Northern Gateway believes its pipeline proposal should proceed because it's in the best interest of Canada, despite the stiff public opposition to the plan.
In its final argument to the National Energy Board's Joint Review Panel, the company laid out its case as to why the $6.5 billion pipeline and terminal from northern Alberta to Kitimat should be built. The nearly 400-page document includes a history of what the company has done to date, why the project is needed as well as explanations about its assurances that it can build a pipeline up to world-class safety standards.
"The project is urgently needed and meets all requirements for approval under the [National Energy Board] Act," the company wrote. "It is in the Canadian public interest. It is equally clear that, with the hundreds of commitments and mitigation measures proposed, the project is not likely to cause significant adverse effects on the environment."
The company said it knows better than anyone that spills need to be avoided and that its views on the issue are aligned with those who have expressed environmental concerns about the pipeline.
Northern Gateway says the project will produce is close to $1 billion in benefits for Aboriginal people and communities - something it describes as "unprecedented opportunities."
Despite the company's belief that the project is in the best interest of Canadians, the pipeline has generated significant opposition, something Northern Gateway acknowledged has hurt the reputation of its parent company Enbridge. The pipeline environmental assessment process began around the same time as a major spill from an Enbridge pipeline in Michigan in 2010, something the company said resulted in further challenges - but the company said the fact that it continued with Northern Gateway showed how committed it is to the project.
"Enbridge's perseverance in this project on behalf of its stakeholders and all Canadians is a
testament to its belief in the value of pipeline infrastructure to the Canadian economy, the value of
connecting Canadian resources to markets that need those resources for their own economic and social development, and the value of diversifying Canada's market for one of the building blocks of our economy at a time when Canada's oil exports are severely discounted," the company wrote.
Throughout the process, evidence presented by Northern Gateway was sometimes at odds with evidence presented by intervener groups. In its final argument, the company defended its witnesses by listing their expertise and saying they're in a better position to answer questions about the project.
"Not only were Northern Gateway's expert witnesses highly qualified but they had one other
material advantage. Each of them had thorough knowledge of the project and all relevant scientific and engineering studies that had been done by the Northern Gateway team in support of the project," the company wrote. "In contrast, witnesses seated by interveners often had limited qualifications, and those who were qualified had often not read all of the written materials filed by Northern Gateway, nor the transcripts of evidence given earlier in the proceeding."
