Abstract

Disputes about large-scale energy projects are as much a cultural issue as they are a technical and political one. With increased emphasis on trade in Canada, resource
extraction and pipelines have become subject to scrutiny from competing networks. This study shows how, and on what points, stakeholders talk past each other regarding the
framing of the Northern Gateway pipeline. The proposed paper involves an analysis of rhetoric in the media, and the framing of specific issues throughout the proceedings of the Federal Review Panel. How effectively competing developer and environmental networks frame the debate on their terms affects the public consultations, public perceptions of the pipeline, and the policy leverage of each group. This analysis shows that stakeholders talk past each other, and that the public’s view of the pipeline is highly reliant on these diverging points. Furthermore, the framing strategies are integral to the successful marketing of actors’ claims inside and outside of the institutional context. This paper also highlights that different perceptions of ‘risk,’ costs and benefits, and how stakeholders weigh these concerns on different terms, influences the way they promote themselves and discredit
each other.