Enbridge Northern Gateway Pipelines

The project was proposed in the mid-2000s and was postponed several times. It was announced in 2006. Enbridge signed a cooperation agreement with PetroChina in 2005 to ensure the utilization of pipeline capacity.{{cite news

|url = http://uk.reuters.com/article/idUKN2148130320080221

|title = Enbridge rekindles oil sands pipeline plan

|work = Reuters

|author = Jeffrey Jones

|date = 21 February 2008

|access-date = 14 February 2010

|archive-date = 2 June 2021

|archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20210602224333/https://www.reuters.com/article/idUKN2148130320080221?edition-redirect=uk

|url-status = dead

}} PetroChina agreed to buy about {{convert|200000|oilbbl/d}} transported through the pipeline. In 2007, however, PetroChina withdrew from the projects because of delays in starting the project.{{cite news

|url = http://www.downstreamtoday.com/news/article.aspx?a_id=4757

|title = PetroChina Withdraws from Canadian Pipeline Project

|publisher = Downstream Today

|work = AFX News Limited

|date = 13 July 2007

|access-date = 14 February 2010

|archive-date = 27 September 2010

|archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20100927073530/http://downstreamtoday.com/(S(0zrhn0rpyyxhkn552xo3cv55))/news/article.aspx?a_id=4757

|url-status = live

}}

On 4 December 2009, Canada's National Energy Board (NEB) and the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency (CEAA) issued the Joint Review Panel Agreement and the terms of reference for the environmental and regulatory review of the Northern Gateway Pipelines.

{{cite press release

|url = http://news.gc.ca/web/article-eng.do?m=/index&nid=500329

|title = Northern Gateway Pipeline Project Joint Review Panel Agreement Issued

|publisher = Canada News Centre

|work = Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency

|date = 4 December 2009

|access-date = 14 February 2010

|url-status = dead

|archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20110928040448/http://news.gc.ca/web/article-eng.do?m=%2Findex&nid=500329

|archive-date = 28 September 2011

}}

Enbridge Northern Gateway submitted its project application to the National Energy Board on 27 May 2010. The eight-volume regulatory application was assessed by a Joint Review Panel (JRP) established by the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency (CEAA) and the National Energy Board (NEB).

{{cite news

|url = http://www.bclocalnews.com/bc_north/northernsentinel/news/95121114.html

|title = Enbridge files pipeline project for review

|publisher = Kitimat Sentinel

|date = 28 May 2010

|access-date = 28 May 2010

|archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20100820032144/http://www.bclocalnews.com/bc_north/northernsentinel/news/95121114.html

|archive-date = 20 August 2010

| url-status = dead}}

On 19 January 2011, the JRP requested that Enbridge provide additional information on the design and risk assessment of the pipelines due to the difficult access and unique geographic location of the proposed project.

{{cite news

|url=https://calgaryherald.com/Review+panel+demands+more+details+from+Enbridge+Northern+Gateway+pipeline/4134970/story.html#ixzz1BYVE3Zkd

|title=Review Panel Demands More Details From Enbridge

|first=Dina

|last=O'Meara

|newspaper=Calgary Herald

|date=19 January 2011

|access-date=19 January 2011

}}{{dead link|date=December 2016 |bot=InternetArchiveBot |fix-attempted=yes }}

On 17 June 2014 the Canadian government accepted the project's proposal. It set out 209 conditions, identified in 2013 by a Joint Review Panel, to be resolved during the next phase of the regulatory process.

{{cite press release

|url = http://news.gc.ca/web/article-en.do?nid=858469

|title = Government of Canada Accepts Recommendation to Impose 209 Conditions on Northern Gateway Proposal

|publisher = Office of the Minister of Natural Resources

|date = 17 June 2014

|access-date = 17 November 2015

| archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20140701151400/http://news.gc.ca/web/article-en.do?nid=858469

| archive-date = 1 July 2014

| url-status = dead}}

On 6 May 2016, Enbridge filed a request with the National Energy Board to extend the sunset clause for the Northern Gateway Project.

The sunset clause (NEB Condition No. 2) stipulated that construction had to begin before 31 December 2016.

{{cite press release

|url=http://news.gc.ca/web/article-en.do?mthd=tp&crtr.page=1&nid=1072629&crtr.tp1D=1

|title=National Energy Board seeks public input on extension to Enbridge Northern Gateway sunset clauses

|publisher=National Energy Board

|date=25 May 2016

|access-date=29 June 2016

|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160914010332/http://news.gc.ca/web/article-en.do?mthd=tp&crtr.page=1&nid=1072629&crtr.tp1D=1

|archive-date=14 September 2016

|url-status=dead

}}

The planned project consisted of two parallel pipelines between an inland terminal at Bruderheim, Alberta, and a marine terminal in Kitimat, British Columbia, each with a length of {{convert|1177|km}}. Crude oil produced from oil sands would have been transported from Bruderheim to Kitimat, while natural gas condensate would have moved in the opposite direction. Condensate would have been used as a diluent in oil refining to decrease the viscosity of heavy crude oil from oil sands, and to make it easier to transport by pipelines.

{{cite news

|url = https://calgaryherald.com/business/Tens+billions+flow+pipelines+coming+decades/2410643/story.html

|title = Tens of billions to flow to pipelines in coming decades

|author = Dina O'Meara

|work = Calgary Herald

|date = 6 January 2010

|access-date = 14 February 2010

|url-status = dead

|archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20100110203635/http://www.calgaryherald.com/business/Tens+billions+flow+pipelines+coming+decades/2410643/story.html

|archive-date = 10 January 2010

}}

{{cite web

|url = http://www.downstreamtoday.com/(S(spkjtg55iu23we55gsibtz55))/Projects/Project.aspx?project_id=135

|title = Gateway Pipeline Project

|publisher = Downstream Today

|date = 7 October 2008

|access-date = 14 February 2010

|archive-date = 26 July 2010

|archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20100726131111/http://www.downstreamtoday.com/Projects/Project.aspx?project_id=135

|url-status = live

}} About {{convert|520|km}} of pipeline would have run in Alberta and {{convert|657|km}} in British Columbia. The crude oil pipeline would have had a diameter of {{convert|36|in|mm}} and a capacity of {{convert|525000|oilbbl/d}}. The condensate pipeline would have had a diameter of {{convert|20|in|mm}} with a capacity of {{convert|193000|oilbbl/d}}. In 2008 Enbridge expected these pipelines to be completed by 2015.{{cite news

|url = http://www.upstreamonline.com/live/article167023.ece

|title = Enbridge unfazed by oil sands chill

|newspaper = Upstream Online

|publisher = NHST Media Group

|date = 21 November 2008

|access-date = 14 February 2010

|id = {{subscription required}}

|archive-date = 25 September 2012

|archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20120925105230/http://www.upstreamonline.com/live/article167023.ece

|url-status = live

}} The project, including a marine terminal in Kitimat, was expected to cost {{CAD|7.9 billion}}.{{cite news

|title = Enbridge says Northern Gateway line unlikely to start in 2018

|first = Matthew

|last = Lewis

|work = Reuters

|url = https://www.reuters.com/article/enbridge-northerngateway-idUSL1N0R51OT20140904

|date = 4 September 2012

|access-date = 21 September 2014

|archive-date = 26 September 2014

|archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20140926173747/http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/09/04/enbridge-northerngateway-idUSL1N0R51OT20140904

|url-status = live

}} The Kitimat terminal would have comprised two tanker berth platforms, one serving very large crude carriers and another serving Suezmax-type condensate tankers. The terminal would have included oil and condensate tanks and a pump station.

As an inter-provincial pipeline, the project required a public regulatory review process conducted by JRP. The JRP provided a joint environmental assessment and regulatory process that contributed to decision making. The first session of JRP was held on 10 January 2012, in Kitamaat Village, British Columbia.

Other types of studies, such as socioeconomic assessments, were also necessary prior to project approval.Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, R.S.C. 1999, c. 33, s. 37

Kinder Morgan Energy Partners operates the {{convert|1150|km||adj=mid|-long}} Trans Mountain Pipeline System from Edmonton, Alberta, to terminals and refineries in central British Columbia, the Vancouver area and the Puget Sound region in Washington.

{{cite news

|title=Kinder Morgan Trans Mountain pipeline oversubscribed by 63%

|first=Aaron

|last=Clark

|agency=Bloomberg

|newspaper=The Vancouver Sun

|url=https://vancouversun.com/business/Kinder+Morgan+Trans+Mountain+pipeline+oversubscribed/5887443/story.html

|date=20 December 2011

|access-date=19 January 2012

}}{{dead link|date=December 2016 |bot=InternetArchiveBot |fix-attempted=yes }} In 2012 the company wanted to increase the pipeline's capacity by twelve times, up to {{convert|600000|oilbbl/d}}.{{cite news

|title = Trans Mountain twinning decision pending; pipeline goes through Kamloops

|first = Mike

|last = Youds

|newspaper = Kamloops Daily News

|url = http://www.kamloopsnews.ca/article/20120118/KAMLOOPS0101/120119769/-1/kamloops01/trans-mountain-twinning-decision-pending-pipeline-goes-through

|date = 18 January 2012

|access-date = 19 January 2012

|archive-date = 24 January 2012

|archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20120124165533/http://www.kamloopsnews.ca/article/20120118/KAMLOOPS0101/120119769/-1/kamloops01/trans-mountain-twinning-decision-pending-pipeline-goes-through

|url-status = live

}} According to Kinder Morgan, expanding the existing pipeline would have been cheaper than Northern Gateway and avoided opposition as experienced by the Enbridge's project.{{cite news

|title = Kinder Morgan's Grand Plan to Pipe Oil Sands Crude

|first = Mitchell

|last = Anderson

|newspaper = The Tyee

|url = https://thetyee.ca/News/2011/06/02/KinderMorganGrandPlan/

|date = 2 June 2011

|access-date = 19 January 2012

|archive-date = 15 April 2012

|archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20120415181635/http://thetyee.ca/News/2011/06/02/KinderMorganGrandPlan/

|url-status = live

}}

As an alternative, some indigenous groups proposed Eagle Spirit Pipeline from northern Alberta to the Prince Rupert area on the BC coasts. Many indigenous people wanted the economic activity from construction and operation of pipelines to improve conditions of their members.

Another project to export crude oil from western Canada was the XL expansion of TransCanada's Keystone pipeline.{{cite news

|title = TransCanada May Be 'Dead Money' After U.S. Spurns Keystone XL

|first = Bradley

|last = Olson

|agency = Bloomberg

|url = https://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-01-18/transcanada-dead-money-if-keystone-xl-can-t-be-salvaged.html

|date = 19 January 2012

|access-date = 19 January 2012

|archive-date = 21 January 2012

|archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20120121015453/http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-01-18/transcanada-dead-money-if-keystone-xl-can-t-be-salvaged.html

|url-status = live

}} which supplies heavy oil to refineries on the US Gulf Coast.

And the Energy East pipeline would have transported oil to refineries in Montreal and the Atlantic provinces, which now import oil from the Bakken formation in Montana and North Dakota by railway, as well as from overseas by ship. However, project proponent TC Energy cancelled the pipeline

{{cite web

|url = https://www.tcenergy.com/announcements/2017/2017-10-05-transcanada-anounces-termination-of-energy-east-pipeline-and-eastern-mainline-projects/

|title = TransCanada Announces Termination of Energy East Pipeline and Eastern Mainline Projects

|author = TC Energy

|date = 5 October 2017

|access-date = 6 April 2022

}}

in the face of political objections and concerns over economic viability.{{Cite web|url=https://www.nationalobserver.com/2018/09/29/reviews/i-would-read-them-riot-act-says-lisa-raitt-new-book-about-doomed-energy-east|title = 'I would read them the riot act,' says Lisa Raitt in new book about doomed Energy East pipeline|date = 29 September 2018}}

BC NDP leader Adrian Dix promised to pull B.C. out of the federal review process if he was elected in the spring of 2013 (which he was not), while also hiring prominent constitutional lawyer Murray Rankin to consider a legal challenge on who had jurisdiction over pipelines. Rankin argued that British Columbia should withdraw from the federal government's pipelines review process and set up a made-in-B.C. environmental assessment.[http://www.timescolonist.com/news/pipeline+review+needed+restore+legal+powers/7172586/story.html#ixzz25962JdK0 Murray Rankin, "B.C. pipeline review needed to restore legal powers", Times Colonist] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120902084506/http://www.timescolonist.com/news/pipeline+review+needed+restore+legal+powers/7172586/story.html#ixzz25962JdK0 |date=2 September 2012 }}, 31 August 2012[https://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/british-columbia/bc-ndp-leader-vows-to-back-out-of-ottawas-enbridge-review/article4493317/ Sunny Dhillon, "B.C. NDP Leader vows to back out of Ottawa's Enbridge review", The Globe and Mail] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170313095340/http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/british-columbia/bc-ndp-leader-vows-to-back-out-of-ottawas-enbridge-review/article4493317// |date=13 March 2017 }}, 22 August 2012 In an August 2012 NDP press conference Rankin argued that "a made-in-B.C. review would ensure that B.C.'s economic, social and environmental interests are fully addressed, that B.C.'s powers and responsibilities are properly exercised and that First Nations' interests are recognized within the new process".[http://www.timescolonist.com/would+pipeline+review+Adrian+announces/7128894/story.html#ixzz25980K7Jq Louise Dickson, "NDP would set up B.C.'s own pipeline review, Adrian Dix announces", Times Colonist] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210602224332/https://www.timescolonist.com/news/ndp-would-set-up-b-c-s-own-pipeline-review-adrian-dix-announces-1.24637#ixzz25980K7Jq |date=2 June 2021 }}, 22 August 2012 In response Dix said "Within a week of taking office, we will serve the federal government with 30 days' notice to terminate the 2010 deal in which the Liberals signed away B.C.'s interests."

This policy was blamed for the poor election result for the NDP in 2013. The NDP won nearly every coastal riding in the 2013 British Columbia general election - so it could be argued that there is a division between those who live in the path of potential environmental harm, and those who live away from the area. The NDP had been seen as the heavy favourites, until shortly after they clarified their pipeline policy.{{cite news|last=Hunter|first=Justine|title=B.C. NDP sticks with pipeline policy that may have cost election|newspaper=The Globe and Mail|date=6 November 2013|url=https://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/british-columbia/bc-ndp-sticks-with-pipeline-policy-that-may-have-cost-election/article15286055/|access-date=25 April 2014|archive-date=11 November 2013|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20131111011143/http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/british-columbia/bc-ndp-sticks-with-pipeline-policy-that-may-have-cost-election/article15286055/|url-status=live}}

Aboriginal groups' main concern was that the pipeline might spill and pollute the Fraser River. Many Aboriginal groups opposed the Northern Gateway pipeline proposal, though some others signed agreements supporting it. Enbridge and some Aboriginal groups disagreed on the extent of this support and opposition.{{cite web|url=http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/b-c-first-nations-dispute-enbridge-pipeline-claims-1.1260277|title=B.C. First Nations dispute Enbridge pipeline claims|access-date=1 October 2016|archive-date=4 December 2016|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20161204074315/http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/b-c-first-nations-dispute-enbridge-pipeline-claims-1.1260277|url-status=live}} Several coalitions and alliances produced formal declarations unequivocally rejecting the intrusion of an oil pipeline on aboriginal lands. These included Yinka Dene Alliance,{{cite web|url=http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Canada/2012/01/27/19306476.html|archive-url=https://archive.today/20130115062030/http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Canada/2012/01/27/19306476.html|url-status=usurped|archive-date=15 January 2013|title=Pipeline will not cross Dene Nations land, elders vow|access-date=1 October 2016}}{{cite web|url=http://yinkadene.ca/|title=Yinka Dene Alliance|access-date=1 October 2016|archive-date=6 October 2016|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20161006115710/http://yinkadene.ca/|url-status=live}} Heiltsuk Nation,http://www.coastalfirstnations.ca/news-release/june-17-2014-308pm {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140907195058/http://www.coastalfirstnations.ca/news-release/june-17-2014-308pm |date=7 September 2014 }} Nation responds to Federal Government decision on Enbridge's Northern Gateway Pipeline ProjectKlein, Naomi. This Changes Everything: Capitalism vs the Climate. Alfred A. Knopf Canada. 2014. p.p. 337-342. {{ISBN|978-0-307-40199-1}} Coastal First Nations,{{cite web|url=http://www.marketwire.com/press-release/coastal-first-nations-reaffirm-opposition-enbridge-pipeline-continued-ban-on-oil-tankers-1590769.htm|title=MarketWire: Coastal First Nations Reaffirm Opposition to Enbridge Pipeline and Continued Ban on Oil Tankers on the Coast|access-date=19 September 2012|archive-date=16 August 2013|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130816005711/http://www.marketwire.com/press-release/coastal-first-nations-reaffirm-opposition-enbridge-pipeline-continued-ban-on-oil-tankers-1590769.htm|url-status=live}}{{cite web|url=https://dogwoodbc.ca/news/coastal-first-nations-declare-ban-on-tankers/|title=Coastal First Nations declare ban on tankers|date=25 March 2010|website=Dogwood|access-date=10 December 2018|archive-date=14 December 2018|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20181214064810/https://dogwoodbc.ca/news/coastal-first-nations-declare-ban-on-tankers/|url-status=live}}{{cite web|url=http://www.cbc.ca/player/News/Canada/BC/ID/1449277835/|title=CBC video: Pipeline Opposition|access-date=19 September 2012|archive-date=15 August 2013|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130815183155/http://www.cbc.ca/player/News/Canada/BC/ID/1449277835/|url-status=live}} and Save the Fraser. The Wet'suwet'en First Nation opposed the pipeline, as well as many Dakelh First Nations including the Saik'uz First Nation.{{cite web|url=https://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/native-group-calls-for-pipeline-boycott/article1433630/|title=Native group calls for pipeline boycott|website=The Globe and Mail|access-date=1 October 2016|archive-date=13 April 2016|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160413041638/http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/native-group-calls-for-pipeline-boycott/article1433630/|url-status=live}}Mclean, Tanara. (28 January 2012). {{usurped|1=[https://archive.today/20130115062030/http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Canada/2012/01/27/19306476.html Pipeline will not cross Dene Nations land, elders vow]}}, canoe.ca

The Joint Review Panel travelled to the Heiltsuk Nation in April 2012 for hearings into the Enbridge Northern Gateway Pipeline proposal. "By some counts, a third of Bella Bella's 1,095 residents were on the street that day, one of the largest demonstrations in the community's history." Facing non-violent protest as part of the greeting at the airport, the JRP members suspended the hearings for a day and a half. While the hearings did resume, substantial time had been lost, meaning fewer people could present to the JRP than had planned.

"As the young people of the community explained when they finally got the chance, their health and identity were inextricably bound up in their ability to follow in the footsteps of their forebears - fishing and paddling in the same waters, collecting kelp in the same tidal zones in the outer coastal islands, hunting in the same forests, and collecting medicines in the same meadows. Which is why Northern Gateway was seen not simply as a threat to the local fishery but as the possible undoing of all this intergenerational healing work. And therefore as another wave of colonial violence."Klein, Naomi. This Changes Everything: Capitalism vs the Climate. Alfred A. Knopf Canada. 2014. p.p. 341. {{ISBN|978-0-307-40199-1}}

The Dogwood Initiative, ForestEthics, the International League of Conservation Photographers, and Greenpeace Canada were some organizations that actively campaigned against the Enbridge pipeline proposal.[http://dogwoodinitiative.org/no-tankers/do-more/bc-groundswell UBCM: Ask your local reps to Support Resolution A8: Petition] {{webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120917024005/http://dogwoodinitiative.org/no-tankers/do-more/bc-groundswell/ |date=17 September 2012 }}{{cite web|url=http://dogwoodinitiative.org/no-tankers|title=No Tankers - Dogwood|access-date=1 October 2016|archive-date=10 December 2013|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20131210181335/http://dogwoodinitiative.org/no-tankers|url-status=live}}{{Cite web |url=http://forestethics.org/news/were-winning-against-enbridge-it-aint-over |title=We're winning against Enbridge - But it ain't over |access-date=19 September 2012 |archive-url=https://archive.today/20130414182356/http://forestethics.org/news/were-winning-against-enbridge-it-aint-over |archive-date=14 April 2013 |url-status=dead }}{{Cite web |url=http://www.greenpeace.org/canada/en/campaigns/Energy/tarsands/Get-involved/stop-the-pipeline/ |title=Greenpeace: Stop the Enbridge pipeline! Email Campaign |access-date=19 September 2012 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130217214808/http://www.greenpeace.org/canada/en/campaigns/Energy/tarsands/Get-involved/stop-the-pipeline/ |archive-date=17 February 2013 |url-status=dead }}

The proposal was opposed by Indigenous groups. Groups like the Yinka Dene Alliance were organized to campaign against the project. First Nations bands in British Columbia, including many along the proposed pipeline route, signed the Save-the-Fraser Declaration in opposition to the project.

The Save-the-Fraser Declaration was signed by numerous indigenous tribes, declaring opposition to oil pipelines through First Nation traditional territories. It was signed by more than 130 First Nations.{{cite web |title=THE FACTS - ENBRIDGE NORTHERN GATEWAY |url=http://forestethics.org/enbridge-the-facts |publisher=forestethics |access-date=29 March 2013 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130317111607/http://forestethics.org/enbridge-the-facts |archive-date=17 March 2013 }}

In 2013 Enbridge offered a 10% equity stake in the $5.5 billion proposed project, over the following 30 years, to participating aboriginal groups. As well, Enbridge said it would put one per cent of Northern Gateway's pre-tax earnings into a trust, which was expected to generate $100 million over 30 years for non-Aboriginal as well as Aboriginal groups. The company said it expected roughly 15 per cent of the proposed project's construction labour force to be aboriginal.{{Cite web |url=http://www.northerngateway.ca/aboriginal-engagement/benefits-for-aboriginals/ |title=Benefits for Aboriginals |access-date=4 April 2013 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130502161925/http://www.northerngateway.ca/aboriginal-engagement/benefits-for-aboriginals/ |archive-date=2 May 2013 |url-status=dead }}

In 2012, without naming individual bands, Enbridge said that 70% of the affected First Nations had signed onto the deal. However, no band whose land was being directly traversed by the pipeline{{Failed verification|date=June 2014}} had signed on.{{cite news | url=https://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/british-columbia/some-first-nations-want-equity-in-northern-gateway-but-opposition-remains/article4234232/ | location=Toronto | work=The Globe and Mail | title=Some first nations want equity in Northern Gateway, but opposition remains | date=5 June 2012 | access-date=27 August 2017 | archive-date=5 May 2018 | archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180505153328/https://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/british-columbia/some-first-nations-want-equity-in-northern-gateway-but-opposition-remains/article4234232/ | url-status=live }}

Enbridge offerings were expected to create more division amongst first nations, as was the case with Enbridge's announcement in 2011 of support by the Gitxsan hereditary chiefs, in exchange for $7 million. However, this deal was quickly overturned following the closure of the Gitxsan Treaty Society Office by opponents of the deal. The Enbridge deal was subsequently rejected in writing by 45 Gitxsan chiefs, who claimed that the office had misrepresented the Gitxsan people. Only one chief in BC publicly supported the proposed pipeline, Chief Elmer Derrick. Derrick was the chief negotiator for the Gitxsan Treaty Society before its closure in 2011. Derrick was later dismissed as chief negotiator for the GTS.[https://vancouversun.com/Uproar+Gitxsan+First+Nation+after+support+Enbridge+Northern+Gateway+pipeline+announced/5808263/story.html Uproar in Gitxsan First Nation after support for Enbridge's Northern Gateway pipeline announced] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180806160002/https://vancouversun.com/Uproar+Gitxsan+First+Nation+after+support+Enbridge+Northern+Gateway+pipeline+announced/5808263/story.html |date=6 August 2018 }} by Mike Hager, Peter O'Neil and Gordon Hoekstra, Vancouver Sun, 5 December 2011.[https://theprovince.com/news/Enbridge+pipeline+deal+with+Gitxsan+Treaty+Society+beginning+unravel/5823253/story.html Enbridge pipeline deal with Gitxsan Treaty Society beginning to unravel]{{Dead link|date=July 2022 |bot=InternetArchiveBot |fix-attempted=yes }} by Scott Haggett And Jeffrey Jones, With A File From Vivian Luk; Reuters (reprinted in The Province), 7 December 2011.[http://www.cbc.ca/daybreaknorth/enbridge/2011/12/07/gitxsan-shut-down-treaty-office/ Gitxsan shut down treaty office] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130815175343/http://www.cbc.ca/daybreaknorth/enbridge/2011/12/07/gitxsan-shut-down-treaty-office/ |date=15 August 2013 }}, CBC Radio, Wednesday, 7 December 2011.[https://vancouversun.com/news/Gitxsan+Treaty+Society+doesn+have+authority+sign+deals+with+Enbridge/5956218/story.html Gitxsan Treaty Society doesn't have authority to sign deals with Enbridge] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180806160023/https://vancouversun.com/news/Gitxsan+Treaty+Society+doesn+have+authority+sign+deals+with+Enbridge/5956218/story.html |date=6 August 2018 }} by Neil J. Sterritt, Vancouver Sun, 6 January 2012.{{cite news | url=https://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/lone-bc-chief-backs-enbridge-pipeline-to-bring-in-more-jobs/article2303294/ | location=Toronto | work=The Globe and Mail | title=Search | date=18 January 2012 | access-date=27 August 2017 | archive-date=16 November 2016 | archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20161116101713/http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/lone-bc-chief-backs-enbridge-pipeline-to-bring-in-more-jobs/article2303294/ | url-status=live }}

Several First Nations (including the Haisla, Gitga'at, Haida, Gitxaala, Wet'suwet'en, Nadleh Whut'en, Nak'azdli, and Takla Lake) publicly stated (via the Joint Review Panel or in the media) that neither the Crown nor the established assessment process for Enbridge's project had adequately met their duty to consult and accommodate, or respect their Aboriginal rights and title.

{{cite web

|url=http://www.forestethics.org/downloads/Enbr_investor_summary_oct2010_Final.pdf

|title=Enbridge Northern Gateway Pipelines: Community Opposition and Investment Risk. Executive Summary

|publisher=ForestEthics

|date=October 2010

|access-date=28 November 2011

|url-status=dead

|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120307144640/http://www.forestethics.org/downloads/Enbr_investor_summary_oct2010_Final.pdf

|archive-date=7 March 2012

}}

Wright Mansell Research Ltd, in their [https://www.neb-one.gc.ca/ll-eng/livelink.exe/fetch/2000/90464/90552/384192/620327/624798/833081/B83-4_-_Attachment_2_-_Public_Interest_Benefit_Evaluation_-_Update_and_Reply_Evidence_-_A2V1R8.pdf?nodeid=832978&vernum=0&redirect=3 analysis] of the project, concluded that the project "would be a catalyst for the generation of substantial and widely distributed economic stimulus for Canada and a significant contributor to sustaining Canadian growth and prosperity for many years into the future. While the benefits of greater flexibility, adaptability and opportunity for the Canadian petroleum sector, through market expansion and diversification, have not been quantified, they are also real and important. Further, the cost benefit analysis indicates that, taking into account all benefits and costs, including cost expectations from oil spills, there is a large and robust net social benefit associated with the project from a national Canadian perspective."Public Interest Benefit Evaluation of the Enbridge Northern Gateway Pipeline Project: Update and Reply Evidence

A report put forth by economist and former Insurance Corporation of BC CEO, Robyn Allan, in early 2012, took assumptions of Wright Mansell Research Ltd's analysis into question{{snd}} stating that this proposed pipeline could have actually hurt non-oil based sectors of the Canadian economy. Allan stated in the report that the project's success depended on continual yearly oil price increases, by about $3/barrel. She also stated that an increase in oil prices would have led to "a decrease in family purchasing power, higher prices for industries who use oil as an input into their production process, higher rates of unemployment in non-oil industry related sectors, a decline in real GDP, a decline in government revenues, an increase in inflation, an increase in interest rates and further appreciation of the Canadian dollar."{{cite news

|url = https://thetyee.ca/News/2012/02/02/Northern-Gateway-Inflationary-Threat/

|title = Economist Calls Gateway Pipeline an Inflationary 'Threat'

|date = 2 February 2012

|access-date = 9 February 2012

|archive-date = 9 February 2012

|archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20120209055552/http://thetyee.ca/News/2012/02/02/Northern-Gateway-Inflationary-Threat/

|url-status = live

}}{{cite news

|url = https://www.cbc.ca/news/business/northern-gateway-would-hurt-economy-study-says-1.1190989

|title = Northern Gateway would hurt economy, study says

|date = 2 February 2012

|access-date = 9 February 2012

|work = CBC News

|archive-date = 5 February 2012

|archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20120205220707/http://www.cbc.ca/news/business/story/2012/02/02/northern-gateway-oil-price-shock.html

|url-status = live

}}

There has been an informal moratorium on large tanker traffic in Dixon Entrance, Hecate Strait, and the Queen Charlotte Sound since 1972.{{cite news

|url = https://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/british-columbia/tanker-traffic-in-an-oil-spill-sensitive-world/article1663756/

|title = Tanker Traffic in a Spill Sensitive World

|work = The Globe and Mail

|first = Rebecca

|last = Lindell

|date = 28 August 2010

|access-date = 9 December 2010

|location = Toronto

|archive-date = 10 December 2010

|archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20101210070739/http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/british-columbia/tanker-traffic-in-an-oil-spill-sensitive-world/article1663756/

|url-status = live

}} Since then, the federal and provincial governments have commissioned periodic studies to reassess whether to lift the tanker moratorium. Each study has concluded that the risk of tanker spills is too high. In 2003–2004, the federal government initiated a three-part review process, including a scientific review by the Royal Society of Canada (the [https://web.archive.org/web/20120204043226/http://www.rsc.ca/documents/fullreportEN.pdf RSC report]), a First Nations engagement process (the [https://web.archive.org/web/20130228110451/http://www.nrcan.gc.ca/sites/www.nrcan.gc.ca.energy/files/pdf/eneene/sources/offext/pdf/rigdro-eng.pdf Brooks Report]), and a public review process (the [https://web.archive.org/web/20130228110447/http://www.nrcan.gc.ca/sites/www.nrcan.gc.ca.energy/files/pdf/eneene/sources/offext/pdf/prpcep-eng.pdf Priddle Panel]). The RSC report concluded that "the present restriction on tanker traffic along the West Coast of British Columbia should be maintained for the time being"{{cite web

|url = http://www.rsc.ca/documents/fullreportEN.pdf

|title = Report of the Expert Panel on Science Issues Related to Oil and Gas Activities, Offshore British Columbia

|publisher = The Royal Society of Canada, xix

|access-date = 14 January 2012

|archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20120204043226/http://www.rsc.ca/documents/fullreportEN.pdf

|archive-date = 4 February 2012

|url-status = dead

}}

In 2009, the Canadian government's position was that there is no moratorium on tanker traffic in the coast waters of British Columbia.{{cite web

|url = http://www.ceaa.gc.ca/050/document-eng.cfm?document=39962

|title = Northern Gateway Pipeline Project Joint Review Panel Agreement and Terms of Reference

|date = 4 December 2009

|publisher = Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency

|access-date = 9 January 2012

|archive-date = 16 August 2013

|archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20130816155301/http://www.ceaa.gc.ca/050/document-eng.cfm?document=39962

|url-status = live

}}

However, on 7 December 2010, Canada's environmental watchdog (Scott Vaughan, commissioner of the environment and sustainable development) in a damning report stated "Canada's government is not ready to handle a major oil spill from a tanker, in part because its emergency response plan is out of date".{{cite news|url=http://in.reuters.com/article/us-environment-spills-idINTRE6B649G20101207|title=Canada couldn't handle big oil spill: watchdog|work=Reuters|date=7 December 2010|access-date=1 October 2016|archive-date=17 August 2013|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130817135023/http://in.reuters.com/article/2010/12/07/us-environment-spills-idINTRE6B649G20101207|url-status=dead}}

In December 2010, the federal House of Commons passed a non-binding motion to ban bulk oil tanker traffic in the Dixon Entrance, Hecate Strait and Queen Charlotte Sound.{{cite news

|url = https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/b-c-oil-tanker-ban-motion-passes-in-commons-1.948609

|title = B.C. oil tanker ban motion passes in Commons

|work = CBC News

|date = 7 December 2010

|access-date = 13 November 2015

|archive-date = 27 February 2013

|archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20130227014937/http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/story/2010/12/07/oil-tanker-motion.html

|url-status = live

}}

{{cite press release

|url = https://www.ndp.ca/press/victory-for-bc-ndp-tanker-ban-motion-passes-house

|archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20101229085721/http://www.ndp.ca/press/victory-for-bc-ndp-tanker-ban-motion-passes-house

|url-status = dead

|archive-date = 29 December 2010

|title = Victory for BC: NDP tanker ban motion passes the house

|publisher = New Democratic Party

|date = 7 December 2010

|access-date = 15 November 2015

}}

{{cite web

|url = http://www.parl.gc.ca/HousePublications/Publication.aspx?Language=E&Mode=1&Parl=40&Ses=3&DocId=4844199

|title = EDITED HANSARD • NUMBER 109

|publisher = Parliament of Canada

|date = 2 December 2010

|access-date = 14 January 2012

|archive-date = 17 May 2013

|archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20130517121628/http://www.parl.gc.ca/HousePublications/Publication.aspx?DocId=4844199&Language=E&Mode=1&Parl=40&Ses=3

|url-status = live

}}{{cite web

|url = http://www.parl.gc.ca/HousePublications/Publication.aspx?Language=E&Mode=1&Parl=40&Ses=3&DocId=4859171

|title = EDITED HANSARD • NUMBER 112

|publisher = Parliament of Canada

|date = 7 December 2010

|access-date = 14 January 2012

|archive-date = 17 May 2013

|archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20130517121659/http://www.parl.gc.ca/HousePublications/Publication.aspx?DocId=4859171&Language=E&Mode=1&Parl=40&Ses=3

|url-status = live

}}

In November 2015, Prime Minister Trudeau's mandate letter to the Minister of Transport directed that the moratorium be formalized.{{cite news

|url = http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/crude-oil-tanker-traffic-moratorium-bc-north-coast-1.3318086

|title = Crude oil tanker ban for B.C.'s North Coast ordered by Trudeau

|work = CBC News

|date = 13 November 2015

|access-date = 13 November 2015

|archive-date = 14 November 2015

|archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20151114132958/http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/crude-oil-tanker-traffic-moratorium-bc-north-coast-1.3318086

|url-status = live

}}

The proposed pipeline was criticized by several entities, including government and non-governmental organizations (NGOs), the BC NDP and independent sources, citing Enbridge's spotty history with pipeline installation, non-conformance to government regulations {{cite news | url=https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/enbridge-breaks-safety-rules-at-pipeline-pump-stations-across-canada-1.1316100 | title=Enbridge breaks safety rules at pipeline pump stations across Canada | work=CBC News | access-date=18 June 2013 | archive-date=22 June 2013 | archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130622082313/http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/story/2013/05/05/pol-enbridge-breaks-neb-safety-rules.html | url-status=live }} and numerous spills.

• 2013 in June. The Canadian National Energy Board forced Enbridge to publish safety measures in place at 125 of its pumping stations. The response said that 117 of 125 pumping stations were in non-compliance to safety rules set out by the NEB. The NEB rules broken included lack of backup power at all but 8 stations and no emergency shutdown at 83 of its pump stations.
• 2012 In July, 190,000 liters of crude oil spilled in Wisconsin.{{cite web |last1=Culbert |first1=Lori |date=24 November 2001 |title=Story of a shattered life: A single childhood incident pushed Dawn Crey into a downward spiral |url=https://vancouversun.com/news/local-news/story-of-a-shattered-life-a-single-childhood-incident-pushed-dawn-crey-into-a-downward-spiral |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20201106170822/https://vancouversun.com/news/local-news/story-of-a-shattered-life-a-single-childhood-incident-pushed-dawn-crey-into-a-downward-spiral |archive-date=6 November 2020 |access-date=10 December 2018 |website=Vancouver Sun}} This followed a 230,000-litre leak near Red Deer, Alberta, a month before.{{cite news|url=http://business.financialpost.com/news/energy/alberta-suffers-second-major-oil-spill-this-month-as-enbridge-pumping-station-leaks-230000-litres-of-heavy-crude-northeast-of-edmonton|title=Enbridge pipeline reopens after spill near Edmonton|newspaper=Financial Post|date=20 June 2012|access-date=1 October 2016|archive-date=15 March 2017|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170315015302/http://business.financialpost.com/news/energy/alberta-suffers-second-major-oil-spill-this-month-as-enbridge-pumping-station-leaks-230000-litres-of-heavy-crude-northeast-of-edmonton|url-status=live}}
• 2011 On the first day of the public hearings into the company's planned Northern Gateway pipeline, U.S. pipeline regulators informed Enbridge of the leak from its Stingray Pipeline. Enbridge said they could continue operations at the Stingray Pipeline, which was carrying up to 560 million cubic feet a day of natural gas from offshore wells in the Gulf of Mexico. Bubbles from the pipeline leak were observed about 100 kilometres from the Louisiana coast.{{cite news

|title=Enbridge reports leak from U.S. pipeline as Northern Gateway hearings begin

|url=https://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/enbridge-reports-leak-from-us-pipeline-as-northern-gateway-hearings-begin/article2298173/

|author=Garth Woodworth

|work=The Globe and Mail

|location=Kitamaat Village, BC

|date=10 January 2012

|access-date=11 January 2012

|archive-date=11 January 2012

|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120111025428/http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/enbridge-reports-leak-from-us-pipeline-as-northern-gateway-hearings-begin/article2298173/

|url-status=live

}}

• 2010 Kalamazoo River oil spill, where over {{convert|3|ML|oilbbl|lk=on}} were spilled into the Kalamazoo River, and a spill in the Chicago area in 2010.
• 2008 Pipeline installation in Wisconsin, where over 500 regulatory violations were incurred in one year of construction. Enbridge also had over 600 recorded leaks and breaks over the previous 10 years.{{cite news

|url = http://toronto.mediacoop.ca/story/enbridge%E2%80%99s-dirty-oil-habit-put-display-investors/4770

|title = Enbridge's Dirty Oil Habit Put on Display for Investors

|first = Maryam

|last = Adrangi

|work = Toronto Media Co-op

|date = 24 October 2008

|access-date = 8 December 2010

|archive-date = 9 December 2010

|archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20101209074539/http://toronto.mediacoop.ca/story/enbridge%E2%80%99s-dirty-oil-habit-put-display-investors/4770

|url-status = live

}}{{cite news |url=https://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-investor/spill-halted-enbridges-reputation-sullied/article4324209/ |title=Spill halted, Enbridge's reputation sullied |first1=David |last1=Ebner |first2=Cigdem |last2=Iltan |newspaper=The Globe and Mail |date=23 August 2012 |access-date=13 December 2012 |location=Vancouver and Battle Creek, Michigan |archive-date=17 August 2013 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130817083145/http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-investor/spill-halted-enbridges-reputation-sullied/article4324209/ |url-status=live }}

The Pembina Institute published a report in 2010 saying that the pipeline would have adverse impacts on land, air, and water.

{{cite news

|url = http://www2.canada.com/calgaryherald/news/calgarybusiness/story.html?id=49a717b5-ee4c-46b3-879a-de97aa2f5180

|title = Pembina report faults pipeline to West Coast

|first = Shaun

|last = Polczer

|newspaper = Calgary Herald

|date = 19 January 2010

|access-date = 14 February 2010

|archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20130816211354/http://www2.canada.com/calgaryherald/news/calgarybusiness/story.html?id=49a717b5-ee4c-46b3-879a-de97aa2f5180

|archive-date = 16 August 2013

|url-status = dead

|df = dmy-all

}}

Some of Enbridge's shareholders asked the company to investigate the unique risks and liabilities associated with the project.{{cite report|url=http://www.enbridge.com/InvestorRelations/~/media/Site%20Documents/Investor%20Relations/2011-05-11ENB_AGM_TranscriptFINAL.ashx |title=Enbridge Shareholders Meeting. Final Transcript |publisher=Enbridge |format=PDF |date=11 May 2011 |access-date=13 January 2012 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20111013170511/http://enbridge.com/InvestorRelations/~/media/Site%20Documents/Investor%20Relations/2011-05-11ENB_AGM_TranscriptFINAL.ashx |archive-date=13 October 2011 }}{{cite press release

|url = http://dogwoodinitiative.org/media-centre/media-releases/shareholders-engage-enbridge-on-gateway-project

|title = Enbridge Shareholders Worried About Oil Spills

|publisher = Dogwood Initiative

|date = 5 December 2008

|access-date = 9 January 2011

|archive-date = 19 July 2011

|archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20110719080802/http://dogwoodinitiative.org/media-centre/media-releases/shareholders-engage-enbridge-on-gateway-project

|url-status = live

}}

• 1991 A Lakehead (now Enbridge) crude oil pipeline near Grand Rapids, Minnesota, ruptured on 2 March. More than {{convert|40,000|oilbbl}} of crude went into the Prairie River. About {{convert|4|e6USgal|m3}} of oil had spilled from that pipeline from the early 1970s to 1991, per Minnesota records. A resident in the area noticed the smell of oil and alerted the local fire department. Approximately 300 people living in homes near the site were evacuated for safety, but were allowed to return to their homes later in the night.[http://www.duluthnewstribune.com/event/article/id/175781/group/Investigations/ State records show many Minnesota pipeline ruptures {{pipe}} Duluth News Tribune {{pipe}} Duluth, Minnesota] {{webarchive |url=https://archive.today/20130121183236/http://www.duluthnewstribune.com/event/article/id/175781/group/Investigations/ |date=21 January 2013 }}{{Cite web |url=http://pstrust.org/library/docs/ops_doc2.pdf |title=1999 Colonial Pipeline Task Force Final Report |access-date=23 June 2012 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120316112409/http://pstrust.org/library/docs/ops_doc2.pdf |archive-date=16 March 2012 |url-status=dead }}{{cite web|url=http://www.incidentnews.gov/incident/6793|title=IncidentNews: Lakehead Pipeline Company|access-date=1 October 2016|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120314025704/http://www.incidentnews.gov/incident/6793|archive-date=14 March 2012|url-status=dead}}{{cite web|url=https://news.google.com/newspapers?id=Q1lYAAAAIBAJ&sjid=_vkDAAAAIBAJ&pg=3829,387617&dq=lakehead%20pipeline%20spill&hl=en|title=Spokane Chronicle - Google News Archive Search|access-date=1 October 2016|archive-date=2 June 2021|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210602224409/https://news.google.com/newspapers?id=Q1lYAAAAIBAJ&sjid=_vkDAAAAIBAJ&pg=3829%2C387617&dq=lakehead+pipeline+spill&hl=en|url-status=live}}{{cite web|url=https://news.google.com/newspapers?id=K2pFAAAAIBAJ&sjid=UbwMAAAAIBAJ&pg=5194,2089098&dq=lakehead%20pipeline%20spill&hl=en|title=The Telegraph-Herald - Google News Archive Search|access-date=1 October 2016|archive-date=2 June 2021|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210602224401/https://news.google.com/newspapers?id=K2pFAAAAIBAJ&sjid=UbwMAAAAIBAJ&pg=5194%2C2089098&dq=lakehead+pipeline+spill&hl=en|url-status=live}}
• 1979 A {{convert|34|in|adj=on}} diameter Lakehead (now Enbridge) pipeline ruptured near Bemidji, Minnesota, leaking {{convert|10700|oilbbl|m3}} of crude oil on 20 August. The pipeline company initially recovers 60 percent of the spilled oil. Later in 1988, the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency required Lakehead to extract more oil using new technology; removal continued on, with studies still underway in the area.{{cite web|url=https://news.google.com/newspapers?id=JTFPAAAAIBAJ&sjid=jAIEAAAAIBAJ&pg=6657,2195838&dq=lakehead%20pipeline%20spill&hl=en|title=Toledo Blade - Google News Archive Search|access-date=1 October 2016|archive-date=2 June 2021|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210602224436/https://news.google.com/newspapers?id=JTFPAAAAIBAJ&sjid=jAIEAAAAIBAJ&pg=6657%2C2195838&dq=lakehead+pipeline+spill&hl=en|url-status=live}}{{cite web|url=http://mn.water.usgs.gov/projects/bemidji/|title=USGS Minnesota Water Science Center|access-date=1 October 2016|archive-date=25 August 2016|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160825235027/http://mn.water.usgs.gov/projects/bemidji/|url-status=live}}{{Cite web |url=http://mn.water.usgs.gov/projects/bemidji/results/fact-sheet.pdf |title=Archived copy |access-date=23 June 2012 |archive-date=6 July 2012 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120706171128/http://mn.water.usgs.gov/projects/bemidji/results/fact-sheet.pdf |url-status=live }}

Multiple public opinion surveys, sponsored by Enbridge, Ethical Oil and other oil interests, were conducted on the Northern Gateway pipeline. An Abacus Data survey released in January 2012 for Sun Media found that 38% of Canadians were in support of building the pipeline, while 29% were opposed. Another 33% said they neither support nor oppose the pipeline.

{{cite news

|url = http://abacusdata.ca/2012/01/25/canadian-public-opinion-on-northern-gateway-and-keystone-xl-pipelines/

|title = Public Opinion on Northern Gateway

|website = Abacus Data

|date = 25 January 2012

|access-date = 29 January 2012

|url-status = dead

|archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20120127023626/http://abacusdata.ca/2012/01/25/canadian-public-opinion-on-northern-gateway-and-keystone-xl-pipelines/

|archive-date = 27 January 2012

}}

Another survey conducted by Forum Research in mid-January 2012 found that the share of Canadians who opposed the pipeline had fallen to 43%, from 51% in a December survey. Support for the project remained stable (at 37%, up within margin of error from 35%). 20% were undecided (up from 15% in December).

{{cite news

|url = http://www.businessweek.com/news/2012-01-29/harper-builds-oil-link-with-china-after-obama-keystone-slap-.html

|title = Harper Builds Oil Link With China After Obama Keystone 'Slap'

|first1 = Theophilos |last1= Argitis |first2=Jeremy |last2=van Loon

|date = 25 January 2012

|access-date = 29 January 2012

|url-status = dead

|archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20120130130745/http://www.businessweek.com/news/2012-01-29/harper-builds-oil-link-with-china-after-obama-keystone-slap-.html

|archive-date = 30 January 2012

}}

In British Columbia, a March 2012 survey by Mustel Group reported increased opposition to the Enbridge proposal. In their B.C.-wide telephone survey sponsored by Kennedy Stewart (New Democrat MP), opposition had grown to 42%, from 32% in an Ipsos-Reid online survey sponsored by Enbridge in December 2011.{{cite news|last=O'Neil |first=Peter |title=Opposition to oil sands pipeline growing in B.C., poll finds |url=https://calgaryherald.com/business/Opposition+oilsands+pipeline+growing+poll+finds/6374976/story.html |access-date=28 March 2012 |newspaper=Calgary Herald |date=28 March 2012 }}{{dead link|date=December 2016 |bot=InternetArchiveBot |fix-attempted=yes }}{{cite news|last=O'Neil|first=Peter|title=B.C. residents support Northern Gateway pipeline: poll|url=http://business.financialpost.com/2012/01/05/b-c-residents-support-northern-gateway-pipeline-project-poll/|access-date=5 January 2012|newspaper=National Post / Financial Post|date=5 January 2012|archive-date=9 January 2012|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120109142522/http://business.financialpost.com/2012/01/05/b-c-residents-support-northern-gateway-pipeline-project-poll/|url-status=live}} However, because their methodologies and context differed, the reported growth in opposition was difficult to substantiate. Ipsos-Reid conducted an online custom survey for Enbridge. Mustel Group included a single question on a shared-cost omnibus telephone survey, the same survey used in their political polling.{{cite news|last=Bailey|first=Ian|title=Poll gives NDP 8 point lead over B.C. Liberals|url=https://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/british-columbia/bc-politics/poll-gives-ndp-8-point-lead-over-bc-liberals/article2382939/|access-date=27 March 2012|newspaper=The Globe and Mail|date=27 March 2012|location=Toronto|archive-date=27 March 2012|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120327221450/http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/british-columbia/bc-politics/poll-gives-ndp-8-point-lead-over-bc-liberals/article2382939/|url-status=live}}

Justason Market Intelligence released a poll in March 2012 that focused on the role of tankers in this pipeline proposal. The poll found 66% of B.C. residents opposed to Enbridge's proposal to transport oil through British Columbia's inside coastal waters, including 50% who registered strong disapproval.{{cite news|last=Hume|first=Peter|title=Hume: Pipeline opposition likely to grow as supertanker risk assessed|url=https://vancouversun.com/technology/Hume+Pipeline+opposition+likely+grow+supertanker+risk+assessed/6423196/story.html|access-date=6 April 2012|newspaper=The Vancouver Sun|date=6 April 2012|archive-date=26 April 2012|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120426051109/http://www.vancouversun.com/technology/Hume+Pipeline+opposition+likely+grow+supertanker+risk+assessed/6423196/story.html|url-status=live}}

An April 2012 survey by Forum Research showed an increase in opposition among B.C. residents to 52% from 46% reported by Forum Research in January.{{cite news|last=Hoekstra|first=Gordon|title=More than half of B.C. residents oppose Northern Gateway pipeline, poll suggests|url=https://vancouversun.com/business/More+than+half+residents+oppose+Northern+Gateway+pipeline+poll+suggests/6450026/story.html|access-date=12 April 2012|newspaper=The Vancouver Sun|archive-date=19 April 2012|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120419235912/http://www.vancouversun.com/business/More+than+half+residents+oppose+Northern+Gateway+pipeline+poll+suggests/6450026/story.html|url-status=live}} In January, Forum polled 1,211 residents from across Canada; B.C. was a smaller subsample of that national poll.{{cite news |title=Harper Builds Oil Link With China After Obama Keystone 'Slap' |url=http://www.businessweek.com/news/2012-02-03/harper-builds-oil-link-with-china-after-obama-keystone-slap-.html |access-date=3 February 2012 |newspaper=Bloomberg Businessweek |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120208215049/http://www.businessweek.com/news/2012-02-03/harper-builds-oil-link-with-china-after-obama-keystone-slap-.html |archive-date=8 February 2012 }} In April, Forum polled 1,069 British Columbians.{{cite web|title=Opposition to Northern Gateway pipeline, coastal oil tanker traffic up sharply |url=https://www.forumresearch.com/forms/News%20Archives/News%20Releases/01777_British_Columbia_-_Northern_Gateway_and_Tanker_Traffic_Issues_Poll_%28Forum_Research%29.pdf |publisher=Forum Research |access-date=12 April 2012 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130816052645/https://www.forumresearch.com/forms/News%20Archives/News%20Releases/01777_British_Columbia_-_Northern_Gateway_and_Tanker_Traffic_Issues_Poll_%28Forum_Research%29.pdf |archive-date=16 August 2013 }} The B.C. sample size for the January poll was not provided.

The issue of the pipeline was a subject of controversy between the governments of Alberta and British Columbia, starting in 2011 when the Alberta government under Premier Alison Redford began pressuring BC to support the pipeline. In an 8 March speech to a "conservative family reunion" hosted by Preston Manning in Ottawa, BC Premier Christy Clark stated that "we support pipelines in British Columbia" (referring to liquid natural gas) but that she was not yet convinced of the benefits of the Northern Gateway scheme.{{cite web|url=https://vancouversun.com/business/Premier%20Christy%20Clark%20courts%20conservatives/6278629/story.html|title=B.C. Premier Christy Clark courts the conservatives|first=Peter|last=O'Neil|access-date=1 October 2016}}

Following the Kalamazoo River oil spill on Enbridge Pipeline 6B in Michigan, the BC government stated five requirements to be addressed prior to supporting any heavy oil pipeline proposal:{{cite news

|url = http://www2.news.gov.bc.ca/news_releases_2009-2013/2012ENV0049-001120.htm

|title = Environment Minister sets out government's position on heavy oil pipelines

|date = 1 August 2012

|access-date = 26 August 2012

|archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20120907014142/http://www2.news.gov.bc.ca/news_releases_2009-2013/2012ENV0049-001120.htm

|archive-date = 7 September 2012

|url-status = dead

}}

• Successful completion of the environmental review process. In the case of Enbridge, that would mean a recommendation by the National Energy Board Joint Review Panel that the project proceed;
• World-leading marine oil spill response, prevention and recovery systems for B.C.'s coastline and ocean to manage and mitigate the risks and costs of heavy oil pipelines and shipments;
• World-leading practices for land oil spill prevention, response and recovery systems to manage and mitigate the risks and costs of heavy oil pipelines;
• Legal requirements regarding Aboriginal and treaty rights are addressed, and First Nations are provided with the opportunities, information and resources necessary to participate in and benefit from a heavy-oil project; and,
• British Columbia receives a fair share of the fiscal and economic benefits of a proposed heavy oil project that reflects the level, degree and nature of the risk borne by the province, the environment and taxpayers.

BC premier Christy Clark in 2012 boycotted a national energy strategy among the Canadian premiers{{cite news|title=B.C. premier boycotts national energy strategy|url=https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/b-c-premier-boycotts-national-energy-strategy-1.1140137|work=CBC News|date=27 July 2012|access-date=17 November 2015|archive-date=15 August 2013|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130815184227/http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/story/2012/07/27/pol-premiers-friday.html|url-status=live}} stating "until we see some progress in the discussions between British Columbia, Alberta and the federal government with respect to the Gateway pipeline through British Columbia, we will not be participating in the discussion of a national energy strategy." This was likely over concerns that BC would receive a $6.1 billion share of a project that was expected to earn $81 billion in government revenues over 30 years, while footing a majority of the risk.{{cite news | url=https://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/british-columbia/premier-stays-mum-on-how-much-bcs-pipeline-approval-will-cost/article4462723/ | location=Toronto | work=The Globe and Mail | title=Premier stays mum on how much B.C.'s pipeline approval will cost | date=3 August 2012 | access-date=27 August 2017 | archive-date=3 March 2016 | archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160303213813/http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/british-columbia/premier-stays-mum-on-how-much-bcs-pipeline-approval-will-cost/article4462723/ | url-status=live }}

In July 2012 Clark said no to the proposed pipeline, unless Alberta entered negotiations with BC on revenue sharing. "If Alberta is not willing to even sit down and talk, then it stops here," she said. This is in response to the disproportionate risk that BC would have to take on with this pipeline.{{cite news|url=https://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/bc-vows-to-block-pipeline-unless-alberta-ponies-up/article4437308/|title=B.C. vows to block pipeline unless Alberta ponies up|newspaper=The Globe and Mail|date=24 July 2012|access-date=1 October 2016|archive-date=3 March 2016|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160303192705/http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/bc-vows-to-block-pipeline-unless-alberta-ponies-up/article4437308/|url-status=live|last1=Wingrove|first1=Josh}}

• Alberta Clipper pipeline
• Coastal GasLink Pipeline
• Enbridge Pipeline System
• Heiltsuk
• Trans Mountain Pipeline
• Eagle Spirit Pipeline
• On the Line (2011 film)

{{reflist}}

• [http://www.northerngateway.ca/ Proposed Enbridge Northern Gateway Pipeline] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20100115072902/http://www.northerngateway.ca/ |date=15 January 2010 }}
• [http://ecosociety.ca/northern-gateway-pipeline Opposition to the Northern Gateway Pipeline]

{{Enbridge (corporation)}}

{{Canadian pipelines}}

Category:Oil pipelines in Canada

Northern Gateway

Category:Proposed pipelines in Canada

Category:Oil pipelines in Alberta

Category:Oil pipelines in British Columbia

Category:Politics of British Columbia

Category:Politics of Alberta

Category:2010s in Canada

Category:Kitimat