Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Engineers say Interior changed oil report after they signed it Read more: http://www.mcclatchydc.co

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Latest Breaking News Donate to DU
 
kpete Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-12-10 06:56 PM
Original message
Engineers say Interior changed oil report after they signed it Read more: http://www.mcclatchydc.co
Source: McClatchy

WASHINGTON — A group of engineers and oil experts said Friday that the Interior Department changed the language of a high-profile oil spill report after they'd signed it, falsely signaling their support for a drilling moratorium that they thought went too far.

The new language called for a stronger and wider moratorium on some oil drilling in the Gulf of Mexico than the experts thought necessary. In fact, one said Friday, the stronger moratorium might instead increase the risks slightly.

"The reason we don't agree is that we think it makes the system less safe. It increases risk, it doesn't reduce risk," Texas oil consultant Ken Allen said in an interview.

Allen was among a group of experts who read and signed a May 27 statement by Interior Secretary Ken Salazar announcing new safety measures for offshore drilling, as well as a six-month moratorium on some drilling.



Read more: http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2010/06/11/95776/engineers-say-interior-changed.html#ixzz0qgbctlBa
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Bobbieo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-12-10 07:12 PM
Response to Original message
1. Interior changed the Oil Report after it was signed - was this good or
bad for the environment? I can't figure it out from the story.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
HughMoran Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-12-10 07:46 PM
Response to Reply #1
5. They tightened up the restrictions after they signed it
So, I'd say that's good.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wordpix Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-12-10 09:11 PM
Response to Reply #1
13.  the TX engineer signed first & then Interior made regs BETTER
Edited on Sat Jun-12-10 09:12 PM by wordpix
Amazingly, Salazar, who should be out on his ass looking for a new job, went for tighter regs than a TX oil engineer. Go figure.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Garion_55 Donating Member (269 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-12-10 07:22 PM
Response to Original message
2. hmm
I saw some righties peddling this story yesterday. whats the scoop here? are they talking crap? is there something here? i havent been able to find out if this is a non story or not
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wordpix Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-12-10 09:13 PM
Response to Reply #2
14. no doubt the righties want us to believe the TX engineers are correct & tighter regs are not needed
I say SCREW THEM. Err on the side of safety and the environment.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DJ13 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-12-10 07:27 PM
Response to Original message
3. The admin needs to base the moratorium on safety plans being implemented
Whether thats 2 months, or 2 years, every well (deep or shallow) needs fail safe redundancy safeguards to insure theres little chance of another gusher.

These engineers would be better off working on the engineering required to meet that kind of goal instead of playing politics.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Igel Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-12-10 08:59 PM
Response to Reply #3
10. Leaving it to the professional politicians to play politics.
Look, you sign on to a report so then it's proper to say that you supported that report. You didn't even sign on to that report, but to another, slightly different one.

If the report's changed after you signed on, however, it's a lie to say that you support it or that you even signed it.

You're right. The engineers would be better off working on the engineering instead of playing politics--like asking that the Interior Department not misrepresent their positions and essentially lie about it. We just don't need that kind of transparency and integrity in politics. That we can leave to the engineers.

:bluebox:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BrklynLiberal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-12-10 07:44 PM
Response to Original message
4. How could a drilling moratorium make the system less safe?
No drilling...no spills.

The version they'd signed said Salazar recommended a six-month moratorium on permits for new exploratory wells in water deeper than 1,000 feet.

The final version recommended a six-month moratorium on "new wells being drilled using floating rigs." That included rigs in water deeper than 500 feet and covered more of them, Allen said.

Also, the version the experts signed called for "a temporary pause in all current drilling operations for a sufficient length of time" to perform additional safety tests for the 33 exploratory deepwater wells already working in the Gulf.

The final version urged "an immediate halt to drilling operations on the 33 permitted wells, not including the relief wells currently being drilled by BP, that are currently being drilled using floating rigs in the Gulf of Mexico. Drilling operations should cease as soon as safely practicable for a 6-month period.


Read more: http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2010/06/11/95776/engineers-say-interior-changed.html#ixzz0qgnxmSbB


Sounds like crapola to me.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tnlefty Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-12-10 08:40 PM
Response to Reply #4
9. I agree with you,
and I was absolutely horrified when Atlantis was given a pass from the moratorium.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wordpix Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-12-10 09:15 PM
Response to Reply #4
15. up is down, a temp pause is safer than an immediate halt, wrong is right
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
woodsprite Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-12-10 07:50 PM
Response to Original message
6. Three words stick out to me --- "Texas oil consultant" n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
glinda Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-12-10 08:04 PM
Response to Reply #6
7. bingo!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wordpix Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-12-10 09:04 PM
Response to Reply #6
12. yes, when a TX oil consultant whines that a fed report was changed to tighten regs
Edited on Sat Jun-12-10 09:16 PM by wordpix
you know what's up, despite the confusing verbiage of the author
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Richard Steele Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-12-10 10:55 PM
Response to Reply #6
18. Yup. nm
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SILVER__FOX52 Donating Member (460 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-12-10 08:23 PM
Response to Original message
8. God damn it.............
doesn't anybody act professionally anymore. What the hell is going on? Our Government is like a damn cartoon.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wordpix Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-12-10 09:18 PM
Response to Reply #8
16. actually, the gov. finalized better restrictions compared to what the
TX engineers signed on to.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wordpix Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-12-10 09:03 PM
Response to Original message
11. really confusing first 4 parag's---writer needs to go back to school!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BrklynLiberal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-12-10 09:19 PM
Response to Reply #11
17. One cannot help but wonder if the attempt to confuse is intentional.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
avaistheone1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-13-10 02:28 AM
Response to Original message
19. In law and most of the business world changing a report or contract
after signing it is most often both unethical and illegal.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wordpix Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-13-10 10:39 AM
Response to Reply #19
21. does not apply here--engineers asked to review safety recomm's, not the moratorium
The moratorium is a political and non-technical safety measure that does not need the engineers' technical safety review or signature.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Big_Mike Donating Member (274 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-13-10 01:58 PM
Response to Reply #21
22. That is the point. The engineers reviewed safety procedures.
They verified a process that would prove safe.

The political types changed that to what they think is safer. How many years in an Engineering school and how many years experience in the field did they have before inserting their recommendations? Show me what was signed off on, show me what the changes were, and let me talk with some chemical and manufacturing engineers I know to see what they say.

I'm a technical writer by trade, and I ALWAYS have the engineer sign off on the procedures and don't change even a comma (tho typos are fair game!). I have seen people make "improvements" to a process that has rendered that process dangerous or even deadly if not caught and changed back. They do not understand the reasons behind what is said.

For fair play, run what was signed versus the released procedures past some university engineering professors. See what is said.

I always expect mistakes from politicians as they look for the political benefit, not necessarily the best process.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mr. Sparkle Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-13-10 07:39 AM
Response to Original message
20. These "signing" statements are stupid publicity stunts for which there is no need for.
Hopefully that's the end of them.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Wed May 01st 2024, 11:48 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Latest Breaking News Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC