PDA

View Full Version : Halliburton's Interests Assisted by White House




IJ Reilly
Oct 14, 2004, 10:12 AM
The administration has lent support to a lucrative drilling technique. Some in the EPA consider it an environmental concern.

WASHINGTON — Over the last four years, the Bush administration and Vice President Dick Cheney's office have backed a series of measures favoring a drilling technique developed by Halliburton Co., Cheney's former employer.

The technology, known as hydraulic fracturing, boosts gas and oil production and generates $1.5 billion a year for the company, about one-fifth of its energy-related revenue. In recent years, Halliburton and other oil and gas firms have been fighting efforts to regulate the procedure under a statute that protects drinking water supplies.

The 2001 national energy policy report, written under the direction of the vice president's office, cited the value of hydraulic fracturing but didn't mention concerns raised by staff members at the Environmental Protection Agency.

Since then, the administration has taken steps to keep the practice from being regulated under the Safe Drinking Water Act, which Halliburton has said would hurt its business and add needless costs and bureaucratic delays.

An EPA study concluded in June that there was no evidence that hydraulic fracturing posed a threat to drinking water. However, some EPA employees complained about the study internally before its completion, and others have strongly criticized it publicly since its release.

One of them, an environmental engineer and 30-year EPA veteran in Denver, last week sought whistle-blower protection in an 18-page statement sent to the agency's inspector general and members of Congress. The statement alleges that the study's findings were premature, may endanger public health and were approved by an industry-dominated review panel that included a current Halliburton employee.

"EPA produced a final report … that I believe is scientifically unsound and contrary to the purposes of the law," Weston Wilson wrote to lawmakers.

EPA spokeswoman Cynthia Bergman said Wednesday that the agency was reviewing Wilson's statement but did not "believe that any of the concerns raised by his analysis would lead us to a different conclusion."

Cheney declined to be interviewed or to answer specific questions for this story. His spokesman, Kevin Kellems, cited the vice president's commitment to keeping the 2001 energy policy deliberations confidential, a principle Cheney is defending in federal court.

"There is an important principle at stake in protecting the ability of the office of the president and vice president to receive the most candid and direct advice and counsel during the policymaking process," Kellems said.

...

Nine days after his inauguration in 2001, President Bush asked Cheney to head a Cabinet-level task force to draw up a national energy strategy.

The task force consisted of the vice president, nine Cabinet members and five senior administration appointees. Research and writing was directed by two aides to Cheney supported by a working group of representatives from participating Cabinet agencies. The working group met through February and March, often in the vice president's ceremonial office, to develop recommendations for the principals — Cheney and Cabinet members.

The Cheney-led task force would tackle some of the highest-priority issues on the new administration's energy agenda: expanding oil and gas production, improving pipeline and power line transmission systems and developing a new approach to regulating air and water pollution.

To the surprise of some of those involved in the effort, the Cabinet-level panel also would consider a narrower topic of importance to Cheney when he headed Halliburton: hydraulic fracturing.

Cheney has cited executive privilege to keep task force deliberations secret. But interviews and records obtained by The Times show that Cheney's office was involved in discussions about how fracturing should be portrayed in the report, and that it resisted EPA attempts to include concerns about its effects on the environment.

...

Cheney participated in House-Senate conference committee negotiations last year that produced a sweeping national energy bill with a provision that would exempt fracturing from EPA drinking water regulation. Bush and Cheney immediately endorsed the energy bill. Some of those involved in the meetings said they could not recall or did not know whether Cheney intervened on behalf of fracturing.

Halliburton spokeswoman Wendy Hall said the company "did not contact Vice President Cheney or his office about hydraulic fracturing or the [provision in] the energy bill."

The bill has passed the House, but has languished in the Senate under the threat of a filibuster.

...

The EPA report was reviewed by a seven-person panel: a senior technical advisor at Halliburton, a manager from an industry-funded research institute who previously worked for Halliburton, a senior engineer with BP Amoco and two academics who had worked for the energy industry. A sixth member, a state regulator with an engineering background, also had worked for Amoco. The final member was an expert on hydraulic fracturing from Sandia National Laboratories in New Mexico.

...

http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-na-frac14oct14,1,33390.story



mischief
Oct 14, 2004, 10:51 AM
What do you call Dick Cheney and Carl Rove standing next to each other in an open field?

A sniper's dream come true.

IJ Reilly
Oct 14, 2004, 10:56 AM
Careful. The FBI and the Secret Service take that kind of remark very seriously.

mischief
Oct 14, 2004, 11:08 AM
Careful. The FBI and the Secret Service take that kind of remark very seriously.

I'll be more than happy to record, transcribe, digitize and dissemminate the entire debacle. I'm sure it'll spread pretty damn fast on P2P if I get the word out what the files are called.

Then they can explain exactly how they came by reliable information that I have any capability to carry out that action, that I in fact have the intent to carry out that action or indeed posess the skill with a weapon I neither posess nor have ever fired to hit either of them from the requisite extreme range.

I'm sick of being under de-facto passive surveillance and threat of prosecution for what I say, what I can observe, posess, copy, exchange or imply online or on the phone. It violates the spirit of the first amendment and keeps society oppressed in a way that was supposed to have ended with the end of the JE Hoover FBI era.

Back on topic: Dick Cheney is a slimy weasel who's "deferred" pay and proffits from Halliburton will buy him more than one man should ever possess.

skunk
Oct 14, 2004, 11:16 AM
Careful. The FBI and the Secret Service take that kind of remark very seriously.
What happened to freedom of speech?

mischief
Oct 14, 2004, 11:26 AM
What happened to freedom of speech?

The Patriot Act

The DMCA

The "Data Terrorism" Laws

The essentially illegal domestic employment of NSA listening and monitoring.

There's more but those are the ones that come readily to mind. :mad:

IJ Reilly
Oct 14, 2004, 12:17 PM
Nope. Threatening the life of a federal official has been a felony for a long time, well before the Patriot Act came into being. The definitions were relatively recently expanded from using the US Mail to make the threat to include electronic media. Trust me, this is true -- and trust me also when I say this kind of thing is taken very seriously by the FBI.

mischief
Oct 14, 2004, 12:54 PM
Nope. Threatening the life of a federal official has been a felony for a long time, well before the Patriot Act came into being. The definitions were relatively recently expanded from using the US Mail to make the threat to include electronic media. Trust me, this is true -- and trust me also when I say this kind of thing is taken very seriously by the FBI.

I am aware of the overzealous history of the SS and the FBI on this issue. I just find it offensive that I can be detained and interrogated for comments quite obviously made in jest on an essentially a-political public forum not involving the furthering or facilitation of a crime. IE: I could be detained for commenting WITHOUT INTENT OR MEANS.

Plus I feel that what defines a "threat" has been expanded entirely too far. Have I sent threatening communications to the official? Have I been rambling about violent conspiracies on websites run by scary fringe groups? NO!! (unless you're Steve Ballmer).

Chip NoVaMac
Oct 14, 2004, 01:31 PM
Nope. Threatening the life of a federal official has been a felony for a long time, well before the Patriot Act came into being. The definitions were relatively recently expanded from using the US Mail to make the threat to include electronic media. Trust me, this is true -- and trust me also when I say this kind of thing is taken very seriously by the FBI.

Very much so, recently a cop was arrested for saying something about wanting to "take out" the the President. If memory serves well, I believe this was a bar room threat.

Not so much that mischief would end up behind bars for the comment above. But being questioned by the Secret Service and the FBI is not something that I would wish on my enemy for an innocent joke.

IJ Reilly
Oct 14, 2004, 01:43 PM
I guess it's too late to save this thread.

What you find offensive isn't really at issue here. I'm just trying to give you a little friendly advice. The law is what it is. I have personal experience with this situation, and frankly I was happy the FBI was a little "over zealous" in my case. They didn't detain, arrest or even interrogate anyone -- they simply visited the person at his home. They ascertained whether he was a real threat, and while they were at it, read him the riot act. The agent called me back afterwards. In his opinion, the the guy wasn't likely to carry out his threats of violence. I was very relieved to hear it. It was all very professionally handled by the FBI from my point of view, and from the point of view of the threatener, I'm hope he concluded that his attempt to frighten me into silence wasn't worth the effort.

blackfox
Oct 14, 2004, 06:47 PM
IJ, have you been a federal official? I though you were in Architecture...or was the story you describe about you as a private citizen? Wouldn't that merely involve the LAPD?

Sorry if I am nosy, I am just curious. Please feel free to reply (or not) at your discretion. This is interesting to me.

IJ Reilly
Oct 14, 2004, 07:56 PM
No, but among other things, I'm a freelance writer. A column I wrote for my county newspaper a few years ago got a reader so incensed that he fired off a rambling incoherent e-mail in which he threatened to shoot Bill Clinton, Janet Reno, and me. I guess that's what you call connecting with your audience. My local police department couldn't have cared less, but on the advice of my editor, I checked with the local FBI office. They were most interested, as it turned out.

blackfox
Oct 14, 2004, 08:08 PM
Thanks IJ. Takes all kinds, doesn't it?

IJ Reilly
Oct 14, 2004, 10:54 PM
"It doesn't take all kinds, there just are all kinds." (Winston Churchill)

mischief
Oct 15, 2004, 11:04 AM
I had no idea I had personally offended you. I was attempting to make the point that that comment in the context it which it was concieved would be a waste of time, money and resources to pursue in addition to being a blatant abuse of power.

Threats should always be taken seriously. But bad jokes should just be called as such.

I would call this a mutual need for Pieing no? We both have taken it too seriously.

'Fox? Care to do the honors?

Chip NoVaMac
Oct 15, 2004, 11:36 AM
For me the caution is in that living in the DC area one has to be very careful what they say and where. There are always an SOB that is high enough up to cause trouble for a joking comment like the one you made. What I call bar room threats. Sad world we live in.

And in another thread that I made mention of the cop arrested for making a threat, someone said well he had ready access to a gun, and better access. In thinking about it, access to the gun is not much of a problem in the US. And as to access, just ask Hinckly or Fromm (sp?).

IJ Reilly
Oct 15, 2004, 11:37 AM
I'm not offended in the least; I was giving you what I thought was useful advice.

The only thing that really bugs me about this thread is that nobody seems to want to discuss the article I posted.

Chip NoVaMac
Oct 15, 2004, 11:50 AM
Actually as wrong as it all may seem, since the "activist" courts have ruled on favor of Cheney; little can be said or done. Other than to vote for who think will lie less for the next four years.

I think Kerry wouldn't do have the stuff that the Republicans have done so far. And if the Republicans control Congress, then Kerry will be up for impeachment for sneezing the wrong way.

Have to admiit the OT discussion is much more fun. :)

mischief
Oct 15, 2004, 12:02 PM
I'm not offended in the least; I was giving you what I thought was useful advice.

The only thing that really bugs me about this thread is that nobody seems to want to discuss the article I posted.

I appreciate the compassion...

I haven't realy commented on the article because it's such an obvious episode of corruption it requires no commentary. Now if one of our Ultra-Right jackbooted zealots were to bitch about it I'd have something to say. ;)

blackfox
Oct 15, 2004, 07:41 PM
Wait...do I still get to try my new rhetoric-pnuematic pie-launcher 3000? Just loaded up with a fresh cartridge of Apple (for extra patriotism)...would be a shame to waste...

...perhaps I'll just shoot myself. I'll deserve it sooner or later.

As to the original topic of this thread, all I can think to say is how bold and arrogant the Right has seemingly become. Many people for good reason, have often thought that the Government has traditionally been in bed with Corporate interests, but there is little effort to hide this fact by the GOP, and more disturbingly, no real interest in this by any media. Quite an indictment of both the wolves and the sheep.

Oh well, at least we are used to drinking water out of plastic bottles and with Brita/Pur water filtration systems...

zimv20
Oct 15, 2004, 08:12 PM
As to the original topic of this thread, all I can think to say is how bold and arrogant the Right has seemingly become.
and as the Onion joked about earlier this year, quite hilariously and accurately (as they tend to do), many of us are suffering from outrage fatigue.

going to war on questionable grounds and hiring a company that destroys voter registration from the opposing party would be enough to get a Democratic president drawn and quartered. his family, neighbors and residents of his home state, too. but for this administration, it's just another day at the office. and people defend it. maddening. we grew up studying nazi germany and wondered how an entire nation could be so complicit. we're finding out.

pseudobrit
Oct 15, 2004, 11:11 PM
we grew up studying nazi germany and wondered how an entire nation could be so complicit. we're finding out.

I think we're finding out how powerless we are when a government is bent upon running itself as a corrupt, elite cabal and only respects the public as far as it can use them to further their plans.

I think for 200+ years we'd simply been lucky enough to never before encounter such a person or group of persons that aspired to higher office for anything other than personal feelings of a need to serve the public.

mactastic
Oct 15, 2004, 11:16 PM
I think for 200+ years we'd simply been lucky enough to never before encounter such a person or group of persons that aspired to higher office for anything other than personal feelings of a need to serve the public.

Even Nixon? ;)

pseudobrit
Oct 15, 2004, 11:33 PM
Even Nixon? ;)

I'd trade Bush for Nixon in a hummingbird's heartbeat.

mactastic
Oct 15, 2004, 11:39 PM
I'd trade Bush for Nixon in a hummingbird's heartbeat.

Oy... now that's a sad day.