• 3 days Nuclear Bomb = Nuclear War: Saudi Arabia Will Develop Nuclear Bomb If Iran Does
  • 3 days Statoil Changes Name
  • 3 days Tillerson just sacked ... how will market react?
  • 2 days Russian hackers targeted American energy grid
  • 2 days Is $71 As Good As It Gets For Oil Bulls This Year?
  • 3 days Petrobras Narrows 2017 Loss, Net Debt Falls Below $85bn
  • 3 days Proton battery-alternative for lithium?
  • 3 days Ford Recalls 1.38 Million Vehicles (North America) For Loose Steering Wheel Bolt
  • 2 days Oil Boom Will Help Ghana To Be One Of The Fastest Growing¨Economies By 2018!
  • 2 days Country With Biggest Oil Reserves Biggest Threat to World Economy
  • 3 days I vote for Exxon
  • 2 days HAPPY RIG COUNT DAY!!
  • 3 days UK vs. Russia - Britain Expels 23 Russian Diplomats Over Chemical Attack On Ex-Spy.
  • 3 days Why is gold soooo boring?
  • 3 days South Korea Would Suspend Five Coal - Fire Power Plants.
  • 2 days Spotify to file $1 billion IPO
Global Energy Advisory - 16th March 2018

Global Energy Advisory - 16th March 2018

The fight between Alberta and…

China Now Produces More Oil Abroad Than At Home

China Now Produces More Oil Abroad Than At Home

China now produces more oil…

Oil Companies Win Case to Overturn Regulation Protecting Polar Bear Habita

Back in 2008 the polar bear was listed as a threatened species and given legal protection under the Endangered Species Act due to the loss of its sea-ice habitat.

To try and help the survival of the polar bear the US Fish and Wildlife Service designated more than 187,000 square miles of the Arctic coastline for protection as critical habitat for the polar bear.

Outraged that such a large area of resource-rich land be put off limits from development, the Alaska Oil and Gas Association, and the state of Alaska, filed legal cases against the US government in 2011, claiming the area was excessive and unnecessary.

Related Article: Refiners Pursue More Pipelines amid Big Gains

At the end of last week a US court in Alaska overturned the federal decision that was meant to protect the polar bear and its habitat, ruling that whilst the protection rule was “valid in many respects,” not all the official steps were followed before adopting the regulation. The judge stated that the US Fish and Wildlife Service may return and file the rule again, once they had dealt with the “procedural deficiencies.”

U.S. District Judge Ralph Beistline commented that, “there is no question that the purpose behind the service's designation is admirable, for it is important to protect the polar bear, but such protection must be done correctly.”

By. Joao Peixe of Oilprice.com

Join the discussion | Back to homepage

Leave a comment

Leave a comment

Oilprice - The No. 1 Source for Oil & Energy News