Arctic Oil/Gas Aff Inherency

Download 2.43 Mb.

Page	11/53
Date	19.10.2016
Size	2.43 Mb.
	#4429

1 ... 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 ... 53

Environment

1AC- Biod

Failure to open US Arctic drives drilling to Russia---destroys the environment

Sullivan 12 – Commissioner of Alaska's Department of Natural Resources & Fmr. St. Atty. General

It's time to develop our Arctic resources, Dan Sullivan, Special to CNN, Fri July 20, 2012

http://www.cnn.com/2012/07/20/opinion/sullivan-arctic-drilling/index.html

(CNN) -- The United States is on the verge of an energy renaissance. We need to recognize and seize the opportunity.¶ This renaissance involves domestic production of natural resources ranging from clean renewables to hydrocarbons.¶ In particular, domestic hydrocarbon production -- both oil and gas -- is increasing dramatically, with some experts predicting that the United States could become the largest hydrocarbon producer in the word -- outstripping Saudi Arabia and Russia -- by 2020.¶ Increased domestic production of hydrocarbons is driven by two trends. First, new technology is unlocking unconventional resources such as shale-derived oil and gas. And second, investors and policy makers are recognizing that the U.S. still has an enormous resource base of conventional oil and gas, particularly in Alaska.¶ Federal agencies estimate that Alaska's North Slope and federal waters off Alaska's northern coast contain approximately 40 billion barrels of technically recoverable oil and more than 200 trillion cubic feet of conventional gas.¶ According to the U.S. Geological Survey, this region contains more oil than any comparable region located in the Arctic, including northern Russia.¶ However, the United States is lagging behind its Arctic neighbors in developing these resources. This is unfortunate, because we have some of the highest environmental standards in the world and we should be setting the bar for Arctic development.¶ Developing our Arctic resources will promote our nation's interests in many ways: securing a politically stable, long-term supply of domestic energy; boosting U.S. economic growth and jobs; reducing the federal trade deficit; and strengthening our global leadership on energy issues. Leading academic researchers and economists in Alaska have estimated that oil production from Alaska's outer continental shelf will bring federal revenues of approximately $167 billion over 50 years, and create 55,000 jobs throughout the country.¶ Developing U.S. resources in the Arctic has the added benefit of enhancing global environmental protection.¶ One of the arguments used by Arctic drilling opponents is that "we aren't ready," but it is obvious that no matter what preparations are made, they will argue that it isn't enough.¶ Shell, for example, has spent billions to prepare for drilling in the Arctic this summer, incorporating the lessons learned from the Deepwater Horizon spill in the Gulf of Mexico, state-of-the-art equipment and extensive scientific research. Recently, the Obama administration has publically expressed its confidence in the company's drilling plans.¶ The U.S. has created some of the highest standards in the world for environmental protection. When we delay or disallow responsible resource development, the end result is not to protect the environment, but to drive hydrocarbon investment and production to countries with much lower environmental standards and enforcement capacity.¶ Last year, it was reported that between 5 million and 20 million tons of oil leak in Russia per year. This is equivalent to a Deepwater Horizon blowout about every two months. Russia had an estimated 18,000 oil pipeline ruptures in 2010 -- the figure for the U.S. that year was 341.¶ If we do not pursue responsible development in the Arctic, countries such as Russia -- perhaps even China, which is interested in securing access to Arctic hydrocarbon resources -- will dominate energy production from the Arctic. Such a scenario does not bode well for the global environment.¶ By embracing the opportunities in the Arctic, the United States will show the world that it can be a strong leader in responsible energy development.

Russian drilling triggers Arctic environmental collapse

Heath 12 Julia Heath is a writer for Foreign Policy in Focus, February 15, 2012, “Preventing a Blowout in the Arctic”, http://www.fpif.org/articles/preventing_a_blowout_in_the_arctic

The Russian Record¶ Russia has had a terrible environmental record and a history of oil spills. The area around Usinsk, just south of the Arctic Circle, is home to what the Huffington Post calls “the world’s worst ecological oil catastrophe,” where leaks in a decommissioned oil well wreaked havoc in 2011.¶ It wasn't the first such incident. In 1994, the town suffered the third largest oil spill in history. A pipeline in Usinsk had been leaking for eight months when the dike containing the leakage collapsed, spreading 102,000 tons of oil across the tundra, into the Kolva and Rechora rivers, and eventually into the Barents Sea. The leak, eight times larger than the Exxon Valdez spill, was the result of old, corroded, poorly maintained, and over-pumped pipelines. The company responsible, Komineft, had five major accidents in the area between 1986 and 1994. In 1994, Russia was losing an estimated 20 percent of the oil it extracted, but refused to revamp inefficient and environmentally detrimental Soviet pipelines for fear that the break in production would lessen the Russian hold on former Soviet republics and interfere with loan repayment. More recently, Greenpeace, the World Wildlife Fund, and the Institute of the Environment and Genetics of Microorganisms have estimated that Russia continues to spill 5 million tons of oil every year, or as the Huffington Post put it, “one Deepwater Horizon-scale leak about every two months.” ¶ Vladimir Chuprov, head of the Arctic campaign for Greenpeace Russia, said that Greenpeace International is absolutely against all offshore drilling in the Arctic. Even the U.S. Minerals Management Service estimates a one in five chance of a major spill occurring over the life of just one lease block on Alaska’s outer continental shelf (OCS). Greenpeace International wants to accord the Arctic a world park status similar to Antarctica. At the very least, they demand that the international community provide strict standards to eradicate the risk of oil spills and require mandatory guarantees that any spills will be mitigated at a cost no less than what was spent on the Deepwater Horizon spill.¶ Like Greenpeace International, the NRDC also advocates mandatory international standards on how to develop the Arctic. According to Lisa Speer of the NRDC, the United States doesn’t “have enough information to be able to determine whether or not oil and gas activities can be conducted safely (in the Arctic). And we don’t have the ability to contain and clean up oil in ice, and therefore we think we should wait for drilling in the Arctic until we do have the ability to deal with that.”¶ At a forum on Arctic drilling in January 2012, Andrew Hartsig of the Ocean Conservancy recommended that the United States wait until it has a better hold on the technological requirements of Arctic drilling. However, the U.S. Bureau of Ocean Energy (BOEM) representative Shoshana Lew replied that the federal five-year leasing plan for blocks on Alaska’s OCS would not be deferred until exploration was complete.¶ Putin abolished the Russian Environmental Agency in order to more easily access Arctic extraction that would otherwise require environmental assessments. This is particularly disconcerting because the Arctic region, according to the UN Environment Programme, “is characterized by some of the largest continuous intact ecosystems on the planet,” and therefore environmentally detrimental projects in the region should require careful consideration and planning.¶ The United States has been slow to invest in developing its own Arctic energy reserves for fear of ecological devastation. However, it has not done enough to slow development in nearby Russia. Russian offshore drilling is a crucial issue for Americans because polar currents could make an Arctic oil spill into a transnational event. A Russian Arctic oil spill would rapidly become a cultural, ecological, and economic disaster for the United States as well.

Spills over to global biodiversity

Gill 9 (Michael Gill, Chair of the Circumpolar Biodiversity Monitoring Program, “ABSTRACT: BIODIVERSITY AND ECOSYSTEM SERVICES”, March, UNESCO, http://www.unesco.org/csi/LINKS/monaco-abstracts/Gill_abstract_MonacoUNESCOarctic.pdf)

Arctic ecosystems and the biodiversity they support are experiencing growing pressure from climate change and resource development while established research and monitoring programs remain largely uncoordinated, lacking the ability to effectively monitor, understand and report on biodiversity trends at the circumpolar scale. The maintenance of healthy Arctic ecosystems is a global imperative as the Arctic plays a critical role in the Earth’s physical, chemical and biological balance. A coordinated and comprehensive effort for monitoring Arctic ecosystems is needed to facilitate effective and timely conservation and adaptation actions. The Arctic’s size and complexity represents a significant challenge towards detecting and attributing important biodiversity trends. This demands a scaled, pan-Arctic, ecosystem-based approach that not only identifies trends in biodiversity, but also identifies underlying causes. It is critical that this information be made available to generate effective strategies for adapting to changes now taking place in the Arctic - a process that ultimately depends on rigorous, integrated, and efficient monitoring programmes that have the power to detect change within a ‘management’ time frame. Biodiversity is a popular way of describing the diversity of life on earth: it includes all life forms and the ecosystems of which they are a part. World Food Day — the anniversary of FAO's founding on 16 October 1945 — celebrates, in particular, that part of biodiversity that nurtures people and contributes to long-term food security for all. Biodiversity forms the foundation for sustainable development. It is the basis for the environmental health of our planet and the source of economic and ecological security for future generations. In the developing world, biodiversity provides the assurance of food, countless raw materials such as fibre for clothing, materials for shelter, fertilizer, fuel and medicines, as well as a source of work energy in the form of animal traction. The rural poor depend upon biological resources for an estimated 90 percent of their needs. In the industrialized world access to diverse biological resources is necessary to support a vast array of industrial products. In the continuing drive to develop efficient and sustainable agriculture for many different conditions, these resources provide raw material for plant and animal breeding as well as the new biotechnologies. In addition, biodiversity maintains the ecological balance necessary for planetary and human survival.

Extinction

Science Daily 11 ("Biodiversity Key to Earth's Life-Support Functions in a Changing World," Cites Albert-Ludwigs-Universitat Freiburg, August 11, www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/08/110811084513.htm)

The biological diversity of organisms on Earth is not just something we enjoy when taking a walk through a blossoming meadow in spring; it is also the basis for countless products and services provided by nature, including food, building materials, and medicines as well as the self-purifying qualities of water and protection against erosion. These so-called ecosystem services are what makes Earth inhabitable for humans. They are based on ecological processes, such as photosynthesis, the production of biomass, or nutrient cycles. Since biodiversity is on the decline, both on a global and a local scale, researchers are asking the question as to what role the diversity of organisms plays in maintaining these ecological processes and thus in providing the ecosystem's vital products and services. In an international research group led by Prof. Dr. Michel Loreau from Canada, ecologists from ten different universities and research institutes, including Prof. Dr. Michael Scherer-Lorenzen from the University of Freiburg, compiled findings from numerous biodiversity experiments and reanalyzed them. These experiments simulated the loss of plant species and attempted to determine the consequences for the functioning of ecosystems, most of them coming to the conclusion that a higher level of biodiversity is accompanied by an increase in ecosystem processes. However, the findings were always only valid for a certain combination of environmental conditions present at the locations at which the experiments were conducted and for a limited range of ecosystem processes. In a study published in the current issue of the journal Nature, the research group investigated the extent to which the positive effects of diversity still apply under changing environmental conditions and when a multitude of processes are taken into account. They found that 84 percent of the 147 plant species included in the experiments promoted ecological processes in at least one case. The more years, locations, ecosystem processes, and scenarios of global change -- such as global warming or land use intensity -- the experiments took into account, the more plant species were necessary to guarantee the functioning of the ecosystems. Moreover, other species were always necessary to keep the ecosystem processes running under the different combinations of influencing factors. These findings indicate that much more biodiversity is necessary to keep ecosystems functioning in a world that is changing ever faster. The protection of diversity is thus a crucial factor in maintaining Earth's life-support functions.

1AC- Methane Hydrate

Japan will commercialize methane hydrates soon---risks extinction

McDermott 3-16-2013 - MS in Global Affairs – Concentration in Energy & Env’t Policy from N.Y.U.

Why Japan's Methane Hydrate Exploitation Would Be Game Over for the Climate, 3-16-2013, By Mat McDermott, http://motherboard.vice.com/blog/why-japans-methane-hydrate-exploitation-is-game-over-for-climate

You know how NASA scientist James Hansen has characterized continuing to tap Alberta's tar sands as being game over for the climate, thanks to the massive amount of carbon that'd be released in burning them? Well, if that's the case, then the recent news from Japan that a team has successfully extracted gas from methane hydrates from the seafloor isn't good. In fact, if Japan is able to commercially exploit the reserves in six years, as is planned, then it's game over for the climate.¶ ccording to the Washington Post, which cites US Geological Survey stats, all the gas hydrates around the world contain "between 10,000 trillion cubic feet to more than 100,000 trillion cubic feet of natural gas." ¶ In other words, if even the low estimate is actually technically and economically recoverable, that's over twelve times more natural gas than in all the US shale gas reserves. And, here's the really game over part: The Post, again citing USGS estimates, says there's "more carbon trapped inside [them] than is contained in all known reserves of fossil fuels." (Another widely-cited estimate puts the total amount of carbon trapped in methane hydrates at between 500-2500 gigatons, which is less than all fossil fuels, but still significantly more than natural gas reserves.)¶ Regardless–and this point should be in all italics, bold, and with several exclamation points–if methane hydrates begin to get tapped en masse, our shrinking hopes of curbing climate change are gone.¶ The discovery is being hailed in Japan as a potential huge boost for domestic energy supplies. There's an estimated 39 trillion cubic meters of gas from methane hydrates in Japanese waters—enough for 10 years of gas consumption. Remember that Japan imports about 84 percent of its energy, a figure that's higher after Fukushima and the nuclear power soul searching that has resulted. ¶ All told it is clearly a climate disaster in the making, on top of, well, you know, the catastrophic climate disaster already proceeding full steam ahead. ¶ Let's compare all these estimates to the "terrifying new math" that 350.org's Bill McKibben sketched out last summer in Rolling Stone. ¶ To keep global temperature rise below 2°C—which, it's worth remembering, is both the internationally agreed upon aspirational target for limiting temperature rise, as well as 0.5°C too high according to scientists to totally avoid dangerous climate change—McKibben says we can emit another 565 gigatons of carbon into the atmosphere. And we've got 2,795 gigatons of carbon in proven fossil fuels reserves. ¶ In other words, McKibben writes, "We have five times as much oil and coal and gas on the books as climate scientists think is safe to burn. We'd have to keep 80 percent of those reserves locked away underground to avoid that fate"—as in, to not cook the planet. ¶ Even adding another 500 gigatons of carbon to the pile, let along nearly doubling it, is simply suicide (and ecocide). It's delusional madness.

Japanese commercialization is the most likely cause of massive, rapid warming

Williamson 3-14-2013 – Journalist at NewNet – Cites U.S.G.S.; Prof. Nisbet @ Royal Holloway, London; Dr. Dixon Dir. at World Wildlife Fund and PhD in Astrophysics

Environmentalists urge caution over Japanese Ice Gas breakthrough, Thursday, 14 March 2013, Lynda Williamson, http://newsnetscotland.com/index.php/scottish-news/6944-environmentalists-urge-caution-over-japanese-ice-gas-breakthrough

The US Geological Survey estimates that methane hydrates deposits could contain twice as much carbon as all other fossil fuels on earth but warns that the ecological impact is "very poorly understood."¶ Methane hydrate is a naturally occurring form of methane gas combined with water which produces a crystalline substance containing very high concentrations of methane. It is found extensively throughout the world, among other places in major river deltas such as the Amazon Delta as well as in ocean sediments and in the sediments in and beneath areas of permafrost.¶ Methane gas is approximately 20 times more potent as a greenhouse gas than CO2 so any leakage of methane into the atmosphere would raise global temperatures by considerably more than an equivalent amount of CO2. Methane is faster acting and shorter lived than CO2, remaining in the earth's atmosphere for only 10 years as opposed to CO2 which remains for approximately 100 years.¶ Some climate scientists believe that methane played a major role in the Paleocene – Eocene thermal maximum which represents one of the most rapid and extreme warming events in geological history. Core samples taken from old ocean sediment layers point to short periods of rapid warming of up 8 degrees centigrade on top of longer term rises of between 5 and 7 degrees centigrade. The most likely cause of this rapid global warming over a short period is the release of methane into the atmosphere.¶ Temperature and pressure conditions determine methane hydrate stability so global warming can have the effect of releasing more naturally occurring methane into the air. Some scientists have pointed to plumes of methane rising from the floor of the Arctic Ocean as evidence that increased global temperatures could trigger the release of large quantities of methane.¶ The worry is that positive feedback could lead to a tipping point, a kind of vicious circle where the release of methane raises temperatures and the raised temperatures stimulate methane release. Professor Euan Nisbet from Royal Holloway, London, explains that:¶ "The Arctic is the fastest warming region on the planet, and has many methane sources that will increase as the temperature rises. This is yet another serious concern: the warming will feed the warming."¶ Other scientists point to storms and fluctuations in weather systems, which could produce changes in ice coverage, as an explanation for Arctic gas plumes.¶ Speaking to Newsnet Scotland, Dr Richard Dixon, Director of Friends of the Earth Scotland said:¶ "The last thing we need is more fossil fuels. It is deeply ironic that methane hydrates are becoming more accessible because of climate change, since burning them would set us on a course to truly disastrous climate change. The planet cannot afford Japan or anyone else to extract gas from methane hydrate deposits."

Other sources are too long term---only Japanese extraction causes extinction

George Monbiot 13, columnist for The Guardian, has held visiting fellowships or professorships at the universities of Oxford (environmental policy), Bristol (philosophy), Keele (politics), Oxford Brookes (planning), and East London (environmental science), 3/14/13, “Frozen Assets,” http://www.monbiot.com/2013/03/14/frozen-assets/

This mindless enthusiasm has now greeted the Japanese government’s announcement that it has successfully extracted natural gas from methane hydrates (otherwise known as clathrates) buried under the bed of the sea. ¶ Clathrates are composed of a frozen matrix of water and gas, whose texture is rather like a sorbet. They are super-concentrated: a cubic metre of clathrate contains 164 times as much methane as a cubic metre of methane gas. The great majority (99%) are found beneath the sea bed. According to the US Geological Survey,¶ “even the most conservative estimates conclude that about 1,000 times more methane is trapped in hydrates than is consumed annually worldwide to meet energy needs.”¶ Only a small proportion of this resource is exploitable: even so, that small proportion could greatly augment the volume of fossil fuel reserves we cannot afford to burn. If governments intended to curb greenhouse gas emissions, there would be no point in developing this new source of fuel. Their attempts to exploit it reinforce the perception that they have no intention of preventing climate breakdown. ¶ The US Geological Survey warns that clathrates could contribute significantly to climate change. It also boasts that the “first goal” of its clathrates project “is to contribute to research that may lead to the development of gas hydrates as a potential energy source.” They know what they’re doing, and they don’t care. ¶ The world has felt the impact of a methane sorbet melt before. During the Palaeocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum, 55 million years ago, temperatures rose by around six degrees. This happened much more slowly than manmade climate change is happening today – it took some 20,000 years – but it was fast enough radically to alter the world’s ecosystems, catalysing both mass extinctions and new speciation. There is evidence to suggest that much of this warming was driven by the release of gas from methane hydrates. This may have been the result of positive feedback: as the seas warmed, the clathrates began to destabilise and melt, causing further warming. ¶ Could this happen again, as a result of manmade climate change? Not in our lifetimes. While the much smaller volume of methane hydrate locked up in the permafrost beneath shallow Arctic seas could be vulnerable – and could add significantly to global warming – it will take a very long time for extra heating to affect sediments beneath the deep ocean floor, and longer still for the greenhouse gases this releases to reach the atmosphere. (In the deep oceans methane gas is oxidised to carbon dioxide, which takes several hundred years to reach the surface). ¶ But this is not to say that there will be no catastrophic release of gas from methane hydrates buried beneath the deep sea. If it happens within this century, it will be the result not of global warming but of the process the Japanese government has now pioneered: extracting gas in order to burn it. Like all the nations which continue to extend the fossil fuel frontier (such as Britain, where companies intend to start producing gas through fracking) Japan is adding to the mountain of fossil fuels we cannot responsibly burn. The brave new technology it has developed, now lauded in the media, would be worthless in a world that took climate change seriously.

The plan ensures that Japan puts methane hydrates on the back burner

Niiler 3-13-2013 – Journalist for Discovery News citing Carroll, a MH Engineering Expert

Flammable Ice: The Next Big Thing?, Mar 13, 2013, Eric Niiler, http://news.discovery.com/earth/oceans/underwater-gas-reserves-130313.htm

Japan’s Ministry of Economy, Industry and Trade said this week that an oil exploration ship drilled into and then lowered the pressure in an undersea methane hydrate reserve. That caused the methane and ice to separate. It then piped the natural gas to the surface.¶ Japan is an energy-poor nation that has no reserves of gas or oil, and has been at odds over whether to restart its massive nuclear power program two years after the Fukushima disaster. The ministry said that it hopes to have commercial production of methane seafloor gas in five years. But one expert is skeptical. John Carroll, a process engineer at Canada’s Gas Liquids Engineering, said that methane hydrates tend to be found in the soft seafloor sediments. It’s very difficult to both capture and depressurize it.¶ “For now, it’s kind of a pie-in-the-sky science project,” said Carroll. “I still see some problems getting it to the surface and getting it to a condition to sell.”¶ Even though methane is cleaner to burn than coal or oil, there is the risk of releasing methane from the seafloor to the atmosphere, he said.¶ “If they are melting it, it will be just released into the ocean and then the atmosphere,” Carroll said from Alberta. “Methane is a terrible greenhouse gas, much worse than carbon dioxide."¶ Japan has also been a leader in developing green technologies. A big new source of cheap natural gas could slow those efforts.

Current commercial viability of methane hydrates unclear---price is key

Tabuchi 3-13-2013, An energy coup for Japan: ‘flammable ice’, Hiroko Tabuchi, March 12, 2013, The New York Times, http://climate-connections.org/2013/03/12/an-energy-coup-for-japan-flammable-ice/

Experts estimate that the carbon found in gas hydrates worldwide totals at least twice the amount of carbon in all of the earth’s other fossil fuels, making it a potential game-changer for energy-poor countries like Japan. The exact properties of undersea hydrates and how they might affect the environment are still poorly understood, however, as is the potential for making extraction commercially viable.¶ Japan has invested hundreds of millions of dollars since the early 2000s to explore offshore methane hydrate reserves in both the Pacific and the Sea of Japan. That task has become all the more pressing after the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear crisis, which has all but halted Japan’s nuclear energy program and caused a sharp increase in the country’s fossil fuel imports.¶ The Japanese Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry said a team aboard the scientific drilling ship Chikyu had started a trial extraction of gas from a layer of methane hydrates about 300 meters, or 1,000 feet, below the seabed Tuesday morning. The ship has been drilling since January in an area of the Pacific about 1,000 meters deep and 80 kilometers, or 50 miles, south of the Atsumi Peninsula in central Japan.¶ Using a specialized drill, the team converted the undersea methane hydrate into ice and natural gas, and brought the natural gas to the surface, the ministry said in a statement.¶ Hours later, a flare on the ship’s stern showed that gas was being produced, the ministry said.¶ “Japan could finally have an energy source to call its own,” said Takami Kawamoto, a spokesman for the Japan Oil, Gas & Metals National Corp., or Jogmec, the state-run company leading the trial extraction.¶ The team will continue the trial extraction for about two weeks before analyzing how much gas has been produced, Jogmec said. Japan hopes to make the extraction technology commercially viable in about five years.¶ “This is the world’s first trial production of gas from oceanic methane hydrates, and I hope we will be able to confirm stable gas production,” Toshimitsu Motegi, the Japanese trade minister, said at a news conference in Tokyo. He acknowledged that the extraction process would still face technical hurdles and other problems.¶ Still, “shale gas was considered technologically difficult to extract but is now produced on a large scale,” he said. “By tackling these challenges one by one, we could soon start tapping the resources that surround Japan.”¶ Jogmec estimates that the surrounding area in the Nankai submarine trough holds at least 1.1 trillion cubic meters, or 39 trillion cubic feet, of methane hydrate, enough to meet 11 years’ worth of gas imports to Japan.¶ A separate, rough estimate by the National Institute of Advanced Industrial Science and Technology has put the total amount of methane hydrate in the waters surrounding Japan at more than 7 trillion cubic meters, or what researchers have long said is closer to 100 years’ worth of Japan’s natural gas needs.¶ “Now we know that extraction is possible,” said Mikio Satoh, a senior researcher in marine geology at the institute who was not involved in the Nankai trough expedition. “The next step is to see how far Japan can get costs down to make the technology economically viable.”

Boosting LNG exports to Japan outcompetes methane hydrate extraction

Guardian 3-12-2013 – Cites Minami – Dir. of O&G @ Japan’s Agency for Nat. Resources

Japan becomes first nation to extract 'frozen gas' from seabed, guardian.co.uk, Tuesday 12 March 2013 13.31 EDT, http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2013/mar/12/japan-extract-frozen-gas-seabed

Japan has successfully extracted natural gas from frozen methane hydrate deposits under the sea, in the first example of production of the gas offshore, officials said on Tuesday.¶ The Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry showed what it said was gas flaming from a pipe at the project in the Pacific Ocean 80 kilometres (50 miles) off the coast of central Japan. The breakthrough could be a step toward eventual commercial production, though the costs of extracting gas from the seabed are much higher than for other forms of production.¶ Methane hydrate is a form of methane gas frozen below the seabed or in permanently frozen ground. Japan earlier succeeded in producing such gas from permafrost in Canada in 2007-08.¶ Resource-scarce Japan, which imports most of its energy, hopes to develop ways to produce natural gas from its own reserves.¶ The Japan Oil, Gas and Metals National Corp and a government research institute, the National Institute of Advanced Industrial Science and Technology, used a technology they developed to reduce pressure in the underground layers holding the methane hydrate 1,330 metres (4,363 feet) below the sea surface, and then dissolved it into gas and water, collecting the gas through a well, the ministry said.¶ Speaking to the Financial Times, Ryo Minami, director of the oil and gas division at Japan's Agency for Natural Resources, compared methane hydrate to shale gas, a once-marginal resource which is transforming the US energy market. "Ten years ago, everybody knew there was shale gas in the ground, but to extract it was too costly. Yet now it's commercialised," he said.¶ Methane hydrate looks like ice but burns like a candle if a flame is applied. With the boom in production of natural gas from the fracking of shale gas boosting supplies in the US in particular, there is little need to resort to the more costly extraction of the frozen gas in those regions.¶ But it is considered a future potential resource by some, and studies show substantial reserves in various regions, including the Nankai trough off Japan's eastern coast, the northern Gulf of Mexico and Alaska's North Slope.

AT Methane Already

Recent progress isn’t at large scale, won’t trigger impacts

Anderson 14 Richard Anderson, business reporter for BBC News, April 16, 2014,” Methane hydrate: Dirty fuel or energy saviour?”, http://www.bbc.com/news/business-27021610

However, he points out that at just $120m (£71m; 87m euros) a year, the Japanese government's annual budget for research into gas hydrates is relatively low. The country's plans to establish commercial production by the end of this decade do, then, seem rather optimistic. But longer-term, the potential is huge. "Methane hydrate makes perfect sense for Japan and could be a game changer," says Laszlo Varro of the International Energy Agency (IEA). Elsewhere, incentives to exploit the gas commercially are, for now, less pressing. The US is in the middle of a shale gas boom, Canada also has abundant shale resources, while Russia has huge natural gas reserves. In fact, Canada has put its research into methane hydrate on hold, and deferred any additional funding. China and India, with their rampaging demand for energy, are a different story, but they are far behind in their efforts to develop hydrates. "We have seen some recent progress, but we don't foresee commercial gas hydrate production before 2030," says Mr O'Rourke. Indeed, the IEA has not included gas hydrates in its global energy projections for the next 20 years.

AT Corporations=Inevitable

Not an attractive investment – research needs to advance first

Downey 04 2004, “Important Problems for Methane Hydrate Commercialization”, http://roxannaoil.com/2004/06/important-problems-for-methane-hydrate-commercialization/

There are many, many interesting problems associated with understanding methane hydrates. From a world view, however, the most important problems are those that deal directly with extracting large quantities of methane safely and cheaply from the frozen hydrate. If this cannot be done, the promise of enormous energy from methane hydrate remains an elusive rainbow. The scale of the problem, the magnitude of the difficulties, can best be understood by looking at the demands that commerciality places on technology. To truly realize the potential of methane from methane hydrate, we must be able to produce from deep water. We become indifferent to our ability to produce a few thousand cubic feet of methane from a borehole, when we realize that commerciality will require production of very large quantities of gas, each day, from a hypothetical deep water facility. In a deep water site, such as the Blake Plateau, we can make some minimum estimates of the cost of the production platform and the deep water pipelines necessary to support methane production. We do not need to know the actual recovery process; we can use the minimum costs to install a floating production platform in 5000 feet of water capable of withstanding Atlantic storms, and operating continuously. Such capital costs suggest that we will require on the order of a billion cubic feet of gas per day, deliverable for 20 years, to be an attractive investment. Our research needs to move from questions about how to melt ice cubes, and move towards the enormously difficult question as to whether it is possible to produce methane from deep water hydrates at commercial rates and quantities.

AT Extraction Safe

Methane Extraction not safe, causes a variety of problems

Harris 9 William Harris is a freelance writer stationed near Washington, D.C. He holds a bachelor's degree in biology from Virginia Tech and a master's degree in science education from Florida State University, May 26, 2009, “How Frozen Fuel Works”,http://science.howstuffworks.com/environmental/green-tech/energy-production/frozen-fuel4.htm

The potential rewards of releasing methane from gas hydrate fields must be balanced with the risks. And the risks are significant. Let's start first with challenges facing mining companies and their workers. Most methane hydrate deposits are located in seafloor sediments. That means drilling rigs must be able to reach down through more than 1,600 feet (500 meters) of water and then, because hydrates are generally located far underground, another several thousand feet before they can begin extraction. Hydrates also tend to form along the lower margins of continental slopes, where the seabed falls away from the relatively shallow shelf toward the abyss. The roughly sloping seafloor makes it difficult to run pipeline. Even if you can situate a rig safely, methane hydrate is unstable once it's removed from the high pressures and low temperatures of the deep sea. Methane begins to escape even as it's being transported to the surface. Unless there's a way to prevent this leakage of natural gas, extraction won't be efficient. It will be a bit like hauling up well water using a pail riddled with holes. Believe it or not, this leakage may be the least of the worries. Many geologists suspect that gas hydrates play an important role in stabilizing the seafloor. Drilling in these oceanic deposits could destabilize the seabed, causing vast swaths of sediment to slide for miles down the continental slope. Evidence suggests that such underwater landslides have occurred in the past (see sidebar), with devastating consequences. The movement of so much sediment would certainly trigger massive tsunamis similar to those seen in the Indian Ocean tsunami of December 2004. But perhaps the biggest concern is how methane hydrate mining could affect global warming. Scientists already know that hydrate deposits naturally release small amounts of methane. The gas works itself skyward -- either bubbling up through permafrost or ocean water -- until it's released into the atmosphere. Once methane is in the atmosphere, it becomes a greenhouse gas even more efficient than carbon dioxide at trapping solar radiation. Some experts fear that drilling in hydrate deposits could cause catastrophic releases of methane that would greatly accelerate global warming. Does that make methane from hydrate fields off-limits? This is the question scientists from all over the world are trying to answer.

2AC PlanLNG Exports to Japan

Opening new supplies of gas in the Cook critical to LNG exports to Japan
Bradner 3-6-2013 – Tim, Alaska Journal of Commerce Staff Writer, March 6, 2013, Morris News Service-Alaska, Alaska Journal of Commerce, http://peninsulaclarion.com/news/2013-03-05/conocophillips-wont-apply-for-new-lng-export-license

ConocoPhillips Alaska Inc. says it will not extend the federal export license for its Kenai natural gas liquefaction plant when the license expires March 31.¶ However, the plant will be maintained in a standby mode to be available if opportunities develop, company spokeswoman Amy Burnett said in a statement issued March 4.¶ “The plant is currently operational, in a stand-by mode, maximizing our flexibility as we determine the long-term future of the facility,” Burnett said. “ConocoPhillips will consider pursuing a new export authorization only if local gas needs are met and there is sufficient gas for export.¶ “Right now, we unaware of sufficient gas supply to support exports. We still have the flexibility to resume operations and apply for a new export authorization if gas becomes available. Plans will depend primarily on gas availability, local gas needs, various regulatory decisions and market conditions.”¶ The Alaska plant is the only U.S. LNG plant that has exported gas from North America. It was built in 1969 by Phillips Petroleum and Marathon Oil as a way to market surplus gas. Tokyo Gas and Tokyo Electric were the prime customers for four decades.¶ As Cook Inlet gas supplies declined in recent years, exports became problematic, however. The company had applied for, and received, several extensions of its federal export license over the years, the latest being a two-year extension to 2013.¶ The U.S. Department of Energy requires that gas supplies be sufficient to meet domestic, in this case regional, energy needs, and because utilities in Southcentral Alaska are now short of gas it is unlikely that DOE would grant the license extension even if it were applied for.¶ ConocoPhillips had planned to close the facility in 2011 but kept it operating to send some additional shipments of LNG to Japan after the nation’s nuclear power generation capacity was sharply reduced.

2AC Plan Critical

Increasing national standards and harmonization is critical to solve

Ebinger et al ‘14

Charles K. Ebinger, John P. Banks and Alisa Schackmann, Brookings Institute, Offshore Oil and Gas Governance in the Arctic: A Leadership Role for the U.S., March 24, 2014, http://www.brookings.edu/research/reports/2014/03/offshore-oil-gas-governance-arctic

In our view, there is certainly scope for improving the existing governance regime. First, national laws and standards—the “first line of defense” and the “guts of oil and gas governance”—are especially critical given that virtually all offshore oil and gas development in the Arctic for the foreseeable future will take place within the waters of one or more of the five coastal states. There are concerns, however, about the adequacy of the littoral states’ regulations around varying levels of regulatory enforcement, the adequacy of financial and human resources dedicated to regulatory activities, and the insufficient incorporation of indigenous concerns. As the 2007 Oil and Gas Assessment conducted by the Arctic Council’s working group for the Protection of Arctic Marine Environment (PAME) stated: “Arctic national oil and gas legal regimes are relatively stable, modern, and designed to protect human health, rights of indigenous residents and the environment, but in some cases regulatory systems are outdated, incomplete, or enforcement is inadequate.”131

The differences among regulatory regimes have led many experts to call for greater harmonization, or standardization, of regulations governing offshore activities. Nevertheless, there is some push-back against the concept of harmonization. A national energy agency representative stated that harmonization is not achievable, citing too many cultural, social, political and legal differences across nations, and a foreign ministry official declared “we are not interested in regulation for the sake of regulation.” One regulator commented that “harmonization is not the way” if it means adopting the same standards everywhere. Thus, there is a need to clarify the meaning and approach of “harmonization.” For example, common objectives or best practices can be developed and then adopted or adapted by national regulators. As noted, the ISO is developing recommended standards in seven technical areas with broad involvement of industry, national regulators, and other international institutions. These standards are then meant to be applied at the national level.

Second, while the coastal states have regulations in place, they are not necessarily “Arctic-relevant.” This refers to the need to develop, implement, and enforce regulations that take into consideration the unique conditions found in the marine Arctic environment. Much of the activity to date in the Arctic has been onshore, and most of the offshore activity has been in ice-free areas with attendant regulation addressing those conditions rather than the offshore environment affected by ice that is attracting increasing attention. In this regard, one expert commented that industry’s claim that national regulations in place are sufficient is incorrect and in fact are largely “irrelevant” to environments with pack ice, constant darkness, and other extreme conditions.

The oil companies Brookings interviewed tended to argue that existing standards are sufficient since they are largely implemented by national regulators who have tailored regulations to specific local conditions. For this reason, they see no need to rush into developing stronger regulations for ice-covered regions since major activity in these areas is many years in the future. However, this view is not monolithic. The EPPR Working Group’s report on oil spill prevention provided the results of a questionnaire in which industry respondents cited lack of Arctic-specific technology, HSE systems, procedures, training among the main gaps, and measures to reduce risks in the Arctic.132 Industry participants in this survey also cited the need for “more international common standards” to reduce risks.133

Ice Sheets I/L

Harmonization of standards is critical to prevent major ecosystem destruction through ice-sheet spills

Ebinger et al ‘14

It is true that there has been limited exploration and production in ice-covered offshore areas in the Arctic, and that large-scale commercial production may be many years in the future. Howev er, it is critical to focus on prevention, control, and containment of an oil spill as part of the process of developing Arctic-specific regulations. As the Arctic Council Working Groups have concluded: “an oil spill in ice-covered waters could have a large ecological impact,”134 and “the risk of major oil spills is a serious threat for marine ecosystems, particularly those associated with sea-ice, because response can be difficult and spilled oil is likely to persist for a long time.”135 There is mounting concern that regulations concerning oil spill prevention and response in ice-covered waters are inadequate and not sufficiently Arctic-tested.136 In addition, even if standards are in place, there is still the need to ensure that the physical infrastructure and assets are available to support them. Many experts and officials are very concerned about lack of progress in this area.137

Thus, there is a strong argument for developing and implementing approaches now before more extensive activities ensue: “As commercial activities expand in the Arctic, the need to develop regulatory measures in a number of areas will grow…there is much to be said for anticipating such developments in regulatory terms and putting in place suitable regimes today rather than struggling to react once commercial activities become entrenched” (emphasis added).138 There are increasing efforts to address oil spill prevention and response, for example in the Arctic Council, through industry efforts and at the national level, as well as extensive activities to assess Arctic oil spill response technologies.139 Nevertheless, a primary lesson of Deepwater Horizon is that it is eminently prudent to establish functioning arrangements addressing the prevention, control and response to pollution from offshore oil and gas activities in advance of those activities commencing.

2AC Russian Env’t Standards Bad

Russian standards are a joke- they will wreck the Arctic and are about to start developing

Moscow Times ‘14

Moscow Times, Safety, Cost Meet Head On in Arctic Oil Race, 2014, http://www.themoscowtimes.com/special/environment/eng/safety_-cost-meet-head-on-in-arctic-oil-race.html

Russia's first step in tapping the vast Arctic resources is exploration of the Prirazlomnoye oil field in the Barents Sea with estimated reserves of 72 million tons.

The work — to be started by Gazprom this year — will be conducted from the Prirazlomnaya platform, Russia's first oil-drilling platform designed for offshore projects in the Arctic.

The platform — ordered by Gazprom and built at Sevmash in Severodvinsk — was delivered to its destination and set up over an oil field 60 kilometers off the coast inAugust.

But the Kolskaya platform tragedy galvanized environmental organizations, including Bellona, Greenpeace and the World Wildlife Fund.

The government should review its offshore exploration policy and pass legislation that would guarantee proper liquidation of the consequences of possible accidents during offshore exploration, the organizations said in a December statement.

All offshore projects in the Arctic and similar maritime territories should be suspended until such measures are taken, the statement said.

While exploration of offshore fields in the Arctic involves significant environmental andfinancial risks, domestic oil and gas companies have yet to prove their ability to carry out such projects, as they neglect safety issues even in onshore projects, according to a report by Greenpeace published last month.

"If Russia's oil and gas companies can't get existing fields under control, there's no reason to hope that they'll demonstrate a more responsible attitude to environmental protection issues while exploring the Arctic offshore areas," the report said.

Arctic Ecosystems – 2AC

Joint development zones lead to better Arctic ecosystems management

Arctic Ecosystems – 1AR – Link Debate

JDZ would solve Arctic ecosystem management

Using a hydrocarbons joint development zone as a baseline means the U.S. and Canada could characterize it to also protect Arctic resources

Baker ’10 – associate professor and senior fellow for Oceans and Energy at the Institute for Energy and the Environment

(Betsy B. Baker, “Filling an Arctic Gap: Legal and Regulatory Possibilities for Canadian-U.S. Cooperation in the Beaufort Sea”, Vermont Law School Legal Studies Research Paper Series,

Research Paper No. 10-37, 3-26-2010)

Given the effective moratorium on hydrocarbon exploration and exploitation in the disputed Beaufort Sea triangle today, those interested in postponing or preventing hydrocarbon activities there may well ask why any change in the region should be proposed. At least two answers exist. First, activities around the disputed area will eventually have an effect within the area, given the transboundary movement not only of oil and gas resources, but also of ocean currents and living resources. Second, the rise of ecosystem-based management suggests a new reason for two countries to finalize a joint development agreement response to an unresolved maritime boundary. Traditionally, the primary reasons for such agreements have been a desire to exploit the resource and the recognition that disagreements in the boundary delimitation process could lead to delay and deterioration of bilateral relations.420 If the diplomatic goal is to proceed without resolving the maritime boundary, or at least to suspend the question indefinitely, redesigning the purpose of the joint area for multiple, non-exclusive, phased uses could lead to re-characterizing the reason for entering into a joint development and management zone agreement as a desire to accomplish integrated ecosystem objectives in the joint area. Integrated ecosystem-based management relies on defining the ecosystem parameters and objectives,421 building an inventory of its natural and human resources422 through baseline and other data,423 and assessing their condition on an ongoing basis. Thorough joint hydrographic and bathymetric mapping of the Beaufort Sea triangle would provide one such baseline. The AMSA recommends investing in hydrographic, meteorological, and oceanographic data.424 Considering the disputed triangle in broader context, [t]he most significant geological feature within the LOMA is the Beaufort Continental Shelf. There are two large submarine canyons called the Mackenzie and Kugmallit troughs [to the east of the disputed triangle] and several special bottom features, including gas vents, mud volcanoes and underwater pingos on the Shelf. Understanding the bathymetry of the sea floor and these identified features may give scientists the ability to predict potential areas of biological and ecological significance.425 Even if the Beaufort Sea triangle proves to be of less biological and ecological significance than other parts of the Beaufort Sea, having the baseline mapping data from the triangle will serve joint operations and oversight in the area well. Complete harmonization of national approaches is neither possible nor desirable. Compatibility is.426 Experimenting with how to apply integrated, ecosystem-based management in the Beaufort Sea triangle can serve to facilitate coordination of best practices and information exchange at multiple governance levels. “Collective knowledge . . . will become more integrated into long-term ocean planning and more relevant to management and decision making if it is shared among all bodies (Arctic countries, governments, northern communities) and people (scientists, managers, stakeholders).”427 If the governments of Canada and the United States, as well as indigenous and other sub-national governments with an interest in the region, can apply their collective knowledge and experience to balancing multiple uses in this disputed area of the Beaufort Sea, they can close more gaps in Arctic governance.

Directory: file -> view
view -> Western Europe after wwii
view -> Author study: paul fleischman
view -> Qpa1 7ela study Guide
view -> Arctic Oil/Gas Neg
view -> November 1970 Approximately 150,000-500,000 deaths Bhola Cyclone Bangladesh
view -> Grade Level: 6 Unit of Study: Caribbean glce
view -> Citation: Duffield, Katy
view -> Table of Contents Lesson #
view -> Chinese Wind Energy Disad

Download 2.43 Mb.

Share with your friends:

1 ... 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 ... 53