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.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: tejek who wrote (573071)	6/22/2010 2:51:45 PM
From: one_less	1 Recommendation Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1575551

I don't know how these things work. If Holder files an appeal, doesn't the appeal have to be placed on a docket and then wait to be heard? In the mean time, wouldn't all the new wells get started so that even if Holder won a case to stop any new wells, it would be pointless? Or, would a win by Holder stop any development of wells started after June 22, 2010? If they were already productive by that time, wouldn't that be a negative for everyone?

To: tejek who wrote (573071)	6/22/2010 3:14:53 PM
From: Brumar89	4 Recommendations Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1575551

It's a breach of contract issue - its one thing to not sign new lease agreements, another to stop people from acting under agreements already made. There's no overriding safety reason for a moratorium - the engineering panel recommended AGAINST it, publicly and privately protested when their report was falsely used to justify a moratorium. The administration will appeal, they say. I suppose they're saving face .... that or they really WANT to hurt the gulf's economy more than the spill already has. IMO a victory for the rule of law. We're not a dictatorship or a kingdom.