Sure the oil is for North America. Oil is a commodity, used by everyone. The difference is that the US refines intermediate crude, we export light, sweet crude to other countries because they have the refineries for that grade of crude. But oil is oil. The more oil we ship, the more money comes into the economy and the more oil there is on the markets. It's a win-win

This is rather absurd. They take away a safe method of transport (pipeline), restrict to an unsafe method of transport, which they then modify to make it safer, but still not as safe as the initial mode of transport (pipeline). Then they act like they are doing any of this for the environment.

Here is a clue. You burn MORE fossil fuels transporting by train than by pipeline. Further, if you are really concerned about oil spills in pipelines, then you can add some guidances for the monitoring. Monitoring drops in pressure at every 1 mile interval and shutting down the pipeline when a leak is spotted until the leak is fixed, gives incentive for the oil transporters to make sure little hit the environment.

The safest way would be to build a refinery in Canada or the northern U.S. This is not preferred by the oil companies because they want to ship the oil oversees where prices are higher. The pipeline in not about oil for North America.

They already know it is safer with pipeline. Their preference is to keep the oil in the ground, and they are trying to find any means they can to shut down private oil production in North Dakota. Windmills that kill birds are exempted, but a few birds die at an oil well, and they file lawsuits.

I think it would be safer to ship by pipeline.

Did someone stop a pipeline being built from North Dakota to refineries?

http://news.yahoo.com/north-dakota-regulators-impose-oil-shipment-rules-233615516.html

Isn't this just like the saviours of the earth to block a safe method of transportation of oil then impose regulations on the more dangerous method of railroad.