Enbridge Northern Gateway

Enbridge Northern Gateway
Name	Enbridge Northern Gateway
Type	Pipeline proposal
Status	Cancelled (2016)
Owner	Enbridge Inc.
Proposed start	Bruderheim, Alberta
Proposed end	Kitimat, British Columbia
Proposed length km	1170
Proposed capacity bpd	525000
Proposed products	Crude oil

Enbridge Northern Gateway was a proposed crude oil pipeline and marine terminal project by Enbridge Inc. intended to connect the Alberta oil sands to an export terminal on the British Columbia Coast. The proposal catalyzed disputes involving First Nations, environmental organizations such as the David Suzuki Foundation and Sierra Club Canada, industry stakeholders including Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers and Chevron Corporation, and multiple levels of Canadian political entities like the Government of Canada and the Government of British Columbia. The project underwent extensive regulatory review, legal challenges, and public protest before federal rejection and eventual abandonment.

Background and project description

The proposal originated amid increased production from the Athabasca oil sands and bottlenecks in export capacity that engaged actors such as TransCanada Corporation, Kinder Morgan Energy Partners, and financial institutions including the Royal Bank of Canada and Scotiabank. Enbridge planned a twin-pipeline system similar in concept to projects like the Keystone XL pipeline and the Trans Mountain pipeline expansion, invoking debates tied to laws such as the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act and agreements like the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. Corporate governance decisions by boards featuring directors with ties to Cenovus Energy and Suncor Energy shaped strategic alignment, while market dynamics driven by entities like OPEC and the New York Mercantile Exchange influenced export rationale.

Proposed route and infrastructure

The route proposed a gathering system in the Athabasca River–North Saskatchewan River basin running from a terminus near Bruderheim, Alberta through northern British Columbia to a new marine terminal at Kitimat, British Columbia on Douglas Channel. Planned infrastructure included twin 36-inch pipelines, pump stations, storage tanks, tankers comparable to VLCC class, and a multi-bay marine terminal requiring dredging and breakwater works. Engineering firms and consultants such as Jacobs Engineering Group, Stantec Inc., and WorleyParsons reportedly performed assessments aligned with standards from organizations like the International Association of Oil & Gas Producers and regulations under the Canada Shipping Act. The corridor intersected provincial features like the Fraser River watershed and ecological zones near Great Bear Rainforest and communities including Prince George, Terrace, British Columbia, and Kitimat-Stikine Regional District.

Environmental and Indigenous concerns

Environmental advocates such as Greenpeace and Nature Canada raised risks of oil spills impacting marine species like killer whale populations in the Salish Sea and salmon runs of the Skeena River and Fraser River. Scientific institutions including the Royal Society of Canada and universities like the University of British Columbia and University of Alberta contributed research on bitumen behavior, pipeline integrity, and greenhouse gas emissions relative to Paris Agreement commitments. Numerous First Nations—including the Wet'suwet'en, Heiltsuk Nation, Haisla Nation, Gitxaala Nation, Tsleil-Waututh Nation, and Lake Babine Nation—asserted rights under ancestral title claims and consulted protections tied to rulings such as Tsilhqot'in Nation v British Columbia. Legal counsel for Indigenous groups often referenced obligations under the Constitution Act, 1982 and sought accommodation under Canadian jurisprudence exemplified by the Delgamuukw v British Columbia decision.

Regulatory processes and legal challenges

The project entered review by the National Energy Board (Canada) and required federal certificates and provincial permits, engaging statutes like the Fisheries Act and the Navigable Waters Protection Act. The NEB process entailed extensive hearings contrasted with processes used for projects such as the Muskrat Falls development and the Lower Churchill Project. Judicial reviews reached courts including the Federal Court of Appeal and culminated amid political actions by federal ministers and premiers. Legal challenges involved litigation over consultation adequacy with First Nations and compliance with environmental assessment obligations, paralleling disputes seen in cases involving Keystone XL litigation and regulatory reforms prompted after the G20 Summit controversies.

Economic arguments and stakeholder positions

Proponents including Enbridge Inc., the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers, and some provincial governments argued for export revenue, job creation, and market diversification to Asia via Pacific ports similar to Vancouver Port Authority operations. Opponents—ranging from Amnesty International to local fisheries groups and small-business associations in communities like Prince Rupert—cited risks to tourism, commercial fisheries, and Indigenous livelihoods. Financial institutions and insurers including Lloyd's of London and pension funds such as the Canada Pension Plan Investment Board weighed risk exposure; some asset managers enacted divestment or conditional financing policies like those later adopted around the Paris Climate Accord. Economic analyses compared netback economics against pipeline alternatives including rail shipments handled by companies like Canadian National Railway and Canadian Pacific Kansas City.

Opposition, protests, and activism

Public mobilization included mass demonstrations organized by coalitions such as the Defend the Coast movement, coordinated actions by labor groups like the Canadian Union of Public Employees and environmental direct actions by groups connected to Extinction Rebellion-style tactics. Blockades and legal protest camps by Wet'suwet'en and allied groups echoed Indigenous-led actions seen in events like the Idle No More movement. International solidarity drew attention from organizations such as 350.org and artists aligned with campaigns led by figures linked to David Suzuki Foundation and prominent activists. Media outlets including the National Post, The Globe and Mail, CBC Television, and The New York Times documented the conflict, contributing to parliamentary debates in the House of Commons of Canada and resulting political pressure that affected cabinet decisions and ultimately the project's cancellation.

Category:Proposed pipelines in Canada