• 3 minutes Could EVs Become Cheaper than ICE Cars by 2023?
  • 6 minutes Your idea of oil/gas prices next ten years
  • 12 minutes WTI Heading for $60
  • 1 hour Is California becoming a National Security Risk to the U.S.?
  • 10 hours Plastic Myth-Busters
  • 8 hours At U.N. climate talks, US Administration Plans Sideshow On Coal
  • 3 hours A Sane Take on Nord Stream 2
  • 11 hours Good Sign for US Farmers: Soybean Prices Signals US-China Trade Deal Progress
  • 4 hours I Believe I Can Fly: Proposed U.S. Space Force Budget Could Be Less Than $5 Billion
  • 18 hours Soybean sale to China down 94%
  • 9 hours UK Power and loss of power stations
  • 8 hours OPEC Builds Case For Oil Supply Cut
  • 16 hours what's up with NG?
  • 2 days WTI @ 69.33 headed for $70s - $80s end of August
  • 2 days Pros and Cons of Coal
  • 1 day Here We Go Again: EU Will Hit Back If U.S. Imposes Car Tariffs
Is OPEC’s Oil Outlook Too Bullish?

Is OPEC’s Oil Outlook Too Bullish?

Many market watchers agree that…

Nord Stream 2 Could Still Be Derailed By U.S. Sanctions

Nord Stream 2 Could Still Be Derailed By U.S. Sanctions

U.S. Energy Secretary Rick Perry…

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