After Presbytery last week I got into the start of a discussion on the Northern Gateway Project.  Some members who I suspect have connections to the petroleum agency were adamant that accurate information about the project had not been properly presented for public discussion.  They were were upset by the GC 41 decision, seeing mostly benefits that were being risked.  I would like to see a comprehensive analysis of the project and some alternatives including the following:

1.  Financial and social costs during construction incurred by all parties

2.  Range of possible effects of the  bitumen being brought to an ocean port on world oil prices under the various scenarios that are possible:  when there is a perceived major shortage of available oil; when there is a perceived slight shortage of oil; when there is a previously balanced supply of oil; when there is a slight existing surplus; when there is a perceive significant surplus; and projections of the likelihood of each of these scenarios.  (we in Alberta are too aware of the effect on oil prices of a somewhat significant surplus of oil on the market -- see what happened to our economy in the early 80s and again at the beginning of the 90s.  A surplus of a few percent in supply can cause a decrease in market price of more than 50%).

3.  A more complete analysis of environmental and social costs of other aspects.