• Information Technology
  • Human Resources
  • Careers
  • Giving
  • Library
  • Bookstore
  • Active Living
  • Continuing Education
  • Go Dinos
  • UCalgary Maps
  • UCalgary Directory
  • Academic Calendar
My UCalgary
Webmail
D2L
ARCHIBUS
IRISS
  • Faculty of Arts
  • Cumming School of Medicine
  • Faculty of Environmental Design
  • Faculty of Graduate Studies
  • Haskayne School of Business
  • Faculty of Kinesiology
  • Faculty of Law
  • Faculty of Nursing
  • Faculty of Nursing (Qatar)
  • Schulich School of Engineering
  • Faculty of Science
  • Faculty of Social Work
  • Faculty of Veterinary Medicine
  • Werklund School of Education
  • Information TechnologiesIT
  • Human ResourcesHR
  • Careers
  • Giving
  • Library
  • Bookstore
  • Active Living
  • Continuing Education
  • Go Dinos
  • UCalgary Maps
  • UCalgary Directory
  • Academic Calendar
  • Libraries and Cultural Resources
View Item 
  •   PRISM Home
  • Law
  • Research Centres, Institutes, Projects and Units
  • Canadian Institute of Resources Law
  • View Item
  •   PRISM Home
  • Law
  • Research Centres, Institutes, Projects and Units
  • Canadian Institute of Resources Law
  • View Item
JavaScript is disabled for your browser. Some features of this site may not work without it.

Considering the Upstream/Downstream Effects of the Mackenzie Pipeline: Rough Paddling for the National Energy Board

Thumbnail
Download
Resources86.pdf (306.9Kb)
Download Record
Download to EndNote/RefMan (RIS)
Download to BibTex
Author
Wenig, Michael M.
Sutherland, Patricia
Accessioned
2009-04-24T21:40:02Z
Available
2009-04-24T21:40:02Z
Issued
2004
Type
Newsletter
Metadata
Show full item record

Abstract
This paper addresses the extent to which the National Energy Board, in deciding whether to grant a “certificate of public convenience and necessity” for the proposed Mackenzie Valley pipeline, should consider the adverse effects of activities that are upstream and downstream of the pipeline. The NEB faces a dilemma in deciding whether and how to consider upstream/downstream effects. On the one hand, that exercise poses considerable methodological problems and it appears unfair to the pipeline proponents, because it suggests that the Board will hold the proponents responsible for numerous effects beyond the proponents’ control. On the other hand, there is a compelling argument for considering adverse upstream/downstream effects. This argument is rooted in the Board’s “public interest” project review standard, which inherently requires considerations of public costs and benefits at comparable scales. Thus, where upstream/downstream benefits are considered—as typically the case for pipelines—the corresponding costs must be considered as well. This paper critiques the Board’s approach to considering upstream/downstream effects and then offers several, largely policy-based, alternatives for solving the upstream/downstream dilemma.
Refereed
No
Sponsorship
Nexen Inc. and Fraser Milner Casgrain
Citation
(Spring 2004) 86 Resources 1
Corporate
University of Calgary
Faculty
Law
Url
http://www.cirl.ca
Publisher
Canadian Institute of Resources Law
Doi
http://dx.doi.org/10.11575/PRISM/34363
Uri
http://hdl.handle.net/1880/47055
Collections
  • Canadian Institute of Resources Law

Browse

All of PRISMCommunities & CollectionsBy Issue DateAuthorsTitlesSubjectsThis CollectionBy Issue DateAuthorsTitlesSubjects

My Account

LoginRegister

Download Results

Statistics

Most Popular ItemsStatistics by CountryMost Popular Authors

  • Email
  • SMS
  • 403.220.8895
  • Live Chat

Energize: The Campaign for Eyes High

Privacy Policy
Website feedback

University of Calgary
2500 University Drive NW
Calgary, AB T2N 1N4
CANADA

Copyright © 2017