If your argument is against any pipeline through the state, why does it matter if it runs near Bismark or not? This strikes me as throwing as many objections out as possible in the hopes one will stick.
Uh, no. To explain it more clearly, there is more than 1 reason I despise this pipeline. I know, it's tough to follow multiple reasons, but given your sarcasm in the post below the post I quoted I have faith that you can follow the conversation. Apparently, though, you've never heard the phrase "raping our land" when referring to a process that literally drills into the land and removes resources or when something causes pollution to the surrounding lands. You know, like the entire oil process from start to finish. Though, I find you to be willfully ignorant in this case as you seem to be familiar with the oil scene and there's no one that works with oil that hasn't had someone say that to them. So, whatever your goal is, hopefully you feel you've reached it.
The pipeline is ******** that does not help the CITIZENS (I'm sad I have to make that distinction), that are not in government, at all. We see no benefit to it as a state, at all. Nothing. We gain nothing. I wouldn't want it no matter where it ran, because we've been getting oil from point A to point B with absolutely no issue. They just want to ship more of it overseas, none of this **** is even helping the U.S.A. Unless, of course, you're invested in oil.
But why would a state want a project that isn't directly in its interests? I don't know. You have public roadways where private companies transport tanker trucks full of gasoline - clearly a danger. You have trains full of goods traveling from North Dakota and Canada to southern states - clearly a danger.
Ah yes, so we're going back to the ******** argument of, "there are already things that can cause bad things to happen, why not make more?!" Answer: common sense.
Lets think here, do those roads help anyone other than private companies? Hmmm, I don't know. Would we need those roads if those companies weren't using them? You know what?! You're right, obviously unlike this pipeline, the only people to profit from our public roads is private companies! What a strange argument to make. Oh wait, the only people that profit from the pipelines are the ****ers building it and NOT the city, state or counties that it's going through. That makes it completely different than roads. You got me.
The question might be better put the other way around: Why should North Dakota allow free enterprise and private companies to operate within its borders? My guess is there's no reason that's been offered up to prevent it.
I don't...I can't....what?
Is the pipeline taxed? I don't know. I found this estimate: estimated $129 million annually in property and income taxes. That might be for the pipeline overall and not just ND.
The oil in the pipeline comes from North Dakota, does that count?
No, it doesn't count. I'm not going to sit here and go back and forth. You've already made up your mind, and I, as someone that lives here, have made up mine. I've looked into it, spoken with actual members of the tribes, and followed this since before national news even knew it was a thing.
I have an extremely hard time believing that it would bring in $129 million. When I look at that statement the only people saying it are who? Oh yeah, people that want the pipeline built. Strange that they would say that and other sources don't say **** about it.
Even if it were double, it's not worth the risk unless you're invested in oil and don't give a **** about people drinking that water. Unless something changes, I'm out of this thread. Seeing people **** on human life to make a *********** buck on an unneeded pipeline makes my stomach sick.
