editorial in my paper :Administration using oil spill to force radical energy policy

[w8liftinglady]

http://www.thedailylight.com/articles/2010/07/15/opinion/doc4c3ddd64c8565010893017.txt

Kathleen Harnett White
Texas Public Policy Foundation

The federal government has enlarged the destructive aftermath of the explosion at BP’s Macondo well in the Gulf of Mexico. With the oil flow’s increasing coastal intrusion and an inept response by the federal government to containment, government edict now adds a greater blow to the regional Gulf economy. The Obama administration issued a blanket moratorium on all pending, approved and currentoffshore drilling at depths below 500 feet in the Gulf of Mexico and the Pacific Ocean.

At least 150,000 jobs are directly tied to the 3,600 offshore drilling rigs in the Gulf. At a rate of 1.6 million barrels per day, the Gulf provides 31 percent of domestic oil production. Loss of this production could increase U.S. dependency on foreign oil to more than 70 percent and increase the risk of oil spills.

Does this oil spill justify halting drilling across the Gulf? A federal judge says no. On June 21, the Federal Court in the Eastern District of Louisiana issued an injunction against enforcement of the six-month moratorium issued by the Department of Interior (DOI).

Judge Martin Feldman in Louisiana concluded that the immense scope of DOI’s moratorium lacked anyfactual justification as required by law. “The blanket moratorium, with no parameters, seems to assume that because one rig failed and although no one yet fully knows why, all companies and rigs drilling new wells over 500 feet also universally present an imminent danger.”

The Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act allows the Mineral Management Service to suspend drilling when there is a threat of irreparable harm. Suspension, however, must be justified by facts about “the individual case.” DOI inspected the 33 actively-drilling deepwater rigs immediately after BP’s explosion and allowed continued drilling.

Although DOI claimed the moratorium was recommended by experts from the National Academy of Engineering, a majority of those experts disagree. Eight of the 15 experts wrote that the moratorium would increase risk of spills, devastate the Gulf economy and weaken national security. Shutting down a well was what BP was doing when the well casing ruptured and the blow-out preventer failed. With Gulf production lost, more tankers filled with foreign oil will cross the Gulf. Globally, tanker spills out-number drilling spills by a factor of 7-1, and have released four times more oil than drilling.

The endgame emerges. The Obama Administration is using the horrific Gulf oil spill to force an unrealistic energy policy in which oil is viewed as a villainous and dispensable part of the U.S. energy supply. Similarly, a recently formed presidential commission to prevent another oil spill consists of ecologists and environmental activists but no experts in oil and gas production. Sniffing a foregone conclusion, The Wall Street Journal called this group the “Anti-Drilling Commission.”

Under current law, federal agencies cannot exert coercive power because “it feels like the right thing to do.” Agencies can only act within the limits of statute and constitutionally guaranteed due process.

Federal Judge Martin Feldman’s rebuke of the Obama administration’s reckless moratorium is a welcome return to the rule of law. Perhaps the courts, the third and co-equal federal power, will have the last word.

Kathleen Hartnett White is a Distinguished Senior Fellow in Residence and Director of the Armstrong Center for Energy & the Environment at the Texas Public Policy Foundation, a non-profit, free-market research institute based in Austin. White is the former Chair of the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality.

[Systematic Chaos]

1. Four words in the last paragraph render this article extremely suspect in my eyes:

"...Texas Public Policy Foundation, a non-profit, free-market research institute....

[w8liftinglady]

2. there ya have it...politicians here right now...

it'll be a while before we can change it...a few of us are trying

[Art_from_Ark]

6. "a non-profit, free-market research institute"

So who is paying their bills? Enquiring minds want to know!

[villager]

3. If only....!

n/t

[edgrosvenor]

4. The Administration is missing a great opportunity here

Rather than trying to ban offshore drilling (never going to happen), they should be using this to start a real discussion about how we can end our dependence on oil altogether. Oil is the current fuel of our economy. But it's sort of a dirty word right now. And there is investor capital to be had out there for the companies that will bring the solution to the market. The Administration could really help that along by asking Congress for incentives for companies and consumers and by focusing the discussion on real alternatives.

On a personal(ish) note, Illinois Democrats should have their mouths duct taped shut during this debate. Ethanol is NOT a viable solution, is worse for the environment, and competes with food for corn. The more corn is diverted to ethanol, the more expensive feed grain becomes and meat prices go up. We can talk about whether or not meat should be consumed in the quantities it is in America, but I can tell you that the last thing we need here in my neighborhood is for food prices of any kind to go up. And while there are alternative sources for ethanol, the ultimate solution to the problem lies in figuring out a way to move across the country without actually burning anything. Combustion is so 20th Century. There are better alternatives. Let's start talking about that.

Or we can put up a useless, fruitless fight to ban offshore drilling and when this issue drops out of the headlines in a couple months we can go right back to our old ways. Whatever you guys prefer.

[XemaSab]

5. We should be so lucky

:P

[Cresent City Kid]

7. The "radical" energy policy is the one he promised in the campaign

Was he just "using" the election for his radical agenda?

31% of domestic production sounds like a lot, except that it's 31% of 2% of the world's oil. The moratorium, reducing production by 3% of 31% of 2% won't increase our dependence on foreign oil, especially if we stop using so much oil in the first place. Oil is villainous.

[Art_from_Ark]

8. Did the editorial mention that

Judge Martin Feldman, who ruled against the moratorium, is heavily invested in oil companies?

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5gIXWYBTpLtSayJtg41LKXpxSxVPAD9GGS6FO0