They wouldn't build pipelines in the first place if it didn't make business sense to do so. These pipes will be in place for a very long time (relatively speaking). I would also think that railroad or road for transporting a solid liquid is also less environmentally friendly than sending via pipelines. Of course, if you are assuming that the pipeline will burst, then it may not be, but one has to ensure that the pipeline is a safe option. Government oversight is needed in those cases.
I understand the argument from the article is about flexibility - a pipeline will be in place for a very long time, but it's not easy to move it around as the economical landscape changes. Meanwhile, rail will let you move the stuff to wherever it's currently better to have it.
