The projections must have been solid.
The timing aligned.
The hard hats must have done their part.
Technically, everything was ready: engineering complete, LNG export contracts signed, markets poised.
In November 2024, Canada’s Coastal GasLink pipeline entered service.
But something hadn’t quite aligned.
The story hadn’t landed.
Stakeholders were uneasy.
The community had questions—many unspoken.
While elected First Nations leaders signed benefit agreements, hereditary chiefs, particularly from the Wet’suwet’en Nations, opposed the project and organised national blockades.
The narrative breakdown stirred protests, regulatory scrutiny, and reputational risk.
As I watched Aaron Gunn’s “How a Pipeline Divided a Nation,” one thought stayed with me:
They had engineered the infrastructure.
But the narrative hadn’t been engineered, Why not?
In high-stakes environments, especially in energy delivery, not having dialogue is risky.
And engineering without consent is fragile.
What’s logical to leadership may still feel opaque to communities.
That’s why communication isn’t an afterthought.
It’s not the “polish.”
It’s the connective tissue between intent and impact.
The energy transition isn’t just technical.
It’s relational. It’s political. It’s emotional.
It needs to be approached from a sustainability lens. Sustainability doesn’t live in a slide deck.
It lives in credibility, beyond a section of the report; it’s how people experience the work before, during, and after execution.
For every project team driving complex outcomes remember this:
Even the best-delivered project can unravel when the narrative architecture is missing.
Message misalignment is a risk multiplier—not a soft miss.