Enbridge is arguing in a Michigan court it is not legally liable for damages from its spill oil spill last summer.
"No one has to sue Enbridge to be made whole," said Enbridge spokesperson Terri Larson.
The spill leaked more than three million litres of oil, some of it into a 50-kilometre stretch of the Kalamazoo River and attracted the attention of opponents of Enbridge's proposed $5.5-billion Northern Gateway pipeline.
Environmental groups and First Nations in British Columbia said the Michigan oil spill showed a similar event in northern B.C. was inevitable.
Enbridge reiterated Wednesday it accepts responsibility for an oil spill in Michigan, its clean-up and all legitimate damage claims related to the spill.
Following a report in the Michigan Messenger that Enbridge was arguing it was not legally liable for damages from the spill, a British Columbia environmental group lashed out at Enbridge.
ForestEthics says Enbridge's arguments in the Michigan court have implications for the company's proposed Northern Gateway pipeline.
"When the spill is in the media spotlight, oil companies will promise the world," said ForestEthics spokesperson Nikki Skuce.
"As soon as costs start mounting and the spotlight begins to dim, they put the onus on stressed out, vulnerable residents to prove their liability."
In numerous public statements, Enbridge has said it accepts full responsibility for all the costs related to the emergency response and for any property damage as a result of the spill. This statement remains published on its website at esponse.enbridgeus.com/response.
But the Michigan Messenger reported this week that six months after the spill some residents have not been able to get compensation through the claims process set up by Enbridge. (Enbridge says it has settled 95 per cent of claims, but that some disputes are inevitable.)
Some 10 households in Marshall and Battle Creek in Michigan have taken the company to court, where Enbridge is fighting the claims.
Enbridge is arguing in court it cannot be held liable for the oil spill because it has followed all relevant laws, regulations and industry standards and the damage was not foreseeable, the Michigan Messenger reported.
Enbridge also laid out in court that statements promising responsibility were made in press releases and brochures, were mere expression of intentions, not offers, the Michigan paper reported.
Larson, the Enbridge spokesperson, said she couldn't speak directly about any specific cases. But she noted that in the suit at issue the company responded point by point, and some language used is simply part of the litigation process. In no way does it alter the company's promise to pay legitimate costs, said Larson.
Mary MacDonald, with the Prince George-based Sea-to-Sands Conservation Alliance, said she has concerns over Enbridge's legal arguments in Michigan.
If they can argue in Michigan they are not liable because they were following regulations, or a spill is not foreseeable, they can do the same in northern British Columbia, said MacDonald.
That's particularly relevant in northern B.C.'s rugged terrain where numerous events could be argued as unforeseeable, she said.
The proposed 1,170-kilometre Northern Gateway pipeline - which will pass just north of Prince George - is meant to open up new markets in Asia for crude from the Alberta oilsands.
