|
Forecasting a Mackenzie gas footprint Arctic environmental watchdog reviews possible scope of gas exploration, development and pipelines in Northwest Territories Gary Park Petroleum News Calgary Correspondent
More than 600 exploration wells, 530,000 miles of seismic lines, 2,300 miles of trunk and feeder pipelines — that’s just part of the infrastructure a Canadian Arctic environmental watchdog thinks will be needed to keep the Mackenzie Gas Project operating at capacity until 2049.
In a study by the Canadian Arctic Resources Committee a package of maps has been released that project the full scope of gas exploration and development that could occur in the onshore Mackenzie Delta, offshore Beaufort Sea and Colville Hills area of the Central Mackenzie Valley.
The purpose, said the committee’s research director, Kevin O’Reilly, is to show the Mackenzie project is “not simply a case of putting a thin ribbon of steel down the Mackenzie Valley.”
He said that in giving people “more information to think about,” the committee may only be offering a conservative view of the cumulative effects.
The study was prepared by Peter Cizek, of Yellowknife-based Cizek Environmental Services, and Shelagh Montgomery, cumulative effects program director with the committee, which has offices in Yellowknife and Ottawa and 3,500 members.
The maps of possible future wells, pipelines and seismic activity were based on a gas supply study by Gilbert Laustsen Jung Associates that was included in the Mackenzie applications filed with Canada’s National Energy Board in October.
Rather than taking a stand on the Mackenzie project, the committee said it is putting its focus on promoting economic, social and environmental sustainability in the Arctic region and is calling for a thorough review and examination of what is possible over the long term to generate enough gas to keep the trunk pipeline operating at 1.8 billion cubic feet per day.
It predicts there could be a high impact on birds, a medium-high impact on large mammals and a low-medium impact on flora and fauna over an area of about 7,700 square miles.
O’Reilly said the committee’s objective is to offer a fresh way to address issues, but not to create an impression that the challenges are too great for the project to go ahead.
Given the scale and magnitude of the project, the footprints on a map give some cause for concern, although there are ways to deal with some of the issues raised, he said.
Hart Searle, a spokesman for Imperial Oil, the lead partner in the Mackenzie consortium, told Petroleum News that the committee has developed some “interesting” data the partners are ready to take into consideration.
But he said it would be up to the regulators to decide how far they want to probe into the future when the environmental hearings start this spring.
Searle did concede the Mackenzie project could open the door to wider oil and gas exploration and development in the Northwest Territories.
Imperial said in the environmental impact statement filed with regulators in October that it did not have information to “adequately assess potential cumulative effects.” However, at the request of the joint review panel, Imperial expects to provide more information next month about cumulative impacts.
| 