THERE’S SURELY NO DOUBT that British Petroleum PLC (BP) will bear the brunt of the costs involved in cleaning up from the disastrous Gulf of Mexico blowout.

However, it’s not at all clear as to the extent of BP’s liability, particularly if it turns out that its deep-water drilling procedures had not only been approved by regulators but were those followed by other oil industry players.

And one thing that’s pretty clear to us is that courts are unlikely to agree with President Barack Obama’s suggestion that BP should be on the hook for profits and wages lost in the industry as a result of the six-month drilling moratorium ordered by his administration.

Now, almost two months since the explosion and fire that took 11 lives and led to the sinking of Deepwater Horizon, we still know precious little about what happened.

In fact, all we really know is that a multi-million-dollar apparatus designed to prevent blowouts failed to do its job.

Hopefully, the public will eventually get a few facts that we see as essential in deciding how much blame should be placed on others than BP.

Among the facts we’d like to see provided:

• How many (if any) blowouts were successfully dealt with by blowout preventers of the type used by the BP rig?

• If there had been previous successes, were they at wells as deep as this one?

• What sort of information did the regulator demand, and BP provide, concerning the risk of such a disastrous blowout?

• How much information was available concerning the pressures involved and the presence of methane before the drill reaches such reservoirs?

• If, in the case of exploratory drilling, little is known about pressures to be dealt with, would safety margins not be vastly increased by tapping the undersea reservoir with a small pipe?

• If it’s true that pressures increase along with the depth being drilled, what does the Gulf of Mexico disaster tell us about the risks of deep-water drilling off Canada’s coasts?

Although we were told recently that a Canadian regulator has tightened its rules in the wake of the Gulf of Mexico catastrophe, it appears that a Chevron group, CVX.N, is going ahead with plans to drill far deeper in the Orphan basin off Newfoundland.

The Canada-Newfoundland and Labrador Offshore Petroleum Board said Chevron will have to provide test results for its blowout preventer and its activation systems for the Lona O-55 exploratory well, which began drilling on May 10.

“In light of the situation unfolding in the Gulf of Mexico and heightened public concern over drilling operations currently under way in the Newfoundland and Labrador Offshore Area, the C-NLOPB has taken ... measures for overseeing well operations at Chevron’s Lona O-55 well,” a board statement said.

Along with other measures, Chevron’s drill ship will also face more frequent audits and inspections and regulators will ensure that safety systems are functioning before the drilling reaches its planned target.

But the well is being drilled in water 2,600 metres deep in the basin that’s 430 kilometers northeast of St. John’s.

By comparison, the BP well is under 1,500 metres of water just 68 kilometers offshore.

Apart from the issue of contributing negligence on the part of regulators and the global oil industry, there may be another good reason for critics not to place all blame on BP.

The fact is that by the end of last week BP’s stock had lost half its value and was still plummeting, raising speculation that the firm would not only have to bow to U.S. demands that it not give stockholders a dividend but might also have to file for bankruptcy.

BP officials have dismissed talk that it might seek Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection in the U.S., saying it still had “significant capacity and flexibility in dealing with the cost of responding to the incident, the environmental remediation and the payment of legitimate claims.”

As yet, there’s no sign the company is about to run out of cash or lose its ability to borrow money, as Enron Corp. did in the weeks before its bankruptcy filing in 2001. But BP is selfinsured, so it doesn’t have a large insurance policy to back up its mounting spill-related liabilities.

However, not all of the cost will rest on BP’s shoulders. The Woodlandsbased Anadarko Petroleum has a 25 percent stake in the project and Mitsui USA has 10 percent. BP has paid for most of the cleanup costs so far but is expected to ask its partners to cover their share soon.

By law, the company is responsible for paying all the costs to stop the leak and clean the oil off the shore, and BP has said it will pay “all reasonable claims,” but has been vague on just what “reasonable” means.

As for whether BP should pay for the government-imposed moratorium, it was not just BP that fostered a cozy relationship with government regulators that led to the lax oversight and drilling rules that are now under attack.