No Artifacts or Remains at North Dakota Pipeline Site
81 replies, posted
[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]
you're too young to understand this i think, and it shows
Bottom line is that renewable energies like wind and solar are far better for the enviroment, but they dont bring in as much money for the local populace like oil and coal do. And the reason for that is that coal and oil arent renewable and we'll be needing more of it until it runs out or until we're forced to convert.
The argument for transportation costs being too high without the pipeline is bullshit. North Dakota and several other states have had massive booms and the cost of using trucks and rail didnt deter the flow of oil whatsoever. The pipeline just makes the process quicker.
[QUOTE=Cyke Lon bee;51126759]Bottom line is that renewable energies like wind and solar are far better for the enviroment, but they dont bring in as much money for the local populace like oil and coal do. And the reason for that is that coal and oil arent renewable and we'll be needing more of it until it runs out or until we're forced to convert.
The argument for transportation costs being too high without the pipeline is bullshit. North Dakota and several other states have had massive booms and the cost of using trucks and rail didnt deter the flow of oil whatsoever. The pipeline just makes the process quicker.[/QUOTE]
except by reducing transportation costs, you increase the viability of wells in the area
if the pipeline didn't save money and allow them to expand in the area then they wouldn't be building it in the first place
while coal brings in money, it also causes massive environmental damage in the area that you can't really fix
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;51126845]except by reducing transportation costs, you increase the viability of wells in the area
if the pipeline didn't save money and allow them to expand in the area then they wouldn't be building it in the first place
while coal brings in money, it also causes massive environmental damage in the area that you can't really fix[/QUOTE]
Like I just said in my post, the viability for wells is great and profitable without pipelines, but pipelines just make the whole transportation process cheaper and easier. If this werent the case, the massive oil boom in ND wouldnt have happened when their was no pipeline to speak of and all the oil was transported via rail.
And also like I just said, while oil and coal is better for the economy, its worse for the enviroment, where as currently renewables is the opposite. Nobody is denying that oil consumption is ruining the planet.
[QUOTE=normandie;51126505]you're too young to understand this i think, and it shows[/QUOTE]
Im in college...
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;51124035]except renewables are less environmentally damaging than fossil fuels
what good arguments exist to support fossil fuels over renewables when we are pretty much at the point where we can already get rid of coal and start the phase out of oil?
assuming the number of jobs created are the same, what benefit is there to picking the other choice?[/QUOTE]
very little oil is used for electrical generation, most of it is used for transportation or industrial purposes. you can't drive most cars on the road on wind or solar
[editline]29th September 2016[/editline]
until we have most cars being electric, we rely on oil.
[editline]29th September 2016[/editline]
i think something like less than 1% of oil pumped out of the ground is used for electrical generation.
[QUOTE=normandie;51126505]you're too young to understand this i think, and it shows[/QUOTE]
Totally destroyed his argument...
Oh wait, no you didn't. In fact you kinda destroyed your own by doing this stupid "well you're obviously young" shtick, like that fucking matters?
[QUOTE=Cyke Lon bee;51127195]Like I just said in my post, the viability for wells is great and profitable without pipelines, but pipelines just make the whole transportation process[b]cheaper and easier.[/b][/QUOTE]
except this is the problem
the construction of the pipeline is only going to encourage more oil extraction and processing on a larger scale as production is expanded
many of the more recent wells were built in a time when oil was pushing $100 a barrel, and with the collapse in prices many of them became nonviable. other operate on razor thin profit margins, and i don't think fattening those profits is going to do any favours for avoiding the construction of new wells
[editline]29th September 2016[/editline]
[QUOTE=Ninja Gnome;51127219]very little oil is used for electrical generation, most of it is used for transportation or industrial purposes. you can't drive most cars on the road on wind or solar
[editline]29th September 2016[/editline]
until we have most cars being electric, we rely on oil.
[editline]29th September 2016[/editline]
i think something like less than 1% of oil pumped out of the ground is used for electrical generation.[/QUOTE]
except we have the technology, resources, skills, and capital to make that transition now. even with the fact that so much transport relies on oil, there isn't really a good reason for expanding production
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;51127733] except we have the technology, resources, skills, and capital to make that transition now. even with the fact that so much transport relies on oil, there isn't really a good reason for expanding production[/QUOTE]
transitions take time, and we really don't have the technology to make the transition. batteries aren't yet near energy dense enough to power flight and we haven't quite reached acceptable energy density for trucking uses. tesla is doing good work but we're still several years out for a massive switch to electric vehicles being viable.
i don't believe we should expand production but comparing oil to coal is comparing apples to oranges.
[QUOTE=Deathtrooper2;51127211]Im in college...[/QUOTE]
And clearly havent worked a day in ND or else youd be very thankful for the oil we have
[editline]29th September 2016[/editline]
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;51127733]except this is the problem
the construction of the pipeline is only going to encourage more oil extraction and processing on a larger scale as production is expanded
many of the more recent wells were built in a time when oil was pushing $100 a barrel, and with the collapse in prices many of them became nonviable. other operate on razor thin profit margins, and i don't think fattening those profits is going to do any favours for avoiding the construction of new wells
[editline]29th September 2016[/editline]
except we have the technology, resources, skills, and capital to make that transition now. even with the fact that so much transport relies on oil, there isn't really a good reason for expanding production[/QUOTE]
I see no issue with the continued use of oil and the drilling for it and establishing new wells.
[QUOTE=Cyke Lon bee;51127896]I see no issue with the continued use of oil and the drilling for it and establishing new wells.[/QUOTE]
and the ecological damage generated as a result?
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;51127977]and the ecological damage generated as a result?[/QUOTE]
Obviously awfu and unsustainable. But the money thats in oil doesnt exist in renewable resources and doesnt have the same economic effects. I want a transition to renewables but it needs to be gradual and eventual.
The stopping of this pipeline will not have any appreciable effect on the consumption or production of oil.
[editline]29th September 2016[/editline]
Do you have an answer yet about my question on the wage difference between solar energy workers and oil field workers?
Jesus what is everyone getting so worked up about? Just build the oil pipeline around the aquifer so if the pipeline ends up leaking, it won't seep into groundwater that thousands of people rely on for clean water. It'll only add a few million to the cost and won't end up fucking people over if it does actually leak. There's more to this then just saying "Stop the pipeline from happening" or "This pipeline should be built completely as planned with no changes."
[QUOTE=TornadoAP;51129332]Jesus what is everyone getting so worked up about? Just build the oil pipeline around the aquifer so if the pipeline ends up leaking, it won't seep into groundwater that thousands of people rely on for clean water. It'll only add a few million to the cost and won't end up fucking people over if it does actually leak. There's more to this then just saying "Stop the pipeline from happening" or "This pipeline should be built completely as planned with no changes."[/QUOTE]
"A few million" isnt chump change dood. Believe it or not, rebuilding and mapping an entire pipeline is bad for business.
[QUOTE=ilikecorn;51129352]They'd have to start at square one again. They'd have to do environmental impact studies, and get permits, and purchase land, and work out plans with municipalities that the pipeline would go through.
At that point, it's almost worth NOT building.[/QUOTE]
If it can't be done right, it shouldn't be done at all. A reroute is always worth it if it's going to prevent contamination of perfectly good groundwater.
I think the reason why they can't do a reroute is because it only exists for this route as it is. Sort of like how the Keystone XL was a dogleg to the [I]already existing[/I] Keystone pipeline.
Keystone XL:
[img_thumb]http://i.imgur.com/AL7IdmA.jpg[/img_thumb]
Dakota Access:
[img_thumb]http://i.imgur.com/uKmCYvX.jpg[/img_thumb]
Basically, if the whole point is the link up sources and refineries that are in that area it would kinda be super expensive if not impossible to run pipes to them without crossing the Aquifer. (not defending the pipe, just explaining why it's where it is)
[editline]29th September 2016[/editline]
[QUOTE=Deathtrooper2;51122795]Just Going to post this here
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]
After looking into it this Pipe doesn't even cross the Ogallala.
[img_thumb]http://i.imgur.com/Igx3MkQ.png[/img_thumb]
Appears to cross into the one to the north, however.
[QUOTE=Megadave;51129814]If it can't be done right, it shouldn't be done at all. A reroute is always worth it if it's going to prevent contamination of perfectly good groundwater.[/QUOTE]
Theres not really amy way you can run a pipeline without crossing some sort of water source. Thats just the reality of it. The issue with the ND pipeline was that it was running over Native American burial grounds and potentially fucking up historic sites, which this article proved to be untrue.
Now the only justifiable reason to not install the pipeline is to prevent a potential spill, which that in and of itself is a bullshit reason. You only hear about pipelines leaking often because theres just so much of it in the US, literally millions of miles of pipeline. Only hearing about 300 spills a year is a pretty good record.
Furthermore, the pipeline going in is brand new, obviously, so it will have far newer safety measures and redundancies than older pipelines do.
I don't think regulations on how pipes must be built would be a bad thing. Perhaps make it so you have to build them over some kind of concrete liner of a certain width that follows under the pipe that traps any leaked material.
[QUOTE=OvB;51129932]I don't think regulations on how pipes must be built would be a bad thing. Perhaps make it so you have to build them over some kind of concrete liner of a certain width that follows under the pipe that traps any leaked material.[/QUOTE]
I service a anhydrous ammonia plant in North Dakota, and under the whole facility is a rubber mat several inches thick that runs over the basin the facility is built in. That way if any tanks leaks, the mat will catch most or all of it.
With that said, the reason I service that plant is because gophers keep digging holes through the mat and ruining it, and the upkeep costs on it are expensive I would imagine.
You would probably have the same issue if you were to do something like that with the pipeline. With that said I dont oppose the idea at all. Its doable, just tough to upkeep.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.