SPILL IMPACT MITIGATION ASSESSMENT FRAMEWORK FOR OIL SPILL RESPONSE PLANNING IN THE ARCTIC ENVIRONMENT

2017 ◽  
Vol 2017 (1) ◽  
pp. 1325-1344 ◽  
Author(s):  
Hilary Robinson ◽  
William Gardiner ◽  
Richard J. Wenning ◽  
Mary Ann Rempel-Hester
Keyword(s):  
Oil Spill ◽  
Oil And Gas ◽  
Environmental Benefits ◽  
The Arctic ◽  
Arctic Ecosystems ◽  
Oil And Gas Development ◽  
Response Planning ◽  
Wide Range ◽  
Oil Spill Response ◽  
Different Response

ABSTRACT #2017-351 When there is risk for oil release into the marine environment, the priority for planners and responders is to protect human health and to minimize environmental impacts. The selection of appropriate response option(s) depends upon a wide range of information including data on the fate and behavior of oil and treated oil, the habitats and organisms that are potentially exposed, and the potential for effects and recovery following exposure. Spill Impact Management Assessment (SIMA; a refinement of Net Environmental Benefits Analysis, or NEBA, in the context of oil spill response) and similar comparative risk assessment (CRA) approaches provide responders a systematic method to compare and contrast the relative environmental benefits and consequences of different response alternatives. Government and industry stakeholders have used this approach increasingly in temperate and subtropical regions to establish environmental protection priorities and identify response strategies during planning that minimize impacts and maximize the potential for environmental recovery. Historically, the ability to conduct CRA-type assessments in the Arctic has been limited by insufficient information relevant to oil-spill response decision making. However, with an increased interest in shipping and oil and gas development in the Arctic, a sufficiently robust scientific and ecological information base is emerging in the Arctic that can support meaningful SIMA. Based on a summary of over 3,000 literature references on Arctic ecosystems and the fate and effects of oil and treated oil in the Arctic, we identify key input parameters supporting a SIMA evaluation of oil spill response in the Arctic and introduce a web portal developed to facilitate access to the literature and key considerations supporting SIMA.

SPILL IMPACT MITIGATION ASSESSMENT FRAMEWORK FOR OIL SPILL RESPONSE PLANNING IN THE ARCTIC ENVIRONMENT

2017 ◽  
Vol 2017 (1) ◽  
pp. 2017-351 ◽  
Author(s):  
Hilary Robinson ◽  
William Gardiner ◽  
Richard J. Wenning ◽  
Mary Ann Rempel-Hester
Keyword(s):  
Oil Spill ◽  
Oil And Gas ◽  
Environmental Benefits ◽  
The Arctic ◽  
Arctic Ecosystems ◽  
Oil And Gas Development ◽  
Response Planning ◽  
Wide Range ◽  
Oil Spill Response ◽  
Different Response

ABSTRACT #2017-351 When there is risk for oil release into the marine environment, the priority for planners and responders is to protect human health and to minimize environmental impacts. The selection of appropriate response option(s) depends upon a wide range of information including data on the fate and behavior of oil and treated oil, the habitats and organisms that are potentially exposed, and the potential for effects and recovery following exposure. Spill Impact Management Assessment (SIMA; a refinement of Net Environmental Benefits Analysis, or NEBA, in the context of oil spill response) and similar comparative risk assessment (CRA) approaches provide responders a systematic method to compare and contrast the relative environmental benefits and consequences of different response alternatives. Government and industry stakeholders have used this approach increasingly in temperate and subtropical regions to establish environmental protection priorities and identify response strategies during planning that minimize impacts and maximize the potential for environmental recovery. Historically, the ability to conduct CRA-type assessments in the Arctic has been limited by insufficient information relevant to oil-spill response decision making. However, with an increased interest in shipping and oil and gas development in the Arctic, a sufficiently robust scientific and ecological information base is emerging in the Arctic that can support meaningful SIMA. Based on a summary of over 3,000 literature references on Arctic ecosystems and the fate and effects of oil and treated oil in the Arctic, we identify key input parameters supporting a SIMA evaluation of oil spill response in the Arctic and introduce a web portal developed to facilitate access to the literature and key considerations supporting SIMA.

The Next Generation of Planning for Offshore Oil Spill Response

2017 ◽  
Vol 2017 (1) ◽  
pp. 1417-1432
Author(s):  
John Caplis ◽  
Andrew Krieger
Keyword(s):  
Oil Spill ◽  
Oil And Gas ◽  
Environmental Benefits ◽  
Environmental Research ◽  
Outer Continental Shelf ◽  
Worst Case ◽  
Response Planning ◽  
Capability Analysis ◽  
Oil Spill Response ◽  
Offshore Oil

ABSTRACT 2017-333: In 2014, the Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement (BSEE) commissioned a study to inform an update of Oil Spill Response Plan (OSRP) regulations for offshore oil and gas facilities and pipelines at Title 30, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 254. The study, Oil Spill Response Equipment Capability Analysis, was conducted by a team led by Booz Allen Hamilton (Booz Allen), with support from RPS Group (formerly ASA Sciences), Environmental Research Consulting (ERC), and SEA Consulting. In close coordination with BSEE, the Booz Allen team reviewed eleven worst case discharge (WCD) scenarios in the Gulf of Mexico, Alaska, and Pacific Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) Regions. The study, which involved literature reviews, oil spill modeling, and benchmarking against foreign and domestic regulatory regimes, concluded in February 2016, and highlighted many areas for improving the requirements for response capabilities in the OSRPs. This paper focuses on the key spill modeling methodologies, observations, and results in the Oil Spill Response Equipment Capability Analysis study, and its use of a concept of operations (CONOPS) for the application of various oil spill countermeasures in response to a WCD. The modeling results provided both new insights and reaffirmed many principles that have long guided oil spill response operations. The CONOPS systematically rolls them up into an offshore-based construct for employing multiple countermeasures in ways that will most effectively reduce oil contact with the environment. This effort did not attempt to quantify environmental impacts or provide guidance on applying countermeasures based upon a net environmental benefits analysis (NEBA) or spill impact mitigation analysis (SIMA). Decision-making for implementing the CONOPS will still require an additional overlying comparative analysis that evaluates the environmental, cultural, social and economic tradeoffs in order to find the preferred balance of spill countermeasures for a given planning scenario or incident. Regardless, the use of the construct (or CONOPS) as outlined in the study offers sound improvements for response planning involving very large spills in the offshore environment.

National Oil Spill Response Planning in the U.S.S.R.: Principal Conceptions and Objectives

1991 ◽  
Vol 1991 (1) ◽  
pp. 3-5
Author(s):  
O. Khalimonov ◽  
S. Nunuparov
Keyword(s):  
Oil Spill ◽  
Oil Spills ◽  
Data Bank ◽  
Effective Utilization ◽  
Contingency Plan ◽  
Response Planning ◽  
Wide Range ◽  
International Monitoring ◽  
Oil Spill Response ◽  
System Data

ABSTRACT International and domestic experience in the response to major oil spills at sea confirms the vital necessity of a national contingency plan to guarantee effective utilization of national resources and those of assisting countries and organizations. Experience in responding to recent major oil spills underlines deficiencies connected with the shortage of technical means and also with ineffective organization of the response and cooperation of all parties involved. This results in unjustifiable delays in decision making and, finally, in catastrophic damages to the environment. The main principles of the U.S.S.R. national oil spill response plan, currently under consideration for approval, are as follows:involvement of a wide range of national forces and forces of the neighboring countries under preliminary agreed-upon schemes;strengthening and development of appropriate legal instruments to stipulate obligations of the parties involved in pollution response operations;development of a mechanism to reduce impediments to financial, technical, and related agreements required prior to commencement of operations (sources of finances, preliminary approval of the response technology by competent authorities, facilitation of custom procedures);unification of the structure of the U.S.S.R national contingency plan with a view to making it compatible with corresponding plans of neighboring countries following the prototype developed by the International Maritime Organization (IMO);cooperation in the establishment of the international monitoring system, data bank, and computerized exchange of information.

Advances from Arctic Oil Spill Response Research

2017 ◽  
Vol 2017 (1) ◽  
pp. 1487-1506 ◽  
Author(s):  
Joseph V. Mullin
Keyword(s):  
Oil Spill ◽  
Large Scale ◽  
Oil And Gas ◽  
Field Tests ◽  
Field Research ◽  
Oil And Gas Industry ◽  
The Arctic ◽  
Research Projects ◽  
Effective Response ◽  
Oil Spill Response

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.

An Application of Worst Case Scenario Concept in Oil Spill Response Planning for Offshore Drilling Operation in Brazil

2003 ◽  
Vol 2003 (1) ◽  
pp. 371-376 ◽  
Author(s):  
Hélder O. Ferreira ◽  
Alexandre Cabrai ◽  
Álvaro Souza Junior
Keyword(s):  
Oil Spill ◽  
Oil And Gas ◽  
Competent Authority ◽  
Offshore Drilling ◽  
Case Scenario ◽  
Worst Case ◽  
Response Planning ◽  
Oil Spill Modeling ◽  
Oil Spill Response ◽  
Under Construction

ABSTRACT The Brazilian oil and gas E&P sector has been experiencing important changes since the end of the state monopoly in 1998. These changes include a new regulatory environment which is still under construction, in particular the requirements for environmental protection. In this context, Resolution 293 of Brazilian National Environmental Council (CONAMA) was enacted regulating Facility Response Plans for oil spill incidents. These plans, which should be approved by the competent authority, include a vulnerability analysis that should discuss the probability of oil reaching certain areas as well as the environmental sensitivity of these areas. Oil spill modeling is an important tool to estimating the areas likely to be affected by an oil spill. Although oil spill modeling is also part of the environmental studies required in the environmental permitting process for oil E&P activities, there are not well defined criteria to compose the oil spill scenarios to be modeled. In order to demonstrate the impacts of different approaches in the results of oil spill modeling, a case study is presented related to an offshore drilling activity.

Upgraded RETOS™: An International Tool to Assess Oil Spill Response Planning and Readiness

2014 ◽  
Vol 2014 (1) ◽  
pp. 1353-1363 ◽  
Author(s):  
Elliott Taylor ◽  
Miguel Moyano ◽  
Alexis Steen
Keyword(s):  
Oil Spill ◽  
Best Management Practices ◽  
Management Practices ◽  
Oil And Gas ◽  
Assessment Tool ◽  
Assessment Tools ◽  
Evaluation Tool ◽  
Readiness Assessment ◽  
Response Planning ◽  
Oil Spill Response

ABSTRACT In 2011 the Regional Association of Oil and Gas Companies - Latin America and the Caribbean (ARPEL) developed the “Oil Spill Response Planning and Readiness Assessment Manual” and its assessment tool, the “Readiness Evaluation Tool for Oil Spills (RETOS™)” with the support of regional and international experts from industry and government, including associations such as Clean Caribbean and Americas (CCA), RAC-REMPEITC-Carib, and IMO. The ARPEL Manual and RETOS™ provide a general guide for industry and governments to assess their level of oil spill response (OSR) planning and readiness management in relation to pre-established criteria. These criteria are commonly agreed upon by the institutions involved in the project and consider international best management practices. The foundation for the ARPEL Manual's concepts and criteria is the “Assessment of Oil Spill Response Capabilities: A Proposed International Guide for Oil Spill Response Planning and Readiness Assessment”, a guideline developed for the 2008 International Oil Spill Conference. RETOS™ adapts evaluation criteria according to the type of OSR program to be assessed.Seven different scopes from two perspectives (government and industry) are considered, including facilities, companies' business lines, and government national programs.For each scope there are three possible assessment levels for which OSR planning and readiness assessment criteria become increasingly more demanding.Each level contains criteria in 10 different categories (topic areas). Training workshops on RETOS™ were held during 2011 and 2012. Field tests were conducted by experts and surveys were conducted among users including companies, governments and consultants. Feedback from workshops and the practical application of RETOS™ provided recommendations for upgrades that were reviewed by ARPEL. Subsequently, a proposal to upgrade RETOS was made to the IOSC Executive Committee, which decided to support the endeavor. This paper describes the upgraded version of RETOS and its availability. The upgraded version of RETOS™ has garnered interest from several institutions that contributed to its completion as reviewers: a global Tier 3 organization (OSRL), Caspian and Black Sea's OSPRI, GI WACAF, and IPIECA. This multi-institutional review increased awareness of these readiness assessment tools, is expected to further expand worldwide awareness of the ARPEL Manual and RETOS™, and provides improved OSR planning and readiness management for industry and governments alike. A unique tool that is freely downloadable from the internet, the upgraded RETOS™ is being launched at the 2014 IOSC.

scholarly journals Geoenvirоnmental risks on the background geopolitical challenges for the oil and gas industry in the Arctic

2019 ◽  
Vol 16 (4) ◽  
pp. 12-23 ◽  
Author(s):  
O. P. Trubitsina ◽  
V. N. Bashkin
Keyword(s):  
Oil And Gas ◽  
Arctic Region ◽  
Oil And Gas Industry ◽  
Environmental Safety ◽  
The Arctic ◽  
Management Decision ◽  
Expert Assessment ◽  
Arctic Ecosystems ◽  
Oil And Gas Development ◽  
Projected Changes

The article is devoted to the issues of geoecology and geopolitics in the Arctic. The authors reveal the need to consider geopolitical challenges in the analysis of geoecological risks (GER) of oil and gas development of the Arctic region. This is due to the intersection here of the strategic interests of several States and their focus to prove the inability of Russia to ensure environmental safety in the development of Arctic fi elds. Th e subject of GER is used as a geopolitical tool against Russia due to the probability of it becoming a key player in the region. The authors propose a model for the analysis of GER, which is based on critical loads (CL) of acidity of pollutants and includes 2 stages: 1) the stage of quantitative assessment of GER, which allows to calculate not only the magnitude of the projected changes in the state of the Arctic ecosystems, but also the probability of their occurrence; 2) the stage of management of GER taking into account geopolitical factors, assuming a qualitative expert assessment, which is a procedure for making a management decision to achieve acceptable levels of the total GER.

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.

REVIEW OF BRAZILIAN REGULATION FOR FACILITY OIL SPILL RESPONSE PLANNING

2008 ◽  
Vol 2008 (1) ◽  
pp. 19-21
Author(s):  
Alvaro Souza Junior
Keyword(s):  
Oil Spill ◽  
Oil And Gas ◽  
Oil And Gas Industry ◽  
Public Hearing ◽  
Gas Industry ◽  
Oil Platforms ◽  
Response Planning ◽  
National Environment ◽  
Oil Spill Response ◽  
Environmental Agencies

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.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document