Every once in a very long while, someone lands upon this site. Pretty much universally as a result of googling some obscure subject (typically some iteration of "hypothetical con law essay").
When they do, the rudimentary tracking software installed on this site usually tells me the search terms that led them here.
Recently, someone googled "fracking liability" and they eventually landed on my post titled "The Limited Liability Problem (We were AIG before we were AIG)."
Out of interest (and a little boredom), I proceeded to google the same terms. This little backwater is way down the list but the first item turned out to be fairly interesting.
It is the video of Stephen A. Dvorkin of the law firm of Dickstein Shapiro addressing some question related to the enforceability of insurance policies purchased by corporations involved in hydraulic fracturing. The video is provided without any context other than the fact that it was taken at the Munk School of Global Affairs Program on Water Issues Public Forum University of Toronto on October 14, 2010. There are two other parts to the video (which I have not yet watched).
Despite the lack of context, I found his response to be of interest because, in it, he contemplates that companies engaged in hydraulic fracturing may not be able to procure private insurance because the event they are seeking to insure against, environmental disaster, is for all practical purposes may be known to occur. And even if such companies are successful in passing off some of the risk of their conduct on to a third party, such companies will still face a significant risk that such policies will be unenforceable for the same reason.
He explains:
"One of the most famous defenses, one that is most likely to be invoked, is that the companies involved is hydraulic fracturing expected or intended the harm that occurred when they bought the policy. Insurance is supposed to cover risk, not a certainty. If it was known that harm was ongoing at the time that you bought the policy, you may not be covered for it."
So, not only is there a significant risk that they need to insure against, that risk is further compounded by the risk that their insurance policy will not be enforceable? And companies still have an economic incentive to engage in hydraulic fracturing??? Kind of puts the whole "We were AIG before we were AIG" thing in perspective.
The video is embedded in the full post.
It goes to show just how obscure my interests are when I decide to write about a video that has been viewed a grand total of fourteen times, including the several times I watched it.