CHEYENNE, Wyo. — A judge on Friday threw out Obama administration rules that sought to slow down expedited environmental review of oil and gas drilling on federal land.
U.S. District Judge Nancy Freudenthal ruled in favor of a petroleum industry group, the Western Energy Alliance, in its lawsuit against the federal government, including Interior Secretary Ken Salazar.
The ruling reinstates Bush-era expedited oil and gas drilling under provisions called categorical exclusions on federal lands nationwide, Freudenthal said.
The government argued that oil and gas companies had no case because they didn't show how the new rules, implemented by the U.S. Bureau of Land Management and U.S. Forest Service last year, had created delays and added to the cost of drilling.
Freudenthal rejected that argument.
"Western Energy has demonstrated through its members recognizable injury," she said. "Those injuries are supported by the administrative record."
An attorney for the government declined to comment but Kathleen Sgamma, director of government and public affairs for the Denver-based Western Energy Alliance, praised the ruling.
She completely discounted the government's argument that the harm was speculative," Sgamma said of the judge.
The Energy Policy Act of 2005 allows the BLM and Forest Service to invoke categorical exclusions and skip new environmental review for drilling permits under certain circumstances.
The circumstances include instances where companies plan to disturb relatively little ground and environmental review already has been done for that area. A categorical exclusion also can be invoked when additional drilling is planned at a well pad where drilling has occurred within the previous five years.
Categorical exclusions were widely used throughout the West — especially in the gas boom states of Wyoming, Utah and New Mexico — until last year.
In Wyoming, the BLM invoked categorical exclusions for 87 percent of the new gas wells drilled in the Upper Green River Basin between 2007 and 2010. Those drilling permits added up: Close to 3,000 over those three years in the basin's Jonah Field and Pinedale Anticline gas fields.
The Jonah Field and Pinedale Anticline ranked fifth and sixth for gas production in the U.S. in 2009.
Federal land agencies adopted new rules for interpreting the Energy Policy Act last year in response to an environmentalist lawsuit over the use of categorical exclusions. The Western Energy Alliance sued over the new rules last fall.
I have one thing to say after reading the entire story.......screw the environmentalists. I am so tired of hearing about progress being halted due to the environmental bullshit that goes on. Obviously the other countries that drill don't give a crap and they are laughing and reaping the benefits from us sorry asses in the U.S who are too concerned about the environmental impact. Here in CaliFU, the environmentalists are so concerned with EVERYTHING that they almost intrude in your daily life.
[This message has been edited by IMSA GT (edited 08-12-2011).]
IP: Logged
11:07 PM
blackrams Member
Posts: 31842 From: Hattiesburg, MS, USA Registered: Feb 2003
Here in CaliFU, the environmentalists are so concerned with EVERYTHING that they almost intrude in your daily life.
I beg to differ with you on this, California environmental issues have an effect on all of us as a whole and do intrude on our daily lives, not just Californians. California has led the way (if you want to call it that) in environmental rules and regs and many of those have been adopted by either the other states or the Feds. I won't suggest that all are bad but, many go way past common sense and really hurt all of us.
When California starts allowing off shore drilling where we know there is oil, I might start feeling sorry for the political process and those living there. But, as long as Californians continue their current ways, I don't care if they go broke or not. As I'm sure someone will remind us, not all Californias are like the nuts in the bigger cities, I'm well aware of that but, you're either part of the problem or part of the solution, pick your side. Drilling for oil is just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to CA taking care itself. Personally, I'd let CA take care of itself in their current fiscal crisis.
------------------ Ron
[This message has been edited by blackrams (edited 08-12-2011).]
IP: Logged
11:23 PM
IMSA GT Member
Posts: 10268 From: California Registered: Aug 2007
I beg to differ with you on this, California environmental issues have an effect on all of us as a whole, not just Californians. California has led the way (if you want to call it that) in environmental rules and regs and many of those have been adopted by either the other states or the Feds. I won't suggest that all are bad but, many go way past common sense and really hurt all of us.
When California starts allowing off shore drilling where we know there is oil, I might start feeling sorry for the political process and those living there. But, as long as Californians continue their current ways, I don't care if they go broke or not. As I'm sure someone will remind us, not all Californias are like the nuts in the bigger cities, I'm well aware of that but, you're either part of the problem or part of the solution, pick your side. Drilling for oil is just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to CA taking care itself. Personally, I'd let CA take care of itself in their current fiscal crisis.
You are absolutely correct in everything that you said. I was born here, I didn't move here and I will be honest that this is the shittiest state to live in. It never used to be this way when I was younger. For some reason the state "gave in" to the hippies and environmentalists. The state thought that with Hollywood and so many other famous cities and attractions that it could be the "badass" model where everyone wanted to live. Like I said, I'm glad it went to complete $hit with WAY too many rules and yes, you are correct, it seems like our pathetic decisions are adopted by other states. My wife and I have been trying to move but cannot find a state where my income will remain straight across the board. Other states just do not pay as much as I am used to. The bottom line is that California sucks. I'm glad that the state is going to $hit and my job is based on a corporate/federal level so I have a secure career that will not be affected by the crap going on here.
IP: Logged
11:33 PM
cliffw Member
Posts: 35941 From: Bandera, Texas, USA Registered: Jun 2003
Let's Start Suckin'! Federal Judge Throws Out Obama Drilling Rules. Hmm. This would be your opinion, the only commentary you offer ? Ok, l'll go with it.
quote
your linky The government argued that oil and gas companies had no case because they didn't show how the new rules, implemented by the U.S. Bureau of Land Management and U.S. Forest Service last year, had created delays and added to the cost of drilling.
The gooberment (pun intended) contends that new rules do not add delays or costs ? The oil and gas companies are fighting cheaper and quicker wells ? Start suckin' what ?
IP: Logged
11:48 PM
blackrams Member
Posts: 31842 From: Hattiesburg, MS, USA Registered: Feb 2003
You are absolutely correct in everything that you said. I was born here, I didn't move here and I will be honest that this is the shittiest state to live in. It never used to be this way when I was younger. For some reason the state "gave in" to the hippies and environmentalists. The state thought that with Hollywood and so many other famous cities and attractions that it could be the "badass" model where everyone wanted to live. Like I said, I'm glad it went to complete $hit with WAY too many rules and yes, you are correct, it seems like our pathetic decisions are adopted by other states. My wife and I have been trying to move but cannot find a state where my income will remain straight across the board. Other states just do not pay as much as I am used to. The bottom line is that California sucks. I'm glad that the state is going to $hit and my job is based on a corporate/federal level so I have a secure career that will not be affected by the crap going on here.
We all have to make decisions as to what's best for us, all I can say to your delima is, other locations may not make as much but generally speaking, the cost of liviing isn't as high either. Good luck in what ever you do. I've been offered several opportunites on the west coast, I've turned them all down for my own personal reasons but, mostly due to west coast politics.
------------------ Ron
IP: Logged
11:48 PM
cliffw Member
Posts: 35941 From: Bandera, Texas, USA Registered: Jun 2003
Originally posted by IMSA GT: My wife and I have been trying to move but cannot find a state where my income will remain straight across the board.
Blackrams is right. Income is but one variable in the equation of life. I have even been happy working for less. Hope life satisfies you, there or elsewhere.
IP: Logged
11:52 PM
Formula88 Member
Posts: 53788 From: Raleigh NC Registered: Jan 2001
That would be political non-commentary. He didn't make a statement or take a position for or against anything. He just used working to make you think he has an opinion, which of course he does, but he didn't say what his opinion is, so you're not supposed to make any assumptions what his point was, other than jumping to a conclusion based on leading language that may or may not have been used intentionally.
IP: Logged
11:59 PM
Aug 13th, 2011
Boondawg Member
Posts: 38235 From: Displaced Alaskan Registered: Jun 2003
That would be political non-commentary. He didn't make a statement or take a position for or against anything. He just used working to make you think he has an opinion, which of course he does, but he didn't say what his opinion is, so you're not supposed to make any assumptions what his point was, other than jumping to a conclusion based on leading language that may or may not have been used intentionally.
And that is non-reading some-nothing into not-something.
IP: Logged
12:03 AM
PFF
System Bot
blackrams Member
Posts: 31842 From: Hattiesburg, MS, USA Registered: Feb 2003
That would be political non-commentary. He didn't make a statement or take a position for or against anything. He just used working to make you think he has an opinion, which of course he does, but he didn't say what his opinion is, so you're not supposed to make any assumptions what his point was, other than jumping to a conclusion based on leading language that may or may not have been used intentionally.
Gosh, I thought by now, everyone would realize that Boonie rarely issues an opinion. At least, that's what he tells me repeatedly. Don't read into his posts, he posts them because he finds something in them interesting. Hard for me to do but, I'm trying to stay neutral on this particular opionionator or non-opinionator.
I'm thinking I just invented a non-word.
------------------ Ron
IP: Logged
12:06 AM
Formula88 Member
Posts: 53788 From: Raleigh NC Registered: Jan 2001
Gosh, I thought by now, everyone would realize that Boonie rarely issues an opinion. At least, that's what he tells me repeatedly. Don't read into his posts, he posts them because he finds something in them interesting. Hard for me to do but, I'm trying to stay neutral on this particular opionionator or non-opinionator.
I'm thinking I just invented a non-word.
Exactly. Any opinion you may think Boonie has is purely your own conjecture based on what you think he meant by his post. You should in no way infer that's the correct message, or that there was any message to begin with.
IP: Logged
12:08 AM
Formula88 Member
Posts: 53788 From: Raleigh NC Registered: Jan 2001
Don't read into his posts, he posts them because he finds something in them interesting.
Couldn't I be posting it because I think someone else might find it interesting? Or someone else might find it to be good news? Or maybe I post it just to be "first on the scene"? Or a chance to be funny?
Or the hundred other reasons someone might post something other then to feed the paranoia of those looking for something, anything, nothing that expand into something.
And notice how all these "unseen meanings" in my posts are never seen for GOOD things? They are ALWAYS seen as something shady, devious, underhanded.
To me, that says far more about the accuser then it does about the accused.
[This message has been edited by Boondawg (edited 08-13-2011).]
IP: Logged
12:19 AM
Boondawg Member
Posts: 38235 From: Displaced Alaskan Registered: Jun 2003
Originally posted by Boondawg: To me, that says far more about the accuser then it does about the accused.
Hey, I said I was trying to be neutral, what else do you want?
Did I mis-represent what you've stated? I only stated what you've said previously,
I have no idea as to why you post anything you do post, don't slap the messenger.
Now you suggesting that I or whoever................ Oh nevermind, not my problem.
Edited: Or maybe, you could state one of those reasons for posting what ever you post. Obviously, you've left enough questions in the minds of some that now you're defending from someone that was trying to be neutral.
------------------ Ron
[This message has been edited by blackrams (edited 08-13-2011).]
IP: Logged
12:24 AM
Boondawg Member
Posts: 38235 From: Displaced Alaskan Registered: Jun 2003
Exactly. Any opinion you may think Boonie has is purely your own conjecture based on what you think he meant by his post. You should in no way infer that's the correct message, or that there was any message to begin with.
That is exactly correct. What is so hard or wrong about that? It's how you would act if you were talking face-to-face witrh someone.
You wouldn't project onto them what you assumed they ment on a subject. And you wouldn't demand an opinion on the subject. You would ask them if they had an opinion on the subject.
And you sure wouldn't belittle them if they said they did not.
Seems simple.
[This message has been edited by Boondawg (edited 08-13-2011).]
IP: Logged
12:35 AM
PFF
System Bot
Raydar Member
Posts: 40729 From: Carrollton GA. Out in the... country. Registered: Oct 1999
To me, that says far more about the accuser then it does about the accused.
For there to be an accuser and an accused, don't accusations have to be made?
quote
Originally posted by Boondawg:
That is exactly correct. What is so hard or wrong about that? It's how you would act if you were talking face-to-face witrh someone.
You wouldn't project onto them what you assumed they ment on a subject. And you wouldn't demand an opinion on the subject. You would ask them if they had an opinion on the subject.
And you sure wouldn't belittle them if they said they did not.
Seems simple.
Did I at any time suggest you had any opinion of your own? No. I suggested any opinion people get out of your post was their own projection, to use your term. I didn't belittle you, or demand any form of clarification from you.
One might wonder why you chose to add the words "Let's Start Suckin'!" to the post if your intent was to just share an article you thought was interesting or that others might find interesting. Of course, since you don't say, all the reader has is their projection of what your opinion might have been, if you had one. You may have just decided to add those words because you thought it was funny, or thought provoking. I don't know, and I wouldn't dream of guessing. For all I know, it may be a new trend of yours to start every post of yours by imploring others to start sucking something.
Very simple.
[This message has been edited by Formula88 (edited 08-13-2011).]
IP: Logged
12:45 AM
fierobear Member
Posts: 27079 From: Safe in the Carolinas Registered: Aug 2000
I actually thought "suckin'" referred to sucking oil out of the ground. There is no negative connotation to that. I found this post interesting. It's nice when "if and evil" corporations can still get their fair voice heard, even though the public thinks it's all lies and petroleum is the Devil.
One might wonder why you chose to add the words "Let's Start Suckin'!"... You may have just decided to add those words because you thought it was funny, or thought provoking
quote
Originally posted by theBDub:
I actually thought "suckin'" referred to sucking oil out of the ground.
Putting those two together WOULD be closer to my personality then some NEGATIVE hidden meaning. See what I mean between seeing good or bad? Why not choose to see good? Or nothing at all?
And i'm not picking out any one person, I’m just wondering what’s the fascination of others lately with their attempts at "fleshing out" some hidden meaning within my posts. I'm not the enemy, I don't have a political affiliation, and any opinion I may or may not have is of very little consequence. I'm not even really very smart. Why would I attempt to hide or be "scared" to share ANY of that?
The truth is, I really don't care all that much about the "politics" of World around me, and definatly not NEAR as much as some of you try to assign me credit for.
How's THAT for a "Unifying Opinion"?
But when I DO care about something, I will let it be known. Or not, as the case may be.
[This message has been edited by Boondawg (edited 08-13-2011).]
I have one thing to say after reading the entire story.......screw the environmentalists. I am so tired of hearing about progress being halted due to the environmental bullshit that goes on. Obviously the other countries that drill don't give a crap and they are laughing and reaping the benefits from us sorry asses in the U.S who are too concerned about the environmental impact. Here in CaliFU, the environmentalists are so concerned with EVERYTHING that they almost intrude in your daily life.
Not saying that they are not playing a part, but keep in mind a lot is also media spin to keep the class warfare going strong. Always play towards the radical sides of things and it keeps us compartmentalized and arguing among our selves while the feds go off and do 'stuff' relatively unnoticed.
IP: Logged
08:45 AM
Boondawg Member
Posts: 38235 From: Displaced Alaskan Registered: Jun 2003
We all know what happens when Americans get together with a common cause.. last time that happened we came from nowhere and won WWII, before that, we created a country..
IP: Logged
08:53 AM
Boondawg Member
Posts: 38235 From: Displaced Alaskan Registered: Jun 2003
