1 of 8

White Paper

U.S. Arctic Research Commission Recommends Steps to Expanded 

U.S. Funding for Arctic/Subarctic Oil Spill Research

May 26, 2010 – FINAL DRAFT

Summary

The U.S. Arctic Research Commission (USARC) recommends steps that the United States 

government should take to invigorate oil spill research in the United States, and specifically emphasizes 

the growing need for more effective spill prevention and response in the Arctic region. The risk of oil 

spills will likely increase if the anticipated increase in offshore energy exploration and production is 

realized. The challenges of such exploration are compounded by the projected growth of Arctic shipping, 

and by exploration that is occurring further offshore, in deeper waters, and in a marine environment 

characterized by a changing climate and concomitant sea ice conditions. The promise of a rigorous and 

coordinated national research program on oil spills, made in the Oil Pollution Act of 1990, after the 

Exxon Valdez disaster, has fallen short. The current spill-related disaster in the Gulf of Mexico makes this 

white paper all the more timely and should result in greater consideration of our proposed actions. The 

USARC has worked closely with the Interagency Coordinating Committee on Oil Pollution Research

(ICCOPR), stakeholders, and the public to develop ideas on this subject that we have integrated into this 

white paper.

This paper recommends several priority actions:

 1) Government should update national and regional research plans as mandated by OPA

90 and should fund those plans, as authorized, through the $2.7 billion Oil Spill Liability 

Trust Fund (OSLTF), which is replenished by an eight cents per barrel tax on crude oil 

produced in or imported to the United States.1 The Interagency Coordinating Committee 

on Oil Pollution Research (ICCOPR) is the leader of this federal research effort, as 

prescribed by law;

 2) The “endowment” funding for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 

(NOAA)-chaired Arctic/subarctic focused spill research program created in OPA 90, the 

Prince William Sound Oil Spill Recovery Institute, should also be expanded and serve as 

a funding model for the national ICCOPR program; 

 3) There should be increased funding to understand the basic ecological structure and 

populations of key indicator species in the Arctic. These include species important for 

subsistence and, in general, to the ecosystem;

 4) While planning research and development objectives, funding them, and reviewing 

the results, federal agencies should employ a rigorous and thorough stakeholder 

consultation process; and

 1

 26 U.S.C. 4611 (c) (2) (B)
2 of 8

 5) NOAA should co-Chair ICCOPR, along with the USCG, as NOAA has significant 

experience in directly conducting scientific research and in overseeing research 

conducted by NOAA-sponsored research entities.

Background

The Arctic has particularly acute needs to improve oil spill prevention and response. Unique risks 

in the North include protracted darkness, cold, variable ice conditions and powerful storms. These

complicate prevention and response efforts for spills on land and in ice-covered waters. Fundamental

baseline scientific information is lacking for living resources in the much of the region, and basic 

biological aspects, such the ecology of the area, and the spatial habitat of flora and fauna that might be at 

risk from spills are poorly known. Information is also required on the effects of oil on wildlife and on 

effective response intervention. Despite these limitations, the Arctic is an area of increasing opportunity 

for both energy exploration and marine shipping. A 2008 USGS assessment2 estimated that 13% of the 

world’s undiscovered oil and 30% of its undiscovered gas lies within the Arctic. All five Arctic Ocean 

coastal states and Iceland have offshore exploration or production programs underway. There are 

currently over 600 active leases in Alaskan outer continental shelf (OCS) waters. A 2009 Arctic Marine 

Shipping Assessment, endorsed by the eight-nation Arctic Council, projects greater use of the Arctic 

Ocean by mariners. Over time, such shipping will initially serve communities and resource development, 

and may ultimately provide trans-Arctic “shortcut” routes for global shipping.

As the U.S., Russia, Canada, Greenland, Iceland, and Norway all proceed with plans for highArctic oil and gas exploration, political and legal requests for improved spill response capability are on 

the rise. The current oil spill disaster in the Gulf of Mexico only amplifies the importance and the need for 

action. In 2007, North Slope Borough Mayor, Edward Itta, said, “We oppose offshore [drilling] until 

somebody proves to us they can clean up an oil spill in the Arctic.”3 Though his views have tempered 

recently, the fear of oil spills impacting subsistence resources is very much alive in the mind of the public 

inhabiting a region in which response capacity is minimal and fraught with difficulty. It’s not surprising 

that representatives of the oil and gas industry argue that, with the appropriate precautions, the risks of oil 

spills are sufficiently low to enable safe, secure, and reliable exploration and production of offshore 

energy. Nevertheless, in communicating to the USARC, these same industry representatives, in the U.S., 

Canada, and Norway, express widespread agreement and support for increased research and development 

in spill prevention and response.

Federal research on Arctic oil spill prevention and response is currently undertaken primarily by 

the U.S. Coast Guard (USCG), the Department of the Interior’s Minerals Management Service (MMS), 

NOAA’s Coastal Response Research Center (CRRC), the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and 

the Prince William Sound Oil Spill Recovery Institute (PWS OSRI). At least two federal interagency 

committees have been established by law to coordinate these activities: the Interagency Arctic Research 

Policy Committee (IARPC), established by the Arctic Research and Policy Act of 1984, which 

coordinates planning for all U.S. Arctic research programs throughout the government, and the ICCOPR, 

established in the Oil Pollution Act of 1990.4 IARPC is chaired by the National Science Foundation

(NSF); ICCOPR is chaired by the USCG.

 2

 Circum-Arctic Resource Appraisal: Estimates of Undiscovered Oil and Gas North of the Arctic Circle 

(2008). < http://energy.usgs.gov/arctic/>. See specifically “Slide Presentation.” 3

 Ipsen, Beth. “Residents voice opposition to Shell’s offshore drilling.” Pacific Environment, 19 April 

2007. <http://www.pacificenvironment.org/article.php?id=2340> 4

 Oil Pollution Act of 1990, 101 H.R. 1465, P.L. 101-380. <http://thomas.loc.gov/cgibin/bdquery/z?d101:h.r.01465:/>.
3 of 8

Recent dialogue between the USARC and the ICCOPR has highlighted several “themes of 

importance.” These relate to funding, Arctic-specific response (including defining the area in question, 

necessary baseline environmental research, unique conditions, such as ice-covered waters, and unique 

logistics), infrastructure capabilities, national priorities, opportunities for cooperation and collaboration

between agencies and other stakeholder groups, use of “spills of opportunity” and controlled burns as 

research tools, building the next generation of researchers and keeping abreast of industry research and 

development (R&D) reports with specific emphasis on the efforts of the International Petroleum Industry 

Environmental Association (IPIECA) which currently has a task force developing a prioritized list of 

additional research and technology projects to further advance oil spill preparedness in Arctic locations. 

We hope that, with the adoption of a regular ICCOPR meeting schedule, these themes will be addressed 

in crafting a new national research program.

The USARC, under its authority to establish national policy, priorities, and goals for Arctic 

research, has long supported an appropriate basic and applied research program to find better methods to 

prevent and respond to oil spills in the Arctic region. We were asked by the State of Alaska to recommend 

that priorities meet natural resource management needs and the needs established by regulatory processes 

for contingency planning5. The Commission published Oil Spill Response in Ice-Covered Waters in 2004,

6

 in which we found that “consistent long-term funding is needed for developing and improving response 

options for dealing with accidental oil spills in ice-covered waters.” Following the 1989 Exxon Valdez oil 

spill and during the legislative consideration of the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 (OPA 90), USARC 

supported the creation of the Oil Spill Recovery Institute.7 USARC recently helped the U.S. complete the 

Arctic Marine Shipping Assessment,

8

 in which the U.S., along with the seven other Arctic nations, agreed 

on the need for more research.9 The Commission also worked with the Congress, the State of Alaska, and 

the USCG to encourage an oil spill risk assessment in the Aleutian Islands. We co-sponsored a CRRC

workshop10 and a U.S.-Canada workshop,11 and visited the Joint Industry Program at SINTEF on oil in 

ice, which explored new spill mitigation strategies.12 Finally, from a local perspective, the Commission 

recognizes and supports the call for in-situ spill scenario testing promulgated by Mayor Itta and others. 

Integration of traditional knowledge into spill prevention and response efforts and oil spill-related social 

science research, essential to the determination of impacts, are also of great importance. 

 5

 Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation, Division of Spill Prevention and Response, USARC 

Oil Spill White Paper comments, March 5, 2010. 6

 Oil Spill Response in Ice-Covered Waters (2004). < http://www.arctic.gov/publications/oil_in_ice.pdf>. 7

 Oil Spill Recovery Institute. <http://www.pws-osri.org>. 8 Arctic Marine Shipping Assessment 2009 Report, Arctic Council, April 2009. 

http://arcticportal.org/pame/pame-document-library/progress-reports-to-senior-arcticofficials/olgaamsa2009report.pdf. 9

 The AMSA report is the result of a four-year, multinational-led project that was subsequently adopted in 

the 2009 Tromsø Declaration, a set of guidelines for the Arctic Council during the next two years that was 

ratified on April 29 by the eight Arctic states, including Deputy Secretary of State James Steinberg, who 

led the U.S delegation. Among many other findings, the AMSA report states that the “current lack of 

infrastructure” in the Arctic makes it more difficult to respond to spills because of the Arctic’s “vast 

geographic distances in various seasonal and climactic circumstances” (187).

10 Opening the Arctic Seas: Envisioning Disasters and Framing Solutions. Held March 18-20, 2008, and 

sponsored by the Coastal Response Research Center at the University of New Hampshire. 

<http://www.crrc.unh.edu/workshops/arctic_spill_summit/arctic_summit_report_final.pdf>. 11 Northern Oil and Gas Research Forum: Current Status and Future Directions in the Beaufort Sea, North 

Slope and Mackenzie Delta. Held in Anchorage, Alaska, October 28-30, 2009. 12 The Joint Industry Program for Oil in Ice, Selskapet for Industriell og Teknisk Forskning ved norges 

tekniske hoegskole (The Foundation for Scientific and Industrial Research at the Norwegian Institute of 

Technology), <http://www.sintef.no/Projectweb/JIP-Oil-In-Ice>.
4 of 8

These priorities, and the actions that they support, are timely. If the debate on offshore 

exploration in America’s Arctic, specifically the Beaufort and Chukchi Seas, was not enough to 

make these proposals timely, the 2010 blowout in the Gulf of Mexico is. This disaster has the 

potential to cause severe environmental and economic effects in the Southeastern United States, 

despite the fact that it happened in a temperate region with substantial and proximal spill response 

infrastructure. We hope now the United States will commit to funding a long-term, appropriate 

and robust spill research program that also contains a component that focuses on Arctic waters.

Despite the growing need for such research, and the glaring absence of it, as revealed in 

the ongoing Gulf of Mexico spill, much of the funding authorized in OPA 90 has expired. Oil 

pollution effects research, regional research programs, demonstration projects in New York and 

New Jersey, Los Angeles and Long Beach, and New Orleans, and a joint program from the 

Department of Commerce and the EPA to monitor the environmental effects of oil discharges 

have all lost funding authorization in the recent past. Although improvements are needed in both 

the ability to clean up oil spilled under ice and the detection of thin oil slicks trapped under ice in 

the Arctic and sub-Arctic regions, little progress has been made over the last two decades13. 

Recovery statistics for mechanical response techniques are similarly disappointing. Improvements

are needed in areas such as health and human safety concerns (getting response personnel safely 

to spill sites), operability of equipment in arctic conditions, and transport of equipment from 

populated areas to remote spill sites. Concerns surrounding the environmental effects of in situ

burning, chemical dispersants and herding agents remain. Though some data exist, additional 

research is needed in all of these areas.

From the existing arctic/cold water response research, the “State of the Art” is defined by 

technical reports and in conference proceedings that do not always meet the higher standards of 

"peer review." Much of what has been investigated has been published in technical reports (“gray 

literature”), not subjected to peer review, and not readily available to researchers and the public 

who might benefit from it. The Commission encourages the ICCOPR to endorse the practice of 

publishing high quality, peer-reviewed research related to oil spill response and prevention, as 

feedback has shown this to be a necessary part of gaining the trust of stakeholder groups in 

research of this nature.

In a more favorable light, some research efforts are being conducted on priority issues, 

most recently by the SINTEF organization, in cooperation with various stakeholder groups. We 

applaud these efforts and encourage transparency in the conduct of the research and in the broad 

distribution of the results. We look forward to learning more about the group’s progress when the 

final report is released in the near future.

Despite these recent efforts, the Commission concludes that federal oil spill research efforts for 

Arctic conditions are fragmented, uncoordinated, under-funded, and in dire, immediate need of 

improvement.

Commission Recommendations

To this end, the Commission proposes the following coordinated actions among the executive 

branch, the Congress, the State of Alaska and its municipalities, industry, academia and other stakeholder 

groups:

 13 2006 MMS Svalbard Experimental Spill to Study Spill Detection and Oil Behavior in Ice
5 of 8

1. Strengthen interagency planning and coordination. The ICCOPR created by 

OPA 90 should begin to meet, regularly, in a transparent fashion and with a regular 

agenda to develop justification for an appropriate level of national funding for oil 

spill research. It should involve state environmental agencies, industry and academic 

institutions, as it did in the early 1990s and ICCOPR needs to produce a regularly

updated research and development program plan. It should be prioritized to reduce 

the greatest risks in the chain of oil exploration, production, transport and use. 

Notices of meetings, minutes and agendas should be posted online for the public to 

see. Congress should exercise its oversight and the Office of Science and 

Technology Policy (OSTP) and should exercise its coordination powers to ensure 

the research provisions of OPA 90 are followed. We recommend that ICCOPR 

establish a Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA)-governed advisory committee 

comprised of a general advisory arm (involving academic and other non-federal 

members) and a scientific advisory arm (involving academic and industry members, 

and others based on their scientific or technical expertise). This would help leverage 

public-private partnerships and promote stronger cooperation with nongovernmental researchers and may help build trust among stakeholders. With the 

expertise from advisory committee members, federal officials and the nation would 

have access to information and advice on a broad range of issues affecting ICCOPR

policies and programs. The public, in return, would be afforded an opportunity to 

participate actively in the ICCOPR decision-making process.

2. Create and fund a regional plan specific to the Arctic. The Commission 

appreciates the fact that as we crafted this white paper, the members of 

ICCOPR met in Anchorage, Alaska, on March 4, 2010 with the Commission and 

Commission experts to review oil spill research needs in the Arctic. A day later, 

ICCOPR chair Capt. Anthony Lloyd joined the Commission in a public discussion 

of this paper’s recommendations, and on April 13, 2010, the Commission received 

additional written comments from ICCOPR. 

The law sets out, in OPA 90 and in the Arctic Research and Policy Act, the means for 

research planning. Given the significant potential of offshore oil and gas in 

America’s Arctic, an Alaska-specific research plan should be developed for 

presentation to both ICCOPR and the IARPC. IAPRC has already assigned the 

drafting of a “civil infrastructure research” plan to the U.S. Army Corps of 

Engineers, and an Arctic spill research plan could become part of that work product.

Regarding the development of an Alaska-region research plan for oil spill research, 

ICCOPR should work closely with other interagency research entities created by 

Congress and based in Alaska. One such entity is the Prince William Sound Oil Spill 

Recovery Institute (OSRI) which has already done much of the groundwork. OSRI 

provides public funding for Arctic/Subarctic spill research. The board of directors to 

OSRI, and their scientific advisory committee includes representatives from a broad 

cross section of federal agencies, the State of Alaska and the general public. The 

Commission met with the OSRI board in February, 2010, to discuss this proposal and 

the matter is to be given further consideration at their upcoming meeting. 
6 of 8

Other Congressionally chartered research or spill response entities that should be 

involved include the members of the Regional Response Team for Alaska, the North 

Pacific Research Board, the North Slope Science Initiative, Regional Citizens 

Advisory Councils, the Arctic Institute of North America, and the Alaska Ocean 

Observing System. Additionally, Alaska coastal municipalities, the University of 

Alaska, and the University of New Hampshire’s NOAA sponsored Coastal Response

Research Center have much to add. The plan should be cognizant of, and support 

cooperation with, oil spill research programs of Arctic industry and response 

cooperatives, including IPIECA, efforts of the Arctic Council, and well-established 

efforts at SINTEF in Norway and in the Arctic and Marine Oil-spill Program 

(AMOP) sponsored by Environment Canada. This list is not meant to exclude others, 

but highlights existing infrastructure and cooperation that has made contributions so 

far. Senator Mark Begich has proposed legislation to fund research to further define 

Arctic Ocean research needs. Such a study should have an Arctic regional research 

plan to review. When a US Arctic oil spill research plan is complete, it can be 

forwarded to ICCOPR and IARPC for inclusion in both national plans. We 

recommend plan renewal at least every five years.

3. An “endowment approach” will ensure long-term funding. Given recent lease sales 

earning close to $3 billion in revenues to the U.S., other offshore development in 

Arctic/subarctic ice covered areas that will serve U.S. markets, and the increasing amount of 

shipping of all types occurring in the Arctic Ocean, USARC recommends a research funding 

level of $30 to $50 million per year, for a national program, with $8-10 million per year 

dedicated to Alaska. This work would cover both the baseline biological research required in 

the Arctic as well as aggressively improve research, development, and on-water (in-situ) 

experimentation of spill response in ice-covered conditions. Support for oiled wildlife 

response research and practices is also needed, as is additional funding specific to 

laboratory-based R&D for spill response tactics. Oil spill research and development needs 

long-term funding continuity and commitment to facilities and people, particularly in the 

Arctic. An attached amendment to OPA 90 (Annex 1) would create a funding stream from 

the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund (OSLTF)14 and be spent through a competitive program

managed by ICCOPR agencies. Besides the “endowment approach”, Congress could 

authorize an appropriate amount of funding from the OSTLF to go to oil spill research: by 

annual appropriation. The built-in “endowment” approach is now used to fund research and 

oil tank upgrade/replacement work by OSRI and the Denali Commission.

4. The Commission has considered the need for new legislation in the following areas:

a. The aforementioned “endowment approach.” Support appropriate authorizations 

needed for the OSLTF to maintain a competitive research program, involving 

industry and academic applicants with local stakeholders.

b. Support for increasing the “endowment” fund for the OSRI by approximately $12 

million for inflation proofing, as is now contained in S. 1194.

 14 The Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund was established by section 9509 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 

(26 U.S.C. 9509).
7 of 8

c. Support for Senator Mark Begich’s initiative, S. 1564, to fund research to review 

research needs in the areas of spill response and prevention and to investigate the 

utility of Response Gap Analysis research. We recommend the generation of a “State 

of the Science” report from these efforts to be compiled via a joint IARPC and 

ICCOPR effort followed by external peer-review. This report would analyze existing 

information, define best management practices (BMPs) and use these data as a basis 

for defining new R&D priorities.

d. Expanding the membership of the Interagency Oil Pollution Research 

Coordinating Committee to include OSRI, CRRC, industry, state, local and academic 

members, and tying the ICCOPR’s work to that of the White House –chaired 

National Science and Technology Council. Additionally, NOAA should co-Chair 

ICCOPR, along with the USCG, as NOAA has significant experience in directly 

conducting scientific research and in overseeing research conducted by NOAAsponsored research entities.

e. Allowing the Environmental Protection Agency and other appropriate regulators 

the ability to waive restrictions that have so far prevented on-water testing of oil 

spills in the waters of the United States. Legislation could also encourage “spills of 

opportunity” to be used to test new response techniques.

f. Directing the Department of Justice to see that fines and penalties for oil spills are 

allocated to further support research.
8 of 8

Annex 1

Proposed Amendment to Increase Oil Spill Research Funding

The proposed amendment would fund the Oil Pollution Research and Development 

Program coordinated by the Interagency Coordinating Committee on Oil Pollution Research (33 

U.S.C. 2761(c)) with annual interest earned on a $1 billion investment from the Oil Spill Liability 

Trust Fund established by 26 U.S.C. 2509. The purpose of this amendment is to create a 

dedicated funding stream for coordinated oil spill research without requiring new appropriations. 

It is important for the Committee to expand its research funding and coordination efforts as oil 

exploration, shipping, transportation and other forms of commerce in Arctic waters increase in 

the coming years. The proposed amendment also modifies the existing statute to require agencies 

that are members of the Committee to spend Program funds on grants and cooperative agreements 

with independent entities including universities, research institutions, industry, and state and 

foreign governments to the maximum extent practicable.

1) Purpose and Awarding of Grants

Section 2761(c)(10) of title 33, United States Code, is amended by 

striking “may” from the first sentence and replacing it with “shall to the extent 

practicable” and by inserting “joint industry programs, pilot projects financed 

jointly with state or foreign governments,” before “and other persons.” Section 

2761(c)(10) is further amended by inserting after the first paragraph the 

following:

“(a) Competitive awards. Contracts, cooperative agreements, and grants 

entered into under this section shall to the extent practicable be awarded on a 

competitive basis. Applications for awards will be subject to scientific merit 

review (peer review) and will be evaluated based on criteria developed by the 

Interagency Committee.”

2) Funding

Section 2761(f) of title 33, United States Code, is amended by striking 

paragraph (f) and inserting in lieu thereof:

“(f)(1) Amounts in the Fund shall be available without further 

appropriation and without fiscal year limitation, to carry out this section except 

for subsection (c)(8) of this section.

(2) USE OF INTEREST ONLY. The amount of funding to be made 

available annually to establish and implement the program under (c) of this 

section shall be the interest produced by the Fund’s investment of 

$1,000,000,000 and currently deposited in the Fund and invested by the Secretary 

of the Treasury in income producing securities along with other funds 

compromising the Fund. The National Pollution Funds Center shall transfer all 

such accrued interest annually to the Coast Guard beginning no more than six 

months after enactment of this Act, for the program.

(3) Congress may appropriate such additional funds as may be necessary 

to carry out this section.”