scholarly journals The estimation of regional oil recovery capacity based on marine oil spill response scenario in Vietnam

2019 ◽  
Vol 2 (2) ◽  
pp. 97-111 ◽  
Author(s):  
Phan Van Hung ◽  
Kwang-Soo Kim
Keyword(s):  
Oil Spill ◽  
Oil Recovery ◽  
Marine Oil ◽  
Recovery Capacity ◽  
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.

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.

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.

scholarly journals Integrating marine oil snow and MOSSFA into oil spill response and damage assessment

2021 ◽  
Vol 165 ◽  
pp. 112025
Author(s):  
Jesse Ross ◽  
David Hollander ◽  
Susan Saupe ◽  
Adrian B. Burd ◽  
Sherryl Gilbert ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Oil Spill ◽  
Damage Assessment ◽  
Marine Oil ◽  
Oil Spill Response

AN OIL SPILL INFORMATION MANAGEMENT SYSTEM FOR NEW ZEALAND

2005 ◽  
Vol 2005 (1) ◽  
pp. 321-328
Author(s):  
Julian Roberts ◽  
Alain Lamarche
Keyword(s):  
New Zealand ◽  
Information Management ◽  
Oil Spill ◽  
Management System ◽  
Marine Pollution ◽  
Information Management System ◽  
Response Strategy ◽  
Marine Oil ◽  
Database Technology ◽  
Oil Spill Response

ABSTRACT The Maritime Safety Authority of New Zealand (MSA) has a mandate to promote a safe and clean marine environment and to provide an effective marine pollution response capability. As part of its obligations, the MSA is responsible for the New Zealand Marine Oil Spill Response Strategy and the preparation of a National Marine Oil Spill Contingency Plan for Tier 3 spill events (Maritime Transport Act 1994, S.283). The MSA is currently working on the design of an extensive coastal information database—including information such as marine and natural resource inventories and coastal human-built infrastructures—that can be mapped in a GIS system. A customised toolset is also being developed to streamline the management of the database. The benefits of GIS-based information management systems in oil spill response have been demonstrated by a number of overseas response agencies. However, many of these rely on discrete components or only fulfil specific individual requirements, such as the provision of coastal resource information. Having reviewed these approaches, New Zealand has embarked on the development of a more integrated and comprehensive oil spill information management system that will deliver a broad range of applications and serve to provide a framework for the seamless management and reporting of all the types of data that are generated throughout the life cycle of an oil spill response. The system combines GIS and database technology. It includes field survey management support, as well as automated treatment mechanisms to produce reports and maps to support planning and operations. The system also integrates a pre-spill shoreline segmentation database. The benefits of such a system will include the recording and presentation of all types of response data that is more responsive to the needs of operational decision makers; the ability to better track the progress of spill cleanup activities in both a temporal and spatial context; and the generation of customised reports to assist in cost recovery claims on termination of response activities.

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.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document