Is deepwater drilling "100% safe?" asks Rep. Gonzalez from Texas. Three of the four executives admit the undeniable fact–"no"–except for John Watson from Chevron. Calling his company’s drilling procedures "safe", Watson refuses to engage with Rep. Gonzalez, declining to answer yes or no.
Several Democratic members have echoed this type of questioning–getting the executives to admit that drilling is "inherently risky". It’s unclear, however, what the end goal of this question is. Obviously drilling is inherently risky, but that fact in and of itself does not warrant a moratorium or an absolute prohibition on the activity.
All commercial activities carry risk. Trading financial instruments, for example, is also inherently risky, as we’ve seen in this recent recession or multiple other economic downturns that have resulted from bubbles being "burst". But we never consider a moratorium on trading after an economic crisis.
The question here should not be, "Is drilling inherently risky?", but rather "Given the risks of drilling, is it worth the potential benefits?" In the sense that we think financial trading, with smart, strong regulation, can be beneficial for society, the debate we should be having is over what kind of regulation in drilling is necessary to realign the risks so that there is a net benefit for society. And whether, if regulation alone cannot mitigate the risks, drilling is something we want to prohibit altogether. Or at least continuously restrict while the fits-and-starts development of cleaner alternatives can finally be speeded up.