This is not good....
#1
This is not good....
A Federal Appeals Court in Washington ruled that the Bush Admin did not do due diligence in studying enviromental impacts of oil and gas exploratory drilling on the outer continental shelf. They are basically shutting down a long term law allowing this exploratory drilling. The MMS (which issues lease permits, esp here off the Gulf Coast) has interpreted the ruling that all exploratory drilling cease under this law, which their legal counsel interpreted also.
In English: we're shut down baby. The Gulf of Mexico will not see any new leases for drilling until the Obama Admin reviews it.
Fortunately, we have lived in a bubble from the recession b/c we are a heavily dependant energy state. That bubble just burst. I would hate to speculate what this will do to pump prices, short or long term, but it cant be good.
BTW, three environmental activists brought the suit in AK worrying about global warming, polar bears and such.
This is not good...
In English: we're shut down baby. The Gulf of Mexico will not see any new leases for drilling until the Obama Admin reviews it.
Fortunately, we have lived in a bubble from the recession b/c we are a heavily dependant energy state. That bubble just burst. I would hate to speculate what this will do to pump prices, short or long term, but it cant be good.
BTW, three environmental activists brought the suit in AK worrying about global warming, polar bears and such.
This is not good...
#3
What the drilling industry doesnt get credit for is the leaps of enviromental technology they imploy now. Its practically silly the minimal impact of drilling oil exploration has on the environment compared to just 10 yrs ago. Hell, they clean up oil spills now in hours and days, not weeks and mos.
#5
#7
Trending Topics
#8
You know, it's always funny to me that people get all out of sorts about the profits that the Gas companies and their share holders get. They make anywhere from 3-9 cents a gallon profit, meanwhile, the government, who did absolutely nothing in the risk taking category with regards to investment and R&D and the like, and they make somewhere around 3 times the amount per gallon. People want to string up the gas company execs but do NOT want to hang our federal government....funny...or sad...both.
#9
#10
From Hugh Hewitt:
There are indications that some in the media are finally figuring out that the environmental movement is very serious when it says it intends to use the federal Endangered Species Act and the listings of the polar bear and other species to force regulation of many "lower 48" operations, especially those in the energy business. This article covers a recent gathering of ESA experts wherein the path forward that environmental activists envision was discussed:
Instead it has ceded the legal initiative to the very capable lawyers at the Center for Biological Diversity and other groups, and the rollout of the prevent-global-warming-via-the-ESA strategy is beginning. The impact on energy production across the U.S. will be to sharply curtail new exploration and production and to greatly increase the cost of existing production. Every time a federal permit is proposed that will facilitate energy production --or any carbon-releasing activity for that matter-- environmental activists will argue that an ESA mandated permitting process is required. This process, called a Section 7 consultation, is very time-consuming and mandates necessary "mitigations" that are imposed on the sought-after permit. Landowners have learned how to negotiate this regulatory maze in the past two decades, but the vast expansion of jurisdiction foreseen by the advocates of the polar bear and related listings will greatly increase the scope of the Act's reach and the workload on the Fish & Wildlife Service, not to mention the cost of each permit if a cost can even be calculated.
All of this fallout was easy to predict at the time the Bush Adminstration listed the polar bear last year, but the coverage of the controversy has resolutely refused to explain to the public the enormous price tag it will be paying for the use of ice coverage models in the listing process that were at best speculative and at worse wildly so.
TRANSLATED: You haven't seen anything yet. We all have to bend over, grab the ankles .....and enjoy it!
There are indications that some in the media are finally figuring out that the environmental movement is very serious when it says it intends to use the federal Endangered Species Act and the listings of the polar bear and other species to force regulation of many "lower 48" operations, especially those in the energy business. This article covers a recent gathering of ESA experts wherein the path forward that environmental activists envision was discussed:
Under most traditional interpretations of the Endangered Species Act, an agency like the Bureau of Indian Affairs would have to determine how much of an impact a new coal-fired power plant in New Mexico or Colorado has on polar bears near the North Pole and penguins in Antarctica.
The vexing question is how to measure the site-specific impacts of such a project on a global scale. Top conservation leaders like Kieran Suckling, director of the Center for Biological Diversity, said the federal government is legally obligated to do just that.
The about-to-be-impacted industries have adopted a "hear no evil, see no evil" approach, and have refused the sort of preemptive litigation strategy that would have defined the outer limits of the ESA's reach via test cases on carbon-emitting activities in industries unrelated to direct energy-production. Had the oil-and-gas industry brought suit, for example, to oblige a small airport expansion to conduct a Section 7 consultation, it could have begun to build a defense against overreaching by the Act's most aggressive proponents. The vexing question is how to measure the site-specific impacts of such a project on a global scale. Top conservation leaders like Kieran Suckling, director of the Center for Biological Diversity, said the federal government is legally obligated to do just that.
Instead it has ceded the legal initiative to the very capable lawyers at the Center for Biological Diversity and other groups, and the rollout of the prevent-global-warming-via-the-ESA strategy is beginning. The impact on energy production across the U.S. will be to sharply curtail new exploration and production and to greatly increase the cost of existing production. Every time a federal permit is proposed that will facilitate energy production --or any carbon-releasing activity for that matter-- environmental activists will argue that an ESA mandated permitting process is required. This process, called a Section 7 consultation, is very time-consuming and mandates necessary "mitigations" that are imposed on the sought-after permit. Landowners have learned how to negotiate this regulatory maze in the past two decades, but the vast expansion of jurisdiction foreseen by the advocates of the polar bear and related listings will greatly increase the scope of the Act's reach and the workload on the Fish & Wildlife Service, not to mention the cost of each permit if a cost can even be calculated.
All of this fallout was easy to predict at the time the Bush Adminstration listed the polar bear last year, but the coverage of the controversy has resolutely refused to explain to the public the enormous price tag it will be paying for the use of ice coverage models in the listing process that were at best speculative and at worse wildly so.
TRANSLATED: You haven't seen anything yet. We all have to bend over, grab the ankles .....and enjoy it!
#11
If this happens Jay, I wonder what it will cost us to bail out Shell, Mobil, etc? lol. If this happens, all the rigs will move over seas and we will be more dependant on foreign oil.
I don't think they will stop drilling right now. The majors have enough leases right now to last for a while. If you mean that no new leases will be sold. I dealt with MMS in the business I was in and they are just another government branch, most of them are a-holes anyway.
I don't think they will stop drilling right now. The majors have enough leases right now to last for a while. If you mean that no new leases will be sold. I dealt with MMS in the business I was in and they are just another government branch, most of them are a-holes anyway.
#12
You know, it's always funny to me that people get all out of sorts about the profits that the Gas companies and their share holders get. They make anywhere from 3-9 cents a gallon profit, meanwhile, the government, who did absolutely nothing in the risk taking category with regards to investment and R&D and the like, and they make somewhere around 3 times the amount per gallon. People want to string up the gas company execs but do NOT want to hang our federal government....funny...or sad...both.
#13
If this happens Jay, I wonder what it will cost us to bail out Shell, Mobil, etc? lol. If this happens, all the rigs will move over seas and we will be more dependant on foreign oil.
I don't think they will stop drilling right now. The majors have enough leases right now to last for a while. If you mean that no new leases will be sold. I dealt with MMS in the business I was in and they are just another government branch, most of them are a-holes anyway.
I don't think they will stop drilling right now. The majors have enough leases right now to last for a while. If you mean that no new leases will be sold. I dealt with MMS in the business I was in and they are just another government branch, most of them are a-holes anyway.
I wish Jindal would stand up to the country, tell 'em we're twisting the valve down about 50% and watch the ensuing panic up north. Better yet, do it in Nov right when their home heating oil business is picking up. Then people will wake the f%^$ up and say, hey, this stuff's pretty important.
#14
From Hugh Hewitt:
There are indications that some in the media are finally figuring out that the environmental movement is very serious when it says it intends to use the federal Endangered Species Act and the listings of the polar bear and other species to force regulation of many "lower 48" operations, especially those in the energy business. This article covers a recent gathering of ESA experts wherein the path forward that environmental activists envision was discussed:
Instead it has ceded the legal initiative to the very capable lawyers at the Center for Biological Diversity and other groups, and the rollout of the prevent-global-warming-via-the-ESA strategy is beginning. The impact on energy production across the U.S. will be to sharply curtail new exploration and production and to greatly increase the cost of existing production. Every time a federal permit is proposed that will facilitate energy production --or any carbon-releasing activity for that matter-- environmental activists will argue that an ESA mandated permitting process is required. This process, called a Section 7 consultation, is very time-consuming and mandates necessary "mitigations" that are imposed on the sought-after permit. Landowners have learned how to negotiate this regulatory maze in the past two decades, but the vast expansion of jurisdiction foreseen by the advocates of the polar bear and related listings will greatly increase the scope of the Act's reach and the workload on the Fish & Wildlife Service, not to mention the cost of each permit if a cost can even be calculated.
All of this fallout was easy to predict at the time the Bush Adminstration listed the polar bear last year, but the coverage of the controversy has resolutely refused to explain to the public the enormous price tag it will be paying for the use of ice coverage models in the listing process that were at best speculative and at worse wildly so.
TRANSLATED: You haven't seen anything yet. We all have to bend over, grab the ankles .....and enjoy it!
There are indications that some in the media are finally figuring out that the environmental movement is very serious when it says it intends to use the federal Endangered Species Act and the listings of the polar bear and other species to force regulation of many "lower 48" operations, especially those in the energy business. This article covers a recent gathering of ESA experts wherein the path forward that environmental activists envision was discussed:
Under most traditional interpretations of the Endangered Species Act, an agency like the Bureau of Indian Affairs would have to determine how much of an impact a new coal-fired power plant in New Mexico or Colorado has on polar bears near the North Pole and penguins in Antarctica.
The vexing question is how to measure the site-specific impacts of such a project on a global scale. Top conservation leaders like Kieran Suckling, director of the Center for Biological Diversity, said the federal government is legally obligated to do just that.
The about-to-be-impacted industries have adopted a "hear no evil, see no evil" approach, and have refused the sort of preemptive litigation strategy that would have defined the outer limits of the ESA's reach via test cases on carbon-emitting activities in industries unrelated to direct energy-production. Had the oil-and-gas industry brought suit, for example, to oblige a small airport expansion to conduct a Section 7 consultation, it could have begun to build a defense against overreaching by the Act's most aggressive proponents. The vexing question is how to measure the site-specific impacts of such a project on a global scale. Top conservation leaders like Kieran Suckling, director of the Center for Biological Diversity, said the federal government is legally obligated to do just that.
Instead it has ceded the legal initiative to the very capable lawyers at the Center for Biological Diversity and other groups, and the rollout of the prevent-global-warming-via-the-ESA strategy is beginning. The impact on energy production across the U.S. will be to sharply curtail new exploration and production and to greatly increase the cost of existing production. Every time a federal permit is proposed that will facilitate energy production --or any carbon-releasing activity for that matter-- environmental activists will argue that an ESA mandated permitting process is required. This process, called a Section 7 consultation, is very time-consuming and mandates necessary "mitigations" that are imposed on the sought-after permit. Landowners have learned how to negotiate this regulatory maze in the past two decades, but the vast expansion of jurisdiction foreseen by the advocates of the polar bear and related listings will greatly increase the scope of the Act's reach and the workload on the Fish & Wildlife Service, not to mention the cost of each permit if a cost can even be calculated.
All of this fallout was easy to predict at the time the Bush Adminstration listed the polar bear last year, but the coverage of the controversy has resolutely refused to explain to the public the enormous price tag it will be paying for the use of ice coverage models in the listing process that were at best speculative and at worse wildly so.
TRANSLATED: You haven't seen anything yet. We all have to bend over, grab the ankles .....and enjoy it!
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post