Why did the NEB approve the Kinder Morgan pipeline if its economic impact is negative?

BACK TO FAQ

 

This page builds on information from a Tsleil-Waututh Nation report that assesses the proposed Kinder Morgan pipeline and tanker project. You can read and download the full report here.

 

Contrary to the National Energy Board (NEB) report released in May, 2016, there is no economic need and for the proposed Kinder Morgan pipeline, and economic benefits do not outweigh economic risks.

The economic benefits of the proposed Kinder Morgan pipeline do not outweigh the risks.

  • Experts like economist Robyn Allan show that the NEB’s conclusions are faulty, as research was based on a flawed methodology and outdated information. (Allan, 2016, p. 1-2).
    • Economic and political circumstances, regarding supply projections and Canada’s relationship with climate change, have changed significantly since the NEB issued its May 2016 report. These changes must be considered by the NEB’s conclusions on the need for, commercial feasibility of, and financial impacts of the Project (Alla, 2016, p. 1).

 

  • The NEB did not implement its own definition of the public interest to assess the economic impacts of the Project.
    • It did not consider the economic interests of all Canadians and refused to assess the environmental and socio-economic effects associated with upstream activities, the development of oil sands, or the downstream use of the oil transported by the pipeline (Allan, 2016, p. 6).
    • Instead, the NEB limited its economic review to one of private financial interests of Trans Mountain and Western Canadian crude oil producers (Allan, 2016, p. 6).

The NEB’s research was based on flawed methodology and outdated information.

  • The NEB did not consider the potential negative economic impacts of the proposed pipeline for example to Canadian refineries, Canada’s rail and resource sectors, as well as the tourism and commercial fishing industries (Allan, 2016, p. 7).

We have the chance to focus on a sustainable economy by stopping the proposed Kinder Morgan pipeline. Click here to learn more.

 

What Else Can I Do to Help?

Spread the Word

When people see other people they know or can relate to expressing their views, it can make a big difference.

Spread the word!

BACK TO FAQ

You might also be interested in

Kinder Morgan Concerns Get answers to all your questions about the proposed Kinder Morgan pipeline – from oil spill risks, to impacts on wildlife and drinking water, to economic risks.
Would the proposed Kinder Morgan pipeline risk British Columbia drinking water? Yes, the proposed pipeline would endanger some of our local sources of drinking water, and threaten Burrard Inlet and the Fraser River in various locations. In some communities, the pipeline would threaten the only water source they have available. The Abbotsford-Sumas aquifer is a drinking water source ...
Does British Columbia rely on the jobs created through the proposed Kinder Morgan pipeline? British Columbia does not rely on the jobs created through the proposed Kinder Morgan pipeline. Kinder Morgan promises that the pipeline would create 50 permanent jobs in British Columbia, and 40 in Alberta. Kinder Morgan has been unclear about how many temporary jobs would be created for construction.

Become a friend of the Sacred Trust

Stay informed about the Kinder Morgan proposal and don’t miss important updates from the Sacred Trust team.
  • .

Got a question?