Groundhog Day

Despite the timing, this post isn’t meant as an "April Fools" joke nor is it meant to discuss the furry weather prognosticator we turn to for signs of spring…

What I wanted to talk about is the movie starring Bill Murray – I’m sure many of you have seen it – where the main character wakes up every morning only to live through the same day (over and over again). No matter what Bill’s character does he knows he’ll wake up the next morning to the same thing… no consequence, nothing changed. So you’re thinking: "What does this have to do with the Sullivan project?"

Well, a recent article penned in the Calgary Herald had me feeling like Bill. As I opened the paper on Sunday morning a sense of déjà vu set in as I read a piece that’s been a recurring theme over the past several months (although the pictures were new).

The article did an accurate job reporting the concerns of area interveners and the differing opinions of Petro-Canada and some local stakeholders (specifically around routing options); however, what was missing was any mention of the information that’s been covered during the ERCB’s recent regulatory hearing, the witness testimony provided by both sides discussing the relevancy of an alternate route, or any of the reasoning that Petro-Canada has publicly made available as to why the Eden Valley route was submitted as the preferred route.

It’s like none of this dialogue ever happened. Did I miss something? Were we back in November 2008?

The process deserves better than this. Suggesting one alternative (Highway 940 in this case) without consideration of its consequences is an unfortunate oversimplification – it’s like comparing grade school math to advanced calculus.

Many folks (me included) would agree that at first glance, it would make more sense to propose a pipeline along an area of existing disturbance when one is available; but it’s fair to say that we’re not all pipeline and environmental experts and that decisions made in this arena are clearly not black and white.

For those interested, I encourage you to visit this link to a previous blog post for some additional content on Sullivan project routing.

What I’ve found in the two years that I’ve been working on this project is that everyone who has an interest tends to be polarized on their position. There’s not much of a grey area. It’s sort of like opera – you either love it or you hate it. There are groups who are for the environment and against any development and those who struggle with the decision to support our deep-rooted ranching history or the oil and gas industry. But from what I’ve seen, there’s nothing to suggest that there isn’t room for both.

What’s important is that we find the right balance.