Money is important, but it too often takes too high a price in the offsetting issues surrounding many decisions. 

That said, I believe a safe pipeline CAN be built and still abide by locals concerns. 

 

Rongone wrote:

So, the fact that a non-essential pipeline that will transport more expensively produced oil from tar sands and fracking operations, that will provide fewer than 50 full time jobs, that will transport oil to Gulf area refineries to prepare expensive oil for export, that will garner profits for big oil . . .

All that is more important than the concerns of U.S. citizens that live in the areas whose health and lifestyle will be detrimentally affected by this pipeline.

I don't think so.

Correct. The major benefactor will be the OIL COMPANIES and not the U.S. 


 

TheLagerLad wrote:

Common Sense wrote:

Thanks President Trump for approving the pipeline!

Dakota Access Pipeline expected to bring $100M a year to North Dakota

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/03/02/dakota-access-pipeline-expected-to-bring-100m-year-to-north-

PipelineNorth Dakota is expected to gain $100 million or more annually in tax revenue once crude oil begins flowing through the Dakota Access Pipeline, according to an Associated Press report released on Thursday.That’s money the sparsely populated northern state, which struggles with declining tax revenue, can useNorth Dakota has a police bill of $33 million from the cost of dispatching officers and security personnel to the pipeline site to respond to sometimes violent protests.

As soon as next week, Dallas-based Energy Transfer Partners’ $3.8 billion pipeline could begin shipping crude oil on the more-than 1,000-mile journey to Illinois.North Dakota gains tax revenue from every barrel of crude that flows through the pipeline. Besides oil tax revenue from the pipeline, the state can expect more than $10 million annually in property taxes related to the pipeline.

North Dakota’s state budget analysts expect to release a new revenue forecast next week that reflects the anticipated tax revenue increase, said State Budget Director Pam Sharp.While the revenue the state expects to gather in just one year will far exceed North Dakota's higher police expenses, experts say the extra revenue shouldn’t be considered a payoff.“This is just one benefit a state gets if it is able to make these pipelines work,” Nick Loris, research fellow in energy and environment policy at the Heritage Foundation, told Fox News. “It’s a cherry on top economically, for something that gets Americans and businesses reliable, safe sources of energy — these are good things.”
 

I wonder why they don't call out other states getting tax revenue form the pipeline? Likely because North Dakota is taxing the oil being extracting in the Bakken oil fields in the state. Meaning whether they were sending it via a pipeline or a truck they would be getting the revenue from the oil.

So this story doesn't hold water.

Correct. 

The kicker seems to be that the current production from the Balkeen oil fields exceeds the current pipeline capacity and the shipments via rail have had some safety issues in recent years. Seems like the pipeline might actually increase safety IF they keep pumping and shipping the same volumes. The money is likely the same to Dakota either way.