At least temporarily. A federal judge has struck down the idiotic and mendacious drilling moratorium.
My prediction: the lamestream media and the administration will attempt to make hay out of the fact that Judge Feldman is a Reagan appointee. I expect them to appeal, unfortunately. But at least the ban is lifted for now, or will be in thirty days.
[Update a few minutes later]
They’ve already said they’re going to appeal. But I don’t think they can get it reinstated until they win the appeal, if they do (and I suspect they won’t). I wonder if they’ll try to get the appellate court to take it as an emergency case? No, I don’t really. You know they will.
Personally, I think that if the MSM tries to tarball Feldman with “Reagan appointee”, it will backfire. People will start to say, “Thank God — again — for Ronald Reagan.” I know that’s the first thing I thought of when I heard the news….
As this article notes the Admin was trying to play fast and loose with the facts.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/jun/22/judge-halts-obamas-oil-drilling-ban/
Just par for the Obama course…Sorry bad pun.
I doubt this will “Save” the Gulf economy. A tremendous amount
of damage has been done to Fishing, Tourism and Recreation
as well as property values.
now the White House could instead of banning off shore drilling
could simply revoke all waivers granted to every operating platform.
Most of the ones done since 2001, have waivers on NEPA and
Safety, so, that would have the same effect and may actually be
more valuable.
It’s less important that he’s a Reagan appointee than that he’s a Louisianan. He knows very well the appalling damage to the economy of the Gulf states, particularly Lousiana, that this absurd ban would cause. Far more damage than the spill itself.
But then, that kind of defines the nature of Team Obama, doesn’t it? There’s no problem or crisis they can’t make much worse by some ill-considered short-sighted amateurish politically-driven brutally divisive and unconstitutional to boot posturing. The theme song for this Administration should be Bowie’s “Putting Out Fires WIth Gasoline.”
A tremendous amount of damage has been done to Fishing, Tourism and Recreation as well as property values.
So damaging oil production, which incidentally is pretty big part of the Gulf economy, is going to help?
The MSM is already trying to tar and feather him by claiming that he owns oil company stock.
According to WIkipedia, tourism accounts for about 5 G$ or 3% of Louisiana’s 168 G$ economy, the seafood industry supports an estimated 16,000 jobs, and the oil and gas industry 58,000 direct jobs and 260,000 related jobs, for a total of 17% of all Louisiana jobs. It’s also a major petrochemical (e.g. fertilizer, plastics, industrial chemicals) manufacturer as well as the location for much of the US oil refining capacity.
This is why I noted that the effects of arbitrarily shutting down the major boom in offshore oil exploration is going to hit Louisiana far harder than the spill itself. If Louisianans could vote on how they want the Feds to help, the last thing they’d want is this moratorium.
But that’s the Democrats all over. They need to ruin your lives to improve them (or, as it really is, to feel good about themselves as they recount the tale over their venti lattes in a Manhattan, Palo Alto, or Falls Church coffee shop).
Carl
you neglect Alabama, Mississippi and Florida
on tourism .
You also neglect the losses to those who live on the coast.
That’s losses to construction. Who is building now out there.?
First of all, jack, what fraction of Alabama’s or Mississippi’s economy is tourism, as opposed to agriculture, livestock, mining, chemicals or paper, for all of which they’re far more widely known? Second, even of that small tourist stream, what fraction do you suppose goes to Alabama and Mississippi for the beaches?
You can make a better case for Florida, which has way more coastline, but even in Florida tourism, subtracting out The Mouse, seems unlikely to compete with agriculture and manufacturing. Seriously, the only political entities larger than cities that depend on tourism are Monaco and various Caribbean island nations.
I can’t say I’m very impressed by the esthetic damage to the toffs who actually own beachfront, and who can’t now go out swimming this summer. Aw. Them’s the breaks when you buy oceanfront property: you run the risk of something nasty coming out of the water, like a hurricane, oil spill, or beached whale carcass, and ruining your $1 million view. From a strict humanitarian POV, I’m way more concerned with the folks whose jobs are being trashed.
That includes the substantial fishing industry, particularly crustaceans, and, yes, the oil and gas and petrochemicals industry, which is kind of centered down there. The Gulf Coast is where you get not only your gasoline, often, but also your industrial chemicals for plastics that make your Prius real efficient, fertilizer to grow your radicchio and spinach, and phenol to go into your iPhone.
As I said here elsewhere, the major damage from this spill is going to be the still unknown effect on the marshy breeding grounds of shrimp and other shellfish in the coastal mudlands, which is going to wreck those important fisheries, maybe, along with the Obama Administration’s fishing and oil exploration bans. Those last two are going to wreak awful havoc on two very important Gulf Coast industries, one right now, one later on.
I don’t know if the fishing ban was necessary. Maybe, buit it’s hard to see the necessit for a blanket ban. It’s not like the entire damn Gulf is covered in oil — it’s in swirls and patches and so forth. Why not let boats fish in clear areas? Or for species that don’t swim around in the plume? I don’t know. It seems hasty and ill-conceived.
Of course, the whole business of using dispersants so heavily stinks to me, also. It seems too much like a conspiracy between the Obama Administration and BP to keep the oil underwater, out of site. But I’d think its impact would’ve been a lot less had it been confined to the surface. But it would’ve looked worse, and to both these clown organizations that’s the key metric.
Not to worry, Obots. The One has a plethora of lawyers inventing additional ‘facts’ to support re-imposing a ban. Can’t let a good crisis go to waste. No siree! Not with Cap&Trade bills in the balance.
thoughtful post carl.
I haven’t looked it up. All I wanted to point out is that while the Off Shore Oil business is big business in Louisiana, the impacts to Fishing, Tourism, etc
are in 5 states.
Also, you may call the people toffs, but when i was there, they called it the Redneck Riviera. Lots of southerners went to the shore to camp, swim, fish
and they considered it part of the lifestyle.
Well, I guess they wil still want to vote Republican once they see the shorelines or worse smell them.
Hurricanes are bad but if you have Flood insurance, it’s covered (Maybe).
Dead Whales are bad, but they are localized. You can also tow the corpse to sea, and sink it or bury it in sand to reduce odor and let nature take it’s course.
Hurricanes and Dead whales are acts of god. You have to insure for them or deal with them. The slick is a pure mismanagement by BP.
It’s simple negligence and BP is responsible.
Do you think BP should not be paying damages to Property Values?
If the navy lost a tanker due to incompetence, would you want them to pay damages to every shore owner who lost value to that?
Hurricanes and Dead whales are acts of god. You have to insure for them or deal with them. The slick is a pure mismanagement by BP.
No, a lot of the failure to properly contain the slick is because of mismanagement by the federal government, from a long list of refused offers to help, both from abroad and domestic experts who wanted to use centrifugal separation, to the continuing efforts to keep Louisiana’s government from building sand berms to channel the oil away from the more sensitive areas.