Thread: Drilling moratorium based on politics, not science

http://www.nola.com/news/gulf-oil-sp..._show_dri.html

In justifying its broad moratorium on deepwater drilling, the Obama administration emphasized that the measure was recommended by an Interior Department report prepared in consultation with scientists and industry experts.

The May 27 report to President Barack Obama said the experts "peer reviewed" its recommendations, including the six-month moratorium and 22 safety measures.

But eight of the 15 members of the review panel are charging that the administration misrepresented their position by suggesting they supported a blanket moratorium that they actually oppose. Their criticism, and the administration's response, are evidence that the six-month stoppage is based on politics rather than on science.

I think Obama figured out whose ass to kick - the people who live on the Gulf of Mexico.

Yep, putting his own public image ahead of the long term interest of the locals. And there i was thinking that he wasn't just a baby kisser. Politicians.

Or, one might reasonably suspect that the administration was merely seeking extra leverage with BP by announcing the moratorium.


http://money.cnn.com/2010/06/11/news.../bp_liability/

The Obama administration recently turned up the rhetoric on BP, claiming earlier this week that the company may even be responsible for financial losses to fellow oil firms resulting from the government's deepwater drilling moratorium.

That could be a really big bill, which would be really bad for BP. While fishing accounts for just a billion or two of the Gulf's regional economy, tourism and oil are big business. Oil generated some $124 billion in revenues in 2007, according to one study. Tourism was not far behind.

Not all oil drilling will be affected by the spill - only about a third of the Gulf's drilling rigs are deepwater and so far all oil production remains intact.

You know... and it's also not quite as absolute as the OP would have you believe. It's rather possible that safety concerns actually played a role here:


http://www.upi.com/Top_News/US/2010/...8831276215943/

The administration has been criticized for imposing the moratorium on some offshore drilling operations, with critics saying it will result in economic losses for related businesses. U.S. Interior Secretary Ken Salazar said BP should compensate companies that have had to lay off workers because of a moratorium.

The U.S. Justice Department said it was looking into ways to force the British energy company to suspend its dividend until its full liability for the oil spill is known.

The president Thursday asked relatives if any of the 11 workers killed in the April 20 explosion had ever expressed concern with safety standards on the rig, The Hill reported.

During the meeting at the White House, Obama said "while offshore drilling is a part of our nation's overall energy strategy, he simply could not go forward with new deepwater drilling until we have the proper safety measures in place to ensure that a tragedy like this never happens again," the publication said.

I'll just add... When talking about politics, there are ALWAYS politics at play. To use that as some sort of slander or attack is rather ridiculous. Oh my god... a politician is aware of political perceptions. That bastard! Good grief.

I mean... when you think about it and get right down to brass tacks... Aren't YOU playing politics by even opening this thread?

Anyway, I gave two alternate interpretations in my post above. I find both reasonable. I'm sure I could come up with more that aren't merely the perpetuation of a right-wing narrative.

You don't fake a report and then claim the experts "peer reviewed" it. That's dishonest. Nor do you play politics by making the victims in the gulf suffer further, unnecessarily.

Originally Posted by Harold14370

You don't fake a report

Unsubstantiated.

Originally Posted by Harold14370

Nor do you play politics by making the victims in the gulf suffer further, unnecessarily.

Yes, that's obviously the primary intent of the administration. It's not possible that there are shades of gray in this situation where there are no perfect black/white choices. [/sarcasm]

Originally Posted by inow

Originally Posted by Harold14370

You don't fake a report

Unsubstantiated.

They have not denied changing the report after the experts had signed off on it.

Originally Posted by Harold14370

Nor do you play politics by making the victims in the gulf suffer further, unnecessarily.

Yes, that's obviously the primary intent of the administration. It's not possible that there are shades of gray in this situation where there are no perfect black/white choices. [/sarcasm]

There are no perfect black white choices but there are good choices and bad choices. There are choices that are supported by the experts and others that are not. Of course, you are going to back Obama no matter what he does or how incompetent he appears.

Originally Posted by Harold14370

how incompetent he appears.

that's a common tactic of extreme right wing everywhere - make the opponent appear foolish, incompetent, evil etc.

Originally Posted by Twit of wit

that's a common tactic of extreme right wing everywhere - make the opponent appear foolish, incompetent, evil etc.

Is it a tactic of the right wing, or has it been employed by other wings?

I notice that you are not addressing the technical aspects or merits of the drilling moratorium nor are you explaining or defending the ethics of changing a report after it had been reviewed, while claiming it was peer reviewed.

All I see are attacks on the "extreme right wing." I guess that is a common tactic of the extreme left wing, eh Twit?

Originally Posted by Harold14370

Originally Posted by inow

Originally Posted by Harold14370

You don't fake a report

Unsubstantiated.

They have not denied changing the report after the experts had signed off on it.

You said they asserted it had been peer-reviewed when 8 of 15 reviewers disagreed with the overall conclusions.
Now you are asserting they changed the report after the fact.

You do know, right, that these are not equal claims? You have also fallaciously implied that a "lack of denial" ipso facto means they actually did alter the content of the report in a significant way afterward.


What evidence is there for your second assertion? I suspect in response you will throw in a total red herring and circumvent my actual request. Please, Harold, prove me wrong. I'm genuinely curious to see what they actually changed and to get some factual context on this matter... instead of this baseless innuendo and unsubstantiated rumor which you keep pushing forth.

Originally Posted by Harold14370

Originally Posted by iNow

Originally Posted by Harold14370

Nor do you play politics by making the victims in the gulf suffer further, unnecessarily.

Yes, that's obviously the primary intent of the administration. It's not possible that there are shades of gray in this situation where there are no perfect black/white choices. [/sarcasm]

There are no perfect black white choices but there are good choices and bad choices.

I appreciate your point, but disagree with your logic. Yes, things can be described as "good" or described as "bad," but you are treating those characteristics as if they are somehow objective measurable quantities.

They are not. They are subjective. In this way, the "goodness" value and the "badness" value will vary greatly depending on ones perspective. Yes, the decision will impact some people on the gulf, and for them this is a bad policy decision. However, the decision will help others who are involved in green energy manufacture, and people who care about the environment and think we should be moving quickly away from fossil fuels, and it is a good decision in context of global climate change and protection of our environment, for example.

Again, good and bad are not objective qualities, they are subjective, and your argument relies on a complete disregard for that fact.

Originally Posted by Harold14370

There are choices that are supported by the experts and others that are not.

See above. It's no where even close to as black and white as you'd like to pretend.

Originally Posted by Harold14370

Of course, you are going to back Obama no matter what he does or how incompetent he appears.

Bullshit, and to be perfectly frank with you, Harold, I've grown rather tired of your consistent usage of association fallacies and well-poisoning techniques when responding to people with whom you disagree ideologically. I really don't appreciate such broad and inaccurate generalizations being applied to me, as I consider myself a reasonable man who is always willing to explore facts and evidence and change my mind when it's appropriate to do so.

Bullshit, and to be perfectly frank with you, Harold, I've grown rather tired of your consistent usage of association fallacies and well-poisoning techniques when responding to people with whom you disagree ideologically. I really don't appreciate such broad and inaccurate generalizations being applied to me, as I consider myself a reasonable man who is always willing to explore facts and evidence and change my mind when it's appropriate to do so.

inow; Speaking of long time, well respected members of THIS forum, Harold is definitely one. Your incorrect, out of line and you don't, never have, explored others opinion, if from the onset they do not confirm your own. Consistency in ideas is your 'TRADEMARK' and to suggest otherwise is saying have no purpose.

As for the Salazar/Administration acceptance and concurring of the 'Report' as valid reason for the National SIX MONTH, moratorium and adding a couple paragraphs to that report and released, it's a breach of power at best. Then topping this, by attempting to blame and charge BP with the cost (paying laid off workers) is as misleading as anything I've ever read or seen in American History.

We have an incompetent President, when it comes to any Presidents main purpose= leadership, is indecisive, vague on far too many important issues. Israel, Korea, Iran, just a few. The man is supposed to be leading a Nation, that's all the people, not promoting an agenda that his advisor's manage to fit any problem into that agenda. "I can't go out there and suck up the oil with a straw" a current Obama quote, sounds like a third grader trying to impress some little girlfriend, NOT THE PRESIDENT OF THE US.

that's a common tactic of extreme right wing everywhere - make the opponent appear foolish, incompetent, evil etc.

Twit; Incompetency is an accusation, not a tactic. In exactly what area under the Federal Government's Constitutional Authority is this being shown. Are you satisfied with security, here in the US (Border Control), abroad (Israel), not to mention Terrorism or the speed and effectiveness of Federal Action outside the States authority (Gulf of Mexico) or anything.

I can't be too critical of Obama himself, he has never indicated (to me) any level of intelligence for governing, especially administering the US Government (has NO experience), but was properly elected under our system. But my goodness, he certainly has not picked many qualified people to help him out and that I do blame him. Sometime I really think he has NO control over what's going on, an inner circle of Chicago politicians are running the show, sending him on menial trips to raise money or sell an already enacted law (health care) or just getting him to get out there and enjoy life, play golf (7 times since the BP incident). Something is terribly wrong with what's going on in the US today. On the Business Block (FNC) this morning, they were talking about a 20T$ deficit by the mid teens, do you have any idea what that would mean?

By the way most the current big time complainers are in his own base, people that are suffering from his spill, thinking he (Obama) can somehow compensate them for their losses, make them whole, so to speak from an accident. It's not gonna happen, BP couldn't do it if they are legally held responsible through the courts (won't be) and the Federal Government can no longer afford the required actions.

Originally Posted by Harold14370

Originally Posted by Twit of wit

that's a common tactic of extreme right wing everywhere - make the opponent appear foolish, incompetent, evil etc.

Is it a tactic of the right wing, or has it been employed by other wings?

All I see are attacks on the "extreme right wing." I guess that is a common tactic of the extreme left wing, eh Twit?

What? I was responding to your ad hominem attack, so what are you talking about?

It's interesting to see just how misunderstood I am with some people. Jackson, if you don't think I've changed my mind in the face of a good argument then you obviously have not been reading or comprehending my posts. I suggest you bear this in mind before you again jump into a thread to post solely on the attributes of my character and style.


Now, folks... Let's say we focus on content and verifiable evidence which supports or negates the claims of the OP instead of this ridiculous personal nonsense, shall we?

Originally Posted by jackson33

We have an incompetent President, when it comes to any Presidents main purpose= leadership, is indecisive, vague on far too many important issues. Israel, Korea, Iran, just a few.

Any fool can make hasty decisions. Making good decisions is much more important.

Originally Posted by jackson33

The man is supposed to be leading a Nation, that's all the people, not promoting an agenda that his advisor's manage to fit any problem into that agenda. "I can't go out there and suck up the oil with a straw" a current Obama quote, sounds like a third grader trying to impress some little girlfriend, NOT THE PRESIDENT OF THE US.

What do you think he should do? He's just a president, not a god.

Originally Posted by jackson33

that's a common tactic of extreme right wing everywhere - make the opponent appear foolish, incompetent, evil etc.

Twit; Incompetency is an accusation, not a tactic. In exactly what area under the Federal Government's Constitutional Authority is this being shown. Are you satisfied with security, here in the US (Border Control), abroad (Israel), not to mention Terrorism or the speed and effectiveness of Federal Action outside the States authority (Gulf of Mexico) or anything.

I'm quite satisfied with security in my country, but I understand why you are not satisfied with security in your country. I'm not sure who is to blame for the enormous criminality etc. in your country.

Originally Posted by jackson33

But my goodness, he certainly has not picked many qualified people to help him out and that I do blame him.

He did, but people like you accused them of promoting population eugenics and such things, so they had to leave.

Originally Posted by jackson33

By the way most the current big time complainers are in his own base, people that are suffering from his spill, thinking he (Obama) can somehow compensate them for their losses, make them whole, so to speak from an accident. It's not gonna happen, BP couldn't do it if they are legally held responsible through the courts (won't be)

Why not?

Originally Posted by Twit of wit

What? I was responding to your ad hominem attack, so what are you talking about?

If you are going to criticize a politician you will probably either criticize their competence or their ethics. This is not a right wing tactic. It's politics. I suppose you think any criticism of Obama is an ad hominem attack?

You on the other hand, did make an ad hominem attack by calling me a far right winger.

Originally Posted by inow

You said they asserted it had been peer-reviewed when 8 of 15 reviewers disagreed with the overall conclusions.
Now you are asserting they changed the report after the fact.

The article said:

Instead, the experts said they supported an initial draft of Interior's report proposing a six-month moratorium only on new drilling and only at more than 1,000 feet.

So yes, it was changed between the time the experts looked at it and the time they changed it from 1000 to 500 feet and expanded it to all exploratory drilling not just new drilling.

Originally Posted by inow

They are not. They are subjective. In this way, the "goodness" value and the "badness" value will vary greatly depending on ones perspective. Yes, the decision will impact some people on the gulf, and for them this is a bad policy decision. However, the decision will help others who are involved in green energy manufacture, and people who care about the environment and think we should be moving quickly away from fossil fuels, and it is a good decision in context of global climate change and protection of our environment, for example.

This is a whole new argument, and one that the Obama administration is not making at all. They say they are just hitting the pause button to evaluate safety measures.

The way to transition away from fossil fuels is not to just suddenly stop looking for oil for a while, in one particular place.

It's interesting to see just how misunderstood I am with some people. Jackson, if you don't think I've changed my mind in the face of a good argument then you obviously have not been reading or comprehending my posts. I suggest you bear this in mind before you again jump into a thread to post solely on the attributes of my character and style.

inow; Please try and think this out...Your words...

Bullshit, and to be perfectly frank with you, Harold, I've grown rather tired of your consistent usage of association fallacies and well-poisoning techniques when responding to people with whom you disagree ideologically. I really don't appreciate such broad and inaccurate generalizations being applied to me, as I consider myself a reasonable man who is always willing to explore facts and evidence and change my mind when it's appropriate to do so.

Having just addressed another thread, where yet another poorly framed comment by you was made, to a member trying to plead out his case, yes it might appear I've attacked you. However in both cases, if I had not wanted to address the thread author, I'd have said nothing to you, that would be useless and you know that.

Now, folks... Let's say we focus on content and verifiable evidence which supports or negates the claims of the OP instead of this ridiculous personal nonsense, shall we?

The OP here, is as gently put as any I've seen on this issue and one issue I've threaded myself, elsewhere, more complex and harshly worded. Inadvertently (I would think), mentioned by dozens of pro/anti Obama advocates has indirectly stated he should kick himself for letting this issue get out of hand. It isn't Harold or me, saying the report was altered, it was those that wrote the memo.

Any fool can make hasty decisions. Making good decisions is much more important.

Wow Twit!, I should run for President of the UNITED STATES, I've just decided we should enter WWII. Heads of States, especially the one here in the US have or SHOULD HAVE, contingency plans laid out for any potential problem, even if unforeseen. I'm sure there are more than a few for oil spills, blow outs in open waters (been going on for decades). I don't care if a President makes a mistake, this happens all the time, some elections are lost for making them, but it should never be the reason to hesitate when decision and leadership is needed.

What do you think he should do? He's just a president, not a god.

Forgetting he promised 'god like' things/events during the Campaign, yes he is human. This human however has instant access to the brightest minds available on any topic, can and should be informed with in minutes with information/knowledge on any potentially explosive issue. In this case, and in my opinion those involved in letting those decision ride (not necessarily Obama) had no idea just how explosive it was.

Think about this; If the US has a plane hijacked, thought to be loaded with nuclear material and is heading for (you pick it, in the US) this is the guy in charge and the ONLY one that can decide what action(s) to take. I'm serious, I'm worried he is not capable of making anything near this type a decision (based on his Anti-Israel stand, maybe a few others) and the consequences may be devastating. I'm not pretending I could or would 99.99% of Americans want that authority, but he ran for President looking at the good in being President, not what might be hard/bad.

Here is some more info on the changed report.

http://www.instituteforenergyresearc...tor_Vitter.pdf

http://instituteforenergyresearch.or...ted-_Rev_1.pdf

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.

The draft which we reviewed stated:
“Along with the specific recommendations outlined in the body of the report, Secretary Salazar recommends a 6-month moratorium on permits for new exploratory wells with a depth of 1,000 feet or greater. This will allow time for implementation of the measures outlined in this report, and the
consideration of information and recommendations from the Presidential Commission as well as other investigations into the accident.
“In addition, Secretary Salazar recommends a temporary pause in all current drilling operations for a sufficient length of time to perform additional blowout preventer function and pressure testing and well barrier testing for the existing 33 permitted exploratory wells currently operating in deepwater in the Gulf of Mexico. These immediate testing requirements are described in Appendix 1.”
We agree that the report and the history it describes agrees with this conclusion. Unfortunately after the review the conclusion was modified to read:
“The Secretary also recommends temporarily halting certain permitting and drilling activities. First, the Secretary recommends a six-month moratorium on permits for new wells being drilled using floating rigs. The moratorium would allow for implementation of the measures proposed in this report and for consideration of the findings from ongoing investigations, including the bipartisan National Commission on the BP Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill and Offshore Drilling.
“The Secretary further recommends an immediate halt to drilling operations on the 33 permitted wells, not including the relief wells currently being drilled by BP, that are currently being drilled using floating rigs in the Gulf of Mexico. Drilling operations should cease as soon as safely practicable for a 6-month period.”

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.

Originally Posted by jackson

Heads of States, especially the one here in the US have or SHOULD HAVE, contingency plans laid out for any potential problem, even if unforeseen. I'm sure there are more than a few for oil spills, blow outs in open waters (been going on for decades).

Blowouts this deep have not "been going on for decades".

And you are quite correct, there should have been a contingency plan for handling emergency blowouts in this well and similar wells - a plan based on research and the latest in cleanup tech, all the most recent info on the use of dispersants etc. Why do you suppose there wasn't one? I'll give you a hint: these kinds of plans are government regulation and bureaucracy - they involve lots of commitments and rules and stuff for industry to follow, and resources prepared at somebody's (taxpayers'? oil companies?) expense over decades of government effort. They involve the executive branch of the US government curbing and overseeing the oil industry, for the past two decades and especially the past ten years or so (the time in which this new deep drilling technology was put into common operation).

As far as we know, BP will suffer no penalty even for lying about the size of the blowout for days, apparently in an attempt to reduce its royalty payments to the government. Try that on your tax return!

Meanwhile, we have many years of official neglect and incompetent federal administration in the oil arena, an accumulation of shortcuts and deceptions and corruptions to deal with. We have no body of trustworthy "experts", whose word we can take as both informed and disinterested. So it may take a few months to catch up.

Blowouts this deep have not "been going on for decades".

ice; Blowout have happened for decades and have all been contained, but yes this was the at sea but only because the rig failed was it a problem, IMO. If they couldn't handle the fire while the rig was standing, then containing the oil/gas (think they could have) they should have considered explosives (don't need to be nuclear) on the sea floors hole itself. Since these are common remedies on land or shallow water, I must believe any contingencies plans for deep water and untested would be near the same.

As far as we know, BP will suffer no penalty even for lying about the size of the blowout for days, apparently in an attempt to reduce its royalty payments to the government. Try that on your tax return!

I hope your correct for several reasons, mainly they will have the funding to help out where legitimate claims are involved in the US and for the UK and their people in general (taxes/dividends), not to mention the possible chaos in the Oil Industry from the ramification of the spill, generally speaking.

Meanwhile, we have many years of official neglect and incompetent federal administration in the oil arena, an accumulation of shortcuts and deceptions and corruptions to deal with. We have no body of trustworthy "experts", whose word we can take as both informed and disinterested. So it may take a few months to catch up.

I don't know all the facts yet, but it seems to me the regulations might have been there to prevent a good share of the current problems, ignored or left to the contractors to correct. Frankly the Federal Government is incompetent to handle any major disaster, much less one nobody in Government has ever experienced anything like this. I like to reference Tennessee, with their recent flooding, totally ignored by the Federal and corrected by the people themselves. When things settled down, then the Federal stopped by with Financial Aid.

I watched the Huckabee show this week end, where they had several potential solvents for oil in the ocean, all waiting on approval to go ahead on. Guess it takes government some time to approve any assistance, like nearly two months (hope the White House doesn't catch fire). Anyway one fellow had 1.4 Million tons of a compound that soaked up oil (didn't catch the weight ratio to oil absorbed), but the thing with this product, it did NOT need to be retrieved, Once the oil is absorbed the oil itself dissolves, along with natural toxics in the ocean. Think I'd have had that stuff on the first oil slick seen. He is still waiting for permission.

I hope that this is not straying too far off topic , but I found this piece in the Ottawa Citizen. It implies that the clean up by BP in the Gulf, has been hampered by a piece of legislation called the Jones Act.
http://www.ottawacitizen.com/enterta...616/story.html

Originally Posted by Harold14370

So yes, it was changed between the time the experts looked at it and the time they changed it from 1000 to 500 feet and expanded it to all exploratory drilling not just new drilling.

I've been in the industry since 1971. I know what exploratory drilling is. I have no idea what new drilling is. It sounds very much like an artificial and irrelevant distinction. Anyone care to pretend to enlighten me.

I hope that this is not straying too far off topic , but I found this piece in the Ottawa Citizen. It implies that the clean up by BP in the Gulf, has been hampered by a piece of legislation called the Jones Act.

Dave; It's the topic....Your article pretty well covered it and as of 8AM this morning the Administration has yet to 'request' a waiver. What has been done/said, is this event has made "Cap and Trade" a needed bill to pass. Bush got a waiver in hours over Katrina.

We have a run away administration in the US, lacking any semblance to competency with no apparent interest in what anyone else thinks.

Originally Posted by Ophiolite

Originally Posted by Harold14370

So yes, it was changed between the time the experts looked at it and the time they changed it from 1000 to 500 feet and expanded it to all exploratory drilling not just new drilling.

I've been in the industry since 1971. I know what exploratory drilling is. I have no idea what new drilling is. It sounds very much like an artificial and irrelevant distinction. Anyone care to pretend to enlighten me.

Maybe this will help.

The draft which we reviewed stated:
“Along with the specific recommendations outlined in the body of the report, Secretary Salazar recommends a 6-month moratorium on permits for new exploratory wells with a depth of 1,000 feet or greater. This will allow time for implementation of the measures outlined in this report, and the
consideration of information and recommendations from the Presidential Commission as well as other investigations into the accident. “In addition, Secretary Salazar recommends a temporary pause in all current drilling operations for a sufficient length of time to perform additional blowout preventer function and pressure testing and well barrier testing for the existing 33 permitted exploratory wells currently operating in deepwater in the Gulf of Mexico. These immediate testing requirements are described in Appendix 1.”

Unfortunately after the review the conclusion was modified to read:
“The Secretary also recommends temporarily halting certain permitting and drilling activities. First, the Secretary recommends a six-month moratorium on permits for new wells being drilled using floating rigs. The moratorium would allow for implementation of the measures proposed in this report and for consideration of the findings from ongoing investigations, including the bipartisan National Commission on the BP Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill and Offshore Drilling.
“The Secretary further recommends an immediate halt to drilling operations on the 33 permitted wells, not including the relief wells currently being drilled by BP, that are currently being drilled using floating rigs in the Gulf of Mexico. Drilling operations should cease as soon as safely practicable for a 6-month period.”

I did not accurately summarize it in the previous message. The draft that was reviewed said 6 month moratorium on permits for new wells>1000 ft and temporary pause on all drilling just long enough to do testing. The published report says 6 mo. halt to all drilling except the relief wells.

Originally Posted by jackson

Blowouts this deep have not "been going on for decades".


ice; Blowout have happened for decades and have all been contained,

Not this deep.

Originally Posted by jackson

Since these are common remedies on land or shallow water, I must believe any contingencies plans for deep water and untested would be near the same.

Your mistaken beliefs are of little consequence. Contemplate, for example, the problem they had with the first cap - methane hydrates freezing on it and preventing its installation.

But the question is moot, since in reality there were no contingency plans for this well's blowout. The nearest thing to a "plan" in the post-Cheney era is apparently some document photocopied entire from a response to the Exxon Valdez, which emphasizes protecting the walruses and seals, and gives as the primary go-to overseer of the emergency response a guy who has been dead for years. That's what was filed to get the drilling permits etc. from W&Co.

Speaking of the inimitable W&Co, architects of this mess as of so many others of unprecedented scale and mind-boggling idiocy, this from the link

Originally Posted by Ottawa rag

But the Bush administration had a huge advantage over its successor. Bush had gone out of his way to find competent people, with experience of their fields, to staff his administration. - - -

is truly amazing.

I mean, of all the things W&Co were famous for not doing, going out of their way to find hardcore competence for regulatory agencies was right at the top. And the scandals around the nitwits and toadies and fundies and campaign flacs and Regent University grads and Enron execs they stuffed into every important regulatory or agency office they could find or create (and they created a shitload of them, sort of a wingnut jobs program), as numerous and newsworthy as they were, were perhaps best exemplified by the spectacular cocaine/Vegas/and hookers parties the oil companies were found to have been throwing for the Minerals office folks in charge of drilling permits and blowout contingency plans. Even you righties might remember that one - it wasn't that long ago, was it?