This week, the Joint Review Panel (on behalf of National Energy Board and Environment Canada) released its much ballyhooed report with its recommendation to the Federal Government to from Alberta to the BC northwest coast.

Over the last few days, the media and political pundits are carrying on. Unfortunately on some websites such as the National Post one can read no shortage of editorial comment on how great the recommendations are and how the “eco-jihadists” will need to climb back into their caves. Not all that fascinating fodder…

_ _ _ _ _ _ _

In an initial read through the JRP’s report I was struck by some interestings contradictions… of which I will try to follow up with in future posts…

The first volume of the report begins:

“This volume of our report, Connections, is about connections and linkages across time and place, on land and sea, between the economy and the environment, and among people, resources, cultures, wellbeing, safety, and way of life. It explains how we reached the conclusions and recommendations that are detailed in our second volume, Considerations.

…

Some people said economic development like the Enbridge Northern Gateway Project could harm society and the environment, while others told us a strong economy was necessary to sustain and enhance environmental and social values. They all recognized the linkages among people, economy, and environment, and that these are all aspects of a shared ecosystem.

Our task was to recognize these connections. We weighed and balanced them to answer the fundamental question: Would Canada and Canadians be better off or worse off if the project goes ahead?“

My emphasis on the last bit.

As a general observation of the ‘look and feel’ of the document… lots of green colors, soft rounded font, decently laid out.

Just look at this lovely cover:

Splattered throughout the report are all sorts of lovely ‘enviro’ images… bears, eagles, coastlines, caribou, whales… lovely stuff.

A few images of pipeline work sites:

and a couple of oil tankers and the like…. Some urban images thrown in… downtown Calgary, the capital of the Canadian oil industry.

Some images from the hearings, lots of aboriginal imagery and crests (protocol being something maybe the designers and writers of the report aren’t fully aware of…)

But none of tarsands operations, or refineries, or oil spills, or oil soaked birds or otherwise. None of the Enbridge-enhanced mess in Michigan or Exxon-induced mess in Prince William Sound…

Ok, not surprised… but there is certainly something trying to be portrayed here… and it smells of some other recent ads I’ve seen flooding BC tv channels, newspapers, websites and so on.

But maybe that’s just me…

 

Volume 1 continues on explaining mandates of the JRP and some ‘definitions’, such as what is the “public interest”?

 

 

 

And so, I’m thinking to myself: ‘hmmm… then I wonder if the Panel considered the inherent challenges in approving construction of such a major project through unceded Aboriginal territories, where a stalled and ineffective Treaty process is bogged down throughout the Province?

Apparently, the Panel doesn’t see a problem:

Essentially, “hey Enbridge… if you say so… it is so…” I think I smell some legal challenges coming on this point. And this will be something the feds will need to have some serious pondering on.

Plus added to this:

Last time I checked, ‘technical and scientific analysis’ doesn’t blend so well with Aboriginal Traditional Knowledge, or simply local knowledge which exists in communities, or a relatively newly coined term ‘citizen science’…

If this project gets the go ahead from the current Federal government, it is guaranteed to be mired in a variety of court challenges, which will all come with costs – and if they continue on to the Supreme Court of Canada, significant costs…

(but this would have been outside the Panel’s ‘mandate’… wouldn’t it?)

_ _ _ _ _ _ _

Many people said the project would lead to increased greenhouse gas emissions and other
environmental and social effects from oil sands development. We did not consider that there was a sufficiently direct connection between the project and any particular existing or proposed oil sands development or other oil production activities to warrant consideration of the effects of these activities. We based our decision on four factors:

Yet, on the ‘economic’ side of things…

Hmmmm…. so “upstream” oil development effects were outside of the mandate… AND, “downstream” refining and use of the product  ‘were outside of the mandate’… BUT, speculation (and I repeat SPECULATION) about “demand for crude oil in North America” was apparently part of the mandate of the Panel to consider?

Furthermore…

And thus, relying on more ‘speculative’ data on demand for condensate was also considered part of the Panel’s mandate.

Added to which, this is also based on the assumption that bitumen extraction from Canada’s tarsands will continue to grow…

As portrayed in this graph:

Speculation, speculation and more speculation… (e.g. what if the price of oil drops too low for it to make sense to extract from tarsands operations?)

Yet, the JRP suggests:

In addition, some people asked us to consider the “downstream” emissions that could arise from upgrading, refining, and diluted bitumen use in China and elsewhere. These effects were outside our jurisdiction, and we did not consider them. We did consider emissions arising from construction activities, pipeline operations, and the engines of tankers in Canadian territorial waters.

Some people asked us to consider other issues such as trade policy, renewable energy, and
industrial strategy. We did not consider them; they were outside our mandate.

And so… there is no consideration of the potential speculative impacts of what happens with the product that is to be transported… however, the highly speculative enterprise of economics related to the pipeline and the speculative economic impacts is fair game and within the mandate of the JRP?

This is a problem.

One could make a similar comparison with arms and gun dealers. The ‘product’ is harmless in the equations of ‘economic effectiveness’ – makes total sense from a simple economic standpoint… Make guns and bombs and missiles and fighter jets and sell them to say… China or otherwise… and ‘open those Pacific Basin markets’… but not consider the rather related potential long-term impacts of those sales – both domestically to the receiving country of those goods (e.g. using weapons to crack down on dissident groups or neighboring countries), or internationally when those weapons are used against the seller of the goods.

That might be a problem.

Why is it that the ‘economics’ of the project – a highly speculative exercise – are within “the mandate” of the JRP, but… not the wider environmental effects? (of which, comes with those… economic costs…)

You know… those “connections”… that the JRP waxes eloquent about in the opening paragraph of their report: “… connections and linkages across time and place, on land and sea, between the economy and the environment, and among people, resources, cultures, wellbeing, safety, and way of life.”

I’m having a hard time understanding how ‘Canada is better off with the pipeline then without it…’ especially in light of 209 conditions attached, and the simple fact that a large proportion of folks in B.C. are saying “no way!” including First Nations who have yet to settle treaties, and many of which have established aboriginal rights and title.

Plus the numerous town councils and otherwise, which are far from the ‘eco-jihadists’ that the National Post editorial staff like to sound-off on.

The real ‘fight’ for Enbridge has only just begun – and this contradiction filled JRP report only adds to the mess.