EPA board rejects appeal of Arctic air permit for Shell exploratory drilling ship, page 1

privacy

Pages:
ATS Members have flagged this thread 6 times

Topic started on 12-1-2012 @ 06:47 PM by Corruption Exposed

EPA board rejects appeal of Arctic air permit for Shell exploratory drilling ship

www.startribune.com

Royal Dutch Shell has cleared another roadblock in its quest to drill exploratory wells in Arctic waters.

The Environmental Protection Agency's Appeals Board on Thursday rejected challenges to an air permit the agency granted for Shell's drill ship in the Chukchi (CHUK-CHEE) Sea.

A Shell subsidiary hopes to drill up to three exploratory wells in the Chukchi during the open water season next summer.

Shell Alaska spokesman Curtis Smith says in a company statement that the decision means the company for the first time has usable air permits that will allow the drill ship, the Noble Dis

(visit the link for the full news article)

reply posted on 12-1-2012 @ 06:47 PM by Corruption Exposed

Oil drilling in the article is just a bad idea. The agencies who monitor and regulate this industry are as corrupt as you can get. Even if the people speak out against it they their appeals get rejected.

You would think we would have learned our lesson by now instead we will be getting our fuels from the arctic now. It's as if there are no boundaries.

I guess the Exon Valdez and BP gulf spill weren't enough

www.startribune.com
(visit the link for the full news article)

reply posted on 12-1-2012 @ 06:55 PM by liejunkie01

Well,

Unfortunately I am not well off......

I drive a Neon and have to fill the tank up every day to get to work and back.......................

Until some tree hugger gets off of their pedestal and comes up with a better more economical way to get me to work and back every day, I am all for drilling where ever there may be oil.......

But that is just my opinion on the matter..........

Everybody wants this and that, all I want is to be able to afford to get to work and back, and maybe feed my family while I am at it.

reply posted on 12-1-2012 @ 08:06 PM by Aloysius the Gaul

Originally posted by Corruption Exposed

You would think we would have learned our lesson by now instead we will be getting our fuels from the arctic now.

What do you mean "now"?? en.wikipedia.org...

reply posted on 13-1-2012 @ 06:14 AM by Corruption Exposed

reply posted on 13-1-2012 @ 06:19 AM by Mikehawk

reply posted on 13-1-2012 @ 06:43 AM by charles1952

Dear Corruption Exposed,

I'm a little unclear on something. Did you mean this particular decision was bad, or that EPA as a whole was corrupt and in the pocket of industry?

The reason I'm asking is because I thought industry was always screaming at EPA, calling for them to be shut down, accusing them of stifling employment, etc.

Thank you in advance for an explanation.

With respect,
Charles1952

reply posted on 13-1-2012 @ 06:44 AM by MrEcho

reply posted on 13-1-2012 @ 07:31 AM by Corruption Exposed

reply to post by charles1952

My observations indicate that the EPA and the industry are both corrupt. In my opinion, the industry is much worse than the EPA. The EPA has a shoddy track record and should not be completely trusted.

In this specific incident ai believe the EPA was influenced in making thei decision. Any organization who truly cares about nature and our well being would never have given the go ahead for arctic drilling.

I'm not sure it that answers your question but I hope it helps.

reply posted on 13-1-2012 @ 08:18 AM by charles1952

reply to post by Corruption Exposed

Dear Corruption Exposed,

Thank you, it does help.

Concerning the influence brought to bear on the EPA. What do you think the likelihood is that the influence came from the White House, the purpose being to negate some of the "anti-jobs" flak they're receiving over the Keystone pipeline affair?

With respect,
Charles1952

reply posted on 13-1-2012 @ 08:35 AM by Eurisko2012

reply to post by Corruption Exposed

The EPA should be abolished.

Newt blasted the EPA during the last presidential debate.

The EPA is out of control.

reply posted on 13-1-2012 @ 08:35 AM by Corruption Exposed

reply to post by charles1952

You make a good point. It's probable that most the influence came from the WH, and it's also possible it was due to job creation. My guess is that it was politically and financially motivated and jobs were part of the equation. Of course this is only speculation on my behalf as I have no proof to back up these claims.

My concern is the disregard for the environment from the very agencies who are there to protect it, which makes me believe it's all about the money.

reply posted on 13-1-2012 @ 08:38 AM by Corruption Exposed

reply to post by Eurisko2012

I wonder what Newt's motivation was to blast them. It was most likely done in the intention for more votes. He doesn't need money as the Israeli lobbyists already have him well funded.

reply posted on 13-1-2012 @ 08:52 AM by Eurisko2012

Originally posted by Corruption Exposed
reply to post by Eurisko2012

I wonder what Newt's motivation was to blast them. It was most likely done in the intention for more votes. He doesn't need money as the Israeli lobbyists already have him well funded.

The EPA is surrounded by a reality distortion field.