Environmental Impacts of Arctic Oil Spills and Arctic Spill Response Technologies Arctic Oil Spill

205 Pages·2015·53.92 MB·English

by  Nick Edell

Arctic Oil Spill Response =Environmental Impacts of Arctic Oil
Technology Spills and Arctic Spill Response
Joint Industry Programme Technologies
Literature Review and Recommendations
December 2014
Principal Investigator: Jack Q Word

Contributing Authors

North America:
 Dr.
 Don
 Stoekel,
 Battelle
 Memorial

Institute;
  Dr.
  Charles
  Greer,
  Biotechnology
  Research

Institute
 (BRI)/National
 Research
 Council
 of
 Canada;
 Drs.

Gina
 Coelho
 and
 James
 Clark,
 Mr.
 James
 Staves,
 Ms.
 Laura

Essex,
 Ecosystem
 Management
 &
 Associates
 (HDR/EM&A);

Dr.
 Benny
 Gallaway,
 (LGL
 Ltd);
 Mr.
 William
 Gardiner,
 Ms.

Lucinda
 Word,
 ENVIRON;
 Dr.
 Will
 Hafner
 (NewFields)
 Drs.

Robert
  Perkins
  and
  Phillip
  Loring,
  University
  of
  Alaska

Fairbanks
 (UAF).

Europe:

 Dr.
 Lionel
 Camus,
 Akvaplan
 Niva;
 Dr.
 Janne
 Fritt-­‐
Rasmussen
 (ARTEK);
 Mr.
 Francois
 Merlin,
 Dr.
 Stephane
 Le

Floch,
  Centre
  of
  Documentation,
  Research
  and

Experimentation
 on
 Accidental
 Water
 Pollution
 (CEDRE);
 Dr.

Morten
 Hjorth,
 COWI;
 Dr.
 Steinar
 Sanni,
 Dr.
 Theirry
 Baussant,

International
  Research
  Institute
  of
  Stavanger
  (IRIS);
  Dr.

Torgeir
  Bakke,
  Norwegian
  Institute
  for
  Water
  Research

(NIVA);
 Drs.
 CJ
 Beegle-­‐Krause,
 Odd
 Brakstad,
 Per
 Daling,

Liv-­‐Guri
 Faksness,
 Bjørn
 Henrik
 Hansen,
 Alf
 Melbye,
 Ida

Breathe
 Øverjordet,
 Ivar
 Singsaas
 (SINTEF).

 Drs.
 Oleg
 Titov,

Andrei
  Zhilin,
  the
  Polar
  Research
  Institute
  of
  Marine

Fisheries
 and
 Oceanography
 (PINRO).
Environmental Impacts of Arctic Oil Spills and Arctic
Spill Response Technologies

Executive
 Summary

Section
 1.

 The
 Physical
 Environment

Section
 2.

 Arctic
 Ecosystems
 and
 Valuable
 Resources

Section
 3.

 The
 Transport
 and
 Fate
 of
 Oil
 in
 the
 Arctic

Section
 4.

 Oil
 Spill
 Response
 Strategies

Section
 5.

 Biodegradation

Section
 6.

 Ecotoxicology
 of
 Oil
 and
 Treated
 Oil
 in
 the
 Arctic

Section
 7.

 Population
 Effects
 Modeling

Section
 8.

 Ecosystem
 Recovery

Section
 9.

 Net
 Environmental
 Benefit
 Analysis
 for
 Oil
 Spill
 Response
 Options
 in
 the
 Arctic

Executive Summary
Quick Links to Executive Summary
Content
Program
 Objectives
 and
 Participants

The
 Pan-­‐Arctic
 Region:

 Highlights
 of
 the

Literature
 Review

Behavior
 and
 fate
 of
 oil
 in
 the
 Arctic
 VECs

and
 ecotoxicity

Role
 of
 Ecosystem
 Consequence
 Analyses
 in

NEBA
 Applications
 in
 the
 Arctic

Arctic
 population
 resiliency
 and
 potential
 for

recovery

Priority
 Recommendations
 to
 Enhance
 NEBA

Applications
 in
 the
 Arctic

Development
 of
 ARCAT
 matrices

Influence
 of
 oil
 on
 unique
 Arctic

communities

Biodegradation
 in
 unique
 communities

Modeling
 of
 acute
 and
 chronic
 population

effects
 of
 exposure
 to
 OSRs

Photo E-1. Summer storm in the Arctic
Program
 Objectives
 and
 Participants

The
 International
 Association
 of
 Oil
 and
 Gas
 Producers
 (OGP)
 in
 support
 of
 the
 Arctic
 Oil
 Spill
 Response

Technology
  –
  Joint
  Industry
  Programme
  (JIP)
  funded
  this
  review
  of
  available
  information
  on
  the

environmental
 impacts
 from
 oil
 spills
 in
 the
 Arctic
 and
 impacts
 that
 may
 be
 associated
 with
 the

application
 of
 specific
 treatment
 technologies
 that
 may
 be
 applied
 during
 an
 oil
 spill
 response.

 The

objective
 of
 the
 review
 was
 to
 compile
 significant
 findings
 of
 prior
 investigations
 and
 suggest
 priority

areas
 of
 work
 needed
 to
 improve
 assessment
 of
 the
 consequences
 of
 the
 various
 treatment
 strategies

prior
 to
 application
 under
 Arctic
 conditions.
 The
 primary
 outcome
 is
 development
 of
 a
 process
 to

integrate
 ecological
 consequence
 assessments
 within
 net
 environmental
 benefit
 analyses
 (NEBA)
 to
better
  evaluate
  the
  environmental
  effects
  to
  valuable
  ecosystem
  components
  (VECs)
  within
  key

environmental
 compartments
 (ECs)
 c
 that
 would
 result
 from
 using
 different
 response
 actions
 in
 the

Arctic.

 Specifically,
 development
 of
 Arctic
 response
 consequence
 analysis
 table
 matrices
 (ARCAT)
 and
 a

semi-­‐quantitative
 analytical
 tool
 will
 optimize
 decision-­‐making
 and
 lessen
 environmental
 impact
 related

to
 arctic
 oil
 spills
 in
 the
 Arctic.

 The
 process
 is
 proactive
 rather
 than
 responsive
 to
 a
 spill
 event
 improving

the
 ability
 to
 reduce
 environmental
 damage
 by
 chosing
 mitigating
 measures
 with
 the
 minimized
 effect

on
 the
 environment.

 As
 a
 result
 of
 this
 proactive
 approach
 there
 will
 also
 be
 broader
 consensus
 and

acceptance
 of
 decisions
 among
 regulators
 and
 stakeholders.

To
 increase
 confidence
 in
 evaluations
 and
 environmental
 impact
 statement
 (EIS)
 of
 oil
 spills
 and
 oil
 spill

response
 (OSR)
 technologies
 proposed
 for
 the
 Arctic,
 a
 comprehensive
 review
 of
 the
 existing
 literature

was
 conducted
 to
 identify
 priority
 areas
 for
 future
 research
 efforts.

 Because
 of
 the
 breadth
 of
 topic

areas
 supporting
 consequence
 analysis
 approaches,
 this
 effort
 called
 for
 a
 multidisciplinary
 team
 with
 an

understanding
 of
 food
 webs
 throughout
 the
 Arctic;
 behavior
 of
 oil
 in
 surface
 waters,
 at
 depth,
 and
 in
 ice;

the
 effectiveness
 of
 OSR
 countermeasures
 in
 cold-­‐water
 surface
 and
 subsurface
 environments;
 the

toxicity
 of
 petroleum
 treatment
 residues
 on
 Arctic
 species;
 and
 models
 used
 to
 predict
 individual
 and

population
 effects
 in
 Arctic
 ecosystems
 based
 on
 the
 concept
 of
 resilience.

 This
 literature
 review

followed
 a
 pan-­‐arctic
 approach
 that
 recognizes
 regional
 similarities
 and
 differences
 based
 on
 peer-­‐
reviewed
  literature
  and
  technical
  reports
  from
  government
  and
  research
  institutions
  representing

circumpolar
 interests.

 The
 review
 is
 based
 on
 more
 than
 960
 literature
 citations
 and
 the
 personal

experience
 of
 the
 work
 group
 participants.

 To
 best
 utilize
 the
 expertise
 assembled
 on
 this
 team,

representatives
 from
 different
 regions
 and
 disciplines
 worked
 in
 subgroups
 and
 all
 were
 able
 to
 review

the
 entire
 document
 since
 many
 of
 the
 investigators
 have
 multi-­‐disciplinary
 research
 backgrounds.
 The

team
 was
 divided
 into
 nine
 technical
 working
 groups,
 each
 with
 a
 focused
 assessment
 goal
 and
 each

with
 the
 assignment
 to
 identify
 areas
 of
 priority
 research:

The
  Physical
  Environment
  –
  Summarize
  available
  literature
  to
  describe
  the
  different

environmental
 compartments
 present
 in
 the
 Arctic
 and
 the
 physical
 characteristics
 of
 those

compartments
 that
 could
 potentially
 affect
 the
 fate
 and
 effects
 of
 oil,
 as
 well
 as
 defining
 what

response
 measures
 are
 an
 option
 for
 those
 environment
 compartments.

 Seasonality
 in
 Arctic

eco-­‐regions
 is
 addressed
 (ice
 or
 ice-­‐free
 conditions)
 as
 well
 as
 unique
 habitats
 and
 use
 of
 those

compartments
 by
 VECs
 (e.g.
 areas
 with
 significant
 riverine
 input).

Arctic
 Ecosystems
 and
 Valuable
 Resources
 –
 Identify
 environmental
 compartments,
 food
 web

connections
 within
 those
 environmental
 compartments,
 key
 Valuable
 Ecosystem
 Components

(VEC
 species/taxa)
 within
 each
 compartment
 that
 connects
 those
 food
 webs
 and
 variations

among
 VEC
 species/taxa
 between
 sub-­‐regions
 within
 the
 Arctic.

Transport
 and
 Fate
 of
 Oil
 in
 the
 Arctic
 –
 The
 various
 treatment
 strategies
 may
 enhance
 or
 reduce

the
 amount
 of
 oil
 that
 is
 transported
 away
 from
 sites
 of
 surface
 or
 subsea
 released
 oil.

 This

section
 discusses
 the
 mechanisms
 behind
 short
 and
 long
 term
 transport
 of
 spilled
 oil
 in
 the
 Arctic.

Oil
 Spill
 Response
 and
 Related
 Effects
 –
 Identify
 the
 implications
 of
 various
 response
 actions
 to

increase
  or
  decrease
  the
  exposure
  to
  various
  treatment
  residuals
  within
  environmental

compartments.
 Identify
 alternative
 response
 options
 for
 surface
 and
 subsurface
 spills
 of
 oil
 under

Arctic
 seasonal
 conditions
 and
 describe
 the
 environmental
 effects
 of
 those
 response
 actions.

Biodegradation
 –
 Identify
 the
 measurement
 tools
 that
 can
 quantify
 the
 use
 of
 oil
 by
 Arctic

microbes
  including
  direct
  uptake
  and
  use
  of
  carbon
  containing
  petroleum
  compounds,

mineralization
 of
 petroleum
 hydrocarbons
 to
 CO
 and
 chemical
 changes
 of
 parent
 petroleum

2
compounds
 to
 other
 compounds
 under
 different
 treatment
 options
 and
 how
 those
 changes
 are

modified
 in
 different
 ECs

Ecotoxicology
 of
 Oil
 and
 Treated
 Oil
 in
 the
 Arctic
 –
 The
 four
 lines
 of
 ecotoxicity
 research
 include

acute
  and
  chronic
  response
  assessments
  and
  biomarker
  and
  body
  burden
  assessments
  of

exposure.

 Evaluate
 the
 literature
 to
 establish
 the
 environmental
 relevance
 of
 these
 four
 lines
 of

evidence.

 Identify
 gaps
 in
 experimental
 programs
 to
 address
 the
 ecotoxicology
 of
 oil
 in
 separate

environmental
 compartments.

Population
 Effects
 Modeling
 –
 Petroleum
 treatment
 residuals
 are
 environmental
 stressors
 that

have
 the
 potential
 to
 produce
 adverse
 impacts
 on
 individuals
 or
 populations
 of
 VECs.

 Determine

which
 parameters
 are
 necessary
 components
 of
 a
 population
 impact
 model
 for
 VECs;
 identify

models
 useful
 in
 predicting
 the
 effects
 of
 treatment
 options
 on
 these
 species/taxa.

 Parameters

of
 interest
 include
 changes
 in
 the
 toxicity
 of
 biodegraded
 oil,
 transfer
 of
 impact
 related
 effects
 to

other
 trophic
 level
 VECs,
 or
 consideration
 of
 the
 resiliency
 of
 populations
 to
 recover
 from
 a

stress.

Ecosystem
 Recovery
 –
 The
 ecotoxicology
 and
 biodegradation
 of
 oil
 spill
 residuals
 is
 better

understood
 than
 the
 ability
 of
 a
 compartment
 or
 VEC
 to
 recover
 from
 the
 impacts
 of
 a
 spill.

Environmental
 compartments
 have
 different
 abilities
 to
 recover
 from
 oil
 impacts.

 Application
 of

treatment
 methods
 need
 to
 account
 for
 and
 minimize
 the
 movement
 of
 oil
 to
 locations
 or
 species

that
 have
 a
 low
 resiliency
 to
 respond
 to
 oil.

 This
 section
 examines
 the
 duration
 of
 continued

impact
 of
 an
 oil
 release
 and
 expected
 recovery
 of
 different
 environmental
 compartments
 and

VECs.
 Response
 actions
 need
 to
 minimize
 encroachment
 on
 less
 resilient
 ECs
 and
 VECs.

Net
  Environmental
  Benefit
  Analyses
  for
  Oil
  Spill
  Response
  Options
  in
  the
  Arctic
  –
  The

environmental
 consequences
 of
 an
 oil
 spill
 response
 strategy
 will
 influence
 the
 overall
 impact
 of

an
 oil
 spill
 (surface
 or
 subsurface).

 In
 typical
 applications
 of
 net
 environmental
 benefit
 analysis

(NEBA)
 framework,
 the
 consequences
 of
 a
 treatment
 option
 are
 generally
 associated
 with
 the

near-­‐term
 impacts
 and
 less
 so
 with
 consideration
 of
 the
 longer
 term
 consequences
 to
 recovery

resulting
 from
 impacts
 to
 less
 resilient
 environmental
 compartments
 or
 VECs.

 As
 an
 example,

far-­‐field
 impacts
 can
 result
 from
 not
 selecting
 a
 dispersant
 option
 which
 result
 in
 stranding
 of

untreated
 oil
 on
 cobble
 shorelines
 where
 the
 effects
 can
 be
 observed
 decades
 after
 a
 spill.

Alternatively,
 selection
 of
 the
 dispersant
 option
 will
 result
 in
 greater
 impacts
 to
 the
 more

resilient
 zooplankton
 community
 while
 reducing
 the
 effects
 on
 less
 resilient
 seabird
 and
 marine

mammals
 that
 might
 contact
 oil
 on
 the
 sea
 surface.

 The
 goal
 of
 this
 workgroup
 was
 to
 develop
 a

preliminary
 consequence
 analysis
 of
 treatment
 decisions
 and
 demonstrate
 through
 an
 adaptive

NEBA
 process
 the
 interrelationships
 between
 treatment
 decisions
 and
 shortening
 or
 lengthening

of
 recovery
 from
 all
 forms
 of
 environmental
 effects,
 not
 restricted
 to
 the
 immediate
 near-­‐field

impacts.

Recent
 literature
 was
 reviewed
 for
 each
 topic
 area,
 and
 the
 information
 was
 compiled
 into
 a
 Microsoft

Access®
 database.

 Approximately
 650
 documents
 have
 been
 cited
 within
 the
 body
 of
 this
 report,
 and
 at

this
 time
 there
 are
 over
 1300
 documents
 represented
 in
 the
 Access
 database
 that
 has
 been
 produced

for
 recent
 JIP
 programs.

 The
 database
 is
 searchable
 and
 can
 generate
 a
 list
 of
 references
 related
 to

Arctic
 ecology,
 food
 webs,
 deep
 water
 food
 webs,
 petroleum-­‐related
 fate
 and
 effects,
 biodegradation,

and
 ecosystem-­‐level
 case
 studies;
 aquatic
 toxicity
 and
 chemistry
 data
 can
 be
 queried
 via
 pivot
 graphs
 to

dynamically
 represent
 the
 data
 compiled
 to
 date.

 Based
 on
 results
 of
 these
 summary
 investigations,

recommended
 new
 environmental
 studies
 are
 identified
 and
 prioritized.
 The
 recommended
 research

will
 help
 reduce
 uncertainties
 related
 to
 each
 topic
 area
 and
 strengthen
 the
 NEBA
 approach
 in
 the
Arctic.

 The
 organizations
 and
 team
 members
 participating
 in
 this
 synergistic
 effort
 are
 presented
 in

Figure
 ES-­‐1.

Principle
 Investigator

Dr.
 Jack
 Q
 Word

1.

 The
 Physical
 Environment
  2.

 Arctic
 Ecosystems
 and
 Valuable
  3.

 Transport
 and
 Fate
 of
 Oil
 in

Resources
  the
 Arctic

Dr.
 Jack
 Word

Ms.
 Lucinda
 Word
  Mr.
 William
 Gardiner,

  Dr.
 Alf
 Melbye

Dr.
 Robert
 Perkins
  Dr.
 Ida
 Beathe
 Øverjordet
  Dr.
 Liv-­‐Guri
 Faksness

Dr.
 Oleg
 Titov
  Dr.
 Torgeir
 Bakke

Dr.
 Andrei
 Zhilin
  Dr.
 Janne
 Fritt-­‐Rasmussen

Dr.
 Thierry
 Baussant
  Dr.
 Oleg
 Titov

Dr.
 Jack
 Word

4.

 Oil
 Spill
 Response
 and
 Related
  5.

 Biodegradation
  6.

 Ecotoxicology
 of
 Oil
 and

Effects
  Treated
 Oil
 in
 the
 Arctic

Dr.
 Odd
 Brakstad

Mr.
 Francois
 Merlin
  Dr.
 Donald
 Stoeckel
  Dr.
 Lionel
 Camus

Dr.
 Stephane
 Le
 Floch
  Dr.
 Charles
 Greer
  Mr.
 William
 Gardiner

Dr.
 Jack
 Word
  Dr.
 Bjørn
 Henrik
 Hansen

Dr.
 James
 Clark
  Dr.
 James
 Clark

Dr.
 Liv-­‐Guri
 Faksness
  Dr.
 Jack
 Word

Dr.
 Janne
 Fritt-­‐Rasmussen

  Dr.
 Steinar
 Sanni

  Dr.
 Oleg
 Titov

7.

 Population
 Effects
 Modelling
  8.

 Ecosystem
 Recovery
  9.

 Review
 of
 NEBA

Dr.
 Benny
 Gallaway

  Dr.
 Bjørn
 Henrik
 Hansen
  Dr.
 Gina
 Coelho

Dr.
 Jack
 Q
 Word
  Dr.
 Jack
 Q
 Word
  Dr.
 James
 Clark

Dr.
 James
 Clark

  Dr.
 James
 Clark
  Mr.
 James
 Staves

Dr.
 Ivar
 Singass
  Dr.
 Gina
 Coelho
  Ms.
 Laura
 Essex

Dr.
 Will
 Hafner
  Dr.
 Morten
 Hjorth
  Dr.
 Per
 Daling

Dr.
 Oleg
 Titov
  Dr.
 Torgeir
 Bakke
  Dr.
 CJ
 Beegle-­‐Krause

  Mr.
 Francois
 Merlin

Dr.
 Andrei
 Zhilin

Figure E-1. Organizational matrix

(Workgroup
 chairmen
 and
 co-­‐chairmen
 are
 noted
 in
 bold
 text)
The Pan-Arctic Region: Highlights of the Literature Review
Currently
  five
  of
  the
  eight
  countries
  bordering
  the
  polar
  region
  are
  pursuing
  exploration
  and/or

development
 of
 oil
 and
 gas
 resources
 in
 the
 Arctic
 [Canada,
 Greenland
 (Denmark),
 Norway,
 Russia,
 and

the
  United
  States].

  The
  changing
  environmental
  conditions
  in
  the
  Arctic
  may
  provide
  increased

opportunity
 for
 development
 of
 these
 resources
 that
 were
 less
 accessible
 due
 to
 presence
 of
 ice
 in
 past

decades
 and
 the
 improved
 technological
 advances
 for
 extracting
 petroleum
 resources.

 Activities
 of
 the

petroleum
 industry
 are
 based
 on
 promulgated
 regulations
 set
 by
 each
 sovereign
 nation
 but
 there
 has

been
 a
 move
 toward
 international
 cooperation
 and
 sharing
 of
 knowledge
 related
 to
 the
 technological

development
  required
  to
  ensure
  safe
  drilling
  operations
  as
  well
  as
  spill
  response
  preparedness.

International,
 federal,
 and
 local
 agencies
 from
 North
 America,
 Northern
 Europe,
 and
 Russia
 are
 in
 the

process
 of
 developing
 baseline
 ecosystem
 and
 biodiversity
 assessments
 and
 research
 programs
 in
 order

to
 better
 understand
 and
 protect
 the
 Arctic
 marine
 ecosystem
 and
 the
 communities
 that
 rely
 on
 these

resources.

 For
 example,
 the
 Arctic
 Monitoring
 and
 Assessment
 Program
 (AMAP)
 has
 completed
 a

significant
 effort
 in
 publishing
 comprehensive
 baseline
 information
 on
 Arctic

 geo-­‐political
 activities
 and

regulations,
  available
  drilling
  technologies,
  spill
  response
  initiatives,
  and
  potential
  environmental

impacts
 (AMAP
 2010).

 Additional
 cooperative
 research
 sponsored
 by
 joint
 industry
 programs
 (JIP)
 have

augmented
 the
 knowledge
 base
 associated
 with
 the
 oil
 and
 gas
 industry
 activities
 (Sørstrøm
 et
 al.
 2010;

NewFields
 2012).

 These
 efforts
 and
 convened
 workshops
 have
 integrated
 contributions
 from
 the

scientific
 community,
 governmental
 agencies,
 public
 interest
 groups,
 and
 indigenous
 people
 of
 the

Arctic.

Additionally,
 extensive
 field
 and
 laboratory
 studies
 have
 been
 conducted
 to
 examine
 the
 behavior
 and

fate
 of
 oil
 and
 its
 potential
 effects
 on
 Arctic
 resources
 under
 the
 disparate
 seasonal
 conditions.

 Many

recent
  studies
  have
  concentrated
  on
  understanding
  the
  influence
  of
  these
  harsh
  environmental

conditions
 on
 the
 relative
 sensitivity
 of
 Arctic
 species
 to
 additional
 stressors,
 the
 success
 and
 rates
 of

microbial
 degradation
 of
 oil
 compounds,
 and
 more
 recently
 the
 resilience
 of
 Arctic
 populations
 to

recover
 from
 responses
 to
 those
 stressors.

 Similar
 to
 other
 parts
 of
 the
 world
 these
 investigations
 have

increased
 our
 understanding
 of
 the
 basic
 behavior
 and
 movement
 of
 oil,
 its
 potential
 effects
 on
 VECs

and
 the
 ultimate
 fate
 of
 released
 oil
 in
 various
 environmental
 compartments.

 The
 Arctic
 environment

has
 added
 complexities
 resulting
 from
 seasonal
 patterns
 of
 ice
 and
 light
 that
 need
 to
 be
 considered
 to

provide
 the
 foundation
 for
 development
 of
 strategic
 spill
 response
 strategies
 and
 evaluation
 of
 the

environmental
 consequences
 of
 released
 oil
 that
 are
 very
 relevant
 today.

 Excellent
 comprehensive

reviews
 have
 been
 published
 in
 recent
 years
 (Potter
 et
 al.
 2012,
 SL
 Ross
 et
 al.
 2010,
 and
 USGS
 2011).

The
 fundamental
 role
 of
 comparing
 the
 adverse
 biological
 effects
 of
 different
 response
 options
 in
 NEBA

requires
 an
 information
 base
 that
 identifies
 VECs
 within
 multiple
 environmental
 compartments.

 The

potential
  adverse
  effects
  and
  resiliency
  of
  these
  VEC
  organisms
  within
  each
  of
  these
  various

compartments
 are
 then
 compared
 as
 a
 consequence
 of
 the
 OSR
 actions.

 These
 comparisons
 should

examine
 the
 acute
 and
 long-­‐term
 effects
 of
 spilled
 oil
 resulting
 from
 the
 impacts
 of
 various
 response

options
 such
 as
 natural
 attenuation,
 surface-­‐applied
 or
 subsea-­‐injected
 dispersants,
 in-­‐situ
 burning,
 and

mechanical
 or
 naturally
 occurring
 containment
 methods
 followed
 up
 by
 recovery
 of
 spilled
 petroleum
 in

Arctic
 ecosystems.

 Review
 and
 tabulation
 of
 published
 data,
 such
 as
 toxicity
 effect
 concentrations
 and

population
 recovery
 times,
 is
 a
 key
 component
 of
 this
 review.

 However,
 the
 overall
 objective
 related
 to

exploration
 and
 production
 projects
 in
 the
 Arctic
 is
 not
 only
 to
 tabulate
 this
 information
 or
 determine

the
 most
 sensitive
 end-­‐points
 that
 might
 be
 considered
 but
 to
 demonstrate
 the
 relative
 differences
 in

the
 magnitude
 and
 duration
 of
 effects
 that
 might
 be
 observed
 at
 various
 ecosystem
 compartments
associated
  with
  various
  response
  actions.

  As
  has
  been
  attempted
  for
  other
  regions
  where
  new

exploration
 and
 production
 activities
 have
 been
 implemented,
 demonstrating
 these
 relative
 differences

will
  require
  additional
  effort
  aimed
  at
  bridging
  the
  gap
  between
  relatively
  straightforward

measurements
 of
 toxicity
 to
 arctic
 species
 and
 more
 complex
 investigations
 to
 assess
 ecosystem-­‐level
 or

population
 level
 impacts
 and
 recovery
 dynamics.

 This
 report
 considers
 the
 similarities
 and
 differences
 in

species
 sensitivity
 between
 arctic
 and
 non-­‐arctic
 species.

 To
 effectively
 monitor
 habitat
 recovery
 and

identify
 ecologically
 relevant
 endpoints
 for
 remediation
 operations
 in
 Arctic
 regions
 there
 is
 a
 need
 to

increase
 our
 knowledge
 on
 natural
 variability
 among
 populations
 and
 how
 that
 variability
 relates
 to

vulnerability
 to
 petroleum
 exposure.

Prior
 to
 the
 granting
 of
 approvals
 for
 exploration
 and
 production
 activities,
 the
 public
 seeks
 increased

assurances
 that
 industry
 and
 the
 various
 governmental
 entities
 have
 the
 capability
 to
 ensure
 safe

exploration
 and
 extraction
 of
 oil
 as
 well
 as
 the
 capability
 to
 respond
 to
 oil
 spills.
 To
 meet
 these

challenges
 a
 number
 of
 current
 and
 emerging
 oil
 spill
 countermeasure
 technologies
 have
 been
 identified

for
 use
 in
 the
 Arctic.

 While
 use
 of
 different
 OSR
 methods
 can
 potentially
 reduce
 the
 impact
 of
 spills

within
 the
 Arctic
 under
 various
 environmental
 conditions,
 not
 all
 options
 have
 been
 readily
 accepted
 by

the
 public
 and
 regulators.

 Lack
 of
 endorsement
 of
 some
 OSR
 options
 is
 related
 to
 the
 perceived
 change

in
 impacts
 and
 biodegradation
 rates
 that
 the
 use
 of
 these
 options
 in
 the
 Arctic
 marine
 ecosystem
 may

bring.

 Several
 studies
 have
 been
 undertaken
 to
 address
 such
 concerns
 for
 different
 response
 measures;

however,
 conflicting
 interpretations
 and
 conclusions
 impact
 stakeholders’
 confidence.

 For
 example,
 the

assumptions
 that
 dispersant
 treated
 oils
 are
 more
 toxic
 than
 undispersed
 oil,
 dispersants
 are
 more
 toxic

than
 oil,
 dispersants
 reduce
 the
 ability
 of
 microbes
 to
 degrade
 oil,
 and
 Arctic
 species
 are
 more
 sensitive

to
 oil
 than
 non-­‐arctic
 species
 are
 incorrect
 although
 all
 of
 these
 assumptions
 may
 be
 proposed
 as
 facts

by
 multiple
 stakeholders.

The
 purpose
 of
 the
 following
 section
 is
 to
 describe
 those
 key
 areas
 that
 the
 workgroup
 recommended

for
 further
 evaluation
 based
 on
 their
 critical
 review
 of
 available
 information.

 The
 subjects
 for
 further

consideration
 are
 grouped
 into
 major
 subject
 headings
 for
 this
 executive
 summary.

 Details
 of
 the

recommendations
 will
 be
 found
 in
 each
 of
 the
 sections
 of
 the
 reports.

Behavior and Fate of Oil in the Arctic
Arctic
 conditions
 influence
 the
 behavior
 and
 fate
 of
 untreated
 surface
 oil
 due
 to
 the
 low
 temperatures

and
 the
 presence
 of
 different
 types
 of
 ice.

 Petroleum
 is
 generally
 immiscible
 in
 seawater
 and
 more
 so

under
 colder
 temperatures.

 Surface
 oils
 with
 lower
 specific
 gravity
 accumulate
 on
 the
 sea
 surface
 and

spread
 horizontally
 with
 the
 more
 volatile
 or
 soluble
 components
 quickly
 released
 into
 the
 air
 or
 into

the
 water,
 respectively
 (NRC
 1989;
 EPPR
 2011).

 The
 surface
 oil
 also
 encounters
 disturbance
 by
 wind
 and

wave
 action
 increasing
 the
 exposed
 surface
 area
 of
 the
 oil
 to
 the
 vertical
 transport
 processes
 of

volatilization
 and
 solubilization.

 The
 wind
 and
 waves
 also
 adds
 water
 to
 oil
 creating
 oil/water
 emulsions

that
 become
 more
 stable
 with
 time.

 The
 presence
 of
 broken
 ice
 with
 wind
 and
 waves
 enhances
 the

disruption
 of
 the
 surface
 oil.
 These
 physical
 processes
 produce
 small
 globules
 of
 oil
 that
 may
 undergo

further
 physical,
 chemical
 and
 biological
 weathering,
 creating
 aggregations
 of
 the
 heavier
 residual

compounds
 that
 remain,
 eventually
 producing
 tar
 balls.

 In
 general,
 slicks
 formed
 in
 cold
 water
 are

thicker
 with
 less
 exposed
 surface
 areas
 with
 reduced
 spatial
 coverage
 than
 the
 same
 oil
 released
 under

temperate
 conditions.
 Laboratory
 trials
 have
 provided
 Information
 on
 key
 parameters
 that
 influence
 oil

spreading
 under
 solid
 ice
 such
 as
 under-­‐ice
 currents
 and
 ice
 roughness
 (Potter
 et
 al.
 2012).
 In
 situations

that
 the
 pour
 point
 of
 oil
 is
 above
 ambient
 temperature,
 the
 physical
 characteristics
 of
 the
 oil
 change

dramatically
 with
 the
 wax
 components
 of
 the
 oil
 precipitating
 and
 forming
 a
 gel-­‐like
 semi
 solid
 that
 is
resistant
 to
 flow
 and
 spreading
 and
 which
 also
 restricts
 diffusion
 of
 volatiles
 through
 the
 slick,
 effectively

reducing
 evaporation.

Untreated
 surface
 oils
 form
 slicks
 that
 are
 transported
 laterally
 by
 winds
 and
 currents
 and
 largely
 remain

on
 the
 water
 surface
 and
 in
 the
 upper
 water
 column.

 The
 oil
 continues
 to
 spread
 on
 the
 surface
 of
 the

ocean
 forming
 ribbons
 of
 slicks
 that
 rapidly
 spread
 to
 approximately
 1
 mm
 in
 thickness
 and
 are
 patchily

distributed.

 Wind
 and
 waves
 break
 up
 and
 drive
 some
 of
 this
 surface
 oil
 into
 the
 water
 column
 in

relatively
 large
 globules
 (>100
 µm).

 The
 oil
 slick
 contains
 all
 of
 the
 chemical
 components
 of
 the
 spilled

oil
 less
 those
 components
 that
 volatilize
 into
 the
 atmosphere
 or
 solubilize
 into
 the
 water
 column
 under

the
 slick.

 The
 maximum
 concentration
 of
 oil
 is
 therefore
 contained
 in
 the
 immediate
 slick
 area,

potentially
 exposing
 organisms
 that
 use
 the
 water
 near
 the
 air-­‐water
 interface
 to
 the
 highest
 petroleum

hydrocarbon
 concentrations
 that
 immediately
 follow
 a
 spill
 event.

The
 behavior
 and
 fate
 of
 released
 petroleum
 is
 an
 important
 consideration
 in
 understanding
 the

potential
 effects
 of
 released
 petroleum
 and
 in
 evaluating
 the
 potential
 OSR
 options
 in
 the
 arctic.

 The

spreading
 and
 weathering
 of
 petroleum
 in
 the
 arctic
 is
 complex,
 influenced
 by
 factors
 such
 as
 water

temperature,
 local
 currents
 and
 wind
 conditions,
 the
 presence
 and
 absence
 of
 seasonal
 and
 multi-­‐year

ice,
 effects
 of
 pressure
 in
 deep
 water
 environments
 and
 seasonal
 changes
 in
 salinity
 during
 the
 Arctic

spring.

 The
 presence
 of
 ice
 has
 been
 shown
 to
 slow
 the
 rate
 of
 spreading
 and
 weathering
 of
 surface
 oil,

as
 well
 as
 affecting
 predictions
 of
 spill
 locations
 and
 trajectories.

 Migration
 of
 petroleum
 into
 brine

channels
 or
 fissures
 in
 the
 ice
 can
 not
 only
 alter
 fate,
 but
 also
 the
 species
 that
 are
 potentially
 exposed

and
 the
 exposure
 point
 concentration.

 At
 depth,
 petroleum
 is
 affected
 by
 increased
 pressures
 and

decreased
 temperatures,
 resulting
 in
 phase
 shifts
 and
 changes
 in
 solubility
 as
 well
 as
 the
 dynamics
 of

deep
 water
 currents
 and
 bathymetry.

 Key
 considerations
 included
 in
 the
 review
 were
 as
 follows:

• Cold
 water
 temperatures
 and
 the
 presence
 of
 ice
 can
 dramatically
 affect
 the
 weathering
 and

natural
 attenuation
 of
 oil
 in
 the
 Arctic,
 but
 the
 ice
 can
 also
 trap
 oil
 so
 that
 OSR
 options
 and
 time

available
 to
 implement
 the
 necessary
 response
 can
 be
 extended.

• Changes
 in
 behavior
 and
 fate
 of
 petroleum
 in
 deep
 sea
 environments
 associated
 with
 seeps
 and

well
 blow-­‐outs
 or
 leakage
 alter
 the
 bioavailability
 of
 oil
 components
 by
 allowing
 more
 volatile

components
  to
  diffuse
  into
  the
  water
  where
  they
  may
  form
  clathrates
  altering
  the

biodegradation
 potential
 and
 toxicity
 of
 those
 structures.

• Adhesion
 of
 oil
 to
 particulate
 matter
 and
 how
 this
 may
 affect
 the
 potential
 for
 uptake
 into

tissues;

• The
 change
 in
 globule
 size
 and
 bioavailability
 of
 physically
 and
 chemically/OMA
 dispersed
 oil

under
 Arctic
 conditions
 and,

• The
 behavior
 of
 oil
 in
 the
 absence
 and
 presence
 of
 ice
 and
 how
 it
 influences
 the
 selection
 of
 OSR

options.

The
 microbial
 degradation
 potential
 of
 oil
 in
 the
 Arctic
 has
 been
 demonstrated
 and
 is
 as
 effective
 as
 this

process
 occurring
 in
 lower
 latitudes
 when
 natural
 communities
 of
 Arctic
 microbes
 respond
 to
 the

presence
 of
 oil.

 Microbial
 response
 to
 oil
 in
 the
 Arctic
 and
 deep,
 cold
 and
 dark
 waters
 are
 emerging

areas
 of
 research.

 While
 microbial
 degradation
 in
 temperate
 waters
 has
 long
 been
 recognized,
 recent

laboratory
  and
  field
  studies
  have
  documented
  microbial
  degradation
  of
  petroleum
  and
  dispersed

petroleum
 in
 these
 extreme
 environments.

 Current
 research
 is
 using
 analytical
 chemistry,
 respirometry,

genomics,
 transcriptomics,
 and
 proteomics
 assays
 to
 not
 only
 show
 the
 presence
 of
 oil-­‐degrading

species,
 but
 measure
 the
 response
 and
 results
 of
 microbial
 activity
 upon
 being
 exposed
 to
 oil.

 Key

considerations
 included
 in
 the
 review
 are
 as
 follows:
• The
 presence
 and
 effectiveness
 of
 microbial
 communities
 to
 degrade
 oil
 in
 the
 Arctic
 (in
 open

waters,
 in
 the
 presence
 of
 ice,
 along
 shorelines
 and
 in
 subtidal
 sediments);

• The
 characterization
 of
 the
 microbial
 community
 responses
 and
 gene
 expression
 associated
 with

exposure
  to
  oil
  and
  aerobic
  and
  anaerobic
  biodegradation
  and
  use
  of
  hydrocarbons
  and

organosulfur
 compounds
 associated
 with
 the
 unresolved
 complex
 mixture;
 and,

• The
 effects
 of
 biodegradation
 on
 the
 toxicity
 and
 availability
 of
 metabolites
 created
 during

biological
  use
  of
  oil
  compounds
  and
  the
  changes
  that
  occur
  in
  toxicity
  and
  further

biodegradation
 resulting
 from
 the
 more
 recalcitrant
 residual
 compounds
 of
 oil

There
 has
 been
 substantial
 research
 regarding
 the
 fate
 and
 effects
 of
 oil
 in
 the
 Arctic
 over
 the
 past
 40

years;
 studies
 have
 been
 published
 in
 a
 number
 of
 different
 forums
 including
 peer-­‐reviewed
 literature,

technical
 reports,
 government
 studies
 and
 professional
 symposia.

 Additional
 data
 exists
 in
 a
 number
 of

different
 languages,
 since
 research
 has
 been
 conducted
 throughout
 the
 North
 American,
 European,
 and

Russian
 Arctic.

 Finally,
 important
 sources
 of
 data
 include
 emerging
 datasets
 from
 current
 research
 and

older
 datasets
 that
 may
 not
 be
 as
 readily
 found
 in
 electronic
 search
 engines
 but
 nonetheless
 contain

valuable
 information
 on
 environmental
 conditions
 and
 ecological
 resources.

 Consideration
 must
 also
 be

given
  to
  the
  quality
  of
  data
  available
  for
  use.

  However,
  the
  most
  important
  aspect
  of
  making

environmental
 consequence
 comparisons
 for
 OSR
 options
 is
 the
 appropriate
 framing
 of
 questions
 so
 that

the
  consequences
  of
  response
  actions
  can
  be
  compared
  appropriately
  among
  all
  environmental

compartments.
VECs and Ecotoxicity
The
 physiological,
 morphological,
 and
 behavioral
 adaptations
 of
 Arctic
 species
 may
 alter
 their
 sensitivity

to
 petroleum
 and
 treated
 petroleum.

 To
 address
 this
 concern
 there
 have
 been
 a
 number
 of
 recent

efforts
 to
 characterize
 the
 sensitivity
 of
 Arctic
 species
 to
 treated
 and
 untreated
 petroleum.

 Evaluations

have
 included
 pelagic
 and
 benthic
 species,
 as
 well
 as
 those
 in
 close
 association
 with
 the
 ice.

 Endpoints

that
 have
 been
 evaluated
 include
 survival,
 growth,
 reproduction,
 and
 behavioral
 effects,
 as
 well
 as

molecular,
 cellular,
 physiological
 responses.

 Custom
 experimental
 facilities
 have
 been
 developed
 for

working
 with
 chemically
 and
 mechanically
 dispersed
 oil
 and
 water
 soluble
 fractions
 (WSF)
 of
 differently

weathered
 oil.

 Methodologies
 have
 been
 developed
 by
 project
 team
 members
 to
 capture
 and
 maintain

Arctic
 species
 of
 interest
 for
 controlled
 laboratory
 studies.

 The
 VEC
 species
 that
 have
 been
 evaluated
 to

this
 point
 have
 been
 found
 to
 have
 sensitivities
 similar
 to
 non-­‐Arctic
 species
 for
 oil
 exposure.

 Both
 field

and
  laboratory
  data
  have
  also
  been
  integrated
  with
  population
  models
  to
  provide
  estimates
  of

population-­‐level
 effects
 from
 oil
 exposures
 (e.g.
 SYMBIOSES
 and
 fishery
 population
 analysis).

 Key

considerations
 included
 in
 the
 review
 are
 as
 follows:

• Recent,
 historic
 and
 ongoing
 field
 and
 laboratory
 studies
 evaluating
 toxicity
 of
 petroleum
 and

treated
 petroleum
 provided
 in
 Species
 Sensitivity
 Distributions
 to
 compare
 sensitivity
 of
 tested

species.

• Different
 exposure
 scenarios
 facilitate
 different
 types
 of
 evaluations
 and
 can
 dramatically
 affect

comparability
 of
 data.

 Spiked
 exposures
 followed
 by
 reducing
 concentrations
 of
 oil
 represent

the
 exposures
 of
 stationary
 species
 or
 those
 present
 in
 the
 water
 column
 when
 oil
 is
 undergoing

the
 initial
 spreading
 and
 dilution
 following
 the
 spill
 event
 or
 after
 application
 of
 dispersants
 or

OMA.

 Exposures
 to
 constant
 concentrations
 of
 oil
 represent
 zones
 of
 concentrated
 oil
 observed

with
 neuston
 associated
 species
 and
 life
 stages
 and
 marine
 mammals
 and
 seabirds
 that
 move
 in

and
 out
 of
 the
 air/water
 interface.

 These
 more
 constant
 higher
 exposure
 concentrations
 can
also
  occur
  when
  oil
 is
  concentrated
  at
  edges
  such
  as
  shorelines,
  convergence
  zones,
  and

water/ice
 edges.

• Endpoints
 found
 in
 the
 literature
 review
 range
 from
 body
 burden
 assessment
 to
 biomarker

responses
 as
 well
 as
 mortality,
 growth,
 reproductive,
 developmental
 and
 behavioral
 responses.

The
 diversity
 of
 potential
 end
 point
 assessments
 range
 from
 exposure
 assessment
 to
 end
 points

that
 have
 a
 direct
 influence
 on
 estimating
 population
 level
 response
 to
 the
 oil
 components.

 For

the
 purpose
 of
 this
 review,
 those
 responses
 that
 are
 better
 predictors
 of
 effects
 at
 the
 individual

and
 population
 levels
 are
 the
 central
 focus.

 Mortality,
 growth
 and
 reproductive
 endpoints
 are

those
 most
 closely
 associated
 with
 population
 level
 effects.

 Reviews
 on
 exposure
 markers
 will

concentrate
 on
 demonstrating
 the
 relationship
 of
 the
 exposure
 marker
 to
 mortality,
 growth
 or

reproductive
 endpoints.

• All
 toxicity
 assessments
 are
 surrogate
 measures
 used
 to
 predict
 the
 potential
 effects
 of
 oil
 spills

on
 living
 resources.

 As
 such,
 data
 obtained
 using
 sub-­‐arctic
 and
 temperate
 species
 representing

different
 groups
 of
 organisms
 or
 different
 environmental
 compartments
 may
 also
 be
 useful
 in

augmenting
 datasets
 with
 Arctic
 species.

 Recent
 comparisons
 of
 the
 relative
 sensitivity
 of
 Arctic

and
 non-­‐arctic
 species
 suggest
 that
 non-­‐arctic
 species
 have
 similar
 sensitivities
 warranting
 a

broader
 evaluation
 of
 much
 larger
 data
 sets.

• Additional
 testing
 of
 species
 that
 are
 long-­‐lived,
 unique
 to
 selected
 habitat
 types
 and
 low
 in

reproductive
 capacity
 that
 have
 not
 been
 evaluated
 in
 other
 regions
 have
 been
 identified
 during

the
 reviews.

The
 toxicity
 of
 a
 mixture
 is
 characterized
 based
 on
 the
 analytical
 approach
 used
 to
 characterize
 the

exposure.

 Variable
 conclusions
 regarding
 the
 relative
 toxicity
 of
 oil
 and
 water
 often
 can
 be
 tracked
 to

the
 test
 waters
 being
 produced
 by
 different
 processes.

 The
 water
 accommodated
 fraction
 (WAF)
 is

designed
 to
 only
 introduce
 the
 more
 soluble
 components
 into
 the
 water
 column
 while
 retaining
 the
 less

soluble
 components
 on
 the
 surface
 of
 the
 water.

 The
 breaking
 wave
 water
 accommodated
 fraction

(BWWAF)
 introduces
 additional
 physical
 disturbance,
 introducing
 more
 oil
 into
 the
 water
 as
 droplets

with
  increased
  surface
  area
  exposure
  than
  occurs
  with
  the
  WAF
  allowing
  more
  of
  the
  soluble

components
  to
  diffuse
  into
  the
  water
  from
  the
  oil
  droplets.

  The
  chemically
  enhanced
  water

accommodated
 fraction
 (CEWAF)
 reduces
 the
 surface
 tension
 of
 the
 oil
 and
 produces
 much
 smaller

droplets
 with
 much
 larger
 available
 surface
 area
 for
 diffusion
 of
 the
 soluble
 components
 of
 the
 oil.

 One

of
 the
 objectives
 of
 the
 ecotoxicology
 section
 was
 to
 evaluate
 alternative
 methods
 of
 characterizing

exposure.

Role of Ecosystem Consequence Analyses in NEBA Applications for
the Arctic
A
 NEBA
 evaluation
 of
 OSR
 strategies
 for
 use
 in
 the
 Arctic
 must
 consider
 ecosystem-­‐level
 consequences

of
 the
 selected
 response.

 First,
 the
 effectiveness
 of
 the
 proposed
 solution(s)
 under
 the
 appropriate

conditions
 to
 determine
 how
 much
 of
 the
 oil
 can
 be
 treated
 by
 the
 proposed
 action.

 Second,
 the

consequences
 to
 various
 compartment
 VECs
 resulting
 from
 exposure
 to
 the
 untreated
 oil
 and
 the

treated
  oil.

  Such
  comparisons
  must
  be
  made
  for
  resources
  in
  environmental
  compartments
  to

determine
  the
  relative
  environmental
  benefits
  or
  risks
  of
  different
  response
  options.

  Third,
  the

resilience
 of
 the
 populations
 of
 organisms
 that
 are
 being
 exposed
 as
 a
 result
 of
 no
 action
 or
 a
 response

treatment
 needs
 to
 be
 addressed
 in
 order
 to
 determine
 the
 long
 term
 consequences
 of
 the
 decision.

Due
 to
 both
 logistical
 and
 environmental
 constraints,
 responses
 to
 oil
 spills
 rely
 on
 combinations
 of

remote
 sensing
 and
 monitoring.

 The
 OSR
 options
 include
 1)
 natural
 attenuation,
 2)
 containment