Obama administration blocked efforts to stop BP oil drilling before explosion

May 10, 2010 12:34

In 2009, the Obama administration intervened to support the reversal of a court order that would have halted offshore oil drilling in the Gulf of Mexico. Obama’s Interior Secretary Ken Salazar, who has long had close ties to the industry, specifically cited BP’s Deepwater Horizon operation as one that should be allowed to go forward, according to a ( Read more... )

drill baby drill, environment, epa

Leave a comment

Comments 30

popehippo May 10 2010, 17:39:37 UTC
Auuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuugh.


... )

Reply

(The comment has been removed)

schonste May 10 2010, 19:54:41 UTC
lol is that your face gurl

Reply

(The comment has been removed)


(The comment has been removed)

luomo May 10 2010, 18:00:42 UTC
I feel like this is another criticism I agree with in theory but doesn't make much sense in practice.

as always, yes.

Reply

haruhiko May 11 2010, 05:37:57 UTC
Why is it weird for the administration to block efforts to stop drilling if they're pro-drilling?

Um, because even if they're pro-drilling one would hope that they would be pro-caution, pro-~sensible~ drilling (whatever the fuck that means), pro-environmental impact studies, and pro-not-fucking-up-the-environment-in-a-disastrous-way as well, which is certainly the media message this administration tries to sell: That they are for drilling and other traditional forms of dirty energy but haven't lost sight of traditionally Democratic/liberal environmental concerns.

What these actions show is that the culture at the Dept. of the Interior under this administration is not different enough from the previous one to net a different outcome when it comes to the favors done for the oil industry; as the article implies the fact that Salazar was appointed to the Dept. was an early dead giveaway that things were not going to go well for environmentalists with this administration.

Reply


awfulbliss May 10 2010, 17:51:43 UTC
Remember when Bush was the one in bed with those big evil oil companies? But I'm sure there's Gibbs-esque defense of this ready to be posted.

American Petroleum Institute has the interests of environmentalists in mind, I'm sure...working against climate change legislation of any kind and all.

Reply

yunghustlaz May 10 2010, 18:16:03 UTC
No you see, the Obama Administration worked with the American Petroleum Institute to blah blah blah blah blah. I think the very phrase worked with the American Petroleum Institute is enough to indict them.

But why does anybody have any doubts anymore anyways about whether or not the Democrats/government at large are tied with corporate interests? They irrevocably are, it's not really news. It's just more on the degree to as such.

Reply


(The comment has been removed)

awfulbliss May 10 2010, 18:07:11 UTC
You don't find anything troubling about the court telling the Administration that drilling could continue on the condition of a study being conducted and then allowing the drilling to continue without actually finishing it? It appears that's what happened if I have my facts straight.

Reply

(The comment has been removed)

yunghustlaz May 10 2010, 18:17:22 UTC
Of course the study would have to be completed before drilling resumed, that's what an injunction is.

S: (n) injunction, enjoining, enjoinment, cease and desist order ((law) a judicial remedy issued in order to prohibit a party from doing or continuing to do a certain activity) "injunction were formerly obtained by writ but now by a judicial order"

Reply


(The comment has been removed)

yunghustlaz May 10 2010, 18:13:38 UTC
Thank you for your valiant defense of not appropriately assessing the environmental risk factors of, well, environmentally risky actions.

Once again, I'd like to mention there was a court order involved.

Reply

(The comment has been removed)

yunghustlaz May 10 2010, 18:21:51 UTC
Maybe the environmental risk factors weren't assessed because, hmmm, the Obama administration waived the NEPA requirements? It's not studies that build upon each other or something like that, it's an individual assessment of the action taken, which, hey also, if the previous studies sucked why not do another one anyways? I mean, "Well, the studies weren't good before" isn't exactly a great rationale for saying "Well hup we're fine with not doing new ones".

Reply


Leave a comment

Up