Over two months later it appears that the BP oil disaster in the Gulf of Mexico may be entering a new phase, a phase that hopefully will result in the most success to date in capping the tragic flow of oil into the ocean. While the situation remains precarious and the clean up task still looms large the future of oil shore drilling remains in the balance. Public opinion at present would suggest that some type of changes are desperately needed, whether this will result in a temporary moratorium on deep-water drilling remains to be seen. The Obama administration are anxiously seeking another opportunity to have a legal precedent restrict deep-water drilling after failing on two recent attempts. The hope is that revised evidence that stresses safety concerns coupled with some subtle rewording may result in a temporary freeze allowing the industry to be properly evaluated and changed as needed.

While the legal wranglings look set to continue the current situation continues to worsen by the day. Meanwhile the proponents and opponents of the case are split along the lines you might anticipate; industry experts proclaiming the demands to be unreasonable and too radical while environmental groups applaud the moves and call them long overdue.

The department of the interior have renewed optimism that the case will be supported as new evidence about how the industry can not manage a deep-water blowout and subsequent oil spill is growing in real time as the BP situation continues to develop. One of the very few bright spots with the current disaster is that it may help cement the belief that spill response capacity is not suitable and add gravity to the request to suspend such operations.  The initial case wanted to restrict any rigs drilling at a depth of greater than 500 feet while the newest revision seeks to review any free floating drilling rigs.  As the landscape keeps changing so does the scope of the proposed restrictions. The industry of course is fearful that the reaction may be overcompensating for the current event, but can your really overcompensate for the worst US environmental disaster in history? That hardly seems possible.

In the meantime the difficult dance between energy/economic needs seeks to be offset by creating a blueprint for a process that better protects the environment. Its almost as if this courtroom drama is scheduled to become a large and very publicized metaphor for the entire ebb and flow of the environmental movement. It’s a theme I find myself returning to -objectors say the costs are too high in a fiscal sense, while activists say there is no greater cost than the result of doing nothing. This is one battle that apathy must not win – the dismay of millions who have watched the escalating tragedy in the Gulf of Mexico must not return to what they were doing before. The easy protest vote seems to be ‘boycott BP’ but the fundamental problems run so much deeper. This is not just an issue with BP – this is an issue with safety and planning, reward versus risk. It’s an issue in which we each hold vested interest.