The Gateway. You can probably understand why Keystone and Dakota Access have had the same problem. Pipeline are the best way, at least the safest and by far the cheapest form of overland transport and they are the most environmentally friendly way to move large quantities of most fluids. Trees must be removed, but other than temporary construction activities, there is little remaining impact on nature, if things go as planned. One large pipelines can take 10s of thousands of trucks off the roads, reducing emissions and improving road safety. They also put thousands of truck drivers off the roads too ... but their biggest problem yet is that they need lots and lots of land, that they supposedly can't afford to buy outright. They only lease the rights to use the land ... basically forever .. at a relatively low cost. So, they are essentially able to operate cheaper than railroads for example, because they use cheap public and private lands. Now after using all that cheaply obtained land, they want the public to accept the risks of operating the pipeline on top of it. True, pipelines create jobs, at least some somewhere, and pay taxes, at least some somewhere, however they don't create a whole lot of employment, after subtracting the truck drivers out of work it's probably negative, and some pay very little tax, especially if partnerships are structured the right way in the USA. So what remains in many peoples minds is, should we let them use cheap land in return for the limited environmental benefits of reduced trucks and emissions, or not. If we do, will the benefits of that compensate for the risk we take of leaks and line breaks on our lands. Many people think not. This is especially true for BC, since little or none of the oil production benefit will go to BC, yet BC will have more miles of potentially leaking pipeline risk to accept. On top of that, there will be quite a few more oceangoing tankers operating in the Sound. On top of that, will BC get much tax revenue from the oil companies that operate and pay taxes in Alberta. Will BC get the benefit of burning that oil as fuel? No, it's going to Japan. Considering all those items on the wrong side of the list, the whole risk-reward scenario of the Gateway project from BC's perspective is tilted very much towards Alberta's favour. That's the same reason Keystone had such a hard road to hoe in the USA. USA gets the risk and pollution, but not much else. Gateway is best from a USA standpoint, as BC would get the risk and pollution. Can we build a leakproof pipeline to eliminate the potential risk of leaks? I think it's a tall order. Better to study the statistical leak rate and see if you can successfully mitigate the effects of that, or ... take the best route for BC, which could be send it through Keystone.
Technology is stealing American jobs. Stop visas for robots.
That's greed at it's worst. 