Talk:Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation and Enforcement

Requested rationale

The majority of this article is past and recent criticism. I strongly suggest that more weight be given to neutral facts about the bureau and that the criticism section be lessened in extent. Sincerely, Blurpeace 04:30, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Yeah good luck with that

Normally I would agree but given the terrible performance of this agency for nearly two decades I pity the fool that has to write the positive spin for this probably the most dysfunctional agency in government (even makes the FAA, FDA, ATF, SEC, and EPA look efficient and serving the public interest). I think even the agencys own PR people would struggle. The geopolitics of fossil fuels are very complex and granted this agency is where the rubber meets the road for the US public interest but if ever there was a government agency that deserved an EPIC FAIL section (as opposed to a simple criticism section) the former MMS is it. 24.56.37.14 (talk) 00:05, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Not accurate to just replace MMS with BOEMRE

BOEMRE is NOT simply MMS with a new acronym. Many changes have been made in structure and management. Authority has expanded radically. Oversight is way more intense. Saying things like BOEMRE has had much scandal just is not correct. I believe that BOEMRE should have its own unique page and that this highly (correctly) critical page should be reverted back to addressing the now defunct MMS agency. Rengewwj (talk) 16:59, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

removing POV tag with no active discussion per Template:POV

I've removed an old neutrality tag from this page that appears to have no active discussion per the instructions at Template:POV:

This template is not meant to be a permanent resident on any article. Remove this template whenever:

1. There is consensus on the talkpage or the NPOV Noticeboard that the issue has been resolved
2. It is not clear what the neutrality issue is, and no satisfactory explanation has been given
3. In the absence of any discussion, or if the discussion has become dormant.

Since there's no evidence of ongoing discussion, I'm removing the tag for now. If discussion is continuing and I've failed to see it, however, please feel free to restore the template and continue to address the issues. Thanks to everybody working on this one! -- Khazar2 (talk) 12:27, 9 July 2013 (UTC)