Dear Editor:
We're starting to hear much about the dangers of transporting oil by road or rail compared to - so the argument goes - the safer and environmentally friendlier pipeline.
Not only are the three train derailments in as many months used to support this thesis, but the Fraser Institute's very recent statistical study concludes "resistance to pipeline transport is sending oil to market by modes of transport that pose higher risks of spills and personal injuries such as rail and road transport."
The implication is clear.
Those opposed to pipeline construction are responsible for creating this state of affairs.
But the reality is otherwise.
The truth of the matter is that the Tar Sands oil industry decided sometime ago to increase bitumen production despite the lack of pipelines to handle the increase.
In other words, it was the bitumen producers that created the current safety crisis, not those who oppose new pipeline construction.
If oil transport safety really was a primary concern of the industry, wouldn't they have slowed down rather than speeded up bitumen production?
I mean, after all, it's not as if the stuff is going to evaporate overnight.
Bill Brassington, Burnaby
