(http://gamenight.4leafcoder.com/__oneclick_uploads/2009/08/master-blaster.jpg)
Master Blaster's (President Obama's) embargo on domestic deep water oil has been lifted by a federal judge.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-06-22/u-s-deepwater-oil-drilling-ban-lifted-today-by-new-orleans-federal-judge.html
A New Orleans federal judge lifted the six-month moratorium on deepwater drilling imposed by President Barack Obama following the largest oil spill in U.S. history. Shares of drilling services companies jumped on the news.
Unfortunately several deep water rigs have already left the gulf for foreign waters.
I'm still trying to find the section of the constitution that gives the president the power to empose such a ban.
Quote from: custosnox on June 22, 2010, 01:41:09 PM
I'm still trying to find the section of the constitution that gives the president the power to empose such a ban.
I'm betting it's interstate commerce.
Quote from: custosnox on June 22, 2010, 01:41:09 PM
I'm still trying to find the section of the constitution that gives the president the power to empose such a ban.
Don't bother.
Now the admin is going to battle Arizona AND Louisiana. Texas will be next.
This constitution thing is really hard on President Obama.
Quote from: we vs us on June 22, 2010, 01:44:14 PM
I'm betting it's interstate commerce.
Interstate commerce falls under the purvey of congress.
Quote from: custosnox on June 22, 2010, 01:48:33 PM
Interstate commerce falls under the purvey of congress.
Maybe it's a "security" issue? I don't know but I can see several avenues in which it's feasible.
Quote from: we vs us on June 22, 2010, 01:44:14 PM
I'm betting it's interstate commerce.
I'm betting it has more to do with the fact that they're drilling on government lands (or in this case, in government waters), so the government gets to call the shots. Same way it gets to set fishing quotas.
Congress delegated that power to the executive.
Your constitutionality canard would make sense if the moratorium applied to wells on private land.
Quote from: nathanm on June 22, 2010, 03:20:11 PM
I'm betting it has more to do with the fact that they're drilling on government lands (or in this case, in government waters), so the government gets to call the shots. Same way it gets to set fishing quotas.
Congress delegated that power to the executive.
Your constitutionality canard would make sense if the moratorium applied to wells on private land.
You may be right. I know nothing about maritime law, but federal land does fall under the executive.
Big O's in control. Embargo on!
(http://d.yimg.com/a/p/ap/20100622/capt.66491abceb6647608552782eda77ca57-66491abceb6647608552782eda77ca57-0.jpg?x=251&y=345&q=85&sig=DvppT._aNECWeVpFo_7ISg--)
It seems that the judge's ruling is not simply based on Obama's jurisdiction to impose the ban, but on information that contradicts what the administration said. Apparently the administration claimed that a ban was recommended by The National Academy of Engineering. Apparently that is not true. They must have just misspoke.
Those experts from the National Academy of Engineering have said they don't support the blanket ban.
"Much to the government's discomfort and this Court's uneasiness, the summary also states that 'the recommendations contained in this report have been peer-reviewed by seven experts identified by the National Academy of Engineering.' As the plaintiffs, and the experts themselves, pointedly observe, this statement was misleading," Judge Feldman said in his 22-page ruling.
When one gets in bed with government, one must expect the diseases it spreads.
Quote from: nathanm on June 22, 2010, 03:20:11 PM
I'm betting it has more to do with the fact that they're drilling on government lands (or in this case, in government waters), so the government gets to call the shots. Same way it gets to set fishing quotas.
Congress delegated that power to the executive.
Your constitutionality canard would make sense if the moratorium applied to wells on private land.
Really? I would think that in order for it to be enforcable, it would have to be law, and to be law it takes congress. But there are so many of these little "extras" that have been written into law that give so many agencies power beyond the original constitution that I just can't keep track. Just never would have thought this as an "internal procedure" type thing. Regardless, seems pretty reckless (economically) to try and shut them all down anyhow.
Quote from: custosnox on June 22, 2010, 04:00:14 PM
Really? I would think that in order for it to be enforcable, it would have to be law, and to be law it takes congress. But there are so many of these little "extras" that have been written into law that give so many agencies power beyond the original constitution that I just can't keep track. Just never would have thought this as an "internal procedure" type thing. Regardless, seems pretty reckless (economically) to try and shut them all down anyhow.
Executive orders have the strength of law (as a for-instance), though for a limited amount of time.
Has anyone here bother reading the opinion before guessing how the president has this authority?
http://www.scribd.com/doc/33421810/Text-of-ruling-blocking-Obama-s-6-month-deepwater-drilling-moratorium-in-the-Gulf
Quote from: custosnox on June 22, 2010, 04:00:14 PM
Really? I would think that in order for it to be enforcable, it would have to be law, and to be law it takes congress. But there are so many of these little "extras" that have been written into law that give so many agencies power beyond the original constitution that I just can't keep track. Just never would have thought this as an "internal procedure" type thing. Regardless, seems pretty reckless (economically) to try and shut them all down anyhow.
They're not "all shut down." Something like 33 platforms in the GoM are/were restricted from drilling. Production continues apace from completed wells. Drilling continues in the rest of the country on land and in shallow water.
It's like the princess and the pea. Well, really it's Republicans lashing out at Obama for anything they can so as to attempt to make something stick between now and the midterms. It's gotten louder in recent days after Joe Barton said what was on all of their minds (and they were speaking and writing0 until Barton went off about it at the hearing.
But hey, if they want to keep running as the friend of big oil fouling our shores, more power to 'em.
Guido, aren't decisions of executive agency held to an absurdly low standard of review? Like almost no review at all. (I forget the term of art, extreme deference maybe?) If so, how can the judge possibly have found a substantial likelihood of the plaintiff prevailing at trial?
..reading..
Oh, nice, the judge decided to trot out an already debunked smear as part of his justification.
Also, it turns out he owns stock (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ynews/20100622/ts_ynews/ynews_ts2771) in some drilling companies. Ahh, the appearance of impropriety in the afternoon.
And he somehow glosses over the reasoning given in the Secretary's report, opining that the Secretary provided no justification. Very interesting.
Quote from: nathanm on June 22, 2010, 04:31:51 PM
They're not "all shut down." Something like 33 platforms in the GoM are/were restricted from drilling. Production continues apace from completed wells. Drilling continues in the rest of the country on land and in shallow water.
It's like the princess and the pea. Well, really it's Republicans lashing out at Obama for anything they can so as to attempt to make something stick between now and the midterms. It's gotten louder in recent days after Joe Barton said what was on all of their minds (and they were speaking and writing0 until Barton went off about it at the hearing.
But hey, if they want to keep running as the friend of big oil fouling our shores, more power to 'em.
Guido, aren't decisions of executive agency held to an absurdly low standard of review? Like almost no review at all. (I forget the term of art, extreme deference maybe?) If so, how can the judge possibly have found a substantial likelihood of the plaintiff prevailing at trial?
..reading..
Oh, nice, the judge decided to trot out an already debunked smear as part of his justification.
Also, it turns out he owns stock (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ynews/20100622/ts_ynews/ynews_ts2771) in some drilling companies. Ahh, the appearance of impropriety in the afternoon.
And he somehow glosses over the reasoning given in the Secretary's report, opining that the Secretary provided no justification. Very interesting.
Executive agencies' rule-making is reviewed by courts under the arbitrary and capricious standard, which is a fairly high standard. As a note for those really interested in administrative law, this opinion is very informative as to the application of the aforementioned standard and the requisite proof required for a preliminary injunction. Also, just as an fyi, the fifth circuit's (where the government appeal will go) view is very similar to our federal appellate circuit.
Just so I am clear, I am not taking the plaintiffs or the government's side on this issue--just not that informed on all the factual issues although to be honest at first blush I thought the ban was a bit tough.
Quote from: guido911 on June 22, 2010, 05:32:46 PM
at first blush I thought the ban was a bit tough.
I thought so, too, until Obama said that the moratorium would be lifted early if the panel making recommendations on better safety procedures and more effective regulation completed its task prior to the six months being up. That and I realized it only applied to wells drilled in over 500 feet of water. It's a much more limited moratorium than the judge gives it credit for.
I can't say whether the judge was just very convinced by the immediate economic harm argument or whether the Government didn't come up with the requisite records of the reasoning behind the moratorium quickly enough.
Order Shmorder...Salazar to issue new moratorium:
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/06/22/national/main6608434.shtml
Sounds like he's going to cure the deficiencies in the original order. Nothing wrong with that.
Turns out the judge who overturned the offshore drilling ban has investments in offshore drilling...
http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?subjectid=13&articleid=20100623_13_0_NEWORL594955
Quote from: RecycleMichael on June 23, 2010, 09:46:41 AM
Turns out the judge who overturned the offshore drilling ban has investments in offshore drilling...
http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?subjectid=13&articleid=20100623_13_0_NEWORL594955
Hard to find someone with a stock portfolio who doesn't.
Quote from: RecycleMichael on June 23, 2010, 09:46:41 AM
Turns out the judge who overturned the offshore drilling ban has investments in offshore drilling...
http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?subjectid=13&articleid=20100623_13_0_NEWORL594955
That's pretty weak tea:
U.S. District Judge Martin Feldman, a 1983 appointee of President Ronald Reagan, reported owning less than $15,000 in stock in 2008 in Transocean Ltd., the company that owned the sunken Deepwater Horizon drilling rig.
Feldman overturned the ban Tuesday, saying the government simply assumed that because one rig exploded, the others pose an imminent danger, too.
The White House promised an immediate appeal. The Interior Department had imposed the moratorium last month in the wake of the BP disaster, halting approval of any new permits for deepwater projects and suspending drilling on 33 exploratory wells.
Interior Secretary Ken Salazar said in a statement late Tuesday that within the next few days he would issue a new order imposing a moratorium that eliminates any doubt it is needed and appropriate.
Several companies that ferry people and supplies and provide other services to offshore rigs argued that the moratorium was arbitrarily imposed after the April 20 explosion that killed 11 workers and blew out a well 5,000 feet underwater. It has spewed anywhere from 67 million to 127 million gallons of oil.
Feldman's 2008 financial disclosure report — the most recent available
— also showed investments in Ocean Energy, a Houston-based company, as well as Quicksilver Resources, Prospect Energy, Peabody Energy, Halliburton, Pengrowth Energy Trust, Atlas Energy Resources, Parker Drilling and others. Halliburton was also involved in the doomed Deepwater Horizon project.
Feldman did not respond to requests for comment and to clarify whether he still holds some or all of these investments.
Although Feldman ruled in favor of oil interests Tuesday, one expert said his reasoning appeared sound because the six-month ban was overly broad.
"There's been some concern that he is biased toward the industry, but I don't see it in this opinion," said Tim Howard, a Northeastern University law professor who also represents businesses and people claiming economic losses in several spill-related lawsuits. "They overreacted and just shut an industry down, rather than focusing on where the problems are."
That was what Feldman essentially said in his ruling, writing that the blanket moratorium "seems to assume that because one rig failed and although no one yet fully knows why, all companies and rigs drilling new wells over 500 feet also universally present an imminent danger."
Feldman's ruling prohibits federal officials from enforcing the moratorium until a trial is held. He wrote: "If some drilling equipment parts are flawed, is it rational to say all are? Are all airplanes a danger because one was? All oil tankers like Exxon Valdez? All trains? All mines? That sort of thinking seems heavy-handed, and rather overbearing."
At least two major oil companies, Shell and Marathon, said they would wait to see how the appeals play out before resuming drilling.
Read more from this Tulsa World article at http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?subjectid=13&articleid=20100623_13_0_NEWORL594955
I think Feldman's ruling was sound, if you apply the logic of what if we had shut down the entire oil tanker inudstry when Exxon Valdez went aground. I do agree more needs to be done to understand precisely what happened and how to prevent this from happening ever again and honestly putting a moratorium on deepwater drilling until there are sufficient answers is rational. However, setting a six month time-line was quite arbitrary.
If someone could build a better blow-out preventer, they could make a huge fortune on it.
33 wells is not by any means an entire industry. It makes for a great sound bite, though.
Hey! I just found out that I have some RIG stock too. I suppose I should refrain from any additional commentary.
For some reason I didn't make the RIG/Transocean connection.
Quote from: Gaspar on June 23, 2010, 10:09:46 AM
Hey! I just found out that I have some RIG stock too. I suppose I should refrain from any additional commentary.
For some reason I didn't make the RIG/Transocean connection.
As long as you're not making legal decisions that directly affect the value of that stock, I think you're fine. ;)
Quote from: nathanm on June 23, 2010, 10:04:54 AM
33 wells is not by any means an entire industry. It makes for a great sound bite, though.
How good a sound bite would it be if you were one of the 10,000 or so facing extinction of their job?
"Drilling suspension will result in a loss of thousands of Louisiana jobs in the first two to three weeks and possibly over 10,000 in a few months."
http://nicedeb.wordpress.com/2010/06/23/the-george-sorosdrilling-moratorium-connection/
Quote from: Conan71 on June 23, 2010, 10:14:06 AM
How good a sound bite would it be if you were one of the 10,000 or so facing extinction of their job?
"Drilling suspension will result in a loss of thousands of Louisiana jobs in the first two to three weeks and possibly over 10,000 in a few months."
They're not facing extinction of their job, they're facing 5 more months without work. I grant that it's not their fault and hope they're able to draw enough unemployment (and emergency compensation from BP) to get them through the period.
I don't think there's anyone arguing that new rules don't need to be implemented. Why would we let companies start new wells when we don't have mechanisms in place to ensure their environmental safety nor the resources to handle another deep water blowout?
Quote from: nathanm on June 23, 2010, 12:14:17 PM
They're not facing extinction of their job, they're facing 5 more months without work. I grant that it's not their fault and hope they're able to draw enough unemployment (and emergency compensation from BP) to get them through the period.
I don't think there's anyone arguing that new rules don't need to be implemented. Why would we let companies start new wells when we don't have mechanisms in place to ensure their environmental safety nor the resources to handle another deep water blowout?
If the rigs go to Brazil, China, or elsewhere to get work, their job goes with it. It's costly to have the equipment sitting around so it's got to be producing a return by drilling. Then what happens is transportation companies, provisioners, and other vendors lose business which would have gone to those 33 rigs which are now off somewhere else.
I agree we need to have a grasp on what happened to help prevent something like this from ever happening again. I think most of the answers are known at this point and that the blow-out preventer was not properly operated. I have no problem with a cautious approach to further drilling but turning it into political theater by creating arbitrary deadlines like six months doesn't necessarily ensure anything other than 10,000 people sitting on their hands drawing up government unemployment benefits from an already dry treasury.
Quote from: Conan71 on June 23, 2010, 12:22:12 PM
If the rigs go to Brazil, China, or elsewhere to get work, their job goes with it. It's costly to have the equipment sitting around so it's got to be producing a return by drilling. Then what happens is transportation companies, provisioners, and other vendors lose business which would have gone to those 33 rigs which are now off somewhere else.
I agree we need to have a grasp on what happened to help prevent something like this from ever happening again. I think most of the answers are known at this point and that the blow-out preventer was not properly operated. I have no problem with a cautious approach to further drilling but turning it into political theater by creating arbitrary deadlines like six months doesn't necessarily ensure anything other than 10,000 people sitting on their hands drawing up government unemployment benefits from an already dry treasury.
It's not arbitrary at all, though. As I've mentioned repeatedly, Obama has said that it's an estimate of how long it will take to come up with the new regulations and testing procedures, and that if that is done before the six months is up, the moratorium will be lifted early.
Also, these drill ships, they move. Just as they can move to Brazil, they can move back here when there's business here to be done. IIRC, Q4000 (it could have been one of the other recently arrived ships) was somewhere across the Atlantic when the blowout happened, yet now it's in the GoM flaring oil and gas.
Quote from: nathanm on June 23, 2010, 12:25:11 PM
It's not arbitrary at all, though. As I've mentioned repeatedly, Obama has said that it's an estimate of how long it will take to come up with the new regulations and testing procedures, and that if that is done before the six months is up, the moratorium will be lifted early.
Also, these drill ships, they move. Just as they can move to Brazil, they can move back here when there's business here to be done. IIRC, Q4000 (it could have been one of the other recently arrived ships) was somewhere across the Atlantic when the blowout happened, yet now it's in the GoM flaring oil and gas.
If a drill ship starts drilling a hole elsewhere, they won't pull up stakes and rush back. It may well be committed for five years at a location.
Quote from: Conan71 on June 23, 2010, 12:28:48 PM
If a drill ship starts drilling a hole elsewhere, they won't pull up stakes and rush back. It may well be committed for five years at a location.
I don't think it takes five years to drill a well, even in a mile of water. Maybe I'm wrong about that.
Unless you think that the oil companies with leases in the GoM will be content to let them lie fallow out of spite?