|
Dead Reckoning posted:I've explained a few times now that I understand the protesters' rationale, but that I find it insufficient justification for obstructing lawful construction that has made a good faith effort to comply with applicable standards and practices. It also seems to never occur to you that a person might agree with honoring existing rules for reasons other than that they are the rules. You keep on keeping on though. oh my god
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2016 03:48
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 20:57 |
|
|
Tell you what, I'll settle for any affirmative argument at all why the protesters should be allowed to obstruct the pipeline.
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2016 03:57
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:Tell you what, I'll settle for any affirmative argument at all why the protesters should be allowed to obstruct the pipeline. So idk how much Tribal news you read, from what I've seen in the various bands' media outlets the issue is very much conflated between sovreignty, environmentalism, and anti-establishmentarianism. I can go grab a few publications tomorrow and re-post their articles her --- in my experience, tribes' various publications are not the most tech savvy operations. At most, you'll find a .pdf scan of the monthly all-enrolled mailer on a website for the band. I think the tribes of this region have great potential, however they choose to engage in racial politics over institutional development which hinders achievement of desired outcomes. I fail to see how the tribes of the upper midwest will escape the concentration of poverty so long as family and kin bonds are the predominant unit of social organization.
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2016 04:06
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:Tell you what, I'll settle for any affirmative argument at all why the protesters should be allowed to obstruct the pipeline. Below is a quote from an earlier post of mine which has the strongest argument against the pipeline IMO: silence_kit posted:The strongest argument against the pipeline is that by opposing the construction of ALL oil infrastructure, and ensuring low supplies of oil and high oil prices, there will be more incentive to use and develop alternate technologies, and we'll wean ourselves off of oil. It will come at great cost to everybody in the US, especially the poor who can't afford it, but some think that it'll be worth it.
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2016 04:16
|
|
|
I hear those darn protesters are doing sit-ins at local diners, obstructing law-abiding citizens like us from being able to sit at the counter. I think I'll show them what I think of this behavior by pouring a malt over their head, or perhaps peacefully disperse them with a fire hose. No no, you don't understand: they're trying to stop something from being built. I forget what exactly, but what would we do if nothing could be built? It'd be quite the pickle. Luckily we can non-violently shoot them with rubber bullets for their own safety.
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2016 05:04
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:Tell you what, I'll settle for any affirmative argument at all why the protesters should be allowed to obstruct the pipeline. Because it could leak and poison them?
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2016 05:18
|
|
|
For the holidays I'm back on the Lakota reservation where I grew up (not Standing Rock, similar conditions). Fun fact I learned from the tribal chief of police: about 80% of all traffic stops and domestic disturbances they respond to involve meth. I know we've PM'd some about this MIGF, nepotism is a problem for sure but it's rooted largely in economics. The reservations around here have 80-85% unemployment. If you're one of the lucky few Native Americans who can get a job or position of power, you do what you can to get your extended family and friends jobs. It's all about the money. There is none, but if you happen to catch any table scraps you share them with your family. That's not really a unique flaw within tribal kinship systems, it's a result of the desperate economic situation and basic human social dynamics.
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2016 05:19
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:And here are the assumptions doing aaallllll the lifting in your argument. If you're going to claim that the leaky pipeline was built and maintained and operated in the same way as the DAPL, that's on you to show if you want to claim they are comparable. I love that your go-to argument here is that the failed pipeline must clearly have been intentionally neglected as if that is somehow impossible for new pipelines in the future. I mean, it's almost like you don't understand that there are, in fact, industry best standards for the operation of pipelines, and legal consequences for failure to do so when it results in environmental damage. Which is an odd position to hear from an authoritarian... Liquid Communism fucked around with this message at 20:45 on Dec 29, 2016 |
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2016 20:41
|
|
|
Liquid Communism posted:I love that your go-to argument here is that the failed pipeline must clearly have been intentionally neglected as if that is somehow impossible for new pipelines in the future. what are you even trying to say in the second paragraph? I see no evidence that DR doesn't understand the concept of regulation and fines.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2016 21:21
|
|
I CANNOT EJACULATE WITHOUT SEEING NATIVE AMERICANS BRUTALISED!
|
blowfish posted:what are you even trying to say in the second paragraph? I see no evidence that DR doesn't understand the concept of regulation and fines.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2016 21:42
|
|
|
twodot posted:I don't think it's a complicated argument. Insisting that there's a burden of proof in comparing two different pipelines implies that pipelines are routinely maintained and operated in different fashions. Liquid Communism is asserting that there's sufficient regulations to make that not possible. I have no clue who is right, not being an expert on the regulations concerning the maintenance of oil pipelines, but absent some better evidence, keeping the burden of proof on people who want to relate two different pipelines seems reasonable. Protestors rightly realize that the authorities in charge of enforcing regulation and punishing violators are entirely captured by the companies facing those regulations. The people in charge of deeming one pipeline safer than another are not trustworthy.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2016 21:51
|
|
|
Pellisworth posted:For the holidays I'm back on the Lakota reservation where I grew up (not Standing Rock, similar conditions). Spirit lake? Cease to Hope posted:Protestors rightly realize that the authorities in charge of enforcing regulation and punishing violators are entirely captured by the companies facing those regulations. The people in charge of deeming one pipeline safer than another are not trustworthy. I don't think it's a trust issue, it's more like the laws and regulations are so slow to catch up to current conditions that all the loopholes and exemptions and just plain lack of jurisdictional authority makes any honest oversight a drop in the bucket for all the aging infrastructure. I don't know what is worse, being ineffective due to corruption or legislative hobbling.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2017 02:38
|
|
|
Like I said, I earnestly don't have enough information to know. If someone has some evidence that the regulation is so tight that all pipelines are effectively identical, that regardless of the regulation the regulators are so toothless it doesn't matter, that the regulators are willing but the regulations are riddled with loopholes, or that it is indeed possible to have two different pipelines in the US that are maintained to different standards, can they please present the evidence instead of just piling up contradicting unbacked assertions?
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2017 03:15
|
|
|
twodot posted:Like I said, I earnestly don't have enough information to know. If someone has some evidence that the regulation is so tight that all pipelines are effectively identical, that regardless of the regulation the regulators are so toothless it doesn't matter, that the regulators are willing but the regulations are riddled with loopholes, or that it is indeed possible to have two different pipelines in the US that are maintained to different standards, can they please present the evidence instead of just piling up contradicting unbacked assertions? https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22950467
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2017 04:59
|
|
|
So what's your contention here? I don't want to engage in a blatant straw man, but my only take away is you think "Everyone should have an opinion on every issue, regardless of the evidence presented to that person" which is so massively stupid I don't want to explicitly explain why only an idiot would think that. If you've got some evidence that some poster is correct about the state of regulations and regulators concerning oil pipeline maintenance, why not post that instead of unrelated studies?
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2017 10:00
|
|
|
Silento Boborachi posted:I don't think it's a trust issue, it's more like the laws and regulations are so slow to catch up to current conditions that all the loopholes and exemptions and just plain lack of jurisdictional authority makes any honest oversight a drop in the bucket for all the aging infrastructure. I don't know what is worse, being ineffective due to corruption or legislative hobbling. "Slow to catch up" implies that any progress is happening at all. You don't have to corrupt an agency given little power in the first place, and nobody cares about the appearance of impropriety in powerless agencies. It isn't a matter of if a pipeline will fail. If they stay in service, they all eventually do, and the people tasked with preventing that for as long as possible are asleep at the switch.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2017 10:06
|
|
|
Cease to Hope posted:"Slow to catch up" implies that any progress is happening at all. You don't have to corrupt an agency given little power in the first place, and nobody cares about the appearance of impropriety in powerless agencies.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2017 10:13
|
|
|
twodot posted:Hey, so I really think we haven't presented any evidence that "an agency" (which agency? There's many jurisdictions to consider here) has been given little power in the first place. Can we please switch to making arguments backed by evidence? If you think there's a particular agency that needs a particular power, that sounds like a great discussion point. EPA mostly, but DOE and state agencies too. The problem is that these agencies are not only weak historically and currently, but there's no reason to trust that any change to strengthen them would outline the administration that did so. There is no institutional practice of harshly punishing companies that flout environmental protection laws. So if you're playing politics with an eye for multiple generations, there's no reason to trust that the EPA is going to do anything to help anyone in 2060 when the current pipeline company has divested this particular pipe to a company with a bare minimum budget and skeleton crew staff. You can't very well argue that this isn't going to happen when it's what's happening now.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2017 10:24
|
|
|
Cease to Hope posted:EPA mostly, but DOE and state agencies too.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2017 10:32
|
|
|
twodot posted:So it's pretty weird to talk about "an agency" when you are talking about several agencies, and it's especially weird since you've failed to mentioned which are the agencies responsible for both pipelines which is how this whole discussion started. Further there's still no evidence in this post, we all get you are asserting a thing. Why should we believe you? (and also maybe you should address other posters that are contradicting you with similar (no) evidence, but I get you aren't responsible for other people's arguments) What specific evidence of the US's lack of strong institutional protections against negligent pollution are you looking for? Are you asserting that the EPA and state environmental aren't captured by industry actors, and won't be at any point in DAPL's lifetime? What possible reason would their be for the affected tribes to trust the US or state governments, on this issue or in general?
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2017 10:39
|
|
|
The agency you guys are looking for is the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA) which falls under the Department of Transportation. They do all the pipeline and control center regulations, sets required training, and do compliance audits.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2017 13:48
|
|
|
twodot posted:So what's your contention here? I don't want to engage in a blatant straw man, but my only take away is you think "Everyone should have an opinion on every issue, regardless of the evidence presented to that person" which is so massively stupid I don't want to explicitly explain why only an idiot would think that. If you've got some evidence that some poster is correct about the state of regulations and regulators concerning oil pipeline maintenance, why not post that instead of unrelated studies? It's hilarious that you took that link and managed to read it as me saying "everyone should have an opinion on every issue," oh no it's not funny because you didn't even look at the link - you just made up some more poo poo and waved your hands around saying how unfair I was being. twodot posted:Hey, so I really think we haven't presented any evidence that "an agency" (which agency? There's many jurisdictions to consider here) has been given little power in the first place. Can we please switch to making arguments backed by evidence? If you think there's a particular agency that needs a particular power, that sounds like a great discussion point.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2017 17:31
|
|
|
You would think that, if your contention is so obvious that people can only not know about it by deliberately avoiding it, it would be really easy to provide a citation more comprehensive than "well everybody knows." Cease to Hope posted:The problem is that these agencies are not only weak historically and currently, but there's no reason to trust that any change to strengthen them would outline the administration that did so. There is no institutional practice of harshly punishing companies that flout environmental protection laws. The issue here is that you're operating on your personal definition of "harshly punished," which I'm guessing isn't satisfied unless company executives are put in the pillory and any company that commits a violation is fined into bankruptcy. The EPA assessed $6 billion dollars in fines and civil & criminal penalties last year. They sent violators to jail for a combined 93 years, and imposed an additional 14.7 billion in mandatory spending on cleanup, prevention, and remediation. Can you name a specific case where you feel the settlement/enforcement action was not proportionate to the violation? One of the EPA's big wins was forcing an oil pipeline company that spilled oil to invest in state-of-the-art leak detection and monitoring systems, systems which are apparently already included in the DAPL according to the engineering report linked earlier. I'd also note that this rather neatly answers the question of whether different pipelines are differently constructed and operated in different manners. Dead Reckoning fucked around with this message at 19:31 on Jan 2, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2017 19:29
|
|
|
coyo7e posted:I was saying that you're using strategic ignorance to place the onus of proof on everyone else, while painting yourself in the "well I don't know but if someone could educate me with *absolutely unrealistic requirements made up by a layman such as myself*, I might change my mind. Otherwise go gently caress yourself." quote:It's hilarious that you took that link and managed to read it as me saying "everyone should have an opinion on every issue," oh no it's not funny because you didn't even look at the link - you just made up some more poo poo and waved your hands around saying how unfair I was being. Cease to Hope posted:What specific evidence of the US's lack of strong institutional protections against negligent pollution are you looking for? quote:Are you asserting that the EPA and state environmental aren't captured by industry actors, and won't be at any point in DAPL's lifetime? quote:What possible reason would their be for the affected tribes to trust the US or state governments, on this issue or in general?
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2017 21:04
|
|
|
Strategic Ignorance, weaponized. You saw it here, folks! twodot posted:I feel pretty comfortable placing the burden of proof on people making assertions. If you disagree with that framework, can you explain how you think we should determine where the burden of proof lies?
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2017 21:13
|
|
|
If anyone is bored, click the "?" below any of twodots' posts and then time yourself - how long does it take to find as many assertions in his posts, as he just said "Assertion" in that last post of his? Spoiler: 1/3 to 1/2 of the first page
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2017 21:27
|
|
|
guys i'm just asking questions but can you prove that this pipeline isn't going to be the one that is perfectly safe forever
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2017 23:49
|
|
|
Technically it's the safest pipeline ever having a record of no spills so far! (Unless they've hydrotested a section of the line and had a spill of that) Statewise there are a couple different groups that oversee pipelines, as I understand it: The Public Service Commission (from their website): The Commission's statutory responsibilities concerning pipelines in North Dakota include: Establishment and enforcement of rates or charges and regulations by common pipeline carriers for receiving, gathering, transporting, loading, delivering, and incident storing of crude petroleum, coal or gas purchased or sold in North Dakota; and Enforcement of safety requirements for intrastate distribution and transmission of natural gas. So they just started up a pipeline inspector program of their own, to either supplant or work with the federal inspection team(s). From what I understand, transmission lines were just being done on the federal level, but due to the amount of growth the feds didn't have the resources to cover it all. These guys should only cover transmission lines. The North Dakota Industrial Commission: These guys regulate the bulk of the upstream O&G production side of things, so wells that pump oil, injection wells that dispose of salt water, gathering pipelines that transport oil from the wells to gathering tank batteries, lines from battery to battery, etc. They deal with spills at those facilities. The North Dakota Department of Health: These guys regulate the midstream O&G stuff and somewhat of the upstream O&G, so they don't deal with the pipelines per se, but they look at the compressor stations, big midstream storage facilities, etc. everything the big lines connect into. They deal with spills at those facilities, and work with the NDIC on spills too as I understand it.
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2017 01:29
|
|
|
Cease to Hope posted:guys i'm just asking questions but can you prove that this pipeline isn't going to be the one that is perfectly safe forever It's just like the old saying goes: progress depends on people being reasonable.
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2017 06:21
|
|
|
Cease to Hope posted:guys i'm just asking questions but can you prove that this pipeline isn't going to be the one that is perfectly safe forever Cease to Hope posted:EPA mostly, but DOE and state agencies too. quote:So if you're playing politics with an eye for multiple generations, there's no reason to trust that the EPA is going to do anything to help anyone in 2060 when the current pipeline company has divested this particular pipe to a company with a bare minimum budget and skeleton crew staff. You can't very well argue that this isn't going to happen when it's what's happening now.
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2017 17:40
|
|
|
Cease to Hope posted:guys i'm just asking questions but can you prove that this pipeline isn't going to be the one that is perfectly safe forever No. In fact you can't prove that this pipeline won't be perfectly safe even in a reasonable time period. That plus the potential environmental impact if it does spill is why it shouldn't be built. Any more questions?
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2017 17:53
|
|
|
Feral Integral posted:No. In fact you can't prove that this pipeline won't be perfectly safe even in a reasonable time period. That plus the potential environmental impact if it does spill is why it shouldn't be built.
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2017 18:14
|
|
|
twodot posted:Given all oil transportation strategies aren't perfectly safe and have some sort of environmental impact if they fail, is this a general argument against transporting any amount of oil by any method? If not how does this argument distinguish between various methods of oil transportation? Evidence about oil transportation may be useful for doing that. If a truck topples or a train car derails, you lose the oil on that truck or traincar and have a relatively small spill to clean up. If a pipeline in the rear end end of nowhere breaks and the equipment to detect the breakage fails to notify anyone that a spill has occurred it's pretty easy for it to rack up hundreds of thousands if not millions of gallons spilled. Double damage bonus for the break being underneath a lake or river.
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2017 18:33
|
|
|
Feral Integral posted:No. In fact you can't prove that this pipeline won't be perfectly safe even in a reasonable time period. That plus the potential environmental impact if it does spill is why it shouldn't be built. Dead Reckoning fucked around with this message at 18:40 on Jan 3, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2017 18:35
|
|
|
twodot posted:Given all oil transportation strategies aren't perfectly safe and have some sort of environmental impact if they fail, is this a general argument against transporting any amount of oil by any method? If not how does this argument distinguish between various methods of oil transportation? Evidence about oil transportation may be useful for doing that. Nice fallacy, again.
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2017 18:48
|
|
|
DeathSandwich posted:If a truck topples or a train car derails, you lose the oil on that truck or traincar and have a relatively small spill to clean up. It's also a little weird to me that you're asserting it's "easy" (what does easy mean in this context? likely?) to spill millions of gallons, but your article cites 320,000 gallons spilled over 1648 miles over ten years. Are there examples of a break being underneath a lake or river? The physics of what happens isn't very clear to me, I would assume the pressure of the ground under a lake would be greater than the pressure of the oil in pipeline which would make it relatively hard to leak at all, I'm assuming oil is relatively incompressible like water, but there's a lot of assumptions that could be wrong in there. I suppose the construction of below and above ground pipes could also vary in some way. Feral Integral posted:Nice fallacy, again.
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2017 19:27
|
|
|
twodot posted:I don't understand how someone asking you to clarify your argument could be a fallacy, but you do you. And yes there have been examples of pipelines breaking below water sources. The Yelllowstone River had two breaks which contaminated the river in like 4 years - and yes it is a pipeline which is both below ground and which goes below the river. https://www.americanrivers.org/threats-solutions/energy-development/pipeline-failures/ http://www.yellowstonepark.com/pipeline-oil-spill-yellowstone-river/ quote:The Bridger Pipeline Company reported that the break was repaired within an hour but still resulted in a spill of 42,000 gallons of oil. For reference this was a 12 inch pipeine, and the DAPL is 30 inches which means that it'll spill a hell of a lot more oil even if the spill is found stopped and repaired within 1 hour, which come on, that's a ridiculously fast response for these rural areas with no facilities nearby. also, because the pipe is larger, there is less friction on the oil being pumped through it against the walls of the pipe, which means they can also shoot it down the pipe at way, way higher velocities and pressures. http://www.pipeflowcalculations.com/pipe-valve-fitting-flow/flow-in-pipes.php coyo7e fucked around with this message at 19:43 on Jan 3, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2017 19:40
|
|
|
coyo7e posted:LMAO, you claim you were asking him to clarify? No, you made two rhetorical questions which served to distract from the actual topic. quote:And yes there have been examples of pipelines breaking below water sources. The Yelllowstone River had two breaks which contaminated the river in like 4 years - and yes it is a pipeline which is both below ground and which goes below the river. https://www.americanrivers.org/threats-solutions/energy-development/pipeline-failures/
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2017 20:02
|
|
|
You have to be intentionally missing the point by now so I'm just gonna stop giving you the benefit of the doubt about not being a troll, and say buh-bye. Also this is kinda fun http://www.unicornriot.ninja/?p=12256
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2017 20:46
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 20:57 |
|
|
Building a pipeline doesn't means less oil is transported through other means, they're not gonna spend money to build a pipeline only to move the same amount of oil as before.
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2017 22:50
|
|
