-routing the pipeline around this area? Is there a way that causes less political opposition for nearly the same price? Seems like both sides have dug their heels in without a thought for a third option. I think that the reroute is one of the objectives of the protestors, the corporate backers were the ones who refused. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted December 5, 2016 Share Posted December 5, 2016 33 minutes ago, AsburySkinsFan said: Oh nice, there was no Environmental Impact Study performed before the work began. Yes there was one done and reviewed http://www.nwo.usace.army.mil/Missions/Civil-Works/Planning/Project-Reports/Article/633496/dakota-access-pipeline-environmental-assessment/ Comical from those complaining about fake news. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AsburySkinsFan Posted December 5, 2016 Share Posted December 5, 2016 9 minutes ago, twa said: Yes there was one done and reviewed http://www.nwo.usace.army.mil/Missions/Civil-Works/Planning/Project-Reports/Article/633496/dakota-access-pipeline-environmental-assessment/ Comical from those complaining about fake news. Going to see if heads or tails can be made of the report. *edit* 1200+ pages...sorry I have a life. "No significant Impact" Huh....I guess the image of this type of spill into a water supply isn't significant. But then what do we expect? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
visionary Posted December 5, 2016 Share Posted December 5, 2016 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
visionary Posted December 5, 2016 Share Posted December 5, 2016 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NoCalMike Posted December 5, 2016 Share Posted December 5, 2016 Obama made a pretty easy decision here to basically punt the issue to the incoming President. I am a little surprised he didn't do it sooner to avoid everything that was going on out there. Ultimately it is going to be up to Trump and considering he has a financial stake in the pipeline.....eh. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bearrock Posted December 5, 2016 Share Posted December 5, 2016 2 hours ago, twa said: Yes there was one done and reviewed http://www.nwo.usace.army.mil/Missions/Civil-Works/Planning/Project-Reports/Article/633496/dakota-access-pipeline-environmental-assessment/ Comical from those complaining about fake news. Technically EIS is different from EA, which is done when EA finds potential impact, which it didn't here. How much would it cost to reroute? Any news with ballpark? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Destino Posted December 5, 2016 Share Posted December 5, 2016 3 hours ago, AsburySkinsFan said: Going to see if heads or tails can be made of the report. *edit* 1200+ pages...sorry I have a life. "No significant Impact" Huh....I guess the image of this type of spill into a water supply isn't significant. But then what do we expect? If the standard of environment impact is "would a spill cause significant problems to the environment" than no pipeline could be built anywhere. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AsburySkinsFan Posted December 5, 2016 Share Posted December 5, 2016 2 hours ago, Destino said: If the standard of environment impact is "would a spill cause significant problems to the environment" than no pipeline could be built anywhere. How about "would a spill from this pipeline contaminate the water supply of an entire population of Native Americans"? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bearrock Posted December 5, 2016 Share Posted December 5, 2016 2 hours ago, Destino said: If the standard of environment impact is "would a spill cause significant problems to the environment" than no pipeline could be built anywhere. I think many experts (probably rightly) think, given long enough, any method of transporting oil will result in spillage somewhere (even if by cars, someone is going to crash somewhere). Pipeline spills will happen, the study would have to assess how bad the fall out would be so as to consider the potential economic benefit vs cost. If we didn't have to fear the likely eventual spill, pipelines could be built anywhere. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Destino Posted December 5, 2016 Share Posted December 5, 2016 29 minutes ago, AsburySkinsFan said: How about "would a spill from this pipeline contaminate the water supply of an entire population of Native Americans"? So pipelines can be built so long as they only contaminate water supplies not used by native Americans? Strikes me as an odd place to draw the line. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted December 5, 2016 Share Posted December 5, 2016 I bet they could run a water intake pipeline up stream of the crossing and it would still be objectionable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tshile Posted December 5, 2016 Share Posted December 5, 2016 7 hours ago, AsburySkinsFan said: But then what do we expect? Certainly not for people to know whether the study was done, much less be expected to read it. 5 hours ago, bearrock said: How much would it cost to reroute? Any news with ballpark? And are they going to be reimbursed for building an approved project and now having to reroute it? I don't know the environmental side of it but I have a serious issue with someone following the rules, being approved, then having it shut down after it's 90%+ complete... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bearrock Posted December 5, 2016 Share Posted December 5, 2016 24 minutes ago, tshile said: And are they going to be reimbursed for building an approved project and now having to reroute it? I don't know the environmental side of it but I have a serious issue with someone following the rules, being approved, then having it shut down after it's 90%+ complete... Well, it will likely proceed as is after Jan 21. My question was on a purely curiosity level. The chances of any changes to the Dakota Pipeline seems slim to none. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
visionary Posted December 6, 2016 Share Posted December 6, 2016 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AsburySkinsFan Posted December 6, 2016 Share Posted December 6, 2016 4 hours ago, Destino said: So pipelines can be built so long as they only contaminate water supplies not used by native Americans? Strikes me as an odd place to draw the line. Look, we all get it, it's fun to be intentionally obtuse. But they are objecting to the pipeline running through their water source for the same damn reason we in my area are objecting to the repurposing of a pipeline that runs under our areas water source. We've seen all too well the damage they cause and the denial they operate from when they know the damage is worse than they let on. Remember BP disaster? For days they said it was a minor spill, I remember ES members saying that the spill could never be as bad as the rumors were indicating...then viola!! Well screw that! This pipeline isn't destined for the US market, it is intentionally designed for exporting oil. But somehow we're just supposed to roll over for whatever the oligarchs tell us. 3 hours ago, tshile said: Certainly not for people to know whether the study was done, much less be expected to read it. Oh wait, did you read it? Also, was it the EIS? Bet $5 the answer to both is no. And yes, there is a potential environmental impact with the pipeline. Anyone who says there isn't must have had a full frontal lobotomy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted December 6, 2016 Share Posted December 6, 2016 The EA determines if a EIS is needed.....until politicians step in of course. what does the science say? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bearrock Posted December 6, 2016 Share Posted December 6, 2016 Is there anyone who would not object to an oil pipeline running through their water source? Probably too late in the game to change anything, but I can certainly understand the opposition. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted December 6, 2016 Share Posted December 6, 2016 6 minutes ago, bearrock said: Is there anyone who would not object to an oil pipeline running through their water source? Probably too late in the game to change anything, but I can certainly understand the opposition. Only one? ....from where I sit they seem overly dramatic. add it is not thru the water source, but rather well below it and safety valves at both sides of the water Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted December 6, 2016 Share Posted December 6, 2016 23 minutes ago, twa said: what does the science say? Just a rough guess. But 1). Pipelines can leak. 2). And when they do, the impact can be bad? I'll also point out something about these pipelines (this one, Keystone, and probably some others we haven't heard about) that I think has been mentioned, but probably deserves some emphasis. Right now, mostly because of fracking, the US has a surplus of energy. This is resulting in a very rare case on energy prices going downward. Quite a bit. Remember $4 gasoline? The result of this glut is US consumers paying unusually low prices. (And remember, those energy prices are reflected in, well, the price of everything). And it has resulted in energy companies having to sell their products for less. The purpose of these pipelines isn't to bring energy to the US. It's to bring energy to where the energy companies can ship it somewhere else, where there isn't as much of a glut. (And, therefore, where they can sell it at a higher price than they're getting, in the US). This will allow the energy companies to sell the energy at a higher price, abroad. AND it will reduce the current glut in the US, allowing them to raise prices in the US, too. In short, it sure seems obvious to me that part of the reason for building these pipelines, is to RAISE the price of energy, in the US. (And, therefore, the price of everything). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.