Latest Breaking News

former9thward

(33,424 posts)

14. Further comment which I knew to be the case.

Thu Jan 27, 2022, 10:47 PM

Jan 2022

Environmental groups had opposed the sale, saying they did not want to increase offshore drilling because of climate change, while industry and Republican-led states have supported it.

The Biden administration last year originally issued a temporary pause on all new oil and gas lease sales, but held the sale in question after the pause was held up in court in June.

Though the sale offered up as many as 80 million acres for lease, companies purchased the rights to drill on 1.7 million acres.

Despite the June court ruling, environmentalists criticized the sale, arguing that the Biden administration should have modified it or waited for the results of an appeal.

https://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/591759-court-nixes-offshore-drilling-leases-auctioned-by-biden

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

47 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Judge throws out Biden administration's massive Gulf of Mexico oil and gas lease sale [View all] former9thward Jan 2022 OP

Rather confusing until you read the link This is a good thing, a win for Biden... Enter stage left Jan 2022 #1

Exactly. I just posted a quickie explanation below in post #2 BumRushDaShow Jan 2022 #3

Yup. Biden was forced to follow through on some tRump garbage, but now is free of it. . . . nt Bernardo de La Paz Jan 2022 #27

Was just about to post - this is actually a "win" for the Biden administration BumRushDaShow Jan 2022 #2

Thank you for this post. Enter stage left Jan 2022 #4

You are welcome BumRushDaShow Jan 2022 #5

this was easier for me to understand... but it' s still confusing to me nt orleans Jan 2022 #20

It's confusing because there are all kinds of politics involved in how this played out BumRushDaShow Jan 2022 #22

WaPo article is very clear, to me. Issue is complicated. . . . nt Bernardo de La Paz Jan 2022 #29

Yes - I got that (posted a number of times in the thread) BumRushDaShow Jan 2022 #34

Yes the headline stinks and some people here have run with it without reading. . . . nt Bernardo de La Paz Jan 2022 #42

I don't think so. former9thward Jan 2022 #6

Did you read the article that you posted or were just going for the headline? BumRushDaShow Jan 2022 #8

Nobody forced them. former9thward Jan 2022 #12

They DID appeal it BumRushDaShow Jan 2022 #15

Why did they go ahead with the sale? former9thward Jan 2022 #16

See this BumRushDaShow Jan 2022 #18

Easier to go along with the sale and focus the energy on appealing the case altogether. cstanleytech Jan 2022 #25

They WERE forced. They DID appeal. They lost the appeal. Enviros won a NEW case. WaPo says! Bernardo de La Paz Jan 2022 #28

Think again. Courts ORDERED sale to go ahead Nov 2021. WaPo article Jan 27, 2022. . . nt Bernardo de La Paz Jan 2022 #30

The headline/story seemed counter-intuitive in context with Biden's goals on climate change agenda msfiddlestix Jan 2022 #7

The Biden administration wanted the sale of the leases to go through. former9thward Jan 2022 #10

No. A court ORDERED him to do it. BumRushDaShow Jan 2022 #11

Why didn't they appeal? former9thward Jan 2022 #13

Further comment which I knew to be the case. former9thward Jan 2022 #14

See this post BumRushDaShow Jan 2022 #17

People (environmentalists) can SAY all they want in June. By August it was clear sale HAD to occur Bernardo de La Paz Jan 2022 #31

Ok, So now I am confused then. msfiddlestix Jan 2022 #36

So it will be appealed madville Jan 2022 #9

This is the 68 page decision for any interested. former9thward Jan 2022 #19

Did you read it? Bernardo de La Paz Jan 2022 #32

The case was on appeal. former9thward Jan 2022 #37

NO. They could not wait. You don't know what an injunction is. Read the rulings. Bernardo de La Paz Jan 2022 #40

Trump was / is such a fucker__________n/t TeamProg Jan 2022 #21

Here's the AP version of the story. Mr.Bill Jan 2022 #23

It says the same as the Post. former9thward Jan 2022 #39

I think it states it more clearly than the story in the OP. Mr.Bill Jan 2022 #44

I just skimmed Karma13612 Jan 2022 #24

As much as some may like to throw shade on Bezos, this is on the WP, not Bezo. He does not JohnSJ Jan 2022 #35

+1 for injecting reality. . . . nt Bernardo de La Paz Jan 2022 #41

Very true Karma13612 Jan 2022 #47

Good to know. But in that case, Karma13612 Jan 2022 #45

Agreed JohnSJ Jan 2022 #46

WORST HEADLINE EVER NurseJackie Jan 2022 #26

The contentious responses to this post exemplify the distance we must cross. jaxexpat Jan 2022 #33

I would say many people on the internet are confused -- not the Post. former9thward Jan 2022 #38

This was what the judge who put the injunction in place wrote in his 44 page June 2021 ruling BumRushDaShow Jan 2022 #43