An evaluation of cumulative risks from offshore produced water discharges in the Bass Strait

Parkerton, Thomas F.; Bok, Melanie; Ireland, Alex W.; Prosser, Christopher M.

doi:10.1016/j.marpolbul.2017.10.003

Cited by 17 publications

(35 citation statements)

References 36 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The other studied variables (PC2, WET acceptance criteria failure, ammonia level), could not significantly explain the differences between SB and WET based HC50 values. The ammonia concentration could not explain the differences, suggesting that this chemical is not as important for the Norwegian platform as for the Australian platforms studied by Parkerton et al (2018).…”

Section: Explanatory Variablementioning

confidence: 74%

“…Ammonia was not included in the calculations of TUs, used for the SB approach. Recently, Parkerton et al (2018) observed that ammonia was an important substance in produced water of platforms near Australia to predict acute toxicity of the effluent. Therefore, ammonia was included here to test whether the same is true for the platforms examined here.…”

Section: Systematic and Random Differencesmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Comparison of whole effluent toxicity with substance based hazard of produced water discharged by Norwegian platforms

Vries¹,

Jak²

2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

At the beginning of the millennium OSPAR policy on produced water discharges focused on oil in water and the application of Best Available Technique (BAT) and Best Environmental Practice (BEP) associated with oil. In 2009 the OSPAR Offshore Industry Committee (OIC) agreed to set up an Intersessional Correspondence Group on development of a risk-based approach (RBA) for the management of produced water discharges (ICG-RBA), with the task of developing a proposal for a holistic approach for the management of produced water discharges from offshore installations. This was referred to as the risk based approach. The ICG-RBA also developed the draft OSPAR Recommendation 2012/5 for a risk-based approach to the management of produced water discharges from offshore installations and associated Guidelines, that were adopted by OIC in 2012. OSPAR provided guidelines which allow both Whole Effluent Toxicity (WET) testing and a Substance Based (SB) approach (using the substance composition), or a combination of these approaches to be used to assess the risk of produced water (PW) discharged. The goal is to continuously reduce the overall risk to the environment. There is an ongoing debate on the comparability and complementarity of these two approaches. In the OSPAR SB approach, risk is calculated using PNECs mainly based on chronic toxicity data and are therefore based on lower assessment factors compared to the OSPAR WET based approach, where only acute toxicity data is generated and a maximum assessment factor (1000) is used. Furthermore, no attenuation factors (biodegradation, evaporation etc.) are accounted for in dilution/dispersion modelling in the WET approach, while this is accounted for in the formal SB approach. The present study focused on comparing hazards rather than risks of the two approaches to minimize dissimilarities between the methods e.g. by using similar toxicity data on similar test species and not account for fate processes such as biodegradation. The purpose of doing this was to determine how well both approaches agree with each other and whether the substances identified and selected included in the SB approach sufficiently cover the hazard of the produced water, indicating how well substances with toxicity (and risk) contribution are accounted for in Environmental Impact Factor (EIF) calculation of PW discharges on the Norwegian Continental Shelf (NCS). The present study evaluated the hazard of 25 PW effluents sampled at 25 platforms of 6 different operators on the NCS that WET tests were undertaken for (step 3, Phase 2 of the Norwegian implementation plan; Annex 4). Both a WET based and a SB approach was used to estimate the acute hazards (rather than risk) by attempting to use similar input data at same conditions (e.g., exposure duration, test species and toxicity endpoints), such that these approaches could be compared in the best possible way, with as little noise as possible. How well EIF substances cover the risk of a produced water discharge could not be concluded directly from the present...

show abstract

Section: Explanatory Variablementioning

confidence: 74%

Section: Systematic and Random Differencesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparison of whole effluent toxicity with substance based hazard of produced water discharged by Norwegian platforms

Vries¹,

Jak²

2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In general, the range of produced water toxicity values is relatively narrow and ranges between approximately 1% to 20% ( Figure 5). Additional literature data confirm that globally produced water toxicity seems to fall within this range (Holdway 2002;Parkerton 2018). Explanations for this narrow range might be found in the similarity of produced water composition, application of similar production chemicals, and the way in which produced water is treated and managed globally, including the use of international standards for oil in water (IFC 2015).…”

Section: Toxicity and Dilution As Drivers Of Riskmentioning

confidence: 94%

Whole Effluent Toxicity Data and Discharge Volumes to Assess the Likelihood that Environmental Risks of Offshore Produced Water Discharges Are Adequately Controlled

Karman¹,

Smit

2019

Integr Envir Assess & Manag

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In 2012, the Oslo–Paris (OSPAR) Commission adopted Recommendation 2012/5 for a risk‐based approach (RBA) to the management of produced water discharges from offshore installations. As part of this recommendation, OSPAR requires that the environmental risk of the discharge of produced water is characterized based on whole effluent toxicity (WET) studies and/or on a substance‐based assessment. In this paper we describe an assessment of the likelihood that the environmental risk of produced water discharges is adequately controlled based on WET data for 19 oil‐ and gas‐producing platforms and their discharge volumes. Our analysis shows that, with the selected risk criterion of predicted exposure concentration (PEC)/predicted no‐effect concentration (PNEC) should not exceed 1 at 500 m, there is a mean likelihood of 99.5% (or more) that the environmental risk from the produced water discharges is adequately controlled for installations that discharge 30 × 103 m3/y (or less). The method presented in this paper can be used for screening purposes to ensure that efforts are directed toward installations with a high likelihood that risk is not adequately controlled. Integr Environ Assess Manag 2019;15:584–595. © 2019 SETAC

show abstract

“…PW is the water in the formation that is brought to the surface during the production process (Neff et al, 2011). Frequently, this water is discharged into the marine environment (Parkerton et al, 2018). PW contains environmental contaminants at concentrations sufficient to cause toxic impacts in standardised ecotoxicological bioassays (Parkerton et al, 2018), and causes adverse outcomes in fish continuously exposed in the laboratory (reviewed in Bakke et al, 2013;Beyer et al, 2020).…”

Section: Contaminant Distributionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Frequently, this water is discharged into the marine environment (Parkerton et al, 2018). PW contains environmental contaminants at concentrations sufficient to cause toxic impacts in standardised ecotoxicological bioassays (Parkerton et al, 2018), and causes adverse outcomes in fish continuously exposed in the laboratory (reviewed in Bakke et al, 2013;Beyer et al, 2020). However, few impacts from exposure to PW have been measured in the field because of the rapid dilution that occurs in turbulent marine environments (reviewed in Bakke et al, 2013;Beyer et al, 2020).…”

Section: Contaminant Distributionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Decommissioning Research Needs for Offshore Oil and Gas Infrastructure in Australia

et al. 2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

When offshore oil and gas infrastructure is no longer needed, it is either removed, partially removed, left in place, or left in place but repurposed. These processes are collectively referred to as decommissioning. Australian legislation requires oil and gas companies to develop acceptable plans for the safe removal of all offshore infrastructure at the end of a project’s life. Over the next 50 years, the liability for this decommissioning in Australia is expected to exceed US$45 billion. Unlike countries such as Norway, the United Kingdom and the Netherlands, Australian decommissioning activities are in their infancy, with only three cases (to date) in Commonwealth waters where infrastructure has been left in place or partially removed as part of decommissioning. Differences between the Australian marine environment and that of other regions around the world where decommissioning-related research is better progressed include very low sedimentation rates, both tropical and temperate habitats, different species composition, low primary production, and frequent tropical cyclones, as well as unique sociodemographic and cultural characteristics. Accordingly, the outcomes of the decision support tools used in other regions to identify preferred decommissioning options may not be equally applicable in Australia. Here we describe research to support risk and impact assessment for offshore decommissioning in Australia, where full removal of infrastructure is the “base case” regulatory default, but other options including partial removal and/or repurposing might provide similar or better outcomes when environmental, social, economic and seafood safety aspects are considered. Based on our review we propose an integrated framework for research needs to meet legislative requirements for decommissioning and identify research gaps that need to be addressed to inform decision-making for decommissioning in the Australian context.

show abstract

An evaluation of cumulative risks from offshore produced water discharges in the Bass Strait

Cited by 17 publications

References 36 publications

Comparison of whole effluent toxicity with substance based hazard of produced water discharged by Norwegian platforms

Comparison of whole effluent toxicity with substance based hazard of produced water discharged by Norwegian platforms

Whole Effluent Toxicity Data and Discharge Volumes to Assess the Likelihood that Environmental Risks of Offshore Produced Water Discharges Are Adequately Controlled

Decommissioning Research Needs for Offshore Oil and Gas Infrastructure in Australia

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About