Oil companies gave sex, drinks, gifts to federal overseers

Interior Department officials, while handling billions of dollars in oil and gas royalty payments, engaged in illicit sex with industry employees and accepted meals, drinks, ski junkets and golf outings from major oil companies, internal investigators reported Wednesday. Full Story »

Posted by Mike LaBonte
Tags Help
Editorial Help
Posted by: Posted by Mike LaBonte - Sep 11, 2008 - 7:20 AM PDT
Edit Lock: This story can be edited

Reviews

Show All | Notes | Comments | Quotes | Links
Kaizar Campwala
3.2
by Kaizar Campwala - Oct. 1, 2008

Mostly based on a report, this piece lacks a response from the Interior Department, and a better sense of the role of the administration in allowing these kinds of things to happen.

See Full Review » (12 answers)
Mike LaBonte
3.4
by Mike LaBonte - Oct. 1, 2008

Mainly sourced from government reports, but also has congressional and non-profit viewpoints. Contains important information. No viewpoint from the accused, but it is no surprise that they did not respond. The unfortunate failure of balance is that there is no Republican viewpoint at all, unless the internal report was produced by some Republicans.

See Full Review » (11 answers)
Denise Clendening
4.2
by Denise Clendening - Oct. 1, 2008

McClatchy provides links to some of the results of the investigation that took two years, interviewed 233 witnesses and covered 470,000 pages of documents and emails. (http://www.doioig.gov/) for the Office of Inspector General to read 3 reports on the investigation. The findings are embarrassing and since employees may still be dismissed it would be difficult to get an opinion from the MMS. A follow up story on what other government departments work with energy companies and if they may be under investigation would be interesting.

See Full Review » (13 answers)
Francis Lilly
4.1
by Francis Lilly - Oct. 1, 2008

It is good journalism from the standpoit that it is reporting "facts" gathered by an investigatiing committe, most likly the key members of which were appointed by the administration in power. Balance can only be presented by stating attempts to obtain input from the other side, who in this case do not politically "defend" the actions nor wish to amplify public awareness in the political year. Accuracy falls on the report contents being reported as a breaking news item. More than one report is cited. Corporate spokespersons were contacted regarding their participation (gifts etc.). The fact that most comments are from Democrats speaks to the "Hot Potato" syndrome. Neither Republicans nor complicit corporation Reps are going to ... More »

(comment refers to full article) More »

See Full Review » (12 answers)
Steve Corenflos
3.8
by Steve Corenflos - Oct. 1, 2008

This is a one-sided presentation of the story, with little to no 'defense' or rebuttal from the other side. That said the evidence compiled over two years into the report is pretty damning. This should be on the front page of every newspaper and the top story of every news broadcast in the country. America should be outraged. In keeping with tradition, this will probably amount to a blip or less on the press-coverage radar.

See Full Review » (7 answers)
Jack Dinkmeyer
3.9
by Jack Dinkmeyer - Oct. 1, 2008

Party time! Broads, bosoms, and fun in the mile-high city! Quoting the article: "The reports said that the RIK unit's former Denver office director, Gregory Smith, encouraged his staff to develop close relationships with oil company officials so they could learn techniques for marketing the oil." Given the fact that RIK personnel were also selling for the industry they're supposed to regulate, they really needed those marketing skills. The really sad part about this scandal is that again there are no consequencies for corruption, which is why most RIK miscreants have not a shred of remorse about what they did.

See Full Review » (13 answers)

Comments on this story Help (BETA)

NT Rating | My Rating

Ratings

3.8

Good
from 6 reviews (50% confidence)
Quality
3.7
Facts
4.0
Fairness
3.0
Information
4.2
Sourcing
4.3
Style
3.6
Accuracy
4.0
Balance
3.2
Context
3.5
Popularity
3.8
Recommendation
4.0
Credibility
3.8
# Reviews
3.0
# Views
4.2
# Likes
1.0
# Emails
1.0
More
How our ratings work »
(See these related stories.)

Links Help

No links yet. Please review this story to add some!