Delay Tactics by DRA and other liberal groups only seek to deny projects, Not protect environment.

@SoDakCampaigns

Didn’t I read somewhere that the Keystone XL project application just turned seven or something like that? Well, here we go again with more stalling tactics designed to make energy production more expensive in the country. Except this time, it’s the Dakota Access pipeline.

It’s as if they want to drag energy production to a standstill in the United States.

As state utility agencies begin holding hearings to look at the application of the Dakota Access Pipeline, it seems we have the same types of opposing groups that ground Keystone to a standstill that have resorted to even more stalling and delaying the process of reviewing the application.

Not more than two hours before South Dakota’s Public Utilities Commission began its hearing last week, our far left liberal friends at Dakota Rural Action and others filed a request for a third party environmental impact statement to be conducted before any decision was made.

Luckily in South Dakota, the timing of the request was described by PUC Chairman Chris Nelson as completely “out of line.” And a similar request filed by the Sierra Club was rejected by the Iowa Utilities Board days earlier this week with the Board stating that the “existing agency process has been sufficient to address environmental issues.” The D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals recently dismissed another Sierra Club petition for a separate project on similar grounds.

There are good reasons to allow the review process to be conducted by state utility agencies rather than third parties. State agencies like the PUC already require environmental reviews with significant public input. Companies proposing to build projects like the Dakota Access Pipeline conduct environmental and civil surveys, identify sensitive areas to avoid, prepare mitigation and restoration plans (and so on and so on), in consultation with state and local officials.

Second, an additional third party review would only seek to delay vital energy projects, without resolving anything. Last minute requests designed to delay decisions is not in the spirit of environmental protection but rather a perfect example of tactics employed to deny projects that do not align with a group’s intended purpose.

It is hard to imagine that Dakota Rural Action, which started a campaign called No Access, or a coalition called Bakken Pipeline Resistance would accept any conclusion other than the one they have been advocating for. A report attesting to the safe operation of a project such as Dakota Access would no doubt be rejected by these groups.

The simple fact remains that the Dakota Access Pipeline has the potential to make American energy significantly more competitive. It’s the simple law of supply and demand. More supply means cheaper prices.

By shaving off anywhere between $5 and $10 per barrel off transport costs, American manufacturers will be better able to fight against foreign oil prices set by regimes that are not exactly friendly to the United States. Whether these opposition groups acknowledge it or not, pushing for duplicative environmental reviews, which they are sure to reject if they do not go their way, does nothing more than hurt the American economy, hobble our domestic energy sector, and encourage dependence on foreign oil.

53 thoughts on “Delay Tactics by DRA and other liberal groups only seek to deny projects, Not protect environment.”

  1. The completion of this pipeline that will carry domestic light sweet crude to Illinois will have a bigger impact as soon as Congress allows for export of American oil. We are inching closer to becoming an oil exporter rather than an importer.

    Domestically produced product domestically refined = energy independence.

  2. Funny how the environmentalists are advocating against a pipeline when the current form of transportation being used is by rail which burns diesel fuel. Shouldn’t they want a transportation method that creates less emissions?

    Pipelines are cleaner, safer and have less impact on the environment. True environmentalists should advocate for more pipelines, not less.

    1. Pretty sure “true environmentalists” are advocating for clean renewable energy instead of pipelines or other methods of transporting fossil fuels.

            1. You’re an idiot. Yeah, I’m fully aware of the “studies” you’ve no doubt taken as gospel, but when 99.999999% of geologists have thoroughly debunked them, I think I’ll go with consensus. You go ahead and cling to stupid. It suits you.

              1. “Yeah, I’m fully aware of the “studies” you’ve no doubt taken as gospel,”

                Actually, you are not aware of them, but never let reality interfere with your fantasy.

              2. ““Radioactive waste material from fusion reactions are literally 100’s of times less than that of fission reactions. Their half-life can be measured in decades rather than centuries.””

                Can’t really show that you’re aware of much of anything in the scientific world after that claim!

                  1. So, fusion may/will be viable sometime in the future.

                    Great. Just as I said.

                    Say, did you learn anything about half-lives so that you can comment intelligently on radioactive decay?

                    2. My source: crossgrain

                      “By 2027, deuterium-tritium operations are expected to begin. ”

                      He’s an internet genius, so he could be wrong.

      2. And while they’re “advocating” for “clean energy”, they’re doing nothing…cuz advocating and raising awareness is enough in the envirowacko world.

        Meanwhile their “advocacy” KILLS hundreds if not thousands of people each year.

        DEpopulation is one way to decrease energy consumption I guess.

          1. 1. Fusion is not yet viable.
            2. Fusion would require large amounts of “fossil” materials and sources.
            3. Fusion would create radioactive wastes.

            So genius, tell us again how fusion is clean or renewable!

            1. You’re an idiot. But for those following along at home:

              1. Fusion research is closer to reality than you think. ITER will be starting its tokamak this year. By 2027, deuterium-tritium operations are expected to begin. That’s an eyeblink compared to how far we are from synthesizing petroleum.
              2. Fossil materials to build fusion reactors are a far better use of the material than just burning it to cart your flab to church.
              3. Radioactive waste material from fusion reactions are literally 100’s of times less than that of fission reactions. Their half-life can be measured in decades rather than centuries.

              The world needs clean cheap and abundant energy. It ain’t coming from fossil fuels, moron.

              1. Ah, you are a genius.

                Your points:

                1. Fusion is not yet viable
                2. Fusion is not “renewable”, it’s just “more renewable” than oil.
                3. Fusion is not “clean”, just “cleaner than fission”.

                All of which simply concede what I wrote!

                And then this scientific gem:

                “Radioactive waste material from fusion reactions are literally 100’s of times less than that of fission reactions. Their half-life can be measured in decades rather than centuries.”

                Half-lives of decades are MORE RADIOACTIVE than half-lives of centuries…

                you freakin’ genius.

                1. No sh*t, Sherlock. But we’re talking AMOUNTS here. The amount of highly radioactive material is astoundingly small compared to fission, and breaks down MUCH faster. This material can be stored ON-SITE for 50 years, rather than say burying it in the Black Hills for a few thousand years. Idiot.

                  1. “The amount of highly radioactive material is astoundingly small compared to fission,”

                    Again, you’ve refuted yourself, and supported my comment.

                    Your [current] point: Fusion isn’t “clean energy”–it’s just cleaner than fission.

                    We got it.

                  2. ” This material can be stored ON-SITE for 50 years, rather than say burying it in the Black Hills for a few thousand years. ”

                    And what happens to that [more] highly radioactive materials in those 50 (sic) years, GENIUS?

                  3. Let’s summarize your “understanding” of radioactivity:

                    Less mass of a HIGHLY radioactive material from fusion is better (“cleaner”) than more mass of a less radioactive material from fission!

                    Can you hear the laughter, genius?

                    1. Yeah, idiot. Tell me what’s worse: dropping a bowling ball on your toe, or dropping a ton of thumbtacks on your head every day for the rest of your life?

                    2. Which is worse?

                      You told earlier that fusion was “clean renewable energy”–now your’re telling us is will be painful like a bowling ball or a ton of trumbtacks..

                      Which is it genius?

    2. Protecting the environment isn’t the main agenda here. The main agenda is income redistribution and not just here in the USA but globally, bringing the economy of the USA down, and control. Green just sounds better in a soundbite.

    3. True environmentalists, like the ones who support Obama, want to kill oil and coal in the US. If they had their way we would all wear loin cloths and bathe in a river- except for them, they would still live in mansions and fly around in jets because they are special.

  3. The T Boone Pickens tour last decade presented those who attended in the many locales with a basic working knowledge of the energy cost dynamics of oil. The Middle East is always prepared to go lower than we can afford to in price, and as such are always ready to wreck any plans we have to pump money into our domestic production infrastructure. Pickens correctly compared them to a drug pusher in that regard, keeping the clientele on the hook by any means, and keeping the billions flowing outward to them. We’re not going to get anywhere until there’s national resolve to outlast the artificial price cuts and take the losses, or proactively move ourselves to what Pickens advocated, an lp/natural gas economy as a bridge to future energy technologies.

  4. Again, how do those claiming to be conservatives justify the taking of Americans land through eminent domain by a foreign company to bolster the revenue of that “foreign company”? If the U.S. government today wanted to use eminent domain laws to acquire private lands to build solar farm or wind farms we all know what “you people” would be saying..

    1. Given a choice between an underground pipeline which leak but would otherwise be invisible, and a railroad with exploding cars rumbling through my property, I would prefer the pipeline

      1. Sir, if someone using eminent domain comes on your land to place their property on part of YOUR land with that land becoming theirs what would you call it?

      2. ” which leak but would otherwise be invisible,”– Just wow… Maybe you should learn how many “invisible” leaks have occurred.

    2. “taking Americans land through eminent domain”

      An easement is not “taking land”.

      1. Sir, if someone using eminent domain comes on your land to place their property on part of YOUR land with that land becoming theirs what would you call it?

    3. Jaa Dee – the Dakota Access pipeline is not a foreign company- it is owned by Energy Transfer Partners out of Texas.

      And in regards to eminent domain, if we didn’t have that tool then we wouldn’t have roads, waterlines, electric transmission etc etc etc

      At least our government gives due diligence for all affected parties to air grievances and to receive fair compensation unlike most countries who just push people out of their homes.

  5. Jaa Dee,

    You have raised the specious gingoist foreign government and eminent domain argument multiple times and it has been answered. By the way, to raise the argument against an Asian company would violate Obama’s new Asian Trade Pact.

    Further, our wind farms do use eminent domain when necessary for their transmission lines.

    You really don’t factually know what you are talking about. We know you oppose Keystone. We also know you will do and say anything in attempt to stop it. You really don’t have to be repetitive.

    2. Sir, I was referring to XL …..Do you want to respond to my comment—Again, how do those claiming to be conservatives justify the taking of Americans land through eminent domain by a foreign company to bolster the revenue of that “foreign company”? If the U.S. government today wanted to use eminent domain laws to acquire private lands to build solar farm or wind farms we all know what “you people” would be saying..

    3. “it has been answered”– No sir, it has not…Again, how do those claiming to be conservatives justify the taking of Americans land through eminent domain by a foreign company to bolster the revenue of that “foreign company”? If the U.S. government today wanted to use eminent domain laws to acquire private lands to build solar farm or wind farms we all know what “you people” would be saying..
      Can you answer that without hypocrisy and dishonesty?

      As for X and this one I really don’t give a damn, what PO,s me on this issue as others is the hypocrisy ignorance, gullibility, and dishonesty of those supporting the lines.

      “. By the way, to raise the argument against an Asian company would violate Obama’s new Asian Trade Pact.”— Idiotic .

      “You really don’t factually know what you are talking about.”– Then why don’t YOU answer my questions….When your comment consists of whining and insults and does not address the topic, what does it say about you…sir.

      Good to speak with you again. it has been a while.

      1. Jaa Dee- pipelines are common carriers who determine their fees under federal regulation. KXL and Dakota Access will move oil to refineries where it will be made into gasoline which you use to drive to your Greenpeace rallies…duh.

  6. Crossgrain,

    Perfect timing. We can continue to utilize domestic oil resources at cheap prices via the Keystone until Fusion is available and we can transition to it. If the investors of Keystone go broke because we don’t need the pipeline, it is a risk they took.

    However, since tranitioning (retiring oil demand infrastructure and developing fusion demand resources) will take us to the expected life of the Bakken, Keystone investors will likely do well and pay a lot of taxes to the federal, state and local governments.

    Perfect.

    1. I too want to hear more of crossgrain’s views on half-lives of radioactive substances..

      Maybe he can get it right.

    2. As they’re slowly going broke, I’m sure they’ll put all available resources into maintaining their infrastructure rather than golden parachutes. But hey, a couple decades of profits for them, cheap gas for you, and who cares about the environment, right?

      1. ” But hey, a couple decades of profits for them, cheap gas for you, and who cares about the environment, right?”

        We agree on that crossgrain.

        Fusion may generate a couple of decades of profits for the venture capitalists (and their gov’t subsidies), cheap electricity for you, but after the extreme radioactivity hits the air, they’ll take their golden parachutes and escape to the Caribbean. Who cares about the environment, right genius?

        1. Idiot. Go back and read the paper I linked on fusion v. fission reactors and wastes. Until you come to grips with the science, your obfuscation, strawmen, and need for validation via ill-thought-out “gotchas” only serve to annoy me, detract from the actual discussion, and provide further evidence of your mental shortcomings.

          1. “from the actual discussion, ”

            The actual discussion was about the Keystone pipeline.

            You went off topic with some predictable rant about “clean renewable energy”.

          2. “only serve to annoy me, detract from the actual discussion”

            So, according to you, you allowed a idiot and moron to annoy you & detract you.

            Only an idiot or moron would allow that to happen, right genius?

  7. “Go back and read the paper I linked on fusion v. fission reactors and wastes.”

    Where in that paper does it support your view that fusion is “clean renewable energy”?

    Fact is, it does not.

    The facts:

    Fusion waste is much more radioactive than fission waste, thus VERY DANGEROUS (just like fission waste).

    This all began when you failed (and still do not) to understand half-lives of substances. You tried to play “knowledgeable scientist” and fell on your big beehind.

    More than that though, you’re driven by this irrational fear of “fossil fuels”, ‘cuz you like to be thought of as a modern, enlightened environmentalist. In reality ,the bandwagon you tried to jump took of without you for a want of basic knowledge of possible energy sources. You made it so easy…

    genius.

    Nothing “gotcha” about all that–just very funny.

      1. You’re right–I do have to taka a breath…

        in between the hysterical laughing that I endure while reading your drivel.

  8. Crossbrained:

    This is all it took: “Such as????”

    to get you to fumble your way into internet idiocy:

    TWO WORDS and you’re off blathering away about fusion & fission and idiots & morons and half-lives. The predictable & typical Luddite rant informed by little more than an irrational hate for “fossil fuels”!

    Aye, endless entertainment for all!

Comments are closed.