The Briefing Room
General Category => Science, Technology and Knowledge => Energy => Topic started by: Elderberry on April 28, 2022, 01:13:35 am
-
Legal Insurrection by Mary Chastain April 27, 2022
The cut includes an “area recognized as having high potential for oil discovery and development and therefore would be likely to be impacted if available to fluid mineral leasing and new construction.”
Non-ethanol gas in Oklahoma City is $4.13. It was $4.25. Man, it went down a lot! #sarcasm
I shouldn’t complain because I know others have it worse. But still. Anything over $3 a gallon is a bit much for Oklahoma.
It might get worse because President Joe Biden ended a policy that makes millions of acres in Alaska unavailable for oil drilling.
In 2020, President Donald Trump’s administration left 18.5 million acres open in Alaska’s Natural Petroleum Reserve out of the total 22.8 million acre site for oil drilling.
The Bureau of Land Management decided to only leave 11.8 million acres (52%) of the land open. No one can touch the remaining 11 million acres (48%).
So over half of the site remains open but considering gas prices are through the roof and Russia is holding its energy sources hostage it’s time to drill baby drill!
BLM said the closure must happen “to protect and conserve important surface resources and uses in these areas.”
BLM even closed off an “area recognized as having high potential for oil discovery and development and therefore would be likely to be impacted if available to fluid mineral leasing and new construction.”
Yeah, let’s cut off a prime area. BLM claimed the area is important to numerous animals. All in the name of climate change, too:
By reducing the total amount of land in the NPR-A that is available to fluid mineral leasing and new infrastructure, the plan adopted by this Decision will likely result in less leasing over time. Depending upon the degree of development that may have occurred with increased leasing, this could result in reduced greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions compared to the plan under the 2020 IAP/ROD. While the adoption of this plan itself does not directly generate GHG emissions, such emissions are a reasonably foreseeable consequence of making available lands within the NPR-A to oil and gas leasing and development. As such, adoption of this plan supports the administration and department’s commitment to addressing climate change by reducing the amount of land within the NPR-A that is available to fluid mineral leasing.
The Alaskan senators are not pleased:
U.S. Sen. Dan Sullivan, R-Alaska, said the decision will not help Americans.
More: https://legalinsurrection.com/2022/04/biden-blocks-oil-drilling-on-millions-of-acres-in-alaskas-national-petroleum-reserve-for-oil/ (https://legalinsurrection.com/2022/04/biden-blocks-oil-drilling-on-millions-of-acres-in-alaskas-national-petroleum-reserve-for-oil/)
-
9999hair out0000 Can't AK sue Biden? State rights??
-
9999hair out0000 Can't AK sue Biden? State rights??
NOPE Bureau of Land Management owns most of the West.
-
:facepalm2:
-
NOPE Bureau of Land Management owns most of the West.
Actually, only 5 states have over 50% of its lands owned by the feds.
The big exception is Texas, which has less than 2% in federal lands.
Texas scored bigly when it entered the Union by insisting it kept all its state lands out of federal control.
https://ballotpedia.org/Federal_land_ownership_by_state
-
Actually, only 5 states have over 50% of its lands owned by the feds.
MT is not one of them... Except the 30 or so % that the fed does own, is mostly in the MT Rockies.
It's alright. It's a love/hate thing. If it weren't for federal lands, I'd be in the same place as most Americans... Trying to find land to camp and hunt on... but I go pretty well where I want to on fed and state land, and can easily respect private lands.
However. Them same sonsabiches are responsible for gateing me out of most of it. I can walk in, but access is largely diminished to walking in. No motorized vehicles. And they have also made getting firewood so laborious that I DO look for firewood and saw lengths on private lands.
In the end they are sonsabiches, and they do not have the right to own that land.
-
The need to rebrand it as the "Nothing Reserve" ... in case America is in danger of experiencing a nothing shortage.
-
MT is not one of them... Except the 30 or so % that the fed does own, is mostly in the MT Rockies.
It's alright. It's a love/hate thing. If it weren't for federal lands, I'd be in the same place as most Americans... Trying to find land to camp and hunt on... but I go pretty well where I want to on fed and state land, and can easily respect private lands.
However. Them same sonsabiches are responsible for gateing me out of most of it. I can walk in, but access is largely diminished to walking in. No motorized vehicles. And they have also made getting firewood so laborious that I DO look for firewood and saw lengths on private lands.
In the end they are sonsabiches, and they do not have the right to own that land.
The state should have a strategic plan to purchase those federal lands. One more step to shrinking the feds
-
The state should have a strategic plan to purchase those federal lands. One more step to shrinking the feds
The states should not need to purchase anything. When they became states they did not purchase the land. The land just became the state. That authority was withheld on certain parts of that land is the problem - Especially because they remain within the state's jurisdiction.
Owned by a federal government that has no constitutional right, and is explicitly forbidden from owning that land by that same document. The land was illegally retained, and it should be summarily turned over.
-
The states should not need to purchase anything. When they became states they did not purchase the land. The land just became the state. That authority was withheld on certain parts of that land is the problem - Especially because they remain within the state's jurisdiction.
Owned by a federal government that has no constitutional right, and is explicitly forbidden from owning that land by that same document. The land was illegally retained, and it should be summarily turned over.
There was no state so there were no state lands prior to the federal government incorporating a territory and forming a state.
Texas is unique as it was formed as its own country prior to joining the Union and so it actually owned those public lands within its boundaries. It ensured its sovereignty over those lands by not agreeing to enter the Union unless Congress expressly refrained from appropriation of public lands.
https://www.tsl.texas.gov/ref/abouttx/annexation/march1845.html
-
The states should not need to purchase anything. When they became states they did not purchase the land. The land just became the state. That authority was withheld on certain parts of that land is the problem - Especially because they remain within the state's jurisdiction.
Owned by a federal government that has no constitutional right, and is explicitly forbidden from owning that land by that same document. The land was illegally retained, and it should be summarily turned over.
Except for the 13 original colonies and Texas, all the other states were part of federal territories before they were hived off and admitted as states. So the lane belonged entirely to the federal government beforehand, and how much remained afterward was a matter of what the federal government was willing to give up.
-
There was no state so there were no state lands prior to the federal government incorporating a territory and forming a state.
Texas is unique as it was formed as its own country prior to joining the Union and so it actually owned those public lands within its boundaries. It ensured its sovereignty over those lands by not agreeing to enter the Union unless Congress expressly refrained from appropriation of public lands.
https://www.tsl.texas.gov/ref/abouttx/annexation/march1845.html
That's really a head fake - Not by you, but by the powers that be...
The original colonies were not colonies of the United States.
They, being primaries in the formation of the federal government, were in fact sovereign nations each in their own right, and as primaries, resolved to form a union - The union cannot be greater than the primaries that formed it (signators naturally have a right to quit the contract for cause).
And if the later states are subject to the federal government, then they are not equal to the original signators and are truly vassal states, which cannot be true. Ergo, the formed states after-the-fact of the establishment necessarily have the same sovereignty as the original states with all that would entail.
-
Except for the 13 original colonies and Texas, all the other states were part of federal territories before they were hived off and admitted as states. So the lane belonged entirely to the federal government beforehand, and how much remained afterward was a matter of what the federal government was willing to give up.
See my above reply the LMAO pointing-up
-
That's really a head fake - Not by you, but by the powers that be...
The original colonies were not colonies of the United States.
They, being primaries in the formation of the federal government, were in fact sovereign nations each in their own right, and as primaries, resolved to form a union - The union cannot be greater than the primaries that formed it (signators naturally have a right to quit the contract for cause).
And if the later states are subject to the federal government, then they are not equal to the original signators and are truly vassal states, which cannot be true. Ergo, the formed states after-the-fact of the establishment necessarily have the same sovereignty as the original states with all that would entail.
Nonsense. The states that were formed out of federal territories became co-equal sovereigns with the other states because the federal government ceded sovereignty over that territory except to the extent that federal law remained supreme pursuant to the Constitution.
-
Nonsense. The states that were formed out of federal territories became co-equal sovereigns with the other states because the federal government ceded sovereignty over that territory except to the extent that federal law remained supreme pursuant to the Constitution.
That's what I said. Technically the territory was ceded to a formed sovereign nation that joined the union as a state.. And must retain all the sovereignty of the original states (and the same ability to quit the contract).
And the Federal government has no right to lands ceded in the transaction and is forbidden from owning it as such. If they meant to retain the land, then it should not have been ceded.
-
The Bureau of Land Management is an agency within the United States Department of the Interior responsible for administering federal lands. Headquartered in Grand Junction, Colorado, and with oversight over 247.3 million acres, it governs one eighth of the country's landmass.
BLM Alaska manages the National Petroleum Reserve in Alaska (NPR-A), which generated more than $56M in oil and gas lease revenue in 2019. The NPR-A includes approximately 23 million of the bureau's 25 million acres of federal mineral estate nationwide and is an important resource for meeting America's energy needs.
--------------
The Biden administration on Monday overturned a controversial Trump-era policy that would have opened new swathes of Arctic Alaska to oil development.
The Bureau of Land Management, part of the Department of Interior, resurrected Obama-era management policies in the National Petroleum Reserve in Alaska, a 23-million-acre (9.3 million hectare) area on the western side of Alaska's North Slope. Alaska's oil production has been declining for decades and reached a 45-year low last year.
https://www.reuters.com/world/us/us-ditches-trump-era-policies-arctic-alaska-oil-reserve-2022-04-26/
-
The states should not need to purchase anything. When they became states they did not purchase the land. The land just became the state. That authority was withheld on certain parts of that land is the problem - Especially because they remain within the state's jurisdiction.
Owned by a federal government that has no constitutional right, and is explicitly forbidden from owning that land by that same document. The land was illegally retained, and it should be summarily turned over.
:thumbsup:
-
That's what I said. Technically the territory was ceded to a formed sovereign nation that joined the union as a state.. And must retain all the sovereignty of the original states (and the same ability to quit the contract).
And the Federal government has no right to lands ceded in the transaction and is forbidden from owning it as such. If they meant to retain the land, then it should not have been ceded.
That doesn't follow. The federal govenrment reverting to a landowner doesn't gainsay the sovereignty of the state created from federal territory.
-
That doesn't follow. The federal govenrment reverting to a landowner doesn't gainsay the sovereignty of the state created from federal territory.
Right. Except the federal government is forbidden from holding lands (except in the case of military bases and the like). And as a landholder illegal or not, the Federal government would be subject to the state and property taxes would apply, which is also not the case.
-
Right. Except the federal government is forbidden from holding lands (except in the case of military bases and the like). And as a landholder illegal or not, the Federal government would be subject to the state and property taxes would apply, which is also not the case.
No, it isn't.
-
No, it isn't.
Yes it is... My understanding of it is that the Federal government may own and operate territories all it wants. It can also own and operate enclaves with the permission of the state(s) (Washington DC being the primary example thereof).
All else would be 'other' or unenumerated lands within the states, which the federal government is not supposed to hold unless for specific enumerated use in the interest of carrying out it's duties (military bases, post offices, federal offices, etc). One might include national parks in that (though none existed at the time). but it does not include holdings outside of those specific purposes.
-
:shrug:
-
Right. Except the federal government is forbidden from holding lands (except in the case of military bases and the like). And as a landholder illegal or not, the Federal government would be subject to the state and property taxes would apply, which is also not the case.
Reference?
-
Reference?
This is close to what I think... albeit that I would be leaning toward its mentioned conservatives. But this is a fair rendering close to my view:
Federal Land Retention and the Constitution's Property Clause: The Original Intent (https://i2i.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/09/Land-2.pdf)
Colorado Law Review: Volume 76 Number 2 2005 -Robert G. Natelson
Sorry if it is a bit dry.
-
This is close to what I think... albeit that I would be leaning toward its mentioned conservatives. But this is a fair rendering close to my view:
Federal Land Retention and the Constitution's Property Clause: The Original Intent (https://i2i.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/09/Land-2.pdf)
Colorado Law Review: Volume 76 Number 2 2005 -Robert G. Natelson
Sorry if it is a bit dry.
Interesting perspective. While I agree the federal government should contain limits, I doubt this will gain traction.
The best bet is for a state to have a long-term plan in place to purchase back land within the state that the federal government claims is theirs.
-
Interesting perspective. While I agree the federal government should contain limits, I doubt this will gain traction.
The best bet is for a state to have a long-term plan in place to purchase back land within the state that the federal government claims is theirs.
Perhaps. But in my case, as always, it's the principle of the thing. happy77
-
Perhaps. But in my case, as always, it's the principle of the thing. happy77
Similiar to the Cliven Bundy situation.
-
Similiar to the Cliven Bundy situation.
That whole deal was about fed land. It ain't right, I'll tell you what.
-
That whole deal was about fed land. It ain't right, I'll tell you what.
Neither is Biden, but right now we have to live with the thing
-
Interior cancels oil and gas lease sales in Alaska and Gulf of Mexico
by Breanne Deppisch, Energy and Environment Reporter
| May 12, 2022 08:56 AM
The Interior Department said it will not move forward with three planned oil and gas lease sales in the Gulf of Mexico and Alaska’s Cook Inlet, meaning the administration will not hold a lease sale on coastal waters this year.
The announcement late Wednesday night, which comes as President Joe Biden faces record-high gas costs, will halt hopes of offshore drilling on millions of acres of federal land. Alaska’s Cook Inlet was home to more than 1 million acres of federal land alone.
The Interior Department confirmed the news in an email to the Washington Examiner late Wednesday.
“Due to lack of industry interest in leasing in the area, the Department will not move forward with the proposed Cook Inlet OCS oil and gas lease sale 258” or the Cook Inlet project, DOI said.
The decision not to move ahead with two leases in the Gulf of Mexico region, meanwhile, was due to “conflicting court rulings” that delayed work on the proposed lease sales, a DOI official told the Washington Examiner.
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/policy/energy-environment/interior-cancels-oil-and-gas-lease-sales-in-alaska-and-gulf-of-mexico