Canadian regulators recommended approval Thursday of a controversial Can$7.9 billion (US$7.4 billion) pipeline to move crude from Alberta's oil sands to the Pacific Coast for shipping overseas.

Enbridge Inc.'s Northern Gateway project aims to move 525,000 barrels of crude per day from Edmonton, Alberta across 1,178 kilometers (732 miles) of rugged mountain landscapes to a new marine terminal in Kitimat on British Columbia's northern coast, for shipping to Asia.

A final decision on whether to allow the project to proceed now rests with the federal cabinet, which has until July 2014 to announce its decision.

"The panel found that the project, if built and operated in compliance with the conditions set out in its report, would be in the public interest," the National Energy Board Joint Review Panel said in a statement.

The panel made its nod subject to 209 conditions, including steps to protect marine mammals and restore caribou habitat, and research into the behavior and cleanup of heavy oils.

Its assessment followed 18 months of hearings, and vocal opposition from environmentalists and aboriginals.

Natural Resources Minister Joe Oliver said the government will review the panel's assessment and consult with aboriginals who claim lands on which pipeline would be built.

"No project will be approved unless it is safe for Canadians and safe for the environment," he added.

The Kitimat marine terminal would have two tanker berths, three condensate tanks and 16 oil storage tanks.

Up to 220 supertankers would use the terminal each year, one report estimated.

Environmentalists and aboriginals oppose the project, fearing a spill could damage the pristine coastline that includes salmon-bearing rivers and the habitat of a rare white bear.

The review panel heard from more than 1,450 participants in 21 communities along the proposed pipeline route, and reviewed 175,000 pages of submissions, as well as 9,000 letters of comment.

It found that construction and routine operation of the project "would cause no significant adverse environmental effects, with the exception of cumulative effects for certain populations of woodland caribou and grizzly bear."

The impact on wildlife would be on "the low end of the range of possible significance," it added.

The panel acknowledged that a major spill could be disastrous but determined that redundant safety systems proposed by Enbridge would significantly mitigate the risk of malfunctions or accidents.

"Opening Pacific Basin markets is important to the Canadian economy and society," it said, adding that "the project would bring significant local, regional, and national economic and social benefits."

"Canada and Canadians would be better off with the Enbridge Northern Gateway project than without it," the panel concluded.

Environmental Defence Canada said it was "deeply disappointed" with the decision.

"There is no such thing as a spill-proof pipeline," the environmentalist group said in a statement.

"All it would take is one spill to irreversibly damage any of the 800 streams and rivers, dozens of communities, traditional territories of First Nations, and the irreplaceable Great Bear Rainforest.

"The pipeline proposal is a recipe for ecological and social disaster and that is why it should not be built."

Canada holds the third-largest oil reserves in the world.

Virtually all of its energy exports go to the United States, but after Washington initially rejected TransCanada's proposed Keystone XL pipeline connecting the landlocked Alberta oil sands to Texas refineries, focus shifted to China and other Pacific nations as new customers.

The Northern Gateway project gained momentum, and companies came forward with new proposals to build pipelines to move Alberta oil to refineries on Canada's Atlantic Coast and to Arctic ports, in anticipation of a forecasted surge in global demand for oil.