Choosing Oil Spill Response Method to Protect Sensitive Coastal Areas in the Russian Arctic

Abstract

Once oil has been spilled, urgent decisions need to be made concerning response options, so that environmental impacts are kept to the minimum. Options for protection of shorelines include containment and recovery, in-situ burning, use of dispersants or just leaving the oil to dissipate and degrade naturally. All response options have both limitations and benefits which need to be compared with each other. This process is known as Net Environmental Benefit Analysis (NEBA). A NEBA for protection of coastal areas in the Russian part of the Barents Sea and the White Sea was performed by Ramboll in the framework of the UNEP/GEF project "Improvement of the emergency oil spill response system under the Arctic conditions for protection of sensitive coastal areas (case study: the Barents and the White seas)". The analysis was based on the results from modeling of spills of oil and oil products which are transported through the Barents and the White seas, oil spill sensitivity mapping as well as assessment of available oil spill response (OSR) resources in the region. The analysis shows that coastline protection methods such as using dispersants or in-situ burning lack methodological and regulatory framework and at the moment they cannot be used in the Russian part of the Barents Sea and the White Sea. The optimal available technique in case of a spill of fuel oil or crude oil will be mechanical containment and recovery (use of booms and skimmers). However, mechanical methods will be both inefficient and extremely hazardous to combat spills of gas condensate or naphtha due to high explosion and fire risk until full evaporation of the volatile fractions has taken place. In such a case it is recommended to observe the slicks and await natural dissipation. Challenging logistics in the region and harsh climatic conditions can significantly impede timely response to offshore oil spills and use of traditional mechanical recovery that creates need for adapting alternative tactics such as in-situ burning and dispersants.

Regulatory policies for using oil dispersants in the Barents Sea

“…However, saving coastal habitats from oil pollution means exposing organisms in the water column to the high concentrations of the dispersed oil: one location, habitat or group of species benefit at the expense of another. Getting the correct balance is difficult, and conflicts inevitably arise which need to be resolved in the best practicable manner (Lunel 2001;Belkina 2013). Trade-offs must be thoroughly considered in each single case through a process known as net environmental benefit analysis (NEBA).…”

“…The Helsinki Convention allows the use of dispersants only with very strict limitations due to the shallow water depths and limited water exchange in the Baltic Sea (Steen & Findlay 2008;Lampela & Jolma 2011). There are no comparable Russian or Norwegian recommendations relating to the use of dispersants in the Barents Sea (Belkina 2013). The Joint Contingency Plan stipulates that ''the existing national decision making process of each Party will be followed to determine whether dispersants or other chemicals will be used to respond to an oil pollution incident.…”

“…Dispersants are considered to be supplemental to mechanical methods depending on the spill scenario (Belkina 2013). Policy for dispersants use in Russia is outlined in the Regulations on Oil Spill Dispersants Application as of October 2005 (CNIIMF 2005).…”

“…The lack of a well-established approval procedure could result in a long and unclear permitting process in each oil spill case. While time is spent getting the authorities' approval, the window of opportunity for applying dispersants can be lost (Chernoplekov & Kram 2005;Belkina 2013). …”

“…Oil spill emergency systems in Norway and in the Russian Arctic were previously studied by Sarkova et al (2010), Ivanova & Sydnes (2010), Ivanova (2011), Sydnes & Sydnes (2011 and Belkina (2013). Nevertheless, regulations for using dispersants in a transboundary context in the Barents Sea have not been subject to much academic research.…”