I'll tell you why I say that. I just did a whole national tour with David Suzuki, and he didn't mention it once. I know why he didn't mention it once. It's because they're so fixated on pipelines.
If you go to the Bakken, the Bakken has exactly the same kind of pipeline problem as the tar sands have. In fact, Keystone XL would take about 100,000 barrels from the Bakken. The way they're doing it in the Bakken is loading it on rail.
It's not cheap. What does the locomotive run on? It's $16 a barrel to get there, but you get a wide enough spread between WTI and Brent, and you incent that kind of activity.
I'm sure there are folks in Alberta right now who have figured that out. I don't follow this, but I would venture to guess that if I were to look at the volume of oil being shipped by rail outside of Alberta, it's growing in the same direction as in North Dakota. One of these days guys like David Suzuki are going to find that out, and we're going to see environmental opposition to rail.
It's true that we haven't seen huge rail spills, because a very small percentage of oil is moved by rail in North America, not for environmental reasons, for economic reasons.