Biden cancels all oil, gas drilling leases in Alaskan Arctic wildlife refuge

[ThatRobGuy]

I think the key is in the details...

If you look at the statement, the detail that's important is the part I highlighted in blue.

Biden cancels all oil, gas drilling leases in Alaskan Arctic wildlife refuge​

There's plenty of places that the US could drill for oil that don't involve disrupting a wildlife refuge that's home to dozens of struggling mammalian species and several species of migratory birds.

Let's not forget what the whole concept of a wildlife refuge is:
Wildlife refuge means a protected area set aside to preserve the habitats of some species of wildlife in which people are allowed to view wildlife in a natural setting



It'd basically be like making a stink about the fact that, despite there being ample outdoor shooting ranges, the government opted not authorize one additional new one on land that overlaps with a community playground where little kids are running around.

 

[Valletta]

Which law is this?

Congress passed the law authorizing the leases, and Joe has decided to break the contract.

 

[Valletta]

I think the key is in the details...

If you look at the statement, the detail that's important is the part I highlighted in blue.

Biden cancels all oil, gas drilling leases in Alaskan Arctic wildlife refuge​

There's plenty of places that the US could drill for oil that don't involve disrupting a wildlife refuge that's home to dozens of struggling mammalian species and several species of migratory birds.

Let's not forget what the whole concept of a wildlife refuge is:
Wildlife refuge means a protected area set aside to preserve the habitats of some species of wildlife in which people are allowed to view wildlife in a natural setting



It'd basically be like making a stink about the fact that, despite there being ample outdoor shooting ranges, the government opted not authorize one additional new one on land that overlaps with a community playground where little kids are running around.

Joe is not a king. I recognize his people don't like a lot of laws, such as the student loan laws, but that does not mean the president can break the laws when he so chooses.

 

[Pommer]

Congress passed the law authorizing the leases, and Joe has decided to break the contract.

Was this Joe himself or just officials within the administration?

 

[ThatRobGuy]

Congress passed the law authorizing the leases, and Joe has decided to break the contract.

They can try to sue again, but I doubt much will come of it.

The Interior Department said a new environmental review had determined that the analysis that underlies the agency's 2021 lease sale was "seriously flawed," giving Secretary Deb Haaland authority to cancel the leases.

Months after the first and only ANWR lease sale, Biden's administration said it would suspend the leases issued pending an environmental review. AIDEA later sued, and last month a federal judge in Alaska dismissed the state agency's claims, saying the government's delay in implementing the ANWR leasing program was reasonable.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

Joe is not a king. I recognize his people don't like a lot of laws, such as the student loan laws, but that does not mean the president can break the laws when he so chooses.

But which law is he currently breaking?

A 2017 law mandates another lease sale by late 2024. Administration officials said they intend to comply with the law.

And per my previous post, if the previous lease contracts were on the premise of flawed environmental reviews, then suspending it is the appropriate action.


For instance, if you and I entered into a contract for you to buy my house based on a home inspector saying "yeah, that basement is air tight, you shouldn't have any water problems", and then it's uncovered that the inspector did a shoddy job (and had a vested interest in the sale happening), I assume you'd not want to be held to that contract, correct? And if you went to the city authority in charge of that stuff and they agreed that some things were "not as advertised", does that mean I'd get to say "Wait a minute, they're breaking the law by invalidating the contract, we both signed on the dotted line!"

 

[Valletta]

But which law is he currently breaking?

A 2017 law mandates another lease sale by late 2024. Administration officials said they intend to comply with the law.

And per my previous post, if the previous lease contracts were on the premise of flawed environmental reviews, then suspending it is the appropriate action.


For instance, if you and I entered into a contract for you to buy my house based on a home inspector saying "yeah, that basement is air tight, you shouldn't have any water problems", and then it's uncovered that the inspector did a shoddy job (and had a vested interest in the sale happening), I assume you'd not want to be held to that contract, correct? And if you went to the city authority in charge of that stuff and they agreed that some things were "not as advertised", does that mean I'd get to say "Wait a minute, they're breaking the law by invalidating the contract, we both signed on the dotted line!"

They just broke the law. Joe's been in office for quite a spell, if his lawyers think there is something wrong with the contract then they can bring it to court. COURTS decide matters of law, including contract law. You can't just one day say you think there is a flaw in the contract and so you don't have to obey your side of the contract. As I said, Joe is not a king, he does not have the authority to break contracts with states.

 

[Pommer]

They just broke the law. Joe's been in office for quite a spell, if his lawyers think there is something wrong with the contract then they can bring it to court. COURTS decide matters of law, including contract law. You can't just one day say you think there is a flaw in the contract and so you don't have to obey your side of the contract. As I said, Joe is not a king, he does not have the authority to break contracts with states.

Caribou have thousands of acres that will be left unspoilt!
Who cares about some wild cows that people can’t hardly eat!?

 

[ThatRobGuy]

They just broke the law. Joe's been in office for quite a spell, if his lawyers think there is something wrong with the contract then they can bring it to court. COURTS decide matters of law, including contract law. You can't just one day say you think there is a flaw in the contract and so you don't have to obey your side of the contract. As I said, Joe is not a king, he does not have the authority to break contracts with states.

But how did they break the law? The department of interior determined the leases were based on flawed environmental assessments. Is there no recourse or process to invalidate contracts when things "aren't as advertised"?

The federal government has jurisdiction over national parks and national wildlife refuges.

Per the US Code:

With respect to refuge lands in the State of Alaska, programs relating to the management of resources and land, for which any other agency of the Federal Government exercises administrative responsibility through cooperative agreement shall remain in effect, subject to the direct supervision of the United States Fish and Wildlife Service.


The head of the US Fish and Wildlife Service? Martha Williams.

Martha Williams's boss? Secretary of the Interior, Deb Haaland...the one who deemed the lease to be invalid based on flawed environmental assessments.

The fact that 2 entities signed a contract isn't a mechanism by which an agreement can usurp the chain of command.

For instance, if my company's policy is that people work Mon-Fri, if I and my employees enter into an agreement where I said they could work 3 days a week instead of 5 (ignoring the policies handed down by the executive team and HR), that doesn't mean the CTO and VP of HR have sit by and "let it happen" simply because I entered into an agreement with my employees that was made on false pretenses.


It sounds like your primary beef is with the fact that there are federal lands that exist within US states (meaning there are areas within a state's territory in which they can't exercise total authority and autonomy with regard to dealings).

 

[Valletta]

But how did they break the law? The department of interior determined the leases were based on flawed environmental assessments. Is there no recourse or process to invalidate contracts when things "aren't as advertised"?

The federal government has jurisdiction over national parks and national wildlife refuges.

Per the US Code:

With respect to refuge lands in the State of Alaska, programs relating to the management of resources and land, for which any other agency of the Federal Government exercises administrative responsibility through cooperative agreement shall remain in effect, subject to the direct supervision of the United States Fish and Wildlife Service.


The head of the US Fish and Wildlife Service? Martha Williams.

Martha Williams's boss? Secretary of the Interior, Deb Haaland...the one who deemed the lease to be invalid based on flawed environmental assessments.

The fact that 2 entities signed a contract isn't a mechanism by which an agreement can usurp the chain of command.

For instance, if my company's policy is that people work Mon-Fri, if I and my employees enter into an agreement where I said they could work 3 days a week instead of 5 (ignoring the policies handed down by the executive team and HR), that doesn't mean the CTO and VP of HR have sit by and "let it happen" simply because I entered into an agreement with my employees that was made on false pretenses.


It sounds like your primary beef is with the fact that there are federal lands that exist within US states (meaning there are areas within a state's territory in which they can't exercise total authority and autonomy with regard to dealings).

The president violated a Congressionally authorized contact. After all of these years an attorney from the Department of the Interior claims there is a problem with the contract the federal government entered into with the state-funded Alaskan organization. So what you do is you call them up, discuss the alleged problem, and if no agreement is reached you have a court decide, not Joe.

 

[Pommer]

The president violated a Congressionally authorized contact. After all of these years an attorney from the Department of the Interior claims there is a problem with the contract the federal government entered into with the state-funded Alaskan organization. So what you do is you call them up, discuss the alleged problem, and if no agreement is reached you have a court decide, not Joe.

We administer how things are run with agencies and departments, though, not the courts.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

The U.S. Congress authorized the lease. After all of these years an attorney from the Department of the Interior claims there is a problem with the contract the federal government entered into with the state-funded Alaskan organization. So what you do is you call them up, discuss the alleged problem, and if no agreement is reached you have a court decide, not Joe.

You say "after all these years"...by that you mean 3 years? Trump literally authorized it a day before Biden's inauguration.

Per my previous post "direct supervision" of anything happening on those lands is a privilege of the Department of the Interior and the US Fish and Wildlife Services. They're in charge of the resources and the land and have oversight over what happens with it.

For the same reason @Pommer and I can't enter into a contract that says I'm allowed to use your backyard and grill for weekly cook-outs without your authorization and approval.

Deciding what happens on your land is subject to your oversight, much like federal land is subject to federal oversight.

And it should be noted, that they [the state agency on board with it the idea] already tried to sue and take it to court, and it didn't work out in their favor.

AIDEA sued, and last month a federal judge in Alaska dismissed the state agency's claims, saying the government's delay in implementing the ANWR leasing program was reasonable.



Look, I'm not a huge Biden fan...I begrudgingly voted for him, but if you look at my posts, I've been a fairly staunch critic of him. I'm happy to pile on when he does something I feel is out of bounds. This simply isn't one of those cases.


A contract, built on false/flawed/flimsy pretenses, authorized by the predecessor (literally his last day on the job), doesn't make something immune from oversight by the proper department. You make not like that breakdown of compartmentalization, you may not that think that federal department should exist (that's a different discussion), but as long as they do, they're justified in exercising the oversight powers they have.

 

[Valletta]

You say "after all these years"...by that you mean 3 years? Trump literally authorized it a day before Biden's inauguration.

Per my previous post "direct supervision" of anything happening on those lands is a privilege of the Department of the Interior and the US Fish and Wildlife Services. They're in charge of the resources and the land and have oversight over what happens with it.

For the same reason @Pommer and I can't enter into a contract that says I'm allowed to use your backyard and grill for weekly cook-outs without your authorization and approval.

Deciding what happens on your land is subject to your oversight, much like federal land is subject to federal oversight.

And it should be noted, that they [the state agency on board with it the idea] already tried to sue and take it to court, and it didn't work out in their favor.

AIDEA sued, and last month a federal judge in Alaska dismissed the state agency's claims, saying the government's delay in implementing the ANWR leasing program was reasonable.



Look, I'm not a huge Biden fan...I begrudgingly voted for him, but if you look at my posts, I've been a fairly staunch critic of him. I'm happy to pile on when he does something I feel is out of bounds. This simply isn't one of those cases.


A contract, built on false/flawed/flimsy pretenses, authorized by the predecessor (literally his last day on the job), doesn't make something immune from oversight by the proper department. You make not like that breakdown of compartmentalization, you may not that think that federal department should exist (that's a different discussion), but as long as they do, they're justified in exercising the oversight powers they have.

A previous lawsuit on a different matter is totally irrelevant. A legal contract is a two way street. The Department of Interior is not allowed to enter into any monetary contract without the authorization of Congress. They are subject to oversight by Congress, the representatives of the people. There would be no contracts if one side could claim there was a flaw and not keep their end of the bargain. Thus if there is a problem the courts decide, not Joe Biden.

 

[Pommer]

A previous lawsuit on a different matter is totally irrelevant. A legal contract is a two way street. The Department of Interior is not allowed to enter into any monetary contract without the authorization of Congress. They are subject to oversight by Congress, the representatives of the people. There would be no contracts if one side could claim there was a flaw and not keep their end of the bargain. Thus if there is a problem the courts decide, not Joe Biden.

Do the relevant Department issue the Permit?
Did they then rescind that permit?
Where is the “problem”?

 

[Arcangl86]

The president violated a Congressionally authorized contact.

Actually the sale was mandated, but any actual leases would be implemented under existing law.

After all of these years an attorney from the Department of the Interior claims there is a problem with the contract the federal government entered into with the state-funded Alaskan organization.

Days after the sale was made there was an EO stating that there was suspected legal deficiencies and ordering a review. Less then 6 months later the Secretary of the Interior issues an order finding the initial process to have legal deficiencies and orders a pause while the review is redone. That review took about 2 years, which really isn't that long. This whole process went pretty quickly.

So what you do is you call them up, discuss the alleged problem, and if no agreement is reached you have a court decide, not Joe.

Here's the thing though. If the lease was granted in violation of the law, the lease itself allows for cancellation.

 

[Valletta]

Actually the sale was mandated, but any actual leases would be implemented under existing law.

Days after the sale was made there was an EO stating that there was suspected legal deficiencies and ordering a review. Less then 6 months later the Secretary of the Interior issues an order finding the initial process to have legal deficiencies and orders a pause while the review is redone. That review took about 2 years, which really isn't that long. This whole process went pretty quickly.

Here's the thing though. If the lease was granted in violation of the law, the lease itself allows for cancellation.

Executive orders are not the law and cannot supercede the law. Decisions as to what is or is not in violation of the law are made by our judicial branch.

 

[Pommer]

Executive orders are not the law and cannot supercede the law. Decisions as to what is or is not in violation of the law are made by our judicial branch.

Wait, you’re asserting that an Executive Order, duly executed, doesn’t have any effect on the Department which would be the Department of the Interior(?), because you believe that contract law would supersede such an action by a President, (or does this only affect Democratic Presidents)?

 

[Valletta]

Wait, you’re asserting that an Executive Order, duly executed, doesn’t have any effect on the Department which would be the Department of the Interior(?), because you believe that contract law would supersede such an action by a President, (or does this only affect Democratic Presidents)?

Our country has three branches of government. The judicial branch is the authority on deciding what is legal or illegal. The courts could, and have before, ruled that an executive order is in violation of the law. For example, the courts could decide that an E.O. issued by a president was not within the scope of power delegated by Congress. An order by Joe is like an order by police, it is supposed to be within the law. The legality of any law is not supposed to be decided by Joe or by the police, that is up to the courts.

 

[FenderTL5]

Biden cancels all oil, gas drilling leases in Alaskan Arctic wildlife refuge

The Biden administration announced Wednesday it will cancel all oil and natural gas drilling leases in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge that were sold during the Trump administration, a move that federal officials said is to protect the region’s array of wildlife, combat climate change and...

www.washingtontimes.com

"a move that federal officials said is to protect the region’s array of wildlife, combat climate change and honor Indigenous residents."

Some good news, for a change.

 

[Whyayeman]

Some good news, for a change.

Carping about issues of law just sidesteps the big issue. Throughout history human beings have pillaged natural resources without thought or care for the consequences. Now the consequences are obvious; the natural environment is near to collapse.

We need to address these consequences. If Valletta and I pay a bit more for gas, it is in our power to reduce our consumption of it.