I've done the research, I know the facts, I've written reports that have shut pipelines down. I'm not a fan. Saying a pipeline is safer than a tanker is like saying it's better to be shot with a 270 than an '06. At least that's how it is in my neck of the woods. Then again we have mountains, landslides, places so remote that you can't access by any other way than by helicopter and way too many vital fish bearing streams to cross.
Count me in the 'not a fan' group
How does this pipeline differ from the one in Alaska? That one is pretty remote, crosses vital fish streams and has plenty of tectonic events to endure.
