THe Beaufort Sea Environmental Assessment And Review Process: Mutual Responsibilities
Authors: Antoniuk T.M. , Morrison R.G. 
Published: March 2010

On July 30, 1984, the final report of the Beaufort Sea Environmental Assessment Panel was released, culminating a four year public review of Beaufort hydrocarbon production and transportation options. This article summarizes the reaction of one of the industry participants to the report's findings and implications for future activities.

The Federal Environmental Assessment and Review Process (EARP) is the key component of the regulatory process designed to review environmental and social issues. Once initiated, no federal development approval except that of the National Ener2.Y Board can be given until the review has been completed and the panel has made its recommendation to the Minister of the Environment. These are not binding, but may be implemented as deemed necessary by the appropriate government agencies and project proponent.

The Beaufort EARP was unique because it examined a wide range of conceptual development alternatives rather than a specific project proposal. The options were developed by Dome Petroleum Ltd., Esso Resources Canada Ltd. and Gulf Canada Resources Inc., the proponents, on behalf of all land holders in the Beaufort Sea-Mackenzie Delta region. As a result, the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) submitted by the proponents examined the potential environmental and social impacts associated with offshore and onshore production, tanker transportation through the Northwest Passage, pipeline transportation up the Mackenzie Valley, and support activities. The panel also requested and reviewed information on regulatory roles and responsibilities and the current status of government preparedness.

The Panel's Findings

The panel's recommendations and conclusions were based on two key objectives:that northerners must be able to manage the effects of changes and derive long-term benefits from developments; andthat the degree of risk to renewable resources from oil and gas production would be acceptable to them. The panel determined that a uphased approach" to hydrocarbon development utilizing sequence of small-scale projects would satisfy these objectives.

The panel recommended phased development involving initial production of about 15,000 m3/day of oil. The report concludes that this production could be transported in a small diameter (e.g. 400 mm) buried pipeline up the Mackenzie Valley and that such a pipeline could be built without further public hearings. Oil tanker transport was recommended to commence only after a research and preparation stage follow- ed by a two-tanker demonstration project. This initial production phase could be followed by increases in throughput, and addition of pipelines or tankers in a sequential fashion, if impacts observed in the initial phase were determined to be acceptable.

In addition to the discussion of oil production, the panel concluded that a gas pipeline may be built if potential socioeconomic impacts do not exceed those of small-scale oil production. They also recommended that no port or supply base should be permitted on the Yukon Coast west of Kay Point, and that industry should share facilities wherever possible.

Approximately three-quarters of the panel's formal recommendations address government roles and responsibilities.