What Killed the Energy East Pipeline?

Ian Whitcomb, President of Irving Oil stated today in regards to the Energy East Pipeline:

"Given the potential benefits of this project for our nation, we believe the reasons for its demise should be carefully examined and discussed in an effort to protect and ensure a strong and secure Canadian economy in the future."

I worked in the energy industry for a number of years. Currently my role is Director of Marketing and Global Sales; because of my marketing and communication roles which are now outside of the energy industry - I have been able to understand how important it is to have the public cheering for you when you are creating a brand – you want the public to feel like they have ownership in what it is you do for a living.

A memory I have is debating with my energy colleagues the importance of going public, waging a consumer advocacy role, and getting the public onside when it comes to pipelines and other energy related issues from electricity to propane. I remember sitting on conference calls with co-workers and in-person meetings with superiors asking why social media such as Facebook and traditional media were seldom if ever used for creating brand ownership - there is more to creating a brand besides giving away things - creating a brand is about telling a story, explaining how what you do is good for people.

Being asked to sit as an energy advisor with a particular provincial government in Canada in the spring of 2013 – my leadership team strongly suggested I decline the offer – “it is too political” I was told - well today the energy east pipeline was cancelled, so I guess life is political…each time I discussed the importance of open, aggressive public advocacy - the leadership I worked with and those of my competitors always chose the road of silence – the appearance from my perspective was that energy companies were afraid to speak up in the face of perceived political opposition. That silence allowed a well-funded, well organized, and well-spoken opposition to convince voters, media, and government officials that energy expansion was bad for Canada. And worse yet, many Canadians believe the energy industry in general is bad for Canada – clearly the critics of energy understood the importance of winning the battle of public perception and were willing to use the tools of social media, traditional media, and open aggressive political advocacy to drive their message home with Canadians.

The public in Canada has ZERO understanding that bringing Canadian energy from Saskatchewan and Alberta to tide water allowed for the government of Canada to get international prices for our energy supplies. Which meant higher tax dollars being collected for social program spending - the very social programs that Canadians cherish and want!

The public has almost no understanding that the higher tax revenue collected by getting our energy to tide water was good for less prosperous provinces to have greater access to better equalization/transfer payment revenues.

The public has no understanding that our energy supplies getting to tide water was important for Canadian allies such as Western Europe; the Europeans have had to deal with a problematic government in Russia that has actually left people to freeze in the middle of the winter by shutting off the taps.

The Canadian public has no understanding that every time Canadian energy exports work their way to Europe, it means less conflict energy from questionable middle-east regimes.

Canadians had no understanding of the jobs and employment opportunities that would have helped unemployed and or underemployed blue-collar workers in, Alberta, Saskatchewan, Quebec and New Brunswick get ahead in life.

Of course in the energy business, there are winners and losers - the winners in this debate are the Americans - they get to continue to buy Canadian energy at discounted prices something which I'm sure brings a smile to President Trump. Canada doesn't have any other customer besides the United States...The other winner in this is President Putin of Russia - he doesn't have to worry about Canadian energy exports getting to Europe. The United States gets to be the one customer who gets to dictate our energy prices, and without a tidewater export terminal in British Columbia or Atlantic Canada, the big losers in this are Canadians and Canada's energy companies.

Let’s hope that Ian Whitcomb, President of Irving Oil and his competitors throughout Canada, including those who work upstream and downstream in the energy industry begin to support the role of consumer public political advocacy much more seriously in the future because as Ian stated we need to “ensure a strong and secure Canadian economy”

Clinton P. Desveaux is a social thought leader who is available for radio & television panels, and media interviews. He can be reached via email: ClintonDesveaux@gmail.com or through LinkedIn