Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I get a queasiness with respect to the regulatory framework, which, as you have pointed out, Mr. Stewart, is not sufficiently comprehensive along the lines of those of the United States, Norway, and others. We don't have to explore that at the moment, other than to say that even with the stringent regimes in place, we have that terrible catastrophe in the gulf.
In talking about response, Mr. Herring, you talk about 200,000 feet of boom in the United States. They're talking miles and miles of boom. This situation is just running rampant. The bottom line on all of this is that from my perspective, the public is looking for us to make the right decisions on their behalf. In retrospect, would it be your position that when drilling is allowed at the outset, the legislative and response regimes should provide for the simultaneous development of a relief drilling rig so that if blowout preventers did not work--and they haven't worked in spite of that regime in the United States--there would always be a parallel simultaneous fail-safe in place?
In terms of cost, in the present situation the costs are abhorrently out of perspective from what would have been projected before the gulf experience took place. My question is whether you would accept a simultaneous relief well after a decision has been made to allow drilling in the first place as an appropriate governmental first step.
Maybe Mr. Herring or anybody could answer that.