Oil-paid study says Arctic spills easier to clean
by The Associated Press
2 months ago | 1196 views | 5 5 comments | 6 6 recommendations | email to a friend | print
ANCHORAGE, Alaska - Oil spills in Arctic ice may be easier to clean than those in open water, according to research funded by oil companies that are seeking offshore exploration in federal waters.

Shell Oil Co. brought scientists from the Norwegian nonprofit research institute SINTEF to Anchorage this week to present findings from May experiments run in the Barents Sea above northern Europe, the Anchorage Daily News reported.

The researchers said oil spilled in open water tends to spread quickly and contaminate the shoreline. The Barents Sea testing found that ice can act as a natural blockade, giving responders more time for cleanup.

The findings conflict with conventional wisdom. Environmentalists cite botched spill cleanup experiments that occurred a decade ago in the Beaufort Sea. At the time, the state of Alaska determined that Prudhoe Bay oil field operator BP could not adequately clean spills in slushy water.

Shell invited state regulators, the Coast Guard, advocacy groups, Arctic village officials and others to the briefing of research paid for by BP, Shell, Chevron, Conoco Phillips, Statoil Hydro of Norway, Eni of Italy and Total of France.

The company is trying to gain support from Alaskans for offshore exploration in federal waters. The company spent more than $2 billion last year to acquire leases and is seeking state and federal permits to explore for oil next summer in the Beaufort and Chukchi seas, which geologists say may hold vast amounts of oil and natural gas.

"This does nothing to reduce the likelihood of a catastrophic oil spill," said Whit Sheard of Pacific Environment, one of the groups that has sued to block Shell exploration in the Arctic, referring to the research presented. Several conservation groups and Arctic village governments have sued to block Shell's drilling, saying it could cause pollution and interfere with subsistence whale hunts.

The researchers said they conducted the test by discharging thousands of gallons of crude oil in broken and slushy ice off the northern coast of Norway - such experiments have never been approved in U.S. waters.

The scientists tested several cleanup techniques, including scraping it up with mechanical skimmers, burning oil surrounded by fireproof booms, and using chemical dispersants to force the oil to dilute to the point it can be eaten by micro-organisms.

All three techniques removed most of the spilled oil, said Stein Sorstrom, SINTEF's program coordinator.
comments (5)
« anonymous wrote on Wednesday, Nov 18 at 09:02 PM »
Corrected headline - "Fox claims hen house can be easily cleaned after slaughter of chickens"
report abuse
« Samm_redux wrote on Wednesday, Nov 18 at 05:00 PM »
andora@nushtel.net - That is the Beaufort Sea; NOT Bristol Bay or even the Bearing Sea. By your logic, the oil spill in Prince William Sound was a risk to Bristol Bay.
report abuse
« akbearable wrote on Wednesday, Nov 18 at 01:52 PM »
andora, I like this idea of the oil industry setting aside enough money to fix any social and environmental cost incurred from the result of an oil spill. Exxon proved that the courts cannot ever be trusted and that the oil companies promises are worth nothing. This would keep them honest and when the oil is extracted from the region and operations are finished they get the money back. I would think that a portion of the funds earnings could be used to inflation proof it and the oil company could get the rest of the earnings themselves ongoing. If they spill oil, depending on the severity of the spill they only get a percentage of the principal back once operations are finished, or none at all for a bad one. This works as well as an incentive to be good stewards that they all claim to be but just a few really live up to. This is a great way for the cash rich oil industry to put their money where their mouth is..
report abuse
« Isanova wrote on Wednesday, Nov 18 at 01:07 PM »
Well those "scientific" claims are just bogus, that's scientists being paid off by the enviromentalists wackos you know...

but these guys are Scientists! How can you argue with Science! They say oil is magically stopped by ice, then you gotta believe em!
report abuse
« andora@nushtel.net wrote on Wednesday, Nov 18 at 11:33 AM »
Cleaning oil in ice conditions will be safe when pigs fly! I will not risk our salmon in Bristol Bay based on those tests. I would like to know if the oil companies think that they can guarantee that an oil spill in the Bristol Bay region can be contained, cleaned up, and not be a threat to our marine environment.

IF that is not the case, than they must set aside $1,500,000,000.00 to finance an Oil Spill Mitigation Fund for people who will lose their Subsistence and Hunting resources and to replace the money fishermen earn every summer if an oil spill occurs in Bristol Bay. The Oil Spill Mitigation Fund would be controlled by residents of the Bristol Bay area and interest earned would be reinvested into the fund for oil spill contingency planning.

IF the oil industry agrees with that then it would show how much they believe in their oil spill research in ice conditions in Bristol Bay and the Bering Sea and points north. Because if their clean up technology works in ice conditions, they will never need to use the Oil Spill Mitigation Fund.

report abuse