http://s3.amazonaws.com/nytdocs/docs/401/401.pdf This Court is persuaded that the public interest weighs in favor of granting a preliminary injunction. While a suspension of activities directed after a rational interpretation of the evidence could outweigh the impact on the plaintiffs and the public, here, the Court has found the plaintiffs would likely succeed in showing that the agency’s... [more]
http://s3.amazonaws.com/nytdocs/docs/401/401.pdf
This Court is persuaded that the public interest weighs in
favor of granting a preliminary injunction. While a suspension of
activities directed after a rational interpretation of the evidence
could outweigh the impact on the plaintiffs and the public, here,
the Court has found the plaintiffs would likely succeed in showing
that the agency’s decision was arbitrary and capricious. An invalid
agency decision to suspend drilling of wells in depths of over 500
feet simply 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.
Accordingly
[less]
Judge Feldman took particular note of the Interior secretary’s May 27 Report, from which its moratorium order followed: “Much to the government’s discomfort and this Court’s uneasiness, the Summary also states that ‘the recommendations contained in this report have been peer-reviewed by seven experts identified by the National Academy of Engineering.’” As has been widely reported, those “experts” never signed off on any such moratorium.
As the court went on to say, “After reviewing the Secretary’s Report, the Moratorium Memorandum, and the Notice to Lessees, the Court is unable to divine or fathom a relationship between the findings and the immense scope of the moratorium. …[T]he blanket moratorium, with no parameters, seems to assume that because one rig failed and although no one yet fully knows why, all companies and rigs drilling new wells over 500 feet also universally present an imminent danger.”
Ignored comment.
Unhide
Response by stevejhx
about 16 years ago
Posts: 12656
Member since: Feb 2008
Didn't we discuss your posting things for no particular purpose already?
Does this have something to do with real estate, or do you just need an audience?
http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/2010/06/22/obamas-gulf-moratorium-blocked/
Judge Feldman took particular note of the Interior secretary’s May 27 Report, from which its moratorium order followed: “Much to the government’s discomfort and this Court’s uneasiness, the Summary also states that ‘the recommendations contained in this report have been peer-reviewed by seven experts identified by the National Academy of Engineering.’” As has been widely reported, those “experts” never signed off on any such moratorium.
As the court went on to say, “After reviewing the Secretary’s Report, the Moratorium Memorandum, and the Notice to Lessees, the Court is unable to divine or fathom a relationship between the findings and the immense scope of the moratorium. …[T]he blanket moratorium, with no parameters, seems to assume that because one rig failed and although no one yet fully knows why, all companies and rigs drilling new wells over 500 feet also universally present an imminent danger.”
Didn't we discuss your posting things for no particular purpose already?
Does this have something to do with real estate, or do you just need an audience?
redbaiter
the most prolific cut/paster of irrelevance