BOEMRE. WWF Overview and Recommendations: Joint Industry Program Oil in Ice Research and Reports

Size: px

Start display at page:

Download "BOEMRE. WWF Overview and Recommendations: Joint Industry Program Oil in Ice Research and Reports"

Josephine Green
6 years ago
Views:

1 BOEMRE WWF Overview and Recommendations: Joint Industry Program Oil in Ice Research and Reports

3 Introduction This overview provides a summary of the technical reports from the Joint Industry Program (JIP) Oil in Ice. The JIP produced about 30 separate reports that summarized its 2008 and 2009 lab and field work, compiled literature reviews 2, and provided status updates to the JIP investors (Eni, Chevron, ConocoPhillips, Shell, Statoil, and Total). The purpose of the JIP work was to document the current state-ofthe-art arctic oil spill response technology, examine new technology, and further scientific understanding. This overview summarizes discoveries made by JIP regarding new advancements in spill response technology and remaining challenges for arctic response identified in the JIP reports. Fire Boom Advances: JIP testing confirmed that fire boom is capable of concentrating and thickening oil to an ignitable stage in most cases up to 30% and under favorable weather conditions (calm water, low wind) possibly up to 50% ice. The ability to boom up to 50% ice will be heavily dependent on weather, boom type and ice size and condition. Two types of fire boom were tested, both of which confirmed that fire boom is effective in containing oil in up to 30% ice concentrations and achieving in situ burn (ISB) efficiencies of 90% or more if oil can be thickened to 2-5mm. However, these boom systems did not contain oil in conditions above 50% ice, and burns were not successful when oil could not be concentrated to an ignitable thickness. Therefore burning above 50% ice was not achieved in the first test, and burning above 30% ice was not achieved in the second test. No new advances have resulted in the development of booms for use in waters with more than 50% ice coverage. The main gap in arctic oil spill response is the inability to boom oil when ice concentrations exceed 30% and fall below 70%. While this testing showed under calm weather and sea states, that it may be possible to boom and burn oil up to 50% ice, this is typically not the case in most ice and weather conditions encountered in the Arctic where more than 30% ice is present. These tests indicate that there may be limited opportunities to conduct burns in the 30-50% range, but this single test does not verify boom capability up to 50% ice in all cases. At 70% ice concentrations, ice starts to behave as a natural boom. WWF RECOMMENDATION NO. 1: Further work is needed to expand the ISB window of opportunity into the 30-70% ice concentration period. While these tests showed that booming and burning may be possible up to 50% in favorable weather and ice conditions, additional tests should be conducted on a wide variety of boom to verify if the boom limit (typically set at 30% ice) can be consistently upgraded to handle 50% ice in most cases. Future reports should more accurately quantify and document weather conditions at the test site. U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service 2 1

Mechanical Recovery -- Arctic Skimmer Technology Advances: JIP Reports document continued improvements in arctic skimmer technology, including improved brush skimmer designs and skimmer

4 Mechanical Recovery -- Arctic Skimmer Technology Advances: JIP Reports document continued improvements in arctic skimmer technology, including improved brush skimmer designs and skimmer winterization, both of which allow the units to operate in colder weather and higher ice concentrations. Arctic skimmers are still generally limited to less than 30-50% ice conditions, depending on ice size and weather. Most skimmers require a boom to collect oil and deliver it to the skimmer intake for recovery; therefore, the limiting mechanical response factor in a skimmer/boom system is the boom. Booms are still typically limited to less than 30% ice conditions, as confirmed by most testing completed to date. However some skimmers are designed to operate independent of boom in open leads between ice floes. No improvements have been made for recovering oil under ice. Lamor WWF Recommendation No. 2: Work should continue to expand skimmer capability to operate in higher ice concentrations. However, boom technology must also be expanded to support more robust skimmer designs, where skimmer/boom systems are used in combination. These improved designs should be tested in actual arctic temperatures and ice conditions. Additionally, work should continue to design skimmers that can work independently of a boom in open leads between ice floes. WWF Recommendation No. 3: The Polar Bear Skimmer design is new and adds a medium-sized arctic brush drum skimmer to the arctic response inventory. The Polar Bear Skimmer supplements Lamor s LRB 150 Skimmer and Ro-Clean Desmi s Sea Mop 4090 rope mop skimmer, which were commercially available in The Polar Bear Skimmer, the improved LRB 150 Skimmer, and the Sea Mop 4090 rope mop skimmer should be considered for purchase when upgrading arctic spill response equipment inventories. Remaining challenges for arctic skimmers include: Limited access to spilled oil (low encounter rate); Inability to separate oil from ice and water; Structural integrity and strength in ice fields; Inability to recover viscous oil-water emulsions due to low temperatures; Icing/freezing of skimmer components (need for winterization); and Inability to move and handle ice of variable size. WWF Recommendation No. 4: Additional R&D is needed to improve recovery rates for oil spilled under ice. Current technology is limited to cutting holes in the ice and lowering pumps into those holes, attempting to recover the oil in the vicinity of the holes. The process is slow, tedious, laborintensive, and inefficient. No work was completed by JIP on this topic during the R&D. 2

In Situ Burning (ISB) Advances: JIP Reports document lower and wider ranges of in situ burning (ISB) efficiencies than previously reported and that burn efficiencies directly correlate with oil type.

5 In Situ Burning (ISB) Advances: JIP Reports document lower and wider ranges of in situ burning (ISB) efficiencies than previously reported and that burn efficiencies directly correlate with oil type. Of particular interest were the low burn efficiencies of naphtenic/asphaltenic crude oils 2, because these oils weather more rapidly. JIP tests were run using UK and Norwegian crude oils. Overall, JIP testing provided important information on the wide range of in situ burning efficiencies and periods of effectiveness, debunking the common 95% burn efficiency rule-of-thumb typically quoted by industry. While 95% burn efficiencies were achieved in some test conditions, on some oil types, under some conditions; 95% burn efficiencies were not achieved for oil spilled in 30-70% ice conditions, naphtenic/asphaltenic crude oils, and oil weathered more than a few days. WWF RECOMMENDATION NO. 5: Additional field and lab in situ burning testing is needed on crude oil types common in the Arctic where oil development occurs (e.g., U.S., Canada, Greenland, Russia). As shown in the JIP studies, burning efficiencies vary widely. The U.S. Arctic has a number of crude oil types with high asphaltene content, which could prove more difficult to burn, based on these lab tests. Realistic ISB removal efficiency estimates in the specific regions within the Arctic are needed for contingency planning and risk assessment work. WWF Recommendation No. 6: Research facilities, comparable to the SINTEF research labs, should be constructed in various locations in the Arctic to examine site-specific crude oil composition impact on recovery efficiency. This site-specific data can be used to optimize ISB and other oil recovery and removal techniques. Most of SINTEF s work is focused on North Sea and Norwegian crude oils, and testing generally takes place in sub-arctic conditions. Burn efficiencies in laboratory conditions varied widely based on crude oil type. The best ISB efficiencies observed in 50% ice condition started at 65-80%, and then quickly dropped off to un-ignitable levels in ½ to 2 days, depending on crude oil type. JIP examined oil weathering and its impact on ISB efficiency, finding that oil weathering (evaporative loss and water uptake) varied substantially across crude oil types. Overall, the general trend was that water uptake and evaporative losses were slower at higher ice concentrations and oil remained less viscous for longer periods of time. However, testing showed this trend was not true for naphtenic/asphaltenic crude oils, which instead formed stable emulsions with high viscosity at medium (50%) to high (90%) ice coverage. Another JIP study found that ISB was a viable option for approximately 5 days after the oil was spilled. ISB effectiveness was estimated at 90-95% in ice concentrations above 70%; however, burn efficiency dropped significantly to only a few percent at 50% ice concentrations or less, as the oil weathered more than 12 hours. WWF Recommendation No. 7: Additional R&D is needed to improve ISB ignition techniques and tools used to ignite spilled oil from a vessel-based platform. Current ignition techniques are primitive, involving lighting bags of gelled fuel and tossing them from a response vessel platform into spilled oil. No work was completed by JIP to improve ignition techniques during the R&D. 2 Oils which require less energy to form stable emulsions because of their low pour point. 3 USCG

Herding Agents Advances: Although there have been no major improvements in herding agent chemical formulation since the JIP studies were conducted in 2009, chemical herders continue to show promise

6 Herding Agents Advances: Although there have been no major improvements in herding agent chemical formulation since the JIP studies were conducted in 2009, chemical herders continue to show promise in thickening spilled oil to an ignitable thickness, and will be useful when boom is ineffective in higher ice concentrations (30-70%) ice. JIP tested Corexit EC9580, an existing chemical approved by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for shoreline cleanup but not for use as a herding agent, and confirmed it is effective in herding spilled oil. WWF Recommendation No. 8: Chemical herders continue to show promise in thickening spilled oil to ignitable levels. Chemical herders are useful when boom is rendered ineffective by high ice concentrations (30-70%). Chemical toxicity evaluation and approval by the government for use in an actual spill are significant remaining challenges that need to be addressed. Dispersants Advances: A new vessel-mounted dispersant spraying system prototype tested well in the field, expanding options for cold weather conditions; however, this new system is still a prototype and is not yet commercially available. WWF RECOMMENDATION NO. 9: Vessel-based dispersant application platforms and equipment have not been developed for the U.S. Arctic. There is some equipment available in Cook Inlet and Prince William Sound, Alaska, that was developed for sub-arctic conditions; this equipment could possibly be used in summer or early fall in the U.S. Arctic. If non-toxic dispersant formulations can be developed (more work is needed), and if scientists can confirm that there are sufficient indigenous oil-eating microbes in U.S. Arctic waters to consume and convert dispersed oil into non-toxic substances (more work is needed), then the next step would be to ensure equipment can efficiently supply and apply dispersants. At this stage, the highest priority should be assessing dispersant toxicity and the biological impacts of dispersants to the U.S. Arctic. BOEMRE The majority of JIP s work on dispersants focused on compiling a literature review of previous testing. JIP s work also included a study on arctic dispersant platform optimization. JIP concluded that dispersants may be effective in some limited circumstances, but there are numerous challenges with dispersants. Challenges include oil type, salinity, and application limitations in the arctic. JIP recommended ice class vessels be equipped with storage for large volumes of dispersants. The close proximity of dispersants to the potential spill site will allow for rapid response and sustained application during a wider range of weather conditions. Current dispersant application practices in the Arctic largely limit dispersant application to over-flight capability provided by helicopters and fixed wing aircrafts that have small dispersant storage capacity and limited time over the spill site due to long transit times to arctic airports and airstrips, which are remote and limited in number. 4

JIP Reports listed a number of challenges remaining for arctic dispersant use: Spilled oil in sub-zero air temperatures and cold water will have a high oil viscosity, even solidifying some oils,

Dispersants are less effective in low salinity waters than in normal, open-ocean salinity. Freshwater outflow from rivers into the sea creates seasonal areas of lower salinity along the coastline.

7 JIP Reports listed a number of challenges remaining for arctic dispersant use: Spilled oil in sub-zero air temperatures and cold water will have a high oil viscosity, even solidifying some oils, depending on the pour point. High oil viscosity inhibits dispersant effectiveness. The presence of sea ice can inhibit dispersant application and effectiveness, especially if oil is trapped under ice. Dispersants are less effective in low salinity waters than in normal, open-ocean salinity. Freshwater outflow from rivers into the sea creates seasonal areas of lower salinity along the coastline. Researchers noted that the salinity of the shallow waters of the Beaufort Sea, particularly the near-shore regions where oil exploration took place in the 1970s and 80s and is planned for the future, is greatly affected by the inflow of freshwater from rivers and the melt-water from on-land ice. To date, only a very limited number of experiments have been conducted with dispersants in real ice conditions. Most tests have been done in the lab in simulated cold weather and cold water conditions. Lab tests do not verify the efficacy of dispersant use in field conditions or test the logistical challenges of dispersant application in the arctic. Typically, ice dampens wave action and reduces dispersant effectiveness, unless there is storm moving the ice and providing mixing energy. Lab test data have historically shown poor dispersant effectiveness (5-15%) in sub-zero air and cold water, with decreasing effectiveness in low salinity water, to near zero percent. SL Ross tests, conducted in , show 82-99% oil dispersal; however, these tests were run in normal seawater salinity, and without ice. Therefore, these numbers do not represent dispersant effectiveness in coastal arctic conditions; dispersant effectiveness would be substantially lower. Surveillance Advances: JIP examined the efficacy of five surveillance techniques to identify and track oil: (1) dogs; (2) methane detectors; (3) airborne Ground Penetrating Radar (GPR); (4) airborne surveillance aircraft; and (5) satellite imaging. Tests using dogs and GPR showed some success. Dogs were able to detect single point oil spills and determine the approximate dimensions of a larger oil spill hidden under snow and ice. Ground Penetrative Radar (GPR) runs along the surface of the ice is able to locate oil trapped under snow and thin ice. Airborne GPR can be used as a refinement tool to determine the oil spill volume estimate and area of contamination. Methane detectors and satellite imaging were ruled out as ineffective. Further testing of airborne surveillance aircrafts was recommended. In addition to its own testing, JIP compiled literature reviews to examine the research that has already been done on surveillance techniques and to make recommendations for areas of future research. As part of that work, JIP documented numerous challenges and limitations associated with current surveillance capabilities. WWF Recommendation No. 10: Current technology to detect and track spilled oil in the Arctic is very limited, especially for oil trapped under thick ice and snow, or spilled in high ice concentrations. Additional work is needed to develop surveillance tools. These tools should not just detect the presence of spilled oil; they should also be able to monitor its thickness, extent, and composition. This additional information is needed to apply the correct response tool. Defense Media Network 5

8 World Wildlife Fund U.S. Arctic Field Program 401 G. Street, Suite 301 Anchorage, AK (907)

Alaska Clean Seas. North Slope Oil Spill Response

Alaska Clean Seas. North Slope Oil Spill Response Alaska Clean Seas North Slope Oil Spill Response Response Organization Originally Established in 1979 as ABSORB Restructured in 1990 from equipment Co-Op into full Response Organization Responds like a