New Tanker Liability set for $400 million, $1.6 billion for clean up

[Warhippy]

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/new-tanker-spill-rules-raise-liability-for-companies-1.2641217

The federal government won't impose unlimited liability on oil tanker companies if an oil spill occurs off the Atlantic or west coasts, Transport Minister Lisa Raitt said today.

Speaking to a crowd in Saint John, Raitt said her government will instead raise the liability for a company that has an oil spill from the current $161 million per incident to $400 million per spill.

The government will also impose a levy on companies, with a total of $1.6 billion available to clean up an oil spill and provide compensation.

• EXCLUSIVE Confidence falls in safe transport of oil, polls suggest

The new measures are in contrast to a main finding of a tanker safety expert panel that recommended last fall that "the oil cargo industry should be responsible for the full costs of spills … with no limit per incident."

The expert panel was appointed by the Harper government to recommend ways to strengthen marine safety and reassure the public.

The government is taking the advice of the expert panel on its other key recommendations.

Support in Saint John for oil exports

This is the government's official response to the expert panel on tanker safety.

The panel's report was released last fall in B.C., where there is huge public opposition to the prospect of tankers carrying heavy crude down the environmentally sensitive coastline.

In contrast, Raitt's announcement was symbolically made in Saint John, where there is strong political support for an increase in oil export activity.

Saint John is the site of a future oil tanker terminal that's part of TransCanada's proposed Energy East pipeline. The Atlantic region is also seeing a boom in proposed Liquefied Natural Gas projects that would ship LNG to markets in Europe.

Aside from the lack of a cap on liability for companies, Raitt announced that Canada will put in place new regional planning and resources to better respond to accidents, based on local geography, in four areas:

• Southern British Columbia.
• Saint John and the Bay of Fundy in New Brunswick.
• Port Hawkesbury in Nova Scotia.
• The Gulf of St. Lawrence.

More research, technology for clean-up

Canada will also lift restrictive rules on what can be used to clean up spills, allowing emergency responders to use a wider range of technology.

The government is also committed to pay for more research into pre-treating heavy oil products at source so if they do spill, they won't cause so much damage, and it's providing more money to industry and universities for more research into how to clean up heavy oil.

There is also a commitment to help aboriginal communities buy equipment for marine emergencies and to partner with the Canadian Coast Guard.

A recent study prepared for the federal government suggested Canadians are increasingly wary of the environmental risks of shipping or exporting oil using any kind of infrastructure — pipelines, tankers or rail.​

===================================

In direct comparison to this.

Enbridge pays dividends to taxpayers in excess of $580 million per year.

The deepwater horizon disaster has cost in excess of $110 billion in clean up and lost tourism/fishing

The Exxon Valdez is still spending almost $30 million a year for clean up mitigation and monitoring

Kalamzaoo Michigan spill has cost Enbridge over $3 billion and counting.

So...how do you feel about being on the hook for basically the entire cost of a spill off of the west coast?

[Tre Mac]

Eco assassinations plz kkthx.

[DeNiro]

So basically they're saying to oil companies, "go ahead, have a spill, the tax payers will take care of it"

[aGENT]

Can we PLEASE have a new election!

[ronthecivil]

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/new-tanker-spill-rules-raise-liability-for-companies-1.2641217

===================================

In direct comparison to this.

Enbridge pays dividends to taxpayers in excess of $580 million per year.

The deepwater horizon disaster has cost in excess of $110 billion in clean up and lost tourism/fishing

The Exxon Valdez is still spending almost $30 million a year for clean up mitigation and monitoring

Kalamzaoo Michigan spill has cost Enbridge over $3 billion and counting.

So...how do you feel about being on the hook for basically the entire cost of a spill off of the west coast?

That a company is making money is good, it shows that it could pay damages.

The deepwater horizon was an offshore platform, not a shipping vessel.

The Exxon Valdez ended up having a total cleanup and punitive cost of around a billion dollars, which is in line with what the government is looking for. A very valid benchmark.

The insurance requirements for the pipeline itself should be in line with the Kalamazoo spill. Three billion in liability insurance is a reasonable request in order to allow the permitting.

You are confusing issues and taxpayers will not be on the hook for a spill off the cost should one occur.

[DeNiro]

You are confusing issues and taxpayers will not be on the hook for a spill off the cost should one occur.

Lol. Just what they want you to think.

And what about the loss of tourism, agriculture, and fishing dollars, after the BC coast gets turned into a barren wasteland? Will the oil companies cover that?

[ronthecivil]

Can we PLEASE have a new election!

Who are you going to vote for?

Liberals also support the pipelines. Maybe not as much as the conservatives, but they aren't so bad at math as to ignore the tens of BILLIONS that the oil sands contribute to the federal budget via royalties.

I suppose the NDP would say no and nationalize the oil sands in which case I would recommend investing in whichever company is first to market "Let those eastern bastards freeze in the dark!" and "Alberta independence!" bumper stickers. Also double check any mutual funds or pension plans you have as most that provide income tend to do it through evil banks (another topic) foremost and evil telecoms (second and another topic) but oil companies come in third. Also as large contributors to Federal and Provincial budgets I would recommend getting used to much longer hospital waitlists, teacher strikes, and tax hikes due to the sudden withdrawal of easy money.

[aGENT]

Who are you going to vote for?

Liberals also support the pipelines. Maybe not as much as the conservatives, but they aren't so bad at math as to ignore the tens of BILLIONS that the oil sands contribute to the federal budget via royalties.

I suppose the NDP would say no and nationalize the oil sands in which case I would recommend investing in whichever company is first to market "Let those eastern bastards freeze in the dark!" and "Alberta independence!" bumper stickers. Also double check any mutual funds or pension plans you have as most that provide income tend to do it through evil banks (another topic) foremost and evil telecoms (second and another topic) but oil companies come in third. Also as large contributors to Federal and Provincial budgets I would recommend getting used to much longer hospital waitlists, teacher strikes, and tax hikes due to the sudden withdrawal of easy money.

I'm not against the pipelines.

[ronthecivil]

Lol. Just what they want you to think.

And what about the loss of tourism, agriculture, and fishing dollars, after the BC coast gets turned into a barren wasteland? Will the oil companies cover that?

1.4 billion covers a lot.....

[DeNiro]

1.4 billion covers a lot less than you think it does.....

fixed.

[Gurn]

'due to the sudden withdrawal of easy money"

you mean risky money, right?

[Warhippy]

That a company is making money is good, it shows that it could pay damages.

The deepwater horizon was an offshore platform, not a shipping vessel.

The Exxon Valdez ended up having a total cleanup and punitive cost of around a billion dollars, which is in line with what the government is looking for. A very valid benchmark.

The insurance requirements for the pipeline itself should be in line with the Kalamazoo spill. Three billion in liability insurance is a reasonable request in order to allow the permitting.

You are confusing issues and taxpayers will not be on the hook for a spill off the cost should one occur.

Are you simply unable to read Ron?

I am sorry, where will the estimated $6-$9 billion come from in the event fo a spill off of the coast of BC again?

As the liability is only $400 million and the ceiling for clean up costs is only $1.6 billion...who then will pay the rest of it?

Or are you suggesting it will just go away, or even more incredibly suggesting that the oil companies Enbridge and the Asian owned tanker companies will just pony up the cash?

[Warhippy]

1.4 billion covers a lot.....

It is a $400 liability

And a $1.6 BILLION total ceiling for clean up costs...

Keeping in mind Kalamazoo is almost $3.7 billion in a river, Exxon Valdez costs tens of millions a year decades later and that the total estimate for deepwater is reaching $110 BILLION

Please, you're an educated person, at least read the entire article before posting nonsense with a biased point of view

[-DLC-]

1.4 billion covers a lot.....

Except the priceless and pristine coastline that some of us treasure. Can't put a value on that. Some things money can't buy.

[Warhippy]

Except the priceless and pristine coastline that some of us treasure. Can't put a pricetag on that. Some things money can't buy.

$1.4 billion doesn't even cover 1 single years worth of fishing and tourism on the coasts....

What an absolute joke

[Offensive Threat]

I think the Gov should have heeded the advice of the Tanker safety panel and leave the guys who cause the spill the full bill to clean it up without limit. If that bankrupts the company then maybe they should be more careful with how they operate in our coastal waterways.

I am for a pipeline but with more safeguards and stiffer penalties than the Gov seems willing or able to impose.

[Warhippy]

I think the Gov should have heeded the advice of the Tanker safety panel and leave the guys who cause the spill the full bill to clean it up without limit. If that bankrupts the company then maybe they should be more careful with how they operate in our coastal waterways.

I am for a pipeline but with more safeguards and stiffer penalties than the Gov seems willing or able to impose.

And this is exactly it. They've deregulated safety measures and off loaded the entire cost of the clean up to us tax payers

[Special Ed]

Except the priceless and pristine coastline that some of us treasure. Can't put a value on that. Some things money can't buy.

That's what brings people to B.C. And drives everything. Everything..... These greedy bastards are taking a massive risk. A spill off our coast is going to be brutal. Yes I said going to be. Only a matter of time.

[PhillipBlunt]

another conservative gadfly trying to justify his beloved party's extremely short sighted vision.

Care for a diesel smoothie?

[ronthecivil]

fixed.

To "fix" it correctly then come up with a proper amount that they should be insured for. Please show all the math complete with a net present value analysis to validate your business case if you know so much better.