Slashdot Mirror
Louisiana Federal Judge Blocks Drilling Moratorium
eldavojohn writes "In the ongoing BP debacle, the Obama administration imposed a six-month moratorium on offshore drilling and a halt to 33 exploratory wells going into the Gulf of Mexico. Now a federal judge (in New Orleans, no less) is unsatisfied with the reasons for this and stated, 'An invalid agency decision to suspend drilling of wells in depths of over 500 feet simply cannot justify the immeasurable effect on the plaintiffs, the local economy, the Gulf region, and the critical present-day aspect of the availability of domestic energy in this country.' The state's governor agrees on the grounds that blocking drilling will cost the state thousands of lucrative jobs." The government quickly vowed to appeal, pointing out that a moratorium on 33 wells is unlikely to have a devastating impact in a region hosting 3,600 active wells. And reader thomst adds this insight on the judge involved in the case: "Yahoo's Newsroom is reporting that the judge who overturned the drilling moratorium holds stock in drilling companies. You can view his financial disclosure forms listing his stock holdings online at Judicial Watch (PDF)."
Yahoo's Newsroom is reporting that the judge who overturned the drilling moratorium holds stock in drilling companies.
No conflict of interest here, no sir...
This ain't rocket surgery.
The above quote should read "a moratorium on 33 drilling wells". Drilling wells are a rate (ie 33 wells per month), active wells are a stock. The distinction is important. The vast majority of oil and gas jobs are involved in the drilling and completion process. Operating a well after it has been completed requires very little resources. For example, a typical onshore well may cost $2-3 million to drill and complete in a 14-30 day time period, but only cost around $2,000/month to operate after completion.
Please note that I'm not saying a drilling moratorium should not be passed. Just that the moratorium will likely have significant impact on the Gulf economy, and that the state of Louisiana's concerns are quite valid, and that the Federal government's dismissal of them here is misleading and likely inaccurate.
No mention in the link about the "experts" that the administration consulted coming out and saying they don't support the ban and that the administration misrepresented their position. http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/jun/22/judge-halts-obamas-oil-drilling-ban/
I honestly don't think this will be much of an issue. You've seen what happened to BP. If you're a deep water drilling company and you don't have all your ducks in a row after that, you're an idiot. So Obama's reasoning for the moratorium, until the safety measures can be re-evaluated, is redundant because these companies had better be at the forefront of responsibility without further external incentives.
Kind of like how Ford, GM, and Honda were probably double and triple checking their acceleration systems after Toyota's little stint in the headlines recently.
What doesn't kill you only delays the inevitable
Having worked in nuclear power for 25+ years I know something about how accidents happen and how to prevent them. This event was a total institutional failure. BP failed, the MMS failed, the other oil companies and supporting companies failed. This is epic failure like we haven't seen since Chernobyl, worse in my view because the reactor (in this case, the well) is still critical, still on fire, and a mile under water. The blow out preventers have been shown to not work, the emergency plan has been shown to be a fraud (walruses anyone - dead people phone numbers anyone, buhler?) the technology to respond to blowouts and 10-100,000 barrel a day leaks simply does not exist, and the regulator might have well been saboteurs for all the good they did. A 6 month moratorium is not even close to enough time to fix these problems. But I would put the ball back in the industry's court, my solution would be to make 10CFR50 App B (nuclear power regulation for quality) apply to deep well drilling and tell the industry they can start drilling as soon as their CEO states under oath or affirmation (i.e. lie and its a crime) that their rigs comply. Safely handling high hazards ain't new, many industries do a fine job - BP has proven it can't and by the above revelations we have no assurance that Exxon, Shell, Halliburton or anyone else can either. Shutting down a few wells will hurt the economy of Louisiana and I say tough shit until you fix your problem. But on the other hand I never saw so many people working at a nuke like the ones that have been shut down for safety problems. Once the oil companies see what they have to do to get their practices fixed there will be many many many jobs for the people that will be doing the fixing.
Oil industry apologists are saying we're all being whining, ungrateful children because we reap the benefits of cheap energy but bash the poor, hard-working people who put the gas in our cars. But what they don't mention is the fantastic amount of money spent buying this oil-dependent reality in the first place. From buying politicians to clouding the issues in the public forum to preventing research in clean alternatives. It's a sick, terrible system. And it's impossible to use the tools of democracy to fix it because even when we try to vote for change it's bait and switch.
The thing that gets me is how the writing can be plain on the wall and people who don't know better take their cue from people who do know better but whose financial best interests depend on pretending they don't. "Global warming is just a theory! It's still debatable!" Yeah, about as debatable as the theory that tobacco is a carcinogen. Hell, we can even get Republican presidents to mouth the words "oil addiction" and "we need to kick the habit." We just can't get anyone -- reps or dems -- to do a fucking thing about it. They're both beholden to the special interests.
I can't even begin to fathom that latest talking point, Obama's being mean to BP. Chicago-style takedown! What the fuck?! And I bet you're still upset about those fucking Eskimos beating up on poor ol' Exxon for all those decades trying to get the money they've been promised. $20 billion is going to be a drop in the bucket for all the damages wracked up and there will never be a full accounting. Most victims will never be made whole.
From the bleating on the right, you'd think that Obama had nationalized BP, crucified their board of directors on a line of crosses on a tarred beach, and signed an executive order to go to 100% renewables before 2012. If only! I'm actually pissed at how anemic his response has been. No, he can't snap his fingers and make the well go shut, he can't stand on the heads of the engineers and make them work faster but he could at least help unsnarl the clusterfuck that is the disaster response. He could take BP's management out of the loop on disaster mitigation. He could put the environmental experts in the control room so they can get the unfiltered information from the well head minus the BP spin. At the very least he could prevent the BP contractors from burning the sea turtles.
Yeah, yeah, mod me down. Go and confirm exactly what I'm saying.
Kwisatz Haderach
Sell the spice to CHOAM
This Mahdi took Shaddam's Throne
We can argue day and night about whether more drilling is a good idea. But that's not the question -- the real question is:
Does the law give the President the power to impose a moratorium in this situation?
If not, then it doesn't matter whether it was a good idea or not. The President is not a King or an Emperor. He does not have the authority to decree how things should be, no matter how mad he is or how great of an idea his decree is.
I apologize, I do not want to live in a country where anytime a citizen or a corporation does something that is legitimately wrong is subject to some sort of political pressure that is again in my words amounts to a shakedown. So I apologize.
For the record, even Fox News has his statement. Many of his fellow Republicans were ashamed of his original statement. They even continued to be ashamed of his spoken statement and he later sent out a written statement in an attempt to appease members of his own party. Rep. Barton's statements were completely self serving considering he is on the House Energy and Commerce Committee as well as a very large recipient of big oil and BP's campaign donations. Even more so, if you take his statement for face value, he is saying that nobody should ever be punished for their misdeeds.
Maybe because it hasn't been exploding every day for three months and promising to do so for at least another four, affecting the fishing and tourism industries of four states?
But really, I don't think you want to hitch your rhetorical wagon to Massey Mining. They have more safety violations than BP, and their CEO should be in goddam jail.
"I guess the moral of the story is, don't paint your airship with rocket fuel." -- Addison Bain
First, a disclaimer.
I happen to live on planet Earth. I am, therefore, somewhat biased to protect it. This bias may affect my perception of decisions, such as drilling oil wells that could have "immeasurable effects" on the ecology of the drilling site if done wrong.
Now, this article summary, and the statement from the judge, shows clearly in my opinion why we should never use the word immeasurable as a way to justify one action or another. It seems the opposition quite quickly was able to measure the impact, and the impact is about 1%. The first oil company willing to pledge enough cash to completely recover from a second disaster like the BP one, I'd say happy drilling. Until then, we need to suspend drilling holes at depths where we aren't technologically far enough along to fix things if they go wrong.
It does surprise me, that we've found the technology to destroy this planet hundreds of times over with nuclear energy, but we can't plug a hole a mile underwater. Kinda leads you to which way this planet's headed.
You can get 15 minutes of fame, but you can go down in history for infamy.
I've been waiting for someone to bring up this argument. It is completely flawed. If someone doesn't drill a well the oil doesn't magically disappear. If someone doesn't know how to drill a well without flooding the gulf with it they need to get the fuck out of the business. Another rig will be right behind them. If not, the oil isn't going anywhere.
Having to work for a living is the root of all evil.
LOL, tool.
Exactly what are you laughing at? A year ago, the common wisdom -- particularly on towards the right side of the political spectrum -- was that environmental concerns are just handwringing by whacko liberal moonbats, that increased offshore drilling is a necessary part of a comprehensive energy plan, that it would help reduce our dependency on foreign oil (somehow, magically, despite the fact that in free market system it all goes on the global market anyway), and that The Industry can be trusted to self-regulate.
Hell, if you read this thread, you'll *still* see people saying the industry can be trusted to self-regulate... it'll all take care of itself, don't you worry now.
You know what's behind this? You know that meme that probably more than half of slashdot FIRMLY believes -- that the private sector is always more competent than the public? That the public sector can't do anything right, can't regulate correctly, can't do anything other than act as a net negative drag on the private sector?
Yeah. Obama the radical socialist that he is? He partially believed that too. He believe what he was told by the executive apparatus and the oil companies -- that the oil companies had top expertise, that they knew exactly what they were doing, that they had safety dialed in and had right incentives to behave without further regulation. And, of course, that there wasn't massive regulatory capture during a presidential administration headed up by two guys who've been Oil guys for a long time.
What would be funny if it weren't so utterly pathetic and gravely consequential for the future of our society is that even though Obama has apparently learned his lessons, there's millions who won't.
Funny how it's playing out that way in financial regulation, too. We're all going to be asked to believe that cosmetic choices that won't cause any real pain for Wall Street are the best way to go -- and after all, the bankers and finance guys are the industry experts, so who better to advise us? We certainly wouldn't want meddling outsider officeholders drafting legislation about an industry they know little about without heavily consulting the industry about the best path, right? We wouldn't want heavy government involvement, anyway. That's a drag on The Market at best... and Socialism at worst.
You're going to hear this stuff. Again. And Again. Lots of times between now and the election. Some of you with fiscal conservative tendencies are going to fall for it. Some of you with libertarian tendencies are going to fall for it hook, line, and sinker. If enough of you fall for it, we're going to be here again in 5-10 years, same people saying loudly that the real problem was government meddling, socialism, we should have just let the private sector work. And the same actors in the private system will be racing their yachts and walking away with billions while socialized environmental and financial cleanup costs mount, one way or another.
Well, that's what you'll hear from some commentators. From others, you'll hear "LOL, tool."
Tweet, tweet.
The magazine frowns upon all these things and it makes some sense. If, as The Economist suggests, BP's value has already dropped by $89 billion and that's "far in excess of all but the most dire forecasts of the ultimate costs of the spill," what is to be gained by all this backlash against the oil industry but a bunch of political posturing?
If a reduction in market capitalization was an actual expense for BP, this would be a moderately reasonable point.
Since that's absolutely not the case, then the point of the backlash is to ensure that BP actually pays the price for the spill, with the result that they and other companies are actually driven to improve their safety procedures and more importantly follow those procedures that they already should have been.
All that $89 billion means for BP is that they're a somewhat easier target for a stock buyout. It means that the fraction of their own stock that they own is less valuable, so if they were planning on any acquisitions using stock it's going to be more costly as long as the stock price is low. It means anyone who plans on cashing out their holdings in BP right now will make less money. It's not insignificant from a larger corporate strategy perspective, but it's actual impact to BP is nothing like what an actual $89 billion actually suggests.
Shame on The Freaking Economist for suggesting otherwise.
News flash: The United States is still inexorably reliant on its oil industry. If the Obama administration wants to do something about future oil disasters, maybe it should think more seriously about that and what can be done about it.
Like developing alternative energy sources from solar to nuclear, and encouraging the development and adoption of fuel efficient and preferably electric vehicles? Yeah, that's being done. I'm sure more can be done. I'm all for it. I hope you are too.
Also, had government done a better job of regulating the oil industry in the first place, BP's shoddy practices might not have gone unchecked and this disaster might never have happened.
Yes, that's very true. Who would have thought that doing everything possible to deregulate, and the underlying philosophy that regulation is unnecessary, would result in insufficient regulatory action?
Unfortunately firing the new MMS head for not cleaning up the cesspool of corruption and deliberate inefficacy that she inherited was only just the beginning of a long, long road to fixing this.
The enemies of Democracy are
>>>Consider this week the news is full of European countries enacting substantial budget cuts. We know that's the wrong thing to do.
"We" do? Not all of us agree. I'd estimate about 1/3rd of economists say cutting spending & taxes is the Correct thing to do, because it frees excess money to the private sector who can use it to invest in new factories and jobs and personal goods. In fact that's why the Depression of 1921 only lasted a year - the government cut spending/taxes and it freed-up money to be invested (at the corporate level) and spent (at the consumer level).
The EU states are doing precisely the right thing according to the Hayek, Friedman, and Austrian economic models.
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
Yes, Keynesian economic policies were recently practically killed by - believe it or not - a group of Harvard economists. Here is a link to the paper. It turns out that if you measure the economic effect of government spending, that effect is net lower employment, net lower commerce, and net lower investment.
Essentially, no one in their right mind competes with someone supported by the government.
while (sig==sig) sig=!sig;