@ghoberg Fascinated by the language, content and references in this syllabus. It almost appears like it is designed to elicit a specific response from the students. It is interesting what information is missing and which references were chosen to represent the info. 1/
@ghoberg Let's start with the activist's favourite starting point. Any document that starts introduces the project with the term "Texas-based oil and gas company"...is bound to have issues. 2/
@ghoberg Then introducing the project you somehow forget to note that Line 1 is intended to supply refined fuels and light crudes, instead implying that it will be used in the same way as it was when there was only 1 line. 3/
@ghoberg In the spill section the emphasis on the modelling from the City of Vancouver, the Tsleil-Waututh Nation and the Raincoast Conservation Foundation which was determined to be unreliable by the NEB is interesting 4/
@ghoberg To be clear this modeling was ignored because it relied on a database dating back to Exxon Valdez that completely over-estimates spills. Under the model we should be seeing 50-100x more accidents a year than we currently see. The NEB recognized that it was not reliable. 5/
@ghoberg Your orca commentt is another case of you using references from anti-pipeline sources (NGOs and media outlets) far too often for a balanced report. Your entire paragraph on bitumen is of issue. 6/
@ghoberg I have detailed what the state of the science was at the time of the decision and the NAS report was not it. That report was outdated when it was produced and is only used by people who couldn't be bothered to read the primary research 7/
@ghoberg Unsurprisingly the NEB relied on NRC and Environment Canada research not the NAS report. This is clearly stated in the NEB report so it is unclear how you can make the arguments you make in your case study. They are demonstrably wrong. 8/
