On the Dakota Access Pipeline
Jan. 26th, 2017 05:44 pmTrump signed an executive order allowing the Dakota Access Pipeline to go through after all.
So what will that mean? And what's the big deal about anyway? Is the pipeline really just a big scheme for slimy profit-hungry rich guys to ram through another job (before demand gets so low that no one will pay them)? Is the protest just a bunch of whiny law-breaking anti-energy liberals and Native Americans who refuse to accept that they lost?
First, here are my biases:
* I am against adding infrastructure for fossils fuels when we should be switching to clean energy ASAP because of global warming.
* I am against anything that profits Trump.
* I am pro the Sioux protesters and their allies. Although the pipeline would not go through Sioux territory, it would go under the lake/river upstream of their territory. Any leaks into the water would affect them.
And, on the other side:
* I am pro-Canada. They're so nice!
* I drive using fossil fuels, and I buy goods that are transported to me via vehicles that use fossil fuels. Lower fuel prices mean lower prices on almost everything.
Today I found an interesting pro-pipeline site, Dakota Access Pipeline Facts that sure makes it look like the pipeline will be built of state-of-the art materials and that it will be buried pretty deeply (95 feet!) under the water. So that might mean that chances of a leak are actually small. I like that idea.
They also say that pipelines are safer than transport by truck or train. Which certainly makes sense. "[F]ederal statistics show that underground pipelines transport crude oil more safely than rail (3.4-4.5x safer), or trucks (34x safer). The Dakota Access Pipeline can replace rail and truck transportation of crude oil with less impact to the environment and statistically greater safety." Does that just mean that spills are less likely? Or does it also mean that even when you add up all the damages of all the spills, the damages per gallon-mile transported are smaller for pipelines? I can't tell.
I mean, Wikipedia has a List of Pipeline Accidents, and there are quite a few of them and, more importantly, the leaks tend to be very, very big, in spite of any 24/7 monitoring. So I'm glad they're at least trying to build a high-quality pipeline.
Interestingly, in an e-mail I received today, Duncan Meisel of 350.org says:
[President Trump] did *not* approve Keystone XL or Dakota Access. He briefly succeeded in confusing a lot of people on this point (including me, I will admit).
* On Dakota Access, he told the Army Corps of Engineers that the pipeline is in our "national interest" and told them to "consider" revoking the environmental review placed on it by the Obama Administration.
* On Keystone XL, he invited TransCanada to re-apply and if they do, mandated a final decision on the pipeline within 60 days and waived input from environmental agencies.
* And when TransCanada does re-apply, they no longer have permits in Nebraska, and their permits in South Dakota are being challenged.
* Trump also placed conditions on approval of the pipelines -- like limiting oil exports, and determining where the steel comes from -- that the oil companies might not accept.
Meisel's sources are the National Resources Defense Council's Significant Obstacles Remain in Building Keystone XL and Earth Justice's The Standing Rock Sioux Tribe's Litigation on the Dakota Access Pipeline.
I saw an interview (Cornyn: We'll Confirm Trump's SCOTUS Nominations 'One Way or the Other') with one of my Senators. He tries to seem very reasonable. For example, he says to do the environmental reviews and if they pass, start building the pipeline already. But he also said the Native Americans "presented their case in a court of law, and to my knowledge, the court sided with the Core of Engineers and those who wanted to build the pipeline. So everybody's going to have to comply with lawful court orders and the law of the land. They're entitled to their day in court, but once they lost, they need to go ahead and go along with the court's order."
However, according to this timeline, it looks like the case has not yet been decided. What they lost was their request for "a preliminary injunction" which they wanted because the pipeline was "already under construction and would be finished before the case could be formally decided." That is quite different.
So what will that mean? And what's the big deal about anyway? Is the pipeline really just a big scheme for slimy profit-hungry rich guys to ram through another job (before demand gets so low that no one will pay them)? Is the protest just a bunch of whiny law-breaking anti-energy liberals and Native Americans who refuse to accept that they lost?
First, here are my biases:
* I am against adding infrastructure for fossils fuels when we should be switching to clean energy ASAP because of global warming.
* I am against anything that profits Trump.
* I am pro the Sioux protesters and their allies. Although the pipeline would not go through Sioux territory, it would go under the lake/river upstream of their territory. Any leaks into the water would affect them.
And, on the other side:
* I am pro-Canada. They're so nice!
* I drive using fossil fuels, and I buy goods that are transported to me via vehicles that use fossil fuels. Lower fuel prices mean lower prices on almost everything.
Today I found an interesting pro-pipeline site, Dakota Access Pipeline Facts that sure makes it look like the pipeline will be built of state-of-the art materials and that it will be buried pretty deeply (95 feet!) under the water. So that might mean that chances of a leak are actually small. I like that idea.
They also say that pipelines are safer than transport by truck or train. Which certainly makes sense. "[F]ederal statistics show that underground pipelines transport crude oil more safely than rail (3.4-4.5x safer), or trucks (34x safer). The Dakota Access Pipeline can replace rail and truck transportation of crude oil with less impact to the environment and statistically greater safety." Does that just mean that spills are less likely? Or does it also mean that even when you add up all the damages of all the spills, the damages per gallon-mile transported are smaller for pipelines? I can't tell.
I mean, Wikipedia has a List of Pipeline Accidents, and there are quite a few of them and, more importantly, the leaks tend to be very, very big, in spite of any 24/7 monitoring. So I'm glad they're at least trying to build a high-quality pipeline.
Interestingly, in an e-mail I received today, Duncan Meisel of 350.org says:
[President Trump] did *not* approve Keystone XL or Dakota Access. He briefly succeeded in confusing a lot of people on this point (including me, I will admit).
* On Dakota Access, he told the Army Corps of Engineers that the pipeline is in our "national interest" and told them to "consider" revoking the environmental review placed on it by the Obama Administration.
* On Keystone XL, he invited TransCanada to re-apply and if they do, mandated a final decision on the pipeline within 60 days and waived input from environmental agencies.
* And when TransCanada does re-apply, they no longer have permits in Nebraska, and their permits in South Dakota are being challenged.
* Trump also placed conditions on approval of the pipelines -- like limiting oil exports, and determining where the steel comes from -- that the oil companies might not accept.
Meisel's sources are the National Resources Defense Council's Significant Obstacles Remain in Building Keystone XL and Earth Justice's The Standing Rock Sioux Tribe's Litigation on the Dakota Access Pipeline.
I saw an interview (Cornyn: We'll Confirm Trump's SCOTUS Nominations 'One Way or the Other') with one of my Senators. He tries to seem very reasonable. For example, he says to do the environmental reviews and if they pass, start building the pipeline already. But he also said the Native Americans "presented their case in a court of law, and to my knowledge, the court sided with the Core of Engineers and those who wanted to build the pipeline. So everybody's going to have to comply with lawful court orders and the law of the land. They're entitled to their day in court, but once they lost, they need to go ahead and go along with the court's order."
However, according to this timeline, it looks like the case has not yet been decided. What they lost was their request for "a preliminary injunction" which they wanted because the pipeline was "already under construction and would be finished before the case could be formally decided." That is quite different.