I'm trying to understand Obama/environmentalists logic which I know sounds like an oxymoron "Obama/environmentalists logic".. but WHY would any one want to risk another Exxon Valdez whereas the Keystone exposes at the most one mile to 325 barrels of oil in a spill? Really explain to me how it is MORE risk to have a static pipeline that can be shut down in minutes if there is a leak and the worst spill could be in one mile of pipe with less then 80 barrels in a 1/4 of mile.. 160 barrels in a half mile.. YET... To ship the oil to China 1 million barrels a day in a Tanker on the Pacific exposing thousands of square miles and coastlines as well as 100,000s of wild life... all to the risk of an oil tanker with crew subject to weather and equipment malfunctions every day! And this is a SMART president?? More importantly though.. EXPLAIN to me where the MSM is on this question.. Why Mr. President are you in favor of the higher chance and greater damage of another Exxon Valdez? Please environmentalists... explain why a pipeline with 325 barrels is a greater risk then a 1 million barrel tanker on the ocean damaging thousands of miles?