This is why I never understood the intense Dakota Access Pipeline protests. Pipelines are much safer and better for the environment than shipping by rail. Shutting down the pipeline won't make the drilling stop, it will just make things worse for the environment and raise the cost of gas/oil

Yeah that was a bit of a head scratcher to me as well- I consider myself to be quite "green" in my political views, and I could not really grasp why this was picked up as an issue to champion for environmental rights- and why it even became such a political football. Pipelines are far superior in just about every way, and cheaper to boot- there isn't even a cost component like there is against the argument for nuclear (another head scratching issue to me).

It's one thing to make a case that this is infringing on their property rights, and that may have been a true and valid concern, but for it to get coopted as an environmental cause, was just strange and made environmental advocacy as a whole look bad IMHO.

The protest for Dakota isn't about the pipeline, it's about where the pipeline goes. Would you be okay with a pipeline going through your house?

Also pipelines are usually taking the human element out. When an oil train derails, you know about it. When there's a hole in a pipeline, it can take days for anyone to notice.

The route of the Dakota pipeline was along the exact path of an existing pipeline.

The real reason for the protests was that the tribe was NOT paid off because the pipeline CIRCUMVENTED their reserve.

Energy Transfer Partners (aka Sunoco) are pulling similar crap in Pennsylvania. Through or under dense housing, shopping malls, tearing up little league fields, occupying rights-of-way for years on end with drilling machines. They've already ruined many aquifers, poisoned a drinking reservoir, caused sink holes, even damaged their own nearby pipelines. All this before the thing gets pressurized with propane, ethane and butane. They subvert legislatures using public utility classification, eminent domain anything they want, and then bully anyone observing. Then they play the national security card for anyone asking about a disaster plan or blast radius.

There must be enormous profit here for such enormous public harm.

Marsh Creek lake: https://stateimpact.npr.org/pennsylvania/2020/08/11/mariner-...

Backfires? https://whyy.org/articles/sunoco-says-mariner-east-2-system-...

Criminal investigation: https://www.nbcphiladelphia.com/news/politics/chester-county...

Secrecy protection: https://www.spotlightpa.org/news/2020/12/mariner-east-pipeli...

It can take longer than just days, most leaks happen for months or more before it builds up enough to get a bunch of citizen complaints and cops go out to investigate. 70% of pipeline leaks are found by cops or civilians, and that is despite most pipelines going through the least dense possible areas without many people around.

That was a runaway train that wound up going 105 kph around a turn rated for 16 kph and derailed on the main street of a town. It wasn't even carrying natural gas, just crude oil. This change to regulations would have no impact on such an event happening again.

If that train had been carrying corn, would the result have been the same amount of damage?

What could have happened on the worst case if the train was carrying LNG?

Natural Gas is lighter than air, not much would have happened.

The LNG would vaporize, rise into the air and there would be a short lived fire.

If you read the damage description it's mostly due to petroleum contamination and fire. None of that would happen with LNG.

The article says that trucks carrying LNG are already allowed in the area, though. Just considering the likelihood of damage to the container, it seems like pipelines > trains > trucks, no?

The problem with pipelines for oil is that they tend to leak in isolated areas, where trains and truck can be maintained at their origin and destination.

It's unlikely that a hundred trucks will all crash at the same time in the same place.

True. The article said that 3 could be transported at once. I don’t know what (if any) limitations there are on the number of trucks carrying LNG in the same area, at once. I’m just thinking that it’s far more likely that a truck would be involved in an accident that involves a fire vs a train.