YELLOWKNIFE — Environmental groups lined up on Thursday to warn an assessment hearing of the cumulative dangers posed by the proposed 1,200-kilometre Mackenzie pipeline, which would carry natural gas from the Inuvik area of the Northwest Territories to southern markets.
The potential impacts on First Nations, wildlife and the climate have not been adequately considered or properly addressed and perhaps a moratorium should be imposed, they said.
“Canada once again is not adequately prepared to deal with these cumulative impacts,” said Pete Ewins of the World Wildlife Fund.
“The costs ... particularly exacerbated by climate change are going to be horrendous.”
Environmentalists warn that two key concerns — “induced development” and additional greenhouse gas emissions — are being ignored.
The $16-billion pipeline project, proposed by large oil and gas producers such as Imperial Oil, ExxonMobil and Shell Canada, is designed to move 1.2 billion cubic feet of natural gas a day.
However, the three fields to which the 75-centimetre wide pipe would be connected can produce only 800 million cubic feet a day, said Keith Ferguson, a lawyer with Sierra Legal Defence Fund.
As a result, there will be enormous pressure to find more gas to fill the pipeline, meaning more seismic testing, hundreds of exploration wells, and thousands of kilometres of new pipes and roads, he said.
In addition, the gas would be pumped to southern Canada and in the United States, and release a lot of greenhouse gases when it's burned, exacerbating the climate-change issue, Mr. Ferguson said.
Some estimates suggest the extra gas would put Canada as much as 10 per cent further away from reaching its commitments under the Kyoto accord to limit greenhouse gas emissions.
However, the energy companies that want to build the pipeline say neither issue is relevant to the five days of hearings on the cumulative impacts of the project.
“The proponent seems to be saying that other than the three initial gas fields, we should pretend that this pipeline goes from nowhere and the gas goes to nowhere,” Mr. Ferguson said.
“We think that's completely unreasonable.”
Petr Cizek, with the Canadian Arctic Resources Committee, said the pipeline would further fragment habitat and could have “considerable impact” on wildlife such as grizzly bears and could lead to localized extinction of woodland caribou.
One group, the World Wildlife Fund, said the project should not be considered until proper conservation measures have been put in place first, including a complete network of protected areas.
In addition, proper land-use planning is needed in advance of putting any pipeline in place.
The problem is that governments have so little idea of how to do that, said Kevin O'Reilly, a longtime resident of Yellowknife and member of the social activist coalition Alternatives North.
“This is probably one of the worst examples of environmental assessment I've ever seen,” Mr. O'Reilly said.
Last month, the head of TransCanada Corp said he wondered if the project was still financially viable in light of the regulatory hurdles and low price of gas.
