Counterplans General Stuff

Oil spills CPs

Research and Development Counterplan

The United States federal government should establish a comprehensive, collaborative, long-term Arctic oil spill research and development program

Oil spill responses are ineffective because weak knowledge base – the counterplan researches the area and develops effective responses

Grabowski et al ’14 – National Research Council (Martha R., “Responding to Oil Spills in the U.S Arctic Marine Environment”, National Academy of Sciences) //J.N.E

A comprehensive, collaborative, long-term Arctic oil spill research and development program that integrates all knowledgeable sectors and focuses on oil behavior, response technologies, and controlled field releases is needed. Laboratory experiments, field research, and practical experience gained from responding to past oil spills have built a strong body of knowledge on oil properties and oil spill response techniques. However, much of the work has been done for temperate regions, and there are areas where additional research is needed to make informed decisions about the most effective response strategies for different Arctic situations. In the presence of lower water temperatures or sea ice, the processes that control oil weathering—such as spreading, evaporation, photooxidation, emulsification, and natural dispersion—are slowed down or eliminated for extended periods of time. Due to encapsulation of oil by new ice growth, oil can also be separated from the environment for months at a time. Understanding how oil behaves or changes in the Arctic environment can help define the most effective oil spill response actions. In addition to ongoing research on oil properties and weathering in high latitudes, there is a need to validate current and emerging oil spill response technologies on operational scales under realistic environmental conditions. Carefully planned and controlled field releases of oil in the U.S. Arctic would improve the understanding of oil behavior in the Bering Strait and Beaufort and Chukchi Seas and allow for the evaluation of new response strategies specific to the region. Scientific field releases that have been conducted elsewhere in the Arctic demonstrate that such studies can be carried out without measureable harm to the environment. Recommendation: A comprehensive, collaborative, long-term Arctic oil spill research and development program needs to be established. The program should focus on understanding oil spill behavior in the Arctic marine environment, including the relationship between oil and sea ice formation, transport, and fate. It should include assessment of oil spill response technologies and logistics, improvements to forecasting models and associated data needs, and controlled field releases under realistic conditions for research purposes. Industry, academic, government, non-governmental, grassroots, and international efforts should be integrated into the program, with a focus on peer review and transparency. An interagency permit approval process that will enable researchers to plan and execute deliberate releases in U.S. waters is also needed.

Forecasting Counterplan

The United States federal government should implement a real-time Arctic ocean-ice-meteorological forecasting system.

Lack of coordination and research is the key internal link to solving oil spills – forecasting solves

Grabowski et al ’14 – National Research Council (Martha R., “Responding to Oil Spills in the U.S Arctic Marine Environment”, National Academy of Sciences) //J.N.E

A fundamental understanding of the dynamic Arctic region (Figures S.1 and S.2) is needed to help guide oil spill response and recovery efforts. Information on physical processes— including ocean circulation, ice cover, marine weather, and coastal processes—is important to frame the environmental context for the Arctic ecosystem and can help responders predict where oil will spread and how weathering might change its properties. Parameters such as air and water Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved. Responding to Oil Spills in the U.S. Arctic Marine Environment 2 temperatu effective Figure S.1 The red bo select Alas K likely beh high-qua traffic ma populatio determin ure, wind ve and safe res Location map ox shows the lo skan cities are a Knowledge o havior of oil ality bathyme anagement a on dynamics nation of key elocity, and h sponse strate p of Alaska and ocation of the in also shown. of ice thickne l in, under, a etry, nautica and oil spill r s and interco y species that Responding PREPUB hours of day egy. d the continent nset map in Fig ess, concentr and on ice an al charting, a response. Fr nnections w t are most im g to Oil Spill BLICATION C ylight are imp tal United State gure S.2. Bathy ration, and e nd determinin nd shoreline rom a biolog within the Arc mportant for ls in the U.S OPY portant cons es, and surroun ymetry, geopo extent is esse ng applicabl e mapping da gical perspec ctic food we monitoring S. Arctic Mar siderations in nding countries litical boundar ential for ant le response s ata are neede ctive, unders eb will enabl in the instan rine Environ n choosing a s and water bod ries, capitals, a ticipating the strategies, w ed for marin tanding le the nce of an oil nment an dies. and e while ne spill. Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved. Responding to Oil Spills in the U.S. Arctic Marine Environment Summary Figure S.2 Sea. Geopo correspond B provide r anticipate change. I points ov response  Sm  S  Id  R  S  H  M y Location map olitical bounda ds to the red bo Baseline data reliable base e potential im Instead, mon ver time, rath in the Arcti patial and te mammals; ubsistence a dentification Rates of chan ensitivity of High-resoluti Measurement p of Alaska and aries, principal ox in Figure S.1 a are critical lines to asse mpacts due t nitoring appr her than stati c include: emporal distr and cultural u n and monito nge for key s f key Arctic ion coastal to ts of ice cove PREPUB d U.S. Arctic w coastal commu 1. to assess cha ess current en to factors su roaches will ic baselines. ributions and use of living oring of areas species; species to hy opography a er, thickness BLICATION C waters, focused unities, cities, anges over t nvironmenta ch as season need to take Critical typ d abundance g marine reso s of biologic ydrocarbons and shelf bath s, and distrib OPY d on the Bering and bathymetr time. In the A al or ecosyst nal and intera e advantage es of benchm es for fishes, ources; cal significan s; hymetry; an bution. g Strait, Chukch ry are also show Arctic, histo tem states, no annual varia of benchmar mark data fo , birds, and m nce; d 3 hi Sea, and Be wn. Map area rical data do or can they f ations or clim rks, or refere or oil spill marine aufort o not fully mate ence Additional research and development needs include meteorological-ocean-ice forecast model systems at high temporal and spatial resolutions and better assimilation of traditional knowledge of sea state and ice behavior into forecasting models. Releasing proprietary monitoring data from exploration activities would increase knowledge of Arctic benchmark conditions. When appropriate, Arctic communities could also release data that they hold regarding important sites for fishing, hunting, and cultural activities. In many instances, frequent and regular long-term monitoring will be needed to determine trends. Because data are or will be collected by a number of local, state, and federal agencies, as well as industry and academia, a complete information system that integrates Arctic data in support of oil spill preparedness, response, and restoration and rehabilitation is needed. Achieving this goal requires the development of international standards for Arctic data collection, sharing, and integration. A long-term, community-based, multiuse Arctic observing system could provide critical data at a variety of scales. Recommendation: A real-time Arctic ocean-ice-meteorological forecasting system is needed to account for variations in sea ice coverage and thickness and should include patterns of ice movement, ice type, sea state, ocean stratification and circulation, storm surge, and improved resolution in areas of potential risk. Such a system requires robust, sustainable, and effective acquisition of relevant observational data. Recommendation: High-resolution satellite and airborne imagery needs to be coupled with up-to-date high-resolution digital elevation models and updated regularly to capture the dynamic, rapidly changing U.S. Arctic coastline. Nearshore bathymetry and topography should be collected at a scale appropriate for accurate modeling of coastline vulnerability and storm surge sensitivity. Short- and long-term Arctic nautical charting and shoreline mapping that have been identified in NOAA and U.S. Geological Survey plans should be adequately resourced, so that mapping efforts can be initiated, continued, and completed in timescales relevant to anticipated changes. To be effective, Arctic mapping priorities should continue to be developed in consultation with stakeholders and industry and should be implemented systematically rather than through surveys of opportunity.

Laundry List Counterplan

The United States federal government should

• 
  spill oil in the Arctic for the sole purpose of research on cleanup
  
• 
  increase exploration and mapping of the Arctic
  
• 
  increase Coast Guard presence in the Arctic
  
• 
  increase regional cooperation with Russia for the purpose of preventing oil spills
  
• 
  develop an evacuation plan for wildlife
  

That solves oil spills effectively

Nunez ’14 – energy correspondent for National Geographic (Christina, “What Happens When Oil Spills in the Arctic? A National Research Council report says we're far from ready.” April 23^rd, http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/energy/2014/04/140423-national-research-council-on-oil-spills-in-arctic/) //J.N.E

The 183-page report marks the first time in more than ten years that the NRC, an arm of the National Academy of Sciences, has taken a comprehensive look at the impact of oil and gas exploration in the Arctic. In the intervening decade, sea ice cover hit a record low, shipping traffic increased dramatically, and the price of oil rose sharply, prompting such companies as Shell,* ExxonMobil, and ConocoPhillips to acquire new leases for oil and gas. (Related: "Ice-Breaking: U.S. Oil Drilling Starts as Nations Mull Changed Arctic.") The Arctic contains an estimated 13 percent of the world's undiscovered oil, and one-third of that oil lies within U.S. territory. Shell's attempt to drill into it in 2012 illustrated the challenge of working in the Arctic: The campaign ended with the drilling rig, the Kulluk, running aground and needing to be rescued. (See: "Coast Guard Blames Shell Risk-Taking in Kulluk Rig Accident.") Shell and other companies have suspended Arctic drilling plans for 2014, but there is little doubt the push to develop the region's energy resources will continue. (Read more Arctic coverage from the Great Energy Challenge.) The NRC report invokes the Kulluk incident, as well as the BP Deepwater Horizon and Exxon Valdez disasters, as cautionary tales. It was authored by a committee that included representatives from academia, research and environmental organizations, and the energy industry. (Related: "Summer Arctic Sea Ice Recovers From 2012, But Trend 'Decidedly' Down.") Here are five of the gaps that the panel says need to be addressed for the U.S. to be ready for an oil spill in the Arctic: 1. We need to spill some oil (on purpose). Much of the existing research on oil properties and spill response has been done for temperate regions, the report notes. More research is needed to understand how oil behaves in an Arctic environment—and unfortunately, the best way to find out is to spill some in a controlled way. Research facilities such as the Ohmsett test center in New Jersey have simulated spills in icy conditions. But permits to deliberately release oil into U.S. waters for research have become harder to obtain in the United States in the past 15 years. The NRC advocates a streamlined permit process. (Related: "As Arctic Melts, a Race to Test Oil Spill Cleanup Technology.") 2. We need to know more about the Arctic. The technology available for monitoring and mapping the Arctic has improved markedly over the last decade, but there are significant holes. "A decade ago, I think there was hope we might have filled some of these data gaps," says Mark Myers of the University of Alaska, Fairbanks, who contributed to the report. "Fundamental, high-resolution data that we need sometimes just isn't there." Existing nautical charts for the Arctic shoreline are "mostly obsolete," the NRC says, with many of them last updated in the 1950s. Less than 10 percent of the coastline, some 2,200 miles (3,540 kilometers), has adequate data on seafloor topography, Myers says. That increases the chance a vessel could run aground and spill oil, according to the report, and it could hamper a cleanup too. So could ice and stormy seas, of course. The report points to a need for better real-time data and forecasts of sea ice coverage and thickness. Though energy companies target late summer and early fall for exploration activity, "ice-free regions can transition to ice-covered conditions in a matter of days at the start of a fall freeze-up," the report says. Sea ice does offer one advantage, though, according to the report: It could help contain spilled oil in a way that would make it easier to set fire to and burn off. 3. We need more U.S. Coast Guard presence. "The U.S. Coast Guard has a low level of presence in the Arctic, especially during the winter," the NRC warns. Its closest station to the Arctic, in Kodiak, is more than 900 air miles (1,448 kilometers) south of Alaska's North Slope, limiting its ability to respond to a spill quickly. "A 'presence' is bodies, but it is also vessels or platforms, and aerial capability for airlift in the event of an oil spill response," says Martha Grabowski, who chaired the NRC report committee. "The transportation infrastructure that the rest of us would presuppose to be existing as it is in the lower 48 simply doesn't exist up north." But "the Coast Guard can't do this alone," Grabowski says; it doesn't have the budget. The NRC report stresses the need for public-private partnerships and community engagement to address the challenges of dealing with an Arctic spill. 4. We need to work with the Russians. Last year, the Northern Sea Route between Asia and Europe saw many firsts: the first transit for a container ship, the first voyages for Chinese and South Korean vessels—and the first tanker accident. Russia has promoted use of the route, where its state-operated icebreaker fleet offers mandatory escort in exchange for a fee. Among the ships traveling the Northern Sea Route last year, the NRC says, were oil tankers carrying more than 800,000 barrels of oil. (Related: "Arctic Shipping Soars, Led by Russia and Lured by Energy.") The expansion of the Northern Sea Route has in turn led to increased traffic through U.S. waters in the Bering Strait. This points to the need for better traffic management—the U.S. doesn't have a system for monitoring ships in the Arctic. But "the international demarcation line [between Russian and U.S. waters] runs right down the middle of the Bering Strait, so we can't make a unilateral determination with respect to what to do for vessel traffic monitoring," Grabowski says. The United States should also conduct joint oil spill response exercises with Russia, the report says. Such planning has already taken place with Canada, but even though the U.S. has an oil spill response agreement with Russia, it has not conducted formal exercises or hammered out any contingency plans. 5. We need a plan for wildlife. The Arctic is home to endangered species such as bowhead whales, polar bears, and ringed seals. Rehabilitating wildlife affected by an oil spill in the Arctic is complicated by remote locations, adverse conditions, the use of marine mammals for subsistence by indigenous people, and safety concerns (dealing with an injured walrus or polar bear is more hazardous than dealing with, say, an oiled pelican). What's more, there's no plan for keeping animals out of harm's way in the Arctic. "There is a general lack of scientific study, approved protocols, and consensus" on how best to deter wildlife from entering a spill zone, the report says. (Take the quiz: "What You Don't Know About Energy in the Changing Arctic.")