To those who oppose the Keystone XL pipeline for environmental reasons

[BULLDOG]

Let's start here.

Myth: Keystone XL is an export pipeline to China and other nations.
Fact: Keystone XL is not an export pipeline.

It is a supply line to U.S. Gulf Coast refineries — which have signed up to 20-year binding commercial contracts to receive oil through Keystone XL.

This much-needed oil will allow refineries to create products that we all rely on every day — gasoline for our vehicles, aviation fuels, and diesel fuels to help transport goods throughout the continent.

It makes absolutely no sense for companies to purchase cheaper Canadian crude, and then pay (again) to ship that product overseas, while continuing to import higher-priced oil from the Middle East and Venezuela.

- See more at: Myths addressed Exports Jobs Economic benefits and more Keystone XL Pipeline

Recent production increases, and reduction in demand has lowered the price so much till it's just barely feasible to even build the northern line that you insist is already built. We don't need it.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

My problem with the Keystone pipeline has less to do with the environment, and much more to do with the fact that they're stealing private land via eminent domain to build it on.

The fact that the people who will have the pipeline running through their backyards are opposed to it is enough reason for me to oppose it.

I'm curious as to how you guys reconcile your claims of "property rights" with your support of government-enforced theft of private property.

 

[Siete]

I say build it. And if it leaks, the company pays a hefty fine. Anyone who disagrees is anti American. I can be built safely and be environmentally safe as well. I would assume any company building it would spend a lot of extra funds not needed to ensure the safety. The jobs however will be temporary. And not one drop of this oil should EVER be sold to the highest bidder. That should be illegal. That is our oil it should ALL stay here. If it doesn't, shut the company down.

It's all going to be sold over seas.
That's not ours, and it's not oil. It is diluted bitumen. Oil comes from wells. Bitumen is mined with heavy equipment just like coal and is then is diluted with carcinogens like benzene to make it fluid enough to flow through a pipe. It will ALL be sold on the world market, even though we will be able to compete for it on an equal basis with China or any other country. All we will get is the potential for an environmental disaster, and oil companies with a lot more profit. Of course that profit will mean nothing to us because the refineries are all free trade zones. No taxes for value added for refining are collected.

Ok. Let's look at your lie that it will all be shipped overseas. The Keystone has been in full operation for over a year now.

Can you come up with the link that will show us how and when every drop of crude that was delivered by the Keystone and refined in the year 2014 was shipped abroad?

By your refineries. Because Keystone is just a pipeline to deliver crude.

They have no say where the refined product ends up. So I'm dying to see your information that proves that every drop of crude that was refined at the Gulf refineries was shipped overseas last year.

Give er'. Show us your data.

Im ready for you to prove Canada has more oil than Venezuela , then prove How much MY country needs your country.

 

[Siete]

My problem with the Keystone pipeline has less to do with the environment, and much more to do with the fact that they're stealing private land via eminent domain to build it on.

The fact that the people who will have the pipeline running through their backyards are opposed to it is enough reason for me to oppose it.

I'm curious as to how you guys reconcile your claims of "property rights" with your support of government-enforced theft of private property.

Exactly.

 

[tinydancer]

I'm signing off for the night fellow USMB campers. I just got Season One of Swamp People and I am addicted already.

Let the gator fishing begin!

 

[BULLDOG]

My problem with the Keystone pipeline has less to do with the environment, and much more to do with the fact that they're stealing private land via eminent domain to build it on.

The fact that the people who will have the pipeline running through their backyards are opposed to it is enough reason for me to oppose it.

I'm curious as to how you guys reconcile your claims of "property rights" with your support of government-enforced theft of private property.

You are right. To be perfectly honest, I've known that it will eventually be built, and there isn't much to be done about it. It all falls under the golden rule." Them that's got the gold makes the rules". There have been so many outrageous claims that have all been proven to be false, till out of principal, I'm going to point out the crap whenever I can. Tilting windmills? Sure, but I refuse to admit they were right just because they might win.

 

[Menerva Lindsen]

Liberals worry about the environment being harmed by this pipeline, and won't even take the State Department's word that the project would have little to no impact on the environment. Well, let me see if I can't ram some reality through some really thick heads.

This is from the final impact report which was issued in January 2014

On March 11, 2010, the NEB issued its Reasons for Decision granting Keystone’s application. The NEB’s Reasons for Decision included an Environmental Screening Report (ESR) that was prepared to meet the requirements of Canadian Environmental Assessment Act for the Canadian portion of the proposed pipeline. The ESR concluded that implementation of the proposed pipeline in Canada would not likely result in significant adverse environmental effects with incorporation of Keystone’s proposed measures to avoid or minimize impacts and with Keystone’s acceptance of the NEB’s regulatory requirements and recommended conditions attached to the ESR (see also Section 4.15.4.1, Canadian National Energy Board Environmental Analysis of the Proposed Project, for a listing of NEB’s conditions).

Chapter 1, Section 7, ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW OF THE CANADIAN PORTION OF THE KEYSTONE 1.7
XL PROJECT, Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement

And this is Chapter 4, Section 16, or a list of all the potential impacts of the project...and what I see reading through it. is that there are negligible or limited impacts to the surrounding environment:

http://keystonepipeline-xl.state.gov/documents/organization/221192.pdf

Given these things, it would be reasonable to assume that the same circumstances would be true here in the United States. So, what other rationales are there for stopping this project? In the time it has taken to block this project, (over 5 years) the pipeline could already be close to completion.

Why do you care, it will not create a permanent job for you nor reduce the price of your gasoline, in fact, it does nothing for the average American and risks ecological repercussions? It is not American oil, nor American profits.

 

[candycorn]

Liberals worry about the environment being harmed by this pipeline, and won't even take the State Department's word that the project would have little to no impact on the environment. Well, let me see if I can't ram some reality through some really thick heads.

This is from the final impact report which was issued in January 2014

On March 11, 2010, the NEB issued its Reasons for Decision granting Keystone’s application. The NEB’s Reasons for Decision included an Environmental Screening Report (ESR) that was prepared to meet the requirements of Canadian Environmental Assessment Act for the Canadian portion of the proposed pipeline. The ESR concluded that implementation of the proposed pipeline in Canada would not likely result in significant adverse environmental effects with incorporation of Keystone’s proposed measures to avoid or minimize impacts and with Keystone’s acceptance of the NEB’s regulatory requirements and recommended conditions attached to the ESR (see also Section 4.15.4.1, Canadian National Energy Board Environmental Analysis of the Proposed Project, for a listing of NEB’s conditions).

Chapter 1, Section 7, ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW OF THE CANADIAN PORTION OF THE KEYSTONE 1.7
XL PROJECT, Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement

And this is Chapter 4, Section 16, or a list of all the potential impacts of the project...and what I see reading through it. is that there are negligible or limited impacts to the surrounding environment:

http://keystonepipeline-xl.state.gov/documents/organization/221192.pdf

Given these things, it would be reasonable to assume that the same circumstances would be true here in the United States. So, what other rationales are there for stopping this project? In the time it has taken to block this project, (over 5 years) the pipeline could already be close to completion.

Why do you care, it will not create a permanent job for you nor reduce the price of your gasoline, in fact, it does nothing for the average American and risks ecological repercussions? It is not American oil, nor American profits.

Obama opposes it so they must be for it.

Again, this pipeline extension will run right through the private lands owned by many Americans using the Imminent Domain rule.

And all this time, I though the GOP was on the side of the average American

 

[Muhammed]

I say build it. And if it leaks, the company pays a hefty fine. Anyone who disagrees is anti American. I can be built safely and be environmentally safe as well. I would assume any company building it would spend a lot of extra funds not needed to ensure the safety. The jobs however will be temporary. And not one drop of this oil should EVER be sold to the highest bidder. That should be illegal. That is our oil it should ALL stay here. If it doesn't, shut the company down.

Fines never put a spill area back just like it was.
Fines are always endlessly litigated and usually reduced.
The oil legally must be sold on the open market.
The company is Canadian and we have little power over their activities, much less shutting them down.

This thing will eventually be built, the jobs it creates will end, the oil will end up in China, it will leak at some point, the company will get a slap on the wrist and plentiful political cover and there is nothing anyone can do to make it deliver the benefits promised. It's all part of living in a plutocracy.

20 million tons of ag chemicals spread over 900 million acres year after year after year...

And you could give a flying fuck?

Get some perspective you dimwit.

I actually don't care that much if it gets built or not, I am just tired of Republicans misrepresenting and overselling this thing as a grand vision of energy independence and employment. Republicans purposely made this a national political issue and so now they must face a lot more resistance than if they had left it a local issue and patiently waited for the legal system to work as intended. Classic case of overreach, overselling and miscalculation.

It's not just a local issue, the pipeline will traverse the country from Alberta,Canada to Houston, Texas.

Democrassholes only oppose it because their wallets thrive on the suffering of Americans.

 

[Bfgrn]

Liberals worry about the environment being harmed by this pipeline, and won't even take the State Department's word that the project would have little to no impact on the environment. Well, let me see if I can't ram some reality through some really thick heads.

This is from the final impact report which was issued in January 2014

On March 11, 2010, the NEB issued its Reasons for Decision granting Keystone’s application. The NEB’s Reasons for Decision included an Environmental Screening Report (ESR) that was prepared to meet the requirements of Canadian Environmental Assessment Act for the Canadian portion of the proposed pipeline. The ESR concluded that implementation of the proposed pipeline in Canada would not likely result in significant adverse environmental effects with incorporation of Keystone’s proposed measures to avoid or minimize impacts and with Keystone’s acceptance of the NEB’s regulatory requirements and recommended conditions attached to the ESR (see also Section 4.15.4.1, Canadian National Energy Board Environmental Analysis of the Proposed Project, for a listing of NEB’s conditions).

Chapter 1, Section 7, ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW OF THE CANADIAN PORTION OF THE KEYSTONE 1.7
XL PROJECT, Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement

And this is Chapter 4, Section 16, or a list of all the potential impacts of the project...and what I see reading through it. is that there are negligible or limited impacts to the surrounding environment:

http://keystonepipeline-xl.state.gov/documents/organization/221192.pdf

Given these things, it would be reasonable to assume that the same circumstances would be true here in the United States. So, what other rationales are there for stopping this project? In the time it has taken to block this project, (over 5 years) the pipeline could already be close to completion.

OHHH! So GOVERNMENT says it is ok.

 

[Agit8r]

Let's start here.

Myth: Keystone XL is an export pipeline to China and other nations.
Fact: Keystone XL is not an export pipeline.

It is a supply line to U.S. Gulf Coast refineries — which have signed up to 20-year binding commercial contracts to receive oil through Keystone XL.

This much-needed oil will allow refineries to create products that we all rely on every day — gasoline for our vehicles, aviation fuels, and diesel fuels to help transport goods throughout the continent.

It makes absolutely no sense for companies to purchase cheaper Canadian crude, and then pay (again) to ship that product overseas, while continuing to import higher-priced oil from the Middle East and Venezuela.

- See more at: Myths addressed Exports Jobs Economic benefits and more Keystone XL Pipeline

Recent production increases, and reduction in demand has lowered the price so much till it's just barely feasible to even build the northern line that you insist is already built. We don't need it.

The original Keystone pipeline was completed last year. It takes tarsand oil to Illinois and the Gulf Coast. The one they want to build through the breadbasket of America is the Keystone XL.

 

[Bfgrn]

I say build it. And if it leaks, the company pays a hefty fine. Anyone who disagrees is anti American. I can be built safely and be environmentally safe as well. I would assume any company building it would spend a lot of extra funds not needed to ensure the safety. The jobs however will be temporary. And not one drop of this oil should EVER be sold to the highest bidder. That should be illegal. That is our oil it should ALL stay here. If it doesn't, shut the company down.

Fines never put a spill area back just like it was.
Fines are always endlessly litigated and usually reduced.
The oil legally must be sold on the open market.
The company is Canadian and we have little power over their activities, much less shutting them down.

This thing will eventually be built, the jobs it creates will end, the oil will end up in China, it will leak at some point, the company will get a slap on the wrist and plentiful political cover and there is nothing anyone can do to make it deliver the benefits promised. It's all part of living in a plutocracy.

Keystone is built from Alberta to the Gulf passing all environmental requirements.
XL is just a secondary line. It's the Northern leg which will pick up crude from the Bakken fields in Montana and North Dakota and link up with the Keystone.

TransCanada is responsible for any spills from the Keystone.

Oil will end up in China will it eh? The old Canadians need the pipeline to the Gulf so they can ship to China routine? No offense but are you geographically retarded?

We have pipelines to the Pacific. This big blue thingy called an ocean off the coast of British Columbia. Direct route.

Keystone is only a pipeline connecting Canuck crude and domestic production with your refineries in the midwest and in the Gulf.

It's just a freaking pipeline.

Tar sands supporters suffer setback as British Columbia rejects pipeline

Canadian province rejects plan for Enbridge Northern Gateway, saying company failed to demonstrate adequate clean-up plan

Efforts to expand production from the Alberta tar sands suffered a significant setback on Friday when the provincial government of British Columbia rejected a pipeline project because of environmental shortcomings.

In a strongly worded statement, the government of the province said it was not satisfied with the pipeline company's oil spill response plans.

The rejection of the pipeline – which was to have given Alberta an outlet to Pacific coast ports and markets in China – further raises the stakes on another controversial tar sands pipeline, Keystone XL.

Barack Obama is still weighing a decision on that pipeline, intended to pump tar sands crude to the Texas gulf coast.

...

The Canadian government has lobbied extensively in support of both projects and to prevent restricts on exports from the tar sands. In recent months, the government of Stephen Harper has deployed teams of lobbyists, and dispatched cabinet officials to US and European cities to make the case for tar sands development.

Prices for tar sands crude have been dropping in the absence of a reliable export route.

The Enbridge project, though not as ambitious as Keystone XL had been an important part of Harper's contingent plan. Canadian government officials had argued that if Obama turned down Keystone XL, Canada would simply ship crude to China.

 

[Bfgrn]

The Impact of Tar Sands Pipeline Spills on Employment and the Economy
A report by Cornell University global labor institute

About this report

This report examines the potentially negative impacts of tar sands oil spills on employment and the economy. It draws attention to economic sectors at risk from a tar sands pipeline spill, particularly in the six states along Keystone XL’s proposed route Montana, South Dakota, Nebraska, Kansas, Oklahoma, and Texas. This report also shows how Michigan’s Kalamazoo River spill in 2010—to date the largest tar sands oil spill in the U.S.—caused significant economic damage and negatively impacted the quality of life of local communities.

The information was collected from employment and economic data in the pipeline states, as well as from interviews with businesspeople, landowners, farmers, and ranchers who live and work along the proposed route for the Keystone XL or near the Kalamazoo River oil spill.

Main Findings

• The negative impacts on employment and the economy of tar sands pipelines have largely been ignored. To date, a comprehensive spills risk assessment for the proposed Keystone XL pipeline has not been conducted. Such an assessment would provide an independent review of both the risk of spills and their economic consequences.

• The Keystone XL pipeline would cut through America’s breadbasket. Agricultural land and rangeland comprise 79 percent of the land that would be affected by the proposed Keystone XL pipeline. It would cross more than 1,700 bodies of water, including the Missouri and Yellowstone rivers and the Ogallala and Carrizo-Wilcox aquifers. The Ogallala Aquifer alone supplies 30 percent of the groundwater used for irrigation in the U.S. It also supplies two million people with drinking water.

• Farming, ranching, and tourism are major sources of employment along the Keystone XL pipeline’s proposed route. Water contamination resulting from a Keystone XL spill, or the cumulative effect of spills over the lifetime of the pipeline, would have significant economic costs and could result in job loss in these sectors. Approximately 571,000 workers are directly employed in the agricultural sector in the six states along the Keystone XL corridor. Total agricultural output for these states is about $76 billion annually.

• Many of the land areas and bodies of water that Keystone XL will cross provide recreational opportunities vital to the tourism industry. Keystone XL would traverse 90.5 miles of recreation and special interest areas, including federal public lands, state parks and forests, and national historic trails. About 780,000 workers are employed in the tourism sector in the states along the Keystone XL pipeline. Tourism spending in these states totaled more than $67 billion in 2009.

• Recent experience has demonstrated that tar sands spills pose additional dangers to the public and present special challenges in terms of clean up. There is strong evidence that tar sands pipeline spills occur more frequently than spills from pipelines carrying conventional crude oil because of the diluted bitumen’s toxic, corrosive, and heavy composition. Tar sands oil spills have the potential to be more damaging than conventional crude oil spills because they are more difficult and more costly to clean up, and because they have the potential to pose more serious health risks. Therefore both the frequency and particular nature of the spills have negative economic implications.

• The Kalamazoo River tar sands spill affected the health of hundreds of residents, displaced residents, hurt businesses, and caused a loss of jobs. The largest tar sands oil spill in the U.S. occurred on the Kalamazoo River in Michigan in 2010. This spill affected the health of hundreds of residents, displaced residents, hurt businesses, and caused a loss of jobs. The Kalamazoo spill is the most expensive tar sands pipeline oil spill in U.S. history, with overall costs estimated at $725 million.

• The public debate around Keystone XL has focused almost exclusively on job creation from the project, yet existing jobs and economic sectors could suffer significantly from one or more spills from Keystone XL. According to the U.S. State Department, the six states along the pipeline route are expected to gain a total of 20 permanent pipeline operation jobs. Meanwhile, the agricultural and tourism sectors are already a major employer in these states. Potential job losses to these sectors resulting from one or more spills from Keystone XL could be considerable.

• Renewable energy provides a safer route to creating new jobs and a sustainable environment. The U.S. is leading the world in renewable energy investments, and employment in this sector has expanded in recent years.

The full report can be downloaded here: Cornell University - ILR School: Global Labor Institute - Tar Sands Pipeline Spill

 

[Bfgrn]

"We didn't inherit this land from our ancestors, we borrow it from our children."
Lakota Sioux Proverb

TransCanada has lied before about jobs that will be created, why should we believe them now?

Jobs Gained, Jobs Lost by the Construction of Keystone XL
A report by Cornell University global labor institute

Main Findings

The main points in this briefing paper can be summarized as follows:

• The industry’s US jobs claims are linked to a $7 billion KXL project budget. However, the budget for KXL that will have a bearing on US jobs figures is dramatically lower—only around $3 to $4 billion. A lower project budget means fewer jobs.

• The project will create no more than 2,500-4,650 temporary direct construction jobs for two years, according to TransCanada’s own data supplied to the State Department.

• The company’s claim that KXL will create 20,000 direct construction and manufacturing jobs in the U.S is not substantiated.

• There is strong evidence to suggest that a large portion of the primary material input for KXL—steel pipe—will not even be produced in the United States. A substantial amount of pipe has already been manufactured in advance of pipeline permit issuance.

• The industry’s claim that KXL will create 119,000 total jobs (direct, indirect, and induced) is based on a flawed and poorly documented study commissioned by TransCanada (The Perryman Group study). Perryman wrongly includes over $1 billion in spending and over 10,000 person-years of employment for a section of the Keystone project in Kansas and Oklahoma that is not part of KXL and has already been built.

• KXL will not be a major source of US jobs, nor will it play any substantial role at all in putting Americans back to work. Even if the Perryman figures were accurate, and all of the workers for the next phase of the project were hired immediately, the US seasonally adjusted unemployment rate would remain at 9.1%—exactly where it is now.

• KXL will divert Tar Sands oil now supplying Midwest refineries, so it can be sold at higher prices to the Gulf Coast and export markets. As a result, consumers in the Midwest could be paying 10 to 20 cents more per gallon for gasoline and diesel fuel. These additional costs (estimated to total $2–4 billion) will suppress other spending and will therefore cost jobs.

• Pipeline spills incur costs and therefore kill jobs. Clean-up operations and permanent pipeline spill damage will divert public and private funds away from productive economic activity. In 2010 US pipeline spills and explosions killed 22 people, released over 170,000 barrels of petroleum into the environment, and caused $1 billion dollars worth of damage in the United States.

• Rising carbon emissions and other pollutants from the heavy crude transported by Keystone XL will also incur increased health care costs. Emissions also increase both the risk and costs of further climate instability.

• By helping to lock in US dependence on fossil fuels, Keystone XL will impede progress toward green and sustainable economic renewal and will have a chilling effect on green investments and green jobs creation. The green economy has already generated 2.7 million jobs in the US and could generate many more.

http://www.ilr.cornell.edu/globallaborinstitute/research/upload/GLI_KeystoneXL_012312_FIN.pdf

 

[BULLDOG]

Let's start here.

Myth: Keystone XL is an export pipeline to China and other nations.
Fact: Keystone XL is not an export pipeline.

It is a supply line to U.S. Gulf Coast refineries — which have signed up to 20-year binding commercial contracts to receive oil through Keystone XL.

This much-needed oil will allow refineries to create products that we all rely on every day — gasoline for our vehicles, aviation fuels, and diesel fuels to help transport goods throughout the continent.

It makes absolutely no sense for companies to purchase cheaper Canadian crude, and then pay (again) to ship that product overseas, while continuing to import higher-priced oil from the Middle East and Venezuela.

- See more at: Myths addressed Exports Jobs Economic benefits and more Keystone XL Pipeline

Recent production increases, and reduction in demand has lowered the price so much till it's just barely feasible to even build the northern line that you insist is already built. We don't need it.

The original Keystone pipeline was completed last year. It takes tarsand oil to Illinois and the Gulf Coast. The one they want to build through the breadbasket of America is the Keystone XL.

We are discussing keystone XL. You know, the one that requires approval? The one teabaggers are so upset about?

 

[NYcarbineer]

Liberals worry about the environment being harmed by this pipeline, and won't even take the State Department's word that the project would have little to no impact on the environment.

Do you take the State Department's word on climate change/global warming?

 

[airplanemechanic]

My problem with the Keystone pipeline has less to do with the environment, and much more to do with the fact that they're stealing private land via eminent domain to build it on.

The fact that the people who will have the pipeline running through their backyards are opposed to it is enough reason for me to oppose it.

I'm curious as to how you guys reconcile your claims of "property rights" with your support of government-enforced theft of private property.

They did it for the interstate system. Where were you crying in your grits for those people? Or is it only evil if its an oil pipeline?

 

[Camp]

My problem with the Keystone pipeline has less to do with the environment, and much more to do with the fact that they're stealing private land via eminent domain to build it on.

The fact that the people who will have the pipeline running through their backyards are opposed to it is enough reason for me to oppose it.

I'm curious as to how you guys reconcile your claims of "property rights" with your support of government-enforced theft of private property.

They did it for the interstate system. Where were you crying in your grits for those people? Or is it only evil if its an oil pipeline?

The interstate system was a government project that benefited the entire nation in many multiple ways and had no negative impacts threatening the nation as a whole. The pipeline is a project that benefits a private business and threatens to have negative impacts on the nation that are predictable and statistically probable.

 

[airplanemechanic]

My problem with the Keystone pipeline has less to do with the environment, and much more to do with the fact that they're stealing private land via eminent domain to build it on.

The fact that the people who will have the pipeline running through their backyards are opposed to it is enough reason for me to oppose it.

I'm curious as to how you guys reconcile your claims of "property rights" with your support of government-enforced theft of private property.

They did it for the interstate system. Where were you crying in your grits for those people? Or is it only evil if its an oil pipeline?

The interstate system was a government project that benefited the entire nation in many multiple ways and had no negative impacts threatening the nation as a whole. The pipeline is a project that benefits a private business and threatens to have negative impacts on the nation that are predictable and statistically probable.

Ok, well you're either for or against eminent domain. You can't be "somewhere in the middle." So which is it?

It doesn't benefit the NATION for them to put an interstate through a farmers field, it benefits people in that local area. It benefits people in the area of the pipeline with jobs, so what's the difference?

 

[Camp]

My problem with the Keystone pipeline has less to do with the environment, and much more to do with the fact that they're stealing private land via eminent domain to build it on.

The fact that the people who will have the pipeline running through their backyards are opposed to it is enough reason for me to oppose it.

I'm curious as to how you guys reconcile your claims of "property rights" with your support of government-enforced theft of private property.

They did it for the interstate system. Where were you crying in your grits for those people? Or is it only evil if its an oil pipeline?

The interstate system was a government project that benefited the entire nation in many multiple ways and had no negative impacts threatening the nation as a whole. The pipeline is a project that benefits a private business and threatens to have negative impacts on the nation that are predictable and statistically probable.

Ok, well you're either for or against eminent domain. You can't be "somewhere in the middle." So which is it?

It doesn't benefit the NATION for them to put an interstate through a farmers field, it benefits people in that local area. It benefits people in the area of the pipeline with jobs, so what's the difference?

The interstate highway system did benefit the nation. It made it possible for the transport of goods and services, lowered the prices of those goods and services, benefited businesses who were able to expand their business, created over 25 years of solid employment building it, continues to create jobs maintaining it and on and on. The pipeline will not benefit the nation as a whole. It will create some very temporary jobs. It has the potential to create problems of immense proportion that could have long lasting negative effects on the nations well being. In addition the interstate highway system was viewed by Eisenhower as a national security project that would not only allow military equipment to be moved swiftly, but would make it possible to move populated areas away from those areas (cities) and into the countryside and make quick responses in cases of natural or man made disasters.
Lots of positive reasons with positive returns for the Interstate Highway System, very few for a private oil pipeline that crosses over and could destroy one of the nations most valuable natural resources.