|
One step forward, one back Optimism builds that Deh Cho lawsuits can be settled out of court, but enviros take harder line; Sierra Club accuses Mackenzie project partners of ‘disdain’ Gary Park Petroleum News Calgary Correspondent
The teeter-totter is working overtime at the Mackenzie Gas Project.
As fast as one problem is said to be headed for a solution, another is building.
On the up side for the Mackenzie proponents, negotiations to bring the Deh Cho First Nations in from the cold have been described as frequent and productive by Ethel Blondin-Andrew, Canada’s minister of state for northern development and a Member of Parliament for the Western Arctic (Northwest Territories).
She said the chances of the Deh Cho dropping lawsuits that could stall progress on the C$7 billion Mackenzie project are more encouraging than just a few weeks ago, but details of a possible settlement are being tightly guarded.
There was further optimism from Deh Cho Grand Chief Herb Norwegian, who said a resolution might be possible by the end of February, based on the results of meetings in Edmonton and Yellowknife.
Indian Affairs and Northern Development Minister Andy Scott said he was encouraged by progress in the talks, but declined to elaborate. Deh Cho seek progress on land claims, self-government The Deh Cho, who are claiming control over land that covers about 40 percent of the proposed Mackenzie Valley pipeline route, have filed two legal actions, challenging the Canadian government’s right to establish an environmental review panel and seeking an injunction to stop the process.
The Deh Cho, who are trying to get progress on a land claim and self-government agreement are also challenging applications permits issued to companies to explore in their region following the expiration of an interim agreement giving the Deh Cho a share of resource revenues.
Efforts to involve the Deh Cho on the same level as the Inuvialuit, Gwich’in and Sahtu in the Mackenzie project, including a one-third equity stake in a the pipeline, have traveled a rocky road, with threats by both sides to abandon talks.
Reaching an out-of-court settlement would clear an obstacle that threatens to both slow Mackenzie progress and add to costs. Sierra Club But now the environmental line in the tundra is becoming more sharply etched.
The Sierra Club of Canada has accused the Mackenzie partnership of “showing disdain for the regulatory process … by submitting inadequate environmental studies” to regulators.
Elizabeth May, executive director of the club, claimed Jan. 11 that environmental impact statement filed in October with the National Energy Board and Joint Review Panel shows “hundreds of examples” where the proponents have failed to comply with the terms of reference.
The club said the panel should order Imperial Oil and its partners back to the drawing board to draw up a new EIS before a technical review starts and before any public hearings take place.
“Governments and regulators must not be bullied by big oil into any rush to judgment,” the club said.
Imperial has said the EIS is comprehensive and it is now producing more information in response to a request from the joint panel. Committee has outlined exploration, development needed The hard-line by the Sierra Club follows on the heels of a study by the Canadian Arctic Resources Committee outlining what it believes will be the full extent of natural gas exploration and development needed in the Beaufort Sea, Mackenzie Delta and Colville Hills needed to keep a Mackenzie Valley pipeline operating at capacity.
May accused the Mackenzie partners of “not treating the environmental assessment and regulatory process with the seriousness this project — the largest ever in Canada’s North — deserves.”
She suggested the companies may be assuming that federal political support for the project means that approval will be automatic regardless of the environmental harm it might cause.
The club said that since the October filing:
• 231 “significant information gaps” have been identified by a workshop of more than 80 federal and Northwest Territories scientists.
• The joint review panel, in a 21-page letter last month, made 101 requests for additional information or reports from the applicants and asked for revisions to the EIS sections that deal with the human environment.
• Five letters from the National Energy Board asked for more information relating to applications to build the pipelines and anchor fields, including pipeline design on slopes where there is permafrost.
Stephen Hazell, a Mackenzie project director for the Sierra Club, said the EIS is “so weak” because the studies were likely done before the terms of reference were finalized on Aug. 18, 2004.
He said the response so far to the EIS shows government scientists and regulatory staff are “deeply dissatisfied” with the applications and the EIS.
Just to complicate matters, the Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society is working closely with the Deh Cho on a number of matters, including a proposed expansion of the Nahanni National Park in the lower Northwest Territories.
| 