Monthly Archives: January 2013

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/edmonton/story/2012/09/18/enbridge-hearing.html

The benefits of the Enbridge Pipeline might be exaggerated.

A lawyer for the First Nation claims that much of the land the pipeline would travel though nearly $1.5 billion a year in increased revenue by 2018 are inflated.

The estimate Enbridge (TSX:ENB) at the Energy Board suggested oil supply in Western Canada will grow by 6.5% a year between 2011 and 2020. (TSX:ENB)

The environmental economist said that the information was analyzed inside the 50-metre pipeline, but other effects were ignored outside of the corridor.

It evident that there are many adverse ecological effects disturbed by the pipeline that cannot be monetized.

Enbridge is currently working with the Nature Conservancy to protect land that would offset areas disturbed by the project.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/enbridge-questions-northern-gateway-pipeline-critics-over-foreign-funding/article4597466/

I have just come across ab interesting article from the Gloebandmail on Enbridge Pipeline.

Here are a few highlights:

Enbridge raises substantially more funds for the project itself rather than more for effort of wild life, and community conservation.

British Columbians are unclear about the investors who co-invested with Enbridge in the pipeline Project.

Currently, there has been some collaborate work for ocean management plan amongst first nations, the province, commercial fishermen, shipping interests, tourism operators, local governments, environmentalists and the oil and gas sector.

According to the 2011 internal fisheries and oceans update, the proponents, as well as the oil and gas and shipping industries, are concerned that ongoing third-party funding influence on the Integrated Oceans Management plan, and the outcomes for the panel review of the project.

My Questions on the Enbridge Pipeline – can it be economically viable and at the same time align with sustainability goals?

Recently, there has been a heated discussion on the controversy of Enbridge Pipeline.. the fact that Canadians are generating more exports for oil to Asia creates potential economic benefits, but at the same time this project generates detrimental effects on the livelihoods of the native people in Athabasca,  and especially those that consume local wild salmon as the main source of their food staple (as the fish stock shrinks).

We can conduct a cost benefit analysis to see whether Enbridge Pipeline is a project should be undertaken, under the following criteria:

1) Efficiency: does the project take into account the negative externalities such as oil spills, and noise pollution which affects the natural inhabitat? If so, did the project design and implementation teams collaborate together? In otherwords, were these external costs being taken into account through investing in cleaner technology, and more precautionary measures for oil transportation and extraction?

2) Effectiveness: Did the project implementers and designers communicate adequately with the biologists, and local stakeholders to ensure contamination in food chain/ecosystem is minimized? Whether the project cost is efficient enough to be both economically beneficial, and sustainable? OR simply a trade off between economic efficiency and sustainability?

If there is a trade off, how can we ensure the next generations would enjoy the same quantity and quality of natural capital (such as forest, salmon, and  oil) as the current generation?