We know that the pressures and the factors that get involved do not produce a linear graph. It goes up exponentially the deeper you get. Without knowing what the mechanical and procedural failure was in the gulf, was it not inherently risky to approve? If some equipment that had failed in the gulf--equipment that everyone believed to be safe before the gulf spill--was also being employed by Chevron, was that not a risky decision that could have had some implications?
On November 2nd, 2010. See this statement in context.