http://www.youtu.be/watch?v=Qm2ogSgYkpw&feature=related
http://www.youtu.be/watch?v=qS2FbvfnNDw
http://www.youtu.be/watch?v=cgwXsRq7fs0&feature=related
OIL SPILL PREVENTION and RESPONSE IN THE U.S. ARCTIC - Unexamined Risks, Unacceptable Consequences:
(Please read this very informative document if you wish to further understand the issues surrounding the Arctic and drilling there.)
http://www.pewtrusts.org/uploadedFiles/wwwpewtrustsorg/Reports/Protecting_ocean_life/PEW-1010_ARTIC_Report.pdf
Executive Summary:
This report examines the risks, challenges and potential consequences of oil spills associated with oil and gas exploration and production in the outer continental shelf (OCS) of the United States
Arctic Ocean. The April 2010 Deepwater Horizon well blowout in the Gulf of Mexico prompted a reconsideration of the potential for a major blowout from proposed oil exploration or production in the Arctic OCS. This report was developed to contribute to the policy discussion regarding the risksand consequences of such spills.
Several key concepts underlie the technical information and analysis presented in this report:
• The Arctic Ocean is a unique operating environment, and the characteristics of the Arctic OCS—its remote location, extreme climate and dynamic sea ice—exacerbate the risks and consequences of oil spills while complicating cleanup.
• Oil spill contingency plans often underestimate the probability and consequence of catastrophic blowouts, particularly for frontier offshore drilling in the U.S. Arctic Ocean.
• The impact of an oil well blowout in the U.S. Arctic Ocean could devastate an already stressed ecosystem, and there is very little baseline science upon which to anticipate the impact or estimate damage.
• Oil spill cleanup technologies and systems are unproved in the Arctic Ocean, and recent laboratory and !eld trials (including the Joint Industry Program) have evaluated only discrete technologies under controlled conditions.
• Certain environmental and weather conditions would preclude an oil spill response in the Arctic Ocean, yet an Arctic spill response gap is not incorporated into existing oil spill contingency plans or risk evaluations.
This report recommends several areas in which additional work is needed to reach a level of sufficient planning and preparedness to minimize the potentially adverse e"ects of an oil spill resulting from offshore oil and gas exploration or production in the U.S. Arctic Ocean. Federal agencies should:
1. Conduct baseline studies to better understand the marine ecosystem and increase scienti!c knowledge regarding the Arctic ecology and sensitivity to oil spills before introduction of new offshore oil spill risks.
2. Improve spatial data and mapping of Arctic species, habitat and sensitive ecosystems.
3. Develop oil spill trajectory models with the capability to model oil fate and behavior in the presence of a range of sea ice conditions.
4. Require operators to plan for the possibility of a worst-case well blowout and adopt all available engineering and management measures to prevent blowouts.
5. Conduct full-scale deployment exercises under a range of o"shore Arctic conditions to determine the limits for safely and e"ectively mounting a large-scale offshore response in the U.S. Arctic Ocean.
6. Conduct an Arctic oil spill response gap analysis to delineate the upper operating limits of existing response technologies in the U.S. Arctic Ocean and then estimate the frequency and duration of periods when no oil spill response may be feasible.
Royal Dutch Shell has been on a six-year crusade to drill in Arctic waters off Alaska’s coast, and has spent about $4 billion on the effort so far without drilling a single well.
But the company took one more bureaucratic baby step forward this week toward drilling in the Chukchi Sea later this year. An appeals board of the Environmental Protection Agency on Thursday rejected fourchallenges brought by Alaska Native entities and environmental groups likeEarthjustice to block Clean Air Act permits covering airborne emissions from industrial operations.
Opponents argued that nitrogen dioxide emissions from drilling would pollute the air of Native communities, but the appeals board concluded that the evidence presented was not robust enough to support the claim.
Nonetheless, Shell faces more hurdles, including a possible appeal of the decision to the federal courts.
But since delays in the air-permitting process was a principal reason Shell did not drill last year, Shell executives have expressed cautious satisfaction with the new ruling..
Four weeks ago the company received conditional federal approval to drill six exploratory wells in Arctic waters, but environmentalists say they will press on with their appeals. They argue a spill in freezing waters would be a disaster for endangered wildlife and challenging to clean up because of the region’s harsh climate, ice cover on the water, strong winds and long seasonal darkness.
“We look forward to continued progress on the permitting front and remain committed to working with regulators and stakeholders to achieve all of the permits necessary to drill in 2012,” Shell said in an optimistic statement late Thursday.
Eric Jorgensen, an Earthjustice lawyer, said: “We’re disappointed. The E.P.A. cut corners in issuing the permit and we don’t believe it complies with the Clean Air Act.”
As for an appeal, he said, “We’re looking at all options.”
But the company took one more bureaucratic baby step forward this week toward drilling in the Chukchi Sea later this year. An appeals board of the Environmental Protection Agency on Thursday rejected fourchallenges brought by Alaska Native entities and environmental groups likeEarthjustice to block Clean Air Act permits covering airborne emissions from industrial operations.
Opponents argued that nitrogen dioxide emissions from drilling would pollute the air of Native communities, but the appeals board concluded that the evidence presented was not robust enough to support the claim.
Nonetheless, Shell faces more hurdles, including a possible appeal of the decision to the federal courts.
But since delays in the air-permitting process was a principal reason Shell did not drill last year, Shell executives have expressed cautious satisfaction with the new ruling..
Four weeks ago the company received conditional federal approval to drill six exploratory wells in Arctic waters, but environmentalists say they will press on with their appeals. They argue a spill in freezing waters would be a disaster for endangered wildlife and challenging to clean up because of the region’s harsh climate, ice cover on the water, strong winds and long seasonal darkness.
“We look forward to continued progress on the permitting front and remain committed to working with regulators and stakeholders to achieve all of the permits necessary to drill in 2012,” Shell said in an optimistic statement late Thursday.
Eric Jorgensen, an Earthjustice lawyer, said: “We’re disappointed. The E.P.A. cut corners in issuing the permit and we don’t believe it complies with the Clean Air Act.”
As for an appeal, he said, “We’re looking at all options.”
0 comments:
Post a Comment