My bird's eye view of the issues of the Gateway project to the west coast is not so much the pipeline itself but more so the issue of tankers on the rugged west coast of BC.

From what I have heard, a spill of bitumen into the ocean cannot be cleaned up with current technology. These waters are some of the most beautiful and biologically productive in the world. I've seen lowly barnacles in this area the size of grapefruit. The chance of a spill is small but the consquences are huge and long term. These waters are important for salmon from Alaska, BC, Washington, and Oregon so this isn't just a local issue.

A few years ago, a BC ferry (Queen of the North) struck a rock (not far from where the tranker traffic would ply) and quickly sunk with two passengers losing their life. My take from that is we treat safety of human life as paramamount but we still had an accident and loss of life. There was no immediate rescue response except that put on by local First Nation's community in the middle of the night. Why would we expect tanker traffic to be any safer and a response to be any better?

I had a conversation with a relative from Alberta who was very pro-oil sands + pipeline. Upon hearing even the slightes bit of my concern about tanker traffic, his response was "Well, we should just turn off the oil; how would you like that? You guys are so niave".

I dont' think for a minute that production out of the Alberta oil sands will slow down. Alberta does need to understand that there is a chance of a spill and that spill would be devestating and there-in lies the concern.

I agree that the rail option doesn't seem practical. I'd love to see the bitumin refined in Alberta and the subsequent addition of value. I don't know of a silver bullet solution to getting these products safely to market - namely China.