Inuvik (Mar 24/06) - The Sierra Club’s Stephen Hazell did not mince words last Thursday during Joint Review Panel hearings on the Mackenzie Gas Project.

“I’m scared shitless about what’s happening to this planet, but it doesn’t really give the panel much pause,” said Hazell.

This after Hazell presented evidence of extreme polar ice sheet declines and future projections of further decline.

“Based on all of this information and the fact that in my view - and it’s not just my view - we’ve really turned a scary corner in terms of climate change,” Hazell said to the panel.

At issue is whether or not the project proponents have taken into consideration the stability of an underground pipeline in its Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) if permafrost were to drastically decline or disappear in the years following the line’s installation.

Adding to the gravity of his submission was Hazell’s reference to the November 2004 Arctic Climate Impact Assessment - published after the EIS was submitted - that predicted a three to five degree Celsius increase in global temperatures over the next century, as well as the potential loss of all summer sea ice cover in the Arctic within the same period.

Speaking for lead proponent Imperial Oil, Michelle Laplante submitted that ongoing monitoring of the project through its lifespan would be able to address any future problems. “Our biophysical environmental scientists considered what effect climate change could have over the lifespan of the project and whether or not that would change the results of our project,” said Laplante.

“The determination was that the effects of the impact assessment would not change. What that means is the design and mitigation measures that we’ve put in place for this project are sufficient to address changes associated with potential climate change,” Laplante added.

What has become a common refrain in these hearings is the phrase “no significant impacts.” It has been uttered in reference to caribou and grizzly bear movements, with respect to pipeline construction throughout the recent hearings in Inuvik regarding the burying of pipe in permafrost and underneath river and stream crossings.

Responding for Imperial Oil, Rick Luckasavitch explained that strategies would be developed based on site-specific data, as well as modelling.

When Conrad’s questions turned to stream crossings and possible pipe heaving, geotechnical advisor for Exxon Mobile Chris Heuer admitted that there are some unknowns yet to be determined.

“I agree that site specific data at streams for frost heave is relatively limited. We’re still evaluating some of those uncertainties.

“We recognize that - and I think we’ve shown in some of our submitted reports - there’s a complex interaction of insulation and frost heave as it relates to freezing rate and pressure at the freeze point.” Heuer said.