• No Artifacts or Remains at North Dakota Pipeline Site
    81 replies, posted
[quote] A [URL="http://abcnews.go.com/topics/news/north-dakota.htm"]North Dakota[/URL] state inspection of an oil pipeline site has found no sign of the Native American artifacts or human remains that an American Indian Tribe says are present, the state's chief archaeologist said in a draft memo. The Standing Rock Sioux tribe had cited the potential for burial grounds and other artifacts as a major reason to lead protests that have stymied completion of the project. Chief Archaeologist Paul Picha said in the memo first published Monday by conservative blogger Rob Port that seven state archeologists inspected the 1.3-mile section along the route of the $3.8 billion Dakota Access pipeline in southern North Dakota. The memo said only some animal teeth and bone fragments were found during the survey last week. Historical Society spokeswoman Kim Jondahl confirmed the contents of the memo but said it was "a first draft of an internal summary." She declined to say how the draft differed from later versions. In early September, Standing Rock Sioux officials said crews bulldozed several sites of "significant cultural and historic value" on private land, which Dallas-based pipeline builder Energy Transfer Partners denies. It led to a clash between protesters and private security guards hired by the pipeline company. Law enforcement officials said four security guards and two guard dogs received medical treatment, while a tribal spokesman countered that six people were bitten by guard dogs and at least 30 people were pepper-sprayed. The Morton County Sheriff's Department is heading up the probe of the Sept. 3 incident at the construction site near the Standing Rock Indian Reservation. In an incident on Sunday, Morton County Sheriff Kyle Kirchmeier says about 200 people confronted about 30 security guards at a construction site. The sheriff says all but three security guards left the construction site. The sheriff says law enforcement officers witnessed one of the security guards being carried by protesters for about 100 yards. The guard was treated for minor injuries by paramedics. No arrests were made.[/quote] [URL="http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/leaked-memo-remains-artifacts-found-pipeline-site-42374617"]ABC[/URL] Huh, it's almost as if the natives are not actually from that area, because they actually originate from Lake Sakakawea region to the north, and only moved to the south to join reservations with the South Dakota tribes. In short, almost all arguments of the natives gets thrown out the window.
I dont care if there weren't any damn artifacts in the site. We dont want this fucking Pipeline. Its only going to fuck the environment over here.
Means nothing as far as the bigger picture is concerned. Fact is, this pipeline is not wanted, not necessary, and only has more downsides to inflict than positives to give. The environmental aspect alone is reason enough to justify why it should not go ahead. Moreover, we need to begin switching to alternative fuel sources. The longer we keep playing this retarded game, the longer it'll take to realize and implement en masse alternatives.
'Course, the right palms in government have already been greased, so it's happening anyway.
The pipeline will increase economic output to all of North Dakota, and the complaints about the pipe leaking is pretty much nuance. You are more likely to have trains derail and trucks go flying off the road. The benefits outweigh the cons by a mile.
[QUOTE=Deathtrooper2;51122201]I dont care if there weren't any damn artifacts in the site. We dont want this fucking Pipeline. Its only going to fuck the environment over here.[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=Govna;51122239]Means nothing as far as the bigger picture is concerned. Fact is, this pipeline is not wanted, not necessary, and only has more downsides to inflict than positives to give. The environmental aspect alone is reason enough to justify why it should not go ahead. Moreover, we need to begin switching to alternative fuel sources. The longer we keep playing this retarded game, the longer it'll take to realize and implement en masse alternatives.[/QUOTE] You don't lie to make your argument. If you have to lie to support your argument, it's not as good as you want it to be. It's a bad argument. Do it right or don't do it at all. There are and were plenty of substantial arguments for not building the pipeline. But some dishonest line about burial grounds and artifacts was not one of them.
[QUOTE=Deathtrooper2;51122201]I dont care if there weren't any damn artifacts in the site. We dont want this fucking Pipeline. Its only going to fuck the environment over here.[/QUOTE] you seem oddly certain that there will be a leak lol
[QUOTE=Saturn V;51122559]you seem oddly certain that there will be a leak lol[/QUOTE] Pipeline leaks happen [url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_pipeline_accidents_in_the_United_States_in_the_21st_century]all the time.[/url]
[QUOTE=ilikecorn;51122582] Statistically, all pipelines leak. But the amount leaked is insignificant, barring major damage to said pipeline.[/QUOTE] i wouldn't call millions of barrels in many cases an insignificant amount
No artifacts? Well this changes... Nothing [editline]28th September 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=ilikecorn;51122582]I love this argument. We can't just MAGICALLY convert to alternative energy sources. Even if, today, a magical source of energy was found that could completely replace fossil fuel output, it'd take decades to convert to said energy source. Maintaining supplies of fossil fuels is essentially the only thing that's going to keep us from tumbling into economic depression. Getting new sources of energy is paramount, yes, however we can't just instantly say "fuck fossil fuels, we're done" [editline]28th September 2016[/editline] Statistically, all pipelines leak. But the amount leaked is insignificant, barring major damage to said pipeline.[/QUOTE] Then i suppose more money should be going to that shouldn't it?
[QUOTE=TAU!;51122589]Pipeline leaks happen [url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_pipeline_accidents_in_the_United_States_in_the_21st_century]all the time.[/url][/QUOTE] If you consider the fact that we have over 2 million miles of pipeline existing in the US then it makes sense that leaks would be frequent. I feel like most people think we have a handful of trans-national pipelines. There's that one in Alaska... the Keystone, the Keystone XL, this one in the Dakotas.... maybe some more. [img]http://i.imgur.com/YLNGM21.gif[/img] I'm a huge proponent of solar and nuclear. If it were up to me, We'd cut oil/gas use by 90% tomorrow. However that's not going to happen. These fuels is going to get moved whether it's by pipe or not. Economically speaking, pipes are the best way to move a liquid from A to B. Whether it's oil or orange juice. (assuming you got the ability to pump mass volumes). So we're left with a conundrum. Move it by pipe, or move it by road/rail?
[QUOTE=Saturn V;51122559]you seem oddly certain that there will be a leak lol[/QUOTE] There was one in alabama 2 weeks ago actually. No one around here had gas because of it.
[QUOTE=JoeSkylynx;51122535]The pipeline will increase economic output to all of North Dakota, and the complaints about the pipe leaking is pretty much nuance. You are more likely to have trains derail and trucks go flying off the road. The benefits outweigh the cons by a mile.[/QUOTE] No, they fucking dont. If just one pipe leak would occur, you have a big chance of that leak going into the aquifer. Pretty much fucking up a good portion of the aquifer. We even had one town that had an oil leak up in Northern Nebraska. They been trying to clean that shit up for years up there. I dont know if you understand. But water is going to be much more valuable in the next few decades than oil. And to make it worse, the oil they are transferring through the pipeline is Dilbit, pretty much a more liquid version of Bitumen. Which is much dirtier and nastier than the regular oil.
[QUOTE]So we're left with a conundrum. Move it by pipe, or move it by road/rail?[/QUOTE] Grow the fuel, make the fuel or teleport it. If you are taking about nuclear stuff that is.
Just Going to post this here [QUOTE]University of Nebraska professor Dr. John Stansbury conducted an independent analysis that provides more detail on the potential risks for the Ogallala Aquifer.[78] In his analysis, Dr. Stansbury concludes that safety assessments provided by TransCanada are misleading. According to Dr. Stansbury, "We can expect no fewer than 2 major spills per state during the 50-year projected lifetime of the pipeline. These spills could release as much as 180 thousand barrels of oil each."[79] Other items of note in Dr. Stansbury's analysis: "While TransCanada estimates that the Keystone XL will have 11 significant spills (more than 50 barrels of crude oil) over 50 years, a more realistic assessment is 91 significant spills over the pipeline’s operational lifetime. TransCanada arbitrarily and improperly adjusted spill factors to produce an estimate of one major spill on the 1,673 mi (2,692 km) of pipeline about every five years, but federal data on the actual incidence of spills on comparable pipelines indicate a more likely average of almost two major spills per year. (The existing Keystone I pipeline has had one major spill and 11 smaller spills in its first year of operation.)" "Analysis of the time needed to shut down the pipeline shows that response to a leak at a river crossing could conservatively take more than ten times longer than the 11 minutes and 30 seconds that TransCanada assumes. (After the June 2010 spill of more than 800,000 US gallons (3,000,000 L) of crude oil into a tributary of the Kalamazoo River, an Enbridge tar sands pipeline – a 30-inch (760 mm) pipe compared to the 36-inch (910 mm) Keystone XL – was not completely shut down for 12 hours.)" "Realistic calculations yield worst-case spill estimates of more than 180,000 barrels (7,600,000 US gal; 29,000,000 L) in the Nebraska Sandhills above the Ogallala Aquifer, more than 160,000 barrels (6,700,000 US gal; 25,000,000 L) of crude oil at the Yellowstone River crossings, more than 140,000 barrels (5,900,000 US gal; 22,000,000 L) at the Platte River crossing and more than 120,000 barrels (5,000,000 US gal; 19,000,000 L) at the Missouri River crossing." "Contaminants from a release at the Missouri or Yellowstone River crossing would enter Lake Sakakawea in North Dakota where they would adversely affect drinking water intakes, aquatic wildlife, and recreation. Contaminants from a spill at the Platte River crossing would travel downstream unabated into the Missouri River for several hundred miles affecting drinking water intakes for hundreds of thousands of people (e.g., Lincoln, NE; Omaha, NE; Nebraska City, NE; St. Joseph, MO; Kansas City, MO) as well as aquatic habitats and recreational activities. In addition, other constituents from the spill would pose serious risks to humans and to aquatic species in the river." "The worst-case site for such a spill is in the Sandhills region of Nebraska. The Sandhills are ancient sand dunes that have been stabilized by grasses. Because of their very permeable geology, nearly 100 percent of the annual rainfall infiltrates to a very shallow aquifer, often less than 20 feet below the surface. This aquifer is the well-known Ogallala Aquifer that is one of the most productive and important aquifers in the world."[78] [/QUOTE] The biggest problem that people tend to not realize is just how close the Aquifer is to the surface. So any oil spill in the sand hills will immediately drain into the aquifer. Thus fucking it up. Considering how much the world is going to change in the next few decades and the growing population of people. We need all the farmland and fresh water we can get. This is stupid...
[QUOTE=Saturn V;51122559]you seem oddly certain that there will be a leak lol[/QUOTE]There are more than [url=https://www.biologicaldiversity.org/news/press_releases/2014/americas-dangerous-pipelines-11-17-2014.html]300 pipeline leaks[/url] per year, and earlier this year there was [url=http://time.com/4292856/south-dakota-oil-spill/]another major spill[/url] in South Dakota. And there's also the issue of leak detection systems [url=https://insideclimatenews.org/content/pipeline-leak-detection-still-doesnt-work]failing consistently[/url]. Additionally, the amount of pipeline leaks has gone up [url=http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/ct-oil-pipeline-leaks-20150522-story.html]60%[/url] since 2009.
And how many train derails, car on train accident, and leaks from trains occurred in the last year? Also how many accidents with trucks that carry gas/oil?
[QUOTE=ilikecorn;51122582]I love this argument. We can't just MAGICALLY convert to alternative energy sources.[/QUOTE] solar and wind are becoming competitive with fossil fuels now - i don't see why we can't just continue on the course of subsidising renewables and their development while increasing restrictions on fossil fuels. solar is already more cost-effective than coal, so oil won't have long to go if the pressure is kept up instead of trying to expand an industry that causes more harm than the benefits it gives
[QUOTE=JoeSkylynx;51122923]And how many train derails, car on train accident, and leaks from trains occurred in the last year? Also how many accidents with trucks that carry gas/oil?[/QUOTE] How many of those trucks crashed right into a aquifer? I'm not for shutting this down, I'm for having them not build it right next to a water supply.
[QUOTE=JoeSkylynx;51122923]And how many train derails, car on train accident, and leaks from trains occurred in the last year? Also how many accidents with trucks that carry gas/oil?[/QUOTE] Heres the thing with trains, cars, or derailing or whatever. You can just spend a few days getting them towed away and cleaning up the scrap that was caused by them. But have you ever cleaned up oil? Oil fucks stuff up, badly. Especially water.
[QUOTE=Deathtrooper2;51122940]Heres the thing with trains, cars, or derailing or whatever. You can just spend a few days getting them towed away and cleaning up the scrap that was caused by them. But have you ever cleaned up oil? Oil fucks stuff up, badly. Especially water.[/QUOTE] I'm glad we have a major authority on Oil transportation here, it's not like a good majority of 'leaks' are small contained incidents that in the long run seem to have done nothing to harm the environment. you're not going to have a gulf of mexico style travesty in your aquifier fam, that's all it boils down to. If your argument held -any- ground, people with more credentials would be pushing back a LOT harder.
[QUOTE=Deathtrooper2;51122201]I dont care if there weren't any damn artifacts in the site. We dont want this fucking Pipeline. Its only going to fuck the environment over here.[/QUOTE] Nah actually it really is wanted. Most of the North Dakota populace wants it because our economy will boom again. The people who dont want it are a huge minority. A very loud one at that. Most of the people at the camps arent evem from ND [editline]28th September 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=TAU!;51122589]Pipeline leaks happen [url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_pipeline_accidents_in_the_United_States_in_the_21st_century]all the time.[/url][/QUOTE] Considering there is literally millions of miles of it in the US alone, those leaks are marginal
Kudos to the "natives" for fucking up an otherwise great movement. Possibly the biggest environmentalist display of the 2010s so far. Shame its probably all downhill from here and now eminent domain will continue to remain a tool of the national corporation.
[QUOTE=Cyke Lon bee;51122980]Nah actually it really is wanted. Most of the North Dakota populace wants it because our economy will boom again. The people who dont want it are a huge minority. A very loud one at that. Most of the people at the camps arent evem from ND [editline]28th September 2016[/editline] Considering there is literally millions of miles of it in the US alone, those leaks are marginal[/QUOTE] Well im not sacrificing my state's well being or one of the greatest sources of fresh water in the world for it.
[QUOTE=Deathtrooper2;51122940]Heres the thing with trains, cars, or derailing or whatever. You can just spend a few days getting them towed away and cleaning up the scrap that was caused by them. But have you ever cleaned up oil? Oil fucks stuff up, badly. Especially water.[/QUOTE] You think an oil tanker on a truck or train wont leak if it gets into an accident? It will happen either way. And a pipeline doesnt just leak until thwres no more oil coming through. Theres cut off valves in the line regularly, so if they detect a pressure loss at the monitoring facility then they can shut it off and fix the leak before it turns into something major. [editline]28th September 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=Deathtrooper2;51122999]Well im not sacrificing my state's well being or one of the greatest sources of fresh water in the world for it.[/QUOTE] I live in ND and support the pipeline. I would risk an extremely marginal chance at a leak for awesome economic prosperity and growth.
[QUOTE=Cyke Lon bee;51123008]You think an oil tanker on a truck or train wont leak if it gets into an accident? It will happen either way. And a pipeline doesnt just leak until thwres no more oil coming through. Theres cut off valves in the line regularly, so if they detect a pressure loss at the monitoring facility then they can shut it off and fix the leak before it turns into something major. [editline]28th September 2016[/editline] I live in ND and support the pipeline. I would risk an extremely marginal chance at a leak for awesome economic prosperity and growth.[/QUOTE] Man you can really put that on your resume for being a CEO who give less than two shits about the planet.
[QUOTE=JoeSkylynx;51122923]And how many train derails, car on train accident, and leaks from trains occurred in the last year? Also how many accidents with trucks that carry gas/oil?[/QUOTE][url=http://www.motherjones.com/blue-marble/2014/02/map-railway-oil-spills]1.2 million barrels by rail.[/url] but rail accidents are more frequent, yet spill less and cause more damage in human losses. [url=http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2014/04/26/pick-your-poison-for-crude-pipeline-rail-truck-or-boat/#37bb090f5777]Forbes has a nice comparative rundown[/url] comparing the damages of boat, train, truck and pipeline transportation. And has this nice little tidbit [quote]Again, you’ll notice that these measures are in human health and property damage, not environmental effects. Environmental impacts are very difficult to estimate and, in almost all cases, are not even attempted.[/quote] [editline]28th September 2016[/editline] Though, this shit is hard to compare due to lack of reporting and multiple methods of damage assessment.
[QUOTE=Deathtrooper2;51123020]Man you can really put that on your resume for being a CEO who give less than two shits about the planet.[/QUOTE] I give a shit about the planet dood, but there is literally no way we can switch to a safer energy source overnight and there is literally no way we can eliminate oil overnight. Youd be a fool to not want the pipeline with all the money it brings in. If you live in ND and hate oil so much, why dont you go to your boss and take a huge paycut, because your wage wouldnt be as nearly as high as it is if it werent for the oil in the bakkens.
All the arguments I'm seeing against the pipeline are pretty bad. Being ideological about it and going "b-but we wouldn't need the pipeline if we switched to GREEN energy!" changes nothing, oil is sticking around for a while whether you like it or not, and the pipeline is better and safer for transporting oil than trucks and whatever. 300 leaks a year is [I]nothing[/I], not with the miles of pipelines that exist in the USA, and I very much doubt that a brand new pipeline will just start leaking immediately. Not having the pipeline being built won't make your sci-fi fantasy land come any sooner.
[QUOTE=*Freezorg*;51123726]All the arguments I'm seeing against the pipeline are pretty bad. Being ideological about it and going "b-but we wouldn't need the pipeline if we switched to GREEN energy!" changes nothing, oil is sticking around for a while whether you like it or not, and the pipeline is better and safer for transporting oil than trucks and whatever. 300 leaks a year is [I]nothing[/I], not with the miles of pipelines that exist in the USA, and I very much doubt that a brand new pipeline will just start leaking immediately. Not having the pipeline being built won't make your sci-fi fantasy land come any sooner.[/QUOTE] building the pipeline will increase carbon emissions considerably, allow the tar oil fields to expand (when we should be preventing that), and it's going to create very few jobs for such a high cost. it'll also make it easier for companies to set up oil rigs and expand production which is the opposite of what we want environmentally there's no benefit to this, and in economic terms the benefit is questionable at best.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.