Oil spill may help Disney!

[Mindy5767]

I have tried to let this go...but I have to address this post.

I'm a bit taken back by the fact that you have put "anti drilling activists" in quotes and basically blamed them for deep water drilling.

I'd think that with the events that have occurred, we'd be able to lose the quotation marks. They have been proven right.

As for BP not wanting to drill in deep water....BP will drill though the closest pre-school if there is money involved. Our government's de-regulation of ocean drilling and BP's careless practices have led to something that has the potential to devastate this part of the world.

The Gulf coast states are facing an almost incomprehensible task of cleaning up this mess. The financial cost along with amount work that will need to be done are beyond imagination and that is nothing compared to what cant be seen or fixed below the surface of the ocean.

BP and the others are chasing a non-renewable resource. The world's oil will eventually be depleted. There is a finite amount of oil to be found.

Destroying one of the world's most important ecosystems to retrieve this resource seems unbelievably stupid and short sighted to me.

While I realize that this was never supposed to happen, the folks that have been named in quotation marks above, have been warning us that this could happen for years and have been trying to make sure it didnt. I think, at the very least, they deserve the recognition that their worst fears have been realized and instead of placing blame.....maybe we should be joining them in their fight.

From what I understand, the anti-drilling activists (which were placed in quotation marks because it was a specific subset of environmental activists) had bigger concerns about drilling close to shore. I believe it was a policy compromise to allow the deep water drilling. I personally would wonder whether or not anybody (in the government) gave any thought to the possibility of a disaster and what they'd do about it. If this had happened in 100 feet of water, they'd have sent some divers down and it would have been contained before it was news (except that the loss of life would have been news), but you know what I mean. I'm not blaming the anti drilling activists, although I don't know what their objections were to closer in drilling. I don't think they or anyone else envisioned how hard it would be to fix a disaster such as this. I don't however, see how it could have been "unforeseen". If there is a pipe... duh!! it can break. It hardly matters that this was 1 disaster in 28 thousand wells.... it happened.

I also do not think that the good people who work for BP are all just money hungry heartless grubbers. I know a BP geologist and he's a regular go to work guy, put food on the table person, list most everyone else who works there, in fact, he's a liberal and environmentally concerned mensch. BP also had an excellent safety record before this happened. In fact, I heard they were being awarded another safety award when this happened.

In any case, clearly, drilling in such deep water isn't a good idea, regardless of who said it first or when. Now it needs to be cleaned up. I think the first person to come up with the idea to clean up the oil will win some kind of Nobel prize.

And Yes, to the person who asked about what a hurricane would do, would the oil go inland. I heard on the weather channel that oil could be covering everthing INLAND... WAY inland. Hundreds of miles inland.

 

[Flightman]

Firstyl I'll say this. I have never worked for, and have no relationship with, any oil company.

What has happened in the Gulf is a tragedy, and I hope that if short cuts were taken and negligence is proved, that the consequences are severe for those who bear the responsibility for the spill. And trust me when I say that oil companies are all the same. I've seen with my own eyes how Exxon ( Esso over here ) can cover things up. So please, whilst BP are in the firing line right now, and rightly so, it could have been any of the oil companies in this situation.

Until we reduce our dependence on oil, then this will happen again. Oil is becoming a scare resource, and extracting it will only get harder to do. Whilst the Gulf is an important eco-system, there are many others around the world where drilling is also underway, or planned. I'm afraid if we were to simply say, no more, then your $3 gallon of gas would cost a touch more. BTW, its currently $9.63 a gallon over here.

 

[jcb]

From what I understand, the anti-drilling activists (which were placed in quotation marks because it was a specific subset of environmental activists) had bigger concerns about drilling close to shore. I believe it was a policy compromise to allow the deep water drilling. I personally would wonder whether or not anybody (in the government) gave any thought to the possibility of a disaster and what they'd do about it. If this had happened in 100 feet of water, they'd have sent some divers down and it would have been contained before it was news (except that the loss of life would have been news), but you know what I mean. I'm not blaming the anti drilling activists, although I don't know what their objections were to closer in drilling. I don't think they or anyone else envisioned how hard it would be to fix a disaster such as this. I don't however, see how it could have been "unforeseen". If there is a pipe... duh!! it can break. It hardly matters that this was 1 disaster in 28 thousand wells.... it happened.

I also do not think that the good people who work for BP are all just money hungry heartless grubbers. I know a BP geologist and he's a regular go to work guy, put food on the table person, list most everyone else who works there, in fact, he's a liberal and environmentally concerned mensch. BP also had an excellent safety record before this happened. In fact, I heard they were being awarded another safety award when this happened.

In any case, clearly, drilling in such deep water isn't a good idea, regardless of who said it first or when. Now it needs to be cleaned up. I think the first person to come up with the idea to clean up the oil will win some kind of Nobel prize.

And Yes, to the person who asked about what a hurricane would do, would the oil go inland. I heard on the weather channel that oil could be covering everthing INLAND... WAY inland. Hundreds of miles inland.

Suggesting that there is any causal relationship between "anti-drilling activists" or "environmental activists" and the disaster in the gulf is contradicted by BP's own admissions.

In 2006, BP divested its producing properties on the Outer Continental Shelf of the Gulf of Mexico. It received $1.3 billion from the sale. This is from page 18 of the 2006 BP annual report filed with the SEC (not the football conference). The report also stated (page 12):

The Exploration and Production strategy is to build production with improving returns by:
–Focusing on finding the largest fields, concentrating our involvement
in a limited number of the world’s most prolific hydrocarbon basins.
–Building leadership positions in these areas.
–Managing the decline of existing producing assets and divesting assets
when they no longer compete in our portfolio.
This strategy is underpinned by a focused exploration strategy in areas with the potential for large oil and natural gas fields as new profit centres.

The report then states (still page 18):

Deepwater Gulf of Mexico is one of our new profit centres and our largest area of growth in the US.

BP followed the money. I don't anyone said any person who works for BP is a bad person. Even Enron had good people working for it. Not everyone who works for Disney is a "good" person.

 

[blondietink]

Getting backk to original poster and the fact that they might cancel due to the potential for oil. Why not keep your reservation and if the oil does reach the beach house rental, then why not volunteer for the clean up?

 

[Mindy5767]

Getting backk to original poster and the fact that they might cancel due to the potential for oil. Why not keep your reservation and if the oil does reach the beach house rental, then why not volunteer for the clean up?

Well, looks like everyone else is right and I'm wrong. I'll just stop and delete my further comments so I won't get beat up further for saying something "Ferengi" .

I'm not planning on canceling my beach reservation.

 

[hookedonears]

Since we've deviated from the topic of this post, I've got to weigh-in on this subject. There's absolutely no doubt that the world needs to wean itself off oil as a primary fuel for automobiles. It's going to have to start with Congress. Congress is going to have to force the Auto industry to make the change. If Congress told the Auto industry today that in 20 years no new gasoline fueled cars can be sold, the industry would be in high gear to improve other alternatives to the point where they would be economically feasible. Economics are what drives the industry. Oil is still the cheapest and most efficient fuel. With catalytic converters, it has become a relatively clean fuel also. At the point we're in right now, it would be stupid to stop drilling in the Gulf. Economically, this country can't afford not to drill, especially with the propensity this President has for spending other people's money. Royalties from oil production actually surpasses tax revenues received during many months. Prior to this accident, the Oil and Gas industry has had an exemplary safety record. 99% of the problems that did occur, occurred during the transportation of Oil. There's no doubt in my mind that the reason we haven't seen a bigger push for change in the Auto industry is because the Petroleum industry has it's hands so deeply in Congress’s pockets. Change needs to occur, but we don’t need to devastate 3 economies to do it. The Oil industries, The State of Louisiana’s and the US’s.

 

[Mindy5767]

Since we've deviated from the topic of this post, I've got to weigh-in on this subject. There's absolutely no doubt that the world needs to wean itself off oil as a primary fuel for automobiles. It's going to have to start with Congress. Congress is going to have to force the Auto industry to make the change. If Congress told the Auto industry today that in 20 years no new gasoline fueled cars can be sold, the industry would be in high gear to improve other alternatives to the point where they would be economically feasible. Economics are what drives the industry. Oil is still the cheapest and most efficient fuel. With catalytic converters, it has become a relatively clean fuel also. At the point we're in right now, it would be stupid to stop drilling in the Gulf. Economically, this country can't afford not to drill. With the propensity this President has in spending money, royalties from oil production actually surpasses tax revenues received during many months. Prior to this accident, the Oil and Gas industry has had an exemplary safety record. 99% of the problems that did occur, occurred during the transportation of Oil. There's no doubt in my mind that the reason we haven't seen a bigger push for change in the Auto industry is because the Petroleum industry has it's hands so deeply in Congress’s pockets. Change needs to occur, but we don’t need to devastate 3 economies to do it. The Oil industries, The State of Louisiana’s and the US’s.

You are absolutely right. We need to look back to the beginning of the automobile industry. When the first "horseless carriage" was invented, gasoline engines had not yet been invented. It ran on steam. I'm not saying that steam can ever replace gas, but maybe something else can. We can't put masts and sails on cars and expect to get anywhere. There has to be another fuel that will be invented. Right now, electric cars are very expensive, but in terms of practical, they work great for a relatively short commute to work. They really don't cut it for a long drive to Disney World from anywhere outside Florida. or for trucks delivering our goods. Either someone has to create a way to get 3 to 4 times the mileage out of electricity or look elsewhere. Even if you could get 400 miles on an electric car, would you want to have to stop to refuel/recharge (for 10 hours) on the way to your destination? I don't. Right now, on the highway, my van gets 600+ miles per tank of gas. I'd like to see someone invent a fuel that can match that.

 

[lugnut33]

It's truly a shame because we are one of them, but a large percentage of the tremendous number of people who head to the Florida beaches each year will be looking for somewhere else to go and Disney may reap the benefit and get a good number of those people. Our cancellation date for our beach house isn't until June 14, though we're looking for somewhere else to go other than the beach. We don't do Disney during the summer, so Florida isn't going to be an option for us.

You should come visit Wisconsin. It's beautiful this time of year.

 

[soupy11]

Unfortunately the physics of the situation really don't allow us to divorce oil yet. Electric batteries are 1/100 as efficient as a similar mass of gasoline. Solar power only provides about 1/7th of a horsepower for a square yard of panels (and this can only improve to a full horsepower if 100% efficiency were obtainable). Batteries for the Tesla roadster ( a small 2 seater) weigh in at 1000 lbs and push the cost of that vehicle to over 100,000 US. The problem with these batteries is the extreme quality necessary to keep them from combusting, and they have longevity issues that are questionable. So don't expect a big decrease in cost....(they really are just laptop batteries which has huge supply and demand - yet they still cost $$$ ). The myth that big oil is holding back these technologies just isn't true(imho!)....the very nature of physics and energy holds back these technologies.

Hybrids are a pretty great compromise and seem to be gaining market share....maybe they will replace gasoline only engines?

Hydrogen on the other hand is 2.5 times as energetic (by mass) as gasoline...it is also a heckuva lot lighter so by volume in liquid form it delivers less than gas. Paradox! So you need big tanks, very cold storage, and energy to seperate the hydrogen gas!

You guys (Americans) have centuries of coal available....coal can be converted to oil....you just need to invest in the infrastructure, and voila instant independence!



My physics for future presidents pays off!

 

[Mindy5767]

Unfortunately the physics of the situation really don't allow us to divorce oil yet. Electric batteries are 1/100 as efficient as a similar mass of gasoline. Solar power only provides about 1/7th of a horsepower for a square yard of panels (and this can only improve to a full horsepower if 100% efficiency were obtainable). Batteries for the Tesla roadster ( a small 2 seater) weigh in at 1000 lbs and push the cost of that vehicle to over 100,000 US. The problem with these batteries is the extreme quality necessary to keep them from combusting, and they have longevity issues that are questionable. So don't expect a big decrease in cost....(they really are just laptop batteries which has huge supply and demand - yet they still cost $$$ ). The myth that big oil is holding back these technologies just isn't true(imho!)....the very nature of physics and energy holds back these technologies.

Hybrids are a pretty great compromise and seem to be gaining market share....maybe they will replace gasoline only engines?

Hydrogen on the other hand is 2.5 times as energetic (by mass) as gasoline...it is also a heckuva lot lighter so by volume in liquid form it delivers less than gas. Paradox! So you need big tanks, very cold storage, and energy to seperate the hydrogen gas!

You guys (Americans) have centuries of coal available....coal can be converted to oil....you just need to invest in the infrastructure, and voila instant independence!



My physics for future presidents pays off!

You are right! Are you a physicist? You sound like one. Hydrogen reminds me of the Hindenburg? Hmmmmm I wonder why?

If coal (which we have so so much of), can be converted to oil... then I wonder why they don't? I have some thoughts.... But really... weren't we talking about how the oil spill will effect Disney? My opinion is that it won't. What will.... would be high oil prices. When oil prices are high and the cost of gas skyrockets, plane fares go up, gas costs too much, the costs of goods that need to be transported (everything) skyrockets ... people stay home and thank their lucky stars if they can still put food on the table.

 

[soupy11]

You are right! Are you a physicist? You sound like one. Hydrogen reminds me of the Hindenburg? Hmmmmm I wonder why?

Gas prices won't go up too much (at least not due to this disaster IMHO)....it's one relatively small well, and OPEC knows that high price of oil at this economic time is suicide. Plus they are rubbing their little hands in glee over this spill as they realize that their oil -which compared to off shore reserves, is literally sitting under the soil - just got a whole lot more valuable. They don't want you guys converting that coal into oil and if you spend the bucks on the infrastructure you would likely shut down your lucrative deals with them. Afterall, the tech isn't all that high-end, the Nazi's used it to fuel WW II *about 25% of their automobiles used it* once they had their supplies cut off.

Hydrogen gas, on the other hand, is darn tricky - a spark from static electricity you jolt your cat with is enough to light it up! But in compressed liquid form, it's not so bad.....but tanks leak....