Generate an explanation for the given claim using the provided supporting material from the paragraph. Please consider the following points while generating an output. 1) The claim will always have supporting proof in the paragraph, and the paragraph will have a clear point of view supporting the claim. 2) There can be instances where direct correlation to the claim is not available. Make use of the sentences in the paragraph to provide a corresponding output supporting the claim. 3) The explanation should be at least one and at most twelve sentences long.

Example input: Paragraph: "Although the story didn't cite the cost of appendectomy emergency or urgent surgery and we wish it had, we nonetheless will give it a satisfactory score because it at least cited what the editorial writer wrote, ""A secondary benefit is the savings to the hospital generated by minimizing staff and anesthesiologist presence late in the evening and during the wee hours of the morning."" As with our harms score above, although the story didn't give absolute numbers, in this case we think it was sufficient for it to report that ""The scientists found no significant difference among the groups in the patients' condition 30 days after surgery or in the length of their operation or hospital stay."" Although the story didn't give absolute numbers, in this case we think it was sufficient for it to report that ""The scientists found no significant difference among the groups in the patients' condition 30 days after surgery or in the length of their operation or hospital stay."" Despite running less than 300 words, this story did an adequate job in explaining the quality of the evidence, including pointing out limitations. No disease-mongering here. The story meets the bare minimum requirement for this criterion in that it at least cited what an editorial stated. The focus of the story was on a study comparing emergency appendectomy with surgery done up to 12 hours later or beyond. This is the whole focus of the story and one we applaud when it begins: ""Appendectomy is the most common emergency surgery in the world, but it doesn't have to be."" There were no claims made about the novelty of this research, and we may have wished for a bit more context on this. Nonetheless, the potential for guiding future care decisions was made clear. Not applicable. Given that the story only pulled excerpts from the journal article and the accompanying editorial, and didn't include any fresh quotes from interviews, we can't be sure of the extent to which it may have been influenced by a news release.". Claim: Some appendicitis cases may not require 'emergency' surgery
Example output: We really don't understand why only a handful of mainstream news organizations reported this story. (At least in what we found.) The most common emergency surgery in the world. Rushing to emergency surgery may not carry any benefit. Waiting a few hours may be safer and less expensive. Why is that not a story? We applaud USA Today for finding time and space and clearly it didn't need to free up much space to do a good job telling the story. The story explains that as many as 300,0 appendectomies are done each year in the US. That figure alone explains why this is an important study to report.
Example explanation: The output is an analysis of the claim while considering the paragraph as a reference. The output highlights the key features presented in the paragraph and explains the claim accordingly.
Q: Paragraph: The Southern Environmental Law Center submitted its response Friday to a two-month test run the Army Corps of Engineers conducted to show it could mechanically replace a small loss of dissolved oxygen in the stretch of the Savannah River being deepened to make room for larger cargo ships. "Overall, it appears that the Test Run report shows that the Oxygen Injection System is capable of delivering oxygen to the river," law center attorney Chris DeScherer said in a letter to the Army Corps. "However, we remain skeptical that the System will effectively work in perpetuity to mitigate for the impacts of the project." The Army Corps is spending $100 million to build a pair of stations on the river equipped with large machines that suck in water, swirl it with oxygen pulled from the air and inject the mixture back into the river. The agency plans to run the oxygen injectors indefinitely, roughly from June through September each year when summer heat can cause dissolved oxygen levels in the harbor to drop below minimum standards set by Georgia and South Carolina. The agency estimates it will cost $3 million per year to pump extra oxygen into the waterway shared by Georgia and South Carolina, which is home to endangered shortnose sturgeon as well as species including striped bass and blue crabs. A 2013 court settlement required a successful test before the agency can resume dredging of the 27-mile (43-kilometer) shipping channel that links the Savannah port to the Atlantic Ocean. The project has been on hold since reaching its halfway point in March 2018. The Corps declared last month that tests performed between March and May exceeded expectations. It reported the machines pumped roughly 13,300 pounds (6,070 kilograms) of oxygen into the river daily, beating its target of 12,000 pounds (5,443 kilograms). And it found that on average 95% of the extra oxygen stayed in the water instead of escaping into the air compared to an 80% target. DeScherer noted the tests were performed during the spring, rather than in summer when dissolved oxygen in the river tends to be lower. And the stretch of river where the machines were tested has yet to be deepened. The legal settlement prohibited deepening that portion of the waterway until after the machines were tested. Conservation groups and South Carolina state agencies had sued the Army Corps in federal court, arguing the harbor expansion would cause irreversible environmental damage. A settlement reached in 2013 stated that the plaintiffs could terminate the deal if the Corps couldn't prove the oxygen machines worked. DeScherer's letter said the environmental groups that sued won't scrap the settlement despite their doubts about the oxygen machines. The deal included other environmental concessions such as $15 million for wetlands protection and $3 million for monitoring endangered fish species in the river. It's not clear what the South Carolina agencies that were part of the lawsuit will do. A spokesman for the state's Department of Health and Environmental Control did not immediately return an email seeking comment Sunday. Claim: Groups 'skeptical' of Savannah harbor oxygen injector test.
A:
Conservation groups "remain skeptical" that machines injecting oxygen into the Savannah harbor will offset threats to fish caused by deepening the busy shipping channel to the Port of Savannah, but they won't return to court to fight the $973 million project, according to the environmental groups' attorney.