Deforestation is a main driver of climate change and biodiversity loss. An incentive mechanism to reduce emissions from deforestation and forest degradation (REDD) is being negotiated under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. Here we use the best available global data sets on terrestrial biodiversity and carbon storage to map and investigate potential synergies between carbon and biodiversity-oriented conservation. A strong association (r S = 0.82) between carbon stocks and species richness suggests that such synergies would be high, but unevenly distributed. Many areas of high value for biodiversity could be protected by carbon-based conservation, while others could benefit from complementary funding arising from their carbon content. Some high-biodiversity regions, however, would not benefit from carbon-focused conservation, and could become under increased pressure if REDD is implemented. Our results suggest that additional gains for biodiversity conservation are possible, without compromising the effectiveness for climate change mitigation, if REDD takes biodiversity distribution into account.

S U M M A R YA regional model of the 3-D variation in seismic P-wave velocity structure in the crust of NW Europe has been compiled from wide-angle reflection/refraction profiles. Along each 2-D profile a velocity-depth function has been digitised at 5 km intervals. These 1-D velocity functions were mapped into three dimensions using ordinary kriging with weights determined to minimise the difference between digitised and interpolated values. An analysis of variograms of the digitised data suggested a radial isotropic weighting scheme was most appropriate. Horizontal dimensions of the model cells are optimised at 40 × 40 km and the vertical dimension at 1 km.The resulting model provides a higher resolution image of the 3-D variation in seismic velocity structure of the UK, Ireland and surrounding areas than existing models. The construction of the model through kriging allows the uncertainty in the velocity structure to be assessed. This uncertainty indicates the high density of data required to confidently interpolate the crustal velocity structure, and shows that for this region the velocity is poorly constrained for large areas away from the input data.

On November 15, 2006, Crescent City in Del Norte County, California was hit by a tsunami generated by a M w 8.3 earthquake in the central Kuril Islands. Strong currents that persisted over an eight-hour period damaged floating docks and several boats and caused an estimated $9.2 million in losses. Initial tsunami alert bulletins issued by the West Coast Alaska Tsunami Warning Center (WCATWC) in Palmer, Alaska were cancelled about three and a half hours after the earthquake, nearly five hours before the first surges reached Crescent City. The largest amplitude wave, 1.76-meter peak to trough, was the sixth cycle and arrived over two hours after the first wave. Strong currents estimated at over 10 knots, damaged or destroyed three docks and caused cracks in most of the remaining docks. As a result of the November 15 event, WCATWC changed the definition of Advisory from a region-wide alert bulletin meaning that a potential tsunami is 6 hours or further away to a localized alert that tsunami water heights may approach warning-level thresholds in specific, vulnerable locations like Crescent City. On January 13, 2007 a similar Kuril event occurred and hourly conferences between the warning center and regional weather forecasts were held with a considerable improvement in the flow of information to local coastal jurisdictions. The event highlighted the vulnerability of harbors from a relatively modest tsunami and underscored the need to improve public education regarding the duration of the tsunami hazards, improve dialog between tsunami warning centers and local jurisdictions, and better understand the currents produced by tsunamis in harbors.

On Wednesday, 15 November 2006, Crescent City Harbor, in Del Norte County, Calif., was hit by surges resulting from the tsunami generated by the Mw= 8.3 Kuril Islands earthquake. The strong currents caused an estimated US $700,000 to $1 million in losses to the small boat basin at Citizen's Dock, destroying or damaging three floating docks and causing minor damage to several boats (Figure l).The event highlighted a persistent problem for tsunami hazard mitigation: Most people are still unaware that the first tsunami waves rarely are the largest and that the potential for damaging waves may last for many hours.

TX 75083-3836, U.S.A., fax 01-972-952-9435. AbstractThis paper presents laboratory/field results and lessons learned from a North Sea field where a novel emulsified scale inhibitor was deployed via bullhead squeeze treatments in four low water cut, sand screened wells. The field is a subsea development within the UK sector of the North Sea. These were the first squeeze treatments to be performed on the field.The remote location of the production wells relative to the production vessel and their high production levels meant that scale management was critical to the effective recovery of hydrocarbon from the field. The risk of scale formation even at low water cut was deemed sufficiency high for a scale inhibitor squeeze application to be applied.The decision to use emulsified scale inhibitor for treating such low water cut wells was arrived at after an extensive series of laboratory tests including formation damage coreflood studies and assessment of chemical retention. The risk of fines mobilisation when deploying water based chemicals in low water cut, poorly consolidated reservoir will be outlined.The challenges with the deployment of the chemical package via a diving support vessel (DSV) and gas lift line will also be outlined along with the performance of the wells following the treatment and the effectiveness of this scale control method. This paper will outline in detail the particular issues associated with chemical injection to a subsea facility, many of which are currently being developed in the Gulf of Mexico and is a good example of lessons learned and sharing best practice from another oil basin.

No abstract