"Your assumptions about protestors are a logical fallacy."

Prove it.  Let's hear the best argument from the protesters and we will weigh that against the best counter-arguments and see which ones are more logically consistent.  Otherwise, I see no reason whatsoever to suggest that my assumptions are faulty.  If they are correct but unproven, they still remain correct.

Are there exceptions to the rule?  Sure, there are always outliers.  I'm sure there are some rational and intelligent protesters out there with legitimate causes and valid arguments (I myself am an anti-war protester).  But like GMOs and telescopes, this doesn't appear to be one one of them.  It might be, I just haven't seen very compelling arguments for why this particular pipeline is special compared to the rest.