Back in the late 70's -early 80's those airtight stoves and fireplace inserts were the rage. They used a lot less wood but just about every one I ever knew of had a chimney fire also. They would not burn hot enough and the chimney would stay cold and the creosote would buildup in record time.
I bought a new insert about 3 years ago that has the catalytic converter in it (per the EPA, so I'm not polluting). One of the benefits of such is that I have to get my burner up to 800 degrees
before I engage the catalytic converter. Once it's engaged, I can really slow the air intake and burn rate and still keep temps around 1000 degrees inside the burner.
I just took my chimney cap off last weekend to check out my chimney before I started any fires this year and I could clearly see every mortar line in the clay flue all the way down and, at most, had a very slight coating of black dust inside my chimney. I've never burned pine though.
Even 25 year old pine lumber I've seen in an attic is covered with orange looking pine tar beads on the wood and is sticky. Older lumber in the attic of older houses look the same, but with larger beads of that sticky pine sap on them. Based on that alone, I would never consider burning pine in my fireplace or insert. There is plenty of other woods available for me to burn to ever bother with pine.
It seems that even "experts" disagree on burning pine. Some feel it's okay to burn if it's properly seasoned and others do not. The one thing I do know is that pine is one of the worst woods to burn as far as the amount of heat it gives off and the Mbtu/lb. I cut down a bunch of Black Locust trees last year and was going to bury them until I looked up their btu rating. You'd have to burn
twice as much pine to get the same heat as Black Locust. You'd have to burn about 3/4 more pine to get the same btu output as oak. So, all things considered, to me, it isn't worth burning anyway.