Feb 4, 2013 NRC Presentation in Chicago
Remote Energy Security Technologies Collaborative www.restco.ca
Field studies of oil spills in ice covered Arctic waters: recommendations based
on historic and current knowledge
William (Bill) A. Adams and Christopher Ives
RESTCO
Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
1. Introduction
This review of field studies of oil spills in the Arctic is intended to provide important background leading to
recommendations based on actual experience with oil in the Arctic environment. Two studies will be presented
in some detail since they involved the largest spill volumes and the most comprehensive scientific studies
associated with such experimental spills. It has proven difficult to repeat tests on these scales due to greater
concern with the optics of such test spills with the public both in the Arctic and elsewhere. The 2011 Review of
Offshore Drilling in the Canadian Arctic by the Canadian National Energy Board will be discussed with
mention of the collected information on the topic. As well some information from Russia based on a recent trip
by WAA to Siberia will be discussed.
The first test spill to be discussed is that conducted in 1975 in the Canadian western Arctic as part of the
Beaufort Sea Project (BSP). A good summary of this work is provided in five books that were written to
summarize 45 scientific reports (some 5000 pages) about the Arctic Ocean and oil development that were
published as part of the BSP by Fisheries and Oceans Canada.
The Beaufort Sea Project and Off-Shore Drilling in the Arctic
Although this research was done some 38 years ago, and notwithstanding extensive research that has been
conducted in the interim, such as the Baffin Island Oil Spill (BIOS) experiments, and SINTEF-led Joint
Industry Program on Oil Spill Contingency for Arctic and Ice-covered Waters, and others summarized on the
Table below, the BSP publications still remain the most comprehensive body of work on the environmental
and climate impacts of oil drilling in the Arctic.
The second experimental spill experiment to be reviewed will be that undertaken in the period 1980-83 called
the Baffin Island Oil Spill (BIOS) which was also conducted in Canada, but in this case in the eastern Arctic.
Page 1 of 20
Feb 4, 2013 NRC Presentation in Chicago
Remote Energy Security Technologies Collaborative www.restco.ca
The table above is taken from “Spill Response in the Arctic Offshore” - Feb 2, 2012 FINAL, prepared for the
American Petroleum Institute Programme on Oil Spill Recovery in Ice by Stephen Potter, Ian Buist and Ken
Trudel - SL Ross Environmental Research Ltd., David Dickins – DF Dickins Associates, and Ed Owens –
Polaris Applied Sciences. This 2012 report also provides a brief summary of each of the test spills mentioned
in the table.
Information Dissemination and Level of Effort
It is significant that this extensive body of research from the 1970s was also given a wider audience by having
summary books published that attempted to reach out and inform the broader public on a topic felt by the
organizers of this research and the government bodies and industrial participants of that period to be of
significance not only to the local populations living in the Arctic regions, but to people everywhere with a
concern about decisions that could impact not only the Arctic, but ecosystems and the climate globally. In
today’s dollars, the approximate cost of the BSP was Cdn $50 million and that spent on the BIOS Project was
likely of at least the same order of magnitude. These two projects were funded at a level greater than that spent
on more recent studies by a wide margin.
It appears that this approach to information dissemination is not being taken by today’s research organizations
or bodies funding research related to Arctic development since results of more recent studies are usually buried
in technical publications and not published for a wider audience. There is also a recent good example in
Canada of targeting information dissemination efforts rather than seeking broad dissemination of information.
The National Energy Board (NEB) of Canada in the Board’s recent Review of Offshore Drilling in the Arctic,
perhaps in attempting to influence local aboriginal communities in order to obtain their support for oil and gas
development, only held meetings in the Canadian Arctic and made no significant efforts to reach out to the
majority of Canadians other than those that would be directly impacted by offshore drilling. It is our view that
scientific information provided widely and impartially is far better than either industry or environmental lobby
Page 2 of 20
Feb 4, 2013 NRC Presentation in Chicago
Remote Energy Security Technologies Collaborative www.restco.ca
groups being the principal source of information to the general public or of only specific audiences being
targeted in review processes. Such targeted efforts do not provide a forum for a wider audience leading to
informed discussion based on scientific and culturally based information. The NEB did provide a web site for
public access to all information provided to the Board during the hearings. It is given in the references section.
The two reports of the NEB on this topic are excellent documents and well worth review and do represent a
valuable resource with respect to the issues related to offshore drilling in the Arctic and the filing requirements
for drilling in the Canadian Arctic. These reports are available from the NEB web site as per the information
below:
Review of Offshore Drilling in the Canadian Arctic Dec 2011 www.neb.ca see document A37753
Filing Requirements for Offshore Drilling In the Canadian Arctic December 2011 www.neb.ca see
document A37698
Imperial Oil, ExxonMobil and BP have formed a joint venture called the Beaufort Sea Exploration Joint
Venture and have submitted a Preliminary Information Package (PIP) in December 2012 (see Ref. 8.33) for
drilling in the offshore Beaufort Sea in Canada. They are using the NEB Filing Requirements document above
to guide their application. Drilling is proposed offshore in waters over 1000m which are in the path of the polar
pack over the winter months. Ice breakers are proposed to protect the drill ship. The well will take three years
to complete.
In recent years it has become no longer acceptable to conduct such large test spills in the field, so the
information from these two early Canadian studies is extremely valuable. In making decisions with regard to
the regulation of offshore exploration for and production of oil and gas in the Arctic, access to basic
information such as how oil behaves in ice-covered waters, its impact on the environment, and how it might be
cleaned up should a large spill or blowout occur is essential. The information in these books represents an
important resource for understanding and assessing the future planetary climate impacts of any damage to this
highly sensitive ecosystem. It provides key background for making decisions concerning further exploration
and extraction. Since consideration is again being given to drilling for oil offshore in the Arctic Ocean, and the
National Energy Board of Canada has recently conducted hearings, we at RESTCo believe that this
information should be made widely available to everyone involved. The vigilance that will be required, and the
questions that need to be addressed, before undertaking drilling that involves a risk of under-ice release of oil
and gas are recorded in the epilogue1 of Oil-Spill Countermeasures (see Section 5).
It would appear that the only way to avoid extensive contamination of Arctic beaches, and consequent damage
to wildlife, is to guarantee that if a blowout occurs at an offshore drilling site, it will be brought under control
rapidly.
The documents related to the BSP have been compiled by RESTCo (Remote Energy Security Technologies
Collaborative) which is a private Canadian company established in 2010 by several like-minded individuals
who want to work with remote or off-grid communities, notably in the Canadian Arctic and Boreal regions, to
reduce the vulnerability of their energy systems.
We wish to bring this information, derived from extensive field studies of actual test oil spills in the Arctic, to
the attention of the various interested parties. Since this published information is out of print, we have made it
available on our web site (www.restco.ca) as part of our effort to work with remote communities on projects
leading toward a more secure and healthy future. RESTCo received permission from Fisheries and Oceans
Canada to reproduce these books.
In the next section, the contents of the five summary books are described. We at RESTCo hope that readers
will be encouraged to explore this unique BSP material and that from other experimental oil spills such as the
Baffin Island Oil Spill (BIOS) Project in more detail. In fact these two test spills because of their size and the
Page 3 of 20
Feb 4, 2013 NRC Presentation in Chicago
Remote Energy Security Technologies Collaborative www.restco.ca
comprehensive nature of the research undertaken offer excellent models for planning field research on oil spill
response and impacts today. They are also examples of how, with international cooperation and multi-sectoral
support, such large and expensive multiyear research projects are able to succeed.
1
Draft Review of Potential Beaufort Sea Oil Spill Countermeasures, 1978, published by the federal
governmentʼs Environmental Protection Service.
2. Review of Summary Books from the Beaufort Sea Project
2.1 Fishes, Invertebrates, and Marine Plants
This book was not published until 1985, ten years after the fieldwork was undertaken. It provides
an introduction to the fishes, marine invertebrates such as crabs and shrimp, and plant life of the
region, including the role of plankton as the basis of the marine food chain. The complexity of the
marine environment is explained by the variable salinity that results from mixing of the vast
freshwater flows from the Mackenzie River with ocean currents (the Beaufort Gyre). This diverse environment
produces great variability in the relationships between the fishes, invertebrates, and plants that inhabit this region.
The report then discusses potential impacts of industrial development, namely exploration for gas and oil
reserves. Community subsistence fishing is discussed, including the socio-economic effects of such development
activity. The specific dangers and impacts of oil spills on the ecosystem are reviewed.
It is suggested that the impact on the environment of exploration, full-scale production then transportation of the oil
from this region, might constitute a greater risk than a single catastrophic blowout or spill from a grounded oil tanker.
Experience on the North Slope of Alaska and with the pipeline to Valdez bears out this conclusion.
2.2 Birds and Marine Mammals
The Arctic has often been portrayed as barren and the Beaufort Sea as a biological desert. The
BSP showed this to be untrue. As this summary says, “During its contrasting seasons the
southeastern Beaufort Sea is home to over two million migratory birds, some 50,000 seals, 1,500
polar bears, 5,000 whales.” More importantly, the interdependence of the people of the Arctic and the wildlife must be
considered: the summary states that “Comparisons of the cash value of wildlife products with money spent on oil
exploration, or with the potential value of oil reserves, have little validity in making decisions on resource
development in this region.”
Since Arctic ecosystems are sensitive because of the nature of the permafrost terrain and slow rates of growth,
reproduction, and decay, they would be slow to recover from disturbance and damage caused by development.
As indicated in the summary, “These factors do not preclude industrial activity in the Beaufort Sea region.
But it is evident that development must proceed with caution; and it must demonstrate a philosophical respect
for the land and its people. This report is not an impact statement, rather, its purpose is to present
information; not arguments for or against the development of petroleum or other resources in the western
arctic.”
Page 4 of 20
Feb 4, 2013 NRC Presentation in Chicago
Remote Energy Security Technologies Collaborative www.restco.ca
Many papers and reports were used in the preparation of the overview. The studies have given us sufficient knowledge
of the birds and mammals in this area of the Arctic that we can state, “Enough has been learned to impress upon us
that massive, unplanned, or premature industrial development could have catastrophic environmental
consequences.”
As is pointed out in this summary, it is certain that development projects will proceed at some time, especially in the
Beaufort Sea area, and short-term wildlife studies lasting one or two years are not adequate to evaluate the complex
ecological impacts of such activity. According to the summary, the topics about which little is presently known include the
wintering ranges of bowhead whales and belugas, the variability of seal populations, and the ecological relationships
between polar bears, seals, and arctic foxes.
2.3 Crude Oil in Cold Water
This book outlines the natural process by which petroleum is formed, the locations of the main
reserves, and the new frontiers of exploration to find additional reserves. It describes the “first oil
boom” in the Beaufort Sea, during which bowhead whales were driven nearly to extinction by
commercial whalers, owing to the enormous quantity of oil obtained from each animal.
The major concern to authorities is a potential blowout during the exploratory drilling phase: “It is still possible
that if a sea-bottom oil well ran wild in the latter part of the short summer’s work season and did not plug
itself, the drilling of a relief well could not be completed until the following summer.” No one knows what the
flow rate might be ― perhaps 2,000 or even 10,000 barrels a day for a year or even two years before the oil is
stopped.
The southern Beaufort Sea is a huge estuary where the Mackenzie River meets the Arctic Ocean. In the
summer, oil spilled in this estuary would be moved by the flows of these intermixing waters. In the winter, it
would drift with the sea ice. The purpose of this book is to trace the drift of oil, flowing unchecked from an
imaginary offshore blowout, through the seasons of the year. No mathematical models of the oil-spill
trajectories were developed. Mathematical representations of sea, wind, and ice interactions in the Beaufort Sea
were not feasible at that time, and would still be problematic in 2013.
Much of the text is devoted to the oceanography of the Beaufort Sea and such features as sediments, storm
surges, and sea ice. Diagrams show the possible spread of oil from a blowout that occurs in the spring,
summer, or winter. These predictions show where and when the oil would be most likely to appear, but do not
forecast its actual drift; this cannot be done with any more accuracy than next summer’s weather can be
foreseen.
The implicit message is that if an oil-well blowout did occur on the continental shelf of the Beaufort Sea, the
paths that the spilled oil might take, its eventual fate, and potential effects on marine wildlife are to a large
degree unknown and unpredictable.
Page 5 of 20
Feb 4, 2013 NRC Presentation in Chicago
Remote Energy Security Technologies Collaborative www.restco.ca
2.4 Oil-Spill Countermeasures
The first part of this book describes the rudiments of an undersea well, the precautions that are
taken to resist the forces that cause a blowout, and the nature of ice into which oil could leak.
The latter part addresses questions and challenges that would arise in the event of an uncontrolled blowout:
determining how oil and gas interact with ice, tracking the oil and cleaning it up ― both on the water and on
shorelines, and disposing of the collected oil and associated contaminated materials.
The premise is that blowouts do happen, principally because of human error, notwithstanding extensive
precautionary practices. In 1974, an experiment was conducted in Saanich Bay, British Columbia, involving
the release of large volumes of compressed air at sea-floor level to simulate an uncontrolled release of gas from
a well. This led to a new understanding of horizontal and vertical water flows surrounding the vertical plume of
air. It indicated that a degree of natural confinement of oil released simultaneously with the gas would occur
initially; over time, however, the combined behaviour of the gas and oil in icy conditions would increase the
rate of oil spread.
When associated with ice, oil takes several distinctly different forms, and therefore many different techniques
are needed to recover it. A worst condition prevails when oil is entrapped in moving polar pack ice. It could
take years for such oil to be released. Based on the assumptions made in this study, a swath of contaminated
ice 1 km wide by 600 km long could form during a single winter. The tarry residue would have to be cleaned
up within 30 days or it would spread to an uncontrollable extent. For this, an estimated 750 people would be
required. Ice conditions would not permit the use of heavy machinery. Recent studies indicate that this estimate
is far too low in terms of cleanup resources required.
Tracking of contaminated ice is crucial. The assumption is made that a likely time for a blowout would be the
end of a drilling season. Multiple techniques are described for tracking ice movement during the winter
months, when capping of a blowout and recovery of the oil are deemed to be virtually impossible. A scenario is
given of the release of 67,000 tonnes of oil.
During experiments conducted in Balaena Bay on the Beaufort Sea coast, confined quantities of oil were
released under ice, and this led to an understanding of the mechanism by which oil seeps through ― or is
trapped beneath ― the ice. Trial burns of oil generated voluminous quantities of sooty black smoke and tarry
residue that represented 10%−60% of the volume of oil available for burning. Ignition of the oil required
priming with gasoline, and as many as six burns were needed over 20 days to effect reasonably complete
disposal of the oil.
What can be done with oil that is recovered, be it from ice, sea surface, or different types of shoreline? In the
Beaufort Sea area at least, there is no land on which the oily materials can be dumped without very extensive
civil-engineering work, and ongoing care would be required.
2.5 Oil, Ice and Climate Change
The following statement from this book, that links how ice and spilled-oil relate to climate change,
underscores the reality of exploiting offshore petroleum resources in northern ocean waters
covered intermittently by ice on an annual cycle: If a major oil discovery is made in the Beaufort
Sea, it will not be a question of whether there will be oil spilled … but of how much.
Page 6 of 20
Feb 4, 2013 NRC Presentation in Chicago
Remote Energy Security Technologies Collaborative www.restco.ca
According to the book, credible estimates of potential major oil spills range from 50,000 to 1.5 million barrels.
These larger leaks may continue for months because of seasonal freeze-up and typical weather conditions in
the region slowing the arrival and deployment of remediation equipment, manpower, and material. Lesser
releases are considered to be an inevitable consequence of drilling for and pumping, storing, and transporting
crude oil found in Arctic waters. Sources of these spills include accidental ship discharges, tankercompartment ruptures, storage-tank breaches, pipeline leaks, and subsea well blowouts.
A factor that complicates the cleanup of spills from which oil spreads under the ice for a period of time is the
movement of the Beaufort Gyre ice pack. The ice covering the Arctic Ocean is not fixed in place, but moves in
response to ocean currents and wind speeds of 1−9 km per day (the annual average is 3 km/day at the edge of
the Beaufort Gyre, where drilling is expected to take place). This transport mechanism will greatly expand the
area affected by an under-ice oil slick. As the oil (and possibly co-located natural gas) is lighter than water, it
will spread a thin layer (8−9 mm deep) over a wide area under smooth, flat ice. If the ice is less regular, domes
of oil will collect under higher spots. Sea ice is somewhat porous, so the oil will wick upward and eventually
reach the surface.
As ice and snow are highly reflective of light, whereas oil is much less so, the albedo (degree of reflectivity)
will be degraded by oil. This will increase the melting of the ice, owing to greater heat absorption by the oil,
which will in turn melt the surrounding ice and snow. The open water thus produced also has a lower albedo
than ice and snow, which will further increase heat gain and ice-pack melt. The book postulates that the
warming effect of summer sunlight on the spilled oil could result in an ice-melt area up to 10 times the size of
the actual spread of the spill. Albedo can also be degraded by soot produced by burning off spilled oil, or
emitted from the smokestacks of drill ships, oil tankers, and service vessels. To conclude this summary,
consider this text from the final chapter:
The question of whether a large inadvertent spill of oil into the Arctic Ocean could change the world’s climate
is of great concern. The perceived danger is that the dark-coloured oil would melt off large areas of sea ice in
summer. Although localized in its effect at first, the accident might trigger changes in a complex and perhaps
unstable system which could lead to a dramatic reduction or even elimination of arctic sea ice.
3. Review of Baffin Island Oil Spill (BIOS) Project, 1980-83
As reported on the Beaufort Regional Environmental Assessment Site (http://www.beaufortrea.ca/resources/ )
“The Baffin Island Oil Spill (BIOS) Project was established to sponsor multi-disciplinary oil spill field studies
in Canada’s eastern Arctic. The aim of the Project was to determine the effects of chemical dispersants on the
Arctic environment and to evaluate optional shoreline protective and clean-up processes and procedures. The
BIOS studies were published in Arctic (1987) available on the Arctic Institute of North America’s Arctic
Science and Technology Information System website – see Arctic, Vol. 40, No 5 (1987).”
Gary Sergy, Manager of the BIOS Project, summarized this project in his Introduction to the Issue of the
journal Arctic which provided a summary of the results of this project four years after the field work had been
completed. “Through an approach using experimental releases of crude oil, the project participants acquired
data on the short-and long-term fate and effects of crude oil stranded on an Arctic shoreline and chemically
dispersed oil in the arctic near-shore environment, as well as data on the effectiveness of selected shoreline
cleanup techniques. The information so gained has improved our capability of assessing the effects of oil spills
threatening or contaminating Arctic coastlines. So also, it has given a better understanding of how to select
countermeasures in such cases. Another result of the BIOS Project has been the compilation of a
Page 7 of 20
Feb 4, 2013 NRC Presentation in Chicago
Remote Energy Security Technologies Collaborative www.restco.ca
comprehensive site-specific data base that increases our knowledge about the physical, chemical and biological
processes operating in common Arctic marine ecosystems.”
The papers in this issue of Arctic show a multidisciplinary approach. In the next section, short summaries will
be provided of the results of the BIOS project in a number of areas.
4. Summary Reports on the BIOS Project
4.1Overview of the BIOS project (one paper)
An overview paper on the BIOS Project was published by Environment Canada in 1986 by Gary
Sergy who was the project manager for BIOS. Some of the following is based on this paper, but
other material was also taken from the issue of Arctic published in the following year. The number
of papers listed in the subtitles in this section, reflect the number of technical papers on each topic
published in the issue of Arctic covering the results of the BIOS Project.
The participating organizations in the BIOS Project are shown on the table below:
The project was managed by a number of committees made up by members from these
organizations. There were also participants from the USA, UK and Norway. It was decided that
answers could only be obtained to questions related to oil spill impacts and response in the Arctic
by conducting experimental oil spills in the field. As can be seen from the table above there were
representatives from industry, environmental groups, government, local communities in the Arctic,
and universities involved under the overall management of Environment Canada. The direct foreign
funding for the project was about 25% and the rest was shared equally between Canadian oil
industry and the Government.
The BIOS Project was divided into the “shoreline study” and the “nearshore study” and these were
undertaken from one logistic base on the northern tip of Baffin Island. The site was selected after
considerable investigation of alternative sites to enable the tests to be conducted with minimal
damage to areas of high biological activity or actively used by the local population for hunting or
Page 8 of 20
Feb 4, 2013 NRC Presentation in Chicago
Remote Energy Security Technologies Collaborative www.restco.ca
fishing activities. The field camp was constructed for use by up to 60 people and operated from the
ice cover period in May and through the open water period (about 65 days per year – late July to
early October) for four years. Access was by air at a gravel airstrip built at the site. Local transport
was by ATV, Zodiacs and helicopters. Tides at the site were 1 to 3 m and mid-summer mean
maximum air temperature was about 7 deg C.
The two main test oil releases were conducted in two separate bays and other bays were used as
controls. The spills were conducted in the first two years of the Project and in the third and fourth
years sampling was continued to document the impact of the oil spills. This approach was an
advance on the Beaufort Sea Project in which very little consideration had been given to monitoring
of the Balaena Bay area after the spill test and cleanup experiments were completed in the first
summer.
Without knowing the budget associated with this project it is hard to estimate the costs of
conducting this research. However, planning began in the late 1970s and there were literally
hundreds of people involved in the actual field experiments that took 4 years and then the
documentation and writing of the reports continued until 1987. It is likely that this project in
today’s dollars would be even greater than that of the BSP which is estimated to have cost $50
million Cdn. The funding was from a combination of government and industry and included
considerable in-kind logistic support from the petroleum industry especially Petro-Canada that was
operating in this part of the Canadian eastern Arctic.
4.2 Physical Chemical and Biological Setting in the Oil Spill Area of Baffin Island
(eight papers)
A series of pre-spill studies were conducted to provide a baseline of information on the area
selected for the test spills. These studies covered geomorphology, meteorology, ice movements,
bathymetry and oceanography of the region. They also studied benthic fauna for background
petrogenic hydrocarbons and found little evidence of these in the area. The subtidal benthos of the
site was typical of the eastern Arctic and high Arctic. The intertidal areas were found to be
biologically barren while the subtidal was more biologically productive. The area was not found to
support large numbers of birds or marine mammals. This background information was collected in
the first year of the project.
4.3 Oil Release Experiments (one paper)
Pre-spill experiments to finalize the design of the oil release equipment were conducted in the south
and then the equipment was tested with dyed water at the site under conditions planned for the
experimental tests.
The nearshore study scenario intended to represent an offshore oil slick contaminating a coastline
during the open water season. If the oil were chemically dispersed then it would be present both at
the surface and throughout the water column where it would contaminate the bottom and the
intertidal region. If the oil were not treated with dispersants, it would be driven up on the beach by
winds and the tidal action. A quantity of oil was used to provide a thickness of on the shoreline of 1
cm and enough dispersed oil to provide an oil concentration in the water column of 19ppm in the
10m depth offshore. This required the use of 15m3 of crude for each experiment.
Page 9 of 20
Feb 4, 2013 NRC Presentation in Chicago
Remote Energy Security Technologies Collaborative www.restco.ca
4.4 Chemical fate of crude oil in various systems (four papers)
With regard to the oil released August 19, 1981 without dispersants that was blown ashore by wind
action, about one third did not adhere to the beach and was collected from the water surface, one
third dissolved in the seawater or evaporated and one third was left on the beach within a few days
of the spill. In the next two years there were a total of 18 weeks of open water and by 1983 only
30% of the oil volume remained.
With regard to the chemically dispersed oil release on Aug 27, 1981 done in another bay from a
pipe near the bottom, currents moved the oil cloud into the test bay and to an adjacent bay. Oil was
distributed throughout the waters of the bays and into the bottom sediments although little oil
adhered to beach sediments. Oil was also found outside the bays in the adjacent Ragged Channel.
Oil levels found in the water of the test bay were found to be high compared to that in water where
dispersants were applied to surface oil slicks. Benthic organisms were exposed to high levels of
toxic components of the crude and the chemically dispersed oil rapidly contaminated the subtidal
sediments.
4.5 Biological Effects (six papers)
Benthic communities at this site contained an average of 6000 animals per m2 for a biomass of 1.4
kg. There were 250 species of animals and 60 different algae identified. Some species of clams
have a life span of over 30 years so the cumulative impact of exposure to contaminants must be
considered in looking at long term impacts.
The immediate impact of contact of the oil on amphipods in the test bays was to kill them although
by the following year populations had recovered. Acute effects were observed on benthic animals
from the dispersed oil cloud when it reached them on the bottom. Some animals were seen to
recover over the two weeks following the oil release. Laboratory experiments were conducted to
confirm observations on animals made in the field experiments. It was concluded that the high level
of exposure rather than the accumulation of oil in the body was responsible for these observations.
No changes were seen in animals in adjacent waters not exposed to high concentrations of dispersed
oil. It is interesting that the BIOS studies concluded like more recent studies that the impact of
crude oil components on the long term health of the benthic community was likely going to be
significant especially in the areas of both bays were oil concentrations had been highest.
Presumably the exposure would have been greater when the oil was finely divided by the use of
dispersants. Bacterial studies showed the presence of oil degrading bacteria in the water column as
well as in bottom sediments. However, it was found that the biological degradation of oil either on
the beaches or in the bottom sediment did not play a significant role in the removal of oil from the
environment in the two years following the oil spills.
4.6 Shoreline cleanup tests (two papers)
In these studies, several cleanup approaches were applied and compared with natural self-clean
processes on beaches over four years between 1980 and 1983. Plots on the beaches were oiled with
both directly applied crude oil as well as with water-in-oil emulsions. The cleanup processes were
started 24 hours after exposure to oil which would also allow for two tidal cycles on the beach.
Plots were sampled before and after oiling over the four years of the project. A number of variations
of chemical dispersant applications were tried on a variety of beach types with results dependant on
the exposure of the beaches to tide and wave action. Burning of the oil on the beach did not prove
to be effective. Application of commercial fertilizer to the oiled beach increased bacterial action
when the sediments on the beach were fine grained but not on cobbled beaches. Conclusions about
Page 10 of 20
Feb 4, 2013 NRC Presentation in Chicago
Remote Energy Security Technologies Collaborative www.restco.ca
the use of dispersants under a variety of spill scenarios were postulated. In most cases, it was
suggested that oiled beaches should be left for the oil to be degraded by natural processes without
any attempt at mechanical or chemical cleanup being attempted unless the site included significant
bird or marine mammal populations or was close to human settlements.
4.7 Oil Under ice Experiments (two papers)
Primary productivity studies of under ice algae were conducted under ice in a location 3 km from
the study bays discussed above. The experiments were done by under ice diving from May 14 to
June 2 in 1982. In summary, the results indicated an enhancement of primary productivity when the
under ice area was contaminated by crude oil. This effect of crude oil on algal activity was also
reported in the BSP by Adams from experiments done under ice in 1975 in Balaena Bay. There was
no conclusion as to the reason for this result whether it was due to under ice light intensity due to
snow cover variations or the direct impact of carbon availability from the crude oil. There might
also be trace elements from the crude oil that could enhance algal activity.
Another under ice study looked at the whole community that exists on the under ice surface to
explore the impact of oil on this important base of the food chain that ultimately feeds the higher
level animals such as fish and marine mammals. This study also compared the impact of exposure
to both dispersed oil and pure crude oil. The same oils were used in these studies as were employed
in the beach studies. Dramatic decreases in the densities of some species of copepods and
polychaetes on the under ice surface were observed in the presence of dispersed oil. Such creatures
are known to be killed when oil concentrations are above 2ppm. The impact depends on species and
at the time of this study there was much uncertainty about the interpretation of the results since
there was little known about these under ice ecosystems in their natural uncontaminated state.
5. Russian Offshore Drilling and Oil Spill Response Planning
On a technical visit to Russia by WAA in October 2012, it was possible to travel to the Yamal-Nenets
Autonomous Region Okrug in Western Siberia as well as to the Arctic and Antarctic Research Institute
(AARI) in St Petersburg. The Yamal region is one of the primary Russian gas and oil producing
regions and it requires special permission to visit this area of Russia. In Salekhard, which is the region’s
capital, discussions were held with Regional government officials responsible for natural resources.
Visits were also arranged with municipal leaders in several towns in the area related to energy matters
and especially oil pollution issues.
The following figure is from a recent study by Russian scientists and Russian Greenpeace and WWF
related to an oil spill scenario from the oil platform Prirazlomnaya operating in the Pechora Sea close to
Page 11 of 20
Feb 4, 2013 NRC Presentation in Chicago
Remote Energy Security Technologies Collaborative www.restco.ca
the area of Siberia that I visited last fall. See ref. 8.29.
In St Petersburg at the AARI, several presentations were made by the AARI staff and information
shared regarding oil spill response technologies and the regulation of the offshore oil industry in the
Arctic.
A presentation was provided on Russian Drifting Stations “North Pole” by Drs. Makshtas and Sokolov
who are leading scientist and Head of High- Arctic Expeditions at AARI. An excellent overview of
measurements being made from these stations was presented as well as the implications regarding
climate models. I was particularly impressed by the detailed studies being made of sea ice and snow
cover characteristics and their relationship to radiation transmission through the ice cover and the
albedo. They are using a variety of methods to study the underside of the ice cover as well including
unmanned submersibles which are equipped with spectrometers to measure the intensity and spectral
distribution of solar radiation in this critical region of biological activity. They also deploy unmanned
drones above the ice which can be instrumented as required and operate up to 3km in altitude and
speeds up to 100kph. They are small, 1.4 m wingspan, and light, 3,5kg. They compared model
predictions to actual measured data. In one slide, they compared CO2 flux between the atmosphere and
ocean on two of their floating ice stations to data from Alert and Barrow. Other parameters were also
discussed including atmospheric ozone measurements from the surface to the stratosphere.
Another presentation on an oil spill model for the Arctic developed by Stanovoy from the AARI was
given along with the references where the work was published showing the various stages in the
development and application of the model for forecasting the movement of oil spills in the Arctic from
spills. The model attempts to take into consideration the complex features of sea ice including leads and
hummocks etc. The topography of the lower ice surface was discussed as well as methods to measure
this using sonar, drilling and underwater observations by divers. The model was used to predict the
movement of oil spills by tankers. Such work is also being undertaken at NRC in Canada. Canadian
work in this area done in the past at Environment Canada was mentioned in this study. The need for
actual field tests using real oil was discussed with the scientists from the AARI and all agreed that such
tests are needed.
Page 12 of 20
Feb 4, 2013 NRC Presentation in Chicago
Remote Energy Security Technologies Collaborative www.restco.ca
6. Review of Arctic Oil Spills and Oil Spill Response Technology (presentation by Chris
Ives – RESTCo )
Responding to Oil Spills in Arctic Marine Environments - Response and Cleanup
20 minute slide/video presentation by Chris Ives, RESTCo
TALK CONTENTS
Does current technology guarantee the mitigation of the consequences of an arctic oil spill?
Did you know that Alaska's coastline is 44,000 miles? Baring Sea, Pacific and Arctic Oceans.
Not just Oil Exploration/Production – also shipping, transportation, and small everyday spills.
Containment Booms, Oil Skimmers, In-Situ-Burning, Chemical dispersants, Biological Action.
What are the risks of failure? Interviews with local people and responders (6 minute video).
Recent spill response examples Norway 2009, Gulf 2010, Norway 2011 (cleanup at minus 20C)
Effectiveness of Norway/Sweden methodologies used in response to a spill in Arctic conditions.
Do we know what the oil characteristics are? Can we catch it before it thickens or emulsifies?
How do weather conditions affect cleanup? Storms, wind, waves, currents, ice,day-night visibility.
Did you know that only 3 to 5% of the oil in the Gulf spill was removed by skimming, and that innovative
skimming technologies have been tested at the Ohmsett Facility and have demonstrated over 90% recovery
rates.
New technologies for Oil Removal/Cleanup that enable fast response + high effectiveness.
Possibility to start cleanup within 20 minutes, versus Tier 1,2,3 responses of 72 hours or more?
Logistics and speed of response are of paramount importance – oil can change/degrade rapidly
Can the new response equipment be stored close by – even incorporated on existing vessels?
This doesn't mean airlifted by helicopter or cargo planes – unless delivery can be within minutes.
Include all types of contaminant - but NO chemical dispersants, or gummy residues from burning.
This means we should include drilling fluids/muds – and onsite polluted water discharges.
Marine biologists warn that oil contamination levels of 1 ppm are toxic to fish.
Oil and Ice: The Risks of Drilling in Alaska's Arctic Ocean – ( 6 minute video overview )
Published Aug 2012 by The Center for American Progress - www.americanprogress.org
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=JwCbWPR7VK8
As offshore oil drilling edges ever closer to becoming a reality in the Arctic Ocean, the Center for American
Progress examines the region's lack of readiness in the event of a spill. The video highlights the concerns and
challenges facing the Coast Guard charged with its protection, the grave doubts of the scientific community
about the lack of knowledge in this area, and the perspectives of those who depend on the Arctic Ocean for
their livelihood.
Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill - Efforts to protect the coastline and marine environments
The three fundamental strategies for addressing spilled oil were: to contain it on the surface, away from the
most sensitive areas, to dilute and disperse it into less sensitive areas, and to remove it from the water. The
Deepwater response employed all three strategies, using a variety of techniques. While most of the oil drilled
off Louisiana is a lighter crude, the leaking oil was of a heavier blend which contained asphalt-like substances.
According to Ed Overton, who heads a federal chemical hazard assessment team for oil spills, this type of oil
Page 13 of 20
Feb 4, 2013 NRC Presentation in Chicago
Remote Energy Security Technologies Collaborative www.restco.ca
emulsifies well. Once it becomes emulsified, it no longer evaporates as quickly as regular oil, does not rinse off
as easily, cannot be eaten by microbes as easily, and does not burn as well. "That type of mixture essentially
removes all the best oil clean-up weapons", Overton said. Deepwater Horizon oil spill WIKI
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deepwater_Horizon_oil_spill
Norway Oslo Fjord “Full City” - 31 Jul 2009 –
Bulk carrier spilled 200 tons of heavy bunker fuel oil
Aerial Area Map - Short Video shows booms + surface skimmer
Norway Oslo Fjord “Godafoss” - 17 Feb 2011
Ambient temp -20C (-4F) – Seawater temp -2C (28F) - Ice thickness to 25 cm (10”)
Container vessel spilled 112 tonnes of heavy fuel oil IFO 380 type
Boom deployment hindered by ice, ice/oil chunks inside booms, excavator removal of oiled ice slabs
Aerial Photo – Area Map – Slides
USA Gulf of Mexico - Deepwater Horizon - 20 April 2010
SLIDES – barges – Big Gulp, Little Gulp, A-Whale, MV Arca.
Aerial photos show limitations of booms – only really effective in calm conditions, modest winds,
Not inexpensive ($400/metre), take time to deploy, manual deployment is physically hard, mechanized
deployment requires specialized gear, never mind storage space, plus on-site inspection, cleaning and
maintenance.
Three new technologies for Oil Removal/Cleanup
Oil-water vortex separators
1ppm, vs Marpol 15ppm, and EPA 29-42 ppm
eg EVTN's Voraxial tube separator <5ppm
Enviro Voraxial Technology, Inc - http://evtn.com/
Coagulants (liquid or powder)
An example are SpillGreen compounds and spray machinery
Spill Green Inc. Newmarket, ON Canada - http://www.spillgreen.com/
Skimmer vessels and barges with gravity tower separators
An example is EST Halifax Extreme Spill Technology Inc - http://www.spilltechnology.com/
–
FOOTNOTE - "Platform-free oil in Arctic waters within striking distance"
http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/01/07/oil-innovation-subsea-idUSL4N0A92VL20130107
The implications for spill response with “Platform-Free Technology” should not be overlooked. If the industry
can operate without drill ships and much reduced personnel then they will have a much harder time if things go
wrong, since there will be fewer resources in ships and people to deal with incidents. It appears that this is a
real possibility for the Arctic.
Page 14 of 20
Feb 4, 2013 NRC Presentation in Chicago
Remote Energy Security Technologies Collaborative www.restco.ca
Lessons learned the Godafoss accident in Feb 2011.
Oil spill recovery at 20oC by Rune Bergstrøm
NOTE – Helicopter (3 minute) flyover of Godafoss incident clearly shows ice conditions
“Godafossaksjonen - Oppdatert film” - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RnszXL2l35s
GODAFOSS - Lessons learned
The NCA is still in the process of working with the Godafoss accident. As a result,
evaluation of the overall operation is yet to be done. The list presented here does
not, therefore, provide the overall picture. Nonetheless, it likely gives the most
important findings.
Positive experiences
• Night capacity on oil recovery ships, use of drift buoys, 24 hours/day, made it
possible to follow and collect the oil for almost 4 continuous days.
• Advisors were sent from NCA to local municipalities at the start of the
accident. This helped the get the work on the right track and ensured good
documentation of strategic choices, efforts and costs.
• Sea operations with Norwegian-Swedish cooperation worked well. The use of
different ships’ sizes and equipment gave the necessary flexibility to work in
open sea, in shallow waters and in ice.
• Airplanes, helicopters and drift buoys provided updated and important
information about oil drift.
• Use of large double boom systems with a small opening, followed with a ship
with sweeping arms that collected oil worked well.
• Heating systems in Swedish ships enabled efficient and continued use of the
ships in extreme cold
• Hard working crews in all positions
• No accidents in spite of cold water and iced seashore
Room for improvement
• Not enough knowledge in NCA about the capacity/equipment on Swedish
Coast Guard boats in the initial phase of the operation
• Unloading of oil and containers (explosives) on Godafoss went according to
plan, but the ship drifted before oil recovery systems were on site and ready
(no spill occurred).
• Limitations of booms, pumps etc., in cold weather and collection of heavy fuel
with extreme viscosity.
• Before towing, the outside of the hull should have been inspected and cleaned
(diving dangerous in ice and river current).
• Early warnings to other nations before a ship enters their territorial waters, so
that they could implement necessary to precautions
• Not enough hot water or steam for disconnecting hoses, equipment etc. Many
boats had problems with ice/slush in the cooling system
Page 15 of 20
Feb 4, 2013 NRC Presentation in Chicago
Remote Energy Security Technologies Collaborative www.restco.ca
7. Discussion and Recommendations (based on this presentation and that of Chris Ives described
above)
The image of oil trajectories showing a simulated Gulf of Mexico oil blow out occurring at the same
time as the Gulf blowout, but in the Beaufort Sea, are shown below to encourage discussion.
Can anyone clean up an Arctic oil spill?







Only demonstrated technologies should be considered and approved for Arctic oil spill response
plans and operations and claims by industry as to the effectiveness of particular cleanup
methods should be validated by demonstrated experiments in the field
Field experiments with actual oil and fuels must be part of the program to validate oil spill
response methods and this is especially true in the case of oil in ice covered marine waters and
offshore
Review of Arctic field testing and actual accidental spill records over the past 40 years indicates
that some approaches currently being recommended and adopted by the oil industry and
regulators either will not be effective or would have serious and negative consequences on the
Arctic environment e.g. in-situ burning, use of dispersants, enhanced bioremediation
Field experiments with oil spills should be conducted on a regular basis in order to maintain
spill response capability and training levels and to assess new approaches
Risk associated with offshore drilling must be minimized by reducing the frequency of major oil
spills or blowouts to that of nuclear power reactor accidents i.e. the industry must meet the
same standards as the nuclear industry with regard to safety culture
Study of the long term impacts of oil exposure including potential chemical dispersants on
marine ecosystems should be part of all oil spill field tests (out at least 5 years)
Due to the very high cost of Arctic field work, it should be undertaken by international
cooperative efforts and funded by a mix of government and industry as in the examples of the
Canadian oil spill field projects described in this presentation (the Arctic Council could offer a
mechanism for such collaborative work)
Page 16 of 20
Feb 4, 2013 NRC Presentation in Chicago





Remote Energy Security Technologies Collaborative www.restco.ca
The use of unmanned underwater vehicles for tracking oil under ice as well as offering an
additional method for studying the impacts of oil spills on under ice ecology should be a priority
Prior to approving drilling in the offshore regions in the Arctic which are subject to the moving
polar pack often containing multiyear ice rather than shorefast ice regime, additional research is
required to ensure that methods are found to deal with oil spills in this region of the Arctic
marine environment
Little consideration has been given to the fact that much of the Arctic basin provides gas and
condensates rather than crude oil and as such blowouts and accidents will likely involve these
products so preparations for accidents and response methods should target this situation
Gas release in the Arctic will result in the formation of gas hydrates causing severe difficulties
in working with equipment associated with uncontrolled events during drilling which suggests
that additional and on-going research on such blowouts especially with gas and oil releases
under ice should be a priority
Consider the consequences of a major spill when authorizing drilling permits and include a
requirement to model the movement of oil from such sites should a major spill occur since even
if the site is acceptable oil released from the site could move hundreds of miles should the spill
be uncontrolled for a long period due to Arctic conditions
The majority of oil released is more likely to be caused by shipping accidents, or multiple small spills,
than by infrequent major blowouts or shipping accidents. The following recommendations are offered
based on a review of some actual Arctic oil spills.
A primary goal should be to avoid/minimise pollution of the Arctic and marine environments
- to give “Mother Nature” a helping hand when and where necessary.
• Respond VERY QUICKLY with resources on hand, to recover any oil / fuels spilt.
Equip, plan and deploy cleanup resources within 1/3 hour, not 72 hours
New skimming technologies enable a fast, effective, and large scale cleanup approach. Such technology
still requires more research, development and demonstration in real Arctic spill conditions.
These can be incorporated into suitable existing vessels and barges
Think through the LOGISTICS for major volumes of recovered oil barges/tankers/tugs/crews/OSV's/bladder tanks
Consider the use of non-oil industry resources to broaden the approaches to oil spill response in light of
the financial consequences of making decisions based only on insider considerations. e.g.the banking
industry that did not see the recent crises coming
• Avoid the use of burning (severe air pollution) and dispersants (toxic to humans and marine life).
• Use non-toxic coagulants for smaller spills to LOCKUP harmful vapours & toxic components.
Reclaiming of removed hydrocarbon materials is feasible, either as building materials or as solid fuel
stocks.
* Strengthen/enhance local SAR capability (SAR = Search and Rescue) that can also contribute to oil
spill response requirements
* Clear the decks for fast action - some regulations can hinder the incident commander = Chief Fire
Marshall.
Remember the Jones Act? - US could not accept Dutch OSV's for GoM cleanup (labour act precluded
Page 17 of 20
Feb 4, 2013 NRC Presentation in Chicago
Remote Energy Security Technologies Collaborative www.restco.ca
non-US bottoms)
Emissions regulation levels effectively require OSV fleet vessels to be stationed 25 miles from the
drillship which is not satisfactory for a fast response especially in when ice is present.
• Introduce less polluting energy sources for Arctic shipping eg - low sulfur fuels (follow the lead of
the Port Authority of Hong Kong)
- Fuel Emulsification Processes to remove sulphur and reduce emissions.
- LNG versus heavy oils and bunker grades for ship fuel
- Nuclear powered vessels?
8. References
8.1 The National Energy Board (NEB) of Canada Arctic Offshore Drilling Review (2011) see site
below for information collected by the NEB for the review https://www.neb-one.gc.ca/lleng/livelink.exe?func=ll&objId=649241&objAction=browse&sort=name&redirect=3
8.2 “Oil in Sea Ice”, Lyn Lewis, Pacific Marine Science Report 76-12, Technical Report from the
Beaufort Sea Project, June, 1976.
8.3 Does chemically dispersing crude oil increase PAH uptake by fish? An article in COOGER
UPDATE March 2004 Vol. 1 Issue 1, p. 3. Also see K. Lee, “Oil dispersants: Exploring options for
oil spill clean up” and other similar accounts in Department of Fisheries and Oceans Canada
publications at www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca
8.4 “Acute Oil Spills in Arctic Waters – Oil combating in Ice” by Saara Hanninen and Jukka Sassi,
Research Council of Norway, Report 188913/I49 (2010). A good review of Nordic oil response
technology for Arctic waters.
8.5 “Beaufort Sea Oil Spills State of Knowledge Review and identification of Key Issues”,
Environmental Research Studies Funds Report No. 177, by S L Ross Environmental Research Ltd.,
D F Dickens Associates LLC, Envision Planning Solutions Inc., Nov (2010)
8.6 M. F. Fingas and B. P. Hollebone, “Review of behaviour of oil in freezing environments”, Marine
Pollution Bulletin 47, 333-340 (2003).
8.7 “Deepwater Horizon Dispersant Use Meeting Report”, Coastal Response Research Center,
University of New Hampshire, June 4, 2010. Rev. 3 (108 p. report)
8.8 “Black Wave: The Legacy of the Exxon Valdez”, a documentary film on the impact of the Exxon
Valdez spill over the past 25 years – a teaching guide. Bullfrog Films, Oley, PA 19547, 99 or 52
minute versions available.
8.9 “Arctic oil: 1970 study holds surprises for how to clean up oil spill in ice”, Alex DeMarban July ,
2012. See http://www.alaskadispatch.com/article/arctic-oil-1970-study-holds-surprises-how-cleanoil-spill-ice?page=full
8.10 “Contamination, regulation, and remediation: an introduction to bioremediation of petroleum
hydrocarbons in cold regions”, Chapter 1 in Bioremediation of Petroleum Hydrocarbons in Cold
Regions Eds. D. M, Filler, I. Snape and D.L, Barnes, Cambridge University Press, (2008).
8.11 “British Columbia Marine Oil Spill Response Plan, Ministry of Environment, January 2007. 103
pages See http://www.env.gov.bc.ca/eemp/
8.12 “Advancing Oil Spill Response in Ice Covered Waters”, by DF Dickens Assoc. Ltd., March
2004. A comprehensive review of approaches with some excellent recommendations for programs
in this field.
8.13 Letter signed by 500 scientists to President Obama and Secretary Salazar regarding resource
extraction on the outer continental shelf related to the USGS Circular 1370: “An Evaluation of the
Page 18 of 20
Feb 4, 2013 NRC Presentation in Chicago
Remote Energy Security Technologies Collaborative www.restco.ca
Science Needs to Inform, Decisions on Outer Continental Shelf Energy Development in the
Chukchi and Beaufort Seas, Alaska”, January 23, 2012.
8.14 UK House of Commons Environmental Audit Committee, Protecting the Arctic, 181 pages of
written evidence submitted including material provided by RESTCO and can be viewed at
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201012/cmselect/cmenvaud/writev/1739/1739.pdf
8.15 “Platform-free oil in the Arctic” see http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/01/07/oil-innovationsubseaidUSL4N0A92VL20130107?feedType=RSS&feedName=rbssEnergyNews&utm_source=feedburn
er&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+reuters%2FUSenergyNews+%28News+%2F+
US+%2F+Energy%29&utm_content=Google+Reader
8.16 “How Would Chemical Dispersants Work on an Arctic Oil Spill?” posted July 2012 by John
Whitney, Office of Response and Restoration, NOAA, see
http://usresponserestoration.wordpress.com/2012/07/09/how-would-chemical-dispersants-work-onan-arctic-oil-spill/
8.17 “Usefulness of high resolution coastal models for operational oil spill forecast: the Full City
accident”, G. Brostrom et al , Ocean Sci. Discuss., 8, 1467 (2011).
8.18 “Group V Fuel Oils and the Environment”, US Coast Guard Oil Spill Response document with
description of types and recommendations. See www.nrt.org and
http://www.crrt.nrt.org/production/NRT/RRTHome.nsf/resources/CaribbeanPamphlets/$File/15_CRRT_Group_V_Oil_Pamphlet.pdf
8.19 “Lessons learned the Godafoss accident in Feb. 2011. Oil spill recovery at -20oC”, Rune
Bergstrom, see http://www.interspill.com/previous-events/2012/13March/pdfs/Lessons%20Learned%20the%20Godafoss%20Acccident%20in%20Feb%202011.pdf
8.20 “The future of Dispersant Use in Oil Spill Response Initiative”, a 252 page report by the
Coastal Response Research Center and NOAA, March 22, 2012. Dr Ken Lee was one of the
contributors to this report. Report does not deal with use of dispersants in the Arctic although many
issues would be common to both temperate and Arctic waters.
8.21 “Do we know enough to ensure safe Arctic drilling?”, Henry Huntington – New Scientist 2864,
May 15, 2012.
8.22 C. Ives at IPY Montreal – Action Forum – Creating the Conditions for Arctic Offshore Oil and
Gas Development, April 25, 2012 with reference to the Lloyd’s of London report- a statement.
8.23 Video narrated by Dr Ken Lee on Arctic oil spill research, Centre for Offshore Oil, Gas and
energy Research, Fisheries and Oceans Canada, see
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=by0MhP4bW0k
8.24 “Arctic opening: Opportunity and Risk in the High North”, Lloyd’s and Chatham House, a
comprehensive report comparing approaches of circumpolar nations that includes 114 references
see
http://www.lloyds.com/~/media/Files/News%20and%20Insight/360%20Risk%20Insight/Arctic_Ris
k_Report_20120412.pdf
8.25 “Oil and Ice: The Risks of Drilling in Alaska’s Arctic Ocean”, a 6 minute YouTube Video by
the Centre of American Progress, August 2012. See
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=JwCbWPR7VK8
8.26 “Coast Guard plans first-ever Arctic Ocean patrols off Alaska, with oil-spill test”, Alex
DeMarban, Alaska Dispatch Feb 28, 2012. See http://www.alaskadispatch.com/article/coast-guardplans-first-ever-arctic-ocean-patrols-alaska-oil-spill-test?page=full
8.27 “Five Most Disastrous Oil Spills in History”, see http://www.travelgrove.com/blog/news/5most-disastrous-oil-spills-in-history/
8.28 “Murmansk Region oil-spill cleanup plan: just empty words on paper?”, a summary of reports
by Bellona see http://www.bellona.org/articles/articles_2006/42017
Page 19 of 20
Feb 4, 2013 NRC Presentation in Chicago
Remote Energy Security Technologies Collaborative www.restco.ca
8.29 “Prirazlomnaya oil spill would threaten Russian Arctic with irreparable disaster”, a study
estimating potential oil pollution from a Russian drilling platform in the Pechora Sea, Russian
Greenpeace August 2012. See http://www.greenpeace.org/russia/en/news/Prirazlomnaya-oil-spillwould-threaten-Russian-Arctic-with-irreparable-disaster-study-/
8.30 “Bioavailable contaminants come from the Exxon Valdez oil catastrophe”, Aug 2009 press
release Helmholtz Centre for Environmental Research, see https://www.ufz.de/index.php?en=18580
8.31 “NV Gains Arctic Oil Spill Response Expertise with Latest Acquisition”, article in gCaptain
Staff , April 2012. See http://gcaptain.com/gains-arctic-spill-response-expertise/
8.32 “Deepwater Horizon oil spill”, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deepwater_Horizon_oil_spill
8.33 Imperial Oil Resources Ventures Limited, Beaufort Sea Exploration Joint Venture: Preliminary
Information Package (Dec 2012 see http://www.imperialoil.com/CanadaEnglish/Files/PIP_Beaufort_Sea_Explor_JV_with_Cover.pdf An 88 page document that attempts to
comply with the NEB Filing requirements for offshore drilling in the Canadian Arctic discussed in
this report section 1.
8.34 “Meeting the Challenge of Oil Spill Mitigation in the Arctic”, David Prior in the Canadian
Naval Review Vol.7, No. 4 (winter 2012) pp10-15.
8.35 “The Challenges of Oil Spill Response in the Arctic”, Staff Working Paper No. 5, from the
National Commission on the Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill and Offshore Drilling, update January
2011.
8.36 Extreme Spill Technology see www.spilltechnology.com
8.37 SpillGreen oil spill remediation see www.spillgreen.com
Page 20 of 20