The presidential offshore drilling moratorium will cost approximately US $2.1 billion in economic loss to the states along the Gulf of Mexico (GoM) in first six months, according to a recently released paper.
(http://www.epmag.com/Images/2010/July/moratoriumtable6.jpg)
"The Economic Cost of a Moratorium on the Offshore Oil and Gas Exploration to the Gulf Region" was written by Dr. Joseph R. Mason, Louisiana State University endowed chair of banking and renowned economist. Mason said he estimates the moratorium will see a loss of 8,000 jobs and $500 million in lost wages in the Gulf Coast in the first six months.
"The moratorium will cost the Gulf Coast region jobs, money, and economic development," he said. "In fact, the moratorium could be more costly than the oil spill itself."
http://www.epmag.com/2010/July/item63533.php
Of course, a magazine put out by the oil exploration and drilling industry is completely unbiased.
You are like the Chick Fil A cows who say "eat more chicken".
Hmm, in "...the first six months" of a six month moratorium.
I've Googled around and no one seems to be able to give a direct figure as to what the total damage is so far and in the future to fisheries and tourism. Tourism will take a hit for a year or however long it takes to clean oil from the beaches, assuming they have found the proper fix for the leak and can successfully complete a relief well(s). While I agree it's important to learn as much as possible about this spill and how to prevent another, I don't trust the motives 100% as we know this administration is supposedly all about supporting alternative energy and this is just the incident they needed to show why oil dependence is bad.
What fishermen are saying is they possibly won't really know the total impact for several years as fish are spawning in areas out to sea affected by the spill then they eventually migrate to the waters they fish. The effects could last generations according to some in the industry. It's possible that tourism and fishing could take an even bigger hit than the oil business over this.
Here's the silver lining:
Considering that Exxon spent in the range of $2 bln to clean up Prince William Sound, there may be more of a bonanza right now for workers in the Gulf states in oil clean up as I would assume given the volume of oil, the area covered, and 20 years of inflation, that BP will spend well in excess of $2 bln cleaning this up. Seems like there's a good opportunity for idled workers and fishermen.
Quote from: Conan71 on July 20, 2010, 09:11:26 AM
I've Googled around and no one seems to be able to give a direct figure as to what the total damage is so far and in the future to fisheries and tourism. Tourism will take a hit for a year or however long it takes to clean oil from the beaches, assuming they have found the proper fix for the leak and can successfully complete a relief well(s). While I agree it's important to learn as much as possible about this spill and how to prevent another, I don't trust the motives 100% as we know this administration is supposedly all about supporting alternative energy and this is just the incident they needed to show why oil dependence is bad.
What fishermen are saying is they possibly won't really know the total impact for several years as fish are spawning in areas out to sea affected by the spill then they eventually migrate to the waters they fish. The effects could last generations according to some in the industry. It's possible that tourism and fishing could take an even bigger hit than the oil business over this.
Here's the silver lining:
Considering that Exxon spent in the range of $2 bln to clean up Prince William Sound, there may be more of a bonanza right now for workers in the Gulf states in oil clean up as I would assume given the volume of oil, the area covered, and 20 years of inflation, that BP will spend well in excess of $2 bln cleaning this up. Seems like there's a good opportunity for idled workers and fishermen.
If I were a fisherman, I would rather be fishing than cleaning up oil. Most likely I would move my operation to better waters.
We will also see an emergence of health related law suits among the workers. They will call it "Gulf Oil Disease" and there will be a variety of unexplained neurological symptoms. I know some Oklahoma lawyers that are already preparing for the bonanza.
Quote from: Gaspar on July 20, 2010, 10:16:05 AM
We will also see an emergence of health related law suits among the workers. They will call it "Gulf Oil Disease" and there will be a variety of unexplained neurological symptoms. I know some Oklahoma lawyers that are already preparing for the bonanza.
It's going to be hard to collect, given that BP makes 'em wear Tyvek suits (they've gone through so many so far that there's fear that we might run out) and masks to filter out the outgassing from the oil and has strict exposure limits.
Quote from: nathanm on July 20, 2010, 10:34:58 AM
It's going to be hard to collect, given that BP makes 'em wear Tyvek suits (they've gone through so many so far that there's fear that we might run out) and masks to filter out the outgassing from the oil and has strict exposure limits.
Workers had all sorts of garb on during the WTC clean-up as well. You can even sign a whole stack of releases and still sue. It will happen, just wait. The sharks are circling.
Gaspar, for some there may not be an option to go fish elsewhere. I believe I read that at one point that Exxon had employed nearly the entire fishing fleet in PWC for that clean-up. If you don't want to pick up stakes or idle your boat and can make just as much dragging a boom, might as well get with the clean up in hopes you can be fishing again that much sooner.
The President and his family have decided to take their 8th vacation of the year in the Gulf Region. I think this is a great symbol of solidarity, that President Obama deserves some credit for.
After what seems like a whirlwind of spas and golf outings, to sacrifice 5 days in the gulf in support of the suffering tourism industry is quite touching.
Michelle will be flying in from Spain where she will be on a 4 day vacation with the girls. They've rented 30 rooms in an exclusive 5-Star hotel in Benahavis near Marbella (Hotel Villa Padierna it is believed). The President may join them for his birthday on the 4th because the hotel offers a world class golf course. He will then fly back to rest for the Gulf trip. While in Spain, Mrs. Obama will pay an official visit to Their Majesties King Juan Carlos and Queen Sophia of Spain at their invitation.
Once they finish with their gulf trip, it's off to Martha's Vineyard for a 10 day spa vacation to rest up for their next exciting vacation adventure.
Quote from: nathanm on July 20, 2010, 10:34:58 AM
It's going to be hard to collect, given that BP makes 'em wear Tyvek suits (they've gone through so many so far that there's fear that we might run out) and masks to filter out the outgassing from the oil and has strict exposure limits.
I have a cousin that lives south of Mobile very close to the bay but miles inland from the gulf and she has been able to smell the oil at her house.
Quote from: Gaspar on July 26, 2010, 04:12:13 PM
The President and his family have decided to take their 8th vacation of the year in the Gulf Region. I think this is a great symbol of solidarity, that President Obama deserves some credit for.
After what seems like a whirlwind of spas and golf outings, to sacrifice 5 days in the gulf in support of the suffering tourism industry is quite touching.
Michelle will be flying in from Spain where she will be on a 4 day vacation with the girls. They've rented 30 rooms in an exclusive 5-Star hotel in Benahavis near Marbella (Hotel Villa Padierna it is believed). The President may join them for his birthday on the 4th because the hotel offers a world class golf course. He will then fly back to rest for the Gulf trip. While in Spain, Mrs. Obama will pay an official visit to Their Majesties King Juan Carlos and Queen Sophia of Spain at their invitation.
Once they finish with their gulf trip, it's off to Martha's Vineyard for a 10 day spa vacation to rest up for their next exciting vacation adventure.
Yawn.
Obama Maine Visit: First Family Heads To Acadia National Park VacationFirst Posted: 07-16-10 05:44 AM |
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/07/16/obama-maine-visit-first-f_n_648654.html
Consider the most recent full-family holiday: a Memorial Day weekend in Chicago that was overtaken by the Gulf oil spill. After the Obamas slept at their Chicago home for the first time in a year, the president got up and left for a daylong Gulf inspection tour.
That diversion followed the Obamas' Christmas trip to Hawaii, interrupted repeatedly for briefings and comment on the attempted bombing of a Detroit-bound jet.
And it followed last summer's Martha's Vineyard stay, interrupted by the death of Sen. Edward M. Kennedy, whose Boston funeral Obama and his wife, Michelle, attended.
Then there was the planned visit to Indonesia, where Obama spent part of his youth. He'd hoped to show daughters Malia and Sasha his old haunts. But the trip was scrubbed, first in March as health care neared its climax, then again in June because of the oil spill. It's now expected late this year.
In fact, the spill could further scramble the family's plans. In an NBC interview Thursday, Obama didn't rule out a vacation trip to a Gulf beach.
Despite two wars and an economic collapse crowding his plate, Obama's taken comparatively little time off.
According to a tally kept by Mark Knoller, a CBS News reporter long recognized by the White House as authoritative on such matters, Obama has spent all or part of 65 days on vacation, including days at Camp David. At this point in his tenure, George W. Bush had spent 120 days. That included 13 trips to his Texas ranch.--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fox News Claims that Obama is on Vacation More than George W. BushPosted on June 22, 2010 by Jason Easley
http://www.politicususa.com/en/obama-bush-vacation
Bush spent 1,020 days of his presidency on vacation. To put this into context, John F. Kennedy spent fewer days in office, 1000, than George W. Bush spent on vacation. Bush spent 487 days at Camp David, 490 days at his Crawford ranch, and 43 days in Kennebunkport. George W. Bush spent 69 days in Crawford during his first year in office. In contrast, according to FactCheck.org, Obama spent all, or part of, 26 days of his first year in office on vacation. This was less than all three previous Republican presidents, Ronald Reagan, George H.W. Bush, and George W. Bush, but more than the two previous Democratic presidents, Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton.
Quote from: JeffM on July 26, 2010, 05:58:53 PM
Yawn.
Obama Maine Visit: First Family Heads To Acadia National Park Vacation
First Posted: 07-16-10 05:44 AM |
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/07/16/obama-maine-visit-first-f_n_648654.html
Consider the most recent full-family holiday: a Memorial Day weekend in Chicago that was overtaken by the Gulf oil spill. After the Obamas slept at their Chicago home for the first time in a year, the president got up and left for a daylong Gulf inspection tour.
That diversion followed the Obamas' Christmas trip to Hawaii, interrupted repeatedly for briefings and comment on the attempted bombing of a Detroit-bound jet.
And it followed last summer's Martha's Vineyard stay, interrupted by the death of Sen. Edward M. Kennedy, whose Boston funeral Obama and his wife, Michelle, attended.
Then there was the planned visit to Indonesia, where Obama spent part of his youth. He'd hoped to show daughters Malia and Sasha his old haunts. But the trip was scrubbed, first in March as health care neared its climax, then again in June because of the oil spill. It's now expected late this year.
In fact, the spill could further scramble the family's plans. In an NBC interview Thursday, Obama didn't rule out a vacation trip to a Gulf beach.
Despite two wars and an economic collapse crowding his plate, Obama's taken comparatively little time off.
According to a tally kept by Mark Knoller, a CBS News reporter long recognized by the White House as authoritative on such matters, Obama has spent all or part of 65 days on vacation, including days at Camp David. At this point in his tenure, George W. Bush had spent 120 days. That included 13 trips to his Texas ranch.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fox News Claims that Obama is on Vacation More than George W. Bush
Posted on June 22, 2010 by Jason Easley
http://www.politicususa.com/en/obama-bush-vacation
Bush spent 1,020 days of his presidency on vacation. To put this into context, John F. Kennedy spent fewer days in office, 1000, than George W. Bush spent on vacation. Bush spent 487 days at Camp David, 490 days at his Crawford ranch, and 43 days in Kennebunkport. George W. Bush spent 69 days in Crawford during his first year in office. In contrast, according to FactCheck.org, Obama spent all, or part of, 26 days of his first year in office on vacation. This was less than all three previous Republican presidents, Ronald Reagan, George H.W. Bush, and George W. Bush, but more than the two previous Democratic presidents, Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton.
Damn...those facts again.
Damn I want that job! Over 1000 days?
Quote from: Conan71 on July 27, 2010, 08:47:45 AM
Damn I want that job! Over 1000 days?
They are counting the days he spent at the Crawford Ranch (The Southern White house as the press called it). He took his entire staff as well as foreign dignitaries.
Hey, I guess if Bush did it, that makes it all right! ;D
Quote from: Gaspar on July 27, 2010, 09:54:01 AM
They are counting the days he spent at the Crawford Ranch (The Southern White house as the press called it). He took his entire staff as well as foreign dignitaries.
He made his staff clear brush.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2003-08-24-bush-vacation_x.htm
an excerpt...
"Cutting cedar is one of Bush's favorite activities at the ranch. Almost every day, he rounds up staffers and heads deep into his property with chain saws. He explains that fast-growing cedar deprives older trees of water and light. It's hard work, but Bush loves wielding the chain saw, and the chore has become part workout, part macho competition."
Quote from: RecycleMichael on July 27, 2010, 10:01:09 AM
He made his staff clear brush.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2003-08-24-bush-vacation_x.htm
an excerpt...
"Cutting cedar is one of Bush's favorite activities at the ranch. Almost every day, he rounds up staffers and heads deep into his property with chain saws. He explains that fast-growing cedar deprives older trees of water and light. It's hard work, but Bush loves wielding the chain saw, and the chore has become part workout, part macho competition."
Awesome! I'm starting to appreciate him more.
Cutting cedars is the only job he was qualified for. He is the ultimate extreme example of the "Peter Principle".
And BP is claiming they have already spent over $4 billion on the cleanup, most of it going to people who are losing their livelihoods and working for the company cleaning up.
And they have set aside a reserve of $32 billion (this morning's news) more for the cleanup. So, I'm thinking if that guy at LSU is really concerned about jobs and money going to people in the area...well, he really isn't. He is showing that his income comes from the oil companies, just like that judge who owned all the stocks in oil and services companies when he set aside the moratorium. Professor just showed he cannot differentiate between 2 and 36 (32 + 4).
This is good news http://abcnews.go.com/WN/bp-oil-spill-crude-mother-nature-breaks-slick/story?id=11254252&page=1
The spill seems to be disappearing.
Quote from: Gaspar on July 27, 2010, 01:23:39 PM
This is good news http://abcnews.go.com/WN/bp-oil-spill-crude-mother-nature-breaks-slick/story?id=11254252&page=1
The spill seems to be disappearing.
Sort of like Ahmadinejad's take on the holocaust? Never happened, eh?
That's very good news, let's hope all industry is back alive in the gulf very soon and that the environmental impact was minimal.
Quote from: Conan71 on July 27, 2010, 01:34:32 PM
Sort of like Ahmadinejad's take on the holocaust? Never happened, eh?
That's very good news, let's hope all industry is back alive in the gulf very soon and that the environmental impact was minimal.
Just can't see how the impact will be minimal, but it is good news. That's just an awful lot of crude spilled over such a long duration that it cannot be good for anything.
Now, let's see something good come of it, if that's possible.
Quote from: Hoss on July 27, 2010, 01:48:02 PM
Now, let's see something good come of it, if that's possible.
You can fry shrimp without having to add oil to the pan. :o
Quote from: Hoss on July 27, 2010, 01:48:02 PM
Just can't see how the impact will be minimal, but it is good news. That's just an awful lot of crude spilled over such a long duration that it cannot be good for anything.
Now, let's see something good come of it, if that's possible.
I'm rather skeptical as well, Hoss. But if what I'm reading and hearing is correct , the ecosystem of the ocean has the natural ability to deal with the oil. Consider that it is all organics to start with. We have no idea how many times oil has escaped from fissures in the ocean floor around the world over time.
Here's an article from ten years ago in Science Daily which explains more:
ScienceDaily (Jan. 27, 2000) — Twice an Exxon Valdez spill worth of oil seeps into the Gulf of Mexico every year, according to a new study that will be presented January 27 at the Ocean Sciences Meeting in San Antonio, Texas.
But the oil isn't destroying habitats or wiping out ocean life. The ooze is a natural phenomena that's been going on for many thousands of years, according to Roger Mitchell, Vice President of Program Development at the Earth Satellite Corporation (EarthSat) in Rockville Md. "The wildlife have adapted and evolved and have no problem dealing with the oil," he said.
Oil that finds its way to the surface from natural seeps gets broken down by bacteria and ends up as carbon dioxide, a greenhouse gas. So knowing the amount of fossil fuel that turns to carbon dioxide naturally is important for understanding how much humans may be changing the climate by burning oil and gas.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2000/01/000127082228.htm
Quote from: Conan71 on July 27, 2010, 02:48:12 PM
I'm rather skeptical as well, Hoss. But if what I'm reading and hearing is correct , the ecosystem of the ocean has the natural ability to deal with the oil. Consider that it is all organics to start with. We have no idea how many times oil has escaped from fissures in the ocean floor around the world over time.
Here's an article from ten years ago in Science Daily which explains more:
ScienceDaily (Jan. 27, 2000) — Twice an Exxon Valdez spill worth of oil seeps into the Gulf of Mexico every year, according to a new study that will be presented January 27 at the Ocean Sciences Meeting in San Antonio, Texas.
But the oil isn't destroying habitats or wiping out ocean life. The ooze is a natural phenomena that's been going on for many thousands of years, according to Roger Mitchell, Vice President of Program Development at the Earth Satellite Corporation (EarthSat) in Rockville Md. "The wildlife have adapted and evolved and have no problem dealing with the oil," he said.
Oil that finds its way to the surface from natural seeps gets broken down by bacteria and ends up as carbon dioxide, a greenhouse gas. So knowing the amount of fossil fuel that turns to carbon dioxide naturally is important for understanding how much humans may be changing the climate by burning oil and gas.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2000/01/000127082228.htm
Yep, but the question here becomes that so much of this has top-floated and is now affecting beaches, whereas the normal seepage, as the article states, gets broken down. I can't see how bacteria can break all of this down in a hurry.
In a perfect world, I guess.
It is time to start looking more at alternative fuels, but, unlike Bill Maher, who has gone all Greenpeace and says we should be weaned off the hyrdocarbon teat immediately, I'm more of a realist, knowing that won't happen, and probably won't happen in my lifetime. It would be nice to see a gradual transition over to other forms of energy.
Hopefully we could keep political agendas out of the solutions, but when trillions upon trillions in future energy $$ are at stake we can't expect a lot of altruism.
The reports are that the top slicks are receding and becoming harder to find, dispersants apparently worked below the surface. I don't remember a lot of the beach cleaning details from Galveston, Padre and other spills in the past, but ostensibly, beaches could be back to full song again in a year or less.
The ocean has the ability to heal a great deal. This too will heal, but it will be a long time. The Prince William Sound herring fisheries still haven't fully recovered after 20 years.
South Padre had a spill land on the beach back in the early '70s, about 4 years after my first trip to the area. About 1980-82, I visited again with a specific side goal in mind and a shovel in the trunk. I went to the beach - gulf side - and dug in the sand for a while. Sure enough, just a few inches down (probably about 6 or 8") was the layer of oil from 8 years earlier.
I bet one could still dig around there and find that layer - just deeper, hopefully!
George Lopez put a positive spin on it a few weeks ago when he said the oil should help flavor raw oysters so they don't just taste like a cold loogie.
Too much??
Sorry.
A big part of the resorption they are experiencing, according to scientists, is due to the water temperature being very warm, causing heavy microbic action. Spills in colder climates linger far longer in the environment.
Therefore I conclude that without Global Warming we would really be in a mess! :D
If you want to do your share to help the clean-up effort, drive an extra mile or two on the way home today. If you own a Prius, you are part of the problem.
Quote from: Gaspar on July 28, 2010, 12:20:10 PM
A big part of the resorption they are experiencing, according to scientists, is due to the water temperature being very warm, causing heavy microbic action. Spills in colder climates linger far longer in the environment.
Therefore I conclude that without Global Warming we would really be in a mess! :D
If you want to do your share to help the clean-up effort, drive an extra mile or two on the way home today. If you own a Prius, you are part of the problem.
I will put off buying a Nissan Leaf for a few more days.
Quote from: Gaspar on July 28, 2010, 12:20:10 PM
If you want to do your share to help the clean-up effort, drive an extra mile or two on the way home today. If you own a Prius, you are part of the problem.
And here I thought that if you drove a Prius, it meant you had problems...
Quote from: custosnox on July 28, 2010, 03:03:51 PM
And here I thought that if you drove a Prius, it meant you had problems...
You apparently haven't seen Toyota's lease offers on the Prius lately. ;)