
Obama bans new oil drilling in Arctic Ocean - jonbaer
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-38034518
======
ourmandave
Obama banned certain new leases through 2022.

From a related report:

[http://www.pressherald.com/2016/11/18/obama-
administration-b...](http://www.pressherald.com/2016/11/18/obama-
administration-bans-arctic-oil-drilling-through-2022/)

 _Even if the economics of Arctic drilling improve and a Trump administration
wants to reopen the area to exploration, both oil company officials and
environmental groups say, Trump would be unable to toss out the five-year plan
immediately. To undo the Obama administration’s ban, a new administration
would have to prepare a supplemental report, which could take as long as two
years, depending on whether it needs to prepare a new environmental impact
statement.

After that, the federal government would have to organize a lease sale for
companies interested in drilling there._

~~~
notliketherest
I wouldn't put it past the Congress to blow that requirement out of the water.

~~~
Frondo
Unlikely to make it past the Senate democrats, who still have filibuster
power.

~~~
anonymousab
Is that a power that could be removed by the Republicans?

Not that this is the issue where they would bother to do so.

But the Democrats may be looking to pick their battles rather than be fully
obstinate and force the GOP's hand.

~~~
Kluny
Filibuster is one of their favorite tools - doesn't seem like they'd want to
get rid of it, in case they need it again in a few more years.

------
djaychela
So, how long will it be before this is overturned? Being from the UK, I don't
fully understand the way the US legal system works... I know Trump has said
that gay marriage is not under threat because "it's a law", so how is this
different? (if, of course, it is different)

~~~
awinder
Gay marriage was determined to be a constitutional right by a conservative
Supreme Court (judicial ruling), versus this being an executive order from
Obama. Trump has previously said he plans on throwing away all of obamas
executive orders, which he can do on his own. That said Obama is now working
with trump to transition govt and taking a much more active role in it due to
trumps team being under prepared, so who knows. Maybe pieces like this that
trump doesn't really care about live on. Hard to say, it's a brave new world
in US politics.

~~~
fosco
Roe vs Wade was also a Judicial ruling, and yet that appears under threat.

The power of the supreme court to interpret laws allows them to change, appear
and be dismissed as time goes on.

While Trump does not directly attack gay marriage, if he nominates judges who
are against the women's right to choose, I am concerned they will also be
against things like gay marriage, my argument is most people against that
right are very religious and thus also against marriage being equal.

~~~
joshuaheard
Most people don't know this, but Roe v. Wade as a landmark case for two
reasons. The first, of course, was that it took the ability to regulate
abortions away from the people's representatives, the legislatures. Second, it
created a right to privacy in the Constitution. Already, the abortion
regulations set up by the Supreme Court are becoming obsolete with new
procedures being developed, such as partial-birth abortion, which is why the
courts should not legislate.

I most oppose the right to privacy created by the court. I am not against a
right to privacy, if someone wants to put one in there. But to find a right to
privacy in the Constitution through the "penumbras and emanations" is really
just making it up whole cloth, which I oppose.

As for gay marriage, again, it should be up to the states. There is no
Constitutional right for gays to marry. First, because marriage is not a right
(although procreation is). Second, for the purpose of marriage, gays are not
equal: it is impossible for them to procreate, which is the purpose (but not a
requirement) of marriage.

My purpose is not to re-litigate these issues, but to say that many feel these
cases were badly decided so they should be overturned, not just because we
oppose those issues on a religious basis.

~~~
Frondo
Procreation is not the purpose of marriage.

Some religious groups might hold that claim, but in this country we do not
recognize one religious group over another; i.e. one group's claims about the
purpose of marriage have no weight over anyone else's.

~~~
joshuaheard
In western civilization, marriage is the structure of procreation and has been
enshrined in the law since the 1200s, notwithstanding any religious beliefs.
Procreation encompasses many facets: sexual selection, child rearing, passing
property to progeny, recognition of the paternal family line. All of these are
governed by the state through marriage laws in order to further the policy of
procreation, the natural survival of our species.

~~~
olavk
In the Bible, Paul justifies marriage as a way of controlling the sexual
desire so it does not lead to the sin of fornication. But he does not seem to
care about procreation.

~~~
joshuaheard
Sexual selection is one of the principles I mention. Sexual context may be a
better term. But my argument is secular, not religious. I am referring to
American common law, English common law, and its predecessors, not the Bible.

------
givinguflac
This sounds like good news to me, hopefully not short lived when the new
administration comes in.

~~~
yoz-y
Although I would love to see governments taking environmental issues
seriously, I just can't fathom this legislation not being discarded by the
next administration in the months to come.

~~~
finid
Well, you can be sure that it will be discarded, because the person most
likely to be responsible for energy is either S. Palin or some other oil
companies-friendly professional.

Republican administrations tend to be "good for business", which translates to
"bad for consumers", so get ready to be shafted.

~~~
DominikR
> "good for business", which translates to "bad for consumers"

I know it's trendy to be left leaning so you easily get away with such
generalising statements but ask yourself these questions before hating on all
businesses:

Would you buy an iPhone or a laptop designed and built by a government agency?
A car? How about a pair of shoes or pants. Would you prefer sending your
children to private or public schools. Same goes for universities. Would you
rather participate in evil Capitalism to earn a living or live under
government social security regimentation, possibly even with a job provided or
forced on you by government.

Is there even anything where you would prefer the government option over
something offered by private businesses?

If you don't want private businesses to offer products and services, and
government products and services suck, then who is going to provide this?

~~~
finid
You missed the point, and I'm not sure you understand what "good for
business", as practiced by Republican administrations in the US, means.

It simply means no regulations. So businesses are free to do anything they
want, with consumers at the receiving end of the negative consequences of such
practices.

Most recently, we saw how that played out under the last Republican (Bush)
administration. In an environment in which corporations were going gang-
busters, I don't recall that administration ever bringing a single anti-trust
case.

That "good for business" environment eventually led to the 2008 financial
crises. And the single most important curb that was put in place to prevent
such a crisis from happening again is under threat, because the guys set to
take office in January (2017) have already said they'll undo the Dodd-Frank
Act.

------
dekhn
Realistically, right now the US has enough sources to produce huge exports
without touching the Arctic (or the Pacific Coast, which has enormous untapped
resources). Economically, it makes sense (I'm not addressing environmental
concerns) to hold off on exploiting this oil. Currently there is so much
global supply that adding more would just depress prices while encouraging
unnecessary economic growth.

While it would have an enormous environmental impact, there may come a time in
the future of America where we are obliged to tap these resources for our
economy.

~~~
paulddraper
> encouraging unnecessary economic growth

economic growth is always a "necessity"

~~~
dekhn
nah there are severe consequences to excessive growth especially when
subsidized by low oil prices. Please see [https://www.amazon.com/Quest-Energy-
Security-Remaking-Modern...](https://www.amazon.com/Quest-Energy-Security-
Remaking-Modern/dp/0143121944) for the hard-won lessons.

------
maxerickson
I wonder if this even matters after the huge shale discovery in Texas.

~~~
throwaway5752
When you hear about news like that, remember that 1) a billion barrels is
about 50 days of US consumption and the Us is less than half of global
consumption 2) that the announcements are usually about "oil in place" which
an estimate of the total size of the deposit, of which 10-40% is usually
recoverable.

If you are talking about Alpine High, it's less than 1/2 a year of US
consumption of oil and less than 3 years of US consumption of natural gas at
current rates (and very likely less depending on the recovery ratio).

~~~
paulddraper
Wolfcamp shale has 20 billion barrels of oil. According to your numbers, 3
years of US consumption (not counting recoverability).

So...it's a pretty big deal.

~~~
astrodust
Three years of consumption is a drop in the bucket, I'm sorry. If you think
that's a big deal you need to get your head checked.

Three years is a blink in time.

If it was fifty years or more you would at least have a case.

~~~
maxerickson
If it is cheaper to extract than the Arctic oil, it's enough to shift
investment for a period of years. This action only lasts for 5 years.

~~~
astrodust
Pretty much any oil you can think of is cheaper to extract than arctic shale
oil. That's an extremely dangerous environment to be operating in, and
whatever you extract must be piped out, which incurs significant
infrastructure costs as well.

This doesn't even touch on what an environmental time bomb this is.

~~~
maxerickson
Are we talking about the same thing?

Wolfcamp shale is in west Texas (see my link in this thread). It seems more
likely to me over the next few years that west Texas sees a boom than Arctic
drilling sees intense interest.

