Gulf spill damages could reach $100 billion, Louisiana Treasurer John Kennedy

Topspin

Topspin

Verified User
Gulf spill damages could reach $100 billion, Louisiana Treasurer John Kennedy told Reuters, adding the $20 billion BP fund is not enough. Kennedy said Louisiana is losing $100 million to $150 million in wages per month.
 
This message is hidden because Southern Man is on your ignore list.
Rue paul called and said southern gaylord is a fag
 
Topspin said:
Gulf spill damages could reach $100 billion, Louisiana Treasurer John Kennedy told Reuters, adding the $20 billion BP fund is not enough. Kennedy said Louisiana is losing $100 million to $150 million in wages per month.
Click to expand...


Link? I curious to see what he means by "damages?" Is he talking about economic damages or is he talking about overall damages including economic damages, remediation damages and clean up damages?

I can't imagine economic damages are that high considering some of the damage is mitigated by employing people to clean up the mess.
 
I think I got it from NOLA our local papers site. It had no more details.
We will bleed them slow though, they are no good to us dead.
 
NigelTufnel said:
Link? I curious to see what he means by "damages?" Is he talking about economic damages or is he talking about overall damages including economic damages, remediation damages and clean up damages?

I can't imagine economic damages are that high considering some of the damage is mitigated by employing people to clean up the mess.
Click to expand...

LOL that's funny shit! Because they must organize a massive cleanup effort, it means they were not affected since they're getting some money for clening up.

That's like saying fire didn't damage your house because you'll get an insurance check.

What they get in compensation does not change the amount of damage
 
Topspin said:
Louisiana vow's to not take more than BP has. For now, we'll send the tab left over to Britan
Click to expand...

We should send you the bill for Piper Alpha, you dozy cunt.

[ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piper_Alpha"]Piper Alpha - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia@@AMEPARAM@@/wiki/File:Piper_Alpha_memorial.jpg" class="image"><img alt="" src="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/d3/Piper_Alpha_memorial.jpg/220px-Piper_Alpha_memorial.jpg"@@AMEPARAM@@commons/thumb/d/d3/Piper_Alpha_memorial.jpg/220px-Piper_Alpha_memorial.jpg[/ame]
 
tinfoil said:
LOL that's funny shit! Because they must organize a massive cleanup effort, it means they were not affected since they're getting some money for clening up.

That's like saying fire didn't damage your house because you'll get an insurance check.

What they get in compensation does not change the amount of damage
Click to expand...


You should try to think harder. I'm talking exclusively about economic damages here so the fire to the house analogy is worthless.

Say John the Fisherman cannot fish because of the oil and thereby loses let say $2,000 per week in net profits. Now let's say John the Fisherman gets hired to clean up the oil and is paid $1500 net for his efforts. John the Fisherman's economic damages as a result of the oil are $500 per week, not $2,000 per week. The compensation does indeed change the measure of economic damages.
 
Damocles said:
Thank gawd they limited the economic liability to 20 Billion or so.. *whew*

Saved!
Click to expand...


Can you tell me where you got the idea that economic damages were limited to the $20 billion? And doesn't your "point" only makes sense if the Treasurer here was talking exclusively about economic damages?

And if he's talking about lost tax revenue I'm not sure that the state of Louisiana could ever recover from anyone for losing tax revenue, so whether the liability is capped or not doesn't matter.
 
NigelTufnel said:
You should try to think harder. I'm talking exclusively about economic damages here so the fire to the house analogy is worthless.

Say John the Fisherman cannot fish because of the oil and thereby loses let say $2,000 per week in net profits. Now let's say John the Fisherman gets hired to clean up the oil and is paid $1500 net for his efforts. John the Fisherman's economic damages as a result of the oil are $500 per week, not $2,000 per week. The compensation does indeed change the measure of economic damages.
Click to expand...

Your point above is valid. I would be interested to know how many of the effected workers/businesses are able to help with the clean up. It would change my views on what the total needed could be.

If we use my assumption that 10% of the residents of the Gulf Coast are workers effected by this, then $20B is only $15k per person. Obviously total economic damages are going to be decided ultimately by how much of the Gulf Coast line is hit by the oil and how much the fishing industry is effected overall along the coast.
 
$20B is a down payment, but we will have them spend 40B cleaning up first before we tap on another 20b to the escrow
 
NigelTufnel said:
You should try to think harder. I'm talking exclusively about economic damages here so the fire to the house analogy is worthless.

Say John the Fisherman cannot fish because of the oil and thereby loses let say $2,000 per week in net profits. Now let's say John the Fisherman gets hired to clean up the oil and is paid $1500 net for his efforts. John the Fisherman's economic damages as a result of the oil are $500 per week, not $2,000 per week. The compensation does indeed change the measure of economic damages.
Click to expand...

That's two separate business activities that are not related. Just because you found other work doesn't negate the economic damages from the interuption of your business. And the amount of income from other sources does not weigh agaisnt damages owed to you from an unrelated suit.

I don't know why you would conflate the two separate sources of income.
 
tinfoil said:
That's two separate business activities that are not related. Just because you found other work doesn't negate the economic damages from the interuption of your business. And the amount of income from other sources does not weigh agaisnt damages owed to you from an unrelated suit.

I don't know why you would conflate the two separate sources of income.
Click to expand...

unfortunately, nigel is right...its called mitigation
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top