18 ms·

Dakota Access Pipeline to win US Army permit for completion

177 points by socialentp 10y ago

lucb1e 10y ago
Link without going to google.com: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/amp/38901498 https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/amp/38901498 Still has a dependency on resources from ampproject.org, though.
- ars 10y ago
  Direct link: http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-38901498 http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-38901498
- andy_ppp 10y ago
  Yes, it would be preferable if AMP cache urls were banned from hacker news and only original sources were linked...
  - jessaustin 10y ago
    It seems that OP could just be more careful?
  - lostlogin 10y ago
    I haven't struck this with google before. Gruber had a critical post about it yesterday so I assume it's new. Does the BBC get to object? How do page views get tracked?
    - andy_ppp 10y ago
      They opt in by creating AMP pages!
eh78ssxv2f 10y ago
I always wonder what's the best way to assess environmental impact of the oil pipeline. Sure, it's going to leak at some point, and create a mess that may never get cleaned up. However, is it safer (or energy efficient) than carrying the oil on trains/trucks?
- Tloewald 10y ago
  As far as I understand it, the pipeline being fought over symbolically rather than for reasons that make analytic sense. If there's an environmental argument, it's that the pipeline will make using shale sands oil from Canada cheaper which is a Bad Thing because we use more stuff when it's cheaper. The correct approach would be to make fees and penalties for environmental impact higher (carbon tax, EPA able to levy big fines for oil spills, etc.) and then let the market figure it out rather than fight like crazy over specific cases. Now, as to the subject of the pipeline running through native american territory because white people were (justifiably) worried about their drinking water if it ran through their watershed -- that's a whole different issue.
  - aaronbrethorst 10y ago
    There are people who live in the pipeline's projected path and their water will be poisoned if/when the pipeline leaks. That's not symbolism, that's life and death.
  - jadell 10y ago
    Existing pipelines within a few hundred miles of this site have recently leaked into water supplies. This is not symbolic; it's about where the tribe gets their water from.
    - FireBeyond 10y ago
      This is very valid. But I think there's _also_ an important symbolic goal here. "This pipeline was moved because local communities feared the risk to the water supply. So the company felt it was appropriate to move it into the tribal community area." "Water risk to white people? No no no. Water risk to Native communities? Well, we can live with that."
      - criddell 10y ago
        > "Water risk to white people? No no no. Water risk to Native communities? Well, we can live with that." I don't think the Army Corps is that corrupt. I'm guessing it went more like "Water risk to 50,000 people or water risk to 5,000 people?" This history of the US government relations with native people makes any object assessment suspect though.
ars 10y ago
The review is pointless anyway, it's just useless stalling. They already built 1,171 miles of it - do you think an environmental review is going to make a difference for the last 1 mile? It doesn't matter if you are for or against this, the time to protest it was before they built it, not when it's basically done.
- KirinDave 10y ago
  Argument from final consequence aside, much of that work was was ongoing before the legality AND environmental impact was fully realized, on the expectation that the locals did not have the resources to fight its construction. Even if the pipeline is ultimately established, winning damages for the local people would help them relocate away from resources tainted by the previous pipeline (who's legality is also very questionable).
- spraak 10y ago
  It's been protested the entire time, just only recently receiving attention
- _delirium 10y ago
  The tribes' position, at least (not necessarily the position of everyone else opposing it) is that it should be rerouted so it isn't tunneled directly under Lake Oahe, their main water source. That's not inconsistent with completing it, since tunneling under the lake isn't the only possible route. Though the pipeline owner would prefer not to reroute it. That was also the basis for the Army Corps of Engineers ordering a more extensive environmental review. My understanding is the review wasn't to determine whether the pipeline would be built at all (that question isn't even in their jurisdiction), but 1) to evaluate whether the proposed route under Lake Oahe, which requires an easement to be granted beneath a reservoir they're responsible for, is a suitable option, and 2) if yes, to determine whether conditions should be placed on the easement to minimize the likelihood and/or impact of a spill. Their press release at the time is here: http://www.usace.army.mil/Media/News-Releases/News-Release-Article-View/Article/1003593/statement-regarding-the-dakota-access-pipeline/ http://www.usace.army.mil/Media/News-Releases/News-Release-A...
trothamel 10y ago
Forgive me, but isn't this the final environmental assessment the Army Corps of Engineers produced? http://cdm16021.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/p16021coll7/id/2801 http://cdm16021.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/p16021...
- KirinDave 10y ago
  This one has been called into question. It was expected that the Army would do a fully independent study.
- socialentp 10y ago
  That was the initial assessment completed in July of last year, but further environmental study was deemed required: http://bigstory.ap.org/article/87381a7d1abd4817a8991b0c8caea8ee/army-allow-completion-dakota-access-oil-pipeline http://bigstory.ap.org/article/87381a7d1abd4817a8991b0c8caea... "An assessment conducted last year determined the crossing would not have a significant impact on the environment. However, then-Assistant Army Secretary for Civil Works Jo-Ellen Darcy on Dec. 4 declined to issue permission for the crossing, saying a broader environmental study was warranted."
  - trothamel 10y ago
    From reading the article, it looks like one political appointee decided that additional review was required, and her replacement decided that the original review was convincing. Given that it would be the replacement that evaluated the new review, is there any reason to wait for it if the original one is already convincing to him? More to the point, is there a reason to trust Jo-Ellen Darcy's opinion over that of Douglas Lamont and Colonel John W. Henderson, P.E.? (It seems like of the three, the Colonel's opinion is the least likely to be politically biased and most likely to be based on engineering judgement.) EDIT: Actually, I think I might have been overly harsh on Mr. Lamont here. He is also a PE, and was appointed in 2004, which makes me think he might not be in a political job, either. http://asacw.hqda.pentagon.mil/Lamont.aspx http://asacw.hqda.pentagon.mil/Lamont.aspx
protomyth 10y ago
At this point, the main concern is getting that camp cleaned up before the flood comes. It should be noted that the tribe has passed a resolution for protestors to go home[1] with no provisions for relocation. This isn't the only area of North Dakota that is going to flood this year and money spent on this foolishness is going to be missed. Devils Lake is going to rise about 4' under current estimates. The reporting has been so bad and at times just stupid[2] that the state had to setup a FAQ[3] just to combat some of the foolishness. Point 14 directly contradicts this article and pretty much shows how bad the reporting has been. 1) http://fortune.com/2017/01/21/standing-rock-sioux-pipeline/ http://fortune.com/2017/01/21/standing-rock-sioux-pipeline/ 2) There are no friggin wild buffalo roaming North Dakota - they are all on ranches, preserves, or the national park land. 3) https://ndresponse.gov/dakota-access-pipeline/myth-vs-fact https://ndresponse.gov/dakota-access-pipeline/myth-vs-fact [edit]The reason this particular corridor is used is because it was initially cleared in 1982 for an existing gas pipeline. The DAPL pipeline runs parallel to that pipe. [/edit]
- breatheoften 10y ago
  As far as I can tell -- there's some evidence of false flag operations regarding the "stand down and go home" resolution. There seems to be plenty of voices from the Standing Rock Sioux tribe leadership calling for continued peaceful protest.
  - protomyth 10y ago
    "unanimously passed" - the only false flag is the outside pundits and paid protestors who are going to get in trouble for working in North Dakota and not filing their taxes. The state is rather unhappy, particularly given who the likely donors are and this is causing a budget problem for the state.
    - breatheoften 10y ago
      I personally know people who went to the Standing Rock camp that were not paid protesters. Interestingly enough, I trust their words more than yours. For the sake of clarity -- who are the outside donors that are funding the protest and bringing the state government to its knees?
jadell 10y ago
From looking at the map, it seems like the pipeline could have been built heading south-east directly from Stanley, avoiding crossing the river at all. Does anyone have any insight as to why it was built west first, then swing to the south-east?
spraak 10y ago
> presidential-directed review Welp.
WildUtah 10y ago
So now we're getting DAPL and DACA but not DAPA. Well, Trump could withdraw support for DACA as he promised, but he's now signed off on thousands of new DACAs, so he's in no hurry to change the program.
phkahler 10y ago
The route is interesting. First it goes west apparently to get around a body of water. Then it goes under the water at this location anyway. It would have been shorter to go south-east so I wonder what prevented that.
jessaustin 10y ago
Goofy politicized edited headline and link redirection through G to BBC? Try again, 'socialentp. [EDIT:] Here is the original headline: "Dakota Access Pipeline to win US Army permit for completion"
- mcintyre1994 10y ago
  Not defending the headline, but the link is just an AMP page - on mobile it doesn't redirect to a bbc domain.
WillyOnWheels 10y ago
I don't know Alex Zaitchik personally but I follow his work. The Radio War Nerd podcast people interviewed him about his stay in the DAPL protest camp. https://player.fm/series/war-nerd-radio-subscriber-feed-1318376/radio-war-nerd-ep60assassinations-alex-zaitchik-at-standing-rock-protest https://player.fm/series/war-nerd-radio-subscriber-feed-1318...
hackuser 10y ago
The title seems incorrect; it doesn't match the article's title, the article mentions the environmental review once and not prominently, and the article doesn't say the review is required.
dang 10y ago
We changed the url from https://www.google.com/amp/www.bbc.co.uk/news/amp/38901498 https://www.google.com/amp/www.bbc.co.uk/news/amp/38901498, which points to this. The submitted title ("US Army approves Dakota Access Pipeline without required environmental review") rewrote the original when it wasn't misleading or linkbait. This breaks the HN guidelines (https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html), so please don't do that. Doing it to emphasize a contentious detail in the story is editorializing, which is particularly bad. On HN, unlike some other social news sites, submitters have no special rights over the story and don't get to frame it for everyone else. If you'd like to say what you think is important about a story you've submitted, please do so by commenting in the thread. Then you're on a level field with everyone else.
- socialentp 10y ago
  Understood, and that makes a lot of sense. I apologize for the mistake and will do better next time.
  - dang 10y ago
    Great!

177 points by socialentp 10y ago

Link without going to google.com: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/amp/38901498 https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/amp/38901498 Still has a dependency on resources from ampproject.org, though.

ars 10y ago
Direct link: http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-38901498 http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-38901498
andy_ppp 10y ago
Yes, it would be preferable if AMP cache urls were banned from hacker news and only original sources were linked...
- jessaustin 10y ago
  It seems that OP could just be more careful?
- lostlogin 10y ago
  I haven't struck this with google before. Gruber had a critical post about it yesterday so I assume it's new. Does the BBC get to object? How do page views get tracked?
  - andy_ppp 10y ago
    They opt in by creating AMP pages!

eh78ssxv2f 10y ago

I always wonder what's the best way to assess environmental impact of the oil pipeline. Sure, it's going to leak at some point, and create a mess that may never get cleaned up. However, is it safer (or energy efficient) than carrying the oil on trains/trucks?

Tloewald 10y ago
As far as I understand it, the pipeline being fought over symbolically rather than for reasons that make analytic sense. If there's an environmental argument, it's that the pipeline will make using shale sands oil from Canada cheaper which is a Bad Thing because we use more stuff when it's cheaper. The correct approach would be to make fees and penalties for environmental impact higher (carbon tax, EPA able to levy big fines for oil spills, etc.) and then let the market figure it out rather than fight like crazy over specific cases. Now, as to the subject of the pipeline running through native american territory because white people were (justifiably) worried about their drinking water if it ran through their watershed -- that's a whole different issue.
- aaronbrethorst 10y ago
  There are people who live in the pipeline's projected path and their water will be poisoned if/when the pipeline leaks. That's not symbolism, that's life and death.
- jadell 10y ago
  Existing pipelines within a few hundred miles of this site have recently leaked into water supplies. This is not symbolic; it's about where the tribe gets their water from.
  - FireBeyond 10y ago
    This is very valid. But I think there's _also_ an important symbolic goal here. "This pipeline was moved because local communities feared the risk to the water supply. So the company felt it was appropriate to move it into the tribal community area." "Water risk to white people? No no no. Water risk to Native communities? Well, we can live with that."
    - criddell 10y ago
      > "Water risk to white people? No no no. Water risk to Native communities? Well, we can live with that." I don't think the Army Corps is that corrupt. I'm guessing it went more like "Water risk to 50,000 people or water risk to 5,000 people?" This history of the US government relations with native people makes any object assessment suspect though.

ars 10y ago

The review is pointless anyway, it's just useless stalling. They already built 1,171 miles of it - do you think an environmental review is going to make a difference for the last 1 mile? It doesn't matter if you are for or against this, the time to protest it was before they built it, not when it's basically done.

KirinDave 10y ago
Argument from final consequence aside, much of that work was was ongoing before the legality AND environmental impact was fully realized, on the expectation that the locals did not have the resources to fight its construction. Even if the pipeline is ultimately established, winning damages for the local people would help them relocate away from resources tainted by the previous pipeline (who's legality is also very questionable).
spraak 10y ago
It's been protested the entire time, just only recently receiving attention
_delirium 10y ago
The tribes' position, at least (not necessarily the position of everyone else opposing it) is that it should be rerouted so it isn't tunneled directly under Lake Oahe, their main water source. That's not inconsistent with completing it, since tunneling under the lake isn't the only possible route. Though the pipeline owner would prefer not to reroute it. That was also the basis for the Army Corps of Engineers ordering a more extensive environmental review. My understanding is the review wasn't to determine whether the pipeline would be built at all (that question isn't even in their jurisdiction), but 1) to evaluate whether the proposed route under Lake Oahe, which requires an easement to be granted beneath a reservoir they're responsible for, is a suitable option, and 2) if yes, to determine whether conditions should be placed on the easement to minimize the likelihood and/or impact of a spill. Their press release at the time is here: http://www.usace.army.mil/Media/News-Releases/News-Release-Article-View/Article/1003593/statement-regarding-the-dakota-access-pipeline/ http://www.usace.army.mil/Media/News-Releases/News-Release-A...

trothamel 10y ago

Forgive me, but isn't this the final environmental assessment the Army Corps of Engineers produced? http://cdm16021.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/p16021coll7/id/2801 http://cdm16021.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/p16021...

KirinDave 10y ago
This one has been called into question. It was expected that the Army would do a fully independent study.
socialentp 10y ago
That was the initial assessment completed in July of last year, but further environmental study was deemed required: http://bigstory.ap.org/article/87381a7d1abd4817a8991b0c8caea8ee/army-allow-completion-dakota-access-oil-pipeline http://bigstory.ap.org/article/87381a7d1abd4817a8991b0c8caea... "An assessment conducted last year determined the crossing would not have a significant impact on the environment. However, then-Assistant Army Secretary for Civil Works Jo-Ellen Darcy on Dec. 4 declined to issue permission for the crossing, saying a broader environmental study was warranted."
- trothamel 10y ago
  From reading the article, it looks like one political appointee decided that additional review was required, and her replacement decided that the original review was convincing. Given that it would be the replacement that evaluated the new review, is there any reason to wait for it if the original one is already convincing to him? More to the point, is there a reason to trust Jo-Ellen Darcy's opinion over that of Douglas Lamont and Colonel John W. Henderson, P.E.? (It seems like of the three, the Colonel's opinion is the least likely to be politically biased and most likely to be based on engineering judgement.) EDIT: Actually, I think I might have been overly harsh on Mr. Lamont here. He is also a PE, and was appointed in 2004, which makes me think he might not be in a political job, either. http://asacw.hqda.pentagon.mil/Lamont.aspx http://asacw.hqda.pentagon.mil/Lamont.aspx

protomyth 10y ago

At this point, the main concern is getting that camp cleaned up before the flood comes. It should be noted that the tribe has passed a resolution for protestors to go home[1] with no provisions for relocation. This isn't the only area of North Dakota that is going to flood this year and money spent on this foolishness is going to be missed. Devils Lake is going to rise about 4' under current estimates. The reporting has been so bad and at times just stupid[2] that the state had to setup a FAQ[3] just to combat some of the foolishness. Point 14 directly contradicts this article and pretty much shows how bad the reporting has been. 1) http://fortune.com/2017/01/21/standing-rock-sioux-pipeline/ http://fortune.com/2017/01/21/standing-rock-sioux-pipeline/ 2) There are no friggin wild buffalo roaming North Dakota - they are all on ranches, preserves, or the national park land. 3) https://ndresponse.gov/dakota-access-pipeline/myth-vs-fact https://ndresponse.gov/dakota-access-pipeline/myth-vs-fact [edit]The reason this particular corridor is used is because it was initially cleared in 1982 for an existing gas pipeline. The DAPL pipeline runs parallel to that pipe. [/edit]

breatheoften 10y ago
As far as I can tell -- there's some evidence of false flag operations regarding the "stand down and go home" resolution. There seems to be plenty of voices from the Standing Rock Sioux tribe leadership calling for continued peaceful protest.
- protomyth 10y ago
  "unanimously passed" - the only false flag is the outside pundits and paid protestors who are going to get in trouble for working in North Dakota and not filing their taxes. The state is rather unhappy, particularly given who the likely donors are and this is causing a budget problem for the state.
  - breatheoften 10y ago
    I personally know people who went to the Standing Rock camp that were not paid protesters. Interestingly enough, I trust their words more than yours. For the sake of clarity -- who are the outside donors that are funding the protest and bringing the state government to its knees?

jadell 10y ago

From looking at the map, it seems like the pipeline could have been built heading south-east directly from Stanley, avoiding crossing the river at all. Does anyone have any insight as to why it was built west first, then swing to the south-east?

spraak 10y ago

> presidential-directed review Welp.

WildUtah 10y ago

So now we're getting DAPL and DACA but not DAPA. Well, Trump could withdraw support for DACA as he promised, but he's now signed off on thousands of new DACAs, so he's in no hurry to change the program.

phkahler 10y ago

The route is interesting. First it goes west apparently to get around a body of water. Then it goes under the water at this location anyway. It would have been shorter to go south-east so I wonder what prevented that.

jessaustin 10y ago

Goofy politicized edited headline and link redirection through G to BBC? Try again, 'socialentp. [EDIT:] Here is the original headline: "Dakota Access Pipeline to win US Army permit for completion"

mcintyre1994 10y ago
Not defending the headline, but the link is just an AMP page - on mobile it doesn't redirect to a bbc domain.

WillyOnWheels 10y ago

I don't know Alex Zaitchik personally but I follow his work. The Radio War Nerd podcast people interviewed him about his stay in the DAPL protest camp. https://player.fm/series/war-nerd-radio-subscriber-feed-1318376/radio-war-nerd-ep60assassinations-alex-zaitchik-at-standing-rock-protest https://player.fm/series/war-nerd-radio-subscriber-feed-1318...

hackuser 10y ago

The title seems incorrect; it doesn't match the article's title, the article mentions the environmental review once and not prominently, and the article doesn't say the review is required.

dang 10y ago

We changed the url from https://www.google.com/amp/www.bbc.co.uk/news/amp/38901498 https://www.google.com/amp/www.bbc.co.uk/news/amp/38901498, which points to this. The submitted title ("US Army approves Dakota Access Pipeline without required environmental review") rewrote the original when it wasn't misleading or linkbait. This breaks the HN guidelines (https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html), so please don't do that. Doing it to emphasize a contentious detail in the story is editorializing, which is particularly bad. On HN, unlike some other social news sites, submitters have no special rights over the story and don't get to frame it for everyone else. If you'd like to say what you think is important about a story you've submitted, please do so by commenting in the thread. Then you're on a level field with everyone else.

socialentp 10y ago
Understood, and that makes a lot of sense. I apologize for the mistake and will do better next time.
- dang 10y ago
  Great!