Why did BP get all the blame for the oil spill and not government?

[Darwin333]

Unless demand for oil dried up, postponing drilling doesn't have a negative impact in the long run, it more than likely has a positive effect.

And after watching the hearings on the spill, and the lack of responsibilty of many firms, and the good practices of some, a bit of time to sort out who does their job right and who doesn't seems prudent to me.

Hopefully some weeding out occurred.

Tell that to the hundreds, if not thousands, of small and medium businesses that have or are going under and the people that used to work for them.

It takes a whole lot more than a rig and a few workers on the rig to drill and produce oil. Not to worry though, plenty of more jobs around right now......oh wait, nevermind.

 

[fskimospy]

In terms of economically, yes it has.

No, it hasn't. The costs of hurricane Katrina and the oil spill themselves are over $130 billion in just direct damage, not to mention the indirect economic damage that stemmed from that. If you're trying to say that not allowing companies to drill in the gulf for the last 9 months or so has cost more than $130 billion, please provide a link for that. (and again, I'm being kind in comparing direct costs to indirect costs)

 

[Vic Vega]

I was wondering, because the US government really was being an irresponsible land owner.

In addition to the US Government fucking up, you also have OPEC(ountries, not companies), which drives the price of oil up.

So why did most of the blame go to BP when in a stateless world, or even under the Articles of Confederation (provided the States had their oceans individually owned) the whole thing couldn't have happened?

http://mises.org/Community/blogs/to...responsible-resource-owner-is-overlooked.aspx

Only people with an R, I or L by their name get blamed for environmental disasters, didn't you know that?

 

[WhipperSnapper]

The OP's question may win the award for "Most Retarded Question of the Month" award. BP gets the blame because BP and not the government was operating the oil rig. It was BP's negligence and desire to speed up the process that caused the disaster, not the government.

 

[Darwin333]

No, it hasn't. The costs of hurricane Katrina and the oil spill themselves are over $130 billion in just direct damage, not to mention the indirect economic damage that stemmed from that. If you're trying to say that not allowing companies to drill in the gulf for the last 9 months or so has cost more than $130 billion, please provide a link for that. (and again, I'm being kind in comparing direct costs to indirect costs)

Who did it cost $130 billion?

 

[fskimospy]

Who did it cost $130 billion?

The people of Louisiana, primarily. I'm sure some of Katrina's $90 billion in damage was to areas outside of Louisiana, but the great majority of it was there. As for the oil spill, its cost was certainly spread more widely, so you could probably chop a good portion of the $40 billion off actually.

Even if you do all that, the economic damage from the drilling moratorium doesn't even come remotely close to the damage caused by Katrina and the oil spill, which were exponentially costlier.

Saying that the drilling ban damaged Louisiana more than both of those combined is flatly false.

 

[werepossum]

The OP's question may win the award for "Most Retarded Question of the Month" award. BP gets the blame because BP and not the government was operating the oil rig. It was BP's negligence and desire to speed up the process that caused the disaster, not the government.

Pretty much this. As abysmal as is the government's oversight of drilling, it's going to be hard-pressed to correctly monitor ever day-to-day decision.

 

[MrEgo]

The Government doesn't deserve any blame because regulation is unncessary since private companies are more than capable of monitoring themselves.

 

[Darwin333]

The people of Louisiana, primarily. I'm sure some of Katrina's $90 billion in damage was to areas outside of Louisiana, but the great majority of it was there. As for the oil spill, its cost was certainly spread more widely, so you could probably chop a good portion of the $40 billion off actually.

Even if you do all that, the economic damage from the drilling moratorium doesn't even come remotely close to the damage caused by Katrina and the oil spill, which were exponentially costlier.

Saying that the drilling ban damaged Louisiana more than both of those combined is flatly false.

No, it cost insurance companies mostly and the Feds kicked in a ton of money. Economically Katrina was a boom for the area in the years following. It is the absolute biggest reason that the area has been rather insulated from the recession. Even more a TON of poor and lower middle class profited off of programs like Road Home. I am sure they would have rather not have to deal with the entire ordeal but at the end of the day they were made better than whole.

For well over a year following Katrina people were basically throwing money at anyone who could work. You literally tripped over jobs just about anywhere you went and those jobs paid more than pre-Katrina. Even some of the parish's made a ton of money in sales taxes from all of the rebuilding.

The oil moratorium has ruined hundreds if not thousands of companies with no reimbursement whatsoever. A lot are already out of business and even more are hanging on by a thread. It has cost untold thousands of jobs in which 90% of the people losing their jobs can not find new ones in the field they are trained in and the vast majority not being able to find new jobs period. Entire towns are going under due to lost revenue and businesses closing down.

Those people got help in the other disasters, ain't no help coming for this one though. I am talking about the damage done to real everyday middle and lower class folk and for them this is far worse.


Edit: And "I'm sure some of Katrina's $90 billion in damage was to areas outside of Louisiana, but the great majority of it was there." You do realize that Katrina actually missed New Orleans and that coastal Mississippi was basically wiped out right? Entire towns in Mississippi disappeared with nothing but slabs left behind. Pretty much the only place in Louisiana to see that kind of actual hurricane damage (versus flooding due to levee failure, the Mr GO, or other man made stuff) was Southern Plaquemines Parish. St. Bernard saw some pretty nasty stuff too but for the most part their houses still existed (albeit underwater).

 

[fskimospy]

No, it cost insurance companies mostly and the Feds kicked in a ton of money. Economically Katrina was a boom for the area in the years following. It is the absolute biggest reason that the area has been rather insulated from the recession. Even more a TON of poor and lower middle class profited off of programs like Road Home. I am sure they would have rather not have to deal with the entire ordeal but at the end of the day they were made better than whole.

For well over a year following Katrina people were basically throwing money at anyone who could work. You literally tripped over jobs just about anywhere you went and those jobs paid more than pre-Katrina. Even some of the parish's made a ton of money in sales taxes from all of the rebuilding.

The oil moratorium has ruined hundreds if not thousands of companies with no reimbursement whatsoever. A lot are already out of business and even more are hanging on by a thread. It has cost untold thousands of jobs in which 90% of the people losing their jobs can not find new ones in the field they are trained in and the vast majority not being able to find new jobs period. Entire towns are going under due to lost revenue and businesses closing down.

Those people got help in the other disasters, ain't no help coming for this one though. I am talking about the damage done to real everyday middle and lower class folk and for them this is far worse.


Edit: And "I'm sure some of Katrina's $90 billion in damage was to areas outside of Louisiana, but the great majority of it was there." You do realize that Katrina actually missed New Orleans and that coastal Mississippi was basically wiped out right? Entire towns in Mississippi disappeared with nothing but slabs left behind. Pretty much the only place in Louisiana to see that kind of actual hurricane damage (versus flooding due to levee failure, the Mr GO, or other man made stuff) was Southern Plaquemines Parish. St. Bernard saw some pretty nasty stuff too but for the most part their houses still existed (albeit underwater).

Hurricane damage estimates don't differentiate between whether or not flooding was caused by levee failure or by flooding. If you think New Orleans was better off after Katrina hit you're insane. The population of the city dropped by about 30%, that's the largest drop of any US metro area in the history of the country if I'm not mistaken. It was in every way, an unmitigated catastrophe.

I am aware of no credible source that believes the oil drilling ban has caused more damage to Louisiana than Katrina. It's insanity.

 

[piasabird]

Well the only waters that the companies were allowed to drill in was the deepest part of the Gulf. If they could have just drilled in shallower water, it would have been easier to contain. This is what happens when liberals make the rules. No intelligence found.

 

[hal2kilo]

The OP's question may win the award for "Most Retarded Question of the Month" award. BP gets the blame because BP and not the government was operating the oil rig. It was BP's negligence and desire to speed up the process that caused the disaster, not the government.

I hope your answer is not too obtuse for the genius anarchist.

 

[jhu]

I was wondering, because the US government really was being an irresponsible land owner.

In addition to the US Government fucking up, you also have OPEC(ountries, not companies), which drives the price of oil up.

So why did most of the blame go to BP when in a stateless world, or even under the Articles of Confederation (provided the States had their oceans individually owned) the whole thing couldn't have happened?

http://mises.org/Community/blogs/to...responsible-resource-owner-is-overlooked.aspx

Actually, it is your fault for using oil. I and everyone else blame only you.

 

[Darwin333]

Hurricane damage estimates don't differentiate between whether or not flooding was caused by levee failure or by flooding. If you think New Orleans was better off after Katrina hit you're insane. The population of the city dropped by about 30%, that's the largest drop of any US metro area in the history of the country if I'm not mistaken. It was in every way, an unmitigated catastrophe.

I am aware of no credible source that believes the oil drilling ban has caused more damage to Louisiana than Katrina. It's insanity.

I umm sorta kinda live and work here. Yes the population dropped, it was mostly poor people that the city did a horrible job helping provide opportunity to and who are likely much better off were they are now. That would be why they didn't come back. The large rise in housing costs after Katrina might have had just a bit to do with it too. We also have entire areas (New Orleans East to be specific) that probably shouldn't have been allowed to rebuild in which absurdly few services exist (hospitals, schools, etc..) due to it now being extremely sparsely populated.

disclaimer: I say "shouldn't have been allowed" I really mean people told that the area will be the last to be rebuilt and only when the population in the area is growing at a rate to sustain it, people should be free to rebuild on their own property if they so wish but they deserve the truth before they do.

As far as "credible source", how about the actual residents actually being affected by the moratorium. It isn't the spill that is ruining these people, it is the moratorium. The very same people BTW who had to actually rebuild after Katrina. For the record, I actually lived through both and almost everyone I know was affected by both in some way or another. Katrina was a kick in the nuts followed by prosperity, the moratorium was a kick in the nuts after a kick in the nuts followed by poverty. See the difference?

I'll be making a trip to Grand Isle this weekend, if you like I can ride through Port Fourchon and knock on the doors of some businesses (the ones still open) and ask them for you. Or are they not "credible" enough for you?

 

[Darwin333]

Well the only waters that the companies were allowed to drill in was the deepest part of the Gulf. If they could have just drilled in shallower water, it would have been easier to contain. This is what happens when liberals make the rules. No intelligence found.

That isn't really true. There are thousands of wells in the shallow waters off the coast of Louisiana and thousands more in inland areas. It is true that they have been limited off the coasts of other states but these deepwater reservoirs are potentially huge fields of oil. They would be going after them regardless of where else they are allowed to drill.

 

[Anarchist420]

Read this:
http://www.lewrockwell.com/block/block164.html

Lew Rockwell also makes the point, in an article that is not the one linked above, that the damage cap was only $75m. Having it not be 100% is an incentive to not worry about doing damage.

 

[fskimospy]

I umm sorta kinda live and work here. Yes the population dropped, it was mostly poor people that the city did a horrible job helping provide opportunity to and who are likely much better off were they are now. That would be why they didn't come back. The large rise in housing costs after Katrina might have had just a bit to do with it too. We also have entire areas (New Orleans East to be specific) that probably shouldn't have been allowed to rebuild in which absurdly few services exist (hospitals, schools, etc..) due to it now being extremely sparsely populated.

disclaimer: I say "shouldn't have been allowed" I really mean people told that the area will be the last to be rebuilt and only when the population in the area is growing at a rate to sustain it, people should be free to rebuild on their own property if they so wish but they deserve the truth before they do.

As far as "credible source", how about the actual residents actually being affected by the moratorium. It isn't the spill that is ruining these people, it is the moratorium. The very same people BTW who had to actually rebuild after Katrina. For the record, I actually lived through both and almost everyone I know was affected by both in some way or another. Katrina was a kick in the nuts followed by prosperity, the moratorium was a kick in the nuts after a kick in the nuts followed by poverty. See the difference?

I'll be making a trip to Grand Isle this weekend, if you like I can ride through Port Fourchon and knock on the doors of some businesses (the ones still open) and ask them for you. Or are they not "credible" enough for you?

Why would anecdotal evidence be credible?

 

[Darwin333]

Why would anecdotal evidence be credible?

Of course, real world evidence is worthless. What we really need is a 50 million dollar .gov study!

 

[Darwin333]

Read this:
http://www.lewrockwell.com/block/block164.html

Lew Rockwell also makes the point, in an article that is not the one linked above, that the damage cap was only $75m. Having it not be 100% is an incentive to not worry about doing damage.

How much has BP spent so far?

 

[fskimospy]

Of course, real world evidence is worthless. What we really need is a 50 million dollar .gov study!

I'm sure you can figure out why 'hey, I met a guy' is not a good way to evaluate macroeconomic effects on an economy of 5 million people.

 

[ElFenix]

lack of or poor enforcement of regulation does not excuse BP/transocean's stupidity.

 

[Tom]

Tell that to the hundreds, if not thousands, of small and medium businesses that have or are going under and the people that used to work for them.

It takes a whole lot more than a rig and a few workers on the rig to drill and produce oil. Not to worry though, plenty of more jobs around right now......oh wait, nevermind.

oil fields are booming in North Dakota. I know because I just was there in Feb. Some of that is probably because of the moratorium in the Gulf.

The same thing will happen in Louisiana, if theres oil there and it's economically feasible to get it safely, it will be gotten. There will be no net negative effect.

If you insist on blaming the moratorium for temporary economic effects, then blame the right people.

BP and the oil industry that doesn't police it's own. It's not Obama's fault, not one iota.

 

[Darwin333]

oil fields are booming in North Dakota. I know because I just was there in Feb. Some of that is probably because of the moratorium in the Gulf.

The same thing will happen in Louisiana, if theres oil there and it's economically feasible to get it safely, it will be gotten. There will be no net negative effect.

If you insist on blaming the moratorium for temporary economic effects, then blame the right people.

BP and the oil industry that doesn't police it's own. It's not Obama's fault, not one iota.

What part of "the government won't let them get it safely" don't you understand? Its not just the deepwater stuff that has been affected. For the most part we have already lost a good portion of the deepwater rigs, of which a very small number exist in the world, and they ain't comin back anytime soon.

 

[Darwin333]

I'm sure you can figure out why 'hey, I met a guy' is not a good way to evaluate macroeconomic effects on an economy of 5 million people.

And I am sure that you can figure out that if 90% of the businesses in a city whose economy is based ENTIRELY on the oilfield are going under or losing money that it might just be relevant to the discussion.

 

[airdata]

I blame the US government as much as BP.

They know god damned well that the oil was not cleaned up, and yet they go on national tv and lie to people gullible enough to believe them.

Meanwhile, there's still oil all over the place along w\ deadly chemicals to boot. And then BP I think has only paid something like 25% of the money it was supposed to have paid out to people.