Libs Stop Shell From Drilling For Oil

[red states rule]

The same people demanding energy independence are standing in the way of drilling that an oil company, Shell, from drilling for more oil


Shell ordered to suspend Arctic offshore drilling
Fri Jul 20, 2007 9:41PM EDT

By Yereth Rosen

ANCHORAGE, Alaska (Reuters) - A U.S. federal appeals court has ordered Royal Dutch Shell Plc (RDSa.L: Quote, Profile, Research) to suspend oil exploration operations in the Beaufort Sea off the north coast of Alaska pending a legal challenge being brought by environmental activists and Alaska native groups.

The ruling deals a serious blow to Shell's plan to drill up to four exploration wells during the brief Arctic summer to test a $44 million bet the company placed on the region in 2005. Oral arguments in the case are set for August 14 in San Francisco.

"We will comply with the court order and continue to welcome discussions with the North Slope," Shell spokesman Curtis Smith said in an email.

Federal officials said Shell's drilling permit runs through October, so it is possible Shell could do some drilling if it gets a favorable ruling in August.

Opponents of drilling in the Beaufort Sea argue that environmental impact studies carried out by Shell and approved by the U.S. Department of the Interior failed to take seriously the threat posed to bowhead whales and other wildlife.

Native whalers also are concerned that hunting the whales, which they are permitted to do by the International Whaling Commission, could become more difficult and dangerous.

"The industry and the government have to slow down and listen to the scientists and the concerns of the whalers," said North Slope Borough Mayor Edward Itta in a statement. "We stand the chance of losing our whaling crews and the traditional food that feeds our families."

The Interior Department's Minerals Management Service approved Shell's drilling plans in February.

Shell had planned to drill four wells on the Sivulliq prospect this summer. Oil had been discovered at Sivulliq in the 1980s but the field was abandoned at the time due to the high cost of developing oil fields in the Beaufort Sea.

for the complete article

http://www.reuters.com/article/bondsNews/idUSN2033359620070721

 

[ReillyT]

The same people demanding energy independence are standing in the way of drilling that an oil company, Shell, from drilling for more oil

http://www.reuters.com/article/bondsNews/idUSN2033359620070721

Isn't everybody for more energy independence? I didn't know that was specifically a liberal idea.

 

[Paulie]

Isn't everybody for more energy independence? I didn't know that was specifically a liberal idea.

Anything RSR doesn't agree with is a liberal idea.

 

[JeffWartman]

His point is that if Liberals are really for energy independence, why are they stopping us from alleviating our dependence on foreign oil by drilling domestically.

It's a fair point, however, RSR is making one glaring logical mistake...how do you specifically know this federal judge is a liberal?

 

[red states rule]

Isn't everybody for more energy independence? I didn't know that was specifically a liberal idea.

Most conservatives feel we should go out and get more oil

Libs are opposed to any new drilling

 

[red states rule]

His point is that if Liberals are really for energy independence, why are they stopping us from alleviating our dependence on foreign oil by drilling domestically.

It's a fair point, however, RSR is making one glaring logical mistake...how do you specifically know this federal judge is a liberal?

The 9th Circus is a liberal court

 

[RetiredGySgt]

The 9th Circus is a liberal court

The 9th is heavily liberal and as a result is the single most overturned Court in the Federal system.

 

[red states rule]

The 9th is heavily liberal and as a result is the single most overturned Court in the Federal system.

Nice record to hold when you are an appeals court

One would think they would KNOW the law

 

[ReillyT]

Nice record to hold when you are an appeals court

One would think they would KNOW the law

Is your argument that because it is the most liberal and most overturned Court of Appeals in the US, therefore, no decision that they reach could possibly be correct? That seems a stretch.

 

[red states rule]

Is your argument that because it is the most liberal and most overturned Court of Appeals in the US, therefore, no decision that they reach could possibly be correct? That seems a stretch.

The USSC has overturned them more then any other appeals court

That is a fact

 

[ReillyT]

The USSC has overturned them more then any other appeals court

That is a fact

I don't deny that. I question whether this means that any decision they make must therefore, necessarily, be wrong. I don't think so.

 

[red states rule]

I don't deny that. I question whether this means that any decision they make must therefore, necessarily, be wrong. I don't think so.

The point is, if they did get any decision right - it would stand out as a huge accomplishment

 

[ReillyT]

The point is, if they did get any decision right - it would stand out as a huge accomplishment

Actually, I just assumed you were right that the 9th Circuit is overturned more than other circuits, but I haven't (in my quick search) found anything to back that up. I did find articles saying the opposite.

http://mediamatters.org/items/200511070001

In any event, it doesn't really matter. The USSC only hears a small fraction of the cases in any individual Court of Appeals. Even if the USSC overturned all of the cases it took from the 9th Circuit (which it doesn't), this would still mean that the vast majority of total cases taken by the 9th Circuit stand.

 

[red states rule]

Actually, I just assumed you were right that the 9th Circuit is overturned more than other circuits, but I haven't (in my quick search) found anything to back that up. I did find articles saying the opposite.

http://mediamatters.org/items/200511070001

In any event, it doesn't really matter. The USSC only hears a small fraction of the cases in any individual Court of Appeals. Even if the USSC overturned all of the cases it took from the 9th Circuit (which it doesn't), this would still mean that the vast majority of total cases taken by the 9th Circuit stand.

LOL!!!

Media matters - the George Soros smear website is now your source for info


http://www.centerforindividualfreedom.org/legal/supreme_court_wary_of_9th.htm

 

[ReillyT]

LOL!!!

Media matters - the George Soros smear website is now your source for info


http://www.centerforindividualfreedom.org/legal/supreme_court_wary_of_9th.htm

Okay, I'll buy that. I wasn't familiar with the site that I found, so I don't put a great deal of faith in it. Nonetheless, if the Supreme Court only reversed 19 (I think it said, of 59) 9th Circuit cases that year, that means the vast, vast, vast majority of 9th Circuit cases stand. Therefore, I don't think it is fair to assume that the 9th Circuit decides a case wrong every time they hear one. That doesn't appear to be the case (no pun intended).

 

[red states rule]

Okay, I'll buy that. I wasn't familiar with the site that I found, so I don't put a great deal of faith in it. Nonetheless, if the Supreme Court only reversed 19 (I think it said, of 59) 9th Circuit cases that year, that means the vast, vast, vast majority of 9th Circuit cases stand. Therefore, I don't think it is fair to assume that the 9th Circuit decides a case wrong every time they hear one. That doesn't appear to be the case (no pun intended).

It is not good the very liberal 9th Circus is the most overturned Court in the land

Is it asking to much for liberal Judges to know the law?

 

[ReillyT]

It is not good the very liberal 9th Circus is the most overturned Court in the land

Is it asking to much for liberal Judges to know the law?

The law is tricky. In the cases where the 9th Circuit (or any Circuit Court) is overturned, it is not as if the law were clearly defined. These are cases within the seams of the laws, where it is not clear necessarily what the law means in the specific case, or perhaps which law should apply. Appeals Court judges (liberal and conservative alike) are remarkably talented and intelligent people. It is not as easy as following the instruction book for your DVD player.

 

[red states rule]

The law is tricky. In the cases where the 9th Circuit (or any Circuit Court) is overturned, it is not as if the law were clearly defined. These are cases within the seams of the laws, where it is not clear necessarily what the law means in the specific case, or perhaps which law should apply. Appeals Court judges (liberal and conservative alike) are remarkably talented and intelligent people. It is not as easy as following the instruction book for your DVD player.

the law is not tricky to liberal Judges - they simply creat laws from the bench

and the US SC overturns them.

Which is why Dems on Capital Hill tried to block Pres Bush's nominees - can't have those consevatives Judges interperteing the law and not making law from the bench

 

[ReillyT]

the law is not tricky to liberal Judges - they simply creat laws from the bench

and the US SC overturns them.

Which is why Dems on Capital Hill tried to block Pres Bush's nominees - can't have those consevatives Judges interperteing the law and not making law from the bench

That is a bit simplistic. I will go so far as to say I disagree with you, but to get into a whole discussion about theories of statutory interpretation is too much for me tonight. I lack the energy.

I don't believe that liberal judges make laws from the bench, at least not to an extent appreciably different from conservative judges in most cases. But obviously you disagree, as is your right.

It appears we have scurried off topic again, not that there is that much to say about the Shell decision without reading the case, which I am not likely to do. Perhaps you will, and then you can enlighten about the grounds for the decision.

 

[red states rule]

That is a bit simplistic. I will go so far as to say I disagree with you, but to get into a whole discussion about theories of statutory interpretation is too much for me tonight. I lack the energy.

I don't believe that liberal judges make laws from the bench, at least not to an extent appreciably different from conservative judges in most cases. But obviously you disagree, as is your right.

It appears we have scurried off topic again, not that there is that much to say about the Shell decision without reading the case, which I am not likely to do. Perhaps you will, and then you can enlighten about the grounds for the decision.

Off topic is pointing out how liberal Judges are overturned more then conservative Courts?

That is why Dems tried to block all of Pres Bush's choices

Now libs are on the losing side to 5-4 decisions