Keystone XL, Dakota Access Pipelines back!

[Sparko]

more detailed version on the Army Corp of Engineers site itself:

http://cdm16021.contentdm.oclc.org/c...1coll7/id/2801

[Cow Poke]

I do like my ribeyes very rare, but with respect to this image, is the implication that the deeper the pipeline is, the less chance of potential negative environmental impacts? Do you know about how issues like various kinds of aquifers may affect potential environmental impacts? I don't, but that might be something worth knowing about.

There's a whole website that goes with that image.

[robrecht]

here:

https://www.fws.gov/uploadedFiles/DAPL%20FONSI.pdf

That was not an EIS, but rather an individual's determination that an EIS was not needed. The Army Corps of Engineers ultimately disagreed. In addition the determination seemed to only be addressing some specific issues, eg, overland impact on grasslands, but I'm not sure about that and would need to delve into it more deeply to say more.

[robrecht]

There's a whole website that goes with that image.

Does it address the specific issue under discussion? Doesn't seem to based on my searching. Perhaps you could point to something specific you have in mind?

[robrecht]

more detailed version on the Army Corp of Engineers site itself:

http://cdm16021.contentdm.oclc.org/c...1coll7/id/2801

Did you read any of these documents or are you simply attempting to argue by weblink? I tried to download the first document but it would not open.

[Cow Poke]

Does it address the specific issue under discussion? Doesn't seem to based on my searching. Perhaps you could point to something specific you have in mind?

Wednesdays are really busy for me - I'll have to dig into this later.

[Sparko]

That was not an EIS, but rather an individual's determination that an EIS was not needed. The Army Corps of Engineers ultimately disagreed. In addition the determination seemed to only be addressing some specific issues, eg, overland impact on grasslands, but I'm not sure about that and would need to delve into it more deeply to say more.

It was not an individuals report. It was a partial of the complete report I posted in the next thread, prepared BY THE ARMY CORP OF ENGINEERS, with an entire Environmental Assessment Study included.


Environmental assessment: Dakota Access Pipeline Project, crossings of flowage easements and federal lands
http://cdm16021.contentdm.oclc.org/c...1coll7/id/2801

[robrecht]

It was not an individuals report. It was a partial of the complete report I posted in the next thread, prepared BY THE ARMY CORP OF ENGINEERS, with an entire Environmental Assessment Study included.


Environmental assessment: Dakota Access Pipeline Project, crossings of flowage easements and federal lands
http://cdm16021.contentdm.oclc.org/c...1coll7/id/2801

I think you mean the 'next post'? I've asked you a question about that post as well. But with respect to this report, read the conclusion.

[Leonhard]

I can't wait until the day Alaska has the opportunity to use only solar power to heat their homes in the winter. You know, when there is no more reliance on oil and natural gas.

You can, though I think for Alaska focusing on wind power would be better.

[Sparko]

I think you mean the 'next post'? I've asked you a question about that post as well. But with respect to this report, read the conclusion.

I just skimmed it
You wanted an environmental study so I gave you one

I was not arguing anything I was giving you the info you wanted

[robrecht]

I just skimmed it
You wanted an environmental study so I gave you one

I was not arguing anything I was giving you the info you wanted

Please read the conclusion: https://www.fws.gov/uploadedFiles/DAPL%20FONSI.pdf

Do you agree that it is not a summary of an EIS, but rather an individual's determination that an EIS was not needed?

[seer]

You can, though I think for Alaska focusing on wind power would be better.

Or methane gas from polar bears, that could heat their cities. They have a lot of gas up there!

[JimL]

But they did do these studies. Keystone was approved, as was Dakota. 85% of Dakota is already done, that could not have been done without the necessary approvals. And BTW - both have to resubmit their proposals to restart from what I heard yesterday. Let's face it robrecht this is mostly about bias against oil, not safety. Because clearly transporting by rail or truck (which is happening as we speak) is more dangerous.

I think its about more than bias seer, its about balancing the best interests of the country and the environment. Whats the cost/benefit to the country in terms of jobs, energy independence, and the risks to the environment. Its not that many jobs from what i've heard, and they are temporary jobs at that. The oil goes on the free market so its not like its U.S. oil and that it will bring down the price. The risks to the environment has proven to be just as damaging as transporting it over rail, a spill is a spill. So the question is, is it worth it, or would it be better to invest more in alternative sources of clean energy which would create more jobs, and permanent jobs, while avoiding environmental damage altogether.

[One Bad Pig]

I think its about more than bias seer, its about balancing the best interests of the country and the environment. Whats the cost/benefit to the country in terms of jobs, energy independence, and the risks to the environment. Its not that many jobs from what i've heard, and they are temporary jobs at that. The oil goes on the free market so its not like its U.S. oil and that it will bring down the price. The risks to the environment has proven to be just as damaging as transporting it over rail, a spill is a spill. So the question is, is it worth it, or would it be better to invest more in alternative sources of clean energy which would create more jobs, and permanent jobs, while avoiding environmental damage altogether.

A spill is never good. However, moving the oil by pipeline is rather more energy-efficient. Further, oil going on the free market from here being used here has less transportation cost, and that lesser cost can still be passed on to the end user. As others have pointed out, oil is not just used for energy; it is also used for, e.g., making plastics. Clean energy does not avoid environmental damage; wind turbines kill birds, and solar panel manufacture creates hazardous waste.

[Starlight]

Does he still? I thought he sold his stock in this this company last year?

One of his many and various lying spokespeople asserted he had sold off his stock in one of the two relevant companies near the end of last year, as part of their general claims that he totally had no conflicts of interest any more. I see no particular reason to believe their word.

I'd wager that Trump has stock in hundreds, if not thousands, of companies. As a billionaire, stock in any one or two companies going up is exceedingly unlikely to give him more than pocket change.

If I seriously thought he was actually a billionaire I would be less concerned. As it is he pretends to be a billionaire but is actually pretty poor, possibly in more debt than he has assets.

I think running for the presidency was a last-ditch effort on his part to try to generate revenue and keep himself solvent. Of course, now that he is president, he's managed to find plenty of ways to enrich himself - e.g. making his own campaign pay him absurdly high rents for office space in Trump Tower, having Republican functions at his own resorts netting him large revenues, phone calls to foreign leaders asking them to help out his hotel projects in their countries, executive orders helping the stock prices of stock he owns etc.


The reason Trump's conflicts of interest with his businesses are so hilarious is that no other country in the Western world would allow this to happen. Universal practice is for assets get put into blind trusts and managed without the knowledge of the person so they can't do things like this to benefit their own interests. Leaders enriching themselves is 3rd-world-dictator stuff, Vladimir Putin / Kim Jong Il insanity. The fact that it's happening in America, a country that purports to be a first-world nation, is:

I can't wait until the day Alaska has the opportunity to use only solar power to heat their homes in the winter. You know, when there is no more reliance on oil and natural gas.

LOL. yeah in the winter when there is 6 months of dark.

Oh! I Know! they can shine flashlights on the solar panels!

Exactly what I was talking about. Some people don't think these things through very well, do they? Or they are so geocentric they don't care about anybidy else.

Ironic statement of the day.

FYI:

Wind power in Alaska has the potential to provide all of the electricity used in the U.S. state of Alaska. - wiki

And there are plenty of other types of non-fossil fuels power sources... tidal, hydro, nuclear, geothermal, fusion (future) etc.