A federal judge in New Orleans issued an injunction against a
six-month moratorium on new deep-water oil and gas drilling
projects that was imposed by the Obama administration after
an explosion on a drilling rig led to a vast oil spill in the
Gulf of Mexico, the Associated Press reported.
I am sure some of you will blame Obama for this, well guess what, it is not his fault, find someone else to blame.
The courts over ruled the President and are allowing them to continue to drill.
Thank god someone has half a brain!
Half a brain? Gotta be a conservative judge!
Of course, the fact the Judge was appointed by Reagan, and holds a sizeable interest in Haliburton had absolutely nothing to do with it. We all know the political innocence to Louisiana -- that banana republic attached just below Mississippi.
Folks, as a resident of the Gulf, I can assure you; there are more things at stake here than you can possibly imagine -- nor can Glenn Beck by the sounds of it.
Agreed. 'Bout time someone used some common sense. You don't kill all your chickens 'cause one took a dump in your yard.
You expect me to answer your questions when you ignore mine? LOLOLOL! Troll on!
The judge who overturned the moratorium owns substantial amounts of stock in a variety of companies involved in offshore oil drilling, including Transocean, Halliburton, BlackRock, and JP Morgan Chase. (The latter two are two of BP's largest private shareholders.)
http://thinkprogress.org/2010/06/22/jud … portfolio/
Another perfect example of how power (and money) corrupts. Tood bad you can't see the same in the Obama administration.
As I've said elsewhere, Obama's flip-flop on offshore oil drilling has been one of the major disappointments of his presidency so far, for me, and I have been consistently critical of his actions in relation to offshore drilling ever since. The moratorium is one of the few things I think he's done right, given the obvious inability of the oil companies to deal with disaster when disaster strikes (as it will again - blowout preventers have a 28% fail rate), so I'm not pleased to see it overturned by a judge with vested financial interest in the continuation of drilling.
I'm not prepared to judge whether or not Obama has a financial interest in the Brazil deal - I need to do more research first. I wouldn't be surprised, but at the present time I think it is more likely that it is just a cynical attempt to push the social and environmental consequences of the US's addiction to cheap oil onto someone else, as we've done in Nigeria for decades.
The world would be much better served if he were pushing conservation and alternative energy sources instead of more oil resources to exploit, but I don't think he has the guts to do it. Asking the American people to sacrifice anything is political suicide.
http://community.livejournal.com/ontd_p … 77765.html
"a judge with vested financial interest in the continuation of drilling. "
Thousands and thousands of workers, and the nation as a whole, have a vested interest
Yes but the money interests of government trups that of the people and Obama is going to lead us into what benefits he and his friends no matter what!
True, but thousands and thousands of workers, and the nation as a whole, also have a vested interest in a clean, living Gulf.
We can keep supporting drilling knowing that it's only a matter of time before there's another major disaster, or we can start moving people from dirty, polluting industries that destroy ecosystems, livelihoods, and lives, to clean industries that save them. I think it's long past time.
And YOU don't mind that in the meantime those thousands and thousands and thousands can't feed their families? Oh wait, the 'gubment' will take care of them, right?
I certainly do mind, but I don't think offshore oil drilling should ever have been approved in the first place and nothing I have seen in the buildup to the disaster or aftermath from it has convinced me that either the oil companies or the federal government have made any changes to any aspect of their (lack of) disaster preparedness that would justify restoring drilling in the Gulf. I've linked this article extensively around the forums because I think it does a really good job of explaining how systemic the failures leading up to the Deepwater Horizon disaster were. Now we've got a bunch of people deeply indebted to the oil industry clamoring to let them go back to work with the same faulty blowout preventers, the same disaster preparedness plans copy-pasted from plans designed for Alaska, the same refusal to even consider the possibility of problems until they are already upon us. No accountability, not even the slightest attempt to be better prepared for next time... and there will be a next time. You can be sure of it. If we're stupid enough to agree to that, we deserve what's coming to us.
"I don't think offshore oil drilling should ever have been approved in the first place "
But let me guess: you aren't happy about our dependency on foreign oil, right?
Dude, I'm an environmentalist and a pacifist. I'm not happy about our dependency on oil, period.
We've got some of the best wind and solar resources in the entire world. We should have as many clean tech billionaires as Saudi Arabia has dirty ones, and instead we've created the most oil-dependent society in the world, we're miles behind Europe and East Asia in regard to tech innovation for the first time in over a century, and we're killing our children trying to cling ever more desperately to an addiction we never should have developed in the first place. Damn right, I'm not happy.
" I'm not happy about our dependency on oil, period."
And just by waving a magic wand we can make the whole country run on windmills and rainbows overnight?
You basically value your politics more than your fellow citizens, or the economy of the entire nation for that matter, it seems to me.
I said nothing of the kind.
We do need to use fossil fuels to fill in the gaps while we're gearing up clean energy to the point where it can take over for us.
The problem with "drill, baby, drill" and its ilk is that the more we focus on finding alternative sources of oil, the less we focus on actually making the transition from fossil fuels to clean tech. I mean, we could save 1.2-2.8 billion barrels of oil a year just by inflating our tires properly - that's almost as much or more than the US's entire annual production of crude oil! (~1.9 billion barrels in 2009) Yet these kinds of statements get ridiculed.
They get ridiculed because they are ridiculous. It's meaningless trivia because it does not equate to any practical results. Are the police going to stop cars and check the air pressure of the tires? Would there be a fine for underinflated tires? Would the 'legal' air pressure vary by season, temperature, geography or road conditions?
Or, you know, people could just make an effort to keep their tires properly inflated.
This is exactly what I'm talking about. You leap to the conclusion that police would start checking everyone's tires at routine traffic stops, pooh pooh the idea as ridiculous, and shut down discussion. The only thing that would have proved my point more effectively is if you'd added something about how "safe" offshore drilling is.
Great, we just hope everyone keeps a daily log of their tire pressure and we'll hardly need any oil at all!
And since you brought it up, just how many accidents on the scale of this one have there been in US waters?
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Newsro … p?id=20863
http://redcounty.com/oil-seeps-natures- … ills/39648
whether you drill or not, oil seeps...... Granted, the concentration is much higher from a man-made, but the sum total is compareable. We could study how nature handles its own oil spills. There has been concern for years that these oil seeps contribute to dead zones. In addition, buy recovering the oil, we could actually improve the enviroment.
We don't need to be told what's for our own good, we need to be left alone to decide for ourselves. The light of liberty will illuminate the way to prosperity, if it's allowed to shine. Eventually advances in technology will be made that will introduce cheaper and cleaner ways of producing energy and people will flock to it. Obama seems to think he can make this happen by outlawing the resources we need now. Government regulation does not equate to innovation, freedom and prosperity does.
We already have cheaper and cleaner ways of producing energy, they just don't get the trillions of dollars in subsidies given to the oil companies.
And won't, if the oil companies have anything to say about it.
The government made the oil companies rich. I think it's reasonable for it to demand some environmental accountability in return.
I think you're exaggerating the value of the subsidies. In any case, I'm not in favor of subsidies of any kind. The government gives many industries subsidies like farms to produce ethanol a wasteful and inefficient, and carbon intensive endeavour and evidence of the folly of government to promote industries that don't solve our problems with tax payer money.
I don't think I am. I'm not just talking about direct subsidies.
The entire US highway system was a subsidy to the oil companies. So was the dismantling of our railways and mass transit systems in all but the largest of cities (and even some of those) in the 50's.
Even some subsidies for other things are really subsidies to oil, like housing aid that encouraged people to move to the suburbs, and corn subsidies that encouraged farmers to "get big or get out" and practice ever more fossil fuel intensive farming. To quote Michael Pollan, "chemical fertilizers (made from natural gas), pesticides (made from petroleum), farm machinery, modern food processing and packaging and transportation have together transformed a system that in 1940 produced 2.3 calories of food energy for every calorie of fossil-fuel energy it used into one that now takes 10 calories of fossil-fuel energy to produce a single calorie of modern supermarket food."
In modern American society, everything goes back to oil, in the end.
It's not only not reaching at all, it's really only the tip of the iceberg.
Consciously and unconsciously, our whole society has been built around the availability of cheap oil. Consider what life without oil would look like for a minute and you'll see what I'm saying.
Obviously, oil has done many wonderful things for us, but now that we have clean, renewable sources of energy, we need to be switching to them pronto so we can conserve our remaining oil for the things it's really irreplaceable for, as well as getting out of entanglements with unstable but oil-rich foreign governments, reducing pollution and environmental damage, etc.
So then everything that came to be as a result of the discovery of fire was a subsidy? How about the wheel? Is everything that came from that innovation a subsidy as well?
I could argue it is the existence of government that is the cause of all subsidies! That certainly makes more sense then your argument.
Well, the existence of government is the cause of most subsidies, so that would be kind of a pointless argument. Like saying the sky is blue.
My point is that:
1. the government has deliberately put in place many policies in many different areas that directly or indirectly benefit the oil companies by encouraging both industries and individuals to become increasingly dependent on fossil fuel consumption
2. the US government has done this more consistently than most other countries around the world (compare the typical US mass transit system to the typical European or East Asian one, for one obvious example), and
3. that these policies, though beneficial for a long time, are now coming back to bite us in the ass as other countries, especially those in Europe and East Asia, are increasingly passing us in terms of technological innovation, environmental health, and general economic health/quality of life in ways that are directly related to their lesser dependence on fossil fuels
So the problem is that everything about America for over a century isn't the way you'd like it to be? I'm glad you like windmills, 'cause you seem to be tilting at them.
"We already have cheaper and cleaner ways of producing energy"
None that could come close to replacing oil in a reasonable amount of time, so unless you want to cripple the economy in the meanwhile we will continue to need oil.
Good luck finding a Judge who doesn't. What would be interesting is if he, "dumped" then "purchased" at just the right time!LOL
Guys, lets get it straight - the judge did NOT have substantial investments in Exxon and Halliburton. Your definition of “substantial” is silly. You do not directly fight and override the president of USA for money when the money amount is less than $15,000 for exxon and similar amount for his other oil stocks? Anyone who thinks say even $50,000 is a worthwhile amount to fight with our current executive branch over the #1 issue in the world today has no business voting or even chewing gum and walking at the same time for that matter.
The technical issues and risks of what happened and how to better prevent have been assessed weeks ago. The MMS has already issued new NTL’s to enhance safety and reduce risk. The actual risk of this happening is far less than a shuttle disaster or airplane crash. In this case in took a huge effort by certain people to break and override normal safety protocol and tests plus a big case of bad luck to make this terrible spill happen. Personally being in the oil and gas industry I’m ashamed of the response by many both within and outside this industry. As far as the government response. Well guess what the ”Coast Guard” and other agencies are supposed to “guard the coast”! The hundreds of millions in oil and gas company taxes pay for that backup which in this case was insanely delayed by politics and bureaucracy bungling . Most of the oil hitting the beaches of Louisiana to Florida COULD have been stopped ,but Obama delayed allowing the set up of using a large group of skimmers to remove the oil-and-water mix and near the shore, booms block oil from reaching beaches.
When are you liberals going to get it that the government does not do a good job of helping people or businesses. They are good at doing politics which usually hurts us.
To relieve the pressure? or based on other factors that have to do with better ways to monitor and control problems?
Is it true that Obama's ties to the unions is why the US won't let ships from other nations help us? I know several nations have offered.
You got it. More 'leadership' from the corrupt Chicago pol.
The laws passed in the 20's did address some "union concerns" The language of the law is based in security. Look up the "Jones Act" or Maritime Law 1920's. Oh and tape your eyelids open...its kinda boring!
The Jones Act doesn't apply to emergency situations, and foreign ships are already helping in the Gulf. So far, none of them have required waivers to operate.
http://www.deepwaterhorizonresponse.com … 31/660195/
"The Jones Act doesn't apply to emergency situations"
Not true. Read your own link.... Read the legislation itself.
Foriegn vessels can perform emergency response for oil spills. If they are designated oil spill response vessels and they meet the requirements of 46 USC § 55113. In some cases, such as the Dutch, who offered their services 3 days after the spill. The admin didn't approve until the 12th of June. Why? Concerns about the "Jones Act". Now I mention the Dutch because they have a system of skimming that has been proven effective. They also DON"T use that nasty dispersent.
Now, much of the "assets" offered by foriegn countries already exist here and are not needed. Think of it, how many ships do you want running around dragging boom and waste oil.
Wow...I remember a time when righties hated judges "butting their nose in"....Activist,wasn't that the term?
Just like anything else, it's politics over principles.....yawn, it's getting SOOOOO predictable.
It is funny, because of Obama's six month moratorium a company such as Petrobras, (a brazilian, nationalized oil company,) greatly benefits. As some may remember, Obama dropped 2 billion tax payer dollars to them as a loan. Which is also funny because George Soros, the major player in getting Obama elected, had just dropped 900 million in the company to become its majority stock holder. This is corruption at the highest level.
Another f.y.i., Obama banned deepwater drilling as some sort of "safety," measure. However, Petrobras is drilling yet deeper than what we do in the Gulf. One would think he (Obama,) as a major financial player in Petrobras, and "concerned environmentalist," would urge Brazil to adhere to the same principals. But no way is he going to dip into Soros' pocket book.
Obama is beholden to Soros. This is why G.M.C was deemed to big to fail. Because Soros owns General Electric, which in turn owns GMC. Thus the stimulus, in effect, is merely a payoff from Obama, by the people, for Soros. Good stuff huh. Make everyone feel warm and cozy?
Obama's moratorium is another sign of either his incompetence or chicanery, I can't figure out which. Having a traffic accident doesn't mean you ban driving on roads for six months. It's just dumb. On the other hand banning drilling satisfies a lot of his lefty supporters especially ones with deep pockets like Soros who have a vested interest and banning further drilling is in line with his green agenda. It's weird that it doesn't seem to strike Obama as a dictatorial thing to do. Hail to the demi-God!
You're at least the second conservative around here I've seen comparing the spill to a car crash. What is it, somebody's favorite talking point? It's a ridiculous comparison. Car crashes do not typically cause tens of billions worth of damage to people's lives and livelihoods across 5+ states, let alone result in 5-20 years of cleanup or potentially permanent damage to local ecosystems.
Cars also don't typically fail at the rate oil infrastructure does. Blowout preventers fail up to 28% of the time. If 28% of cars crashed, you might see driving get banned temporarily until people figured out what the problem was!
The more we learn about Obama's ties the more we can see how corrupt this government is! He is going to shove his energy bill down the throats of Americans.
At least you can see this guy' ties? - you didn't see them in the last few governments - were you blind and now can see?
I like how the judges called them out on the lie about the commission supporting the moratorium, lol amazing the lies the left tries to pass off.
FOX News just reported that Salazar and Obama are moving forward ASAP with another moritorium on deep water oil in the gulf.
They will keep pushing it like the health-care bill. They just don't care that we said no...
It's scary thinking what life would be like without petroleum. I'd be on a farm or a fishing hut or a ranch someplace hunched over a fire trying to keep warm while eking out a living from farming or fishing or herding. And probably somebody like kerryg will be complaining that I was killing too many trees for firewood.
thats right, you should be burning dung!LOL NO, WAIT A MINUTE, BURNING IS BAD!
We can't change the past, but we can change the future.
Oil is a finite resource. The sooner we switch to a renewable one, the less likely we are to end up shivering over a fire in some tumbledown hut all over again.
"Oil is a finite resource."
Again, not exactly right. Oil is an organic material created by nature over time. The oil we use today was created a long time ago. Oil is still being created today. Its quantity in terms of availability is not known which does make it a little on the risky side. It is not however finite.
hmm, just the fact that there is one of this scale that is still not under control is one too many.
One point people seem to forget is: WE DON'T OWN THE GULF. Even if we suspend drilling indefinitely. China, Cuba, Vietnam, Brazil and more will continue to drill in the Gulf. The same applies to the north atlantic and elsewhere. Off shore drilling will continue regarless of a US ban.
the whole point of the ban was to get the Companies in American waters to move. Once gone, what's the point of coming back. Especially, if AFTER the ban there are even more painfull regulations. IT'S STUPID and will only HURT America's economy.
Judge who lifted deepwater drilling ban had ties to big oil
What a Corrupto-thon Louisiana is! they want their pristine shoreline AND their huge oil profits!! 2010 proved to many of them thet having both will be tricky! Here in Northern California we have a pristine coastline that we will never let any of you greedy F**** get at!! it is too much of an asset to small business owners to let a big operateor in who could possibly F*** it up for everyone like with the gulf coast!
Holy overreaction batman!! the moretorium was on 1 percent of the off shore rigs in the gulf! like 33 of the deepest ones. there are however over 3500 wells out there.
Just a drive by comment, coming in to this late. It is good to see America steadfastly united against itself. Some things will never change.
your damn right were united against ourselves!!
with out two halfs of the political process you end up with either nazi or communists. keep the debate alive!! so we can stay that way too!
by CMHypno6 years ago
Obama's attacks on BP are increasingly being viewed in the UK as signs of his anti-British stance. Or is he just trying to pull attention away from his own administration's...
by tobey1006 years ago
My favorite quote from Obama's State of the Union speech: "We are the nation that put cars in driveways and computers in offices; the nation of Edison and the Wright brothers; of Google and...
by lauschrhod6 years ago
The U.S. is only one of several countries that drill for oil in the Gulf of Mexico. Either directly or under license Spain, Norway, India, Malaysia, Venezuela, Vietnam, Mexico and Brazil all benefit from that...
by theirishobserver.6 years ago
Good afternoon,President Obama just returned from his fourth trip to the Gulf Coast region since the BP Oil Spill began in April. Tonight at 8 p.m. EDT, he will address the nation from the Oval Office on the oil spill...
by Prophecy Teacher8 years ago
According to the Saddleback Debate - Obama doesn't "know" when a baby should be given rights as a human. In Chicago, Illinois there was a great debate over this when Obama was an Illinois Senator - at...
by Dr Billy Kidd5 years ago
Presidential candidate Mitt Romney said last week that Obama has a secret agenda for his second term. I'm wondering what that is. Romney did not say. Or is this the old psychological trick of projecting your fault on...
Copyright © 2017 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.
HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.