3 ms·

> The largest problem is spill damages will cost an order of magnitude more to prevent/stop/clean because the arctic is so remote and all effort there is less e

> The largest problem is spill damages will cost an order of magnitude more to prevent/stop/clean because the arctic is so remote and all effort there is less efficient. Actually, I'd guess that an offshore Arctic oil spill could be much cheaper. There aren't any capabilities to clean one up, so they wouldn't. (For example, in the 2010 BP spill: "In summer 2010, approximately 47,000 people and 7,000 vessels were involved in the project." [1] Even with ideal weather, nothing close to that would be possible in the Arctic.) [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deepwater_Horizon_oil_spill#Containment.2C_collection_and_use_of_dispersants https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deepwater_Horizon_oil_spill#Co...

saryant 11y ago
This is 100% not true. Shell's Arctic response plan was approved by various regulatory agencies and was deemed adequate. In situ burning, dispersants, mechanical recovery. Note that 10,000 people were on the ground cleaning up Valdez and that sort of disaster is as easily mitigated as a spill from a well (can't really cap a ship). There's no reason to believe Shell couldn't mobilize as many or more. (warning, pdf download) http://www.shell.us/about-us/projects-and-locations/shell-in-alaska/oil-spill-prevention-and-response/_jcr_content/par/textimage_0.file/1434017610329/2bd0855b76990dc91a41dc3b368c07f2/alaska-oil-spillresponsebrochure.pdf http://www.shell.us/about-us/projects-and-locations/shell-in... I couldn't find a link to the full plan but it's on the internet somewhere.