Poll of the Day > Keystone Pipeline oil spill reported in South Dakota.

(+) Yeah! (+)

https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2017/11/16/564705368/keystone-pipeline-oil-spill-reported-in-south-dakota

TransCanada, the company that owns and operates the Keystone Pipeline, says that an estimated 210,000 gallons, or 5,000 barrels, of oil have spilled near the small town of Amherst, S.D.

The cause of the leak is under investigation, according to the company's website. TransCanada crews detected a drop in pressure at about 6 a.m. CT Thursday morning and shut down the pipeline, which runs from Hardesty, Alberta, to Cushing, Okla., and Wood River/Patoka, Ill.

Amherst is about 200 miles north of Sioux Falls, S.D., and about 25 miles from the state's border with North Dakota.

The conduit is not the controversial and long-delayed Keystone XL Pipeline that TransCanada is still shepherding through the approval process.

But as NPR's Jeff Brady reports, the spill comes at a sensitive time for TransCanada.

"Regulators in the neighboring state of Nebraska are expected to announce a decision on the company's proposed Keystone XL pipeline next week. The project and its route through Nebraska have been controversial. Some landowners are concerned about how an oil spill might harm their property and water supplies."

The spill does nothing to enhance prospects for the XL Pipeline, which critics argue should not be allowed to operate.

"TransCanada cannot be trusted," said Jane Kleeb, head of the Nebraska Democratic Party and a longtime activist opposed to Keystone XL, as quoted by the Washington Post.

"I have full confidence that the Nebraska Public Service Commission is going to side with Nebraskans, not a foreign oil company," she added.

Brian Walsh, an environmental scientist manager at the South Dakota Department of Environment and Natural Resources, said the company was aware of the spill at about 5:30 a.m. CT. But his agency wasn't alerted until about 10:30 a.m. CT.

"There is a time lag there and I expect that that will be some of the questions we need to answer over the coming months," he told Jeff.

In its statement, TransCanada said, "The section of pipe along a right-of-way approximately 35 miles (56 kilometres) south of the Ludden pump station in Marshall County, South Dakota was completely isolated with 15 minutes and emergency procedures were activated."

The spill occurred about 3 miles southeast of Amherst on private land, which Walsh described as a "flat, grassy area for grazing." The company tweeted a picture of the site late Thursday.

The company says that it is providing state and federal regulators "with accurate and confirmed information on an ongoing basis."

If only this tragedy could have been foreseen in some way...
---

ugh

now gas is gonna go up again
---

helIy posted...

ugh

now gas is gonna go up again

At the gas station:

1. "an oil spill this morning! immediately raise the price!"
2. "world oil prices are plummeting, but what's in the tanks was paid for prior to that. Keep prices high!"

The moral of the story basically is that people suck and I can't wait for the machines, Cthulhu, or whatever to destroy us and just let things go in a new direction.
---

What are the chances someone sabotaged the pipeline

Ultima_Dragoon posted...

What are the chances someone sabotaged the pipeline

Look for a guy who happened to invest suspiciously shortly beforehand...

My dad was on a joint task force 17~ years ago that had to prevent a domestic terror plot along those lines, but it was a liquefied natural gas pipeline. Funny story: the criminal kept appealing it until after 9/11, then the rules were changed and his sentencing ended up being based on post-9/11 legislation instead of what existed prior. He's locked up forever as a result, but would have probably been free by now if he hadn't dragged things out with years of appeals (I don't know all the details, other than that an extradition was involved).
---

All that beer, lost forever
---

TheCyborgNinja posted...

a domestic terror plot along those lines, but it was a liquefied natural gas pipeline.

Wow, your dad stopped Scarecrow

Ultima_Dragoon posted...

TheCyborgNinja posted...

a domestic terror plot along those lines, but it was a liquefied natural gas pipeline.

Wow, your dad stopped Scarecrow

He does vaguely resemble Gary Oldman as Commissioner Gordon these days :P
---

I'm just thankful the spill occured near the small town of a bunch of the dimwits who probably support the pipelines and not around Native American lands. Karma-riffic! Still bad for the environment though :(

WhiskeyDisk posted...

If only this tragedy could have been foreseen in some way...

I'm sure this fuck up will cause the Republicans who control all branches of federal government to seriously reconsider the Keystone XL pipe....

...hahaha, I can't even finish that sentence without laughing!

WhiskeyDisk posted...

If only this tragedy could have been foreseen in some way...

The problem with that idea is the alternative is taking it by trucks and trains which *frequently* have problems.

TheCyborgNinja posted...

helIy posted...

ugh

now gas is gonna go up again

At the gas station:

1. "an oil spill this morning! immediately raise the price!"
2. "world oil prices are plummeting, but what's in the tanks was paid for prior to that. Keep prices high!"

The moral of the story basically is that people suck and I can't wait for the machines, Cthulhu, or whatever to destroy us and just let things go in a new direction.

Gas station owners are the worst, but they do nonsense like that to hedge for inevitable drops.

Ultima_Dragoon posted...

What are the chances someone sabotaged the pipeline

Possible, given the eco-terrorists.

streamofthesky posted...

I'm just thankful the spill occured near the small town of a bunch of the dimwits who probably support the pipelines and not around Native American lands. Karma-riffic! Still bad for the environment though :(

Given the principle of NIMBY, your assumption is idiotic.
---

National Propaganda Radio
---

Zeus posted...

streamofthesky posted...

I'm just thankful the spill occured near the small town of a bunch of the dimwits who probably support the pipelines and not around Native American lands. Karma-riffic! Still bad for the environment though :(

Given the principle of NIMBY, your assumption is idiotic.

Given that it's a rural area of a deeply red state and Republican voters have a demonstrated propensity to ignore their own self-interest and vote Republican anyway, your comment is idiotic.

streamofthesky posted...

Zeus posted...

streamofthesky posted...

I'm just thankful the spill occured near the small town of a bunch of the dimwits who probably support the pipelines and not around Native American lands. Karma-riffic! Still bad for the environment though :(

Given the principle of NIMBY, your assumption is idiotic.

Given that it's a rural area of a deeply red state and Republican voters have a demonstrated propensity to ignore their own self-interest and vote Republican anyway, your comment is idiotic.

You don't seem to understand how NIMBY works.
---

streamofthesky posted...

Republican voters have a demonstrated propensity to ignore their own self-interest and vote Republican anyway

Do Democrats actually believe this bullshit?
---

Zeus posted...

streamofthesky posted...

Zeus posted...

streamofthesky posted...

I'm just thankful the spill occured near the small town of a bunch of the dimwits who probably support the pipelines and not around Native American lands. Karma-riffic! Still bad for the environment though :(

Given the principle of NIMBY, your assumption is idiotic.

Given that it's a rural area of a deeply red state and Republican voters have a demonstrated propensity to ignore their own self-interest and vote Republican anyway, your comment is idiotic.

You don't seem to understand how NIMBY works.

You don't seem to understand how karma works.
One party is firmly pro-Keystone XL and one is not. The people living there vote for politicians who want to force Keystone XL pipeline on people who don't want it there, including Native Americans on their own land (still don't know how the U.S. government can even do that...), and then got an oil spill from another pipeline in their own back yard.
That's textbook karma.

Rasmoh posted...

streamofthesky posted...

Republican voters have a demonstrated propensity to ignore their own self-interest and vote Republican anyway

Do Democrats actually believe this bullshit?

1. It's not bull shit
2. Ask a democrat

They knew leaks and spills were inevitable, they even stated as much and said they were going forward anyways. Shaming them doesn't work. All they care about is the bottom line so that is where people should focus. Threaten their pocketbooks if you want change.
---

streamofthesky posted...

1. It's not bull shit

It absolutely is though. Voting democrat would truly be voting against one's own interests in about every sense. Unless your interests include being dependent on the state for handouts, I suppose.
---

Rasmoh posted...

It absolutely is though. Voting democrat would truly be voting against one's own interests in about every sense.

Do Republicans actually believe this bullshit?

See how that works buddy?

BowToKingBowser posted...

Do Republicans actually believe this bullshit?

It's much more reasonable to believe. I'd wager it's hardly in the best interest of the average American citizen to import millions of foreigners to come suppress wages, increase crime, shit on our traditions while proudly championing the traditions of the country they're fleeing from, and further overburden every social assistance program there is.

I don't think trading promises of increased entitlements in exchange for votes is in the best interest of your average working citizen either.

Definitely don't think the party that constantly tries to remove one's means of defending themselves is really in the best interest of anyone who wants to defend themselves from those who wish to harm them either.

Democrat policies typically are only in your best interest if your skillset tops out at getting a Big Mac ready in under 2 minutes and you think the State is a should be your parent.
---

Rasmoh posted...

It's much more reasonable to believe. I'd wager it's hardly in the best interest of the average American citizen to import millions of foreigners to come suppress wages, increase crime, shit on our traditions while proudly championing the traditions of the country they're fleeing from, and further overburden every social assistance program there is.

I don't think trading promises of increased entitlements in exchange for votes is in the best interest of your average working citizen either.

Definitely don't think the party that constantly tries to remove one's means of defending themselves is really in the best interest of anyone who wants to defend themselves from those who wish to harm them either.

Democrat policies typically are only in your best interest if your skillset tops out at getting a Big Mac ready in under 2 minutes and you think the State is a should be your parent.

BowToKingBowser posted...

Do Republicans actually believe this bullshit?

BowToKingBowser posted...

Do Republicans actually believe this bullshit?

That response doesn't work when the Democrat platform relies largely on promises of handouts, promises of amnesty, and promises of relaxing immigration laws. Sprinkle in promises of gun removal, faux equality, and forced diversity and you have the Democrat party in a nutshell.
---

Rasmoh posted...

That response doesn't work when the Democrat platform relies largely on promises of handouts, promises of amnesty, and promises of relaxing immigration laws. Sprinkle in promises of gun removal, faux equality, and forced diversity and you have the Democrat party in a nutshell.

BowToKingBowser posted...

Do Republicans actually believe this bullshit?

I see a lot of Democrat and Republican up there.

Fact of the matter is that they're just two competing companies with a couple monopolies they agree upon. The Republican party holds a fundamentalist faith in corporations, talks a lot of hot air backed up with no real evidence, and the DNC will do as much talking the talk as they can before they walk the walk.

Ever notice that whenever Republicans and Democratic politicians agree, it just amplifies their horribleness? How many wars are we in? How popular are those wars with the American people? Are they legal in any way whatsoever? Is there any real reason behind them? How many people die in those wars? How often do you hear about those wars on the news? MSNBC? Fox? John Oliver? Trump's misplaced asshole?

Well, at the very least the DNC lubes us up first on occasion, which is why I typically go with them given no other choice. They don't actively hate the environment.
---

Ultima_Dragoon posted...

What are the chances someone sabotaged the pipeline

Unlikely. Sabotage is extremely rare in North America and a buried line is a difficult target. Most of the time deliberate damage occurs, it's at aboveground sites like pump stations or, less commonly, valve sites.

This was, I believe, a recently installed line, so significant corrosion damage is also unlikely, as are weld flaws and cracking. The most likely causes at this point are a line strike or operator error.

TheCyborgNinja posted...

Funny story: the criminal kept appealing it until after 9/11, then the rules were changed and his sentencing ended up being based on post-9/11 legislation instead of what existed prior.

That... sounds wrong. In almost all cases if someone is charged for an action and laws subsequently changed, they cannot be charged under the specifics of the new law, for what should hopefully be obvious reasons.

Zeus posted...

Possible, given the eco-terrorists.

You really don't actually know much about pipeline spills, do you?

As I mentioned above, deliberate sabotage of below-ground assets is almost unheard of in North America. Moreover, think about what you just suggested for a second: eco-terrorists strike back at an oil company... by causing a significant ecological disaster that TransCanada's insurance will pay for. Because that makes sense.

On the (rare) times that eco-groups go for pipelines, it's frequently construction sites or aboveground facilities that they target, not a buried pipeline in the middle of a field (which they would need to locate by survey and excavate first, because it would have been buried at least one metre underground).

streamofthesky posted...

(still don't know how the U.S. government can even do that...)

Eminent domain, which is far from unique to the US government. If a work is deemed to be in the public interest and requires the use of privately-owned land, the government can seize the land either temporarily or permanently in order to facilitate construction. Notably the government must first attempt to negotiate with the landowner in good faith and, if no agreement can be reached, fair compensation must be offered. It's used fairly regularly in pipeline construction, since there's always at least a few landowners on the right-of-way that refuse to voluntarily allow construction.

Rasmoh posted...

Voting democrat would truly be voting against one's own interests in about every sense.

Over the last 75 years, the debt-to-GDP ratio decreased under every single Democrat president except for Roosevelt and Obama, who have the excuses of having to pay for WW2 and the 2009 financial crisis respectively. By contrast, the last Republican president to reduce the debt-to-GDP ratio over their term was Nixon. Bush Jr. was responsible for the single largest jump in debt-to-GDP ratio of any president since WW2.

Rasmoh posted...

I'd wager it's hardly in the best interest of the average American citizen to import millions of foreigners to come suppress wages, increase crime, shit on our traditions while proudly championing the traditions of the country they're fleeing from, and further overburden every social assistance program there is.

1) There is no data suggesting immigrants suppress wages
2) Immigrants - especially legal immigrants - are statistically less likely than native-born Americans to commit crime
3) A disproportionate majority of social assistance recipients are native-born whites
4) Most immigrants aren't "fleeing" any country - you're thinking of refugees
---

Rasmoh posted...

Definitely don't think the party that constantly tries to remove one's means of defending themselves is really in the best interest of anyone who wants to defend themselves from those who wish to harm them either.

The United States, which has more personal gun ownership than any country in the world, also has - by far - the highest murder rate of any first world country. The American murder rate of 4.9 per 100,000 is comparable to Rwanda (4.5), Niger (4.5), Somalia (5.6) and Kenya (5.8). By contrast, all of the US's first world peers have murder rates below 1.6 per 100,000, with the US rate three-to-twenty times higher, depending on the country.

This is without touching on the issue of suicide, either. Statistically speaking, the most likely victim of a gun is its owner, followed by their family members.

If gun ownership is supposed to protect the lives of the citizens, it's doing a really shitty job.

Rasmoh posted...

I don't think trading promises of increased entitlements in exchange for votes is in the best interest of your average working citizen either.

It's hard to reply to a statement this broad, but many entitlements actually reduce the cost paid by society, particularly in the form of law enforcement and health care. Countries with universal health care, for instance, actually pay less per capita than the US does.

So yeah... basically, the numbers say you're wrong on pretty much all counts.
---

darkknight109 posted...

streamofthesky posted...

(still don't know how the U.S. government can even do that...)

Eminent domain, which is far from unique to the US government. If a work is deemed to be in the public interest and requires the use of privately-owned land, the government can seize the land either temporarily or permanently in order to facilitate construction. Notably the government must first attempt to negotiate with the landowner in good faith and, if no agreement can be reached, fair compensation must be offered. It's used fairly regularly in pipeline construction, since there's always at least a few landowners on the right-of-way that refuse to voluntarily allow construction.

I know about eminent domain.
I meant, specifically in the case of Native American lands. That should be the one exception where the U.S. does not actually own the land...
Even if the government does somehow still own it, you'd think the U.S. government trying to forcibly take away their land would be a political non-starter by now.

They'll need to hire some folks to clean up this mess, Trump bringing even more jobs now

How many rolls of paper towels do we throw at this?
---

TheCyborgNinja posted...

Ultima_Dragoon posted...

What are the chances someone sabotaged the pipeline

Look for a guy who happened to invest suspiciously shortly beforehand...

My dad was on a joint task force 17~ years ago that had to prevent a domestic terror plot along those lines, but it was a liquefied natural gas pipeline. Funny story: the criminal kept appealing it until after 9/11, then the rules were changed and his sentencing ended up being based on post-9/11 legislation instead of what existed prior. He's locked up forever as a result, but would have probably been free by now if he hadn't dragged things out with years of appeals (I don't know all the details, other than that an extradition was involved).

This story is a lie, please do not repeat it. The legal system is setup in such a way that, if you are charged with a crime, you will be tried according to the laws at that time. The person in this story would not have been tried with post-9/11 terrorism charges if the incident occurred in the 1990s.

streamofthesky posted...

Zeus posted...

streamofthesky posted...

Zeus posted...

streamofthesky posted...

I'm just thankful the spill occured near the small town of a bunch of the dimwits who probably support the pipelines and not around Native American lands. Karma-riffic! Still bad for the environment though :(

Given the principle of NIMBY, your assumption is idiotic.

Given that it's a rural area of a deeply red state and Republican voters have a demonstrated propensity to ignore their own self-interest and vote Republican anyway, your comment is idiotic.

You don't seem to understand how NIMBY works.

You don't seem to understand how karma works.
One party is firmly pro-Keystone XL and one is not. The people living there vote for politicians who want to force Keystone XL pipeline on people who don't want it there, including Native Americans on their own land (still don't know how the U.S. government can even do that...), and then got an oil spill from another pipeline in their own back yard.
That's textbook karma.

Karma only comes up after you are dead and are eligible for re-incarnation. Clearly, you do not seem to understand how karma works.

darkknight109 posted...

If gun ownership is supposed to protect the lives of the citizens, it's doing a really shitty job.

If you ignore the some 68k or so cases of self-defense with a gun every year and assume that every person who commits suicide by gun won't do it in any other way, sure.
---

Smarkil posted...

darkknight109 posted...

If gun ownership is supposed to protect the lives of the citizens, it's doing a really shitty job.

If you ignore the some 68k or so cases of self-defense with a gun every year and assume that every person who commits suicide by gun won't do it in any other way, sure.

To the first, guns are used far more often to facilitate crime than to prevent it; 6-8x more frequently, in fact. Again, if the goal is to reduce crime and protect the citizenry, guns are doing a really shitty job because they're causing much more harm than they're preventing.

To the second, while suicide is never completely preventable, it is quite often a spur-of-the-moment decision and the absence of an immediate method of committing suicide is often enough to deter someone from the attempt. This, again, is reflected in the US suicide rate. The US has a relatively high suicide rate (50th worldwide), particularly compared to culturally similar countries, and guns are frequently cited as an aggravating factor.
---

the conservatives are the ones who whine about "snow flakes," yet it's always from their side I get a "my feelings were hurt" moderation, lol

streamofthesky posted...

Zeus posted...

streamofthesky posted...

Zeus posted...

streamofthesky posted...

I'm just thankful the spill occured near the small town of a bunch of the dimwits who probably support the pipelines and not around Native American lands. Karma-riffic! Still bad for the environment though :(

Given the principle of NIMBY, your assumption is idiotic.

Given that it's a rural area of a deeply red state and Republican voters have a demonstrated propensity to ignore their own self-interest and vote Republican anyway, your comment is idiotic.

You don't seem to understand how NIMBY works.

You don't seem to understand how karma works.
One party is firmly pro-Keystone XL and one is not. The people living there vote for politicians who want to force Keystone XL pipeline on people who don't want it there, including Native Americans on their own land (still don't know how the U.S. government can even do that...), and then got an oil spill from another pipeline in their own back yard.
That's textbook karma.

And you don't seem to understand that the existing transport methods are generally worse in terms of safety.

Rasmoh posted...

streamofthesky posted...

Republican voters have a demonstrated propensity to ignore their own self-interest and vote Republican anyway

Do Democrats actually believe this bullshit?

tbh, a lot of Democrats don't really understand peoples' interests and parrot this as a talking point. It's partisan nonsense, you find it on both sides.
---

darkknight109 posted...

As I mentioned above, deliberate sabotage of below-ground assets is almost unheard of in North America. Moreover, think about what you just suggested for a second: eco-terrorists strike back at an oil company... by causing a significant ecological disaster that TransCanada's insurance will pay for. Because that makes sense.

I don't think you understand how zealotry works and the general notion of the ends justifying the means. Terrorists can justify short-time harm under the auspice that it will stop long-term harm, thus making it alright.

darkknight109 posted...

Over the last 75 years, the debt-to-GDP ratio decreased under every single Democrat president except for Roosevelt and Obama, who have the excuses of having to pay for WW2 and the 2009 financial crisis respectively. By contrast, the last Republican president to reduce the debt-to-GDP ratio over their term was Nixon. Bush Jr. was responsible for the single largest jump in debt-to-GDP ratio of any president since WW2.

It's fun to look at one metric and boil down all of politics to suggest it's the only metric that matters, isn't it? It allows you to overlook overlook all the other direct and indirect harms to the American people.
---

Zeus posted...

I don't think you understand how zealotry works and the general notion of the ends justifying the means. Terrorists can justify short-time harm under the auspice that it will stop long-term harm, thus making it alright.

Except in this case they would be causing an easily-repaired leak (since the actual line pipe is - barring unique situations like cased crossings, crowded pipeline corridors, or HDD bored pipes under waterbodies - the easiest and cheapest part of a pipeline to repair, compared to something like a facility or valve site) in exchange for a not insignificant environmental impact. Knocking out a pump station would be far easier (since there's no need to locate and excavate an underground line, which most eco-terrorists would not have the equipment to easily do, and taking out a pump station just requires some explosives or heavy machinery), the environmental impacts would be much lower, and the cost and down-time for the operator would be significantly higher.

Zeus posted...

It's fun to look at one metric and boil down all of politics to suggest it's the only metric that matters, isn't it? It allows you to overlook overlook all the other direct and indirect harms to the American people.

You claimed that voting democrat was voting against people's interest (an odd assertion for a self-proclaimed "left-leaning centrist", but let's roll with it) - I provided an example of why voting democrat has a better track record for national prosperity. Notably, that's one more example than what you have provided in this topic.

If you want people to take your talking points seriously, try backing them up with some actual arguments.
---