—showing that they've obviously given thoughtful consideration to this. We're proposing this amendment because in the case of unconventional oil and gas development, which includes offshore development, in each situation you have a different circumstance. We're now moving towards the potential for offshore development in the Arctic. There have been debates about whether or not you need the back-up well immediately. There's the issue of recovery under ice.
We think that what we're proposing is very reasonable, which is that for each application there should be a specific individual assessment. That's not to say in all circumstances it would always vary, but it would give the NEB the opportunity to require the proponent—again it's a private proponent—that is going to be putting at risk public resources to show cause that the liability that's assessed under the legislation is fair and reasonable and that there are no specific circumstances. This gives the power to the National Energy Board to vary that if there are specific circumstances where the operation would be more risky.