TEXAS AUTOMATED BUOY SYSTEM: REAL-TIME CURRENTS FOR OIL SPILL RESPONSE

1997 ◽  
Vol 1997 (1) ◽  
pp. 73-78 ◽  
Author(s):  
Robert D. Martin ◽  
F. J. Kelly ◽  
Linwood L. Lee ◽  
Norman L. Guinasso
Keyword(s):  
Oil Spill ◽  
Public Access ◽  
Response Effort ◽  
Web Page ◽  
Texas Coast ◽  
Marine Industry ◽  
Industry Response ◽  
Oil Spill Response ◽  
Response Group ◽  
Current Reversal

ABSTRACT If the question asked of the oil spill R&D community is, “What have you done for me lately?,” a solid answer is the Texas Automated Buoy System (TABS) and its contribution to the response effort in the 3000-barrel Buffalo Barge 292 oil spill. The TABS network consists of five automated buoys anchored off the Texas coast that report half-hourly current measurements every 6 hours under normal conditions and every 2 hours during spill events. Public access to TABS is provided via an easy-to-use Internet Web page. Because of TABS, trajectory modelers knew the offshore currents within minutes of the Buffalo Barge 292 spill and were able to continuously track the currents along the Texas coast over the next 24 days. TABS also provided the first indications of a critical current reversal during the spill that allowed planners and managers to confidently stand down response preparations (and their associated costs) in some areas while redirecting response resources to truly threatened sections of the coast. Industry partners to date include Aramco Services Company, the Marine Spill Response Corporation, and the Marine Industry Response Group. Industry involvement is critical to maintaining the operational focus of TABS.

OILED WILDLIFE RESPONSE - THE ROLE OF AN OIL INDUSTRY SPILL RESPONSE CO-OPERATIVE

2008 ◽  
Vol 2008 (1) ◽  
pp. 977-979 ◽  
Author(s):  
Holland R.D. ◽  
James R.A. ◽  
Coates S. ◽  
Clements M. ◽  
Nijkamp H.
Keyword(s):  
Animal Welfare ◽  
Oil Spill ◽  
Administrative Support ◽  
Ad Hoc ◽  
Response Effort ◽  
Public Attention ◽  
International Response ◽  
Oil Spill Response ◽  
Media Imagery ◽  
Response Group

ABSTRACT During an oil spill, public attention is focussed on animal welfare and care, primarily channelled through powerful media imagery and comment. Traditionally, animal welfare organisations are tasked to provide the manpower and resources to manage the rehabilitation and response effort, with Government and industry providing financial and administrative support on an ad hoc basis as the incident dictates. A novel response model has now been developed between the oil industry'S international response group, Oil Spill Response and East Asia Response Ltd (OSRL/EARL), and the wildlife response community. OSRL/EARL working in co-operation with the independent Sea Alarm Foundation (SAF) have collectively addressed oiled wildlife response issues and married their individual strengths, capabilities and resources to bring a new approach to oiled wildlife response. Preparedness and response activities to oiled wildlife will be enhanced and improved globally via the establishment of a database of Country Wildlife Response Profiles, a pool of specialist experts for wildlife response, equipment stockpiles at an aviation secure base and development of wildlife response plans in co-operation with recognised international groups. This poster details how these activities will benefit oiled wildlife response globally.

FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT OF POLLUTION RESPONSE EFFORT—BEFORE, DURING, AND AFTER THE SPILL

1989 ◽  
Vol 1989 (1) ◽  
pp. 189-191
Author(s):  
Darryle M. Waldron
Keyword(s):  
Emergency Response ◽  
Oil Spill ◽  
Financial Management ◽  
Contingency Planning ◽  
Response Effort ◽  
Clean Environment ◽  
The Social ◽  
Oil Spill Response ◽  
The Cost ◽  
Business Philosophy

ABSTRACT Oil spill response has evolved tremendously over the past 20 years in technology and technique, as well as in the social demand for a clean environment. The cost of response to a pollution incident has likewise grown at a time in which both federal and private funds are less available. Although the spiller may publicly claim he will clean up the spill no matter what the cost, cost becomes an issue as the bills start coming in. The purpose of this paper is to provoke consideration of the financial management of an oil spill response, not only to reduce costs, but to reduce confusion during the early days of a response. As in any type of emergency response, contingency planning is essential for success. Having designated, but flexible, procedures and plans in place before the spill will allow the experts to concentrate on mitigation instead of future litigation. The ideas presented here are based on experience in federal responses, common sense, basic financial management principles, and a business philosophy of integrity and efficiency.

EFFECTIVELY MANAGING LEVEL OF EFFORT IN OIL SPILL CLEANUP: RESOLVING THE “HOW CLEAN IS CLEAN” ISSUE

1995 ◽  
Vol 1995 (1) ◽  
pp. 663-666
Author(s):  
Peter A. Tebeau
Keyword(s):  
Oil Spill ◽  
Effective Management ◽  
Response Effort ◽  
Environmental Benefit ◽  
Exxon Valdez ◽  
Management Decisions ◽  
Oil Spill Response ◽  
Oil Spill Cleanup ◽  
Level Of Effort

ABSTRACT Successful oil spill response requires effectively managing the level of effort devoted to response operations. This includes choosing appropriate technologies and implementing them to achieve optimal environmental benefit, while controlling costs. At the end of the response, effective management requires resolving the “how clean is clean” issue to ensure a smooth termination of the response effort. Various approaches to making these management decisions are reviewed, based on experience in the Exxon Valdez, American Trader, and Morris J. Berman spills. The advantages and constraints of these approaches are summarized, along with suggestions about how the process might be facilitated.

WORKER SAFETY AND TRAINING REQUIREMENTS IN THE MARINE ENVIRONMENT

1995 ◽  
Vol 1995 (1) ◽  
pp. 945-946
Author(s):  
Jonathan K. Waldron
Keyword(s):  
Waste Disposal ◽  
Oil Spill ◽  
Worker Safety ◽  
Response Effort ◽  
Emergency Operations ◽  
Safety Requirements ◽  
Training Requirements ◽  
Hazardous Waste Disposal ◽  
Oil Spill Response ◽  
And Training

ABSTRACT The current worker safety requirements focus primarily on land-based hazardous waste disposal sites and emergency operations at land sites. It is often difficult to interpret the application of these requirements in the context of marine-related oil spill response operations. Overlapping governmental jurisdictions can cause problems associated with worker safety activities and suggestions relating to the application of safety requirements to persons who may become involved with a response effort are offered.

Unmanned Air Systems: Technology and Regulatory Advances for the Oil Spill Response Community

2017 ◽  
Vol 2017 (1) ◽  
pp. 2017120
Author(s):  
Jeff Williams ◽  
Kevin Hand ◽  
Christian Haselwimmer
Keyword(s):  
Oil Spill ◽  
Federal Aviation Administration ◽  
Video Data ◽  
Incident Management ◽  
Response Effort ◽  
Exercise Tests ◽  
Commercial Use ◽  
Oil Spill Response ◽  
The U.S ◽  
Common Operating Picture

Field testing small unmanned air systems (UAS) in marine oil spill response exercises began in 2006. Soon afterward there were multiple credible examples where uas's could complement the traditional roles which manned aircraft filled for oil spill observation. Testing stopped abruptly in 2007 when the U.S. Federal Aviation Administration changed rules for the commercial use of uas's. Testing resumed in 2013 after the U.S. Congress mandated that the FAA finalize operating rules for uas commercial use. Exercise tests validated oil spill observation by uas's when an experienced aerial oil spill observer confirmed that properly equipped uas platforms and cameras could offer results equal to manned aircraft flights. Today there are a much wider variety of uas's and increasingly more capable sensors which can be utilized for creating highly detailed maps or data collection for geographic information system applications such as the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Environmental Response Management Application (ERMA). Radio technology advances have also improved the ability to transfer video/data over greater distance and faster speeds than initial tests. Mobile ad hoc networks of multiple radios can transfer uas data streams beyond line of sight and connect with the internet for even broader distribution. This same network can also be used by responders in the field to exchange video, voice and location data and be linked real time with command post map displays and data feeds creating a true common operating picture across the entire response effort. From an organizational perspective, uas's are not discussed in the 2014 USCG Incident Management Handbook. Despite this however, their activities need coordinated with manned aircraft through Air Operations for regulations and safety. Staging them at airports serves little purpose given their flexibility and small size. Better utilization would be achieved placing the uas and operators near the command posts or at staging sites alongside the boats or vehicles they would work from. Their unique differences would also support creating a UAS Group Supervisor in Air Operations to clarify their requirements and tasking. The Situation Unit would typically be the best central receiving point for incoming data and from there aerial observers and data specialists can route video / data to operations, gis users and display operators managing the common operating picture. Additional topics for final presentation:*See and avoid capabilities*Automatic Dependent Surveillance–Broadcast (ADS-B) transmitters/receivers*Night flights approval*New operator regulations not requiring pilot's license

scholarly journals Shoreline Contamination Report 2015 SS Arrow Spill Chedabucto Bay, NS, Canada

2021 ◽  
Vol 2021 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Shannon MacDonald ◽  
Leanne Zrum ◽  
Stéphane Grenon ◽  
Sonia Laforest ◽  
Patrick Lambert
Keyword(s):  
Climate Change ◽  
Nova Scotia ◽  
Oil Spill ◽  
Coast Guard ◽  
Response Effort ◽  
Ongoing Research ◽  
Assessment Technique ◽  
Oil Spill Response ◽  
Survey Results ◽  
National Environmental

The 1970 SS Arrow incident in Chedabucto Bay, Nova Scotia (NS) was a milestone event in Canada's oil spill response history and has been used by Environment and Climate Change Canada (ECCC) for ongoing research for almost 50 years. In August of 2015, the remaining sunken section of the SS ARROW released Bunker C oil from its tanks and some sections of shorelines impacted in 1970 were affected once again. The Canadian Coast Guard led the 2015 response effort, which included Shoreline Clean-Up and Assessment Technique (SCAT) surveys, to evaluate the contamination on the shorelines of Chedabucto Bay. This poster presents an overview of the 1970 event as well as the shoreline contamination resulting from the 2015 release from the SS Arrow. It summarizes the SCAT survey results and the operational response of the ECCC's National Environmental Emergencies Centre (NEEC) in support of the incident.

MANAGING HERITAGE RESOURCE PROTECTION: A CASE STUDY FROM THE BERMAN SPILL RESPONSE1

1995 ◽  
Vol 1995 (1) ◽  
pp. 695-699
Author(s):  
Audrey A. McKinley ◽  
Agamemnon Gus Pantel
Keyword(s):  
Oil Spill ◽  
Team Approach ◽  
Response Effort ◽  
High Performing ◽  
Response Planning ◽  
Subsequent Response ◽  
Resource Protection ◽  
Protection Strategies ◽  
Oil Spill Response

ABSTRACT Heritage resources were a significant concern during the Morris J. Berman oil spill response, which began on January 7, 1994, in Puerto Rico. Numerous pre-Columbian artifacts and archeological sites, along with some of the oldest historic structures under U. S. jurisdiction were at risk from the spreading oil and subsequent response activities. A group of interagency professionals quickly formed into what was soon known as the Heritage Resources Management Team to deal with the myriad evolving issues involving heritage resources. Discovering success in a team approach, this core team became an integral, high-performing part of the larger response organization. Although this paper presents a case study of how heritage resources were tackled during the Morris J. Berman oil spill response, the decision-making and problem-solving methods described are applicable to any response effort. Incorporating heritage resource protection strategies in response planning and organization is crucial for mitigating future threats to these priceless remains of our history.

TAMING THE OIL SPILL PAPERWORK BEAST: THE ALASKA SPILL RESPONSE PERMITS PROJECT

2005 ◽  
Vol 2005 (1) ◽  
pp. 115-118
Author(s):  
Elise G. DeCola ◽  
Tim L. Robertson ◽  
Terry Bryant ◽  
Gary Folley
Keyword(s):  
Oil Spill ◽  
Work Group ◽  
Environmental Conservation ◽  
Federal Agencies ◽  
Advisory Council ◽  
Specific Information ◽  
Response Effort ◽  
Data Set ◽  
Adobe Acrobat ◽  
Oil Spill Response

ABSTRACT Spill responders, state and federal agencies, and responsible parties have all acknowledged the fact that the permits, forms, and applications required to mount an effective oil spill response can often slow down the response progress or lead to unnecessary confusion. In Alaska, there are forms in use that are copies of copies of forms that have not been updated in years. In other cases, standard agency forms that are available as Word documents have been slightly modified by various users over time. Some forms appear unnecessary in the response effort and may well be carryovers from other venues. This problem has been exacerbated as many Alaska state agencies have reorganized and in some cases, permitting authorities have been transferred. The Spill Response Permits Project was initiated by the Cook Inlet Regional Citizens Advisory Council (CIRCAC) in response to a common concern, voiced by response organizations, responsible parties, and state and federal agencies, that the paperwork burden associated with an Alaska oil spill response is excessive. CIRCAC provided initial funding to form a work group of industry, agency, and response organization representatives that would be charged with taking a fresh look at Alaska's spill permitting requirements. The work group, co-chaired by the Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation, the US Coast Guard, and the Tesoro Alaska Company, began by identifying all oil spill response activities that might generate the need to fill out a permit or authorization form. Next, they inventoried and collected the most up-to-date versions of all permits. Work group participants, including oil spill response cooperatives as well as state and federal agencies with permitting authority, then reviewed all forms and deleted outdated or duplicated requirements. Once the list of permits had been updated, the work group then developed a computer-based organizational tool that could be used to sort, fill out, submit, and file applicable permit forms during an oil spill response or exercise. The computer interface allows the user to enter incident-specific information into a central data set, so that the data may then be exported to the required permit forms with a simple mouse click. The computer tool can be run on any computer platform, with files available for download from the Internet or stored on a CD-Rom. The tool uses the Adobe Acrobat® software application and fills out and stores permit forms in Adobe portable document format (PDF). Additional information about this ongoing project is available at http://www.akgrs.net/Circac/home.htm.

scholarly journals MIRG ENVIRONMENTAL ELEMENT: AN OIL SPILL RESPONSE PLANNING TOOL FOR THE GULF OF MEXICO

1983 ◽  
Vol 1983 (1) ◽  
pp. 175-181
Author(s):  
June Lindstedt-Siva ◽  
Bart J. Baca ◽  
Charles D. Getter
Keyword(s):  
Gulf Of Mexico ◽  
Oil Spill ◽  
Industry Group ◽  
Sensitive Areas ◽  
Response Planning ◽  
Area Of Interest ◽  
Marine Industry ◽  
Oil Spill Response ◽  
Environmental Element ◽  
Spilled Oil

ABSTRACT Several companies involved in the marine transportation of petroleum in the Gulf of Mexico have established the Marine Industry Group (MIRG). MIRG has funded two oil spill contingency planning information projects for the Gulf of Mexico. The Resources and Logistics Element identifies the location and accessibility of cleanup equipment in the area of interest. The Environmental Element describes Gulf of Mexico environments, identifies biologically and socioeconomically sensitive areas, and includes countermeasure considerations. This paper examines the environmental element of the MIRG project. The purpose of this element is to provide environmental information on the Gulf of Mexico coastline in a form that can easily be used during an oil spill emergency. The information covers both U.S. and Mexican nearshore waters and coastal areas and is specific enough to provide meaningful guidance to spill response personnel. The environmental element is divided into two volumes. Volume I is an environmental overview of the Gulf of Mexico, including physical processes that influence the movement of spilled oil, a description of Gulf of Mexico environments, an analysis of possible spill impacts, and spill cleanup considerations for each type of environment. Volume II is divided into regional sections. Each section includes overview maps of the area covered, detailed maps of identified sensitive areas, and accompanying data sheets which include reasons for sensitivity, access and possible launch points for equipment, and countermeasure considerations. These volumes are designed to function as field manuals during spills as well as reference documents for spill response planning.

scholarly journals The Evolution and Implementation of Tiered Preparedness & Response

2021 ◽  
Vol 2021 (1) ◽  
pp. 688567
Author(s):  
Paul Foley ◽  
Claudia Caetano ◽  
Lucy Bly ◽  
Andrew Nicoll ◽  
Rhys Jenkins ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Oil Spill ◽  
Lead Time ◽  
Good Practice ◽  
Response Effort ◽  
Aerial Surveillance ◽  
Time Element ◽  
Oil Spill Response ◽  
Time Required ◽  
Trained Manpower ◽  
Response Capability

ABSTRACT Simply put, responders and planners define response capability in terms of “what it is”, “how much” and “by when”. The types of capability define the “what”, for example the ability to apply dispersant to a surface slick at sea or the ability to mount an aerial surveillance operation to track and monitor the oil (and the response effort) makes up the Toolbox that responders have at their disposal to mitigate impacts of an oil spill. The IPIECA Good Practice Guide on Tiered Preparedness and Response (TPR) recognises 15 such response capabilities that could be required for any given spill scenario and is a direct output from the Joint Industry Project on Oil Spill Response following the Macondo incident in 2010. The “how-much” introduces a quantification of the capability and it is important to recognise that capability is not just a physical measure of the hardware itself (i.e. “six skimmers”) but should include assumptions about the trained manpower to deploy, and the logistical support needed to fully enable the resource to be effective. “By-when” implies a time element that is critical in cascading remote resource effectively. It follows that some capability is required to be immediately available to enable a local response to be initiated quickly and effectively whilst other capabilities, usually only required for larger or more complex spills, can be introduced on a longer lead-time. To help visualise the dynamics of “what”, “how-much and “by-when”, the IPIECA Guide provides a simple model to illustrate the provision of response capability for any given oil spill risk in the form of a wheel with 15 segments representing each element of capability. Each segment is further divided to illustrate the three tiers of cascading capability (Tier 1, near the centre representing capability immediately available, Tier 2 showing intermediate capability, and Tier 3 around the periphery to indicate additional, possibly internationally-sourced capability that necessitates a longer lead time required for the largest or most complex spills.) Planners typically use the tool when matching resources to the identified risk, as it can usefully highlight any gaps that may exist in the provision of capability. This paper draws upon the experience of Oil Spill Response Limited (OSRL) in applying and using the Guide and the TPR wheel, both in planning and in response. Case history evidence will be used to illustrate the benefits and limitations of this industry-adopted planning and response approach.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document