Zeitgeist 2011: Year In Review

Zeitgeist 2010: Year in Review

Why Japan still needs nuclear power

NO ONE can accuse Japanese Premier Yoshihiko Noda of being gutless. On Sunday, he pushed through the controversial restarting of the Oi nuclear reactor in western Japan - more than a year after a tsunami damaged reactors at Fukushima.

Following the Fukushima disaster, all the country's nuclear reactors had been shut down amid popular opposition to nuclear po-wer.

On the surface, the prognosis for nuclear power is not good. Soon after the Fukushima disaster, Germany said it would shut down half of its nuclear plants and abandon the use of nuclear power by 2022. Likewise, Switzerland said no new plants would be built, and that five existing plants would be mothballed by 2034. In a recent special report titled The Dream That Failed, The Economist magazine underscored the growing coolness towards nuclear power.

Does this mean the death of nuclear power? Not quite.

It is worth noting that before the Fukushima disaster, nuclear power had enjoyed 25 years of safety after the 1986 crisis at Chernobyl.

Widespread concerns about energy security and climate change had also led to an alliance between environmentalists and advocates of nuclear power. The strongest argument then - and now too - is that nuclear power generates virtually no greenhouse gases. And compared to other non-carbon sources of power, nuclear power is still the only viable large-scale alternative to fossil fuels.

Future plans for the use of nuclear power validate this. In a recent report, the Economist Intelligence Unit (EIU) forecast that Japan would still have 44.7 gigawatts (gw) of nuclear capacity in 2020 - marginally lower than the 46.8gw in 2010. In a December report, the European Commission said that nuclear energy remained an important option for decarbonising energy supplies. Around the world, 60 new reactors are being constructed in 14 countries, many located in Asia. China, for instance, is aiming to increase the number of its reactors from 14 to 80 by 2030.

Mr Jitsuro Terashima, an official at Japan's Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry who is reviewing Japan's energy policies in the wake of the Fukushima accident, said that nuclear energy should not be discarded altogether, but used in tandem with renewable sources. The 'best mix', he told the EIU, should be 20 per cent of energy from nuclear sources, 30 per cent from renewable sources and 40 per cent from fossil fuels by 2030. This is different from Tokyo's earlier plan to stick to a ratio of 50 per cent, 20 per cent and 30 per cent respectively.

'I am not 'pro-nuclear' (to the exclusion of other energy sources). I was proposing renewable energy as early as the 1970s, and I intend to help turn the wheel as much as possible towards renewable energy at this crossroads for Japan's energy strategy,' he said.

Japan's realistic approach after Fukushima is laudable. Even Germany's attempt at eradicating nuclear power in the long term has run into problems. Recently, it was reported that it had to import energy due to supply shortfalls.

This is not to say nuclear power is problem-free. The disposal of nuclear waste is problematic, while the construction of reactors can suffer from cost over-runs. And arguably, the word 'nuclear' has put a historical burden on Japan. In 1945, it was the first country to be attacked by nuclear weapons. The Fukushima disaster also meant that Japan became the first Asian country to suffer from radiation fallout following a nuclear accident. In psychological terms, the Japanese are suffering from the availability heuristic - that is, the nuclear crisis of last year has captured so much attention that the risks of another nuclear accident have been exaggerated.

Indeed, experts say that the impact on public health resulting from accidents such as Chernobyl and Fukushima are not as bad as originally envisaged. Professor Gerry Thomas, the chair in molecular pathology at Imperial College in London, said that the only public health effect caused by the Chernobyl accident has been a large increase in thyroid cancer cases among those who were children at the time of the accident. Of the 6,000 thyroid cancer cases, only 15 had proved fatal by 2005. The predicted death rate going forward is about 1 per cent, she said in an e-mail.

Over at Fukushima, the number of cancer-related deaths will probably not increase, The Japan Times reported.

Said Prof Thomas: 'Personally, I do think that nuclear energy is a safe option, providing we learn the lessons of past accidents and are ready to put into place mitigating procedures as they did in Japan.'

Indeed, if Japan takes a realistic approach to nuclear power, it could provide a model for other countries contemplating nuclear power.

'I believe Japan must remain the symbol and exemplar of countries that resist the temptation of nuclear militarisation and focus instead on its peaceful use. Japan can help other countries that have the same aim,' said Mr Terashima.

Therein lie two paths mapped out by Germany and Japan: The former has opted for a little or no nuclear future, while the latter is moving along a road with some nuclear power involved.

For countries like Singapore, which have indicated an interest in nuclear power, the two futures constitute much food for thought.

williamc@sph.com.sg

 www.straitstimes.com

Published on Jul 5, 2012

 By William Choong

Nuclear plant accidents

Mayak or Kyshtym nuclear complex (Soviet Union): 29 September 1957

A fault in the cooling system at the nuclear complex, near Chelyabinsk, results in a chemical explosion and the release of an estimated 70 to 80 tonnes of radioactive materials into the air. Thousands of people are exposed to radiation and thousands more are evacuated from their homes. It is categorised as Level 6 on the seven-point International Nuclear Events Scale (INES).

Windscale nuclear reactor (UK): 7 October 1957

A fire in the graphite-core reactor, in Cumbria, results in a limited release of radioactivity (INES Level 5). The sale of milk from nearby farms is banned for a month. The reactor cannot be salvaged and is buried in concrete. A second reactor on the site is also shut down and the site decontaminated. Subsequently part of the site is renamed Sellafield and new nuclear reactors are built.

Idaho National Engineering Laboratory (USA): 3 January 1961

A steam explosion in reactor SL-1 during preparation for start-up destroys the small US Army experimental reactor and kills three operators.

Three Mile Island power plant, Pennsylvania (US): 29 March 1979

A cooling malfunction causes a partial meltdown in one reactor, resulting in a limited release of radioactivity (INES Level 5).

The site's first reactor (TMI One) on the Susquehanna river was closed for refuelling. The second was at full capacity when two malfunctions occurred: first there was a release of radioactive water, then radioactive gas was detected on the perimeter. No deaths or injuries were reported.

It is considered the United States' worst nuclear accident and led to major safety changes in the industry.

Chernobyl power plant (Soviet Union): 26 April 1986

One of four reactors explodes after an experiment at the power plant (INES Level 7). The resulting fire burns for nine days and at least 100 times more radiation than the atom bombs dropped on Nagasaki and Hiroshima is released into the air. Radioactive deposits are found in nearly every country in the northern hemisphere.

Two people die in the explosion and another 28 from acute radiation sickness in the immediate aftermath. Some experts predict thousands of extra cancer deaths as a result of the disaster.

A huge cover, known as the New Safe Confinement, is being built over the existing sarcophagus. It is expected to cover the site by 2013.

Severesk, formerly Tomsk-7 (Russia): 6 April 1993

A tank at a uranium and plutonium factory inside the plant explodes, resulting in radioactivity being dispersed into the atmosphere contaminating an area of over 120 sq km (INES Level 4). A number of villages are evacuated and left permanently uninhabitable.

Tokaimura nuclear fuel processing facility (Japan): 30 September 1999

Workers break safety regulations by mixing dangerously large amounts of treated uranium in metal buckets, setting off a nuclear reaction (INES Level 4).

Two of the workers later die from their injuries, and more than 40 others are treated for exposure to high levels of radiation.

Hundreds of residents living nearby were evacuated from their homes while the nuclear reaction continued, but were allowed home two days later.

Mihama power plant (Japan): 9 August 2004

Five people die in an accident at the plant in the Fukui province (INES Level 1). Seven people are also injured when hot water and steam leaks from a broken pipe.

Officials insist that no radiation leaked from the plant, and there is no danger to the surrounding area.

Fukushima Daiichi power plant (Japan): 11 March 2011

A powerful tsunami generated by a magnitude-9.0 earthquake out at sea slams into the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant, damaging four of six reactors at the site.

A series of fires are set off, after cooling systems fail. Venting hydrogen gas from the reactors causes explosions, forcing engineers to use seawater in an effort to cool overheating reactor cores.

Originally classified as INES Level 5, the severity was raised to INES Level 7 on 12 April 2011 when a new estimate suggested higher levels of radiation than previously thought had leaked from the plant.

Despite the classification, the incident is said to be much less severe than Chernobyl, and officials insist there is only a minimal risk to public health.

Macoule nuclear site (France), 12 September 2011

One person is killed and four are injured - one with serious burns - after an explosion in a furnace used to melt down nuclear waste and recycle it for energy. No radiation leaks nor damage to the plant are detected.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-13047267

Top 7 alternative energies listed

The US could replace all its cars and trucks with electric cars powered by wind turbines taking up less than 3 square kilometres - in theory, at least. That's the conclusion of a detailed study ranking 11 types of non-fossil fuels according to their total ecological footprint and their benefit to human health.

The study, carried out by Mark Jacobson at Stanford University, found wind power to be by far the most desirable source of energy. Biofuels from corn and plant waste came right at the bottom of the list, along with nuclear power and "clean" coal.

The energy sources that Jacobson found most promising were, in descending order:

• Wind

• Concentrated solar power (mirrors heating a tower of water)

• Geothermal energy

• Tidal energy

• Solar panels

• Wave energy

• Hydroelectric dams

To compare the fuels, Jacobson calculated the impacts each would have if it alone powered the entire US fleet of cars and trucks.

He considered not just the quantities of greenhouse gases that would be emitted, but also the impact the fuels would have on the ecosystem - taking up land and polluting water, for instance. Also considered were the fuel's impact on pollution and therefore human health, the availability of necessary resources, and the energy form's reliability.

"Some options that have been proposed are just downright awful," he says. "Ethanol-based biofuels will actually cause more harm to human health, wildlife, water supply, and land use than current fossil fuels." Jacobson says it would take 30 times more space to grow enough corn to power the US fleet than would be needed to erect enough wind turbines, while bioethanol would produce more greenhouse gases than wind power.

Nuclear is another energy source whose merits have been debated by European and US leaders alike in the past 12 months. "It results in 25 times more carbon and air pollution than wind," says Jacobson.

"Clean" coal - the process of burning coal then capturing the emitted carbon dioxide and storing it underground - is another political favourite. Jacobson's calculations show that building and using enough clean coal power plants would emit up to 110 times more carbon than building and using wind turbines only.

"The philosophy that we should try a little bit of everything is wrong," says Jacobson. "We need to focus on the technologies that provide the best benefit. We know which these are."

Jacobson acknowledges that politicians are calling for a massive jobs programme to pull the economy out of recession, but says investment in renewable energy is one way to do that. "Putting people to work building wind turbines, solar plants, geothermal plants, electric vehicles, and transmission lines would not only create jobs but also reduce costs due to healthcare, crop damage, and climate damage - as well as provide the world with a truly unlimited supply of clean power," he says.

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn16419-top-7-alternative-energies-listed.html

Power Options for Singapore

Many worry that the power we use now (fossil fuels such as coal, oil and gas) will run out one day. Furthermore, fossil fuels come with the risk of causing global warming and accidents like the Deepwater Horizon oil spill showed us the devastation caused.

Is nuclear energy inevitable for Singapore? Some people worry about the possible risks of using nuclear power like the fears of nuclear meltdown and the problem of nuclear waste.

What about alternative energy? Which alternative energy looks the most promising? What can you tell us about green energy and sustainable energy? Which do you think is the best power option?

What else can we do to handle the challenge of growing energy demands and the need to sustain economic growth.

Alternative Energy

Steven Chu Advocates Nuclear Power in Hearing

Does the world need nuclear energy?

Watch it on Academic Earth

You may want to navigate through this power point presentation of MJC E learning Module on Nuclear Energy and Environment concerns.

The Straits Times traces Singapore’s energy evolution.

1861-1862: The Singapore Gas Company was formed, and the Kallang Gasworks built to supply piped gas for street lighting. It used coal to produce gas until 1958, when it was converted to produce gas from oil. In 1997, it was replaced by the $240 million Senoko Gasworks.

1905: A power station was built in Mackenzie Road to supply electricity for trams.

1924-1927: The coal-fired St James Power Station was built, and began to deliver electricity for the island. It was decommissioned in the 1970s. Today, the national monument houses popular nightspots.

1963: The Public Utilities Board (PUB) was formed to supply gas, water and electricity to consumers.

1995: Singapore Power was incorporated as a commercial entity to take over the business of supplying gas and electricity from the PUB.

1990s: Singapore began to shift from relying solely on fuel oil to generate electricity, to getting electricity from natural gas. By 2002, oil accounted for about 51 per cent of its electricity, gas for 44 per cent, and waste incineration for the rest.

Last year, oil accounted for 17 per cent of electricity production, natural gas for 77 per cent, and waste and other sources for 6 per cent. Natural gas for electricity is piped into the island from Indonesia and Malaysia.

2001-2003: The electricity market was liberalised to let suppliers compete to provide power to about 10,000 non-residential consumers.

2006: The decision was made to import liquefied natural gas (LNG), which, unlike piped natural gas, does not have to come from the Republic's immediate neighbours. An LNG terminal, run by Singapore LNG Corporation, will come onstream in 2013.

2008: Tuas Power announced it will build a steam-and- electricity plant that will run on biomass (plant matter, mostly woodchips and palm kernels) and coal from the region. It is due to open in phases from next year.

2009-2011: The Housing Board announced and began a $31 million, five-year trial of solar power at 30 HDB precincts; solar energy will power lights at common areas such as stairwells.

2011: Malaysian electricity group Tenaga Nasional approached Singapore about buying some electricity from power stations here, to tide it over during shortages. During previous emergency outages, the two countries have shared electricity supply via two submarine cables linking Malaysia's grid with Singapore's at Senoko. The cables can transmit up to 200MW of power.

Students' Contribution Term 1 2012

Topic: Singapore Youth Olympics 2010

by Terrence Tan 1125

What happen - it was a multi international sports event which took place in Singapore 2010. About thirty- five thousand of athletes of age ranging from 14 to 18 participated in this event. Singapore was announced the host country in 2008.

Why did it happen - For the individual it aims to promote YOG as a balance of sports, culture and education? They wanted to educate, engage and influence the athletes to develop true sportsmanship and also the Olympics values namely, excellence, respect and friendship. And at the same time, have fun. As a whole, Singapore can use this chance to generate additional income for its country as there will be spending by the participants.

How was it significant - For the country, this can serve as a platform for Singapore to be internationally branded known for hosting the first ever youth Olympics . The YOG has helped to effectively and positively profile us to an international audience. Now, even before they knew that we are a safe city and efficient city, but now everyone knows that we are a beautiful, vibrant, dynamic, exciting, creative global city where people from all over the world will want to visit, live, work, play and invest in. The games were watched by over 2 billion viewers and at a point of time, the YOG channel was the most viewed channel on YouTube. Economically - S$260 million worth of local contracts went to our local companies. The Singapore Tourism Board had earlier also estimated that the YOG will bring in S$57 million in additional tourism receipts. Visa International recently reported that spending on foreign Visa- branded payment cards in Singapore went up by some S$154 million during the Games period.

What are the consequences of the event?

Positive - The YOG experience has laid a strong foundation for building our sporting culture, particularly in the areas of spectatorship, community involvement, as well as volunteer engagement. With this experience and knowledge and the networks that they have forged, Singaporeans, both officials, volunteers and staff are now better equipped than ever before to host world class sporting events, as well as to prepare our athletes to compete at highest levels. Good opportunity for us to reach out to our young Singaporeans, inspire the youth to pursue their dreams of being a sportsman and representing Singapore. As it allows local Singaporean youths to participate and represent Singapore for such a major event.

However, to the rest of the Singaporeans that are not involved 90% of the 4000 people surveyed are not interested in the YOG. But due to success of this event, this can cause them to change their mind set and hopefully instil a sense of national pride in them. The IOC initially projected in 2007 the Youth Olympic Games would cost US$30 million to stage. Singapore won its bid in 2008 with a budget of US$75.5 million (S$105 million) with strong government support. The budget was later increased to U$284 million (S$387 million), thrice the original amount. This had cause a major uproar within the country and globally. With debates to use the extra money to help the poorer and needier people within Singapore. There are also debates on students being ' volunteered' out to help in the YOG and are rewarded with extra/co-curricular activity-related points, necessary for graduation and/or application for the next higher level of study.

How is it relevant to the present world? - The Olympics games is something that take place consistently. Thus this can serve as a learning point for the upcoming Olympics games. The planning stage is the most important and crucial stage. We can also use this to bond people of different culture and backgrounds together. As through sports, athletes forge strong ties with each other. This can promote mutual understanding as people set aside their difference and work together to reach the same goals. This also shows that as long as you put in effort you can achieve what you want. As Singapore is only a little red dot on the map, and to be able to host such a massive event, it really shows something about us and can also be a role model to other countries out there to work harder.

Implications - economic - To create a broad and lasting impact for the local economy, the Singapore government and Singapore Youth Olympic Games Organising Committee have made great effort to ensure the involvement of the business community in the Youth Olympic Games. In recent years, Singapore has seen an increase in sponsorship by large as well as small and medium sized companies for local sports events, indicating the increasing focus on the sports industry. Social - this can motivate more youths in Singapore to take up sports as they will be given a chance to take part in such events. Thus Singapore sports industry will improve without importing foreign talent. Because many Singaporeans is very unhappy about the fact that foreign talents are representing Singapore to take part in such competition.

Conclusion - organising large scale events will have its pros and cons. This is especially important if a slightly less developed country for example, South Africa, to host to 2010 world cup. The extra boost in national income during the time period will help the country grow. Not only short term, but also long term as it is globally branded. People will feel safer and want to invest in the country development.

Topic - WikiLeak by Joel Ling (1125)

“Everything that is secret will be brought out into the open. Everything that is hidden will be uncovered. What you have said in the dark will be heard in the daylight. What you have whispered to someone behind closed doors will be shouted from the rooftops.”

– Jesus Christ, Luke 12:2-3

“The best way to hide a misdeed is to refrain from committing it.”

– Chinese proverb

What happened?

Classified information revealing details of unaccounted killings of civilians by the United States Armed Forces in the Middle East was released on Wikileaks. This includes the Iraq war logs (released 22 October 2010), Afghanistan war logs (released 25 July 2010) and gunsight footage of a helicopter airstrike in Iraq (released 5 April 2010). Officer Bradley Manning was prosecuted under the Espionage Act of 1917 and Wikileaks editor-in-chief Julian Assange wanted as a result of the releases. Manning’s confessions to a stranger over the Internet, Adrian Lamo, were used against him after the latter turned in the chat logs to the Federal Bureau of Investigation.

Why did Manning and Assange choose their course of action?

Manning hoped that the leaked information would spark “worldwide discussion, debates and reforms” so that people may “see the truth” and “make informed decisions as a public” ^[Activism?]. His actions could have also been rash, considering that he was facing a life crisis during the period, when he admitted to have lost all emotional support. On the other hand, the purpose of Wikileaks, according to co-founder Assange, was to make “unjust systems … exquisitely vulnerable to those who seek to replace them with more open forms of governance” ^{[Worldwide scepticism towards leaders and authorities]}.

How is this significant?

This incident raised important yet difficult questions such as to what extent should the public be informed of government actions, whether whistleblowers should be protected or prosecuted, and most importantly, whether we should honour or doubt the judgements made by people put in power over us ^{[Post-modernism, Generation Y]}, and what should the bottom line be when it comes to deciding between following rigid yet necessary work ethics and breaking the rules for a greater good. It has also demonstrated the power of information and communications technology and its potential as a weapon in psychological warfare, besides reinforcing the view that unified, objective moral standards are extremely difficult to define.

What were the consequences?

Following the release of the Afghanistan war logs, Chairman of the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff, Admiral Mike Mullen, said at a Pentagon news conference, "Disagree with the war all you want, take issue with the policy, challenge me or our ground commanders on the decisions we make to accomplish the mission we've been given, but don't put those who willingly go into harm's way even further in harm's way just to satisfy your need to make a point. Mr Assange can say whatever he likes about the greater good he thinks he and his source are doing, but the truth is, they might already have on their hands the blood of some young soldier or that of an Afghan family." While this may be true, these disclosures have also changed the perceptions of the public towards war. Many people around the US rallied for Manning’s release, and he was even one of the 241 candidates listed for the 2011 Nobel Peace Prize.

How relevant is this to the present world?

This incident is very relevant to the present world as information disseminated on the Internet is still largely accessible by people around the world due to difficulty in regulating large amounts of encrypted communication passing through a sprawling network across jurisdictions. Coupled with the popular culture of activism, this poses a threat to governments worldwide and is likely to prompt more surveillance and control over what is shared on the Internet. A legal “coming of age” of the Internet would result in decreased freedom and privacy, thus threatening the ideals of the current generation brought up in an environment defined by user-generated content on the Internet ^{[SOPA, PIPA]}.

Further questions

Why is espionage against the US a crime punishable by death while the CIA is still actively in operation?

Has Lamo betrayed Manning? Consider the example of a clinical psychologist whose client reveals plans of committing homicide. Should the psychologist make a police report? Consider also, the example of a soldier ordered to kill.

Insights and conclusion

At the end of the day, perhaps the most important question we need to ask is this: who are we truly accountable to? What do we base our decisions upon? Who can tell us what is right and what is wrong? What is the best thing a human being can do when faced with difficult moral decisions? In my opinion, the best thing one can do is to acknowledge the fact that even the best decisions we make are somehow flawed, and that what we know to be true often turn out to be insufficient when we face such decisions in life. If one believes in God – as the motto of the United States of America declares: “In God we trust” – then perhaps the best thing for him to do is to ask for mercy and guidance from the One whom he is accountable to, and whichever path he chooses, he must live with its consequence.

Topic: Deepwater Horizon oil spill by Janice Chen 1125

Background information on the oil spill

The BP oil spill, also known as the Deepwater Horizon oil spill, is an oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico which flowed relentlessly for three months, starting from April 20 2010. It is the largest accidental marine oil spill in the history of petroleum industry. The spill arises from a sea-floor oil gusher that resulted from the explosion of Deepwater Horizon. The explosion killed 11 men working on the platform and injured 17 others. 4.9 million barrels of crude oil were spilled as a result. BP's accounts for 2010 put aside $41 billion USD to pay for the spill, two and a half times more than BP's entire profit in 2009. On top of that, marine life had been affected adversely.

The BP Oil Spill, being a major event in the world has greatly affected everyone in the world somehow or another. The global economy had its downturns and affecting the whole world not only economically, but socially and environmentally as well. Was it all BP’s fault? What can my country learn from this incident?

Background information on Keppel and SembCorp
In my own country, Singapore, we have our very own Keppel Corporation and SembCorp Marine that specializes in offshore oil rig designs. In the case of the BP Oil Spill, if the oil spill did happen in Singapore, the whole of Singapore, together with our neighboring countries would be covered in oil. According to our Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong’s speech during the National Day Rally in 2010, Keppel and SembCorp Marine built oil rigs that were used to fight the oil spill. 'Not bad for a country with no oil, but we're there,' PM Lee said, commenting on the productivity of our oil rig producers. In 2010, Singapore did experience a minor oil spill in the Straits of Singapore. Although not as disastrous as the BP Oil Spill, Singapore did a great job in clearing up the oil spill.

Singapore's oil rig to the rescue in BP oil spill

How can Singapore learn from the BP oil spill? Is Science the only solution to environmental problems?
With enough background information on Keppel Corporation and SembCorp Marine, we can now learn many lessons from the BP Oil Spill that Keppel and SembCorp can apply if a major oil spill were to happen in Singapore. Singapore oil rig companies can improve offshore police in the case of an oil spill. One outcome of the BP oil spill was the need for a retooled system to regulate energy exploration and production. Singapore can learn by training their marine engineers to be more intimately familiar with the mechanics of deep drilling. Moreover, we must check our equipment more frequently. This way, it will ensure the full productivity of our oil rigs and prevent an oil spill at the same time.

In addition, with Singapore’s large human population, we can tap on the power of our people if an oil spill were to happen in Singapore. From the Exxon Valdez oil spill in 1989, a network of Alaskan local fishermen and others were formed and participated in frequent preparedness drills, and officials say they feel far better equipped to handle an incident if one should occur again. We can equip Singaporeans in the marine industries with the necessary skills such that in the event of an oil spill, Singaporeans on guard can manage the oil spill effectively.

The world’s reliance on old, fossil-fuel based technologies is devastating for the planet, for society, and for business. This spill is in many ways an expected result of the path we have chosen. Given the declining stocks of easy-access oil, our addiction is forcing us to dig up extremely remote oil — something very, very hard to do that comes with enormous complexity and myriad risks of catastrophic failure. This calls for a source of alternative energy. Singapore can invest in other forms of energy like wind energy or hydroelectric power. Oil is a non-renewable source, and will be depleted in the near future. The reliance on this black gold is far too much for the world to handle. In the event of the oil spill, many gallons of oil have been wasted and this caused oil prices to drive up to a sky high price. How are developing countries going to cope with the falling amount of oil they can buy? How is Singapore going to cope with the rising oil prices? Hence, other forms of energy need to be ventured into to save the reliance on oil. Therefore, Singapore can invest in the research and development area to tap resources from around the world to depend less on oil.

Conclusion
With oil as a necessity and as worthy as gold to countries, we must be careful when drilling for oil, and in case of oil spills, we must be able to think quickly on our feet and adapt to changes fast to minimize the negative impacts of the oil spill, as well as to learn from past mistakes like the BP oil spill and to not let history repeat itself. Though Science is not the only way to protect the environment as we can always prevent it, it is the most efficient way to protect the environment since it is the relief oil rigs that ultimately resolved the oil spill.

Topic: US Gulf Coast Oil Spill by Chew Min Yu 1127

Background/Event- BP’s Deepwater Horizon rig blew up in the Gulf of Mexico, killing 11 people and unleashing the worst environmental disaster in U.S. history. More than 200million gallons of oil contaminated the ocean and Gulf coastlines, while the Centre for Biological Diversity began decisive action to expose illegal activities and lax offshore drilling regulation. They had launched 11 lawsuits and ratcheted up the pressure on politicians to reform offshore oversight, halt dangerous drilling, save imperilled species and hold the federal government and BP accountable.

Cause of the spill- BP has the worst environmental and safety record of any oil company operating in America. Even after the 2005 Texas City Refinery blast that killed 15 people, BP has continued to rack up safety violations. Despite the dangerous nature of all offshore oil drilling and BP’s own egregious safety record, the company’s exploration plan downplayed the possibility of a spill, repeatedly asserting that it was unlikely or virtually impossible. Amazingly, Secretary Salazar’s Minerals and Management Service approved BP’s exploration plan without any consideration of the environmental consequences of an oil spill.

Why?- Due to the disastrous effects of this still-unfolding catastrophe, many of the fundamental dangers associated with offshore drilling remain unaddressed, despite the massive scope of the Gulf disaster. This creates a cause for worry as BP may continue with its risky projects if there are no organisations to stop them.

Significance- This controversial oil spill triggered a domino of hot, fervent discussion and debates around the world. Oil plays an essential role in the life of city residents and it affects the economy of oil buyers. It will also adversely affect neighbouring countries in the aspect of tourism etc. However, the greatest significance is still in the detrimental effects on the environment and ecosystem.

Consequences (the nation)-

(i) Reflects badly on BP’s ability to handle off-shore drilling projects and lax in safety regulations/precautions

(ii) Need to account for the demolition of the natural diversity/ecosystem

(iii) High tax imposed on BP by the administration

(iv) Decline in tourism industry due to the damaged coast. The Gulf itself is home to dozens of threatened and endangered species, as well as commercially important fish, crab and shrimp that provide much of the basis of the Gulf Coast economy.

(v) Fishing industry will suffer negative repercussions: marine animals (e.g. squid/ fishes/shrimps may be covered in oil slick, causing the ocean to be covered with dead species which cannot be sold to the market

Consequences (the world)-

(i) Oil shortage cause a rise in oil prices from other oil-producing countries

(ii) Contribute to the risk of extinction of certain species (e.g. sperm whale, dolphins)

(iii) The world may avoid consuming seafood from U.S. as the animals may be affected by the spill causing them to be unsafe for consumption

(iv) Large flocks of seabirds and other imperilled species (e.g. the Atlantic bluefin tuna, Kemp’s ridley sea turtles, piping plovers and sperm whales) flocked to the Gulf to spawn, migrate and feed just as the spill happened. For many of them, there was nowhere else to go. And in a distressing development, large numbers of sharks, fish and other marine animals were seen gathered in shallow inshore waters, believed to be seeking areas where oxygen hasn’t been depleted by oil and the microbes that eat it. Marine animals can die when oxygen levels in the water drop below two parts per million — which was observed even in some inshore areas. Moreover, creatures congregating near the shore risked getting trapped between shore and the oil and depleting oxygen levels in even these refuge areas.

Relevance- The Gulf Oil Spill is a classic example to showcase the shortcomings of technology and the lack of government supervision. Although the government already acknowledge BP’s incapability to handle projects such as the off-shore drilling, the government still permit them to do so as BP repeatedly assert that it was unlikely or virtually impossible of an oil spill.

Response- Beyond the Gulf, the Centre for Biological Diversity continues to fight to the dangers of offshore drilling, especially in the Arctic, where an oil spill would be disastrous. They are pushing for a permanent ban on BP’s offshore projects, such as the “Liberty” project in Alaska and opposing the Obama administration’s new offshore drilling plan, the largest offshore expansion in 30 years.

Implications (immediate):

(i) Soar in oil prices

(ii) Huge cost of tax

(iii) Person to hold responsible for the spill must make decisive decisions

Implications (long-term):

(i) Destructive impacts on the vast oceanic diversity

(ii) Fall in the reliability of U.S. oil companies to handle major oil drilling projects cause investors to lose confidence in them. Hence, this deterred many future investments for these oil companies

Questions raised:

1. Should oil drilling be banned totally due to the high risk of oil spill involved?

2. What kind of precautions should BP or other oil producing companies do to prevent an event of an oil spill?

3. Should we blame BP and the government for the incident totally?

Conclusion/ Insights- From the research, I learnt that there are some issues which cannot be resolved easily. In order to meet the demand of the world’s oil consumption, humans have to constantly explore/sought new oil rigs and ways to extract oil. However, every exploration and endeavour comes with great risk. The Gulf oil spill is something that is unpredictable and inevitable. There was no way to predict an oil rupture. Therefore, I assume that the best solution is to look into other sources of energy in order to reduce our reliance on oil. By exposing ourselves to more alternatives, we can reduce the risk of an oil spill and the dire consequences that comes with it.