Dakota Access Pipeline leaks in first week of operation

 Pages 1 2 3 NEXT
 

Yep. First week.

The Hill:
South Dakota officials are looking into a small leak along the route of the Dakota Access Pipeline that spilled 84 gallons of oil.

A pump connecting the pipeline to a crude oil storage tank in rural South Dakota leaked the oil sometime in April, Dakota Media Group reported Wednesday.

The oil was captured by absorbent material at the site and put back into the pipeline, officials said. The state won?t fine the pipeline?s operator because the spill was reported and properly cleaned up.

A spokesperson for developer Energy Transfer Partners told Dakota Media Group that the malfunction occurred during the process of filling the pipeline with oil.

That line-fill process should be completed by June 1, when the 1,170-mile pipeline is due to enter into service.

Energy Transfer Partners did not immediately reply to a request for comment from The Hill.

The spill ? which was limited to Energy Transfer Partners? workspace at the storage site ? is a minuscule amount of oil compared to other spills. It?s also the first spill associated with Dakota Access in South Dakota, according to the report.

But it comes at a time when the Dakota Access pipeline is under intense scruitiny from tribes and environmentalists, who have fought to prevent it from entering service.

The 1,170-mile pipeline is designed to deliver up to 470,000 barrels of crude oil per day between North Dakota and oil facilities in Illinois. Tribes near the pipeline route have said a spill puts drinking water supplies at risk.

Environmentalists took up the cause last year and launched nationwide protests against the pipeline. The Obama administration moved to effectively pause the construction process for a critical stretch of the pipeline, but President Trump reversed that decision and allowed the project to move forward.

Naturally, the profits of Energy Transfer Partners are more important than drinking water, because Energy Transfer Partners has money to spend on bribes. Also, Donald Trump is a shareholder.

"Small leak; 84 gallons" >~>

"miniscule amount of oil" >~>

Saelune:
"Small leak; 84 gallons" >~>

"miniscule amount of oil" >~>

Still, not exactly a promising start for something we were assured was safe and beneficial to everyone. And tooooooootally not because Trump is financially invested in the project.

Lilani:

Saelune:
"Small leak; 84 gallons" >~>

"miniscule amount of oil" >~>

Still, not exactly a promising start for something we were assured was safe and beneficial to everyone. And tooooooootally not because Trump is financially invested in the project.

Not sure, but...my point is it is NOT a "small amount" or "miniscule" 84 gallons...GALLONS! Thats a fucking lot! It may be small "relative" to whatever, but its like saying "only 3 people died in the fire"...how about none?

84 gallons is nothing in pipeline terms.

Also, you always have problems when you start something new. Like new cars, or new houses. Unless it's a recurrent issue, it's a bit of a non-story.

Saelune:

Lilani:

Saelune:
"Small leak; 84 gallons" >~>

"miniscule amount of oil" >~>

Still, not exactly a promising start for something we were assured was safe and beneficial to everyone. And tooooooootally not because Trump is financially invested in the project.

Not sure, but...my point is it is NOT a "small amount" or "miniscule" 84 gallons...GALLONS! Thats a fucking lot! It may be small "relative" to whatever, but its like saying "only 3 people died in the fire"...how about none?

Oooooh ok, I see now lol. We are on the same page then, sorry about the confusion. Yeah I agree, 84 gallons isn't lot compared to Deepwater Horizon or whatever, but it's still a lot more oil than I want near anything. Water sources, public land, private land, whatevs.

Catnip1024:
84 gallons is nothing in pipeline terms.

Also, you always have problems when you start something new. Like new cars, or new houses. Unless it's a recurrent issue, it's a bit of a non-story.

It is a recurrent issue. Every pipeline leaks. A lot. All the time. Everybody knew that this would happen. That's why the people were so loudly against it. But fascism won.

Adam Jensen:

Catnip1024:
84 gallons is nothing in pipeline terms.

Also, you always have problems when you start something new. Like new cars, or new houses. Unless it's a recurrent issue, it's a bit of a non-story.

It is a recurrent issue. Every pipeline leaks. A lot. All the time. Everybody knew that this would happen. That's why the people were so loudly against it. But fascism won.

"Fascism won". "Fascism won"?

Last time I checked, fascism wasn't really heavily invested in the use and exploitation of fossil fuels. Yah know. What you actually mean is that a government elected through some vaguely democratic albeit flawed system, won.

Also, according to these guys, your average is an incident or two of any severity per day, across all of the lines in the US. Which includes non-leakage incidents like injuries, by the looks of it. So that's 10 incidents per state, per year, on average. Not great, but definitely not "all leak. all the time". It's not great, and the US regulatory system is shit and impotent, but fix the system rather than shout "nazi".

Catnip1024:
84 gallons is nothing in pipeline terms.

Also, you always have problems when you start something new. Like new cars, or new houses. Unless it's a recurrent issue, it's a bit of a non-story.

"Pipeline terms" are shitty terms. In environmental terms, any amount is bad.

I am sure none of the people who are so outraged about this minor incident are supporting this "fascism" by never using anything that is made out of plastic and always picking up their groceries at the farm via bycicle.

Our civilization runs on oil, and you are all part of it. Stop being hypocrites.

I wonder how many of the new hipster hippies (hippisters?) are also campaigning against Apple with its products who are encouraged to replace every few years. But hey, apparently oil is the new Hitler.

Especially in this case where it's literally tests to see it works properly, it's pretty much guaranteed there will be places needed to improve.
As a curiosity, how much does the pipeline save in other means of transportation? Which areas will benefit from it most?

Saelune:
"Pipeline terms" are shitty terms. In environmental terms, any amount is bad.

Okay then, let's stop using wind power because it kills birds. Let's stop using boats because they interfere with the marine environment.

Of course there is an acceptable environmental risk level. It's a risk benefit trade off - what does the world gain from this risk? You can debate the balance, but absolutism is a bullshit approach to life.

Catnip1024:

Saelune:
"Pipeline terms" are shitty terms. In environmental terms, any amount is bad.

Okay then, let's stop using wind power because it kills birds. Let's stop using boats because they interfere with the marine environment.

Of course there is an acceptable environmental risk level. It's a risk benefit trade off - what does the world gain from this risk? You can debate the balance, but absolutism is a bullshit approach to life.

This Pipeline was fought and opposed extensively since the start. Everyone who gave a fuck said this was a bad idea, and, 2 for 2 the bad choice was proven to be bad.

If there is an "acceptable environmental risk level" it is certainly a way lower threshold than over 80 gallons. And made even worse due to Trump's dismantling of anything that would curtail this shit, on both the corporate and environmental side.

This pipeline is undefendable by any moral standard. Dont steal other people's cake and piss oil in it too.

Saelune:
This Pipeline was fought and opposed extensively since the start.

I'm not saying the pipeline was a good idea. I'm saying condemning it based on a minor, minor leak as a one-off incident is bullshit, when compared to the countless more serious leaks that occur around the country on a regular basis.

If there is an "acceptable environmental risk level" it is certainly a way lower threshold than over 80 gallons. And made even worse due to Trump's dismantling of anything that would curtail this shit, on both the corporate and environmental side.

Deepwater Horizon happened prior to Trump, as did many other oil leaks and spillages. There clearly wasn't a suitable regulatory regime in place to start with, so blaming Trump for this is kind of flawed.

Dont steal other people's cake and piss oil in it too.

Que? Are you just throwing together snarky sounding buzzwords, or do you have an actual point?

Also, to add one more thing - having re-read the original story, the spillage occurred on a worksite, so it's not like it is causing extensive damage to the ecosystem. It'll be a closed off area of concrete and dirt, possibly within a bunded area (one would hope the whole pump / tank area would be bunded, but US regulatory system...). The environmental impact from the oil itself will be nothing compared to the environmental impact of the site and associated infrastructure.

Again, not defending the pipeline, but keep the hysteria rational and proportionate.

Catnip1024:

Saelune:
This Pipeline was fought and opposed extensively since the start.

I'm not saying the pipeline was a good idea. I'm saying condemning it based on a minor, minor leak as a one-off incident is bullshit, when compared to the countless more serious leaks that occur around the country on a regular basis.

If there is an "acceptable environmental risk level" it is certainly a way lower threshold than over 80 gallons. And made even worse due to Trump's dismantling of anything that would curtail this shit, on both the corporate and environmental side.

Deepwater Horizon happened prior to Trump, as did many other oil leaks and spillages. There clearly wasn't a suitable regulatory regime in place to start with, so blaming Trump for this is kind of flawed.

Dont steal other people's cake and piss oil in it too.

Que? Are you just throwing together snarky sounding buzzwords, or do you have an actual point?

Also, to add one more thing - having re-read the original story, the spillage occurred on a worksite, so it's not like it is causing extensive damage to the ecosystem. It'll be a closed off area of concrete and dirt, possibly within a bunded area (one would hope the whole pump / tank area would be bunded, but US regulatory system...). The environmental impact from the oil itself will be nothing compared to the environmental impact of the site and associated infrastructure.

Again, not defending the pipeline, but keep the hysteria rational and proportionate.

Maybe I am getting a bit over-zealous, but you -are- defending the pipeline.

As are...alot of the same people who like to defend Trump and other right-wing awfulness. Does the environment also have to be a left/right thing? Does the right really want to be every typical villain trope?

What really steams me about this is because this was something fought from the start by people who were having their land taken from them by force. A bad thing was done to let a bad thing to be done, and bad things happened because of it. It is really grating when people who know better and give a fuck are being constantly ignored for TERRIBLE CHOICES that just screw people over.

And I will throw blame at Trump since Trump is the one who pushed ahead with this when Obama had atleast curtailed it for a time.

https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2017/01/24/presidential-memorandum-regarding-construction-dakota-access-pipeline

Catnip1024:

"Fascism won". "Fascism won"?

Last time I checked, fascism wasn't really heavily invested in the use and exploitation of fossil fuels. Yah know. What you actually mean is that a government elected through some vaguely democratic albeit flawed system, won.

Yes, fascism. The land that legally belongs to a native tribe was taken by force by the government and given to a fossil fuel corporation. They didn't want to build the pipeline close to a wealthy neighborhood even though they could have. No, they decided that because they're powerful, they can take what they want by force.

And have you seen how many cops (shitty fuckin' excuses for human beings each and every one that was involved in this) they brought there to terrorize the protesters? The government brought in cops to take land that doesn't belong to them and give it to a corporation. That's not democracy or even flawed democracy. On top of that, the oil company thought that it would be a neat idea to send in one of their own guys with a gun to pretend to be a violent protester in order to give the cops an excuse to react more violently. It didn't work. But that guy wasn't arrested and prosecuted, the protesters that were trying to calm him down and take his gun were arrested instead.

Every cop that was there, every government official who approved this and everyone from that company who was involved should spend the rest of their lives in prison.

Saelune:
Maybe I am getting a bit over-zealous, but you -are- defending the pipeline.

As are...alot of the same people who like to defend Trump and other right-wing awfulness. Does the environment also have to be a left/right thing? Does the right really want to be every typical villain trope?

I'm defending the world from bad arguments. I don't have an opinion on whether or not the pipeline should have been built in the first place - it was a long way away, and there were more important issues. But using the fact that an incident occurred which happens twice per day across the US pipeline fleet (and has for the last decade at least) to condemn the pipeline and consequently Trump is a bizarre argument. The approximately two incidents a day figure has held steady through the last couple of administrations, at least back to the Bush era.

If the pipeline had gone elsewhere, it would be a longer route (at a guess) and hence more prone to leaking.

A perfect world would be using far less oil by now. But given people are spending less time reforming the system and more time shouting at individuals for various faux pas', it's some way off yet. As such, oil is a necessary evil, and by default pipelines.

There's probably a starving orphan somewhere that could really do with that wasted oil. Can't even screw over our own planet efficiently. Bloody dinosaurs burning dinosaurs.

Adam Jensen:
Yes, fascism. The land that legally belongs to a native tribe was taken by force by the government and given to a fossil fuel corporation. They didn't want to build the pipeline close to a wealthy neighborhood even though they could have. No, they decided that because they're powerful, they can take what they want by force.

And have you seen how many cops (shitty fuckin' excuses for human beings each and every one that was involved in this) they brought there to terrorize the protesters? The government brought in cops to take land that doesn't belong to them and give it to a corporation. That's not democracy or even flawed democracy. On top of that, the oil company thought that it would be a neat idea to send in one of their own guys with a gun to pretend to be a violent protester in order to give the cops an excuse to react more violently. It didn't work. But that guy wasn't arrested and prosecuted, the protesters that were trying to calm him down and take his gun were arrested instead.

Every cop that was there, every government official who approved this and everyone from that company who was involved should spend the rest of their lives in prison.

You (plural) voted in your respective state and national governments. You (plural) continue to endorse the flawed two-party system with all of it's associated lobbying and bullshit. It's not fascism. It's rampant capitalism.

Catnip1024:

Adam Jensen:
Yes, fascism. The land that legally belongs to a native tribe was taken by force by the government and given to a fossil fuel corporation. They didn't want to build the pipeline close to a wealthy neighborhood even though they could have. No, they decided that because they're powerful, they can take what they want by force.

And have you seen how many cops (shitty fuckin' excuses for human beings each and every one that was involved in this) they brought there to terrorize the protesters? The government brought in cops to take land that doesn't belong to them and give it to a corporation. That's not democracy or even flawed democracy. On top of that, the oil company thought that it would be a neat idea to send in one of their own guys with a gun to pretend to be a violent protester in order to give the cops an excuse to react more violently. It didn't work. But that guy wasn't arrested and prosecuted, the protesters that were trying to calm him down and take his gun were arrested instead.

Every cop that was there, every government official who approved this and everyone from that company who was involved should spend the rest of their lives in prison.

You (plural) voted in your respective state and national governments. You (plural) continue to endorse the flawed two-party system with all of it's associated lobbying and bullshit. It's not fascism. It's rampant capitalism.

Given how the electoral college overrides the popular vote (and defies its will, as it did this year and in years past) and how much control the parties have over their primaries, and the problem of rampant gerrymandering, exactly how much control the voters actually exert by casting votes is up for debate in the US.

So a tiny leak while they were in the process of filling the system that was immediately absorbed because they were prepared for exactly this is fascism and Trump destroying the world. The bit quoted in the OP even points out this is nothing noteworthy but people are going to overreact for political reasons. Pipelines are the least environmentally harmful way to transport large quantities of oil, and eminent domain is nothing new and neither is protesting it whenever a highway, airport, dam, or whatever else needs to be built or expanded.

Adam Jensen:

Catnip1024:

"Fascism won". "Fascism won"?

Last time I checked, fascism wasn't really heavily invested in the use and exploitation of fossil fuels. Yah know. What you actually mean is that a government elected through some vaguely democratic albeit flawed system, won.

Yes, fascism. The land that legally belongs to a native tribe was taken by force by the government and given to a fossil fuel corporation. They didn't want to build the pipeline close to a wealthy neighborhood even though they could have.

Wait, isn't the pipeline (barely) outside of the indian reservation land? IIRC, the complaints voiced by the native tribes were that the pipeline is close enough that their land and drinking water could become contaminated in the event of a leak/spill.

I don't have a problem with an 84 gallon leak that was quickly dealt with. There are plenty of problems, or potential problems, but not so much that.

Catnip1024:
"Fascism won". "Fascism won"?

Last time I checked, fascism wasn't really heavily invested in the use and exploitation of fossil fuels.

Actually, a big part of Hitler's view of Eastern Europe was based around fossil fuels. The analogy isn't great, but not as bad as it might seem.

one squirrel:
I am sure none of the people who are so outraged about this minor incident are supporting this "fascism" by never using anything that is made out of plastic and always picking up their groceries at the farm via bycicle.

Our civilization runs on oil, and you are all part of it. Stop being hypocrites.

I'm not seeing people oppose oil (at least on this thread), they are arguing about the way one pipeline was handled.

Adam Jensen:
Yes, fascism. The land that legally belongs to a native tribe was taken by force by the government and given to a fossil fuel corporation. They didn't want to build the pipeline close to a wealthy neighborhood even though they could have. No, they decided that because they're powerful, they can take what they want by force.

Look, speaking as an Australian, none of what you described is strictly speaking incompatible with democracy. Both Australia and the US have a long and sordid history of nicking land from its original inhabitants so they can mine it or farm it or build a pipeline on it.

It's disgraceful, but it's not fascism. It's just neo-colonialism.

Edit: "Just" neo-colonialism. What a weird sentence.

Catnip1024:
You (plural) voted in your respective state and national governments. You (plural) continue to endorse the flawed two-party system with all of it's associated lobbying and bullshit. It's not fascism. It's rampant capitalism.

You overestimate the power of the average voter, especially since we as a whole can never really be united on any single thing. It won't matter just how many of us are out there protesting and drowning our politicians in e-mails, calls, letters, and petitions. As long as there are enough people still propping the system up, all that can be ignored. We've arrived at the point where we're hostage to our own election system in a way, not voting or not participating just isn't an option. There's a bunch of people in the US that want to do away with the two-party system, but both parties have gained so much power that they're not going to just give it up willingly. It would likely take a new revolution in the US to change it, and that's just not going to happen successfully.

Adam Jensen:

Yes, fascism. The land that legally belongs to a native tribe was taken by force by the government and given to a fossil fuel corporation. They didn't want to build the pipeline close to a wealthy neighborhood even though they could have. No, they decided that because they're powerful, they can take what they want by force.

That and what was written in the previous post is not Fascism in any way, unless Fascism is defined as "a political system I don't like when I don't win".

bastardofmelbourne:

Adam Jensen:
Yes, fascism. The land that legally belongs to a native tribe was taken by force by the government and given to a fossil fuel corporation. They didn't want to build the pipeline close to a wealthy neighborhood even though they could have. No, they decided that because they're powerful, they can take what they want by force.

Look, speaking as an Australian, none of what you described is strictly speaking incompatible with democracy. Both Australia and the US have a long and sordid history of nicking land from its original inhabitants so they can mine it or farm it or build a pipeline on it.

It's disgraceful, but it's not fascism. It's just neo-colonialism.

Edit: "Just" neo-colonialism. What a weird sentence.

I've read some horror stories about a ton of corruption in Indian reservation, mismanagement of funds and a lot of crimes, I think at this point just having the USA reintegrate the Indian reservations can only be beneficial.

inu-kun:
I've read some horror stories about a ton of corruption in Indian reservation, mismanagement of funds and a lot of crimes, I think at this point just having the USA reintegrate the Indian reservations can only be beneficial.

What do you mean RE-integrate? Indians had their lands stolen by the US, and then some had parts set aside for them to exist in as a result of peace treaties to end conflicts which would inevitably mean the eradication of their peoples. Reservations were created to make the American people feel better and pretend they weren't the same as other conquerors who took land from others just because they could, while not actually giving back any of the sovereignty we took from them.

If some tribes want their lands integrated in the US, then they can seek that out themselves. But to my knowledge not many seek that. What they want is the reservation system fixed. Then the least we should do is help where we can and stop pretending they're our unwanted stepchildren we keep hidden in the cupboard.

Zetatrain:

Adam Jensen:

Catnip1024:

"Fascism won". "Fascism won"?

Last time I checked, fascism wasn't really heavily invested in the use and exploitation of fossil fuels. Yah know. What you actually mean is that a government elected through some vaguely democratic albeit flawed system, won.

Yes, fascism. The land that legally belongs to a native tribe was taken by force by the government and given to a fossil fuel corporation. They didn't want to build the pipeline close to a wealthy neighborhood even though they could have.

Wait, isn't the pipeline (barely) outside of the indian reservation land? IIRC, the complaints voiced by the native tribes were that the pipeline is close enough that their land and drinking water could become contaminated in the event of a leak/spill.

There is "disputed territory" which was promised to them in a 1851 treaty and the government took some of it away in 1870's during the gold rush and again in 1950's to build a massive dam project to protect villages and farmlands from flooding. The second one is kinda common (at least in the general Great Plain area). Out west, massive dam projects were erected to prevent flooding and for irrigation. Even if the dam itself was not on N.A. territory, they can easily claim that the project impacts them due to changing the local environment. There is basically no way to build these massive dam projects without earning the ire of at least some of the locals, regardless of who the locals are.

Thaluikhain:

I'm not seeing people oppose oil (at least on this thread), they are arguing about the way one pipeline was handled.

which is a fair argument

inu-kun:
I've read some horror stories about a ton of corruption in Indian reservation, mismanagement of funds and a lot of crimes, I think at this point just having the USA reintegrate the Indian reservations can only be beneficial.

Deciding to take away native people's independence and autonomy for their own good generally has a bad track record.

Catnip1024:
Snip

There's never not a good reason to condemn Trump, and apparently the practices behind the oil line were shitty.

The motion is sustained, Catnip.

Lilani:
Given how the electoral college overrides the popular vote (and defies its will, as it did this year and in years past) and how much control the parties have over their primaries, and the problem of rampant gerrymandering, exactly how much control the voters actually exert by casting votes is up for debate in the US.

It is up for debate - but if the democratic will was there, a third party / independent could in theory gain power on a platform of changing the system. It is a far cry from a fascist state.

FalloutJack:
There's never not a good reason to condemn Trump, and apparently the practices behind the oil line were shitty.

The motion is sustained, Catnip.

Oil companies using dubious practices, you say? God forbid, that must be entirely Trump. Everyone knows they were sweet little angels before he got his hands on them...

Catnip1024:

FalloutJack:
There's never not a good reason to condemn Trump, and apparently the practices behind the oil line were shitty.

The motion is sustained, Catnip.

Oil companies using dubious practices, you say? God forbid, that must be entirely Trump. Everyone knows they were sweet little angels before he got his hands on them...

Oh, no one said that. People just know a lit match when we see one. Ya follow?

Thaluikhain:

Catnip1024:
"Fascism won". "Fascism won"?

Last time I checked, fascism wasn't really heavily invested in the use and exploitation of fossil fuels.

Actually, a big part of Hitler's view of Eastern Europe was based around fossil fuels. The analogy isn't great, but not as bad as it might seem.

Allow me to nitpick here, since I just came off a reading of Wages of Destruction: The Making and Breaking of the Nazi Economy. The first thing we must understand is that Hitler was obsessed with Autarky, the idea that Germany should not have to rely on any imports for its' vital strategic production (food, weapons, building materials etc.). Hitler's plan for Eastern Europe, essentially the Soviet Union west of the Ural mountains, was to kill everyone living there to lay claim to its' resources for Germany. It was a plan not just to get the oil fields of the Caucasus or the mines around the Don. At its' very core was the understanding that the German agricultural system was pushed to the limits of what it could produce in the 30's and yet it still couldn't sustain a reliable level of production for domestic needs, forcing Germany to rely heavily on food imports.

The most important part of the Soviet Union in Hitler's view prior to the war was not the oil fields in the Caucasus, it was the fertile agricultural lands of Belarus and Ukraine. It was that land that Hitler intended to seize, commit genocide on its' inhabitants and then have German farmers move in to get large farms of fertile soil, which would ensure the German food supply. the Nazis always intended for Germany to rely on synthetic oil instead of natural oil, which is reflected in the massive investments they did into synthetic oil and rubber production. It was first when they realized that Barbarossa had failed and that the USSR wouldn't come crumbling down like a rotten house in early 1942, that the Nazis also began planning to secure Soviet oilfields to satisfy their short time war needs.

This is all a long winded way of saying that no, the analogy doesn't hold up. Nazism was pre-occupied with farming land in its' expansion plans (reflected in the "Blut und Boden"-slogan, Blood and Land), not fossil fuels which they intended to synthesize instead.

inu-kun:
I wonder how many of the new hipster hippies (hippisters?) are also campaigning against Apple with its products who are encouraged to replace every few years. But hey, apparently oil is the new Hitler.

*raises hand up* I'm not a hippy hipster but I'm fully against phone companies making a new phone every year as the older models become redundant. I find phone waste a concern and phones should be set to last longer not shorter. It use to be every 24 months and now every 12 month. I fear it will be cut in half again.

Also, is "Fascism/Fasict" the new overused, not fully understand the meaning of, buzzword now?

 Pages 1 2 3 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here