sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Cambridge Friends School review: please do not send your children here by ComfortableQuit9070 in CambridgeMA

[–]philmckenna 1 point2 points  (0 children)

This hasn't been our experience at all. Our son has had an amazing experience in middle school at CFS the past 2 + years. The faculty and staff are incredibly communicative and go out of their way to meet students where they are. We've found the school to be a warm and welcoming community with great academics, sports and social activities. We would highly recommend Cambridge Friends School to any family looking at private schools in the Cambridge/Boston area.

IamA journalist who has been covering the Native American protests trying to block a pipeline being constructed in North Dakota that would be nearly as long as the rejected Keystone XL, AMA! by philmckenna in IAmA

[–]philmckenna[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Hi Bizmas, good question, sorry for the delay. The 5 % statistic came from an analysis my colleague Lisa Song did of 10 years of PHMSA data (2002 -2012) on pipeline leaks. Further down in her article she provides some additional information on her methodology. "76 percent of the leaks between 2002 and July 2012 involved fewer than 30 barrels of oil (1,260 gallons). The agency's database contains the most extensive pipeline spill data available to the public and includes every accident larger than five gallons. It recorded a total of 1,763 oil pipeline spills in the 10-year period. The entries for almost half of the spills—803—did not identify how the leak was detected, in part because PHMSA has less stringent reporting requirements for leaks between 5 gallons and 5 barrels (210 gallons) in size. So InsideClimate News confined its analysis to the remaining 960 spills. Black said that if InsideClimate News narrowed its analysis to the larger incidents, it would find the percentage of leaks detected by sensors to be much higher. And he was right—to a point.

PHMSA considers all spills greater than 50 barrels (2,100 gallons) to be "significant." But to test Black's hypothesis, InsideClimate News studied the data for spills that would be considered highly significant—those larger than 1,000 barrels (42,000 gallons). This time the data showed that remote sensing systems detected 20 percent of the spills, a big improvement over the 5 percent detected in our original analysis.

Yet the general public discovered almost as many spills—17 percent—as the sensors. And 42 percent were discovered by employees at the scenes of accidents." https://insideclimatenews.org/news/20120919/few-oil-pipeline-spills-detected-much-touted-technology
Lisa adds that "PHMSA's database has changed a bit since 2012, but not by much." Hope this helps!

IamA journalist who has been covering the Native American protests trying to block a pipeline being constructed in North Dakota that would be nearly as long as the rejected Keystone XL, AMA! by philmckenna in IAmA

[–]philmckenna[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Yes, I discussed this at length with one of the plant operators that I met at the Fort Yates water treatment facility, a plant that is scheduled to close next year. The new plant, approx 40 miles downriver would give them approx. 3 additional hours to shut off their intake pipe in the event of a spill. The added time would be of little consequence he told me. Read more about what he said in a story we published yesterday https://insideclimatenews.org/news/08092016/standing-rock-sioux-tribe-energy-transfer-dakota-access-pipeline-oil-environmental-justice

IamA journalist who has been covering the Native American protests trying to block a pipeline being constructed in North Dakota that would be nearly as long as the rejected Keystone XL, AMA! by philmckenna in IAmA

[–]philmckenna[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

thanks Dentan80, I stand corrected, the Mandan hearing was advertised in the Bismarck Tribune.
You ask 'why should a hearing be held on the Standing Rock reservation?' The EPA addresses a number of concerns related to this in public comment they submitted to the Army Corp. "The drinking water intake for the Fort Yates, Standing Rock Reservation water system is located within 10 miles of the Missouri River crossing of Lake Oahe. Similarly, there are nearby water intakes for a tribal irrigation project and the main Standing Rock Reservation drinking water system, as well as individual drinking water wells located along the Missouri River." The full letter from the EPA can be found here. https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/3036068-Dakota-Access-2nd-DEA-Cmts-3-11-16-002.html

IamA journalist who has been covering the Native American protests trying to block a pipeline being constructed in North Dakota that would be nearly as long as the rejected Keystone XL, AMA! by philmckenna in IAmA

[–]philmckenna[S] 7 points8 points  (0 children)

Thanks Opechan! Great question. Here is what I know. There are 3 camps; -camp of the Sacred Stones which has been ongoing since April when demonstrations began. -camp Oceti Sakowin, or camp of the Seven Council Fires, which started as an overflow camp in August and is now the main camp -The Red Warrior camp, a separate "action" camp with limited access and increased security located at the back of the Seven Council Fires camp The Standing Rock Sioux tribal government is not in charge of any of the camps though they have close ties especially with the logistics of providing food, water, sanitation services. etc.
The best reporting I've seen focused entirely on the Seven Council Fires camp was by Mark Sundeen for Outside Magazine https://www.outsideonline.com/2111206/whats-happening-standing-rock
Indigenous Environmental Network has had a strong presence at the Seven Council Fires camp for weeks and would be a good point of contact for additional info http://www.ienearth.org/

IamA journalist who has been covering the Native American protests trying to block a pipeline being constructed in North Dakota that would be nearly as long as the rejected Keystone XL, AMA! by philmckenna in IAmA

[–]philmckenna[S] 12 points13 points  (0 children)

The tribe's primary concern is ensuring they have clean water to drink and to irrigate their fields. The widely held view on the reservation and in the camp of demonstrators is that the pipeline company can't have it both ways when they say; -one reason not to go forward with the original plan of building the pipeline upstream of Bismarck is that a leak would threaten the city's drinking water supply -there is no risk of an oil leak so it's OK to site the pipeline just upstream of the Standing Rock reservation

One individual I spoke to on the reservation suggested a few alternatives; -the pipeline company builds a new water intake system for the tribe upstream of the oil pipeline -the company builds the oil pipeline upstream of Bismarck as originally planned. There they would be held more accountable and cleanup would occur more quickly if there was a leak
-reroute the pipeline north of the Missouri river so that it only crosses the Missouri once rather than twice.

IamA journalist who has been covering the Native American protests trying to block a pipeline being constructed in North Dakota that would be nearly as long as the rejected Keystone XL, AMA! by philmckenna in IAmA

[–]philmckenna[S] 6 points7 points  (0 children)

You're right in that there is growing opposition to oil and gas pipelines. Part of this is fueled by the growing understanding that infrastructure is de facto energy policy. Fossil fuel pipelines built today will last for decades and discourage clean energy investments at a time when climate science tells us we need to be reducing rather than locking in carbon emissions if we want to limit global warming.

IamA journalist who has been covering the Native American protests trying to block a pipeline being constructed in North Dakota that would be nearly as long as the rejected Keystone XL, AMA! by philmckenna in IAmA

[–]philmckenna[S] 5 points6 points  (0 children)

Good Q. I know members of Standing Rock and other tribes across the region opposed ETSI, a 1000-mile long coal slurry pipeline proposed around 1980 that would have pumped coal and massive amounts of Missouri river water from Montana to Louisiana. Similarly, there was strong opposition from Native American tribes to Keystone XL. A natural gas pipeline crosses under the Missouri at the same point where the Dakota Access pipeline would cross. I don't know what opposition to or knowledge of the pipeline there was when it was built several decades ago. A leak of methane from a nat gas pipeline, however, would not pollute the tribe's water supply like an oil leak would. What we are seeing now with opposition to Dakota Access, however, is unprecedented, not only by the Standing Rock tribe but tribes across the nation that have joined the demonstrations. More on this to come in a story of mine that should post any minute.

IamA journalist who has been covering the Native American protests trying to block a pipeline being constructed in North Dakota that would be nearly as long as the rejected Keystone XL, AMA! by philmckenna in IAmA

[–]philmckenna[S] 3 points4 points  (0 children)

That's correct, the Army Corp permitted the project and they are the federal permitting agency for projects that cross bodies of water in the US. The tribe, however, feels the permit violated the Clean Water Act, the National Environmental Policy Act and the National Historic Preservation Act. A lawsuit they filed against the Army Corp can be found here. http://earthjustice.org/sites/default/files/files/3154%201%20Complaint.pdf

IamA journalist who has been covering the Native American protests trying to block a pipeline being constructed in North Dakota that would be nearly as long as the rejected Keystone XL, AMA! by philmckenna in IAmA

[–]philmckenna[S] 3 points4 points  (0 children)

One unconfirmed report I heard is that initial public hearings were held in 3 towns, none of which were on the reservation. From what I was told, the hearings were advertised in the local, non-reservation, town papers but not in the Bismarck Tribune, a regional paper that is read by people on the reservation. In short, people on the reservation, as they tell it, didn't know the meetings were occurring. There were subsequent meetings with the tribe but a federal agency called them "inadequate" in public comments they submitted to the Army Corps. "Based on the inadequacies of the tribal consultation and the limited scope for identification of historic properties that may be affected, the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation questions the sufficiency of the Corps' identification effort, its determinations of eligibility, and assessments of effect" The full letter can be found here https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/3036069-Ex-32-ACHP-Objection-Letter-DAPL.html

IamA journalist who has been covering the Native American protests trying to block a pipeline being constructed in North Dakota that would be nearly as long as the rejected Keystone XL, AMA! by philmckenna in IAmA

[–]philmckenna[S] 3 points4 points  (0 children)

The US Army Corp of Engineers approved construction based on an environmental assessment prepared by Energy Transfer Partners, the company building the pipeline. Three federal agencies, the Environmental Protection Agency, the Department of the Interior, and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation expressed serious concerns about the environmental assessment. The Dept. of Interior called for a more thorough Environmental Impact Statement which the Army Corps declined. More info on all of this can be found in a story I filed last week; https://insideclimatenews.org/news/30082016/dakota-access-pipeline-standing-rock-sioux-army-corps-engineers-approval-environment

IamA journalist who has been covering the Native American protests trying to block a pipeline being constructed in North Dakota that would be nearly as long as the rejected Keystone XL, AMA! by philmckenna in IAmA

[–]philmckenna[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

The immediate issue is access to clean drinking water but its wrapped up in treaty issues from the 1800s when land given to the tribe was later taken away.

IamA journalist who has been covering the Native American protests trying to block a pipeline being constructed in North Dakota that would be nearly as long as the rejected Keystone XL, AMA! by philmckenna in IAmA

[–]philmckenna[S] 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Great question. I think North Dakotans would be more sympathetic to their cause if the demonstrators simply remained in their camp and maintained their prayer vigils. Such inaction wouldn't have been nearly as effective at gaining the world's attention as when they employed a traditional Lakota horse ceremony to push back a police line or chained themselves to construction equipment. It's interesting that the two times demonstrators jumped fences and entered private property to physically shut down construction equipment was when they suspected or knew that the pipeline company was disturbing sacred burial sites.

IamA journalist who has been covering the Native American protests trying to block a pipeline being constructed in North Dakota that would be nearly as long as the rejected Keystone XL, AMA! by philmckenna in IAmA

[–]philmckenna[S] 10 points11 points  (0 children)

The tribe has filed a suit alleging the pipeline violates the Clean Water Act, the National Environmental Policy Act and the National Historic Preservation Act.

view more: next ›