The report was rewritten to favor the moratorium, the Interior inspector general says. IG: W.H. skewed drill-ban report

The White House rewrote crucial sections of an Interior Department report to suggest an independent group of scientists and engineers supported a six-month ban on offshore oil drilling, the Interior inspector general says in a new report.

In the wee hours of the morning of May 27, a staff member to White House energy adviser Carol Browner sent two edited versions of the department report’s executive summary back to Interior. The language had been changed to insinuate the seven-member panel of outside experts – who reviewed a draft of various safety recommendations – endorsed the moratorium, according to the IG report obtained by POLITICO.


“The White House edit of the original DOI draft executive summary led to the implication that the moratorium recommendation had been peer-reviewed by the experts,” the IG report states, without judgment on whether the change was an intentional attempt to mislead the public.

The six-month ban on offshore drilling installed in the wake of the Gulf of Mexico oil spill became a major political issue over the summer, as Gulf State lawmakers and industry groups charged the White House with unfairly threatening thousands of jobs. House Republicans have said they plan on investigating the circumstances surrounding the moratorium when they take power next year.

Rep. Bill Cassidy (R-La.) and several other Gulf State members of Congress asked the Interior IG to investigate the moratorium and the peer review claim.

"The inspector general's finding that the blanket-drilling moratorium was driven by politics and not by science is bitter news for families who, because of it, lost their jobs, savings, and way of life,” Cassidy said Tuesday. “Candidate Obama promised that he would guided by science, not ideology. If that were true, at least 12,000 jobs and 1.8 billion dollars of economic activity would have been saved on the Gulf Coast.”

Interior spokeswoman Kendra Barkoff said the changes were part of the normal editing and consulting process.

“There was no intent to mislead the public,” Barkoff said in a statement to POLITICO. “The decision to impose a temporary moratorium on deepwater drilling was made by the secretary, following consultation with colleagues including the White House.”

A White House official said the report "only reinforces that there was no wrongdoing," noting that three experts the IG interviewed and included in the report "agreed that it was a misunderstanding."

Steve Black, energy counselor to Interior Secretary Ken Salazar, was the department’s point man for the safety report, which Obama requested to review deepwater drilling practices and make recommendations for improvements.

On May 26, one day before the report was released, Black said he was directed to “begin working closely with a member of Carol Browner’s staff at the White House to draft the executive summary to include the moratorium.”

According to Black, Browner’s staff drafted some of the text to be included in the executive summary because she was concerned the document from Interior did not summarize the recommendations and associated timetables well enough.

“At 2:13 a.m. on May 27, 2010, Browner’s staff member sent an e-mail back to Black that contained two versions of the executive summary,” the IG report states. “Both versions sent by the staff member contained significant edits to DOI’s draft executive summary but were very similar to each other.

“Both versions, however, revised and re-ordered the executive summary, placing the peer review language immediately following the moratorium recommendation causing the distinction between the secretary’s moratorium recommendation – which had not been peer-reviewed – and the recommendations contained in the 30-Day Report – which had been peer-reviewed – to become effectively lost.”

Interior’s draft safety report discussed peer review on the second page, following a summary list of safety recommendations. As completed and eventually released, the suggestion of a moratorium immediately precedes the discussion of peer review.

Black said he didn’t have any issues with the White House edit; he and his staffer both told the IG it never occurred to them that an objective reader would conclude that peer reviewers had supported the six-month moratorium.

Nevertheless, Interior apologized to the peer reviewers in early June after some of them complained they were used to support the controversial ban. Salazar also held a conference call with the peer reviewers and met personally with some of them.

“As the report makes clear, the misunderstanding with the reviewers was resolved with the June 3rd letter and a subsequent conference call with the experts we consulted,” Barkoff said.

Robin Bravender contributed to this report.