Pub Date : 2021-05-01DOI: 10.7901/2169-3358-2021.1.684710
J. Elliott
The marine salvage industry plays a vital role in protecting the marine environment. Governments, industry and the public, worldwide, now place environmental protection as the driving objective, second only to the safety of life, during a marine casualty response operation. Recognizing over 20 years after the passage of the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 that the effectiveness of mechanical on-water oil recovery remains at only about 10 to 25 percent while the international salvage industry annually prevents over a million tons of pollutants from reaching the world's oceans, ten years ago the United States began implementing a series of comprehensive salvage and marine firefighting regulations in an effort to improve the nation's environmental protection regime. These regulations specify desired response timeframes for emergency salvage services, contractual requirements, and criteria for evaluating the adequacy of a salvage and marine firefighting service provider. In addition to this effort to prevent surface oil spills, in 2016, the U.S. Coast Guard also recognized the salvage industries advancements in removing oil from sunken ships and recovering submerged pollutants, issuing Oil Spill Removal Organization (OSRO) classification standards for companies that have the capabilities to effectively respond to non-floating oils. Ten years after the implementation of the U.S. salvage and marine firefighting regulatory framework, this paper will review the implementation of the U.S. salvage and marine firefighting regulations and non-floating oil detection and recovery requirements; analyze the impacts and effectiveness of these new policies; and present several case studies and recommendations to further enhance salvage and oil spill response effectiveness.
{"title":"The Marine Salvage Industry: Proven in Preventing Oil Spills","authors":"J. Elliott","doi":"10.7901/2169-3358-2021.1.684710","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.7901/2169-3358-2021.1.684710","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 The marine salvage industry plays a vital role in protecting the marine environment. Governments, industry and the public, worldwide, now place environmental protection as the driving objective, second only to the safety of life, during a marine casualty response operation. Recognizing over 20 years after the passage of the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 that the effectiveness of mechanical on-water oil recovery remains at only about 10 to 25 percent while the international salvage industry annually prevents over a million tons of pollutants from reaching the world's oceans, ten years ago the United States began implementing a series of comprehensive salvage and marine firefighting regulations in an effort to improve the nation's environmental protection regime. These regulations specify desired response timeframes for emergency salvage services, contractual requirements, and criteria for evaluating the adequacy of a salvage and marine firefighting service provider. In addition to this effort to prevent surface oil spills, in 2016, the U.S. Coast Guard also recognized the salvage industries advancements in removing oil from sunken ships and recovering submerged pollutants, issuing Oil Spill Removal Organization (OSRO) classification standards for companies that have the capabilities to effectively respond to non-floating oils. Ten years after the implementation of the U.S. salvage and marine firefighting regulatory framework, this paper will review the implementation of the U.S. salvage and marine firefighting regulations and non-floating oil detection and recovery requirements; analyze the impacts and effectiveness of these new policies; and present several case studies and recommendations to further enhance salvage and oil spill response effectiveness.","PeriodicalId":14447,"journal":{"name":"International Oil Spill Conference Proceedings","volume":"82 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"83926735","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2021-05-01DOI: 10.7901/2169-3358-2021.1.1141526
H. Parker, J. Baxter, C. Murray
On the evening of 09–10 September 2017, the Florida Keys were pummeled by Hurricane Irma - a Category 4 storm that was the fifth-costliest hurricane to hit mainland United States, causing an estimated $50 billion in damages, and 34 lives lost in Florida alone. In the Keys, approximately 1350 boats were destroyed or damaged, and approximately 2000 boats were removed from the waters and shorelines from a Unified Command (UC) comprised of U.S. Coast Guard, EPA and Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission funded from the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), under an ESF10 Mission Assignment to remove those vessels displaced from the storm where they had sunk, submerged, or been stranded along the shoreline. On September 28, 2017, the UC decided that boats that were on federal property were the responsibility of that agency to manage, and furthermore, since each of these boats had batteries and in most cases fuel on board they posed an immediate hazardous substance and/or oil spill threat, so requested that Navy undertake operations immediately as the lead FOSC to address each of the vessels sunk, submerged, stranded or otherwise displaced on Navy property in the Key West area. On October 1, 2017, the Navy On-Scene Coordinator Representative (NOSC-R) from Navy Region Southeast (NRSE) deployed to Naval Air Station Key West (NASKW) to manage the response. Once adequate funds were identified and secured, NRSE contracted Navy Supervisor of Salvage (SUPSALV), who quickly arrived on-scene with a contracted private salvor. Operations fell into several stages: locating each vessel on NASKW property and determining its condition; identifying each owner/representative; retrieval and temporary storage of each vessel or its remains on Navy property; contacting vessel owners/representatives to making arrangements for owner or insurance company to retrieve the vessel, or surrender it to Navy custody for final destruction at Navy's expense. A number of challenges arose during this response: finding adequate funds at the end of a fiscal year for an un-programmed multi-million dollar project; identifying owners and contact information; negotiating final disposition of each vessel; allowing owners access to vessels stored on Navy property. After 9 weeks of vessel location and identification, and owner notifications, 15 vessels were retrieved by owners, 13 vessels were towed away or otherwise removed by owner insurance companies, and 52 were barged off to a boatyard for final destruction at Navy's expense. In total, $3M was spent by Navy for this operation.
{"title":"Hurricane Irma–Displaced Vessel and Spill Response at Naval Air Station Key West","authors":"H. Parker, J. Baxter, C. Murray","doi":"10.7901/2169-3358-2021.1.1141526","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.7901/2169-3358-2021.1.1141526","url":null,"abstract":"On the evening of 09–10 September 2017, the Florida Keys were pummeled by Hurricane Irma - a Category 4 storm that was the fifth-costliest hurricane to hit mainland United States, causing an estimated $50 billion in damages, and 34 lives lost in Florida alone.\u0000 In the Keys, approximately 1350 boats were destroyed or damaged, and approximately 2000 boats were removed from the waters and shorelines from a Unified Command (UC) comprised of U.S. Coast Guard, EPA and Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission funded from the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), under an ESF10 Mission Assignment to remove those vessels displaced from the storm where they had sunk, submerged, or been stranded along the shoreline.\u0000 On September 28, 2017, the UC decided that boats that were on federal property were the responsibility of that agency to manage, and furthermore, since each of these boats had batteries and in most cases fuel on board they posed an immediate hazardous substance and/or oil spill threat, so requested that Navy undertake operations immediately as the lead FOSC to address each of the vessels sunk, submerged, stranded or otherwise displaced on Navy property in the Key West area.\u0000 On October 1, 2017, the Navy On-Scene Coordinator Representative (NOSC-R) from Navy Region Southeast (NRSE) deployed to Naval Air Station Key West (NASKW) to manage the response. Once adequate funds were identified and secured, NRSE contracted Navy Supervisor of Salvage (SUPSALV), who quickly arrived on-scene with a contracted private salvor.\u0000 Operations fell into several stages: locating each vessel on NASKW property and determining its condition; identifying each owner/representative; retrieval and temporary storage of each vessel or its remains on Navy property; contacting vessel owners/representatives to making arrangements for owner or insurance company to retrieve the vessel, or surrender it to Navy custody for final destruction at Navy's expense.\u0000 A number of challenges arose during this response: finding adequate funds at the end of a fiscal year for an un-programmed multi-million dollar project; identifying owners and contact information; negotiating final disposition of each vessel; allowing owners access to vessels stored on Navy property.\u0000 After 9 weeks of vessel location and identification, and owner notifications, 15 vessels were retrieved by owners, 13 vessels were towed away or otherwise removed by owner insurance companies, and 52 were barged off to a boatyard for final destruction at Navy's expense. In total, $3M was spent by Navy for this operation.","PeriodicalId":14447,"journal":{"name":"International Oil Spill Conference Proceedings","volume":"11 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"87280989","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2021-05-01DOI: 10.7901/2169-3358-2021.1.687208
T. Nedwed, S. Pegau, Karen Stone
Herders (also known as surface collecting agents) are made of surface active compounds (surfactants). They reduce the surface tension of water and thereby change the spreading behavior of immiscible liquids, such as an oil slick, floating on the surface. Oil slicks that have spread too thin to burn can be re-thickened if herders are sprayed on the water surface around a slick. Once the slick is thickened, it is amenable to in situ burning without the need for fire-resistant boom. Herders are listed as surface collecting agents on the National Contingency Product Schedule administered by the US Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA, 2019) for use in US waters. Herders are commercially available and oil spill response organizations have the capability to utilize herders. A new joint industry / government agency project was recently initiated to develop a novel herder delivery and ignition system. The initial plan is to develop a remotely operated surface vehicle (RSV) that will deliver herder from an onboard reservoir and a system to ignite herded slicks. The RSV we are developing has 10–12 hours of operation time, a range of 500 miles and can travel at speeds of up to 65 miles/hour. The RSV can be deployed from a helicopter that has a cargo hook, a boat, and potentially a fixed-wing aircraft that has an appropriately sized hatch. The vision is rapid deployed to a remote spill location using a helicopter (or a fixed-wing aircraft) and operated from this platform until a response vessel arrives on the scene. The response vessel can then take over RSV control freeing the aircraft for other duties. This paper will describe the planned development and testing of the RSV and other progress toward herder commercialization.
{"title":"Recent Development on Herder Commercialization","authors":"T. Nedwed, S. Pegau, Karen Stone","doi":"10.7901/2169-3358-2021.1.687208","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.7901/2169-3358-2021.1.687208","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 Herders (also known as surface collecting agents) are made of surface active compounds (surfactants). They reduce the surface tension of water and thereby change the spreading behavior of immiscible liquids, such as an oil slick, floating on the surface. Oil slicks that have spread too thin to burn can be re-thickened if herders are sprayed on the water surface around a slick. Once the slick is thickened, it is amenable to in situ burning without the need for fire-resistant boom. Herders are listed as surface collecting agents on the National Contingency Product Schedule administered by the US Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA, 2019) for use in US waters. Herders are commercially available and oil spill response organizations have the capability to utilize herders.\u0000 A new joint industry / government agency project was recently initiated to develop a novel herder delivery and ignition system. The initial plan is to develop a remotely operated surface vehicle (RSV) that will deliver herder from an onboard reservoir and a system to ignite herded slicks. The RSV we are developing has 10–12 hours of operation time, a range of 500 miles and can travel at speeds of up to 65 miles/hour. The RSV can be deployed from a helicopter that has a cargo hook, a boat, and potentially a fixed-wing aircraft that has an appropriately sized hatch. The vision is rapid deployed to a remote spill location using a helicopter (or a fixed-wing aircraft) and operated from this platform until a response vessel arrives on the scene. The response vessel can then take over RSV control freeing the aircraft for other duties.\u0000 This paper will describe the planned development and testing of the RSV and other progress toward herder commercialization.","PeriodicalId":14447,"journal":{"name":"International Oil Spill Conference Proceedings","volume":"11 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"88688886","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2021-05-01DOI: 10.7901/2169-3358-2021.1.688651
Mitch Guinn, C. Castille
Within a two-year period from 2009 through 2010, two major loss of containment incidents were experienced by the industry - Montara and Deepwater Horizon/Macondo. The reputation of the industry and its ability to self-regulate were questioned. Proposing a relief well as the primary recovery option was challenged, and after the failures of initial recovery efforts at Macondo, the US Dept. of Interior imposed a drilling moratorium to allow for the development of more effective response technologies. Several operator-led initiatives were commissioned: ExxonMobil initiated the establishment of the Marine Well Containment Company (MWCC) with Shell, Chevron and ConocoPhillips as founding members. MWCC was initially configured for large companies with multi-disciplined resources to support a full-scale response.Noble Energy and other operators, together with Helix Energy Solution Group (HESG), established an alternate option to MWCC that was built around the mutual aid model. Helix Well Containment Group (HWCG, and later just HWCG, LLC) was better adapted to the needs of small to mid-sized companies.The International Association of Oil & Gas Producers (IOGP) established the Global Industry Response Group (GIRG), consisting of its worldwide membership of oil and gas producers, and tasked it with developing a plan to address the response deficiencies discovered during the Macondo incident. The initial GIRG report (May 2011) launched the Subsea Well Response Project (SWRP), which was charged with developing a design basis for subsea capping and containment systems.The GIRG report also founded the Wells Experts Committee and its Subsea Well Source Control Response Sub-committee which now acts as an industry center for knowledge and sharing.The SWRP was founded and led by nine of the world's largest oil & gas operators and upon project completion, Oil Spill Response, Ltd. (OSRL), was selected to manage the capping and containment equipment.In addition, some operators and multiple well control organizations developed a variety of additional capping stacks and debris removal equipment packages. During development, response equipment and systems were risk-assessed and tested via tabletop exercises. Knowledge was shared across the industry, and as the new equipment packages became physically available, a range of full-scale exercises were conducted which included physically loading aircraft and vessels and deploying equipment on abandoned wells. This paper steps back through the careful forethought in the development of these systems and shares some insights and strategic thinking behind the rationale of different response options and how they are strategically located to provide a global response.
从2009年到2010年的两年间，该行业经历了两次重大的泄漏事故——蒙塔拉和深水地平线/马孔多。该行业的声誉及其自我监管能力受到质疑。将减压井作为主要恢复方案的提议受到了挑战，在Macondo的初步恢复工作失败后，美国内政部颁布了钻探暂停令，以便开发更有效的应对技术。几项由作业者主导的倡议被委托:埃克森美孚发起成立了海洋油井遏制公司(MWCC)，壳牌、雪佛龙和康菲石油是创始成员。MWCC最初是为拥有多学科资源的大公司配置的，以支持全面响应。Noble Energy和其他运营商与Helix Energy Solution Group (HESG)一起，围绕互助模式建立了MWCC的替代方案。Helix Well Containment Group (HWCG，后来更名为HWCG, LLC)更好地适应了中小型公司的需求。国际石油和天然气生产商协会(IOGP)成立了全球行业响应小组(GIRG)，该小组由全球石油和天然气生产商成员组成，其任务是制定一项计划，以解决在Macondo事件中发现的响应缺陷。最初的GIRG报告(2011年5月)启动了海底油井响应项目(SWRP)，该项目负责开发海底封顶和密封系统的设计基础。GIRG报告还成立了油井专家委员会和海底井源控制响应小组委员会，该委员会现在是行业知识和共享中心。SWRP由世界上9家最大的石油和天然气运营商建立和领导，项目完成后，溢油应急响应有限公司(OSRL)被选中管理封顶和密封设备。此外，一些作业者和多家井控公司开发了各种额外的封井装置和碎屑清除设备包。在开发过程中，通过桌面演习对响应设备和系统进行了风险评估和测试。整个行业共享知识，随着新设备包的实际可用，进行了一系列全面的演习，包括实际装载飞机和船只以及在废弃井上部署设备。本文回顾了这些系统在发展过程中的深思熟虑，并分享了不同应对方案背后的一些见解和战略思考，以及它们如何在战略上定位以提供全球应对。
{"title":"Advances in Global Industry Response Capability for Source Control","authors":"Mitch Guinn, C. Castille","doi":"10.7901/2169-3358-2021.1.688651","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.7901/2169-3358-2021.1.688651","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 Within a two-year period from 2009 through 2010, two major loss of containment incidents were experienced by the industry - Montara and Deepwater Horizon/Macondo. The reputation of the industry and its ability to self-regulate were questioned. Proposing a relief well as the primary recovery option was challenged, and after the failures of initial recovery efforts at Macondo, the US Dept. of Interior imposed a drilling moratorium to allow for the development of more effective response technologies. Several operator-led initiatives were commissioned: ExxonMobil initiated the establishment of the Marine Well Containment Company (MWCC) with Shell, Chevron and ConocoPhillips as founding members. MWCC was initially configured for large companies with multi-disciplined resources to support a full-scale response.Noble Energy and other operators, together with Helix Energy Solution Group (HESG), established an alternate option to MWCC that was built around the mutual aid model. Helix Well Containment Group (HWCG, and later just HWCG, LLC) was better adapted to the needs of small to mid-sized companies.The International Association of Oil & Gas Producers (IOGP) established the Global Industry Response Group (GIRG), consisting of its worldwide membership of oil and gas producers, and tasked it with developing a plan to address the response deficiencies discovered during the Macondo incident. The initial GIRG report (May 2011) launched the Subsea Well Response Project (SWRP), which was charged with developing a design basis for subsea capping and containment systems.The GIRG report also founded the Wells Experts Committee and its Subsea Well Source Control Response Sub-committee which now acts as an industry center for knowledge and sharing.The SWRP was founded and led by nine of the world's largest oil & gas operators and upon project completion, Oil Spill Response, Ltd. (OSRL), was selected to manage the capping and containment equipment.In addition, some operators and multiple well control organizations developed a variety of additional capping stacks and debris removal equipment packages.\u0000 During development, response equipment and systems were risk-assessed and tested via tabletop exercises. Knowledge was shared across the industry, and as the new equipment packages became physically available, a range of full-scale exercises were conducted which included physically loading aircraft and vessels and deploying equipment on abandoned wells.\u0000 This paper steps back through the careful forethought in the development of these systems and shares some insights and strategic thinking behind the rationale of different response options and how they are strategically located to provide a global response.","PeriodicalId":14447,"journal":{"name":"International Oil Spill Conference Proceedings","volume":"49 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"81429906","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2021-05-01DOI: 10.7901/2169-3358-2021.1.687221
T. Nedwed, Doug Mitchell
There are still concerns about well control especially for operations in sensitive environments. Currently the final barrier while drilling oil and gas wells is a valve system (blowout preventer or BOP) located on top of wells. These valves can isolate wells by sealing around or shearing through obstructions in the well (e.g. drilling pipe and casing). If these valves fail or if some other barrier in a well fails, hydrocarbon loss to the environment is possible. Adding barriers capable of responding to a well control loss could alleviate these concerns. ExxonMobil is currently evaluating concepts to provide two additional methods to kill an out-of-control well. One utilizes rapid crosslinking polymers to form a polymer-plug seal inside a BOP after a failure. The other is to rapidly pump seawater into a well to produce back pressure that overpressures the entire well bore to keep hydrocarbons from escaping oil / gas bearing zones. Mixing dicyclopentadiene (DCPD) and other monomers with a ruthenium-based catalyst causes a rapid polymerization reaction that forms a high-strength, stable solid. These reactions can occur under extreme temperatures and pressures while withstanding significant contamination from other fluids and solids. The well-control concept is to rapidly pump the monomers and catalyst into a leaking BOP to form a polymer seal that prevents further flow. The seawater injection concept uses high-pressure and capacity pumps located on a surface vessel and a conduit from these pumps to a port on a BOP. If a blowout occurs, seawater at high rate is pumped in the BOP. If BOP seal failure is the reason for containment loss, then the seawater will overpressure the BOP and seawater will displace the hydrocarbons passing through the leak point. Seawater injection will also overpressure the entire wellbore to keep hydrocarbons from escaping anywhere in the well. For example, if a leak occurs deep in the well, seawater injection into the BOP will overpressure the entire well and the seawater will replace the hydrocarbon flowing through the leak point. We have conducted testing of the polymer plug concept at representative temperatures and pressures using a small-scale BOP. Polymer seals were formed when the scale BOP was flowing drilling mud, a crude-oil surrogate, and water. The seals held up to 5,000 psi pressure for almost 18 hours. We have completed modeling of the seawater injection concept to define pumping needs. This paper describes the current status of concept development.
{"title":"Advanced Well Control Reduces Risk of a Blowout","authors":"T. Nedwed, Doug Mitchell","doi":"10.7901/2169-3358-2021.1.687221","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.7901/2169-3358-2021.1.687221","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 There are still concerns about well control especially for operations in sensitive environments. Currently the final barrier while drilling oil and gas wells is a valve system (blowout preventer or BOP) located on top of wells. These valves can isolate wells by sealing around or shearing through obstructions in the well (e.g. drilling pipe and casing). If these valves fail or if some other barrier in a well fails, hydrocarbon loss to the environment is possible. Adding barriers capable of responding to a well control loss could alleviate these concerns. ExxonMobil is currently evaluating concepts to provide two additional methods to kill an out-of-control well. One utilizes rapid crosslinking polymers to form a polymer-plug seal inside a BOP after a failure. The other is to rapidly pump seawater into a well to produce back pressure that overpressures the entire well bore to keep hydrocarbons from escaping oil / gas bearing zones.\u0000 Mixing dicyclopentadiene (DCPD) and other monomers with a ruthenium-based catalyst causes a rapid polymerization reaction that forms a high-strength, stable solid. These reactions can occur under extreme temperatures and pressures while withstanding significant contamination from other fluids and solids. The well-control concept is to rapidly pump the monomers and catalyst into a leaking BOP to form a polymer seal that prevents further flow.\u0000 The seawater injection concept uses high-pressure and capacity pumps located on a surface vessel and a conduit from these pumps to a port on a BOP. If a blowout occurs, seawater at high rate is pumped in the BOP. If BOP seal failure is the reason for containment loss, then the seawater will overpressure the BOP and seawater will displace the hydrocarbons passing through the leak point. Seawater injection will also overpressure the entire wellbore to keep hydrocarbons from escaping anywhere in the well. For example, if a leak occurs deep in the well, seawater injection into the BOP will overpressure the entire well and the seawater will replace the hydrocarbon flowing through the leak point.\u0000 We have conducted testing of the polymer plug concept at representative temperatures and pressures using a small-scale BOP. Polymer seals were formed when the scale BOP was flowing drilling mud, a crude-oil surrogate, and water. The seals held up to 5,000 psi pressure for almost 18 hours. We have completed modeling of the seawater injection concept to define pumping needs. This paper describes the current status of concept development.","PeriodicalId":14447,"journal":{"name":"International Oil Spill Conference Proceedings","volume":"21 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"87531753","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2021-05-01DOI: 10.7901/2169-3358-2021.1.689431
Mary E. Landry, E. Adams, A. Bejarano, M. Boufadel, H. K. White
Each marine oil spill presents unique circumstances and challenges that require careful consideration of which response options are most appropriate for mitigating impacts to local communities and the environment, which may include the use of dispersants. Dispersants are chemical countermeasures that reduce the amount of floating oil by promoting the formation of small droplets that remain or become entrained in the water column, where they are subjected to greater dissolution and dilution. During the Deepwater Horizon oil spill, an unprecedented volume of dispersants was used at the surface and in the deep ocean. The spill stimulated interest and funding for research on oil spill science, especially regarding dispersant use. Building on two previous reports and using this new information, a committee of experts convened by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (NASEM) conducted a review and evaluation of the science on dispersant use. The committee's review focused on various aspects of dispersant use in offshore marine oil spills, including dispersant and oil fate and transport, human health considerations, biological effects, decision making, and alternative response options, among others. The findings and recommendations of the committee were published in the recent report, The Use of Dispersants in Marine Oil Spill Response (available for free download at https://www.nap.edu/catalog/25161/the-use-of-dispersants-in-marine-oil-spill-response). The presentation summarizes the committee's findings and recommendations within the context of oil spill response science and technology. A key area of consideration is how they relate to and support a robust decision making process in the event dispersants are considered for use in future spills.
{"title":"The Use of Dispersants in Marine Oil Spill Response The National Academies of Sciences, Engineering & Medicine","authors":"Mary E. Landry, E. Adams, A. Bejarano, M. Boufadel, H. K. White","doi":"10.7901/2169-3358-2021.1.689431","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.7901/2169-3358-2021.1.689431","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 Each marine oil spill presents unique circumstances and challenges that require careful consideration of which response options are most appropriate for mitigating impacts to local communities and the environment, which may include the use of dispersants. Dispersants are chemical countermeasures that reduce the amount of floating oil by promoting the formation of small droplets that remain or become entrained in the water column, where they are subjected to greater dissolution and dilution. During the Deepwater Horizon oil spill, an unprecedented volume of dispersants was used at the surface and in the deep ocean. The spill stimulated interest and funding for research on oil spill science, especially regarding dispersant use. Building on two previous reports and using this new information, a committee of experts convened by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (NASEM) conducted a review and evaluation of the science on dispersant use. The committee's review focused on various aspects of dispersant use in offshore marine oil spills, including dispersant and oil fate and transport, human health considerations, biological effects, decision making, and alternative response options, among others. The findings and recommendations of the committee were published in the recent report, The Use of Dispersants in Marine Oil Spill Response (available for free download at https://www.nap.edu/catalog/25161/the-use-of-dispersants-in-marine-oil-spill-response). The presentation summarizes the committee's findings and recommendations within the context of oil spill response science and technology. A key area of consideration is how they relate to and support a robust decision making process in the event dispersants are considered for use in future spills.","PeriodicalId":14447,"journal":{"name":"International Oil Spill Conference Proceedings","volume":"60 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"84410063","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2021-05-01DOI: 10.7901/2169-3358-2021.1.686140
G. Fiksdal, Cathrine Floen Fullwood
« October 8th at 1630 hours: Equinor reports loss of well control on the exploration well «Staalull». Large amounts of crude oil flow continuously from the seabed at the depth of 1200 feet. An oil spill from the exploration well has a potential for landfall within five days. The oil characteristics are unknown. Equinor is unable to control the well and needs to start planning for a relief well. This may take several months. » This is a potential scenario for a major oil spill and the exercise planned for the Norwegian coast, October 2019. Approximately 600 responders were involved. The intention was to test Equinor and NOFO (The Norwegian Clean Seas Association for Operating Companies) and their ability to handle a long-lasting oil spill in a safe and secure manner – within all barriers. The exercise involved Equinor CMT (Crisis Management Team), IMT (Incident Management Team), NOFO, offshore and nearshore vessels, aircraft, digital SCAT (Shoreline Cleanup and Assessment Technique) surveys and beach cleaning operations at different locations onshore. The main goal of the exercise was interaction and communication within and between the different response organisations. The intermediate objectives were 1) establish a common situational awareness and 2) communicate accurate information at the right time to affected parties. The exercise took place at seven different locations in Norway and establishment and maintenance of situational awareness throughout the response organisation was crucial to the effective handling of the incident. This required effective communication and information sharing throughout all levels. The incident management is based on the Incident Command System (ICS), but modified to align with Norwegian conditions. During the exercise we performed an extensive evaluation of all the organisations; with feedback to and from the personnel involved. The result of the evaluation, lessons learned, and implementation of improvements within the organisations involved, will improve the Norwegian industry's ability to manage long-lasting oils spills in the future.
{"title":"Large scale exercise in Norway – Exercise Frohavet 2019","authors":"G. Fiksdal, Cathrine Floen Fullwood","doi":"10.7901/2169-3358-2021.1.686140","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.7901/2169-3358-2021.1.686140","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 « October 8th at 1630 hours: Equinor reports loss of well control on the exploration well «Staalull». Large amounts of crude oil flow continuously from the seabed at the depth of 1200 feet. An oil spill from the exploration well has a potential for landfall within five days. The oil characteristics are unknown. Equinor is unable to control the well and needs to start planning for a relief well. This may take several months. »\u0000 This is a potential scenario for a major oil spill and the exercise planned for the Norwegian coast, October 2019. Approximately 600 responders were involved.\u0000 The intention was to test Equinor and NOFO (The Norwegian Clean Seas Association for Operating Companies) and their ability to handle a long-lasting oil spill in a safe and secure manner – within all barriers.\u0000 The exercise involved Equinor CMT (Crisis Management Team), IMT (Incident Management Team), NOFO, offshore and nearshore vessels, aircraft, digital SCAT (Shoreline Cleanup and Assessment Technique) surveys and beach cleaning operations at different locations onshore.\u0000 The main goal of the exercise was interaction and communication within and between the different response organisations. The intermediate objectives were 1) establish a common situational awareness and 2) communicate accurate information at the right time to affected parties.\u0000 The exercise took place at seven different locations in Norway and establishment and maintenance of situational awareness throughout the response organisation was crucial to the effective handling of the incident. This required effective communication and information sharing throughout all levels. The incident management is based on the Incident Command System (ICS), but modified to align with Norwegian conditions.\u0000 During the exercise we performed an extensive evaluation of all the organisations; with feedback to and from the personnel involved. The result of the evaluation, lessons learned, and implementation of improvements within the organisations involved, will improve the Norwegian industry's ability to manage long-lasting oils spills in the future.","PeriodicalId":14447,"journal":{"name":"International Oil Spill Conference Proceedings","volume":"6 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"86641982","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2021-05-01DOI: 10.7901/2169-3358-2021.1.685570
Jocelyn Gardner, Stefan Ostrowski
In 2012, Western Canada Marine Response Corporation (WCMRC) began developing site specific shoreline protection strategies, known at Geographic Response Strategies (GRS) for the entire coast of British Columbia (B.C.). The project started in Vancouver Harbour and has since spread along the Salish Sea and Strait of Juan de Fuca, as well as into Prince Rupert and Kitimat on the northern B.C. coast. Recognizing that B.C. has approximately 27,000 km of coastline (~16,777 miles) and with 450 strategies already developed only within a few hundred kilometres, WCMRC saw a need to automate the GRS development process from data collection all the way to the final GRS output. In conjunction with a local environmental consulting company, WCMRC developed a new sensitivity model. This new model can help the Response Readiness Team quickly assess intertidal sensitivity to oiling based on shoreline type, oil residency index, biological, archaeological, and/or socio-economic features of the shoreline, as well as operational protection feasibility. Now, using ESRI GIS web tools, a GRS can be developed automatically as a geo-referenced PDF, easily exportable to mobile devices for operational use. Overall, the automated enhancements have provided WCMRC with the tools necessary to manage the GRS program for B.C.'s entire coast. This means that more coastline can be assessed far more quickly and GRS's can be developed using fewer human resources. Additionally, if a spill occurs in a more remote area that has not yet had GRS's developed, they can be created within minutes based on the information from the Environment Unit in the Incident Command Post, or initial assessments by responders.
{"title":"Geographic Response Strategies on Canada's West Coast","authors":"Jocelyn Gardner, Stefan Ostrowski","doi":"10.7901/2169-3358-2021.1.685570","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.7901/2169-3358-2021.1.685570","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 In 2012, Western Canada Marine Response Corporation (WCMRC) began developing site specific shoreline protection strategies, known at Geographic Response Strategies (GRS) for the entire coast of British Columbia (B.C.). The project started in Vancouver Harbour and has since spread along the Salish Sea and Strait of Juan de Fuca, as well as into Prince Rupert and Kitimat on the northern B.C. coast. Recognizing that B.C. has approximately 27,000 km of coastline (~16,777 miles) and with 450 strategies already developed only within a few hundred kilometres, WCMRC saw a need to automate the GRS development process from data collection all the way to the final GRS output. In conjunction with a local environmental consulting company, WCMRC developed a new sensitivity model. This new model can help the Response Readiness Team quickly assess intertidal sensitivity to oiling based on shoreline type, oil residency index, biological, archaeological, and/or socio-economic features of the shoreline, as well as operational protection feasibility. Now, using ESRI GIS web tools, a GRS can be developed automatically as a geo-referenced PDF, easily exportable to mobile devices for operational use. Overall, the automated enhancements have provided WCMRC with the tools necessary to manage the GRS program for B.C.'s entire coast. This means that more coastline can be assessed far more quickly and GRS's can be developed using fewer human resources. Additionally, if a spill occurs in a more remote area that has not yet had GRS's developed, they can be created within minutes based on the information from the Environment Unit in the Incident Command Post, or initial assessments by responders.","PeriodicalId":14447,"journal":{"name":"International Oil Spill Conference Proceedings","volume":"66 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"86821856","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2021-05-01DOI: 10.7901/2169-3358-2021.1.1141600
S. Macdonald, L. Zrum, S. Grenon, S. Laforest, P. Lambert
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.
{"title":"Shoreline Contamination Report 2015 SS Arrow Spill Chedabucto Bay, NS, Canada","authors":"S. Macdonald, L. Zrum, S. Grenon, S. Laforest, P. Lambert","doi":"10.7901/2169-3358-2021.1.1141600","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.7901/2169-3358-2021.1.1141600","url":null,"abstract":"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.","PeriodicalId":14447,"journal":{"name":"International Oil Spill Conference Proceedings","volume":"92 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"86969828","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2021-05-01DOI: 10.7901/2169-3358-2021.1.1141657
Shane E. Jacobs
Aerial Dispersant application has changed platform in recent years with the introduction of the worlds first jet platform; a Boeing 727 complete with the TERSUS dispersant delivery system. During the development of this platform, stringent measures were imposed to comply with aviation standards, necessary to obtain approval from the authorities to operate. Airframe icing occurs when the ambient temperature is low enough to allow the water vapour in visible moisture to form a layer of ice on the unprotected surface, this can occur in temperatures between 10°C and −40°C. A feasibility study was completed to investigate icing and the affects it could have on operations with a fixed spray boom. The Boeing 727 is approved for flights in known icing (FIKI), the spray boom is not included within this approval, meaning when installed, it is restricted from operation in these conditions. With new platforms being developed and stringent regulatory requirements to be met, the challenges faced to alleviate icing is crucial to remove the residual risk of being unable to spray in these conditions. This poster looks at the change in design to a ‘fixed' spray boom and details how OSRL proceeded with a project to identify the risks, mitigations and the route to alleviate these restrictions.
{"title":"Spray Missions & Flights in Known Icing (FIKI)","authors":"Shane E. Jacobs","doi":"10.7901/2169-3358-2021.1.1141657","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.7901/2169-3358-2021.1.1141657","url":null,"abstract":"Aerial Dispersant application has changed platform in recent years with the introduction of the worlds first jet platform; a Boeing 727 complete with the TERSUS dispersant delivery system. During the development of this platform, stringent measures were imposed to comply with aviation standards, necessary to obtain approval from the authorities to operate.\u0000 Airframe icing occurs when the ambient temperature is low enough to allow the water vapour in visible moisture to form a layer of ice on the unprotected surface, this can occur in temperatures between 10°C and −40°C. A feasibility study was completed to investigate icing and the affects it could have on operations with a fixed spray boom.\u0000 The Boeing 727 is approved for flights in known icing (FIKI), the spray boom is not included within this approval, meaning when installed, it is restricted from operation in these conditions. With new platforms being developed and stringent regulatory requirements to be met, the challenges faced to alleviate icing is crucial to remove the residual risk of being unable to spray in these conditions.\u0000 This poster looks at the change in design to a ‘fixed' spray boom and details how OSRL proceeded with a project to identify the risks, mitigations and the route to alleviate these restrictions.","PeriodicalId":14447,"journal":{"name":"International Oil Spill Conference Proceedings","volume":"37 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"85848653","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：