Nick Pope
Contributor
A single ruling from a judge appointed by President Joe Biden may end up halting oil and gas drilling in the Gulf of Mexico in December.
Judge Deborah Boardman, the Biden-appointed district judge in the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland, sided with suing environmentalists in August to vacate a key National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) environmental review — known as a biological opinion — underlying offshore drilling in the Gulf of Mexico. Unless the federal government manages to revise the biological opinion by Dec. 20, and barring intervention from a higher court or the Congress, the ruling could force offshore oil and gas drilling to grind to a halt as developers decide whether to proceed at their own risk or shut down their operations until a new review is issued, according to multiple energy sector experts and stakeholders.
“The revocation of a duly issued permit such as this on such specious grounds by a single judge places all other duly issued permits in the areas occupied by this endangered and other endangered or threatened species in jeopardy,” David Blackmon, a 40-year veteran of the oil and gas industry who now writes and consults on energy issues, told the Daily Caller News Foundation. “Operators now will have to consider whether they’re willing to risk millions of dollars in capital in projects only to find their own permits being revoked on the whims of a judge sympathetic to the radical climate lobby.” (RELATED: Biden Concedes A Gas Export Approval, But It May Just Be A ‘Political Tactic’ To Help His VP)
“Absurd judicial decisions like this one threaten to destroy billions of dollars in investments in the U.S. by destroying the ability of companies and investors to have confidence in the proper, consistent application of laws and regulations,” Blackmon added. “Unfortunately, the destruction of this longstanding American advantage to attract capital has been a consistent feature of this administration and the activist judges it favors.”
The Gulf of Mexico is one of the largest sources of oil and gas in the U.S., with the region providing nearly 15% of all American crude oil production and 5% of total dry natural gas output, according to the Energy Information Administration. If it were a country, the Gulf of Mexico would be one of the 12 biggest oil producing states in the world, according to Bloomberg News.
Notably, oil produced in the Gulf of Mexico is less carbon-intensive than oil produced elsewhere; one May 2023 analysis commissioned by the National Ocean Industries Association (NOIA) found that oil extracted offshore in the Gulf of Mexico is 46% less carbon-intensive than the global average excluding the U.S. and Canada.
The biological opinion at the heart of the possible disruption to the industry was issued in 2020, and it assessed how oil and gas operations could potentially impact protected species living in the region, according to Bloomberg. Regulators typically use the biological opinion as a blanket analysis instead of issuing individual assessments on a case-by-case basis.
Provided developers are in compliance with the biological opinion, federal regulators had approved “takes,” meaning that developers are legally permitted to harm or harass a given number of particular species, an official for an industry stakeholder involved in efforts to solve the impasse told the DCNF. Without a valid biological opinion in place to limit liability via these takes, companies “will have to decide whether they continue to operate at their own risk” or instead cease their operations until the situation is resolved, according to an Aug. 29 memo published by Holland & Knight, a major law firm.
In the absence of a solid biological opinion, regulators responsible for approving development in the Gulf of Mexico would also probably have to weigh in on hundreds of different decisions each year, an amount of paperwork that could inundate the regulators, the official for an industry stakeholder told the DCNF. Such an outcome could cause problems for offshore green energy developments, in addition to disrupting things like vessels supplying offshore drilling platforms, operation of existing wells and future offshore oil and gas development, according to Bloomberg. (RELATED: Biden Admin Locks In Skimpiest Offshore Oil And Gas Leasing Schedule In US History As Prices Remain High At The Pump)
The NMFS has started the process of putting together a new biological opinion, but the agency may not be able to complete it until as late as the spring of next year, according to Bloomberg.
The agency “is aware of the court’s ruling on Sierra Club et al. v. National Marine Fisheries Service, and [it is] working with [its] federal agency partners on [their] next steps,” a spokesperson for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), of which NMFS is a sub-agency, told the DCNF.
The environmental groups suing the government over the biological opinion include the Sierra Club and the Center for Biological Diversity, according to Reuters. Some industry stakeholders, including NOIA and the American Petroleum Institute (API), have intervened in the litigation on the side of the government, according to Bloomberg.
Mike Sommers, API’s president and CEO, wrote a Friday letter to Commerce Secretary Gina Raimondo to express his concern about the unfolding legal situation in the Gulf of Mexico.
“Without a solution in place, this decision will create a significant bureaucratic bottleneck for the federal government and potentially halt all oil and natural gas operations in the Gulf of Mexico,” Sommers wrote, adding that “this court decision has the potential to halt or seriously slow all operations in the U.S. Gulf of Mexico, leaving a critical source of energy supply and economic security in jeopardy.”
Additionally, industry groups and affected corporations are engaged in a lobbying blitz to try to avoid their worst-case scenario, and stakeholders have also communicated with lawmakers’ office in pursuit of a legislative solution, according to Bloomberg. They are also considering legal strategies for relief if a solution does not come together sooner than later.
“There should be a high level of concern regarding potential disruptions to the energy flow from the U.S. Gulf of Mexico, ” NOIA President Erik Milito said in a statement shared with the DCNF. “As it currently sits, the court order related to the Biological Opinion for the Gulf of Mexico energy sector could create roadblocks to continued energy development from the region. Such disruptions would likely cause considerable economic and national security harm to our country … Given the vital importance of the Gulf of Mexico, we remain optimistic that cooler heads will prevail, and we will see much-needed resolution to this issue through the judicial process, regulatory efforts, or Congressional action.”
The White House, Bureau of Ocean Energy Management and Department of the Interior did not respond to requests for comment. The Department of Justice declined to comment.
All content created by the Daily Caller News Foundation, an independent and nonpartisan newswire service, is available without charge to any legitimate news publisher that can provide a large audience. All republished articles must include our logo, our reporter’s byline and their DCNF affiliation. For any questions about our guidelines or partnering with us, please contact licensing@dailycallernewsfoundation.org.
Ironically, the major issue in the judgement was the danger to whales, and particularly the endangered Rice’s whale.
Danger to whales ONLY “matters” if it is oil, WIND gets a total free pass.
And here, of course, it is the other wy around.
You are talking GIBBERISH again.
Wind gets a total free pass on environmental destruction everywhere it is implemented in Australia.
HUGE areas of pristine wilderness are at risk..
Proposed renewable energy projects across Queensland. (youtube.com)
But its not YET on the hills around Moyhu.. so YOU DON’T CARE.
You epitomise the slimiest NIMBY scum..
Yes, since it is offshore wind killing the whales but that gets no attention from the Eco-Nazis.
But cfact fights for them. They will do this here too right? Because otherwise it would look like they are paid by exxon and koch to fight against renewables. But that can’t be. They care.
It’s just a coincidence that like most authors here they circle around heartland, koch, exxon & friends.
Exactly how many Rice whales have been injured or killed out of a population of how many?
Remember that big spill in the Gulf some time ago? (I it was Deep Water Horizon?)
Lots of panic and emergency efforts to clean it up. Film of oil coated beaches, some oil coated animals. It would take years, decades, to clean up.
Then nature stepped in.
But in all the coverage about how devastating it was, I don’t recall any pictures of any dead whales being washed up.
Story tip:
Unification of GR and QM.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.astropartphys.2024.103036
On the same origin of quantum physics and general relativity from Riemannian geometry and Planck scale formalism.
Mass creates curvature and curvature creates mass. As curvature relaxes due to expansion, mass and kinetic energy is created.
Have you run that past VP Kamala for confirmation?
This paper is complete nonsense. Not saying that because I disagree with the conclusion; it is literally gibberish.
When air expands/contracts it changes kinetic energy. Energy is conserved by balancing potential energy.
Why not something similar for spacetime? The metric tensor includes all forms of energy, PE included. A change in curvature would imply a change in PE which would need to be balanced by a change in KE or mass equivalent. From our position, we would see that matter and kinetic energy were a result of spacetime curvature.
Which came first, the curvature or the mass?
If she has it in the right places, who cares?
Ok, got a big chuckle out of that one.
Interesting, but above my pay grade.
Reminds me of the poem, first they came for…
Today oil and gas. Tomorrow wind and solar.
From Wiki (yeah, I know)…
Martin Niemöller’s poem is about the silence of German intellectuals and clergy—including, by his own admission, Niemöller himself—following the Nazis’ rise to power and subsequent incremental purging of their chosen targets, group after group.
it was about the purging of targets and ideas that they disagreed with or considered a threat. Since wind and solar are a goal not a target, they will always get a pass.
Form a new “environmentist” group and employ the same arguments against wind and solar. Cite every activist judge’s decision and use their own logic against them.
Well what do you expect once the supreme court overturned the Chervon doctrine. Now judges get to decide policy based on whatever reasons they like.
So, policies should be made by corrupt bureaucrats. rather than corrupt judges?
That’s an ignorant comment based either on a misunderstanding or an intentional misrepresentation of both the Chevron doctrine and the Supreme Court’s decision.
As opposed to bureaucrats deciding policy based on whatever reasons THEY like.
Judge Deborah Broadman.
While I do not doubt the mental acuity of certain women, when it comes to deciding on matters like climate alarmism and scientific endeavors, I find not only many men but even a greater number of outspoken women dismal in their reasoning.
A few years ago I read the following but unfortunately the link is not working so my apology for not naming the author.
“It is a fundamental fact, although increasingly conveniently ignored, that no single climate event or location can be attributed to global warming. There is simply no valid way to prove a connection, and correlation is not causation. If it were, the following would be true: As global warming has supposedly been occurring, the average human lifespan has significantly increased. Therefore, global warming causes increased human lifespans and is a good thing.” (my emphasis)
The quote appears to be from Dr. Duane Thresher:
https://principia-scientific.com/is-global-warming-really-a-fraud/
The problem with the stated conclusion is that it ignores that humans are the source of all evil. Didn’t you get the memo?
Seems like the Chevron Deference ruling is going to impede all activities.
No, it will impede federal bureaucracies from implementing rules that go beyond their legislated authority.
If NGO’s can sue the government over take permits in the GOM, maybe other groups could sue Wind Farms and Solar Field owners over take permits for birds of prey and all those other creatures harmed by unreliable energy sources. Time to sue for equal application of the law.
We’ll see how BOEM and BSEE respond after December 20. We could see anything from a slowdown in permit approvals to a revocation of approved permits and a total shut-down of oil & gas production in the Gulf of Mexico. Either way, the industry, API, NOIA and/or Louisiana & other Gulf states sue the Fed’s asses off in the Fifth Circuit, where we almost always win.
Conveniently after the election. Elections have consequences.
Two comments: First, this is a major decision as it affects god knows how much economic activity and wealth. Judge shopping might be very fun for plaintiffs, but it is darned dangerous to rational decisions. Second, I have some experience with highly educated people. Many have very narrow views and capabilities; even to the point of being surprised when I explained to them how their stances on certain practices, laws, subsidies and so forth would impact their own pensions and IRAs. They’d never thought about it.