Inuvik (Feb 17/06) - Lawyer Shawn Denstedt, representing pipeline proponents Shell and ConocoPhillips, perhaps summed up the feeling of many in attendance at Tuesday's opening of the Joint Review Panel (JRP) hearings on the Mackenzie Gas Project.

The Schedule The Joint Review Panel will be conducting one of three kinds of hearings down the Mackenzie Valley throughout the year. Community hearings (CH) will relate to any matter of interest or concern related to the JRP's mandate. General hearings (GH) will be topic-specific or open as identified by those providing evidence. And finally, the technical hearings (TH) will encompass data regarding the project's construction and it's social, economic, environmental and cultural impacts. Feb. 14: Inuvik - Opening statements Feb. 15: Inuvik - General Hearing project description Feb. 16: Inuvik - GH project description in the morning followed by an open session from 1:30-4:30 p.m. Feb. 17:Fort McPherson - Community Hearing Feb. 20 Feb. 21-22: Inuvik - GH - Approaches to and methods for evaluating information in the Environmental Impact Statement and supplementary submissions. March 14-17: Inuvik - Technical Hearing - Mackenzie Valley Pipeline and Mackenzie Gathering System routing and design Mar. 20-22: Inuvik - TH - Anchor field and design April 3: Deline - CH April 4-5: Tulita - CH April 6: Norman Wells - CH April 7: Norman Wells -GH - open April 10: Colville Lake - CH April 11-12: Fort Good Hope - CH April 24-28: Norman Wells - GH, engineering; pipeline design, materials and facilities May 8-9: Fort Simpson - CH May 10: Fort Simpson - GH May 11: Wrigley - CH May 12: Fort Liard - CH May 15: Jean Marie River - CH May 16: Trout Lake - CH May 17-18: Fort Simpson - GH - conservation areas and measures, harvesting and other land use

"We look forward to the show," he said, wrapping up his opening statement.

And what a huge production the JRP hearings are expected to be, with 96 intervenors scheduled to present evidence in 27 locations in the Northwest Territories, Yukon and Alberta for the entire year.

Everyone from governments - aboriginal, territorial and federal - to industry and social and environmental activist groups are expected to present an array of evidence both for and against construction of the 1,220km natural gas pipeline.

Denstedt's comments followed JRP chair Robert Hornal's opening remarks, which included the introduction of the seven-member panel and outlined its mandate.

"First, to assess the socio-economic, cultural and environmental impacts of the proposed project, and second, to make a report to governments and other regulators," he said of the mandate.

Environment and Natural Resources Minister for the Northwest Territories, Michael Miltenberger, appeared on behalf of the GNWT. He reiterated the government's position as stated in its general submission to the JRP and released to the media last week.

"Our role is to advance our interests and ensure the project benefits Northerners," he said.

Alternatives North was the first intervenor of the day to express reservations about the pipeline. In addition to questioning the "split" nature of the current review process, as well as highlighting the group's concern over socio-economic impacts, spokesperson Suzette Montreuil evoked the 1945 atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, Japan, by the Americans, which brought an end to the Second World War in the Pacific.

"What is the end use of the gas? We need only remember the end use of the uranium out of Port Radium on Great Bear Lake to affirm how important this is, so it matters how our natural gas will be used, where it ends up," she said.

Montreuil also took the opportunity to talk about funding inadequacies, in particular the fact that Alternatives North is still waiting for $105,000 from the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency.

Speaking for the environmentalists, the Sierra Club of Canada's Stephen Hazel said the group is opposed to the project in principle, "but supports the provision of $500 million in socio-economic funds if the project goes ahead."

Hazel added that among the club's reasons for opposing the project are that the gas would "ramp up" the tar sands' oil production in Alberta and the increased future gas development would scar not only the environment, but the social fabric of the territory.

"(The pipeline) will cause a veritable tsunami of development that will threaten Northern institutions," he said.

The JRP hearings continue in Inuvik until today (Feb. 16), before heading to Fort McPherson and Tsiighetchic.

In all, 16 groups made opening statements at Tuesday's JRP hearings. They included proponents, the GNWT, Inuvialuit Regional Corp., Transport Canada, Alternatives North, Environment Canada, Fisheries and Oceans Canada, Fisheries Joint Management Committee, Indian and Northern Affairs Canada, Town of Inuvik, The Joint Secretariat, Natural Resources Canada, Northern Pipeline Projects Ltd., Sierra Club of Canada, World Wildlife Fund and Yukon government.