Enbridge Inc. has been working to garner public support and ultimately governmental approval for its proposed Northern Gateway pipeline project for years. It goes without saying that politicians will not approve the proposal if Enbridge cannot effectively make its case to citizens and convince them that the benefits of the Northern Gateway would outweigh the environmental risks. The firm has tried to do this through marketing the economic benefits of the project to the public by generating quantitative “evidence” to help its case. For instance, the pipeline’s estimated economic benefits are based off of the firm’s proposal document to the National Energy Board. It has recently come to light however that Enbridge submitted a 30-year scenario that assumed a constant exchange rate for the entire period (this is extremely unrealistic and paints a more positive economic picture of the pipeline’s economic impact). Beyond that, the firm provided no sensitivity analysis in its report and failed to impress industry professionals as a result of its lack of due diligence. Said Canadian energy executive Marc Eliesen: “It is my contention that Enbridge has submitted marketing propaganda masquerading as economic analysis because of the one-sided, self-serving private benefit picture the proponent has presented.”
For a multi-billion dollar multi-national corporation to fail to include multiple scenarios in its economic analysis is shocking. I find it hard to believe that such a large and successful firm would simply forget to include these hugely important facts in its analysis; instead, I think that Enbridge is towing a fine line to convey its message of economic benefits in a way that is hugely skewed in its favor yet still within the law. However, while it may be legal, such a practice is blatantly unethical, and as Canadians continue to learn more about the issue they will appreciate that the plan needs to go back to the drawing board and Enbridge must supply more realistic information so as to allow government and the people to arrive at a more educated decision.
Quinn brings an excellent point to the Enbridge conversation. I find it highly ironic that Enbridge is unable to “supply” a proper economic analysis that is to scale with the project. The company’s insufficiency in its marketing, and economic analysis only adds to their profile which is seen as highly unprofessional. They continue to grow distant from Canadians for an agreement. Enbridge needs to put forth realistic information to convince Canadians that there is a sustained future for the Country with this oil company.
I agree with Austin’s viewpoint – Enbridge sorely needs to market its plans openly and realistically. In its projections, Enbridge should consider including disclaimers on their estimates or, better yet, provide estimates based on various exchange rates. Not doing so paints a murky and perhaps unrealistic picture of the project’s risks vs rewards.