The global community is quickly working its way through the natural resources available to us. As we seek new ways to access oil and gas, one of the newest possible frontiers is the American Atlantic Coast. The U.S. has toyed with using a supposedly minimally invasive tactic to test for oil and gas deep in the Atlantic Ocean called airgun testing. Read on to find out what airgun testing is, what affect it has on the environment, and what its prospects are moving forward.

What is Airgun Testing?

Airgun testing is essentially a way to test for oil and gas reserves. The seismic airguns attach onto ships, and then blast loud, strong bursts of air onto the ocean floor. How the air responds can tell the airgun operator whether or not there may be oil or gas reserves below the surface. Watch the video below for a simple, technical explanation of how airgun testing works.

The History of Airgun Testing in the United States

On February 27, an Environmental Impact Statement was released by the Interior Department that allows the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management to begin issuing permits for seismic testing off the Atlantic Coast for oil and gas exploration. Although the ocean floor was tested for oil reserves in the 1970s and 80s, many experts feel those reports used outdated technology and gave an inaccurate representation of the oil and gas deposits in the Atlantic.

Some experts say that oil reserves could be found off the Atlantic coast that would be similar to those known to be in the Gulf of Mexico and could dramatically boost the American economy. Environmental groups, however, strongly oppose oil exploration using this method, as it is known to kill small fish and eggs in close vicinity to the air blasts. The long-term effects on the behavior of larger aquatic animals such as dolphins and whales is unknown. The proposed area for seismic exploration spans several miles off the coast and stretches from Delaware to Florida, and though the area in question is banned from any oil exploration activity until 2017, the next president could overturn that rule.

What are the arguments in favor of airgun testing?

Advocates of oil exploration off the Atlantic Coast using airgun seismic testing argue that the permits issued by the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM) place restrictions that will make airgun testing safe for marine wildlife. The Environmental Impact Statement recommends three restrictions to ensure that these tests are conducted in a safe, environmentally conscious manner:

1. Prohibit survey activity on the migratory routes of the endangered Right Whale. A path roughly 20 miles wide would be created in the middle of the proposed area in which exploration could not be conducted from November through April — the whale migration season — creating a safe corridor for the whales.
2. Prohibit more than one survey from being conducted at any given time.
3. Prior to any survey activity, exploration vehicles would be required to use passive acoustic monitoring systems to identify wildlife in the exploration area; if any wildlife are found that would be affected by the airgun, the survey area for that day would be shifted to a different location.

Advocates feel that these provisions, written into any permits issued by the BOEM, would safeguard against potential negative effects of airgun testing.

Advocates also point to the economic benefits of updated oil exploration off the Atlantic Coast. Some experts claim that the Atlantic coast could hold the equivalent of seven years of oil generated in the Gulf of Mexico, enough to boost the American economy and strengthen the United States’ energy security. The American Petroleum Institute has estimated that the oil to be found there could generate nearly 280,000 jobs, $195 billion in private revenue, and $51 billion in government revenue.These estimates, of course, are dependent upon the discovery of more oil than the current 3.3 billion barrels estimated to be there. Additionally, supporters argue that airgun testing can also be used for tasks such as discovering sand deposits for beach recovery and as scouting for possible locations of off-shore wind turbines.

What are the Arguments Against Airgun Testing?

Opponents argue that the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management has been too hasty in its approval for permits without proper studies of the long-term effects of airgun testing on marine wildlife. It is known that the high pressure airgun blasts can injure or kill small fish and their eggs, but little is known about the long-term effects on marine animals such as behavioral disruption, migration, and mating patterns. The area up for seismic testing puts 34 species of whales and dolphins and several species of turtles at risk. Because sound travels faster in water, aquatic wildlife miles away from the seismic testing could be affected, although the effects of airgun testing are still being studied. Environmental group Oceana argues that the November through April ban on seismic testing will not save the whales and that the BOEM did little to use current acoustic data on whale activity or search for alternatives methods to airgun testing.

Airgun testing in the Atlantic has also sparked backlash because it could potentially harm tourism and fishing industries in coastal areas, in addition to the negative effects of offshore oil production that are sure to result from oil exploration. Opponents point to the results of airgun testing off the coast of Southwestern Africa, which severely disrupted tuna migration patterns, and thus damaged the tuna industry that normally thrives in that area.

Some experts argue that while 280,000 jobs in oil exploration and production could be created, some 730,000 jobs in the fishing and tourism industries would be lost if oil exploration were to disrupt aquatic wildlife. Additionally, opponents argue that oil exploration will inevitably progress to oil production, which could have disastrous effects upon the Atlantic coast. The effects are still felt today of the 2006 Deepwater Horizon oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico and the Exxon-Valdez oil spill near Alaska in 1989. The same type of oil spill could potentially occur off the Atlantic coast if drilling were permitted there, which runs the risk of affecting a greater population than either of the previous spills. Oil drilling itself could pose a myriad of negative effects upon marine wildlife, and airgun testing could be blamed for paving the way to large-scale offshore oil drilling near the Atlantic coast.

 Resources

Primary

Bureau of Ocean Energy Management: Atlantic Geological and Geophysical Activities Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

Additional

Bloomberg: Review Clears Path For Seismic Tests of U.S. Atlantic Oil

International Business Times: Obama Administration Releases Environmental Study to Set Rules For Oil and Gas Exploration in Atlantic Ocean

Examiner: Use of Air Guns Being Considered For U.S. Oil and Gas Exploration

Greenville Online: Rules Set For Oil Testing in Atlantic Ocean

Star News Online: McCrory Adds Voice to Coastal Governors Who Want Offshore Drilling

Climate Progress: ‘Airgun’ Drilling in the Atlantic Wouldn’t Find Much Oil, But Could Harm Wildlife

National Geographic: Atlantic Seismic Tests For Oil: Marine Animals At Risk?

EcoWatch: U.S. to Allow Seismic Airgun Testing For Offshore Drilling Exploration, Will Threaten Marine Life

Oceana: Seismic Airguns: An Ocean Threat

The New York Times: U.S. Moves Toward Atlantic Oil Exploration, Stirring Debate Over Sea Life

McClatchy DC: Interior Department Favors Controversial Seismic Tests For Atlantic Ocean Oil

Tech Times: Atlantic Oil Drilling Using Seismic Airgun May Wipe Out Endangered Right Whales

Washington Post: U.S. Rules Would Allow ‘Seismic Air Guns’ in Search For Offshore Oil, Gas

TIME: To Drill or Not to Drill: The Debate Over Offshore Testing and Drilling in the Atlantic

Joseph Palmisano

Joseph Palmisano is a graduate of The College of New Jersey with a degree in History and Education. He has a background in historical preservation, public education, freelance writing, and business. While currently employed as an insurance underwriter, he maintains an interest in environmental and educational reform. Contact Joseph at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Airgun Testing For Oil Reserves is a Controversial Environmental Issue appeared first on Law Street.

Journalist Mignon McLaughlin once said that “a sense of humor is a major defense against minor troubles.” However, in the legal world, the inverse is often shown to be true: a sense of humor is only a minor defense against major troubles.

When pleading insanity just seems too mundane, creative criminal defendants come up with some unusual defenses to prove their innocence; but, funny as these may be, do they actually work? Maybe sometimes, but let’s look at two such defenses that most likely will never lead to an innocent verdict.

Fat Men Can’t Murder

In 2006, the ironically named Edward Ates was accused of driving from Florida to New Jersey to kill his son-in-law. Even though the prosecution painted Ates as a competent marksman with some military experience, said he had been doing online research on how to kill, submitted a conversation he had with his sister in which they went over the timeline of events, and had his own sister testify that her brother had her lie to the police about where he was at the time of the murder, his attorney said Ates could not possibly be the killer.

But why?

Well, for one, the damning military experience turned out to be a desk job. Also, apparently people with too much time on their hands often pick up hobbies — up to and including researching methods to commit murder. Oh yeah, and did I mention he was really, really fat? Because that’s important.

You, like the defense, might be asking yourself how a man who weighed 300 pounds at only 5’8” could possibly drive for 21 hours straight, walk up four steps, and still manage to hold a gun straight. My guess is that it was just the adrenaline rush you get in exciting situations; instead of suddenly being able to lift a car off a child, perhaps this guy was able to make a short climb in order to get rid of someone who must have been — assuming guilt here — a real nuisance in his life. The defense, on the other hand, apparently wouldn’t have bought my potential solution. According to them, there was no way this man could have successfully completed such a physically taxing feat, and thus he must be innocent.

As it turns out, the jury at this trial didn’t buy the obesity defense and the fat man was convicted of first degree murder.

(This case actually made it on appeal to New Jersey’s highest court in States vs. Ates, 217 N.J. 253 (2014), but it got there on the merits of whether the admitted evidence of the wiretapped call between Ates and his sister was legal in the state of New Jersey — not on whether obesity is a legitimate legal defense. The high court concluded that the evidence was admissible, and the verdict stands.)

Good Jokes Aren’t Illegal

Did you hear the one about the man who “accidentally” poured gasoline on his nag of a wife and then pulled out a lighter and tried to light it — all while winking at his young son? Do you get the punch line? I don’t, but there must be one somewhere in there or otherwise the defense that this all happened “as a joke” just wouldn’t make sense.

I am the type of person who likes to find humor in life. I am always up for a good joke, whether knock-knock or practical. However, Khemraj Samlall’s recent “prank” just seems to have fallen flat.

This all started when Samlall got home really late, or rather really early, one morning and, as is not surprising, when he arrived, he was a little drunk. His wife was not thrilled. She berated him for his actions; he threatened her with a knife in front of her child, went and got a gas can, doused her in gas (not on purpose according to him), and then pulled out a lighter. Basically, tit for tat.

According to him, this was all done as a joke. Are you laughing as hard as he apparently was? As the events mentioned above only happened recently, there has yet to be a trial, though Samlall has been accused of “aggravated assault with a deadly weapon without the intent to kill.” And while I normally try to keep my legal opinions to myself, I feel pretty confident that I know how this defense will work out for Samlall if he can find an attorney willing to try it: if nobody laughs at your joke, it probably isn’t funny.

Justice Scalia once said, “I don’t want a competent lawyer. I want a lawyer who’s going to get me off.” United States v. Gonzalez-Lopez, 548 U.S. 140 (2006). However, if your counsel — or intended defense — is neither competent nor likely to work, maybe you should move on to plan B.

—

Ashley Shaw (@Smoldering_Ashs) is an Alabama native and current New Jersey resident. A graduate of both Kennesaw State University and Thomas Goode Jones School of Law, she spends her free time reading, writing, boxing, horseback riding, trivia, flying helicopters, playing sports, and a whole lot else. So maybe she has too much spare time.

Featured image courtesy of [Divine Harvester via Flickr]

Ashley Shaw

Ashley Shaw is an Alabama native and current New Jersey resident. A graduate of both Kennesaw State University and Thomas Goode Jones School of Law, she spends her free time reading, writing, boxing, horseback riding, playing trivia, flying helicopters, playing sports, and a whole lot else. So maybe she has too much spare time. Contact Ashley at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Dubious Defenses: When Humor and the Court Just Don’t Mix appeared first on Law Street.

If you liked the debt ceiling debacle and the government shutdown, you are going to love Congress’s fight over funding the construction and maintenance of our roads and highways. Congress has until the end of August 2014 to find a way to fix the billion dollar shortfall in the Highway Trust Fund or they risk the loss of thousands of construction jobs. Here is everything you need to know about the latest battle in Washington that could have direct consequences for the economy and your commute.

What is the Highway Trust Fund?

The Highway Trust Fund was created in 1956 to fund the building and maintenance of the country’s roads and bridges. The fund currently has three separate accounts: Highway Account, Mass Transit Account, and Leaking Underground Storage Tank Trust Fund.

How is it funded?

The Highway Trust Fund is currently funded by a federal fuel tax on gasoline. When it was created by the Highway Revenue Act of 1956, it was funded by a three cent per gallon tax on gasoline. The tax was raised to four cents per gallon in 1959 to keep the fund from going bankrupt. In January of 1983, President Ronald Reagan raised the tax to nine cents. President George H.W. Bush raised it to 14 cents in 1990, but diverted some of the funds to deficit reduction. President Clinton raised the gas tax to its current level, 18.4 cents per gallon, in 1993, but diverted all of the new revenue to deficit reduction. An act of Congress reverted the tax revenue to the Highway Trust Fund in 1997. It has remained at this level ever since. There is also a diesel tax, which is 24.4 cents per gallon.

This video provides a great visualization of how the gas tax works:

Why is the fund going bankrupt?

The gas tax has not been raised since 1993, and it is not indexed to inflation. This means that no matter how high the price of gas rises to, the tax will always remain at 18.4 cents per gallon. So, while the gas tax brings in $34 billion per year, it is paying for projects that total close to $50 billion this year. Also, as car companies are starting to comply with President Obama’s MPG requirement, Americans are driving more fuel efficient cars and purchasing less gas. Couple both of those problems with an American public that is driving less (and therefore buying less gas) and you have a recipe for a shortfall. According to the Department of Transportation (DOT), the fund is on track to run out of money by late August or early September 2014. States have already reacted by canceling future projects or pausing projects currently in progress. For example, the Arkansas State Highway Commission has said they might halt work on the Broadway Bridge and that the state is projected to lose 20,000 jobs as a result. Here’s a report from a local news station in Hawaii about how the shortfall will hurt them:

According to Secretary of Transportation Anthony Foxx, 700,000 jobs are at risk of being lost nationwide. To put that number in perspective, the United States only added 217,000 jobs to the economy last month. And that was a good month.

Why don’t we just raise the gas tax?

Political observers all agree that there is little to no chance of raising the gas tax in this political climate. The UPDATE Act, a bill that would raise the gas tax, was introduced by Rep. Earl Blumenauer (D-OR) this year. It currently has zero co-sponsors and is stuck in committee. Since taking over the House of Representatives in 2010, Republicans have been aiming to cut taxes, not raise them, and neither party wants to raise taxes right before the midterm elections this November.

It does not help that the media will pounce on anyone that argues for an increase in the tax. Watch Fox News’ Neil Cavuto berate Blumenauer for nine and a half minutes over his proposed 15 cent increase of the gas tax:

If the gas tax does not work, what are other possible solutions?

Whenever the fund has reached insolvency in the past, Congress has usually just diverted money from the General Fund of the US Treasury to make up the difference. According to the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), Congress has transferred $41 billion to the fund this way since 2008. In fact, that is what Senate Democrats have suggested doing this year. However, House Republicans have a different idea. They are pushing a proposal that would make the fund solvent by making changes to the US Postal Service, including eliminating Saturday mail delivery. Senate Democrats are not fans of this plan, so it looks like it is time to gear up for another Congressional fight that will last until the final hour.

However, these are not the only two options available to Congress. While Congress only seems to be considering temporary solutions, there are other policy long term options that would fix the Highway Trust Fund permanently.

Tax Reform

President Obama and Rep. Dave Camp (R-MI) have both proposed using the benefits of tax reform to fix the shortfall. Obama wants to use the revenue from “pro-growth business tax reform to address the funding crisis.” Camp, as House Ways and Means Chairman, believes we should use the revenue from a simplification of the corporate and individual tax codes to increase transportation funding for the next eight years.

Obama’s tax plan, as outlined in his FY 2015 budget proposal, has the following attributes in regards to transportation reform:

• Reduces the amount that the wealthy can save on itemized deductions in their taxes and establishes the Buffet Rule

• Proposes a future cut of the corporate tax rate to 28 percent and to 25 percent for manufacturing.

• Dedicates $150 billion to the Highway Trust Fund

• Increases investment in the fund by $90 billion for the next four years

• Works with Congress to possibly create a National Infrastructure Bank to attract private investment.

Camp’s tax plan is different, with less of a focus on getting the wealthy to pay more taxes and more of a focus on getting everyone to pay a lower tax rate:

• Lowers the corporate tax rate to 25 percent

• Gets rid of the current individual tax brackets and replaces them with two brackets: 10 percent and 25 percent.

• Repeals 220 sections of the tax code

• Puts $126.5 billion in the Highway Trust Fund.

As is clear, both of these plans are polarizing; few things get politicians more worked up than changes to the tax code, and the midterm elections will probably prevent any action on these proposals.

Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) Tax

Congress could replace the gas tax with a Vehicle Miles Traveled tax. Instead of taxing drivers at the pump, this tax would be based on how far each driver travels. The government would install tracking devices in every car and those who add more wear and tear to the nation’s roads would be responsible for paying more. Remember that problem about fuel-efficient cars generating less revenue? This would fix that. Even if a driver uses a car with a high MPG rating, they would still pay more in taxes if they drove long distances.

Here’s our old friend Blumenauer advocating for a VMT tax on the House floor in 2012:

This tax has been given a seal of approval from the CBO, so, in theory, the plan should work. Oregon recently passed their own version of the law after a successful pilot program, so policy makers can watch them to see how effective this plan is in practice.

There are some downsides to the tax. Commuters probably would not be big fans of paying a plurality of the tax just so they can get to work every day. Critics are also angry that truckers and people who drive for a living might suffer as a result of this tax. Watch Cavuto, who we already know is not a fan of the gas tax, criticize the costs of a VMT tax with Representative George Price (R-GA).

Privacy advocates are upset because the plan involves tracking every American’s driving with an in-car device. While supporters insist that the government would only keep track of miles traveled and not the location of every driver, the Snowden scandal has ensured that Americans won’t trust the government with any more information about them for quite some time. There’s so much concern over this issue that this Fox & Friends segment described the VMT tax as “Big Brother In Your Backseat.”

Instead of installing trackers in every car, the government could send inspectors to check odometers at the end of each year, but that would require hiring enough inspectors to look at every single American car.

Wholesale Excise Tax

Congress could also decide to just switch the target of the gas tax. Instead of taxing consumers when they buy gasoline, the tax could be placed on sellers of oil. As proposed by Senator Barbara Boxer (D-CA), a wholesale excise tax would take revenue from the oil refineries that sell gasoline to gas stations. This proposal does not have the implementation problems associated with a VMT tax, and, as opposed to the gas tax, it would keep up with inflation. Since, also unlike the gas tax, it is not a user fee, it should be popular with the public. Raising the gas tax is unpopular because it results in the average American spending more money. Taxes on corporations, especially oil companies, are preferable.

This plan also has drawbacks. Since gas prices are so unpredictable, the amount of revenue collected from this tax would be difficult to calculate. It would be tough to know how much money is available for future projects. It also could be used as an excuse by oil companies to raise the price of gasoline. This would not be the first time that federal policy had that effect.

Conclusion

While all of these plans would solve the crisis, none are likely to be passed in the next two months. Congress has to come up with a quick solution to the latest cliff before they can tackle a long-term funding system that is better than the current gas tax. Otherwise, you can look forward to a bumpier ride to work, if you still even have a job.

Resources

Primary 

DOT: Highway Trust Fund Ticker

House FY 2014 Omnibus: Transportation, Housing and Urban Development Appropriations

Senate: FY 2015 THUD Subcommittee Markup Bill Summary

Department of Transportation: Secretary Anthony Foxx’s testimony before the Transportation, Housing, and Urban Development Subcommittee of the House Appropriations Committee

Additional

Des Moines Register: Let’s Keep the Highway Fund Strong 

Washington Post: Congress Detours from Common Sense

NPR: 700,000 Jobs Are At Stake If The Highway Trust Fund Goes Broke

Planetizen: Boxer Proposes Wholesale Oil Tax to Replace Fed. Gas Tax

Contra Costa Times: Mileage tax for California drivers proposed in state Senate

Next City: Oregon Phases in Country’s First Pay-Per-Mile Program

Open Congress: Track the bill that would raise the gas tax

CATO Institute: Abolish Federal Gasoline Taxes

CNS News: Former DOT Secretary LaHood: ‘Let’s Raise the Gas Tax’

Forbes: Raise The Federal Gasoline Tax, Yes, But Don’t Then Spend The Cash On The Roads

Wall Street Journal: House GOP Leaders Weigh Tying Highway Trust Fund to Mail-Service Cuts

AHTD: Highway Trust Fund Impasse Could Delay Broadway Bridge Project

Hill: Boxer: Replace gas tax with a wholesale tax on oil to pay for transportation projects

Eric Essagof

Eric Essagof attended The George Washington University majoring in Political Science. He writes about how decisions made in DC impact the rest of the country. He is a Twitter addict, hip-hop fan, and intramural sports referee in his spare time. Contact Eric at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Congress’ Next Battle: Financing America’s Dwindling Highway Trust Fund appeared first on Law Street.