-
Montegriffo
- Posts: 18718
- Joined: Wed Nov 30, 2016 7:14 am
Post
by Montegriffo » Tue Dec 20, 2016 9:23 pm
Obama bans new drilling for oil and gas in US owned parts of Atlantic and the Arctic.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-38387525
Mr Obama designated areas in the Arctic and Atlantic oceans as "indefinitely off limits" to future leasing.
The move is widely seen as an attempt to protect the region before Mr Obama leaves office in January.
Supporters of president-elect Donald Trump could find it difficult to reverse the decision.
Reacting to the Arctic declaration, Friends of the Earth said: "No president has ever rescinded a previous president's permanent withdrawal of offshore areas from oil and gas development.
"If Donald Trump tries to reverse President Obama's withdrawals, he will find himself in court."
However, the American Petroleum Institute said "there is no such thing as a permanent ban," and that it hoped Mr Trump's administration would simply reverse the decision.
For legal reasons, we are not threatening to destroy U.S. government property with our glorious medieval siege engine. But if we wanted to, we could. But we won’t. But we could.
-
skankhunt42
- Posts: 511
- Joined: Wed Nov 30, 2016 3:54 pm
Post
by skankhunt42 » Tue Dec 20, 2016 9:26 pm
Montegriffo wrote:Obama bans new drilling for oil and gas in US owned parts of Atlantic and the Arctic.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-38387525
Mr Obama designated areas in the Arctic and Atlantic oceans as "indefinitely off limits" to future leasing.
The move is widely seen as an attempt to protect the region before Mr Obama leaves office in January.
Supporters of president-elect Donald Trump could find it difficult to reverse the decision.
Reacting to the Arctic declaration, Friends of the Earth said: "No president has ever rescinded a previous president's permanent withdrawal of offshore areas from oil and gas development.
"If Donald Trump tries to reverse President Obama's withdrawals, he will find himself in court."
However, the American Petroleum Institute said "there is no such thing as a permanent ban," and that it hoped Mr Trump's administration would simply reverse the decision.
Well, I think we all know where this is going.
"just realize that our Welfare states are also propped up by your Warfare. You're not actually defending us from threats, but you are propping us up by fabricating threats to maintain the Perpetual War." - Smitty
-
TheReal_ND
- Posts: 26035
- Joined: Wed Nov 30, 2016 6:23 pm
Post
by TheReal_ND » Tue Dec 20, 2016 9:31 pm
Higher oil prices. Good! We can start fracking again :snicker:
-
Montegriffo
- Posts: 18718
- Joined: Wed Nov 30, 2016 7:14 am
Post
by Montegriffo » Tue Dec 20, 2016 9:34 pm
TheReal_ND wrote:Higher oil prices. Good! We can start fracking again :snicker:
Enviro-cuck.
For legal reasons, we are not threatening to destroy U.S. government property with our glorious medieval siege engine. But if we wanted to, we could. But we won’t. But we could.
-
TheReal_ND
- Posts: 26035
- Joined: Wed Nov 30, 2016 6:23 pm
Post
by TheReal_ND » Tue Dec 20, 2016 9:54 pm
It's actually quite expensive to drill in the arctic anyway. You have to figure in the logistics of getting man, material and product between point A to point B and that's not taking in to account all the safety measures and the sheer engineering prowess of drilling two miles below the surface. It's actually dirt cheap to frack. It just costs a lot more to refine which is why we aren't fracking right now. You need 80-90 dollar barrels to turn a profit off shale oil. Off shore drilling has dried up as well. I don't know what their price point is but it's above 80 I bet. You can pretty much guarantee that when we get to 90 again that executive order is getting tossed right out. Not before though. Of course big oil would still like to go out and lay pegs as it were or explore drill and cap and wait for the price to rise.
-
Montegriffo
- Posts: 18718
- Joined: Wed Nov 30, 2016 7:14 am
Post
by Montegriffo » Tue Dec 20, 2016 10:04 pm
The decision appears to be based on the risk to the environment of accidental leaks and the need to move away from fossil fuels. Could just be a way of reigning in Trump's proposed abandonment of environmental policies.
For legal reasons, we are not threatening to destroy U.S. government property with our glorious medieval siege engine. But if we wanted to, we could. But we won’t. But we could.
-
Speaker to Animals
- Posts: 38685
- Joined: Wed Nov 30, 2016 5:59 pm
Post
by Speaker to Animals » Tue Dec 20, 2016 10:05 pm
Trump can just pass an executive order that rescinds this executive order.
Besides, mindless environmentalism is pretty much dinosaur material at this point. You guys lost, remember?
-
pineapplemike
- Posts: 4650
- Joined: Wed Nov 30, 2016 5:34 pm
Post
by pineapplemike » Tue Dec 20, 2016 10:07 pm
Yeah I'm ok with this. I already work on an oilfield, the less competition and higher prices the better.
I hope Trump invades several ME countries and blows up their production, prices skyrocket, we hire new employees and I become supervisor
-
TheReal_ND
- Posts: 26035
- Joined: Wed Nov 30, 2016 6:23 pm
Post
by TheReal_ND » Tue Dec 20, 2016 10:16 pm
If you work in the refinery as a Californian that would have been more work for you supposing the prices supported drilling in the arctic. Then again I'm assuming they mean around Alaska and not around somewhere else.
-
Montegriffo
- Posts: 18718
- Joined: Wed Nov 30, 2016 7:14 am
Post
by Montegriffo » Tue Dec 20, 2016 10:23 pm
Speaker to Animals wrote:Trump can just pass an executive order that rescinds this executive order.
Besides, mindless environmentalism is pretty much dinosaur material at this point. You guys lost, remember?
Nope, not an executive order.
Mr. Obama invoked an obscure provision of a 1953 law, the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act, which he said gives him the authority to act unilaterally. While some presidents have used that law to temporarily protect smaller portions of federal waters, Mr. Obama’s declaration of a permanent drilling ban on portions of the ocean floor from Virginia to Maine and along much of Alaska’s coast is breaking new ground. The declaration’s fate will almost certainly be decided by the federal courts.
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/20/us/ob ... .html?_r=0
For legal reasons, we are not threatening to destroy U.S. government property with our glorious medieval siege engine. But if we wanted to, we could. But we won’t. But we could.