Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Gold/Mining/Energy : Big Dog's Boom Boom Room -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Schnullie who wrote (87829)	7/21/2007 1:26:21 PM
From: John Carragher	Respond to of 206321

Opponents contend that the Minerals Management Service approved Shell's plan without fully considering that a large spill would harm marine . what nonsense. must be a friendly judge.. how else could they have gotten this far without doing an impact study etc.etc etc etc.

To: Schnullie who wrote (87829)	7/21/2007 2:07:09 PM
From: Dennis Roth	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 206321

BP's plan to modernize and expand its Whiting Refinery runs into a buzzsaw of opposition. news.google.com

To: Schnullie who wrote (87829)	7/21/2007 2:10:39 PM
From: ChanceIs	Respond to of 206321

>>>Court Orders Shell Oil to Suspend Offshore Drilling in Arctic<<< I think I need say no more about the bureaucratic nature of the federal government. The net government - executive, judicial, and legislative - CAN'T move. There are too many people, too many "legal safety valves," too many special interests. When Napoleon Bonaparte took over, the first thing he did was clear the books of all the laws and start over. There were no clear lines of authority and responsibility - just like today in the US. The other day I attended a small conference on California carbon trading. One of the "players" mention that ultimately, the Department of Environmental Justice would have to sanction the matter, and that it wouldn't be too soon to start applying for permission. In this case, the 9th Circuit - overstepping its authority no doubt, and with premeditated liberal malice - has put a stick in the spokes. Now, one needs to appeal the court's authority or its reasoning. No Federal Circuit Court is overturned more than the 9th. I am sure that in about 18 months and $2 million in legal fees later, the reviewers will find that he original EIS was fine - just as John C. on the other response suggested. Besides there are lawyers involved, and they have to generate fees for each other. But you already know what to do: "Let us accept things as they are, and profit off of the folly of the world." Mayer Rothschild (First usage in July. I allow myself about three a month with that quote. Wouldn't want to bore anyone or get the spam police after me.)

To: Schnullie who wrote (87829)	8/15/2007 7:53:24 PM
From: Dennis Roth	Respond to of 206321

Shell's Alaska Drilling Project Blocked During Court Appeal By Bob Van Voris and Karen Gullo bloomberg.com Aug. 15 (Bloomberg) -- Royal Dutch Shell Plc's plan to drill the deepest offshore Alaskan oil well was blocked until at least next year while a court considers the project's effect on bowhead whales and other animals. A federal appeals court in San Francisco today ordered Shell, based in The Hague, not to start drilling, ruling that a collection of groups suing to prevent Shell from drilling in the Beaufort Sea showed ``a probability of success'' on their appeal in a hearing yesterday. ``The time period for Shell to work in that area ends in October because that's when the ice comes in,'' said Julia Bovey, federal communications director for the Natural Resources Defense Council, one of the groups that sued to block the drilling. ``This is hugely important because this is still a pristine area.'' The ruling extends a temporary hold on the project that the court ordered on July 20. It means Shell can't begin drilling until next year at the soonest when the Arctic ice melts, Bovey said. The environmental groups are seeking to reverse a decision by the U.S. Minerals Management Service approving the drilling plan. The case is Alaska Wilderness League v. Kempthorne, 07-71457, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (San Francisco). To contact the reporters on this story: Bob Van Voris in New York at rvanvoris@bloomberg.net ; Karen Gullo in San Francisco at kgullo@bloomberg.net ;