Liberal Burblings

On Tuesday, the front page of the New York Times showed a series of map graphics of the Gulf oil spill, under the title “Gulf surface oil is vanishing fast; Concerns stay”. (it is typical of the NYT, bless them, to have a headline which is so well balanced and contains a semi-colon).

Those graphics are available as an excellent time-phased online tool which shows the impact of the spill since it started.

What was remarkable about the NYT maps is that, as of now, the sea surface oil in the gulf is minimal. Just a few small, light patches on the map.

Hot on the heels of the NYT article comes another one in Time by Michael Grunwald. This one goes even further, as indicated by its headline: “The BP oil spill: Has environmental damage been exaggerated?”:

The Deepwater Horizon explosion was an awful tragedy for the 11 workers who died on the rig, and it’s no leak; it’s the biggest oil spill in U.S. history. It’s also inflicting serious economic and psychological damage on coastal communities that depend on tourism, fishing and drilling. But so far — while it’s important to acknowledge that the long-term potential danger is simply unknowable for an underwater event that took place just three months ago — it does not seem to be inflicting severe environmental damage. “The impacts have been much, much less than everyone feared,” says geochemist Jacqueline Michel, a federal contractor who is coordinating shoreline assessments in Louisiana. (See pictures of the Gulf oil spill.)

Yes, the spill killed birds — but so far, less than 1% of the number killed by the Exxon Valdez spill in Alaska 21 years ago. Yes, we’ve heard horror stories about oiled dolphins — but so far, wildlife-response teams have collected only three visibly oiled carcasses of mammals. Yes, the spill prompted harsh restrictions on fishing and shrimping, but so far, the region’s fish and shrimp have tested clean, and the restrictions are gradually being lifted. And yes, scientists have warned that the oil could accelerate the destruction of Louisiana’s disintegrating coastal marshes — a real slow-motion ecological calamity — but so far, assessment teams have found only about 350 acres of oiled marshes, when Louisiana was already losing about 15,000 acres of wetlands every year.

So far, so good. Interestingly, I saw suggestions on US TV last week that the scare stories and wall-to-wall coverage has scared people off visiting the gulf area – unnecessarily. The evidence which is emerging would suggest that the biggest battle to recover the Gulf’s economy may well be to convince people to visit there again and eat the shrimps etc. again.

So who’s responsible for the apparent over-hyping of the disaster? Some blame Obama, and that is certainly an undertone of the Time article. But the cause may be more prosaic or hum-drum than that.

It may all go back to BP’s live streaming  of he oil gushing out. There was nothing more attractive for TV producers than to start a news bulletin with the live feed showing oil gushing out nine to the dozen. It looked very dramatic, they could label it “live” and it didn’t cost them anything.

You can give all sorts of arguments for BP’s showing of the live stream. It was all very democratic and open. But, at the end of the day, it was a daft business decision to wash their dirty linen so fully and publicly. The dramatic live footage may have led to over-hype of the spill, which in turn may have an actual impact of the Gulf economy.

I sympathise with Tony Hayward. He seems a straight enough fellow and certainly did BP a considerable service by acting as a lightning rod in the first few months of the spill. Presumably, as a reward for that, he isn’t actually leaving BP. He’s being sent to Siberia.

Someone in BP has a sense of humour.

Related posts:

1. Why the heck is Obama addressing the USA from the Oval Office about BP’s oil spill?
2. Obama: The manager of the USA speaks…
3. Palin's bonkers moment – damage control or crash and burn?
4. Palin’s bonkers moment – damage control or crash and burn?
5. Daniel Hannan on the "economic miracle" of….er…..Iceland

2 Responses to “Gulf oil spill – has over-hype led to actual economic damage?”