• The Heritage Network
    • Resize:
    • A
    • A
    • A
  • Donate
  • Moratorium One of Many Obama Oil Spill Mistakes

    The order by a federal district court in Louisiana overturning President Obama’s six-month general moratorium on deepwater drilling in the Gulf of Mexico illustrates many of the mistakes the administration has made in handling this environmental disaster.  From the unjustified 24-hour ban imposed by the Coast Guard on the barges that were pumping oil out of the water to check on whether they had fire extinguishers and life vests on board to the Army Corps of Engineers’ delays in allowing Louisiana to build berms and sand barriers to protect its wetlands, the administration has acted more like the Keystone Cops than a competent and effective government.

    The order by Judge Martin Feldman paints quite a stark picture of both political over-reaction and a lack of sound judgment and expertise.  The plaintiffs include several companies that provide services and equipment for deepwater explorations, everything from ships to shipyards, and they employ over 10,000 people.  They sued Interior Department Secretary Ken Salazar under the federal Administrative Procedure Act, which authorizes a federal court to overturn the actions of a federal agency when they are “arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or not otherwise in accordance with the law.”  The court concluded that, in fact, the plaintiffs established a likelihood of successfully showing that “the Administration acted arbitrarily and capriciously in issuing the moratorium.”

    The moratorium was based on a Report issued by Salazar on May 27 after a 30-day review that recommended immediate and long term reforms to improve drilling safety as well as a six-month moratorium on permits for new wells and an immediate halt to drilling operations on the existing  wells in the Gulf.  The court was struck by the fact that while the summary of the Report claimed that these recommendations had “been peer-reviewed by seven experts,” those experts had publicly stated that they did not recommend or agree with the six-month blanket moratorium.  In fact, that recommendation was added after their final review of the report.  At a minimum, this was highly misleading and “[a] factor that might cause some apprehension about the probity of the process that led to the Report” according to the court.

    The court also noted that the Report made “no effort to explicitly justify the moratorium: it does not discuss any irreparable harm that would warrant a suspension of operations, it does not explain how long it would take to implement the recommended safety measures.” A subsequent order that Salazar sent to the director of the Minerals Management Service also failed entirely “to explain the reasons for the suspension of operations or the depth of operations to be affected.”

    After reviewing all of the evidence submitted by the government, the court was “unable to divine or fathom a relationship between the finding and the immense scope of the moratorium.”  The Report relied on by the government lacked any analysis of the asserted fear or threat of injury or safety hazards posed by the 33 permitted rigs; it was incident-specific and driven only by the Deepwater Horizon accident and no others.  In other words, it completely failed to take into account the safety records of the other rigs in the Gulf.  It assumed that because one rig failed and no one yet fully knows why, “all companies and rigs drilling new wells over 500 feet also universally present an imminent danger.”  The court compared this to the government claiming that “all airplanes [are] a danger because one was” or all oil tankers because of the Exxon Valdez or all trains or all mines because of one accident.  That kind of analysis is “heavy-handed, and rather overbearing.”

    The court did what the administration very pointedly failed to do: consider alternatives to a complete ban on deep-water drilling.  As the court concluded, there is no question that the Deepwater Horizon spill “is an unprecedented, sad, ugly and inhuman disaster.”  But the issuance of a blanket moratorium was arbitrary and capricious and “cannot justify the immeasurable effect on the plaintiffs, the local economy, the Gulf region, and the critical present-day aspect of the availability of domestic energy in this country.”  As the court pointed out, there are 150,000 jobs directly related to offshore operations; there are currently 3,600 structures in the Gulf, and oil and gas production from these structures “accounts for 31% of total domestic oil production and 11% of total domestic, marketed natural gas production.”  Sixty-four percent of active leases are in deepwater over 1,000 feet and at least 19 companies besides BP are operating deepwater frilling rigs.

    So far there is no announcement from Salazar that he intends to put his boot on the throat of the federal judge who issued this decision, although the White House has already announced that it plans to try to plug this legal hole in its case by appealing the decision.

    Posted in Legal [slideshow_deploy]

    8 Responses to Moratorium One of Many Obama Oil Spill Mistakes

    1. Jill, California says:

      Go, Judge Feldman! You're an American hero!

      Looks like Obama should have flunked out of law school. He clearly doesn't understand or respect the law.

    2. Blaising, florida says:

      Deepwater Horizon was state-of-the-art, and yet a devastating failure. It follows that the other 33 rigs covered by the moratorium risk the same fate. The 33 rigs covered by the moratorium are a very small fraction of the nearly 6,000 rigs currently operating in the Gulf of Mexico.

      Judge Feldman's decision reflects an extreme lack of sound judgement and expertise. It is clear, to even the casual observer, that his decision is being influenced by his well-documented connections to large oil corporations.

      What is also clear, is that internet blogs like The Foundry, and The Heritage Foundation, never claimed to be oil-industry experts, and as such, should steer clear of voicing uninformed opinions in that regard.

    3. Pingback: Moratorium One of Many Obama Oil Spill Mistakes « Faulk For Congress

    4. Tim Az says:

      The moratorium is no mistake at all. If you recall Mao-Bama gave Brazil two billion dollars for oil drilling sometime last year. I don't remember the exact time it happened but I do remember that George Soros invested heavily in Petro Bras just before the two billion was given to Brazil. Petro Bras has a yearly profit of 15 billion dollars. It is also owned by the government of Brazil.I will leave it to you to figure out what the two billion was about. I believe it was yesterday that Petro Bras began contacting the owners of the oil rigs in the Gulf Coast to acquire the oil rigs that Mao-Bama so graciously made available through his oil drilling moratorium. So you see this is anything but a mistake. Mao-Bama is enriching Soros at the expense of the economy of the great citizens of Louisiana as well as the rest of us arrogant Americans who will pay through higher prices at the pump and everywhere that gas and oil is used throughout the process of commerce. Give a liberal an environmental crisis and watch them make lemonade out of it and not even bother to share any with their victims.

    5. sandi151 says:

      I wish the Obama Adm. was as tough with foreign affairs as it is with domestic policy.

    6. Dexter60, San Franci says:

      Was that a lack of approval?

      "slow down" ? "too fast" ? what was that for? well, that was the comment for today, now maybe for the week …

    7. jon, sd says:

      The mistake was not having enough prevention and regulation there in the first place. Another mistake was not anticipating that there could problems, and having clean up business (gov or not) ready to respond immediately to problems. Of course, everything is going to have some sort of tie to $….Companies like ESPH will help clean up, but we need to look to change the way we think about producing energy. And we need to reduce our dependence on oil. Envision Solar (EVSI), is going to be company that can help with this. It is also going to be a very profitable company….They are turning the traditional solar panel(ugly and hidden),into something that can be placed in plain site, and used as a shade tree along with the practicality of utilizing green solar energy. Even if revenues don’t increase huge in the next few quarters, the demand for their products will increase over time. And getting one contract for them can be a huge project.

      See envisionsolar.com/video/ for more info

    8. Pingback: Protecting Liberty in the USA » Blog Archive » Will Elena Kagan Defend the Rule of Law?

    Comments are subject to approval and moderation. We remind everyone that The Heritage Foundation promotes a civil society where ideas and debate flourish. Please be respectful of each other and the subjects of any criticism. While we may not always agree on policy, we should all agree that being appropriately informed is everyone's intention visiting this site. Profanity, lewdness, personal attacks, and other forms of incivility will not be tolerated. Please keep your thoughts brief and avoid ALL CAPS. While we respect your first amendment rights, we are obligated to our readers to maintain these standards. Thanks for joining the conversation.

    Big Government Is NOT the Answer

    Your tax dollars are being spent on programs that we really don't need.

    I Agree I Disagree ×

    Get Heritage In Your Inbox — FREE!

    Heritage Foundation e-mails keep you updated on the ongoing policy battles in Washington and around the country.

    ×