Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New media
New media comments
Latest activity
Classifieds
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Log in
Register
What's New?
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Navigation
Install the app
Install
More Options
Advertise with us
Contact Us
Close Menu
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Forums
The Water Cooler
General Discussion
New Oil Refinery in Cushing
Search titles only
By:
Reply to Thread
This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Message
<blockquote data-quote="dennishoddy" data-source="post: 4042941" data-attributes="member: 5412"><p>That will be the first refinery built in 40 some years if I read the news correctly. </p><p>Yeah, it will have to meet a lot of the current air quality standards, but I'm not against that. </p><p>We have the technology now to make a clean air refinery. </p><p>Ponca has at one time had the 10th largest refinery in the world, but that has been surpassed many times now in Saudi and other locations. </p><p>When growing up, the air stunk all the time, it was horrible. </p><p>Now, there is absolutely no smell coming out of that place. </p><p>Yes, it cost them a ton of money, but they are still a profitable business. </p><p>I retired from OG&E in a coal fired power plant that was rated one of the cleanest for emissions in the world, but they went further and put in scrubbers to clean the air more in response to the obummer administrations proposed clean air regulations that never happened, but the company went ahead and did the upgrade to make emissions cleaner. </p><p>I have zero issues with that. We are all stewards of our environment. Our wildlife benefits from clean air/water, as well as humans as long as it's done responsibly. </p><p>We have the radical environmentalist that want zero emissions, and we have the ones that want to dump waste products into the rivers and creeks. </p><p>That creates a dialog and discussions where most often the middle ground is met. </p><p>Case in point is the obama regulations for waters of the US, called WOTUS. They wanted the feds to be able to control water puddles in the middle of a wheat field after a rain. </p><p>The Supreme court pretty much wasted that law today, leaving land owners in charge. </p><p></p><p>The broad authority of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in its administration of the Waters of the U.S. (WOTUS) rule has been curbed. A decision issued by the U.S. Supreme Court in the case <a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/22pdf/21-454_4g15.pdf" target="_blank">Sackett v. EPA</a>, now narrows WOTUS authority. The Justices ruled in favor of Chantell and Michael Sackett in their effort to build a home in an area EPA classified as a protected wetland. The Court determined that the WOTUS component of the Clean Water Act (CWA) had been misinterpreted by EPA.</p><p></p><p><a href="https://i0.wp.com/agnetwest.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/Marshes-wetlands.jpg?ssl=1" target="_blank"><img src="https://i0.wp.com/agnetwest.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/Marshes-wetlands.jpg?resize=300%2C200&ssl=1" alt="WOTUS Authority" class="fr-fic fr-dii fr-draggable " style="" /></a></p><p>In the majority opinion, Justice Samuel Alito wrote “the CWA extends to only those ‘wetlands with a continuous surface connection to bodies that are ‘waters of the United States’ in their own right,’ so that they are “indistinguishable” from those waters.” The Court has decided that the CWA can not be applied to wetlands like swamps, marshes, and berms that are only “adjacent” to larger bodies of navigable water.</p><p></p><p>In their dissenting opinions, justices Elena Kagan and Brett Kavanaugh claim that the Court has rewritten the CWA. However, Justice Alito points out that their argument ignores the statutory provision limiting CWA’s geographic reach. Justice Alito writes, “Thus, neither separate opinion even attempts to explain how the wetlands included in their interpretation fall within a fair reading of “waters.” Textualist arguments that ignore the operative text cannot be taken seriously.”</p><p></p><p>Several agricultural groups have expressed appreciation for the decision to limit WOTUS authority. The Agricultural Retailers Association notes that the decision “finally restores common sense back into WOTUS regulation.” The American Farm Bureau Federation (AFBF), which has long been engaged in efforts to reform WOTUS, also noted appreciation for the ruling.</p><p></p><p>“The EPA clearly overstepped its authority under the Clean Water Act by restricting private property owners from developing their land despite being far from the nearest navigable water,” AFBF President Zippy Duvall <a href="https://www.fb.org/news-release/supreme-court-reaffirms-clean-water-rule" target="_blank">said in a statement</a>. “The justices respect private property rights. It’s now time for the Biden administration to do the same and rewrite the Waters of the United States Rule.”</p><p></p><p>[URL unfurl="true"]https://agnetwest.com/supreme-court-limits-wotus-authority/[/URL]</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="dennishoddy, post: 4042941, member: 5412"] That will be the first refinery built in 40 some years if I read the news correctly. Yeah, it will have to meet a lot of the current air quality standards, but I'm not against that. We have the technology now to make a clean air refinery. Ponca has at one time had the 10th largest refinery in the world, but that has been surpassed many times now in Saudi and other locations. When growing up, the air stunk all the time, it was horrible. Now, there is absolutely no smell coming out of that place. Yes, it cost them a ton of money, but they are still a profitable business. I retired from OG&E in a coal fired power plant that was rated one of the cleanest for emissions in the world, but they went further and put in scrubbers to clean the air more in response to the obummer administrations proposed clean air regulations that never happened, but the company went ahead and did the upgrade to make emissions cleaner. I have zero issues with that. We are all stewards of our environment. Our wildlife benefits from clean air/water, as well as humans as long as it's done responsibly. We have the radical environmentalist that want zero emissions, and we have the ones that want to dump waste products into the rivers and creeks. That creates a dialog and discussions where most often the middle ground is met. Case in point is the obama regulations for waters of the US, called WOTUS. They wanted the feds to be able to control water puddles in the middle of a wheat field after a rain. The Supreme court pretty much wasted that law today, leaving land owners in charge. The broad authority of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in its administration of the Waters of the U.S. (WOTUS) rule has been curbed. A decision issued by the U.S. Supreme Court in the case [URL='https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/22pdf/21-454_4g15.pdf']Sackett v. EPA[/URL], now narrows WOTUS authority. The Justices ruled in favor of Chantell and Michael Sackett in their effort to build a home in an area EPA classified as a protected wetland. The Court determined that the WOTUS component of the Clean Water Act (CWA) had been misinterpreted by EPA. [URL='https://i0.wp.com/agnetwest.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/Marshes-wetlands.jpg?ssl=1'][IMG alt="WOTUS Authority"]https://i0.wp.com/agnetwest.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/Marshes-wetlands.jpg?resize=300%2C200&ssl=1[/IMG][/URL] In the majority opinion, Justice Samuel Alito wrote “the CWA extends to only those ‘wetlands with a continuous surface connection to bodies that are ‘waters of the United States’ in their own right,’ so that they are “indistinguishable” from those waters.” The Court has decided that the CWA can not be applied to wetlands like swamps, marshes, and berms that are only “adjacent” to larger bodies of navigable water. In their dissenting opinions, justices Elena Kagan and Brett Kavanaugh claim that the Court has rewritten the CWA. However, Justice Alito points out that their argument ignores the statutory provision limiting CWA’s geographic reach. Justice Alito writes, “Thus, neither separate opinion even attempts to explain how the wetlands included in their interpretation fall within a fair reading of “waters.” Textualist arguments that ignore the operative text cannot be taken seriously.” Several agricultural groups have expressed appreciation for the decision to limit WOTUS authority. The Agricultural Retailers Association notes that the decision “finally restores common sense back into WOTUS regulation.” The American Farm Bureau Federation (AFBF), which has long been engaged in efforts to reform WOTUS, also noted appreciation for the ruling. “The EPA clearly overstepped its authority under the Clean Water Act by restricting private property owners from developing their land despite being far from the nearest navigable water,” AFBF President Zippy Duvall [URL='https://www.fb.org/news-release/supreme-court-reaffirms-clean-water-rule']said in a statement[/URL]. “The justices respect private property rights. It’s now time for the Biden administration to do the same and rewrite the Waters of the United States Rule.” [URL unfurl="true"]https://agnetwest.com/supreme-court-limits-wotus-authority/[/URL] [/QUOTE]
Insert Quotes…
Verification
Post Reply
Forums
The Water Cooler
General Discussion
New Oil Refinery in Cushing
Search titles only
By:
Top
Bottom
