Last month, the House of Representatives passed a bill to force the Obama administration to approve or deny the Keystone XL pipeline project by November 1. The pipeline, developed by TransCanada Corp., would deliver Canadian crude oil through a 1,700 mile stretch – from northeastern Alberta through the American heartland to the Gulf coast in Texas. The source of the crude oil would be Canada's tar sands, also known as oil sands. The process of producing tar sands oil consumes more energy than extracting regular crude, and environmentalists say the process also causes more damage to the environment. Opponents also argue tar sands oil is more corrosive to pipelines and presents a great risk of leaks as it crosses through the wetlands of Kansas and ranch land in Texas. Proponents of the pipeline say concerns about leaks are over-stated. They argue the oil would ensure energy security for the United States as never before. The $7 billion dollar project could create 20,000 jobs when the country could use them desperately. The controversial proposal dates back to 2005 and has been under review by the State Department. In June, State issued a draft of its environmental assessment, but the federal Environmental Protection Agency quickly criticized it. The EPA said it failed to fully explore ways to reduce greenhouse gases and failed to fully consider spill risks. Which arguments are most compelling to you?