The technology windows-of-opportunity for marine oil spill response as related to oil weathering and operations

Abstract This paper identifies and estimates time periods as ‘windows-of-opportunity’ where specific response methods, technologies, equipment, or products are more effective in clean-up operations for several oils. These windows have been estimated utilizing oil weathering and technology performance data as tools to optimize effectiveness in marine oil spill response decision-making. The windows will also provide data for action or no-action alternatives. Crude oils and oil products differ greatly in physical and chemical properties, and these properties tend to change significantly during and after a spill with oil aging (weathering). Such properties have a direct bearing on oil recovery operations, influencing the selection of response methods and technologies applicable for clean up, including their effectiveness and capacity, which can influence the time and cost of operations and the effects on natural resources. The changes and variations in physical and chemical properties over time can be modeled using data from weathering studies of specific oils. When combined with performance data for various equipment and materials, tested over a range of weathering stages of oils, windows-of-opportunity can be estimated for spill response decision-making. Under experimental conditions discussed in this paper, windows-of-opportunity have been identified and estimated for four oils (for which data are available) under a given set of representative environmental conditions. These ‘generic’ windows have been delineated for the general categories of spill response namely: (1) dispersants, (2) in situ burning, (3) booms, (4) skimmers, (5) sorbents, and (6) oil-water separators. To estimate windows-of-opportunity for the above technologies (except booms), the IKU Oil Weathering Model was utilized to predict relationships—with 5 m s−1 wind speed and seawater temperatures of 15°C. The window-of-opportunity for the dispersant (Corexit 9527®) with Alaska North Slope (ANS) oil was estimated from laboratory data to be the first 26 h. A period of ‘reduced’ dispersibility, was estimated to last from 26–120 h. The oil was considered to be no longer dispersible if treated for the first time after 120 h. The most effective time window for dispersing Bonnic Light was 0–2 h, the time period of reduced dispersibility was 2–4 h, and after 4 h the oil was estimated to be no longer dispersible. These windows-of-opportunity are based on the most effective use of a dispersant estimated from laboratory dispersant effectiveness studies using fresh and weathered oils. Laboratory dispersant effectiveness data cannot be directly utilized to predict dispersant performance during spill response, however, laboratory results are of value for estimating viscosity and pour point limitations and for guiding the selection of an appropriate product during contingency planning and response. In addition, the window of opportunity for a dispersant may be lengthened if the dispersant contains an emulsion breaking agent or multiple applications of dispersant are utilized. Therefore, a long-term emulsion breaking effect may increase the effectiveness of a dispersant and lengthen the window-of-opportunity. The window-of-opportunity of in situ burning (based upon time required for an oil to form an emulsion with 50% water content) was estimated to be approximately 0–36 h for ANS oil and 0–1 h for Bonnie Light oil after being spilled. The estimation of windows-of-opportunity for offshore booms is constrained by the fact that many booms available on the market undergo submergence at speeds of less than 2 knots. The data suggest that booms with buoyancy to weight ratios less than 8:1 may submerge at speeds within the envelope in which they could be expected to operate. This submergence is an indication of poor wave conformance, caused by reduction of freeboard and reserve net buoyancy within the range of operation. The windows-of-opportunity for two selected skimming principles (disk and brush), were estimated using modeled oil viscosity data for BCF 17 and BCF 24 in combination with experimental performance data developed as a function of viscosity. These windows were estimated to be within 3–10 h (disk skimmer) and after 10 h (brush skimmer) for BCF 17. Whereas for BCF 24, it is within 2–3 d (disk skimmer) and after 3 d (brush skimmer). For sorbents, an upper viscosity limit for an effective and practical use has in studies been found to be approximately 15,000 cP, which is the viscosity range of some Bunker C oils. Using viscosity data for the relative heavy oils, BCF 17 and BCF 24 (API gravity 17 and 24), the time windows for a sorbent (polyamine flakes) was estimated to be 0–4 and 0–10 d, respectively. With BCF 24, the effectiveness of polyamine flakes, was reduced to 50% after 36 h, although it continued to adsorb for up to 10 d. For BCF 17, the effectiveness of polyamine flakes was reduced to 50% after 12 h, although it continued to adsorb for up to 4 d. The windows-of-opportunity for several centrifuged separators based upon the time period to close the density gap between weathered oils and seawater to less than 0.025 g ml−1 (which is expected to be an end-point for effective use of centrifugal separation technology), were estimated to be 0–18 (ANS) and 0–24 h (Bonnie Light) after the spill. Utilizing the windows-of-opportunity concept, the combined information from a dynamic oil weathering model and a performance technology data base can become a decision-making tool; identifying and defining the windows of effectiveness of different response methods and equipment under given environmental conditions. Specific research and development needs are identified as related to further delineation of windows-of-opportunity.