Increased infrastructure required for effective oil spill response in US Arctic

Apr 23, 2014

A changing climate is increasing the accessibility of U.S. Arctic waters to commercial activities such as shipping, oil and gas development, and tourism, raising concern about the risk of oil spills. A new report from the National Research Council says that a full suite of proven oil response tools is needed to address potential oil spills in U.S. Arctic waters, but not all of them are readily available. While much is known about both oil behavior and response technologies in ice-covered environments, there are areas where additional research would enable more informed decisions about the most effective response strategies for different Arctic spill situations, the report adds.

The Arctic poses several challenges to oil spill response, including extreme weather and environmental settings, limited operations and communications infrastructure, a vast geographic area, and vulnerable species, ecosystems, and cultures. The report finds that there is a need to validate current and emerging oil spill response technologies under these real-world conditions, and recommends that carefully controlled field experiments that release oil in the U.S. Arctic be conducted as part of a long-term, collaborative Arctic oil spill research and development program that spans local, state, and federal levels.

A decision process such as the Net Environmental Benefit Analysis, which weighs and compares the advantages and disadvantages of different response options, should be used to select the response tools that offer the greatest overall reduction of adverse environmental harm, the report says. Key response options include biodegradation, chemical dispersants and herders, in situ burning, and mechanical containment and recovery. While in situ burning is pre-approved for use in the Arctic under defined conditions, Alaska has not granted pre-approval for use of chemical dispersants.

Research areas that would improve science-based decisions about the use of response technologies include determining the biodegradation rates of hydrocarbons in offshore environments and which strategies can accelerate oil degradation; evaluating the toxicity and long-term effects of dispersants and dispersed oil on key Arctic marine species; and communicating the limitations of mechanical recovery in both open water and ice.

Due to the range of conditions typically encountered within the Arctic, no single technique will apply in all situations, and in some cases a viable response option might be no response. A combination of countermeasures, rather than a single response option, may provide optimal protection, and so the response toolbox requires flexibility to evaluate and apply multiple options if necessary, the report says.

Building U.S. capability for Arctic oil spill response will also require additional infrastructure. The report finds that current personnel, equipment, transportation, communication, navigation, and safety resources for overseeing a spill response in the Arctic are not adequate, and calls this absence of infrastructure a "significant liability" in the event of a large oil spill. It suggests that positioning response equipment such as aerial in situ burn and dispersant capabilities in the region in advance of a spill would provide immediate access to rapid response options. Furthermore, the U.S. Coast Guard's presence and performance capacity in the Arctic should be enhanced.

Given the proximity of U.S. Arctic waters to international territories, certain factors should be addressed in advance of an actual event, including communications between command centers, coordinated planning, trans-boundary movement of people and equipment, and identification of translators, the report says. While formal contingency planning and exercises with Canada have been established, the U.S. Coast Guard should expand its bilateral agreement with Russia to include Arctic spill scenarios and conduct regularly scheduled exercises to establish joint response plans, the report recommends.

The Coast Guard should work with the Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation to develop an oil spill training program for local communities and trained response teams in local villages. They should also integrate local and traditional knowledge of ice and ocean conditions and marine life to enhance oil spill response, the report says.

Explore further: Oil dispersants not as harmful to marine life as predicted

More information: Report: www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=18625

add to favorites email to friend print save as pdf

Related Stories

Oil dispersants not as harmful to marine life as predicted

Dec 04, 2013

The chemical dispersant used to counteract the Deepwater Horizon oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico in 2010 may not be as harmful to fish as first thought, says new research from Queen's professor Peter Hodson and his team of ...

Offshore dispersant data and decisions

Mar 06, 2014

Dispersants are often used in oil spill responses because they may mitigate the environmental impacts of the spill by moving the oil from the water surface into the water column enhancing its biodegradation. While this process ...

New US offshore oil leasing plan includes Arctic

Nov 08, 2011

The Obama administration on Tuesday proposed a new plan for offshore oil and gas leases in the Gulf of Mexico and off the coast of Alaska, including the environmentally sensitive Arctic.

Environmentalists warn of risks of Arctic drilling

Aug 14, 2012

(AP) — Environmental activists warned Tuesday that drilling for oil in the Russian Arctic could have disastrous consequences because of a lack of technology and infrastructure to deal with a possible ...

Recommended for you

Green dream: Can UN summit revive climate issue?

8 hours ago

Five years ago, the environment movement was in its heyday as politicians, actors, rock stars and protestors demanded a looming UN summit brake the juggernaut of climate change.

Rio's Olympic golf course in legal bunker

Sep 18, 2014

The return of golf to the Olympics after what will be 112 years by the time Rio hosts South America's first Games in 2016 comes amid accusations environmental laws were got round to build the facility in ...

User comments : 2

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

Caliban
5 / 5 (1) Apr 23, 2014
Pure BS.

In no scenario does an arctic oil spill get cleaned up. Onshore spills have been sopped up and bulldozed Valdez still soaks the coastline of PWS.

Great job, oilcos!

Offshore drilling is a GUARANTEED disaster. Violent, unpredictable weather in all seasons will make effective response virtually impossible, and there simply isn't any cleanup technology or strategy, extant or yet-to-be, that is capable of getting the job done in any more than just a half-assed way.

Mitigation is the VERY BEST to be hoped for.

This static being emitted from the NRC is the most transparent of whitewashings, an advance effort to make it appear that drilling in the Arctic is or can be made safe, when in reality, any drilling is a positive --and quite possibly a catastrophic-- danger to both public interest and environment.

All political, social, economic, and environmental considerations aside, though, this just CANNOT BE DONE, either safely or responsibly.
rockwolf1000
5 / 5 (1) Apr 23, 2014
@ Caliban

Well said.
It seems they have completely ignored the fact that the Sun doesn't come up for almost 3 months of the year there.
To suggest a massive oil spill could be cleaned up in rough seas filled with huge chunks of ice with frigid temperatures and howling winds and almost total darkness is a misrepresentation at best and an outright lie at worst. Not to mention there will be polar bears looking for something to eat and they tend to find people quite tasty. Tho the latter would make good stock for YouTube.

No mention is made of how they would respond to sub-surface leaks that are trapped below the ice in winter.

Beyond stupid!