Enbridge Inc. has been granted conditional approval to ship oil from western Canada through an Ontario pipeline from Sarnia to Hamilton.

But opponents of the $16.9 million project – who fear it could eventually lead to Ontario being a conduit for oil sands crude – say they’re encouraged by some of the restrictions laid down by the energy board.

Enbridge said in a statement that the company is “reviewing the recommendations and will provide a response later this week once the review is complete.”

The ruling comes as Enbridge seeks permission to build its big Northern Gateway pipeline to ship oil sands crude through British Columbia. It has also been beset by spills at pipelines in Michigan and Wisconsin.

Enbridge Line 9 is a 30-inch pipe running between Sarnia and Montreal that currently carries low volumes of imported oil westward to refineries in Sarnia.

Enbridge has proposed reversing the flow to carry 152,000 barrels of light crude oil a day from western Canada eastward as far as its Westover terminal near Hamilton.

The company also says the reversed pipeline “will be capable of transporting a range of crude oil products.”

That raised fears among some groups that the line might be used to ship crude from the oil sands.

The ruling appears to set one hurdle that will have to be jumped before that could happen, however.

The ruling says the current rate structure approved for shipping oil through the line does not allow for the transport of heavy crude from the oil sands.

“In future, if Enbridge wishes to transport heavy crude oil on Line 9, it will need to apply to the board,” the ruling says.

That’s “somewhat positive,” said Albert Koehl, lawyer for Equiterre, one of several environmental groups that appeared before the energy board at hearings in May.

“If Ontario’s to be a conduit for tar sand expansion, there should be some public dialogue or public debate,” Koehl said in an interview.

If opponents wish to appeal the decision to federal court, they must filew notice within 30 days.

Pipeline opponents say that synthetic crude from the oil sands is riskier to ship, with more chances of pipeline breaks.

Enbridge says that’s not the case; its lawyer Douglas Crowther called the claims “ill informed and unsubstantiated” at the May hearings.

“Enbridge simply will not transport oil that cannot be transported safely," Crowther insisted.

Enbridge noted at the hearings that reversing the pipeline’s flow will involve a negligible amount of new construction along the line.

Loading... Loading... Loading... Loading... Loading... Loading...

Whatever Enbridge ships though the reversed line, the company must also come back to the energy board to apply for “leave to open” the pipeline before it can start operating the line.

The energy board set out a number of technical requirements that Enbridge must meet.

The company’s actions in meeting the requirements will be subject to “rigorous engineering assessment by the board,” said spokeswoman Erin Dottor.

But she said there would be no public hearings involved in that process.

Much of the controversy around the Line 9 reversal stems from a debate over just what the project entails.

The current decision only allows Enbridge to reverse the line from Sarnia to Hamilton. That will allow Enbridge to pipe oil south to an Imperial Oil refinery in Nanticoke, which is now supplied with imported crude.

Imperial is anxious to refine western Canadian crude, which is priced lower than imported oil.

But Enbridge has also announced it’s interested in reversing the remainder of the pipeline to Montreal – although no formal application has been submitted.

The Sarnia to Hamilton project is even called “Phase I,” leading opponents to ask what the further phases might be.

Several intervenors who appeared at the energy board hearings in May said that once Enbridge moves the crude to Montreal, the company will want to ship it on the ports on the U.S. east coast.

Enbridge had previously proposed that scheme, dubbed “Trailbreaker,” but later backed away from it.

Several aboriginal groups appeared at the hearing to oppose the reversal, but the board concluded in its decision that “any potential project impacts on aboriginal interests will be minimal and will be appropriately mitigated.”