After large quantities of fossil fuels were discovered in Alaska in 1968, discussion started around beginning Canadian resource extraction and development in the North, particularly Yukon and the Northwest Territories. By 1970 Pierre Trudeau’s government had already created policies on pipeline development with plans of looking north, and Canadian Arctic Gas Pipeline Ltd. along with Foothills Pipe Lines Ltd. created plans to run natural gas either from Alaska, across the Yukon, through the Mackenzie Valley south to Alberta and the U.S., or directly from the Mackenzie Delta to Alberta. The former was an idyllic development project and at the time would have been the longest pipeline in the world and quite an engineering marvel given the difficulties of building on permafrost and other geographical barriers set out by the Canadian North. The potential economic benefits of the project as well as the ability to expand southern infrastructure and control into the Canadian North through resource development was an attractive proposal. However, the local Aboriginal communities of the Mackenzie Valley saw issue with the pipeline and potential changes to their physical, social, economic, and environmental well being, resulting in a number of conflicts, land claims, and land disputes among stakeholders. Concerns over construction, environmental degradation, safety, and human impacts led to the appointment of Justice Thomas Berger to conduct an inquiry on the proposed pipelines and the potential environmental, cultural, social, and economic impacts they may have on Canada’s north and its people. By 1977, Berger had visited over 35 communities in 3 years to hear from all the involved stakeholders in Canada’s North and document their concerns. The 1977 report concluded that further study was necessary, especially with regards to Indigenous land claims, and that the pipeline should not be constructed given the vulnerable northern environment in the proposed development area. Berger recommended a 10-year moratorium on construction to allow for more baseline studies on environment, people, wildlife, and to better understand the economic effects this development would have on the area. The moratorium was also intended to give the Aboriginal communities involved time to settle their land claim settlements, and by 2000 the Inuvialuit, Gwich’in, and Sahtu peoples had their claims taken care of. These communities now had an interest in the economic prosperity of the pipelines, and when the initial proposals fell through Imperial Oil, ConocoPhillips, ExxonMobil and the Aboriginal Pipeline Group (made up of local communities with pipeline interests) proposed the $16.2 billion Mackenzie Gas Project to carry 34.3 million cubic m of natural gas about 1,200 km from the Beaufort Sea to northern Alberta. The plan was submitted to the NEB in 2004 and approved in 2010 with December of 2015 set as the deadline to begin construction. Changing economics and the falling price of natural gas resulted in Imperial wanting to delay construction further to ensure the economic feasibility of the project (as natural gas prices were dropping). The extension was granted by the NEB to the dismay of environmentalists, but by the end of 2017 Imperial Oil decided the Mackenzie Gas Project was no longer profitable enough in the North American natural gas market with new forms of competition and new technologies to construct, and declared the end of the nearly 50 year deliberation and development process. |
The Mackenzie Valley Pipeline and Gas Project were a series of proposed fossil fuel extraction and development projects in the Canadian North. Although they didn't come to fruition, lasting impacts were left on communities living in the Mackenzie Valley.
Description:
Basic Data
| Name of conflict: | Mackenzie Valley Pipeline, Canada |
| Country: | Canada |
| State or province: | Northwest Territories |
| Location of conflict: | Mackenzie River and Valley |
| Accuracy of location | HIGH (Local level) |
Source of Conflict
| Type of conflict. 1st level: | Fossil Fuels and Climate Justice/Energy |
| Type of conflict. 2nd level: | Oil and gas exploration and extraction Water access rights and entitlements Tourism facilities (ski resorts, hotels, marinas) Deforestation Transport infrastructure networks (roads, railways, hydroways, canals and pipelines) Oil and gas refining Land acquisition conflicts Pollution related to transport (spills, dust, emissions) Climate change related conflicts (glaciers and small islands) |
| Specific commodities: | Crude oil Electricity Natural Gas |
Project Details and Actors
| Project details | Arctic Gas Pipeline Ltd. = $8 billion (2,400 mile pipeline from Prudhoe Bay to Lower 48) |
| Project area: | 180,000,000 |
| Level of Investment for the conflictive project | 7,500,000,000 |
| Type of population | Semi-urban |
| Affected Population: | 100-30,000,000 |
| Start of the conflict: | 21/03/1974 |
| End of the conflict: | 22/12/2017 |
| Company names or state enterprises: | ExxonMobil Corporation (Exxon) from United States of America Shell Canada Limited from Canada Aboriginal Pipeline Group from Canada TransCanada Corp. from Canada Imperial Oil Ltd from Canada - Main Actor ConocoPhillips Alaska from United States of America |
| Relevant government actors: | National Energy Board, Federal Liberal and Conservative Governments of Canada (1970s-2017), Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency, Joint Review Panel, Environmentla Impact Screening Committee for the Inuvialuit Settlement Region, Mackenzie Valley Environmental Review Impact Board, Bureau of Indian and Northern Affairs Canada. |
| International and Finance Institutions | Federal Bank of Canada from Canada - Numerous requests and stages of development depended on federal funding. National Energy Board (NEB) from Canada - Responsible for funding and environmental assessment. |
| Environmental justice organizations (and other supporters) and their websites, if available: | Deh Cho Dene of Northwest Territories as primary organized group for environmental justice. Primarily the case was mobilized through Aboriginal involvement and not so much due to environmental organizations. |
Conflict & Mobilization
| Intensity | MEDIUM (street protests, visible mobilization) |
| Reaction stage | PREVENTIVE resistance (precautionary phase) |
| Groups mobilizing: | Indigenous groups or traditional communities Industrial workers Informal workers Local government/political parties Neighbours/citizens/communities Ethnically/racially discriminated groups Local scientists/professionals Deh Cho Dene, Sahtu Dene, Inuvialuit of Northwest Territories, Gwich'in First Nation |
| Forms of mobilization: | Community-based participative research (popular epidemiology studies, etc..) Creation of alternative reports/knowledge Development of a network/collective action Development of alternative proposals Lawsuits, court cases, judicial activism Objections to the EIA Official complaint letters and petitions Shareholder/financial activism. Arguments for the rights of mother nature Appeals/recourse to economic valuation of the environment |
Impacts
| Environmental Impacts | Potential: Air pollution, Biodiversity loss (wildlife, agro-diversity), Fires, Global warming, Loss of landscape/aesthetic degradation, Noise pollution, Soil contamination, Oil spills, Deforestation and loss of vegetation cover, Surface water pollution / Decreasing water (physico-chemical, biological) quality, Groundwater pollution or depletion, Large-scale disturbance of hydro and geological systems, Reduced ecological / hydrological connectivity |
| Health Impacts | Visible: Mental problems including stress, depression and suicide, Violence related health impacts (homicides, rape, etc..), Health problems related to alcoholism, prostitution Potential: Accidents, Occupational disease and accidents, Deaths, Other environmental related diseases |
| Socio-economical Impacts | Visible: Increase in Corruption/Co-optation of different actors, Lack of work security, labour absenteeism, firings, unemployment, Loss of livelihood, Social problems (alcoholism, prostitution, etc..) Potential: Displacement, Increase in violence and crime, Loss of traditional knowledge/practices/cultures, Specific impacts on women, Loss of landscape/sense of place |
Outcome
| Project Status | Stopped |
| Conflict outcome / response: | Compensation Environmental improvements, rehabilitation/restoration of area Court decision (undecided) Technical solutions to improve resource supply/quality/distribution Application of existing regulations Moratoria Project cancelled Withdrawal of company/investment Pipeline stopped by Imperial Oil and partners after being delayed and having constructed postponed so many times, despite government funding, social support, and community interest, the lack of economic profitability in the North American natural gas market now has made it inconvenient and costly to build, employ, and operate the proposed pipeline. |
| Proposal and development of alternatives: | Alternatives discussed dealt with beginning the pipeline in either Alaska or Inuvik so as to minimize environmental impacts, to put a moratorium on the project to examine ecological and social effects before commencing construction, and alternative oil/energy supplies further south and their viability. |
| Do you consider this an environmental justice success? Was environmental justice served?: | Not Sure |
| Briefly explain: | Not sure, environmental degradation was prevented (which also allows for continued subsistence living and the dismissal of the pipeline) but as far as social justice the complete removal of any promise of industry, especially after being prepared to have it incite a positive change for so long, may have had adverse effects on communities who are in need of economic support as well as social, cultural, and environmental equity. |
Sources & Materials
| Juridical relevant texts related to the conflict (laws, legislations, EIAs, etc) |
| |||||||||
| ||||||||||
| Other documents |
|
Meta information
| Contributor: | Lauren Nelis, Bishop's University, [email protected] |
| Last update | 18/08/2019 |
| Conflict ID: | 3457 |
Related conflicts
Comments