Fear and hysteria can create opportunities and help accomplish political goals for those cynical enough to take advantage of them. Sometimes it takes the level head of an experienced jurist to resist the hype and emotion and remind everyone that we are a nation of laws and that rule by fiat is not acceptable.
We can thank U.S. District Judge Martin Feldman for being the voice of reason in the current crisis in the Gulf of Mexico and stepping in to block an arbitrary six-month ban on oil drilling in the Gulf at depths over 500ft. In his ruling Feldman wrote that even the current crisis "cannot justify the immeasurable effect on the plaintiffs, the local economy, the Gulf region, and the critical present-day aspect of the availability of domestic energy in this country."
Lawyers from the Department of the Interior and the Justice Department argued for the ban, but Feldman found no justification for "the immense scope of the moratorium and the economic harm which it would pile on top of the damage already being done by the oil spill.
The Obama administration will appeal the ruling despite objections from governors and legislators from both parties and all over the gulf region. Louisiana Senator David Vitter made the most telling point when he argued that the ruling was an important reminder that "the president's powers are certainly not unlimited and that this moratorium is wreaking havoc on jobs in Louisiana."
Meanwhile, a Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-TX) has introduced a bill granting a waiver to the Jones Act so that foreign companies can provide assistance in US territorial waters, and drilling continues on two relief wells designed to reduce oil flow at the Deepwater Horizon site so the well can be brought back under contrrol.
Article comments
— go to most recent comments1 - Silas Kain
I have to say that I agree with the court's ruling. And it's purely for economic reasons. This moratorium is devastating to families on the Gulf. The problem I have with the ruling is had it gone the other way the GOP and every anti-Obama idiot in the nation would be screaming judicial activism. There's no balance.
Richard Nixon was elected in 1968. We've known that our dependence on petroleum was an issue since the early 70's. And here we are again, wailing about oil. Democrats and Republicans have been in power and neither party has refused petro-political dollars.
And here's the kicker. Afghanistan sits atop what could be trillions of dollars in lithium. What's the next fuel of choice for automobiles? And who is getting first rights to Afghan minerals? Japan didn't lose World War 2, my friends, they're getting back at us for Nagasaki and Hiroshima the old fashioned way -- through our wallets.
2 - roger nowosielski
"I have to say that I agree with the court's ruling. And it's purely for economic reasons."
Again, Silas, faulty reasoning. So we should sell our souls to the devil for "purely economic reasons," you seem to be saying. But why, I ask, prolong the inevitable? The sooner the ship sinks, I'd say the better. Only then we shall be able to rebuild, not before. But you, it seems, want to prolong the agony. "Let us all die a slow death," is your recipe.
3 - Silas Kain
Not necessarily, Roger. Once again, Barack Obama has missed an opportunity. I'm not advocating selling our souls, what I am advocating is taking a reasoned approach to the situation.
Roger, I've talked to almost two dozen different people in that region. They come from all bands of the political spectrum. And only one of them advocates this moratorium. Those who do not live in that region have no clue what they've been through. I was all for the moratorium until I got my facts from the people directly affected.
I don't want to prolong the agony -- I want somebody to do SOMETHING. With the great, creative minds we have in this country and around the world you cannot tell me that this is a problem without solution. I refuse to accept that notion.
A former member of MIT faculty pointed me to a very interesting article concerning a potential cataclysm in the Gulf. I brought this article to the attention of several of those I mentioned previously. Much to my surprise, they all were aware of the potential yet they feel in the short term, they have no choice but move forward.
It's not that I advocate a recipe for slow death. Quite the contrary. I think it is going to take a cataclysm of Divine proportions for American politicians to get their heads out of K Street's ass. And, if that's what it takes, let the Hand of God cast forth the misery.
4 - Mark
God told me that this is our fuck-up and to leave Himself out of it.
5 - Dave Nalle
I find a different flaw in Silas' reasoning. I see no logical argument that the GOP would have argued "judicial activism" had this gone the other way. They would have focused the blame on Obama.
But it's important to note that this is such a cut and dried issue that no court would have uphild the moratorium. This will go on, and may make it to the Supreme Court, but there's no way the President has the authority to shut down an entire industry without some sort of legislation to back him up.
Dave
6 - Silas Kain
Perhaps, you're right, Dave. It's become a very emotional issue for me after talking to so many people. Some of these folks are my friends, my family, business acquaintances. I'm torn on the issue and that leads to frustration because I see no leadership from anyone. Are we so polarized as a nation that there is just no hope for a reasonable compromise? Was all that goodwill on 9/11 a lie? Did we all just suppress our division in the illusion of patriotism? And would we have been as united back then had Al Gore been President?
Dave, you're a brilliant and reasonable guy. Can you understand where I'm coming from? You're a Conservative and I know that you're thought processes are not in tandem with those who have lynched the GOP and Libertarians. Just what can we do to start making some changes? Time is of the essence. And it seems to me that as the oil spills into the Gulf the only thing politicians are doing is posturing. We don't have time for political maneuvering. Doesn't ANYBODY get it?
7 - Glenn Contrarian
Of course, the judge having stock in a oil drilling company didn't have anything to do with it...and there was no reason for the judge to recuse himself because of conflict of interest...of course not!
8 - roger nowosielski
"the president's powers are certainly not unlimited and that this moratorium is wreaking havoc on jobs in Louisiana."
How soon we forget the real havoc on the people and life in Louisiana, still unfolding, there being no end in sight!
9 - Dan
If Obama had gotten his way, the economic impact would have been as negative as the impact from the spill. Who would've been demonized for it?
Next up, Obama's ugly racist challenge to Arizona's rightous illegal immigration law.
10 - roger nowosielski
"Roger, I've talked to almost two dozen different people in that region. They come from all bands of the political spectrum. And only one of them advocates this moratorium."
By your own testimony, Silas, these people are schizophrenic. They want to collect from BP for damages while urging for more drilling. So it's either sheer insanity or pure perversity, take your pick.
I'm sure glad you're making up your mind on the basis of such crazies.
11 - Glenn Contrarian
Dan -
If Obama had gotten his way, the economic impact would have been as negative as the impact from the spill. Who would've been demonized for it?
That's a falsehood fed to you by the right wing. Why? Because the moratorium is on DRILLING NEW WELLS, not PUMPING at the scores upon scores of wells already dug and in operation. But since it was something against Obama, well, that meant it must be true, huh?
Next time, Dan, try doing a little fact-checking - which is not something that most conservatives are very practiced at doing.
12 - Dave Nalle
Glenn, lots of people own stock in oil related companies. I think if you want to point a finger you could find something in just about any judge's portfolio which would make him suspect. I don't own as much stock as this judge probably does and I own stock in a drilling company, a natural gas company and a couple of utilities, all of which could be the basis for the kind of smear you like to pull out. And do I even need to point out that BP was a major Obama campaign contributor?
Silas, the 9/11 goodwill died when the left went after Bush and then died a final death when Obama decided that one party rule with zero input from the other side was a great idea.
Aside from that, I can be fair. The creation of the $20 billion fund from BP was a good idea and seems to have been well executed and done the right way by getting them to take the action voluntarily. And the national and local governments seem to be responding to the crisis effectively. And I assume they will appropriately punish the people at the MMS who are largely responsible for the negligent oversight which contributed to this.
But the moratorium was going too far. What happened in the gulf was an unusual and not likely to be repeated event and not reason to delay other drilling. It was a preventable accident and you can bet that anyone drilling in the future will make sure it doesn't happen again. A moratorium isn't going to make drilling at those depths any safer. What would make it safer is lifting some of the restrictions on drilling at lesser depths.
Dave
13 - Dan
sorry glenn, the moratorium would have halted work at 33 current exploratory drilling platforms, each costing hundreds of thousands a day to lease. But that is just for starters.
Also, I think it is your research that lacks merit. You seriously think a 2008 disclosure of a paltry 15k investment in Transocean is grounds for recusal? If so, you have worse problems than simple fact checking.
14 - Silas Kain
Actually, Roger, that's where you're wrong. Most of these folks don't want a dime from BP unless it is for an honest day's work. They want to have a life and continue doing that which they know best.
One fisherman waited until the last possible minute before he decided to open a claim. These people don't want handouts. They hate what's happening and feel like they're choking. And as far as oil workers are concerned, they'd rather drill and clean up the mess than sit at home and collect an unemployment check where they may be subject to Orrin Hatch's drug tests.
Of course, you have those who will have their hand out for a free check. That's to be expected. In the aftermath of Katrina these people have come to know self reliance. It's a bit of insanity, a bit of perversity and a whole lot of necessity. I've made my mind up because I have a heart. I hate the choice but see no other moral alternative in light of a vacuum in leadership. That's where it is at, Roger. The President is overwhelmed. The Congress is catatonic. BP and the petroleum world wish this would all go away and know it won't. We have radical decisions to make, Roger. There's no magic pill, just hard work and determination. And that's another vacuum thanks to the right wing corporatists and the left wing beneficiaries of their free flowing cash.
15 - roger nowosielski
Well, trust me, Silas, the twenty-billion dollar fund is going to be depleted.
It's awfully nice hearing people you're talking about standing on their principles. I haven't the idea that many Americans still had any principles left, especially during hardship.
16 - Glenn Contrarian
Dan - yes, ANY investment by a judge in a company on which he's rending judgement IS grounds for recusal. Any lawyer will tell you the same thing.
This is known as ETHICS...which, like fact-checking, is not real high on the conservative list of priorities.
17 - Jordan Richardson
Amazing that this is passed off as a "news" flash.
18 - Glenn Contrarian
Dave -
A moratorium isn't going to make drilling at those depths any safer. What would make it safer is lifting some of the restrictions on drilling at lesser depths.
Then by your logic, when there's a plane crash, there shouldn't be a moratorium on flying that model of plane even when there's a possibility of a design flaw...especially when said design flaw - the lack of an acoustic valve IIRC - would apply to deep AND shallow drilling sites.
FYI, the worst oil spill ever - Ixtoc I - was at a depth of about ONE HUNDRED FIFTY FEET. So please don't give me the line about the problem being that Big Oil's being driven out to deep water.
WORST OF ALL, your right-wing pundits have you bamboozled, Dave. Why don't you look at this PDF map of active leases in the Gulf of Mexico and see for yourself if Big Oil's being forced out to the deep water...or if they're just feeding you a line!
19 - Glenn Contrarian
Dave and Dan -
WHY is Big Oil drilling in deepwater in the Gulf of Mexico? It's not because they don't have active leases in shallow water, as the map I linked to in my previous comment makes clear.
THIS, sirs, is why:
"In a 2004 report -- titled Deep Water: Where the Energy Is -- the MMS stated that "our best source of new domestic energy resources lies in the deep water Gulf of Mexico and other frontier areas." MMS reported that due to "declining production" in "near-shore, shallow waters" in the Gulf of Mexico, "energy companies have focused their attention on oil and gas resources in water depths of 1,000 feet and beyond." MMS estimated that "the deep water regions of the Gulf of Mexico may contain 56 billion barrels of oil equivalent, or enough to meet U.S. demand for 7-1/2 years at current rates."
So tell me now, you two - is Big Oil drilling in deep water because we're forcing them out there? Or because they CHOSE to, because they WANT to?
(How much ya wanna bet neither of you will deign to answer that question?)
20 - zingzing
i'm surprised the judge went through with this knowing what kind of shit he'd get himself into. seems incredibly foolish. judges should be better at this judgment thing.
i have to make a comment about how arbitrary the whole conservative/liberal divide is. one wouldn't think that crude oil leaking onto conservative coasts wouldn't make the conservatives say "more! more!" as they say "me! me!" but that's the way of the world, i guess...
21 - Baritone
The moratorium was designed to allow for inspections and to assure that proper procedures are being followed at ALL drilling sites.
As to the likelihood of another blow out, no doubt that its a slim chance. But then, BP rated the possibility of such a disaster as slim and none. The ill effects of this spill are almost to the level of a nuclear explosion except for the massive deaths. All it's taken is one incident.
I think it just pisses people off that this edict came from Obama. Had no moratorium been announced, the same people would have criticized him for that.
While I understand how difficult this is for many people along the Gulf, to keep drilling these deep water wells without at least a pause to try to make sure things are being done properly, is madness. Given the circumstances, Obama had every right to do as he did. Such actions by a president are not without precedent.
The painfully obvious fact is that no one, not the oil companies, not the drilling companies, not the government have any idea how to stop this blow out. Do we really want to head on down that road without some assurances that it won't happen again, and more importantly, that the oil companies are forced to develop the technology and procedures to plug these things up in the event of a recurrence.
Personally, I think all off shore drilling should be stopped. Permanently. Our energy problems do not stem from dependence upon foreign oil. Our energy problems stem from our dependence on OIL. Period. As has been pointed out, there is no "American" oil, there is just oil. It all goes to the same place and is purchased from the same place - worldwide. We would be in the same pickle whether we produced billions of barrels of oil or none.
Baritone and NOT Baronius
22 - Dave Nalle
So tell me now, you two - is Big Oil drilling in deep water because we're forcing them out there? Or because they CHOSE to, because they WANT to?
They want that oil, but the fact is that they can access that same oil from wells drilled onshore if they were allowed to do so. This is what they have been doing in Alaska for years. You can drill onshore much more safely and have the pipe go underground for miles to reach offshore oil.
Dave
23 - Silas Kain
As has been pointed out, there is no "American" oil, there is just oil. It all goes to the same place and is purchased from the same place - worldwide. We would be in the same pickle whether we produced billions of barrels of oil or none.
Amen. There is just OIL. And in the shadow of the Gulf disaster there is something brewing in Afghanistan - lithium, gold and other mineral deposits. Karzai has committed his country's natural resources to Japan. Japan will contract Chinese corporations to excavate. Asia will develop automobiles using lithium-powered batteries for fuel. The handwriting is on the wall. Our failure to develop alternatives to oil has set the stage for the decline and fall of the United States. Count on it.
24 - Dave Nalle
Silas, sounds like it's time to pull out of Afghanistan and let the Japanese take over.
Dave
25 - Andy Marsh
How come no one ever talks about why big oil is drilling so far off shore and so deep? How come no one ever talks about the massive amounts of oil underground in and around Montana?
If you really want someone to blame for this besides Bush and Cheney, try looking at the environmentalists!
They say there's enough oil under Montana to feed our need for oil for the next 2000 years! Why don't we go after it? Same reason we don't go after the oil off the coast of VA, because it might hurt some freaking tree frog somewhere! Buncha BS if you ask me!