So, as a surprising amount of people are oblivious to, the Dakota Access Pipeline is in the process of being built, which will transport half a million barrels of oil across several states daily. The Native Americans are peacefully rallying against the company in an effort to protect not only their land, which has already has several sacred burial grounds desecrated, but to protect the whole environment, including the primary source of drinking water for several counties and thousands of families. The media has done little to no coverage on the protests other than making the Natives seem violent and showcasing them in a bad light. After doing a decent amount of research myself, the pipeline is indeed a threat to the environment and affects many more people aside from the Natives. So I'm trying to raise awareness in any form that I can.
http://steamcommunity.com/groups/gamers4standingrock#
This is a support group started to raise awareness and educate anyone who might be smart enough to want to see for themselves that this is a possible and legitimate threat instead of ignorantly accepting the safety claims made by many companies. Companies have falsely assured safety in the past with other pipelines, and between 2012-2013 alone, there have been hundreds of leaks and explosions from pipelines that have been assured to be safe. If a leak were to happen from the DAPL, it would cause immense damage to the water sources like the Missouri River that Natives and many others rely on, and it would destroy the ecosystem, as well as have negative consequences that affect a much larger scale than just the local area. Please take a few minutes out of your day to, at the very least, read the support group and educate yourself.
"What are the threats of the pipeline?
If the pipeline breaks at any point after construction, DRINKING WATER from the Missouri River would be CONTAMINATED WITHIN 5 MINUTES.
Pipeline accidents and leaks happen frequently, and they include: fires, explosions, propane releases, oil leaks, and more.
Not only will the water and land be affected, but also the air quality across North America. The Oil industry stands to profit tremendously from this project, but it could injure thousands of innocent people, and destroy the environment to an irreparable state.
Why should I care? Isn't this politics?
This isn't 'just politics'. It has to do with the environment, our very own drinking water, the land on which we live. This pipeline could (and likely would) destroy our climate. In the long run, it would come to affect you as well."
So, as a surprising amount of people are oblivious to, the Dakota Access Pipeline is in the process of being built, which will transport half a million barrels of oil across several states daily. The Native Americans are peacefully rallying against the company in an effort to protect not only their land, which has already has several sacred burial grounds desecrated, but to protect the whole environment, including the primary source of drinking water for several counties and thousands of families. The media has done little to no coverage on the protests other than making the Natives seem violent and showcasing them in a bad light. After doing a decent amount of research myself, the pipeline is indeed a threat to the environment and affects many more people aside from the Natives. So I'm trying to raise awareness in any form that I can.
http://steamcommunity.com/groups/gamers4standingrock#
This is a support group started to raise awareness and educate anyone who might be smart enough to want to see for themselves that this is a possible and legitimate threat instead of ignorantly accepting the safety claims made by many companies. Companies have falsely assured safety in the past with other pipelines, and between 2012-2013 alone, there have been hundreds of leaks and explosions from pipelines that have been assured to be safe. If a leak were to happen from the DAPL, it would cause immense damage to the water sources like the Missouri River that Natives and many others rely on, and it would destroy the ecosystem, as well as have negative consequences that affect a much larger scale than just the local area. Please take a few minutes out of your day to, at the very least, read the support group and educate yourself.
"What are the threats of the pipeline?
If the pipeline breaks at any point after construction, DRINKING WATER from the Missouri River would be CONTAMINATED WITHIN 5 MINUTES.
Pipeline accidents and leaks happen frequently, and they include: fires, explosions, propane releases, oil leaks, and more.
Not only will the water and land be affected, but also the air quality across North America. The Oil industry stands to profit tremendously from this project, but it could injure thousands of innocent people, and destroy the environment to an irreparable state.
Why should I care? Isn't this politics?
This isn't 'just politics'. It has to do with the environment, our very own drinking water, the land on which we live. This pipeline could (and likely would) destroy our climate. In the long run, it would come to affect you as well."
Been following this for a while as a couple of groups I support are running campaigns against the pipeline for the above reasons.
Been following this for a while as a couple of groups I support are running campaigns against the pipeline for the above reasons.
Indigo_Companies have falsely assured safety in the past with other pipelines, and between 2012-2013 alone, there have been hundreds of leaks and explosions from pipelines that have been assured to be safe.
I get the worry, especially when (i assume) it's happening close to you, but per unit/mile pipelines are still safer than road or rail transport by a pretty significant margin.
[quote=Indigo_]Companies have falsely assured safety in the past with other pipelines, and between 2012-2013 alone, there have been hundreds of leaks and explosions from pipelines that have been assured to be safe. [/quote]
I get the worry, especially when (i assume) it's happening close to you, but per unit/mile pipelines are still safer than road or rail transport by a pretty significant margin.
MikeMatIndigo_Companies have falsely assured safety in the past with other pipelines, and between 2012-2013 alone, there have been hundreds of leaks and explosions from pipelines that have been assured to be safe.
I get the worry, especially when (i assume) it's happening close to you, but per unit/mile pipelines are still safer than road or rail transport by a pretty significant margin.
A large problem with pipelines though is that, if not caught in time, they can do considerably more massive damage to the environment. If there was a leak to happen with the DAPL, with the amount of crude oil being moved, the entire water system would be contaminated before there was even a chance to fix the problem. Even if every single foot of the pipeline was constantly being monitored, within 5 or 10 minutes, major damage would have been done, and shortly after, the damage could become near irreparable. Even if there is a 99% chance that everything would be completely fine, if something DID go wrong, the contamination would happen so quickly that it would be impossible to stop before serious damage occurred. People may lose lives or property when things go wrong with rail or road transport, but if something were to happen with the DAPL, many, MANY more people would suffer, as well as the environment.
[quote=MikeMat][quote=Indigo_]Companies have falsely assured safety in the past with other pipelines, and between 2012-2013 alone, there have been hundreds of leaks and explosions from pipelines that have been assured to be safe. [/quote]
I get the worry, especially when (i assume) it's happening close to you, but per unit/mile pipelines are still safer than road or rail transport by a pretty significant margin.[/quote]
A large problem with pipelines though is that, if not caught in time, they can do considerably more massive damage to the environment. If there was a leak to happen with the DAPL, with the amount of crude oil being moved, the entire water system would be contaminated before there was even a chance to fix the problem. Even if every single foot of the pipeline was constantly being monitored, within 5 or 10 minutes, major damage would have been done, and shortly after, the damage could become near irreparable. Even if there is a 99% chance that everything would be completely fine, if something DID go wrong, the contamination would happen so quickly that it would be impossible to stop before serious damage occurred. People may lose lives or property when things go wrong with rail or road transport, but if something were to happen with the DAPL, many, MANY more people would suffer, as well as the environment.
Indigo_MikeMatIndigo_Companies have falsely assured safety in the past with other pipelines, and between 2012-2013 alone, there have been hundreds of leaks and explosions from pipelines that have been assured to be safe.
I get the worry, especially when (i assume) it's happening close to you, but per unit/mile pipelines are still safer than road or rail transport by a pretty significant margin.
A large problem with pipelines though is that, if not caught in time, they can do considerably more massive damage to the environment. If there was a leak to happen with the DAPL, with the amount of crude oil being moved, the entire water system would be contaminated before there was even a chance to fix the problem. Even if every single foot of the pipeline was constantly being monitored, within 5 or 10 minytes, major damage would have been done, and shortly after, the damage could become near irreparable. Even if there is a 99% chance that everything would be completely fine, if something DID go wrong, the contamination would happen so quickly that it would be impossible to stop before serious damage occurred. People may lose lives or property when things go wrong with rail or road transport, but if something were to happen with the DAPL, many, MANY more people would suffer, as well as the environment.
Then why build it near a major water source? I feel like that might alleviate potential problems. But keep in mind I'm not for or against it, but I am for better solutions to potential issues that may arise.
[quote=Indigo_][quote=MikeMat][quote=Indigo_]Companies have falsely assured safety in the past with other pipelines, and between 2012-2013 alone, there have been hundreds of leaks and explosions from pipelines that have been assured to be safe. [/quote]
I get the worry, especially when (i assume) it's happening close to you, but per unit/mile pipelines are still safer than road or rail transport by a pretty significant margin.[/quote]
A large problem with pipelines though is that, if not caught in time, they can do considerably more massive damage to the environment. If there was a leak to happen with the DAPL, with the amount of crude oil being moved, the entire water system would be contaminated before there was even a chance to fix the problem. Even if every single foot of the pipeline was constantly being monitored, within 5 or 10 minytes, major damage would have been done, and shortly after, the damage could become near irreparable. Even if there is a 99% chance that everything would be completely fine, if something DID go wrong, the contamination would happen so quickly that it would be impossible to stop before serious damage occurred. People may lose lives or property when things go wrong with rail or road transport, but if something were to happen with the DAPL, many, MANY more people would suffer, as well as the environment.[/quote]
Then why build it near a major water source? I feel like that might alleviate potential problems. But keep in mind I'm not for or against it, but I [b]am[/b] for better solutions to potential issues that may arise.
KonceptIndigo_MikeMatIndigo_Companies have falsely assured safety in the past with other pipelines, and between 2012-2013 alone, there have been hundreds of leaks and explosions from pipelines that have been assured to be safe.
I get the worry, especially when (i assume) it's happening close to you, but per unit/mile pipelines are still safer than road or rail transport by a pretty significant margin.
A large problem with pipelines though is that, if not caught in time, they can do considerably more massive damage to the environment. If there was a leak to happen with the DAPL, with the amount of crude oil being moved, the entire water system would be contaminated before there was even a chance to fix the problem. Even if every single foot of the pipeline was constantly being monitored, within 5 or 10 minytes, major damage would have been done, and shortly after, the damage could become near irreparable. Even if there is a 99% chance that everything would be completely fine, if something DID go wrong, the contamination would happen so quickly that it would be impossible to stop before serious damage occurred. People may lose lives or property when things go wrong with rail or road transport, but if something were to happen with the DAPL, many, MANY more people would suffer, as well as the environment.
Then why build it near a major water source? I feel like that might alleviate potential problems. But keep in mind I'm not for or against it, but I am for better solutions to potential issues that may arise.
As far as not building it near a major water source, I can't find anything on the topic of simply moving it. I would assume that it would be "too expensive" to build it in such a way to reach from Canada to the Gulf of Mexico, or that there's just too many water sources along the way to avoid it, as well as the fact that construction has already been underway for a decent amount of time, so they would have to scrap and lose money in order to move it at this stage, which is, unfortunately, something most companies will not do.
In regards to the argument that rail transport isn't as safe:
"Pipelines deliver their product to fixed end points, while delivery by railroads is more flexible and delivers product to where it is needed. The big environmental issue for pipelines, and the one that Fraser does not want to acknowledge, is that when pipelines have a problem it is almost always a big one. This was demonstrated most recently in North Dakota where a pipeline leaked over 20,600 barrels (865,200 gallons). This, the largest inland pipeline spill in recent US history, was not discovered until a farmer noticed the oil in his fields. Even the pipeline company cannot explain how long the leak was active, let alone what caused it.
In comparison, when a railcar is involved in accident, the environmental impact is almost always limited. The capacity of today's tank car is between 25-30,000 gallons (just over 700 barrels) and the overwhelming majority of rail spills reported by the Department of Transportation involve amounts of less than 5 gallons."
Source: http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/peter-goelz/oil-by-rail-vs-pipelines-safety-records_b_4262327.html
There are plenty of other articles talking about the pros and cons of rail transport versus pipelines if you would like more proof instead of a single link. I would be more than happy to provide some.
[quote=Koncept][quote=Indigo_][quote=MikeMat][quote=Indigo_]Companies have falsely assured safety in the past with other pipelines, and between 2012-2013 alone, there have been hundreds of leaks and explosions from pipelines that have been assured to be safe. [/quote]
I get the worry, especially when (i assume) it's happening close to you, but per unit/mile pipelines are still safer than road or rail transport by a pretty significant margin.[/quote]
A large problem with pipelines though is that, if not caught in time, they can do considerably more massive damage to the environment. If there was a leak to happen with the DAPL, with the amount of crude oil being moved, the entire water system would be contaminated before there was even a chance to fix the problem. Even if every single foot of the pipeline was constantly being monitored, within 5 or 10 minytes, major damage would have been done, and shortly after, the damage could become near irreparable. Even if there is a 99% chance that everything would be completely fine, if something DID go wrong, the contamination would happen so quickly that it would be impossible to stop before serious damage occurred. People may lose lives or property when things go wrong with rail or road transport, but if something were to happen with the DAPL, many, MANY more people would suffer, as well as the environment.[/quote]
Then why build it near a major water source? I feel like that might alleviate potential problems. But keep in mind I'm not for or against it, but I [b]am[/b] for better solutions to potential issues that may arise.[/quote]
As far as not building it near a major water source, I can't find anything on the topic of simply moving it. I would assume that it would be "too expensive" to build it in such a way to reach from Canada to the Gulf of Mexico, or that there's just too many water sources along the way to avoid it, as well as the fact that construction has already been underway for a decent amount of time, so they would have to scrap and lose money in order to move it at this stage, which is, unfortunately, something most companies will not do.
In regards to the argument that rail transport isn't as safe:
"Pipelines deliver their product to fixed end points, while delivery by railroads is more flexible and delivers product to where it is needed. The big environmental issue for pipelines, and the one that Fraser does not want to acknowledge, is that when pipelines have a problem it is almost always a big one. This was demonstrated most recently in North Dakota where a pipeline leaked over 20,600 barrels (865,200 gallons). This, the largest inland pipeline spill in recent US history, was not discovered until a farmer noticed the oil in his fields. Even the pipeline company cannot explain how long the leak was active, let alone what caused it.
In comparison, when a railcar is involved in accident, the environmental impact is almost always limited. The capacity of today's tank car is between 25-30,000 gallons (just over 700 barrels) and the overwhelming majority of rail spills reported by the Department of Transportation involve amounts of less than 5 gallons."
Source: http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/peter-goelz/oil-by-rail-vs-pipelines-safety-records_b_4262327.html
There are plenty of other articles talking about the pros and cons of rail transport versus pipelines if you would like more proof instead of a single link. I would be more than happy to provide some.
http://usuncut.com/news/emergency-pipeline-spill/
Case in point as to the severity of pipeline leaks and spills.
http://usuncut.com/news/emergency-pipeline-spill/
Case in point as to the severity of pipeline leaks and spills.
if you want a laugh, as always, read the comments
[img]http://puu.sh/reshn/535d8f0c98.png[/img]
[img]http://puu.sh/resld/acb460dd94.jpg[/img]
[quote=Ggglygy][img]http://puu.sh/resld/acb460dd94.jpg[/img][/quote]
WutFace
[img]https://68.media.tumblr.com/8fa3a504f6663dcafea9b9c34a189360/tumblr_msf8zyupW11s2b98qo1_540.jpg[/img]
i cannot verify any of this info as i dont know much about the topic but in the interest of providing two sides to an argument here's an imgur post about it
http://imgur.com/gallery/VVctS
i cannot verify any of this info as i dont know much about the topic but in the interest of providing two sides to an argument here's an imgur post about it
http://imgur.com/gallery/VVctS
"pipelines are totally safe guys"
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/20/us/gas-prices-surge-in-south-after-pipeline-leak-drains-fuel-supplies.html