Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-lnqnp Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T12:24:20.702Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Explaining Variation in Oil Sands Pipeline Projects

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  18 May 2020

Amy Janzwood Open the ORCID record for Amy Janzwood [Opens in a new window]
Amy Janzwood*
Affiliation:
Department of Political Science, University of Toronto, 100 St. George, TorontoON, M5S 3G3
*
*Corresponding author. Email: [email protected].
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

While the vast majority of oil pipeline projects in Canada have been successfully built, several mega oil sands projects within and passing through Canada have been cancelled or significantly delayed. This article explains why these delays and cancellations have occurred. A systematic cross-case analysis is used to provide insight into the changing politics of oil sands pipelines. Qualitative comparative analysis (QCA) is used to identify combinations of causal conditions that co-occur across cases of proposed new oil pipelines and pipeline expansion projects. The pipeline projects were proposed to the federal regulator—the National Energy Board—between 2006 and 2014. The QCA reveals that social mobilization and major regulatory barrier(s) are necessary conditions in explaining variation in pipeline project outcomes. The analysis of sufficiency reveals more complex configurations of conditions. This article contributes to the literature on the politics of oil sands pipelines by using a comparative approach to identify the impacts of socio-political and legal dynamics that have emerged around pipelines in the last 15 years.

Résumé

Résumé

Cet article explique les raisons pour lesquelles plusieurs propositions récentes de méga-pipelines à l'intérieur du Canada et passant à travers le pays ont été annulées ou considérablement retardées. Alors que la grande majorité des projets d'oléoducs ont été construits avec succès, plusieurs mégaprojets de sables bitumineux ont été mis de côté ou ont subi des retards importants. L'aperçu donné ici s'appuie sur une analyse croisée systématique et offre un regard sur la politique changeante des pipelines de sables bitumineux. Notre article utilise l'analyse qualitative comparative (AQC) pour identifier les combinaisons de conditions causales qui coexistent entre les cas de propositions de nouveaux oléoducs et de projets d'expansion. Ces projets ont été proposés à l'organisme de réglementation fédéral - l'Office national de l'énergie - entre 2006 et 2014. L'AQC révèle que la mobilisation sociale et les principaux obstacles réglementaires sont des conditions nécessaires pour expliquer la variation des résultats des projets d'oléoducs. L'analyse de la suffisance révèle des configurations de conditions plus complexes. L'article contribue à la littérature sur la politique des pipelines de sables bitumineux en utilisant une approche comparative pour identifier les impacts des dynamiques sociopolitiques et juridiques qui ont émergé au cours des 15 dernières années.

Keywords

contentious politicsenergy regulationoil sandspipelinesqualitative comparative analysispolitique contentieuseréglementation de l'énergiesables bitumineuxoléoducsanalyse qualitative comparative
Type
Research Article/Étude originale
Information
Canadian Journal of Political Science/Revue canadienne de science politique , Volume 53 , Issue 3 , September 2020 , pp. 540 - 559
Copyright
Copyright © Canadian Political Science Association (l'Association canadienne de science politique) and/et la Société québécoise de science politique 2020

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Aldrich, Daniel P. 2010. Site Fights: Divisive Facilities and Civil Society in Japan and the West. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
Bankes, Nigel. 2018. “Pipelines and the Constitution: A Special Issue of the Review of Constitutional Studies.” Review of Constitutional Studies 23 (1): 1–24.Google Scholar
Bowles, Paul and MacPhail, Fiona. 2017. “The Town That Said ‘No’ to the Enbridge Northern Gateway Pipeline: The Kitimat Plebiscite of 2014.” Extractive Industries and Society 4 (1): 15–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bowles, Paul and MacPhail, Fiona. 2018. “Contesting Natural Resource Development in Canada: The Legacies and Limits of the Staples Approach.” British Journal of Canadian Studies 31 (2): 167–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bowles, Paul and Veltmeyer, Henry, eds. 2014. The Answer Is Still No: Voices of Pipeline Resistance. Winnipeg: Fernwood.Google Scholar
Canada. National Energy Board. 2006. Reasons for Decision, Trans Mountain, TMX Anchor Loop Project. October. https://apps.cer-rec.gc.ca/REGDOCS/File/Download/438370 (April 28, 2020).Google Scholar
Canada. National Energy Board. 2011. “ARCHIVED - Energy Trade - Energy Facts.” July. https://www.neb-one.gc.ca/nrg/ntgrtd/mrkt/archive/2011nrgytrdfct/nrgtrdfct-eng.html (August 28, 2019).Google Scholar
Canada. National Energy Board. 2019. “Who Regulates Canada's Pipelines?” August 28. https://www.cer-rec.gc.ca/bts/nws/rgltrsnpshts/2016/01rgltrsnpsht-eng.html (November 29, 2019).Google Scholar
Canada. Natural Resources Canada. 2020. “Energy and the Economy.” March 30. https://www.nrcan.gc.ca/energy/facts/energy-economy/20062#L3 (April 22, 2020).Google Scholar
Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers (CAPP). 2008. Crude Oil Forecast, Markets & Pipeline Expansions. Calgary. http://www.andrewnikiforuk.com/Dirty_Oil_PDFs/CAPP%202008%20Crude%20Oil%20Forecast,%20Markets%20&%20Pipeline%20Expansions.pdf (April 28, 2020).Google Scholar
Cheon, Andrew and Urpelainen, Johannes. 2018. Activism and the Fossil Fuel Industry. Abingdon: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Coburn, David H. 2014. “Supplemental Information in Support of Enbridge Energy, Limited Partnership's November 20, 2012 Application for a Presidential Permit.” Letter, June 16. https://2009-2017.state.gov/documents/organization/230810.pdf (November 29, 2019).Google Scholar
Day, Jim. 2014. “Enbridge Says Line 3 Oil Sands Pipeline Won't Need New Presidential Permit.” IHS Markit. August 26. https://ihsmarkit.com/research-analysis/enbridge-says-line-3-oil-sands-pipeline-wont-need-new-presidential-permit.html (November 18, 2019).Google Scholar
Duşa, Adrian. 2019. QCA with R: A Comprehensive Resource. Cham, Switzerland: Springer International.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dusyk, Nichole, Axsen, Jonn and Dullemond, Kia. 2018. “Who Cares about Climate Change? The Mass Media and Socio-Political Acceptance of Canada's Oil Sands and Northern Gateway Pipeline.” Energy Research & Social Science 37 (March): 12–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Enbridge. 2005. ENB: Value for Customers, Value for Shareholders: 2005 Annual Report. http://www.annualreports.com/Company/enbridge-inc (November 28, 2019).Google Scholar
EY. 2014. “Spotlight on Oil and Gas Megaprojects.” EY.com. https://www.ey.com/gl/en/industries/oil---gas/ey-spotlight-on-oil-and-gas-megaprojects#.XeAVgjJKjxW (November 28, 2019).Google Scholar
Fischer, Manuel and Maggetti, Martino. 2017. “Qualitative Comparative Analysis and the Study of Policy Processes.” Journal of Comparative Policy Analysis: Research and Practice 19 (4): 345–61.Google Scholar
Flyvbjerg, Bent. 2011. “Over Budget, Over Time, Over and Over Again: Managing Major Projects.” In The Oxford Handbook of Project Management, ed. W, Peter. G. Morris, Jeffrey K. Pinto and Jonas Söderlund. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Flyvbjerg, Bent. 2017. Introduction to The Oxford Handbook of Megaproject Management, ed. Flyvbjerg, Bent. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Gerrits, Lasse and Verweij, Stefan. 2018. The Evaluation of Complex Infrastructure Projects: A Guide to Qualitative Comparative Analysis. Transport Economics, Management, and Policy. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Graham, Nicolas, Carroll, William K. and Chen, David. 2019. Big Oil's Political Reach: Mapping Fossil Fuel Lobbying from Harper to Trudeau. Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives (CCPA) BC Office, CCPA Saskatchewan Office and Corporate Mapping Project. https://www.policyalternatives.ca/publications/reports/big-oil%E2%80%99s-political-reach (March 8, 2020).Google Scholar
Graham, Nicolas, Daub, Shannon and Carroll, Bill. 2017. Mapping Political Influence: Political Donations and Lobbying by the Fossil Fuel Industry in BC. Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives (CCPA) BC Office and Corporate Mapping Project. https://www.policyalternatives.ca/bc-influence (March 8, 2020).Google Scholar
Gravelle, Timothy B. and Lachapelle, Erick. 2015. “Politics, Proximity and the Pipeline: Mapping Public Attitudes toward Keystone XL.” Energy Policy 83 (August): 99–108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gunster, Shane and Neubauer, Robert J.. 2019. “(De)Legitimating Extractivism: The Shifting Politics of Social Licence.” Environmental Politics 28 (4): 707–26.Google Scholar
Hoberg, George. 2013. “The Battle over Oil Sands Access to Tidewater: A Political Risk Analysis of Pipeline Alternatives.” Canadian Public Policy / Analyse de Politiques 39 (3): 371–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hoberg, George. 2018. “Pipelines and the Politics of Structure: Constitutional Conflicts in the Canadian Oil Sector.” Review of Constitutional Studies 23 (1): 53–90.Google Scholar
Hoberg, George and Phillips, Jeffrey. 2011. “Playing Defence: Early Responses to Conflict Expansion in the Oil Sands Policy Subsystem.” Canadian Journal of Political Science 44 (3): 507–27.Google Scholar
Ide, Tobias. 2015. “Why Do Conflicts over Scarce Renewable Resources Turn Violent? A Qualitative Comparative Analysis.” Global Environmental Change 33 (July): 61–70.Google Scholar
Kinder Morgan. 2015. “About Us.” Kindermorgan.com. https://www.kindermorgan.com/about_us (November 28, 2019).Google Scholar
Lucas, Alastair R. and Thompson, Chidinma B.. 2016. “Infrastructure, Governance and Global Energy Futures: Regulating the Oil Sands Pipelines.” Journal of Environmental Law and Practice 28 (3): 355–94.Google Scholar
Makholm, Jeff D. 2012. The Political Economy of Pipelines: A Century of Comparative Institutional Development. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marx, Axel and Duşa, Adrian. 2011. “Crisp-Set Qualitative Comparative Analysis (CsQCA), Contradictions and Consistency Benchmarks for Model Specification.” Methodological Innovations Online 6 (2): 103–48.Google Scholar
McAdam, Doug and Boudet, Hilary. 2012. Putting Social Movements in Their Place: Explaining Opposition to Energy Projects in the United States, 2000–2005. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McAdam, Doug, Boudet, Hilary Schaffer, Davis, Jennifer, Orr, Ryan J., Richard Scott, W. and Levitt, Raymond E.. 2010. “‘Site Fights’: Explaining Opposition to Pipeline Projects in the Developing World.” Sociological Forum 25 (3): 401–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McConaghy, Dennis. 2017. Dysfunction: Canada after Keystone XL. Toronto: Dundurn.Google Scholar
McCreary, Tyler A. and Milligan, Richard A.. 2014. “Pipelines, Permits, and Protests: Carrier Sekani Encounters with the Enbridge Northern Gateway Project.” Cultural Geographies 21 (1): 115–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mertha, Andrew C. and Lowry, William R.. 2006. “Unbuilt Dams: Seminal Events and Policy Change in China, Australia, and the United States.” Comparative Politics 39 (1): 1.Google Scholar
Mok, Ka Yan, Shen, Geoffrey Qiping and Yang, Jing. 2015. “Stakeholder Management Studies in Mega Construction Projects: A Review and Future Directions.” International Journal of Project Management 33 (2): 446–57.Google Scholar
Nace, Ted, Plante, Lydia and Browning, James. 2019. Pipeline Bubble: North America Is Betting over $1 Trillion on a Risky Fossil Infrastructure Boom. Global Energy Monitor, November 19. https://globalenergymonitor.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/04/GFITPipelineBubble_2019_v6.pdf.Google Scholar
National Energy Board Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. N-7 (Can.). https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/PDF/N-7.pdf (September 18, 2019).Google Scholar
Oana, Ioana-Elena and Schneider, Carsten Q.. 2018. “SetMethods: An Add-On Package for Advanced QCA.” The R Journal. https://journal.r-project.org/archive/2018/RJ-2018-031/index.html.Google Scholar
Piggot, Georgia. 2017. “The Influence of Social Movements on Policies That Constrain Fossil Fuel Supply.” Climate Policy 18 (7): 942–54.Google Scholar
Pralle, Sarah B. 2006. Branching Out, Digging In: Environmental Advocacy and Agenda Setting. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar
Quaranta, Mario. 2017. “Protest and Contentious Action.” In Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Politics, ed. R, William. Thompson. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Ragin, Charles C. 1987. The Comparative Method: Moving beyond Qualitative and Quantitative Strategies. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Ragin, Charles C. 2006. “Set Relations in Social Research: Evaluating Their Consistency and Coverage.” Political Analysis 14 (3): 291–310.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ragin, Charles C. 2009. “Qualitative Comparative Analysis Using Fuzzy Sets (fsQCA).” In Configurational Comparative Methods: Qualitative Comparative Analysis (QCA) and Related Techniques, ed. Rihoux, Benoît and C, Charles. Ragin. Thousand Oaks: Sage.Google Scholar
Rainforest Action Network, BankTrack, Sierra Club and Oil Change International. 2017. Banking on Climate Change: Fossil Fuel Finance Report Card 2017. https://www.ran.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/RAN_Banking_On_Climate_Change_2017_final.pdf.Google Scholar
Rihoux, Benoît, Rezsöhazy, Ilona and Bol, Damien. 2011. “Qualitative Comparative Analysis (QCA) in Public Policy Analysis: An Extensive Review.” German Policy Studies 7 (3): 9–82.Google Scholar
Schmid, Benjamin and Bornemann, Basil. 2019. “What Political Settings Promote Renewable Energy Investments by Energy Utilities? A Qualitative Comparative Analysis in Swiss Cantons.” European Policy Analysis 5 (2): 232–265.Google Scholar
Schneider, Carsten Q. and Wagemann, Claudius. 2010. “Standards of Good Practice in Qualitative Comparative Analysis (QCA) and Fuzzy-Sets.” Comparative Sociology 9 (3): 397–418.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schneider, Carsten Q. and Wagemann, Claudius. 2012. Set-Theoretic Methods for the Social Sciences: A Guide to Qualitative Comparative Analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Urquhart, Ian. 2018. Costly Fix: Power, Politics, and Nature in the Tar Sands. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.Google Scholar
Urquhart, Ian. 2019. “Borders, Boundaries, and the Politics of Petroleum Pipelines.” Journal of Borderlands Studies 34 (2): 181–200.Google Scholar
US Energy Information Administration. 2020a. “Table 3.3c Petroleum Trade: Imports from OPEC Countries.” https://www.eia.gov/totalenergy/data/monthly/pdf/sec3_10.pdf (March 8, 2020).Google Scholar
US Energy Information Administration. 2020b. “Table 3.3d Petroleum Trade: Imports from Non-OPEC Countries.” https://www.eia.gov/totalenergy/data/monthly/pdf/sec3_11.pdf (March 8, 2020).Google Scholar
van de Biezenbos, Kristen. 2019. “The Rebirth of Social Licence.” McGill Journal of Sustainable Development Law 14 (2): 157–85.Google Scholar
Veltmeyer, Henry and Bowles, Paul, eds. 2014. “Extractivist Resistance: The Case of the Enbridge Oil Pipeline Project in Northern British Columbia.” Extractive Industries and Society 1 (1): 59–68.Google Scholar
Wood, Michael O. and Thistlethwaite, Jason. 2018. “Social License to Operate (SLO): Case Review of Enbridge and the Northern Gateway Pipeline.” In Handbook of Engaged Sustainability, ed. Marques, Joan and Dihman, Satinder. Cham, Switzerland: Springer International.Google Scholar
Wright, David V. 2018. “Federal Linear Energy Infrastructure Projects and the Rights of Indigenous Peoples: Current Legal Landscape and Emerging Developments.” Review of Constitutional Studies 23 (1): 175–224.Google Scholar
Supplementary material: File

Janzwood supplementary material

Janzwood supplementary material

Download Janzwood supplementary material(File)
File 665.7 KB