BP Permanently Seals Gulf Oil Well 368
rexjoec writes "BP has finally plugged the Macondo well. This announcement came yesterday after $9.5 billion (through September 17) in expenditures and five months of continuous effort."
From the LA Times: "Of the estimated 4.9 million barrels of oil that gushed from the well, 25% was burned, skimmed or piped to tanker ships. A second 25% has evaporated or dissolved, according to government estimates. Another 25%, classified by the government as 'residual oil,' consisted of light sheens on the water, thick goo on the shore and tar balls. The tar balls, though not harmful to humans, are likely to wash up on shore for some time."
Obviously made up / Wild A*sed Guess (Score:4, Interesting)
That each of these four options accounts for exactly one quarter of the oil is obviously made up or at best a Wild A*sed Guess. They lied from day one about the amount of oil released, and we're supposed to believe this?
That's only 75 percent (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:You know what I find hilarious? (Score:5, Interesting)
Millions of gallons leaking into the Gulf, however, seem to have had pretty much zero effect on gas prices. Am I wrong?
The Maconodo well was in the process of being converted from exploration to production. A non-producing well didn't come into production, not 'a producing well went out of production'. So, the supply wasn't impacted. If demand was level then the price should have stayed mostly level.
Only if oil futures had figured in the Macondo production already, or speculators thought that BP's costs would somehow drive up the world market costs (why would Exxon increase its prices?, e.g. - they wouldn't) would this have affected oil prices. The biggest supply risk right now is from the US Government, but it seem unlikely they're going to undertake the draconian options at this point.
Re:The last 25% (Score:1, Interesting)
Until every man's exhaled breath and excrement is completely contained in a bag that he carries with him for life, there is no such thing as a free market.
Re:You know what I find hilarious? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:The last 25% (Score:5, Interesting)
If my company has a tanker full of gas, and that tanker explodes outside your store due to my company's negligence, cratering the street and making your store unreachable for months. By your logic, my company shouldn't be liable for monetary damage to your store. How would you feel about this? You can say "adapt! change!" all you want, but the bottom line is, there should be no legal justification for this kind of negligence.
They can reimburse you for your losses, but people shouldn't be on the hook for hypothetical future losses 40 years into the future unless actual deaths were involved (You can estimate earnings, and nothing can reverse death, so the losses are tangible)
For example, let's say a massive Cat 4 hurricane came in 2 weeks later and literally washed your store away. Would the company that cratered the street and made your store unreachable be liable for your now non-existant store? Is that hypothetical? It sure is, but so are your 'lost' future profits. There was no guarantee of them.
Remimburse the damage, pay compensation for the inconvenience to establish a new store, and then any associated fines for failing to follow regulations.
Re:The last 25% (Score:3, Interesting)
So how much do you think creating a new fishing ground is going to cost? That would be like building a new store.
Re:The last 25% (Score:2, Interesting)
I agree with the assertion that you should never whine about "leaving where you've been all your life" because it's rooted in an unreasonable aversion to change. Yes, there's a lot involved, but it's not something that's never been done before.
However, going back to the oil problem, in some cases there is no fitting compensation other than uprooting your fishing business and moving to somewhere completely different - on an ocean instead of the gulf. Is BP going to pay for that expense? Or will they get out of it on the grounds that asking them to move you and your family and your entire business to a different, possibly more expensive area is "unreasonable"?
And how do we properly account for what might amount to irreparable damage to that particular source of food in the near- to mid-future?
Re:I make a point not to buy from BP anymore (Score:5, Interesting)
You should too.
A feel good idea. With no, to negative, results.
1) They're going to change their name in a couple months / years. Guaranteed. Bet you won't notice.
2) Carried out to the logical conclusion, if everyone shunned BP, our own govt (aka all of us) will have to pay the full costs of cleanup. I'd much rather voluntarily pay my tiny fraction of the costs and in return get a tank of gas in my car, than have the govt forcibly take everyone's money to pay for the full cost of cleanup and we get nothing but a larger national debt...
3) Gas stations are mostly franchises. So, the only people you're punishing are your local gas station owners whom randomly selected the wrong marketing firm. The guy down the street whom contracts to Exxon for his marketing, will simply buy the excess gas from BP and you'll never be the wiser. Punishing the local station owner is the same bullying mentality as screaming at a supermarket cashier or other McJob personnel, as if they have anything to do with it or as if your actions will have any effect.
Re:The last 25% (Score:5, Interesting)
Well, since they'd about fished out the old one...
Honestly, I can't stand fishermen who talk about fishing grounds and fish populations as if they were their property.
I can pretty much guarantee that if they banned gulf fishing for a year, and studied the subsequent catches, they'd find that 5 million barrels of oil is less of a problem for the fish populations than all the commercial fishing.
Re:The last 25% (Score:2, Interesting)
The damage they've done will affect generations beyond this one
Citation needed? Think back a few generations from yourself. Heck think back 50 years before the EPA came into existence. Does that horrible lack of concern for the environment affect your daily life today? Do you even know what they dumped back then? Heck 4 generations ago, we didn't even chlorinate water.
I think future generations will benefit from increased life expectancy and greater quality of life regardless of this oil disaster. Yes the people should be punished, but as previous posters have pointed out, it isn't criminal without intent. This was an accident and thus they should be civilly liable.
Re:I make a point not to buy from BP anymore (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:The last 25% (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:The last 25% (Score:3, Interesting)
I was thinking about this yesterday.
So far, there's no evidence that fisheries have actually been harmed in any substantial way by the spill.
Why not wait and see how next year's catch is, and if it's bad, force BP to pay the unemployed fishermen for another lost season? My guess is that a whole unfettered season of no fishing would do the fisheries as much good as the spill did in damage.
Also, if there's a year for tons of shrimp and plankton to thrive, a whole bunch of them are going to die naturally, sequestering any free oil in inert sediments at the ocean floor, right?