PDA

View Full Version : General Politics Salazar misrepresents experts views?


alpha_omega
06-11-2010, 09:43 AM
Is this misrepresentation, or just flat out lying????
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/06/10/experts-say-obama-misrepresented-views-justify-offshore-drilling-ban/

Experts Say White House 'Misrepresented' Views to Justify Drilling Moratorium


Published June 11, 2010


The seven experts who advised President Obama on how to deal with offshore drilling safety after the Deepwater Horizon explosion are accusing his (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/06/10/experts-say-obama-misrepresented-views-justify-offshore-drilling-ban/#)of misrepresenting their views to make it appear that they supported a six-month drilling moratorium -- something they actually oppose.


The experts, recommended by the National Academy of Engineering, say Interior Secretary Ken Salazar modified their report last month, after they signed it, to include two paragraphs calling for the moratorium on existing drilling and new permits.


Salazar's report to Obama said a panel of seven experts "peer reviewed" his recommendations, which included a six-month moratorium on permits for new wells being drilled using floating rigs and an immediate halt to drilling operations.


"None of us actually reviewed the memorandum as it is in the report," (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/06/10/experts-say-obama-misrepresented-views-justify-offshore-drilling-ban/#)expert Ken Arnold told Fox (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/06/10/experts-say-obama-misrepresented-views-justify-offshore-drilling-ban/#) News. "What was in the report at the time it was reviewed was quite a bit different in its impact to what there is now. So we wanted to distance ourselves from that recommendation."
Salazar apologized to those experts Thursday.


"The experts who are involved in crafting the report gave us their recommendation and their input and I very much appreciate those recommendations," he said. "It was not their decision on the moratorium. It was my decision and the president's decision to move forward."
In a letter the experts sent to Salazar, they said his primary recommendation "misrepresents" their position and that halting the drilling is actually a bad idea.


The explosion occurred while the well was being shut down a move that is much more dangerous than continuing ongoing drilling, they said.


They also said that because the floating rigs are scarce and in high demand worldwide, they will not simply sit in the Gulf idle for six months. The rigs will go to the North Sea and West Africa, possibly preventing the U.S. from being able to resume drilling for years.


They also said the best and most advanced rigs will be the first to go, leaving the U.S. with the older and potentially less safe rights operating in the nation's coastal waters.


Fox News' William LaJeunesse contributed to this report.

HonestChieffan
06-11-2010, 09:50 AM
Imagine that

King_Chief_Fan
06-11-2010, 10:29 AM
This shouldn't surprise anyone......more nails for the obama coffin

Hydrae
06-11-2010, 10:47 AM
If he altered their report after they had signed it he should be fired at the least. I would think there might be criminal charges for something like this but am a long way from a lawyer. But there is no way in hell you can keep him in the administration if you can't even believe a signed report from an outside source that he submitted as being factual and accurate.

alpha_omega
06-11-2010, 11:22 AM
I would also like to point out that there doesn't appear to be a peep about this story from any of the other major news websites (abc, cbs, cnn, etc.).

I didn't look that hard, but i would think this would be out there in another location.

alpha_omega
06-11-2010, 11:56 AM
Update...with denial....


http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/06/11/white-house-rejects-claim-skewed-expert-opinion-justify-drilling-ban/

White House Rejects Claim It Skewed Expert Opinion to Justify Drilling Ban


Published June 11, 2010
White House energy adviser Carol Browner on Friday rejected accusations from a panel of experts who claim the administration
(http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/06/11/white-house-rejects-claim-skewed-expert-opinion-justify-drilling-ban/#) misrepresented their views to justify a six-month ban on offshore drilling in response to the BP oil rig disaster.



The denial came after the experts alleged that the Interior Department modified a report in late May that was used as the basis for the sweeping moratorium on existing drilling and new permits.


Though the report claimed the analysts, picked by the National Academy of Engineering, "peer reviewed" the department's recommendations, the experts say the two paragraphs that called for the moratorium were added only after they signed off on it.



To the contrary, the experts warn that such a moratorium could not only harm the economy but make the situation in the Gulf more dangerous. The April 20 oil rig explosion occurred while the Deepwater Horizon well was being shut down -- a move that is much more dangerous than continuing ongoing drilling, they said.



"A blanket moratorium is not the answer," they wrote in a letter claiming Interior Department Secretary Ken Salazar's report "misrepresents" their position. "A blanket moratorium will have the indirect effect of harming thousands of workers and further impact state and local economies (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/06/11/white-house-rejects-claim-skewed-expert-opinion-justify-drilling-ban/#) suffering from the spill."

That's exactly the argument that Gulf Coast lawmakers and the families of oil rig workers have been making as they fight the administration's moratorium decision.



"We do not believe that punishing the innocent is the right thing to do. We encourage the secretary of interior to overcome emotion with logic," the experts wrote.



But while Salazar has acknowledged that the moratorium was his decision, not theirs, Browner argued that the administration did nothing wrong.


"No one's been deceived or misrepresented," Browner told Fox News, defending the moratorium as a safety measure. "These experts gave their expert advice, and then a determination was made looking at all of the information, including what these experts provided -- that there should be a pause, and that's exactly what there is. There's a pause."



The experts claimed the draft report that they looked at called for a six-month freeze on permits for new exploratory wells 1,000 feet or deeper and a "temporary pause" on current drilling.



Somehow, that was changed to call for a six-month moratorium on permits for new wells being drilled using floating rigs and an "immediate halt" to drilling operations (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/06/11/white-house-rejects-claim-skewed-expert-opinion-justify-drilling-ban/#) on 33 permitted wells.



"None of us actually reviewed the memorandum as it is in the report," oil expert Ken Arnold told Fox News. "What was in the report at the time it was reviewed was quite a bit different in its impact to what there is now. So we wanted to distance ourselves from that recommendation."
The experts also faxed a memo to Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal and Louisiana Sens. Mary Landrieu and David Vitter to clarify that they do not believe the report justifies the moratorium.



They also said that because the floating rigs are scarce and in high demand worldwide, they will not simply sit in the Gulf idle for six months. The rigs will go to the North Sea and West Africa (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/06/11/white-house-rejects-claim-skewed-expert-opinion-justify-drilling-ban/#), possibly preventing the U.S. from being able to resume drilling for years.



They said the best and most advanced rigs will be the first to go, leaving the U.S. with the older and potentially less safe rights operating in the nation's coastal waters.



Fox News' William LaJeunesse contributed to this report.

orange
06-11-2010, 12:02 PM
ADVISERS CITED BY SALAZAR SAY DRILLING BAN IS BAD IdEA

Consultants sign letter disavowing six-month banWednesday, June 09, 2010 By David HammerStaff writer

Members of a panel of experts brought in to advise the Obama administration on how to address offshore drilling safety after the Deepwater Horizon disaster now say Interior Secretary Ken Salazar falsely implied they supported a six-month drilling moratorium they actually oppose.

Salazar's May 27 report to President Barack Obama said a panel of seven experts "peer reviewed" his recommendations, which included a six-month moratorium on all ongoing drilling in waters deeper than 500 feet. That prohibition took effect a few days later, but the angry panel members and some others who contributed to the Salazar report said they had reviewed only an earlier version of the secretary's report that suggested a six-month moratorium only on new drilling, and then only in waters deeper than 1,000 feet.

"We broadly agree with the detailed recommendations in the report and compliment the Department of Interior for its efforts," a joint letter from the panelists to various politicians says. "However, we do not agree with the six month blanket moratorium on floating drilling. A moratorium was added after the final review and was never agreed to by the contributors."

An Interior Department spokeswoman agreed that the experts had not given their blessing for a moratorium, and said the department did not mean to leave the impression they had. In fact, she said, the experts were merely asked to review 22 safety recommendations in the report.

"We didn't mean to imply that they also agreed with the moratorium on deepwater drilling," the spokeswoman, Kendra Barkoff, said. "We acknowledge that they were not asked to review or comment on the proposed moratorium and that they peer-reviewed the report on a technical basis. The moratorium on deepwater drilling is based on the need for a comprehensive review of safety in deepwater operations in light of the BP oil spill."

The experts' criticism of the moratorium and effort to distance themselves from it come as oil production companies prepare to move mobile deepwater rigs out of the Gulf of Mexico, threatening thousands of jobs in Louisiana that support those drilling operations with supply boats and shoreside services.

"A blanket moratorium is not the answer. It will not measurably reduce risk further and it will have a lasting impact on the nation's economy which may be greater than that of the oil spill," the letter says. "We do not believe punishing the innocent is the right thing to do."

One of the panelists who signed the letter, University of California at Berkeley engineering professor Bob Bea, said in an e-mail message that a moratorium should be reserved for "unconventional, very hazardous operations" and shouldn't apply to the "majority of conventional offshore operations, (which) meet fundamental requirements for acceptable risks."

"Moratorium was not a part of the ... report we consulted-advised-reviewed," Bea wrote. "Word from DOI (Interior Department) was it was a W(hite) H(ouse) request."

The National Academy of Engineering provided seven reviewers for Salazar's safety report, and the academy's Ken Arnold, an oil and gas industry consultant, wrote a scathing cover letter Tuesday that concludes: "The Secretary should be free to recommend whatever he thinks is correct, but he should not be free to use our names to justify his political decisions."

Five of the seven reviewers signed the complaint letter: Bea; Benton Baugh, president of Radoil Inc.; Ford Brett, managing director of Petroskills; Martin Chenevert, director of drilling research for the department of petroleum and geophysical engineering at the University of Texas; and Hans Juvkam-Wold, petroleum engineering professor emeritus at Texas A&M University.

Eight other industry experts were interviewed for the creation of Salazar's report. Two of them also signed the letter: E.G. "Skip" Ward, associate director of the Offshore Technology Research Center at Texas A&M University, and Tom Williams, a former undersecretary of the interior.

"We were very upset," Ward said. "We would have understood if (Salazar's report) said, 'These are good recommendations from the panel, but we have decided to declare a six-month moratorium instead.' But instead, they're kind of using our input for cover to do something that didn't have much to do with our recommendations."

The panelists said even Salazar's report clearly shows the deepwater safety record is generally strong, making the moratorium all the more puzzling.

Ward said he was optimistic to hear that the Interior Department put several new safety measures into a directive to oil companies Tuesday. Arnold said it could mean the federal government is serious about moving more quickly than six months to implement new safety requirements and lift the crippling moratorium.

But Tuesday's directive was accompanied by an Interior Department news release emphasizing that the six-month moratorium on deepwater drilling remains in place, and that meeting the new safety requirements will only allow shallow-water drilling and deepwater production activities to resume.

Arnold said he had at least hoped that deepwater production drilling could continue under the new safety guidelines, but believes it is still prohibited under the moratorium. He said he reluctantly agreed that some moratorium on exploratory drilling was necessary, but he's not sure any amount of new regulations will address what went wrong on the Deepwater Horizon.

"For six hours they were getting information that things were not right on that rig and they were continuing to rationalize that things were OK," Arnold said. "It was a group-think kind of thing, and there were a bunch of things that were on the borderline. ... When you keep adding up the mistakes, you end up in a situation where a big problem sneaks up on you. We're not going to solve that with all of these new equipment requirements."

. . . . . . .

David Hammer can be reached at dhammer@timespicayune.com or 504.826.3322.

http://www.nola.com/news/t-p/frontpage/index.ssf?/base/news-14/1276064428189870.xml&coll=1

orange
06-11-2010, 12:08 PM
The experts claimed the draft report that they looked at called for a six-month freeze on permits for new exploratory wells 1,000 feet or deeper and a "temporary pause" on current drilling.

Yeah, and... ?

alpha_omega
06-11-2010, 12:26 PM
Yeah, and... ?

It seems pretty black and white to me orange (that sounded funnier when i said it to myself).

Either the delivered report was what they signed off on or it wasn't.

orange
06-11-2010, 12:38 PM
It seems pretty black and white to me orange (that sounded funnier when i said it to myself).

Either the delivered report was what they signed off on or it wasn't.

The delivered report:

The Department consulted with a wide range of experts in state and Federal governments, academic institutions, and industry and advocacy organizations. In addition, draft recommendations were peer reviewed by seven experts identified by the National Academy of Engineering.

http://www.doi.gov/deepwaterhorizon/loader.cfm?csModule=security/getfile&PageID=33598

draft recommendations

It never said they had the final say.

ClevelandBronco
06-11-2010, 01:01 PM
The delivered report:

The Department consulted with a wide range of experts in state and Federal governments, academic institutions, and industry and advocacy organizations. In addition, draft recommendations were peer reviewed by seven experts identified by the National Academy of Engineering.

http://www.doi.gov/deepwaterhorizon/loader.cfm?csModule=security/getfile&PageID=33598

draft recommendations

It never said they had the final say.

Did it say that they could at least have the final say on what they said?

While I'm here: Fuck Salazar.

orange
06-11-2010, 01:08 PM
Did it say that they could at least have the final say on what they said?

While I'm here: **** Salazar.

They didn't actually say anything. Not one word from them is quoted anywhere.

The recommendations that they actually reviewed are nicely summarized, though.

orange
06-11-2010, 01:11 PM
p.s. These guys are engineers. None of them was a CEO or anything. Why would they have been consulted about the economic impacts in any case?

This letter is just a political stunt because the whole moratorium is now an issue. That is an entirely different matter - one on which the administration has already given ground. But the claim of misrepresentation is baloney.