After 14 years as Alberta premier, on his last day in the legislature, Ralph Klein famously admitted the government had "no plan" to deal with the problems that came with the province's unfettered energy development.
Alas, Alberta isn't alone in its lack of a plan for resource development. The Northwest Territories is currently at its very own crossroads in deciding the pace and scale of development it will allow on its largely untouched landscape.
Participants in the review of the 1,200-kilometre Mackenzie Gas Pipeline project are currently presenting their final arguments to the National Energy Board (NEB), the body that will approve or deny the project by September 2010.
The difference between the Northwest Territories and Alberta, is that in the North there is still an opportunity to implement the necessary planning measures before development occurs.
Whereas the oilsands fuelled Alberta's boom, natural gas is set to open the Northwest Territories to unprecedented development. The Mackenzie Gas Project involves developing three major production fields and building a pipeline to southern markets — but perhaps more important is what isn't clearly stated in the project's application: these pipelines open the area to further development.
As the first major industrial undertaking of the North, the project has been called a force that would irrevocably change the life of the North — for better or worse. If approved without appropriate measures to control the cumulative effects of development, Northerners fear this project will be for the worse.
The good news is the Northwest Territories isn't without a plan, per se.
Indeed the outline for a plan for responsible development of the Mackenzie Gas Project has been drawn up in the form of 176 recommendations from the Joint Review Panel, the body tasked with investigating the potential social and environmental impacts of the project.
The panel heard from 558 presenters, representing industry, Aboriginal groups, non-governmental organizations, individuals and government in 115 days of hearings in 26 communities. The panel comprehensively considered both the opportunities and the risks of the project, and submitted its recommendations to the NEB.
The bad news is that industry has mounted a pugnacious campaign, which plays on Northeners' fears that the project may not proceed, in an effort to dramatically limit the number and scope of these recommendations.
Project proponents claim recommendations geared at managing cumulative effects or those that fall on governments' shoulders should be excluded. These include recommendations that relate to the completion of land use plans, the development of a strategy to use natural gas as a transition fuel, and the planning and funding of an expanded health care program.
The risks of unrestrained future development following the Mackenzie Gas Project are very real.
A Pembina Institute study conservatively modeled the general pattern of gas field development over the next 30 years, based on proven and potential reserves and development plans in the Mackenzie Delta. Future development resulted in enough seismic lines to circle the globe and built new pipelines three times longer than those in the Mackenzie Gas Project. The footprint of new roads would be equivalent to nearly 30,000 football fields.
The cumulative impacts on economic and sociocultural wellbeing are also a paramount concern. Vulnerability to boom and bust cycles is nowhere more evident than in Alberta. Albertans continue to pay the price for unguided, rapid development. When Alberta's economy and industry profits were at their highest, measures of genuine progress — like access to doctors, available housing, and the integrity of our environment — were at their lowest.
The Joint Review Panel process intentionally looked at the readiness of the North and its ability to handle cumulative impacts. Industry's request for the National Energy Board to ignore many parts of their recommendations is therefore a violation of the process.
Without the implementation of every recommendation, the project's "impact on the environment would likely be significant and adverse," wrote the Joint Review Panel.
Fortunately, the NEB can choose to ignore industry's misplaced demands for an Alberta-like approach and ensure that all recommendations are included when they issue the project's certificate.
Northerners are counting on it.
Jennifer Grant is the director of Arctic Energy Solutions for the Pembina Institute. Download our fact sheet on the Mackenzie Gas Project at www.pembina.org/pub/1986
