Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Government Earth Politics

White House Edited Oil Drilling Safety Report 368

Posted by timothy
from the first-time-for-everything dept.
bonch writes "The Interior Department inspector general has released a report stating that the White House edited a drilling safety report by reordering paragraphs to make it appear as though a seven-member panel of independent experts supported the six-month ban on offshore drilling. The IG report states, 'The White House edit of the original DOI draft executive summary led to the implication that the moratorium recommendation had been peer-reviewed by the experts,' but the panel had only reviewed a draft of safety recommendations and not a drilling ban. The White House has issued a statement saying that there was 'no intentional misrepresentation of their views.' This follows complaints from scientists and environmentalists that the administration has not been holding to its promise of policy guided by science and not ideology."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

White House Edited Oil Drilling Safety Report

Comments Filter:
  • Re:Surprised by /. (Score:2, Interesting)

    by AnonymousClown (1788472) on Thursday November 11, 2010 @06:59PM (#34201938)

    Quite frankly, I'm surprised this made it to the front page of Slashdot given the majority of liberals that make up this community.

    You keep using that word. I don't think it means what you think it means.

  • by hedwards (940851) on Thursday November 11, 2010 @07:01PM (#34201960)
    Ultimately it was, but mostly because it's inevitably going to be a political decision when there's a large number of powerful politicians pushing for the other option.

    The only reason that there was an oil rig out there in the first place was a matter of politics. Had we pushed for alternative energy in the 70s and not lost focus that oil rig wouldn't have been in such a risky locale.
  • by mosb1000 (710161) <mosb1000@mac.com> on Thursday November 11, 2010 @07:22PM (#34202142)

    You're commenting about the summary of the report about the report. And I am commenting on your comment about the summary of the report about the report.

  • by RichiH (749257) on Thursday November 11, 2010 @07:44PM (#34202314) Homepage

    Dunno, when the largest oil blowout (it was not a spill!) happens, most people would think it prudent to stop and check all other similar endeavors. Maybe they misrepresented stuff on purpose. Yet, the _end_ to which they did it sounds scientific to me.

    Though the real question is why you can drill in the US waters without a cement-clad drill hole and a ready-made emergency sarcophagus already in place before you even start drilling. We have those requirements in Europe and people still make gobs of money with oil.

  • by interkin3tic (1469267) on Thursday November 11, 2010 @08:19PM (#34202614)

    ...despite 70% opposition by Americans

    Similar numbers were/are convinced that Iraq attacked us on 9/11.

    Only a fool trusts either of these two parties.

    Wikipedia tells me that in the 2008 presidential election, Obama and McCain took 98.6% of the votes.

    I think we agree that most people are fools, but then you hold their opinions up as a reason why healthcare reform and the bailout were bad? Interesting.

  • by Seraphim_72 (622457) on Friday November 12, 2010 @01:06AM (#34204100)

    Correct me if I'm wrong, but when did the Bush administration take a report written by non-government people, do a cut and paste job to make it say what they want, then get caught and say "Oh, well we didn't do it on purpose"?

    Yellowcake

    It started a war that killed 10s of thousands and crippled many Americans.

    As for your comments regarding war and large amounts of money going to corporations, I suppose you missed when Obama said it was necessary to give billions of dollars to GM and Chrysler after they ran themselves into the ground or we he decided to continue the very war he claimed to be against.

    I'm with you - the war is pointless and a huge waste of money. However, wasn't the Messiah supposed to have ended this war that he's continuing to fight?

    Yes, because if he had taken office and yanked them out the next day you would hold him faultless. You would have been 100% behind that as two nations crumbled

    Want to get modded down? Promote liberty, personal responsibility, or sound economic policy.

    Here is some personal responsibility for you. You voted these assholes into office, you pay for their wars. Moreover, you send YOUR sons to die for this bullshit.

  • by dbIII (701233) on Friday November 12, 2010 @02:56AM (#34204492)
    I must have missed the day when every single person employed by the US government was fired and replaced by someone else and when the economic damage of having a government asleep at the wheel for nearly a decade vanished over night.
    That's right - it never happened!

    When are you guys going to wake up that you are not led by a magic nigger that you must all either love or hate on racial grounds and instead by a real human being that is a Chicago lawyer trying to do the best he can. McCain would have done many of the same things if he was in power and unconstrained by ties to donors, but may have faced less opposition if he went around firing horse judges in places where you need somebody that will actually work and other dead wood.

    I think Obama will be hated far more than Carter mostly on racial grounds but also because there is no magic way for him to instantly get the USA out of the hole it has fallen into. Whoever follows after him will probably be hated for the same reason.
  • by jumpinp (1144189) on Friday November 12, 2010 @03:20AM (#34204554)
    The U.S. isn't setup for more than a two party system. Starting a new party would be a wast of time, no one other than a handful full of local politicians would get elected. The liberal party is your closest bet, That would still be a long shot as our culture is setup on the good old boys mentality. It is easier to influence a smaller group than the whole country. it's all about who you know, younger generations join the groups they best connect with. Friendships are made, and influence is a matter of fact. you are who your friends are. Change takes time and the tea party knows what they are doing. Historically, are major party's have changed ideology considerably.
  • by Black Gold Alchemist (1747136) on Friday November 12, 2010 @04:18AM (#34204710)
    Your post is great, but I have a few issues with it:

    1) A favorite is Solar, due to its abysmal energy conversion efficiency.

    Solar's energy conversion efficiency is low, but this really isn't relevant. Most solar panels are about 20% efficient. When you ask about the efficiency of a system, you have to ask what the total course of the system is, from sunlight to wheels/house power/chemical production. What this basically means is the total land area needed to sustain a person. If that land area is too big, that's no good. If a system has 1% efficiency but ends up not requiring any space, that's not a big deal. The real favorite of the renewable energy deniers is the ethanol and hydrogen. They prove that hydrogen fuel cells or ethanol won't work and then claim we're dead. This is like saying that a car clearly is unaffordable, because you can't afford a collectors edition Corvette, while ignoring the fact that you can afford Honda Civic.

    3) "Wont power our cars!" Which, of course it wont, if your car is designed to run on hydrocarbons.

    Actually it will. Worse case scenario, we have the technology to use electricity, CO2, and water to make hydrocarbons and oxygen. Yes, it's horribly inefficient, but in a world where EV's fail and RE is cheap, it would make sense. It might also be a sensible way to make plastics and other oil based stuff.

    2) inferior drive distances (battery technology is rapidly resolving this.)

    This is actually a big problem, but battery technology can't fix it. The problem is that outlets just can't pump out enough power for the system to be recharged in a reasonable amount of time. The real solution is to build something like the Chevy Volt, that can consume synthetic petroleum and biofuels. Doing this lets you use cheaper but heavier battery technologies, like Edison NiFe batteries.

    Did you know that most of the power generated and pushed into the existing grid gets bled out as wast heat and or radio emissions?

    This actually isn't true. The electrical grid, as wires, is about 95% efficient. However, the power plants aren't very efficient, ranging from 30% to 60%. This is because of the Carnot limits that impact the conversion of heat to work in a heat engine.

  • by dkf (304284) <donal.k.fellows@manchester.ac.uk> on Friday November 12, 2010 @06:09AM (#34205012) Homepage

    This actually isn't true. The electrical grid, as wires, is about 95% efficient. However, the power plants aren't very efficient, ranging from 30% to 60%. This is because of the Carnot limits that impact the conversion of heat to work in a heat engine.

    Modern thermal power stations are large and run very hot and have many stages to recover energy from the heat precisely to deal with these things (running hotter increases the theoretical max, being larger and having more turbines in series increases the actual amount of energy extracted). In this, they are much more efficient than a small power plant such as a combustion engine. Once you've converted into electrical energy, you can't use Carnot-style calculations to do the calculation (you've not a thermal distribution so you're not satisfying the starting assumptions); energy losses are due to resistance and impedance in the cables.

    The only thing that it's not a good idea to do with electrical power is heating; at that point, it's better to move the fuel itself to where it is needed.

Profanity is the one language all programmers know best.

Working...