Just from looking at it initially, we would need to have a substantial increase in the amount of infrastructure to allow a 56% increase in oil production to be transported to our clients by rail. I point this out because historically there have been shortcomings in rail that have been directly correlated with something that's near and dear to my heart, agricultural commodities, as well as mining commodities and mineral exploration. That's the reason I'm asking this question. I really believe that we should consider the overall environmental impact when we're talking about a project as big as Energy East or Trans Mountain. We need to look at those overall environmental impacts and look at the entire picture, because we're not really getting a true picture by simply saying that we're comparing pipelines with rail when we're not even taking into account whether or not the present rail infrastructure would meet that need. I'm guessing that it probably does not.
On May 30th, 2016. See this statement in context.