Enbridge disagrees with a new report on Line 5 which argues the closure of the controversial pipeline would be manageable.
The document, commissioned by Environmental Defense Canada, said there are options available to meet demand for oil and refined products in Ontario and Quebec without Line 5.
Enbridge said the recommended plan, in the event of a Line 5 shutdown, is misguided, makes no sense and would put the environment at risk.
"It would burn more fuel to transport energy, clog critical roads and rail lines and create unnecessary energy dislocations while raising prices," read a statement from the company.
The report claimed with an orderly shutdown of Line 5, the price of gasoline would increase by 1.8 cents per litre. It also said the closure of Line 5 is inevitable - either through court order or due to a rupture.
The document recommended the use of Line 78, another Enbridge pipeline that also goes to Sarnia, to reduce a shortfall. It states the pipeline is not being used to its full capacity. Enbridge disagreed that Line 78 was a viable alternative source, saying "that pipeline is already full and meeting the demands of other customers."
Another recommendation is to use rail and marine tankers to make up for the remaining lost capacity. Enbridge said it would take 2,100 tanker trucks or 850 rail cars every day to replace the energy being delivered by Line 5.
"There are currently no alternatives to deliver the energy that Line 5 transports," read the statement. "Adding additional rail or marine vessel capacity is not only bad for the environment and our climate, but will take years to develop and additional time to permit."
Enbridge said the best long-term plan to maintain the energy needs of this region is the Great Lakes Tunnel Project, a $500 million Line 5 replacement project announced in 2018.
In October, the Canadian government invoked a 1977 treaty with the US to keep the pipeline flowing.
