• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

Pipeline spills 176,000 gallons of crude into creek 150 miles from DAPL protest camp

Status
Not open for further replies.

Suikoguy

I whinny my fervor lowly, for his length is not as great as those of the Hylian war stallions
There needs to be a full investigation. (i'm sure the Exxon Mobile CEO will do a great job!)
Maybe with a bit of luck his confirmation will be delayed enough for a real investigation to take place.

Until then, this needs to be pushed into the faces of pipeline supporters until proper regulations and requirements for monitoring are put into place. It's obvious what is in place now does not work.

We still need to transport Oil for the foreseeable future for various uses. Let's do it the best we can.

The short answer is: truck worse than train worse than pipeline worse than boat (Oilprice.com). But that’s only for human death and property destruction. For the normalized amount of oil spilled, it’s truck worse than pipeline worse than rail worse than boat (Congressional Research Service). Different yet again is for environmental impact (dominated by impact to aquatic habitat), where it’s boat worse than pipeline worse than truck worse than rail.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesco...ude-pipeline-rail-truck-or-boat/#7b3be77d5777
 

guek

Banned
I remember a couple GAFers talking about in one of the DAPL threads about how the concerns of oil leaks over DAPL were moot because the pipeline would be newer and therefore less leak prone than older, less sophisticated pipelines.
Yeah. I remember that. Good joke. Everybody laugh. Roll on snare drum. Curtains.
 
If you properly maintain the pipe line it shouldn't be an issue. Just look at all the gigantic metal bridges spanning bodies of water. Constant upkeep will alleviate most issues of wear and tear by water but its just that, constant upkeep and most likely not cheap at that.

Which just cycles back to the original point. Why run a pipeline through water?
 
Honestly I'm for the DAPL, just run it through a white neighborhood and everyone wins.
The companies can prove how safe their pipes are, Americans for DAPL get their pipeline, Natives get it off their sacred lands.

Win/win/win
 
Isnt that about the time when they ruled against it?

Amazing that it took a week before we knew this.


EDIT: Just did the math. It is equivilant to basically a 61 foot by 61 foot by 61 foot swimming pool. That much oil.
 
Honestly I'm for the DAPL, just run it through a white neighborhood and everyone wins.
The companies can prove how safe their pipes are, Americans for DAPL get their pipeline, Natives get it off their sacred lands.

Win/win/win
What are you crazy! Those things aren't safe, they just found one that's been leaking for God knows how long!
 
Honestly I'm for the DAPL, just run it through a white neighborhood and everyone wins.
The companies can prove how safe their pipes are, Americans for DAPL get their pipeline, Natives get it off their sacred lands.

Win/win/win
I recall a segment on the Daily Show stating that the pipeline was originally going to go through a white neighborhood, but due to public backlash, the company changed their minds.
 
I recall a segment on the Daily Show stating that the pipeline was originally going to go through a white neighborhood, but due to public backlash, the company changed their minds.

Would have loved to see the police spraying suburban white people with water hoses
 

Kilau

Member
Isnt that about the time when they ruled against it?

Amazing that it took a week before we knew this.


EDIT: Just did the math. It is equivilant to basically a 61 foot by 61 foot by 61 foot swimming pool. That much oil.

An Olympic size swimming pool is over 660,000 gallons, this is just a tiny fraction of that!
 
I remember a couple GAFers talking about in one of the DAPL threads about how the concerns of oil leaks over DAPL were moot because the pipeline would be newer and therefore less leak prone than older, less sophisticated pipelines.

..... because newer pipes never become older pipes.
 

sazzy

Member
What drives me insane is that we run pipelines for oil across half the country (a line from Texas to NJ runs under my pasture), but we won't run pipelines for fucking WATER from flood prone areas to drought prone areas because "it's too costly". I remember when states like Alabama and Mississippi had people dying in floods, meanwhile Texas farmers were losing everything to a drought that had them literaly sponging up condensation puddles.

If the combined cost of the floods and drought is less than what it would take it to build and maintain such a water pipeline, then it will not be built.

Everything has a $$$ value assigned to it, even people's lives.
 
Honestly I'm for the DAPL, just run it through a white neighborhood and everyone wins.
The companies can prove how safe their pipes are, Americans for DAPL get their pipeline, Natives get it off their sacred lands.

Win/win/win

White people don't even let the state/fed put windmills up because, and I shit you not, it "obstructs their view".

It's insanity. The first time I ever head that I almost choked laughing.
 

Keasar

Member
The oil companies right now:
07-minister.jpg
 

grumble

Member
We need to get off of this crap

You say on your computer produced with oil powered by oil in your house heated by oil. It was delivered by oil your food is fertilized with oil and shipped with oil to the businesses that wrap it in oil and display it for you to buy on your oil-filled day in the life.
 

squidyj

Member
Why run a pipeline through water in the first place?

That's what I don't understand.

I'd like to see you run a pipeline that doesn't cross a body of water.

There needs to be a full investigation. (i'm sure the Exxon Mobile CEO will do a great job!)
Maybe with a bit of luck his confirmation will be delayed enough for a real investigation to take place.

Until then, this needs to be pushed into the faces of pipeline supporters until proper regulations and requirements for monitoring are put into place. It's obvious what is in place now does not work.

We still need to transport Oil for the foreseeable future for various uses. Let's do it the best we can.



http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesco...ude-pipeline-rail-truck-or-boat/#7b3be77d5777

this is the response that most reflects my feelings. We can't ramp up green energy to meet consumption eeds that fast (and maybe there's a cap to how much we can get out of this?) and people are scared shitless of nuclear (and we can't ramp that up that fast anyways) so in the meantime we're stuck with the fossil fuels we've got. We need to work on making these things as safe as we can make them and properly punishing bad actors. People who come in and post stuff like "pipelines are bad we shouldn't have them" are absolutely deluding themselves.

Posted from my electricity eating monster.
 

Furyous

Member
Honestly I'm for the DAPL, just run it through a white neighborhood and everyone wins.
The companies can prove how safe their pipes are, Americans for DAPL get their pipeline, Natives get it off their sacred lands.

Win/win/win

They tried this at first but these people you speak of refused this generous offer. I'm with you in this regard that running it through a pure pristine area can prove DAPL effectiveness.
 
If you properly maintain the pipe line it shouldn't be an issue. Just look at all the gigantic metal bridges spanning bodies of water. Constant upkeep will alleviate most issues of wear and tear by water but its just that, constant upkeep and most likely not cheap at that.

Sounds perfect on paper until you realise that these corporations don't maintain them that well hence the spill above, and it's not the only spill that has occurred in nearby areas.
 
Aren't pipelines overall still safer than trucks though?

Has anyone done the engineering analysis on this pipeline to see if the safeguards are the same as those used in Dakota Access, and if the owning companies have similar failure rates?

I do agree with getting rid of fossil fuels, nuclear is so much better.

Edit: according to RT the way the pipelines cross the water is significantly different.
“I know this [current leak] is getting a lot of attention because of the Dakota Access Pipeline, but this is different. That pipeline [DAP] would be 90 feet below the river bed,” said Suess.

The 783 mile pipeline transports crude oil in the Williston Basin of western North

Dakota and eastern Montana, according to the company website.

It is not the first time the Belle Fourche Pipeline has had a spill.

According to records from US Department of Transportation, the company has had 10 reported spills over the past five years, accounting for a loss of nearly 5,000 barrels of oil, causing $2.26 million in property damage.​
They're much safer!

*Links to banned source*

Yeah... Ok then
 
I recall a segment on the Daily Show stating that the pipeline was originally going to go through a white neighborhood, but due to public backlash, the company changed their minds.

You know the daily show is fake news, right?

The army corps considered another crossing near a "white neighborhood" (Bismarck) but dismissed it because it required more water and wetland crossings and would have a much greater risk of environmental damage than running it in the selected site. http://www.cbc.ca/beta/news/business/dakota-access-pipeline-reroute-qa-1.3834627

The Dakota Access pipeline uses a nearly identical route as the natural gas pipeline to cross Lake Oahe near the Standing Rock reservation. The company did considerbut did not proposedeviating from the natural gas route, through a crossing of the Missouri River north of Bismarck, and about 80 kilometres upstream of the current location. But the Corps said in an environmental review that the crossing was not viable since it was more than 16 kilometres longer and required crossing more water, wetlands and real estate, and posed a potential threat to Bismarck's water supply.​
 
They're much safer!

*Links to banned source*

Yeah... Ok then
Fair enough, I guess you couldn't follow the link due to the ban. It's quoting a ND state official. As far as I know RT, despite their many issues, wouldn't just make up a quote like that.

That said, perhaps the official was lying. I'd certainly read any source you link me saying otherwise.
 
You say on your computer produced with oil powered by oil in your house heated by oil. It was delivered by oil your food is fertilized with oil and shipped with oil to the businesses that wrap it in oil and display it for you to buy on your oil-filled day in the life.

We can acknowledge the existing fossil fuel based energy infrastructure as providing us our modern day lifestyles while still simultaneously acknowledging the need to move on to a clean/sustainable/renewable energy infrastructure that is not fossil fuel based.

Those 2 facets of reality are logically incompatible.
 

AllenShrz

Member
Fair enough, I guess you couldn't follow the link due to the ban. It's quoting a ND state official. As far as I know RT, despite their many issues, wouldn't just make up a quote like that.

That said, perhaps the official was lying. I'd certainly read any source you link me saying otherwise.

I literally laughed when I saw that, amazing.
 
I literally laughed when I saw that, amazing.
Glad to provide laughs.

If you want to link a source disputing Seuss's statement and showing that this pipeline had the same design as Dakota Access' crossing of the lake, I'll be happy to read it.

It certainly sounds plausible (edit: just to add, the army corps environmental impact mentions that the Dakota Access crossing would be buried, so that part is definitely true) and he's quoted in other news articles from highly reputable sources (guardian, CBC) more recently as well. Presumably he's the guy the state is trotting out to talk to reporters about the leak.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom