Counterplans Inuit Consult cp

This ev has a bunch of complicated math that proves you wrong

AT: Oil Dependence

US dependence is greatly reduced now

US oil dependence is waning now --- fracking boom proves

Last year, he made another striking prediction: he forecast the eclipse of an unchallenged energy giant. Saudi Arabia would shortly be overtaken as the world's biggest producer of crude oil by its most important client, the United States, he said. In a world consumed with fears over financial crisis, joblessness, war in Syria, and international jihad, the academic predictions of people like Mr Birol tend to get overlooked. Yet as chief economist of the International Energy Agency (and, like a surprising number of the world's most important men, a Turk) he is closer to the action on all those issues than many care to realise. The belief that the world's economy, security and geopolitics are subordinate to America's need for oil is a truism so universally acknowledged that it is regurgitated on every concerned news site the web over. Yet this is what he said in his annual outlook on the important trends of the moment: "By around 2020, the United States is projected to become the largest global oil producer," he wrote. "The result is a continued fall in US oil imports, to the extent that North America becomes a net oil exporter around 2030. "The United States, which currently imports around 20 per cent of its total energy needs, becomes all but self-sufficient in net terms – a dramatic reversal of the trend seen in most other energy-importing countries." Far from sending its armies round the world to secure oil, in other words, before long it will be sending marketing consultants to sell it. A dramatic reversal indeed: it seems like only yesterday that every commentator was talking about Peak Oil, the theory that the world's biggest reserves had all been discovered and that the planet's booming population would all soon be scrapping over the dribbles that still came out of the pipelines that remained. Now, with fracking technology revolutionising output in the United States - soon to be followed by other countries - that talk has dried up rather quicker than the pipelines ever did.

Dependence waning and we’re insulated from the impact --- prefer most recent evidence

4. America imports much less Iraqi oil than it used to. When Barack Obama ran for president in 2008, he said that America's dependence on the "tyranny of oil" helped fund terrorism in both Iraq and around the world. "One of the most dangerous weapons in the world today is the price of oil," he said. "We ship nearly $700 million a day to unstable or hostile nations for their oil. It pays for terrorist bombs going off from Baghdad to Beirut." His opponent that year, John McCain, said at a town hall that his plan to "eliminate our dependence on oil from the Middle East" would "prevent us from having ever to send our young men and women into conflict again in the Middle East." As president, Obama has continued to emphasize independence from foreign oil. "Today, America is closer to energy independence than we have been in decades," he told an audience at Walmart in Mountain View, California, last month. "And for the first time in nearly 20 years, America produces more oil here at home than we buy from other countries." Indeed, in October, domestic crude oil production surpassed imports for the first time since 1995. More specifically, even though Iraq's oil production has increased, the US now imports far less Iraqi oil than it did around the time of the 2003 invasion. That's not just the story in Iraq. America is now importing less oil overall—20 percent less, in fact—than in 2003. "We're getting more of that oil domestically," Rapier said, pointing to increased local production facilitated by the fracking boom, especially in Texas and North Dakota. And America's own neighbors are also chipping in to help, says Rapier, pointing to Canadian crude. "We've got lower cost production in our neighborhood here." This means the United States is now somewhat insulated from big shocks to the market like the 1970s oil crisis, in which oil-producing Arab states imposed a crippling embargo against the US. "The increase of unconventional oil supplies from new emerging assets in the US, all of this has created some sort of a comfort zone," said Khatteeb from the Brookings Doha Center. John Duffield, who authored a 2008 book called Over a Barrel: The Costs of US Foreign Oil Dependence agrees: "I would say we are not as much over the barrel."

1NC Methane Turn

Turn – aff triggers the methane gun – drilling causes landslides and earthquakes that disturb fragile methane crystals – only scenario for massive methane pulse

Koronowski 13 (Ryan, Think Progress, July 29, 2013, “‘Fire Ice’: Buried Under The Sea Floor, This New Fossil Fuel Source Could Be Disastrous For The Planet,” http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2013/07/29/2370661/methane-hydrates-potentially-massive-greenhouse-gas-on-the-sea-floor-faces-earthquakes-and-drilling/, alp)

Earlier this year, Japanese researchers successfully tested a new process that extracted methane hydrate from the ocean floor for the first time. The director of Japan’s Agency for Natural Resources compared this to the way shale gas was viewed a decade ago — too expensive for commercialization — but concluded “now it’s commercialized.” This process does have similarities to fracking, but instead of pumping fracking fluid into the earth and exploding the rock, it drills down to the seabed, relieves pressure on the hydrates, and dissolves the crystals into gas and water for collection. However, harvesting methane hydrates poses the same risks faced by offshore oil drillers — pressure, drilling at depth, and the catastrophic ramifications of failure. If the drilling causes an underwater landslide, the methane could erupt to the surface all at once, a scenario called the “methane gun hypothesis.” This could release massive amounts of methane into the atmosphere, dealing a serious blow to cutting carbon emissions.

2NC Methane Turn

Drilling melts hydrates underwater – accelerates methane release

Friedemann 4/28 (Alice, author of energyskeptic.com, in this article, she internally cites qualified sources, April 28, 2014, “Why we aren’t mining methane hydrates now. Or ever.,” http://energyskeptic.com/2014/methane-hydrate-not-gonna-happen/ , alp)

Eastman states that normally, the pressure of hundreds of meters of water above keeps the frozen methane stable. But heat flowing from oil drilling and pipelines has the potential to slowly destabilize it, with possibly disastrous results: melting hydrate might trigger underwater landslides as it decomposes and the substrate becomes lubricated… 5) Which can Trigger Tsunamis Landslides can create tsunamis that might result in fatalities, long term health effects, and destruction of property and infrastructure.

Drilling accidents turn the advantage

Lefebvre 13 (Ben, Wall Street Journal, July 28, 2013, “Scientists Envision Fracking in Arctic and on Ocean Floor,” http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424127887324694904578600073042194096, alp)

Commercial production of methane hydrate is expected to take at least a decade—if it comes at all. Different technologies to harvest the gas are being tested, but so far no single approach has been perfected, and it remains prohibitively expensive. But booming energy demand in Asia, which is spurring gigantic projects to liquefy natural gas in Australia, Canada and Africa, is also giving momentum to efforts to mine the frozen clumps of methane hydrate mixed deep in seafloor sediment. The biggest concern is that the sediment that contains methane hydrate is inherently unstable, meaning a drilling accident could set off a landslide that sends massive amounts of methane—a potent greenhouse gas—bubbling up through the ocean and into the atmosphere. Oil and gas companies establishing deep-water drilling rigs normally look at avoiding methane-hydrate clusters, said Richard Charter, senior member of environmental group the Ocean Foundation, who has long studied methane hydrates.

Oil Dependence Good

Absent dependence, US rentrenchment from the region decimates Middle Eastern Stability and US leadership

Salhani, 12/18/2013 (Claude, journalist, author and political analyst based in Beirut, specializing in the Middle East, politicized Islam and terrorism and the former editor of the Middle East Times and United Press International, “US to Become Less Dependent on Foreign Oil -- be Careful What you Wish for”, OilPrice, http://oilprice.com/Energy/Energy-General/US-to-Become-Less-Dependent-on-Foreign-Oil-but-Careful-What-you-Wish-for.html)

But here there is the need for a word of caution. Being less dependent on Middle Eastern oil does not mean the United States should become a political recluse, retrench inside fortress America and damn the rest of the world and their problems. In the region of the Gulf, for example, the US counts many allies who are becoming extremely nervous at a USA hoping to step back from the region while across the waters they face a more powerful Iran with ever-growing political/religious ambitions. Up until now countries in the region felt somewhat protected largely because of their oil. Case in point was when Kuwait was invaded by Saddam Hussein in 1990 the US raised a powerful multinational coalition to throw him out of the oil producing state. But recent events, such as the distancing of once extremely close US-Saudi relation have started to cast doubts in the minds of the oil rich sheiks of the Gulf who are truly questioning America’s resolve in the region. The added danger for the US is the resurgence of Russia as a power to be reckoned with and now China, too. The United States could be fooled into a false sense of security inside Fortress America and start to lose more and more of its influence. Indeed, the exploitation of American oil for American consumption may well bring about much wished for independence from foreign oil and foreign intrigue. But one should be careful what one wishes for.

Oil independence bad --- causes war, terrorism, civil unrest, and drug trafficking

Miller, 2010 (Gregory D., assistant professor of political science at the University of Oklahoma, “The Security Costs of Energy Independence”, The Washington Quarterly, April 2010, http://www.asiaresearch.ir/files/10apr_Miller.pdf)

As a result, policy debates focus exclusively on how the United States should reduce its dependence on oil, with suggestions ranging from conservation (supported by the environmentalists) to greater domestic production (made by those who focus on security) to aggressively pursuing alternate sources of energy (emphasized by those making an economic argument, as well as environmentalists). A critical oversight in all of this, however, is that any dramatic reduction in U.S. dependence on oil will create major security concerns, not only for current oil-exporting countries and their neighbors, but also for the West. Three particular threats will grow with a dramatic reduction in U.S. consumption of foreign oil. First, international conflicts would increase between states that currently export oil and states that are their customers. Second, violence would increase within oil-exporting states themselves including civil wars, genocide, and terrorism, all of which are likely to spill into neighboring states. Third, in attempts to avoid the first two threats, states dependent on oil revenues will increasingly turn to illicit sources of income, such as narcotics trafficking or the arms trade, to replace their diminishing wealth.

1NC Oil Spills Turn

Status quo Arctic drilling has only a small risk of a spill --- increased exploration or drilling drastically increase the probability --- prefer Arctic specific evidence

O.N.U.S., 2010 (Oceans North US, US Arctic Program sponsored by the Pew Charitable Trusts, “Exploration and Development Risks”, http://oceansnorth.org/exploration-development-risks)

EXPLORATION & DEVELOPMENT RISKS What Causes Spills? Where there are people, there are mistakes. The causes of BP’s Deepwater Horizon blowout in the Gulf of Mexico have not yet been determined. But the Exxon Valdez oil spill was caused by human error. The Montara well blowout and spill in the Timor Sea in 2009 was very likely caused by human error in setting the cement casing. Eighty percent of spills and accidents in all industries, including oil and gas, are estimated to be caused by human error. Additionally, the Arctic Ocean presents an array of hazardous operating conditions. The difficulty of responding to BP’s Deepwater Horizon spill in the Gulf of Mexico was exacerbated by the difficult conditions of extreme water depth. In the Arctic, dangerous conditions could include gale force winds, extreme fog, prolonged periods of darkness, shifting sea ice and sub-zero temperatures. When multiple risk factors combine, accidents are even more likely to occur. For instance, the aging oil infrastructure at Prudhoe Bay is succumbing to corrosion and inadequate monitoring of that problem has led to a spate of recent spills on the North Slope. An increase in oil exploration and production will create oil spill risks from offshore platforms, associated pipelines, storage tanks and shipping activities. At the same time, changing sea ice conditions are opening new shipping routes and extending the season for existing routes. Increasing vessel traffic will only add to the potential risk of oil spills beyond the oil and gas industry. Not If, But When How likely is a spill in U.S. Arctic waters? The federal government’s Minerals Management Service estimates the chances of a major spill are 26 percent in the Beaufort Sea and 40 percent in the Chukchi Sea over the life of oil development. The risk of small spills is nearly 100 percent. The government’s statistics are based on an assumption of only 2 billion barrels of production between the two lease areas out of an estimated 19 billion barrels of economically recoverable oil. If Arctic oil development proves profitable and activity increases, the risks could be much higher, amplifying over time. Aging oil infrastructure on Prudhoe Bay spilled 660,000 gallons of oil, natural gas and water in only three years – from 2006 to 2009. Recent spills on the North Slope in Alaska include: In November 2009, an estimated 46,000 gallons of crude oil, high-salinity water and natural gas leaked from a pipeline rupture caused by ice plugs. In February 2009, corrosion of a pipeline resulted in a spill estimated at 1,900 gallons of crude oil, high-salinity water and natural gas. January, 2009, an estimated 24,000 gallons of crude oil and water spilled after a failure in the automated flow control system The oil industry plans on an exploration, development and production timeline of 50 years in the Beaufort and Chukchi seas. Recent Spills from Offshore Exploration and Development Spills happen. Even with modern equipment and modern safety measures, spills are a part of the offshore oil and gas industry. The Deepwater Horizon blowout in April 2010 caused a massive oil spill that foiled all modern technological safeguards designed to prevent such an accident. Other spills in recent years include: In 2001, a sinking oil platform released about 9,500 barrels of oil and killed several people in Brazil. In 2004, a spill from an offshore platform released about 1,000 barrels of oil off the coast of Newfoundland, Canada. In 2007, 25,000 barrels of oil spilled from a platform off the coast of Norway. In 2009, a 10-week blowout at the Montara oil field off the coast of Australia released between 29,600 and 222,000 barrels of oil into the Timor Sea. How big is a spill likely to be? The “large” spills considered in the government’s environmental impact statement for the Chukchi and Beaufort seas are only 1,500 bbl and 4,600 bbl. BP’s Deepwater Horizon spill has been a grim lesson in how vastly that underestimated the potential of a major spill. During the first five weeks alone, the Gulf blowout spewed an estimated 440,000 to 700,000 barrels of oil. Other Major Spills from Offshore Oil As BP’s Deepwater Horizon disaster has illustrated, blowouts of offshore oil wells can be some of the most difficult spills to control. A federal Minerals Management Service report recorded 117 failures of blowout preventers in a two year period in the 1990s, while another report noted 39 actual blowouts between 1992 and 2006. Though blowouts are the most dramatic and devastating spills, every piece of the offshore oil and gas industry, from pipelines to boats, causes spills. Much of the offshore oil industry was shut down before hurricanes Katrina and Rita in 2005, but at least 741,000 gallons were spilled from broken pipelines and other sources. In addition to the recent offshore disasters mentioned above, this list shows some of the major blowouts in the history of the offshore oil and gas industry: In 1969, Santa Barbara was polluted with 80,000 barrels of oil from an 11-day blowout that continued leaking oil for months. In 1977, more than 200,000 barrels were released from Phillips Petroleum Ekofisk B platform In 1979, a blowout at the Ixtoc I well in the Gulf of Mexico took nine months to control, spilling 3.5 million barrels of oil, and creating the second largest oil spill in history. In 1980, a two-week blowout sent 200,000 barrels into the Niger Delta. In 1980, 100,000 barrels was spilled after an exploratory well exploded in the Persian Gulf and killed 19 workers. Risks from Exploration Even exploring for oil is risky. The Minerals Management Service’s 2009 environmental impact statement for Royal Dutch Shell’s proposed exploration drilling in the Chukchi Sea discounted the risk of a spill as improbable. But BP’s Deepwater Horizon blowout occurred as the rig completed exploration drilling. The 1979 Ixtoc I spill in the Gulf of Mexico also happened during exploration drilling as did the Persian Gulf spill. Additionally, there were 11 documented well-control incidents from 1977 to 2000 in which natural gas and/or drilling muds (a mixture of clays, chemicals and water) were released into the environment. The lack of data on drilling in Arctic offshore environments means that most information is based on the U.S. industry’s experience in the Gulf of Mexico, a much different operating environment. Despite industry assurances that drilling in shallow water versus deep water is less risky, the Timor Sea’s Montara blowout was a vivid example of a recent shallow water disaster using a relatively new drilling rig. See our recommendation for an oil spill risk assessment. Human Error No matter how technologically advanced exploration and development equipment becomes, there is still a chance that it will not be operated correctly. Mistakes happen. In the summer of 2009, a blowout in the East Timor Sea spewed oil for months while crews and experts tried to stop the spill. Even though the platform was almost new – delivered in 2008 – reports suggest that the procedure to cap the well was not followed accurately, leading to the blowout.

Arctic oil spills wreak havoc on global biodiversity—it’s the keystone ecosystem of the planet

WWF 10 (World Wildlife Fund, “Drilling for Oil in the Arctic: Too Soon, Too Risky” 12/1/10, http://assets.worldwildlife.org/publications/393/files/original/Drilling_for_Oil_in_the_Arctic_Too_Soon_Too_Risky.pdf?1345753131)//WL

The Arctic and the subarctic regions surrounding it are important for many reasons. One is their enormous biological diversity: a kaleidoscopic array of land and seascapes supporting millions of migrating birds and charismatic species such as polar bears, walruses, narwhals and sea otters. Economics is another: Alaskan fisheries are among the richest in the world. Their $2.2 billion in annual catch fills the frozen food sections and seafood counters of supermarkets across the nation. However, there is another reason why the Arctic is not just important, but among the most important places on the face of the Earth. A keystone species is generally defined as one whose removal from an ecosystem triggers a cascade of changes affecting other species in that ecosystem. The same can be said of the Arctic in relation to the rest of the world. With feedback mechanisms that affect ocean currents and influence climate patterns, the Arctic functions like a global thermostat. Heat balance, ocean circulation patterns and the carbon cycle are all related to its regulatory and carbon storage functions. Disrupt these functions and we effect far-reaching changes in the conditions under which life has existed on Earth for thousands of years. In the context of climate change, the Arctic is a keystone ecosystem for the entire planet Unfortunately, some of these disruptions are happening already as climate change melts sea ice and thaws the Arctic tundra. The Arctic’s sea ice cover reflects sunlight and therefore heat. As the ice melts, that heat is absorbed by the salt water, whose temperature, salinity and density all begin to change in ways that impact global ocean circulation patterns. On land, beneath the Arctic tundra, are immense pools of frozen methane—a greenhouse gas far more potent than carbon dioxide. As the tundra thaws, the risk of this methane escaping increases.4 Were this to happen, the consequences would be dire and global in scope. As we continue not just to spill but to burn the fossil fuels that cause climate change, we are nudging the Arctic toward a meltdown that will make sea levels and temperatures rise even faster, with potentially catastrophic consequences for all life on Earth—no matter where one lives it. For the sake of the planet, losing the Arctic is not an option. Mitigating the impact of climate change there ultimately depends upon our getting serious about replacing fossil fuels with non-carbon-based renewable energies. Until we demonstrate the will and good sense to do that, however, the Arctic needs to be protected from other environmental threats that, compounded by the stress of climate change, undermine its resiliency and hasten its demise. Chief among those threats is offshore drilling—especially in the absence of any credible and tested means of responding effectively to a major spill. Future technological advances may give us those means, but this report argues that we do not have them yet and that we should not drill in the Arctic until we do.

(insert environment impact)

2NC Ext. Arctic IMpact

Arctic ecosystems are key biodiversity hotspots

Gill ’09 (Michael, is the Chair of the Circumpolar Biodiversity Monitoring Program, “Climate Change and Artic Sustainable Development: scientific, social, cultural and educational challenges”, 3-6 March 2009, http://www.unesco.org/csi/LINKS/monaco-abstracts/Gill_abstract_MonacoUNESCOarctic.pdf, Accessed: 7/10, SD)

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. ¶ To meet these challenges and in response to the Arctic Climate Impact ¶ Assessment’s recommendation to expand and enhance Arctic biodiversity monitoring, the ¶ Conservation of Arctic Flora and Fauna (CAFF) Working Group of the Arctic Council ¶ launched the Circumpolar Biodiversity Monitoring Program (CBMP). The CBMP is working ¶ with over 60 global partners to expand, integrate and enhance existing Arctic biodiversity ¶ monitoring efforts to facilitate more rapid detection, communication and response to ¶ significant trends and pressures. ¶ Towards this end, the CBMP is establishing five Expert Monitoring Groups ¶ representing major Arctic themes (Marine, Coastal, Freshwater, Terrestrial Vegetation & ¶ Terrestrial Fauna). Each group, representing a diversity of expertise including both ¶ community-based and scientific-based monitoring capabilities, is tasked with developing ¶ pan-Arctic, comprehensive and integrated biodiversity monitoring plans for the Arctic’s biomes. ¶ To facilitate effective reporting, the CBMP is developing a suite of indices and ¶ indicators and a web-based data portal that will be used to report on the current state of ¶ Arctic biodiversity at various scales and levels of detail to suit a wide range of audiences. ¶ The current and planned CBMP biodiversity monitoring underpins these indices and ¶ indicators.

Biodiversity key to Earth's life-support functions in a changing world

2NC Link

Drilling causes spills

Kollewe & Terry 2012 (cites report from Lyods, Julia, Macalister The Guardian, Wednesday 11 April 2012 “Arctic oil rush will ruin ecosystem, warns Lloyd's of London” http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/apr/12/lloyds-london-warns-risks-arctic-oil-drilling)
But the new report from Lloyd's, written by Charles Emmerson and Glada Lahn of Chatham House, says it is "highly likely" that future economic activity in the Arctic will further disturb ecosystems already stressed by the consequences of climate change."Migration patterns of caribou and whales in offshore areas may be affected. Other than the direct release of pollutants into the Arctic environment, there are multiple ways in which ecosystems could be disturbed, such as the construction of pipelines and roads, noise pollution from offshore drilling, seismic survey activity or additional maritime traffic as well as through the break-up of sea ice. The authors point out that the Arctic is not one but several ecosystems, and is "highly sensitive to damage" that would have a long-term impact. They are calling for "baseline knowledge about the natural environment and consistent environmental monitoring". Pollution sources include mines, oil and gas installations, industrial sites and, in the Russian Arctic, nuclear waste from civilian and military installations, and from nuclear weapons testing on Novaya Zemlya. The report singles out a potential oil spill as the "greatest risk in terms of environmental damage, potential cost and insurance" – but says there are significant knowledge gaps in this area.

2NC AT: Cleanup

Zero risk of clean up—lack of infrastructure and planning takes out their defense

Dlouhy 4/23 (Jennifer A., Energy Reporter at the Houston Chronicle, citing NRC report on Oil drilling in the Arctic - http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=18625, “U.S. could be caught cold by Arctic oil spill, report says”, 4/23/14, http://www.houstonchronicle.com/business/energy/article/U-S-could-be-caught-cold-by-Arctic-oil-spill-5425524.php)//WL)

WASHINGTON - The United States is ill prepared to tackle oil spills in the Arctic, whether from drilling or from cargo and cruise ships traveling through newly passable waterways once clogged with ice, the National Research Council reported Wednesday. Extreme weather conditions and sparse infrastructure in the Chukchi and Beaufort seas - more than 1,000 miles from the nearest deep-water port - would complicate any broad emergency response. Ice in those remote oceans can trap pockets of oil, locking it beyond the reach of conventional cleanup equipment and preventing it from naturally breaking down over time. "The lack of infrastructure in the Arctic would be a significant liability in the event of a large oil spill," scientists said in a 198-page National Research Council report requested by the American Petroleum Institute, the Coast Guard, the federal Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement and five other entities. "It is unlikely that responders could quickly react to an oil spill unless there were improved port and air access, stronger supply chains and increased capacity to handle equipment, supplies and personnel." The report offers more than a dozen recommendations for what regulators, the oil industry and other stakeholders need to do to boost their ability to tackle a crude oil or fuel spill at the top of the globe, as retreating sea ice spurs new energy development and ship traffic there. A chief recommendation: More research across the board, from meteorological studies to investigations of how oil spill cleanup methods would work in the Arctic. The National Research Council - an arm of the National Academy of Sciences and the National Academy of Engineering - insisted the United States needs "a comprehensive, collaborative, long-term Arctic oil spill research and development program." The council encouraged controlled releases of oil in Arctic waters - a practice generally barred under U.S. environmental laws - to evaluate response strategies. Although the federal government and oil industry are conducting lab studies that attempt to replicate Arctic conditions, the report suggests there is no substitute for the real thing and said the studies could be done without environmental harm. Warmer waters Most information on responding to oil spills has been developed in temperate conditions, such as in the Gulf of Mexico, so it may not translate to the Arctic, where cold water and sea ice may limit the amount of oil that naturally disperses and evaporates. Workers practice deploying an inflatable oil containment boom before Royal Dutch Shell began drilling in Alaskan Arctic seas in 2012. Jennifer A. Dlouhy Workers practice deploying an inflatable oil containment boom before Royal Dutch Shell began drilling in Alaskan Arctic seas in 2012. Because no response methods are completely effective or risk-free, the industry and government need a broad "oil spill response toolbox," the report said. Pre-tested and pre-positioned equipment - along with plans for using it - would be critical to ensuring a swift response in an oil spill, the group said. When Shell was drilling for oil in the Chukchi Sea and Beaufort seas in 2012, it stashed containment booms and other equipment along Alaska's northern coast and had a fleet of spill response vessels floating nearby. Shell since has suspended operations there following a series of marine mishaps before and after the drilling projects. Cold-weather effects Arctic cleanup options include chemical dispersants that can break down oil, either applied at the surface or near a wellhead, but the researchers said more work is needed to understand their effectiveness and long-term effects in the Arctic. While burning thick patches of floating oil is a viable spill countermeasure in the Arctic - potentially aided by ice that helps corral the crude - that approach fails when ice drifts apart and oil spreads too thin to ignite. Using booms, vessels and skimmers to concentrate oil slicks also may be difficult in the region, where there are few disposal sites for the contaminated equipment, sparse port facilities for the vessels and limited airlift capabilities. The National Research Council says this kind of mechanical recovery is probably best for small spills in pack ice, but it would likely be inefficient for a large offshore spill in the U.S. Arctic. Coast Guard presence The group also suggested the U.S. Coast Guard's relatively small presence in the U.S. Arctic is not sufficient, and that it needs icebreaking capability, more vessels for responding to emergency situations, and eventually aircraft support facilities that can work year-round. The report cited other resources now lacking in the Arctic, including equipment to detect, monitor and model the flow of oil on and under ice, and real-time monitoring of vessel traffic in the U.S. Arctic. A politically tricky recommendation is for the Coast Guard to expand an existing bilateral pact with Russia to allow joint Arctic spill exercises. Chris Krenz, a Juneau, Alaska-based senior scientist with the conservation group Oceana, said the report offers "a sobering look at our lack of preparedness" and suggests that the U.S. should reconsider whether to allow offshore drilling in the region. But oil industry representatives said the council rightly calls for more research and resources to combat spills there. The American Petroleum Institute was "encouraged by the report's emphasis on the need for a full toolbox of spill response technologies," spokesman Carlton Carroll said. The report was the product of a 14-member committee of the National Research Council, organized by the National Academy of Sciences, with representatives drawn from academia, the oil industry and Alaska.

Directory: files
files -> Answer True False 2 points Question 2
files -> Integer programming and game theory
files -> 4 Integer Programming
files -> Bpa vehicle Window Repair Scenario #1 task: Procure vehicle window relacement. Objective
files -> Pop Warner History
files -> North Carolina Inclusion Initiative Mapping Where Children with ieps are Being Served Purpose
files -> Fall 2013 Spring 2014 Program Data: Standard 1 Exhibit 4d
files -> Hanban – asia society confucius classrooms network 2010 request for proposal
files -> Northern England’s set-jetting locations

Download 0.65 Mb.

Share with your friends: