Reply With Quote
Standing Rock is making Cuba under Castro a walk in the park tbqh
amazing stuff
If I didnt have so much business these days Id go to standing rock immediately
http://www.mintpressnews.com/followi...estors/222669/
Standing Rock is making Cuba under Castro a walk in the park tbqh
I am halfway tempted to be one of those veterans as well. Too busy tho'.
If I didnt have so much business these days Id go to standing rock immediately
http://www.mintpressnews.com/followi...estors/222669/
Standing Rock is the biggest bunch of horse ever. As was already explained in the other thread, the pipeline does not cross their land, and there are already eight pipelines that cross the river. The company has legal permits to build there. The environmental impact statements are done already.
As for all the hysteria over the water supply, that only makes sense if you ignore the inconvenient fact that the Fort Yates water intake is actually being shut down and replaced soon. This has been in the works since 2002, when a severe drought left them unable to pump water at Fort Yates. Furthermore, Fort Yates doesn't even serve all of Standing Rock anymore.
If all goes according to plans currently in place, the Fort Yates intake which has been so frequently cited by those opposed to the Dakota Access Pipeline will be shut down by the end of the year.
I spoke with Dave Rosencranz, the Dakotas Area manger for the Federal Bureau of Reclamation, and he told me that currently the Standing Rock community is being served by two Missouri River water intakes but that the Fort Yates intake, which is nearest the Dakota Access Pipeline crossing, is slated to be shut down.
"There's been a lot of issues with that intake," Rosencranz told me, referring to the Fort Yates facility. "It's just time to replace it. It's basically at the end of its life."
I also spoke with Bureau of Reclamation engineer Tom Thompson who said that the Fort Yates intake and water treatment facility was built in the 1960's and would "cost more more than it's worth" to fix it. He told me the Mobridge intake and treatment plant are already operating and serving a part of the Standing Rock community, but will hopefully soon be serving all of it.
https://www.sayanythingblog.com/entr...ess-pipelines/
Standing Rock has been given almost $30 million in federal grants since 2009 through the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act in order to modernize their water system: http://www.usbr.gov/arra/pdf/project...aterSystem.pdf
Even if safety was a valid concern, the main alternative to pipelines (rail) is far less safe: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/repor...ticle25943221/
Additionally, pipelines are already subject to strict safety regulations from the DOT. It's ironic how the libs' usually-unflinching faith in government, especially when it comes to meddling in private enterprise, somehow doesn't apply here.
This whole "protest movement" is based on lies. The reality is, environmentalists are opposed to any major energy development. They'll even turn their nose up at renewable sources if it offends their delicate sensibilities. Just look at how hard liberals fought in Massachusetts to stop the construction of wind turbines in Nantucket because they didn't want to lose their precious view, for instance. The tree-huggers won't be happy until we regress back to a Stone Age standard of living.
Me too but then, like you, I decided those people cause I got to do.
So the new intake is moved downstream, and to you, that means the issue is moot.
Critical thinking/intellectual honesty time.
Would a large hydrocarbon spill move downstream with the flow of the water?
The issue is moot because the only intake center that the protesters are concerned about is old, broken-down and being phased out for reasons that have nothing to do with the pipeline. It's simply more dishonesty from useful idiots (probably Soros-funded) who are essentially protesting over nothing.
Strawman argument one.
I personally distrust goverment, especially when it comes to the use of eminent domain, and things like unrestricted evesdropping.
I view government as necessary, and think we should watch it like a hawk, and I would challenge you to find a "lib" who says they have "unflinching faith" in government.
Critical thinking/intellectual honesty time.
Would a large hydrocarbon spill move downstream with the flow of the water?
You did not answer my question.
Would a large hydrocarbon spill flow downstream?
Simple yes or no.
I see you have me in the grip of reason.
Do you think mockery and intellectual dishonesty are useful tools in convincing someone that your position is better supported by evidence and reason?
You should ask the protestors that. They are only complaining about the possible impact on Fort Yates, not the Mobridge facility that will soon be providing all their water.
Yes, their water supply is moving downstream. But it's moving 75 miles away from where the pipeline is. To put things in perspective, when the Kalamazoo River pipeline burst in 2010 - the worst inland oil spill in American history - the oil was mostly contained within only a 25-mile stretch of the river (though the EPA still closed off an additional 10 miles just to be safe). The oil only ended up traveling 40 miles downstream - a far cry from 75 miles. And that was a historically bad inland oil spill - an outlier.
And that's why the protesters are misleading everyone about how the reservation's water system works. Because if they were being honest, people would realize that "muh drinking water" is just another bull excuse.
Its not that simple ya idiot.
That pipe leaks and them is gonna be picking their teeth off the ground due to the contamination.
Standing rock stands for everything that is good and pure in this world. Protect it to the death fellas. them pipelayers to the inner depths of
Thinking that 2016 Indians are good and pure.
They were a win away from Fatball Championship this year tbh
Thinking that 2016 Indians are good and pure.
Back to the subject, I believe standing rock will be the final
Battle for the future of humanity
I am planning to visit the site soon
Again, not what was asked.
So I will have to assume that after having two chances to answer this question honestly, you would prefer to be dishonest. Your choice.
Let's try a different question or two.
http://arcgis.sd.gov/server/denr/welllogs/default.aspx
I found 468 domestic wells completed in Corson County South Dakota between 01/01/1900 and 01/12/2016.
Didn't take long to figure out that there are hundreds, if not thousands of groundwells in the area. North Dakota might have something similar for Souix county, but I would think it reasonable that the density of wells would be comparable.
Would all those wells move with the intake?
One of the primary occupations of the area is hunting and fishing.
Would a large hydrocarbon spill affect the ability of a fisherman to eat fish caught in that river?
US has screwed the Indians, broken treaties, ethnically cleansed/slaughtered them, for 100s of years. Give 'em a single break.
Because I value being intellectually honest, I will address the rest of your post here. In this, I will demonstrate that I am more honest about this than you are attempting to be.
It was indeed an outlier, and yes, IF any future spill is contained within a similar zone, the water intake will likely not pick up any large amount of pollution.The oil was contained to a 25-mile (40 km) stretch of the Kalamazoo River as several hundred workers took part in the cleanup.[5] Regional EPA Director Susan Hedman estimated that it would take weeks to remove the bulk of the oil from the river, several months to clear oil from the flood plains, and several more months to clean the oil out of the marsh where the spill originated. However, a year later, a 35-mile stretch of the river remained closed.[6] Originally estimated at $5 million,[7] by September 2011, cleanup costs passed $585 million and were expected to rise by 20 percent more.[6] The cleanup expense by summer 2012 had totalled $765 million.[4]
Aftermath[edit]
In June, 2012, authorities reopened most of the 35 miles of the river that had been closed to recreation after the spill. Part of the river at the Morrow Lake delta remained closed and other sections of the river remain restricted because of the ongoing cleanup of the tar sands oil product called diluted bitumen (dilbit) oil the pipeline had been transporting.[8]
The United States Department of Transportation summer 2012 "fined Enbridge $3.7 million dollars and as part of that fine they listed 22 probable violations that happened relating to the spill. And several of those [violations] are about what happened in the [Edmonton] control room".[4]
One of the reasons for the vast escalation in time and expense of cleanup was that the EPA had never handled a dilbit spill. In addition, it is reported that Enbridge never informed the EPA of the product distinction. Dilbit, like all crude oil, floats in water but, over time, will sink, complicating cleanup efforts, particularly if dredging is considered too ecologically damaging.[4] Other environmental factors will affect the rate at which this process takes place. This disaster was the largest on-land spill in American history to date.[9]
The problem with this argument is that the past... is the past. Was it an outier because there weren't as many pipelines carrying oil?
Will it continue to be an outlier, if you add tens of thousands of miles of new oil pipelines?
A plane crash in 1920 could be argued to also be an "outlier" for the time.
If I caught a fish today that lived in that stretch of river, would you eat it?
Simple yes or no.
?? basis?
Thinking that 2016 Indians are good and pure.
Relevance?
Flesh this one out.
(nizkor.org)Description of Straw Man
The Straw Man fallacy is committed when a person simply ignores a person's actual position and subs utes a distorted, exaggerated or misrepresented version of that position. This sort of "reasoning" has the following pattern:
Person A has position X.
Person B presents position Y (which is a distorted version of X).
Person B attacks position Y.
Therefore X is false/incorrect/flawed.
This sort of "reasoning" is fallacious because attacking a distorted version of a position simply does not cons ute an attack on the position itself. One might as well expect an attack on a poor drawing of a person to hurt the person.
http://content.sierraclub.org/coal/solutions
If the Sierra Club can be accurately used to gauge what is generally supported by "environmentalists", then you have, essentially, lied about what "environmentalists" want.
Why would you lie about this? That seems not to be constructive.
I fully addressed your question, you just didn't want to hear the answer because it disagrees with your worldview.
The bottom line is, in the worst pipeline burst in American history, the oil only traveled about 40 miles downstream, according to NOAA figures:
http://web.archive.org/web/201209280...dge/index.html
Meanwhile, Standing Rock's new water supply is 75 miles downstream from the pipeline. Considering that the oil would have to travel 35 more miles than it did in the single worst pipeline burst this country has ever seen in order to reach the Mobridge facility, and considering that pipelines are less accident-prone to begin with than other methods of transporting oil, how likely do you think it is that this pipeline will a.) burst and b.) poison their drinking water? I would say it's not very likely.
Your other questions are simply moving the goalposts. You know full well that you're wrong on this, so you want to declare victory and quickly change the subject. At this point, you're just Gish Galloping. And you have the nerve to call others "intellectually dishonest."
I haven't lied at all. In fact, I gave a specific example of environmentalists opposing an expansion of renewable energy for frivolous reasons.
The U.S. Court of Appeals decision today is a victory for the fishermen, pilots, boaters, Native Americans, environmentalists, homeowners, towns, and businesses, which have fought to protect Nantucket Sound against Cape Wind for 15 years.
Why should we take the eco-hippies seriously when their precious ocean views and property values are more important to them than even alternative energy, let alone traditional sources?
Environmentalists also have a history of throwing hissyfits every time anyone tries to expand solar power:
http://www.sandiegoreader.com/news/2...gainst-solar/#
http://www.desertsun.com/story/tech/...stry/87677852/
http://www.forbes.com/sites/timworst...entalists-mad/
http://www.investors.com/politics/co...r-power-plant/
http://www.egyptindependent.com/news...nst-themselves
Radical environmentalists really do seem to oppose any energy development, no matter the source. These self-loathing neurotics would rather drag everyone back to a primitive standard of living than compromise on anything.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
