BP Permanently Seals Gulf Oil Well

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."

Comments

Fast

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, that didn't take very long now did it?

You know what I find hilarious?

[Pojut]

The "potential" for conflict can raise the cost of oil by 5-10 cents in less than a week. The "potential" for supply problsm can raise the cost of oil by as much as 50 cents over the course of a couple of months.

Millions of gallons leaking into the Gulf, however, seem to have had pretty much zero effect on gas prices. Am I wrong? Please put some numbers up showing that I am...I'd really be pissed off if I'm right about that.

Re:You know what I find hilarious?

[Pojut]

Gah. I meant raising the cost of gas in my first couple of sentences, not the cost of oil itself -_-;;

Re:You know what I find hilarious?

[east coast]

Assuming that the 4.9 million barrels of oil number can be believed? That's the US consumption in about 6 hours. Pretty much a drop in the bucket when it comes right down to it.

Re:You know what I find hilarious?

[Pojut]

My point is that this is a measurable loss of oil, compared to "potential" loss. Why does "potential" loss impact things more than measurable loss?

Or is this one of those make-no-sense parts of economics I just don't get?

Re:You know what I find hilarious?

[Anonymous Coward]

You know what I find hilarious? People who don't understand large numbers. It all makes sense if you understand that over the *entire period* of the leaking oil, yes millions were spilled. Any potential disruption of supply that would move the oil market would involve a reduction of millions of barrels of oil *per day*.

Re:You know what I find hilarious?

[bill_mcgonigle]

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:You know what I find hilarious?

[logjon]

A "potential" loss of 4.9 million barrels would have no more effect than this leak did.

Re:You know what I find hilarious?

[danbert8]

This was never a producing well. Thus it was never available as supply and the supply didn't diminish. It probably affected the price of crude futures a bit, but the lack of availability of the rest of the oil in the field is a much bigger loss than the actual oil that came out. "Millions of gallons" isn't a whole lot in the oil business. Also, that's millions of barrels (5 million barrels is 210 million gallons), which is significant, but not nearly as much as the billions of barrels in the oil field.

Re:You know what I find hilarious?

[east coast]

When they talk about potential loss it seems that they are talking about in the current flow of oil. This was a new well that, AFAIK, never produced a single barrel of oil that was refined. So if the world's oil producers are pumping 80 million barrels a day and they lose 10% of that it's a drain on the system, when a new and unproven well doesn't produce it doesn't cause harm to the expected daily supply.

I know where you're coming from and I can understand some of the confusion but I find it reasonable that this well didn't mean much in the grand scheme of things. Not to mention that it's the industries own problem and jacking up prices because of it would likely get them in even bigger problems where things like wars and acts of God are normally winked at as a reason to jack up the price of crude.

Re:You know what I find hilarious?

[Zeek40]

It's not a 'supply problem' because the oil well was never supplying any oil. The rig was destroyed before the well became operational.

Re:You know what I find hilarious?

[IndustrialComplex]

My point is that this is a measurable loss of oil, compared to "potential" loss. Why does "potential" loss impact things more than measurable loss?

Or is this one of those make-no-sense parts of economics I just don't get?

Potential conflict can spiral into large market fluctuations. While a not insignificant portion of it IS speculation, speculation can backfire. But the numbers we see here, while large don't even really get close to the numbers which can be influenced by regional conflict.

Think about it this way, this was one well out of how many along Louisiana's coast? Imagine there was some nut who decided to blow up a rig. Compare that to a conflict which could result in a blockade of the Mississippi river! Or a conflict in which a group seizes control of an area where a major pipeline runs.

While it may be a large amount of oil, in terms of potential for disruption, it's minor.

Re:You know what I find hilarious?

[IndustrialComplex]

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.

If we wanted to see real market panic, an over-response from the US government could have easily sparked it. I'm rather glad that the response was a careful "We are stopping it temporarily for obvious reasons, but once we can establish that this isn't a systematic problem we are going to open it up again." Basically a lot of reassuring of investors to prevent speculation.

Stability and predictability are major factors in keeping speculation down.

Re:You know what I find hilarious?

[Have Brain Will Rent]

And the price of oil seems to have very little to do with the price of gasoline anyhow (In Canada at least). I have oil investments and I see them go up and down and nothing much happens to the price of gas. I've watched the price of a barrel of oil drop almost 20% with *zero* change in the price of gas. Years ago it used to be that when the price of oil went up the price of gas went up pretty much in lockstep and *instantly*. Then when the price of oil dropped the price of gas stayed the same for weeks - the gas companies claimed that they still had to use up all the oil in storage that had been bought at the old price. Curiously that logic never held when the price of oil went up.

Re:You know what I find hilarious?

[Antisyzygy]

Because investors are fearful. Same thing happens in other markets. 1 piece of potentially bad news means people go into a selling frenzy and buy up safer assets. It doesn't have to actually be bad news at all, just has to be "potentially" bad. Its the nature of speculation.

Re:You know what I find hilarious?

[jellomizer]

Because what was spilled is the raw ingredient. There are levels of refinement that goes on, and other drills being built. Being that it was 1 oil rig. Though Billions of Gallons of oil was spilt it compared to our real consumption of oil it is just a drop in the bucket.

Political conflicts cause more of a rise because it could effect the supply of hundreds or thousands of oil.

As these are freely traded Potential means people are worried when people are worried they will hold on to what they have. You are expecting Finance to follow pre calculated path. No there are just a lot of people making gut decisions.

Re:You know what I find hilarious?

[Late Adopter]

I don't mind a sunset, what I mind is not knowing what comes next. The Obama administration has avoided any sort of commitment to a tax structure beyond the expiration except on a year-at-a-time basis. Only now are they finally getting around to debating the future of tax policy in Congress, and it looks like what we'll end up with is too little too late. A lot of the unemployment at the tail end of this recession could have been mitigated.

Re:You know what I find hilarious?

[Red Flayer]

Millions of gallons leaking into the Gulf, however, seem to have had pretty much zero effect on gas prices.

And why exactly should it affect gas prices? It doesn't really change either supply or demand for oil (since this well was not supplying any oil to the market prior to the spill).

Furthermore, while this spill has potential for horrible local environmental and economic effects, the volume of oil spilled is a drop in the bucket compared to how much oil is consumed.

Re:You know what I find hilarious?

[bennomatic]

The saying is, "up like a rocket, down like a feather."

Re:You know what I find hilarious?

[Red Flayer]

My point is that this is a measurable loss of oil, compared to "potential" loss. Why does "potential" loss impact things more than measurable loss?

Because there was no actual loss -- this oil was not entering the market prior to the spill. The only loss here is to the oil reserves of BP.

More generally, because more oil is traded on futures contracts than in the spot market. Actual loss, as a reduction in supply, will theoretically increase spot prices. But once the losses are actual, they don't really affect the futures market... except as "potential" losses if the disruption is predicted to continue.

And even more generally, pump gas prices are affected so much by these events because short-term demand for gas is relatively inelastic and sellers can get away with short-term price hikes without hurting themselves in the long run, as long as their competitors follow suit.

Re:You know what I find hilarious?

[thegarbz]

This is actually fuelled by panic trading and has nothing to do with the oil price. Oil isn't taken out of the ground and converted to product by the same company. Oil is taken out of the ground then traded on a public exchange. Companies buy this from the public exchange refine it and sell product back to the public exchange. Retailers then buy the product from the public exchange. The end result is that when you buy petrol at a BP service station you're not necessarily going to get BP petrol. Also because of all this trading the typical trading trends happen when something goes wrong.

Oil price goes up.
Traders panic and start hedging bets on the retail market.
The entire thing turns out to be a non-event and the price of oil starts to fall.
Traders sit on their retail product they now don't want to move at a loss.
Dropped oil price results in a drop in retail petrol some 6-10 weeks later (since this is your typical refining and transportation delay).
Traders either move product through fixed agreements, or realise they screwed up and recover costs elsewhere.

Your typical oil company is also just a pawn in the same process. If petrol can be bought cheaper from the market than from the local refinery (a not at all uncommon occurrence) then they don't buy from themselves. This is why exploration, refining, and retail sections of these companies are so incredibly segregated.

Re:You know what I find hilarious?

[ArundelCastle]

Assuming that the 4.9 million barrels of oil number can be believed? That's the US consumption in about 6 hours. Pretty much a drop in the bucket when it comes right down to it.

It's a pity that proverbial drop has cost so many lives, livelihoods, lawsuits, and is in fact damaging a very real ecosystem that two months ago we could swim in.
In this case it fell out of the bucket. What a difference 6 hours makes.

Re:You know what I find hilarious?

[jrumney]

Still, it must have had some effect on oil futures prices, as the forecast supply was reduced.

Re:You know what I find hilarious?

[lorenlal]

lol, then why don't they just keep the price of oil sky high all the time? If it was always that expensive we'd never know the difference. You fail at economics.

Actually, there's a big balancing act that oil companies have to play with.

1) Higher prices would encourage exploration of alternative fuels. This would decrease demand on their product once alternative fuels hit the market and could cut into the profits they get now.
2) You're right, if it was always that expensive, we'd never notice. But, you can only mess with the price so much at a time, and if they just go up, then people will only complain. Complaints = action by officials. Now, if you have a situation where you can increase the cost by 400%, then cut it in half after a few months, then you have a system where, "The price is high, but at least it's not so bad."

Situation #2 is what I saw happen in 2005. It was a trip. In fact, the prices did hit a point where more people than usual started calling for #1... Since then the "speculation" news has dropped dramatically.

Re:You know what I find hilarious?

[Anonymous Coward]

Oil production of Iraq: ~2.5 million barrels per day .

Oil production of Iran: over 4 million barrels per day.

Therefore: totaloil leaked into Gulf, over a period of two months, was less than two day's production for a mid-ranking oil-producing country. To put it another way: you'd have to take out 15 rigs of that size to have the same effect on world supply as a major war in the Middle East.

Re:You know what I find hilarious?

[turbidostato]

"a new and unproven well doesn't produce it doesn't cause harm to the expected daily supply."

Of course it harms it. They, of course, take into account production expectations into their futures, and it's futures the stronger variable with regards of oil price evolution.

I there's tomorrow a credible announcement about a new gigantic easily explotaible oil field you can bet oil prices would drop immediately without waiting the oil really going out the wells.

Re:You know what I find hilarious?

[smash]

by approximately 6 hours of use by one country....

Re:You know what I find hilarious?

[ScrewMaster]

Higher prices would encourage exploration of alternative fuels.

What usually happens is that it encourages the production of more fuel-efficient vehicles. Every time we've had an "energy crisis" since the 70's, and everyone starts buying smaller cars, crude prices magically drop so that we'll start buying the big boys again. Insane.

Re:You know what I find hilarious?

[ScrewMaster]

The saying is, "up like a rocket, down like a feather."

Or as Lewis Black says, "It goes up it goes down it goes up it goes down ... and nobody can fuckin' tell you why!"

Re:You know what I find hilarious?

[OdinOdin_]

Huh.... the oil leaking into the gulf was not being collected into the supply chain. However the suspension of all deep sea drilling that is being injected into the supply chain might change the price.... BUT.... we're in a global recession, recession means lower demand and with the correct planning at organisations such as OPEC the well head pumping rate and pricing is adjusted to suit their requirements (i.e. there are plenty of providers to pick up the slack and keep the refinery filled due to deep sea drilling suspension).

I believe the main problem with oil in the world is lack of refinery capacity and unwillingness to invest the mega money into this area since a return is viable over the long term but the long term outlook for the particular type of oil that would be refined in such a facility is a decline in production. Which means the return on investment may not be possible at current oil prices.

Re:You know what I find hilarious?

[nacturation]

by approximately 6 hours of use by one country....

Only true if you equate the amount leaked to the amount that would have been actively pumped when the well was fully operational.

Re:You know what I find hilarious?

[aliquis]

Am I wrong? Please put some numbers up showing that I am...I'd really be pissed off if I'm right about that.

Well duh! What whould you had expected when they found _AN OCEAN OF OIL_?! :D

Re:You know what I find hilarious?

[ultranova]

What usually happens is that it encourages the production of more fuel-efficient vehicles. Every time we've had an "energy crisis" since the 70's, and everyone starts buying smaller cars, crude prices magically drop so that we'll start buying the big boys again. Insane.

Not insane. It's perfectly rational for every player in this game. The correct word is evil.

Re:You know what I find hilarious?

[Overzeetop]

I find that diesel fuel in the mid-Atlantic US tracks well with the price of crude oil, with a slight lag, but that the gasoline tends to track the refinery capacity. If a major refinery is taken off line due to damage or maintenance, gasoline prices rise relative to diesel. During periods of exceptionally low demand, gasoline prices fall relative to diesel.

Now, I suspect that some of the supply/demand pressure on gasoline is not seen in the diesel fuel market due to a more constant usage of diesel for goods transportation. I haven't looked to see if diesel in the October/November timeframe shifts due to the increased in goods transported for the holidays. Then again, I don't own a diesel, so it doesn't really affect me that much.

Re:You know what I find hilarious?

[khallow]

There's a couple of possibilities. First, that you now live in a less competitive market than in the good old days. The price might tend to be less sensitive to supply (since the customer is paying something of a premium). Second, that the oil company or gasoline station has a long term contract that keeps them from getting mixed up in short term price fluctuations.

Re:You know what I find hilarious?

[Have Brain Will Rent]

I'm not sure that they were the "good old days"... I wasn't trying to portray them as such... it was just a lot clearer that you were getting screwed (that and, back then, every single gas station in the city having exactly the same price)... now it is harder to tell whether you are getting screwed or not, although I think that is a pretty safe assumption to start from in this particular case.

The last 25%

[BostonRob]

The last 25%, left out of the summary, is the most concerning. From the article: The final 25% of the oil — the equivalent of four Exxon Valdez spills —- is of greatest concern to scientists. It is drifting 3,000 to 4,300 feet below the gulf's surface, in vast clouds of atomized droplets that could alter links in the chain of life.

Re:The last 25%

[h4rr4r]

Is BP paying those fishermen for the next 40 years of lost work?

Is it paying the hotels for the next 20 years of lost business?

It sure seems like dumping a few gallons of oil can get you arrested, dumping millions though is ok so long as you pretend to do something about it.

Re:The last 25%

[caturday]

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.

Re:The last 25%

[h4rr4r]

Way to miss the point. I sure would be willing to sell those people oil though, if they want to commit to such long terms.

The reality is BP ruined the shared resource these businesses rely on. This is a simple issue of property rights, BP is depriving these folks of the right to use this common property. BP should pay for the loss of access to this property just as these businesses pay for the oil they use.

Re:The last 25%

[Rude Turnip]

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:The last 25%

[boombaard]

are you going to provide oil to run the fishermen's boats for the next 40 years?

are you going to provide oil to run the hotels for the next 20 years?

does the free market guarantee continued employment, or is the very basis of capitalism the inherent necessity of the value of ADAPTING.

Tell me where you live, and I will shoot your family. You must adapt to any change I think is right for you (read: me).
But wait, you might ask, where is my right to freedom from interference?
You, however, have less money, and therefore your suffering is irrelevant. Congratulations, you live in the State of Nature, also called the USA.

I know you won't admit to it, but I, at least, find this line of reasoning troubling, and just a little bit undemocratic. Why do you pride yourself on living under a rule of law, when you have The Market?

Re:The last 25%

[danbert8]

Is BP paying those fishermen for the next 40 years of lost work?

No, but BP is paying for those fisherman to go out and clean the oil. Also 40 years=number pulled out of your ass. The effects of the Ixtoc 1 oil spill were not that drastic and shrimp industries returned to normal in 2 years.

Is it paying the hotels for the next 20 years of lost business?

The hotels are already doing quite well this year as they are hosting all the contractors that have been brought into the region, as are all the restaurants and such with the per diem the contractors are getting paid. And again 20 years=number pulled out of your ass.

It sure seems like dumping a few gallons of oil can get you arrested, dumping millions though is ok so long as you pretend to do something about it.

Yes, dumping millions of gallons of oil is ok (if you consider 20 billion dollars to not be a penalty). That works out to about $95 a gallon, not to mention the additional $1.87/gallon in lost oil revenue.

Re:The last 25%

[CannonballHead]

So, on one hand, I agree with you. What you imply you want to see seems "fair" in an idealistic way.

On the other hand, this is a lot more confusing. Let's say you own a hotel on a beach, but I own the property between you and the beach. I decide I like trees, so I plant some. They grow. They ruin your hotel's view of the beach.

Can you sue me for the next X years of losses because of people who don't come to your hotel because it now lacks a view?

I assume you'll probably say "no." If you say "yes," I'd have to ask - since when is it illegal for me to plant trees on my own property!

If you say "no," then clearly this is a muddled affair that requires a lot of thought. BP may have been negligent, so there is that to consider - my example was not criminal in any way, that I know of.

Even more muddled: what about street cleaners that are now out of work because the hotels are less busy and thus the tourists have made fewer messes? Just how many paths are we going to go down? I mean, eventually, 50% of the US could claim indirect monetary losses...

note: 50% figure pulled out of hat along with white rabbit.

Re:The last 25%

[IndustrialComplex]

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%

[Mike Kristopeit]

way to miss the point. consumers of oil completely destroy the shared resource they rely on. no one else can ever use that oil again. it's GONE.

property rights are only as simple as someone else who claim's those same property rights allows them to be. if you think this is a simple issue, you're an idiot.

Re:The last 25%

[h4rr4r]

Considering no one went to jail I consider it getting off quite lightly.

Re:The last 25%

[ducomputergeek]

It's the old if you owe the bank $10,000, it's your problem. If you owe the bank $10,000,000, it's their problem.

Re:The last 25%

[Lifyre]

Not quite. His point is the length of time. BP needs to cover the damages, at least in the short term, but can only pay for so long. A few months is certainly not enough but 20 years is very much on the long side of reasonable.

We don't know how this is going to play out, there is very little in common with the Exxon spill other than there was oil involved. The environment, bacteria, location of spill, and effected species are all very different. We've discovered new bacteria that operate at those colder depths that seem to be metaolizing the oil at the rapid rate, and being atomized likely makes it easier for them.

We won't know the full scope of the disaster for 5 or 10 years, it could realistically be a non-issue from a ecological point of view by the end of next summer.

Re:The last 25%

[h4rr4r]

I would say no because growing trees is legal and not generally dangerous. Unlike using the gulf of mexico as your personal oil disposal area.

Personally I think those street cleaners probably have a decent claim. I would like to see BP actually pay for all the damage, it is the only way they would not do it again.

Re:The last 25%

[catmistake]

Is BP paying those fishermen for the next 40 years of lost work?

Not speaking for BP, but for myself... and not speaking to family owned and operated fishing enterprises, but to the commercial fisheries: FUCK THEM. Their greed pretty much destroyed the Gulf and the Atlantic stocks of the best fish. Man, I am really going to miss tuna. FUCK THEM TWICE, damn greedy savages.

Is it paying the hotels for the next 20 years of lost business?

Not speaking for BP, but for myself... and not speaking to family owned and operated hotels, but the large commercial developers and big corporate resorts: FUCK THEM. They somehow skirted federal wetland laws (DO NOT TOUCH) to destroy miles of coastline so rednecks could have a vacation spot closer to home, instead of traveling to already established resort islands along the coast NC, SC, GA, and FL, like civilized people do. FUCK THEM TWICE, greedy fucking savages.

It sure seems like dumping a few gallons of oil can get you arrested, dumping millions though is ok so long as you pretend to do something about it.

Agreed. Trouble is, everyone only cares about their bank accounts, at the expense of the things we need to live, like a habitable environment.

Re:The last 25%

[Antisyzygy]

By your logic, I should be allowed to start a "waste disposal service". What I will do is locate myself in your neighborhood and burn tires, paint thinner, waste paint, and miscellaneous plastics in large heaping piles. You should just have to adapt to it and deserve no compensation down the road when you get cancer or poisoned by the toxic fumes in the air. Its not my fault you live there and use the neighborhood for your own personal enjoyment and living space. After all, this society is capitalist so I should be able to start a business like this cut out my niche in the market.

Re:The last 25%

[h4rr4r]

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%

[Shakrai]

Prove that criminal laws were broken beyond a reasonable doubt and people will go to jail. Otherwise it's just political posturing.

Re:The last 25%

[david_thornley]

There's fundamentally two ways to make a business responsible for its unsafe actions.

One is to impose government regulations. These are generally flawed, often tuned to avoid expense to the corporation, often require unnecessary things at extra expense, may not be enforced, and are typically something of a pain.

The other is to make corporations civilly liable for what they do. This has its own set of problems, including shell corporations that loot and discard operating corporations, and the ability of large enterprises to wage delaying actions through the legal system.

The worst of both worlds is when bad government regs are used to shield a corporation from well-deserved liability.

Re:The last 25%

[caturday]

...pay compensation for the inconvenience to establish a new store...

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:The last 25%

[h4rr4r]

Is dumping not illegal in Florida or at the Federal level?

Where I live it sure is. The cops don't ask why you did it.

Re:The last 25%

[h4rr4r]

Again, you spout nonsense. That oil was paid for and was a private resource, they owned it. The Gulf of Mexico is a shared resource.

Please provide me your address, I want to buy the property next door and start burning tires.

Re:The last 25%

[IndustrialComplex]

So how much do you think creating a new fishing ground is going to cost? That would be like building a new store.

Actually, buying the fisherman a new boat and equipment would be like building a new store. But let's say that the fishing ground is destroyed and fishing is no longer possible there. You pay the fisherman the cost to establish the equivalent business in a similar location. How equivalent, how similar? That's for a judge to determine.

As the fishing ground is a shared resource, compensation for damage to it would best be paid to the Federal and State Governments, the owners of the rights to those resources. That would be a claim to be negotiated between those entities and BP. The comparison is muddled since it isn't a store (owned by a private entity) but a public resource, but the end result is that those responsible for claiming damages to those resources are the governmental entities which own that resource. The fisherman can, via the government, put pressure to get compensation for loss of that resource.

But doing both (40 years of lost wages) AND getting compensation for the loss of the resource (directly) WOULD be claiming damages twice for the same problem (loss of the resource).

Re:The last 25%

[CannonballHead]

I would have to cede the oil vs. trees point. BP was legally drilling though...

OTOH, to me ... negligence would be a big issue in there, and would cause culpability on BP and other companies that may have also been negligent. And also those that were supposed to be regulating, it seems they were negligent, too.

Maybe we should make BP pay and make the government/regulatory body actually change, not just rename itself. Oh, and at least fire anyone that was accepting bribes or whatever else. And also at least fire those giving the bribes. Somehow, I doubt all that will happen, unfortunately.

Re:The last 25%

[CannonballHead]

Actually you can't even ruin the view from someone's house without risking being brought to civil court

Individuals should be allowed to do this, in a civil court... which is where you are supposed to take civil disputes, not criminal activity, right?

Companies should not be allowed to steamroll the civil court to get the citizen to do what it wants.

I don't know enough about the courts to know if the above two things are actually the way it works, though.

Re:The last 25%

[h4rr4r]

I disagree. The wages are to pay for the loss of the use of the resource by this particular user and the damages are to restore the resource and perhaps make sure BP avoids such action in the future.

Re:The last 25%

[IndustrialComplex]

To your first part regarding reasonableness. I deal with legal language like that EVERY day. It's my job. Unfortunately that HAS to have some sort of arbitration (typically via a judge). Almost anyone could see that offering $1,000,000 to some guy who was living in a trailer on welfare would be more than reasonable, but some people WOULD demand more. And likely, the company WOULD offer less.

It is in instances like this were I, even as a very staunch libertarian, see the need for the government to act as an intermediary. Potentially, a true neutral third party arbitrator could be better suited to the task as we also have the problem that the government is also a potential claimant for damages (to the fishery), and politics could result in the damaged parties being hurt even more (Not wanting to let individual lawsuits bankrupt BP prior to the government getting its cut for the environmental damage, etc)

And that last point addresses your last point. The government is also a claimant against BP for damages to resources which the government owns.

It isn't a simple situation to resolve. But my main point is trying to compensate for 40 years of loss is just absurd since it's impossible to predict such a thing so far into the future.

Re:The last 25%

[operagost]

What's the penalty? Fine, right? Justice served.

Re:The last 25%

[h4rr4r]

I don't care if they were setting up an orphanage they caused the discharge of millions of gallons of oil into the gulf.

I fail to understand how it matters what they were doing. The end result is they released millions of gallons of oil onto property they did not own.

Re:The last 25%

[Antisyzygy]

No, but BP is paying for those fisherman to go out and clean the oil. Also 40 years=number pulled out of your ass. The effects of the Ixtoc 1 oil spill were not that drastic and shrimp industries returned to normal in 2 years.

So then fishermen deserve compensation until the fishing industry goes "back to normal" which should be defined as when the fish and shrimp populations return to normal, not based on actual catch since there would be an incentive to under-perform.

This does not even take into account the long term affect on the region. Oil slicks break up into some nasty stuff. If you strip mine a hill and leave arsenic puddles everywhere, you cause that region to be un-inhabitable and non-arable. You need to pay for that if its public lands and if its private land you need to prove the damage is completely localized beyond a reasonable doubt. Otherwise, what would stop businesses from going around and polluting the shit out of everyone's properties making them unusable through runoff of various industrial processes or waste disposal, ect.

Re:The last 25%

[Korin43]

On the other hand, this is a lot more confusing. Let's say you own a hotel on a beach, but I own the property between you and the beach. I decide I like trees, so I plant some. They grow. They ruin your hotel's view of the beach.

Obvious answer: You own the property between the hotel and beach, BP doesn't own the Gulf of Mexico.

Re:The last 25%

[Shakrai]

Deliberately dumping used motor oil is a crime. Having it spill out of your car onto the pavement because a gasket fails is not a crime, though you may still be required to pay clean-up costs.

Re:The last 25%

[SatanicPuppy]

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%

[Antisyzygy]

The reason they fished out the seas is because you and I eat too god damn much fish. Now farming them will have to do.

Re:The last 25%

[Jawnn]

And, as usual, the mainstream news media let's that critical fact, the central fact WRT addressing the question of environmental impact at this point, slide into the noise.

Re:The last 25%

[caturday]

You realize that there are denizens of the web's seedy underbelly reading these comments, right? Don't come whining to us when 40 pizzas delivered by 20 hookers show up at your door... By the way - your stupid is showing.

Re:The last 25%

[danbert8]

This completely ignores the amount of EPA oversight on oil companies. For the most part they are not even allowed to discharge water out of a fire hydrant onto their own property without a permit. I would bet that mining companies are in the same boat. Believe me, companies are paying for any current waste, and paying extra to dispose of their past waste dumping attitudes.

Re:The last 25%

[AaronLS]

Indeed that 25% was what I was wondering about. The long term effects of this on our health and the health of the gulf ecosystem will probably never fully be understood, but will likely be felt in many different ways. Unofrtunately, it will be one of those things that is explained away by skeptics because it is something where it is very difficult to measure and prove the impact.

While I don't want to downplay the misfortune of those who depend on the fishing and tourist industry, I think those losses would pale in comparison to the losses that will be experienced in our health and natural habitats. Consider if you were to try and measure these things in terms of the dollar value that it would take to restore and maintain them in a condition comparable to which they would have been in had there been no spill. Restoring a habitat to a pre-populated condition is sometimes very difficult, costly, or near impossible. If the damage is minor, a healthy ecosystem will heal itself, but if it is major then habitats will be destroyed beyond repair or may be in a vulnerable state, such that it may be destroyed by a natural disaster, which a healthy habitat would have normally recovered from.

Usually when you are talking about assigning a dollar value to measure suffering, death, and/or increased health care costs resulting from something like this, then you are talking big numbers. A human life statistically is often represented as a few million dollars. It's hard to say what the effects would be, but I wonder about how many carcinogens have been left behind in the gulf and might make their way through the food chain or get to us through other pathways:

http://www.sciencesuperschool.com/crude-oil-spills-mdash-biological-medical-chemical-dangers.html

Re:The last 25%

[AaronLS]

Should have been pre-polluted, not populated

Re:The last 25%

[Antisyzygy]

Lets say you own a farm, and I accidentally burn your farm down killing all your crops and livestock. Should you not be paid for the lost money you could have made from the grain and livestock? I mean, who knows how much the crops would have actually made you since there is no accurate way to determine the total yield since the weather affects it as does market fluctiations. Furthermore, your livestock could have gotten sick and died or could maybe not have grown very big. I understand its a bit different with fish since its a "caught" item from a "shared" resource but its not too far of a stretch.

Re:The last 25%

[danbert8]

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:The last 25%

[Jawnn]

To be fair, we don't yet know how badly the fisheries will be impacted, but if the Exxon Valdez mess offers any valid corollary, the potential for long term, if not permanent impact is quite real.
I rather doubt that the impact on the hotel trade will last for anything close to twenty years, not that that is any comfort for the businesses and lives that have been, or soon will be, ruined by the very real impact the mess has already had.
And you are quite right - it's unlikely that anyone on the payroll of any of the companies involved will go to jail and that, perhaps, is the biggest injustice of all.

So do something about it. Vote for candidates who promise to act in the best interests of its citizens and hold corporate America responsible for their crimes and misdeeds, define more corporate misdeeds as crimes, and show some genuine leadership when it comes to leading the country away from it's ruinous dependence on fossil fuel.

Re:The last 25%

[IndustrialComplex]

Lets say you own a farm, and I accidentally burn your farm down killing all your crops and livestock. Should you not be paid for the lost money you could have made from the grain and livestock? I mean, who knows how much the crops would have actually made you since there is no accurate way to determine the total yield since the weather affects it as does market fluctiations. Furthermore, your livestock could have gotten sick and died or could maybe not have grown very big. I understand its a bit different with fish since its a "caught" item from a "shared" resource but its not too far of a stretch.

Let's see: 400 head of cattle, and 1000 acres of arable planted land. Quantifiable, measurable quantities. You can put together a fairly reliable estimate based on commodity futures and you don't harvest grain 10 years from now. Actually, it is fairly easy to estimate considering I did the exact same thing when an energy company screwed up a well on land I own.

Now, we did argue about the value within several percentage points, but I could easily backup my estimates based on current prices, past prices, and a bodycount. (Though in my case, the bodycount was a log count for trees that they knocked down without permission)

Re:The last 25%

[tomhath]

That's right, you run over my chicken, you owe me for all the eggs she would've laid in the next forty years. Simply buying me another chicken is unacceptable.

The real question is whether this "plume" even exists. One was found back in June while the well was still leaking, none have been found since. Presumably the bacteria that have been feeding off natural oil seeps for eons consumed it, but nobody really knows

Re:The last 25%

[bennomatic]

Never threaten another person's family, even in jest. It's wrong, and you never know how they are going to adapt to it. They could track you down and have you arrested, or they could decided to take care of your family first.

The rest of your argument isn't really worth writing home about, either. I'm guessing that I actually agree with you, but it's so poorly written that I'm not sure. But really, threatening someone's family is beyond the pale.

Re:The last 25%

[Tom]

They can reimburse you for your losses, but people shouldn't be on the hook for hypothetical future losses 40 years into the future

Why?

No, seriously. If they do something that can potentially have repercussions so far down the line, you'd assume they act with appropriate care. They didn't. In fact, on the contrary. You're saying that the damage to the culprit should be reasonably limited. How about the damage to the victims?

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?

Worst strawman I've seen on /. for years. It doesn't even remotely tie in with the story.

Remimburse the damage, pay compensation for the inconvenience to establish a new store, and then any associated fines for failing to follow regulations.

The problem being, of course, that "the damage" is the hard part to calculate. Fortunately, courts and not /. trolls will figure it out.

Re:The last 25%

[GreyWolf3000]

BP has allegedly set aside billions for claims.

You better be thankful this happened to such a massive evil megacorp that can actually afford reparations. Most of the offshore operations in the Gulf are managed and owned by much smaller companies that would just go belly up if this happened to them.

I'm obviously not a fan of BP -- clearly they've blown it big time (pun intended) -- but we should be grateful that this happened to a company with deep enough pockets to be around for the long term fix.

Re:The last 25%

[Cytotoxic]

I think they've found it in a fairly thick layer of oily sediment on the ocean floor. Here's the first example I could find. Nice pics of oily goodness covering the sea floor. Apparently there's a nice layer of freshly dead marine life just below the layer too.

Re:The last 25%

[Red Flayer]

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?

Yes, and yes.

It's more complicated than that, though. Most people are probably not affected at all. But some people are affected in tragic ways. And even though I haven't gotten sick from being exposed to toxins, I AM paying for Superfund site amelioration. Does that affect my daily life? To some extent. Here's a fun map to check out superfund sites.

Yes the people should be punished, but as previous posters have pointed out, it isn't criminal without intent.

Well, others may have pointed it out, but it's still incorrect. There does not need to be willful harm for criminal negligence to occur. Disregarding safety can be a criminal act, even if any harm that occurs is unintentional.

Re:The last 25%

[Mike D. Kristopeit]

i am much more offended by you attempting to silence someone using the law as a basis... YOU CAN NOT LEGISLATE MORALITY.

if you harm me, or any distant relative i might have, in any way, i will not stop harming you in response until you are unable to do any harm to anyone else ever again. when i'm done, i honestly will probably not be able to halt such obvious reaction, and i'll probably do the same to everyone related to you for fear that faulty genetics caused such an obvious misstep on your part to attack an unstoppable force.

you are NOTHING

Re:The last 25%

[the eric conspiracy]

Exxon Valdez was about 10% of the size of the BP Macondo spill. No matter how hard I try I can't get 0.25 * 10 to come out to 4.

Re:The last 25%

[Red Flayer]

We've discovered new bacteria that operate at those colder depths that seem to be metaolizing the oil at the rapid rate, and being atomized likely makes it easier for them.

Sure, and those bacteria create a hypoxic zone that kills the foodweb in that zone. Coupled with the very slow rate of mixing at that depth in the gulf, and you've got a dead zone that may persist for decades. Is it an ecologically important zone? We'll find out.

We won't know the full scope of the disaster for 5 or 10 years

Double that and I think we're talking sense.

it could realistically be a non-issue from a ecological point of view by the end of next summer.

Not bloody likely. I think that's beyond optimism. Realistically, I think (from my reading) that we're looking at much longer than that. How long does it take for toxins to be concentrated up the food web? What'll the impact be on apex predators? Considering many apex predators live multiple decades, what impact will a rapid decrease in population of apex predators have on the food web for years down the road?

All that said, commercial fishing probably has a bigger impact on apex predators than this spill will.

Re:The last 25%

[catmistake]

That's not why. They created the demand. You'd be sicked to learn how much swordfish never gets sold and just rots and must be discarded. And... you can farm tuna??

Re:The last 25%

[Red Flayer]

you obviously don't realize i post using my real name, and my address is in the white pages. I AM NOT A COWARD, as you would have others believe you expect everyone else to be, presumably because you yourself are a coward and justify it with such beliefs.

Sure, you're not a coward. I'll buy that. But that doesn't make you less of an idiot.

And what's up with the two separate IDs?

Re:The last 25%

[h4rr4r]

Ah threats, the last resort of the internet toughguy.

You need help. Also having multiple slashdot usernames is bad form.

Re:The last 25%

[MichaelDavKristopeit]

bad form according to who? you are NOTHING.

internet "toughguy" exercising their last resort

" I want to buy the property next door and start burning tires."

a hypocrite to boot. you're an idiot.

Re:The last 25%

[MichaelDavKristopeit]

how could i be less of an idiot when i'm not an idiot at all?

what's up with this site attempting to restrict access by user, but not restricting access to users by people? what's up you caring about what i have instead of what you don't have?

ur mum's face is an idiot.

Re:The last 25%

[h4rr4r]

Please go seek professional help.

Re:The last 25%

[Burning1]

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)

I'm reading this, and I'm trying to figure out whether you have no idea about how liability law works, or if you know all too much.

People are on the hook for hypothetical losses all the time. E.g. If your negligence maims a child with a promising future, you can be held liable for that child's lost income.

Re:The last 25%

[MichaelDavKristopeit]

or what? you'll threaten me again?

ur mum's face requires professional help.

you are NOTHING

Re:The last 25%

[The_mad_linguist]

Isn't littering a criminal offense?

In my state at least:

A person is guilty of criminal littering when he: ...
(d) Discharges sewage, minerals, oil products, or litter into any public waters or lakes within the state.

They discharged oil from into public waters. It was in the gulf in between for a while, but I'm sure an expensive enough lawyer could make that triviality go away.

Re:The last 25%

[Red Flayer]

Wow. Idiocy confirmed. Thanks for that.

Re:The last 25%

[SleazyRidr]

Ah vigilantism. Is there any problem it can't solve?

Re:The last 25%

[Lifyre]

Agreed on almost all your points. I did forget about the dead zone issues when I was posting that which would certainly extend the time line to normality. Still depending on how quickly the bacteria eat the oil that phase of the problem could be over.

Re:The last 25%

[Mikey Kristopeity]

Don't you talk to ME like that. you are NOTHING.

I.

Will.

Throw.

Feces.

At.

YOU.

Re:The last 25%

[couchslug]

"Is BP paying those fishermen for the next 40 years of lost work?"

BP can always attribute fishing losses to the Dead Zone created by river runoff. No one who matters is even raising that as an issue, though it preceded and will outlive the (comparatively) minor damage from Macondo.

Fertilizer runoff lacks the drama of crispy oil rigs...

Re:The last 25%

[boombaard]

*shrug*. Tell that to everyone living off the income that up until now was provided by the Gulf of Mexico, and everyone who is (was) directly or indirectly dependent on the wages the people who made their living off the Gulf earned. Words might look "offensive", but BPs actions are 1000x that, and they have assured the suicide of more parents and partners on that coast than I will ever be able to effect through writing here, and they don't give a flying fuck. (Specifically, look at suicide incidence rates in Alaska since the Exxon Valdez disaster there, especially among fishermen, but also among service providers.)

Re:The last 25%

[Mike D. Kristopeit]

why have you been waiting around for your own idiocy to be confirmed? why does such confirmation make you thankful?

you are NOTHING

Re:The last 25%

[SleazyRidr]

How many accounts do you have, anyway?

Re:The last 25%

[Mike D. Kristopeit]

can't rely on facts coming from a user bearing your own name, so you attempt to mislead others that someone else is saying something they aren't?

pathetic.

Re:The last 25%

[Mikey Kristopeity]

With as much as I'd love to sit around arguing with myself, Rachel has her first donkey show in an hour and I promised I'd be there for emotional and lubricational support.

Have a great day.

Signed,
You

Re:The last 25%

[Mike Da. Kristopeit]

i'm going to kill you

Re:The last 25%

[Mikey Kristopeity]

Suicide's a sin in the eyes of the Lord.

Re:The last 25%

[Anonymous Coward]

We've discovered new bacteria that operate at those colder depths that seem to be metaolizing the oil at the rapid rate, and being atomized likely makes it easier for them.

Sure, and those bacteria create a hypoxic zone that kills the foodweb in that zone. Coupled with the very slow rate of mixing at that depth in the gulf, and you've got a dead zone that may persist for decades.

Actually the "dead zone" idea may be somewhat in doubt. I believe this story is referring to the bacteria mentioned.

From the above story:

"... the microbe works without significantly depleting oxygen in the water, researchers led by Terry Hazen at Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory reported Tuesday in the online journal Science Express."

"Scientists also had been concerned that oil-eating activity by microbes would consume large amounts of oxygen in the water, creating a "dead zone" dangerous to other life. But the new study found that oxygen saturation outside the oil plume was 67 percent, while within the plume it was 59 percent."

Sounds to me like the oxygen deletion as a result of the oil being metabolized or biodegraded, however you wish to style it, is less extreme than the severe oxygen deletion that occurs during the annual dead zone in the Gulf (not to mention other locations) due to nitrogen rich agricultural run-off and sewage.

Re:The last 25%

[Mike Da. Kristopeit]

murdering cowards happened quite often in the christian bible.

you are NOTHING

Re:The last 25%

[Antisyzygy]

I don't disagree that damages should be paid to the government for public lands. My disagreement is in how one determines the consequences of any particular event knowing its impossible to actually predict any consequences of that event. Do we assume the worse or the best case? Say a drought occurs during the court case in which you are suing me for damages to your crop and livestock and it is midway before the harvest of both. Furthermore, say the drought is so severe that you only have access to a finite, but insufficient amount of water that may be used to supply your crop and livestock. Am I then liable for damages based on the hypothetical assumption you would have had a full yield at the time of my accident? Or now am I somewhat "off the hook" because a drought happened? Things get too sticky when you talk about future events

Re:The last 25%

[Antisyzygy]

Point taken about the tuna farming. Still, the whole problem is that there are too many humans, and too many of them like to eat fish. We won't stop overfishing the seas until there is some international agreement to do so or we kill a bunch of us off. The only real solution of getting fish sustainably would be to farm them, and you would have to farm the fish that are suited to it.

Re:The last 25%

[ZosX]

You are not trying hard enough!

Re:The last 25%

[nomadic]

YOU CAN NOT LEGISLATE MORALITY.

What exactly do you think law is? "It's against the law to kill people" is legislating morality.

Re:The last 25%

[losfromla]

not too impressive when one considers again the revolving door that exists between government regulating and related industries. Most/all? government regulators are the lapdog of their related industry because they'd hate to ruin future (quite lucrative) careers or would hate to (gasp!) harm American Industry. Basically, industry tells government which goals can be met and then EPA sets goals accordingly.

Re:The last 25%

[guruevi]

Depending on where you live and how big your waste disposal service is, you most likely can do that and get away with it. All you have to do is make sure you give more than $5,000 to a local politician or $50,000 to a state/country politician and you would be amazed what you can get away with. Most likely you would write it off on your taxes as a necessary investment/expense and you would have the people you poison practically pay for the privilege of getting poisoned by your waste service.

Re:The last 25%

[Mike D. Kristopeit]

ur mum's face is mad. :4

Re:The last 25%

[Kristopeit, Mike]

present yourself. until then...

you are NOTHING

Re:The last 25%

[Idiomatick]

And if you broke safety regulations which led to the failure?

Re:The last 25%

[LongearedBat]

All other posts under parent seem to be discussing lost revenue from damaged fishing grounds. Fair enough, but money can always be made in other ways.
This bit worries me much more...

It is drifting 3,000 to 4,300 feet below the gulf's surface, in vast clouds of atomized droplets that could alter links in the chain of life.

There could be an entire ecosystem at that depth that we are unaware of that could be (and probably already is) severly damaged by this. That ecosystem might (or might not) be too far from the surface to impact fishing very much.
Just because we can't see what's going on down there doesn't mean we can/should ignore it.

Sure, BP can't rectify that damage (we can't even know how much damage is actually caused). But most important, IMHO, is that we (en masse, not just leaving it up to irresposible sub-groups) really do everything possible to the best of our abilities, to prevent ourselves from causing these sorts of disasters from happening at all.

Re:The last 25%

[Kristopeit, Mike Dav]

it's really hilarious that google maps database vendor provided them faulty business locations as every lot in the area is residential.

it's hilarious that i live here with my wife and dogs and children and numerous hand guns / rifles / shotguns....... and you live...... where again?

ur mum's face is a whore.

you are NOTHING

Re:The last 25%

[Kristopeit, Mike Dav]

what threats? do you feel threatened, coward?

do you ever feel not threatened?

ur mum's face is NOTHING

Re:The last 25%

[inu_maru]

yes, at least some species

They don't taste the same, but for a non-epicurean is good enough.

Re:The last 25%

[Kristopeit, Mike Dav]

you're an idiot.

you make the same faulty assumption the slashdot system architects made... NOTHING is done to ENSURE 1 USER = 1 PERSON... so in the sense of a user utilizing a service, slashdot does NOTHING to ENSURE usage is restricted.

Re:The last 25%

[Mike Da. Kristopeit]

it was michael kristopeit. i don't cower behind anonymity, as many others choose to do so.

Re:The last 25%

[khallow]

Honestly, I can't stand fishermen who talk about fishing grounds and fish populations as if they were their property.

If it really were their property, would they fish it like they do now? Sustainable harvesting of renewable resources generally only happens when there's no tragedy of the commons.

Re:The last 25%

[Anonymous Coward]

you are not moderated for the mistruths that you spew. you are moderated for being a massive cunt. try to imitate your wife less in the future.

i know, i know. this is too much for the puny mind of michael david kristopiet to process. and yes, I know my mum's face is puny too. so very clever.

Re:The last 25%

[catmistake]

We like beef too. The USDA makes sure of that. Can't you see my point? We didn't like fish as much before it was shoved down our throats. Put another way, the radio plays what they want you to hear. The suppliers weren't scrambling to meet the demand, the demand was created and nurtured synthetically because they had, at one time, so much of it available to sell. If they could have in one go, catch and sell every single fish in the ocean, they would have. It's like what happened to the Walnut tree... it used to be the most common hardwood... now it's all but gone because of greed, not demand. If it was less available, but the demand was still there, it would merely be more expensive (which is what will now happen). But someone decided that money now was more important than an ocean with fish still in it later... or maybe they just didn't believe or realize that it was a limited resource. It has so little to do with how much we like fish, and so much to do with how much we like money.

Re:The last 25%

[Mike Dav. Kristopeit]

anything i did that you would label "being a massive cunt" was surely a direct result of someone else being an idiot... perhaps you would claim they were "being a massive cunt".

you choose to cower... because you are full of fear?

you are NOTHING

Re:The last 25%

[Shakrai]

Cite the relevant criminal statute and prove it beyond a reasonable doubt. We don't throw people into prison in this country if you can't do that.

Re:The last 25%

[vegiVamp]

Ooo, new ID, troll ? Other one got too low karma for your crap to get noticed anymore ?

Re:The last 25%

[Kristopeit,MichaelDa]

perhaps your mother prefers when i post using fresh accounts with my given name to make apparent the flaws of building systems of control that limit the potential of 1 user, but don't limit the ability of 1 person to create and function as multiple users.

you are NOTHING

Re:The last 25%

[vegiVamp]

You do love to point out obvious non-issues, don't you ?

Keep rebelling against the system, minion. You amuse me.

Re:The last 25%

[gnud]

Salmon farms use way more fish as fodder than they produce - and they spill tons of antibiotics into the oceans. Let's hope we can either come up with some better ways tofish, or in the alternative some better ways to farm.

Re:The last 25%

[tehcyder]

Is dumping not illegal in Florida or at the Federal level?

Where I live it sure is. The cops don't ask why you did it.

You make it sound like BP dumped the oil deliberately in some sort of gargantuan version of replacing your engine oil and chucking the old stuff at the side of the road.

I've not (yet) even seen any mad conspiracy theory that thinks BP did this on purpose.

Re:The last 25%

[Kristopeit,MichaelDa]

ur mum's face amuse me

Re:The last 25%

[tehcyder]

*cough* Guantanamo Bay *cough*

Re:The last 25%

[tehcyder]

by my logic, if you harm me, i WILL harm you.

i won't whine about it and ask for help.

Ah, the simple pleasures of playground fights. Don't forget to come tooled up.

Re:The last 25%

[Kristopeit,MichaelDa]

heavy or not at all

Re:The last 25%

[MarcQuadra]

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?

Re:The last 25%

[IndustrialComplex]

Things get too sticky when you talk about future events

Which is why I said that a 40 year repayment was way out of line.

Re:The last 25%

[IndustrialComplex]

If it really were their property, would they fish it like they do now? Sustainable harvesting of renewable resources generally only happens when there's no tragedy of the commons.

They probably would. Tragedy of the commons doesn't address the issue that large short term profits without real penalties results in maximum exploitation.

Re:The last 25%

[danbert8]

I guess my point is that the oil leaking should be handled in a civil court. If you want criminal charges based on negligence, than I'd fully support you if you used 11 fatalities as the basis of your case. Criminal charges should be left to causing loss of life, not incidental environmental damages.

Re:The last 25%

[Mike Dav. Kristopeit]

i didn't think so, coward.

you are NOTHING

Re:The last 25%

[SatanicPuppy]

The tragedy of the commons was an early eco-article describing the human tendency to over exploit shared resources for individual gain, especially when such exploitation was guaranteed to destroy the resource.

I read a story about abandoned nuke sites once: Chernobyl, the Savannah River plant, etc. Lot of really dirty sites, high levels of environmental radiation, etc.

In every case, the wildlife populations have blossomed. Environmental diversity has improved. Everything is actually pretty healthy...Stuff dies a little sooner than in less irradiated areas, but other than that the animals do much better than in places where there are people.

Re:The last 25%

[Red Flayer]

Get back on your meds.

Re:The last 25%

[Mike Da. Kristopeit]

wrong again, idiot. no meds, ever. no allergies. no illnesses. no disorders. none of the nonsense you idiots create to justify your ignorance and lack of potential.

is ur mum's face as presumptuous and historically inaccurate as you?

you are NOTHING

Re:The last 25%

[khallow]

They probably would. Tragedy of the commons doesn't address the issue that large short term profits without real penalties results in maximum exploitation.

How about short term profits with real penalties? That's what we're speaking of here.

Re:The last 25%

[Red Flayer]

Ah, then my response was incorrect... I should rather have said, "Go see a shrink and get on some meds."

you are NOTHING

If I am nothing, and you respond to me... that means you're arguing with a figment of your imagination. Do you often conduct arguments at a 2nd-grade level with figments of your imagination?

Re:The last 25%

[Mike Da. Kristopeit]

ur mum's face often conduct arguments at a 2nd-grade level with figments of your imagination

Re:The last 25%

[Red Flayer]

Wow, that's a pretty sharp wit you've got there. If you heat it up enough, you might even be able to slice butter.

Re:The last 25%

[Mike Da. Kristopeit]

ur mum's face might even be able to slice butter

Re:The last 25%

[Mike Da. Kristopeit]

coward.

you are NOTHING

Re:The last 25%

[Shakrai]

One of these days you people will realize there's a difference between enemy combatants captured on foreign battlefields and more mundane criminals.

Re:The last 25%

[Kristopeit, Mike Da.]

ur mum's face lack the mental capacity for self reflection.

you are NOTHING

Re:The last 25%

[Mike Dav. Kristopeit]

you are not moderated for the mistruths that you spew.

duh, idiot. because i don't spew mistruths.

ur mum's face are not moderated for the mistruths that you spew

you are NOTHING

Re:The last 25%

[bennomatic]

Actually, it's legislating behavior. The law can't prevent you from wanting to kill someone, nor from believing that it would be right to do so. The law can't even completely stop you from acting on those beliefs. But if you do indeed commit the act (or attempt to commit the act), the law can allow for that behavior to be punished if you are caught.

Re:The last 25%

[bennomatic]

Fair enough. But I'm not going to harm you. To be fair, I listed the law as only one of the ways that someone might go about punishing someone who has threatened them.

And you're right; I'm nothing. We all are. But we all care about the little nothings who most closely surround us, which is why I suggested to the GP that his threatening of your family was beyond the pale.

Re:The last 25%

[bennomatic]

Well, the guy you "threatened" (I put it in quotes because I'm sure you weren't serious) may or may not be stable. I don't know. I'm just suggesting that those sorts of threats are not only inappropriate, they're dangerous to the person making them.

You may think you affect little through your writings, but you never know. You could have conveyed your message quite clearly without threatening the guy.

Obviously made up / Wild A*sed Guess

[Anonymous Coward]

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

[H_Fisher]

And the remaining 25% ...

... doesn't matter?

... wasn't accounted for?

... is about to wash up on our shores next week?

Re:That's only 75 percent

[Critical Facilities]

See for yourself here.

Re:That's only 75 percent

[Critical Facilities]

Sorry, replying to myself with the complete link. Don't let the scary domain name fool you, pretty cool guerrilla style news site.

Re:That's only 75 percent

[Anonymous Coward]

The final 25% of the oil — the equivalent of four Exxon Valdez spills —- is of greatest concern to scientists. It is drifting 3,000 to 4,300 feet below the gulf's surface, in vast clouds of atomized droplets that could alter links in the chain of life.

This "dispersed" oil was broken into droplets, about the width of a hair, either when it shot at high speeds from the well's broken pipe or when it came into contact with the 1.8 million gallons of the controversial chemical dispersant Corexit.

Re:That's only 75 percent

[Americano]

How about you go read the LA Times article linked in the summary, after which you can answer that question for yourself?

Re:That's only 75 percent

[Rude Turnip]

This. I highly recommend the documentary they did on their secret visit to North Korea.

Re:That's only 75 percent

[Critical Facilities]

I saw that one too. They also had a really interesting one about the underground gun trade in the border area of Afghanistan and Pakistan (how they were allowed in there with cameras, I'll never know), but it was really interesting. Scary but interesting.

Re:That's only 75 percent

[h4rr4r]

The Liberia episode is quite good as well.

Nice and sugar coated

[LBt1st]

I love how they make it sound like the oil just went away.
Hundreds of workers worked 10+ hour shifts every day on the shores cleaning up oil and dead animals for the past months. I'm not sure if that continues even now but the spill is certainly going to have lasting affects on the sea floor and gulf waters.

Thank goodness...

[frozentier]

Thank goodness they acted so quickly!

But the lawsuits have on ly begun

[elrous0]

Every fisherman in the Gulf is going to be claiming that BP killed their record season, every cannery is going to complain that the oil spill took a crazy amount of money out of their pockets. etc. I've already heard some fishermen being interviewed saying that BP owed them several YEARS worth of fishing profits (since they were presumptively assuming that they wouldn't be able to fish for years). I'm generally not very sympathetic to big oil companies, but those poor bastards are going to be swamped with lawsuits for the next decade. But, on the upside, I bet they'll damn sure be properly maintaining those blowout preventers from now on.

Re:But the lawsuits have on ly begun

[NevarMore]

I'm not saying that the specifics of this case are right, but thats what you have to do if you sue for damages with long term repercussions.

Lets say I run into you with my car and break your hand. You would need to sue me to recover the following costs:
  - Immediate medical care (ER, ambulance)
  - Surgery to correct your hand
  - Lost wages from the immediate time away from work
  - Cost of physical therapy
(heres the important part)
  - Cost of long term followup visits
  - Cost of pain meds (even say, Advil) because of long term discomfornt
  - Lost wages from not being able to use your hand 100% ever again
  - Cost of followup visits if your hand flares up again
  - Cost of treating the arthritis that is now likely to develop

You can only sue me once. You may not come back and sue me again in 15 years when it acts up after feeling fine for a decade.

Similar thing is going on here. The fishermen just plain don't know whats going to happen in the long term. The legal term is "make me whole". BP did something to harm them and the fisherman isn't made whole again unless all of his costs , short and long term, are recovered. The fisherman doesn't get to go back in 5 years and sue BP again after he finds out his fishing area is a wasteland because the fish are gone.

Re:But the lawsuits have on ly begun

[Xelios]

I wouldn't be surprised if they steer the whole thing to a federal court for a class action lawsuit, then pull a pretty low judgment out of it.

Re:But the lawsuits have on ly begun

[erroneus]

That would be just fine. This particular situation has more than enough attention on it that this trick will not work for a great many claims. All one has to do in that case is "opt out" of the class action suit. Then the right to sue will remain intact.

Re:But the lawsuits have on ly begun

[h4rr4r]

Bullshit. They are going to weasel out of this like all big companies do when something like this occurs. Google "bhopal union carbide", for a great example.

In a just world they will have to pay every inflation adjusted dime since the fishing industry was damaged to when it fully recovers. In our world they won't.

Re:But the lawsuits have on ly begun

[amorsen]

But, on the upside, I bet they'll damn sure be properly maintaining those blowout preventers from now on.

If past accidents are anything to go by, then no, they won't be properly maintaining anything.

The oil industry seems to be somehow insulated from the normal process of learning from failure.

Re:But the lawsuits have on ly begun

[Abstrackt]

The problem is that a) No one can see into the future to see what those ACTUAL damages will be, and b) Many of the people suing will be greatly exaggerating their damages, if not committing outright fraud. Again, I don't envy BP the mess they will be dealing with on this--especially since every ambulance-chasing trial lawyer and his brother are going to be pouncing on this, and I doubt that judges are going to be very sympathetic to the evil oil company.

Regarding A: NevarMore made the same point, that you can't know what the actual damages will be.
Regarding B: I'm pretty sure you still have to prove your claim is reasonable.

Whether the oil company is evil is irrelevant, the judge's lack of sympathy will probably come from the fact that the company is responsible for an environmental disaster.

Re:But the lawsuits have on ly begun

[mr_mischief]

That's why the court system is an adversarial one. The defendant and the plaintiff both get to make a case, and the judge or jury doesn't have to award the full amount being claimed if they don't think it's a fair amount.

Re:But the lawsuits have on ly begun

[NevarMore]

They can claim whatever they want. No matter what it is, reasonable and justified or totally insane and overboard the defense lawyers will work it down. You're better off having some claims on the table to sacrifice in order to get what you actually should get to be made whole again.

Re:But the lawsuits have on ly begun

[Tom]

fishermen being interviewed saying that BP owed them several YEARS worth of fishing profits (since they were presumptively assuming that they wouldn't be able to fish for years).

And, if past experiences count for anything, they are right.

but those poor bastards

I agree on the "bastards" part, but they are anything but poor.

Re:But the lawsuits have on ly begun

[thegarbz]

Union Carbide did not standup and say they will pay claims. Union Carbide did not startup an entire department dedicated to cleaning up the mess. Union Carbide did not start an independent system of processing claims. Union Carbide did not setup a $20bn restoration fund.

Comparing the two is sickening. By your logic BP's not perfect and thus they are equal to the most evil company that existed. I don't think you're a very nice person at all. Therefore you a no better than Hitler. - See what I did there, because you're doing the same right now.

Re:But the lawsuits have on ly begun

[MadUndergrad]

Union Carbide did not standup and say they will pay claims. Union Carbide did not startup an entire department dedicated to cleaning up the mess. Union Carbide did not start an independent system of processing claims. Union Carbide did not setup a $20bn restoration fund.

Union Carbide didn't have a world-class PR and astroturfing department.

Re:But the lawsuits have on ly begun

[Vitriol Angst]

Just ask the natives who were harmed by the Exxon Valdez -- most of them have died without receiving what the COURT DEMANDED -- and even after Exxon got new politicians to put a cap on penalties.

The TRUTH of the Exxon Valdez disaster was that Exxon only got rights to be in pristine waters and the only harbor they could use for hundreds of miles for a song because they promised the Indians who owned those lands that they would get the most advanced radar and avoid hitting ground.

Well, they didn't put in all the radars and they left them turned off. The Oil spill had nothing to do with one drunk captain -- it had to do with cutting corners and saving money on an AGREED ON safety measure.

There is a lot of pining about "lawsuits hurting business" but it's the ONLY way to right wrongs. If it didn't cost companies to screw up -- they would cut more corners. How afraid of lawsuits are companies like BP when they have a few thousand security notices on substandard or missing equipment? The battery was dead in the sensors on the Deep Water Horizon and they didn't have a $250,000 blow-out preventer -- THIS, after drilling to the extent of human ingenuity, and having invested very little in clean-up procedures -- they used the SAME TECHNIQUES that were tried and barely worked 25 years ago. In fact, all 4 major oil companies drilling in the Gulf submitted almost exactly the same "contingency plan" that was likely xeroxed from the same ones for the North Atlantic because it spoke of "Fur Seals" and the like.

The ACTUAL damage to OTHER BUSINESSES in the Gulf Coast is predicted to be around $1.4 Trillion. BP won't be paying that because it's a LOT cheaper to spend a few million on TV commercials so the news doesn't cover the truth, and a couple million on judges and campaigns. The investment in our government returns about a 1000 to 1 in benefits.

Re:But the lawsuits have on ly begun

[Buelldozer]

"I'm generally not very sympathetic to big oil companies, but those poor bastards are going to be swamped with lawsuits for the next decade. But, on the upside, I bet they'll damn sure be properly maintaining those blowout preventers from now on."

This is how the feedback cycle is SUPPOSED to work!

You do something dumb, like f up your blowout preventer, cause a bunch of damage and get sued into near oblivion.

This is the "Law of Natural Consequences" as applied to corporations. This feedback cycle should continue and be ENCOURAGED. This is the only way that corporations feel pain and learn, just like small children.

Did they actually SEAL it?

[erroneus]

I have to wonder if, after all that time, they actually let the well empty itself and claim to have plugged it.

Re:Did they actually SEAL it?

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe when they say they "sealed" it they mean that they threw a seal at it. Also, maybe it was a baby seal. And maybe it had fur. Those evil bastards...

Re:Did they actually SEAL it?

[danbert8]

How is this interesting. From the linked article, there were approximately 5 million barrels of oil lost. Albeit that's a horrible estimate, the estimates for the size of the oil field is 4-6 BILLION barrels of oil. So they lost approximately 0.1% of the oil field. Not exactly empty down there...

Re:Did they actually SEAL it?

[Americano]

Today's crude oil price is ~$75 - 80 per barrel. 4.9 million barrels * $80 per barrel = ~ $368 million worth of oil spilled, at today's prices. That's a LOT, but it's a drop in the bucket compared to the revenues the oil producers log.

If they were spending all that money exploring & drilling at 5k+ meters of depth for a mere 4.9 million barrels, then we're much closer to peak oil & an economic collapse on account of energy crisis than anybody has suggested.

Re:Did they actually SEAL it?

[GreatAntibob]

5 million barrels leaked out of an estimated reservoir capacity exceeding 50 million recoverable barrels of oil. Recoverable barrels are less than the actual capacity (it's how much the oil company expects to be able to extract). And the recoverable barrel estimate is notoriously conservative. It's always less than the actual amount of oil eventually pumped out. The leak could have gone on for years without emptying the reservoir. So, yes, the well was plugged and not allowed to simply empty out.

Re:Did they actually SEAL it?

[compro01]

Where are you getting 4-6 billion? Numbers I've found say 50 million barrels (1.5 billion gallons) in that well.

Re:Did they actually SEAL it?

[PPH]

Good question. I seem to recall BP starting two additional wells in the attempt to intercept the Macondo well and plug it. They reached the bottom of the blown out well and plugged it. So where's the second well? It wouldn't surprise me if they finish it and put it into production.

Re:Did they actually SEAL it?

[TangoMargarine]

No one stipulated that the seal had to be alive when they threw it...

At least they aren't harmful to humans /s

[Enderwiggin13]

"The tar balls, though not harmful to humans, are likely to wash up on shore for some time"

They're still toxic and can kill an animal that ingests them. Not to mention the tarball can still deposit oil onto sea birds destroying their insulation and preventing them from flying.

why not untar the gulf...

[pulse2600]

tar -xvf gulf.tar

Re:why not untar the gulf...

[Petaris]

That extracts the tar, we want to bottle it up.

tar -cvf gulf.tar gulf coastline ;)

Re:why not untar the gulf...

[c 0xFF]

Nah. Just use gzip on the tar balls.

Re:why not untar the gulf...

[TheGratefulNet]

find / -name \*.tar -exec rm {} \;

that should actually fix the problem.

Besides a Bad PR Strategy...

[tarsi210]

is there any GOOD reason why they simply didn't repair the blowout preventer, hook up a new dipstick, set up a new rig, and keep on a-pumpin'?

I mean, I realize that a half billion people would have descended on it in angry, wet mobs, but...it's an oil well. There's hundreds like it still in operation. If they could safely get it back in operation, rather than forgo all the effort to FIND oil and get it drilled, why not....simply continue pumping?

Maybe it was a lost cause on re-connecting everything, and maybe it was just a PR issue, but it always surprised me that they said they'd just kill it off.

Re:Besides a Bad PR Strategy...

[amorsen]

is there any GOOD reason why they simply didn't repair the blowout preventer, hook up a new dipstick, set up a new rig, and keep on a-pumpin'?

It was way too damaged. They tried to attach pipes several times, with fairly limited success.

Re:Besides a Bad PR Strategy...

[Sarten-X]

My understanding is that it's the re-connecting difficulty. Mangled pipes, broken in several places and mixed in with the remains of a sunken drilling rig, are not very nice to work with. It's easier just to drill a new well a few miles away.

Re:Besides a Bad PR Strategy...

[vlm]

is there any GOOD reason why they simply didn't repair the blowout preventer, hook up a new dipstick, set up a new rig, and keep on a-pumpin'?

There's two answers:

1) The legal one is once a well goes out of control, it gets the death penalty. Sounds on the surface as stupid as punishing a gun instead of a shooter... however this "gun" cost BP within an order of magnitude of $100M to drill. Wells are really quite expensive to drill. This lowers the wealth of the world as a whole by $100M but more specifically it lowers the wealth of BP by $100M, thus being very motivating for funding groups like BP to hire drillers (TO) whom don't screw up.

2) The semi-technical answer is rapid, uncontrolled sand flow pretty much destroys the pipes and other down hole stuff. It would be way faster and cheaper to drill a new well than to repair this one. Its sort of the difference between duct taping something together in a movie plot therefore its possible vs actual business operation. What I'm getting at is testing and certifying casings and hangers and parts is really cheap when its on the surface, and really expensive when its buried in the earth.

Re:Besides a Bad PR Strategy...

[lostsoulz]

is there any GOOD reason why they simply didn't repair the blowout preventer, hook up a new dipstick, set up a new rig, and keep on a-pumpin'?

The BOP isn't used for production, only drilling. After a well has been completed (i.e. a string of production tubing has been run,) the stack is removed and replaced with a subsea tree. This is the device that controls well production long after the drilling rig has moved.

Re:Besides a Bad PR Strategy...

[lostsoulz]

The semi-technical answer is rapid, uncontrolled sand flow pretty much destroys the pipes and other down hole stuff. It would be way faster and cheaper to drill a new well than to repair this one. Its sort of the difference between duct taping something together in a movie plot therefore its possible vs actual business operation. What I'm getting at is testing and certifying casings and hangers and parts is really cheap when its on the surface, and really expensive when its buried in the earth.

I'm not sure I entirely agree with any of this. Firstly, sand control can be an issue...but it's commonly felt at the surface (pre and post-separation.) Secondly, sand is semi-controlled via flow rate. You don't open the well to atmosphere during production - you use an adjustable choke. If a well produces a lot of sand, then surface sand filters are deployed. Thirdly, drilling a well is far more costly than a workover (where one replaces the production string.) Lastly, testing pressure control equipment happens at the surface as part of manufacturing QA, but it's also tested in the hole - where it really matters. The cost of surface and downhole testing is not relevant.

Re:Besides a Bad PR Strategy...

[vlm]

Firstly, sand control can be an issue...but it's commonly felt at the surface (pre and post-separation.) Secondly, sand is semi-controlled via flow rate. You don't open the well to atmosphere during production - you use an adjustable choke. If a well produces a lot of sand, then surface sand filters are deployed.

Ah, I think, you think, I think the problem is the crude is sandy. I was writing about the severe erosion seen in the BOP and presumably the rest of the well. Check out theoildrum.com, someone somewheres had a nice link to initial pictures of the innards of the BOP, severe erosion.

Thirdly, drilling a well is far more costly than a workover (where one replaces the production string.) Lastly, testing pressure control equipment happens at the surface as part of manufacturing QA, but it's also tested in the hole - where it really matters. The cost of surface and downhole testing is not relevant.

The BOP was removed, inspected, and pretty well sandblasted/trashed inside by the high flow rate. Also hard to predict what has washed out of the formation. All at great expense you can figure it out.

A well that runs free for long enough is going to be trashed internally to some extent. "Worst disaster in recent history", depending on if you count ixtoc as recent, is probably the worst trashed. Or it could be nearly pristine down there. Theres about 5 kft of cement at the bottom now so its not like we'll ever know.

Re:Besides a Bad PR Strategy...

[lostsoulz]

I think you've possible conflated drilling and production. I can accept that I may have misread your initial comment, but you seem to infer that the stack is used during production. That wasn't the case in the Macondo well (although it's commonplace during wildcat DSTs...which this most certainly wasn't.)

counting...

[eexaa]

...am I reading wrong if I don't see destiny of the last 25% of oil?

Re:counting...

[mr_mischief]

It was all in the depths of the Gulf. You saw where 75% of it came out of the deeper waters. 100% - 75% equals...

Tell me liees tell me sweet little lieees .

[unity100]

tell mee lieeeeees, tell me about the bulk of the oil which you have mixed with sea water by buying 80% of the world's oil dispersant supply and injecting into the gulf ....

I make a point not to buy from BP anymore

[bl8n8r]

You should too.

Re:I make a point not to buy from BP anymore

[east coast]

Cutting oil consumption is the solution. By boycotting BP you only hurt the local station owner who has no fault in this. BP will always have a market for what they're pulling from the ground.

Re:I make a point not to buy from BP anymore

[AnonymousClown]

Not a problem - I hardly went there anyway. For some reason, the BP stations around here (Metro Atlanta) sell their gas for around 10 cents more than the Racetracks or Quicktrips. I understand there was a lawsuit in the NE that the franchisees brought against BP for just that reason (this was before the spill), so I guess it's not a regional thing.

Anyway, you wouldn't be hurting BP Oil, you'd be hurting the guy who owns the franchise - who got himself into a really shitty contract, btw. Gas station franchises are the some of the worst from what I've been told.

Re:I make a point not to buy from BP anymore

[vlm]

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:I make a point not to buy from BP anymore

[EvanED]

Can you explain how to accomplish this task?

(If you don't pick up the subtext, I'm calling BS. If you think Exxon stations sell oil pumped by Exxon, BP stations sell oil pumped by BP, etc., you're mistaken; basically the oil you get at any station is a mixture of that from each source. (BP stations may add BP additives, but that's about it.) Furthermore, BP stations are related to BP itself in-name-only, so if you boycott those stations you're not actually hurting the people who caused this problem.)

Re:I make a point not to buy from BP anymore

[sxeraverx]

1) They're going to change their name in a couple months / years. Guaranteed. Bet you won't notice.

CollegeHumor recently made exactly this point.

Re:I make a point not to buy from BP anymore

[Rhacman]

By that logic, if you disagree with Walmart business practices you should still keep shopping there so that it wouldn't unfairly impact the sales clerk. The only meaningful vote you have in the market is where you spend your dollars. It sucks that the friendly guy at the local BP station is going to lose business but it's the only meaninful voice the consumer has. Maybe you'll ultimately still be buying BP oil since you have no control over that, but if the BP stations start closing it has an impact on the image of BP. I'm not even saying that people should boycott BP stations, personally i'm waiting to see if they stay true to their responsibility for the cleanup as well as fixing their own safety issues. For those who remain unsatisfied, a dollar unspent on anything with the BP logo on it is a vote worth a thousand irrate e-mails.

Re:I make a point not to buy from BP anymore

[Anonymous Coward]

Your sophistry is lame. If, as you claim, local franchisees are hurt, BP franchises become less desirable, and thus BP is hurt.

But you go ahead, continue regurgitating the talking points of people who would cheerfully put your head on a stick for a nickel's worth of profits.

Re:I make a point not to buy from BP anymore

[bennomatic]

So better yet, cut all your oil intake, regardless of brand. We can't go cold turkey, but public transit, walking and biking, carpooling and more efficient cars, including but not limited to hybrids, are all options for weaning ourselves.

Me, I work from home; if I drive 7000 miles in a year, that's a huge year for me. I know people who do a couple of thousand per month just on their commute.

Re:I make a point not to buy from BP anymore

[Princeofcups]

1) They're going to change their name in a couple months / years. Guaranteed. Bet you won't notice.

I wonder if they saved all those Shell signs that were replaced with BP signs a few years back...

Re:I make a point not to buy from BP anymore

[thegarbz]

Before you do take a look at BP's annual report. BP make next to no money in the retail business, especially in America, and for years they have been talking about demobilising the BP brand from American stores and restoring the Amoco brand under a separate division and management.

The retail stores are often franchises. The retail stores may or may not be full of BP refined petrol. BP refined petrol may or may not come from BP drilled oil. Each of these products in the chain are traded on a public stocks. BP makes by far most of it's profits though exploration and production selling onto refiners around the world.

If everyone in your area stopped buying from your local BP station all you're really doing is running a local franchiser into the ground, someone who can't help the fact that he is trying to make ends meet using the BP logo and someone who had nothing to do with the spill. He won't be moved to somewhere else in BP, he's not an employee of the company. Screwing him won't register a blip on the BP radar. They may not even franchise another station to offset the loss of your local one.

Just think about that before you go on a crusade that has no effect.

Re:I make a point not to buy from BP anymore

[VanessaE]

Hey, here's an idea for the poor, unfortunate station owners and their employees who are so downtrodden by the rightful boycotting of BP-supplied stations: go work for or get your fuel supply from SOMEONE ELSE besides BP. I've seen more stations switch brands over the years than I can count, some without changes in management or even significant changes in employees.

BP is not the only oil company in existence, nor are the various stations they supply the only ones out there which need able-bodied employees. Add to that the fact that there appear to be plenty of jobs to be had elsewhere, despite the slump in the economy.

To put it bluntly, BP made so many poor decisions that it's as though they set this up to fail. This is the kind of fuckup that bring forth a punishment as damaging to BP as the spill itself is to the environment.

Re:I make a point not to buy from BP anymore

[lordandmaker]

What, you switch to that oil company known for its ethics?

Re:I make a point not to buy from BP anymore

[MasterOfUniverse]

....: go work for or get your fuel supply from SOMEONE ELSE besides BP.

It does not work that easy. All major brand suppliers make the owners sign long term contracts (5-10 years). If it would be that easy, there would be no BP station right now in US.

Re:I make a point not to buy from BP anymore

[mjwx]

Sigh, why do people not get it. The oil from BP rigs is not sold exclusively to BP refineries and so forth. The oil is traded on a public exchange, this is then purchased by refineries which sell the refined product on another public exchange which is then purchased by a retailer. So if you go to Esso or Mobil you're still buying BP oil. If you go to BP petrol stations you're buy Chevron oil.

Its done this way because the production of oil wells do not equal the consumption of the same companies oil refineries.

If you really want to help, stop using so much oil and invest in alternate energy. Boycotts against BP are useless as you'll only hurt the unrelated retail arm whilst the drilling and exploration arm goes on with business as usual.

Re:I make a point not to buy from BP anymore

[MadUndergrad]

Oil is a fungible commodity. The gas stations could all be McDonalds-branded and it wouldn't make any difference.

Re:I make a point not to buy from BP anymore

[xyph0r]

And what if this leads to this person having to go out of business? Is it still worth boycotting BP then? If it starts to substantially negatively impact your life.

Re:I make a point not to buy from BP anymore

[Vitriol Angst]

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...

If all these ideas of limiting out of control corporations were carried out to their "logical conclusions" -- then you know, we'd have to have a new form of LOGIC.

The ONLY way to control out of control companies in the "Libertarian LOGICAL World View" is to boycott. You find out that your children have been absorbing lead from McDonald's happy meals toys shipped from China? Go to Burger King.

NOW, there is this market theory, that ALL PENALTIES on a company, are inevitably a new fee to the consumer. That would mean, the company doesn't make PROFIT or the market demand doesn't set costs. That would also mean that CEO's couldn't possibly be paid millions of dollars, because all those tax breaks and LACK of lawsuits is going right into the consumers pocket.

Last I checked is that IN REALITY, companies charge as much as they can get away with, and without competition, they charge a bit more than that. An ideal market system needs scarcity where SOME PEOPLE have to go without -- you know, like Food Distribution.

If a large group Needs your product (inflexible demand), then a good Futures Contract speculation, can cause prices to rise, and you can make more money selling less product at a DEAR price than you can all your product at a fair price.

>> BP isn't paying the full cost of cleanup. That $20 Billion will be parceled out over YEARS -- maybe decades, and it will all be written off on taxes. They are making more money on their "clean-up crews" than they actually cost. They get a 40% discount on payments to workers (for cleanup), and they get $2,400 a head for just hiring them. Couple that with the fact that most of it is prison labor without protective gear and they make from $.40 an hour to NOTHING -- it's actually a tax profit for BP.

I love how they can dictate the "fairness" of their punishment and can tell everyone "only this much damage was created and this much oil spilt" without a non-interested party having access to verify the claims.

We are NOT getting justice -- this company was recklessly endangering all life in the gulf for a few more bucks because -- what are the risks for them, right? They should have been forced into receivership and liens against all their assets should have turned Gulf Coast fisherman into instant millionaires IN CASE they would be harmed. Wouldn't al THOSE millionaires create more jobs? Damn straight. Nationalize a few of these damn companies and take profit out of oil and see how quickly we can move to solar power.

But some people whine about "hurting gas stations with BP's logo on them." Crap. I can't tell people like you from the PR agent at BP. A whole lot of sympathy for this Potential Harm to a company that did harm but some people are going to die young and poor in the Gulf -- many more are affected than EVEN WORK in the entire oil drilling industry.

The "concept" of a marketplace that self-corrects is clearly laid bare for what it really is; Economic Royalists who think their poop doesn't stink and that commoners should have no place criticizing them. BP and ENRON and AIG and Goldman Sacks and all the rest, need to be paid everything, and there should be no accountability to them; so sayeth all the think tanks like Heritage and Kato who make a living because they spout the nonsense that rich people like to hear.

>> This planet is falling apart. We have been coasting for 40 years by NOT paying for the infrastructure that was PAID FOR by taxing wealth and corporations and we've shifted all the burdens on the common worker. With all the tax breaks, INVESTMENT from 2000 to 2008 went from $1.2 Trillion to $3.4 Trillion for "

Re:The well is empty.

[arielCo]

The prospect may have held 50 million barrels (7.9×10^6 m3) producible reserves of oil.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Macondo_well#Location

Permanently sealed...

[e065c8515d206cb0e190]

... until it leaks again, I guess.

Re:Same as controlled burns in grasslands..

[Patman64]

... how did this get modded up?! O_o

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Re:Lies, dam lies, and statistics.

[mr_mischief]

It's not the margin of error. It's the 25% that's still in the deeper water. That's why they mentioned three ways the oil came out of the mass of the water and it didn't add up to 100%.

That other 25% is getting into the plankton, fish, shrimp, and marine mammals. Part of it's undoubtedly in the gulf stream on its way to the coast of the UK and Ireland. Part of it will remain in the Gulf of Mexico, the Caribbean, and the western Atlantic. This last 25% will take years or decades more to break down after the press grows tired of covering it.

The reason the numbers sound so fake is that they are approximate best guesses. Nobody has actually been able to reliably measure exactly what the flow was, how much is in tar balls, and the like. The initial flow is an estimate. The tar balls are an estimate. The sheen on top of the water is an estimate. What's left in the water is an estimate. The only thing they could really measure with any precision is what they scooped up or burned off.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Re:Same as controlled burns in grasslands..

[Abstrackt]

... how did this get modded up?! O_o

It didn't, not as of this posting at least. What you're seeing is the result of a karma bonus modifier. The default setting is that if someone has good karma it will add 1 to the score for your viewing pleasure. You can change this in your settings if you'd rather avoid it.

Not Plugged and Abandoned yet

[AbrasiveCat]

Well almost done. Not that it is likely to leak, but BP has not finished the task of Plugging and Abandoning per Dept of Interior rules yet. Yes there is cement in the drill casing and has passed a pressure test, but the US government has these little rules that you have to finish before walking away from a well. Since there seems to be proven reserves I expect BP will be back later to drill a new well and produce oil. I guess they have to pay for the cleanup somehow!

Re:Same as controlled burns in grasslands..

[ceejayoz]

They did cause it this time but oil leaking from the sea floor, and sometimes in large quanities, is a natural phenomenon. Oil seep has happened before and it will happen again.

That's like saying deforestation isn't a concern because trees occasionally fall down on their own.

Shit happens

[Late Adopter]

I understand there's an ingredient here from BP's own sub-standard practices and negligent risk-taking, but what if it was a hurricane or some other act of god? Or just plain technological progress (like it often does) putting people out of work? At some point people have to move on, as painful as that's going to be.

BP should get smacked enough to punish them for their insane risks (and discourage anyone else from trying that ever again), but they're not responsible for other people's well being.

Re:Shit happens

[h4rr4r]

I don't think anyone would argue BP needs to pay for hurricanes or weather, but they should have to pay for the results of their actions. I do not care if they were perfect angels and just had a bit of bad luck, their equipment leaked the oil, making it their problem.

Re:Shit happens

[Red Flayer]

but what if it was a hurricane or some other act of god?

Sorry, in the Gulf of Mexico, a hurricane should not be considered an act of god. They are frequent enough that companies should plan on being hit by a big one, and make sure that being hit won't cause harm to others.

Re:Shit happens

[Late Adopter]

And for the most part I wouldn't disagree, I understand torts and liability from a legal perspective, but are you really damaging a fisherman for a lifetime of earnings if he has the capability to move on and get another job, albeit with some difficulty? What do you really owe him, beyond punitive damages? It's a difficult question, and I suppose I should concede there's some amount of debt to him, but not 40 years worth.

There's got to be some legal precedent for this sort of situation...

And 25% just put itself back in the oil field?

[nedlohs]

Or is in huge underwater clouds of atomized droplets and hence out of sight and mind.

Sounds like propaganda.

[faraway]

These numbers sound like the wishful thinking propaganda we were always bombarded with.... 5,000 barrels a day!!!!

Sure.

Just like in Iraq, the US simply declares victory

[Eternal Vigilance]

The BP+US statements about this debacle have from the very beginning been utterly fanciful and misleading. Why should anyone suddenly believe this one?

BP+US has treated the entire disaster as simply a public relations problem. Control the media message, attack and suppress any contrary evidence, and thus define reality. At least until the guilty have escaped any consequences and the gullible are left to pay the real costs.

And my observation here is to note the similarity to U.S. petro-military operations in Iraq (and the rest of the Middle East). Both were caused by hubris and greed, and the official "solution" to what is clearly a complete and total clusterfuck is just PR "rebranding" - to simply leave and declare victory.

Without independent observation and analysis, in either the Persian Gulf or the Gulf of Mexico, who has any idea of what's really happening?

But from the similarities I'll bet this disaster will continue exactly like Iraqistan: lots of smiling photo ops of the CEO's of state, the occasional human interest story about the hardships suffered by the little people (carefully avoiding any link to those responsible), and the suffering and environmental devastation and the death will keep going on and on.

Gulf of Mexico, Persian Gulf.

Same hydrocarbons, different day.


"My fellow Americans, major combat operations in the Gulf have ended. In the battle of Macondo, the United States and our oillies have prevailed."

"Emission Accomplished"

Why is the summary whitewashing?

[0xdeadbeef]

The tar balls, though not harmful to humans, are likely to wash up on shore for some time.

Just as rat poison is not harmful to humans, so long as you don't ingest it.

Re:Why is the summary whitewashing?

[the eric conspiracy]

Look outside your window. Do you see any black pavement? Do you eat that?

That's made out of the same stuff as the content of tar balls, asphaltenes. If that was a problem we'd all be in a heap of trouble.

Re:Why is the summary whitewashing?

[Wuhao]

Just as rat poison is not harmful to humans, so long as you don't ingest it.

Or Ke$ha, as long as you don't listen to it.

Re:Why is the summary whitewashing?

[Fantastic Lad]

Are you serious? You're going to defend BP?

Fuck you.

Oil can enter the food chain without you having to eat it directly. I dare you to have a fish dinner in Florida made from the local catch.

Get your head on straight. Defending corporate psychopaths is not cool, smart or even logically viable.

-FL

Re:Why is the summary whitewashing?

[drinkypoo]

Oil can enter the food chain without you having to eat it directly. I dare you to have a fish dinner in Florida made from the local catch.

By the same token, anyone eating shrimp whose providence they are not familiar with in the next three years is a total fucking idiot. It can say "product of the USA" and you have no way to know if that means the gulf or not.

Re:Why is the summary whitewashing?

[the eric conspiracy]

I am not defending BP, you irrational fucking moron. I am simply presenting a fact, which apparently you are too closed minded stupid or wacko to understand or comprehend.

Tar balls are stable in the environment. We have the same material all around us as an artifact of modern civilization. Tar seeps out of natural deposits over 100 million years old in places like La Brea Ca.

They are NOT a problem.

The psychopath here is you.

As far as local catch in Florida, people are eating that every day.

I don't know what rock you crawled out from under, but clearly you don't meet the intellectual criteria to be considered a functional human being.

Re:Why is the summary whitewashing?

[the eric conspiracy]

Another irrational loon heard from.

Testing of Gulf shrimp by various universities has detected no oil:

http://news.discovery.com/earth/no-oil-detected-in-gulf-shrimp----yet.html

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/08/16/AR2010081605471.html

Re:Lies, dam lies, and statistics.

[mr_mischief]

I didn't miss that point. I didn't think it was germane to where the other 25% went to say whether or not it was thought to be an ecological concern.

My main concern in this thread is that several posters from the "news for nerds" crowd can't figure out that if you take 75% of something away that 25% of it remains. I think that's a worse catastrophe for the future of mankind than the amount of oil in this spill.

Re:Same as controlled burns in grasslands..

[Orga]

Heavy consumer of oil. I'm also a believer in global warming and hope it continues. I've come to the realization that mankind will advance faster when pushed to the brink of extinction. We will not die out, you have to be pretty naive to underestimate mans potential to adapt and survive. We are the disaster species. Seriously though, people need to educate themsleves a little more on the cycle of life on this planet.

Preferably quietly and in the background

[Vandilzer]

tar -xf gulf.tar &

Plug the leak

[countertrolling]

Look who gets the job.. For sure they didn't charge a dime...

Re:The well is empty.

[Bobakitoo]

Sure there is plenty of more oil to drill. But this particular well is practically dry. They _permanently_ seal it now, because it is just more profitable to drill the next spot.

plume is 50 to 2000 ppb petro

[peter303]

The number was the low threshhold the science magazine report used to detect the plume. The higher number is if all 1.25M barrels was still lurking inside the 35 km^3 plume. You could probably see neither by eye in a bottle of the plume, but taste the higher-end concentration. The most toxic component- benzene- is considered dangerous more than 5 ppb. That lightweight component is also one of the quickest to degrade. And these were July data, a little before the well was capped. We wonder what two more months of microbial attack and current dilution has done.

More likely, much of the plume has settled out as slow-to-degrade asphaltines on the seabed soils. In some places it may be a scum layer or visible staining.

and the other 25%

[idji]

is destroying the tuna, shrimp, crabs and any other life in the dead zone, that hasn't already died because of nitrate run-off from the Mississippi.

Permanent as in

[microbee]

SCO is dead for good?

Re:Just like in Iraq, the US simply declares victo

[DerekLyons]

Without independent observation and analysis, in either the Persian Gulf or the Gulf of Mexico, who has any idea of what's really happening?

Not that you care what's really happening - as your reply makes it clear your mind is already made up. Unless the 'independent' analysis agrees with your existing bias, you'll just claim it to be a product of the "petro-military complex".

The importance of understanding projection

[Eternal Vigilance]

Not that you care what's really happening - as your reply makes it clear your mind is already made up. Unless the 'independent' analysis agrees with your existing bias, you'll just claim it to be a product of the ... complex.

You have, however, no evidence at all to support that assertion. But from your statement we clearly know the following things about you:

1. You don't care what's really happening.
2. Your mind is already made up.
3. Unless an analysis agrees with your existing bias, you'll just dismiss it as the bias of those with whom you disagree.

Thanks for illustrating the importance of understanding projection, sparky. Nice work.

Humans?

[lemmis_86]

Nor harmful to humans? What a bout the environment we depend on? Talk about misleading the public.

Comparing with other big oil spills

[justthinkit]

This is less than was spilled in the Gulf War spill, about two and a half times more than the Amoco Cadiz and 250 times less than was burned by Saddam. Here are the Top 19 according to Wikipedia.

Tsk, you are out of date.

[SmallFurryCreature]

If you owe the bank $10.000, it is your problem.

If you owe the bank $10.000.000, it is their problem.

If the bank owns society $10.000.000.000, it is your problem. Pay up you horrible little taxpayer! Free money for everyone who gets million dollar bonuses!

Diesel $ = sunflower $

[Finite9]

Apparently, Some people who have converted their diesel engine cars to use sunflower oil, claim that you can correlate the price of diesel quite accurately to the price of sunflower oil. Don't know if this is true or not, just what i've heard.

I just want to know...

[hesaigo999ca]

When they cry that there is going to be a shortage of oil , and that this is the reason that gas prices need to be high, and then I see that we capped a fully functional well, which to this day gave us an extra 4.5 million barrels of oil, and that there are many other wells in place (abandoned) that are of the same nature, I wonder why we have to pay such high prices.....is there not a way to rebel, or set up OUR own oil company which could be considered a coop for the people f the US, everyone buys into it, and the profit margin is kept low, just high enough to continue reinvesting for the infrastructure, as we would not need really profits, as making sure the gas prices remained low would be the profit in itself...no?

Why are we allowing this monopoly in the oil sector.