ADVANCING OIL SPILL RESPONSE

IN ICE- COVERED WATERS

prepared for

Prince William Sound Oil Spill Recovery Institute

Cordova, Alaska

and

United States Arctic Research Commission

Arlington, Virginia and Anchorage, Alaska

prepared by DF Dickins Associates Ltd. • info@dfdickins.com

March 2004
TABLE OF CONTENTS

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .ii

FOREWORD . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .iii

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .iv

1.0 STUDY BACKGROUND . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1

2.0 INTRODUCTION & OBJECTIVES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2

3.0 METHODOLOGY TO SELECT

RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT PRIORITIES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3

3.1 Workshop Process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3

4.0 RESULTS & RECOMMENDATIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4

4.1 Selected Priority Program Areas & Project Examples . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4

COLOR FIGURES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .6

4.2 Field Spills . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .11

4.3 Important Research & Development Programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .12

4.4 Universal Research & Development Elements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .14

4.4 Avenues for Funding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .14

REFERENCES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .15

BIBLIOGRAPHY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .16 

APPENDICES 

A] Steering Committee

B] Solicitation for Technical Comments on Initial Draft 

C] Workshop Participants 
LIST OF FIGURES

*All Figures are displayed in color on pages 6 - 7, at the center of the publication.

pages

referenced

Fig. 1 Schematic view of possible oil configurations in ice . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2, 8

Fig. 2 Man-made ice field at the Ohmsett test tank . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2

Fig. 3 Burning in brash ice, Alaska Clean Seas wave tank, Prudhoe Bay, Alaska . . . . . . . . .2 

Fig. 4 Oil in slush among pancake ice off the Canadian East Coast . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2

Fig. 5 Drilling platform, Cook Inlet, Alaska . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2

Fig. 6 Northstar offshore oil production facility, North Slope Alaska . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2

Fig. 7 Molikpaq, Canadian Beaufort Sea . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2

Fig. 8 Lunni Class tanker, Baltic Sea . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2

Fig. 9 Burning crude oil in slush-filled lead off Nova Scotia, Canada, 1986 . . . . . . . . . . . . .2

Fig. 10 Foxtail rope-mop skimmer in ice . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2, 10 

Fig. 11 Conventional containment boom deployed in broken ice . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2

Fig. 12 Lateral mixing of ice by Finnish icebreaker Fennica . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .5, 13 

Fig. 13 Conceptual sketches of pneumatic diversion boom . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .5

Cover photo: Diver's view of frazil ice crystals beneath a solid sea ice sheet during an experimental spill of emulsified 

crude oil. Note orange fabric skirt hanging through the ice to contain the spill (background), and oil drops coating the 

underside of the ice (foreground). Ref. Buist et al., (1983) in Bibliography.

Figure 1 Figure 2 Figure 3 Figure 4 Figure 5 Figure 6

Figure 7 Figure 8 Figure 9 Figure 10 Figure 11 Figure 12

Figure 13 Figure 14
i ADVANCING OIL SPILL RESPONSE IN ICE-COVERED WATERS 

The Prince William Sound Oil Spill Recovery Institute

(OSRI) and the United States Arctic Research Commission

(USARC) wish to thank the project steering committee

and, particularly, David Dickins for the time and personal

expertise they contributed in preparing and reviewing

preliminary materials, and in planning the workshop. The

goal to review and prioritize a long list of R & D projects

was achieved with the assistance of both experts in the

field and the general public. Appreciation is extended to

those who responded to the web posting soliciting public

comment on the draft document prior to the workshop.

Finally, we thank the workshop attendees who actively

debated the issues over a two-day period and contributed

greatly to finalizing the core set of priorities presented in

this report.

The project steering committee included: Nancy Bird,

Director, Prince William Sound Oil Spill Recovery

Institute; Lawson Brigham, United States Arctic Research

Commission; Doug Lentsch, Cook Inlet Spill Prevention

and Response; Joseph Mullin, U.S. Minerals Management

Service (MMS); Charlene Owens, ExxonMobil Upstream

Research Company; Walter Parker, Prince William Sound

Oil Spill Recovery Institute; Leslie Pearson, Alaska

Department of Environmental Conservation (ADEC); and

John Whitney, NOAA Hazmat Alaska.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS 

The following individuals are thanked for their review

of preliminary materials and for providing technical comments and feedback from their own personal experience:

Ian Buist, SL Ross Environmental Research Limited; Alan

Allen, Spiltec; Merv Fingas, Environment Canada; Charlene

Owens, ExxonMobil Upstream Research Company; Hans

Jensen, SINTEF; Ian Lambton, Riverspill Response Canada;

Kari Lampela, Finnish Environment Institute; Nick Glover

and Ed Thompson, BP Exploration (Alaska) Inc.; Brad

Hahn, Alaska Clean Seas; Doug Lentsch, Cook Inlet Spill

Prevention & Response, Inc.; Leslie Pearson, Alaska

Department of Environmental Conservation; Edward

Owens, Polaris Applied Sciences; Bill Lehr, NOAA

Hazmat; Mark Meza, US Coast Guard; Joseph Mullin,

MMS; Gary Sergy, Environment Canada; Laurie Solsberg,

Counterspil Research; Ron Goodman, Innovative Ventures;

Anatoliy Polomoshnov, Sakhalin Oil and Gas Institute;

Melanie Engram. Alaska Satellite Facility, Geophysical

Institute, University of Alaska Fairbanks; and Jorma

Rytkonen, VTT Technical Research Centre of Finland. 

Publication design and layout by TerraGraphica of

Anchorage, Alaska, ecline@alaska.net.
ADVANCING OIL SPILL RESPONSE IN ICE-COVERED WATERS ii

The Prince William Sound Oil Spill Recovery Institute

(OSRI) was established by Congress in 1997 to support

research and educational and demonstration projects, all

of which address oil spills in Arctic and sub-Arctic marine

environments. The Institute supports a variety of applied

and ecology-related projects. Addressing deficiencies in

our ability to respond to oil spills in ice-covered waters is

a priority, and developing an oil and ice research plan is

central to OSRI legislated mandates. This report is the

result of a think-tank workshop organized to refine and

prioritize many research and development project ideas

into a prioritized list. OSRI will use this document to help

determine how to most effectively allocate its resources

and build partnerships that will improve our prevention

and response capabilities in ice-covered waters. 

The United States Arctic Research Commission was

established by the Arctic Research and Policy Act of 1984

(as amended in November 1990). The Commission, whose

seven members are appointed by the President, assesses

national needs for Arctic research and recommends to the

President and the Congress research policies and priorities

that form the basis for a national Arctic research plan.

During its entire 20-year existence, the Commission has

been concerned with the lack of adequate research on oil

spill cleanup techniques and procedures in ice-covered

waters. In May 1992 the Commission issued a special

report entitled Research Needed to Respond to Oil Spills in

Ice-infested Waters. Among the recommendations were a

call for increased knowledge of in situ burning, enhanced

applied research and field testing, research on oil detection

and cleanup alternatives, ecological research, and expanded

international cooperation. This new report, sponsored

jointly with OSRI and an international team of experts,

continues the Commission's strong commitment to

improving U.S. and international research on a suite of

effective responses. Greater marine access throughout the

Arctic Ocean in the coming decades makes it imperative

that this research be given an appropriate priority by both

responsible federal agencies and the private sector.

FOREWORD 
iii ADVANCING OIL SPILL RESPONSE IN ICE-COVERED WATERS 

Goals & Objectives

The objective of this project is to identify programs and

research and development projects that improve the ability

of responders to deal with accidental oil spills in fresh or

salt-water marine environments where there is ice. This

includes spills that occur on top of or underneath solid,

stable ice extending out from shore (land-fast), into an

area of drifting ice floes (pack ice), or onto an ice-covered

shoreline.

Oil spills in ice are a subject of great concern to corporations, local residents, and government agencies participating in oil exploration, production, and transportation.

Currently, areas that are of special concern are Cook Inlet,

the Beaufort Sea (including the North Slope of Alaska),

Sakhalin Island offshore, and the Norwegian Barents,

Baltic, and Caspian seas. As reserves are depleted in more

accessible areas, cold frontier regions will increasingly

receive attention in the areas of exploration and production.

In most areas of the world, the greatest need is to

develop a credible and effective response to oil that has

been spilled in moving, broken pack ice in the ocean,

lakes or rivers. Practical response strategies are, in most

cases, already available to deal with spills in a stable, 

fast-ice environment. A notable exception involves the

lack of operational tools to detect or map oil in any ice type. 

Background & Evolution 

This project grew out of a desire to further explore the

unusually broad range of oil spill-related topics presented

at the 2000 Alaska Clean Seas International Oil and Ice

Workshop in Anchorage, Alaska. The program covered

topics such as detection and monitoring, logistics, operational lessons from case studies, burning, mechanical

recovery, and dispersants. 

In 2001, OSRI funded a grant application by DF Dickins

Associates Ltd. to identify critical deficiencies in the current

body of knowledge regarding oil spills that occur in the

presence of any form of ice. The second and final phase 

of the project began in the spring of 2003. The goal: to 

recommend research and development programs and

projects to improve future response capabilities, and to

publish the findings for international distribution under

the joint sponsorship of OSRI and USARC. 

Methods

More than 60 ideas and research concepts extracted

from presentations made at the 2000 International Oil 

and Ice Workshop, were the springboard for this project.

During the first phase, material was screened for ideas

with the most potential for improving response effectiveness. During the second phase, these initial findings were

further analyzed and discussed using a series of methodologies, including soliciting comments from the research

community, government agencies, industry and the public. 

This process culminated in November 2003 during a

two-day workshop in Anchorage. This small group of

selected specialists represented a cross section of interests

and backgrounds for thoroughly evaluating the benefits

and drawbacks of the ideas and comments received, and

developing a priority list of recommended program areas

and related projects. Seven technical areas were identified

as priorities, along with a number of other important program

ideas, and universal research and development elements. 

Overview of Findings

Consistent long-term funding is needed for developing

and improving response options for dealing with accidental

oil spills in ice-covered waters. 

Spill response operations in ice and open water are

fundamentally different. These variances must be recognized when determining the most appropriate strategy

for dealing with oil in specific ice conditions and seasons,

including freeze-up, winter, and break-up. Because of the

vastly different ice environments and oil-in-ice situations,

over-reliance on a single type of response will likely result

in inefficient, ineffective cleanup after an actual spill. 

Successful spill response hinges on more than the

immediate availability of the best technology. Several

important non-technical issues raised during the course of

this project should also be considered when planning spill

response programs and operations:

1) Encouragement of more flexible regulations so that all

possible response tools can be considered for use from

the outset of a response. Regulations must account for

unique aspects of oil-in-ice response compared with

open water response, such as: natural containment

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
ADVANCING OIL SPILL RESPONSE IN ICE-COVERED WATERS iv

offered by the ice, dramatically reduced spreading

rates, and natural shore protection. 

2) Development of long-term education and public 

outreach programs to explain the advantages and

disadvantages of different response strategies. 

3) Application of biological sciences as part of net 

environmental benefit analysis (NEBA) to assess the

relative merits of different response strategies.

Responders need to have access to all available

response tools in a timely manner. Improvements in this

area will require honest and open communication among

industry, government, and the public. At the same time,

sustained, long-term education and public outreach 

programs will help facilitate more effective response 

decisions, which maximize the capabilities of different

technologies. 

A series of successful Arctic field experiments in the

1970s and early ‘80s was largely responsible for helping

in-situ burning become accepted as the most effective oil

recovery strategy in situations involving spills in ice covered waters. There is an extensive body of knowledge on

the fundamentals of burning in different ice types. New

research and development in this discipline needs to 

concentrate on measures and techniques for expanding

the operating window for burning in ice, such as when

spills result in thin films occurring among ice floes. The

successful development of chemical herders could

enhance burning in these marginal situations. 

Mechanical recovery of oil spills in pack ice is limited

by drifting ice interrupting conventional containment 

and skimming activities. Improving the effectiveness of

existing mechanical equipment is worthwhile, though

such developments are unlikely to produce substantial

gains in response effectiveness. New techniques to deflect

and separate oil and ice—such as prop wash or pneumatic

bubblers—may enable mechanical systems to encounter

and recover oil at higher rates in the presence of drifting ice. 

Dispersants are used in many areas of the world as a

primary response strategy, and to complement other 

techniques. In cold-water environments where there is

also ice, dispersants have been viewed as having the

potential for only limited success. Concerns include the

lack of natural mixing energy due to the dampening

effects of the ice, and the tendency for oils to become 

viscous at low temperatures. Recently, though, promising

results from industry-sponsored tank tests have spurred a

reexamination of dispersants as a possible clean up strategy

for certain oil-in-ice situations. Using icebreakers or other

vessels to introduce the required mixing energy, in combination with a dispersant formulated for longer retention

by viscous oils, could lead to dispersants becoming a

practical response option for oil spills in ice. Research in

this area is still at an early stage, and more research and

development needs to be undertaken before a definitive

recommendation can be made. 

The present inability to reliably detect and map oil

trapped in, under, on, or among ice is a critical deficiency,

affecting all aspects of response to spills in ice. Although

there is still no practical operational system to remotely

detect or map oil-in-ice, there are several technology areas

where further research into ground-based remote sensing

could yield major benefits. Examples include: Recent tests

with optical beams for river spills, and Consideration of

vapor detection (sniffer systems) for oil trapped in ice.

Aerial remote sensing for detecting oil in ice remains an

elusive goal. 

Transferring oily waste that contains a mixture of

small ice chunks or slush under freezing temperatures

presents a major challenge. Considerable progress has

been made in dealing with highly viscous products, but

these projects have not attempted to add ice and freezing

conditions. 

Conducting field spills with oil for experimental purposes is not allowed in many parts of the world. This is a

serious drawback to developing more effective response

procedures, improving personnel training, and testing

equipment for responding to spills in ice. Although oil

simulants have been considered as a means of securing

permits and allowing more realistic field trials, currently

there is no product that mimics real oil without impacting

the environment.

Regular full-scale field trials with oil are essential to:

(1) Validate and prove response technologies and strategies

developed in laboratory or meso-scale tests; (2) Understand

the fate and behavior of oil under different marine 
v ADVANCING OIL SPILL RESPONSE IN ICE-COVERED WATERS 

conditions; (3) Train and drill responders with real oil 

(in the same way that firefighters develop and maintain

proficiency by practicing on real fires); (4) Develop operational guidelines for specific technologies; and, (5) Build

confidence and trust among all stakeholders in oil spill

response (public, industry and government). There is a

particular need for further tests in dynamic pack ice.

Field trials with oil can be designed as comprehensive

international programs that integrate complementary scientific, engineering and operational elements. A substantial

body of experience shows that rigorous program design

and execution results in trials being carried out in a safe

and environmentally responsible manner with a high

degree of confidence. 

Joint funding is critical to launching significant new

research in the field of oil and ice response. International

cooperation from government and industry participants

is required to make substantial progress in the most

important research and development areas. Currently,

centers of expertise are scattered around the globe with a

small number of researchers and organizations actively

involved in ongoing research. 

Future developments in the Arctic oil spill response

field require cooperative funding by government agencies

and oil industry operators. Multi-national corporations

involved in oil development in regions such as offshore

Sakhalin Island, the Siberian Arctic, the Caspian Sea, and

Alaska have a strong interest in pursuing research in this

field. 
ADVANCING OIL SPILL RESPONSE IN ICE-COVERED WATERS 1

Presentations at the 2000 Alaska Clean Seas (ACS)

International Oil and Ice Workshop formed the initial

source of ideas for this project. More than 300 participants

from around the world attended. All were concerned 

with issues of oil fate and behavior, spill risk, and spill

response in ice-covered waters. Key topics presented

were: detection and monitoring, logistics, operational 

lessons from case studies, burning, mechanical recovery,

and dispersants. 

The following year, the Prince William Sound Oil Spill

Recovery Institute (OSRI) funded a grant application by

DF Dickins Associates Ltd. to identify critical deficiencies

in the existing knowledge base on oil spills occurring in

any form of ice. The 2000 Workshop proceedings were

used to develop a preliminary listing of spill response

deficiencies and possible solutions. Additional sources

included: (1) An extensive review commissioned by

Alaska Clean Seas (ACS) to examine Beaufort Sea spill

response, ice conditions, oil behavior and monitoring

(Dickins et al., 2000); and, (2) Further comments received

from the original workshop authors. Findings from this

first phase are contained in a technical report issued to

the OSRI (Dickins 2002). 

The second and current phase of the project began in

the spring of 2003 with the goal of recommending

research and development programs and projects to

improve future response capabilities. The process used

ensured maximum opportunity for comment and input

from a wide range of interested parties. Steps in this

process included: 

• Appointing a steering committee to help define the

scope of the project and methodology (Appendix A)

• Distributing a simplified extract of the 2002 project

report for comments and new ideas to approximately

50 key researchers in private, academic and government

organizations worldwide (Appendix B)

• Posting a synopsis of research ideas, incorporating

input from the engineering and science community on

two web sites for public review and comment (OSRI

and the Arctic Info maintained by the Arctic Research

Consortium of the United States.)

• Holding a two-day workshop in Anchorage, Alaska,

November 4-5, 2003, attended by a small group of 

specialists invited from government, industry and the

consulting research community (Appendix C). A key

goal of the workshop was to finalize a set of priority

ideas or programs with representative projects.

1.0 STUDY BACKGROUND 
2 ADVANCING OIL SPILL RESPONSE IN ICE-COVERED WATERS 

The objective of this project is to identify areas where

further research and development will improve the ability

of responders to deal with an accidental oil spill in a fresh

or salt-water marine environment in the presence of ice.

Such an event could include spills of oil on top of or

underneath solid, stable ice extending out from shore

(land-fast), into an area of drifting ice floes (pack ice), or

onto an ice-covered shoreline. Figure 1 (page 6) shows a

schematic composite displaying a number of possible

configurations of oil in ice. 

Research into oil and ice behavior and the development of response strategies has traditionally involved a

combination of laboratory small-scale tests, tank and

basin meso-scale tests, and full-scale field trials. Figures 

2 and 3 (page 6) show two examples of recent tank tests

in North America: an evaluation of mechanical recovery

devices at the Ohmsett facility in New Jersey (Buist and

Dickins, 2002), and in-situ burning in slush and brash ice

in the Alaska Clean Seas wave tank at Prudhoe Bay (Buist

et al., 2003; Mullin et al., 2003). 

Many significant technical advances in Arctic spill

response can be attributed to a series of highly successful

field trials with oil carried out in U.S., Canadian and

Norwegian waters during the past 30 years. Figure 4

(page 6) shows such a project involving crude oil in pack

ice off the Canadian East Coast in 1986 (SL Ross and DF

Dickins, 1987). This was the first of only two experimental

spills conducted at sea with oil in broken ice. The second

was off the coast of Norway in 1993 (Vefsnmo and

Johannessen, 1994). 

The subject of oil spills in ice concerns corporations,

local residents, and government agencies participating 

in oil exploration, production and transportation in areas

such as: Cook Inlet, Sakhalin Island, and the Beaufort

(including the North Slope of Alaska), Norwegian Barents,

Baltic and Caspian Seas. As reserves are depleted in more

readily accessible areas, the Arctic will receive increasing

attention in exploration and production. 

Figures 5-8 (page 6) show examples of offshore exploration and production structures and tanker operations in

areas where ice is present for part of every year. 

Strategies and techniques for dealing with oil in ice

have been studied extensively over the past 20 years.

Dickins and Buist (1999) provide a summary of work in

this field with a selection of key references. Figures 9 and

10 (page 7) show examples of mechanical recovery and

in-situ burning in ice. 

In addition to the 2000 ACS Workshop in Anchorage,

other key reference sources for published papers on the

subject of oil spill response in ice include:

• Proceedings—Environment Canada Arctic Marine Oil

Spill Program (AMOP) technical seminars held annually

since 1977

• Proceedings—Finnish Environment Institute Seminar

on Marine Oil Spills in Ice held in Helsinki, November

2001

Two successful oil spill research projects in the

Canadian Beaufort Sea from 1974 to 1981 (Norcor 1975,

Dickins and Buist 1981) contributed to in-situ burning

becoming accepted as a primary response strategy to deal

with spills in ice. 

Mechanical recovery has been demonstrated to be a

practical strategy in solid, fast ice (Allen and Nelson,

1981; Alaska Clean Seas 1999). However, as shown in

Figure 11 (page 7), the effectiveness of conventional

mechanical containment and recovery systems can be

seriously degraded in broken ice (Bronson et al., 2002).

Intensive international efforts to develop dedicated

mechanical systems for operations in naturally broken ice

have not progressed beyond the prototype stage (Mullin

et al., 2003). Finland has developed full-scale operational

systems to deal with relatively small ice piece sizes in

Baltic shipping channels (Rytkonen et al., 2003). 

To date, limited consideration has been given to the

use of dispersants for spills in ice. Previous experience is

summarized in Brown and Goodman (1996) and Ross

(2000). Recent industry tests at the Ohmsett facility have

shown new promise (ExxonMobil 2002, unpublished). 

This project was initiated with the goal of objectively

assessing all possible research and development ideas

that could result in improving existing response tools for

oil in ice. 

2.0 INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES 
ADVANCING OIL SPILL RESPONSE IN ICE-COVERED WATERS 3

This project started with more than 60 ideas and

research concepts derived principally from presentations

made at the International Oil and Ice Workshop (ACS 2000).

These ideas and concepts were screened in the first phase

to create a subset, judged for having a moderate to high

potential for improving response effectiveness. The term

"response effectiveness", as used in this study, encompasses

all activities associated with recovery or removal of oil

from a marine environment, or reducing the impact and

consequences of a spill in ice. 

In the second phase of the project, the resulting subset

of ideas was forwarded for in-depth analysis and discussion,

according to the steps outlined in Sec. 1.0. Public comment

covered issues such as the importance of burning oil in

ice, using local knowledge to enhance response activities

such as tracking and monitoring, developing school curriculum packages on oil spill response, and applying a

systems approach to evaluating the optimum mix of

response strategies in different situations. 

During this project, a number of important non-technical

program ideas, such as regulatory regimes and public

education, were identified as being crucial to the acceptance

and application of different response strategies. These

ideas are described separately in this document as universal

elements applicable to many research and development

projects (Sec. 4.4). 

3.1 Workshop Process

A short list of high priority program areas and associated projects was developed at a two-day workshop in

Anchorage where participants had opportunities to weigh

the benefits and drawbacks of all the ideas and comments

received. Participants representing a broad range of interests and applied experience were invited from government

regulatory agencies, the oil industry, oil spill response

cooperatives, and engineering consulting firms

(Attachment C). 

The workshop screening and assessment process led 

to the selection of a number of priority program areas, as

well as other valuable ideas identified in phase one of the

project. These programs and ideas are described and outlined under the heading "Results" (Sec. 4).

The workshop was used to screen ideas, develop

broad parameters for specific programs, and to identify

specific project examples. Different ideas were assessed

using the following questions as guiding criteria: 

1) Does the program qualify as research and development? 

2) Would research in this area make a difference to future

response effectiveness? 

3) Is the idea technically feasible, or does the research in

this area have the potential to yield positive results? In

some cases, the pressing need for a solution to a particular problem—as is the case with remote sensing of oil

in ice—outweighs the historical evidence that research

in this field may have only a limited chance of success. 

Through this process, seven ideas or program areas

were selected as having the greatest level of support

among the participants at the workshop. These seven 

program areas are further developed in terms of scope

and possible projects in Sec. 4.1. A point of emphasis: no

one group of individuals can provide the final word on

merit or value. The final selection of primary ideas 

(Sec. 4.1, 4.2) reflects the range of interests and experience 

of the workshop participants. Other important ideas and

projects deserving attention are outlined in Sec. 4.3.

• Dispersants in Ice

• Oil Deflection 

• Detection of Oil in Ice (Remote Sensing)

• Transfer of Icy, Oily Waste

• Chemical Herders

• Enhance Capabilities of Existing Mechanical Systems 

• Simulants

In terms of ice type, the greatest need in most areas

worldwide is to develop a credible, effective response to

oil spilled in moving, broken, pack ice in oceans, lakes

and rivers. Practical response strategies are available to

deal with spills in a stable, fast-ice situation (Dickins and

Buist, 1999).

In terms of geographic applicability, most research and

development ideas described in this report are relevant to 

a variety of operating areas around the world (e.g. Baltic

Sea, Sakhalin Island, Caspian Sea, Barents Sea, Beaufort Sea). 

3.0 METHODOLOGY TO SELECT RESEARCH 

AND DEVELOPMENT PRIORITIES
4 ADVANCING OIL SPILL RESPONSE IN ICE-COVERED WATERS 

DISPERSANTS IN ICE 

Need Research whether dispersants will work in broken ice and identify oil types and scenarios where 

dispersants may have potential. Proof of effectiveness will increase response options to spills in broken ice.

Baseline Knowledge There have been some tests conducted in cold water and limited tank and basin tests in broken ice (Brown 

and Goodman 1996 and ExxonMobil 2002, not published). ExxonMobil is currently developing project out

lines around issues of dispersant mixing with icebreakers, and formulating and testing a new dispersant 

for viscous oils (2004-2005 completion of feasibility tests). The potential for dispersant effectiveness in 

fresh and brackish water is reported in Georges-Ares et al. (2001).

Political Sensitivity Substantial—many jurisdictions will not consider dispersants out of fear of toxicity and related impacts. 

The extension of dispersants to an ice environment should not be politically more sensitive than gaining 

approval for use in open water. 

Confidence Medium—The effectiveness of dispersants in ice depends mainly on the available turbulent mixing energy.

The energy level will determine whether it is possible to achieve permanent dispersion in the water

column for a particular oil drop size with ice present (degree of resurfacing).

Timeline On the order of five years or more, starting with some form of meso-scale testing in a large cold basin 

before proceeding with any full-scale field tests (Sec. 4.2)

Cost: Order of Magnitude $500,000 per year

Other Issues Shallow water constraints are related to concerns about suspended oil concentrations in the water column. 

Fresh water layers (e.g. off-Arctic river deltas) may alter the dispersion process or require a different 

dispersant formulation.

Example Projects • Mixing with icebreakers (or other vessels) See Fig. 12 (page 7)

• Developing a dispersant for viscous (cold) oils

• Evaluating potential for long-term retention (e.g. assess ability of dispersants to remain with the 

oil as ice moves from a low- energy (internal pack) environment to a higher-energy ice margin.

• Oil mineral aggregates

• Effectiveness in fresh and brackish water 

• Fate and behavior and effects 

The seven priority research and development programs selected during the workshop are presented here, along with

other important ideas identified during the project. Costs quoted are strictly order of magnitude. Firm cost estimates

require a detailed project definition. 

4.1 Selected Priority Program Areas & Project Examples 

4.0 SELECTED PRIORITY PROGRAM AREAS 

& PROJECT EXAMPLES
ADVANCING OIL SPILL RESPONSE IN ICE-COVERED WATERS 5

OIL DEFLECTION OR REDIRECTION IN A BROKEN ICE FIELD 

Need Separate oil and ice on the water surface to increase encounter rates for possible mechanical recovery or 

in-situ burning in fire booms. Even very low concentrations of ice seriously affect the performance of most 

skimmer systems through plugging and bridging. Conventional booms will quickly collect ice and subsequently lose oil as the flotation chambers are submerged or lifted out of the water. Deflection ideally 

directs oil to a collection and recovery area while moving the ice in another direction, or leaving it behind. 

Baseline Knowledge Limited—some older work with mechanical deflectors and water jets. Prop washing is a current technique 

used to clean oil out from under wharves at the Valdez, Alaska terminal. It has also been tried in Cook 

Inlet, Alaska. Feasibility of pneumatic diversion boom being validated at lab scale by ExxonMobil (2003). 

A series of projects are planned to further develop this concept in 2004 and 2005. 

Political Sensitivity None—mechanical recovery methods are accepted in all jurisdictions. 

Confidence Medium—Major constraint centers on the difficulty of moving oil a significant distance (beyond 20 to 30 meters).

Timeline 2-5 years

Cost: Order of Magnitude $250,000 for Phase 1. Total program cost could reach $500,000 to $1 million. 

Other Issues Could also have applications for improved containment and recovery in non-ice areas such as rivers and 

streams. There is a diversity of projects to be considered. The ability of modern icebreakers to influence the 

surrounding ice over distances several times the vessel's beam may have applications to this program. Fig. 12.

Example Projects • Propeller wash

• Pneumatic diversion booms , the idea being to divert oil while letting ice pass. Example concepts Fig. 13.

• Air jet blowers 

Continued on Page 8
6 ADVANCING OIL SPILL RESPONSE IN ICE-COVERED WATERS 

Figure 1

A schematic composite displaying a number of possible configurations of oil in ice. 

Figure 2 

Man-made ice field at the Ohmsett test tank, January 2002 (Buist and

Dickins, 2002)

Figure 3 

Burning in brash ice, ACS wave tank at Prudhoe Bay, Alaska, October 2002 (Buist et al., 2003)

Figure 4 

Oil in slush among pancake ice off the Canadian East Coast, 1986 

(SL Ross and DF Dickins, 1987)

Figure 5 

Drilling platform, Cook Inlet Alaska

Figure 6 

Northstar offshore oil production facility,

North Slope Alaska. Photo: D. Dickins

Figure 7 

Molikpaq, Canadian Beaufort Sea. 

Photo: Gulf Canada Resources

Figure 8 

Lunni Class tanker, Baltic Sea. 

Photo: Neste Oy

FIGURES
ADVANCING OIL SPILL RESPONSE IN ICE-COVERED WATERS 7

Figure 13 Conceptual sketches of pneumatic diversion boom in operation. (ExxonMobil) 

Figure 9

Burning crude oil in slush-filled lead off Nova Scotia, 

Canada, 1986. Photo: SL Ross and DF Dickins, 1987

Figure 10

Foxtail rope-mop skimmer in ice. Photo: Alaska Clean Seas

Figure 11 

Conventional containment boom deployed in 

broken ice during field trials off Prudhoe Bay,

Alaska, Spring 2000. Photo: Alaska Clean Seas, 2000

Figure 12

Lateral mixing of ice by the Finnish icebreaker Fennica using azimuthing thrusters to clear a channel. Photo: Aker Finnyards

All Figures referred to in the

main text are located on these

two pages. The following is a

quick quide for finding the

page on which each Figure is

mentioned.

Figure # . . . .Page #s

1 . . . . . . . . .2, 8

2 . . . . . . . . .2

3 . . . . . . . . .2

4 . . . . . . . . .2

5 . . . . . . . . .2

6 . . . . . . . . .2

7 . . . . . . . . .2

8 . . . . . . . . .2

9 . . . . . . . . .2

10 . . . . . . . .2, 10

11 . . . . . . . .2

12 . . . . . . . .4, 5, 13

13 . . . . . . . .5
8 ADVANCING OIL SPILL RESPONSE IN ICE-COVERED WATERS 

REMOTE SENSING OF OIL UNDER, IN, AMONG OR ON TOP OF ICE

Need It is essential to know where the oil is in order to plan a response. Urgent need is to be able to detect and 

locate, map the contamination boundaries, and track and monitor oil trapped with ice. Fig. 1 (page 6).

Baseline Knowledge Substantial—Some success has been achieved in the past with acoustic technologies (Fingas and Brown 

2002). Numerous projects have examined all possible technologies, but none has led to an operational 

system. Minerals Management Service (MMS) technology review covers experiences of past work (Dickins 

2001). Recent progress includes testing a gas chromatograph/mass spectrometer (GCMS) for vapor extractions through ice in Alaska; and applying infra-red optical beam technologies to detect very low vapor 

concentrations, for example across a river (Alyeska Pipeline Service Co., unpublished). Current technology 

involves drilling large numbers of boreholes through the ice in a closely spaced pattern to uncover the 

presence of oil. Norwegian Clean Seas Association for Operating Companies (NOFO) has an ongoing 

program looking at advancing capabilities to detect oil for spill response in darkness. There are numerous 

examples where satellite imagery has been used to map oil slicks at sea, and radar satellites are routinely 

used to identify and map different ice types. However, the capabilities of space borne sensors to discriminate

between oiled and clean ice, or to detect oil on relatively calm water between ice floes have not been investigated.

Political Sensitivity None

Confidence Low for aerial systems, increasing to medium for ground-based. 

Timeline 2 years to demonstrate effectiveness of recent advances

Cost: Order of Magnitude $100,000 per year to investigate ground-based systems. Aerial system development would be order(s) of 

magnitude more expensive with low chance of success. 

Other Issues 

Example Projects • Gas sniffing

• Optical detectors

• Evaluate proven open water sensors in a broken ice field (e.g. Infra-red,Laser Fluorosensor, and the 

latest generation of high resolution synthetic aperture radar (SAR) satellites) 
ADVANCING OIL SPILL RESPONSE IN ICE-COVERED WATERS 9

CHEMICAL HERDERS

Need Thicken slicks among broken ice floes so that the oil can be ignited and burned effectively. Equilibrium 

thickness of crude oil on cold water may not be sufficient to allow efficient in-situ burning in a natural state.

Baseline Knowledge Some data for spills on open water. No data on behavior of herders in an ice environment. Initial lab-scale 

tests being carried out by ExxonMobil 2003.

Political Sensitivity Reluctance to introduce another chemical into the environment may affect approvals, although herders 

typically have low toxicity and do not result in dispersion of oil into the water column. 

Confidence Moderate

Timeline 1 year for first phase

Cost: Order of Magnitude $150,000 to fund full meso-scale program (cold basin) leading to possible future incorporation into field 

trials (Sec. 4.2)

Other Issues The utility of chemical herders will depend upon approvals to conduct in-situ burning of the oil slick.

Example Projects • Validate chemical herding action in ice. Primary purpose is to enhance in-situ burning by thickening oil.

TRANSFERRING VISCOUS PRODUCTS WITH ICE

Need Extend recent work on viscous oil pumping to understand the effect of ice pieces. Serious impact of slush 

and small ice chunks on ability to pump cold oily waste is a major problem.

Baseline Knowledge Several recent projects by the U.S. Coast Guard (USCG) and Alaska Clean Seas (ACS) have focused on the 

problem of transferring cold oil products, including emulsions. There is no baseline knowledge in under

standing how to pump oil and ice mixtures. 

Political Sensitivity None

Confidence High

Timeline 1-2 years

Cost: Order of Magnitude $100,000-$200,000 

Other Issues

Example Projects • Processing viscous emulsions with small ice chunks. Integrated study encompassing all processing 

phases (collection, pumping, storage, offloading)
10 ADVANCING OIL SPILL RESPONSE IN ICE-COVERED WATERS 

SIMULANTS 

Need Develop environmentally acceptable, surrogate oil for experiments and responder training in a realistic at-sea 

environment. Motivation is derived from inability to obtain permits to conduct field trials in U.S. waters 

with real oil. 

Baseline Knowledge Substantial previous efforts to identify a surrogate product, which mimics oil and poses no threat to the 

environment. Historical trials have included the use of oranges, popcorn, Hula Hoops and canola oil. 

Recent work at the University of Utah has led to some progress with an aerated, biological oil product, 

but the issue of stickiness remains unresolved. 

Political Sensitivity Significant—related to concerns about toxicity, solubility in water, and the impact on wildlife from stickiness.

Confidence Low—improvements are likely to be incremental, resulting in a modest increase in recovery effectiveness. 

Timeline 5 years

Cost: Order of Magnitude Typical annual costs approximately $50,000 per year. 

Other Issues Potential for patents could interfere with joint funding. 

Example Projects • Develop surrogate oil, which is environmentally acceptable (low-toxicity, non-sticky, rapidly broken 

down) for experiments and responder training at sea. 

ENHANCE CAPABILITIES OF EXISTING MECHANICAL RECOVERY SYSTEMS 

Need Expand the operational capability of existing spill response equipment to enable oil recovery in ice. 

Examples: Fig. 10 (page 7)

Baseline Knowledge Considerable background of testing different skimmer systems (oleophilic, brush, pumps, disks, weir) in 

ice, in tank tests, and full-scale applications. No recent attempts to optimize devices in freezing conditions 

with ice present. 

Political Sensitivity None. Mechanical systems are universally accepted. 

Confidence Low—improvements likely to be incremental, resulting in modest increase in recovery effectiveness. 

Critical problem with application of mechanical systems to deal with oil in ice is the low encounter rate 

(combination of small swath width and low speed of advance). 

Timeline 1-2 years

Cost: Order of Magnitude Not estimated 

Other Issues Need to employ standardized testing techniques to ensure that all parties, including citizens’ advisory 

councils and regulatory agencies, accept comparative test results. 

Example Projects • Research to expand operating window for mechanical recovery with ice present could be linked to 

projects in oil deflection and herding, and may employ some aspect of ice management with support 

vessels. See preceding priority program descriptions. 
ADVANCING OIL SPILL RESPONSE IN ICE-COVERED WATERS 11

4.2 Field Spills 

The lack of any consistent regulatory framework to

facilitate field trials with oil represents a critical obstacle

to achieving real progress in the field of at-sea spill

response. Most significant technical advances in Arctic

spill response can be attributed to a series of highly 

successful field trials with oil carried out in U.S., Canadian

and Norwegian waters. Many of these trials have

involved moderate-size releases at an affordable cost.

Regular full-scale field trials with oil are essential to:

(1) Validate and prove response technologies and strategies

developed in laboratory or meso-scale tests; (2) Understand the fate and behavior of oil under different marine

conditions; (3) Train and drill responders with real oil 

(in the same way that firefighters develop and maintain 

proficiency by practicing on real fires); (4) Develop operational guidelines for particular technologies; and, (5) Build

confidence and trust among all of the stakeholders in oil

spill response (public, industry and government). There 

is a particular need for further tests in dynamic pack ice.

There have only been two field trials in pack (broken) ice:

Canada in 1986 and Norway in 1993. 

Spill responders need to know the strengths and shortcomings of all tools and techniques, based on full-scale,

realistic experiences with oil. For example, the development of proven offshore spill response equipment has

benefited greatly from lessons learned during annual

exercises held in offshore Norway with spills of 100 tons

of oil and emulsion. Experience has shown repeatedly that

it is not feasible to rely on actual spills as an opportunity to

collect useful scientific data sets in the absence of proper

controls. 

Field trials with oil can be designed as comprehensive

international programs that integrate many complementary

scientific, engineering and operational elements. Such trials

can be carried out safely and in an environmentally

responsible manner with a high degree of confidence,

through a rigorous process of program design and execution. Key points regarding the near-term possibilities for

new field trials with oil include: 

• Permits, achievable in Canada and Norway, are considered highly unlikely in the United States based on 

negative outcomes with applications during the last 

10 years—no spills in U.S. waters for experimental 

purposes have been allowed for nearly two decades. 

It is important to note that countries that have allowed

field trials with oil have become leaders in spill

research.

• Field trials are an essential element in validating and

developing a broad range of complementary research

and applied technologies. 

The first stage in launching a new trial with oil in pack

(broken) ice (considered the priority area) will involve a

planning workshop to bring together all interested parties

and stakeholders. Joint international funding will be

essential to the success of any such trial (Sec. 4.4). 
12 ADVANCING OIL SPILL RESPONSE IN ICE-COVERED WATERS 

4.3 Important R&D Programs 

The following ideas also need to be considered, in developing an overall research and development strategy (viewed

in conjunction with the high priority programs selected in Sec. 4.1).

Title Idea in Brief Comments Baseline

Rationalize Response 

Strategies 

Develop an international set of

performance-based standards governing systems and techniques for

spill response in ice using organizations such as the American

Society for Testing & Materials

(ASTM) and the International

Standards Organization (ISO).

Difficult to achieve given the

widely different regulatory jurisdictions and national interests.

Benefit would be consistent standards in spill response practices.

Example—Baltic states working

to integrate response resources

and strategies. 

Net Environmental 

Benefit Analysis

(NEBA)

Apply Net Environmental Benefit

Analysis to strategies in ice for

specific scenarios.

Results could provide valuable

perspective on relative merits of

different approaches (e.g. burning vs. mechanical)

In regular use to evaluate open

water scenarios, though not yet

being applied to oil and ice.

Realistic Scenarios Develop realistic scenarios to

evaluate and compare response

options in a wide range of ice 

conditions.

"Real world" comparisons of

response tools could help to

modify regulatory approach to

recommended strategies, and

identify the most effective 

strategies in a given situation.

Industry projects on the North

Slope and in Cook Inlet, though

not generally public.

Risk Analysis Conduct risk analysis of spill 

scenarios.

In theory, this type of analysis

can help identify priority oil-inice scenarios. In reality, industry

is often constrained by regulatory

requirements to prepare for

worst-case events, limiting the

practical application of riskbased decision-making.

There are numerous worldwide

examples of risk analysis during

the development phase of projects

(Environmental Assessment

process).

Lessons from Past

Spills

Reevaluate past spills in ice in

terms of response operations

(already done in terms of oil fate

and behavior).

There is the opportunity to consolidate lessons learned, though

much of the documentation is

sparse and incomplete

Individual authors routinely 

conduct such evaluations reviews

for specific projects. 
ADVANCING OIL SPILL RESPONSE IN ICE-COVERED WATERS 13

Title Idea in Brief Comments Baseline

Tank Tests Develop controlled climate, tank

facility for "realistic" tests.

Reliable meso- to full-scale testing with oil in ice requires reliable climate controls. There is a

surplus of ice testing facilities

worldwide, but few basins are

willing to accept oil. 

Tests with manufactured sea ice

at Ohmsett (2002). Norway and

Finland looking at funding new

facilities.

Near shore

Oil/Ice Interaction 

Evaluate likely fate and behavior

of oil trapped under bottom-fast

in winter and on flooded ice in

spring.

Issues include access over unstable flooded ice, responder safety,

oil trapped between solid ices

and frozen sediments, oil spreading on overflood waters.

No concerted effort to look at 

oil spill recovery under these 

conditions. 

Shoreline Studies Evaluate treatment options for

oiled ice and ice rubble in the 

shoreline zone.

Could involve consideration of

likely oil and ice interactions,

focusing on means to access and

remove the oil without waiting

for spring melt. Tank testing

could include the use of a simulated shoreline ice foot to study

oil adhesion and removal. 

Limited experience trying to

remove oil spilled in grounded ice

rubble. Little or no actual research

has been done.

Monitoring and

Tracking

Develop tools to account for a

range of ice conditions in oil spill

fate, behavior and tracking models.

Need for new analytical models

to deal with oil and ice input

data on a real-time basis.

Prerequisite would be more 

reliable ice drift models as a

starting point. 

Little or no new work in past

decade. Recent Minerals

Management Service (MMS) 

initiatives in U.S.

Unstable Ice

Logistics 

Develop logistics options and

vehicles to operate in the landfast zone during freeze-up and

break-up 

Focus on need for safe access to

offshore sites when the ice is too

thin, deteriorated, flooded or

unstable for conventional surface

vehicles.

Individual authors routinely 

conduct such evaluations reviews

for specific projects. 

Skimmer Evaluations Compare effectiveness of different

skimmer systems in ice using 

consistent methods. 

Need to develop or use accepted

test protocol to ensure agency

acceptance. 

Past work by Canadian Coast

Guard and others.

Vessel Ice

Management

Evaluate potential for icebreakers

and other vessels to support and

influence the outcome of a

response operation in ice. 

Exploit capabilities of new

azimuthing drive icebreaker

designs, and any other available

support vessel, to aid in breaking

down floe sizes, using prop

washing to release trapped oil,

and deflecting large floes. 

Fig. 12 (page 7)

Finnish concept studies include

asymmetric hull forms to create

open water areas. Routine operating technique in Cook Inlet.
14 ADVANCING OIL SPILL RESPONSE IN ICE-COVERED WATERS 

4.4 Universal Research & 

Development Elements

Three all-encompassing ideas are identified as recommended elements to be considered in the development 

of any new oil-in-ice research and development program: 

1) The need for more flexible regulations to facilitate the

application of all possible response tools from the outset

of a response. Regulations need to account for unique

aspects of oil-in-ice response compared with open

water. Examples include: natural containment offered

by the ice, dramatically reduced spreading rates, and

natural shore protection provided by the land-fast ice. 

2) Development of long-term education and public outreach programs to explain the trade-offs, benefits and

drawbacks of different response strategies. 

3) Application of biological sciences as part of net environmental benefit analysis (NEBA) to assess the merits

of different response strategies.

Field trials with oil are also identified as a universal

element with broad applicability to a wide range of

research and development programs. These trials are 

considered essential for advancing the knowledge base

and capabilities for oil in ice response. Sec. 4.2 includes 

an expanded discussion of the benefits and rationale for

future trials. 

4.4 Avenues for Funding

A carefully focused work plan or agenda encompassing

a short list of priority projects is generally beyond the

capabilities of any one organization to fund in its entirety.

International cooperation, including government and

industry participants, is needed to make substantial

progress in the most important research and development

areas. 

Given the specialized nature and limited number of

researchers actively working in the area of oil-in-ice spill

response, it is essential to involve different centers of

expertise on a global level. The following list represents

examples of government institutes, agencies and organizations worldwide that are currently involved in Arctic

spill research. This list is not intended to be all-inclusive

and does not include private consulting groups:

• Prince William Sound Oil Spill Recovery Institute

(OSRI), Cordova, Alaska

• Cooperative Institute for Coastal and Estuarine

Technology (CICEET), a joint venture between the

University of New Hampshire and the National

Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) 

• Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation—

Charter agreement between with BP Exploration

(Alaska) and ConocoPhillips 

• US Department of Interior, Minerals Management

Service (MMS), Engineering and Research Branch,

Herndon, Virginia

• Fisheries and Oceans Canada—Centre for Offshore 

Oil and Gas Environmental Research (COOGER),

Dartmouth, Nova Scotia, Canada

• Finnish Environment Institute in conjunction with 

VTT Technical Research Centre of Finland 

• Arctic Council Working Group on Emergency,

Prevention, Preparedness and Response (EPPR)

• Baltic Marine Environment Protection Commission—

Helsinki Commission (HELCOM)

• International Navigation Association (PIANC),

Maritime Navigation Commission

• Norwegian Clean Seas Association for Operating

Companies (NOFO) 

• Alaska Clean Seas (ACS), Prudhoe Bay, Alaska (oil

spill cooperative)

Future developments in the Arctic oil spill response

field will likely involve cooperative funding by government agencies and operators. Multi-national corporations

involved in oil development in regions such as Sakhalin

Island, the Siberian Arctic, the Caspian Sea, and Alaska

have a strong interest in pursuing research in this field. 

A number of these companies are likely to become participants in any major new research and development initiative

aimed at improving their capabilities to respond to spills

in remote ice-covered areas (e.g. AgipKCO, ExxonMobil,

BP, Sakhalin Energy Investment Company, Statoil,

ConocoPhillips). 
ADVANCING OIL SPILL RESPONSE IN ICE-COVERED WATERS 15

Alaska Clean Seas. April 2000. International Oil and Ice

Workshop. multiple government and industry sponsors.

Organized by Alaska Clean Seas, Anchorage, Alaska.

Proceedings on disk. http://www.mms.gov/tarprojects/354.htm

Alaska Clean Seas. September 2000. Oil Spill Response Tests in

the Alaska Beaufort Sea, Spring 2000. Prepared for Alaska

Clean Seas, Prudhoe Bay, Alaska. 

Alaska Clean Seas. March 1999. Technical Manual. Prepared by

Alaska Clean Seas, Prudhoe Bay, Alaska.

Allen, A.A. and W.G. Nelson. 1981. Oil Spill Countermeasures in

Land-fast Sea Ice. Proceedings 1981 Oil Spill Conference,

API, Washington, D.C. 

Bronson, M., Thompson, E., McAdams F., and McHale, J. 2002.

Ice Effects on Barge-Based Oil Spill Response Systems in the

Alaska Beaufort Sea. Proceedings 25th Arctic Marine Oil Spill

Program Technical Seminar (AMOP), Calgary, Alberta,

Canada, pp.1253-1268.

Brown H.M., and R.H. Goodman. 1996. The Use of Dispersants

in Broken Ice. Proceedings 19th Arctic and Marine Oil Spill

Program Technical Seminar, Calgary, Alberta, Canada, pp.

453-60.

Buist, I.A., Dickins, D., Majors, L., Linderman, K., Mullin, J.,

Owens, C. June 2003. Tests to Determine the Limits to In-Situ

Burning in Brash and Frazil Ice. Proceedings 26th Arctic and

Marine Oil Spill Program Technical Seminar, Vancouver,

British Columbia, Canada. 

Buist, I.A., D. Dickins. Technical Aspects of Testing in Brash Ice

at Ohmsett. Proceedings of the Twenty-Fifth Arctic Marine

Oil Spill Technical Seminar, Calgary, Alberta, Canada, June

2002. 

Buist, I.A. 2000. In-Situ Burning of Oil Spills in Ice and Snow.

Proceedings of the International Oil and Ice Workshop,

Anchorage, organized by Alaska Clean Seas, Prudhoe Bay,

Alaska (on disk only).

Buist, I.A., and D.F. Dickins. 1987. Experimental Spills of Crude

Oil in Pack Ice. In proceedings, International Oil Spill

Conference, American Petroleum Institute, pp. 373-381. 

Dickins, D.F. March 2002. Development of a Draft Research

Agenda for Oil Spill Response in Ice-Covered Waters. report

prepared for Prince William Sound Oil Spill Recovery

Institute (OSRI). Cordova, Alaska.

Dickins D.F. 2000. Detection and Tracking of Oil Under Ice.

Contractor report prepared for the U.S. Department of

Interior, Minerals Management Service, Herndon, Virginia.

Dickins D.F., Vaudrey K., and Potter S. September 2000. Oil

Spills in Ice Discussion Paper: A Review of Spill Response,

Ice Conditions, Oil Behavior and Monitoring. Prepared by

DF Dickins Associates Ltd., Vaudrey & Associates Inc., and

SL Ross Environmental Research Limited for Alaska Clean

Seas, Prudhoe Bay, Alaska.

Dickins, D. and Buist, I.A., 1999. Countermeasures for Ice-covered Waters. Pure and Applied Chemistry, Vol. 71, No. 1, pp.

173-191. 

Dickins, D.F. and Buist, I.A. 1981. Oil and Gas Under Sea Ice.

Prepared by Dome Petroleum Ltd. for COOSRA, Report 

CV-1, Volumes I and II, Calgary, Alberta, Canada.

Fingas, M.F. and Brown, C.E. 2002. Detection of Oil in and

Under Ice. Proceedings 25th Arctic Marine Oil Spill Program

(AMOP) Technical Seminar. Calgary, Alberta, Canada. June

12-14, 1996. Environment Canada, pp. 199 - 214.

Georges-Ares, A., Lessard, R., Canevari, G., Becker, K., and

Fiocco, R. 2001. Modification of the Dispersant Corexit 9500

for use in Freshwater. Proceedings International Oil Spill

Conference, Tampa, Florida, pp. 1209-1211. 

Mullin, J., Jensen, H., and Cox, W. 2003. Murices: New

Technology for Effective Oil Recovery in Ice. Proceedings

18th International Oil Spill Conference, Vancouver, British

Columbia, Canada.

NORCOR Engineering and Research Ltd. 1975. The Interaction

of Crude Oil with Arctic Sea Ice. Prepared for the Beaufort

Sea Project, Department of the Environment, Victoria, British

Columbia, Canada, Beaufort Sea Technical Report No. 27.

Ross, S. 2000. Dispersant Use in Cold and Ice Infested Waters.

Proceedings of the International Oil and Ice Workshop,

Anchorage, organized by Alaska Clean Seas, Prudhoe Bay,

Alaska (on disk only).

Rytkonen, J., Sassi, J., and E. Mykkanen. 2003. Recent Oil

Recovery Test Trials with Ice in Finland. Proceedings of the

26th Arctic Marine Oil Spill Program (AMOP) Technical

Seminar, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada, pp. 577-594.

S.L. Ross Environmental Research Ltd. and DF Dickins

Associates Ltd. 1987. Field Research Spills to Investigate the

Physical and Chemical Fate of Oil in Pack Ice. Environmental

Studies Revolving Funds Report No. 062, p. 95.

Vefsnmo, S., and Johannessen, B.O. 1994. Experimental Oil Spill

in the Barents Sea: Drift and Spread of Oil in Broken Ice. In:

Proceedings 17th Arctic and Marine Oil Spill Program

Technical Seminar, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada.

REFERENCES
16 ADVANCING OIL SPILL RESPONSE IN ICE-COVERED WATERS 

Allen, A.A. 2000. Tier II and Beyond: Response Operations at

Allen, A.A. 2000. Tier II and Beyond: Response Operations at

Freeze-up and Break-up. Proceedings of the International Oil

and Ice Workshop, Anchorage, organized by Alaska Clean

Seas, Prudhoe Bay, Alaska (on disk only).

Allen, A.A. 1987. Test and Evaluation of the Helitorch for the

Ignition of Oil Slicks. Proceedings of the 10th Arctic Marine

Oil Spill Program (AMOP) Technical Seminar, Edmonton. 

Allen, A.A. 1983. Oil Spill Response in the Arctic - Part 2: Field

Demonstrations in Broken Ice. Shell Oil Company, Sohio

Alaska Petroleum Company, Exxon Company, U.S.A., Amoco

Production Company. Anchorage, Alaska.

Barnes, P.W., Reimnitz, E., Toimil, E., and Hill, H. 1979. Fast Ice

Thickness and Snow Depth in Relation to Oil Entrapment

Potential, Prudhoe Bay, Alaska. USCG Open File Report 

79-539, Menlo Park, California.

Bech, C. and Sveum, P. 1991. Spreading of Oil in Snow.

Proceedings of the Fourteenth Arctic Marine Oil Spill

Program (AMOP) Technical Seminar, pp. 57-71. 

Bech, C., Sveum, P., and Buist, I.A. 1993. The Effect of Wind, Ice

and Waves on the In-Situ Burning of Emulsions and Aged

Oils. Proceedings 16th Arctic Marine Oil Spill Program

(AMOP) Technical Seminar, Calgary, Alberta, Canada, pp.

735-748. 

Belore, R.C. and Buist, I.A. 1988. Modeling of Oil Spills in Snow.

Proceedings of the 11th Arctic Marine Oil Spill Program

(AMOP) Technical Seminar, pp. 9-29.

Brown, H.M. and Goodman, R.H. 1986. In-Situ Burning of Oil in

Ice Leads. Proceedings of the Ninth Arctic Marine Oil Spill

Program (AMOP) Technical Seminar, Edmonton, pp. 245-256.

Buist, I.A., Ross, S.L., Trudel, B.K., Taylor, E., Campbell, T.G.,

Westphal, P.A., Myers, M.R., Ronzio, G.S., Allen, A.A., and

Nordvik, A.B. 1994. The Science, Technology and Effects of

Controlled Burning of Oil Spills at Sea. MSRC Technical

Report Series 94-013, Marine Spill Response Corporation,

Washington, D.C., p. 382.

Buist, I.A., Joyce, S. and Dickins, D. 1987. Oil Spills in Leads:

Tank Tests and Modeling. Report EE-95 for Environment

Canada, Environmental Protection Service, Ottawa, Ontario,

Canada. 

Buist, I.A., Potter, S., and Dickins, D. 1983. Fate and Behavior of

Water-in-Oil Emulsions in Ice. Proceedings Sixth Arctic

Marine Oil Spill Program (AMOP) Technical Seminar, 

pp. 263-279. 

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Counterspil Research Inc. 1992. Evaluation of the Foxtail

Skimmer in Broken Ice. Prepared for the Canadian Petroleum

Association (CPA), Alaska Clean Seas, Canadian Coast

Guard, CISPRI, Environment Canada and MSRC. Technical

Report No. 92-01 produced by the CPA, Calgary, Alberta,

Canada. 

Cox, J.C. and Schultz, L.A. 1980. The Transport and Behaviour of

Oil Spilled Under Ice. Proceedings of the Third Arctic Marine

Oil Spill Program Technical Seminar, Environment Canada,

Ottawa, Ontario, Canada, pp. 45-61. 

Deslauriers, P.C. and Martin, S. 1978. Behavior of the Bouchard

#65 Oil Spill in the Ice-covered Waters of Buzzards Bay.

Proceedings 10th Annual Offshore Technology Conference,

pp. 267-276, Houston, Texas.

DF Dickins Associates and Fleet Technology Limited. 1992.

Behaviour of Spilled Oil at Sea (BOSS); Oil-in-Ice Fate and

Behaviour. report submitted to Environment Canada, US

Minerals Management Service and American Petroleum

Institute [Draft]. 

Environment Canada. Annual. Arctic Marine Oil Spill Program

(AMOP) Technical Seminar. Proceedings published annually

since 1977. 

Fingas, M. F. 1998. In-Situ Burning of Oil Spills: An Overview.

Spill Technology Newsletter, Vol. 23 (1-4), Ottawa, Ontario,

Canada. 

Finnish Environment Institute. Nov 2001. Proceedings for

Seminar: Combating Marine Oil Spills in Ice and Cold/Arctic

Conditions, Helsinki, Finland. 

Getman, J.H. and Shultz, L.A. 1976. Tests of Oil Recovery

Devices in a Broken Ice Field. Proceedings Offshore

Technology Conference, Dallas, Texas. 

Guénette, C.C. and Wighus, R. 1996. In-Situ Burning of Crude

Oil and Emulsions in Broken Ice. Proceedings 19th Arctic

Marine Oil Spill Program (AMOP) Technical Seminar.

Calgary, Alberta, Canada. June 12-14, 1996. Environment

Canada, pp. 895-906.

Guenette, C.C. and Sveum, P. 1995. In-Situ Burning of

Uncontained Crude Oil and Emulsions. Proceedings 18th

Arctic Marine Oil Spill Program (AMOP) Technical Seminar,

Edmonton, Canada.

Hirvi, J.P., Hakala, R., and Rytkonen, J. 1987 Study of Crude Oil

Behaviour in Sub-Arctic Brackish Water. Report by the

Finnish National Board of Waters and the Environment and

the Technical Research Centre of Finland, Helsinki, Finland.
ADVANCING OIL SPILL RESPONSE IN ICE-COVERED WATERS 17

Johansen, O. 1989. Oil Spill in Ice Simulation Model

Development. Proceedings POAC 89: Port and Ocean

Engineering Under Arctic Conditions, Lulea, Sweden.

Kovacs, A., Morey, R.M., Cundy, D.F., and Decoff, G. 1981.

Pooling of Oil Under Sea Ice. Proceedings, POAC 81: Sixth

International Conference on Port and Ocean Engineering

Under Arctic Conditions, Quebec, pp. 912-922.

Lampela, K. 2000. Baltic Experiences with Spills in Ice.

Proceedings of the International Oil and Ice Workshop,

Anchorage, organized by Alaska Clean Seas, Prudhoe Bay,

Alaska (on disk only).

Mackay, D., Leinonen, P., Overall, J., and Wood, B. 1975. The

Behavior of Oil Spilled on Snow. In journal Arctic 28(1), pp.

9-20. 

Martin, S., Kauffman, P., and Welander, P.E. 1976. A Laboratory

Study of the Dispersion of Crude Oil within Sea Ice Grown

in a Wave Field. University of Washington, Report No. 69,

Seattle, Washington.

McMinn, LTJG T.J. 1972. Crude Oil Behavior on Arctic Winter

Ice: Final Report. Office of Research and Development,

United States Coast Guard, Project 734108, Washington, D.C.,

NTIS Publication No. AP-754, p. 261.

Metge, M. and Telford, A.S. 1979. Oil in Moving Pack Ice:

Laboratory Study. Proceedings POAC 79, Trondheim,

Norway, pp. 255-264.

Nelson, W.G. and Allen, A.A. 1982. The Physical Interaction and

Cleanup of Crude Oil with Slush and Solid First Year Ice.

Proceedings of the Fifth Arctic Marine Oil Spill Program

Technical Seminar, 1982, pp. 37-59.

Owens, E.H., Solsberg, L.B., West, M.R. and McGrath, M. 1998.

Field Guide for Oil Spill Response in Arctic Waters. Report

prepared by Owens Coastal Consultants and Counterspil

Research Inc. for the Emergency Preparedness and Response

Working Group, The Arctic Council (ISBN: 0-660-17555-X) 

Rivet, C. 2000. Canadian Experiences with Oil in Ice over the

Past 20 Years. Proceedings of the International Oil and Ice

Workshop, Anchorage, organized by Alaska Clean Seas,

Prudhoe Bay, Alaska (on disk only).

Sayed, M., Kotlyar, L.S. and Sparks, B.D. 1994. Spreading of

Crude Petroleum in Brash Ice: Effects of Oil Properties and

Water Current. Proceedings International Conference on

Offshore and Polar Engineering, Vol. 1, pp. 225 - 232.

Shum, J.S. and Borst, M. 1985. Ohmsett Tests of a Rope-Mop

Skimmer in Ice Infested Waters. Proceedings International

Oil Spill Conference, pp. 31-34, American Petroleum

Institute, Washington, D.C.

Singaas, I., Brandvik, P., Daling, P., Reed, M., and Lewis, A.

1994. Fate and Behaviour of Oils Spilled in the Presence of

Ice. Proceedings 17th Arctic Marine Oil Spill Program

(AMOP) Technical Seminar, Environment Canada, Ottawa,

Ontario, Canada, pp. 355-370.

SL Ross Environmental Research Ltd. June 1998. Evaluation of

Cleanup Capabilities for Large Blowout Spills in the Alaska

Beaufort Sea During Periods of Broken Ice. With DF Dickins

Associates and Vaudrey and Associates for the U.S. Minerals

Management Service and the North Slope Spill Response

Team, Anchorage, Alaska. 

S.L. Ross Environmental Research Limited. 1983. Evaluation of

Industry's Oil Spill Countermeasures Capability in Broken

Ice Conditions in the Alaskan Beaufort Sea. Report by S.L.

Ross Environmental Research Limited for State of Alaska

Department of Environmental Conservation.

Spaulding, M., Isaji, T., Jayuko, K., Anderson, E., Turner, C. and

Mendelsohn, D. 1989. An Oil Spill Model System for Arctic

Waters. In proceedings 1989 International Oil Spill

Conference, American Petroleum Institute, pp. 517-523. 

Timco, G.W. and Davies, M.H. 1995. Laboratory Tests of Oil Fate

in Cold Water, Ice and Waves. National Research Council,

Ottawa, Ontario, Canada. 

Torling, G. and Nyblom, S. April 2000. Monitoring and

Documentation Techniques for Spills in Ice. Proceedings

International Oil and Ice Workshop, Anchorage, Alaska (disk

only).

Venkatesh, S., El-Tahan, H., Comfort, G., and Abdelnour, R.

1990. Modeling the Behaviour of Oil Spills in Ice Infested

Waters. In Atmosphere-Ocean, Vol. 28, No. 3, pp. 303-329.

Wessels, E. 1993. Cold Environment Tests of Oil Skimmer.

Proceedings 12th International Conference on Port and

Ocean Engineering Under Arctic Conditions. Hamburg,

Germany. 

Wilson, D.G. and Mackay, D. 1987. The Behavior of Oil in

Freezing Situations. Prepared at the University of Toronto 

for the Environmental Protection Directorate, Environment

Canada, Report No. EE-92, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.

World Meteorological Organization. 1970, WMO Sea Ice

Nomenclature. Geneva, p. 147.
Appendix A

Project Steering Committee (2003)

Nancy Bird . . . . . . . . . . . . .Director, Prince William Sound Oil Spill Recovery Institute, Cordova, Alaska

Lawson Brigham . . . . . . . .United States Arctic Research Commission, Anchorage, Alaska

Doug Lentsch . . . . . . . . . . .Cook Inlet Spill Prevention and Response Limited, Nikiski, Alaska 

Joseph Mullin . . . . . . . . . . .U.S. Minerals Management Service, Washington, D.C.

Charlene Owens . . . . . . . .ExxonMobil Upstream Research Company, Houston, Texas

Walter Parker . . . . . . . . . . .Prince William Sound Oil Spill Recovery Institute, Cordova, Alaska

Leslie Pearson . . . . . . . . . .State of Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation, Anchorage, Alaska

John Whitney . . . . . . . . . . .NOAA Hazmat, Anchorage, Alaska

APPENDICES

Appendix B

Solicitation for Technical Comments on 

Initial Draft (October 2003)

USA

BP Exploration (Alaska) 

ConocoPhillips, Anchorage 

US Minerals Management Service

Cook Inlet Spill Prevention and Response 

Alaska Clean Seas

US Navy Supervisor of Salvage and Diving (SUPSALV) 

Alyeska (SERVS)

Cook Inlet Regional Citizens Advisory Council

US Arctic Research Commission 

NOAA Hazmat

ExxonMobil Upstream Research Company 

State of Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation

Cook Inlet Spill Prevention and Response Inc.

Polaris Applied Sciences Inc. 

US Coast Guard R&D Center 

Spiltec 

Clean Caribbean (Antarctic) 

University of New Hampshire

FINLAND

Finnish Environment Institute 

VTT Technical Research Centre of Finland, Helsinki 

Aker Finyards 

NORWAY 

Norwegian Pollution Control Authority 

Norwegian Clean Seas Association for Operating Companies 

(NOFO)

Sintef 

University Svalbard 

CANADA

Environment Canada 

Counterspil Research Inc.

Innovative Ventures 

SL Ross Environmental Research Limited

RUSSIAN FEDERATION

Central Marine Research and Design Institute - CNIIMF 

Sakhalin Oil& Gas Institute (SMN)

Sakhalin Energy Investment Company (SEIC) 

JAPAN

Japan Maritime Safety Agency 

CHINA

Dalian University of Technology 
Appendix C

Workshop Participants - Anchorage, Nov. 4-5, 2003

Name Affiliation

David Dickins . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .DF Dickins Associates Ltd., La Jolla, California 

Lawson Brigham . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .United States Arctic Research Commission, Anchorage, Alaska

Nick Glover, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .BP Exploration (Alaska), Anchorage, Alaska 

Brad Hahn . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Alaska Clean Seas, Anchorage, Alaska 

Charlene Owens . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .ExxonMobil Upstream Research Company, Houston, Texas 

Doug Lentsch . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Cook Inlet Spill Prevention and Response Inc., Nikiski, Alaska

Al Allen . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Spiltec, Washington State 

Joseph Mullin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .U.S. Minerals Management Service, Herndon, Virginia

Ian Buist . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .SL Ross Environmental Research Limited, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada

Jorma Rytkonen . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .VTT Technical Research Centre of Finland, Helsinki

Leslie Pearson . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .State of Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation

Ken Lee . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Fisheries and Oceans Canada - Centre for Offshore Oil and Gas Environmental Research 

(COOGER), Dartmouth, Nova Scotia, Canada

John Whitney . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) NOAA Hazmat, 

Anchorage, Alaska

Walter Parker . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Prince William Sound Oil Spill Recovery Institute, Alaska

Hanne Greiff Johnsen . . . . . . . . . . . .Statoil ASA, Trondheim, Norway 

John Goering . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .University of Alaska Fairbanks, Institute of Marine Science
ADVANCING OIL SPILL RESPONSE

IN ICE- COVERED WATERS

Oil Spill Recovery Institute

P.O. Box 705 - Cordova, AK 99574

frontdes@pwssc.gen.ak.us

www.pws-osri.org 

(907) 424-5800

United States Arctic Research Commission

420 L Street, Suite 315

Anchorage, AK 99501

usarc@acsalaska.net

www.arctic.gov

(907) 271-4577