The news out of the Joint Review Panel looking into the Enbridge pipeline should have a profound effect on us all.
One of the conditions is a requirement that Enbridge carry close to $1 billion in insurance, plus $100 million on hand to cover losses from spills.
I find this interesting, since normally an assessment of future damages covered is accompanied by an assessment of the risk to be covered. What is the size of the risk and how big a part of that risk will be taken? This so in every kind of insurance – be it life, casualty, automobile, what have you. This means not only must there be an assessment of the risk – i.e. is there likely to be a loss – but how much is a loss going to cost? This is especially true of casualty insurance, as the Joint Review Panel is dealing with here.
The second critical point is whether or not the insurer will continue to cover Enbridge after a loss has occurred? Can they cancel, leaving Enbridge’s further damages up to us the people?
This story will be seen (Enbridge hopes) as an encouraging sign, because opponents will be shut up now that these big numbers are involved.
I am not impressed – indeed quite the opposite – for this indicates that the Joint Panel thinks that there’s a risk involved. There is in fact acertainty. Dealing with this as simply “a risk” and announcing the coverage required is asking us to accept that “risk” because the damages are prepaid. Moreover, the amount of insurance involved is nowhere near what the ultimate cost will be and ignores the question: what will the long range cost to our environment be and how do you comopute that loss?
If one uses, as an example, the Enbridge spill into the Kalamazoo River, two years later they had used up all of their insurance of $650 million. The cleanup continues and the cost is expected to be over a billion dollars and much of the damage is forever.
Enbridge will be required to demonstrate insurance coverage at $950 billion – roughly equivalent cost of the Kalamazoo spill. BUT, the Kalamazoo spill was easily accessed. There were no mountain ranges like the Rockies or the Coast Range; no Rocky Mountain Trench; no Great Bear Rainforest to contend with. Let us, for God’s sake, ask a key question: How does Enbridge have access to spills on land? How does it get labour and heavy equipment to the spill? Doesn’t the Kalamazoo spill demonstrate that there can never be a total cleanup?
The BP disaster in the Gulf of Mexico has cost, so far, about $36 billion and rising.
Another critical question is who insures oil tankers, especially when many of them will be owned by companies flying a flag of convenience like Panama, the Cayman Islands and the like?
How is a coastal spill to be cleaned up and at whose cost?
What the people of British Columbia are certainly to have are spills on land and sea for which they will pay much of the cleanup out of their taxes. What we are also certain to have is enormous environmental damage forever.
Finally, the pronouncement of the Joint Review Panel should be assessing the frequency and probability of damage and laying that before the public for a decision as to whether or not these pipelines should be built in the first place.
This won’t be done and the Harper government is on record giving its approval of these pipelines no matter what the National Energy Board recommends.
Given the Kalamazoo experience, how does Enbridge control and clean up a spill when the only access is by helicopter? Every way one looks at this case shows huge costs – much paid by the public – with permanent damage to our environment.
Tuesday, 23 April 2013 14:28 posted by Juan Casador
Rafe is inaccurate. What the NEB issued are not conditions, but potential conditions for comments. Rafe they get equipment to a spill on land the same way they built it – with dozers, trenchers, pipe-layers, backhoes, and so on – by air or road. And now, they have a cleared right-of-way to do it, unlike when they started to build it.
You are “not impressed” the panel thought risk was involved – they are not stupid and if they had said there is no risk involved, you would be happy? Hard to please some folks!
Your suggestion that the pipelines should perhaps not be built because the panel (my choice of words) accepts the possibility of damage would mean we would never drive a car or fly in any airplane if your logic were accepted.
No sale. In my view, you are dogmatic and fail to present facts.
Monday, 15 April 2013 23:17 posted by Robert@ life insurance no exam
Great this one of the important thing you mention in this “The rules are very clear.
You cannot displace Canadians to hire people from abroad”and It may have filled their insurance but they still paid the bill.
They can’t get to the site of a drop?
Given the Kalamazoo experience much paid by the public – with permanent damage to our environment.
There is a critical question that doesn’t the Kalamazoo spill reveal that there can never be a total cleanup?
Another critical question is who insures oil tankers, especially when many of them will be owned by companies flying a flag of ease like Panama, the Cayman Islands and the like?
One thing is that there are different –different types of insurance. This is a restricted type of strategy. It covers only a section of the house and not the whole house. It includes damages done by hailstorms, ice, water purging and plumbing breakdowns. Some covers only a section of the house and not the whole house. It includes damages done by hailstorms, ice, water purging and plumbing breakdowns.
Monday, 15 April 2013 23:09 posted by Robert@ life insurance no exam
Great this one of the important thing you mention in this “The rules are very clear. You cannot displace Canadians to hire people from abroad” and It may have filled their insurance but they still paid the bill. They can’t get to the site of a drop?
Given the Kalamazoo experience much paid by the public – with permanent damage to our environment.
There is a critical question that doesn’t the Kalamazoo spill reveal that there can never be a total cleanup?
Another critical question is who insures oil tankers, especially when many of them will be owned by companies flying a flag of ease like Panama, the Cayman Islands and the like?
Monday, 15 April 2013 22:31 posted by ed the grocer
We get so very excited about the dollars from our exports. Remember that we export so that we may use the money to buy imports. What stuff do we want to buy from China? The only useful stuff we want from China is American dollars. So lets skip China and sell directly to the Americans. The USA will always need more fuel and we already buy a lot of stuff from them. Environmental disaster avoided.
Sunday, 14 April 2013 15:04 posted by Juan Casador
Ron the oil content of the oil sands is too low to ship oil sands, You would be shipping mainly sand and it would be totally uneconomic. It would be like shipping gold ore or uranium ore instead of the refined product.
For those of you who gave my earlier comment a thumbs down,. to what do you object? Are my comments not factual?
Sunday, 14 April 2013 10:19 posted by Juan Casador
Guys, this “toxic” label is a bit silly – it makes it sound like diluent is somehow more toxic than the gasoline in your lawnmower or the varsol you use for paint thinner and cleaning paint brushes. It isn’t. Of course it is “toxic”, but so is every hydrocarbon – and table salt if you take too much.
Rafe you apparently know little about the pipeline industry. Enbridge may have overrun their insurance on Kalamazoo but they still paid the bill! They can’t get to the site of a spill? How do you think they got in to build it! And they got in with bulldozers, trenchers, pipe-laying cranes, and so on BEFORE the right-of-way was cleared. They use helicopters and the right-of-way also has road access in many cases.
You are upset because the JRP thinks there is a risk involved? So what would you say if they said there was not risk? No way for them to win with your rules, is there?
As for your comments that the JRP should be assessing this and that, WAIT FOR THE DECISION AND REASONS! We do not have those yet. And these conditions just released are potential conditions released for comment as required by previous court decisions.
If you do 5 minutes research you will find who insures oil tankers.
Sunday, 14 April 2013 07:42 posted by ron wilton
If we must ‘ship’ the stuff, why does it have to be upgraded, mixed with piped in toxic diluent and piped back again to port with facilities for storing and loading the unrefined mixture?
Why can we not just mine the bitumen and ship it like we do our bitumenous coal, by rail in boxcars to existing coal port terminals and ship that to China’s upgraders and refineries.
Alberta would still get it’s royalties, China would still get it’s bitumen and BC would not get an environmental disaster.