According to [1] the cost in 2018 was $5/barrel via pipeline, vs $10-$15/barrel by train. Also, for Alberta boats are not an option since it's a landlocked province. Also, Alberta's oil sands are the world's largest oil reserves after Venezuela and Saudi Arabia, so a pipeline would be very economical once it starts running.
Also, quote from [2]:
While long-haul oil and gas pipelines are also more economical and environmentally friendly than other modes of transport like rail or trucking (pipelines create 61 to 77% less greenhouse gas emissions than rail when moving crude over long distances, says one recent study), they also have a safe delivery rate of greater than 99.999%.
This is quoted from Enbridge's website, which is a pipeline company, which may be a bit biased, however I doubt they are lying.
As you guessed the source is biased. The question isn’t if pipelines are more efficient in use, the question is if the construction of pipelines + operation of pipelines over their lifespan is a significant net environmental savings. And that’s both much closer and largely irrelevant vs the environmental cost of the oil shipped via the pipelines.
As to being lower cost, again the lower cost isn’t a savings for the environment it’s a savings for the oil company.
Also, quote from [2]: While long-haul oil and gas pipelines are also more economical and environmentally friendly than other modes of transport like rail or trucking (pipelines create 61 to 77% less greenhouse gas emissions than rail when moving crude over long distances, says one recent study), they also have a safe delivery rate of greater than 99.999%.
This is quoted from Enbridge's website, which is a pipeline company, which may be a bit biased, however I doubt they are lying.
[1] https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2018/10/11/which-is-...
[2] https://www.enbridge.com/Your-questions/User-submitted/Why-a...