- 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
re: Louisiana Coastal Erosion.
Posted on 5/28/14 at 7:36 pm to man in the stadium
Posted on 5/28/14 at 7:36 pm to man in the stadium
Serious question: If oil and gas companies are fractionally to blame, how can a lawsuit be misguided in principle? I admit that i'm a layperson on the subject, but I've supported the lawsuit in a broad sense. One of the arguments I've heard from opponents of the suit is that oil companies will desert Louisiana in retaliation. But a) that sounds like more bark than bite (if Louisiana is where the product is) and b) is that threat of relocation really grounds for taking it up the tailpipe from these guys?
3
Posted on 5/28/14 at 7:41 pm to Fontainebleau Dr.
O&G companies will not desert Louisiana as long as there is oil and gas here. That is the biggest argument against the suit though, and the main reason why people are against it.
Posted on 5/28/14 at 7:48 pm to Fontainebleau Dr.
maybe misguided was wrong word. i think that from the highest levels to the lowest levels, nobody thought about all the implications or talked to each other before hand. Barry (SLFPA E) claims to have alerted Graves (CPRA) before the suit was filed, but its clear form the rushed nature that the two agencies never had detailed talks about all the cans of worms they would open, as i described in a previous post. they should have at least had a serious joint plan of action and accompanying legislation to address to future hurdles they were creating for themselves by filing the suit. i also dont understand why they couldnt use state AD rather than private lawyers (but i am no politician or lawyer). also, should it have gone to trial, i dont even think the top scientists could pinpoint an exact value for land loss or the amount of mitigation required for that loss. it would be a very broad range at best. all these factors contributed to make it look like a money grab. they should have had all their ducks in a row first, then filed.
Posted on 5/28/14 at 7:48 pm to Fontainebleau Dr.
Another big catch is yes the oil companies benefited from the canals but so did the state and any other royalty holder, laborer, supplier,banker and so down the line. Where do you stop when looking for someone to pay for this? Once this can gets opened you will nevet put all the worms back. Trying to"save" NO instead of building a port somewhere between Natchez and Houma 125 years ago would have avoided all this but was not politicaly possible at the time. I am sure our current leadership will do nothing or try to kick it down the road a while to avoid doing anything or offending anyone.
Page 1 of 1
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News