I searched every which way possible and this is the only thing that came close to any of the percentages. If that info is out there (and I don't think it is
) then my search skills can't find it. People have a habit of passing what they heard from so and so as gospel when it couldn't be further from the truth. Till I see it in a document it's just hear say. Jus sayin
Well, for the info that is
out there, there appears to be an inconsistency.
The information that is out there includes the document you linked to and the July 5 Postmedia News article by Peter O’Neil.
According to the box on page 51 of the document you linked to, it seems like the pipeline company is not
assuming any “land environmental risk”, given that the “land environmental risk” “to B.C.” is indicated as “58%” and the “land environmental risk” “to ... Alberta” is indicated as “42%”.
But, according to the July 5 Postmedia News article by Peter O’Neil, it seems like the pipeline company is
assuming land environmental risk.
Which one is it? Is the pipeline company assuming any land environmental risk or not?