Katrina Rates as the Costliest Disaster

[beetbox]

Katrina rates as the costliest disaster
By Andrew Cave
September 6, 2005

Total losses from Hurricane Katrina in the United States are likely to make it the costliest natural disaster ever, according to analysts.

Consultancy firm Risk Management Solutions says the losses from flooding in New Orleans, wind damage, coastal surges, battered infrastructure and indirect economic effects could total more than $US100 billion ($131 billion).

Analysts also believe the crisis will prompt further increases in petrol prices. Oil refineries along the US's Gulf of Mexico coast and battered offshore oil and gas platforms were recovering slowly almost a week after Katrina devastated the largest energy hub in the world's top consumer of fuel.

<>

"I suspect that $US100 billion is a bit light because the devastation down there and the amount of time it will take to get everything running is way more than the damage wreaked by the hurricanes in Florida last year, which are estimated to have cost $US27 billion to $US30 billion," he said.

"The environmental effects are going to take a very long time to deal with. Everything will have to be decontaminated and the economic hit in terms of business interruption costs and loss of business is going to be enormous."

http://smh.com.au/news/world/katrina-rates-as-the-costliest-disaster/2005/09/05/1125772465380.html

[bemildred]

1. I was reading elsewhere that an area the size of England, Wales, and

Scotland got clobbered. They don't want to count what was lost.
The one good thing to come out of it is that it MIGHT force
something to be done about the Iraq mess sooner that might
otherwise be the case. I noticed in another story that we got
some NG troops home, and they were talking very nice about what
their options would be. That is a lot bigger thing than you might
think at first. That is a crack in the dam. There were a few
rumors on the net a day or so ago about mutinys in Iraq over this,
and I do wonder about that.

[damntexdem]

2. How could it not be the costliest NATURAL disaster?

On the other hand, it may not be the costliest disaster: the invasion of Iraq has ALREADY cost $200 billion.

[merwin]

6. what about the tsunami?

[Strelnikov_]

3. So It Is Only A 0.1 'Base Iraq' Disaster

That is, 1/10th of the Iraq cost, assuming the long term bill for the Iraq adventure is $1T as recently estimated.

Kinda puts things in perspective, don't they.

[grytpype]

4. Still less than the Iraq war.

Way less.

The war is Hurricane George, and it was 100% unnatural.

[Ready4Change]

5. Impossible! Laura Bush says they are all poor.

Destroying poor peoples stuff is free. Don't these analysts know anything?

:sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm:

[daleo]

7. That is still not enough

Half a trillion, maybe a trillion when all is said and done is my personal estimate. Flooded (water damaged) buildings are very expensive to repair. Rebuilding is also expensive. There is a whole city under water. Not to mention the rest of the gulf, where other large centers were pretty much wiped off the map.