Hydrocarbon Impacts = Incidences des hydrocarbures

Key Publications

Opening the Arctic seas : envisioning disasters and framing solutions, Durham, New Hampshire, March 18-20, 2008   /   Coastal Response Research Center
Durham, N.H. : University of New Hampshire, Coastal Response Research Center, 2009.
1 v. (various pagings) : ill., maps ; 28 cm.
Cover title.
Appendices.
References.
Indexed a PDF file from the Web.
ASTIS record 75803.
Languages: English
Web: http://vislab-ccom.unh.edu/~schwehr/papers/200901-arctic_summit_report_final.pdf

The Coastal Response Research Center, a partnership between the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Office of Response and Restoration (ORR) and the University of New Hampshire (UNH), develops new approaches to spill response and restoration through research and synthesis of information. The Center's mission requires it to serve as a hub for research, development, and technology transfer to the oil spill community. To better guide future efforts, the Center, in cooperation with the U.S. Coast Guard Office of Spill Planning and Preparedness and the U.S. Arctic Research Commission, hosted a workshop to identify key strategies, action items, and research needs for preparedness and response to potential Arctic marine incidents. The March 2008 workshop, entitled “Opening the Arctic Seas: Envisioning Disasters and Framing Solutions,” was held at the University of New Hampshire in Durham, NH. This report provides a qualitative analysis of risk factors for five potential marine incidents likely to happen as shipping, tourism, exploration and development of natural resources (e.g., oil, gas, minerals) occur with the retreating Arctic ice cover. Workshop participants represented a broad spectrum of constituencies and expertise including governmental agencies, industry, nongovernmental organizations and indigenous people from the Arctic nations. Incidents envisioned involved shipping (i.e., vessels caught in ice, collisions), oil spills, search and rescue, environmental damage, and disruption of indigenous communities. Research priorities were identified by workshop participants to address gaps in preparedness and response for these types of incidents. The report is designed to serve as a resource for funding entities and a tool to inform the Arctic nations and the Arctic Council about how to proceed to avoid the disasters that could result from our current state of unpreparedness. ... The main theme that resonates throughout all of the recommendations is fostering international cooperation between the Arctic nations. Such cooperation will prove critical to improving joint contingency plans and multinational agreements aimed at guiding international response efforts and developing and instituting mandatory safety regulations for Arctic operations. The second major theme that underlies nearly all of the recommendations is implementation of comprehensive prevention and preparedness measures. Such measures range from conducting extensive risk assessments for the Arctic seas, shipping routes, and ports to increasing stockpiles of emergency response equipment and supplies throughout the Arctic. By properly managing risk using appropriate policies and strategies supported by sound scientific research, opportunities for development and tourism in the Arctic can continue with reduced risk for environmental damage and loss of life. ... (Au)

Not so fast : some progress in spill response, but US still ill-prepared for Arctic offshore development : a review of U.S. Department of the Interior, Minerals Management Service's (MMS) "Arctic Oil Spill Response Research and Development Program - a decade of achievement"   /   World Wildlife Fund (U.S.)
Anchorage, Alaska : WWF, 2009.
14 p. : ill. ; 28 cm.
Indexed a PDF file from the Web.
This report, commissioned by WWF, was prepared with the assistance of technical expertise from Harvey Consulting, LLC, and an introduction by Margaret Williams, Managing Director, WWF Arctic field program, Anchorage, Alaska.
References as footnotes.
Cover title.
Report date: December 2009.
ASTIS record 75852.
Languages: English
Web: https://www.uscg.mil/iccopr/files/2009_Not_So_Fast_WWF_Report.pdf

Introduction: Oil industry interest in Alaska's Arctic waters has increased dramatically in recent years. In 2006, seismic activity took place in the Chukchi Sea for the first time in over 15 years and led to a record-setting lease sale the following year. There are now nearly 700 active leases in Alaskan outer continental shelf (OCS) waters, and in both the Chukchi and Beaufort Seas multiyear exploration plans are scheduled to begin in 2010. At the same time, the arctic environment is facing increasing pressure as a result of climate change and retreating ice. The risk of an oil spill is a clear and present concern, especially for people living on the North Slope who depend on a clean and healthy marine ecosystem for their subsistence livelihoods. It also poses a grave threat to endangered bowhead whales, the threatened polar bear, beluga whales, walrus, seals, the endangered Steller's and spectacled eiders and other waterfowl and birds inhabiting the area. WWF recognizes that efforts are ongoing to test and improve spill response technologies for use in arctic conditions. However, despite reported technological advances, situations commonly exist when oil spill response technologies are not sufficient to clean up spilled oil. These "response gaps" exist in nearly all operating environments, but are perhaps most significant in the Arctic, where extreme cold, moving ice floes, high winds and low visibility can make spill response operations extremely difficult or totally ineffective. In light of the severe limitations of current response technology, the expansion of offshore development is not a responsible course to protect arctic wildlife and the people who depend on those resources. In fact, WWF believes that no further oil leases or permits should be granted until the government, in cooperation with stakeholders, determines acceptable thresholds for response gaps and implements operational limits that acknowledge these thresholds. Prevention and planning measures must be implemented until spill prevention and cleanup technologies are field-proven and market ready. Areas that are too sensitive to be put at risk from an oil spill should not be leased. For areas where development may be appropriate, the federal government should require response gap analyses before additional leases are sold or permits are granted. This analysis should use historical and/or modeled environmental and climate conditions to quantify the percentage of time during which local conditions exceed the demonstrated limits of spill response systems. Then, through a process that involves local governments, stakeholders, and natural resource managers, the government should demonstrate clear and proven methods for closing the response gap before allowing exploration activities to occur. (Au)

Inuvialuit Regional Corporation ... Re: 1) Delay of issuance of additioal Exploration Licences (EL's) in the Beaufort offshore. 2) Delay in the granting of approvals to drill on existing EL's in the Beaufort offshore   /   Inuvialuit Regional Corporation
[Inuvik, N.W.T. : IRC, 2010].
[3] p. ; 28 cm.
Indexed a PDF file from the Web that contains a 3-page letter from Nellie Cournoyea, Chair and CEO of the IRC, dated 18 May 2010, addressed to The Honourable Chuck Strahl, Minister of Indian and Northern Affairs, and Gaétan Caron, Chair and CEO, NEB as their submission to the NEB Arctic Offshore Drilling Review.
Regulatory Document Index: 10-05-18 Inuvialuit Regional Corporation - Letter (A25532).
ASTIS record 72002.
Languages: English
Web: https://apps.neb-one.gc.ca/REGDOCS/Item/View/624079

... The Inuvialuit need a level of comfort that we do not currently have in the three main areas of environmental risk associated with hydrocarbon drilling activities in the Beaufort Sea: 1) The prevention of a blow-out; 2) The timely stoppage of a blow-out if it occurs; 3) The containment and clean-up of hydrocarbons from a blow-out. From the recent Gulf of Mexico experience, industry has failed on all three counts. At this time we simply cannot take the chance that any one or more of these failures will be repeated to the detriment of the health of the Beaufort Sea ecosystem. With the above considerations we are requesting that: 1) EL parcel BSMD-5 be withdrawn from bid in the current bidding process for EL's within the Beaufort Sea-Mackenzie Delta region (closing July 6, 2010). 2) No further EL's be considered for issuance beyond the land fast ice zones within the Beaufort Sea region until government and industry have demonstrated their ability to address the three areas of concern listed above to the satisfaction of the Inuvialuit and a regional environmental assessment of oil and gas exploration in the Beaufort Sea has been undertaken. 3) No approvals to drill on EL-446, 449, 451, 452 or 453 be granted by the NEB until the conditions in the previous paragraph are met. (Au)

Facts do not justify banning Canada's current offshore drilling operations : a Senate review in the wake of BP's Deepwater Horizon incident   /   Canada. Parliament. Standing Senate Committee on Energy, the Environment and Natural Resources
Ottawa : Senate Standing Committee on Energy, the Environment and Natural Resources, 2010.
ii, 71 p. : ill., maps ; 28 cm.
Cover title.
Indexed a PDF file from the Web.
Also available in French under title: Huitième rapport : Les faits ne justifient pas l'interdiction des opérations actuelles de forage en mer : Étude sénatorial au lendemain de l'incident de la plate-forme deepwater horizon de BP.
Appendices.
Report date: August 2010.
Eighth report of the Standing Senate Committee on Energy, the Environment and Natural Resources.
References as footnotes.
ASTIS record 72020.
Languages: English
Web: http://www.parl.gc.ca/40/3/parlbus/commbus/senate/com-e/enrg-e/rep-e/rep08aug10-e.pdf
Web: http://www.parl.gc.ca/40/3/parlbus/commbus/senate/com-f/enrg-f/rep-f/rep08aug10-f.pdf

Executive Summary: For three months this spring and summer (April 20 to July 15, 2010), people around the world have been exposed 24/7 to the shocking spectacle of crude oil gushing uncontrolled into the Gulf of Mexico, threatening to foul sensitive ecological wetlands, pristine beaches, valuable fishing beds and vast bird and other wildlife sanctuaries. Thanks to the print, electronic and social media, BP's Deepwater Horizon disaster and the ongoing saga of trying to stem the "Black Tide" resulting from the blow-out of its Macondo offshore well has played out in a very public and dramatic way. Few could avoid seeing the non-stop video portrayal of thick black oil gushing into the Gulf waters from the breached well-head pipe some 5,000 feet below the surface. There were ultimately, as well, daily scenes of seabirds covered with the sticky, black substance. Reactions around the globe have been many and varied. United States President Obama himself has been directly involved, visiting the site on several occasions and issuing highly charged comments and statements on a regular basis, and he has ordered an indefinite moratorium on deepwater offshore drilling, not only in the Gulf of Mexico but everywhere in the American offshore. BP's CEO, Tony Hayward, has been forced to resign his position. Activists have described the incident as possibly the greatest environmental disaster of all time. Some interest groups have supported the President's call for a drilling moratorium. Many others have opposed it. In countries with thriving oil and gas offshore exploration and development industries, debates as to whether to drill or not to drill are now ongoing. In most of these nations, urgent reviews of the regulatory regimes governing offshore operations are being conducted. At the same time, citizens in these nations are expressing consternation about "What if it happens here?" or "Can it happen here?", and "Are we exposed and what is our response capacity?" ... Given the often conflicting media and other reports respecting the BP disaster and the propensity of citizens and governments to rush to judgement after major disasters, the Standing Senate Committee on Energy, the Environment and Natural Resources decided on May 26th to launch a relatively brief series of fact-finding hearings designed to determine as accurately as possible, within the available time frame, the current status of Canada's offshore oil and gas exploration and development industry, including the nature of the applicable regulatory regime(s) and Canada's present offshore disaster response capability. The idea was to either allay or validate the said fears of Canadians and to outline for them the "actual state of play in Canada's offshore", thus permitting them going forward to develop informed opinions. During the six-week period from May 27 to July 8, 2010, the committee conducted nine public, televised hearings, heard the testimony of some 26 witnesses representing all or most interest groups, reviewed substantial documentation and held several in camera sessions to review the evidence. The committee's findings and recommendations are set forth in the body of this Report. There is no doubt that Canada has an active and potentially more active offshore oil and gas exploration and development industry, one which is of significant importance to the economic wellbeing of Canada at large and particularly of those provinces where offshore activity is currently taking place. The committee believes it is important to note that at present, such activity is only taking place in the offshore Atlantic waters adjacent to Newfoundland and Labrador, and Nova Scotia. In fact, there is only one active offshore deepwater drilling operation currently in process, namely Chevron's Lona O-55 exploratory well in the Orphan Basin of the Atlantic Ocean, some 430 km northeast of St. John's, Newfoundland. There are also several oil and gas development and production activities ongoing in the Atlantic offshore region. There is also a standing moratorium on any offshore exploration and drilling activities off the sensitive George's Bank. As to the Arctic offshore, including the Beaufort Sea, there is no drilling currently taking place. Licences have been issued which do contemplate future drilling activity in Arctic waters, but no drilling has as yet been approved. It is anticipated that activity will begin in 2014. On the West coast, in the Pacific Ocean waters off British Columbia, no offshore activity is taking place. A moratorium on Canadian West coast offshore operations was implemented in 1972 and continues in effect with both federal and provincial approval. No exploratory or drilling licences have been issued. Meantime, the committee determined that Canada's offshore industry is subject to a regulatory regime that is modern, up-to-date and among the most efficient and stringent in the world, as compared with those in effect in other nations with active offshore industries. Canada's applicable legislation, rules and regulations, both for the Arctic and elsewhere, are presently under full review by the National Energy Board and Canada's regulators have processes in place to ensure that Canada benefits to the maximum from any and all lessons to be learned as a result of the BP disaster. The committee considered whether it would be appropriate to recommend a temporary ban on or suspension of the above-mentioned Chevron deepwater drilling operation in the Orphan Basin. No evidence was adduced to justify any such ban or suspension and the committee is recommending that the said Chevron operation continue as planned, under close scrutiny and supervision by the regulators and with great caution and use of state-of-the-art technology in light of the Deepwater Horizon incident. In addition, special attention should be brought to bear to ensure Chevron's oil spill response plans are adequate in the circumstances. Finally, the committee notes that the environment in which the Chevron exploratory drilling operation is taking place differs substantially from that where the Deepwater Horizon incident occurred in the Gulf of Mexico, not far from numerous ecologically sensitive wetlands and important fishing grounds and wildlife sanctuaries. The committee has certain concerns about present offshore disaster response planning and capacity in Canada and discusses these in this Report. Research and development spending by the major oil companies is currently substantial, but the committee believes it should be increased, if possible, with emphasis on new and better technology for dealing with deepwater blow-outs and responding to catastrophic spills. Generally, the committee recognizes that offshore exploration and development in the oil and gas industry is a highly risky and costly business. The need to balance the risk factors with the need for energy security and other economic considerations, plus the potential consequences of a major crude oil spill are obvious. Over-regulation and excessively rigid safety requirements could potentially discourage the petroleum industry from investing the massive sums of money already required to participate successfully in this complex business. The committee heard sufficient evidence to make it comfortable with Canada's (federal and provincial) approach to striking this risk/reward balance and with its new judgment-based and goal-oriented regulatory approach. Canada is a leading participant in the International Regulators Forum, a group of offshore industry regulators from the most active offshore drilling nations, including Norway, the United Kingdom, the United States, Australia, New Zealand, the Netherlands and Brazil. Interestingly, none of these nations have called for or imposed bans on current offshore drilling operations within their jurisdictions following the BP incident. One concern expressed by the committee in this Report relates to Canada's laws governing the liability and responsibility for loss and damage, including economic loss and environmental cleanup expenses following a major oil spill arising during an offshore drilling operation. Canadian rules in this area are somewhat confused and conflicting, and require a careful review and, at the very least, an upgrading to take into consideration present day economic realities. In conclusion, the committee wishes to assure Canadians that Canada's offshore oil and gas industry is in good hands, that we could not identify any justification for a temporary or permanent ban or moratorium on current offshore operations, that Canada's regulatory regime is a good one, which is continually subject to upgrading and improvement based on experience such as the BP incident, and that any future offshore operations authorized to take place in Canadian jurisdiction, be they in Arctic waters, off the Pacific Coast or off Atlantic Canada, will be well and carefully regulated and controlled, given the experience of the Deepwater Horizon incident in the Gulf of Mexico. There are indeed areas where the committee has concerns and where improvements can be introduced on the legal, regulatory and operational levels. These are clearly outlined in this Report. (Au)

[Comments on the scope of the NEB Review of Arctic Safety and Environmental Offshore Drilling Requirements : 10-07-26 Strategy policy & priorities - Fisheries and Oceans Canada letter of comment (A25715)]   /   Canada. Dept. of Fisheries and Oceans
[Ottawa : Fisheries and Oceans Canada], 2010.
7 p. ; 28 cm.
Indexed 1 PDF file from the Web that includes a 1-page cover letter from Pardeep Ahluwalia, Strategic Policy & Priorities, Ottawa, dated 26 July 2010, to Anne-Marie Erickson, Acting Secretary of the Board, National Energy Board, Calgary, AB, T2P 0X8, and a 5-page "attachment" to the cover letter, constituting DFO's submission to the AODR.
ASTIS record 72066.
Languages: English
Web: https://apps.neb-one.gc.ca/REGDOCS/Item/View/627352

We wish to thank you for the opportunity to comment on the scope of the NEB review of Arctic safety and environmental offshore drilling requirements. We also wish to register our interest in being kept informed as the review process proceeds. After consulting broadly throughout the department, Fisheries and Oceans Canada would make the following comments on the scope of the NEB review of Arctic safety and environmental offshore drilling requirements. In order to provide the maximum possible input to the NB 's review, we are providing you the full spectrum of comments provided by DFO technical experts, grouped according to the NEB's corresponding thematic headings: [Drilling safely while protecting the environment; Responding effectively when things go wrong; Learnings; Filing requirements; Proposed changes to text]. (Au)

File number OF-EP-Gen-EPGen-AODR 01 : re: Public Review of Arctic Offshore Drilling Requirements [submission from World Wildlife Fund]   /   World Wildlife Fund (Canada)
[Toronto : WWF], 2010.
8 p. ; 28 cm.
Indexed 1 PDF file from the Web that includes an 8-page letter from the World Widlife Fund-Canada, Toronto, dated 15 July 2010, to Anne-Marie Erickson, Acting Secretary of the Board, National Energy Board, Calgary, AB, T2P 0X8, containing a summary of their recommendations.
ASTIS record 72069.
Languages: English
Web: https://apps.neb-one.gc.ca/REGDOCS/File/Download/626455

As a participant in the NEB's Public Review of Arctic Safety and Environmental Offshore Drilling Requirements (the 'Review'), WWF would like to offer recommendations on the process and scope of that Review, organized according to the following themes: 1. Specific comments on the preliminary scoping document; 2. Timing; 3. Who will conduct the hearing; 4. Location of the hearings; 5. Intervenor funding. Summary of recommendations: 1. WWF recommends that authorization and compliance be included within the scope of review. 2. WWF recommends that an environmental assessment of the appropriateness of the area being considered for an exploration license be considered before awarding the license. 3. WWF recommends the review explicitly include the estimation of the costs and duration of spill cleanup, restoration and compensation. 4. WWF recommends that the NEB review should not start until the public report of the U.S. National Commission on the BP Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill and Offshore Drilling is available. 5. WWF recommends that this review be undertaken jointly by the NEB, Indian and Northern Affairs Canada, Natural Resources Canada, and the Atlantic Offshore Petroleum boards. 6. WWF recommends that the review be held in such a manner to facilitate input from communities in the Western, Central, and Eastern Arctic, as well as southern locations appropriate for a national review. 7. WWF recommends that the NEB provide sufficient and timely funding for intervenors. ... (Au)

Implementing the Arctic Offshore Oil and Gas Guidelines in the United States and Canada : November 2010 interim print version - comments requested   /   Vermont Law School. Institute for Energy and the Environment
South Royalton, Vt. : Vermont Law School, Institute for Energy and the Environment, 2010.
[6], 7, 12, 8, 10, 7 p. ; 28 cm.
Running title: Implementing the Arctic Offshore Oil and Gas Guidelines in the United States and Canada.
References as footnotes.
ASTIS record 71161 describes an earlier version of this report dated 27 July 2010. The individual white papers are described in separate ASTIS records. White paper no. 1 is described in ASTIS record 71153, White paper no. 2 in ASTIS record 71156, White paper no. 3 in record 71158, and White paper no. 4 in ASTIS record 71160.
Partial contents: July 27, 2010, letter; U.S. and Canadian Offshore Oil and Gas Permitting Processes in the Arctic -- an overview (July 27, 2010) - Arctic Offshore Oil and Gas Guidelines White Paper no. 1 : Operating practices in the United States and Canada - Arctic Offshore Oil and Gas Guidelines White Paper no. 2 : Environmental Monitoring in the United States and Canada - Arctic Offshore Oil and Gas Guidelines White Paper no. 3 : Northern Communities - participation in decision making in the United States and Canada - Arctic Offshore Oil and Gas Guidelines White Paper no. 4 : Decommissioning and site clearance in the United States and Canada.
ASTIS record 72538.
Languages: English
Libraries: ACU

The Institute for Energy and the Environment at Vermont Law School is pleased to present this Interim Print Version of our White Paper Series on "Implementing the Arctic Offshore Oil and Gas Guidelines in the United States and Canada." Interim in this context means that we plan to publish a final version in 2011 that takes into account reader comments and reflects selected developments after the fatal Deepwater Horizon-BP blowout and oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico that are not covered in the papers to date. In July and August 2010 we published the Overview and Four White Papers reproduced in this booklet [see ASTIS records: 71161, 71153, 71156, 71158, 71160]. Our objective was, and remains, to compare relevant U.S. and Canadian laws and regulations for ways in which they comport with the Arctic Offshore Oil and Gas Guidelines endorsed by the Arctic Council in 2009. More information on the white paper project is contained in the letter dated July 27, 2010, also reproduced in this booklet. The white papers as published this summer did not address in any detail the regulatory developments following the April 20 Gulf of Mexico blowout and spill. On the U.S. side it is worth noting that the Safety and Environmental Management Systems (SEMS) Regulations referenced on page 2 of the July 27, 2010, Overview have since been published in the Federal Register. In Canada, the National Energy Board "Arctic Offshore Drilling Review" process is ongoing. The final published version of these papers will incorporate selected developments on both of these fronts. ... (Au)

Arctic Offshore Drilling Review, NEB file : OF-EP-Gen-AODR 01 : suggested studies and preliminary response to CFI #1 and #2, WWF-Canada, Nov. 29, 2010   /   World Wildlife Fund (Canada)
[St. Albert, Alta. : WWF-Canada - St. Albert Office], 2010.
[1], 56 p. ; 28 cm.
Indexed 1 PDF file from the Web that includes a 1-page cover letter from Keith Ferguson, Counsel representing the World Widlife Fund-Canada, St. Albert, Alberta, dated November 29, 2010, to Anne-Marie Erickson, Secretary of the Board, National Energy Board, Calgary, AB, T2P 0X8, and a 56 page submission to the NEB Arctic Offshore Drilling Review.
Appendix.
References.
The WWF-Canada "additional response to CFI #1 and #2", submitted April 1, 2011, is described in ASTIS record 75804, and the two submissions are intended to be read together.
ASTIS record 72718.
Languages: English
Web: https://apps.neb-one.gc.ca/REGDOCS/File/Download/654358

Introduction: ... WWF-Canada ... applauds the [NEB's] decision to retain experts and consultants to help it gather the best information for the Arctic Review, and we hope this helps improve the comprehensiveness and independence of the information gathered. The primary aim of this submission is, as invited by the Board's letter of October 27, 2010, to make suggestions as to the information such experts and consultants might gather. To support such suggestions, this submission refers to a number of recent reports and also to previous industry submissions, in particular those submitted during the aborted same season relief well (SSRW) hearing, to help identify gaps in knowledge and to highlight disputed issues that could benefit from clarification. The suggested studies are presented at the end of each section of this submission, and are summarized in the appendix. The appendix also provides some suggestions on consultants and experts who might be able to carry out some of the studies. In making such suggestions, this submission will also provide some preliminary responses to the Board's first and second Calls for Information (CFI #1 and CFI #2). Please note that WWF-Canada intends to provide a more complete response to these calls for information at a later date after the investigation reports on the Macondo and Montara blowouts are released and we have had time to study them. (Au)

National Energy Board Public Review of Arctic Safety and Environmental Offshore Drilling Requirements [submission of Northwest Territories. Dept. of Industry, Tourism and Investment]   /   Northwest Territories. Dept. of Industry, Tourism and Investment
[Yellowknife, N.W.T. : NWT Industry, Tourism and Investment], 2010.
4 p. ; 28 cm.
Indexed a PDF file from the Web containing a 4-page letter date stamped November 30, 2010, addressed to Mr. Gaétan Caron, Chair, National Energy Board, from Robert R. McLeod, Minister, NWT Dept. of Industry, Tourism and Investment.
ASTIS record 75801.
Languages: English
Web: https://www.neb-one.gc.ca/nrth/rctcffshrdrllngrvw/mtngsmmr/ndstrtrsmnvstmnt2010_12_06-eng.html
Web: https://www.neb-one.gc.ca/nrth/rctcffshrdrllngrvw/mtngsmmr/ndstrtrsmnvstmnt2010_12_06-eng.pdf

... From the GNWT's perspective, before any drilling should take place, there must be satisfactory measures in place to mitigate potential environmental and socio-economic risks associated with drilling offshore. The benefits to northerners from drilling must be sufficient to outweigh any residual risks that would result from the activity. This means that the GNWT would only consider supporting offshore drilling if it is satisfied that: 1. Appropriate infrastructure and capacity, (both physical and human), exists in connection with the activities. 2. The appropriate base line information and demonstrated effective impact mitigation and responsive measures have been identified. 3. An appropriate regulatory regime to support sustainable, responsible development of the petroleum resources is firmly in place and fully funded. ... (Au)

Standing Committee on Natural Resources : evidence, Thursday, May 13, 2010   /   Canada. Parliament. House of Commons
Ottawa : Queen's Printer for Canada, 2010.
18 p. ; 28 cm.
(Minutes of proceedings and evidence of the Standing Committee on Natural Resources)
Indexed a PDF file from the Web.
Cover title.
RNNR: Number 016, 3rd Session, 40th Parliament.
ASTIS record 75837.
Languages: English
Web: http://www.ourcommons.ca/DocumentViewer/en/40-3/RNNR/meeting-16/evidence

... We are here today, pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), to start a study on the status of the emergency response to offshore oil and gas drilling and the adequacy of the current regulatory regime. We have two panels today. The first panel is scheduled for about 45 minutes. Then we have a larger panel for the last hour and a quarter. ... What brings us here today is an accident of major proportion in the Gulf of Mexico. The NEB is actively monitoring this situation. The focus now is to stop the leak and protect the environment. Once this is done, people will be able to focus on explaining what happened, why, and what has been learned. On Tuesday, May 11, the NEB announced that it is starting a review of Arctic safety and environmental offshore drilling requirements in light of the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico. Full details of this review will be announced and this process will be public and consultative. ... (Au)

Standing Committee on Natural Resources : evidence, Tuesday, May 25, 2010   /   Canada. Parliament. House of Commons
Ottawa : Queen's Printer for Canada, 2010.
19 p. ; 28 cm.
(Minutes of proceedings and evidence of the Standing Committee on Natural Resources)
Indexed a PDF file from the Web.
Cover title.
RNNR: Number 017, 3rd Session, 40th Parliament.
ASTIS record 75839.
Languages: English
Web: http://www.ourcommons.ca/DocumentViewer/en/40-3/RNNR/meeting-17/evidence

... We are here today to continue our study of the status of emergency response to offshore oil and gas drilling and the adequacy of the current regulatory regime. We have two panels today. The witnesses for the first panel are from the Canada-Newfoundland and Labrador Offshore Petroleum Board: Max Ruelokke, chairman and chief executive officer, and Jeff Bugden, manager, industrial benefits power and regulatory coordination. Welcome. From the Canada-Nova Scotia Offshore Petroleum Board, we have Diana Dalton, chair, and Stuart Pinks, chief executive officer. Welcome to both of you. And by video conference from Aberdeen, Scotland, we have Stuart Greer [the rig manager from Stena Drilling]. ... (Au)

Standing Committee on Natural Resources : evidence, Tuesday, June 15, 2010   /   Canada. Parliament. House of Commons
Ottawa : Queen's Printer for Canada, 2010.
20 p. ; 28 cm.
(Minutes of proceedings and evidence of the Standing Committee on Natural Resources)
Indexed a PDF file from the Web.
Cover title.
RNNR: Number 022, 3rd Session, 40th Parliament.
ASTIS record 75841.
Languages: English
Web: http://www.ourcommons.ca/DocumentViewer/en/40-3/RNNR/meeting-22/evidence

... We're here to continue our study of the regulations and status of the emergency response to offshore oil and gas drilling accidents. We had two meetings on this a few weeks ago and we're continuing this four-meeting study. I think we'll get right to the witnesses. We have five presentations today. ... starting with Ron Bowden, manager of international sales at Aqua-Guard Spill Response Inc. ... the second presenter today, Carl E. Brown, manager of the emergencies science and technology section of the Department of the Environment. ... Our third presenter, from the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, is René Grenier, Deputy Commissioner of the Canadian Coast Guard. With him is Chantal Guenette, manager, environmental response, Canadian Coast Guard. ... We have from the [Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development] Mimi Fortier, director general, northern oil and gas ... and Kerry Newkirk, director, oil and gas management directorate. ... We will have a final presentation now from the Department of Natural Resources. We have Mark Corey, assistant deputy minister, energy sector; and Eric Landry, director of the frontier lands management division, petroleum resources branch. ... (Au)

Standing Committee on Natural Resources : evidence, Thursday, June 17, 2010   /   Canada. Parliament. House of Commons
Ottawa : Queen's Printer for Canada, 2010.
18 p. ; 28 cm.
(Minutes of proceedings and evidence of the Standing Committee on Natural Resources)
Indexed a PDF file from the Web.
Cover title.
RNNR: Number 023, 3rd Session, 40th Parliament.
ASTIS record 75843.
Languages: English
Web: http://www.ourcommons.ca/DocumentViewer/en/40-3/RNNR/meeting-23/evidence

... We're here today to continue our study of the regulations and the status of the emergency response to offshore oil and gas drilling accidents. We have two panels today to continue our study. In the first panel, from the International Association of Drilling Contractors, we have Kevin Roche, general manager of Noble Drilling (Canada) Ltd. ... From York University we have Gail Fraser, associate professor, Faculty of Environmental Studies. ... (Au)

Standing Committee on Natural Resources : evidence, Tuesday, November 2, 2010   /   Canada. Parliament. House of Commons
Ottawa : Queen's Printer for Canada, 2010.
17 p. ; 28 cm.
(Minutes of proceedings and evidence of the Standing Committee on Natural Resources)
Indexed a PDF file from the Web.
Cover title.
RNNR: Number 029, 3rd Session, 40th Parliament.
ASTIS record 75847.
Languages: English
Web: http://www.ourcommons.ca/DocumentViewer/en/40-3/RNNR/meeting-29/evidence

... We have two items on the agenda today. The first is a continuation of discussion on a motion that Mr. Cullen brought before the committee in the spring. This actually isn't a part of our study on energy security, but a continuation of the spring study. ... I want to remind the committee that at the end of the meeting we will take a few minutes to discuss and to pass our committee report on the NRU medical isotopes off to Parliament if we can. We have some motions that we have to deal with on that matter. ... (Au)

Becoming Arctic-ready : policy recommendations for reforming Canada's approach to licensing and regulating offshore oil and gas in the Arctic   /   Porta, L.   Bankes, N.
Washington, D.C. : Pew Environment Group, 2011.
ii, 21 p. : ill., map ; 28 cm.
Indexed a PDF file from the Web.
Cover title.
Appendix.
References.
Report date: September 2011.
ASTIS record 74606.
Languages: English
Web: http://www.pewtrusts.org/en/projects/protecting-life-in-the-arctic/arctic-science/arctic-science-initiatives/becoming-arctic-ready
Web: http://www.pewtrusts.org/~/media/legacy/oceans_north_legacy/page_attachments/PewOilGasReport_web.pdf?la=en

Executive Summary: Canada is on the verge of approving the first deepwater oil and gas drilling in its Arctic waters. The first exploration wells on a geological structure are the riskiest part of offshore oil and gas development because of the chance of catastrophic blowouts like the Deepwater Horizon in the Gulf of Mexico in 2010. Yet Canada has not implemented many important recommendations made in 1990 by a review board that examined a shallow-water oil drilling proposal in the Arctic. Major gaps identified at that time included an inability to contain and clean up a major oil spill in the Arctic's icy, remote waters; assessing potential liability; and consulting Inuit about proposed offshore oil development in areas that are of critical importance to them. The National Energy Board (NEB) is scheduled to conclude its Public Review of Arctic Safety and Environmental Offshore Drilling Requirements in December 2011. The public review was set up in part to consider proposals to weaken its same-season relief well rule, Canada's strongest protection against a catastrophic oil blowout continuing all winter under the ice before it can be stopped. In the wake of the Gulf of Mexico oil spill last year, the review was broadened to assess other Arctic offshore drilling requirements. However, the NEB oversees only part of the process. Indian and Northern Affairs Canada (INAC) decides which areas of the Arctic Ocean will be open to oil and gas development and grants licences for exploration and production. Despite a request by Inuit leaders for a halt to new licensing after the Gulf oil spill in order to review how to proceed responsibly with hydrocarbon development, the department issued three offshore Arctic oil licences in 2010 and 2011. Becoming Arctic-Ready analyzes Canada's regulatory and licensing framework for offshore oil and gas in the Arctic -- finding significant gaps at each of the five stages of hydrocarbon development -- and makes 11 specific recommendations for government, including: -Engage in meaningful consultation with Inuit groups at key stages of the process, from participation in early environmental assessments to decisions about oil-spill preparedness and royalty sharing. -Require strategic environmental assessment of a proposed licensing area in the Arctic Ocean before calling for industry nominations for places it wishes potentially to explore. -Require that operators meet minimum Arctic-based standards for drilling performance and environmental protection before bids on offshore licences are accepted and ensure that companies have the financial resources to meet worst-case oil-spill liability requirements. -As part of authorizing exploration, require Arctic-tested standards for offshore oil-spill preparedness and response capacity and maintain the intent of the same-season relief well policy to protect the Arctic and its people from multiyear blowouts. -Add a mechanism for government review and cancellation (with payment of compensation) of existing tenure rights on long-term leases in justifiable circumstances such as dramatic environmental changes, industrial accidents or national security issues. Taken together, the recommendations provide a blueprint for creating an Arctic-ready future for offshore oil and gas in Canada. (Au)

The prospects and the perils of Beaufort Sea oil : how Canada is dealing with its High North   /   Matthews, D.
(Journal of energy security, May 2011, 6 p., map)
Indexed from the Web.
ASTIS record 75199.
Languages: English
Web: http://www.ensec.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=311:the-prospects-and-the-perils-of-beaufort-sea-oil-how-canada-is-dealing-with-its-high-north&catid=116:content0411&Itemid=375

Canada has long looked to the petroleum resources of its North as an important part of the country's energy supply. During the Second World War the oilfield at Norman Wells, Northwest Territory, was viewed as a critical supply source for the American fleet to withstand the expected Japanese intrusions in the North Pacific. The Canadian interest in its North last reached a peak in the late 1970s and 1980s when world oil supplies were subject to geo-political forces in the Middle East and Canada expanded its Arctic exploration programs seeking secure domestic supplies of both oil and natural gas to fuel its economy. Most recently, and again as the result of expected increased world demand and constrained supply, Canada has returned to the North, this time to the waters of the Beaufort Sea. In anticipation of increased Beaufort activity, the National Energy Board, the federal regulatory agency for frontier lands in Canada, is currently conducting an Arctic Offshore Review to determine the terms and conditions under which oil exploration and production might take place in the Arctic waters of Canada. This Review is expected to take until the end of this year to complete, and the regulatory regime recommended by the Board will establish the rules that will govern all future Beaufort Sea drilling, or, if viewed as too onerous by industry, might bring that exploration to a halt, in which case a much-needed source of world and domestic oil supply might remain buried under the Arctic waters. ... (Au)

Chevron Canada Limited : National Energy Board Arctic Offshore Drilling Review : AODR submission part 2 : responses to NEB Calls for Information 1 and 2   /   Chevron Canada Resources Limited
Calgary, Alta. : Chevron, 2011.
87 p. : ill., map ; 28 cm.
Indexed a PDF file from the Web.
Running header: National Energy Board - Public Review of Arctic Safety and Environmental Offshore Drilling Requirements, NEB File No. OF-EP-Gen-AODR 01, Chevron Canada Limited AODR Submission Part 2: Responses to NEB Calls for Information 1 and 2.
ASTIS record 75757.
Languages: English
Web: https://apps.neb-one.gc.ca/REGDOCS/File/Download/681512

Submission Methodology: Chevron Canada Limited ("Chevron") submitted its AODR Submission Part 1: Briefing Document to the National Energy Board ("NEB") on 1 April 2011 [described in ASTIS record 75759]. This document is Part 2: Responses to NEB Calls for Information 1 and 2 and completes Chevron's submission to the NEB's Public Review of Arctic Safety and Environmental Offshore Drilling Requirements. The sequence of responses within this submission follows the sequence of requests within Calls for Information 1 and 2. Where appropriate, cross-references have been added within provided responses to best include common elements between requests while minimizing duplication of text. Call for Information 1: pages 2 - 69 and Call for Information 2: pages 70 - 87. (Au)

Public Review of Arctic Safety and Environmental Offshore Drilling Requirements - submission for CFL 1 & 2   /   ConocoPhillips Canada
Calgary, Alta. : ConocoPhillips Canada, 2011.
1 v. (various pagings) : ill., map ; 28 cm.
Cover title: Public Review of Arctic Safety and Environmental Offshore Drilling Requirements : submission for Call for Information no. 1 and no. 2.
Indexed 1 PDF file from the Web that includes a 1-page cover letter to Anne-Marie Erickson, Acting Secretary, NEB, dated April 1, 2011, File OF-EP-Gen-AODR 01, and a 1-page submission cover page: Appendix C.
References.
ASTIS record 75758.
Languages: English
Web: https://apps.neb-one.gc.ca/REGDOCS/Item/View/679746

... ConocoPhillips Canada has organized its responses to the two Calls for Information by scope item. Each scope item has been given its own section. Within each section, the responses to each CFI request are provided in the same order that the requests were presented in the Board’s Calls for Information. Each response is preceded by its related request or requests. However, in some cases, asingle response might apply to several requests within a scope item. Table P-1 lists the numbers of the CFIs, the NEB scope assigned, and their location in this submittal. ... [Scope Item No. 1 – Potential Hazards and Risks. Scope Item No. 2 – Prevention and Mitigation of Risks. Scope Item No. 3 – Knowledge of Environment and Geosciences. Scope Item No. 4 – Well Control Methods. Scope Item No. 5 – Responding to Drilling Accidents, Spills and Malfunctions. Scope Item No. 6 – Options for Regaining Well Control. Scope Item No. 7 – Spill Containment and Cleanup. Scope Item No. 8 – Financial Considerations. Scope Item No. 9 – Long-Term Environmental and Socio-Economic Impacts. Scope Item No. 10 – Lessons Learned.] (Au)

Chevron Canada Limited : National Energy Board Arctic Offshore Drilling Review : AODR submission part 1 : briefing document   /   Chevron Canada Resources Limited
Calgary, Alta. : Chevron, 2011.
30 p. : ill., maps ; 28 cm.
Indexed a PDF file from the Web.
Running header: National Energy Board - Public Review of Arctic Safety and Environmental Offshore Drilling Requirements, NEB File No. OF-EP-Gen-AODR 01, Chevron Canada Limited AODR Submission Part 1: Briefing Document.
ASTIS record 75757 describes Chevron's AODR Submission Part 2: Responses to NEB Calls for Information 1 and 2.
ASTIS record 75759.
Languages: English
Web: https://apps.neb-one.gc.ca/REGDOCS/Item/View/679739

CHEVRON ARCTIC OFFSHORE DRILLING REVIEW SUBMISSION METHODOLOGY: On June 10, 2010, the National Energy Board (NEB) commenced an Arctic Offshore Drilling Review (AODR), which has included two Calls for Information (CFI). Given the wide range of subject matter addressed within the CFI, Chevron Canada Limited (Chevron) felt it appropriate to provide a background document that serves as a companion piece to our formal CFI responses. Therefore, Chevron has prepared this Briefing Document, which provides: General background on Chevron and our Beaufort Sea assets; Chevron's management systems and processes; The historical context for the key issues identified within the AODR; Discussion of the current drilling focus within the Beaufort Sea; and Chevron's approaches to the key AODR focus areas. In Chevron's response to specific CFI questions, reference will be made back to this Briefing Document where appropriate to avoid restatement of issues and positions. In general terms, the AODR addresses offshore drilling requirements from an operational, financial liability, safety and environmental protection perspective. Same Season Relief Well (SSRW) capability is an important element of the overall review. The current focus of drilling activities in the Canadian Beaufort Sea is largely exploration based and in water depths that require floating drilling systems. Traditionally, SSRW capability related matters in the Canadian Beaufort Sea have centered on floating drilling as opposed to bottom-founded or fixed drilling operations. In fixed drilling, the well control equipment is located on the drilling structure and typically above the waterline. It is widely accepted that the range of well control and oil spill intervention options available from a bottom-founded or fixed drilling structure is greater than those for wells drilled by floating drilling systems. For these reasons, regulator, industry and stakeholder attention has largely been focused on floating drilling. Chevron has therefore chosen to respond to the CFI solely from a floating exploration drilling perspective. Finally, Chevron believes it is important to focus on a primary issue of concern, which is the scenario of an uncontrolled flow of hydrocarbons associated with a well control incident. Chevron proposes a goal-based approach in addressing this issue. This Briefing Document is organized as follows: Key Observations; Corporate Capability: Chevron Corporation - Overview, Chevron Operational Excellence Management System (OEMS), Chevron Drilling Capability, Chevron's Canadian Beaufort Sea Interests, Chevron Arctic Capability; Same Season Relief Well (SSRW) Capability - An overview of the key principles behind the application of this requirement to floating drilling operations in the Canadian Beaufort Sea; Unique Arctic Offshore Floating Drilling Challenges - An overview of the unique challenges associated with floating drilling in pack ice and how they are addressed; Canadian Beaufort Sea Floating Drilling History - An overview of the 39 successfully drilled floater wells in the Canadian Beaufort Sea; Emerging Exploration Trends and Challenges - Canadian Beaufort Sea exploration trends and the impact on the SSRW capability requirement; A Goal Based Approach To Same Season Relief Well (SSRW) Capability - A discussion of the need for a goal based approach to the SSRW capability requirement and Chevron's preliminary thoughts on a way forward. (Au)

Beaufort Sea Exploration Program EL 446 and EL 449 Joint Venture : Public Review of Arctic Safety and Environmental Offshore Drilling Requirements : submission for CFI no. 1 and CFI no. 2   /   Imperial Oil Resources Ventures Limited
Calgary, Alta. : Imperial Oil Resources Joint Ventures Limited, 2011.
[1], iv, 1-1 - 1-10, 2-1 - 2-6, 3-1 - 3-26, 4-1 - 4-10, 5-1 - 5-44, 6-1 - 6-14, 7-1 - 7-6, 8-1 - 8-4, 9-1 - 9-2, 10-1 - 10-2, GL-1 - GL-6, 19 p. : ill. ; 28 cm.
Indexed a PDF file from the Web.
Appendix A: Operations Integrity Management System / Imperial Oil. - [Calgary, Alta.] : Imperial Oil, 2009, 19 p., ill.
Partial contents: 1-page "submission cover page".
References.
Glossary.
ASTIS record 75761.
Languages: English
Web: https://apps.neb-one.gc.ca/REGDOCS/Item/View/679805

OBJECTIVES OF THE NEB ARCTIC DRILLING REVIEW: NEB Objectives: The objectives of the National Energy Board (NEB) Public Review of Arctic Safety and Environmental Offshore Drilling Requirements (NEB Arctic drilling review) are encapsulated in the following: - NEB news release announcing the review, May 11, 2010: "We need to learn from what happened in the Gulf," NEB Chair Gaetan Caron said. "The information taken from this unfortunate situation will enhance our safety and environmental oversight." - NEB backgrounder, December 22, 2010: The Arctic Review will examine the best available information concerning hazards, risks and mitigation measures associated with offshore drilling activities in the Canadian Arctic and measures to both prevent and respond to accidents and malfunctions. - NEB 2009 forum on goal-orientated regulation: The means employed to achieve the desired end result or goal are to a large extent under the control of individual companies. This can allow them to employ proprietary or new methods and technologies which meet the requirements of the regulation and which may also provide a competitive advantage. - NEB letter dated March 9, 2010, addressed to Mr. Robert Hornal, chairman of the Joint Review Panel for the Mackenzie Gas Project: The Board issues guidance notes for its goal-orientated regulations which provide assistance to interested parties in understanding the requirements of the regulations and how requirements could be met. The NEB verifies compliance through audits and inspections. Imperial's Primary Objective The primary objective of Imperial Oil Resources Ventures Limited (Imperial) in participating in the NEB Arctic drilling review is to help the NEB in understanding how drilling in the Arctic can be done safely while protecting the Arctic environment. To do this, Imperial is offering recommendations regarding the items listed in the NEB Call for Information (CFI) No. 1 and CFI No. 2. Management Systems Operators should have a robust, deeply embedded management system that provides the principles, framework and tools to enable an effective safety culture to thrive throughout the employee and contractor workforce. For Imperial, this management system is the Operations Integrity Management System (OIMS). Maintaining Well Control Suitable technology, procedures and equipment are available to operators to enable effective well control and reliable detection and control of kicks. Rigorously applying the operator's management system to all aspects of well design, drilling and completion will ensure: - that workers are trained and capable - workers understand their safety responsibilities and obligations - the reliability of well control equipment through testing and inspection. Spill Response Aerial and subsea application of dispersants, and in situ burning, are viable spill response options. The Macondo incident has shown that physical recovery, e.g., using booms and skimmers, plays only a modest role in a spill response, even if the conditions are optimal for the use of this type of equipment. Therefore, for Arctic operations, which are remote from infrastructure, equipment and a workforce, the primary spill response options would be dispersant application and in situ burning. Financial Responsibility Requiring operators to post financial guarantee instruments to fund spill response and compensation increases the cost of a drilling program with no corresponding increase in protection. As experience with major spills has demonstrated, the financial strength and integrity of the operator is the key to assuring stakeholders that their interests will be protected. In addition, the Inuvialuit Final Agreement already stipulates that operators have an unlimited financial liability. (Au)

Environment Canada's written submission to the National Energy Board's Review of Arctic Offshore Drilling   /   Canada. Environment Canada
Gatineau, Québec : Environment Canada, 2011.
[1], [1], 97 p. : ill., maps ; 28 cm.
Indexed a PDF file from the Web conaining: 1-page cover letter addressed to Ms. Erickson, Secretary of the National Energy Board, from Sue Milbum-Hopwood, Director General, Environmental Protection Operations Directorate; National Energy Board's Submission Cover Page; and Environment Canada's written submission to the NEB AODR.
References.
Appendix 1: Short description of international standards and guidelines related to offshore oil and gas development. - Appendix 2: Humane treatment of oiled birds in remote areas.
ASTIS record 75764.
Languages: English
Web: https://apps.neb-one.gc.ca/REGDOCS/Item/View/704064

Executive Summary: Introduction: Environment Canada (EC) has provided this written submission in response to the National Energy Board's (NEB) request for the best information available as the basis for its Review of Arctic Safety and Environmental Offshore Drilling Requirements (Arctic Review). EC is the lead agency for protection of the environment in the national interest. Its mandate includes weather forecasting, the protection of migratory birds and some species at risk and their habitat and also the protection of the physical environment from pollution. The Department supports its mandate with scientific research and monitoring. In addition, EC is involved in international activities to protect the Arctic environment through the Arctic Council and other fora. Through this international engagement, Canada continues to work collaboratively with its Arctic partners, striving for the highest safety and environmental protection standards for activities in the Arctic including offshore drilling in the Arctic. EC's experience with offshore drilling and its mandate enable it to provide this written submission, which includes information on the Arctic physical and natural environment, potential impacts of offshore oil and gas developments, spill prevention, preparedness and response and related research on spill response approaches and technologies. While some of the NEB's specific requests for information are most applicable to industry, EC is well placed to address a number of the information requests and has provided this written submission accordingly. The fragility of the Arctic environment underscores the importance of careful stewardship and precaution in considering possible offshore oil and gas development in the Arctic. Despite the biodiversity it supports, which includes species at risk, the Arctic is highly sensitive to disturbance. The physical extremes present in the Arctic also create vastly different risks to the environment despite what may otherwisebe similar operations in more temperate climates, including the effects of pollutants on air and water quality and the ability for the environment to recover from disturbance or damage. In addition, the Arctic offshore presents a challenging environment for effective emergency response in the case of a catastrophic spill. EC's submission has been written to respond as effectively as possible to the information requested by the NEB as outlined in its scope of review and associated Calls for Information. Specifically, the NEB has requested information on the "state of knowledge on the Arctic offshore, including the physical environment, biological environment and geosciences" (Scope Item 3) and potential impacts of climate change on drilling activities (Scope Item 9). In response, EC presents information and data about the Arctic physical and natural environment, including climate change. Within the document, EC also outlines pertinent knowledge gaps as requested in the NEB's Calls for Information for this Scope Item. The descriptions of the Arctic environment set the stage for a discussion of potential impact sources from the offshore oil and gas industry, highlighting the application of operating and monitoring standards. This information is provided in response to the NEB's request for information on "potential hazards and risks associated with Arctic offshore drilling, including threats to public safety, worker safety and the environment" (Scope Item 1), related mitigation (Scope Item 2) and the environmental impacts associated with drilling operations and activities noted under Scope Item 3. The submission examines in detail emergency prevention, preparedness and response, including EC's role, challenges and the state of response technologies and the importance of international cooperation. This information is provided in response primarily to Scope Items 5, 7, and 10 which together included requests for information about the state of preparedness to respond to drilling accidents, spills and malfunctions, the effectiveness and availability of spill containment and cleanup options under Arctic conditions and lessons learned from accidents, incidents and emergency response exercises. (Au)

Annex 1 : information submitted by Natural Resources Canada for phase 1 of the National Energy Board Arctic Review   /   Canada. Natural Resources Canada
Ottawa : Natural Resources Canada, 2011.
2, 21, [5] p. ; 28 cm.
Contents: A 2-page cover letter to Ms. Erickson, Secretary of the National Energy Board, from David J. Scott, Director, GSC Northern Canada Division with 2 enclosures: Annex 1 - Information submitted by Natural Resources Canada for phase 1 of the National Energy Board Arctic Review, and Annex 2 - Information submitted by Natural Resources Canada for phase 1 of the National Energy Board Arctic Review - list of experts.
Indexed a PDF file from the Web.
ASTIS record 75768.
Languages: English
Web: https://apps.neb-one.gc.ca/REGDOCS/Item/View/680260

Natural Resources Canada (NRCan) is a registered participant in the Public Review of Arctic Safety and Offshore Drilling Requirements underway by the National Energy Board (NEB). In response to Phase I (Call for Information), please find attached a list of information (Annex 1) that NRCan believes is germane to three scope Items under the theme of Drilling safety while protecting the environment. Scope Item #1 - Potential hazards and risks associated with Arctic offshore drilling, including threats to public safety, worker safety and the environment; Scope Item #2 - Identification and the effectiveness of measures employed to prevent and mitigate the risks associated with Arctic offshore drilling, including the use of management systems; and Scope Item #3 - State of knowledge on the Arctic offshore, including the physical environment, biological environment and geosciences. In addition, NRCan has compiled a list of experts (Annex 2) for many topics that fall within the scope of the review that the NEB may wish to access when evaluating information received for Phase 1 and in conducting the balance of the review. (Au)

Appendix one - GNWT comments on filing requirements [Public Review of Arctic Safety and Environmental Offshore Drilling Requirements]   /   Northwest Territories
[Northwest Territories] : GNWT, 2011.
[2], [3] p. ; 28 cm.
Indexed a PDF file from the Web.
Partial contents: 1) a 2-page cover letter addressed to Ms. Erickson, Secretary, National Energy Board from Deborah Archibald, Director - Minerals. Oil and Gas; 2) Appendix one: GNWT comments on filing requirements.
ASTIS record 75774.
Languages: English
Web: https://apps.neb-one.gc.ca/REGDOCS/Item/View/716581

The Government of the Northwest Territories (GNWT) thanks the community of Inuvik for hosting the Inuvik Roundtable meeting (the Roundtable). The GNWT in particular acknowledges the participation of the coastal communities, as well as the students of Samuel Hearn Secondary School and is grateful for your generosity in sharing your thoughts and concerns. The GNWT commends the National Energy Board (NEB) for its visits to communities. By embracing the concept of a talking circle; you allowed for a full and open dialogue with individuals, governments, communities, non-governmental organizations, and Inuvialuit and Gwich'in agencies. Listening to youth, elders, and residents demonstrates your commitment to making sure that your decision-making incorporates the voices and wisdom of all. The GNWT's participation, though technical in nature, reflected the following long-term interests: (1) To see that development of the Beaufort offshore petroleum resources [is done] in a responsible manner; (2) To ensure the protection of the Beaufort ecosystem - it is the banquet table of the people of the Northwest Territories (NWT) coastal communities and must be protected. (3) To ensure the protection of human health and safety - the tragic loss of life that resulted from the Macondo incident must not be repeated. ... The GNWT would also like to provide specific comments on the filing requirements for any future application for an authorization for offshore drilling pursuant to the Canada Oil and Gas Operations Act. Those comments are provided in the Appendix to this letter [and are provided in regard to: transparency, responding to uncontrolled oil spills, environmental protection, response gaps, opportunities and benefits]. ... (Au)

WWF comments on the Response Gap Study submitted to the National Energy Board [re: Arctic Offshore Drilling Review, NEB file: OF-EP-Gen-AODR 01 letter of comment, S.L. Ross Spill Response Study for the Canadian Beaufort Sea and the Canadian Davis Strait]   /   World Wildlife Fund (Canada)
Ottawa : WWF, 2011.
[1], 14, [4] p. : ill. ; 28 cm.
Indexed a PDF file from the Web.
Appendix.
References.
Partial contents: Cover letter to Ms. Erickson, Secretary, National Energy Board from Will Amos, Counsel representing WWF-Canada.
ASTIS record 75776.
Languages: English
Web: https://apps.neb-one.gc.ca/REGDOCS/Item/View/712682

Executive summary: Environmental conditions in the Arctic can sometimes make it impossible to respond to an offshore oil spill. Until now, no one has attempted to quantify the percentage of time when no response is possible - the oil spill 'response gap' - for Canada's Arctic offshore. The report Spill Response Gap Study for the Canadian Beaufort Sea and the Canadian Davis Strait (Response Gap Study) commissioned by the National Energy Board (NEB) and produced by S.L. Ross Environmental Research Limited (S.L. Ross) is a valuable contribution and first step in this important analysis. WWF-Canada agrees with the study's conclusion that spill countermeasures are often not possible due to environmental conditions that prevail during the proposed drilling season; however, additional analysis shows that the response gap is even more significant than S.L. Ross predicts when all ice conditions and limiting factors are taken into consideration. WWF-Canada makes a number of recommendations in these comments to further refine the Response Gap Study. Our most significant concern is that the estimates provided by S.L. Ross present an incomplete picture of the response gap. S.L. Ross's estimates apply only to the relatively favourable periods of open water during summer and fall. Instead, WWF-Canada submits, the response gap should be estimated as the fraction of time that a spill response is not possible in the potential drilling season (i.e., summer and fall) irrespective of periods of open water, because an oil spill response may be required in either a period of open water or ice cover. No response is possible for the seven to eight months of winter. When the response gap is re-calculated as the percentage of time when no response is possible due to environmental conditions, irrespective of periods of open water, it is substantially larger. Using the same data presented in the Response Gap Study, the table below compares WWF-Canada's response gap calculations (the percentage of time when no response is possible) to S.L. Ross's calculations (the percentage of open water periods when no response is possible). The table shows, for example, that the response gaps for June in the near and far offshore Beaufort Sea are 66% and 82% respectively, as compared to the 20% reported for both by S.L. Ross for open water periods only. A spill response in the Beaufort Sea would not be possible more than half the time from June through September. By October, no response would be possible more than four fifths of the time and no response is possible from November to May. These results should be factored in to the drilling operating season decision making process. WWF-Canada recommends that the Response Gap Study be revised to address this concern and incorporate the additional recommendations described in this letter. (Au)

[Letter regarding Arctic Offshore Drilling Review re: position of Yukon Energy, Mines and Resources]   /   Yukon Territory. Dept. of Energy, Mines and Resources
Whitehorse, Yukon : Yukon Energy Mines and Resources, 2011.
4 p. ; 28 cm.
Indexed a PDF file from the Web containing a letter addressed to Mr. Caron, Chair/CEO National Energy Board, from Patrick Rouble, Minister of Yukon Energy, Mines and Resources, dated March 22, 2011.
ASTIS record 75785.
Languages: English
Web: https://apps.neb-one.gc.ca/REGDOCS/Item/View/679878

... Yukon is committed to responsible development of Beaufort Sea oil and gas resources and has stated its overarching goal of positioning Yukon to maximize the potential benefits from offshore oil and gas exploration and development, while ensuring safety and environmental and socio-cultural integrity in the region. Yukon's participation and input into the NEB's Arctic offshore drilling review is consistent with this goal. ... First, there is general consensus that the Beaufort Sea has some unique and challenging features such as remoteness, ice, and cold/harsh/dark winters affecting oil and gas activity. It is Yukon's view, however, that with proper regulatory oversight, skilled personnel, additional infrastructure, and increased intergovernmental, intragovernmental and industry collaboration, the potential risks and impacts of oil and gas exploration and development can be identified, assessed and managed to an acceptable level. In preparation for future offshore oil and gas activity, Yukon has identified its seven key offshore interests as follows: Governance, Economic Benefits, Resource Revenues, Financial Considerations, Infrastructure, Capacity Development, Sustainable Development. ... (Au)

Arctic Offshore Drilling Review, NEB File: OF-EP-Gen-AODR 01 : suggested studies and preliminary response to CFI #1 and #2 [provided by RESTCo]   /   RESTCo
Kemptville, Ontario : RESTCo, 2011.
5 p. ; 28 cm.
Indexed a PDF file containing a 5-page letter addressed to Ms. Erickson, Secretary, National Energy Board, from Bill Adams, Vice-President, Strategic Planning, RESTCO, dated April 1, 2011.
ASTIS record 75786.
Languages: English
Web: https://apps.neb-one.gc.ca/REGDOCS/Item/View/680098

We believe that the material collected in the major scientific and engineering studies of the Beaufort Sea Project deserve to be considered by all the participants in this Review and for this reason have sought approval from the Department of Fisheries and Oceans to reprint the Summary books of the more than 140 technical reports and made them available on the RESTCO web site. ... This document is an introduction to five books that were written to summarize 45 scientific reports about the Arctic Ocean and oil development that were published as part of the Beaufort Sea Project (BSP) by Fisheries and Oceans Canada. Although this research was done 35 years ago, and notwithstanding extensive research that has been conducted in the interim, such as the SINTEF-led Joint Industry Program on Oil Spill Contingency for Arctic and Ice-covered Waters, it remains the most comprehensive body of work on the environmental and climate impacts of oil drilling in the Arctic. In today's dollars, the approximate cost of that project is $50 million Canadian. In recent years it has become no longer acceptable to conduct such large test spills in the field, so the information from these early Canadian studies is extremely valuable. In making decisions with regard to the regulation of offshore exploration for and production of oil and gas in the Arctic, access to basic information such as how oil behaves in ice-covered waters, its impact on the environment, and how it might be cleaned up should a large spill or blowout occur is essential. The information in these books represents an important resource for understanding and assessing the future planetary climate impacts of any damage to this highly sensitive ecosystem. It provides key background for making decisions concerning further exploration and extraction. Since consideration is being given to drilling for oil offshore in the Arctic Ocean, and the National Energy Board is now conducting hearings, we at RESTCo believe that this information should be made available to everyone involved. The vigilance that will be required, and the questions that need to be addressed, before undertaking drilling that involves a risk of under-ice release of oil and gas are recorded in the epilogue1 of Oil-Spill Countermeasures (see Section 5). It would appear that the only way to avoid extensive contamination of Arctic beaches, and consequent damage to wildlife, is to guarantee that if a blowout occurs at an offshore drilling site, it will be brought under control rapidly. [5 books are summarized and highlighted in this letter: 1. Fishes, Invertebrates, and Marine Plants (described in ASTIS record 21027); 2. Birds and Marine Mammals (described in ASTIS record 29580); 3. Crude Oil in Cold Water (described in ASTIS record 3222); 4. Oil-Spill Countermeasures (described in ASTIS record 47661); 5. Oil, Ice and Climate Change (described in ASTIS record 1172). (Au)

Public Review of Arctic Safety and Environmental Offshore Drilling Requirements (File OF-EP-Gen-AORD 01) [position of the Inuvialuit Game Council]   /   Inuvialuit Game Council
Inuvik, N.W.T. : Inuvialuit Game Council, 2011.
4 p. ; 28 cm.
Indexed a PDF file on the Web containing a 1-page fax cover page to a 4-page letter addressed to Mr. Gaéton Caron, Chair National Energy Board, dated April 5, 2011, from Frank Pokiak, Chair, Inuvialuit Game Council.
ASTIS record 75787.
Languages: English
Web: https://apps.neb-one.gc.ca/REGDOCS/Item/View/679966

The Inuvialuit Game Council (IGC) has reviewed the two Calls for Information issued by the National Energy Board ... as part of its Public Review of Arctic Safety and Environmental Offshore Drilling Requirements ... and while it does not have responses specific to the questions asked, the ICG felt that it is important to highlight a number of comments and concerns that have been identified by the communities in the Inuvialuit Settlement Region (ISR). ... (Au)

NEB Arctic Offshore Drilling Review - Phase 1 Submission - Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers, April 1, 2011   /   Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers
Calgary, Alta. : CAPP, 2011.
3, 44 p. : ill. ; 28 cm.
Indexed a PDF file from the Web containing a 3-page cover letter addressed to Ms. Erickson, Secretary, National Energy Board, dated April 1, 2011, from Mike Peters, Manager, Federal Regulatory and Northern Affairs, and CAPP's 44-page response.
Alternate running title at head of the cover letter: CAPP Phase 1 Submission to Calls for Information 1 & 2 - Public Review of Arctic Safety and Environmental Offshore Drilling Requirements, File OF-EP-Gen-AODR 01.
Title taken from running title at head of the 44-page response.
References.
ASTIS record 75788.
Languages: English
Web: https://apps.neb-one.gc.ca/REGDOCS/Item/View/679798

Further to the Calls for Information issued on September 30, 2010 and November 23, 2010 as part of Phase 1 - Fact Finding/Information Gathering for the Public Review of Arctic Safety and Environmental Offshore Drilling Requirements (NEB Review), please find attached the response of the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers (CAPP) to select questions. CAPP represents companies, large and small, that explore for, develop and produce natural gas and crude oil throughout Canada. CAPP's member companies produce more than 90 per cent of Canada's natural gas and crude oil. CAPP's associate members provide a wide range of services that support the upstream crude oil and natural gas industry. Together CAPP's members and associate members are an important part of a national industry with revenues of about $100 billion-a-year. CAPP's mission is to enhance the economic sustainability of the Canadian upstream petroleum industry in a safe and environmentally and socially responsible manner, through constructive engagement and communication with governments, the public and stakeholders in the communities in which we operate. As a general observation framing our submission, CAPP believes that the regulatory regime to oversee Arctic offshore drilling is robust and effective. This is supported by the findings of the Senate Committee on Energy, the Environment and Natural Resources in their report Facts Do Not Justify Banning Canada's Current Offshore Drilling Operations: A Senate Review in the Wake of BP's Deepwater Horizon Incident (August 2010), which concluded that: Canada's offshore industry is subject to a regulatory regime that is modern, up-to-date and among the most efficient and stringent in the world, as compared with those in effect in other nations with active offshore industries. The enactment of the Canada Oil and Gas Drilling and Production Regulations under the Canada Oil and Gas Operations Act (COGOA) in December 2009 created a goal-oriented regulatory environment that well positions the National Energy Board (NEB) to effectively oversee and regulate these activities. The new regulations create a regime that will enable continuous improvement and flexibility to meet Arctic conditions, while ensuring that regulatory objectives continue to be met. It is important to note that offshore drilling in the Arctic is not a new or unproven activity. 132 wells have been drilled in Canada's offshore waters, 89 of them in the Canadian Beaufort Sea, utilizing a variety of different drilling systems and operating in a wide range of ice conditions. This suggests that the issue before the NEB is not whether Arctic offshore drilling can be done safely while protecting the environment, but how can we maintain best efforts to reduce the risks involved and prevent incidents. With this in mind, CAPP supports the NEB Review as a means of sharing best available information on current Arctic offshore drilling practices and the regulatory oversight thereof by the NEB. This open and collaborative approach provides us an opportunity to review the lessons learned from other jurisdictions and how they might be applicable in the Arctic. CAPP is confident that the NEB's Phase 3 report will confirm that the appropriate measures are in place to provide for safe and environmentally responsible Arctic offshore drilling, and will provide additional clarity for operators on the NEB's filing requirements for applications. Given the nature of our organization, CAPP's responses to the Calls for Information are at a high level, and limited to matters of broad industry principles and policy suggestions. In matters where the NEB has requested information on how industry will put management system elements into practice, it is the individual operators who are best positioned to address these issues in the context of their corporate practices and operations. Further, specific responses to many of the questions asked, such as well control options and spill response options, must ultimately be determined by the operator and evaluated by the NEB in the context of a specific application based on specific site and operational considerations. ... (Au)

Submission of the Hamlet of Tuktoyaktuk Council ("Hamlet Council") - suggested research documents for NEB consideration re: National Energy Board Calls for Information - Public Review of Arctic Safety and Environmental Offshore Drilling Requirements, File OF-EP-Gen-AORD 01   /   Tuktoyaktuk (N.W.T.)
Tuktoyaktuk, N.W.T. : Hamlet Council, 2011.
[1], 6, [1] p. ; 28 cm.
Indexed a PDF file from the Web containing a fax cover page, a submission cover page, a cover letter addressed to Ms. Erickson, Secretary, National Energy Board, from Mayor Merven Gruben of Tuktoyaktuk, dated March 29, 2011, with the Hamlet Council's submission letter.
References.
ASTIS record 75789.
Languages: English
Web: https://apps.neb-one.gc.ca/REGDOCS/Item/View/678811

I am pleased to provide the submission of the Tuktoyaktuk Hamlet Council in response to the National Energy Board's Phase 1 Fact Finding/Information Gathering process. The Hamlet Council has identified several areas of preliminary interest to the residents of Tuktoyaktuk concerning offshore exploration and development and we are pleased to provide the Board with a listing of some current research that we believe may assist the Board in its Review. Please note that our present submission is specifically in response to the Board's request for information and is intended only to provide what we believe to be useful background material to help inform the Board's next phase of the Review. The information provided does not reflect the Hamlet Council's position on any of the subject areas identified or on any subject areas yet to be determined by the Board. It is our intention to participate fully in the next phase of the Review and we will raise, and respond to, specific issues during that phase. Please note also that as the community closest to any Beaufort Sea exploration and development, and one with a long history of being involved in, and impacted by, such activity, we strongly encourage the Board to conduct some of its planned public hearings in our community. ... (Au)

[Transport Canada response to request for information on the Review of Arctic Safety and Environmental Offshore Drilling Requirements]   /   Canada. Transport Canada
Ottawa : Transport Canada, 2011.
6, [1] p. ; 28 cm.
Indexed a PDF file from the web containing a 6-page letter addressed to Ms. Erickson, Secretary of the National Energy Board, from Yvette Myers, Director Operations & Environmental Program, Transport Canada, dated March 28, 2011, and a submission cover letter.
ASTIS record 75790.
Languages: English
Web: https://apps.neb-one.gc.ca/REGDOCS/Item/View/678425

In response to your request for information on the Review of Arctic Safety and Environmental Offshore Drilling Requirements, Transport Canada (TC) provides the following information under the Section relating to "Responding effectively when things go wrong" and specifically: 5. State of preparedness to respond to drilling accidents, spills and malfunctions, including consideration of contingency planning requirements, emergency response planning requirements, infrastructure, equipment, supplies and training needs; 7. The effectiveness and availability of spill containment and clean-up options under Arctic conditions, including tracking methods, recovery technologies, procedures, equipment and trained personnel. TC is the lead Federal Department responsible for two programs which are directly related to oil spill preparedness and response. These are related to the above-mentioned initiatives being assessed by the NEB. Firstly, TC has implemented a National Aerial Surveillance Program (NASP) to help achieve the Department's goals related to preventing pollution from ships. This program has expanded to also include monitoring of marine pollution and provides a capacity in Canada unmatched anywhere else in North America. Secondly, TC is also the lead federal department responsible for regulatory oversight of ship-source pollution in the marine environment, namely Canada's Oil Spill Preparedness and Response Regime. Both programs are described in great detail below. (Au)

Re: Arctic Offshore Drilling review   /   Wildlife Management Advisory Council (North Slope) (Canada)
Yukon : The Council, 2011.
3 p. ; 28 cm.
Cover title.
Indexed a PDF file from the Web.
ASTIS record 75792.
Languages: English
Web: https://apps.neb-one.gc.ca/REGDOCS/Item/View/737018

Further to our participation in the Arctic Review Round Table convened by the National Energy Board in Inuvik (September 10-16, 2011), the Council is pleased to provide you with our summary comments. ... 1. Risk-based Assessment: The Round Table conveyed strong emotions from Inuvialuit community representatives about living with environmental risks from offshore development. We were told that Inuvialuit hunters are not strangers to risk and live with it as a part of a hunting culture that continues to thrive in an often hostile and challenging arctic environment. The uncertainties and anxieties associated with the management of risk associated with offshore development were much discussed. There is much that could be learned and applied from the discussion of risk-based assessment and management frameworks in the relevant working papers of the Obama Commission, such as the discussion of a robust tolerable risk framework (Arctic Review exhibit A1Y4A3). Central to this discussion, for both rights issuance and management and the regulation of exploration and production activities offshore are three broad institutional and decision-making issues: (1) what formal, regular, and transparent processes exist to periodically review, validate, and improve risk models used by the federal government, NEB and industry; (2) how information generated by the model is used to inform decision-making, including decisions about risk mitigation; and (3) what standards, if any, are used as the benchmark or tolerable risk threshold for managing and mitigating risk. In addition performance-based risk management through the appropriate balance of prescriptive and goal-based regulations is critical in the Arctic where low probability, high consequence offshore drilling events are perceived as the new normal by many and public confidence in the risk management and mitigation tool box is uncertain and low. Clearly there are methods and models that make risk assessment and the identification of levels of tolerance for acceptable and unacceptable risk more than a strictly subjective judgment. Reviewing these and applying them as appropriate may make a positive contribution to living with risk from oil and gas activities in the deep offshore of the Beaufort. 2. Offshore Development Scenarios for Assessing and Managing Risk: It is our understanding that the Beaufort Sea Strategic Regional Plan of Action (BStrPA), frequently referred to during Round Table, anticipated as an outcome and follow-up action, periodic desktop exercises to assess regional environmental impacts associated with hypothetical but probable offshore development scenarios. The purpose of these exercises is not to predict the future and assign management actions, but to anticipate a range of scenarios and determine government and industry preparedness to manage them. In the same vein, risk assessment and management measures could be conducted as desktop exercises with a range of development scenarios in the offshore as well. These scenarios could prove informative in assessing risk associated with cumulative impacts resulting from different levels of offshore oil and gas activity. 3. Coastal Sensitivity Analysis: The Board heard at the Round Table that the entire coastline of the Beaufort is important and should be fully protected in the event of a spill. This view expresses the strongly held conviction that coastal waters, coast lines and spits and lagoons amount to critical wildlife habitat and key harvesting areas. At the same time, in the event of a catastrophic failure, it is not at all likely that this could be accomplished. Efforts by the federal government to improve and enhance our knowledge of the Beaufort's environmentally sensitive coastlines should continue and with strong funding support. The results of this work could inform risk assessment and risk management scenarios as discussed above. 4. Worst Case Scenarios in the Inuvialuit Final Agreement: The Inuvialuit Final Agreement established the legal requirement for the assessment of a worst case scenario in the offshore to determine the financial liability associated with the actual and future loss of wildlife, habitat and harvesting from any proposed development. Sections 11(2), 11(31), 13(2), 13(3), 13(4), 13(9) and 13(11) bear on the definition and application of this requirement. This was an innovative measure in 1984 when the IFA was signed and remains so today. There is much that can now be learned from other jurisdictions about the design and treatment of worst case scenarios that is worthy of investigation and which may inform the application of the IFA's requirements for the worst case scenario. To facilitate the integration of the IFA's requirements for the determination and assessment of a worst case scenario in the Beaufort offshore with the procedures and policies of the Board, it may prove helpful for the Board to establish a protocol or memorandum of understanding with the Environmental Impact Screening Committee and the Environmental Impact Review Board. This may better ensure that the conduct of these bodies are aligned in their future consideration of worst case scenarios as they are affected by the IFA. ... (Au)

Shell Offshore Inc.'s 2011 - Beaufort Sea Regional Oil Discharge Prevention and Contingency Plan and Beaufort Sea Revised Outer Continental Shelf Lease Exploration Plan   /   Alaska Wilderness League   et al.
Alaska : The League, 2011.
45 p. ; 28 cm.
Cover title.
References.
Indexed a PDF file from the Web that is a letter from 15 environmental protection groups addressed to the U.S. Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation and Enforcement.
ASTIS record 75794.
Languages: English
Web: https://apps.neb-one.gc.ca/REGDOCS/Item/View/736922

The Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation and Enforcement (BOEMRE) is considering Shell Offshore Inc. (Shell)'s revisions to the Beaufort Sea Regional Oil Discharge Prevention and Contingency Plan (Beaufort Spill Plan) and the proposed Outer Continental Shelf Lease Exploration Plan for Camden Bay, Beaufort Sea (Exploration Plan). For the reasons described below, BOEMRE cannot approve either the Beaufort Spill Plan or the Exploration Plan in their current form. ... 1. The Beaufort Spill Plan Perpetuates the Problems Discovered Following the Deepwater Horizon: Shell Cannot Deliver the Capabilities Outlined in the Plan. ... 2. Shell's Worst Case Discharge Scenario is Inadequate and Unlawful. ... 3. Shell's Worst Case Discharge Volume Almost Tripled, But its Expectations and Predictions Stayed the Same. ... 4. Shell Failed to Demonstrate Readiness to the “Maximum Extent Practicable” With Regard to Sufficient Storage Capacity. ... 5. BOEMRE Must Make Ensure Shell's Worst Case Discharge Projection is Conservative. ... 6. The Beaufort Spill Plan Should Not Be Approved Until Shell Demonstrates its Containment Technology is “Immediately Deployable and Effective.” ... 7. The Beaufort Spill Plan's Treatment of In Situ Burning is Unlawful. ... 8. Shell's Plans for Drilling a Relief Well are Unclear and Inadequate. ... 9. The Beaufort Spill Plan Fails to Clarify Shell's Plans for Dispersant Use. ... 10. BOEMRE Must Comply With NEPA Prior to Approving the Beaufort Spill Plan. ... 11. BOEMRE Must Comply with the ESA Prior to Approving the Beaufort Spill Plan Because Shell's Proposed Spill Response Strategies Have the Potential to Adversely Affect Listed Species and Modify Critical Habitat. ... For the reasons described above, BOEMRE cannot approve either the Beaufort Spill Plan or the Exploration Plan in their current form. Shell must improve its spill response capabilities and its exploration drilling proposal to meet the requirements of the law and the unique challengesof the Arctic. (Au)

Arctic Offshore Drilling review [response of Wildlife Management Advisory Council (North Slope) to Call for Information #1 and #2]   /   Wildlife Management Advisory Council (North Slope) (Canada)
Yukon : The Council, 2011.
4 p. ; 28 cm.
Cover title.
Indexed a PDF file from the Web containing a letter addressed to Gaetan Caron, Chair and CEO, National Energy Board, from Lindsay Staples, dated February 25, 2011.
ASTIS record 75795.
Languages: English
Web: https://apps.neb-one.gc.ca/REGDOCS/Item/View/675876

... Call for Information #1 and #2: The North Slope extends beyond the coastal lands into the coastal lagoons and nearshore marine habitat. Inuvialuit use the sea ice and coastal zone extensively for harvesting purposes. Our comments on Call for Information #1 and Call for Information #2 focus largely on risk, as from a social, economic, and cultural perspective, any release of hydrocarbons into the marine environment could result in a range of significant adverse effects, and in a worst case scenario, a catastrophic event. The question of mitigating risk is raised a number of times in the questions in the calls for information. Staff Working Paper No.5 of the National Commission on the BP Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill and Offshore Drilling contemplates the challenges of oil spill response in the Arctic. The paper examines the response gap in Prince William Sound based on, among other things, adverse weather conditions. The amount of time when responders are simply unable to work is known as the response gap. The study determined that, ... considering all the environmental limitations together, response operating limits were exceeded, and response was not possible, 38% of the time. That figure rose to 65% of the time during the winter season .... It does not appear that a similar comprehensive response gap analysis has been conducted for the Arctic. However, the Shell C-Plan notes that temperature alone would be a significant limitation. All non-emergency work stops when temperatures reach below -45° Fahrenheit [-42.8 Celsius]. This limitation would prevent response 50% of the time in the month of January and 64% of the time in the month of March. This raises a number of disturbing issues when considered in the context of risk management. What can be considered as an adequate response or sufficiently mitigated risk when operators and regulators suspect from the outset that the response gap will exceed 50%? Secondly, how is the public to trust recovery or response efforts when scenarios indicate that, over half of the time, there will likely be no active response at all? Discussions over the last two decades on the use of same-season relief wells in the Beaufort should inform the consideration of these questions. We suggest that a comprehensive response gap analysis be undertaken for the Beaufort. A second issue of concern is locating the spilled oil. ... We suggest an evaluation of whether technology for detecting oil that has been released into an ice environment of the Beaufort is sufficiently advanced to meet a test of public confidence in mitigation technologies and methods. We are particularly interested in 1.9.1 State of Knowledge of Long Term Environmental and Social-Economic Impacts and Request (d) which asks respondents to, Please discuss whether the current level of knowledge needs to be advanced. If so, please indicate in what ways the level of knowledge could or should be advanced, and how, when, and by whom this might best be done. Include a discussion of on-going initiatives and how these may contribute to the current or future level of knowledge. In reviewing the information that is provided to respond to this question, the NEB may want to consider the risk associated with proceeding with offshore deepwater drilling if the current state of knowledge on cultural, social, and economic impacts is not considered sufficient or adequate. Evidence from elsewhere, particularly the Valdez experience, indicates that the long term cultural impacts of spills are extensive. Particular attention in the above question should be paid to the transition from response to recovery in the social, cultural and economic context. Further, given what is known about the anticipated response gap in the Beaufort, the difficulty of finding oil that has been released under ice, and the importance of public trust in recovery efforts, responses to the above question should include how independent Inuvialuit observers will be included in emergency response planning and coordination, to provide transparency in the dissemination of information about the spill and clean up efforts to Inuvialuit communities. The capacity and state of preparedness and willingness of northern communities to assist with the containment and cleanup approaches identified (question 2.7.lg) will be significantly affected by Inuvialuit perceptions of honesty, trustworthiness, utility, and transparency of information from operators when an accident occurs. ... (Au)

National Environmental Policy Act analysis of Shell Offshore Inc. Camden Bay exploration plan   /   Alaska Wilderness League   et al.
Alaska : The League, 2011.
35 p. ; 28 cm.
Cover title.
References.
Indexed a PDF file from the Web that is a letter from 15 environmental protection groups addressed to the U.S. Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation and Enforcement.
ASTIS record 75798.
Languages: English
Web: https://apps.neb-one.gc.ca/REGDOCS/Item/View/736922

On July 5, 2011, the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation and Enforcement (BOEMRE) deemed submitted an exploration plan for drilling in the Beaufort Sea starting in 2012 by Shell Offshore Inc. (Shell). BOEMRE stated that it will accept comments on the issues that should be considered in preparing an analysis and disclosure of the effects of the proposed drilling pursuant to National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). The undersigned groups provide the following comments on the appropriate scope of BOEMRE's NEPA analysis and the need for careful scrutiny and full public participation in a full environmental impact statement (EIS). We welcome the opportunity to provide these scoping comments on the issues BOEMRE must address in its environmental analysis of Shell's drilling plans. As we describe in this letter, BOERME must prepare an EIS, including the attendant public comment process, analyzing and disclosing the effects of Shell's drilling. If, however, BOEMRE decides to first prepare an environmental assessment to determine whether Shell's operations threaten significant effects, the agency must also provide an opportunity for the public to comment on the agency's analysis itself - opportunities to provide scoping comments and comments on the documents Shell submits in connection with its plan do not suffice. The United States is at a crossroads with respect to planning and decision-making for offshore oil and gas activities in the Chukchi and Beaufort seas. President Obama and BOEMRE must decide whether to continue plans and grant further approvals that are based on inadequate science and preparedness and that have generated controversy, litigation, and - as the blowout in the Gulf of Mexico demonstrates - the potential for environmental and social disaster. The level of consideration given Shell's proposal to drill in the Beaufort Sea is an important step in showing how and whether BOEMRE seeks to meet its stewardship obligations for the Arctic Ocean. Rather than relying on a failed model for making decisions, BOEMRE has the opportunity to move forward toward preparedness and a full public process. The present plan is the fourth Shell has submitted to conduct exploration drilling in the Beaufort Sea. This plan differs substantially from Shell's previous proposals. It is larger in scope. The Beaufort Sea plan is just one part of an Arctic Ocean drilling proposal that includes simultaneous drilling in the Chukchi and Beaufort seas over multiple years using separate drill ships and accompanying vessel and aircraft fleets. The potential effects of the plan differ from those of previous drilling Shell has proposed, as Shell itself acknowledges. Further, since BOEMRE last approved a Shell proposal to drill in the Beaufort Sea, new information highly relevant to the decision about whether and how to approve drilling in the Arctic Ocean has emerged: the Deepwater Horizon spill occurred, followed by numerous investigations and reports, including by the National Commission on the BP Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill and Offshore Drilling; the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) completed an assessment of the myriad data gaps that hinder full assessment of Arctic Ocean oil and gas activities; the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) in 2010 completed a new biological opinion recognizing the importance of Camden Bay as a feeding and resting area for endangered bowhead whales; and climate change has continued to have dramatic effects in the Arctic. As the first vessel-based exploration drilling in the Arctic Ocean in nearly ten years, the first since the Deepwater Horizon disaster, and a dramatic expansion of prior Shell drilling plans, Shell's proposed exploration drilling warrants careful scrutiny and full public participation in a full EIS. (Au)

Arctic Offshore Drilling Review, NEB File: OF-EP-Gen-AODR 01 - Information to be gathered under contract by the Board : regulatory gap analysis proposed by the Northwest Territories   /   Northwest Territories
Vancouver, B.C. : Lawson Lundell, 2011.
[1], 3 p. ; 28 cm.
Indexed a PDF file from the Web containing a 1-page cover letter dated January 14, 2011, addressed to Ms. Erickson, Secretary, National Energy Board, from Lawson Lundell with a 3-page enclosure titled: Regulatory Gap Analysis Proposed by the Government of the Northwest Territories.
ASTIS record 75800.
Languages: English
Web: https://apps.neb-one.gc.ca/REGDOCS/Item/View/661217

Further to our letter of December 20, 2010, we write on behalf of the Government of the Northwest Territories ("GNWT") in response to the Board's letter of October 27, 2010 requesting submissions regarding experts and consultants the Board might retain and the information it might seek from them. ... We propose that the NEB retain an outside consulting firm to separately survey all of the industry participants and governmental authorities with relevant potential responsibilities about their on-the-ground practice and capabilities concerning any aspect of offshore oil and gas activity. The focus of the investigation should be directed to what each participant or governmental authority would actually plan to do at each stage of the process from the initial application through exploration, development, and operation. It should also consider spill response. The survey should seek information relating to present levels of funding and staff training, rather than an assessment of the legal authority of each agency. The purpose of the study would be to bring to light misunderstandings in the form of misplaced reliance on the intentions or activities of others in the planning undertaken by each participant. For illustrative purposes, the GNWT provides two examples of the types of questions it envisages being included in a survey. ... (Au)

Arctic Offshore Drilling Review, NEB file : OF-EP-Gen-AODR 01 : additional response to CFI #1 and #2, [WWF-Canada, April 1, 2011]   /   World Wildlife Fund (Canada)
[St. Albert, Alta. : WWF-Canada - St. Albert Office], 2011.
[1], 71 p. ; 28 cm.
Indexed 1 PDF file from the Web that includes a 1-page cover letter from Will Amos, Counsel representing the World Widlife Fund-Canada, St. Albert, Alberta, dated April 1, 2011, to Anne-Marie Erickson, Secretary of the Board, National Energy Board, Calgary, AB, T2P 0X8, and a 71 page submission to the NEB Arctic Offshore Drilling Review.
References.
ASTIS record 75804.
Languages: English
Web: https://apps.neb-one.gc.ca/REGDOCS/Item/View/679591

... INTRODUCTION AND OVERVIEW OF PRELIMINARY CONCLUSIONS: In response to the Board's Calls for Information (CFI) #1 and #2, this submission adds additional information to our November submission, [described in ASTIS record 72718], and the two should be read together. To make that easier, we have followed the same format here as in that previous submission, using the same headings and ordering to the extent possible. One change, however, is that we start each section with a discussion of lessons learned from the now-available Commission reports that investigated the Macondo blowout in the Gulf of Mexico in 2010 (the 'National Commission'), and the Montara blowout off the Northwest coast of Australia in 2009 (the 'Montara Commission'). We end each section with some preliminary conclusions, termed 'preliminary' because we have not yet seen any substantive submissions from industry, government or other participants in this Review. Overall, WWF-Canada believes there are some areas in offshore Arctic waters in which oil and gas exploration should not occur because of environmental sensitivity. We believe a comprehensive process of marine spatial planning should be used to identify such areas. After a sufficient set of such areas has been identified (i.e. 'conservation first'), in areas that are not designated off limits, WWF-Canada believes oil and gas exploration should only occur if: (1) risks (including risks to off-limit areas) can be reduced to 'acceptable' or 'tolerable' levels and, if so, then (2) all risks are reduced to as low as reasonably practicable, and (3) cumulative impacts can be kept below appropriate thresholds. Given the nature of the Board's Review and of its questions in CFI #1 and #2, this and our November submissions focus on items (1) and (2). Based upon what we have seen to date, WWF-Canada's preliminary conclusions are the following: 1. As explained in section 2: Past industry estimations of the chances of a blowout appear overly optimistic, especially in light of recent events. Given the additional risks and uncertainties in the Arctic combined with the very serious consequences, the potential for a blowout must be taken seriously. In the Arctic, a blowout that continues throughout the off-season, and thus lasts a year or more, should simply not be acceptable. 2. As explained in sections 3, 4 and 5: There are numerous scenarios in which same-well interventions to bring a blowout under control would not be available, effective or timely, and thus same-season relief wells continue to be a necessary option for blowout response. Additional rams on the BOP stack or other similar well control improvements are not equivalent to same-season relief wells. The SSRW capability requirement should therefore remain in place for all offshore Arctic drilling, and where it cannot be assured, drilling should not be approved. 3. As explained in sections 3 and 4: There is a need for appropriate end-of-season cut-off dates to allow sufficient time for not only SSRW capability, but also to allow time to attempt same-well intervention techniques. The above two requirements are aimed at limiting blowouts to being at most one season long. However, as with the Macondo and Montara blowouts, within-season blowouts of a few months duration can still be devastating, leading to our next preliminary conclusions. 4. As explained in section 3: Same-well containment and control methods must be improved and demonstrated for Arctic offshore use to reduce the probability of a long-duration blowout and to reduce the probability of all the oil escaping during a blowout. 5. As explained in section 5: Industry claims about the effectiveness of oil spill cleanup in Arctic waters come from small-scale controlled experiments that do not extrapolate to real world conditions. Rather, only a tiny fraction of oil can be expected to be recovered from a blowout. Any assessment of the potential consequences of a spill or blowout should take this into account. 6. As explained in section 5: Improved cleanup of spilled oil must be demonstrated under real-world conditions in Arctic waters to be able to remove a significant percentage of the escaped oil before cleanup can be relied upon as a meaningful mitigation measure. In order to monitor the impacts of offshore activities and plan for potential incidents, it will be necessary to better understand the baseline environmental conditions and potential impacts from spilled oil prior to exploration. 7. As explained in section 6: A significant oil spill in Arctic waters would have far-reaching and long-term impacts, although much remains unknown. More comprehensive understanding of baseline environmental conditions, potential trajectories of spilled oil, and the impacts of oil on Arctic species, ecosystems and communities is required prior to areas being approved for offshore exploration activities, including drilling. 8. As explained in section 7: An appropriate risk framework must distinguish among the acceptable, tolerable and unacceptable risks associated with the petroleum industry, including both the impacts of industrial activity on particularly sensitive areas and the risk posed by hydrocarbon releases. The framework must acknowledge that some risks are unacceptable and that continuous risk reduction is a requirement for projects and activities that are deemed tolerable. Finally, the 'polluter pays' principle should fully apply, to enhance incentives for industry to avoid spills and to ensure funds are available for full response, cleanup, restoration and compensation. 9. As explained in section 8: Financial liability caps should be abolished and responsibility requirements significantly increased commensurate with the entire potential costs of any spill, including the environmental damages associated with a worst case scenario spill. ... (Au)

Using strategic environmental assessments to guide oil and gas exploration decisions : applying lessons learned from Atlantic Canada to the Beaufort Sea   /   Doelle, M.   Bankes, N.   Porta, L.
(Review of European community & international environmental law, v. 22, no. 1, 2013, p. 103-116)
References as footnotes.
ASTIS record 80215.
Languages: English
Libraries: ACU

The Macondo oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico has spurred renewed global interest in the regulation of offshore oil and gas exploration, particularly in deepwater areas. At the same time, many jurisdictions are experimenting with strategic environmental assessment (SEA) processes to fill gaps in more traditional project-based decision-making processes. This article explores the potential of SEA to enhance decision making for exploration in deepwater environments. It does so by examining the experience with SEAs on the east coast of Canada, and applying the lessons learned to the Beaufort Sea. By looking at the issue in two very different environments, we can draw lessons that may also apply to deepwater exploration elsewhere. (Au)

Oil and gas activity forecast, Beaufort Sea 2012-2027 : prepared for BREA Results Forum, Inuvik, February 19-21, 2013   /   Callow, L.
In: BREA Results Forum : first two years of progress / Gaea Consultants and DPRA Canada Inc. - [S.l. : Beaufort Regional Environmental Assessment, 2013], p. 2
Indexed a PDF file from the WEB.
ASTIS record number 80643 describes the complete BREA Results Forum.
The Forum presentations are available on the BREA website at: http://www.beaufortrea.ca/results-forum-2012-2013.
The link on page 2 of the main report takes one to the 33 page Power Point presentation.
ASTIS record 80645.
Languages: English
Web: http://www.beaufortrea.ca/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/2.0-L-Callow-Oil-and-Gas-Forecast.pdf
Web: http://www.beaufortrea.ca/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/BREA-Results-Forum-2013-Report-EN.pdf
Web: http://www.beaufortrea.ca/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/BREA-Results-Forum-2013-Report-FR.pdf

Purpose of the Activity Forecast: Intended to provide a general description of potential future oil and gas activities in the Beaufort Sea. Focus was short to medium timeframe (15 years). To provide BREA Steering Committee, working groups and Arctic researchers with a common forecast for assessing priorities, scope and timing of research. Intended to help with understanding the implications of BREA research findings. Topics covered in the Activity Forecast: -History of Oil and Gas Industry in the Region; -Drilling Platforms Developed for the Region; -Wells Drilled in the Beaufort Sea; -The Cycle of Offshore Exploration and Development; -Regulatory Regime and Rights Management; -Timeline for a Generalized Development Project; -Description of Potential Future Industry Activities; -Forecast of Exploration and Development 2012-2027; -Mackenzie Delta-Beaufort Sea Resource Potential. ... (Au)

[BREA Results Forum] : BREA project - Regional Assessment of Deep Water Seabed Geohazards for Oil Spill Prevention, Canadian Beaufort Sea   /   Blasco, S.
In: BREA Results Forum : first two years of progress / Gaea Consultants and DPRA Canada Inc. - [S.l. : Beaufort Regional Environmental Assessment, 2013], p. 8
Indexed a PDF file from the WEB.
ASTIS record number 80643 describes the complete BREA Results Forum.
The Forum presentations are available on the BREA website at: http://www.beaufortrea.ca/results-forum-2012-2013.
The link on page 8 of the main report takes one to the 25 page Power Point presentation.
ASTIS record 80651.
Languages: English
Web: http://www.beaufortrea.ca/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/4.1-S-Blasco-Offshore-Geohazards.pdf
Web: http://www.beaufortrea.ca/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/BREA-Results-Forum-2013-Report-EN.pdf
Web: http://www.beaufortrea.ca/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/BREA-Results-Forum-2013-Report-FR.pdf

Outer Shelf and Upper slope seabed geohazards: 1. Submarine landslides, 2. Mass transport deposits; 3. Low strength sediments; 4. Deformation, faults; 5. Mud volcanoes, diapirs; 6. High sedimentation rates; 7. Shallow gas; 8. Overpressure; 9. Ice scouring; 10. Eroded sediments; 11. Subsea permafrost; 12. Seismicity; 13. Hydrates. (Au)

Return to the Hydrocarbon Impacts (HI) Database