Merged Judge blocks moratorium on off-shore drilling

[JoeTheJuggler]

Bumping this thread up because the appeal starts today.

http://www.cnn.com/2010/US/07/08/gulf.oil.disaster/index.html?hpt=T2

 

[funk de fino]

You're defending Feldman's decision to stop the moratorium. That decision is based in part on the knowledge we all have now that the contingency plans provided by the oil companies in order to get these permits were bunk. The estimates were not at all reasonable reflections of the capabilities of the oil companies to handle an emergency like this.

Those of us who support the moratorium figured this out before the NEXT spill.

To answer your question: I don't think I ever claimed you held any particular position on the moratorium. If I did, perhaps you can quote where I did so. If I said that (and I don't believe I did), then I take it back. I think in one of your first posts on the thread you said the moratorium was probably a good idea (or something like that).

See first accusation. Then see the follow up posting as if I was not one of those supporting the halt.

I have numerous times posted that I support the moratorium, and another poster even pulled you up earlier for misrepresenting my position.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

You're absolutely right. We cant "guarantee the safety on other rigs operating in the Gulf."
We also can't guarantee the safety of aircraft, automobiles, dish washers, surgery, food, water supplies, or crossing the street, even with the "walk" light.

I'm not talking about guaranteeing that accidents never happen. I'm talking about having no plan to deal with accidents when they happen. (Though I agree with what others have said that BP should be held accountable for their negligence in allowing what should have been a preventable accident from happening.) Again, this contingency plan was part of the requirement for a permit. BP (and most if not all of the other companies) have no viable contingency plans.

Again, the congressional investigation turned up references to walruses in the Gulf of Mexico and a guy who's been dead for years listed as an emergency contact name. What they turned in as contingency plans were IMO fraudulent documents.

What are we at now, the 80th or so day the leak has been spewing oil into the Gulf? If this were acceptable, then there would have been no need to require documented contingency plans.

 

[leftysergeant]

We do not know exactly why the blow-out occurred. We do know that proper proiceures were nhot followed, but we cannot even be sure that the proper procedures would have worked or can work universally.

We know that the existibng permits were issued and inspected by an agency totally corrupted by eight years of criminally negligent management from the White House down.

Six months is not a long time to take to examine whether we have more time bombs waiting to go off.

We cannot afford to err on the side of optimism.

We can live without Gulf oil.

We can't live without a healthy ocean. The judge is an idiot.

 

[WildCat]

Bumping this thread up because the appeal starts today.

http://www.cnn.com/2010/US/07/08/gulf.oil.disaster/index.html?hpt=T2

And has been rejected:

A federal appeals panel on Thursday upheld a district judge's order to block the Obama administration's six-month ban on deepwater drilling in the Gulf of Mexico.

In a brief ruling just a few hours after the hearing, the three-judge appellate panel denied the government's request to reinstate the moratorium while the full appeal of the case continues.

http://www.cnn.com/2010/US/07/08/oil.drilling.moratorium/?hpt=T2

 

[leftysergeant]

I wonder how many of the judges on the appeals court have hidden ties to oil companies.

 

[Beerina]

You all know statistically, there isn't much chance of a similar problem in the short term, especially for different technologies from other companies. The ban is somewhat reactionary based on that alone.

 

[Newtons Bit]

I wonder how many of the judges on the appeals court have hidden ties to oil companies.

Two choices:
1) The governments arguments were lacking.
2) The judges have some super secret ties and are part of a conspiracy with oil companies.

Hmm....

 

[AlBell]

Two choices:
1) The governments arguments were lacking.

Given a DOJ staff courtesy of Affirmative Action (and I suppose Community Organizing) would that be surprising?

2) The judges have some super secret ties and are part of a conspiracy with oil companies.

Hmm....

What a great idea! Probably not true, unfortunately.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

And has been rejected:

http://www.cnn.com/2010/US/07/08/oil.drilling.moratorium/?hpt=T2

Actually, the appeal was not rejected (or argued yet).

I was mistaken. What was argued and decided yesterday was a motion to allow the moratorium to go into effect while the appeal proceeds.

In fact, I agree with the panel's decision. It was basically this: none of these projects are currently drilling so a moratorium right now would be moot. If and when one of these projects starts up again, the panel will allow the government to ask again (make a new motion) for the temporary reinstatement of the moratorium while the appeal goes forward, and they have agreed to expedite hearing the arguments and making the decision on that motion, so the effect could be the same as if the moratorium were temporarily reinstated right now. (That is, there is nothing to lose by NOT allowing the motion to temporarily reinstate the moratorium. Since there's nothing to be gained, the court cannot err by doing nothing--that is, rejecting the motion.)

ETA: From the article WildCat cited (my bolding):

In a brief ruling just a few hours after the hearing, the three-judge appellate panel denied the government's request to reinstate the moratorium while the full appeal of the case continues.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Two choices:
1) The governments arguments were lacking.
2) The judges have some super secret ties and are part of a conspiracy with oil companies.

Hmm....

3) The appeal has not concluded yet, and this ruling was merely on a motion to temporarily reinstate the moratorium while the appeal goes forward.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Of course, it made me wonder why these projects didn't start up again the minute Feldman made his ruling. (After all, opponents of the moratorium claim that there's a tremendous and gigantic economic impact even for a 6 month moratorium on these projects, so it seems to me that they wouldn't want to waste a minute starting up.)

I can only speculate that the reason is that there might be great costs with starting and then stopping again, and the oil companies involved are prudently waiting to see how the appeal goes before they commit resources to starting up again. But that's just a not-very-educated guess on my part.

ETA: I just heard something on the news, and it sounds like I was pretty close. They said since the Obama administration is considering making a new moratorium order (with narrower specifications that might satisfy Feldman's decision--the story I saw on BBC some time ago--see above in this thread), oil companies are considering whether to send their drilling equipment elsewhere to avoid having them sit idle.

 

[AlBell]

Of course, it made me wonder why these projects didn't start up again the minute Feldman made his ruling. (After all, opponents of the moratorium claim that there's a tremendous and gigantic economic impact even for a 6 month moratorium on these projects, so it seems to me that they wouldn't want to waste a minute starting up.

I can only speculate that the reason is that there might be great costs with starting and then stopping again, and the oil companies involved are prudently waiting to see how the appeal goes before they commit resources to starting up again. But that's just a not-very-educated guess on my part.

Congratulations. You are correct.

ETA: I just heard something on the news, and it sounds like I was pretty close. They said since the Obama administration is considering making a new moratorium order (with narrower specifications that might satisfy Feldman's decision--the story I saw on BBC some time ago--see above in this thread), oil companies are considering whether to send their drilling equipment elsewhere to avoid having them sit idle.

Happening now, and once deepwater rigs are offshore Brazil, W.Africa, or elsewhere out of the Gulf, they will not be returning anytime soon due to cost reasons coupled with longterm contract obligations.

Just the threat of a moratorium is as good the real thing in stopping deepwater drilling in the Gulf for probably years.

 

[leftysergeant]

Great news. Obama won. There will not be another new deep water rig until we have some answers. The public interest is served in spite of the rightwhacker judge.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Congratulations. You are correct.

Well that happens once in a very great while. You know--stopped clock and all that.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Just the threat of a moratorium is as good the real thing in stopping deepwater drilling in the Gulf for probably years.

I'd bet against that prediction. I'd say no more than a year. (Remember, the original moratorium called for 6 months.)

I think if we tighten up oversight, they'll restart when they're confident everything is good to go.

 

[thaiboxerken]

We've had moratoriums of similar or greater scale and the Republicans didn't complain then. They didn't seem to stop oil companies from coming back after the moratoriums were lifted either.

 

[rwguinn]

I'd bet against that prediction. I'd say no more than a year. (Remember, the original moratorium called for 6 months.)

I think if we tighten up oversight, they'll restart when they're confident everything is good to go.

Yeah.
They'll let multi-tens-of-millions of dollars of equipment sit idle just to see which way the US jumps.
Or maybe they'll transport 'em somewhere else and drill there.
And who's going to build one on spec, in case the US gets its act together in as short a time as a year?

 

[AlBell]

I'd estimate building a replacement of the Deepwater Horizon drillship will cost $1 billion+- and a couple years on an expedited basis. Existing GOM shipyards would have to be expanded significantly to "do it ourselves"; that would be some useful economic stimulus.

Perhaps nationalizing US deepwater areas (to provide a US equity interest in future efforts) is a possible answer.

 

[quadraginta]

Yeah.
They'll let multi-tens-of-millions of dollars of equipment sit idle just to see which way the US jumps.
Or maybe they'll transport 'em somewhere else and drill there.
And who's going to build one on spec, in case the US gets its act together in as short a time as a year?

I suppose they could head to Venezuela.