[katkattac]

Everything is relative. Can someone say, if that pipeline didn't exist, how much more or less theoretical damage would have happened had it been shipped by truck on highway instead?

The Dakota Access line is running a few miles from my workplace here in Iowa. I'm not opposed to the pipeline, per say, but the politics behind it are crap. It's approved by our utility board, which is composed of persons selected by our Governor, who has personal financial interest in the pipeline company. What's worse, the pipeline doesn't start or end in Iowa, so it just runs through here and is a total loss for us. No new jobs created. Needless to say, the utility board approved it along with eminent domain. (Shouldn't eminent domain be illegal when the land is going to a private company and not public use? The constitution is kind of clear on that, not sure how they get around it.)

The pipeline workers here are causing lots of trouble too. They're trespassing and tearing up land well outside of their easements. They're littering. They bury the scrap pipe and trash instead of hauling it out. They tear up the roads and hold up traffic.

Honestly, it's just such a net loss for us. And this is before the inevitable leaks. It's a racket.

[planteen]

> Shouldn't eminent domain be illegal when the land is going to a private company and not public use? The constitution is kind of clear on that, not sure how they get around it

There was a controversial 5-4 Supreme Court decision on this in 2005, Kelo v. New London.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kelo_v._City_of_New_London

[pcardh0]

Way to stand up for the little guy liberals, you are truly an inspiration to us all.

[keville]

This is the equivalent of either a terrible railway accident (six tanker railcars at 30k gallons apiece), or a horrific motorway accident (upwards of 18 or more for very large truck tankers in the 10k gallon range).

They have cleaned up ~20% and are presumably taking their sweet time until spring, when snowmelt will cause enough flow in the currently-frozen portions of the creek to help hide their shame.

[wahern]

  "it just runs through here and is a total loss for us"

I was curious if you were right. According to this paper,

  http://nobakken.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/ETP-Report.pdf

Iowa will see about $25-$30 million in annual property tax revenue from the pipeline. And that's about it, which is maybe adequate? I don't know. But the report was commissioned by "Dakota Access, LLC", so I suppose we should assume they systematically erred, if at all, by inflating the potential return.

States can also tax income of the owner of the pipeline. But pipelines are usually structured as pass-through entities (e.g. MLP), and there are enough state and federal loopholes--special deductions, deferments, etc--that any income tax is probably minimal. The paper doesn't bother trying to estimate that revenue, AFAICT.

Figures for sales, use, and income taxes in that paper are only for construction and maintenance of the pipeline. It's not tied to actual pipeline throughput. I think it would be unconstitutional for states to directly tax pipeline throughput except for the state where the oil originates. Louisiana does this and the legal issues are really complex AFAIK.

Chapter 7 of that paper also examines accident risk, which is quite interesting.

In case the link disappears, the report heading is

  An Assessment of the Economic and Fiscal Impacts
  of the Dakota Access Pipeline in
  North Dakota, South Dakota, Iowa and Illinois

  Prepared for Dakota Access, LLC

  Prepared by Harvey Siegelman, Mike Lipsman and Dan Otto
  Strategic Economics Group
  West Des Moines, Iowa

  November 12, 2014