Marine hydrocarbon-degrading bacteria: their role and application in oil-spill response and enhanced oil recovery

2022 ◽  
pp. 591-600
Author(s):  
Christina Nikolova ◽  
Tony Gutierrez
Keyword(s):  
Enhanced Oil Recovery ◽  
Oil Spill ◽  
Oil Recovery ◽  
Degrading Bacteria ◽  
Oil Spill Response

scholarly journals The National Oil Spill Response and Renewable Energy Test Facility

2011 ◽  
Vol 2011 (1) ◽  
pp. abs104
Author(s):  
Dave DeVitis ◽  
William Schmidt ◽  
Jane Delgado ◽  
Mike Crickard ◽  
Steve Potter
Keyword(s):  
Oil Spill ◽  
Oil Recovery ◽  
Recovery Rate ◽  
Cold Water ◽  
The United States ◽  
Test Method ◽  
Test Facility ◽  
Actual Performance ◽  
Recovery Capacity ◽  
Oil Spill Response

ABSTRACT The American Society of Testing and Materials (ASTM) subcommittee on skimmers recently adopted a standard methodology for measuring I skimmer performance, F 2709 - Standard Test Method for Determining Nameplate Recovery Rate of Stationary Oil Skimmer Systems. Current industry practice allows manufacturers to label skimmers with a nameplate capacity based solely on the skimmer's offload pump capability without regard to the recovery rate as a system. Additionally there is no consideration given to the degradation in recovery performance when pumping fluids with viscosities higher than water. Typically the manufacturer's claimed value is unrealistic when estimating the oil recovery rate (ORR) of a skimming system. Integrating actual performance data into the planning and regulation process is prudent from all perspectives. In the absence of third party data, the United States Coast Guard (USCG) will de-rate a manufacturer's claimed nameplate capacity by 80% or more when calculating the Effective Daily Recovery Capacity (EDRC). The USCG uses EDRC as a key component in rating and regulating the oil spill response capability of responsible parties and oil spill response organizations (OSROs). The ASTM's new skimmer protocol has been used recently at Ohmsett to evaluate four oleophilic skimmers as potential alternatives to the skimmers currently used in Alaska's Prince William Sound (PWS) oil spill response plan. The selected skimmer has undergone a number of modifications with improvements quantified over four additional tests series. This paper focuses on the most recent test of this skimmer, conducted in cold-water conditions using both fresh and weathered Alaska North Slope (ANS) crude oil. During the latest testing, two newly introduced tests were performed: a 24-hour endurance test and a qualitative recovery test in the presence of seaweed.

scholarly journals Response Options for an Offshore Deepwater Blow-Out, A Generic Evaluation of Individual and Combined Response Strategies

2021 ◽  
Vol 2021 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Per Johan Brandvik ◽  
Jørgen Skancke ◽  
Ragnhild Daae ◽  
Kristin Sørheim ◽  
Per S. Daling ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Oil Spill ◽  
Oil Recovery ◽  
Performance Testing ◽  
Similar Amount ◽  
Recovery Rates ◽  
Response Options ◽  
Modelling Studies ◽  
Oil Spill Response ◽  
Different Response ◽  
Mechanical Recovery

Abstract The low oil recovery rates reported during Macondo (3–5% of the released oil) have caused discussions regarding the efficiency of mechanical recovery compared to other oil spill response options. These low recovery rates have unfortunately been used as reference recovery rates in several later modelling studies and oil spill response analysis. Multiple factors could explain these low rates, such as operational priorities, where dispersants and/or in situ burning are given priority before mechanical recovery; extended safety zones; availability of adequate equipment and storage capacity of collected oil; the number of units available; the level of training and the available remote sensing support to guide operations. This study uses the OSCAR oil spill model to simulate a deep-water oil release to evaluate the effect of different response options both separately and in combination. The evaluated response options are subsea dispersant injection, mechanical recovery, and a combination of these. As expected, Subsea Dispersant Injection (SSDI) was highly effective and resulted in a significant reduction in residual surface oil (8% of released oil volume, versus 28% for the non-response option, NR). However, using large offshore oil recovery systems also reduced residual surface oil with a similar amount (9% of released oil volume). These results deviate significantly from the efficiency numbers reported after the Macondo incident and from later modelling studies scaled after the Macondo recovery rates. The increased efficiency of mechanical reported in this study is mainly due to inclusion of updated descriptions of response capabilities, reduced exclusion zone, a more realistic representation of surface oil distribution and modelling of response units' interactions with oil, (efficient oil recovery only on thick parts of the oil slick). The response capabilities and efficiency numbers for the different response options used in this study are based on equipment specifications from multiple response providers and authorities (Norwegian Clean Seas organisation (NOFO), Oil Spill Response (OSRL), Norwegian Coastal Administration (NCA), US Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement (BSEE) and others). These capabilities are justified by well-established contingency plans, offshore exercises and annual equipment performance testing with oil.

A Survey of Classical and New Response Methods for Marine Oil Spill Cleanup

1994 ◽  
Vol 31 (02) ◽  
pp. 79-93
Author(s):  
Emilio A. Tsocalis ◽  
Thomas W. Kowenhoven ◽  
Anastassios N. Perakis
Keyword(s):  
Oil Spill ◽  
Oil Recovery ◽  
Heavy Oil ◽  
Heavy Oil Recovery ◽  
New Materials ◽  
Marine Oil ◽  
Methods And Techniques ◽  
Oil Spill Response ◽  
Oil Spill Cleanup

Both classical and new marine oil spill cleanup response methods and techniques are discussed. The intention is mainly to answer the fundamental questions of when, where, and how to apply the different methods. A brief review of the stages of the oil spill response problem is first presented, followed by the factors that influence the different methods. This is followed by an analysis of some new cleanup methods and improvements to existing methods, specifically: bioremediation, the use of more efficient ships for skimming, the use of fishing nets for heavy oil recovery, and new materials and designs of sorbents. Some cases are also analyzed to evaluate the performance of some methods under real conditions.

MANAGING RISKS OF EXPLOSION DURING OIL RECOVERY, STORAGE, AND TRANSFER OPERATIONS

2005 ◽  
Vol 2005 (1) ◽  
pp. 427-431 ◽  
Author(s):  
Barry A. Romberg ◽  
Dennis M. Maguire ◽  
Richard L. Ranger ◽  
Rod Hoffman
Keyword(s):  
Oil Spill ◽  
Oil Recovery ◽  
Oil Spills ◽  
Lessons Learned ◽  
Additional Risk ◽  
Operational Risks ◽  
Regulatory Standards ◽  
Wide Range ◽  
Oil Spill Response ◽  
Spilled Oil

ABSTRACT This paper examines explosion hazards while recovering spilled oil utilizing oil spill recovery barges. The risk of static accumulation and discharge is well understood after thorough investigations of several incidents in the 1970s and 1980s involving explosions on tank barges and vessels during petroleum cargo loading and unloading operations. However, those lessons learned only partially apply to oil spill recovery operations due to the differences in liquid properties, crew training, and additional tasks required during an oil spill response. While regulatory standards have been enacted for petroleum tankers and barges involved in commercial transportation of oil and other hazardous materials, the utility of these standards for oil spill response vessels has not been fully considered. Inverviews were conducted with marine transporters and response organizations to understand the wide range of operational risks and mitigation proceedures currently in use. This paper outlines the four basic conditions that must be present to create a static discharge-induced explosion during liquid cargo operations. A review of explosion casualty history was completed for cargo operations and compared to operations that create similar hazards during oil spill recovery operations. Specific processes that create additional risk of static-induced explosions during response operations were studied to review mitigation actions. Finally, recommendations for continued training are provided to help guide the spill response community when preparing for and responding to oil spills.

scholarly journals South Baltic Oil Spill Response Project (SBOIL)—Development and Implementation of Models of Drift and Fall Trajectories of Biogenic Oil Binders

2021 ◽  
Vol 13 (17) ◽  
pp. 9889
Author(s):  
Fokke Saathoff ◽  
Marcus Siewert ◽  
Marcin Przywarty ◽  
Mateusz Bilewski ◽  
Bartosz Muczyński ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Oil Spill ◽  
Oil Recovery ◽  
Oil Spills ◽  
New Technology ◽  
Weather Conditions ◽  
Current Response ◽  
Adverse Weather ◽  
Recovery System ◽  
Oil Spill Response

This paper presents the methodology, assumptions, and functionalities of an application developed during the realization of the project “South Baltic Oil Spill Response through Clean-up with Biogenic Oil Binders” (SBOIL). The SBOIL project is a continuation of the BioBind project, the primary goal of which was to develop and deploy an oil recovery system designed for use in coastal waters and adverse weather conditions. The goal of the SBOIL project was to use this new technology to improve the current response capabilities for cross-border oil spills. The developed application allows for the determination of the position of an aircraft at the time of dropping the oil binders, the determination of the oil binders’ position after falling in terms of a specific aircraft’s position, the determination of the position of oil binders after a certain time in order to plan the action of recovering it from the water surface, and the determination of the time when the binders will be in their assumed position.

scholarly journals UNITED STATES COAST GUARD ENVIRONMENTAL EMERGENCY RESPONSE CAPABILITY “THEN” AND “NOW”

2008 ◽  
Vol 2008 (1) ◽  
pp. 459-461
Author(s):  
Leonard Rich
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Emergency Response ◽  
Oil Spill ◽  
Oil Recovery ◽  
Oil Pollution ◽  
The United States ◽  
Coast Guard ◽  
Security Measures ◽  
Worst Case ◽  
Oil Spill Response

ABSTRACT The intent of the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 (OPA90) is to ensure the U.S. Government is prepared to protect the environment from a catastrophic spill of the magnitude and complexity of the 1989 EXXON VALDEZ oil spill. The OPA90 legislation resulted in an overall restructuring and enhancement of the National Strike Force (NSF), and establishment of District Response Groups who are staffed and equipped with mechanical spill recovery assets and are prepared to take prompt actions to mitigate a worst case discharge scenario. During the early 1990s, over $31 million dollars worth of oil spill response equipment was acquired and placed at 23 locations throughout the United States. Since then, an additional $10 million dollars of environmental emergency response equipment has been added to the USCG'S inventory, and are now located at 16 additional sites. This paper will elaborate on the evolution of the USCG'S environmental emergency response capabilities. In terms of preparedness, it will explain how, where and why the Coast Guard has adjusted its resources and capabilities since the OPA90 legislation. The expanded mission requirements include; redistributing and adjusting the locations of the Vessel of Opportunity Skimming Systems, expanding functional use of the pre-positioned equipment for dewatering during shipboard fires, designing and implementing an offload pumping system for viscous oil at each NSF Strike Team, revisiting the condition and continued use of OPA90 procured first response “band-aid’ equipment, modifying the basic response equipment systems for fast current spill response, and the implementation of the Spilled Oil Recovery System. These actions reflect policy and mission adjustments influenced by an ever changing environment. The Coast Guard has re-organized from the bottom up to meet increased port security measures, and the capability to respond to all-hazard incidents. We must continue to maintain a high state of readiness in the oil spill response environment and accept the need to incorporate change to the equipment and the way we conduct our support to the American public.

scholarly journals Assessing Progress and Benefits of Oil Spill Response Technology Development Since Exxon Valdez

2003 ◽  
Vol 2003 (1) ◽  
pp. 843-850 ◽  
Author(s):  
Dagmar Schmidt Etkin ◽  
Peter Tebeau
Keyword(s):  
Oil Spill ◽  
Oil Recovery ◽  
Technology Development ◽  
Cost Savings ◽  
Oil Removal ◽  
Exxon Valdez ◽  
Removal Technology ◽  
Oil Spill Response ◽  
Removal Technologies

ABSTRACT This paper describes a simple approach to quantifying progress and benefits associated with improvements in oil spill removal technology over the past decade, focusing on the most significant oil removal technologies: mechanical recovery, dispersant application and in-situ burning. All three technologies have been the focus of research and development (R&D) efforts since the Exxon Valdez spill. Notable progress has been made in refining the technologies and defining circumstances under which each option will be successful. These accomplishments have been qualitatively described in recent strategic technology assessments. The difficulty that arises in quantitatively predicting future benefits of these advances, is that expected increases in oil removal and associated cost savings are as much a function of specific circumstances of future spills as of advances in spill removal technologies. The specifics of future spills, particularly the larger more troublesome ones, are difficult to predict. In order to obtain representative quantitative estimates of these benefits, a hind-cast technique is demonstrated whereby the advanced technologies are applied to past spill scenarios to determine oil recovery and cost savings that would be realized if these spills were to occur in the future.

ALASKA'S APPROACH TO DETERMINING OIL RECOVERY RATES AND EFFICIENCIES

2014 ◽  
Vol 2014 (1) ◽  
pp. 1749-1758
Author(s):  
Sharry Miller ◽  
John Kotula
Keyword(s):  
Oil Spill ◽  
Oil Recovery ◽  
Recovery Rate ◽  
Environmental Conservation ◽  
Test Method ◽  
Throughput Capacity ◽  
Recovery Rates ◽  
Recovery Capacity ◽  
Starting Point ◽  
Oil Spill Response

ABSTRACT The determination of effective daily recovery capacities for oil skimmers and pumps has been controversial and increasingly critical in recent years. Oil discharge events around the world have highlighted the importance of having effective oil spill response plans, equipment, and procedures in place and available for immediate activation. The Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation (ADEC) has determined that the standard practice of using an effective oil recovery capacity equal to 20 percent of the equipment manufacturer's rated throughput capacity over a 24-hour period is not always realistic for predicting recovery capabilities during an oil spill response. Additionally, always using 20 percent does not give equipment manufacturers incentives to develop improved equipment, nor are plan holders motivated to use best available technology in their response systems. The development of ASTM International (ASTM) “F 2709–08 Standard Test Method for Determining Nameplate Recovery Rate of Stationary Oil Skimmer Systems” (hereafter called ASTM 2709–08) provided a starting point for the assessment of realistic oil recovery rates (ORR) and oil recovery efficiencies (ORE). The standard states, “This test method defines a method and measurement criteria to quantify the nameplate recovery rate (capacity) of a stationary skimmer system in ideal conditions.” The ADEC has worked with plan holders, oil spill response organizations, and oil shipping industry representatives to use the results of testing under ASTM 2709–08 (ideal conditions) as a baseline for determining ORR and ORE in realistic field conditions. This work has been based on a “systems approach” which takes into consideration the operating environments in which the skimmer will be used and the booms which will be used to concentrate and contain oil for skimming. The resulting “Request for Assessment of Skimmer System Efficiency” provides a means for plan holders to convey information which the ADEC can use to make a determination about the skimming system's recovery capabilities.

Combining Best Available Technology: A Systems Approach for Effective Mechanical Oil Spill Response

2014 ◽  
Vol 2014 (1) ◽  
pp. 300184
Author(s):  
Tony Hout ◽  
Tony Parkin ◽  
Samantha Smith ◽  
Regina Ward
Keyword(s):  
Oil Spill ◽  
Oil Recovery ◽  
Task Force ◽  
Water Storage ◽  
Recovery Rates ◽  
Recovery System ◽  
Oil Spill Response ◽  
Best Available Technology ◽  
Water Response ◽  
Available Technology

The toolbox of oil spill response resources now available includes alternative options for organizing, managing, and conducting a response. Best Available Technology (BAT) for Tracking & Surveillance provides an enhanced capability to direct on-water assets when over-flight information may be unavailable. Containment booming systems have the ability to be towed beyond traditional containment boom towing speeds, increasing oil encounter rates. Advances in skimming technology have led to higher oil recovery rates and higher skimmer efficiency rates, and therefore help reduce on-water storage requirements. The ability to combine this BAT into a single recovery system provides for timely and effective on-water response. Using BAT systems allows Operations Section Chiefs to organize a response into geographically defined divisions as opposed to traditional on-water groups with Task Force Leaders (TFLs) making autonomous, in-field decisions. This is an important enhancement in oil spill response. When conditions preclude over-flights for oil trajectory information, new surveillance BAT may still provide TFLs with information to assist in continuing efficient operations. With oil spill response vessels (OSRVs) with high skimming and storage capabilities operating at the source of the spill, TFLs can direct BAT recovery systems into heavily impacted areas away from the source. Each system can consist of: one TF leader vessel with BAT tracking and surveillance assets and an assigned Area of Responsibility (AOR); two advanced containment booming systems with assigned vessels; and [any number of?] highly efficient skimmers. Combining these response assets with adequate on-water storage of recovered liquids, the TF leader is better able to direct each recovery system into the thickest parts of the oil to maximize on-water encounter and recovery rates.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document