Here's what BP said in its submission to the NEB in March:
As will be discussed in greater detail below, for both technological and operational reasons, continuance of the SSRW capability is not required and is problematical for BP and other operators, and may well impede further exploration in the Beaufort Sea.That was in March. Of course, in April, BP's operations in the Gulf of Mexico have initiated the worst environmental disaster in the United States since the Exxon Valdez. Is "goal-oriented regulation", which is the NEB's policy in dealing with safety and the environment, right for Canada? Where the goal is to avoid environmental disasters, does "goal-oriented" regulation (i.e. set the goal and let industry decide what needs to be done to achieve the goal) do any good?
BP is advocating that the policy be changed by eliminating the requirement for same season relief well capability, and any time-of-year drilling restrictions associated with that policy. In BP's view, consistent with the on-going development of goal-oriented regulation, the Board should utilize a series of goals and objectives to enhance safety and protection of the environment.
For its part, Conoco Phillips wrote to the NEB on Monday to suggest that the hearing process be put on hold pending the investigation of the BP disaster: Conoco Phillips to NEB.
oil exploration,by corperations ,un like exploration by indeviduals is untouchable in that the corporation can out live the indevidual.thus keeping the pay check going for all parties involved.when we examin the ifastructure of oil and it's use we will see we are interwoven into the problem so deeply we can not escape.the very machine i am using to communicate this message is dependant on oil for it's existance.government has no virgen properties to offer it's peoples because of oil and the dependancie on oil,so my point is simply,there is no one without sin to cast the first stone.
ReplyDelete