INUVIK - More than four years after its first targeted release date, the Joint Review Panel released its report on the potential environmental and socio-economic impacts of the Mackenzie Gas Project - a positive review titled "Foundation for a Sustainable Northern Future."

"The panel is confident that the project as filed, if built and operated with full implementation of the panel's recommendations, would deliver valuable and lasting overall benefits, and avoid significant adverse environmental impacts," reads the preface of the 679-page report, released online on the JRP's website.

Since the panel was appointed in August 2004, the chair and the six other members were paid a total of approximately $4.47 million, with the chair making $650 per day and the other members $500 per day, according to Lucille Jamault, manager of communications for the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency.

The cumulative budget for the JRP stands at $18.7 million, up from its original budget $6.3 million, she added.

In all, the panel made 176 recommendations for the implementation of the pipeline, including a call for funding from the federal government.

The Joint Review Panel was appointed in August 2004 by the Minister of Environment in partnership with the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency (CEAA), the Mackenzie Valley Environmental Review Board and the Inuvialuit Game Council.

According to the terms of agreement outlined in the Joint Review Panel Agreement, the panel was to hold its hearings and release its report within 10 months.

But the wealth of material generated by the panel's work prompted the members ­ who were working full-time on the report ­ to delay the release of the report several times. This invited much scrutiny from businesses in the Mackenzie Delta and proponents of the pipeline, who consist of Imperial Oil Resources Ventures Ltd., the Aboriginal Pipline Group, Shell Canada Ltd., ConocoPhillips Canada Ltd. and Exxon Mobil Canada.

"I think it would be safe to say that the review of the project generated more interest and more submissions from approximately 100 interveners than anyone had anticipated, not just the panel," said Brian Chambers, executive director for the Northern Gas Project Secretariat.

"The review process resulted in the necessity to look at a large volume of material ... more than 5,000 written submissions. There were thousands of recommendations."

Chambers added that panel members won't be responding to media enquiries.

"They have indicated that they want the report to speak for them ­ and speak for itself," said Chambers. "I think the panel is satisfied that they've met their obligations to complete a thorough and comprehensive review of the project."

Initial reactions to the report's release and the panel's enthusiasm for the pipeline were positive.

"It's important to read the details of the conditions set out, but initially I would say I'm very pleased with the news," said Fred Carmichael, chair of the Aboriginal Pipeline Group and a vocal critic of the JRP's delays in the past. "I think the heading of the report ­ 'Foundation for a Sustainable Northern Future' ­ tells it all. It's needed."

"We're extremely pleased to hear the panel supports the project and we will be reviewing the recommendations," stated Ann Marie Tout, president of the NWT Chamber of Commerce, via e-mail.

According to the panel, the cumulative impacts of the MGP and similar developments that may follow was an issue of "heated debate and widespread public concern" during the panel's review.

The pipeline and its associated facilities, if fully built as applied for, "would have a capacity of 1.2 billion cubic feet per day (Bcf/d) but the available gas supply (0.83 Bcf/d) would provide a throughput of only approximately 70 per cent of that capacity.

"Further developments to produce additional volumes of gas up to the capacity of the MGP at 1.2 Bcf/d had not been proposed at the close of the panel's record," the report states.

The panel also added it is "crucial" that governments have programs in place to respond to the effects of the development before the pipeline is built.

The report comes two weeks after Bob McLeod, minister of industry, tourism and investment, visited project proponents in Calgary to spur the feds to indicate their fiscal support for the project before the announcement of the federal budget in January.

With the JRP report now in hand, the National Energy Board (NEB) ­ which was tasked with looking at the technical aspects and economic feasibility of the project ­ will holds its final hearing in April.

The board will then consult several federal departments, including Fisheries and Oceans, plus the cabinet, before issuing its final decision on the pipeline, possibly by September.

"It's a positive step," said Pius Rolheiser, spokesperson for Imperial Oil, of the JRP report. "But it bears mentioning that, while it's an encouraging step, it's only one in a number of steps that remain."

Rolheiser added the proponents have three weeks to respond to the panel's recommendations.

With the recent discovery of shale gas deposits in North America, depressed natural gas prices and the promise of U.S. federal loans to proponents of the Alaska Pipeline Project, and now the support of the JRP, the focus in the new year will likely be on the economic viability of the Mackenzie pipeline.

In October, the National Post, citing unnamed sources, claimed a proposed fiscal package for the pipeline was rejected by federal cabinet.