Time has advanced, the oil well is capped. The Gulf is free of oil save the natural seeps.
The clean-up was largely completed before any hurricane could blow the sludge kilometres inland.
Environmental damage is controlled and gradually abated i.e. it’s a calamity, not a catastrophe, though the overhang is expected to last for decades.
The US litigation courts swing into action. BP and Trans-ocean, and whichever other entities are caught in the contributory negligence net, get hit with punitive damages. Trans-ocean, being just a shell disappears without trace and another shell picks up the subcontract. BP survives only by liquidation of it’s assets, reserves and concessions and essentially exits the oil industry and all it’s operations in the US.
The winner in this will be US Big Oil; who will pick up the global assets of a distressed seller.
In the aftermath does the US consumer take the view(s):
[ul]
[li]That oil spill calamities are just the cost/risk of being a consumer of petrochemicals and it’s business as usual. [/li][li]That for cost and security, having US located/owned oilfield remains preferable to non-US located/controlled fields[/li][li]That non-US fields are now more attractive as any oil spill won’t be washing up on US shorelines e.g. Alaskan pipelines and tar sands are fine.[/li][li]That increased prices at the fuel pump because substantial increases on insurance risk premiums being passed on is just a price gouging dodge.[/li][li]That reduced US energy demand has positive effects beyond increased energy security[/li][li]That US energy security requires increased focus on commercialising alternative fuels[/li][/ul]
I’m not sure how the rest of your predictions will pan out, but as an answer to your question of how the US consumer will react, I’d say that the above is close. I seriously doubt that this incident will make much of a ripple, nor am I convinced it should at this point.
before speculating about the future, let’s look at the past:
Your description fits hurricaines Andrew and Katrina. Nothing has changed in Florida or N Orleans. (for example,people still build flimsy wooden houses directly in the path of a very well-known danger). And hurricaines are a very direct problem that smacks you personally , and which you could personally avoid the impact…unlike the oil spill which is an impersonal, remote problem, with an indirect impact which you have no way to control.
So consumers won’t really care or change their habits because of the BP disaster
Yes, the price of gasoline may rise …But you personally won’t know who to blame 2 years from now: the oil spill and BP’s bankruptcy, or political unrest in the Middle East /Kazakhstan, or new interest rates and inexplicably complex economic policies imposed by the evil government in Washington.
[QUOTE=penultima thule;12519927In the aftermath does the US consumer take the view(s):
[ul]
[li]That oil spill calamities are just the cost/risk of being a consumer of petrochemicals and it’s business as usual. [/li][li]That for cost and security, having US located/owned oilfield remains preferable to non-US located/controlled fields[/li][li]That non-US fields are now more attractive as any oil spill won’t be washing up on US shorelines e.g. Alaskan pipelines and tar sands are fine.[/li][li]That increased prices at the fuel pump because substantial increases on insurance risk premiums being passed on is just a price gouging dodge.[/li][li]That reduced US energy demand has positive effects beyond increased energy security[/li][li]That US energy security requires increased focus on commercialising alternative fuels[/li][/ul]
[/QUOTE]
There is more than one consumer in the United States. Some consumers will react by getting a new appreciation for alternative fuels, stronger government regulations, and our responsibility as consumers to reduce usage. I doubt that the movement will be enough to effect much long-term change in American energy policy.
(Unfortunately it’s the corn ethanol lobby that’s best able to benefit from a push for alternative fuels, while good alternative fuels that would actually reduce carbon dioxide emissions are not promoted by strong lobbies.)