Oil Spill Response Workshop – Panel Discussion (Summary)

The workshop brought together oil spill response professionals facing new threats that
include massive oil leakages from land pipelines and deep-water oil spills, and provided theopportunity for them to share challenges and issues involving oil spill response.
At the panel discussion, following a summary of the six presentations, the panelists answeredquestions with the aim of agreeing an approach on how to respond to the emerging new threats.
Keynote speech by Dr. Michael O’Brien, ITOPF
Responses to all oil spill incidents are basically the same: spill prevention, shoreline cleanup
and so on, regardless of whether or not the incident is caused by a tanker. Future challenges
include correct planning, regular training, accurate understanding of the quantity of recovered
oil and recovery rate, securing oil spill response personnel and budget and maintenance ofequipment. However, the currently available methods are capable of dealing with any type of oil
spill.
Lecture by Mr. Nick Hazlett-Beard, OSRL
Data indicates that tanker oil spill incidents have been on the decline in recent years. The Gulfof Mexico incident was handled with dispersant, in-situ burning and mechanical recovery.
OSRL was involved in dispersant operations during the incident and mechanical recovery did
not seem to be effective in some areas. I worked as a liaison between the Shoreline Cleanup
Assessment Technology (SCAT) operations and response staff and considered SCAT to be aneffective tool.
Lecture by Mr. Toby Stone, AMSA
During the oil spill from Montara wellhead platform, dispersant operations and mechanicalrecovery were combined to deal with the incident. An incident analysis team and Montara
committee of Inquiry carried out separate analyses of the incident, and Montara committee ofInquiry stated in its report that AMSA deserves credit for handling the incident well. AMSA
plans to review 10 years of the National Plan and the NMERA arrangements keeping in mind
large-scale oil spills, though low in frequency, such as Montara and Deepwater Horizon, which
could have significant impacts.
Lecture by Mr. Alan Allen, Spiltec
While controlled burning is generally used when no other options are available, it proved
highly effective during the Gulf of Mexico incident in terms of elimination ratio and economics.
This does not mean that controlled burning is a wild card, but it can be one of the major options

as a result of considering various trade-offs under adequate conditions. The most important
things during controlled burning are surveillance, spotting and communications.
Lecture by Dr. Ed Owens, Polaris Applied Sciences
In dealing with the Gulf of Mexico incident, we faced the unprecedented challenge of chronic
oil leaking over a long period of time. We have therefore arranged for research by Shoreline
Cleanup Assessment Technology (SCAT) to bring us to the next level of maintenance andmonitoring of the affected areas. Shorelines were dealt with both manually and using sandshakers because of animals and pipelines. The Gulf of Mexico incident will require considerable
work over a very long period.
Lecture by Mr. Guan Yongyi and Mr. Han Jungsong, Chinese Maritime Safety Administration
On July 16, 2010, two pipelines exploded in Dalian, spilling thousands of tons of oil. The
Transport Ministry and the Maritime Safety Administration activated a contingency plan guideand developed a cleanup action plan before going into response operation. According to thegovernment announcement, the clean-up operations were completed on August 31, whichindicates that an efficient command system was in place where the local government supervised
the operations and the MSA served as a headquarters, and the entire operation was effective.
Q&A
1

Records show that during the 1979 Ixtoc I incident, oil surfacing from 50 m underwatercontained 70% water. How much weathering was observed in the oil coming to thesurface from the seabed during the Gulf of Mexico incident? Are dispersants effective
for such weathered oil? Also, why did plumes occur? Do they still exist? (Mr. Sasaki)

A The Ixtoc I incident occurred only 200 feet underwater, so the oil was highly emulsified
inside the well bore, resulting in 70% water content by the time the oil reached thesurface, whereas the Gulf of Mexico incident took place one mile underwater and thiscaused oil to surface over a large area. So there is a big difference between the twoincidents. (Mr. Alan Allen)
Regarding weathering, I want to add that all components below C14 were lost and the oil
was a very light medium oil that did not contain any components higher than C45. There
were certainly reports of plumes occurring inside the water column; however, no plumes
were observed in later research. They may have been present at one time but, at this point,
there is no evidence of any. (Dr. Ed Owens)2

How much is the cost of a recovery operation regarding wellhead injection of dispersant?
Did you also research the cost of dispersants application from boats? What do you think
about dispersant application becoming a general response treatment for subsea oil spills?
(Mr. Seamus Connolly)

A Based on my calculations, the injection would theoretically cost an average of $80 perbarrel. When combined with the cost of necessary equipment, the cost is estimated to be
several hundred dollars for both surface and subsea applications. Considering the factthat as many as 16 vessels were operating around the clock, the cost will likely rise to$1,000 per barrel. However, I hate to focus solely on the expensiveness because direct
injection of dispersant into the wellhead is an extremely efficient and effective method.
(Mr. Alan Allen)
As indicated by the cases in the U.S. and Norway, countries are increasingly accepting
the use of dispersants in general. If dispersants are not available for use when one day weneed them, then there will be a gap in response. (Mr. Toby Stone)
In China, there are no strict regulations for the use of dispersants. Last year, however, theMSA set a rule that dispersants should not be used in water less than 10 meters deep andthat no chemical dispersants can be used. (Mr. Han Jungsong)
3If the Net Environmental Benefit Analysis (NEBA) says that doing nothing is better inwetland and salt marshes in the Gulf area, how should we treat SCAT and STR? I heard
that, after the Gulf of Mexico incident, major oil companies established a company todevelop a system and equipment to respond to subsea oil spills and that completion of
the system is expected within this year. I would like to know more about this if you have
any information. (Mr. Miyabuchi)

A At wetlands, there is no benefit from shoreline cleanup, but it is better to allow natural
weathering. Measures need to be taken for areas where there are mats of heavy oil
preventing new growth. Otherwise, they actually provide nutrients to improve plantgrowth. (Dr. Ed Owens)
Let me explain the industry efforts being made to contain oil spills on the seabed. Afterthe Gulf of Mexico incident, there has been a refocus, after several decades, on putting
domes over the wells. The establishment of a consortium was led by Exxon Mobil and it
has put nearly $1 billion into developing a system capable of containing oil spills fromboth deep underwater and shallow wellheads. (Mr. Alan Allen)

The consortium is the Marine Well Containment Company (MWCC) and sevencompanies have announced their commitment. (Ms. Alexis Steen)
4

What is the trade-off of using dispersants? Do they have any impact on the environment?
Is enough research being done as to what will happen after the response? (Mr. AsbjørnKlausen)

A We do not use dispersants in water areas where there are abalones and seaweeds. We alsoneed to be careful about the use of dispersants in enclosed seas like the Baltic Sea and theBlack Sea. However, the media covers oil spill incidents without any knowledge of thesethings. So, we need to perform verifications regarding large application and subsea
application of dispersants and revisit the core research conducted in the past. (Dr. MichaelO’Brien)
During my research on a hypothetical oil spill in Galveston Bay, a shallow water area in
Texas, I reached the conclusion that the use of dispersant is better in some types ofenvironment as a result of discussion among all stakeholders. We need to work to makegood decisions through correct planning in cooperation with local communities andfishermen. (Mr. Alan Allen)
Dispersants break down and dilute oil. The dilution process alone can make leaked oil
harmless. However, the use of dispersants has a negative side where mobile animals likefish can escape from dangerously high hydrogen concentration but planktonic organisms
cannot move away and become susceptible to it. We need to realistically take into
account all possible impacts of dispersant use and the period of impact and actual damage
that can be done. (Dr. Ed Owens)5

What explanations were made to the local communities to gain public acceptance on theuse of dispersant in the Gulf of Mexico? (Mr. Maki)

A Countries should discuss the trade-offs of dispersants without prejudgment. As the generalpublic is expected to become more involved in the decision-making process, experts likeus need to share our knowledge with them. (Dr. Michael O’Brien)
6

What kinds of equipment do you expect from recovery equipment manufacturers? (Mr.
Graeme Hansen)

A It is impossible for a ship to encounter oil unless it travels at an extraordinary speed. Also,
considering the difficulty in securing storage for oil that appears out of nowherecontaining thousands of cubic meters of water, and monopoly recyclers possibly
demanding incredible payment, oil recycling will not likely have a chance of business atleast in Australia where there are very few oil spill accidents. However, the situation
might be different if booms were made to be faster and the encounter rate improved. (Mr.
Toby Stone)
7

Shouldn’t something else be done other than research in a situation where it is not yet clear
what actually happens after the application of dispersants and what the long-term costs ofusing dispersants are? (Mr. Asbjørn Klausen)

A I cannot remember ever being in a situation where the decision to use dispersants wasbased on cost. In relation to this, in addition to the issues involving the business aspectsof the spill oil recycling market, there are still unresolved problems with regard to storage
and transport of spilled oil to adequate facilities since it is treated as hazardous waste inmany countries and facilities because neighbors do not welcome these hazardous waste
near their area. New technologies will need to be developed to bring the recovery ratio up
to 30–50%. However, this is not a decision made from an economic perspective but isintended to optimize available options. (Dr. Michael O’Brien)
8I think that you cannot truly understand what we are discussing today unless you
participate in the Net Environmental Benefit Analysis (NEBA) or ERA. Although NEBA
takes several days or even needs to be repeated several times, I recommend that it beconducted in Japan as well because in most cases, consensus can be reached on anoptimum approach.
Regarding the recycling of spilled oil, I think it is a good idea but very difficult to put into
practice. (Comment)

9Let me add one thing on mechanical recovery. I prefer mechanical recovery as long as it isa feasible and efficient choice because I believe dispersants have long-term impacts.
(Comment by Mr. Han Jungsong)

Closing Remarks by the Moderator
There are different styles of oil spill response and each has its own advantages anddisadvantages. That’s why there were so many opinions expressed today. But I also feelthat all the participants shared the same wish to minimize damage by oil spills, and PAJ
would like to continue to provide opportunities where people can share their expertise.