ARCHIVED – Meeting Summary – 7 December 2010 – Ingamo Hall Friendship Center, Inuvik, NT

Arctic Offshore Drilling Review

Meeting Summary

Date and Location

Date	Location
Tuesday 7 December 2010 10:00 a.m. to 11:45 a.m.	Ingamo Hall Friendship Center Inuvik, NT

Purpose: Introduce the Arctic Offshore Drilling Review to the Inuvialuit Game Council

Participants

Participants
Frank Pokiak Lawrence Ruben John Alikamik Jimmy Kalinek Stan Ruben William Storr Lawrence Amos John Lucas Jr. Douglas Esogak Jennifer Lam Richard Binder Shawna Kaglik Steve Baryluk
Gaétan Caron	Chair and Chief Executive Officer, NEB
David Hamilton	Member, NEB
Shirley Dawe	Assistant Project Manager, Arctic Offshore Drilling Review, NEB
Brian Chambers	Northern Advisor, NEB
Bharat Dixit	Technical Leader, Conservation of Resources, NEB
Pamela Romanchuk	Environmental Specialist, NEB
Susan Gudgeon	Northern Coordinator, Arctic Offshore Drilling Review, NEB

Introductory Remarks (NEB):

• An overview of the Arctic Offshore Drilling Review was provided, including the mandate of the NEB, the events leading up to the Review and the various phases of the Review.
• The IGC was asked "what questions do you need answers to prior to the NEB considering an application for offshore drilling?"

Dialogue with IGC members:

In response to the question put forward, a number of areas of interest and concern were raised by IGC members, including:

1. Clarity of Mandate and Authority of the NEB with respect to offshore drilling:
   
   
   • The NEB's authority is in relation to Crown and/or private lands
   • The independence of the NEB
     
     
2. Community Meetings:
   
   
   • Information must be clear and understandable
   • Some further education needs to be done in the area of development rights as well as the separation between industry and the NEB – IRC/IGC/NEB to provide this education
     
     
3. Emergency Response and Preparedness:
   
   
   • Given the environment and weather changes, there is not enough capacity nor accessibility to equipment to deal with any mishaps
   • No spill response training has been put in place for people if the NEB gets an application for drilling in 2012
   • It may be the cost of doing business to have two drill ships
   • With respect to Devon, there had been miscommunication between the NEB and the Inuvialuit
   • There is overall concern with the lack of capacity to deal with an accident
     
     
4. General:
   
   
   • If companies are allowed to drill with certain restrictions, people need to know if changes are made to those restrictions
   • Information and predictions submitted by companies must be verified to be accurate
   • If dispersants are to be used, there will need to be more studies done
   • Why do more exploration if there are already SDLs in place for shallower waters – if something happens it will be tougher to deal with in deeper waters
   • With the technology available, support vessels should be able to get through the Northwest Passage – this should be tested, including ship hull thickness
   • Having someone in the community to answer questions would be helpful
   • How will future development be different than what has happened in the past?
   • Industry does have rights to develop but has to be done safely
   • Any spill or loss of animals is not acceptable regardless of the proposed mitigation
     
     
5. Unique Arctic Environment:
   
   
   • What the worst case scenario would look like in the Arctic needs to be determined as it will look different than what happened in the Gulf
   • People are concerned with the number of unknowns in the Arctic
   • If there is a spill everything will be affected (polar bears, whales, fish, birds)
   • More studies are needed on the types of bacteria that exists in the Arctic waters – this may be part of the BREA studies
   • Climate change is making conditions more difficult to predict and work with
     
     
6. Value of Resources:
   
   
   • Inuvialuit people will be forced to live with any consequences (animals harmed) and have certain responsibilities that go way beyond individual concerns
   • Cannot let development occur at all costs – safety needs to be looked at and  and development must be done right

Concluding Remarks:

• IGC stated that they are not opposed to development but it cannot occur at all costs – things need to be done safely and done right
• NEB will be back to Inuvik as well as the other ISR communities to listen to people and the Review will take the time it takes to get it right