{"title":"Exxon Valdez Revisited: The Untold Story (B)","authors":"Gerry Yemen, E. H. James","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.1281871","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1281871","url":null,"abstract":"Being in charge of cleaning up the March 24, 1989 Exxon Valdez oil spill accident meant that Otto Harrison, the general manager of Exxon International Alaskan Operations, was there when the storm clouds over the event were thick. Despite years of learning, wisdom, growth, and dealing with success and failure, Harrison had never faced a challenge of this magnitude. He was sure his experiences would be utilized in full force. The questions he thought about included whether three different governing bodies (the state of Alaska, the federal government, and Exxon [a publicly held corporation]) could work together toward a common goal to leave few signs of the biggest oil spill ever to occur in North America. What type of help was most needed now? Would Exxon s plan satisfy the numerous stakeholders? How would the plan be viewed publicly? What impact would the cleanup plan have on Exxon's business? In the (A) case, the Exxon Valdez accident and immediate challenges are described so students can put themselves in Harrison s place to lead through the crisis. The (B) case (epilogue) outlines more problems and includes actions taken to try to clean up the oil as quickly and effectively as possible. The tragedy changed the oil industry in many ways some of which are described in the epilogue.","PeriodicalId":343955,"journal":{"name":"SRPN: Oil (Topic)","volume":"1 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"1900-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"129157423","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"Energy in Central Asia: Competition and Cooperation Between China and Russia","authors":"Gilles Pech de Laclause","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.3647402","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3647402","url":null,"abstract":"This study deal with Energy projects in Central Asia. We map the main operators and draw some perspective.","PeriodicalId":343955,"journal":{"name":"SRPN: Oil (Topic)","volume":"132 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"1900-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"134481120","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"A (Pre)Cautionary Tale About the Kearl Oil Sands Decision - the Significance of Pembina Institute for Appropriate Development, et al. v. Canada (Attorney-General) for the Future of Environmental Assessment","authors":"Nathalie J. Chalifour","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.1661073","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1661073","url":null,"abstract":"In Pembina, the Federal Court reviewed a Joint Panel Report evaluating the environmental impacts of the Kearl Oil Sands project. The case received considerable attention for its laudable finding that the Panel should have provided reasons to support its conclusion that the project’s proposed GHG emissions would be insignificant. However, this paper critiques the decision for accepting the Panel’s reliance upon future, uncertain mitigation measures and recommendations as a basis for finding that the various environmental impacts – including GHG emissions, but also impacts upon water, land, wildlife and human health – would be insignificant. The author respectfully argues that the Court gave too broad an interpretation to the concept of “technically feasible” mitigation measures, given the high degree of uncertainty involved. The author also posits that the Court failed in its duty to apply the precautionary principle in environmental assessment, as now mandated in the CEAA. The Court justified the Panel’s reliance upon measures and recommendations with uncertain outcomes as appropriate mitigation of environmental impacts by relying upon the concept of adaptive management as a counter to the precautionary principle. The author argues that the Court erred in doing so. Application of the precautionary principle is a legislated duty that reduces the threshold of uncertainty that panels may tolerate in assessing environmental impacts. While adaptive management is a concept that can be applied in the implementation of follow-up programs, it is not an appropriate substitute for the duty to apply the precautionary principle.","PeriodicalId":343955,"journal":{"name":"SRPN: Oil (Topic)","volume":"1 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"1900-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"129575235","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
京公网安备 11010802042870号
