scholarly journals A 30-Year Probability Map for Oil Spill Trajectories in the Barents Sea to Assess Potential Environmental and Socio-Economic Threats

Resources ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (1) ◽  
pp. 1
Author(s):  
Victor Pavlov ◽  
Victor Cesar Martins de Aguiar ◽  
Lars Robert Hole ◽  
Eva Pongrácz
Keyword(s):  
Oil Spill ◽  
Barents Sea ◽  
Oil Spills ◽  
Oil Pollution ◽  
Geographical Location ◽  
Environmental Data ◽  
The Arctic ◽  
Probability Map ◽  
The Barents Sea ◽  
Oil Spill Response

Increasing exploration and exploitation activity in the Arctic Ocean has intensified maritime traffic in the Barents Sea. Due to the sparse population and insufficient oil spill response infrastructure on the extensive Barents Sea shoreline, it is necessary to address the possibility of offshore accidents and study hazards to the local environment and its resources. Simulations of surface oil spills were conducted in south-east of the Barents Sea to identify oil pollution trajectories. The objective of this research was to focus on one geographical location, which lies along popular maritime routes and also borders with sensitive ecological marine and terrestrial areas. As a sample of traditional heavy bunker oil, IFO-180LS (2014) was selected for the study of oil spills and used for the 30-year simulations. The second oil case was medium oil type: Volve (2006)—to give a broader picture for oil spill accident scenarios. Simulations for four annual seasons were run with the open source OpenDrift modelling tool using oceanographic and atmospheric data from the period of 1988–2018. The modelling produced a 30-year probability map, which was overlapped with environmental data of the area to discuss likely impacts to local marine ecosystems, applicable oil spill response tools and favourable shipping seasons. Based on available data regarding the environmental and socio-economic baselines of the studied region, we recommend to address potential threats to marine resources and local communities in more detail in a separate study.

To Cooperate or Not? Why Working Together is Essential in the Arctic

2017 ◽  
Vol 2017 (1) ◽  
pp. 1146-1165
Author(s):  
Johan Marius Ly ◽  
Rune Bergstrøm ◽  
Ole Kristian Bjerkemo ◽  
Synnøve Lunde
Keyword(s):  
Emergency Response ◽  
Oil Spill ◽  
Barents Sea ◽  
Oil Pollution ◽  
The Arctic ◽  
Response Analysis ◽  
The Barents Sea ◽  
Increased Risk ◽  
Oil Spill Response ◽  
Second Year

Abstract The Norwegian Arctic covers Svalbard, Bear Island, Jan Mayen and the Barents Sea. 80% of all shipping activities in the Arctic are within Norwegian territorial waters and the Exclusive Economic Zone. To reduce the risk for accidents, the Norwegian authorities have established several preventive measures. Among these are ship reporting systems, traffic separation schemes in international waters and surveillance capabilities. If an accident has occurred and an oil spill response operation must be organized - resources, equipment, vessels and manpower from Norwegian and neighboring states will be mobilized. In 2015, the Norwegian Coastal Administration finalized an environmental risk-based emergency response analysis for shipping incidents in the Svalbard, Bear Island and Jan Mayen area. This scenario-based analysis has resulted in a number of recommendations that are currently being implemented to be better prepared for oil spill response operations in the Norwegian Arctic. Further, a large national oil spill response exercise in 2016 was based on one of these scenarios involving at sea and onshore oil spill response at Svalbard. The 2016 exercise, working within the framework of the Agreement on Cooperation on Marine Oil Pollution Preparedness and Response in the Arctic between Canada, Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway, Russia, Sweden and the USA (Arctic Council 2013), focused on a shipping incident in the Norwegian waters in the Barents Sea, close to the Russian border. Every year, as part of the Russian – Norwegian Oil Spill Response Agreement and the SAR Agreement in the Barents Sea, combined SAR and oil spill response exercises are organized. These are held every second year in Russia and every second year in Norway. There is an expected increased traffic and possible increased risk for accidents in the Arctic waters. In order to build and maintain an emergency response system to this, cooperation between states, communities, private companies and other stakeholders is essential. It is important that all actors that operate and have a role in the Arctic are prepared and able to help ensure the best possible emergency response plans. We depend on one another, this paper highlights some of the ongoing activities designed to strengthen the overall response capabilities in the Arctic.

scholarly journals Mapping of Ecological Vulnerability of Sea-Coastal Zones to Oil Spills: A Preliminary Method Applied to Kola Bay, the Barents Sea

2019 ◽  
Vol 7 (7) ◽  
pp. 216 ◽  
Author(s):  
Anatoly Shavykin ◽  
Andrey Karnatov
Keyword(s):  
Barents Sea ◽  
Oil Spills ◽  
Oil Pollution ◽  
Coastal Zones ◽  
Vulnerability Factors ◽  
Ecological Vulnerability ◽  
Vulnerability Maps ◽  
Oil Spill Response ◽  
Potential Impact ◽  
Spilled Oil

Preparedness for oil spill response is a challenge for many coastal countries. Responders are unable to take effective action unless maps that indicate areas with different vulnerability to oil pollution are available. Such maps, developed in many countries, are usually based on calculations with rank (ordinal) values. However, arithmetic operations with them cannot be allowed. The article describes a method of constructing maps using metric values. The calculations take into account the biomass and the quantity of important biota components, especially significant socio-economic objects and protected areas. The biota distribution densities are represented in the identical units. The vulnerability factors are assessed based on the potential impact of spilled oil on biota, as well as its sensitivity and recoverability after disturbance. The proposed method takes into account the different sensitivity of biota inhabiting in the water column and on the sea surface. Oil vulnerability maps for Kola Bay using the proposed algorithm are presented.

VESSEL RESPONSE PLANS: A TILE IN THE MOSAIC OF THE NATIONAL RESPONSE SYSTEM1

1995 ◽  
Vol 1995 (1) ◽  
pp. 926-926
Author(s):  
Duane Michael Smith
Keyword(s):  
Oil Spill ◽  
Oil Spills ◽  
Oil Pollution ◽  
The Past ◽  
Response System ◽  
National Response ◽  
Vessel Response ◽  
Oil Spill Response

ABSTRACT With the implementation of the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 came the requirement for vessels to develop plans for responding to oil spills from their vessels. While some companies had such plans in the past, the National Response System did not formally recognize their existence. Individual vessel response plans must now be viewed as an integral part of the National Response System. All of the parties that could be involved in an oil spill response must begin to view themselves as one tile of many that make up the mosaic known as the National Response System.

Arctic Oiled Wildlife Response: Exploring Potential and Limitations

2014 ◽  
Vol 2014 (1) ◽  
pp. 1569-1582
Author(s):  
Hugo Nijkamp ◽  
Saskia Sessions ◽  
Philippe Blanc ◽  
Yannick Autret
Keyword(s):  
Oil Spill ◽  
Oil Pollution ◽  
Arctic Region ◽  
The Arctic ◽  
Migratory Species ◽  
Arctic Council ◽  
Response Planning ◽  
Efficiency And Effectiveness ◽  
Oil Spill Response ◽  
The Arctic Region

ABSTRACT The Arctic is an extremely vulnerable area for oil pollution. Because of global warming and the resulting retreating ice, new economic shipping and Exploration & Production activities are likely to develop in the coming years and decades. Both governments (e.g. Arctic Council) and the oil industry (e.g. Arctic Response Technology Joint Industry Programme) are preparing for increased oil spill response capabilities in the Arctic region, and are looking to join forces for more efficiency and effectiveness. In connection to oil spill response planning in the Arctic both onshore and offshore, attention should be given to oiled wildlife response preparedness in this region. The Arctic is characterized by unique ecosystems and biodiversity, either marine or terrestrial, with a large proportion of migratory species. So although species diversity is assumed to be low compared to other regions, Arctic wildlife is very sensitive to the effects of oil pollution. Additionally the Arctic is a remote and extreme area for setting up a wildlife response in the framework of an oil spill response. This paper explores what the limitations of an Arctic oiled wildlife response would be (physical/logistical, health & safety, environmental monitoring, ecosystems understanding, biodiversity data, sensitivity mapping, etc.), and identifies how current gaps in response preparedness could be filled. Special emphasis is laid on investments into the capabilities of specialised responders and their equipment, including creation of a specialised Arctic Wildlife Response Strike Team.

NEW IMO/EPPR GUIDES TO ARCTIC OIL SPILL RESPONSE – STRATEGIC AND OPERATIONAL

2017 ◽  
Vol 2017 (1) ◽  
pp. 1182-1193
Author(s):  
E. H. Owens ◽  
D. F. Dickins ◽  
L. B. Solsberg ◽  
O-K. Bjerkemo
Keyword(s):  
Oil Spill ◽  
Oil Spills ◽  
The Arctic ◽  
Arctic Council ◽  
Essential Information ◽  
Field Guide ◽  
Wide Range ◽  
Oil Spill Response ◽  
Ice Conditions ◽  
Snow And Ice

ABSTRACT In 2015 and 2016, two complementary projects produced both a new strategic guide (in two versions) and an updated operationally oriented guide to assist managers, regulators and responders in responding effectively to oil spills in snow and ice conditions. The objective of the first initiative, which began as a Marine Environment Protection Committee (MEPC) of the International Maritime Organization (IMO) project, a “Guide to Oil Spill Response in Snow and Ice Conditions”, was to identify and describe the strategic aspects of planning and operations. This program gained a separate phase through the Emergency Prevention, Preparedness and Response (EPPR) working group of the Arctic Council to adapt the Guide specifically for Arctic waters. The second initiative by EPPR was to update the 1998 “Field Guide for Oil Spill Response in Arctic Waters” while retaining the original operational focus. The 2016 version of the Field Guide incorporates major revisions and updates to sections on strategies and countermeasures, for example the use of herders and burning, dispersants in ice and specialized brush skimmers as well as advances in remote sensing and tracking. In addition, new sections address important topics such as Health and Human Safety, Logistics and Wildlife Response. The overall goal was to produce two complementary documents that provide a broad base of essential information to key decision-makers and responders at both the strategic planning level and at the field tactics and operations level. These two projects bring together a wide range of new knowledge generated over the past two decades that make many previous manuals and documents out of date. With such a vast amount of recent literature, the new strategic guide and the operational field guide update can only provide a brief summary of the new material but are valuable tools to indicate where the more detailed documents can be found.

Norwegian–Russian cooperation on oil-spill response in the Barents Sea

Marine Policy ◽  
2013 ◽  
Vol 39 ◽  
pp. 257-264 ◽  
Author(s):  
Are Kristoffer Sydnes ◽  
Maria Sydnes
Keyword(s):  
Oil Spill ◽  
Barents Sea ◽  
The Barents Sea ◽  
Oil Spill Response

IMPEDIMENTS TO CROSS-BOUNDARY OIL SPILL RESPONSE ALONG UNITED STATES BORDERS

1995 ◽  
Vol 1995 (1) ◽  
pp. 801-805
Author(s):  
Jonathan K. Waldron
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Oil Spill ◽  
Oil Spills ◽  
Oil Pollution ◽  
The United States ◽  
Safety Training ◽  
Oil Spill Response ◽  
The Caribbean ◽  
The Relationship ◽  
Response Capability

ABSTRACT The Oil Pollution Act of 1990 (OPA 90) promoted a coordinated industry and government enhancement of response resources to combat oil spills effectively in the United States. However, the United States remains vulnerable to oil spills near the borders it shares with Canada, Mexico, and various nations in the Caribbean due to legal and administrative impediments associated with cross-boundary spill response activities. This paper explores cross-boundary related issues that could hinder a response and the relationship and roles of industry and government with regard to such issues, and provides recommendations to enhance improved cooperation between government and industry to facilitate response activities. The international structure that currently exists—globally, regionally, and bilaterally—provides a basic framework that promotes cooperation between nations to respond harmoniously to spills threatening the shores of neighboring countries. However, the existing agreements and understandings only provide a basic umbrella. They require planning and implementation of details and commitment to take the specific actions required to implement these agreements and understandings fully. As a result, the enhanced private response capability that now exists in the United States may not be available in a spill involving cross-boundary operations. Neighboring nations must take action to facilitate cross-boundary activities by responders by providing responder-immunity protection similar to that provided under OPA 90 and by removing potential impediments to response activities: laws and other requirements relating to matters such as customs, immigration, and safety training.

The Cost of Oil Spills from Tankers: An Analysis of IOPC Fund Incidents

1999 ◽  
Vol 1999 (1) ◽  
pp. 41-47 ◽  
Author(s):  
Catherine J. Grey
Keyword(s):  
Oil Spill ◽  
Oil Spills ◽  
Oil Pollution ◽  
Geographical Location ◽  
Total Cost ◽  
Highly Effective ◽  
Using Data ◽  
The Individual ◽  
The Cost

ABSTRACT The 1971 and 1992 International Oil Pollution Compensation Funds (IOPC Funds) provide compensation to the victims of oil spills from tankers in countries which have ratified the 1971 and 1992 Fund Conventions. Since 1978, they have dealt with more than 100 incidents, paying compensation in 68 of these. Details of the individual incidents are given together with the total cost for each, expressed in US$. The numbers, sizes and costs of the incidents are analysed in detail and compared with the incidence of all tanker spills in Fund countries, using data from the International Tanker Owners Pollution Federation's (ITOPF) Oil Spill Database. This analysis reveals a number of trends relating to the size of tankers; the amount and type of oil spilled; and the geographical location. The 1971 IOPC Fund has undoubtedly proved highly effective, but recent incidents have tested the limits of compensation available. The 1992 Fund Convention entered into force in May 1996, providing both higher limits and a broader scope. However, the threshold at which it comes into effect is also higher, thereby excluding many of the less expensive spills which would previously have been covered by the 1971 Fund Convention. The significance of this for the numbers and costs of incidents likely to be dealt with by both the 1971 and the 1992 IOPC Funds is examined.

The Oil Spill Response Fund – Four Decades of Success

2014 ◽  
Vol 2014 (1) ◽  
pp. 2146-2158
Author(s):  
Allen R. Thuring
Keyword(s):  
Oil Spill ◽  
Oil Spills ◽  
Oil Pollution ◽  
The United States ◽  
Coast Guard ◽  
Trust Fund ◽  
Us Economy ◽  
The Us ◽  
Response Team ◽  
Oil Spill Response

ABSTRACT This paper examines the oil pollution response fund created by Section 311(k) of the 1972 CWA and then modified, culminating with the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund (OSLTF) established by OPA. Could the CWA have been successful absent the provision for a federal fund? This Fund is now four decades old. Has it passed the “test of time”? Did it meet the goals set at its birth? Is it still relevant? Should it continue? CWA Section 311 and later OPA created a range of response tools to deal with oil and hazmat spills on the waters of the US. They established a public/private solution to spill response. Key components:An expectation that the spiller was responsible and liable to clean up the spill;The National Contingency Plan and the Federal On-Scene Coordinator/FOSC;Establishing expertise on “special teams”: the CG's National Strike Force and EPA's Emergency Response Team;An up-front trust fund available only to the FOSC that pays for removals if the responsible party (RP) does not step forward. The fund exists to:Pre-empt the RP from using delay as a response option, despite the law.Give the FOSC money to quickly hire private response companies, if the RP does not act or if the spill's origin is a mystery. Equally important, the CWA and OPA did NOT designate a government agency to “clean up” oil spills. Rather, the law envisioned private companies performing that role, paid for by the spillers/RP or the 311(k)/OSLTF Fund, under the oversight of the USCG or the EPA. It tasked the USCG with managing this Fund. The Fund achieved its results. The US has a robust private oil spill removal sector that responsible parties hire when needed. If an RP does not act, the CG and EPA FOSCs use the Fund to mobilize those same companies to remove oil spills on US waters. The US economy has grown, as has the number of oil spills reported. Cases each year requiring Fund use have not increased proportionally. Responsible parties continue to clean up their spills, as the CWA envisioned. The Fund retains its ability to respond simultaneously to major spills, even during Exxon Valdez and Deepwater Horizon. In forty two years, the Fund has always been available for an FOSC directed removal. The opinions stated in this paper are the author's alone, and do not reflect the official policies of the United States Coast Guard.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document