Yes, indeed we could. If we do that (and it's under discussion) then the most likely customer will be China and elsewhere in eastern Asia, and you Americans would not have inexpensive access to it because your refineries are, for the most part, not on the Pacific coast. Do you want inexpensive and relatively low-risk access to the oil by pipeline, or do you want more expensive and riskier access by rail and sea while giving the inexpensive stuff to your worldwide competitors?
It is a shorter distance for the pipeline to stay within Canada and go to the Pacific coast, but it has to cross the mountains. The route south to your existing refineries on the Gulf coast is longer but through easier terrain, and likely with less earthquake risk. Also ... pipeline is THE lowest risk method of transporting oil. Railways and ocean freighters have more risk.
WE would rather build that pipeline. We are handing this to you on a golden platter, and you are contemplating saying no!
The oil is going to eventually go to market, one way or another. Not approving pipelines means it defaults to rail shipment, and unfortunately we have already borne some of the risks associated with that.
