Not oil, but close

[Tempest]

http://articles.cnn.com/2011-01-14/us/we...ng-arch-coal?_s

Quote:
"EPA's unprecedented action to retroactively deny a permit changes the rules not just in the middle of the game, but at the end of it," Harbert said in a statement. "This is exactly the kind of practice that will keep capital on the sidelines and slow our economic recovery. The negative impact of this decision will be felt not only by West Virginians and the energy industry but across all sectors of our economy."

And:
Quote:
"We believe this decision will have a chilling effect on future U.S. investment because every business possessing or requiring a permit under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act will fear similar overreaching by the EPA," Arch Coal spokeswoman Kim Link said in a statement. "It's a risk many businesses cannot afford to take.

"We remain shocked and dismayed at EPA's continued onslaught with respect to this validly issued permit."

Here come higher energy prices.

 

[SuperDave456]

Anyone ever read Tom Clancy's novel Rainbow Six ?

The gist of the book is that the only "Green" humans are those pushing up daisies.

 

[Tornado Red]

Didn't President Obama recently pen an op-ed article for the Wall Street Journal, calling for a reduction in economically harmful regulations?

Oh yeah, that was TODAY!

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424...EditorialPage_h

What a hypocrite.

 

[eljefino]

Quote:
In its decision, the EPA acted under the law


Quote:
the EPA said that 100,000 projects are approved by the corps every year, translating to millions of permits during the 39 years of the Clean Water Act.


Since the Clean Water Act passed in 1972, you'd have to blame Ed Muskie.

 

[simple_gifts]

Odd that on my way to visit my parents in Western VA, a sign was put up in PA saying "Future Site of the First US Clean Coal Plant"

The sign was put up in about 1989 and there is no plant in sight, just the sign. I'm sure it is "right around the corner"

 

[Shannow]

It's funny, as there's a test case down here which has the EPA very very nervous.

Businesses have operating licences on how they can operate, and what is legally allowed to leave the site (i.e. be discharged)...It's technically termed an operating licence, not a licence to pollute, but by allowing xppm of x to leave the site, that's what it technically is.

A green group has taken a company to court for materially altering a waterway.Company is urguing that they are operating strictly within their (EPA) licence, and therefore their operation is legal.

If green group wins, every single licence in the state is drawng into question.

 

[Tempest]

Originally Posted By: Shannow
It's funny, as there's a test case down here which has the EPA very very nervous.

Businesses have operating licences on how they can operate, and what is legally allowed to leave the site (i.e. be discharged)...It's technically termed an operating licence, not a licence to pollute, but by allowing xppm of x to leave the site, that's what it technically is.

A green group has taken a company to court for materially altering a waterway.Company is urguing that they are operating strictly within their (EPA) licence, and therefore their operation is legal.

If green group wins, every single licence in the state is drawng into question.

Investor replant. Aren't regulations just great for the economy?

 

[Tempest]

Quote:
In its decision, the EPA acted under the law

If that is the case, why did the EPA issue a license 3 years ago? Now, after billions in private money has been invested, they move in and say it violates the "law".

Can the state issue you a drivers license, and then revoke it after you get into a accident, and then charge you for driving without a license?
That is effectively what the EPA just did.