The P&I Column in the last edition of Shipping Regulations and Guidance focused on the steady and consistent decline in oil pollution in recent decades, with figures that reached a record low in 2009. By an unhappy coincidence, just as it went to press, the Deepwater Horizon suffered an explosion in the Gulf of Mexico that has led to extensive and continuing pollution. In the aftermath of this incident, which seems to have been caused by a well blowout, P&I Clubs have been working in conjunction with shipowners to emphasise the difference between offshore units and ships. The Deepwater Horizon incident arose in the course of exploration activity and not from the carriage of oil. This is a vital distinction. Production has increasingly turned to more challenging environments as the world supply of easy oil dwindles. However, once it has been extracted, the transport of oil is no more risky than it has been for the last decade. Once loaded on the ship, it makes no difference whether the cargo has been extracted from a depth of 100 metres or 1500 metres. The continuing and seemingly endless flow of oil is making the aftermath particularly painful for both BP and the White House. This would not happen with a ship related accident, where the quantity of oil is finite. It is rare for a ship to lose its entire cargo but, if this should happen, it will be over fairly quickly and everyone will know how much has been spilled into the environment. In spite of these clear differences between the two industries, shipowners and their P&I Clubs will inevitably get caught in the political fall out. The International Group of P&I Associations was given the opportunity to testify before the House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure at the beginning of June. The Democratic Party leadership in both the House and the Senate have instructed their committee chairmen to have legislation ready to report out of committee by the 4 July recess. This leaves little tim