
Dakota Access Pipeline to win US Army permit for completion - socialentp
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-38901498
======
protomyth
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]

~~~
KirinDave
I think the concern is that the environmental impact of the prior pipeline is
non-zero on the local water table. A scale up of this operation is unlikely to
improve this situation.

~~~
protomyth
Please site the source for this statement.

~~~
adrr
Environmental review that should have happened.

------
trothamel
Forgive me, but isn't this the final environmental assessment the Army Corps
of Engineers produced?

[http://cdm16021.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/p16021...](http://cdm16021.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/p16021coll7/id/2801)

~~~
socialentp
That was the initial assessment completed in July of last year, but further
environmental study was deemed required:
[http://bigstory.ap.org/article/87381a7d1abd4817a8991b0c8caea...](http://bigstory.ap.org/article/87381a7d1abd4817a8991b0c8caea8ee/army-
allow-completion-dakota-access-oil-pipeline) "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
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)

------
dang
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
Understood, and that makes a lot of sense. I apologize for the mistake and
will do better next time.

~~~
dang
Great!

------
lucb1e
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.

~~~
andy_ppp
Yes, it would be preferable if AMP cache urls were banned from hacker news and
only original sources were linked...

~~~
lostlogin
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
They opt in by creating AMP pages!

------
eh78ssxv2f
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
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.

~~~
dragonwriter
> 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.

Your last argument suggests you are conflating aspects of the Dakota Access
Pipeline (which is for domestic shale oil from a particular field) with the
Keystone XL pipeline (which is for Canadian oil sands oil).

The environmental argument about Dakota access is that the pipeline, which was
rerouted from its original route because of an unacceptable threat to a mostly
White community that it would have crossed just upstream of the water supply
of, and it's been rerouted to run just upstream of the water supply of the
Standing Rock reservation.

Which is why the protesters style themselves "Water Protectors".

> 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.

No, it's actually the _whole_ issue with Dakota Access. Keystone XL is a whole
different pipeline.

~~~
Tloewald
You're right, I was conflating the two. So yes it's mainly about whose water
is at risk.

------
ars
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.

~~~
_delirium
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-A...](http://www.usace.army.mil/Media/News-Releases/News-Release-
Article-View/Article/1003593/statement-regarding-the-dakota-access-pipeline/)

~~~
masonic

      That was also the basis for the Army Corps of Engineers ordering a more extensive environmental review. 
    

No, that was a purely political decision that gave absolutely no indication of
specific deficiencies in the original EIR, nor did it spell out any specific
requirements for a "new" EIR.

------
jadell
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?

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

------
WillyOnWheels
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-1318...](https://player.fm/series/war-nerd-radio-subscriber-
feed-1318376/radio-war-nerd-ep60assassinations-alex-zaitchik-at-standing-rock-
protest)

------
hackuser
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.

------
WildUtah
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.

------
spraak
> presidential-directed review

Welp.

