Written by the US Arctic Research Commission 

and the US Army Corps of Engineers

Cold Regions Research and Engineering Laboratory

Oil Spills in 

Arctic Waters

An Introduction and Inventory of Research Activities 

and USARC Recommendations
Contents

Introduction.........................................................................................................................1

Motivation...........................................................................................................................1

Outline................................................................................................................................2

Scope ..................................................................................................................................2

Funding...............................................................................................................................3

US Federal Research............................................................................................................4

Industry Research ................................................................................................................4

Test Facilities .......................................................................................................................4

Inventory of Research Projects on Oil Spills in Arctic Waters...............................................5

Prior Research Provides a Foundation..................................................................................6

Funding of Oil Spill Research ..............................................................................................7

Federal Arctic Marine Oil Spill Research Efforts ...............................................9

Department of the Interior | MMS, BOEMRE, ONRR, BOEM, BSEE, USGS ..........................9

Department of Commerce | NOAA....................................................................................12

Department of Defense | USACE, USN..............................................................................13

Department of Homeland Security | USCG .......................................................................14

Other Federal Agencies .....................................................................................................15

Coordination of Federal R&D Efforts ................................................................16

Other Arctic Marine Oil Spill R&D Efforts ..........................................................18

Nonprofit Organizations....................................................................................................18

Industry (US and Non-US) .................................................................................................19

Canada..............................................................................................................................22

Private Consultants............................................................................................................24

Other Current Activities of Interest and Published R&D Plans............................................25

USARC Recommendations .........................................................................................28

Spill Delineation and Mitigation, Including Containment and Countermeasures................28

Oil Spill Response Technologies for Cleanup and Recovery of Oil.....................................29

Data Management Tools Currently Being Developed, and the Fate of Oil 

and Its Effects on the Environment ..............................................................................29

General .............................................................................................................................30

Cover photo: Oil rig in the Beaufort Sea. 

Photo credit: Ocean Photography.
1

Introduction

This “white paper” is a compilation of research on oil spills 

in ice-covered Arctic waters and recommendations for future 

work. We identify research entities in governmental, nongovernmental, industrial, and private organizations, and provide 

an inventory of research projects. Given that much work is 

currently in progress, we provide only a snapshot in time, and 

an introduction to the topic.

While an in-depth evaluation of the research results, a prioritization of research and development gaps, and a critical examination of the connection between research and oil 

spill response capability are undoubtedly important topics, 

they are beyond the scope 

of this effort. We hope that 

our foray into this subject 

encourages others to address 

these critical topics. Finally, 

the US Arctic Research 

Commission (USARC) 

closes this paper with recommendations for additional research on the 

topic of oil spills in icecovered Arctic waters.

Motivation

We wrote this paper for several reasons. First, because interest in oil and gas development in the Arctic is on the rise, as 

is marine shipping, the likelihood of oil spills is increasing. 

Climate change, the retreat of Arctic ice, and global economic 

demand suggest that oil and gas prospects will be explored and 

eventually developed on the outer continental shelf of Alaska 

and in remote, icy waters of other Arctic nations. Increased 

Arctic marine transportation, and greater oil and gas exploration and production, amplify the possibility of oil spills.

Prior exploration and limited development have occurred in 

this region, but recent spills in other areas, such as the Gulf 

of Mexico and the North Sea, have heightened awareness 

and concern regarding the adequacy of spill prevention and 

cleanup techniques in ice-infested waters, including those 

characterized by intact sea ice sheets, broken ice conditions, 

and slushy conditions.

Second, we attempt to address the basic question, “What 

research is being done to prevent or respond to oil spills in 

the Arctic?” As it turns out, several entities are engaged in 

this activity, including domestic and foreign governments 

(federal and state), industry, nonprofit organizations, and 

private consultants.

The third reason is timeliness. Royal Dutch Shell has demonstrated a long-term interest in the outer continental shelf 

of Alaska, and had planned, in summer 2012, substantial 

Arctic exploratory drilling operations on two lease holdings 

in the Beaufort and Chukchi Seas. Because of several challenges, including damage to a spill containment dome (aka 

“capping stack”) during a testing accident, Shell decided, on 

September  17, 2012, to postpone deep (beyond 1400 feet) 

drilling in the Alaskan Arctic for at least a year.

Fourth, because oil spill preparedness is a nuanced issue, 

where the biases of supporters and detractors sometimes lead 

to selective highlighting, which may confuse the public, we 

try to present here an unbiased inventory of research, as well 

as some impartial recommendations on the topic.

Some praised Shell’s significant preparation efforts and safety 

plans, but others raised questions about the feasibility of oil 

spill response in remote regions. Spills in ice-infested waters 

and deployment of cleanup technologies pose many challenges. Advocates of offshore oil exploration and development 

in the Arctic point to the shallow-water locations of these 

low-pressure-formation prospects and the lack of problems 

during past drilling efforts. Beyond the obvious logistical and 

Written by the US Arctic reSeArch commiSSion 

And the US Army corpS of engineerS

cold regionS reSeArch And engineering lAborAtory

oil SpillS in 

An 

Arctic W

introduction and 

AterS inventory of research Activities 

and USArc recommendations
2

Outline

The paper begins with a summary of federal efforts in three 

topic areas: (1) spill demarcation and mitigation, including 

containment and countermeasures; (2) oil spill response technologies for cleanup and recovery of oil, including affiliated 

data management tools; and (3) the fate of oil and its effects 

on the environment.

Following this summary is a discussion of the work of the 

Interagency Coordinating Committee on Oil Pollution 

Research (ICCOPR), whose mission is to coordinate oil 

pollution research among the federal agencies. The third 

section describes research efforts by other federal and state 

agencies, universities, and private entities. The final section 

highlights nonfederal activities of interest, and plans for additional research. 

The white paper focuses primarily on research from the last 

decade, but it also references prior results, back to the 1980s, 

because current initiatives build largely on that body of work. 

USARC’s recommendations for future research are included 

at the end of the paper.

Scope

Our task is to develop a list of organizations and entities that 

are conducting research on oil spills in Arctic waters and an 

inventory of research projects on that subject. We also provide a brief introduction to the research and the context 

within which it is conducted.

With regard to scope, we must also be clear as to what is not 

included in this white paper. Importantly, we stress that a 

scientific and technological assessment of the quality of the 

prior research results is beyond USARC’s immediate abilities. 

Determining, in detail, whether research and development 

projects produced valuable results and measurable advances, 

or not, is certainly an important task, and one that should be 

undertaken by qualified researchers.

To this end, we note that the following text from the draft 

implementation strategy for National Ocean Policy (http://

www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/microsites/ceq/

infrastructure challenges of Arctic exploration and development, opponents cite the paucity of techniques for effective 

cleanup of spills in and under ice, and the uncertain fate and 

transport of oil in the Arctic Ocean. Concerns have also been 

raised about the likelihood of long-term impacts on the environment, on the subsistence culture of Alaska Natives and 

other local inhabitants, and about their dependence on a 

clean and healthy ecosystem.

Given the continuing discussion about oil and gas development in the Arctic, it is important to review and attempt to 

answer this question, “What research is being done on oil 

spills in ice-covered waters?”

Oil spill response sea curtain staged in Dutch Harbor, Alaska, in 

front of the USCG Cutter Healy, September 2012. Photo credit: 

John Farrell.
3

Funding

The allocation of funding for research is a fundamental issue. 

With respect to government funding for oil spill research, 

we rely on a report from the US Government Accountability 

Office (Report GAO-11-319, Federal Oil and Gas, March 2011, 

http://www.gao.gov/assets/320/317056.pdf) that cited a total 

cumulative expenditure of $164 million for the 11 years from 

2000 to 2010 inclusive. Importantly, we readily acknowledge 

that some advances in oil spill response science, developed 

in non-Arctic regions, can certainly be applied to the Arctic.

Nevertheless, this expenditure ($164M) is significantly less 

than the funding dedicated to advance technology associated 

with oil exploration and production. It’s also significantly 

less than what the government earns through lease sales. 

For example, compared to this amount, the 2008 Minerals 

Management Service (MMS) lease sale in the Chukchi Sea 

netted $2.7 billion, and Shell Oil is reported to have spent a 

total of $4.5 billion, thus far, in leasing costs and in preparation to explore their lease holdings in this area and in the 

Beaufort Sea.

In reviewing the manner in which the federal government 

funds research, USARC sees a significant shortcoming with 

respect to support for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration (NOAA). We underscore the fact that NOAA 

is the only federal agency with oil spill preparedness, response, 

national_ocean_policy_draft_implementation_plan_01-12-

12.pdf) assigns such a duty to the US Coast Guard and the 

Bureau of Ocean Energy Management: “...assessments of 

current scientific research as well as traditional knowledge 

related to the impacts of resource development and pollution 

applicable to the Arctic.”

We also chose not to address the connection between research 

and the capacity to use research results in an actual oil spill 

response. And we do not assess the adequacy of in-place 

infrastructure, which is clearly critical to such a response. 

Although widely recognized as a critical and overarching 

concern, issues surrounding the regional response and recovery requirements, as well as systems and capacity, are topics 

we hope will be addressed by knowledgeable experts, perhaps 

motivated by this paper.

and restoration responsibilities under the Oil Pollution Act 

of 1990 (OPA90) that does not receive a direct appropriation 

from the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund (OSLTF) for research 

and development. USARC strongly recommends that NOAA 

receive funding from the OSLTF.

Research funding should be provided for both basic research 

(commonly academic) and applied. While basic research has 

led to greater understanding, many other improvements in 

oil spill prevention and response have resulted from actual 

testing (both in the field and in test facilities), demonstrations and experimental trials, drills, literature and technology 

reviews, and hands-on application and experience. 

Funding should be directed to projects that show the greatest promise for results that will improve spill prevention and 

response. Basic research should demonstrate excellent intellectual merit, while applied research should also be rigorously 

vetted and should be performance-based.

In short, USARC calls for greater funding for research to prevent and respond to oil spills in the Arctic. As George Orwell 

said, “We have now sunk to a depth at which restatement of 

the obvious is the first duty of intelligent men.”
4

Test Facilities

US test facilities support research on the fate of oil in icecovered waters. Two examples are the Ohmsett Facility 

in Leonardo, New Jersey, and the refrigerated facilities at 

the US Army Corps of Engineers Cold Region Research 

and Engineering Laboratory (CRREL) in Hanover, 

New Hampshire.

Industry Research

The oil and gas industry also conducts research on oil spill 

prevention and response in Arctic waters. A recent example is 

noteworthy. In January 2012, the International Association of 

Oil & Gas Producers (OGP) announced an Oil Spill Response 

Technology Joint Industry Program (JIP) focusing on oil spill 

recovery in ice and spill response in Arctic marine waters. 

Below, we discuss this JIP in detail.

One of the first tasks of this JIP has been to collect and review 

the current state of knowledge on the subject. Some of the 

relevant reports they identified include:

•	 American Petroleum Institute and the Joint Industry

Program on Oil Spill Recovery in Ice, Spill Response in the 

Arctic Offshore, 2012, http://www.api.org/~/media/Files/

EHS/Clean_Water/Oil_Spill_Prevention/Spill-Responsein-the-Arctic-Offshore.ashx

•	 SINTEF, Report no. 32, Joint Industry Program on Oil Spill 

Contingency for Arctic and Ice-Covered Waters, Summary 

Report, 2010, http://www.sintef.no/project/JIP_Oil_In_

Ice/Dokumenter/publications/JIP-rep-no-32-Summaryreport.pdf

•	 Environmental Studies Research Funds, Canada, Report

No. 177, Beaufort Sea Oil Spills State of Knowledge Review 

and Identification of Key Issues, 2010, http://www.esrfunds.

org/pdf/177.pdf

US Federal Research

Arctic oil spill research conducted by the US federal government addresses environmental stewardship, marine transportation, and commercial development of natural resources. 

A small percentage of the revenue that the US government 

collects from the oil industry, through the Department of 

the Interior’s (DOI) Office of Natural Resources Revenue 

(ONRR), is invested in research.

For example, the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management 

(DOI/BOEM) conducts research on the environmental and 

economic impact of developing the resource, and the Bureau 

of Safety and Environmental Enforcement (DOI/BSEE) 

focuses on oil spill prevention, preparedness, detection, and 

cleanup. Other examples are described below, and in an 

online table that accompanies this white paper (http://www.

arctic.gov/publications/oil_spills_tableA.pdf). Governmentfunded research initiatives are primarily solicited via the 

Broad Agency Announcement (BAA) process, but other 

mechanisms, including research conducted within agencies, 

are used as well.

Ohmsett provides independent and objective performance 

testing of full-scale oil spill response equipment and marine 

renewable energy systems (wave energy conversion devices), 

and improves technologies through research and development. “OHMSETT” (http://www.ohmsett.com) was originally an acronym for Oil and Hazardous Materials Simulated 

Environmental Test Tank. As oil is the only hazardous 
5

For each project, we provide a description that includes the 

subdiscipline of research, relevant website links, a description of the project, the name of the organization that conducted the research, the name of the sponsor, the year of the 

study, the objective, and the name of the research facility 

(e.g., Ohmsett), if one was used.

Also online, courtesy of Mr. Larry Dietrick, Director of the 

Division of Spill Prevention and Response in the State of 

Alaska’s Department of Environmental Conservation, is a 

table of the 45 project titles and descriptions for initiatives 

that have been supported by State of Alaska between the 

years 2000 and 2010 (http://www.arctic.gov/publications/

oil_spills_tableB.pdf). Note that these projects include 

Arctic and non-Arctic initiatives, as well as terrestrial and 

marine environments.

Inventory of Research Projects on Oil Spills in Arctic Waters

Importantly, these facilities are critically valuable research 

facilities because it is currently illegal in the United States to 

conduct in situ field testing of procedures to respond to oil 

spills by intentionally spilling oil in the natural environment.

material now tested, the name is now just “Ohmsett,” and it 

is referred to as “The National Oil Spill Response Research & 

Renewable Energy Test Facility.” It is owned by the US Navy, 

and is maintained and operated by BSEE through a contract 

with MAR Inc. The facility conducts tests with oil under various simulated sea states.

CRREL, which has expertise in cold regions science and technology, has refrigerated facilities to evaluate oil behavior in and 

under ice. Tests conducted at CRREL are summarized at http://

www.crrel.usace.army.mil/innovations/oil_spill_research. The 

proximity of the two research facilities enables collaboration 

on projects, leveraging the expertise of research staff.

Currently, Alaska Clean Seas, a not-for-profit oil spill response 

cooperative whose membership includes oil and pipeline 

companies operating on the North Slope of Alaska, is collaborating with CRREL to design an oil and ice testing tank at 

Prudhoe Bay, Alaska. Two of the design criteria are: nonferrous construction to minimize electromagnetic interference 

for testing oil detection antennae, and adequate depth to test 

remotely and autonomously operated vehicles (ROV/AOV).

An inventory of 203 research projects on oil spills in Arctic 

waters has been compiled, and are listed in an online table 

that accompanies this white paper (http://www.arctic.gov/

publications/oil_spills_tableA.pdf). The projects, mostly 

funded by the US government, industry, and Canada, are categorized as follows:

a. Assessments and workshops (18 projects)

b. Fate and behavior of oil (5)

c. Environmental effects (3)

d. Detection, mapping and tracking (33)

e. Mitigation (116)

f. Testing standards (8)

g. Recent field demonstrations (post 2000) (9)

h. Miscellaneous (11)

Schematic of Ohmsett, the National Oil Spill Response Research 

& Renewable Energy Test Facility, in Leonardo, New Jersey.
6

Prior Research Provides a Foundation

After consulting a variety of sources, including discussions 

with partners, reading the peer-reviewed and “gray” literature, tracking requests for proposals, and attending conferences, it is clear that a considerable amount of work has been 

done, and continues to be, and in a variety of research areas, 

to understand the behavior and fate of oil in ice-covered 

waters. This understanding provides a credible foundation for 

applied research and engineering designs aimed at minimizing the risk of an accident, and, should one occur, developing 

more effective response and recovery techniques.

The breadth and value of this body of knowledge may be 

underappreciated by the general public, and if so, greater 

efforts need to be made to communicate the value of this 

information to the layperson and to media representatives.

Nonetheless, three significant areas deserve additional 

research: preparedness, response effectiveness, and 

damage assessment.

Preparedness

•	 Developing oil detection and mapping techniques that are

independent of ice conditions, rapidly deployable, and can 

be quickly interpreted in the field. Accurate assessment of 

the size and area of the oil spill will dictate the appropriate magnitude of the response effort. Timely assessment 

will minimize the impacted area. Techniques that need 

enhancement are satellite and airborne sensors for cursory assessment, and refined delineation via airborne and 

underwater systems.

•	 Establishing baseline environmental conditions and

assessing environmentally sensitive areas. In studies commissioned by BOEM and by various nongovernmental 

organizations, much of the Chukchi and Beaufort coasts 

have been identified as areas of heightened ecological significance. Large swaths of the shoreline zones are typically 

shallow and composed of ice-rich permafrost soils (though 

experiencing thawing in many locations). The impacts of 

crude and dispersed oil deposition on these shorelines and 

the cleanup techniques available should be assessed.

•	 Determining the practicality of using robots and ROVs/

AOVs to assist in the cleanup process. Such technology 

could improve the response effectiveness in severe weather 

conditions, dark, dirty, or dangerous situations, or in 

unstable ice conditions.

•	 Field testing and training of techniques by the responders

to assure familiarity with processes before they have to be 

deployed for a spill.

•	 Modeling of oil in, under, and within ice-infested waters.

Better determination of how oil accumulates, disperses, 

and degrades (both biologically and nonbiologically).

•	 Researching options to minimize and/or mitigate the risk

associated with vessel use and carriage of heavy-grade fuel 

oil in the Arctic.

•	 Compiling and integrating the datasets necessary for

Arctic oil spill planning, coordination, and response that 

would be used in NOAA’s Arctic Environmental Response 

Management Application (ERMA®), described below.

•	 Completing scientifically based field experiments and tests

of response tools in US Arctic waters, if permits can be 

secured. If not, continue to conduct experiments in test 

tank facilities and partner with non-US entities in Norway 

and Canada to conduct field experiments in foreign waters.

•	 Identifying resource and infrastructure shortfalls for

high-risk scenarios, and assessing strategies to address 

those shortfalls.

•	 Educating and involving stakeholders and the public on

the various detection and mitigation techniques and baseline and subsistence issues.

Response Effectiveness

•	 Improving the performance of mechanical oil recovery

systems in ice-infested water.

•	 Improving in situ burning techniques, which may minimize the volume of oil in the water.

•	 Quantifying the environmental effects of in situ burning,

including smoke and residue products, so they may be 

included in the response assessment analysis, to assist in 

deciding the best approach for remediation as a function 

of in situ conditions.

•	 Improving the effectiveness of chemical herders that have

been effective in scavenging oil from broken ice, expanding 
7

the window of opportunity for recovery, and improving 

the cleanup process. Additional research may improve the 

performance of herders in Arctic conditions, characterized 

by ice, waves, and cold water.

•	 Evaluating dispersants in Arctic conditions. Dispersants

were used extensively in the Deepwater Horizon oil spill 

cleanup. The effectiveness and toxicity of the dispersants, 

and their ability to disperse oil when injected at the source 

of submerged leaks, are topics of considerable research, but 

not under conditions that exist in polar regions.

•	 Evaluating the gaps in informational, logistical, communications, and infrastructure needs that currently exist in 

responding to spills, such as those described in the March 

2008 report of the NOAA/UNH co-led Coastal Response 

Research Center (CRRC; http://www.crrc.unh.edu/

workshops/arctic_spill_summit/arctic_summit_report_

final.pdf).

Damage Assessment

•	 Undertaking research into the human dimension of spills.

What are the impacts of Arctic spills on human beings? 

Factors to consider include the health and well-being of 

first responders and of local residents exposed directly and 

indirectly to petroleum products (such as through bioaccumulation and subsistence consumption of wildlife).

•	 Determining the effects of dispersed oil on the Arctic ecosystems, with assessments of the toxicity of dispersed oil 

and dispersants on benthic flora and fauna, and, in particular, marine mammals and sea birds.

•	 Analyzing the research and data needs for the Natural

Resource Damage Assessment and Restoration 

Program (NRDA Restoration Program) process and for 

restoration projects.

Funding of Oil Spill Research

According to a recent report from the Government 

Accountability Office (GAO-11-319, March 2011), federal 

agencies that are members of ICCOPR have expended about 

$164M on oil pollution research from fiscal 2000 through 

2010 (Table 1). Most of the funds ($145M) come from the 

Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund (OSLTF) authorized by the Oil 

Pollution Act of 1990 (OPA90). OSLTF is funded by a tax 

on petroleum production and importation, originally established at $0.05 per barrel, and later increased to $0.08 in 2008.

Beyond the trust funds, agencies have spent only an additional $18M on oil pollution research in over a decade, and 

only a fraction of that on spills in ice-covered waters, an area 

that ICCOPR has identified as an important need. Clearly, 

since the Deepwater Horizon incident, expenditures have 

increased, and the expenditures in 2011 and 2012 are likely 

higher than in recent years.

We note that NOAA is only federal agency with responsibilities for oil spill preparedness, response, and restoration, 

assigned by OPA90, which does not receive a direct appropriation from the OSLTF for research and development.

We further note that the manner in which research funds are 

expended by agencies varies widely. Some agencies, seeking 

expertise from beyond their own staff, issue calls for proposals and Broad Agency Announcements, and may also use a 

peer-review process to select projects for funding. Others follow a contractual approach, or expend the funds internally, 

within the agency.

With respect to the funding of the Oil Spill Recovery Institute 

(OSRI), created by OPA90, and described below, resources for 

oil spill research are tied to the interest earned on the Exxon 

Valdez oil spill settlement. Recently, funding for research has 

been approximately $1M per year.
8

Table 1. Federal agency funding for oil pollution research, both trust and agency funds, FY 2000–2010 in $M.

agency 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 Total

BOEMRE* $7.1 $6.9 $6.8 $6.7 $7.5 $7.9 $7.5 $7.5 $7.1 $6.6 $6.2 $77.8 

USCG $4.7 $4.8 $4.8 $4.3 $4.1 $2.3 $2.8 $2.1 $2.1 $0.6 $0.7 $33.3 

EPA $1.1 $1.1 $1.1 $1.1 $1.0 $1.0 $0.9 $0.8 $0.9 $0.7 $0.6 $10.3 

NASA $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.4 $0.0 $0.0 $0.4 

Navy $4.3 $3.5 $1.2 $0.4 $0.3 $0.3 $0.2 $0.3 $0.6 $0.4 $0.6 $12.1 

NOAA $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $2.3 $2.2 $3.3 $3.2 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $11.0 

PHMSA** $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $3.4 $3.3 $2.1 $2.0 $3.4 $2.2 $2.2 $18.6 

Annual Total $17.2 $16.3 $13.9 $12.5 $18.6 $17.0 $16.8 $15.9 $14.5 $10.5 $10.3 $163.5 

*BOEMRE was formerly MMS. Expenditures include about $3M/yr for the operation and maintenance of the Ohmsett facility.

** PHMSA is Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration.

Data from the March 2011 GAO-11-319 report on federal oil and gas titled, Interagency Committee Needs to Better Coordinate 

on Oil Pollution Prevention and Response, http://www.gao.gov/assets/320/317056.pdf.
9

Federal Arctic Marine 

Oil Spill Research Efforts

Department of the Interior

• Minerals Management Service (MMS)

• Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation and Enforcement (BOEMRE)

• Office of Natural Resources Revenue (ONRR)

• Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM)

• Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement (BSEE)

• US Geological Survey (USGS)

MMS, BOEMRE, ONRR

Research programs funded by MMS, BOEMRE, BOEM, and 

BSEE are listed in an accompanying online table (http://www.

arctic.gov/publications/oil_spills_tableA.pdf).

The Minerals Management Service (MMS) was created on 

January 19, 1982, nearly 30 years after Congress passed two 

milestone Acts—the Submerged Lands Act and the Outer 

Continental Shelf (OCS) Lands Act. This date was also 

28  years after the first OCS lease sale was held. MMS was 

charged with resource management, safety, environmental 

protection, and revenue collection.

Most of the reports that analyzed the Deepwater Horizon 

disaster issued recommendations for industry and government, including changes in MMS structure and procedures. 

MMS had a broad mandate with inherently conflicting missions, and was under-resourced for the remarkable expansion 

of offshore drilling that took place over the last several decades.

On May 19, 2010, Department of Interior Secretary Salazar 

signed a Secretarial Order that separated MMS into three 

entities, the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM), 

the Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement (BSEE), 

and the Office of Natural Resources Revenue (ONRR). These 

entities oversee energy leasing, safety and environmental protection enforcement, and revenue collection, respectively. On 

June 21, 2010, MMS was renamed Bureau of Ocean Energy 

Management, Regulation, and Enforcement (BOEMRE). 

To complete the reorganization, BOEMRE was replaced by 

BOEM and BSEE on October 1, 2011.

MMS/BOEMRE has historically leveraged research funds 

with industry and others to conduct research and development of oil spill technologies in Arctic waters. From 1997 

through 2008, MMS/BOEMRE successfully developed, 

implemented, and conducted 31 projects directly related to 

Arctic oil spill response. More than 40% of these projects were 

jointly funded by state and federal government agencies, academia, private industry, and foreign governments.

The Oil Spill Response Research Program, described in the 

2009 report Arctic Oil Spill Response Research and Development 

Program: A Decade of Achievement (http://www.iccopr.

uscg.gov/iccopr/i/files/MMSArcticResearch_2009.pdf ) 

focused on remote sensing and surveillance, mechanical 

response, chemical treating agents including dispersants, and 

in situ burning. This research included conducting operational research experiments with oil in small and large test 

tanks, at sea, and in ice to test many different types of oil spill 

response technologies and methodologies.

A review of this paper by the World Wildlife Fund, published 

in December 2009 and prepared with the assistance and technical expertise from Harvey Consulting, LLC, is titled, Not So 

Fast: Some Progress in Spill Response, but US Still Ill-Prepared 

for Arctic Offshore Development. It focuses on six findings 
10

regarding oil spill response in Arctic waters, and concludes, 

“...despite progress, significant gaps remain in the availability 

of effective oil spill response tools for the Arctic.” WWF also 

called for “a response gap analysis in the Alaskan Arctic that 

would fully disclose and quantify the percentage of time during which local conditions exceed the demonstrated limits of 

spill response systems.”

We note that the Canadian federal government has conducted 

such a response gap analysis for the Canadian Beaufort 

Sea and the Canadian Davis Strait. Canada’s National 

Energy Board commissioned SL Ross Environmental 

Research for the work, and the report is available at https://

www.neb-one.gc.ca/ll-eng/livelink.exe?func=ll&objId=

702787&objAction=browse.

The Environmental Studies Program (http://www.boem.

gov/Studies) has a broad remit to inform policy decisions 

on the development of the OCS by developing, conducting, 

and overseeing scientific research efforts. By region, Alaska 

receives significant attention, and research focuses on protected and endangered species, oceanography, biology, subsistence and traditional knowledge studies, and economic 

modeling. Other studies consider the fate and effects of oil 

in ice, and remote sensing and modeling of physical and biological systems. These programs have now been distributed 

between BOEM and BSEE, as described below.

BOEM

The Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM) manages the exploration and development of the nation’s offshore 

resources. It seeks to appropriately balance economic development, energy independence, and environmental protection 

through oil and gas leases, renewable energy development, 

and environmental reviews and studies. BOEM is responsible for the Five Year OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program that 

includes assessments, inventories, and production projections. BOEM administers oil and gas lease sales and offshore 

renewable energy programs, and conducts environmental 

reviews and studies. Of particular interest to this white paper 

are the Alaska Annual Study Plans and the Alaska Region 

Ongoing Studies that divide efforts into categories of Physical 

Oceanography, Fates and Effects, Habitat and Ecology, 

Marine Mammals and Protected Species, Social Systems, 

Information Management, and Integrated Studies. The latest 

compilation of ongoing studies is on the BOEM website at

http://www.boem.gov/uploadedFiles/BOEM/Environmental_

Stewardship/Environmental_Studies/Alaska_Region/Alaska_

Studies/Alaska_Ongoing_Studies.pdf.

In addition to current studies on Arctic biological communities (e.g., fish, sea birds, benthos, and marine mammals), 

the research program includes modeling of Arctic Ocean 

meteorology, circulation patterns, currents and their tracking 

by high-frequency radar, and the location and recurrence of 

polynyas (areas of open seawater surrounded by sea ice).

The University of Alaska Coastal Marine Institute (CMI) was 

created by a cooperative agreement between the University 

of Alaska and the US Department of the Interior Minerals 

Management Service Alaska Region to study coastal topics 

associated with the development of natural gas, oil, and minerals in Alaska’s outer continental shelf. Many of the CMIfunded projects address issues related to fisheries, biomonitoring, physical oceanography, and the fate of oil. Research 

projects funded by the CMI are required to have at least 

one investigator from the University of Alaska. Cooperative 

research between University of Alaska scientists and various state agencies is also encouraged. Current research topics include movement and tracking of sea ice and polynyas, 

fish and benthic organism assessments, subsistence use, and 

effects of climate change. A full description of the CMI and 

their activities can be found at http://www.sfos.uaf.edu/cmi.

BSEE

The mission of the Bureau of Safety and Environmental 

Enforcement (BSEE) is to promote safety, protect the environment, and conserve resources offshore. To ensure that 

industry operations on the OCS incorporate the best available 

and safest technologies, BSEE attempts to enhance response 

technologies and capabilities through the Oil Spill Response 

Research (OSRR) Program. For more than 25 years, OSRR 

has funded a comprehensive and enduring research program 

to improve oil spill response technologies. The major focus 

of the program is to improve the knowledge and technologies used to detect, contain, and clean up oil spills on the 
11

US OCS. Current OSRR projects cover a wide spectrum of oil 

spill response issues and include laboratory, mesoscale, and 

full-scale field experiments. Major topic areas, some of which 

are studied at Ohmsett, include  remote sensing and detection, physical and chemical properties of crude oil, mechanical containment and recovery, chemical treating agents and 

dispersants, in situ burning, and deepwater operations.

The Ohmsett oil spill research facility, located in Leonardo, 

New Jersey, is operated and maintained by BSEE through a 

contract with MAR Inc. of Rockville, Maryland. The facility is the largest outdoor saltwater wave/tow tank facility in 

North America and is the only facility where full-scale oil 

spill response equipment testing, research, and training can 

be conducted in a marine environment with oil under controlled environmental conditions (waves and oil types). The 

tank’s wave generator creates realistic sea environments, while 

state-of-the-art data collection and video systems record test 

results. The tank has been used to test oil spill containment/

cleanup equipment and techniques, to test new designs in 

response equipment, to validate research findings, and to 

conduct training with actual oil spill response technologies. 

Partnering with CRREL, oil spills mitigation tests in iceinfested water (created using ice blocks) have been conducted 

at the Ohmsett facility. These tests include the Mechanical Oil 

Recovery in Ice-Infested Waters (MORICE) system and testing of dispersants in conjunction with a wave field. For more 

information see http://ohmsett.com/facility.html.

BSEE also operates the National Offshore Training Center with 

a curriculum that is designed to train new inspectors and to 

keep others up to date on emerging technologies and processes.

In December 2011, BSEE posted Broad Agency Announcement Number E12PS00012 for Proposed Research on Oil 

Spill Response Operations in the US Outer Continental Shelf. 

Two of the 10 topics in the BAA focused on ice and oil.

Additional helpful urls include:

•	 BSEE’s website for oil spill response research:

http://www.bsee.gov/Research-and-Training/Oil-SpillResponse-Research-(OSRR).aspx

•	 BSEE’s Arctic oil spill response projects: http://

www.bsee.gov/Research-and-Training/TechnologyAssessment-and-Research/tarprojectcategories/ArcticOil-Spill-Response-Research.aspx

•	 BSEE’s two most recent (FY12) projects: http://www.bsee.

gov/Research-and-Training/Technology-Assessmentand-Research/Project1007.aspx and http://www.bsee.gov/

Research-and-Training/Technology-Assessment-andResearch/Project1000.aspx

USGS

In order to pursue a comprehensive, science-based approach 

to energy development on the OCS, Department of Interior 

Secretary Salazar directed the US Geological Survey (USGS) 

to determine the gaps in scientific understanding of OCS 

energy development in the Arctic, particularly in the Chukchi 

and Beaufort Seas. That report was released on June 23, 

2011, and is available at http://pubs.usgs.gov/circ/1370/pdf/

circ1370.pdf. The report summarizes the large volume of 

existing scientific information, identifies where knowledge 

gaps exist, and provides initial guidance on new and continuing research that could improve decision-making. 

Among the major areas noted in the report where additional scientific research, analysis, and synthesis could reduce 

uncertainties include the following:

•	 Developing a better understanding of the effects of climate

change on physical, biological and social conditions as well 

as resource management strategies in the Arctic

•	 Developing foundational geospatial data on the Arctic

Outer Continental Shelf

Oil herding test conducted by I. Buist of SL Ross Project 617. 

Photo courtesy of CRREL.
12

Department of Commerce

• National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)

managers in addressing incidents that may harm the environment. ERMA® integrates and synthesizes real-time 

and static data (information such as the extent and concentration of sea ice, locations of ports and pipelines, and 

vulnerable environmental resources) into a single interactive map, providing a quick visualization of the situation 

and improving communication and coordination among 

responders and environmental stakeholders. The Arctic 

ERMA® was developed and supported through a partnership between the NOAA Office of Ocean and Coastal 

Resource Management, the Oil Spill Recovery Institute, 

BSEE, and the University of New Hampshire. Further information can be found at: http://response.restoration.noaa.

gov/maps-and-spatial-data/environmental-responsemanagement-application-erma/arctic-erma.html.

•	 NOAA OR&R is the lead science adviser to the US Coast

Guard during oil spill response operations in Alaska and it 

maintains a role on the Alaska Regional Response Team. 

OR&R’s expertise spans oceanography, biology, chemistry, and geology, allowing the response team to estimate 

oil and chemical trajectories, analyze chemical hazards, 

and assess risks to coastal animals, habitats, and important areas to humans. This team is led by regional Scientific 

Support Coordinators. OR&R has also initiated the Arctic 

Joint Assessment Team and has assisted the Arctic Council, 

Canada, and Norway in developing Arctic spill response 

techniques and plans for spills in Arctic waters.

•	 Baseline ecosystem information is also being collected

to properly identify environmental risks as well as to 

The mission of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration’s Office of Response and Restoration (OR&R) 

is to prepare for, evaluate, and respond to threats to coastal 

environments, including oil and chemical spills, releases from 

hazardous waste sites, and marine debris. To address the 

increased potential for oil spills in the Arctic due to increased 

vessel traffic and oil exploration and development, NOAA 

OR&R has several initiatives currently underway. For further 

information see http://response.restoration.noaa.gov/oil-andchemical-spills/oil-spills/activities-arctic.html.

•	 The Arctic Environmental Response Management

Application (ERMA®) is a web-based GIS tool that assists 

both emergency responders and environmental resource 

In situ burning of two cubic meters of weathered, free floating 

Troll B crude oil in high ice concentration. Total burn time was 

22 minutes, and the photo was taken after 11 minutes, at peak 

burn intensity. Photo courtesy of SINTEF.

•	 Synthesizing existing scientific information on a wide

range of topics on the Arctic

•	 Building upon advances in spill-risk evaluation and

response knowledge by developing better information on 

key inputs to spill models (such as oceanographic, weather, 

and ecological data)

•	 Improving dialogue and using collaborative, comprehensive science planning, both domestically and internationally

A fact sheet on the Arctic study is available at http://pubs.

usgs.gov/fs/2011/3048. The full report is available at http://

pubs.usgs.gov/circ/1370.
13

Department of Defense (DoD)

• US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE)

• US Navy (USN)

Because DoD mission priorities are currently focused on 

regions outside the Arctic, DoD is not providing any direct 

funds for research related to oil spills in ice-covered waters. 

DoD also acknowledges that, consistent with the current and 

projected level of DoD activity in the Arctic, it is most likely 

workshops on oil spill response issues. Workshops focusing 

solely on the Arctic include:

•	 Northwest Arctic Borough: An Oil Spill Workshop

(May 22–23, 2012)

•	 Arctic ERMA® (April 5–6, 2011)

•	 NRDA in Arctic Waters: The Dialogue Begins

(April 20–22, 2010)

•	 US Coast Guard Arctic Response (April 23, 2010)

•	 Opening the Arctic Seas: Envisioning Disasters and

Framing Solutions (March 18–20, 2008)

A full description of CRRC and CSE activities can be found at 

http://www.crrc.unh.edu.

determine the current status and health of Arctic natural 

resources for NRDA Restoration Program purposes.

NOAA OR&R has also developed and funded a cooperative 

research partnership with the University of New Hampshire 

(UNH) to further oil spill research. The NOAA/UNH co-led 

Coastal Response Research Center (CRRC) was established in 

2004. The CRRC has supported many research projects, workshops, and working groups on the subject of oil spill research 

and development, and has published a variety of reports. The 

Center for Spills in the Environment (CSE) is another center, 

also at UNH, that expands the scope of interaction and cooperation with the private sector, other government agencies and 

universities. Both the CRRC and the CSE are administered by, 

and located at, the UNH campus in Durham, New Hampshire.

The CRRC participated in the Selskapet for INdustriell og 

TEknisk Forskning ved norges tekniske hoegskole (SINTEF; 

the Foundation for Scientific and Industrial Research at the 

Norwegian Institute of Technology) Joint Industry Program 

“Oil in Ice” through research efforts associated with detection 

of dissolved polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) from 

oil spills using passive samplers in cold water and ice cores; 

transport, fate, and potential exposure of oil in ice; oil movement in sea ice; and biodegradation of oil in Arctic first-year 

sea ice. Current studies being supported by the CRRC and 

NOAA are investigating the effectiveness, physical transport, 

chemistry, and biological effects of chemical dispersants, in 

particular, those used during the Deepwater Horizon incident. Other activities include conducting studies on the 

physical and chemical changes in heavy oil as well as holding 

Sampling oil to assess weathering properties. Photo courtesy 

of SINTEF.

that an oil spill event will occur within the civilian sector. 

Under these circumstances, DoD will play a supporting role 

in responding to the spill, as it did for the Deepwater Horizon 

response. While not providing direct research support, DoD 

is making important contributions on other levels, including:
14

a. Maintaining access to facilities and expertise at the US 

Army Corps of Engineers’ Cold Regions Research and 

Engineering Laboratory (CRREL) to conduct research on 

all aspects oil spills in ice-covered waters. CRREL is an 

international center of expertise on cold regions science 

and technology with cold rooms and refrigerated hydraulic facilities. Facilities used for oil and ice research include 

the Ice Engineering Facility (IEF), Geophysical Research 

Facility (GRF), and the Materiel Evaluation Facility (MEF). 

While CRREL does not directly fund these studies, their 

unique facilities, and in-house experts provide the capabilities to test equipment and techniques in near-field 

conditions. Staff at CRREL and Ohmsett have partnered 

on research projects to capitalize on the synergy of the 

researchers at DoD and DOI. Oil spill projects conducted 

at CRREL are summarized at http://www.crrel.usace.army.

mil/innovations/oil_spill_research.

b. Scenario-driven exercises to evaluate DoD’s level of readiness for Arctic operations, including communication protocols and logistic and equipment support. Knowledge and 

technology gaps are routinely identified during these exercises and reported, highlighting opportunities for future 

work for DoD and non-DoD entities alike. Recently, these 

exercises have included oil spill scenarios that are sufficiently severe to require a request of support from the DoD. 

•	 US Navy Fleet Arctic Operations Game, US Naval War

College, Newport, RI, September 13–16, 2011

•	 NORAD/USNORTHCOMM Arctic Collaborative

Workshop, National Defense University, Washington, 

DC, March 13–15, 2012

c. The Emergency Ship Salvage Material (ESSM) System consists of facilities that provide salvage and pollution control 

(Oil Spill Response [OSR]) equipment and operators on an 

emergency basis. The worldwide ESSM facilities routinely 

provide mutual augmentation of personnel and equipment. One such facility is located on Joint Base Elmendorf 

Richardson (JBER). The ESSM OSR equipment is designed 

to be transportable and sustainable in the field. Although 

not specifically designed for Arctic use, the equipment has 

been modified for the Arctic environment but not for sea 

ice. Lake ice, in shore, and clear sea operations are all exercised annually. Systems located at JBER include two Vessel 

of Opportunity Skimming Systems, three 36-foot self-propelled belt skimming systems, boom, bladders, boats, inshore skimmers, support vans, and lightering systems.

Department of Homeland Security (DHS)

• US Coast Guard (USCG)

The United States Coast Guard operates the Research and 

Development Center (RDC), located in New London, 

Connecticut. This center is Coast Guard’s only facility that 

conducts research, development, testing, and evaluation in 

support of their missions. The center evaluates the feasibility 

and affordability of mission execution solutions and provides 

operational and risk-management analysis for all stages of the 

acquisition process. When appropriate, the RDC collaborates 

with relevant professionals in the public and private sectors.

The Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation (RDT&E) 

Program conducts applied scientific research, development, 

testing, and evaluation of new technologies. The program 

pursues technologies that provide incremental improvements as well as those with the greatest potential to strategically transform the way the Coast Guard functions. As part 

of the program, the RDC is evaluating new technologies and 

techniques for cold weather oil recovery and is documenting 

performance gaps. A series of increasingly complex demonstrations have been started in the Great Lakes, and are also 

planned in Alaska. The RDC just completed the second oil-inice demonstration within Sector Sault Ste. Marie at St. Ignace, 

Michigan. The objective of this effort was to evaluate response 

capabilities in cold weather by leveraging Coast Guard and 

other local assets before conducting a more complex demonstration in Alaska. The demonstration scenario involved 
15

Other Federal Agencies

Other federal agencies, including the Environmental 

Protection Agency (EPA), the National Institute of Standards 

and Technology (NIST), the Department of Energy (DOE), 

the Department of Interior’s Fish and Wildlife Services (FWS), 

and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration 

(NASA) conduct research on oil spills, but because their 

research is not specifically in association with ice-covered 

waters, they are not described in detail in this report.

a fabricated leak from a pipeline in the open waters of the 

Mackinac Straits in northern Michigan. Tests were conducted 

using a helix skimmer in ice and also fire booms to separate 

out sections of the ice cover. Other R&D projects include sensors to detect submerged oil spills by multibeam sonar, a laser 

line scan system, fluorescent spectroscopy, and in situ mass 

spectrometers.

The USCG held a two-day workshop on “Leadership for the 

Arctic” in April 2012 to discuss science and research, maritime safety, maritime stewardship, legal issues, and governance. This meeting helped develop context for Arctic policy 

decisions as the USCG prepared for the planned Royal Dutch 

Shell exploration activities in the Beaufort and Chukchi Seas 

in the summer of 2012, via the exercise Arctic Shield 2012.

Another joint tabletop exercise was held by Shell Oil on 

May 24, 2012, to exercise their Chukchi Sea oil spill response 

plan. In addition to the USCG, participants included representatives from DOI, EPA, NOAA, and the State of Alaska.

Throughout the summer of 2012, USCG cutters and aircraft conducted exercises and training off Alaska to implement plans to mitigate potential impacts from a pollution 

incident. At the same time, scientists at the USCG’s RDC 

were developing new ways to rapidly deploy and support 

response equipment at an incident scene. Demonstrations 

of equipment and tactics were held on the Great Lakes, and 

additional exercises are planned for the winter of 2013.

The interagency “Committee on Marine Transportation 

Systems” has created a “US Arctic Marine Transportation 

Integrated Action Team” (http://www.cmts.gov/Activities/

ActionTeams.aspx) led by USCG, the US Department of 

Transportation Maritime Administration (MARAD), and 

NOAA. It is focusing on issues related to marine transportation in the Arctic. While not focusing on basic research, the 

group has discussed issues associated with applied research.
16

Coordination of Federal R&D Efforts

reviewed this plan. Using input from the Marine Board, 

ICCOPR revised the plan in May 1993 to address spill prevention, human factors, and the field testing/demonstration 

of developed response technologies. The current version of 

the plan, still based on Marine Board recommendations, is 

dated April 1997. ICCOPR is updating the 1997 Oil Pollution 

Research and Technology Plan and expects to be finished in 

Fiscal Year 2013. Once completed, this plan will be available 

to provide oil pollution research guidance to government, 

industry, and academia. 

The US Coast Guard chairs ICCOPR, and the current membership (now standing at 14 since the split of MMS/BOEMRE 

into BOEM and BSEE) includes:

•	 Department of Commerce—National Oceanic and

Atmospheric Administration*

•	 Department of Commerce—National Institute of

Standards and Technology

•	 Department of Energy

•	 Department of the Interior—US Fish & Wildlife Service

•	 Department of the Interior—Bureau of Safety and

Environmental Enforcement*

•	 Department of the Interior—Bureau of Ocean

Energy Management*

•	 Department of Transportation—Maritime Administration

•	 Department of Transportation—Pipelines and Hazardous

Materials Safety Administration

•	 Department of Defense—US Army Corps of Engineers*

•	 Department of Defense—US Navy*

•	 Environmental Protection Agency

•	 National Aeronautics and Space Administration

•	 Department of Homeland Security—Federal Emergency

Management Agency

•	 Department of Homeland Security—United States

Coast Guard*

* Indicates active Arctic-focused R&D, related specifically to 

oil spills in ice-covered waters

Many entities are involved in the funding and conduct of oil 

spill research. With declining federal budgets, it is important 

to avoid duplication and effectively establish the means to 

coordinate activities and joint funding opportunities.

The Interagency Coordinating Committee on Oil Pollution 

Research (ICCOPR) was established under to Section 7001(a) 

of the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 (PL 101-380, also referred to 

as OPA90 in this report). Chartered as a 13-member interagency committee, its mission is to “coordinate a comprehensive program of oil pollution research, technology development, and demonstration among the federal agencies, in 

cooperation and coordination with industry, universities, 

research institutions, state governments, and other nations, 

as appropriate, and shall foster cost-effective research mechanisms, including the joint funding of the research.”

One of the tools that the ICCOPR uses to communicate 

their activities is the ICCOPR Biennial Report to Congress. 

This biennial report, required by Section 7001(e) of the Oil 

Pollution Act of 1990, describes the activities carried out by 

the ICCOPR in the preceding two fiscal years as well as activities proposed to be carried out in the next two fiscal years. All 

of the ICCOPR biennial reports from 1992 to present day are 

available on the ICCOPR public website with the exception of 

the report from 1999–2000, which was not submitted due to 

the Federal Reports Elimination and Sunset Act of 1995. 

In addition to producing biennial reports, ICCOPR also 

maintains an Oil Pollution Research and Technology Plan. 

Development of an Oil Pollution Research and Technology 

Plan is required by Section 7001(b) of the Oil Pollution Act of 

1990. ICCOPR prepared the original Oil Pollution Research 

and Technology Plan to define the roles of each federal 

agency involved in oil spill research and development. The 

original plan was submitted to Congress in April 1992. The 

National Research Council’s Committee on Oil Spill Research 

and Development, under the auspices of the Marine Board, 
17

ICCOPR has evolved significantly over the past 20 years. In 

the early 1990s, after the passage of OPA90, in response to 

the Exxon Valdez oil spill, ICCOPR was actively engaged in 

fulfilling its responsibilities. However, by the late 1990s and 

into the early 2000s, activity waned, as funding for oil spill 

research diminished. Under current USCG leadership, in 

response to positive encouragement and increased scrutiny 

after the Deepwater Horizon incident, ICCOPR has been 

rejuvenated. The members are meeting quarterly, and have 

updated their charter and membership. They have developed 

a comprehensive website, and they are focused on addressing their mission and meeting their obligations as defined 

in OPA90. USARC recognizes and applauds this significant 

improvement in interagency effort, as led by the USCG.

The website includes a summary of related R&D: http://www.

iccopr.uscg.gov/apex/f?p=118:366:1376080403462271. 

The website recently added a “High Latitudes” link, to 

provide some of the resources that the ICCOPR uses to 

help identify and support research issues related to cold 

weather response: http://www.iccopr.uscg.gov/apex/f?p=118:

357:3718783452980200.
18

Other Arctic Marine Oil Spill R&D Efforts

The OSRI website provides a comprehensive list of all the projects that have been supported, by year and category of research. 

Recent projects of particular interest in the Arctic include:

1. Support for NOAA’s Arctic Environmental Response 

Management Application (ERMA®) (see NOAA section for 

more on ERMA®)

2. Detection and mapping of oil spills under sea ice 

(DAMOS), Scottish Association for Maine Science, and 

Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution (2011 and 2012). 

This project, which includes tests at CRREL’s Geophysical 

Research Facility, demonstrates that oil can be found under 

ice with existing technologies. Off-the-shelf instruments, 

including cameras and sonar systems, were mounted on an 

AUV or ROV.

3. Oil in Ice: Transport, Fate, and Potential Exposure, 

University of Alaska, Fairbanks (2009, 2008). This project 

was a portion of a larger project funded by the CRRC to 

examine the transport of various components of hydrocarbons through sea ice, to examine the biodegradation potential of those components, and to model the 

combined results.

4. Support for the National Academy of Sciences 

study, “Responding to Oil Spills in the Arctic 

Marine Environment.”

Nonprofit Organizations

Oil Spill Recovery Institute (OSRI)

Authorized by the United States Congress through the Oil 

Pollution Act of 1990, the purpose of the Prince William 

Sound (PWS) Oil Spill Recovery Institute (OSRI) (http://www.

pws-osri.org) is to support research, education, and demonstration projects designed to respond to and understand the 

effects of oil spills in the Arctic and sub-Arctic marine environments. The OSRI 2011–2015 Research Plan (http://www.

pws-osri.org/business/science_plan.pdf) provides detailed 

program goals and objectives in four major areas:

a. Understand. Attain an interdisciplinary understanding of 

the fate and effects of spilled oil in Arctic and sub-Arctic 

marine environments, and the recovery of those environments following a spill.

b. Respond. Enhance the ability of oil spill responders to 

mitigate impacts of spills in Arctic and sub-Arctic marine 

environments.

c. Inform. Disseminate information and educate the public 

on the issues of oil spill prevention, response, and impacts.

d. Partner (as per efforts associated with the Interagency 

Arctic Research Policy Committee).
19

Industry (US and Non-US)

Alaska Clean Seas (ACS)

ACS provides response services to the Alaska North Slope 

Crude Oil Producers and the first 167 miles of the TransAlaska Pipeline System. The company is a not-for-profit 

oil removal response organization that began operations in 

1979. Today, ACS serves 10 member companies. ACS trains 

responders in Alaska and at Ohmsett and CRREL facilities and 

at the Prince William Sound Community College in Valdez, 

Alaska. ACS participates in research to improve equipment 

needed to respond to spills in the Arctic. Recent research 

efforts involved using ground-penetrating radar to detect oil 

under the ice and in developing a helicopter-based oil-underice detection system. Currently, ACS is in the design phase of 

an oil and ice-testing tank at Prudhoe Bay, Alaska, in partnership with CRREL. The design criteria include nonferrous 

construction to minimize electromagnetic interference for 

testing oil detection antennae and sufficient depth for testing 

ROV/AOV based systems.

Joint Industry Programs (JIP)

For oil companies developing high-latitude natural resources, 

“stewardship” means investing in research to improve the oil 

spill response technologies and methods for use in the Arctic 

region. The oil companies’ first priority must be prevention of 

oil spills. However, in the event of a spill, it is essential to have 

proven techniques and methodologies to reduce environmental damage. If an oil company uses company funds to develop 

a technique, the result is often proprietary, though results are 

sometimes presented at related conferences. Industry often 

supports Joint Industry Programs (JIPs), and depending on 

the nature of the program, the results may be presented publicly. JIPs are funding mechanisms for the oil industry and for 

government agencies (such as DOI) to leverage their research 

dollars to find a solution to a common problem.

Oil spill prevention remains a priority for the oil and gas 

industry and the ability to prevent and respond to oil spills is 

essential to achieve licence to operate. Substantive technological advances to detect, contain, and clean up spills in Arctic 

environments have been made by industry in the past decade. 

Uniting efforts and knowledge through a JIP increases opportunities to test equipment, conduct field experiments, develop 

oil spill response technologies and methodologies, and raise 

awareness of existing industry oil spill response capabilities 

in the Arctic region. Sharing knowledge, not only within the 

industry, but also with authorities, academic institutions, and 

nongovernmental institutions is crucial. 

American Petroleum Institute and the Joint Industry 

Program on Oil Spill Recovery in Ice: 

Spill Response in the Arctic Offshore

Published in February 2012, this report (http://www.api.

org/~/media/Files/EHS/Clean_Water/Oil_Spill_Prevention/

Spill-Response-in-the-Arctic-Offshore.pdf) describes some 

of the challenges of responding to oil spills in the offshore 

Arctic, and discusses how industry has used results from 

research, technology development, and experimentation to 

respond to spills. The report was authored by consultants from 

SL Ross Environmental Research, DF Dickins Associates, and 

Polaris Applied Sciences, two of which are described below in 

the section “Private Consultants.”

International Association of Oil & Gas Producers: Arctic 

Oil Spill Response Technology—Joint Industry Program

To build on existing research and improve the technologies and methodologies for Arctic spill response, the oil 

and gas industry established an Arctic Oil Spill Response 

Technology—Joint Industry Program (Arctic Oil Spill 

Response JIP) in January 2012, managed by the International 

Association of Oil & Gas Producers (OGP). The goal of this 

effort is to further improve oil spill response technologies 
20

through international research programs aimed at enhancing 

industry knowledge and capabilities in the areas of Arctic oil 

spill response. Nine oil companies are sponsoring the program: BP, Chevron, ConocoPhillips, Eni, ExxonMobil, North 

Caspian Oil Company, Shell, Statoil, and Total. Figure 1, 

provided as a personal communication from Joseph Mullin 

(Arctic JIP program manager), outlines the organization 

of the JIP. All results from the Arctic Oil Spill Response 

Technology JIP will be published and made publicly available. 

Research initiatives under this JIP include:

•	 Fate of dispersed oil under ice. Develop a numerical model 

capable of predicting the fate of a dispersed oil plume that 

develops under ice.

•	 Dispersant testing under realistic conditions. Define the 

operational limits of chemical dispersant and mineral fines 

in Arctic marine waters.

•	 Environmental impacts of Arctic spills and Arctic spill response 

technologies. Identify and conduct the research necessary to 

improve the knowledge base that supports NEBA (net environmental benefit analysis) and decision-making.

•	 Trajectory modeling in ice. Produce a verified/validated 

model that combines ice movement and spilled oil in ice to 

advance the state of knowledge of oil spill trajectory modeling in ice.

•	 Oil spill detection and monitoring in low visibility and ice. 

Identify and conduct the research necessary advance oil 

spill remote-sensing and mapping capabilities and technologies in darkness and low visibility, in broken ice, and 

under ice. Detect and track plumes that will develop if dispersants are used to control continuous subsea releases.

•	 Mechanical recovery in ice. Identify new approaches to 

facilitate the development of new or improved mechanical 

recovery equipment for use in the Arctic.

•	 In situ burning state of knowledge. Prepare materials to raise 

the awareness of industry, regulators and external stakeholders of the significant body of knowledge that currently 

exists on all aspects of in situ burning.

•	 Aerial ignition systems. Provide technology improvement that delivers a safe, reliable, and precise means of 

aerial ignition and improve oil slick targeting to support 

use of in situ burning.

Technical Direction, Expertise and Review; Each Working Group has a Project Lead and a representative focused on providing technical guidance and review.

Arctic Response Technology: Joint Industry Programme Organization (Updated September 12, 2012)

Executive Committee

Ms. Becky Silves (COP) – Chair

Ms. Hanne Greiff-Johnson (ST) Vice Chair 

Dr. James Hall (EX) – Vice Chair

Programme 

Manager

Mr. Joseph Mullin

Communications 

Committee

Mr. Phil Dyer (SH)

API

Representative

Mr. Richard Ranger

Dispersants Work

Group

Dr. Tim Nedwed 

(EX)

Environmental

Effects Work

Group

Dr. Mathijs Smit 

(ST)

Trajectory 

Modeling Work

Group

Ms. Claire 

Channelliere

(TO)

Remote Sensing 

Work Group

Mr. Tony Parkin

(BP)

Mechanical 

Recovery Work

Group

Dr. Victoria Broje 

(SH)

In-Situ Burning 

Work Group

Mr. Nere’ Mabile 

(BP)

Field Research 

Work Group 

Mr. David Dickins 

(CH)

Health, Safety 

and Environment

Advisory Panel

TBD

To reduce HSE 

risks and ensure 

adherence to safe 

working practices

Project 10:

Countermeasure 

verification 

through 

controlled field 

releases and 

exercises

Project 7:

State of 

Knowledge ISB 

Arctic / Ice

Project 8:

Aerial Ignition 

capability

Project 9:

Herders to expand 

ISB window

Project 6:

Mechanical 

recovery in ice 

infested waters

Project 5:

Oil spill detection 

and monitoring in 

low visibility & ice

Project 4:

Trajectory 

modeling in ice

Project 3:

Environmental 

impacts of Arctic 

spills and their 

response

Project 1:

Fate of dispersed 

oil under dynamic 

drift and pack ice

Project 2:

Dispersant testing 

under realistic 

field conditions

Comprised of 1 

representative from 

each JIP member

company

Programme Authority

Accountability

Financial Approval

Communication, 

Outreach and 

Information Support 

to JIP

Ex–Officio Member / 

Liaison to other 

projects

Project Coordination 

& Management / 

Contractor Liaison

Figure 1. JIP organization. Courtesy of Joseph Mullin.
21

•	 Chemical herders to expand in situ burning window of opportunity. Define the operational limits of chemical herders to 

allow in situ burning in open water and among broken ice.

•	 Field research. Evaluation of countermeasure technologies 

and conduct related research in a field setting.

The JIP projects, identified as “OSRT-JIP,” are listed in 

an online table that accompanies this white paper (http://

www.arctic.gov/publications/oil_spills_tableA.pdf). More 

information can be found at http://www.ogp.org.uk/news/

press-releases/industry-programme-to-strengthen-arctic.

SINTEF: The Foundation for Scientific 

and Industrial Research (Norway) 

SINTEF is a broadly based, multidisciplinary research organization that partners with the Norwegian University of Science 

and Technology (NTNU) in Trondheim, and collaborates 

with the University of Oslo. SINTEF offers services based on 

their experience with modeling, testing of oils in their laboratories and large-scale facilities, and numerous, real-time 

oil spill studies and analyses. The SINTEF SeaLab is specifically designed for oil spill R&D and includes laboratories and 

mesoscale facilities for conducting experiments associated 

with development of underwater production of oil, as well as 

problems related to oil spills for ice-infested and coastal waters 

with complex current patterns. For more information see 

http://www.sintef.no/home/Materials-and-Chemistry/

Marine-Environmental-Technology/Projects-and-News/

SINTEF-SeaLab.

SINTEF was the lead on a Joint Industry Program on Oil in 

Ice with funding from Total, Statoil, ConocoPhillips, Shell, 

Chevron, and AGIP KCO. This JIP was established in 2006 

and completed in 2009. It considered oil spill response techniques for Arctic waters and the fate and behavior of oil spills 

in ice and under cold-water conditions. Key findings of the 

Oil in Ice JIP include:

•	 The research program provided a valuable knowledge base

to plan, implement, and further improve oil spill response 

in ice-covered waters. 

•	 Each response tool evaluated during the program demonstrated some merit in responding to an oil spill an Arctic 

environment. 

•	 The availability of all the response options was considered

as being the key to a successful oil spill response operation 

in Arctic conditions. 

•	 A systematic way to predict the operational time frame for

various response options was identified, with implications 

for the efficiency of spill response.

•	 Large-scale field experimentssupported resultsfromanumber of small- and medium-scale laboratory experiments.

•	 Laboratory and field experiments suggested that in situ

burning and chemical dispersion may be appropriate 

response methods.

•	 The presence of cold water and ice can enhance response

effectiveness by limiting the spread of oil and slowing the 

weathering process.

•	 The window of opportunity for in situ burning and dispersant operations in ice-covered waters can significantly 

increase compared to an open-water scenario under certain circumstances. 

•	 New technologies for mechanical oil spill recovery and

dispersant application that, when combined with a large 

set of test data, will improve response planning and 

response operations.

Application of dispersant on an oil slick (0.5 cubic meters) in ice 

using a maneuverable, hydraulic-based spray arm system. Photo 

courtesy of SINTEF.
22

The full report on the Oil in Ice JIP can be found at http://www.

sintef.no/project/JIP_Oil_In_Ice/Dokumenter/publications/

JIP-rep-no-32-Summary-report.pdf.

Barrow/JIP (Alaska)

From 2009–2011, four companies (Shell Exploration and 

Production Company, ExxonMobil Upstream Research 

Company, Statoil Petroleum ASA, and ConocoPhillips) 

teamed to study the “Toxicology and Biodegradation of 

Crude and Dispersed Oil in the Arctic Marine Environment.” 

The effort was managed by Jack Word of NewFields 

and Robert Perkins of the UAF’s Institute of Northern 

Engineering. A Powerpoint presentation, summarizing the 

results, can be found online at http://www.newfields.com/

dl/alaskaworkgroup/JIP Program 2009-2011/JIP Summary 

Updates and Presentations/UAF-NewFields-Toxicology and 

Biodegradation in Arctic1feb2011.pptx.

Statoil (Norway)

Statoil completed a large research program in 2010 looking 

at the technologies for oil spill response in cold and icy conditions. Existing tools (e.g., chemical herders, fire resistant 

booms, remote-sensing systems) as well as newly developed 

technologies (e.g., mechanical oil recovery systems, dispersant 

application systems) were tested in different environmental scenarios. According to Statoil, the key findings from the 

program are: (1) all the response techniques could be used in 

responding to an oil spill in an Arctic environment, depending 

upon conditions; (2) the time window for use of in situ burning 

and the use of dispersants in ice-covered waters can increase 

significantly compared with an open water scenario because 

of the presence of cold water and ice (ice limits the spread of 

oil, slowing down the weathering process); and (3) having all 

response options available is considered to be the key to a successful oil spill response operation under Arctic conditions.

Canada

Centre for Offshore Oil, Gas, 

and Energy Research (COOGER) 

(Canadian Federal Agency)

The Department of Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO) established the Centre for Offshore Oil, Gas, and Energy Research 

(COOGER) in 2002 to coordinate its nationwide research 

into the environmental and oceanographic impacts of offshore petroleum exploration, production, and transportation (see http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/science/coe-cde/coogercrpgee/index-eng.htm). COOGER’s mandate was expanded in 

2009 to include ocean renewable energy (i.e., energy conversion 

from tide, wind, and waves) in response to emerging technological developments, so that Canada can meet its future energy 

needs in an environmentally responsible manner. By building 

on existing regional expertise and infrastructure to coordinate 

research at a national scale, COOGER addresses its departmental mandate and industry needs by providing scientific knowledge for use to ensure safe and environmentally sound management of offshore oil, gas, and renewable energy operations.

Based at the Bedford Institute of Oceanography in 

Dartmouth, Nova Scotia, COOGER maintains an extensive 

oil spill research program in partnership with national and 

Testing of an elastic boom in ice conditions. Photo courtesy 

of SINTEF.
23

international agencies, including the Canadian Coast Guard, 

US EPA, NOAA, BSEE, the Coastal Response Research 

Center (University of New Hampshire), Cedre (France), 

SINTEF, Akvaplan-niva (Norway), and others in the private sector through Joint Industry Program (JIP) agreements under auspices such as the International Association 

of Oil & Gas Producers. With the expansion of frontier oil 

and gas development offshore of Canada, a primary focus of 

COOGER’s research is to understand the fate, behavior, and 

effects of oil spills, and to assess the efficacy of countermeasure technologies.

COOGER operates advanced chemistry and biology laboratories to conduct bench-scale research as well as to provide 

analytical support to oil spill response operations. The group 

maintains state-of-the-art instrumentation for petroleum 

hydrocarbon analysis that include Iatroscans, gas chromatography-flame ionization detectors (GC-FID), and GC-mass 

spectrometers (GC-MS), which enable fingerprinting for 

the identification of source oils and the tracking of physicochemical and biological processes on oil spilled at sea and/or 

stranded within shoreline sediments. 

COOGER has led experimental field trials involving the controlled release of oil within Canada, in addition to collaborating internationally with others in the United States, Norway, 

France, and the Netherlands. These studies have established 

operational guidelines pertaining to the application of bioremediation, phytoremediation, and natural attenuation strategies for the remediation of oil spill impacted sites. COOGER 

has also been involved in the development of standard techniques for the identification of operational endpoints based 

on habitat recovery for oil spill response operations.

A key aspect of COOGER’s research is centered on its wave 

tank facility that was designed specifically for the evaluation 

of chemical dispersant effectiveness (under different wave 

energy regimes) and the potential biological effects associated 

with their application. Recent studies have also been focused 

on the interaction of oil spilled at sea with suspended particulate material (SPM) and the processes controlling oil-mineral aggregate (OMA) formation that promote both dispersion and biodegradation of oil spilled at sea. The aim of this 

research is to provide information for the support of decision 

making on the spill response option to be taken based on net 

environmental benefit analysis (NEBA).

COOGER has conducted a number of research studies pertaining to oil spills in the Arctic. They have included shoreline 

studies on the bioremediation (by nutrient addition and tilling) and surf-washing to remove residual oil stranded within 

supra- and intertidal sediments. Recent field studies have 

included a program in the Gulf of St. Lawrence in the presence of broken ice during the winter to evaluate the feasibility 

of enhanced OMA formation as a spill response strategy for 

use under Arctic conditions. Arctic field experiments are also 

being conducted to determine the capacity of natural bacteria 

to degrade oil and chemically dispersed oil. 

COOGER’s expertise was called upon by the US government in 2010 to assist with monitoring the use of chemical 

dispersant during the Deepwater Horizon spill. The Centre’s 

Executive Director, Dr. Kenneth Lee, is an international 

expert in oil spill research and sits on a number distinguished 

committees including the US National Academy of Sciences/

National Research Council Committees on the “Effects of 

the Deepwater Horizon Mississippi Canyon-252 Oil Spill on 

Ecosystem Services in the Gulf of Mexico” and “Responding 

to Oil Spills in Arctic Environments.”

Environment Canada (EC)

Environment Canada’s (EC) mission is to protect the environment, conserve the country’s natural heritage, and to provide 

weather and meteorological information to Canadians. The 

diverse organization collaborates with research partners on 

a variety of initiatives and participates in the Arctic Council. 

Agencies within EC that have conducted oil spill research 

include: Conservation and Protection Agency, Emergencies 

Engineering Division, Emergencies Science Division, and 

Western Office, Technology Development Branch.

In March 1978, EC began the Arctic and Marine Oil Spill 

Program (AMOP) to improve the knowledge base and technology for responding to Arctic and marine oil spills. The 

AMOP Technical Seminar on Environmental Contamination 

and Response is organized annually by the Emergencies 

Science and Technology Section (ESTS) and covers research 
24

and development on a variety of topics related to environmental emergencies caused by spilled hazardous materials. For 

more than 30 years, the Section has run a continuing national 

program of R&D on:

•	 Properties, behavior, detection, measurement, and effects

of spilled hazardous materials

•	 Modeling and remote sensing of spilled hazardous

materials 

•	 Spill countermeasures: evaluation, effectiveness, effects,

and environmental benefits of mechanical and chemical 

treating agents 

•	 Shoreline impact and restoration, specifically development

of the Shoreline Cleanup Assessment Technique (SCAT)

The 34th AMOP Technical Seminar was held October 4–6, 

2011 in Banff, Alberta, with more than 100 papers and 

posters presented. The 35th technical seminar was held on 

June 5–7, 2012, in Vancouver, British Columbia. The program is available at http://www.ec.gc.ca/scitech/default.

asp?lang=En&n=A0477462-1.

A unique feature of EC-supported R&D is that results are 

related to actual spill incidents, providing assistance to spill 

responders and conversely feedback to the researchers on the 

application of their work. R&D priorities are set and assessed 

by committees of representatives from all levels of government 

as well as international government agencies. Technology 

transfer is an important component of the program and the 

group provides operational guides, manuals, and training as 

well as some aspects of contingency planning.

Over the past decade, ECs budget for oil spill research has 

been lower, and the level of activity has been reduced. EC 

continues to maintain sophisticated laboratories for contaminant and sample analysis, but budget reductions have eliminated many other field programs and research activities.

University of Manitoba Sea-Ice 

Environmental Research Facility (SERF) 

(Canada)

The Sea-Ice Environmental Research Facility (SERF) has a 

covered tank that relies on ambient temperature for sea ice 

growth. The existing tank is 60 feet long, 30 feet wide, and 

8 feet deep, and is primarily used to grow sea ice under various controlled conditions, conduct mesocosm-scale studies to enhance the fundamental understanding of how sea 

ice forms and melts on polar oceans, and gain insight into 

the processes that regulate the exchange of energy and matter between the ocean and atmosphere. Detailed studies in 

collaboration with field measurements are being conducted 

to improve ability to predict the impact of the rapid sea ice 

loss on the marine ecosystem, on Arctic and global climates, 

on transport and biogeochemical cycles of greenhouse gases 

and contaminants, and on the human use of sea ice. A second 

tank for conducting oil and ice studies is planned. See http://

home.cc.umanitoba.ca/~wangf/serf.

Private Consultants

Private consultants are providing support to oil companies and manufactures of oil spill response equipment. The 

results of their work are not typically in the public domain, 

unless the work is associated with a Joint Industry Program. 

As an example, two firms active in JIP efforts are DF Dickins 

Associates and SL Ross Environmental Research.

DF Dickins Associates Ltd (USA)

Dickins specialties include engineering and environmental 

studies associated with offshore oil exploration and development, coastal mine sites, and marine transportation. More 

recently work has been in the area of remote sensing of oil 

spills under ice. See http://www.dfdickins.com.
25

has a laboratory facility, which contains a 10 m long wind/

wave tank. SL Ross also uses Ohmsett, the refrigerated facilities at CRREL, and a custom-built wave tank located on the 

North Slope of Alaska. SL Ross staff have also conducted several major field studies in the open ocean and in ice involving 

evaluations of dispersants, skimmers, booms, burning, and 

oil behavior. See http://www.slross.com.

Other Current Activities of Interest and Published R&D Plans

how best to pursue future work in this area, such as possible substantive annexes to the framework instrument that 

address technical aspects oil spill preparedness and response. 

Norway hosted the first negotiating session in Oslo in October 

2011, Russia hosted the second session in St. Petersburg in 

December 2011, and the United States hosted the third session in Anchorage in March 2012. A fourth session was 

hosted by Finland in June 2012.

At the time of publication of this white paper, the most recent 

development was the fifth meeting, in Reykjavik, Iceland, 

during the week of October 8, 2012, which involved delegates 

from the eight Arctic Council member states. The Task Force 

concluded negotiations on the instrument, with only minor 

technical issues left to resolve. It is expected that the agreement will be signed by the Ministers in May 2013.

At their May 2011 meeting, the Ministers also directed 

the Arctic Council working groups, led by the Emergency 

Preparedness, Prevention, and Response (EPPR) working 

group (http://eppr.arctic-council.org), to develop recommendations and best practices for oil spill prevention. This work is 

occurring in close consultation with the Task Force, and will 

be submitted, together with the instrument, to the May 2013 

Ministerial meeting.

Arctic Council

On an international level, the Arctic Council Ministers, at their 

May 2011 meeting, created a task force to examine the possibility of bringing the Arctic States together to address oil spill 

preparedness and response. The United States initiated this 

proposal, and agreed to co-chair the Task Force with Norway 

and Russia. The impetus behind the US proposal was twofold:

•	 That the Arctic Council take the lead in ensuring that the

Arctic States are well prepared for, and able to smoothly 

coordinate collective response to, possible oil spills in connection with increasing human activity in the region (e.g., 

offshore development, shipping, pipeline construction)

•	 That the lessons of the Deepwater Horizon event inform

the Arctic States in order to improve international coordination for response

The Task Force decided to negotiate an instrument—legally 

binding—on oil spill preparedness and response based on the 

1990 International Convention on Oil Pollution Preparedness 

Response and Cooperation (OPRC), administered by the 

International Maritime Organization (IMO), to which all 

eight Arctic States would be party. The instrument, which 

would be a regional multilateral agreement under the OPRC 

(Article 10), is likely to establish a cooperative framework 

similar to the Arctic Search and Rescue Agreement. The Task 

Force is likely to recommend to the Ministers whether and 

SL Ross Environmental Research 

(Canada)

SL Ross investigates a variety of oil spill countermeasures in 

the laboratory and field, including dispersant testing, in situ 

burning evaluations, testing of skimmers and booms, development of equipment for shoreline cleanup and disposal, sorbent testing and evaluation, and behavior of oil spills. SL Ross 
26

US National Research Council

National Research Council (Ocean Studies Board, Polar 

Research Board, Marine Board) is currently coordinating a 

study titled “Responding to Oil Spills in Arctic Environments.” 

According the Statement of Task, the NRC will assess the 

current state of the science regarding oil spill response and 

environmental assessment in the Arctic region (with a specific focus on the regions north of the Bering Strait), with 

emphasis on potential impacts in US waters. The study is currently supported by several entities, including USCG, NOAA, 

BOEM, BSEE, US Arctic Research Commission, American 

Petroleum Institute, the State of Alaska, and others. The committee has been formed, and the initial meeting of this group 

is scheduled for December 17, 2012, in Washington, DC. The 

target date to complete the report is 2014 (24 months after the 

initial committee meeting).

US Congress

In January 2011, Senator Begich re-introduced two bills 

related to Arctic oil spills and research: 

1. S.203 | A bill to direct the Administrator of NOAA to 

institute research into the special circumstances associated with oil spill prevention and response in Arctic 

waters, including assessment of impacts on Arctic marine 

mammals and other wildlife, marine debris research 

and removal, and risk assessment, and for other purposes. SPONSOR: Sen. Begich, Mark [AK] (introduced 

1/26/2011). CO-SPONSORS: None. COMMITTEES: 

Senate Commerce, Science, and Transportation. LATEST 

MAJOR ACTION: 1/26/2011 Referred to Senate committee. STATUS: Read twice and referred to the Committee on 

Commerce, Science, and Transportation.

2. S.204 | A bill to amend the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 to 

permit funds in the Oil Spill Liability Trust to be used 

by NOAA, the USCG, and other federal agencies for 

certain research, prevention, and response capabilities 

with respect to discharges of oil, for environmental studies, and for grant programs to communities affected by 

oil spills on the Outer Continental Shelf, and to provide 

funding for such uses and for other purposes. SPONSOR: 

Sen  Begich, Mark [AK] (introduced 1/26/2011). 

Co-sponsors: None. Committees: Senate Finance. 

Latest Major Action: 1/26/2011 Referred to Senate 

committee. Status: Read twice and referred to the 

Committee on Finance.

State of Alaska: Department of 

Environmental Conservation’s Division 

of Spill Prevention and Response

The State of Alaska has substantial experience with oil and gas 

development in the Arctic. Alaska has one of the largest Arctic 

oil fields and has conducted substantial offshore Arctic drilling, approximately 70 wells to date, with a great deal of experience in the use of offshore platforms in ice conditions. Four 

offshore production units are in operation in Alaska’s Arctic. 

There are also 16 offshore platforms in ice-infested Cook Inlet 

waters, the first of which became operational in 1964. This 

Arctic and sub-Arctic experience has led to a sophisticated 

regulatory framework for oil spill prevention and response in 

ice-covered waters, and a robust preparedness and response 

program. The State of Alaska is equipped, and has a drill and 

exercise program. This state and industry experience offers a 

useful perspective from which to shape future recommendations for additional research in ice covered waters.

Based on GAO report 11-319, published in March 2011 

(available at http://www.gao.gov/assets/320/317056.pdf), the 

State of Alaska has had a spill prevention and response program since the 1970s. As a result of judgments entered in 

the criminal cases for the Exxon Valdez oil spill, funds were 

provided to the State of Alaska to enhance the ability of the 

state and industry to respond to oil spills. Since 1989, a total 

of $2.5M has been provided to the Alaska Department of 

Environmental Conservation (DEC) for projects under this 

program. The funds have been used for research programs 

directed toward the prevention, containment, cleanup, and 

amelioration of oil spills in Alaska.

In cooperation with other stakeholders, DEC has supported 

over 30 research and development projects dealing with subjects such as cleanup technology, nonmechanical response 

techniques, the fate and effects of spilled oil, oil spill contingency planning and preparedness, spill response training, 
27

incident management systems, and spill prevention. Research 

supported by DEC has been conducted by Alaskan-based 

oil-spill response cooperatives, private consultants, universities, and other state and federal agencies. Details of the 

research can be found at http://dec.alaska.gov/spar/perp/r_d/

research_list.htm.

University of Alaska Fairbanks (UAF)

The University of Alaska Fairbanks (UAF) submitted a preproposal to NSF to establish a Science and Technology Center 

(STC) for Oil Spill Prevention and Preparedness in the Arctic. 

UAF was invited to provide a full Center proposal by Feb 3, 

2012. The proposal was submitted, but it was not subsequently 

selected for support.

Regardless, the concept is worth describing. The STC is envisioned as a center-based approach, partnering UAF with CRRC 

and others, to perform the necessary research and development to prepare for potential spills in the Arctic, including 

understanding impacts to the ecosystem and developing 

techniques to mitigate spills should they occur. New techniques for detecting, tracking, and monitoring the movement 

and fate of oil will be required. In addition, basic research into 

the current ecosystem baseline and expected behavior of oil 

in the presence of ice will be required to advance knowledge 

of the arctic environment. The Center aims to: (1) identify 

knowledge gaps through stakeholders and subject experts, 

(2) sponsor fundamental research in science relevant to the 

Arctic environment, (3) sponsor applied research with joint 

funding from industry as well as state and federal agencies, 

(4) administer fellowships and grants related to education in 

Arctic science and technology, (5) transfer knowledge gained 

via workshops, meetings, literature, training, and electronic 

media, and (6) create feedback mechanisms to continuously 

identify knowledge gaps and evaluate efficacy of results. 

Recent Workshop: Oil Spill in Sea Ice—

Past, Present, and Future

A workshop was held by Istituto Geografico Polare “Silvio 

Zavatti” on September 20–23, 2011, in Fermo, Italy (http://

www.oilspillsinseaice.net). Thirty-tree delegates representing 

12 countries addressed the question: “How can we design an 

effective, integrated system for dealing with every aspect of a 

potential accident in ice-covered waters which involves the 

release of oil?” A key outcome of the workshop was a “Fermo 

Statement,” which has been submitted to the Arctic Council 

for consideration by the by the Arctic Task Force set up by the 

Council to examine protection of the Arctic against oil pollution (see above under “Arctic Council”). In 2013, the papers 

given at the workshop will be published in a proceedings volume and, after refereeing, in a special issue of the journal Cold 

Regions Science and Technology. The delegates at the workshop summarized their points into 12 themes:

1. How best to stop a blowout

2. How to model oil spread

3. Tracking oil spills

4. Problems with in situ burning

5. The role of dispersants

6. The physics of large-scale oil entrapment

7. The biological consequences of oil spills

8. The rapidity of environmental change

9. Data sharing and management

10.A rapid scientific response

11.Delivery of the oil to the ice underside

12.The natural background
28

USARC Recommendations

those recommendations have been implemented, or are in the 

process of being implemented. For example, the Interagency 

Coordinating Committee on Ocean Pollution Research 

(ICCOPR) is currently updating its research and technology plan for the first time since 1997, and NOAA is now cochairing ICCOPR. Second, government and industry funding 

has enabled greater research on the basic ecological structure 

of the marine environment in the Chukchi and Beaufort Seas. 

Funds have been provided by BOEM, a consortium of oil and 

gas companies, and the North Pacific Research Board.

This white paper updates the 2010 publication and offers 

the following recommendations to encourage those 

who are undertaking research to consider these areas 

for additional work. We do not prioritize these recommendations, and we also realize that, in some cases, these recommendations are presently being acted upon. We look forward 

to the implementation of recommendations, peer-reviewed 

publications that stem from work performed in these areas, 

and, most importantly, to the practical application of knowledge gained in real-world situations.

The United States Arctic Research Commission (USARC) has 

long supported the existence of basic and applied research 

programs to improve methods to prevent and respond to oil 

spills in the Arctic region, and to understand the fate and 

effects of oil released into the environment.

In 2004, USARC published Advancing Oil Spill Response in 

Ice-Covered Waters (http://www.arctic.gov/publications/

oil_in_ice.html), which defined a program and identified 

research and development projects to improve the ability of 

responders to address accidental oil spills in fresh- or saltwater 

marine environments where ice is present. This response program included spills that occur on or beneath solid, stable ice 

extending out from shore, as well as spills in areas of drifting 

ice floes, and on ice-covered shorelines.

In 2010, USARC published a white paper titled USARC 

Recommends Steps to Expanded US Funding for Arctic/

Subarctic Oil Spill Research (http://www.arctic.gov/

publications/oil_spill_wp.html) that recommended ways to 

invigorate oil spill research in the United States. Several of 

Spill Delineation and Mitigation, Including Containment and Countermeasures

•	 Develop spilled oil detection and mapping techniques that

are independent of ice conditions, are rapidly deployable, 

and can be quickly interpreted in the field. Specific techniques that need enhancement are satellite and airborne 

sensors for cursory assessment, with refined delineation 

via airborne and underwater systems.

•	 Field test and train various techniques by the responders

to assure familiarity with the process before it has to be 

deployed for a spill.

•	 Place greater emphasis on R&D for source control, and

optimize Arctic vessel lightering, Arctic tank and pipeline 

evacuation methods, and Arctic well capping/containment.

•	 Develop a database that collects, analyzes, and then summarizes data from actual Arctic oil spills. These data would 

be used to ground truth the range of operating conditions 

and equipment/human factor limitations that have an 

actual effect on oil spill prevention planning and oil spill 

response improvements. To this end, BOEM has initiated a study entitled “Oil Spill Occurrence Estimators for 

Onshore Alaska North Slope Crude and Refined Oil Spills” 

and another called “Loss of Well Control Occurrence and 

Size Estimators for the Alaska OCS.”
29

Oil Spill Response Technologies for Cleanup and Recovery of Oil

•	 Test methods to recover oil trapped under ice. Improve

tools to measure and map oil spill thickness to identify 

areas of pooled oil that may be thick enough to collect or 

burn in situ.

•	 Evaluate dispersant efficacy and impacts in Arctic conditions. Dispersants were used extensively in the Deepwater 

Horizon cleanup, with considerable research done and still 

underway to assess their effectiveness and toxicity. The 

impacts of Arctic environmental conditions on the effectiveness of the dispersants should be assessed, including 

their ability to disperse oil by injecting at the source of 

submerged leaks and their potential impacts on the local 

wildlife and its consumers.

•	 Improve performance of mechanical oil recovery systems

deployed in ice-infested water (especially in spring broken 

ice and fall freeze-up conditions).

•	 Test in situ burning, which can be a viable option for minimizing the volume of oil. Chemical herders have been 

effective in scavenging the oil in broken ice, expanding the 

window of opportunity for recovery, and improving the 

cleanup process. Additional research is needed to improve 

the herder’s performance in Arctic conditions including 

waves and cold water, and analyze their toxicity.

•	 Develop robots and ROV/AOV to assist in the cleanup process, which can be very useful during times when human 

response is not possible.

Data Management Tools Currently Being Developed, 

and the Fate of Oil and Its Effects on the Environment

•	 Quantify the environmental effects of in situ burning,

including the smoke and residue, so they can be included 

in the response assessment analysis, to assist in deciding the best approach for remediation as a function of 

in situ conditions.

•	 Define the effects of the dispersed oil on the Arctic ecosystems, with assessments of the toxicity of dispersed oil 

and dispersants on benthic flora and fauna, in particular, 

marine mammals and sea birds.

•	 Assess environmentally sensitive areas. Much of the

Chukchi and Beaufort coasts have been identified as areas 

of heightened ecological significance. Much of the shoreline zones are shallow and composed of ice-rich permafrost soils. The impacts of both crude oil and dispersed oil 

deposition on these shorelines and the cleanup techniques 

available should be assessed. BOEM has some ongoing 

studies of such areas, but more are needed.

•	 Conduct additional research on the efficacy, and the

human health, biological, and toxicological effects of 

chemical herders.
30

General

•	 Provide federal agencies with basic data, as well as summary reports, from industry research projects. USARC 

recommends data sharing as a cost-effective mechanism to 

increase federal response capacity.

•	 Analyze the “Response Gap” in areas that will soon be

developed, to statistically quantify current response limitations. A “Response Gap” is the period of time when oil spill 

response is not possible because one or more limiting factors preventing an effective response (e.g., weather, sea ice, 

wave height, darkness, and extreme cold). Response Gap 

analyses have been performed in several areas experiencing or anticipating offshore oil and gas development, such 

as Davis Strait and Cook Inlet. They provide critical insight 

into needed planning efforts and identify the weakest link 

in the response chain that needs to be addressed.

•	 Test existing technologies in the specific ice conditions of

concern (i.e., spring breakup, deteriorating spring ice, and 

fall freeze-up). Actual oil spill experiments and field trials are needed in the Beaufort and Chukchi Seas, employing local oil samples to improve tactics, improve response 

equipment and train personnel.

•	 Create a clear, concise description of human safety limitations (for response operations) to be included in oil spill 

response plans.

•	 Assess prior R&D projects to determine if they produced useful results. Were measurable advances in oil 

spill response techniques achieved, and in actual field 

response capabilities?

•	 Reveal, in agency budgets, the funding allocated for

research on oil spills in ice-covered waters. This funding 

should increase, given the emphasis on the frontier prospects in the Arctic.

•	 Establish regulatory benchmarks and Best Available

Technology (BAT) regulatory requirements for oil spills. 

These requirements would parallel those set for air pollution controls to incentivize greater private funding of 

R&D, which is currently lacking.

•	 Use research results to help create a BAT database for

Arctic response equipment. If such a database existed, and 

was required for the Alaska Department of Environmental 

Conservation (ADEC) and BSEE, then permit applicants 

and regulators would install the BAT, or explain why it is 

not technically or economically feasible.

•	 Create an Arctic Subcommittee under ICCOPR that

would focus on Arctic spill prevention, preparedness, and 

response, and base it in Alaska, in order to enable local 

stakeholders, oil spill cooperatives, industry, and the State 

of Alaska to consolidate knowledge and to seek consensus 

on Arctic research priorities.

•	 Fund NOAA for oil spill research and development from

the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund (OSLTF), in light of the 

fact that NOAA is the only federal agency with oil spill 

preparedness, response, and restoration responsibilities 

under OPA90 that does not receive a direct appropriation 

from the OSLTF.

•	 Increase either the amount of time that federal agencies are

given to review permit requests, or the number of technical 

staff, given the breadth of oil spill R&D.

•	 Increase the use of peer review and greater transparency in

publications. R&D results need to be reported accurately, 

including full disclosure on the scope of work, results, and 

what was concluded.

•	 Increase efforts to better communicate the state of knowledge, and the value, of oil spill research to the public and 

to the media.
Acknowledgments

The authors thank David Dickins (DF Dickins Associates Ltd.), Joe Mullen 

(Association of Oil & Gas Producers Oil Spill Response Technology Joint Industry 

Program), Scott Pegau (Prince William Sound Oil Spill Recovery Institute), 

Rod Doane and Ken Lee (Centre for Offshore Oil, Gas, and Energy Research), 

Kate Clark, Debbie Payton, David Westerholm, Brendan Bray, and Celeste Leroux 

(NOAA), Susan Harvey (Harvey Consulting), Marilyn Heiman (Pew), Lori Medley 

(BSEE), Kemp Skudin (Navy), Walter Johnson and Rodney Cluck (BOEM), 

Kurt Hansen (USCG), and Larry Dietrick (Department of Conservation, Alaska) for 

comments and suggestions. Additional thanks go to Stein Erik Sørstrøm (SINTEF) 

for permission to use the SINTEF photos.

USARC Commissioners

Fran Ulmer, Chair | Anchorage, AK

David Benton | Juneau, AK

Mary C. Pete | Bethel, AK

Charles Vörösmarty, PhD | New York, NY

Warren M. Zapol, MD | Cambridge, MA

USARC Staff

John Farrell, PhD | Executive Director

Cheryl Rosa, DVM, PhD | Deputy Director

Kathy Farrow | Communications Specialist
info@arctic.gov

http://www.arctic.gov

United States Arctic Research Commission (USARC)

Washington, DC, Office

4350 N. Fairfax Drive, Suite 510

Arlington, VA 22203

Phone | 703.525.0111

Alaska Office

420 L Street, Suite 315

Anchorage, AK 99501

Phone | 907.271.4577

Copyright Information

This document is a work of the United States government and is in the public 

domain (see 17 U.S.C. §105). Subject to the stipulation below, it may be 

distributed and copied with acknowledgment to the US Arctic Research 

Commission. Copyrights to graphics included in this document are reserved 

by the original copyright holders or their assignees and are used here under 

the government’s license and by permission. Requests to use any images must 

be made to the provider identified in the image credits or to the US Arctic 

Research Commission if no provider is identified. 

Printed in the United States of America 

November 2012

US Army Corps of Engineers Cold Regions Research and Engineering Laboratory

72 Lyme Road

Hanover, New Hampshire 03755-1290

Phone | 603.646.4100

info@crrel.usace.army.mil

http://www.crrel.usace.army.mil