Gulf Coast rig leaking buttloads of oil/day

[LawBeefaroni]

From NYT article after BP execs meet with The Man at the White House:

Mr. Svanberg said that it was clear from the meeting today at the White House that President Obama “is frustrated because he cares about the small people,” he said. “And we care about the small people. I hear comments sometimes that large oil companies are greedy companies or don’t care. But that is not the case indeed, we care about the small people.”

I can't seem to stop attaching a condescending tone to the statement. Then again, I'm just one of the "small people"....

It could be one of those colloquialisms that pops up when a Swede is speaking English. Or it could be just another out of touch BP board member.

Judging by his history, I'd personally go with the former. It's unfortunate and I imagine he'll get a talking to.

[Isgrimnur]

Would you do business with a corporation that suffers from elephantitis of the dividends? If you did, you'd have to take a back seat, because those bags of cash would ride shotgun.

[tjg_marantz]

So the 20 billion is their average profit over the last two years... God. They could have one of these every ten years and it would still be worth it.

[LawBeefaroni]

As I suspected:

In a statement Mr Svanberg said: "I spoke clumsily this afternoon and for that I am very sorry."

The apology came after remarks he made following a White House meeting with President Barack Obama earlier drew widespread criticism.

Svanberg later apologized for his clumsy choice of words, and a BP spokesman attributed it to an error in translation. But BP’s chairman really should have known better before he tried to mirror Obama’s earlier tribute to struggling families on the Gulf Coast facing the extinction of their livelihoods from the spill. This kind of rhetoric is rarely used effectively in Europe, where politics and business are dry, dispassionate affairs in comparison to the heartstring tugging antics on the other side of the Atlantic. This fact is underlined by the ultimate irony that, until this week, Svanberg was regarded as fairly media-savvy on his home turf.

[LordMortis]

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politic ... _bill.html" target="_blank



Oddly I agree with Barton. Not in the apology but that the fine should come from due process, not some behind the scenes deal the president and the TARP guys. This could cost a whole hell of a lot more than 20 Billion in clean up and restitution costs and BP would already be off the hook. Or it might be something that they could make go away relatively easily and 20 Billion might be nothing. Also, what's the incentive for aggressive clean up now. Their reputation isn't going to get worse and the ultimate bill has already been established.

[Terrified]

Oddly I agree with Barton. Not in the apology but that the fine should come from due process, not some behind the scenes deal the president and the TARP guys.

But the American 'due process' is broken. Exxon managed to delay it's payments in court for THIRTY YEARS! And then it managed to make legal deals outside the court that insured it wound up paying something like 65 million plus lawyers instead of the 5 billion they were originally ordered to pay. If you have money, it's very easy to manipulate the American 'due process'. It's weak, it's ineffective and, as mentioned, vulnerable to manipulation by the powerful.

So, in this case, Obama is well aware of that, and used 'muscle' to get BP to put aside 20 billion now, before the 'due process' gets involved. Because then at least America will see something out of this disaster instead of just having BP tie up the courts for 30 years. Is it right? No. But until there is public will from America to straighten out its legal system, this is the best Obama could do.

[Grifman]

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politic ... _bill.html



Oddly I agree with Barton. Not in the apology but that the fine should come from due process, not some behind the scenes deal the president and the TARP guys. This could cost a whole hell of a lot more than 20 Billion in clean up and restitution costs and BP would already be off the hook. Or it might be something that they could make go away relatively easily and 20 Billion might be nothing. Also, what's the incentive for aggressive clean up now. Their reputation isn't going to get worse and the ultimate bill has already been established.

Why do you think BP is off the hook if this cost more than $20B? Where do you get the idea that this is the ultimate bill? I've not seen anything saying that BP's costs are capped at $20B - and frankly, I'm pretty sure the bill bill will be even more given the long range impacts of this spill.

BP has said publicly they will pay for ALL losses, so if those turn out to be more than $20B, then I expect those to be paid.

[Grifman]

So the 20 billion is their average profit over the last two years... God. They could have one of these every ten years and it would still be worth it.

Not really. If other oil companies can make the same profits without huge incidents such as these, it would not be "worth it" to BP, as the market would devalue their stock in comparison with better run companies.

[zinckiwi]

If you have money, it's very easy to manipulate the American 'due process'.

That's a great sentence. I might have to borrow that.

[Smoove_B]

Not really. If other oil companies can make the same profits without huge incidents such as these, it would not be "worth it" to BP, as the market would devalue their stock in comparison with better run companies.

Have we (i.e. the Government) ruled out criminal negligence yet for this incident? How would a finding of actual criminal negligence on the part of BP affect the $20 billion escrow account? The CEO? The Board of Directors?

I will now pause for laughter.

[Pyperkub]

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politic ... _bill.html



Oddly I agree with Barton. Not in the apology but that the fine should come from due process, not some behind the scenes deal the president and the TARP guys. This could cost a whole hell of a lot more than 20 Billion in clean up and restitution costs and BP would already be off the hook. Or it might be something that they could make go away relatively easily and 20 Billion might be nothing. Also, what's the incentive for aggressive clean up now. Their reputation isn't going to get worse and the ultimate bill has already been established.

Curiously enough, Barton's #1 (corporate) campaign donor has a 25% stake in the oil fields that Deepwater Horizon was drilling...

[Grifman]

I read in the WSJ that BP wanted and asked for a $20B cap, but the President refused. BP is still liable for any/all amounts over the $20B. Just think of that as a down payment.

[Victoria Raverna]

http://edition.cnn.com/2010/US/06/17/bp ... index.html" target="_blank

The judge that BP wants to hear an estimated 200 lawsuits over the Gulf of Mexico oil disaster gets tens of thousands of dollars a year in oil royalties and is paid travel expenses to industry conferences, financial disclosure forms show.

...

Federal financial disclosure forms obtained by CNN show that since 2003, Hughes has consistently been paid annual fees from the oil and gas industry, mostly in the form of lease payments for wells and mineral rights on land he owns. None of the payments comes from BP, but his holdings include mutual funds that draw income from Anadarko Petroleum, a minority owner in the well now pouring up to 2.5 million gallons a day into the Gulf.

[Victoria Raverna]

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politic ... _bill.html



Oddly I agree with Barton. Not in the apology but that the fine should come from due process, not some behind the scenes deal the president and the TARP guys. This could cost a whole hell of a lot more than 20 Billion in clean up and restitution costs and BP would already be off the hook. Or it might be something that they could make go away relatively easily and 20 Billion might be nothing. Also, what's the incentive for aggressive clean up now. Their reputation isn't going to get worse and the ultimate bill has already been established.

Curiously enough, Barton's #1 (corporate) campaign donor has a 25% stake in the oil fields that Deepwater Horizon was drilling...

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/18/us/po ... arton.html" target="_blank

Mr. Barton, in his statement, apologized “for using the term ‘shakedown’ ” to describe the $20 billion escrow account that BP and the White House announced Wednesday. He also retracted the apology to BP and said the company “should bear the full financial responsibility for the accident on their lease in the Gulf of Mexico” on April 20 and “fully compensate those families and businesses that have been hurt.”

Of the five Gulf Coast states, Mr. Barton’s Texas is the only one whose beaches, fisheries and tourist haunts are not threatened by oil spewing from BP’s ruined well. Republican lawmakers from Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama and Florida quickly disavowed Mr. Barton’s apology to BP, and one was the first to call for stripping Mr. Barton of his committee seat.

[theohall]

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politic ... _bill.html



Oddly I agree with Barton. Not in the apology but that the fine should come from due process, not some behind the scenes deal the president and the TARP guys. This could cost a whole hell of a lot more than 20 Billion in clean up and restitution costs and BP would already be off the hook. Or it might be something that they could make go away relatively easily and 20 Billion might be nothing. Also, what's the incentive for aggressive clean up now. Their reputation isn't going to get worse and the ultimate bill has already been established.

Curiously enough, Barton's #1 (corporate) campaign donor has a 25% stake in the oil fields that Deepwater Horizon was drilling...

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/18/us/po ... arton.html" target="_blank

Mr. Barton, in his statement, apologized “for using the term ‘shakedown’ ” to describe the $20 billion escrow account that BP and the White House announced Wednesday. He also retracted the apology to BP and said the company “should bear the full financial responsibility for the accident on their lease in the Gulf of Mexico” on April 20 and “fully compensate those families and businesses that have been hurt.”

Of the five Gulf Coast states, Mr. Barton’s Texas is the only one whose beaches, fisheries and tourist haunts are not threatened by oil spewing from BP’s ruined well. Republican lawmakers from Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama and Florida quickly disavowed Mr. Barton’s apology to BP, and one was the first to call for stripping Mr. Barton of his committee seat.

What idiot wrote that about Texas?? Shrimpers in Texas aren't doing very well, precisely because of this event. Shrimp prices have risen $1 per pound over the past month and will probably go higher, because the shrimp aren't there. South Texas has a HUGE shrimping business. The South Texas town where I am buying a home has an annual Shrimporee to celebrate it's roots which is shrimp fishing. This year - the celebration was fun, but anything shrimp related cost twice as much as most years. No - the beaches aren't threatened, but these fisherman's livelihood is most definitely threatened. The NY Times needs to do better research instead of playing party politics. But it's the F'in NY Times who won't do research beyond finding something negative about anyone conservative.

[Grifman]

But it's the F'in NY Times who won't do research beyond finding something negative about anyone conservative.

1. The Times isn't the only paper/new source that has said that TX isn't impacted.
2. Don't blame the Times because Barton is a conservative idiot. It's not like anyone had to do a lot of research to dredge his stupid statements up seeing as he gave them during committee hearings. Barton did it to himself, no playing the "liberal media persecuting the conservative" card here.

[theohall]

But it's the F'in NY Times who won't do research beyond finding something negative about anyone conservative.

1. The Times isn't the only paper/new source that has said that TX isn't impacted.
2. Don't blame the Times because Barton is a conservative idiot. It's not like anyone had to do a lot of research to dredge his stupid statements up seeing as he gave them during committee hearings. Barton did it to himself, no playing the "liberal media persecuting the conservative" card here.

And those sources are wrong. No, it is not impacting TX beaches and the impact isn't as severe as the rest of the Gulf Coast. But it most definitely is impacting the fisheries in TX. All one has to do is actually go talk to the folks making a living that way.

[Grifman]

Barton's original "apology" until the Republican leadership told him to come up with something better:

"I want the record to be absolutely clear that I think BP is responsible for this accident," he said. "If anything I said this morning has been misconstrued, in opposite effect, I want to apologize for that misconstruction."

Duh, WTF?!?

[Grifman]

Tony gets his life back

The chairman of BP says embattled chief executive Tony Hayward is being relieved of day-to-day responsibility for managing the Gulf of Mexico oil spill, a day after he angered U.S. lawmakers with his refusal to answer many of their questions.

[Kraken]

Cool graphic

Overlay the Gulf oil disaster on a map of your home town (or anywhere else) to get a sense of scale.

[LawBeefaroni]

http://edition.cnn.com/2010/US/06/17/bp ... index.html

The judge that BP wants to hear an estimated 200 lawsuits over the Gulf of Mexico oil disaster gets tens of thousands of dollars a year in oil royalties and is paid travel expenses to industry conferences, financial disclosure forms show.

...

Federal financial disclosure forms obtained by CNN show that since 2003, Hughes has consistently been paid annual fees from the oil and gas industry, mostly in the form of lease payments for wells and mineral rights on land he owns. None of the payments comes from BP, but his holdings include mutual funds that draw income from Anadarko Petroleum, a minority owner in the well now pouring up to 2.5 million gallons a day into the Gulf.

His other ties are suspect but I'd take issue criticizing him over the fact that one of his mutual funds has APC. Since you bolded it, I take it that you think it's important. Mutual funds, provided they aren't tightly sector based, are actually great ways to avoid conflict of interest. He doesn't have any direct control over the APC holdings and it's likely that they are a miniscule part of his total portfolio.

[Exodor]

Cool graphic

Overlay the Gulf oil disaster on a map of your home town (or anywhere else) to get a sense of scale.

[GreenGoo]

Big enough to swallow Toronto, Ottawa and Montreal all at the same time, plus a whole pile of medium sized cities towns in between.

That's....big.

[Pyperkub]

As best I can tell, it's also only the surface spill, and doesn't account for the below-the-surface plumes.

[DD*]

Couple of items on the Deepwater Horizon spill....

1. It might be that the current status is the best we can hope for, and it could get much, much worse.

2. From what I have read, the bulk of compensatory damages from Exxon Valdez were paid almost immediately. The years of legal action dealt mostly with various punitive damage claims.

[Victoria Raverna]

http://edition.cnn.com/2010/US/06/20/gu ... index.html" target="_blank

According to an internal BP document released Sunday by Rep. Edward Markey, D-Massachusetts, BP believed that the worst-case scenario could be as high as 100,000 barrels, or 4.2 million gallons of oil per day.

The figure is the highest yet to surface regarding the leaking oil well. At the disaster's outset, BP claimed the leak was about 1,000 barrels a day, a number it later revised to 5,000 and then much higher. BP told the House Energy and Commerce Committee that the worst-case scenario was 60,000 barrels (2.5 million gallons) a day, lower than what the document states.

The document, submitted in May, maintains the 60,000 barrel estimate, but stipulates that if the "blowout preventer and wellhead are removed and if we have incorrectly modeled the restrictions, the rate could be as high as 100,000 barrels a day."

Markey said the document "raises very troubling questions about what BP knew and when they knew it."

[YellowKing]

My dad is working down in Pensacola managing some oil clean up crews and says he's had to meet and give tours to several BP higher ups. I asked him what he thought and he said one guy (COO maybe?) was a really super nice guy. He said the other guy he met was a quote, "colossal dick." So there you have it folks, straight from the horse's mouth.

I asked him how the cleanup was going where he was at and he said the oil wasn't bad where he was but he was plagued by piss poor planning. Sounds a lot like what he experienced with Katrina. I.E. OMGZ WE HAVE TO GET CREWS DOWN THERE TO CLEAN UP! But they neglect to figure out how the people will get around, how they will eat, if they will have enough protective gear to clothe them, etc. He also said the media has been a real nuisance.

[Isgrimnur]

He also said the media has been a real nuisance.

Well, all that oil is like catnip to them.

[LawBeefaroni]

http://edition.cnn.com/2010/US/06/20/gu ... index.html

According to an internal BP document released Sunday by Rep. Edward Markey, D-Massachusetts, BP believed that the worst-case scenario could be as high as 100,000 barrels, or 4.2 million gallons of oil per day.

The figure is the highest yet to surface regarding the leaking oil well. At the disaster's outset, BP claimed the leak was about 1,000 barrels a day, a number it later revised to 5,000 and then much higher. BP told the House Energy and Commerce Committee that the worst-case scenario was 60,000 barrels (2.5 million gallons) a day, lower than what the document states.

Imagine if they fudged financial data by similar orders of magnitude.

[Rowdy]

Imagine what this will be like if that BOP falls over, or if the seabed collapses, as the Oil Drum article above suggests, and this turns into a wide open hole directly to the well. An estimated 2.5 billion barrels of oil could gush directly into the gulf. Man will have successfully destroyed a major body of water on this planet. If that doesn't hasten the end of the oil dependency, I don't know what will.

[naednek]

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politic ... _bill.html



Oddly I agree with Barton. Not in the apology but that the fine should come from due process, not some behind the scenes deal the president and the TARP guys. This could cost a whole hell of a lot more than 20 Billion in clean up and restitution costs and BP would already be off the hook. Or it might be something that they could make go away relatively easily and 20 Billion might be nothing. Also, what's the incentive for aggressive clean up now. Their reputation isn't going to get worse and the ultimate bill has already been established.

That's exactly what I was thinking over the weekend. shouldn't this be handled in the courts?

[Enough]

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politic ... _bill.html



Oddly I agree with Barton. Not in the apology but that the fine should come from due process, not some behind the scenes deal the president and the TARP guys. This could cost a whole hell of a lot more than 20 Billion in clean up and restitution costs and BP would already be off the hook. Or it might be something that they could make go away relatively easily and 20 Billion might be nothing. Also, what's the incentive for aggressive clean up now. Their reputation isn't going to get worse and the ultimate bill has already been established.

That's exactly what I was thinking over the weekend. shouldn't this be handled in the courts?

You can bet much of it will be in the courts for years if that helps you sleep better (I will be in shock if this doesn't go to litigation), and the 20 billion as has been pointed out is not a cap nor a required amount to spend.

[Pyperkub]

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politic ... _bill.html



Oddly I agree with Barton. Not in the apology but that the fine should come from due process, not some behind the scenes deal the president and the TARP guys. This could cost a whole hell of a lot more than 20 Billion in clean up and restitution costs and BP would already be off the hook. Or it might be something that they could make go away relatively easily and 20 Billion might be nothing. Also, what's the incentive for aggressive clean up now. Their reputation isn't going to get worse and the ultimate bill has already been established.

That's exactly what I was thinking over the weekend. shouldn't this be handled in the courts?

The 20B is to be placed in an Escrow account to cover cleanup costs. It's not a fine, it's more like making sure they don't pull an Enron. Or would you rather have the taxpayers pay for it, only to have BP not pay the bill?

[DD*]

Imagine what this will be like if that BOP falls over, or if the seabed collapses, as the Oil Drum article above suggests, and this turns into a wide open hole directly to the well. An estimated 2.5 billion barrels of oil could gush directly into the gulf. Man will have successfully destroyed a major body of water on this planet. If that doesn't hasten the end of the oil dependency, I don't know what will.

How, exactly, are we to "hasten the end of the oil dependency?" That all sounds well and good, but it ain't gonna happen anytime soon. Robert Samuelson addressed that a bit in his column today:

Just once, it would be nice if a president would level with Americans on energy. Barack Obama isn't that president. His speech the other night was about political damage control — his own. It was full of misinformation and mythology. Obama held out a gleaming vision of an America that would convert to the "clean" energy of, presumably, wind, solar and biomass. It isn't going to happen for many, many decades, if ever.

For starters, we won't soon end our "addiction to fossil fuels." Oil, coal and natural gas supply about 85 percent of America's energy needs. The U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) expects energy consumption to grow only an average of 0.5 percent annually from 2008 to 2035, but that's still a 14 percent cumulative increase. Fossil fuel usage would increase slightly in 2035 and its share would still account for 78 percent of the total.

Unless we shut down the economy, we need fossil fuels. More efficient light bulbs, energy-saving appliances, cars with higher gas mileage may all dampen energy use. But offsetting these savings will be more people (391 million vs. 305 million), more households (147 million vs. 113 million), more vehicles (297 million vs. 231 million) and a bigger economy (almost double in size). Although wind, solar and biomass are assumed to grow as much as 10 times faster than overall energy use, they provide only 11 percent of supply in 2035, up from 5 percent in 2008.

The bottom line is that oil and related petroleum products are by far the cheapest source of energy available. Unless you want to burn significantly more coal, or build a lot more nuclear plants, oil is "it" for the forseeable future.

[theohall]

Imagine what this will be like if that BOP falls over, or if the seabed collapses, as the Oil Drum article above suggests, and this turns into a wide open hole directly to the well. An estimated 2.5 billion barrels of oil could gush directly into the gulf. Man will have successfully destroyed a major body of water on this planet. If that doesn't hasten the end of the oil dependency, I don't know what will.

How, exactly, are we to "hasten the end of the oil dependency?" That all sounds well and good, but it ain't gonna happen anytime soon. Robert Samuelson addressed that a bit in his column today:

Just once, it would be nice if a president would level with Americans on energy. Barack Obama isn't that president. His speech the other night was about political damage control — his own. It was full of misinformation and mythology. Obama held out a gleaming vision of an America that would convert to the "clean" energy of, presumably, wind, solar and biomass. It isn't going to happen for many, many decades, if ever.

For starters, we won't soon end our "addiction to fossil fuels." Oil, coal and natural gas supply about 85 percent of America's energy needs. The U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) expects energy consumption to grow only an average of 0.5 percent annually from 2008 to 2035, but that's still a 14 percent cumulative increase. Fossil fuel usage would increase slightly in 2035 and its share would still account for 78 percent of the total.

Unless we shut down the economy, we need fossil fuels. More efficient light bulbs, energy-saving appliances, cars with higher gas mileage may all dampen energy use. But offsetting these savings will be more people (391 million vs. 305 million), more households (147 million vs. 113 million), more vehicles (297 million vs. 231 million) and a bigger economy (almost double in size). Although wind, solar and biomass are assumed to grow as much as 10 times faster than overall energy use, they provide only 11 percent of supply in 2035, up from 5 percent in 2008.

The bottom line is that oil and related petroleum products are by far the cheapest source of energy available. Unless you want to burn significantly more coal, or build a lot more nuclear plants, oil is "it" for the forseeable future.

++

And for anyone who dares mentioning using anything electric, coal and the oil used to run power plants are still your main sources of power. So for all of you electric car owners, nice job feeling good about not really doing anything. This is not to be confused with hybrids, which are awesome!

[Kraken]

Imagine what this will be like if that BOP falls over, or if the seabed collapses, as the Oil Drum article above suggests, and this turns into a wide open hole directly to the well. An estimated 2.5 billion barrels of oil could gush directly into the gulf. Man will have successfully destroyed a major body of water on this planet. If that doesn't hasten the end of the oil dependency, I don't know what will.

How, exactly, are we to "hasten the end of the oil dependency?" That all sounds well and good, but it ain't gonna happen anytime soon. Robert Samuelson addressed that a bit in his column today:

Just once, it would be nice if a president would level with Americans on energy. Barack Obama isn't that president. His speech the other night was about political damage control — his own. It was full of misinformation and mythology. Obama held out a gleaming vision of an America that would convert to the "clean" energy of, presumably, wind, solar and biomass. It isn't going to happen for many, many decades, if ever.

For starters, we won't soon end our "addiction to fossil fuels." Oil, coal and natural gas supply about 85 percent of America's energy needs. The U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) expects energy consumption to grow only an average of 0.5 percent annually from 2008 to 2035, but that's still a 14 percent cumulative increase. Fossil fuel usage would increase slightly in 2035 and its share would still account for 78 percent of the total.

Unless we shut down the economy, we need fossil fuels. More efficient light bulbs, energy-saving appliances, cars with higher gas mileage may all dampen energy use. But offsetting these savings will be more people (391 million vs. 305 million), more households (147 million vs. 113 million), more vehicles (297 million vs. 231 million) and a bigger economy (almost double in size). Although wind, solar and biomass are assumed to grow as much as 10 times faster than overall energy use, they provide only 11 percent of supply in 2035, up from 5 percent in 2008.

The bottom line is that oil and related petroleum products are by far the cheapest source of energy available. Unless you want to burn significantly more coal, or build a lot more nuclear plants, oil is "it" for the forseeable future.

Samuelson makes the most common logical error that trips up prognosticators: Predicting the future by extrapolating the present, without acknowledging the likelihood of breakthroughs. By definition, you can't know what or when these will be, but it's a fairly safe bet that the next 25 years will bring several (especially given the money and effort going into research on energy generation and storage). Possible examples are nuclear fusion reactors, lossless transmission, and vastly improved batteries. You can't factor them in or count them out.

Predictable predictions always seem safe and well-reasoned, but they often turn out to be wrong.

That said, I certainly expect oil to power civilization for the rest of my life...even if the whole Gulf dies.

[LordMortis]

That said, I certainly expect oil to power civilization for the rest of my life...even if the whole Gulf dies.

I hear they're making water powered cars now. The only problem is that they only seem to work around the SE US.

[Elbino]

This spill has got me spooked. Drilling on Georges Bank is not allowed, and the moratorium has been extended. Someday in my lifetime they'll drill. I did the spill overlay and if this had happened on Georges Bank, Most all of Nova Scotia would be under oil.

My dad and I go lobstering in a small boat in a bay about 2-3 miles wide and the same long. We make a decent living. My dad and countless others have made a decent living in this small bay for the past century or more. My family owns 2 cottages and waterfront beach on this bay where my kids play. If a spill like this hit, my way of life would end. The bay is mostly less than 20 feet of water. The lobster fishing areas are less than 10 feet.

So I guess my question is, what is the value of my way of life. What would BP offer me for my knowledge of the weather, tides, and rhythms of life in this particular bay that I've gathered through years of hard work and observation. What's it worth for my dad to lose out on being able to work with his son in the later years of his life. What would I get in a settlement? 2 years wages (I'm choosing this arbitrarily, no idea what they're getting)? What good is that. Suppose I go to a doctor, destroy everything in his practice (what use is a boat and lobster gear in an oil slicked bay) and tell him he can never work in the medical field again. Is 2 years salary enough for the pain and anguish of your lifes work and dreams? I'm really looking for opinions on this, what settlement should someone get? If they're in small fishing communities, their houses/property is likely severely devalued. Their boats/wharves/tools of the trade are worthless for a while at least. Their education gained from years of work has been devalued as the ecosystem will be changed. Will BP pay for educations? Will they arrange relocations and job placements?

Thousands where I live have never known anything but fishing. You can say that they should plan for the future, but how can you plan for having the rug pulled out from under you?

The fishers, the tour operators, the family businesses, the everyday people who have suddenly awoken to worthless property...I feel for them all because I see how close it is.

[Kraken]

I'm really looking for opinions on this, what settlement should someone get?

If I were king, I'd say they should get a lump sum payment equal to what they expected to earn during the rest of their working lives. Someone who would've expected $50,000 a year for another 20 years would get $1,000,000. That ought to provide the wherewithal to either retire or build a new life.

[LordMortis]

I'm really looking for opinions on this, what settlement should someone get?

If I were king, I'd say they should get a lump sum payment equal to what they expected to earn during the rest of their working lives. Someone who would've expected $50,000 a year for another 20 years would get $1,000,000. That ought to provide the wherewithal to either retire or build a new life.

I don't know about that but you should start with reimbursing them for their property. From there you should look at relocation costs and re education costs and lost labor during transit, relocation, and re education. That might be upwards of six years worth labor, IMO. Most of it ought depend on how much blood you could squeeze from the company though. It has to be painful enough to act as a deterrent but probably not be so painful as to deter people from entering the business in the first place.