The Oil and Gas Industry's Commitment to Responsible Arctic Operations: An Innovative Arctic Oil Spill Response Technology - Joint Industry Programme (Russian)

Author(s):  
Joseph Mullin
2008 ◽  
Vol 2008 (1) ◽  
pp. 19-21
Author(s):  
Alvaro Souza Junior

ABSTRACT In April 2002, the Brazilian National Environment Council (CONAMA) enacted Resolution 293, which defines the contents and requirements for oil spill response plans for ports, terminals, pipelines and oil platforms. CONAMA Resolution 293 was undoubtedly a landmark in the history of Brazilian planning and preparedness for oil spill accidents as long as it provided a technically consistent reference for elaboration of oil spill response plans based on the identification of spill sources, vulnerability analysis of potentially affected areas, and adequate response organization, procedures and resources. A clause of the Resolution required its review in 5 years after entering into force. To accomplish this requirement, the Ministry of Environment (MMA) opened a public hearing process to collect comments and suggestions for changes. One main contributor in this hearing process was the Brazilian Petroleum and Gas Institute (IBP), which represents the oil and gas industry. IBP created an internal workgroup which discussed proposals for changes in CONAMA Resolution 293 that were subsequently sent to MMA. After the public hearing process, MMA invited a number of institutions to join a workgroup to discuss the received comments and proposed changes. In general, these institutions were mostly the same which participated in the CONAMA Resolution 293 workgroup five years before: IBAMA (federal environmental agency), Maritime Authority, Ministry of Transportation, Ministry of Mines and Energy, AN? (oil & gas activities regulatory agency), IBP and some state environmental agencies. Proposed changes to CONAMA Resolution 293 were sent from the workgroup to one of the CONAMA technical chambers, which approved the proposal with minor amendments. The aim of this paper is to present and discuss the relevant changes in this regulation that will affect facility oil spill response plans in Brazil.


2014 ◽  
Vol 2014 (1) ◽  
pp. 960-971 ◽  
Author(s):  
Joseph V. Mullin

ABSTRACT The oil and gas industry has made significant advances in being able to detect, contain and clean up spills in arctic environments. To further build on existing research and improve the technologies and methodologies for arctic oil spill response, nine oil and gas companies (BP, Chevron, ConocoPhillips, Eni, ExxonMobil, North Caspian Operating Company, Shell, Statoil, and Total) established the Arctic Oil Spill Response Technology Joint Industry Programme (JIP). The goal of the JIP is to advance arctic oil spill response strategies and equipment as well as to increase understanding of potential impacts of oil on the arctic marine environment. Officially launched in January 2012 at the Arctic Frontiers Conference in Tromsø, Norway, the JIP has six technical working groups (TWG) each focusing on a different key area of oil spill response: dispersants; environmental effects; trajectory modeling; remote sensing; mechanical recovery and in-situ burning (ISB). There is also a field research TWG to pursue opportunities for field releases for validation of response technologies and strategies. Each TWG is led by recognized subject matter experts with years of experience in oil spill response research and operations. This JIP is bringing together the world's foremost experts on oil spill response research, development, and operations from across industry, academia, and independent research centres. Research integrity will be ensured through technical peer review and public dissemination of results. This paper describes the scope and current progress of this Joint Industry Program (JIP).


2017 ◽  
Vol 2017 (1) ◽  
pp. 1487-1506 ◽  
Author(s):  
Joseph V. Mullin

Abstract 2017-161 Over the past four decades, the oil and gas industry has made significant advances in being able to detect, contain and clean up spills and mitigate the residual consequences in Arctic environments. Many of these advances were achieved through collaborative research programs involving industry, academic and government partners. The Arctic Oil Spill Response Technology - Joint Industry Programme (JIP), was launched in 2012 and completed in early 2017 with the objectives of building on an already extensive knowledge base to further improve Arctic spill response capabilities and better understand the environmental issues involved in selecting and implementing the most effective response strategies. The JIP was a collaboration of nine oil and gas companies (BP, Chevron, ConocoPhillips, Eni, ExxonMobil, North Caspian Operating Company, Shell, Statoil, and Total) and focused on six key areas of oil spill response: dispersants; environmental effects; trajectory modeling; remote sensing; mechanical recovery and in-situ burning. The JIP provided a vehicle for sharing knowledge among the participants and international research institutions and disseminating information to regulators, the public and stakeholders. The network of engaged scientists and government agencies increased opportunities to develop and test oil spill response technologies while raising awareness of industry efforts to advance the existing capabilities in Arctic oil spill response. The JIP consisted of two phases, the first included technical assessments and state of knowledge reviews resulting in a library of sixteen documents available on the JIP website. The majority of the JIP efforts focused on Phase 2, actual experiments, and included laboratory, small and medium scale tank tests, and field research experiments. Three large-scale field tests were conducted in the winter and spring months of 2014–2016 including recent participation of the JIP in the 2016 NOFO oil on water exercise off Norway. The JIP was the largest pan-industry programme dedicated to oil spill response in the Arctic, ever carried out. Twenty seven research projects were successfully and safely conducted by the world’s foremost experts on oil spill response from across industry, academia, and independent scientific institutions in ten countries. The overarching goal of the research was to address the differing aspects involved in oil spill response, including the methods used, and their applicability to the Arctic’s unique conditions. All research projects were conducted using established protocols and proven scientific technologies, some of which were especially adjusted for ice conditions. This paper describes the scope of the research conducted, results, and key findings. The JIP is committed to full transparency in disseminating the results through peer reviewed journal articles, and all JIP research reports are available free of charge at www.arcticresponsetechnology.org.


2014 ◽  
Vol 2014 (1) ◽  
pp. 26-30
Author(s):  
Patricia Maggi ◽  
Cláudia do Rosário Vaz Morgado ◽  
João Carlos Nóbrega de Almeida

ABSTRACT Brazil has performed an important role in the oil and gas industry mainly because its offshore E&P activities. The volume of oil produced in offshore fields had increased 88% in the last decade and correspond to more than 90% of national production. The maritime Exploration and Production (E&P) operations in Brazil started in the middle of the 1970's. In 1981 a law was promulgated to establish a compulsory environmental permit to many activities, including oil and gas exploration and production activities. Although this regulation has existed for over 25 years, only in 1999 was it effectively brought into force to the E&P sector, with the creation of the oil and gas specialized office integrated to the Intituto Brasileiro de Meio Ambiente e Recursos Naturais Renováveis – IBAMA (Brazilian Federal Environmental Agency). On January 2000 Brazil faced one its worst oil spills, in Guanabara Bay. A broken pipeline owned and operated by Petrobras spilt 1300 tone of bunker fuel into Guanabara Bay, Rio de Janeiro. At that time, Brazil had no clear environmental scenario regarding the oil industry in Brazil: uncoordinated environmental regulations, debilitated environmental agencies and a relapse industry took part in the scenario. As a result of the repercussion of the disaster, in the same year was enacted the Federal Law 9966/2000, the so called “Oil Law”, on the prevention, control and inspection of pollution caused by the releasing of oil and other harmful substances in waters under national jurisdiction. The provisions of the Law 9966 included, among other things, the requirement for the notification to the competent environmental authority, the maritime authority and the oil regulating agency, of any incident which might cause water pollution. Although IBAMA receives the oil spill communications since 2001, only in 2010 the Agency began to include this information in a database. This paper discusses the offshore oil spill data received between 2010 and 2012.


2017 ◽  
Vol 2017 (1) ◽  
pp. 2017254
Author(s):  
Amanda Hwa Ling Chee ◽  
Edelina Melisa ◽  
Xin Dong

Following key oil spill incidents in the Gulf of Mexico and Australia, the industry initiated a three-year Joint Industry Project to develop guidelines for oil spill preparedness and response management. These documents are commonly known as the Oil Spill Response JIP (OSR-JIP) Good Practice Guides. As the OSR-JIP originated from lessons learnt from offshore incidents, it is only natural that the industry would apply it with the same type of operation, hence the tendency to limit the practical application for inland or near-shore facilities. This paper presents two examples where the OSR-JIP guides are applied at downstream operations located inland and near-shore. The first study is on a refinery located near-shore with an operational jetty and a single buoy mooring. We started with a comprehensive review of their operations and updated their oil spill risk assessment profile in line with the framework described in the OSR-JIP Tiered Preparedness and Response. This process provided a reflection of their current capability and identified the gaps for further improvement. Following this, we proceeded to update the contingency plan using the OSR-JIP Contingency Planning to ensure that the risks identified are adequately mitigated with training of personnel and equipment selection. This exercise supported in improving the readiness of the facility to respond to oil spill incidents in future. The second study involves a terminal located inland that supplies refined products through a pipeline that leads towards a jetty on the coast. We developed several area specific tactical response plans that cover risks from their above-ground pipelines and at the jetty where loading and offloading of the products to tankers are conducted. To accurately define the suitable response technique, we started the planning process with an oil spill risk assessment following OSR-JIP Risk Assessment. The tactical response plans were then developed with reference to several other OSR-JIP guides such as OSR-JIP Inland Response and NEBA. The resulting plans describe health and safety concerns, identification of sensitive receptors, response techniques, location and quantity of resources, logistical requirements and timings and waste management. Based on these case studies, we demonstrated that the OSR-JIP guides can certainly be applied for inland and near-shore facilities and have a more far wider application for the whole oil and gas industry rather than be limited to offshore operations.


mBio ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 12 (2) ◽  
Author(s):  
Angelina G. Angelova ◽  
Barbara Berx ◽  
Eileen Bresnan ◽  
Samantha B. Joye ◽  
Andrew Free ◽  
...  

ABSTRACT Hydrocarbon-degrading bacteria naturally degrade and remove petroleum pollutants, yet baselines do not currently exist for these critical microorganisms in many regions where the oil and gas industry is active. Furthermore, understanding how a baseline community changes across the seasons and its potential to respond to an oil spill event are prerequisites for predicting their response to elevated hydrocarbon exposures. In this study, 16S rRNA gene-based profiling was used to assess the spatiotemporal variability of baseline bacterioplankton community composition in the Faroe-Shetland Channel (FSC), a deepwater sub-Arctic region where the oil and gas industry has been active for the last 40 years. Over a period of 2 years, we captured the diversity of the bacterioplankton community within distinct water masses (defined by their temperature and salinity) that have a distinct geographic origin (Atlantic or Nordic), depth, and direction of flow. We demonstrate that bacterioplankton communities were significantly different across water samples of contrasting origin and depth. Taxa of known hydrocarbon-degrading bacteria were observed at higher-than-anticipated abundances in water masses originating in the Nordic Seas, suggesting these organisms are sustained by an unconfirmed source of oil input in that region. In the event of an oil spill, our results suggest that the response of these organisms is severely hindered by the low temperatures and nutrient levels that are typical for the FSC. IMPORTANCE Oil spills at sea are one of the most disastrous anthropogenic pollution events, with the Deepwater Horizon spill providing a testament to how profoundly the health of marine ecosystems and the livelihood of its coastal inhabitants can be severely impacted by spilled oil. The fate of oil in the environment is largely dictated by the presence and activities of natural communities of oil-degrading bacteria. While a significant effort was made to monitor and track the microbial response and degradation of the oil in the water column in the wake of the Deepwater Horizon spill, the lack of baseline data on the microbiology of the Gulf of Mexico confounded scientists’ abilities to provide an accurate assessment of how the system responded relative to prespill conditions. This data gap highlights the need for long-term microbial ocean observatories in regions at high risk of oil spills. Here, we provide the first microbiological baseline established for a subarctic region experiencing high oil and gas industry activity, the northeast Atlantic, but with no apparent oil seepage or spillage. We also explore the presence, relative abundances, and seasonal dynamics of indigenous hydrocarbon-degrading communities. These data will advance the development of models to predict the behavior of such organisms in the event of a major oil spill in this region and potentially impact bioremediation strategies by enhancing the activities of these organisms in breaking down the oil.


2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mary-Hunter McDonnell ◽  
Kate Odziemkowska ◽  
Elizabeth Pontikes

Social movement organizations (SMOs) are increasingly using collaborative tactics to engage firms. Implications of this are not well understood by researchers. This study investigates one risk that looms over such collaborations: if the corporate partner is later implicated in an industry scandal. Ideas are investigated in the context of the Deepwater Horizon oil spill. First, we find that industry scandals differentially affect contentious and collaborative SMOs’ ability to mobilize resources. SMOs that had collaborated with the oil and gas industry before the spill suffered from reduced public support after the spill, and those that had contentiously interacted with the industry enjoyed increased contributions. Second, we find that industry scandals affect SMOs’ willingness to collaborate with firms in the future. We show that the Horizon oil spill produced a broad chilling effect on environmental SMOs’ collaborations with firms both within and outside of the oil and gas industry. Our findings show that there are risks inherent to a collaborative strategy that cannot be fully mitigated. Further, we demonstrate that industry scandals represent critical exogenous events that affect social activists’ tactical repertoires for engaging in private politics.


1989 ◽  
Vol 1989 (1) ◽  
pp. 499-501
Author(s):  
L. A. Onstad ◽  
John J. Gallagher

ABSTRACT Oil spill cooperatives are generally organized under an agreement that requires a member company to indemnify all other members fully against liability arising from a member company's spill and response actions with cooperative resources. The cooperatives also require the same type of indemnification on the part of nonmembers and third parties. When a major third-party spill occurs in an area where the cooperative's equipment is required, the cooperative can find itself dealing with representatives of shipping companies who are unable or unwilling to commit to required indemnification. At the same time, it is likely to be in the interest of the cooperative (the oil and gas industry) to ensure an adequate response is made. Reverting to federal response under U. S. Cost Guard direction is an option (Section 311[k] Fund), but not preferred. The Coast Guard has been unwilling or unable to establish contractual arrangements before the fact with cooperatives, thus leading to instances of delayed payments, non-allowable costs, and disputes. Protection and indemnification (P&I) clubs, which underwrite the liability insurance of the vessels, are accustomed to dealing with marine disasters and have been asked to review the indemnification requirements of Clean Seas, which are similar to those of other industry cooperatives. The clubs are willing to work with the cooperatives’ requirements to eliminate an inordinate amount of time in contract negotiations during the early hours or days of a spill and to ensure parties do not have to rely upon a federal response. With the acceptance of these requirements by the clubs, it is hoped shipping companies and representatives will be able to enter into contracts or indemnification agreements with cooperatives with full support from the clubs.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document