Him: Would you go to bed with me for a million dollars?
Her: I suppose.
Him: How about for 10 bucks?
Her: What kind of girl do you take me for?
Him: We have established that, now I am haggling price!

I know what kind of ‘girl’ I am – if the price is right!

It is my understanding that the reach of most states is 12 miles off shore. That anything else is international water and subject to well, the Jones Act. Bush waived it in 05 and the oil industry was put back in Business. (BTW, Exxon is still holding on to 5 billion to rebuild the refinery and has not do so yet.)

It also has many components that have to be satisfied.

For the act see the Jones Act. There are two others do not confuse the the nationality acts with the maritime act.

http://www.1800jonesact.com/1917-jones-act/default.html

“And where, I ask you, can one find better companions than here?”

****************

Nusquam!

There’s a statute called the Outer Continental Lands and Shelf Act which authorizes the Secretary of the Interior to halt oil drilling in any off shore rig if he or she thinks there’s a threat to wildlife, environmental disaster, etc. That was the basis for Salazar issuing a “Notice to Lessees” to halt drilling, not the permits or the leases.

The NYT has a link to the opinion.

I would think there would be many legal avenues to investigate if you wanted to stop deep water drillling:

Mineral Lease: This document just gives the lessee exclusive access to the mineral deposits and nothing else. I have no idea what’s in this type of lease but surely there might be something to enable the feds to terminate the lease in the event of a national emergency.

Drilling Permit: Then, as Patrick said, there are the permits to drill. I have no idea what these permits provide. You would think that a Big Oil company would require a permit that couldn’t just be yanked unilaterally by MMS. Once the drill rig is set up, Big Oil has too much of an investment to just let some “Federal Bureaucrat” unilaterally yank the permit without a “default” notice and opportunity to cure.

At any rate, I would hope the Obama DOJ has creative competant lawyers who are looking at attacking this problem from every angle. Of, if they don’t have DOJ attorneys capable of thinkng outside the box, then hire some outside experts in the oil/gas area.

LOL. I know the MMS is corrupt, but it is hard to believe any Gov’t agency anywhere, would issue a permit that couldn’t be rescinded if the facts the permit was issued on turned out to be false. So, the drilling can be stopped if Salazar wants it stopped.

Not only do I like the way you think, but I may want to take you to Vegas . . .

“US Interior Secretary Ken Salazar has said he will issue an order for a new moratorium on deep water oil drilling in the Gulf of Mexico after a court blocked an earlier ban.”

from: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/10387830.stm

http://blogdredd.blogspot.com/2010/06/supremes-are-well-oiled-2.html

(a) Any justice, judge, or magistrate judge of the United States
shall disqualify himself in any proceeding in which his
impartiality might reasonably be questioned.
(b) He shall also disqualify himself in the following
circumstances:
(1) Where he has a personal bias or prejudice concerning a
party, or personal knowledge of disputed evidentiary facts
concerning the proceeding;
(2) Where in private practice he served as lawyer in the matter
in controversy, or a lawyer with whom he previously practiced law
served during such association as a lawyer concerning the matter,
or the judge or such lawyer has been a material witness
concerning it;
(3) Where he has served in governmental employment and in such
capacity participated as counsel, adviser or material witness
concerning the proceeding or expressed an opinion concerning the
merits of the particular case in controversy;
(4) He knows that he, individually or as a fiduciary, or his
spouse or minor child residing in his household, has a financial
interest in the subject matter in controversy or in a party to
the proceeding, or any other interest that could be substantially
affected by the outcome of the proceeding;
(5) He or his spouse, or a person within the third degree of
relationship to either of them, or the spouse of such a person:
(i) Is a party to the proceeding, or an officer, director, or
trustee of a party;
(ii) Is acting as a lawyer in the proceeding;
(iii) Is known by the judge to have an interest that could be
substantially affected by the outcome of the proceeding;
(iv) Is to the judge’s knowledge likely to be a material
witness in the proceeding.
(c) A judge should inform himself about his personal and
fiduciary financial interests, and make a reasonable effort to inform himself about the personal financial interests of his spouse and minor children residing in his household.
(d) For the purposes of this section the following words or
phrases shall have the meaning indicated:
(1) “proceeding” includes pretrial, trial, appellate review, or
other stages of litigation;
(2) the degree of relationship is calculated according to the
civil law system;
(3) “fiduciary” includes such relationships as executor,
administrator, trustee, and guardian;
(4) “financial interest” means ownership of a legal or
equitable interest, however small, or a relationship as director, adviser, or other active participant in the affairs of a party, except that:
(i) Ownership in a mutual or common investment fund that holds securities is not a “financial interest” in such securities unless the judge participates in the management of the fund;
(ii) An office in an educational, religious, charitable, fraternal, or civic organization is not a “financial interest”
in securities held by the organization;
(iii) The proprietary interest of a policyholder in a mutual insurance company, of a depositor in a mutual savings association, or a similar proprietary interest, is a “financial
interest” in the organization only if the outcome of the proceeding could substantially affect the value of the
interest;
(iv) Ownership of government securities is a “financial
interest” in the issuer only if the outcome of the proceeding
could substantially affect the value of the securities.
(e) No justice, judge, or magistrate judge shall accept from the
parties to the proceeding a waiver of any ground for
disqualification enumerated in subsection (b). Where the ground for disqualification arises only under subsection (a), waiver may be accepted provided it is preceded by a full disclosure on the record of the basis for disqualification.
(f) Notwithstanding the preceding provisions of this section, if
any justice, judge, magistrate judge, or bankruptcy judge to whom a matter has been assigned would be disqualified, after substantial judicial time has been devoted to the matter, because of the appearance or discovery, after the matter was assigned to him or her, that he or she individually or as a fiduciary, or his or her spouse or minor child residing in his or her household, has a financial interest in a party (other than an interest that could be substantially affected by the outcome),disqualification is not required if the justice, judge, magistrate judge, bankruptcy judge, spouse or minor child, as the case may be, divests himself or herself of the interest that provides the grounds for the disqualification. [emphasis added]
____

The use of the word “substantial” applies to a change in value of the interest, not its relative value to the holder. Relative value is a subjective perception and the law sets forth objective standards for recusal. Being that Feldman didn’t divest himself of said interest (no matter how small) that makes the value of your assessment de minimis, Just Vivisecting. He should have recused himself (or divested himself of the interest) and his failure to do so merits disbarment.

I like the way you think.

A vir est tantum ut bonus ut suus sodalitas.

And where, I ask you, can one find better companions than here?

“Some people just love to kiss ass and some just love to kick it.”

******************

I place you firmly and admiringly in the latter category:

“Buddha locuta est. Causa finita est”

It’s a complicated issue, mespo.

*snicker*

Ah, who am I kidding! It’s not complicated at all. Some people just love to kiss ass and some just love to kick it.

Pardon.

It must be my allergy to bullshit acting up.

Obviously. Since Feldman can’t even spell conflict of interest.

Please let me know if you have any questions.

I do. Wilson, -Y-Sack, or -ensack?

I think you might like this short video. It offers multiple views on the moratorium. Some feel that such precautions are necessary since we cannot afford to have such a travesty occur again, while other think that such a halt would cause further disaster. One quote states that the action “…strangles an industry that supports an entire region of the country” and that “Two wrongs don’t make a right.” Obviously, the latter of the two views seems to have a stronger following now that Feldman has lifted the imposed suspension. I hope you see the relevance of this video to your post and that you will consider embedding it into your blog.

Thanks so much, keep up your good work and please let me know if you have any questions,

Haley
haleyw@newsy.com

Newsy.com videos cover important global issues from multiple sources. Its unique method of presenting how different media outlets around the world cover a story and provide context to help viewers understand complex global issues.

For instructions on how to embed videos, read #3 on this page,
http://www.newsy.com/faq/3

It’s easy to add the Newsy widget to your site – email me and I can send you the widget code in JavaScript or iFrame.

Since the Night Mare Years of Bush and Cheney, exactly what is a conflict of interest? Come on, Cheney started the war to get Saddam because he set Kuwait on fire as he was being thrown out. How many Billions did Haliburton lose? Had to make it up some way.

When dealing with conflict of interest and legal professionals even the appearance of impropriety merits recusal. He should have stepped aside at the start. If the case against the administration had merit, another non-conflicted judge would have ruled the same. However, he didn’t. Now? Feldman really does deserve to be impeached and disbarred.

he sold KBR and only owns a $1,000 of TransOcean. I get it on principle but I don’t think I would sell my soul for a $1,000.

TONY HAYWARD, the chief executive of BP, made an astounding admission before Congress last week: after nearly two months of failure, the company and the Coast Guard have no further plans to plug the Macondo oil well leaking into the Gulf. Instead, the goal is merely to contain the leak until a relief well comes online, a process that could take months.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/22/opinion/22Brownfield.html

Yeah baby that the way I like to see the capital market place work or is that capitol…..

http://www.judicialwatch.org/jfd/Feldman_Martin_L_C/2008.pdf

The problem is that it will probably be upheld in the COA because of the procedural violations…..

Yes.

The administration has appealled. If the courts take their customary good old time scheduling a hearing on the appeal, the moratorium, the study and stopping the leak will all have been completed for a year.

http://www.offshore-technology.com/projects/hoover/hoover3.html

Just asking.