I say addition because part of the pipeline already exists with the Keystone pipeline within part of the US having gone into operation last summer with a capacity of 400k plus barrels of oil per day. The proposed Keystone XL would come out of Canada and increase the capacity to 900k barrels of oil per day. Are there concerns about the pipeline going over the Ogallala Aquafier of which we get water for the major part of the country of which we get out food? Yes but that's not the problem. The pipeline crosses over 70 major rivers and streams that feeds the watershed for the entire middle part of the country so that's the deal breaker? Again a concern but not the deal breaker. So what's the problem? A Canadian company able to seize land using the force of eminent domain! Obama stopping the pipeline may have done it for other reasons but in the interest of protecting property rights, stopping the pipeline was the right thing to do IMO. Individual property rights trumps transnational oil interests and yes it even trumps your personal interest of cheap gas at the pump. Using the gun against the one for the group or in socialist terms, the collective interests is still wrong. And I do have a question for the group, if the pipeline is about supplying the US with oil and according to some would boost our oil independence from say Middle East sources (which is a good thing), if you look at this map of all the existing US pipelines, why does Keystone XL go all the way to the Gulf of Mexico and Port Arthur Texas? How would you look at this if you knew for example that the US has become a net "EXPORTER" (yes folks, I said net exporter as in shipping out) of gasoline, diesel and even jet fuel?