President Obama/DeepWater Exploration

[Clyde]

Judge blocks drilling ban.. http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_gulf_oil_spill

 

Let me ask those who follow trials/judges/attorneys more than I do.

 

Is it acceptable to have a judge rule in a case where he has a financial interest (directly or indirectly)? The judge in this case owns stock in the company that owns the rig. Is this acceptable?

[mcpapa]

Let me ask those who follow trials/judges/attorneys more than I do.

 

Is it acceptable to have a judge rule in a case where he has a financial interest (directly or indirectly)? The judge in this case owns stock in the company that owns the rig. Is this acceptable?

 

Follow the money.

[Bluegrasscard]

The holdings are small. Not likely a factor. It is amazing that the AP had financial records of the Judge an hour after the ruling and devoted a major part of the article to that. Not a word on how there is no law to give power to the federal government to arbitrarily revoke permits that THEY issued, after supposedly inspecting and certifying the operation prior to issueing the permit.

[leatherneck]

My first question is this: Isn't this a temporary moratorium? I believe it's only 6 months. To my knowledge, it hasn't been decided that it was permanent.

 

The moratorium for now (prior to the court decision today) was for 6 months, but if you ran a business tied to the oil rigs, would you be willing to bet your that the moratorium wouldn't be extended or that when the moratorium was lifted it wouldn't contain so many new and expensive regs? Particularly when there are countries catering to you to move your equipment and people to their country? Nice article in today's WSJ (at least I think it was today's. It may have been yesterday's that I didn't get to until today). A lot of smaller oil companies believe that with the increased regs feared to be enacted when the moratorium is lifted, they will be priced out of the market in the US. They'll head to countries that are more "friendly".

 

Companies, like people, go to where they are wanted and have to deal with the fewest hassles. I realize that we need to review and perhaps tighten the regs these companies deal with; and I realize that companies will migrate to countries where they can make the most money. People have migrated in this country for decades to find work/better jobs. Companies do the same. Obama has been, in my opinion, unnecessarily tough in his very public criticism of BP. If you were in the oil business and saw how he was attacking BP, I have a feeling you'd consider moving operations to Brazil too.

Edited June 23, 2010 by leatherneck

[leatherneck]

I can always count on my man LN to bring observations that have bearing.

 

Here's my question based on your post about the rigs going elsewhere: Disregarding the fact that jobs are lost (and I'm not making light of that) how does oil gathered in Brazil impact us here in KY vs oil that was gathered in the Gulf?

 

I know you didn't make light of the jobs lost (not just the people on the rigs but all the people that make money off the people and businesses working on the rigs) but that in and of itself is a mighty big loss. I have to assume (I'm not a tax person) that oil companies are paying some taxes as a result of their operations in the Gulf that will be lost if they pull out and head elsewhere. The smaller businesses making money off the oil companies also pay taxes. So I'd have to assume that if the rig operaters move their operations to countries like Brazil, there will be big tax revenue decreases to the fed govt, state govt and local govt (and associated local taxing entities like schools, etc). I honestly don't know if the movement of the rigs would impact the price of oil itself as a barrel of oil is a barrel of oil in the supply chain I'd assume. Heck, if the companies have to deal with a lot less regs in Brazil, perhaps the cost of oil/gas would go down. But from a national security standpoint, I'd like the supply to be located in US territory. Then again, perhaps it makes sense to suck up and burn up all of Brazil's oil and save our own for when the world goes to Hades in a bucket. No easy answers to these challenges my friend. If solving the dependence on oil was easy, it would have been broken years ago.

 

I heard an interesting piece on NPR this morning. They were interviewing the last net maker in some La. parrish. He was lamenting that he'd probably not get any money out of BP for the destruction of his business because he had conducted his business on a cash basis and had no records of how much income his business had made over the years (ie, cash under the table basis). Sounds to me as if he had been ducking his obligation to pay the taxes that you and me pay; got to have records to file a tax return and the returns themself if he had filed them I'd assume could be a basis to determine the business value and make a claim against BP. I started out being sympathetic for him but when he said that, my sympathy dissipated. He's no different that those evil companies that shift income to other countries to avoid paying taxes in the US (except of course they are doing it legally and taking advantages of loopholes in the tax code and this guy is apparently committing a crime).

[leatherneck]

Follow the money.

 

Or the political rhetoric spewing from DC to regain popularity/ratings lost due to the health reform battle.

[leatherneck]

Let me ask those who follow trials/judges/attorneys more than I do.

 

Is it acceptable to have a judge rule in a case where he has a financial interest (directly or indirectly)? The judge in this case owns stock in the company that owns the rig. Is this acceptable?

 

I'm not an expert on judicial ethics, but I'd think it's a matter of how big of a financial interest he has in his portfolio. If he drives a gas guzzling car, is that a conflict? Probably not. If he has a huge financial interest in oil, probably. But again, it's not a matter in my wheel house.

[Clyde]

The Obama administration wants gas prices here to be at European levels within a couple of years.. Just one step to help get them there...

 

 

 

53M acres in the Gulf have been put up for lease by this administration in its first year. That's an all-time high.

 

18M acres are being offered on 8.18.10.

 

The Secretary of the Interior has a long history of promoting offshore oil drilling.

[Clyde]

By the way, this administration has contributed greatly to this long-developing problem. The previous administration started it. This one said they were going to fix the problems but not only did they not they exacerbated them.

[StickerMann]

I read that the moratorium shut down 33 deepwater operations in the Gulf but that represented less than 1% of the total wells in the Gulf. There are still 5100 wells including 591 in the deep water.

 

So how do less than 1% of the wells being halted cause a crisis?

 

How many of these are ours? I think a ton of those are being operated by other countries as far flung as Vietnam? Obviously Obama's ban can only penalize US affiliated operations.

[StickerMann]

My first question is this: Isn't this a temporary moratorium? I believe it's only 6 months. To my knowledge, it hasn't been decided that it was permanent.

 

So we'll only cut off your family's income for 6 months--Maybe??

[Clyde]

How many of these are ours? I think a ton of those are being operated by other countries as far flung as Vietnam? Obviously Obama's ban can only penalize US affiliated operations.

 

Two questions:

 

1. If its in our waters why can't we apply the ban?

2. Why does it matter how many are ours? The point being made is that less than 1% of the rigs being shutdown cannot have an impact on gas prices.

[StickerMann]

Or the political rhetoric spewing from DC to regain popularity/ratings lost due to the health reform battle.

 

 

:thumb::thumb:

[StickerMann]

Two questions:

 

1. If its in our waters why can't we apply the ban?

2. Why does it matter how many are ours? The point being made is that less than 1% of the rigs being shutdown cannot have an impact on gas prices.

 

If in fact, this only applies to only 1% of our supply, then I see your point to some degree. Problem with oil prices are, when a weakness in competition is seen (such as this ban), then the major suppliers of oil will take advantage.

 

The main problem IMO with this ban is the 10's of 1000's of hard working Americans that are being put out of work by a political manipulation meant only to increase a president's plummeting poll numbers and placate his far left supporters!!

[mcpapa]

Two questions:

 

1. If its in our waters why can't we apply the ban?

2. Why does it matter how many are ours? The point being made is that less than 1% of the rigs being shutdown cannot have an impact on gas prices.

 

I'll believe that when I see it.