Government Lets BP Write Its Own Environmental Review Papers for Alaskan Project

[Robbien]

Hidden away in that New York Times article about BP building an island for the Alaskan Project is this gem:

Rather than conducting their own independent analysis, federal regulators, in a break from usual practice, allowed BP in 2007 to write its own environmental review for the project as well as its own consultation documents relating to the Endangered Species Act, according to two scientists from the Alaska office of the federal Mineral Management Service that oversees drilling.

The environmental assessment was taken away from the agency's unit that typically handles such reviews, and put in the hands of a different division that was more pro-drilling, said the scientists, who discussed the process because they remained opposed to how it was handled.

Chicago Now goes on to say
http://www.chicagonow.com/blogs/lowe-down/2010/06/accident-waiting-to-happen-government-lets-bp-write-its-own-environmental-review-papers-for-alaskan-project.html


Furthermore, "the language of the "environmental consequences" sections of the final 2007 federal assessment and BP's own assessment submitted earlier the same year are virtually identical." Even more amazing, both the government and BP acknowledge that a spill would have a "major impact on wildlife." But the project is a-okay because the likelihood of a spill is "remote."

[Radical Activist]

1. So it's "let" past tense. Not 'lets" as thought it's being done right now.

It's a slightly significant difference.

[Robbien]

3. The NYT article says that there are

almost a hundred leases being granted in the last two months (some from BP) for near shore drilling in the Gulf where the reviews appear to be copycat reviews of previously submitted documents.

"Lets" is the correct terminology I believe.

[Radical Activist]

4. The headline is about letting BP write the rules, which happend in 2007.

So "let" would be correct.

[Robbien]

5. In 2010 the government still lets BP write the rules

I guess since that was during the past two months and since that is now also in the past the situation is over and there is no more problem and we can use the past tense of the term. Until the next time when the government will surely continue to let BP write the rules.

[truedelphi]

2. Yep it does. And the government also lets the Big Pesticide Mfgrs.

Write up their own reports on the health effects.

This is just the way it has always been. And should someone on some committee somewhere have a reasonable objection to some industry wide practice, that Congressional leader will be assigned to some back basement committee before sundown.

In this day of gas spectrography, a gas spectrograph analysis of every product on the market would be possible. If Congress insisted on it.

Oh and BTW, the guy whose vote made it possible to stick with these antiquated rules is one Al Gore, who needing pesticide mfgr money for his campaigns, voted against the Precautionary Principle during the early nineteen nineties.