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.

Advancing Oil Spill Response in Arctic Conditions: The Arctic Oil Spill Response Technology - Joint Industry Programme

2014 ◽  
Vol 2014 (1) ◽  
pp. 960-971 ◽  
Author(s):  
Joseph V. Mullin
Keyword(s):  
Oil Spill ◽  
Oil And Gas ◽  
Research Integrity ◽  
Field Research ◽  
Oil And Gas Industry ◽  
The Arctic ◽  
Gas Industry ◽  
Response Strategies ◽  
Arctic Conditions ◽  
Oil Spill Response

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).

scholarly journals Subsea Mechanical Dispersion (SSMD) a Possible New Option for the Oil Spill Response Toolbox?

2021 ◽  
Vol 2021 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Per Johan Brandvik ◽  
Daniel F. Krause ◽  
Frode Leirvik ◽  
Per S. Daling ◽  
Zach Owens ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Oil Spill ◽  
Large Scale ◽  
Oil And Gas ◽  
Strong Impact ◽  
Oil Droplet ◽  
Mechanical Dispersion ◽  
Large Scale Testing ◽  
Droplet Sizes ◽  
Oil Spill Response ◽  
Close Cooperation

Abstract The size distribution of oil droplets formed in subsea oil and gas blowouts is known to have a strong impact on their subsequent fate in the environment. Small droplets have low rising velocities, are more influenced by oceanographic turbulence and have larger potential for natural biodegradation. Subsea Dispersant Injection (SSDI) is an established method for achieving this goal, lowering the interfacial tension between the oil and water and significantly reducing oil droplet size. However, despite its many advantages, the use of SSDI could be limited both by logistical constraints and legislative restrictions. Adding to the toolkit a method to achieve subsea dispersion, without the use of chemicals, would therefore enhance oil spill response capability. This option is called Subsea Mechanical Dispersion (SSMD). An extensive feasibility study on SSMD has been performed and the main findings are reported in this paper. The work was initiated by BP in 2015 and later followed up by a consortium of Equinor, Total Norge, Aker BP and Lundin. The first phase explored multiple principles of generating subsea dispersions (ultrasonic, mechanical shear forces and water jetting) through both laboratory experiments and modelling. These studies clearly indicate that SSMD has an operational potential to significantly reduce oil droplet sizes from a subsea release and influence the fate and behaviour of the released oil volume. The recent work reported in this paper on operationalisation, upscaling and large-scale testing of subsea water jetting. This work is performed by SINTEF in close cooperation with Exponent (computational fluid dynamics and shear stress modelling) and Oceaneering (operationalisation and full-scale prototyping).

scholarly journals Resourcing the next industry defining spill

2021 ◽  
Vol 2021 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Sarah Hall ◽  
Dave Rouse ◽  
Paul Foley ◽  
Aaron Montgomery
Keyword(s):  
Oil Spill ◽  
Oil And Gas ◽  
Effective Response ◽  
The People ◽  
Scientific Experts ◽  
Response Network ◽  
Oil Spill Response ◽  
The Right ◽  
Number Of Individuals ◽  
Prolonged Response

Abstract The Deepwater Horizon (DWH) response was unprecedented in scale and complexity. In addition to testing the limits of Industry's technical knowledge, it required a sustained response of personnel effort over several years. At the peak of the response, some 47,000+ responders were deployed across five states. For any future incident of similar scale the challenges of resourcing must be considered now, to ensure a timely, efficient and effective response can be achieved. Whilst the contribution of every responder is important, it is clear that some command and field roles are more critical than others. For these key roles there are a limited number of individuals with the knowledge, experience, credibility and personality to successfully take them on. Furthermore, accessing these individuals - having up-to-date contact details, maintaining business continuity and assuring their competency - is a challenge. Another common preparedness gap is that most exercises do not test the process for mobilising people past the first few days (thereby not learning lessons about the time it takes) or consider the challenge of putting people in place with the right skill set during a prolonged response. DWH was resourced using the ‘little black book' of contacts from oil spill response organisations (OSROs), Oil and Gas operators, scientific experts and the local communities. Whilst successful, there were lessons to learn from the approach. In the last 10 years the expectations from regulators, public and other stakeholders on the speed, transparency and effectiveness of response have multiplied. To meet these growing expectations a more robust and efficient way of putting the right people, in the right place at the right time is required. This poster discusses the merits and suggests a potential mechanism for a globally aligned mutual response network. Oil spill response cooperatives are ideally positioned to identify key roles, the people who could fill them, assure their capability and readiness, and address the barriers which slow down mobilisation such as agreeing contracting terms and rates. This poster will lay out the challenges that both Industry and OSROs face in resourcing the next industry defining spill. It will set out how an oil spill mutual response network answers these questions. It will also reinforce why collaboration and cooperation, key principles of Tiered Preparedness and Response, will continue to be the most efficient and effective way of accessing capability and maximising Industry's preparedness to respond to the next big incident.

scholarly journals Using ship-borne observations of methane isotopic ratio in the Arctic Ocean to understand methane sources in the Arctic

2020 ◽  
Vol 20 (6) ◽  
pp. 3987-3998 ◽  
Author(s):  
Antoine Berchet ◽  
Isabelle Pison ◽  
Patrick M. Crill ◽  
Brett Thornton ◽  
Philippe Bousquet ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Arctic Ocean ◽  
Large Scale ◽  
Oil And Gas ◽  
Lower Stratosphere ◽  
Transport Model ◽  
Isotopic Ratio ◽  
Oil And Gas Industry ◽  
The Arctic ◽  
Isotopic Ratios ◽  
Air Masses

Abstract. Characterizing methane sources in the Arctic remains challenging due to the remoteness, heterogeneity and variety of such emissions. In situ campaigns provide valuable datasets to reduce these uncertainties. Here we analyse data from the summer 2014 SWERUS-C3 campaign in the eastern Arctic Ocean, off the shore of Siberia and Alaska. Total concentrations of methane, as well as relative concentrations of 12CH4 and 13CH4, were measured continuously during this campaign for 35 d in July and August. Using a chemistry-transport model, we link observed concentrations and isotopic ratios to regional emissions and hemispheric transport structures. A simple inversion system helped constrain source signatures from wetlands in Siberia and Alaska, and oceanic sources, as well as the isotopic composition of lower-stratosphere air masses. The variation in the signature of lower-stratosphere air masses, due to strongly fractionating chemical reactions in the stratosphere, was suggested to explain a large share of the observed variability in isotopic ratios. These results point towards necessary efforts to better simulate large-scale transport and chemistry patterns to make relevant use of isotopic data in remote areas. It is also found that constant and homogeneous source signatures for each type of emission in a given region (mostly wetlands and oil and gas industry in our case at high latitudes) are not compatible with the strong synoptic isotopic signal observed in the Arctic. A regional gradient in source signatures is highlighted between Siberian and Alaskan wetlands, the latter having lighter signatures (more depleted in 13C). Finally, our results suggest that marine emissions of methane from Arctic continental-shelf sources are dominated by thermogenic-origin methane, with a secondary biogenic source as well.

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.

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.

Case Studies: Application of Oil Spill Response Good Practice Guides for Inland and Near-shore Operations

2017 ◽  
Vol 2017 (1) ◽  
pp. 2017254
Author(s):  
Amanda Hwa Ling Chee ◽  
Edelina Melisa ◽  
Xin Dong
Keyword(s):  
Risk Assessment ◽  
Case Studies ◽  
Oil Spill ◽  
Oil And Gas ◽  
Planning Process ◽  
Good Practice ◽  
Health And Safety ◽  
Oil And Gas Industry ◽  
Near Shore ◽  
Oil Spill Response

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.

scholarly journals SPILL CONTINGENCY PLANS: FOR INTERNATIONAL REGIONAL COOPERATION

2005 ◽  
Vol 2005 (1) ◽  
pp. 861-864
Author(s):  
Nobuhiro Sawano
Keyword(s):  
Oil Spill ◽  
Large Scale ◽  
Oil And Gas ◽  
Regional Cooperation ◽  
Action Plan ◽  
Northwest Pacific ◽  
Contingency Plans ◽  
Oil Spill Response ◽  
The Moment ◽  
National Cooperative

ABSTRACT Offshore oil and gas developing projects have been started on the Sakhalin shelf and the sea of Okhotsk. These large scale developing projects require multi-national cooperative spill response, then agreements for emergency occasions have to be ratified between neighbor countries under international schemes such as Northwest Pacific Action Plan (NOWPAP) initiated by United Nations Environmental Progamme. As of the moment, there are no diplomatic agreements concerning with oil spill response between stakeholder counties, then custom clearance and other international migration procedure will be an obstacle for exchanging both materials and professionals. A comparative analysis of oil spill contingency plans of Russia, Korea and Japan resulted in some clear differences in these countries approaches. The Korean National Contingency Plan explicitly determines the roles of an ‘on-scene coordinator’ who is a unique organizer for oil spill response. On the other hands, the same kind of Japanese plan does not even contain a word of such ‘on-scene coordinator’. For the Russian case, they have U. S. like Federal Emergency Management Agency, but allocation of roles between this agency and Ministry of Transport are still ambiguous.

Advancing Oil Spill Preparedness and Response Techniques for Arctic Conditions

2011 ◽  
Vol 2011 (1) ◽  
pp. abs105 ◽  
Author(s):  
Peter Velez ◽  
Hanne Greiff Johnsen ◽  
Alexis Steen ◽  
Yvette Osikilo
Keyword(s):  
Sea Ice ◽  
Oil Spill ◽  
Oil And Gas ◽  
The Arctic ◽  
Distinct Advantage ◽  
Cold Temperatures ◽  
Arctic Regions ◽  
Arctic Conditions ◽  
Oil Spill Response ◽  
High Level

ABSTRACT Industrial and commercial activities in Arctic and sub-Arctic regions, including oil exploration, have increased in recent years. The 2008 circumpolar analysis by the US Geological Survey highlighted the large quantities of undiscovered oil and gas (O&G) estimated to be present. Governments of Arctic coastal states require industry to ensure a high level of environmental protection while operating in these areas. There are unique considerations which must be addressed such as: prolonged periods of darkness and daylight, cold temperatures, environmental sensitivities, indigenous peoples and their culture, distant infrastructure and remoteness, presence of seasonal/dynamic sea ice offshore, and a generally higher cost of doing business. Oil spill response (OSR) in the ice-free season can be comparable to the response in others parts of the world, with the exception of lower temperatures and extended daylight hours. The latter is a distinct advantage for OSR operations. Prevention of spills remains a top priority for industry. To address spills, if prevention is unsuccessful, the O&G industry has made significant progress over the last decades on addressing the technical challenges of operating in the Arctic. The O&G industry has also performed work to evaluate and validate OSR response measures under Arctic conditions. Oil spill response is a demanding task in any environment, but responding to spills in Arctic regions can present different challenges, especially with presence of sea ice, than to spills found in more temperate regions and opportunities exist to improve upon this existing capability. Some response techniques have been modified or specially developed for use in the Arctic. The O&G industry will undertake a joint industry research program to further address the challenges of Arctic Oil Spill Response. This paper describes the background, planning, and scope for this Joint Industry Program (JIP).

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document