Don’t you hate protesters protesting a pipeline that’s going to be placed where one already exists?

Go read North Dakota’s SayAnythingBlog and Rob Port’s outstanding story on the pipeline protest taking place over the Dakota Access pipeline, and how it is being installed along a route that already has a pipeline in it. 

Kind of takes the wind out of protester’s sails, doesn’t it?

56 thoughts on “Don’t you hate protesters protesting a pipeline that’s going to be placed where one already exists?

  1. Spencer

    The most annoying thing about all of this is that the pipeline is already in the ground across most of our area, and they decide NOW to oppose this.

  2. Springer

    I guess the present pipeline was laid before the land became sacred or a cemetery? If they didn’t mind the first one, what’s the big deal about this one, other than that they have gotten riled up by the environmental (I could say wackos, but I will be kind and just say people).

  3. Porter Lansing

    That’s simply a false equivalency. Because no organized protest happened before and the history and frequency of pipeline leaks is better known now, asserting that a current protest is somehow other than pertinent is why it’s a false equivalency. Can’t you (Powers, Spencer and Springer) set your egos aside for even a second? You invent enemies and engage in an unhealthy need to compete just to assuage your self esteem, collectively.

  4. Charlie Hoffman

    The irony here is having a group of people who happily took millions from the oil royalties on their land being inspired by Left Coast activists to protest the expedited selling/shipping of same oil using fictitious strategies.

  5. Lee Schoenbeck

    Porter, ok, I’ll play. Your moral high ground is that people now know about the “frequency of pipeline leaks”. Share with us the “frequency of pipeline leaks” information, versus frequency of death and damage via the alternative, tanker and railroad accidents. I’ve not seen your epiphany information.
    Anecdotally, I think pipeline leaks are solved by remediation at little cost to taxpayers and no loss of human life and virtually no property damage. I don’t think you would say the same about the anecdotes of the alternative that have made the news.
    So, just the facts jack, let’s play

  6. Porter Lansing

    You sound very demanding, Schoenbeck. Isn’t it hard to dance with that stick up your ass? If you want to play, ask nice.

    1. District 3 Democrats Against Electing Cory Heidelberger

      Porter Lansing he is simply asking for facts to back up your argument in a comparison of the two modes of transportation for crude. Please provide them so we all can see rather than throwing insults.

  7. District 3 Democrats Against Electing Cory Heidelberger

    Because there are many of us and the numbers are growing in opposition to a particular candidate in our district. Yes! I am in the Hub City, born and raised here and went to Northern and am very concerned about who will be representing us in Pierre.

    Back on topic as to a variety of facts and sources to back up your argument? It is always good to see if there is new information one might not previously considered.

  8. Troy Jones

    Here is what Porter’s article doesn’t tell us.

    Crude oil by rail in 2014: 357 million barrels
    Crude oil by pipeline in 2014: 8.3 billion barrels

    In other words, pipeline transports 23 times that of rail.

    From Porter’s article: “According to the same PHMSA dataset, compiled and analysed by the International Energy Agency, U.S. pipelines spilled three times as much crude oil as trains over that eight-year period, even though incidents happened much less frequently.”

    For the math impaired, rail spills 7.67 times more (23 divided by 3) on a per barrel basis.

    There may be arguments to stop a crude oil pipeline but not only is “safety” a fallacious argument, all other arguments against pipelines must overcome the relative safety risks of rail.

  9. Porter Lansing

    @Shchoenbeck and your boy,Troy. I’m gonna have to put you fellas on hold, but I WILL get back to ‘ya. There’s an NFL game here today and that requires some Super preparation. Talk amongst yourselves, if business is slow.

  10. Troy Jones

    Porter, really? Before you deflect and assert the pipeline isn’t needed, You stand on the stat more barrels spill from pipelines without regard to the huge difference in oil transported in pipelines and by rail?

    If I said there were less fatalities by people on motorcycles than cars, would I be correct to then assert motorcycles are safer than cars?

    Well, did you know more people died in swimming pools than swimming in alligator infested waters? So are swimming pools more dangerous than alligator infested waters?

    I could go on and on but the point you are ignoring is “relative risk” which is a math concept first introduced in 7th grade math, expanded upon in later algebra classes, all in high school. It’s not rocket science. In fact, it is common sense. Most kids figured it out when they stopped climbing before getting to the top of the tree. The higher they went, the more dangerous it was, either from the fall or if seen by their mother.

  11. Porter Lansing

    Really, Jones. And it’s appropriate that you’ve used false equivalencies to prop up a failed assertion, since that’s where the thread began. But then, you’re a venture capitalist (in the vein of Mitt Romney and Ebenezer Scrooge) and your explanations show a high degree of bias with little regard for human implication. Yes, sir. More oil is moved through pipelines but that’s not why they’re more leaky. They leak because the process of welding pipes together and burying them, out of visual inspection is highly flawed and outdated and presents a higher “relative risk” then any other method. But venture capitalists deal with profitability of a project and routinely dismiss public safety, if they can hide from prosecution long enough to make invalid explanations attempting to deny culpability and guilt. You’re beyond the scope of learning and jaded by money. Now, that’s how “ad hominem” is properly used to frame an argument, old man! All the best to you. Hope you thrive.

  12. Troy Jones

    Porter, you aren’t very good at deflecting and your reliance on petty personal attacks only highlights the weakness of your arguments.

    It has nothing to do with your impugning the skill and integrity of the welders and pipe fitters doing their job or why they rarely leak. It has nothing to do with profit (either Buffets railroad or Keystone investors). It is just simple math: Transporting a barrel of oil by rail is 7.67 times more likely to be spilled than if transported by pipeline.

    P.S. You are more likely to die swimming in alligator infested waters than a swimming in a pool, driving across the country on a motorcycle than a car even though the aggregate deaths in pools and cars is higher.

  13. Lee Schoenbeck

    I don’t know Porter, but I’m pretty sure he’s not real good at math. Think about it, even with his shoes off – its tough to get past 20

  14. Troy Jones

    Porter,

    What is really funny is how you just bought what was in that article as a persuasive argument that rail is safer. Wasn’t there even the slightest curiosity in the back of your head to ask yourself one simple question:

    If rail is safer, why doesn’t the rail industry claim it?

  15. Porter Lansing

    And you, Troy Jones charge people to invest their money with the limited understanding you have of business? Schoenbeck is an attorney so that’s his excuse.
    If 95% less oil was running through the pipeline than was being shipped by rail it would still leak just as much. That’s because it has a hole in it and the oil leeches into Earth. It has nothing to do with pipeline volume vs train volume. There’s a hole in the pipe and you can’t see it until pils leaked out. That makes pipelines much more dangerous to the ecosystem than trains, which need track repair if there’s any oil left to haul.

    1. District 3 Democrats Against Electing Cory Heidelberger

      Porter Lansing wouldn’t volume vs spill incidents count as far as the equation?

      Volume cost to transport passed onto consumers?

      Would you propose we shut down and dig up all domestic petroleum pipelines and transfer it to rail and barge traffic?

      Our economy is based on fossil fuels like it or not. We take it for granted just how many products we use every day besides transportation are derived from Petroleum.

      1. Porter Lansing

        Not in a pressurized pipeline. It’s hydraulic principle, something I invoked every day working on oil rigs in Gillette. Cost of oil is fungible. It’s controlled by worldwide supply with little effect to consumers through transportation. The profits from endangering the environment go to the greedy investors and aren’t passed on in lower prices to us.
        I would not propose that, as pipelines are getting old and obsolete fast enough. Replacing them with new ones is a mistake.
        Our economy is based on many factors and not dependent on fossil energy. e.g. Peabody Energy (The largest coal ownership group, owned by the Koch Brothers, just went belly up, owing CO many millions we’ll never see.) I don’t take it for granted. Do you? I know the Native Americans at Red Warrior Camp don’t take the threat of oil fouling the water for granted.

    1. Springer

      Porter, assuming you have a driver’s license and drive a car, just what is fueling that? Moonshine?

        1. Springer

          Take it however you want. You evidently have no time for the “black poison” so unless you are hypocritical, you must not use it, right? Or maybe you ride a bike or walk or ride a horse; honestly, I don’t care. But if you are using gasoline, which is made from the “black poison,” it doesn’t magically appear in the gas pumps at your local station.

          1. Porter Lansing

            If you don’t care then keep it to yourself. If you do care about my transportation methods don’t extrapolate your own biases into my situation.

  16. Porter Lansing

    Just because you guys are overpowered, I’ll conclude. Pipelines spill three times as much oil as however many train loads of oil are in motion at any one time. Pipeline spills are many times more dangerous to the environment than train crash spills. The only benefit to pipelines, and the reason creditors loaned Dakota Access over $4 billion to build this little spur was because even though it presents a much higher danger to the ecosystem, it’s cheaper and the land be damned. Money trumps the Earth. Money trumps the Indians water supply and money means more than “We The People”. But not anymore. How’d that Keystone XL pay off for the investors?

  17. Lee Schoenbeck

    First, Bow tie Guy, while you probably don’t realize it, you’re just a pawn for that guy with the Bucks that owns the railroad.

    Second, you have an amazing ability to ignore facts and logic, and resort to what I suspect your little mind views as intellectual repertoire .

    I had this epiphany about you as I was driving to lunch in my 170,000 mile pickup with a cracked windshield, thinking about how some dweeb in a bow tie just called me an “elitist”. So here’s the deal you little dweeb, this is the last time ever I’ll respond to one of your intellectual lightweight diatribes. I’m pretty sure today you got outed for the faux intellectual you pretend to be. Get a job, get a life, learn to think – a mind is a terrible thing to waste.
    From the Mechanic’s Son, and proud of it

    1. District 3 Democrats Against Electing Cory Heidelberger

      It seems that very reasonable questions have been asked of Porter Lansing to make a good argument and back up his stance with a variety of sources and facts but he responds with the bare minimum and insults. One must really make an effort to sell their ideas and have something to back them up and not “Blow Smoke”

      Porter Lansing’s behavior is not too far from the local District 3 candidate who visited our neighborhood and angered some of our very easy going neighbors a few of which are Democrats. That candidate told us he knew what was best for us when he goes to Pierre. Oh really! Just who does this guy think he is? When we challenged with a few in depth questions him all the sudden he did not have time and we sent him on his way.

      I’d love to see an environmentally safe and economical substitute for oil in the volume that is needed to produce all the products we use from tooth brushes, our clothing, vinyl siding and more besides what we use for transportation but it will be a while before that happens.

      Porter Lansing appears to be in the Heidelberger wing of the South Dakota Democratic Party.

      1. Porter Lansing

        Another false equivalency to cover up the results of the discussion. Pipelines are highly dangerous to the environment. The Texans from Dakota Access owe their bankers $4 billion bucks and that’s clouded any commitment the owe the public to environmental safety. Native Americans are standing up to the intrusion on their lives. And you, ma’am seem to have an unhealthy projection of your fears onto a political candidate who might have just made you think a little.

    2. Porter Lansing

      Little Dweeb? Be careful. Lots of Webster girls used to meet us Watertown boys at the Blue Dog Inn. I could be your daddy, Leo.

    1. Annon

      I don’t remember, but it must have been bad. After mine I couldn’t even walk for almost a year. Still more useful than Porter, but…

  18. Porter Lansing

    Sorry, counselor. Mr. Powers has requested I not respond in kind to personal taunts, threats and insults.

  19. Troy Jones

    Porter,

    The facts remain:

    1) A barrel of oil is over 7 times more likely to be spilled into the environment if transported by rail vs. a pipeline.

    2) The rail industry doesn’t assert it is an environmentally safer mode of transportation because they know it isn’t true.

    All your other deflection doesn’t change those facts.

    1. Porter Lansing

      The facts are (and you’re doing the deflection) that pipeline spills are three times larger than train crash spills and take many years longer to clean up because pipeline spills aren’t visible until much oil has escaped and migrated to the surface. Train crash spills are addressed before the oil has sunk in very far.
      ~ Both transportation methods are dangerous to the environment. Neither one claims safety and your assertion that because one doesn’t they’re hiding something has no merit in fact.

  20. Troy Jones

    Porter,

    In 2010, 4,200 motorcyclists died and 33,000 people in cars.

    Thus, do you believe motorcycles are safer than cars since 8x more died in cars or is it relevant to consider miles driven in each?

  21. Porter Lansing

    Mr. Jones … That example is a false equivalency. A pipeline spill is typically three times bigger than a rail car spill and takes many years longer to clean up.
    – In your comparison a death by motorcycle is equal in numbers to a death by car but in our model an oil spill by train accident isn’t equal in harm to an oil spill from a pipeline. A pipeline spill is much more dangerous to the environment because it’s larger and it’s much harder to clean up. Transportation deaths are apples and oil spills are oranges. Your attempt to conflate them shows your deception and attempt to lie to the readers.

  22. Porter Lansing

    You’ve had long enough to convince me, Jones. And I have an open mind on the issue. I’m bored and it’s your presentation that’s made it happen.

    1. Charlie Hoffman

      Porter you know my line was damn funny and you should have jested back “ouch”. I don’t know you from Adam but my relationship with Schoenbeck goes back over 40 years and I would take a bullet for him.
      Nuff said.

  23. mhs

    Despite this ongoing factoid duel about pipeline safety, yesterday’s action by the Administration halting pipeline construction on federal lands should be terrifying to both the Left and the Right. After years of following the prescribed process of federal law, laws of 4 states, the appeal process and federal court decision, the Executive branch simply decrees that it’s changed its mind because some people are unhappy?

    The rule of law is under assault. Concepts of res judicata, stare decisis and not to mention “elections have consequences” seem to be under assault by everyone with an axe to grind. Whether it’s House Republicans, the White House, Trump or the PGA, no decision is deemed final by anyone.

    Porter: what would this nation be like if the Eisenhower administration had decided to simply ignore Brown v. Board of Education or had Nixon refused to enforce the Civil Rights act?

    My Conservative Brethren: how about if the IRS decides unilaterally to roll back Reagan’s tax reforms and re-institute the top marginal tax rates of the 70’s?

    Nobody who reads this blog, left or right, wants faceless bureaucrats to make the decisions we govern ourselves by. We’re racing down the path that’s been blazed by the failing EU before us.

  24. Troy

    MHS,

    Exactly. Nobody know anymore how to play by the rules because it seems the only thing that matters is who is yelling the loudest.

  25. Springer

    Obama took an oath to uphold the Constitution and to uphold the rule of law, and he has turned his back on both. Most of the populace doesn’t even realize this as the MSM covers for him, and most don’t pay any attention to the news anyway. But it depends how high you are on the political/power ladder if you get to ignore the law. If any of us lowly people tried it, we would be fined or jailed. This is a dangerous path for the future of this nation. But I do lay most of this right at Obama’s feet in the last eight years.