Although the near-term risk of another similar accident is low, the impact would be catastrophic, especially as for all intents and purposes no credible plans for addressing such accidents exist (Congressional findings revealed that the accident response plans of the major oil companies were extraordinarily similar and the experience has revealed that the BP plan was not effective). Nonetheless, as a practical alternative to the moratorium, my view is that perhaps the other companies could be permitted to resume operations for a provisional 6-12-month period. Afterward, they would be expected to produce concrete plans for dealing with accidents similar to the current one along with reliable data showing that the plan's have a good chance of succeeding. An independent panel of leading scientists and engineers would need to evaluate those plans. During the review, the companies could continue to operate in the deepwaters. Failure to produce such plans within the 6-12-month timeframe would lead to an immediate suspension of deepwater operations for the firm(s) failing to provide the plans. Also, were the scientific panel to determine that the plan was not likely to be effective, deepwater operations for the firm(s) in question would also be terminated immediately and suspended until the defects were satisfactorily remedied.
Clearly, my suggestion would not go as far as the companies, contractors and their employees might prefer. At the same time, it would leave open the low probability of another catastrophic accident. Nevertheless, it would probably offer a reasonable middle ground by which the companies/contractors/employees could operate and put in place a process that would ensure that the issues that contributed to a lack of effective response to the present accident would be remedied.
Whether the Obama Administration and/or oil companies/contractors would be willing to accept such a compromise would remain to be seen. To my knowledge, no one has made such a suggestion.
