There's a reason they are not admissible as evidence.
... and also a reason polygraph they're still in business.
The XL pipeline would provide only temporary jobs for the construction of the pipeline. It might require a few dozen permanent jobs for maintenance and other costs associated with any ongoing concern. Then again, the US firms (if any) charged with maintaining the pipeline once it's built may not hire anyone new for these roles.
I get the impression that you're joking, but it's more important than at any time in the past to correct false assertions: Most everyone has lost his sense of humor, and facts are routinely confused with personal or group truths. It will be more important to correct false assertions tomorrow -- why not procrastinate in order to ramp up the significance of your unfounded exaggerations?
Better suggestion for you -- from Len Grossman. https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
Methinks the fix is in, whether it involves Tom Steyer or other interests who are only anti-this-pipeline.
FYI, my brother-in-law sells pipe for pipelines (and the SCADA to go with it). He says that sales have strictly increased since the pipeline was first publicized in 2008.
The same design that prevents real-time communication also makes Freenet a lot more resilient.
... and durable.
Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. ~the Declaration of Independence
I remember a story about a guy who thought of dunking banana slices in chocolate and mixing them with banana flavoured ice cream. He showed this to some food company, which turned him down and then marketed it themselves. Many other examples abound. Maybe Robert Kearn's story (he patented his intermittent windscreen wiper design before approaching Ford, then Chrysler) is a better context for the question: Who was first to market? The inventor who tried to market to the corporation, or the corporation that stole the idea and marketed it to genpop?
Even if the good guys win -- whomever the good guys are, for you, in this squabble -- regulatory agencies in these United States are crack whores, fellating the same corporations that the legislature has put in charge. The rules are for show. Gives a whole new meaning to money talks, bullshit walks when the regulations are widely known to be unenforced, even unenforceable.
That, by the way, is the definition of corruption, i.e., the opposite of integrity. Integrity is much more than some soporific ideal about what is right. It's about strength, and durability. What is the integrity of the chair you're sitting in right now?
I've got a bad feeling about this.