Posted on 05/08/2010 5:35:55 PM PDT by John Semmens
In the aftermath of one of the worst off-shore oil spills, the revelation that British Petroleum (BP) was granted a waiver of the requirement that an environmental impact study be performed prior to drilling by the Obama Administration has raised questions.
Jon Carson, Chief of Staff at the White House Council on Environmental Quality, argued that “given BP’s prior support for the most environmentally-conscious President this nation has ever had, the waiver seemed warranted. We want to establish incentives for firms that cooperate with Administration policy. Excusing BP from having to undertake a costly and time-consuming study looked like a ‘no brainer’ to us.”
Whether an environmental impact study would’ve uncovered information that could’ve averted the spill is unknown. BP’s “prior support” appears to have consisted of donations to Obama’s campaign for president.
(Excerpt) Read more at azconserv1.wordpress.com ...
How about like safety requirements?
Was that cool too?
I doubt an “environmental study” would have made a damn bit of difference in this case.
isn't that called payola and isn't it illegal?
Isn't it crazy that you can donate money to a candidate, and then they can help you after the election?
No law against it.
So much for “keeping our boot on the neck of BP”, no??
Most certainly a “no brainer” eh John. Thanks for the chuckle.
Prior support of this type will always pay big dividends. Gangster government, Crony Capitalism, it is all the same to this crew.
I believe the study would have required a contingency plan for a blowout.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.