Judge throws out massive Gulf of Mexico oil and gas lease sale

[Elderberry]

Washington Post by By Anna Phillips and Maxine Joselow 1/27/2022

A federal judge on Thursday invalidated the largest offshore oil and gas lease sale in the nation’s history, ruling that the Biden administration violated federal law by relying on a seriously flawed analysis of the climate change impact of drilling in the Gulf of Mexico.

The decision, by the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, threw out 1.7 million acres of oil and gas leases that the Biden administration did not want to sell. Shortly after taking office, President Biden suspended new oil and gas drilling on lands and waters owned by the federal government. But after a Louisiana judge struck down the moratorium last summer, administration officials said they were forced to go through with the sale in November.

The auction took place just four days after Biden pledged ambitious climate action to world leaders at a United Nations climate summit in Glasgow, Scotland. Though the administration offered up to 80 million acres in the Gulf of Mexico for drilling leases, the Interior Department ultimately sold only a fraction of that amount. The sale netted nearly $192 million and ranked as the most profitable offshore auction since March 2019.

More: https://www.washingtonpost.com/climate-environment/2022/01/27/biden-gulf-of-mexico-lease-sale/
 

[Kamaji]

So, is this a good thing or a bad thing?  It's not clear from the article itself.

[Elderberry]

from the article:

Scott Lauermann, a spokesman for the oil and gas industry’s largest trade group, the American Petroleum Institute, called the decision “disappointing.” And Erik Milito, president of the National Ocean Industries Association, which represents offshore oil and gas companies, called on the administration to “defend responsible U.S. offshore production and to take the necessary steps to ensure continued leasing and energy production from the U.S. Gulf of Mexico, for the benefit of all Americans.”

[Smokin Joe]

So, is this a good thing or a bad thing?  It's not clear from the article itself.

That depends on your view of insanity.

For the operators, rig crews, investors, and other people who were positioning assets to drill offshore wells (considerably more expensive than onshore wells, but with potential payouts that make the risk worth it), it's a disaster on the order of shutting down pipeline projects that would have moved vital resources to market, with huge losses for those who funded the project.

Now, I'm not saying a DeeCee judge might be influenced by the Administration that is toadying up to everyone BUT  sane Americans who work for a living, and the oil patch being very conservative in its viewpoint, I reckon this was engineered to put as much pain on potential donors for Conservative candidates before the midterms.

Natural gas and oil prices continue to climb, to the great joy of those who sell their oil and are hostile toward this country, and to the increased expense of all who consume oil and Natural Gas.
It's all part of the Green New Deal, but a judge said so.  ...and all over some bullsh*t about "Climate Change".

[catfish1957]

So, is this a good thing or a bad thing?  It's not clear from the article itself.

Hard to tell, without getting a hold of the Judge's decison. But if the API (See Eld's next post) thinks the ruling is bad, I think there's about a 99+% chance it is not good for energy production.

I have had many dealing with API, CMA, and other state (TCC TXOGA) , and local trade groups (EHCMA).  Yeah they wear that "Lobbyist" label, but they are some of the sharpest people I've dealt with.  99 times out a 100, I am pretty much going to agree with their positions.

I had to register as a lobbyist too, but that was due to crazy TX rules.

[Kamaji]

Hard to tell, without getting a hold of the Judge's decison. But if the API (See Eld's next post) thinks the ruling is bad, I think there's about a 99+% chance it is not good for energy production.

I have had many dealing with API, CMA, and other state (TCC TXOGA) , and local trade groups (EHCMA).  Yeah they wear that "Lobbyist" label, but they are some of the sharpest people I've dealt with.  99 times out a 100, I am pretty much going to agree with their positions.

I had to register as a lobbyist too, but that was due to crazy TX rules.

Thanks!!

[DefiantMassRINO]

Gee, I hope the government can do something to stop energy price increases from going higher.

If only there was some way to increase supply to better meet demand, but alas, they've tried nothing and they are out of ideas.

[catfish1957]

Gee, I hope the government can do something to stop energy price increases from going higher.

If only there was some way to increase supply to better meet demand, but alas, they've tried nothing and they are out of ideas.

Unless Pedo Joe takes a Carteresque approach on price controls, it all boils down to supply/demand.  Biden took an ax to the supply side on his first day by killing energy indepenence and any killing any incentive to increase production.  The progessive's have a GND gun pointing at Biden's head.  So supply will likely not increase.  I am guessing that demand will drop when nothing but discretionary travel will be affordable, and the scale even out.. 

In any case Joe has painted himself into the corner.

[IsailedawayfromFR]

Did you read this tidbit from article?

In his ruling, Judge Rudolph Contreras concluded that the Interior Department’s Bureau of Ocean Energy Management had based its decision to hold the sale on a flawed environmental analysis that miscalculated the greenhouse gas emissions associated with future oil and gas drilling in the Gulf of Mexico. Completed under the Trump administration, the analysis found that the climate impacts would be worse if the acreage went unsold because oil companies with lower environmental standards would increase their production overseas, leading to more greenhouse gas emissions.

So in other words, the Interior Dept concluded that producing oil and gas from these leases has less environmental damage than not producing from them.  Seems strange but the reason was that the oil had to come from somewhere else less environmentally conscious than we are here.

It is 100% correct that we need the oil and gas and it is safest environmentally to extract it here rather than somewhere else in the world.

The DC judge said it was flawed as it was "arbitrary and capricious".  He is a nut job that believes we can get all the energy we need from the wind and the sun.