[FlamesAddiction]

Pipelines are a better alternative than rail, for sure. Any time you have more moving parts and points of contact, there is an increased risk of spills. There are also many more rail "mishaps" than what are reported.

Having said that, I work in the environmental industry and have worked for both pipeline and rail clients, and neither is what I would call clean. Pipeline leaks and spills happen all the time. Something like 200 barrels a day are lost in due to pipeline leaks. Pipeline leaks are also more difficult to detect, and therefore more difficult to address quickly.

It's actually good for my livelihood as hydrocarbon impacted contaminated site remediation is what I do, but I totally understand why many people don't want an additional pipeline going through their backyard.

Canada would benefit more from it than the U.S., but most of the environmental impact would be in the U.S. If the tables were turned, I don't think I would be that eager to do it. But let's face it, the Americans can bully their way to get anything they want if the tables were turned.

In the end, I think it will go through. The question is, what will they get in return? I am not sure that will be, but I doubt we will like the answer.

Maybe a dumb question, but would it be totally out of the question to increase capacity of the current pipelines instead of building a new one? Those areas are already impacted and it would probably be less political.