Oil's tipping point has passed

This is an old thread shouldn't we be using nuclear for everything by now!!!

a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan, GoShredAK, GBP/JPY and wildedibles (last few responders to post).

Invoking a rarely used provision in federal law, the Obama administration on Tuesday announced a permanent ban on offshore drilling in broad parts of the Arctic and Atlantic coasts — a sweeping and controversial move that will help secure the president’s environmental legacy even as critics vowed to reverse it.

The ban relies on the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act of 1953, which says the president “may, from time to time, withdraw” federal waters from oil and gas development that are not already leased. It was announced as part of a joint action with Canada, where Prime Minister Justin Trudeau also made long-term, though not permanent, commitments to protect the Arctic from drilling.

Obama cited the Arctic’s “unique ecosystem,” the risk of damage from a spill, the high cost of working in the remote and frigid region and concerns about climate change.

LATimes.com, Dec. 20, 2016 – Obama will use his executive authority to impose new permanent bans on offshore drilling.

This thread seems an appropriate place for this item as part of the reason given for taking this action is the Peak Oil field disaster.

BFFT and wildedibles, this is pretty dystopian news. I would rather deal with the Robot Labor Unions and strikes than have our hands tied on oil field development (all other replacement technologies are 2020 + 20 for commercial uses). I am happy for the environment and all but I am not sure this move is actually very smart.

GoShredK, ay thoughts? I am kind ticked that this stamps all over our state rights. What's next? Fishing? I mean c'mon! Executive order?!! Gah!

GBP/JPY, alright, we'll see as Feb. will be here soon enough! Seems like crude can't climb higher than US$ 50/bbl. We will see what the new administration will do.

Seems the sins of the past are still with us.

[burdMan30ott6, I will have to go re-read, BNW Revisited, at least the last chapter, to see what Huxley thinks of getting out of this alive]

Alaska represents 1/3 of the US coastline. That's a lot to be controlled by an EO.

Oil needs a very specific rock formation to avoid bubbling up to the surface. The vast majority has already been "spilled" and left no trace. Why so much hand wringing?

a reply to: AutonomousMeatPuppet

And the ban is not on the outer continental shelf but starts a few miles north of AK shores. Should there ever come a time that this is needed (off shore oil fields) it is going to take an act of gawd to overturn. Then there will be lawsuits. So that may be it for off-shore fields in northern AK for good. There are also some Eastern Seaboard areas included.

I hope, like mikell noted, that "future" technologies come on-line so that the above circumstances do not have to come into play. Even then, those are probably at least 10 years off before the new Gen IV fission reactors are built. Meanwhile, older fission reactors are shutting down with no replacements.

I do not think that political motivation is a good enough reason for an EO that effectively shuts the US off from a known resource. An that is what it appears to me what is happening, "your side won, here deal with this."