[PA Engineer]

Having a pipeline or the prospect of having a pipeline run through my grazing land would...especially if I was not adequately paid for the land...or if I was ‘forced’ to sell land I didn’t want to sell...WOULD make me hesitant about having a large herd. But to say that because herds are low that ranchers should be happy to sell land...that’s the point I disagree with.

Being hesitant to have a large herd is youir opinion only. I was on the original Northern Boarder Pipeline Study. The land was completely restored, new fencing was provided and the ranchers were compensated for impact and right of way. This is just one example.

You do understand that the pipelines are buried underground? Have you ever looked at a pipeline map for gas and petroleum in the US?

You are acting incredibly irrational and know little of what you opine on.

[conservaKate]

And because of course there is never any pipeline leaks right?

No impact to property being dug up?

No impact to loss of use?

Property seized by the government doesn’t bother you? Bothers me.

And could someone please tell me why when someone has an opposing view, personal attacks come out? Such a rational way to debate an issue. / yes that’s snark just in case you couldn’t tell.