Set Up BC-Alberta Oil FUND for Canadians

Northern Gateway:

Whether or not you're there, this is a project of national scope, such as our railways and trade networks were, and affects all Canadians. SO read on!

We're taking no "OIL premium FUND for Canadians" and letting it dry up or spill out - ON the most pristine fishery, forestry/timber, ground freshwater, ecosystems on Earth.

Can we at least have *Environmental Insurance* premiums paid on every gallon? No company has ever paid its fair share of a clean-up - it's always us taxpayers paying for that instead of fund managers.

This is not 'greenie'. How many would die for freshwater for their families as much as we have, and we risk losing more than 1/10th of that for what, exactly? A few executive's bonuses? 500 jobs for one year and maybe 100 forever? CAN SOMEONE ASK WHAT'S IN THIS FOR CANADIANS?

Can we have a fund pool with a huge premium so we can pay for bottled water, educate and take care of our health, and evacuate all the people? It's OUR LAND, can we have a stake in the profits? Boost our future like Norway did with their oil fund. Like, real cash in our hands and for our teachers and nurses, and not "good for our economy BS"?

I sent a request of environmental insurance funding to all the ministers in BC. I ask that you please sign it. The letter is as follows:

More..._______________________________________

May I offer you a humble suggestion for the Northern Gateway pipeline attempt. Although there is considerable, visceral objection to the project from people in both provinces or even for an alternate route, please consider environmental financial clean-up insurance.

To prevent extreme resistance the proposal is environmental insurance. It is quite possible that if above-exceptional due diligence is perceived ignored some could take to serious resistance against construction.

In a word, the answer is insurance. We've found that with high levels of risk - both economical and environmental, most companies (all oil companies) are not up to the challenge of maintaining their pipelines properly. Be it Shell in Africa, Exxon at sea, Chevron in Alaska, or BP in the gulf. There is no guarantee they can do what they say they will - keep our water and environment good for the future. It is unfortunate that in all these disasters the state budgets have paid more than the company in reclamation.

Can government regulations help? Somewhat. These also showed to be weak sometimes, such as with Alberta's "world-leading regulations" seeing over 1 million barrels of oil spills in this year alone. If that's the best, good luck to the rest of the world I must say. I worked in pipeline construction in our Arctic, and I understand that pipeline regulations and inspections are spotty at best.

Only environmental groups showed agressive lobbying enough to make us think twice about some projects, and in some cases, they take it too far. Co-operation is key, our oil company executives need some process that speaks their language. Enter new insurance companies.

The provincial governments own the majority of lands that may be wasted by oil spills. In most cases, they are in charge of keeping water safe enough to drink, and land value does not waste away as toxic tailings beds or oil pools. Strictly economically. Vacationers, homeowners, and cottage owners don't like oil splashing up on their beaches either. ( This means there's a value to all this pristine land, and people willing to keep it that way. And don't forget the wildlife. The very reason Canada is so prosperous and majestic in the first place. )

Big disasters cost big money to reclaim. The Exxon spill STILL has not been cleaned up, and much of the work was performed free by amateur volunteers. Sometimes faster and nicer than the professionals. But even the volunteers would've appreciated funding for shelter, extra supplies, and maybe travel subsidies.

An insurance company at its most basic exists to compensate for exorbitant losses that happen rarely or not too often. Let's make everyone involved in oil pipelines in charge of paying into an insurance pool for reclamation. Whether you like it or not, the only way to prevent an oil spill 100% is not to pump oil there. So there's always a chance to hedge against.

Companies and native groups will (if agreements go as planned) make huge revenue for long periods of time from this. That's why they're doing it. So ask the profiteers for a monthly fee, in line with the risk of disaster. Since it's just starting, this cooperative insurance pool will need upfront capital - what better way to invest in our risk mitigation? No one has to actually put up a lot of money up front, just legally agree to allocate it in case of. This is how our global oil reserves work, too.

So have companies, governments, native groups, and landowners pay monthly insurance premiums on the pipeline. It can be a tiny share of the revenue but a vital one. And our insurance cooperatives can be trusted. The jobs from such a new industry (insurance and environmental risk assessment will be formidable and these people are already trained).

So a third party with oversight and allotted funding. Who calls whether an oil spill is big enough? It would have to be agreed by two groups, or one group and an independent tester agreed by two groups. Then anyone can say - this is a bad spill, spend this much on it.

The best thing of all, is insurance uses the free market to judge the risk of an oil company pipeline. We don't have to trust inside executive intents to make it to plan, or the government measures to inspect every centimetre properly. An insurance group will ask for higher premiums for a riskier pipeline simply to cover its base.

AAA debt ratings for risk can apply to energy projects as sensitive as this one. And we can keep strong government regulations and inspections as a fundamental pillar.

____________________________________________

I, along with all our citizens, would be grateful for your consideration and due diligence on this action of *National Significance*.