Board index › Topical Discussion › Politics, Philosophy, and Religion

Obama Bans Oil Drilling in Atlantic and Arctic Ocean Ecozone

Page 1 of 1 [ 10 posts ] 

Previous topic | Next topic

androbot01
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Sep 2014
Age: 54
Gender: Female
Posts: 6,746
Location: Kingston, Ontario, Canada

21 Dec 2016, 1:07 am

The Washington Post: President Obama bans oil drilling in large areas of Atlantic and Arctic oceans

Quote:
President Obama moved to solidify his environmental legacy Tuesday by withdrawing hundreds of millions of acres of federally owned land in the Arctic and Atlantic Ocean from new offshore oil and gas drilling.

Obama used a little-known law called the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act to protect large portions of the Chukchi and Beaufort seas in the Arctic and a string of canyons in the Atlantic stretching from Massachusetts to Virginia. In addition to a five-year moratorium already in place in the Atlantic, removing the canyons from drilling puts much of the eastern seaboard off limits to oil exploration even if companies develop plans to operate around them.

The announcement by the White House late in the afternoon was coordinated with similar steps being taken by Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau to shield large areas of that nation’s Arctic waters from drilling.

...
Officials said the withdrawals under Section 12-A of the 1953 act used by presidents dating to Dwight Eisenhower cannot be undone by an incoming president. It is not clear if a Republican-controlled Congress can rescind Obama’s action.
...
The Beaufort and Chukchi seas are habitat for several species listed as endangered and species that are candidates for the endangered species, including the bowhead whale, fin whale, Pacific walrus and polar bear. Concern for the animals has heightened as the Arctic warms faster than anywhere else in the world and sea ice the bears use to hunt continues to melt.


I imagine Trump will tweet a response shortly.



traven
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 30 Sep 2013
Gender: Female
Posts: 15,381

21 Dec 2016, 4:23 am

oil- (and gas-)wars

anything to deroute the concurrent, when it's the highest bidder that law's easly outlawed
pipelines in the north, in the middle, wherever, syria, ukraine,

the friendly ecozone in what you must pay for having all taken away
houray for the corporategovernmentplan

but bot's news, talkingpoints
how does it stand to this and that, The Pentagon’s Carbon Boot Print

laugh but don't laugh, fighting wars with taxpayers money for corporate nontaxpayers profit,
stirr it up***** and then you pay for that pollution again

ukraine, sons of biden and kerry supervising GASexploitation with the help of nazies?
US for fracking and geneticmodifying in ukraine, you pay (again)
at the tiny cost of billions,
in-wars in oily-royalties, at your cost

learn about newspeak first
http://www.cargill.com.cn/en/



Jacoby
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 10 Dec 2007
Age: 34
Gender: Male
Posts: 14,284
Location: Permanently banned by power tripping mods lol this forum is trash

21 Dec 2016, 7:01 am

What type of executive order can not be undone? I'd like to see that challenged.



androbot01
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Sep 2014
Age: 54
Gender: Female
Posts: 6,746
Location: Kingston, Ontario, Canada

21 Dec 2016, 9:12 am

I'm sure it will be challenged.

Quote:
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.

“It’s never been done before,” said Patrick Parenteau, a professor of environmental law at Vermont Law School. “There is no case law on this. It’s uncharted waters.”


The New York Times: Obama Bans Drilling in Parts of the Atlantic and the Arctic



androbot01
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Sep 2014
Age: 54
Gender: Female
Posts: 6,746
Location: Kingston, Ontario, Canada

21 Dec 2016, 2:36 pm

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau wrote:
Over the past year, Canada and the US have engaged a range of partners, including Indigenous peoples and Northern communities, working toward new, responsible, science-based leadership in the Arctic. Yesterday, President Obama and I announced new actions to ensure a strong, sustainable and viable Arctic economy and ecosystem, including the designation of all Arctic Canadian water as indefinitely off-limits to new offshore oil and gas licensing.


Meanwhile, Putin has frozen communications with the United States:
The Independent: Russia-US communication channels nearly all 'frozen', the Kremlin says

I wonder if these two things are related. The timing would suggest so.



Sweetleaf
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 Jan 2011
Age: 35
Gender: Female
Posts: 35,157
Location: Somewhere in Colorado

21 Dec 2016, 3:29 pm

Jacoby wrote:
What type of executive order can not be undone? I'd like to see that challenged.


I am sure there are ways it could be, but why? So the precious oil companies don't lose money, and can continue their quest for profit at the environments expense. Perhaps it would be a good time to start decreasing dependence on oil instead...imagine if all the time spent on repealing this was used for that instead.


_________________
Metal never dies. \m/


Jacoby
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 10 Dec 2007
Age: 34
Gender: Male
Posts: 14,284
Location: Permanently banned by power tripping mods lol this forum is trash

21 Dec 2016, 4:50 pm

Sweetleaf wrote:
Jacoby wrote:
What type of executive order can not be undone? I'd like to see that challenged.


I am sure there are ways it could be, but why? So the precious oil companies don't lose money, and can continue their quest for profit at the environments expense. Perhaps it would be a good time to start decreasing dependence on oil instead...imagine if all the time spent on repealing this was used for that instead.

Some dependence on oil will last several more lifetimes, I'd rather have more domestic oil than have to get it from countries like Saudi Arabia. I don't see any reason why it would pose such a greater risk to the environment for the US to do the drilling but not third world dictatorships, I don't see why things can't be done and then on the slim chance if someone acts negligent and some major blow up happens then be punished for it. The more oil we get from home as well as the alternate energy we produce means less to maybe no foreign dependence. While drilling off the eastern seaboard may potentially effect a large population, ANWR and the Artic ocean do not and I think should be fully explored. ANWR is basically a wasteland, it's kind of a joke to be considered such an untouchable wildlife preserve when most city parks seem like better examples in comparison.



Feyokien
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 16 Dec 2014
Age: 31
Gender: Female
Posts: 7,303
Location: The Northern Waste

21 Dec 2016, 5:03 pm

Jacoby wrote:
Some dependence on oil will last several more lifetimes, I'd rather have more domestic oil than have to get it from countries like Saudi Arabia. I don't see any reason why it would pose such a greater risk to the environment for the US to do the drilling but not third world dictatorships, I don't see why things can't be done and then on the slim chance if someone acts negligent and some major blow up happens then be punished for it. The more oil we get from home as well as the alternate energy we produce means less to maybe no foreign dependence. While drilling off the eastern seaboard may potentially effect a large population, ANWR and the Artic ocean do not and I think should be fully explored. ANWR is basically a wasteland, it's kind of a joke to be considered such an untouchable wildlife preserve when most city parks seem like better examples in comparison.


The United States already gets only a fraction of its oil from foreign countries, 24% to be exact in 2015. Of that the majority of foreign oil comes from Canada at a stunning 40%. Only 16% of the 24% of imported oil come from Saudi Arabia, or in a better explained way, only 3% of U.S. oil comes from Saudi Arabia. The next top 3 countries that we get our oil from are all in Latin/South America. The U.S. is pretty much energy independent of most of the world except for it's close allies and trading partners in the Western Hemisphere. The only reason we trade for Oil with Saudi Arabia is because certain individuals want to trade with them for whatever reason, we're not dependent. We really don't have a lot of reason to drill the Arctic right now except for filling the coffers of oil companies. There's also nothing intrinsically wrong with oil companies extracting oil, as long as it's done in a responsible way, which many U.S. Oil companies are getting better at in the new century.

Sources:
http://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.cfm?id=727&t=6
http://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.cfm?id=32&t=6



Jacoby
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 10 Dec 2007
Age: 34
Gender: Male
Posts: 14,284
Location: Permanently banned by power tripping mods lol this forum is trash

21 Dec 2016, 5:30 pm

I would consider Venezuela a third world dictatorship wouldn't you? We get 40% of our oil from Canada this is true, most Americans honestly barely think of Canada as a separate company and the fact that the US consumes 70% of their oil is pretty interesting. Regardless foreign dependence is foreign dependence wherever it may be, who we've imported oil from has shifted over the years and Saudi Arabia was at one time our top single importer. The percentages you talk about signify massive quantities, the number only looks small in comparison. I don't really understand that if it's 'federal land' and we own it then why can't we make a profit off of it? Why does it only have to be to 'the coffers of the oil executives'?

I think a lot of the alternative energy stuff are scams and boondoggles, just because someone fancies themselves as 'green' doesn't mean they're not a profiteer. We can't just change where we get energy from is before the technology is there and I think there is a lot that can be done to promote alternate energies, there should be way more incentives for individuals to take themselves out of the grid so to speak as financing solar is honestly just as expensive as electricity is out here where I live so I don't see why home consumption isn't something focused on. I think making the change at home first is also the baby step needed to something bigger.



Feyokien
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 16 Dec 2014
Age: 31
Gender: Female
Posts: 7,303
Location: The Northern Waste

21 Dec 2016, 5:55 pm

Jacoby wrote:
I would consider Venezuela a third world dictatorship wouldn't you? We get 40% of our oil from Canada this is true, most Americans honestly barely think of Canada as a separate company and the fact that the US consumes 70% of their oil is pretty interesting. Regardless foreign dependence is foreign dependence wherever it may be, who we've imported oil from has shifted over the years and Saudi Arabia was at one time our top single importer. The percentages you talk about signify massive quantities, the number only looks small in comparison. I don't really understand that if it's 'federal land' and we own it then why can't we make a profit off of it? Why does it only have to be to 'the coffers of the oil executives'?

I think a lot of the alternative energy stuff are scams and boondoggles, just because someone fancies themselves as 'green' doesn't mean they're not a profiteer. We can't just change where we get energy from is before the technology is there and I think there is a lot that can be done to promote alternate energies, there should be way more incentives for individuals to take themselves out of the grid so to speak as financing solar is honestly just as expensive as electricity is out here where I live so I don't see why home consumption isn't something focused on. I think making the change at home first is also the baby step needed to something bigger.


We aren't dependent on Saudi Arabia at all, some people just like to trade with them, punish those individuals if it fancies you, but agree to disagree I guess. Any revenue generated in the arctic will only go to the companies,not just the executives, that drill and extract it. America is actually unique that we let private corporations claim oil like Exxon or Shell, most countries have NOC's (National Oil Companies), that are directly in control of the government and all profits from their drilling go directly to funding their governments.

Alternative/renewable energy is not a scam. Ethanol for example is a booming industry for Iowa and is far from a scam. So is Wind energy in Iowa. The technology is already here or on its way to being optimized anyways.

Source:
https://www.iowacorn.org/corn-uses/ethanol/
https://www.midamericanenergy.com/wind-energy.aspx

I don't understand what third world dictatorships have to do with anything other than you don't think we should trade with them? I would agree, but free trade is what it is.