I really wonder what’s going on in the editors minds here.

The entire premise of the article is “All experts say no, but I think yes” - why would anyone about any topic publish this? If it would be an actual debate, maybe some contrarian but actual experts arguing in favor of sentience, you could get into an argument here. But this article is blatant science denial. Climate change deniers and antivaxxers use the exact same approach “facts say X, but my feelings say Y”.

I mean, “safest” is a superlative, not a positive. It’s perfectly possible that all other pipelines ruptured three times or more.

And you really think people use and understand these terms like that?

You may be correct in the academic sense, but completely wrong in all other senses.