Advertisement

Continuing to Improve Oil Spill Response in the Arctic: A Joint Industry Programme

  • Joseph V. Mullin
Chapter
Part of the WMU Studies in Maritime Affairs book series (WMUSTUD, volume 7)

Abstract

For more than 50 years, the oil and gas industry has funded and conducted research to improve oil spill response technologies and methodologies with industry, government, academia, and stakeholders jointly involved. This research has included hundreds of studies, laboratory and basin experiments and field trials, specifically in the United States, Canada and Scandinavia. Recent examples include the SINTEF Oil in Ice JIP (2006–2009) and research conducted at Ohmsett—The National Oil Spill Response Research and Renewable Energy Test Facility. This sustained and frequently collaborative effort is not commonly known and recognised by those outside the field of oil spill response.

To build on this existing research and continue improving the technologies and methodologies for Arctic oil spill response, nine international oil and gas companies (BP, Chevron, ConocoPhillips, Eni, ExxonMobil, North Caspian Operating Company (NCOC), Shell, Statoil, and Total) are working collaboratively in the Arctic Oil Spill Response Technology—Joint Industry Programme (JIP). The goal is to advance Arctic oil spill response strategies and equipment as well as to increase understanding of potential impacts of oil on the marine environment. The $21.5M (USD) programme is coordinated by an Executive Steering Committee comprising representatives from each company under the auspices of the International Association of Oil and Gas Producers. The world’s foremost experts on oil spill response, development, and operations from across industry, academia, and independent scientific institutions are being engaged to perform the scientific research.

The JIP has completed phase one of the programme which included technical assessments and state of knowledge reviews in the following six areas: dispersants, environmental effects, trajectory modelling, remote sensing, mechanical recovery, and in situ burning (ISB). Sixteen research reports that identify and summarise the state-of- knowledge and regulatory status for using dispersants, remote sensing and ISB in the Arctic are available on the JIP website (www.arcticresponsetechnology.org).

Phase two activities are now underway which include laboratory, small and medium scale tank tests, and field research. Eleven projects are in progress ranging from dispersant effectiveness testing; modelling the fate of dispersed oil in ice; assessing the environmental effects of an Arctic oil spill; advancing oil spill modelling trajectory capabilities in ice; extending the capability to detect and map oil in darkness, low visibility, in and under ice; herder application, fate and effects; and expanding the ‘window of opportunity’ for ISB response operations. This chapter presents recent JIP progress and key learnings from results.

Keywords

Arctic Oil spill Dispersants In situ burn Mechanical recovery Environmental effects 

References

  1. American Petroleum Institute (API). (2012). Spill response in the Arctic offshore (144 pp). Washington, DC: Final report for the American Petroleum Institute and the Joint Industry Programme on Oil Spill Recovery in Ice.Google Scholar
  2. Beegle-Krause, C. J., Simmons, H., McPhee, M., Lundmark Daae, R., & Reed, M. (2013). Fate of dispersed oil under ice – Literature review, SINTEF materials and chemistry (57 pp) (Final Report 1.4 for the Arctic Oil Spill Response Technology – Joint Industry Programme).Google Scholar
  3. Buist, I., Potter, S., Nedwed, T., & Mullin, J. (2011). Herding surfactants to contract and thicken oil spills in pack ice for in situ burning. Cold Regions Science and Technology, 67, 3–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Buist, I. A., Potter, S. G., Trudel, B. K., Shelnutt, S. R., Walker, A. H., Scholz, D. K., et al. (2013a). In situ burning in ice affected waters: State of knowledge report (Final Report 7.1.1 for the Arctic Oil Spill Response Technology – Joint Industry Programme).Google Scholar
  5. Buist, I. A., Potter, S. G., Trudel, B. K., Walker, A. H., Scholz, D. K., Brandvik, P. J. et al. (2013b). In situ burning in ice affected waters: Status of regulations in Arctic and Sub-Arctic Countries (Final Report 7.2.1 for the Arctic Oil Spill Response Technology – Joint Industry Programme).Google Scholar
  6. Buist, I. A., Potter, S. G., Trudel, B. K., Walker, A. H., Scholz, D. K., Brandvik, P. J., et al. (2013c). In situ burning in ice affected waters: A technology summary and lessons learned from key experiments (Final Report 7.1.2 for the Arctic Oil Spill Response Technology – Joint Industry Programme).Google Scholar
  7. Faksness, L., Belore, R., & Merlin, F, (2013) Test tank inter-calibration for dispersant efficiency (72 pp) (Final Report 2.2 for the Arctic Oil Spill Response Technology – Joint Industry Programme).Google Scholar
  8. Federal Interagency Solutions Group, Oil Budget Calculator Science and Engineering Team. (2010). Oil Budget Calculator: Deepwater Horizon. Technical Documentation.Google Scholar
  9. Lewis, A. (2013). Dispersant testing in realistic conditions (33 pp) (Final Report 2.1 for the Arctic Oil Spill Response Technology – Joint Industry Programme).Google Scholar
  10. Puestow, L., Parsons, L., Zakharov, I., Cater, N., Bobby, P., Fuglem, M., et al. (2013). Oil spill detection and mapping in low visibility and ice: Surface remote sensing (102 pp) Final Report 5.1 for the Arctic Oil Spill Response Technology – Joint Industry Programme.Google Scholar
  11. SEA Consulting Group. (2013). Final Report 2.8 for the Arctic Oil Spill Response Technology – Joint Industry Programme (105 pp).Google Scholar
  12. SL Ross. (2007). Mid-scale test tank research on using oil herding surfactants to thicken oil slicks in broken ice (Report to the U.S. Department of the Interior, Minerals Management Service).Google Scholar
  13. SL Ross Environmental Research Ltd, DF Dickins Associates LLC., Envision Planning Solutions Inc. (2010). Beaufort sea oil spill state of knowledge review and identification of key issues (126 p) (Environmental Studies Research Funds Report No. 177). Calgary.Google Scholar
  14. Wilkinson, J., Maksym, T., & Singh, H. (2013). Capabilities for detection of oil spills under sea ice from autonomous underwater vehicles (103 pp) (Final Report 5.2 for the Arctic Oil Spill Response Technology – Joint Industry Programme).Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Arctic Oil Spill Response Technology, Joint Industry Programme, International Association of Oil and Gas ProducersLondonUK

Personalised recommendations