References

back

  •  Anon., (2000) Vital Statistics: 10 controversial pipeline projects. Drillbits & Tailings. Vol.5(10), June 19, 2000.
     

  • Anon., (2004) Environmental Impact Statement for the Mackenzie Gas Project, Volume 1: Overview and Impact Assessment Summary. Aboriginal Pipeline Group, Imperial Oil Resources Venture Limited, Conoco Phillips Canada (North) Limited, Shell Canada Limited, and Exxon Mobil Canada Properties.

  • Anon., (2005) Report on Infrastructural Development, Prime Ministers council on Trade and Industry,

  • BP Statistical Review (2004). The data in the publication is available.

  • B.C. Gas Utility Ltd. (1998) The Southern Crossing Pipeline Project, B.C. Gas Utility Ltd.: Application for a Project Approval Certificate. http://www.eao.gov.bc.ca/ epic/output/documents/p47/

  • Canada, National Energy Board (Canada NEB). (1996) Express Pipeline Project: Report of the Joint Review Panel. Ottawa, ON: Queen’s Printer for Canada

  • Canada, National Energy Board (Canada NEB). (1998) Comprehensive Study Report: Alliance Pipeline Ltd. On behalf of the Alliance Pipeline Limited Partnership, Alliance Pipeline Project. Ottawa, ON: Queen’s Printer for Canada.

  • Canada, National Energy Board (Canada NEB). (2003a) Joint Panel Review: GSX Canada Pipeline Project, Ottawa.

  • Cowardin, L.M., Carter V., Goalet F.C. & LaRoe E.T. (1979). Classification of Wetlands and Deep Water Habitats of the United States. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, DC, FWS/OBS-79/31.

  • Dey P.K. (2002) An integrated assessment model for cross-country pipelines. Environmental Impact Assessment Review 22 (May 2002). ELSEVIER Publication. Pp. 703–721.

  • Dey, P.K & Gupta, S. S. (1999) Decision support system for pipeline route selection. Cost Eng ; 41(10): 29– 35 (October).

  • EBI (2005) Integrating biodiversity conservation into oil & gas development. The Energy & Biodiversity Initiative Publication. Pp 58.

  • EnCana Ekwan Pipeline Inc. (2003) Ekwan Pipeline: Application to the National Energy Board Volume I and 2.

  • Foothills Pipe Lines (South Yukon) Ltd. (1979) Overview Summary of the Environmental Impact Statement for the Alaska Highway Gas Pipeline Project. Whitehorse, YK: Foothills Pipe Lines (South Yukon) Ltd.

  • Hays, R.L., Summers, C. & Seitz, W. (1981). Estimating Wildlife Habitat Variables. Biological Services Programme. Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S. Department of the Interior, Washington, DC.

  • Hegmann, G., Eccles, R. & Strom, Kirk (2006) A practical approach to assessing cumulative effects for pipelines.

  • Jackson, S. D. (2000) Overview of transportation wildlife movement and populations, Wildlife and Highways: Seeking Solutions to an Ecological and Socio-economic Dilemma. The Wildlife Society. Pp. 7-20

  • Kharaka et al., (2005) Environmental issues of petroleum exploration and production: Introduction. Environmental Geosciences, 12(2) (June 2005). Pp. 61–63.

  • Margules, C. & Usher, M. B. (1981). Criteria used in assessing wildlife conservation potential: a review. Biological Conservation 21, 79-109.

  • Marvel, A.D. (1992). A Guide to Wetland Functional Design. Lewis Publishers, Boca Raton, Annarbor, London.

  • Mueller-Dombois, D. & Ellenberg, H. (eds.) (1967). Aims and Methods of Vegetation Ecology. John Wiley and Sons, New York, London, Sydney, Toronto.

  • National River Authority (NRA) (1992). River Corridor Surveys: Methods and Procedures. Conservation Technical Handbook No. 1. NRA New Castle Upon Tyne.

  • PPEPCA (2004). Sectoral Guidelines for Upstream Petroleum Sector – Onshore. Volume 2 of 2. Annexure. Halcrow Pakistan (Pvt.) Limited Publication.

  • Ratcliffe, D.A. (1977). A Nature Conservation Review. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

  • Spellerberg, I.F. (1992) Evaluation and Assessment for Conservation. Chapman & Hall, 1st Edition. London, UK.

  • Taggart, M. & McCracken, M.C. (2002) Alaska Highway Pipeline Project and the Environment, Working Paper No. 7.2.8. Informetrica Limited.
     

  • TPCG and Kalpavriksh (2005) Securing India’s Future: Final Technical Report of the National Biodiversity Strategy an d Action Plan. Prepared by the NBSAP Technical and Policy Core Group. Kalpavriksh, Delhi/Pune.

  • Treweek, Jo (1999) Ecological Impact Assessment. Publication of Blackwell Science.

  • United States, Department of the Interior (U.S. DOI) 2002. Final Environmental Impact Statement, Renewal of the Federal Grant for the Trans-Alaska Pipeline System Right-of-Way: Volumes 1-7.

  • WCEL, (2003) Pump it out: The Environmental costs of BC’s Upstream Oil and Gas Industry.

  • WII (1993) Environmental Impact Assessment of HBJ Gas Pipeline Up gradation project on Wildlife and Wildlife habitats. WII-EIA Technical report 2. Wildlife Institute of India, Dehradun.

  • WII (1995a) Impact Assessment of Bombay-Manmad Pipeline Project on Wildlife Values. WII-EIA Technical report 12. Wildlife Institute of India, Dehradun.

  • WII (1995b) Impact Assessment of Oman-India Gas Pipeline Project on Wildlife Values. WII-EIA Technical report 14. Wildlife Institute of India, Dehradun.

  • WII (1997) Impact assessment of Bina-Jhansi-Kanpur pipeline project on wildlife values, WII-EIA technical report 21, Wildlife Institute of India.

  • WII (2001). Impact Assessment of Mumbai-Manmad Pipeline Extension Project on Wildlife Values. WII-EIA Technical Report 26. Wildlife Institute of India, Dehradun.

  • Zsuzsanna Pató (2000) Piping the Forest: The Bolivia-Brasil Gas Pipeline. CEE Bankwatch Network.

  • Zúñiga-Gutiérrez, G., Arroyo-Cabrales, J., Lechuga, C. & Ortega-Rubio, Alfredo (2002) Environmental quantitative assessment of two alternative routes for a gas pipeline in Campeche, Mexico. Journal of Landscape and Urban Planning 59 : 181 – 186. Elsevier publication.

Last Updated: November 14, 2015