Energy

Are industry and regulators prepared for an oil spill in Alaska's Arctic?

bp-northstar-field
BP photo

BP's Northstar Island.

A decade after BP failed a series of oil spill cleanup drills off Alaska's northern coast, uncertainty -- heightened by

in the Gulf of Mexico -- remains about whether industry is prepared for an arctic oil spill.

In 2000, state environmental regulators found BP had problems responding to a mock oil spill at its Northstar field, a manmade island six miles northwest of Prudhoe Bay in the Beaufort Sea. It was the last time the state required BP or any other company to test at similar scale its employees and equipment in a mock, open-water oil spill on the North Slope, home to the nation's largest oil fields.

Ten years later, regulators say BP and other companies are as prepared as the law requires.

"No matter where -- onshore or offshore -- there is never zero risk," said Betty Schorr, an industry preparedness program manager for the Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation, which helped oversee the Northstar drills in 2000. "So we always have to be vigilant and keep a healthy oversight of industry."

Whether the guidelines for oversight are stringent enough is another matter.

Just as industry's response capabilities are tested periodically, state laws and requirements for industry practices are also under a microscope -- scrutiny that was set in motion by then-Gov. Sarah Palin three years ago. Palin called for a review of oversight on the North Slope in the wake of BP's 2006 oil spills at Prudhoe Bay, the result of corroded pipelines.

ADVERTISEMENT

The review is analyzing potential gaps in state and federal oversight and the risks of industry's activities and infrastructure. Final reports are scheduled to be completed this summer at around the same time BP and Royal Dutch Shell plan to drill for offshore oil and gas in the Arctic. DEC is specifically looking at how to reduce the number and severity of spills on the North Slope, but the inquiry does not review whether laws should be tightened.

Alaska has long faced criticism over its conflicted relationship with the oil industry. On the one hand, oil funds more than 85 percent of the state's general budget. It spawned the program that pays residents an annual dividend. And it is one of the state's leading employers. But oil has also sparked safety and environmental problems over the years, from the North Slope oil fields to the trans-Alaska pipeline to the Valdez tanker port.

After the Exxon spill in 1989, oversight was greatly increased and numerous changes were made in how oil is shipped through Prince Williams Sound. Still in the past decade, watchdogs have questioned whether the state is up to the task of regulating aging oil fields operated by BP and other companies on the North Slope, along with proposed offshore oil exploration along the coast.

Icy waters

BP is the same company that operated the Deepwater Horizon rig in the Gulf of Mexico that exploded April 20, killed 11 workers, and now is causing thousands of barrels of crude to wash up on the Louisiana coast. The accident and BP's response to the Gulf spill are now being questioned as President Barack Obama calls a temporary halt to new offshore oil drilling.

For Alaskans, the Gulf oil disaster resonates on several levels. The scenes bring back memories of the Exxon Valdez spill. BP -- which operates Prudhoe Bay, the nation's largest oil field -- has had problems in Alaska over the past decade that have resulted in fines and federal probation, including the largest spill ever on the North Slope in 2006.

The Gulf spill, too, raises questions about whether oil companies -- and regulators -- are up to responding to spills along the Arctic coast or farther out in the Chukchi and Beaufort seas.

The Arctic Ocean is an ever-shifting environment in which cold slushy water, ice chunks and ice packs can both help and hinder cleanup efforts, as was demonstrated by recent oil-spill recovery tests in the Barents Sea, according the Scandinavian research organization SINTEF, which oversaw the operations.

While ice can be a major drawback, "we have experienced that ice can aid in oil spill response operations," SINTEF researchers said in a report summarizing its findings. "It slows down oil weathering, it dampens the waves, it prevents the oil from spreading over large distances and it allows for more response time. In some cases oil spill response in an ice-covered area can be easier than in open water, although this does not imply that it will be simple."

Success is largely dictated by the ability to apply a wide variety of tactics to shifting weather conditions. Modern methods include mechanically skimming the oil from the water, burning, herding and dispersing it, and being able to track oil during dark months when it may be trapped or traveling in ice.

Schorr said the state and industry are learning from the research. Skimmers better designed to operate in icy seas and ground-penetrating radar to track spills are under review.

From Northstar to Liberty

In fall, BP plans to begin directional drilling from an island to a prospect known as Liberty Field, which sits off the coast of Prudhoe Bay. Production is slated to begin in 2011. The company insists it's prepared in the event of an oil spill.

"We are committed to operational excellence, to mechanical integrity, and to safe and reliable operations," said Steve Rinehart, a BP spokesman in Alaska, in a recent e-mail. "We know Alaskans demand a high standard and we are determined to meet that every day."

Because the company will use directional drilling from BP's manmade Endicott Island and bore under the seabed, the wellhead will be accessible on land, where spill response - already in place for other oil-producing wells there -- is expected to be easier and faster than in the open sea, regulators say.

Still, critics question whether BP is anymore prepared for a spill at Liberty than it was in 2000 when it failed oil-response drills at Northstar, which also is an island. Back then, state and federal regulators required BP to show it was capable of responding to an oil spill at Northstar, which BP would take online in 2001 at a cost of $700 million.

According to media reports at the time, DEC officials described BP's performance in the mock trials a failure, with one top regulator saying the company was unprepared for a real spill. Mechanical skimmers failed in ice-filled seas, some containment boom was old, and chilled oil -- sticky like molasses -- didn't flow well through the pumplines.

ADVERTISEMENT

Today, DEC officials characterize the Northstar field tests not as a failure but as a learning experience. Unsatisfactory results on some tests doesn't mean oil drilling or production projects can't move forward, they say. "Although there may be problems with broken-ice testing, it doesn't mean a company is not meeting regulatory requirements," said Schorr, the DEC program manager.

If a company doesn't demonstrate it can clean up spilled oil in broken ice conditions, it can still operate within the law by limiting drilling to summer and winter, when there is open water or solid ice, Schorr said. BP has done this to DEC's satisfaction at Northstar since the 2000 tests, she said.

State law requires operators to mechanically remove oil after a spill, which means using skimmers and boom. Optional techniques, like burning the oil or using chemical dispersants, are often added voluntarily to industry's cleanup plans, but aren't necessary under state law, Schorr said.

Dozens of other drills testing various aspects of spill response, including logistics -- like timing how long it takes to deploy spill crews and testing skimmers -- have taken place under DEC oversight since the 2000 field tests. "I can't think of a situation where there has been an out and out failure," she said.

Still, in a January 2009 interim risk assessment of Alaska's oil and gas infrastructure mandated under the former Palin administration, ongoing concerns about Northstar and oil spill response were cited from stakeholders, which collectively included the public, government agencies, citizen watchdogs and others. Some feared an undersea pipeline at Northstar has a "huge" potential for disaster and should be equipped with additional safety valves, that it continues to be difficult to respond to an oil spill in arctic waters, and that a spill originating at the island would still end up in the ocean.

"Capability for spill cleanup has not been tested or proven in ice conditions," according to the concerns cited in last year's risk assessment. "Claiming this type of spill can be cleaned up sufficiently is different than actually being able to demonstrate the capability."

Contact Jill Burke at jill(at)alaskadispatch.com.

Jill Burke

Jill Burke is a former writer and columnist for Alaska Dispatch News.

ADVERTISEMENT