. .

i have now fallen into the bad habit of giving abbreviations for longer words, but cfp is the chemical safety board for various types of investigations. i think it is far from clear as to whether they have a strong claim to make the investigation. they have the knowledge they were not sure they had a jurisdiction to do the investigation. that is one reason i find it surprising that they're so aggressive of pushing a position and risking a delay.

>> we also know there has been an election that is going to bring around a vastly changed congress in january. i want to ask you about getting the resources you need to hire more inspectors. if that legislation does not pass, what does that mean for your agency? >> it is too early to say common but it would mean if the legislation does not pass we would like the organic statutory foundation for the functions we carry out. right now our agency is supported only by secretary order rather than statute, but

more importantly, that is an arcane legal issue. what is important to us is that we have the resources we need to carry out our mission and to do our job. i think what everyone has agreed on in the wake of deepwater horizon and the reviews of our agency is that our agency has never had adequate resources to do its job. there is an agreement between democrats and republicans. it contained a request for $100 million additional dollars to build upon the number of inspectors and engineers we have and to add various other kinds of the equipment and manpower to do the important tasks we have. i am very hopeful that even with what happened in the last week and even with the emphasis on

deficit reduction and budget cutting that that kind of consensus on the need for additional resources will survive and we will continue to have that pushed through, because the fact is even for those people who are pro- industry and pro-drilling, i have heard they want us to have resources. if we do not have the resources, then people who want us to be granting permits are going to be disappointed as well as other people. it is lose lose if we do not get the resources. it is a win win if we do. >> what is the status of the shallow water and deep water permiting process now? >> it is a very small number. it is fewer than half a dozen.

i believe it is four or five applications that have been filed. all of the applications have to comply with new requirements established over the last couple months, and that will inevitably be a more time consuming process. we know there is a lot of interest in getting these processed, but we have a job to do in making sure the new applications comply with new rules and regulations, so we are going to process them as expeditiously as weekend, but we need -to make sure they are compliant. >> what is it in the new regulations that makes it a time consuming? isn't the work the oil companies have to do to prepare the president's -- the permits? >> the oil and gas companies do have to do additional work.

i asked the question. how long does it take you. they confirmed there is additional work. even though the saudis additional rules way back in may when they saw the report with -- even though they saw these additional rules fact in may when they saw the report, that even though they have been doing some of the work since then, they are still not significantly done, so there is a significant amount of work the company must do. they are expediting the process and doing that work. there are steps we have to take. we have to make sure certification is in good order. we have to confirm their seamen thing and casing proposals but we did not initially require and therefore did not have to review. we are doing the best we possibly can with processing

shallow water drilling. we have used the resources. we transferred some manpower from some smaller regions in alaska and the pacific, but more importantly, we transferred within approximately 20 additional people so we now have more robust groups of people who are reviewing applications than before, but there is still a lot of work to be done. >> regarding the shower water permit, it seems like the number got to about 12 or 13 approved, but it stayed pretty flat. there were about 20 applications that had been sent back. what is the hold oup?

>> i think it is more that a number of these applications are being taken back because they did not contain the information required. there is a small number of applications that are true leave pending. i think the number is three or four. if we get an incomplete applications, we have no choice but to kick them back to the company. the only applications currently on our plate for three or four. what i was told a couple days ago by our staff is that they thought it would not be long before a small number of additional applications would be refiled, information would be complete, and we would be able to push for the approval of those permits. it is a back-and-forth process. if information is missing, we cannot say yes, we approve this, so we have to send it back and

additional information will be added. >> one thing we were hearing when people were discussing delays in the shower -- the shallow water permits was but a hold of seem to be around the worst case scenarios, and i am wondering if it is true that there is a greater demand for precision and perhaps better planning on the worst case scenario. >> the worst case scenario looks at what happens if there is a blowout of a well. how many thousands or hundreds of thousands of barrels of oil may be spilled in the case of a so-called worst-case discharge, and this was a concept that had been in our processing before but because of deepwater horizon, we sharpened it and

imposed additional requirements on the company, and the truth is i think there was some legitimate confusion in terms of what we wanted, and because we were applying it in a slightly different way, there was lack of certainty even among our own people, so we had a series of discussions with shallow water drillers and tried to clarify what we meant and what we were looking for. we did that through a series of discussions, a series of meetings, and a series of questions we put out to the industry to try to clarify some of the ambiguities, so i think we made a lot of progress. i think we learned a lot and the companies have a much better job of what we are looking for, and

i think we are hopeful but they do understand it common and that we will be able to move -- understand it and that we will be able to move swiftly. >> one of the requirements -- the method by which you did some emergency basis -- there has been a push back in that process, and a couple weeks ago, they essentially took back one of those notices saying it should be preceded by a public comment and public notice. what does that mean for your ability to impose new regulations swiftly without having to go through the lengthy process? are your hands tied? >> it does create complications. it is one decision by one judge,

and the impact of that decision is not great, because we have moved forward and appropriated most of the requirements. we have not lost very much of anything from the process common -- from the process, but we have a limited number of tools, a limited number of things we can do to enhance safety and majeure offshore drilling exploration production takes place in a safe environment in a responsible way. to go through an entire formal rulemaking process and take many months if not years, and given we are operating in a dynamic environment, we are going to be learning about what caused deep water horizon, and we want to be able to act in a way the public expects us to act.

it is unfortunate there is something of a cloud in the ways in which we can use some of the tools in our toolbox. we are going to move forward. we are not in the face of one court decision going to stop using them because we need to. we cannot afford to go through the entire rulemaking process for every enhancement of safety regulations. >> we're seeing this conversation and you might be thinking, could it happen again. given what you just talked about and this understanding the industry has had to come through, what is the chance that the bp oil spill could happen again? >> the percentage is not zero. i think for 40 years the last

significant spill we had was 1969 in santa barbara, and i think because there had not been an event of that kind since then, people grow overly confident. regulators and companies grew complacent, and they did not it mitt it could happen. -- did not admit it could happen. that has changed. it has happened with devastating impact the human life and potentially to the environment, so that is what drives us to look into ways in which we can raise the bar on the standards imposed so we can drive down the risk this will happen again and drive it down to the point where we can feel comfortable and confident that it can proceed in a relatively risk-free way.

>> isn't the nature of what you're doing that it is always going to be 5050? -- 50/50? >> there are 4000 holes dug in the gulf. there was one blowout. those are not 50/50 odds. those are low odds. even though it might only happened once, it could have enormous consequences, and that is why we are legitimately concerned about driving down their risk it could happen again. is it possible it could happen again? absolutely. when you have an unknown reservoirs', you have the exploratory drilling, and you have human beings involved. there is a chance something could go bad.

i think what we will learn is that what happened in deepwater horizon was a perfect storm of mechanical and human error, so the risk of that happening again is not great, but it exists, so we need to do everything we possibly can to diminish the chances. >> just to follow upon that, there is a lot of criticism about the way various government agencies responded to the crisis, criticism about bp, criticism about not knowing who was in charge. given all that and that you are still assimilating all that, how would things be different if there were a special? how would the response on the government side compared to what happened on april 20?

>> i think a lot was learned during the response. a fairly complex but well- functioning mechanism was set up that evolves from the interior. it involves the coast guard and bp, so by all accounts, things were not terribly well-organized on day one, but that has changed, and that has changed fairly dramatically so you have all entities in working together and putting their minds and their muscles together to develop a coordinated effort. i think one thing we need to be mindful of is trying to capture that learning and make sure the mistakes made and the good things that were done are memorialized and preserved so if we have another still, we can

reassemble this mechanism and move forward. we are in a very different position today than we were april 20 in the sense that industry was unprepared for of blowout. they did not have containment equipment. they did not have the resources they did not have the technical knowledge. that exists to a significant degree, both in the private sector and also the government, and the e equipment deficit is being addressed with a corporation designed to develop equipment that would be capable of being applied to another deep water still, so we are in a different place where we do have the mechanisms that exist that did not exist before. my greater concern is not that

something happens in a month when those mechanisms in place, but how we keep those ready to go if it was to happen a year from now or three years from now or five years from now. i think that is always a challenge. what i worry about is the muscles are not turned out to do that kind of response so five years down the road you're not in as good a place. >> just to follow up common -- to follow up, the private sector prepared for a spill in alaska, and there continues to be concern in the arctic ocean common and and i wanted to find out -- arctic ocean, and i wanted to find out what is going

on to make sure drilling is safe in the arctic because of how complicated is to clean up after a spill. these seem to be big concerns among some environmental groups, and i ask that in the bane of the disaster. what can one do with the arctic, and what are the challenges present, and are you confident? >> those are real concerns. there are different situations in the arctic than in the gulf, and i spend a lot of canon

meeting with representatives of organizations who have expressed those concerns to us. we also met with the oil companies who have made major efforts to show they are doing everything possible to make trilling as safe and environmentally responsible -- drilling as save and environmentally responsible as possible. how do you deal with this bill in the arctic region with a spill in the arctic, i held a forum to gather information -- how do you deal with a spill in the arctic ocean? i held a forum, and it focused on what are the special challenges that exist when you have far less infrastructure than you do in the gulf, when you have the enormous challenges posed byron region enormous

challenge -- when you have enormous challenges. the nature of the drilling would be different. the fundamental questions we are still grappling with is have we been given adequate answers on spill response, and if not, what additional steps need to betaken to satisfy ourselves that grueling -- drilling in the arctic can take place with a tolerable risk? we're still wrestling with those questions now, but we have not reached a decision. >> given that uncertainty, what is your expectation that we could see some wells drilled? the you expect to see something in the next few years? >> we will be making some decisions in the relatively near

future, so i do not have a decision, but we know we need to resolve this issue, because nobody likes uncertainty, so we need to provide answers so people understand which direction they will go. >> time for one last question. >> i want to ask you about the staff, and i wanted to find out what has happened with your efforts to increase staff, especially in the gulf. i know you went down to do our recruitment tour, and i wondered how that went and what you can do to get people in the public sector these days. >> it was wonderfully successful, and i am thinking of changing jobs. we went to universities last

week, and in response to my appearance, we got well in excess of 100 applications for engineering positions and inspector positions. we had a job announcement more generally that was open for two weeks, and we hadn't in excess of 400 applications for a total of three did we had in excess of 400 applications totalled. to say the response has succeeded our expectations would be of that understanding, so i was incredibly encouraged by the reaction at those schools and the specific reactions we have seen. >> thank you for being on "newsmakers." >> thank you. i appreciate it. >> we are back with our

reporters. let me begin with your impressions from what you heard. >> it was interesting to hear him and acknowledged there is concern about the ability to impose new requirements on the oil industry and the drilling industry they feel they need to move ahead with but may not be able to do so in as quick a fashion. the director said he is not going to be stopped by this legal ruling of the court in louisiana, but the reality is if they are forced to go through a more lengthy process for imposing regulations, that could tie up the process of putting the drilling industry back to work in an environmentally-sound way.

>> what does that mean for the industry and for the communities close to these organizations? what does it mean if they are not put in place quickly? >> the bureau has put in a number through a more standard rule making process, but for folks are in the coast, there are certainly people who have doubts about the industry and its safety, regardless of the statistics, and they may want more reassurance. we understand that, so it is something we hear a lot about the industry, it is something that obama has said. it means the rules are constantly changing and we cannot get a grip on them.

this is going to be a major point of contention going forward. >> one thing i think people are failing to understand, especially from hearing from people in the industry in saying we need to get back to work as soon as possible, is that something profound happened and life is not going to pick up where it was on april 19. i think that is a difficult thing to get used to. i grew up in the gulf coast. all those are places i know, and those are people i know that have been affected, and this is part of what happens when your economy is tethered to an extraction industry, that when things go bad, there is an enormous hit that families and

communities have. the other thing is that in other parts of the world -- i think it was 1988 that the major platform in the north sea's -- in lieu of the -- in the north sea -- it blew up. there was an enormous loss of life. it took a comprehensive review three years to come out with a review of what happened and the regulations. the point is when something of this magnitude happens, perhaps the expectations are a little bit out of sync if you think things are going to go back to the way they were or it is not going to slow down. i think as an economy, it is hard for people to get their minds around, but in other parts of the world, they have got it right. and that is the reality that it takes time.

this is actually a pretty accelerated timetable. >> is that what you are hearing said they expected to be three years or longer? >> not at all. >> they say a lot about wanting to improve safety. that is a model going forward. >> thank you very much. i appreciate it. >> it is harmless if one is making a star of the britney spears or share, but one takes this notion into the national security rome, the lives are at stake, and they will get why is that the dream team and the best and brightest -- get why is that the dream team a