On Wed, 5 May 2010 09:55:01 -0700 (PDT), Larry L
wrote:

I saw on the News Hour last night that there are many natural oil
seeps on the floor of the Gulf and bacteria and tiny plants that have
evolved to feed on that oil. Again, I had no clue.

According to data that I've seen, there is somewhere between 500,000 and 1
million barrels or 20-40 million gallons (a "barrel" of oil is 42 US gallons,
not 55 gallons, despite many in the US calling a 55 gallon drum an "oil
drum"/barrel) of seepage annually into the Gulf of Mexico from natural sources
(and another 8-10 million gallons off the California coast). And I've heard it
similarly reported that there is about 4-5 times that amount worldwide. But
keep in mind that such seepage is from hundreds of locations over a vast area as
well as spread out over the course of year. Moreover, AFAIK, those numbers are
very rough estimates as there really isn't a way to measure it with more
precision at this point.

I can tell you that "tar balls" are nothing new on the Gulf coast (the entirety
of it), and neither are oil spills - Google "Ixtoc spill" and read up on that,
if you care to do so. I don't mean to minimize this, but frankly, from what I'm
seeing down here _thus far_, this is rapidly shaping up to be a bigger "human
mess" than an ecological disaster. There is no doubt that the spill is not a
positive thing for the environment, but I'm not quite sure why anyone would
believe that it'll take 10 billion of _anyone's_ money to cover what could only
possibly be about 2.5 billion of _economic_ damage (assuming the spill remains
in the northern Gulf).

Unfortunately, lawyers all over the area are already advertising, and thus far,
there is very little demonstrable economic damage as a direct result of the
spill, other than to that of the families of the 11 men missing and presumed
dead. A few of the self-same shrimpers who were, prior to the spill, bemoaning
the fact that with high fuel prices and low shrimp prices, they were barely able
to eke out a living are now acting like they were making it hand-over-fist and
are now wiped out solely because of the spill. My point being that one cannot
suffer, for example, a million dollars in economic loss if they could have only
possibly, pardon the pun, netted _maybe_ 40-50 grand over the season without the
spill. And at this point, the idea that the source of most of these folks'
livelihood will be permanently wiped out (or even wiped out for several years)
is ridiculous.

To me, it's like someone calling their auto insurance company and saying, "My
spouse was just in a car accident - pay us money!" and when the adjuster asks
about injury(s), medical bills, property damage, details of the accident, the
spouse's income loss(es), etc., they are told by the claimant that they don't
know about any of that yet, but dammit! pay up, pay up now, and pay up big,
because, well, it sounds like it could well have been a bad wreck.

Thus far, the only actual documented "damage" I've heard about is two oily
pelicans (the washed-up turtles reported on, it turns out, showed no signs of
oil contamination), which were easily cleaned and are doing fine, and some dead
man-o-war and jellyfish having washed up. Again, I'm not claiming there isn't
damage and won't be more, but I'd sorta like to see what the situation is before
deciding what the damage is, who is entitled to what and who is responsible for
what.

As to the turtles, reports are (from the autopsies) that they were killed via
injury of some form. It is being speculated, based upon the physical damage
done, that some of the "emergency shrimping" is being done without TEDs (turtle
extruder devices - mandatory on shrimp nets), but ??? However, the Sierra Club,
among the more high-profile of those issuing statements, has said that they
doubt it is the lack of TEDs and blame BP until they are proven innocent. Now,
unless they think BP is capturing turtles, totally "purifying" them internally
and externally of oil and then fatally physically injuring them in manner
consistent with that of non-TED'ed shrimp nets, I've no idea upon what they base
their position, but again, ???

As to the "jellyfish," anyone who has spent time on the coast knows that there
are often dead jellyfish washed up. However, some of these do show signs of oil
contamination. But whether this external sign was the cause of death or simply
a post-mortem event has not, as far as I've heard, been determined and whether
the oil is leading to a significantly-larger-than-normal die-off has not, AFAIK,
been determined.

All that said, however, BP doesn't have a flawless record and at the end of the
day, this will cause some amount of both ecological and economic damage. BP
will be on the hook for at least some of it and should be on the hook for every
bit of it that is reasonably related to it - for example, folks in Venice who
put out what might turn out to be unnecessary booming were nonetheless acting in
a reasonable and prudent manner - folks in Tampa or on Lake Pontchartrain who
did so last week were not. But since the scope of the damage isn't even
reasonably guessed-at at this point, it is irrational to put a number on it. And
from what I've seen, I'd refrain from calling it "a disaster" just yet.

Based on the realities thus far, my guess is that there will be VERY little
rational reaction to this and based on, again, personal observation (such as
that after undisputed disasters, like Katrina, etc.), my guess is that those
least deserving of compensation will receive the bulk of whatever money is
passed out.

And, again, I wish that it wasn't such a disaster fueling my
increasing knowledge of things oily

I wish that same thing.

TC,
R