Hydrocarbon Impacts = Incidences des hydrocarbures

Key Publications

Cooperation plan for the environmental impact assessment and regulatory review of a northern gas pipeline project through the Northwest Territories   /   Northern Pipeline Environmental Impact Assessment and Regulatory Chairs' Committee (Canada)
Calgary, Alta. : National Energy Board, Publications Office [distributor], 2002.
iv, 28 leaves : ill., 1 map ; 28 cm.
Cover title.
Appendices.
Also available in French under title: Plan de coopération : évaluation des répercussions environnementales et examen réglementaire d'un projet de gazoduc dans les Territoires du Nord-Ouest.
ASTIS record 49743.
Languages: English
Web: http://www.ngps.nt.ca/docs/coop_plan_FINAL.pdf
Web: http://pubs.aina.ucalgary.ca/ngps/coop_plan_FINAL.pdf
Web: http://www.neb-one.gc.ca/clf-nsi/rthnb/pplctnsbfrthnb/mcknzgsprjct/cprtnpln-eng.pdf
Libraries: ACU

The potential development of Mackenzie Delta gas reserves and the construction of a pipeline to connect these, and possibly additional reserves in Alaska, through the Mackenzie Valley to the south will trigger a number of environmental impact assessment (EIA) and regulatory processes. The authorities with EIA and regulatory mandates requiring a public hearing (the Agencies) have undertaken to prepare for their potential involvement in these developments, recognizing changes in the regulatory regime over the past years. No project application has been submitted at this time. However, the Agencies believe it is important to undertake coordination planning in advance to ensure that all roles are clearly defined and understood by all parties, and that mandates can be exercised in a coordinated manner that avoids duplication. The Cooperation Plan represents the exploration by the Agencies of potential methods of cooperation that will accomplish this and provide clarity and certainty of process and timing for the public and for potential proponents. The Cooperation Plan recognizes that each EIA authority and regulator is independent and has a legislative mandate to assess the proposed pipeline development and to make recommendations and take decisions in its descretion respecting the proposed development. ... In designing the process, the Agencies were guided by the following principles: desire of the Agencies to cooperate, need for a "made in the north" process, flexibility to consider a variety of development scenarios, enhanced public participation in the project review, need to consider fully the potential impacts before project descisions are taken. ... This Plan represents a framework based on an integrated EIA process, coordinated with the regulatory processes for regulators with and without mandatory hearing processes. The Plan will be given effect through three agreements: between the Inuvialuit and the Minister of the Environment, between the MVEIRB, the Inuvialuit, and the Minister of the Environment, and between the Regulatory Authorities. These agreements will add specific details to the framework and outline the roles and responsibilities of each agency in the EIA and regulatory processes. Highlights of the Plan include: a joint environmental impact assessment process that meets the requirements of the CEAA, the MVRMA and The Western Arctic Claim: The Inuvialuit Final Agreement (IFA); coordinated regulatory processes between regulators with and without mandatory hearing processes; coordinated EIA and regulatory hearings; consolidated information requirements developed for the EIA and regulatory components; shared technical support resources; a requirement for a plan for public involvement, including consideration of participant funding. The framework for the coordinated process is divided into the following four phases: Preparation, Preliminary Information Package and Applications, Joint EIA Panel Hearings Coordinated with Regulatory Hearings, Completion of Regulatory Processes. Milestones and anticipated products within each phase are described in the Plan. Estimates of timing required for all phases within the framework are also provided in the Plan where possible. The Plan concludes with a commitment by the Agencies to undertake the work outlined in the Preparation Phase, including development of agreements, preparation of consolidated information requirements, and plans for shared technical resources. ... (Au)

Plan for public involvement in the environmental assessment of the proposed Mackenzie Valley Gas Pipeline in the NWT   /   Mackenzie Valley Environmental Impact Review Board   Mackenzie Valley Land and Water Board   Northwest Territories Water Board   Environmental Impact Screening Committee   Environmental Impact Review Board   Joint Secretariat - Inuvialuit Renewable Resource Committees   Inuvialuit Game Council   Sahtu Land and Water Board   Gwich'in Land and Water Board   Canada. Dept. of Indian Affairs and Northern Development   Northwest Territories. Dept. of Resources, Wildlife and Economic Development   Canada. National Energy Board   Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency   Canada. Environment Canada   Canada. Dept. of Fisheries and Oceans
[Yellowknife, N.W.T. : Northern Gas Project Secretariat [distributor]], 2003.
24 p. : ill. ; 28 cm.
Alternate title: A plan for public involvement for the environmental impact assessment and regulatory review of a northern gas pipeline project through the Northwest Territories.
Cover title.
Appendix A: Agencies to contact.
Indexed a PDF file from the Web.
ASTIS record 53222.
Languages: English
Web: http://www.ngps.nt.ca/docs/PlanForPublicInvolvement.pdf
Web: http://pubs.aina.ucalgary.ca/ngps/PlanForPublicInvolvement.pdf
Web: http://nwt-tno.inac-ainc.gc.ca/pdf/PPI_Eng.pdf
Libraries: ACU

This document is intended to provide general information to the public about opportunities to participate in the environmental impact assessment and regulatory review of a northern gas pipeline project through the Northwest Territories. More specific details on the review process are available through the Cooperation Plan for the Environmental Impact Assessment and Regulatory Review of a Northern Gas Pipeline Project through the Northwest Territories [ASTIS record 49743] and such agreements as the Memorandum of Understanding Between the Minister of the Environmental and the Inuvialuit, the Draft Agreement for an Environmental Impact Review of a Northern Gas Project and the Draft Agreement for Coordination of the Regulatory Review of a Northern Gas Development and Pipeline Project. (Au)

Agreement for coordination of the regulatory review of the Mackenzie Gas Project   /   Northern Pipeline Environmental Impact Assessment and Regulatory Chairs' Committee (Canada)   Inuvialuit Land Administration   Canada. National Energy Board   Northwest Territories Water Board   Mackenzie Valley Land and Water Board   Canada. Dept. of Fisheries and Oceans   Canada. Dept. of Indian Affairs and Northern Development   Canada. Environment Canada   Northwest Territories
[Yellowknife, N.W.T. : Northern Gas Project Secretariat [distributor]], 2003.
24 p. ; 28 cm.
Cover title.
Indexed from a PDF file from the Web.
ASTIS record 53223.
Languages: English
Web: https://www.neb-one.gc.ca/bts/ctrg/mmrndm/2004mcknzgs01-eng.pdf

... The purpose of this agreement is to a) coordinate the Regulatory Reviews of the Project by the Parties as contemplated by the Cooperation Plan and as allowed by law, b) avoid unnecessary duplication and seek process efficiency in the Regulatory Review of the Project by the Parties, c) contribute to clarity, certainty and timeliness in the Regulatory Review process, d) enhance public participation in the Project review. ... The Parties agree that a Northern Gas Project Secretariat (NGPS) will be created to provide administrative, communications, technical and logistical support for coordination of Regulatory Reviews. ... As part of its administrative role, the NGPS will provide a single entry point into the Project review processes for participants and the public. The Secretariat will be responsible for information management and the establishment of public information centres. The NGPS will assist in effective communications with the public. It is anticipated that the NGPS will support the work of all panels contemplated through the Cooperation Plan and ensure that resources are available as required, that information is distributed efficiently, and that schedules are met. (Au)

Memorandum of Agreement for the establishment of the Northern Gas Project Secretariat to provide support to the panels and boards with public hearing requirements conducting an environmental assessment and regulatory review of the Mackenzie Gas Project   /   Canada. National Energy Board   Mackenzie Valley Land and Water Board   Northwest Territories Water Board   Mackenzie Valley Environmental Impact Review Board   Inuvialuit Game Council   Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency   Canada. Dept. of Indian Affairs and Northern Development
[Yellowknife, N.W.T. : Northern Gas Project Secretariat [distributor]], 2003.
6 p. : ill. ; 28 cm.
Cover title.
Indexed a PDF file from the Web.
ASTIS record 53227.
Languages: English
Web: http://www.ngps.nt.ca/docs/NGPS%20MOA.pdf
Web: http://pubs.aina.ucalgary.ca/ngps/NGPS%20MOA.pdf
Web: http://www.ngps.nt.ca/documents/MOA_NGPSestablishment_signed.pdf
Web: http://pubs.aina.ucalgary.ca/ngps/MOA_NGPSestablishment_signed.pdf

1) Purpose: This Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) establishes the Northern Gas Project Secretariat (NGPS) to provide administrative support to the Panels and Boards conducting public hearings [National Energy Board, the Joint Review Panel, the Mackenzie Valley Land and Water Board and the NWT Water Board] during the environmental assessment and regulatory review of the Mackenzie Gas Project as contemplated through provisions of the Cooperation Plan for the Environmental Impact Assessment and Regulatory Review of a Northern Gas Pipeline Project through the Northwest Territories (Cooperation Plan), dated June 2002 [ASTIS record 49743]. More specifically, the MOA sets out the mandate and core responsibilities, the organizational structure and reporting relationships, and the funding mechanism for the NGPS. 2) Parties to the MOA: As established in the Cooperation Plan, the National Energy Board (NEB), the Mackenzie Valley Land and Water Board (MVLWB) and the Northwest Territories Water Board (NWTWB) will conduct separate regulatory reviews of the Project, coordinated with an environmental impact assessment conducted by a Joint Review Panel. The Joint Review Panel will be established by the Inuvialuit, the Mackenzie Valley Environmental Impact Review Board (MVEIRB) and the Minister of the Environment, who is represented by the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency (CEA Agency) in this agreement. The Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (DIAND) will provide support on matters of financial administration and human resources to the NGPS. 3) Background: Definition of the Project: ConocoPhillips Canada (North) Limited, ExxonMobil, Imperial Oil Resources Ventures Limited, Shell Canada Limited and the Aboriginal Pipeline Group are proposing the Mackenzie Gas Project, as described in their Preliminary Information Package [ASTIS record 51801] filed with the parties on 18 June 2003. Cooperative review process: The Parties, in conjunction with other regulatory authorities, have set out various undertakings for a cooperative review process in the Cooperation Plan. These undertakings are implemented through a series of agreements, of which this Agreement is the fourth: i) a Memorandum of Understanding, signed on 1 October 2002, between the Minister of the Environment and the Inuvialuit provides that certain measures contained in the Inuvialuit Final Agreement will be encompassed in a panel review under the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act (CEAA); ii) a draft Agreement, released on 7 October 2002, between the MVEIRB, the Inuvialuit and the Minister of the Environment provides for the establishment of a Joint Review Process under the CEAA and the Mackenzie Valley Resource Management Act (MVRMA) to be finalized after the MVEIRB completes its environmental assessment process; iii) a draft Agreement, nearing completion, between the MVLWB, NEB, NWTWB, Fisheries and Oceans Canada, DIAND, Environment Canada and the Government of the Northwest Territories to coordinate regulatory processes with the Joint Review Process. ... (Au)

Environmental impact statement terms of reference for the Mackenzie Gas Project [August 18, 2004]   /   Inuvialuit Game Council   Mackenzie Valley Environmental Impact Review Board   Canada. Environment Canada
[S.l. : s.n.], 2004.
iv, 66, 6, 1 p. ; 28 cm.
Appendices.
Cover title.
Indexed a PDF file from the Web.
References.
August 2004.
ASTIS record 54484.
Languages: English
Web: http://www.ngps.nt.ca/documents/tor_final_e.pdf
Web: http://pubs.aina.ucalgary.ca/ngps/tor_final_e.pdf
Web: http://www.ngps.nt.ca/documents/tor_final_f.pdf
Web: http://pubs.aina.ucalgary.ca/ngps/tor_final_f.pdf
Libraries: ACU

... The Terms of Reference (TOR) contain guidelines for the preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the [Mackenzie Gas] Project. The TOR establish the nature and scope of the issues that the Proponent must address in the EIS. It is the responsiblity of the Proponent to provide the information described in the TOR and to prepare the EIS for submission to the Panel. The EIS will serve as a basis for the Panel's review and evaluation of the potential impacts of the Project on the environment. Environmental impact assessment is a planning tool intended to identify and encourage the mitigation of significant adverse environmental impacts. The level of detail required for this evaluation may differ from that required for the regulatory process. The definition of 'impact on the environment' forms the basis for the EIS and includes consideration of physical, biological and human elements, or systems .... Appendix 2 - Factors to be considered during the Environmental Impact Review: The Environmental Impact Review will have regard to the protection of the existing and future social, cultural, and economic well-being of residents and communities and will include a consideration of the following factors: 1. The impact of the Project on the environment, including the impact of malfunctions or accidents that may occur in connection with the Project and any cumulative impact that is likely to result from the Project in combination with other projects or activities that have been or will be carried out; 2. The significance of any such impact; 3. Any comments from the public that are received during the Environmental Impact Review; 4. Measures that are technically and economically feasible and that would mitigate any significant adverse impact of the Project on the environment; 5. The purpose of the Project; 6. The need for the Project; 7. Alternatives to the Project; 8. Alternative means of carrying out the Project that are technically and economically feasibleand the impact on the environment of any such alternative means; 9. The need for any follow-up program in respect of the Project, and the requirements of such a program; 10. The capacity of renewable resources that are likely to be significantly affected by the Project to meet existing and future needs. In respect of the Inuvialuit Settlement Region the Joint Review Panel will recommend: a) Terms and conditions relating to mitigation measures that would be necessary to minimize any negative impact on wildlife harvesting, as referred to in paragraph 13(11)(a) of the IFA, including, as far as is practicable, measures to restore wildlife and its habitat to its original state and to compensate Inuvialuit hunters, trappers and fishermen for the loss of their subsistence or commercial harvesting opportunities; and b) An estimate of the potential liability of the Proponent, determined on a worst case scenario, taking into consideration the balance between economic factors, including the ability of the Proponent to pay, and environmental factors, as referred to in paragraph 13(11)(b) of the IFA. (Au)

Agreement for an environmental impact review of the Mackenzie Gas Project between the Mackenzie Valley Environmental Impact Review Board and the Inuvialuit as represented by the Inuvialuit Game Council and the Minister of the Environment : [final, August 2004]   /   Mackenzie Valley Environmental Impact Review Board   Canada. Environment Canada   Inuvialuit Game Council
[Yellowknife, N.W.T. : Northern Gas Project Secretariat [distributor]], 2004.
12 p. ; 28 cm.
Annex 1 to the schedule: Project description - Annex 2 to the schedule: Factors to be considered during review.
Cover title.
Indexed from a PDF file on the Web.
ASTIS record 57892.
Languages: English
Web: https://www.neb-one.gc.ca/bts/ctrg/mmrndm/2004mcknzgs02-eng.html

... 2. Purpose of the Agreement: The purpose of this Agreement is to establish an Environmental Impact Review that meets the requirements of the CEAA, the MVRMA, and IFA. 3. Relationship of Agreement to Regulatory Processes: This Agreement is in furtherance of the relationship described in the Cooperation Plan (ASTIS record 49743). 4. The Joint Review Panel: a. The Joint Review Panel will have the authority and capacity to meet the requirements of the relevant provisions of sections 11 and 13 of the IFA as contemplated by subsection 11(15). b. The Joint Review Panel will carry out its duties and conduct the Environmental Impact Review according to the mandate set out in the Schedule to this Agreement. Joint Review Panel Membership: c) The Joint Review Panel shall consist of 7 members, including a chairperson, appointed according to the following process: i) the MVEIRB will select 3 members; ii) the Minister of the Environment will select 4 members, 2 of whom will be nominated by the IGC according to the Memorandum of Understanding for Inuvialuit participation in the environmental review of the Project between the Minister of the Environment and the Inuvialuit; and iii) the Minister of the Environment, the MVEIRB, and the IGC shall approve the selection of the chairperson. ... Powers of the Joint Review Panel: i. The Joint Review Panel shall have the powers provided for in section 35 of the CEAA, and section 25 and subsection 133(1) of the MVRMA. j. Joint Review Panel members shall enjoy the protection from liability outlined in section 35 of CEAA and section 20 of the MVRMA. ... 2.0 Scope of the Environmental Impact Review: In carrying out the review, the Joint Review Panel will address the factors outlined in the Annex 2 to this Schedule. The Environmental Impact Review shall have regard to the protection of the environment from the significant adverse impacts of proposed developments, and to the protection of the existing and future social, cultural and economicwell-being of residents and communities. ... (Au)

Agreement for coordination of the regulatory review of the Mackenzie Gas Project [signed April 22, 2004] ...   /   Inuvialuit Land Administration   Canada. National Energy Board   Northwest Territories Water Board   Mackenzie Valley Land and Water Board   Gwich'in Land and Water Board   Sahtu Land and Water Board   Canada. Dept. of Fisheries and Oceans   Canada. Dept. of Indian Affairs and Northern Development   Canada. Environment Canada   Northwest Territories   Canada. Transport Canada
[Yellowknife, N.W.T. : Northern Gas Project Secretariat [distributor]], 2004.
10 p. ; 28 cm.
Cover title.
Indexed from a PDF file on the Web.
ASTIS record 53223 describes the 2003 version of this agreement.
ASTIS record 57893.
Languages: English
Web: http://www.ngps.nt.ca/documents/AgreementfortheCoordinationoftheRegulatoryReview_signed.pdf
Web: http://pubs.aina.ucalgary.ca/ngps/AgreementfortheCoordinationoftheRegulatoryReview_signed.pdf

... The purpose of this Agreement is to a) coordinate the Regulatory Reviews of the Project by the Parties as contemplated by the Cooperation Plan and as allowed by law, b) avoid unnecessary duplication and seek process efficiency in the Regulatory Review of the Project by the Parties, c) contribute to clarity, certainty and timeliness in the Regulatory Review process, d) enhance public participation in the Project review. ... The Parties agree that a Northern Gas Project Secretariat (NGPS) will be created to provide administrative, communications, technical and logistical support for coordination of Regulatory Reviews. ... As part of its administrative role, the NGPS will provide a single entry point into the Project review processes for participants and the public. The Secretariat will be responsible for information management and the establishment of public information centres. The NGPS will assist in effective communications with the public. It is anticipated that the NGPS will support the work of all panels contemplated through the Cooperation Plan and ensure that resources are available as required, that information is distributed efficiently, and that schedules are met. ... (Au)

Rules of procedure for the conduct of the environmental impact assessment of the Mackenzie Gas Project by a Joint Review Panel, [Sept. 14, 2004]   /   Joint Review Panel (Canada)
[N.W.T. : Northern Gas Project Secretariat : Joint Review Panel [distributor]], 2004.
8 p. ; 28 cm.
Cover title.
Indexed a PDF file from the Web.
Report date: September 14, 2004.
ASTIS records: 57170, 61238, 62805, 62808, 62809 describe rules of procedure for the Mackenzie Gas Project review, issued at various times during the hearing and review process.
ASTIS record 57894.
Languages: English
Web: http://www.ngps.nt.ca/documents/September1404RulesofProceduresFinal_001.doc
Web: http://www.jointreviewpanel.ca/documents/September1404RulesofProceduresFinal.pdf
Web: http://pubs.aina.ucalgary.ca/ngps/September1404RulesofProceduresFinal.pdf

These are the Rules of Procedure (the "Rules") for the environmental impact review proceeding of the Joint Review Panel established pursuant to an Agreement among the Mackenzie Valley Environmental Impact Review Board, the Minister of the Environment and the Inuvialuit as represented by the Inuvialuit Game Council. These Rules will be used to ensure that the Joint Review Panel's environmental impact review will fulfill the spirit and principles of part 5 of the Mackenzie Valley Resource Management Act (MVRMA), the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act (CEAA) and the Inuvialuit Final Agreement (IFA). These Rules shall be interpreted in a manner consistent with the MVRMA, the CEAA and the IFA. ... (Au)

Reasons for decision and scoping report for the environmental assessment of the Mackenzie Gas Project (Mackenzie Valley Pipeline)   /   Mackenzie Valley Environmental Impact Review Board
Yellowknife, N.W.T. : MVEIRB, 2004.
2, [4], 26 p. : ill., 1 map ; 28 cm.
Appendix.
Cover title.
Indexed a PDF file from the Web.
Report date: May 21, 2004.
ASTIS record 58534.
Languages: English
Web: http://www.ngps.nt.ca/documents/MVEIRB_ReasonsandScopingReport.pdf
Web: http://pubs.aina.ucalgary.ca/ngps/MVEIRB_ReasonsandScopingReport.pdf

The Mackenzie Valley Land and Water Board referred a Land Use Permit Water Licence application made by the Mackenzie Gas Project, represented by Imperial Oil Ltd, for a barge landing and staging site on the Mackenzie River at Camsell Bend to Environmental Assessment (EA). The Mackenzie Valley Environmental Impact Review Board (Review Board) concluded that the proposed development was an integral part of the Mackenzie Gas Project as described in the Preliminary Information Package of April 2003 (www.mackenziegasproject.com), and conducted its EA on the entire Mackenzie Gas Project (the project). The Review Board divided the EA into two phases. The objectives of phase one were to gauge the level of public concern and to scope issues related to the project for possible consideration in phase two. The Review Board's Work Plan indicated that if significant public concern about the Project were found during phase one, the Board would order an Environmental Impact Review according to MVRMA [Mackenzie Valley Resource Management Act] s. 128(1)(c) without completing phase two. The Review Board received evidence of public concern about the impacts of the Project on the environment through written submission from within and outside the Mackenzie Valley. It also conducted community hearings in the Gwich'in, Sahtu, and Deh Cho regions of the Mackenzie Valley to hear directly from residents in the communities of the Mackenzie Valley. The Review Board determined the scope of the Project according to section 117(1) of the MVRMA to include facilities and activities in the three anchor fields, a central processing plant, and the transmission pipeline to the currently existing pipeline network, including the portion to be built in Alberta. This scope included pre-construction, construction, operation, and abandonment and restoration activities and all associated permanent or temporary facilities related to the Project. The Review Board identified the following issues to be of concern to the residents of the Mackenzie Valley as a result of this EA: scope of development and of impact assessment, regional differences, landownership, quality of consultation, benefits from development, cumulative effects, effects on infrastructure, employment/business opportunities, social impacts, cultural impacts, capacity building, learning from past developments, monitoring, climate change, project alternatives, review process related issues, and other issues including the level of government support. The Review Board found that significant public concern about the Project existed both within and outside the Mackenzie Valley. As a result, the Board has ordered an Environmental Impact Review without completing phase two of the EA proceeding The Review Board also concluded that the Environmental Impact Review of the proposed Mackenzie Gas Project should give equal weight to economic, social, cultural and infrastructure issues and to impacts on the bio-physical environment. The Review Board further concluded that cumulative effects must be carefully considered in the impact review. (Au)

Public registry for the proposed Mackenzie Gas Project   /   Joint Review Panel (Canada)
Inuvik, N.W.T. : Joint Review Panel, 2004.
1 p. ; 28 cm.
Dated: December 1, 2004.
Indexed a PDF file from the Web.
ASTIS record 62810.
Languages: English
Web: http://www.jointreviewpanel.ca/documents/Public_Registry_Protocol_Dec_1_2004.pdf

The purpose of the public registry is to facilitate reasonable public access to information and records related to the environmental impact review of the proposed Mackenzie Gas Project and to provide timely notice about opportunities for public participation in the environmental impact review of the proposed Mackenzie Gas Project. The Public Registry will be established and maintained in accordance with the requirements of the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, the Inuvialuit Final Agreement and the Mackenzie Valley Resource Management Act to allow the public continued access to documents related to the Environmental Impact Review. Public Registry Protocol: 1. In addition to documents that are required by legislation to be posted to the Public Registry, only documents relating to the substance of the Joint Review Panel's mandate or its procedures will be posted to the Public Registry. 2. The Panel Manager, in consultation with the Joint Review Panel Legal Counsel as appropriate will determine whether a document will be posted to the Public Registry. 3. Where it is not clear to the Panel Manager whether a document should be posted to the Public Registry in accordance with para. 1, the Panel Manager will refer the matter to the Joint Review Panel, which will decide whether the document will be posted to the Public Registry. 4. All documents posted to the Public Registry will be distributed to the members of the Joint Review Panel and will, in addition to any documents that are filed with the Joint Review Panel during its hearings and transcripts of hearings, constitute the written record of the Joint Review Panel's proceedings. 5. Documents not posted to the Public Registry will not be distributed to members of the Joint Review Panel and will not form part of the record of the Joint Review Panel's proceedings. 6. The Joint Review Panel may direct that the Panel Manager post any particular document to the Public Registry. ... (Au)

Announcement of an environmental impact review of the Mackenzie Gas Project by a Joint Review Panel   /   Joint Review Panel (Canada)
Inuvik, N.W.T. : Joint Review Panel Office, 2004.
2 p. ; 28 cm.
Indexed a PDF file from the Web.
Reference from Joint Review Panel website: JRPPN1 (Oct. 7, 2004) - Announcement of an environmental impact review of the Mackenzie Gas Project.
ASTIS record 62824.
Languages: English
Web: http://www.jointreviewpanel.ca/documents/JRPPN1_PublicAnnt_EIS_Oct8_04.pdf

On October 7, 2004 the Joint Review Panel received the Environmental Impact Statement of the Mackenzie Gas Project from Imperial Oil Resources Ventures Limited, a subsidiary of Imperial Oil, the Mackenzie Valley Aboriginal Pipeline Limited Partnership, ConocoPhillips Canada (North) Limited, ExxonMobil Canada Properties, and Shell Canada Limited. The components of the Mackenzie Gas Project are: three onshore natural gas fields -Taglu, Parsons Lake and Niglintgak; the Mackenzie gathering system, which includes: gathering pipelines to transport production from the three gas fields to the Inuvik area facility; the Inuvik area facility, which will process production from the three gas fields into gas and natural gas liquids; a pipeline to transport natural gas liquids from the Inuvik area facility to Norman Wells, the Mackenzie Valley pipeline which will transport gas from the Inuvik area facility to an interconnection with the NOVA Gas Transmission Ltd. System in Alberta, and any other undertakings in relation to the physical works described above that are proposed by the proponents. A seven person Joint Review Panel (JRP) was appointed on August 18, 2004 by the Minister of the Environment, in agreement with the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency and the Chairs of both the Mackenzie Valley Impact Environmental Impact Review Board and the Inuvialuit Game Council to conduct an independent public review of this Mackenzie Gas Project. The Joint Review Panel will begin its technical analysis of the Mackenzie Gas Project once it has determined that the Environmental Impact Statement (October 7, 2004) conforms with the Terms of Reference set out in the August 2004 Environmental Impact Statement Terms of Reference document issued by the Inuvialuit Game Council, the Mackenzie Valley Environmental Impact Review Board and the Minister of Environment. The review is to focus on the environmental and socio-economic effects associated with the Proponent's proposal. The Joint Review Panel will take into consideration a number of factors, as outlined in the Joint Review Panel Agreement, in assessing the impacts of the proposed project. The Panel review process is designed to allow for comprehensive and transparent public involvement. The Joint Review Panel has published its Rules of Procedure, which are intended to assist all those wishing to participate in the review by providing information on how the Panel plans to conduct its review and by outlining the review steps the Panel intends to follow. The Rules of Procedure have been posted to the following website: www.ngps.nt.ca. (Au)

Announcement [by the Joint Review Panel for the Mackenzie Gas Project - timeline update ]   /   Joint Review Panel (Canada)
Inuvik, N.W.T. : Joint Review Panel Office, 2004.
1 p. ; 28 cm.
Indexed a PDF file from the Web.
Reference from Joint Review Panel website: JRPPN2 (Nov. 9, 2004) - Timeline update.
ASTIS record 62825.
Languages: English
Web: http://www.jointreviewpanel.ca/documents/JRPPN2_timelineupdate.pdf

The Joint Review Panel for the Mackenzie Gas Project is now in the first phase of its environmental review. The purpose of the Initial Review is for the Joint Review Panel (JRP) to determine whether the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) contains sufficient information to proceed to the next phase in the review. The Panel hopes to complete its adequacy determination before December 2004. The Panel may request additional information from the proponent. When received, this additional information will then be subject to further review. [Phases in the review process: Initial Review (phase 1), Technical Review (phase 2, public involvement); Public Hearings (phase 3, public involvement); Preparation of Panel Report and Recommendations (phase 4); Government Response to Panel Report (phase 5)]. ... (Au)

Announcement : notice to interveners   /   Joint Review Panel (Canada)
Inuvik, N.W.T. : Joint Review Panel Office, 2004.
2 p. ; 28 cm.
Indexed a PDF file from the Web.
Reference from Joint Review Panel website: JRPPN3 (Nov. 25, 2004) - Notice to Interveners.
ASTIS record 62826.
Languages: English
Web: http://www.jointreviewpanel.ca/documents/JRPPN3_noticetointerveners_Nov25_2004_finalEng.pdf

November 25, 2004 - The Joint Review Panel for the Mackenzie Gas Project requests that any person or organization wishing to have intervener status formally request to be so identified by filing a Notice to Intervene with the Joint Review Panel Manager no later than December 17, 2004. Intervener status will provide the opportunity to participate in the Information Request process and to ask questions of the proponent and other interveners at the technical hearings. Please note that members of the public are allowed to present their organization's views or their own views at community and general hearings without being registered as interveners. Please provide the following information in your Notice to Intervene: -contact name, organization or body, mailing address, phone, fax, email address. Please describe the following: -the reason for proposed intervention; -the proposed role of the intervener; -the area(s) of interest and/or expertise that the intervener may provide during the proceedings. Before granting permission to any person or organization to participate as an intervener, the Joint Review Panel may request additional information or clarification from the person or body seeking intervener status and may direct those with similar interests to present a joint intervention. Please note as an Intervener it will be your responsibility to distribute your documents to the other registered Interveners during the process (via electronic format, facsimile or other methods). If you are unable to complete this task, we ask that you identify this to the Joint Review Panel Manager in your Notice to Intervene so that arrangements can be made to assist you in the distribution of materials. Matters to be presented/heard before the Joint Review Panel will include but are not limited to impacts on the natural and human environments. These are listed in the Environmental Impact Statement Terms of Reference for the Mackenzie Gas Project. This and other information of public interest are contained in Public Registries that can be found electronically on the Internet at www.ngps.nt.ca and at the following physical locations: [Northern Gas Project Secretariat in Yellowknife and Inuvik and National Energy Board Library in Calgary.] ... (Au)

Joint Review Panel, direction on procedures for hearings, ("Procedures")   /   Joint Review Panel (Canada)
Inuvik, N.W.T. : Joint Review Panel, 2005.
12 p. ; 28 cm.
Appendices.
Indexed a PDF file from the Web.
ASTIS records: 57894, 61238, 62805, 62808, 62809 describe rules of procedure for the Mackenzie Gas Project review, issued at various times during the hearing and review process.
ASTIS record 57170.
Languages: English
Web: http://www.ngps.nt.ca/Upload/Joint%20Review%20Panel/050712_Procedures_for_Hearings.pdf

This document outlines procedures for the public hearings phase of the environmental impact review being conducted by the Joint Review Panel for the Mackenzie Gas Project. These Procedures supplement the Rules of Procedure issued by the Joint Review Panel on September 14, 2004 (the "Rules") [described in ASTIS record 57894]. For ease of use, the provisions of the Rules that pertain to hearings have been incorporated here for the purpose of having a single stand-alone document for the hearings phase of the Joint Panel's review. ... (Au)

Joint Review Panel determination on sufficiency   /   Joint Review Panel (Canada)
Inuvik, N.W.T. : Joint Review Panel, 2005.
5 p. ; 28 cm.
Indexed a PDF file from the Web.
ASTIS record 57170 describes the Joint Review Panel direction on procedures for hearings.
ASTIS record 57171.
Languages: English
Web: http://www.ngps.nt.ca/Upload/Joint%20Review%20Panel/050718_Determination_on_Sufficiency.pdf

The Joint Review Panel for the Mackenzie Gas Project (the Panel) has determined that there is sufficient information to proceed to the public hearings phase of its review, subject to certain information being filed within the time frame prescribed by the Panel. Should any of the required information not be received, the Panel may postpone any particular Technical, General, or Community Hearing until the information for that hearing has been provided. In making its determination of sufficiency, the Panel considered the information on the Public Registry, comments received from the public, and the comments and submissions from the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) Conference convened in Yellowknife, Northwest Territories, June 26-29, 2005. The Panel is prescribing the measures specified below to address outstanding information requirements. The Panel is of the view that the specified information can be provided by Friday, September 30, 2005. At that time, the Panel will be in a position to set a detailed schedule of public hearings by location, type of hearing, and subject matter for which the Panel will give 45 days notice in advance of the opening day of hearings. The Direction on Procedures for Hearings for the forthcoming public hearings is released along with this determination. Reasons for Determination: The Panel is of the view that the major issues to be considered in its review have been identified and can be addressed in the hearings, and that the hearings should reveal and address any new information that may affect the Panel's recommendations. In the course of the EIS Conference, and in related communications, some Interveners asserted that there are deficiencies in the information now available on the Public Registry. The Panel considers that many of the cited deficiencies represent differences in approach to the scope and content of the Panel's review, and to the appropriate means of addressing the issues raised by the proposed Project. Some of these differences also concern the merits or quality of the information provided, rather than the sufficiency of information to proceed to public hearings. In the view of the Panel, these kinds of differences are best addressed in the public hearings. Some Interveners requested the Panel to delay the start of its hearings until certain agreements, mitigation strategies and plans are fully detailed and completed by the Proponent or others. In the Panel's view, public hearings may assist in the development and completion of these matters. ... (Au)

EIS conference : assessing the sufficiency of information to proceed to public hearings   /   Accord Canada   Darling, C.   Joint Review Panel (Canada) [Sponsor]
North Saanich, B.C. : Accord Canada, 2005.
80 p. : 28 cm.
Indexed a PDF file from the Web.
Appendices 1-4 are each in separate PDFs and are listed at www.jointreviewpanel.ca/whats_new.html.
Appendix 1: Session overviews - Appendix 2: Written commentaries - Appendix 3: List of Registrants - Appendix 4: Pre-conference questionnaires.
ASTIS record 57172.
Languages: English
Web: http://www.jointreviewpanel.ca/documents/050714_EIS_Conf_Final_Report.pdf
Web: http://pubs.aina.ucalgary.ca/ngps/050714_EIS_Conf_Final_Report.pdf

On June 26-29, 2005, the Joint Review Panel (JRP or the Panel) for the proposed Mackenzie Gas Project (MGP) hosted an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) Conference to provide an opportunity for registered Interveners (Interveners) to advise the Panel on the sufficiency of information to proceed to public hearings on the EIS. This facilitator's report summarizes the EIS Conference proceedings. The EIS Conference was made up of six working sessions to review and discuss the sufficiency of information to proceed to public hearings under the following topics: Geotechnical, Permafrost and Water Crossings; Wildlife, Fish, Marine Mammals and Related Habitat; Land Use Activities, Traditional Knowledge and Protected Areas; Cumulative Effects, Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sustainability; Community Wellness and Socio-Economics; Employment, Training and Procurement. The participants in each working session were asked to address two questions: 1. What is your assessment of the sufficiency/deficiency of information filed on the Public Registry regarding this issue? Why? 2. What, if any, additional information is required? Is that information currently available and, if so, how should it be obtained? This facilitator's report includes: the opening remarks of the JRP's Chair and the MGP's Manager of Regulatory Affairs; the conference facilitator's summary notes of the working sessions; the summary remarks and follow-up commitments of the MGP. The appendices include the following supporting materials: session overviews (prepared and presented by the Proponent); written commentaries (speaking notes and written summaries submitted by participating Interveners); Indian and Northern Affairs Canada's (INAC) statement regarding technical conferences; the list of conference registrants; the pre-conference questionnaires (completed by participating Interveners). The seven members of the Joint Review Panel attended the EIS Conference, but their role was limited as listeners/observers to the discussions by the Proponent, registered Interveners and JRP staff. This report, and in particular the sections containing the facilitator's summary notes of the working sessions, are intended as a reference for the Panel, registered Interveners, the Proponent and the public. They represent the conference facilitator's summary of the Intervener's presentations and the Proponent's responses, based on: 1) notes taken by Panel support staff; and, 2) where provided, presentation summaries submitted by conference speakers. The summary organizes these comments by subject matter, not necessarily chronologically as they may have been presented by the Intervener, with the consequence that points on different topics contained in a single presentation by the Intervener may be documented in different sections of this report according to the appropriate working session topic. While every effort has been made to accurately summarize the discussions, the summary notes should not be construed as a complete or verbatim recording of all points made by each speaker. Some speakers provided written summaries of their comments, speaking notes or presentations. That material is appended to this report as submitted. The summary notes of the working sessions do not include comments on issues unrelated to the sufficiency of information to proceed to hearings, or the discussions of clarification initiated by JRP staff and JRP specialist advisors. (Au)

Announcement : types and locations of hearings   /   Joint Review Panel (Canada)
Inuvik, N.W.T. : Joint Review Panel, 2005.
2 p. ; 28 cm.
Indexed a PDF file from the Web.
Reference from Joint Review Panel website: JRPPN6 (Mar. 14, 2005) - Types and locations of hearings.
ASTIS records: 57170, 57894, 61238, 62805, 62808, 62809 describe updated and supplemental rules of procedure for the Mackenzie Gas Project review, issued at various times during the hearing and review process.
ASTIS record 62806.
Languages: English
Web: http://www.jointreviewpanel.ca/documents/JRPPN6_Hearing_Types_Locations_Mar14_05.pdf
Web: http://pubs.aina.ucalgary.ca/ngps/JRPPN6_Hearing_Types_Locations_Mar14_05.pdf

March 14, 2005 - The purpose of this document is to provide the public with the opportunity to provide their input on where environmental hearings related to the proposed Mackenzie Gas Project (MGP) should be held and to develop the list of communities in which each type of hearing will be held. This information will be utilized by the staff to the Joint Review Panel as part of their planning process. Details concerning the hearings, including registration requirements and the filing of submissions, will be issued as amendments to the Joint Review Panel's Rules of Procedure at a later date. The Joint Review Panel will hold General Hearings in larger centres. The sessions will provide the opportunity for organizations, businesses or individuals to make presentations to the Panel on any aspect within the scope of the review. Prior registration with the Panel Manager is strongly recommended, and priority will be given to participants who have registered in advance. Scheduling limitations may not permit unregistered parties to present to the Joint Review Panel. The Joint Review Panel considers the following list as possible locations for General Hearings: Inuvik, Norman Wells, Fort Simpson, Yellowknife, Hay River, High Level, Edmonton and Calgary. The Joint Review Panel will also hold Technical Hearings in some of the larger centres. Technical Hearings provide an opportunity for Interveners to give a presentation on specific issues including matters related to scientific and traditional ecological knowledge. Registration with the Panel Manager is required prior to the hearings. Presenters at Technical Hearings must file their submission in writing in advance of the hearing. The requirements for registration and for filing submissions will be set out in the amended Rules of Procedure. In due course, the Joint Review Panel will determine the location of Technical Hearings. The Joint Review Panel will hold Community Hearings in the communities affected by the Mackenzie Gas Project in the Northwest Territories and in Northwest Alberta. Community Hearings will be held to encourage the full and open participation of people living near the location of the proposed project. At these hearing sessions, priority will be given to people and organizations from the community. Prior registration with the Panel Manager is encouraged but not required. The Joint Review Panel is committed to ensuring that the public has opportunities to provide comments on the proposed Mackenzie Gas Project. The Joint Review Panel has created a preliminary list of communities where the Joint Review Panel is proposing to hold Community Hearings in Inuvialuit Settlement Region and Gwich'in Settlement Area: Aklavik, Fort McPherson, Holman, Inuvik, Paulatuk, Sachs Harbour, Tsiigehtchic, Tuktoyaktuk; Sahtu Settlement Area: Colville Lake, Deline, Fort Good Hope, Norman Wells, Tulita; Deh Cho Territory: Fort Liard, Fort Providence, Fort Simpson, Hay River, Hay River Dene Reserve, Jean Marie River, Kakisa, Trout Lake, Wrigley; Northwest Alberta: Chateh, High Level, and Meander River. ... If your community is of the opinion that the Joint Review Panel should hold hearings in your community, please make your request known by sending a signed letter by April 15, 2005 to Paula Pacholek, Joint Review Panel Manager .... (Au)

Filing of submissions with the Joint Review Panel for the proposed Mackenzie Gas Project (the panel)   /   Joint Review Panel (Canada)
Inuvik, N.W.T. : Joint Review Panel Office, 2005.
1 p. ; 28 cm.
Indexed a PDF file from the Web.
ASTIS records: 57170, 57894, 61238, 62805, 62808 describe rules of procedure for the Mackenzie Gas Project review, issued at various times during the hearing and review process.
Dated: May 17, 2005.
ASTIS record 62809.
Languages: English
Web: http://www.jointreviewpanel.ca/documents/050517_Protocol_Filing_of_Submis.pdf
Web: http://pubs.aina.ucalgary.ca/ngps/050517_Protocol_Filing_of_Submis_000.pdf

In an environmental review, when a submission is filed with an environmental review panel it is placed on the public registry and is considered by the review panel in its review. This information is distributed directly to the Panel and made available to all Parties to the review and the general public through the public registry. Information is made available to the Parties and the public in both hardcopy and electronic format where possible. There is an electronic public registry (at http://www.ngps.nt.ca/registryDetail_e.asp) and also three public registry offices that are located in each of Inuvik and Yellowknife, Northwest Territories and in Calgary, Alberta. Protocol for Filing Submissions: 1. Where possible, submissions to the Joint Review Panel shall be filed in electronic format. However, hardcopies will be accepted by fax or mail if received by the published deadline at the Joint Review Panel office. 2. Submissions filed in electronic format must be in files no larger than 3 MB in size. 3. It is preferable that submissions filed in electronic format are provided in Portable Document Format (PDF) and: a. are compatible with Adobe Acrobat 5.0, and b. have security settings that allow for copy / paste abilities 4. A submission may only include hyperlinks if the information intended to be considered within the hyperlink is provided in full as a separate document (which must also follow the Protocol for Filing Submissions). 5. Submissions exceeding 25 pages in length must also be filed with the Joint Review Panel office in hardcopy. When hardcopies are submitted to the Panel, a total of fifteen (15) copies must be forwarded to the following address: Joint Review Panel Office, Suite 302, 125 Mackenzie Road, P.O. Box 2412, Inuvik, NT X0E 0T0. Upon receipt of these documents, Panel staff will distribute them to the Panel and public registry offices. 6. If a submission or information filed as part of the environmental review is requested in hardcopy by the Joint Review Panel or a Party to the review, it will be the responsibility of the Party originally filing the document to provide it in hardcopy. (Au)

Guidance for the content of public hearings   /   Joint Review Panel (Canada)
Inuvik, N.W.T. : Joint Review Panel, 2005.
13 p. ; 28 cm.
Indexed a PDF file from the Web.
Dated: October 7, 2005.
ASTIS record 62817 describes the December 11, 2006 version of guidance for hearings.
ASTIS record 62820.
Languages: English
Web: http://www.jointreviewpanel.ca/documents/GuidancefortheContentofPublicHearings_Oct7_2005.pdf
Web: http://pubs.aina.ucalgary.ca/ngps/GuidancefortheContentofPublicHearings_Oct7_2005.pdf

The purpose of this document is to provide general information about the range and scope of the topics that the Joint Review Panel (the Panel) expects to hear about during the public hearings phase of environmental impact review of the proposed Mackenzie Gas Project (MGP). This information is intended to assist participants in preparing for the hearings. However this information is for general guidance only. The Panel may vary the range, scope, and order of topics as it deems necessary. The hearings will address six general themes: Theme 1: Setting the Scene - Project Description and Assessment Methodology. Theme 2: Physical Environment - Land, Water and Air. Theme 3: Biological Environment - Fish and Wildlife and Their Habitats, Conservation Measures. Theme 4: Human Environment - Economic Impacts. Theme 5: Human Environment - Socio-cultural Impacts. Theme 6: Project Alternatives, Cumulative Impacts, and Project Net Effects and Trade-offs after Enhancement, Mitigation and Follow-up. These themes include several topics, each of which contains many specific matters for discussion. The manner in which each topic is treated in any particular hearing will vary, depending on whether that hearing is a General Hearing, a Technical Hearing, or a Community Hearing. This document also describes the three different types of public hearings, and the different approach and opportunity that each offers for the presentation of information and comments, and the discussion of topics. The Panel's Direction on Procedures for Hearings details how it will conduct each type of hearing. ... (Au)

Announcement : information request process   /   Joint Review Panel (Canada)
Inuvik, N.W.T. : Joint Review Panel Office, 2005.
2 p. ; 28 cm.
Indexed a PDF file from the Web.
Reference from Joint Review Panel website: JRPPN4 (Jan. 13, 2005) - Information Request process.
ASTIS record 62827.
Languages: English
Web: http://www.jointreviewpanel.ca/documents/JRPPN4_InformationRequestprocess_Jan_13_05.pdf

January 13, 2005 - The Joint Review Panel for the Mackenzie Gas Project has made a number of decisions over the past month that include: -starting the process of seeking additional information from the Proponent; -finalizing the list of Interveners that will be participating in the environmental review of the Mackenzie Gas Project; and -inviting Interveners to participate in the technical analysis of the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) by way of exchange of Information Requests (IRs). The Joint Review Panel commenced its initial review and conformity check of the EIS after receiving it on October 7, 2004. The Joint Review Panel advised the Proponent of its initial findings by its letter of December 3, 2004 drawing attention to key subject areas for which, based on the EIS Terms of Reference, more information would be required. That letter also served to commence the technical analysis of the Environmental Impact Statement. The Joint Review Panel expects that the Information Request process will now be the most productive method for ensuring that whatever further information the Joint Review Panel and participants require to proceed to hearings is filed. The Joint Review Panel has circulated the list of Interveners. Intervener status provides an individual or organization the opportunity to participate in the Information Request process and to ask questions of the Proponent and other Interveners at hearings. The granting of Intervener status in no way prevents or limits the general public from presenting their organization's views or their own views at community and general hearings or from submitting a letter of comment to the Joint Review Panel at any time. Eighty-nine individuals, companies and organizations were informed that their applications were approved as registered Interveners. Interveners have been provided with instructions on how to participate in the initial process of submitting Information Requests. Interveners have been requested to submit their Information Requests directly to the Proponent at the same time as providing a copy to the Joint Review Panel and to other registered Interveners. Generally it will be the responsibility of Interveners to distribute their documents to the other registered Interveners. The Joint Review Panel has decided to manage the Information Request process in this manner rather than requiring Interveners to first submit their proposed Information Requests to the Joint Review Panel. An Information Request does not have to be processed by the Joint Review Panel in order to be valid. The deadline for submitting the first set of Information Requests is January 28, 2005. The Joint Review Panel is of the view that the most effective way to manage the issuance of, and response to, Information Requests is to deal with these requests in batches. Therefore the first round, and any subsequently required rounds, of Information Requests will be done on a batch basis, each with a deadline for both submission and response. The Joint Review Panel therefore encourages all participants to proceed with the first round at this time, with the understanding that there will be further rounds as necessary. The Information Request process is a key means of clarifying and probing the information that has been filed to date by the Proponent. Matters to be presented/heard before the Joint Review Panel will include, but are not limited to, impacts on the natural and human environments. These are listed in the Environmental Impact Statement Terms of Reference for the Mackenzie Gas Project. This document, as well as other information of public interest related to the review of the proposed project, is contained in Public Registries that can be found electronically on the Internet at www.ngps.nt.ca and at the following physical locations: [Northern Gas Project Secretariat in Yellowknife and Inuvik and National Energy Board Library in Calgary]. (Au)

Announcement : next steps in environmental review process ...   /   Joint Review Panel (Canada)
Inuvik, N.W.T. : Joint Review Panel Office, 2005.
1 p. ; 28 cm.
Indexed a PDF file from the Web.
Reference from Joint Review Panel website: JRPPN5 (Feb. 25, 2005) - Next steps in the environmental review process.
ASTIS record 62828.
Languages: English
Web: http://www.jointreviewpanel.ca/documents/JRPPN5_Next_Steps_February_28_2005.pdf
Web: http://pubs.aina.ucalgary.ca/ngps/Announcement_Next_Steps_February_28_2005.pdf

The purpose of this document is to provide the Interveners and the Proponent of the Mackenzie Gas Project with information on the next steps in the environmental impact review process of the proposed Mackenzie Gas Project. The Joint Review Panel (the Panel) is currently awaiting additional information from the Proponent in response to its letters of December 3, 2004, January 24, 2005 and February 3, 2005, as well as responses to the first round of Information Requests (IRs) submitted by Interveners. The Panel anticipates that the Proponent will be submitting this additional information by March 31, 2005. The Panel plans to review the material as it is submitted and to commence development of a second round of IRs. The Panel will provide the Parties with three weeks notice for filing Round 2 IRs. During Round 2 IRs, Parties will be able to ask questions of other Parties. At this time, the Panel expects that it would allocate a three week period to allow for responses to be developed to the Round 2 IRs. The Panel has received suggestions for technical conferences from Interveners and will be communicating its views on technical conferences at a later date. The staff to the Panel have commenced planning for a pre-hearing conference which is anticipated to occur in June, 2005. The pre-hearing conference may be held in conjunction with the National Energy Board Panel conducting regulatory hearings on the Mackenzie Gas Project. ... (Au)

Announcement : update on the Mackenzie Gas Project environmental impact review process   /   Joint Review Panel (Canada)
Inuvik, N.W.T. : Joint Review Panel Office, 2005.
2 p. ; 28 cm.
Indexed a PDF file from the Web.
Reference from Joint Review Panel website: JRPPN7 (May 5, 2005) - Update on the environmental impact review process.
ASTIS record 62829.
Languages: English
Web: http://www.jointreviewpanel.ca/documents/JRPPN7_Update_EIRProcess_May_5_2005.pdf
Web: http://pubs.aina.ucalgary.ca/ngps/JRPPN7_Update_EIR Process_May_5_2005.pdf

May 5, 2005 - The purpose of this announcement is to provide the public with updated information on the environmental impact review process of the proposed Mackenzie Gas Project. In early April the Joint Review Panel (the Panel) and Registered Interveners received responses to Information Requests (IRs) as well as Additional Information from the Proponent of the Mackenzie Gas Project. The Additional Information provided by the Proponent responds to the requests made by the Panel in its letter of December 3, 2004. The Panel is continuing with its technical analysis of the material. The Panel has set a deadline date for the submission of Round 2 IRs, which is 12:00 noon, Mountain Daylight Time, Wednesday, May 18, 2005. The Panel has requested that the Proponent respond to Round 2 IRs by 12:00 noon, Mountain Daylight Time, Wednesday, June 8, 2005. During this round of Information Requests, the Parties are able to ask questions of other Parties and the Proponent. As previously announced, the Panel will host an Environmental Impact Statement Conference (EIS Conference) to review the environmental and socio-economic information filed by the Proponent. The EIS Conference will occur the last week of June in Yellowknife, Northwest Territories. The EIS Conference falls within the scope of the technical conferences contemplated in the Phase 2 funding offered by the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency in its Participant Funding Program. The Panel will retain an independent facilitator to assist in the design, planning and facilitation of the EIS Conference. The facilitator will work with Panel staff, Interveners and the Proponent to ensure that the conference meets the needs of the participants and the Panel. The EIS Conference will bring together Interveners and the Proponent in a public forum to identify outstanding information gaps/deficiencies. The Panel will use information gathered at this conference, in conjunction with information obtained from its own technical analyses, to determine if there is sufficient information to proceed to the public hearings phase of the review process. The Panel is committed to a timely review and will make its determination following the conference. The Panel has stated in its Rules of Procedure that it will provide 45 days notice prior to the commencement of public hearings, in order to provide time for the public to prepare submissions. The Panel will make a final determination of which communities it will visit at the time it sets the review down for hearings. ... (Au)

Announcement : traditional knowledge in the environmental impact assessment of the proposed Mackenzie Gas Project   /   Joint Review Panel (Canada)
Inuvik, N.W.T. : Joint Review Panel Office, 2005.
2 p. ; 28 cm.
Indexed a PDF file from the Web.
Reference from Joint Review Panel website: JRPPN8 (May 16, 2005) - Traditional knowledge in the environmental impact review of the proposed Mackenzie Gas Project.
ASTIS record 62831.
Languages: English
Web: http://www.jointreviewpanel.ca/documents/JRPPN8_TK_May16_2005_final_000.pdf
Web: http://pubs.aina.ucalgary.ca/ngps/JRPPN8_TK_May16_2005_final.pdf

May 16, 2005 - The Joint Review Panel wishes to ensure that traditional knowledge contributes fully to the review of the proposed Mackenzie Gas Project. This announcement is to provide advice to participants on the submission of traditional knowledge during the hearings phase of the Panel's review. The Joint Review Panel Agreement acknowledges the "importance of incorporating traditional knowledge in the Environmental Impact Review of the Project," and it requires the Panel to "make best efforts to promote and facilitate the contribution of traditional knowledge to the environmental impact review." The Mackenzie Gas Project Proponent is required to use and incorporate traditional knowledge in its Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), and has done so. By its own account, the Proponent has held meetings and workshops in project area communities during the past number of years, at which it has obtained what it characterizes as traditional and local knowledge, for the purpose of identifying project-related concerns, selecting "valued components," obtaining baseline information, assessing project effects, and applying mitigation measures. The Proponent has also indicated, in its EIS, that it had undertaken to do "community-based traditional knowledge studies" in almost all communities in the project area on a regional, district or community basis. The Proponent has further indicated that while it has the right to use these studies for project planning, it is not authorized to disclose them and cannot submit them to the Panel without the prior consent of the individual communities. The most recent advice received from the Proponent indicates that most of these traditional knowledge studies have not yet been completed, and to date, none have been approved by the communities for public release. Other studies are still in various stages of progress and some have not yet begun. The Panel is aware that the Proponent does not control their completion and release dates, nor can it necessarily predict these dates. To the extent that communities may already have compiled relevant traditional knowledge in the Proponent-sponsored traditional knowledge studies, the Panel wishes to ensure that the substance of that information will contribute to the review of the Project, in accordance with the Panel's mandate. The Panel is mindful of the possibility that at least some of the Proponent-sponsored traditional knowledge studies may still not be available at such time as the Panel rules whether there is otherwise sufficient information to proceed to hearings. The Panel is also mindful that, regardless of the best efforts of the Proponent, traditional knowledge is often best provided directly by those persons and parties who hold that information and wish to provide it for the purposes of this review. The Panel encourages the submission of traditional knowledge during the hearings phase of its review, for at least the following three purposes: 1. Issues identification (what people are concerned about, what people value, what may be at risk from the Project), 2. Baseline information about the communities and the environment in the Project area, 3. Prediction of Project impacts and the implementation of effective mitigation measures and follow-up effects monitoring. Individuals may wish to speak to these matters at Community and General Hearings. The Panel also welcomes more formal presentations on such matters as current and historic land use and harvesting activities, areas of critical concern, the local economy, family and community well-being, the local capacity to respond to the Project, and issues of sustainability. Presentations may address these issues at the community or regional level. The Panel is also prepared to receive submissions based on traditional knowledge at Technical Hearings. Persons qualified to offer expert opinion based on traditional knowledge, relating to Project impacts, mitigation strategies, and follow-up monitoring are welcome to do so according to the rules for Technical Hearings. The Panel will issue these rules prior to any announcement of its hearing schedule. As only those parties with intervener status may file and present submissions at Technical Hearings, such experts may appear only on behalf of, or at the request of, Interveners. ... (Au)

Joint Review Panel direction on procedures for hearings ("Procedures")   /   Joint Review Panel (Canada)
[Inuvik, N.W.T.] : Joint Review Panel, 2006.
12 p. ; 28 cm.
Indexed a PDF file from the Web.
Consolidated Hearings Procedures effective August, 2006.
Cover title.
Appendices.
ASTIS records: 57170, 57894, 62805, 62808, 62809 describe rules of procedure for the Mackenzie Gas Project review, issued at various times during the hearing and review process.
ASTIS record 61238.
Languages: English
Web: http://www.ngps.nt.ca/Upload/Joint%20Review%20Panel/Consolidated_Procedures_for_Hearings_effective_August_2006.pdf

This document outlines procedures for the public hearings phase of the environmental impact review being conducted by the Joint Review Panel for the Mackenzie Gas Project. These Procedures supplement the Rules of Procedure issued by the Joint Review Panel on September 14, 2004 (the "Rules"). For ease of use, the provisions of the Rules that pertain to hearings have been incorporated here for the purpose of having a single stand-alone document for the hearings phase of the Joint Panel's review. (Au)

Notice of change to the Panel's direction on procedures for hearings   /   Joint Review Panel (Canada)
Inuvik, N.W.T. : Joint Review Panel, 2006.
2 p. ; 28 cm.
Report date: July 19, 2006.
Indexed a PDF file from the Web.
ASTIS records: 57170, 57894, 61238, 62805, 62809 describe rules of procedure for the Mackenzie Gas Project review, issued at various times during the hearing and review process.
ASTIS record 62808.
Languages: English
Web: http://www.jointreviewpanel.ca/documents/060719_6_Notice_change_of_Proced.pdf

The Panel requires additional time in advance of hearings to review written submissions. Therefore, the Panel is amending the July 12, 2005 Joint Review Panel Direction on Procedures for Hearings to require Parties to file their written submissions to the Panel 15 days in advance of either a Community Hearing or a General Hearing and 20 days in advance of Topic-Specific and Technical Hearings at which they intend to make a presentation. These new requirements will take effect for the September hearings and for all subsequent hearings. Procedure 8 is amended by adding: General Hearings will be designated by the Panel as Open General or Topic-Specific Hearings. As the procedures for each are slightly different, please see Procedure 19 herein. Procedure 13 is amended by adding: Registered Interveners who want to make recommendations to the Panel at a Community Hearing must provide 15 copies of their written submissions to the Panel Manager 15 days in advance of the Community Hearing. These will be posted to the Public Registry. This will allow the Joint Review Panel and others to review recommendations prior to the hearings. Procedure 19 is amended to read: Persons registered to present at a General Hearing must provide 15 copies of their written submissions or slide presentation (including Power Point presentations) to the Panel Manager in advance of their scheduled presentation. These will be posted to the Public Registry. This will allow the Joint Review Panel and others to review submissions prior to the hearings. a. Submissions for Open General Hearings must be filed 15 days in advance of the scheduled hearing. b. Submissions for Topic-Specific General Hearings must be filed 20 days in advance of the scheduled hearing. Procedure 25 is amended to read: Persons making presentations at Technical Hearings must submit a written version of their presentation 20 days in advance and will be subject to detailed questioning. The written submissions must include a brief statement regarding the presenter's experience related to the subject. Persons intending to present a summary of their written submission by way of a slide presentation must file a copy of the slide presentation with the Panel Manager 20 days in advance of the Hearing at which the presentation is scheduled to be made. Procedure 30 is amended to read: A written curriculum vitae for each specialist advisor and for each person having technical or special knowledge who is providing specialized knowledge to the Joint Review Panel on behalf of a Party must be filed with the Joint Review Panel 20 days prior to the Hearing and must be referenced orally at the hearing prior to the person's presentation. Procedure 69 is amended to read: The last session of the public hearings will be reserved for the Parties' closing remarks. Persons wishing to make closing remarks must register with the Panel Manager 30 days in advance of the Hearing. Closing remarks will be limited to the Proponent and Interveners and must be filed in writing 20 days in advance of the date scheduled for the Hearing. The Chairperson may limit the time available for oral closing remarks. Procedure 71 is amended by replacing the term "10 days" with the term "20 days". (Au)

Joint Review Panel's hearings update - February and March 2007   /   Joint Review Panel (Canada)
Inuvik, N.W.T. : Joint Review Panel, 2006.
3 p. ; 28 cm.
Letter dated December 11, 2006.
Indexed a PDF file from the Web.
ASTIS record 62816.
Languages: English
Web: http://www.ngps.nt.ca/Upload/Joint%20Review%20Panel/061211_JRPChair_to_Parties_hearing_re_Feb_and_March_2007.pdf

On November 10, 2006 Justice Phelan of the Federal Court of Canada issued his Judgment in a court challenge initiated by the Dene Tha' First Nation concerning the proposed Mackenzie Gas Project. This Judgment has implications for the environmental impact review process being conducted by the Joint Review Panel (the Panel). While complying with Justice Phelan's Judgment, the Panel has a responsibility to continue to fulfill its mandate, within the constraints of the Judgment. As a result, the Panel has made the following decisions in relation to public hearings during the months of February and March 2007. With respect to all of the following hearings [scheduled to be held in Yellowknife, Tuktoyaktuk, Inuvik, and Edmonton in February and March of 2007], the Panel will not consider evidence on matters involving the Connecting Facilities or the territory in which the Dene Tha' First Nation have or have asserted aboriginal or treaty rights. The Panel anticipates that it may need to revisit these topics in the context of the Connecting Facilities or the territory in which the Dene Tha' First Nation have or have asserted aboriginal or treaty rights. ... (Au)

Guidance document for hearings : topics and locations of community, general and technical hearings (revised December 11, 2006)   /   Joint Review Panel (Canada)
Inuvik, N.W.T. : Joint Review Panel, 2006.
33 p. ; 28 cm.
Indexed a PDF file from the Web.
This is a revised version of the document entitled: Guidance document for hearings : topics and locations of community, general and technical hearings (revised July 19, 2006). Also incorporated into this version is the update of October 25, 2006: Update on guidance for Inuvik topic-specific general hearing - harvesting and other land use - November 17, 2006.
ASTIS record 62820 describes the October 7, 2005 version of guidance for hearings.
ASTIS record 62817.
Languages: English
Web: http://www.ngps.nt.ca/Upload/Joint%20Review%20Panel/0601211_Guidance_Topics_Document.pdf

The purpose of this document is to provide updated information about the scope of the topics and associated subject matter that the Joint Review Panel (JRP or the Panel) expects to hear during the public hearings phase of its review of the environmental impacts of the proposed Mackenzie Gas Project (MGP or the proposed Project). It also contains updated information with respect to the type, duration, location and date of select hearings. This information is intended to assist participants in preparing for the Panel's remaining public hearings. It amends the Schedule for the Hearings Phase of the Environmental Review of the Proposed Mackenzie Gas Project (the Schedule) dated February 2, 2006 and July 19, 2006. The Joint Review Panel's public hearings address six general themes: Theme 1: Setting the Scene - Project Description and Assessment Methodology; Theme 2: Physical Environment - Land, Water and Air; Theme 3: Biological Environment - Fish and Wildlife and Their Habitats / Conservation Measures; Theme 4: Human Environment - Economic Impacts; Theme 5: Human Environment - Socio-cultural Impacts; Theme 6: Project Alternatives, Cumulative Impacts, and Project Net Effects and Trade-offs after Enhancement, Mitigation and Follow-up. These themes include several topics, each of which contains many specific matters for discussion. The manner in which each topic is treated in any particular hearing will vary, depending on whether that hearing is a General Hearing, a Technical Hearing, or a Community Hearing. This document also describes the different types of public hearings, and the different approach and opportunity that each offers for the presentation of information and comments, and the discussion of topics. The Panel's Direction on Procedures for Hearings ("the Procedures") details how it will conduct each type of hearing. ... (Au)

Mackenzie Gas Project - GH-1-2004 hearing : proposed conditions for the Mackenzie Valley Pipeline and Mackenzie Gathering System   /   Canada. National Energy Board
[Calgary, Alta. : NEB], 2007.
2, 23 p. : ill. ; 28 cm.
Indexed a PDF file from the Web.
Includes a 2-page cover letter dated 5 February 2007. The 23-page report is referred to as an attachment to the NEB letter.
Includes: Proposed conditions that would apply to both the MVP and the MGS; Proposed conditions for the Shell Canada Limited (Shell) Development Plan for the Niglintgak Field; Proposed conditions for the Imperial Oil Resources Limited (IORL) Development Plan for the Taglu Field; Proposed conditions for the ConocoPhillips Canada (North) Limited (ConocoPhilips) Development Plan for the Parsons Lake Field.
ASTIS record 61180.
Languages: English
Web: https://www.neb-one.gc.ca/ll-eng/livelink.exe/fetch/2000/90464/90550/338535/338661/343021/452189/NEB-179_-_-_MGP_-_Proposed_Conditions_-_A0X7W2.pdf?nodeid=452190&vernum=0

As indicated by the panel chair at the end of the National Energy Board's (NEB) hearing in Inuvik, it is the NEB's practice before making a decision on an application to issue proposed conditions which may be attached to any approval that may be issued for an application. This provides applicants and other parties an opportunity to comment on proposed conditions. Should the five applications for the Mackenzie Gas Project be approved, the NEB would issue: - a certificate pursuant to section 52 of the National Energy Act (Act) for the Mackenzie Valley Pipeline (MVP), - an authorization pursuant to subsection 5(1)(b) of the Canada Oil and Gas Operations Act (COGOA) for the Mackenzie Gathering System (MGS), and - approvals pursuant to subsection 5.1 of the COGOA for the Parsons Lake, Taglu and Niglintgak Development Plan applications. Although normally the NEB issues all proposed conditions for comment at the same time, in this case not all potential conditions will be known until the Joint Review Panel has completed its review and released its report. In the meantime the NEB has prepared a number of potential conditions that are related to matters within the NEB's mandate under the Act and the COGOA. Enclosed for information and comment by parties to the GH-1-2004 hearing are a number of proposed conditions for each of the applications under consideration. A number of those would be applicable to both the MVP and the MGS. To avoid duplication, those proposed conditions have not been provided separately. There are also conditions enclosed that would apply to the MGS only, as well as conditions that would apply to each of the development plans, if approved. ... [This abstract was taken from the cover letter attached to the proposed conditions.] (Au)

Protocol for filing submissions with the Joint Review Panel for the proposed Mackenzie Gas Project (the Panel)   /   Joint Review Panel (Canada)
Inuvik, N.W.T. : Joint Review Panel Office, 2007.
2 p. ; 28 cm.
Indexed a PDF file from the Web.
ASTIS records: 57170, 57894, 61238, 62808, 62809 describe rules of procedure for the Mackenzie Gas Project review, issued at various times during the hearing and review process.
Report date: May 11, 2007.
ASTIS record 62805.
Languages: English
Web: http://www.ngps.nt.ca/Upload/Joint%20Review%20Panel/070511_revised_filing_Protocol.pdf

When a submission is filed with the Panel [Joint Review Panel for the Mackenzie Gas Project] it is placed on the Public Registry, distributed directly to the Panel, and made available to all Parties to the review and the general public through the Public Registry. Information is made available to the Parties and the public in both hardcopy and electronic format where possible. There is an electronic public registry (at http://www.ngps.nt.ca/registryDetail_e.asp) and also three public registry offices that are located in each of Inuvik and Yellowknife, Northwest Territories and in Calgary, Alberta. General Protocol for Filing Submissions. 1. To the greatest extent possible, submissions to the Panel are to be filed in digital electronic format with copy/paste abilities. Due to their size, scanned documents are discouraged. Hardcopies will be accepted by fax or mail if received by the published deadline at the Joint Review Panel office. 2. Submissions filed in electronic format must be in files of no larger than 3 MB in size. This size limitation also applies to scanned documents. Files larger than 3 MB should be broken down into smaller parts. 3. All documents filed in electronic format must be submitted to the Panel Manager at the following address: pacholekp@jointreviewpanel.ca 4. It is preferable that submissions filed in electronic format are provided in Portable Document Format (PDF) and: a. are compatible with Adobe Acrobat 5.0, and b. have security settings that allow for copy / paste abilities. 5. A submission may only include hyperlinks (links to other documents on the Internet) if the information intended to be considered within the hyperlink is provided in full as a separate document (which must also follow this Protocol for Filing Submissions) as document locations can change over time, resulting in hyperlinks no longer working. 6. Documents for which the submitter has not obtained or provided Copyright authorization will not be accepted or filed on thePublic Registry. 7. Electronic submissions exceeding 25 pages in length must also be filed with the Joint Review Panel office in hardcopy (please see Protocol for Filing Submissions related to Hearings set out below for filings for specific types of hearings). When hardcopies are submitted to the Panel, a total of fifteen (15) copies must be forwarded to the following address: Joint Review Panel Office, Suite 302, 125 Mackenzie Road, P.O. Box 2412, Inuvik, NT X0E 0T0. Upon receipt of these documents, Panel staff will distribute them to the Panel and to the Public Registry offices. 8. If a document filed as part of the environmental review is requested in hardcopy by the Panel or a Party to the review, it will be the responsibility of the Party originally filing the document to provide it in hardcopy. Protocol for Filing Submissions related to Hearings: In addition to the General Protocols for Filing Submissions outlined above, the following instructions should be followed for filing information with the Joint Review Panel specifically for hearings: 1. The Panel's Procedures require 15 hardcopies of all written submissions and/or presentations to be filed with the Panel 15 days prior to Open General Hearings and 20 days prior to Topic-Specific General and Technical Hearings. You are encouraged to send your written submission and/or presentation by either Canadian North or First Air Cargo for the most expedient delivery. 2. All presentations must be filed in PowerPoint format. Please submit the PowerPoint version of your presentation to the Joint Review Panel office on a CD, unless the presentation is less than 3 MB in size in which case it may be emailed to the Panel Manager. If a presenter is not able to provide their presentation in this format, please contact the Panel office. 3. Presentations must be easily reduced from PowerPoint to PDF format to a size not greater than 3MB for posting to the Public Registry (please test your presentation beforehand to ensure this is possible). 4. Please ensure each slide of your presentation is numbered sequentially. 5. High resolution maps may be filed for reference during a presentation, but a low resolution copy (less than 3MB in size) must also be provided for posting to the Public Registry. 6. Any changes made to a presentation after it is initially filed (e.g. at the hearing session) must also be filed on the Public Registry. Protocol for Referencing Documents during Hearings: If a Party wishes to refer to documents when questioning other Parties during a hearing, references to slides or exhibit numbers to be shown on the screen should be provided to the Panel Manager prior to the hearing. When referencing PDF documents, please indicate whether you are referring to the printed page numbers or to the PDF page numbers. (Au)

Reasons for decision in the matter of Yukon Pipelines Limited : motion of the Board on 29 February 2008 - MHW-R-1-2008   /   Canada. National Energy Board
[Ottawa : National Energy Board], 2009.
iii, 22 p. : maps ; 28cm.
ISBN 978-1-100-11698-3
Appendices.
Available in paper and on the Web.
Also available in French under title: Motifs de décision relativement à Yukon Pipelines Limited à l'initiative de l'Office le 29 février 2008 - MHW-R-1-2008, as described in ASTIS record 79634.
Report date: March 2009.
Abandonment Order MO-7-96 Review.
Cover title: Reasons for decision, Yukon Pipeline Limited, MHW-R-1-2008.
ASTIS record 79633.
Languages: English
Web: http://publications.gc.ca/site/eng/349334/publication.html
Web: http://publications.gc.ca/pub?id=349334&sl=0
Libraries: ACU

... Introduction: ... In 1942, the United States army constructed a 114 mm outside diameter above-grade pipeline known as Canol No. 2 from Whitehorse, Yukon, to Skagway, Alaska. This pipeline, including the upper tank farm in Whitehorse, Yukon (Tank Farm) and a pump station at Carcross, Yukon (Carcross Station), was part of the larger Canol pipeline project which was constructed to transport, refine and distribute liquid hydrocarbons from Norman Wells, Northwest Territories, for use in Yukon and Alaska during World War II. The pipeline was initially owned and operated by the US army. White Pass and Yukon Corporation Ltd. (White Pass) began operating Canol No. 2 in 1947, reversing the flow to supply Whitehorse and Yukon with gasoline, diesel and fuel oil shipped by sea to Skagway from Vancouver, British Columbia. Yukon Pipelines Limited (YPL), which was a wholly-owned subsidiary of White Pass, purchased the pipeline and associated facilities in 1958. On 7 May 1962, the newly formed NEB granted YPL Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity OC-12 to operate the Canadian portion of the former Canol No. 2. The Canadian portion of the pipeline was operated by YPL from 1962 until 1994 with only minor modifications and is referred to as the Yukon Pipeline. On 7 October 1994, YPL and related companies discontinued operation of the pipeline between Skagway and Whitehorse. On 12 July 1995, YPL submitted an application to the NEB for an order pursuant to Section 74 of the National Energy Board Act for abandonment of the Yukon Pipeline. The Board found that the Yukon Pipeline was obsolete and was no longer used. By Order MO-7-96 (Abandonment Order), dated 6 September 1996, the Board granted the requested Abandonment Order on the condition that it come into force on the performance, to the satisfaction of the Board, of the following: 1. Unless the Board otherwise directs, YPL shall file a report on the results of the Phase I field investigation for the Carcross pump station which shall include a summary of the comments and concerns of interested persons and a summary of how YPL has addressed or will address those comments and concerns. 2. Unless the Board otherwise directs, YPL shall provide to the Board the results of its review of the inconsistencies in the spill data identified by Environment Canada, including an assessment of whether further action is required. 3. Unless the Board otherwise directs, YPL shall file a report before commencing the Phase II field investigation programs for the pipeline, upper tank farm and the Carcross pump station which shall describe the detailed methodologies for those programs and shall include a summary of the comments and concerns of interested persons and a summary of how YPL has addressed or will address those comments and concerns. 4. Unless the Board otherwise directs, YPL shall dismantle its facilities to facilitate the phase II field investigation programs. 5. Unless the Board otherwise directs, YPL shall file a report following the Phase II field investigation programs which shall describe the results of those programs and the remedial measures selected for the pipeline, upper tank farm and the Carcross pump station and shall include a description of any remedial measures already undertaken, a summary of the comments and concerns of interested persons, a summary of how YPL has addressed or will address those comments and concerns, a priority ranking for the sites requiring remedial work, a schedule of work to be undertaken at each site and projected costs. 6. YPL shall carry out the remedial work in accordance with the report to be filed pursuant to Condition 5 above, subject to modifications, including additional investigative or remedial work, that may be directed by the Board from time to time before the Board accepts the final report to be filed pursuant to Condition 7 below. 7. Unless the Board otherwise directs, YPL shall file a report following the completion of the remedial work which shall demonstrate the success of the remedial work based on the criteria outlined by YPL in its application and in other evidence filed or otherwise given by YPL in this proceeding. The effect of the Abandonment Order was that the Yukon Pipeline, consisting of the Pipeline Right of Way, the Carcross Station and the Tank Farm, would remain under NEB jurisdiction until the fulfillment of the conditions, at which time the NEB would no longer regulate it. During the hearing, YPL proposed to remediate the Tank Farm site to residential standards and to sell it for housing development with some commercial real estate. To date the proponent has conducted remediation, monitored and produced reports but has not satisfied the NEB that all of the conditions in the Abandonment Order have been performed. (Au)

Motifs de décision relativement à Yukon Pipelines Limited à l'initiative de l'Office le 29 février 2008 - MHW-R-1-2008   /   Canada. National Energy Board
[Ottawa : National Energy Board], 2009.
iii, 22 p. : maps ; 28cm.
ISBN 978-1-100-90695-9
Appendices.
Available in paper and on the Web.
Also available in English under title: Reasons for decision in the matter of Yukon Pipelines Limited : motion of the Board on 29 February 2008 - MHW-R-1-2008, as described in ASTIS record 79633.
Report date: March 2009.
Révision de l'ordonnance de cessation d'exploitation MO-7-96.
Cover title: Motifs de décision Yukon Pipelines Limited - MWH-R-1-2008.
ASTIS record 79634.
Languages: French
Web: http://publications.gc.ca/site/eng/349346/publication.html
Libraries: ACU

Introduction: ... En 1942, l'armée américaine a construit un pipeline hors terre de 114 mm de diamètre extérieur, appelé Canol no 2, entre Whitehorse, au Yukon, et Skagway, en Alaska. Ce pipeline, incluant aussi le parc de citernes Upper Tank Farm (parc de citernes) à Whitehorse, et la station de pompage Carcross (station Carcross), au Yukon, faisait partie du projet de pipeline Canol de plus grande envergure construit pour transporter, raffiner et distribuer des hydrocarbures liquides à partir de Norman Wells, dans les Territoires du Nord-Ouest, pour utilisation au Yukon et en Alaska durant la Seconde Guerre mondiale. Le pipeline appartenait à l'origine à l'armée américaine, qui en assurait l'exploitation. White Pass and Yukon Corporation Ltd. (White Pass) a commencé à exploiter le pipeline Canol no 2 en 1947, inversant le sens de l'écoulement pour approvisionner Whitehorse et le Yukon en essence, en diesel et en mazout expédiés par mer jusqu'à Skagway à partir de Vancouver, en Colombie-Britannique. Yukon Pipelines Limited (YPL), qui était une filiale en propriété exclusive de White Pass, a racheté le pipeline et les installations connexes en 1958. Le 7 mai 1962, l'ONÉ, nouvellement créé, a accordé à YPL le certificat de commodité et de nécessité publique OC-12 l'autorisant à exploiter le tronçon canadien de l'ancien pipeline Canol no 2. Le tronçon canadien du pipeline a été exploité par YPL de 1962 à 1994 moyennant de légères modifications; on l'appelle communémant le pipeline Yukon. Le 7 octobre 1994, YPL et ses sociétés apparentées ont interrompu l'exploitation du pipeline entre Skagway et Whitehorse. Le 12 juillet 1995, YPL a présenté à l'ONÉ une demande en vue d'obtenir une ordonnance aux termes de l'article 74 de la Loi l'autorisant à cesser l'exploitation du pipeline Yukon. L'Office a conclu que le pipeline Yukon était obsolète et n'était plus utilisé. Par la voie de l'ordonnance MO-7-96 (ordonnance de cessation d'exploitation) datée du 6 septembre 1996, l'Office a rendu l'ordonnance de cessation d'exploitation demandée à condition qu'elle prenne effet après que les conditions ci-après eurent été remplies à la satisfaction de l'Office : 1. Sauf indication contraire de la part de l'Office, YPL doit déposer un rapport sur les résultats de l'étude sur le terrain (phase I) portant sur la station de pompage Carcross; le rapport résumera les observations et les préoccupations des personnes intéressées, ainsi que la façon dont YPL les a prises en compte. 2. Sauf indication contraire de la part de l'Office, YPL doit fournir à l'Office les résultats de son examen des divergences, apparaissant dans les données sur les déversements, qui ont été relevées par Environnement Canada, y compris une évaluation de la nécessité de prendre d'autres mesures. 3. Sauf indication contraire de la part de l'Office, YPL doit déposer un rapport avant d'entreprendre les programmes d'étude sur le terrain (phase II) portant sur le pipeline, le parc de citernes Upper Tank Farm et la station de pompage Carcross; le rapport décrira les méthodes détaillées utilisées pour ces programmes et résumera les observations et les préoccupations des personnes intéressées, ainsi que la façon dont YPL les a prises en compte. 4. Sauf indication contraire de la part de l'Office, YPL démantèlera ses installations pour faciliter les programmes d'étude sur le terrain (phase II). 5. Sauf indication contraire de la part de l'Office, YPL doit déposer un rapport après l'achèvement des programmes d'étude sur le terrain (phase II) qui décrira les résultats de ces programmes et les mesures de restauration choisies pour le pipeline, le parc de citernes Upper Tank Farm et la station de pompage Carcross et comprendra une description des mesures de restauration déjà prises et résumera les observations et les préoccupations des personnes intéressées, ainsi que la façon dont YPL les a prises en compte, un classement par ordre de priorité des sites exigeant des travaux de restauration, le calendrier des travaux à faire à chaque site et une estimation des coûts des travaux. 6. YPL exécutera les travaux de restauration conformément au rapport dont la condition 5 ci-dessus exige le dépôt, sous réserve des modifications, qui peuvent comprendre l'exécution d'investigations ou de travaux additionnels, que peut ordonner l'Office, avant que l'Office accepte le rapport final qui doit être déposé conformément à la condition 7 ci-dessous. 7. Sauf indication contraire de la part de l'Office, YPL doit déposer un rapport final après l'achèvement des travaux de restauration qui démontrera que ces travaux ont été couronnés de succès d'après les critères décrits par YPL dans sa demande et dans d'autres éléments de preuve déposés ou autrement fournis par YPL dans la présente instance. (Au)

Foundation for a sustainable northern future : report of the Joint Review Panel for the Mackenzie Gas Project   /   Joint Review Panel (Canada)
Canada : Published under the authority of the Minister of Environment, Government of Canada, 2010.
3 v. : ill., maps ; 28 cm.
ISBN En106-87/2009E, En106-87/2009E-PDF
Available in paper copy and as PDF files from the Web.
Report includes: Foundation for a sustainable northern future : report of the Joint Review Panel for the Mackenzie Gas Project : Executive Summary, December 2009.
Report includes: Foundation for a sustainable northern future : report of the Joint Review Panel for the Mackenzie Gas Project : Volume I - chapters 1 to 10, December 2009.
Report includes: Foundation for a sustainable northern future : report of the Joint Review Panel for the Mackenzie Gas Project : Volume II - chapters 11 to 19 and appendices, December 2009.
At this time, the Executive Summary is available in English and French. Volumes 1 and 2 are available in English. The French version of volumes 1 and 2 and the audio-interpretation of the executive summary will be available in Inuvialuktun, Gwich'in, North Dene, South Dene and Dene Tha' in early 2010.
Individual PDF files are dated December 2009, but date of publication of the report is given as March 2010.
Volume II contains a DVD in a back pocket entitled: Public registry of the Joint Review Panel and other documents relevant to the Environmental Review.
ASTIS record 69090.
Languages: English
Web: http://www.publications.gc.ca/site/eng/370940/publication.html
Web: http://publications.gc.ca/site/eng/9.692914/publication.html
Libraries: ACU

Executive Summary: ... Conclusion: The Panel is confident in its assessment of the impacts of the Project as Filed and its likely contribution to sustainability. Because of the lack of or unreliability of information about future developments, particularly such developments as would be required to support an increase of throughput on the MVP beyond 1.2 Bcf/d, the Panel has made a number of recommendations specifically directed towards anticipating and allowing for appropriate mitigation of any adverse impacts of those developments. With the full implementation of these recommendations, governments and regulatory authorities responsible for reviewing and approving proposals for future developments would be better informed and would be equipped to ensure that appropriate and effective mitigation measures were in place before such developments were authorized to proceed. The Panel acknowledges the uncertainty that is inherent in predicting the future and has approached the challenge that this presents as an opportunity/risk matrix. Accordingly, the Panel has given careful attention to means of anticipating and managing cumulative impacts and ensuring a positive legacy from the Project, possible expansions and other future developments. The Panel is confident that, with appropriate policy and regulatory initiatives and responses to manage future developments built on the implementation of the Panel's recommendations, the MGP, and future developments that might follow from the Project, could proceed in an acceptable manner. Overall, subject to the full implementation of the following recommendations, the Panel has concluded that the adverse impacts of the Mackenzie Gas Project and the Northwest Alberta Facilities would not likely be significant and that the Project and those Facilities would likely make a positive contribution towards a sustainable northern future. In the Panel's view, the Mackenzie Gas Project and the associated Northwest Alberta Facilities would provide the foundation for a sustainable northern future. The challenge to all will be to build on that foundation. ... [Joint Review Panel Recommendations specify design, construction, operating, decommissioning and abandonment conditions, and monitoring and management plans.] (Au)

Mackenzie Gas Project - Hearing Order GH-1-2004 : Consult to Modify Process for the recommendations identified in the Joint Review Panel (JRP) report on the environmental impact review of the Mackenzie Gas Project   /   Canada. National Energy Board
Calgary, Alta. : NEB, 2010.
4 p. ; 28 cm.
Indexed a PDF file from the Web that contained a 4-page letter from Anne-Marie Erickson, Acting Secretary, NEB, dated March 9, 2010, to Robert Hornel, Chair, Joint Review Panel for the Mackenzie Gas Project.
This letter refers to an Appendix 1 and Appendix 2, attachments that contain accompanying material that has been provided as 2 separate PDF files.
Appendix 1: Concordance Table for JRP Recommendations and NEB Proposed Conditions, can be found in the second url provided below.
Appendix 2: Mackenzie Gas Project - GH-1-2004 Hearing : proposed conditions for the Mackenzie Valley Pipeline and Mackenzie Gathering System, is described in ASTIS record 69529.
ASTIS record 69527.
Languages: English
Web: https://apps.neb-one.gc.ca/REGDOCS/Item/Filing/A24633

The National Energy Board (NEB) is considering the JRP report (Report) issued on 30 December 2009. Pursuant to section 137 of the Mackenzie Valley Resource Management Act (MVRMA), the purpose of this letter is to consult with the JRP on possible modifications to the specific recommendations in the Report that were directed to the NEB. The NEB will make final decisions in these matters after final argument. On 6 January 2010 the NEB set out a comment process regarding the Report and the JRP recommendations that were within the NEB's mandate. On 28 January 2010 the NEB received comments from the Proponents of the MGP. On 11 February 2010 the NEB received comments from parties to the NEB Hearings and the JRP Hearings. On 18 February 2010 the NEB received reply comments from the Proponents. In accordance with subsection 137(2) of the MVRMA, the NEB is identifying the comments received as new information the NEB is considering that was not before the JRP. ... The NEB is considering modifying some of the recommendations to create conditions that have clearly stated desired end results, can be measured for compliance, and are goal-oriented. ... In a number of instances recommendations require information to be filed which would come to the NEB through prevailing statutes and regulations. In these cases, a condition would be duplicative. Accordingly the NEB is considering not including such recommendations as conditions. ... The NEB regulates safety, security, environmental and economic matters throughout a project's life span. The NEB is considering reorganizing several recommendations to reflect the normal sequence of project activities and, accordingly, the filing of related manuals and plans. ... In the NEB's view, some recommendations fall within the jurisdiction of other regulatory authorities. Conditions imposed by the NEB in such cases could conflict with existing and future regulatory requirements. Duplication serves no useful purpose and undermines an effective and efficient regulatory process. Therefore, the NEB is considering not including such recommendations as conditions. The NEB will continue to work in collaboration with the organizations created by the land claim agreements in the Northwest Territories when matters of mutual interests arise in the implementation of the respective conditions attached to the various permits which may be issued in respect of the MGP. ... Some of the JRP's recommendations require other persons, groups or agencies to approve something in order for a proposed NEB condition to be satisfied. In monitoring compliance with conditions it is important to be clear on who is accountable for specific outcomes. ... However, the NEB strongly promotes consultation with those affected by the decisions it makes and with those who have relevant expertise and information. Therefore the NEB is considering an approach whereby the Proponents are required to consult with appropriate parties and file the results of consultation with the NEB, rather than requiring other parties to approve the Proponents' filings to the NEB. ... Some JRP recommendations relate to future facilities for which applications have not yet been made to the NEB. Although some of these facilities were within the scope of the JRP's environmental review, they are not within the scope of the applications the NEB is currently considering. The NEB is considering not including conditions that relate to future applications in the decisions it must make in the GH-1-2004 proceeding. These recommendations will be available for consideration by the NEB when applications for the future facilities come before it. ... Should the MGP be approved, the JRP recommendations directed to the NEB with the possible modifications set out herein could be included as conditions in any approvals granted. For your reference a complete list of potential NEB conditions for the MGP is attached (Appendix 2) [described in ASTIS record 69529]. ... (Au)

Mackenzie Gas Project - GH-1-2004 Hearing : proposed conditions for the Mackenzie Valley Pipeline and Mackenzie Gathering System : attachment to NEB letter dated 9 March, 2010   /   Canada. National Energy Board
[Calgary, Alta. : NEB, 2010].
67 p. ; 28 cm.
Indexed a PDF file from the Web that is an attachment to the 4-page letter from Anne-Marie Erickson, Acting Secretary, NEB, dated March 9, 2010, to Robert Hornel, Chair, Joint Review Panel for the Mackenzie Gas Project, described in ASTIS record 69527.
This attachment (i.e. the 67 page document) has been referred to as Appendix 2 in the aforementioned letter, but not in the document itself.
ASTIS record 69529.
Languages: English
Web: https://apps.neb-one.gc.ca/REGDOCS/Item/Filing/A24633

[This document outlines the] ... proposed conditions that the National Energy Board (NEB) may include in any certificate, authorization or approval should the applications submitted by the Proponents for the Mackenzie Valley Pipeline (MVP or Project) and the Mackenzie Gathering System (MGS or Project) be approved. Unless otherwise specified in the condition, pre-construction activities include activities such as: clearing and grading for infrastructure development; construction and operation of camp facilities; the development of borrow pits, roads, airstrips; snow pad construction; the transportation and stockpiling of fuel and material; and geotechnical investigations necessary for the construction of the pipeline project. Pre-construction activities may include other activities such as clearing of the right of way if approved by the NEB. Pre-construction activities do not include activities associated with normal surveying operations or data collection activities. Unless otherwise specified in the condition, pipe-laying operations include the clearing of vegetation in proximity of water crossings and on thaw sensitive slopes, as well as grading and trenching and other forms of right of way and station site preparation that may have an effect on the environment through to final clean-up and reclamation. ... (Au)

Hearing Order MH-1-2010 regarding National Energy Board Policy for Same Season Relief Well Capability for Drilling in the Beaufort Sea   /   Canada. National Energy Board
Calgary, Alta. : NEB, 2010.
[1], [1], 21 p. ; 28 cm.
Indexed a PDF file from the Web that contained a 1-page cover letter from Anne-Marie Erickson, Acting Secretary, NEB, dated 5 February, 2010; a 1-page table of contents; and the 21-page Hearing Order MH-1-2010 regarding National Energy Board Policy for Same Season Relief Well Capability for Drilling in the Beaufort Sea.
Appendix I: Timetable of events - Appendix II: Application for participants - Appendix III: Distribution list for Hearing Order MH-1-2010 regarding National Energy Board Policy for Same Season Relief Well Capability for Drilling in the Beaufort Sea.
File: OF-EP-Well 05.
Also available in French under title: Ordonnance d'audience MH-1-2010 concernant la politique de l'énergie sur la capacité de forage de puits de secours au cours d'une saison dans la mer de Beaufort.
ASTIS record 69531.
Languages: English
Web: https://apps.neb-one.gc.ca/REGDOCS/Item/View/593741

On 23 October 2009 Imperial Oil Resource Ventures Ltd. applied to the National Energy Board (Board) for an advance ruling on Same Season Relief Well (SSRW) capability for drilling in the Beaufort Sea. The Board has decided to consider this application through a public hearing to review the Board's policy under the Canada Oil and Gas Operations Act (COGOA) on SSRW capability. Through this hearing process, the Board will look at its policy on SSRW capability generally and not just with regard to this application. The Board is of the view that a policy review will be helpful to applicants and to the Board when it is faced with deciding whether or not to require SSRW capability. Ms. Georgette Habib, Board Member, will preside pursuant to section 15 of the National Energy Board Act. The hearing will be conducted in writing after which a report and recommendations will be made to the Board on the matter of SSRW capability in the Beaufort Sea. A technical conference will be held early in the proceeding to allow Participants an opportunity to orally present their submissions, answer questions to clarify their submissions and suggest specific issues for the Board Member's review. The attached Hearing Order contains procedural directions for this proceeding up to the technical conference. Further directions will be issued for the conference and subsequent steps. ... (Au)

Mackenzie Gas Project - Hearing Order GH-1-2004 : procedural update no. 14 : National Energy Board Consult to Modify Process and Government of Canada comment period for the recommendations identified in the Joint Review Panel (JRP) report on the environmental impact review of the Mackenzie Gas Project   /   Canada. National Energy Board
Calgary, Alta. : NEB, 2010.
2, 1 p. ; 28 cm.
Indexed a PDF file from the Web that contained a 2-page letter from Anne-Marie Erickson, Acting Secretary, NEB, dated 6 January 2010, to Parties to the GH-1-2004 Hearing and Parties to the Joint Review Panel Hearing for the Mackenzie Gas Project.
This file also includes a 1-page attachment: Attachment 1: Schedule for Comments on the Joint Review Panel Recommendations.
ASTIS record 69560.
Languages: English
Web: https://apps.neb-one.gc.ca/REGDOCS/File/Download/605106

The National Energy Board (NEB) announced on 7 October 2009 that it would conduct a Consult to Modify Process regarding the Joint Review Panel for the Mackenzie Gas Project (JRP) Report. At the request of the Government of Canada, and for the convenience of all parties, the NEB is also providing a repository for comments on the JRP recommendations directed to other federal and territorial government departments and agencies. This Procedural Update addresses both the NEB Consult to Modify Process and comments directed to other government departments and agencies. The JRP released its Report (JRP Report) on 30 December 2009. The JRP Report and Mr. Harrison's section 15 report, also released on 30 December 2009, are part of the record for the GH-1-2004 hearing. The National Energy Board (NEB) will take these reports into account when it decides whether, and if so, on what conditions, to approve the five applications submitted to the NEB for the Mackenzie Gas Project. The JRP's overall recommendation is that the Mackenzie Gas Project may proceed subject to the full implementation of its recommendations, which are based on the evidence in the Joint Review Panel Hearing. The NEB will consider the recommendations that are directed at the NEB. Recommendations within the NEB's mandate may be included as conditions in any approvals the NEB may grant. Other government departments and agencies will consider the recommendations that are directed to them, as appropriate, in preparing the Governments' response. As part of reaching its decision on the Mackenzie Gas Project, the NEB will decide to do one of the following: i. adopt the JRP's overall recommendation; ii. adopt the overall recommendation with modifications; or, iii. reject the overall recommendation. The NEB will consult the JRP on any potential modifications to the JRP's overall recommendation or if it decides to reject that recommendation. Parties to the NEB's GH-1-2004 Hearing and parties to the JRP Hearing are invited to provide comments on the JRP recommendations that are within the NEB's mandate. Comments must be filed with the NEB, and served on the Applicants and all other parties by the deadlines in the attached schedule. ... (Au)

Mackenzie Gas Project - Hearing Order GH-1-2004 : procedural update no. 16 : cross-examination on updated economic feasibility evidence   /   Canada. National Energy Board
Calgary, Alta. : NEB, 2010.
1 p. ; 28 cm.
Indexed a PDF file from the Web that contained a 1-page letter from Anne-Marie Erickson, Acting Secretary, NEB, dated 22 February 2010, to All Parties to the GH-1-2004 Hearing.
ASTIS record 69562.
Languages: English
Web: https://apps.neb-one.gc.ca/REGDOCS/File/Download/601106

In accordance with Board Ruling #26 issued on 22 February 2010, the National Energy Board (NEB) will resume its Hearing for the Mackenzie Gas Project to allow cross-examination on Imperial's updated economic feasibility evidence which is required to be filed no later than 15 March 2010. The procedures set out in Hearing Order GH-1-2004 will apply subject to this Procedural Update. 1. The Hearing will resume on Monday 29 March 2010 at Northern United Place, 5403 - 50 Avenue (Franklin Ave), Yellowknife, NT. The Hearing will commence at 1:00 p.m. Hearing time may be scheduled in the evening, if necessary, to assist parties if they so request. The Hearing will be broadcast live on the NEB's website. To listen go to www.neb-one.gc.ca and follow the instructions. 2. Imperial will present its Economic Feasibility Panel to adopt its evidence and be available for cross-examination. Cross examination will be limited to the new evidence filed by Imperial. ... (Au)

Additional procedural directions for MH-1-2010 National Energy Board Policy Hearing for Same Season Relief Well Capability for Drilling in the Beaufort Sea   /   Canada. National Energy Board
Calgary, Alta. : NEB, 2010.
[2], 4, [1] p. ; 28 cm.
Indexed a PDF file from the Web.
A 1-page cover letter, dated 19 March 2010, addressed to: All participants to MH-1-2010, from Anne-Marie Erickson, Acting Secretary of the National Energy Board, precedes the "Additional procedural directions ..." letter.
Appendix I : Timetable of events.
ASTIS record 69676.
Languages: English
Web: https://apps.neb-one.gc.ca/REGDOCS/Item/View/609394

The attached procedural directions outline the remaining process steps to be completed byParticipants registered in the National Energy Board's (NEB or Board) written policy hearing,MH-1-2010. ... (Au)

Information request no. 1 for MH-1-2010 : National Energy Board Policy Hearing for Same Season Relief Well (SSRW) Capability for Drilling in the Beaufort Sea : NEB file no. OF-EP-Well 05 02, 30 April 2010   /   Canada. National Energy Board
Calgary, Alta. : NEB, 2010.
1, 14 p. ; 28 cm.
Indexed a PDF file from the Web that contained a 1-page cover letter from Anne-Marie Erickson, Acting Secretary, NEB, dated 30 April 2010, with attached information requests pertinent to various participants' submissions to Hearing Order MH-1-2010, National Energy Board Policy Hearing for Same Season Relief Well Capability for Drilling in the Beaufort Sea.
ASTIS record 71204.
Languages: English
Web: https://apps.neb-one.gc.ca/REGDOCS/File/Download/614518

The National Energy Board, in examining written submissions regarding MH-1-2010, the NEB hearing for Same Season Relief Well Capability for Drilling in the Beaufort Sea, has issued information request, IR no. 1. While the cover letter is addressed to all paricipants in the hearing process, individual IRs are addressed to particular participants or groups of participants, and their submissions, as received by the NEB. Participants are asked to respond to the IRs addressed to them. All participants are directed to file their repsonses to IR No. 1 with the NEB by noon, Calgary time, 18 May 2010. (ASTIS)

Background on the Government of Canada's Policy for Same Season Relief Well Capability for Drilling in the Beaufort Sea   /   Canada. National Energy Board
Calgary, Alta. : NEB, 2010.
1 p. ; 28 cm.
Indexed a PDF file from the Web.
File: OF-EP-Well 05.
Date: 8 February 2010.
ASTIS record 71205.
Languages: English
Web: https://docs2.neb-one.gc.ca/ll-eng/llisapi.dll/Open/593940

The Government of Canada's position on the requirement for same season relief well capability for drilling in the Beaufort Sea is articulated in Beaufort Sea Steering Committee, 1991, Report to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development Regarding Issues Arising from the Environmental Impact Review Board Reviews of the Isserk and Kulluk Drilling Program Applications, Canada Oil and Gas Lands Administration, Vol. 1 (Section 3.2) [described in ASTIS record 33778]. ... Other background documents related to the subject of Same Season Relief Well Capability include: Canada Oil and Gas Lands Administration (1990), The Prospect of an Oil Well Blowout in the Beaufort Sea - a discussion paper [described in ASTIS record 71207]; and Canada Oil and Gas Lands Administration - Engineering Branch (1989) Policy on Relief Well Drilling "Beaufort Sea" - A Commentary [described in ASTIS record 71206]. Copies of these two documents are available for public viewing, between 9:00am and 4:00pm, at: National Energy Board Library First Floor, 444 - 7th Avenue SW Calgary, AB T2P 0X8. Electronic copies may be requested by contacting the NEB Library toll free at 1-800-899-1265, locally at 403-299-3561 or publications@neb-one.gc.ca. (Au)

Governments of Canada & of the Northwest Territories final response to the Joint Review Panel report for the proposed Mackenzie Gas Project   /   Canada   Northwest Territories
[Canada : Government of Canada], 2010.
127 p. ; 28 cm.
Indexed a PDF file from the Web.
Report date: November 2010.
ASTIS record 71951.
Languages: English
Web: http://www.reviewboard.ca/upload/project_document/EIR0405-001_The_Mackenzie_Gas_Project_-_Governments__Response_to_Joint_Review_Panel_Report.PDF

Introduction: The following document is the Governments of Canada and the Northwest Territories Final Response to the Report of the Joint Review Panel for the Mackenzie Gas Project entitled Foundation for a Sustainable Future [described in ASTIS record 69090]. The Joint Review Panel released its Report on December 30, 2009 and concluded that, "... subject to the full implementation of the Panel's Recommendations, the adverse impacts of the Mackenzie Gas Project, and the associated Northwest Alberta Facilities would not likely be significant and that the Project and those facilities would likely make a positive contribution towards sustainability." The Governments of Canada and the Northwest Territories have concluded that the Final Response meets the overall intent of the Joint Review Panel's Report and its recommendations and have concluded that implementing the Response would eliminate or mitigate any significant adverse impacts of the Mackenzie Gas Project. The Governments' Response to the Joint Review Panel's Report is unique as it is the first time that a Response to an Environmental Impact Review has had to meet the combined statutory requirements of: The Mackenzie Valley Resource Management Act (MVRMA), the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act (CEAA) and the Western Arctic (Inuvialuit) Claims Settlement Act. The Response required approval under the MVRMA and the CEAA. The National Energy Board will consider the Governments' Response prior to releasing its 'Reasons for Decision' on whether to issue the Certificate for Public Convenience and Necessity under the National Energy Board Act for the Mackenzie Valley Pipeline and the four other applied for authorizations respecting the Mackenzie Gas Project under the Canada Oil and Gas Operations Act. (Au)

Public Review of Arctic Safety and Environmental Offshore Drilling Requirements - scope of the review and how it will be conducted   /   Canada. National Energy Board
[Calgary, Alta. : NEB, 2010].
4 p. ; 28 cm + 2 appendices (2, 3 p. ; 28 cm).
Indexed 3 PDF files from the Web: a 4-page cover letter from Anne-Marie Erickson, Acting Secretary, NEB, dated 20 September 2010, File OF-EP-Gen-AODR 01; Appendix A: the revised scope based on responses from those interested in participating in the review; Appendix B: Backgrounder - Financial Responsibility and Liability.
The cover letter is also available in French under title: Lettre - Revue publique des exigences relatives à la sécurité et à l'environnement pour les forages extracôtiers dans l'arctique - poutée et processus. Appendix A is also available in: Gwich'in translation, Innuinnaqtun translation, Inuvialuktun translation, Inuktitut translation. Appendix B is also available in French under title: Document d'information - Responsabilité civile et financière.
All information submitted during the course of this review will be posted and made available on the Board’s website (www.neb-one.gc.ca).
ASTIS record 71990.
Languages: English
Web: https://apps.neb-one.gc.ca/REGDOCS/Item/Filing/A26409

On 11 May 2010 the National Energy Board (Board) announced that it would conduct a review of Arctic safety and environmental offshore drilling requirements (the Arctic Review). The Arctic Review will examine the best available information concerning the hazards, risks and mitigation measures associated with offshore drilling activities in the Canadian Arctic and measures to both prevent and respond to accidents and malfunctions. On 10 June 2010, the Board released, for comment, a preliminary scope and invited registrations from those interested in participating in the review. The Board received more than 110 registrations, 60 of which contained comments. Scope of the Review: The Board thanks those who provided comments. The Board considered the comments received and has expanded the wording within the scope to provide added clarity. The revised scope is attached as Appendix A. Many of the comments received were contemplated within the preliminary scope, such as the long term effects of an incident, occupational safety hazards and technical drilling requirements. A number of comments were related to matters that are outside the jurisdiction of the Board. These include policy and legislative requirements in the Canada Oil and Gas Operations Act and the Canada Petroleum Resources Act, drilling moratoria, exploration licences and Canada's ability to respond to international spills. Many comments were related to Canada's regime for financial liability and responsibility for oil and gas activities. To facilitate understanding of this regime and the Board's role, the Board has prepared Backgrounder - Financial Responsibility and Liability (Appendix B). During the review, the Board will look at all costs and financing of spill clean-up, restoration and compensation for loss or damage. ... (Au)

Public Review of Arctic Safety and Environmental Offshore Drilling Requirements - phase 1 fact finding/information gathering - call for information   /   Canada. National Energy Board
[Calgary, Alta. : NEB, 2010].
2 p. ; 28 cm + attachment (16 p. ; 28 cm).
Indexed 1 PDF file from the Web that includes a 2-page cover letter from Anne-Marie Erickson, Acting Secretary, NEB, dated 30 September 2010, and a 16-page attachment to the letter: Call for Information No. 1 - National Energy Board Public Review of Arctic Safety and Environmental Offshore Drilling Requirements : NEB File No. OF-EP-Gen-AODR 01, 30 September 2010.
Title from Cover letter.
Updates and further information on the Arctic Review will be posted on the National Energy Board's website at Regulatory Documents for Arctic Offshore Drilling Review.
ASTIS record 71999.
Languages: English
Web: https://apps.neb-one.gc.ca/REGDOCS/Item/Filing/A26558

[The following scope items are discussed in this "Call for Information No. 1 document]. Scope item #1 - Potential hazards and risks associated with Arctic offshore drilling, including threats to public safety, worker safety and the environment; Scope item #4 - Effectiveness and reliability of available well control methods, including consideration of emerging technologies; Scope item #5 - State of preparedness to respond to drilling accidents, spills and malfunctions, including consideration of contingency planning requirements, emergency response planning requirements, infrastructure, equipment, supplies and training needs; Scope item #6 - Effectiveness and reliability of options for regaining well control, including relief wells; Scope item #8 - Financing spill clean-up, restoration and compensation for loss or damage; Scope item #9 - State of knowledge of long term impacts of a spill on the environment, way of life and communities in Canada's Arctic; Scope item #10 - Lessons learned from accidents, incidents and emergency response exercises, particularly those relevant to northern offshore environments. (Au)

Public Review of Arctic Safety and Environmental Offshore Drilling Requirements : preliminary scope   /   Canada. National Energy Board
[Calgary, Alta. : NEB, 2010].
2 p. ; 28 cm + attachment (1 p. ; 28 cm).
Indexed 1 PDF file from the Web that includes a 2-page cover letter from Anne-Marie Erickson, Acting Secretary, NEB, dated 10 June 2010, File OF-EP-Gen-AODR 01, and a 1-page attachment to the letter entitled: Public Review of Arctic Safety and Environmental Offshore Drilling Requirements - preliminary scope.
Title on cover letter: Public Review of Arctic Safety and Environmental Offshore Drilling Requirements.
Updates and further information on the Arctic Review will be posted on the National Energy Board's website at Regulatory Documents for Arctic Offshore Drilling Review.
Also available in French under title: Lettre et aperçu préliminaire - Examen public des exigences relatives à l'environnement pour les activités de forage extracôtier, and in Inuinnaqtun, Inuvialuktun and Inuktitut translations.
ASTIS record 72000.
Languages: English
Web: https://apps.neb-one.gc.ca/REGDOCS/Item/View/621864

This review is to support the ongoing implementation of the technical requirements for conducting offshore drilling under the Canada Oil and Gas Operations Act in compliance with the Canada Oil and Gas Drilling and Production Regulations. The review will engage industry and the public in examining the best available information concerning the hazards, risks and mitigation measures associated with offshore drilling activities in the Canadian Arctic and the measures to both prevent and respond to accidents and malfunctions. The results of the review will be incorporated in the examination, by the Board, of future applications for offshore drilling in the Arctic. The scope of this review will include: Drilling safely while protecting the environment: 1. Hazards and risks in conducting Arctic offshore drilling; 2. Effectiveness of measures employed to prevent and mitigate the risks associated with such activities; 3. State of knowledge on the Arctic offshore including the physical environment, biological environment and geosciences; 4. Effectiveness of available well control methods; Responding effectively when things go wrong: 5. State of preparedness to respond to drilling accidents and malfunctions in Canada's Arctic offshore; 6. Options for regaining well control; 7. Effectiveness of available spill containment and clean up options; 8. Financing spill clean-up, restoration and compensation for loss or damage; 9. State of knowledge of long term impacts of a spill on the environment, way of life and communities in Canada's Arctic; Learnings: 10. Lessons learned from major accidents and malfunctions, particularly those relevant to northern offshore environments; Filing requirements: 11. Information to be required from an applicant seeking authorization to drill an offshore well. (Au)

Mackenzie Gas Project - reasons for decision. Volume 1 - Respecting all voices : our journey to a decision. Volume 2 - Technical considerations : implementing the decision   /   Canada. National Energy Board
[Calgary, Alta. : NEB, 2010].
2 v. (78; 310 p.) : ill., maps ; 28 cm.
Available in paper and as PDF files from the Web.
Appendices.
Report date: December 2010.
ASTIS record 72654 describes the French version of this report.
ASTIS record 72652.
Languages: English
Web: https://www.neb-one.gc.ca/pplctnflng/mjrpp/archive/mcknzgs/rfd/index-eng.html?pedisable=true
Web: https://www.neb-one.gc.ca/pplctnflng/mjrpp/archive/mcknzgs/rfd/rfdv1-eng.pdf
Web: https://www.neb-one.gc.ca/pplctnflng/mjrpp/archive/mcknzgs/rfd/rfdv2-eng.pdf
Libraries: ACU

... Respecting all voices: Our journey to a decision describes what we learned on our journey. This volume [1] includes examples of the many voices we heard. By responding to the important questions asked during our hearing, we hope to show the reasoning that led to our decision. The other volume [2] of our report, Technical Considerations: Implementing the Decision, describes how the project would be built, operated and regulated. In Part 1 of Our journey, we discuss the project as a whole and some of the factors we assessed in determining whether it would be in the public interest. Part 2 looks more closely at the natural gas fields, gathering pipelines and processing facilities in the Mackenzie Delta region. Part 3 addresses the 1196 kilometre long natural gas pipeline that would run along the Mackenzie Valley to Alberta and the 457 kilometre pipeline that would carry natural gas liquids to Norman Wells. Part 4 outlines the decision that we reached at the end of our journey. We believe that this decision respects the many voices we heard along the way. (Au)

Projet gazier Mackenzie - motifs de décision. Volume 1. À l'écoute des opinions exprimées : notre voyage vers une décision. Volume 2. Mise en oeuvre de la décision : aspects techniques   /   Canada. National Energy Board
[Calgary, Alta. : NEB, 2010].
2 v. (78; 310 p.) : ill., maps ; 28 cm.
Available in paper and as 2 PDF files from the Web.
Appendices.
Report date: December 2010.
ASTIS record 72652 describes the English version of this report.
ASTIS record 72654.
Languages: French
Web: https://www.neb-one.gc.ca/pplctnflng/mjrpp/archive/mcknzgs/rfd/index-fra.html?pedisable=true
Web: https://www.neb-one.gc.ca/pplctnflng/mjrpp/archive/mcknzgs/rfd/rfdv1-fra.pdf
Web: https://www.neb-one.gc.ca/pplctnflng/mjrpp/archive/mcknzgs/rfd/rfdv2-fra.pdf
Libraries: ACU

À l'écoute des opinions exprimées: notre voyage vers une décision fait le récit de ce que nous avons entendu au cours de notre voyage. Le présent volume - le volume 1- relate de nombreux témoignages entendu. En répondant aux importantes questions qu'on nous a posées lars des audiences, nous espérons montrer ce que a motivé notre décision. Le volume 2 de notre rapport, Mise en œuvre de la décision : facteurs techniques, explique comment le projet serait construit, exploité et réglemente. La partie 1 de notre voyage explique en quoi consiste le projet et décrit certains facteur que nous avons évalués pour déterminer si le projet serait dans l'intérêt du public. La partie 2 se penche sur les champs de gaz naturel, les pipelines de collecte et les installations de traitement dans la région du delta du Mackenzie. La partie 3 s'intéresse au pipeline de gaz naturel de 1,196 km de longueur qui longerait la vallée du Mackenzie jusqu'en Alberta et au pipeline de 457 km qui transporterait des liquides de gaz naturel jusqu'à Norman Wells. La partie 4 enfin énonce la décision que nous avons prise au terme de notre voyage. Nous croyons que cette décision respecte les nombreuses opinions entendues tout au long du processus. (Au)

Public Review of Arctic Safety and Environmental Offshore Drilling Requirements (Arctic Review) - backgrounder, regulation of offshore drilling in the Canadian Arctic   /   Canada. National Energy Board
[Calgary, Alta. : NEB, 2010].
1 p. ; 28 cm + attachment (12 p. : ill., map ; 28 cm).
Indexed 2 PDF files from the Web: a 1-page cover letter from Anne-Marie Erickson, Secretary, NEB, dated 22 December 2010, and a 12-page "attachment" to the letter: Public Review of Arctic Safety and Environmental Offshore Drilling Requirements (Arctic Review) - backgrounder, regulation of offshore drilling in the Canadian Arctic : NEB File OF-EP-Gen-AODR 01, 22 December 2010.
Title from Cover letter.
Glossary.
ASTIS record 72717 describes the French versions of the cover letter and attachment.
References as footnotes.
Alternate title: Backgrounder - regulation of offshore drilling in the Canadian Arctic.
ASTIS record 72716.
Languages: English
Web: https://apps.neb-one.gc.ca/REGDOCS/Item/View/659374

On 11 May 2010 the National Energy Board (Board) announced that it would conduct a review of Arctic safety and environmental offshore drilling requirements (the Arctic Review). The Arctic Review will examine the best available information concerning the hazards, risks and mitigation measures associated with offshore drilling activities in the Canadian Arctic and measures to both prevent and respond to accidents and malfunctions. On 20 September 2010 the Board issued the scope of the Arctic Review and announced how it will be conducted [described in ASTIS record 71990]. The Board also stated that it would release a backgrounder on how it regulates offshore drilling activities. The Backgrounder, Regulation of Offshore Drilling in the Canadian Arctic, is attached [and described in this record]. (Au)

Revue publique des exigences relatives à la sécurité et à l'environnement pour les forages extracôtiers dans l'Arctique (revue du dossier Arctique) - document d'information, Réglementation du forage extracôtier dans l'Arctique canadien   /   Canada. National Energy Board
[Calgary, Alta. : NEB, 2010].
2 p. ; 28 cm + attachment (13 p. : ill., map ; 28 cm).
Indexed 2 PDF files from the Web: a 2-page cover letter from Anne-Marie Erickson, Secretary, NEB, dated December 22, 2010 and a 13-page "attachment" to the letter: Revue : NEB File OF-EP-Gen-AODR 01, 22 décembre 2010.
Title from Cover letter.
Glossary.
ASTIS record 72716 describes the English versions of the cover letter and attachment.
References as footnotes.
Alternate title: Document d'information - Réglementation du forage extracôtier dans l'Arctique canadien.
ASTIS record 72717.
Languages: French
Web: https://apps.neb-one.gc.ca/REGDOCS/%C3%89l%C3%A9ment/D%C3%A9p%C3%B4t/A27782

Le 11 mai 2010, l'Office national de l'énergie (l'Office) a annoncé qu'il procéderait à une revue des exigences relatives à la sécurité et à l'environnement pour les forages extracôtiers dans l'Arctique (revue du dossier Arctique). Il examinera la meilleure information disponible sur les dangers, les risques et les mesures d'atténuation associés aux activités de forage extracôtier dans l'Arctique canadien, et sur les mesures visant à prévenir les accidents et les défaillances ou à intervenir au besoin. Le 20 septembre 2010, l'Office a annoncé la portée et les étapes de la revue du dossier Arctique. Il a ajouté qu'il publierait un document d'information sur la manière dont il réglemente les activités de forage extracôtier. Le document d'information, Réglementation du forage extracôtier dans l'Arctique canadien, est joint à la présente. ... (Au)

Public Review of Arctic Safety and Environmental Offshore Drilling Requirements (Arctic Review) - phase 1 fact finding/information gathering - second call for information   /   Canada. National Energy Board
Calgary, Alta. : The Board, 2010.
2, 10 p. ; 28 cm.
Cover title.
Indexed a PDF file from the Web.
Attachment to Board letter: Call for information no. 2 : National Energy Board Public Review of Arctic Safety and Environmental Offshore Drilling requirements, NEB File No. OF-EP-Gen-AODR 01, 23 November 2010.
Also available in French under title: Revue publique des exigences relatives à la sécurité et à l'environnement pour les forages extracôtiers dans l'Arctique (revue du dossier Arctique) - première étape, enquête et collecte d'information - deuxième demande d'information.
ASTIS record 75775.
Languages: English
Web: https://apps.neb-one.gc.ca/REGDOCS/Item/View/653642

On 11 May 2010 the National Energy Board (Board) announced that it would conduct a review of Arctic safety and environmental offshore drilling requirements (the Arctic Review). The Arctic Review will examine the best available information concerning the hazards, risks and mitigation measures associated with offshore drilling activities in the Canadian Arctic and measures to both prevent and respond to accidents and malfunctions. On 30 September 2010 the Board issued its first Call for Information. The attached second Call for Information is also directed to all participants. The Board encourages participants to provide their responses to this Call for Information by 1 April 2011. The Board reminds participants that there will be an opportunity for comments and questions on the information gathered through the Calls for Information and from submissions from participants in Phase 2 of this review. Details of the process and timing of Phase 2 will be provided when these are available. Updates and further information on the Arctic Review will be posted on the Board's website at www.neb-one.gc.ca and will be sent to participants who have registered with the Board. For those who wish to participate in the review and have not yet registered, you can register on the Board's website or by providing contact information, including name, affiliation (if any) with an organization, mailing address, e-mail address, fax numbers and phone numbers to: Anne-Marie Erickson, Secretary of the Board National Energy Board, 444 Seventh Avenue S.W., Calgary, AB T2P 0X8. Facsimile 403-292-5503 (please quote file OF-EP-Gen-AODR 01). [The 10-page attachment accompanying this letter "Call for Information No. 2" addresses the following items: Scope Item #2 - Identification and the effectiveness of measures to prevent and mitigate the risks associated with Arctic offshore drilling, including the use of management systems; Scope Item #3 - State of knowledge of the Arctic offshore including the physical environment, biological environment and geosciences; Scope Item #7 - The effectiveness and availability of spill containment and clean-up options under Arctic conditions, including tracking methods, recovery technologies, procedures, equipment and trained personnel]. (Au)

Public Review of Arctic Safety and Environmental Offshore Drilling Requirements (the Arctic Review) - process update for phases 1 and 2   /   Canada. National Energy Board
Calgary, Alta. : The Board, 2010.
5 p. ; 28 cm.
Cover title.
Appendices.
Indexed a PDF file from the Web.
Also available in French under title: Revue publique des exigences relatives à la sécurité et à l'environnement pour les forages extracôtiers dans l'Arctique (Dossier Arctique) - le point sur le processus relatif aux étapes 1 et 2.
ASTIS record 75782.
Languages: English
Web: https://apps.neb-one.gc.ca/REGDOCS/Item/View/646181

On 20 September 2010, the National Energy Board (Board) issued a letter setting out the scope of the Arctic Review and a description of the three-phase process that will be used to conduct the Arctic Review. The Board is providing the following information to facilitate further participation in the Arctic Review as part of Phases 1 and 2. Phase 1 - Fact Finding and Information Gathering: Meetings to Gather Information: The Board will meet with various persons and groups to obtain the best available information relevant to the scope of the Arctic Review. Information on these meetings and summaries will be posted on the Board's website under Regulatory Documents for Arctic Offshore Drilling Review. For more information please see Appendix A: “Meetings to Gather Information”. Information to be Gathered under Contract by the Board: The Board will be retaining experts and consultants to help it gather the best available information for the Arctic Review. The Board invites participants to make suggestions as to what information they would like to see gathered. For more information please see Appendix B: “Information to be Gathered under Contract by the Board”. Phase 2 - Examination and Consideration of Facts and Information: Funding to Participate in Phase 2 Meetings - Travel: The Board will provide up to $300,000 in funding to assist with travel for eligible registrants' participation in Phase 2. Phase 2 will provide an opportunity for participants to examine and comment on the information gathered in Phase 1. For more information please see Appendix C: “Funding to Participate in Phase 2 Meetings - Travel”. When the dates and locations for the Phase 2 meetings have been finalized, the Board will issue a notice announcing how and when to apply for funding. The notice will be posted on the Board's website and will be sent to registered participants. ... (Au)

The past is always present : review of offshore drilling in the Canadian Arctic : preparing for the future   /   Canada. National Energy Board
Calgary, Alta. : NEB, 2011.
54 p. : ill., maps ; 28 cm.
ISBN 978-1-100-19765-4
Available from the Web in both HTML and PDF file formats.
Report date: December 2011.
See ASTIS record 79632 for the French version under title: Le passé imprègne le présent et contient le futur : la revue des forages extracôtiers dans l'Arctique canadien : préparons l'avenir.
This is a companion document to Filing Requirements for Offshore Drilling in the Canadian Arctic, described in ASTIS record 75207.
ASTIS record 75206.
Languages: English
Web: http://www.publications.gc.ca/site/eng/410014/publication.html
Web: https://www.neb-one.gc.ca/nrth/rctcffshrdrllngrvw/2011fnlrprt/2011fnlrprt-eng.pdf
Libraries: ACU

The Past is Always Present, Review of Offshore Drilling in the Canadian Arctic, Preparing for the Future, follows several months of extensive consultation carried out across the North during the NEB's Arctic Review. During the Arctic Review, many Northern residents stated that if drilling is to be authorized in the unique Arctic environment, it must be done right. The report's key findings include: The root cause of most offshore accidents is the lack of a broadly shared safety culture. In other words, people don't do what they are supposed to do. The NEB has the necessary tools to protect the safety of workers, the public and the unique Arctic environment. Northern residents want their voices to be heard in future decisions about offshore drilling, and they want to be involved in preparing for future drilling projects, in particular in training for emergencies. The NEB has re-affirmed its Same Season Relief Well Policy. Any company wishing to depart from it in a future application for a well would have to demonstrate to us how they would meet or exceed the intended outcome of the policy, which is to kill an out-of-control well in the same season in order to minimise harmful impacts on the environment. During the Arctic Review, industry representatives acknowledged Northern residents' concerns and committed to engaging communities in more meaningful ways, as early as possible in their planning processes. They also spoke of developing and offering appropriate training opportunities to Northerners to help prepare them for employment and business opportunities. (Au)

Filing Requirements for Offshore Drilling in the Canadian Arctic   /   Canada. National Energy Board
Calgary, Alta. : NEB, 2011.
34 p. : ill., maps ; 30 cm.
ISBN 978-1-100-19765-4
Available from the Web in both HTML and PDF file formats.
Report date: December 2011.
See ASTIS record 79631 for the French version under title: Exigences de dépôt relatives aux forages extracôtiers dans l'Arctique canadien.
This is a companion document to The Past is Always Present, Review of Offshore Dilling in the Canadian Arctic, Preparing for the Future, described in ASTIS record 75206.
ASTIS record 75207.
Languages: English
Web: https://apps.neb-one.gc.ca/REGDOCS/Item/View/773372
Libraries: ACU

The National Energy Board Filing Requirements for Offshore Drilling in the Canadian Arctic (Filing Requirements) specify the information to be submitted to the National Energy Board (NEB or Board) in support of an application for an authorization for offshore drilling activities. The Filing Requirements are intended to provide clarity regarding the NEBs expectations for the information to be filed with an application. The applicant must demonstrate to the Board that it has complied with applicable legislation and regulatory requirements. The Filing Requirements should be read in association with the Canada Oil and Gas Operations Act (COGOA) and its regulations, particularly the Canada Oil and Gas Drilling and Production Regulations and Guidelines issued by the NEB regarding these regulations. (Au)

National Energy Board staff observations of the Cairn Energy Drilling Program : Disko West Offshore Greenland - Sigguk Block = Observations du personnel de l'Office national de l'énergie sur le programme de forage de Cairn Energy : Disko, au large du la côte ouest du Groenland, bloc Sugguk   /   Canada. National Energy Board
Calgary, Alta. NEB, 2011.
9 p. : ill., maps ; 28 cm.
ISBN 978-1-100-18305-3, 978-1-100-97034-9
Cover title.
Indexed a PDF file from the Web.
Report available in both English and French.
ASTIS record 75751.
Languages: English
Web: https://apps.neb-one.gc.ca/REGDOCS/Item/View/690404

During the late summer of 2010, a National Energy Board (NEB) team (consisting of NEB staff members and a contractor) traveled to Greenland on the invitation of the Bureau of Minerals and Petroleum of Greenland to observe the offshore drilling activities being conducted by Cairn Energy PLC. The NEB team conducted two observation trips on board the Stena Forth drill ship and the Stena Don semi-submersible vessel in August 2010. The attached Report contains a summary of the team’s observations. The Board has authorized the publication of this Report as an account of the team’s observations. This Report does not reflect the views of the Board nor should it stand as an endorsement of any current or possible processes used or actions taken by any company undertaking drilling activities. The Report is being filed with the Arctic Offshore Drilling Review. (Au)

Roundtable : Public Review of Arctic Safety and Environmental Offshore Drilling Requirements = Table ronde : Examen public des exigences relatives à la sécurité et à l'environnement pour les activités de forage extracôtier dans l'Arctique   /   International Reporting Inc.   Canada. National Energy Board [Sponsor]
Ottawa : International Reporting Inc., 2011.
5 v. ; 28 cm.
Cover title: National Energy Board Public Review of Arctic Safety and Environmental Offshore Drilling Requirements = Office national de l'énergie Examen public des exigences relatives à la sécurité et à l'environnement pour les activités de forage extracôtier dans l'Arctique.
Indexed five PDF files from the Web.
Contents: Volume 1: Roundtable held at Midnight Sun Complex, Inuvik, Northwest Territories, September 12, 2011 = Table ronde tenue au Midnight Sun Complex, Inuvik, Northwest Territories, le 12 septembre 2011 - Volume 2: Roundtable held at Midnight Sun Complex, Inuvik, Northwest Territories, September 13, 2011 = Table ronde tenue au Midnight Sun Complex, Inuvik, Northwest Territories, le 13 septembre 2011 - Volume 3: Roundtable held at Midnight Sun Complex, Inuvik, Northwest Territories, September 14, 2011 = Table ronde tenue au Midnight Sun Complex, Inuvik, Northwest Territories, le 14 septembre 2011 - Volume 4: Roundtable held at Midnight Sun Complex, Inuvik, Northwest Territories, September 15, 2011 = Table ronde tenue au Midnight Sun Complex, Inuvik, Northwest Territories, le 15 septembre 2011 - Volume 5: Roundtable held at Midnight Sun Complex, Inuvik, Northwest Territories, September 16, 2011 = Table ronde tenue au Midnight Sun Complex, Inuvik, Northwest Territories, le 16 septembre 2011.
ASTIS record 75754.
Languages: English
Web: https://www.neb-one.gc.ca/nrth/rctcffshrdrllngrvw/whtsnwrchv-eng.html?=undefined&wbdisable=true
Web: https://www.neb-one.gc.ca/nrth/rctcffshrdrllngrvw/whtsnwrchv-fra.html?=undefined&wbdisable=true

This publication is the recorded verbatim transcript and, as such, is taped and transcribed in either of the official languages, depending on the languages spoken by the participant at the public hearing. ... I would like to recognize that our Roundtable has representatives from the Northwest Territories, Nunavut, the Yukon, many other locations in Canada, as well as Greenland, Norway, and the United States. The Roundtable is a chance to be together, to share our views on Arctic offshore drilling, to examine and comment on all aspects of the Arctic Review and to ask questions of each other. During the Roundtable we will share knowledge. We will seek to understand each other and we will talk about the information people will want to see in future applications to drill an offshore well in the Arctic. The Roundtable is not an NEB hearing; no decisions about future offshore wells will be made here or in the Board's public report on the Arctic Review which we still plan to release before the end of 2011. ... A key product of the Arctic Review will be a list of the information or filing requirements that the NEB will require before it can make a decision on future Arctic offshore drilling projects. We want to hear what you have to say about that. This is the main concrete thing we need to nail down before the end of 2011 as part of our final public report. On behalf of all the Board Members, I would like everyone gathered here to focus our knowledge, wisdom and energy to help answer the main question: What do Northerners and other Canadians want to see in future applications for Arctic offshore drilling? (Au)

Comparing the offshore drilling regulatory regimes of the Canadian Arctic, the U.S., the U.K., Greenland, and Norway   /   Pembina Institute for Appropriate Development   Dagg, J.   Holroyd, P.   Lemphers, N.   Lucas, R.   Thibault, B.   Severson-Baker, C.   Kennett, S.   Leaton, J.   Wheeler, B.   Franchuk, R. [Editor]   Canada. National Energy Board [Sponsor]
Drayton Valley, Alta. : Pembina Institute, 2011.
ii, 3-179 p. ; 28 cm.
Appendices.
References.
Report date: June 2011.
ASTIS record 75815 describes a stand-alone executive summary for this report.
Indexed a PDF file available online.
ASTIS record 75763.
Languages: English
Web: http://www.pembina.org/pub/comparing-offshore-drilling-regulatory-regimes-of-canadian-arctic-u-s-u-k-greenland-and-norway
Web: http://www.pembina.org/reports/comparing-offshore-oil-and-gas-regulations.pdf

... As the regulator for Arctic offshore oil and gas drilling and production, the National Energy Board (NEB) ensures that offshore drilling is conducted safely while protecting the environment. On May 11th, 2010, the NEB announced that it would conduct a review of Arctic safety and environmental offshore drilling requirements (the Arctic Review). The Arctic Review will examine the best available information concerning the hazards, risks and mitigation measures associated with offshore drilling activities in the Canadian Arctic and measures to both prevent and respond to accidents and malfunctions. To facilitate effective public participation in the Arctic Review, the NEB commissioned this report to compare key aspects of the regulatory regimes in the Canadian Arctic with those in the Greenland, Norway, United Kingdom (U.K.), and the United States of America (U.S.). The report identifies similarities and differences between regulatory regimes, focusing particularly on: Overview of regulations and regulatory regimes (Chapter 2); Management systems requirements (Chapter 3); Drilling and well activities (Chapter 4); Facility and drilling system requirements (Chapter 5); Requirements for well control (Chapter 6); Independent verification of safety (Chapter 7); and Oil spill preparedness requirements (Chapter 8). ... The objective for this study, as stated in the NEB's Request for Proposals, is to provide "a side-by-side comparison of offshore oil and gas drilling regimes" based on "a review of the existing regulatory documents that are available from the regulator or government website." The NEB confirmed at a project planning meeting that the scope of the jurisdictional review should be limited to statutes and associated regulations enacted by the national governments and should not extend to guidelines, codes of practice, management plans and other similar documents containing standards or procedures that may in some cases be applied to offshore drilling. Territorial, provincial or state-specific regulations were also excluded according to instructions from the NEB. This report reflects this direction on project scope, although it refers to guidelines in some jurisdictions that are mentioned, or incorporated by reference, in legislative provisions. The legislation and regulations reviewed in this report are current as of March 15, 2011. Any changes to the regimes after that date or any upcoming changes were not included in the review. The offshore regulatory regime in Canada reviewed in this document excludes legislation and regulation specific to the offshore regimes in Nova Scotia and Newfoundland-Labrador .... (Au)

Major hazards incidents : Arctic Offshore Drilling Review   /   Det norske Veritas (Canada) Ltd.   Fuentes, F.   Canada. National Energy Board [Sponsor]
Calgary, Alta. : Det Norske Veritas, 2011.
v, 51, [6], 13 p. : ill. ; 28 cm.
Appendices.
References.
Cover title.
Report date: February 2011.
Indexed a PDF file available online.
ASTIS record 75766.
Languages: English
Web: https://apps.neb-one.gc.ca/REGDOCS/Item/Filing/A30021

On 11 May 2010 the National Energy Board (Board) announced that it would conduct a review of Arctic safety and environmental offshore drilling requirements (the Arctic Review). The Arctic Review will examine the best available information concerning the hazards, risks and mitigation measures associated with offshore drilling activities in the Canadian Arctic and measures to both prevent and respond to accidents and malfunctions. Investigations conducted into previous major accidents reveal that systemic or organizational deficiencies lead or contributed to those accidents. Understanding whether there are any trends, such as specific management system failures which put an organization at greater risk for a catastrophic event, would be of interest in the context of the Arctic Review. In November 2010 the Board contracted Det Norske Veritas (DNV) to conduct a comparative analysis of major accidents in order to identify trends related to root cause(s) and contributing factors. The major accidents selected for the assessment includes: Ocean Ranger 1982, Chernobyl 1986, Piper Alpha 1988, Westray 1992, Longford 1998, Columbia 2003 and Texas City 2005. The assessment of each accident includes a context and synopsis of the event, key findings and an analysis. The key findings are summarized from the information obtained from the official investigation or inquiry reports which were supplied to DNV by the NEB. The list of reports provided is included in the Reference section at the end of this report. In order to be able to identify trends and conduct a direct comparison of the findings from the various accidents, the key findings were categorized on the basis of the NEB Management and Protection Program Evaluation and Audit Protocol. The protocol is used by the NEB to assess the adequacy and effectiveness of companies' management and protection programs. The assessment of these accidents indicated that, although most of the organisations had programs or systems developed, they were not effectively implemented or reviewed on a regular basis to monitor the adequacy and effectiveness of the programs. Also, for most of the incidents an adequate hazard identification and risk assessment process had not been followed. The relevance of these issues become important because the basic responsibility for the safe operation of any activity lies with management of the organization which must ensure all the applicable programs and systems are implemented, reviewed and updated on a regular basis to reflect any required improvements. In addition, in most cases the applicable regulatory oversight was not comprehensive or focussed enough to ensure gaps were identified and the required corrective and preventive actions were developed and implemented. (Au)

Spill response gap study for the Canadian Beaufort Sea and the Canadian Davis Strait   /   S.L. Ross Environmental Research Ltd.   Canada. National Energy Board [Sponsor]
Ottawa : S.L. Ross Environmental Research Ltd., 2011.
ii, 34 p. ; 28 cm.
Appendix.
References.
Report date: July 12, 2011.
ASTIS record 75817 describes a summary report for this document.
Indexed a PDF file available online.
ASTIS record 75769.
Languages: English
Web: https://apps.neb-one.gc.ca/REGDOCS/Item/Filing/A30372

... This report was prepared under contract No. 110027 with the National Energy Board (NEB) to complete an oil spill response gap study for the Canadian Beaufort Sea and the Canadian Davis Strait. The spill response "gap" is broadly defined as the percentage of time that a spill response option cannot be implemented due to environmental conditions such as winds, waves, temperature, visibility, and daylight. This gap analysis is part of the NEB's Arctic Review initiative that is engaging industry and the public to review Arctic safety and environmental offshore drilling requirements. The gap analysis will provide valuable input to three major areas of interest in the review as presented in its scope summary: 1. Identification and effectiveness of measures employed to prevent and mitigate the risks associated with Arctic offshore drilling, including the use of management systems. 2. State of knowledge on the Arctic offshore, including the physical environment, biological environment and geosciences; and 3. The effectiveness and availability of spill containment and clean-up options under Arctic conditions, including tracking methods, recovery technologies, procedures, equipment and trained personnel. ... The primary project objective, as outlined in the original NEB Request for Proposals, is to: "Provide estimates about when and how long primary recovery and clean-up techniques of mechanical recovery, dispersants, and in-situ burning would be unavailable due to environmental factors such as adverse ice conditions, fog, darkness, higher sea states, etc." ... The project objectives were achieved in four broad tasks: 1. Assimilation of pertinent meteorological and oceanographic information. 2. Identification of primary countermeasures operating limitations. 3. Completion of response gap analysis. 4. Preparation of summary and final reports. ... (Au)

State of knowledge review of fate and effect of oil in the Arctic marine environment   /   Lee, K.   Boudreau, M.   Bugden, J.   Burridge, L.   Cobanli, S.E.   Courtenay, S.   Grenon, S.   Hollebone, B.   Kepkay, P.   Li, Z.   Lyons, M.   Niu, H.   King, T.L.   MacDonald, S.   McIntyre, E.C.   Robinson, B.   Ryan, S.A.   Wohlgeschaffen, G.   Canada. National Energy Board [Sponsor]
Dartmouth, N.S. : Fisheries and Oceans Canada, 2011.
vii, 259 p. : ill., maps ; 28 cm.
Appendix.
References.
Indexed a PDF file available online.
ASTIS record 75771.
Languages: English
Web: https://apps.neb-one.gc.ca/REGDOCS/Item/View/704342

The improvement of policies and regulations for spill response/remediation technologies, and contingency plans for marine environmental protection to address the anticipated growth of Canada's offshore petroleum industry in the North will require the best available information on the factors and processes influencing the fate and effects of oil released into the marine environment. As the result of past interests in the development of oil and gas resources in the Canadian Arctic, as well as studies by other northern countries, a vast amount of basic information exists to fulfill our need for science based advice to support environmental risk assessments. However, this review of emerging environmental concerns has also identified a number of knowledge gaps that should be addressed to ensure the protection of our marine habitat and its living resources within the Arctic. The risk of having an oil spill in Canadian Arctic waters is anticipated to increase because of community growth that will increase marine traffic and industrial development including offshore oil exploration and production. ... A combination of laboratory, mesocosm and field studies have shown that the physico-chemical properties of oil, temperature and the presence or absence of ice will influence the fate and behaviour of oil spilled in the environment as well as the effectiveness of spill response operations. For example, due to reduced rates of evaporative loss under cold temperature conditions, oil will retain its viscosity and remain more persistent in Arctic waters. On the other hand, there can also be some advantages to consider when oil is spilled in ice infected waters. The decrease in oil evaporation may retain an oil's flash point and viscosity providing an ideal environment for in situ burning (ISB). The results of recent field tests have also demonstrated that the inhibition of "oil-weathering" processes (natural, physical and chemical processes that oil undergoes following its release into the environment) in ice and cold temperatures prolonged the window of opportunity for the application of chemical oil dispersants as a spill response strategy. In addition to active oil spill response strategies, there is also a renewed interest in the potential rates of natural recovery in the Arctic following oil spill events. This is largely due to advances in the application of biotechnology techniques in microbial ecology that have highlighted the significance of natural oil biodegradation rates by indigenous bacteria and the influence of suspended particulate material on the dispersion and biodegradation rates of residual oil. In terms of the development of predictive models on the fate, behaviour and effects of oil on various components of the Arctic ecosystem, while there is a considerable amount of existing data, the results from experimental studies are largely anecdotal or empirical in nature. As a result, there is limited data of use for the development of integrated risk assessment models that fully take into account the numerous physical, chemical and biological processes within the Arctic ecosystem. A multitude of biological effects have been observed in toxicological studies with oil with a range of biota covering multiple trophic levels. ... To address the knowledge gaps identified in this review, additional scientific research in Canadian Arctic waters, including the conduct of large-scale field trials, should be conducted on: 1) the behaviour, transport and fate of oil spilled in the Canadian Arctic; methodologies to monitor acute and chronic biological effects and recovery on multi-trophic level valued ecosystem components; and 3) the development, application and validation of oil spill countermeasures including natural recovery (natural attenuation). To optimize the use of scientific expertise and resources, the research program would contribute towards an international pan-Arctic global effort involving both government and non-government organizations including academia and the private sector. (Au)

Public Review of Arctic Safety and Environmental Offshore Drilling Requirements - advance notice of National Energy Board's questions for Inuvik Roundtable   /   Canada. National Energy Board
Calgary, Alta. : The Board, 2011.
5 p. ; 28 cm.
Cover title.
Indexed a PDF file from the Web.
Also available in French under title: Revue publique des exigences relatives à la sécurité et à l'environnement pour les forages extracôtiers dans l'Arctique - préavis sur les questions de l'Office national de l'énergie à la table ronde d'Inuvik.
ASTIS record 75773.
Languages: English
Web: https://apps.neb-one.gc.ca/REGDOCS/Item/View/710736

In its process update dated 5 July 2011, the Board strongly encouraged participants who intend to ask detailed or technical questions to submit the specific areas of their questions to the Board by 29 August 2011, for posting on the Arctic Review webpage. While the 29 August 2011 deadline for questions was selected for the convenience of all Roundtable participants, late submissions will still be posted. The Board has reviewed the submissions to the Arctic Review as well as public reports including those on the BP Macondo Deepwater Horizon disaster, and will ask questions of clarification at the Inuvik Roundtable along the following themes. The purpose of the Board's questions will be to better understand documents being considered in the Arctic Review. Illustrative references have been provided from the Arctic Review record. These lines of questions will support the Board's work towards the publication of filing requirements for any future offshore drilling applications. The Board's questions will be raised in Part 2 of the Roundtable, in Themes 1 through 5. Board questions may be directed to various Roundtable participants, depending on the context of the discussion. The Board anticipates that its questions will require up to 3 hours throughout Part 2 of the Roundtable. (Au)

Public Review of Arctic Safety and Environmental Offshore Drilling Requirements - process update for the Inuvik Roundtable Meeting   /   Canada. National Energy Board
Calgary, Alta. : The Board, 2011.
3 p. ; 28 cm + 1 agenda (2 p. ; 28 cm).
Cover title.
Appendix 1 : Agenda - Inuvik Roundtable, Midnight Sun Recreation Centre, Inuvik (Saturday 10 September - Friday 16 September 2011).
Indexed PDF files from the Web.
Also available in French under title: Revue publique des exigences relatives à la sécurité et à l'environnement pour les forages extracôtiers dans l'Arctique - compte rendu sur le processus pour la table ronde à Inuvik [and] Annexe 1 : Programme - Table ronde d'Inuvik, Centre récréatif Midnight Sun, Inuvik (du samedi 10 septembre au vendredi 16 septembre 2011).
ASTIS record 75777.
Languages: English
Web: https://apps.neb-one.gc.ca/REGDOCS/Item/View/699563

This is a process update for the Inuvik Roundtable Meeting, part of Phase 2 of the Arctic Review. Previous process updates containing background information are available on the Arctic Review webpage. ... The purpose of the Inuvik Roundtable is to provide an opportunity to examine and comment on all elements of the scope of the Arctic Review, to pose questions and express their views. Participants will be able to: examine information gathered on the hazards, risks and safety measures associated with offshore drilling in the Canadian Arctic and ask questions of other participants in an informal setting; hear from experts and share technical information about drilling in the Canadian Arctic; and tell the Board what they would like to see in the Arctic Review report including specific filing requirements. Following the Roundtable, the Board will consider what it has heard and will write a public report which will include information that the Board will require should an application for offshore drilling in the Canadian Arctic be filed. Schedule: The Roundtable Meeting will be held at the Midnight Sun Recreation Centre in Inuvik from 10 to 16 September 2011. As announced in the process update of 7 April 2011, the Roundtable is designed around a five-day agenda. A detailed agenda for the Roundtable is attached in Appendix 1. (Au)

Public Review of Arctic Safety and Environmental Offshore Drilling Requirements - process update for phase 2   /   Canada. National Energy Board
Calgary, Alta. : The Board, 2011.
3 p. ; 28 cm + 1 agenda (1 p. ; 28 cm).
Cover title.
Appendix 1 : Agenda - Inuvik Roundtable, Midnight Sun Recreation Centre, Inuvik (Saturday 10 September - Friday 16 September 2011).
Indexed PDF files from the Web.
Also available in French under title: Revue publique des exigences relatives à la sécurité et à l'environnement pour les forages extracôtiers dans l'Arctique - 2e étape [and] Annexe 1 : Grandes lignes de l'ordre du jour - Table ronde à Inuvik (samedi 10 septembre - vendredi 16 septembre 2011).
ASTIS record 75779.
Languages: English
Web: https://apps.neb-one.gc.ca/REGDOCS/Item/View/680416

The purpose of Phase 2 of the Arctic Review is to provide an opportunity for participants to examine and comment on information that has been collected, pose questions, and put forward their views. In addition to the opportunity to provide written submissions throughout the Arctic Review, participants will be able to attend information meetings in various locations as well as a Roundtable Meeting in Inuvik. Information Meetings: Board staff will hold information meetings in four Northern locations: Inuvik - Ingamo Hall, 16-17 May 2011 Whitehorse - Westmark Hotel, 19 May 2011 Iqaluit - St. Jude's Anglican Parish Hall, 31 May 2011 Yellowknife - Tree of Peace Centre, 2 June 2011. The Board is also scheduling additional information meetings in other Northern communities. ... (Au)

Public Review of Arctic Safety and Environmental Offshore Drilling Requirements - process update and recommendations of areas for information gathering   /   Canada. National Energy Board
Calgary, Alta. : The Board, 2011.
4 p. ; 28 cm.
Cover title.
Indexed a PDF file from the Web.
Also available in French under title: Revue publique des exigences relatives à la sécurité et à l'environnement pour les forages extracôtiers dans l'Arctique - compte rendu sur la procédure et recommandations pour la collecte d'information.
ASTIS record 75780.
Languages: English
Web: https://apps.neb-one.gc.ca/REGDOCS/Item/View/673407

This is a process update for the Arctic Review, including a response to participants’ recommendations for areas to gather more information through contracted studies. This update is also a response to letters of inquiry received from participants. On 18 January 2011, the National Energy Board received a letter from the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers (CAPP) asking for guidance on several process matters on the Arctic Review. The Board also received a request from Chevron Canada Limited (Chevron) dated 1 February 2011 for an extension from 1 April 2011 to 1 June 2011 to file its responses to the Board’s first Call for Information (CFI) dated 1 October 2010, and second CFI dated 23 November 2010. Previous process updates containing background information are available on the Arctic Review webpage. Phase 1 – Fact Finding and Information Gathering. ... WWF-Canada, the Communications, Energy and Paperworkers Union of Canada (CEP), and the Government of the Northwest Territories (GNWT) have suggested areas for inquiry and recommended experts and consultants the Board might retain (letters dated 29 November 2010; 30 November 2010; and 6 December 2010, respectively). The Board appreciates the thoroughness of these recommendations. The Board has decided to engage specialists in four suggested areas of study: 1. oil spill response gap estimates for the Arctic offshore, for the Beaufort Sea and Davis Strait scenarios described in CFIs 1 and 2; 2. assess available oil spill trajectory modeling and modifications that may be required to simulate Arctic oil spill trajectories; and 3. compare offshore drilling regulatory regimes with a discussion of innovations in other jurisdictions including, but not limited to, Norway and the United Kingdom. During the Phase 1 meetings in Inuvik and in the Inuvialuit Settlement Region, Northern residents expressed concerns about the long term effects of artificial islands constructed during drilling activities in the North in the 1970s and 1980s. As a result, the Board will be contracting specialists to undertake research in a fourth area: 4. review of previous studies conducted in the Canadian Arctic offshore, with emphasis on the Canadian Beaufort Sea, for potential geo-hazards that could be encountered while undertaking oil and gas drilling. The reports resulting from the contracts, which the Board expects will be available in May 2011, will be posted on the Arctic Review webpage. Phase 2 - Examination and Consideration of Facts and Information: Phase 2 of the Arctic Review will provide an opportunity for participants to examine and comment on information that has been collected, pose questions, and put forward their views. In addition to the opportunity to provide written submissions throughout the Arctic Review, participants will be able to attend information meetings in various locations, and a roundtable meeting in Inuvik. ... Board staff will hold information meetings in May or June 2011 in Inuvik, Iqaluit, Whitehorse, and Yellowknife. The purpose of these meetings will be to: discuss participants' information needs; answer questions about the role and mandate of the NEB, and the scope of the Arctic Review; provide participants with an overview of the information gathered in the Arctic Review; provide participants with an opportunity to comment on issues being considered in the Arctic Review; help participants who may be interested in planning any questions or presentations for the Inuvik roundtable meeting (see next section); and assist participants interested in applying for funding to attend the Inuvik roundtable meeting. ... Phase 3 – Public Report on the Arctic Review: The outcome of the Arctic Review will be a public report clarifying the filing requirements for future applications for offshore drilling in the Canadian Arctic. ... (Au)

Executive summary : comparing the Arctic offshore drilling regulatory regimes of the Canadian Arctic, the U.S., the U.K., Greenland, and Norway   /   Pembina Institute for Appropriate Development   Canada. National Energy Board [Sponsor]
[Drayton Valley, Alta.] : Pembina Institute, [2011].
10 p. ; 28 cm.
This document is a summary of the full report described by ASTIS record 75763.
Indexed a PDF file available online.
ASTIS record 75815.
Languages: English
Web: http://www.pembina.org/pub/comparing-offshore-drilling-regulatory-regimes-of-canadian-arctic-u-s-u-k-greenland-and-norway
Web: http://www.pembina.org/reports/comparing-offshore-regulations-executive-summary.pdf

... The National Energy Board (NEB) regulates offshore oil and gas drilling and production in the Canadian Arctic. It is responsible to ensure that operators carry out drilling activities safely, and in ways that protect the environment and, through that, the way of life in the North. The NEB initiated this study as part of its Arctic Offshore Drilling Review. The study compares Canada's Arctic offshore regulatory regime with the regimes of four other countries with Arctic offshore drilling operations: United States (U.S.), United Kingdom (U.K.), Greenland, and Norway. The main report [described by ASTIS record 75763] and this summary identify similarities and differences of key aspects of the regimes: management systems, drilling and well activities, facility and drilling systems, well control, independent verification of safety, and oil spill response. The study does not cover leasing or environmental assessment, and does not say if one system is better than another. ... The regulatory regime includes the laws that a country uses to govern offshore drilling activities and the regulations that provide details of how to follow the laws. The regulatory regime applies to things such as environmental protection, safety, employment standards and work environment, health protection, emergency planning, oil spill response, and liability for accidents. Different countries use different approaches, and many have a regime that includes elements of two basic approaches: [1] Prescriptive: tells operators what they must do. [2] Performance- or goal-based: identifies goals that operators must achieve, but allows them to choose how to do it. ... The five tables in this section compare the highlights of the offshore regulatory regimes in the Canadian Arctic, the U.S., the U.K., Greenland, and Norway in these key areas: Management systems, Drilling requirements, Well control, Independent verification, Oil spill response. See the main report for a more detailed comparison. ... (Au)

Summary report : oil spill response gap assessment for the Canadian Beaufort Sea and Davis Strait   /   S.L. Ross Environmental Research Ltd.   Canada. National Energy Board [Sponsor]
[Ottawa : S.L. Ross Environmental Research Ltd., 2011].
4 p. ; 28 cm.
This document is a summary of the full report described by ASTIS record 75769.
Indexed a PDF file available online.
ASTIS record 75817.
Languages: English
Web: https://apps.neb-one.gc.ca/REGDOCS/Fichier/Téléchargement/702539

BACKGROUND: This gap analysis was initiated as part of NEB's Arctic Review that is engaging industry and the public to review Arctic safety and environmental offshore drilling requirements. The primary objective is to 'Provide estimates about when and how long primary recovery and clean-up techniques of mechanical recovery, dispersants, and in-situ burning would be unavailable due to environmental factors such as adverse ice conditions, visibility, darkness, higher sea states, etc.'. The analysis was completed for the near- and far-offshore waters northwest of Tuktoyaktuk and the central- and west-central Davis Strait west of Disko Bay, Greenland. Large-scale offshore spill response operations were the focus of this assessment. In-situ burning would include the use of fire-proof booms to contain and collect oil in open water conditions and chemical herding agents to enhance burning operations in ice. Large offshore booms and skimmers would be deployed in containment and recovery operations. Large fixed-wing aircraft would be used in chemical dispersant application. METHODOLOGY: Twenty years of wave height, wave period, and wind speed data were acquired from the Meteorological Service of Canada's (MSC) hindcast data sets for the Beaufort Sea (MSC Beaufort, Swail 2007) and the North Atlantic (MSC Atlantic, Swail 2006). Environment Canada's National Climate Data and Information Archives were used as the source for air temperature, visibility and ceiling data in this study. Twenty years of historical data for the towns of Tuktoyaktuk, Northwest Territories and Clyde River, Nunavut were used in the assessment. Response operating limits that defined categories of Favourable, Marginal and Not Possible, for each environmental factor, were established for each of the primary response options of in-situ burning, containment and recovery, and aircraft-based dispersant application. The environmental factors considered were: daylight, minimum visual flight requirements (VFR) in uncontrolled airspace, superstructure icing, wind speed, wave height, and wave period. A final assessment of the applicability of a countermeasure was made by combining all of these environmental factors to determine if under the combined conditions the countermeasures option was Favourable, Marginal, or Not Possible during periods of open water. The results of this analysis on a monthly basis for the two locations in the two geographic areas are provided in Tables 1, 3, 5, and 7. Tables 2, 4, 6 and 8 identify, on a monthly basis, the percentage of time that at least one countermeasure option is Favourable, at least one option is Favourable or Marginal, and when none of the options is possible during open water periods. When rounding values to the nearest whole number the percentages for Favourable, Marginal and Not Possible do not always sum to 100%. RESPONSE GAP ASSESSMENT RESULTS: Based on the historical frequency of these conditions, response with at least one of the countermeasures options of in-situ burning, containment and recovery and dispersant application would be possible for the period when open water is usually present, July through October for the Beaufort Sea and August through November for Davis Strait: From 32 to 77% of the time in this period for the Near Offshore location in the Beaufort Sea; From 31 to 78% of the time in this period for the Far Offshore location in the Beaufort Sea; From 16 to 65% of the time in this period for the West-Central Davis Strait location; and From 15 to 63% of the time in this period for the Central Davis Strait location. For portions of the year outside the above periods, an active response could be deferred until the following melt season. ... (Au)

Exigences de dépôt relatives aux forages extracôtiers dans l'Arctique canadien   /   Canada. National Energy Board
Calgary, Alta. : NEB, 2011.
34 p. : ill., maps ; 30 cm.
ISBN 978-1-100-98389-9
Available from the Web in both HTML and PDF file formats.
Report date: December 2011.
See ASTIS record 75207 for the English version under title: Filing Requirements for Offshore Drilling in the Canadian Arctic.
This is a companion document to Le passé imprègne le présent et contient le futur : la revue des forages extracôtiers dans l'Arctique canadien : préparons l'avenir, described in ASTIS record 79632.
ASTIS record 79631.
Languages: French
Web: http://www.neb-one.gc.ca/bts/nws/whtnw/archive/2014/2014-12-02-fra.html
Libraries: ACU

Les Exigences de dépôt de l'Office national de l'énergie relatives aux forages extracôtiers dans l'Arctique canadien (exigences de dépôt) présentent les renseignements qui doivent être soumis à l'Office national de l'énergie (l'ONÉ ou l'Office) pour appuyer une demande d'autorisation d'activités de forage extracôtier. Elles visent à préciser les attentes de l'ONÉ quant à l'information qui doit accompagner le dépôt d'une demande. Le demandeur doit montrer à l'Office qu'il s'est conformé aux lois et règlements applicables. Il convient de lire ces exigences de concert avec la Loi sur les opérations pétrolières au Canada (LOPC) et ses règlements d'application, en particulier le Règlement sur le forage et la production de pétrole et de gaz au Canada, ainsi qu'avec les diverses directives que l'ONÉ a diffusées à propos de ces règlements. (Au)

Le passé imprègne le présent et contient le futur : la revue des forages extracôtiers dans l'Arctique canadien : préparons l'avenir   /   Canada. National Energy Board
Calgary, Alta. : NEB, 2011.
56 p. : ill., maps ; 28 cm.
ISBN 978-1-100-98389-9
Available from the Web in both HTML and PDF file formats.
Report date: December 2011.
See ASTIS record 75206 for the English version under title: The past is always present : review of offshore drilling in the Canadian Arctic : preparing for the future.
This is a companion document to Exigences de dépôt relatives aux forages extracôtiers dans l'Arctique canadien, described in ASTIS record 79631.
ASTIS record 79632.
Languages: French
Web: http://publications.gc.ca/site/fra/410019/publication.html
Web: https://www.neb-one.gc.ca/nrth/rctcffshrdrllngrvw/2011fnlrprt/2011fnlrprt-fra.pdf
Libraries: ACU

L’Office national de l’énergie (l’ONÉ ou l’Office) est l’organisme fédéral chargé de réglementer le forage extracôtier dans l’Arctique canadien. Notre travail est de veiller à ce que toute société qui souhaite effectuer des forages dans cette région ait en place des plans qui permettent de protéger le public, les travailleurs et l’environnement. Si la société ne peut fournir de tels plans, elle ne reçoit pas la permission de forer. ... (Au)

BREA Results Forum : The BREA Oil Spill Preparedness & Response Working Group : Inuvik, February 19, 2013   /   Dept. of Indian Affairs and Northern Development [Co-chair]   Canada. National Energy Board [Co-chair]
In: BREA Results Forum : first two years of progress / Gaea Consultants and DPRA Canada Inc. - [S.l. : Beaufort Regional Environmental Assessment, 2013], p. 4
Indexed a PDF file from the WEB.
ASTIS record number 80643 describes the complete BREA Results Forum.
The Forum presentations are available on the BREA website at: http://www.beaufortrea.ca/results-forum-2012-2013.
The link on page 4 of the main report takes one to the 16 page Power Point presentation.
ASTIS record 80648.
Languages: English
Web: http://www.beaufortrea.ca/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/3.4-G-McCormick-Oil-Spill-Preparedness-and-Response-WG.pdf
Web: http://www.beaufortrea.ca/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/BREA-Results-Forum-2013-Report-EN.pdf
Web: http://www.beaufortrea.ca/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/BREA-Results-Forum-2013-Report-FR.pdf

... What do we do? We identify ways to improve the ability of government, Inuvialuit and industry to prepare for and respond to a significant spill from oil and gas activities in the Beaufort Sea by: - engaging and understanding Inuvialuit and stakeholders concerns; - resolving knowledge gaps to assist development of a coordinated, tiered response plan; - identifying research studies, workshops and training opportunities to educate and clarify government, Inuvialuit and industry roles; - coordinating our work with other committees like the AANDC Beaufort Sea Emergency Preparedness Working Group. (Au)

Return to the Hydrocarbon Impacts (HI) Database