TransCanada’s responses to its environment can be described by two actions: the drafting of the EIS and the Perryman Study and working with the Nebraska government to reroute the pipeline.
2.1 Environmental Impact Study and Perryman Study As to compile with the National Environmental Policy Act and the Department of State for a presidential permit that included a national interest determination, TransCanada had to prepare an EIS, which was a three-year study and examined “project design and safety, including the potential for oil spills, the potential impact on the Ogallala Aquifer and groundwater in the Sandhills regions, GHGs, wildlife, fisheries, cultural resources, visual resources, environmental justice, and an assessment of alternative …show more content…
This can be addressed by integrating better technology into the pipeline that allows for efficient and effective detection of fractures or threats. My recommendation is for TransCanada to collaborate with new technology firms to stabilize the engineering of the pipeline, which would reassure the safety and maintenance of such a large-scale project. On the flip side, this initiative could be expensive and may yield inadequate results despite a lot of investment of money and time. Another risk is that they might not be able to find new companies who are researching and developing top-of-the-line oil transport …show more content…
The EIS was supposed to be an official document detailing how and why the TransCanada pipeline was “deemed desirable” (p. 7, 2014). Conversely, document created doubt and suspicion in the minds of the green stakeholders. It has even been stated that “one disgruntled senator – Bernie Sanders – initiated an investigation by the Inspector General of the State Department to see whether Cardno ENTRIX, the firm that did the [EIS], was somehow involved with TransCanada or biased in its work against various U.S. government agencies” (p. 12, 2014). The problem was that even the slightest hint of suspicion led to the undermining of the credibility of the EIS, which was an added factor to its failure. For environmental stakeholders, transparency of the research methods used is the key to gaining their acceptance of the project. The final EIS must list specific references and how they collected the data and came to the conclusions. TransCanada needs to back up their bold statements with hard facts and multiple sources of information. Furthermore, an open channel of communication or even a Q and A with green parties would demonstrate TransCanada’s earnest approach. The downside of developing transparency within the EIS is that it would slow down the process of its redrafting. Also, the environmentalists could be set in their ways and not want to participate in honest discussions of climate
2.1 Environmental Impact Study and Perryman Study As to compile with the National Environmental Policy Act and the Department of State for a presidential permit that included a national interest determination, TransCanada had to prepare an EIS, which was a three-year study and examined “project design and safety, including the potential for oil spills, the potential impact on the Ogallala Aquifer and groundwater in the Sandhills regions, GHGs, wildlife, fisheries, cultural resources, visual resources, environmental justice, and an assessment of alternative …show more content…
This can be addressed by integrating better technology into the pipeline that allows for efficient and effective detection of fractures or threats. My recommendation is for TransCanada to collaborate with new technology firms to stabilize the engineering of the pipeline, which would reassure the safety and maintenance of such a large-scale project. On the flip side, this initiative could be expensive and may yield inadequate results despite a lot of investment of money and time. Another risk is that they might not be able to find new companies who are researching and developing top-of-the-line oil transport …show more content…
The EIS was supposed to be an official document detailing how and why the TransCanada pipeline was “deemed desirable” (p. 7, 2014). Conversely, document created doubt and suspicion in the minds of the green stakeholders. It has even been stated that “one disgruntled senator – Bernie Sanders – initiated an investigation by the Inspector General of the State Department to see whether Cardno ENTRIX, the firm that did the [EIS], was somehow involved with TransCanada or biased in its work against various U.S. government agencies” (p. 12, 2014). The problem was that even the slightest hint of suspicion led to the undermining of the credibility of the EIS, which was an added factor to its failure. For environmental stakeholders, transparency of the research methods used is the key to gaining their acceptance of the project. The final EIS must list specific references and how they collected the data and came to the conclusions. TransCanada needs to back up their bold statements with hard facts and multiple sources of information. Furthermore, an open channel of communication or even a Q and A with green parties would demonstrate TransCanada’s earnest approach. The downside of developing transparency within the EIS is that it would slow down the process of its redrafting. Also, the environmentalists could be set in their ways and not want to participate in honest discussions of climate