RANDY HENDERSON, HOST, "THE TRAIL BREAKER", CBC RADIO: Two pipelines are being contemplated for the North. The proposed Mackenzie Valley pipeline will run from the Beaufort-Delta all through down the Territories to Alberta, and the larger and longer Alaska Highway pipeline will start at Prudhoe Bay and run south through the state, and then the Yukon and British Columbia. From an environmental point of view, the smaller pipeline down the Mackenzie Valley may look like the better idea, but that's not how an international environmental group sees it. The Sierra Club has written a letter to Exxon Mobile, urging the company to choose the Alaska Highway project. Exxon is the majority shareholder of Imperial Oil, which is leading the Mackenzie gas project. Stephen Hazel is with the Sierra Club of Canada, and he joins us on the line. Good morning, sir.

STEPHEN HAZEL, SIERRA CLUB OF CANADA: Good morning, Randy.

CBC: So why is the Sierra Club, an environmental group, weighing in on the issue of which pipeline is the better choice?

HAZEL: Well we've looked at the environmental effects of the Mackenzie gas project, compared to the Alaska Highway project, and our conclusion is that, really, the Alaska project is the lesser environmental evil. I want to hasten to say that we are not supporting or endorsing the Alaska project. It will have to go through a rigorous environmental assessment; it will have to make sure that it doesn't cross wilderness areas, and that impacts on local communities are minimized. But when we look at the overall package, it really seems to us that Exxon Mobile should be, in making its decisions about where it's going, it should abandon the Mackenzie project and look at the Alaska Highway project.

CBC: So, you know, from an environmental group's perspective, though, it seems still, to me, that you'd be opposed to both projects.

HAZEL: Well, I mean, we're opposed to the Mackenzie project; we are not necessarily opposed to the Alaska project. That remains to be seen.

CBC: So why is that?

HAZEL: Well, I mean, there's a number of things. One is that the Alaska Highway project, the right-of-way for that is already well defined; whereas, for the Mackenzie project, it's not, for at least a good part of the length. So for the Mackenzie project, there's going to be much more fragmentation of ecosystem than would be the case for the Alaska project. I mean, there's relative certainty that a lot of the Mackenzie gas is going to go to the tar sands, to develop the tar sands. That's a catastrophe for the global atmosphere. And we know that the plan for the Alaska Highway project is to connect to the existing express pipeline, which is a pipeline that basically exports natural gas to the U.S. to heat people's homes and that sort of thing. So just from a global atmospheric perspective, the Alaska project is better.

CBC: Still in all, though, Mr. Hazel, how can the larger pipeline be less harmful to the global atmosphere, especially given the fact it's almost twice the diameter and more than twice the length?

HAZEL: The other thing is it actually produces about…There's actually about three times as much natural gas in that pipeline, in the Alaska project. So if that gas is, as we suspect it will be, it's going to be used to displace coal-fired generating and oil. As a transitional measure, that's actually a good thing; whereas, sending all that natural gas from Mackenzie down to the tar sands to encourage an already over-heated, frantic, frenzied development there, it really makes no sense to us.

CBC: Now in your letter you say that subsidies to Imperial Oil are highly controversial. So why are you factoring the size of the subsidies offered to gas producers into your decision?

HAZEL: Well what we were trying to do was we were trying to advise Exxon Mobile on what they should be doing. I think Canadians have been lulled to sleep a little bit about the nature of the decisions that are coming up. We're pretty certain that they're going to make decisions soon. The new president of Exxon Mobile is going to be in Calgary next week. He may have some decisions then. So we've been trying to provide advice to Mr. Raymond, who is the current CEO, on what Exxon Mobile should be doing. That was our take on it. There are decisions that are going to be made. We know that the U.S. Congress has already given the Alaska project a huge subsidy, and any further subsidies for the Mackenzie gas project from the federal government will be highly controversial. I mean, Imperial Oil, itself, had over $700 million in profit in the last quarter, and Exxon Mobile made I think it was $10 billion in profit in the last quarter. It's very difficult for Canadians to consent to providing a huge subsidy to Imperial Oil and Exxon Mobile at a time when the cost of heating their homes are going through the roof. I know that's the case in the North, too. The cost of diesel oil is going to be going through the roof this winter. How can possibly sanction additional subsidy?

CBC: But from the environmental…Let's get back to the environmental aspect of it. There's already, as you know, there's already an oil pipeline in the Mackenzie Valley. It's more than half the length of the proposed gas pipeline. So given that, I mean, you don't think, then, that the new pipeline could be as environmentally safe as this one?

HAZEL: The difference is that once we have the Mackenzie gas pipeline, there is going to be induced development all the way up and down the valley. We know that the Cameron Hills area, the Colville Lake area, the Mackenzie Delta, parts of the Sahtu and Deh Cho are areas with high gas potential. So once that pipeline is in, once the gas pipeline is in, there is going to be an explosion of oil and gas development activity, and probably mining activity as well. The Norman Wells pipeline has not had that effect of inducing development south from Norman Wells to the Alberta border. It's basically a pipeline going through the wilderness. So that's the difference.

CBC: Mr. Hazel, what kind of impression do you think your letter is going to make on Exxon Mobile?

HAZEL: It's very difficult to say, but it may make some difference, given that I don't think they've been hearing from many Canadians about what they should be doing. You know, right now, they're faced with this decision, and they're negotiating like mad with Governor Murkowski (?) in Alaska, and they're negotiating like mad with Anne McLellan in Ottawa, but they really have not been hearing from Canadians about what we think. So they've been able to kind of hide behind Imperial Oil, as it were. But, you know, part of the reason for the letter is really to kind of make sure that Canadians understand where the decisions are being made. They're being made in Texas. They're not being made in Calgary. They're not being made in Ottawa. They're being made in Texas. And that's what we should be focusing on.

CBC: Mr. Hazel, in your letter, you state that the Sierra Club of Canada takes the view that Exxon Mobile should abandon the Mackenzie gas project, perhaps in favour of advancing the Alaska natural gas pipeline project.

HAZEL: Right.

CBC: Now do you think you're going to alienate some of your members by, in essence, endorsing this multi-billion dollar project?

HAZEL: No, it's interesting. The letter is signed by the Sierra Club, U.S., as well, which is a gigantic organization in the United States, much bigger than the Sierra Club of Canada is in Canada. The environmental groups in the United States have very limited concerns with the Alaska project. I mean, yes, there are some things that they want to see. They want to see a good environmental assessment. They want to make sure that local communities benefit, and rights to a healthy environment are respected, et cetera. But there's not the level of concern about the Alaska project in the U.S. that there is about the Mackenzie gas project in Canada.

CBC: Alright. Well thanks very much for explaining your letter for us this morning.

HAZEL: Thank you so much for asking me, Randy.

CBC: Alright. Bye bye now.

HAZEL: Bye bye.

CBC: Stephen Hazel is with the Sierra Club of Canada.

CBC Special Report