Merged Judge blocks moratorium on off-shore drilling

[thaiboxerken]

The permit was granted, the government gets to decide what is necessary for a permit. They're not allowed to retroactively change the rules.

They, however, able to retroactively revoke a permit to re-inspect.

 

[leftysergeant]

Of course they do! They just need to have some people who actually know what they're talking about give evidence for that. That's what the judgement is all about, you need to read it.

The evidence is killing all the life it touches on the beaches. Nuff said.

The permit was granted, the government gets to decide what is necessary for a permit. They're not allowed to retroactively change the rules.

Nobody is changing the rules. They are just taking a look to see which other rules are not being followed besides the ones that were ignored contrary to law.

(Corruption of a government agency is illegal, you know.)

The emregency plans they submitted were defective and the Shrub-era leftovers who signed off on the plans were on the take.

(There is reason to suspect that the judge who issued the injunction might be as well.)

 

[funk de fino]

The evidence is killing all the life it touches on the beaches. Nuff said.

This is an inaccurate post.

 

[defaultdotxbe]

The emregency plans they submitted were defective and the Shrub-era leftovers who signed off on the plans were on the take.

besides "bush orchestrated 9/11" is there any anti-right wing conspiracy theory you dont subscribe to?

 

[thaiboxerken]

besides "bush orchestrated 9/11" is there any anti-right wing conspiracy theory you dont subscribe to?

It's not a conspiracy theory that Bush/Cheney greatly let regulations slide in the oil industry.

 

[leftysergeant]

besides "bush orchestrated 9/11" is there any anti-right wing conspiracy theory you dont subscribe to?

Actually, I subscribe to very few conspiracy theories of any sort. I do, however, consider the drooling moron guilty of corrupting agencies and of allowing serious criminal activity within his administration, some of this criminal activity constituting war crimes as defined by the Geneva Conventions.

There is no question that he castrated the MMS and made it a lap dog of the industries it was supposed to regulate.

 

[Newtons Bit]

Nobody is changing the rules. They are just taking a look to see which other rules are not being followed besides the ones that were ignored contrary to law.

(Corruption of a government agency is illegal, you know.)

The emregency plans they submitted were defective and the Shrub-era leftovers who signed off on the plans were on the take.

The government did not make that argument. They're welcome to, but they didn't. The judge can't rule on arguments not made.

(There is reason to suspect that the judge who issued the injunction might be as well.)

He was a Reagan appointee.

 

[thaiboxerken]

He was a Reagan appointee.

Which is all the more reason to question the judge's decision.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

The permit was granted, the government gets to decide what is necessary for a permit. They're not allowed to retroactively change the rules.

They're not changing the rules, but they are indeed allowed to retroactively revoke or suspend permits in the interest of public safety.

Remember, at least part of the documentation that were submitted to win these permits have proven to be bogus by Congress' investigation into the matter. For example, it turned out that across the industry these contingency plans were worthless. Several of them just copied the same plans word for word for arctic drilling (they even mention walruses in contingency plans for Gulf of Mexico wells). BP's documentation claimed that for Deepwater Horizon they could handle up to a 120,000 barrels per day leak, and we know now that was a false claim.

But, so far, no one's talking about revoking these permits altogether. The moratorium would be for 6 months. I suspect if the investigation of BP were resolved and these contingency plans were worked out, drilling would be allowed to resume sooner.

 

[leftysergeant]

The government did not make that argument. They're welcome to, but they didn't. The judge can't rule on arguments not made.

He should not have ruled at all, if he has a stake in the outcome. There was evidence that the drilling was dangerous. He was only paying attention to the fact that it was expensive not to drill. He has no right to take that into consideration.

This was like accepting an argument that not every drunk driver is going to kill someone when deciding whether to dismiss a drunk-driving charge. So I got the wrong moron.

He was a Reagan appointee.

I figured it had to be one of two drooling morons who put the yutz on the bench. So I got the wrong moron. Mea minima culpa.

 

[Newtons Bit]

He should not have rules at all, if he has a stake in the outcome.

Evidence that he owns a stake in an oil service company?

He was only paying attention to the fact that it was expensive not to drill.

No, he did not.

READ THE RULING

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

He should not have ruled at all, if he has a stake in the outcome. There was evidence that the drilling was dangerous. He was only paying attention to the fact that it was expensive not to drill. He has no right to take that into consideration.

Good point. Even if the economy of a region were entirely dependent on a practice, that doesn't make the practice safe or legal or right.

I wonder how many drug dealers try that argument? "My drug dealing is bring
ing X dollars into the region, so you can't stop me."

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Good god man. BP pay Transocean approx $500,000 a day for the rig (thats down a far bit due to the downturn, it has been as much as $1 mil). Transocean are a US company with US employees. They also pay Halliburton money for services and other ROV companies, drillpipe companies, shipping companies.......... I could go on.

Yes, thank you. No need for the hostility.

So these rigs earn the rig owner $500,000 a day, some small portion of which trickles down into the regional economy. See the article I cited above that fact checks the hyperbolic claims of the economic effect of the moratorium.

ETA: And lest we make appeals to the plight of the workers affected, don't forget that BP must make payments to replace their incomes as well. They don't want to, but they do. So the part of that $500,000 per day per rig that would get into the hands of local workers is already being replaced.

However, if the permits were granted based on false documentation (bogus or non-viable contingency plans), it doesn't really matter how much money these things bring into the economy. The permits could be revoked altogether and those who filed the bogus plans and the regulators they were in bed with (again literally and figuratively) could all be prosecuted for crimes.

The profitability of a crime doesn't make it not criminal.

As has been pointed out, contrary to Feldman's opinion, the moratorium doesn't go nearly as far as it could. It's meant as a temporary measure to insure safety while the investigation continues.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Meanwhile, I still haven't found any other source that has the story I found yesterday on BBC saying that Salazar announced that he would simply issue a new moratorium order.

All I find about it on CNN is a couple of sentences in the more general story that says Feldman will likely decide today whether or not to stay his suspension of the moratorium pending the government's appeal of his decision to take place later this summer.
http://www.cnn.com/2010/US/06/24/gulf.oil.disaster/index.html?hpt=T2

So did the Beeb get the story wrong? How on earth could that happen? Surely someone wouldn't have made up the Salazar quote. Maybe they took it out of context and he was saying that issuing a new moratorium order is another option that they would use if Feldman doesn't go along with their request to let the moratorium go on pending the appeal.

Anyone have another other information?

 

[funk de fino]

Yes, thank you. No need for the hostility.

So these rigs earn the rig owner $500,000 a day, some small portion of which trickles down into the regional economy. See the article I cited above that fact checks the hyperbolic claims of the economic effect of the moratorium.

ETA: And lest we make appeals to the plight of the workers affected, don't forget that BP must make payments to replace their incomes as well. They don't want to, but they do. So the part of that $500,000 per day per rig that would get into the hands of local workers is already being replaced.

However, if the permits were granted based on false documentation (bogus or non-viable contingency plans), it doesn't really matter how much money these things bring into the economy. The permits could be revoked altogether and those who filed the bogus plans and the regulators they were in bed with (again literally and figuratively) could all be prosecuted for crimes.

The profitability of a crime doesn't make it not criminal.

As has been pointed out, contrary to Feldman's opinion, the moratorium doesn't go nearly as far as it could. It's meant as a temporary measure to insure safety while the investigation continues.

When someone tries to get you to stop digging because you are making a fool of yourself it is a good idea to take note. If I was being hostile you might have had a point. I was shocked at your ignorance. I was not attacking you.

PS - BP MUST not do anything. They are doing it becaue they have said they would. Unlike other companes in the past who turned up their noses and said "sue us". Then tied it up in courts for years.

Can you even find an Exxon apology?

There is only one lot of hyperbole going on here and it is your increasingly uninformed posts on the Oil industry. Small portion!! Too funny.

 

[leftysergeant]

Evidence that he owns a stake in an oil service company?

If he still owns any of the stocks in this article, he is corrupt, not allowed, by the canons of judicial conduct to even touch the case. Out of line if he even comments publicily. A sorry yutz if he even files an amicus brief. At worst, he has committed an impeachable offense and needs to go home and make room for an honest judge in that jurisdiction.

http://www.aolnews.com/gulf-oil-spi...xed-drilling-ban-has-oil-investments/19527477

No, he did not.

READ THE RULING

Too tedious. If he does owns the stocks described, it doesn't even matter what he ruled, or on what he claims to have based his decision. He committed a crime by accepting the case. At the very best, he created the appearance of a conflict of interest, thus eroding the integrity of the court.

He needs to be gone.

 

[Beerina]

So we can get a proper judge in there who will implement the outrage of the concrete canyon dwellers of the north?

 

[leftysergeant]

So we can get a proper judge in there who will implement the outrage of the concrete canyon dwellers of the north?

I would settle for one who is not a fully-owned subsidiary of private industry.

 

[quadraginta]

<snip>

Oil-poisoned fisheries might never rebound, for all human purposes. Once a species is gone, that's it. You do not risk destroying an irreplaceable resource to allow a small percentage of the world's population to continue to profit from the extraction of a resource we can learn to do without, especially if there are other sources of that resource.

<snip>

The evidence is killing all the life it touches on the beaches. Nuff said.


Nobody is changing the rules. They are just taking a look to see which other rules are not being followed besides the ones that were ignored contrary to law.

(Corruption of a government agency is illegal, you know.)

The emregency plans they submitted were defective and the Shrub-era leftovers who signed off on the plans were on the take.

(There is reason to suspect that the judge who issued the injunction might be as well.)

This is an inaccurate post.

The discussions of post-spill ecological recovery in the Persian Gulf (the worst spill in the world by an order of magnitude) have seemed to suggest that there is substantial recovery to fisheries in three or four years. I haven't uncovered any proof of species extinction from that spill, or any other.

One follow-up study of the Ixtoc spill that I found buried pretty deep in Googledom caught my eye because in addition to similar conclusions the author even went a little further and conjectured that the recovery was more largely attributable to the absence of pressures from over-harvesting for that period than to the passing of toxic effects from the spill.

Wouldn't it be ironic if the most useful lesson to be learned by the public from these spills is that a regular moratorium on commercial fishing is more important (and more productive) than offshore drilling bans.

Wetlands and estuary recovery may be more problematic, since the ecosystems involved may not be as robust, but if the U.S. public really wants to tackle that ogre there are much better targets than oil spills. The spills are garish and newsworthy, with lots of photo ops for the six o'clock alarmists, but they aren't where the main problems are to be found. The real culprits are in agri-business and real estate development ... much less photogenic, and more intimidating to local pols whose campaign money isn't as dependent on the petroleum industries.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

PS - BP MUST not do anything. They are doing it becaue they have said they would. Unlike other companes in the past who turned up their noses and said "sue us". Then tied it up in courts for years.

Don't worry, that will happen too. My understanding is the settlements being paid out now will not sign away anyone's right to sue. They're being given because BP knows there's no point in contesting them since they are liable, and is desperately attempting to protect its public image.