Time to Say NO to the Mackenzie Gas Project

The time has come for the National Energy Board (NEB) to reject the proposed Mackenzie Gas Project (MGP). A decision by the NEB on the proposed $16 billion megaproject is expected in the coming weeks.

The Joint Review Panel (JRP) that exhaustively reviewed the social and environmental impacts of the proposed project made 176 recommendations for approving the project so that it could provide a foundation for the sustainable development of the North.

The Governments of Canada and Northwest Territories, even as they claim to accept the majority of the JRP’s recommendations, are in fact rejecting the JRP’s framework for implementing the project sustainably. In their final response, the Governments’ have only accepted 11 of the 115 recommendations directed to them by the JRP and in most cases, they have not addressed the JRP’s objections to the Governments’ proposal for changing the JRP recommendations. (Actually, despite a JRP call for transparency, the interim governments’ response was never made public and the Panel’s response to it was only available on Environment Canada’s website for a limited period of time before being taken down.)

The Panel concluded that “in the absence of implementation of its Recommendations, and in particular those Recommendations directed to the Governments, the adverse impacts of the Project could be significant and its contribution towards sustainability could be negative. In that event, the opportunity for the Project to provide a foundation for a sustainable northern future would be lost.” (Emphasis in the original.)

As we said to the NEB in our 22 November 2010 letter, proceeding with the project without implementing the recommendations of the JRP would compromise a sustainable future for the North. Therefore the project is not in the public interest and the NEB must reject it.

On December 1, 2010 Nature Canada wrote again to the NEB to bring to their attention a recent event that illuminates what the governments’ claims to accept “the intent” of a recommendation might actually mean:

Panel recommendation 11-2 calls for providing areas identified as of high conservation value through the NWT Protected Areas Strategy with interim protection until permanent protection is achieved. The governments accepted “the intent” of this recommendation. How is the Canadian government following through? On October 28, 2010 the government failed to renew crucial interim subsurface protections that had been in place for over eight years on the land beneath Edéhzhíe, leaving the area open to mining claims. Edéhzhíe is one of the most revered sites of the Dehcho and Tłicho Dene communities around western Great Slave Lake, and a candidate National Wildlife Area identified through the NWT Protected Areas Strategy (Step 5) and sponsored by the Canadian Wildlife Service.

This is one of 77 important recommendations for which the governments claim to “accept the intent”. Ten recommendations that are key for the sustainability of the project were rejected.

Sustainability should be the guiding principle for this basin-opening project. It won't be. The NEB should reject the MGP.

Governments Reject a Sustainable Approach for the Mackenzie Gas Project

This week, the Governments of Canada and the Northwest Territories released their final response to the environmental assessment of the proposed Mackenzie Gas Project.

Nature Canada is gravely concerned that, despite claiming they have accepted most of the recommendations, the Governments have accepted only 11 of the 115 recommendations to government from the Joint Review Panel that studied the environmental impacts of the proposed Mackenzie Gas Project.

The governments' response plainly dismisses the principles of sustainable development by rejecting recommendations on the grounds that they would constrain development. The governments’ refusal to commit to implementing all of the Panel’s recommendations creates the unsustainable conditions that the Panel warned about in an October 4 letter. “The Panel has concluded that, in the absence of implementation of its Recommendations, and in particular those Recommendations directed to the Governments, the adverse impacts of the Project could be significant and its contribution towards sustainability could be negative. In that event, the opportunity for the Project to provide a foundation for a sustainable northern future would be lost.”

Nature Canada is deeply concerned about the devastation that could be unleashed on important wildlife areas across the Northwest Territories as a result of the Government’s aggressive stance against the Panel recommendations. We are now studying the government response in more detail and will comment again soon. The National Energy Board is due to make a final decision on the project, likely before Christmas.

Mackenzie Gas Panel Rejects Governments' Attempt to Weaken Its Recommendations

It is no secret that the Governments of Canada and the Northwest Territories are strong supporters of the Mackenzie Gas Project. But it's shocking that they seem set on pushing it through with little or no regard for whether it will promote sustainable development for the North or harm this invaluable ecosystem. Fortunately, the Joint Review Panel (JRP) that was tasked with reviewing the environmental and socio-economic implications of the project is refusing to endorse this irresponsible approach.

In December 2009, after 2 years of public hearings and another 2 years of deliberations, the JRP released its report on the Mackenzie Gas Project: "Foundation for a Sustainable Northern Future". The Panel concluded that the project could make a positive contribution to sustainability and that it could be carried out without significant adverse impacts, subject to the full implementation of its 176 recommendations. As we noted then, these recommendations are no joke. They're the product of a very serious, comprehensive and committed effort to map the conditions under which this massive undertaking could open up the pristine Mackenzie basin without leading to its destruction.

It is very disturbing that the Governments of Canada and the NWT have tried to have the JRP accept the Governments' commitment to implementing only about 10% of the recommended actions. The Governments -in an interim response that remains know to the public only through the JRP's response to it- are proposing to accept only 10 of the 115 recommendations directed to them, reject 28 and claim to "accept the intent" of 77.

The recommendations that the Governments would like to reject or "accept in intent" include those directed to limiting green house gas emissions, ensuring sustainable end use of the extracted gas, completing and implementing First Nations land use plans, and protecting wildlife like caribou and polar bears. They also include recommendations intended to protect the Kendall Island Bird Sanctuary from the impact of the anchor fields and other development that the project proposes to carry out inside this protected area.

It is encouraging that the JRP has both refused to engage in a confidential exchange with the Governments and that they have stood firm by their conclusion that "in the absence of implementation of its Recommendations, and in particular those Recommendations directed to Governments, the adverse impacts of the Project could be significant and its contributions to sustainability could be negative." Bravo to the JRP for standing up for transparency and sustainability!

This is not the end of the story, however, so stay tuned for further developments...

Mackenzie Gas Project: Final NEB Hearings Start Next Week

After approximately four years, the Mackenzie Gas Project's review is finally coming to an end this month. The National Energy Board will hear final argument from April 12th to 24th in Yellowknife and Inuvik, NWT. The NEB is then expected to make a decision this fall on whether or not to grant approval to the project.

Nature Canada will not appear at the hearings, but we will be following them closely. In addition to the many specific concerns we have about the proposed project, we are concerned by the National Energy Board's reaction to the recommendations made by the Joint Review Panel in its December 2009 report. The Panel made 176 recommendations and concluded that the project could be carried out without a negative impact to the region if all the recommendations were fully impelmented. The NEB comments on the Panel's report addressed only about half of the recommendations, arguing that the rest were not within the Board's jurisdiction, instead of committing to ensure that all of the panel's recommendations are implemented as a package.

In response to the NEB, the Joint Review Panel last week reaffirmed its conclusion the project can only be carried without a negative impact if all the recommendations are fully implemented. The stakes are very high for sustainability, as a new Pembina Institute fact sheet makes clear.

Perhaps the NEB will be convinced at the final hearing to adopt the Panel's approach to sustainability for the Mackenzie Gas Project, if it approves the project. The NEB hearing will be broadcast live on the NEB’s website in Inuvialuktun, Gwich’in, North Slavey, South Slavey, Dene Tha’, English and French. Listen in or stay tuned for an update.

Mackenzie and Suffield: Opportunities for Sustainability?

The Joint Review Panel of the Mackenzie Gas Project spent two years writing a report that optimistically and ambitiously set out the conditions under which the Panel believes the basin-opening project could be the basis for sustainable development in the Mackenzie Valley and Delta.

The report tackles the big picture issues and many of its recommendations aim to mitigate negative cumulative impacts and maintain a high standard of care for future developments. If all the 176 report recommendations were to be fully implemented, perhaps the project could be a positive thing. But the chances for that are looking slim.

The National Energy Board responded last week to the Joint Review Panel's recommendations by rejecting the integrated approach to sustainability the Panel recommended. Despite claiming in November 2009 that it's taking a sustainability approach, the NEB seems inclined to taking a narrow approach to the Mackenzie Gas Project. The NEB can still reconsider after its hearings in April and the federal and territorial governments have yet to respond to the Panel's recommendations, so a commitment to sustainability might still prevail.

Yes, I'm trying to be positive today.

Another place where an opportunity to do the right thing is waiting to be seized is Suffield National Wildlife Area, or perhaps I should say EnCana's headquarters. As readers of this blog are aware, EnCana has applied to drill an additional 1,275 gas wells within Suffield National Wildlife Area. But why does EnCana still want to drill there? In North America, proven reserves of natural gas have increased substantially in the past two years, so the time may be just right for EnCana to abandon further drilling within Suffield National Wildlife Area. Read more here. And stay tuned, we'll continue to report on both energy projects, as well as the Northern Gateway.

Image: CFB Suffield by Cliff Wallis

The Mackenzie Gas Project: Your Say

Last week, we told you that Nature Canada has submitted its final comments about the Mackenzie Gas Project to the National Energy Board. We also wanted to know your thoughts about the project.

Our most recent quick poll asks: Do you think construction of the Mackenzie Gas Project should proceed?

Overwhelmingly, the responses have been no - the Mackenzie Valley should be off-limits to large-scale industrial development (84% of responses). A further 13% of respondents believe that the project would be acceptable if all 176 recommendations of the Joint Review Panel are implemented to reduce damage to the environment and provide lasting benefits to the people living in the area. Only 3% of the responses indicate that construction should proceed regardless of its impacts because the project is an important source of revenue for the northern economy.

We also asked how you would feel if natural gas from the pipeline was used to expand tar sands operations.

Most responses agreed with this statement that "gas from the pipeline should absolutely not be used to expand tar sands operations."

Among the concerns expressed was the worry that, even if all the recommendations were implemented, there could still be environmental impacts:

"I think it would be a gross misuse of an energy resource, and a massive environmental insult. And the construction of the pipelines, roadways and other infrastructures will cause unforeseen problems to local peoples and wildlife."

Many responses also suggested that the money being directed towards oil and gas development could be better spent on alternative energy sources:

"I would prefer to see alternative energies from wind, solar and tidal sources receive as much investment as is given to tar sands development. Bolster that which is sustainable, not that which is destructive, harmful."

"We need to tap alternate, less invasive energy sources. Pristine habitat is rare in our world and we should be doing everything to protect what is left for the other billions of creatures with which we share this planet."

The overall feeling of the responses can be summed up with this one:

"The pipe line should not be built - we need to preserve the land free from development. If the gas from the pipe line were used to develop the tar sands it would be a double assult on our natural environment."

Your support provides direction for our work. If you haven't made your voice heard yet, why not vote now? Or, check out some of our other quick polls to share your thoughts.

Our last "official" word on the Mackenzie Gas Project

Nature Canada has been involved in the review of the Mackenzie Gas Project since 2005. Last week, we made our last official intervention by submitting comments on the Joint Review Panel (JRP) recommendations to the National Energy Board (NEB) and the federal and territorial governments. The JRP concluded the Mackenzie Gas Project could be carried out without major negative impacts if all of its 176 recommendations were fully implemented.

I've commented before on the huge challenge of implementing the Panel's recommendations. However, if the National Energy Board determines the project is in the public interest and decides to approve it, the NEB and governments should take every measure to ensure all the JRP recommendations are indeed implemented fully. This is the essence of our comments to the NEB and the territorial and federal governments, which also include specific comments and recommendations relating to protected areas, Important Bird Areas (IBAs) and the Kendall Island Migratory Bird Sanctuary.

We also argue against the Proponents' recommendations that the NEB ignore a large part of the JRP recommendations. This would undermine the approach of sustainability that the region has chosen for its development. The Proponents show deep disregard of the JRP's efforts to ensure this basin-opening project is the foundation of the sustainable development of the region. Given this lack of commitment to sustainability, I can't imagine it could be in the public interest for the Mackenzie Gas Project to proceed. There's too much at stake.

Another show of disregard for sustainability came yesterday from the new Minister of Natural Resources, Christian Paradis. While acknowledging that he has a lot to learn still, he pointed to the Mackenzie Gas Project review as an example of the "red tape" he means to eliminate to facilitate industrial development projects. He also said he believes in balancing the environment with the economy. Perhaps among the things he has yet to learn is that there is no economy without the environment; and that if sustainable industrial development can be achieved it is only through, among many other things, careful assessment and planning. And yes, this takes time and it is not easy. There is too much at stake.

The NEB is considering a motion by Alternatives North for an economic update from the Proponents. If the NEB rules in favour of this motion, the hearings for final argument currently scheduled for April 2010, will likely be postponed.

Why does the Mackenzie Gas Project threaten the integrity of the Mackenzie valley? Read more and take action.