Canada hikes the liability cap for oil spills in Atlantic and Arctic waters to C$1B, up from the...

Canada hikes the liability cap for oil spills in Atlantic and Arctic waters to C$1B, up from the respective $30M and $40M limits under existing rules. The changes deal only with offshore activity, which is poised to accelerate as companies begin assessing prospective new fields on the East and Arctic coasts.
From other sites
Comments (11)
  • Phenom1
    , contributor
    Comments (545) | Send Message
    ...real good way to encourage new USO.
    18 Jun 2013, 06:10 PM Reply Like
  • ebob
    , contributor
    Comments (20) | Send Message
    Liability should be 100%, with no cap if the cause any damage!
    18 Jun 2013, 08:26 PM Reply Like
  • Old Trader
    , contributor
    Comments (5732) | Send Message


    Isn't there a tree somewhere that needs some hugging?
    18 Jun 2013, 09:34 PM Reply Like
  • duncan1
    , contributor
    Comment (1) | Send Message
    what took so long
    18 Jun 2013, 08:29 PM Reply Like
  • daphnex2
    , contributor
    Comments (127) | Send Message
    The giant sucking sound is alive and well.
    18 Jun 2013, 09:33 PM Reply Like
  • cfg3450
    , contributor
    Comments (86) | Send Message
    18 Jun 2013, 10:07 PM Reply Like
  • ghss44
    , contributor
    Comments (7) | Send Message
    This really stupid increase effect long term prices, which hit the poorest the hardest. Just another cost producers will pass on. Since I have enough money to buy all the gas I need, maybe I should be as as disengaged as the ecofreek. above.
    18 Jun 2013, 11:05 PM Reply Like
  • timddeb
    , contributor
    Comments (555) | Send Message
    GHSS44, any chance you are American? You certainly write to the stereotype. If you damage someone else's property you are liable. That's why you should buy Auto insurance. Why should a company be exempt? They are not. This law merely does limit their liability. They will be able to buy pollution insurance for this. (I know, I used to place it) Effect on gas price? You couldn't measure it. Effect on the economy. Even less. Effect on production. Positive. If a company needs to replace their reserves, (they do) but know if they screw up they might not be allowed to proceed, or if they are they will pay a heavy price it will put more stringeant safety measures in place. Bottom line is less crude will get wasted, and gas prices will be lower, again by not much. SO the companies share price stays high. You can reap the dividends and avoid the crash in share price like BP sustained. That's why you should care. As for screwing Gaia, I doubt you will worry much, but your Grandchildren will.
    18 Jun 2013, 11:59 PM Reply Like
  • jerryu44
    , contributor
    Comments (111) | Send Message
    Another parasitic government seeking to punish a producer.
    19 Jun 2013, 01:24 AM Reply Like
  • bob adamson
    , contributor
    Comments (4560) | Send Message
    As the readily accessible high volume and low cost conventional pools of oil in politically reliable regions of the world are consumed, unconventional sources of oil and oil that because of its location is difficult to locate, extract, transport or refine increasingly are becoming the logical targets for exploitation.


    Historically the environmental costs associated with oil exploration, extraction, refining and transportation have been accorded low economic value and, in a real sense, have been seen as almost a free good (i.e. a factor that needn’t be included in costing a project).


    The unavoidable fact is that the risk of a major negative economic impact resulting from accidents associated with efforts to exploit these unconventional or precariously located deposits can be huge and it follows that it is irresponsible to proceed with such exploitation unless the cost of remedial action for such potential accidents is not factored into such projects.


    Canada’s Atlantic and Artic coast in question are subject to intense storms the magnitude of which arguably those who see the increased liability cap as unwarranted cannot imagine. Couple this with the annual movement of extensive packs of large icebergs through these waters and one begins to appreciate the limited capacity to totally protect against a drilling platform or pipeline being dislodged or other like damage occurring.


    Remember that these liability caps are designed to limit the liability of the oil companies. All Canada is saying is that, as it has the residual responsibility to clean up any damage, there needs to be a better balance between the liabilities of the oil companies and itself as exploitation moves into ever riskier locations.
    19 Jun 2013, 02:54 AM Reply Like
  • bob adamson
    , contributor
    Comments (4560) | Send Message
    As a brief follow-up to my earlier comment, here is an interesting article about icebergs off the coast of Newfoundland and Labrador.



    I appreciate that the fact that an iceberg knocks over a drilling platform or severs an underwater pipeline does not necessarily imply that the companies involved in the building or operation of these fixtures were negligent or are liable under common law for the resulting ecological damage. I'm simply illustrating one of the several major challenges faced in the exploitation of offshore oil deposits in these waters. Viewed in the larger context of these challenges, the responsibilities of the Canadian authorities relating to the need to respond to and remediate escaping oil in these wild conditions are many and significant and it is only proper that the companies involved are not totally relieved of a share of liability in appropriate circumstances. Arguably, seen in this light, the circumscribed liability represented by the liability cap policy is quite modest.
    20 Jun 2013, 06:34 PM Reply Like
DJIA (DIA) S&P 500 (SPY)
ETF Screener: Search and filter by asset class, strategy, theme, performance, yield, and much more
ETF Performance: View ETF performance across key asset classes and investing themes
ETF Investing Guide: Learn how to build and manage a well-diversified, low cost ETF portfolio
ETF Selector: An explanation of how to select and use ETFs