AOC vs. Oil Pipelines

[lpetrich]

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez Proposes A Death Blow To Pipelines Like Dakota Access | HuffPost

Shortly after Donald Trump won the presidency in November 2016, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, then a 27-year-old activist and bartender, hopped in a 1998 Subaru and roadtripped from New York City to North Dakota to join the frigid protest camp attempting to stop construction of the Dakota Access Pipeline.

Not long after, Trump made completing the pipeline one of his first priorities in the White House. But the experience, Ocasio-Cortez has often said, inspired her decision to run in New York’s 14th congressional district on her vision for a Green New Deal.

She now offers an appropriations-bill amendment that would obstruct the permitting of new oil and gas pipelines.

untitled - OcasioPipelines723201548404840.pdf

At the end of division C (before the short title), insert the following: SEC. ___. None of the funds made available by this Act may be used by the Corps of Engineers to issue a permit under section 404 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (33 U.S.C. 1344) for the discharge of dredged or fill material resulting from an activity to construct a pipeline for the transportation of oil or gas.

This effectively obstructs the construction of any oil or gas pipeline under a body of water. There is a way to get around that: build a pipeline bridge or use an existing bridge for a pipeline.

It could also imperil the Dakota Access Pipeline itself.

In March, U.S. District Judge James Boasberg ordered the Army Corps to carry out a new environmental review of the project, determining that the agency had failed to answer major questions about the possibility of oil spills. Then, earlier this month, Boasberg pulled the permits to operate the 1,172-mile oil route from North Dakota to Illinois, ordering the pipeline to shut down and drain by Aug. 5 while the review is carried out.

...
It’s still a long shot. The amendment could face significant opposition within the House, where the Democratic majority remains split on the urgency of stopping new fossil fuel projects that proponents see as economic boons and opponents say spell climate disaster. The Republican-controlled Senate would almost certainly reject the measure.

 

[lpetrich]

‘It’s Past Time’: Rep. Ilhan Omar, Sen. Bernie Sanders Unveil Bill To Strip Fossil Fuel Funding | HuffPost - "The legislation aims to cut off oil, gas and coal companies reaping billions from federal COVID-19 relief and annual subsidies."

Yet, as fossil fuel emissions cook the planet and wreak a mounting toll of destruction, the federal government gives oil, gas and coal companies nearly $15 billion per year in direct federal subsidies and already directed billions more in support through coronavirus relief programs this year.

New legislation from five of the country’s top progressive lawmakers, including Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.) and Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), aims to cut the fossil fuel industry off, HuffPost has learned.

On Friday, the lawmakers plan to introduce a bill barring fossil fuel companies from receiving COVID-19 funding, ending federal support for fossil fuel projects at home and abroad, and abolishing dozens of tax loopholes and incentives for the industry.

H.R.7781 - 116th Congress (2019-2020): To eliminate certain subsidies for fossil-fuel production. | Congress.gov | Library of Congress by Ilhan Omar.

 

[ZiprHead]

That would endanger the replacement of the  Enbridge Line 5 which runs through the straits of Mackinaw below the Mackinaw Bridge. It's in dire need of replacement.

All or nothing approaches are usually not well thought out.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Once again she shows she's a fanatic that doesn't understand how the real world operates. Banning pipelines doesn't stop oil, it just makes more oil get spilled.

 

[Derec]

AOC and her squadmates are dangerous morons. Her "let's drive 2000 miles to North Dakota to protest oil" super-villain origin story is a case in point.

We need oil and gas, and will need oil and gas for at least two or three decades even if we get aggressive about replacing fossil fuels with renewables. And by far the best way to transport large quantities of fluids over long distances are pipelines. Alternatives would be things like oil trains, but they cost more, use more energy and are less safe than pipelines.

 

[fromderinside]

If the racists actually wanted to make money they would find ways around crossing indian land.

 

[Derec]

If the racists actually wanted to make money they would find ways around crossing indian land.

Why is everything "racist" to you?
In any case, DAPL did not cross actual Indian land.

 

[lpetrich]

But it gets very, very close. Why wasn't it routed near Bismarck ND? If certain people here are any indication, then there will be lots of Bismarckians who would *love* having an oil pipeline going through their property.

 

[Derec]

But it gets very, very close.

So? Note that it follows the route of existing pipelines.

Why wasn't it routed near Bismarck ND?

We discussed that at length as it was happening (and when Sandy was still bartending when she wasn't gallivanting across the ND prairie). A route closer to Bismarck would be longer, would mean more water crossings and more built-up areas close by would have to be crossed as well. It's an overall much worse route which is why ultimately this route was selected.
Also, since northern part of the reservation is very sparsely populated, and since there is a sizable Indian population in the Bismarck metro area, more Indians would actually be living close to the pipeline under the Bismarck route.

If certain people here are any indication, then there will be lots of Bismarckians who would *love* having an oil pipeline going through their property.

Why should a pipeline be routed through a built-up area rather than through largely empty prairie, especially when there is already a pipeline whose route can be followed in that area?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

But it gets very, very close. Why wasn't it routed near Bismarck ND? If certain people here are any indication, then there will be lots of Bismarckians who would *love* having an oil pipeline going through their property.

1) Note that it's routed with existing pipelines. That's the most logical place in my book.

2) The more developed the land the more expensive it becomes to lay a pipeline and the more likelyhood of it being damaged by an errant backhoe. Pipelines should avoid developed areas unless they need to enter them.