The Joint Review Panel of the Mackenzie Gas Project spent two years writing a report that optimistically and ambitiously set out the conditions under which the Panel believes the basin-opening project could be the basis for sustainable development in the Mackenzie Valley and Delta.

The report tackles the big picture issues and many of its recommendations aim to mitigate negative cumulative impacts and maintain a high standard of care for future developments. If all the 176 report recommendations were to be fully implemented, perhaps the project could be a positive thing. But the chances for that are looking slim.

The National Energy Board responded last week to the Joint Review Panel’s recommendations

by rejecting the integrated approach to sustainability the Panel recommended. Despite claiming in November 2009 that it’s taking a sustainability approach, the NEB seems inclined to taking a narrow approach to the Mackenzie Gas Project. The NEB can still reconsider after its hearings in April and the federal and territorial governments have yet to respond to the Panel’s recommendations, so a commitment to sustainability might still prevail.

Yes, I’m trying to be positive today.

Another place where an opportunity to do the right thing is waiting to be seized is Suffield National Wildlife Area, or perhaps I should say EnCana’s headquarters. As readers of this blog are aware, EnCana has applied to drill an additional 1,275 gas wells within Suffield National Wildlife Area. But why does EnCana still want to drill there? In North America, proven reserves of natural gas have increased substantially in the past two years, so the time may be just right for EnCana to abandon further drilling within Suffield National Wildlife Area. Read more here. And stay tuned, we’ll continue to report on both energy projects, as well as the Northern Gateway.

Image: CFB Suffield by Cliff Wallis