SH wrote:
Quote:
Your link is filled with speculation and hyperbole much like the OP of this thread.It's not "filled" with speculation. There's "some" speculation. And so what? There's nothing wrong with speculation. Phrases like "these reviews are likely to generate new rules and guidance" turned out to be absolutely true, so you look more than a little biased in summarily dismissing them (and the rest of the article). As far as hyperbole... your aspersion about hyperbole is actually more hyperbole than anything I found in the piece. (But feel free to prove me wrong.)
Quote:
The fact that 8% of US oil production comes from Federal land is well documented. Source: BLMI think you are confused about BLM jurisdiction versus Federal lease jurisdiction. The Federal leases include offshore areas, whereas BLM has only land. So, yes it is/was ~24%.
Quote:
Biden's pause in leases was short and was to study how to revise the century old law that governs Federal leases. They released the study and recommendations late last year, it did not recommend a permanent ban and actually detailed on how companies can focus their leasing in areas that would not require significant investment.Yes, but the resumption was done under a new regime of major limitations on those leases and increases in gov't royalties on those leases -- as per the speculation. Again, these are actions that can be justified. They just can't be denied.
The speculation you posted, that is from 18 months ago, has been shown to be incorrect. If anything the last 18 months of repeated failure in the courts by the Biden administration has confirmed how little control the Executive branch has over the oil industry.
You are confused about the pause/resumption. The reasonable increase in royalty rates came after a separate court pause a year after the pause from the EO.