The oil and gas activities in the Arctic Environmental issues and solutions Lionel Camus & Salve Dahle Akvaplan-niva ©

Content Environmental issues Net Environmental Benefit Analysis-NEBA Environmental Effects of Arctic Oil Spills and Arctic Spill Response Technologies-OGP ©

65,000 tourists on cruise ship in 2010 in Svalbard Risk for oil pollution in the Arctic

Solutions to mitigate an oil spill © Chemical dispersant In situ burning Chemical herders Mechanical recovery Natural attenuation

Pelagic Realm Shoreline Benthic Community Transition al Ice Atmosph ere Seabird What habitat & species to protect?

What is the best response option? & How to take the best decision? Need to produce knowledge to support a Net Environmental Benefit Analysis ©

NEBA NEBA is an internationally recognised methodology Pan Arctic understanding! NEBA: the gains in value of environmental services attained by the action(s) minus the value of adverse environmental effects caused by the action(s). Goal of NEBA: balancing risks, benefits and trade- offs between competing management alternatives. ©

The OGP Arctic Oil Spill Response Technology – Joint Industry Programme © the JIP will carry out a series of advanced research projects on six key areas of research: -dispersants -environmental effects (NEBA) -trajectory modelling -remote sensing -mechanical recovery -in situ burning Shell, Total, ExxonMobile, Conocophillips, Chevron, BP, ENI, Statoil, North Caspian Operating Company, GazpromNeft

The Artic JIP OGP project Phase 1: literature review, state of the art, gaps of knowledge Phase 2: Research project, field/lab/desk, fabrication of the NEBA support tool Phase 3: Operational testing phase ©

Arctic Oil Spill Response Technology – JIP Environmental Effects of Arctic Oil Spills and Arctic Spill Response Technologies Project coordinator: Lionel Camus, Akvaplan-Niva (Norway) Shell, Total, ExxonMobile, Conocophillips, Chevron, BP, ENI, Statoil, North Caspian Operating Company, GazpromNeft

Project 2A: Resilience and sensitivity of Arctic species Project 2B: Oil weathering and biodegradation Main Project coordinator Project C Population consequences, acute vs. chronic effects Project 1 NEBA tool

International partners Akvaplan-niva, IRIS, NORUT, The Norwegian Polar Institute & the University of Tromsø (Norway) CEDRE (France) IMARES, Wageningen University & Radboud University Nijmegen (Netherlands) the University of Laval (Canada) Bigelow Laboratories (USA) COWI and the Denmark Technical University (Denmark) PINRO (Russia)

Desk work: Arctic Ecology & modelling © 1. Dynamic & Timing 2. Oil fate/mass balance 3. Modelling impact

Field work: to study impact of oil and response on ice ecosystem ©

Van MijenFjorden Field site

Treatments ©

Sampling strategy in the mesocosm

 Photo  Temperature of core sections  Weather information Ice core sampling 10 cm X cm

Laboratory: effect of chemically dispersed oil and residues of burnt oil on fish and zooplankton ©

Project 2A: Resilience and sensitivity of Arctic species Project 2B: Oil weathering and biodegradation Project 3 Population consequence s, acute vs. chronic effects Project 1 NEBA tool

VEC Attributes within EC for Chemical Dispersant Response Action - DRAFT Environmental Compartment VEC Examples Exposure Type (MOA) Exposure Potential Sensitivity of Taxa Resiliency Biodegradation Potential Fouling Respirator y contact Acute Conta ct CBB FRCACCBB AtmosphereMammals and seabirdsR SENITIVITIES APPEAR TO BE THE SAME AMONG SPECIES FOR BOTH ACUTE CONTACT AND UPTAKE AND CRITICL BODY BURDEN ASSESSMENTS FOR INVERTEBRATE AND FISH – LESS IS KNOWN ABOUT MAMMALS AND SEABIRD RESPONSES TO PETROLEUM CONTAMINANTS LowUndefined Air Water Interface Layers (SML) Mammals, seabirds, neustonic species and life stages F, R, AC Low Low to high Post volatilization - low Ice Water Interface Layers (IWL) PolynaMammals, seabirds F, R, AC, CBB Low AnnualSpring bloom speciesAC, CBB None Unknown ModerateLow Multi year Ice algae communitiesF, AC, CBBUnknownLow Pelagic <10m Copepods, krill, mammals, seabirds F, AC, CBB Low to High Moderate >10m Copepods, krill, fish, marine mammals, seabirds AC, CBBLow Low to High NA Deep Pelagic >100m Arctic cod, pelagic fish, invertebrates, marine mammals CBB Low to High NA >1000m Midwater fish and invertebrates CBBModerateNA Sediment Intertidal Bivalves, crabs, mammals, seabirds F, R, AC, CBB Low to High Low, repeat exposure likely <10m Estuarine species, fishery species, mammals, seabirds AC, CBB Low to High Moderate <100m Bivalves, crabs, mammals, seabirds AC, CBBModerateNA >1000mDeep water speciesAC, CBBLowNA

VEC Attributes within EC for IN SITU BURNING Response Action - DRAFT Environmental Compartment VEC Examples Exposure Type (MOA) Exposure Potential Sensitivity of Taxa Resiliency Biodegradation Potential Fouling Respirator y contact Acute Conta ct CBB FRCACCBB AtmosphereMammals and seabirdsR SENITIVITIES APPEAR TO BE THE SAME AMONG SPECIES FOR BOTH ACUTE CONTACT AND UPTAKE AND CRITICL BODY BURDEN ASSESSMENTS FOR INVERTEBRATE AND FISH – LESS IS KNOWN ABOUT MAMMALS AND SEABIRD RESPONSES TO PETROLEUM CONTAMINANTS LowUndefined Air Water Interface Layers (SML) Mammals, seabirds, neustonic species and life stages F, R, AC Low to high Post volatilization - low Ice Water Interface Layers (IWL) PolynaMammals, seabirds F, R, AC, CBB Low AnnualSpring bloom speciesAC, CBB None Unknown ModerateLow Multi year Ice algae communitiesF, AC, CBB UnknownLow Pelagic <10m Copepods, krill, mammals, seabirds F, AC, CBB Low to High Moderate >10m Copepods, krill, fish, marine mammals, seabirds AC, CBB Low to High NA Deep Pelagic >100m Arctic cod, pelagic fish, invertebrates, marine mammals CBB Low to High NA >1000 m Midwater fish and invertebrates CBB ModerateNA Sediment Intertid al Bivalves, crabs, mammals, seabirds F, R, AC, CBB Low to High Low, repeat exposure likely <10m Estuarine species, fishery species, mammals, seabirds AC, CBB Low to High Moderate <100m Bivalves, crabs, mammals, seabirds AC, CBBModerateNA >1000 m Deep water speciesAC, CBBLowNA

Thank you Follow the project on: