The problem is, I'm not sure who, in this case. Just who benefits the most from this current nonsense about building a new pipeline? I kind of suspect the owners of the current pipelines are the culprits, after all, they make their money from transporting oil, and causing a shortage of available transport means more money for them. Or maybe they were driving up the price of the existing pipeline that was sold a couple of weeks ago.
At any event, when you are already pregnant, you can't get any more pregnant. For a dose of reality, open the links below. A noprize for the first person to calculate how many pipelines cross the ogallala right now, it's the big blue one in the middle of the country. Of course, everyone who has ever been in Texas or Louisiana knows you'd have a hard time getting 20 miles away from a pipeline, at least in the eastern and southern parts - lots of those are not on those maps because they are local, not long haulage lines.
http://www.theodora.com/pipelines/unite ... lines.html
http://www.classzone.com/books/earth_sc ... page10.cfm
http://22.214.171.124/pub/oil_gas/natura ... index.html
When you hear something has to be blocked for environmental reasons, and it's a singular particular project, its good to ask who benefits if this doesn't happen. That's IFF its a real project. There are no oil companies excited about drilling in the Alaskan Wildlife Refuge for example, the frozen season is too short so it's nearly impossible to get in, set up and get out before the ground thaws and sinks everything. There are ways around that, but they cost more than it's worth just to drill in that area. Eventually, drilling offshore will be approved and they'll slant drill into that oil. There's no hurry as there is no real project there. If there was a real project, the environment groups would be protesting something 1000 miles away. Virtually all of them have been bought and owned for decades.