/Featured Quiz4 October - Weekly Featured Quiz - General Knowledge

[webfact]

Obama bans future oil leases in much of Arctic, Atlantic

By KEVIN FREKING

 

HONOLULU (AP) — President Barack Obama on Tuesday designated the bulk of U.S.-owned waters in the Arctic Ocean and certain areas in the Atlantic Ocean as indefinitely off limits to future oil and gas leasing.

 

The move helps put some finishing touches on Obama's environmental legacy while also testing President-elect Donald Trump's promise to unleash the nation's untapped energy reserves.

 

The White House announced the actions in conjunction with the government of Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, which also placed a moratorium on new oil and gas leasing in its Arctic waters, subject to periodic review.

 

Obama is making use of an arcane provision in a 1953 law to ban offshore leases in the waters permanently. The statute says that "the president of the United States may, from time to time, withdraw from disposition any of the unleased lands of the outer Continental Shelf."

 

Environmental groups hope the ban, despite relying on executive powers, will be difficult for future presidents to reverse. The White House said it's confident the president's order will withstand legal challenge and said the language of the statute provides no authority for subsequent presidents to undo permanent withdrawals.

 

The Atlantic waters placed off limits to new oil and gas leasing are 31 canyons stretching off the coast of New England south to Virginia, though some had hoped for a more extensive ban that would have extended further south.

 

Existing leases aren't affected by the president's executive actions.

 

The administration cited environmental concerns in both regions to justify the moratorium. Obama also cited the importance of the Chukchi and Beaufort seas in providing subsistence for native Alaskans and the vulnerability of the ecosystem to an oil spill to justify his directive.

 

Obama also noted the level of fuel production occurring in the Arctic. Obama said just 0.1 percent of offshore crude production came from the Arctic in 2015, and at current oil prices, significant production would not occur in future decades.

 

"That's why looking forward, we must continue to focus on economic empowerment for Arctic communities beyond this one sector," Obama said.

 

Still, industry officials objected to Obama's memorandum, calling it "last minute political rhetoric."

 

"Instead of building on our nation's position as a global energy leader, today's unilateral mandate could put America back on a path of energy dependence for decades to come," said Dan Naatz of the Independent Petroleum Association of America.

 

And Alaska Gov. Bill Walker, an independent, said Obama's move marginalized local voices. He said no one is more invested than Alaskans in making sure Arctic habitats are protected.

 

"To lock it up against any further exploration or development activity is akin to saying that the voices of activists who live in Lower 48 cities have a greater stake than those to whom the Arctic is our front yard and our back yard," he said in a statement.

 

In issuing a permanent ban, Obama appears to be trying to tie the hands of his successor. Trump has vowed a domestic energy revolution and is filling his Cabinet with nominees deeply opposed to Obama's environmental and climate change actions.

 

Environmental groups were calling for a permanent ban even before the presidential election, but Trump's victory has provided greater urgency for them and for businesses that rely on tourism and fishing. Trump has said he intends to use all available fuel reserves for energy self-sufficiency — and that it's time to open up offshore drilling.

 

"This decision will help protect existing lucrative coastal tourism and fishing businesses from offshore drilling, which promises smaller, short-lived returns and threatens coastal livelihoods," said Jacqueline Savitz, a senior vice president at the advocacy group, Oceana.

 

A key question to be answered is how difficult it will be for future presidents to overturn Obama's decision should they seek to do so.

 

The American Petroleum Institute pointed to 2008 when President George W. Bush used a simple memorandum to remove previously withdrawn lands and make all Outer Continental Shelf lands available for leasing except marine sanctuaries.

 

"Fortunately, there is no such thing as a permanent ban," said the institute's Erik Milito.

 

But White House officials in a conference call with reporters said previous "indefinite withdrawals" remain in place and voiced confidence that Obama's decision will stand.

 

Advocacy groups were already warning that they were prepared to file suit to protect the ban during future administrations.

 

"If Donald Trump tries to reverse President Obama's withdrawals, he will find himself in court," said Marissa Knodel of Friends of the Earth.

 

Frank Knapp, president of the South Carolina Small Business Chamber of Commerce in Columbia, said he was "extremely disappointed" in the decision not to extend drilling protections to the entire Atlantic seaboard.

 

Knapp and his group were among a number of business groups in the southeast who had advocated for banning new drilling leases off their shores, arguing that the environmental impacts would hurt fishing, tourism and other businesses the region relies upon. He'd gone to Washington to meet with Obama administration officials, and believed the entire Atlantic was to be protected.

 

The decision came as Obama spends the holidays in Hawaii. Some Democratic lawmakers applauded Obama, while some Republicans were highly critical.

 

"As President-elect Trump nominates fossil fuel allies to his Cabinet, President Obama has instead put the interests of millions of Americans ahead of those of Big Oil with these permanent protections," said Democratic Sen. Ed Markey of Massachusetts.

 

"The extremes to which this president will go to appease special interests never ceases to amaze," countered Rep. Rob Bishop, R-Utah, and chairman of the House Committee on Natural Resources. "This is not a moral calling; it's an abuse of power."

__

Associated Press writers Josh Lederman in Washington, Jason Dearen in Gainesville, Florida, and Becky Bohrer in Juneau, Alaska, contributed to this report.

 

-- © Associated Press 2016-12-21

[Rhys]

The Aliens paid him a visit... Long Live Robert Byrd..

 

[maoro2013]

Well a bit ridiculous doing this in his last months. He had 8 years to do this.

[phantomfiddler]

How can one man ban anything indefinitely ? Surely he can only wield power (and waste millions of taxpayers money) while he is in office ! This guy is going to do as much damage, and spend as much money, as he possibly can while getting the bum,s rush.

[Silurian]

No worries. Comrade Donald and the Exxon Sec of State will make sure oil flows from their Russian counterparts.

[Emster23]

BBC reports ban will last 5 years. Should be long enough to return someone sensible to White House, etc

[hawker9000]

47 minutes ago, phantomfiddler said:

How can one man ban anything indefinitely ? Surely he can only wield power (and waste millions of taxpayers money) while he is in office ! This guy is going to do as much damage, and spend as much money, as he possibly can while getting the bum,s rush.

I had the same question, and am not at all sure of the answer, but I think it has something to do with its maybe being part of an international agreement having something to do with the Canadians (and maybe others).  Once entered into, 'can't be easily undone - or something like that.   'Would've thought stuff like that required some sort of Senate approval.  'Hopefully somebody here knows more...   'Maybe just a last-minute Hail Mary on Obama's part.

 

Edited December 21, 2016 by hawker9000

[kamahele]

1 hour ago, phantomfiddler said:

How can one man ban anything indefinitely ? Surely he can only wield power (and waste millions of taxpayers money) while he is in office ! This guy is going to do as much damage, and spend as much money, as he possibly can while getting the bum,s rush.

Nothing is forever but according to the article, he has the legal right as President to do so  "Obama is making use of an arcane provision in a 1953 law to ban offshore leases in the waters permanently. The statute says that "the president of the United States may, from time to time, withdraw from disposition any of the unleased lands of the outer Continental Shelf." " And for damage, what damage is being done? There is no shortage of oil. 

[Saastrajaa]

20 minutes ago, hawker9000 said:

I had the same question, and am not at all sure of the answer, but I think it has something to do with its maybe being part of an international agreement having something to do with the Canadians (and maybe others).  Once entered into, 'can't be easily undone - or something like that.   'Would've thought stuff like that required some sort of Senate approval.  'Hopefully somebody here knows more...   'Maybe just a last-minute Hail Mary on Obama's part.

 

 

Yes, can you imagine such an evil man, taking action to prevent the environment like that?  It's disgusting, I tell you.

[halloween]

Has he got around to pardoning a few criminal mates yet?

[jcsmith]

He's doing what he can do to make it tougher on Trump to destroy the environment.

[boomerangutang]

from OP:

"Instead of building on our nation's position as a global energy leader, today's unilateral mandate could put America back on a path of energy dependence for decades to come," said Dan Naatz of the Independent Petroleum Association of America. 

 

Dan Naatz needs to hone up on some of the advances in energy production which have been developing for the past 50 years.   Here's a hint:  alternative clean sources of energy are workable and becoming lower cost week by week.  

[pmarlin]

Nothing is permanent. Obama did it with a signature and Congress or the next President can fix it.

[Andaman Al]

Obama haters are so obsessed that despite what he does for good you simply find a way to hate it and criticise it. The World is mental.

[Krataiboy]

3 hours ago, maoro2013 said:

Well a bit ridiculous doing this in his last months. He had 8 years to do this.

 

More gesture politics from the egregious Wall Street proxy. He knows the ban can and almost certainly will be reversed by Trump, using the "simple memorandum" loophole.

[ilostmypassword]

6 minutes ago, Krataiboy said:

 

More gesture politics from the egregious Wall Street proxy. He knows the ban can and almost certainly will be reversed by Trump, using the "simple memorandum" loophole.

Trump appoints the #2 guy at Goldman Sachs to be the chief econonmic adviser and Obama's the Wall Street proxy?

Trump appoints 2nd Generation Goldman Sachs guy and bankster to be the Treasury Secretary and Obama's the Wall Street proxy?

How disconnected from reality can you be?

[bangon04]

1 hour ago, jcsmith said:

He's doing what he can do to make it tougher on Trump to destroy the environment.

No he is daring Trump to reverse most or maybe all of his presidential decrees of the past 8 years.

 

Trump may not care too much about looking bad.....

[blazes]

The latest oil finding in Texas would supply, all by itself, the total energy needs of the US for three years.  20 billion barrels ready to be tapped when the price is right.

 

http://edition.cnn.com/2016/11/17/us/midland-texas-mammoth-oil-discovery/

 

No need to drill the Arctic for a while.

[elgordo38]

7 hours ago, webfact said:

Environmental groups hope the ban, despite relying on executive powers, will be difficult for future presidents to reverse.

Your blowing smoke you know where. Every rule in the book is being broken with ease especially ones benefiting big business. Trump will trump this one right out of the starting gate. 

[Morch]

5 hours ago, Silurian said:

No worries. Comrade Donald and the Exxon Sec of State will make sure oil flows from their Russian counterparts.

V

Edited December 21, 2016 by Morch

[Grubster]

The oil companies are behind this 100%. If that oil were to be tapped it would lower oil prices, they don't want that.

[landslide]

15 hours ago, Silurian said:

No worries. Comrade Donald and the Exxon Sec of State will make sure oil flows from their Russian counterparts.

Russian oil would then be replacing Obama's buddies the "Mad Mullah's" oil.  I, for one, would prefer the US to be energy independent, both oil and alternative sources (once they can be produced economically and safely).

[thaibeachlovers]

subject to periodic review.

So it will be no more permanent than Obamacare.

I wish it could be permanent, but I also wish I could buy an electric vehicle that could drive indefinitely without needing lengthy charging ( no longer than filling a petrol tank ) and costs under $5,000 second hand.

 

[thaibeachlovers]

15 hours ago, blazes said:

The latest oil finding in Texas would supply, all by itself, the total energy needs of the US for three years.  20 billion barrels ready to be tapped when the price is right.

 

http://edition.cnn.com/2016/11/17/us/midland-texas-mammoth-oil-discovery/

 

No need to drill the Arctic for a while.

And if the US gave up it's insane desire to drive cars with engines that could power a tank, it might last 50 years. Not for nothing do people elsewhere in the world condemn the US for being the most wasteful country on the planet.

[Andaman Al]

11 hours ago, Grubster said:

The oil companies are behind this 100%. If that oil were to be tapped it would lower oil prices, they don't want that.

The oil companies are behind it 100% because they want rules NOT to drill for US oil, then they use the rest of the worlds first. When Oil starts running out the only untapped massive reserves in the world will be in the .......USA, and thereafter the US will have total control.

[Scott]

Off-topic post removed.  

[Grubster]

3 hours ago, Andaman Al said:

The oil companies are behind it 100% because they want rules NOT to drill for US oil, then they use the rest of the worlds first. When Oil starts running out the only untapped massive reserves in the world will be in the .......USA, and thereafter the US will have total control.

I doubt that as there is probably ten times more oil in the world than they like you to believe. If they used the easy to get sources oil could be $20 a barrel with a handsome profit. The US was a net exporter in 2015.  If they tapped the big oil fields they could easily drive the price under $20. Natural gas is even more abundant.  The big US oil companies have been in total control of oil since day one.

[stevenl]

10 hours ago, landslide said:

Russian oil would then be replacing Obama's buddies the "Mad Mullah's" oil.  I, for one, would prefer the US to be energy independent, both oil and alternative sources (once they can be produced economically and safely).

You realise the US is a net oil exporter?

[JHolmesJr]

Barry is a heartbeat away from checking out and still doing all he can to diss mr trump. i think he's peeing in the wind.

[Gary A]

I can't say that I am a fan of big oil, BUT, I would stay happy by being oil independent. Fossil fuel is being slowly replaced with renewables and oil will someday be obsolete. That said we have tree huggers who oppose wind power. They can't have it both ways. Energy usage will continue to increase nearly every year and green energy needs massive support to replace oil.