CBS/AP/ June 23, 2010, 6:56 AM

Judge Who Tossed Drilling Ban an Oil Investor

The Louisiana judge who struck down the Obama administration's six-month ban on deepwater oil drilling in the Gulf of Mexico has reported extensive investments in the oil and gas industry, according to financial disclosure reports. He's also a new member of a secret national security court.

U.S. District Judge Martin Feldman, a 1983 appointee of President Ronald Reagan, reported owning less than $15,000 in stock in 2008 in Transocean Ltd., the company that owned the sunken Deepwater Horizon drilling rig.

Feldman's 2008 financial disclosure report - the most recent available - also showed investments in Ocean Energy, a Houston-based company, as well as Quicksilver Resources, Prospect Energy, Peabody Energy, Halliburton, Pengrowth Energy Trust, Atlas Energy Resources, Parker Drilling and others. Halliburton was also involved in the doomed Deepwater Horizon project.

He's one of many federal judges across the Gulf Coast region with money in oil and gas. Several have disqualified themselves from hearing spill-related lawsuits and others have sold their holdings so they can preside over some of the 200-plus cases.

Feldman did not respond to requests for comment and to clarify whether he still holds some or all of these investments.

Feldman overturned the ban Tuesday, saying the government simply assumed that because one rig exploded, the others pose an imminent danger, too.

The White House promised an immediate appeal. The Interior Department had imposed the moratorium last month in the wake of the BP disaster, halting approval of any new permits for deepwater projects and suspending drilling on 33 exploratory wells.

Judge Slams Administration, Lifts Moratorium
Hornbeck v. Salazar (pdf)
Salazar Seeks to Re-impose Drilling Moratorium
Special Section: Disaster in the Gulf

Interior Secretary Ken Salazar said in a statement late Tuesday that within the next few days he would issue a new order imposing a moratorium that eliminates any doubt it is needed and appropriate.

Several companies that ferry people and supplies and provide other services to offshore rigs argued that the moratorium was arbitrarily imposed after the April 20 explosion that killed 11 workers and blew out a well 5,000 feet underwater. It has spewed anywhere from 67 million to 127 million gallons of oil.

Although Feldman ruled in favor of oil interests Tuesday, one expert said his reasoning appeared sound because the six-month ban was overly broad.

"There's been some concern that he is biased toward the industry, but I don't see it in this opinion," said Tim Howard, a Northeastern University law professor who also represents businesses and people claiming economic losses in several spill-related lawsuits. "They overreacted and just shut an industry down, rather than focusing on where the problems are."

That was what Feldman essentially said in his ruling, writing that the blanket moratorium "seems to assume that because one rig failed and although no one yet fully knows why, all companies and rigs drilling new wells over 500 feet also universally present an imminent danger."

Josh Reichert, managing director of the Pew Environment Group, said the ruling should be rescinded if Feldman still has investments in companies that could benefit.

"If Judge Feldman has any investments in oil and gas operators in the Gulf, it represents a flagrant conflict of interest," Reichert said.

Feldman's ruling prohibits federal officials from enforcing the moratorium until a trial is held. He wrote: "If some drilling equipment parts are flawed, is it rational to say all are? Are all airplanes a danger because one was? All oil tankers like Exxon Valdez? All trains? All mines? That sort of thinking seems heavy-handed, and rather overbearing."

At least two major oil companies, Shell and Marathon, said they would wait to see how the appeals play out before resuming drilling.

The lawsuit was filed by Hornbeck Offshore Services of Covington, La. CEO Todd Hornbeck said after the ruling that he is looking forward to getting back to work. "It's the right thing for not only the industry but the country," he said.

Residents along the Louisiana coast also appeared pleased at the ruling. In Port Fourchon, America's hub for oil drilling and production, 15,000 people are employed in drilling-related jobs, reports CBS News correspondent Mark Strassman.

"I'm simply asking the administration, 'Listen to the Louisiana delegation, to the Louisiana legislation. Listen to the people that live along the coast that are speaking with one voice,'" Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal said Tuesday.

Earlier in the day, executives at a major oil conference in London warned that the moratorium would cripple world energy supplies. Steven Newman, president and CEO of Transocean, called it unnecessary and an overreaction.

"There are things the administration could implement today that would allow the industry to go back to work tomorrow without an arbitrary six-month time limit," Newman said.

BP stock dropped 81 cents Tuesday, or 2.7 percent, to $29.52, near a 14-year low for the company in U.S. trading. The stocks of other companies associated with the spill remained low despite Feldman's ruling.

Feldman is a native of St. Louis and former Army captain in the Judge Advocate General Corps who was appointed in May to a seven-year term on the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, according to court records.

The court meets secretly to consider government requests for wiretaps in national security cases, such as those involving foreign terrorist groups.

A graduate of Tulane University in New Orleans with bachelor's and law degrees, Feldman frequently jokes with lawyers before his court about his friendship with Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, known for his strict interpretation of the Constitution as written more than 200 years ago.

Feldman has handled several cases stemming from Hurricane Katrina, among them a lawsuit against the city of New Orleans filed by a retired teacher who sued over his beating by police officers in the French Quarter. The case was settled. Feldman also presided over the first trial in a wave of insurance litigation spawned by the storm.

In August, he will sentence Wayne Read, a former movie studio CEO who pleaded guilty to selling $1.9 million in nonexistent state film tax credits to current and former members of the New Orleans Saints, including head coach Sean Payton and Super Bowl MVP quarterback Drew Brees.
© 2010 CBS Interactive Inc. All Rights Reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed. The Associated Press contributed to this report.
107 Comments Add a Comment
linkicon reporticon emailicon
truth_police says:
Judge Feldman investor bias is evident in his ruling which has no logical or factual basis whatsoever. Feldman declared the moratorium "overly broad." The so-called 'expert' cited in this story (Tim Howard), whose expertise has in no way been established, made this ludicrous statement in referring to the government's moratorium: "They (Obama Administration) overreacted and just shut an industry down, rather than focusing on where the problems are." This conclusively establishes this Howard 'expert' is both factually 'clueless' and cerebrally short-handed. Regardless of whether anyone "fully knows why" this BP accident occurred, we know all we have to know to warrant a moratorium. There was absolutely no none in the World or in the Oil Industry who knew how to stop this leak, precisely because it happened in "deep water." Everyone has stated ad nauseam, there was no precedent for it, in such 'deep water' -- to serve as an instructive guide for how to stop the leak. For Tim Howard's edification, that is sufficient to establish the gov't was " focusing on where the problems are." And it was sufficiently narrow to exclude all drilling that was NOT in "Deep Water." In "Deep Water Drilling" situations these Oil Industry dolts are clueless and can NOT give reasonable 'honest' environmental safety assurances. Judge Feldman is corrupt; he should have recused himself; and he had absolutely no legitimate factual or legal basis for this ruling.
reply
linkicon reporticon emailicon
prohb says:
Another activist conservative judge protecting monied interests....why am I not surprised.....
The Judicial Branch is controlled by the activists conservatives who have stonewalled Congess and the President and rammed thru their agenda like the campaign finance decision favoring corporations.
(So much for "taking our country back" as the teapartiers rant about - the country is already taken by the corporations and their Judicial Branch protectors....a Republican Congress would only make it worst - Tom Delay and Jack Abramoff anyone?? This is what you'll get if the teaparty Repubs win in November)
reply
linkicon reporticon emailicon
fedup12 says:
wow cbs buried this article fast. wonder what is up.

Oh, Ethics rules should have forbid this guy from making this ruling. Hope he gets fired.
reply
linkicon reporticon emailicon
logicanada says:
Maybe the 'judge' ought to rule in favor of this fix. It seems like Future Pipe Industries in Gulfport has a fix for the leak. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UP8iN4ZX1JU&feature=channel .. If BP were to jump on this they could sell thousands.
reply
linkicon reporticon emailicon
erasmus111 says:
"There's been some concern that he is biased toward the industry..."


Seriously? Ya think?

This judge should be FIRED for taking this case.

There's no end to the corruption in the good old USA.
reply
josephp5 replies:
linkicon reporticon emailicon
How can a judge be allowed to rule on an issue regarding oil companies when he has a direct financial stake in the case? It's outrageous. This judge should have recused himself.
erasmus111 replies:
linkicon reporticon emailicon
"Several have disqualified themselves from hearing spill-related lawsuits and others have sold their holdings so they can preside over some of the 200-plus cases."
-------------

by josephp5 June 23, 2010 1:13 PM EDT
How can a judge be allowed to rule on an issue regarding oil companies when he has a direct financial stake in the case?


So I am wondering if these "others that have sold their holdings so they can preside over some of the 200-plus cases", did it so they could stop the bans, also? Just because they sold their holdings doesn't mean they still aren't biased.
linkicon reporticon emailicon
wlhoppers says:
I completely agree with larlinc and steeepe. He should be barred.

How many oil spills does this buffoon need to impose a moratorium on deep water drilling? Let's put him and Hayward in life jackets and set them adrift in the slick...maybe, just maybe, they'll get a proper perspective.
reply
linkicon reporticon emailicon
USSAmerikan says:
While the hardliners out there will say that Obama's approach is caused by his ignorance of the oil industry, the fact that those hard left wingers in his cabinet have an ax to grind and the fact that he wants to force the "green energy" concept down our throats regardless of costs. I don't subscribe to any of these points of view... I believe Obama is dazed and confused by the magnitude of the spill and just wants to wait until his cabinet can come up to speed and understand what could/should be done. I think the issue at heart is the fact that yes, we need a serious look at the oil industry's ability to respond to disasters of this magnitude. However, we can't suddenly tell thousands of people that their lives are on hold until we can assemble a committee that defines what is safe and what isn't. The wholesale moratorium is perhaps a bit too draconian and a more surgical approach should be pursued... Identify potential issues and bring offline any rigs that don't comply...
reply
josephp5 replies:
linkicon reporticon emailicon
How about the "potential" issue that BP's spill plan was a load of bull? It mentioned walruses and stuff---obviously just thoughtlessly and carelessly copied from their Arctic spill plan, with no thought to the extreme issues concerning a deep water well. We need to review the other deep water well spill plans to see if they are also as ridiculous (and, knowing the level of oversight provided by MMS during the Bush Administration, with Cheney's colleague Randall Luthi at the helm, we can be sure that the other plans are indeed as ridiculous).

Also, this is not an "across the board" moratorium---it only affects the deep water ones, which accounts for 33 of the 3000 wells in the Gulf.

And talking about the "thousands" of people that will be out of work due to the moratorium (for only 6 months), what concern do you have for the thousands of people whose livelihood depends on the Gulf for fishing, shrimping, etc.? Their lives will be permanently disrupted by this unprecedented tragedy, not for a mere 6 months.

A six month moratorium is the least that should be done in the wake of this inexcusable disaster. In fact, I think we should go all the way and ban deep water drilling permanently (or at least after criminally negligent companies like BP are forced to show that they really can do it safely, instead of merely giving lip service to the idea of safety by writing bogus spill plans that mention walruses).
linkicon reporticon emailicon
starleo146 says:
by usofcredit June 23, 2010 12:14 PM EDT
I'm defending him and I hate republicans (almost as much as you obama worshippers). Dont come in here and group everyone against you into a group they claimed no part of. I would cut my arm off before I identified myself as either of you parties that have destroyed our country.

Sure I just love you people who benefit from all the gains of this country and collect one way or another and sit by and have nothing to do with anything, way to go man another do-nothing, say nothing hear nothing. you should just leave then this is your country and it is up to all of us to make it better
reply
josephp5 replies:
linkicon reporticon emailicon
"I'm defending him and I hate republicans (almost as much as you obama worshippers)."

Now there's some great projection for you, in a single sentence!
linkicon reporticon emailicon
starleo146 says:
Guess what another oil well messed up and oil is spewing once again. I saw a whistle blower telling the media another well is fixing to blow and know one is listening guess what man you did your duty and thank you but BIG doesn't care and obviously no else does as well because THAR SHE BLOWS
reply
linkicon reporticon emailicon
andacar says:
Why is it that I don't find this very surprising, and why is it that I'm also not surprised that some right wingers in this "discussion" are defending him? The Republican Party may claim to be the party of Blue Collar Joe, but at the end of the day they are the defenders of the monied interests, the powerful and the connected.
reply
curse914 replies:
linkicon reporticon emailicon
A straight up and down Ayn Randite would not generally identify with a Party, nor would many Libertarians; but they sure would defend a paper entities "rights" above an individual.
See all 107 Comments