CARC Releases Mapping Study of the Cumulative Effects of the Mackenzie Gas Project - January 4, 2005 [Revised Jan. 22, 2005]

The following links and files are related to a new study just released by CARC on the cumulative effects of the proposed Mackenzie Gas Project in the Northwest Territories.

1. News Release -- New Maps Show Impact of NWT Gas Development. January 4, 2005. [Word .DOC File]

2. News Release Backgrounder [Word .DOC File] - Text also available below.

1. Mackenzie Gas Project
2. Cumulative Effects of the Project
2.1 What the Proponents Were Asked to Do
2.2 What the Proponents Submitted
2.3 What the Joint Panel Said About the Cumulative Effects Assessment Submitted
2.4 What Government Reviewers Said About the Cumulative Effects Assessment Submitted

3. The CARC Project on Cumulative Effects of the Mackenzie Gas Project

4. The full technical report [Text Only] prepared for CARC on the Cumulative Effects of the Mackenzie Gas Project
[Adobe .PDF File - 265KB]

5. Maps Slide Show Full technical report of Mackenzie Gas Project Cumulative Effects
[Macromedia .SWF File - 3MB] - May require the Free Flash Player for online viewing.

6.Maps Slide Show For Offline Viewing - The same maps found in the above online slide show, but for offline viewing.
[.ZIP File (Includes .EXE Viewer) - 5.5MB] - To Download: 'Right-Click' the link and 'Save Target As...'

After downloading the above .ZIP file, extract the files to your hard drive and run the included .EXE file. While viewing the slide show, you will see by moving your cursor to the bottom of the screen, a toolbar appears that allows you to pause, move forward or backward, reduce the size of the viewing area, and to exit the program. Thank you for taking the time to view these maps.

7. Mackenzie Gas Project Cumulative Effects Map Series as Separate .PDF Files

- Map #1 Location of Study Area [Adobe .PDF File - 874KB]
- Map #2 Existing Activities - 2004 [Adobe .PDF File - 814KB]
- Map #3 Proposed Project - 2009 [Adobe .PDF File - 882KB]
- Map #4 Petroleum Exploration Areas [Adobe .PDF File - 946KB]
- Map #5 Induced Development - 2011 [Adobe .PDF File - 748KB]
- Map #6 Induced Development - 2013 [Adobe .PDF File - 811KB]
- Map #7 Induced Development - 2016 [Adobe .PDF File - 981KB]
- Map #8 Induced Development - 2027 [Adobe .PDF File - 1,019KB]
- Map #9 GLOBIO Terrestrial Impact - 2027 [Adobe .PDF File - 890KB]

Any technical questions or requests for the maps in other formats can be directed to CARC at carc@theedge.ca

8. MEDIA COVERAGE - CARC Mackenzie Gas Project Cumulative Effects Maps [Word .DOC File - 93KB] January 2005

New Maps Show Impact of NWT Gas Development

BACKGROUNDER

1. The Mackenzie Gas Project

The Mackenzie Gas Project would be one of the largest ever energy developments in North America. The four partners to the Mackenzie Gas Project are as follows:

Imperial Oil Resources Ventures Limited will construct and operate the gathering system and pipeline. Imperial Oil Limited owns the Taglu gas field and will construct and operate it.

ConnocoPhillips Canada (North) Limited and ExxonMobil Canada Properties Limited own the Parsons Lake gas field (75% and 25% respectively) and will construct and operate it.

Shell Canada Limited owns the Niglintgak gas field and will construct and operate it.

The Mackenzie Valley Aboriginal Pipeline Limited Partnership (or Aboriginal Pipeline Group) has the right to own an interest in the Mackenzie Valley Pipeline.

The Project will start with the three anchor fields to carry natural gas and liquids (to Norman Wells for further transport via the existing IPL pipeline) and additional resources if they are available. The pipeline will be approximately 1220 km long and has been designed to carry up to 34 million cubic metres per day of natural gas.

The cost of the Project is approximately $7 billion for the 20 to 30 years it may operate. Construction will be finished in three years with peak employment of about 8,700 workers (the population of the Mackenzie Valley is about 12,000 people). About 150 people will be required to operate the entire system.

A Joint Review Panel was appointed on August 18, 2004 to conduct an environmental assessment of the Project. A separate review of the Project is also being carried out by the National Energy Board. Further regulatory approvals will also be required, if and when the Project proceeds.

2. Cumulative Effects of the Project

2.1 What the Proponents Were Asked to Do

The Project proponents were directed to carry out a cumulative effects assessment by the parties to the Joint Review Panel in August 2004. Cumulative impacts may occur when the impacts of one project or activity combine with the impacts of other past, present and future projects and activities.

“With respect to defining future projects and activities a degree of certainty that the project or activity will proceed is necessary for it to be included in this analysis. For clarity, the identification of future projects or activities should include those that are reasonably foreseen to be carried out. Projects that are conceptual in nature or otherwise limited with respect to information on specifications, timing or location may not be sufficiently developed to contribute to the assessment of cumulative impacts in a meaningful manner. A rationale for the inclusion of projects and activities, or the exclusion of certain others, should be provided.

Different types of potential impacts should be discussed, such as synergistic, additive, induced and spatial or temporal overlap. Impact pathways and trends should be included.

The potential cumulative impacts of the Project must be placed in a relevant and appropriate regional context, or contexts. Regional plans, community conservation plans, recovery plans, management plans, thresholds, objectives and/or guidelines etc may be helpful in conveying an integrated sense of the aspirations of people and communities in the Project area with respect to the sustainability of the land, wildlife, culture, social structure and economy.

Should the Proponents identify potential significant adverse cumulative impacts, discuss likelihood of occurrence, based on probability of occurrence and scientific certainty.”

Environmental Impact Statement Terms Of Reference For The Mackenzie Gas Project. August 18, 2004. (pgs. 57-59).

http://www.ngps.nt.ca/documents/tor_final_e.pdf

2.2 What the Proponents Submitted

On October 7, 2004, the Proponents submitted their Environmental Impact Statement in response to the Terms of Reference. No mapping or quantitative analysis of cumulative effects was attempted.

The proponents concluded that:

· The Mackenzie Gas Project does not contribute significant cumulative effects.

· There are no significant overall cumulative effects.

· The project contributes to one potential cumulative effect of management concern: direct grizzly bear mortality, which could be addressed with diligent monitoring and management by responsible parties.

· Based on the project footprint, the project will disturb a negligible proportion of the regional study area and therefore also a negligible proportion of the Northwest Territories.

· The project might encourage other development, particularly gas exploration and production in the Northwest Territories; however, information to adequately assess potential cumulative effects contributions from such developments is not yet available.

· The pattern of any future hydrocarbon development on the land, such as additional production fields, and any effects such activities would likely be similar to effects predicted for current and reasonably foreseeable land uses. Those developments will be subject to their own environmental impact assessment, including cumulative effects.

These results indicate that, despite the size and duration of operations, the contribution to cumulative effects by the Mackenzie Gas Project on the regions and communities of the Northwest Territories are not expected to be significant. The results also mean there is no reason to believe, based on available information and assessment method, that in the future there will be an issue of management concern associated with cumulative effects on a valued component. These conclusions are based on the assumption that appropriate management and monitoring programs outlined in Volume 7, Environmental Management, will be carried out.

Environmental Impact Statement for the Mackenzie Gas Project. Volume 5. Biophysical Impact Assessment. Part F. Climate Change, Cumulative Effects, Biodiversity and Environmental Effects on the Project. August 2004 (Submitted on October 7, 2004). (pgs. 12-3 and 12-4)

http://www.ngps.nt.ca/applicationsubmission/Documents/MGP_EIS_Vol5_%20Part_F_Section_12_S.pdf

2.3 What the Joint Review Panel Said About the Cumulative Effects Assessment Submitted

In early December, the Joint Review Panel issued a 21-page letter to the Proponents identifying many deficiencies. With regard to cumulative effects, they stated the following:

Although reasonably foreseeable land uses for the Project area were identified in the EIS (Volume 5, Section 12.1.6.2), they were assessed qualitatively, were not mapped and the total area of potential future disturbance was not calculated.

The Panel requests the Proponent to provide information that maps the identified foreseeable land uses, and provides a quantitative assessment of the geographic area that could be disturbed.

The Panel requests the Proponents to provide a description of a production, transportation, development and gathering system scenario that would require the Mackenzie Valley Pipeline to operate at its maximum capacity (51 Mm3) and to provide an assessment of the resulting impacts as outlined in TOR Section 17.0.

Letter from the Joint Review Panel to Imperial Oil December 3, 2004. Initial Review of the Environmental Impact Statement for the Mackenzie Gas Project. (pgs. 16-17)

http://www.ngps.nt.ca/Upload/Joint%20Review%20Panel/JRP%20to%20Imperial%20Oil%20-%2012-03-04.pdf

2.4 What Government Reviewers Said About the Cumulative Effects Assessment Submitted

The following information gaps were noted in this section of the EIS:

Detailed information/discussion on the rationale of VEC selection for the cumulative effects analysis.

Incomplete assessment of induced cumulative effects. For example advanced exploration licence areas and significant discovery license areas are generally not included in the assessment.

Cumulative effects on air quality (synergistic and/or additive) in the production areas. Individual facilities were assessed independently not cumulatively. “Reasonably foreseeable” projects and/or emission sources (e.g., additional compression stations, likely gas field tie-ins [Colville Lake area and Devon Offshore drilling project]) should be included in the air quality assessment.

Cumulative effects modelling and assessment of hydrocarbon withdrawals (i.e. land subsidence), offshore scenarios (e.g., offshore pipelines across the Sanctuary, increased storm intensity and subsidence) and climate change on the production areas, gathering systems, the Kendall Island Bird Sanctuary and associated ecosystems (i.e. on polygon bird habitat, marine mammals).

Cumulative effects of multiple water withdrawals. Discussion of how the numerous small-scale water withdrawals (low to moderate effects) at each site may become important at the larger scale of the Local Study Area/Regional Study Area.

How the assessment of effects on wildlife considered multiple stressors and their combined effects.

Cumulative effects of the project, foreseeable projects and natural disturbances on forest sustainability.

Cumulative effects of the loss of grizzly bear denning habitat in all Regional Study Areas.

Cumulative effects assessment for marine mammals is insufficient especially as to how it relates to the addition of additional capacity from offshore drilling or transmission of resources from subsea pipelines to connect with the proposed pipeline.

Analysis of the cumulative impacts on protected areas.

Cumulative effects assessment for the project as a whole, both spatially (to include additive or synergistic effects of all project activities or components considered together) and temporally (to include consideration of potential effects arising from each distinct phase of the project, through the lifespan of the project).

Report on Information Gaps Identified During the Joint Coordinating Committee Preliminary Review Workshop Mackenzie Gas Project. December 17, 2004 (pgs. 18-19)

http://www.ngps.nt.ca/Upload/Letters%20of%20Comment/JCCPrelimWorkshopReport_and_coverletter_Dec17.pdf

3. The CARC Project on Cumulative Effects of the Mackenzie Gas Project

CARC has been interested in the Mackenzie Gas Project and its potential cumulative effects for some time. CARC contracted with a technical expert to begin to develop models and maps to predict the cumulative effects of the Project. Rather than attempt to develop new models and maps, existing data supplied by the Proponents was used in the analysis.

A series of “snapshot” maps were developed based on a detailed natural gas supply forecast prepared by Gilbert, Laustsen, Jung Associates Ltd., Petroleum Consultants, entitled Mackenzie Gas Project – Gas Resource Supply Study (http://www.ngps.nt.ca/applicationsubmission/GLJ.html). The GLJ Study identifies all the future wells required to supply the MGP until 2049 but does not provide any maps. It was decided to simply map out the induced development identified by the GLJ Study.

The GLJ Study identifies three general areas that could supply the Mackenzie Gas Project:

Mackenzie Delta & Beaufort Sea (NWT)

Eagle Plains (Yukon Territory)

Colville Hills (NWT)

However, it states that the Eagles Plains are approximately 300 km from the planned pipeline route and would not be profitable to tie-in at this time. The GLJ Study only considers the Mackenzie Delta/Beaufort Sea and the Colville Hills areas would be part of the Mackenzie Gas Project until at least 2049.

Maps were developed to show the current physical footprint of human activities in the area of the Project and maps that show the maximum production scenario (although other scenarios would end up at the same point but several years later). The GLJ Study does not describe the associated infrastructure (e.g. compressor stations, roads, borrow sites, etc.) and they are not included in the maps for this study. Up to 3800 km of pipeline, 684 new wells and an estimated 60,600 linear km of new land-based seismic lines may be needed to keep the Mackenzie Gas Project pipeline filled from the Mackenzie Delta/Beaufort Sea and the Colville Hills.

The maps in the CARC study show the Mackenzie Gas Project physical footprint at various stages of the development such as:

2009 (completed construction);

2011 (connection of known resources to the pipeline including Colville Hills and remaining onshore fields in the Mackenzie Delta);

2013 (connection of new production wells in the Colville Hills and onshore areas of the Mackenzie Delta);

2016 (connection of known offshore wells in the Beaufort Sea); and

2027 (connection of new production wells in the Beaufort Sea).

The GLOBIO methodology of predicting ecological effects from human activities was applied to the terminal development at 2027 (only in onshore areas and only in the terrestrial environment) to present the potential for cumulative effects from the Project.

Further study is suggested to include all possible infrastructure in the maps and modelling (e.g. access roads, borrow pits, gathering systems, compressor stations, camps), better mapping of potential development within the producing areas, and more precise zones of influence on the Mackenzie Delta/Beaufort Sea terrestrial/aquatic/marine ecosystems.

The full technical report for the maps and modelling can be found on the CARC website at www.carc.org

Prepared by:

Kevin O’Reilly
Research Director
Canadian Arctic Resources Committee
Box 1705
Yellowknife NT
X1A 2P3
867-873-4715 Phone
867-920-2685 Fax
carc@theedge.ca
www.carc.org

January 4, 2005