Depending on who you ask, Northern Gateway is either a project critical to the future growth of the Canadian economy or a recipe for environmental disaster in northern B.C. Here's a look at the cases for and against the proposed pipeline project.
FOR
Northern Gateway's parent company Enbridge and their supporters have focused primarily on the economic benefits the $6.5 billion pipeline could bring to Canadians generally and Albertans as well as British Columbians specifically. They cite the need for Canadian oilsands products to access new markets due to lower price for oil in North America and the fact that the United States domestic production is on the rise.
By building a pipeline from northern Alberta to Kitimat, the argument goes, Canadian producers will be able to access Asian markets which will allow them to sell their oil at a higher price.
"The project will provide billions of dollars in benefits for the Canadian oil and gas industry, the federal government, provincial governments and aboriginal groups, benefiting all Canadians through a large and robust social rate of return," Northern Gateway wrote in its final argument to the Joint Review Panel.
In addition to jobs and revenue, Northern Gateway said B.C. will benefit because the project's existence will force governments to improve tanker safety up and down the coast.
"The small incremental risk associated with the project is more than outweighed by its contribution to both navigational safety and oil spill response capability on British Columbia's west coast," the company wrote.
Proponents also tout the safety record of pipelines relative to other means of shipping oilsands products. According to the Canadian Energy Pipelines Association, 99.999 per cent of the products its members ship arrive at their destination without incident.
Rail is considered the main alternative, put it's considered less desirable by pipeline advocates.
"We're a real-life example of somebody who has used rail where it has been necessary, but also recognize that it's not as optimal as pipe when we're talking about larger scale and the long-term vision that we have for the development of our oil sands assets," Cenovus diluent supply and crude oil marketing director Richard Dembicki told the panel, referencing the fact his company currently ships diluent by rail.
AGAINST
While some groups have made economic arguments against Northern Gateway, the majority of opposition has centered around its environmental impact and the aboriginal rights have not been respected.
In its final argument, ForestEthics Adocacy said it believes enough evidence was presented to the panel to show the pipeline would have significant adverse effects on nine different species ranging from woodland caribou to salmon to fin whales.
"These significant adverse effects would occur in both the terrestrial as well as the marine environment," the group argued. "These significant adverse effects would occur during the
construction and operation of the pipeline, the construction and operation of the marine
terminal and the loading and transport of the product transported through the proposed
pipeline onto tankers."
Other opponents, including the Fort St. James Sustainability Group, argued that Northern Gateway has underestimated the risk of spill. Much of the attention was focused on a major 2010 spill of an Enbridge-owned pipeline in Michigan and a long lasting leak in 2011 on a Enbridge-owned pipeline in the Northwest Territories.
"We urge the JRP and the federal government to acknowledge the seriousness of the repetitive failures in Enbridge's pipeline safety and spill response regimes as demonstrated by their past, current day and ongoing pipeline incidents and noncompliance," the sustainability group argued.
The B.C. provincial government and other interveners also questioned whether adequate response plans are in place in the event of a land or marine spill.
Meanwhile, the Haisla Nation devoted nearly 60 pages worth of written arguments to make their case for the existence of aboriginal right and title as an issue. They urged the JRP to acknowledge the strength of its claim and the fact that consultation to this point has been inadequate.
