Peak Oil is You
Donate Bitcoins ;-) or Paypal :-)
Page added on October 3, 2016
Oil in the Arctic
What are the potential risks of oil drilling in the Arctic and how prepared is the world to handle a catastrophic spill?
For years, the Arctic has been a frontline in the battle over the future of energy and climate change.
Temperatures in the Arctic are rising twice as fast as the rest of the world and the sea ice is melting due to the carbon emissions in the atmosphere. This is allowing companies to search for fossil fuels in the Arctic – which is believed to hold 13 percent of the world’s undiscovered oil.
In July 2015, Shell began a controversial journey to the Arctic. Its mission was to drill and explore in the Chuckchi and Beaufort seas, hoping to find that untapped potential.
The stakes were high for the company – and the environment. But what are the potential risks of oil drilling in the Arctic? And what would happen in the event of an Arctic spill?
Oil spill response in the Arctic
While Shell made its way up north, TechKnow travelled to the Arctic circle aboard the US coastguard icebreaker Healy. It’s one of only two coastguard ships built to handle polar ice, and it will probably play a major role in responding to a disaster.
“If there were a spill, Healy’s position would be to provide access, we can be the operational commanders,” says Captain Jason Hamilton, commanding officer at USCGC Healy.
Scot Tripp, chief scientist at USCGC Healy, looks into oil spill response in the Arctic.
“Everything up here is abnormal for the coastguard … We do all kind of oil research … how to store it, how to move it, just about every aspect. The coastguard is really good at recovering oil in the water, but we have that ice water interface that really hadn’t been approached much. And up here it’s a common occurrence,” Tripp says.
There are several currently accepted methods for dealing with oil spills in open water: Skimming, in-situ burning, and the use of chemical dispersants. None are perfect under the best of conditions, and as TechKnow found, the efficacy of these techniques is being questioned for use in the frigid Arctic waters.
Industry and academic researchers agree, mechanical skimmers can be a viable option, but only if the ice doesn’t keep them from contacting the oil.
“When you do a mechanical clean-up, it’s great if you can remove 10 percent of the oil that spilled … In reality, for example, in the [2010] Deepwater Horizon [oil spill] less than 6 percent of the oil was collected by all of those skimmers and booms that were deployed, and you can imagine what that would be like in the Arctic,” says Nancy Kinner, the director at the Centre for Spills and Environmental hazards at the University of New Hampshire.
 |
| Oil from the BP Deepwater Horizon spill floats on the water off the coast of Louisiana [Charlie Riedel/AP Photo] |
In most large spills, like BP’s 2010 Deepwater Horizon blow out, only a small percentage of oil is mechanically removed from the environment. Most of the oil is typically burned off, in a process called in-situ burning, or dispersed into the water either by nature or by the help of chemical dispersants.
“In the Arctic, those are your main human interventions, that can occur and both of those have pros and cons, and what you are trying to do is figure out what the least bad thing is,” Kinner says.
Burning creates smoke that is toxic, and leaves residue that can sink and potentially harm marine life, while dispersants are designed to break the oil down into tiny droplets which diffuse into the water. But research shows that even trace levels of crude oil can be toxic to fish embryos.
Another option is letting nature deal with the oil through biodegradation.
“This is a relatively slow process, in the cold temperatures that we see in the Arctic so that also can be a very slow and long-term process. It’s all a trade-off, if you have oil accumulating at the surface, you have birds, marine mammals that could come up through that oil, and that can be very problematic … The question is, what are the impacts of those dispersants and how efficient are they? And what could potentially happen to public health and to seafood safety?” Kinner says.
TechKnow also finds out how a new technology measuring air samples in the Arctic can detect an oil spill before a satellite.
 |
| The drilling unit Kulluk sits grounded 64 kilometres southwest of Kodiak City, Alaska [US Coast Guard/Petty Officer 2nd Class Zachary Painter/Handout/Reuters] |
The realities of oil: Drilling in the Arctic
States such as Alaska, however, depend on oil to keep their state running, and about 85 percent of its budget is supplied by oil revenues.
“There’s been drillings done in the Arctic for years, successfully,” Denise Michels, mayor of Nome, Alaska, explains. “If an oil spill happens … the companies doing the drilling are supposed to have assets in place to control that. But the reality is our weather is unpredictable, and so it’s any marine activity happening in the Arctic, that we are concern about.”
“I think living in Alaska you become quite aware of the realities of oil. It brings a tremendous number of benefits… we have to find a way to live with it. But on the other hand, we can’t go back if we have a significant accident. There would be long-term implications, and the people that are on the frontlines are the people living here in the Arctic,” says Andy Mahoney, a geophysicist.
So is Arctic drilling inevitable? And what will be the future of the Arctic – and the planet – if companies are still determined to find the oil hidden in the Arctic?
19 Comments on "Oil in the Arctic"
Dredd on Mon, 3rd Oct 2016 6:37 am
Lest we forget.
Oil-Qaeda’s motto (Spill Baby Spill – 3).
Davy on Mon, 3rd Oct 2016 6:44 am
Oil will stay in the Arctic if the economies continues to deteriorate. The needed investment will not materialize. The demand will not be there to drive prices to drive E&P. For several years now there has been the talk of an Arctic oil effort with few results and those results were failures. Nothing has materialized yet except in Russia where the Arctic oil efforts is near shore. It is yet to be proven we can explore and produce oil in the deeper waters of the Arctic. Abrupt climate change will surely make efforts there problematic. Imagine the unpredictability and violence of a disturbed Arctic weather scenario. This is nothing to bank on for the future yet. Any talk from industry or the greenies is premature concerning problems or benefits.
Sissyfuss on Mon, 3rd Oct 2016 11:39 am
“I think living in Alaska you become quite aware of the realities of climate change, err, I mean oil.”
Plantagenet on Mon, 3rd Oct 2016 11:40 am
We’re in an oil glut and oil prices are depressed. This topic is dead for the next several years until the oil glut ends and oil prices ratchet up again.
Cheers!
GregT on Mon, 3rd Oct 2016 12:18 pm
“We’re in an oil glut and oil prices are depressed.”
Oil prices are not depressed planter. WTI is currently at $50/bbl, or twice the price that it was in ’02, before the run up leading to the global financial crisis that began in ’08.
Cheers!
energyskeptic on Mon, 3rd Oct 2016 1:52 pm
I’ve recently read the 2014 National Research council 210-page report “Responding to Oil Spills in the U.S. Arctic Marine Environment” and I’m working on a review of it. It seems almost certain that there will be oil spills that can’t be gotten to given the lack of roads, ports, ice, bad weather, and other infrastructure up there. Frequent winter breakaway events can substantially alter the extent of fast ice along the Chukchi Sea coast in a MATTER OF HOURS, as floes that can be several kilometers across fracture and drift out into open water stretches. In early winter, the fast ice remains unstable right into the coast until December and occupies a limited extent compared to the Beaufort Sea. And it’s not just giant icebergs mowing down rigs that’s of concern.
The NRC says that not enough research has been done to design responses to oil spills and list about 10 parameters that need more study. Nearly all we know about oil spills comes from temperate regions, there is a great deal of laboratory and field testing that needs to be done, as well as testing how toxic dispersants are to arctic marine life.
Here are some excerpts.
Examples of Risks Associated with Oil Spill Response Due to Weather Conditions
Adverse weather conditions can have impacts on the feasibility of oil spill response, especially in relation to marine and airborne operations
Sustained wind speeds greater than 25 knots (~13 m/s) could
Hinder crane operations and equipment use on response vessels, with a possibility of swinging or uncontrollable loads;
Limit in situ burning, as a typical wind threshold for successful burn operations is 20 kt (~10 m/s) or less;
Limit surface dispersant application from vessels and aircraft;
Limit mechanical recovery operations, such as skimmer deployment and boom containment
Hamper small boat operations due to the potential for severe sea states, breaking waves, and superstructure icing;
Hinder helicopter approach and landing on offshore helidecks.
Sea states greater than 1-1.5 m could
Limit boom effectiveness, as wave overtopping leads to loss of contained oil;
Impede small boat operation, due to waves, wind, and icing potential;
Contribute to seasickness and/or fatigue, impacting personal safety and effectiveness;
Jeopardize safety on deck from slippery and icy surfaces.
Visibility that is less than visual flight rules or instrument flight rule minimums (due to weather or season) could
Limit helicopter landings when cloud ceilings or visibility are below minimum standards set by the
Federal Aviation Administration or company policy
Curtail aerial dispersant spraying;
Limit oil spill monitoring by preventing direct visual observations.
Extreme cold temperatures (less than −35°C) could
Impact safety on deck, due to effects from wind chill;
Impact responder safety because of potential for frostbite;
Decrease worker efficiency from fatigue, leading to a need for frequent rest breaks;
Contribute to equipment breakdown due to changes in oil viscosity, hydraulic leaks, or mechanical failure
Limit helicopter operations, which have a lowest acceptable operating temperature set by operators and manufacturers
The lack of infrastructure in the Arctic would be a significant liability in the event of a large oil spill. Communities are dependent on air and seasonal marine transport for the movement of people, goods, and services, and there are few equipment caches with boom, dispersants, and in situ burn materials available for the North Slope and Northwest Arctic Boroughs. It is unlikely that responders could quickly react to an oil spill unless there were improved port and air access, stronger supply chains, and increased capacity to handle equipment, supplies, and personnel. Prepositioning a suite of response equipment throughout the Arctic, including aerial in situ burn and dispersant capability, would provide immediate access to a number of rapid response oil spill countermeasure options.
Arctic oil spill response is challenging because of extreme weather and environmental conditions; the lack of existing or sustained communications, logistical, and information infrastructure; significant geographic distances; and vulnerability of Arctic species, ecosystems, and cultures.
In very open drift ice conditions, oil spills can rapidly spread too thinly to ignite.
Building U.S. capabilities to support oil spill response will require significant investment in physical infrastructure and human capabilities, from communications and personnel to transportation systems and traffic monitoring.
Many individuals and conservation organizations advocate a halt to drilling in the region. Their concerns are primarily centered around inadequate baseline and monitoring data, especially for sensitive and important ecological areas; limited infrastructure available to address oil spills; challenges presented by little daylight in winter, rough weather, sea ice, and remoteness; and a lack of effective methods for responding to oil spills (Oceana, 2008; WWF, 2010; Pew Charitable Trust, 2013). Some of these concerns are based on experiences and environmental impacts from previous oil spills in the region, notably the Exxon Valdez accident.
Spill responders and other personnel would find a severe shortage of housing, fresh water, food and catering, sewage handling and garbage removal facilities, communications infrastructure, ability to handle heavy equipment, supplies, and hospitals and medical support. Large numbers of response workers also represent an increased risk of accidents and injuries. There are also limited bandwidth and communications capabilities. A single fiber optic cable connects the existing oil fields and there are currently no cables to northwestern Alaska, although a hybrid of fiber optic and microwave repeater towers are planned for the Northwest Arctic Borough. Increased bandwidth capacity is needed to share data and information in the event of an oil spill.
Moreover, recovered oil and oily debris must be collected and disposed of in predesignated locations, or the means to transport the material to some approved location outside of the local area is needed. Given the limited highway infrastructure, planners will inevitably look to aviation and seaborne support for all of these needs. There are no deepwater ports in the two boroughs. Nome has a shallow water port with docks, while other villages have shallow embayments (0-20 ft) without support facilities. The distance from Dutch Harbor, the closest full-service port, to the Shell drilling site in the Chukchi Sea, for example, is approximately 1,600 km. Sea-based support will be limited in its ability to work very close to the shore, due to shallow waters in much of the region, so a contingent of shallow water craft is needed for nearshore operations. Most of this can be contracted commercially, provided through government or military sources (if available), or provided on station by the operator and ready for immediate use. This latter approach was followed by Shell during its 2012 season. Absent this approach, the time delay in bringing adequate capabilities to the scene could be significant.
Apneaman on Mon, 3rd Oct 2016 2:10 pm
Probably easier to go back to the moon.
Apneaman on Mon, 3rd Oct 2016 2:13 pm
More carbon? The flora says no thanks, I’m full, but the humans are insatiable.
Trees and plants reached ‘peak carbon’ 10 years ago
More atmospheric carbon dioxide in the 1960s meant greenery flourished – but our photosynthesising friends have long had their fill.
New data shows ‘peak carbon’, when vegetation consumed its largest carbon dioxide feast, occurred in 2006, and since then appetite has been decreasing.
“It’s the first evidence that we are tipping over the edge potentially towards runaway or irreversible climate change,” says James Curran, former chief executive of the Scottish Environment Protection Agency and co-author of the study published in the journal Weather.
The news has come as a shock. Previous estimates indicated that peak carbon would not be reached until at least 2030.
Instead, the new data reveals that trees and plants are already 10 years beyond peak carbon.
https://cosmosmagazine.com/climate/trees-and-plants-reached-peak-carbon-10-years-ago?
Joe D on Mon, 3rd Oct 2016 2:46 pm
Peakoil.com website seems to be down a lot. I wonder what the problem is?
ghung on Mon, 3rd Oct 2016 3:05 pm
Dedicated denial of service attack.
Apneaman on Mon, 3rd Oct 2016 3:31 pm
E is for EROEI – [22 Billion Energy Slaves The end of the age of abundance and our response to it]
” Note, however, that EROEI has nothing to do with money. Getting EROEI mixed up with EROI (Energy Return on Investment) is a common mistake. One deals with the immutable laws of physics and the other deals with the infinitely manipulable world of finance – and only one of these sets of conditions is negotiable.”
“Which leads us to the crux of the problem. The modern world was set up to run on high EROEI energy. Take a look around. All those roads, airports, microproccesor factories, mechanised agricultural systems, globalised supply chains and space programmes require a huge throughput of energy. But we are running out of high EROEI energy, and will soon have only low EROEI energy to play with. Which begs the question: at what average level of net energy will the modern world cease to be a viable option?”
https://22billionenergyslaves.blogspot.ca/2016/10/e-is-for-eroei.html
Apneaman on Mon, 3rd Oct 2016 3:37 pm
ghung, it’s me they’re after. I’ve become far too influential with my philosophical musings and super awesome rants and I must be stopped at all costs. The threat I pose to BAU is imminent. Wouldn’t surprise me one bit if Seal Team 6.5 comes barreling through my door any minute.
peakyeast on Mon, 3rd Oct 2016 3:51 pm
Not only high EROEI energy. But high quality mineral resources and an untouched natural world.
None of which exist anymore. It has all been burned, murdered, looted, destroyed, eaten, poisoned etc..
There is no limit to the loathsomeness of humankind and its actions.
shortonoil on Mon, 3rd Oct 2016 4:08 pm
“Which begs the question: at what average level of net energy will the modern world cease to be a viable option?”
6.9 : 1
Petroleum is now 8.7 : 1
The rate of decline is slowing down as we approach the “dead state” of 6.9 :1
We will reach it in 14 years, max.
shortonoil on Mon, 3rd Oct 2016 4:12 pm
” Note, however, that EROEI has nothing to do with money.”
When petroleum hits the “dead state” so also does your money.
Sorry about that!
Lucifer on Mon, 3rd Oct 2016 6:23 pm
“When petroleum hits the “dead state” so also does your money”. That sounds like an apocalypse to me.
Apneaman on Mon, 3rd Oct 2016 8:19 pm
“August 2016 was the hottest month on Earth in all of the past 136 years.
Though the Earth is cooling into fall, September 2016 looks like it will be the hottest September ever recorded. Overall, 2016 is on track to be the hottest year on record by a significant margin.”
https://robertscribbler.com/2016/10/03/abnormal-fall-arctic-warmth-intensifies-september-2016-probably-another-record-hot-month-globally/
Apneaman on Mon, 3rd Oct 2016 9:37 pm
Good thing about Arctic amplification is it helps melt the sea ice faster so there is more room for the rigs to maneuver.
Sea ice volume – 1979 to 2016
https://gfycat.com/EsteemedCleanAmoeba
Go Speed Racer on Mon, 3rd Oct 2016 10:05 pm
When there’s nothing left to eat,
nothing left to burn,
and nothing left to drink,
that’s when we’re all phucked.