Kinder Morgan Pipeline Expansion Simulation

CONS 425-POLI 351 Simulation

Simulation FAQs Energy Policy Simulation FAQs 2013

Kinder Morgan Pipeline Expansion Simulation 2013

Should the Kinder Morgan Transmountain pipeline expansion be approved?

A major component of the course is a simulation of a multi-stakeholder consultation on a key energy policy controversy. This year students can choose among three topics: BC Hydro Integrated Resource Plan, Kinder Morgan pipeline expansion, or National Energy Strategy.

Scenario: Kinder Morgan has proposed to significantly expand its Transmountain pipeline from Alberta to Burnaby, BC.  In an effort to avoid the acrimonious politics that have beset other pipeline proposals, the Minister of Natural Resources Canada has convened a stakeholder committee charged with developing consensus on the proposal.

Objective: The objectives of this exercise are to develop practical skills — teamwork, research, and communication — necessary for constructive participation in policy development, while simultaneously developing a deep understanding of one crucial component of energy policy.

Organization:  Participating students will be divided into ten groups reflecting different stakeholders involved in the process:

  1. Kinder-Morgan
  2. Suncor
  3. Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers
  4. Tsleil-Waututh First Nations
  5. Yinke Dene Alliance
  6. City of Burnaby
  7. City of Vancouver
  8. ForestEthics
  9. Dogwood Initiative
  10. BC Ministry of Environment

Process: Students will be assigned to groups based on random selection. Students are expected to consult “real world” versions of their caucuses. There will be an evening, mock multi-stakeholder consultation on March 26, 5-9 PM (attendance is required).Groups are also responsible for selecting their representative (and an alternate) to speak and negotiate for them during the consultation. Students are responsible for identifying appropriate resource materials to support their briefs and arguments.

Assessment: The simulation accounts for 30% of your grade, components of which have been allocated and designed to stimulate both effective group and individual effort:

  • 10% for the group brief submitted March 21, not to exceed 2000 words (strictly enforced). This is a group project, which clearly and concisely presents the group’s initial position on the question. It should contain references.  Grading Rubric 425 briefMarking Guideline also  Guide to writing an advocacy brief 2013 a sample brief NG1-Suncor-bickerton-choy-docherty-martin
  • 10% for each student’s participation in the group. This grade will be based predominately on the recommendations for grades that students provide for each other.
  • 10% for the performance of each group in the consultation.

Note: The group brief needs to be submitted to before being submitted to the instructor. The class ID number is 2666779, the password is “sustainus”. If you do not already have a user profile on the site, you will have to create one.


5:00-6:00 Initial Presentation from Caucuses (5 minutes each)

6:00-6:45 Facilitator Identification of areas of agreement and disagreement

6:45-7:15 Dinner Break:  Group meetings

7:15-8:30 Narrow range of disagreements

8:30-9:00 Establish consensus position or range of options

Suggested Readings

Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers (2012). Crude Oil: Forecast, Markets & Pipelines. Available at:

Kinder Morgan (2013). Trans Mountain.

Living Oceans Society (2013). Financial Liability for Kinder Morgan. Available at:

West, Ben (2012). “Is Kinder Morgan Better than Enbridge?” Huffpost British Columbia. 5 December. Available at:

Wilderness Committee. Frequently Asked Questions Regarding the Kinder Morgan Pipeline Proposal. Available at: