Enbridge Northern Gateway Project

One oil spill is all it takes to cause a catastrophe

More than two decades ago, the Exxon Valdez ran aground, spilling 40 million litres of crude oil into Prince William Sound and causing irreversible damage. In 2010, we watched in anguish as BP’s Deepwater Horizon oil leak wreaked damage in the Gulf of Mexico. Now, Enbridge wants to bring the same risk to B.C.'s pristine coastal waters and rainforest.

On January 10, 2012, public hearings began into Enbridge Inc.’s proposed Northern Gateway pipeline. In addition to the roughly 4,000 concerned citizens who have signed up to take part in the hearings, thousands have also written letters to Prime Minister Stephen Harper and other elected officials with a clear message that this pipeline is not in the public interest.

The proposed pipeline that would carry oil from the tar sands to a port at Kitimat, British Columbia. After travelling nearly 1,170km through pristine wilderness and First Nations homelands, tar sands oil would be loaded on tankers bound for Pacific markets.

To get there, they must first navigate the perilous northern B.C. coast, travelling the same waters where the Queen of the North ferry sank in 2006.

Nature Canada, and many stakeholders from First Nations to Members of Parliament, oppose the project on the grounds that it poses unacceptable risks to the ecosystems and coastal communities of British Columbia’s northern coast.


It’s simple, when you move oil, you spill oil. It’s not a question of
if a spill will occur – it’s a question of when.

What’s at stake?

The Northern Gateway Pipeline poses unacceptable risks to the ecosystems and biodiversity of the Northern B.C. Coast. A spill could cause irreversible harm to the livelihoods of many coastal and aboriginal communities and the area's unique marine ecosystems. There are 30 Important Bird Areas in the Northern B.C. coast and the whole Queen Charlotte Straight is a globally important area for marine birds, other marine animals and fish. This rich ecosystem would be exposed to oil pollution from increased tanker traffic and an impossible-to-rule-out oil spill. The pipeline will also fragment the Great Bear rainforest and the boreal forest, home to birds and other wildlife, including Caribou and Grizzly Bears.

What’s more, both Transport Canada and the Canadian Coast Guard – two regulatory bodies responsible for planning a response to an oil spill and for cleaning one up – have incomplete or outdated knowledge on the risks of spills. The Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development summed up the state of affairs in a statement made in December 2010 – the government lacks the readiness to respond to a major oil spill.

Who Is Opposed to the Project?

Following the disastrous oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico, the House of Commons unanimously passed NDP MP Linda Duncan's motion to take a hard look at Canada's oil spill preparedness and fix any weaknesses. The motion called on the government to immediately “conduct a thorough review and revision of all relevant federal laws, regulations and policies regarding the development of unconventional sources of oil and gas”, which includes tar sands oil and deepwater oil and gas. It urged the government to consult all stakeholders to ensure “Canada has the strongest environmental and safety rules in the world”.

Not long after, the House of Commons passed a motion to ban tanker traffic off the B.C. coast. Introduced by Nathan Cullen of the NDP and supported by the Liberals and the Bloc Quebecois, it called on the Harper government to come up with legislation banning oil-tanker traffic in B.C.'s north coast.

First Nations have called for a halt to the project, with more than 28 nations signing an open letter to Enbridge CEO Patrick Daniel opposing the Enbridge Northern Gateway Pipeline and crude oil tanker traffic in B.C.'s northern coastal waters.

December 2010, sixty-one Indigenous Nations signed the “Save the Fraser Declaration” declaring their opposition to the proposed Enbridge Northern Gateway Pipeline.

In the long-term interests of coastal wildlife and the communities that exist along Canada's west coast, the government should take the opportunity to implement both motions and listen to the concerns of First Nations and other stakeholders in its effort to move us closer to preventing a major oil spill in Canada.

Many First Nations, citizens and environmental groups oppose the Northern Gateway Project because the risk it poses to livelihoods and ecosystems along the pipeline route and in BC’s coastal waters are simply too high. As the environmental assessment process progresses, more voices are joining this opposition not because of environmental concerns, but because it is becoming clear that the promised benefits to the Canadian economy are based on flawed assumptions. As the details of the project are looked that in detail, more groups and individuals are also questioning the benefits of project.

What is Nature Canada doing to stop this project?

Nature Canada and BC Nature are jointly participating as interveners in the environmental assessment review of the Enbridge Northern Gateway Pipeline project, which began January 10, 2012.

As interveners, Nature Canada and BC Nature have provided information on the impacts that the project could have on birds, bird habitat and terrestrial wildlife to a panel that will ultimately decide whether the project is in the public interest.

In December 2009, the government set up a Joint Review Panel to conduct the environmental assessment. At that time, we joined 18 environmental groups urging the government to undertake a much more comprehensive environmental assessment than was currently planned for the Northern Gateway Pipeline project. Despite this, the scope of the environmental assessment does not include the impact of increased oil sands production enabled by the pipeline, and will therefore exclude scrutiny of increased green house gas emissions, water and air pollution, boreal forest clearing and harm to wildlife.

In December 2011, Nature Canada and BC Nature submitted written evidence to the JRP regarding the deficiencies of the environmental assessment studies submitted by Enbridge. The evidence shows the many ways in which marine birds, Important Bird Areas, terrestrial birds at risk and woodland caribou may be negatively affected by the pipeline project. Three experts helped us identify the flaws, biases and gaps in the analysis done by Enbridge and show that Enbridge’s claims that the project will not cause significant damage to marine birds are unfounded and that the claim of limited impact on Woodland Caribou is also wrong and based on an incomplete assessment.

The panel is now hearing from over 4,000 individuals that want to have their voice heard on this project. In April 2013, when the JRP holds its final hearings, we will argue on behalf of the millions of birds, caribou and other wildlife that depend on these ecosystems to survive.  

What Can You Do?

Over the next year a Joint Review Panel will examine the application submitted by Enbridge, as well as evidence and comments from First Nations, individuals, environmental organizations, and other interested persons regarding the project and its environmental impacts. The Joint Review Panel started hearings on January 10, 2012 to decide whether the project is in the public interest. You can participate by sending a letter (by August 31, 2012).