You've just described the only major industries (besides Devon/Apache) in Oklahoma, especially western Oklahoma. Nearly all the guys in my graduating class work for one of those or sub-contractors of them.
This isn't even the biggest obstacle... the pipeline is going to be going near/across several key water sources for Indian reservations and they've made it clear they'll fight it till they die. They simply aren't willing to have what little land of theirs that remains face any kind of environmental disaster and they have the money and legal experience to make an oil company breakdown and cry.
When the lawmakers answer to the Bob Murrays and Don Blankenships of the world, it's a surprise that they don't take by lethal force as the first option.
I suppose you could argue that an oil pipeline is not important enough to warrant the use of eminent domain, but in that case it would seem to me that few pipelines would ever get built. A pipeline of any substantial length can easily pass through the lands of hundreds of owners, and if all it takes is a few ones who are unwilling to sell or make some such arrangements for the passage, then practical routes might be extraordinarily difficult to come by.
First, it is for right of way, but some of these pipes are slated to bisect land which would make a lot of it unable to be worked, so in essence taking away a good chunk of their livelihood. I have heard in on instance that it would require a house being demolished, but I don't know the specifics of that and it could be hearsay. Talking away half my yard is an inconvenience. Taking away half of a farmer's land and it's quite a bit more than that. And the land above would not be able to be used for farming, so even underground you have issues.
Do you remember the near-daily reports of problems with the Alaska Pipeline project on the news when we were kids?
First, I think I might disagree with you on the land usage issue. Most US states have laws requiring pipelines to be built underground sufficiently below plowing depth to make the land usable for farming, and I would imagine this is also true in this case. As I understand, the Keystone pipeline would be built some 4 feet underground, which seems to be sufficient clearance to permit farming. Buildings are why I said the land would be available for "most use", though, as foundations can often go deeper than that.
I doubt both those things will happen together. If a Democrat wins in 2016, it's more likely that the Republicans will continue to pick up seats in the House and Senate.
Perhaps, but it's also traditional for the majority party to lose seats each election, as voters are far more capricious when it comes to Senate and Congress seats than with Presidents. It could go ether way but I'm betting the public has had enough with obstructionist government.
I don't have the information at my fingertips, but I'm pretty certain the pattern is that the midterms go against whoever holds executive power.
I don't even know if it's "People" so much as it is the opposition party being more motivated to go to the midterm polls because their candidate didn't get the big chair.
And it would probably be the same under President Rodham.
She won the state in the 2008 primaries.
