Trump administration bars oil drilling off Florida after governor's plea

[thackney]

Trump administration bars oil drilling off Florida after governor's plea
http://news.trust.org/item/20180110011535-abvhg
10 January 2018

President Donald Trump's administration will not allow drilling for oil and gas off the coast of Florida after urging from the state's governor, Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke said on Tuesday.

"I support the governor's position that Florida is unique and its coasts are heavily reliant on tourism as an economic driver," Zinke said in a statement. "As a result of discussion with Governor (Rick) Scott and his leadership, I am removing Florida from consideration for any new oil and gas platforms."

The Trump administration last week proposed opening nearly all U.S. offshore waters to oil and gas drilling, a move aimed at boosting domestic energy production and which sparked protests from coastal states, environmentalists and the tourism industry.

The administration's decision on Tuesday removes from consideration a portion of the eastern Gulf of Mexico, an area that oil drillers have said they are interested in exploring – but not all of it.

Florida state waters extend 3 nautical miles from the shore on the Atlantic, and 9 nautical miles on the Gulf side, according to the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission....

[thackney]

@driftdiver

Thought you would want to see this.

[thackney]

http://www.tampabay.com/florida-politics/buzz/2018/01/09/trump-administration-backs-of-drilling-plan-that-angered-florida-lawmakers/

...The Interior Department's Bureau of Ocean and Energy Management (BOEM) distributed information to congressional staff members this week that showed that of every coastal state that was asked to submit official comments on the drilling proposal in July, Florida was the only state that expressed "no position."


Scott's office on Tuesday produced an Aug. 17 letter from the state DEP expressing its concerns about "safety and environmental protection" surrounding any oil and gas exploration. But the letter did not expressly oppose the drilling proposal.

Scott's Department of State, which manages historical resources, also sent a letter that said the agency had "concerns about potential adverse impacts to significant archaeological resources," but also did not register opposition....

[Cripplecreek]

Well that didn't take long.

[thackney]

Well that didn't take long.

That area was always going to be a fight.  I would like to see it happen, but this stance gives more power to Alaska for their approval of offshore drilling.

If you are going to pull Florida out because the residents do not want it, you have a standing to keep Alaska in because the residents DO want it.

[IsailedawayfromFR]

That area was always going to be a fight.  I would like to see it happen, but this stance gives more power to Alaska for their approval of offshore drilling.

If you are going to pull Florida out because the residents do not want it, you have a standing to keep Alaska in because the residents DO want it.

Well, the objectives are much different.

Alaska depends upon oil exploitation to fund a good part of its revenues and jobs.  From information I saw, it also receives 90% of all royalties or net profits(unsure which it is) from federal tracts of land, including that recently opened up for exploration in the Alaska Wildlife Refuge.

As far a Florida, there is little dependency upon royalties from federal waters.  I believe at one time there was some sharing of royalties with the states where the offshore tracts were located, but do not recall exactly.

And as far as whether a state should dictate what happens in federal waters, I certainly do not believe a federal action in federal territory, which is all 50 states to benefit, should be subservient to a single state.  Yes, there should be some accommodation to it, but not total acquiescence.  Those are federal revenues at stake offshore Florida by and large.

[thackney]

...As far a Florida, there is little dependency upon royalties from federal waters.  I believe at one time there was some sharing of royalties with the states where the offshore tracts were located, but do not recall exactly....

@IsailedawayfromFR

https://www.globalenergyinstitute.org/will-revenue-sharing-spur-more-offshore-drilling

...Six years ago, Congress passed a bill dubbed the Gulf of Mexico Energy Security Act, or GOMESA, that allows four Gulf states — Alabama, Louisiana, Mississippi and Texas — to receive 37.5% of the federal royalties and lease proceeds that Interior collects from companies that drill off of their coasts....

Gulf of Mexico Energy Security Act (GOMESA)
https://www.boem.gov/Revenue-Sharing/

[driftdiver]

@driftdiver

Thought you would want to see this.

@thackney
Tourism generates $90-100 Billion a year for Florida.   The majority of that of course is for the beaches.    You can argue whether an oil spill would have any lasting impact to the environment but you cannot argue the economic impact.    The BP spill cost an estimated $11 Billion dollars and of course that occurred a LONG way from the FL beaches.

A single spill would hit tourism for several years as people chose different destinations.   The bigger concern would be to keep people from other countries from setting up platforms in the international space.

[Suppressed]

@thackney
Tourism generates $90-100 Billion a year for Florida.   The majority of that of course is for the beaches.    You can argue whether an oil spill would have any lasting impact to the environment but you cannot argue the economic impact.    The BP spill cost an estimated $11 Billion dollars and of course that occurred a LONG way from the FL beaches.

A single spill would hit tourism for several years as people chose different destinations.   The bigger concern would be to keep people from other countries from setting up platforms in the international space.

Other states generate a lot from tourism. Heck, it's something like 1/5 of the whole economy of Delaware!
 Why exempt only one state?

[driftdiver]

Other states generate a lot from tourism. Heck, it's something like 1/5 of the whole economy of Delaware!
 Why exempt only one state?

@Suppressed
People go to Deleware to open a corporation or license their million dollar yacht.   They don't go to sit on the beach in the sun.

Why shouldn't states have input on what happens  in and close to their state?  Most especially when that happening could severely damage the economy of the state.

[Suppressed]

@Suppressed
People go to Deleware to open a corporation or license their million dollar yacht.   They don't go to sit on the beach in the sun.

@driftdiver

Try going east of DC on a Friday afternoon in the summer if you believe that bunk.  And half of eastern PA hits the Jersey Shore, whilst the other half heads down to Delaware beaches.

Why shouldn't states have input on what happens  in and close to their state?  Most especially when that happening could severely damage the economy of the state.

They shoukd. Why shoukd the feds overrule them?

[Oceander]

@driftdiver

Try going east of DC on a Friday afternoon in the summer if you believe that bunk.  And half of eastern PA hits the Jersey Shore, whilst the other half heads down to Delaware beaches.

They shoukd. Why shoukd the feds overrule them?

Because the feds are in charge of national policies and priorities, and if those conflict with a state's parochial interests, then the feds will prevail.

[driftdiver]

Because the feds are in charge of national policies and priorities, and if those conflict with a state's parochial interests, then the feds will prevail.

@Oceander

And the feds have unlimited power under the law, right?

[Oceander]

@Oceander

And the feds have unlimited power under the law, right?

Don’t be stupid.  I know it’s hard, but if you try, ....

[driftdiver]

Don’t be stupid.  I know it’s hard, but if you try, ....

@Oceander

Well sport YOU can't have it both ways.  Either there are limits or there are none.

Your first post said there were none.   When called on it then you start insulting.  Typical leftist behavior

[Oceander]

@Oceander

Well sport YOU can't have it both ways.  Either there are limits or there are none.

Your first post said there were none.   When called on it then you start insulting.  Typical leftist behavior

Over what happens in coastal waters?  Are you seriously telling me you think the states have any say over the feds off the coasts of the US?

Asking fake questions as you did is a serious liberal flaw.  Maybe you’d be more comfortable on DU, where fake is the order of the day. 

[Suppressed]

Federal decisions should be applied equally, not parceled out like patronage jobs.

[Cripplecreek]

Federal decisions should be applied equally, not parceled out like patronage jobs.

I think you'll find that among "conservatives" they have exactly the opposite opinions depending on whether the feds are stepping on their state or another state (or they just want to stay on the same side as Trump).

Look at the thread about drilling under the great lakes and you'll see a shift. Personally I think it should be up to the individual states. However in the case of the great lakes we don't have international waters like are off the Florida coast.

[truth_seeker]

Over what happens in coastal waters?  Are you seriously telling me you think the states have any say over the feds off the coasts of the US?

Asking fake questions as you did is a serious liberal flaw.  Maybe you’d be more comfortable on DU, where fake is the order of the day.

How much knowledge do YOU have about coastal oil drilling and production? Did you know that in California for instance, the state controls the first 3 miles?

"The issue of state versus federal ownership has a long and contentious history (see Tidelands). The US Supreme Court ruled in 1947 that the federal government owned all the seabed off the California coast. However, the US Congress passed the Outer Continental Shelf Act in 1953, which recognized state ownership of the seabed within 3 nautical miles (6 km) of the shore.[7]

In some cases, the state granted ownership of offshore seabed to the adjacent municipalities. In this way Long Beach was granted ownership of Long Beach Harbor in 1911. When the Wilmington field was discovered, Long Beach contracted with oil companies to produce oil from the city-owned offshore part of the field.[8]"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Offshore_oil_and_gas_in_California