HIGHLIGHTS:
ONSITE DISPOSAL OF DRILLING WASTE — SUBSIDENCE — BEHAVIOUR OF ICE AT
“BREAK-UP”

My day started — as it usually does in Inuvik — with crawling out from under a utilidor. Utilidors, I believe, are unique to Inuvik. They are insulated above-ground conduits for utility pipes and wires. I don’t sleep under the utilidor. But, I do have to pass under it on my way from the hotel to the Midnight Sun Recreation Centre, where the hearings take place. Either I am getting fatter or the level of snow and ice under the utilidor is rising. There’s probably an analogy in there that I can relate to natural and extraction subsidence in these technical hearings!

There is a local Elder sitting and listening to the proceedings today, along with two or three people who appear they might be from the community. Other than that, most of the people in the room flew in from Yellowknife and Southern latitudes.

Today starts with a continuation of questions from Intervenors to Proponents on topic 3b: anchor field design. It is another technical day. So, to get a sense of it, you need the transcript. But here are a few tidbits for us generalists. Please let me know if you spot errors. Don’t rely on this: check the real transcript if something here catches your eye.

LACK OF DATA

Natural Resources Canada (NR Can) right away has concerns about late receipt of technical information (on seismicity and drilling sumps). Hard to give something this technical a through review without time to review it.

NRCan has questions about seismicity — the proponent says they are “taking appropriate measures.” This is a recurring theme. We also often hear that “Further study will be done and appropriate changes made,” or, “This is a preliminary design,” and even, “We’ll modify this as necessary to keep it above water.” In other words, “We will make it up as we go along.”

NRCan, it turns out, shares my concern that the proponents say natural processes will mask subsidence caused by extracting gas. Do we not understand enough about the underlying natural conditions to say something more definite? (“Subsidence” is the lowering that occurs when the ground settles after gas is extracted from underneath its surface).

Keeping up with the technical nature of discussion at technical hearings is challenging. On the flight up, my Canadian North fortune cookie said, “You naturally accumulate knowledge and look at its broader implications.” So, at lest we have Confucian sages on our side.

DRILLING WASTE

The JRP has two technical experts present. Dr. Jean-Marie Konrad, asks the proponent for a complete description of how they intend to place drilling wastes in sumps. Answer: “These procedures are not developed at this point.” Dr. Konrad is sceptical whether the proponents can pull off the on-site waste storage they are proposing. He points out that the addition of foreign substances — like salts — lowers the freezing point of the waste. Have the proponents considered this adequately? Dr. Konrad says proponents will have to do more to convince the JRP that their waste disposal plan is sound.

He goes on to ask, “When you do your thermal modelling, how do you do your solid rejection physics?” But the proponent has not yet done thermal modelling.

Dr. Gayle on behalf of the JRP asks the proponent to explain a sentence submitted in an IR: “Subsidence in excess of the predicted amount might change the magnitude of the effects assessed for the proposed project but not necessarily the magnitude of these effects.”

He comments later that from the information presented and the proponents’ answers to questions, it is clear that the proponent has no information on existing stress field at reservoirs.

PANEL QUESTIONS

Then it is the turn of the Joint Review Panellists to ask questions. Dr. Usher has a lot of questions, starting with what would happen at Taglu if a shortened season mean they cannot deliver all the gravel they plan to. The answer is vague and apparently not well developed. First priority, we hear — as we have heard before — would be safety of personnel.

Dr. Usher goes on to ask about emergency response in the event of storm surges. The proponent says they can rely on weather forecasts and adds that they’re going to be there for thirty years gaining experience on how to handle this.

Dr. Usher asks about subsidence in the Taglu Production area. He confirms that although subsidence — as we have been hearing all day — is gradual (1 cm/year) — after thirty years they have dropped one side of Big Lake by 30 cm. This will change the shape of the lake — like tilting a dish of water.

SUBSIDENCE

Later, the proponent admits that although there will be efforts to protect their facilities from the effects of subsidence, there is nothing they can do to mitigate overall subsidence, “which is directly correlated to what we are here to do — which is to take the gas out of the ground.”

Dr. Usher reminds the proponents that when the JRP was in Inuvik in February, we experienced weather with days averaging -2C or -3C, with nights not getting below -15C. He asks what would happen to sump disposal at Taglu if a similar spell of warm weather be encountered. Shell is relying on cold weather for disposal of drilling wastes.

If the sump were to fail after the life of the project, who would be responsible, Dr. Usher asks. Shell says the land will be turned back to the government; but, that Shell will never give up its responsibility.

Niglintgak will consume about 1300m3 of methanol annually. Shell considered recovering this from the discharge waste. However, Shell decided it was cheaper to replenish the supply annually rather than recycling it. The majority of the methanol ends up in the “produced water” and disposed of in the disposal well.

ICE “BREAK-UP”

Finally, at 1630 on the second day, in response to a question from JR Panellist Tyson Pertschy, we start talking about something I have direct experience with — the behaviour of ice at “break-up” time. Seems Shell studied this for one year. I know from living on Yellowknife Bay that ice behaviour varies widely — and wildly — from year to year. Shell proposes to put a gas conditioning facility on a barge in a river channel.

SUMPS

The Panel ends up with more questions about disposal sumps. The proponent says they investigated alternatives. If the NEB denies permission for local “downhole” disposal, they will truck the cuttings to Alberta, they say. However, questioning reveals they have only anecdotal knowledge of disposal sites in Alberta.

NATURAL RESOURCES CANADA

We finish up with a presentation by Natural Resources Canada (NRCan):

Sharon Smith and Scott Dallimore, Geological Survey of Canada (GSC), speak to Permafrost and Terrain Conditions and Related Impacts in Anchor Fields. They start by highlighting the importance of starting with good baselines. They are troubled by the lack of consideration of and information about PERMAFROST in the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) — a situation not remedied completely by Information Requests (IRs). It is unclear to GSC if the proponent has considered excess ice and massive ground ice in its analysis. NRCan has recommendations including that the proponents conduct better assessments and investigation and provide that data to NRCan and regulators.

NRCan has illustrations of previous sumps that have not worked — and data to show that the proposed sumps in this case may not work either due to lowered freezing points of waste and rising ground temperatures. There has been no thermal modeling by the proponent, and no details of monitoring/mitigation should sump performance be unsatisfactory.

In summary, the proponent has not demonstrated that sump contents will remain frozen under current and future climate conditions and will not be released to surrounding environment. NRCan wrote a letter to the proponent expressing concerns. Response recd 16 Mar 06 so no recommendations yet.

Larry Dyke re subsidence is satisfied the proponents estimates of subsidence are accurate.

Steve Solomon, regarding proponents conclusions that natural subsidence would be difficult to separate from subsidence caused by operations, says GLS has a different view. Apparently a meeting between NRCan, Environment Canada and the proponents on 10 Feb 06 answered some of the concerns GLS had about incomplete information. GLS analysis shows Big Lake is increasing by 3 ha per year. Subsidence from gas extraction could triple that. But there was overall a lack of data. He proposes additional work be requested by regulators (which NRCan is not). Dr. Solomon points out there is more uncertainty at these latitudes from satellite data.

Regarding climate change effects, including storm surges and sea level rise, Dr. Solomon reports that between 1963 and 1996, sea level at Tuktoyaktuk has risen 3.6 =/- 1.8 mm per year. Relative sea level rise is a combination of what land is doing and what water is doing. These figures, are a combination. NRCan predicts a sea level rise by 2050 of 18cm; the proponents forecast 10cm over a 30 year period. Dr. Solomon thinks proponents need to do more homework. He illustrated effects of storm surge flooding on Tuk in 1993 and what that would look like in 2050 after sea level rise. Large areas would be flooded and some roads would be impassable. He recommends proponents do more work to gather data on this.

Returning to my favourite topic — ice break-up — NRCan recommends the proponent do further study on this before located Shell’s barge in the river channel as proposed.

Stephen is a tough act to follow. Last week, he introduced profanity to the
proceedings. To keep up our media ratings, we’ll need nudity or violence
this week.

A thinner crowd this session — as usual there are teams of seasoned lawyers
and experts representing the proponents and government intervenors. One
person here (me) representing ENGOs.

ANCHOR FIELDS

The Proponents start with an overview presentation of the three anchor
fields. One big issue is that the ground conditions must of course be
capable of supporting the facilities built on top of them. This will be
easier said then done given that they are hoping to pump relatively warm gas
through continuous permafrost. On top of this are the effects of climate
change.

At Taglu (one of two anchor fields in the Kendall Island Bird Sanctuary),
Imperial predicts the ground will subside as the gas be extracted. But,
Imperial says, the effects of subsidence are expected to be masked by
natural processes. This in an area already flood prone, already subject to
erosion. Would it not be more accurate to say that the propose development
would aggravate and accelerate existing conditions?

“OUR” DRILLING WASTE

Imperial says that the ability to conduct environmentally responsible
disposal of drilling discharges does not exist in the NWT. Therefore,
Imperial proposes to dispose of drilling waste near the source. Drilling
waste is discharged into a sump — and since the land is rented from Indian
and Northern Affairs Canada (INAC) it is then turned over to INAC, wherein
it becomes the responsibility of the people of Canada. Let’s hope a warming
climate doesn’t render the permafrost unstable.

As usual, the proponent admits their data is incomplete and will need
further study. GNWT asks if the drilling waste from the three sites could
not be consolidated at one site. Two impediments, according to the proponent
are: schedule of the different sites is not coordinated, and
incompatibilities between the different injection schemes. Reading between
the lines, economics appear to be the driver here and elsewhere.

At Niglintgak there will be a steel tank instead of a sump. Shell notes that
the volume of drilling waste with today’s technology is one quarter that of
the 1970s when “dump and dilute” technology was used. Good thing the first
incarnation of this project was not approved back then! But, imagine where
the technology will be 30 years from now ….

The Joint Secretariat asks if the proponents have alternatives in the event
NEB does not approve on-site disposal of drilling waste. The proponents
answer that they would move the waste offsite in that case. However, Shell
says that at Taglu it would be a tremendous logistical challenge to move
production waste offsite since it is a high volume of water-based waste.

NIGLINTGAK

The Niglintgak field, also in the Kendall Island Bird Sanctuary, is proposed
by Shell. Shell would mitigate environmental damage with a winter-only
drilling programme. But what if the climate changes faster than Shell
predicts, and/or construction goes beyond schedule — will this push Shell
into summer constriction, and gravel instead of ice surfaces?

At Niglintgak, the gas will not be refrigerated to preserve permafrost
because it is already cooler. Offsite drilling waste disposal is not
proposed because Shell deems it not to be cost effective.

In closing, the proponents echo an oft-repeated theme: their study is not
complete; the proponents will progress to detailed engineering. Their plans
are robust and versatile enough to accommodate additional input.
Translation: they don’t know but will make it up as they go along.

FLOOD DAMAGE?

JRP Chair Robert Hornall asks about the environmental consequences of rising
flood waters covering operating platforms. The proponents answer that first
priority would be to evacuate their personnel. The site could be flooded.
Regarding environmental consequences of flooding the drilling site,
associated facilities and machinery — Imperial says they wouldn’t envision
anything significant arising from that.

Shell adds that a flood at the gas field would be extremely expensive; so,
they don’t want that to happen.

Dr. Chris Burns of INAC has questions about the effects of convection heat
from flood waters on construction surfaces. Proponents do not appear to see
this as a concern.

NO FENCING

Panel Member Barry Greenland asks why proponents’ illustrations don’t show
fencing. Imperial answers that plans for fencing are not finalised — they
are developing a fencing plan. In other words, they are seeking approval now
and will figure things out later. Shell answers that the fencing plan is not
finalised so they cannot comment. (But they can proceeding to technical
hearings).

BEAR EMPIRE STRIKES BACK?

Panel Member Percy Hardisty mentions that a bear opened a valve on the
Enbridge line and there was a spill. He wonders how proponents will protect
valves from animals.

ENVIRONMENT CANADA QUESTIONS

In response to questions from Environment Canada about potential
repercussions of rising sea level, the proponent says there will be ample
time to respond to rising water, for example by adding gravel to the
facilities.

Environment Canada revisits the issue of purported masking of subsidence by
natural effects. Proponents say we won’t know from year to year if it is
natural or not. Sounds like there is insufficient background knowledge.

LATE DOCUMENTS

JRP’s counsel points out that some of the Proponents’ documents are late;
and, this does not give Intervenors a chance to review and comment on them.

Paul Falvo is a Yellowknife-based lawyer with Sierra Legal Defence Fund.

First up on Friday morning are Don Davies and Chris Heuer on behalf of the proponents asking questions of the Environment Canada. Heuer’s key contention is that climate change and climate variability will have no significant environmental effects on a pipeline buried 1.5 m in the ground. The proponents are not prepared to accept any of Environment Canada’s recommendations.

Heuer used the occasion of the questioning of Environment Canada to make several 5 minute statements recapitulating the proponents’ views and adding some new information not presented during the three days taken in presenting and questioning the proponents’ work. I am amazed that neither the chair nor legal counsel for the Panel, nor any of the four of five federal lawyers present, object to this misuse of the interrogation period. Someone more cynical than myself might leap to the conclusion that the bureaucrats have been utterly cowed by Imperial Oil and their political masters in Ottawa.

In opening my questioning, I request that the Panel rule on this practice of using the interrogation period as an opportunity to make statements by way of rebuttal or recapitulation of earlier testimony. I argue that if the proponents’ are to be allowed to use their questioning time in this way, the same opportunity should be afforded to intervenors.

My questions to Environment Canada focus on the acceleration of climate change caused by the greater absorption of solar energy by open ocean than white sea ice as Arctic summer sea ice melts, and the impacts of the accelerating loss of ice into global oceans from the West Antarctic ice sheet and Greenland ice cap.

The answers do not assist in developing the case that I had thought Environment Canada had wanted to make. I also asked why Environment Canada had stopped gathering snowfall and snow depth information when this information is crucial to the proponent in planning the development of the snow and ice pads that serve as foundations for heavy equipment operating on permafrost.

Reflecting on the week, I am struck more than ever by how bizarre it is that Sierra Club of Canada is the only organization asking questions at this set of hearings that is not either government or industry. And I am the only person here on behalf of SCC. As much as I appreciate the serious commitment that Sierra Legal has made in bringing Paul Falvo and Sean Nixon on as legal counsel, we really need more horsepower.

As it is, the arrogance and tremendous resources of the proponent, combined with the pusillinamity of government officials (perhaps imposed by their ministers in Ottawa), and lack of effective representation of civil society (with the possible exception of SCC, WWF Canada and Alternatives North) are driving outcomes that will be bad for the North and for Canada , albeit highly profitable for Imperial Oil and ExxonMobil.

Time to step up to the plate folks.

My first point was that the unique engineering challenge associated with the MGP other than its size, is that there is a high-pressure chilled gas pipeline that is to be buried in discontinuous permafrost. Luckasavitch more or less agreed but indicated that it is not just the discontinuous permafrost that creates the engineering challenge, but the continuous permafrost as well. I asked whether the proponents would agree with my statement that the 450-km stretch between Inuvik and Norman Wells, which contains much discontinuous permafrost, is the very area that has the weakest data about permafrost conditions from boreholes. Luckasavitch first disagreed, but then retreated somewhat to say that the proponent has sufficient data for this area but is planning to collect more.

I then referred to a chart prepared by the proponents which describes a program for future data collection along the pipeline route over the next few years. I stated that virtually all of this data (e.g., stream measurements, geophysical drilling to obtain permafrost, ice content, and soil type and temperature information) could be characterized as baseline information for the purposes of environmental assessment. I asked the proponent to confirm that none of this information would be made available to the JRP (because the JRP concludes its hearings before the data would be available). Laplante did not answer the question but gave her cue-card answer that environmental impact statement contains sufficient information to allow the JRP to make its determinations. I asked whether or not the proponent did not think that the JRP could do a better job if the information in the future research program was made available to it. The proponent refused to provide an opinion.

I then challenged Luckasavitch’s contention that environmental assessment panels don’t review detailed engineering plans in the course of their work. I disagreed with his statement, noting that the Alaska Highway Pipeline Environmental Assessment Panel had first issued an interim report stating that the pipeline could be build safely subject to various conditions, such as detailed engineering for ice-rich permafrost soils along the route. Foothills, the pipeline proponent, prepared detailed engineering plans and other work to satisfy the Panel’s conditions. The Panel held technical hearings in 1982 and issued its final report in June 1982. I indicated that the JRP needs to decide how much information it requires to properly assess the environmental effects of the MGP, and whether the approach take for the Alaska Highway Pipeline Panel Review would be appropriate.

My final line of questioning challenged the proponents’ contention that its assumptions relating to mitigation of environmental effects associated with climate change are conservative. The proponents’ key assumptions are there would be a temperature increase of 0.72 degrees C per decade at Inuvik and a 0.1 m increase in the level of the Beaufort Sea.

I asked the proponent whether or not it wished to reconsider this assertion of conservatism given the dramatic findings subsequent to the release of the proponents’ environmental impact statement in October 2004 including the Arctic Climate Impact Assessment in November 2004, and other studies showing increasing sea levels resulting from melting of the massive West Antarctic ice sheet and Greenland ice cap, possible disappearance of Arctic summer sea ice within fifteen years, and record temperatures in Canada this past winter. Michelle Laplante and Rick Luckasavitch read from their cue-cards in response. I responded that I was scared shitless by the threat that climate change poses, but that none of these findings gives the proponents pause. This latter comment was picked up on CBC Radio One.

Later that day, Environment Canada gave a Climate Change 101 presentation, discussing climate change and its impacts, noting that the changes are greatest in the Arctic, reviewing future climate variability, and noting the increase in severe/extreme events in the Mackenzie Valley including lightning and an increase in forest fires. Environment Canada stated that it was not satisfied that the proponents have demonstrated that climate change/variability are unlikely to affect the structural integrity of the pipeline. The models/methods used by proponents are not adequate to predict future climate. Environment Canada is recommending that the proponents:

• Properly incorporate the upper limit temperature scenarios to cover the range of future temperature conditions including their variability and extremes;
• Develop and implement a collaborative long-term environmental plan to suitably assess climate change/climate variability effects on the project and project interactions with valued environmental components (VECs).

Dr. Chris Burn, a scientific consultant with Indian and Northern Affairs Canada, asked how the proponent proposed to protect the peatlands south of Tulita. He noted that these peatlands are typically permafrost and elevated above the rest of the unfrozen landscape. Responding on behalf of the proponents, Rick Luckasavitch responded that in some cases the peat would be compressed to provide a working surface, in some cases leveling or grading would be required, and in other cases fill would used to level out the transition between peatlands and adjacent areas. The determination as to which approach to use would be made on site at the time of construction.

Burn asked what proportion of the pipeline in the discontinuous permafrost zone would occur on cross-slopes up to 10 degrees? Luckasavitch responded that there would be 8 km of slopes greater than 10 per cent (or 7 degrees). Of these cross slopes, 0.5 km of slopes north of Little Chicago would require an ice pad, and 0.5 KM of sloped south of Little Chicago would also require an ice pad

In digging the ditch for the pipeline, some of the spoil may be ice-rich and thus not suitable for use in burying the pipeline. Ice-poor fill (e.g., gravel) would be brought in and used instead in these circumstances. Burn asked how the decisions would be made whether or not to use fill or spoil. Luckasavitch responded that the scope of the program had yet to be determined. He also stated that the information for the detailed engineering is typically gathered after the environment assessment is carried out. This is certainly not always the case. In my questioning the next day, I mentioned the case of the Lysyk panel review for the Canadian portion of Alaska Highway Pipeline Project in the late 1970s and early 1980s.

This pipeline is similar to the MGP in that it was desgined to be a buried natural pipeline through permafrost. The Panel’s 1977 interim report concluded that a pipeline could be built and operated in an environmentally acceptable manner, but identified conditions that needed to be met, including re-routing to avoid sensitive areas, exploring different design modes and proper environmental planning.

The Panel’s 1982 final report was released only after reviewing detailed design submissions from the proponent and technical hearings. In response to questions from Burn, the proponents noted that approximately 964 boreholes along the one-km corridor between Norman Wells and Inuvik. Boreholes are drilled to gather geophysical (e.g., ice content, soil type) and permafrost information to guide site-specific pipeline routing and design.

Paul Cavanagh, representing the Proponents, stated that very few of these boreholes are located along slopes—where the concerns about frost heave and thaw settlement effects are expected to be most severe. Cavanagh also admitted that terrain mapping was used to characterize permafrost along slopes (without the benefit of much borehole data). Chris Heuer noted that the proponent is planning to dig 5000 to 10,000 boreholes along the right of way so as to have geophysical and permafrost data at distances averaging 100 to 200m along the length of the pipeline.

Burn asked whether data from winter 2006-07 and summer 2006 activities for field data collection would be made available to the JRP. Luckasavitch indicated that it would not be. Data would be used for the purposes of obtaining other land use permits and water licences.

Burn asked questions about the use of horizontal directional drilling (HDD) to allow gas pipelines to cross the Kanguk and East Channels of the Mackenzie river in the Mackenzie Delta. Drilling mud at a temperature of 5 to 15 degrees C is used in the drilling process which will melt the side of the drilling hole, especially near the surface where the soils are ice-rich. Joanne Laplante, on behalf of the proponent, admitted a potential for sedimentation effects. (She did not mention other possibly catastrophic events such as pipeline rupture underneath a river channel caused by frost heave in non-permafrost areas adjacent to one or more permafrost areas.)

The question of the engineering design for HDD crossings was clearly an important issue for Robert Hornall, the JRP chair. He asked for more information about the engineering design and possible environmental effects associated with HDD river crossing technology.

Wayne Savigny, a consultant for Indian and Northern Affairs Canada, focused on the assessment of geohazards, such as earthquakes, frost heave, thaw settlement, sinkholes, karst features, and slope-related features. After some discussion Savigny concluded that some geohazards have been assessed by the proponents, others have not. But the susceptibility to some geohazards has not been undertaken. He asked who on the proponent’s team is responsible for geohazard assessment. Luckasavitch repeated the non-answer that he frequently gives to questions about the proponents’ personnel—there is an integrated team of experts who are working on it.

Savigny raised the issue of dynamic liquefaction, which is sudden loss of strength of soil that occurs during an earthquake, and how this phenomenon changes in the context of climate change. On behalf of the proponent, Keith Myer indicated that the question of dynamic liquefaction is a matter of ongoing study by the proponent, that screening analysis is being undertaken for of areas of concern along the route, and that more boreholes may be needed to collect more data.

Savigny noted that northern permafrost may create conditions that are prone to liquefaction that have not been well-documented in the literature. How will climate change be accounted for in this geohazard assessment? he asked.

In discussing the hazards presented by slopes in permafrost environments, the proponent stated that all pipes on slopes exceeding a threshold angle will be insulated. Michelle Laplante noted that terrain stability important to the MGP studied in the EIA. Mapping has identified various landslides, avalanches, sinkholes, karst features, has been done

Savigny went on to comment that the Norman Wells proponent (as well as MGP proponent) had promised to maintain a positive “roach” (a small hill on top of the pipeline) in order to ensure that water drains away from the pipeline. Enbridge has abandoned that commitment for cost reasons. Luckasavitch responded that the MGP’s commitment is limited to the first few years after construction.

Savigny asked how the project team is organized to ensure effective communication among team members. He followed up by asking whether or not the proponents had considered establishing an external review board, as has been done for other big projects. Luckasavitch responded that external consultants were sometimes used (but no external review board).

Savigny asked what the accepted incident frequencies for the MGP gas pipeline and natural gas liquids pipeline are (as measured in incidents per thousand kilometre years). He explained that an incident is a problem in the pipeline that requires an intervention on the part of the pipeline operator. He indicated that in non-probematic environments, the incident rate caused by geohazards .02 to .05 incidents per thousand kilometres. In more difficult terrain, this rate increases by one order of magnitude. In the most difficult terrain, the rate increases to 2.0 incidents per thousand kilometres. He asked what the proponent’s objective is. Luckasavitch responded that the proponent doesn’t have one.

Savigny asked if the proponent had calculated an annual accepted probability of failure. Luckasavitch responded that work is underway and that a workshop has been held. Tens of interventions are needed to ensure the integrity of the pipe.

Savigny also noted that the proponent is relying predominantly on boreholes drilled by others, not ones it has drilled.. He then asked if the proponent is taking a responsibility for this data base. The answer from the proponent was yes; there has been periodic vetting of the data each time it is used.

My reflections on the day are that there are a number of serious technical issues raised by the INAC consultants. Much of the data to test the validity of their concerns has yet to be collected, and that data will not be available until after the JRP has concluded its work.

Rick Luckasavitch gave the opening presentation of behalf of the proponents. The crucial issue emerging out of his presentation is that the Joint Review Panel and National Energy Board will only have the opportunity to review the preliminary engineering design if Imperial Oil has its way prior to licensing the MGP. Detailed engineering would take place after licensing. Most of the permafrost and geotechnical information for the region with discontinuous permafrost north of Norman Wells needed for the detailed engineering design would be collected in the winter 2006-07 or subsequently; neither the JRP nor the NEB would be able to assess this information prior to licencing.

Chuck Brumwell then asked questions on behalf of Environment Canada. In the interchange with the proponents, it became clear that climate change variability (e.g., increasing weather extremes, increases in storm surges and forest fires) had not been taken into consideration in the development of the proposal. On behalf of the proponents, Chris Heuer expressed the view that depth of permafrost thaw is the key factor in determining climate change impact, and that climate change variability is not relevant. Heuer noted that a more conservative estimate of climate warming based on historical weather records rather than the estimate of 0.5 degrees C. warming per decade developed in the 2003 workshop. The more conservative warming rates are now 0.72 degrees C/decade for Inuvik and 0.63 degrees C/decade for northwestern Alberta. .

Brumwell also asked about impacts that may be caused if the 21 additional gas fields located in the Kendall Island Bird Sanctuary were brought into production and linked to the MGP gathering system. Luckasavitch refused to answer this question directly, noting that any expansion of the Niglintgak lateral pipeline would be based on the quantity and quality of the gas and timing of the additional developments. He said that the Niglintgak lateral has an additional capacity of 75 million cu ft/day (35 – 40% of its total capacity) to accommodate further developments. He would make not comment on whether the footprint (environmental impact) of any system expansions would be a factor in this decision making.

Mark Lange representing Fisheries and Oceans Canada asked questions about mitigations measures relating to frost bulbs at stream crossings and repairing the stream bottom for streams that have been crossed by pipelines using an open-cut crossing technique.

Margot Burgess, Sharon Smith and John Adams representing Natural Resources Canada asked several good questions. Smith asked the proponent witnesses what experience the team has in designing chilled high pressure gas pipelines in permafrost? A direct answer was not forthcoming. She went on to ask whether the report setting out the criteria to select mitigation methods for each site-specific application is available. The report was promised by the proponents in the third quarter of 2005, and then again for the end of 2005. Luckasavitch indicated that he was not able to provide a date that the report would be tabled with the JRP. Robert Hornall, the JRP chair, indicated that the JRP would like to see it as soon as possible.

This “blog” is part humour, part information. It’s intended as information and light entertainment for people with an interest in the proceedings — if I’ve got something wrong, please let me know.

We’re into overtime. Today is a bonus day. Numbers in the room have dwindled. We’re down to the oil company teams; a dozen or so folks from Environment Canada, GNWT Depart of the Environment, and other government departments; and 13 or 14 lawyers. Not many community members present.

Sierra Club of Canada and WWF-Canada are the only ENGOs represented here for this discussion on environmental impact assessment (EIA) methodology.

Discussion this week has centred in large part on defining sustainability — in the context of non-renewable resource extraction — and the search for adverse effects and labelling of their significance. On behalf of Sierra Club, I asked a question to the three specialist advisors on whether the two are the same, and if not, how to link them. Dr. Gibson responded in part by saying that sustainability provides guidance for the determination of adverse effects. (For his complete answer, and to find out how I linked it to the Canadian Idol auditions taking place today in Yellowknife, see today’s transcript at www.ngps.nt.ca/jrphearings_e.html Dr. Gibson’s comments from today and yesterday are well worth reading.)

Dr. Gibson makes a comment that if you turn the Mackenzie Valley into heaven on earth, we will attract a lot of people here. Of course, to a lot of us, the Mackenzie Valley already is a piece of heaven. Consider Alestine Andre’s thoughts on making the whole region a protected area forever. (see Tsiigehtchic Community Hearing, 20 Feb 06 at the above link).

The Panel’s three specialist advisors are dismissed and we are back to questioning the proponents on EIA methodology.

DFO (Department of Fisheries and Oceans) has concerns about the proponents’ one-size-fits-all view of determining significance of adverse effects, and their definition of “far future.” Rowland Harrison (he’s the member of the National Energy Board (NEB) who sits on the JRP) stops them at this point to clarify the proponents’ definitions of time. This leads to a long exchange: turns out the proponent is confusing thoroughly everyone. But after great effort it is distilled down to this:

• short term = 1 year or less
• medium term = 1-4 years
• long term = 4-30 years
• far future = 30-62 years or longer.

“Or longer” is added with some hesitation because the proponents hope — optimistically, I think — that there will be no effects of the MGP (Mackenzie Gas Project) beyond that time. Either way, it is a far cry from the “seven generations” that many of us hope the Panel will consider.

“We have to treat people involved in this project differently than people who aren’t,” the Proponent says at one point.

A lot of the questions revolve around the so-called ‘decision tree’ that the proponent uses to illustrate determination of significant adverse effect. DFO raises some excellent points — similar to those which the Panel itself raised yesterday. It becomes increasingly clear that the proponents have a very technical view of the future. I would not label them as “deep ecologists.”

To understand DFO’s concerns and the questions raised by the Panel, look at the decision tree in the EIS (environmental impact study). You’ll also find it in the JRP Registry as slide 33 of the presentation the proponents filed for 21-22 Feb 06.www.ngps.nt.ca/registryDetail_e.asp?categoryID=185

For example, a negative biophysical effect of high magnitude, occurring locally, over the long term is defined as “not significant” by the proponents. Same thing for a moderate effect of any geographic area … or for a low effect of any geographic extent for any duration. This gives rise to some interesting scenarios. For example, some families might depend on caribou in a particular area for food. If that is disrupted for up to 30 years, the proponents call it “not significant.”

The proponents admit that a moderate effect on fish into the far future “could make a difference to someone in the far future” but if the effect is “only” long term, then it is “not significant.”

Similar “oddities” occur on the socio-economic side of the house (EIS includes both biophysical and socioeconomic). For example, a “high” socioeconomic effect confined to the local level over the short term (defined as construction of the project, so a period of years) is “not significant.”

One of the proponents scientists has been having a little trouble expressing some of her ideas and the proponents’ lead on the EIS injects a little humour when he defines “water people” as aquatic biologists and “dirt people” as soil scientists.

Jennifer Walker-Larsen of the Gwich’in Renewable Resources Board (GRRB) points out that proponents have a different definition of “significance” than that of common public understanding. Apparently some local species have been observed to be more sensitive than scientific predictions. (Maybe the animals aren’t reading the science). Walker-Larsen observes that the Proponent has difficulty coming up with a specific way to define serious risk — whenever we talk about an actual animal we move away from methodology.

Indian and Northern Affairs Canada (INAC) asks, if an effect that results from the operation of the proposed project occurs throughout its life (therefore long term), and if project life be extended to 45-50 years, would that effect be long term or far future?

Imperial answers that if duration went longer than expected project life it would be termed “far future” but if it occurred from another project or a change to the project that would be a NEW effect that would need to be identified at that time.

INAC requested graphic representation of years, one for pipeline and one for gathering system and Imperial made an undertaking to do so. This leads to more questions from the Panel about the starting period of time periods.

By 3:40pm on this, the last — overtime — day of the General Hearing on Environmental Impact Statements. We are down to:

• panel members 7
• panel staff 6
• translators 6
• transcribers 1 (more in back room)
• 1 lawyer with 1 client asking questions
• witness panel 5
• proponent lawyers 3
• other proponent staff 7
• secretariat staff 2
• government and other/unknown 12
• ENGO 1 (me)
• youth 0

Jennifer Walker-Larsen now makes a presentation for the GRRB.www.ngps.nt.ca/registryDetail_e.asp?categoryID=123

Walker-Larsen outlines GRRB’s concerns about EIS methodology. See the presentation at the link above. The EIS looked at wildlife habitat, availability, movement and mortality. Prediction confidence was classified as high, moderate or low. But because of previous industry experience, “low” was actually “moderate-high.

Walker-Larsen quotes WWF’s Peter Ewins when he said that a model is just a model and only as good as the data that goes into it. Woodland caribou have been observed to preferred winter roads. An Enbridge study showed that impacts on Enbridge pipeline turned out to be much greater than expected.

Caribou were supposed to avoid the pipeline by 250m but that turned into 2 km in reality. A prediction of 220m for moose turned into 800m.

GRRB recommends:

• additional wildlife surveys
• readjustment of distance analysis results
• re-analyse of predicted impacts for local wildlife monitoring
• implementation by MGP of monitoring plans before constriction to establish baseline

That’s my hasty summary. Read the full transcript on the registry!

Long day … we started late at 10:30am, due to late arrival last night (this morning) from Tsiigehtchic yesterday. But, we ran until 9:30pm.

WWF led the parade in the morning Technical Hearing with a presentation by Dr. Peter Ewins and Dr. Gordon Orians. It was an exciting and busy day. More on this — and the JRP’s dissection of Imperial’s community consultation to follow. (See the transcript to see how the drama unfolded)!

Hearing resumed in the evening to continue a General Hearing scheduled originally for Thursday, February 16th.

Ron Gruben of Inuvik Hunters and Trappers Committee said his group is concerned for the land, environment and animals. The proponent will want to keep feeding the pipeline with gas for the duration of its life — meaning more exploration. His Committee asked the oil companies to reroute the line because they harvest caribou, grizzly and fish from this untouched, prime land. Construction will disturb the grizzly. They will leave as they did before, during seismic work. He cited the example of a grizzly that left its den — in February — because a road for seismic was too close.

The MGP will have also a significant effect on marine animals. The oil companies want to build an airstrip at a site near his harvesting areas in the Husky Lakes Management Area. People have always said no development there. They have used this area for generations, teaching their children to live off the land in their traditional way of life. This is the area where they harvest caribou and smaller animals for food and income. The MGP will have also a major effect on migratory bird species that use this area when they migrate and in the spring for nesting.

Gruben expressed concern about Shell’s barging facility is in the Kendall Island Bird Sanctuary, adjacent to a proposed marine protected area where they harvest beluga whales, migrating birds and fish of many species for food.

Gruben said he looks at the life of the pipeline as being more than just 2 – 3 years, with a significant impact on harvesting. He was born in Tuk in 1961. He was taught to live off the Land; he also learned the schooling way. He worked with industry in the 70s and 80s. They left. He is still here.

His people have a lot of bad memories. He thinks it will be different now that they have a signed land claim. But, when they see scars left on land it still hurts. They knew then that what industry did wasn’t right.

Randy Ottenbreit replied that Imperial is not in a position to know what success exploration programmes will have. They have provided additional capacity in their gathering system with the intention of accommodating other company’s gas and reducing the need for additional feeder lines.

Clearly, Ottenbreit said, the MGP will serve as encouragement for people to explore for more gas.

Ottenbreit has stressed many times that he cannot speak for other companies. However, in this instance he had no trouble committing Shell and ConocoPhillips to sit down to discuss mitigation and compensation.
Chief Charlie Furlong (also a director of the proponent Aboriginal Pipeline
Group) spoke on behalf of the Gwich’in Tribal Council. He brought greetings from Grand Chief Fred Carmichael (chair of the Aboriginal Pipeline Group). He reiterated his concern for the environment and support for the MGP. He said his people are concerned about social issues. His people have concerns about protecting their traditional way of life and the environment. However, he believes the promised $500M will alleviate many of these concerns. He urged the public to bring its concerns forward. He stressed the need to educate each other on the project to promote mutual understanding. The Proponent and environmentalists, he said, are trying to educate us on effects of the MGP. He feels the Gwich’in need to educate all concerned through traditional knowledge workshops. He welcomed people to the land of the Gwich’in and Inuvialuit.
Duane Smith spoke on behalf of Inuvik Community Corporation — one of six subsets of the Inuvialuit Regional Corporation. He spoke of some areas of concern regarding potential impacts on ICC beneficiaries, including:
- loss of traditional lands for gathering wildlife, berries and plants, as well as nomadic practice of living on the Land;
- importation of outside influences, including people coming in with a detrimental impact on Inuvialuit family values;
- need for methods other than sumps to dispose of drilling waste, because reports indicate they have varying degree of failure, and risk of exposure to the environment because of the changing nature of the Delta;
- noise pollution from air traffic to staging areas and around Parsons Lake airstrip;
- would prefer routing with less impact on environment;
- Shell barging facility is a concern — he proposes a monitoring programme; and
- disintegration of their language — 3 dialects — will be intensified by influx of Southerners.

Kim Johnson of Shell confirmed his company has applied to use a drilling sump for waste disposal.
Inuvialuit Beneficiary Richard Gordon spoke next. He got very emotional, saying there are very few of his people that will talk from the heart. Many tell him they don’t care. He gets emotional because all people hear is positive — jobs, etc. He likes the term “aboriginal people” — when we start breaking it into groups it is not strong. They should stand together as aboriginal people.

Gordon said he listened to webcast this afternoon on Traditional Knowledge (TK). TK is very important because everything elders was taught is from the heart. If we are going to change that, we’re really going to kill aboriginal heritage.

Industry, he said has its nice, beautiful pictures. But he questions that. Global warming is coming. Will their ice platforms withstand that? He heard today about low numbers of caribou that could be along pipe route. Things are happening. We’re concerned. But, still pipeline has a positive attitude.

“If you wanted my vote, today,” he said, “I would vote negative, because there are a lot of important issues for aboriginals people to keep their culture alive, what is left of it.”

He then spoke of Alaska, where people say once they signed, no one cared about aboriginal culture.

There is too much paper, too much technical talk, he said. But if we are allowed to talk from the heart, and make industry understand, then maybe we can make a deal. But there are a lot of issues that need to be filled in. He ended by saying there are a lot of other people who would like to speak — but cannot speak in public forums like this.

We need to knock on doors, he said, sit down and listen to people. Because in 10 or 20 years, our caribou, fish and cranberries may be all gone.

Randy Ottenbreit said in response to the comment that everything Gordon hears is good, they have trued to identify positive and negative, and how to reduce the latter. EIS is not only work to address those matters — also work done by aboriginal leaders up and down the valley. He feels as a result that they put forward a good proposal. [Translation = 'Everything's fine.']

In response to Gordon’s concerns about how drilling platforms will withstand climate change, Kim Johnson of Shell said they can build them high enough off the ground for that. It is easy to remove them later. People will hardly know that the site was used because the land is not disturbed (!).

Gordon asked if company would take responsibility if a problem arose after clean-up. Could they guarantee that?

Johnson acknowledged there were issues in Aklavik where Shell sump sites eroded after abandonment. The piles became exposed. They came back and cleaned up and they would do so in the future.

Gordon asked a question about Access and Benefits Agreement. He was told to take it up with his leaders because it is confidential and proponents cannot talk about it. This is something we have heard before. The Proponents take the tack that they do not have to explain things because they are in the confidential agreements.

Dennis Allen spoke as a concerned citizen and land user. Born and raised in Inuvik. Filmmaker. Grew up when land claims were being negotiated in 60s-70s. He stressed he has no axe to grind. He had strong opinions at one time. He then read some of the materials, and learned a lot from a two-part series the Inuvialuit Communications group hired someone to produce on the pipeline. He encouraged others to educate themselves.

Like many people who have spoken, Allen said he is not against the pipeline. But where they go whaling is just past the Niglintgak anchor field. Not everyone can go out and get a white collar job. He was reading about where they are going to build the well pads at Niglintgak. The scope of them fired things up for him again. But he stepped back and told himself that things cannot stay the same. Otherwise we would still be dragging our knuckles and clubbing animals. He would rather go to KFC or Tim Horton’s. Change and progress are inevitable. So, he has to tone down his rhetoric about the pipeline.

We can’t separate the people from the impact. He is not pointing fingers. But there will be impacts. These are people’s lives. Incredible amounts of money will come in. We are just getting over our hangover from the 80s boom. He was part of that, worked in the oil patch. He remembers dredging in the Beaufort Sea. At the time he had no understanding of how big things were — and that’s noting compared to size of this project. He has heard it described as possibly biggest mega project in Western Canada. He hoped people would be more reserved this time in how they spend their money.

A lot of the people he worked with he said had low self-esteem and pissed everything away. There are now a lot harder drugs coming in. Look at what diamond industry did in Yellowknife: crack cocaine use has expanded.

He’s heard several times people coming forward saying we’ve got to start looking after our people. Leaders’ response is that that is government job. Allen ended his presentation with the same phrase I used to start this report — saying with negative social impact from pipeline he is concerned no one will be leading the parade.

Ottenbreit of Imperial said social issues are most commonly expressed concern. He repeated that they will work to keep work camps drug and alcohol free, by searching luggage, etc. They need their workers to be sharp.

You may have read part 2 already. That was the evening session where members of the public spoke. Now we are back to the morning. It was an exciting day, with a star-studded cast.

In fact, given the educational/scientific nature of this day, you really want to read the transcriptwww.ngps.nt.ca/documents/060221_TSCRPT_Vol_6.pdf starting at page 15. I simply can’t do justice with my hasty summaries.

The morning started with Dr. Peter Ewins, WWF-Canada’s Director of Arctic Conservation introducing the WWF team — on behalf of well-known Northerner Bill Carpenter — WWF’s director of NWT community-based conservation projects. WWF had a panel of four experts.

First up was Dr. Gordon Orians, Professor-Emeritus of Biology at the University of Washington in Seattle, and an elected member of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States. Dr. Orians gave a brief presentation on lessons learned from the extensive exploitation of oil and gas resources on Alaska’s North Slope. In brief, the National Academies of Sciences formed a committee of 18 people to carry out an analysis. Dr. Orians was asked to, and accepted, the responsibility to chair that committee. Over a two-year period, the committee met eight times, visiting the North Slope during the summer and the winter, interviewing people in all of the North Slope native Alaskan villages; people elsewhere, particularly in Fairbanks and Anchorage. Some of their meetings were up to a week in length.

The committee members came from a broad array of backgrounds: petroleum geologists, anthropologists, native Alaskans, ecologists, economists, etcetera.

The 18 members of the committee laboured hard, and produced a consensus document. It is nearly 300 pages long. It is a consensus document; all 18 members of the committee agreed to its entire content.

Before publication, it was extensively reviewed by a panel of people that are identified in the report. The report has been acknowledged and praised for its objectivity by a broad spectrum of society, including the native Alaskans, representatives of the oil industry and the general public.

By way of even briefer summary of Dr. Orian’s already brief presentation, 5 main points:

1. Once development gains a foothold, expansion in a pattern bearing and having similar characteristics is inevitable in the Northwest Territories.
2. The influence of the infrastructure extends to varying distances on either side of the structures. For example, the effects of seismic operation have caused — offshore in the Beaufort Sea — deflections of the migratory pathways of bowhead whales up to 12 to 20 kilometres from the active sites.

   The roads carry dust that go kilometres to the side, affect the albedo snow cover and snow melt. The roads interrupt hydrological channels, cause ponding, creating effects that go varying distances from the road.

   The activities associated with these structures have affected the behaviour of various species of animals on land. Very important among them are the caribou. And the central Arctic caribou herd had its calving grounds in what became the middle of the oil fields in the Kuparak area.

3. This influence extends over time.
4. Without planning and a clear assessment of what these kinds of cumulative effects are, it is likely and almost certain that more damage will be caused than would otherwise be necessary.
5. Despite a great deal of scientific information available, much of it from the oil and gas industry, there were and are enormous gaps in the scientific knowledge.

Dr. Pete Ewins took over again and showed slides if satellite images of parts of northern B.C. where there are already linear developments. Here are roads, pipelines, seismic lines, drill pads, which in total we know to have cumulative impacts on various valued ecosystem components. That’s the reality just south of the Liard.

If we move up to the Colville Hills area, Colville Lake, and you superimpose perhaps a 50-year scenario for what the volume of gas might actually trigger, if we were able to take it to market, we would see a similar scenario of actual pads, seismic lines, pipelines, and roads, linear access.

Pete was showing a map produced by CARC which tries to combine a reality taken from space, satellite images here in the north-eastern part of B.C., with the sort of projections that we might expect through cumulative inevitable or induced development in other parts of those northern gas basins or fields.

This map is one which was produced by the Canadian Arctic Resources Committee. There are a number of models using information that are available to the public as to volumes of gas one might expect to see flowing down such a pipeline. And this is the kind of composite scenario for what the industrial footprint could look like. This is not capturing impacts, of course.

WWF-Canada strongly supports a community-based protected area strategy action plan in the 16 eco-regions here, either directly intersected by the proposed Mackenzie Gas Project or associated infrastructure, that a representative network of special cultural wildlife areas be identified and protected ahead of major decision-making.

Pete went on to discuss the importance and distribution and migration of caribou.

To see the visuals that go with his presentation, see the JRP Public Registry:

www.ngps.nt.ca/registryDetail_e.asp?CategoryID=169

WWF stresses the need for monitoring and recommends the posting of guaranteed measures, perhaps posted bonds, to ensure that the final clean-up and remediation, restoration actually happens not at the taxpayer’s expense.

Dr. Peter Usher of the JRP Panel had questions about the future scenario, the CARC maps. This is an issue that has arisen also before the NEB.

Dr. Usher asked:

“Is it is fair to say, I would assume, that the actual dimensions of the flow lines and well pads, and so on, have been significantly enhanced for the purposes of illustration, and that if we were to look at them, for example, in the way that you showed your first slide of satellite photography, that even if such development did occur, that’s not quite what we would see from satellite photography. Is that a fair comment?”

Dr. Ewins replied:

“ That’s for illustration purposes, I assume. But my point — or two points. One is I showed the actual satellite imagery to convey a real spatial impression of, in that case, just south of the Liard, how it actually looks. And it is a network and those are actual infrastructure footprints.

But because we are looking forward here at how to assess cumulative impacts, effects, clearly the effects, whether you’re a bit of water or a bird or a caribou, or a local person, the effects are actually much wider, depending on what you’re looking at, than you see on a map from any given infrastructure footprint.”

Next to speak on behalf of WWF was Dr. Robert Goodland responding to the question on FPIC, Free Prior Informed Consent or Consultation. Dr. Goodland undertook to produce a document referred to on the difference between consultation and consent in relation to FPIC. See it on the Registry (see above).

Finally, Dr. Francis Grant-Suttie, in answer to a question by Dr. Usher said WWF has worked in the Amazon, the Russian Far East, Africa, the Caucasus and many other parts of the world. We have witnessed large mega projects that unto themselves have caused induced development. In our thesis, this project, the Mackenzie Gas Project, follows the same pattern where we envision the cumulative impacts of additional projects that will attach themselves onto the original proposed project that you are reviewing currently.

There were questions for the WWF experts from various intervenors, including Jennifer WALKER-LARSEN on behalf of the Gwich’in Renewable Resources Board. Jennifer asked and Dr. Orians agreed that despite the level of scientific information available, there were serious impacts to wildlife in Alaska.

Imperial responded with a curtly worded statement that included that, “the proponents do not agree with the World Wildlife Fund that further protective land-use plans, or regional assessments, need to be completed in advance of regulatory approvals for the Mackenzie Gas Project.”

Imperial then gave its presentation on EIS methodology. See it in — you guessed it — the Registry: www.ngps.nt.ca/registryDetail_e.asp?CategoryID=185

Dr. Usher of the JRP Panel had questions for Imperial on its study and assessment of TK.

That’s all she wrote for the morning and afternoon session. My summary above does not do justice to the session, so please consult the transcript if you really want to see what was going on. Check your trash bin for part 2 — the evening session — that I sent earlier.

This was the second JRP community hearing. Once again, my day started with a pre-dawn walk through Inuvik. The car rental clerk waited for me to request and pay for windshield insurance before mentioning that the windshield was cracked.

Fortunately, the windshield was clear enough that I could see and swerve for two grouse on the road. These grouse were about the same colour as gravel patches on the road. They moved at about the same speed and with the same traffic sense as gravel. We will have to be smarter than grouse if we want to have an impact at these hearings. Then again, grouse are smart enough not to pump natural gas into the Alberta tar sands.

“Tsiigehtchic” is Gwich’in for “Mouth of the Iron River”. It is one of the most beautiful places I have ever seen. Perched on a hill, it overlooks the confluence of the Deh Cho (the “big river” aka Mackenzie) and the Arctic Red River. We crossed the frozen Deh Cho by ice road to reach it.

The Joint Review Panel (JRP) convened in the school gym. Volunteers brought never-ending food and bottomless Labrador Tea. Maybe it should be called “Labrador Tea tea” since it is tea made from the “Labrador Tea” plant. Whatever we call it, I was glad to drink local. This plant is good for repelling drowsiness and ghosts.www.cnf.ca/naturewatch/plantwatch/labtea.htmlhttp://collections.ic.gc.ca/hazeltons/labrador.htm

There was no drowsiness in Tsiigehtchic. In McPherson, no one from the community asked clarification questions. In Tsiigehtchic it took the entire first session!

Many people have been giving the impression that the Gwich’in totally support the MGP. If you think about it, that’s like saying that everyone in the NWT supports it because Joe Handley and Brendan Bell support it.

Itai Katz started the day by referring to the results of a survey of Gwich’in views of the Mackenzie Gas Projects. According to the survey, Itai said, Gwich’in were asked specifically if they thought they be ready for the MGP:

“In the age group of 16 to 24, 18 percent answer: yes, we’re ready; 22 percent answer: no, we’re not ready.

“At the ages of 25 to 39, 9 percent answer: we’re ready; 55 percent answer: we are not ready.

“At the ages of 40 to 54, 18 percent answer: we’re ready; 50 percent answer: we are not ready.

“At the age group of 55 to 90, 30 percent says: we’re ready; 42 percent says: we’re not ready.”

So much for that theory! Itai went on to challenge Imperial on how putting a work camp of 1500 people — half the population of Inuvik — next to Inuvik could be said not to have a significant impact on the town. He likened it to putting 500,000 people in a camp outside Calgary! And, he asked how Imperial could claim to not source water from Travaillant Lake when it would draw water from surrounding lakes that are interconnected.

Imperial responded to the second question by saying that they would keep workers out of Inuvik by bussing them back to the Campbell Lake camp after their shifts. Imperial reasoned that the workers wood be too tired after their twelve hours shifts to go into town and added that the work camps will be drug and alcohol free. Itai countered by referring to a CBC documentary on the tar sands which found that the companies cannot control substance abuse by workers. This exchange led to questions from Peter Usher of the JRP to Imperial on the mechanics of how they would control worker access to communities.

There followed questions about Traditional Knowledge (TK) from Julie-Ann Andre and a bilingual presentation by elder Gabe Andre. John Itsi asked about how hiring would be done. Imperial referred him to the access and benefits agreement and said he would have to find out from the Gwich’in Tribal Council (terms of the agreement are confidential). The TK from the community is also confidential; so, in answer to a question from Jennifer Walker-Larsen of the Gwich’in Renewable Resources Board, Imperial said it cannot release it to allow a comparison of TK and the Environmental Impact Study (EIS).

Itai was unstoppable — like the battery rabbit — he kept putting his hand up with more questions and comments. He suggested there is no shortage of jobs in the community — rather a shortage of people with the training and education to take those jobs. He pointed out the irony that Fred Carmichael laments the loss of the fur economy but proposes to replace it with another single economy, with specialised non-transferable jobs — when a diversified local economy would be more sustainable. Imperial countered that there will also be jobs and training in emergency medical response, small engine repair, and administration.

Alestine Andre made a passionate and brilliant presentation — illustrated with beautiful slides. Alestine started with a beautiful proposal to preserve the whole area for future generations:

“I would propose that Canada set aside a world example and designate the NWT Valley into a World Heritage site or park. The area is primarily a boreal forest that is home to certain species of birds, animals, and plants, and it is abundant with fresh water.

“This area could be designated as the only pristine place on earth and set aside as a development-free zone for all Canadians and citizens of the earth. The boreal forest will be for naturalists, school children, and a peaceful place to be with nature.

“The Gwich’in Tribal Council could proceed with such a nomination for designation at their annual assembly. The Gwich’in leaders, the Gwich’in assembly, and the Gwich’in Nation will be world leaders in having the vision to recognize and confirm the cultural importance of their homeland, that they wish to share with future Gwich’in generations and the rest of the world.

“At the basis of this designation is a world of opportunities that could be tapped with a pool of educated Gwich’in. The boreal forest designation and focusing or making education as our Gwich’in children’s number one priority could go hand in hand. That would bring our Gwich’in people, culture, our land and economy forward in a strong and powerful way.

“We do not need a pipeline. It will create a lot of damage to the land and to the people. We do not need that.”

[. . .]

“As a woman of the land and a Gwich’in beneficiary, I stand behind Elaine Alexie — I heard her speaking or her words being spoken the other day from Fort McPherson — who expressed herself strongly.

“I am also behind any other individuals and groups who are working to protect our environment, and also my Gwich’in people in our communities who are concerned about the impacts that will occur to our lives, our people, our communities, our land, and the environment if the proposed gas project were to go ahead.”

Band Councillor John Norbert expressed concern about social impacts and whether there would be alcohol and drug facilities in Inuvik (Imperial’s answer: not up to us).

Itai came back with concerns about the limits of the scope of the panel review. This mirrors concerns Sierra Club is raising about what is “reasonably foreseeable.”

“It is also possible that the companies are aware of much bigger reserves and that they don’t want to say so because they want to try and keep this review to one pipeline and three anchor fields in order to hide the real impacts to the environment and people.

“You need to look no farther than Alberta to see our future. In Alberta, too, it all started with one pipeline.”

[. . .]

“The company denies notions that any of the gas will be used in the tar sands. It’s interesting that any article I read in the Globe and Mail, the economics magazine and some trade magazines, it’s always been said that the tar sands are the obvious destination.

“The oil companies tell us that the gas will go to a general pool and that they cannot control what it will be used for. This kind of reasoning remind me of the arms dealers and manufacturers who claim: We just sell guns; what people do with them is not our concern.”

James Cardinal spoke in favour of the pipeline but expressed concern over climate change. This is actually a common thread: people speak in favour of the MGP but express grave concerns about its effects. Therese Remy Sawyer spoke in favour of the MGP but expressed concern about the land.

Bans councillor Fred Andre said:

“The irony here being that we here in the North will be the ones most affected through the permanent melting of the permafrost, the melting of the polar ice caps and endangerment to the wildlife that we depend on because they are unable to adapt to such fast and unseasonably warm temperatures.

“Is this the legacy that we as a nation wish to leave for our future generations? I don’t think so.

Sierra Club did not make a presentation (at community hearings, we cannot). But community member Don Horrocks stood up and started quoting Stephen Hazell from news reports. He went on to say:

“Why couldn’t Imperial Oil develop — use all their incredible wealth, all their shareholders, all their connections, their network, everything, why don’t they use that to save the world, the environment, by getting into alternate energy resources using the sun?

“But why don’t people on the Board consider the fact that maybe we shouldn’t even be looking at gas and oil?”

On renewable energy, Imperial’s Randy Ottenbreit had this reply:

“I think with respect to various forms of energy, I think people rely on and need and look for the benefits associated with energy use. Heat in a cold climate, the ability to take your Skidoo out on the land, the ability to drive, the ability to fly all use forms of energy.

“And despite all the work that’s been done on alternative energy sources — and alternative energy is projected to be one of the fastest growing segments of energy supply in the future — it is still well less than 1 percent of the total energy supply.

“And so there is a need to supply energy in its entirety and to continue doing work on alternative energy sources, but it is a relatively small source of the overall supply of energy in the world. It will continue to grow at a fast pace.

“But in the meantime, people still look for the benefits associated with being able to travel, the benefits associated with being able to live in colder climates, and so people look for those benefits and we provide that in the form of energy supply.”

Itai was back with one of his best questions — also the simplest: “Where is the Aboriginal Pipeline Group?” It is ironic they are not represented, given this is the only opportunity in this community for people to ask questions. Furthermore, it seems that Imperial can speak for every proponent except the APG. Why is that? One wonders if the oil companies are treating the APG as a second-class proponent. Will the APG get a fair deal?

Itai went on:

“As far as I understand — and I may be wrong, and I don’t know if anyone on the panel that is familiar with the APG arrangement with the producer — the one-third ownership is conditional. In order to become one-third owners in the Mackenzie Valley Pipeline, they have to fulfill certain condition.

“Some of them or the first, of course, is the money. The second, they will have to find gas. It could be their gas or they can partner with somebody else — not from the producer — to bring gas into the pipeline, and there’s some other condition that, again, if there was somebody from the Aboriginal Pipeline Group, I’m sure he was able to fill us.

“Regarding the money in order for them to acquire an ownership, it’s very well documented that mega projects of this kind usually run into a major overrun. We’re talking now about 7, $7.5 billion.

“By the time it’s all said and done and in case the project go through, we may be looking at ten or $12 billion. That means that the APG will have to provide a much more significant amount of money than what they’re talking now.

“However, the capacity of the pipeline is limited. So, what I’m saying is that their one third ownership, as I understand it, is not a sure thing in the sense they’re not one-third owners yet. There are certain conditions that they have to fulfill, but they’re given the opportunity to become.”

Virginia Cardinal said: “Our chief president, Fred Carmichael, fully endorse it. So does Nellie. I am one of his people; therefore, I side with him.”

Elder Linda Andre-Blake spoke against the MGP, saying:

“I’m thinking about the youth. I never seen a youth come up here yet and spoke. I wouldn’t mind to see more youth talking for themselves.

“Our chiefs, they’re not even here, and some of them are talking about pension. I know our chiefs are getting old. They’re going to get pension in a couple of years, so they don’t care.

“Like I said when I started, I’m against it. Jobs, it’s just for a little while. Money is just for a little while. People that have businesses will climb, but it’s us natives that will suffer with all the different changes in our life.”

Grace Blake, Tsiigehtchic resident and Mackenzie Gas Project employee, spoke in favour of the MGP.

Sierra Club got a very positive reaction from community members I spoke with. I dished out a lot of materials.