FactCheck: Obama Administration has Approved NO NEW Offshore Rigs since the BP Disaster

[berni_mccoy]

The recent report by the Center for Biological Diversity that the Obama Administration has APPROVED 27 new Offshore Oil Rigs is factually 100% wrong.

They site their source of the Minerals Management Service (http://www.mms.gov/).

However, if you go to the list of Offshore Rig applications and do a search by date (http://www.gomr.mms.gov/homepg/offshore/Plans_Permits/plans/master.asp ) using April 20th as the start date, you do get 27 applications. But these are submitted applications, *not* APPROVED applications. I've included a screen cap of what the results look like:



There are 4 approved applications in the list (see the "A" values in the "Plan Final Code Action" column).

What are these 4 approved applications for? The "EP" value in the plan type indicates an "Exploration Plan". No rig, just a plan to explore.

Are these 4 applications new? No, each one is a Revision to an existing approved plan (see the "R" value in the Plan Control Code column). These were exploratory plans *before* the disaster with revisions to the original plans.

FACT: No new off-shore drilling has been approved.

[babylonsister]

1. Oh noes! Heads will explode!!1! nt

[Luminous Animal]

14. Unfortunately, berni is wrong.

Here is the link to the pdf that proves the Center for Biodiversity is correct.

http://www.biologicaldiversity.org/programs/public_lands/energy/dirty_energy_development/oil_and_gas/gulf_oil_spill/pdfs/MMS_Approved_Drilling_2010-05-07_v2.pdf

[amborin]

19. shows 27 new offhshore drilling project approved since the spill!

[Cant trust em]

27. Seems like a lot of these approvals are for a plan or a document to be produced

I don't know anything about the oil industry, so I'm not sure what degree of likelihood this might mean for actual drilling to occur.

A lot of plans happen, but some of those never get the green light.

Maybe someone with more expertise can fill in the gap.

[berni_mccoy]

28. Wrong again. See response #23.

[Luminous Animal]

35. You are misrepresenting the Center for Biodiversity. It never claimed rigs were approved.

It claims that 27 drilling operations (which includes exploration) were approved. 26 approved with exclusion of environmental impact.

[berni_mccoy]

38. No, I am not. They intended to give a perception of NEW DRILLING and that is what was

being posted here. You can't argue semantics now that you've been proven 100% wrong on the facts.

[Jakes Progress]

240. Hocus Pocus. We have a mind reader

You are the one arguing semantics when you have been proven wrong. The wording said exemptions were granted. They were.

You want to play mentalist and say what you think they "intended". I can do the same. I think that what we have is the same old, same old. Corporate Oil knows that drilling will start again and they are finagling exemptions (like the ones bush handed out) during the hiatus. They will just wait out the outrage or wait for another headline event to distract people and then push their government contacts to stamp the approval. If you think that is not what will happen, you are very naive.

Why is the department granting exactly the kind of exemptions that cause the current spill? For 8 years companies got these exemptions from bushco. So why is the department still giving them out? Why would they even consider exemptions?

[joeybee12]

75. Wow! What a surprise...n/t

[gateley]

2. Thank you so much! It was so disturbing and puzzling hearing that more

drilling had been approved. BIG sigh of relief, and apologies to the President for any disparaging thoughts that may have skittered through my mind.

[cornermouse]

220. As luminous animal tried to point out to you...

You're looking at the wrong issue. The real issue that people have problems with is not approval of new rigs, its the already proposed rigs that will be allowed to go forward without being required to be reviewed for safety concerns. That is the issue.

[gateley]

225. "...rigs that will be allowed to go forward..." and "without being required to be

reviewed for safety". Are you saying that these proposals will be approved sans safety requirements?

I'm taking this to read that everything -- EVERYthing is on hold. Am I still missing the issue?

[Luminous Animal]

233. We are saying that drilling approval has already been granted.

There is zero indication that any of the approvals cited by the Center for Biodiversity have been rescinded.

[gateley]

242. Okay -- thanks for clarifying. nt

[Robb]

3. I look forward to the correction and sincere apologies

...somewhere, to paraphrase Berke Breathed, on page 88Z, under the tide tables. :D

[NYC_SKP]

4. Um, can you provide the official "long form" statement proving this?

:sarcasm:

K and R.

:kick:

[Robb]

5. LOL

Edited to add: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=433x163797

[NYC_SKP]

22. .

Thanks for the link, wish I could rec it.

Yes, it's sad to see how many fall for whatever line of bullshit the media feeds us.

And many of our "trusted" sources feed from the same trough and play the same games.

Thus, everything, every single thing, we read needs to be scrutinized.

:toast:

[Luminous Animal]

24. Berni is comparing apples to oranges.

The OP did a search for the received date, not the plan final action date.

The Center for Biodiversity is correct.

The link to pdf: http://www.biologicaldiversity.org/programs/public_lands/energy/dirty_energy_development/oil_and_gas/gulf_oil_spill/pdfs/MMS_Approved_Drilling_2010-05-07_v2.pdf

[berni_mccoy]

26. Wrong again. See response #23.

[phleshdef]

56. Well lets compare apples to apples and use the actual PCNs provided by BD...

...and what you will see is that BDs is 100% WRONG.

[tranche]

6. Now Serving Outrange #1307

You keep knocking em down, they'll keep posting them up.

[Cha]

7. Yeah, that seemed like more bogus

bullshit at the time.

[Luminous Animal]

15. Nope the Center for Biodiversity is right. Berni is wrong.

http://www.biologicaldiversity.org/programs/public_lands/energy/dirty_energy_development/oil_and_gas/gulf_oil_spill/pdfs/MMS_Approved_Drilling_2010-05-07_v2.pdf

http://www.biologicaldiversity.org/news/press_releases/2010/post-disaster-permits-05-07-2010.html

Berni looked at the received date not the approval date.

[berni_mccoy]

29. You really need to read response #23.

[phleshdef]

47. And that data, when using the plan control numbers doesn't match up to MMS data at all.

[Name removed]

48. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

49. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[phleshdef]

50. Actually no, it takes about 5 minutes to compare the PCNs, the OP is 100% correct

[Luminous Animal]

68. Plan control # 5037

http://www.gomr.mms.gov/homepg/offshore/Plans_Permits/plans/planentry.asp?Num=5037&Code=R

#9503 : http://www.gomr.mms.gov/homepg/offshore/Plans_Permits/plans/planentry.asp?Num=9503&Code=N

#7408 : http://www.gomr.mms.gov/homepg/offshore/Plans_Permits/plans/planentry.asp?Num=7408&Code=S

[berni_mccoy]

71. 5037 is an exploratory plan

as is 9503.

7408 was approved on 4/21, BEFORE the moratorium.

Gonna be awefully hard to come up with 27.

[Luminous Animal]

87. All 27 are there.

[Name removed]

89. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Luminous Animal]

96. Plan 9503:

From the pdf of the plan :

"Rig type" submersible.

[phleshdef]

108. 9503 - Plan Type Code - EP, exploratory plan. The pdf is trash because it doesn't match real data.

[Luminous Animal]

131. It is their own damn plan submitted to the government for approval.

Are you saying that the government is approving trash?

[phleshdef]

135. The pdf you speak of is the one that BD put together. NOT the government.

[Luminous Animal]

157. I downloaded it from the MMS site. The government site.

You can, too!

[Luminous Animal]

173. I have no idea what you are talking about. I physically went to the MMS site

and downloaded the plans FROM THAT SITE. I did not download any plans from BD.

There is a link to download plans on the MMS site after you click on "DETAILS". The link is at the top of the page. It says, "This Plan is available in the Public Information Data System.
You can download the plan directly by clicking here:"

[phleshdef]

80. 5037 & 9503 are EP, meaning its exploratory, its not an approved drilling project.

7408 is a request to produce a DOCD, a development operations coordination document. I don't know what that means. But I can see from the history of it that 7408 actually started back in 2002 and whatever action was approved here happened on 4/21. Regardless, from the history, its NOT approval for a new drilling site.

[berni_mccoy]

84. The other one is an amendment to an existing plan (code "A")

and yes, it was an old drilling site. It was also approved on 4/21, before the scope of the disaster was truly known and before the moratorium on drilling.

[Luminous Animal]

92. You can click on "You can download the plan directly by clicking here: "

on the details page and read the plans that the MMS approved. And yes, EP drilling has been approved.

[phleshdef]

102. I've clicked on details for all 27 claims, and no, they have not been approved.

If Final Action code is not A, then they have not been approved except for the few exploration plans and the one existing project from 2002. You are misreading the data.

[Name removed]

121. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

140. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Raine1967]

8. THANK YOU! THANK YOU!

I posted another link that tried to clarify that the infamous "27 leases" were for exploration purposes, http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2010/05/07/93761/despite-spill-feds-still-giving.html

-- but this really clarifies things. McClatchy wrongly stated that they were granted, they were not.

[csziggy]

11. Thank you! n/t

[amborin]

21. 27 new drilling plans approved since the spill

http://www.biologicaldiversity.org/programs/public_lands/energy/dirty_energy_development/oil_and_gas/gulf_oil_spill/pdfs/MMS_Approved_Drilling_2010-05-07_v2.pdf

[phleshdef]

46. Which is exactly what the OP just unarguably refuted.

[joeybee12]

77. yeah, right...

take off those rose-colored glasses.

[phleshdef]

86. Why? Will that help be better read the solid data at MMS.gov that debunks your bullshit?

[Luminous Animal]

133. The solid data is the application submitted to the government.

In order to access precisely what the government is approving, you need to read the details of the plans. Exploration does not exclude drilling and many of the plans that have been approved include drilling.

[phleshdef]

137. I read the details of plan. ALL approved plans in the date range are EP.

That is not an approved drilling project, whether you like it or not.

[Luminous Animal]

159. The rig that just blew up was an exploratory rig.

[berni_mccoy]

139. And for the government to have APPROVED an application, it needs an "A" by it

And for it to be a NEW DRILLING plan, it needs to have an "S" in its submittal code.

And for it be a drilling operation, as implied by the CBD, it can't have an EP in it's plan type code.

[Luminous Animal]

150. Apprently, you did not read any of the

pdfs of the plans submitted for approval. I've read 6 or 7 by now and each of them cited "drilling" as part of the exploration.

[DrDan]

9. is there a moratorium on drilling or not? If so - it should apply to all stages of drilling

It is simply devious to claim a moratorium - then allow companies to continue their drilling activities.

[Luminous Animal]

10. You need to do a search for the APPROVAL date not the received date.

Which, of course the Center for Biodiversity did.

http://www.biologicaldiversity.org/news/press_releases/2010/post-disaster-permits-05-07-2010.html

Here is the link to the pdf that proves The Center for Biodiversity right : http://www.biologicaldiversity.org/programs/public_lands/energy/dirty_energy_development/oil_and_gas/gulf_oil_spill/pdfs/MMS_Approved_Drilling_2010-05-07_v2.pdf

[berni_mccoy]

16. Actually, they didn't.

There is no way to search based on approval. And even by expanding the search to an earlier submission date, you won't find 27 new RIGS approved beyond 4/20. EPs, yes. Drilling, no.

[Luminous Animal]

Actually it is the "plan final action date".

Sorry about that. But again you've proved nothing. Why don't you use the exact same search parameters as the Center for Biodiversity?

[berni_mccoy]

23. They are still incorrect in their conclusion looking at "their" data.

For all of the new plans (code "S" for submitted) that involve Rigs, there are none that approved beyond 4/21.

The remainder are revisions (code "R") which are modifications to the original plan which does not change anything about the amount or the rig itself. These changes could be operational changes only.

There are no NEW RIGS approved beyond 4/21.

EPs were approved. Not RIGS.

[Luminous Animal]

32. The Center never claimed rigs.

"MMS Approved 27 Gulf Drilling Operations After BP Disaster 26 Were Exempted From Environmental Review, Including Two to BP"

[berni_mccoy]

36. Sorry, the perception they created was NEW DRILLING. Now that you know the facts

and how wrong you and others were, you should really give up trying to argue semantics.

[Luminous Animal]

57. Do you've read each EP report, have you?

I've read 3 (they are 80 pages & more) and each has advanced to the stage of drilling. So, in the 3 that I read, the MMS signed off on drilling exploration.

[berni_mccoy]

59. LOL! keep moving that goal-post baby

Now who's comparing apples to allen wrenches? Because exploratory drilling is so much the same as an oil rig. :sarcasm: :rofl:

[phleshdef]

62. Can you please provide the PCNs for those 3 you found?

[berni_mccoy]

66. That person won't because they know they're wrong. They are so fact challenged...

they are trying to claim exploratory drilling is the same as an oil rig.

And they know the CBD is full of b.s. at this point, all they can do is hide tail and hope this thread goes away.

[Luminous Animal]

70. Yes...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=8328376&mesg_id=8328937

[phleshdef]

81. ok, see my response, 2 are exploratory, 1 is an extension of a project started in 2002

[Luminous Animal]

93. Exploratory does not mean no drilling.

The plans that I read advanced beyond the initial phases and moved to the exploratory well phase.

[berni_mccoy]

97. Do you even bother to look up a fucking fact?

Exploratory drilling is drilling for core samples, not fucking oil.

Learn to use google for goodness sakes.

[Luminous Animal]

106. And the Center for Biodiversity never claimed that they were drilling for oil.

Exploratory drilling IS a drilling operation.

[berni_mccoy]

119. They implied it and as well as misstated the facts and data.

And drilling in the context of oil brings one thing to people's minds. And it ain't drilling for core samples.

Keep trying though.

[Luminous Animal]

129. The criticism is that these plans were approved with an "environmental review" waiver.

You misstate the facts by insinuating implication rather than quoting directly from their press release. These are proposed drilling operations that were given an environmental review pass.

[berni_mccoy]

141. Which is 100% false. There were not 27 plans approved with the waiver

There weren't even 27 approvals.

[Luminous Animal]

177. Wrong.

[phleshdef]

104. If its not POD or DOCD, its not drilling. Drilling implies taking a drill and using it.

[Luminous Animal]

114. #7408

From the pdf of the plan:

"Description of Proposed Activities"

Well Completion
Development Drilling
Commence Production

[phleshdef]

128. 7408, started in 2002, proposed activities approved 3/21/2002.

[Luminous Animal]

145. Plan action code "S"

S- Supplemental Plan - A proposed addition to an approved exploration or development plan that will cause in increase in the number of allowable permits..

[phleshdef]

148. Which means its painfully obvious that its an ongoing project that has not been halted.

That project doesn't fit into the topic here at all.

[Luminous Animal]

151. Which means it is painfully obvious that the govenment approved expansion.

[phleshdef]

156. Moving the goal posts by resorting to vagueness will not prove your point.

[sabrina 1]

251. So there is no moratorium on drilling for exploratory purposes?

[phleshdef]

82. dupe

[yellerpup]

12. Many thanks

for putting this up where everyone can see. The claim sounded phony in the first place. :kick: & R!

[Solomon]

134. I know. It's hard to believe so many people just willy nilly think

that Obama looked at that oil spill, and then said okay do 27 more. It boggles the mind. Lot of people wishing he had for some reason.

[jtrockville]

13. I was skeptical when I saw that report.. Thanks for doing the leg-work!

Much appreciated.

[Luminous Animal]

18. Note that berni searched for the received date not the plan final action date.

http://www.biologicaldiversity.org/news/press_releases/2010/post-disaster-permits-05-07-2010.html.

Link to the pdf that proves The Center for Biodiversity right : http://www.biologicaldiversity.org/programs/public_lands/energy/dirty_energy_development/oil_and_gas/gulf_oil_spill/pdfs/MMS_Approved_Drilling_2010-05-07_v2.pdf

[berni_mccoy]

25. See my response #23 above. Even if you trust "THEIR" data, which I don't

their conclusion about their own data is wrong. Just look at the codes.

[Luminous Animal]

39. The got their data from the same place you got yours. Why don't you use their search parameters?

Let's see if you come up with different data by searching "plan final action date" instead of "received date".

[phleshdef]

41. I just searched using plan control numbers from THEIR data and their data is not what MMS shows.

[Luminous Animal]

64. Here.

http://www.gomr.mms.gov/homepg/offshore/Plans_Permits/plans/planslist.asp

[phleshdef]

65. Link doesn't work. Its a posted form. You will have to tell me the params you used.

[Luminous Animal]

72. Received date: 3/5 - 4/21

[phleshdef]

37. Biological Diversity is apparently showing outdated data or LYING.

Do a search for plan control number 9510, there is NO Plan Final action date even showing for that submission.

[uponit7771]

17. FUCK FACTS!!!!!! /sarcasm

[amborin]

20. 27 new drilling plans approved since the spill

[cliffordu]

31. They were PERSONALLY APPROVED by that Muslin!!!

[tcaudilllg]

51. We'll see what they fishing lobby has to say about it.

Though I'm getting concerned that Obama is headed towards a very humbling experience.

[Name removed]

142. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[PufPuf23]

30. Your search is based on received date not approved date.

Some of the approved plans are exploratory plans and some are development plans.

What blows me away in any case that these projects are Categorical Exclusions under NEPA.

On one of the MSNBC shows last evening (IIRC Olberman) the Categorical Exclusions are based upon NEPA implementing regulations that have not been updated since 1978.

[berni_mccoy]

34. See response #23. Most are revisions to existing plans as well.

New submissions were largely EPs. Plans for drilling were largely revisions, not new drilling.

The CBD got it wrong.

[PufPuf23]

63. The Categorical Exclusions are based upon NEPA implementing regs from 1978

Regardless, Categorical Exclusions under NEPA implementing regulations that have not been updated by the MMS since 1978 is eye-dropping.

I did not like the appointment of Salazar at DOI but think his idea of restructuring the MMS is good. The agency needs a thorough house cleaning and updated NEPA compliance regulations.

[phleshdef]

40. It doesn't matter. If you search actual plan control numbers straight from BD's supposed data...

...the final action dates don't match up at all. Most of them are blank where as BD is showing plan final action dates in their data. Its always possible that the data just didn't updated in time to reflect the recent hault on drilling leases and BD was looking at outdated data. Or its possible that they are completely full of shit. Either way, the OP is 100% correct here.

[SidDithers]

42. Delete...

Posted in the wrong spot

Sid

[phleshdef]

43. Yea, so if you want real facts, compare their plan control numbers to MMS data.

And you will see that the OP is 100% correct.

[SidDithers]

Damn. Posted in the wrong place. Should be a reply to the OP...nt

Sid

[berni_mccoy]

44. Except that poster isn't posting real facts. They are reporting a misrepresentation of "facts"

provide by the CBD. See response #23 above.

[SidDithers]

55. Posted in the wrong spot, berni. That was supposed to be a reply to your OP...

That's what I get for driving and posting at the same time :evilgrin:

Sid

[berni_mccoy]

61. LOL, thanks.

:rofl:

[robdogbucky]

33. Fact Check: Salazar betrays public trust

Obama Administration Approves 27 Offshore Drilling Projects After Gulf Oil Spill

"…Reacting to the growing controversy surrounding MMS and its practice of waiving environmental review for potentially dangerous offshore drilling projects, U.S. Secretary Ken Salazar last week announced that he was banning approval of all new offshore oil drilling permits. But Salazar's announcement turned out to be little more than PR intended to turn down the public and political heat being aimed at his office.

Salazar's moratorium doesn't halt approval of drilling plans and environmental exemptions that are at the center of the problem. On Friday , the Interior Department acknowledged that it has not stopped approving environmental exemptions and drilling plans. All Salazar put on hold was issuance of a last technical check that does not involve any environmental review.

"Salazar is playing a cynical shell game, making the public think he stopped issuing the faulty approvals that allowed the disastrous BP drilling to occur, when in fact he has given MMS the green light to keep issuing those very same approvals," Suckling said. "The only thing Salazar has stopped is the final, technical check-off which comes long after the environmental review. His media sleight of hand does nothing to fix the broken system that allowed what may be the greatest environmental catastrophe of our generation to occur."

At the very least, Salazar and the MMS have shown a serious lack of judgment in exempting 26 new oil wells in the midst of an ongoing environmental and economic disaster in the Gulf of Mexico that seems to have no foreseeable end. At worst, those actions, combined with the long history of MMS exempting hundreds of offshore drilling projects from environmental review, is a betrayal of public trust that approaches criminal behavior."

http://environment.about.com/b/2010/05/10/obama-administration-approves-27-offshore-drilling-projects-after-gulf-oil-spill.htm


"Salazar is allowing . . . flawed drilling approvals to proceed and is only halting the issuance of a last technical check off that does not involve any environmental review."


NEWS: CBD reveals US has approved 27 new offshore drilling projects since Gulf Disaster began

Since the April 20 blowout and explosion in the Gulf of Mexico began and set in motion the growing environmental disaster, "27 new offshore drilling projects have been approved by the Mineral Management Service (MMS) the regulatory agency responsible for overseeing extraction of oil, gas, and other minerals," the London Guardian reported Sunday.<1> -- This news was revealed on Friday by the Center for Biological Diversity in Tucson, Arizon, which also reported that under the Interior Department's announced moratorium on new drilling projects, the MMS's consideration of environmental exemptions and drilling plans has in fact "not been halted. Salazar is allowing . . . flawed drilling approvals to proceed and is only halting the issuance of a last technical check off that does not involve any environmental review."<2> -- CBD posted a link to an 80-page document approving on May 6, 2010 drilling in Blocks 728 and 732 of the Green Canyon Area, near the center of the Gulf of Mexico, as well as a table showing that the approval uses the same or similar language as the 272 Mississippi Canyon Area approval. -- BACKGROUND: The Center for Biological Diversity has opened a new website devoted to what it is calling the "Gulf Disaster."<2> -- This site includes a link to a site where one can (with the Google Earth Plugin) compare the size of the oil slick to the size of one's city, the NOAA's page on the what it is calling the "Deepwater Horizon Incident." -- CBD notes that "The Gulf of Mexico has by far the largest, best-equipped, most experienced oil spill-containment system in the nation. It has hundreds of experienced volunteer fishing boats at its disposal. The water is warm year round and relatively calm except in hurricane season. Wildlife rehab and cleanup crews have access to a road system in close proximity to much of the shoreline. Yet with all these advantages, the government and the oil industry are unable to contain the spill. Imagine what would happen if a similar spill occurred in the Arctic -- 140 miles from land. In subzero temperatures. With miles of sea ice to hack through, ship-killing icebergs in all directions, and darkness for 20 hours a day in the winter." ...

http://www.ufppc.org/us-a-world-news-mainmenu-35/9586-news-ced-reveals-us-has-approved-27-new-offshore-drilling-projects-since-gulf-disaster-began.html




Stick that in your pipeline and smoke it

[phleshdef]

52. What you posted is exactly what the OP refuted and the data on the MMS site backs him up.

[berni_mccoy]

54. Facts don't matter to those who hate Obama.

[robdogbucky]

103. Cite your source

Dearest Berni:

Much to your chagrin I'm sure, I do not hate Obama.

I voted for him.

I hate many of the decisions he has made since elected, which appear to contradict the posture he held in order to win the election.

I don't hate the person, I hate some of his actions, which appear to be against mine and my country's and the civilians in Iraq and Afghanistan's interests, while making the way easier for corporate/military interests to thrive in their agendas.

You would be wise to adhere to admonitions posted elsewhere herein by our estimable moderator/founder Skinner:



"...If you post something supportive of President Obama or the Democratic Party here on DU, some people are going to disagree with you.

If you post something critical of President Obama or the Democratic Party here on DU, some people are going to disagree with you.

This is as it should be. DU is a diverse community which includes a broad range of progressive opinion.

If you want to share an opinion without having someone disagree with you, then whatever you do, DON'T POST YOUR OPINION ON DEMOCRATIC UNDERGROUND. Because if you do, some people are going to disagree with you.

Thank you for listening.

Skinner
DU Admin

PS: And while I have your attention, I would like to remind everyone to make an effort to be civil. We may disagree on a number of issues, but there is no need to be disagreeable when we disagree."


Thank you for your attention to this message.



Just my dos centavos


robdogbucky

[robdogbucky]

107. Really?

Berni said Salazar betrays public trust?

Where?


Thanks in advance



rdb

[Scurrilous]

45. Thanks.

K & R :thumbsup:

[ProSense]

53. Evidently, the Interior Department is also challenging the claim.

FYI

The Interior Department official said those numbers are inaccurate and that four exploration plans have been approved since April 20 under “categorical exclusions.”

The official said that Suckling’s basic charge is not true.

In the first stage of a proposed drilling project, the official said, various environmental reviews are done before anything is okayed. The first round of reviews happen before lease sales are even scheduled. In the second stage, there are additional environmental assessments done before tracts of land are explored and developed. So a huge amount of environmental assessments are done before the third stage, the official said.

For that third stage Congress currently requires MMS to review oil and gas plans within 30 days, which the official said is not enough time to do an environmental assessment or an environmental impact statement. What MMS has done for a long time is to say the environmental analyses have already been done essentially, the official said, so the government is going to issue a categorical exclusion to say they know enough about the environmental impact of the drilling project.

That’s a problem, the official said, the government needs to get MMS more time.

Officials from the Center for Biological Diversity aren’t buying it.

link

[berni_mccoy]

58. There used to be a day when DU would break the story with FACTS...

instead, these days, people look for any grain to sensationalize in order to attack Obama.

In DU's prime, people would read the CBD story as it was posted here and go BULLSHIT. Then dig up the facts. Sadly, bullshit sensational posts get over 100 recs now.

I'm glad there are fact-based DUers like yourself still here.

[redqueen]

112. "Sadly, bullshit sensational posts get over 100 recs now."

Indeed.

[PufPuf23]

74. The DOI official is correct in that the MMS needs more time

The MMS is using NEPA implementing regulations not updated since 1978 to justify Categorical Exclusions (CEs fast track federal projects, minimize or stop further environmental analysis, and shortens the period and scope of public review). In most cases of NEPA, CEs are tiered to higher level NEPA documents (EISs and/or EAs) that have substantial analysis and public review.

[SidDithers]

60. Thanks for posting that...

Real facts are good.

Sid

[ismnotwasm]

67. Thank you

It's very easy to get confused around here, I appreciate your work.

[Peacetrain]

69. Berni from the bottom of my heart.. thank you... I have been digging looking for those 27

new oil rigs that were okayed.. and could not find anything on it.. and to be honest with you.. With my son graduating from college, my ability to dig it all up was short short short..


So again.. thank you.

I could not find anything on new off shore drilling being approved.. now I know why :)

Edit to add.. You saved me from a most embarrassing letter I was getting ready to fire off to people.. but when I could not find the specific rigs or companies I put it in my drafts. And I am usually the one who is saying wait three days before you blow a corker.. again Berni.. THANK YOU!! :blush:

[Junkdrawer]

73. Since spill, agency has given 27 waivers to oil companies in Gulf

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x8304844

[berni_mccoy]

76. You do realize I just debunked that story, don't you? Not sure why you'd post

a link on DU that references a story that ultimately refers back to the Center for Biological Diversity's now refuted data.

But, hey, thanks for the kick.

[Junkdrawer]

83. I'm seeing CERAs granted for the plans BD claims were given waivers...

what have you "debunked"? A strawman?

[berni_mccoy]

88. CERAs granted on EPs or Existing sites. Not NEW DRILLINGs which is the claim.

What's being debunked is a baseless attack on Obama. Would he really respond to this disaster by giving out exclusions to new drillings? FUCK NO. That's the CBD's claim. And that's what has been successfully refuted with facts here.

[Junkdrawer]

90. Here's my post. Where do I claim NEW DRILLINGs?

Since the Deepwater Horizon oil drilling rig exploded April 20, the Obama administration has granted oil and gas companies at least 27 exemptions from doing in-depth environmental studies of oil exploration and production in the Gulf of Mexico.

The waivers were granted despite President Barack Obama's vow that his administration would launch a "relentless response effort" to stop the leak and prevent more damage to the Gulf. One of them was dated Friday - the day after Interior Secretary Ken Salazar said he was temporarily halting offshore drilling.

The exemptions, known as "categorical exclusions," were granted by the Interior Department's Minerals Management Service, or MMS, and included waiving detailed environmental studies for a British Petroleum exploration plan to be conducted at a depth of more than 4,000 feet and an Anadarko Petroleum Corp. exploration plan at more 9,000 feet.

"Is there a moratorium on offshore drilling or not?" asked Peter Galvin, the conservation director at the Center for Biological Diversity, the environmental group that discovered the administration's continued approval of the exemptions. "Possibly the worst environmental disaster in U.S. history has occurred, and nothing appears to have changed."

...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x8304844

[berni_mccoy]

95. "Is there a moratorium on offshore drilling or not?" That's in the post

And it implies that exclusions are permissions to drill and the implications are on new sites. Most of are not CERAs and most CERAs are on EPs or existing sites. That right there refutes the truth of your post. But your post does more than talk about exclusions, as noted in the subject of this response.

And there was a topic posted here making the CLAIM that there were 27 NEW DRILLING PERMITS, and implication made to by the CBD on which your post is based.

It's not an outright lie. It's a lie by implication and you allow the implication to go on unchecked.

As much as you want people to believe Obama is evil, the facts will come back at you. Sorry you don't like the truth of it.

[Junkdrawer]

101. When you put words in my mouth, you can prove me a liar...

Congratulations. You're a wizard.

[berni_mccoy]

105. The words I quoted from your post? Genius.

[Junkdrawer]

110. Granting "No environmental impact statement required" waivers....

is inconsistent with a drilling moratorium. No genius needed to understand that.

[phleshdef]

111. Except the data shows there has been no final action taken on those requests.

[Junkdrawer]

Waivers were granted...

http://www.gomr.mms.gov/homepg/offshore/Plans_Permits/plans/planentry.asp?Num=5037&Code=R

http://www.gomr.mms.gov/homepg/offshore/Plans_Permits/plans/planentry.asp?Num=9503&Code=N

[berni_mccoy]

126. For exploratory plans.

And far fewer than 27. Let's see... 3-4 waivers were actually APPROVED.

[phleshdef]

132. No. Its approved, but its an approved exploratory plan. NOT approved drilling.

They haven't even reached the phase of asking for drilling rights yet.

[Critters2]

149. The disaster in the gulf is the result of an exploratory rig.

All drilling, production and exploration, must be stopped!

[Luminous Animal]

153. Exactly. The rig that blew up was an exploratory rig.

People would like us to believe that exploratory means "just thinking about it".

[berni_mccoy]

160. Wrong. It was a mobile unit, not exploratory. It was capable of production operation

though it could do exploratory drilling as well.

Don't confuse mobile with exploratory.

[Luminous Animal]

163. Details on the plan (Plan type "EP)

http://www.gomr.mms.gov/homepg/offshore/Plans_Permits/plans/planentry.asp?Num=9349&Code=N

[berni_mccoy]

185. That site for that EP was cancelled last year.

Probably because the EP was last year, not this year.

[Luminous Animal]

189. Resubmitted 4/16/09 and approved.

http://www.gomr.mms.gov/homepg/offshore/Plans_Permits/plans/planslist.asp

Search for the bottom lease number.

[berni_mccoy]

191. In OH-NINE.

[Luminous Animal]

195. You are making no sense. I am providing you with the information

necessary to show you that the BP oil rig that blew up was an EXPLORATORY RIG. IT'S DESIGNATION IS EP. So what if it was in '09. Whatever year that it was approved still does not remove the fact that it was and exploratory DRILLING rig with a designation of EP.

[Luminous Animal]

166. From the pdf of BP's plan

"Description of Activities"

Answer: Exploration Drilling

[phleshdef]

94. If final Action Code isnt A, then its not approved.

[amborin]

100. they've debunked nothing; Obama approved 27 new sets of plans since the spill

[phleshdef]

109. Except thats exactly what we debunked. Show me search examples from MMS that prove otherwise.

[Luminous Animal]

211. I have done this several times.

[phleshdef]

85. Wow, you totally replied to a thread debunking exactly what you are posting.

[greencharlie]

78. DRILL, BABY DRILL!!!!!!!

[berni_mccoy]

79. FACTS, BABY FACTS!!!!!!

[PufPuf23]

116. The MMS is issuing Categorical Exclusions on NEPA implementing regs not updated since 1978

CEs are tiered to higher level NEPA documents (EISs and/or EAs).

The use of CEs stops or limits further analysis, fast tracks federal projects, and limits the agency and public review period.

In one of the posts above the federal official says that the 30 day review period for the CE is not adequate.

Salazar has stated that the MMS may be re-structured and IMO this is a good idea.

MMS needs to update the NEPA implementing regulations used by the agency.

[phleshdef]

120. Yea its like people expect the Obama administration to reregulated the whole thing by now.

A lot of this is just people having no clue whats going on, how the process works or the history behind the way its currently working. I think its safe to say that the administration is going to toughen up these regulations after this spill, it wouldn't be politically advantaged for them not to.

[Cali_Democrat]

123. FOOD, BABY FOOD!!!!!

[Name removed]

168. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[LynneSin]

91. You might have better luck convincing teabaggers they actually paid less with Obama Taxes

then convince DUers what you just posted.

Just saying...

[berni_mccoy]

98. Well. Fucking. Said.

[Robb]

99. Ouch. nt

[tammywammy]

115. lol n/t

[Name removed]

178. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[ipaint]

113. So how is this administration or any administration going to

responsibly decide to give the go ahead to drill if there are no in-depth environmental studies?

Also you are saying-

"The recent report by the Center for Biological Diversity that the Obama Administration has APPROVED 27 new Offshore Oil Rigs"

Oil rigs? That's not in their statement.

Congrats you have slayed your own strawman. Wow... impressive.

[phleshdef]

117. BDs own title on their own document "MMS Approved Drilling Plans"

And the data in their document here:

http://www.biologicaldiversity.org/programs/public_lands/energy/dirty_energy_development/oil_and_gas/gulf_oil_spill/pdfs/MMS_Approved_Drilling_2010-05-07_v2.pdf

Does NOT match up with the place where they claimed to have gotten the data here:

http://www.gomr.mms.gov/homepg/offshore/Plans_Permits/plans/master.asp

[ipaint]

136. MMS acknowledges the claim.

MMS officials said the exemptions are continuing to be issued because they do not represent final drilling approval.

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2010/05/07/93761/despite-spill-feds-still-giving.html#ixzz0npe1UjCk

No one is claiming they gave final drilling approval.

Back to my original question- Why are they exempting these companies from doing the environmental studies. Wouldn't that be something even more important to do in the preliminary stages considering we just turned the gulf into toxic soup.

[phleshdef]

146. Until final drilling approval is given, you can't really make much of an assessment about intention.

In light of recent events, and the possible political fallout after this spill, there is no way to tell whats going to happen with the drilling issue.

On the other side of the coin, I'm not even sure an environmental impact study is NEEDED. Its painfully obvious to all parties involved that if a significant spill occurs, the environmental impacts are going to be very bad. Thats like saying we need to study the environmental impacts of a nuclear explosion. No one needs to do that. Everyone knows if that happens, everything around the effected area is fucked.

[ipaint]

152. No, it's painfully obvious to us, BP could give a shit.

Which makes the progressive idea of forcing them to study the long term impact their drilling will have on the environment and the logically following impact on local economies should a disaster happen that much more important.

Those kinds of free passes you advocate for got us here.

The OP has not debunked anything but his own rather overblown strawman. The MMS acknowledges the claims.

[phleshdef]

154. The fact that the OP was debunking BDs data and the fact that their data..

...completely mismatches data on the MMS site is enough for a complete debunking. And thats exactly what has happened. The only thing the MMS acknowledges that there have been exploratory plans approved. BD implies these are full blown new drilling plans. That too has been debunked by both the article you posted AND the data at the MMS website. Thats just icing on the cake of debunking this garbage.

Get back to me if you can provide me with any facts that disprove the above statements. Have fun trying.

[ipaint]

158. No, MMS specifically referred to the exemptions. nt

[earth mom]

118. You should be ashamed for posting disinformation and propaganda.

Sorry, but everyone knows the truth that Obama DID IN FACT approve FURTHER offshore drilling. :puke:

[berni_mccoy]

122. You should be ashamed for being duped by bullshit.

[phleshdef]

124. And the ONLY source we have on approved plans proves that you are wrong.

I know thats hard to stomach for some people.

[Luminous Animal]

198. The only source proves that the BDC is correct.

Search for the plan numbers or bottom lease numbers on the MMS site. Every single plan on that list was approved after the BP EXPLORATORY well blew up.

[BakedAtAMileHigh]

125. + 1000

Propaganda is exactly what this is, nothing more.

[phleshdef]

127. So when people use the same source to claim there have been approved plans...

...but that same source shows that there have not been, why do you believe that source when it contributes your anti-Obama rhetoric but say its "propaganda" when that same source does not serve your purpose?

Just admit that you don't understand any of this and move on.

[EFerrari]

162. The government admits the claim.

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2010/05/07/93761/despite-spill-feds-still-giving.html#ixzz0npe1UjCk

And can you get through a whole post without insulting anyone? It doesn't look like it.

[berni_mccoy]

165. They absolutely do not. They say there have been FOUR approvals of EPs

From that very story:

Suckling says that since April 20, 2010, the day of the BP disaster, MMS has approved 27 new offshore drilling projects, 26 of which were approved “under the same environmental review exemption used to approve the disastrous BP drilling that is fouling the Gulf and its wildlife.”

The Interior Department official said those numbers are inaccurate and that four exploration plans have been approved since April 20 under “categorical exclusions.”

Which is EXACTLY what the data in my OP shows.

A better link: http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2010/05/interior-department-continues-to-issue-categorical-exclusions-for-oil-drilling-administration-official-acknowledges.html

Funny how you gloss over the truth.

[Name removed]

167. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[ipaint]

179. From your link.

In the wake of the BP disaster in the Gulf of Mexico, the Department of the Interior’s Minerals Management Service (MMS) has continued to issue “categorical exclusions” for oil companies, allowing them to bypass the last stage of environmental review before proceeding with drilling projects, an Interior Department official told ABC News Wednesday.

But, the official emphasized, the problem is current law, which only gives the Department of the Interior 30 days to conduct the final review.

------------------------------

So they did do some. it's just not their fault. This agency is widely known to be a captured agency. They ARE BP, exxon etc. I'm surprised any anonymous spokesperson for the agency is believed but especially since they admit it and the discrepancy is on the actual number in this article. In another article they admit it no excuses or but...but... buts.

I'm also surprised that in the wake of the disaster in the gulf folks exposing the fact that are granting exemptions, whatever the number, is vilified because some think it reflects bad on the administration.

What's really incredible is the whole premise of the OP's debunking is based on the fact some folks, including him, read the words "in-depth environmental studies of oil exploration" and see oil rigs. Massive fail on that one.

[berni_mccoy]

180. They approved FOUR more... as noted in the OP. Get over it already. CBD was wrong.

[Luminous Animal]

186. You continue to refuse to look at the approval date and stick to the submit date.

There were 27 that were approved after the rig blew up and many of those 27 were SUBMITTED prior to the rig blowing up. The fact that they were SUBMITTED prior to the rig blowing up does not mean that they weren't APPROVED after.

[Name removed]

188. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Luminous Animal]

194. Proof that I am not lying.

Plan Control #9507. Bottom lease #G33391

Submitted 3/17/10 Approved 4/26/10

This is NOT on your list.

[Luminous Animal]

209. Apparently, you are comfortable with calling me a liar and letting it stand

even though I offered proof.

http://www.gomr.mms.gov/homepg/offshore/Plans_Permits/plans/master.asp

Look it up. Bottom lease number G33391

Download the pdf. Look on page 18: Description of Proposed Activities. Their answer is, "Exploration Drilling"

[berni_mccoy]

226. An EP. Find me 27 new drilling operations

[Luminous Animal]

229. "Exploration Drilling" from the pdf plan submitted by the oil company.

Unless you have another definition of drilling, I woulshttp://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=8328376&mesg_id=8330151

Description of Proposed Activities. Their answer is, "Exploration Drilling"

Tentative Schedule:
Answer:
Drill, complete and test Well Location A
Drill, complete and test Well Location B

[berni_mccoy]

245. Soooo, you can't. Which means CBD got it wrong. And so did you.

[Luminous Animal]

250. I can't what? I have proved time and time again that an "EP" designation

often means exploratory drilling. My most that you responded to clearly states that they plan on drilling wells under the designation "exploratory".

[Luminous Animal]

216. Crickets.

[Luminous Animal]

181. Because both you and the government are searching by submit date

not approval date.

There have been 27 plans approved after the exploratory BP rig blew up. They may have been submitted prior to the disaster but they were approved AFTER.

[earth mom]

130. Yep and the OP is famous for it. nt

[Moochy]

256. back to the list with the opt-in propagandists

would-be PR agents for the white house can also apply for my list.

[depakid]

144. Yep- it's always hate when people use their lying eye and ears

FACT is Obama made the announcement, and the MMS has been granting exemptions- and continued to do so under this administration's watch, despite a similar disaster in West Australia.

No amount of spin or rationalization is going to get around those FACTS.

[EFerrari]

155. No kidding.

[Patriot 76]

138. But Berni, people need to get their hate on!

Won't somebody please think of the haters!

[Peacetrain]

143. Let me just say this.. I got a real education today in DU..

I don't give a little hairy rats backside, what a persons "personal" feelings are about any certain canidate and or their supporters..

But I swear, to try and use half a story, and then concoct something totally different out of it.. well fool me once shame on you.. fool me twice, shame on me.



1. There is an entirely different meaning between approving to let someone submit a plan..

2. And approving a plan that will be put into action

My immediate supervisor can approve time for me to write a grant and present it.. does not mean that I get the grant, that I have approval to open a new program.. it means I submit the information on what I would like to do.

Then the powers that be make a decision.

[ipaint]

147. Does your supervisor approve you can cheat too.

That's what the 27 exemptions are, free passes.

[HughMoran]

169. Lying is wrong

That article lied.

[Prism]

161. You didn't get an education. You believed what you want to believe.

Just like most people here. All people need is a slender reed of doubt when they want to defend something egregious the administration has done. Bernie provided it, the people inclined to seize upon it - as they do on most issues - seized upon it.

Just like Every. Single. Other. Day. Here.

The theme is typically the same. No matter what is happening in America, the Obama administration has no responsibility whatsoever. When people can't figure out why the administration has no responsibility, they wait until partisan operatives give them a halfway plausible explanation. It doesn't have to be a good explanation or a true explanation. It just has to be an arguable explanation. Then, *poof* "I knew the administration was still golden."

Religion actually works a lot like this.

I did learn something today, though. I learned that putting the word "facts" in all capitals several dozen times doesn't make them so. Still.

[Jennicut]

170. I think it is people pissed about the waivers vs people pointing out no real drilling has been

actually approved. After what just happened I highly doubt any new approved drilling is going to happen for awhile. It is essentially in stop mode. Where does it go from here? It is up to Obama to decide. Will this change his mind? Not sure either way.

Also, MMS is a total mess. Has been since the sex and oil scandals there. The current head is someone who has worked for both Rethugs and Dems. We shall see what she does with the place. It does need help and is finally getting some restructuring. We can only hope it gets better.

[Prism]

190. I see a lot of bureaucratic trickery from Salazar

Shuffle enough paperwork, throw it in people's faces, then make a claim the problem is fixed.

By the time people sort through enough to realize everything the man is saying is nonsense, well, hopefully no one will care by then.

That's pretty SOP for bureaucrats like him, and from all I've read, that's exactly what we're getting here. Bureaucratic nonsense explanations while the status quo continues.

[HughMoran]

171. Lying is wrong

The previous article was propaganda, you should be against Faux news making inroads here.

[Prism]

184. I see no lie. I do see a lot of obfuscation.

Having read all the material cited in the thread and on CBD's sourcing - and that took forever and a half - I find the CBD's explanation more believable. I see Berni's explanation as spin. She admits as much later in the thread. Instead of "FACTS" suddenly she says she's only combating "perception". And that's the point. The only real necessity for partisans is to confuse an issue enough to introduce doubt. When a ball is in the air, throw ten balls to follow it, and then they'll all hit the ground. Mission accomplished.

It's funny, the Center for Biological Diversity is now practically Fox News.

I guess I can check environmental issues on the list of things we care about under Republican administrations but are mysteriously flexible on when a Democrat is in power.

[HughMoran]

192. "Obama administration approves 27 New Offshore Drilling Permits"

DU post headline. Is that true or false?

[Luminous Animal]

201. I've looked at the 7 of the pdfs of the plans submitted and approved

and they all include drilling.

[Prism]

202. "MMS Approved 27 Gulf Drilling Operations After BP Disaster"

That's the CBD headline.

"Salazar's "Moratorium" on New Drilling Permits Allows Continuation of the Same Flawed
Environmental Exemption Process that Allowed the BP Catastrophe"

Their subheading.

There's not much difference between the two. I say true. And I'll bet you're going to argue false, using semantics to obscure plain truth. When the facts can't be disputed (and I'm noticing the walking back of this OP's premise), start in on semantics.

Just never admit error.

[HughMoran]

203. 111 recs on DU "Obama administration approves 27 New Offshore Drilling Permits "

Do you not see this thread still being kicked in GD?

Does 4 = 27?

[Prism]

206. Does Wrong = Correct?

I believe the categorizations of CBD. You believe the OP's spin about "perception".

You'll forgive me if I'm going with the people who care more about the environment than the President's political well-being when it comes to major environmental disasters.

[HughMoran]

210. So you won't address the headline

or the exaggeration. That's fine.

[Prism]

213. I did

I find nothing particularly wrong with it. It seems the problem is now "Some DUers interpreted this as . . ."

Which is fine if that's what the OP wanted to combat. But instead, it became this whole thing about how CBD is wrong, the administration isn't doing anything wrong at all, etc. etc. etc. Quite a lot to load into a debate about what "some people say." Some people think the administration is totally vindicated based on this OP. Talk about perceptions.

And the fact you're now just arguing semantics tells me all I need to know. The important thing is to distract as much as possible from the Interior Departments very real, very consequential bureaucratic shenanigans.

[HughMoran]

214. "Interior Department official said those numbers are inaccurate and that four exploration plans have

"The Interior Department official said those numbers are inaccurate and that four exploration plans have been approved since April 20 under “categorical exclusions.”

Go all righteous on me if you want, I'm simply sporting facts here - make of them what you will. Spin your story any way you want, I'm not Bernie or anybody else - lumping people together in a convenient group to attack is what Fox News does.

[Luminous Animal]

215. Because the Interior department is reporting ONLY on plans that were submitted after

the rig exploded. If you do a search for submit date that includes plans that were submitted prior to the explosion but approved afterwards, you will find the 27 reported by the Center for Biodiversity. This information is not hidden. The Center clearly shows "submit date" and "approval date" and the MMS database matches up with their data.

[Prism]

217. If you were interested in facts

You'd re-read the pertinent articles and realize the Interior Department is shuffling paperwork in order to make untrue claims. It's like letting someone resign instead of being fired. They can claim whatever they like, put labels on it, assigned it a categorization.

But the truth of the matter doesn't change. The Interior Department is going the resigned route, while the CBD is pointing out, no, they're just assigning a categorization that makes the whole thing look better.

Instead of using Fox News as a kind of meta argument, let's discuss what Fox News really does. It apologizes for and lies about environmentally damaging policies when their guy is in the White House.

That's what Fox News does. If you're going to repeat the comparison over and over, at least have a measure of salience to accompany it.

[HughMoran]

218. So 27 rigs can start drilling now at any time?

Isn't that the salient argument?

[Prism]

219. That's not what CBD's article argued

When you get a chance, let me know which wall should I be looking at so I'll know when something finally sticks for you.

The fact we have to wander so far afield from the breathless OP in order to find something you can hang your hat on betrays the general weakness of the approach. The Obama administration is never wrong. I caught that. I caught that last year, in fact.

Can we talk about the environment now, or are the next two and a half years going to continue on this endless theme?

Anyway, I've made my point. You've made yours. Have a jolly afternoon.

[HughMoran]

224. Broad brush insult and dodge

I care about the environment (drilling) and you care about being right and categorizing/insulting me.

[Luminous Animal]

231. Schedule for explration drilling... 6/1/10 & 6/21/10

Plan #9507
Surface lease #G33391

Plan type code: EP
Date received: 3/17/2010
Date approved: 4/26/2010
Determination: CERA

Click on "detail". From that page you can download the oil company's submitted paperwork. See the page titled "OCS Plan Information Form" go to section 2 titled "Description of Proposed Activities".

The oil company checked off:
Exploration drilling
Well completion
Well test flaring
Installation of caission or platform as well protection structure.

[Luminous Animal]

205. I have offered direct quotes from many of the oil companies plans submitted

to the MMS that have been approved after the BP disaster that specifically mention drilling in their description of proposed activities.

[Prism]

208. You're doing good work

Thank you for providing the information in this thread. It very much helped clarify the issue for me when faced with a cloud of intentional obfuscation by the OP.

[Luminous Animal]

212. Thank you.

And yet, the accusation against me of "lier" still stands.

[saracat]

238. Thank you. There certainly is enough culpability to go around and why some refuse to even admit

government responsibility to any degree astounds me. The problem cannot be fixed unless we have accountability.

[Moochy]

257. They've gotten their precious ego's mixed up with Obama's Persona

Precious Identity Politics! Must Defend!

[spoony]

259. That settles it for me.

Thanks for the hard work, LA.

[HughMoran]

164. I was almost certain that this ridiculous claim was false, I was just too lazy to research it

Thank you for doing the leg work on this.

I'm trying not to LMAO at the denial and lying of those "Faux News" like 'reporters' who can't ever admit they were wrong about anything!

[HughMoran]

172. So far 28 people who want to hide this thread

have unrecced it. Faux news, here we come...

[walldude]

174. So it took a huge environmental disaster before they decided that drilling

was a bad idea? Yeah I'm impressed.

So should I wait for the next Nuclear Power Plant disaster before I can expect the current administration to back off their plans to increase nuclear power?

I've seen the word "ABSURD" tossed around in here. The only thing that is absurd is praising the administration for waiting for a horrible disaster before deciding that the anti-drill people may have a point.

[berni_mccoy]

175. But, it's ok to attack the administration with false information? OK.

[ipaint]

183. No one claimed oil rigs where approved. nt

[berni_mccoy]

187. They claimed new drilling had been exempted and approved. 27 times.

New rigs are implied by new drilling approvals. And I can point you to a post here at DU that makes that claim.

[ipaint]

197. They never said or implied that.

Link to their statement saying that oil rigs where approved, please.

The words, not what you think some people may read into it.

[HughMoran]

199. "Obama administration approves 27 New Offshore Drilling Permits "

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=8317145&mesg_id=8317145

[Luminous Animal]

200. That is the DUers title not the CBD's title.

[berni_mccoy]

204. Yeah, Theirs is SO MUCH BETTER: "MMS Approved 27 Gulf Drilling Operations After BP Disaster"

Drilling Operations... hmmm, what comes to mind.

[Luminous Animal]

207. Look at the pdfs of the oil company's plans that were posted on the MMS site

The 7 that I looked at all mentioned drilling in the "Description of Proposed" activities paperwork.

[ipaint]

222. And permits aren't rigs.

From the article-

The Center for Biological Diversity reports the Obama administration is continuing to exempt new offshore drilling operations from environmental review despite the Gulf disaster.



No rigs or claims of oil rigs.

[HughMoran]

176. 40,000 people die in automobiles each year

When are we going to outlaw those?

Promoting posts that were factually incorrect is wrong.

[NJmaverick]

182. Mege K&R!

[Radical Activist]

193. You mean someone stretched the truth to attack Obama from the left

and a lot of people on DU were quick to believe every word? Noooooo! :wow:
Hard to imagine.

[readmoreoften]

196. Fact: this thread itself is cynically manipulated data.

Obviously people will rec poorly-researched, manipulated data to support Obama. You people are seriously hysterical about your hero.

[KonaKane]

221. OK, this is the fourth smear on Obama I have read in as many days.

What's going on? Why the rush to tar and feather this guy here on DU? Come on kids, remember where you eat, and where you shit. Lying about our own guy in the White House doesn't serve anyone here.

[ipaint]

223. post 211 debunked the op's claim. nt

[berni_mccoy]

227. Not really. It supports the OP

[ipaint]

228. Your op hasn't been supported this whole thread.

Oil rigs? really?

[berni_mccoy]

230. Sez u.

[Luminous Animal]

232. How so? The actual plan submitted by the oil company states "Exploration Drilling"

It also clearly states that their proposed activities are:
Well completion
Well test flaring
Installation of caisson or platform.

[berni_mccoy]

243. The Exploration was approved last year. They were drilling a production well

this year. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deepwater_Horizon

The rig was in the final phases of drilling a well in which casing is cemented in place, reinforcing the well. At approximately 10:00 p.m. on April 20, 2010 (0300 hrs April 21, GMT), an explosion occurred on the rig and she caught fire.

Sources are all cited at the link.

[Luminous Animal]

249. I prefer to access the actual paperwork submitted to the government

of the plan which clearly states... exploration. There was never any other designation for that bottom lease number.

[Luminous Animal]

258. Show me the MMS link to prove your assertion. You can't because it doesn't exist.

HAH! And you had the audacity to call me a liar.

[saracat]

234. The exemptions still exist and these people aren't lying! These are not Obama haters. They are

environmental experts whose purpose is to prevent Deepwater incidents and other events from occurring. I trust their evaluations far more than an uninformed internet poster with n little knowledge of government contracts.


http://www.biologicaldiversity.org/about/staff/index.html

[HughMoran]

235. "Is there a moratorium on off shore drilling or not?"

“Is there a moratorium on off shore drilling or not?” asked Peter Galvin, conservation director with the Center for Biological Diversity, the environmental group that discovered the administration’s continued approval of the exemptions. “Possibly the worst environmental disaster in U.S. history has occurred and nothing appears to have changed.”

MMS officials said the exemptions are continuing to be issued because they do not represent final drilling approval.

To drill, a company has to file a separate application under a process that is now suspended because of Salazar’s order Thursday (5/6/10).

Read more: http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2010/05/07/93761/despite-spill-feds-still-giving.html#ixzz0nqhL7RfJ

[Jakes Progress]

236. So what we have are companies getting exemptions approved

so that they will be in effect when the drilling starts up again.

[saracat]

239. Thats what it looks like.

[saracat]

237. Why are the exemptions continuing to be issued if there is a moratorium?

If they do not represent final approval, why are they being given at all? I do not question the moratorium. I question the exemptions and why. There actually shouldn't be any exemptions at all, no matter what the circumstances. And activity taken and final approval appear to be mired in a lot of semantics. Everything is not as straight forward as some wish to believe.

[HughMoran]

241. by law. "For that third stage Congress currently requires MMS to review oil and gas plans within 30.

Suckling says that since April 20, 2010, the day of the BP disaster, MMS has approved 27 new offshore drilling projects, 26 of which were approved “under the same environmental review exemption used to approve the disastrous BP drilling that is fouling the Gulf and its wildlife.”

The Interior Department official said those numbers are inaccurate and that four exploration plans have been approved since April 20 under “categorical exclusions.”

The official said that Suckling’s basic charge is not true.

In the first stage of a proposed drilling project, the official said, various environmental reviews are done before anything is okayed. The first round of reviews happen before lease sales are even scheduled. In the second stage, there are additional environmental assessments done before tracts of land are explored and developed. So a huge amount of environmental assessments are done before the third stage, the official said.

For that third stage Congress currently requires MMS to review oil and gas plans within 30 days, which the official said is not enough time to do an environmental assessment or an environmental impact statement. What MMS has done for a long time is to say the environmental analyses have already been done essentially, the official said, so the government is going to issue a categorical exclusion to say they know enough about the environmental impact of the drilling project.

That’s a problem, the official said, the government needs to get MMS more time

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2010/05/interior-department-continues-to-issue-categorical-exclusions-for-oil-drilling-administration-official-acknowledges.html

[berni_mccoy]

244. Let me remind you of the title: "MMS Approved 27 Gulf Drilling Operations After BP Disaster"

That is factually wrong. So was your post.

[Nikki Stone1]

246. LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

:rofl:

[NJmaverick]

253. sad

very sad

[amborin]

247. MMS DID make 27 exemptions since disaster; only actual drilling is temp suspended; just say the word

it resumes; as the article says, this "suspension" is disingenuous

[berni_mccoy]

248. MMS did not APPROVE 27 new drilling operations

As claimed by CBD, you, and others on this site.

[Luminous Animal]

252. Exploratory drilling IS drilling.

You can make claims to the contrary but you've offered zero proof.

Nothing but your own half-assed research that excluded the Center for Biodiversity parameters.

[Nikki Stone1]

254. Thank you.

.

[FarLeftFist]

255. *******