FNC Judge Rules against 6 Month offshore Moratorium

[NavyDave]

http://www.mercurynews.com/nation-world/ci_15348353?nclick_check=1

Judge block Gulf offshore drilling moratorium

By MICHAEL KUNZELMAN Associated Press Writer

Posted: 06/22/2010 12:01:49 AM PDT

Updated: 06/22/2010 10:56:10 AM PDT

Click photo to enlarge

Workers walk along a line of barges anchored in Pass Abel on the coast of Louisiana near Grand Isle, La., Monday, June 21, 2010. When completed, the barges, which will be lined up end-to-end, are expected to serve as a barrier against oil from the Deepwater Horizon oil spill from entering Barataria Bay.

NEW ORLEANS—A federal judge in New Orleans has blocked a six-month moratorium on new deepwater drilling projects that was imposed in response to the massive Gulf oil spill.

Several companies that ferry people and supplies and provide other services to offshore drilling rigs had asked U.S. District Judge Martin Feldman in New Orleans to overturn the moratorium.

President Barack Obama's administration has halted the approval of any new permits for deepwater drilling and suspended drilling at 33 exploratory wells in the Gulf.

Feldman says in his ruling that the Interior Department failed to provide adequate reasoning for the moratorium. He says it seems to assume that because one rig failed, all companies and rigs doing deepwater drilling pose an imminent danger.

[Predicto]

This ruling genuinely surprises me.

[SnyderShrugged]

This ruling genuinely surprises me.

really? The moratorium itself surprised me.

[Teller]

Offshore rigs are inherently safe. Their failure percentage is ridiculously low. But it's like fighting terrorism in a way. You can stop it 100 times, but if one 9/11 happens, the devastation is overwhelming.

I am very much in support of off-shore drilling, and even more so in support of on-shore drilling. But we cannot continue to accept the risk of catastrophic failures like the Deepwater Horizon rig. I feel like a six-month moratorium is a wise and prudent move; as much as it sucks for those who will be left temporarily unemployed.

I'm surprised by this ruling for sure.

[NavyDave]

This ruling genuinely surprises me.

Yeah at first I thought the Gulf was going to get the shaft if this went before an activist tree hugger judge.

But we know Obama admin is going to appeal this, so Soros may still have a chance to rake in more profits at our expense, if half the rigs relocate to Brazil

[ACW]

But we know Obama admin is going to appeal this, so Soros may still have a chance to rake in more profits at our expense, if half the rigs relocate to Brazil

:insane:

Dude, you GOTTA stop watching Glenn Beck.

[Predicto]

really? The moratorium itself surprised me.

A short moratorium, while they try to figure out exactly what happened, whether it could happen on other rigs, and how to ensure that is doesn't? That seems entirely reasonable to me. The standard is supposed to be "abuse of discretion," and I can't see an abuse here given the continuing uncertainties and our ongoing inablility to stop the one leak we already have.

"Feldman says in his ruling that the Interior Department failed to provide adequate reasoning for the moratorium. He says it seems to assume that because one rig failed, all companies and rigs doing deepwater drilling pose an imminent danger."

So make sure they don't, and then resume drilling.

[Predicto]

Yeah at first I thought the Gulf was going to get the shaft if this went before an activist tree hugger judge.

Oh, it definitely appears to have gone before an activist judge.

[Teller]

Yeah at first I thought the Gulf was going to get the shaft if this went before an activist tree hugger judge.

There's a huge difference between being an over-zealous tree hugger, and not wanting to see entire eco-systems destroyed. I'm certainly not a hardcore environmentalist (and I'm not particularly proud of that) but at some point, you have to understand that a temporary suspension of something you support isn't always a bad thing. And this is one of those times, IMO.

We need to pursue, aggressively, all forms of energy available to us here. We need to work hard for energy independence; as unrealistic as 100% independence may be. I don't think anyone on either side would argue that. But I am not willing to take this kind of risk with our water and our land. We need the appropriate safeties in place. It's jut that simple.

[Larry]

Yeah at first I thought the Gulf was going to get the shaft if this went before an activist tree hugger judge.

But we know Obama admin is going to appeal this, so Soros may still have a chance to rake in more profits at our expense, if half the rigs relocate to Brazil

:insane:

Dude, you GOTTA stop watching Glenn Beck.

NavyDave writes for Glenn Beck.

(Case y'all can't tell, I made that up.)

[NavyDave]

There's a huge difference between being an over-zealous tree hugger, and not wanting to see entire eco-systems destroyed. I'm certainly not a hardcore environmentalist (and I'm not particularly proud of that) but at some point, you have to understand that a temporary suspension of something you support isn't always a bad thing. And this is one of those times, IMO.

We need to pursue, aggressively, all forms of energy available to us here. We need to work hard for energy independence; as unrealistic as 100% independence may be. I don't think anyone on either side would argue that. But I am not willing to take this kind of risk with our water and our land. We need the appropriate safeties in place. It's jut that simple.

I'm for clean water, air and land as well but to artificially create an economic and energy crisis, to me is an impeachable offense.

We can have energy independence right now but the taxes to drill on land are such a disincentive that we go overseas and are taking chances to drill offshore and of course when places are found in remote places like Alaska plenty of silly excuses pop up to prevent exploration and drilling on land there.

We all know the plan is to make oil so expensive that we will demand an alternative to it and what exactly would it be that can meet our demands?

Its not going to be Nuclear even when places like France have a great track record using it, we know Wind is a joke as well as solar power.

Sea water powered energy makes the most sense to pursue, but governments will want to be able to tax it as much as they do a gallon of gas.

[NavyDave]

NavyDave writes for Glenn Beck.

(Case y'all can't tell, I made that up.)

Yeah so those google links to AP, Bloomberg and BBC as well as youtube when you use keywords Soros Brazilian oil or Obama 2 billion Brazilian oil are all on glenn beck?

[twa]

This ruling genuinely surprises me.

Surprised a judge listened to experts?

http://www.nola.com/news/t-p/frontpage/index.ssf?/base/news-14/1276064428189870.xml&coll=1

ADVISERS CITED BY SALAZAR SAY DRILLING BAN IS BAD IdEA

Consultants sign letter disavowing six-month ban

[ABQCOWBOY]

I think much of the problem here is that if we shut down off shore drilling for 6 months, it wont be temporary. Those drilling rigs will leave the gulf and get stood up in some other part of the world. They won't come back and neither will those jobs. That's what is at the root of the 6 month shut down IMO.

Probably didn't help that the pannel of experts, set up by the National Academy of Engineering didn't recommend a moratorium on deepwater drilling. Certainly didn't help that the Administration misrepresented the findings of that Pannel in order to pass a moratorium.

[Hubbs]

Yeah so those google links to AP, Bloomberg and BBC as well as youtube when you use keywords Soros Brazilian oil or Obama 2 billion Brazilian oil are all on glenn beck?

You're seriously making 9/11 Truthers look like the height of sanity and reason with this stuff.

[The Evil Genius]

Where is the phony OUTRAGE from some of the Right (here on the board) re: obstructionist judges?

Or does that only apply when they don't agree with court rulings?

:evilg:

edited to be more clear

[ABQCOWBOY]

Where is the phony OUTRAGE from the Right re: obstructionist judges?

Or does that only apply when they don't agree with court rulings?

:evilg:

I guess we need help. What is it that we are supposed to be outraged about?

[Teller]

I guess we need help. What is it that we are supposed to be outraged about?

Yeah, I don't get it either.

[HOF44]

The key in all this to me is drilling at that depth. In shallower water where measures can be taken if there is an accident is one thing, but this catastrophe has shown we do not have the necessary tech in place to drill at these depths. Until we do it needs to stop.

[The Evil Genius]

I guess we need help. What is it that we are supposed to be outraged about?

That judges interfered with executive rule. The outrage used to flood this board regularly under Dubya.

Despite the repeated explanations, from some here, that this was a normal process under our form of government.

So, where is the same outrage from those same people?

[Teller]

That judges interfered with executive rule. The outrage used to flood this board regularly under Dubya.

This member of the "right" happens to disagree with the ruling, but likes the idea of checks and balances. If that rubs you the wrong way, I'm sorry. :pfft:

[twa]

A better article

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-06-22/u-s-deepwater-oil-drilling-ban-lifted-today-by-new-orleans-federal-judge.html

“The court is unable to divine or fathom a relationship between the findings and the immense scope of the moratorium,” Feldman said in his 22-page decision. “The blanket moratorium, with no parameters, 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.”

U.S. Will Appeal

“The court cannot substitute its judgment for that of the agency, but the agency must ‘cogently explain why it has exercised its discretion in a given manner,’” Feldman said, citing a previous ruling. “It has not done so.”

The U.S. said it would appeal the decision.

[The Evil Genius]

A thought I had....if we had a major nuclear plant meltdown on US soil that resulted in the loss of life, etc... would it make sense to suspend all nuclear plants in the US from producing energy (or operating) for the next 6 months?

I really don't know if there is a correct answer to that situation. Nor do I think there is one for this situation.

[ABQCOWBOY]

That judges interfered with executive rule. The outrage used to flood this board regularly under Dubya.

Despite the repeated explanations, from some here, that this was a normal process under our form of government.

So, where is the same outrage from those same people?

The "Executive Rule" changed the findings of the Experts called in to determin if deepwater drilling should be stopped. The findings sited in the report are not valid and so, the basis on which the moritorium was set fourth are not valid. From what I can tell, the law simply corrected the situation.

[ABQCOWBOY]

The key in all this to me is drilling at that depth. In shallower water where measures can be taken if there is an accident is one thing, but this catastrophe has shown we do not have the necessary tech in place to drill at these depths. Until we do it needs to stop.

I don't know that this is correct. However, I will agree with you on the point of drilling in shallower water. I think that if anything, the rulings that prevent drilling in shallower water should be removed so that deeprilling doesn't have to be the only means available.