oil spill
Content
Responding to
Oil Spill Disasters
The Regulations
That Govern Their Response
Hattie Larson
Florida State University
ASTM International
2010 WISE Intern
Executive Summary
Since the presence of major oil spills have recently been reminded to the
American public, it is important to look into the methods that are currently taken to
mitigate their effects. This is inclusive of several techniques including containment
booms, skimmers, in-situ burns, oil herders, and dispersants.
Containment booms are used in conjunction with skimmers and in-situ burning, as
they are able to divert oil. Skimmers are the only method that is able to mechanically
remove oil from the surface of the water. This can be advantageous if one hopes to
further separate the oil from the water, after skimming, and reuse it. In-situ burning
removes thick oil from the surface of the water by burning. The consequence is that the
oil can no longer be used later. However, it is extremely effective in removing oil, if used
under the correct conditions. Oil herders are a relatively new area of oil spill response.
The liquid is sprayed around the edges of an oil slick, which increases the surface tension
between the water and the oil, causing the oil to become thicker. Oil herders are used
with in-situ burning and dispersants. Dispersants are a liquid chemical that is applied
either surface or subsurface to an oil slick in an effort to disperse the oil into smaller
particles. They have sustained criticism because of their somewhat unknown toxicity
when combined with crude oil.
At the present, there is not one oil spill response technique that is necessarily
better than the others. The various methods can all be extremely effective when utilized
in each respective ideal set of conditions. That being said, it important to recognize that
in an oil spill, such as that in the Macondo well at Deepwater Horizon platform, roughly
15% of the oil will be able to be removed by mechanical means. This is attributed to the
WISE 2010 – ASTM International
Page 2
idea that even though they are extremely effective in controlled settings, the actual
conditions at an oil spill have a negative impact on their effectiveness.1 This compares to
the utilization of dispersants in that dispersants usually have about a 30-50% removal of
the oil spilled in the sea.2 This implies that dispersants do still play an important role in
mitigating the amount of oil that is resting on the top of the water and washing onto the
shore. They should not be ignored as an oil spill response tool.
In order to most effectively utilize dispersants, some minor policy alternations
should be implemented. One is to complete an all-inclusive study on the toxicological
effects of dispersants when mixed with various types of crude oil. The results would
allow for decisions regarding dispersant to be more thorough. Another recommendation
would be to have the regions that do not yet have a policy on dispersants to seek the preapproval for their use. While this would not necessarily allow for dispersants to be used,
it would eliminate confusion in the occurrence of a spill. One final recommendation
would be to make the implementation of ‘Spill Drills’ mandatory. This would require the
oil companies to perform simulations of their oil spill response plans. By mandating this,
the oil companies would forge relationships with the various agencies that have a vested
interest in the results of an oil spill in a non-chaotic setting.
The listed recommendations are ones that hope to better the use of dispersants in
the event of an oil spill. Because oil spills are situations that everyone involved would
rather avoid, the implementation of these recommendations would allow for those
involved to remedy the oil spill as quickly and efficiently as possible.
1
Alan Guarino, Paul Meyer and Jane Delgado, interview by Hattie Larson, Jim
Olshefsky, Anthony Quinn and Jeff Adkins, , Ohmsett Tour, (July 16, 2010).
2
T. Lunel, "Dispersant Effectiveness at Sea," Marine Pollution Control Unit, Coastguard
Agency of the U.K. Department of Transport (Abingdon).
WISE 2010 – ASTM International
Page 3
Foreword
About WISE
Founded in 1980 through the collaborative efforts of several professional
engineering societies, the WISE Program allows for engineering students to interact with
prominent governmental and non-governmental leaders and are mentored by
representatives of their sponsoring societies as well as societies that support the WISE
Program. During the internship, these students learn how future leaders of engineering
can contribute to legislative and regulatory public policy decisions where complex
technological issues are involved.
For more information about the WISE Program, please visit www.wise-intern.org.
About Me
Hattie Larson is currently a senior at Florida State University in Tallahassee,
Florida. She is pursuing a bachelor’s degree in chemical engineering and will graduate in
August 2011. Hattie is a student member of ASTM International as well as a member of
the American Institute for Chemical Engineers (AIChE).
WISE 2010 – ASTM International
Page 4
Acknowledgements
This paper was written as a part of the WISE Summer 2010 Program. The author
would like to thank ASTM International for their sponsorship to an educational and
rewarding program. From ASTM International, the guidance of Jim Olshefsky and
Anthony Quinn was greatly appreciated and this project could not have been successfully
completed without them. The author would also like to thank Erica Wissolik for her
continued support of the WISE 2010 Interns.
For contributions within this paper, the author would like to recognize:
•
Merv Fingas and Peter Lane for their extensive knowledge on oil spill response
technologies
•
Kenneth Lee
•
Paul Meyer, Jane Delgado, and Alan Guarino for the tour of Ohmsett and the
presentation of valuable knowledge
•
Kevin and Ellen Larson and Laura Smith for the proofreading of my paper from
another point of view
•
John Buydos for his help in navigating the resources available at the Library of
Congress
•
The many in Washington, D.C. that have aided in the completion of this report.
WISE 2010 – ASTM International
Page 5
Table of Contents
EXECUTIVE
SUMMARY
2
ABOUT
WISE
ABOUT
ME
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
4
4
5
TABLE
OF
FIGURES
7
POLICY
OVERVIEW
8
BACKGROUND
10
OFFSHORE
DRILLING
HISTORY
OF
OFFSHORE
DRILLING
LOCATIONS
FOR
OFFSHORE
DRILLING
PROBLEMS
WITH
OFFSHORE
DRILLING
10
10
12
13
OIL
SPILL
CLEANUP
STRATEGIES
15
OVERVIEW
OF
OIL
SPILL
RESPONSE
PLANS,
CONTAINMENT
BOOMS,
SKIMMING,
IN-SITU
BURNING
17
OIL
SPILL
RESPONSE
PLAN
17
CONTAINMENT
BOOMS
18
SKIMMING
19
IN-‐SITU
BURNING
21
OIL
HERDERS
23
DISPERSANTS
23
ECONOMICS
RELATED
TO
DISPERSANT
USE
31
INTERNATIONAL
DISPERSANT
USE
32
VIEWS
ON
DISPERSANTS
34
ASTM
STANDARDS
RELATING
TO
EACH
METHOD
36
EFFECTIVENESS
OF
EACH
CLEANUP
METHOD
37
CASE
STUDIES
40
DISPERSANTS
USE
IN
OTHER
OIL
SPILLS
VARIATIONS
BETWEEN
SPILLS
40
41
POLICY
RECOMMENDATION
43
BIBLIOGRAPHY
47
WISE 2010 – ASTM International
Page 6
Table of Figures
Figure
1:
The
Perdido
Oil
Platform...........................................................................................................................................11
Figure
2:
Depiction
of
Number
of
Active
Oil
Rig
Platforms
in
the
Gulf
of
Mexico ................................................12
Figure
3:
A
graphical
representation
of
the
world's
worst
oil
spills ..........................................................................14
Figure
4:
Aerial
View
of
the
Ohmsett
Facility ......................................................................................................................17
Figure
5:
View
of
Skimmer
Test
with
Containment
Boom
Boundary. .......................................................................19
Figure
6:
In-Situ
Burn
with
Use
of
Fireproof
Boom ...........................................................................................................22
Figure
7
and
Figure
8:
Dispersion
at
the
Beginning
and
End
of
a
Trial...................................................................26
Figure
9:
List
of
Chemicals
in
Corexit
9500...........................................................................................................................28
Figure
10:
The
Cost
Trends
of
Oil
Spill
Cleanups ................................................................................................................32
Figure
12:
Various
International
Dispersant
Policies
as
of
2001................................................................................33
WISE 2010 – ASTM International
Page 7
Policy Overview
The recent BP (once known as British Petroleum) oil spill at the Macondo well
and the loss of the Deepwater Horizon oil rig has created significant environmental
impacts; it has also raised questions regarding the most appropriate way to cleanup the oil
spilling into the Gulf of Mexico. Many individuals, non profits, and private companies
have offered suggestions; oil companies have oil spill response plans; and ASTM
International (formerly known as the American Society for Testing and Materials) has a
technical committee dedicated to the development of standards for oil spill response.
There is no one perfect solution, but there are some that offer more positive outcomes
than others.
One oil spill response technique used is dispersants. Dispersants can be thought of
as dish soap for the oil spilled in the ocean. These chemicals are introduced to the site of
the oil spill and are then able to rapidly disperse the oil into the seawater. The oil will
then be more easily biodegraded by organisms living in the surroundings. Dispersants are
composed of a surfactant and solvent solution. The surfactant is a surface-active agent
able to remove the surface tension between water molecules and oil molecules, and
therefore causing the oil to disperse in the water. This works because surfactants have
roughly the same solubility in water and oil. Such a solution can be seen as very
beneficial for wildlife and shorelines because the oil is dispersed while still out in deep
water.
Many foreign nations regulate the use of dispersants and thus proper regulatory
authority must be obtained to employ the chemical as a mechanism to clean up oil in
WISE 2010 – ASTM International
Page 8
bodies of water, which, could lead to a lack of immediate response in the use of the
dispersants in various oil spills. Although there are many different types of dispersants,
the main one used in the recent Macondo oil spill is the Nalco product, Corexit 9500.
This paper will discuss dispersants as one of the many solutions to clean up oil
spilled in large bodies of water and if used correctly, it can be a beneficial tool in the
arsenal of policymakers with proper regulatory authority. It will also look to answer the
question: Are the current regulatory policies adequate to solve the problem?
WISE 2010 – ASTM International
Page 9
Background
Offshore Drilling
History of Offshore Drilling
Offshore drilling is a method used to obtain crude oil, a mixture of hydrocarbons
that can be refined into gasoline. Hydrocarbons are compounds comprised of hydrogen
and carbon atoms that can be toxic as liquids and gases when they are not thoroughly
refined. By pushing the boundaries and improving techniques, the industry constantly
improves itself in order to produce more oil. This was pioneered as a new technology
more than 100 years ago. Offshore oil platforms were first constructed because the
producers of onshore oil noticed that ‘black gold’ was more readily available near bodies
of water. This then led one inventor, H.L. Williams, to build a well that went 300 feet
deep in the ocean.3 Because of its success, others followed his example and began to
enhance the original design. As the United States and other developed nations began to
depend on oil as their major source of energy (a direct result of the invention of
automobiles), there was increased pressure to develop better ways to extract the oil from
the ground. This led to the construction of larger and deeper platforms, the use of better
tools, and the push to discover locations for drilling. As recently as March 31, 2010,
Royal Dutch Shell began operating the deepest oil platform in existence. An image of it
can be seen below in Figure 1. The oil rig is located in the Gulf of Mexico and drills
down about 8,000 feet to the world’s deepest reservoir of oil. This is comparable to the
3
National Ocean Industries Association, About NOIA, 2006,
http://www.noia.org/website/article.asp?id=123 (accessed June 20, 2010).
WISE 2010 – ASTM International
Page 10
Deepwater Horizon oil rig wellhead that is located 5000 feet below the surface.4 Even
today, amongst demands for alternative energies, offshore drilling is still an important
method in the attainment of oil.5
Figure 1: The Perdido Oil Platform. Retrieved on 13 July 2010 from
http://www.shell.com/home/content/media/news_and_library/press_releases/2010/perdido_31032010.html?utm_
source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed:+shell_media_releases+(Royal+Dutch+Shell+plc
+media+releases.
4
CNN U.S., Gulf Coast Oil Disaster, July 28, 2010,
http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2010/gulf.coast.oil.spill/interactive/data.viz/index.html
(accessed July 30, 2010).
5
Royal Dutch Shell, "Shell starts production at Perdido," Shell Worldwise, March 31,
2010,
http://www.shell.com/home/content/media/news_and_library/press_releases/2010/perdid
o_31032010.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed:+s
hell_media_releases+(Royal+Dutch+Shell+plc+media+releases) (accessed July 13,
2010).
WISE 2010 – ASTM International
Page 11
Locations for Offshore Drilling
Offshore drilling is prominent in many locations around the world. This is
especially true in the Gulf of Mexico. As shown in Figure 2 there are 3858 platforms in
use over a coastline of roughly 900 miles.6 This depiction only shows a fraction of all of
the oil rig platforms in the Gulf of Mexico area. The Chevron Corporation, one of the
major six international oil corporations, has offshore drilling wells, which can be found in
Angola, Kazakhstan, Nigeria, and in the Gulf of Mexico.7
Figure 2: Depiction of Number of Active Oil Rig Platforms in the Gulf of Mexico. Retrieved on 13 July 2010
from http://oceanexplorer.noaa.gov/explorations/06mexico/background/oil/media/platform_600.html.
6
Google Maps, July 30, 2010,
http://maps.google.com/maps?f=d&source=s_d&saddr=E+Ocean+Blvd&daddr=FL292+W%2FSorrento+Rd&hl=en&geocode=FdD1jQEdjP8z-g%3BFc6xzgEdBB7Kg&mra=pr&sll=28.378615,-92.58208&sspn=9.058974,17.20459&ie=UTF8&t=h&z=6.
7
Chevron Corporation , Drilling and Completions, March 2010,
http://www.chevron.com/deliveringenergy/oil/drillingcompletions/ (accessed July 13,
2010).
WISE 2010 – ASTM International
Page 12
Problems with Offshore Drilling
The ideas that form the basis for offshore drilling allow individuals to think it is a
flawless process. From a basic and idyllic point of view, all that needs to be done is drill
into the earth’s crust and remove the oil for other uses. In reality, however, this is hardly
the case. There are many potential problems that can result from offshore drilling. If the
proper safety precautions are not taken, there could be major consequences that impact
society both economically and environmentally.
A specific example of what could go wrong is a blowout. Blowouts, however
uncommon, are the occurrence of a sudden and uncontrollable release of oil into the
surroundings. The five most major well blowouts (not including the recent Macondo
well) happened in the time span from 1969 to 1980. This is a serious problem,
considering the pressure of the oil in the earth. In the past blowouts have been very
difficult to control and have resulted in explosions as well as large-scale oil spills such as
in the Ixtoc 1 spill from June 3rd, 1979 and the more recent Macondo spill, which began
on April 20, 2010.
In the graphical representation below of various oil spills,8 the size of the oil
droplet correlates to the amount of oil that leaked. The oil spills that will be focused on
later can be seen in this graphic: the Ixtoc 1, the Exxon Valdez and the recent Macondo
well blowout on the Deepwater Horizon oil platform.
8
At the time of the construction of this diagram, the Macondo well had not yet stopped
leaking.
WISE 2010 – ASTM International
Page 13
Figure 3: A graphical representation of the world's worst oil spills. Retrieved on 26 July 2010 from
9www.wpbeginner.com/worst-oil-spills-in-worlds-history-infographic. Created by Gavin Potenza from
information in ITOPF.
WISE 2010 – ASTM International
Page 14
Oil Spill Cleanup Strategies
An oil spill is an instance where there is an accidental or unplanned release from
the primary containment into the surroundings, which could be water, land, or other
permeable materials. Such oil spills may be direct consequences of drilling for oil.
Because of this correlation, companies that drill must be prepared for a number of
possible situations. They need to have a plan of action and tools to use when oil is
introduced to undesirable locations such as bodies of water, marshlands, and others. This
is especially important because there are spills happening constantly—at least 25 major
spills since the start of 2010 in the United States.9
The manner in which oil should be cleaned from the water is a topic worth
debating, but it is important to note that there is no way to clean up all the oil introduced
into the water. At the present, the main response techniques include containment booms,
skimming, in-situ burning, oil herders, and dispersion. Although all these methods may
be used to mitigate the damage of oil in water, some are more preferable than others;
dispersants, in particular, are regarded as one of the more controversial options.
Ohmsett, a testing, research, and training facility located in New Jersey, is
specifically designed as an ‘Oil Spill Response Research and Renewable Energy Test
Facility’. Their primary function is to evaluate various oil spill response techniques such
as those listed previously. They are a government-funded organization that helps the
9
Emergency Response Division, Office of Response and Restoration, National Ocean
Service, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, US Department of
Commerce., Incident Map, http://www.incidentnews.gov/map?orr_id=6250 (accessed
July 22, 2010).
WISE 2010 – ASTM International
Page 15
agency previously known as the Minerals Management Agency in fulfilling the testing
requirements laid out by the Oil Pollution Act of 1990.10 Ohmsett’s saltwater tank, with
wave generator, is maintained at appropriate salinities to be able to simulate actual
oceanic conditions. The tank is 667 ft by 65 ft by 11 ft and can hold a volume of just over
2.5 million gallons of liquid. This capacity makes it the largest oil spill response facility
in the world. Because of all these features, public, private, and governmental agencies are
able to test and practice oil spill response. This facility is able to conduct tests with
various types of oil and because of this, they have been able to provide reliable data to
detail the attributes and shortcomings of the various technologies. The testing, research
and training (Coast Guard) is critical to the improvement of oil spill response.11 Figure 4
below shows an aerial view of the Ohmsett facility. The wave generator can be seen at
the upper left side of the tank.
10
Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation, and Enforement: Office Energy &
Minerals Management, U.S. Deptartment of the Interior, Technology Assessment &
Research (TA&R) Project Categories: Ohmsett, July 1, 2010,
http://www.boemre.gov/tarprojectcategories/ohmsett.htm (accessed July 31, 2010).
11
Alan Guarino, Paul Meyer and Jane Delgado, interview by Hattie Larson, Jim
Olshefsky, Anthony Quinn and Jeff Adkins, Ohmsett Tour, (July 16, 2010).
WISE 2010 – ASTM International
Page 16
Figure 4: Aerial View of the Ohmsett Facility. Retrieved from Ohmsett PowerPoint Presentation.
Overview of Oil Spill Response Plans, Containment Booms, Skimming, InSitu Burning
Oil Spill Response Plan
An oil spill response plan is one that is developed for each specific well in the
various areas. It details what actions should be taken in the event of an oil spill. This
document does not necessarily lie out the various types of oil spills; solely how the oil
spilt should be analyzed and subsequently, mitigated. It also informs the reader of how to
go about applying the plan to the real life situation. The outline of who to contact as well
as the forms to fill out is helpful in the preparedness of an oil spill. These plans were
developed as a result of the Oil Pollution Act of 1990.12
12
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Oil Pollution Act Overview, March 17, 2009,
http://www.epa.gov/oem/content/lawsregs/opaover.htm (accessed August 02, 2010).
WISE 2010 – ASTM International
Page 17
Containment Booms
The use of containment booms is a very popular method for preliminary and
continual cleanup efforts. A boom is composed of a floatation member used to determine
buoyancy and keep the boom floating, a freeboard member to prevent oil from being
swept over the top, a skirt to keep oil from going under the boom, and one or more
tension members to support the boom. Booms are usually either 15 or 30 meters long and
can be attached to one another. Their primary function is to divert the oil that is collecting
on top of the water, but can serve no function for oil that is several meters below the
water.. They are usually very successful and be implemented in various types of oil spill
situations, and are often used as a complementary tool for other forms of oil spill cleanup,
such as skimming and in-situ burning. 13
The standardization of booms is one of note. Typically standards are determined
after the various technologies are introduced; with booms, however, ASTM International
created the standards as the booms were developed. This had a unique effect, making the
booms better because they could be manufactured with the agreed upon standards already
in place. One such standard was ASTM F 2438 – 04: Oil Spill Response Boom
Connection: Slide Connector, which enabled booms from various manufacturers in
various geographic locations to be used in conjunction with one another. In Figure 5
below, the red barriers are the booms. They are able to keep the oil in a certain area by
floating in the water with the freeboard member and skirt perpendicular to the floatation
piece.
13
Merv Fingas, The Basics of Oil Spill cleanup, 2nd Edition (Boca Raton: Lewis
Publishers, 2001).
WISE 2010 – ASTM International
Page 18
Figure 5: View of Skimmer Test with Containment Boom Boundary. Retrieved from Ohmsett PowerPoint
Presentation.
Skimming
Skimming is another important method used in oil spill cleanup. Skimming
employs mechanical devices to remove oil from the water and in some cases, it allows for
the oil to be reprocessed and used by oil companies. Since skimming works most
efficiently when the oil is thick, it is best to use booms to capture the oil and skimmers to
collect it.14 There are four main types of skimmers: weir, disk, drum, and brush. In
Figure 5 above, a drum skimmer can be seen. The drums are the yellow sections that
rotate towards the center, bringing oil with each rotation. While there is not necessarily
one type that works better than the others, each seems to have its own specialized
14
Merv Fingas, The Basics of Oil Spill cleanup, 2nd Edition (Boca Raton: Lewis
Publishers, 2001).
WISE 2010 – ASTM International
Page 19
purpose. For example, while the weir skimmer performs poorly in thin oil situations, it
can pump large amounts of liquid through it in a short amount of time.
WISE 2010 – ASTM International
Page 20
In-Situ Burning
In-situ burning is a very popular technique for the removal of oil from water. It
works by igniting the oil that is sitting on top of the water and letting it burn off. While it
burns, a large black plume of smoke rises up, resulting in the public perception that it is
not environmentally friendly. However, while this process does release emissions, the
concentration of pollutants is below what is considered harmful.
After burning, there is usually only about 1 mm of oil remains, which is a
relatively small amount, especially if the oil was 20 mm thick initially. The only dilemma
is that in-situ burning does need to be at least 2-3 mm thick for the oil to actually begin to
burn. The thickness of oil is dependent upon the type of oil, type of spill, and how quick
the response was to contain the oil. As Peter Lane, of Applied Fabric Technologies,
stated, he started manufacturing fireproof booms to divert and condense the oil so that
this technique would be more effective.15 A test of a fireproof boom at Ohmsett, can be
seen in Figure 6.
It should also be noted that this method is one of the quickest. “One
approximately 200-m length of fire resistant boom can contain about 50,000 L of oil,
which takes about 45 min to burn.”16 Because of its ability to remove vast amounts of oil
quickly, some key benefits are that there is a reduced need for storage and disposal of the
15
Peter Lane, interview by Hattie Larson, James P. Olshefsky and Jeff Adkins, (July 2,
2010).
16
Merv Fingas, The Basics of Oil Spill cleanup, 2nd Edition (Boca Raton: Lewis
Publishers, 2001).
WISE 2010 – ASTM International
Page 21
spilt oil, prevention and reduction of the amount of oil that can drift onto the shorelines,
and a significant reduction in the possibility of wildlife being exposed to oil.17
While this can be an essential tactic in removing the oil from the water, it has
disadvantages as well. Oil will not ignite unless it is thick enough (at least 2-3 mm), and
it usually does not stay thick enough to burn when it is not contained. This means that insitu burning must happen quickly once the oil is spilt. Another disadvantage is that once
the oil is burned, it can no longer be captured and reprocessed using a skimmer. Overall,
it is a very successful method, as long as it can be done in a quick manner, once the spill
has been recognized.
Figure 6: In-Situ Burn with Use of Fireproof Boom. Retrieved from Ohmsett PowerPoint Presentation.
17
ASTM Committee F20 on Hazardous Substances and Oil Spill Treatment, "F2532-06
Standard Guide for Determining Net Environmental Benefit of Dispersant Use" (West
Conshocken, PA: ASTM International, 2006).
WISE 2010 – ASTM International
Page 22
Oil Herders
Oil herders are a new area in oil spill cleanup research. They are not a tool that
removes oil but rather one that aids in the cleanup, much like the booms do. They are a
liquid chemical that allows the surface tension of water surrounding an area of oil to
increase. This then forces the oil to contract and thicken, a condition that is desired for
many of the cleanup methods. In oil herding, booms initially contain the oil and
subsequently, the herder is applied around the outer edges of the oil. Because an increase
in oil thickness is a result, various mechanical means are more effective. For example, as
skimmers work from the middle, the herder may be able to continually contract the oil,
allowing the skimmer to stay in one position the entire time. Testing is also in progress
for these chemicals with dispersants, which may allow for more precise application of the
dispersant. Another possibility is to have the herders contain the oil until the water
conditions are preferable to utilize dispersants. 18
Dispersants
Dispersants are a tool used when cleaning up offshore oil spills. Dispersants were
first introduced in the 1967 Torrey Canyon spill, where they were originally known as
detergents. The original recipe for these detergents contained chemicals that were
extremely toxic. There were significant amounts of wildlife deaths as a result of these
preliminary dispersants, thus dispersants began to be viewed in a negative light. As more
technologies for dispersants advanced, their effects were still (and continue to be)
18
Ian Buist, Employing Chemical Herders to Improve Oil Spill Response Operations,
S.L. Ross Environmental Research Ltd., April 09, 2010,
http://www.mms.gov/tarprojects/617.htm.
WISE 2010 – ASTM International
Page 23
disputed, though each new set of dispersants continue to be less toxic than the last.19 As
will be discussed later, dispersants continue to be improved even to the point of being
‘practically non-toxic’ today.
The primary purpose of dispersants is to disperse the oil so that it will not reach
the shorelines and affect the wildlife there. The application of dispersants is critical to
their success. Until the Macondo oil spill, dispersants only had surface applications.
“They are usually applied either a plane or ship that has been altered to deploy
dispersants. Regardless of the method used, the droplet size of the dispersant is important
as it needs to be sufficiently large to overcome the effects of wind and evaporative loss
but not so large that it will result in the droplets being able to pierce through the oil
slick.”20 Recently, in the Macondo oil spill, dispersants have started to be applied in an
underwater setting. Based on the information from Ohmsett employee, Alan Guarino,
dispersants work best on oil that has not been weathered.21 Thus, application of
dispersant at the source of the leak would be very susceptible to being dispersed. As
noted by the EPA, subsurface dispersant application is one that reduces the amount of oil
to reach the surface and does so with less dispersant.22
While they don’t actually remove any of the oil, dispersants are a “chemical spilltreating agent that promotes the formation of small droplets of oil that disperse
19
Committee on Effectiveness of Oil Spill Dispersants, Marine Board, National Research
Council, Using Oil Spill Dispersants on the Sea (National Academies Press, 1989).
20
The International Tanker Owners Pollution Federation Limited, Dispersatns, 2010,
http://www.itopf.com/spill-response/clean-up-and-response/dispersants/ (accessed July
20, 2010).
21
Alan Guarino, Paul Meyer and Jane Delgado, interview by Hattie Larson, Jim
Olshefsky, Anthony Quinn and Jeff Adkins, , Ohmsett Tour, (July 16, 2010).
22
United States Environmental Protection Agency, Underwater Use of Dispersants,
2010, http://www.epa.gov/bpspill/dispersants.html#underwater2 (accessed July 26, 2010
).
WISE 2010 – ASTM International
Page 24
throughout the top layer of the water column.”23 The way that this is able to happen is
through a mixture of surfactants (which are surface active molecules) and solvents. A
surfactant is something that is used in various soaps and detergents and thus, dispersants
can somewhat be thought of as a ‘dish soap’ of the ocean. 24
The knowledge of the physical structure of the dispersant is helpful in
understanding how a dispersant works. The shape of the dispersant is snake-like with one
end being water-soluble (hydrophilic) and the other being oil-soluble (lipophilic). These
properties allow it to be able to ‘grab’ both a water and oil molecule on their respective
ends. Hence, the dispersant is able to reduce the oil/water interfacial tension to allow for
the water to “mix” with the oil.25
Rough waters encourage this mixing and for this reason, dispersants tend to be
more popular in places where there are rocky areas to further break up and mix the
dispersants. Because the droplets formed are so much smaller than the original crude oil,
they can be biodegraded by other organisms in the surrounding waters. A test run of
dispersants can be seen below, with Figure 7 towards the beginning of the test and Figure
8 towards the end. Another important aspect of dispersants is to understand the amount of
dispersants that are applied to the amount of ocean. The ratio usually is 1:20 for
dispersant to oil.26 This means that the amount of dispersant actually put into the sea is
23
Merv Fingas, The Basics of Oil Spill cleanup, 2nd Edition (Boca Raton: Lewis
Publishers, 2001).
24
Katie Peek, How Do Oil Dispersants Work?, May 28, 2010,
http://www.popsci.com/science/article/2010-05/how-do-oil-dispersants-work (accessed
July 20, 2010).
25
Nalco Company, Oil Spill Dispersants, http://www.nalco.com/applications/oil-spilldispersants.htm (accessed July 1, 2010).
26
Nancy Kinner, "R&D Needs for Dispersants" (Coastal Response Research Center,
2010).
WISE 2010 – ASTM International
Page 25
relatively low, considering how much water is there. For a more tangible analogy, the
Gulf of Mexico can be thought of as an average size swimming pool. In this case, the
amount of oil released in the Macondo well would then be equal to 0.02 mL. The amount
of dispersant would be 0.0002 mL.27,28, 29,30
Figure 7 and Figure 8: Dispersion at the Beginning and End of a Trial. Retrieved from Ohmsett PowerPoint
Presentation
One of the problems that dispersants face is that the droplets formed need to stay
mixed in the depths of the water. Because of the density differences in oil and water, the
resurfacing of water is a possibility. Once this happens, the oil is brought back to the
surface of the water, therefore reintroducing the original problem that the oil can then be
swept onto the shore.31 However, resurfacing is only a possibility when the surfactant that
is surrounding the oil molecule loses its capability to hold onto the water and oil
27
Calculated with the Gulf of Mexico having 6.43 x 1017 gallons of water, the amount of
oil released from the Macondo well equaling 219,240,000 gallons and the amount of
dispersant used equaling 1,840,000 gallons.
28
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, General Facts about the Gulf of Mexico,
http://www.epa.gov/gmpo/about/facts.html (accessed July 30, 2010).
29
CNN, Oil Disaster by the Numbers, July 2010,
http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2010/gulf.coast.oil.spill/interactive/numbers.interactive/
index.html (accessed July 30, 2010).
30
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, FWS Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill Response, July 20,
2010, http://www.fws.gov/home/dhoilspill/ (accessed July 20, 2010).
31
Merv F. Fingas, "Field Measurement of Effectiveness: Historical Review and
Examination of Analytical Methods," ed. L. Michael Flaherty, Oil Dispersants: New
Ecological Approaches, ASTM STP 1018 (ASTM), 1989: 157-158.
WISE 2010 – ASTM International
Page 26
molecule. At this point, the small oil droplet must go to find another oil droplet so that
they will attract each other to form a larger droplet to then be able to resurface. This is
due to the fact that small droplets rise much slower than larger droplets.32
When the oil that was treated by dispersants resurfaces, it also presents another
problem. Because it is not as thick as it was before, it can no longer be removed by
mechanical means such as skimmers and in-situ burning. One reasons for the oil
resurfacing is the distinction between surface and subsurface currents. If there is a
difference in the direction of the two currents, the dispersed oil is more likely to be a
successful method of cleanup. However, in the case of the Gulf of Mexico, the currents
are flowing in the same direction, therefore significantly reducing the amount of oil that
is dispersed into the water. From this knowledge, it is apparent that dispersants are not
just a magic fix, but also one whose disadvantages may not outweigh their advantages.33
One must also acknowledge the fact that it is incredibly difficult to determine what of the
oil is dispersed oil and what is other oil that has resurfaced and come onto the shore.34
However, in stormy conditions, the other spill response mechanisms are no longer
suitable options.
Another factor to consider with dispersants is their composition. Although there is
a basic formula consisting of surfactants and solvents followed to make a dispersant, until
recently, the exact ingredients of a dispersant such as Corexit 9500 were not disclosed by
the manufacturer. Corexit 9500 is a product manufactured by Nalco; it has been the
dispersant mainly used in the recent Macondo spill. For private dispersant manufacturing
32
Kenneth Lee, "How Oil Dispersants Work," Presentation (Cananda, 2010).
Merv Fingas, interview by Hattie Larson, Jim Olshefsky and Jeff Adkins, (July 9,
2010).
34
Kenneth Lee, "How Oil Dispersants Work," Presentation (Cananda, 2010).
33
WISE 2010 – ASTM International
Page 27
companies, the composition is thought of as a trade secret. However, because dispersants
are controversial based on their toxicological effects, it became integral for the
composition to be publically released. In early June 2010, the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency requested that Nalco release the chemicals used in Corexit 9500.
These chemicals, as shown in Figure 9, seem to be found in some everyday products. It is
important to note that the precursor to Corexit 9500 was Corexit 9527. Corexit 9527 was
discontinued because it contained 2-butoxy ethanol, a substance thought to be toxic.
Corexit 9500 does not contain this substance.35
CAS #
1338-43-8
9005-65-6
Name
Common Day-to-Day Use Examples
Sorbitan, mono-(9Z)-9-
Skin cream, body shampoo, emulsifier in
octadecenoate
juice
Sorbitan, mono-(9Z)-9-
Baby bath, mouth wash, face lotion,
octadecenoate, poly(oxy-1,2-
emulsifier in food
ethanediyl) derivs.
9005-70-3
Sorbitan, tri-(9Z)-9-
Body/Face lotion, tanning lotions
octadecenoate, poly(oxy-1,2ethanediyl) derivs
577-11-7
Butanedioic acid, 2-sulfo-, 1,4-
Wetting agent in cosmetic products, gelatin,
bis(2-ethylhexyl) ester, sodium
beverages
salt (1:1)
29911-28-
Propanol, 1-(2-butoxy-1-
2
methylethoxy)
64742-47-
Distillates (petroleum),
8
hydrotreated light
111-76-2
Ethanol, 2-butoxy
Household cleaning products
Air freshener, cleaner
Cleaners
Figure 9: List of Chemicals in Corexit 9500. Retrieved on 20 July 2010 from http://nalco.com/news-andevents/4297.htm
35
Nalco Company, COREXIT Ingredients , June 2010, http://nalco.com/news-andevents/4297.htm (accessed July 20, 2010).
WISE 2010 – ASTM International
Page 28
One of the major concerns regarding dispersants is their toxicity. Because
dispersants contain chemicals that are introduced to an area where they are not native, it
is important to study the effects that they have in the various areas where applied and to
the wildlife that may be impacted. To further enhance the information known about the
current dispersants available, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency released a
toxicity report about eight of the major dispersants on the market, including Dispersit
SPC 1000, Nokomis 3-AA, Corexit 9500A, Nokomis 3-F4, ZI-400, Sea Brat #4, Saf-Ron
Gold, JD-2000. This study gathered information on how a type of shrimp and a particular
type of fish found in the Gulf of Mexico were affected by these dispersants. These
constraints were chosen because of the pressing issue of dispersant use in the Macondo
spill. The report stated that for the shrimp, all of the dispersants were practically nontoxic or slightly toxic. For the fish, the results ranged from practically non-toxic to
moderately toxic.36 These results were found to be favorable; however, there was still
some criticism from environmentalists and ocean scientists. As Paul Greenberg, author of
“Four Fish: The Future of the Last Wild Food”, stated, “But once you spray Corexit, […],
you break it up into smaller particles to the point where it can get ingested by small
creatures like shrimp, like oysters. Some people have said that there is no toxicological
problem with these fish and shell fish ingesting oil and hydrocarbons, that they should be
able to kind of process that. But nobody knows what the toxicological implication is
going to be of Corexit plus oil.”37 In addition to the fish that could possibly be harmed
36
Michael J. Hemmer, Mace G. Barron and Richard M. Greene, Comparative Toxicity of
Eight Oil Dispersant Products on Two Gulf of Mexico Aquatic Test Species, (U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency: Office of Research and Development, 2010).
37
Paul Greenberg, interview by Terry Gross, "Paul Greenberg: The Future of 'Wild
Fish'," Fresh Air, (July 19, 2010).
WISE 2010 – ASTM International
Page 29
from the use of dispersants, it has been noted that the workers that have inadvertently
been sprayed with dispersants have displayed symptoms of headaches, nausea, and skin,
eye and respiratory irritation.38
38
Elana Schor, "BP Continues to Use Surface Dispersants in Gulf Despite EPA
Directive," Energy & Environment: The New York Times , June 24, 2010.
WISE 2010 – ASTM International
Page 30
Economics Related to Dispersant Use
Some of the motives behind dispersants may be related to the economics of oil spill
response. Relatively speaking, dispersants are much more inexpensive in comparison to
other cleanup methods. The cost trends related to different oil spill cleanup strategies can
be seen in
Figure 10. As of June 11, 2010, Nalco claimed to have made $44 million on sales linked
to the recent Gulf of Mexico oil spill.39 Although this does not tell the exact cost of
dispersants, it is known that Nalco is the manufacturer of them, so the estimate presented
for the cost of dispersants can be accepted. The rough price of booms has been estimated
to range from $70 million for an inexpensive, $7/foot boom. 40 This can be also compared
to the price of skimmers as a cheap skimmer can cost $6,000 and a complete offshore
skimmer system can cost up to $2.5 million dollars.41 As is established by the numbers
shown, it can be less expensive for a company to opt for dispersants.
39
CNN Money, BP's Open Wallet, June 11, 2010,
http://money.cnn.com/galleries/2010/news/1006/gallery.BP_open_wallet/3.html
(accessed July 20, 2010).
40
This number is derived from a simple calculation using the fact that that 1914 miles of
boom have been deployed as of July 20, 2010 (http://www.fws.gov/home/dhoilspill/) and
from the fact that the cheapest boom is equal to $7/ft and an expensive (Lane 2010).
41
Peter Lane, interview by Hattie Larson, James P. Olshefsky and Jeff Adkins, (July 2,
2010).
WISE 2010 – ASTM International
Page 31
!
Figure 10: The Cost Trends of Oil Spill Cleanups. Retrieved from page 237 of Dispersant Use in Oil Spill
Response.
International Dispersant Use
These various oil spill response mechanisms are can be found internationally as
well. In Figure 11, an assortment of countries and their policies relating to dispersants is
shown. The figure details whether the various countries use dispersants, whether they
have regulations regarding dispersants, and what priority dispersants have in spill
response. It is interesting to look at this chart and notice how the more northern European
countries primarily do not allow dispersants to be used, or they are used solely as a last
resort option. Some believe that this is because the Nordic countries are presently thought
of being ahead of the game on oil spill response methods. However, because they are so
much farther north, techniques such as in-situ burning are much more applicable and
effective. This is true because of the weather conditions present there. In-situ burning has
been proven to be much more effective while used in icy conditions.
WISE 2010 – ASTM International
Page 32
International Dispersant Policies
Country
Dispersants
Allowed?
Dispersant
Policy?
Strategy Priority
Official Approval
Required
Bahamas
Yes
Yes
Primary Option
-
Canada
Yes
Yes
Secondary Option
Yes
China
Yes
Yes
Primary Option
Yes
Denmark
Yes
Yes
Secondary Option
Yes
Finland
Yes
Yes
Last resort option
-
France
Yes
Yes
Secondary Option
Yes
Germany
Yes
Yes
Secondary Option
-
Greenland
No
Yes
Use prohibited
-
Guatemala
Unknown
No
Unlikely Option
-
Italy
Yes
Yes
Secondary Option
Yes
Jamaica
Yes
Yes
Last resort option
-
Japan
Yes
Yes
Secondary Option
Yes
Mexico
Yes
Unknown
Secondary Option
Yes
Netherlands
No
Yes
Use prohibited
-
Nigeria
Yes
Yes
Secondary Option
-
Norway
Yes
Yes
Secondary Option
Yes for over 1 tonne
dispersant use
Sweden
No
Yes
Not used
-
United
Kingdom
Yes
Yes
Primary Option
Yes
United States
Yes
Yes
Secondary Option
Yes
Figure 11: Various International Dispersant Policies as of 2001. Retrieved from Dispersant Use in Oil Spill
Response.
WISE 2010 – ASTM International
Page 33
Views on Dispersants
Because dispersants are such a controversial topic, many different sectors have
opinions about it. Those that will be discussed here are the views from a toxicologist, a
think tank, an industry representative and a political figure.
Recently in a presentation broadcast on TED (an online presentation site),
toxicologist from Marine Environment Research Institute, Susan Shaw, presented the
idea that while dispersants are effective at keeping oil off of the shore, they can be quite
harmful to the wildlife whose habitat is in the deep sea. Shaw claimed that Corexit has
not released sufficient data about the chemicals used in the dispersant and that Corexit
9527 contained extremely toxic chemicals. Recently, she dove undersea in the Gulf of
Mexico to see the effects of dispersants on the subsurface creatures, noting how she could
see the droplets of oil. Through independent study, she concluded that the impact of
dispersants and crude oil are much worse than either alone. The impression received
from the presentation was one that was in extreme opposition to the way that dispersants
are used right now. She made the statement that “[Chemical manufacturers are] allowed
to keep trade secrets so they don’t even give the ingredients out. Plus they don’t give
health and safety data. So consequently, they cannot be regulated before they go to
market.”42 While the idea of regulations surrounding dispersants is one that this paper
aims to take into consideration, this statement presents some inaccuracies. For one, the
health and safety data has been released for the Corexit product mentioned previously.
Because manufacturers supply these Material Safety Data Sheets (MSDS), the onus
cannot be on them for regulation.
42
Susan Shaw, "The Oil Spill's Toxic Trade-Off," TEDxOilSpill (June 2010).
WISE 2010 – ASTM International
Page 34
Ohmsett, the testing facility discussed earlier presents a neutral view on the use of
dispersants. While they do perform the various effectiveness tests with dispersants, they
are unable to monitor the toxicity of the oil. They are only able to report that from a
technical standpoint, the oil is dispersed appropriately.43
The oil industry is the one that mainly relies on the use of dispersants. They are
the only sector that is plagued with the responsibility of the oil spill and they are the ones
that must determine which cleanup method to use. Because of this, they are the main
consumers of dispersant products. In talking with Peter Lane from Applied Fabric
Technologies (a manufacturer of booms, skimmers and dispersant equipment) as well as
an industry representative from a large oil corporation, the use of dispersants is quite
favorable. It is an efficient way to mitigate the damage to the shorelines, especially in
places where there are marshlands. Whenever a company needs to begin cleanup on an
oil spill, it must weigh out the risks and benefits of the use of the various cleanup
strategies. The only focus is to get the oil spill cleaned up as fast as possible- a desire that
all sectors share.
The public sector is one that must also be investigated. The EPA is one agency in
the public sector that deals with dispersants, as previously discussed. They possess the
capability to require the suppliers of dispersants to release their data about chemicals;
they can perform toxicity tests on the dispersants, and can also regulate the use of them.
The EPA has been vocal in examining Corexit as a product throughout the recent
Macondo spill and in their examination of the product and in pursuing the ingredients of
Nalco’s Corexit.
43
Alan Guarino, Paul Meyer and Jane Delgado, interview by Hattie Larson, Jim
Olshefsky, Anthony Quinn and Jeff Adkins, , Ohmsett Tour, (July 16, 2010).
WISE 2010 – ASTM International
Page 35
Legislative bodies have also added to the voice of the public sector. One such
person is Congresswoman Woolsey, who created the bill HR2693: Oil Pollution Research
and Development Program Reauthorization Act of 2010. It was made as an amendment to
the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 and it works to improve the oil spill response plans that are
available currently and to build a program that can work towards conducting oil pollution
research. Within this, dispersants would definitely come into play because the amount of
pollution that they cause is still something of question.
ASTM Standards Relating to Each Method
ASTM International plays a major role in the development of standards and
bringing the various entities together to explore the topic surrounding the various oil spill
response technologies. They develop standards through the coordination of various
committees with expert volunteer members serving on each committee. The Committee
F20 on Hazardous Substances and Oil Spill Response is concerned with standards
regarding the “performance, durability, strength of systems and techniques used for the
control of oil and hazardous substances spills.”44 This includes standards such as those
mentioned previously for boom connectors. This standard was particularly relevant in the
recent Macondo oil spill because of the need for booms from around the world. Because
not all of these booms were the same, it was up to a small company using an ASTM
standard to supply the connection piece for all these booms.45 In addition to connection
44
ASTM International, F20 on Hazardous Substances and Oil Spill Response, 2010,
http://www.astm.org/COMMIT/SCOPES/F20.htm (accessed July 22, 2010).
45
Tyler Ellyson, "Miller Products Creates Local 'Connection' to Oil Cleanup," Osceola
Sentinel-Tribune, July 8, 2010.
WISE 2010 – ASTM International
Page 36
pieces, ASTM also makes a guide for fire-resistant booms, which are critical for in-situ
burning.
ASTM is not only involved with booms. They also have standards regarding the
use of skimmers. One specific standard that is used frequently with the test groups at
Ohmsett is F2709 – 08: Determining Nameplate Recovery Rate of Stationary Oil
Skimmer Systems. This standard is a test method, which indicates that it allows for
everyone who employs the standard to be able to determine the capacity of the skimmer
in the same way. Test methods allow for measurements of reproducibility and
repeatability to be determined. Because the test is identical for everyone who uses it, the
data retrieved is credible.
Another area that ASTM International standards are involved is in the use of
dispersants. There are standards ranging from how dispersants should be applied aerially
to the calibration of dispersant boom and nozzle systems to the determination of net
environmental benefit from dispersant use. In addition to these, there is also the standard
that determines the effectiveness of dispersants.
The standards shown here are a very small selection of all that are available. The
standards that are available are abundant and also applicable to other countries. While
touring the Ohmsett facility, it was mentioned that many of the foreigners who have used
the facilities are very aware of ASTM standards. This is crucial to making oil spill
cleanup strategies more universal.
Effectiveness of Each Cleanup Method
The effectiveness of each method is extremely dependent upon the conditions of
where it is applied. The usual factors that this encompasses are the location, the type of
WISE 2010 – ASTM International
Page 37
oil, and the weather conditions. For most cleanup strategies, thick oil that has not been
weathered yet is the easiest to respond to. When the oil is thinner and weathered, it is not
as susceptible to cleanup methods such booms or dispersants.
In order to determine the effectiveness of a method, it is necessary to compare the
oil to the water. For skimmers, the effectiveness can be found from ASTM standard
F2709-08, where the recovery efficiency (RE) is found.46
RE =
volumeof oil recovered
totalvolumeof fluid
Dispersant effectiveness is more difficult to determine. This is because it is hard
€ to measure the amount of oil there prior and to application in relation to the amount that
remains. ASTM does have a testing standard pertaining to the effectiveness of
dispersants, F 2059 – 06. While this standard is accurate for the dispersant, it is
performed in ideal conditions, which is not the case out at sea. When the dispersant is
applied in real life situations, a way in which effectiveness can be determined is by
examining the “amount of oil that is put into the water column versus the oil still on the
water surface.”47 Often, this is much more difficult to arrive at a numerical percentage
dispersed. Another factor relating to the effectiveness of dispersants that doesn’t
necessarily pertain to the other methods is the amount of energy that the waves contain.
For example, a small, minor wave will not disperse the oil extensively. However, a large,
more powerful wave can disperse the oil immensely. Thus, while a dispersant in
46
ASTM Committee F20 on Hazardous Substances and OIl Spill Reponse, "F 2709-08:
Standard Test Method for Determining Nameplate Recovery Rate of Stationary OIl
Skimmer Systems" (West Conshohocken, PA: ASTM International, Sept. 15, 2008).
47
Merv Fingas, The Basics of Oil Spill cleanup, 2nd Edition (Boca Raton: Lewis
Publishers, 2001). Merv Fingas, The Basics of Oil Spill cleanup, 2nd Edition (Boca
Raton: Lewis Publishers, 2001).
WISE 2010 – ASTM International
Page 38
laboratories can be extremely successful, it’s effectiveness also relies heavily on the type
of conditions that it is introduced to.
WISE 2010 – ASTM International
Page 39
Case Studies
Dispersants Use in Other Oil Spills
The Exxon Valdez oil spill was the worst in United States history until the
Macondo spill. A tanker transporting oil ran into the Bligh Reef, which ended up 10.9
million gallons of oil to leak into the Prince William Sound in March of 1989. The
dispersants used in this spill were precursors to the current Corexit 9500: Corexit 7664,
Corexit 9580, and Corexit 9527.48
The Ixtoc 1 spill was located in the southern region of the Gulf of Mexico. The
incident involved a blowout, which then caused the oil to spill from the site. It is
estimated that the flow rate was 10,000 – 30,000 barrels per day. The incident occurred
on June 3, 1979 and continued to leak oil for a period of nine months.49 The methods
utilized for cleanup were containment booms and skimmers from Norwegian experts.
Corexit 9527 was also applied aerially in this spill for 1,100 square miles of oil slick.
Dispersants, however, were not applied on the U.S. waters because by the time is reached
that point in the Gulf, it was already extremely weathered and dispersants would have
been futile.50
The Macondo happened on April 20, 2010 when a drilling rig exploded, killing 11
workers. This blowout caused the rig to spill oil for almost three month, placing it
48
Incident News, T/V Exxon Valdez, http://www.incidentnews.gov/incident/6683
(accessed July 21, 2010).
49
Incident News, IXTOC 1, http://www.incidentnews.gov/incident/6250 (accessed July
20, 2010).
50
Incident News, "Countermeasures/Mitigation" (Bahia de Capeche: Emergency
Response Division, Office of Response and Restoration, National Ocean Service,
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, US Department of Commerce, June
03, 1979).
WISE 2010 – ASTM International
Page 40
amongst the world’s largest oil spills. The methods used in this spill are similar to those
used previously. Skimmers are being used, even those from other countries. Boom has
been used extensively to additionally protect the shorelines and dispersants have been
used, as mentioned previously. The dispersant that have been used in this spill have
undergone some intensive questioning because there has been more dispersant applied
continuously over an extended period of time than ever before. In the Ixtoc 1 spill 2.5
million gallons of dispersant were applied and in the Macondo spill the amount of
dispersant is about1.84 million gallons.51
Variations Between Spills
These spill had several variations amongst them. One was the fact that while Ixtoc
1 and Macondo were in the same area, Exxon Valdez was in a completely different
climate with different crude oil and different conditions that would affect the way in
which the oil spilled was cleaned up. Another difference would be the fact that Exxon
Valdez was a spill while the other two were blowouts. This means that there was a certain
amount of oil to be spilled in the Exxon Valdez situation but for Ixtoc 1 and Macondo oil
spill, it was unlimited until the oil well could be plugged. For Ixtoc 1, this meant that oil
kept flowing until nine months later.
These spills also vary because of the time of their occurrence. There is a time span
of ten years between Ixtoc 1 and Exxon Valdez and twenty years between Exxon Valdez.
Because of these large gaps, dispersants have been given adequate time to be improved.
For example, when dispersants were first introduced in the Torrey Canyon spill, they
51
Nancy Kinner, "R&D Needs for Dispersants" (Coastal Response Research Center,
2010).
WISE 2010 – ASTM International
Page 41
were so toxic that wildlife was found floating in the water. A more toxic version of the
Corexit product was used in Exxon Valdez than in the recent Macondo spill. From a
historical standpoint, dispersants have been improving consistently. 52
52
Committee on Effectiveness of Oil Spill Dispersants, Marine Board, National Research
Council, Using Oil Spill Dispersants on the Sea (National Academies Press, 1989).
WISE 2010 – ASTM International
Page 42
Policy Recommendation
At the present, there is not one oil spill response technique that is necessarily
better than the others. The various methods can all be extremely effective when utilized
in each respective ideal set of conditions. That being said, it important to recognize the
fact that only about 15% of the oil in the Gulf of Mexico will be removed by mechanical
means. This is because even though they are quite effective in a testing setting, actual
wind and wave conditions of the Gulf have a significant impact on their effectiveness.53
This compares to the utilization of dispersants in that dispersants usually have about a 3050% removal of the oil spilled in the sea.54 This implies that dispersants do still play an
important role in mitigating the amount of oil that is resting on the top of the water and
washing onto the shore. They should not be ignored as an oil spill response tool.
There are, however, some improvements that should be made in order to enhance
the use of dispersants. Because dispersants are needed as a solution, heavier regulation
and no regulation are not options. Increasing the amount of regulation surrounding them
would cause dispersants to be used less and that would have a couple of consequences.
One would be that through the economics of the situation, more mechanical means would
be improved. This trend is noticed in the Netherlands where dispersants are not allowed
but rather more extensive mechanical methods have been developed and are being
53
Alan Guarino, Paul Meyer and Jane Delgado, interview by Hattie Larson, Jim
Olshefsky, Anthony Quinn and Jeff Adkins, , Ohmsett Tour, (July 16, 2010).
54
T. Lunel, "Dispersant Effectiveness at Sea," Marine Pollution Control Unit, Coastguard
Agency of the U.K. Department of Transport (Abingdon).
WISE 2010 – ASTM International
Page 43
supplied to the United States.55 While this would eventually lead to positive
improvements, the length of time that this would require is enormous, thus not providing
effective methods for oil cleanup for an extended period of time. The opposite of heavier
regulation would be no regulation on dispersants at all. However, this option is not
feasible either. This would then allow any type of dispersant to be used, regardless of its
toxicity. Dispersants would be even more extensively used because there would be no
limits on it. The implications of this are not desirable.
From these options, one conclusion can be drawn. The regulations that are present
should remain but with some minor changes. One such change would be to require the
EPA through the Executive Branch to perform a study of the effects of the mixture of
dispersants and oil on the wildlife in various areas. This study should not only take into
account the effect of dispersants on the Macondo spill but open it up to a broader context,
examining the various types of oil across the United States mixed with dispersants and
the effect on a collection of the native wildlife in each location. The wildlife for each area
would need to be determined, however, it should not be a species that is listed as
‘Threatened’ on the IUCN Red List of Threatened Species.56 The results of this study
would be unbiased unlike a study done by an independent environmental group or one
from a large oil corporation because it would be performed by a governmental agency. In
addition, the EPA is the agency that was previously assigned with the task of testing the
dispersants with the various sea creatures in the Gulf of Mexico. They also regulate the
55
Gerbert Kampers, Wierd Koops and Bert Groothuisen, interview by Stephen Beard, ,
U.S. Hesitant to Accept Dutch Oil Clean-up Tech, Marketplace, American Public Media
(July 27, 2010).
56
IUCN, The IUCN REd List of Threatened Species, 2010, http://www.iucnredlist.org/
(accessed July 29, 20101).
WISE 2010 – ASTM International
Page 44
use of dispersants in oil spill response, so in order to maintain continuity, the EPA is the
agency best prepared for this study. With the conclusions of this study, the use of
dispersants in those various locations would then need to be re-evaluated. If it is proving
extremely harmful to the sea life in each location, the approval of the use of dispersants
ought to be revoked or the amount of dispersants allowed be used in the region should
become stricter.
As recently as August 2, 2010, the EPA released a study that stated:
“EPA’s results indicate that the eight dispersants tested have similar
toxicities to one another when mixed with Louisiana Sweet Crude Oil. These
results confirm that the dispersant used in response to the oil spill in the gulf,
Corexit 9500A, when mixed with oil, is generally no more or less toxic than
mixtures with the other available alternatives. The results also indicate that
dispersant-oil mixtures are generally no more toxic to the aquatic test species than
oil alone.”57
However, this does not completely fulfill the previously mentioned policy
recommendation. While it is a step in the right direction, the Gulf of Mexico is not the
only place where oil drilling occurs. Similar studies should be conducted as to conclude
the toxicological effects of dispersants in other types of crude oil on other species that
could be affected by an oil spill.
Until this study can be completed, there are a couple of other measures that
should be taken. The areas where drilling is happening that have not sought dispersants,
57
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA's Toxicity Testing of Dispersants, August
02, 2010, http://www.epa.gov/bpspill/dispersants-testing.html#phase2 (accessed August
02, 2010).
WISE 2010 – ASTM International
Page 45
should do so. This would not necessarily give them permission to use dispersants but in
the case of a spill, the approval would have already been applied for and either granted or
rejected. In any case, the individual responsible for the oil cleanup would not waste
precious time waiting for the consent to use dispersants, while attention should be given
to employing various techniques to cleanup the spill as fast as possible.
In conjunction with the approval of dispersants, a law must be introduced to
mandate the use of ‘Spill Drills’ by companies within the oil industry. A ‘Spill Drill’ is
one that some companies use to test out the required response plan. These simulations
allow for the people on the oil spill response team to interact with those in the various
agencies that have a vested interest as to how the oil is cleaned up. If law required these
‘Spill Drills’, then there would not be quite as much confusion between all of the parties
involved. Many situations would have already been ironed out in a non-chaotic fashion.58
Dispersants may not be the favorite option for all in oil spill response. They do
however, work in situations where mechanical means don’t and by no means should they
be eliminated as a spill response technique. They are the lesser of two evils when it
comes to leaving the oil untouched in the ocean where it can impact the shorelines and
wildlife and having it dispersed to incredibly small droplets in the water column.
Dispersants have room for improvement but they are a technique that should be utilized
to its fullest.
58
Industry Representative, interview by Hattie Larson, , Oil Spill Response Plans, (July
27, 2010).
WISE 2010 – ASTM International
Page 46
Bibliography
ASTM Committee F20 on Hazardous Substances and OIl Spill Reponse. "F 2709-08:
Standard Test Method for Determining Nameplate Recovery Rate of Stationary OIl
Skimmer Systems." West Conshohocken, PA: ASTM International, Sept. 15, 2008.
ASTM Committee F20 on Hazardous Substances and Oil Spill Treatment. "F2532-06
Standard Guide for Determining Net Environmental Benefit of Dispersant Use." West
Conshocken, PA: ASTM International, 2006.
ASTM International. F20 on Hazardous Substances and Oil Spill Response. 2010.
http://www.astm.org/COMMIT/SCOPES/F20.htm (accessed July 22, 2010).
Biello, David. Is Using Dispersants on the BP Gulf Oil Spill Fighting Pollution with
Pollution? June 18, 2010. http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=is-usingdispersants-fighting-pollution-with-pollution (accessed July 20, 2010).
Boland, Greg. Oil and Gas Exploration. June 8, 2010.
http://oceanexplorer.noaa.gov/explorations/06mexico/background/oil/oil.html (accessed
July 1, 2010).
Buist, Ian. Employing Chemical Herders to Improve Oil Spill Response Operations.
S.L. Ross Environmental Research Ltd. April 09, 2010.
http://www.mms.gov/tarprojects/617.htm.
Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation, and Enforement: Office Energy &
Minerals Management, U.S. Deptartment of the Interior. Technology Assessment &
Research (TA&R) Project Categories: Ohmsett. July 1, 2010.
http://www.boemre.gov/tarprojectcategories/ohmsett.htm (accessed July 31, 2010).
Chevron Corporation . Drilling and Completions. March 2010.
http://www.chevron.com/deliveringenergy/oil/drillingcompletions/ (accessed July 13,
2010).
Chevron Corporation. New Oil Spill Contianment System to Protect Gulf of Mexico
Planned by Major Oil Companies. July 21, 2010.
http://www.chevron.com/chevron/pressreleases/article/07212010_newoilspillcontainment
systemtoprotectgulfofmexicoplannedbymajoroilcompanies.news (accessed July 22,
2010).
CNN Money. BP's Open Wallet. June 11, 2010.
http://money.cnn.com/galleries/2010/news/1006/gallery.BP_open_wallet/3.html
(accessed July 20, 2010).
WISE 2010 – ASTM International
Page 47
CNN. Oil Disaster by the Numbers. July 2010.
http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2010/gulf.coast.oil.spill/interactive/numbers.interactive/
index.html (accessed July 30, 2010).
CNN U.S. Gulf Coast Oil Disaster. July 28, 2010.
http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2010/gulf.coast.oil.spill/interactive/data.viz/index.html
(accessed July 30, 2010).
Committee on Effectiveness of Oil Spill Dispersants, Marine Board, National Research
Council. Using Oil Spill Dispersants on the Sea. National Academies Press, 1989.
Committee on Science and Technology. Subcommittee Discusses Oil Spill Research,
Cleanup Technologies, and the Environment. July 2010.
http://science.house.gov/subcommittee/energy.aspx (accessed July 28, 2010).
DeCola, Elise. Dispersant Use in Oil Spill Response: A Worldwide Legislative and
Practical Update. New York: Aspen Law & Business, 2003.
Ellyson, Tyler. "Miller Products Creates Local 'Connection' to Oil Cleanup." Osceola
Sentinel-Tribune, July 8, 2010.
Emergency Response Division, Office of Response and Restoration, National Ocean
Service, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, US Department of
Commerce. Incident Map. http://www.incidentnews.gov/map?orr_id=6250 (accessed
July 22, 2010).
Fausset, Richard. EPA Finds Dispesant Used in Gulf to be as Safe as Others. June 30,
2010. http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-oil-spill20100701,0,907234.story (accessed July 2, 2010 ).
Fingas, Merv, interview by Hattie Larson, Jim Olshefsky and Jeff Adkins. (July 9,
2010).
Fingas, Merv F. "Field Measurement of Effectiveness: Historical Review and
Examination of Analytical Methods." Edited by L. Michael Flaherty. Oil Dispersants:
New Ecological Approaches, ASTM STP 1018 (ASTM), 1989: 157-158.
Fingas, Merv. The Basics of Oil Spill cleanup. 2nd Edition. Boca Raton: Lewis
Publishers, 2001.
Florida State University. Gulf Oil Crisis: FSU Takes Action. July 12, 2010.
http://www.fsu.com/Blogs/Gulf-Oil-Crisis-FSU-Takes-Action/ (accessed July 15, 2010).
Freudenrich, Craig, and Jonathon Strickland. How OIl Drilling Works.
http://science.howstuffworks.com/oil-drilling4.htm (accessed June 27, 2010).
WISE 2010 – ASTM International
Page 48
Google Maps. July 30, 2010.
http://maps.google.com/maps?f=d&source=s_d&saddr=E+Ocean+Blvd&daddr=FL292+W%2FSorrento+Rd&hl=en&geocode=FdD1jQEdjP8z-g%3BFc6xzgEdBB7Kg&mra=pr&sll=28.378615,-92.58208&sspn=9.058974,17.20459&ie=UTF8&t=h&z=6.
Greenberg, Paul, interview by Terry Gross. "Paul Greenberg: The Future of 'Wild
Fish'." Fresh Air. (July 19, 2010).
Guarino, Alan, Paul Meyer, and Jane Delgado, interview by Hattie Larson, Jim
Olshefsky, Anthony Quinn and Jeff Adkins. Ohmsett Tour (July 16, 2010).
Hemmer, Michael J., Mace G. Barron, and Richard M. Greene. Comparative Toxicity
of Eight Oil Dispersant Products on Two Gulf of Mexico Aquatic Test Species. U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency: Office of Research and Development, 2010.
"History of Offshore Oil." Congressional Digest 89, no. 6 (June 2010): 163-164.
Incident News. "Countermeasures/Mitigation: Ixtoc 1." Bahia de Capeche: Emergency
Response Division, Office of Response and Restoration, National Ocean Service,
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, US Department of Commerce, June
03, 1979.
—. Incident Map. 2010. http://www.incidentnews.gov/map?orr_id=6250 (accessed
July 2010).
—. IXTOC 1. http://www.incidentnews.gov/incident/6250 (accessed July 20, 2010).
IUCN. The IUCN REd List of Threatened Species. 2010. http://www.iucnredlist.org/
(accessed July 29, 20101).
Kampers, Gerbert, Wierd Koops, and Bert Groothuisen, interview by Stephen Beard.
U.S. Hesitant to Accept Dutch Oil Clean-up Tech Marketplace, American Public Media,
(July 27, 2010).
Kinner, Nancy. "R&D Needs for Dispersants." Coastal Response Research Center,
2010.
Lane, Peter, interview by Hattie Larson, James P. Olshefsky and Jeff Adkins. (July 2,
2010).
Lee, Kenneth. "How Oil Dispersants Work." Presentation, Cananda, 2010.
Lunel, T. "Dispersant Effectiveness at Sea." Marine Pollution Control Unit, Coastguard
Agency of the U.K. Department of Transport, Abingdon.
Lynch, Adam. Sierra Club: Dispersants Worse than Oil. May 14, 2010.
http://www.jacksonfreepress.com/index.php/print_view/37733 (accessed July 28, 2010).
WISE 2010 – ASTM International
Page 49
Nalco Company. COREXIT Ingredients . June 2010. http://nalco.com/news-andevents/4297.htm (accessed July 20, 2010).
—. Oil Spill Dispersants. http://www.nalco.com/applications/oil-spill-dispersants.htm
(accessed July 1, 2010).
National Ocean Industries Association. About NOIA. 2006.
http://www.noia.org/website/article.asp?id=123 (accessed June 20, 2010).
Incident News. T/V Exxon Valdez. http://www.incidentnews.gov/incident/6683
(accessed July 21, 2010).
Peek, Katie. How Do Oil Dispersants Work? May 28, 2010.
http://www.popsci.com/science/article/2010-05/how-do-oil-dispersants-work (accessed
June 23, 2010).
Industry Representative, interview by Hattie Larson. Oil Spill Response Plans (July 27,
2010).
Rockefeller, Sen. John. S.3597: Securing Health for Ocean Resources and
Environment Act. July 27, 2010. http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=s1113597 (accessed July 28, 2010).
Royal Dutch Shell. "Shell starts production at Perdido." Shell Worldwise. March 31,
2010.
http://www.shell.com/home/content/media/news_and_library/press_releases/2010/perdid
o_31032010.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed:+s
hell_media_releases+(Royal+Dutch+Shell+plc+media+releases) (accessed July 13,
2010).
Schor, Elana. "BP Continues to Use Surface Dispersants in Gulf Despite EPA
Directive." Energy & Environment: The New York Times , June 24, 2010.
Shaw, Susan. "The Oil Spill's Toxic Trade-Off." TEDxOilSpill. June 2010.
Subcommittee on Energy and Environment. "Hearing on "Drilling Down on America's
Energy Future: Safety, Security, and Clean Energy." Committee on Energy and
Commerce, 2010.
The International Tanker Owners Pollution Federation Limited. Dispersatns. 2010.
http://www.itopf.com/spill-response/clean-up-and-response/dispersants/ (accessed June
28, 2010).
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. EPA's Toxicity Testing of Dispersants. August
02, 2010. http://www.epa.gov/bpspill/dispersants-testing.html#phase2 (accessed August
02, 2010).
WISE 2010 – ASTM International
Page 50
—. General Facts about the Gulf of Mexico.
http://www.epa.gov/gmpo/about/facts.html (accessed July 30, 2010).
—. Oil Pollution Act Overview. March 17, 2009.
http://www.epa.gov/oem/content/lawsregs/opaover.htm (accessed June 20, 2010).
—. Oil Pollution Act Overview. March 17, 2009.
http://www.epa.gov/oem/content/lawsregs/opaover.htm (accessed August 02, 2010).
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. FWS Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill Response. July 20,
2010. http://www.fws.gov/home/dhoilspill/ (accessed July 20, 2010).
United States Environmental Protection Agency. Underwater Use of Dispersants.
2010. http://www.epa.gov/bpspill/dispersants.html#underwater2 (accessed July 26, 2010
).
Woolsey, Rep. Lynn. H.R. 2693: Oil Pollution Research and Development Program
Reauthorization Act of 2010. July 21, 2010.
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h111-2693 (accessed July 22, 2010).
WISE 2010 – ASTM International
Page 51
Oil Spill Disasters
The Regulations
That Govern Their Response
Hattie Larson
Florida State University
ASTM International
2010 WISE Intern
Executive Summary
Since the presence of major oil spills have recently been reminded to the
American public, it is important to look into the methods that are currently taken to
mitigate their effects. This is inclusive of several techniques including containment
booms, skimmers, in-situ burns, oil herders, and dispersants.
Containment booms are used in conjunction with skimmers and in-situ burning, as
they are able to divert oil. Skimmers are the only method that is able to mechanically
remove oil from the surface of the water. This can be advantageous if one hopes to
further separate the oil from the water, after skimming, and reuse it. In-situ burning
removes thick oil from the surface of the water by burning. The consequence is that the
oil can no longer be used later. However, it is extremely effective in removing oil, if used
under the correct conditions. Oil herders are a relatively new area of oil spill response.
The liquid is sprayed around the edges of an oil slick, which increases the surface tension
between the water and the oil, causing the oil to become thicker. Oil herders are used
with in-situ burning and dispersants. Dispersants are a liquid chemical that is applied
either surface or subsurface to an oil slick in an effort to disperse the oil into smaller
particles. They have sustained criticism because of their somewhat unknown toxicity
when combined with crude oil.
At the present, there is not one oil spill response technique that is necessarily
better than the others. The various methods can all be extremely effective when utilized
in each respective ideal set of conditions. That being said, it important to recognize that
in an oil spill, such as that in the Macondo well at Deepwater Horizon platform, roughly
15% of the oil will be able to be removed by mechanical means. This is attributed to the
WISE 2010 – ASTM International
Page 2
idea that even though they are extremely effective in controlled settings, the actual
conditions at an oil spill have a negative impact on their effectiveness.1 This compares to
the utilization of dispersants in that dispersants usually have about a 30-50% removal of
the oil spilled in the sea.2 This implies that dispersants do still play an important role in
mitigating the amount of oil that is resting on the top of the water and washing onto the
shore. They should not be ignored as an oil spill response tool.
In order to most effectively utilize dispersants, some minor policy alternations
should be implemented. One is to complete an all-inclusive study on the toxicological
effects of dispersants when mixed with various types of crude oil. The results would
allow for decisions regarding dispersant to be more thorough. Another recommendation
would be to have the regions that do not yet have a policy on dispersants to seek the preapproval for their use. While this would not necessarily allow for dispersants to be used,
it would eliminate confusion in the occurrence of a spill. One final recommendation
would be to make the implementation of ‘Spill Drills’ mandatory. This would require the
oil companies to perform simulations of their oil spill response plans. By mandating this,
the oil companies would forge relationships with the various agencies that have a vested
interest in the results of an oil spill in a non-chaotic setting.
The listed recommendations are ones that hope to better the use of dispersants in
the event of an oil spill. Because oil spills are situations that everyone involved would
rather avoid, the implementation of these recommendations would allow for those
involved to remedy the oil spill as quickly and efficiently as possible.
1
Alan Guarino, Paul Meyer and Jane Delgado, interview by Hattie Larson, Jim
Olshefsky, Anthony Quinn and Jeff Adkins, , Ohmsett Tour, (July 16, 2010).
2
T. Lunel, "Dispersant Effectiveness at Sea," Marine Pollution Control Unit, Coastguard
Agency of the U.K. Department of Transport (Abingdon).
WISE 2010 – ASTM International
Page 3
Foreword
About WISE
Founded in 1980 through the collaborative efforts of several professional
engineering societies, the WISE Program allows for engineering students to interact with
prominent governmental and non-governmental leaders and are mentored by
representatives of their sponsoring societies as well as societies that support the WISE
Program. During the internship, these students learn how future leaders of engineering
can contribute to legislative and regulatory public policy decisions where complex
technological issues are involved.
For more information about the WISE Program, please visit www.wise-intern.org.
About Me
Hattie Larson is currently a senior at Florida State University in Tallahassee,
Florida. She is pursuing a bachelor’s degree in chemical engineering and will graduate in
August 2011. Hattie is a student member of ASTM International as well as a member of
the American Institute for Chemical Engineers (AIChE).
WISE 2010 – ASTM International
Page 4
Acknowledgements
This paper was written as a part of the WISE Summer 2010 Program. The author
would like to thank ASTM International for their sponsorship to an educational and
rewarding program. From ASTM International, the guidance of Jim Olshefsky and
Anthony Quinn was greatly appreciated and this project could not have been successfully
completed without them. The author would also like to thank Erica Wissolik for her
continued support of the WISE 2010 Interns.
For contributions within this paper, the author would like to recognize:
•
Merv Fingas and Peter Lane for their extensive knowledge on oil spill response
technologies
•
Kenneth Lee
•
Paul Meyer, Jane Delgado, and Alan Guarino for the tour of Ohmsett and the
presentation of valuable knowledge
•
Kevin and Ellen Larson and Laura Smith for the proofreading of my paper from
another point of view
•
John Buydos for his help in navigating the resources available at the Library of
Congress
•
The many in Washington, D.C. that have aided in the completion of this report.
WISE 2010 – ASTM International
Page 5
Table of Contents
EXECUTIVE
SUMMARY
2
ABOUT
WISE
ABOUT
ME
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
4
4
5
TABLE
OF
FIGURES
7
POLICY
OVERVIEW
8
BACKGROUND
10
OFFSHORE
DRILLING
HISTORY
OF
OFFSHORE
DRILLING
LOCATIONS
FOR
OFFSHORE
DRILLING
PROBLEMS
WITH
OFFSHORE
DRILLING
10
10
12
13
OIL
SPILL
CLEANUP
STRATEGIES
15
OVERVIEW
OF
OIL
SPILL
RESPONSE
PLANS,
CONTAINMENT
BOOMS,
SKIMMING,
IN-SITU
BURNING
17
OIL
SPILL
RESPONSE
PLAN
17
CONTAINMENT
BOOMS
18
SKIMMING
19
IN-‐SITU
BURNING
21
OIL
HERDERS
23
DISPERSANTS
23
ECONOMICS
RELATED
TO
DISPERSANT
USE
31
INTERNATIONAL
DISPERSANT
USE
32
VIEWS
ON
DISPERSANTS
34
ASTM
STANDARDS
RELATING
TO
EACH
METHOD
36
EFFECTIVENESS
OF
EACH
CLEANUP
METHOD
37
CASE
STUDIES
40
DISPERSANTS
USE
IN
OTHER
OIL
SPILLS
VARIATIONS
BETWEEN
SPILLS
40
41
POLICY
RECOMMENDATION
43
BIBLIOGRAPHY
47
WISE 2010 – ASTM International
Page 6
Table of Figures
Figure
1:
The
Perdido
Oil
Platform...........................................................................................................................................11
Figure
2:
Depiction
of
Number
of
Active
Oil
Rig
Platforms
in
the
Gulf
of
Mexico ................................................12
Figure
3:
A
graphical
representation
of
the
world's
worst
oil
spills ..........................................................................14
Figure
4:
Aerial
View
of
the
Ohmsett
Facility ......................................................................................................................17
Figure
5:
View
of
Skimmer
Test
with
Containment
Boom
Boundary. .......................................................................19
Figure
6:
In-Situ
Burn
with
Use
of
Fireproof
Boom ...........................................................................................................22
Figure
7
and
Figure
8:
Dispersion
at
the
Beginning
and
End
of
a
Trial...................................................................26
Figure
9:
List
of
Chemicals
in
Corexit
9500...........................................................................................................................28
Figure
10:
The
Cost
Trends
of
Oil
Spill
Cleanups ................................................................................................................32
Figure
12:
Various
International
Dispersant
Policies
as
of
2001................................................................................33
WISE 2010 – ASTM International
Page 7
Policy Overview
The recent BP (once known as British Petroleum) oil spill at the Macondo well
and the loss of the Deepwater Horizon oil rig has created significant environmental
impacts; it has also raised questions regarding the most appropriate way to cleanup the oil
spilling into the Gulf of Mexico. Many individuals, non profits, and private companies
have offered suggestions; oil companies have oil spill response plans; and ASTM
International (formerly known as the American Society for Testing and Materials) has a
technical committee dedicated to the development of standards for oil spill response.
There is no one perfect solution, but there are some that offer more positive outcomes
than others.
One oil spill response technique used is dispersants. Dispersants can be thought of
as dish soap for the oil spilled in the ocean. These chemicals are introduced to the site of
the oil spill and are then able to rapidly disperse the oil into the seawater. The oil will
then be more easily biodegraded by organisms living in the surroundings. Dispersants are
composed of a surfactant and solvent solution. The surfactant is a surface-active agent
able to remove the surface tension between water molecules and oil molecules, and
therefore causing the oil to disperse in the water. This works because surfactants have
roughly the same solubility in water and oil. Such a solution can be seen as very
beneficial for wildlife and shorelines because the oil is dispersed while still out in deep
water.
Many foreign nations regulate the use of dispersants and thus proper regulatory
authority must be obtained to employ the chemical as a mechanism to clean up oil in
WISE 2010 – ASTM International
Page 8
bodies of water, which, could lead to a lack of immediate response in the use of the
dispersants in various oil spills. Although there are many different types of dispersants,
the main one used in the recent Macondo oil spill is the Nalco product, Corexit 9500.
This paper will discuss dispersants as one of the many solutions to clean up oil
spilled in large bodies of water and if used correctly, it can be a beneficial tool in the
arsenal of policymakers with proper regulatory authority. It will also look to answer the
question: Are the current regulatory policies adequate to solve the problem?
WISE 2010 – ASTM International
Page 9
Background
Offshore Drilling
History of Offshore Drilling
Offshore drilling is a method used to obtain crude oil, a mixture of hydrocarbons
that can be refined into gasoline. Hydrocarbons are compounds comprised of hydrogen
and carbon atoms that can be toxic as liquids and gases when they are not thoroughly
refined. By pushing the boundaries and improving techniques, the industry constantly
improves itself in order to produce more oil. This was pioneered as a new technology
more than 100 years ago. Offshore oil platforms were first constructed because the
producers of onshore oil noticed that ‘black gold’ was more readily available near bodies
of water. This then led one inventor, H.L. Williams, to build a well that went 300 feet
deep in the ocean.3 Because of its success, others followed his example and began to
enhance the original design. As the United States and other developed nations began to
depend on oil as their major source of energy (a direct result of the invention of
automobiles), there was increased pressure to develop better ways to extract the oil from
the ground. This led to the construction of larger and deeper platforms, the use of better
tools, and the push to discover locations for drilling. As recently as March 31, 2010,
Royal Dutch Shell began operating the deepest oil platform in existence. An image of it
can be seen below in Figure 1. The oil rig is located in the Gulf of Mexico and drills
down about 8,000 feet to the world’s deepest reservoir of oil. This is comparable to the
3
National Ocean Industries Association, About NOIA, 2006,
http://www.noia.org/website/article.asp?id=123 (accessed June 20, 2010).
WISE 2010 – ASTM International
Page 10
Deepwater Horizon oil rig wellhead that is located 5000 feet below the surface.4 Even
today, amongst demands for alternative energies, offshore drilling is still an important
method in the attainment of oil.5
Figure 1: The Perdido Oil Platform. Retrieved on 13 July 2010 from
http://www.shell.com/home/content/media/news_and_library/press_releases/2010/perdido_31032010.html?utm_
source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed:+shell_media_releases+(Royal+Dutch+Shell+plc
+media+releases.
4
CNN U.S., Gulf Coast Oil Disaster, July 28, 2010,
http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2010/gulf.coast.oil.spill/interactive/data.viz/index.html
(accessed July 30, 2010).
5
Royal Dutch Shell, "Shell starts production at Perdido," Shell Worldwise, March 31,
2010,
http://www.shell.com/home/content/media/news_and_library/press_releases/2010/perdid
o_31032010.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed:+s
hell_media_releases+(Royal+Dutch+Shell+plc+media+releases) (accessed July 13,
2010).
WISE 2010 – ASTM International
Page 11
Locations for Offshore Drilling
Offshore drilling is prominent in many locations around the world. This is
especially true in the Gulf of Mexico. As shown in Figure 2 there are 3858 platforms in
use over a coastline of roughly 900 miles.6 This depiction only shows a fraction of all of
the oil rig platforms in the Gulf of Mexico area. The Chevron Corporation, one of the
major six international oil corporations, has offshore drilling wells, which can be found in
Angola, Kazakhstan, Nigeria, and in the Gulf of Mexico.7
Figure 2: Depiction of Number of Active Oil Rig Platforms in the Gulf of Mexico. Retrieved on 13 July 2010
from http://oceanexplorer.noaa.gov/explorations/06mexico/background/oil/media/platform_600.html.
6
Google Maps, July 30, 2010,
http://maps.google.com/maps?f=d&source=s_d&saddr=E+Ocean+Blvd&daddr=FL292+W%2FSorrento+Rd&hl=en&geocode=FdD1jQEdjP8z-g%3BFc6xzgEdBB7Kg&mra=pr&sll=28.378615,-92.58208&sspn=9.058974,17.20459&ie=UTF8&t=h&z=6.
7
Chevron Corporation , Drilling and Completions, March 2010,
http://www.chevron.com/deliveringenergy/oil/drillingcompletions/ (accessed July 13,
2010).
WISE 2010 – ASTM International
Page 12
Problems with Offshore Drilling
The ideas that form the basis for offshore drilling allow individuals to think it is a
flawless process. From a basic and idyllic point of view, all that needs to be done is drill
into the earth’s crust and remove the oil for other uses. In reality, however, this is hardly
the case. There are many potential problems that can result from offshore drilling. If the
proper safety precautions are not taken, there could be major consequences that impact
society both economically and environmentally.
A specific example of what could go wrong is a blowout. Blowouts, however
uncommon, are the occurrence of a sudden and uncontrollable release of oil into the
surroundings. The five most major well blowouts (not including the recent Macondo
well) happened in the time span from 1969 to 1980. This is a serious problem,
considering the pressure of the oil in the earth. In the past blowouts have been very
difficult to control and have resulted in explosions as well as large-scale oil spills such as
in the Ixtoc 1 spill from June 3rd, 1979 and the more recent Macondo spill, which began
on April 20, 2010.
In the graphical representation below of various oil spills,8 the size of the oil
droplet correlates to the amount of oil that leaked. The oil spills that will be focused on
later can be seen in this graphic: the Ixtoc 1, the Exxon Valdez and the recent Macondo
well blowout on the Deepwater Horizon oil platform.
8
At the time of the construction of this diagram, the Macondo well had not yet stopped
leaking.
WISE 2010 – ASTM International
Page 13
Figure 3: A graphical representation of the world's worst oil spills. Retrieved on 26 July 2010 from
9www.wpbeginner.com/worst-oil-spills-in-worlds-history-infographic. Created by Gavin Potenza from
information in ITOPF.
WISE 2010 – ASTM International
Page 14
Oil Spill Cleanup Strategies
An oil spill is an instance where there is an accidental or unplanned release from
the primary containment into the surroundings, which could be water, land, or other
permeable materials. Such oil spills may be direct consequences of drilling for oil.
Because of this correlation, companies that drill must be prepared for a number of
possible situations. They need to have a plan of action and tools to use when oil is
introduced to undesirable locations such as bodies of water, marshlands, and others. This
is especially important because there are spills happening constantly—at least 25 major
spills since the start of 2010 in the United States.9
The manner in which oil should be cleaned from the water is a topic worth
debating, but it is important to note that there is no way to clean up all the oil introduced
into the water. At the present, the main response techniques include containment booms,
skimming, in-situ burning, oil herders, and dispersion. Although all these methods may
be used to mitigate the damage of oil in water, some are more preferable than others;
dispersants, in particular, are regarded as one of the more controversial options.
Ohmsett, a testing, research, and training facility located in New Jersey, is
specifically designed as an ‘Oil Spill Response Research and Renewable Energy Test
Facility’. Their primary function is to evaluate various oil spill response techniques such
as those listed previously. They are a government-funded organization that helps the
9
Emergency Response Division, Office of Response and Restoration, National Ocean
Service, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, US Department of
Commerce., Incident Map, http://www.incidentnews.gov/map?orr_id=6250 (accessed
July 22, 2010).
WISE 2010 – ASTM International
Page 15
agency previously known as the Minerals Management Agency in fulfilling the testing
requirements laid out by the Oil Pollution Act of 1990.10 Ohmsett’s saltwater tank, with
wave generator, is maintained at appropriate salinities to be able to simulate actual
oceanic conditions. The tank is 667 ft by 65 ft by 11 ft and can hold a volume of just over
2.5 million gallons of liquid. This capacity makes it the largest oil spill response facility
in the world. Because of all these features, public, private, and governmental agencies are
able to test and practice oil spill response. This facility is able to conduct tests with
various types of oil and because of this, they have been able to provide reliable data to
detail the attributes and shortcomings of the various technologies. The testing, research
and training (Coast Guard) is critical to the improvement of oil spill response.11 Figure 4
below shows an aerial view of the Ohmsett facility. The wave generator can be seen at
the upper left side of the tank.
10
Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation, and Enforement: Office Energy &
Minerals Management, U.S. Deptartment of the Interior, Technology Assessment &
Research (TA&R) Project Categories: Ohmsett, July 1, 2010,
http://www.boemre.gov/tarprojectcategories/ohmsett.htm (accessed July 31, 2010).
11
Alan Guarino, Paul Meyer and Jane Delgado, interview by Hattie Larson, Jim
Olshefsky, Anthony Quinn and Jeff Adkins, Ohmsett Tour, (July 16, 2010).
WISE 2010 – ASTM International
Page 16
Figure 4: Aerial View of the Ohmsett Facility. Retrieved from Ohmsett PowerPoint Presentation.
Overview of Oil Spill Response Plans, Containment Booms, Skimming, InSitu Burning
Oil Spill Response Plan
An oil spill response plan is one that is developed for each specific well in the
various areas. It details what actions should be taken in the event of an oil spill. This
document does not necessarily lie out the various types of oil spills; solely how the oil
spilt should be analyzed and subsequently, mitigated. It also informs the reader of how to
go about applying the plan to the real life situation. The outline of who to contact as well
as the forms to fill out is helpful in the preparedness of an oil spill. These plans were
developed as a result of the Oil Pollution Act of 1990.12
12
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Oil Pollution Act Overview, March 17, 2009,
http://www.epa.gov/oem/content/lawsregs/opaover.htm (accessed August 02, 2010).
WISE 2010 – ASTM International
Page 17
Containment Booms
The use of containment booms is a very popular method for preliminary and
continual cleanup efforts. A boom is composed of a floatation member used to determine
buoyancy and keep the boom floating, a freeboard member to prevent oil from being
swept over the top, a skirt to keep oil from going under the boom, and one or more
tension members to support the boom. Booms are usually either 15 or 30 meters long and
can be attached to one another. Their primary function is to divert the oil that is collecting
on top of the water, but can serve no function for oil that is several meters below the
water.. They are usually very successful and be implemented in various types of oil spill
situations, and are often used as a complementary tool for other forms of oil spill cleanup,
such as skimming and in-situ burning. 13
The standardization of booms is one of note. Typically standards are determined
after the various technologies are introduced; with booms, however, ASTM International
created the standards as the booms were developed. This had a unique effect, making the
booms better because they could be manufactured with the agreed upon standards already
in place. One such standard was ASTM F 2438 – 04: Oil Spill Response Boom
Connection: Slide Connector, which enabled booms from various manufacturers in
various geographic locations to be used in conjunction with one another. In Figure 5
below, the red barriers are the booms. They are able to keep the oil in a certain area by
floating in the water with the freeboard member and skirt perpendicular to the floatation
piece.
13
Merv Fingas, The Basics of Oil Spill cleanup, 2nd Edition (Boca Raton: Lewis
Publishers, 2001).
WISE 2010 – ASTM International
Page 18
Figure 5: View of Skimmer Test with Containment Boom Boundary. Retrieved from Ohmsett PowerPoint
Presentation.
Skimming
Skimming is another important method used in oil spill cleanup. Skimming
employs mechanical devices to remove oil from the water and in some cases, it allows for
the oil to be reprocessed and used by oil companies. Since skimming works most
efficiently when the oil is thick, it is best to use booms to capture the oil and skimmers to
collect it.14 There are four main types of skimmers: weir, disk, drum, and brush. In
Figure 5 above, a drum skimmer can be seen. The drums are the yellow sections that
rotate towards the center, bringing oil with each rotation. While there is not necessarily
one type that works better than the others, each seems to have its own specialized
14
Merv Fingas, The Basics of Oil Spill cleanup, 2nd Edition (Boca Raton: Lewis
Publishers, 2001).
WISE 2010 – ASTM International
Page 19
purpose. For example, while the weir skimmer performs poorly in thin oil situations, it
can pump large amounts of liquid through it in a short amount of time.
WISE 2010 – ASTM International
Page 20
In-Situ Burning
In-situ burning is a very popular technique for the removal of oil from water. It
works by igniting the oil that is sitting on top of the water and letting it burn off. While it
burns, a large black plume of smoke rises up, resulting in the public perception that it is
not environmentally friendly. However, while this process does release emissions, the
concentration of pollutants is below what is considered harmful.
After burning, there is usually only about 1 mm of oil remains, which is a
relatively small amount, especially if the oil was 20 mm thick initially. The only dilemma
is that in-situ burning does need to be at least 2-3 mm thick for the oil to actually begin to
burn. The thickness of oil is dependent upon the type of oil, type of spill, and how quick
the response was to contain the oil. As Peter Lane, of Applied Fabric Technologies,
stated, he started manufacturing fireproof booms to divert and condense the oil so that
this technique would be more effective.15 A test of a fireproof boom at Ohmsett, can be
seen in Figure 6.
It should also be noted that this method is one of the quickest. “One
approximately 200-m length of fire resistant boom can contain about 50,000 L of oil,
which takes about 45 min to burn.”16 Because of its ability to remove vast amounts of oil
quickly, some key benefits are that there is a reduced need for storage and disposal of the
15
Peter Lane, interview by Hattie Larson, James P. Olshefsky and Jeff Adkins, (July 2,
2010).
16
Merv Fingas, The Basics of Oil Spill cleanup, 2nd Edition (Boca Raton: Lewis
Publishers, 2001).
WISE 2010 – ASTM International
Page 21
spilt oil, prevention and reduction of the amount of oil that can drift onto the shorelines,
and a significant reduction in the possibility of wildlife being exposed to oil.17
While this can be an essential tactic in removing the oil from the water, it has
disadvantages as well. Oil will not ignite unless it is thick enough (at least 2-3 mm), and
it usually does not stay thick enough to burn when it is not contained. This means that insitu burning must happen quickly once the oil is spilt. Another disadvantage is that once
the oil is burned, it can no longer be captured and reprocessed using a skimmer. Overall,
it is a very successful method, as long as it can be done in a quick manner, once the spill
has been recognized.
Figure 6: In-Situ Burn with Use of Fireproof Boom. Retrieved from Ohmsett PowerPoint Presentation.
17
ASTM Committee F20 on Hazardous Substances and Oil Spill Treatment, "F2532-06
Standard Guide for Determining Net Environmental Benefit of Dispersant Use" (West
Conshocken, PA: ASTM International, 2006).
WISE 2010 – ASTM International
Page 22
Oil Herders
Oil herders are a new area in oil spill cleanup research. They are not a tool that
removes oil but rather one that aids in the cleanup, much like the booms do. They are a
liquid chemical that allows the surface tension of water surrounding an area of oil to
increase. This then forces the oil to contract and thicken, a condition that is desired for
many of the cleanup methods. In oil herding, booms initially contain the oil and
subsequently, the herder is applied around the outer edges of the oil. Because an increase
in oil thickness is a result, various mechanical means are more effective. For example, as
skimmers work from the middle, the herder may be able to continually contract the oil,
allowing the skimmer to stay in one position the entire time. Testing is also in progress
for these chemicals with dispersants, which may allow for more precise application of the
dispersant. Another possibility is to have the herders contain the oil until the water
conditions are preferable to utilize dispersants. 18
Dispersants
Dispersants are a tool used when cleaning up offshore oil spills. Dispersants were
first introduced in the 1967 Torrey Canyon spill, where they were originally known as
detergents. The original recipe for these detergents contained chemicals that were
extremely toxic. There were significant amounts of wildlife deaths as a result of these
preliminary dispersants, thus dispersants began to be viewed in a negative light. As more
technologies for dispersants advanced, their effects were still (and continue to be)
18
Ian Buist, Employing Chemical Herders to Improve Oil Spill Response Operations,
S.L. Ross Environmental Research Ltd., April 09, 2010,
http://www.mms.gov/tarprojects/617.htm.
WISE 2010 – ASTM International
Page 23
disputed, though each new set of dispersants continue to be less toxic than the last.19 As
will be discussed later, dispersants continue to be improved even to the point of being
‘practically non-toxic’ today.
The primary purpose of dispersants is to disperse the oil so that it will not reach
the shorelines and affect the wildlife there. The application of dispersants is critical to
their success. Until the Macondo oil spill, dispersants only had surface applications.
“They are usually applied either a plane or ship that has been altered to deploy
dispersants. Regardless of the method used, the droplet size of the dispersant is important
as it needs to be sufficiently large to overcome the effects of wind and evaporative loss
but not so large that it will result in the droplets being able to pierce through the oil
slick.”20 Recently, in the Macondo oil spill, dispersants have started to be applied in an
underwater setting. Based on the information from Ohmsett employee, Alan Guarino,
dispersants work best on oil that has not been weathered.21 Thus, application of
dispersant at the source of the leak would be very susceptible to being dispersed. As
noted by the EPA, subsurface dispersant application is one that reduces the amount of oil
to reach the surface and does so with less dispersant.22
While they don’t actually remove any of the oil, dispersants are a “chemical spilltreating agent that promotes the formation of small droplets of oil that disperse
19
Committee on Effectiveness of Oil Spill Dispersants, Marine Board, National Research
Council, Using Oil Spill Dispersants on the Sea (National Academies Press, 1989).
20
The International Tanker Owners Pollution Federation Limited, Dispersatns, 2010,
http://www.itopf.com/spill-response/clean-up-and-response/dispersants/ (accessed July
20, 2010).
21
Alan Guarino, Paul Meyer and Jane Delgado, interview by Hattie Larson, Jim
Olshefsky, Anthony Quinn and Jeff Adkins, , Ohmsett Tour, (July 16, 2010).
22
United States Environmental Protection Agency, Underwater Use of Dispersants,
2010, http://www.epa.gov/bpspill/dispersants.html#underwater2 (accessed July 26, 2010
).
WISE 2010 – ASTM International
Page 24
throughout the top layer of the water column.”23 The way that this is able to happen is
through a mixture of surfactants (which are surface active molecules) and solvents. A
surfactant is something that is used in various soaps and detergents and thus, dispersants
can somewhat be thought of as a ‘dish soap’ of the ocean. 24
The knowledge of the physical structure of the dispersant is helpful in
understanding how a dispersant works. The shape of the dispersant is snake-like with one
end being water-soluble (hydrophilic) and the other being oil-soluble (lipophilic). These
properties allow it to be able to ‘grab’ both a water and oil molecule on their respective
ends. Hence, the dispersant is able to reduce the oil/water interfacial tension to allow for
the water to “mix” with the oil.25
Rough waters encourage this mixing and for this reason, dispersants tend to be
more popular in places where there are rocky areas to further break up and mix the
dispersants. Because the droplets formed are so much smaller than the original crude oil,
they can be biodegraded by other organisms in the surrounding waters. A test run of
dispersants can be seen below, with Figure 7 towards the beginning of the test and Figure
8 towards the end. Another important aspect of dispersants is to understand the amount of
dispersants that are applied to the amount of ocean. The ratio usually is 1:20 for
dispersant to oil.26 This means that the amount of dispersant actually put into the sea is
23
Merv Fingas, The Basics of Oil Spill cleanup, 2nd Edition (Boca Raton: Lewis
Publishers, 2001).
24
Katie Peek, How Do Oil Dispersants Work?, May 28, 2010,
http://www.popsci.com/science/article/2010-05/how-do-oil-dispersants-work (accessed
July 20, 2010).
25
Nalco Company, Oil Spill Dispersants, http://www.nalco.com/applications/oil-spilldispersants.htm (accessed July 1, 2010).
26
Nancy Kinner, "R&D Needs for Dispersants" (Coastal Response Research Center,
2010).
WISE 2010 – ASTM International
Page 25
relatively low, considering how much water is there. For a more tangible analogy, the
Gulf of Mexico can be thought of as an average size swimming pool. In this case, the
amount of oil released in the Macondo well would then be equal to 0.02 mL. The amount
of dispersant would be 0.0002 mL.27,28, 29,30
Figure 7 and Figure 8: Dispersion at the Beginning and End of a Trial. Retrieved from Ohmsett PowerPoint
Presentation
One of the problems that dispersants face is that the droplets formed need to stay
mixed in the depths of the water. Because of the density differences in oil and water, the
resurfacing of water is a possibility. Once this happens, the oil is brought back to the
surface of the water, therefore reintroducing the original problem that the oil can then be
swept onto the shore.31 However, resurfacing is only a possibility when the surfactant that
is surrounding the oil molecule loses its capability to hold onto the water and oil
27
Calculated with the Gulf of Mexico having 6.43 x 1017 gallons of water, the amount of
oil released from the Macondo well equaling 219,240,000 gallons and the amount of
dispersant used equaling 1,840,000 gallons.
28
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, General Facts about the Gulf of Mexico,
http://www.epa.gov/gmpo/about/facts.html (accessed July 30, 2010).
29
CNN, Oil Disaster by the Numbers, July 2010,
http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2010/gulf.coast.oil.spill/interactive/numbers.interactive/
index.html (accessed July 30, 2010).
30
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, FWS Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill Response, July 20,
2010, http://www.fws.gov/home/dhoilspill/ (accessed July 20, 2010).
31
Merv F. Fingas, "Field Measurement of Effectiveness: Historical Review and
Examination of Analytical Methods," ed. L. Michael Flaherty, Oil Dispersants: New
Ecological Approaches, ASTM STP 1018 (ASTM), 1989: 157-158.
WISE 2010 – ASTM International
Page 26
molecule. At this point, the small oil droplet must go to find another oil droplet so that
they will attract each other to form a larger droplet to then be able to resurface. This is
due to the fact that small droplets rise much slower than larger droplets.32
When the oil that was treated by dispersants resurfaces, it also presents another
problem. Because it is not as thick as it was before, it can no longer be removed by
mechanical means such as skimmers and in-situ burning. One reasons for the oil
resurfacing is the distinction between surface and subsurface currents. If there is a
difference in the direction of the two currents, the dispersed oil is more likely to be a
successful method of cleanup. However, in the case of the Gulf of Mexico, the currents
are flowing in the same direction, therefore significantly reducing the amount of oil that
is dispersed into the water. From this knowledge, it is apparent that dispersants are not
just a magic fix, but also one whose disadvantages may not outweigh their advantages.33
One must also acknowledge the fact that it is incredibly difficult to determine what of the
oil is dispersed oil and what is other oil that has resurfaced and come onto the shore.34
However, in stormy conditions, the other spill response mechanisms are no longer
suitable options.
Another factor to consider with dispersants is their composition. Although there is
a basic formula consisting of surfactants and solvents followed to make a dispersant, until
recently, the exact ingredients of a dispersant such as Corexit 9500 were not disclosed by
the manufacturer. Corexit 9500 is a product manufactured by Nalco; it has been the
dispersant mainly used in the recent Macondo spill. For private dispersant manufacturing
32
Kenneth Lee, "How Oil Dispersants Work," Presentation (Cananda, 2010).
Merv Fingas, interview by Hattie Larson, Jim Olshefsky and Jeff Adkins, (July 9,
2010).
34
Kenneth Lee, "How Oil Dispersants Work," Presentation (Cananda, 2010).
33
WISE 2010 – ASTM International
Page 27
companies, the composition is thought of as a trade secret. However, because dispersants
are controversial based on their toxicological effects, it became integral for the
composition to be publically released. In early June 2010, the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency requested that Nalco release the chemicals used in Corexit 9500.
These chemicals, as shown in Figure 9, seem to be found in some everyday products. It is
important to note that the precursor to Corexit 9500 was Corexit 9527. Corexit 9527 was
discontinued because it contained 2-butoxy ethanol, a substance thought to be toxic.
Corexit 9500 does not contain this substance.35
CAS #
1338-43-8
9005-65-6
Name
Common Day-to-Day Use Examples
Sorbitan, mono-(9Z)-9-
Skin cream, body shampoo, emulsifier in
octadecenoate
juice
Sorbitan, mono-(9Z)-9-
Baby bath, mouth wash, face lotion,
octadecenoate, poly(oxy-1,2-
emulsifier in food
ethanediyl) derivs.
9005-70-3
Sorbitan, tri-(9Z)-9-
Body/Face lotion, tanning lotions
octadecenoate, poly(oxy-1,2ethanediyl) derivs
577-11-7
Butanedioic acid, 2-sulfo-, 1,4-
Wetting agent in cosmetic products, gelatin,
bis(2-ethylhexyl) ester, sodium
beverages
salt (1:1)
29911-28-
Propanol, 1-(2-butoxy-1-
2
methylethoxy)
64742-47-
Distillates (petroleum),
8
hydrotreated light
111-76-2
Ethanol, 2-butoxy
Household cleaning products
Air freshener, cleaner
Cleaners
Figure 9: List of Chemicals in Corexit 9500. Retrieved on 20 July 2010 from http://nalco.com/news-andevents/4297.htm
35
Nalco Company, COREXIT Ingredients , June 2010, http://nalco.com/news-andevents/4297.htm (accessed July 20, 2010).
WISE 2010 – ASTM International
Page 28
One of the major concerns regarding dispersants is their toxicity. Because
dispersants contain chemicals that are introduced to an area where they are not native, it
is important to study the effects that they have in the various areas where applied and to
the wildlife that may be impacted. To further enhance the information known about the
current dispersants available, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency released a
toxicity report about eight of the major dispersants on the market, including Dispersit
SPC 1000, Nokomis 3-AA, Corexit 9500A, Nokomis 3-F4, ZI-400, Sea Brat #4, Saf-Ron
Gold, JD-2000. This study gathered information on how a type of shrimp and a particular
type of fish found in the Gulf of Mexico were affected by these dispersants. These
constraints were chosen because of the pressing issue of dispersant use in the Macondo
spill. The report stated that for the shrimp, all of the dispersants were practically nontoxic or slightly toxic. For the fish, the results ranged from practically non-toxic to
moderately toxic.36 These results were found to be favorable; however, there was still
some criticism from environmentalists and ocean scientists. As Paul Greenberg, author of
“Four Fish: The Future of the Last Wild Food”, stated, “But once you spray Corexit, […],
you break it up into smaller particles to the point where it can get ingested by small
creatures like shrimp, like oysters. Some people have said that there is no toxicological
problem with these fish and shell fish ingesting oil and hydrocarbons, that they should be
able to kind of process that. But nobody knows what the toxicological implication is
going to be of Corexit plus oil.”37 In addition to the fish that could possibly be harmed
36
Michael J. Hemmer, Mace G. Barron and Richard M. Greene, Comparative Toxicity of
Eight Oil Dispersant Products on Two Gulf of Mexico Aquatic Test Species, (U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency: Office of Research and Development, 2010).
37
Paul Greenberg, interview by Terry Gross, "Paul Greenberg: The Future of 'Wild
Fish'," Fresh Air, (July 19, 2010).
WISE 2010 – ASTM International
Page 29
from the use of dispersants, it has been noted that the workers that have inadvertently
been sprayed with dispersants have displayed symptoms of headaches, nausea, and skin,
eye and respiratory irritation.38
38
Elana Schor, "BP Continues to Use Surface Dispersants in Gulf Despite EPA
Directive," Energy & Environment: The New York Times , June 24, 2010.
WISE 2010 – ASTM International
Page 30
Economics Related to Dispersant Use
Some of the motives behind dispersants may be related to the economics of oil spill
response. Relatively speaking, dispersants are much more inexpensive in comparison to
other cleanup methods. The cost trends related to different oil spill cleanup strategies can
be seen in
Figure 10. As of June 11, 2010, Nalco claimed to have made $44 million on sales linked
to the recent Gulf of Mexico oil spill.39 Although this does not tell the exact cost of
dispersants, it is known that Nalco is the manufacturer of them, so the estimate presented
for the cost of dispersants can be accepted. The rough price of booms has been estimated
to range from $70 million for an inexpensive, $7/foot boom. 40 This can be also compared
to the price of skimmers as a cheap skimmer can cost $6,000 and a complete offshore
skimmer system can cost up to $2.5 million dollars.41 As is established by the numbers
shown, it can be less expensive for a company to opt for dispersants.
39
CNN Money, BP's Open Wallet, June 11, 2010,
http://money.cnn.com/galleries/2010/news/1006/gallery.BP_open_wallet/3.html
(accessed July 20, 2010).
40
This number is derived from a simple calculation using the fact that that 1914 miles of
boom have been deployed as of July 20, 2010 (http://www.fws.gov/home/dhoilspill/) and
from the fact that the cheapest boom is equal to $7/ft and an expensive (Lane 2010).
41
Peter Lane, interview by Hattie Larson, James P. Olshefsky and Jeff Adkins, (July 2,
2010).
WISE 2010 – ASTM International
Page 31
!
Figure 10: The Cost Trends of Oil Spill Cleanups. Retrieved from page 237 of Dispersant Use in Oil Spill
Response.
International Dispersant Use
These various oil spill response mechanisms are can be found internationally as
well. In Figure 11, an assortment of countries and their policies relating to dispersants is
shown. The figure details whether the various countries use dispersants, whether they
have regulations regarding dispersants, and what priority dispersants have in spill
response. It is interesting to look at this chart and notice how the more northern European
countries primarily do not allow dispersants to be used, or they are used solely as a last
resort option. Some believe that this is because the Nordic countries are presently thought
of being ahead of the game on oil spill response methods. However, because they are so
much farther north, techniques such as in-situ burning are much more applicable and
effective. This is true because of the weather conditions present there. In-situ burning has
been proven to be much more effective while used in icy conditions.
WISE 2010 – ASTM International
Page 32
International Dispersant Policies
Country
Dispersants
Allowed?
Dispersant
Policy?
Strategy Priority
Official Approval
Required
Bahamas
Yes
Yes
Primary Option
-
Canada
Yes
Yes
Secondary Option
Yes
China
Yes
Yes
Primary Option
Yes
Denmark
Yes
Yes
Secondary Option
Yes
Finland
Yes
Yes
Last resort option
-
France
Yes
Yes
Secondary Option
Yes
Germany
Yes
Yes
Secondary Option
-
Greenland
No
Yes
Use prohibited
-
Guatemala
Unknown
No
Unlikely Option
-
Italy
Yes
Yes
Secondary Option
Yes
Jamaica
Yes
Yes
Last resort option
-
Japan
Yes
Yes
Secondary Option
Yes
Mexico
Yes
Unknown
Secondary Option
Yes
Netherlands
No
Yes
Use prohibited
-
Nigeria
Yes
Yes
Secondary Option
-
Norway
Yes
Yes
Secondary Option
Yes for over 1 tonne
dispersant use
Sweden
No
Yes
Not used
-
United
Kingdom
Yes
Yes
Primary Option
Yes
United States
Yes
Yes
Secondary Option
Yes
Figure 11: Various International Dispersant Policies as of 2001. Retrieved from Dispersant Use in Oil Spill
Response.
WISE 2010 – ASTM International
Page 33
Views on Dispersants
Because dispersants are such a controversial topic, many different sectors have
opinions about it. Those that will be discussed here are the views from a toxicologist, a
think tank, an industry representative and a political figure.
Recently in a presentation broadcast on TED (an online presentation site),
toxicologist from Marine Environment Research Institute, Susan Shaw, presented the
idea that while dispersants are effective at keeping oil off of the shore, they can be quite
harmful to the wildlife whose habitat is in the deep sea. Shaw claimed that Corexit has
not released sufficient data about the chemicals used in the dispersant and that Corexit
9527 contained extremely toxic chemicals. Recently, she dove undersea in the Gulf of
Mexico to see the effects of dispersants on the subsurface creatures, noting how she could
see the droplets of oil. Through independent study, she concluded that the impact of
dispersants and crude oil are much worse than either alone. The impression received
from the presentation was one that was in extreme opposition to the way that dispersants
are used right now. She made the statement that “[Chemical manufacturers are] allowed
to keep trade secrets so they don’t even give the ingredients out. Plus they don’t give
health and safety data. So consequently, they cannot be regulated before they go to
market.”42 While the idea of regulations surrounding dispersants is one that this paper
aims to take into consideration, this statement presents some inaccuracies. For one, the
health and safety data has been released for the Corexit product mentioned previously.
Because manufacturers supply these Material Safety Data Sheets (MSDS), the onus
cannot be on them for regulation.
42
Susan Shaw, "The Oil Spill's Toxic Trade-Off," TEDxOilSpill (June 2010).
WISE 2010 – ASTM International
Page 34
Ohmsett, the testing facility discussed earlier presents a neutral view on the use of
dispersants. While they do perform the various effectiveness tests with dispersants, they
are unable to monitor the toxicity of the oil. They are only able to report that from a
technical standpoint, the oil is dispersed appropriately.43
The oil industry is the one that mainly relies on the use of dispersants. They are
the only sector that is plagued with the responsibility of the oil spill and they are the ones
that must determine which cleanup method to use. Because of this, they are the main
consumers of dispersant products. In talking with Peter Lane from Applied Fabric
Technologies (a manufacturer of booms, skimmers and dispersant equipment) as well as
an industry representative from a large oil corporation, the use of dispersants is quite
favorable. It is an efficient way to mitigate the damage to the shorelines, especially in
places where there are marshlands. Whenever a company needs to begin cleanup on an
oil spill, it must weigh out the risks and benefits of the use of the various cleanup
strategies. The only focus is to get the oil spill cleaned up as fast as possible- a desire that
all sectors share.
The public sector is one that must also be investigated. The EPA is one agency in
the public sector that deals with dispersants, as previously discussed. They possess the
capability to require the suppliers of dispersants to release their data about chemicals;
they can perform toxicity tests on the dispersants, and can also regulate the use of them.
The EPA has been vocal in examining Corexit as a product throughout the recent
Macondo spill and in their examination of the product and in pursuing the ingredients of
Nalco’s Corexit.
43
Alan Guarino, Paul Meyer and Jane Delgado, interview by Hattie Larson, Jim
Olshefsky, Anthony Quinn and Jeff Adkins, , Ohmsett Tour, (July 16, 2010).
WISE 2010 – ASTM International
Page 35
Legislative bodies have also added to the voice of the public sector. One such
person is Congresswoman Woolsey, who created the bill HR2693: Oil Pollution Research
and Development Program Reauthorization Act of 2010. It was made as an amendment to
the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 and it works to improve the oil spill response plans that are
available currently and to build a program that can work towards conducting oil pollution
research. Within this, dispersants would definitely come into play because the amount of
pollution that they cause is still something of question.
ASTM Standards Relating to Each Method
ASTM International plays a major role in the development of standards and
bringing the various entities together to explore the topic surrounding the various oil spill
response technologies. They develop standards through the coordination of various
committees with expert volunteer members serving on each committee. The Committee
F20 on Hazardous Substances and Oil Spill Response is concerned with standards
regarding the “performance, durability, strength of systems and techniques used for the
control of oil and hazardous substances spills.”44 This includes standards such as those
mentioned previously for boom connectors. This standard was particularly relevant in the
recent Macondo oil spill because of the need for booms from around the world. Because
not all of these booms were the same, it was up to a small company using an ASTM
standard to supply the connection piece for all these booms.45 In addition to connection
44
ASTM International, F20 on Hazardous Substances and Oil Spill Response, 2010,
http://www.astm.org/COMMIT/SCOPES/F20.htm (accessed July 22, 2010).
45
Tyler Ellyson, "Miller Products Creates Local 'Connection' to Oil Cleanup," Osceola
Sentinel-Tribune, July 8, 2010.
WISE 2010 – ASTM International
Page 36
pieces, ASTM also makes a guide for fire-resistant booms, which are critical for in-situ
burning.
ASTM is not only involved with booms. They also have standards regarding the
use of skimmers. One specific standard that is used frequently with the test groups at
Ohmsett is F2709 – 08: Determining Nameplate Recovery Rate of Stationary Oil
Skimmer Systems. This standard is a test method, which indicates that it allows for
everyone who employs the standard to be able to determine the capacity of the skimmer
in the same way. Test methods allow for measurements of reproducibility and
repeatability to be determined. Because the test is identical for everyone who uses it, the
data retrieved is credible.
Another area that ASTM International standards are involved is in the use of
dispersants. There are standards ranging from how dispersants should be applied aerially
to the calibration of dispersant boom and nozzle systems to the determination of net
environmental benefit from dispersant use. In addition to these, there is also the standard
that determines the effectiveness of dispersants.
The standards shown here are a very small selection of all that are available. The
standards that are available are abundant and also applicable to other countries. While
touring the Ohmsett facility, it was mentioned that many of the foreigners who have used
the facilities are very aware of ASTM standards. This is crucial to making oil spill
cleanup strategies more universal.
Effectiveness of Each Cleanup Method
The effectiveness of each method is extremely dependent upon the conditions of
where it is applied. The usual factors that this encompasses are the location, the type of
WISE 2010 – ASTM International
Page 37
oil, and the weather conditions. For most cleanup strategies, thick oil that has not been
weathered yet is the easiest to respond to. When the oil is thinner and weathered, it is not
as susceptible to cleanup methods such booms or dispersants.
In order to determine the effectiveness of a method, it is necessary to compare the
oil to the water. For skimmers, the effectiveness can be found from ASTM standard
F2709-08, where the recovery efficiency (RE) is found.46
RE =
volumeof oil recovered
totalvolumeof fluid
Dispersant effectiveness is more difficult to determine. This is because it is hard
€ to measure the amount of oil there prior and to application in relation to the amount that
remains. ASTM does have a testing standard pertaining to the effectiveness of
dispersants, F 2059 – 06. While this standard is accurate for the dispersant, it is
performed in ideal conditions, which is not the case out at sea. When the dispersant is
applied in real life situations, a way in which effectiveness can be determined is by
examining the “amount of oil that is put into the water column versus the oil still on the
water surface.”47 Often, this is much more difficult to arrive at a numerical percentage
dispersed. Another factor relating to the effectiveness of dispersants that doesn’t
necessarily pertain to the other methods is the amount of energy that the waves contain.
For example, a small, minor wave will not disperse the oil extensively. However, a large,
more powerful wave can disperse the oil immensely. Thus, while a dispersant in
46
ASTM Committee F20 on Hazardous Substances and OIl Spill Reponse, "F 2709-08:
Standard Test Method for Determining Nameplate Recovery Rate of Stationary OIl
Skimmer Systems" (West Conshohocken, PA: ASTM International, Sept. 15, 2008).
47
Merv Fingas, The Basics of Oil Spill cleanup, 2nd Edition (Boca Raton: Lewis
Publishers, 2001). Merv Fingas, The Basics of Oil Spill cleanup, 2nd Edition (Boca
Raton: Lewis Publishers, 2001).
WISE 2010 – ASTM International
Page 38
laboratories can be extremely successful, it’s effectiveness also relies heavily on the type
of conditions that it is introduced to.
WISE 2010 – ASTM International
Page 39
Case Studies
Dispersants Use in Other Oil Spills
The Exxon Valdez oil spill was the worst in United States history until the
Macondo spill. A tanker transporting oil ran into the Bligh Reef, which ended up 10.9
million gallons of oil to leak into the Prince William Sound in March of 1989. The
dispersants used in this spill were precursors to the current Corexit 9500: Corexit 7664,
Corexit 9580, and Corexit 9527.48
The Ixtoc 1 spill was located in the southern region of the Gulf of Mexico. The
incident involved a blowout, which then caused the oil to spill from the site. It is
estimated that the flow rate was 10,000 – 30,000 barrels per day. The incident occurred
on June 3, 1979 and continued to leak oil for a period of nine months.49 The methods
utilized for cleanup were containment booms and skimmers from Norwegian experts.
Corexit 9527 was also applied aerially in this spill for 1,100 square miles of oil slick.
Dispersants, however, were not applied on the U.S. waters because by the time is reached
that point in the Gulf, it was already extremely weathered and dispersants would have
been futile.50
The Macondo happened on April 20, 2010 when a drilling rig exploded, killing 11
workers. This blowout caused the rig to spill oil for almost three month, placing it
48
Incident News, T/V Exxon Valdez, http://www.incidentnews.gov/incident/6683
(accessed July 21, 2010).
49
Incident News, IXTOC 1, http://www.incidentnews.gov/incident/6250 (accessed July
20, 2010).
50
Incident News, "Countermeasures/Mitigation" (Bahia de Capeche: Emergency
Response Division, Office of Response and Restoration, National Ocean Service,
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, US Department of Commerce, June
03, 1979).
WISE 2010 – ASTM International
Page 40
amongst the world’s largest oil spills. The methods used in this spill are similar to those
used previously. Skimmers are being used, even those from other countries. Boom has
been used extensively to additionally protect the shorelines and dispersants have been
used, as mentioned previously. The dispersant that have been used in this spill have
undergone some intensive questioning because there has been more dispersant applied
continuously over an extended period of time than ever before. In the Ixtoc 1 spill 2.5
million gallons of dispersant were applied and in the Macondo spill the amount of
dispersant is about1.84 million gallons.51
Variations Between Spills
These spill had several variations amongst them. One was the fact that while Ixtoc
1 and Macondo were in the same area, Exxon Valdez was in a completely different
climate with different crude oil and different conditions that would affect the way in
which the oil spilled was cleaned up. Another difference would be the fact that Exxon
Valdez was a spill while the other two were blowouts. This means that there was a certain
amount of oil to be spilled in the Exxon Valdez situation but for Ixtoc 1 and Macondo oil
spill, it was unlimited until the oil well could be plugged. For Ixtoc 1, this meant that oil
kept flowing until nine months later.
These spills also vary because of the time of their occurrence. There is a time span
of ten years between Ixtoc 1 and Exxon Valdez and twenty years between Exxon Valdez.
Because of these large gaps, dispersants have been given adequate time to be improved.
For example, when dispersants were first introduced in the Torrey Canyon spill, they
51
Nancy Kinner, "R&D Needs for Dispersants" (Coastal Response Research Center,
2010).
WISE 2010 – ASTM International
Page 41
were so toxic that wildlife was found floating in the water. A more toxic version of the
Corexit product was used in Exxon Valdez than in the recent Macondo spill. From a
historical standpoint, dispersants have been improving consistently. 52
52
Committee on Effectiveness of Oil Spill Dispersants, Marine Board, National Research
Council, Using Oil Spill Dispersants on the Sea (National Academies Press, 1989).
WISE 2010 – ASTM International
Page 42
Policy Recommendation
At the present, there is not one oil spill response technique that is necessarily
better than the others. The various methods can all be extremely effective when utilized
in each respective ideal set of conditions. That being said, it important to recognize the
fact that only about 15% of the oil in the Gulf of Mexico will be removed by mechanical
means. This is because even though they are quite effective in a testing setting, actual
wind and wave conditions of the Gulf have a significant impact on their effectiveness.53
This compares to the utilization of dispersants in that dispersants usually have about a 3050% removal of the oil spilled in the sea.54 This implies that dispersants do still play an
important role in mitigating the amount of oil that is resting on the top of the water and
washing onto the shore. They should not be ignored as an oil spill response tool.
There are, however, some improvements that should be made in order to enhance
the use of dispersants. Because dispersants are needed as a solution, heavier regulation
and no regulation are not options. Increasing the amount of regulation surrounding them
would cause dispersants to be used less and that would have a couple of consequences.
One would be that through the economics of the situation, more mechanical means would
be improved. This trend is noticed in the Netherlands where dispersants are not allowed
but rather more extensive mechanical methods have been developed and are being
53
Alan Guarino, Paul Meyer and Jane Delgado, interview by Hattie Larson, Jim
Olshefsky, Anthony Quinn and Jeff Adkins, , Ohmsett Tour, (July 16, 2010).
54
T. Lunel, "Dispersant Effectiveness at Sea," Marine Pollution Control Unit, Coastguard
Agency of the U.K. Department of Transport (Abingdon).
WISE 2010 – ASTM International
Page 43
supplied to the United States.55 While this would eventually lead to positive
improvements, the length of time that this would require is enormous, thus not providing
effective methods for oil cleanup for an extended period of time. The opposite of heavier
regulation would be no regulation on dispersants at all. However, this option is not
feasible either. This would then allow any type of dispersant to be used, regardless of its
toxicity. Dispersants would be even more extensively used because there would be no
limits on it. The implications of this are not desirable.
From these options, one conclusion can be drawn. The regulations that are present
should remain but with some minor changes. One such change would be to require the
EPA through the Executive Branch to perform a study of the effects of the mixture of
dispersants and oil on the wildlife in various areas. This study should not only take into
account the effect of dispersants on the Macondo spill but open it up to a broader context,
examining the various types of oil across the United States mixed with dispersants and
the effect on a collection of the native wildlife in each location. The wildlife for each area
would need to be determined, however, it should not be a species that is listed as
‘Threatened’ on the IUCN Red List of Threatened Species.56 The results of this study
would be unbiased unlike a study done by an independent environmental group or one
from a large oil corporation because it would be performed by a governmental agency. In
addition, the EPA is the agency that was previously assigned with the task of testing the
dispersants with the various sea creatures in the Gulf of Mexico. They also regulate the
55
Gerbert Kampers, Wierd Koops and Bert Groothuisen, interview by Stephen Beard, ,
U.S. Hesitant to Accept Dutch Oil Clean-up Tech, Marketplace, American Public Media
(July 27, 2010).
56
IUCN, The IUCN REd List of Threatened Species, 2010, http://www.iucnredlist.org/
(accessed July 29, 20101).
WISE 2010 – ASTM International
Page 44
use of dispersants in oil spill response, so in order to maintain continuity, the EPA is the
agency best prepared for this study. With the conclusions of this study, the use of
dispersants in those various locations would then need to be re-evaluated. If it is proving
extremely harmful to the sea life in each location, the approval of the use of dispersants
ought to be revoked or the amount of dispersants allowed be used in the region should
become stricter.
As recently as August 2, 2010, the EPA released a study that stated:
“EPA’s results indicate that the eight dispersants tested have similar
toxicities to one another when mixed with Louisiana Sweet Crude Oil. These
results confirm that the dispersant used in response to the oil spill in the gulf,
Corexit 9500A, when mixed with oil, is generally no more or less toxic than
mixtures with the other available alternatives. The results also indicate that
dispersant-oil mixtures are generally no more toxic to the aquatic test species than
oil alone.”57
However, this does not completely fulfill the previously mentioned policy
recommendation. While it is a step in the right direction, the Gulf of Mexico is not the
only place where oil drilling occurs. Similar studies should be conducted as to conclude
the toxicological effects of dispersants in other types of crude oil on other species that
could be affected by an oil spill.
Until this study can be completed, there are a couple of other measures that
should be taken. The areas where drilling is happening that have not sought dispersants,
57
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA's Toxicity Testing of Dispersants, August
02, 2010, http://www.epa.gov/bpspill/dispersants-testing.html#phase2 (accessed August
02, 2010).
WISE 2010 – ASTM International
Page 45
should do so. This would not necessarily give them permission to use dispersants but in
the case of a spill, the approval would have already been applied for and either granted or
rejected. In any case, the individual responsible for the oil cleanup would not waste
precious time waiting for the consent to use dispersants, while attention should be given
to employing various techniques to cleanup the spill as fast as possible.
In conjunction with the approval of dispersants, a law must be introduced to
mandate the use of ‘Spill Drills’ by companies within the oil industry. A ‘Spill Drill’ is
one that some companies use to test out the required response plan. These simulations
allow for the people on the oil spill response team to interact with those in the various
agencies that have a vested interest as to how the oil is cleaned up. If law required these
‘Spill Drills’, then there would not be quite as much confusion between all of the parties
involved. Many situations would have already been ironed out in a non-chaotic fashion.58
Dispersants may not be the favorite option for all in oil spill response. They do
however, work in situations where mechanical means don’t and by no means should they
be eliminated as a spill response technique. They are the lesser of two evils when it
comes to leaving the oil untouched in the ocean where it can impact the shorelines and
wildlife and having it dispersed to incredibly small droplets in the water column.
Dispersants have room for improvement but they are a technique that should be utilized
to its fullest.
58
Industry Representative, interview by Hattie Larson, , Oil Spill Response Plans, (July
27, 2010).
WISE 2010 – ASTM International
Page 46
Bibliography
ASTM Committee F20 on Hazardous Substances and OIl Spill Reponse. "F 2709-08:
Standard Test Method for Determining Nameplate Recovery Rate of Stationary OIl
Skimmer Systems." West Conshohocken, PA: ASTM International, Sept. 15, 2008.
ASTM Committee F20 on Hazardous Substances and Oil Spill Treatment. "F2532-06
Standard Guide for Determining Net Environmental Benefit of Dispersant Use." West
Conshocken, PA: ASTM International, 2006.
ASTM International. F20 on Hazardous Substances and Oil Spill Response. 2010.
http://www.astm.org/COMMIT/SCOPES/F20.htm (accessed July 22, 2010).
Biello, David. Is Using Dispersants on the BP Gulf Oil Spill Fighting Pollution with
Pollution? June 18, 2010. http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=is-usingdispersants-fighting-pollution-with-pollution (accessed July 20, 2010).
Boland, Greg. Oil and Gas Exploration. June 8, 2010.
http://oceanexplorer.noaa.gov/explorations/06mexico/background/oil/oil.html (accessed
July 1, 2010).
Buist, Ian. Employing Chemical Herders to Improve Oil Spill Response Operations.
S.L. Ross Environmental Research Ltd. April 09, 2010.
http://www.mms.gov/tarprojects/617.htm.
Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation, and Enforement: Office Energy &
Minerals Management, U.S. Deptartment of the Interior. Technology Assessment &
Research (TA&R) Project Categories: Ohmsett. July 1, 2010.
http://www.boemre.gov/tarprojectcategories/ohmsett.htm (accessed July 31, 2010).
Chevron Corporation . Drilling and Completions. March 2010.
http://www.chevron.com/deliveringenergy/oil/drillingcompletions/ (accessed July 13,
2010).
Chevron Corporation. New Oil Spill Contianment System to Protect Gulf of Mexico
Planned by Major Oil Companies. July 21, 2010.
http://www.chevron.com/chevron/pressreleases/article/07212010_newoilspillcontainment
systemtoprotectgulfofmexicoplannedbymajoroilcompanies.news (accessed July 22,
2010).
CNN Money. BP's Open Wallet. June 11, 2010.
http://money.cnn.com/galleries/2010/news/1006/gallery.BP_open_wallet/3.html
(accessed July 20, 2010).
WISE 2010 – ASTM International
Page 47
CNN. Oil Disaster by the Numbers. July 2010.
http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2010/gulf.coast.oil.spill/interactive/numbers.interactive/
index.html (accessed July 30, 2010).
CNN U.S. Gulf Coast Oil Disaster. July 28, 2010.
http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2010/gulf.coast.oil.spill/interactive/data.viz/index.html
(accessed July 30, 2010).
Committee on Effectiveness of Oil Spill Dispersants, Marine Board, National Research
Council. Using Oil Spill Dispersants on the Sea. National Academies Press, 1989.
Committee on Science and Technology. Subcommittee Discusses Oil Spill Research,
Cleanup Technologies, and the Environment. July 2010.
http://science.house.gov/subcommittee/energy.aspx (accessed July 28, 2010).
DeCola, Elise. Dispersant Use in Oil Spill Response: A Worldwide Legislative and
Practical Update. New York: Aspen Law & Business, 2003.
Ellyson, Tyler. "Miller Products Creates Local 'Connection' to Oil Cleanup." Osceola
Sentinel-Tribune, July 8, 2010.
Emergency Response Division, Office of Response and Restoration, National Ocean
Service, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, US Department of
Commerce. Incident Map. http://www.incidentnews.gov/map?orr_id=6250 (accessed
July 22, 2010).
Fausset, Richard. EPA Finds Dispesant Used in Gulf to be as Safe as Others. June 30,
2010. http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-oil-spill20100701,0,907234.story (accessed July 2, 2010 ).
Fingas, Merv, interview by Hattie Larson, Jim Olshefsky and Jeff Adkins. (July 9,
2010).
Fingas, Merv F. "Field Measurement of Effectiveness: Historical Review and
Examination of Analytical Methods." Edited by L. Michael Flaherty. Oil Dispersants:
New Ecological Approaches, ASTM STP 1018 (ASTM), 1989: 157-158.
Fingas, Merv. The Basics of Oil Spill cleanup. 2nd Edition. Boca Raton: Lewis
Publishers, 2001.
Florida State University. Gulf Oil Crisis: FSU Takes Action. July 12, 2010.
http://www.fsu.com/Blogs/Gulf-Oil-Crisis-FSU-Takes-Action/ (accessed July 15, 2010).
Freudenrich, Craig, and Jonathon Strickland. How OIl Drilling Works.
http://science.howstuffworks.com/oil-drilling4.htm (accessed June 27, 2010).
WISE 2010 – ASTM International
Page 48
Google Maps. July 30, 2010.
http://maps.google.com/maps?f=d&source=s_d&saddr=E+Ocean+Blvd&daddr=FL292+W%2FSorrento+Rd&hl=en&geocode=FdD1jQEdjP8z-g%3BFc6xzgEdBB7Kg&mra=pr&sll=28.378615,-92.58208&sspn=9.058974,17.20459&ie=UTF8&t=h&z=6.
Greenberg, Paul, interview by Terry Gross. "Paul Greenberg: The Future of 'Wild
Fish'." Fresh Air. (July 19, 2010).
Guarino, Alan, Paul Meyer, and Jane Delgado, interview by Hattie Larson, Jim
Olshefsky, Anthony Quinn and Jeff Adkins. Ohmsett Tour (July 16, 2010).
Hemmer, Michael J., Mace G. Barron, and Richard M. Greene. Comparative Toxicity
of Eight Oil Dispersant Products on Two Gulf of Mexico Aquatic Test Species. U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency: Office of Research and Development, 2010.
"History of Offshore Oil." Congressional Digest 89, no. 6 (June 2010): 163-164.
Incident News. "Countermeasures/Mitigation: Ixtoc 1." Bahia de Capeche: Emergency
Response Division, Office of Response and Restoration, National Ocean Service,
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, US Department of Commerce, June
03, 1979.
—. Incident Map. 2010. http://www.incidentnews.gov/map?orr_id=6250 (accessed
July 2010).
—. IXTOC 1. http://www.incidentnews.gov/incident/6250 (accessed July 20, 2010).
IUCN. The IUCN REd List of Threatened Species. 2010. http://www.iucnredlist.org/
(accessed July 29, 20101).
Kampers, Gerbert, Wierd Koops, and Bert Groothuisen, interview by Stephen Beard.
U.S. Hesitant to Accept Dutch Oil Clean-up Tech Marketplace, American Public Media,
(July 27, 2010).
Kinner, Nancy. "R&D Needs for Dispersants." Coastal Response Research Center,
2010.
Lane, Peter, interview by Hattie Larson, James P. Olshefsky and Jeff Adkins. (July 2,
2010).
Lee, Kenneth. "How Oil Dispersants Work." Presentation, Cananda, 2010.
Lunel, T. "Dispersant Effectiveness at Sea." Marine Pollution Control Unit, Coastguard
Agency of the U.K. Department of Transport, Abingdon.
Lynch, Adam. Sierra Club: Dispersants Worse than Oil. May 14, 2010.
http://www.jacksonfreepress.com/index.php/print_view/37733 (accessed July 28, 2010).
WISE 2010 – ASTM International
Page 49
Nalco Company. COREXIT Ingredients . June 2010. http://nalco.com/news-andevents/4297.htm (accessed July 20, 2010).
—. Oil Spill Dispersants. http://www.nalco.com/applications/oil-spill-dispersants.htm
(accessed July 1, 2010).
National Ocean Industries Association. About NOIA. 2006.
http://www.noia.org/website/article.asp?id=123 (accessed June 20, 2010).
Incident News. T/V Exxon Valdez. http://www.incidentnews.gov/incident/6683
(accessed July 21, 2010).
Peek, Katie. How Do Oil Dispersants Work? May 28, 2010.
http://www.popsci.com/science/article/2010-05/how-do-oil-dispersants-work (accessed
June 23, 2010).
Industry Representative, interview by Hattie Larson. Oil Spill Response Plans (July 27,
2010).
Rockefeller, Sen. John. S.3597: Securing Health for Ocean Resources and
Environment Act. July 27, 2010. http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=s1113597 (accessed July 28, 2010).
Royal Dutch Shell. "Shell starts production at Perdido." Shell Worldwise. March 31,
2010.
http://www.shell.com/home/content/media/news_and_library/press_releases/2010/perdid
o_31032010.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed:+s
hell_media_releases+(Royal+Dutch+Shell+plc+media+releases) (accessed July 13,
2010).
Schor, Elana. "BP Continues to Use Surface Dispersants in Gulf Despite EPA
Directive." Energy & Environment: The New York Times , June 24, 2010.
Shaw, Susan. "The Oil Spill's Toxic Trade-Off." TEDxOilSpill. June 2010.
Subcommittee on Energy and Environment. "Hearing on "Drilling Down on America's
Energy Future: Safety, Security, and Clean Energy." Committee on Energy and
Commerce, 2010.
The International Tanker Owners Pollution Federation Limited. Dispersatns. 2010.
http://www.itopf.com/spill-response/clean-up-and-response/dispersants/ (accessed June
28, 2010).
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. EPA's Toxicity Testing of Dispersants. August
02, 2010. http://www.epa.gov/bpspill/dispersants-testing.html#phase2 (accessed August
02, 2010).
WISE 2010 – ASTM International
Page 50
—. General Facts about the Gulf of Mexico.
http://www.epa.gov/gmpo/about/facts.html (accessed July 30, 2010).
—. Oil Pollution Act Overview. March 17, 2009.
http://www.epa.gov/oem/content/lawsregs/opaover.htm (accessed June 20, 2010).
—. Oil Pollution Act Overview. March 17, 2009.
http://www.epa.gov/oem/content/lawsregs/opaover.htm (accessed August 02, 2010).
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. FWS Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill Response. July 20,
2010. http://www.fws.gov/home/dhoilspill/ (accessed July 20, 2010).
United States Environmental Protection Agency. Underwater Use of Dispersants.
2010. http://www.epa.gov/bpspill/dispersants.html#underwater2 (accessed July 26, 2010
).
Woolsey, Rep. Lynn. H.R. 2693: Oil Pollution Research and Development Program
Reauthorization Act of 2010. July 21, 2010.
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h111-2693 (accessed July 22, 2010).
WISE 2010 – ASTM International
Page 51
