DOCSLIB.ORG

Report of the Public Inquiry Into the Earthquake Commission (9 April

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Report of the Public Inquiry Into the Earthquake Commission (9 April H.2 Report of the Public Inquiry into the Earthquake Commission March 2020 Produced in March 2020 by the Public Inquiry into the Earthquake Commission. The content of this report is not subject to copyright, but if you wish to reproduce it in whole or part, please acknowledge it as sourced from the Public Inquiry into the Earthquake Commission. This Inquiry has been conducted according to the Inquiries Act 2013. ISBNs: 978-0-947520-24-3 (Print version) 978-0-947520-25-0 (Online version) URL: eqcinquiry.govt.nz 1 Tēnā koutou, Thank you for your interest in this report, which is the culmination of more than a year’s work inquiring into the Earthquake Commission (EQC) and is aimed at making a positive difference for all New Zealanders. This document sets out my findings and recommendations from the Public Inquiry into the Earthquake Commission. Following receipt by the Governor-General, it provides the Government with the basis for its consideration of next steps. I have tried to present the recommendations and rationale behind them in a clear, readable and concise manner without prescribing how any of these recommendations might best be implemented. In 2018, after I accepted the responsibility to conduct this Inquiry from the Hon Dr Megan Woods, then-Minister Responsible for the Earthquake Commission, I quickly became aware of the importance of the issues that are so fundamental to the everyday lives of New Zealanders. We all face the ever-present threat of natural disasters and we all want to know that when a disaster strikes we will have the means to rebuild and recover from it. A highlight of conducting this Inquiry has been the people I have met and spoken with up and down the country. People have generously given their time to detail their own EQC experiences and provide their views in writing or in person through meetings and public forums. In many cases, the people I spoke with were claimants who had their lives turned upside down by earthquakes and the resulting damage to their homes and struggles over insurance claims. I was moved by what people have gone through and, in some cases, what they are still experiencing as they work to get their lives back on track. In addition to EQC claimants, many people with experience in disaster recovery roles have shared important insights with me through the course of the Inquiry. These participants have included iwi leaders, community groups, insurance advocates, judges, lawyers, engineers, tradespeople, insurers, local body and central government politicians, Chairs of the board of EQC, public servants (such as former and current EQC chief executives and staff) and many others. These interactions in meetings and public forums, combined with close to a thousand written submissions and thousands of pages of documents from EQC and others, have provided me a wealth of information from which to formulate my findings and recommendations. I have also had the benefit of advice from members of a knowledgeable and committed Community Reference Group, which gave me invaluable advice on how the Inquiry could best engage with the people particularly affected by the Canterbury earthquakes. I want to thank them all for their contributions. I would also like to acknowledge the secretariat, led by Dallas Welch, which has so ably supported me through the course of the Inquiry and my Counsel Assisting, Jane Meares, for her professional and thoughtful advice. Public Inquiry into the Earthquake Commission Preface | 2 While the Terms of Reference for this Inquiry are focussed on the operational practices of EQC and the outcomes of claims for people, it is impossible to consider these issues in isolation. That being the case, this report touches on a range of related issues and my impressions developed from these, which may be of use to the Government or other interested parties. The scope of this Inquiry does not include apportioning blame, but I have made clear in this report where I found fault with EQC or where I found its response to be below the expected standard. In the course of the Inquiry, I found EQC’s public response to be instructive. The organisation stated that, in preparation for the Inquiry, it was the first time since the Canterbury earthquakes of 2010-2011 it had gathered such a comprehensive set of information on its handling of the events. As EQC’s board Chair Sir Michael Cullen said, it put into perspective how the Canterbury earthquakes had overwhelmed EQC. EQC has made an unreserved apology for its shortcomings in responding to the Canterbury earthquakes and the negative impacts these had on claimants, families and communities. EQC has publicly stated that it is determined to do better in future events and advised that it has made a number of changes. The proof will be in the effective implementation and delivery of these changes, with the true test being the next major natural disaster. I hope this report goes some way to addressing the issues that have weighed heavily on people affected by earthquakes and other natural disasters in recent years and that it leads to further change that reassures and prepares homeowners for the future. Ngā mihi nui, Dame Silvia Cartwright Chair of the Public Inquiry into the Earthquake Commission March 2020 3 Contents PREFACE ................................................................................. 1 FINDINGS .........................................................5 PART 2 EQC’S OPERATIONAL PRACTICES—READINESS AND THE MANAGEMENT OF CLAIMS RECOMMENDATIONS .................23 Chapter 6: Natural disaster planning and response ........................................................................ 95 6.1: Catastrophe Response Programme ............................. 96 6.2: Review of Catastrophe Response Programme .........97 6.3: New challenges for managing claims .......................100 6.4: Approach to handling claims ........................................ 102 PART 1 EQC’S PURPOSE, ROLE AND OPERATIONAL Chapter 7: Data and information management .. 103 CONTEXT 7.1: Technology and systems ................................................. 104 7.2: Fletcher data issues .......................................................... 106 Chapter 1: Background and context ......................... 41 7.3: Understanding risk through data ................................ 106 1.1: Canterbury earthquakes................................................... 43 7.4: Data handling and quality .............................................107 1.2: Other events in Inquiry’s Terms of Reference ............ 45 7.5: Information access and privacy concerns ................ 109 1.3: New Zealand’s insurance system ..................................46 7.6: Improvements in information sharing ..........................111 1.4 Current insurance environment......................................49 Chapter 8: Staff recruitment and training ............. 115 Chapter 2: Future natural disaster risk ..................... 51 8.1: Staffing ....................................................................................116 2.1: New Zealand’s risk profile ................................................ 52 8.2: Training ....................................................................................116 2.2: Earthquakes and tsunamis .............................................. 52 8.3: Recruitment of the wrong skills ...................................... 117 2.3: Flooding and landslips ...................................................... 54 8.4: Contracting professional services .................................. 117 2.4: Volcanoes and hydrothermal activity .......................... 56 2.5: Climate change implications ...........................................57 2.6: Addressing the challenge ................................................. 58 Chapter 9: Assessment .............................................. 119 9.1: Identifying damage .......................................................... 120 Chapter 3: EQC’s purpose and functions ................. 61 9.2: Recruiting and training assessors .................................121 3.1: Purpose .................................................................................... 62 9.3: Changing assessment approach ..................................122 3.2: Core functions ....................................................................... 63 9.4: Types of assessment ..........................................................122 3.3: Additional functions ...........................................................68 9.5: Difference between assessment and scoping .........123 3.4: Future role and functions ................................................. 69 9.6: Assessment process ...........................................................123 3.5: Civil defence emergency management system .......72 9.7: Pre-existing damage ........................................................125 9.8: Accessing expert advice ..................................................126 Chapter 4: EQC’s key relationships ........................... 75 4.1: Importance of building ongoing relationships ..........76 Chapter 10: Reinstatement standards ................... 127 4.2: Private insurers ......................................................................76 10.1: EQC’s legal obligations ....................................................128 4.3: Other central government agencies ............................ 78 10.2: MBIE Guidance ....................................................................129 4.4: Tangata whenua
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Community Resilience, Capitals, and Power Relations
    Copyright is owned by the Author of the thesis. Permission is given for a copy to be downloaded by an individual for the purpose of research and private study only. The thesis may not be reproduced elsewhere without the permission of the Author. Community Resilience, Capitals, and Power relations: Stories from the Waimakariri District about the aftermath of the 2010-2011Canterbury Earthquakes in New Zealand. A thesis presented in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Resource and Environmental Planning at Massey University, Manawatu, New Zealand. Martín García Cartagena 2019 ABSTRACT Situated on the southern Pacific Rim, New Zealand’s seismic profile has long posed risks for New Zealand communities. In this geological context, fostering community resilience to natural hazards is vital and resilience is beginning to be mainstreamed into New Zealand’s planning and emergency management systems. However, a challenge emerges: how can the complex and contested concept of community resilience be operationalised in practice? This thesis addresses this question by critically evaluating how community resources and assets can be framed as community capitals, and exploring how these were mobilised in the Waimakariri District; an area affected by the 2010/11 Canterbury earthquake sequence. A novel conceptual framework, the Community Resilience Capitals Framework, is developed on the basis of a literature review on resilience and capitals integrating Social-Ecological Systems theory, community resilience theory, and multi-capital frameworks. The research was underpinned by social constructionism, framed by a critical inquiry perspective and conducted using a Community-Based Participatory design. A mixed-methods approach was applied to explore the breadth and depth of Waimakariri post-Canterbury earthquake recovery stories.
    [Show full text]
  • Initial Briefing for the Purposes of the Inquiry
    INITIAL BRIEFING FOR THE PURPOSES OF THE INQUIRY - History of the Earthquake Commission 26 October 2018 TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION 1 1929 – 2009 1 Government response to the 1929 and 1931 earthquakes 1 Earthquake and War Damage Act 1944 2 Review and reform of the 1944 Act 3 Earthquake Commission Act 1993 (EQC Act) 3 Preparedness following the EQC Act 4 EQC claims mostly cash settled 5 Crown Entities Act 2004 6 2010 6 Position prior to the first Canterbury earthquake 6 4 September 2010 earthquake 7 Residential building claims 7 Residential land 8 Progress with Canterbury claims 8 Managing liabilities 9 EQC’s role 10 2011 10 Cyclone Wilma 10 22 February 2011 earthquake 10 EQC’s additional roles 11 Rapid Assessment 11 Emergency repairs 12 13 June 2011 earthquake 12 Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Authority - Zoning and Crown offers 13 Additional land remediation 13 High Court Declaratory Judgment – Reinstatement of cover 13 Progress with Canterbury claims 13 New Technical Categories (TC1, TC2 and TC3) 14 Relationship with private insurers 14 Staff and contractors 15 23 December 2011 earthquake 15 Residential land claims 15 Statement of Intent 2011-14 16 Reviews of EQC 16 2012 17 Progress with Canterbury claims 17 Canterbury Earthquake (Earthquake Commission Act) Order 2012 18 Royal Commission of Inquiry into Building Failure Caused by Canterbury Earthquakes 19 Unclaimed damage – Ministerial Direction 19 Nelson floods 19 Residential land damage 19 Managing liabilities 20 Reviews of EQC 20 Review of EQC’s 2012 Christchurch Recruitment Processes
    [Show full text]
  • Dealing with Data During an Emergency Catherine Burns Database & Supporter Care Manager New Zealand Red Cross
    Dealing with Data During an Emergency Catherine Burns Database & Supporter Care Manager New Zealand Red Cross #bbcon2017 Social Goodness @NZRedCross @nzredcross Facebook.com/NewZealandRedCross linkedin.com/in/catherine-burns-b742a9a7 #bbcon2017 Random fact about me Most Saturday nights, and for 24 hours in most holiday weekends, you will find me playing strategy board games with my friends and Wellington On Board members. https://boardgamegeek.com/user/KiwiCat #bbcon2017 New Zealand Red Cross Fundraising environment #bbcon2017 Red Cross and Raiser’s Edge Date Status 2013 June Went live with Raiser’s Edge combining two databases into one. 2014 October Raiser’s Edge database moved from National Office server to a private Red Cross cloud. It could only be accessed from within the Red Cross network/firewall. 2016 January Started detailed business continuity planning across the organisation and identified lack of remote access to Raiser’s Edge as a critical issue. 2016 February One remote computer was set up in Hamilton with Raiser’s Edge installed so we could process monthly payments remotely if necessary. This required a double remote desktop connection to access from outside the Red Cross network. 2016 March Added move to Blackbaud hosting to budget and business plan for the 2016/17 FY. Not scheduled due to lack of buy in from Red Cross IT to provide data and any additional support required for the transition. 2016 November We had ten Raiser’s Edge users at National Office in Wellington plus four community fundraising staff and one planned giving officer located in other parts of the country with access to Raiser’s Edge.
    [Show full text]
  • Unsettling Recovery: Natural Disaster Response and the Politics of Contemporary Settler Colonialism
    UNSETTLING RECOVERY: NATURAL DISASTER RESPONSE AND THE POLITICS OF CONTEMPORARY SETTLER COLONIALISM A DISSERTATION SUBMITTED TO THE FACULTY OF THE UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA BY STEVEN ANDREW KENSINGER IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY DR. DAVID LIPSET, ADVISER JULY 2019 Steven Andrew Kensinger, 2019 © Acknowledgements The fieldwork on which this dissertation is based was funded by a Doctoral Dissertation Fieldwork Grant No. 8955 awarded by the Wenner-Gren Foundation for Anthropological Research. I also want to thank Dr. Robert Berdahl and the Berdahl family for endowing the Daphne Berdahl Memorial Fellowship which provided funds for two preliminary fieldtrips to New Zealand in preparation for the longer fieldwork period. I also received funding while in the field from the University of Minnesota Graduate School through a Thesis Research Travel Grant. I want to thank my advisor, Dr. David Lipset, and the members of my dissertation committee, Dr. Hoon Song, Dr. David Valentine, and Dr. Margaret Werry for their help and guidance in preparing the dissertation. In the Department of Anthropology at the University of Minnesota, Dr. William Beeman, Dr. Karen Ho, and Dr. Karen-Sue Taussig offered personal and professional support. I am grateful to Dr. Kieran McNulty for offering me a much-needed funding opportunity in the final stages of dissertation writing. A special thanks to my colleagues Dr. Meryl Puetz-Lauer and Dr. Timothy Gitzen for their support and encouragement. Dr. Carol Lauer graciously offered to read and comment on several of the chapters. My fellow graduate students and writing-accountability partners Dr.
    [Show full text]
  • Owner's Expectations Manual
    Owner’s Expectations Manual Owner’s Owner’s Expectations Manual | Crown Ownership Monitoring | Crown Unit Crown Ownership Monitoring Unit July 2012 © Crown Copyright reserved ISBN 978-0-478-39662-1 (Print) ISBN 978-0-478-39663-8 (Online) This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 New Zealand licence. In essence, you are free to copy, distribute and adapt the work, as long as you attribute the work to the Crown and abide by the other licence terms. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/nz/. Please note that no departmental or governmental emblem, logo or Coat of Arms may be used in any way which infringes any provision of the Flags, Emblems, and Names Protection Act 1981. Attribution to the Crown should be in written form and not by reproduction of any such emblem, logo or Coat of Arms. Internet The URL for this document on the Treasury’s Crown Ownership Monitoring Unit’s website at July 2012 is http://www.comu.govt.nz/publications/guidance/owners-expectations-manual/ Persistent URL http://purl.oclc.org/nzt/g-oem Table of Contents What’s New? .............................................................................................................................................................. 5 Summary of Significant Updates to the Owner’s Expectations Manual ........................................................................ 5 1 Introduction ......................................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Seismic Ratings for Degrading Structural Systems
    205 GEOTECHNICAL ASPECTS OF THE 22 FEBRUARY 2011 CHRISTCHURCH EARTHQUAKE Misko Cubrinovski1, Brendon Bradley1, Liam Wotherspoon2, Russell Green3, Jonathan Bray4, Clint Wood5, Michael Pender2, 6 7 8 1 John Allen , Aaron Bradshaw , Glenn Rix , Merrick Taylor , Kelly Robinson1, Duncan Henderson1, Simona Giorgini1, Kun Ma1, Anna Winkley1, Josh Zupan4, Thomas O’Rourke9, 10 11 Greg DePascale , Donnald Wells SUMMARY The 22 February 2011, Mw6.2-6.3 Christchurch earthquake is the most costly earthquake to affect New Zealand, causing 181 fatalities and severely damaging thousands of residential and commercial buildings, and most of the city lifelines and infrastructure. This manuscript presents an overview of observed geotechnical aspects of this earthquake as well as some of the completed and on-going research investigations. A unique aspect, which is particularly emphasized, is the severity and spatial extent of liquefaction occurring in native soils. Overall, both the spatial extent and severity of liquefaction in the city was greater than in the preceding 4th September 2010 Darfield earthquake, including numerous areas that liquefied in both events. Liquefaction and lateral spreading, variable over both large and short spatial scales, affected commercial structures in the Central Business District (CBD) in a variety of ways including: total and differential settlements and tilting; punching settlements of structures with shallow foundations; differential movements of components of complex structures; and interaction of adjacent structures via common foundation soils. Liquefaction was most severe in residential areas located to the east of the CBD as a result of stronger ground shaking due to the proximity to the causative fault, a high water table approximately 1m from the surface, and soils with composition and states of high susceptibility and potential for liquefaction.
    [Show full text]
  • Treasury Report T2015/1646: EQC Investment Direction
    The Treasury Material Provided to the Public Inquiry into EQC Information Release August 2021 This document has been proactively released by the Treasury on the Treasury website at https://treasury.govt.nz/publications/information-release/public-inquiry-eqc Information Withheld Some parts of this information release would not be appropriate to release and, if requested, would be withheld under the Official Information Act 1982 (the Act). Where this is the case, the relevant sections of the Act that would apply have been identified. Where information has been withheld, no public interest has been identified that would outweigh the reasons for withholding it. Key to sections of the Act under which information has been withheld: [23] 9(2)(a) - to protect the privacy of natural persons, including deceased people [25] 9(2)(b)(ii) - to protect the commercial position of the person who supplied the information or who is the subject of the information [26] 9(2)(ba)(i) - to protect information which is subject to an obligation of confidence or which any person has been or could be compelled to provide under the authority of any enactment, where the making available of the information would be likely to prejudice the supply of similar information, or information from the same source, and it is in the public interest that such information should continue to be supplied [31] 9(2)(f)(ii) - to maintain the current constitutional conventions protecting collective and individual ministerial responsibility [33] 9(2)(f)(iv) - to maintain the current constitutional
    [Show full text]
  • Richmond Residential Red Zone: Summary of Technical Information As at Area ID: 15A, September 2016 15B
    Richmond residential red zone: Summary of Technical Information as at Area ID: 15A, September 2016 15B Purpose of this document: The following information provides a summary of the local environmental values, conditions and potential hazards. The information has been gathered using the best available technical data held by a number of agencies and organisations. It does not identify or assess land use options or the feasibility of land uses. The information in this document is not, and should not be interpreted as, a pre-determination, recommendation or decision about future use. No decisions regarding the future use of this land have been made. Overview of Richmond residential red zone (Area 15): Area 15 is approximately 27 hectares in area and adjoins River Road along the margins of the Ōtākaro/Avon River from Banks Avenue to the east and Fitzgerald Avenue to the west. To the north and west, Area 15 adjoins existing urban areas. This Area had a number of significant home gardens with mature trees some of which are still being tended. Area 15 is susceptible to a number of natural hazards, which can potentially occur either in isolation or collectively leading to a number of adverse cascading effects. The risk from many of these hazards will increase over time due to the accelerating effects of sea level rise. The area is particularly prone to lateral spreading. Land contamination may be an issue for much of the site. Location Map 1 Natural Environment and Cultural Setting and Features Natural Environment Adjacent to the Ōtākaro/Avon River and Tributaries Significant Ecological Site (site ID no.
    [Show full text]
  • GEOTECHNICAL RECONNAISSANCE of the 2011 CHRISTCHURCH, NEW ZEALAND EARTHQUAKE Version 1: 15 August 2011
    GEOTECHNICAL RECONNAISSANCE OF THE 2011 CHRISTCHURCH, NEW ZEALAND EARTHQUAKE Version 1: 15 August 2011 (photograph by Gillian Needham) EDITORS Misko Cubrinovski – NZ Lead (University of Canterbury, Christchurch, New Zealand) Russell A. Green – US Lead (Virginia Tech, Blacksburg, VA, USA) Liam Wotherspoon (University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand) CONTRIBUTING AUTHORS (alphabetical order) John Allen – (TRI/Environmental, Inc., Austin, TX, USA) Brendon Bradley – (University of Canterbury, Christchurch, New Zealand) Aaron Bradshaw – (University of Rhode Island, Kingston, RI, USA) Jonathan Bray – (UC Berkeley, Berkeley, CA, USA) Misko Cubrinovski – (University of Canterbury, Christchurch, New Zealand) Greg DePascale – (Fugro/WLA, Christchurch, New Zealand) Russell A. Green – (Virginia Tech, Blacksburg, VA, USA) Rolando Orense – (University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand) Thomas O’Rourke – (Cornell University, Ithaca, NY, USA) Michael Pender – (University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand) Glenn Rix – (Georgia Tech, Atlanta, GA, USA) Donald Wells – (AMEC Geomatrix, Oakland, CA, USA) Clint Wood – (University of Arkansas, Fayetteville, AR, USA) Liam Wotherspoon – (University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand) OTHER CONTRIBUTORS (alphabetical order) Brady Cox – (University of Arkansas, Fayetteville, AR, USA) Duncan Henderson – (University of Canterbury, Christchurch, New Zealand) Lucas Hogan – (University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand) Patrick Kailey – (University of Canterbury, Christchurch, New Zealand) Sam Lasley – (Virginia Tech, Blacksburg, VA, USA) Kelly Robinson – (University of Canterbury, Christchurch, New Zealand) Merrick Taylor – (University of Canterbury, Christchurch, New Zealand) Anna Winkley – (University of Canterbury, Christchurch, New Zealand) Josh Zupan – (University of California at Berkeley, Berkeley, CA, USA) TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 INTRODUCTION 2.0 SEISMOLOGICAL ASPECTS 3.0 GEOLOGICAL ASPECTS 4.0 LIQUEFACTION AND LATERAL SPREADING 5.0 IMPROVED GROUND 6.0 STOPBANKS 7.0 BRIDGES 8.0 LIFELINES 9.0 LANDSLIDES AND ROCKFALLS 1.
    [Show full text]
  • Canterbury Residential Red Zone Household Hazardous Waste Project
    Canterbury Residential Red Zone Household Hazardous Waste Project The Canterbury Residential Red Zone Household Hazardous Waste Project was developed to support earthquake recovery by enabling the collection and appropriate disposal of hazardous materials from red zoned residential properties prior to demolition. The key purpose was to minimise the associated risks to human health and the environment. The devastating effects of the Canterbury Earthquakes of September 2010 and February 2011 continue to shape the city around us as Christchurch recovers. We have seen the overwhelming task of rebuilding a city realised, with a new precinct based central city, changes to transport networks and the re-zoning of land to manage new risks of liquefaction. On a daily basis the changes to the urban landscape remind us of the significance of the events that literally shape the redevelopment of Christchurch. Decimating the central business district and the majority of historic and tall buildings across the city, the earthquakes also had significant effects in the east and north east residential suburbs. Huge swathes of these suburbs, where liquefaction created a number of issues including the immediate disruption of services and damage to infrastructure, were subsequently assessed and rezoned for demolition, due the property damage which had occurred and instability of land. Affected properties were acquired (compulsorily) by the Crown to ensure the removal of the hazard posed by residential development on instable ground, creating the Canterbury Residential Red Zone (RRZ). The dispersion of people as a result of the earthquake and the restricted access meant that many of these properties were left in an as is state, still containing an undisturbed cache of personal possessions and household items, including hazardous substances and materials which would need appropriate disposal.
    [Show full text]
  • Presentation of September 4, 2010 Canterbury Earthquake
    Presentation of September 4, 2010 Canterbury Earthquake William Godwin, PG, CEG AEG Vice President, 2019-20 Webinar – May 6, 2020 Introduction ► This presentation is on the 2010 Mw 7.1 Canterbury Earthquake. The earthquake occurred as I was traveling from San Francisco to Auckland, New Zealand to attend the IAEG Congress. Upon arrival I was asked to join the Geotechnical Extreme Events Reconnaissance (GEER) team to document damage from the event in the Christchurch area of the South Island. Little did I know that another smaller (Mw 6.2), yet deadlier earthquake would strike 5 months later in close to the same area. Introduction ► The purpose of the GEER is to observe and record earthquake induced phenomena and impacts to infrastructure before evidence is removed or altered as part of cleanup efforts. ► The reconnaissance was conducted by a joint USA-NZ-Japan team with the main funding for the USA contingent coming from GEER and partial support from PEER and EERI. ► This presentation includes my photographs from Sept. 8-10 supplemented with a few photos and observations noted in the GEER report, Nov. 2010. I also describe other seismic events from 2011-16. Sept 4th Darfield Earthquake ► At 4:35 am on September 4th NZ Standard Time (16:35 Sept 3rd UTC) the rupture of a previously unrecognized strike-slip fault (Greendale Fault) beneath the Canterbury Plains of New Zealand’s South Island produced a Mw 7.1 earthquake that caused widespread damage throughout the region. Surprisingly only two people were seriously injured, with approximately 100 total injuries. This compares with 185 deaths in the 2011 event Canterbury Earthquake Sequence Greendale Fault Rupture Characteristics Epicenter (focal) depth: 10.8km Tectonic Setting Ground Motion (pga) Geographical Setting Preliminary Observations ► Rock Avalanche, Castle Rock Reserve, Littleton, Christchurch ► Fault Offset, Telegraph Rd at Grange Rd.
    [Show full text]
  • Shaky Isles Economic Impact of the Canterbury Earthquake
    6 September 2010 Shaky isles Economic impact of the Canterbury earthquake damage to at least one dairy manufacturing plant, although it • The earthquake that struck the Canterbury region is expected to return to normal operation within days. There is this weekend has resulted in extensive damage to sure to be as-yet unreported damage to productive capacity infrastructure and property, with early estimates elsewhere. putting the total damage at around $2bn, or 1% of national GDP. A survey of the 1994 Los Angeles earthquake – which was of • Reconstruction efforts are likely to be a net positive comparable magnitude to the Canterbury quake – found that for measured GDP – but the national balance sheet 57% of businesses suffered some degree of physical damage; has undoubtedly been weakened by this event. about 22% of premises suffered structural damage, although • The local nature of the event, and a high level of ultimately only 2% were condemned. 1 The median loss was preparedness for it, should limit the implications for about NZ$12,000 in current price terms, reflecting the fact financial markets. that most firms were small (though there were a few very large losses; the largest in the survey was $35m). The 7.1 magnitude earthquake that struck Canterbury in the early hours of Saturday morning resulted in no loss of life, but More than half had to close temporarily, even if only for a few has wrought extensive damage to infrastructure and property. days. The most common reason given was employees unable to Media reports have varied from 5% of buildings sustaining get to work (e.g.
    [Show full text]