Abstract
The
purpose
of
this
capstone
report
is
to
establish
a
framework
for
analyzing
interjurisdictional
pipeline
disputes.
This
is
an
important
issue
to
examine
because
pipeline
transportation
has
become
of
key
importance
in
the
oil
and
gas
industry,
given
its
cost-‐effectiveness
and
ability
to
reach
difficult
to
access,
unconventional
sources
of
oil.
However,
when
pipelines
cross
multiple
jurisdictions
disputes
may
arise,
and
these
disputes
may
be
of
an
economic,
legal
or
political
nature.
This
report
sets
up
the
framework
by
using
the
Northern
Gateway
pipeline
and
Keystone
XL
pipeline
disputes
as
examples.
The
economic
importance
of
both
projects
is
discussed,
followed
by
discussion
on
how
feasible
it
is
to
substitute
the
pipeline
projects
with
alternative
means
of
transportation.
It
becomes
evident
that
the
economics
of
pipelines
boils
down
to
netbacks,
which
is
essentially
revenue
going
to
producers
minus
all
costs
associated
with
getting
a
barrel
of
oil
to
market.
Then,
the
legal
issues
concerning
the
pipeline
approval
process
are
considered,
as
well
as
how
these
issues
may
halt
the
approval
of
interjurisdictional
pipelines.
This
is
followed
by
a
discussion
on
how
the
politics
of
pipelines
affect
the
approval
process.
It
becomes
evident
that
pipeline
disputes
arise
because
of
a
lack
of
coordination
of
laws,
regulations,
and
both
economic
and
political
interests.
Refereed
Yes
