A111D3 DDmB?

NAT-L INST OF STANDARDS & TECH R.I.C.

NIST

PUBLICATiOfMS

A1 1103001437

/Alaska arctic offshore oil spill respon QC100 .U57 N0.762 1989 ^1989 6.2 ^NIST-PU ARCTIC

OFFSHORE OIL SPILL

RESPONSE TECHNOLOGY

WORKSHOP

PROCEEDINGS

Anchorage, Alaska

November 29 - December 1, 1988

Nora H. Jason, Editor

Sponsored by Minerals Management Service, U.S. Department ofInterior

100

.U57

#762

1989

C.2

U.S. Department of Commerce

National Institute of Standards and Technology

NIST SP 762
rhe National Institute of Standards and Technology^ was established by an act of Congress on March 3, 1901. The Institute's overall goal is to strengthen and advance the Nation's science and technology and

facilitate their effective application for public benefit. To this end, the Institute conducts research to assure international competitiveness and leadership of U.S. industry, science and technology. NIST work involves development

and transfer of measurements, standards and related science and technology, in support of continually improving

U.S. productivity, product quality and reliability, innovation and underlying science and engineering. The Institute's technical work is performed by the National Measurement Laboratory, the National Engineering Laboratory, the National Computer Systems Laboratory, and the Institute for Materials Science and Engineering.

The National Measurement Laboratory

Provides the national system of physical and chemical measurement;

coordinates the system with measurement systems of other nations and furnishes essential services leading to accurate and uniform

physical and chemical measurement throughout the Nation's scientific community, industry, and commerce; provides advisory and research

services to other Government agencies; conducts physical and chemical

research; develops, produces, and distributes Standard Reference

Materials; provides calibration services; and manages the National

Standard Reference Data System. The Laboratory consists of the following centers: The National Engineering Laboratory

Basic Standards'^ Radiation Research

Chemical Physics

Analytical Chemistry

Provides technology and technical services to the public and private

sectors to address national needs and to solve national problems;

conducts research in engineering and applied science in support of these

efforts; builds and maintains competence in the necessary disciplines

required to carry out this research and technical service; develops engineering data and measurement capabilities; provides engineering measure- ment traceability services; develops test methods and proposes engineering standards and code changes; develops and proposes new

engineering practices; and develops and improves mechanisms to

transfer results of its research to the ultimate user. The Laboratory

consists of the following centers: The National Computer Systems Laboratory

Computing and Applied

Mathematics

Electronics and Electrical Engineering^

Manufacturing Engineering

Building Technology

Fire Research

Chemical Engineering^

Conducts research and provides scientific and technical services to aid Federal agencies in the selection, acquisition, application, and use of computer technology to improve effectiveness and economy in Government operations in accordance with Public Law 89-306 (40 U.S.C. 759), relevant Executive Orders, and other directives; carries out this mission

by managing the Federal Information Processing Standards Program,

developing Federal ADP standards guidelines, and managing Federal

participation in ADP voluntary standardization activities; provides scientific and technological advisory services and assistance to Federal

agencies; and provides the technical foundation for computer-related

policies of the Federal Government. The Laboratory consists of the following divisions: The Institute for Materials Science and Engineering

Information Systems

Engineering

Systems and Software

Technology

Computer Security

Systems and Network

Architecture

Advanced Systems

Conducts research and provides measurements, data, standards, refer- ence materials, quantitative understanding and other technical information fundamental to the processing, structure, properties and perfor- mance of materials; addresses the scientific basis for new advanced

materials technologies; plans research around cross-cutting scientific themes such as nondestructive evaluation and phase diagram development; oversees Institute-wide technical programs in nuclear reactor

radiation research and nondestructive evaluation; and broadly disseminates generic technical information resulting from its programs. The

Institute consists of the following divisions:

Ceramics

Fracture and Deformation^

Polymers

Metallurgy Reactor Radiation

'Headquarters and Laboratories at Gaithcrsburg, MD, unless otherwise noted; mailing address Gaithersburg, MD 20899. ^Some divisions within the center are located at Boulder, CO 80303.

' Located at Boulder, CO, with some elements at Gaithersburg, MD.

i

i
NATIONAL mSTITUTE OF STANDARDS k

TfiCJINOLOGY ' ^-^'7

Reeeaich Monnation Center ^ m-^ta

Gaithersburg, MD 20899 j,^^.^

NIST Special Publication 762

Alaska Arctic Offshore Oil Spill Response

Technology Workshop Proceedings

Anchorage, Alaska, November 29-December 1, 1988

sponsored by:

Minerals Management Service

U.S. Department of the Interior

Reston, VA 22091

Nora H. Jason, Editor

David D. Evans, Workshop Chairperson

Center for Fire Research

National Engineering Laboratory

National Institute of Standards and Technology

Gaithersburg, MD 20899

Issued April 1989

^ \^ % NOTE: As of 23 August 1988, the National Bureau of ^ 5« Standards (NBS) became the National Institute of

Competitiveness Act

U.S. Department of Commerce

Robert A. Mosbacher, Secretary

Standards and Technology (NIST) when President

Reagan signed into law the Omnibus Trade and

National Institute of Standards and Technology

Raymond G. Kammer, Acting Director
Library of Congress U.S. Government Printing Office

Catalog Card Number: 89-600731 Washington: 1989

National Institute of Standards

and Technology

Special Publication 762

Natl. Inst. Stand. Technol.

Spec. Publ. 762

201 pages (Apr. 1989)

CODEN: NSPUE2

For sale by the Superintendent

of Documents

U.S. Government Printing Office

Washington, DC 20402
TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

Executive Summary v

Agenda vii

Acknowledgements ix

INTRODUCTION 1

PANEL SUMMARIES:

Mechanical Containment, Chairperson - H. Lichte 3

Mechanical Recovery, Chairperson - S. Hillman 7

Chemical Treatment, Chairperson - M. Fingas 9

In-Situ Burning, Chairperson - A. Allan 11

Readiness, Chairperson - D. Rome 15

WORKSHOP PAPERS:

Mechanical Containment and Recovery by H.W. Lichte 19

Chemical Treatment of Oil Spills by M.F. Fingas 27

In-Situ Burning of Oil Spills by D.D. Evans 47

Readiness Planning for Arctic Offshore Oil Spill

Response by D.D. Rome 97

The Oil and Hazardous Materials Simulated Test Tank Program

Efforts Arctic Oil Spill Response Technology Assessment

and Development by E.J. Tennyson 103

Arctic Aspects of the Technology Assessment and Research

Program of the Minerals Management Service

by E.J. Tennyson Ill

The Arctic and Marine Oilspill Program-AMOP by K.M. Meikle 117

Environmental Studies Research Funds by J.J. Swiss 133

Summary of the Alaska Clean Seas Research, Development and

Engineering Program by R.V. Shafer 157

Alaska Arctic Offshore Oil Spill Response

Technology by 0. Angelvik 185

LIST OF ATTENDEES 197

iii

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Alaska Arctic Offshore Oil Spill Response Technology Workshop

Anchorage , Alaska

November 29 -December 1, 1988

The objective of the Workshop was to provide a public forum to describe

existing research programs, to identify future research needs and priorities

to improve and to advance Arctic oil spill response capabilities, to present

discussions of the state-of-the-art for all aspects of oil spill response

under Arctic conditions and to provide information for the refinement of the

existing Minerals Management Service (MMS) Technology Assessment and Research

Program. The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) served as the Workshop Coordinator on behalf of the MMS.

To achieve the Workshop objective. Keynote Speakers presented the current

state-of-the-art in the following areas: Mechanical Containment and Recovery;

Chemical Treatment; In- Situ Burning; Readiness. These presentations were followed by the status of several on-going efforts: the Technology Assessment

and Research Program, the OHMSETT (Oil and Hazardous Materials Simulated

Environmental Test Tank) Program, the Arctic and Marine Oil Spill Program, the

Alaska Clean Seas Research and Development Program and the Norwegian Oil Spill

Response (NOFO) Program.

After the Keynote Speakers' presentations in the general session, five Panels were formed from Workshop attendees and chaired by selected experts. The

topical area for each Panel was the same as the above state-of-the-art papers.

The goal of each Panel was to establish research needs and priorities within

their area of expertise. Discussions by these Panels lead to recommendations

of future research needs and testing and evaluating new techniques in specific

environments representative of the Chukchi and Beaufort Seas. The major

recommendations were

• Large-scale tests (i.e., field tests) are necessary to replicate

and validate innovations or to validate small-scale tests, to

investigate the refinement of field measurement technique, to

study the ignition and sustained combustion of emulsified oil

measurements, and to investigate of the recovery of burn residue;

• small-scale tests (i.e., laboratory or test tank tests) are necessary to better understand a problem prior to large-scale

testing, to investigate the ignition and sustained combustion of

floating emulsified oil layers, to validate emissions from burning

oils and other common air pollutants;

V
• research should be considered to improve current capabilities of

recovering oil adhering to ice, and improving disposal techniques

for oil-covered peat and other beach materials;

• chemical treating agents should be considered as a primary

response tool in contingency planning, research is needed in such areas as biodegradability , toxicity, to quantify the amount of

treating agent, to investigate their effectiveness in different

water temperatures, to adapt existing technology to the Arctic

environment

;

• research on in-situ burning, e.g., oil spill burns in open water

and broken ice are needed to measure burning rate, smoke emission

movement, and particulate deposition; techniques for recovering

the burn residue from the water should be examined; laboratory

investigations are needed to assess the feasibility of burning

different oil -water emulsions and develop new techniques for

burning enhancement; to address public concerns an analysis of th

relative significance of oil spill burn emissions to other

ordinary sources such as fireplaces, forest fires, and automobile

engines was recommended;

• alternative techniques are necessary for acceptable disposal

techniques, research is needed in such areas as incineration,

landfilling, treatment products to solidify oil, investigation of

inj ection/reinj ection techniques into a pipeline or disposal well

• remote sensing capabilities should be improved in the areas of

reliably measuring the oil slick thickness, detecting oil in the

presence of ice, and detecting sunken oil concentrations.

Although there may appear to be an overlap within individual Panel summaries

,

the combined research priorities and technological needs present a comprehensive view of the current Alaska Arctic offshore oil spill response

technology. Recommendations for projects of a more administrative nature,

e.g., a manual of transportation, logistics and support, are noted in

individual Panel summaries. For more detailed information about each Panel,

the reader is encouraged to review one or more Panel summaries of interest.

The Panel recommendations represent the combined input of the attendees and

may serve as a working document for the MMS to refine their existing research

programs

.

vi
Workshop on ALASKA ARCTIC OFFSHORE OIL SPILL

RESPONSE TECHNOLOGY

Sheraton Anchorage Hotel, Anchorage, Alaska

November 29-December 1, 1988

November 29

9 AM-12 Noon Registration at Sheraton Anchorage Hotel

9 AM-12 Noon Panel Chairmen Caucus

1:00 PM Welcome

1:15 PM Introduction by Dr. David D. Evans, Workshop Chairman,

National Institute of Standards and Technology

1:30 PM H. W. Lichte, Keynote Speaker, Mechanical Containment

and Recovery

2:00 PM M F. Fingas, Keynote Speaker, Chemical Treatment

2:30 PM Coffee Break

3:15 PM Dr. David D. Evans, Keynote Speaker, In-Situ Burning

3:45 PM Cdr. Dennis Rome, US Coast Guard, Keynote Speaker,

Readiness

4:30 PM Announcements; News Items

Adjourn for the day

November 30

7:30 AM-8:30 AM Registration

Edward Tennyson, Technology Assessment and Research Program,

and the OHMSETT Program, Mineral Management Services

Kenneth Meikle, Arctic and Marine Oil Spill Program

James J. Swiss, Canadian Environmental Science Revolving

Fund

Coffee break

Richard V Shafer, Alaskan Clean Seas Research & Development

Program

Odd B. Angelvik, NOFO Program

Break for lunch

8-30 AM

9:00 AM

9:30 AM

10:00 AM

10:30 AM

11:00 AM

11:30 AM

vii
November 30 (continued)

1:00 PM Participants will divide into five panels:

Mechanical Containment - H. W. Lichte, Chairman

Mechanical Recovery - Sharon O. HiUman, Chairwoman

Chemical Treatment - M E Fingas, Chairman

Is-Situ Burning - Alan A. Allen, Chairman

Readiness - Cdr. Dennis Rome, Chairman

3:45 PM Coffee break

4:00 PM Workshop Chairmen will present 10 minute summaries of

their progress

5:00 PM Announcements; News Items

Adjourn for the day

December 1

9:00 AM Workshop reconvenes and Panels resume discussions

10:30 AM Coffee break

11:00 AM Panels reconvene

1:00 PM Luncheon break

2:00 PM Individual panel presentations and discussion

4:00 PM Closing comments by Workshop Chairman

Panel Chairmen submit their written summaries

4:30 PM Workshop closes

viii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

No workshop is the effort of any one person. The energies and support of Ed

Tennyson and John Gregory (MMS Res ton Headquarters Office) and Jeff Walker and

Tom Murrell (MMS Alaska OCS Region Office) helped mold the agenda and identify

the speakers and participants. David Evans (NIST) did an outstanding job in

keeping the speakers and panels focussed on the purpose of the Workshop. The

Keynote Speakers, Panel Chairs, and Recorders provided the input for the

Proceedings. Last, but not least, the editor would like to give special

thanks to the numerous secretaries at MMS and NIST who provided assistance

before, during and after the Workshop.

Ix

INTRODUCTION

The Alaska Arctic Offshore Oil Spill Response Technology Workshop was held in

Anchorage, Alaska, from November 29 -December 1, 1988. The objective of the

Workshop was to provide a public forum to describe existing research

programs , to identify future research needs and priorities to improve and to

advance Arctic oil spill response capabilities, to present discussions of the

state-of-the-art for all aspects of oil spill response under Arctic conditions

and to provide information for the refinement of the existing Minerals

Management Service (MMS) Technology Assessment and Research Program. The

National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) served as the Workshop

Coordinator on behalf of the MMS.

To solicit public comments and recommendations on questions and issues

relating to Arctic oil spill response capabilities, a Federal Register notice

was published on July 25, 1988. Comments were sent to the MMS Reston

Headquarters Office and Alaska OCS Region Office and, in turn, these comments

were sent to the Panel Chairpersons so that the issues and recommendations

would be addressed during the Panel sessions. A second Federal Register

notice appeared on November 9, 1988 to announce the location and date of the

Workshop

To achieve the Workshop objective, Keynote Speakers presented the current

state-of-the-art in the following areas: Mechanical Containment and Recovery;

Chemical Treatment; In- Situ Burning; Readiness. These presentations were followed by the status of several on-going efforts: the Technology Assessment

and Research Program, the OHMSETT (Oil and Hazardous Materials Simulated

Environmental Test Tank) facility studies, the Arctic and Marine Oil Spill

Program, the Alaska Clean Seas Research and Development, the Norwegian Oil

Spill Response Organization. The next phase was for experts in the areas of

Mechanical Containment, Mechanical Recovery, Chemical Treatment, In- Situ

Burning and Readiness to lead the discussions and to summarize their Panel

recommendations. The individual papers and recommendations of the Panels

follow this Introduction.

This proceedings is the official transmittal of workshop information and

recommendations to the sponsor. Minerals Management Service, Department of the

Interior. It reflects the combined input of the workshop participants.

The statements and conclusions in this report are those of the authors and do

not necessarily reflect the views of the National Institute of Standards and

Technology.

1

I

MECHANICAL CONTAINMENT PANEL

Attendees

H. Lichte, Chair W. Sackinger

L. Solsberg, Recorder K. Meikle

W. Simpson B. Ryan

J. Ruser E. Tennyson

K. Hunt

Introduction

Three primary oil spill response techniques were identified as being worthy of

consideration for future testing and evaluation. In order of priority, these

were: Utilization of ice; containment booms; plunging water jet.

Each subject area was examined according to a number of response logistics

concerns. In addition, seasonal conditions also were taken into account. The

latter included slow and fast-moving ice (defined as having a velocity >1

knot) for each of winter, spring, summer and fall, as well as open water.

Tracking oil spills also was identified as a subject area requiring further

attention.

Research Priorities

1. Utilization of ice;

2 . containment booms

;

3. plunging water jets.

Utilization

1. Ice as a Means of Containment

Floes could be maneuvered, as possible, using support vessels so that

containment of slicks would result. Problems with this approach center around

the dynamic nature of sea ice, usually involving an array of sizes and shapes

which move at velocities contingent upon changing wind direction and currents.

This makes judgment calls necessary for each situation involving the use of

ice rather than documentation of specific methodologies that could be

predictively applied. Slowly-moving ice in winter, spring and summer might

afford the opportunity of using this technique.

2 . Water Spray

Four approaches based on the use of water spray were reviewed with general

applicability to slower moving winter ice :

a. Berm - Water/ice spray would be directed so as to create a low

berm on the surface of the ice in a configuration impeding the

flow of released oil. Placement of the berm might result in oil

3
seeping through cracks into the ice structure as critical pooling

depths are reached. Research might then focus on distances from

the oil release point where this technique is feasible or the

possibility of using the spray to enhance encapsulation of the oil

should it penetrate the ice matrix.

b. Sorbent - Spray would be employed to take up oil much as any

sorbent broadcast onto spilled oil would.

c. Stabilizer - Water spray would be applied on sea ice overpassing a subsea blowout. The ice thus strengthened would be less prone to

fracture during the winter months. Ultimately, in spring time,

with the formation of melt pools and the upward migration of the

contained oil through brine channels into the pools, ignition of

the "fresh" slicks could be tried. Problems might be encountered

in the logistics of applying sufficient spray due to ice moving at

a rate that would not allow the buildup of the needed strength

characteristics

.

d. Thickener/Insulator - Spray would be used to thicken ice. The

resultant insulating layer is known to promote the formation of

under- ice depressions which would tend to retain oil released from

a subsea blowout. The insulating effects are well known and

perhaps a combination of 2c and 2d might be investigated.

3. Creation of Open-water Lee

A boom or large diameter rope might be deployed in a catenary to entrap ice over a subsea blowout. Ice buildup would ensue, eventually resulting in the

deflection of floes around the contained ice and the formation of an open

water area in its lee. There, conventional containment and recovery hardware

could be deployed to remove the oil. The technique could only be attempted in

operable ice conditions as found on a year-round basis using vessels with

appropriate ice -strengthened hulls and power plants.

Containment Booms

Five areas relating to conventional open-water containment barriers were

discussed:

1. Protocols

The need was foreseen to develop test protocols whereby booms could be

evaluated for their performance in open-water Arctic conditions.

2. Standards

A set of technical specifications should be precisely written for booms

intended for application to the Arctic open-water offshore regime. The thermal

response characterisitics of materials (embrittlement temperature), grab

tensile strength, tear resistance and other properties would form the basis

for the standards.

4
3. Cross-Sectional Design

Tank or flume testing should be pursued in zero- ice conditions to ascertain

optimxam cross -sectional configurations for Arctic booms. The work should not

repeat earlier investigations of boom loss mechanisms and other well-known

phenomena

4. Oil Tests

Field tests should be planned which concentrate on evaluating arctic booms

primarily in terms of operational characteristics. Small slick releases during

fall freeze -up are seen as being appropriate to provide the information

sought

5. Assessments in Ice Infestations

Again, field trials sould be undertaken using the Arctic booms. In this case,

however, oil would be contained in the open water area developing in the lee

of an artifical gravel island. A fireproof boom also could be tested, safety

allowing. Open-water tests might initially be conducted followed by spring or fall trials held in variable ice-encounter rate conditions. The use of lights

and transmitters for the booms was noted in assisting in locating them.

PLUNGING WATER JETS

Various configurations of plunging water jets could be used to deflect and

concentrate slicks for subsequent recovery by conventional skimming gear. Offthe-shelf hardware comprises such systems which also offer advantages of being

able to function in certain ice types which exist in most seasons and in high

currrents. Direct attachment of jets to skimmers also has been tried and could

be further examined and tested.

OTHER ISSUES

1. Tracking

It will be necessary in all seasons to track oil that has been released

beneath ice and that remains entrapped in its structure or is releasesd into

the water. Radio- tracking Orion buoys and Argus buoys were identified as items

that should be deployed and tracked in future Arctic work.

2. Bubble Barriers

The consensus of opinion was that past work has documented the limitations

associated with bubble barriers. No further research and development is

therefore recommended. Problems relate to mechanical failure and the influence

of currents and sea ice which inhibit the desired effects.

5

MECHANICAL RECOVERY PANEL

Attendees

S. Hillman, Chair

R. Schulze, Recorder

T. Murrell

E. Hags tad

D . MacWatt

G. Reiter - B . Lerch

B. A'Atri

B. Eldridge

P. Ferris

C. Cloutier

D. Morris

E. Tennyson

Introduction

The Panel has made reconunendations for mechanical recovery of oil in various

Beaufort Sea and Chukchi Sea conditions. Four areas for developing new or existing techniques in specific environments were discussed and are listed in

order of importance: Oil/ice mixed field greater than 50 percent; shallow

water/shoreline mechanical recovery; pack ice mechanical recovery; freeze

up.

Research Priorities

Testing

1. Field work is necessary as large scale tests replicate and

validate innovations;

2. laboratory work (i.e. , test tanks) is necessary to better

understand the problems and small-scale work is useful to

inventors. However, the research effort does not replace the

field (real life) conditions.

Recommendations

1. Oil/mixed ice field greater than 50 percent

a. Existing methods and designs that fall into three categories:

1. process in place to remove the oil;

2. pick-up oil/ice, clean ice and recover oil;

3. harness and/or deflect ice and use skimmers;

b. very little research has been conducted on how to clean oiled ice

in the field.

c. do not move the ice when cleaning it. Energy requirements are excessive if the ice is cleaned on-board.

2. Shallow water/shoreline mechanical recovery

a. Water greater than 10 feet. A shallow ice breaker exists (The

Russian River design is from $10-30 million and there are several

in use . )

;

b. water less than 10 feet. Breakup of ice may be done with

controlled lightening, using electric power, high voltage

capacitors (this also applies to other ice conditions). New

7
amphibious ice designs should be considered as well as pontoon

drag- line equipment;

c. for the shorelines, peat can be used to collect the oil and it can then be burned; Canada has developed a hooded burner for this

purpose

.

3 . Pack- ice

a. Mechanical recovery cannot be done without support;

b. ships must be ice -strengthened, with ice-breaking capability and

the ship's cooling system must be designed to avoid contamination;

c. over- the- front skimmers are preferable but other over- the -side

,

aft, etc. skimmers have certain applications;

d. the Finnish ice strengthened/brush design to collect oil in broken

ice appears to be very acceptable.

4. Freeze-up

a. Rapid daily freezing causes everything to freeze;

b. ice-breaking in shallow water until freeze-up supports on- ice

work

.

Additional Concepts

Controlled lightening may be used with 2 MM volts, high voltage charge

capacitors in a series, to explode the ice. Other types of equipment would

include the blowout control, the beach hood burner and the Finnish skimmer

design. In addition, manufacturers and designers should visit the Arctic to

gain a better understanding of the problem.

8
CHEMICAL TREATMENT

Attendees

M. Fingas, Chair J. Jeschke

N. Swans ton, Recorder J. Swiss

K. Durley E. Tennyson

R. Goodman

Introduction

, The Panel has made recommendations for chem.ical treatment of oil spills, as

I well as looking at the specific types of treating agents (TAs) . The topic of

j remote sensing also was addressed by this Panel as the attendees felt all

r technological advances should be incorporated into the Proceedings

.

jl Research Priorities - Chemical Treatment

1. Open Ocean

a. Dispersant process;

b. dispersant field test effectiveness;

c. recovery agents --safe aerial application.

2. Solid Ice

a. Panel finds that no significant advances can be made with respect

to additional research on TAs for use on solid ice.

3 . Unstable Ice

a. Dispersant process;

b. dispersant field test.

4. Shore

a. Surface washing agents;

b. biodegradation;

{ c. gelling agents.

Recommendations - Chemical Treatment

In order to ensure timely use in a response mode, all viable chemical treating

agents should be considered as a primary response tool in contingency

planning. This will ensure that adequate amounts of treating agents and

application equipment are available in case of emergencies. In turn, it would

be advantageous to expedite the approval process.

A training program is needed for potential users to become familiar with

chemical treating agents (e.g., emulsion breakers). Broad participatation and

coordination is needed among regulators and users

.

To ensure development of effective means to respond to spills, existing

constraints should be liberalized to allow scientifically-sound field trials.

I

9
Various research needs have been identified for treating agents.

Gelling agents - Need improvement in:

1. Lower amount of agent required;

2. ensure improvements do not suppress burnability;

3. ensure non- toxicity of agent;

4. reduce amount of energy required to ensure that

new materials work.

Dispersants - Develop means to determine effectivess in field:

1. Evaluate past methods;

2. develop new methods.

Surface washing agents - Develop effectiveness test for cold and heated

surface washing agents

Biodegradation - Adapt existing technology (i.e., southern land-farming

techniques) to the arctic environment.

Recovery agents - Need to develop a safe aerial-application technique for

recovery agents

.

Research Priorities - Remote Sensing

1 . Open Water

a. Ship-based system;

b. thickness measure;

c. sunken oil detection;

d. oil in water (particulate/dissolved)

e. characterize oil.

2. Solid

a. Remote detection in/under ice;

b. surface detection in/under ice.

3. Unstable Ice

a. Open water devices could work.

4 . Shore

a. Remote detection.

Recommendations - Remote Sensing

Sufficient remote -sensing capability is needed to monitor slick motion and to

support and/or guide countermeasures employed to respond to the spill.

Commercially available satellite imagery should be examined to determine its

effectiveness in detecting oil spills.

10
IN- SITU BURNING PANEL

J. Pearce

L. Ethelbah

A. Sheets

R. Campbell

J. Stanger

W. Matumeck

P . Devenls

Introduction

A broad range of topics were identified and considered by the Panel. Out of

this list of topics (for complete list, see "Topic Areas Discussed during

Panel Session"), the key considerations were categories under two primary

headings: Acceptability and Technology of Burning. Factors related to the

"acceptability" of burning as a viable option were considered: products of

combustion; perceived level of "control" during burning; proximity to people,

equipment and biota; and perceived level of success. Factors related to the

"technology" of in-situ burning also were addressed. Such factors included:

methods of enhancing the burning process; refinement of ignition concepts and

the various types of equipment available; refinement of the fire containment

boom and the relationship and compatibility of in-situ burning with other

response options.

Research Priorities

1. Field tests - Large oil volumes

a. Offshore, open-water tests to gain experience and to refine field

measurement techniques involving burning oil;

b. scaling (i.e., burn size ) with respect to burn rates, intensity

of burn, nature and amount of smoke and burn residue, fallout,

etc .

; c. offshore, moving, broken ice tests to examine the above parameters

and to evaluate fate and behavior of oil released into a variety

of broken ice conditions;

d. feasibility of igniting and sustaining combustion of emulsified

oils

;

e. feasibility of recovering burn residue.

2. Laboratory work

a. Thermal requirements for burning and breaking down various water

in-oil emulsions (i.e., different oil tjrpes and percentages of

water)

b. feasibility of igniting and sustaining combustion of floating

emulsified oil layers;

c. procedures/equipment for enhanced burning (e.g., air and/or water

inj ection)

;

-d. comparative evaluation of emissions from the burning of various

oils and other common air pollutant sources.

Attendees

A. Allan, Chair

D. Dickins, Recorder

I. Buist

D . Evans

K. Saito

0. Angelvik

G. Schultz

F. Henicke

11
3. Studies

b.

d.

a.

c

.

Relative significance of burning versus other emission sources

(e.g., fireplaces, forest fires, automotive engines, industrial

smoke stacks)

;

assessment of practical burning scenarios and strategies for

arctic in-situ burning (or "operational windows"). Factors such

as response time, personnel/equipment availability, staging

location, etc., also should be investigated;

development of public and government education programs with

respect to safety, environmental impact and procedures for in-situ

burning

;

assessment of requirements for permits to establish both

simplified and practical means of conducting realistic offshore

field tests.

Low Priority Items

Devices for burning oil off the water. Open burning as a slick is far more

efficient in processing large volumes of oil quickly (ca. 0 . 07/gal/ft2/min)

than is burning through a floating device --the floating burner may clean up

the burn (less smoke) , but it will likely be slower and introduce additional

hardware and operational constraints that can become sources for "breakdown",

extra cost, complexity in planning, deployment and maintenance, etc. Burning

in remote areas (even with a lot of smoke) should be kept simple, dependable

and adaptable to a broad range of environmental conditions

.

Additional research on melt pools (over solid ice) should be of low priority

based on accomplishments to date. An exception would be the fate, behavior

and combustibility of oil spilled into or beneath ice conditions typical of

the late -season Chukchi Region. Differences in ice/water conditions in the

Chukchi may significantly influence the timing and deployment of burning

systems and techniques.

Subsea containment/burning systems. Well studied, these ideas (e.g..

Sombrero) are too big, costly and difficult to deploy and to maintain to

consider for further research and development at this time.

Laser ignition. Suggest no additional research on this technique in light of

current proven ignition concepts.

Additional Concepts

A wire mesh medium may be used in the apex of the fire containment boom to

reduce entrainment and splashover, to heat the water and to introduce oxygen

through vaporization and/or atomization at the oil/water surface during burn

and radiate the heat back into the fire. This technique may also reduce

smoke

.

Radiation reflectors may be used along side of and/or on top of a fire

containment boom to heat the oil and to enhance burning.

12
Topic Areas Discussing During Panel Session

1. Products of combustion;

2. potential for buring under different environmental conditions;

3. government regulations, guidelines and checklists;

4. methods of enhancing burning;

5. feasibility of igniting/burning emulsions, weathered oils, etc.;

6. refinement of existing ignition concepts/equipment;

7. refinement of combustion processes;

8. importance of bum size on burn rate, efficiency, products of

combustion, nature and amount of burning residue, etc.;

9. equipment storage and deployment concepts;

10. recovery/elimination of burn residue;

11. reignition of unburned oil/burn residue;

12. overlap/interaction with other spill response options;

13. equipment testing procedures;

14. refinement of existing fire containment systems;

15. feasibility of igniting and maintaining combustion over subsea

blowout (with and without ice)

16. safety considerations involving spill ignition procedures and

deplojnnent of fire containment boom;

17. strategy/planning considertions involving in-situ burning;

18. incineration techniques;

19. methods for igniting and sustaining combustion of oil in tankers;

20. procedures for handling and deploying igniters;

21. relative significance of burning versus other activities involving

air emissions;

22. thermal radiation effects upon animals, humans and equipment;

23. assessment of practical scenarios invoving in-situ burning.

13

READINESS PANEL

Attendees

D . Rome , Chair

L. Ake, Recorder

M.

J.

K.

J.

R.

K.

J.

E.

G.

Joseph

Walker

Durley

Gregory

Smith

Gibson

Jans sen Benson

Schultz

L. Wright

B. McKenzie

K. Gibson

R. Shafer

B. Hutmacher

J. Whitney

P . Bergman

Introduction

In planning for a response, the operator or person who activates the oil spill

contingency plan must have an action plan which makes early decisions on the

response strategy. In order to do this, the person must have a reasonable

idea of what response options will have a good chance of success for cleaning

up the oil and in what time frame. He/she then will know the performance

characteristics of the equipment and at what times that equipment will be

available for a primary, secondary and perhaps a tertiary response effort.

The operator then can activate key people in the response organization,

including the logistics and transportation coordinator, to get the response

going.

In the design of a response structure, two key starting elements are windows

of opportunity (i.e., the period during which a response option is viable) and

performance criteria (i.e., how much is an option expected to affect). These

two elements can drive research and development (R&D) in the response option

areas (in- situ burning, mechanical cleanup and chemical treatment) because you

have identified how and when they will be used. Research and development then can produce and package the equipment to satisfy the response.

Once the response options and equipment are identified, a transportation and

logistics plan has to be developed which can deliver the response equipment

and the necessary support organization. Maintaining the response structure

throughout the effort requires additional supplies, manpower and maintenance

support. In short, without a well-run logistics and transportation system, an entire response can grind to a halt. ,

During the spill response, surveillance and disposal also add significant

transportation and technological burdens to it. The Panel discussed programs

which can improve surveillance and identify disposal methods and sites. The

Panel also discussed the utility of experimental oil spills in the ocean.

Specific areas of research or recommendations are provided for each general

topic

15
Research Priorities

1. Refine windows of opportunity;

2. refine acceptable performance criteria;

3. refine disposal options;

4. refine transportation/logistics programs;

5. review utility of small-scale and large-scale experimental burns.

Windows of Opportunity

Develop windows of opportunity for various response options (mechanical

recovery, chemical treatment, in- situ burning, others) with consideration for

the following factors:

a. Specific types of oil to be encountered;

b. open water to solid ice condition;

c. trajectory modeling for oil, ice, oil/ice;

d. physical/chemical characteristics of the oil which affect the success o a particular option;

e. physical variables (seasonal variations, sea states);

f. output should be "user friendly" (e.g.. Field Operations Manual);

g. develop bounds to the problem by considering both instantaneous and

continuous releases;

h. for specific areas which are environmentally critical, determine the

effect on the windows of opportunity;

i. factor in the expected efficiencies for response options.

Performance Criteria

The Panel recommends that Minerals Management Service (MMS) evaluate the 1982

Performance Criteria developed for Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) development

in the Beaufort Sea and consider:

a. International criteria established by Norway, Japan, Canada, etc.;

b. specific application to the Beaufort and Chukchi Seas;

c. recovery equipment capability for a primary, secondary and tertiary

response

;

d. determining requirements from an exploration vs. production perspective

e. response times (delivery of equipment/personnel);

f. response structure (primary, secondary, tertiary);

g. compatible communications;

h. necessary support structure to maintain response;

1. include operator input in any criteria.

16
Transportation, Logistics and Support

The Panel recommends that someone develop an accurate transportation,

logistics and support manual which will examine delivery systems to mount a major oil spill response and to determine expected response times. All

evaluations or recommendations should be based on the windows of opportunity.

This effort should result in a manual or computer program which assists

responders in the logistics phase of the response. Factors that should be

considered:

a. T3rpes and capacities of available transportation;

b. actual or projected availability of resources;

c. manpower requirements (number and type);

d. transportation infrastructure which exists at the site and would be

available

e. training required for utilization of available equipment;

f. resources outside of the company inventory (Federal, state, local) and

develop access times for these;

g. support structure for response: '

1. fuel, maintenance, equipment storage;

2. communications support;

3. personnel support (shelter, food, medical);

4. infrastructure of drilling/production platform and availability;

5. involvement of local population in spill response and training;

6. access of Alaska Fire Center personnel and equipment;

7. contracting mechanisms in place to readily access equipment;

8. identify areas of major support where equipment can be

stated/supported (airport runway lengths, deep water ports, etc.);

h. ensure that packaging and deliverability of response equipmetit is

consistent with performance criteria;

i. manual/program should be a joint industry/government project that also

identifies areas of risk;

j . ensure that surveillance requirements are factored into transportation

needs

Disposal

The Panel recommends that MMS requires a manual of accepted disposal practices

and disposal sites for state and local government approval. (It is suggested

that the Environment Canada and Alaska Clean Seas manuals be used as guidelines.) Propose alternatives for:

a. Incineration of both waste oil/oil debris;

b. landfilling (encapsulating in permafrost);

c. evaluate products that can create a temporary burn pit;

d. inj ection/reinj ection into a pipeline or disposal well;

e. treatment products to solidify oils.

17
Experimental Spills of Oil in Arctic Waters

The Panel recommends that MMS reviews the utility of controlled experimental

spills. Evaluate the relative merits versus test-tank evaluations and

deployment exercises (without oil)

.

18
A Review of Mechanical Containment and Recovery

H.W. Lichte

Mas on & Hanger - Silas Mason Co. , Inc.

Lexington, Kentucky

Abstract

The performance capability of mechanical containment and recovery

equipment is reviewed to present baseline discussions for the

workshop. Existing equipment, data, and experience indicates that in

open calm water an oil recovery rate of 41 to 72% may be achieved.

Performance will drop significantly in other sea states or ice

infested waters. A typical advancing skimmer on site may recover a 100 barrel spill in eight hours, if it can store or concurrently off

load the 6,300 gallons of collected oil/water emulsion. A typical

offshore 600 foot skimming barrier on site may recover a 1,000 barrel

spill in three hours, if it can concurrently pump to storage the

63,000 gallons of oil/water emulsion. The cold environment causes

significant pump, storage, and people limitations.

Comments and recommendations submitted by invitation before the

workshop as a result of the Federal Register announcement were good.

The consensus for mechanical equipment is to keep improving on current

designs, more field trials, and learning from other countries in cold

climates. Two responders encouraged further development of a brush- type skimmer. One astute responder pointed to the need for

developing cold climate hoses.

Introduction

Mechanical containment and recovery continues to be the primary

tool for clean-up of oil spills on water. The Alaska Arctic offshore

oil spill response programs depend on the capability of skimmers,

booms, pumps and other support equipment. Future research and

development should focus on a baseline of ideal skimming capacity.

This presentation is designed to catalyze discussion in the Workshop

that may lead to suggestions for new R6J) efforts.

Performance capability of equipment is always a controversial

subject. The caveats put upon operations in the Arctic seem no more

significant than those near the Equator. Sea state, physical

properties of the spilled oil as it mixes with sea water, and the

presence of ice or debris affects the performance. Site specific

designs generally perform better.

19
Mechanical equipment, skimmers booms and associated hardware can and do well in the Arctic environment. The keystone to performance

planning should be based upon the ideal skimming capacity and the

inventory of available equipment. "We must take our hay bale and

telephone pole vintage contingency plans and improve them to a point

that will equate to, or almost to, the more efficient and reliable

levels of response equipment and methodologies that exist today."

Performance Baseline

Mechanical containment and recovery performance can be no better

than what there is to recover. Performance is dependent on spilled

oil properties, water conditions, surface current speed relative to

the recovery equipment, oil spill thickness and the equipment

operators options. Rather than assume the various scenarios that may

degrade or challenge performance, it is better to quantify the ideal

recovery performance for a baseline. Performance can be quantified

using three variables:

Throughput efficiency is the dependent variable of measured oil

collected by the skimmer divided by the quantity of oil presented

to and capable of being recovered by the skimmer. It is expressed

as a percentage.

Recovery efficiency is the dependent variable of measured oil

collected by the skimmer divided by the total fluids collected by

the skimmer, oil, water, and emulsions. It is expressed as a percentage

.

Oil recovery rate is the dependent variable of oil collection

rate. It is usually expressed in gallons per minute.

Efficiency is based upon the amount of oil available for recovery. The oil

recovery rate can be no better than the pumpcapacity available to the recovery

system. To find the ideal mechanical skimming capacity, we first need to

mathematically eliminate the sources of performance degradation such as oil

character, sea state and floating ice. Now we can view the simple

relationship of a pure oil slick of a known thickness and width floating on calm water with a known relative speed to the recovery system. Incoming oil

(Q, gallons per minute) is equal to the slick thickness (t, millimeters) times

the slick width (W, feet) times the advancing speed (V, knots) and divided by

a unit conversion constant of 40.75.

t X W X V

Q -

40.75

Figure 1 demonstrates trends of skimming capacity (incoming oil) increase as a function of encounter width (slick width) for a normal slick thickness of one millimeter and a skimmer advancing speed of one knot. If one selects the

encounter width ordinate of a typical skimmer to be ten feet wide, you can see

the abscissa at 25 gallons per minute. Thus, ideally the pump capacity need

20
not be more than 25 gallons per minute for a perfect skim. Further

calculations reveal that a 100 barrel neat oil spill would require 2.8 hours

to collect.

Table 1 illustrates the resultant calculations for estimating a 100 barrel spill on an ideal water surface. Clean-up time (T, hours)

is equal to the spill quantity divided by the estimated efficiency (E,

percent) with the appropriate unit conversions. Incoming neat oil is

calculated as above at a one millimeter slick thickness and advancing

at one knot. ,

100 X 42

Q X 60 X E

Projecting these algebraic relationships in a combined worst case

of a floating 50% oil/water emulsion (100 barrels) , 50% throughput

efficiency, and a 50% recovery efficiency, we can calculate the

collection time to increase nearly an order of magnitude to 22 hours.

The maximum gross system efficiency is thus calculated as the product

of the possible performances to be 12.5%, 50% times 50% times 50%.

Note there will be 200 barrels of fluid collected, 50 of which may be

recovered oil.

T -

21
FiQure 1. Trends of Mechanical Containment Skimming Capacity

IDEAL MECHANICAL SKIMMING CAPACITY

1 mm slick (t) 6t 1 knot speed (V)

260 -1 —I

1

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

O 20 ^O 60 80 100

ENCOUNTER WIDTH (W), feet

22
Table 1. Estimating a 100 Barrel Spill Clean-Up Time at 1mm and Ikt.

Skimmer

Opening,

Incoming

Oil /Emulsion,

Clean-up Time, hours

Gross System Performance E-f-ficiency

let) Q. (GPM) 100% 67% 50% 33"

12 5.

8. 4 11-2 17.0

10 25 2. 8 4.2 5. 6 8. 5

15 37 1.9 2. 8 3.8 5.8

20 50 1.4 2. 1 2. 8 4. 2

25 62 1. 1 1.6 2.2 3. 3

30 75 0.9 1 .

1 .2. 7

35 87 0. 8 1 .

1.6 2. 4

40 99 0. 7 1.0 1.4 2. 1 45 112 0. 6 0. 9 1.2 1.8

50 124 0.6 0.9 1.2 1.8

55 137 0.5 0.7 1.0 1.5

60 149 0.5 0.7 1.0 1.5

65 162 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.2

70 174 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.2

75 187 0.4 0. 6 0.8 1.2

80 199 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.2

85 211 0.3 0.4 0.6 0.9

90 224 0.3 0.4 0.6 0.9

95 236 0.3 0.4 0.6 0.9

100 249 0.3 0.4 0.6 0.9

23
Suggested Reading

The Bibliography cites various publications readily available

that illustrate a generous baseline state-of-the-art cross - section of

quantitative data for mechanical containment and recovery.

Unfortunately there is not much written for the ice -infested

environment. This factor certainly is a driving force in the need for

this Workshop.

Pre -Workshop Response

The Minerals Management Service proposed four questions or issues

as a focus for the Workshop. One, "Are there existing or new response

techniques, equipment, or products, including chemical additives,

which have the potential for arctic application but have not been

tested or evaluated and which should be considered for future testing

and evaluation? Two, "Are there new techniques or processes available

which can be used to better test and evaluate equipment efficiency and

effectiveness and which have not been used previously? Three, "Are

there areas where continued research is unnecessary? Four, "What

should the research priorities be in each category of detection,

containment, recovery, and disposal for open water, solid- ice, and

unstable ice conditions?

There were sixteen written responses prior to the Workshop that

suggested various degrees of research and development programs. Only

a few of these addressed or put emphasis on mechanical containment.

More commonly they emphasized either dispersants or burning to combat

oil spills in the Alaskan Arctic.

One equipment manufacturer suggested further development and

field testing of his successful disc skimmer. He also pointed out the

advantages to using a "snake- like" boom in ice infested waters.

Another equipment manufacturer coincidentally with a major

international oil company discussed the advantage of further

developing a "brush type" skimmer. The same oil company had another

good suggestion that of developing better oil transfer hoses for the

harsh Arctic environment. Lastly, one common thread in all the

written responses was the recommend- ation for more field testing,

especially with oil.

24
BIBLIOGRAPHY

Belen, M. S., W. J. Lehr, and H. M. Cekirge, 1981. "Spreading,

Dispersion and Evaporation of Oil Slicks in the Arabian Gulf."

Proceedings of the 1981 Oil Spill Conference. American Petroleum

Institute, Washington, D.C. pl61.

Blaikley, D. R. , and G. F. L. Dietzel, A. W. Glass, and P. J. van

Kleef, 1977. "Sliktrak - A Computer Simulation of Offshore Oil

Spills, Cleanup, Effects and Associated Costs." Proceedings of the

1977 Oil Spill Conference. American Petroleum Institute, Washington,

D.C. p45.

Donohoe, M. J., 1981. "Contingency Plans: A Useful Tool or Bureaucratic Burden?" Proceedings of the 1981 Oil Spill Conference.

American Petroleiom Institute, Washington, D.C. p513.

Fay, J. A., 1971. "Physical Processes in the Spread of Oil on a Water

Surface." Proceedings of the 1971 Conference on Prevention and

Control of Oil Spills. American Petroleum Institute, Washington, D.C.

p463.

Griffiths, R. A. and J. H. Milgram, 1977. "Combined Skimmer-Barrier

High Seas Oil Recovery System." Proceedings of the 1977 Oil Spill

Conference. American Petroleum Institute, Washington, D.C. p375.

Lichte, H. W. and M. K. Breslin, 1978. "Testing Skimmers for Offshore

Spilled Oils." Proceedings of the 1978 Offshore Technology

Conference. Offshore Technology Conference, Houston, Texas, p247.

Lichte, H. W. , M. Borst, and G. F. Smith, 1981. "Tests of the Shell

SOCK Skimmer Aboard USNS POWHATAN." EPA-600/2-81-216 , NTIS PB-82

220849, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Cincinnati, Ohio, 81pp.

Lissauer, I. M. and D. L. Murphy, 1979. "Oil Spill Forecasting - Where is it Going." Proceedings of the 1979 Oil Spill Conference.

American Petroleum Institute, Washington, D.C. p649

Raj, P. K. and R. A. Griffiths, 1979. "The Survival of Oil Slicks on

the Ocean as a Function of Sea State Limit." Proceedings of the 1979

Oil Spill Conference. American Petroleum Institute, Washington, D.C.

p719.

Schulze, Robert, 1986. "World Catalog of Oil Spill Response

Products." Robert Schulze Environmental Consultant, Inc. Elkridge,

Maryland, 308p.

25
Smith, G. F. and H. W. Lichte , 1981. "Siammary of U. S. Environmental

Protection Agency's OHMSETT Testing. 1974-1979." EPA-600/9-81-007

,

NTIS PS -81 163743, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Cincinnati,

Ohio, 341pp.

Solsberg, L, B. , 1986. "A Catalog of Oil Spill Containment Barriers."

Report EPS 9/SP/l, September 1986, Environment Canada, Ottawa,

Ontario, 207p.

26
CHEMICAL TREATMENT OF OIL SPILLS

Merv F. Fingas

Environmental Emergencies Technology Division

Environment Canada

Ottawa, Ontario

Abstract

This paper is a review of 10 types of chemical treatments

for oil spills. Gelling agents change oil to a solid or semisolid form, but are not used because of the large amount of agent

required. Biodegradation agents consist of bacteria, enzymes,

fertilizers or combinations of these and are found to have low

effectiveness in open water and on soils. Degradation is limited

to a small fraction of the oil. Sinking agents cause the oil to

be sunk to the bottom. They are not used because of

ineffectiveness and because of the increased oil exposure caused

by resurfacing of oil. A number of recovery aids have been

proposed, but only Elastol has been tested and proven to function

well under a variety of conditions. A number of water-in-oil

emulsion preventers and breakers have been proposed, but none are

commercially-available. Demoussifier developed by Environment

Canada has been recently tested and found to be effective.

Surface washing agents contain surfactants and because they are

soluble in water, can only effectively be used on solid surfaces

and as such have little application to oil spills. Dispersants

contain surfactants which break up oil into small droplets in the

water column. Dispersants are the most common treating agents

and have been extensively tested and used. No undisputed

documentation exists to show that dispersants have been very

effective in field situations, but analytical means to measure

effectiveness are poor. Dispersant action mechanisms are poorly

understood and there exist a number of interferences to field

effectiveness. A number of other treating agents have been

proposed, but none are in current use. The main problem with

most treating agents is their effectiveness and this is often

dependent on molecular size and type. Oil has many molecular

types and sizes, thus rendering treatment much less than totally

effective.

Introduction

A number of chemical agents have been commercially sold over

the 2 0 years since the TORREY CANYON incident during which some

of these chemical treatment concepts were first tried on a large

scale. These chemical spill control agents can be classified as

the following:

1. Dispersants,

2. Gelling agents,

3. Biodegradation agents,

4. Sinking agents,

5. Recovery aids,

6. Emulsion breakers and preventers.

27
7. Surface washing agents,

8 . Herding Agents

,

9. Combustion Promoters, and

10. Miscellaneous agents.

During the past twenty years many agents have come and gone.

During the seventeen years of the life of the Environmental

Emergencies Technology Division over 100 dispersants were tested

for toxicity and/or effectiveness. Only 8 products still remain

on the accepted list and only about 15 products are still being

produced. The compendium on oil Spill treating agents prepared

for the American Petroleum Institute in 1972 lists 69

dispersants and 4 3 beach clean-up agents, most of which are

dispersants.-^ Only two of these are current commercial products,

but both are produced in different formulations. Four gelling

agents were tested by EETD and others; none remain on the

market. The API compendium listed four different gelling agents.

Over 50 biodegradation agents, including bacterial mixtures,

enzymes or fertilizers have been proposed and only 5 of these,

all very recent inventions, remain on the market. Ten sinking

agents have been examined with none remaining commercial. The API

compendium lists 18 sinking agents. One recovery aid of the

several proposed, Elastol, still remains. Ten emulsion breakers

and preventers have been on the market. None are commercially

available at this time. Over 100 surface washing agents have

been sold in the North American market. About 12 of these are

still commercially available. A number of agents which have been

sold for various purposes, but do not fit into the above

categories, include those that help trace or detect an oil, those

which are combinations of the categories described above, and

those very vague items that are claimed to make oil disappear,

become non-toxic, etc. It is estimated that over 100 of this

category of agent has been offered at one time or another on the

North American market. The total number of agents proposed world

wide is estimated to be 600, of which only about 200 were ever

tested in lab or field, even in a limited way. It is also

estimated that only 3 5 agents actually are commercially available

at this time. The bustle of activity in this field has left the

buyer confused and skeptical of treating agents.

Many agents are offered to the potential buyer as a magic

cure and some buyers expect miracles from the product.

Demonstrations are often presented which show the product to

work very effectively. One firm recently had an oil-disappearing

demonstration, which they would only do in their own plant "to

ensure proper conditions". Oil was poured into a glass of water,

and the magic solution was added; this caused significant

fizzing, and then the demonstrator drank the clear liquid, the

oil supposedly having been reduced to elemental gas.

Interestingly, this demonstration would not work in other

laboratories. The firm is no longer in business.

28
The history of chemical agents and oil spills have left

many, and especially the experienced, oil spill worker skeptical

about any oil spill chemical control agent. Rarely a week goes

by in EETD laboratories where we aren't approached by someone

offering a new magic cure. The same is true of the potential

customers of such products. Any new agents, even if it may have

potential is treated with the same sort of skepticism, perhaps

even disdain, reserved for the weekly 'snake oil'. A number of

agents do however offer assistance in dealing with oil spills.

No agent is a magic cure nor is there any agent that has wide

applicability. All agents suffer from limited effectiveness

with oil, especially with certain types of oil.

Effectiveness will remain the major problem with most

treating agents. Effectivness is generally a function of

molecular size and type. Crude and refined oil products have a wide range of molecular sizes and composition. What is often

effective for a small asphaltene is ineffective on the large

asphaltene. What is effective on an aromatic compound may not

be effective on a polar compound. Additionally, the composition

of crude oils varies widely. This leaves little scope for a

universally-applicable and effective spill control chemical.

Gelling, Biodegrading and Sinking Agents

Gelling agents are those agents which change liquid oil to

solid. Also known as solidification agents, these agents

consist of polymerization catalysts and cross-linking agents.

Agents which are actually sorbents are not considered to be

gelling agents. Three significant gelling agents were tested by

Environment Canada and others in recent years:

1. The BP (British Petroleum) product which consisted of

deodorized kerosene and a cross-linking agent,

2 . A Japanese product consisting of an amine agent which

formed a polymer, and

3. The solidification agent proposed by Professor Bannister

of the University of Lowell, an agent which used liquefied

carbon dioxide and an activating agent.

During tests conducted in the laboratory, all three agents

functioned, but required large amounts of agent to effectively

solidify the oil. Under some situations the oil became a semisolid which would not aid in recovery. The BP agent worked

better than the other agents and was tested in larger scale by

the Canadian Coast Guard and the Canadian oil industry. In

these large scale tests even more agent was required to solidify

the oil, in fact up to 40% of the actual volume of the oil

itself. This is double the laboratory requirement. Both

requirements were deemed to be far in excess of what was actually

practical in the event of a real spill.

Because of the large amount of agent required, gelling

agents are not used nor stocked for use by spill responders.

29
Biodegradation agents are of four basic types:

1. those that contain mutant bacteria,

2. those containing enzymes,

3. those containing nutrient materials to foster

biodegradation, and

4. those containing two or more of the above.

Laboratory tests on products utilizing mutant bacteria have

shown an increased degradation rate. Treatments in impoundments

or sewage-treatment facilities appear to have been effective.

The rate of biodegradation is dependent on concentration and type

of oil as well as temperature. Field tests have shown no

beneficial effect, on water or on soil. In water, the bacteria

is far too dilute to have significant effect. On soil,

degradation is limited to certain components of the oil, and thus

has no significant overall benefit. Again, the fact that oil

consists of a large variety of chemical groups and a large

variety of molecular sizes, is very significant in determining

effectiveness.

Although a large number of enzyme agents have been

examined, none of these survived initial laboratory assessment.

None showed any effect on oil even under optimal conditions.

Examination of some of these products showed that they were

actually domestic laundry soap with enzymes. It is not certain at

this time if any specific enzymes were ever designed for crude or

refined oil breakdown, or even if this is possible.

Many agents have been proposed for assisting the microbial

breakdown of oil. Most of the agents contain an oil-soluble

fertilizer, others an ordinary fertilizer. Tests of these

products in water have shown no benefit. However, on shorelines,

the results are mixed. During the course of the BIOS

experiments, oiled supratidal sediments were treated with

fertilizer and these plots showed no increased degradation

through five years of monitoring. ^ A test of one product on a

real spill in British Columbia showed no increased degradation on

oiled rocks treated with a fertilizer.-^ Tests on Arctic

shorelines in Norway showed increased biodegradation.^ A novel

product which uses a surfactant to suspend fertilizer and make it

more available to the oil has been tested on oiled plots and

favorable results reported.^ None of the tests have reported

significant oil removals with fertilizer-enhanced biodegradation.

The variable but generally poor results have discouraged

widespread use of biodegradation agents.

Sinking agents were used at the time of the TORREY CANYON

with disastrous environmental results.^ The use of lime to sink

the oil en masse led to smothering of many bottom-dwelling

organisms. In addition, the use of the agent actually increases

exposure to oil. As the oil moves through the water on the

sinking agent it dissolves in the water and also a certain

percentage frees itself from the sinking mass and rises to the

surface. During the passage through the water column the

sinking oil mass and the resurfacing oil can encounter marine

life. The increased hydrocarbons in the water increases

30
exposure. The sinking mass causes suffocation to bottom life and

also exposes many bottom-dwelling organisms to oil. Problems do

not end here. None of the agents are effective in holding the

011 for a long period of time and the slowly leaching oil recontaminates the water and the water surface over the few days

after the initial sinking. A study on several sinking agents by

Environment Canada showed that most agents retained only 20 to

40% of the oil after one hour and much less after 72 hours.

No sinking agents are commercially available at this time

and their use is generally forbidden by environmental regulatory

agencies.

Burning agents are also not commercially available at this

time. They consisted of two generic types, sorbents and

pyrotechnical compositions. The sorbent types operated by

collecting oil in thicknesses sufficient to burn and the

pyrotechnical compositions release large amounts of heat on

combustion, thereby aiding in flame propagation. Neither type

functioned well in actually practice and were limited by the

large amount of material needed to actually cause a beneficial

effect.

Herding agents were proposed to stop or reverse oil spill

spreading. Commercially-successful types such as Shell Oil

Herder employed large-chain alcohols which have a greater

spreading coefficient than oil on water and thus push oil films

together. Tests and actual use of these products showed that

utility was limited to absolutely calm waters.® There is little

remaining use of herders at this time due to their limited

application and operating spectrum.

Recovery Aids and Demoussifiers

A number of agents have been sold throughout the years for

assisting in the recovery of spilled oil. None have been widely

known or promoted except for Elastol. Earlier agents were not

well tested nor were they sophisticated. One product was shredded

peat moss and was claimed to improve the recovery efficiency of

sorbent-surface devices. None of these earlier agents offered

enough promise to warrant testing.

A number of agents were also available to break or prevent

emulsions. Most agents were hydrophilic surfactants, that is

with surfactants with an HLB (hydrophobic-lipophilic balance) of

12 to 19. Such surfactants have the ability to reverse the

emulsion from water in oil to two separate phases. The problem

with a surfactant with an HLB in this range is that the

surfactant is more soluble in water than in oil and will quickly

leave the system if there is sufficient water. Obviously such

products cannot be successfully used on open water. Some recent

products avoided this problem by using a lower HLB surfactant

and accepting the resulting decrease in effectiveness. One

recent product developed by Environment Canada does not use

surfactant in the normal sense of the word. This product does not

suffer the limitations noted above.

31
One study reviewed two commercial products, Exxon Breaxit

and the Shell product, LA 1834 and a surfactant, sodium diooctyl

sulfosuccinate. ^ All three products functioned in a limited way,

but only the Shell product prevented the formation of emulsions

over a wide range of oils and conditions. The Shell product and

the Exxon product are not commercially available, but have been

obtainable in small quantities for testing.

The United States Minerals Management Service and

Environment Canada joined forces to evaluate two new and

promising treating agents, Elastol, a recovery-enhancement agent,

and Demoussifier, an emulsion breaker and preventer. Results of

the extensive testing on these products have been widely

published.

Elastol is a white powder and renders oil visco-elastic

making it adhesive to oil spill recovery surfaces. Elastol is

composed of a non-toxic polymer, polyisobutylene. Demoussif ier is

a mixture of long-chain polymers which again have no measurable

toxicity to humans or aquatic life. This product was developed

at Environment Canada ' s River Road laboratories and functions

both to break emulsions and prevent their formation.

The laboratory work on Elastol involved several different

tests. The effect on a suite of different oils was determined by

measuring the time to initiate change and the degree of

elasticity formed. These oils included: Prudhoe Bay, Alberta

Sweet Mix Blend, Norman Wells , Bent Horn, Hibernia, Tarsiut,

Atkinson, Amauligak crudes, diesel fuel and a Bunker C Mix. All

oils displayed viscoelastic properties when treated with doses of

600 to 6000 ppm Elastol. In general, more viscous oils tended to

attain a higher degree of elasticity than non-viscous oils, but

did so over a longer period of time. No simple correlation could

be established between an oil property and Elastol effectiveness.

Elastol effectiveness is enhanced by mixing and by higher

temperatures, although the latter may be the effect of decreasing

oil viscosity.

Under low mixing energy conditions, oils exhibited some

degree of elasticity within 15 minutes of Elastol application. A

high degree of elasticity was not observed until after one hour.

Less viscous oils took less time to reach maximum elasticity and

viscous oils more time. If left to weather, Elastol-treated oil

became more elastic with the increasing viscosity of the oil. In

fact, some samples left for 30-day periods became as elastic as

rubber bands sold for stationery purpose. This effect has been

ascribed to the effect of the increasing viscosity of the oil

with weathering (evaporation) and not the progressive reaction of

the Elastol.

Elastol causes a minor reduction in the rate of oil

evaporation, but not significant enough to reduce its flash

point. Elastol reduces slick spreading to a limited degree,

especially at high concentrations. This effect, about 20%, is

not believed to have a significantly useful benefit by itself in

real applications. When Elastol is applied in very large doses,

>1%, the slick would actually contract somewhat, but again, the

32
effect is too small to have any practical benefit. The addition

of Elastol either had no effect or an inhibiting effect on the

formation of water-in-oil emulsions, except in the case of the

Amauligak and Tarsiut oils from the Beaufort Sea region. In two

cases, the application of Elastol to emulsified oil actually led

to some measurable de-emulsification. Application of Elastol to

stable water-in-oil emulsions sometimes had little effect.

Testing with the Demoussifier showed the Elastol has no effect on

its operation and that both products could be used together.

Elastol reduces chemical dispersant effectiveness by as much

as one order of magnitude. Elastol also reduces natural

dispersion of oil into water by as much as 3 orders-of-magnitude.

This property, while superficially appearing negative, is

actually quite useful. If Elastol was used in situations where

the aquatic life is very sensitive and important, it could reduce

oil concentration in the water to threshold values.

Both Elastol and Demoussifier were tested on a large scale

using the Esso test tank in Calgary, Alberta. Funding for this

part of the program was provided by the U.S. Minerals Management

Service, Environment Canada and Esso Resources. An application

device was developed for both products as commercial ones did not

exist. The application devices were tested in larger vessels

before proceeding to the larger Esso facility, to ensure that

application did not affect results.

In the large scale tests, two slicks were put out

simultaneously in parallel booms. This permitted the

simultaneous testing of a control and a treated slick under

identical conditions. The first two days were devoted to the

testing of demoussifier. The demoussifier prevented the

formation of water-in-oil emulsions on both slicks and did so at

treatment ratios as low as 1:2000 (500 ppm) . Elastol was tested

on the final two days. In the first of these tests, Elastol was

added to a test crude oil at 4000 ppm and the test slick was

released several hours later when the oil was highly elastic.

Although not thick enough to burn, the high elasticity increased

the recovery rate by a rotating disk skimmer. On the fourth day

of testing, crude oil was treated with 2000 ppm of Elastol and

recovered with a skimmer. The recovery rate was again high and

exceeded the capacity of the pump to remove it. On this

particular day, the oil in the untreated slick had formed an

emulsion. This was treated with demoussifier as was the Elastoltreated slick. The demoussifier broke the emulsion in the

untreated slick and no emulsion formed in the treated slick, nor

were any other effects noted. It was concluded that

Demoussifier and Elastol could be used together to enhance

recovery and eliminate emulsion.

The tank scale tests showed that there were no scaling

effects for either the Elastol or the Demoussifier. Both

products worked well for the intended purpose. Elastol increased

the visco-elasticity of the oil and greatly increased the skimmer

recovery rate. Elastol, however, did not reduce the spreading or

increase the thickness of the slick sufficiently to allow in33
situ burning. Demoussifier prevented the formation of water-inoil emulsion and also broke emulsion already formed. Although

demoussifier causes the oil to be less adhesive and lowers the

recovery rate of skimmers, the two products can be applied

together to achieve positive results.

The two products were then tested on a large scale offshore.

The sponsors of this test included; U.S. Minerals Management

Service, Environment Canada, Esso Resources and the Canadian

Coast Guard. The field trail was conducted 50 miles offshore

Nova Scotia. Five slicks of five-barrels each were laid for each

of the products and each product was tested both pre-mixed and by

application-at-sea, to confirm that application effects were not

a factor. The treatments and results are summarized in Table 1.

TABLE 1 TREATMENTS AND RESULTS OF TRIALS

Sample 1 Sample 2

Treatment Time Viscosity Water Time Viscosity Water

Trials Slick (ppm) (min.) (cSt)* Content Elasticity Comments (mm.) (cSt)* Content Elasticity Comments

Demoussifier 1 1000 60 10 000 81% No mousse 300 8f 250 90% No mousse

formed noted

2 250 60 2 700 5*% No mousse 300 62 250 93% No mousse

formed noted

3 control 60 6 350 88% Heavy mousse 270 320 000 95% Heavy mousse

It post-tOOO 60 2 200 72% Moderate mousse pre -2*0 105 000 90% Heavy mousse

post-270 22 600 78% Treatment broke mousse

5 pre -1000 15 970 32% No mousse 280 38 500 80% No mousse

formed formed

Elastol 6 3000 130 29 300 1.33 Moderately 280 300 000 1.35 Highly elastic

elastic

7 1000 Its 32 250 1.28 Low elasticity 280 228 000 1.33 Moderately

elastic i control 135 187 000 0.99 No elasticity, 290 2K2 000 0.99 No elasticity, widespread widespread

9 9000 120 93 000 1.99 High elasticity 330 696 000 2.63 Super elastic

10 pre-3000 115 170 500 1.35 Moderate 315 156 000 1.57 Highly elastic

elasticity

1 cSt = 1 X 10-2 cm2/s

The demoussifier trials were performed by laying down a

five-barrel oil slick, treating it with the product at the

specified ratio, taking samples at subsequent intervals and

measuring the water content and the viscosity. One slick was

left untreated and then treated at the 240-minute interval to

test the demoussifier ' s ability to break emulsion at sea. As can

by seen by the large reduction in viscosity (105,000 to 22,600

cSt) over the 3 0-minute period between samples, the product

worked well to break the emulsion. The product continued to work

well over the five-hour test period to prevent the formation of

emulsions. This is illustrated in Figure 1, by the strong

correlation between the viscosity and the amount of treatment.

The water content of slicks was universally high, even in

those slicks that did not form water-in-oil emulsions. Although

water content is indicative of the formation of water-in-oil

emulsions, the stability of the mixture would have to be

determined because the unstable emulsions lose water over time.

All slicks laid over the two-day period rapidly took up water,

34

I
although only slicks not treated with demoussifier during the

first day formed stable emulsions.

The Elastol tests were performed in an analogous manner to

that of the Demoussifier, with one control slick laid and one

slick being pretreated to test the effect of at-sea treatment.

The slicks were sampled periodically and both viscosity and

elasticity were measured immediately on board ship. The

elasticity of the treated slicks was significantly higher than

that of the untreated slicks and corresponded to that experienced

in the laboratory. In fact, as shown in Figure 2, it actually

exceeded laboratory results at higher doses. This unexpected

result is probably due to the better mixing achieved in the field

situation.

Both agents functioned well in large-scale tests offshore.

Both agents were shown to have beneficial effects when used for

their intended purpose under all conditions tested.

Surface Washing Agents and Dispersants

The most common and most suggested treating agent are those

containing surfactants as the major ingredient. These agents

have been divided into two groups, dispersants and surface

washing agents. The reason for this division will become readily

apparent.

Surfactants have varying solubility in water and have

varying actions toward oil and water. One parameter that has

been used to characterize surfactants is the HLB or the

hydrophilic-lipophilic balance. A surfactant with an HLB of

about 1 to 8 promotes the formation of water-in-oil emulsions and

one with an HLB in the range of 12 to 20 promotes the formation

of oil-in-water emulsions. Dispersants have HLB's in the range

of 9 to 11. The HLB range as defined is only applicable to nonionic surfactants, however ionic surfactants can be rated using

an expanded scale and often have HLB's ranging from 25 to 40.

They are strong water-in-oil emulsifiers, very soluble in water,

relatively insoluble in oil, and generally work from the water to

any oil present.

Such products have little applicability to oil on water because

they rapidly disappear in the water column, having little effect

on oil. However, because of their commonality and cheapness many

ionic-surfactants are proposed as dispersants. It is these

agents, that should be better classed as surface-washing agents.

Surface-washing agents then are surfactant-containing

mixtures with high HLB's and are best suited to removing oil from

solid surfaces such as roads and parking lots. EETD has been

trying to develop an effectiveness test for such agents, but has

had no success to date; no agent has performed better than

water. Many such agents come onto the market each year, many are

re-packaged industrial cleaners and have little utility in

spills. Use on heavily oil-encrusted concrete has shown some

value, but such applications are not typical of spills.

35
320 000 -#

TREATMENT AMOUNT (ppm)

FIGURE 1 THE EFFECT OF DEMOUSSIFIER APPLICATION ON VISCOSITY

EUVSTOL TREATMENT APPLIED (ppm)

FIGURE 2 ELASTICITY OF OILS AFTER ELASTOL TREATMENT

36
Dispersants are the biggest class of oil spill treating

agents and have perhaps generated the greatest amount of studies

and discussion since the birth of the oil spill industry twenty

years ago after the TORREY CANYON incident. Discussion is still

as lively today and there still exists a polarization between

dispersant proponents and opponents. Little has changed

in the way of documentation. There is still no undisputed

documentation on large-^scale experiments or use to show that

dispersants are effective or not. Similarly, no large scale

biological experiments have convinced all environmentalists that

the use of dispersants is safe in all conditions, although the

evidence is becoming increasing clear that dispersants cause

little ecological damage above that by un-treated oil and that

they could in fact minimize ecological damage if they were

effective.

The U.S. Minerals Management Service led the support of a

National Academy of Science study of the dispersant situation.

The study, which began two years ago and used literature up to

that point, has recently released its conclusions and will

shortly release the entire report. -^^ Two main questions were

first answered about dispersants. The first, "do they do any

good", is answered with a resounding "maybe". The reason is that

only in a few tests were dispersants shown to be effective; in

most others they were not. The two pages containing this answer

are a politician's dream in circumlocution, but the fact remains

that there is still no undisputed and well -documented case where

dispersants have been shown to have effectiveness values above

50%.

The second major question, "Do they do any harm", was

answered in a shorter, but similarly circumlocutory manner. The

best interpretation of the answer is that dispersants will not

cause harm.

A number of recommendations were also made:

1. That dispersants might be considered as a first-response

option along with mechanical clean-up,

2. That a rapid decision-making process be put into place

to allow use while oil is still dispersable,

3 . That ecological assessments of dispersants be made at

sites where the water is shallow to clarify differences between

dispersed and untreated oil,

4. A large number of physical studies be undertaken to

determine the physics and chemistry of dispersant action and

interaction,

5. That biological research should employ realistic field

concentrations

6. That dispersant formulations should be made readily

available to researchers,

7. That methods be developed to compare field and

laboratory exposures,

8. That degradation rates of dispersed versus nondispersed oils be examined,

9. That additional ecological studies in shallow waters

37
with defined circulation be conducted,

10. That studies of fur and feather insulation after

exposure to dispersed oil, hatchability of eggs and effects of

ingested oil be made, and

11. That remote sensing and other analytical equipment is

needed to determine field effectiveness.

While useful, the recommendations should be taken in the

context of the process by which they were developed. The

weaknesses of the NAS recommendations include the following:

1. They are largely based on studies at least two years

old,

2. They presume that the dispersant is intrinsically

effective and that effectiveness problems are only in the use of

the "effective" product,

3 . Recommendations are somewhat based on consensus among

committee members,

4. Personal biases and desires for funding of personal

projects are evident, and

5. Few data are available for the application and

effectiveness of dispersants, thus personal recollection and

other less reliable sources had to be used.

The main report contains much useful information and

represents a good collection of data on dispersants.

Dispersants - Field Effectiveness Trials

Over the past 12 years, 107 test spills have been laid out

to test the effectiveness of oil spill dispersants. ^8 These

spills are summarized in Table 2. A number of smaller tests or

other tests which were not documented have taken place but are

not included here. Of the 107 slicks documented, 23 are controls

used to establish a comparison. Percentage effectiveness is

reported in 25 spills and the average for these is 30%. Values

range from 0 to 100%. Most experimenters have not assigned

effectiveness values because, as will be demonstrated in more

depth later, effectiveness values are hard to assign.

The test results show clearly that dispersants are not

highly effective, even under highly controlled experimental

situations. Of greater concern than this is the methodology used

to estimate effectiveness. Some experimenters simply estimated

effectiveness, but most based their measure on integrations of

water column concentrations relative to surface slick dimensions.

This is not a correct means to perform the measure because the

underwater concentrations have little positional relationship to

the surface slick. Underwater dynamics of the ocean are very

different than surface dynamics. Extreme cases of the positional

variances between surface and sub-surface slicks have been

illustrated by Brown and Goodman in controlled tank testing. -^^ Their work has shown that the underwater plumes move in highly

random fashions with respect to the surface slick and even two

trials conducted on the same day will not have similar movement

patterns.

38
TABLE 2 SUMMARY OF EFFECTIVENESS TRIALS

TRIAL YEAR LOCATION OIL APPLICATION CLAIMED

NUMBER TYPE VEHICLE EFFECTIVENJ

1 1976 NORTH SEA EKOFISK SHIP 0%

2 KUWAIT SHIP 100%

3 1978 NEW JERSEY MURBAN HELICOPTER —

4 • - LA ROSA HELICOPTER —

5 MURBAN HELICOPTER 50%

6 LA ROSA HELICOPTER 100%

7 1978 CALIFORNIA NORTH SLOPE HELICOPTER —

8 AIRPLANE —

9 HELICOPTER — 10_11 SHIP —

12 AIRPLANE — 13-14 SHIP — 15 ABOVE 3 — 16-18 1978 VICTORIA NORTH SLOPE SHIP —

19 1979 LONG BEACH PRUDHOE CONTROL 0.50%

20 SHIP 8%

21 SHIP 5%

22 AIRPLANE 78%

23 AIRPLANE 45%

24 CONTROL 1%

25 AIRPLANE 60%

26 SHIP 11%

27 SHIP 62%

28-41 1979 FRANCE-PROTECMAR 1 LIGHT FUEL ALL 3 — 42-49 1980 FRANCE-PROTECMAR 2 LIGHT FUEL ALL 3 — 50 1981 FRANCE-PROTECMAR 3 LIGHT FUEL AIRPLANE 50%

51 AIRPLANE —

52 CONTROL —

53 1981 NEWFOUNDLAND ASMB CONTROL —

54 AIRPLANE — 55 1982 NORWAY STATFJORD CONTROL 0. 60%

56 SHIP 6%

57 SHIP 17%

58 CONTROL 3%

59 SHIP 19%

60 SHIP 22%

61 SHIP 2%

62 1982 NORTH SEA ARABIAN CONTROL

63-64 AIRPLANE

65-67 1982 FRANCE-PROTECMAR 5 LIGHT FUEL SHIP

68-69 AIRPLANE

70 HELICOPTER

71 PREMIXED

39
TABLE 2 ctd. SUMMARY OF EFFECTIVENESS TRIALS

TRIAL YEAR LOCATION OTTj \J JL JLJ APPLICATION CLAIMED

NUMBER TYPE VEHICLE EFFECTIVENl

72 CONTROL

73-74 1983 HOLLAND LIGHT FUEL CONTROL 2%

75-76 STATFJORD CONTROL 2%

77-79 STATFJORD AIRPLANE 2%

80 LIGHT FUEL AIRPLANE 2%

81 STATFJORD PREMIXED 100%

82-83 1983 HALIFAX ASMB CONTROL 1%

84 HELICOPTER 2 . 50%

8 5 HELICOPTER 13%

86 HELICOPTER 10-4 1%

87 CONTROL V^^^XI X XV%^ XJ 7%

88-89 1984 NORWAY STATFJORD CONTROL

90-92 AIRPLANE

93 PREMIXED

94 1985 FRANCE-PROTECMAR 6 LIGHT FUEL CONTROL

95 SHIP-SPRAY

96 SHTP-AEROSOL

97 HELICOPTER

98-99 1985 NORWAY STATFJORD CONTROL

100 PREMIXED

101 EMULSION PREMIXED

102-104 1986 BEAUFORT SEA FEDERATED CONTROL

105-107 HELICOPTER

40
Furthermore, all of the experimenters who used underwater

concentrations to estimate field effectiveness also used the

method of dividing the water into different compartments and

averaging concentrations. Mathematically this is not appropriate

and can result in effectiveness values that are much larger and

range from twice to ten times greater than the actual values.

Because of these factors underwater estimates of oil spill

dispersant effectiveness are highly inaccurate and misleading.

Surface measures are also inadequate. Remote sensing does

not provide a thickness measure and thus calculating volume is

impossible. Numerous surface phenomena also interfere with the

process of estimating slick volume. These have been detailed in a recent paper by Goodman and Fingas.^O

In summary, field trials of dispersant effectiveness have

not shown any quantitative or qualitative proof of high (>50%)

dispersant effectiveness. Analytical means do not exist to

accurately quantify dispersant effectiveness at field trial

situations

Dispersants - Actual Usage

Table 3 lists dispersant usage during some notable large

spills. 22 Results are summarized from the noted references.

The problem with actual spill data is that some observers may

have reported seeing evidence of effectiveness and others

directly the opposite. In none of the cases were any analytical

means tried to quantify effectiveness or even to provide better

estimates. Dispersants are used on a routine basis in countries

like Great Britain and in many Arabic counties. Again no

quantitative results are available to show effectiveness nor lack

of such.

TABLE 3 HISTORICAL USE OF DISPERSANTS

SPILL YEAR COUNTRY AMOUNT DISPERSANT RESULTS

EVENT SPILLED{t} AHOUNT{t}

TORREY CANYON 1967 ENGLAND 119000 10000 LITTLE EFFECTIVENESS,

ADVERSE ECOLOGICAL

OCEAN EAGLE 1968 PUERTO R. 12000 60 NO EFFECT

SANTA BARBARA 1969 USA 1000 32 NO EFFECT

ARROW 1970 CANADA 5000 12 NO EFFECT

PACIFIC GLORY 1970 ENGLAND 6300 p LITTLE EFFECT

SHOWA MARU 1975 SINGAPORE 15000 500 LITTLE EFFECT

JAKOB MAERSK 1975 PORTUGAL 88000 110 LITTLE EFFECT

OLYMPIC ALL. 1975 ENGLAND 2000 220 LITTLE EFFECT

URQUIOLA 1976 SPAIN 100000 2400 LITTLE TO NO EFFECT

AMOCO CADIZ 1978 FRANCE 220000 2500 LITTLE EFFECT

ELENI V 1978 ENGLAND 7500 900 NO EFFECT

CHRISTOS BITAS 1978 ENGLAND 3000 280 LITTLE EFFECT

BETELGEUSE 1979 IRELAND 1000 35 NO EFFECT

IXTOC I 1979 MEXICO 500000 5000 LITTLE EFFECT

SIVAND 1983 ENGLAND 6000 113 LITTLE EFFECT

41
Dispersants - Laboratory Studies

Few laboratory studies have been done on the process of

dispersant action. The Mackay studies of recent years are the

exception, but only begin to answer many of the questions which

arise. ^-^

' Recent studies have also indicated that dispersant

action is very complicated and poorly understood. '-^ In

particular, we do not understand the mechanisms behind dispersant

mixing with oil, its alignment at the oil/water interface, its

subsequent partitioning from oil to water and its dynamics at the

interface. These studies have also shown that there exist

interferences to dispersant effectiveness including; dispersant

herding of the oil, complete lack of mixing in some situations,

accelerated weathering of oil by dispersant, and resurfacing of

dispersed oil. Until some of these problems and mechanisms are

understood or overcome, it will be difficult to assess the

effectiveness potential of dispersants.

A number of laboratory studies have been performed to

compare the test results from different apparatus and procedures.

A review of these results show that there is poor correlation in

effectiveness results between the various test methods.

A

recent study by the present author has shown that lack of

correlation is primarily a function of settling time allowed

between the time that the energy is no longer applied and the

time that the water sample is taken from the apparatus.

Another important factor is that of the oil-to-water ratio in the

apparatus. When these two parameters are adjusted to be the same

and to larger values, test results from most apparatus are

similar. Results from more energetic dispersant effectiveness

tests, such as the Mackay test and the Labofina or Warren Springs

test, are somewhat higher, but when corrected for natural

dispersion, these results are nearly identical to those from less

energetic apparatus. Results from a series of tests and after

having performed these corrections are shown in Table 4. The

effectiveness results from all tests are nearly identical,

especially when considering that the errors for measurement in

the Mackay and Labofina tests are 10 percent or more. The fact

that these values are nearly identical may imply that they have

some meaning. Just the fact that this phenomena occurs also

indicates that energy plays a lesser role than was previously

thought. The high energy in the Mackay and Labofina tests only

increases the dispersant effectiveness for those oils that

disperse naturally.

Dispersants - Summary

The state-of-the-art in dispersants is summarized as

follows:

1. Effectiveness is the main issue of dispersant usage and

it is increasingly evident that dispersant effectiveness may

range in practice from about 10 to 30 %,

2. Analytical means for measuring oil dispersant

effectiveness at sea is poor,

3 . Dispersant effectiveness cannot be measured accurately

using the oil slick as reference because of the different

42
TABLE 4 EFFECTIVENESS IN DIFFERENT APPARATUS

AFTER CORRECTION FOR NATURAL DISPERSION

UJ.1j DISPERSANT i DISPERSABILITY IN PERCENT

i SWIRLING i FLOWING ilABOFINA IMNS

i FLASK ICYLINDER jMODIFIED iMODIFIED

^ -J *0 1 i «i5 i 60i 60

r'RY— ft i A^l AOi 59 i 61

FN 7nn 58 i 70

AMAlIT.TfJAK 9527 I 48i o i 561 44

CRY—8 i RfiS 43 i 7l' FN 700 RAi J I 59

9527 ! 9 5! 71 i 20i

PPY—R Oft? T 1 ! 2 2 ! 4

FN 700 AT? 51: 56

9527 ?! 1 ft i 20i 7 PRY—ft Qi 1 O' 1X 0!U ; 10

FN 7 00 ft! 1 ft

xo I 1 ft ! X o • 12

Q S 7 7 "J QA f, ! *t O 1 OQ: ^ 7 ; 29

PRY—ft 0717 '• 27SI•J X EN 7$ 00\J\J iii t H ; SI 1 *J X

191 42

FEDERATED Q S P 7 T Q 5 J 3 ; 4" X1 1

i 35

T 1

! J X

25i 7*6 FN 7 00 7ft? 76

fJFAR OTT, Q S !? 7 • •? Q ? 1 ft = X O I 1 ft ! X o

12

CRX-8 1 40^ 27! 10

EN 700 10? O 1 15i 30

HTRFRNTA 9527 61 12 i 12! 6 CRX-8 91 loi 8! g EN 7 00 \ i\ 8l 12- XA 1 14

ISSUNGNAK 9527 I 241 22| 21! 20

CRX-8 j 42! 76i 35! 76

EN 700 I 421 60i 351 76

LAGO MEDIO 9527 i 71 8 i 18! 14

CRX-8 i ili 15 j 8; 10

EN 700 IQi 23 i 13! X -* i 24

LUBE OIL 9527 i 15! 19X 7 iI 20! 24

CRX-8 14! 24

20! 28

FN 7 00 1 : ^ J : 20! c, yj : SA

MOUSSE MIX 9527 91 1X .9si

22 i 30

CRX-8 11! 2 Si 13 i 26

EN 700 O&A T2i 1 ft

X o • 32

NORMAN WFT.T^; 9527 411 55i 431 39

CRX-8 i eoi 47i 49! 57

EN 700 631 531 53i 81

PANUK 9527 iooi iooi 89i 100

CRX-8 931 lOOi 85i 100

EN 700 j iooi iooi 87i 100

PRUDHOE BAY 9527 71 13! 27i 14

CRX-8 51 16i 18i 23

EN 700 171 14j 28! 27

SYNTHETIC CRUDE 9527 j 571 50i 581 63

CRX-8 i 691 55i 40! 62

EN 700 I 611 39i 56i 62

A3
movement regimes of the surface slick and the plume, because of

the unknown distribution of the plume and because a large number

of data points are required to define the plume,

4. Remote sensing means to determine dispersant

effectiveness do not yet exist nor is there a slick thicknessmeasuring capability,

5. Effectiveness of actual dispersant usage is not

quantitatively documented and reports of effectiveness are very

contradictory

,

6. The toxicity, both short and long-term, of dispersants

and dispersed oil does not seem to be a major problem or issue,

7. The operating processes of dispersants are poorly

understood as are a number of competing processes, and

8. Laboratory effectiveness measures may be meaningful if

done at high water-to-oil ratios and with settling times of 10

minutes or greater, such correction produces identical results

except in highly energetic devices where correction for natural

dispersion is also required, and

9. Dispersant effectiveness is not as energy-dependent as

formerly thought.

References

1. Oil Spill Treating Agents: A Compendium . The American

Petroleum Institute , Washington, D.C., API report no. 4150,

1972.

2 . Owens , H .

, Shoreline Countermeasures - 1983 Results. Baffin

Island Oil Spill Project Working Report 83-4 . Environmental

Protection Service, Environment Canada, Ottawa, 1984.

3. Roberts, D. , The Biological Degradation of Bunker C Oil

Induced bv Clearwater P.M.D. . Report for Environment Canada,

Ottawa, Ontario, Unpublished Report, 1974.

4. Sendstad, E., L.J. Endal, I. Brattbakk and O.I. Penning,

"Studies on a Seven-Year-Old Seashore Crude Oil Spill On

Spitzbergen" , Proceedings of the Seventh Annual Amop Technical

Seminar . Environment Canada, Ottawa, Ontario, pp. 60-74, 1984.

5. Ladousse, A., C. Tallec and B. Tramier, "Progress in

Enhanced Oil Degradation" , Poster Session presented at the 1987

Oil Spill conference. Abstract in proceedings page 625, American

Petroleum Institute, Washington, D.C., 1987.

6. Brown, R.B., "Treatment of Oil Spills by Sinking - A Review

of Requirements and Progress" , Journal of the Institute of

Petroleum. . 57 . 8, 1971.

7. Dick, J.G. and A. Feldman, Efficiency and Retentivitv Testing

and Performance of Sinking Agents in the Removal of Oil Spills . Report Number EPS 3-EC-75-1, Environment Canada, Ottawa, Ontario,

1975.

8. Nagy, E., Testing of Shell Oil Herder . Unpublished Report,

Environment Canada, Ottawa, Ontario, 1974.

44
9. S.L. Ross Environmental Research Ltd., An Experimental Study

of Oil Spill Treating Agents That Inhibit Emulsif ication and

Promote Dispersion . Report Number EE-87, Environment Canada,

Ottawa, Ontario, 1986.

10. Fingas, M. and E. Tennyson, "Evaluation of Two New Oil Spill

Chemical Additives: Elastol and Demoussifier" , Spill Technology

Newsletter . Vol. 13, No. 2, p. 40-46, 1988.

11. Bobra, M. , P. Kawamura, M. Fingas, and D. Velicogna,

"Laboratory and Mesoscale Testing of Elastol and Brand M

Demoussifier" , Proceedings of the Eleventh Annual AMOP Technical

Seminar . Environment Canada, Ottawa, Ontario, p. 391-415, 1988.

12. Laun, H.M. , and R. Hingman, "Laboratory Tests of Elastol",

Proceedings of the Eleventh Annual AMOP Technical Seminar . Environment Canada, Ottawa, Ontario, p. 417-442, 1988.

13. Bobra, M.A. , P.I. Kawamura, M. Fingas and D. Velicogna,

Laboratory and Tank Test Evaluation of Elastol . Environment

Canada, Manuscript Report Number EE-94, Ottawa, Ontario, 1987.

14 Bobra, M.A. , P.I. Kawamura, M. Fingas and D. Velicogna,

Mesoscale Application and Testing of An Oil Spill Demulsifving

Agent and Elastol p Environment Canada Manuscript Report Number

EE-104, Ottawa, Ontario, 1988.

15. Seakem Oceanography, Field Test of Two Spill Treating

Agents . Environment Canada, Manuscript Report Number EE-XX, in

press, 1988.

16 Fingas, M. , "Dispersant Effectiveness at Seat A Hypothesis to

Explain Current Problems With Effectiveness", Proceedings of the

Eleventh Annual AMOP Technical Seminar . Environment Canada,

Ottawa, Ontario, p. 455-479, 1988.

17. National Academy of Sciences, "Executive Summary", excerpts

from the forthcoming publication on dispersants, National Academy

of Sciences, Washington, D.C., main report in press.

18. Fingas, M.F., "Field Measurement of Effectiveness:

Historical Review and Examination of Analytical Methods",

Chemical Dispersants - Countermeasures For the 90 's . M. Flaherty,

Ed., ASTM 1084, American Society for Testing and Materials,

Philadelphia, in press.

19. Brown, H.M. and Goodman, R.H. , "Dispersant Tests in A Wave

Basin", Proceedings of The Eleventh AMOP Technical Seminar.

Environment Canada, Ottawa, Ontario, p. 501-514,1988.

20. Goodman, R.H. and Fingas, M.F., "The Use of Remote Sensing

in The Determination of Dispersant Effectiveness", Proceedings of

The Eleventh AMOP Technical Seminar . Environment Canada, Ottawa,

Ontario, p. 377-384, 1988.

21. Nichols, J. A. and Parker, H.D., "Dispersants: Comparison of

Laboratory Tests and Field Trials with Practical Experience at

Spills", Proceedings of the 1985 Oil Spill Conference . American

Petroleum Institute, Washington, D.C., p. 421-427, 1985.

22. Burke, E., and R. Golob, "Dispersant Usage in Historic Oil

Spills", Proceedings of the Conference on Oil and Chemical

Spills . Hazardous material Research Institute, Rockville,

Maryland, p. 75-83, 1980.

45
23. Mackay, D. , A. Chau, and K. Hossein, "Effectiveness of

Chemical Dispersants: A Discussion of Recent Progress",

Proceedings of the Sixth AMOP Technical Seminar . Environment

Canada, Ottawa, Ontario, p. 151-153, 1983.

24. Chau, A., J. Sproule and D. Mackay, A Study of the

Fundamental Mechanisms of Chemical Dispersion of Oil Spills . Report No. EE-81, Environment Canada, Ottawa, Ontario, 1987.

25. Fingas, M.F., M.A. Bobra and R.K. Velicogna, "Laboratory

Studies on the Chemical and Natural Dispersability of Oil",

Proceedings of the 1987 Oil Spill Conference . American Petroleum

Institute, Washington, D.C., p. 241-246, 1987.

26. Fingas, M.F., D.L. Munn, B. White, R.G. Stoodley and I.D.

Crerar, "Laboratory Testing of Dispersant Effectiveness: The

Importance of Oil-to-Water Ratio and Settling Time", Proceedings

of the 1989 Oil Spill Conference . American Petroleum Institute,

Washington, D.C., in press.

46
In- Situ Burning of Oil Spills

David

National Institute of

Gaithersburg,

D . Evans

Standards and Technology

Maryland 20899

Introduction

Response to oil spills, regardless of location, includes considerations of oil

containment, recovery, disposal and the logistics of delivering response

equipment. In Arctic waters changing ice conditions during freeze -up to solid

ice cover and the reverse process of ice break-up provide an extreme range of

conditions for operation of oil spill response equipment. In general, the

logistics of equipment movement and the efficiency of oil recovery and

disposal varies substantially for response techniques and equipment as the

percentage of ice -cover in the water changes.

In- situ burning has a broad range of applicability in Arctic areas as the

effectiveness is not hampered by ice conditions. A relative comparison of

in- situ burning and on-site incineration to other response techniques was summarized in chart form by an oil industry task group [1] and is reproduced

in Appendix A of this paper. This chart rates the applicability of burning as "good" over the entire range of conditions evaluated. Experimental burns of

oil in ice leads (channels of water through ice) conducted by Brown and

Goodman [2] and Smith and Diaz [3] have shown that removal efficiencies

typically better than 50% and, in some cases, over 90% are possible. In tests

in which oil pools were free to spread during burning, Buist and Twardus [4]

report consumptions of 70 - 90%.

Burning has been used in response to accidental oil spills with varying

success. In most cases, these spills resulted from accidents involving

tankers or barges. Case histories of several accidents and results from large

controlled burned tests prior to 1979 [5] are provided in Appendix B. One

example of successful burning under emergency conditions was the 1977 Buzzards

Bay, Massachusetts, spill in which 40% of the 5000 gallon fuel oil spilled was removed by burning from the water containing floating ice.

The use of burning to remove oil from the water produces a trade-off that must

be evaluated by local authorities. As oil is removed from the water by

burning, the atmosphere receives the products of the combustion. Research

continues to clarify the effectiveness of the burning process and the

characteristics of the combustion products thereby increasing the amount of

information that can be used by local authorities to aid in their spill

response decisions. This research also provides experience with oil spill

combustion techniques.

This paper presents previous research and discussion of in-situ oil spill

burning. Sources of research applicable to oil spill combustion are identified and the current understanding is summarized. Reproductions of

information, particularly summaries of findings, from the research literature

are included for the convenience of the reader. The rudiments of oil spill

combustion are discussed to provide a basis for decisions about the

47
applicability of the broad range of available research in liquid fuel

combustion to the particular problems of oil spill combustion in Arctic

regions

.

Previous Research

A comprehensive resource document providing a wide range of technical

information about oil spill burning is the 1979 U.S. Department of Energy

(DOE) report, Combustion: An Oil Spill Mitigation Tool [5]. This report

supplied an extensive review of research work available at the time of

publication and an extensive discussion of issues associated with in-situ

burning of oil spills. Appendix C of this report is largely drawn from the

bibliography provided in the DOE report. This Appendix gives sources and

abstracts of research closely associated with oil spill combustion in the

Arctic. The applicable research in this area comes from national and

international sources: academic, government, and industry.

In the DOE report, oil spill combustion is discussed in terms of the three

broad categories of fuels instead of individual fuel properties. The three

categories are determined based on ease of burning. The operational

evaluation of ease of burning is determined by the combustion properties of

the hydrocarbon compounds making up the crude oil mixture. A simple energy

balance for a unit mass of fuel is used to determine a Net Energy which is

defined as the difference between energy input to the fuel surface largely by

radiation from the flame, and the energy necessary to evaporate the liquid

fuel. This relationship is:

Net Energy = 0.02AH , - AH - C (T, -T , ) °-' comb evap p bp amb

where AH represents enthalpy change, Cp represents the specific heat of the

fuel at constant pressure, and T represents temperature. The first term on

the right-hand- side of the equation, 0.02AH^^^^, represents an assumed energy

input to the fuel surface from flame radiation equal to 2% of the heat of

combustion of the fuel. The second term, AH , represents the energy needed

to evaporate the liquid fuel at its boiling temperature. The third term,

C (T^ - T ^) , represents the energy required to heat the fuel from its

iRitill ambient temperature, T , , to the boiling point temperature, T, . Three categories of fuel resulf^rrom this analysis depending on whether^the

Net Energy is much greater than zero, approximately zero or much less than

zero. These correspond to categories 1, 2, and 3 fuels respectively.

Crude oils which are mixtures of hydrocarbon compounds do not have welldefined boiling point temperatures or latent heats of evaporation. For crude

oils or other mixtures of hydrocarbons, "breakeven points" in the distillation

of the fuel are determined. At the breakeven point the Net Energy is zero. The crude oils are placed in categories according to the following:

Category 1: greater than 67% of the mixture by volume has positive Net Energy

Category 2: greater than 40% but less than 67% of the mixture by volume has

positive Net Energy

48
Category 3: less than 40% (below 30%) of the mixture by volume has positive

Net Energy

This provides a structure to begin to generalize results of research that

often use different oils. In general, Category 1 fuels can be expected to

burn easily under most conditions. Category 2 fuels can be expected to burn

under some conditions. Category 3 fuels would not be expected to sustain

burning without combustion promoters. The categories for various oil products

and crude oils are given in table 1 based on an evaluation using an ambient

temperature of 4.4°C [5].

As indicated by the analysis above, the fraction of energy released that can

be recaptured by the burning surface is important in determining the ability

to burn oil spills. Placement of oil within the three categories as described

above was done based on 2% of the energy released returning to the surface of

the burning oil. If the radiant heat captured by the oil can be increased by

an additional 1% of the energy released, substantially more oils could sustain

combustion [5].

The effects of variation in oil thickness on the water, ambient temperature,

exposure time prior to burning, and wind velocity on the combustibility of an

oil in all three categories are shown in figures 1 through 4 as presented in

the 1979 DOE report [5] . Results show that in 1979 oil thickness below 3 mm

were considered generally not burnable as were any spill subject to winds

greater than 5 m/s . Research and development in the technology of oil burning

since then has shown that improvements can be made that increase the range of

known combustible conditions. Burning of oil spills involves the processes of

ignition, flame spread, pool burning, and extinction. Major findings of

recent studies are presented below.

Ignition

Buist and Twardus [4] studied the process of oil slick ignition during the

development of pyrotechnic igniters . They concluded that next to igniting the

entire surface, the most efficient ignition technique is to ignite the

periphery of the slick. The resulting flame spreads outward with the burning

oil spread and inward aided by the fire induced air flow. Figure 5 shows the

results of their research for both maximum time delay before ignition and

number of igniters needed based on a 3 m spacing based on initial spill

volume. The maximum ignition delay time increases with the 0.5 power of spill

volume and the number of igniters with the 0.45 power of spill voliome.

There are four principal igniter devices that have been used and studied for

oil spill ignition.

1 . Environmental Protection Service (EPS) Igniter. (Pyroid Igniter)

The unit contains a pyrotechnic device held between two layers of

material that provides flotation (fig. 6). The 2 kg. igniter is 25

cm. square with a height of 13 cm. It is activated by pulling on a firing pin which strikes a primer cap. A 25 -second delay is

provided to permit manual tossing of the igniter and settling on the

oil slick surface. The flame from the edge of the igniter lasts for

2 minutes [ 6 ]

49
2 . Dome Igniter

This device consists of a wire-mesh basket filled with solid

propellant and gelled kerosene suspended between two metal floats

(fig. 7). The 0.5 kg. igniter measures approximately 30 cm x 18 cm

X 11 cm. An electric ignition system starts the 25 cm long fuse

wire which provides 45 seconds of delay before ignition. The solid

propellant burns for about 10 seconds to ignite the gelled kerosene

in the wire -mesh basket. The total burn time is 10 minutes [6].

3. Laser Ignition of Oil Spills (LIDS)

Two coupled lasers potentially can be used from a helicopter to heat

and ignite oil spills. A laboratory system has been demonstrated to

ignite crude oil pools. Actual helicopter mounted equipment, as pictured in figure 8, has not been built. The process of ignition

is illustrated in figure 9. A continuous -wave (CW) carbon dioxide

laser heats a portion of the oil surface to the flashpoint

temperature . A more intense but smaller focused pulse laser beam

provides the energy in the gases above the warm oil spot to initiate

flaming. The system under design will be capable of igniting oil

pools from a hover altitude of 20 m with an aiming angle of 0 - 49

degrees corresponding to 0 - 23 m travel distance along the

ground [ 7 ]

.

4 . Helitorch Igniter

The Helitorch is a proven igniter system commonly used by the forest

services for controlled burning during fire-control operations. The

system (fig. 10) releases burning gelled gasoline globules from a tank system weighing 243 kg. that can be suspended by cables below

the helicopter and controlled from the cockpit. Typical burning

globules ignited and released from the unit at heights of 18 m or less range from 60 - 120 ml and have burning times of 4 - 6

minutes [ 8 ]

.

Flame Spread

Each of the igniters above provides for oil ignition in the immediate area around the device. Flame spread from this position eventually involves the

entire slick. Buist and Twardus [9] investigated both oil spread on water and

flame spread on oil. They found that burning oil did not spread on water

faster nor farther than cold oil. Only in the case of diesel fuel at wind

speeds less than 1 m/s did the flame spread not keep up with the spread of

oil. Figure 11 shows test results for aged Alberta Sweet Mix Blend (ASMB)

crude oil in a 0.25 m/s counterflow wind velocity.

Burn Efficiency. Oil Burn Residue

The consumption of the oil spill by burning is of course the primary issue of

interest. The efficiency of the burn is the percentage of the original oil

that is removed by burning. Some oil residue remains in the water from all

50
burns, as the flame is always quenched by heat losses to the water surface

when the oil layer is thin. Thus the burn efficiency is limited naturally

below 100%. Burn efficiencies and oil residue data from 1 m and 2 m diameter

oil pool fires [9] and spills in water channel between ice blocks (fig. 12)

[3] are presented in tables 2 and 3 respectively. Burn efficiencies greater

than 90% were obtained in the confined pool fires and 79% for the oil burned

in ice channels. Based on experiments and analysis of unconfined oil slick

burns, Buist and Twardus [4] proposed an equation for rough estimates of burn

efficiency that used only initial spill volume (V^ ) as:

Burn efficiency = (1 - 1/3 " ^ ^ ^

) ^ 100%

Measured burn efficiencies from small and large scale unconfined burns

(fig. 13) are compared with calculated burn efficiencies using a more complete

model in figure 14 [4] . Two assumed velocities of the burning induced surface

current (U^, ) are shown. The induced surface current acts to limit oil slick

spread.

Demonstration of Oil Spill Response Capabilities

An example of the continuing industrial research activity in Arctic oil spill

burning is the cooperative work of four major oil companies operating in

Alaska. In response to concerns of oil industry regulatory agencies about

existing technical capabilities to clean-up oil spills in broken- ice

conditions in the Alaskan Beaufort Sea, demonstration tests of oil spill

response techniques and equipment were performed in 1983. These tests form

the basis of an industry demonstration that allows for drilling in the Alaskan

Beaufort Sea under Tier 2 regulations. Tier 2 permits unrestricted drilling

with exception of locations outside the barrier islands during the fall

bowhead whale migration. Six different tasks were addressed in the study,

three of which dealt directly with oil spill combustion. These tests are typical of many efforts to evaluate equipment and response techniques and are included in this paper for that reason. Test descriptions and results were:

1. In- situ burning of crude oil in the presence of scattered ice.

The in- situ burning of up to 288 gallons of fresh Prudhoe Bay crude

oil was demonstrated in four separate tests in an onshore pit at

Prudhoe Bay. The results of the four tests demonstrated that: 1)

cold waters and ice can be beneficial in limiting the initial spread

of oil; 2) the oil slicks are ignitible using helicopter deployment

of igniters; 3) the oil slicks can be burned, even in scattered ice

conditions, with consumption efficiencies of 55 - 85%; and 4) the

unburned oil and burned oil residue can be removed using

conventional oil sorbent materials [10],

2. Burning of oil in a containment boom. . ;

<

The in- situ burning of crude oil was demonstrated in an onshore pit

at Prudhoe Bay. In these tests the burning oil was contained within

an 2.4 m diameter area by a fire containment boom for the 10 minutes

51
necessary to consume the initial 25 nun thick layer. In the second

burn test, oil was replenished at a rate of 2.5 gallons per minute,

providing a continuous burn. In this test the boom became submerged

on the dovmwind side after 45 minutes allowing burning oil to

escape. Burn efficiencies of 90% and 95% were measured [10].

3. Deployment of a fire containment boom in the lee of a drilling island.

More than 500 feet of fire containment boom was positioned in a fixed containment mode in the lee of an offshore drilling island.

The boom encountered moving broken ice (4 to 7 oktas) for more than

24 hours. A helicopter was used to transport and deploy 240 feet of

wet boom in moving broken ice (up to 3 oktas) . The boom drifted

freely for 2 days. In both cases the boom survived the handling and

ice exposures [10].

This same oil industry task group prepared reports assessing the state-of-theart of oil spill response techniques for the Arctic [11]. Subsequent to that

publication, the task group prepared a practical guide to oil spill response

techniques that presents technical information about the relative

effectiveness of method under conditions found in the Alaskan Beaufort

Sea [1]. Guidance also is provided on logistical and manpower requirements,

as well as recovery rates and efficiencies. Appendix A contains a chart

giving the relative effectiveness of in- situ burning to other response

techniques and copies of two technical information sections from this

reference -- In-situ Burning with Natural Containment, and In-situ Burning

with Fire Containment Boom.

Many of the oil spill research activities involving combustion, like those

discussed above, are conducted in outdoor test facilities. Often these permit

large and realistic tests but these tests are often susceptible to

uncontrolled effects of weather. Large scale fire test facilities offer

protected and instrumented spaces in which realistic size burns can be

conducted under controlled conditions. Measurements from these research burns

provide the best basis for understanding oil spill combustion. Results and

understanding generated through controlled measurement in these specialized

facilities usually can be generalized to conditions that occur in actual oil

spill combustion situations. It is for this reason that the Center for Fire

Research at the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST)

[formally known as the National Bureau of Standards (NBS)] was asked to

examine the technology of oil spill combustion under support from the Minerals

Management Service, U.S. Department of the Interior. Starting in 1984,

measurements and calculations were performed to understand the burning

behavior of crude oil spills on water, the physical and chemical properties of

the smoke produced in the burning, and the dynamics of the smoke plume flow.

An important result of these studies was an evaluation of polynuclear aromatic

hydrocarbon (PAH) content of the crude oil, the smoke produced by burning the

oil on water, and the residual oil left in the water after combustion. The

question of what effect combustion of oil that contains PAH compounds would

have on the net amount of these compounds remaining in the burn residue and

carried in the smoke is important to analyze fully the consequences of the

52
combustion. Measurements of PAH compounds were performed by both NIST and

Environment Canada on samples collected from 0.6 m diameter pool burns

performed in the NIST large scale fire test facility. These measurements

showed that:

1. The PAH concentration in the burn residue was equal to that of the

original oil [12].

2. The total PAH content of the smoke was equal to or less than the mass of

PAH compounds in the oil that was consumed in the combustion depending on

the burning conditions [12,13].

3. In cases where the total mass of PAH compounds in the oil burned and in

the smoke were the same, the distribution of PAH compounds in the smoke was shifted towards larger molecular weight species [13].

Based on these measurements, it appears that the total PAH content of the

environment remains the same or is reduced by combustion of the crude oil

spills on water.

Dynamics of oil spill combustion

The burning process for crude oil on water exhibits two distinct burning

regimes. Initially the oil layer burns in a quiescent pool. For most crude

oils the surface temperature of the vaporizing liquid is greater than the

boiling point temperature of the water on which the oil is floating. As fuel

is consumed the oil layer is heated in depth and is reduced in thickness. The

thinner oil layer also allows more radiation from the flame to penetrate to

the water layer. Both of these processes eventually produce boiling in the

supporting water layer under the oil. At the onset of water boiling, there is a rapid transition to a much more intense burning. Boiling water churns the

oil layer throwing water and oil droplets into the flame. The energy release

rate and oil consiamption rate increase from two to four times the pre -boiling

rate. A secondary effect of the vigorous burning is that some water is

injected into the flame. It is known from engine emissions studies that water

injection into hydrocarbon flames reduces the smoke production [14].

Measurements during the burning of crude oil have shown that when the burning

entered the vigorous burning regime, the smoke emission per unit fuel mass

loss decreased by a factor of five [13].

Figure 15 shows mass loss rate histories for Alberta Sweet Blend Mix crude oil

fires with initial thickness from 2 - 10 mm [13]. The thicker layers

demonstrate clearly the two burning regimes. With regard to crude oil

consumption, figure 15 shows that for the 2 mm and 3 mm thick layers of oil

burned, approximately 65% of the oil burned was consumed during the vigorous

burning period. Only 33% of the thicker 10 mm layer was consumed during a vigorous burning period. As smoke production during the vigorous burning

period is substantially less per unit fuel mass consumed, the burning of the

thinner slicks should produce less total smoke emission per mass of crude oil

consumed.

The mass loss rate histories shown in figure 15 also demonstrate the rapid

natural extinction of the oil spill fire. At some point in the combustion,

53
heat losses to the supporting water layer or mixing process due to churning of

the oil layer by boiling water reduces the oil layer temperature sufficiently

to prevent evaporation of the crude oil necessary to sustain burning. The

flame is extinguished leaving an oil burn residue on the water. This residue

is generally depleted in low temperature volatiles compared to the original

oil. Referring to the classification systems for ease of burning, a Category 2 crude oil may produce a Category 3 burn residue.

Closing

Despite the ability to describe the burning process, quantitative predictions

of burning rates, transition to vigorous burning caused by boiling of the

supporting water layer, and flame extinction conditions are not possible at

this time. Measurements show that vigorous crude oil burning associated with

boiling of the water supporting layer produces less smoke per unit mass of oil

consumed and this smoke carries less total PAH species content than the oil

burned. Thicker oil layers generally are easier to ignite and burn but

thinner layers that induce boiling in the water are relatively cleaner

burning

.

All controlled research burns, equipment evaluation tests, and efforts to

utilize combustion in response to spills increases the collective experience

with the technique. This effort has improved the technology well beyond the

expectations of 10 years ago. Hopefully, future efforts can continue this

trend.

REFERENCES

1. Oil Spill Response in The Arctic. Part 3: Technical Documentation , research administered by Shell Western E&P, Inc., Sohio Alaska

Petroleum Company, Amoco Production Company, 1984.

2. Brown, H.M. and Goodman, R.H. , "In Situ Burning of Oil in Ice

Leads , " Proceedings of the Ninth Annual Arctic and Marine Oilspill

Program Technical Seminar . June 10-12, 1986, Edmonton, Alberta,

Canada, Environment Canada, Ottawa KlA 0H3 , 1986.

3. Smith, K.N. and Diaz, A., "In-Place Burning of Crude oil in Broken

Ice: 1985 Testing at OHMSETT," Proceedings of the Eight Annual

Arctic Marine Oilspill Program Technical Seminar . June 18-20, 1985,

Edmonton, Alberta, Canada, Environment Canada, Ottawa KlA 0H3, 1985.

4. Buist, I. A. and Twardus , E.M. , "Burning Unconfined Oil Slicks: Large

Scale Tests and Modelling," Proceedings of the Eight Annual Arctic

Marine Oilspill Program Technical Seminar . June 18-20, 1985,

Edmonton, Alberta, Canada, Environment Canada, Ottawa KlA 0H3 , 1985.

5. Thompson, C.H., Dawson, G.W., and Goodier, J.L., Combustion: An Oil

Spill Mitigation Tool . U.S. Department of Energy, DOE/EV-1830-1

,

National Technical Information Service, Springfield, VA 22161,

August 1979.

54
Allen, A. , "Alaska Clean Seas Survey and Analysis of Air-Deployable

Igniters , " Proceedings of the Ninth Annual Arctic and Marine

Oilspill Program Technical Seminar . June 10-12, 1986, Edmonton,

Alberta, Canada, Environment Canada, Ottawa KlA 0H3 , 1986.

Frish, M. , Gauthier, V,, Frank, J., and Nebolsine, P., "Laser

Ignition of Oil Spills: Telescope Assembly and Testing,"

Proceedings - Eleventh Arctic and Marine Oilspill Program Technical

Seminar . June 7-9, 1988, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada,

Environment Canada, Ottawa, KlA 0H3 , 1988.

Refinement of Aerial Ignition Systems (Test and Evaluation of the

Helitorch for the Ignition of Oil Slicks) . Report prepared by,

Spiltec, Anchorage, Alaska 99501, for Alaska Clean Seas, Anchorage

Alaska, 99519, 1987.

Buist I. A., and Twardus , E. M. , "In-situ Burning of Unconfined Oil

Slicks," Proceeding of the Seventh Annual Arctic Marine Oilspill

Program Technical Seminar . June 12-14, 1984, Edmonton, Alberta,

Canada, Environment Canada, Ottawa, KlA 0H3 , 1984.

Oil Spill Response in the Arctic. Part 2: Field Demonstrations in

Broken Ice . Study administered and conducted by: Shell Oil Company,

Sohio Alaska Petroleum Company, Exxon Company USA, and Amoco

Production Company, 1983.

Oil Spill Response in the Arctic. Part 1: An Assessment of

Containment. Recovery, and Disposal Techniques , draft report

prepared by Industrial Task Group representing Amoco Production

Company, Exxon Company USA, Shell Oil Company, Sohio Alaska

Petroleum Company, 1983.

Evans, D.', Mulholland, G., Gross, D. , Baum, H. , and Saito, K, , Burning. Smoke Production, and Smoke Dispersion from Oil Spill

Combustion . NISTIR report in preparation.

Evans, D. , Mulholland G., Gross, D., Baum, H. , and Saito, K.

Environment Effects of Oil Spill Combustion . Report NISTIR 88-3822,

National Institute of Standards and Technology, Gaithersburg , MD

20899.

Nazka, M.A. and Crookes, R.J., "Effects of Water Content on Pollutant Formation in a Burning Spray of Water- in-Diesel Fuel

Emulsion," Twentieth Symposium (International) on Combustion . The

Combustion Institute, Pittsburgh, PA 15213, p 2001-2010, 1984.

55
Table 1 Oil Products and Crude Oils by Combustibility Category [5]

CATEGORY NUMBER 1

Oil products

Motor Fuel Antiknock

Compounds with Lead Alkyls

Gasoline and Flash Feed Stocks

Jet Fuel No. 3

Coal Tar

Kerosene and JR No. 1

Jet Fuel No. 5

Fuel Oil No. 1 and ID

Crude Oils

CATEGORY NUMBER 2

Oil Products

Asphalt

Jet Fuel No. 4

Gas Oil

Fuel Oil No. 4

Fuel Oil No. 2 and 2D

Fuel Oil No. 5

Bunker C

Attaka, E. Kalimantan, Pennington, Nigeria

Indonesia

Me lab in,

Tembungo, E. Kalimantan,

Malaysia Indonesia

Seppinggan, E. Kali- Qua Iboe, Nigeria

mantan, Indonesia

Hassi Messaoud blend,

Poleng, Java, Indonesia Algeria

Labyan Light, Beryl, U.K.

(Samarang) Sab ah,

Malaysia Bonny light, Nigeria

Es Sidar, Libya Arabian light (berri)

,

Saudi Arabia

Serei light, Brunei Mubarek, Sharjah, UAE

Crude Oils

Escravos, Nigeria

Trinidad blend,

Trinidad Tobago

Bekapi, El Kalimantan,

Indonesia

Brega, Libya

Murban, Abu Dhabi

Arzew blend, Algeria

Umm Shalf, Abu Dhabi

Arjuna, Java, Indonesia Wallo export mix.

West Irian,

Zakum, Abu Dhabi

Hout, Neutral Zone

Thistle, U.K.

Basrah, Iraq

Badak, E. Kalimantan

Indonesia

Mubarras, Abu Dhabi

Indonesia

Qatar (Duckham) , Qatar

Kerindingan, E. Kalimantan, Indonesia

Zueitina, Libya

North Rumaila, Iran

Tyumen, USSR

56
Table 1 (continued)

CATEGORY NUMBER 2

Oil Products Crude Oils

Stat fjord, Normany

Qatar Marine, Qatar

El Bundug, Abu Dhabi

Sassan, Iran

Piper, U.K.

Montrose, U.K.

Forcados blend,

Nigeria

Zarzaitine, Algeria

Ekofisk, Norway

Forties, U.K.

Rostam, Iran

Bai Hassan, Janbur,

Iraq

Kirkuk, Iraq

Bu-Attifel, Libya

Handil, E. Kalimantan,

Indonesia

Darius, Iran

Oman , Oman

Sarir, Libya

Gulf of Suez Blend

Egypt

Kuwait Crude, Kuwait

Cinta, Indonesia

Ninian, U.K.

Reforma (Cactus Reforma. Isthmus)

Mexico

Iranian Light, Iran

Arabian Light, Saudi

Arabia

Strip Blend 27.1

API, Iran

Iranian Heavy, Iran

Romashkinskaya , USSR

Bunj u , E . Kal imantan

Indonesia

Lagomedio, Venezuela

Dubai , Dubai

Bonny Medium, Nigeria

Tarakan (Pamusian) E. Kalimantan, Indonesia

Ecuador (Oriente)

Ecuador

Cab inda , Cab inda

Angola

North Slope, USA

Mandj i , Gabon

57
Table 1 (continued)

CATEGORY NUMBER 2

Oil Products

CATEGORY 3

Oil Products

Castor Oil

Spray Oil

Rosin Oil

Diesel Oil

Crude Oils

Arabian Medium (Zuhof )

, Ratawi , Neutral Zone

Saudi Arabia

Fereidoon Bled, Iran

Arabian Medium

Saudi Arabia

Ekhabinskaya, USSR

Amna (High Pour)

,

Libya

Arabian Heavy,

Saudi Arabia

(Safaniya and Khafi)

Minas (Sumatran Light)

Samatra, Indonesia

Burgan (Wafra) Neutral

Zone

Anguille, Gabon

Taching, China (PRC)

Crude Oils

Gamha , Gabon

Eocene , Neutral Zone

Emeraude, Congo

Brazzaville

Cyras , Iran

Bachequero, 16.8°API

(Bachequero Heavy)

,

Venezuela

Jatibarang, Jaba,

Indonesia

Klamono , Irian, Java

Indonesia

Duri, Indonesia

Boscan, Venezuela

58
Table 2

Confined Pool Crude Oil Bum Test [9]

Regression Biirn Efficiency+

Burning X Rate

(mn/min)

ASMB 4 5 0 0 7 0.9 2 20 1 8 82

ASMB 6 7 6 C 85 1.1 3 15 2 0 86

ASMB 8 10 1 0 95 1.2 A 50 1 84 88

ASMB 10 12 7 0 95 1.2 6 AO 1 7 90

ASMB 12 15 3 1 0 1.27 8 35 1 65 92

ASMB 16 20 3 1 0 1.27 11 A2 1 63 94

ASMB 16 20 3 0 8 1.0 9 30 2 0 95

ASMB 17 21 6 0 8 1.0 10 00 2 0 95

ASMB 20 1 25 A7 1 0 1.27 lA 00 1 72 95

ASMB 32 AO 7 0 9 1.15 19 00 2 0 97

Diesel 6 7 6 1 1 1.4 3 50 1 6* 82

Diesel 12 15 3 1 6 2.0 7 15 1 8* 87

Diesel 20 25 A7 0 9 1.15 11 50 2 0 95

Diesel 12 2 3 8 A 2 1.33 2 20 1 0* 65

Diesel 20 2 6 36 A 1 1.3 3 00 1 68* 79

ASMB 10 2 3 18 1 7 0.54 1 35 1 74 83

ASMB 1A.7 2 A 67 2 3 0.73 2 00 1 97 84

ASMB 20 2 6 36 2 7 0.859 2 19 2 39 86

*Residue emulsified

+(Oil Volume - Residue Volume/Oil Volume) x lOOZ

ASMB Alberta Sweet Mix Blend Crude Oil

59

Oil Oil Pool Initial Residue Residue Burning

Type Volume Dia. Oil Volume Thickness Time

(1) (m) Thickness (1) (ran) (min)

(ran)
Table 3 Test Results - Oil Burned on Water with Ice Cover [3]

Test

No.

Test Fluid

Description

Fluid Ice Air Water Wind Burn Volune Coverage* Igjii ti on/Burn Time Tanp Tanp Speed Efficiency

(liters) (%) (min: sec/min: sec ) (C ) (C ) (m/s) (%)

1 Fresh Prudhoe Bay 35.6 76-81 crude

IR Fresh Prudhoe Bay 29.0 84-86

crude

1R2 Fresh Prudhoe Bay 35.6 82-89

cr ude

4 Sparged Prudhoe Bay 35.6 75-84 Bay crude. Flash

Point: 24C

5A Emulsion 18% Bay 35.6 81-86

water/82% fresh

Prudhoe Bay crude

6A Sparged Prudhoe Bay 35.6 75-80

crude. Flash

Point: 40C

0:15/11:31

0:15/24:03

0:06/13:45

0:15/15:50

1st 0:17/2:30

2nd 0:21/15:45

3rd None**/33:04

-6

0:13/9:21

2 72.4 1 2.3

8 62. 5 ± 3.8

58.3 1 2.4

79.1 1 2.2

9.6 I 2.7

61.9 1 2.3

7A Emulsion 8% Bay 35.6 79-85 Ist 0:11/25:27

water/92% fresh 2nd 0:15/11:05

Prudhoe Bay crude 3rd 0:07/5:10

8A Sparged Prudhoe Bay 35.6 78-84 0:07/8:07

crude. Flash

point: 40C

9A Fresh Amauligak crude 35.6 82-88 0:07/16:32

lOA Sparged Amauligak 35.6 82-83 0:08/27:15

crude. Flash

Point: 38C HA Emulsion-9% Bay water 35.6 76-80 Ist 0:08/21:32

91% fresh Amauligak 2nd 0:10/4:58

crude 3rd 0:43/17:11

3

11

12

0 7 34.7 1 2.5

0 < 2 68. 3 1 2.3

5 4 62.9 1 2.4

7 1 68.3 1 2.4

7 5 51.7 ± 2.5

* Range based on average ice coverage measurement i standard deviation of measurements. Magnitude

of range indirectly indicative of ambient light levels which affect the quality of video

recording.

** 3rd igpiter placed while 2nd still ongoing.

60
Figure 1 Effect of Oil Layer

Thickness on Combustibility [5]

Figure 2 Effect of Ambient

Temperature on Combustibility [5]

0

24

48

72

96

CATEGORY

2

COMBUST BLE //

- ARCTIC

- / A

y /temperate

/noncombustible

e

>-o

category

2

NONCOMBUSTIBLE

- COMBUSTIBLE

NONCOMBUSTIBLE

Figure 3 Effect of Time Delay Figure 4 Effect of Wind

on Combustibility [5] Velocity on Combustibility [5]

61
a3a33N sa3iiN9i do a38wnN

10E

u

•H

O • u ^

8 0)

0) o

J3 >

i-H T3 rH

(d a.

(0

0)a

•H O

•p

to .H

iH 4J

0) O

X) C

o

•p-4 +Jc <o

•iH <UB

I-H 4-> •H 4-> COCO JZ

•H iJ B

0) (4 CXa 0) S -r^ X cr

(1>

•H

62
w

•uC

Q)coooc

CO

•1-1 c c

•H

aoQ

4J o

•H

nj <4-i « o

0)

on

CO 4JC

d) 0) c o bO o

«r-l

C a- > •i-i e u i-i 0

•H o

(w o

1-1 •1-1 o c

•H c

+J

u

O 0) 0)

!V 4-) 4J

iJ c O o •1-1 u

CLi bOC

I—•H c

4J 0 c

CO e 5 CO C »-i •H o <u c u iJ ca •H> c o c 0) u •1-1

vo

3,

•H

fa

63
Figure 8 Illustration of airborne LIOS system [7]

64
OIL ICE

Figure 9 Process of oil spill ignition using LIOS [7]

65
Electrical Cable

Support Cable Assembly

He 11 torch

ly

Exit Nozzles.

Igniter Tips

& Wind Shield

Figure 10 Helitorch igniter system [8]

66
67
Figure 12 Demonstrating the burnablllty of an emulsion

of 92% Prudhoe Bay crude oil and 8% bay water

In tests at OHMSETT [3]

Figure 13 Large scale burn tests near Prudhoe Bay, Alaska [4]

68
o

IIo

n

o

111 s3

-Jo

>

o

•nl U

•HbO

o

C

•nlbOai

U

01

cdo

a

a> •Ho

•1-4 4-1 tM

0)a

o

•H

+J

CO

o

o

•H

H

o

0)

••-I

o

o

o oo

o O

ft) o o

(%) AONaioiddB NOixsnaMoo

69
25

20

•»

««>•> Ul

!<

C

CO

o

-J

M

CO

<

15

10

Pan DIa. - 60 cm

Oil Layer Thicknesa

2 mm

3 mm

5 mm

• —• — 10 mm

A.

0 60 fl20 180 240 300

tignltion TIME (aoconda)

X

/ I

• •

/ !

/ 1

\

360 420 480

Figure 15 Effect of oil layer thickness on the mass loss rate history during burning

70
Appendix A

Applicability and Effectiveness of Burning

as an Oil Spill Response Technique

Reproduced with permission from reference 1:

Oil Spill Response in The Arctic. Part 3: Technical Documentation , research administered by Shell Western E&P, Inc., Sohio Alaska

Petroleum Company, Amoco Production Company, 1984.

71
Ui

lU3gzXo

HI

»- 75 LU S

0) § O Q.

</) «

UJ

X

0.Oo

oc<o>

OQ<

a.< C (D Q.'O .2 £ TM <" <5 >« / R O 0) (0

i5 ^ =

t- -p «- * h n o 5 ^ 3 ^ o S o

0) 5 S I

§9n c

(B = 5 ~ « $ « o = ^2 i O ^ - " il> o ^ £

'2 c ' o - 2 c £ > co o

72
IN-SITU BURNING WITH NATURAL CONTAINMENT

DESCRIPTION

Under the influence of wind, oil will tend to drift with

a greater speed (and at times a different direction) than

individual ice pieces. Oil released in a broken ice field, however, can be herded by natural effects into concentrations that can support in-situ burning. Oil will tend

to accumulate in leads and cracks, it can be herded by

the wind and be concentrated in or against tightly

packed ice fields, and it can accumulate against the

windward sides of large floes. Oil entrained in solid ice

during the winter can migrate to the surface during

the spring melt and accumulate in melt pools on the

ice surface. In each of these modes of concentration,

oil can be ignited by air-deployable igniters dropped

from helicopters or, in some cases, from surface craft. Aerial monitoring of oil concentrations is essential to ensure that the heaviest and freshest oil is ignited as soon as possible. The proper government permits must

be obtained for any burning of oil or oily debris.

APPLICABILITY

LOCATION SURFACE CONDITION

AT/NEAR SOURCE

3ETWEEN SOURCE

& SHORELINE

AT/NEAR SHORELINESOLID

ICE DECAYING

ICE PARTIAL/THINICE COVER mmOPEN WATER

I Good ^^Fair/Limited 1 iHas Potential EH Not Applicable

73
IN-SITU BURNING WITH NATURAL CONTAINMENT

PERSONNEL EQUIPMENT

Personnel requirements minimal normally involving 1 or Helicopter(s)

2 people for ignition/monitoring teams. Nature and distribu- Igniters (several per oil pool as backup)

tion of individual oil pools will dictate the total number of ignitionymonitoring teams.

10' I—

PHYSICAL PARAMETERS

IN-SITU BURN RATE

THICK FILMS

Typically 1/2" thick or greater10' —

O 10

UJ

THIN FILMS

Typically 0.04" to 0.12" or 1 to 2 mm

Monitor oil and weather conditions — allow wind

to herd oil into concentrations (in leads or melt

pools; against large floes, gravel islands, etc.). The thicker the initial layer of oil prior to ignition, the smaller the percentage of burn residue. Winds can increase the bum rate; however, higher

winds will not appreciably improve the burn

efficiency. Winds in excess of 20 mi/hr (« 37 km/hr) will make

ignition very difficult and hamper combustion

through excessive cooling of the fire

In-situ burning of oil/water emulsions is not nor- maUy practical.

Aged, emulsified crude oil ( >1 to 2 weeks exposure) can usually be burned but is difficult to ignite.

Minimum thicknesses for ignition:

S5 0.04 in. (1 mm) for fresh oil

=* 0.1 2 in. (3 mm) for aged oil

0.1 10

I 8 11

10' 10' BURNING AREA (Square Feet)

10*

NOTE: Use a burn rate of 0.11 in./min for thick oil concentrations (>0.5 in.).

CONVERSION FACTORS RELATED TECHNIQUES

1 gal/min = 1.43 bbl/hr = 34.3 bbl/day In-Situ Burning with Fire Containment Boom

1 ft' = 2.296 X 10-' acres = 9.29 x lO'^ m'

OU at 0.1 in. thick = 41,400 bbl/mi' = 64.7 bbl/acre = 0.062

gal/ft*

74
IN-SITU BURNING WITH FIRE CONTAINMENT BOOM

DESCRIPTION

Fire containment boom can be used in several ways to provide concentrations of oil for in-situ burning. Two

boats can tow the boom in a U-configuration to col- lect oil and then the boom can be set adrift or anchored

while the oil is ignited and burned in placa Fire con- tainment boom can also be deployed in a free-drift mode among broken ice pieces by helicopters, air- cushion vehicles, or tugs to enhance natural windherding of oil for subsequent ignition.

If a blowout on a driUing island is ignited during heavy

ice conditions, burning in the lee of the island can be

enhanced with the use of fire containment boom. The

magnitude of the blowout and the intensity of the bum

wiU determine whether or not it is feasible or safe to deploy the boom in the lee of the island. Small-boat

operations andVor boom maintenance by personnel on

foot must not be attempted unless it is possible to avoid contact with the oil and to remain at a safe distance from all burning and potentially ignitable vapors and materials. Deployment of the boom with

self-anchoring shoreline connections may be necessary using helicopters without ground support. Multiple or replacement booms would be deployed in the same way. The proper government permits must be obtained for any burning of oil or oily debris.

APPLICABILITY

LOCATION SURFACE CONDITION

AT/NEAR SOURCE

3ETWEEN SOURCE

& SHORELINE

AT/NEAR SHORELINE

I N/A I SOLID

ICE DECAYING mICE PARTIAL/THIN

ICE COVER

OPEN WATER

iGooa ^3 Fair/Limited EZ]] Has Potential EH Not Applicable

75
IN-SITU BURNING WITH FIRE CONTAINMENT BOOM

PERSONNEL

If fire containment boom is towed, a minimum of 1 operator

and 1 crewman required per tow vessel. Boom deployment

mode, nature of spill source, and variability of winds and

currents will dictate the manning requirements during bum.

Aerial spotter personnel may be needed for optimum positioning of the containment boom.

EQUIPMENT

Towboats

Fire containment boom (typically 200 to 400 ft) Igniters, line, floats, anchors, etc

Spotter aircraft

PHYSICAL PARAMETERS

EXAMPLE: A U-boom configuration positioned downstream of a 2.000

bbl/day spill source would require a boom length of between 200 and 300

ft in order to provide tfie 2,500 sq ft needed for in situ burning wittiin ttie downstream ttiird (1/3 d) of the boom area. The suggested mouth opening (W) in this example would be 90 ft. W could be increased, of course, depending on the approaching oil, the sea state, winds, and the desired burn concentration.

CONVERSION FACTORS

1 gal/min - 1.43 bbl/hr = 34.3 bbl/day

1 ft' = 2.296 X 10-' acres = 9.29 x 10"' m== Oil at 0.1 in. thick = 41,400 bbl/mi' = 64.7 bbUacre = 0.062

gal/ft'

RELATED TECHNIQUES

Containment Using Towed Boom Configurations

In-Situ Burning with Natural Containment

76
Appendix B

Case Histories of Attempts to Use

Burning in Response to an Oil Spill

Reproduced from reference 5:

Thompson, C.H., Dawson, G.W. , and Goodier, J.L., Combustion: An

Oil Spill Mitigation Tool . U.S. Department of Energy, DOE/EV1830-1, National Technical Information Service, Springfield,

VA 22161, August 1979.

77
TORREY CANYON (March 1967)

Burning of the TORREY CANYON cargo was attempted after the ship had

broken up. Attempts were made to light small oil slicks believed to be

reasonably thick, using "oxygen tiles" (a pyrotechnic device containing sodium

chlorate to provide an oxygen-rich flame) . These attempts were unsuccessful

probably because the highly flammable volatile fraction of the crude oil had

already evaporated. Sodium chlorate devices were successful in igniting crude

oil exuding from the ship. Bombing of the tanker with 1000- lb high explosive

bombs produced fire in the tanker and in some surrounding patches. Aviation

kerosene was jettisoned to feed the fires. Napalm bombs were also used to

start fires. Approximately 160,000 lb of high explosives, 10,000 gallons of

aviation kerosene, 3,000 gallons of napalm and several rockets were used in

the burning operations.

ARROW (February 1970)

This Liberian-registered tanker spilled 16,000 tons of Venezuelan

Bunker C fuel oil after it went aground in Chedabucto Bay, Nova Scotia.

Environmental conditions at the time of the spill were: water temperature CO

to 1°C; air temperature much lower, wind 40 to 50 mph, severe wave conditions

and 100-foot water depth. A burn action was initiated using a wicking agent,

"Seabeads." The product was used successfully on beaches and on isolated

slicks in 1°C to 2°C water. Part of the spill was burned by using two drums

of fresh oil and igniting them with "Kontax." Onshore oil deposits were ignited with napalm and a flame thrower and burned well.

OTHELLO AND KATELYSIA (March 1970)

Following a collision in Tralhavet Bay, Sweden, between 60,000 and

100,000 tons of Bunker C oil was trapped in packed ice. The extremely low

water temperature excluded the use of dispersants , absorbents , and containment

booms and this resulted in a decision to burn the oil. Following application

from a tug boat of a combustion promoting chemical (Cab-O-Sil ST-2-0) a large

quantity of the spilled oil was ignited and burned. The Cab-O-Sil chemical,

now known as Tull-A-Nox 500, is a wicking agent composed of fine particles of

fumed silica, surface treated with a silicone coating to render it

hydrophobic.

The oil that was trapped in the ice was later burned after the thaw when

the ice and oil separated. Some heavily contaminated ice was recovered with a grab bucket dredge and contained in barges until the ice thawed and the oil

naturally separated and could be readily recovered.

U.S. COAST GUARD OIL SPILL TESTS (SUMMER 1970)

At Point Barrow, Alaska, the USCG conducted oil burning tests using

55 gallons of North slope crude for each test. Fresh and 6 -day old crudes were ignited and burned well both on water and on ice. No difference in

ignition and burning was noted when either glass beads or fumed silica burning

agents were used. Environment conditions during the tests were: ice

temperature, 0.3°C; water temperature, 1°C to 2°C; air temperature, 1°C to

4.8°C.

78
DECEPTION BAY. QUEBEC (June 1970)

Oil and gasoline that escaped from five bulk storage tanks damaged by a slush ice avalanche was burned in the Western Hudson Strait. This involved

oil on ice and oil contained by near shore ice. The remaining oil was pumped

onto the ice from the water and burned. All of the ice was eventually cleaned

up by repeated burn actions.

ARGO MERCHANT (December 1976)

In this marine casualty, which occurred about 29 nautical miles

southeast of Nantucket Island, Massachusetts, the USCG first attempted to burn

the oil slick on December 27, 1976. Isolated boxes of Tull-A-Nox 500 charged

with fuel were dropped from a helicopter and ignited with a timed thermite

grenade. The isolated boxes burned but because of the lack of dispersal of

the wicking agent, flame spread was not sustained and the burn was unsuccessful

On December 31, 1976, at 1538 hours (16 days, 8.38 hours at the initial

grounding of the vessel) an attempt was made to burn another slick originating

from the stricken vessel. This slick was 90 ft by 120 ft in dimension, was elliptical in shape, of heavy tarry consistency, and 6 to 10 in. thick. The

slick contained much debris such as 2 x 4s and other building material. As

the vessel maneuvered alongside the slick the patch was broken up into several

smaller patches. The Tull-A-Nox wicking agent was left in 11 plastic bags and was thrown on the slick near the center of a smaller 30 ft by 60 ft oil

pancake. Some bags burst open on impact. Others were torn open with birdshot

from a 12 gauge shotgun. In spite of the wicking agents advertised affinity

for oil, its bulk density of 3 lb per cubic feet (comparable ash) allowed the

wind to blow approximately 95% of it off the slick. As a result of the high

loss rate of the initial 66 lb of wicking agent an additional 66 lb was charged with JP-4 and disbursed along the edge of the slick. It was very

obvious at this stage that a continuous coating over the oil slick could not

be obtained with the technique available. Sufficient wicking agent was dispersed to theoretically provide a 1/2 in. coating over the 30 x 60 ft oil

pancake had 100% of it remained on the slick. Fifty- five gallons of JP-4 fuel were used to prime the slick.

Three cotton sheets were soaked in JP-4 and distributed on the slick.

One was ignited using 30 minute railroad flares, and burned for 4 minutes.

The heat source was insufficient to ignite the primer which was being mixed

with water from the turbulence of the vessel. Unsuccessful attempts were made

to ignite a wider region with flares. The demonstration was called off at this

point.

The tests were deemed unsuccessful for the following reasons:

1. unable to disperse wicking agent without excessive loss (approximately

90%)

2. unable to main continuity of slick due to vessel propulsion turbulence

3. unable to sustain initial burn.

A total of 220 lb of wicking agent and 55 gallons of JP-4 aircraft fuel were expended on the burn test. The weather conditions during both burns were:

79
December 27. 1976 - winds 295 T/35 knots; seas 280 T/8 feet, barometer 29.58,

visibility 2 miles with snow, air temperature 28 F.

December 31. 1976 - winds 350 T/5 feet, air temperature 30 F, visibility

3 miles and snowing.

BARGE B-65 (January 1977)

When this barge grounded in Buzzards Bay, Massachusetts, on January 31,

1977, two spills of No. 2 fuel oil, one of 10,000 gallons near the shore line

and the other 5000 gallons were spilled offshore near the Cleveland Ledge

Light. An attempt was made to burn the offshore spill that was crescent moon

shaped and interwoven with floating ice. Sixty-six pounds of Tull-A-NOX 500

mixed with 12 gallons of kerosene, were dropped onto the slick from a helicopter flying at an elevation of 15 feet above sea level. Each bag of

wicking agent was ignited by a 3 minute time delayed thermite fuse. Thirty

minutes after ignition, forty- four pounds of wicking agent were dropped onto

the spill. The oil ignited around each bag of wicking agent and two windblown

flames ignited the surface slick for a distance of 35 ft from the ignition

source. Some 2000 gallons of oil were burned in the response action.

AMOCO CADIZ

This incident posed a tremendous cleanup problem. Observers on scene indicated that burning was considered, but there was opposition expressed by

local vegetable farmers

.

300 I —— . ,

CHRONICLE DAY "1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 W 20

16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 1 2 3 4 5 6 MARCH APRIL FIGURE B.l. Estimated Cumulative Oil Release from Amoco Cadiz Spill

Source: NOAA/EPA Preliminary Scientific Report, p. 233 Amoco Cadiz,

80
Those who were not in favor the burn because of soot fallout and

tainting of crops found their crops tainted anyway by the intense hydrocarbon

fumes moving inland from the contaminated shores . In time the ship was attacked by depth charges. Figure B.l illustrates the events and shows the use of explosives on the ship. The intent of these bombing attempts was not

to cause in situ burning, but are of interest to know that in 12 days the

vessel was definitely regarded as a total loss and burning could then have

been attempted without owner, etc. objectives. The owner was attempting

throughout the incident's early days to locate pyrotechnic specialists.

NOTE: Comment

The evaluation of in situ burning also included consideration of the

minimum amount of freeboard available (due to sea state) which rendered the

opening of side vents unlikely. The paradox of the "last resort option" which

burning is often considered is negated by conditions such as this. Burning

without side vents has not been demonstrated, but may be practical when

prevailing coastline winds create differential pressure at the deck surface.

No responsible person can advise this last resort tactic without additional

experience (after M.P. Holdsworth, August 24, 1978, personal communication).

KONTAX BURN TESTS

Successful oil burning was reported by the Dutch Government from tests

conducted on July 1, 1969. These tests were conducted 25 miles at sea and on

a beach. The tests were conducted on oil floating at sea simulating that

resulting from a vessel collision. Studies were designed to ignite and burn

confined oil floating at sea, to ignite and burn fresh and 12 hour weathered

oil on a sandy beach. The oils involved were heavy and light Arabian crudes

and test quantities ranged from 300 liters to 10 tons. The igniter material

KONTAX was used in 25 kg plastic bagged form. The bags, being perforated on

deck, were immediately tossed into the oil slick and upon contact with

seawater caused extensive burning in the confined oil slick.

A 10 ton slick which was approximately 2,000 m^ , 0.5 cm thick and free

fixation was created. The Kontax was jettisoned into the slick and

spontaneous combustion began with very heavy smoke. Flames were reported by

Dutch observers to be 15 to 20 meters high and convection currents were very

strong to the point that nonburning oil was drawn to the fire. Estimates of

99% to 90% reduction of this slick were noted. Details of weather and sea

state were given. Ignition of oil on the beach was successful even when the

oil was deliberately mixed into the wet beach sand. By evaluating the Dutch

report and the manufacturer's literature, it would appear that a ratio of

1:100 KONTAX to oil by weight is an appropriate combustion promoter addition.

81
Appendix C

Bibliography of Studies Relevant

to Oil Spill Burning

The majority of citations are taken

from the bibliographies in references 5 and 11:

Thompson, C.H., Dawson, G.W., and Goodier, J.L., Combustion: An

Oil Spill Mitigation Tool . U.S. Department of Energy, DOE/EV1830-1, National Technical Information Service, Springfield,

VA 22161, August 1979.

and

Oil Spill Response in the Arctic. Part 1: An Assessment of

Containment. Recovery, and Disposal Techniques , draft report

prepared by Industrial Task Group representing Amoco Production

Company, Exxon Company USA, Shell Oil Company, Sohio Alaska

Petroleum Company, April 1983

82
Affens , W.A. 1967. Flanunability Properties of Hydrocarbon Fuels . Part 3 . Flanunability of Hydrocarbon Solutions in Air . Naval Research Laboratory,

NRL Report 6617.

Equations have been derived which make it possible to predict overall

flanunability properties of mixtures from the properties of the individual

components

Allen, A. and Simpson, W. 1986 "Alaska Clean Seas and Evaluation of Fire

Containment Boom" , Proceedings of the Ninth Annual Arctic and Marine Oilspill

Program - Technical Seminar . Edmonton, Canada, June 10-12, 1986.

Four fire containment booms have been tested and evaluated for their

resistance to fire during 24-hr, exposures to burning crude oil. Seven

individual burn tests were conducted. The performance of each boom was documented on videotape, and temperature profiles were recorded for each

thermocouple. The results of these tests are summarized along with an overall

assessment of each system's physical and operational strengths and weaknesses.

Included is a summary of several tests conducted to evaluate the oil -holding

capacity and wave-riding characteristics of each boom. These tests were conducted with an without an oil stimulant in waves up to 0.6 m (2 ft) in

height and with currents of 0.2 m/sec to 0.6 m/sec (0.4 kt to 1.2 kt)

Arthur D. Little, Inc. 1969. Combating Pollution Created by Oil Spills . Report to the Department of Transportation. NTIS AD 696 635.

The types, use, and effectiveness of wicking agents for oil slick burning

are discussed. Slicks should be thicker than 1/4", freshly spilled, and in

relatively calm water for successful burning.

Berridge, S.A. et al . 1968. "The Properties of Persistent Oils at Sea."

Institute of Petroleum Journal . 54 (539):300.

This paper discusses physical, chemical, and biological processes on oil

spills. Evaporation is the major process, biological degradation is

insignificant. Mixing affects the extent and rate of removal. Burning agents

on ice pool slicks did not affect burning rate, but changed the residue.

Average burning rates were 3-5 gal/min, with thicker slicks burning faster.

Blinov, V.I. and Khudyakov, G.N. 1957. "Certain Laws Governing Diffusive

Burning of Liquids," Institute of Energetics of the Academy of Sciences. USSR.

Academia Nauk. SSSR. Dokladv . 113:1094-1098.

This paper on the natural burning of liquid petroleum products in pans is

especially significant because of the wide range of pan size covered

(0.37 cm to 22.0 m) which was sufficient to block out clearly the various

burning regimes. Liquid burning rates and flame heights were measured. Flame

shapes also varied with pan size.

Blokker, P.C. "Spreading and Evaporation of Petroleum Products on Water."

4tb. International Harbor Conference . Based on lab-scale experiments and physical deductions, a procedure was developed to calculate the rate of spreading and evaporation of oil spillage

on water. Due to the cooling effect of the water, fire risks are present with

only very volatile oils (gasoline, crude oil). Quantitative methods are described.

83
Blumer, M. 1972. "Oil Contamination and the Living Resources of the Sea."

Marine Pollution and Sea Life . FAO , Fishing News (Books) Ltd. London,

England.

Oil spill countermeasures - detergents, dispersants, mechanical removal

and containment, biological degradation, and combustion are compared. Oil

burning using wicks or oxidants is more attractive than sinking. Combustion

promoters are necessary for complete oxidation.

Brown, H.M. and Goodman, R.H. 1986 "In Situ Burning of Oil in Ice Leads",

Proceedings of the Ninth Annual Arctic and Marine Oilspill Program - Technical

Seminar . Edmonton, Canada, June 10-12, 1986.

A series of experiments was carried out at the Esso Research ice basin in

Calgary, Canada to evaluate the critical parameters of burning oil in ice

leads. This may be a useful spill cleanup technique in the Arctic under

certain conditions. Twenty- five test burns of Norman Wells crude were carried

out to study the effect of wind herding, oil weathering, oil thickness, and

lead geometry on burning efficiencies. Burning efficiencies of up to 90% were measured where moderate winds herded the oil into long narrow leads. Burning

in other lead geometries was less efficient as was burning in the presence of

brash ice. Weathering of the oil up to 20% did not significantly effect the

burns

.

Brzustowski, T.A. 1985. "Study of the Burning of Unconfined Oil Slicks",

Transactions of the Canadian Society for Mechanical Engineers , v 9, n 4,

p. 192-199.

A model is developed here to described the spreading and burning of an unconfined oil slick on water. In the model, the air flow into the flame

induces a surface current on the water surrounding the slick. The current is

directed inward toward the slick and inhibits its spread. It may be as high

as 0.01 m/s , independent of slick size. The combustion efficiency (fraction

of spilled oil burned) is calculated as a function of the volume of oil

spilled (from 10"^ m~^ to 10^ m'^ ) and of the time delay between the occurrence

of the spill and the ignition of the slick. The slick cannot be ignited and

will not continue burning if it is thinner than about 0.8 mm. It turns out

that the combustion efficiency increases with increasing spill volume, and

decreases with increasing delay time. There is a critical delay time beyond

which combustion is quite uncertain. That critical delay depends only on the

spill volume. In hours, it is of the order of 1/10 of the square root of the

spill volume in m'^ .

Brzustowski, T.A. and Twardus , E. M. 1982 "Study of the Burning of a Slick

of Crude Oil on Water" , Proceedings - 19th Symposium (Int'l) on Combustion in

Haifa, Israel, August 8-13, 1982, Combustion Publication Institute,

Pittsburgh, PA, p. 847-854.

Observations of the burning of a slick of fresh crude oil on water,

including photographs taken from underneath the slick, have shown that the

combustion is very violent for much of the burning time, with burning drops of

oil ejected from the flame. At the same time, the slick is violently

disturbed and considerable flame radiation is transmitted through it. The

violent combustion appears to be the result mainly of eruptive vaporization of

the light fractions of the crude. A simple model of oil slick burning is

presented. It is one -dimensional and quasi- steady , and does not include

liquid-phase processes. It does incorporate heat loss to the water substrate,

initial absorption of radiation, decreasing as the slick burns, and the effect

84
of wind on flame tilt and radiation heat feedback to the slick. The model

predicts the minimum thickness for ignition, the unburned residue, the burning

time, and the effect of wind on all three quantities.

Burgess, D. S., Strasser, A. and Grumer, J. 1961. "Diffusion Burning of

Liquid Fuels in Open Trays," Fire Research Abstracts and Reviews . 3: 177-192.

This paper supports Blinov's and Khudyakov's findings that the burning

rate above large pools is determined by the rate of radiative feedback from

the flame to the pool of liquid. The paper also describes the effects of fuel

temperature and wind on burning rate and suggests that burning rate may be

predicted from the heat of vaporization and combustion of the fuel.

Castellucci, N.T, et al. 1972. Process for Burning a Combustible Liquid

Using Cellular Ceramic Nodules . U.S. Patent 3661497.

Cellular ceramic nodules are spread on a combustible liquid and act as a wicking agent to sustain combustion.

Chemical Week . "Swedes Solve Oil Spill". April 15, 1970, p. 25.

Oil spilled from the tanker Othello was successfully burned using Cab-0-

Sil ST- 2-0. Because of the coldness of the waters and formation of ice-packs, use of dispersants, absorbents, or containment booms was impossible. Adding

kerosene did not enhance burning.

Coupal , B. 1976. Controlled Combustion Tests Carried Out Near Rimouski . Environmental Protection Service, EPS-4-EC-76-2

Combustion of oil (Ceuta Crude and Bunker C) on water with peat moss as a wicking agent and diesel fuel as a promoter was effective. Combustion

efficiencies of up to 85% were achieved. Ocean burning tests are planned to

include wave and current effects.

Day, T. , Mackay, D. , Nadeau, S. and Thurier, R. 1978. Emissions from In-Situ

Burning of Crude Oil in the Arctic . Department of Chemical Engineering and

Applied Chemistry, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.

A postulated scenario defines the amounts of oil released, the size and

number of burnable oil pools, and duration of burning. Estimates of soot, CO,

SO2 , and metals emissions are based on literature and experiments. Downwind

concentrations of combustion products are calculated using conventional plume

dispersion equations with superposition of plumes in time and space from a

niamber of burning pools.

Day, T. , Mackay, D. , Naudeau, S., and Thurier, R. 1978. Characteristics of

Atmospheric Emissions From an In-Situ Crude Oil Fire . A Report Submitted to

the Environmental Canada Environmental Protection Service iii fulfillment of

DSS Contract No. KE-204-7-EP 126.

Oil combustion characteristics relating to emissions, Arctic atmospheric

conditions, effect on smoke plume dispersion, and possible oil compositions

are discussed. Emission behavior during cleanup can be treated as a set of

"unit burns". Soot, SO2 , CO2 , CO, hydrocarbon, and metal concentrations can

be calculated with this dispersion model.

85
Eidam, C.L. 1975. "The Casco Bay Oil Spill: Problems of Cleanup and

Disposal." Conference on Oil Spill Control and Prevention . API, Washington,

DC.

Clean up for a 100,000 gal oil spill in semi-arctic conditions centered

on removal from the vessel, the boomed area, and the bay. Rocky shorelines

were cleaned with high pressure hot water hoses. Beach sand and oil soaked

debris were burned and the residue buried.

Energetex Engineering. 1978. Combustion Promoters . Interim Report, Prepared

for the Environmental Protection Service, Department of Fisheries and

Environment, Canada.

This report describes combustion promoters and their past use and

effectiveness for in- situ burning of oil slicks. The materials described are classified according to their effects on the oil layer. Detailed information

on properties, cost, and availability is also discussed.

Energetex Engineering. 1978. Testing of Air-Deployable Incendiary Devices

for Igniting Oil on Water . Draft Report available from R&D Division,

Environmental Branch, Environmental Protection Service, Department of

Fisheries and Environment, Canada. To be published.

Field studies document the definite feasibility of using air deployable

incendiary devices to ignite contained pools of oil. Crude oil (Norman Wells)

3 and 10 mm thickness burned when solid propellant, solid fuel and Kontax

igniters were either static or air dropped (11.5 m) using chemical,

electrical, or fusewire starters. Advantages and limitations for each system

are given along with future research recommendations and a concise theoretical

explanation of hydrocarbon pool burning.

Energetex Engineering. 1978. Development of a Continuously Burning Wicking

Device for Burning Oil Slicks . Draft Report available from R&D Division,

Environmental Emergency Branch, Environmental Protection Service. Department

of Fisheries and Environment, Canada.

A portable oil slick burner was designed, built, and tested using a wicking system and a gaseous fuel to be used on Arctic oil spills. Test model

was designed to operate at one half U.S. gallons per hour and incorporated

drip-feed wicking, time delay ignition, and water cooling barriers to affect

heat transfer. It is reported that the units can be built for about $400.00.

Environmental Protection Agency. 1971. "Oil Pollution Control Technology."

EPA Training Manual . NTIS PB 258600, p. 15-6.

Commercially available burning agents are tabulated. Wood and other

debris caught in an oil slick are not too effective as wicking agents to start

or sustain a fire. Oil can be burned if suitably thick, 5 mm.

Environmental Quality Systems. 1972. Waste Oil Recovery Practices . Maryland

Environmental Service. p. 29.

Tabulated data of crude oil characteristics and analytical breakdown are compiled. API gravity, sulfur content, initial and end boiling points, and

viscosity data are included. Data is also given for contaminated beach

samples.

86
Evans, D., Baum, H. , McCaffrey, B. , Mulholland, G., Harkleroad, M. , and

Manders, W. 1986 Combustion of Oil on Water . NBSIR 86-3420, US National

Technical Information Service, Springfield, VA 22161.

This report contains the results of measurements performed on both 0.4 m

and 0.6 m diameter pool fires produced by burning a layer of Prudhoe Bay crude

oil supported by a thermally deep layer of water. Both steady and vigorous

burning caused by boiling of the water sublayer were observed. The measured

energy release rate for steady burning was about 640 kW/m^ . The emission

rate, the size distribution, and specific extinction coefficient were measured

for the smoke aerosol produced by the fires . Data were also obtained on the

structure of the smoke aerosol by electron microscopy and on emission of CO

and CO2 . Analysis of the crude oil burn residue indicated selected depletion

of the short chain alkanes and cyclo alkanes when compared to the fresh oil.

Evans, D., Mulholland, G., Gross, D., Baum, H. , and Saito, K. 1988.

Environment Effects of Oil Spill Combustion . NISTIR 88-3822, US National

Technical Information Service, Springfield, VA 22161.

Experimentation and analysis have been performed to quantify the

combustion of crude oil on water. The burning behavior of three crude oils -- Alberta Sweet, La Rosa, and Murban, were studied using 1.2 m diameter pool

burns. In smaller 0.6 m diameter pool fires using Alberta Sweet, combustion

products were collected for extensive chemical analysis. This analysis showed

that about 10% of the crude oil was converted to smoke in the combustion

process. The CO concentration was a factor of 25 lower than the primary

gaseous product CO2 , and the emission of NO and NO^^ were less than one thousandth the concentration of CO2 . The PAH content of the smoke was enriched in the larger molecular weight species in comparison with the

original fuel. A methodology was developed with which the downwind dispersal

of smoke generated by one or more oil spill fires in close proximity may be

predicted. Initial results that demonstrate the capability of the analysis

are presented.

Freiberger, A. 1971. "Burning Agents for Oil Spill Cleanup." Prevention and

Control of Oil Spills . API, Washington, DC, p. 245.

Currently available commercial burning agents are described with

documented field test results and case studies. Containment is necessary for

efficient burning. Primary effort is in developing igniters for the applied

burning agents and reducing air pollution effects. Floating incinerators to

contain, ignite, and reduce emissions from oil spills are currently being

studied.

Gainer, G. and Mackay, D. 1976. "Burning of Oil," The Impact of Oil on the

Freshwater Environment . Proceedings of a Workshop on Canadian Research

Priorities, Publication No. EE2 of the Institute of Environment Studies,

University of Toronto, Oct. 20-22.

A burner has been field tested that burns oil-contaminated materials like

straw, moss, or wood. On ice, snow, or saturated ground, burning oil causes

little environmental damage. This talk mainly outlined research needs in oil

burning

Gilmore, G.A. 1970. Analysis of Oil Spills and Control Materials . API,

Marine Management Service, Washington, DC.

This contains a brief description of Cab-O-Sil Pyraxon application as combustion promoters. Burning is a viable option where temporary air

87
pollution is not a significant problem and there is no fire danger to the

surrounding environment

.

Glaeser, J.L. and Vance, G.P. 1971. A Study of the Behavior of Oil Spills

in the Arctic . Coast Guard Report. NTIS AD 717 142.

This Arctic study includes data on spreading behavior of crude oil on ice

and v;ater surfaces, interaction of oil and ice, aging characteristics of oil,

and effectiveness of burning and absorption for removal. Ninety to ninetyeight percent removal was achieved without burning agents at a rate of 4.5

gal/min.

Glotin, B. 1969. "The Disposal of Oil Produced During Offshore Well Tests on Wildcats Without Facilities," Offshore Technology Conference . Paper No. 1084,

2:133.

An oil -burning device has been developed for burning polluted oil on a drilling barge. Offshore well tests then can be conducted where no other oil

disposal capacity exists. The burner is designed to protect the platform from

the heat given off during combustion.

Hall, A.R. 1972. Pool Burning: A Review . Rocket Propulsion Establishment

Technical Report 72/11.

This review covers literature on fundamental aspects of the combustion of

liquid fuel at a free surface, including 1) influence of atmospheric

conditions, fuel properties, container diameter, and partial venting on burning characteristics; 2) temperature distribution in the liquid; 3) heat

transfer from flame to liquid; and 4) effect of water on burning.

Haroy Associates. 1978. A Preliminary Assessment of Beach Cleanup

Techniques: A Quasi -Laboratory Assessment . Draft Report available from R6eD

Division, Environment Emergency Branch, Environmental Protection Service,

Department of Fisheries and Environment, Canada.

This study evaluated the effectiveness of burning and sorbent techniques

for cleaning off oil contaminated beaches in northern regions. The type of

burn achieved, depth of penetration of oil, and amount of residue left were

determined. Crude oils were used on fine gravel, sandy and mud flat beach

soils. Twelve conclusions given relate to adequacy of burn being dependent

upon an oil's ability to maintain a surface film as it penetrates the soil and

reflooding to bring oil to surface was observed as not effective.

Hellman, H. and Marcinoroski , H.J. 1972. Experiments on Combating Accidental

Release of Oil. Marine Pollution and Sea Life . FAO. Fishing News (Books)

Ltd. London, England.

Emulsifiers and dispersant chemicals are generally not recommended

because of pronounced toxic effects on marine life. Burning provides a viable

option where the air pollution concerns are not as significant as water- land

pollution. An alkali -metal carbide mixture enhances oil burning.

Herschmiller , D.W. and Revel, R.D. 1974. "Terrestrial Spillage of Oil in the

Arctic," Water-1974: I. Industrial Wastewater Treatment . AIChE Symposium

Series, Vol. 70.

Based on selected ecological considerations and environmental parameters,

the applicability of oil spill technology to Arctic spills is presented.

Contingency plans are developed. Burning is viewed as a fast, low cost

alternative. Research needs are discussed.

88
Hillstrom, W.H. 1970. Ignition and Combustion of Unconflned Liquid Fuel on Water . Ballistic Research Laboratory Project No. 1T061101A91A . NTIS AD716578.

Activated carbon is used to enhance burning by forming an aggregated

structure within the fuel lens and acting as a wick to draw the oil to the

surface. A dose of 3-25% by weight was effective for different oils.

Spreading coefficients for crude oil components are tabulated.

Holdsworth, M.P. 1968. "Control of Accidental Oil Spillage at Sea,"

Pollution Prevention . The Institute of Petroleum, The Elsevier Publishing Co.,

Ltd. , London.

The author overviews ways to minimize tanker spillage and means of

controlling oil spilled on the sea surface. The burning of both unrecoverable

cargo in-situ and oil on the sea surface are briefly discussed. The author

concludes that the burning alternatives are impractical.

Jerbo, A. Clearance of Oil from Frozen Rivers and Lakes , presented at the

British Petroleum Arctic Conference.

The paper dealt with the methods used in Sweden to combat oil spills.

Oil adsorbents, trawl nets, oil booms, and burning were mentioned. All

compounds in oil do not burn; the residue may be more harmful than the oil

itself. Phenols may be formed by combustion.

Koblanski, J. 1985. "Design Improvements in a Sonic Burner for the In Situ

Combustion of Oil Spills", Proceedings - 1985 Oil Spill Conference

(Prevention. Behavior. Control. Cleanup) . Los Angeles, CA February 25-28 1985,

API, Washington DC, p. 643.

Design improvements have been made in the Ocean Ecology sonic burner for

removing oil slicks in situ. These improvements result in an increase in

combustion efficiency, better control of the burn, and rapid ignition in

extremely cold air and water. Automation and remote control have also been

incorporated. Analysis of total input and output of the burner greatly aided

in these improvements. Design was further modified to accommodate a fireproof

boom. This small draft boom of superior design is extremely suitable for the

Ocean Ecology system of in-situ burning. The results show that such viscous

oils as No, 6 fuel oil can be easily combusted in areas as cold as the

Beaufort Sea.

Kretschmer, D. and Odgers , J. 1985. "Combustibility and Incineration of

Beaufort Crude/Seawater Emulsions", Proceedings - 1985 Oil Spill Conference

(Prevention. Behavior. Control. Cleanup) , Los Angeles, CA February 25-28 1985,

API, Washington, DC, p. 19-23.

The use of certain incinerator to dispose of materials recovered from an

oil spill was investigated for the Alaskan Beaufort Sea Oilspill Response Body

(ABSORB) . A series of combustion experiments was conducted in a prototype

incinerator. Combustion rates, emissions, and temperatures were monitored

during the experiments. Operating variables investigated included air flow

rate, direction of air into the combustion chamber, waste feed rate, water

spray over the combustion zone, and the slant of the combustion chamber's

front wall.

89
Kruk, K.F. 1983. "Air Curtain Incineration Tests", Proceeding - 1983 Oil

Spill Conference (Prevention. Behavior. Control. Cleanup) . San Antonio, TX,

February 28 - March 3, 1983, API, Washington, DC, p. 33-38.

The prototype incinerator ( 10 ' xlO ' xl4 ' ) was able to burn pure oil,

emulsions, and oil debris at "practical rates with low emissions" (p. 38).

The system, which will be helicopter- transportable and capable of being fieldassembled in less than one day, performed well at combustion rates exceeding

600 barrels per day. Oil with 20% to 30% water burned most efficiently.

Lamp'l, H.J. 1969. "Beach Cleanup." Prevention and Control of Oil Spills . API, Washington, DC, p. 229.

State-of-the-art beach cleanup is discussed briefly. Physical removal

methods are most acceptable, as detergent or dispersant chemicals further

contaminate the beach and in- situ burning is stated to be impractical. Future

projects include portable incineration systems and froth flotation techniques.

"Licking the Oil Slick", 1970. Mech. Eng. . v 92, n 6, p. 51.

The Cabot Corporation in Boston has developed a silica compound that can

be applied in dry powder form to floating slicks. The chemical acts as a wick, drawing up oil by capillary action, insulating it from the lower

temperature water, thus permitting combustion. Up to 98% of slick can be thus

burned. The remaining 2% forms a hard floating crust that can be easily

collected. The chemical has no known toxic effect on marine life or shore

birds.

Logan, W.J. 1976. "EEB Activities in Arctic Oil Spill Countermeasures .

Spill Technology Newsletter . I(4):15.

The feasibility of in situ burning to remedy oil spillage problems in the

Southern Beaufort Sea is considered. Conventional equipment (i.e., booms and

skimmers) can be used only in calm and light wind and wave conditions with

less than 10% ice infestation. Burning can remove 90% of the oil without

promoters and studies are underway to determine what substances may ease cleanup of burnt residues.

Lowthian, J.W. 1977. "Oil Spill Cleanup in the Beaufort Sea - Another

Viewpoint." Spill Technology Newsletter . 11(3) : 33

.

The probability of a successful, complete burn is low because of the

expected film thickness and the current state of ignition technology. The

logistics of delivering igniters to many areas are also a problem.

Mackay, D., Day, T., Nadeau, S., and Thurier, R. 1979. "Emissions from In

Situ Burning of Crude Oil in the Arctic", Water. Air, and Soil Pollution . 11(2), p. 139-152.

The effects of oil spill burning on air quality in the Beaufort Sea

region of the Arctic are discussed. A scenario is postulated defining the

amounts of oil released, the size and number of burnable oil pools, and the

duration of the burning period. Estimates are made of the likely emissions of

soot, CO, S02 and metals based on literature and some experimental work.

Assumptions are made about plume rise and dispersion which permit downwind

concentrations of emissions to be calculated and compared with air quality on objectives. Although the calculated concentrations may contain significant

error because of the many assumptions, the data demonstrate that

concentrations of S02 and CO will be acceptably low; concentrations of soot

and metals will often be undesirably high within 10 km of the fires, but will

90
be acceptably low at greater distances . Burning may be a method of

substantially reducing the adverse environmental impact of oil spills in the

Arctic.

Magnus, G. 1959. "Tests on Combustion Velocity of Liquid Fuels and

Temperature Distribution in Flames and Beneath Surface of the Burning Liquid."

(International Symposium on) the Use of Models in Fire Research, sponsored by

The Committee on Fire Research . The Fire Research Conference, National Academy

of Sciences, Washington, D.C., Nov. 9-10.

Tank fires of various sizes were studied. Effects of wind velocity, air

temperature, humidity, and barometric pressure were noted. The specific

burning rate of the liquid fuels was found to increase with surface area. Flame temperatures were measured within the tanks and were found to vary with

liquid level and fire size.

Masliyah, J.H. and F.R. Steward. 1969. "Radiative Heat Transfer from a Turbulent Diffusion Buoyant Flame with Mixing Controlled Combustion," Flame,

13:613-625.

A mathematical model of a turbulent buoyant diffusion flame is used to

calculate the radiative emission from the flame. Burning rates of a liquid

fuel can be predicted from the radiative heat flux.

Maybourn, R. 1971. "The Work of the IP Working Group on the Burning of Oil,"

Journal of the Institute of Petroleum . 57.(553).

This group concentrated mainly on problems associated with burning oil in

situ in a tanker and on the sea surface. An igniter is necessary to start the

burning. Residues of 15% or more of the original quantity of oil will remain.

Mayo, F. 1968. "Dealing with Oil Pollution on Water and Shores", Pollution

Prevention . The Institute of Petroleum, The Elsevier Publishing Co. Ltd.,

London

The paper discusses the proved methods of dealing with oil on inshore

waters: dispersion, absorption, entrainment, and removal with mechanical

devices. Burning does not seem to be effective unless suitable catalysts or oxidants can be developed.

McLean, A.Y. 1972. "The Behavior of Oil Spilled in a Cold Water

Environment," Offshore Technology Conference , paper #1522, 2:129.

This paper deals with the way oil interacts with the cold water

environment and the effect of these interactions on clean-up techniques.

McMinn, T.J. and Golden, P. 1973. "Behavioral Characteristics and Cleanup

Techniques of North Slope Crude Oil in an Arctic Winter Environment."

Prevention and Control of Oil Spills . API, Washington, DC, p. 263.

This paper deals with the physical fate and behavior of crude oil

(spreading, aging, interactions with environment, effectiveness of cleanup)

when spilled on ice and snow. Oil can be easily ignited with kerosene - soaked

rags on snow and ice if the spill has not been snowed upon. Burning agents

had no effect. Oil burning on ice is more successful than on snow (95% vs

80%) .

91
I

McMinn, T.J. 1973. Crude Oil Behavior on Arctic Winter Ice . United States

Coast Guard Project 734108. Washington, D.C. NTIS AD-754, 261.

The burning of oil on ice and snow is discussed. Under conditions of

limited snowfall and wind velocity below 14 knots, 80% of spilled petroleum

can be burned without promoters. Three burning agents, silicate beads,

asbestos powder, and powdered calcium carbonate were determined to be of no benefit in Arctic burning conditions. If Arctic oil is not removed, it will

become sandwiched in the ice cover only to thaw in the summer months

.

Meikle, K.M. 1977. "Design and Development of Equipment to Aid in the

Burning of Oil on Water", Spill Technology Newsletter . Sept/Oct 1977.

Two equipment ideas have been suggested to aid ignition, containment, and

support of oil combustion on water. One is a buoyant net which would trap oil

in its mesh, allowing it to be contained, ignited and burned in the net's

openings. The other is a lightweight fireproof boom to contain the oil. Both

could be used simultaneously.

Menagie, H.M. 1970. Kontax Burning Experiments . Water Control Division - Hook of Holland, Ministerle van Buitenlandsezaken Afdeling Vertalingen.

Kontax is a chemical that ignites spontaneously when spread on water.

Both beach and open water burn testing results are reported here.

Modak, A.T. 1978. "Radiation From Products of Combustion," prepared for

Factory Mutual Research, FMRC J.I 0A0E6.Bu-l, RC 78-BT-28, October 1978.

Presented at the Eastern Section Meeting of the Combustion Institute . Miami

Beach FL. , Nov. 29, 30 and Dec. 1.

This report presents simplified calculations and a computer program for

radiative energy transfer in fires. Radiation from soot particles, carbon

dioxide, and water vapor is the primary form of heat transfer in large fires.

The radiative properties of these components exhibit very rapid variations

with respect to the wavelength of radiation. These simplified calculations

agree well with the more detailed and exact spectral calculations.

O'Rourke, C. 1976. "Oil Spill Cleanup in the Beaufort Sea." Spill

Technology Newsletter . I.(6):12.

This report by Canmar, a Canadian oil drilling firm, discusses

contingency plans in the event of an oil well blowout. Ignition of the plume

and containment of the burning oil is a primary cleanup measure. Nonemulsified heavy oils burn readily without promoters in the Arctic waters.

Studies are underway to improve ignition techniques and fireproof booming.

Putnam, A. A. 1965. "A Model Study of Wind Blown Free-Burning Fires", Tenth

Symposium (International) on Combustion . The Combustion Institute, Pittsburgh,

PA, pp. 1039-1046.

Both point and area- source flames and line fires were exposed to cross winds to study free-burning fire modeling. With point and area-source flames,

the flame height decreased slowly when initially exposed to the cross wind but

decreased rapidly when the cross wind velocity increased. Experimental

observations were related to the Froude number.

92
Ross, S.L. 1975. "Oil Spill Technology Development in Canada," Conference on Prevention and Control of Oil Spills . API, p. 329.

The organization and activity of the Canadian Environmental Emergency

Branch is detailed. Burning is considered a promising option of cleanup of . oil spills, particularly in Arctic conditions. Canadian spillage data is

tabulated for the years 1971-73.

Smith, C.L. and Maclntyre , W. 1971. "Initial Aging of Fuel Oil Films of Sea

Water," Prevention and Control of Oil Spills Conference Proceedings . API,

Washington, DC, p. 457.

Evaporation and dissolution are the main mechanism of initial weathering.

Rates of evaporation and relative importance of evaporation and dissolution

for oil components are reported. During initial weathering, the rate of

evaporation (by weight) is proportional to the percentage of volatile

components

Smith, N. K. and Diaz, A. 1985. "In-place Burning of Prudhoe Bay Oil in

Broken Ice", Proceedings - 1985 Oil Spill Conference (Prevention, Behavior.

Control. Cleanup) . Los Angeles, CA February 25-28 1985, API, Washington, DC,

p. 405-409.

Small-scale and large-scale experiments were performed at the U.S.

Environment Protection Agency's Oil and Hazardous Materials Simulated

Environmental Test Tank (OHMSETT) facility to explore the range of conditions

in which oil slicks of Prudhoe Bay crude can be burned in broken ice and to

determine the efficiencies of such burns. In laboratory experiments, the

minimum slick thickness supporting combustion was found to be 2.5 mm on brackish water at temperature from 2 Degree to 6.5 Degree C. Four burn tests were performed in the OHMSETT tank with varying ice cover, volume of oil, and

wave conditions. Study results are reported.

Struzeski, E.J. 1969. "Chemical Treatment of Oil Spills." Prevention and

Control of Oil Spills . API, Washington, DC, p. 217.

The latest technical information is presented on the applicability and

effectiveness of the chemicals and materials available for preventing and

controlling oil spills. Special emphasis is on absorbing and gelling oil on

the surface sinking oil, and burning it on open waters and shorelines.

Burning is attractive and inexpensive for slicks thicker than 3 mm. FWPCA

testing in 1969 is discussed.

Tarn, W.K. and Purves , W.F. 1980. "Experimental Evaluation of Oil Spill

Combustion Promoters", IEEE . Piscataway, NJ , p. 415-421.

Three petroleum fractions were burned floating on water in confined and

unconfined layers, at two thicknesses and in various wave and ice conditions.

Ten promoter materials were screened in an effort to improve the ease of

Ignition and the completeness of the burns. The test results continue to

suggest that in- situ burning is a promising oil spill response technique.

Thornton, D.E. 1977. "Testing of Air-Deployable Incendiary Devices for

Ignition on Water," Spill Technology Newsletter . Sept/Oct.

Incendiary devices and wicking agents are being developed for burning all

spills on ice and snow.

93
Tom, G. , and Purves, W.F. 1979. An Experimental Evaluation of Spill Burning

Promoters . Draft Report available from R&D Division, Environmental Emergency

Branch, Environmental Protection Service, Department of Fisheries and

Environment, Canada.

A total of 395 combustion experiments were conducted in outdoor tanks

during the winter of 1978. The program covered ten combustion promoters,

three types of oil and two oil thicknesses. The ignition method was proved

inadequate for Bunker C oil. Aged crude oils were burned both on water, in the

presence of slush ice, in waves and under unconfined conditions. Test results

continue to commend that in- situ burning is a promising method of disposing of

Arctic oil spills. .

Tully, P.R. 1969. "Removal of Floating Oil Slicks by the Controlled

Combustion Technique, Oil on the Sea," Proceedings of a Symposium on Oil

Pollution of the Sea . Sponsored by MIT and Woods Hole, Cambridge, Mass.

Cab-O-Sil is recommended as an effective wicking agent that contains oil

burning to a specified area. Burning with fumed silica (Cab-O-Sil) is

effective with slicks down to 2 mm thick.

Twardus, E.M. 1979. A Study to Evaluate the Combustibility and Other

Physical and Chemical Properties of Aged Oils . Draft Report available from

R&D Division, Environmental Emergency Branch, Environment Protection Service,

Department of Fisheries and Environment, Canada. DSS File No. 03SS,

KE204-8-1011.

Oil aging and the formation of water in oil emulsions were studied in

Arctic spring conditions using Bunker C, marine diesel, and six crude oils.

The igniter systems used demonstrated that these oils could be burned if oil

thickness were 3-6 mm up to 4 weeks after release, except Bunker C which

needed 10 mm combustion of without emulsions was reported possible, 20% water

easily ignited with higher water content being harder to ignite, but once fully developed, combustion of w/o emulsion was very intense except for w/o

emulsions which tended to foam.

Vaux, W.G., Weeks, S.A. and Walukas , D.J. 1971. "Oil Spill Treatment with

Composted Domestic Refuse," Prevention and Control of Oil Spills . API,

Washington, DC, p. 305.

The use of compost made from domestic refuse as a sorbent and combustion

promoter is discussed. The material is readily available but only moderately

effective. Burning is discouraged because of the sooty smoke and incomplete

combustion

.

Walkup. P.C. 1970. Oil Spill Treating Agents: Test Procedures: Status and

Recommendations . Battelle, Pacific Northwest Laboratories.

This section discusses evaluation techniques and comparison parameters

for combustion promoters. Surface disturbances, application techniques,

product type, temperature and size of spill must all be addressed in a complete analysis. The dosage ratio, completeness of burning and residue

removal, as well as flame stability are factors to be considered.

Warren Springs Laboratory. 1976. "UK Oil Clearance Techniques and Equipment",

Petroleum Times . April 30, 1976.

This article briefly overviews burning, sinking, absorbing, physical

containment, and dispersing as oil spill mitigation techniques. Burning oil

94
on water is considered to be generally ineffective. More attention is focused

on dispersants , both on water and land.

Water Quality Laboratory. 1969. Chemical Treatment of Oil Slicks . Edison,

New Jersey. NTIS PB 185947.

The effectiveness and potential pollution effects of chemicals and other

materials used to disperse, sink, burn, or otherwise dissipate oil slicks are discussed. Burning is inexpensive and appears feasible using proper wicking

agents which increase burning surface area and insulation from the water heat

sink. Controlling the burning oil mass, ensuing air pollution, and disposal

of residue appear to preclude the use of this course of action except in those

situations where the oil is sufficiently distant from the shore and off-shore

facilities.

Water Quality Office, EPA. 1970. Feasibility Analysis of Incinerator Systems

for Restoration of Oil Contaminated Beaches . 15080 DXE 11/70. B5.

This article recommends using a three -stage rotary furnace to cleanse

beach sands. A cost analysis is included. This report includes oil-watersand thermodynamic data and spill experience. Burning oil pools and residues

in coastal areas by torching or explosion was unsuccessful.

Westree, B. 1977. Biological Criteria for the Selection of Cleanup Techniques

in Salt Marshes, Conference on Oil Spills . API, p. 231.

Spill cleanup in salt marshes may cause more damage than the oil itself.

Techniques for cleanup were compared to the behavior of uncontained oil in the

marsh and the potential for damage evaluated. Burning can be used in

Sparatina marshes

Woinsky, S.G. 1972. "Predicting Flammable -Material Classifications," Chemical

EnEineerinE . Nov. 27, 1972.

Flammable -material classifications are used in selecting explosion-proof

electrical equipment. This paper presents a method for predicting the

classifications for single components and mixtures.

Woodyard, D. 1970. "Oil Slick Destroyed by Burning", Oceanology Intl.

A spill of Bunker C oil was successfully burned at sub-freezing

temperatures with the aid of wicking agent. The fumed silica wicking agent is non- toxic to marine life, immune to the heat of an oil fire, and can induce a 90% oil burning efficiency.

Yumoto, T. 1971. "Heat Transfer from Flame to Fuel Surface in Large Pool

Fires," Combustion and Flame . 17:108-110.

This study experimentally determined the ratio of radiation and

convection transfers to total heat transfer from the flame to the fuel

surface. This work was done in the heat transfer range where burning rate has

a constant value regardless of pan diameter. The burning rate was found to be

mainly dependent on radiation.

95

READINESS PLANNING FOR

ARCTIC OFFSHORE OIL SPILL RESPONSE

CDR DENNIS D. ROME

U.S, COAST GUARD

ABSTRACT

Since contingency planning for oil spill response was initiated, the plans have evolved into a standardized content and format. They provide an inventory of response resources, organization,

general strategies and a means to activate them. However, all the plans fall short in the transition

time from plan activation to on-scene cleanup. In order to Improve the plans, a viable "action

plan" should be added which will allow the primary decision makers on oil spill response, both

government and private industr/, to make informed choices on the type of response, equipment

selection, and personnel necessary for an effective response. By identifying windows of opportunity for various response options (mechanical cleanup, chemical dispersants, chemical

tre-atment and in-situ burning), performance criteria can be developed which will allow planners

to develop a response structure! primary, secondary and tertiary) to oet the approonate

equipment and personnel on scene as quickly as possible,

INTRODUCTION

Spinning with the earliest plans, a format has evolved which has resulted in all plans looking

alike. Minor changes are made for geographic areas and the cast of characters for each plan but

they currently la:;k Equate information which will help an individual move from the initial notification and call out stage of a response to the on scene cleanup stage efficiently. Part of this

shortfall is the lack of logistics planning for an offshore response. All the contingency plans have

an Inventory of materials and delivery systems available, but there is no assessment that the

transportation resources will actually be available when the cleanup equipment has to be

delivered. There is also a need to identify logistical needs beyond the first deliveries of equipment

to insure that a response action can be maintained to completion. An example scenario of this

which can frustrate all concerned parties is;

A dispersant application has been approved for a major oil spill in the Bering Sea, Both

industry and government feel that the application must be made within the next 1 0 hours in order

for the application to be effective, A C-130 Hercules aircraft is on the deck in Anchorage and

ready to load an ADDS package( full) and fly to the spill scene, Their estimated time of arrival in the area is 7 hours. There is still enough daylight to apply two plane loads of dispersants If the

dispersants can be delivered to the nearest airport to the spill. In order for the second application

to be made, the cargo aircraft carrying the second (or third) load of dispersants must arrive no

later than 1 hour after the C-130 has arrived at the spill scene. With the existing dispersant

storage locations and cargo aircraft availability, there is simply no way more than one load can be

applied. In fact, if there is any delar/ either at Anchorage or at the spill scene, there would not even be one application.

Planners and decision makers must be able to overcome logistical problems if they are to provide

an effective response during their "window of opportunity" for a particular response option.

97
WIMDQW^ OF OPPORTUNITY

During 3 major oil spill response, each spill response option will have an opportunity to be used

at some time, The trick Is to determine which options or combination of options provide the best

opportunity for success as the spill prcigresses to completion, A amc^pt, recently ijeveloped and

presented by Alan A, Allen', inscribe windows of opportunity for various response options

(me«3haftimi rmfver>', disperHi^nt application and in-situ burning) witn var/ing weather, sea

state and oil thickness, A copy of Mr, Allen's graphical presentation of results in enclosed with

this paper This appri3;3i^h offers an opportunity to develop priorities for response options, types

of eijuipment needed and the necessat^ logistics arrangements. For the purposes of the Alaska

Arctic Offshore Oil Spill Response Ta^hnology Workshop , I propose that data c^illation or research

needs to be done In the following areas;

a. Gravity spreading of oil in open water Arctic conditions with time until the oil reaches

an equlltbnum thickness,

b. Efforts of Ice leads on the thickness of oil with time,

c. Development of a da^ision matrix (or graphical presentation) for response options

which Includes information from a, and b,

From the product of this work, planners can develop wimjows of opportunity for the various

response options,

PFRFORMANCE CRITERIA

Once windows of opportunity are established, defining the response structure and the means to get

the equipment/people/response organization to the site of the incident can be developed. In order

to do this, performance criteria have to be established for Immediate, secondary and perhaps

tertiary efforts. Planners (Government and Industry Jointly) have to examine many factors to develop the rwnse structure, Among these are; location of potential incident, statistical size of

spill expec;ted, location of Industrial fac111tles( bases) nearby to staoe, store and maintain

equipment, logistical support structure in the vicinity, labor pool, economics, equipment

lifetime, drills, etc,

AS a start, i propose examining the performance criteria established for CCS activities^ in the

Beaufort Sea and adjusting as necessary, The summarized criteria are:

a.. ODntainment and Recovery Equipment Capability: Equipment will consist of "state of the

art'' tHf>nnoiogy. Oxitingency equipment ana techniques should he effec;tive for oil spiils un(sr, or

on, solid 1ce cover. Equipment must be capable of operating in a minimum of 6-foot seas and 20

knot winds in open water conditions.

b. Contin^ncy Equipment Resources; Initial response contingent/ equipment and

techniques must be capable of recovering, and storing or disposing of 1 000 barrels of oil per day.

Additional contingency equipment must be available in the event of larger oil spills,

c. Response Time; initial response contingency equipment must be available, transported,

deployed and operational in a minimum of 6 hours from spill axurrence. Additional support

c^^ntimjency ei:iuipment neem must be available within 48 hours,

'Allen, Alan A, , 1 988, "Comparison of Response Options for Offshore Oil Spills," In Pn\-;eed1ngs of the Eleventh Arctic and Marine Oilsplll Program Technical Seminar. Environment Canada,

pp.259-306.

2 Criteria for Approval of Oil Soill Contlrioencv Plans . Beaufort Sea, USGS/USCG Memorandum of Understanding dated December 16,1983.

98
d. Support Vessels/Vehicles; Vessels/vehicles needed for deploying and operation of contingency equipment must be available within 6 hours tor initial response, 48 hours for support response. Personnel must be trained in the operation of the equipment and procedures

used during the response.

e. Drills: Drills will be required, upon placement of the drilling platform on location,

prior to drilling operations and every 6 months thereafter, or upon continuation of the drilling

operation into a new seasonal environmental condition, whichever is first.

f. Dispersants: Equipment for applying chemical dispersant must be available for !i:.e within a 6 hour response time. Enough chemical dispersant will be maintained to continue

application of dispersants until additional dispersants are available from sexxindary sources

g. Authority; an operator's representative must be Identified, who has the author it/ to order ignition of an uncontrollable well which is causing a massive spill event.

h. Dedicated pollution response personnel shall be provided and available to insure that the

response requirements can be met.

i. A professional cleanup manager must be available to direct pollution response efforts.

TRANSPORTATION. LQ6ISTICS AND SUPPORT

Once the windows of opportunity and performance criteria are (teveloped, the most elusive part of

spill response is transportation and logistics. This aspect of the response is where we fall down

the most because of the inability to rapidly move the necessary resources ( people ana equipment)

to the location where they will operate best. For the purposes of this workshop, i suggest that research /collation be done in the following areas:

a. Critically evaluate the availability of aircraft, vessels, barges, vehicles for use in a

spill response. Companies which have them are required to keep them gainfully employed in other

than oil spill response. Develop probabilities that a particular transportation vehicle will be

available year round when called.

b. Identify the shortfalls in transportation and develop strategies to overcome them.

Options such as purchase of additional resources, presiting or incentive clauses (retainers) could

be explored to improve availability.

c. Examine the size and weight constraints of the transportation vehicle (particularly

aircraft) and see what affect is has on design, construction and packaging of response equipment.

Modular design of mechanical cleanup equipment can improve its ability to be moved.

d. For remote, Arctic environments identify:

1 . Numbers and type of personnel needed on scene.

2. Sheiter/food/clothing/medical requirements for personnel

3. Transportation of personnel to and from support bases.

4. Work schedules/crew protection on scene

e. Design standard response packages which have predetermined weights, sizes, packages

and can be readily assembled for rapid deployment for different moctes of transport Individual

component weights should include the packaging.

f. Develop a logistics and support manual which can be physically tested annually.

SURVEILLANCE AND DISPOSAL

Although these items place a heavy burden on transportation and logistics, they are important

enough to merit separate discussion. They are integral parts of every response but are often the

least considered prior to an oil spill.

Surveillance during a response places a heavy burden on available transportation assets. The

various information requirements (public affairs, spill trajectory modeling, investigations,

countermeasures effectiveness, dispersant applications, etc.) cannot be satisfied without intensive

99
surveillance. There are also many occasions where the conventional methods of surveillance go not work because of fog, extreme weather and darkness. The Arctic Offshore Oil Spill workshop should

consider and develop specific programs for additional work as follows;

a. Identify surveillance requirements and the transportation assets which would best ir.eet those needs,

D, Merqe surveillance with other logistical needs and develop strategies to accomplish

hoth.

c. Develop strategies for surveillance using unconventional methods! drift buoys, remote

sensing, etc).

Although some options for disposal of recovered oil and oily debris are presented in current

contingency plans, one often encounters the statement, "Recovered oil and debris will be

transported to a site and disposed of as designated by the State." This general umbrella means

nothing in the State of Alaska since there are no designated disposal areas. Historically, disposal

options have been developed as the spill nears completion, i suggest that the Workshop develop

disposal options for remote Arctic areas which can be researched and presented to the State of Alaska as accepted prxtices,

RECOMMENDATIONS

In orcfer to improve the utility of oil spill contingency/ plans, I recommend that the Arctic Offshore

Oil Spiii Workshop develop re-commendations which will turn tiiem into Action Plans, This can oe

ctone tr/ performing the following tasks:

a. Develop "Winctows of Opportunity" for various oil spill countermeasures in the Arctic

b. Develop performance criteria and a response structure for primary, sec-onoary ano

tertiary activities.

c. Develop a transportation and logistics manual which can get the equipment and people

into position to be effective.

d. Develop a surveillance program which will be timely and effective.

e. Develop a disposal plan for remote Arctic responses which will be accepted by the State.

NOTE; The opinions or assertions in this paper are those of the author alone and are not to be

construed as representing those views of the Commandant or the Coast Guard at large.

100
X

iiSp « - as

COw

lUzoX

UJO<

UJ > (0

CO

Q

O 2 o 7 5 c <r > Jtf CO

H i- CO

CO

CM CM

CM

_j_ ^

«0 o «04 zoo

soz

COo£

QC

UJQz3

Oco

UJZoX

a.Om

COzo

-JO

io

DC t

Q.

D

CM

UJ

GC3

uT

SNOIUQNOO V3S QNV ONIM

00

CO

Ok

C8

w

I—I •f-i 1-4 S

•H 0) a. CO

C/3 I—

f—

«J

•t-l o o 0

<u J3 u o

X) <S) ,s E-< w

U-l 1-4 r—

o •i-l CUm o

•Ho

tn

rso 13 •H

4J 1^ Q. O S

(U •a

(0

C3 cd O

Oa o

<n •i-i jjo

«M <: OC *j o a

CO 0) •H >

l-l COQ<

M Eo 0) o

4J

«4-l

OO c u W 1-4 60 —1 T3 s

•H-o c

•HM o c

O. o as (U 1—

ai <

101

The Oil and Hazardous Materials Simulated Test Tank Program Efforts

Arctic Oil Spill Response Technology Assessment and Development

Edward J . Tennyson

Technology Assessment & Research Branch

Minerals Management Service

Res ton, VA

The Oil and Hazardous Materials Simulated Environmental Test Tank (OHMSETT)

Program began tank evaluations of existing river, harbor, and near- shore class

booms and skimmers in 1974, This test program was initially supported by the

U.S. Environmental Protection (EPA) Agency, U.S. Coast Guard, U.S. Navy, and

Environment Canada (EC) . The Minerals Management Service (MMS) , then the Conservation Division of the U.S. Geological Survey, joined as a funding member in

1978. Between 1974 and 1979 over 84 devices were tested under 73 separate

research projects. These included experimental, prototype, and commercially

available devices. These devices encompassed the oil spill response aspects

of control, containment, recovery, detection, and measurement of floating oil

and hazardous materials and were reported by Smith and Lichte [1] . A number

of these devices are still available and stockpiled by various responders for

open-water and broken ice applications.

Unfortunately no single reference is available for OHMSETT research after 1979.

Individual projects have been described in the proceedings for the biennial

Oil Spill Conferences and the annual Arctic and Marine Oil Spill Program

Conferences

The limitations of testing equipment in a tank of finite size was discussed

by Griffiths [2] as part of the effort to assure that tank evaluations were

realistic. It was determined that scaling effects induced by the tank walls

were acceptable. He further concluded that containment booms failed below a relative velocity of 1.0 knot as a result of droplet shedding which represented

a failure of the integrity of the oil slick. This failure was independent of

the design of the boom.

Open- ocean tests are required for large ocean containment and recovery

equipment. In 1980, OHMSETT personnel tested the Spilled Oil Containment Kit

(SOCK) offshore of New Jersey in various sea conditions. During six days of sea trials, 50 cubic meters of crude oil were dumped into the mouth of the

sock skimmer within a range of sea states. Thirty- two cubic meters of oil were recovered according to Lichte, et.al. [3]. The SOCK was found to recover oil

varied inversely with increasing sea state. Recovery rate^ ranged from 33 cubic

meters per hour in relatively calm seas (significant wave heights of 0.9

meters with a period of 5.5 seconds) to 12 cubic meters per hour

(significantwave heights running to 1.4 meters with a period of 3.7 seconds).

This was an excellent performance. Unfortunately, until 1987, apart from the

AMOP skimmer test in the Beaufort Sea, no additional realistic at- sea evaluations have been conducted with available U.S. or Canadian equipment.

The SOCK remains one of the few tested pieces of equipment and is not readily

available to responders

103
At- sea evaluations involving intentional dumping of significant amounts of

oil have not been conducted in U.S. waters because of political sensitivity

raised by tanker spills and because of the IXTOC blowout, among others. The

U.S. EPA has been resolute in refusing to issue intentional ocean dumping

permits for experimental spills.

The OHMSETT had designed a downward plunging water jet array to herd oil into

various skimmers during testing. The herder was evaluated and the design

optimized to develop a system shaped like a "V" which could herd and contain

oil at speeds up to 6 knots in the presence of waves as described by

Nash and Johnson [4]

.

The herder was capable of concentrating a 4. 5 -meter wide, 1 -millimeter thick

slick into a slick 0.6 -meters wide by 8 -millimeters thick. The process

involves entrainment of air bubbles into the water column, the resurfacing of

the bubbles, and the lateral currents generated by the resurfacing bubbles.

The currents persist up to 60 seconds and rapidly carry the slick along.

This process was patented by the OHMSETT and would be applicable in open

water and broken ice conditions when air temperatures are above freezing.

This technique also has the advantage of having no large oil spill control

equipment in the water to catch on the ice. Between 1979-1980, the OHMSETT

was involved in 12 equipment -performance evaluations, two new equipment

development programs, and an experimental weathering program as presented in

a summary by Farlow and Griffiths [5]. This brought the number of devices

tested at the facility to over 100. The largest piece of equipment tested to

date was the "Zero-Relative Velocity" skimmer (30 tons). It was evaluated in

waves at towed velocities of up to 6 knots. The skimmer was successful but

did not sell well because of its size, cost, and relative lack of control.

The recovery rate of this device ranged from 384 gallons per minute in calm

seas to 243 gallons per minute in a 1.2 -foot by 31 -foot wave. A second

skimmer which showed promise for open water and light ice conditions was the

Soviet harbor oil/debris skimmer Model 2550/4 which employed a ducted

propeller to induce a surface current to carry oil over the lip of a weir

into a sump where the oil and water were separated by a combination of

filters and mechanical means. A third skimmer, the oil mop remote skimmer

prototjrpe, was tested. The skimmer, similar in design to the larger Arcat II

employs a series of rope mops in contact with a slick, supported by a 1.9-

meter long by 1.3 -meter wide catamaran hull. The skimmer was able to recover

a maximum of 2.6 cubic meters of oil per hour in calm wave conditions while

being towed at velocities of up to 1 knot in slick thicknesses of 6

millimeters. This equipment had an oil/water recovery ratio of 96 percent

leaving little water in the recovered fluids. It was not evaluated in ice.

The Versatile Bennett Arctic skimmer was evaluated in smooth water and in waves. This skimmer was an air transportable version of the larger Bennett

Mark 6E and was 7. 92 -meters long by 2. 9 -meters wide. The skimmer was designed for on-board or remote operation. The skimmer was tested to 4

knots, and the maximum recovery rate obtained by controlling the three sets

of skimmer doors was 2 cubic meters per hour in calm water, at 9.0 knots tow

speed in a slick 250-millimeters thick. This skimmer type could be used in

ice -free leads. Sorbents manufactured by Swedish Petro- Fiber worked well

with oil-to-water sorbent ratios of 5.1 to 10.1. The Clean Atlantic

Associates Fast Response Open Sea Skimming System, which consisted of a Kepner SeaCurtain boom and a skimmer, was tested in a proprietary project at

104
OHMSETT. The equipment was later tested for seakeeping and handling without

oil in the open ocean. The results of these trials are not available.

Chemicals such as amine gelling agents also were evaluated. This process

uses amine which is soluble in oil but not water to form a gell which can be more easily collected mechanically than untreated oil.

A cold weather test was conducted at OHMSETT of the capabilities of the U.S.

Navy's MARCO Class V oil spill skimmer using highly viscous oil according to

Kilpatrick and Saeker [6]. Particular attention was given to modifications

of the skimming vessel to optimize recovery of heavy and highly viscous oils

in near-freezing and subfreezing temperatures. These modifications included

an improved scraper system for the collection belt, a spray manifold, an automatic water decanting system, and a system for heating the collected

fluids to enhance oil-water separation. An Archimedes screw-type Destroil

150 pump was installed to transfer the collected oil into separate storage

containers. Problems were encountered and corrected with the belt-roller

collection system. These modifications significantly enhanced recovery of

highly viscous oil.

The value of a cold-weather test facility was recognized in 1979-1980.

Studies began to modify the OHMSETT facility which had previously been

operating from mid-April to raid-November. The tank and supporting plumbing

had been routinely drained during cold weather to minimize ice damage. The

necessary modifications were begun in 1981 with direct support from the

Conservation Division located in the U.S. Geological Survey -- later to become

part of the MMS . Ice was allowed to grow in the full tank and ice resistance

forces to towing of objects were measured. Specific modifications were begun

on the filtration and pumping facilities, including heat- taping and insulation.

Winter weather varies from -15°C to 4°C with January averages around -2°C,

with winds typically 10-20 knots from the north to northwest. The wave maker

and protective ice breaking techniques were evaluated. During the first test

winter, oil emulsions with viscosities as high as 1,700,000 centistokes were

tested with the MARCO Class V and the Troilboom (Destroil Skimmer systems).

The AMOP boom was evaluated during the early winter of 1980 at the OHMSETT

facility as described by Meikle [7]. The boom was tested with Circo X heavy

OHMSETT test oil which had a viscosity range from 2,600 to 4,200 centistokes.

The boom performed as well as other conventional booms in the tank. This was

one of the first boom performance evaluations in the tank. This project

resulted in a standard tank test protocol.

A fireproof boom developed for Environment Canada was tested at the OHMSETT

facility and reported by Meikle [8] . The boom was as effective as nonfireproof

booms in containing oil in currents, and withstood the effects of fire. The

cost of the boom was comparable to conventional equipment, and it was easily

stored and repaired.

A series of evaluations on pump capabilities were conducted at OHMSETT and

presented by Borst et. al . [9]. This evaluation involved internal and

external gear, progressive cavity, centrifugal and diaphram types with a range of oil types and degrees of weathering. The effects of these variables

were documented. Skimmers are only as good as their transfer pump's capability.

105
A fireproof steel boom was evaluated for towing, stability, and oil holding

characteristics following fire -endurance tests at another site according to

Buist [10], The effects of waves and currents on in-situ burning also were evaluated. This stainless steel boom exhibited good seakeeping throughout

the wave conditions in the tank and retained oil at tow speeds of up to 0.75

knots. Harbor chop significantly interfered with ignition and with sustained

in-situ burning.

A major new initiative was begun in 1983 at the request of the MMS and EC to

initiate a program of open- ocean testing for large offshore spill response

equipment. The hypothesis that the ability of a boom or skimmer to follow

wave conditions should be statistically related to its ability to contain or

to recover oil was the basis for the program. Full operational lengths of

boom would be required because length-wise tension is a major factor in

compliance. Tension exerted while the boom is deployed in a "U" shape is an unknown function of length and relative current speed. In addition, most

booms comply with increasing sea state to a point where the compliance rapidly

begins to deteriorate. If compliance could be accurately measured and

observations of oil holding could be synoptically made, the correlation could

be defined. The project began by defining what measurements of boom behavior

and sea and meteorological conditions would be required. Suitable booms were sought and efforts were made to increase the overall OHMSETT budget to accomplish

the ultimate open-ocean verification of the correlation of behavior and oil

holding. Those tests culminated in the intentional open-ocean oil spill of

18,000 gallons of Brent Crude offshore St. Johns Newfoundland in September

1987.

In the winter of 1983, OHMSETT tested an Oil Mop Pollution Control, Ltd.

prototype Arctic skimmer in a range of broken ice concentrations according to

Shum and Borst [11]. This catamaran-based rope mop skimmer is similar in

design but smaller than the Arcat II. The skimmer could function in ice con- centrations below 50 percent where individual ice pieces did not exceed half

the between hull spaces. When either of these two conditions were exceeded,

the ice jammed at the bow and prohibited oil contact by the rope mops. This

marked the first full winter test season at OHMSETT.

The first efforts at defining boom behavior as a function of sea state were reported by Borst and Lichte [12]. This effort involved the mooring of five

booms in Raritan Bay, New Jersey, for an extended period. Synoptic measurements

were made of sea and meteorological conditions and video taping and digitizing

of the boom behavior. Test results were found to be too subjective and the

program was modified to include boom behavior measurements, i.e., free-board

and draft. Data were stored in onboard data loggers.

In-situ burning was rigorously evaluated at the OHMSETT facility. Boundary

conditions for successful burning were established for Prudhoe Bay and Amauligak

crude oils using a range of ice concentrations from 75-90 percent under a range of weathering of the crudes from fresh to very heavily weathered.

Removal of 60-80 percent of the oils were routinely accomplished. Emulsions

of Prudhoe Bay crude would not sustain combustion. Amauligak crude emulsions

were burnable with repeated ignition with removal of 50 percent of the oil as reported by Smith and Diaz [13].

106
In- situ burning continued in 1986; Hibernia-A and Prudhoe Bay crudes were

evaluated by Smith and Diaz [14] . Tests were conducted in a 42 square meter

burn area in the tank. Ice concentrations were 60-75 percent. Flashpoints

were elevated by sparging. Oil removal ranged from 65-75 percent of the

original volume. Emulsions significantly lowered the burnability of the

oils, preventing sustained combustion with Prudhoe Bay Crude and reducing the

removal rate to 55 percent for Amauliguk crude emulsions.

The innovative high-speed water jet developed by EC (described in Kenneth

Meikle in this proceedings [7]) was evaluated at OHMSETT in 1986 by Laperriere

et. al. [15]. This concept was successfully tested in currents up to 1.5

knots, in winds up to 20 knots, and waves up to 0.15 meters high. The concept

of operation is the creation of localized high-velocity winds created by

high-pressure water jets oriented parallel to the water surface. These winds

carry the oil and do not couple with deeper water flow. This results in a very efficient method to contain and to herd oil with relatively low power

requirements. It holds promise for open and light broken ice conditions.

Work pertinent to open-water Arctic conditions was conducted in the OHMSETT

facility in 1986. The major effort continued towards verification of the

correlation of oil-holding and seakeeping characteristics of a open-ocean oil

spill containment boom. The EPA announced its intention to close the facility

in 1987 because of perceived shift of public interest away from oil spills in

favor of on- land hazardous materials spills. The facility underwent a change

of contractors during the same period and considerable momentum was lost.

Nevertheless, the culmination of the open-ocean OHMSETT effort was conducted

in September 1987 offshore of St. Johns Newfoundland. This multi-obj ective

exercise was conducted to verify the correlation of a boom's ability to comply

with wave conditions and its ability to hold oil. Additionally, the exercise

was conducted to evaluate the existing capabilities of Canadian Coast Guard

and industry to respond to an open-ocean oil spill of Hibernia- type crude oil.

The exercise involved over 100 trained personnel, 5 major vessels, and a flotilla of small vessels and aircraft. The Canadian Coast Guard was instrumental in providing this massive logistical support. Several major findings

resulted from this effort. The oil -holding- seakeeping correlation was verified,

minimizing future requirements for spilling large amounts of oil to test

containment booms. Existing oleophilic skiimners were not capable of recovering

high wax Hibernia- type crudes. Containment capabilities were much better

going downwind in higher wind conditions than had been previously possible

utilizing the normal upwind containment mode. A new chemical was employed

which significantly increased skimmer recovery. These findings were presented

at the 1988 Arctic Marine Oil Spill Conference by Tennyson and Whittaker [16].

The final report writing and closing of the OHMSETT facility occurred during

the first half of 1988.

107
Reference

1. Smith, G. F. , Lichte , H. W. , 1981, "Sununary of U.S. Environmental Agency's

OHMSETT Testing," 1974-1979, Municipal Environmental Research Laboratory,

Office of Research and Development, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,

Cincinnati, Ohio, 45268.

2. Griffith, R.A. , 1981, "On the Flow Around Spill Cleanup Devices." Proceedings

1981 Oil- Spill Conference (Prevention, Behavior, Control, Cleanup) March 2-5,

1981, Atlanta, Georgia, American Petroleum Institute, Environmental Protection Agency, and U.S. Coast Guard American Petroleum Institute, publication

no. 4334.

3. Lichte, H. W. , Borst, M. , and Smith, G. F. 1981, "Open Ocean Skimmer Performance

Tests," Proceedings 1981 Oil Spill Conference (Prevention, Behavior, Control,

Cleanup) March 2-5, 1981, Atlanta, Georgia, American Petroleum Institute,

Environmental Protection Agency, and U.S. Coast Guard, American Petroleum

Institute, publication no, 4334.

4. Nash, J. H. and Johnson, M. G. 1981, "Coherent, Plunging Water Jets for Oil

Spill Control," Proceedings 1981 Oil Spill Conference (Prevention, Behavior,

Control, Cleanup), March 2-5, 1981, Atlanta, Georgia. American Petroleum

Institute, Environmental Protection Agency, and the U.S. Coast Guard.

American Petroleum Institute, publication no. 4334.

5. Farlow, J. S. and Griffiths, R. A. 1981, OHMSETT Research Overview, 1979-

1980," Proceedings 1981 Oil Spill Conference (Prevention, Behavior, Control,

Cleanup) March 2-5, 1981, Atlanta, Georgia, American Petroleum Institute,

Environmental Protection Agency, and the U.S. Coast Guard, American Petroleum

Institute, publication no. 4334.

6. Kilpatrick, R. D. , and Saeker, A. J., 1981, "Testing of the Navy's Cold Oil

Modifications to the MARCO Class V Oil Skimmer," Proceedings of the Fourth

Arctic Marine and Oil Spill Program Technical Seminar, June 16-18, 1981,

Edmonton, Alberta, Canada, Research and Development Division, Environmental

Emergency Branch, Environmental Protection Service.

7. Meikle, K. M. , 1988, "The Artie and Marine Oilspill Program - AMOP," Alaska

Arctic Offshore Oil Spill Response Technology Workshop Proceedings, November

29-December 1, 1988, Anchorage, Alaska.

8. Meikle, K. M. , 1983, "An Effective Low-Cost Fireproof Boom" Proceedings 1983,

Oil Spill Conference (Prevention, Behavior, Control, Cleanup), February 28--

March 3, 1983, San Antonio, Texas. American Petroleum Institute, Environmental Protection Agency, and the U.S. Coast Guard, American Petroleum

Institute, publication no. 4356,

9. Borst, M, , Cochrell, R. J,, and Lichte, H. W. 1983 "OHMSETT Pump Tests,"

Proceedings, 1983 Oil Spill Conference (Prevention, Behavior, Control, Cleanup).

February 28 -March 3, 1983, San Antonio, Texas, American Petroleum Institute,

Environmental Protection Agency, and the U.S. Coast Guard, American Petroleum

Institue, publication no. 4356.

108
10. Buist, I. A,, Pistruzak, W. M. , Potter, S. G. , Vanderkay, N. , and Mr.

Allister, I. R. 1983, "The Development and Testing of a Fireproof Boom,"

Proceedings of the Sixth Arctic and Marine Oilspill Program Technical

Seminar, June 14-16, 1983, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada. Technical Services

Branch, Environmental Protection Service, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.

11. Shum, J. S. and Borst, M. 1985, "OHMSETT Tests of a Rope -Mop Skimmer in Ice

Infested Waters" Proceedings -1985 Oil Spill Conference (Prevention, Behavior,

Control, Cleanup), February 25-28, 1985, Los Angeles, California. American

Petroleum Institute, Environmental Protection Agency, and the U.S. Coast

Guard. American Petroleum Institute, publication no. 4385.

12. Borst, M. and Lichte , H. W. , 1985, "Standardizing Boom Test Procedures."

Proceedings -1985 Oil Spill Conference (Prevention, Behavior, Control, Cleanup).

February 25-28, 1985, Los Angeles, California. American Petroleum Institute,

Environmental Protection Agency, and the U.S. Coast Guard, American Petroleum

Institute, publication no. 4385.

13. Smith, N. K. and Diaz, A. 1985, "In- Place Burning of Crude Oil in Broken Ice,

1985 Testing at OHMSETT," Proceedings-1985 Oil Spill Conference (prevention.

Behavior, Control, Cleanup), February 25-28, 1985, Los Angeles, California,

American Petroleum Institute, Environmental Protection Agency, and the U.S.

Coast Guard, American Petroleum Institute, publication no. 4385.

14. Smith, N. K. and Diaz, A. 1987, "In- Place Burning of Crude Oils in Broken

Ice," Proceedings -1987 Oil Spill Conference (Prevention, Behavior, Control,

Cleanup), Tenth Biennial, April 6-9, 1987, Baltimore, Maryland, American

Petroleum Institute, Environmental Protection Agency, and the U.S. Coast Guard,

American Petroleum Institute, publication no. 4452.

15. Laperriere, F. , Whittaker, H. , Yanagisawa, M. and Suzuki, I. 1985, "High

Pressure Water Jet Testing for Oil Containment in Simulated Environmental

Conditions." Proceedings of the Tenth Arctic and Marine Oil Spill Program

Technical Seminar, June 9-11, 1987, Edmonton, Alberta, Conservation and

Protection, Environment Canada.

16. Tennyson, E. J. and Whittaker, H. 1988, "The 1987 Newfoundland Oil Spill

Experiment-An Overview," Proceedings of the Eleventh Arctic and Marine Oil

Spill Program Technical Seminar, June 7-9, 1988, Vancouver, British Columbia,

Technology Development and Technical Service Branch, Environmental Protection,

Conservation and Protection, Environment Canada.

109

Arctic Aspects of the Technology Assessment and Research Program

of the Minerals Management Service

Edward J. Tennyson

Technology Assessment 6e Research Branch

Minerals Management Service

Res ton, VA

The Technology Assessment and Research (TA&R) Program began its involvement in

oil spill research as a result of the IXTOC blowout in 1979. This initial

effort involved modeling of the subsurface blowout and developing various

configurations of subsurface sombrero's or inverted cones which could be

placed over the blowing well. Gas lift as a result of the blowout would lift

the blowing oil and water to a collection point. Modeling at l/4th scale

indicated that 80 percent or more of the pollutants blowing out of a well

could be collected by a properly designed and installed subsurface collector

system as presented by Milgram [1] . This process could be used during open

water or light- ice periods to mitigate a protracted gas and oil blowout. The

high percentage containment and recovery potential of high-volume blowouts led

to additional studies to design and evaluate a dedicated recovery system. The

design criteria matched the flow rates of IXTOC at 30,000 barrels of oil and

765,000 cubic meters of gas per day. This project resulted in a packaged

system utilizing a specially modified 120,000 dead-weight ton tanker capable

of safely operating in the presence of a surface boil. The vessel could be

either statically moored or dynamically positioned. The vessel was configured

to degas and dewater the recovered oil with 14 days onboard storage provided.

The project proved that such a collection project was feasible, but quite

expensive. The high potential recovery efficiency, however, brought the

recovered cost of a barrel of oil to less than a $1.00 per gallon, which is

less than current figures for recovered oil according to Brown and Root

Development, Inc.

A second dedicated shipborne collection system was designed and analyzed by

Stewart Technology Associates [3] by using surface collection. This vessel

system would use a 90,000 dead-weight ton tanker, towing collection booms on each side having an 800-foot swath. The vessel would be capable of dewatering

and storing the recovered oil and purifying and discharging the water

recovered. This system also is costly but could operate as a conventional

tanker between responses. The system would be limited to open-water

application.

Both of these tanker-based response systems are envisioned for areas of high

production over long periods of time as viable substitutes for multiple small

response units.

The TA&R Program initiated investigations in 1984 at the National Bureau of

Standards on the analysis and modeling of airborne pollutants generated by insitu burning of spilled oil. This effort was a result of the highly

successful OHMSETT burn program and has resulted in a number of significant

findings pertinent to broken and solid ice and open-water conditions. This

study has been described in Dr. Evan's paper in this proceedings. Briefly,

the toxicity of the burn products is not significantly changed over the parent

oil. Evans [4] indicated that burning could remove over 80 percent of the

111
spilled oil from the water surface given the absence of high concentrations of

water in oil/water emulsions. This project has had support from Environment

Canada (EC) .

In September of 1986 the Minerals Management Service (MMS) entered into a Memorandum of Understanding with EC for joint participation in research

related to oil spill response. Since then practically all of the oil spill

responserelated research has had a cooperative base. Contract research has

been jointly selected, funded, and managed by a close working MMS -EC

management team.

One of the first projects jointly contracted was the continuation of the

design and evaluation on an airborne laser ignition system for spilled oil.

The energy generated by this system would be sufficient to ignite heavily

weathered oil. The EC had made calculations for the necessary energy level to

ignite and sustain combustion in highly-weathered oil. They have come to the

conclusion that no existing system has sufficient energy to ignite weathered

oils, though many oils while still fresh could be ignited by existing systems.

At the present time, however, the capabilities of a laser system have been

evaluated. A laboratory system has proven successful; the design of a helicopter compatible system has been completed; and the focusing of a dual

laser system to ignite and maintain a flame have been evaluated. The

refinement of the aiming system is planned for this year by Frish et. al. [5].

The concept of a helicopter-compatible laser system for igniting spilled oil

in all Arctic conditions appears practical. The only other feasible approach

is a hand deployable igniter which would be required in large numbers for a major spill. The laser ignition system will be described in more detail in

Mr. Meikle's Proceedings paper.

A project which was started in 1979 initially involved investigations into the

physics of well- fire suppression and extinguishment using water pressures and

flow rates available on a rig. Extinguishment of 12,000 SCFM gas well fires

were possible in 5 seconds, with 10 gallons of water injected external to the

well annulus and along the axis of the wellbore. Partial fire suppression was documented at flow rates of 1/2 that which was necessary for extinguishment.

Apparent radiation from the fire could be reduced by approximately 50 percent

from gas fires and over 90 percent with liquid hydrocarbon flames according to

Evans and Pfenning [6] . As an adjunct to early research efforts in this

program, it was found that most of the liquid hydrocarbons were burned in the

flame even during partial suppression. Well ignition may

be considered by some to be a pollution mitigation measure for large

persistent blowouts. Lack of funds has prohibited an evaluation of pollutant

reduction during well fires and during partial suppression. The technique

could prove to be a major mitigating tool coinciding with rig self -protection.

The application of partial suppression or extinguishment may be limited to

abovefreezing temperatures.

Oil submergence has been observed a number of times during recent spills. In

several cases, apparently submerged oils heavily impacted shores. The recent

Cook Inlet spill was just one example of the phenomenon. In 1987 the MMS

joined an existing EC- funded study to model and analyze the effects of various

components of weathering on selected oils. The intent is to develop a

112
predictive capability of spilled oil behavior based upon oil type, ambient

temperatures, extent of sunshine, and other less important variables. Once

the behavior and fate of weathered oil are understood, countermeasures can be

developed to respond to these types of oil spills. Future research will

address photo-oxidation, which is a major weathering factor on a number of

heavy crude oils. This study has application during broken ice and open water

conditions.

The TA&R Program committed the majority of 1987 oil spill research funds to

support the joint Canadian-U. S . 1987 Newfoundland oil spill exercise. The

objectives were to verify the correlation of the ability of open-ocean oil

spill containment booms to seakeep with their ability to contain oil.

The exercise also evaluated the capabilities of Canadian industry and

the Canadian Coast Guard to respond to high wax crude oil spills similar to

those which might occur during production in the Hibernia oil fields. The

exercise involved the intentional spilling of 18,000 gallons of modified Brent

crude oil approximately 25 nautical miles east of St. John's Newfoundland,

in September 1987. It was the largest experimental spill in the North

American continent on record. Five major vessels, over 100 trained personnel,

a flotilla of small vessels, and a dedicated helicopter were employed. The

oil was spilled when winds were below 10-15 knots and containment operations

were carried out in the normal upwind mode, i.e., the vessels towed booms into

the wind. The winds increased as predicted and as desired in the test plan to over 20 knots, which is commonly perceived to be the upper limits for openocean recovery. All three deployed booms lost oil by entrainment due to the

inability to maintain tow velocities below 0.75 knots. After 4 attempts to

contain oil in the normal upwind mode had failed, one pair of ships towing a containment boom were redirected downwind using the helicopter and a small

boat to guide the containment efforts. Oil was successfully contained during

the downwind effort when winds exceeded 25 knots. Therefore, it was concluded

that the downwind approach when winds exceed 15-20 knots will improve

capabilities significantly as described by Tennyson and Whittaker [7] . This

also was observed during recovery attempts in the North Sea during the Ekofisk

blowout. A weir skimmer recovered the high wax oil at design capabilities,

however, the disc and drum oleophilic skimmers could not recover significant

oil until a visco-elastic agent had been added to the oil to increase its

adhesive properties. The correlation of the boom's ability to seakeep and its

ability to contain oil was verified by Nash and Hillger [8] . This project

will minimize the need to spill oil in large quantities to measure performance

of open-ocean equipment. Further, it will provide a cost-effective

performance evaluation protocol for offshore oil spill response equipment.

The EC has been in the forefront of developing sophisticated remote sensing

capabilities for detecting spilled oil. The TA&R Program has joined in a new

effort to develop a slick thickness measuring capability to augment present

systems which are limited to indicating slick areas.

The OHMSETT facility ceased effective operation in 1987. The need for future

evaluations of innovative procedures and technology under controlled and

repeatable conditions continues. The TA&R Program has cofunded, with EC, an effort to identify a replacement facility in Canada where tests comparable to

those accomplished at OHMSETT can be run. The TA&R has reviewed existing test

113
tanks in the U.S. and none are suitable. Canada possesses several large wave

tanks where oil can be spilled, and this project is designed to assess their

existing capabilities and the costs of necessary modifications to each.

The TA6cR Program and EC have jointly funded an evaluation of an innovative oil

spill chemical additive, "Elastol," which alters the physical properties of

the oil to make it more recoverable by mechanical means according to Gershey

and Bats tone [9]

Two joint projects involving planning for future intentional oil spills have

begun. The first experiment is planned in the Canadian Beaufort Sea to verify

the in- situ burning research conducted at OHMSETT, the National Institute of

Standards and Technology, and the Environment Canada and the Canadian

industry. The second is envisioned for the Canadian west coast and will

involve evaluation and modification of spill response procedures.

A joint current project involves optimizing an accoustic or pneumatic

in-situ incinerator for burning of viscous weathered oil. This project is a continuation of efforts to design and evaluate a portable burning device for

open-water and broken ice conditions. The incinerator has been successful in

burning oils which would not sustain combustion in normal in-situ

situations . The TA&R Program was instrumental in convincing the OHMSETT

management team that a broad-based request should be written to the National

Academy of Sciences to investigate the state of the art and knowledge with

respect to use of dispersants on the open ocean. The request was accepted and

the final report is expected to be published by the end of 1988. The TA&R

Program will review the results and recommendations for future research

proj ects

The use of navigational shipboard radar has been investigated as an internal

project by the TA&R Program. By modifying the tuning of normal shipboard

radar, slicks have been tracked out to 12 miles on three separate occasions.

This capability will be further evaluated as funding and opportunities permit.

The basis for this project is that oil attenuates short period waves. Because

these waves cause interference in normal radar operation, sophisticated

filters have been developed to eliminate this interference or sea return. By

adjusting the gain, sea return and filters on navigational radar, a clear

depiction of the short period wave field can be received. Persistent areas of

reduced sea return indicate the presence of oil. This has been documented

with winds ranging from under 10 knots to over 30 knots by Tennyson [10], A

patent has been applied for on this usage.

IIA
References

1. Milgram, J. H. , 1982, "The Collection of Oil From Subsea Well Blowouts,"

presented at the Oil Spill S3miposium, Oslo, Norway, December 1982.

2. Brown and Root Development, Inc., 1985, "Development of an Engineering

and Cost Analysis of a Ship-Mounted Subsurface Collector System,"

December 2, 1985.

3. Stewart Technology Associates, 1987, "Development of an Engineering and

Cost Analysis of a Ship-Mounted Surface Collector System."

4. Evans, D. and Pfenning, D. , 1984, "Suppression of Gas Blowout Fires

Using Water Sprays: Large and Small Scale Studies," American Petroleum

Institute, Committee on Fire and Safety Protection, San Antonio, Texas,

September 11-13, 1984.

5. Frish, M. , Gauthier, V., Frank, J. and Nebolsine, P., 1988, "Laser

Ignition of Oil Spills: Telescope Assembly and Testing," Proceedings of

the Eleventh Arctic and Marine Oil Spill Program Technical Seminar, June

7-9, 1988, Vancouver, British Columbia, Technology Development and

Technical Services Branch, Environmental Protection, Conservation and

Protection, Environment Canada.

6. Evans, D. , Mulholland, G., Gross, D. and Baum, H. , 1988, "Burning, Smoke

Production and Smoke Dispersion From Oil Spill Combustion," Proceedings

of the Eleventh Arctic and Marine Oil Spill Program Technical Seminar,

June 7-9, 1988, Vancouver, British Columbia, Technology Development and

Technical Services Branch, Environmental Protection, Conservation and

Protection, Environment Canada.

7. Tennyson, E. J. and Whittaker, H. , 1988, "The 1987 Newfoundland Oil

Spill Experiment, An Overview," Proceedings of the Eleventh Arctic and

Marine Oil Spill Program Technical Seminar, June 7-9, 1988, Vancouver,

British Columbia, Technology Development and Technical Services Branch,

Environmental Protection, Conservation and Protection, Environment

Canada

8. Nash, J. and Hillger, R. W. , "Preliminary Results of the Verification of

Offshore Oil Spill Containment Boom Performance Evaluation Protocol,"

Proceedings of the Eleventh Arctic and Marine Oil Spill Program

Technical Seminar, June 7-9, 1988, Vancouver, British Columbia,

Technology Development and Technical Services Branch, Environmental

Protection, Conservation and Protection, Environment Canada.

9. Gershey, R. and Batstone, B., 1988, "Field Tests of Elastol and

Demusifier," Proceedings of the Eleventh Arctic and Marine Oil Spill

Program Technical Seminar, June 7-9, 1988, Vancouver, British Columbia,

Technology Development and Technical Services Branch, Environmental

Protection, Conservation and Protection, Environment Canada.

115
Tennyson, E. J., 1988, "Shipborne Radar as an Oil Spill Tracking Tool,"

Proceedings of the Eleventh Arctic and Marine Oil Spill Program

Technical Seminar, June 7-9, 1988, Vancouver, British Columbia,

Technology Development and Technical Services Branch, Environmental

Protection, Conservation and Protection, Environment Canada.

116
THE ARCTIC AND MARINE OILSPILL PROGRAM - AMOP

K.M. Meikle. PEng.

Environment Canada

River Road Environmental Technology Centre

Ottawa, Ontario, Canada K1 A 0H3

ABSTRACT

This paper summaries the work done and currently in progress under the Arctic and

Marine Oilspill Program (AMOP) Almost $20,000,000 will have been spent over a 12-year period. A slick tracking buoy and a real-time onboard remote sensing

display have been developed. The BIOS experiment provided valuable data on

arctic oil spills and related countermeasures. Aspects of subsea blowout collectors

have been determined and the influence of ice on oil behaviour and recoverability

have been investigated. Heavy oil behaviour and the part played by photooxidation are being explored under one of several joint projects by Environment

Canada and the U.S. Minerals Management Service. Arctic oil skimmers have been

developed and a protocol for testing offshore oil booms has been validated in an

offshore test using oil. A fireproof boom has been developed, as has a novel

containment system that uses highpressure waterjets to induce an opposing wind.

Devices for remotely igniting oil slicks have been developed or are in the process of

being developed, including one that uses a laser. Two incinerators have been

designed, an alternate to the OHMSETT is being investigated and two experimental

oil spills are in the initial planning phase.

1. INTRODUCTION

The Arctic and Marine Oilspill Program, more commonly known as AMOP, began in

April 1977. Initially, the focus was on the southern Beaufort Sea because studies

triggered by an oil industry proposal to undertake offshore exploratory drilling had

concluded that few proven countermeasures were available to deal with a blowout

or any large oil spill in arctic waters (L 2, 3). The AMOP is still an active program,

albeit one with a more modest budget, and its primary objective continues to be to

improve the technology for combatting arctic oil spills.

The funding for the first year (1 April 1977 to 31 March 1978) was $1,685,000 and

for the second year it was $ 1 ,805,000. The allocation for the third year was reduced

to $835,000 as part of an overall government restraint program and it remained

essentially constant at that level for the next few years. Since April 1986, the AMOP

funding has been allowed to vary according to the priorities of the remaining needs

in competition with those for chemical spill countermeasures. The budget for

1988/89 is $700,000, including $340,000 provided by the U.S. Minerals Management

Service for joint projects. As of 1 April 1989, the 12-year total expenditure for the

AMOP will have been almost $20,000,000, of which approximately $6,000,000 has

117
been contributed by industry, the U.S. Minerals Management Service (MMS) and

others for specific cooperative undertakings such as the Baffin Island Oil Spill (BIOS)

experiment and the sea trials of treating agents and oil booms that were performed

off Canada's east coast in 1987.

Many papers have been published in the proceedings of the annual AMOP technical

seminar and elsewhere, and a total of 148 reports have been produced covering the

more than 70 separate studies that have been completed. The Environmental

Emergencies Technology Division (EETD) of Canada's federal Department of the

Environment (Environment Canada) is responsible for the overall management and

direction of the AMOP, but joint projects are managed and directed by

representatives of the funding agencies involved.

The remainder of this paper will describe some of the achievements realised under

each of the following main headings: Detection and Tracking; Properties,

Behaviour and Modelling; Remedial Measures other than chemical treating agents

which are the subject of a separate paper by M. Fingas (^) and Disposal. It will also

identify some of the things that must still be done before a recommendation would

be made to terminate the program.

2. DETECTION AND TRACKING

Because of the remoteness of much of Canada's coastal areas from population

centres and potential operating bases and the added complications of ice and

darkness in the Arctic, a considerable effort has been expended to evaluate and

develop equipment to locate, identify and track oil spilled at sea. The following are some of the results:

2.1 Tracking Buoys

One of the first devices to be developed was the slick-tracking buoy by Orion

Electronics Ltd. in Nova Scotia. Sea trials of this floating battery-powered radio

transponder have shown that its drift closely approximates that of oil (5,6,7).

2.2 Remote Sensing

The more than $400,000 expended on remote sensing has given us a good

understanding of the strengths and weaknesses of the various techniques available,

including the use of satellite imagery (8). Each has its limitations and a recommended outfit consists of a side-looking radar, an infrared-ultraviolet dualchannel linescanner, a laser fluorosensor, low-light-level television, an annotated

colour camera and onboard realtime display equipment. The last item did not exist

when the AMOP began and the first one was developed as a joint AMOP

undertaking with the Canada Centre for Remote Sensing.

Another major joint undertaking was a six-year project with Esso Resources Canada

Ltd to investigate the use of acoustic and radio-frequency technology for detecting

118
oil encapsulated in ice. The radio-frequency work was terminated after a series of

theoretical studies had shown little or no potential for success (9,i0,ii). However,

the acoustic studies have produced prototype hardware that has performed quite

well in field tests (12).

Because of problems experienced using a commercially available towed

fluorometer, EETD has built a prototype system of its own that has performed well

in use. Details have not been reported but are available on request.

A recently completed remote sensing project has been an evaluation of sensors to

detect chronic oil losses from offshore platforms. The funding was provided by the

Northern Oil and Gas Action Program (NOGAP) of the Canadian Department of

Indian Affairs and Northern Development. None of the several instruments tested

were able to satisfy the requirement. However, the Wright and Wright Infrared Oil

Film Monitor was deemed to have the potential to function adequately in that

application if further developmient could make it suitable for operational use (13).

A joint project with the U.S. Minerals Management Service has been initiated to

make a long-overdue comparison between existing remote sensing imagery and

available surface observations in an attempt to find a way to discriminate between

continuous and discontinuousslicks.

3. PROPERTIES, BEHAVIOUR AND MODELLING

A prerequisite to the development of effective countermeasures for arctic oil spills is a sufficient knowledge of the conditions under which they must work and the

attendant effect upon the properties and behaviour of the oil. The acquisition of

that knowledge has proven to be a major and ongoing task that has so far

consumed about $9,000,000, almost half of the total amount that has been spent on

theAMOP.

3.1 The Baffin Island Oil Spill (BIOS) Experiment

The almost $7,000,000 BIOS experiment was by far the largest component of the

properties and behaviour work. This 4-year international co-operative undertaking

by government and industry has provided previously unavailable data on the shortandf long-term fate and effects of crude oil stranded on an arctic shoreline

compared to that of the same type of oil when chemically dispersed in the

nearshore arctic environment. Data on the effectiveness of selected shoreline

cleanup techniques has also been acquired in addition to the increased knowledge

about the physical, chemical and biological processes operating in common arctic

marine ecosystems.

The results provide no major ecological reasons to prohibit the use of dispersants on

oil slicks in nearshore areas similar to the experimental site. They also provide no

major ecological reasons for the cleanup of oil stranded on arctic shorelines, except

where wildlife is present or their critical habitat is threatened, or in areas of human

119
use (14). A further 4 years of follow-on work has extended the knowledge of the

long-term fate of stranded oil in arctic environments compared to that in a temperate situation (15,16,17).

3.2 Subsea Blowouts

Preliminary feasibility studies of the Sandome concept by Canadian Marine Drilling

Ltd (18) followed by the attempt to capture escaping oil with the "Sombrero ' subsea collection device during the 1979 Ixtoc blowout in the Gulf of Mexico were

the basis for a series of AMOP studies (i9,20,2i,22,23). amOP was also a minority

contributor to a 1/4 scale plume and collector experiment performed by Professor

J. Milgrim of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology for the U.S. MMS and the

Office of Naval Research at Bugg Spring, Florida in April 1982, and that involvement

proved to be the catalyst for the strong and continuing MMS/Environment Canada

cooperative program that has evolved since then.

The AMOP studies have shown that it is technically feasible to effectively capture

escaping oil near the seabed if conditions are sufficiently favorable. However,

because the probability that such conditions will exist is so low and the cost of

having a system available is so high, EETD does not consider subsea containment to

be a practical countermeasure. The work currently in progress at the University of

Calgary is being done to remove uncertainty regarding the amenability of the oil to

countermeasures once it arrives at the sea surface; it may be that the size of the

seabed opening controls oil droplet size to the extent that it may be the

determining factor for the formation of a coherent slick instead of discrete

globules.

3.3 Ice Influence

Various AMOP studies costing a total of almost $900,000 have examined the

influence of ice on the physical fate and behaviour of oil and gas. They range from

the compilation of available information on ice type and extent into an arctic

atlas (24) through theoretical analysis (25), the determination of ice dynamics from

satellite imagery (26,27) and experiments in laboratories and test tanks (28,29) to field

experiments involving the release of oil in ice-covered waters (30).

One of the important discoveries was the fact that, contrary to expectations, oil

deposited under stationary multi-year ice can migrate to the surface and be so widely dispersed by natural processes that it is non-detectable after 5 melt periods.

Another was that lead closure rates are rarely high enough to force oil onto the ice

surface where it might be amenable to removal; normally leads either freeze

over,in which case any oil present will be trapped within the ice, or the closure rate

is so slow that oil will be forced under the ice and become equally inaccessible.

3.4 Photo-oxidation

Apart from a small study by Professor H.D. Cesser at the University of Manitoba that

looked at ways to enhance the degradation of oil by ultraviolet light (3i) the effect

120
of photo-oxidation on spilled oil behaviour has not had sufficient priority to be

pursued further until recently. In the course of seeking a better understanding of

the factors governing oil dispersion it became apparent that one of the keys might

be the change in natural surfactant content resulting from photo-oxidation. That

aspect is currently being explored in EETD's laboratory as a co-funded joint project

with the U.S. MMS. Important preliminary observations include the facts that, for reasons as yet unknown:

- there is considerable variation in the susceptibility of oils to photooxidation;

- heavy oils that do photo-oxidize form a skin that flakes off and the flakes

sink in synthetic seawater;

- there is a noticeable increase in the water-soluble component of those oils

that photo-oxidize.

3.5 Oil Catalogue

Another item that deserves mention in this brief overview of some of the highlights

of the work done under AMOP on the physical fate and behaviour of oil is the

compilation of a catalogue of the properties of oils that could be spilled in Canada

or adjacent waters (32). The Canadian oil industry has supported the project by

providing data and representative samples of frontier oils as they are discovered,

common pipeline blends, imported cargos and various products. The catalogue

combines the data from industry and others with experimental data obtained in

EETD's laboratory. That facility is uniquely equipped for such work because of the

specialized equipment assembled during the past 5 years and the availability of

walk-in temperature-controlled chambers where properties can be measured at low

temperatures. The dispersion and emulsion-forming characteristics of the oil are two elements of the data presented and an expanded version of the catalogue will

be available within the next few months. Like most of EETD's publications, copies

are free but we retain the right to limit quantities at our discretion.

4. REMEDIAL MEASURES

Environment Canada has been working to improve spill countermeasures for 15

years and one of the first decisions was to focus attention on the problems peculiar

to cold climate operations and to make maximum use of technology developed for

spills elsewhere. Another of those initial decisions was to tackle the essentially icefree and complete ice-cover situations first and to defer the problem of removing

oil under intermediate conditions.

4,1 Arctic Oil Skimmers

Prior to the AMOP the majority of the effort devoted to remedial measures had

been expended on performance evaluations either in enclosures set up adjacent to

wharves or in open water. That work had shown that three types of skimmers being

manufactured in Canada were potentially effective under near-freezing conditions

but all required modification to correct problems. Initially, the objective for this

121
element of the AMOP was to develop and prove the necessary modifications to each

type and to derive an arctic oil recovery vehicle on that basis. However, after the

first year or so and having looked at platform options including hovercraft, it was

concluded that special-purpose skimming vessels able to operate safely in the Arctic

at reasonable distances from the few and widely separated support bases were

possible but too costly. Work to that end was abandoned in favour of devices that

could be deployed from offshore support ships or other vessels of opportunity such

as barges.

By far the most successful skimmer development was that done in cooperation with

Morris Industries Ltd. of Vancouver. Based on cold-room tests at the National

Research Council in Vancouver and a series of tank-tests, including some at the

OHMSETT in New Jersey under the auspices of the OHMSETT Interagency Technical

Committee (OITC), improvements made to their oleophilic-disk models transformed

the Morris products into industry leaders worldwide.

Prototypes of arctic variants of the BennettA/ersatile oleophilic belt skimmer and Oil

Mop Pollution Control's rope mop were built and tested. The former was tested in

the OHMSETT and then trials were done with oil at sea off Newfoundland with help

from the Canadian Coast Guard (33). Shortly thereafter it was loaned to Dome

Petroleum for a side-by-side comparison test against the Lockheed skimmer

originally mounted on their oil recovery barge in the Beaufort Sea (34). The AMOP

product was clearly superior and was purchased by Dome Petroleum and installed in

place of the Lockheed model. Smaller derivatives were subsequently built and sold

but so far there has been no market for the full-sized arctic model.

After simple stability trials alongside a Canadian Coast Guard base, the Oil Mop

prototype was tested with oil in a refinery settling pond where it was confirmed

that the modified rope-drive mechanism had cured the slippage problem

experienced with other models. Testing in the OHMSETT was considered

unnecessary because of the extent to which the basic mechanism had already been

evaluated in that facility. The Canadian Coast Guard decided not to add it to their

inventory because it was too large and cumbersome to be safely deployed from

their ships at sea and there were no responses when it was declared surplus and

offered for sale. Eventually it was scrapped, but not until it had performed one very

useful function. Because of its similarity to the larger ARCAT II developed for use

off Alaska, the AMOP prototype was loaned to the U.S. Coast Guard and tested by

the OITC in the OHMSETT to investigate the extent to which drifting ice might

degrade performance (35). With 50% ice cover or less, performance was comparable

to that in ice-free conditions; at higher concentrations the ice blocked the inlet to

the skimmer.

4.2 Conventional Booms

Nothing was done to further the development of conventional booms for several

years because of the decision to focus on open-water situations and because of the

substantial effort being expended by Norway and others to develop booms for

offshore use. It was not until the Canadian Coast Guard specifically requested a

122
scaled-up version of the river model of the Bennett self-inflating "Zooom-Boom" to

evaluate as an open-ocean replacement for their Vikoma SeaPacks that the AMOP

ventured into that aspect of oil spill countermeasures development.

The end result was a 12-section boom 366m long combining the essentially similar

designs of two manufacturers and packaged in a specially configured hull that could

be transported by helicopter as a slung load and from which it could be remotely

deployed while being towed by either a helicopter or a suitable work-boat. A

section performed well in the OHMSETT but, when the full length was subsequently

deployed at sea off Newfoundland in conjunction with the trials of the

BennettA/ersatile arctic skimmer, the Canadian Coast Guard decided that it was not

a suitable replacement for their Vikomas (32).

4.3 Fireproof Booms

Prior work at Balaena Bay during the Beaufort Sea Studies had shown that confined

floating oil could be burned-off in-situ (2). Therefore, one of the first projects under

the AMOP was to determine the feasibility of constructing a fireproof boom to

provide the necessary confinement in the absence of sufficient ice or other natural

features. A variety of materials and approaches were considered and small scale

tests indicated that fire-resistant booms were indeed feasible (36) but floating nets

were ineffective. AMOP efforts to achieve a fireproof oil confinement capability

were discontinued when the newly formed Arctic Petroleum Operators Association

(APOA) embarked on the development of a fireproof boom for offshore use in the

Beaufort Sea. Work was resumed within a few years however in a parallel effort to

explore a concept that might result in a lighter and cheaper product. The GemEng

boom with its ceramic-protected foamed-glass flotation was tested in the OHMSETT

and its ability to hold oil matched that of previously tested conventional booms (37).

It also withstood repeated and prolonged exposure to burning crude oil with only

minimal and readily repairable damage. However, in both the tank test and

subsequent deployments where it was subjected to moderate wave action, it sustained unacceptable structural damage despite several design changes (38).

Work was discontinued for lack of sufficient market interest.

4.4 Waterjet Barrier

Coincident with a tanker spill off Canada's east coast in 1979, a novel approach to

controlling oil on water was proposed by a Mr. D. Christie of Vancouver. The

concept was to use a horizontal array of highpressure wateriets to induce an airflow

over the surface of the water to oppose the movement of the oil. The concept was

outlined to the members of the OITC and it was decided that some exploratory work

would be undertaken in the OHMSETT. That work showed that the airflow induced

by highpressure waterjets in the proposed arrangement was indeed effective in

moving oil on water. Of particular interest was the fart that the presence of waves

that made conventional booms ineffective had no measurable effect on the ability

of the jet-induced wind to move oil (39).

123
The AMOP funded the construction of a basic prototype consisting of two opposing

arrays mounted on improvised floats. It was tested on the Mackenzie River at

Norman Wells, NWT, in a cooperative undertaking with Esso Resources Canada Ltd.

and its performance as a deflection barrier clearly surpassed that of conventional

booms (^0). Its ability to hold oil in the containment mode in a current was at least

comparable to that of conventional booms and, although time did not permit

making the necessary changes on that occasion, it seemed probable that it could be

made substantially better in that mode too. The fact that it could be held in

position without anchors and manoeuvred by pressure adjustments was a major

advantage.

The improvised floats have since been replaced with custom-designed ones that

minimize drag and make more power available for resisting current or increasing

the span of the array. Optimum flowrate, pressure, spacing, height and other key

design parameters have been determined through further experimental work in

test tanks in Canada (^i), and in Japan (42). Brief trials were conducted in ice in the

harbour at Quebec City during a spring breakup under a joint project agreement

with the U.S. Minerals Management Service and the indications were that the

barrier is not effective for separating oil from drifting ice.

Under another joint project agreement with the U.S. Minerals Management Service,

the utility of the waterjet barrier as a fireproof boom is being determined in an

Ottawa-area test tank. An aspect of particular interest is whether the induced wind

and the influence of the sprayed water will reduce the amount of smoke that is characteristic of oil-pool burns.

4.5 Boom Test Protocol

The largest experimental oil spill in Canadian waters was released off

Newfoundland in the late summer of 1987 in cooperation with the Canadian Coast

Guard and the U .S. Minerals Management Service. The primary purpose was to gain

a realistic assessment of the capability of the Canadian Coast Guard's booms and

skimmers to function in offshore sea conditions and the containment and recovery

effort was one of the most successful on record (^3). a secondary objective was to

take advantage of the opportunity to deploy booms with oil in a pre-planned

situation and validate a protocol developed by the OITC for assessing the capability

of offshore booms to contain oil without having to spill it. Such a protocol is needed because of a desire to avoid the deliberate stressing of the environment by

spilling oil at sea and the demonstrated impracticality of adequately assessing

offshore booms in the confines of a test tank.

4.6 Oil Slick Igniters

Another project directly resulting from the aforementioned Balaena Bay

experiment and the discovery that oil trapped in or under sea ice would surface on

melt pools in burnable quantities as the ice warms in the spring was one to develop

a means of igniting that oil from the air. Ice movement studies indicated that oil

from a subsea blowout that continued throughout the winter in the Beaufort Sea

124
could be distributed over an area of some 16,000 sq.km., with burnable quantities

of oil in perhaps 50,000 or more separate melt pools. Safety considerations aside, it would clearly be unrealistic to expect that people working on the ice surface could

ignite all of them in the three weeks or so that would typically be available before

breakup and escape of the oil. An igniter that could be dropped from a helicopter or slow-flying fixed-wing aircraft was developed with the cooperation and

assistance of Canada's Defence Research Establishment at Valcartier, Quebec after

tests had shown that the existmg devices developed for fightinq forest fires did not

produce sufficient heat to ignite oil that had been subjected to the amount of

weathering that could be expected i^^).

AJ Laser Oil Slick Igniter

Although air-dropped incendiary devices have been proven capable of igniting

pooled oil, it was realised that they were still not an entirely satisfactory solution to

the problem because of the associated logistics. The igniters have a shelf-life of 5

years, there are only a few places in North America that are equipped and approved

to make such devices and the production capacity is limited even in an emergency

situation. There are also transportation restrictions to further complicate the task

of getting a sufficient number to the right place in time. Upon learning that

Physical Sciences Inc. in Andover, Maryland had achieved some success igniting

pooled oil with a laser in their laboratory, they were awarded an AMOP contract to

establish the design criteria for such a system and were successful in doing so as was

demonstrated in a small-scale trial under typical late-winter conditions. An

engineering study has shown that an operational system could be installed in a helicopter using existing technology (45). Work is continuing under a joint project

with the U.S. Minerals Management Service to build and test such a system. A laser

focusing telescope has been built and tested (^6) and an aiming and tracking system

is being assembled. Concurrently, the Canadian Forestry Service is determining the

laser power requirements to ignite typical Canadian bush.

5. DISPOSAL

Two methods of disposal of recovered oil and oiled materials have been addressed

underthe AMOP.

5.1 Burial

Despite the recognized problems of operating land vehicles in the Arctic and the

longterm damage to the tundra that can result, it was deemed prudent to be

prepared for situations where there might be no other practical alternative along

the shores of the southern Beaufort Sea. Selection criteria were established and

possible sites were identified from aerial photographs of the terrain adjacent to the

shoreline (47).

125
5.2 Incineration

Over $400,000 has been expended to develop a capability to incinerate oil in the

Arctic and in other remote areas of Canada where it would be prohibitively

expensive to transport oil and oil -contaminated materials to incinerators elsewhere.

Simple wicking devices to collect and burn floating oil were found to be

impractical (48). a prototype device that makes use of ultrasonic energy to herd, lift and atomize floating oil has burned-off emulsified crude oil under calm conditions

with virtually no smoke. Subsequent experimental work at laboratory scale has

established engineering tolerances and power requirements and a contract has

recently been awarded under a joint project agreement with the U.S. Minerals

Management Service to test the modified prototype in a tank under both calm and

controlled wave conditions. An air-transportable pit incinerator has been

developed for disposing of oiled combustibles and a rotary kiln assembled from

readily available materials, including used oil drums and car wheels, has been built

and tested in cooperation with PACE, the Petroleum Association for the

Conservation of the Canadian Environment(49).

6. FUTURE NEEDS

There are a number of important unknowns still to be resolved in addition to the

dispersant and other treating agent unknowns mentioned in the previously

referenced paper by M. Fingas (4). All are either in the process of being addressed

under joint project agreements with the U.S. Minerals Management Service, or are expected to become the subject of such agreements.

6.1 Photo-oxidation/Heavy Oil Behaviour

Discovery of the reason for the observed variability in the susceptibility of oils to

photo-oxidation could lead to the availability of either an inhibitor or a promoter

that would lessen the environmental impact of spilled oil.

6.2 Laser Ignition of Oil Slicks

While key elements of the laser system have been developed and engineering

feasibility has been demonstrated on paper, there will continue to be skepticism

and uncertainty until a working system has been flown and its capability confirmed

by the successful remote ignition of floating oil under conditions typical of an arctic

spring. Informal discussions with the University of Tasmania have raised the

possibility of a cooperative arrangement whereby they would make their laser

available for that purpose and there is a possibility that forestry interests in both

Canada and the United States will share part of the cost.

6.3 West Coast Experimental Oil Spill

As evident from the recent public hearings on the proposed resumption of

exploratory drilling off the British Columbia coast, the geography and

characteristics such as the heavy driftwood accumulations peculiar to much of the

126
west coast of both Canada and the United Stated raise doubts regarding the

effectiveness of oil spill cleanup techniques applied elsewhere. As the first step in

what would of necessity be a multi-year undertaking, a study has been initiated to

identify those uncertainties that can only be resolved by spilling oil in one or more

controlled experiments and to define the essential characteristics of the test site or

sites. Follow-on phases would be the identification of sites with those

characteristics, site selection in consultation with all potentially affected parties,

arranging for the funding, establishing baseline pre-spill ecological conditions,

depositing the oil, applying selected countermeasures and monitoring the short and

long-term effects.

6.4 In Situ Burning of Oil in Leads and Drifting Ice

Laboratory experiments and numerous burns in simulated ice conditions in the

OHMSETT and other tanks have indicated that in situ burning is an effective way to

remove floating oil confined by leads or drifting ice. To date however, there has

only been one occasion where the technique has been applied in a real-world

situation; in situ burning was used quite successfully to remove oil spilled to

determine its physical fate and behaviour in pack ice off Canada's east coast (50). it remains to be confirmed that the small-scale results are a true indication of the

effectiveness of in situ burning in other typical ice-forms where it is currently the

primary if not the only countermeasure available. A study is being initiated for the

first step which, like the one for the west coast experimental oil spill, will define the

experimental needs sufficiently to identify possible locations and make selections in

consultation with local inhabitants and other interested parties.

6.5 Identification of Substitute Facilities for the OHMSETT

era's decision to deactivate the OHMSETT and return the property to the U.S. Navy

has eliminated the capability to assess the performance of new or improved oil

skimmers and techniques under controlled conditions. Although seldom used in

recent years for several reasons, not the least of which was the fact that it has been

out of commission for maintenance, new and allegedly improved equipment and

techniques continue to appear on the market. Elastol, the proprietary product that

makes oil temporarily visco-elastic as an aid to its recovery by skimmers, could not

be evaluated by direct comparison to the performance of those skimmers as determined previously in the OHMSETT. As the first step in a search for a viable

alternative to the OHMSETT, a study has been let to find out the extent to which the

OHMSETT capability could be matched by using existing tanks in Canada with and

without modification and to estimate the cost of possible options. Assuming there

are viable alternatives in Canada, subsequent studies will assess future test

requirements and determine the funding available before proceeding with any

modifications, equipment procurement, or arrangements for the use of any of the

facilities.

127
7. REFERENCES

1. A.R. Milne and B.D. Smiley. "Offshore Drilling for Oil in the Beaufort Sea",

Beaufort Sea Project, Victoria, British Columbia, 1976.

2. S.L. Ross, W.J. Logan and W. Rowland, "Oil Spill Countermeasures: The

Beaufort Sea and the Search for Oil", Beaufort Sea Project, Victoria, British

Columbia, 1977.

3. W.J. Logan, D.E. Thornton and S.L. Ross, "Oil Spill Countermeasures for the

Southern Beaufort Sea", Environment Canada Report EPS 3-EC-77-6, February

1975.

4. Fingas. M.F., "Chemical Treatment of Oil Spills", Proceedings of the Alaska

Arctic Offshore Oil Spill Respo nse Technology Workshop, December 1988.

5. Fingas, M., "The Evaluation of an Oil Spill Tracking Buoy", Spill Technology

News Letter Vol 2 (1), 1977.

6. Lea, B.N., "Field Evaluation of Oil Spill Tracking Devices", Environment

Canada unedited report EE-28, February 1982.

7. Roddis, H.A.J., "A VHF Radio System for Tracking Drifting Buoys

Automatically", Proceedings of the 5th AMOPTechnical Seminar, June 1982.

8. O'Neil, R.A., "The Arctic Marine Oilspill Program (AMOP) Remote Sensing

Study", Environment Canada report EPS 4-EC-83-3, March 1983.

9. Moorcraft, D.R. and Tunaley, K.E., "Electromagnetic Resonance in Layers of

Sea Ice and Oil Over Sea Water", Proceedings of the 8th AMOP Technical

Seminar, June 1985.

10. MacDougal, J.W. and Tunaley, J.K.E., "The Complex Permittivity of Crude Oil",

Proceedings of the 9th AMOP Technical Seminar, June 1986.

1 1 . Tunaley, J.K.E. and Moorcraft, D.R., Aspects of the Detection of Oil Under Ice Using Radar Methods", Proceedings of the 9th AMOP Technical Seminar, June

1986.

12. Jones, H.W., Kwan, H.W., Hayman, T. and Yeatman, E.M., "The Detection of

Oil Under Ice by Ultrasound Using Multiple-Element Phased Arrays",

Proceedings of the 9th AMOPTechnical Seminar, June 1986.

13. Guptill, F.W., "Evaluation of Wright and Wright Oil Film Monitor for Detection

of Offshore Chronic Oil Discharges", Environment Canada unedited report EE98, January 1988.

14. Sergy, G.A. and Blackall, P.J., "Design and Conclusions of the Baffin Island Oil

Spill Project", ARCTIC Volume 40 Supplement 1, 1987.

128
15. Hope, D., Humphrey, B. and Owens, E.H., "Long Term Fate and Persistence of

Stranded Oil at Cape Hatt, NWT and from the AMOCO CADIZ Spill".

Environment Canada unedited report EE-84, June 1986.

16. Owens, E.H., "Field Observations of Stranded Oil in the Straits of Magellan,

Chile 12 1/2 years after the METULA Spill", Environment Canada unedited

report EE-89, May 1987.

17. Owens, E.H. and Humphrey, B., "Long Term Fate and Persistence of Stranded

Oil from the BIOS Project, NWT, Canada and from the METULA Spill, Tierra del

Fuego, Chile", Environment Canada unedited report EE- 107, March 1988.

18. Chen, K.W., "A Study on the Feasibility of Underwater Containment of Subsea

Oil Spills in Arctic Waters", Proceedings of the 2nd AMOP Technical Seminar,

March 1979.

19. Anonymous, "Subsea Blowout Containment System Concept Analysis",

Environment Canada unedited report EE-37, May 1982.

20. Gregory, G.A. and Fogarasi, M., "Three Phase Flow - Submarine Riser Study",

Neotechnology Construction Ltd., September 1981

21. Gregory, G.A., "Three Phase Flow - Submarine Riser Study Report No. 2",

Neotechnology Construction Ltd., March 1982.

22. Topham, D.R., "The Modelling of Deep Oilwell Blowout Plumes, Including the

Effects of Hydrate Formation", Proceedings of the 4th AMOP Technical

Seminar, June 1981.

23 Rowe, R.D. and Bugg, J.D., "Bubble Behaviour at the Wellhead of a Subsea

Blowout", Proceedings of the 1 1th AMOP Technical Seminar, June 1988.

24. Anonymous, "An Arctic Atlas: Background Information for Developing Marine

Oilspill Countermeasures", Environment Canada report EPS-9-EC-78-1, August

1978.

25. Topham, D.R., "The Deflection of an Ice Sheet by a Submerged Gas Bubble",

Environment Canada internal report, 1979.

26. Dickins, D., Dickinson, A. and Humphrey, B., "Statistical Description of Pack Ice

in the Beaufort Sea, Lancaster Sound and the Labrador Sea", Environment

Canada unedited report EE-62, May 1985.

27. Dickins, D., Dickinson, A. and Humphrey, B., "Pack Ice in Canadian Waters:

Dimensions and Dynamics of Leads and Floes", Environment Canada unedited

report EE-82, April 1986.

129
28. Wilson, D.G. and Mackay, D., "The Behaviour of Oil in Freezing Situations",

Environment Canada unedited report EE-92, December 1987.

29. Buist,l. and Joyce, S., "Oil Spills in Leads: Tank Tests and Modelling",

Environment Canada unedited report EE-95, December 1987.

30. Anonymous, "Site Visit of Oil Under Multi-year Ice at Griper Bay, NWT",

Environment Canada unedited report EE-42, January 1983.

31. Cesser, H.D. and Turner, C.W., "Study'on the Enhancement of the

Photochemical Oxidation of Crude Oil by Sensitizers", Proceedings of the 1st

AMOP Technical Semmar, March 1978.

32. Bobra, M.A. and Chung, P.T., "A Catalogue of Oil Properties", Environment

Canada unedited report EE-77, March 1986.

33. Anonymous, "A Winter Evaluation of Oil Skimmers and Booms", Environment

Canada report EPS 4-EP-84-1, February 1984.

34. Buist, I.A., Potter, S. and Swiss, J. J., "Arctic Field Testing of the Lockheed Clean

Sweep and VEP Arctic Skimmer", Proceedings of the 6th AMOP Technical

Seminar, June 1983.

35. Shum, J.S. and Borst, M., "OHMSETT Tests of a Rope-Mop Skimmer in Iceinfested Waters", Proceedings of the 1985 Oil Spill Conference, Los Angeles,

February 1985.

36. Roberts, D., "Development of Oil Spill Burning Equipment", Proceedings of the

1st AMOP Seminar, March 1978.

37. Borst, M., "GemEng Lightweight Fireproof Boom: Oil Containment Testing at

OHMSETT" Environment Canada unedited report EE-45, June 1983.

38. Laperriere, F., "A Lightweight and Low Cost Fireproof Boom", Spill Technology

News Letter Vol 1 0 (1 -3), 1 985.

39. Meikle, K.M., "The Use of High-pressure Water for Spill Containment",

Proceedings of the 6th AMOPTechnical Seminar, June 1983.

40. Meikle, K.M., Whittaker, H. and Laperriere, F., "An Experimental High Pressure

Waterjet Barrier", Proceedings of the 1985 Oil Spill Conference, Los Angeles,

February 1985.

41. Anonymous, "High Pressure Water Jet Barrier - Design Optimization",

Environment Canada unedited report EE-88, April 1987.

130
42. Laperriere, F., Whittaker, H., Yanagisawa, M. and Suzuki, I. "High Pressure

Water Jet Testing for Oil Containment in Simulated Environmental

Conditions", Proceedings of the 10th AMOPTechnical Seminar, June 1987.

43. Tennyson, E.J. and Whittaker, H., "The 1987 Newfoundland Oil Spill

Experiment", Proceedings of the 1 1th AMOPTechnical Seminar, June 1988.

44. Meikle, K.M., "Incendiary Device for Oil Slick Ignition", Proceeding of the 4th

AMOPTechnical Seminar, June 1981.

45. Whittaker, H., "Laser Ignition of Oil Spills", Proceedings of the 1987 Oil Spill

Conference, Baltimore, April 1987.

46. Frish, M., Gauthier, V., Frank, J. and Nebolsine, P., "Laser Ignition of Oil Spills:

Telescope Assembly and Testing", Proceedings of the 11th AMOP Technical

Seminar, June 1988.

47. Anonymous, "Oiled Debris Disposal Sites: Beaufort Sea Coast", Environment

Canada Report EPS 3-EC-79-3, November 1979.

48. Thornton, D.E., "In Situ Burning", Spill Technology News Letter Vol 4 (3), June

1979.

49. Meikle, K.M. and Ewing, H.B., "Oil Spill Incinerator Development: An Update",

Proceedings of the 3rd AMOPTechnical Seminar, June 1980.

50. Anonymous, "Field Research Spills to Investigate the Physical and Chemical

Fate of Oil in Pack Ice", Environmental Studies Revolving Funds Report No.

062, February 1987.

131

Environmental Studies Research Funds

Oil Spill Research

James J, Swiss

Amoco Canada Petroleum Company Limited

Calgary, Alberta, Canada

Natalie Moir

Canada Oil and Gas Lands Administration

Ottawa, Ontario, Canada

Abstract

This paper describes oil spill research conducted in Canada under the auspices

of the Environmental Studies Research Funds (ESRF) . It outlines the structure

and function of the ESRF; provides information on the way research priorities

were established; and describe some of the highlights of specific projects

that were funded. Finally, the paper attempts to provide a linkage between the

work that was done through the ESRF and proposed research priorities generated

in response to the Minerals Management Service's request for information on

Arctic oil spill response technology published in the July 25, 1988 issue of

the Federal Register.

133
1.0 INTRODUCTION

Since 1983, the Canadian oil industry has been involved in a program

known as the Environmental Studies Research Funds*. This program

requires that companies holding oil and gas interests on Canada Lands**

provide funding to support research studies into environmental and social

issues related to petroleum exploration and development activities. The

Funds have been supporting research into eight areas which include:

Bottom Sediment

Marine Environmental Effects and Monitoring

Icebergs

Oil Spill Research and Countermeasures

Ice Scour

Waves

Socio-Economic Issues (North, East and West)

Northern Terrestrial and Freshwater Environments

The purpose of this paper is to briefly describe the work that has been

done through the Funds in the area of Oil Spill Research. It will

provide an outline of the organization that was established to manage

ESRF studies in general, and oil spill research in particular; describe

how priorities for research have been established; outline the types of

studies that have been conducted, including highlights of some of the more interesting projects; and indicate how this program may relate to

the Minerals Management Service's plans for further work on oil spill

response technology related to the Alaskan Outer Continental Shelf (OCS).

Formerly the Environmental Studies Revolving Funds

Frontier Lands in Canada under the jurisdiction of the Canadian

Federal Government

134
2.0 BACKGROUND OF THE ESRF

Initiated in 1983, the Canadian Environmental Studies Research Funds

(ESRF) is a program of funding for environmental and social studies

related to oil and gas development on Canada's Frontier Lands (Figure

1). A focussed program, it deals exclusively with research to assist in

decision-making related to oil and gas exploration and development.

Funding for the ESRF is provided through levies on the oil and gas

companies that hold interests on Frontier Lands. Administration of the

program is provided by the Federal Government. The operation of the ESRF

is a multi-disciplinary, cooperative effort among specialists from

federal, provincial and territorial governments, the oil and gas

industry, universities and the private sector.

Overall responsibility for the ESRF rests with the Ministers of Energy,

Mines and Resources (EMR) and Indian Affairs and Northern Development

(LAND). The ESRF Management Board provides advice to both Ministers and

consists of 12 members, representing the Federal Government (departments

of Fisheries and Oceans, Environment, Indian Affairs and Northern

Development, and Energy, Mines and Resources, one representative each);

the oil and gas industry (Canadian Petroleum Association, three

representatives; Independent Petroleum Association of Canada, one representative); the Canada-Nova Scotia Offshore Oil and Gas Board (one

representative); the Canada-Newfoundland Offshore Petroleum Board (one

representative); and two members from the general public. The current

Chairman of the Board is the representative from Environment Canada. The

Board advises on the management of the ESRF, the content of the ESRF

study program, the budget, and the levy rates applied to Frontier Lands.

To date, the bulk of the technical work of the ESRF has been performed by

a series of Program Study Committees who have provided expert advice in

the following priority subject areas: sediment transport; marine

environmental effects and monitoring; icebergs; oil spill research and

countermeasures ; sea bottom ice scour; socio-economic issues east, north

135
&0

CO

c

o

Ui

0)

rS

o

CO

CO

o

>

(O

CO

{=

o

E

c

o

>

LU

0)

IM

CO o

C/5 ^ O «u CD

I ' I ,

'

'

«/5 -a « c

^ «>.=:§ «

Q> O t/) 2 o ^

3 S 1 « 1 ^

CJ > X « o

CNJ M 'd* LD

o

c:

J3 ^

^ GO

C/5 C ^5^ O

=J o

I

I CO r**

136
and west; waves; and Northern terrestrial and freshwater environments.

These committees are comprised of scientific and technical experts from

the oil and gas industry and the federal, provincial and territorial

governments. Originally there were ten Program Study Committees;

however, during a re-structuring of the program in 1986, it was recommended that the number be reduced to four (figure 2).

The Management Board and the Program Study Committees are supported by an administrative secretariat (three persons) that is responsible for

day-to-day operations of the Funds.

ESRF studies are awarded through a competitive bidding process following

publication of RFP's in the ESRF newsletter UPDATE. (Circulation

1400) . Short lists are only used in situations where the expertise in a given area is very limited. Unsolicited proposals are rarely submitted

to the ESRF. More than 80 per cent of ESRF studies are conducted by

private sector consultants; the others are about evenly distributed among

universities, governments, oil and gas companies and non-government

organizations.

Monies spent in the various priority subject areas since the inception of

the ESRF are shown in Table I. Work, in the area of Oil Spill Research

and Countermeasures has amounted to about 21 per cent of the total.

The 1988 budget (^307, 000) is not included in Table I as it consists of

administrative and publication costs only. Future study priorities will

be determined early in 1989, following the completion of an evaluation of

the ESRF which is currently underway. There was no levy in 1987, due

largely to greatly reduced industry activity on Frontier Lands.

The ESRF publication series currently includes 100 titles; 27 of these

are in the area of Oil Spill Research and Countermeasures.

137
hysical

ironme

mmitte

Q. ^ O

LU

(U

)-( 3

00

•H c O

(0

O o E

t—

*-» D)O co E O '> Eo m c O Lil

138
TABLE I

ESRF STUDY BUDGETS BY YEAR

Priority Subject Areas Year ($000)***

1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 & 1988Total

Sediment Transport (8)* 200 370 630 250 - 1,450

Marine Environmental

i!irr6Cus Qc rioQiuorxug \ x.y J AQ'k H7J <; 7 Kin i , yuu

J-Ceoergs J. , UjU 1 ni^n 1 , UjU 1 / Qn J , 4o(J

Jix opiix i\.esearcn a Countermeasures (33)** 1,300 1,375 525 - - 3,200

Sea Bottom Ice Scour (13) 400 1,325 700 - - 2,425

Social Issues - North (5) 100 380 300 780

Social Issues - East (8) 100 250 300 650

Social Issues - West (1) 100 100

Waves (12) 300 340 280 920

Northern Terrestrial (3) 50 50

TOTAL 3,600 5,665 3,860 1,830 14,955

Numbers in parentheses indicate the number of studies sponsored by

each Program Study Committee.

Studies in Oil Spill Research and Countermeasures amount to

approximately 21 per cent of the total.

*** Canadian currency.

139
3.0 OIL SPILL RESEARCH

The expert committee that was established to nianage Oil Spill Research

was known as the Oil Spill Research and Countermeasures Program Study

Committee (PSC). This Committee consisted of 12 members; 5 from Industry

and 7 from government. It was responsible for establishing research

priorities; developing requests for proposals (RFP's); soliciting

proposals from the spill research community (Industry, government,

consultants); evaluating proposals and awarding contracts; and ttirougti a 'Scientific Advisor' overseeing the conduct of the projects.

Over the first four years of the program, 33 oil spill researcn projects

were funded and carried out. These projects were those that the Program

Study Committee and the ESRF Management Board deemed necessary to provide

information for decision-making related to exploration and production

activities on Frontier Lands.

The first responsibility of the Committee was to establish priority areas

for research. This was done by identifying four general areas of

interest, namely Countermeasures, Fate and Effects, Surveillance and

Monitoring, and Contingency Planning. Within each of these general areas

a more specific list of topics was generated. For example, the

Countermeasures area listed the following items: Booms, Removal Devices,

Ignition, Chemical, Disposal, Underwater Containment; Groundwater

Cleanup. Similar lists were developed for each of the other three major

areas. A complete list of topics for each area is shown in Appendix 1.

The need for research on these topics was evaluated using a matrix system

which provided a score corresponding to the priority attached to a particular item. Priorities were established for each of the major

environmental sectors (Marine, Freshwater, Terrestrial, Air). These

sectors were further subdivided to consider factors such as the presence

or absence of ice, shorelines, permafrost.

140
In order to provide an objective rating for items under review, each

Committee member provided a score ranging from 1 (high priority) to 3

(low priority) or an indication that no further work was needed at

present. These scores were then combined and averaged so that tne

resulting matrix identified the high to low priority items within each

Study Area (Appendix II). Using this matrix, the high priority items were isolated and ranked. The level of funding available from the ESRF

within the Oil Spill Area then determined how many of these high priority

items could actually be funded in a particular year.

Based on this system, items identified as high priority in the first year

of operation included:

Countermeasures :

' - Chemical treatment

- Disposal

Fate and Effects: - Weathering

- Biodegradation

- Effects on organisms

- Food chain effects

Surveillance and Monitoring: - Analytical techniques

- Sampling techniques

and . Contingency Planning: _ Logistics

- Training

- Public communications

141
Once the final list of priority subjects was established and costing

prepared, the material was presented to the ESRF Board for approval. A

series of Requests for Study Proposals was developed and published in the

ESRF newsletter 'Update' which was circulated to the research community

as described above. In response to these RFP's, proposals were generated

and submitted to the Committee for review and funding. These proposals

were evaluated and ranked and the successful candidates' proposals were funded

In order to ensure the scientific validity of the funded studies, a Scientific Advisor was identified (usually from the Committee) and this

person worked closely with the study manager and the ESRF administrative

office to ensure that the scientific aspects of each project were properly addressed and that the work was conducted in a timely and

efficient manner.

Once completed, the projects were published as part of the ESRF Report

Series and distributed widely to the Oil Spill community within Canada.

142
4.0 PROJECT HIGHLIGHTS

As mentioned previously, a total of 33 oil spill research projects were conducted under the auspices of this program between 1983 and 1988 at a total cost of $3.2 million (Canadian currency). Obviously, it would be

impossible to summarize the results of each of these studies in this

paper. However, a list of Oil Spill projects completed to date by the

ESRF is included in Appendix III. We have selected four of these

projects and provided a brief summary describing the contractor,

objectives, results and conclusions. These four were chosen because they

represent examples of the types of work undertaken within each of the

high priority areas (Countermeasures, Fate and Effects, Surveillance and

Monitoring, and Contingency Planning). The purpose of this review is not

to provide an evaluation of the overall usefulness of the program, but to

give an indication of the types of work undertaken.

Countermeasures

Beaufort Sea Dispersant Trial

Canadian Marine Drilling Company Ltd.

To evaluate the effectiveness of aerially applied

dispersants under Arctic conditions.

This study found that in general it is logistically

possible to conduct an aerial dispersant application

operation in the Arctic. There was some evidence, mostly

visual, that dispersants produce the desired effect.

However, the degree of uncertainty regarding dispersant

effectiveness that remained after these trials were completed suggests that a decision to use dispersants be

taken only after very careful consideration of other

alternatives (Swiss and Vanderkooy, 1988).

143

Priority Area:

Project

Contractor:

Objective

Results and

Conclusions
Priority Area:

Project

Contractor:

Objective:

Results and

Conclusions

Fate and Effects

Field Research Spills to Investigate the Physical and

Chemical Fate of Oil in Pack Ice.

S.L. Ross Environmental Research Ltd. and

D.F. Dickins Associates Ltd.

To determine the short-term behaviour and fate of oil

spilled in pack ice conditions.

This field trial was conducted in pack ice on Canada's

east coast and indicated that: oil spreading was dramatically reduced in pack ice compared with that

experienced in open water conditions; evaporation and

subsequent property changes were predictable using

available models; no emulsif ication occurred even under

very dynamic conditions; temporary natural dispersion

occurred near floe edges; little oiling of floes occurred

and the most significant oil/ice interaction took place

in brash and slush ice between the floes; no pumping of

oil occurred and burning proved to be the most effective

countermeasure technique (Ross and Dickins, 1987).

Priority Area:

Project

Contractor

Objective:

Results and

Conclusions

Surveillance and Monitoring

Development of a Simple Remote Sensing System

Esso Resources Canada Ltd.

To develop a simple remote sensing system that would

incorporate infra-red, ultra violet and visual imaging

into an easily deployable package for use in aircraft of

opportunity.

This project resulted in a remote sensing package that can

be quickly and easily deployed in an available aircraft.

It consists of infra-red, ultra violet and visual sensors

and can be used to provide a definitive image of a slick

at sea. The system has been used successfully in

relation to several experimental and operational spills.

144
Priority Area;

Project

Contractor:

Objective

Results and

Conclusions

Contingency Planning

The Development of a Canadian Oil Spill Countermeasures

Training Program

S.L. Ross Environmental Research Ltd.

To develop a comprehensive training program for oil spill

countermeasures for the Canadian offshore oil and gas

industry.

This project resulted in the development of outlines

for twelve training modules including the following:

Introduction to Oil Spill Behaviour (1.5 hours)

Advanced Course in Oil Spill Behaviour (8.5 hours)

Overview of Soil Spill Control Techniques (2.5 hours)

Oil Spill Response Organization and Strategies (2 hours)

Countermeasures Overview for Superintendents (9 hours)

Surveillance and Monitoring Techniques (17 hours)

Containment and Recovery Techniques (5 hours)

Chemical Dispersion Techniques (18 hours)

Shoreline Protection and Cleanup Techniques (14 hours)

Disposal Techniques (8 hours)

Hands-on Experience with Equipment (16 hours)

Company Simulated Spill Response Exercise (8 hours)

(S.L. Ross, 1987)

A review of the foregoing project descriptions indicates that a wide

variety of studies have been undertaken as part of this program. Some

were more successful than others, some raised more questions than they

answered. As a general evaluation of the program, however, the authors

feel that it provided much useful information when it was needed.

Without this program, many of the questions facing the oil industry in

the early eighties would still be unanswered. We feel that this program

has contributed to resolving some of these issues.

145
5.0 FUTURE DIRECTIONS

We feel it is inappropriate to identify priority areas or projects for

future work for a number of reasons. Instead, we have attempted to

provide a linkage between projects identified in response to the Federal

Register notice and oil spill research conducted under the auspices of

the ESRF. In doing so, we have taken certain liberties in combining

suggested projects and grouping them into the general priority categories

used by the ESRF (Table II).

The projects from the Federal Register and relevant ESEIF studies are listed below. This should provide those interested in pursuing any of

these topics with a "starting point" based in the ESRF and perhaps a means to avoid some of the pitfalls in conducting similar research.

TABLE II

OIL SPILL PROJECTS FROM THE FEDERAL REGISTER AND RELEVANT ESRF STUDIES

Projects Identified in

Response to 53FR27906 Request

Countermeasures

Storage and Disposal of Waste

Test Methods for Prototype Equipment

Ways to Reduce Labour Intensity

Deployment and Retrieval Under

Inhospitable Conditions

Chemical, Incendiary, and

Solidifying Agents

Chemical Dispersion in the Arctic

Dispersants in Fresh Water

Relevant ESRF

Study Numbers

(See Appendix III)

062, 100, 095

033

092, 051, 062, 100, 034

006, 074, 064, 082, 070,

095

B, C, D, E, 092, 100, 095

**

No ESRF Projects identified.

Some work done by Canadian Prairie Regional Oil Spill

Containment and Recovery Advisory Committee (PROSCARAC).

146
TABLE II (continued)

Projects Identified in

Response to 53FR27906 Request

Countermeasures (continued)

Further Development of Brush Skimmer

Combination of Existing Techniques

(e.g. elastomers and burning)

Dealing with Burn Residue

Burning on Shorelines

Improvement of Boom Storage

Fire Containment Booms

Bum Testing in Broken Ice

Evaluation of Pumps and Hoses

Recovery of Oil in Broken Ice

Encapsulating Oil in Ice Spray

Relevant ESRF

Study Numbers

(See Appendix III)

062, 064

074

*

062, 074, 064

019, 018, 013, 062, 077,

064

Fate and Effects

Summarize Available Knowledge on Ice

Natural Dispersion

Fate of Oil in Broken Ice

Level of Effect Assessment

Effects of Spilled Oil on Marine Life

019, 018, 013, 077

B, 062, 100, 031

019, 018, 062, 077

C, D, E

* No ESRF projects identified.

** Some work done by Canadian Prairie Regional Oil Spill

Containment and Recovery Advisory Committee (PROSCARAC).

*** Work in this area done by Canadian Offshore Oilspill Research

Association (COOSRA).

147
TABLE II (continued)

Projects Identified in

Response to 53FR27906 Request

Relevant ESRf

Study Numbers

(See Appendix III)

Surveillance and Monitoring

Detection by Remote Sensing 6, 7, 100, 072, 078

Improve Remote Sensing by Satellite 019, F, 072, 078

Improve Trajectory Models 019, 077

Contingency Planning :

- Documentation of Techniques from

other Countries *

- Mechanisms for Information Exchange *

Dispersant Use Guidelines/Decision-Making

(Computerized) 092

Improving Training Standards 079

* No ESRF projects identified.

In summary, we feel the Minerals Management Services' efforts to identify

future OCS oil spill research needs and priorities is commendable.

However, such a program should be implemented only after the needs of all

interested parties (industry, government, private individuals) have been

carefully considered. In the interest of furthering the state-of-the-art

as well as avoiding costly duplication of effort, we would point out that

there is a substantial body of knowledge in this area both in Canada and

elsewhere. A wealth of background information exists and many lessons

have been learned in other programs. Consulting this information prior

to initiating new research would seem to be a prudent way to proceed.

148
REFERENCES

S.L. Ross Environmental Research Ltd. and D.F. Dickins Associates Ltd.

1987. Field Research Spills to Investigate the Physical and

Chemical Fate of Oil on Pack Ice. Environmental Studies Revolving

Funds Report No. 062. Ottawa 118p.

Swiss, J.J. and N. Vanderkooy. 1988. Beaufort Sea Dispersant Trial.

Environmental Studies Research Fund Report No. 100. Ottawa 44 p.

S.L. Ross Environmental Research Ltd. and L.C. Oddy Training Design Ltd.

1987. The Development of a Canadian Oil Spill Countermeasures

Training Programme. Environmental Studies Research Funds Report

No. 079. Ottawa 121p.

149
APPENDIX I Complete List of Research Topics

Countermeasures

Booms

Removal Devices

Ignition and Burning

Chemical Treatment

Disposal

Underwater Containment

Ground Water Cleanup

Fate and Effects

Weathering

Movement

Biodegradation

Organisms

Food Chain

Ecosystem

Combustion

Surveillance and Monitoring

Remote Sensing

Modelling

Tracking

Analytical Techniques

Sampling Techniques

Contingency Planning

Support Documentation

Sensitivity Mapping

Decision Making

Analysis

Risk Analysis

Logistics

Training

Field Evaluations and Testing

Public Communications

150
APPENDIX II

Priority Matrix

151
N/A

n ign mea I an

low OK at presenT

APPENDIX II OIL SPILL RESEARCH & COUNTER^€ASURES

PRIORITY MATRIX

• possibly not an ESRF responsibility

AREA

ITEM Mar 1 ne Fresh Water Terrestr I a I Air

Counter measures

Boons (genera I

)

Booms (fireproof)

Removal Devices

I gnit Ion Chemical

0 i sposa

Underwater Containment

Ground - water cleanup

n -3 o

fD 3* fD 3

03 c- O 1 3* n (U < •-I i ^ >

O hH »-« ?r (T) fD rr

It O (T) (T> i-l t-* M i-n i-l 3

(D ro (D CO CO (-^ n "-I 3 O

3 (D O CU CO (D t-h rr 3

COrr V 3 3 V 2 V 3

2 3 2 3 2 2 2

V 1 3 V 2 V 1 1 3

3 2 3 3 3 3 2 1 V

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2

1 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1

1 1 3 2 3

Fate 4 Effects

Vteather i ng Movement

Blo-Oegradatlon

Organi sn Food Caiain

•Ecosy ^tem

Combustion

Surveillance A Monitoring

Remote sensing

Model 1 1 ng Track i ng Analytical techniques

Sampling techniques

(xantingency Planning

Support documentation 3 Sensitivity mapping

Decision-making 2 Ana ly si s

Rl sk Analyst s 3 Logistic ? I Training I Field evaluation

L test I ng 2 Public communications I

152
APPENDIX III

ESRF Oil Spill Research Project List

153
Report

Number Project Title Contractor

006 Effectiveness of the Repeat Application

of Chemical Dispersants on Oil

June 1985. 66 p.

S.L. Ross

Envi ronmental

Research Ltd.

012 Shoreline Monitoring Programs for

Oil Spills-of-Opportunity

September 1985. 50 p.

Dobrocky Seatech

Ltd.

013 Laboratory Testing of an Oil-Sk.imming

Bow in Broken Ice. January 1986. 60 p. Arctec Canada Ltd.

018 Testing of an Oil Recovery Concept for

Use in Brash and Mulched Ice.

January 1986. 43 p.

S.L. Ross

Environmental

Research Ltd.

019 Oil in Ice Computer Model.

December 1985. 129 p.

Dome Petroleum Ltd.

031 Stranded Oil in Coastal Sediments:

Permeation in Tidal Flats. April 1986.

23 p.

Dobrocky Seatech

Ltd.

033 Practical Insights into Decision-making

for Shoreline Cleanup of Oilspills

May 1986. 44 p.

Dobrocky Seatech

Ltd.

034

051

Development of a High Pressure Water

Mixing Concept for Use with Shipbased Dispersant Application.

May 1986. 51 p.

Decision-making Aids for Igniting or Extinguishing Well Blowouts to Minimize

Environmental Impacts. November 1986.

119 p.

S.L. Ross

Environmental

Research Ltd.

S.L. Ross

Environmental

Research Ltd.

053 Oil Motion During Lead Closure.

Janbuary 1987. 13 p.

Esso Resources

Canada Ltd.

058 Countermeasures for Dealing with

Spills of Viscous, Waxy Crude Oils,

October 1986. 59 p.

S.L. Ross

Environmental

Research Ltd.

062 Field Research Spills to Investigate

the Physical and Chemical State of Oil

in Pack Ice. February 1987. 116 p.

S.L. Ross

Environmental

Research Ltd.

154
Project Title Contractor

In-Sltu Burning of Oil in Ice Infested

Waters. February 1987. 27 p.

Mid-Scale Testing of Dispersant

Effectiveness. April 1987. 82 p.

Spills-of-Opportunity Research

February 1987. 124 p.

The Use of Chemical Dispersants in

Salt Marshes. May 1987. 100 p.

Acoustical Methods for Measuring

Thickness of Oil on Water. April 1987.

57 p.

Removal of Stranded Oil from Remote

Beaches by In Situ Combustion

March 1987. 122 p.

Analytical Modelling of Oil and Gas

Spreading Under Ice. August 1987

57 p.

Measurement of Oil Thickness on Water

from Aircraft:

A. Active Microwave Spectroscopy

B. Electromagnetic Thermoelastic

Emission. August 1987. 82 p.

The Development of a Canadian Oil Spill

Countermeasures Training Program.

May 1987. 194 p.

Drop Size and Dispersant Effectiveness:

Small-Scale Laboratory Testing.

July 1987. 31 p.

Microbial Degradation of Hydrocarbon

Mixtures in a Marine Sediment Under

Different Temperature Regimes.

September 1987. 48 p.

Prototype, Mesoscale Simulator for the

Study of Oil Weathering Under Severe

Conditions. November 1987. 55 p.

Esso Resources

Canada Ltd.

S.L. Ross

Environmental

Research Ltd.

Hatfield Consultants

Ltd.

P. Lane and

Associates

Arctec Canada

Ltd.

Bennett

Environmental

Consultants. Ltd.

Arctec Canada

Ltd.

Canpolar Inc.

S.L. Ross

E nvi ronmenta1

Research Ltd.

S.L. Ross

Environmental

Research Ltd.

Nova Scotia

Research Foundation

Corp.

Institut National

de la Recherche

Scientif ique.

155
Report

Number Project Title

095 Evaluation of Hovercraft for Dispersant

Application - February 1988. 57 p.

092 Guide to Dispersant Use Decision-making

for Oil Spills in the Canadian

Southern Beaufort Sea.

100 Beaufort Sea Dispersant Trial

A. The Beaviour and Fate of Waxy Crude

Oil Spills.

B. Hydrocarbon Chemistry Component - BIOS

Project

C. Macrobenths Component - BIOS Project

D. Microbiology Component - BIOS Project

E. Shoreline Component - BIOS Project

F. Simple Remote Sensing System

Contractor

D.F. Dickins

Associates Ltd.

S.L. Ross

Envi ronmental

Research Ltd.

Dome/Amoco

S.L. Ross

Environmental

Research Ltd.

Environment Canada

Petro Canada

Environment Canada

Petro Canada

Esso Resources

156
SUMMARY OF THE ALASKA CLEAN SEAS

RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT AND ENGINEERING PROGRAM

Ricl:m^i V. Shafer, P. E. Alaska Clean Seas

ABSTRACT

Alaska Clean Seas, an oilspil response cooperative, has conducted and

continues to pursue an active lesearch and development program. Projects

include development of oilspill detection and monitoring procedures and equipment, design and fabrication of special oilspill z^ponse equipment for use

in arctic waters, research on oil/ice interactions, oilspill response equipment evaluations, various logistics-related investigations, waste disposal

investigations, preparation of coastal resource manuals and spill trajectorymodels for areas of interest, jresearch on spill response chemicals for use in

cold waters, and research on in situ combustion.

1. Int2?odu3tion

Alaska Clean Seas (ACS) is a spill response organization sponsored by

oil companies inter^ted in petroleum operations in Alaskan waters. The

organization has a cortmitment to investigate, acquire and mintain appropriate spill response equipment and mterials, to provide spill contingency

157
«3c

^ I 53 o5

d

c

o

Q.E

4 «

o I!

III = o —

o Q- 1 ^ 2 WOT

c

>. o M

ll 1 = 2 0. So

3

OT

S o

S z PARTICIPANTS

EXECUTIVE

COMMITTEE

r

ACCOUNTING

COMMITTEE

TAX

COMMITTEE

LEGAL

COMMITTEE

TECHNICAL

COMMFTTEE

cottomnoNS COMMITTEE

MANAGER

ACCOUNTANT

ADMIN. ASST.

OPERATIONS

SUPERINTENDENT

TECHNICAL

COORDINATOR

FIELD CREW

Rgure 1. Alaska Clean Seas organizational structure

158
ACS R&D PROGRAM

planning support for rasmber companies, and to develop and maintain a training

program for personnel of member corapanies and their contractors whD may be

involved in oil spill contingency planning and cleanup operations. Figure 1

depicts the present ACS organizational structure.

Since the inception of the organization, Alaska Clean Seas ' rreraber

cornpanies have year after year supported a very active research and development program focusing on the problems of spill response in arctic waters.

ACS maintains close contacts with others working in this field through

personal contacts and through regular participation at msetings and conferences, including the annual Arctic Marine Oil Spill Program (AMOP) Technical

Seminars sponsored by Environment Canada, biannual meeting of ths American

Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) Conmittee F-20, and the biennial Oil

Spill Conference which is co-sponsoired by ths American Petroleum Institute,

the U.S. Coast Guard, and the Environmental Protection Agency. The ACS Technical Committee annually examines many proposals and prospects for imp3X)ving

arctic spill response technology, and recorcraends for accomplishment those

projects that are considered most likely to lead to better understanding and

practical application. This paper briefly describes all of the R&D projects

which have been undeirtaken by Alaska Clean Seas.

2. ACS R&D Projects That Are Coniplete.

Action has been coinpleted on the reseaixjh and development projects

described below (HilliiBn and Shafer, 1983; Hillman, 1985; Shafer, 1986;

Shafer, April 1987, June 1987):

2. 1. Ths ARCAT Design.

This project covered ths design of the ARCAT II, a 65-ft catamaran

spill response vessel that incorporates both a rope-raop skiraning system and a

weir skiitner. The vessel was biilt specifically for use during broken ice

and open water periods in ths Alaskan Beaufort Sea. Though the vessel was not designed as an ice breaker, hull sections were provided with extra

strength to resist ice forces (Williams, 1982).

159
ACS R&D PRCX5RAM

2.2. Experiioents involving oil in ice.

Samples of oil (diesel fuel for sons tests and hot Prudhoe Bay crude oil

for others) were injected under various thicknesses of sea ice on various

dates throughout the winter at a total of 15 offshore sites in Prudhoe Bay,

and the behavior of the oil and its sea ice matrix was observed. Thermal

insulation material was placed in selected aireas on the ice surface to reduce

freezing rates teneath. This provided for oil containment in inverted concavities in the lower surface of the sea ice. Research also involved laboratory

observations of oil - ice interactions and field tests of oil detection and

recovery techniques (Nelson and Allen, 1981, 1982; Allen and Nelson, 1981).

2.3. Coastal resource manuals for the Beaufort and Bering Seas.

ACS has published an extensive coastal resource manual for the Alaskan

Beaufort Sea (Jlorson, et al. , 1983. ) providing informtion on biological

and cultural resources, and on how to protect them from an oil spill. A

similar rrenual covering selected portions of tte Bering Sea coast has also

been published (Gusey, Hillraan and Chamberlain, 1987).

2.4. Spill trajectory nodels for ths Beaufort and Bering Sea areas.

ACS contracted for development of oilspill trajectory models covering

petroleum exploration areas in tlte Beaufort and Bering Seas. These nodels

will operate on an IBM-PCXT (or compatible) with a suitable printer and

plotting device. Ths nodeIs can be used for contingency planning and for

real-tiras prediction of oil spill movemsnt {Alaska Beaufort Sea Oil Spill

Trajectory Analysis, 1983; Norton Sound Oil Spill Trajectory Model,

1985; and St, George Basin Oil Spill Trajectory Model, 1984).

2.5. Investigations on ths effectiveness of dispersants in cold water.

Various conanercially available dispersants were tested in the laboratory

to assess thsir ability to disperse Prudhoe Bay crude oil under low temperature conditions. In general, chemical dispersants were found to work under

the conditions of tte tests, but at reduced efficiency.

160
ACS R&D PROGRAM

2.6. Research on the use of air-cushion vehicles for logistic suppojrt.

ACS sponsored a synthesis of available information on air-cushion

vehicles, with emphasis on their utility for logistic and operational uses in

the event of an oil spill in the Arctic.

2.7. Contribution to Canadian research on fireproof boom and air deployable igniters.

ACS contributed funds to support r^earch on fireproof boom and air

deployable igniters under development by Canadian operators (Pistixizak,

1981). These devices were developed to facilitate in si combustion of

spilled oil.

2.8. Flare burner experiments.

ACS tested and evaluated flare burner equipment on long-term loan from

the U. S. Coast Guard. Flare burners can be used for environmentally safe

disposal of spilled oil.

2.9. Oily refuse incineration research.

ACS examined various incinerator systems and incineration methods for

arctic use. Incinerators can be used for safe disposal of oily debris accumulated during an oilspill cleanup operation.

2. 10. Transfer and storage system evaluation.

ACS conducted evaluations of various pumps, hoses and temporary storage

tanks for use in oilspill cleanup operations in the Arctic.

2. 11. Development support for the Moorhead beach cleaning device.

ACS helped support the developrosnt of a prototj^ system for removal of

oil from beaches.

161
Note that broken ice can pass freely

over bubble barrier, but oil cannot

Figure 2. Bubble barrier.

162
ACS R&D PROGRAM

2. 12. Field and laboratory testing of three deep-draft containment booms.

ACS conducted evaluations of selected deep-draft spill containment boom

systems.

2. 13. Fire Containment Boom Assessment.

A number of special containnent booms have been developed that are resistant to damage by fire. Such booms can be used to contain spilled oil while

it is burned in place. They must be designed to contain spilled oil in a

layer sufficiently thick to support combustion, while resisting the effects

of heat well enough to functionally survive exposure to the burning oil.

This project was conducted to assess survivability, containment capability,

and other characteristics of various designs and configurations of fire

containment boom, and it demonstrated that that several boom types are available that will survive a 24-hour exposure to burning oil and still be capable

of containing the oil. (Allen, February 1986, Allen and Simpson, June

1986. )

2. 14. Bubble Barrier.

This project was designed to evaluate application of a bubble barrier

oil containment systems for use in the arctic. Initial test tank and open

water experiments with a prototype bubble barrier were conducted outside of

Alaska. Field tests were attempted at Prudhoe Bay during 1986 (Garlow,

Steele and Williams, November 1986) and 1987 (Garlow and Steele, May 1988).

Tests suggested that the bubble barrier concept would be useful for arctic

applications (see Figure 2), however the prototype systems designed for this

series of tests were found to be insufficiently durable, even for shoirt

exposures to the aixitic environment. No decision has been made regarding

furtter work on this concept.

2. 15. Enhanced ARCAT Recovery (Plunging Water-Jet Boom).

A system of plunging water jets for installation on the AECAT was designed, fabricated, and tested. As shown in Figure 3, this system provides

a skimraing swath width about seven times that of the AECAT by itself.

163
— Boom cross section

Water currents caused by

impinging jets keeps oil from approaching.

SECTIONAL VIEW

^

ARCAT

PU\N VIEW

Figure 3. Plunging water jet boom system for ARCAT.

164
ACS R&D PROGRAM

The sj^tera was successfully field tested on the ARCAT during tte suraier

of 1986, and it is now ready for use in an actual spill response operation.

(Garlow, Steele, and Williams, October 1986).

2.16. Air Deployable Igniters.

Alaska Clean Seas stocks air deployable igniters of a design develoired

by Canadian operators (with some financial support firom Alaska Clean

Seas—see Section 2.7). The purpose of these igniters is to initiate in

situ combustion of spilled oil. Such igniters would ordinarily be applied

to a spill area by dropping them by hand from a helicopter. Tbs objective of

this project was to review available information on alternative ignition

sjrsterns, seeking a design with smaller size and weight, improved performance

in thin or weattered oils, greater simplicity and safety of use, and lower

cost. The results of this study (Allen, April 1986) provided the basis for

decisions regarding further igniter research and development work.

2. 17. Oil Spill Chemical Application Manual.

This pioject synthesized available informtion on spill response

chemicals and various irelated environmental and logistical data into a comprehensive oil spill chemical application manual for use by response planners

and managers concerned with operations in Alaska. (Allen, June 1986)

2. 18. Logistics Support for U. S. Coast (3uard Spill Trajectory Study.

Though ACS was not directly involved in this research, substantial

logistical support was pixivided by ACS to the U. S. Coast Guard during the

course of field work on a spill trajectory study. Alaska Clean Seas and

member companies provided vessels and crews plus office space and living

quarters for Coast Guard personnel to use while acquiring data for the study,

and ACS retrieved various experimental equipment for the investigators. (St.

Martin and LLssauer, 1986)

165
permeable netting

oil high tide line

1. Permeable netting is placed while tide is out.

2. At high tide oil is deposited on netting.

3. On receding tide netting is rolled up and disposed of.

Rgure 4. Section through beach showing shoreline protection scheme.

—. support cable

assembly

Helitorch

Rgure 5. Helitorch systenn for ignition of spilled oil.

166
ACS R&D PROGRAM

2.19. Shoreline Protection Using Porous Netting.

When an oil spill impacts a beach, tte cleanup methods conmonly used are

labor intensive and frequently quite darrBging to ths environment. Moreover,

conventional beach cleanup techniques can be slow, especially in remote

areas; and the longer oil remains in a wildlife habitat, the greater the

potential for biological hairm. This project was designed to assess the

concept of placing thin, lightweight, fine-mesh rraterial to protect a

threatened shoreline. The material could be delivered to remote shorelines

by helicopter and quickly deployed by a smll number of workers. Long sheets

of this material would be applied at or near the next expected high tide

elevation where most of the oil would be deposited. Figure 4 illustrates how

such material might be deployed. Wten oil or oily enulsion is deposited on

the shoreline it would settle on top of the pojrous material. The surface

characteristics of the material must be designed to allow water to peixjolate

through the fabric into the soil but to retain oil. On a receding tide,

workers would roll up the material and retrieve it, thereby capturing

virtually all of the oil or eraalsion b-it not robbing any substantial quantity

of beach material. The rolled up material would then be disposed of in an

approved, environmentally safe manner.

Samples of various prospective material formulations and designs were

applied to various natural and airtificial shorelines, and recovery effectiveness and efficiency were assessed. The integrity of the naterial under cold

conditions was considered, as was the objective of minimizing problems with

wildlife entanglement. Tests concluded that burlap appeared to be the best

material of those evaluated. Advantages of bjrlap ar^: 1) oil adheres to the

wet fabric and is not drawn through, 2) water can easily pass through the

fabric, 3) burlap is widely available in large quantities, and 4) birlap's

cost is not prohibitive.

Keeping ths material in place during use was found to be more difficult

than originally anticipated, but this problem was overcome by use of a

heavier aiichoring system. Deployment and recovery of the material and

anchoring system can be facilitated with mechanical equipment (Garlow and

Steele, July 1988).

167
ACS R&D PROGRAM

2.20. Refinement of Aerial Ignition System.

This project involved: 1) development and testing of innovative systems

for igniting and burning oil in situ, 2) initial field testing of

selected concepts under various conditions, and 3) larger scale tests of the

most promising designs. The project identified the Helitorch ignition

system, shown in Figure 5, as the most promising igniter for use in the

Arctic, and extensive tests were conducted with this equipment (Allen, May

1987, June 1987). The Helitorch unit that ACS had leased for testing has now

been purchased and is a permanent addition to inventory. ACS will cover this

equiprnsnt in future training programs and contingency manual updates.

2.21. Dispersant Effectiveness Tests in Cold Water Conditions.

Laboratory work conducted in 1980 demonstrated that the dispersant

chemicals presently stockpiled by Alaska Clean Seas are effective for use on

Prudhoe Bay crude oil under arctic conditions. However, ACS considered that

larger scale tests conduKited in a wave basin would provide more realistic

test conditions and provide a better basis for establishing procedures and

practices. Experimental work was conducted in spring, 1987 (Brown and

Goodman, July 1987).

2.22. Multiple boom Strategies for Use in Arctic Waters.

Virtually all booms have oil underflow losses when the local normal flow

velocity vector exceeds 1 to 1.5 knots. In the presence of waves, underflow

begins at lower velocities, and wind-driven choppy waves can also cause oil

to splash over the tops of booms, particularly with low profile sj^tems such

as the more massive fire containment booms. Short-period waves also inhibit

the ignition and subsequent incineration of oil, significantly reducing ths

effectiveness of the in situ burning disposal technique. In arctic

waters the possibility of collision with moving ice threatens the structural

integrity of the booms. A promising concept for extending the use of booms

into these more severe conditions involves use of multiple boom arrays. The

concept utilizes a configuration of specially designed booms placed upstream

of the final boom. Such a boom assemblage was found to help establish a

quiescent containment region, isolated from choppy waves and high current

velocities. This portion of ths boom system will accumulate a thick,

168
169
ACS R&D PROGRAM

relatively undisturbed pool of oil where skiraning operations or in situ

combustion can be conducted more effectively.

This project involved: 1) measurenent of environmental loads and

comparison of different controlled failure mechanisms for upstream boom

elements, 2) exploration of othsr design issues such as the number, size, and

spacing of boom units, and 3) the establishment of deployment guidelines.

Tests were performed at the Shell wave tank at Westtollow Research Center in

Houston, Texas. Selected multiple boom configurations were tested for

performance under irregular wave conditions. Polybutylene pellets were used

to simulate oil in preliminary tests, followed by confirming tests using a

real oil with selected standard characteristics.

The best multiple boom configuration found during these tests consisted

of a r-ear boom and a special single forward boom assembly constructed by

placing three booms adjacent to one another and tying them together with

nylon rope every few feet. Each of the three booms had a different size and

mass, with the largest and heaviest boom used in the front and the smallest

and lightest boom in the back. Each of the three booms were skijrtless, since

the presence of a ski_rt in the forward boom assembly was found to increase

the underflow losses on the rear boom. (Wave Tank Tests of Multiple Arctic

Oil Containment Booms, October 1987)

2.23. Coraputer Assisted Dispersant Application (CADA) planning system.

This project covered the preparation of a coraputer program to assist in

the planning of dispersant application operations. The program is based on

coraputation and decision systems described in the Alaska Oilspill Chemical

Application Manual published by Alaska Clean Seas in 1986 (Allen, June

1986). The program is written in the programming language, Turbo Pascal.

As shown in Figure 6, the CADA software includes a central core program

plus three corapater database files: one file with pertinent data on potential

dispersant operations staging bases, a second file with data on various

dispersant and oil combinations, and a third file with data on various

dispersant delivery systems. The core program will step the user through a

series of questions and answeirs. It will draw on information input by the

user together with data stored in the three database files to help identify

the optimum combination of operating base location, dispersant chemical, and

dispersant delivery system for a given oil spill. Pertinent inforroation is

170
ACS R&D PROGRAM

displayed on the cornputer screen and is printed out as well. In addition to

the central core program, software is provided to load or modify information

in each of the three database files (Shafer, September 1988).

2.24. Oil and Oily Debris Disposal Guidelines.

Under this project, written guidelines were prepared covering various

options for disposal of oily debris associated with spill response operations

in the Alaska Clean Seas areas of operation (Guidelines for Disposal of

Oilspill Response Waste Materials, July 1988).

3. Ongoing ACS Research and DevelopDent Work

The projects described below are presently being undertaken on behalf of

Alaska Clean Seas:

3. 1. Detection of Oil Under Ice by Induced Fluorescence.

Piresent methods for detecting oil encapsulated within sea ice or trapped

beneath it are either slow and inefficient, or virtually ineffective for thin

deposits of oil. However, ACS has been pursuing a promising approach to

detection of oil in ice involving the phenomenon of induced fluorescence.

Crude oil fluoresces strongly in the visible spectrum when it is

illuminated with ultraviolet light. Conceptually, as shown in Figure 7, a

compact, portable, pulsed ultraviolet light source, similar to a photographic

strobe light, might be used to flash an intense beam of ultraviolet light

onto a small area of the surface of the sea ice. The light would need to be

sufficiently intense to penetrate several feet of snow cover and ice, and

illuminate an underlying layer of oil. A suitable sensing device mounted

adjacent to the ultraviolet light source should detect fluorescence from any

oil present.

A high intensity UV flash system and a sensitive photodiode detector

meeting ACS criteria were porchased. Several suitable optical filters for

the light source and detector were also purchased. Unfortunately, the ultra171
U—V stpQbe

Optical filter J-sV

Photodetector

Optical filter

> I I Ice

Water

Figure 7. Through— Ice oil detection system.

172
ACS R&D PROGRAM

violet strobe unit failed during preliminary testing, and further work on

this project was suspended while a replacement unit was acquired.

3.2. Salnon Tainting Study.

ACS joined with the Cook Inlet Response Organization (GIRO) in sponsoring a study of the potential for tainting of salmon as a result of the use

of dispersant chemicals on an oil spill in salmon habitat. In this study

salmonid specimens were placed in tanks containing seawater and

dispersant-tr«ated oil at concentrations typical of what fish would

experience in an actual oilspill dispersion operation. Tanks containing: 1)

plain seawater, and 2) seawater with undispersed oil provided experimental

controls. Experimental work was performed under contract with the University

of Washington. Chemical analysis was conducted by the University of

Washington and hy Chevron. Analysis of iresults and project writeup are under

way, and completion of the project is expected in late 1988 or early 1989.

3.3. Development of a high-capacity rotating brush/rope mop skimmer for

oil recovery in ice- laden waters.

Preliminary develoirosnt work by Exxon Production Research on this new

skinming system concept held promise, especially for use with viscous oils in

arctic waters. The concept involves use of a rotating cylindrical brush to

help move floating oil to a central collection point. As the rotating brush

sweeps the water surface it generates a surface current that moves floating

oil toward the brush. In various tests, oil many feet away from the brush

was observed being "pulled" toward it. Equipnent constructed and tested

under this project used a system of rotating brushes to raDve oil toward a

skirarasr, where a system of irope mops was rigged to remove the oil from the

water. (See Figure 8. ) The system with rotating brushes as well as mops was found to be substantially more effective than a rope mop system alone. It

should be noted that both the rotating brush and the rope mop units are

highly compliant and are not damaged by repeated contact with floating solids

such as ice.

173
AGS R&D PROGRAM

3.4. Development of a high tensile strength containment boom.

Standard Alaska Production Company pi:«viously has conducted independent

tests involving a special high tensile strength containment boom. The main

component of the boom is a section of heavy duty conveyor belt material.

During that earlier work, Standard developed and tested a system for

connecting sections of the boom to one another. Under this project ACS

accomplished the following: 1) two prototype boom sections were assembled,

each using a somewhat different floatation sj^tera; 2) two tow plate/end

connectors were fabricated; and 3) preliminary tests were conducted in the

water at Prudhoe Bay. The boom assemblies were then allowed to freeze in

place attached to a irooring buoy in Simpson Lagoon near Prudhoe Bay.

Unfortunately, one of the boom sections with its attached towing assembly

became separated and was lost, probably at the time of breakup. The cause of

the separation is considered to be that a steel cable used as a hinge pin

worked loose and fell out. Minor changes in connector design should prevent

i^urrence of this failure, and a revised design will be recommended as part

of the report on this project. The remaining boom section did not appear to

have been damaged by exposure to the winter ice environment in Simpson

Lagoon.

3.5. Arctic Skiitmer Prototype Development.

Under this project, the ACS staff developed and tested a prototype skimming device for use with the ACS vessel, North Star in broken ice conditions. The concept ACS tested involves a mechanical outrigger system that

suppoirts an ice deflector and a floating collection boom. A skimmer at the

apex of the collection boom transfers collected oil to a separator tank on

board the North Star. Oil from the separator tank is pumped to a

floating bladder tank. The water phase from the separator tank is recycled

back into the collection boom. (See Figure 9)

During 1987 the articulated outrigger system and the ice deflector were

fabricated and installed on the North Star; the separator tank was fabricated and installed; and all connecting hoses were made up. A loop of

containment boom was rigged between the outrigger and the side of the vessel,

and a Moirris disk skimmer was placed near its apex to pick up oil and

transfer it to the separation tank on board. The assembled system was

174
I

175
ACS R&D PROGRAM

tested in the water during two spill response exercises conducted in

September, 1987 near the Endicott production facility (Shafer and Bowen,

1988).

3.6. Shallow Water Access Mop Platform (SWAMP).

Access to neai^shore environments in the lagoonal sj^tems south of the

Beaufort Sea barrier islands is limited by shallow water. Under this project

a shallow-draft pontoon hull skimming vessel was designed, assembled and

tested. Project steps included: 1) design of system including hull,

propulsion, skimrosr, oil/water separator, transfer equiposnt, temporary

storage, and life support subsystems (suitable commercially prxxluced

components were selected where available on market, otheivise components were

designed from scratch); 2) procurement materials and components; 3)

fabrication and assembly of vessel and ancillary equipment; and 4)

operational testing.

The vessel has now been designed and constructed. As shown in Figure 10

it is a 27-ft catamaran design, fabricated in aluminum. Features include: 1)

a rope mop skinming system with its own power generator; 2) a 4-ft x 6-ft

pilot house; 3) a 70-horsepower outboaixi engine; 4) an A-frame system at the

forward end of the vessel that can be used to support the rope mop unit's

tail pulley in some configurations; 5) a specially constructed trailer to

transport the unit between the ACS operations center/warehouse and the

launching site.

The SWAMP was first launched in August, 1987. The vessel demonstrated good maneuverability and a cmising speed of 10 knots. It has been

tested and evaluated during two spill response training sessions in

September, 1987 (Shafer and Glenn, 1988).

3.7. Literature study on effects of in situ burning.

This project will provide a review of technical literature to assess tte

state of knowledge on the risks associated with in situ combustion of

crude oil.

176
177
ACS R&D PROGRAM

3.8. Arctic Skiirming System Phase 2.

As discussed in Section 3.5, during the 1987 phase of the airctic skimming system project, ACS designed, fabricated and tested an outrigger device

on the port side of the Nojrth Star, providing strTJctural suppoirb for an

ice deflector and skimming system. The second phase of this project provides

for design, fabrication and testing of an expanded version of the airctic

skinmer device that has a second outrigger mounted on the starboard side, and

a larger skirrroer. A special hydraulic sj^tem has been installed in the

North Star to provide power for a Destroil skiiwning system.

3.9. Effects of Elastol on Oil Skiianer Performance.

The puirpose of this project is to assess the effectiveness of a

newly-developed chemical additive, Elastol, for enhancing oil skinming

operations. Experimental work is being performed by Esso Resources Canada,

Ltd. at that company's wave basin at Calgary, Alberta, Canada. The program

involves a series of skimmer effectiveness tests at or near freezing

conditions. Disk and rope mop skimmers are to be used to recover samples of

Prudhoe Bay and Endicott crude oils. Skinmer effectiveness with two

different Elastol application rates will be compared with control tests in

which no Elastol was applied.

3. 10. Beaufort Sea/Chukchi Sea Trajectory Model.

This project was originally intended only to update the database of the

existing AGS Beaufort Sea spill trajectory model. However, to provide

coverage in the Chukchi Sea area, ACS is now considering expanding the scope

of the project to provide a new computer model covering the entire Arctic

Ocean coastline of Alaska, encompassing the Chukchi and Alaskan Beaufort Sea

areas. The scope of this project is not yet firm, bat we expect that the new model will be similar in structure and approach to the existing Bering Sea

models.

3. 11. Chukchi Sea Coastal Resources Manual.

ACS is also considering a project to prepare a new coastal resources

manual covering the Chukchi Sea coastal area. It will likely be similar in

178
ACS R&D PROGRAM

format to manuals sponsored by ACS for the Alaskan Beaufort Sea and portions

of the Bering Sea (see Section 2.3). The new manual will probably include

mps and text describing cultural and biological resources, plus site

specific oiLspill r^ponse reconnendations.

4. Conclusion

The Alaska Clean Seas research and develoExnent program continues to help

advance the state-of-the-art for oil spill ii^ponse in arctic waters.

Knowledge gained through this ongoing program is used to update contingency

planning manuals and the ACS training curriculum to help member companies

maintain and improve the quality and effectiveness of their spill

countemeasures . Research also provides a rational basis for decisions on

acquisition of new equipnsnt to insure that the ACS inventory continues to be

suitable for the tasks it might be required to do.

REFERENCES

Alaska Beaufort Sea Oil Spill Trajectx>ry Analysis, prepared for Alaska

Clean Seas by Northern Technical Services; July 198.3.

Alaslia Oil Spill Chemical Application Manual, prepared by Spiltec for

Alaska Clean Seas, 1986.

Guidelines for Disposal of Oilspill Response Waste Materials; Prepared by

NORTEC, a division of ERT for Alaska Clean Seas; July 1988.

Norton Sound Oil Spill Trajectory Model; Prepared for Alaska Clean Seas

by Applied Science Associates, Inc. , January 1985.

St. George Basin Oil Spill Trajectory Model; Prepared for Alaska Clean

Seas by Applied Science Associates, Inc. , September 1984.

179
ACS R&D PROGRAM

h^ve Tank Tests of Multiple Arctic Oil Containment Booms; Shell Developrasnt Company, Westhollow Research Center, Houston; October 1987.

Allen, Alan A. ; Test and Evaluation of Fire Containment Boom, Prepared by

Spiltec under contract to Shell Western E&P, Inc. for Alaska Clean Seas;

Anchorage, February, 1986.

Survey and Analysis of Air-Deployable Igniters; Prepared by Spiltec

under contract to Shell Western E&P, Inc. for Alaska Clean Seas,

Anchorage, April, 1986.

Alaska Oil Spill Chemical Application Manual; Prepared by Spiltec

under contract to Standard Alaska Production Company for Alaska Clean

Seas; Anchorage, June 1986.

"Alaska Clean Seas Survey and Analysis of Air-Deployable Igniters";

Eroceedings of the Ninth Arctic Marine Oilspill Program Technical

Seminar, Environment Canada; June 1986.

"Alaska Clean Seas Develojwient of a Chemical Application Manual";

Proceedings of the Ninth Arctic Marine Oilspill Program Technical

Seminar, Environment Canada; June 1986.

Refilament of Aerial Ignition Systems (Test and Evaluation of the

Ihlitojrch for the Ignition of Oil Slicks); prepared by Spiltec under

contract to Shell Western E&P for Alaska Clean Seas; May 1987.

"Test and Evaluation of the Helitorch for the Ignition of Oil Slicks",

Proceedings of the Tenth Arctic and Marine Oilspill Program Technical

Seminar, Environment Canada, June, 1987.

Allen, A. A. and W. G. Nelson; "Oil Spill Countermsasures in Land Fast Sea

Ice", Proceedings of the 1981 Oil Spill Conference; API, 1981.

Allen, A. A. and W. Simpson; "Alaska Clean Seas Test and Evaluation of Fire

Containment Boom" , Proceedings of the Ninth Arctic Marine Oilspill

Program Technical Seminar, Environment Canada; June 1986.

Birchaixi, E. C. and R. Nancarrow; "The Minuk 1-53 Artificial Island Oil

Spill", Proceedings of the Ninth Arctic Marine Oilspill Program

Technical Seminar, pp 375-378; Environment Canada; June 1986.

180
ACS R&D PROGRAM

Brown, H. M. , and R. H. Goodman, Ths Dispersion of Alaska North Slope Oil

in f^ave Basin Tests; prepared by Esso Resources Canada Limited for

Alaska Clean Seas; Jvly 1987.

Garlow, R. E. , R. E. Steele, and R. E. Williams; Dsvelopfnent of a Water-Jet

Boom for ARCAT II Skimmer fessei; Exxon Production Research Co. , October 1986.

Development of a Bubble Barrier Boom for Oil Spill Containment in

Broken Ice, Exxon Production Research Co. , November 1986.

Garlow, R. E. , and R. E. Steele; Babble Barrier Field Testsy EPR.28PS.88;

Exxon Production Research Co. , May 1988.

Development of a Procedure for Shoreline Protection Using Adsorptive

letting-, EPR. 36PS.88; Exxon Production Research Co. , July 1988.

Goodnan, R. H. , and J. W. Morrison; "A Simple Reraote Sensing System for the

Detection of Oil"; 1985 Oil Spill Conference; pp 51-55; American

Petroleum Institute; 1985.

Gusey, W. F. , S. 0. Hillman, and D. W. Chamberlain; ACS Alaskan Bering Sea

Coastal Resources Manual; Alaska Clean Seas, 1987.

Hillman, Sha2x>n 0. , "Ar>ctic Spill Response Improvements: A 1985 Review of

Arctic Research and Development", Proceedings, 1985 Oil Spill Conference, American Petroleum Institute, February 1985.

Hillman, Sha2:\Dn 0. , W. F. Gusey, and D. W. Chamberlain, "ACS Alaskan Bering

Sea Coastal Resources Manual"; Proceedings of the Tenth Arctic and

Marine Oilspill Program Technical Seminar, Environment Canada, June,

1987.

Hillman, Sharon 0. , and Richard V. Shafer, "ABSORB: A Three Year Update in

Arctic Spill Response" , Proceedings, 1983 Oil Spill Conference,

American Petroleum Institute, February, 1983.

Morson, Barbara J. ,et al. , Alaskan Beaufort Sea Coastal Region,

Alaska Clean Seas, June, 1983.

181
ACS R&D PROGRAM

Nelson, William G. and Alan A. Allen; "Oil Migration and Modification

Processes in Solid Sea Ice"; Proceedings of the 1981 Oil Spill Conference; API, 1981.

"The Physical Interaction and Cleanup of Crude Oil with Slush and Solid

First Year Sea Ice" , Proceedings of the Fifth Arctic Oilspill Program

Technical Seminar, Environment Canada, 1982.

Neve', Richard A. and Esther C. Wunnicke, Final finding and Decision of the

Commissioners Regarding the Oil Industry's Capability to Clean Up

Spilled Oil during Broken Ice Periods in the Alaskan Beaufort Sea,

State of Alaska Departments of Environmental Conservation and Natural

Resources, June 1984.

Pistruzak, W. M. ; "Doras Petroleum's Oil Spill Research and Develofroent

Program for the Arctic"; Proceedings, 1981 Oil Spill Conference',

API, 1981.

Ross, S. L. , Evaluation of Industry's Oil Spill Countermeasures Capability

in broken ice conditions in the Alaskan Beaufort Sea, S. L. Ross Environmental Research Limited, September 1983.

St. Martin, J, and I. Lissauer; Satellite Buoy Trajectories - 1982, 1985";

Proceedings of the Ninth Arctic Marine Oilspill Program Technical

Seminar, Envijronment Canada; June 1986.

Shafer, R. V. ; "The Alaska Clean Seas Research, Development and Engineering

Program"; Proceedings of the Ninth Arctic Marine Oilspill Program

Technical Seminar, Environment Canada; June 1986.

"Alaska Clean Seas: Meeting Response Needs for 1987 and Beyond",

Proceedings, 1987 Oil Spill Conference, American Petroleum

Institute, April, 1987.

"Continuing the Plrogram: Alaska Clean Seas Reseaixih, Development and

Engineering"; Proceedings of the Tenth Arctic and Marine Oilspill

Program Technical Seminar, Environment Canada, June, 1987.

A Computer Assisted Planning System for Oilspill Response Chemical

Applications; Alaska Clean Seas; September 1988.

182
ACS R&D PROGRAM

Shafer, Richard V. , and David Glenn; "Shallow Water Access ^^op Platform

(SWAMP)"; Proceeding of the Eleventh Arctic and Marine Oil Spill

Program Technical Seminar', Environment Canada; pp 201-204; June 1988.

Shafer, Richard V. , and Steve Bowen; "ARCTICSKIM: An Oilspill Skinming System

for Broken Ice and Shallow Waters"; Proceedings of the Eleventh Arctic

and Marine Oil Spill Program Technical Seminar, Environment Canada; pp

205-208; June 1988.

Williams, R. E. , "The ARCAT, ABSORB's New Catamaran Oil Skinner",

I^roceedings of tlie Fifth Arctic Marine Oilspill Program Technical

Seminar, Environment Canada, 1982.

183
Ii IIIjII
ALASKA ARCTIC OFFSHORE OIL SPILL RESPONSE TECHNOLOGY

Odd Angelvik

Statoil, Norway

ABSTRACT

As the Norwegian Offshore Oil Industry is moving north into the

Barent Sea and the Arctic areas, it will have to face problems

related to oil spill response which we believe are very unlike

those experienced so far in the North Sea.

The Arctic Area including the Barent Sea offers the Norwegian Oil

Industry environment which in many ways are very much unlike the

enviroment which the industry is used to work with in the North

Sea.

Environmental conditions like darkness around the clock for

almost 7 months of the year, ice in differnt conditions, very low

air and sea temperatures, combined with strong wind which will

create very rough working conditions for personnel who has to

work outdoors.

In addition we do have a very complex current picture within the

actual sea areas, which adhere to the other difficulties this

area makes up for an effective oil spill response action.

The Norwegian Arctic area do also have very special and very

voulnerable ecological and biological conditions, especially

185
around the ice edge, which again puts a heavy strain on the

ability to handle an oil spill situation.

As a start a "working group" put together by NOFO began its work

late in 1987. The work was completed in the spring of 1988 with

a report that identified some of the problem areas and

syggestions what to do about them.

The main items of problems and related work were:

- Evaluation of the suitability of booms.

Evaluation of skimmers in cold and icy waters.

- Evaluation of methods of operations. Ships - working

environment

Evaluation of oil weathering - Dispersion.

- Evaluation of the organizing of support functions.

- Evaluation of alternative methods for Oil Spill Response.

I expect that the results from this seminar will provide a valuable input to the large work we have ahead of us, and will be

a help to achieve an Oil Spill Response Contingency for the

Arctic which is of least at the same quality as we today have in

the North Sea.

186
ALASKA ARCTIC OFFSHORE OIL SPILL RESPONSE TECHNOLOGY

Odd Angelvik

Statoil, Norway

As the Norwegian Offshore Oil Industry is moving north into the

Barent Sea and the Arctic areas, it will have to face problems

related to oil spill response which we believe are very unlike

those experienced so far in the North Sea.

Before I identify the problems we will have to face and how we so

far have planned to meet them, I will give a brief orientation of

the present state-of the art technology which are used by the

Norwegian offshore oil industry for Oil Spill Response

Contingency in the North Sea and the Norwegian Ocean.

The Norwegian State Pollution Control Agency (SPCA) have issued

the requirements which the Offshore Oil Spill Response

Contingency are supposed to meet.

The requirements are:

Any oil spill shall as far as possible be recovered by

mechanical recovery equipment.

The equipment shall be designed to handle an uncontrolled

blow-out of 8.000 tons per day.

The recovery systems shall function in 1.5 knot current and

in wave heights up to 3 meters significant.

187
The equipment shall be ready for use on site within 24 - 48

hours.

- The operator's contingency shall counter a spill as close to

the source as possible.

In order to meet this requirements the oil companies operating in

the Norwegian part of the North Sea established an Oil Spill

Response Organization called NOFO (Norsk 01 jevernforening for

Operat0rselskaper) , which means Norwegian Oil Spill Protection

Association for Operating Companies.

Today 14 oil companies operating on the Norwegian Continental

Shelf are members of that organization.

The NOFO organization has on behalf of its members the following

responsibilities:

Purchase and maintenance of equipment

Plan, establish and maintain contingency of equipment and

personnel

- Planning and development of new equipment and systems for oil

spill response

Handle oil spill response matters towards authorities

To comply with the SPCA's requirements for response times and

capacities, NOFO has purchased 14 NOFO Transrec systems, which

consists of 500 metres ocean boom, 1 oilrecovery vessel, 1 towing

vessel (trawler) , 1 FRAMO/NOFO Transrec skimmer.

The FRAMO/NOFO Transrec Skimmer is developed in cooperation

between NOFO and the producing company Frank Mohn. The 14

systems are distributed along the Norwegian coast at 5 bases

located at Stavanger, Bergen, Kristiansund, Traena and Hammerfest.

At each base there are established a contingency system of

personnel to operate the equipment.

188
Contingency Agreements are established to ensure necessary ships

to operate the equipment. The oil recovery vessels are ordinary

supply ships which are modified to DnV Oil Rec. Class and

prepared to carry the equipment of NOFO.

If and when an oilspill occurs the oil company in question is

responsible for the clean-up and will take charge of the NOFO

equipment and personnel and conduct the clean-up operation. The

NOFO organization has existed since 1978 and has up to now

functioned to the members' satisfaction.

Because of our good experience with the cooperation, our aim is

to let the same organization extend its area for covering our Oil

Spill Response Contingency also in the Arctic Areas.

NOFO has worked out a total plan for the contingency of the

Norwegian Continental Shelf along the Norwegian Coast and is

today discussing with SPCA to what extend and within which

boundaries and what modifications do we have to make to get this

plan extended and approved also for the Barent Sea and the Arctic

Areas.

The Arctic Area including the Barent Sea offers the Norwegian Oil

Industry environment which in many ways are very much unlike the

enviroment which the industry is used to work with in the North

Sea.

Environmental conditions like darkness around the clock for

almost 7 months of the year, ice in differnt conditions, very low

air and sea temperatures, combined with strong wind which will

create very rough working conditions for personnel who has to

work outdoors

In addition we do have a very complex current picture within the

actual sea areas, which adhere to the other difficulties this

area makes up for an effective oil spill response action.

189
The Norwegian Arctic area do also have very special and very

voulnerable ecological and biological conditions, especially

around the ice edge, which again puts a heavy strain on the

ability to handle an oil spill situation.

Based on the equipment that we have in our contingency today and

relating to the special problems that we foresee when entering

the Arctic areas its obvious that something has to be done about

it.

As a start a "working group" put together by NOFO began its work

late in 1987. The work was completed in the spring of 1988 with

a report that identified some of the problem areas and

suggested what to do about them.

The main items of problems and related work were:

1 , Booms

Today we have 8.500 metres of booms in our contingency.

They are of different types and some of them are up to 10

years old. Operation of these booms are very time- and

personell-consuming and they are not easy to maintain,

A research and test program will be established in order to

find a boom design and fabrication which can withstand the

conditions to be expected in the Arctic areas.

The program shall as far as possible give answer to the

following questions:

- To what extend will booms be useful in areas where

drifting ice may be expected.

190
What temperature criteria should the design be based on,

taking into account that the boom should roll of a v^inch,

be blown up and deployed.

Icing must be evaluated both for the boom at sea, and for

the boom and winch on deck as they will be exposed to

overwater and spray from the sea.

- The boom must be very fast to deploy and recover due to

the extremely quick change of weather. Specially a fast

recovery will be necessary because of the very fast

increasing winds created by polar lows in this area.

- Besides that the boom must be very rugged, it must have a "clean" design. It is also of great importance that

simple damages can be repaired offshore.

Some of these statements are more or less contradictory, but

then we will have to compromise, as we are used to in so many

other situations in life.

The program shall recommend the best way of doing necessary

compromises.

2 . Skimmers

The skimmers that we use for offshore oil recovery today are

designed for operations in the southern North Sea in areas

without any occurrence of ice. A program similar to the one

for the booms will also be established for the skimmers.

It is considered necessary to evaluate and produce answers to

the following questions:

Is it possible at all to operate the Transrec skimmer in

areas with ice coverage, and if it is, what will be the

limitations

191
To what minimum temperature is it possible to operate the

Transrec, functionally, operationally and technically.

To propose modifications necessary to make the skimmer

v/ork under the expected conditions.

To evaluate if other types of skimmers are more suitable

in areas with a certain extent of ice coverage.

Further, the very low sea and air temperatures and other

climatic conditions which will create difficulties for

inspection, maintenance and repair must be taken into

account

3 . Oil weathering - Dispersion

Investigate the effects of very low sea and air

temperatures, together with all degrees of snow and ice

conditions on an oil spill.

The results of such an investigation will be necessary for

the development of alternative equipment or the

development of alternative methods of treating an oil

spill

- Further, we will have to investigate under which

conditions will the use of dispersants be suitable and

effective.

4 , Operations - ships - working environment

It is necessary to go through the operational conditions

and evaluate if climate and weather conditions mean that

known procedures and routines have to be changed.

192
It is important to acertain if the oil recovery part of

the ships are sufficiently adjusted and aimed towards the

requirements which have to be put up to those ships and

equipment when supposed to operate in Arctic areas.

Support functions

The support functions are considered to be of the outmost

importance for the success of an Oil Spill Response Action.

In the Barent Sea with its great distances, darkness 24 hours

a day, ice and difficult temperature conditions, the support

functions will have to face great challenges.

The support functions are:

Base services

Communications

Supplies

Crew changes

Transportation and storage of recovered oil

Laboratory services

Weather forcast

Air surveillance

All those elements should be evaluated and proposals made for

the organization and conduct of these support functions.

Alternative methods for Oil Spill Response

The methods available in Norway today are designed for

oepration in other environmental conditions than found in the

Arctic .

- '

Ice, darkness, weather conditions, special environment

protection and biological conditions etc. will gradually as

one moves into new areas extensively limit the prossibilities

for use of existing equipment.

193
When today's technology or modifications/ improvements of

today's techonology are no longer sufficient for achieving an

effective Oil Spill Response, one has to find alternative

methods.

These methods must be useable logistic and be a part of a total system for Oil Spill Response in the Barent Sea and

Arctic areas.

During this program it will be necessary to collect and

evaluate the experiences made by other countries related to

Oil Spill Response in Arctic areas.

In this context we are thinking especially of U.S.A. and

Canada, which are considered to be the countries with most

experience in exploration and production of Oil in the

Arctic.

This will include an evaluation of existing or improved

traditional technology combined with alternative methods and

a possible new technology.

Areas with complete ice coverage or drifting ice in different

amounts are considered the most acutal areas for such

methods. Some of this work may require practical testing in

ordere to make the evaluations credible and acceptable for

the authorities.

The personnel and organizations representing the offshore oil

industry in Norway think, (with a little proudness) that the

contingency system and equipment we are using for Oil Spill

Response in the North Sea today, are some of the best in the

world.

However, we acknowledge that when moving into the Arctic we

are facing another world. We realize that we have a great

194
lack of knowledge and experience related to Oil Spill

Response in the Arctic.

I think that really realizing this is a major step towards

solving the problems ahead of us.

I expect that the results from this seminar will provide a

valuable input to the large work we have ahead of us, and

will be a help to achieve an Oil Spill Response Contingency

for the Arctic which is of least at the same quality as we

today have in the North Sea.

195

LIST OF ATTENDEES

Larry Ake

MMS

12203 Sunrise Valley Drive

Reston, VA 22091

(703)648-7768

Alan A. Allen

Spiltec

10541 Treeline Ct.

Anchorage, AK 99516

(907)346-1932

Odd B. Angelvik

STATOIL

P.O. Box 300

N-4001 Stavanger, Norway

(04)808080

Paul R. Becker

NOAA/OAD, Alaska Office

701 C St. , Box 56

Anchorage, AK 99513

(907)271-3032

Elizabeth A. Benson

Div. of Govnmtl. Coord.

Office of the Governor

675 7th Ave, Station H

Fairbanks, AK 99708

(907)451-2819

Pamela Bergman

Dept of the Interior - OEPR

1689 C St. , Room 119

Anchorage, AK 99501-5126

(907)271-5011

Ian A. Buist

S.L. Ross Environ. Res., Ltd.

346 Frank St.

Ottawa, Ontario, K2P OYl, Canada

(613)232-1564

Richard P. Campbell

Alaska Branch/3M

11151 Calaska Circle

Anchorage, AK 99515

(907)522-5200

Charles C. Cloutier

Anti Pollution, Inc.

P.O. Box 885

Morgan City, LA 70381

(504)384-9517

Bill D'Atri

Unitech of Alaska , 1224 E. 76th Ave

Anchorage, AK 99518

(907)349-5142

Peter Devenis

Gulf Canada Resources, Ltd.

401 - 9th Ave SW

Calgary, Alberta, T2P 2H7, Canada

(403)233-4942

David F. Dickins

DF Dickins Associates, Ltd,

21 Water St. , 503A

Vancouver, BC, V6B lAl, Canada

(604)684-0516

R. G. Dragnich

Exxon Co ., USA

P.O. Box 196601

Anchorage, AK 99519-6601

(907)564-3766

Kenneth E. Durley

Alyeska Pipeline Service Co.

1835 South Bragaw St.

Anchorage, Ak 99512

(907)265-8480

Barry Eldridge

Cook Inlet Resource Org.

P.O. Box 149

Kenai, AK 99611

(907)776-5129

Harold T. Enger

Crowley Environmental Services, Inc.

3400 E. Marginal Way So.

Seattle, WA 98134

(206)443-8566

Larry E the lbah

Bureau of Indian Affairs

Room 349, Federal Bldg.

P.O. Box 3-8000

Juneau, AK 99801

(907)586-7603

197
Dr. David D. Evans

Natl. Inst, of Stds. & Tech.

Bldg. 224. , Rm. A345

Gaithersburg, MD 20899

(301)975-6897

Peter Ferris

Dept. of Indian and Northern

Affairs - Canada

Ottawa, Ontario, KlA 0H4, Canada

(819)994-7452

Merv Fingas

Environmental Energies Tech. Div.

River Road Environmental Tech. Center

3439 River Road

Ottawa, Ontario, KlA 0H3, Canada

(613)998-9622

Paul Gates

Dept. of the Interior-OEPR

1689 C St. , Room 119

Anchorage, AK 99501-5126

(907)271-5011

Karen J . Gibson

MMS

949 E. 36th Ave. Rm. 110

Anchorage, AK 99508

(907) 261-4613

R. H. Goodman

Esso Resources Canada, Ltd.

Research Department

339-50 Ave SE

Calgary, Alberta, T2G 2B3, Canada

(403)259-0296

John Gregory

MMS

12203 Sunrise Valley Drive

Reston, VA 22091

(703)648-7752

Eric A. Haugstad

URCA Environmental

9413 Canton Turnpike

Anchorage, AK 99515

(907)349-1306

Frank Henicke

Tenneco Oil Co.

3201 C St.

Anchorage, AK 99503

(907)561-5458

Ben L. Hilliker

Alyeska Pipeline Service Co.

1835 S. Bragaw St.

Anchorage, AK 99512

(907)265-8174

Sharon 0. Hillman

Standard Alaska Production Co.

900 E. Benson Blvd.

Anchorage, AK 99508

(907)564-5512

Kenneth F. Hunt

Bureau of Land Management

Box 30

701 C Street

Anchorage, AK 99513

(907)267-1333

LCDR Bill Hutmacher

USCG Marine Safety Office '

• 701 C St. , Box 17

Anchorage, AK 99516

(907)271-5137

Rod Jackson

US Fish & Wildlife Service

605 E 5th Street

Anchorage, AK 99501

(907)271-2779

John H. Jans sen

State of Alaska

Dept. of Env. Conser.

1001 Nobel St., Suite 350

Fairbanks, AK 99701

(907)452-1714

Nora H. Jason

National Inst, of Stds. & Tech

Bldg. 224, Rm. A252

Gaithersburg, MD 20899

(301)975-6862

198
Jerry Jeschke

MMS

949 E 36th Street

Anchorage, AK 99508-4302

(907)261-4508

Richard (Mark) Johnson

Alaska Clean Seas

12350 Industry Way

Anchorage, AK 99502

(907)345-3142

Mike Joseph

MMS/COM

4300 Lucerne St.

Metairie, LA 70006

(504)736-2875

Charlie Kidwell

SWEPI

200 N. Dairy Ashford

Houston, TX 77478

(713)870-4443

Seppo Korppoo

Wartsila Marine

Italahenkatku 19A

Helsinki, Finland

(358)0-6924500

Carl H. Lautenberger

EPA

222 W 7th Ave. , #19

Anchorage, AK 99513

(907)271-5083

D.W. Lerch

Marco Pollution Control

2300 W. Conunodore

Seattle, WA 98199

(206)285-3200

H. Lichte

Mason and Hanger-Silas Mason Co.

Pantex Plant

Bldg. 12-2B

Amarillo, TX 79177

(806)381-5485

Don MacWatt

Arvik Environmental Service

8797 Chemainus Rd. RRI

Chemainus, BC, VOR IKO Canada

(604)246-9355

Carol Ann Manen

NOAA/NOS

701 C St. , Box 56

Anchorage, AK 99513

(907)271-3157

Warren Matiomeak

North Slope Borough

P.O. Box 69

Barrow, AK 99723

(907)852-2611, x245

Bruce McKenzie

Gulf Canada Resources, Ltd.

401 - 9th Ave SW

Calgary, Alberta, T2P 2H7 , Canada

(403)233-4800

Kenneth M. Meikle

Environmental Emergencies Tech. D

River Road Env. Tech. Ctr.

3439 River Rd

Ottawa, Ontario, KlA 0H3 , Canada

(613)998-9622

David E. Morris

Morris Industries, Ltd.

1527 Columbia St.

N. Vancouver, BC V7J 1A3 , Canada

(604)986-2189

Tom Murrell

MMS

949 E 36th

Anchorage, AK 99508-4302

(907)261-4187

Mary Lynn Nation

US Fish & Wildlife

1011 E Tudor Rd.

Anchorage, AK 99503

(907)786-3519

199
Patrick Y. O'Brien

Chevron Corporation

P.O. Box 7924

San Francisco, CA 94120-7924

(415)894-9653

James L. Pearce

American Marine, Inc.

401 Shearer Blvd.

Cocoa, FL 32992

(407)636-5783

Gary A. Reiter

Commanding Officer

Pacific Area Strike Team

Hanger 2, Bldg. 390

Hamilton AFB, CA 94949-5082

(415)883-3311

Cdr. Dennis D. Rome

USCG

P.O. Box 3-5000

Juneau, AK 99802

(907)586-7197

Rene Roussel

USCG

MSO Anchorage

701 C Street

Anchorage, AK 99513

(907)271-5137

John R. Ruser

Shell Western E&P, Inc.

200 North Dairy Ashford

Houston, TX 77079

(713)870-4276

William J . Ryan

Canadian Coast Guard

P.O. Box 1300

St. Johns, Newfoundland, AlC 5N5,

Canada

Prof. William M. Sackinger

Univ. of Alaska- Fairbanks

Fossil Energy Research Council

Fairbanks, AK 99775-0800

(907)474-7865

Prof. Kozo Saito

University of Kentucky

Dept of Mechanical Eng.

Anderson Hall

Lexington, KY 40506-0046

(606)257-1685

Hild Sandstede

Greenpeace

P.O. Box 104432

Anchorage, AK 99510

(907)277-8234

Greg Schultz

U.S. Coast Guard

1326 E. Cotati

Cotati, CA 99428

(415)883-3311

Robert Schultze

Environmental Consultant, Inc.

6145 Rockburn Hill Rd.

Elkridge, MD 21227

(301)796-0551

Richard V. Shafer

Alaska Clean Seas

P.O. Box 196010

Anchorage 99519-6010

(907)345-3142

Arthur M. Sheets

4003 Garfield

Anchorage, AK 99503

(907)562-4652

Wayne F. Simpson

Shell Western E&P, Inc.

601 W. Fifth Ave., Suite 810

Anchorage, AK 99513

(907)276-2545

Rodney Smith

MMS

949 E. 36th Ave.

Anchorage, AK 99508

(907)261-4187

Elaine Snyder -Conn

US Fish & Wildlife

101 12th Ave.

Fairbanks AK 99701

(907)456-0323

200
Laurence Solsberg

Counterspil Research

300 - 1497 Marine Dr.

W. Vancouver, BC, V7T 1B8

Canada

(604)925-3144

Wade L. Srock

Alaska Dept. of Natural Resources

P.O. Box 107034

Anchorage, AK 99510

(907)762-2594 : .

Jack Stanger

Crowley Environmental Services

4300 B St . , Suite 507

Anchorage, AK 99516

(907)563-1114

Nancy Swans ton

MMS

949 E. 36th Ave.

Anchorage, AK 99508

(907)261-4187

Jim Swiss

Amoco Petroleum Canada, Ltd.

700 2nd St., SW, 22nd Floor

Calgary, Alberta, T2P 2H8 , Canada

(403)231-6944

Edward Tennyson

MMS - Room 6A122

12203 Sunrise Valley Drive

Reston, VA 22091

(703)648-7769

John D. Tremont

MMS

949 E. 36th Ave.

Anchorage, AK 99508

(907)261-4682

Gary Vequist

National Park Service

2525 Gambell Street

Anchorage, AK 99503

(907)257-2565 •. '

'

Jeff Walker

MMS

949 E. 36th Ave.

Anchorage, AK 99508

(907)261-4187

John Whitney

NCAA

Hazardous Materials Response Branch

701 C St. , Box 56

Anchorage, AK 99513

(907)271-3593

Mike Winfree

Arco Alaska, Inc.

P.O. Box 100360

Anchorage, AK 39510

(907)263-4603

Larry M. Wrigth

National Park Service

2525 Gambell Street

Anchorage, AK 99567

(907)257-2649

201
NBS-n4A (REV. 2-8C)

1 piini irATiDNi nR 9 pArfnrmino Orosn Rfkn/^rf Kl/^ 4b* nciiuiiiiiii^ \m/ I ^cil r\C|JUi I IN tj* ^ P1^ 1U1 KU 1

1 1

i ^^all 9 f i ort1 r^Aro Lactic BIBLIOGRAPHIC DATA

REPORT NO,

SHEET (See instructions) NIST/SP-762 April 1989

4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE

ALASKA ARCTIC OFFSHORE OIL SPILL RESPONSE TECHNOLOGY WORKSHOP PROCEEDINGS

5. AUTHOR(S)

Nora H. Jason, Editor

6. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION (if joint or other than NBS. see instructions) 7. Contract/Grant No. NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF STANDARDS AND TECHNOLOGY

(formerly NATIONAL BUREAU OF STANDARDS)

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 8. Type of Report & Period Covered

GArTHERSBURQ, MD 20899 Final

9. SPONSORING ORGANIZATION NAME AND COMPLETE ADDRESS (Street, City. State, ZIP)

Minerals Management Service

US Department of the Interior

Reston, VA 22091

10. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES

Library of Congress Catalog Card Number: 89-600731

I I Document describes a computer program; SF-185, FIPS Software Summary, Is attached.

11. ABSTRACT (A 200-word or less factual sun)mary of most significant information. If document includes a significant

bibliography or literature survey, mention it here)

The Proceedings of the Alaska Arctic Offshore Oil Spill Response Technology

Workshop contains papers by keynote speakers on the following topics:

Mechanical Containment and Recovery; Chemical Treatment; In-Situ Burning;

Readiness; the Technology Assessment and Research Program and the OHMSETT

Program; the Arctic and Marine Oil Spill Program; the Canadian Environmental

Science Revolving Fund; the Alaskan Clean Seas Research and Development

Program; the NOFO Program. These papers served as a stimulus to the

discussions that followed in the various Panel sessions. The Panels were

organized into broad research areas: Mechanical Containment; Mechanical

Recovery; Chemical Treatment; In-Situ Burning; Readiness. Each Panel summary

is included in the Proceedings and these recommendations reflect the combined

input from experts in the field. The Proceedings will serve as a working

document to the Minerals Management Service (MMS) to identify their future

research program.

12. KEY WORDS (S/x to twelve entries; alphabetical order; capitalize only proper names; and separate key words by semicolons)

chemical treatments; conferences; in situ burning; mechanical containment;

mechanical recovery; oil spills

13. AVAILABILITY

IXn Unlimited

I I For Official Distribution. Do Not Release to NTIS

I I Order From Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C.

20402.

Order From National Technical Information Service (NTIS), Springfield, VA, 22161

14. NO. OF

PRINTED PAGES

201

15. Price

w- U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE: 1989— 235-7214' 00270

USCOMM-DC 6043-P80
i 1 A. Technical Publications

Periodical

Journal of Research of the National Institute of Standards and Technology—Reports NIST research

and development in those disciplines of the physical and engineering sciences in which the Institute

is active. These include physics, chemistry, engineering, mathematics, and computer sciences. Papers cover a broad range of subjects, with major emphasis on measurement methodology and

the basic technology underlying standardization. Also included from time to time are survey articles on topics closely related to the Institute's technical and scientific programs. Issued six times a year.

Nonperiodicals

Monographs—Major contributions to the technical literature on various subjects related to the

Institute's scientific and technical activities. Handbooks—Recommended codes of engineering and industrial practice (including safety codes) developed in cooperation with interested industries, professional organizations, and regulatory bodies.

Special Publications—Include proceedings of conferences sponsored by NIST, NIST annual reports,

and other special publications appropriate to this grouping such as wall charts, pocket cards, and

bibliographies.

Applied Mathematics Series—Mathematical tables, manuals, and studies of special interest to physicists, engineers, chemists, biologists, mathematicians, computer programmers, and others engaged in scientific and technical work.

National Standard Reference Data Series—Provides quantitative data on the physical and chemical

properties of materials, compiled from the world's literature and critically evaluated. Developed un- der a worldwide program coordinated by NIST under the authority of the National Standard Data

Act (Public Law 90-396). NOTE: The Journal of Physical and Chemical Reference Data (JPCRD)

is published quarterly for NIST by the American Chemical Society (ACS) and the American Insti- tute of Physics (AIP). Subscriptions, reprints, and supplements are available from ACS, 1155 Six- teenth St., NW., Washington, DC 20056.

Building Science Series—Disseminates technical information developed at the Institute on building

materials, components, systems, and whole structures. The series presents research results, test methods, and performance criteria related to the structural and environmental functions and the

durability and safety characteristics of building elements and systems.

Technical Notes—Studies or reports which are complete in themselves but restrictive in their treat- ment of a subject. Analogous to monographs but not so comprehensive in scope or definitive in treatment of the subject area. Often serve as a vehicle for final reports of work performed at NIST

under the sponsorship of other government agencies.

Voluntary Product Standards—Developed under procedures published by the Department of Commerce in Part 10, Title 15, of the Code of Federal Regulations. The standards establish nationally

recognized requirements for products, and provide all concerned interests with a basis for common

understanding of the characteristics of the products. NIST administers this program as a supplement

to the activities of the private sector standardizing organizations.

Consumer Information Series—Practical information, based on NIST research and experience, covering areas of interest to the consumer. Easily understandable language and illustrations provide useful background knowledge for shopping in today's technological marketplace.

Order the above NIST publications from: Superintendent of Documents, Government Printing Office,

Washington, DC 20402.

Order the following NIST publications—FIPS and NISTIRs—from the National Technical Information

Service, Springfield, VA 22161.

Federal Information Processing Standards Publications (FIPS PUB)—Publications in this series col- lectively constitute the Federal Information Processing Standards Register. The Register serves as the official source of information in the Federal Government regarding standards issued by NIST

pursuant to the Federal Property and Administrative Services Act of 1949 as amended, Public Law

89-306 (79 Stat. 1127), and as implemented by Executive Order 11717 (38 FR 12315, dated May 11, 1973) and Part 6 of Title 15 CFR (Code of Federal Regulations).

NIST Interagency Reports (NISTIR)—A special series of interim or final reports on work performed

by NIST for outside sponsors (both government and non-government). In general, initial distribu- tion is handled by the sponsor; public distribution is by the National Technical Information Service,

Springfield, VA 22161, in paper copy or microfiche form.
U.S. Department of Commerce

National institute of Standards and Technology

(formerly National Bureau of Standards)

Gaithersburg. MD 20899

Official Business

Penalty tor Private Use $300