New Horizons?
Dealing with Major Oil Spills
from Non‐Tanker Sources

PetroleumPlA
Associationi i off JJapan (PAJ)
Oil Spill Workshop 2011
Tokyo Japan,Tokyo,
Japan March 2nd

Dr. Michael O’Brien,International Tanker Owners Pollution Federation, Ltd.

Outline
1. Tanker spill trends / ITOPF work with non‐tanker
non tanker spills
2. “Non‐tankers” and “Major”/ “Large”
3. New dimensions with response to non‐tanker spills?
4. Marine oil spill response: main issues, needs, R&D

1.1 Trends in large
g tanker incidents?

40

Large Tanker Spills by Year35> 700MT or 5,000 BBL

30
25
20

Globally,
Glb ll ththe numberb off llarge spills
illeach year is quite
variable,
Annualspill frequency
Yet there is a clear downward trend

15

Ave freq by decades

10A log estimate
52030

2027

2024

2021

2018

2015

2012

2009

2006

2003

2000

1997

1994

1991

1988

1985

1982

1979

1976

1973

1970

0

1.2 Trends in volume spilledini ‘large’‘l’ tanker
t k iincidents?
id t ?

350,000

Quantity of oil spilled (MT) in large tanker spills((1970‐2010))

300,000
250,000
200,000

When looking
Whl ki at alllllarge tanker spills
since 1970,
1970 there is noobvious trend in termsof quantity spilled...

150,000
100,000
50 00050,000

1970
1970
1971
1972
1972
1973
1973
1974
1974
1975
1976
1976
1977
1978
1979
1979
1980
1981
1983
1985
1987
1989
1990
1992
1993
1996
1998
2002
2006

0

Or add a trend line...

50,00045,00040 00040,00035,00030,000The picture is no clearer if we
disregard the really large
spills, zoom in on the rest, or
add a trend line...

25,00020,000
15 00015,00010,000
5,000

1970
1970
1971
1972
1972
1973
1974
1974
1975
1976
1976
1977
1978
1979
1979
1980
1981
1983
1986
1988
1989
1990
1992
1994
1997
2000
2004
2010

0

1.3 Trends in ITOPF activity

ITOPF Site Attendance
181614121086
4202001

2002

2003

2004

Tanker

2005

2006

2007

2008

Non‐tanker

2009

2010

2.0 Definitions“non‐‐tanker”, “large”/ “major”“non2.1 Overall sources of Marine Oil Pollution

Sources: GESAMP 1993/ ICS, 2008

2.2 Oil pollution from sea‐based activities
Shipping• Tanker accidents• Non‐tanker accidents• Operational discharges• Dry‐docking/ recycling
EExploration
li & Production
P d i• Drilling/ rig accidents• Operational discharges
Other Sources•Facilities (refineries, terminals, pipelines)• Fuel dumps from aircraft• Small craft activity
acti it• Natural oil seeps

2 3 Definition: “Major”/2.3Major / “Large”
LargeImpact is a function of:• Quantity spilled (ceteris paribus!)• Type of oil (weathering persistence vs.
vs acute toxicity)• Location & direction (towards/ away from shore)• Sensitivity of location (Environ., mariculture, commerce)• Spill profile (instantaneous vsvs. on
on‐going
going release)
2 examples...

(Very) Large spill with no measureable impactIImmediate
direleaseloff 5700 MT off whitehi productdMINDORO c/w JORK RANGER
12/10/2010 off Netherlands

(Very) small spill with significant impacts
SlSlow,
yet continualil releaseloff bbunkers
k ffrom sunken
k wreckk
Regularly we hear of// attend:• Large spills with minimal impact (e.g. Offshore collision withproductd t tankers)t k )• Small spills with huge impacts (e.g.
Collision sinking,Collision,sinking continual release in sensitive location)

GOLD LEADER c/w OCEAN PHOENIX & No
No. 5 EISU MARU
5/3/2008 Akashi Strait (Kobe)

3.0 New Dimensions with Response
to Oilil Spills
ill ffrom Non‐Non‐Tankers?
k ?

Photo: NOAA

Photo: BP

Photo: Internet

Non‐Tanker ((Vessel)) Accidents(Bunker spills from bulkers, Cont. vessels,...)• Persistent fuel oils
• Oil release at depth often slow & continual• Smaller worst case release scenariosNon‐Tanker ((Vessel)) Accidents(Bunker spills from bulkers, Cont. vessels,...)• Persistent fuel oils
– Large spills tend to be HFO (diesel stored in smaller tanks)– HFO always requires response if oil strands– HFO evaporates less, produces more waste...

Non‐Tanker ((Vessel)) Accidents(Bunker spills from bulkers, Cont. vessels,...)• Oil release at depth slow, continual, long
– Multiple small tanks, piping, internal structures– Smaller bulk quantities to target in recovery ops

Non‐Tanker ((Vessel)) Accidents(Bunker spills from bulkers, Cont. vessels,...)• Smaller worst case release scenarios– Overall F.O. capacity much lower than with tankers– BUT, tanker might loose only one tank...

Rig/well releases• Moreo e complicatedco p cated su
surfaceace actactivityty• Oil release at depth under pressure!
• Much larger worst‐case release scenarios• fixed location and known oil type

Rig/well releases• Complicated surface activity– Hindrance to recovery/ dispersing ops.
– H&S issues
iwith
i h surface
fops ini oilil

Rig/well releases• O
Oil releasee ease at deptdepth uunderde ppressure!
essu e– Sub‐surface dispersion/ plumes– Opportunities for dispersant injection

PRESTIGE oil spillRig/well releases• Muchuc largera ge worst
o st case releasee ease scenarios
sce a os
– Tanker capacity vs. oil reservoirs...
Æ DWH: 87 dayy @ 7,500+,MT/day/ y = 662,000+,MT– Potential scope for in situ burning

DWH Flow Rate Technical Group (FRTG)

totaldays
d ildaily
Photo: Resolve Marine GroupBBL
4 900 000
4,900,000
8756 322
56,322

MT662 181
662,181
87
7 611
7,611

Rig/well releases• Fewer site variables (fixed location and oil type)– Oil behaviour is known (pre‐selection of equipment)– knowledge on local currents, sensitivities...
– Plans, responsibilities known

Shore based/ pipeline releases
Shore‐based/• Response– More likely to include shoreline clean‐up– ContainmentCi
on riversi
especially
i ll problematicbli– Sub‐surface release possible (with pipeline)– Buried oil on land may be an important issue– Facility losses more likely to be refined products• Large worst case release scenarios– Storage tank capacity vs.
vs probability of reaching water...
water– Terminal losses very similar to ship accidents at berth4.0 Marine oil spill response:
Main issues, Preparedness, R&D

Photo: NOAA

Photo: BPBasic Elements of Oil Spill Response• Stop outflow• Deal with floating oil– Dispersants– ContainCi & collectll– Monitor (evaporation/ drifting)• Shoreline clean‐up• Waste management

Keyey Issues
ssues
Always the same thing...
• Adequate planning• Regular training & exercises• Meaningful,Meaningful timely
timely, dependable communication• Efficient use of appropriate equipment and materials• Environmentally sound and economic waste disposal• Objective damage assessment

R&D& toptopics
cs fofor alla marinea e spill
sp worko• Real‐time tracking (visual and remote) of slick thickness &movement, rather than modelling• Increased skimming efficiency & encounter rates in rougher
seas (i.e. more oil & less water)• More accurate measurement of operational
psuccess, e.g.
g MT“pure oil” delivered by recovery units, burned, dispersed, etc.
• R&D on effects of large/g / underwater dispersant
puse• More integrated resource tracking and communication• GGreatert availability
il bilit off environmentally
it ll soundd oilil recyclingliopportunities

Things
gs to avoid
a od• Reliance on complicated procedures/ machinery• High expectations for “magic” chemicals/ solutions• Inventions proposed at time of incident• Inefficient use of materials• Political
P liti l meddling
ddli• Doing to be see doing...

Photo: NOAA

Photo: BPFuture
utu e Issues
ssues
Between spills...
• Keeping intelligent responders adequately occupied• Bridging financial gap• Keeping ever
ever‐more
more sophisticated equip
equip. Maintained

5.0 Conclusions

Photo: NOAA‘Magic’chemicals

Photo: BPIn all spill response work:• Consistently do what we already know how to dodo.
j the correct,, confidence‐inspiring
p g imageg of• Project
professionals at work to the public and politicians• Promote productive, balanced, spill‐specific R&D• Base decision on the balance of true cost with true gains(e.g. carbon neutrality).

• Maintain/strive for scientific and technical integrity