Gulf Gusher Could Be Major Black Swan (2 Viewers)

[Enron]

I read figures that the seafood industry was worth about $9Bn p/a. The oil spill has been for what, 3 ½ months? Restrictions are being lifted, and people in the sea food industry are those who have been compensated in immediate terms as they are the easiest to gauge in terms of losses.

You also have to consider that BP closed down the fishing during the busiest part of the season. Just assuming that fishermen being able to fish will equate to people being willing to buy their product is just silly. The issue with fishing is that now the consumers believe the product to be tainted. What would be a good step in addition to paying compensation to the fishermen based on lost catch would be to spearhead (and pay for) a Gulf coast sea food ad campaign.

$9 billion is an extremely low figure.

 

Buy on AliExpress.com

[Bjerknes]

Doesn't surprise me. After all, your entire viewpoint in this thread has been the worst case environmental scenario of which you share with him. Now it seems that this parade has been pissed on, although we will find out better in the next few years. Knee jerk reactions either way help no one.

No, it wasn't. I simply posted articles about the possible impacts, along with some tinfoil stuff that I said was probably tinfoil. NOAA came out with the Gulf Stream projection scenario, while Matt Simmons continues to claim another leak is leaking unabated based on a NOAA research ship's evidence.

 

[JuveJay]

Now read carefully Andy because that's not what I said The media reports these issues and Obama is the direct focal point of public opinion, if he reports the incident as:

"the worst environmental disaster America has ever faced,"

"epidemic, one that we'll be fighting for months and even years."

"In the same way that our view of our vulnerabilities and our foreign policy was shaped profoundly by 9/11, I think this disaster is going to shape how we think about the environment and energy for many years to come,"

"This is an assault on our shores and we're going to fight back with everything we've got,"

Then you must forgive people for thinking the beaches and shores are going to be thick with oil for months and years. You could take it from a movie script.

I'm sure these people will be ok in the long run, once every penny has been squeezed out of BP, America is the capital of the claim culture after all.

 

[Enron]

Sure, although I explained the preliminary figures better later on. It also doesn't take into account the employment of people by BP in the land cleanup operation, or money paid (in some cases 10 times what they normally earn) to fishermen to fish further out to sea, fishermen in the clean up operation, many are actually trying to hang on to their cleanup jobs for as long as possible as it pays much better, but it is costing other people elsewhere. TBH I'm not really concerned about a guy who earns $20m profit a year from his fishing business losing $5m profit, as if he doesn't have two pennies to rub together. These are the guys who bump the industry figures. He'll get his boats out soon enough if he hasn't already, it's those people working for him who need the immediate compensation because if he isn't getting shrimp or fish in then they aren't getting paid.

I considered all that. The Gulf Coast industry is that it is very much a mom and pop operation. While major fish distributers make the millions. It's generally small fishing operations that bring in the product and who ultimately pay the price. Unfortunately, the big distributers and fishing armadas won't be able to keep a lot of their boats and inevitably the smaller guys will get cut from the fishing groups. That's why you should be concerned about the guy losing $5 million dollars and clearing out 10 boats whose only crime was not being able to fish for 3 1/2 months. Everyone is connected.

The point is that it will take more money to re-boost the economy than BP will actually spend on the clean up.

 

[JuveJay]

You also have to consider that BP closed down the fishing during the busiest part of the season. Just assuming that fishermen being able to fish will equate to people being willing to buy their product is just silly. The issue with fishing is that now the consumers believe the product to be tainted. What would be a good step in addition to paying compensation to the fishermen based on lost catch would be to spearhead (and pay for) a Gulf coast sea food ad campaign.

$9 billion is an extremely low figure.

I agree. Having said that, I noticed a few fishermen on the news were optimistic that once they got back into the water that they would catch more on average and make up lost ground, but as you say, that is no use if no one wants to buy it. Weren't fishermen also losing a lot of money in the Gulf recently anyway, off the back of the recession?

Question, would you guys eat the seafood from there right now?

 

[JuveJay]

I considered all that. The Gulf Coast industry is that it is very much a mom and pop operation. While major fish distributers make the millions. It's generally small fishing operations that bring in the product and who ultimately pay the price. Unfortunately, the big distributers and fishing armadas won't be able to keep a lot of their boats and inevitably the smaller guys will get cut from the fishing groups. That's why you should be concerned about the guy losing $5 million dollars and clearing out 10 boats whose only crime was not being able to fish for 3 1/2 months. Everyone is connected.

The point is that it will take more money to re-boost the economy than BP will actually spend on the clean up.

Well then BP, and others responsible, should continue to help both financially and in terms of image.

Wasn't there a similar problem with Exxon? Now people pat them on the back for their safety and environmental record off the back of the events of Exxon Valdez, but often it takes something like this for people to wake up. BP claim a good environmental record before, but anyone gets lax. US laws were also not as tight as other countries when it came to fail safe devices, that will certainly change now.

 

[Bjerknes]

Now read carefully Andy because that's not what I said The media reports these issues and Obama is the direct focal point of public opinion, if he reports the incident as:




Then you must forgive people for thinking the beaches and shores are going to be thick with oil for months and years. You could take it from a movie script.

I'm sure these people will be ok in the long run, once every penny has been squeezed out of BP, America is the capital of the claim culture after all.

So you're denying that this was the worst environmental disaster in our history?

Are you actually saying that Obama should lie to the public and claim that the disaster won't affect anybody?

Are you saying that Obama should be complicit in covering up the disaster along with BP?

Basically, that's what you're aiming at. You want Obama to lie for BP.

This is why I call you a BP stock price pumper.

 

[Enron]

I agree. Having said that, I noticed a few fishermen on the news were optimistic that once they got back into the water that they would catch more on average and make up lost ground, but as you say, that is no use if no one wants to buy it. Weren't fishermen also losing a lot of money in the Gulf recently anyway, off the back of the recession?

Question, would you guys eat the seafood from there right now?

So because there was a recession, BP shouldn't feel responsible?

Fishing's been down due to the recession as has just about every other industry around the world. So you take an already suffering industry and you have this disaster and the bottom just drops out. It's not like the economy was the same last summer as it is now. Fishing is a difficult enough job as it is.

As for the fishermen with the cheery attitudes. They are a breath of fresh air, but unfortunately those statements are like coal miners after a cave in saying "well we'll just go mine more coal". To get back to even, they would need to catch more than usually, buy that doesn't mean they will. Even in the Gulf Coast fishing is very seasonal. Crab early in the summer, shrimp in the middle and other stuff later on. The fact of the matter is that a lot has been missed out on.

As for the eating seafood question, it depends on what it was. Shrimp and pelagic fish species are probably ok, but staying away from the bottom feeders this season.

 

[JuveJay]

So you're denying that this was the worst environmental disaster in our history?

Are you actually saying that Obama should lie to the public and claim that the disaster won't affect anybody?

Are you saying that Obama should be complicit in covering up the disaster along with BP?

Basically, that's what you're aiming at. You want Obama to lie for BP.

This is why I call you a BP stock price pumper.

Is it, you tell me? It's the biggest oil spill but is it the biggest environmental disaster? I don't know what a BP price pumper is to be honest, or really care. If you mean I buy petrol, yeah, it's quite important. If you mean I care about BP, do me a favour. The whole point of me even being in this thread is to debate what is actually happening in comparison to what is being reported in the media. If others have agendas then it's not for me.

Obama should report proportionate claims, but then I guess the buck stops with his environmental advisors. These are the sort of people who are hardly going to be very favourable towards an oil company, so maybe that explains itself.

Who is covering anything up? If they are it has already happened, the US government approved the latest findings by the NOAA. I don't really understand this point about Obama lying for BP, he does enough lying for himself anyway.

 

[Enron]

Well then BP, and others responsible, should continue to help both financially and in terms of image.

Wasn't there a similar problem with Exxon? Now people pat them on the back for their safety and environmental record off the back of the events of Exxon Valdez, but often it takes something like this for people to wake up. BP claim a good environmental record before, but anyone gets lax. US laws were also not as tight as other countries when it came to fail safe devices, that will certainly change now.

Exxon spent a lot of money doing ads for Alaska tourism. But no one pats them on the back. They're considered to be in the shady oil company group. BP was the shining start of the oil industry, but now their image is that of everyone else.

 

[JuveJay]

So because there was a recession, BP shouldn't feel responsible?

Fishing's been down due to the recession as has just about every other industry around the world. So you take an already suffering industry and you have this disaster and the bottom just drops out. It's not like the economy was the same last summer as it is now. Fishing is a difficult enough job as it is.

As for the fishermen with the cheery attitudes. They are a breath of fresh air, but unfortunately those statements are like coal miners after a cave in saying "well we'll just go mine more coal". To get back to even, they would need to catch more than usually, buy that doesn't mean they will. Even in the Gulf Coast fishing is very seasonal. Crab early in the summer, shrimp in the middle and other stuff later on. The fact of the matter is that a lot has been missed out on.

As for the eating seafood question, it depends on what it was. Shrimp and pelagic fish species are probably ok, but staying away from the bottom feeders this season.

No, that was not what I was saying. What I was really getting at was that long term, without this oil spill, what were the prospects of the local fishing industry? I know in the North Atlantic for example there are many going out of work, certain species are overfished, regulations, disputes etc. Was the growth taking place in Jan-April this year or wasn't it measurable?

 

[ßöмßäяðîëя]

I just got an Oillah Sandwich with bacon at the local Subway.

 

[Bjerknes]

Is it, you tell me? It's the biggest oil spill but is it the biggest environmental disaster? I don't know what a BP price pumper is to be honest, or really care. If you mean I buy petrol, yeah, it's quite important. If you mean I care about BP, do me a favour. The whole point of me even being in this thread is to debate what is actually happening in comparison to what is being reported in the media. If others have agendas then it's not for me.

Obama should report proportionate claims, but then I guess the buck stops with his environmental advisors. These are the sort of people who are hardly going to be very favourable towards an oil company, so maybe that explains itself.

Who is covering anything up? If they are it has already happened, the US government approved the latest findings by the NOAA. I don't really understand this point about Obama lying for BP, he does enough lying for himself anyway.

I don't think you really understand the real situation out there. That's why you're coming here blaming Obama for what he said, when in reality he was spot on.

The worst environmental disaster we have faced? Check.

We will be dealing with this for months and years? Check. The cleanup isn't over yet, along with the economic implications.

An assault on our shores by BP? Check. Their negligence caused the disaster.

I'm no fan of Obama and indeed, he lies practically every single day when he discusses the economy and what needs to be done to facilitate growth. But the quotes you posted, which were stated by him, are pretty much factual. There isn't anything wrong with what Obama said... whatsoever.

Find quotes that support of your point of view and I'll listen.

What you're doing here is shooting the messenger.

 

[Bjerknes]

So was the report from NOAA issued by researchers on the Thomas Jefferson vessel proven wrong?

 

[Bjerknes]

No, that was not what I was saying. What I was really getting at was that long term, without this oil spill, what were the prospects of the local fishing industry? I know in the North Atlantic for example there are many going out of work, certain species are overfished, regulations, disputes etc. Was the growth taking place in Jan-April this year or wasn't it measurable?

Do you mean year over year or month over month?

Month over month there probably was growth as they would be edging closer to the primary season.

 

[Enron]

No, that was not what I was saying. What I was really getting at was that long term, without this oil spill, what were the prospects of the local fishing industry? I know in the North Atlantic for example there are many going out of work, certain species are overfished, regulations, disputes etc. Was the growth taking place in Jan-April this year or wasn't it measurable?

Fishing season in the Gulf starts in around April. It's a warm weather season.

After the Georges Bank issues most of the fishing in North America is regulated, but no the Gulf doesn't suffer from overfishing like the North Atlantic does.

Biggest issues are species like the Blue fin tuna that are sport as well as commercial catches.

Either way your stance makes it seems like your diminishing the fact that the oil spill had an effect on the Gulf Economy because the Gulf was hurting before hand.

 

[JuveJay]

http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2010...zon-oil-spill-has-been-contained-or-mitigated

Today, a panel of government scientists released a report which said that the vast majority of the oil from the Deepwater Horizon oil spill has either evaporated or been burned, skimmed, recovered from the wellhead or dispersed much of which is in the process of being degraded. A significant amount of this is the direct result of the federal government’s aggressive response to the spill.

The chart below outlines the breakdown of what has happened to the oil released into the Gulf of Mexico since the oil spill began in April:

Is it possible for his original (and maybe current) claims and these findings to co-exist? Perhaps when I think of environmental disaster I think of different things, clearly if you spill 5m barrels into an ocean there is going to be some cleanup operation, but when I compare it to what was being reported in and around Obama's speeches it doesn't add up.

 

[JuveJay]

Ok thanks for the information, and no, I don't mean to abolish BP of any blame in which they are due, only that I think blaming them for every outcome isn't realistic. The reason I asked how the industry is doing in general is because years down the line if the industry had a declining future anyway then it has now been hidden by the oil spill and that could be blamed for it, but if that is not the case - as I imagine - then it isn't an issue. The spill clearly would have had a direct impact.

 

[Enron]

Ok thanks for the information, and no, I don't mean to abolish BP of any blame in which they are due, only that I think blaming them for every outcome isn't realistic. The reason I asked how the industry is doing in general is because years down the line if the industry had a declining future anyway then it has now been hidden by the oil spill and that could be blamed for it, but if that is not the case - as I imagine - then it isn't an issue. The spill clearly would have had a direct impact.

Fishing as an industry is declining world wide (though in regulated fisheries it is declining a lesser rate and in some cases growing), but the oil spill can send those slight declines into a steep spiral.

 

[Bjerknes]

JuveJay,

What doesn't add up is how that report proves Obama's quotes that you posted wrong.

Chemically dispersed at 8%? I'd bet it's far more than that considering they used more than 2M gallons of Corexit alone, not including other dispersants.