R$.$ v$.$ Syncrude Canada Ltd$.$

In June$2010,$ Syncrude Canada Ltd$.$ was found responsible for the death of nearly $1600$ ducks in its settling pond in Fort$$ McMurray, Alberta. The company was sentenced to pay an award of approximately$$ $$3$ million. The decision received considerable media attention at the time and delivered the message that companies are required to take all reasonable measures to avoid foreseeable harm to wildlife. At the very$$ least, they must comply with their own environmental plans and protocols. As part of its oil sands operations in Fort$$ McMurray, Syncrude operates the Aurora Settling$$ Basin, an artificial pond about the size of $640$ football fields. The settling basin is used to extract water from the tailings that come from processing the tar sand deposits. The tailings contain$$ water, sand, and$$ bitumen, a viscous material that forms lumps and mats that can trap$$ waterfowl, leading to almost certain death.

In the$$ spring, migrating birds are drawn to settling basins because they are indistinguishable from natural water$$ bodies, are$$ warm, and they tend to thaw earlier. The Fort McMurray site is on a$$ well$-$known spring migratory path for many$$ birds, and thus the environmental challenge posed by the presence of the settling basin was foreseeable. Syncrude had developed and submitted to the government a comprehensive waterfowl deterrent and monitoring program that included the use of cannons and effigies to scare birds away from the basin.

Despite the presence of this$$ plan, Syncrude was late in placing the cannons and failed to deploy sufficient resources to prevent approximately $1600$ birds from landing in the basin and subsequently dying. Two competitors of Syncrude had successfully set up their deterrence programs that$$ spring, thus demonstrating the feasibility of predicting and preventing the wildlife contamination. The court held that Syncrude did not deploy the deterrents early or quickly enough. The failure was attributed to the lack of effective documented$$ procedures, inadequate$$ training, reductions in$$ staff, and delays in hiring new personnel.

Part $2$

Does it make more sense to fine a company for environmental damage or to fine management personally for environmental damage caused by a$$ company? Why?

Fining a company makes sense when the company is

$$

famous

large

not well known

small

because it would punish the actual owners of the$$ company, the

$$

management.

shareholders.

Fining the management makes sense when the company is

$$

small

large

famous

not well known

because in this case the

$$

shareholders

management

are often unaware of the effects of decisions of the

$$

shareholders.

management.