Who gains from saving nature
Ledger 1 : 33 — For each dollar financing nature-based solutions in 2023, about $33 financed activities harmful to nature. (UNEP)
Cases / Oil spill · United States · 2010–2017

Enbridge Line 6B oil spill, Marshall, Michigan

Nature's voice · report
No measurement of the harm done to me here is on record.
Did nature suffer? Not measured.
Not on record
  • The record does not name which of my species, waters, soils or forests were harmed.
What the record lacks: 1 none on record · 2 insufficient · 1 not measured · 1 disputed · 1 unclear See the gaps

An oil spill from Enbridge's Line 6B pipeline was recorded at Marshall, Michigan, on 25–26 July 2010. Insurers paid $547 million of a $650 million aggregate limit against a recorded total cost of $1.215 billion, and the company lost an arbitration against one insurer in 2017.

$547m of $1.215bnPaid by insurers against the recorded total cost of the spill
Figures as listed in the sources reviewed's insurance table, which does not identify the individual filing. The policies carried a $650m aggregate limit.

Status As of the fiscal 2017 annual report: the insurance arbitration over the remaining $85m claim ended with an award not favorable to Enbridge on 2 May 2017.

What?
An oil spill from Enbridge's Line 6B pipeline, with a recorded total cost of $1.215bn, of which insurers paid $547m.
Where?
Marshall, Michigan, United States.
When?
25–26 July 2010; insurance arbitration 2013–2017, award on 2 May 2017. Enbridge Energy Partners (SEC filing)
Who?
Gained
None on record
Lost
Harmed
None on record
Why?
Not established in the sources reviewed.
How?
Not established in the sources reviewed; the sources reviewed covers the cost, insurance and penalties rather than the cause.
6 of 6 questions answered from the record

What happened

The record, in order.

An oil spill from Enbridge's Line 6B pipeline was recorded on 25–26 July 2010 at Marshall, Michigan. The sources gathered for this record do not give a primary-source figure for the volume of oil spilled.

The total cost of the spill was recorded as $1.215 billion. Enbridge's insurers paid $547 million of an aggregate policy limit of $650 million. The $650 million policies expired on 30 April 2011.

One insurer disputed Enbridge's eligibility to recover, and the other insurers made their payments dependent on the outcome. In March 2013 Enbridge sued the insurers holding $145 million of cover and recovered $42 million. The remaining $85 million claim against one insurer went to arbitration. The award of 2 May 2017 was described in the company's filing for fiscal 2017 as “not favorable to Enbridge”.

A consent decree set a $61 million civil penalty for Line 6B. Fines and penalties for the spill totalled $69 million, according to the same filing.

  1. 201025–26 July: oil spill recorded at Marshall, Michigan
  2. 201130 April: the $650m aggregate insurance policies expire
  3. 2013March: Enbridge sues the insurers holding $145m of cover and recovers $42m; arbitration over the remaining $85m claim against one insurer begins
  4. 20172 May: arbitration award “not favorable to Enbridge”

What was said

Claims, in the words of those who made them.

“disputed our recovery eligibility”

Enbridge, describing the position of one insurer (wording as quoted in the sources reviewed) · 2013–2017

“not favorable to Enbridge”

Where accounts differ

Each party's account, side by side, with its source. The record does not settle these points; it shows them.

Was Enbridge eligible to recover the remaining insured amount?
Company or project
Enbridge

One insurer “disputed our recovery eligibility”; the other insurers made their payment depend on the outcome.

Courts
Arbitration

The award of 2 May 2017 on the remaining $85m claim, described by Enbridge as “not favorable to Enbridge”.

Enbridge Energy Partners (SEC filing)

How it looked

What was shown, beside what was recorded.

Shown

    Recorded

    Who gained

    Money that reached nature, beside money that stayed elsewhere.

    Reached nature or the ground

    Not published
    No figure published.

    Gained elsewhere

    Not totalled
    Currency: USD · Window: 2010–2017. All figures cover the same period. * Estimate built from cited figures.

    Responses on record

    • enbridge (FY2017 annual report): Described the 2 May 2017 arbitration award on its remaining $85m insurance claim as “not favorable to Enbridge”. · Enbridge Energy Partners (SEC filing)

    In court and with insurers

    Every proceeding and every insurer decision on record.

    Lawsuits and rulings

    1. 2013-03–Outcome not on record$42000bn Recovered
      Enbridge v. insurers holding $145m of cover
      not on record · Civil · Enbridge → Insurers holding $145m of cover (not named in the sources reviewed)

      In March 2013 Enbridge sued the insurers holding $145 million of cover and recovered $42 million. Enbridge Energy Partners (SEC filing)

    2. 2013–2017-05-02Defendant won$85000bn Claim amount
      Enbridge insurance arbitration over the remaining $85m claim
      Arbitration (tribunal not named in the sources reviewed) · Arbitration · Enbridge → One insurer (not named in the sources reviewed)

      The remaining $85 million claim against one insurer went to arbitration. The award of 2 May 2017 was described in the company's filing as “not favorable to Enbridge”. Enbridge Energy Partners (SEC filing)

    3. Settled$61000bn Civil penalty
      Consent decree for Line 6B: civil penalty
      not on record · Civil · not on record → Enbridge

      A consent decree set a $61 million civil penalty for Line 6B. Fines and penalties total $69 million. Enbridge Energy Partners (SEC filing)

    Insurers

    1. Partly paid$547000bn Paid against a $650m aggregate limit
      Insurers under the $650m aggregate policies (not individually named) → Enbridge

      Insurers paid $547 million of the $650 million aggregate limit against a recorded total cost of $1.215 billion. One insurer disputed Enbridge's recovery eligibility and the others made their payment depend on the outcome. The policies expired on 30 April 2011.

    2. 2017Claim refused$85000bn Claim taken to arbitration
      One insurer (not named in the sources reviewed) → Enbridge
      Stated reason: Disputed Enbridge's eligibility to recover

      The $85 million claim against this insurer went to arbitration. The award of 2 May 2017 was described in Enbridge's filing as “not favorable to Enbridge”. Enbridge Energy Partners (SEC filing)

    What nature saw

    Outcomes measured on the ground, and nature's note.

    Nature's report opens this page. Below: further outcomes measured on the ground.

    Total cost recorded
    $1.215bn
    Of which insurers paid $547m against a $650m aggregate limit
    Fines and penalties
    $69m
    Including a $61m civil penalty under a consent decree (FY2017 annual report)
    Insurance claim lost in arbitration
    $85m
    Award of 2 May 2017

    What we don't know

    Undisclosed, unproven, untried: recorded as data.

    Nature

    • Not measured Harm to nature: The record holds no measurement of harm to nature.

    Court

    • Unclear Enbridge v. insurers holding $145m of cover: outcome not on record.

    Figures

    • Insufficient Oil spilled gallons: Attributed to the NTSB and the figure is not verified.

    Accounts

    • Disputed Was Enbridge eligible to recover the remaining insured amount?

    Record

    • Insufficient Spill volume: a figure of about 843,000 gallons attributed to the NTSB is reported but could not be checked against the original and is not independently verified.
    • None on record Oil volumes for this spill were not taken from primary sources.

    Did the harm stop?

    Who paid?

    Per the sources reviewed's table, insurers paid $547m of a recorded total cost of $1.215bn; the table lists Enbridge as bearing the rest.

    Sources

    Voices on record: ✓ Company or project— Government and regulators— Courts— Press and investigations— Communities and civil society— Researchers

    Company or project

    Terms used on this page

    Law and courts

    Arbitration
    A private dispute process in which an appointed arbitrator, instead of a court, decides the case.
    Consent decree
    A settlement with a government that a court approves and that has the force of a court order.

    Institutions

    SEC
    The US Securities and Exchange Commission, which regulates securities markets and what companies tell investors.
    Similar cases
    Oil spill · Pipeline · Insurance, liability and compensation funds · United States · 2015–2025
    Refugio / Plains Line 901 oil spill (California)
    Same type: Oil spill, PipelineSame countryCourt: settled, lost by claimant, outcome not on record
    Oil spill · Insurance, liability and compensation funds · United States · 2010–2031
    BP Deepwater Horizon: the spill, the court cases and the recovery claims
    Same type: Oil spillSame countryCourt: settled, lost by claimant
    Oil spill · Tanker / shipping · Insurance declined or withdrawn · United States · 1989–2015
    Exxon Valdez: the spill, insurance and court cases
    Same type: Oil spillSame countryCourt: settled, lost by claimant
    Oil spill · Pipeline · Nigeria · 2021–2022
    Shell Nigeria pipeline spill ruling (Hague Court of Appeal, 2021)
    Same type: Oil spill, PipelineHarm to nature not measured
    Pipeline · United States · 2020–2025
    Satartia CO2 pipeline rupture (Mississippi)
    Same type: PipelineSame countryCourt: settled, outcome not on record
    Killings and repression of defenders · Pipeline · United States · 2018–2025
    Bayou Bridge pipeline arrests (Louisiana)
    Same type: PipelineSame countryCourt: lost by claimant