Northern Gateway Pipelines

Northern Gateway Pipelines
Name	Northern Gateway Pipelines
Type	Proposed crude oil pipeline system
Status	Cancelled (2016); revival efforts ongoing (2020s)
Owner	Enbridge Inc.
Proposed	2009
Cancelled	2016 (federal approval quashed); revival efforts 2018–2024
Length km	1170
Start	Fox Creek, Alberta
End	Kitimat, British Columbia
Capacity bpd	525000
Diameter main in	36

Northern Gateway Pipelines

The Northern Gateway Pipelines were a proposed twin crude oil pipeline project developed by Enbridge Inc. to transport crude from Alberta oil sands to a Pacific export terminal at Kitimat, British Columbia. Advocates framed the project as a link between Canadian producers such as Suncor Energy, Canadian Natural Resources Limited, and Imperial Oil and markets in Asia including China and Japan, while opponents included environmental groups like Greenpeace and Indigenous nations including the Heiltsuk Nation and Gitxaala Nation. The project became a focal point in debates involving federal regulatory bodies such as the National Energy Board (Canada) and courts including the Supreme Court of Canada.

Background and project description

Proposed by Enbridge Inc. in 2009, the project aimed to build two parallel pipelines: an eastbound condensate line and a westbound heavy crude line to serve Pacific-bound tankers from a terminal at Kitimat. The plan intersected resource hubs such as Athabasca oil sands operations operated by Syncrude and Cenovus Energy, and port and shipping infrastructure concerns tied to Douglas Channel and regional hubs like Prince Rupert. Proponents cited access to Asian markets exemplified by trade links with China National Offshore Oil Corporation and investment interests from firms like PetroChina; critics invoked precedents such as the Oka Crisis-era Indigenous rights disputes and environmental campaigns linked to Tar Sands controversies.

Route and technical specifications

The proposed 1,170-kilometre corridor ran from the Fox Creek, Alberta region to a marine terminal near Kitimat, British Columbia, traversing watersheds including the Fraser River and the Bella Bella area adjacent to the Great Bear Rainforest. Specifications called for a 525,000 barrels-per-day capacity mainline with 36-inch diameter pipe, pump stations modelled on standards used in pipelines like Keystone Pipeline System, and a parallel condensate line similar in concept to infrastructure connected to facilities owned by TransCanada Corporation. Terminal facilities included storage tanks, berths for Suezmax-class tankers, and navigational plans referencing standards of the Canadian Coast Guard and port operations in Vancouver Harbour.

Regulatory approval and legal challenges

Regulatory review was conducted primarily under the authority of the National Energy Board (Canada) with federal cabinet decisions involving the Government of Canada and provincial interlocutors such as the governments of Alberta and British Columbia. Initial federal approval in 2014 met judicial scrutiny and administrative processes culminating in the 2016 decision by the Supreme Court of British Columbia and subsequent federal re-evaluation after the Supreme Court of Canada jurisprudence on consultation with Indigenous peoples such as in cases involving the Tsilhqot'in Nation. Legal challenges were mounted by Indigenous nations represented by counsel referencing precedents including R v Sparrow and litigation supported by environmental organizations like Sierra Club Canada and David Suzuki Foundation.

Environmental and Indigenous concerns

Environmentalists pointed to risks to ecosystems such as the Great Bear Rainforest, Douglas Channel marine habitats, and salmon runs in rivers like the Skeena River and Fraser River, invoking studies from institutions including the David Suzuki Foundation and international assessments like reports by the International Energy Agency. Indigenous opposition involved nations asserting title and rights under decisions such as Delgamuukw v British Columbia and claims filed by groups including the Haisla Nation and Wet'suwet'en communities. Concerns addressed spill response capacity of the Canadian Coast Guard, tanker traffic impacts compared to incidents like the Exxon Valdez oil spill, and cumulative effects considered by academic bodies such as researchers at the University of British Columbia and Simon Fraser University.

Economic impacts and stakeholders

Stakeholders ranged from energy firms including Enbridge Inc., Suncor Energy, and Canadian Natural Resources Limited to labor organizations like the Unifor and regional business associations such as the Chamber of Commerce in Kitimat. Economic arguments invoked increased export capacity to markets exemplified by trade links with Japan and South Korea, potential royalties affecting provincial treasuries in Alberta and British Columbia, and investment models referenced in analyses by the Canadian Energy Research Institute and Bank of Canada. Opponents cited potential impacts on fisheries represented by groups like the Pacific Salmon Foundation and tourism enterprises in areas such as the Great Bear Rainforest Conservancy.

Timeline and cancellation/revival efforts

Key milestones include the 2009 project proposal by Enbridge Inc., the 2014 federal approval by the Government of Canada, and the 2016 legal and political setbacks including reversal of procedural approvals leading to project cancellation announcements and shareholder reactions involving firms listed on the Toronto Stock Exchange. Post-cancellation, revival efforts involved revised permitting strategies, consultations with Indigenous nations such as negotiations with the Haisla Nation, and continued market interest with companies like CNOOC and investors monitoring pipeline precedent set by projects such as the Trans Mountain pipeline expansion. Periodic policy debates in the Parliament of Canada and provincial legislatures in British Columbia and Alberta have kept the project and analogous proposals alive in public policy discourse.

Category:Pipelines in Canada