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.

MARINE OIL SPILL RESPONSE OPTIONS: THE MANUAL

1997 ◽  
Vol 1997 (1) ◽  
pp. 881-885 ◽  
Author(s):  
Scott B. Robertson ◽  
Alexis Steen ◽  
Robert Pavia ◽  
LCDR David Skewes ◽  
Ann Hayward Walker
Keyword(s):  
Oil Spill ◽  
Open Water ◽  
Response Options ◽  
Marine Oil ◽  
Environmental Consequences ◽  
Wide Range ◽  
Oil Spill Response ◽  
Response Decisions ◽  
Different Response ◽  
Response Method

ABSTRACT When planning response activities for an oil spill, decision makers must react to a wide range of circumstances. Decisions will vary depending on the type of petroleum product spilled and the nature of the impacted habitat. Response decisions will be based on tradeoffs dealing with the environmental consequences of the spilled oil and the response method selected, as well as the efficiency and effectiveness of the method. A new manual, Marine Oil Spill Response Options for Minimizing Environmental Impacts, is being jointly produced by industry and government to facilitate decision making for both prespill planning and incident response. Guidance will be provided through matrix tables indicating the relative environmental consequences of the different response options used for various categories of oil in open water and shoreline habitats. This paper describes the contents of the new manual.

STATISTICAL ANALYSIS OF OIL SPILL RESPONSE OPTIONS: A NOAA-U.S. NAVY JOINT PROJECT

2001 ◽  
Vol 2001 (2) ◽  
pp. 883-890 ◽  
Author(s):  
Christopher H. Barker ◽  
William P. Healy
Keyword(s):  
Oil Spill ◽  
Trajectory Analysis ◽  
Oil Spills ◽  
Current Version ◽  
Continue Development ◽  
Joint Project ◽  
Response Options ◽  
Oil Spill Response ◽  
Different Response ◽  
Impact Events

ABSTRACT The U.S. Navy is in the process of re-evaluating its oil spill response preparedness. As part of that effort, the Navy and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) have teamed up to continue development of a tool designed to help planners assess their response effectiveness: the Trajectory Analysis Planner (TAP). TAP is an interface to a database of thousands of modeled oil spill trajectories, an ensemble of trajectories that represent the population of all possible spills. The TAP interface helps response planners understand characteristics of the possible oil spills in a given region. With this understanding, they can not only plan for one or a few possible high-impact events, but can determine the best overall plan for many events, across a large spectrum of probabilities and levels of impact. This paper is the result of the joint NOAA-Navy project to extend the capabilities of TAP. The capabilities and interface of the current version of the program (TAP II) are presented, along with some of its limitations. The need and direction of the development of a new version (TAP III) that will address some of these limitations is discussed. This future approach will allow planners to assess how different response options are likely to influence the ultimate impact of an oil spill in a region.

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.

scholarly journals A Tool For Comparing Relative Risks to Ecological Components Associated With Different Oil Spill Response Options

2021 ◽  
Vol 2021 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Michael Bock ◽  
Hilary Robinson ◽  
Richard Wenning ◽  
Deborah French-McCay ◽  
Jill Rowe ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Oil Spill ◽  
Application Framework ◽  
Analysis Tool ◽  
Web Based ◽  
Response Options ◽  
Relative Risks ◽  
Collaborative Tool ◽  
Comparative Risk ◽  
Oil Spill Response ◽  
Different Response

ABSTRACT Subsea dispersant injection (SSDI) applied to a deepwater blowout has been shown to be a highly efficient oil spill response (OSR) tool that, under appropriate conditions, can substantially lessen and delay oil surfacing as well as reduce the persistence of surface oil slicks. Bock et al. (2018) explored the relative ecological and societal risks associated with integration of SSDI into OSR strategies in the northern Gulf of Mexico using a comparative risk assessment (CRA) desktop analysis tool. The CRA analysis tool was developed with regulatory and stakeholder engagement and communication in mind; the user interface and emphasis on visualization of the assessment results were intended to facilitate rapid examination of the consequences of different spill scenarios in the presence and absence of SSDI and other OSR technologies. Using the CRA tool, decision makers are now better able to predict the nature and extent of the likely consequences to shoreline and aquatic valued ecological components (VECs) and environmental compartments (ECs), and examine the relative consequences of deploying different response technologies. The CRA tool has been substantially improved and has been redesigned from an Excel spreadsheet into a web-based application with enhanced interactive data visualizations and collaboration tools. The new web-based CRA tool is based on the Shiny application framework, an R based open source system for building interactive web-based applications. The updated CRA tool (https://nert.shinyapps.io/CRA_viewer/) now includes improved visualizations of the oil spill modeling results, depictions of the spatial footprint of different ECs, and the interactive exploration of the CRA results and intermediate calculations. Stakeholders are able to drill down into the components of the analysis and more easily explore the parameters that drive CRA scores, as well as explore alternative scoring options. The tool has also been modified to facilitate updating the CRA tool for new oil spill scenarios and OSR options. This web-based interactive CRA tool greatly enhances the usability of CRA as a collaborative tool for evaluating OSR options during planning and can also be used to inform the evaluation of response options during planning, training, and during an incident.

NOFO Oil spill response “The way we train”

2017 ◽  
Vol 2017 (1) ◽  
pp. 431-446
Keyword(s):  
Oil Spill ◽  
Large Scale ◽  
Performance Requirement ◽  
Incident Command ◽  
Large Scale Field ◽  
Oil Spill Response ◽  
Cost Efficient ◽  
The Individual ◽  
Different Response ◽  
Norwegian Continental Shelf

ABSTRACT In a situation where oil is spilled on the Norwegian Continental Shelf (NCS) the operator is responsible for the oil spill response. To do this in a robust and efficient way Norwegian Clean Seas Association for Operating Companies (NOFO) handles the oil spill response on behalf of all member companies. Handling an oil spill response situation in all its forms from offshore incident to beach restoration involves many different resources, skills and people. Introducing Incident Command System (ICS) as the command system for this task even increases the amount of training we need to do. How can NOFO achieve the optimal training of our common and shared response resources in a time where focus is on an effective and robust response? Having an overview of the different response needs and response plans NOFO coordinates activity, training and exercises in an efficient way. This is done with the aid of NOFO’s operative plan. The plan describes every resource with a performance requirement and puts it in to a response context. This gives NOFO a foundation to build a response that is structured and cost efficient for our members. Furthermore, this enables NOFO to tailor our training and exercises from the individual responder/resource to the complex large-scale field exercise which involves typically 250–350 people from numerous different operating companies, municipalities, governmental and private responders. This paper will describe how we plan, train and exercise on the NCS in order to be prepared for response in an efficient and robust way.

Why Sample? - Understanding Common Sampling Objectives for Oil Spill Response

2017 ◽  
Vol 2017 (1) ◽  
pp. 2561-2580
Author(s):  
Angeline Morrow ◽  
Christopher Pfeifer ◽  
Victoria Broje ◽  
Rachel Grunberg
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Oil Spill ◽  
Health And Safety ◽  
Chemical Properties ◽  
Alternative Response ◽  
Response Options ◽  
Worker Health And Safety ◽  
Oil Spill Response ◽  
Key Aspects ◽  
Physical And Chemical

ABSTRACT #2017-204: There is a growing recognition of the role science plays in supporting oil spill response coupled with increasing reliance on data-driven management and decision-making approaches. Collecting samples for analysis of hydrocarbons and other chemicals potentially used during oil spill response (e.g., dispersants) has become common place on many spills. While the rationale and approaches for oil spill sampling may be well known to experienced chemists and environmental scientists, the response community is still gaining experience in integrating sampling programs into dynamic oil spill response and decision-making. This paper reviews common sampling objectives for three key aspects of spill response: operational decision-support, environmental impact assessment (including natural resource damage assessment), and source identification. These broad categories span a range of interrelated sub-topics including, among others, public/worker health and safety; understanding how physical and chemical properties of oil influence selection of response options; monitoring cleanup effectiveness, especially for alternative response technologies such as dispersants; identifying and differentiating between spill and non-spill pollution sources; and evaluating potential impacts to resources at risk. Methods for achieving sampling objectives, including development of Sampling and Analysis Plans, are discussed with the goal of increasing awareness among response managers and improving response capability among staff who may be tasked with sampling support during training exercises or actual incidents. Relevant considerations for study design, collection methods, and analytical parameters are also reviewed.

Dispersant-Related Oil Spill Response Communication Tools: Toward an Enhanced Approach to Conveying Complex Topics in an Approachable Manner

2014 ◽  
Vol 2014 (1) ◽  
pp. 1163-1171
Author(s):  
Thomas Coolbaugh ◽  
Erik DeMicco ◽  
Emily Kennedy
Keyword(s):  
Oil Spill ◽  
Extensive Study ◽  
Optimal Decision ◽  
Specific Response ◽  
Negative Effects ◽  
Response Options ◽  
The Public ◽  
Scientific Principles ◽  
Oil Spill Response ◽  
Informed Opinion

ABSTRACT During the response to the Macondo Well release in the Gulf of Mexico in 2010, it became evident fairly quickly that there was a potential disconnect between existing scientifically-based information relating to the use of oil spill dispersants and the information that was readily available to the general public, the media, and government officials. At best, both sets of information were aligned and provided a valuable perspective to those who sought an increased understanding of the workings of oil spill response tools. At worst, there was a large misalignment and the information that was available to the public did not accurately reflect the known science of what dispersants have been designed to achieve. In this latter case, conclusions about dispersant use may have been formed incorrectly, providing a backdrop upon which individuals were not able to develop an informed opinion regarding the use of dispersants. In the case where incomplete and potentially unbalanced information is used to inform the public, it is possible that negative effects will result, i.e., opinions may be formed based on fear of the unknown, causing a delayed or less than optimal decision making process. While it is recognized that decisions made during a spill response may be challenging and may involve an environmental trade-off, an informed public can be a valuable asset during the stages of an emergency response when the pros and cons of the specific response options are being debated. To assist with an informed dialog, it is important to have materials available that accurately reflect the scientific principles upon which they are based, but without requiring extensive study of their details for a general understanding of their primary assumptions and conclusions. This paper summarizes recent efforts to develop readily available materials that can provide a better understanding of the use of dispersants during an offshore oil spill response. These efforts have been focused on developing simple yet effective tools which describe dispersants within the framework of an oil spill response tool box and the scenarios in which these tools may be used for the most positive environmental effect.

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.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document