Oil insurance push just slick political theatre

The Mayor's understanding of Vancouver's economy seems to be at odds with reality

“I don't think many Vancouverites support becoming a huge oil port. It is totally at odds with our city brand and our identity and ethic.” – Vancouver Mayor Gregor Robertson, April 14, 2012

This week Vancouver Mayor Gregor Robertson and his Vision Vancouver party kick started their official campaign against a $5 billion expansion of the Kinder Morgan oil pipeline in B.C. After reading the polls, they don’t believe this private sector investment should ever see the light of day.

The Mayor has even suggested recently that supporting Kinder Morgan could lead to oil super tankers crashing on the shores of Stanley Park. It’s the kind of “either you’re with us or your against us” hyperbole that is hurting Robertson’s credibility on this issue.

While the Mayor may believe Vancouver’s economy is rooted in organic farming and beehives, it’s not. The energy sector remains Canada's strongest export, with a value approaching $100 billion a year. The tax revenue generated through these sales, and the well paying jobs they create, help pay for essential services like healthcare and education.

If Canada were to sell more oil to Asia, rather than a discounted U.S. market, it is estimated we could net upwards of $40 million in new tax revenue per day. Just imagine how many more heart surgeries and textbooks that could buy.

24 Hours VancouverRobertson’s knee-jerk reaction to Kinder Morgan’s proposed investment is rooted more in political ideology than in the facts. The reality is there have been regular oil shipments going out of Vancouver’s port for more than 50 years. It’s a stellar safety record the Mayor simply chooses to ignore in order to garner headlines and score points with his American campaign donors.

No reasonable person or corporation wants to see hazardous goods spilled in Burrard Inlet. However, the only way to reduce the risk to zero is to stop these kinds of shipments altogether. And not even Vision Vancouver is silly enough to advocate for that.

Unfortunately, rather than waiting for the environmental review process to be completed, Robertson and his political allies have shut the door on any kind of meaningful dialogue regarding this proposal. With the Mayor’s mind now made up, what comes next will be a display of political theatre we haven’t seen around these parts in years.

– post by Daniel. For further background on the politics of oil tankers in Vancouver's port see this June 2010 City Caucus Archive post.

Find the plaques to make history
Community forum to discuss future of Pattullo Bridge planned for June 6th

Broken image or link? Click here to report it or visit citycaucus.com/typo.

About The Author

  • Pat Johnstone

    Daniel, you know the $40 Million/day argument is complete bunk. Why repeat it?

    And why can’t the Mayor (who represents a City that will no doubt be a stakeholder in the EA process) make public what his concerns are? KM is free to garner headlines and opinion pages saying they run the safest ship in the fleet, should the opposing view be silenced? The City of Vancouver (for which the Mayor holds responsibility) will no doubt suffer significant costs if there is a tanker accident in Burrard Inlet or Engish Bay. It would be negligent for the Mayor to ignore that possibility and let Kinder Morgan and their American backers run the entire public consultation on this project.

    • Higgins

      American Mi/Billionaires that made their monies in Rubber/Oil/Mining/Railways, all “dirty” industries, have vested interests in Canada. How? When from behind their fronts aka “charities and philanthropy” they HIRE bums with no jobs to pose as “environmentalists” or “activists” to stir the crap in such a way so the profit making opportunities flow their ways. When the oil/ mineral resources arrive in their warehouses/ they sell , oh, wait they speculate on the stock exchange. Making more money, leaving behind more jobless, hopeless Canadians, more indebted, while Ms. Newell Gregor financier is buying a bit of more land on Cortes. What do you think?

    • Max

      @Pat Johnstone:

      ‘ The City of Vancouver (for which the Mayor holds responsibility)’

      LMAO! Sure, we ALL remember how Robertson took responsibility for inviting 150,000+ people to the downtown core for the 2011 Stanley Cup playoffs and the carnage afterwords.

      He, the Mayor, stood around pointing fingers at everyone but himself.

      Responsibility, don’t even use that word when describing Robertson or Vision unless it attached to giving tax dollars to green schemes or hiking taxes and fees.

    • Steve Forth

      I agree Pat, the mayor can and should have a position on this. We do need to balance the economic plus and minus with the environment, and I suspect that none of us, the mayor, KM, the pundits, have really taken the time to work through all of the issues. Certianly the commentators in the links Daniel provided seem pretty clueless, but the mayor could probably slow down as well.

  • Higgins

    Gregor Robertson is our Justin Bieber of glitzy parking fees, garbage collection, property taxes, large empty bike lanes …
    They both know about the Oil Industry as much as what’s his name… Ashton Kutcher!
    Two and a half men?

  • boohoo

    You first say:

    “It’s the kind of “either you’re with us or your against us” hyperbole that is hurting Robertson’s credibility on this issue.”

    With your very next sentence being:

    “While the Mayor may believe Vancouver’s economy is rooted in organic farming and beehives, it’s not.”

    That’s impressive.

  • Daniel Fontaine

    I would also encourage City Caucus readers to look at Gary Mason’s column in the globe today. It’s also about Kinder-Morgan politics.


    And this column in the National Post also on same topic:


    • Karla Sofen

      Very impressed with this article Mr. Fontaine. So much common sense and logic here the typical Vancouverite can’t rationally respond. I think Kinder-Morgan should have called it an “Environmental Safety Upgrade” to get it past the image oriented media and political hacks.

      One other thing possibly overlooked is that the upgraded pipeline will be the largest property tax payer in every jurisdiction it crosses. If the Northern Gateway pipeline is built, it too will be the largest property taxpayer in every jurisdiction it crosses.

      Our township and municipalities and rural areas desperately need new influx of tax revenue. This upgrade completely justifies a legitimate property tax rate increase and why in the world the local greens would believe their best approach is to try and block progress completely just sickens me.

      The greens should, as I’ve said many times before, focus their efforts on helping Canadians and working to make the pipeline as safe as possible, and to least impact the environment. The greens must take a step back and consider the unintended consequences of their actions. Isn’t it better that something very good occur for all of us? Hard opposition will result in accomplishing nothing for anyone.

      Unreasoning, illogical ill-considered opposition is utterly pointless. That’s our greens. Their supposed mission is becoming less and less credible every time issues like this arise. They aren’t doing any good and they are harming the vast majority of Canadians.

      I’m so disappointed. Another golden opportunity for the greens lost. Where is Elizabeth May to lead them? They are rudderless. They are out of “wolfs” and have been for a long time.

  • Max

    Mining, Oil & Gas resource co’s pay on an average 40% in taxes. (that is an average, many pay more)

    They employ thousands of people across Canada – good paying jobs and bring billions of dollars annually to the economy.

    Vancouver is home to over 2,100 mining companies and I can tell you, they are eyeing what Vision/Robertson is doing as well as the BC NDP and their already ‘closed to business’ stance.

    • Steve Forth

      I agree with R. Issac, let’s use facts. Any support for your claim Max? And did you net out subsidies they receive? Please share some links to substantiate this.

  • R.Isaak

    Fact #1 The closest any VLCC (supertanker) much less a ULCC will get to Burrard inlet is the southern tip of Vancouver Island. They go to Cherry Point (BP’s refinery in Washington state) now and will for many years. Maybe the Mayor or one of his compatriots would like to look into the US laws regulating the movement of VLCC’s into Juan De Fuca straight ( they have just as much jurisdiction there and the ships are far larger than any in our harbor that carry oil).

    Fact #2 The ships being used here currently are much smaller, double hulled, minimum 12 separate compartments for oil, piloted and escorted by tugs.

    My novel solution: If only we could engineer fact checking software for all political announcements and jurisdiction jumping politicians (City of Vancouver Council) the sounds of silence would be a huge relief from the constant exaggeration and manipulation of facts.

    • Pat Johnstone

      RI: If the ships are so very safe, then Insurance should be incredibly inexpensive. What’s the problem?

      • R.Isaak

        PJ: Where did I mention Insurance? The article is more about the public & media posturing of a elected political body that has no actual say in this matter. The costs of any insurance waiver or underwriting imposed by the City of Vancouver has no legal standing anywhere. Only you enviro-exaggerators are hung up on insurance.
        Please respond on topic if you wish to reply. I would be interested if you care to factually repudiate anything in my post, otherwise I will not dignify your trolling with a serious reply.

        • Pat Johnstone

          Sorry, RI, The headline and mayor’s comments were about insurance to cover risk, you seemed to be arguing there was little or no risk, I mistakenly associated the two thoughts. my apologies.

          • R.Isaak

            PJ. Oil spill insurance is already a reality in all Canadian waters, ergo you and the Mayor are just posturing on the subject.

            My comment was more of a reality check regarding the fact that VLCC’s & ULCC’s are plying our coastline and in fact have for decades. The only spill on the west coast of any sizable amount was Exxon Valdez.

            The main message was and will remain, the City of Vancouver has never had jurisdiction (check a dictionary for the meaning of this most perplexing term for most socialists) and never will in tidal Canadian waters.

  • Max

    What I think I love the most about this ‘hair on fire’ posturing – it is all based on ‘What if’s’.

    It is a very Jim Jones, doomsday approach.

  • That’s awesome Max. When Laura Jones of the CFIB went full ‘what-if’ on the Hornby bike lanes (a much smaller issue) you couldn’t get enough of doomsday scenarios.

    • Max


      How about your throw that ‘doomsday’ scenerio out to the surrounding retailers – you know, the ones that lost revenue or lost their livelihoods, period.

      I guess that whole Facebook campaing to have cyclists shop these shop was a bit of a bust, eh?

  • Mark

    Daniel: Just a heads up, it’s this kind of weak Fox News style stuff that caused the NPA to lose the last election so badly: “While the Mayor may believe Vancouver’s economy is rooted in organic farming and beehives…”

    Appealing to the lowest common denominator doesn’t really get you that far in this city.

    • gman

      Mark maybe you could enlighten us with a list of Greg-Gores great accomplishments.

    • Max


      Just curious how many $1,000 green grants are being handed out by Roebrtson & Vision.

      Our tax dollars – hard at work.

  • Steve Forth

    “It’s the kind of “either you’re with us or your against us” hyperbole ” would apply to this article as well. Gregor Robertson has shown many times and in many interactions with the business community that he understands how Vancouver can grow. To suggest that the Kinder Morgan proposal is about opening Asian markets is silly. Exports to Asia require VLCCs and ULCCs and no one thinks these will be navigating Burrard Inlet. And to conflate the larger issues around Canada and the role energy will play in the future of our economy with the local issue of Kinder Morgan is hyperbole.

  • JJ

    Chris keam, Steven forth… What charity from US is paying your tab?

    • boohoo


      Is it really inconceivable to you that someone may oppose things like this and not be a pawn of some international secret society bent on god knows what the conspiracy of the day is?


    • Steven Forth

      The only one I have ever participated in is the Fraser Insitute.

  • Victor

    Emperor Greg doth protest too much about facts he does not know. Spin spin for his backers.

    We are a port city. We welcome tankers and other hazardous goods that we wouldn’t let our kids play in. We live well in Vancouver and Canada due to our resource trade.

    Laura Jones of CFIB was quite right. The Hornby Bike Lane is a seldom used, expensive disaster lined with disgusting, untended planters. Guess there was no budget for Maintenance when this hapless gang installed them overnight.

  • Richard

    For those who think that the oil industry cleans up their messes without a big fight, might want to think again. Even high-priced lawyers are typically much cheaper than cleaning up oil spills and paying damages to those whose livelihoods have been destroyed.


    Enbridge denies responsibility for oil spill

    Refuses to pay some claims of property damage, business loss, health problems
    By Eartha Jane Melzer | 01.31.11 | 8:22 am

    Despite public promises to compensate residents for losses associated with the summer oil spill, in Calhoun county court Enbridge is arguing that it is not legally liable for damages from the spill.

    Last July a pipeline rupture on Enbridge’s 6B pipeline spilled an estimated million gallons of Canadian tar sands crude into the Kalamazoo River system. The oil traveled 30 miles down the rain-swollen river, coating the floodplain.

    Officials declared a state of emergency, recommended evacuation because of unsafe levels of benzene in the air, and closed the Kalamazoo River to all activity by the public.

    In numerous public statements Enbridge CEO Pat Daniels apologized for the spill and promised to take responsibility for the cleanup and address the needs of the affected people and businesses.

    But six months after the spill, the river remains closed and some residents have not been able to get compensation through the claims process set up by the company.

    Attorney Bill Mayhall represents 10 households in Marshall and Battle Creek that were not able to find satisfactory arrangements with the pipeline company for property damages and health issues such as headaches, nausea, vomiting, and respiratory issues.

    These clients are accusing Enbridge of nuisance and negligence for failing to adequately maintain its pipeline and are seeking damages in Calhoun Circuit Court.

    Enbridge is fighting the claims. The company has retained Dickinson Wright attorneys Kathleen Lang and Edward Pappas — the same team that is defending Dow Chemical against a class action suit over dioxin contamination in the Saginaw River watershed — and its answer to the legal claims sounds very different from the friendly promises offered by Daniels at community forums.

    In the days after the spill Enbridge representatives went door to door promising that they would pay for spill damages, Mayhall said.

    “Now they want us to prove that they are responsible for the spill.”

    Enbridge argues that it cannot be held liable for the oil spill because it has followed all relevant laws, regulations and industry standards and the damage was not foreseeable.

    The company also argues that the charges against it are improper “because federal, state and/or local authorities and agencies have mandated, directed, approved and/or ratified the alleged actions or omissions.”

    And though Enbridge repeatedly told residents it would pay all legitimate expenses, in filings with the Calhoun court the company says:

    “The statements at issue, that were made in Defendants’ press releases and brochure, were mere expressions of intention, not offers.”

    The owners of the Play Care Learning Center in Marshall are suing Enbridge for interfering with their daycare business, which was located a half mile from the spill site.

    Play Care, represented attorney Donnelly Hadden, says that they were forced to close their business when parents pulled their kids out of care because of the air pollution from the spill.

    Play Care argues that Enbridge failed to maintain its pipeline and failed to adequately protect them against a long list of chemicals related to the contamination.

    In an answer to this lawsuit Enbridge argues that the day care center can’t know what chemicals it was exposed to because no one knows what chemicals were released during the oil spill.

    “Defendants state that different types of oil contain different constituents and substances in varying quantities and that the investigation of the nature and extent of the crude oil discharged is ongoing,” the response said.

    “It is time for Enbridge to state in court if they really meant what they said to those injured by the spill,” said Mayhall, “or whether their statements to pay legitimate damages were simply a public relations ploy to calm community anger.”

    Enbridge Spokeswoman Terri Larson said that the company “remains committed to paying all non-fraudulent claims that are directly related to the incident.”

    A schedule for the cases is expected to be set at a conference on March 7.

    • R.Isaak

      Richard: the spill you link to is from a pipeline in the USA, the scenario the Mayor has raised is oil tankers in Canadian waters. The two although both move oil are considerably different as the nations are also separate entities.

      I realize you are a core anti oil person, however I will constantly remind your ilk that facts are paramount and fiction belongs in children’s books or entertaining escapes from reality. You lack of factual apples to apples comparisons only further proves your ignorance to the informed. Copy & paste may be an easy thing in the interweb era, however comparing different spills from different oil moving devices in different countries is stretching comparisons a fair bit.

      Would you like to please post some factual oil tanker spill information where the ships in question have 3 escorting tugs, 2 pilots, double hulls, minimum of 12 separate oil compartments, a reduced speed, with an oil spill response unit such as Burrard clean, and severe tidal limitations on the movement of such tankers in a busy harbor. Otherwise you are actually helping the side you oppose by being an ill informed ranter.

  • Richard


    Seriously? Even bringing up bike lanes in a posting about potential oil spills is ridiculous. To call bike lanes a disaster is absurd and quite frankly disrespectful to those who have been through or lost loved ones in real disasters.

    There have been fewer collisions on Hornby since the bike lanes where installed and they have proven to be much safer than the bike lane on Burrard which has proven to be quite dangerous. If anything, it is Burrard Street that is the disaster although, compared to a major oil spill, that is still stretching it.

    Business appears to be adapting quite well to Hornby. There is the new bicycle cafe and most of the store fronts are leased especially when compared to Robson. Maybe Robson needs separated bike lanes :}

    Anyway, it is great to see lots of people cycling on Hornby especially people with their children. That certainly does not happen on Burrard or on Hornby before the separated bike lanes.

    • politics101

      I live on Hornby – one morning recently there were more bikes waiting for the green light at Drake than cars waiting for the same light. Do agree that the planters could use some attention – the weather has been cool etc so perhaps the Parks Board is just waiting for some better weather. Car traffic has been more impacted by the construction projects in the 1200 and 1300 blocks than the bike lanes. Cheers

    • Max


      A recent study on the bike lanes show an increase in collisions at the south end of the Burrard Street bridge (2010/2011) Now, the city (or should I say tax payers) is paying for yet another study to figure out the ‘why’. My guess, ramming it in before doing a full study before hand was a glaring ‘error’.

      Poor planning, bad design = more tax $$ wasted.

  • @Richard:

    To be fair, I brought up bike lanes and Laura Jones in response to the sudden disavowal of ‘what if’ scenarios by another poster. Although, the fact that the talking points are now down to messy looking planters at the start of the growing season indicates to me that anti-cycling sentiment is has run its course with fair-minded people. Maybe now we can get on with building a city where everyone can move more freely, without having to buy expensive pieces of technology to ensure a modicum of safety for themselves.

    • Birdy

      re: “Maybe now we can get on with building a city where everyone can move more freely”

      Yes, let’s build more giant walls in the middle of the street so everyone can move more freely. That’ll teach us to peacefully and voluntarily share the road. Let’s segregate our way to a false sense of safety and polarize our way towards an inclusive community. Works every time.

      • Steven Forth

        Any concrete suggestions? I would prefer to be able to cycle to downtown from Kits in safety (not too bad now with the bike lanes) which when in Vancouver (2/3 of my time) I do 2 or 3 times a day. And I would like to be able to cycle from Kits to downtown witn young children. I cycle no matter the weather as long as their is less than 5 cm of snow. I am able to cycle in 15 cm of snow but I don’t trust Vancouver drivers on snowy streets. I have cycled in Montreal in winter. And I am over weight and in my 50s, not a young fit courier type.

  • Karla Sofen

    Vancouver Mayor spurs the first ever pro-oilsands editorial in the Edmonton Journal:


  • Mira

    Chris Keam and Richard, the only two bikers on the Hornby lane… Yesterday I walked along the bike lane for four blocks, at around 12.30 Pm. While the trafic was backed to Davie on the bike lane I was passed by only TWO bikers going South! Most definitely… you two!

    • politics101

      It seems okay to the motoring public to spend millions on making Knight St safer with all the left turn lanes so that those with a piece of paper in their wallet that says they know the rules of the road don’t kill each other, it seems okay to spend many dollars putting in citizen operated crosswalk signals along just about every block on Granville from 6th to 16th to make it safer for people and cut down on fatalities BUT IT ISN”T OKAY to spend money to make it safe for bike riders. Cheers

    • politics101

      What were you doing walking in the bike lane – don’t know what four blocks you were referring to but Hornby in the 1300 block was busy with cyclists yesterday because as you would have seen from your walk the regular bike lanes were blocked by the installation of the construction crane and peds and cyclists were rerouted onto the west sidewalk and were dodging each other all day long – perhaps next time down there ask the traffic control people how many cyclists they rerouted that day.

      How many were going North?


  • boohoo

    Can we collectively grow up a little here?

    This utter and complete bullshit is a bit much to take. Just because you are opposed to this pipeline doesn’t make you ‘anti-oil’. Just because you are for a bike lane doesn’t make you ‘anti-car’. Just because you use oil doesn’t mean you can’t be opposed to slowing its extraction or shipping it to China.

    I mean do you people really believe that? This thread has people accusing others of being paid puppets of American overlords, enviro-exaggerators, Socialists, illogical, ill-informed etc… All because they just think a different way?

    Why don’t we grow up a little, or maybe we should just start name calling the other way? Let’s see, you’re pro oil, therefore you must be anti-environment. Why do you hate the environment?? Why do you want to kill baby seals by drowning them in oil you right-wing, money loving capitalist pig! You’re anti-bike lane, therefore you must be pro-car, so…why do you hate exercise??

    See how dumb making those inane jumps looks?

    • Steven Forth

      Thank You Boohoo

      We are only going to make progress on these issues if we can have nuanced conversations and base them on facts, where the facts are available. Where the facts are not available we can work together to research them together.

      Personally, I don’t knowenough about KM’s proposal to have a point of view. I do think a large increase in tanker traffic in Burranrd inlet is a bad idea and wonder if the pipeline can’t be routed further south,possibly to Roberts Bank.

      I would like to see the possibility of next generation refineries be explored for Vancouver as I think they are necessary for green manufacturing.

      I would prefer Canada to have export options, so I would like to see some way to bring oil over the mountains to the coast, provided the many economic and environmental questions can be answered.

      I remain sceptical about the risk benefit sharing for the bitumen sands specifically (they are not oil sands any more than they are tar sands and there is nothing ethical about them) and for the Canadian oil industry generally. Companies naturally work to privatize profit and to socialize risk and cost (under current US law they have a legal obligation to their shareholders to do this, provided they are operating withing the law). I am also well aware of how companies design risk compartamentalization structures to ensure that in the event of a bad outcome they are insulated from the costs.

      Ah, bike lanes …

  • Richard

    This is not unexpected and does not help inspire confidence. With the power the oil lobby holds over the current federal government, it is hard to believe that the feds will force the industry to take all the needed measures to improve safety that cut into short term profits.


    “It seems that Canada’s oil spill response plan in the Pacific Northwest is to call the Americans,” Cantwell told a sub-committee hearing last year in Washington.

    Adding to concerns was a report from the auditor general of Canada, which found in December 2010 that the Canadian Coast Guard, the lead agency and monitor for marine spills from ships, was not ready to respond to a major spill.

    • Karla Sofen

      The simple fact is there hasn’t been a disaster for a reason: Canada has learned from mistakes. We haven’t even had a minor spill since before the year 2000. The TransMountain Pipeline to Vancouver hasn’t had any leaks or disasters in 60 years of use using 1950’s tech. Modern tech is even more safe. It’s expensive to have response teams on standby and fully equipped. It makes good sense to have a contract with Americans just in case.

      Our greens keep ignoring what has been done right in Canada. They are losing credibility with every cliched, knee-jerk response. What more can be done? Chances are if it makes sense, it will be done. The things that make no sense like banning oil altogether must be disregarded.

      Do our greens want to be disregarded? Then make some sense and people in Canada will listen and have listened. But we’re bending over too far backward and it’s the same as falling flat on your face.

      • Steven Forth

        On the other hand there are continuous leaks from the refineries and from shipping. The pipeline leaks as well. This is a normal part of operating a ship, or a pipeline, or a refinery and cannot be completely eliminated. And it has an enironmental cost.

        So if you want to be heard you will stop making claims that are obviously false. There are risks. They may be manageable and they may be worth taking, but to deny them outright try to shut down any debate will lead you, and Mr Oliver, to be disregarded.

        • Ned

          Steven I just responded to one of your comments where you seem to have all the right answers. How about on this one. And I shall believe you because…?
          And what’s with all this “not your real name ” thing? Go check their allegations, simple as that. Do your homework. Period.

          • Steven Forth

            Was your comment on this article. If so I can’t find it.

            Karla Sofen makes many claims that are simply false. All ships have spills, a ship with no oil leaks or spills is about as likely as software with no bugs.KM’s pipelines have had leaks, as their own reports disclose. No major disaster perhaps, but leaks yes. And pipelines have environmental impacts that should be assessed.

            I happen to believe that in Canada (perhaps not in China or Russia) we have more productive conversations when we use our real names. I am happy to make an exception for someone like GR, who has established a powerful an recognizable online person (even a brand) but in general I prefer to know who I am in conversation with.

      • Steven Forth

        Karla Sofen could earn more credibility by posting using his/her actual name.

        • Karla Sofen

          At some point you must argue the subject not the source. This is my real name. I realize there is fictional villain of the same name. But it didn’t stop Elizabeth May’s office from looking me up on the list of electors and sending people to my home trying to get me to come to her office to “talk” with her about my “issues.” I don’t want you or any of our many local greenies coming at my home to “talk,” okay? And don’t say that stuff doesn’t happen. You guys are seriously nuts. I have an order of protection ready to serve on the next Nimrod that tries that crap.

          You’ve clearly been drinking the Kool-Aid for a long time and you can’t be convinced of anything because of confirmation bias and dis-confirmation bias. That is who you are Steven Forth.

          No one knows or cares who “Steven Forth” is either and you personally carry no weight in any debate. However, if you have facts, logic, reason and evidence you can be taken seriously. So saying “You’re wrong” is meaningless. Tell us some specific details of a tanker spill in BC since the year 2000. More oil seeps into the ocean naturally than inadvertently from ship traffic. Nature dealt with the BP spill quite nicely. What happened to the 6 billion barrels of oil Saddam dumped in Kuwait in 1991?