- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
Levee authority to bring suit against 100 O&G companies regarding wetland loss
Posted on 7/24/13 at 12:00 am
Posted on 7/24/13 at 12:00 am
LINK
great Lens article
this is going to be a huge battle. the levee board is going in armed with study after study after study and nearly every coastal scientist on their side. there is no doubt O&G activities have contributed to erosion and subsidence, but i think the levee board will greatly be burdened to prove the extent. the oil and gas companies will undoubtedly argue that the Miss River levees impeded natural sediment deposition and were the primary cause of land loss as well as excavation of navigation channels such as MRGO, HNC, and so on.
as a neutral observer, i think this could be desperation on the part of the levee board to figure out how to afford the operation and maintenance costs of the new 17 billion dollar system they now have. it also could be a real turning point in the effort to fund large scale coastal restoration if they win. i don't think we would see a wholesale departure of oil and gas companies from the state since most heavy exploration has shifted to deep water rather than the marshes in question.
great Lens article
this is going to be a huge battle. the levee board is going in armed with study after study after study and nearly every coastal scientist on their side. there is no doubt O&G activities have contributed to erosion and subsidence, but i think the levee board will greatly be burdened to prove the extent. the oil and gas companies will undoubtedly argue that the Miss River levees impeded natural sediment deposition and were the primary cause of land loss as well as excavation of navigation channels such as MRGO, HNC, and so on.
as a neutral observer, i think this could be desperation on the part of the levee board to figure out how to afford the operation and maintenance costs of the new 17 billion dollar system they now have. it also could be a real turning point in the effort to fund large scale coastal restoration if they win. i don't think we would see a wholesale departure of oil and gas companies from the state since most heavy exploration has shifted to deep water rather than the marshes in question.
4
Posted on 7/24/13 at 12:34 am to man in the stadium
Texas has already enjoyed getting O&G business from Louisiana. This may help get them some more business.
Posted on 7/24/13 at 3:51 am to MoreOrLes
its a mix of both, flying over the marsh you can see it. any straight line is from an oil company. Nature does not make straight lines, the canals allowed saltwater to flow at higher velocities.
however if the MS river wouldnt have levees, there wouldnt be any problem
however if the MS river wouldnt have levees, there wouldnt be any problem
Posted on 7/24/13 at 6:36 am to MoreOrLes
quote:
Texas has already enjoyed getting O&G business from Louisiana. This may help get them some more business.
LA doesn't want to be know as a state that is unfriendly to business. If they try to keep this up they will.
Posted on 7/24/13 at 6:37 am to BigHoss
Big hoss got it 
Posted on 7/24/13 at 6:43 am to bbvdd
I work in the oilfield and am not against oil companies at all, but I do not care for the way our coast is treated by some of these smaller inland operations. I know it's selfish, but I'd like to be able to go fishing sometimes and feel like I'm out in nature. In south LA, it feels more like you're visiting an industrial area. Hell, I need it to make a living, so it's a catch 22.
Posted on 7/24/13 at 7:25 am to BigHoss
quote:
however if the MS river wouldnt have levees, there wouldnt be any problem
Yeah, not sure what their case will be. "We are the #1 cause of wetland loss, but they are second. They need to pay for restoration."
Posted on 7/24/13 at 7:49 am to Slickback
Yea, I don't see how they have a case here.
People in general are responsible. There is no one entity who should foot any bills IMO.
People in general are responsible. There is no one entity who should foot any bills IMO.
Posted on 7/24/13 at 8:14 am to man in the stadium
Don't bite the hand that feeds you IMO. Plus i feel that the Army Corps of Engineers has done more to speed coastal erosion than oil and gas companies. When they blocked the flow of fresh water from the MS river from entering south east LA they killed the coastal parishes. Just look at a map of the wetlands between the Atchafalaya and MS Rivers.
Posted on 7/24/13 at 8:46 am to man in the stadium
I wonder if they are even a proper party to bring this?
Posted on 7/24/13 at 10:10 am to BigHoss
quote:
however if the MS river wouldnt have levees, there wouldnt be any problem
and it's not just the Louisiana levees. Many upper portions of the river have concrete levees which cause a significant reduction in sediment flowing down the river to begin with.
Sure the oil companies cut up our coast, but we let them.
Posted on 7/24/13 at 10:31 am to SpeckledTiger
quote:
but we let them.
this. These deals were all cut years ago between the oil companies and whatever politician was in office. the levee board seems like they are just trying for a money grab IMO. In any event, i'm sure the oil companies can tie this suit up for about 30 years. La.'s coast line will be around Gardere by the time this is settled.
Posted on 7/24/13 at 12:40 pm to tigerinthebueche
For every study this board has, I guarantee O&G has two from someone twice the intelligence level of the state hired employees.
As a taxpayer, this is a waste of money and lawyers are slobbering over this one.
As a taxpayer, this is a waste of money and lawyers are slobbering over this one.
Posted on 7/24/13 at 3:24 pm to man in the stadium
This will be interesting to see how it plays out. The state permitted the land use/access so at first glance it doesn't seem as though the levee boards have much of a case. But hey lawyers need to work too...
Posted on 7/24/13 at 4:50 pm to nhassl1
quote:
he state permitted the land use/access so at first glance it doesn't seem as though the levee boards have much of a case.
At least in terms of leases, there is generally some restoration language, to the effect that they must restore the leased land/property to it's pre-lease condition. Usually it's at termination though.
This has been done by prior landowners in the past to an extent. There were several huge awards about 10 years ago, wherein private landowners had sued various oil companies to restore their land. Let's all be honest - oil companies can frick some land up. They would dump all sorts of material and debris and other shite for years and years, then at the end of the lease, their argument would be that they should not pay actual restoration costs because that would cost millions and the land is worth very little. Eventually, the courts said NO, you contracted to restore it. It doesn't matter how much it costs to restore it or how much the land is worth.
I've said for years that "they" should make the oil companies pay to fill in their canals and fix all their screwed up land. But, the bottom line is the oil companies have a shite load of money and no one will ever make them pay. But why shouldn't a company have to back fill it's canal once it's not used?
Page 1 of 1
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News