Responsive Document - CREW: NOAA: Regarding BP Oil Spill: 4/3/2012 - (Part 1) Foia 2010-377 Orr Ohc Interim 4 1 To 3596 Final

From: Tom Moore <Tom.Moore@noaa.
gov>
Subject:
Date: October 29, 201 0 1 0:1 8:53 AM EDT
92 Attachments, 33.5 MB
Begin forwarded message:
From: Chris Doley < [email protected]>
Date: April 27, 201 0 1 :1 9:53 PM EDT
To: Brian Hostetter < [email protected]>
Cc: Cheryl Brodnax < [email protected]>, Tom Moore < [email protected]>, 'Leslie Craig'
< [email protected]>
Subject: Re: DR L TASKER #5
Brian - This seems to be the level of info that we need but I need you to rework so it explains the typical types of injuries that may
result. Something like the following:
"It is difficult to predict the specific impacts. However, past oil spills in the area have resulted in multiple injuries. For example, sea
floor injuries from discharged oil may result injury to benthic invertebrates, demersal fishes, pelagic fishes, and marine mammals.
These injuries result from the released oil smothering and coating of benthic resources and ingestion by animals that feed on
benthic resources and demersal fishes in the affected area. Contact with oil or ingestion of oil or oiled prey may have acute or
chronic effects on these organisms, including physical effects (such as smothering) and toxicological effects. Additionally, the
presence of discharged oil in the environment may cause decreased habitat utilization of the area, altered migration patterns,
altered food availability, and disrupted life cycles. Natural resource services that may be affected by the oil discharge include, but
are not limited to, chemical exchange across the interface between the sea floor and the water column, decomposition and use of
organic matter by benthic microalgae and other fauna, primary production, and habitat utilization by benthic and demersal fauna."
Thanks
Chris
Brian Hostetter wrote:
Chris, staff felt that the most applicable cases inre to surface/in water habitat consequences to living resources in the Gulf
would be DBL 1 52 and Lake Barre (settled 1 5 Nov 99).
From DBL-1 52 Draft DARP/EA related to water column injury (not surface injury since this was heavy oil). Use of dispersants
was also not an issue with DBL-1 52:
"The majority of discharged oil was denser than sea water. As a result of its density, upon release it sank to the seafloor. Injury
to benthic invertebrates, demersal fishes, pelagic fishes, and marine mammals may have resulted from the released oil from
smothering and coating of benthic resources and ingestion by animals that feed on benthic resources and demersal fishes in the
affected area. Contact with oil or ingestion of oil or oiled prey may have acute or chronic effects on these organisms, including
physical effects (such as smothering) and toxicological effects. Additionally, the presence of discharged oil in the environment
may have caused decreased habitat utilization of the area, altered migration patterns, altered food availability, and disrupted life
cycles. Natural resource services that may have been affected by the oil discharge include, but are not limited to, chemical
exchange across the interface between the sea floor and the water column, decomposition and use of organic matter by benthic
microalgae and other fauna, primary production, and habitat utilization by benthic and demersal fauna.
Response and NRDA data collection efforts were focused on the seafloor and its associated resources and services because
these areas had the longest exposure to the submerged oil and a direct pathway for injury (i.e., smothering and coating of
benthic resources and ingestion by animals that feed on benthic resources and demersal fishes). A considerable effort was
undertaken to assess the nature and extent of oil on the seafloor including its distribution, thickness, fate and transport, and
chemical properties. These data were used to estimate injuries to natural resources and services from this incident.
Dispersed and dissolved polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) were detected in the water column, which could have
resulted in exposure of aquatic resources to the toxicological effects of PAHs. Various fishes were observed by divers and the
ROV in oiled areas, but oiled fishes were not observed or recovered in the submerged oil field. Other ecosystem resources and
services in the water column also may have been affected by the discharge, but NOAA declined to investigate those potential
injury categories further because NOAA determined the potential effects to animals in most of the water column were likely
short-term and of low -magnitude. Detrimental physical and toxicological effects had a low likelihood of occurring based on the
Document ID: 0.7.19.240
ability of these animals to avoid areas of the water column with oil (e.g., marine mammals). Furthermore, no oiled animals were
collected or observed on the ocean surface or water column, indicating that such injuries were unlikely to have occurred or were
minimal.
No reports of lost human use were recorded. No ongoing industrial activity was affected. No recreational or commercial fishing
vessels were observed in the vicinity of the spill."
From Lake Barre EA:
Aquatic Fauna Injury Assessment
Aquatic fauna, including blue crabs, squid, and
shrimp, and different species of fish were affected by
the discharge of oil. Water samples collected close to
the time of the spill indicated that polycyclic aromatic
hydrocarbons (PAHs) were present in the water column
for a few days at levels known to be toxic to aquatic
organisms in laboratory tests. As evidence of the oils
impact, dead shrimp were collected in a Louisiana Department
of Wildlife and Fisheries trawl and dead
juvenile crabs were found in a crab pot. A few dead
forage fish were observed shortly after the spill.
The trustees employed a site-specific modeling approach
to assess the aquatic fauna impacts. The employed
model includes algorithms from the Natural
Resource Damage Assessment Model for Coastal and
Marine Habitats (version 2.4, 1 996) and new algorithms
and data to account for habitats and fauna
specific to the Lake Barre incident. The model estimates
the aquatic injury that resulted from death due
to exposure to concentrations of low -molecular-weight
PAHs in the water column. The model also estimates
the resulting loss in growth of the organisms predicted
to have died from exposure to PAHs. Based on the
model, approximately 7465 kg of fish, decapods, and
other invertebrates were lostdue to direct mortality
and lost growthas a result of the discharge. The
mortality number does not account for a reduction in
aquatic faunal production that resulted from a reduction
in marsh service flows supporting aquatic fauna;
thus, there is no double counting of the aquatic faunal
injuries.
Please advise if you need more.
From: Tom Moore < [email protected]>
Date: April 29, 201 0 9:46:40 AM EDT
To: Daniel Hahn < [email protected]>
Cc: Troy Baker < [email protected]>
Subject: Re: SIPPER paragraph
I think as long as the oil slick is not running through the device and its just dispersed particles that will be okay.
I supposed we could drag under the slick just not surface in it.
On Apr 29, 201 0, at 9:43 AM, Daniel Hahn wrote:
On Apr 29, 201 0, at 9:43 AM, Daniel Hahn wrote:
Did he say anything about dragging it through oil and if that would be a problem?
Dan
Tom Moore wrote:
I spoke with Drew this morning here a quick description of SIPPER attached. He also mentioned that they can differentiate
between live and dead organisms in the water column.
From: Drew Remsen < [email protected]>
Date: April 29, 201 0 9:28:21 AM EDT
To: Tom Moore < [email protected]>
Subject: SIPPER paragraph
How is this?
I didn't do a SOW as I'm not sure what you want to do exactly. Once I get in St. Pete, we could have SIPPER ready in less
than 24 hours.
It's possible we could have shipped to us a petroleum fluorometer that we could interface with SIPPER to get some good 2-
D and 3-D maps of the underwater dispersal of some of the oil compounds in the water, especially as they become
emulsified and mix with the water.
Le me know if this is adequate or if I need to put more specific application of how this would work with the spill.
I will need to contact the ship we will use to figure out what kind of cable termination they have on their hydrowire to ensure
we can hook up to the cable. It should be one of two types normally and we are prepped for those.
Drew
--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Andrew Remsen, Ph.D.
College of Marine Science
University of South Florida
1 40 7th Avenue South
St. Petersburg, Florida 33701
B6 Privacy
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
--------------------------------------------------------
Tom Moore
NOAA Restoration Center
263 1 3th Ave South
727-551 -571 6 Office
B6 Privacy
Cell
--------------------------------------------------------
Tom Moore
263 1 3th Ave South
B6 Privacy
B6 Privacy
Office
Cell
From: Pat Montanio < [email protected]>
Date: April 29, 201 0 1 0:1 8:59 AM EDT
To: _NMFS HQ HC ALL < [email protected]>
Subject: NOAA, NMFS, OHC and the Deepwater Horizon event
All,
Below is a note circulated by David Kenendy regarding the Deepwater Horizon event and NOAA's response. Within NMFS, we
are supporting this effort in a variety of ways - from regional and science center capabilities to our ongoing partnership under
DARRP.
Brian Pawlak has been appointed as the NMFS liaison to NOAA and NOS senior leaderships for spill response information and
action. Captain Gallagher and Jenni Wallace are the F points of contact for requests for information. If you receive a tasker or
request from outside this chain, please bring them all into the loop. It is very critical that all relevant information be coordinated
and consistently delivered within NOAA, and all media communication regarding the spill should be directed to Public Affairs.
Given the magnitude (as well as uncertainty) of this event, it will require considerable redirection of resources across NOAA. This
new assignment will, at least initially, require Brian's full attention. Therefore, I have asked Dean Smehil to serve as Acting Deputy
for the Office of Habitat Conservation in the interim.
We all hope that this oil spill can be brought under control relatively quickly, but it is very possible that this will require a long term
investment on NOAA's part. Many of you will be asked to contribute in different ways - whether directly or indirectly by covering
other assignments. I thank you all in advance, as this is a significant issue for NOAA and the environment.
PatM
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: NOS is playing a crucial role in the Deepwater Horizon event
Date:
Thu, 29 Apr 201 0 05:51 :1 7 -0400
From: [email protected]
To: _NOS All Hands <[email protected]>
good morning everyone,
The ongoing oil spill resulting from the Deepwater Horizon poses a grave threat to coastal communities and ecosystems in the
Gulf region---and to the national economy. The purpose of this message is to inform you about NOSs role in the response to this
incident, recognize the remarkable work of our staff, and to provide you an update on the status of the spill and next steps.
First, I want to recognize the exceptional performance of NOS staff responding to the incident. Dozens are working very long
hours to continue gathering information about the spill, plan for containment, and prepare for environmental assessment and
response. Eighteen staff members from the Office of Response and Restoration are on site at the command center and more than
two dozen others are involved off site. After more than 20 years of being involved with response efforts including serving as
science coordinator for the Exxon Valdez spill, I know firsthand how seriously our responders take their jobs and how committed
they are to supporting sound, timely decision making. My deep appreciation goes out to them for their work. And I know this is
only the beginning of this effort.
As you know, last week, there was an explosion that resulted in a massive fire on the Deepwater Horizon, a mobile offshore
drilling unit in the Gulf of Mexico about 50 miles offshore of Louisiana. Sadly, eleven people who were on the rig at the time of the
explosion are still not accounted for.
After the rig burned for hours, it capsized and sank into the Gulf on April 22. The undersea oil well is leaking oil at an estimated
rate of 1 ,000 barrels a day at a depth of 5,000 feet.
rate of 1 ,000 barrels a day at a depth of 5,000 feet.
So far, attempts to use remotely operated vehicles to trigger a series of valves to stop the leak have been unsuccessful.
Construction has begun on a collection dome that will be deployed to the sea floor to collect and funnel oil as it escapes from the
well, a method that has never been tried at this depth before. The first rig to be used for drilling a relief or cut-off well arrived on
the scene and several more are planned. A relief well would take several months to complete.
Staff members from the Office of Response and Restoration (ORR) in the Emergency Response Division have been providing
scientific support to the U.S. Coast Guard and the Unified Command that is coordinating response operations. This support
includes predicting where the oil is going and its effects, identifying resources at risk, and planning response and over flight
operations. Yesterday, NOAAs Assessment and Restoration Division (ARD) brought together more than 20 federal and state
natural resource trustees to discuss natural resource damage assessment efforts. ARD is evaluating concerns about potential
injuries of oil and dispersants to fishes, human use of fisheries, marine mammals, turtles, and sensitive resources.
In addition, the National Weather Service is providing weather forecasts, including marine and aviation. The Office of Oceanic
and Atmospheric Research is advising on airborne dispersion modeling and the National Data Buoy Center data is also being
used in oil trajectory forecasting. The National Marine Fisheries Service is addressing issues related to marine mammals, sea
turtles, and fishery resources. The National Environmental Satellite, Data, and Information Service is providing analysis of the oil
spill using experimental methods with satellite imagery. The Office of Marine and Aviation Operations is providing aircraft support
for overflights that are being conducted on a near daily basis.
The impact of this spill will be recorded alongside historic events such as the Exxon Valdez oil spill and Hurricanes Katrina and
Rita. During those events, NOAA responded to extraordinary adversity with extraordinary achievement. Our response in this case
will require the same level of resolve.
Dr. Lubchenco asked me to serve as the lead for NOAAs response to this incident. Over the coming weeks and months, we will
be calling on colleagues from across NOAA and within NOS to supplement these efforts. I will keep you and your program
directors informed of the expertise and skills needed from NOS.
In the meantime, you can learn more about NOAAs ongoing response through the following resources:
ORRs Incident News: http://www.incidentnews.gov/incident/8220
ORRs Emergency Response Information: http://response.restoration.noaa.gov/ (Click on the link in the upper right hand
corner of the page)
dmk
Date: April 29, 201 0 1 1 :06:43 AM EDT
Subject: FYI oil detection sensors on SIPPER
Tom,
I just read UPDATING THE SMART DISPERSANT MONITORING PROTOCOL:Review of Commercial-Off -The-Shelf
Instruments,put together by MMS talking about oil dispersant tracking and it turns out we have a Wetlabs CDOM fluorometer that
we can put on SIPPER easily. It could possibly assist in determining the efficacy of the dispersant and its distribution at depth.
http://www.mms.gov/tarprojects/598/SMARTCOTSProductsReportFinal.pdf
--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
B6 Privacy
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Date: April 29, 201 0 1 1 :1 9:51 AM EDT
To: "hahn >> Daniel Hahn" < [email protected]>
Subject: Fwd: FYI oil detection sensors on SIPPER
Date: April 29, 201 0 1 1 :06:43 AM EDT
Subject: FYI oil detection sensors on SIPPER
Tom,
Instruments,put together by MMS talking about oil dispersant tracking and it turns out we have a Wetlabs CDOM fluorometer
that we can put on SIPPER easily. It could possibly assist in determining the efficacy of the dispersant and its distribution at
depth.
--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
B6 Privacy
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
--------------------------------------------------------
Tom Moore
263 1 3th Ave South
727-551 -571 6 Office
Cell
B6 Privacy
Date: April 29, 201 0 1 1 :37:1 3 AM EDT
To: "hahn >> Daniel Hahn" < [email protected]>
Subject: SIPPER - Call when you have minute...
I have spoken with Drew a few times today and think that between the ability to do both plantkon/laval work & also have a
flourmeter inline we could get some very valuable data.
He was also not worried about dragging ti through dispersed oil or even under a slick. He is looking to see if USF has a vessel
that could support the effort. Likely we would do a 7+ day offshore survey looking at both impact and non-impact areas.
They could just contract through IEc.
I am not super confident in all of the other labs being able to provide a consistent dataset
More info here...
http://www.marine.usf.edu/sipper/
--------------------------------------------------------
Tom Moore
263 1 3th Ave South
727-551 -571 6 Office
B6 Privacy
Cell
Date: April 29, 201 0 4:1 5:09 PM EDT
Subject: Fwd: SIPPER paragraph
Description attached...
More info at...
Tom,
Instruments,put together by MMS talking about oil dispersant tracking and it turns out we have a Wetlabs CDOM fluorometer that
we can put on SIPPER easily. It could possibly assist in determining the efficacy of the dispersant and its distribution at depth.
--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
B6 Privacy
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Date: April 29, 201 0 9:28:21 AM EDT
How is this?
I didn't do a SOW as I'm not sure what you want to do exactly. Once I get in St. Pete, we could have SIPPER ready in less than
24 hours.
It's possible we could have shipped to us a petroleum fluorometer that we could interface with SIPPER to get some good 2-D
and 3-D maps of the underwater dispersal of some of the oil compounds in the water, especially as they become emulsified and
mix with the water.
I will need to contact the ship we will use to figure out what kind of cable termination they have on their hydrowire to ensure we
can hook up to the cable. It should be one of two types normally and we are prepped for those.
Drew
--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
B6 Privacy
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
SIPPER descridoc (272 KB)
--------------------------------------------------------
Tom Moore
263 1 3th Ave South
727-551 -571 6 Office
Cell
B6 Privacy
From: Eric Schwaab < [email protected]>
Date: April 29, 201 0 6:30:36 PM EDT
To: _NMFS All Employees < [email protected]>
Subject: Oil Spill Update
We are all watching with concern the unfolding oil spill incident occurring in the Gulf of Mexico. I wanted to let you know the
activities to-date and the critical role that all NOAA line offices are playing, and the process weve established to ensure
consistent and up-to-date communications.
As you know, on April 20th, there was an explosion that resulted in a massive fire on the Deepwater Horizon, a mobile offshore
drilling unit in the Gulf of Mexico 50 miles offshore Louisiana. The rig burned for hours and then sank. Eleven out of 1 26 people
remain unaccounted for. It was recently discovered that there are multiple leaks at a depth of 5,000 feet.
So far, attempts to use remotely operated vehicles to close valves and stop the leaks have been unsuccessful. Construction has
begun on a collection dome that will be deployed to the sea floor to collect and funnel oil as it escapes, a method never tried at
this depth before. The first rig to be used for drilling a relief or cut-off well has arrived and more are planned. A relief well would
take several months to complete.
I want to acknowledge the tremendous amount of work being accomplished by our leadership and staff in the Southeast Region,
Southeast Fisheries Science Center and within Headquarters. Dozens of your colleagues are working long hours, gathering and
processing information, anticipating and planning for needed baseline information, on-going monitoring, and long-term response to
both marine life and the coastal communities that will be impacted when this spill begins to come ashore.
All parts of NOAA are fully engaged providing scientific support to the U.S. Coast Guard and the Unified Command that is
coordinating response operations. The overall coordination for the oil spill within NOAA is through the National Ocean Service
and its Office of Response and Restoration. Support from National Marine Fisheries Service includes addressing impact and
response issues related to marine mammals, sea turtles, shrimp and fisheries. National Weather Service is providing marine and
aviation forecasts. The Office of Oceanic and Atmospheric Research is advising on airborne dispersion modeling and the
National Data Buoy Center data is being used in oil trajectory forecasting. The National Environmental Satellite, Data, and
Information Service is providing analysis of the oil spill using experimental methods with satellite imagery. Yesterday, NOAAs
Assessment and Restoration Division (ARD) brought together more than 20 federal and state natural resource trustees to discuss
natural resource assessments. Through ARD, Fisheries is helping to evaluate concerns about potential injuries of oil and
dispersants to fishes, human use of fisheries, marine mammals, turtles and sensitive resources.
Yesterday, Roy Crabtree (Southeast Regional Administrator) and I were in New Orleans and met with the five Gulf States
Fisheries Directors and the Gulf States Marine Fisheries Commission. We discussed potential impacts and set up our
communication protocol.
Communication Guidance
NOAA and each of its line offices have established oil spill response teams to support the larger Unified Command effort and its
Joint Information Center (JIC), as well as the Incident Command Center (ICC). Brian Pawlak (Deputy, Office of Habitat
Conservation) is our Oil Spill Coordinator. Two of the most critical roles of this process are to ensure efficient use of our staff
resources and provide consistent and accurate information.
To accomplish this, all oil spill taskers to Fisheries must be directed through the NOAA ICC. The ICC exists to track taskers,
prioritize and deconflict multiple requests for resources, etc. Deputy Under Secretary Mary Glackin has asked everyone to use
the ICC for all oil spill taskings. The NMFS desk at the ICC can be reached by email at [email protected]. The telephone
number at the ICC is B6 Privacy . Should you receive any oil spill taskers from anyone else, please forward them to
[email protected] for further guidance.
Understandably, we are receiving a great deal of inquiries and expressions of concern from our stakeholders in the Gulf and
around the country about the anticipated harm to marine life and the economic impacts. To facilitate consistent and factual
information, all press inquiries to Fisheries are to be routed to Connie Barclay ([email protected]) or Kim Amendola
([email protected]).
For all other public inquiries, please guide them to the informational web pages that are being updated daily with information on
the spill and NOAAs ongoing response (links below), or direct them to Laurel Bryant for further guidance
([email protected])
http://response.restoration.noaa.gov/deepwaterhorizon
http://www.incidentnews.gov/incident/8220
I appreciate everyones patience and team support during this critical time. Throughout the months ahead, many of you will be
called upon to contribute and assist with this effort. Thanks.
Eric C. Schwaab
Eric_Schwaab.vcf (0.2 KB)
Date: April 30, 201 0 1 2:20:27 PM EDT
To: Kristopher Benson < [email protected]>
Date: April 29, 201 0 4:1 5:09 PM EDT
Description attached...
More info at...
Tom,
Instruments,put together by MMS talking about oil dispersant tracking and it turns out we have a Wetlabs CDOM fluorometer
that we can put on SIPPER easily. It could possibly assist in determining the efficacy of the dispersant and its distribution at
depth.
--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
B6 Privacy
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Date: April 29, 201 0 9:28:21 AM EDT
How is this?
I didn't do a SOW as I'm not sure what you want to do exactly. Once I get in St. Pete, we could have SIPPER ready in less
than 24 hours.
It's possible we could have shipped to us a petroleum fluorometer that we could interface with SIPPER to get some good 2-D
and 3-D maps of the underwater dispersal of some of the oil compounds in the water, especially as they become emulsified
and mix with the water.
I will need to contact the ship we will use to figure out what kind of cable termination they have on their hydrowire to ensure
we can hook up to the cable. It should be one of two types normally and we are prepped for those.
Drew
--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
B6 Privacy
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
SIPPER descridoc (272 KB)
--------------------------------------------------------
Tom Moore
263 1 3th Ave South
727-551
-571 6 Office
B6 Privacy
B6 Privacy
Cell
--------------------------------------------------------
Tom Moore
263 1 3th Ave South
727-551
-571 6 Office
B6 Privacy
B6 Privacy
Cell
From: Eugene Shinn < [email protected]>
Date: April 30, 201 0 1 :03:49 PM EDT
To: [email protected]
Subject: [Coral-List] Disaster in the Gulf and Coral Reefs
With the developing oil disaster in the Gulf, I thought a few
comments regarding the effects of crude oil on coral reefs might be
healthful. Some of you know my background in the industry and my work
with API committees before 1 974. In 1 972, I was sent to Australia to
testify before the Great Barrier Reef Commission regarding effects of
drilling on coral reefs. I was concerned, so in preparation for the
trip I obtained 5 gallons of Louisiana sweet crude (the kind
presently blowing out off the Mississippi Delta) and traveled to the
Florida Keys to do some personal in-situ experimenting. Corals on the
Barrier Reef flats (including various species of staghorn coral) are
exposed to the air at low tide each day for more than one hour. Since
that is the length of time that corals there are likely to be exposed
directly to floating oil, I performed some crude experiments wherein
I exposed Florida staghorn and star coral directly to oil for 1 _
hours. In these experiments, I placed large clear plastic bags
containing crude oil over live staghorn that was fixed to rods driven
into the bottom. At the same time, I placed plastic domes (skylights)
containing oil over the tops of small star coral heads for the same
length of time. The experiment was conducted in about 1 5 ft of water
off Tavernier Key. What I found, and described pictorially in the
1 989 issue of Sea Frontiers, was truly surprising. Corals retracted
their polyps, but the oil would not stick to the coral because of its
mucus. When I removed the oil, there was no oil on the coral. Fifteen
days later, the corals were alive and appeared normal. While at the
hearings in Australia, I learned that another researcher wearing a
backpack garden sprayer had sprayed crude oil on the same exposed
corals at low tide every day for several days. His results were
similar to mine.
After joining the USGS, a Master's candidate approached me to do
similar experiments for a thesis project. In the laboratory at Fisher
Island Station, we totally submerged 1 0 fragments of living Acropora
cervicornis in Louisiana crude for 2 hours. We then transported the
fragments (in sea water) to the reef line off Virginia Key, Florida,
fragments (in sea water) to the reef line off Virginia Key, Florida,
and placed them in concrete holders in 20 ft of water. When we
returned a week later, the corals were alive and appeared healthy.
The disappointed student decided not to continue that project.
In yet another experiment, students of Tom Bright from Texas A&M
University conducted an oil experiment on Carysfort Reef lighthouse
off Key Largo. A 20-gallon aquarium was filled with aerated seawater.
The aquarium contained two butterfly fish and some live A.
cervicornis branches. A layer of crude oil about one inch thick was
then floated over the coral and fish. Butterfly fish are known to
feed on live polyps, so the purpose of the experiment was to see if
various fractions of the oil would contaminate the coral and then be
transferred to the flesh of the fish. The fish did pick at the coral
and paid no attention to the overlying layer of crude oil. After 24
hours, the fish were sacrificed and taken back to Texas A&M to be
analyzed for oil components. I never heard the results and nothing
was published. I simply documented it all on 1 6-mm movie film.
The lesson from this and other research was that if and when the
oil from this spill reaches the Florida Keys, the damage would be
limited mainly to mangrove-shoreline habitats, sea birds, and
beaches. Dive -boat operations would likely be affected, but the spill
will not harm corals or reef fish. The crude, which will likely be in
the form of tar balls, will simply float over the areas of live
corals.
Under no circumstances should dispersants be used on an oil slick
in the vicinity of a coral reef. Dispersants soluabilize the oil and
allow it dissolve in the water and come in direct contact with coral
and fish. In addition, oil-containment booms should not be deployed
in the vicinity of coral reefs because of possible entanglement and
physical destruction. The history of oil spills is that clean-up
efforts, such as use of live steam, solvents, and digging, often do
more damage than the oil.
The best teacher is history. The Keys and the U.S. East Coast
were often awash in oil from torpedoed tankers during WWII, and there
have been numerous tanker spills and oil from bilge cleaning over the
past 50 years with no documented impact to Florida's coral reefs. An
exception is the disastrous onshore oil tank spill at Goleta Point,
Panama, in the early 1 980s. The spill was at the landward end of a
lagoon that opened out to a coral reef being studied by personnel at
the adjacent Smithsonian Institution Marine Laboratory.
Unfortunately, surfactants were added to break up and soluabilize the
oil in an enclosed area with poor circulation with disastrous
results. Many reef-flat organisms and corals were killed. Richard
Dodge conducted extensive research on the effects of that spill,
which are well documented.
In the present case, by the time the spilled oil reaches the
Florida Keys (weeks), the more toxic aromatics components will have
evaporated, and bacterial breakdown will have reduced the oil to a
less toxic gooey mess that can foul beaches, mangroves, and affect
sea birds. It will not harm corals or reef fish. Nevertheless, expect
to see headlines stating, "Spill Threatens Coral Reefs," and similar
overblown claims. Be prepared for one heck of a mess at the shoreline
before this is all over. Let's hope it's over soon. Gene
--
No Rocks, No Water, No Ecosystem (EAS)
------------------------------------ -----------------------------------
E. A. Shinn, Courtesy Professor
Marine Science Center (room 204)
1 40 Seventh Avenue South
St. Petersburg, FL 33701
Tel 727 553 -1 1 58----------------------------------
-----------------------------------
_______________________________________________
Coral-List mailing list
[email protected]
http://coral.aoml.noaa.gov/mailman/listinfo/coral-list
Date: May 2, 201 0 1 1 :39:07 AM EDT
Subject: [Coral-List] coral and crude oil
Dear listers here is some information re the effects of crude oil on
coral that may be of use at this crucial time.
With the developing oil disaster in the Gulf I thought a few
healthful. Some of you know my background in the industry and work
with API committees before 1 974. In 1 972 I was sent to Australia to
drilling on coral reefs. I was concerned so in preparation for the
Keys to do some personal in-situ experimenting. Corals on the Barrier
reef flats (including various species of staghorn coral) are exposed
to the air at low tide each day for more than one hour. Since that is
the length of time that corals there are likely to be exposed
directly to floating oil I performed some crude experiments where I
exposed Florida staghorn and star coral directly to oil for one and a
half hours. In these experiments I placed large clear plastic bags
into the bottom. At the same time I placed plastic domes (skylights)
their polyps but the oil would not stick to the coral because of its
mucus. When I removed the oil there was no oil on the coral. Fifteen
days later the corals were living and appeared normal. While at the
hearings in Australia I learned that another researcher wearing a
similar to mine.
After joining the USGS a Masters candidate approached me to do
Island Station we totally submerged ten fragments of living Acropora
cervicornis in Louisiana crude for 2 hrs. We then transported them
(in sea water) to the reef line off Virginia Key, Florida and placed
them in concrete holders in 20 ft of water. When we returned a week
later the corals were alive and appeared healthy. The disappointed
student decided not to continue that project.
In yet another experiment students of Tom Bright from Texas A
and M University conducted an oil experiment on Carysfort reef
lighthouse off Key Largo. A 20-gallon aquarium was filled with
aerated seawater. The aquarium contained two butterfly fish and some
live A. cervicornis branches. A layer of crude oil about one inch
thick was then floated over the coral and fish. Butterfly fish are
known to feed on live polyps so the purpose of the experiment was to
see if various fractions of the oil would contaminate the coral and
then be transferred to the flesh of the fish. The fish did pick at
the coral and paid not attention to the overlying layer of crude oil.
After 24 hrs the fish was sacrificed and taken back to Texas A and M
to be analyzed for oil components. I never heard the results and
nothing was published. I simply documented it all on 1 6 mm movie
film.
oil from this spill reaches the Florida Keys the damage will be to
limited mainly to mangrove shoreline habitats, sea birds, and
beaches. Dive boat operations will likely be affected but it will not
harm corals or reef fish.
The crude, which will likely be in the form of tar balls, will
simply float over the areas of living corals. Under no circumstances
should dispersants be used on an oil slick in the vicinity of a coral
reef. Dispersants soluabilize the oil and allow it dissolve in the
water and come in direct contact with coral and fish. In addition,
oil containment booms should not be deployed in the vicinity of coral
reefs because of possible entanglement and physical destruction. The
history of oil spills is that clean up efforts, such as use of live
steam, solvents, and digging, often do more damage than the oil.
The best teacher is history. The Keys and the east coast of the
US were often awash in oil from torpedoed tankers during WWII and
there have been numerous tanker spills and oil from bilge cleaning
over the past 50 years with no documented impact to Florida's coral
reefs. An exception is the disastrous onshore oil tank spill at
Goleta Point, Panama in the early 1 980s. The spill was at the
landward end of a lagoon that opened out to a coral reef being
studied by personnel at the adjacent Smithsonian Institution Marine
Laboratory. Unfortunately surfactants were added to break up and
soluabilize the oil in an enclosed area with poor circulation with
disastrous results. Many reef flat organisms and corals were killed.
Richard Dodge conducted extensive research on the effects of that
spill which is well documented.
In the present case by the time the spilled oil reaches the
Florida Keys (weeks) the more toxic aromatics components will have
evaporated and bacterial breakdown will have reduced the oil to a
sea birds. It will not harm corals or reef fish, Hopefully this
knowledge will relieve some tension and fear for the reefs as the
floating oil nears Florida's coral reefs. Nevertheless be prepared
for one heck of a mess at the shoreline before this is all over. Lets
hope it is over soon. Gene
--
------------------------------------ -----------------------------------
Tel 727 553 -1 1 58----------------------------------
-----------------------------------
_______________________________________________
[email protected]
hard so please consider this message as a gentle reminder to not let
email be the primary form of communication and that there are a lot of
bases to cover. I'll work to stay more engaged by phone with the TWGs
but understand that this is tough with 6-8 TWGs and other individuals
and groups to keep track of. As of yesterday, Kevin Kirsch is coming in
to help me coordinate with multiple teams in multiple locations.
I'm working with IEc to handle all of our contracting needs. Tom
Brosnan also will be working with IEc this week to help with our
expansion in the Gulf so if you touch base with either Tom or I on
contracting, we'll make sure and keep each other in the loop. thanks
for all the hard work out there and I'll try and get out of the way
again as quick as possible. Troy
Tom Moore wrote:
All,
Attached is the initial draft SEAMAP/SIPPER cruise strategy develop by the folks the USF and Florida FWC/FWRI. This should
be viewed as just a starting point as all of the PI's are happy to work with us to tweak and change the plans to meet our NRDA
injury assessment needs.
We'll have everyone on the phone tomorrow (Sunday) at 1 2CDT/1 EST and we can then have discussion to refine the plan and
priorities further. After that if we decide to move forward we'll work with the team to develop a formal cruise plan, QA/QC plan,
and data/sampling handling plan, along with other details.
Conference #
1-
B6 Privacy
B6 Privacy
Thanks
Tom
I am available on my cell at
B6 Privacy
for any questions.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
--
Troy Baker, SE Branch Chief (Acting)
NOAA National Ocean Service
Office of Response & Restoration / Assessment & Restoration Division
LSU Sea Grant Building, Room 1 24B
Baton Rouge, LA 70803
B6 Privacy
(cell)
B6 Privacy
(office) 225-578 -7921
B6 Privacy
(fax)
B6 Privacy
From: Todd Barber <
Date: May 2, 201 0 5:29:40 PM EDT
To: Eugene Shinn < [email protected]>
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [Coral-List] coral and crude oil
Hi Eugene,
The oil on it's way to your coast is not "light sweet crude" like most
other oil from the Gulf of Mexico. . While most of the oil drilled off
Louisiana is a lighter crude, this isn't. It's a heavier blend because
Louisiana is a lighter crude, this isn't. It's a heavier blend because
it comes from deep under the ocean surface. It also emulsifies easily
(mixes with water) which it is doing as it is coming up from 5000 feet
deep.
Thanks,
Todd R Barber
Chairman, Reef Ball Foundation
3305 Edwards Court
Greenville, NC 27858
B6 Privacy
(Direct)
B6 Privacy
(Cell & Goggle Voice)
toddbarber Skype
www,reefball.org (Reef Ball Foundation)
www.artificialreefs.com (Designed Artificial Reefs)
www.reefbeach.com (Reefs for Beach Erosion)
www.eternalreefs.com (Memorial Reefs)
www.reefball.com (Reef Ball Foundation)
On Sun, May 2, 201 0 at 1 1 :39 AM, Eugene Shinn < [email protected]> wrote:
Dear listers here is some information re the effects of crude oil on
coral that may be of use at this crucial time.
With the developing oil disaster in the Gulf I thought a few
healthful. Some of you know my background in the industry and work
with API committees before 1 974. In 1 972 I was sent to Australia to
drilling on coral reefs. I was concerned so in preparation for the
Keys to do some personal in-situ experimenting. Corals on the Barrier
reef flats (including various species of staghorn coral) are exposed
to the air at low tide each day for more than one hour. Since that is
the length of time that corals there are likely to be exposed
directly to floating oil I performed some crude experiments where I
exposed Florida staghorn and star coral directly to oil for one and a
half hours. In these experiments I placed large clear plastic bags
into the bottom. At the same time I placed plastic domes (skylights)
their polyps but the oil would not stick to the coral because of its
mucus. When I removed the oil there was no oil on the coral. Fifteen
days later the corals were living and appeared normal. While at the
hearings in Australia I learned that another researcher wearing a
similar to mine.
After joining the USGS a Masters candidate approached me to do
Island Station we totally submerged ten fragments of living Acropora
cervicornis in Louisiana crude for 2 hrs. We then transported them
(in sea water) to the reef line off Virginia Key, Florida and placed
them in concrete holders in 20 ft of water. When we returned a week
later the corals were alive and appeared healthy. The disappointed
student decided not to continue that project.
In yet another experiment students of Tom Bright from Texas A
and M University conducted an oil experiment on Carysfort reef
lighthouse off Key Largo. A 20-gallon aquarium was filled with
aerated seawater. The aquarium contained two butterfly fish and some
live A. cervicornis branches. A layer of crude oil about one inch
thick was then floated over the coral and fish. Butterfly fish are
see if various fractions of the oil would contaminate the coral and
then be transferred to the flesh of the fish. The fish did pick at
the coral and paid not attention to the overlying layer of crude oil.
After 24 hrs the fish was sacrificed and taken back to Texas A and M
to be analyzed for oil components. I never heard the results and
nothing was published. I simply documented it all on 1 6 mm movie
film.
oil from this spill reaches the Florida Keys the damage will be to
limited mainly to mangrove shoreline habitats, sea birds, and
beaches. Dive boat operations will likely be affected but it will not
harm corals or reef fish.
The crude, which will likely be in the form of tar balls, will
simply float over the areas of living corals. Under no circumstances
should dispersants be used on an oil slick in the vicinity of a coral
reef. Dispersants soluabilize the oil and allow it dissolve in the
water and come in direct contact with coral and fish. In addition,
oil containment booms should not be deployed in the vicinity of coral
reefs because of possible entanglement and physical destruction. The
history of oil spills is that clean up efforts, such as use of live
steam, solvents, and digging, often do more damage than the oil.
The best teacher is history. The Keys and the east coast of the
US were often awash in oil from torpedoed tankers during WWII and
there have been numerous tanker spills and oil from bilge cleaning
over the past 50 years with no documented impact to Florida's coral
reefs. An exception is the disastrous onshore oil tank spill at
Goleta Point, Panama in the early 1 980s. The spill was at the
landward end of a lagoon that opened out to a coral reef being
studied by personnel at the adjacent Smithsonian Institution Marine
Laboratory. Unfortunately surfactants were added to break up and
soluabilize the oil in an enclosed area with poor circulation with
disastrous results. Many reef flat organisms and corals were killed.
Richard Dodge conducted extensive research on the effects of that
spill which is well documented.
In the present case by the time the spilled oil reaches the
Florida Keys (weeks) the more toxic aromatics components will have
evaporated and bacterial breakdown will have reduced the oil to a
sea birds. It will not harm corals or reef fish, Hopefully this
knowledge will relieve some tension and fear for the reefs as the
floating oil nears Florida's coral reefs. Nevertheless be prepared
for one heck of a mess at the shoreline before this is all over. Lets
hope it is over soon. Gene
--
------------------------------------ -----------------------------------
Date: May 4, 201 0 1 0:22:1 3 AM EDT
Subject: [Fwd: [Fwd: Deepwater Horizon - water sampling and chain of custody]]
Subject:[Fwd: Deepwater Horizon - water sampling and chain of custody]
Date:Thu, 29 Apr 201 0 1 2:26:45 -0400
From:Daniel Hahn <[email protected]>
To:Michel Gielazyn <[email protected]>
My connection was crashed out. so I had to send the original from Jill's computer.
Thanks for following this.
Dan
--
M i c he l L. G i e l a z y n, Ph . D.
Re g i ona l Re s ou rc e C oord i na t or
N O A A - A ss e s s m e nt & Re s t ora t i on Di vi si on
2 63 13 t h A v e nu e Sou t h
St . Pe t e rs bu rg , FL 3 3 70 1
B6 Privacy
ph one :
m i c he l . g i e l a z y n@noaa . g ov
2010 0310 l.pdf (136 KB)
WaterSampliOC (32.5 KB)
From: Kristopher Benson < [email protected]>
Date: May 6, 201 0 6:42:24 PM EDT
To: "Daniel.Hahn" < [email protected]>, Tom Moore < [email protected]>
Subject: [Fwd: FW: Protocol for water samples]
FYI, this has the approved safety plan that was used for the water sampling cruise that went out this morning (Dan said he
already had this from the FTP site). From what I understand, they started from the vessel's standard safety plan and added the air
monitoring component. As I mentioned to Dan when we spoke last, the Weatherbird cruise will not be required to have a certified
industrial hygienist on board, but one crew member will be required to man a monitoring instrument for VOCs, and will need to be
trained on the instrument. The instrument can be delivered to the vessel when it is in port in Pensacola. Cheryl Metzler is the
Health & Safety POC for the instrument and training.
Subject: FW: Protocol for water samples
Date:
Thu, 06 May 201 0 1 5:36:06 -0500
From: Jeffrey Wakefield <[email protected]>
To: [email protected] < [email protected]>
**
*Jeffrey R. Wakefield, Ph.D.*
*ENTRIX*
*/Senior Project Resource Economist/*
1 0 Corporate Circle, Suite 300, New Castle, DE 1 9720
DIRECT: B6 Privacy MAIN: B6 Privacy FAX: B6 Privacy
------------------------------------------------------------------------
*From:* Ralph Markarian
*Sent:* Thursday, May 06, 201 0 1 0:43 AM
*To:* Rob Barrick; Kim Sechrist
*Cc:* John Dimitry; Jeffrey Wakefield; Karen Favret; Ryan Holem
*Subject:* RE: Protocol for water samples
I am attaching the cruise plan. The third page has a table of the spill/dup plan. The shallower samples will have two sample
containers filled underwater at the same time. they cannot be mixed at sea due to contamination so the will stay as dups , not
splits based on disc with Jim Payne. the deeper samples will be actual splits since they will be taken in a ten litre sample container
with a ROV. Keep this in mind when following guidance provided by Rob below.
* *
*Ralph Markarian**, Ph.D.*
*ENTRIX*
*/Vice President / Technical Director/*
1 0 Corporate Circle, Suite 300, New Castle, DE 1 9720
DIRECT: B6 Privacy MAIN: B6 Privacy CELL: B6 Privacy
FAX:
B6 Privacy
------------------------------------------------------------------------
*From:* Rob Barrick
*Sent:* Thursday, May 06, 201 0 1 2:1 5 AM
*To:* Kim Sechrist
*Cc:* Ralph Markarian; John Dimitry; Jeffrey Wakefield
*Subject:* RE: Protocol for water samples
Kim because of the large bottle size, after collection of the VOA samples it is helpful to swirl (not agitate) the collection bottles
between each filling of a sample bottle. That was my guidance between half-filling a sample bottle from a deep-water 5-L bottle but
it is appropriate for anything except VOA samples (always collect undisturbed VOAs first). Gentle swirling cant hurt in minimizing
oil heterogeneity when we are collecting partial samples from large bottles.
*Rob*
------------------------------------------------------------------------
*From:* Rob Barrick
*Sent:* Wednesday, May 05, 201 0 9:05 PM
*To:* Kim Sechrist
*Cc:* Ralph Markarian; John Dimitry; Jeffrey Wakefield
*Subject:* Protocol for water samples
*Importance:* High
Ralph and I spoke about your cruise tomorrow and sampling/analytical requirements. Here is my guidance, some of which is
justification for why it is important for a single laboratory, rather than two different laboratories, conduct these analyses:
1 . *All samples should be sent only to B&B*. They have done all of
our most sophisticated and sensitive analyses to date, including
analyses for oil spill modeling at other sites. In addition,
analyses for oil spill modeling at other sites. In addition,
having the same laboratory conduct all analyses on the same sample
is important to eliminate uncertainties associated with unknown
interlaboratory variability. With these particular samples, the
more uncertainty we can eliminate, the better. That need far
outweighs any concern over a potential catastrophic loss of a
sample, and this potential can be minimized so it is essentially
no larger sending both samples to one laboratory versus two
laboratories.
2. *Sample shipping*:
Pack so that bottles for each sampling depth are in different coolers, even if coolers are only partially filled. In that way, if one
cooler is lost, only samples for one sampling depth are lost.
For shipping and analyzing DEEP WATER samples
Pack the duplicate deep water samples in separate coolers
Ship both coolers to B&B but on separate days so that if a shipping incident occurs on one day, only one cooler would be
affected.
Request B&B to place the shipments in separate storage units until processed
Request B&B to process the samples in separate analytical batches so that if an incident occurs at the laboratory, only one
sample would be affected. We cannot control whether something happens that causes both samples to be destroyed in separate
accidents but not only has that never occurred, I cannot recall when we have ever irreplaceably lost any sample in processing at
B&B.
3. *Shallow water sample collection*: Ralph and I did not talk
about this but if not time-prohibitive (because they are
relatively shallow), I would recommend collecting two full sets of
duplicate samples and sending the two sets of duplicates in two
separate sets of coolers. In other words, at depth A, place
duplicate samples into a cooler for shipment and a second set of
duplicate samples into a second cooler for shipment. This is
essentially the same level of protection recommended below for
the one set of duplicate deep water samples because they are so
costly to collect. If not feasible to collect two sets of
duplicates out of an overabundance of caution for the shallow
samples, then I think it would be OK to settle for just separate
shipping of duplicate samples from each depth (with careful
packing as usual).
4. *Deep water sample collection*:
I recommend collecting the deep water sample using a 1 0-L bottle so that the duplicate samples can be taken as splits from a
single bottle. There is little value in an ephemeral field duplicate, and in fact, that could lead to more issues than taking a
reasonably controlled split sample from one bottle. First collect duplicate VOA samples, then the remaining samples.**
If a 1 0-L bottle cannot be used, then collect duplicate samples using two 5-L bottles but in the following procedure that will help
obtain homogenized samples: First collect both VOA samples from _one_ of the two 5-L bottles (pick either one). This is different
than what Ralph and I discussed but will meet objectives better and is a negligible percentage of the total bottle volume. Next,
swirl each of the 5-L collection bottle to make sure the contents are mixed (do this _after_ collecting the VOAs). For each of the
remaining sample bottles, fill _half_ from each of the two 5-L collection bottles so that each duplicate has 50:50 water from the two
5-L collection bottles. **
As Ralph noted in his e-mail, be sure to take a SAT PHONE with you so we can communicate if needed. Please call anytime with
questions about this or anything that I probably have left out.
* *
*Thanks!*
*Rob*
*Robert C. Barrick*
*ENTRIX*
*/Senior Consultant / Senior Associate/*
200 First Avenue West, Suite 500, Seattle, WA 981 1 9
DIRECT: B6 Privacy CELL: B6 Privacy FAX: B6 Privacy

EMAIL: [email protected] < mailto:[email protected]> WEBSITE: www.entrix.com < http://www.entrix.com>
ENTRIX, Inc. is a professional environmental and natural resource management consulting company specializing in
water resources management, environmental and natural resource liability management (ENRLM), natural resources
management and NEPA/state compliance and permitting.
Confidential - This electronic mail communication may contain privileged and confidential attorney-client information
and attorney work products. If you received this electronic communication in error or are not the intended recipient,
please delete this communication without using, copying, or otherwise disseminating it. Please notify sender that you
received this communication in error.
Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail.
Signed NRD Sampling.pdf
Kristopher_Bn.vcf (0.3 KB)
From: DWHNRDA < [email protected]>
Date: May 7, 201 0 6:55:29 PM EDT
To: [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected],
[email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected],
[email protected], Craig.R.O'[email protected], [email protected], [email protected],
[email protected], [email protected], [email protected],
[email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected],
[email protected], karen_battle [email protected], [email protected], [email protected],
[email protected], [email protected], [email protected], msw1 [email protected],
[email protected], [email protected], [email protected], Jim Payne
< [email protected]>, Tom Moore < [email protected]>
Subject: Fwd: [Fwd: [Fwd: Marine Science Review 371 : Special Edition - Oil and Oil Spills - Gulf of Mexico]]
Forward from Lisa Dipinto.
This Special Edition of Marine Science Review is a compilation of literature references regarding impacts of oil relevant to the
Deep Horizon spill.
Subject:
Marine Science Review 371 : Special Edition - Oil and Oil Spills - Gulf of Mexico
Date: Fri, 07 May 201 0 1 2:40:54 -0400 (EDT)
From: SeaWeb < [email protected]>
Reply-To:
[email protected]
Backtotop
Header: Marine Science Review E-newsletter
SeaWeb < http://r20.rs6.net/tn.jsp?
et=1 1 03373799882&s=1 856&e=001 yH9_zzOulkfDBxXnRBbUj5i9bnO3uiVOg8x8ReyiEEF4caYtK1 wELuRyy2GdIGAVaN8Ckak6p8
B0TM6AgQf3ZxeLJJzCuX1 OF0HkcdK8mNyDPVe7lpFpi1 owZVOytKQJ> | E-subscriptions < http://r20.rs6.net/tn.jsp?
et=1 1 03373799882&s=1 856&e=001 yH9_zzOulke_yaLna7hw8-zupU_QWPaIY6RinBhdx0vPbh3s-
4qS6ks3uaFlsp76Q4YV0oilVuLpeM0Fy3BQXxBX4McqF3anc5RHLDW4vi7em-
hGoQQywDiQAeQ1 yxk0TPJOpo3XVwZWd_kNzHZQUw==> | Ocean Citations < http://r20.rs6.net/tn.jsp?
et=1 1 03373799882&s=1 856&e=001 yH9_zzOulkcpLMky7oB_jwvldVEmTlq1 o--d3A-RiIuLSfEtH7RVKiic4GYR1 cfwH969UwP-
GYmZe9eYWAq1 sXmAqb9wVoMnKxYRebp4JLNx0vdXC1 t9eSqENtjsNhEqyG6qJnRA_MynBbNksJuyhhEi1 GJbCHLp> | Ocean
News <http://r20.rs6.net/tn.jsp?et=1 1 03373799882&s=1 856&e=001 yH9_zzOulkcavSsl_UGgqIGbHRTqx5-
3ONhveiy4jHSpHlLIUcoBnDmK49zE8-yhjPPTNkkMrJIQE3GS5Z9dK5sVfBNt57RKyy--qVfmYkQLnkvKMwavUUXXu0xZhigU> |
Contact Us < http://r20.rs6.net/tn.jsp?
et=1 1 03373799882&s=1 856&e=001 yH9_zzOulkcuqYLFw77R1 WEsV_WhJyhYvrmWj1 jY5pKopNf1 65R5ERjYYWBpG7mTUOhcbv
auX2J5MQXEJlMERUmXXBkJEdjglSSCh5I3MYtrtP3no4c2x4iG-F9cY5Rh860p91 -3nhE=>
Marine Science Review 371 : Special edition
Oil and oil spills - the Gulf of Mexico
Please click here to download the full edition (pdf) of Marine Science Review 371 < http://r20.rs6.net/tn.jsp?
et=1 1 03373799882&s=1 856&e=001 yH9_zzOulke_z8EMAWw1 bKwIVwbC_2Vy4zo0ok_qzmC9GPT0TP5PvtcsP55QBwjjRN1 Sk7jf
FdV0h1 F673uekVXWP1 cpm3aGBBgeSdB0wEusdh_e648xz3GQz4HiKq2XNab7as56R3M2O_coW8h_83w_ddU2Zr3CkKU3_BAip
rd1 f65O5AqNglBx3cz7rCJKvTFgu8wnAwA=>
In order to support the response efforts to the ongoing oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico SeaWeb
has assembled relevant literature from the last three decades which provide insights not only
to the impact of oil on the marine and coastal environment in the Gulf of Mexico, but high-
lights experiences, issues and research from similar oil spills in other regions of the world.
Please let us know if there are relevant papers to add to this list. We will update this review
and make it available at: http://www.seaweb.org/resources/msr.php < http://r20.rs6.net/tn.jsp?
et=1 1 03373799882&s=1 856&e=001 yH9_zzOulkeByFFM0y08s-
1 75nrMjeaON48ooDrHh6P1 Yyd0L57e3doLahQVAsGfY4QvIITKtGkjJ251 NCxoSxh1 p0dmVAtt7BFkmGRqrqe0lXDOg6AnShUemrri
Glz3TaE6j0H2M4o=>
SeaWeb will produce special editions of the Marine Science Review in response to significant ocean events or issues to ensure
that any activities, efforts and media are underpinned by
sound science.
In this review:
A. * *Impacts on human health
B. * *Impacts on marine and coastal birds
C. * *Impacts on marine mammals
D. * *Impacts on sea turtles
E. * *Impacts on fish and invertebrates
F. Impacts on coral and coral reefs
G. Impacts on mangroves, salt marshes and seagrasses
H. Previous oil spills
I. Impacts of hydrocarbon production in the Gulf of Mexico
J. Future considerations
__________________________________________________________________
A. Impacts on human health
Review on the effects of exposure to spilled oils on human
health.
Symptomatic profile and health-related quality of life of
persons affected by the Prestige catastrophe.
B. Impacts on marine and coastal birds
Assessing the impact of major oil spills on seabird populations.
Pathological features in marine birds affected by the
Prestige's oil spill in the north of Spain.
Survival and dispersal of oiled brown pelicans after
rehabilitation and release.
Consequences of petrochemical ingestion and stress on the
immune system of seabirds.
Birds and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons.
An evaluation of marine bird population trends following the
Exxon Valdez oil spill, Prince William Sound, Alaska.
C. Impacts on marine mammals
Synthesis of effects of oil on marine mammals.
Ongoing population-level impacts on killer whales Orcinus
orca following the 'Exxon Valdez' oil spill in Prince
William Sound, Alaska.
D. Impacts on sea turtles
Oil and sea turtles: Biology, planning, and response.
E. Impacts on fish and invertebrates
A perspective on the toxicity of petrogenic PAHs to
developing fish embryos related to environmental chemistry.
Chronic sublethal effects associated with branched
alkylbenzenes bioaccumulated by mussels.
Toxicity of seawater and sand affected by the Prestige
fuel-oil spill using bivalve and sea urchin embryogenesis
bioassays.
Comparative toxicity of oil, dispersant, and oil plus
dispersant to several marine species.
Long-term biological effects of petroleum residues on
fiddler crabs in salt marshes.
Toxic effects of unresolved complex mixtures of aromatic
hydrocarbons accumulated by mussels, Mytilus edulis, from
contaminated field sites.
Effects of exposure to petroleum hydrocarbons upon the
metabolism of the common sole Solea solea.
Oil pollution on coral reefs: A review of the state of
knowledge and management needs.
Oil spills in coral reefs: Planning and response
considerations.
Short and long term toxicity of crude oil and oil
dispersants to two representative coral species.
Toxicity of third generation dispersants and dispersed
Egyptian crude oil on Red Sea coral larvae.
Effects of chronic oil-sediment pollution on the
reproduction of the Caribbean reef coral Siderastrea siderea.
Short-term ecological consequences of a major oil spill on
Panamanian subtidal reef corals.
Injury, regeneration and growth of Caribbean reef corals
after a major oil spill in Panama.
Oil spills in mangroves: Planning and response considerations.
Long-term consequences of residual petroleum on salt marsh
grass.
Nonnutrient anthropogenic chemicals in seagrass ecosystems:
Fate and effects.
Ecological effects of a major oil spill on Panamanian
coastal marine communities.
The fate of Amoco Cadiz oil.
The impact of the "Sea Empress" oil spill.
The Prestige oil spill and its economic impact on the
Galician fishing sector.
Estimated costs and admissible claims linked to the Prestige
oil spill.
Long-term ecosystem response to the Exxon Valdez oil spill.
Long-term persistence of oil from the Exxon Valdez spill in
two-layer beaches.
A review of ecological impacts of oil and gas development on
coastal ecosystems in the Mississippi Delta.
Evidence of regional subsidence and associated interior
wetland loss induced by hydrocarbon production, Gulf Coast
region, USA.
Trouble on oiled waters: Lessons from the Exxon Valdez oil
spill.
An international comparison of governmental disclosure of
hydrocarbon spills from offshore oil and gas installations.
o Ensuring persistence of marine reserves: Catastrophes
require adopting an insurance factor.
__________________________________________________________________
et=1 1 03373799882&s=1 856&e=001 yH9_zzOulke_z8EMAWw1 bKwIVwbC_2Vy4zo0ok_qzmC9GPT0TP5PvtcsP55QBwjjRN1 Sk7jf
FdV0h1 F673uekVXWP1 cpm3aGBBgeSdB0wEusdh_e648xz3GQz4HiKq2XNab7as56R3M2O_coW8h_83w_ddU2Zr3CkKU3_BAip
rd1 f65O5AqNglBx3cz7rCJKvTFgu8wnAwA=>
Back to top <#Backtotop>
Modify your SeaWeb E-newsletter Preferences and Profile. < http://r20.rs6.net/tn.jsp?
et=1 1 03373799882&s=1 856&e=001 yH9_zzOulkcvrm9zuMMuUXZQTLJrZYTlGV6CzBLUF1 BOYLejx40YCvBYgCTg41 -
StHocGZPIaa2By5VDExFuKLwNJla04ux3gwAc0cPzw_oFt4jRjjHwb9L3QtdsIfb2tVmyTt1 uK23KPT2XZJgR4g==>
Forward this email < http://ui.constantcontact.com/sa/fwtf.jsp?
m=1 1 01 734456442&a=1 1 03373799882&ea=john.cubit%40noaa.gov>
*Forward email* < http://ui.constantcontact.com/sa/fwtf.jsp?m=1 1 01 734456442&ea=john.cubit%40noaa.gov&a=1 1 03373799882>
This email was sent to [email protected], by [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
To permanently close your SeaWeb Account, Click Here < http://visitor.constantcontact.com/d.jsp?v=001 QlflZB9bhPw -
yncAyqfeyt_mhmSwCsgRvUWqOxyAiH6GAv4SZrJyNMuX-C6Gkllz7BKq1 QqbFdV4bBYRjNCqZw%3D%3D&p=un> | Privacy
Policy < http://ui.constantcontact.com/roving/CCPrivacyPolicy.jsp>
SeaWeb | 8401 Colesville Rd. | Suite 500 | Silver Spring | MD | 2091 0
--
John Cubit, Ph.D.
Regional Resource Coordinator, Southwest Region
NOAA Assessment and Restoration Division, Suite 4470 501 W. Ocean Blvd. Long Beach, CA 90802
[email protected] tel 562 980-4081 fax 562 980-4084
Cell phone (for urgent matters and travel contact B6 Privacy
--
Lisa DiPinto, Ph.D. Acting Marine Debris Division Chief
Office of Response and Restoration Marine Debris Division
1 305 East West Highway Rm 1 021 8 Silver Spring, MD 2091 0 phone: 301 -71 3 -4248x1 87 cell:
http://marinedebris.noaa.gov
B6 Privacy
fax:
B6 Privacy
From: "John.Cubit" < [email protected]>
Date: May 7, 201 0 7:56:24 PM EDT
To: Greg Baker < [email protected]>, Ann Bailey < [email protected]>, Rob Ricker < [email protected]>, Laurie
Sullivan < [email protected]>, Robert Haddad < [email protected]>, Daniel Hahn < [email protected]>,
Tom Moore < [email protected]>, Troy Baker < [email protected]>
Subject: Re: [Fwd: Marine Science Review 371 : Special Edition - Oil and Oil Spills - Gulf of Mexico]
Greg,
Regarding your questions on the toxicity of dispersants and dispersant/oil mixtures, here are two fairly recent references regarding
impacts of oil and dispersants on coral reefs. The first one reports the results of toxicity bioassays of dispersants and dispersant-
oil mixtures on corals and may have references to related toxicological studies. The second is a broader literature review. I have
also written coral ecologists working on the Great Barrier Reef to see if they have observed any mortality connected to the
spraying of dispersants on the the oil that leaked from the Shen Neng 1 coal carrier that grounded there recently. (I haven't
received a reply yet.)
John
Shafir, S., Van Rijn, J., and Rinkevich, B. Short and long term toxicity of crude oil and oil dispersants to two
representative coral species. Environmental Science and Technology 41 (1 5): 5571 -5574, 2007.
Notes: Oil dispersants, the tool of choice for treating oil spills in tropical marine environments, is potentially harmful to
marine life, including reef corals. In a previous study, we found that dispersed oil and oil dispersants are harmful to soft and
hard coral species at early life stages. In this broader study, we employed a ''nubbin assay'' on more than 1 0 000 coral
fragments to evaluate the short- and long-term impacts of dispersed oil fractions (DOFs) from six commercial dispersants, the
dispersants and water-soluble -fractions (WSFs) of Egyptian crude oil, on two Indo Pacific branching coral species, Stylophora
pistillata and Pocillopora damicornis. Survivorship and growth of nubbins were recorded for up to 50 days following a single, short
(24 h) exposure to toxicants in various concentrations. Manufacturer-recommended dispersant concentrations proved to be
highly toxic and resulted in mortality for all nubbins. The dispersed oil and the dispersants were significantly more toxic than
crude oil WSFs. As corals are particularly susceptible to oil detergents and dispersed oil, the results of these assays rules out the
use of any oil dispersant in coral reefs and in their vicinity. The ecotoxicological impacts of the various dispersants on the
corals could be rated on a scale from the least to the most harmful agent, as follows: Slickgone > Petrotech > Inipol =
Biorieco > Emulgal > Dispolen.
-------------------------
Haapkyla, J., Ramade, F., and Salvat, B. Oil pollution on coral reefs: a review of the state of knowledge and
management needs. Vie et Mileau 57(1 -2): 95-1 1 1 , 2007. O/A
Notes: This paper reviews the current state of knowledge of the effects that oil pollution has on scleractinian corals. A review
of results obtained in laboratory as well as in field conditions are given and suitable management tools are discussed. Studies
made in the 1 970s and 1 980s presented conflicting results regarding the impacts of oil on coral physiology, but later results
confirmed the detrimental effect of oil on corals. The world's coral reefs are severely threatened by an array of factors, one of
which is oil pollution. More laboratory and field work with current oils and dispersants is urgently needed in order to update
our knowledge in this field and reduce impacts in case of a major oil spill on coral reefs.
Greg Baker wrote:
Greg Baker wrote:
Thanks John. From a quick glance, there don't appear to be articles about evaluations of oil / dispersant mixtures, one topic that
we're scrambling to get our arms around. Is dispersant / oil mixture any more toxic (do dispersants add additional toxic agents to
the mix, or do they simply physically change the already present oil constituents?). Do we need to analyze water column
samples for additional analytes beyond our normal set? I'm in discussions with Ann Bailey and others on this -
Greg B
John.Cubit wrote:
This Special Edition of Marine Science Review is a compilation of literature references regarding impacts of oil relevant to the
Deep Horizon spill.
Subject: Marine Science Review 371 : Special Edition - Oil and Oil Spills - Gulf of Mexico
Date: Fri, 07 May 201 0 1 2:40:54 -0400 (EDT)
From: SeaWeb < [email protected]>
Reply-To: [email protected]
Backtotop
Header: Marine Science Review E-newsletter
SeaWeb < http://r20.rs6.net/tn.jsp?
et=1 1 03373799882&s=1 856&e=001 yH9_zzOulkfDBxXnRBbUj5i9bnO3uiVOg8x8ReyiEEF4caYtK1 wELuRyy2GdIGAVaN8Ckak
6p8B0TM6AgQf3ZxeLJJzCuX1 OF0HkcdK8mNyDPVe7lpFpi1 owZVOytKQJ> | E-subscriptions < http://r20.rs6.net/tn.jsp?
et=1 1 03373799882&s=1 856&e=001 yH9_zzOulke_yaLna7hw8-zupU_QWPaIY6RinBhdx0vPbh3s-
4qS6ks3uaFlsp76Q4YV0oilVuLpeM0Fy3BQXxBX4McqF3anc5RHLDW4vi7em-
hGoQQywDiQAeQ1 yxk0TPJOpo3XVwZWd_kNzHZQUw==> | Ocean Citations < http://r20.rs6.net/tn.jsp?
et=1 1 03373799882&s=1 856&e=001 yH9_zzOulkcpLMky7oB_jwvldVEmTlq1 o--d3A-RiIuLSfEtH7RVKiic4GYR1 cfwH969UwP-
GYmZe9eYWAq1 sXmAqb9wVoMnKxYRebp4JLNx0vdXC1 t9eSqENtjsNhEqyG6qJnRA_MynBbNksJuyhhEi1 GJbCHLp> |
Ocean News < http://r20.rs6.net/tn.jsp?et=1 1 03373799882&s=1 856&e=001 yH9_zzOulkcavSsl_UGgqIGbHRTqx5-
3ONhveiy4jHSpHlLIUcoBnDmK49zE8-yhjPPTNkkMrJIQE3GS5Z9dK5sVfBNt57RKyy--qVfmYkQLnkvKMwavUUXXu0xZhigU>
| Contact Us < http://r20.rs6.net/tn.jsp?
et=1 1 03373799882&s=1 856&e=001 yH9_zzOulkcuqYLFw77R1 WEsV_WhJyhYvrmWj1 jY5pKopNf1 65R5ERjYYWBpG7mTUOh
cbvauX2J5MQXEJlMERUmXXBkJEdjglSSCh5I3MYtrtP3no4c2x4iG -F9cY5Rh860p91 -3nhE=>
Marine Science Review 371 : Special edition
Oil and oil spills - the Gulf of Mexico
et=1 1 03373799882&s=1 856&e=001 yH9_zzOulke_z8EMAWw1 bKwIVwbC_2Vy4zo0ok_qzmC9GPT0TP5PvtcsP55QBwjjRN1 S
k7jfFdV0h1 F673uekVXWP1 cpm3aGBBgeSdB0wEusdh_e648xz3GQz4HiKq2XNab7as56R3M2O_coW8h_83w_ddU2Zr3CkKU
3_BAiprd1 f65O5AqNglBx3cz7rCJKvTFgu8wnAwA=>
In order to support the response efforts to the ongoing oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico SeaWeb
has assembled relevant literature from the last three decades which provide insights not only
to the impact of oil on the marine and coastal environment in the Gulf of Mexico, but high-
lights experiences, issues and research from similar oil spills in other regions of the world.
Please let us know if there are relevant papers to add to this list. We will update this review
and make it available at: http://www.seaweb.org/resources/msr.php < http://r20.rs6.net/tn.jsp?
et=1 1 03373799882&s=1 856&e=001 yH9_zzOulkeByFFM0y08s-
1 75nrMjeaON48ooDrHh6P1 Yyd0L57e3doLahQVAsGfY4QvIITKtGkjJ251 NCxoSxh1 p0dmVAtt7BFkmGRqrqe0lXDOg6AnShUe
mrriGlz3TaE6j0H2M4o=>
SeaWeb will produce special editions of the Marine Science Review in response to significant ocean events or issues to
ensure that any activities, efforts and media are underpinned by
sound science.
In this review:
A. * *Impacts on human health
B. * *Impacts on marine and coastal birds
C. * *Impacts on marine mammals
D. * *Impacts on sea turtles
E. * *Impacts on fish and invertebrates
__________________________________________________________________
A. Impacts on human health
Review on the effects of exposure to spilled oils on human
health.
Symptomatic profile and health-related quality of life of
persons affected by the Prestige catastrophe.
B. Impacts on marine and coastal birds
Assessing the impact of major oil spills on seabird
populations.
Pathological features in marine birds affected by the
Prestige's oil spill in the north of Spain.
Survival and dispersal of oiled brown pelicans after
rehabilitation and release.
Consequences of petrochemical ingestion and stress on the
Birds and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons.
An evaluation of marine bird population trends following
the Exxon Valdez oil spill, Prince William Sound, Alaska.
C. Impacts on marine mammals
Synthesis of effects of oil on marine mammals.
Ongoing population-level impacts on killer whales Orcinus
orca following the 'Exxon Valdez' oil spill in Prince
William Sound, Alaska.
D. Impacts on sea turtles
Oil and sea turtles: Biology, planning, and response.
E. Impacts on fish and invertebrates
A perspective on the toxicity of petrogenic PAHs to
developing fish embryos related to environmental chemistry.
alkylbenzenes bioaccumulated by mussels.
Toxicity of seawater and sand affected by the Prestige
fuel-oil spill using bivalve and sea urchin embryogenesis
bioassays.
Comparative toxicity of oil, dispersant, and oil plus
dispersant to several marine species.
Long-term biological effects of petroleum residues on
fiddler crabs in salt marshes.
Toxic effects of unresolved complex mixtures of aromatic
hydrocarbons accumulated by mussels, Mytilus edulis, from
contaminated field sites.
Effects of exposure to petroleum hydrocarbons upon the
metabolism of the common sole Solea solea.
Oil pollution on coral reefs: A review of the state of
knowledge and management needs.
Oil spills in coral reefs: Planning and response
considerations.
Short and long term toxicity of crude oil and oil
dispersants to two representative coral species.
Toxicity of third generation dispersants and dispersed
Egyptian crude oil on Red Sea coral larvae.
Effects of chronic oil-sediment pollution on the
reproduction of the Caribbean reef coral Siderastrea
siderea.
Short-term ecological consequences of a major oil spill on
Panamanian subtidal reef corals.
Injury, regeneration and growth of Caribbean reef corals
after a major oil spill in Panama.
Oil spills in mangroves: Planning and response considerations.
Long-term consequences of residual petroleum on salt marsh
grass.
Nonnutrient anthropogenic chemicals in seagrass
ecosystems: Fate and effects.
Ecological effects of a major oil spill on Panamanian
coastal marine communities.
The fate of Amoco Cadiz oil.
The impact of the "Sea Empress" oil spill.
The Prestige oil spill and its economic impact on the
Galician fishing sector.
Estimated costs and admissible claims linked to the
Prestige oil spill.
Long-term ecosystem response to the Exxon Valdez oil spill.
Long-term persistence of oil from the Exxon Valdez spill
in two-layer beaches.
A review of ecological impacts of oil and gas development
on coastal ecosystems in the Mississippi Delta.
Evidence of regional subsidence and associated interior
wetland loss induced by hydrocarbon production, Gulf Coast
region, USA.
Trouble on oiled waters: Lessons from the Exxon Valdez oil
spill.
An international comparison of governmental disclosure of
hydrocarbon spills from offshore oil and gas installations.
o Ensuring persistence of marine reserves: Catastrophes
require adopting an insurance factor.
__________________________________________________________________
et=1 1 03373799882&s=1 856&e=001 yH9_zzOulke_z8EMAWw1 bKwIVwbC_2Vy4zo0ok_qzmC9GPT0TP5PvtcsP55QBwjjRN1 S
k7jfFdV0h1 F673uekVXWP1 cpm3aGBBgeSdB0wEusdh_e648xz3GQz4HiKq2XNab7as56R3M2O_coW8h_83w_ddU2Zr3CkKU
3_BAiprd1 f65O5AqNglBx3cz7rCJKvTFgu8wnAwA=>
Back to top <#Backtotop>
Modify your SeaWeb E-newsletter Preferences and Profile. < http://r20.rs6.net/tn.jsp?
et=1 1 03373799882&s=1 856&e=001 yH9_zzOulkcvrm9zuMMuUXZQTLJrZYTlGV6CzBLUF1 BOYLejx40YCvBYgCTg41 -
StHocGZPIaa2By5VDExFuKLwNJla04ux3gwAc0cPzw_oFt4jRjjHwb9L3QtdsIfb2tVmyTt1 uK23KPT2XZJgR4g==>
Forward this email < http://ui.constantcontact.com/sa/fwtf.jsp?
m=1 1 01 734456442&a=1 1 03373799882&ea=john.cubit%40noaa.gov>
*Forward email* < http://ui.constantcontact.com/sa/fwtf.jsp?
m=1 1 01 734456442&ea=john.cubit%40noaa.gov&a=1 1 03373799882>
This email was sent to [email protected], by [email protected] < mailto:[email protected]>
To permanently close your SeaWeb Account, Click Here <http://visitor.constantcontact.com/d.jsp?v=001 QlflZB9bhPw -
yncAyqfeyt_mhmSwCsgRvUWqOxyAiH6GAv4SZrJyNMuX-C6Gkllz7BKq1 QqbFdV4bBYRjNCqZw%3D%3D&p=un> | Privacy
Policy < http://ui.constantcontact.com/roving/CCPrivacyPolicy.jsp>
SeaWeb | 8401 Colesville Rd. | Suite 500 | Silver Spring | MD | 2091 0
--
John Cubit, Ph.D.
NOAA Assessment and Restoration Division, Suite 4470 501 W. Ocean Blvd. Long Beach, CA 90802 [email protected]
tel 562 980-4081 fax 562 980-4084 Cell phone (for urgent matters and travel contact) B6 Privacy
--
John Cubit, Ph.D.
NOAA Assessment and Restoration Division, Suite 4470 501 W. Ocean Blvd. Long Beach, CA 90802 [email protected] tel
562 980 -4081 fax 562 980 -4084 Cell phone (for urgent matters and travel contact) B6 Privacy
Date: May 8, 201 0 6:06:06 PM EDT
To: Kara Radabaugh <

>
B6 Privacy
Subject: Fwd: Draft SEAMAP/SIPPER Cruise Strategy -
Background on why we are doing the cruise from our modeler... One of Debbie's folks is also on the cruise.
Sent from my iPad
On May 8, 201 0, at 1 0:52 AM, Ernst Peebles < [email protected]> wrote:
I just read this - they were on schedule yesterday afternoon but I see they are are behind schedule now (4 stations/day
instead of 5-6). Would you consider a touch-and -go for samples followed by a regular port call on Tuesday or
Wednesday? The existing crew could stay out there working in the rough weather, and then we could do leg 2 in better
conditions. Ernst
X -USFCMS-MailScanner-Watermark: 1 2739291 1 5.1 998@8hxqYc7f7AnjtqIrq9B60A
Date: Sat, 08 May 201 0 09:1 1 :54 -0400
From: Randy Maxson < [email protected]>
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.24 (Windows/201 00228)
To: Tom Moore <[email protected]>
CC: Ernst Peebles < [email protected]>,
Maxson Randy FIO < [email protected]>,
"hahn >> Daniel Hahn" < [email protected]>,
Kristopher Benson < [email protected]>,
"Hogarth, Bill" < [email protected]>,
Sandra Vargo < [email protected]>,
Rob Walker < [email protected]>,
"mattheww >> Matthew White" <[email protected]>,
[email protected]
Subject: Re: HAZOPPER Monday @ 1 600
X -USFCMS-MailScanner-Information: Please contact [email protected] for more information
X -USFCMS-MailScanner: Not scanned
X -USFCMS-MailScanner-From: [email protected]
X -Spam-Status: No
Tom will have transit time to you shortly. Just spoke with the Captain. They are 48 nm south of Cape San Blas, ops
normal. They completed three stations during the past 24 hours (stas 81 4, 81 3 & 81 6). There was some difficulty with a
trawl net yesterday that required swapping out a net that ate up a lot of time. They have completed 8 stations in the past
48 hours.
Randy
Tom Moore wrote:
Randy,
That is completely understandable and of course crew and vessel safety is our first priority. If you get a first light
departure from Pensacola what is the transit time to 28.51 666, -87.1 9748.
Thanks
Tom
Sent from my iPad
On May 8, 201 0, at 7:51 AM, Randy Maxson < [email protected]> wrote:
Ernst / Tom, the port call and HAZWOPPER training is going to be a disruption to the normal watch /sleep rotation
for the crew. It will be in the best interest of crew and vessel safety if the ship lays inport overnight and departs first
thing Tuesday morning.
Tom Moore wrote:
It turns out getting the HAZWOPPER training arranged was more difficult then expected. After a bit of back and
forth I was able to arrange for the course to take place on the WB at 1 600. They say it is a 6 hour training but told
me it will likly be done in 4.
Thank you very much for everyones flexablity.
Tom
Sent from my wireless...
--
Randy Maxson
Marine Superindendent
The Florida Institute of Oceanography
830 First Street South
St Petersburg, FL. 33701
727-553
-1 1 00
B6 Privacy
B6 Privacy
fax
B6 Privacy
cell
[email protected]
www.marine.usf.edu/FIO
--
Randy Maxson
Marine Superindendent
The Florida Institute of Oceanography
830 First Street South
St Petersburg, FL. 33701
727-553
-1 1 00
B6 Privacy
B6 Privacy
fax
B6 Privacy
cell
[email protected]
www.marine.usf.edu/FIO
_____________________________
Ernst Peebles, Ph.D.
USF College of Marine Science
office phone: (727) 553 -3983
lab phone:
B6 Privacy
B6 Privacy
fax
_____________________________
--
Daniel Hahn, Ph.D.
Regional Resource Coordinator
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Assessment & Restoration Division, SE Region
email: [email protected]
Phone: (727) 551 -571 5
Fax:
B6 Privacy
B6 Privacy
Cell:
M/V Jack Fitz
Official Number 1074297
MAIN PARTICULARS
ACCOMMODATIONS
Length Overall:
Beam:
Depth:
Light Draft:
Freeboard:
Clear Deck Space:
Staterooms: 6
Berths: 20
Galley Seating: 10
165
36
12
510
2 3
3090 sq ft 103 x 30
ELECTRONICS
DP System: MT DP-1 W/Joystick
Gyro: (2) SG Brown
CAPCATIES
2 RM Young Wind Tracker & Sensor
Deck Cargo:
500 Lt
Radars (2): Furuno 1932 Mark 2
Cargo Water:
AIS: Furuno FA100
81,500 US Gallons
Fuel:
52,800/124,200 US Gallons
Radios
Potable Water:
VHF (3): Standard Horizon GX1500S
10,000 US Gallons
Lube Oil:
GPS (2): Furuno GP 32
1,300 US Gallons
3,600 US Gallons
Dirty Oil:
(1): C-Nav 2050
Sewage:
DGPS (1): C-Nav 1000 GNSS Receiver
3,000 US Gallons
Liquid Mud:
71,400 US Gallons/1,700 bls
Navtex: Furuno NX-300
Walk In Cooler:
YES
GMDSS: Felcom 15 Inmarsat C
2 FM8800 w/DSC
Fathometer: Datamarine International Offshore
Machinery
Auto Pilot: Comm Nav 1001
Main Engines (2):

Caterpillar 3508 MTU
Iridium Sat Phone: 881621416003
Horsepower:
1610 hp
B6 Privacy
Reduction Gears:
Twin Disk MG626
International Sat Services, Mitsubishi Sat
Bow Thruster:
Schottel
Phone: B6 Privacy
Propellers:
4 Bid Brz
Advanced Logistics SAMM System
Generators (2):
Delco 99 kw 480 Volts
REGISTRATION
Driven By:
Caterpillar 3304
Flag:
Fire Monitor:
4 Ekhart
US
Fuel Consumption:
Home Port:
Golden Meadow, La
GPH @ 12 knots:
67 US Gallons
Call Sign:
WCZ2375
52 US Gallons
Master Boat Builders
GPH @ 10 knots:
Builder:
Fuel Pump:
Barnes 10cce
Year Built:
1999
Maximum Discharge 150 gpm @ 80 Head
Jack Fitz ABSpdf (36.3 KB)
M C 252_Incipproved.pdf
Date: May 1 0, 201 0 1 0:43:48 PM EDT
To: Debbie French McCay < [email protected]>
Cc: "hahn >> Daniel Hahn" < [email protected]>, Stephanie Willis < [email protected]>, Andrew Remsen
< [email protected]>, "David L. Jones" < [email protected]>, Melanie Schroeder < [email protected]>
Subject: DH - Plume Area SIPPER Transects
Debbie,
Since our conversation earlier today I have spoken with the folks who control water access near the site. They are very willing to
work with us, but it certainly seems the closer we are to the action the more highly scrutinized are activities will be. They are
willing to let us be flexible with planning but I also get the impression that depending on what is going on any given day we may
only get one time slot for the plume. Our time around the plume may also conflict with dispersant application so we need to get in
and out.
In order to get as much information as possible I was thinking we could request a 4-6 hour time slot (however long SIPPER can
stay in with out a battery change), put SIPPER in the water once and try to hit three transects (without taking SIPPER out of the
water) downstream of whatever directions the current is pushing the plume. If we try to do the tic/tac/toe pattern it sounds like we
will need multiple entry authorizations and likely will need to recover/redeploy SIPPER losing a bunch of time. In this process they
should also be able to pull some snapshots and see if we are getting the droplet size info that is needed.
Attached is a graphic of what I was thinking:
For the "D" stations the SIMOPS folks are likely to give us access to a "box" for a period of time (~4-6 Hours). I figured we would
setup a North box and South box and then tell the team to sample them as effectively as possible in the given time. SIMOPS will
be flexible on the box location as the oil moves, but we likely need to lock in by Thursday at 1 800. For purposes of giving BP a
graphic I was going to send the following (adjusted from previous based on SE winds and currents to the East). That said they
understand the box location and what happens inside of it is fluid and asked just for an example schematic. Below is what I was
going to send if you concur.
--------------------------------------------------------
Tom Moore
263 1 3th Ave South
B6 Privacy
B6 Privacy
Office
Cell
From: Debbie French McCay < [email protected]>
Date: May 1 1 , 201 0 1 2:26:08 AM EDT
Cc: "hahn >> Daniel Hahn" < [email protected]>, Stephanie Willis < [email protected]>, Andrew Remsen
< [email protected]>, "David L. Jones" < [email protected]>, Melanie Schroeder < [email protected]>
Subject: RE: DH - Plume Area SIPPER Transects
Tom,
Your design and logic make sense to me. When I drew the tic/tack/toe pattern when I had only ADCP data on the currents at the
wellhead, and it showed all directions at various depths and times. The ADCP has shown flow to the south since noon May 5.
The currents are weak and variable from 1 200m up to about 1 00m down. Above that, the plume is sheared off and directed with
the surface layer currents (i.e., those above 1 00m). The currents above 1 00m were very low (<0.2 kts) until May 5 about noon
CDT. From May 5 at noon CDT until May 1 0 at 0000CDT, the surface currents were up to 0.8kts directed to the S (until noon
May 7) and then to the SE (until May 1 0 > at 0000CDT). Since this morning (May 1 0, 000 -0700 CDT) they are slower, up to 0.4
kts to the ESE.
Thus, I like your configuration, and sampling the east and south sides for the "P" transects. In addition, the south side
"downstream" transects are now the prefered configuration. With the currents directed southward to ESE the last 5 days, it makes
sense to focus on, again, the east and south sides. If currents change we can alert them, but it is looking like southward to ESE-
directed currents are stablized. To the north of the wellhead, it does not appear that there is any plume surfacing now.
Good night now,
Deb
Deborah French McCay
Applied Science Associates, Inc. (ASA)
55 Village Square Drive
South Kingstown, RI 02879 USA
[email protected]
voc: B6 Privacy
________________________________________
From: Tom Moore [[email protected]]
Sent: Monday, May 1 0, 201 0 1 0:43 PM
To: Debbie French McCay
Cc: hahn >> Daniel Hahn; Stephanie Willis; Andrew Remsen; David L. Jones; Melanie Schroeder
Subject: DH - Plume Area SIPPER Transects
Debbie,
Since our conversation earlier today I have spoken with the folks who control water access near the site. They are very willing to
work with us, but it certainly seems the closer we are to the action the more highly scrutinized are activities will be. They are
willing to let us be flexible with planning but I also get the impression that depending on what is going on any given day we may
only get one time slot for the plume. Our time around the plume may also conflict with dispersant application so we need to get in
and out.
In order to get as much information as possible I was thinking we could request a 4-6 hour time slot (however long SIPPER can
stay in with out a battery change), put SIPPER in the water once and try to hit three transects (without taking SIPPER out of the
water) downstream of whatever directions the current is pushing the plume. If we try to do the tic/tac/toe pattern it sounds like we
will need multiple entry authorizations and likely will need to recover/redeploy SIPPER losing a bunch of time. In this process they
should also be able to pull some snapshots and see if we are getting the droplet size info that is needed.
Attached is a graphic of what I was thinking:
Date: May 1 1 , 201 0 1 1 :40:09 AM EDT
To: Ian J Zelo < [email protected]>, Lisa Dipinto < [email protected]>, Troy Baker < [email protected]>, Mary Elliott
Rolle < [email protected]>
Cc: Brian Hostetter < [email protected]>, "hahn >> Daniel Hahn" < [email protected]>
Subject: DH - Is there a Coral Workgroup?
Hi All,
I just got a call from Mike Buchman and then separately from Bill Goodwin, both with FKNMS, wanting to know how development
of the plan was going for the coral workgroup, apparently they were under the impression I was the group coordinator.
That is fine, but it was news to me.
If we do spin up a coral workgroup were going to need to have two sub-groups. One for Deep Coral in the Northern Gulf and
other for Shallow Coral in the Tortuga's and Marquesa's west of Key West. The Deep Coral stuff is likely to be an issue either
way, given the proximately of these habitats to spill area. The Shallow Water Reefs will hopefully never be an issue unless we get
oil or dispersed oil in the loop current, but we should still make sure were on top of the issue before that happens.
Thanks
Tom
--------------------------------------------------------
Tom Moore
NOAA/DARRP
263 1 3th Ave South
727-551 -571 6 Office
B6 Privacy
Cell
From: "Lisa.Dipinto" < [email protected]>
Date: May 1 1 , 201 0 1 2:03:56 PM EDT
Subject: Re: DH - Is there a Coral Workgroup?
I have not heard of and certainly did not suggest you as head of that work group- my recollection was that Buchman was heading
that, and that he was going to lead plan development. When last we spoke, I asked him to get me a brief writeup on what he
wanted to do regarding baseline sampling (as that was the specific topic) including what, why, where, and how much it wouild
cost. Not sure how this miscommunication occurred. Ian (the new NRDA lead as of today) will follow up with Buchman on this
issue.
thanks,
Lisa
Tom Moore wrote:
Hi All,
I just got a call from Mike Buchman and then separately from Bill Goodwin, both with FKNMS, wanting to know how
development of the plan was going for the coral workgroup, apparently they were under the impression I was the group
coordinator.
way, given the proximately of these habitats to spill area. The Shallow Water Reefs will hopefully never be an issue unless we
get oil or dispersed oil in the loop current, but we should still make sure were on top of the issue before that happens.
Thanks
Tom
--------------------------------------------------------
Tom Moore
NOAA/DARRP
263 1 3th Ave South
B6 Privacy
B6 Privacy
Office
Cell
--
1 305 East West Highway Rm 1 021 8 Silver Spring, MD 2091 0 phone:

B6 Privacy
cell:
B6 Privacy
fax:
B6 Privacy
Date: May 1 1 , 201 0 1 2:1 1 :53 PM EDT
To: "Lisa.Dipinto" < [email protected]>, Ian J Zelo < [email protected]>
I heard separately from M.E. that folks had a desire to keep this in DARRP so maybe that was the deal where this started.
I am happy to do it, though currently I think the focus needs to be the deep corals and not the Keys.
Some of the nicest deep reefs in the Gulf are very close to MC 252. Fortunately NOAA has done quite bit of work in the area and
actually did a month long survey in that area less then a year ago. See attached cruise track...
On May 1 1 , 201 0, at 1 2:03 PM, Lisa.Dipinto wrote:
I have not heard of and certainly did not suggest you as head of that work group- my recollection was that Buchman was
heading that, and that he was going to lead plan development. When last we spoke, I asked him to get me a brief writeup on
what he wanted to do regarding baseline sampling (as that was the specific topic) including what, why, where, and how much it
wouild cost. Not sure how this miscommunication occurred. Ian (the new NRDA lead as of today) will follow up with Buchman
on this issue.
thanks,
Lisa
Tom Moore wrote:
Hi All,
coordinator.
Thanks
Tom
--------------------------------------------------------
Tom Moore
NOAA/DARRP
263 1 3th Ave South
727-551
-571 6 Office
B6 Privacy
B6 Privacy
Cell
--
B6 Privacy
fax:
B6 Privacy
--------------------------------------------------------
Tom Moore
263 1 3th Ave South
727-551
-571 6 Office
B6 Privacy
B6 Privacy
Cell
Date: May 1 1 , 201 0 1 2:1 3:20 PM EDT
To: Mary Elliott Rolle < [email protected]>
Subject: Fwd: DH - Is there a Coral Workgroup?
FYI...
Date: May 1 1 , 201 0 1 2:03:56 PM EDT
I have not heard of and certainly did not suggest you as head of that work group- my recollection was that Buchman was
heading that, and that he was going to lead plan development. When last we spoke, I asked him to get me a brief writeup on
what he wanted to do regarding baseline sampling (as that was the specific topic) including what, why, where, and how much it
wouild cost. Not sure how this miscommunication occurred. Ian (the new NRDA lead as of today) will follow up with Buchman
on this issue.
thanks,
Lisa
Tom Moore wrote:
Hi All,
coordinator.
Thanks
Tom
--------------------------------------------------------
Tom Moore
NOAA/DARRP
263 1 3th Ave South
727-551
-571 6 Office
B6 Privacy
B6 Privacy
Cell
--
B6 Privacy
fax:
B6 Privacy
--------------------------------------------------------
Tom Moore
263 1 3th Ave South
727-551
-571 6 Office
B6 Privacy
B6 Privacy
Cell
From: Caitlin Lustic < [email protected]>
Date: May 1 1 , 201 0 4:49:1 6 PM EDT
To: Caitlin Lustic < [email protected] >, [email protected], James Byrne < [email protected]>, Meaghan Johnson
< [email protected]>, Chris Bergh < [email protected]>, Aaron Hutchins < [email protected]>, Kemit-Amon Lewis
< [email protected]>, Daniel Green < [email protected]>, Jonathan Brown < [email protected]>, Ron Sjoken
< [email protected]>, Jennifer Greene < [email protected]>, Robert Brumbaugh < [email protected]>, Amanda Wrona
Subject: Re: [Restoration] Oil spill response call RESCHEDULE
Hi everyone
Thanks to those who were able to make the call, and specifically Aaron for fielding our questions. Some of the questions that
came up were:
How do we deal with the oil in the nurseries if it is in the form of tar balls or some other form of thick, sinking oil rather than a
surface slick?
What will the effects of the dispersants be on the coral?
Is there anything we can do to protect the nursery corals?
Aaron and Kemit will be attending a meeting next week of the Caribbean Regional Response Team, and have offered to take our
questions with them to see if they can get any more information. Many of the responders who would normally attend this meeting
are likely in the Gulf helping out but it cant hurt to compile a list of questions and see what information we can get. Please send
me your questions by Monday, May 1 7.
Some other important information:
Any expenses that you incur on the nursery project as a result of the oil spill (including time, additional equipment, etc.) can be
paid under ARRA but should be very carefully documented. Please contact me if you have any questions about this.
James is currently doing some research into OSHA rules and requirements as they relate to diving in the presence of oil. We will
get more details out soon, but there will be guidance about when it is safe to dive.
Please be very vigilant in monitoring for now so that we have accurate and recent data about the status of the nursery corals.
Good baseline data could prove very important.
We will be in touch again as needed.
Thanks,
Caitlin
From: Caitlin Lustic
Sent: Thursday, May 06, 2010 9:19 AM
To: Caitlin Lustic; '[email protected]'; James Byrne; Meaghan Johnson; Chris Bergh; Aaron Hutchins; Kemit-Amon
Lewis; Daniel Green; Jonathan Brown; Ron Sjoken; Jennifer Greene; Robert Brumbaugh; Amanda Wrona
Subject: Oil spill response call RESCHEDULE
Since most everyone is going to be out on the water this Friday, lets reschedule for Tuesday at 4pm. Join us if you can.
Call-in number:
Access code:
Caitlin Lustic
B6 Privacy
B6 Privacy
Sent: Tuesday, May 04, 2010 9:19 AM
To: [email protected]; James Byrne; Meaghan Johnson; Chris Bergh; Aaron Hutchins; Kemit-Amon Lewis; Daniel
Green; Jonathan Brown; Ron Sjoken
Subject: Oil spill response call - Friday 10am
Good morning everyone
We would like to have a call this Friday at 1 0am to discuss potential oil spill response plans. I know this is late notice, so join us if
you can, and Ill take and distribute meeting minutes for those who cannot. If you are unable to call in but have some thoughts
you would like heard, give me a call or send me an email.
Thanks,
Caitlin
Call-in number:
B6 Privacy
Access code: 20288020
Caitlin Lustic
Coral Recovery Coordinator
The Nature Conservancy
Florida Keys
P.O. Box 420237
Summerland Key, FL 33042
[email protected]
B6 Privacy
Ext. 114 (Phone)
Shipping:
55
N.
Johnson
Rd.
B6 Privacy
(Fax)
nature.org
Sugarloaf Key, FL 33042
Earth Day's 40th anniversary is April 22nd. Dive into our online community and join the celebration!
_______________________________________________
Restoration mailing list
[email protected]
http://frrp.org/mailman/listinfo/restoration_frrp.org
Date: May 1 2, 201 0 1 2:28:07 AM EDT
To: Daniel Hahn < [email protected]>, Tom Moore < [email protected]>
Subject: RE: Today's overflight.
Tom and Dan,
I am not seeing what you saw about the plume going north. These are notes in an overflight this afternoon?
The Payne cruise is going to sample the rising plume tomorrow am and all indications I can find show that the rising plume
extends to the east. The ADCP shows eastward currents in the surface layer (to 1 00 deg. about 0.7 kts), and the currents 1 00-
300m down are ~0.2 kts to NE. Net seems to be about due east. See vector plot attached. This is at:
http://www.ndbc.noaa.gov/station_page.php?station=4291 6
Attached is an Ocean Imaging overflight interpretaions from 0900cdt May 1 0, the most recent we have. At that time yesterday, the
eastward plume was 1 .5km = 0.8nmile long. This seems to be the untreated oil coming up. The southward plume is unclear,
might be from dispersant-injected oil coming up more slowly and being carried south in deeper waters. These features have been
present for a few days now.
We'd like the Sipper to sample both these plumes. Ocean Imaging should be up flying again soon (was not today), so we should
get more by the 1 4th.
Deb
[email protected]
voc: B6 Privacy
________________________________________
From: Daniel Hahn [[email protected]]
Sent: Tuesday, May 1 1 , 201 0 9:1 0 PM
To: Tom Moore
Cc: Debbie French McCay
Subject: Re: Today's overflight.
Agreed that is would be good to have dave relay information back to us
the days leading up to our time in the plume.
Dan
Tom Moore wrote:
Check out the notes on the afternoon overflight today. Plume is noted as 3nm long but it seems to suggest it is going north of
the source...
Maybe we should follow-up with Dave, it would also be good for those guys to know our ops plan for the spill area so they can
relay pertinent information.
Sent from my iPad
--
Daniel Hahn, Ph.D.
Phone: (727) 551 -571 5
Fax:
B6 Privacy
B6 Privacy
Cell:
Classicatio0900CDT.jpg
Date: May 1 2, 201 0 9:1 2:44 AM EDT
Cc: Daniel Hahn <[email protected]>
It was the note on the attached. " Source
plume of brown oil approx. 3 mi long on N heading"
Mississippi Canyon 252, Gulf of Mexico
Type of Map: Overflight
Chandeleur
Prepared by: NOAA

Sound
USE ONLY AS A GENERAL REFERENCE
Date/Time: 05-11-2010 / 1405-1605hrs CDT
Platform: Sikorsky S-76
Observers: Sulfridge (USCG) Wesley (NOAA)
Slater (NOAA)
FL
LA
Breton
Sound
Aircraft Altitude:
500 - 800 ft
On-scene winds:
SE at 10 knots
Patch of transparent sheen
oriented E - W
2815'0"N
2820'0"N
2825'0"N
2830'0"N
2835'0"N
2840'0"N
2845'0"N
2850'0"N
2855'0"N
290'0"N
Convergence line
Patches of transparent sheen
Leading edge of spill source patch
transparent sheen with one 10ft wide
line of orange emulsified oil
Long 10ft wide line of
orange emulsified oil
Patch of transparent sheen
Entering heavier oil near source
50% metallic sheen
20% silver sheen
1% orange emulsified oil
(
!
Long patch of transparent
sheen extending to the west
(
!
Long patch of sheen
Patches of transparent sheen
Source plume of brown oil
approx. 3 mi long on N heading
10% metallic sheen
10% silver sheen
Legend
Source
Flight Path
NESDIS Anomaly
3.75
7.5
Miles
8915'0"W
8910'0"W
895'0"W
890'0"W
8855'0"W
8850'0"W
8845'0"W
8840'0"W
8835'0"W
8830'0"W
8825'0"W
8820'0"W
8815'0"W
8810'0"W
885'0"W
295'0"N
2910'0"N
2915'0"N
2920'0"N
2925'0"N
2930'0"N
2935'0"N
2940'0"N
AL
MS
2815'0"N
2820'0"N
2825'0"N
2830'0"N
2835'0"N
2840'0"N
2845'0"N
2850'0"N
2855'0"N
290'0"N
295'0"N
2910'0"N
2915'0"N
2920'0"N
2925'0"N
2930'0"N
2935'0"N
2940'0"N
8915'0"W
8910'0"W
895'0"W
890'0"W
8855'0"W
8850'0"W
8845'0"W
8840'0"W
8835'0"W
8830'0"W
8825'0"W
8820'0"W
8815'0"W
8810'0"W
885'0"W
Source
Flight Path
NESDIS Anomaly
3.75
7.5
Miles
8915'0"W
8910'0"W
895'0"W
890'0"W
8855'0"W
8850'0"W
8845'0"W
8840'0"W
8835'0"W
8830'0"W
8825'0"W
8820'0"W
8815'0"W
8810'0"W
885'0"W
2815'0"N
2820'0"N
2825'0"N
2815'0"N
2820'0"N
2825'0"N
Legend
On May 1 2, 201 0, at 1 2:28 AM, Debbie French McCay wrote:
Tom and Dan,
extends to the east. The ADCP shows eastward currents in the surface layer (to 1 00 deg. about 0.7 kts), and the currents 1 00 -
Attached is an Ocean Imaging overflight interpretaions from 0900cdt May 1 0, the most recent we have. At that time yesterday,
the eastward plume was 1 .5km = 0.8nmile long. This seems to be the untreated oil coming up. The southward plume is unclear,
might be from dispersant-injected oil coming up more slowly and being carried south in deeper waters. These features have
been present for a few days now.
We'd like the Sipper to sample both these plumes. Ocean Imaging should be up flying again soon (was not today), so we
should get more by the 1 4th.
Deb
[email protected]
voc: B6 Privacy
________________________________________
To: Tom Moore
Dan
Tom Moore wrote:
the source...
Sent from my iPad
--
Daniel Hahn, Ph.D.
Phone: (727)B6551
-571 5
Privacy
B6 Privacy
Fax:
Cell:
B6 Privacy
<Classification_5-1 0-1 0_0900CDT.jpg><201 0May1 2-01 30gmt-4291 6_5day.png>
--------------------------------------------------------
Tom Moore
263 1 3th Ave South
727-551 -571 6 Office
B6 Privacy
Cell
Date: May 1 2, 201 0 9:23:55 AM EDT
The ocean imaging stuff is pretty useful. What is the access site for that.
Tom and Dan,
Deb
[email protected]
voc: B6 Privacy
________________________________________
To: Tom Moore
Dan
Tom Moore wrote:
the source...
Sent from my iPad
--
Daniel Hahn, Ph.D.
Phone: (727) 551 -571 5
Fax:
B6 Privacy
B6 Privacy
Cell:
--------------------------------------------------------
Tom Moore
263 1 3th Ave South
727-551 -571 6 Office
Cell
B6 Privacy
Date: May 1 2, 201 0 9:30:34 AM EDT
To: Tom Moore < [email protected]>, Nicole Mulanaphy < [email protected]>
Tom and Dan,
See attached, best so far. Nicole Mulanaphy is getting these downloaded (take a long time) and working with the GIS to get shape
files.
Nicole,
Please send access info to Tom and Dan, and explain system -- point them at the pdfs.
Thanks
Deb
[email protected]
voc: B6 Privacy
________________________________________
Sent: Wednesday, May 1 2, 201 0 9:23 AM
Cc: Daniel Hahn
Tom and Dan,
Deb
[email protected]
voc: B6 Privacy
________________________________________
To: Tom Moore
Dan
Tom Moore wrote:
the source...
Sent from my iPad
--
Daniel Hahn, Ph.D.
Phone: (727) 551 -571 5
Fax:
B6 Privacy
B6 Privacy
Cell:
--------------------------------------------------------
Tom Moore
263 1 3th Ave South
727-551
-571 6 Office
B6 Privacy
B6 Privacy
Cell
May4-9-OI_.zip (870 KB)
From: Brenda Jones < [email protected]>
Date: May 1 2, 201 0 1 0:23:34 AM EDT
To: 1 [email protected], [email protected], 601 [email protected],
601 [email protected], 601 AOC < 601 AOC/[email protected]>, [email protected],
[email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], Bob Bewley
< [email protected]>, [email protected], [email protected], [email protected],
[email protected], Bruce A Bauch < [email protected]>, [email protected], [email protected],
[email protected], [email protected], Brady Couvillion < [email protected]>,
[email protected], Brenda Ellis < [email protected]>, Brent D Johnson < [email protected]>,
[email protected], Calvin P O'Neil < o'[email protected]>, cameron tongier < [email protected]>, Carol L Giffin
< [email protected]>, Carol L Ostergren < [email protected]>, [email protected], [email protected],
[email protected], Carolyn Gacke < [email protected]>, [email protected], [email protected],
Christopher J Wells < [email protected]>, [email protected], [email protected], Colleen W Charles
[email protected], [email protected], David D Greenlee < [email protected]>,
dbraud1 @lsu.edu, [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected],
[email protected], David A Kirtland < [email protected]>, David E Bortnem <[email protected]>, David L Saghy
< [email protected]>, David P Bornholdt < [email protected]>, [email protected], [email protected],
[email protected], [email protected], [email protected], Elijah W Ramsey < [email protected]>,
[email protected], [email protected], [email protected], Gene Nelson
[email protected], [email protected], Gregory I Snyder < [email protected]>, [email protected],
[email protected], [email protected], Gary B Fisher < [email protected]>, [email protected], GS-I-HQ GIC
EmOps Contacts < [email protected]>, [email protected], [email protected], Harry C McWreath
< [email protected]>, Henry B Wolter <[email protected]>, [email protected], [email protected], Harry C
McWreath < [email protected]>, [email protected], [email protected], [email protected],
[email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], Jean W Parcher
< [email protected]>, Jeff L Sloan < [email protected]>, [email protected], [email protected],
[email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], jeniefer j pryor
[email protected], [email protected], [email protected], John L Crowe < [email protected]>,
[email protected], jwurts1 [email protected], [email protected], Jacqueline D Fahsholtz
< [email protected]>, James Devine < [email protected]>, [email protected], Jane Powers
JFHQAL.J2.ANALYST.1 @al.ngb.army.mil, John C Brock < [email protected]>, [email protected],
[email protected], Karen Newton < [email protected]>, [email protected],
[email protected], [email protected], [email protected], Kenneth Duda <[email protected]>,
Kenneth Duda < [email protected]>, Kent N Swanjord < [email protected]>, [email protected],
[email protected], Lawrence R Handley <[email protected]>, [email protected], [email protected],
[email protected], [email protected], Lisbeth A Chandler < [email protected]>,
mario.torres1 @conus.army.mil, [email protected], [email protected], [email protected],
[email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], Michael E Hutt
[email protected], [email protected], Mark Bloemker < [email protected]>, [email protected],
[email protected], [email protected], [email protected], Ralph Storey < [email protected]>,
[email protected], [email protected], robert.bell.1 @ang.af.mil, [email protected],
[email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], roger.ward@SMDC-
CS.ARMY.MIL, [email protected], Ronald H Keeler < [email protected]>, [email protected],
[email protected], rpl9841 @louisiana.edu, [email protected], [email protected], [email protected],
[email protected], Ryan Longhenry < [email protected]>, Rynn Lamb < [email protected]>, [email protected],
[email protected], scott.a.rose [email protected], [email protected], [email protected],
Stafford G Binder < [email protected]>, [email protected], [email protected],
[email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], Stephen E
Hammond < [email protected]>, [email protected], [email protected], [email protected],
[email protected], Thomas H Cecere < [email protected]>, [email protected],
[email protected], [email protected], Timothy W Saultz < [email protected]>, [email protected],
[email protected], [email protected], [email protected], Todd M Hoefen < [email protected]>,
[email protected], [email protected]
Subject: DEEPOIL Oilspill remote sensing telecon today at 1 300CDT
We will be having a remote sensing working group telecon today at 1 400 EDT, 1 300CDT, 1 200MDT, and 1 1 00PDT. The notes from Saturday and
Tuesday are attached.
Dial in -
B6 Privacy
Following is a brief agenda - I have not confirmed participation.
1 . Introductions
2. NOAA update
3. USCG update
4. EagleVision
5. NGA
6. NASA/ASTER
7. IRSCC
8. EPA
9. USDA
1 0. States
1 1 . Roundtable
Brenda K. Jones
Disaster Response Coordinator
USGS EROS Center
4791 4 252nd St
Sioux Falls, SD 571 98
Phone 605.594.6503
Fax
605.594.61 50
Email: [email protected]
FOR EMERGENCIES
CELL: B6 Privacy
RSWG_0511.doc (34.5 KB)
RSWG_0508.doc (32.5 KB)
From: "M.E. Rolle" < [email protected]>
Date: May 1 2, 201 0 1 0:38:46 AM EDT
To: "'[email protected]'" < [email protected]>
Cc: Tom Moore < [email protected]>, Troy Baker < [email protected]>
Subject: [Fwd: Gulf oil and deep coral]
FYI on coral interests at USGS.
Referral to USGS
B6 Privacy
B6 Privacy
B6 Privacy
Date: May 1 2, 201 0 1 0:48:49 AM EDT
To: Mary Elliott Rolle < [email protected]>
Cc: Mike Buchman < [email protected]>, Troy Baker < [email protected]>, Ian J Zelo < [email protected]>, "hahn
>> Daniel Hahn" < [email protected]>, Rob Ricker < [email protected]>
Subject: Fwd: [Fwd: Gulf oil and deep coral]
We probably want to get in front of this on the NRDA side before others in NOAA and DOI start to spin a up a plan for looking at
deep coral impacts. I am not a deep coral expert but from the looking at the data available for the northern gulf this is certainly
an issue we'll need to take a close look at.
Mike and Ian were going to talk after today's call to figure out the best way to spin up a coral group. I am happy to help as
needed.
From: "M.E. Rolle" < [email protected]>
Date: May 1 2, 201 0 1 0:38:46 AM EDT
To: "'[email protected]'" < [email protected]>
Cc: Tom Moore < [email protected]>, Troy Baker < [email protected]>
Subject: [Fwd: Gulf oil and deep coral]
FYI on coral interests at USGS.
Subject:Gulf oil and deep coral
Subject:Gulf oil and deep coral
Referral to USGS
B6 Privacy
B6 Privacy
B6 Privacy
Tom Moore
263 1 3th Ave South
727-551
-571 6 Office
B6 Privacy
B6 Privacy
Cell
From: Nicole Mulanaphy <[email protected]>
Date: May 1 2, 201 0 1 0:56:56 AM EDT
To: Tom Moore < [email protected]>, Daniel Hahn <[email protected]>
Cc: Debbie French McCay < [email protected]>
Hi Tom and Dan,
The Ocean Imaging data is on their ftp site. The details are:
B6 Privacy
B6 Privacy
On the ftp site are the raster files (for ArcGIS) that contains all of the data, there is information on their flight path and the oil
classification (i.e. thickness, emulsion, sheen, ect.). For some of the days there are pdfs. This is what Debbie attached in her
previous email. The site currently has data for May 5th through May 1 1 th. I have downloaded all of the data (very large files) and
I am processing them into ArcGIS shape files (smaller file size than the raster files). The shape file do not have the fine 2m
resolution like the raster files, but the file size is smaller and easier to work with.
There are no pdfs on the ftp site for May 1 0th or May 1 1 th. I am in the process of creating an image, I will send this to you shortly.
If you are interested I could provide you the pdf/image for each day that there is data on the ftp site as we move forward. Let me
know if you would like me to do that.
Also, if you are interested I can provide you with the processed shape files if you would like.
Thanks!
Nicole
Nicole Whittier Mulanaphy | Environmental Chemical Engineer
Applied Science Associates, Inc.
55 Village Square Drive | South Kingstown, RI 02879 USA
p: +1 401 789 -6224 | f: +1 401 789 -1 932
e: [email protected] | www.asascience.com
ASA | Science. Services. Solutions.
Consider the environment before printing this email.
-----Original Message-----
From: Debbie French McCay
To: Tom Moore; Nicole Mulanaphy
Cc: Daniel Hahn
Tom and Dan,
files.
Nicole,
Thanks
Deb
[email protected]
voc: B6 Privacy
________________________________________
Cc: Daniel Hahn
Tom and Dan,
Deb
[email protected]
voc: B6 Privacy
________________________________________
To: Tom Moore
Dan
Tom Moore wrote:
the source...
Sent from my iPad
--
Daniel Hahn, Ph.D.
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Assessment &
Restoration Division, SE Region
Phone: (727) 551 -571 5
B6 Privacy
Fax:
B6 Privacy
Cell:
--------------------------------------------------------
Tom Moore
263 1 3th Ave South
727-551 -571 6 Office
B6 Privacy
Cell
From: Daniel Hahn < [email protected]>
Date: May 1 2, 201 0 1 1 :26:08 AM EDT
To: tom Moore < [email protected]>
Subject: [Fwd: DWHOS - Summary of Historical and Current Fish/Invert data in GOM]
the database compilation is being taken care of elsewhere but if you can follow up on contacts and information of longline fisheries
as described below, that would be great.
Dan
Subject:DWHOS - Summary of Historical and Current Fish/Invert data in GOM
Date:Mon, 1 0 May 201 0 21 :22:55 -0400
From:Jill Rowe <[email protected]>
To:[email protected] <[email protected]>
CC:Debbie French McCay <[email protected]>
Da n,
A t t a ch e d pl e as e fi nd t he su m m a ry t h a t I ' v e pu t t og e t h er for t h e hi st ori c a l a nd cu rre nt d a t aba s e s f
or fi sh and i nv e rt ebra t es i n t h e G u l f of M e x i c o.
T h e re a re a nu m be r of g a ps t h a t I t h i nk t he i nd i v
i d u al s t at e s w i l l be a bl e t o fi l l i n, bu t a t l e a st i t ' s a g ood st a rt i ng poi nt .

A l s o, I w ou l d l i ke t
o t al k t o som eone at N M FS SEFSC t o d i s c u s s t he st at u s and c ont e nt of t he i r l ong l i ne d a t a ba s e, bu t I
' m not s u re w ho m i g h t be a g ood pe rs on t o cont a ct ? Do y ou h av e a ny i d ea s ? S a m pl i ng of t h e offs hor
e fi s h d ensi t i e s i s g oi ng t o be one of ou r bi g g e s t d a t a g a ps , a nd w i l l m ost l i ke l y re q u i re m ore eff
ort .
A l so, h av e y ou e v er h e a rd of u si ng a rec ord abl e fi s h fi nd e r or EK 60, a s s u g g e s t ed by J a n Rol
e t t o ( N O A A ) bel ow ? I ' v e i nc l u d e d a broch u re a bou t t h e d e v i c e a nd w ou l d l i ke t o d i s cu s s t h i s w i t h t
h e N M FS SEFS C pe opl e , a s w e l l , t o se e i f t h e y ' v e ev e r u s e d s om e t h i ng s i m i l a r for s a m pl i ng .
T h a nks,
Jill
J i l l Row e |
Bi ol og i st
A ppl i e d Sc i e nce A s soc i a t e s , I nc .
55 V i l l a g e S q u a re Dri v e
|
Sou t h Ki ng st ow n, RI
0 2 8 79 U SA
p:
+ 1 4 01 78 9 - 62 2 4, e x t . 3 2 9
|
f:
+ 1 4 01 78 9 - 19 3 2
e:
j row e@a s a sc i e nce . com
|
w w w . a sa sc i e nc e. com
A S A | S c i e nc e . S e rvi c e s . S ol u t i ons .
- - - - - Ori g i na l M e ss ag e - - - - -
From : De bbi e Fre nc h M cC ay
Se nt : T h u rsd a y , M a y 0 6, 2 0 10 4: 2 4 PM
T o: J i l l Row e
Su bj e ct : FW : De e pw at e r Hori z on - Di s pe rsa nt s a nd w a t e r c ol u m n d a m ag e s
I f I se nt t h i s a l rea d y ,
W H EN t i m e,
u e ?
T h a nks
pl e a s e i g nore ,
bu t I t h i nk I d el e t e d by m i s t a ke be fore I s e nt i t .
s e e w h a t t h i s a cou st i c approac h t o m e a su ri ng bi om as s m i g h t be - - i s t he re s u c h a t e c h ni q
De bora h Fre nc h M cC ay , PhD
A ppl i e d Sc i e nce A s soc i a t e s , I nc .

Sou t h Ki ng st ow n, RI 0 2 8 79
B6 Privacy
( offi ce )
B6 Privacy
( fa x )
d french m cc a y @as a sc i e nce . c om or
d . fre nc h . m cc a y @a sa sc i e nce . com
( A S A )
- - - - - Ori g i na l M e ss ag e - - - - -
From : J a n Rol et t o [m a i l t o: J a n. Rol e t t o@noa a . g ov ]
Se nt : T h u rsd a y , M a y 0 6, 2 0 10 2 : 03 PM
T o: De bbi e Frenc h M c C a y
C c : Pa t ri c k Ru t t e n; j rpay ne @s bc g l oba l . net ; M ari a Brow n; Li s a S y m ons ; Rob Ri cke r;

a u ri e S u l l i v a n; Ei l e e n G ra h a m ; J e nni fe r C ra g an
Su bj e ct : Re : De e pw at e r Hori z on - Di s pe rsa nt s a nd w a t e r c ol u m n d a m ag e s
H i De bbi e:
Sou nd s g re a t .
G ood t o h ea r y ou ' re on i t !
I s i t poss i bl e t h a t t h e v e ss e l h a s a re cord a bl e fi s h fi nd e r, i f not a n
ER or EK 60, for rec od i ng u nd erw a y w a t e r c ol u m n bi om a s s?

I f not , i s i t
pos si bl e t o h av e a s e cond v e s se l fol l ow t h e sa m e t ra ck l i ne , w i t h i n 12
h ou rs of t h e i ni t i al v e ss e l , w i t h som e t y pe of re cord a bl e fi sh fi nd e r or
EK 60 ?
Be s t ,
J a n
--
Da ni e l H ah n, Ph . D.
N a t i ona l O ce a ni c a nd A t m os ph e ri c A d m i ni st ra t i on
A s s es sm e nt & Re s t ora t i on Di v i si on, S E Reg i on
St . Pe t e rs bu rg , FL 3 3 701
em ai l :
Ph one :
Fa x :
Cel l :
Da ni e l . H ah n@noa a . g ov
( 72 7) 5 5 1- 5715
B6 Privacy
B6 Privacy
EK60-shnder.pdf (3.5 MB)
Date: May 1 2, 201 0 1 1 :40:47 AM EDT
To: DWHNRDA.Cruise1 @gmail.com
Subject: Surfacing and deepwater plume locations
Robe rt A T ay l or;
Melanie should be able to help interpret this information... Were using this info to target final spill area sampling. 1 jpg, and 2
ZIP files attached.
Laurie, Rob, Troy,
See also attached Ocean Imaging interpretations of remote sensing with oil thickness. Fresh thick oil should be surfacing oil.
Deb
Laurie, Dan, Tom,
Attached are my model results for 5AM today using the measured currents at the wellhead (ADCP). The Payne cruise should be sampling where oil is
coming up and in the surface waters, but note the narrow plume. The 100 deg 8km out position is where I placed him last night, and he reported they
were at P1 position at 8am running the ROV. The plan is they go from P1 toward P4. If you look at the pictures, I think the deep plume at the bottom
is close to the wellhead and just SW, but also at P3 (between P2 and P4). You can see this is a tough thing to sample. This is why I think we need
more sampling out there. The Sipper sampling will be a big help.
I have been discussing the deep plume modeling with CJ Beegle-Krause, who is lead on that for the response. OK that we share model predictions? I
can cc Robert and Stephanie on any emailed pictures, but will keep discussions on the phone.
Thanks,
Deb
Deb
SIMAP-mode.zip (230 KB)
May4-9-OI_.zip (870 KB)
Date: May 1 2, 201 0 1 2:50:21 PM EDT
Hi Tim and Dan,
Attached are images that display the remote sensing performed by Ocean Imaging for May 1 0th and May 1 1 th. There is an AM
and PM for May 1 0th. Currently there is only an AM for May 1 1 th, if they did a fly over in the PM they are still processing the data.
As soon as it is on the ftp site I will send you an image.
Thanks!
Nicole
p: +1 401 789 -6224 | f: +1 401 789 -1 932
From: Nicole Mulanaphy
Sent: Wednesday, May 1 2, 201 0 1 0:57 AM
To: Tom Moore; Daniel Hahn
Hi Tom and Dan,
B6 Privacy
Thanks!
Nicole
p: +1 401 789 -6224 | f: +1 401 789 -1 932
Cc: Daniel Hahn
Tom and Dan,
files.
Nicole,
Thanks
Deb
[email protected]
voc: B6 Privacy
________________________________________
Cc: Daniel Hahn
Tom and Dan,
Deb
[email protected]
voc: B6 Privacy
________________________________________
To: Tom Moore
Dan
Tom Moore wrote:
the source...
Sent from my iPad
--
Daniel Hahn, Ph.D.
B6 Privacy
Phone:
B6 Privacy
Fax:
B6 Privacy
Cell:
--------------------------------------------------------
Tom Moore
263 1 3th Ave South
B6 Privacy
B6 Privacy
Office
Cell
From: "Polk, Daniel" < [email protected]>
Date: May 1 2, 201 0 3:26:53 PM EDT
Subject: RE: DWH - R/V Weatherbird Spill Site Operations 5/1 4&1 5
You are correct, talk to you then.
Remember to call the Field Branch SIMOPS Coordinator Scott Orr and Angel
Rodriguez on board the Development Driller 3 for field entry and if your
vessel needs any assistance.
Best regards,
Dan
Daniel Polk
Marine Operations Lead
BP Exploration & Production, GoM
Mobile: B6 Privacy
[email protected]
From: Tom Moore [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Wednesday, May 1 2, 201 0 1 :1 4 PM
To: Miley, Joyce; Polk, Daniel; Nash, Dylan; Endicott, Troy M
Cc: hahn >> Daniel Hahn; Stephanie Willis; Rooney, Terry C
Subject: Re: DWH - R/V Weatherbird Spill Site Operations 5/1 4&1 5
Understand. I will be on both the morning and evening SIMOPS call.
This is the dial-in # in the SIMOPS Plan for 0830 and 2030 calls is that
correct:
1 - B6 Privacy
Pass Code:
B6 Privacy
M.C.252_Inci.pdf (2.6 MB)
Date: May 1 2, 201 0 3:47:39 PM EDT
Hi Tom and Dan,
Attached is an image of today's (5/1 2) fly over by Ocean Imaging. The oil classification at the incident site is displayed.
Thanks!
Nicole
p: +1 401 789 -6224 | f: +1 401 789 -1 932
Sent: Wednesday, May 1 2, 201 0 1 2:50 PM
To: 'Tom Moore'; 'Daniel Hahn'
Hi Tom and Dan,
Attached are images that display the remote sensing performed by Ocean Imaging for May 1 0th and May 1 1 th. There is an AM
and PM for May 1 0th. Currently there is only an AM for May 1 1 th, if they did a fly over in the PM they are still processing the data.
As soon as it is on the ftp site I will send you an image.
Thanks!
Nicole
Nicole Whittier Mulanaphy | Environmental Chemical Engineer Applied Science Associates, Inc.
p: +1 401 789 -6224 | f: +1 401 789 -1 932
Sent: Wednesday, May 1 2, 201 0 1 0:57 AM
To: Tom Moore; Daniel Hahn
Hi Tom and Dan,
B6 Privacy
Thanks!
Nicole
Nicole Whittier Mulanaphy | Environmental Chemical Engineer Applied Science Associates, Inc.
p: +1 401 789 -6224 | f: +1 401 789 -1 932
Cc: Daniel Hahn
Tom and Dan,
files.
Nicole,
Thanks
Deb
[email protected]
voc: B6 Privacy
________________________________________
Cc: Daniel Hahn
Tom and Dan,
Deb
[email protected]
voc: B6 Privacy
________________________________________
To: Tom Moore
Dan
Tom Moore wrote:
the source...
Sent from my iPad
--
Daniel Hahn, Ph.D.
B6 Privacy
Phone:
B6 Privacy
Fax:
B6 Privacy
Cell:
--------------------------------------------------------
Tom Moore
263 1 3th Ave South
B6 Privacy
B6 Privacy
Office
Cell
From: RV Weatherbird < dwhnrda.cruise1 @gmail.com>
Date: May 1 2, 201 0 1 2:25:1 1 PM EDT
Subject: WBII May 1 2, 201 0
Hi Tom and Deb,
Please find attached our new locations for the bravo stations (excel
spreadsheet, jpeg, and shape file). We are steaming towards B1 right
now. We should be on station in approximately 3-5 hours. We have
finished all of the SEAMAP stations, we were slightly delayed last
night due to head troubles, but all fixed now. We are figuring around
2 to 2.5 hours of work per bravo station. We tightened up the station
locations to be between 1 3-1 5NM apart. With transit, we are looking at
4 hours per station (1 0 stations) starting between 3:30 to 5:30 this
evening (working around clock). We are going to hit them in order,
ending in B1 0 and then we start steaming over to the D stations.
We will check this e-mail again after our first station, while in
transit to next (B2).
Thanks
Baseline_Statxls (14.0 KB)
WBII-2nd_le1.zip (1.1 KB)
Date: May 1 2, 201 0 5:1 9:06 PM EDT
To: Tom Moore < [email protected]>, Laurie Sullivan < [email protected]>
Subject: RE: WBII May 1 2, 201 0
Tom and Dan,
Do you have info or a contact re what the ops schedule is at the wellhead, such as:
Schedule of containments domes on and off (date/time on and off)
Schedule of dispersant injections: date/time start, stop and gal/min injected
How can we get this information? (Particularly the dispersant injections)
Thanks,
Deb
Deborah French McCay, PhD
South Kingstown, RI 02879
(office) B6 Privacy
(fax) B6 Privacy
[email protected] or
[email protected]
Sent: Wednesday, May 1 2, 201 0 4:51 PM
To: RV Weatherbird
Subject: Re: WBII May 1 2, 201 0
Lets see how the first few stations go and we can see what timing looks like for your spill area arrival. We have you guys plugged
into the incident plan for a Friday arrival at 0600, we'll need to make a call tomorrow if it is work skipping a few stations so you can
at least get to the spill area sometime mid -day friday. Then maybe you could do some night work or try to do a set of D stations
along with the P stations on Saturday. They are installing some new oil capture domes in the next few days as well so assuming
they get luckily and block the oil it would be good to get our D and P stations sooner rather then later.
I will be on the spill area coordination call starting tonight so I should have a better sense as to how tight our schedule is going to
need to be.
On May 1 2, 201 0, at 1 2:25 PM, RV Weatherbird wrote:
Hi Tom and Deb,
Thanks
Mel and Drew
From: Laurie Sullivan < [email protected]>
Date: May 1 2, 201 0 5:26:00 PM EDT
Cc: Tom Moore < [email protected]>, Daniel Hahn < [email protected]>
Deb, we can ask this of the SSC at our trustee call tomorrow morning, or at tonight's ORR call, or (best) when I see Frank tonight.
Debbie French McCay wrote:
Tom and Dan,
Thanks,
Deb
(office) B6 Privacy
(fax) B6 Privacy
[email protected]
From: Tom Moore [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Wednesday, May 1 2, 201 0 4:51 PM
To: RV Weatherbird
Lets see how the first few stations go and we can see what timing looks like for your spill area arrival. We have you guys
plugged into the incident plan for a Friday arrival at 0600, we'll need to make a call tomorrow if it is work skipping a few stations
so you can at least get to the spill area sometime mid -day friday. Then maybe you could do some night work or try to do a set
of D stations along with the P stations on Saturday. They are installing some new oil capture domes in the next few days as
well so assuming they get luckily and block the oil it would be good to get our D and P stations sooner rather then later.
I will be on the spill area coordination call starting tonight so I should have a better sense as to how tight our schedule is going
to need to be.
Hi Tom and Deb,
Thanks
Mel and Drew
--
Laurie Sullivan
Regional Resources Coordinator
NOAA ORR/Assessment and Restoration Division
777 Sonoma Avenue, Ste 21 9A
Santa Rosa, CA 95404
Office:
Fax:
Cell:
707-575-6077
B6 Privacy
B6 Privacy
From: Jill Rowe < [email protected]>
Date: May 1 2, 201 0 7:53:50 PM EDT
Cc: "[email protected]" < [email protected]>, Debbie French McCay < [email protected]>
Subject: FW: Deepwater Horizon - Dispersants and water column damages
Tom and Dan,
FYI. We just got this from Jan Roletto. I have not been able to review it yet, but will do some either later tonight or tomorrow.
Maybe we should discuss this at some point, or as I mentioned earlier, maybe we should make a subgroup for pelagic fish/invert
data collection?
Thanks,
Jill
Jill Rowe | Biologist
p: +1 401 789 -6224, ext. 329 | f: +1 401 789 -1 932
From: Jan Roletto [mailto:[email protected]]
Cc: Patrick Rutten; [email protected]; Maria Brown; Lisa Symons; Rob Ricker; Robert A Taylor; Laurie Sullivan; Eileen
Graham; Jill Rowe; Melanie Schroeder; Jaime Jahncke; [email protected]
Subject: Re: Deepwater Horizon - Dispersants and water column damages
Hi Debby:
Attached is an overview of biomass estimates using an EK 60. This was sent to you from one of our research partners Jaime
Jahncke from PRBO Conservation Science. Jaime has suggested that Dave Demer from NMFS take a look at the situation and
determine if the process of using this biomass assessment, along with ground truthing nets will provide needed data on rapid
assessment of water column biomass, possible resources at risk, and fate of dispersants in the ecosystem. I've include Jaime's
and Dave's email if you want to contact them directly.
Sorry for the delay, I was working on a shoreline early notification for volunteers, for the spill.
Sorry for the delay, I was working on a shoreline early notification for volunteers, for the spill.
Let me know if you have any other questions. Both Pat and are still very interested in whether or not we can use this type of data
and information for NRDA for this spill and in the future.
Best, Jan
On 5/7/1 0 1 :21 PM, Debbie French McCay wrote:
Jan,
Please do send your protocols. We are gathering information on what data exists for fish biomass, and what can be done to
sample fish distributions. The focus is on developing data to quantify baseline biomass pre-spill (or in reference areas). We are
looking at modeling the exposure and injury resulting, and to do this we need to estimate pre-spill biomass.
Thanks,
Debbie
[email protected]
voc: B6 Privacy
________________________________________
From: Jan Roletto [[email protected]]
Sent: Friday, May 07, 201 0 3:1 6 PM
Cc: Patrick Rutten; [email protected]; Maria Brown; Lisa Symons;
Rob Ricker; Robert A Taylor; Laurie Sullivan; Eileen Graham; Jennifer
Cragan
Hi Debbie:
The assessment of biomass using an EK 60 to record biomass is useful
but is still relatively new. I can send you protocols from our
project if you'd like. We've never used this techniques for rapid
response, fate of oil/dispersants or resources at risk. It looks like
you are well poised to test this, if you are interested.
We have started to use an EK 60, using three frequencies to record
water column biomass. In post-processing the biomass can be
calculated, but you would also need to ground truth the images by
collecting a few trawls. Pat and I are hoping that this type of
technique can also be used for rapid assessment, having an individual
annotate images on the screen in real time, with "estimates" of denser
schools/patches of fish, krill, shrimp, etc.
Best, Jan
On 5/6/1 0 1 1 :34 AM, Debbie French McCay wrote:
Jan,
I am working with Dan Hahn and Tom Moore re a ichthyoplankton sampling cruise with USF scientists that is now sampling on
FL shelf but next week will go to the release site area. That plan is still being developed (for the second leg at the release
site). Sampling will be in the upper 350m, focused on surface mixed layer to about 40m.
Is there a fish finder that can record biomass while underway? I am not familiar with the latest technology re this. Can you
give me some info on that? We had no data on pelagic fish biomass out in the release site area.
Thanks
Debbie
(office) B6 Privacy
(fax) B6 Privacy
[email protected]
Sent: Thursday, May 06, 201 0 2:03 PM
Cragan
Hi Debbie:
Sounds great. Good to hear you're on it!
Is it possible that the vessel has a recordable fish finder, if not
an ER or EK 60, for recoding underway water column biomass? If not,
is it possible to have a second vessel follow the same track line,
within 1 2 hours of the initial vessel, with some type of recordable
fish finder or EK 60?
Best, Jan
On 5/6/1 0 1 0:43 AM, Debbie French McCay wrote:
Jan and Pat,
The Water Column TWG has a cruise leaving the dock at 1 800 CDT today to go out and get water samples in the vicinity
and in the rising oil plume. We are doing CTDs, THC, PAHs BTEX, fluorescence in upper 50m, oil droplet sizes. Measuring
currents upper 50m. Also have ROV to sample bottom water.
We can coordinate via the TWG head Laurie Sullivan, cc'd here. There is a completed cruise plan. Jim Payne is on the
cruise, assisted by an ASA person (Eileen Graham). Another ASA person Jennifer Cragan is in the command center with
Laurie.
Debbie
(office) B6 Privacy
(fax) B6 Privacy
[email protected]
Sent: Thursday, May 06, 201 0 1 :1 1 PM
To: Patrick Rutten; Debbie French McCay; [email protected]
Using EK60 ocx (29.2 KB)
Date: May 1 2, 201 0 8:29:1 3 PM EDT
To: Ernst Peebles < [email protected]>
Subject: Fwd: WBII May 1 2, 201 0
FYI... Looks like things are going well, though I think we will drop the B4 station and maybe more if needed. Right now I am still
hopeful they can make the spill zone Friday which is when we are on the ops plan and they are clearing some areas for us.
From: RV Weatherbird <dwhnrda.cruise1 @gmail.com>
Date: May 1 2, 201 0 4:25:1 1 PM EDT
Hi Tom and Deb,
Thanks
Mel and Drew
On 5/1 2/1 0, Tom Moore < [email protected]> wrote:
Melanie should be able to help interpret this information... Were using
this info to target final spill area sampling. 1 jpg, and 2 ZIP files
attached.
Laurie, Rob, Troy,
See also attached Ocean Imaging interpretations of remote sensing with oil
thickness. Fresh thick oil should be surfacing oil.
Deb
Laurie, Dan, Tom,
Attached are my model results for 5AM today using the measured currents at
the wellhead (ADCP). The Payne cruise should be sampling where oil is
coming up and in the surface waters, but note the narrow plume. The 1 00
deg 8km out position is where I placed him last night, and he reported
they were at P1 position at 8am running the ROV. The plan is they go from
P1 toward P4. If you look at the pictures, I think the deep plume at the
bottom is close to the wellhead and just SW, but also at P3 (between P2
and P4). You can see this is a tough thing to sample. This is why I
think we need more sampling out there. The Sipper sampling will be a big
help.
I have been discussing the deep plume modeling with CJ Beegle-Krause, who
is lead on that for the response. OK that we share model predictions? I
can cc Robert and Stephanie on any emailed pictures, but will keep
discussions on the phone.
Thanks,
Deb
The Payne cruise is going to sample the rising plume tomorrow am and all
indications I can find show that the rising plume extends to the east.
The ADCP shows eastward currents in the surface layer (to 1 00 deg. about
0.7 kts), and the currents 1 00-300m down are ~0.2 kts to NE. Net seems to
be about due east. See vector plot attached. This is at:
Attached is an Ocean Imaging overflight interpretaions from 0900cdt May
1 0, the most recent we have. At that time yesterday, the eastward plume
was 1 .5km = 0.8nmile long. This seems to be the untreated oil coming up.
The southward plume is unclear, might be from dispersant-injected oil
coming up more slowly and being carried south in deeper waters. These
features have been present for a few days now.
We'd like the Sipper to sample both these plumes. Ocean Imaging should be
up flying again soon (was not today), so we should get more by the 1 4th.
Deb
Baseline_Statxls (14.0 KB)
WBII-2nd_le1.zip (1.1 KB)
--------------------------------------------------------
Tom Moore
263 1 3th Ave South
727-551 -571 6 Office
B6 Privacy
Cell
From: Jill Rowe < [email protected]>
Date: May 1 2, 201 0 8:50:06 PM EDT
To: Tom Moore < [email protected]>, "[email protected]" < [email protected]>
Tom and Dan,
More FYI for pelagic fish sampling. I will follow up with the folks David mentions below tomorrow, unless you would like to do that,
Tom?
Thanks,
Jill
Jill
Jill Rowe | Biologist
p: +1 401 789 -6224, ext. 329 | f: +1 401 789 -1 932
From: David Demer [mailto:[email protected]]
Cc: Debbie French McCay; Patrick Rutten; [email protected]; Maria Brown; Lisa Symons; Rob Ricker; Robert A Taylor;
Laurie Sullivan; Eileen Graham; Jill Rowe; Melanie Schroeder; Jaime Jahncke; Thompson, Charles H. ; Christopher T Gledhill
Hello,
The use of multi-frequency scientific echosounders, such as the Simrad EK60 (and the ME70 on the new NOAA FSVs), coupled
with net or optical sampling, is a mature method for surveying the distributions and estimating abundances of fish and
zooplankton. I have personally used acoustic-trawl or acoustic-optical sampling for surveying krill and fish (demersal, mid -water,
and epi-pelagic), during the last ca. 20 years, but acoustic-trawl surveys have been used around the world for at least 40 years.
That is, mature technologies and methods are available for post-spill monitoring. The bigger question is -- what pre-spill data is
available to estimate baseline biomasses in the area, by species? I suggest contacting Charles Thompson and Chris Gledhill at
the NMFS Southeast Fisheries Science Center (I've cc'd them so they know who to blame for this introduction). They are both very
knowledgeable about acoustic-trawl surveys, and I expect they know, or know who knows, about historical survey data in the
area.
Sincerely,
David Demer
Jan Roletto wrote:
Hi Debby:
Attached is an overview of biomass estimates using an EK 60. This was
sent to you from one of our research partners Jaime Jahncke from PRBO
Conservation Science. Jaime has suggested that Dave Demer from NMFS
take a look at the situation and determine if the process of using
this biomass assessment, along with ground truthing nets will provide
needed data on rapid assessment of water column biomass, possible
resources at risk, and fate of dispersants in the ecosystem. I've
include Jaime's and Dave's email if you want to contact them directly.
Sorry for the delay, I was working on a shoreline early notification
for volunteers, for the spill.
Let me know if you have any other questions. Both Pat and are still
very interested in whether or not we can use this type of data and
information for NRDA for this spill and in the future.
Best, Jan
Jan,
Please do send your protocols. We are gathering information on what
data exists for fish biomass, and what can be done to sample fish
distributions. The focus is on developing data to quantify baseline
biomass pre-spill (or in reference areas). We are looking at
modeling the exposure and injury resulting, and to do this we need to
estimate pre-spill biomass.
Thanks,
Debbie
[email protected]
voc: B6 Privacy
________________________________________
Cragan
Hi Debbie:
but is still relatively new. I can send you protocols from our
project if you'd like. We've never used this techniques for rapid
response, fate of oil/dispersants or resources at risk. It looks
like you are well poised to test this, if you are interested.
water column biomass. In post-processing the biomass can be
calculated, but you would also need to ground truth the images by
collecting a few trawls. Pat and I are hoping that this type of
technique can also be used for rapid assessment, having an individual
annotate images on the screen in real time, with "estimates" of
denser schools/patches of fish, krill, shrimp, etc.
Best, Jan
Jan,
I am working with Dan Hahn and Tom Moore re a ichthyoplankton
sampling cruise with USF scientists that is now sampling on FL shelf
but next week will go to the release site area. That plan is still
being developed (for the second leg at the release site). Sampling
will be in the upper 350m, focused on surface mixed layer to about 40m.
Is there a fish finder that can record biomass while underway? I am
not familiar with the latest technology re this. Can you give me
some info on that? We had no data on pelagic fish biomass out in the
release site area.
Thanks
Debbie
(office) B6 Privacy
(fax) B6 Privacy
[email protected]
Rob Ricker; Robert A Taylor; Laurie Sullivan; Eileen Graham;
Jennifer Cragan
Subject: Re: Deepwater Horizon - Dispersants and water column
damages
Hi Debbie:
Is it possible that the vessel has a recordable fish finder, if not
an ER or EK 60, for recoding underway water column biomass? If not,
is it possible to have a second vessel follow the same track line,
within 1 2 hours of the initial vessel, with some type of recordable
fish finder or EK 60?
Best, Jan
Jan and Pat,
The Water Column TWG has a cruise leaving the dock at 1 800 CDT
today to go out and get water samples in the vicinity and in the
rising oil plume. We are doing CTDs, THC, PAHs BTEX, fluorescence
in upper 50m, oil droplet sizes. Measuring currents upper 50m. Also
have ROV to sample bottom water.
We can coordinate via the TWG head Laurie Sullivan, cc'd here.
There is a completed cruise plan. Jim Payne is on the cruise,
assisted by an ASA person (Eileen Graham). Another ASA person
Jennifer Cragan is in the command center with Laurie.
Debbie
(office) B6 Privacy
(fax) B6 Privacy
[email protected]
Cc: Maria Brown; Lisa Symons; Rob Ricker
Subject: Deepwater Horizon - Dispersants and water column damages
Hi Pat:
On another NRDA issue, since they are now using dispersants to
break up the spill, is there anyone on scene that is conducting
baseline water column resources assessment? Jim Payne and I spoke
a while ago at an OSPR SSEP meeting, about testing monitoring
techniques to assess water column resources, biomass estimates,
depth of thermoclines, all to help determine fate of dispersed oil
in the food chain (e.g. possibly fish, bird and baleen whale injuries).
Jim and Debby French-McCay had received some funds a few years ago
from OSPR to start to test some of the water column assessment
techniques for fate of dispersants. We had spoke about using this
technique for NRDA, using CTD data and EK 60 data to estimate water
column biomass and aerial surveys for resources at risk. Any
interest in pursuing this effort for Deepwater Horizon?
If there is interest in pursuing this new level of NRDA efforts I'd
be happy to work with Jim and Debby on this effort. Perhaps,
hopefully, one of them are already on scene ?
Best, Jan
On 5/5/1 0 8:1 6 PM, Patrick Rutten wrote:
ALL:
I expect you have already provided this information,.... but I was
contacted by Rob Ricker, NOS, ARD who is leading the damage
assessment for NOS on the Deepwater Horizon spill, to help
identify who would have expertise on turtle and marine mammal necropsy, if needed.
Ideally, the biologist or DVM would be experienced in what
specific tests to run, or what physical observations to make in a
necropsy that would indicate oil exposure, or signs of ingestion or aspiration.
According to Rob the best situation would be to have the biologist
onsite in the Gulf to establish a natural resource damage
assessment protocol...field to lab. Specific facility for
processing animals hasn't been identified, could be Louisiana, could be Florida.
As an FYI the 30+ sea turtles that recently washed up were likely
the result of fishermen not installing TED's on their nets (a nice
black eye!).
All expenses are covered. Just need to know who's is available and
qualified.
*Usha - You'd know who at La Jolla and NMML would fit the quals
for mammals and turtles Sam / Mike - I know PIFSC has some real
turtle pro's Barb - I'm sure you know who in the SE would be
capable and could also suggest facilities Maria/Jan - I'm
including you since the DVM at the Marine Mammal Center may (may
not) be a likely candidate to ask, but I don't have his name.
As with everything associated with this spill, I need a quick
response please. A negative response would be appreciated.
Thanks,
Patrick
Patrick
david_demer.vcf (0.4 KB)
From: Ernst Peebles < [email protected]>
Date: May 1 2, 201 0 9:1 0:1 5 PM EDT
Subject: Re: Fwd: WBII May 1 2, 201 0
Sounds good, Tom - I have some potential activities to run by you when you have time. I will be in a meeting all morning tomorrow
(Thurs), but will need to discuss potential media coverage and oil-sample disposition with you tomorrow afternoon. I will call to
discuss - please let me know if some times are better than others tomorrow afternoon. Ernst
At 08:29 PM 5/1 2/201 0, you wrote:
FYI... Looks like things are going well, though I think we will drop the B4 station and maybe more if needed. Right now I am
still hopeful they can make the spill zone Friday which is when we are on the ops plan and they are clearing some areas for us.
> From: RV Weatherbird < dwhnrda.cruise1 @gmail.com>
> Date: May 1 2, 201 0 4:25:1 1 PM EDT
> To: Tom Moore < [email protected]>
> Cc: [email protected]
> Subject: WBII May 1 2, 201 0
>
> Hi Tom and Deb,
> Please find attached our new locations for the bravo stations (excel
> spreadsheet, jpeg, and shape file). We are steaming towards B1 right
> now. We should be on station in approximately 3-5 hours. We have
> finished all of the SEAMAP stations, we were slightly delayed last
> night due to head troubles, but all fixed now. We are figuring around
> 2 to 2.5 hours of work per bravo station. We tightened up the station
> locations to be between 1 3-1 5NM apart. With transit, we are looking at
> 4 hours per station (1 0 stations) starting between 3:30 to 5:30 this
> evening (working around clock). We are going to hit them in order,
> ending in B1 0 and then we start steaming over to the D stations.
>
> We will check this e-mail again after our first station, while in
> transit to next (B2).
>
> Thanks
> Mel and Drew
>
> On 5/1 2/1 0, Tom Moore < [email protected]> wrote:
>> Melanie should be able to help interpret this information... Were using
>> this info to target final spill area sampling. 1 jpg, and 2 ZIP files
>> attached.
>>
>>>
>>> Laurie, Rob, Troy,
>>> See also attached Ocean Imaging interpretations of remote sensing with oil
>>> thickness. Fresh thick oil should be surfacing oil.
>>> Deb
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Laurie, Dan, Tom,
>>>
>>> Attached are my model results for 5AM today using the measured currents at
>>> the wellhead (ADCP). The Payne cruise should be sampling where oil is
>>> coming up and in the surface waters, but note the narrow plume. The 1 00
>>> deg 8km out position is where I placed him last night, and he reported
>>> they were at P1 position at 8am running the ROV. The plan is they go from
>>> P1 toward P4. If you look at the pictures, I think the deep plume at the
>>> bottom is close to the wellhead and just SW, but also at P3 (between P2
>>> and P4). You can see this is a tough thing to sample. This is why I
>>> think we need more sampling out there. The Sipper sampling will be a big
>>> help.
>>>
>>> I have been discussing the deep plume modeling with CJ Beegle-Krause, who
>>> is lead on that for the response. OK that we share model predictions? I
>>> can cc Robert and Stephanie on any emailed pictures, but will keep
>>> discussions on the phone.
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> Deb
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>> The Payne cruise is going to sample the rising plume tomorrow am and all
>>> indications I can find show that the rising plume extends to the east.
>>> The ADCP shows eastward currents in the surface layer (to 1 00 deg. about
>>> 0.7 kts), and the currents 1 00 -300m down are ~0.2 kts to NE. Net seems to
>>> be about due east. See vector plot attached. This is at:
>>> http://www.ndbc.noaa.gov/station_page.php?station=4291 6
>>>
>>> Attached is an Ocean Imaging overflight interpretaions from 0900cdt May
>>> 1 0, the most recent we have. At that time yesterday, the eastward plume
>>> was 1 .5km = 0.8nmile long. This seems to be the untreated oil coming up.
>>> The southward plume is unclear, might be from dispersant-injected oil
>>> coming up more slowly and being carried south in deeper waters. These
>>> features have been present for a few days now.
>>>
>>> We'd like the Sipper to sample both these plumes. Ocean Imaging should be
>>> up flying again soon (was not today), so we should get more by the 1 4th.
>>>
>>> Deb
>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
--------------------------------------------------------
Tom Moore
263 1 3th Ave South
727-551 -571 6 Office
Cell
B6 Privacy
727-647-6538 Cell
still hopeful they can make the spill zone Friday which is when we are on the ops plan and they are clearing some areas for us.
Date: May 1 2, 201 0 4:25:1 1 PM EDT
Hi Tom and Deb,
Thanks
Mel and Drew
attached.
Laurie, Rob, Troy,
Deb
Laurie, Dan, Tom,
help.
Thanks,
Deb
0.7 kts), and the currents 1 00 -300m down are ~0.2 kts to NE. Net seems to
Deb
--------------------------------------------------------
Tom Moore
263 1 3th Ave South
727-551 -571 6 Office
Cell
B6 Privacy
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 8.5.437 / Virus Database: 271 .1 .1 /2869 - Release Date: 05/1 2/1 0 06:26:00
Date: May 1 2, 201 0 9:50:30 PM EDT
To: Laurie Sullivan < [email protected]>
Cc: Debbie French McCay < [email protected]>, Tom Moore < [email protected]>
Thanks for tracking this down Laurie. One of the benefits of being at the ICP. Hopefully Frank has, or can track down that
information. It seemed difficult to get the information on deep disspersant injection volumes. Timing of injections should be much
more straight forward. Also, isn't the new -style dome a while out still? My impression wasn't that it was in the next few days.
Dan
Laurie Sullivan wrote:
Deb, we can ask this of the SSC at our trustee call tomorrow morning, or at tonight's ORR call, or (best) when I see Frank
tonight.
Tom and Dan,
Thanks,
Deb
(office) 401 -789 -6224
(fax)
B6 Privacy
[email protected]
To: RV Weatherbird
plugged into the incident plan for a Friday arrival at 0600, we'll need to make a call tomorrow if it is work skipping a few
stations so you can at least get to the spill area sometime mid -day friday. Then maybe you could do some night work or try to
do a set of D stations along with the P stations on Saturday. They are installing some new oil capture domes in the next few
days as well so assuming they get luckily and block the oil it would be good to get our D and P stations sooner rather then
later. I will be on the spill area coordination call starting tonight so I should have a better sense as to how tight our schedule is
going to need to be.
Hi Tom and Deb,
Thanks
Mel and Drew
--
Daniel Hahn, Ph.D.
Phone: (727) 551 -571 5
Fax:
B6 Privacy
B6 Privacy
Cell:
Date: May 1 2, 201 0 1 0:00:38 PM EDT
To: Daniel Hahn < [email protected]>
Cc: Debbie French McCay < [email protected]>, Tom Moore < [email protected]>
My understanding of the situation is that this method is their second choice and is not happening in the next few days.
Daniel Hahn wrote:
information. It seemed difficult to get the information on deep disspersant injection volumes. Timing of injections should be
much more straight forward. Also, isn't the new -style dome a while out still? My impression wasn't that it was in the next few
days.
Dan
tonight.
Tom and Dan,
Thanks,
Deb
(office) B6 Privacy
(fax) B6 Privacy
[email protected]
To: RV Weatherbird
stations so you can at least get to the spill area sometime mid -day friday. Then maybe you could do some night work or try
to do a set of D stations along with the P stations on Saturday. They are installing some new oil capture domes in the next
few days as well so assuming they get luckily and block the oil it would be good to get our D and P stations sooner rather
then later. I will be on the spill area coordination call starting tonight so I should have a better sense as to how tight our
schedule is going to need to be.
Hi Tom and Deb,
Thanks
Mel and Drew
--
Laurie Sullivan
Office:
Fax:
Cell:
707-575-6077
707-575-6094
B6 Privacy
Date: May 1 3, 201 0 8:58:39 AM EDT
To: Laurie Sullivan < [email protected]>
Cc: Daniel Hahn <[email protected]>, Debbie French McCay < [email protected]>
I don't know.... I was on the SIMOPS call last night (in prep for the Weatherbird's site arrival) and one of the vessels mentioned
that they expected to receive authorization for subsea dispersant use in the next 1 2 hours, folks in Houston corrected him and told
him it might be this morning. As for the "top hat" the SIMOPS folks said it was on the bottom (but not over the leak) and the the
drill ship was in the process of lowering piping. They have third drill rig arriving today for relief well work. I'll be on the morning
SIMOPS call today and should be able to get a few more details.
On May 1 2, 201 0, at 1 0:00 PM, Laurie Sullivan wrote:
My understanding of the situation is that this method is their second choice and is not happening in the next few days.
Daniel Hahn wrote:
information. It seemed difficult to get the information on deep disspersant injection volumes. Timing of injections should be
much more straight forward. Also, isn't the new -style dome a while out still? My impression wasn't that it was in the next few
days.
Dan
tonight.
Tom and Dan,
Thanks,
Deb
(office) B6 Privacy
(fax) B6 Privacy
[email protected]
To: RV Weatherbird
stations so you can at least get to the spill area sometime mid -day friday. Then maybe you could do some night work or
try to do a set of D stations along with the P stations on Saturday. They are installing some new oil capture domes in the
next few days as well so assuming they get luckily and block the oil it would be good to get our D and P stations sooner
rather then later. I will be on the spill area coordination call starting tonight so I should have a better sense as to how tight
our schedule is going to need to be.
Hi Tom and Deb,
Thanks
Mel and Drew
--
Laurie Sullivan
Office:
707-575-6077
Fax:
Cell:
B6 Privacy
B6 Privacy
--------------------------------------------------------
Tom Moore
263 1 3th Ave South
727-551 -571 6 Office
Cell
B6 Privacy
From: Richard Snyder < [email protected]>
Date: May 1 3, 201 0 1 0:07:43 AM EDT
Cc: "Hogarth, Bill" < [email protected]>, [email protected], [email protected], Daniel Hahn
< [email protected]>, [email protected], Arthur Jonathan < [email protected]>, [email protected],
[email protected], Ellington William Ross < [email protected]>, "George A. Maul" < [email protected]>, Felicia Coleman
< [email protected]>, [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected],
[email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], "Richard E. Dodge" < [email protected]>,
[email protected], [email protected], [email protected], Aswani Volety < [email protected]>, Bill Hogarth
< [email protected]>, Donald Winter < [email protected]>, Eric Chassignet < [email protected]>, Graham
Worthy < [email protected]>, Ian Macdonald < [email protected]>, Joseph Boyer < [email protected]>, Kumar Mahadevan
< [email protected]>, Manhar Dhanak < [email protected]>, Michael Wade Kindel < mkindel1 @fau.edu>, Mitchell Roffer
< [email protected]>, Nick Shay < [email protected]>, Peter Braza < [email protected]>, Peter Sheng
< [email protected]>, Peter Tatro < [email protected]>, Sandra Vargo < [email protected]>, Steve Woll
< [email protected]>, William Dewar < [email protected]>, Wade Jeffrey < [email protected]>
Subject: Re: North Gulf Shelf Sampling
Ernst:
I do have some concerns, and your rationale to not sample region 1 0 because it has been "compromised" I do not understand. I
waited till this morning to reply hoping the temptation to use language better suited to the pitching deck of a ship in rough weather
would subside. I wish I could tell you that is the case.
Region 1 0 is in the most immediate danger in all of Florida, which at least you acknowledge. I do not understand the rationale to
discard the rest of the region because the SW corner may have been impacted. I would think, but then I'm just a low rate scientist
in the west of Florida, that fact alone would have created an urgency to get over here and sample region 1 0 first. The ship
sampled East region 8 first, then to the West? What? While we have a window with SE winds keeping the plume away?
You state this is not an "official SEAMAP cruise" and you sampled only 24 of the stations, so adherence to a probablistic sampling
scheme (is that what happened ?) requiring you discard the most at risk region of the Florida Shelf because of a probability of
randomly picking the two stations in the SW corner (?) in the face of a potential ecological catastrophe, seems like exactly the kind
of <deleted> decision that causes general public to shake their heads in disgust at their tax dollar paid public servants and the
decisions made for the application of tax payer resources, State and Federal.
Can you honestly tell me that if region 5, the middle grounds and Tampa/St. Pete, was in the same situation as we are facing in
region 1 0, that the same decisions would have been made ? I'm sure the people up here in the Panhandle will be comforted to
know you are prepared to station a ship in the Florida straits for the remote chance significant concentrations of petroleum and/or
dispersants will reach there (yes I understand the loop current) when we are facing a more real probability of oil impact here in
region 1 0, offshore and on shore.
No, I do not understand.
The e-mail addressees are members of the FLCOOS and Oil Spill Academic Task Force for their information only, no implied
consent or agreement with my position.
On Wed, May 1 2, 201 0 at 5:58 PM, Ernst Peebles < [email protected]> wrote:
Richard,
Our (FWRI and USF) first priority was to establish pre-impact conditions within those Florida continental-shelf waters that
appeared to be most likely to be affected by the spill. At the time of cruise -plan development, panhandle waters appeared to be
the most vulnerable. The overall plan was to repeat this approach as necessary in other regions of the West Florida Shelf,
positioning future cruises ahead of the spill as it moved east and south. At this point, we do not have funding for additional
cruises of this type, and we are watching spill interactions with the Loop Current. Should the oil spill become entrained in the
Loop Current, we may be able to position another vessel within the Florida Straits to intercept the oil for chemical fingerprinting.
Early NOAA spill maps indicated oil was present in the southwest corner of NMFS stat zone 1 0, and 2 of our 1 1 SEAMAP-style
stations were within this area of stat zone 1 0 (note the term "SEAMAP-style" - our ongoing cruise is not an official SEAMAP
cruise). We were therefore concerned that stat zone 1 0 had been compromised or that it could be argued that it had been
compromised. We decided to prioritize stat zones 8 and 9, working west towards the spill. By using SEAMAP protocols to
identify stations, we could assure that these stations would be revisited during at least one future SEAMAP cruise that had
already been scheduled for July, 201 0.
NOAA's first priority was to study the spill site outside Florida waters. In order to stay on schedule for the NOAA work, we had to
reduce the number of SEAMAP-style stations from 32 to 24. After departing Pensacola and ending the SEAMAP-style work, the
WBII headed toward the spill area. I am still awaiting today's update via satellite phone. It is my understanding that no SEAMAP-
style work was done in stat zone 1 0, although I will check to see what, if anything, was done there during transit to the spill area.
The Pensacola port call was scheduled after the WBII had left St. Pete. It's purpose was 1 ) to deliver age -sensitive water and
sediment samples to shore for shipment to the lab in Texas, and 2) to exchange crew and load new equipment and supplies. At
the time of scheduling this port call, the WBII had a full complement of scientific and ship's crew. There is presently no plan to
make another port call to Pensacola.
Thanks very much for the offer of support, and please let me know if any of this is not clear or if you have additional concerns.
Regards,
Ernst
At 01 :54 PM 5/1 2/201 0, you wrote:
I really don't like being a pain in the rear, but I am confused, please help.
The Weatherbird cruise plan has stations prioritized for Zones 8 & 9, but for Zone 1 0:
"Figure 6. Locations of SEAMAP sampling stations within NMFS statistical zone 1 0. At present we do not anticipate sampling
within NMFS statistical zone 1 0 unless sampling within NMFS statistical zones 8 and 9 are completed ahead of schedule."
Can someone explain to me why Zone 1 0, off of Pensacola, Santa Rosa Island, and Perdido Key, likely the first place the oil
will come, is not a priority over stations to the east? Did stations around the corner north and east of Cape San Blas get
priority over zone 1 0?
1 ) how was the sampling for pre-oil condition prioritized ? Why is zone 1 0 a secondary consideration?
2) did they have time to do any sampling in zone 1 0? Our local paper stated they collect "a" water sample 1 6 miles south of
Pensacola...
3) was the stop in Pensacola yesterday (tuesday) scheduled?
4) will they stop back here before heading to FIO? Anything they need?
People here at the likely point of first Florida impact keep asking me what the state is doing to look after their interests.
I'm hoping that I'm missing something.
--
Richard A. Snyder, Ph.D.
Professor and Director
Center for Environmental Diagnostics and Bioremediation (CEDB)
http://uwf.edu/cedb/
University of West Florida

1 1 000 University Parkway
Pensacola, FL 3251 4
TEL: (850) 474 -2806
FAX:
-31 30
http://uwf.edu/rsnyder/
____________________________________
Associate Professor
St. Petersburg, Florida 33701 -501 6
office phone: (727) 553 -3983
lab phone:
B6 Privacy
B6 Privacy
fax:
____________________________________
--

TEL: (850) 474-2806
FAX:
-31 30
Date: May 1 3, 201 0 1 0:1 6:40 AM EDT
To: Stephanie Willis < [email protected]>, "hahn >> Daniel Hahn" < [email protected]>
Subject: Fwd: North Gulf Shelf Sampling
FYI... this is really a State of FL / FWC issue since they controlled all of the decision making with the where they were doing
SEAMAP work. Wanted you to make you aware eitherway since our name could get dragged into this.
Date: May 1 3, 201 0 1 0:07:43 AM EDT
< [email protected]>, [email protected], Arthur Jonathan < [email protected]>,
[email protected], [email protected], Ellington William Ross < [email protected]>, "George A. Maul" < [email protected]>,
Felicia Coleman < [email protected]>, [email protected], [email protected], [email protected],
[email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], "Richard E.
Dodge" < [email protected]>, [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], Aswani Volety
< [email protected]>, Bill Hogarth < [email protected]>, Donald Winter < [email protected]>, Eric Chassignet
< [email protected]>, Graham Worthy < [email protected]>, Ian Macdonald < [email protected]>, Joseph
Boyer < [email protected]>, Kumar Mahadevan < [email protected]>, Manhar Dhanak < [email protected]>, Michael Wade Kindel
< mkindel1 @fau.edu>, Mitchell Roffer < [email protected]>, Nick Shay < [email protected]>, Peter Braza
< [email protected]>, Peter Sheng < [email protected]>, Peter Tatro < [email protected]>, Sandra Vargo
< [email protected]>, Steve Woll < [email protected]>, William Dewar < [email protected]>, Wade Jeffrey
Ernst:
waited till this morning to reply hoping the temptation to use language better suited to the pitching deck of a ship in rough
weather would subside. I wish I could tell you that is the case.
Region 1 0 is in the most immediate danger in all of Florida, which at least you acknowledge. I do not understand the rationale
to discard the rest of the region because the SW corner may have been impacted. I would think, but then I'm just a low rate
scientist in the west of Florida, that fact alone would have created an urgency to get over here and sample region 1 0 first. The
ship sampled East region 8 first, then to the West? What? While we have a window with SE winds keeping the plume away?
You state this is not an "official SEAMAP cruise" and you sampled only 24 of the stations, so adherence to a probablistic
sampling scheme (is that what happened?) requiring you discard the most at risk region of the Florida Shelf because of a
probability of randomly picking the two stations in the SW corner (?) in the face of a potential ecological catastrophe, seems like
exactly the kind of <deleted> decision that causes general public to shake their heads in disgust at their tax dollar paid public
servants and the decisions made for the application of tax payer resources, State and Federal.
know you are prepared to station a ship in the Florida straits for the remote chance significant concentrations of petroleum
and/or dispersants will reach there (yes I understand the loop current) when we are facing a more real probability of oil impact
here in region 1 0, offshore and on shore.
On Wed, May 1 2, 201 0 at 5:58 PM, Ernst Peebles < [email protected]> wrote:
Richard,
appeared to be most likely to be affected by the spill. At the time of cruise -plan development, panhandle waters appeared to
be the most vulnerable. The overall plan was to repeat this approach as necessary in other regions of the West Florida Shelf,
Loop Current, we may be able to position another vessel within the Florida Straits to intercept the oil for chemical
fingerprinting.
Early NOAA spill maps indicated oil was present in the southwest corner of NMFS stat zone 1 0, and 2 of our 1 1 SEAMAP-
style stations were within this area of stat zone 1 0 (note the term "SEAMAP-style" - our ongoing cruise is not an official
SEAMAP cruise). We were therefore concerned that stat zone 1 0 had been compromised or that it could be argued that it had
been compromised. We decided to prioritize stat zones 8 and 9, working west towards the spill. By using SEAMAP protocols
to identify stations, we could assure that these stations would be revisited during at least one future SEAMAP cruise that had
NOAA's first priority was to study the spill site outside Florida waters. In order to stay on schedule for the NOAA work, we had
to reduce the number of SEAMAP-style stations from 32 to 24. After departing Pensacola and ending the SEAMAP-style work,
the WBII headed toward the spill area. I am still awaiting today's update via satellite phone. It is my understanding that no
SEAMAP-style work was done in stat zone 1 0, although I will check to see what, if anything, was done there during transit to
the spill area.
sediment samples to shore for shipment to the lab in Texas, and 2) to exchange crew and load new equipment and supplies.
At the time of scheduling this port call, the WBII had a full complement of scientific and ship's crew. There is presently no plan
to make another port call to Pensacola.
to make another port call to Pensacola.
Regards,
Ernst
At 01 :54 PM 5/1 2/201 0, you wrote:
"Figure 6. Locations of SEAMAP sampling stations within NMFS statistical zone 1 0. At present we do not anticipate
sampling within NMFS statistical zone 1 0 unless sampling within NMFS statistical zones 8 and 9 are completed ahead of
schedule."
Can someone explain to me why Zone 1 0, off of Pensacola, Santa Rosa Island, and Perdido Key, likely the first place the oil
will come, is not a priority over stations to the east? Did stations around the corner north and east of Cape San Blas get
priority over zone 1 0?
Pensacola...
--

TEL: (850) 474-2806
FAX:
-31 30
____________________________________
Associate Professor
B6 Privacy
office phone:
B6 Privacy
lab phone:
B6 Privacy
fax:
____________________________________
--

TEL: (850) 474-2806
FAX:
-31 30
--------------------------------------------------------
Tom Moore
263 1 3th Ave South
727-551 -571 6 Office
B6 Privacy
Cell
Date: May 1 3, 201 0 1 0:26:05 AM EDT
I am in and out off stuff all day so just give me a call and I will do my best to grab it.
On May 1 2, 201 0, at 9:1 0 PM, Ernst Peebles wrote:
Sounds good, Tom - I have some potential activities to run by you when you have time. I will be in a meeting all morning
tomorrow (Thurs), but will need to discuss potential media coverage and oil-sample disposition with you tomorrow afternoon. I
will call to discuss - please let me know if some times are better than others tomorrow afternoon. Ernst
At 08:29 PM 5/1 2/201 0, you wrote:
still hopeful they can make the spill zone Friday which is when we are on the ops plan and they are clearing some areas for
us.
> From: RV Weatherbird < dwhnrda.cruise1 @gmail.com>
> Date: May 1 2, 201 0 4:25:1 1 PM EDT
> To: Tom Moore < [email protected]>
> Cc: [email protected]
> Subject: WBII May 1 2, 201 0
>
> Hi Tom and Deb,
> Please find attached our new locations for the bravo stations (excel
> spreadsheet, jpeg, and shape file). We are steaming towards B1 right
> now. We should be on station in approximately 3-5 hours. We have
> finished all of the SEAMAP stations, we were slightly delayed last
> night due to head troubles, but all fixed now. We are figuring around
> 2 to 2.5 hours of work per bravo station. We tightened up the station
> locations to be between 1 3-1 5NM apart. With transit, we are looking at
> 4 hours per station (1 0 stations) starting between 3:30 to 5:30 this
> evening (working around clock). We are going to hit them in order,
> ending in B1 0 and then we start steaming over to the D stations.
>
> transit to next (B2).
>
> Thanks
> Mel and Drew
>
> On 5/1 2/1 0, Tom Moore < [email protected]> wrote:
>> Melanie should be able to help interpret this information... Were using
>> this info to target final spill area sampling. 1 jpg, and 2 ZIP files
>> attached.
>>
>>>
>>> Laurie, Rob, Troy,
>>> See also attached Ocean Imaging interpretations of remote sensing with oil
>>> thickness. Fresh thick oil should be surfacing oil.
>>> Deb
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Laurie, Dan, Tom,
>>>
>>> Attached are my model results for 5AM today using the measured currents at
>>> the wellhead (ADCP). The Payne cruise should be sampling where oil is
>>> coming up and in the surface waters, but note the narrow plume. The 1 00
>>> deg 8km out position is where I placed him last night, and he reported
>>> they were at P1 position at 8am running the ROV. The plan is they go from
>>> P1 toward P4. If you look at the pictures, I think the deep plume at the
>>> bottom is close to the wellhead and just SW, but also at P3 (between P2
>>> and P4). You can see this is a tough thing to sample. This is why I
>>> think we need more sampling out there. The Sipper sampling will be a big
>>> help.
>>>
>>> I have been discussing the deep plume modeling with CJ Beegle-Krause, who
>>> is lead on that for the response. OK that we share model predictions? I
>>> can cc Robert and Stephanie on any emailed pictures, but will keep
>>> discussions on the phone.
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> Deb
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>> The Payne cruise is going to sample the rising plume tomorrow am and all
>>> indications I can find show that the rising plume extends to the east.
>>> The ADCP shows eastward currents in the surface layer (to 1 00 deg. about
>>> 0.7 kts), and the currents 1 00 -300m down are ~0.2 kts to NE. Net seems to
>>> be about due east. See vector plot attached. This is at:
>>> http://www.ndbc.noaa.gov/station_page.php?station=4291 6
>>>
>>> Attached is an Ocean Imaging overflight interpretaions from 0900cdt May
>>> 1 0, the most recent we have. At that time yesterday, the eastward plume
>>> was 1 .5km = 0.8nmile long. This seems to be the untreated oil coming up.
>>> The southward plume is unclear, might be from dispersant-injected oil
>>> coming up more slowly and being carried south in deeper waters. These
>>> features have been present for a few days now.
>>>
>>> We'd like the Sipper to sample both these plumes. Ocean Imaging should be
>>> up flying again soon (was not today), so we should get more by the 1 4th.
>>>
>>> Deb
>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
--------------------------------------------------------
Tom Moore
263 1 3th Ave South
727-551 -571 6 Office
B6 Privacy
Cell
still hopeful they can make the spill zone Friday which is when we are on the ops plan and they are clearing some areas for
us.
Date: May 1 2, 201 0 4:25:1 1 PM EDT
Hi Tom and Deb,
Thanks
Mel and Drew
attached.
Laurie, Rob, Troy,
Laurie, Rob, Troy,
Deb
Laurie, Dan, Tom,
help.
Thanks,
Deb
0.7 kts), and the currents 1 00-300m down are ~0.2 kts to NE. Net seems to
Deb
--------------------------------------------------------
Tom Moore
263 1 3th Ave South
727-551 -571 6 Office
B6 Privacy
Cell
--------------------------------------------------------
Tom Moore
263 1 3th Ave South
727-551 -571 6 Office
Cell
B6 Privacy
Date: May 1 3, 201 0 2:1 9:08 PM EDT
To: Richard Snyder < [email protected]>, Ernst Peebles < [email protected]>
Richard,
We adhered to the SEAMAP probabilistic design and protocols to allow data comparability with other cruises (a cost-effective use
of tax dollars).
After much debate, we decided as a group to work east-to-west because 1 ) this would be most efficient, given that we had limited
time, and 2) more importantly, it would help ensure that we were working clean-to-dirty - if the vessel and gear became
contaminated early, then ALL pre-impact sampling would have to stop.
We have always recognized that your region is in the most immediate danger, and it was written into our cruise plan that we would
sample the unaffected parts of stat zone 1 0 if time allowed. We do understand that finishing 24 stations was not as good as our
original plan (32 stations plus at least part of stat zone 1 0). The crew worked very, very hard during the limited time they had, but
the pace was not fast enough to get everything done in time.
The second vessel happens to be in the Key West area as part of another cruise - the possible sampling of spill materials as they
pass by would be opportunistic (also good use of taxpayers' dollars).
In short, all of the rational arguments you raise were carefully considered beforehand, and we are doing our best to be
constructive.
Ernst
At 09:07 AM 5/1 3/201 0, Richard Snyder wrote:
Ernst:
On Wed, May 1 2, 201 0 at 5:58 PM, Ernst Peebles < [email protected] > wrote:
Richard,
Our (FWRI and USF) first priority was to establish pre-impact conditions within those Florida continental-shelf waters
that appeared to be most likely to be affected by the spill. At the time of cruise -plan development, panhandle waters
appeared to be the most vulnerable. The overall plan was to repeat this approach as necessary in other regions of the
West Florida Shelf, positioning future cruises ahead of the spill as it moved east and south. At this point, we do not have
funding for additional cruises of this type, and we are watching spill interactions with the Loop Current. Should the oil
spill become entrained in the Loop Current, we may be able to position another vessel within the Florida Straits to
intercept the oil for chemical fingerprinting.
Early NOAA spill maps indicated oil was present in the southwest corner of NMFS stat zone 1 0, and 2 of our 1 1
SEAMAP-style stations were within this area of stat zone 1 0 (note the term "SEAMAP-style" - our ongoing cruise is not
an official SEAMAP cruise). We were therefore concerned that stat zone 1 0 had been compromised or that it could be
argued that it had been compromised. We decided to prioritize stat zones 8 and 9, working west towards the spill. By
using SEAMAP protocols to identify stations, we could assure that these stations would be revisited during at least one
future SEAMAP cruise that had already been scheduled for July, 201 0.
NOAA's first priority was to study the spill site outside Florida waters. In order to stay on schedule for the NOAA work,
we had to reduce the number of SEAMAP-style stations from 32 to 24. After departing Pensacola and ending the
SEAMAP-style work, the WBII headed toward the spill area. I am still awaiting today's update via satellite phone. It is my
understanding that no SEAMAP-style work was done in stat zone 1 0, although I will check to see what, if anything, was
done there during transit to the spill area.
The Pensacola port call was scheduled after the WBII had left St. Pete. It's purpose was 1 ) to deliver age -sensitive water
and sediment samples to shore for shipment to the lab in Texas, and 2) to exchange crew and load new equipment and
supplies. At the time of scheduling this port call, the WBII had a full complement of scientific and ship's crew. There is
presently no plan to make another port call to Pensacola.
Thanks very much for the offer of support, and please let me know if any of this is not clear or if you have additional
concerns.
Regards,
Ernst
At 01 :54 PM 5/1 2/201 0, you wrote:
"Figure 6. Locations of SEAMAP sampling stations within NMFS statistical zone 1 0. At present we do not
anticipate sampling within NMFS statistical zone 1 0 unless sampling within NMFS statistical zones 8 and 9 are
completed ahead of schedule."
Can someone explain to me why Zone 1 0, off of Pensacola, Santa Rosa Island, and Perdido Key, likely the
first place the oil will come, is not a priority over stations to the east? Did stations around the corner north and
east of Cape San Blas get priority over zone 1 0?
2) did they have time to do any sampling in zone 1 0? Our local paper stated they collect "a" water sample 1 6
miles south of Pensacola...
People here at the likely point of first Florida impact keep asking me what the state is doing to look after their
interests.
--

TEL: (850) 474 -2806
FAX:
-31 30
____________________________________
Associate Professor
B6 Privacy
office phone:
B6 Privacy
lab phone:
B6 Privacy
fax:
fax:
B6 Privacy
____________________________________
--

TEL: (850) 474-2806
FAX:
-31 30
____________________________________
Associate Professor
B6 Privacy
office phone:
B6 Privacy
lab phone:
B6 Privacy
fax:
____________________________________
Date: May 1 3, 201 0 1 :55:07 PM EDT
Ernst:
Region 1 0, the area most likely to be impacted, remains unsampled with SEAMAP protocols that will be compatible to the exiting
and future dataset. I will not belabor the point further.
On Thu, May 1 3, 201 0 at 1 :1 9 PM, Ernst Peebles < [email protected]> wrote:
Richard,
We adhered to the SEAMAP probabilistic design and protocols to allow data comparability with other cruises (a cost-effective
use of tax dollars).
After much debate, we decided as a group to work east-to-west because 1 ) this would be most efficient, given that we had
limited time, and 2) more importantly, it would help ensure that we were working clean-to-dirty - if the vessel and gear became
We have always recognized that your region is in the most immediate danger, and it was written into our cruise plan that we
would sample the unaffected parts of stat zone 1 0 if time allowed. We do understand that finishing 24 stations was not as good
as our original plan (32 stations plus at least part of stat zone 1 0). The crew worked very, very hard during the limited time they
had, but the pace was not fast enough to get everything done in time.
The second vessel happens to be in the Key West area as part of another cruise - the possible sampling of spill materials as
they pass by would be opportunistic (also good use of taxpayers' dollars).
constructive.
Ernst
Ernst:
I do have some concerns, and your rationale to not sample region 1 0 because it has been "compromised" I do not understand.
I waited till this morning to reply hoping the temptation to use language better suited to the pitching deck of a ship in rough
Region 1 0 is in the most immediate danger in all of Florida, which at least you acknowledge. I do not understand the
rationale to discard the rest of the region because the SW corner may have been impacted. I would think, but then I'm just a
low rate scientist in the west of Florida, that fact alone would have created an urgency to get over here and sample region 1 0
first. The ship sampled East region 8 first, then to the West? What? While we have a window with SE winds keeping the
plume away?
sampling scheme (is that what happened ?) requiring you discard the most at risk region of the Florida Shelf because of a
probability of randomly picking the two stations in the SW corner (?) in the face of a potential ecological catastrophe, seems
like exactly the kind of <deleted> decision that causes general public to shake their heads in disgust at their tax dollar paid
public servants and the decisions made for the application of tax payer resources, State and Federal.
Can you honestly tell me that if region 5, the middle grounds and Tampa/St. Pete, was in the same situation as we are facing
in region 1 0, that the same decisions would have been made ? I'm sure the people up here in the Panhandle will be comforted
to know you are prepared to station a ship in the Florida straits for the remote chance significant concentrations of petroleum
Richard,
appeared to be the most vulnerable. The overall plan was to repeat this approach as necessary in other regions of the
West Florida Shelf, positioning future cruises ahead of the spill as it moved east and south. At this point, we do not
have funding for additional cruises of this type, and we are watching spill interactions with the Loop Current. Should
the oil spill become entrained in the Loop Current, we may be able to position another vessel within the Florida Straits
to intercept the oil for chemical fingerprinting.
SEAMAP-style stations were within this area of stat zone 1 0 (note the term "SEAMAP-style" - our ongoing cruise is not
an official SEAMAP cruise). We were therefore concerned that stat zone 1 0 had been compromised or that it could be
argued that it had been compromised. We decided to prioritize stat zones 8 and 9, working west towards the spill. By
using SEAMAP protocols to identify stations, we could assure that these stations would be revisited during at least one
future SEAMAP cruise that had already been scheduled for July, 201 0.
NOAA's first priority was to study the spill site outside Florida waters. In order to stay on schedule for the NOAA work,
we had to reduce the number of SEAMAP-style stations from 32 to 24. After departing Pensacola and ending the
SEAMAP-style work, the WBII headed toward the spill area. I am still awaiting today's update via satellite phone. It is
my understanding that no SEAMAP-style work was done in stat zone 1 0, although I will check to see what, if anything,
was done there during transit to the spill area.
The Pensacola port call was scheduled after the WBII had left St. Pete. It's purpose was 1 ) to deliver age -sensitive
water and sediment samples to shore for shipment to the lab in Texas, and 2) to exchange crew and load new
equipment and supplies. At the time of scheduling this port call, the WBII had a full complement of scientific and ship's
crew. There is presently no plan to make another port call to Pensacola.
concerns.
Regards,
Ernst
At 01 :54 PM 5/1 2/201 0, you wrote:
anticipate sampling within NMFS statistical zone 1 0 unless sampling within NMFS statistical zones 8 and 9
are completed ahead of schedule."
first place the oil will come, is not a priority over stations to the east? Did stations around the corner north and
east of Cape San Blas get priority over zone 1 0?
2) did they have time to do any sampling in zone 1 0? Our local paper stated they collect "a" water sample 1 6
miles south of Pensacola...
People here at the likely point of first Florida impact keep asking me what the state is doing to look after their
interests.
--

TEL: (850) 474-2806
FAX:
-31 30
____________________________________
Associate Professor
B6 Privacy
office phone:
B6 Privacy
lab phone:
B6 Privacy
fax:
____________________________________
--

TEL: (850) 474 -2806
FAX:
-31 30
____________________________________
Associate Professor
B6 Privacy
office phone:
B6 Privacy
lab phone:
B6 Privacy
fax:
____________________________________
--

TEL: (850) 474-2806
FAX:
-31 30
Date: May 1 3, 201 0 2:04:05 PM EDT
To: Stephanie Willis < [email protected]>, "hahn >> Daniel Hahn" < [email protected]>
Subject: Fwd: North Gulf Shelf Sampling
Date: May 1 3, 201 0 1 :55:07 PM EDT
< [email protected]>, [email protected], Arthur Jonathan < [email protected]>,
[email protected], [email protected], Ellington William Ross < [email protected]>, "George A. Maul" < [email protected]>,
Felicia Coleman < [email protected]>, [email protected], [email protected], [email protected],
[email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], "Richard E.
Dodge" < [email protected]>, [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], Aswani Volety
< [email protected]>, Bill Hogarth < [email protected]>, Donald Winter < [email protected]>, Eric Chassignet
< [email protected]>, Graham Worthy < [email protected]>, Ian Macdonald < [email protected]>, Joseph
Boyer < [email protected]>, Kumar Mahadevan < [email protected]>, Manhar Dhanak < [email protected]>, Michael Wade Kindel
Ernst:
Region 1 0, the area most likely to be impacted, remains unsampled with SEAMAP protocols that will be compatible to the
exiting and future dataset. I will not belabor the point further.
On Thu, May 1 3, 201 0 at 1 :1 9 PM, Ernst Peebles < [email protected]> wrote:
Richard,
limited time, and 2) more importantly, it would help ensure that we were working clean-to-dirty - if the vessel and gear
became contaminated early, then ALL pre-impact sampling would have to stop.
would sample the unaffected parts of stat zone 1 0 if time allowed. We do understand that finishing 24 stations was not as
good as our original plan (32 stations plus at least part of stat zone 1 0). The crew worked very, very hard during the limited
time they had, but the pace was not fast enough to get everything done in time.
constructive.
Ernst
Ernst:
I do have some concerns, and your rationale to not sample region 1 0 because it has been "compromised" I do not
understand. I waited till this morning to reply hoping the temptation to use language better suited to the pitching deck of a
ship in rough weather would subside. I wish I could tell you that is the case.
ship in rough weather would subside. I wish I could tell you that is the case.
Region 1 0 is in the most immediate danger in all of Florida, which at least you acknowledge. I do not understand the
rationale to discard the rest of the region because the SW corner may have been impacted. I would think, but then I'm just a
low rate scientist in the west of Florida, that fact alone would have created an urgency to get over here and sample region
1 0 first. The ship sampled East region 8 first, then to the West? What? While we have a window with SE winds keeping the
plume away?
sampling scheme (is that what happened ?) requiring you discard the most at risk region of the Florida Shelf because of a
probability of randomly picking the two stations in the SW corner (?) in the face of a potential ecological catastrophe, seems
like exactly the kind of <deleted> decision that causes general public to shake their heads in disgust at their tax dollar paid
public servants and the decisions made for the application of tax payer resources, State and Federal.
Can you honestly tell me that if region 5, the middle grounds and Tampa/St. Pete, was in the same situation as we are
facing in region 1 0, that the same decisions would have been made ? I'm sure the people up here in the Panhandle will be
comforted to know you are prepared to station a ship in the Florida straits for the remote chance significant concentrations
of petroleum and/or dispersants will reach there (yes I understand the loop current) when we are facing a more real
probability of oil impact here in region 1 0, offshore and on shore.
The e-mail addressees are members of the FLCOOS and Oil Spill Academic Task Force for their information only, no
implied consent or agreement with my position.
Richard,
appeared to be the most vulnerable. The overall plan was to repeat this approach as necessary in other regions of
the West Florida Shelf, positioning future cruises ahead of the spill as it moved east and south. At this point, we do
not have funding for additional cruises of this type, and we are watching spill interactions with the Loop Current.
Should the oil spill become entrained in the Loop Current, we may be able to position another vessel within the
Florida Straits to intercept the oil for chemical fingerprinting.
SEAMAP-style stations were within this area of stat zone 1 0 (note the term "SEAMAP-style" - our ongoing cruise is
not an official SEAMAP cruise). We were therefore concerned that stat zone 1 0 had been compromised or that it
could be argued that it had been compromised. We decided to prioritize stat zones 8 and 9, working west towards
the spill. By using SEAMAP protocols to identify stations, we could assure that these stations would be revisited
during at least one future SEAMAP cruise that had already been scheduled for July, 201 0.
NOAA's first priority was to study the spill site outside Florida waters. In order to stay on schedule for the NOAA
work, we had to reduce the number of SEAMAP-style stations from 32 to 24. After departing Pensacola and ending
the SEAMAP-style work, the WBII headed toward the spill area. I am still awaiting today's update via satellite phone.
It is my understanding that no SEAMAP-style work was done in stat zone 1 0, although I will check to see what, if
anything, was done there during transit to the spill area.
The Pensacola port call was scheduled after the WBII had left St. Pete. It's purpose was 1 ) to deliver age -sensitive
water and sediment samples to shore for shipment to the lab in Texas, and 2) to exchange crew and load new
equipment and supplies. At the time of scheduling this port call, the WBII had a full complement of scientific and
ship's crew. There is presently no plan to make another port call to Pensacola.
concerns.
Regards,
Ernst
At 01 :54 PM 5/1 2/201 0, you wrote:
anticipate sampling within NMFS statistical zone 1 0 unless sampling within NMFS statistical zones 8 and 9
are completed ahead of schedule."
first place the oil will come, is not a priority over stations to the east? Did stations around the corner north
and east of Cape San Blas get priority over zone 1 0?
2) did they have time to do any sampling in zone 1 0? Our local paper stated they collect "a" water sample
1 6 miles south of Pensacola...
People here at the likely point of first Florida impact keep asking me what the state is doing to look after
their interests.
--

TEL: (850) 474-2806
FAX:
-31 30
____________________________________
Associate Professor
B6 Privacy
office phone:
lab phone:
B6 Privacy
B6 Privacy
fax:
____________________________________
--
TEL:
(850) 474-2806

FAX:
-31 30
____________________________________
Associate Professor
B6 Privacy
office phone:
B6 Privacy
lab phone:
B6 Privacy
fax:
____________________________________
--

TEL: (850) 474-2806
FAX:
-31 30
--------------------------------------------------------
Tom Moore
263 1 3th Ave South
B6 Privacy
B6 Privacy
Office
Cell
Date: May 1 3, 201 0 3:52:1 3 PM EDT
To: Richard Snyder < [email protected]>, Ernst Peebles < [email protected]>
All,
As a point of clarification, our sampled stations run from just east of Pensacola Beach eastward to Apalachicola, extending from
nearshore to ~35-50 nm offshore (much of NMFS stat zone 1 0 is actually offshore of Alabama). I do not want anyone to get the
impression that we were not able to sample in the vicinity of Pensacola.
The Weatherbird II has managed to remain clear of oil and is now working around the clock in clean waters that feed the spill area
from the south (plankton, neuston, SIPPER) - the crew will be working within the spill by Saturday. Things are going very well -
thanks for all of the expressions of support.
Ernst
At 1 2:55 PM 5/1 3/201 0, Richard Snyder wrote:
Ernst:
On Thu, May 1 3, 201 0 at 1 :1 9 PM, Ernst Peebles < [email protected] > wrote:
Richard,
We adhered to the SEAMAP probabilistic design and protocols to allow data comparability with other cruises (a cost-
effective use of tax dollars).
After much debate, we decided as a group to work east-to-west because 1 ) this would be most efficient, given that we
had limited time, and 2) more importantly, it would help ensure that we were working clean-to-dirty - if the vessel and
gear became contaminated early, then ALL pre-impact sampling would have to stop.
We have always recognized that your region is in the most immediate danger, and it was written into our cruise plan that
we would sample the unaffected parts of stat zone 1 0 if time allowed. We do understand that finishing 24 stations was
not as good as our original plan (32 stations plus at least part of stat zone 1 0). The crew worked very, very hard during
the limited time they had, but the pace was not fast enough to get everything done in time.
The second vessel happens to be in the Key West area as part of another cruise - the possible sampling of spill
materials as they pass by would be opportunistic (also good use of taxpayers' dollars).
constructive.
Ernst
Ernst:
I do have some concerns, and your rationale to not sample region 1 0 because it has been "compromised" I do
not understand. I waited till this morning to reply hoping the temptation to use language better suited to the
pitching deck of a ship in rough weather would subside. I wish I could tell you that is the case.
Region 1 0 is in the most immediate danger in all of Florida, which at least you acknowledge. I do not
understand the rationale to discard the rest of the region because the SW corner may have been impacted. I
would think, but then I'm just a low rate scientist in the west of Florida, that fact alone would have created an
urgency to get over here and sample region 1 0 first. The ship sampled East region 8 first, then to the West?
What? While we have a window with SE winds keeping the plume away?
You state this is not an "official SEAMAP cruise" and you sampled only 24 of the stations, so adherence to a
probablistic sampling scheme (is that what happened ?) requiring you discard the most at risk region of the
Florida Shelf because of a probability of randomly picking the two stations in the SW corner (?) in the face of a
potential ecological catastrophe, seems like exactly the kind of <deleted> decision that causes general public
to shake their heads in disgust at their tax dollar paid public servants and the decisions made for the
application of tax payer resources, State and Federal.
Can you honestly tell me that if region 5, the middle grounds and Tampa/St. Pete, was in the same situation as
we are facing in region 1 0, that the same decisions would have been made ? I'm sure the people up here in the
Panhandle will be comforted to know you are prepared to station a ship in the Florida straits for the remote
chance significant concentrations of petroleum and/or dispersants will reach there (yes I understand the loop
current) when we are facing a more real probability of oil impact here in region 1 0, offshore and on shore.
The e-mail addressees are members of the FLCOOS and Oil Spill Academic Task Force for their information
only, no implied consent or agreement with my position.
Richard,
Our (FWRI and USF) first priority was to establish pre-impact conditions within those Florida
continental-shelf waters that appeared to be most likely to be affected by the spill. At the time of cruise -
plan development, panhandle waters appeared to be the most vulnerable. The overall plan was to
repeat this approach as necessary in other regions of the West Florida Shelf, positioning future cruises
ahead of the spill as it moved east and south. At this point, we do not have funding for additional cruises
of this type, and we are watching spill interactions with the Loop Current. Should the oil spill become
entrained in the Loop Current, we may be able to position another vessel within the Florida Straits to
Early NOAA spill maps indicated oil was present in the southwest corner of NMFS stat zone 1 0, and 2
of our 1 1 SEAMAP-style stations were within this area of stat zone 1 0 (note the term "SEAMAP-style" -
our ongoing cruise is not an official SEAMAP cruise). We were therefore concerned that stat zone 1 0
had been compromised or that it could be argued that it had been compromised. We decided to
prioritize stat zones 8 and 9, working west towards the spill. By using SEAMAP protocols to identify
stations, we could assure that these stations would be revisited during at least one future SEAMAP
cruise that had already been scheduled for July, 201 0.
NOAA's first priority was to study the spill site outside Florida waters. In order to stay on schedule for
the NOAA work, we had to reduce the number of SEAMAP-style stations from 32 to 24. After departing
Pensacola and ending the SEAMAP-style work, the WBII headed toward the spill area. I am still
awaiting today's update via satellite phone. It is my understanding that no SEAMAP-style work was
done in stat zone 1 0, although I will check to see what, if anything, was done there during transit to the
spill area.
The Pensacola port call was scheduled after the WBII had left St. Pete. It's purpose was 1 ) to deliver
age -sensitive water and sediment samples to shore for shipment to the lab in Texas, and 2) to
exchange crew and load new equipment and supplies. At the time of scheduling this port call, the WBII
had a full complement of scientific and ship's crew. There is presently no plan to make another port call
to Pensacola.
Thanks very much for the offer of support, and please let me know if any of this is not clear or if you
have additional concerns.
Regards,
Ernst
At 01 :54 PM 5/1 2/201 0, you wrote:
"Figure 6. Locations of SEAMAP sampling stations within NMFS statistical zone 1 0. At
present we do not anticipate sampling within NMFS statistical zone 1 0 unless sampling within
NMFS statistical zones 8 and 9 are completed ahead of schedule."
Can someone explain to me why Zone 1 0, off of Pensacola, Santa Rosa Island, and Perdido
Key, likely the first place the oil will come, is not a priority over stations to the east? Did
stations around the corner north and east of Cape San Blas get priority over zone 1 0?
1 ) how was the sampling for pre-oil condition prioritized ? Why is zone 1 0 a secondary
consideration?
2) did they have time to do any sampling in zone 1 0? Our local paper stated they collect "a"
water sample 1 6 miles south of Pensacola...
People here at the likely point of first Florida impact keep asking me what the state is doing to
look after their interests.
--

TEL: (850) 474-2806

FAX:
-31 30
____________________________________
Associate Professor
B6 Privacy
office phone:
B6 Privacy
lab phone:
B6 Privacy
fax:
____________________________________
--

TEL: (850) 474 -2806
FAX:
-31 30
____________________________________
Associate Professor
B6 Privacy
office phone:
B6 Privacy
lab phone:
B6 Privacy
fax:
____________________________________
--

TEL: (850) 474-2806
FAX:
-31 30
____________________________________
Associate Professor
B6 Privacy
office phone:
B6 Privacy
lab phone:
B6 Privacy
fax:
____________________________________
Date: May 1 3, 201 0 3:37:1 1 PM EDT
To: Rob Ricker < [email protected]>, "[email protected]" < [email protected]>, Daniel Hahn
Cc: Stephanie Willis < [email protected]>, Jill Rowe < [email protected]>, Tom Moore < [email protected]>
All,
I just talked with Tom about this idea. He noted that there are no acoustics allowed within 20 nmiles of the Wellhead, so this
would need to be for studies outside that area.
Laurie: It would not fit in with next week's cruise.
Deb
[email protected]
voc: B6 Privacy
________________________________________
From: Rob Ricker [[email protected]]
Sent: Thursday, May 1 3, 201 0 1 1 :55 AM
To: David Demer
Cc: [email protected]; Debbie French McCay; Patrick Rutten; [email protected]; Maria Brown; Lisa Symons; Robert A
Taylor; Laurie Sullivan; Eileen Graham; Jill Rowe; Melanie Schroeder; Jaime Jahncke; Thompson, Charles H. ; Christopher T
Gledhill
Thanks David for this information and the introductions to Charles
Thompson and Chris Gledhill. Please include Dr. Dan Hahn on any future
correspondence on this matter. He is our lead for the fisheries portion
of the NRDA activities. I suspect that Dan has already connected with
Charles and Chris, but best to fold him into this loop with all the
activity and distractions at play.
Rob
David Demer wrote:
Hello,
The use of multi-frequency scientific echosounders, such as the Simrad
EK60 (and the ME70 on the new NOAA FSVs), coupled with net or optical
sampling, is a mature method for surveying the distributions and
estimating abundances of fish and zooplankton. I have personally used
acoustic-trawl or acoustic-optical sampling for surveying krill and
fish (demersal, mid -water, and epi-pelagic), during the last ca. 20
years, but acoustic-trawl surveys have been used around the world for
at least 40 years. That is, mature technologies and methods are
available for post-spill monitoring. The bigger question is -- what
pre-spill data is available to estimate baseline biomasses in the
area, by species? I suggest contacting Charles Thompson and Chris
Gledhill at the NMFS Southeast Fisheries Science Center (I've cc'd
them so they know who to blame for this introduction). They are both
very knowledgeable about acoustic-trawl surveys, and I expect they
know, or know who knows, about historical survey data in the area.
Sincerely,
David Demer
Jan Roletto wrote:
Hi Debby:
Attached is an overview of biomass estimates using an EK 60. This
was sent to you from one of our research partners Jaime Jahncke from
PRBO Conservation Science. Jaime has suggested that Dave Demer from
NMFS take a look at the situation and determine if the process of
using this biomass assessment, along with ground truthing nets will
provide needed data on rapid assessment of water column biomass,
possible resources at risk, and fate of dispersants in the
ecosystem. I've include Jaime's and Dave's email if you want to
contact them directly.
Sorry for the delay, I was working on a shoreline early notification
for volunteers, for the spill.
Let me know if you have any other questions. Both Pat and are still
very interested in whether or not we can use this type of data and
information for NRDA for this spill and in the future.
Best, Jan
Jan,
Please do send your protocols. We are gathering information on what
data exists for fish biomass, and what can be done to sample fish
biomass pre-spill (or in reference areas). We are looking at
modeling the exposure and injury resulting, and to do this we need
to estimate pre-spill biomass.
Thanks,
Debbie
[email protected]
voc: B6 Privacy
________________________________________
Rob Ricker; Robert A Taylor; Laurie Sullivan; Eileen Graham;
Jennifer Cragan
Hi Debbie:
but
is still relatively new. I can send you protocols from our project if
you'd like. We've never used this techniques for rapid response, fate
of oil/dispersants or resources at risk. It looks like you are well
poised to test this, if you are interested.
water
column biomass. In post-processing the biomass can be calculated, but
you would also need to ground truth the images by collecting a few
trawls. Pat and I are hoping that this type of technique can also be
used for rapid assessment, having an individual annotate images on the
screen in real time, with "estimates" of denser schools/patches of
fish,
krill, shrimp, etc.
Best, Jan
Jan,
I am working with Dan Hahn and Tom Moore re a ichthyoplankton
sampling cruise with USF scientists that is now sampling on FL
shelf but next week will go to the release site area. That plan is
still being developed (for the second leg at the release site).
Sampling will be in the upper 350m, focused on surface mixed layer
to about 40m.
Is there a fish finder that can record biomass while underway? I
am not familiar with the latest technology re this. Can you give
me some info on that? We had no data on pelagic fish biomass out in
the release site area.
Thanks
Debbie
(office) B6 Privacy
(fax) B6 Privacy
[email protected]
Cc: Patrick Rutten; [email protected]; Maria Brown; Lisa
Symons; Rob Ricker; Robert A Taylor; Laurie Sullivan; Eileen
Graham; Jennifer Cragan
Hi Debbie:
Is it possible that the vessel has a recordable fish finder, if not an
ER or EK 60, for recoding underway water column biomass? If not,
is it
possible to have a second vessel follow the same track line, within 1 2
hours of the initial vessel, with some type of recordable fish
finder or
EK 60?
Best, Jan
Jan and Pat,
The Water Column TWG has a cruise leaving the dock at 1 800 CDT
today to go out and get water samples in the vicinity and in the
rising oil plume. We are doing CTDs, THC, PAHs BTEX, fluorescence
in upper 50m, oil droplet sizes. Measuring currents upper 50m.
Also have ROV to sample bottom water.
We can coordinate via the TWG head Laurie Sullivan, cc'd here.
There is a completed cruise plan. Jim Payne is on the cruise,
assisted by an ASA person (Eileen Graham). Another ASA person
Jennifer Cragan is in the command center with Laurie.
Debbie
(office) B6 Privacy
(fax) B6 Privacy
[email protected]
Cc: Maria Brown; Lisa Symons; Rob Ricker
Subject: Deepwater Horizon - Dispersants and water column damages
Hi Pat:
On another NRDA issue, since they are now using dispersants to
break up
the spill, is there anyone on scene that is conducting baseline water
column resources assessment? Jim Payne and I spoke a while ago at an
OSPR SSEP meeting, about testing monitoring techniques to assess
water
column resources, biomass estimates, depth of thermoclines, all to
help
determine fate of dispersed oil in the food chain (e.g. possibly
fish,
bird and baleen whale injuries).
Jim and Debby French-McCay had received some funds a few years ago
from
OSPR to start to test some of the water column assessment
techniques for
fate of dispersants. We had spoke about using this technique for
NRDA,
using CTD data and EK 60 data to estimate water column biomass and
aerial surveys for resources at risk. Any interest in pursuing this
effort for Deepwater Horizon?
If there is interest in pursuing this new level of NRDA efforts
I'd be
happy to work with Jim and Debby on this effort. Perhaps, hopefully,
one of them are already on scene ?
Best, Jan
On 5/5/1 0 8:1 6 PM, Patrick Rutten wrote:
ALL:
I expect you have already provided this information,.... but I was
contacted by Rob Ricker, NOS, ARD who is leading the damage
assessment
for NOS on the Deepwater Horizon spill, to help identify who would
have expertise on turtle and marine mammal necropsy, if needed.
Ideally, the biologist or DVM would be experienced in what specific
tests to run, or what physical observations to make in a necropsy
that
would indicate oil exposure, or signs of ingestion or aspiration.
According to Rob the best situation would be to have the biologist
onsite in the Gulf to establish a natural resource damage assessment
protocol...field to lab. Specific facility for processing animals
hasn't been identified, could be Louisiana, could be Florida.
As an FYI the 30+ sea turtles that recently washed up were likely
the
result of fishermen not installing TED's on their nets (a nice black
eye!).
All expenses are covered. Just need to know who's is available and
qualified.
*Usha - You'd know who at La Jolla and NMML would fit the quals for
mammals and turtles
Sam / Mike - I know PIFSC has some real turtle pro's
Barb - I'm sure you know who in the SE would be capable and could
also
suggest facilities
Maria/Jan - I'm including you since the DVM at the Marine Mammal
Center may (may not) be a likely candidate to ask, but I don't have
his name.
As with everything associated with this spill, I need a quick
response
please. A negative response would be appreciated.
Thanks,
Patrick
--
Rob Ricker, Ph.D.
Regional Manager, SW Region
Assessment & Restoration Division
Office of Response and Restoration, NOAA
777 Sonoma Ave, Suite 21 9A
B6 Privacy
C
B6 Privacy
F
E [email protected]
Date: May 1 3, 201 0 4:42:1 5 PM EDT
To: "frank.csulak" < [email protected]>
Cc: Debbie Payton < [email protected]>, Lisa Dipinto < [email protected]>, Ian J Zelo < [email protected]>,
Doug Helton < [email protected]>, Glen Watabayashi < [email protected]>, Bill Lehr < [email protected]>,
Debbie French McCay < [email protected]>, Tom Moore < [email protected]>, Stephanie Willis
Subject: Re: Need Help - Surfacing oil locaiton
Debbie Payton and others,
My understanding is that, for the time being, we have a pretty good handle on where oil is coming to the surface (i.e. about 2 km
to the E). The reason we were requesting air support is that this location shifts due to subsurface currents and that, at times, we
didn't have good information about where the oil was surfacing. I understand the complications with seeing surfacing oil when
there is lots of oil on the water.
The objective of the SIPPER cruise is to collect information on plankton assemblages in the vicinity of the rising plume, and
potentially to examine droplet size in the rising plume. Thus, knowing where the plume is coming to the surface allows us to plan
our transect locations in such a way that we have better probability of hitting the plume.
Any updates from the overflights tomorrow will help us confirm that our proposed plume transects, which are planned for Saturday,
are in the right location and that the rising plume hasn't shifted. A photo with drilling rig as a reference is very helpful (like
attached).
Thanks for your assistance in helping us pin down this information.
Dan
frank.csulak wrote:
Dan, I am trying to address your request for overflight information. See email from Debbie Payton. Please address her
questions. Frank
Debbie Payton wrote:
The overflights are being coordinated in the field (I'm assuming at each CP?) In Seattle, we are giving direction to the NOAA
observers and the Ocean Imaging and NASA imaging flights.
Identifying where the oil is surfacing is not a simple matter anymore, it was a bit easier at the beginning of the spill when there
wasn't as much oil in the area. I expect only the helos may be able to determine where the oil is surfacing, and it might
require quite a bit of searching to see if they can see bubbles or blossoming and coordinating with the modeling effort to know
where to look. Initial estimates (without adding subsea dispersants) were that oil would surface in 3-4 hours within 1 .5 miles
of the source. Initial observations confirmed this and we haven't tried to confirm it since that I am aware of.
What is the question we are trying to answer and how much effort is it worth? Is knowing within a given radius good enough?
If this is an important question for someone, I expect we would need a dedicated platform each day to get this information. If
we only need an approximate, then we can use the modeling to answer it.
frank.csulak wrote:
Who is the POC for coordinating NOAA overflights? Received request from Dan Hahn, NOAA/ORR St. Pete for our
response overflights on a daily basis to fly over the location where the oil is coming to the surface, document lat/long, take
photo with a reference point contained in the photo. This request came in a couple of days ago. Frank
--
Daniel Hahn, Ph.D.
B6 Privacy
Phone:
B6 Privacy
Fax:
B6 Privacy
Cell:
Copyrighted information
Copyrighted information
Date: May 1 3, 201 0 5:07:49 PM EDT
To: Daniel Hahn < [email protected]>, "frank.csulak" <[email protected]>
Cc: Debbie Payton < [email protected]>, Lisa Dipinto < [email protected]>, Ian J Zelo < [email protected]>,
Doug Helton < [email protected]>, Glen Watabayashi < [email protected]>, Bill Lehr < [email protected]>,
Tom Moore < [email protected]>, Stephanie Willis < [email protected]>
Subject: RE: Need Help - Surfacing oil locaiton
All,
From my analysis and modeling, the rising oil should be surfacing close to the release site and down-current. The ADCP at the
wellhead generally shows weak currents (<0.2 kt) from 3900ft (deepest point sampled) to about 400 ft below the surface. The
ADCP measurements at 31 5 and 21 0 ft below the water surface have shown eastward currents up to 0.7 kts the last few days, but
are slowing now to < 0.2kts. These are the shallowest measurements available, but I am assuming they apply all the way to the
surface (for lack of any other data). Early in the spill, surface (200-300ft) currents were also weak. May 5-7 they were to the
south, May 7-1 0 to the SE, and recently to the E. All of this is based on transport by the currents as measured by ADCP 4291 6
deployed May 1 at the wellhead site.
We would like some confirmation of this model, so we can locate sampling in the rising plume. We need to get these samples to
confirm droplet sizes and dissolved PAHs in that water, and the algorythms used to model such for the purposes of water column
injury modeling.
The Ocean Imaging overflight interpretations have been very valuable for this analysis, and the ones we have compared seem to
agree with this model of what is going on. Today we have the "Payne cruise" sampling 2km E of the Wellhead, and they are
seeing some oil there. Tomorrow and Sat the Sipper cruise is sampling the area, and we are trying to place them downstream of
(Fri) and in the plume (Sat). Next week we are working on a plan for more water sampling. Perhaps coordination of the Ocean
Imaging overflights with these plans would do the trick. If we can confirm the model, we can follow the ADCP measurements to
locate our sampling.
Thanks for your help.
Debbie
[email protected]
voc: B6 Privacy
________________________________________
Sent: Thursday, May 1 3, 201 0 4:42 PM
To: frank.csulak
Cc: Debbie Payton; Lisa Dipinto; Ian J Zelo; Doug Helton; Glen Watabayashi; Bill Lehr; Debbie French McCay; Tom Moore;
Stephanie Willis
Debbie Payton and others,
My understanding is that, for the time being, we have a pretty good
handle on where oil is coming to the surface (i.e. about 2 km to the
E). The reason we were requesting air support is that this location
shifts due to subsurface currents and that, at times, we didn't have
good information about where the oil was surfacing. I understand the
complications with seeing surfacing oil when there is lots of oil on the
water.
The objective of the SIPPER cruise is to collect information on plankton
assemblages in the vicinity of the rising plume, and potentially to
examine droplet size in the rising plume. Thus, knowing where the plume
is coming to the surface allows us to plan our transect locations in
such a way that we have better probability of hitting the plume.
Any updates from the overflights tomorrow will help us confirm that our
proposed plume transects, which are planned for Saturday, are in the
right location and that the rising plume hasn't shifted. A photo with
drilling rig as a reference is very helpful (like attached).
Thanks for your assistance in helping us pin down this information.
Dan
frank.csulak wrote:
Dan, I am trying to address your request for overflight information.
See email from Debbie Payton. Please address her questions. Frank
The overflights are being coordinated in the field (I'm assuming at
each CP?) In Seattle, we are giving direction to the NOAA observers
and the Ocean Imaging and NASA imaging flights.
Identifying where the oil is surfacing is not a simple matter
anymore, it was a bit easier at the beginning of the spill when there
wasn't as much oil in the area. I expect only the helos may be
able to determine where the oil is surfacing, and it might require
quite a bit of searching to see if they can see bubbles or
blossoming and coordinating with the modeling effort to know where to
look. Initial estimates (without adding subsea dispersants) were
that oil would surface in 3-4 hours within 1 .5 miles of the source.
Initial observations confirmed this and we haven't tried to confirm
it since that I am aware of.
What is the question we are trying to answer and how much effort is
it worth? Is knowing within a given radius good enough? If this is
an important question for someone, I expect we would need a dedicated
platform each day to get this information. If we only need an
approximate, then we can use the modeling to answer it.
frank.csulak wrote:
Who is the POC for coordinating NOAA overflights? Received request
from Dan Hahn, NOAA/ORR St. Pete for our response overflights on a
daily basis to fly over the location where the oil is coming to the
surface, document lat/long, take photo with a reference point
contained in the photo. This request came in a couple of days ago.
Frank
--
Daniel Hahn, Ph.D.
B6 Privacy
Phone:
B6 Privacy
Phone:
B6 Privacy
Fax:
B6 Privacy
Cell:
From: Debbie Payton < [email protected]>
Date: May 1 3, 201 0 6:23:45 PM EDT
Cc: Daniel Hahn <[email protected]>, "frank.csulak" < [email protected]>, Lisa Dipinto < [email protected]>,
Ian J Zelo < [email protected]>, Doug Helton < [email protected]>, Glen Watabayashi < [email protected]>,
Bill Lehr < [email protected]>, Tom Moore < [email protected]>, Stephanie Willis < [email protected]>
Debbie,
you scooped my response (i was halfway through typing and keep getting pulled away). But, of course, you are correct. The oil is
generally surfacing within 1 -2 km from the source and within 3-4 hours (without injection), confirmed both by obs and modeling.
today's obs have the oil surfacing to the ene, which makes sense given the rig and rov adcps. following is the website with the
adcp measurements - some days there is quite a shear in the vertical. the NGOM model (which you now should have access to
through CJ?) has been doing a pretty good job with subsurface currents as well.
we will make sure that in prep for Saturday an observer identifies the surfacing area tomorrow, then I would look at the ADCPs
and modify the sampling plan based on those obs (if we know approx what time the vessel will be in the area, we can try and
schedule the source overflight to coincide with that time to give better direction).
http://metocean.fugrogeos.com/bp
Debbie
A l l ,
From m y a nal y s i s a nd m od e l i ng , t h e ri s i ng oi l sh ou l d be su rfa c i ng c l ose t o t h e re l ea s e si t e a nd
d ow n- cu rre nt .
T h e A DC P a t t h e w e l l h ea d g ene ra l l y s how s w e a k c u rre nt s ( < 0. 2 kt ) from 3 9 00 ft
( d e e pes t poi nt sa m pl ed ) t o a bou t 4 0 0 ft bel ow t h e s u rfa c e.

T h e A DC P m e a su re m ent s at 3 15 a nd 2 10
ft be l ow t he w a t e r s u rfa c e h a v e s h ow n e a s t w a rd c u rrent s u p t o 0. 7 kt s t h e l a s t fe w d a y s , bu t are
s l ow i ng now t o < 0 . 2 kt s .
T h e s e a re t h e s ha l l ow e s t m e a su re m e nt s a v a i l a bl e, bu t I a m a ss u m i ng t h e y
a ppl y a l l t h e w ay t o t h e su rfa ce ( for l a c k of any ot h e r d a t a ) .

Ea rl y i n t h e spi l l , s u rfa c e ( 2 0 0-
3 0 0ft ) cu rre nt s w e re a l so w e a k.
M a y 5 - 7 t h e y w e re t o t h e s ou t h, M a y 7- 10 t o t h e S E, a nd re c e nt l y
t o t h e E.
A l l of t h i s i s ba se d on t ra ns port by t h e c u rrent s a s m e a su re d by A DC P 4 2 9 16 d e pl oy ed
M a y 1 a t t he w e l l h e a d s i t e.
W e w ou l d l i ke s om e c onfi rm a t i on of t hi s m od e l , s o w e c a n l oca t e sa m pl i ng i n t he ri si ng pl u m e .
ne e d t o g e t t h e se sa m pl e s t o c onfi rm d ropl e t s i z e s and d i s s ol v ed PA Hs i n t h a t w a t e r, a nd t h e
a l g ory t h m s u se d t o m od e l su c h for t h e pu rpose s of w at e r col u m n i nj u ry m od e l i ng .
We
T h e O ce a n I m a g i ng ov erfl i g h t i nt e rpret a t i ons h av e bee n v ery v a l u a bl e for t h i s a na l y s i s, a nd t he
one s w e h a ve c om pa re d s e e m t o ag re e w i t h t h i s m od e l of w ha t i s g oi ng on.
T od ay w e h a v e t h e "Pa y ne
c ru i s e" s a m pl i ng 2 km E of t h e W e l l h e ad , a nd t h ey a re s e e i ng s om e oi l t h e re .
T om orrow a nd Sa t t h e
S i ppe r cru i s e i s s a m pl i ng t h e are a , and w e a re t ry i ng t o pl a c e t h e m d ow nst re a m of ( Fri ) a nd i n t h e
pl u m e ( Sa t ) .
N ex t w ee k w e a re w orki ng on a pl an for m ore w a t e r sa m pl i ng .
Pe rh a ps c oord i na t i on of
t h e O ce a n I m a g i ng ov erfl i g h t s w i t h t he se pl a ns w ou l d d o t h e t ri c k.
I f w e c a n c onfi rm t he m od el ,
w e c a n fol l ow t h e A DC P m ea s u rem e nt s t o l oc a t e ou r sa m pl i ng .
T h a nks for y ou r h e l p.
De bbi e
De borah French M c C a y
A ppl i ed S c i e nc e A s soci a t e s, I nc.

5 5 V i l l a g e S q u a re Dri v e
S ou t h Ki ng st ow n, RI 02 8 79
U SA
d . fre nc h . m cc a y @as a sc i e nce . c om
( A S A )
B6 Privacy
v oc:
_ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ __ _ _
From : Da ni el H a hn [Da ni el . H a hn@noaa . g ov ]
S e nt : T h u rsd a y , M a y 13 , 2 010 4 : 4 2 PM
T o: fra nk. cs u l a k
C c : Debbi e Pa y t on; Li s a Di pi nt o; I a n J Z e l o; Dou g H el t on;

Fre nc h M c C ay ; T om M oore ; St e ph ani e W i l l i s
S u bj e ct : Re: N e ed H e l p - Su rfa ci ng oi l l oca i t on
G l e n W a t a ba y a s hi ;
De bbi e Pa y t on a nd ot he rs,
M y u nd e rs t and i ng i s t h a t , for t h e t i m e be i ng , w e h a ve a pre t t y g ood
h a nd l e on w h e re oi l i s com i ng t o t h e s u rfac e ( i . e . abou t 2 km t o t h e
E) .
T h e rea son w e w ere req u e s t i ng a i r s u pport i s t ha t t hi s l oca t i on
s h i ft s d u e t o s u bs u rfa c e cu rre nt s a nd t h a t , a t t i m e s, w e d i d n' t h a v e
g ood i nform a t i on a bou t w h ere t he oi l w a s su rfa ci ng .

I u nd e rs t and t he
c om pl i c a t i ons w i t h s ee i ng s u rfac i ng oi l w he n t he re i s l ot s of oi l on t h e
w a t e r.
T h e obj e c t i v e of t h e S I PPER cru i s e i s t o col l e ct i nform a t i on on pl a nkt on
a s se m bl a g e s i n t h e v i c i ni t y of t h e ri s i ng pl u m e, a nd pot ent i a l l y t o
e x a m i ne d ropl e t s i z e i n t he ri si ng pl u m e .
T h u s, know i ng w h e re t h e pl u m e
i s c om i ng t o t h e s u rfa c e al l ow s u s t o pl a n ou r t ra nse c t l oc a t i ons i n
s u ch a w a y t h a t w e h av e bet t e r proba bi l i t y of hi t t i ng t h e pl u m e.
A ny u pd a t e s from t h e ov e rfl i g h t s t om orrow w i l l h e l p u s c onfi rm t h a t ou r
propose d pl u m e t ra ns ec t s, w h i c h a re pl a nned for S a t u rd a y , a re i n t h e
ri g h t l oc a t i on and t ha t t he ri si ng pl u m e ha sn' t s h i ft e d .
A ph ot o w i t h
d ri l l i ng ri g a s a re fe re nce i s v e ry he l pfu l ( l i ke a t t a ch ed ) .
T h a nks for y ou r a s si st a nc e i n he l pi ng u s pi n d ow n t hi s i nform a t i on.
Da n
fra nk. c su l ak w rot e :
Da n, I a m t ry i ng t o a d d re ss y ou r re q u e st for ov e rfl i g h t i nform a t i on.
S e e em a i l from De bbi e Pa y t on. Pl e a s e a d d re s s he r q u es t i ons . Fra nk
De bbi e Pa y t on w rot e :
T h e ov e rfl i g h t s a re be i ng c oord i na t e d i n t h e fi e l d ( I ' m a s su m i ng at
e a c h C P? ) I n S ea t t l e, w e a re g i v i ng d i rec t i on t o t he N O A A obse rv e rs
a nd t h e Oc e a n I m a g i ng a nd N A S A i m a g i ng fl i g h t s.
I d e nt i fy i ng w h ere t he oi l i s su rfa ci ng i s not a s i m pl e m a t t e r
a ny m ore , i t w a s a bi t e a si e r at t h e be g i nni ng of t he s pi l l w he n t he re
w a s n' t a s m u c h oi l
i n t he a rea .
I e x pe ct onl y t h e h el os m a y be
a bl e t o d e t e rm i ne
w h e re t h e oi l i s s u rfa c i ng , a nd i t m i g h t re q u i re
q u i t e a bi t of se a rc h i ng t o se e i f t h e y c a n se e bu bbl e s or
bl oss om i ng a nd c oord i na t i ng w i t h t he m od e l i ng e ffort t o know w h e re t o
l ook.
I ni t i a l e st i m a t e s ( w i t hou t ad d i ng s u bs ea d i spe rs ant s) w e re
t h a t oi l w ou l d s u rfac e i n 3 - 4 h ou rs w i t hi n 1. 5 m i l es of t h e sou rc e.
I ni t i a l obs e rv at i ons confi rm e d t h i s a nd w e h a ve n' t t ri e d t o confi rm
i t si nce t h a t I a m aw a re of.
W h a t i s t h e q u es t i on w e are t ry i ng t o a ns w e r and h ow m u ch e ffort i s
i t w ort h ? I s know i ng w i t h i n a g i v en ra d i u s g ood e nou g h ? I f t h i s i s
a n i m port a nt q u e st i on for s om eone , I e x pe c t w e w ou l d ne ed a d e d i c at e d
pl a t form e a ch d a y t o g e t t h i s i nform a t i on.

I f w e onl y ne e d an
a pprox i m at e , t he n w e ca n u s e t h e m od e l i ng t o answ e r i t .
fra nk. cs u l a k w rot e :
Bi l l Leh r;
De bbi e
W h o i s t he PO C for c oord i na t i ng N O A A ov erfl i g h t s? Re ce i v e d req u e s t
from Da n H a h n, N O A A / O RR S t . Pe t e for ou r re s ponse ov e rfl i g h t s on a
d a i l y ba si s t o fl y ov e r t h e l oc a t i on w h ere t he oi l i s com i ng t o t he
su rfa ce , d oc u m e nt l a t /l ong , t a ke phot o w i t h a re fere nc e poi nt
cont a i ne d i n t h e phot o. T h i s re q u e st c a m e i n a cou pl e of d a y s a g o.
Fra nk
- -
Da ni e l H a h n, Ph . D.
Re g i ona l Res ou rce C oord i nat or
N a t i ona l O ce a ni c a nd A t m osph e ri c A d m i ni s t ra t i on
A s se s sm e nt & Re st ora t i on Di v i s i on, S E Re g i on
2 63 13t h A ve nu e S ou t h
S t . Pet e rs bu rg , FL 33 701
em ai l :
Ph one :
Fa x :
Cel l :
Da ni el . H a h n@noa a. g ov
( 72 7) 5 51- 5715
B6 Privacy
B6 Privacy
From: Brenda Jones < [email protected]>
Date: May 1 3, 201 0 6:56:41 PM EDT
To: 1 [email protected], [email protected], 601 [email protected],
601 [email protected], 601 AOC < 601 AOC/[email protected]>, [email protected],
[email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], Bob Bewley
[email protected], Bruce A Bauch < [email protected]>, [email protected], [email protected],
[email protected], [email protected], Brady Couvillion < [email protected]>,
[email protected], Brenda Ellis < [email protected]>, Brent D Johnson < [email protected]>,
[email protected], Calvin P O'Neil < o'[email protected]>, cameron tongier < [email protected]>, Carol L Giffin
< [email protected]>, Carol L Ostergren < [email protected]>, [email protected], [email protected],
[email protected], Carolyn Gacke < [email protected]>, [email protected], [email protected],
[email protected], Christopher J Wells < [email protected]>, [email protected],
[email protected], Colleen W Charles < [email protected]>, [email protected],
[email protected], David D Greenlee < [email protected]>, [email protected], [email protected],
[email protected], [email protected], dbraud1 @lsu.edu, [email protected], [email protected],
[email protected], [email protected], [email protected], David A Kirtland < [email protected]>, David
Duran < [email protected]>, David E Bortnem < [email protected]>, David L Saghy < [email protected]>, David P
Bornholdt < [email protected]>, [email protected], [email protected], [email protected],
[email protected], Elijah W Ramsey < [email protected]>, [email protected], [email protected],
[email protected], [email protected], Gene Nelson < [email protected]>, [email protected],
[email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], Gregory I Snyder
< [email protected]>, [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], Gary B Fisher
< [email protected]>, [email protected], GS-I-HQ GIC EmOps Contacts < GS-I-
[email protected]>, [email protected], [email protected], Harry C McWreath < [email protected]>,
Henry B Wolter < [email protected]>, [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], Harry C McWreath
[email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], Jean W Parcher
< [email protected]>, Jeff L Sloan < [email protected]>, [email protected], [email protected],
[email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], jeniefer j pryor
[email protected], [email protected], [email protected], John L Crowe < [email protected]>,
[email protected], jwurts1 [email protected], [email protected], Jacqueline D Fahsholtz
< [email protected]>, James Devine < [email protected]>, [email protected], Jane Powers
JFHQAL.J2.ANALYST.1 @al.ngb.army.mil, John C Brock < [email protected]>, [email protected],
[email protected], [email protected], Karen Newton < [email protected]>, [email protected],
[email protected], [email protected], [email protected], Kenneth Duda <[email protected]>,
[email protected], Kenneth Duda < [email protected]>, Kent N Swanjord < [email protected]>,
[email protected], [email protected], Lawrence R Handley < [email protected]>,
[email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], Lisbeth A
Chandler < [email protected]>, mario.torres1 @conus.army.mil, [email protected], [email protected], mary-
Michael E Hutt < [email protected]>, [email protected], [email protected], [email protected],
[email protected], [email protected], Mark Bloemker < [email protected]>, [email protected],
[email protected], Ralph Storey < [email protected]>, [email protected], [email protected],
[email protected], robert.bell.1 @ang.af.mil, [email protected], [email protected],
[email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], Ronald H Keeler
< [email protected]>, [email protected], [email protected], rpl9841 @louisiana.edu, [email protected],
[email protected], [email protected], [email protected], Ryan Longhenry < [email protected]>,
Rynn Lamb < [email protected]>, [email protected], [email protected], scott.a.rose [email protected],
[email protected], [email protected], Stafford G Binder < [email protected]>, [email protected],
[email protected], [email protected], [email protected], Stephen E Hammond
[email protected], Thomas H Cecere < [email protected]>, [email protected],
[email protected], [email protected], Timothy W Saultz < [email protected]>, [email protected],
[email protected], [email protected], [email protected], Todd M Hoefen < [email protected]>,
Subject: DEEPOIL oilspill remote sensing telecon, Friday, May 1 4 at 1 300 CDT
We will be having a remote sensing working group telecon tomorrow at 1 400 EDT, 1 300CDT, 1 200MDT, and 1 1 00PDT. The notes from yesterdays call
are attached. Please provide any updates/comments to me.
Dial in -
B6 Privacy
Following is a brief agenda - I have not confirmed participation.
1 . Introductions
2. NOAA update
3. USCG update
4. EagleVision
5. NGA
6. NASA/ASTER
7. IRSCC
8. EPA
9. USDA
1 0. States
1 1 . Roundtable
Brenda K. Jones
Disaster Response Coordinator
USGS EROS Center
4791 4 252nd St
Sioux Falls, SD 571 98
Phone B6 Privacy
B6 Privacy
Fax
FOR EMERGENCIES
CELL: B6 Privacy
RSWG_0512.doc (37.5 KB)
RSWG_0513.doc (37.0 KB)
Date: May 1 3, 201 0 7:20:46 PM EDT
To: "dwhnrda.cruise1 @gmail.com" < dwhnrda.cruise1 @gmail.com>
Subject: Fwd: Need Help - Surfacing oil locaiton
Sent from my iPad
From: Debbie Payton < [email protected]>
Date: May 1 3, 201 0 6:23:45 PM EDT
Cc: Daniel Hahn < [email protected]>, "frank.csulak" < [email protected]>, Lisa Dipinto <[email protected]>,
Ian J Zelo < [email protected]>, Doug Helton < [email protected]>, Glen Watabayashi
< [email protected]>, Bill Lehr < [email protected]>, Tom Moore < [email protected]>, Stephanie Willis
Debbie,
you scooped my response (i was halfway through typing and keep getting pulled away). But, of course, you are correct. The oil
is generally surfacing within 1 -2 km from the source and within 3-4 hours (without injection), confirmed both by obs and
modeling. today's obs have the oil surfacing to the ene, which makes sense given the rig and rov adcps. following is the
website with the adcp measurements - some days there is quite a shear in the vertical. the NGOM model (which you now
should have access to through CJ?) has been doing a pretty good job with subsurface currents as well.
Debbie
A l l ,
From m y a na l y s i s a nd m od e l i ng , t h e ri s i ng oi l s h ou l d be su rfa ci ng cl ose t o t he re l ea se si t e and
d ow n- c u rrent .
T h e A DC P a t t h e w e l l he a d g e ne ral l y s how s w e a k cu rre nt s ( <0 . 2 kt ) from 3 9 00 ft
( d e e pe st poi nt s a m pl e d ) t o a bou t 4 0 0 ft be l ow t h e s u rfa c e.

T he A DC P m e as u re m e nt s at 3 15 a nd 2 10
ft bel ow t h e w at e r su rfa c e h a v e sh ow n e a st w a rd c u rrent s u p t o 0 . 7 kt s t he l a st fe w d a y s , bu t a re
s l ow i ng now t o < 0. 2 kt s.
T h e s e a re t h e sh a l l ow e st m e a s u re m e nt s a v ai l a bl e , bu t I a m a s s u m i ng
t h e y a ppl y a l l t h e w a y t o t h e su rfa ce ( for l a ck of any ot h e r d a t a ) .

Ea rl y i n t h e spi l l , su rfa c e
( 2 0 0 - 3 00 ft ) cu rre nt s w e re a l s o w e a k.
M a y 5 - 7 t h e y w e re t o t h e sou t h , M ay 7- 10 t o t h e S E, a nd
re c e nt l y t o t h e E.
A l l of t h i s i s ba s e d on t ra nsport by t h e cu rre nt s a s m e a su re d by A DC P 4 2 9 16
d e pl oy e d M a y 1 a t t he w e l l h e a d s i t e .
W e w ou l d l i ke som e confi rm a t i on of t h i s m od e l , s o w e ca n l oc a t e s a m pl i ng i n t h e ri si ng pl u m e .
W e nee d t o g e t t h e s e s a m pl e s t o confi rm d ropl et si z es a nd d i s sol v e d PA H s i n t h a t w at e r, a nd t h e
a l g ory t h m s u se d t o m od e l su ch for t he pu rpose s of w at e r col u m n i nj u ry m od e l i ng .
T h e Oc e a n I m a g i ng ove rfl i g h t i nt e rpre t a t i ons ha v e bee n v ery v al u a bl e for t h i s a na l y s i s , a nd t h e
one s w e h av e c om pa red se e m t o ag re e w i t h t h i s m od e l of w ha t i s g oi ng on.

T od a y w e h a v e t h e
"Pa y ne c ru i s e " s a m pl i ng 2 km E of t h e W e l l h e a d , a nd t h e y are s ee i ng s om e oi l t h e re .

T om orrow a nd
S a t t h e S i ppe r c ru i se i s sa m pl i ng t he a rea , a nd w e are t ry i ng t o pl a c e t h e m d ow ns t re a m of ( Fri )
S a t t h e S i ppe r c ru i se i s sa m pl i ng t he a rea , a nd w e are t ry i ng t o pl a c e t h e m d ow ns t re a m of ( Fri )
a nd i n t h e pl u m e ( S at ) .
N e x t w e e k w e a re w orki ng on a pl a n for m ore w a t e r s am pl i ng .
Perh a ps
c oord i na t i on of t h e O c e a n I m a g i ng ove rfl i g h t s w i t h t h e s e pl a ns w ou l d d o t h e t ri ck.

I f w e c a n
c onfi rm t he m od e l , w e ca n fol l ow t he A DC P m e as u re m ent s t o l oca t e ou r s am pl i ng .
De bbi e
De bora h Fre nch M c C a y
A ppl i e d S ci e nc e A ss oc i a t e s, I nc. ( A SA )
5 5 V i l l a g e S q u are Dri v e
S ou t h Ki ng s t ow n, RI 0 2 8 79
U S A
d . french . m c c a y @a s a s ci e nc e . c om
B6 Privacy
v oc :
_ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ __ _ _ _
From : Da ni e l H ah n [Da ni e l . H ah n@noa a . g ov ]
S e nt : T h u rs d a y , M a y 13 , 2 010 4 : 4 2 PM
T o: fra nk. c s u l ak
C c: De bbi e Pa y t on; Li s a Di pi nt o; I a n J Z el o; Dou g H el t on;

Fre nch M c C a y ; T om M oore ; St e ph ani e W i l l i s
S u bj ec t : Re : N ee d H el p - Su rfa ci ng oi l l oc a i t on
G l e n W a t aba y a sh i ;
De bbi e Pa y t on and ot h e rs ,
M y u nd e rs t a nd i ng i s t h a t , for t h e t i m e bei ng , w e h a ve a pre t t y g ood
h a nd l e on w h e re oi l i s c om i ng t o t h e s u rfa c e ( i . e . abou t 2 km t o t he
E) .
T h e re a son w e w e re req u e s t i ng ai r s u pport i s t ha t t hi s l oc a t i on
s h i ft s d u e t o su bsu rfa ce cu rre nt s a nd t h at , a t t i m e s, w e d i d n' t h a ve
g ood i nform a t i on a bou t w h ere t he oi l w a s s u rfac i ng .

I u nd e rs t a nd t h e
c om pl i ca t i ons w i t h se e i ng s u rfac i ng oi l w h e n t h e re i s l ot s of oi l on t h e
w a t e r.
T h e obj e c t i v e of t h e S I PPER c ru i se i s t o c ol l ec t i nform a t i on on pl ankt on
a ss e m bl a g es i n t h e vi c i ni t y of t h e ri s i ng pl u m e , a nd pot ent i a l l y t o
T h u s , know i ng w h e re t h e pl u m e
i s c om i ng t o t he su rfa ce al l ow s u s t o pl an ou r t ra nse ct l oca t i ons i n
s u c h a w a y t h a t w e ha v e bet t e r probabi l i t y of h i t t i ng t h e pl u m e .
A ny u pd a t es from t h e ov e rfl i g h t s t om orrow w i l l h e l p u s c onfi rm t h a t ou r
propos e d pl u m e t ra nse c t s , w h i c h a re pl a nne d for Sa t u rd a y , a re i n t he
ri g h t l oc at i on a nd t h a t t he ri si ng pl u m e h a sn' t sh i ft e d .
A phot o w i t h
d ri l l i ng ri g a s a refe re nce i s v e ry h e l pfu l ( l i ke a t t a c h ed ) .
T h a nks for y ou r a ss i s t a nc e i n he l pi ng u s pi n d ow n t hi s i nform at i on.
Da n
Da n, I a m t ry i ng t o a d d res s y ou r req u e s t for ov e rfl i g h t i nform a t i on.
S e e e m a i l from De bbi e Pa y t on. Pl e a se a d d re ss he r q u e st i ons . Fra nk
De bbi e Pay t on w rot e :
T h e ov e rfl i g h t s a re be i ng coord i na t e d i n t h e fi e l d ( I ' m a ss u m i ng at
e a c h C P? ) I n Se a t t l e , w e a re g i v i ng d i rec t i on t o t h e N OA A obse rv e rs
a nd t h e Oc e a n I m a g i ng a nd N A SA i m a g i ng fl i g h t s .
I d e nt i fy i ng w he re t h e oi l i s s u rfa ci ng i s not a s i m pl e m a t t e r
a ny m ore , i t w as a bi t e as i e r a t t h e be g i nni ng of t h e s pi l l w he n t he re
i n t h e a re a .
I e x pe c t onl y t h e he l os m a y be
w h e re t h e oi l i s su rfa ci ng , a nd i t m i g h t re q u i re
q u i t e a bi t of s e arc h i ng t o s e e i f t h e y ca n s e e bu bbl es or
Bi l l Leh r;
De bbi e
bl oss om i ng a nd coord i na t i ng w i t h t he m od e l i ng e ffort t o know w h e re t o
l ook.
I ni t i a l e s t i m a t e s ( w i t h ou t ad d i ng su bse a d i s pe rsa nt s ) w e re
t h a t oi l w ou l d su rfa c e i n 3 - 4 h ou rs w i t hi n 1. 5 m i l e s of t h e sou rc e.
I ni t i a l obse rva t i ons confi rm ed t h i s a nd w e h av e n' t t ri ed t o confi rm
i t si nc e t h a t I a m a w a re of.
W h a t i s t h e q u e st i on w e a re t ry i ng t o a ns w e r a nd how m u c h e ffort i s
i t w ort h ? I s know i ng w i t h i n a g i v en ra d i u s g ood enou g h?

I f t h i s i s
a n i m port a nt q u e s t i on for som e one , I e x pe ct w e w ou l d nee d a d e d i c at e d
pl a t form e a c h d a y t o g e t t h i s i nform a t i on.

a pprox i m at e , t h e n w e ca n u se t h e m od e l i ng t o a nsw er i t .
fra nk. c s u l a k w rot e :
W h o i s t h e POC for c oord i na t i ng N OA A ov e rfl i g h t s ? Rec e i v ed re q u e st
from Da n H ah n, N O A A / ORR S t . Pe t e for ou r re spons e ove rfl i g h t s on a
d a i l y ba s i s t o fl y ove r t he l oca t i on w h e re t h e oi l i s com i ng t o t h e
s u rfac e , d oc u m e nt l a t / l ong , t a ke ph ot o w i t h a re fe renc e poi nt
c ont ai ne d i n t h e ph ot o. T hi s req u e s t c a m e i n a c ou pl e of d a y s a g o.
Fra nk
- -
Da ni el H a hn, Ph. D.
Re g i ona l Re s ou rc e C oord i nat or
N a t i ona l Oc e a ni c a nd A t m osph e ri c A d m i ni s t ra t i on
A ss e ss m e nt & Res t orat i on Di v i s i on, SE Re g i on
2 63 13 t h A v e nu e S ou t h
S t . Pe t e rsbu rg , FL 3 3 70 1
emai l :
Ph one:
Fa x :
Cel l :
Da ni el . H a hn@noaa . g ov
( 72 7) 55 1- 5 715
B6 Privacy
B6 Privacy
Date: May 1 3, 201 0 9:33:05 PM EDT
To: Debbie Payton < [email protected]>
Cc: Debbie French McCay < [email protected]>, "frank.csulak" < [email protected]>, Lisa Dipinto
< [email protected]>, Ian J Zelo < [email protected]>, Doug Helton < [email protected]>, Glen Watabayashi
< [email protected]>, Bill Lehr < [email protected]>, Tom Moore < [email protected]>, Stephanie Willis
Regarding the timing, the Weatherbird II should be doing transects in the vicinity of the plume throughout the morning Saturday,
May 1 5. They are overnighting outside the spill area and will be heading in somewhere around daybreak. If information can be
conveyed quickly back from a morning overflight, that could be very useful, that is, if adjustments can be made the day of the spill
in coordination with SIMOPS. Otherwise, Friday's overflights are going to provide the best information.
Thanks again for the help everyone.
Dan
Debbie,
Debbie
A l l ,
d ow n- c u rrent .
T h e A DC P a t t h e w e l l he a d g e ne ral l y s how s w e a k cu rre nt s ( <0 . 2 kt ) from 3 9 00 ft ( d e e
pe s t poi nt s a m pl e d ) t o a bou t 4 00 ft be l ow t h e s u rfa ce .

T h e A DC P m ea s u rem e nt s a t 3 15 a nd 2 10 ft
be l ow t h e w a t e r s u rfa c e h av e s how n ea s t w ard c u rre nt s u p t o 0 . 7 kt s t h e l a s t fe w d a y s , bu t a re s l
ow i ng now t o < 0 . 2 kt s .
T he se are t he sh al l ow es t m e as u re m e nt s a v a i l a bl e , bu t I a m as su m i ng t he y
a ppl y a l l t h e w a y t o t h e su rfa ce ( for l a ck of a ny ot h e r d a t a ) .

Ea rl y i n t h e s pi l l , su rfa ce ( 2 0 0
- 3 0 0 ft ) c u rre nt s w e re a l s o w e a k.
M ay 5- 7 t h e y w e re t o t he s ou t h , M a y 7- 10 t o t h e SE, a nd re ce nt
l y t o t h e E.
A l l of t h i s i s bas e d on t rans port by t h e c u rre nt s a s m e a s u re d by A DC P 4 2 9 16 d e pl oy
e d M ay 1 at t h e w e l l h e a d si t e .
W
e ne ed t o g e t t h e se s a m pl es t o c onfi rm d ropl e t s i z e s a nd d i s s ol v e d PA H s i n t ha t w a t e r, and t he a
l g ory t h m s u s e d t o m od e l s u c h for t h e pu rpos e s of w a t e r c ol u m n i nj u ry m od e l i ng .

T od a y w e h a v e t h e "Pa y
ne c ru i s e " s a m pl i ng 2 km E of t he W e l l h e a d , a nd t h e y a re se e i ng som e oi l t h e re.

T om orrow a nd S a t
t h e S i pper cru i s e i s sa m pl i ng t h e are a , a nd w e a re t ry i ng t o pl a c e t h e m d ow ns t re a m of ( Fri ) a nd
i n t h e pl u m e ( S a t ) .
N e x t w e e k w e are w orki ng on a pl a n for m ore w a t e r s a m pl i ng .
Pe rh aps c oord
i na t i on of t h e O c e a n I m a g i ng ove rfl i g h t s w i t h t h e s e pl a ns w ou l d d o t h e t ri ck.

I f w e c a n confi rm
t h e m od e l , w e c a n fol l ow t h e A DC P m e a s u re m e nt s t o l oc a t e ou r sa m pl i ng .
De bbi e
U S A
B6 Privacy
v oc :
_ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ __ _ _ _

e nc h M cC a y ; T om M oore ; S t eph a ni e W i l l i s
E) .

Bi l l Leh r;
De bbi e Fr
w a t e r.
A phot o w i t h
Da n
i n t h e a re a .
l ook.

I f t h i s i s

Fra nk
- -
emai l :
Ph one:
Fa x :
Cel l :
( 72 7) 55 1- 5 715
B6 Privacy
B6 Privacy
--
em ai l :
Ph one :
Fa x :
Cel l :
( 72 7) 5 5 1- 5715
B6 Privacy
B6 Privacy
Date: May 1 3, 201 0 9:39:49 PM EDT
To: Daniel Hahn < [email protected]>, Debbie Payton < [email protected]>
Cc: "frank.csulak" < [email protected]>, Lisa Dipinto < [email protected]>, Ian J Zelo < [email protected]>, Doug
Helton < [email protected]>, Glen Watabayashi < [email protected]>, Bill Lehr < [email protected]>, Tom
Moore < [email protected]>, Stephanie Willis < [email protected]>
Subject: RE: Need Help - Surfacing oil locaiton
Debbie,
Thanks for the support and the ftp on the adcps -- was not aware of these. Yes, CJ gave us the link to NGOM, and we'll take a look and work with that.
Debbie
[email protected]
voc: B6 Privacy
Sent: Thursday, May 13, 2010 9:33 PM
To: Debbie Payton
Cc: Debbie French McCay; frank.csulak; Lisa Dipinto; Ian J Zelo; Doug Helton; Glen Watabayashi; Bill Lehr; Tom Moore; Stephanie Willis
Regarding the timing, the Weatherbird II should be doing transects in the vicinity of the plume throughout the morning Saturday,
May 1 5. They are overnighting outside the spill area and will be heading in somewhere around daybreak. If information can be
conveyed quickly back from a morning overflight, that could be very useful, that is, if adjustments can be made the day of the spill
in coordination with SIMOPS. Otherwise, Friday's overflights are going to provide the best information.
Dan
Debbie,
Debbie
A l l ,
d ow n- c u rrent .
T h e A DC P a t t h e w e l l he a d g e ne ral l y s how s w e a k cu rre nt s ( <0 . 2 kt ) from 3 9 00 ft ( d e e
pe s t poi nt s a m pl e d ) t o a bou t 4 00 ft be l ow t h e s u rfa ce .

T h e A DC P m ea s u rem e nt s a t 3 15 a nd 2 10 ft
be l ow t h e w a t e r s u rfa c e h av e s how n ea s t w ard c u rre nt s u p t o 0 . 7 kt s t h e l a s t fe w d a y s , bu t a re s l
ow i ng now t o < 0 . 2 kt s .
T he se are t he sh al l ow es t m e as u re m e nt s a v a i l a bl e , bu t I a m as su m i ng t he y
a ppl y a l l t h e w a y t o t h e su rfa ce ( for l a ck of a ny ot h e r d a t a ) .

Ea rl y i n t h e s pi l l , su rfa ce ( 2 0 0
- 3 0 0 ft ) c u rre nt s w e re a l s o w e a k.
M ay 5- 7 t h e y w e re t o t he s ou t h , M a y 7- 10 t o t h e SE, a nd re ce nt
l y t o t h e E.
A l l of t h i s i s bas e d on t rans port by t h e c u rre nt s a s m e a s u re d by A DC P 4 2 9 16 d e pl oy
e d M ay 1 at t h e w e l l h e a d si t e .
W
e ne ed t o g e t t h e se s a m pl es t o c onfi rm d ropl e t s i z e s a nd d i s s ol v e d PA H s i n t ha t w a t e r, and t he a
l g ory t h m s u s e d t o m od e l s u c h for t h e pu rpos e s of w a t e r c ol u m n i nj u ry m od e l i ng .

T od a y w e h a v e t h e "Pa y
ne c ru i s e " s a m pl i ng 2 km E of t he W e l l h e a d , a nd t h e y a re se e i ng som e oi l t h e re.

T om orrow a nd S a t
t h e S i pper cru i s e i s sa m pl i ng t h e are a , a nd w e a re t ry i ng t o pl a c e t h e m d ow ns t re a m of ( Fri ) a nd
i n t h e pl u m e ( S a t ) .
N e x t w e e k w e are w orki ng on a pl a n for m ore w a t e r s a m pl i ng .
Pe rh aps c oord
i na t i on of t h e O c e a n I m a g i ng ove rfl i g h t s w i t h t h e s e pl a ns w ou l d d o t h e t ri ck.

I f w e c a n confi rm
t h e m od e l , w e c a n fol l ow t h e A DC P m e a s u re m e nt s t o l oc a t e ou r sa m pl i ng .
De bbi e
U S A
B6 Privacy
v oc :
_ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ __ _ _ _

e nc h M cC a y ; T om M oore ; S t eph a ni e W i l l i s
E) .

w a t e r.
Bi l l Leh r;
De bbi e Fr
A phot o w i t h
Da n
i n t h e a re a .
l ook.

I f t h i s i s

Fra nk
- -
emai l :
Ph one:
Fa x :
Cel l :
( 72 7) 55 1- 5 715
B6 Privacy
B6 Privacy
--
em ai l :
Ph one :
Fa x :
Cel l :
( 72 7) 5 5 1- 5715
B6 Privacy
B6 Privacy
From: George Maul < [email protected]>
Date: May 1 3, 201 0 9:51 :34 PM EDT
To: Ernst Peebles < [email protected]>, Richard Snyder < [email protected]>
Cc: "Hogarth, Bill" < [email protected]>, "[email protected]" < [email protected]>, "[email protected]"
< [email protected]>, Daniel Hahn < [email protected]>, "[email protected]"
< [email protected]>, Arthur Jonathan < [email protected]>, "[email protected]" < [email protected]>,
"[email protected]" < [email protected]>, Ellington William Ross < [email protected]>, Felicia Coleman
< [email protected]>, "[email protected]" < [email protected]>, "[email protected]" < [email protected]>,
"[email protected]" < [email protected]>, "[email protected]" < [email protected]>, "[email protected]"
"[email protected]" < [email protected]>, "Richard E. Dodge" < [email protected]>, "[email protected]"
< [email protected]>, "[email protected]" < [email protected]>, "[email protected]" < [email protected]>, Aswani
Volety < [email protected]>, Bill Hogarth < [email protected]>, Donald Winter < [email protected]>, Eric Chassignet
< [email protected]>, Graham Worthy < [email protected]>, Ian Macdonald < [email protected]>, Joseph Boyer
< [email protected]>, Kumar Mahadevan < [email protected]>, Manhar Dhanak < [email protected]>, Michael Wade Kindel
Subject: RE: North Gulf Shelf Sampling
I think it would be important if any hydrocast data were confirmed independently. That is does the temperature profile from an
XBT agree with that from a CTD? Anybody have reversing thermometers? TKX, George Maul
________________________________
From: Ernst Peebles [[email protected]]
To: Richard Snyder; Ernst Peebles
Cc: Hogarth, Bill; [email protected]; [email protected]; Daniel Hahn; [email protected]; Arthur
Jonathan; [email protected]; [email protected]; Ellington William Ross; George Maul; Felicia Coleman; [email protected];
[email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected];
[email protected]; Richard E. Dodge; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; Aswani Volety; Bill
Hogarth; Donald Winter; Eric Chassignet; Graham Worthy; Ian Macdonald; Joseph Boyer; Kumar Mahadevan; Manhar Dhanak;
Michael Wade Kindel; Mitchell Roffer; Nick Shay; Peter Braza; Peter Sheng; Peter Tatro; Sandra Vargo; Steve Woll; William
Dewar; Wade Jeffrey
All,
The Weatherbird II has managed to remain clear of oil and is now working around the clock in clean waters that feed the spill area
from the south (plankton, neuston, SIPPER) - the crew will be working within the spill by Saturday. Things are going very well -
Ernst
Ernst:
Region 1 0, the area most likely to be impacted, remains unsampled with SEAMAP protocols that will be compatible to the exiting
and future dataset. I will not belabor the point further.
On Thu, May 1 3, 201 0 at 1 :1 9 PM, Ernst Peebles <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> > wrote:
Richard,
We adhered to the SEAMAP probabilistic design and protocols to allow data comparability with other cruises (a cost-effective use
of tax dollars).
After much debate, we decided as a group to work east-to-west because 1 ) this would be most efficient, given that we had limited
time, and 2) more importantly, it would help ensure that we were working clean-to-dirty - if the vessel and gear became
We have always recognized that your region is in the most immediate danger, and it was written into our cruise plan that we would
sample the unaffected parts of stat zone 1 0 if time allowed. We do understand that finishing 24 stations was not as good as our
The second vessel happens to be in the Key West area as part of another cruise - the possible sampling of spill materials as they
constructive.
Ernst
Ernst:
waited till this morning to reply hoping the temptation to use language better suited to the pitching deck of a ship in rough weather
would subside. I wish I could tell you that is the case.
Region 1 0 is in the most immediate danger in all of Florida, which at least you acknowledge. I do not understand the rationale to
discard the rest of the region because the SW corner may have been impacted. I would think, but then I'm just a low rate scientist
in the west of Florida, that fact alone would have created an urgency to get over here and sample region 1 0 first. The ship
sampled East region 8 first, then to the West? What? While we have a window with SE winds keeping the plume away?
You state this is not an "official SEAMAP cruise" and you sampled only 24 of the stations, so adherence to a probablistic sampling
scheme (is that what happened ?) requiring you discard the most at risk region of the Florida Shelf because of a probability of
randomly picking the two stations in the SW corner (?) in the face of a potential ecological catastrophe, seems like exactly the kind
of <deleted> decision that causes general public to shake their heads in disgust at their tax dollar paid public servants and the
know you are prepared to station a ship in the Florida straits for the remote chance significant concentrations of petroleum and/or
region 1 0, offshore and on shore.
On Wed, May 1 2, 201 0 at 5:58 PM, Ernst Peebles <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> > wrote:
Richard,
positioning future cruises ahead of the spill as it moved east and south. At this point, we do not have funding for additional cruises
of this type, and we are watching spill interactions with the Loop Current. Should the oil spill become entrained in the Loop
Current, we may be able to position another vessel within the Florida Straits to intercept the oil for chemical fingerprinting.
compromised. We decided to prioritize stat zones 8 and 9, working west towards the spill. By using SEAMAP protocols to identify
stations, we could assure that these stations would be revisited during at least one future SEAMAP cruise that had already been
scheduled for July, 201 0.
Regards,
Ernst
At 01 :54 PM 5/1 2/201 0, you wrote:
Can someone explain to me why Zone 1 0, off of Pensacola, Santa Rosa Island, and Perdido Key, likely the first place the oil will
come, is not a priority over stations to the east? Did stations around the corner north and east of Cape San Blas get priority over
zone 1 0?
Pensacola...
--

TEL: (850) 474-2806

FAX:
-31 30
____________________________________
Associate Professor
office phone: (727) 553 -3983
lab phone:
B6 Privacy
B6 Privacy
fax:
____________________________________
--

TEL: (850) 474-2806
FAX:
-31 30
____________________________________
Associate Professor
office phone: (727)B6553

-3983
Privacy
B6 Privacy
lab phone:
B6 Privacy
fax:
____________________________________
--

TEL: (850) 474-2806
FAX:
-31 30
____________________________________
Associate Professor
office phone: (727) 553 -3983
lab phone:
B6 Privacy
B6 Privacy
fax:
____________________________________
Date: May 1 3, 201 0 1 1 :1 7:1 3 PM EDT
To: George Maul < [email protected]>, Richard Snyder < [email protected]>
George - good idea - we are not using XBTs on this cruise, but we are regularly comparing Seabird CTD measurements with
those of a simultaneously deployed YSI 6920 V2-2 sonde that is being repeatedly calibrated during the cruise. Ernst
At 09:51 PM 5/1 3/201 0, George Maul wrote:
I think it would be important if any hydrocast data were confirmed independently. That is does the temperature profile from an
XBT agree with that from a CTD? Anybody have reversing thermometers? TKX, George Maul
________________________________
Jonathan; [email protected]; [email protected]; Ellington William Ross; George Maul; Felicia Coleman; [email protected];
[email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected];
[email protected]; [email protected]; Richard E. Dodge; [email protected]; [email protected];
[email protected]; Aswani Volety; Bill Hogarth; Donald Winter; Eric Chassignet; Graham Worthy; Ian Macdonald; Joseph Boyer;
Kumar Mahadevan; Manhar Dhanak; Michael Wade Kindel; Mitchell Roffer; Nick Shay; Peter Braza; Peter Sheng; Peter Tatro;
Sandra Vargo; Steve Woll; William Dewar; Wade Jeffrey
All,
The Weatherbird II has managed to remain clear of oil and is now working around the clock in clean waters that feed the spill
area from the south (plankton, neuston, SIPPER) - the crew will be working within the spill by Saturday. Things are going very
well - thanks for all of the expressions of support.
Ernst
Ernst:
On Thu, May 1 3, 201 0 at 1 :1 9 PM, Ernst Peebles <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> > wrote:
Richard,
limited time, and 2) more importantly, it would help ensure that we were working clean-to-dirty - if the vessel and gear became
would sample the unaffected parts of stat zone 1 0 if time allowed. We do understand that finishing 24 stations was not as good
as our original plan (32 stations plus at least part of stat zone 1 0). The crew worked very, very hard during the limited time they
had, but the pace was not fast enough to get everything done in time.
constructive.
Ernst
Ernst:
On Wed, May 1 2, 201 0 at 5:58 PM, Ernst Peebles <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> > wrote:
Richard,
Loop Current, we may be able to position another vessel within the Florida Straits to intercept the oil for chemical fingerprinting.
compromised. We decided to prioritize stat zones 8 and 9, working west towards the spill. By using SEAMAP protocols to
identify stations, we could assure that these stations would be revisited during at least one future SEAMAP cruise that had
Regards,
Ernst
At 01 :54 PM 5/1 2/201 0, you wrote:
Can someone explain to me why Zone 1 0, off of Pensacola, Santa Rosa Island, and Perdido Key, likely the first place the oil will
come, is not a priority over stations to the east? Did stations around the corner north and east of Cape San Blas get priority over
zone 1 0?
Pensacola...
--

TEL: (850) 474-2806

FAX:
-31 30
____________________________________
Associate Professor
B6 Privacy
office phone:
B6 Privacy
lab phone:
B6 Privacy
fax:
____________________________________
--

TEL: (850) 474-2806
FAX:
-31 30
____________________________________
Associate Professor
B6 Privacy
office phone:
B6 Privacy
lab phone:
B6 Privacy
fax:
____________________________________
--

TEL: (850) 474-2806
FAX:
-31 30
____________________________________
Associate Professor
B6 Privacy
office phone:
B6 Privacy
lab phone:
B6 Privacy
fax:
fax:
B6 Privacy
____________________________________
From: George Maul < [email protected]>
Date: May 1 4, 201 0 1 0:59:25 AM EDT
To: Ernst Peebles < [email protected]>, Richard Snyder < [email protected]>
Ernst, Is there a cruise track? Do we know where the WBII is with respect to the oil? There are questions regarding the
entrainment issue from the press. TKX, George
From: Ernst Peebles [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Thursday, May 1 3, 201 0 1 1 :1 7 PM
To: George Maul; Richard Snyder
Jonathan; [email protected]; [email protected]; Ellington William Ross; Felicia Coleman; [email protected];
[email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected];
[email protected]; Richard E. Dodge; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; Aswani Volety; Bill
Hogarth; Donald Winter; Eric Chassignet; Graham Worthy; Ian Macdonald; Joseph Boyer; Kumar Mahadevan; Manhar Dhanak;
Michael Wade Kindel; Mitchell Roffer; Nick Shay; Peter Braza; Peter Sheng; Peter Tatro; Sandra Vargo; Steve Woll; William
Dewar; Wade Jeffrey
George - good idea - we are not using XBTs on this cruise, but we are
regularly comparing Seabird CTD measurements with those of a
simultaneously deployed YSI 6920 V2-2 sonde that is being repeatedly
calibrated during the cruise. Ernst
At 09:51 PM 5/1 3/201 0, George Maul wrote:
I think it would be important if any hydrocast data were confirmed
independently. That is does the temperature profile from an XBT
agree with that from a CTD? Anybody have reversing
thermometers? TKX, George Maul
________________________________
Cc: Hogarth, Bill; [email protected]; [email protected]; Daniel
Hahn; [email protected]; Arthur Jonathan; [email protected];
[email protected]; Ellington William Ross; George Maul; Felicia
Coleman; [email protected]; [email protected];
[email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected];
[email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; Richard
E. Dodge; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected];
Aswani Volety; Bill Hogarth; Donald Winter; Eric Chassignet; Graham
Worthy; Ian Macdonald; Joseph Boyer; Kumar Mahadevan; Manhar Dhanak;
Michael Wade Kindel; Mitchell Roffer; Nick Shay; Peter Braza; Peter
Sheng; Peter Tatro; Sandra Vargo; Steve Woll; William Dewar; Wade Jeffrey
All,
As a point of clarification, our sampled stations run from just east
of Pensacola Beach eastward to Apalachicola, extending from
nearshore to ~35-50 nm offshore (much of NMFS stat zone 1 0 is
actually offshore of Alabama). I do not want anyone to get the
The Weatherbird II has managed to remain clear of oil and is now
working around the clock in clean waters that feed the spill area
from the south (plankton, neuston, SIPPER) - the crew will be
working within the spill by Saturday. Things are going very well -
Ernst
Ernst:
Region 1 0, the area most likely to be impacted, remains unsampled
with SEAMAP protocols that will be compatible to the exiting and
future dataset. I will not belabor the point further.
On Thu, May 1 3, 201 0 at 1 :1 9 PM, Ernst Peebles
<[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> > wrote:
Richard,
We adhered to the SEAMAP probabilistic design and protocols to allow
data comparability with other cruises (a cost-effective use of tax dollars).
After much debate, we decided as a group to work east-to-west
because 1 ) this would be most efficient, given that we had limited
time, and 2) more importantly, it would help ensure that we were
working clean-to-dirty - if the vessel and gear became contaminated
early, then ALL pre-impact sampling would have to stop.
We have always recognized that your region is in the most immediate
danger, and it was written into our cruise plan that we would sample
the unaffected parts of stat zone 1 0 if time allowed. We do
understand that finishing 24 stations was not as good as our
original plan (32 stations plus at least part of stat zone 1 0). The
crew worked very, very hard during the limited time they had, but
The second vessel happens to be in the Key West area as part of
another cruise - the possible sampling of spill materials as they
In short, all of the rational arguments you raise were carefully
considered beforehand, and we are doing our best to be constructive.
Ernst
Ernst:
I do have some concerns, and your rationale to not sample region 1 0
because it has been "compromised" I do not understand. I waited
till this morning to reply hoping the temptation to use language
better suited to the pitching deck of a ship in rough weather would
subside. I wish I could tell you that is the case.
Region 1 0 is in the most immediate danger in all of Florida, which
at least you acknowledge. I do not understand the rationale to
discard the rest of the region because the SW corner may have been
impacted. I would think, but then I'm just a low rate scientist in
the west of Florida, that fact alone would have created an urgency
to get over here and sample region 1 0 first. The ship sampled East
region 8 first, then to the West? What? While we have a window with
SE winds keeping the plume away?
You state this is not an "official SEAMAP cruise" and you sampled
only 24 of the stations, so adherence to a probablistic sampling
scheme (is that what happened ?) requiring you discard the most at
risk region of the Florida Shelf because of a probability of
randomly picking the two stations in the SW corner (?) in the face
of a potential ecological catastrophe, seems like exactly the kind
of <deleted> decision that causes general public to shake their
heads in disgust at their tax dollar paid public servants and the
Can you honestly tell me that if region 5, the middle grounds and
Tampa/St. Pete, was in the same situation as we are facing in region
1 0, that the same decisions would have been made ? I'm sure the
people up here in the Panhandle will be comforted to know you are
prepared to station a ship in the Florida straits for the remote
chance significant concentrations of petroleum and/or dispersants
will reach there (yes I understand the loop current) when we are
facing a more real probability of oil impact here in region 1 0,
offshore and on shore.
The e-mail addressees are members of the FLCOOS and Oil Spill
Academic Task Force for their information only, no implied consent
or agreement with my position.
On Wed, May 1 2, 201 0 at 5:58 PM, Ernst Peebles
<[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> > wrote:
Richard,
Our (FWRI and USF) first priority was to establish pre-impact
conditions within those Florida continental-shelf waters that
appeared to be most likely to be affected by the spill. At the time
of cruise -plan development, panhandle waters appeared to be the most
vulnerable. The overall plan was to repeat this approach as
necessary in other regions of the West Florida Shelf, positioning
future cruises ahead of the spill as it moved east and south. At
this point, we do not have funding for additional cruises of this
type, and we are watching spill interactions with the Loop Current.
Should the oil spill become entrained in the Loop Current, we may be
able to position another vessel within the Florida Straits to
Early NOAA spill maps indicated oil was present in the southwest
corner of NMFS stat zone 1 0, and 2 of our 1 1 SEAMAP-style stations
were within this area of stat zone 1 0 (note the term "SEAMAP-style"
- our ongoing cruise is not an official SEAMAP cruise). We were
therefore concerned that stat zone 1 0 had been compromised or that
it could be argued that it had been compromised. We decided to
prioritize stat zones 8 and 9, working west towards the spill. By
using SEAMAP protocols to identify stations, we could assure that
these stations would be revisited during at least one future SEAMAP
cruise that had already been scheduled for July, 201 0.
NOAA's first priority was to study the spill site outside Florida
waters. In order to stay on schedule for the NOAA work, we had to
reduce the number of SEAMAP-style stations from 32 to 24. After
departing Pensacola and ending the SEAMAP-style work, the WBII
headed toward the spill area. I am still awaiting today's update via
satellite phone. It is my understanding that no SEAMAP-style work
was done in stat zone 1 0, although I will check to see what, if
anything, was done there during transit to the spill area.
The Pensacola port call was scheduled after the WBII had left St.
Pete. It's purpose was 1 ) to deliver age -sensitive water and
sediment samples to shore for shipment to the lab in Texas, and 2)
to exchange crew and load new equipment and supplies. At the time of
scheduling this port call, the WBII had a full complement of
scientific and ship's crew. There is presently no plan to make
another port call to Pensacola.
Thanks very much for the offer of support, and please let me know if
any of this is not clear or if you have additional concerns.
Regards,
Ernst
At 01 :54 PM 5/1 2/201 0, you wrote:
The Weatherbird cruise plan has stations prioritized for Zones 8 &
9, but for Zone 1 0:
"Figure 6. Locations of SEAMAP sampling stations within NMFS
statistical zone 1 0. At present we do not anticipate sampling
within NMFS statistical zone 1 0 unless sampling within NMFS
statistical zones 8 and 9 are completed ahead of schedule."
Can someone explain to me why Zone 1 0, off of Pensacola, Santa Rosa
Island, and Perdido Key, likely the first place the oil will come,
is not a priority over stations to the east? Did stations around the
corner north and east of Cape San Blas get priority over zone 1 0?
1 ) how was the sampling for pre-oil condition prioritized ? Why is
zone 1 0 a secondary consideration?
2) did they have time to do any sampling in zone 1 0? Our local
paper stated they collect "a" water sample 1 6 miles south of Pensacola...
People here at the likely point of first Florida impact keep asking
me what the state is doing to look after their interests.
--

TEL: (850) 474-2806

FAX:
-31 30
____________________________________
Associate Professor
B6 Privacy
office phone:
B6 Privacy
lab phone:
B6 Privacy
fax:
____________________________________
--

TEL: (850) 474-2806
FAX:
-31 30
____________________________________
Associate Professor
B6 Privacy
office phone:
B6 Privacy
lab phone:
B6 Privacy
fax:
____________________________________
--

TEL:
FAX:
(850) 474-2806
-31 30
____________________________________
Associate Professor
B6 Privacy
office phone:
B6 Privacy
lab phone:
B6 Privacy
fax:
____________________________________
Version: 8.5.437 / Virus Database: 271 .1 .1 /2871 - Release Date:
05/1 3/1 0 06:26:00
Date: May 1 5, 201 0 9:05:1 6 AM EDT
To: Debbie Payton < [email protected]>
Cc: Debra Simecek-Beatty < [email protected]>, Jeff Lankford < [email protected]>, Joshua Slater
< [email protected]>, Tom Moore < [email protected]>, Debbie French McCay < [email protected]>
Subject: DWH - Morning overflight information for Weatherbird cruise
If we get an update please relay it to Tom Moore - Try email ([email protected]) and cell phone
B6 Privacy
. He'll
relay the information to the vessel.
Debbie French currently thinks the oil will surface to the WNW. See below.
The currents at the Wellhead are very weak now, no longer to the east. See attached and below. The oil will be transported by the ESE winds to the
WNW and NW. I think the Sipper sampling should be rotated to the W to N quadrant.
I hope all is going well on the cruise.
Deb
Thanks for all your help.
Dan
we got you covered. I've cc'd DSB, Jeff and Josh. Between them, they can coordinate who can do a morning overflight of the
source area and see if they can determine the rise location.
Daniel Hahn wrote:
Regarding the timing, the Weatherbird II should be doing transects in the vicinity of the plume throughout the morning
Saturday, May 1 5. They are overnighting outside the spill area and will be heading in somewhere around daybreak. If
information can be conveyed quickly back from a morning overflight, that could be very useful, that is, if adjustments can be
made the day of the spill in coordination with SIMOPS. Otherwise, Friday's overflights are going to provide the best
information.
Dan
Debbie,
you scooped my response (i was halfway through typing and keep getting pulled away). But, of course, you are correct.
The oil is generally surfacing within 1 -2 km from the source and within 3-4 hours (without injection), confirmed both by obs
and modeling. today's obs have the oil surfacing to the ene, which makes sense given the rig and rov adcps. following is
the website with the adcp measurements - some days there is quite a shear in the vertical. the NGOM model (which you
now should have access to through CJ?) has been doing a pretty good job with subsurface currents as well.
we will make sure that in prep for Saturday an observer identifies the surfacing area tomorrow, then I would look at the
ADCPs and modify the sampling plan based on those obs (if we know approx what time the vessel will be in the area, we
can try and schedule the source overflight to coincide with that time to give better direction).
Debbie
A l l ,
From m y ana l y si s a nd m od e l i ng , t h e ri s i ng oi l s h ou l d be s u rfac i ng c l os e t o t h e rel e a s e s i t e a
nd d ow n- cu rre nt .
T h e A DC P a t t h e w e l l h ea d g ene ra l l y s how s w ea k c u rre nt s ( < 0. 2 kt ) from 3 9 0 0f
t ( d e e pe st poi nt s am pl e d ) t o a bou t 4 00 ft be l ow t he su rfa ce .

T h e A DC P m e a s u re m e nt s a t 3 15 an
d 2 10 ft be l ow t h e w a t e r s u rfa c e h av e s how n ea s t w ard c u rre nt s u p t o 0 . 7 kt s t h e l a s t fe w d a y s
, bu t a re sl ow i ng now t o < 0 . 2 kt s .
T h e se a re t h e s h a l l ow e s t m e a s u re m e nt s a va i l a bl e , bu t I am
a s su m i ng t h e y a ppl y a l l t h e w a y t o t h e s u rfac e ( for l ac k of a ny ot h e r d a t a ) .

Earl y i n t h e s
pi l l , s u rfa c e ( 2 0 0 - 3 0 0ft ) cu rre nt s w e re a l s o w e a k.

M a y 5 - 7 t h e y w e re t o t h e s ou t h , M ay 7- 10
t o t h e S E, a nd re c ent l y t o t he E.
A l l of t h i s i s ba se d on t ra ns port by t h e c u rrent s as m e a su
re d by A DC P 4 2 9 16 d e pl oy e d M ay 1 a t t h e w e l l he a d si t e .
W e w ou l d l i ke s om e c onfi rm a t i on of t h i s m od e l , so w e c an l oc at e s am pl i ng i n t h e ri s i ng pl u m e.
W e ne e d t o g e t t he s e sa m pl es t o confi rm d ropl e t s i z e s a nd d i ss ol v e d PA H s i n t h at w a t e r, a nd
t h e a l g ory t h m s u s ed t o m od e l s u c h for t h e pu rpos es of w a t e r c ol u m n i nj u ry m od e l i ng .
T h e O ce a n I m a g i ng ov e rfl i g h t i nt e rpre t a t i ons h a v e be e n v e ry va l u a bl e for t h i s a nal y si s, a nd t
h e one s w e h a ve c om pa re d s e e m t o a g re e w i t h t h i s m od e l of w h at i s g oi ng on.
T od ay w e h a v e t h
e "Pa y ne c ru i se " s am pl i ng 2 km E of t h e W e l l h ea d , and t he y a re se e i ng s om e oi l t h ere .

T om orro
w a nd S a t t h e S i pper cru i s e i s sa m pl i ng t h e are a , a nd w e a re t ry i ng t o pl a c e t h e m d ow ns t re a m
of ( Fri ) a nd i n t h e pl u m e ( S at ) .
N e x t w e e k w e a re w orki ng on a pl a n for m ore w a t e r s am pl i ng .
Perh a ps coord i na t i on of t h e O ce a n I m a g i ng ov e rfl i g h t s w i t h t h e s e pl a ns w ou l d d o t h e t ri c k.
I f w e c an c onfi rm t h e m od e l , w e c an fol l ow t h e A DC P m e a su rem e nt s t o l oca t e ou r s a m pl i ng .
De bbi e
De bora h Fre nc h M c C ay
A ppl i e d Sc i e nce A s soc i a t e s , I nc . ( A S A )
Sou t h Ki ng st ow n, RI 0 2 8 79
U SA
d . fre nc h . m cc a y @a s a sc i e nce . com
B6 Privacy
v oc :
_ _ _ __ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _
From : Da ni e l Ha h n [Da ni el . H a hn@noa a. g ov ]
Se nt : T h u rsd a y , M a y 13 , 2 0 10 4 : 4 2 PM
T o: fra nk. cs u l a k
C c : De bbi e Pa y t on; Li sa Di pi nt o; I an J Ze l o; Dou g H e l t on;

French M c C a y ; T om M oore; St eph a ni e W i l l i s
Su bj e ct : Re : N e e d He l p - S u rfa c i ng oi l l oca i t on
De bbi e Pay t on a nd ot h e rs,
M y u nd e rst a nd i ng i s t h a t , for t h e t i m e be i ng ,
G l en W a t a ba y as h i ;
w e ha v e a pre t t y g ood
Bi l l Le h r;
De bbi e
h a nd l e on w h e re oi l i s com i ng t o t he s u rfa c e ( i . e . a bou t 2 km t o t h e
E) .
T h e re a s on w e w e re re q u es t i ng a i r su pport i s t h a t t h i s l oca t i on
sh i ft s d u e t o s u bs u rfa c e c u rre nt s and t ha t , at t i m e s , w e d i d n' t h av e
g ood i nform a t i on a bou t w h e re t h e oi l w a s su rfa c i ng .

I u nd e rst a nd t h e
com pl i c a t i ons w i t h s e e i ng su rfa ci ng oi l w h e n t h e re i s l ot s of oi l on t he
w a t er.
T h e obj e ct i v e of t he SI PPER cru i s e i s t o col l e c t i nform a t i on on pl a nkt on
a s s em bl a g e s i n t h e v i ci ni t y of t h e ri s i ng pl u m e , and pot e nt i al l y t o
e x a m i ne d ropl et s i z e i n t h e ri s i ng pl u m e.
T hu s , know i ng w h e re t h e pl u m e
i s com i ng t o t h e s u rfa c e a l l ow s u s t o pl a n ou r t rans e c t l oc a t i ons i n
su c h a w ay t h at w e h a v e be t t er proba bi l i t y of h i t t i ng t h e pl u m e .
A ny u pd a t e s from t he ov erfl i g h t s t om orrow w i l l h e l p u s c onfi rm t h at ou r
propose d pl u m e t ra ns e ct s, w h i c h a re pl a nne d for S at u rd ay , a re i n t h e
ri g ht l oca t i on a nd t h a t t h e ri s i ng pl u m e h a s n' t s hi ft e d .
A ph ot o w i t h
d ri l l i ng ri g as a re fe renc e i s v e ry h e l pfu l ( l i ke a t t a ch e d ) .
T h a nks for y ou r a s si s t a nc e i n h e l pi ng u s pi n d ow n t h i s i nform a t i on.
Da n
Da n, I a m t ry i ng t o ad d re ss y ou r re q u e st for ove rfl i g h t i nform a t i on.
S e e em a i l from De bbi e Pa y t on. Pl e a s e a d d res s h er q u es t i ons . Fra nk
De bbi e Pa y t on w rot e :
T h e ov e rfl i g h t s a re be i ng c oord i na t ed i n t h e fi e l d ( I ' m as su m i ng a t
e a c h C P? ) I n S ea t t l e, w e a re g i v i ng d i re ct i on t o t he N O A A obs erv e rs
a nd t h e O ce a n I m a g i ng a nd N A S A i m a g i ng fl i g h t s.
I d e nt i fy i ng w h ere t he oi l i s s u rfa c i ng i s not a si m pl e m at t e r
a ny m ore , i t w a s a bi t e a si e r a t t h e be g i nni ng of t he spi l l w h en t h ere
i n t he a re a.
I e x pe c t onl y t h e h e l os m ay be
a bl e t o d et e rm i ne
w h e re t h e oi l i s s u rfac i ng , a nd i t m i g h t req u i re
q u i t e a bi t of s e a rc h i ng t o s ee i f t h e y c a n se e bu bbl e s or
bl os som i ng a nd c oord i na t i ng w i t h t h e m od el i ng e ffort t o know w h e re t o
l ook.
I ni t i a l e s t i m a t e s ( w i t h ou t a d d i ng s u bs ea d i spe rs a nt s) w e re
t h a t oi l w ou l d s u rfac e i n 3 - 4 hou rs w i t h i n 1. 5 m i l es of t h e s ou rc e .
I ni t i a l obs e rv at i ons c onfi rm e d t h i s a nd w e h a ve n' t t ri e d t o c onfi rm
i t s i nce t h a t I a m aw a re of.
W h a t i s t he q u es t i on w e are t ry i ng t o a nsw e r and h ow m u c h e ffort i s
i t w ort h ? I s know i ng w i t h i n a g i v e n ra d i u s g ood e nou g h ? I f t h i s i s
a n i m port ant q u e s t i on for s om e one , I e x pec t w e w ou l d ne e d a d ed i c a t e d
pl a t form ea ch d a y t o g e t t h i s i nform a t i on.

I f w e onl y nee d a n
a pprox i m a t e , t he n w e c a n u s e t he m od e l i ng t o ans w e r i t .
W h o i s t he PO C for coord i na t i ng N O A A ov erfl i g h t s? Re ce i ve d req u e s t
from Da n H a h n, N OA A /O RR St . Pet e for ou r re s ponse ov e rfl i g h t s on a
d a i l y ba si s t o fl y ov e r t h e l oc a t i on w h ere t he oi l i s c om i ng t o t he
su rfa c e , d ocu m e nt l at /l ong , t ake phot o w i t h a re fe re nc e poi nt
cont a i ne d i n t h e ph ot o. T h i s re q u e st ca m e i n a cou pl e of d a y s a g o.
Fra nk
- -
Da ni e l H ah n,
Ph . D.
Re g i ona l Re s ou rce C oord i na t or
N a t i ona l O ce a ni c a nd A t m os ph eri c A d m i ni st ra t i on
A s s es sm e nt & Re st ora t i on Di v i s i on, S E Reg i on
em ai l :
Ph one :
Fa x :
Cel l :
Da ni e l . Ha h n@noa a . g ov
( 72 7) 5 51- 5715
B6 Privacy
B6 Privacy
--
emai l :
Ph one:
Fa x :
Cel l :
( 72 7) 55 1- 5 715
B6 Privacy
B6 Privacy
--
em ai l :
Ph one :
Fa x :
Cel l :
( 72 7) 5 5 1- 5715
B6 Privacy
B6 Privacy
From: Bill Allison < [email protected]>
Date: May 1 6, 201 0 1 0:52:1 3 AM EDT
To: coral-list coral-list < [email protected]>
Subject: [Coral-List] Fwd: Gulf Oil Spill, dispersants
A number of list members have suggested that the dispersants could be
problematic and should be investigated. It is ironic and alarming that oil
dispersants inimical to life are being used in unprecedented quantities to
make the problem go away, that is, to make it invisible &
coincidentally(?), to make the largely unknown causal chain of environmental
harm much harder to trace. We now have visible oil + invisible oil +
~2,000,000 liters of toxic dispersants in the Gulf, and the meter is still
running - apparently an order of magnitude faster than announced some days
ago.
Although the formula of Corexit, the main dispersant being used is
proprietary, an online search identified some important ingredients as:
- 2-butoxyethanol: organic solvent, toxic, said to kill most arthropods,
biodegradable*.
- sulfonic acid esters: common in many household products such as detergents
& in sulfa drugs (anti-biologics) - toxic (add detergent to an aquarium &
watch).
- propylene glycol: an alcohol used in many household products, readily
biodegradable*.
*BIODEGRADABLE - sounds good BUT: it means that microrganisms break it down,
consuming oxygen in the process. Propylene glycol which I suppose is the
carrier and main component, is said to have a very high BOD. Add to this the
BOD created by the decomposition of creatures large & small killed by oil &
dispersants, and that of microbes feeding on the oil itself. There is
speculation about whether the resultant emulsion will sink or float and an
expectation that the whole mess will disperse and be diluted, so becoming
even more invisible. Recall that many species of marine larvae travel in the
near-surface few millimeters of the sea. Depending on the timing of spawning
events and dispersal, might this have a negative impact on larval
recruitment across a spectrum of marine life?
On the positive side (Im kidding), Corexit is made in USA, the stock of the
producer has appreciated, & the costs the whole clean-up bundle will be
added to GNP (Im not kidding). Is that an insane system or what?
--
________________________________
Say what some poets will, Nature is not so much her own ever-sweet
interpreter as the mere supplier of that cunning alphabet, whereby selecting
and combining as he pleases, each man reads his own peculiar lesson
according to his own peculiar mind and mood. (Herman Melville, 1 852)
_______________________________________________
[email protected]
From: Mark Luther < [email protected]>
Date: May 1 7, 201 0 1 0:35:1 9 AM EDT
Cc: Tom Moore < [email protected]>, Daniel Hahn < [email protected]>, Ernst Peebles < [email protected]>,
"Morrison, Geoff" < [email protected]>, Sherryl Gilbert < [email protected]>, Jon Jarrell < [email protected]>, Brian
Bendis < [email protected]>, Scott Burghart < [email protected]>
Subject: Re: automated sampling system for oil spill -- Weatherbird II
hi debie -- sorry not to reply earlier. i was distracted on another matter that you are involved with as well. we are working with a
turner designs sensor, the td 41 00. the web site is:
http://www.oilinwatermonitors.com/content/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=58&Itemid=57
i've attached a workshop report on this class of sensors that might be helpful. i'll try to call you later.
mark
Thanks Mark for the update. Please keep us posted.
Do you have some protocols for the sensor? Would need to work into a plan.
Thanks,
Thanks,
Debbie
[email protected]
voc: B6 Privacy
________________________________________
From: Mark Luther [[email protected]]
Sent: Monday, May 1 0, 201 0 9:55 AM
Cc: Tom Moore; Daniel Hahn; Ernst Peebles; Morrison, Geoff; Sherryl Gilbert; Jon Jarrell; Brian Bendis; Scott Burghart
hi debbie -- ysi is checking on delivery schedule and costs for the
hydrocarbon sensor and time/costs to integrate the sensor into the
seakeeper system. it would take at least a week to get the sensor
delivered. it would be best if the installation on the weatherbird is
done here at our docks. right now, the intake for the seakeeper system
is blocked from the outside to keep oil out. it requires a diver to
remove the plug. i'll talk to ernst today about the weatherbird's
future plans.
thanks -- mark
The data would be very useful to map the oil plume in the water as Sipper samples. When could the system be ready?
Thanks
[email protected]
voc: B6 Privacy
________________________________________
Sent: Friday, May 07, 201 0 9:1 5 AM
To: Mark Luther
Cc: Debbie French McCay; Daniel Hahn; Ernst Peebles; Morrison, Geoff; Sherryl Gilbert; Jon Jarrell; Brian Bendis; Scott
Burghart
The boat is going to be making a stop in Pensacola for a crew change and some HAZMAT Training on Monday. I am not sure
what the logistics of install are but that is an option to consider if this data will be useful.
Tom
On May 6, 201 0, at 1 1 :1 9 PM, Mark Luther wrote:
hi debbie -- sorry i missed your call.
there is not a hydrocarbon sensor on the weatherbird's seakeeper system at present. we could add such a sensor to the
existing seakeeper system when the ship returns to st. petersburg. the present cruise was staged on such short notice that
there was no time to obtain and install the new sensor. in fact, we had a diver plug the seakeeper intake before this cruise
so that oil didn't foul the c/t and bio-optical sensors. i strongly suspect that there will be follow-on cruises that could make
use of the augmented system. i've copied ernst peebles, who is our faculty ichtyoplankton person who is coordinating the
cruises.
we do not have the hydrocarbon sensors in hand at present but we can obtain them if there is sufficient interest. we do have
the seakeeper systems into which the hydrocarbon sensors can be integrated. the advantage of the seakeeper system is
that it is modular and self-contained, including all pumping, water handling, anti-fouling, and data acquisition and telemetry
systems.
i have meetings from 1 0 am to 1 pm tomorrow but will try to call before 1 0 or after 1 .
thanks -- mark
Mark,
Sorry to not be able to talk to you today. Eoin alerted me to your email tonight. (Note my email above -- I think you used
my old one).
I definitely need to talk to you about this asap. We are doing modeling of the spill for the NRDA working for NOAA ORR.
Right now the focus is on data collection for model input and validation. Tonight a ship is enroute to take water samples in
the spill zone, but of course can only feasibly get 1 0s of samples in the 2-day cruise.
In addition, I am working with Dan Hahn and Tom Moore of NOAA (cc'd here) to plan a cruise sampling of ichthyoplankton
in the spill zone area. (They will also do CTDs and other sampling.) That cruise is leg 2 of the Weatherbird II cruise that
left yesterday. Now they are sampling on the FL shelf; Monday or Tues they are going to port in Pensacola to get supplies
and gear. After that they go out to sample in the spill zone area.
You say a hydrocarbon sensor is already installed on the USF vessel, Weatherbird II. Is it possible to get this activated
and sampling during the cruise next week? The ship is doing up and down sawtooth sampling of the upper layer and
running it through a Sipper image analysis system to ID and count plankton (fish and others). Also to count and measure
sizes of oil droplets. Transects to be in clean water (baseline) then in plume area.
Is this feasible? I'd also like to talk about other possibilities.
Please email a good time to talk. I am involved in providing info to the other cruise tomorrow, so another day on the
phone. I will try calling in the morning.
Thanks
Debbie
(office) B6 Privacy
(fax) B6 Privacy
[email protected]
cell: B6 Privacy
From: Eoin Howlett Sent: Thursday, May 06, 201 0 8:29 PM
Subject: FW: automated sampling system for oil spill
I think Mark used wrong email for you.
________________________________________
From: Mark Luther [[email protected]]
To: Jim Jeansonne
Cc: 'Mark Luther'; Sherryl Gilbert; Morrison, Geoff; Brian Bendis; Jon Jarrell; Eoin Howlett; [email protected]
Subject: automated sampling system for oil spill
Hi Jim -- As we discussed on the phone, we here at USF Marine Science
and YSI's St. Petersburg office have several Seakeeper 1 000 automated
ocean data acquisition systems (see
http://www.seakeepers.org/technology.php). These modular, integrated
systems can be augmented with hydrocarbon sensors to be used to collect
data on the distribution of oil from the present spill. One of these
systems is already installed on the USF vessel, Weatherbird II, and
another on the Manta from the Flower Garden Banks NMS. We have at least
6 other systems that could be installed on vessels of opportunity, from
small skiffs to USCG cutters to offshore supply vessels. As they are
modular and completely self-contained, installation is relatively quick
and simple. the intake can tap into an existing vessel thru-hull
fitting or seachest, or can be a hose on a boom over the side of a small
boat. Data from the sensors can be displayed in real-time onboard the
boat. Data from the sensors can be displayed in real-time onboard the
vessel or can be telemetered to shore by satellite. We plan to put a
hydrocarbon sensor on the Weatherbird's Seakeeper system when she
returns to port. The other 6 systems are available for use on other
vessels if NOAA has need of them. If NOAA is interested, I can provide
a cost estimate for integration of the hydrocarbon sensor and for
installation. YSI can manufacture additional systems if required. The
best way to reach me is my cell - B6 Privacy .
As always, we are happy to help in any way we can -- Mark
--
______________________________________________________________________
Mark E. Luther, PhD

| Tel: (727)553 -1 528
Associate Professor and Director

| Fax: (727)553 -1 1 89
Ocean Monitoring and Prediction Lab | E-mail: [email protected]

| http://ompl.marine.usf.edu

| "If we weren't all crazy we

| would go insane" -- J. Buffett
______________________________________________________________________
--
______________________________________________________________________
Mark E. Luther, PhD

| Tel: (727)553 -1 528

| Fax: (727)553 -1 1 89



______________________________________________________________________
--------------------------------------------------------
Tom Moore
263 1 3th Ave South
727-551 -571 6 Office
B6 Privacy
Cell
--
______________________________________________________________________
Mark E. Luther, PhD

| Tel: (727)553 -1 528

| Fax: (727)553 -1 1 89



______________________________________________________________________
--
______________________________________________________________________
B6 Privacy
Mark E. Luther, PhD
| Tel:
| Fax: B6 Privacy



______________________________________________________________________
ACT_WR08-_Sensors.pdf
Date: May 1 7, 201 0 1 :04:28 PM EDT
Diane Kinsey < [email protected]>, [email protected], [email protected], [email protected],
[email protected], [email protected], Jeff Gore < [email protected]>, John Himes < [email protected]>,
[email protected], karen_battle [email protected], [email protected], [email protected],
[email protected], [email protected], msw1 [email protected], [email protected],
[email protected], [email protected], [email protected], Carol Beidleman
[email protected], [email protected], [email protected], Juan Ramirez <[email protected]>,
Tim Fitzpatrick < [email protected]>, [email protected], [email protected],
[email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], Jim Payne
< [email protected]>, Shannon Gerardi < [email protected]>, [email protected],
[email protected], [email protected], [email protected], John Fruin < [email protected]>,
Nick Stratis < [email protected]>, [email protected], [email protected], [email protected],
[email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], Dan Hudgens
< [email protected]>, Todd Goeks < [email protected]>
Subject: Information Request - analytes for tissue samples
Subject: Information Request - analytes for tissue samples
Work Groups:
Simeon Hahn (Marine Mammals/Turtles TWG Lead) is requesting information on what analytes are being chosen for
tissue samples with a specific request re: analytes related to dispersants. Please send all relevant information to him
(cc'd here, [email protected]) or to the gmail for forwarding.
Date: May 1 7, 201 0 1 :06:02 PM EDT
[email protected], [email protected], karen_battle [email protected], [email protected],
[email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected]
Subject: Fwd: The Associated Press: Deep sea oil plumes, dispersants endanger reefs (FKNMS)
Coral Group:
See forwarded email/article below.
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5hkizwl1 juq5nw6XDJ9UTfq9bY0dwD9FOHA600
Deep sea oil plumes, dispersants endanger reefs
By JASON DEAREN and MATT SEDENSKY (AP) 3 hours ago
NEW ORLEANS The oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico has already spewed plumes over ecologically sensitive reefs, part of a
stalled marine sanctuary proposal that would have restrict drilling in a large swath of the northern part of the vital waterway.
Marine scientists fear that two powerful Gulf currents will carry the oil to other reefs. The eastward flowing loop current could
spread it about 450 miles to the Florida Keys, while the Louisiana coastal current could move the oil as far west as central Texas.
The depth of the gushing leaks and the use of more than 560,000 gallons of chemicals to disperse the oil, including
unprecedented injections deep in the sea, have helped keep the crude beneath the sea surface. Marine scientists say diffusing
and sinking the oil helps protect the surface species and the Gulf Coast shoreline but increases the chance of harming deep-sea
reefs, which are seen as bellwethers for sea health.
"At first we had a lot of concern about surface animals like turtles, whales and dolphins," said Paul Montagna, a marine biologist
at Texas A&M University Corpus Christi who studies Gulf reefs. "Now we're concerned about everything."
On Sunday, researchers said computer models show oil has already entered the loop current that could carry the toxic goo toward
the Keys, the third -longest barrier reef in the world.
The oil is now over the western edge of a roughly 61 -mile expanse of 300 -to-500 -foot-deep reef south of Louisiana known as the
Pinnacles, about 25 miles north of where the Deepwater Horizon exploded April 20, killing 1 1 people and starting the spill that
grows by the hour.
The Pinnacles is one of nine coral banks and hard -bottom areas stretching from Texas to Florida that the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration tried in 2008 to get designated a marine sanctuary called Islands in the Stream.
This sanctuary would have restricted fishing and oil drilling around the identified reef "islands." But the plan was put on hold after
vehement objections from Republican lawmakers, fishermen and the oil industry.
Scientists have found undersea plumes of oil at the spill as much as 1 0 miles long, which are an unprecedented danger to the
deep sea environment, said Samantha Joye, a professor of marine sciences at the University of Georgia.
These plumes are being eaten by microbes thousands of feet deep, which removes oxygen from the water.
"Deepwater coral are abundant on the sea floor in this part of the Gulf, and they need oxygen," said Joye, who was involved in the
plume discovery. "Without it, they can't survive."
Experts say the well's depth and Friday's decision by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to allow BP to shoot massive
amounts of dispersing chemicals deep underwater may help protect vital marshes and wetlands on the Gulf Coast. But the
tradeoff may result in significant effects on more sea life.
Oil mixed with the chemical agent can disperse into the water more easily, rather than it staying on the surface, where it could
bypass deeper banks like Pinnacles, said Edward Van Vleet, a chemical oceanography professor at the University of South
Florida.
The downside is that it causes oil to sink, coating corals and other reef organisms and smothering them, he said.
When the dispersed oil is broken into smaller globules, he said they are more easily eaten by smaller reef organisms and can kill
them or cause tumors or something else harmful.
Federal officials who oversee marine sanctuaries and fisheries say it's too early to tell how reefs and other important habitats may
be damaged, said Dr. Jane Lubchenco, NOAA's undersecretary of commerce for oceans.
NOAA, which manages marine sanctuaries, is also responsible for estimating financial costs of the spill on the sea environment
and fisheries. The Pinnacles is a significant habitat for sea life vital to commercial fisheries such as red snapper, crab and shrimp.
The creation of a sanctuary across hundreds of miles of the Gulf would not have blocked oil and gas exploration where the
Deepwater Horizon exploded, said Montagna. However, he said it could have resulted in stricter environmental regulation for reefs
closest to the spill site, and likely less drilling.
"So you can imagine these animals that make a living on rocks, filtering food out of the water, and the dispersants come along
and sink the oil; it's a big concern," Montagna said.
The area also is breeding ground for sperm whales and bluefin tuna, species not doing well, he said.
Studies published in a 2005 National Academy of Sciences report show that oil mixed with dispersants damaged certain corals'
reproduction and deformed their larvae. The study concluded the federal government needed to study more before using massive
amounts of dispersants.
Reefs are made up of living creatures that excrete a hard calcium carbonate exoskeleton.
Depending on the oil exposure, they can be smothered by the pollutants or become more susceptible to bleaching, which hinders
reproduction and growth. While the warm temperatures of Florida could speed the recovery of damaged reefs there, some
problems could be seen for a decade or more. In the deeper reefs in colder water closer to the spill, the damage could last even
longer.
As the spill increases, the oil oozes toward other reefs that stretch from the blowout site eastward to the Florida Keys National
Marine Sanctuary.
The Keys exist in relatively shallow water, so the potential exposure to the oil is higher than for deeper reefs, though BP PLC
officials say the oil would be more diffused after having broken down during its travel over hundreds of miles.
This week, researchers from USF and the Florida Department of Environmental Protection are heading to the loop current to get a
"chemical fingerprint" of any oil they find to confirm it is from the leaking well.
"We don't expect the loop current to carry oil onto beaches," William Hogarth, dean of the University of South Florida's College of
Marine Science, said. "But we do have a great concern for the Keys."
If oil reaches the Keys, it could threaten one of the country's greatest underwater natural resources as well as its tourism industry.
Locals throughout the ribbon of islands not only relish their ties to the water but rely on it to help bring in 2 million visitors each
year.
"They're not going to come if our beaches are tarred and our mangroves have died and it's a polluted dump," said Millard
McCleary, program director of the Key West-based Reef Relief. "They'll go to the Bahamas or the Caymans or they'll go to
Mexico."
/Sedensky reported from Key West, Fla. Associated Press writer Janet McConnaughey in New Orleans contributed to this report./
--
William F. Precht
Program Manager
Damage Assessment, Restoration and Resource Protection
NOAA - Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary
P.O. Box 1 083
95230 Overseas Highway
Key Largo, FL 33037
off: (305) 852-771 7 x29
cell:
B6 Privacy
--
"The conservation of natural resources is the fundamental problem.
Unless we solve that problem it will avail us little to solve all others."
President Teddy Roosevelt, October 4, 1 907
From: "Lisa.Vandiver" < [email protected]>
Date: May 1 7, 201 0 1 :27:54 PM EDT
Cc: Leslie Craig < [email protected]>, Roger B Griffis < [email protected]>, Daphne Macfarlan
< [email protected]>, Meg Goecker < [email protected]>, Cheryl Brodnax < [email protected]>,
Cecelia Linder < [email protected]>, Marti McGuire < [email protected]>, Tom Moore < [email protected]>
Subject: Re: DWH - Potential Restoration Project Options
Subject: Re: DWH - Potential Restoration Project Options
Hi Jean-
That is a great point. I would think that this is where addressing the sources of nutrients that are contributing to the Dead Zone
could play in to restoration (e.g., improving water quality). In addition, NOAA scientists in the Gulf Hypoxia Task Force have
indicted that they are concerned about potential phosphorus loadings into the Gulf from the dispersants. The Gulf is P limited (in
part, due to all the N discharged from the Mississippi River) and this addition of P may be enough to promote algal blooms and
subsequently enhancing hypoxia occurrence. Just a thought.
Lisa
[email protected] wrote:
Leslie,
I don't have an answer to this, but I am wondering about restoration
project ideas for the potentially massive water column injury in the
middle of the Gulf. With the latest acknowledgment that oil is staying
deeper in the water column and possibly getting swept up in the loop
current, would this feasibly be scaled to coastal restoration
project(s), such as marsh and oyster reef restoration? If so, for which
state(s) if the injury is in the middle of the Gulf? Again, I have no
specific answer, but wanted to put it out there for thought. In large
part, this will be an evolving discussion as injury assessment moves
along, but if we had some ideas of how we might handle it for
restoration that would be good. Thanks,
Jean
----- Original Message -----
From: Leslie Craig < [email protected]>
Date: Monday, May 1 7, 201 0 8:02 am
Subject: DWH - Potential Restoration Project Options
Hi all,
I think I have been in touch with most of you directly but perhaps this email will serve to get us all closer to the same page.
One of the tasks I have been assigned is to pull together a list of "known" restoration options in the areas potentially affected
by the DWH spill. Of course, this is only intended to be a first snap shot, based on multiple sources, of potential restoration
options in the area. Below is an initial list of people who I hope to coordinate with to provide some feedback, in a pretty short
time frame.
I hope to have some feedback from the group by the end of this week (May 21 )- and the bulk of information in hand by mid to
late next week (May 26-28). My deadline to have something back to HQ is around June 1 .*
Leslie Lead; FL Panhandle
Marti West Coast FL (not yet - but may be soon); mapping of projects passed on from the rest of the group
Meg MS, AL - start with ARRA unfunded projects; Mobile Bay NEP PrioritiesDaphne ESA; marine mammals
Cece - LA & MS (based upon work from LA-MS Working Group)
Roger Griffis - CELP (land acquisition priorities for each state)
Cheryl - potentially ARRA unfunded projects; CWPPRA non-selected, BTNEP priorities (are these things Cece would already
be covering?)
Lisa Vandiver - Non-point source, MS R Watershed
I have attached a spreadsheet that we can all work from. Do not feel intimidated by all of the fields. The more you can fill in,
the better - but just give me what you have or what makes sense for every project. Also, do not feel stifled by the word
"PROJECT" - the things that make it on this list can also be Project concepts. For instance, if an NEP has identified a broad
need, go ahead and fit it on the
list.
Hopefully most of the fields are self explanatory but here are a few that might be confusing:
Column E: Correlation to injury - DO NOT WORRY ABOUT THIS FIELD, unless you really really want to. This is a field we will
use to track how/if a particular project may compensate for a specific injury... i.e. A wetland creation project might have
"Fishery biomass injury" listed in this column.
Column M: NOAA POC - this field is you and any other NOAA POC that is appropriate
The second attachment is a very DRAFT document that begins to describe the RC's role in Restoration Planning through the
DARRP and specifically for this spill. This is NOT for distribution - it is also not rocket science!
Please feel free to call me with any questions. I have a crazy week but this is my priority so I will return emails and calls as
soon as I can.
Thanks!
Leslie
--
Leslie Craig
(Phone) B6 Privacy
(Fax) B6 Privacy
--
---
Lisa Vandiver
Knauss Sea Grant Fellow
NOAA Restoration Center 1 31 5 East West Highway
Silver Spring, MD 2091 0
B6 Privacy
phone:
From: Ed Blume < [email protected]>
Date: May 1 7, 201 0 2:47:56 PM EDT
To: coral-list coral-list < [email protected]>
Subject: Re: [Coral-List] Fwd: Gulf Oil Spill, dispersants
Several posters described experiments to determine the impact of oil on
coral. Has one done (or does anyone know of) research on the ingredients to
Corexit, as described by BIll Allison?
*Although the formula of Corexit, the main dispersant being used is
proprietary, an online search identified some important ingredients as:*
*- 2-butoxyethanol: organic solvent, toxic, said to kill most arthropods,
biodegradable*.*
*- sulfonic acid esters: common in many household products such as
detergents
watch).*
*- propylene glycol: an alcohol used in many household products, readily
biodegradable*.*
Ed Blume
Madison, WI
On Sun, May 1 6, 201 0 at 9:52 AM, Bill Allison < [email protected]>wrote:
problematic and should be investigated. It is ironic and alarming that oil
dispersants inimical to life are being used in unprecedented quantities to
coincidentally(?), to make the largely unknown causal chain of
environmental
~2,000,000 liters of toxic dispersants in the Gulf, and the meter is still
running - apparently an order of magnitude faster than announced some days
ago.
biodegradable*.
- sulfonic acid esters: common in many household products such as
detergents
watch).
biodegradable*.
*BIODEGRADABLE - sounds good BUT: it means that microrganisms break it
down,
carrier and main component, is said to have a very high BOD. Add to this
the
BOD created by the decomposition of creatures large & small killed by oil &
speculation about whether the resultant emulsion will sink or float and an
even more invisible. Recall that many species of marine larvae travel in
the
near-surface few millimeters of the sea. Depending on the timing of
spawning
On the positive side (Im kidding), Corexit is made in USA, the stock of
the
--
________________________________
interpreter as the mere supplier of that cunning alphabet, whereby
selecting
_______________________________________________
[email protected]
Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary (Upper Region)
P.O. Box 1 083
Key Largo, FL 33037
B6 Privacy
B6 Privacy
(cell) [email protected]
From: Craig Downs B6 Privacy @hughes.net>
Date: May 1 8, 201 0 9:43:59 AM EDT
To: 'John Halas' < [email protected]>, 'Cheryl Woodley' < [email protected]>
Cc: 'John Fauth' < [email protected]>, 'Scott Donahue' < [email protected]>, 'Bill Goodwin' < [email protected]>,
'Bill Precht' < [email protected]>
Subject: RE: response to oil spill ?
Hey John,
Have you guys contacted/spoke with Gary Shigenaka at NOAA HAZMAT? He is
good, experienced, and can give your team some sound advice. Also ask him
for his review on oil/fuel impacts on coral reefs. Many effect-bets are off
because of the use of dispersants.
And when you bring Gary Shigenaka on board, tell him that the "anti-christ"
has been working for the past 1 2 days, and last Thursday the opposition had
teams in the Keys.
Which you may also want to remind folks about permits requirements for
collections in the FKNMS. I gave free advice to two firms that they may NOT
want to collect anything in the FKNMS without first having permits...
Collections; will they follow chain of custody? You've got at least five
different categories of legal actions. Some are much more stringent in the
methodology for evidence collection. Best follow the most stringent, that
way everything is covered.
My curiosity is of who you that has experience with oil spills and coral
reefs/mangroves/forensic investigations. Anyone?
If sampling, make sure you don't use plastic, only Teflon or "clean glass."
You've already got some folks down there looking for the tracer chems in the
dispersants.
Helpful hint: make sure that divers are "lab-clean" between sampling dives.
Cross-contamination follies by "the good guys" are already being noted by
the opposition.
Let me know if you guys need any help.
Craig
Craig A. Downs Ph.D.
Executive Director
Haereticus Environmental Laboratory
A 501 (c)(3) non-profit organization
P.O. Box 92
Clifford, Virginia 24533 U.S.A.
Phone: B6 Privacy
www.haereticus-lab.org
Research Faculty
Office of Public Health Studies
John A. Burns School of Medicine
University of Hawai'i - Manoa
1 960 East-West Road, BioMed Tower
Honolulu, Hawaii 96822 U.S.A.
Research Professor
Department of Environmental Studies
Sweet Briar College
1 34 Chapel Road
Sweet Briar, Virginia 24595 U.S.A
From: John Halas [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Monday, May 1 7, 201 0 5:42 PM
To: Cheryl Woodley; Craig Downs
Cc: John Fauth; Scott Donahue; Bill Goodwin; Bill Precht
Subject: Re: response to oil spill?
Cheryl & Craig,
Brian's SE regional Sanctuaries Science Coordinator position is
yet to be filled. Scott Donahue is still the acting Science Coordinator
for FKNMS and heavily involved with conference calls and real busy
planning for an FKNMS oil event along with Bill Goodwin for corals on
the Damage Assessment Restoration and Research team with Bill Precht
heading up the DARRP team.
On conference calls there have been some discussion on guidelines for
sampling protocol with plans to take advantage of already scheduled
trips to the Flower Gardens (today) and Tortugas. Litigation issues
have also been brought up in relation to sampling.
In ccing Scott, Bill and Bill maybe they could chime in with further
discussion on the possibility of NCCOS involvement and assistance.
Thanks for inquiring and offering the help.
John
Cheryl Woodley wrote:
Hi John
Craig, John and I have been exchanging emails about the possibility of
the effects of the oil spill hitting FL. Is there a new science
coordinator since Brian has passed away? Are there any samples being
taken prior to the oil reaching the Keys? If it is of interest, we
have some samples in our freezer from our past studies down there as
well as biomarker data, that may be of value in determining effects.
As I'm sure you know, the best would be to have samples just prior.
Also just as a reminder, the biomarker technology is not limited to
corals. Please let me know if we can be of any assistance.
All the best
Cheryl
--
John Halas
Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary
Upper Region Manager
95230 Overseas Highway/P.O. Box 1 083
Key Largo, FL 33037
Phone- B6 Privacy ext. 34
FAX- B6 Privacy
Date: May 1 8, 201 0 1 0:08:30 AM EDT
To: "Bill.Goodwin" < [email protected]>
Cc: Mary Elliott Rolle < [email protected]>, Steve Gittings < [email protected]>, Bill Precht
Subject: Re: [Fwd: Re: response to oil spill ?]
I think it would be very valuable to bring Craig and Cheryl into this effort. They both have a lot of experience on the sub-leathal
effects issues. Per our conversation yesterday I already left a voicemail for Cheryl Woodley (NOAA/NOS), but have yet to her
back.
On May 1 8, 201 0, at 9:57 AM, Bill.Goodwin wrote:
FYI
--
*************************
Bill Goodwin
Sanctuary Resources Manager
Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary (Upper Region)
P.O. Box 1 083
Key Largo, FL 33037
305-852 -771 7 x 28
B6 Privacy
(cell) [email protected]
B6 Privacy
From: Craig Downs
Date: May 1 8, 201 0 9:43:59 AM EDT
To: 'John Halas' < [email protected]>, 'Cheryl Woodley' < [email protected]>
Cc: 'John Fauth' < [email protected]>, 'Scott Donahue' < [email protected]>, 'Bill Goodwin'
< [email protected]>, 'Bill Precht' < [email protected]>
Hey John,
teams in the Keys.
dispersants.
the opposition.
Craig
Executive Director
P.O. Box 92
Phone: B6 Privacy
Research Faculty
Research Professor
Sweet Briar College
1 34 Chapel Road
Cheryl & Craig,
John
Hi John
All the best
Cheryl
--
John Halas
Key Largo, FL 33037
FAX- B6 Privacy
--------------------------------------------------------
Tom Moore
263 1 3th Ave South
727-551 -571 6 Office
Cell
B6 Privacy
From: Cheryl Woodley < [email protected]>
Date: May 1 8, 201 0 1 1 :01 :1 2 AM EDT
To: Tom Moore < [email protected]>, Craig Downs <

Subject: [Fwd: Re: response to oil spill ?]
B6 Privacy
@hughes.net>
Hi Tom
I got your call. I am forwarding you an email from Craig Downs. Gary he mentions has been through this and written the book on
corals. Craig has already been approached by BP lawyers, so he has experience along these lines.
I tried your office, will try cell.
I tried your office, will try cell.
Cheryl
--
Cheryl Woodley, Ph.D.
Coral Health and Disease Program
DOC/NOAA/NOS/NCCOS
Center for Coastal Environmental Health and Biomolecular Research
Hollings Marine Laboratory
331 Fort Johnson Rd
Charleston, SC 2941 2
843.762.8862 Phone
B6 Privacy
Fax
[email protected]
B6 Privacy
From: Craig Downs <
>
Date: May 1 8, 201 0 9:43:59 AM EDT
To: 'John Halas' <[email protected]>, 'Cheryl Woodley' <[email protected]>
Cc: 'John Fauth' <[email protected]>, 'Scott Donahue' <[email protected]>, 'Bill Goodwin' <[email protected]>,
'Bill Precht' <[email protected]>
Hey John,
teams in the Keys.
dispersants.
the opposition.
Craig
Executive Director
P.O. Box 92
Phone: B6 Privacy
Research Faculty
Research Professor
Sweet Briar College
1 34 Chapel Road
Cheryl & Craig,
John
Hi John
All the best
Cheryl
--
John Halas
Key Largo, FL 33037
FAX- B6 Privacy
B6 Privacy
From: Craig Downs
hughes.net>
Date: May 1 8, 201 0 1 :06:1 6 PM EDT
To: 'Tom Moore' < [email protected]>
Subject: RE: craig
Hi Tom,
Sure, I would be happy to help out in any way I can.
I can sign documents indicating that I have no conflict of interest, and
both my organization (Haereticus) and I are not being retained by any other
organization.
I have been working on oil-spills since 1 999. I've worked with/for both
U.S. federal agencies, as well as protecting the environmental liabilities
of corporations. I basically run forensic investigations for natural
resource damage events, and specialize on coral reefs. I've done a number
of cases concerning crude oil, heavy marine fuels, as well as oil/dispersant
issues concerning coral reefs (Panama, Colombia, Saudi Arabia, Israel, Yap,
etc). I've done work both on impact assessments, as well as recovery
assessments and modeling.
For sampling strategy, was wondering first about what your objectives will
be concerning which legal actions you want to address. Does Counsel want to
focus only on NRD/oil pollution act, or will they be including actions
concerning ESA, etc?
Definitely, you want to account for the "Boehm" model of baseline. Capture
sites before the impact, as well as establish reference sites to track
recovery (similar to what was done post hoc for the Valdez oil spill).
For methods, I would definitely follow "clean" protocols, and make sure you
address and document efforts against cross-contamination from one sampling
site to another. Your opposition is already working that angle based on
current efforts by NOAA/CG.
Sampling targets. I would definitely focus in on collecting coral and coral
reef biopsies, but also recommend collecting surface sediment and porewater.
This will allow you make repeated-measure tests of the same site/colony.
There is a concept called "manufactured uncertainty." You guys will come up
against this, and my read of the playing field is that they will hit you
hard with this.
Again, any way I can be of assistance, I would be enthusiastic to help.
Craig
Executive Director
P.O. Box 92
Phone: B6 Privacy
Research Faculty
Research Professor
Sweet Briar College
1 34 Chapel Road
Sent: Tuesday, May 1 8, 201 0 1 2:06 PM
To: Craig Downs
Cc: Cheryl Woodley
Subject: Re: craig
Craig,
I spoke with Cheryl and if your interested we would like to look at the
possibility of pulling you into this process on the Trustee side. If your
able to get me a quick write-up on your background we can start getting the
correct folks who make decisions engaged. Separately I would be
interested in your initial thoughts on the best approach on a tiered
sampling strategy that would be great.
Thanks
Tom
On May 1 8, 201 0, at 1 1 :49 AM, Cheryl Woodley wrote:
Tom
If you were trying to call Craig he called me right after we hung up, so
you should be able to get him now.
Cheryl
Craig, Tom's number is
B6 Privacy
--
DOC/NOAA/NOS/NCCOS
Hi Tom,
Sure, I would be happy to help out in any way I can.
I can sign documents indicating that I have no conflict of interest, and
both my organization (Haereticus) and I are not being retained by any other
organization.
I have been working on oil-spills since 1 999. I've worked with/for both
U.S. federal agencies, as well as protecting the environmental liabilities
of corporations. I basically run forensic investigations for natural
resource damage events, and specialize on coral reefs. I've done a number
of cases concerning crude oil, heavy marine fuels, as well as oil/dispersant
issues concerning coral reefs (Panama, Colombia, Saudi Arabia, Israel, Yap,
etc). I've done work both on impact assessments, as well as recovery
assessments and modeling.
For sampling strategy, was wondering first about what your objectives will
be concerning which legal actions you want to address. Does Counsel want to
focus only on NRD/oil pollution act, or will they be including actions
concerning ESA, etc?
Definitely, you want to account for the "Boehm" model of baseline. Capture
sites before the impact, as well as establish reference sites to track
recovery (similar to what was done post hoc for the Valdez oil spill).
For methods, I would definitely follow "clean" protocols, and make sure you
address and document efforts against cross-contamination from one sampling
site to another. Your opposition is already working that angle based on
current efforts by NOAA/CG.
Sampling targets. I would definitely focus in on collecting coral and coral
reef biopsies, but also recommend collecting surface sediment and porewater.
This will allow you make repeated -measure tests of the same site/colony.
There is a concept called "manufactured uncertainty." You guys will come up
against this, and my read of the playing field is that they will hit you
hard with this.
Again, any way I can be of assistance, I would be enthusiastic to help.
Craig
Executive Director
P.O. Box 92
Phone: B6 Privacy
Research Faculty
Research Professor
Research Professor
Sweet Briar College
1 34 Chapel Road
--------------------------------------------------------
Tom Moore
NOAA Restoration Center/DARRP
263 1 3th Ave South
B6 Privacy
B6 Privacy
Office
Cell
--
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Bi l l G ood w i n
Sa nct u a ry Re s ou rce s M a nag e r
Fl ori d a Ke y s N a t i ona l M ari ne Sa nc t u a ry ( U ppe r Re g i on)
P. O . Box 108 3
Ke y La rg o, FL 3 3 0 37
B6 Privacy
(cel l )
bi l l . g ood w i n@noa a . g ov
B6 Privacy
Referral to USGS
B6 Privacy
B6 Privacy
Referral to USGS
Referral to USGS
3
B6 Privacy
B6 Privacy
d
.
From: Cheryl Woodley < [email protected]>
Date: May 1 8, 201 0 3:06:32 PM EDT
To: Ilsa B Kuffner < [email protected]>
Cc: Tom Moore < [email protected]>
Subject: Re: Annotated bibliography - oil spill impacts
Hi Ilsa
I was just invited to this call today by Tom Moore, so I don't have much background information on the sites they are discussing.
But here are a papers that may be of value related to effects and the use of cellular diagnostics.
Cheryl
Ilsa B Kuffner wrote:
Primary literature on oil impacts to natural resources:
Marine Science Review - 371
Special edition: "Oil and oil spills: the Gulf of Mexico"
http://www.seaweb.org/resources/documents/MSR_371 SpecialEdition-Oilandoilspills.pdf
*************************************************
Ilsa B. Kuffner, Ph.D.
Research Ecologist
St. Petersburg Coastal and Marine Science Center
US Geological Survey
600 4th Street South
Tel: (727) 803 -8747 ext. 3048
Fax: (727) 803 -2030
https://profile.usgs.gov/ikuffner
--
DOC/NOAA/NOS/NCCOS
331 Fort Johnson Rd
843.762.8862 Phone
843.762.8737 Fax
[email protected]
valdez paperpdf (76.2 KB)
Kyowa Violet.pdf (410 KB)
Ecotox 2010.pdf (526 KB)
Oil eects o.pdf (208 KB)
Date: May 1 8, 201 0 3:1 5:1 7 PM EDT
[email protected], Ilsa Kuffner < [email protected]>, [email protected], [email protected],
[email protected], [email protected], [email protected], karen_battle [email protected],
[email protected], [email protected], Stephen Blair < [email protected]>, [email protected],
Subject: Coral Group - PDFS
Attached.
--
William F. Precht
Program Manager
Damage Assessment, Restoration and Resource Protection
NOAA - Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary
P.O. Box 1 083
95230 Overseas Highway
Key Largo, FL 33037
B6 Privacy
off:
B6 Privacy
cell:
--
"The conservation of natural resources is the fundamental problem.
Unless we solve that problem it will avail us little to solve all others."
President Teddy Roosevelt, October 4, 1 907
lin_oey_wans.pdf (2.0 MB)
Lugo-Fernan.pdf (1.4 MB)
From: Aaron Hutchins < [email protected]>
Date: May 1 8, 201 0 3:35:38 PM EDT
To: Caitlin Lustic < [email protected]>, [email protected], James Byrne < [email protected] >, Meaghan Johnson
< [email protected] >, Chris Bergh < [email protected] >, Kemit-Amon Lewis < [email protected] >, Daniel Green
< [email protected]>, Jonathan Brown < [email protected]>, Ron Sjoken < [email protected] >, Jennifer Greene
< [email protected]>, Robert Brumbaugh < [email protected] >, Amanda Wrona < [email protected]>
Subject: Re: [Restoration] Oil spill response call RESCHEDULE
Last call for specific questions to raise with the Caribbean Regional Response Team tomorrow. We present the project at 9 am
and will segway into the issue of actions we can take at the Keys nurseries now.
-Aaron
Sent: Tuesday, May 11, 2010 4:49 PM
To: Caitlin Lustic; [email protected] ; James Byrne; Meaghan Johnson; Chris Bergh; Aaron Hutchins; Kemit-Amon
Subject: RE: Oil spill response call RESCHEDULE
Hi everyone
Thanks to those who were able to make the call, and specifically Aaron for fielding our questions. Some of the questions that
came up were:
How do we deal with the oil in the nurseries if it is in the form of tar balls or some other form of thick, sinking oil rather than a
surface slick?
What will the effects of the dispersants be on the coral?
Is there anything we can do to protect the nursery corals?
Aaron and Kemit will be attending a meeting next week of the Caribbean Regional Response Team, and have offered to take our
questions with them to see if they can get any more information. Many of the responders who would normally attend this meeting
are likely in the Gulf helping out but it cant hurt to compile a list of questions and see what information we can get. Please send
me your questions by Monday, May 1 7.
Some other important information:
Any expenses that you incur on the nursery project as a result of the oil spill (including time, additional equipment, etc.) can be
paid under ARRA but should be very carefully documented. Please contact me if you have any questions about this.
James is currently doing some research into OSHA rules and requirements as they relate to diving in the presence of oil. We will
get more details out soon, but there will be guidance about when it is safe to dive.
Please be very vigilant in monitoring for now so that we have accurate and recent data about the status of the nursery corals.
Good baseline data could prove very important.
We will be in touch again as needed.
Thanks,
Caitlin
To: Caitlin Lustic; '[email protected]'; James Byrne; Meaghan Johnson; Chris Bergh; Aaron Hutchins; Kemit-Amon
Subject: Oil spill response call RESCHEDULE
Since most everyone is going to be out on the water this Friday, lets reschedule for Tuesday at 4pm. Join us if you can.
Call-in number:
Access code:
B6 Privacy
B6 Privacy
Caitlin Lustic
Sent: Tuesday, May 04, 2010 9:19 AM
To: [email protected]; James Byrne; Meaghan Johnson; Chris Bergh; Aaron Hutchins; Kemit-Amon Lewis; Daniel
Green; Jonathan Brown; Ron Sjoken
Subject: Oil spill response call - Friday 10am
Good morning everyone
We would like to have a call this Friday at 1 0am to discuss potential oil spill response plans. I know this is late notice, so join us if
you can, and Ill take and distribute meeting minutes for those who cannot. If you are unable to call in but have some thoughts
you would like heard, give me a call or send me an email.
Thanks,
Caitlin
Call-in number:
Access code:
B6 Privacy
B6 Privacy
Caitlin Lustic
Coral Recovery Coordinator
The Nature Conservancy
Florida Keys
P.O. Box 420237
Summerland Key, FL 33042
[email protected]
B6 Privacy
Ext. 114 (Phone)
Shipping:
55
N.
Johnson
Rd.
B6 Privacy
(Fax)
nature.org
Sugarloaf Key, FL 33042
Earth Day's 40th anniversary is April 22nd. Dive into our online community and join the celebration!
_______________________________________________
Restoration mailing list
[email protected]
http://frrp.org/mailman/listinfo/restoration_frrp.org
From: "Robert H. Richmond" < [email protected]>
Date: May 1 8, 201 0 6:33:21 PM EDT
Subject: [Coral-List] Corexit oil dispersant and corals
In response to Ed Blume's and others' question on the effects of Corexit oil dispersant on corals, here is the summary from a
Master's Thesis by a past graduate student of mine who performed some experiments on coral gametes and larvae:
MENDIOLA, W.J.C. 2004. The effect of the oil dispersant, Corexit 9527, on reproduction of the spawning coral, Acropora
surcuosa, and on larval settlement and metamorphosis of the brooding coral, Pocillopora damicornis. 40 pages. [Thesis Advisor:
R.H. Richmond].
Conclusions
The findings of this investigation clearly show that exposure to relatively realistic concentrations of Corexit 9527 may reduce
fertilization in A. surculosa and reduce the larval settlement and metamorphosis of P. damicornis. One must keep in mind that
these experiments were performed with dispersant only. During an actual oil spill, it is more likely that the larvae will be exposed
to high amounts of dispersed oil rather than dispersant alone. As mentioned earlier, the effects of exposure to dispersed oil on
many marine organisms is more damaging than oil or dispersant exposure alone. Epstein et al. (2000) found this to be true when
testing six different oil dispersants (Inipol IP-90, Petrotech PTI-25, Bioreico R-93, Biosolve, and Emulgal C-1 00) on larvae of the
coral, S. pistillata and Heteroxenia fuscescense. In an earlier study, Cook and Knap (1 983) found that dispersed oil had a much
more devastating effect on photosynthesis of the coral, D. strigosa than either the oil
or dispersant alone (decreasing photosynthesis by 85% when exposed to 1 ppm of Corexit 9527 for 8 h). Negri and Heyward
(2000) noted similar findings with respect to fertilization and metamorphosis of A. millepora larvae.
The experiments in this study were used to determine the toxicity of Corexit 9527 alone on the corals, A. surculosa and P.
damicornis. Further research is needed to determine the toxic effects of dispersed oil on these and other coral species through
their life history stages. Armed with such data, environmental managers in this part of the world can better make informed
decisions on whether to use this oil dispersant for oil spill clean up purposes.
Please feel free to contact me for more details.
Bob
Robert H. Richmond, Ph.D.
Research Professor
Kewalo Marine Laboratory
University of Hawaii at Manoa
41 Ahui Street
Honolulu, Hawaii 9681 3
Phone: B6 Privacy
Fax: B6 Privacy
E-mail: [email protected]
_______________________________________________
[email protected]
From: Troy Baker < [email protected]>
Date: May 1 8, 201 0 8:34:1 4 PM EDT
To: Christopher Plaisted < [email protected]>, Katherine Pease < [email protected]>, Craig R O'Connor
< Craig.R.O'[email protected]>, Rob Ricker < [email protected]>, Amy Merten < [email protected]>, Tony Penn
< [email protected]>, Robert Haddad < [email protected]>, Daniel Hahn < [email protected]>, Jessica White
< [email protected]>, Greg Baker < [email protected]>, Jill Bodnar < [email protected]>, Norman Meade
< [email protected]>, Anthony Dvarskas < [email protected]>, George Graettinger
< [email protected]>, Brian Hostetter < [email protected]>, Whitley Saumweber
< [email protected]>, Marie Bundy < [email protected]>, Kristopher Benson < [email protected]>,
Kate Clark < [email protected]>, Robert A Taylor < [email protected]>, Stephanie Willis
< [email protected]>, Lisa Dipinto < [email protected]>, Laurie Sullivan < [email protected]>, Kevin Kirsch
< [email protected]>, Ian J Zelo < [email protected]>, MaryElliott Rolle < [email protected]>, Benjamin Shorr
< [email protected]>, Branden S Blum < [email protected]>, Simeon Hahn < [email protected]>, Tom
Brosnan < [email protected]>, Jay Field < [email protected]>, Todd Goeks < [email protected]>, George
Graettinger < [email protected]>, Tom Moore < [email protected]>, John Cubit < [email protected]>
Subject: Reminder about Protocols for Incident Email Correspondence
Out of Scope
Out of Scope
--------------------------------------------------------
Tom Moore
263 1 3th Ave South
B6 Privacy
B6 Privacy
Office
Cell
--
J oh n C u bi t , Ph. D.
Re g i ona l Re s ou rc e C oord i na t or, Sou t h w e s t Re g i on
N O A A A s s es sm e nt a nd Re s t ora t i on Di vi si on, Su i t e 4 470
50 1 W . O ce a n Bl v d .
Long Be a ch , C A 9 08 02
J oh n. C u bi t @noaa . g ov
t e l 5 62 9 8 0- 4 08 1; fa x 5 62 9 8 0 - 4 08 4
C e l l ph one ( for u rg e nt m a t t e rs a nd t ra v el cont a ct ) 5 62 8 10- 4 9 4 9
From: Bill Allison

@gmail.com>
Date: May 1 8, 201 0 7:26:00 PM EDT
To: Ed Blume B6 Privacy @gmail.com>
Cc: coral-list coral-list < [email protected]>
This newsletter just arrived a few minutes ago. It cites a number of
publications relevant to your inquiry.
http://www.seaweb.org/news/oceanupdate.php
On Mon, May 1 7, 201 0 at 2:47 PM, Ed Blume
B6 Privacy
@gmail.com> wrote:
coral. Has one done (or does anyone know of) research on the ingredients
to
biodegradable*.*
detergents
watch).*
biodegradable*.*
Ed Blume
Madison, WI
On Sun, May 1 6, 201 0 at 9:52 AM, Bill Allison <[email protected]
wrote:
problematic and should be investigated. It is ironic and alarming that
oil
dispersants inimical to life are being used in unprecedented quantities
to
environmental
~2,000,000 liters of toxic dispersants in the Gulf, and the meter is
still
running - apparently an order of magnitude faster than announced some
days
ago.
biodegradable*.
detergents
watch).
biodegradable*.
down,
the
BOD created by the decomposition of creatures large & small killed by oil
&
speculation about whether the resultant emulsion will sink or float and
an
the
spawning
the
--
________________________________
Date: May 1 9, 201 0 1 0:50:1 0 AM EDT
[email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], karen_battle -
[email protected], [email protected], [email protected], Cheryl Woodley
< [email protected]>, Ilsa Kuffner < [email protected]>, Stephen Blair < [email protected]>,
[email protected]
Subject: Attn: Coral Group - dispersant lit
Forwarded info for coral groups attached.
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: < [email protected]>
Date: Wed, May 1 9, 201 0 at 6:43 AM
Subject: Please forward to coral group
To: DWHNRDA < [email protected]>
Someone in the coral group had a question about this in yesterday's call. Thanks Joe Schittone.
From: "Joe.Schittone" < [email protected]>
To: "Bill.Goodwin" < [email protected]>
Date: Wed, 1 9 May 201 0 06:58:58 -0400
Subject: Re: DWHNRDA Shallow Water Coral TWG conference call 5-1 8-1 0
Someone (don't remember who) asked about fish yesterday. Single best paper re fish attached.
Bill.Goodwin wrote:
Thanks Joe. Really does look like spaghetti.
Joe.Schittone wrote:
Bill, spaghetti plot of loop current drifters; from RSMAS. http://oceancurrents.rsmas.miami.edu/caribbean/spaghetti-bw/loop-
current.jpg
Bill.Goodwin wrote:
Thanks Joe. Amen to that. I just read this report the other day. You're right. may be some hard decisions.
BG
Bill, saw BillP's email to group. Hope there's no doubt about dispersants! Only hard choice is if mangroves. Best review
Bill, this may be of use as early-warning indicator; shows detection of stress by PCR, rather than await physiologic
indicia.
Bill.Goodwin wrote:
:-( We'll miss you. I will keep you posted.
BG
Bill, won't be able to make it. If as an outcome of call, you need any literature search, just write me.
Bill.Goodwin wrote:
Hi folks.
For those that haven't heard, the Coral TWG (Technical Working Group) has been subdivided into Deep and
Shallow Water Coral subgroups. If you are receiving this message it is because you are on the Shallow Water
Coral subgroup. If that needs to change, please let me know.
Our first SWC subgroup call is scheduled for Monday, 5-1 7-1 0 @ 1 :30 CST /2:30 EST. Since we are somewhat
behind the 8-ball in terms of developing a work plan (relative to the other TWG's that have been at this for a while
now), I think we should convene every day this week and then see how we stand by the end of the week. We'll
take notes at each meeting and send them out to the subgroup members each day.
We have not been issued an "official" conference call # yet, but we will use this one until further notice:
Dial in:
1Pass Code:
B6 Privacy
B6 Privacy
Talk to you Monday.
wbg
--
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Bi l l G ood w i n
Sa nc t u a ry Re s ou rc e s M a nag e r
Fl ori d a Ke y s N a t i ona l M ari ne S a nc t u a ry ( U ppe r Re g i on)
P. O. Box 108 3
B6 Privacy
B6 Privacy
(cel l )
--
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Bi l l G ood w i n
S a nc t u a ry Re s ou rc e s M a na g e r
Fl ori d a Key s N at i onal M a ri ne S anct u ary ( Uppe r Re g i on)
P. O . Box 10 8 3
B6 Privacy
B6 Privacy
( ce l l )
--
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Bi l l G ood w i n
S a nct u a ry Re s ou rce s M a na g e r
Fl ori d a Ke y s N at i onal M a ri ne Sa nct u a ry ( U ppe r Re g i on)
P. O . Box 10 8 3
Ke y La rg o, FL 3 3 0 3 7
B6 Privacy
B6 Privacy
( ce l l )
--
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Bi l l G ood w i n
S a nc t u a ry Re sou rc e s M a na g er
Fl ori d a Ke y s N a t i ona l M a ri ne S anc t u a ry ( U ppe r Re g i on)
P. O. Box 108 3
Ke y Larg o, FL 33 0 3 7
B6 Privacy
( c el l )
bi l l . g ood w i n@noaa . g ov
B6 Privacy
ARTICLE IN PRESS
Ecotoxicology and Environmental Safety 59 (2004) 300308
Oil dispersant increases PAH uptake by sh exposed to crude oil
a,!
Shahunthala D. Ramachandran,
Peter V. Hodson,
Colin W. Khan,
and Ken Lee
School ofEnvironmental Studies, Queens University, Kingston, Ont. , Canada K7L 3N6
Department ofFisheries and Oceans, Bedf

ord Institute ofOceanography, Centre f
or Of
f
shore Oil and Gas Environmental Research, Halif
ax, NS,
Canada B2Y4A2
Received 14 May 2003; received in revised form 12 August 2003; accepted 25 August 2003
Abstract
The use of oil dispersants is a controversial countermeasure in the effort to minimize the impact of oil spills. The risk of ecological
effects will depend on whether oil dispersion increases or decreases the exposure of aquatic species to the toxic components of oil. To
evaluate whether sh would be exposed to more polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon (PAH) in dispersed oil relative to equivalent
amounts of the water-accommodated fraction (WAF), measurements were made of CYP1A induction in trout exposed to the
dispersant (Corexit 9500), WAFs, and the chemically enhanced WAF (dispersant; CEWAF) of three crude oils. The crude oils
comprised the higher viscosity Mesa and Terra Nova and the less viscous Scotian Light. Total petroleum hydrocarbon and PAH
concentrations in the test media were determined to relate the observed CYP1A induction in trout to dissolved fractions of the crude
oil. CYP1A induction was 6- to 1100-fold higher in CEWAF treatments than in WAF treatments, with Terra Nova having the
greatest increase, followed by Mesa and Scotian Light. Mesa had the highest induction potential with the lowest EC50
values for
both WAF and CEWAF. The dispersant Corexit was not an inducer and it did not appear to affect the permeability of the gill
surface to known inducers such as b-napthoavone. These experiments suggest that the use of oil dispersants will increase the
exposure of sh to hydrocarbons in crude oil.
r 2003 Published by Elsevier Inc.
Keywords: Crude oils; Dispersant Corexit EC9500; CYP1A; EROD activity; Water-accommodated fraction
1. Introduction
Dispersants have been in use in oil spill clean-up since
the 1950s. Chemical dispersion of oil in spill contingency
exercises was not favored due to the toxicity of the early
dispersant formulations to aquatic organisms. Labora-
tory studies of their observed toxicity (Linden, 1974;
Hartwick et al., 1982; Carr and Linden, 1984) were
further validated by eld reports (Smith, 1968) from the
Torrey Canyon and more recently the Sea Empress oil
spills for which dispersants were used (Lewis and
et al., 2001), but in general less is known about the
combined effects of oil and dispersants (Linden, 1975;
Cohen et al., 2001; Gagnon and Holdway, 2000).
Aquatic organisms are unlikely to be exposed to
dispersant alone but instead to both dispersant and oil
in combination, which may either exacerbate or mitigate
toxic effects (Getter and Baca, 1984).
Dispersants are essentially surfactants comprising
anionic and nonionic molecules in xed ratios that
render both hydrophilic and hydrophobic properties to
the dispersant. Their purpose is to orient at the oil
Aurand, 1997). However, many effective and less toxic
dispersants have since been developed.
Risks to aquatic organisms from chemical dispersion
could arise from exposure to the dispersant as well as to
the dispersed oil. Much research has been conducted on
the toxicity of dispersants (Nelson-Smith, 1977; Singer
et al., 1993; Law, 1995; Carr and Linden, 1984; Cotou
Corresponding author. Fax: +1- B6 Privacy .
E-mail address: [email protected] (P.V. Hodson).
water interface and lower interfacial tension, thus
facilitating the formation of small (o100 mm) mixed
oilsurfactant micelles (Canevari, 1978). These oil
emulsion droplets are driven into the water column
forming a plume, thus breaking up the slick. The
observed increased toxicity of dispersed (chemically or
mechanically) oil has been attributed to particle size in
dispersion (Bobra et al., 1989) and to aromatic
hydrocarbon content (Anderson et al., 1974). The
primary route of hydrocarbon uptake is via the gills
0147-6513/$ - see front matter r 2003 Published by Elsevier Inc.
doi:10.1016/j.ecoenv.2003.08.018
Date: May 1 9, 201 0 1 0:54:51 AM EDT
[email protected], [email protected], [email protected], Cheryl Woodley
< [email protected]>, Ilsa Kuffner < [email protected]>, Stephen Blair < [email protected]>
Subject: Fwd: Dispersant expert
Forwarded information for Coral groups is attached.
Patricia - please let me know if you'd like these attachments posted to the group's FTP site folder.
From: Cortelyou-Hamilton, Patricia < [email protected]>
Date: Wed, May 1 9, 201 0 at 7:36 AM
Subject: FW: Dispersant expert
To: "[email protected]" < [email protected]>
Please send this to all members of the coral group.
Trish Cortelyou-Hamilton
Attorney-Adviser
U.S. Department of the Interior
Office of the Regional Solicitor
75 Spring Street, S.W., Room 304
Atlanta, Georgia 30303
B6 Privacy
Phone:
ext. 229
B6 Privacy
Fax:
________________________________________
From: Michael J Hooper [[email protected]]
Sent: Tuesday, May 1 8, 201 0 1 1 :29 AM
To: Cortelyou-Hamilton, Patricia
Subject: RE: Dispersant expert
Refer to USGS
Refer to USGS
Hope this helps.
Mike
From: "Cortelyou-Hamilton, Patricia" < [email protected]>
To: "Hooper, Michael J" < [email protected]>
Date: 05/1 8/201 0 06:22 AM
Subject:
RE: Dispersant expert
Refer to DOI
B6 Privacy
B6 Privacy
From: Michael J Hooper [mailto:[email protected]]
To: Carlucci, John
Cc: Horner, Amy; McKinley, Charles; Deal, Harriet; Toussaint, Lisa; Cortelyou-Hamilton, Patricia; Finger, Susan E
Subject: Dispersant expert
Refer to USGS
University of California, Davis
4245 Meyer Hall
B6 Privacy
(office)
lab web site:
http://www.envtox.ucdavis.edu/tjeerdema/
__________________________
Mike Hooper
USGS Columbia Environmental Research Center
4200 E New Haven Rd
Columbia, MO 65201
[email protected]
B6 Privacy
B6 Privacy
Phone
Cell
References 2.pdf (207 KB)
Toxicology 1.pdf (471 KB)
CoralReefImnet-2005.pdf
CoralOilDisppdf (93.8 KB)
From: Ed Blume B6 Privacy @gmail.com>
Date: May 1 9, 201 0 1 0:37:1 4 AM EDT
To: Bill Allison B6 Privacy @gmail.com>
Cc: coral-list coral-list < [email protected]>
Thanks for the references, Bill.
As of this morning, NOAA reports that over 590,000 gallons of dispersants
have been spread in the gulf.
Ed Blume
Madison, WI
On Tue, May 1 8, 201 0 at 6:26 PM, Bill Allison < [email protected]>wrote:
This newsletter just arrived a few minutes ago. It cites a number of
publications relevant to your inquiry.
http://www.seaweb.org/news/oceanupdate.php
On Mon, May 1 7, 201 0 at 2:47 PM, Ed Blume < [email protected]> wrote:
coral. Has one done (or does anyone know of) research on the ingredients
to
biodegradable*.*
detergents
watch).*
biodegradable*.*
Ed Blume
Madison, WI
B6 Privacy
On Sun, May 1 6, 201 0 at 9:52 AM, Bill Allison
@gmail.com
wrote:
problematic and should be investigated. It is ironic and alarming that
oil
dispersants inimical to life are being used in unprecedented quantities
to
environmental
~2,000,000 liters of toxic dispersants in the Gulf, and the meter is
still
running - apparently an order of magnitude faster than announced some
days
ago.
biodegradable*.
detergents
& in sulfa drugs (anti-biologics) - toxic (add detergent to an aquarium
&
watch).
biodegradable*.
down,
the
BOD created by the decomposition of creatures large & small killed by
oil &
speculation about whether the resultant emulsion will sink or float and
an
an
expectation that the whole mess will disperse and be diluted, so
becoming
the
spawning
the
--
________________________________
selecting
_______________________________________________
[email protected]
_______________________________________________
[email protected]
--
________________________________
"reality leaves a lot to the imagination..." John Lennon
_______________________________________________
[email protected]
Date: May 1 9, 201 0 9:34:55 AM EDT
Subject: [Coral-List] Corexit oil dispersant and corals
Dear Bob, Its important to know what kind of oil was used for the
dispersant experiment. Processed oil such as that often spilled by
ships and tankers is more toxic than crude oil. If processed oiil was
used in these experiments then the results have little application to
the problem we face in the Gulf. There is one another damaging
ingredient in dispersants that has not been mentioned.
Hydrousdioxide..in excess it can cause big problems. Gene
--
March-May 201 0
FROM THE DESK OF THE PROGRAM MANAGER
This issue, Id like to touch on some global reef-related updates and share a little bad news tempered with some good news.
Well start with the bad news. Despite the best efforts of supporters and sponsors, proposals to list red and pink corals, as well as
th
several shark species and Atlantic bluefin tuna, were all rejected during the voting process at the 1 5
Convention on International
Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES) Conference of the Parties (CoP) in March. While each proposal
earned a simple majority of votes, none of them met the two-thirds majority requirement that is part of the CoP operating
principles. This disappointing resolution means that none of these species have gained increased protection against the threats
posed by current international trade. See the Special Feature section for more details.
Despite the disappointing outcomes of CoP 1 5, a large step was made towards conserving the Chagos Archipelago, the largest
coral atoll in the world. These 55 islands are a British Indian Ocean Territory and form a nearly pristine archipelago in the middle
of the Indian Ocean. On April 1 , British Foreign Secretary, David Milliband, designated the Chagos Archipelago as the largest
marine protected are in the world. The fully protected marine reserve contains 21 0,000 square miles (544,000 square kilometers),
an area twice the size of the United Kingdom. All extractive activities, such as industrial fishing and deep sea mining, are
prohibited. To learn more, read the British Foreign & Commonwealth Offices press release or visit the Chagos Conservation
Trust.
In the hot news department, we all are closely monitoring the events in the Gulf of Mexico. Our thoughts go out to our Gulf
partners during this potentially disastrous environmental event.
-Kacky
SPECIAL FEATURES
Oil Spills and Corals. In response to recent concerned interest about oil spill impacts on corals and coral reefs, NOAA has put
together a fact sheet of general information on coral values, impacts to coral from oil and dispersants, modes of potential
exposure, response strategies, and data from some past oil spill events. This information has been provided by multiple NOAA
sources and primarily pulls from Oil Spills in Coral Reefs: Planning and Response Considerations, a 2001 report summarizing
relevant research for spill response decision makers. The information appears on the Coral Reef Conservation Programs Web
site as a Featured Story. While no impacts to corals have yet been reported, the information now presented online addresses
concerns and questions directed to NOAA in recent weeks as the Deepwater Horizon spill persists. To see the latest on specific
response actions and impacts from this oil spill, click here .
th
CITES Vote Falls Short for Corals and Sharks. The 1 5
Conference of the Parties (CoP) to the Convention on International
Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES) met in Doha, Qatar from March 1 3-25. While there were several
marine species proposals submitted this year (the family Coralliidae, five shark species, and Atlantic bluefin tuna), unfortunately,
none of the proposals were accepted. Below is a summary of the US-sponsored proposals and their outcomes.
Red and Pink Corals For the second time, the 1 75 nations participating in CITES failed to gather enough votes to implement
increased protections for red and pink corals. No countries currently have comprehensive management plans for these coral
species and a CITES listing would have encouraged nations to develop these plans. In 2007 at the 1 4th CoP, the US had
proposed listing Corallium species under Appendix-II. The proposal was initially adopted but then reopened for debate during the
plenary session and narrowly defeated. This year, the US and Sweden (on behalf of the European Union) together submitted a
proposal to provide greater protection to all species of the genera Corallium and Paracorallium (approximately 31 described
species and several undescribed species) by listing them under CITES Appendix-II. Had it been successful, the proposal would
have limited trade of red and pink coral to legally and sustainably harvested coral and coral products. Although the proposal
received a simple majority of votes, it did not receive the two-thirds majority needed for adoption (64 votes in support, 59 votes in
opposition, and 1 0 abstentions).
Jewelry and carved artwork made from red and pink coral have a prominent place in Mediterranean and other cultures. Found
mainly in the seas of the Mediterranean and Pacific, these corals have been harvested for centuries; however with the
development of technologies like SCUBA and remotely operated vehicles, coral beds that had previously been inaccessible are
now being exploited at a faster rate than their populations can sustain. Increasing evidence is also showing that all corals,
including Coralliidae, are vulnerable to the effects of climate change and warming ocean temperatures appear to be having a
detrimental effect. These corals have many qualities that make them particularly vulnerable to over-exploitation. They are slow -
growing, have long life spans, they are attached to the seafloor and are not mobile, and they take many years to reach
reproductive maturity. Studies have shown that trade is having an adverse impact on red and pink corals' ability to maintain
healthy populations and to reproduce. Since the 1 980s, red and pink coral gardens have decreased in size, structure, and overall
number of polyps by more than 60-70 percent.
Hammerhead and Oceanic Whitetip Sharks The US and Palau introduced two proposals to list several species of hammerhead
sharks and the oceanic whitetip shark under Appendix II of CITES to ensure that the international trade of these highly threatened
species is legal and sustainable.
The three sharks included in the first US/Palau proposal were the scalloped hammerhead, great hammerhead, and smooth
hammerhead. The US had amended this proposal to remove the sandbar shark and dusky shark. Although the proposal gained a
simple majority, it did not receive the two-thirds majority needed for adoption (75 votes in favor, 45 votes in opposition, and 1 4
abstentions). Since the vote was close, a decision was made by the US to reintroduce the hammerhead proposal for another
vote. Once again, the proposal garnered a simple majority but failed to acquire the two-thirds majority needed for adoption (76
votes in favor, 53 votes in opposition, and 1 4 abstentions). The second proposal submitted by the United States and cosponsored
by Palau was for the listing of the oceanic whitetip shark. The US amended this proposal to delay implementation for 24 months.
Although the proposal received a simple majority, it also did not receive the two-thirds majority required for adoption (75 votes in
favor, 51 votes in opposition, and 1 6 abstentions).
US Coral Triangle Initiative Launched. Recognized as the global center of marine biological diversity, the Coral Triangle is a
of ocean and coastal waters in Southeast Asia and the Western Pacific.
geographic area encompassing almost 6 million km
Within the Exclusive Economic Zones of six nations Indonesia, Malaysia, Papua New Guinea, the Philippines, Timor Leste, and
the Solomon Islands (CT6) the region is home to some 363 million people, one -third of whom are directly dependent on coastal
and marine resources for their livelihoods. The Coral Triangle is at immediate risk from a range of factors, including:
unsustainable fishing, land-based sources of pollution, and climate change. To ensure long-term food security and to safeguard
the regions extraordinary marine and coastal resources, in August 2007, Indonesian President Yudhoyono proposed the creation
of the Coral Triangle Initiative on Coral Reefs, Fisheries and Food Security (CTI), a multilateral partnership among CT6 countries.
Twenty-one heads of state, including President Bush, welcomed the Initiative at the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC)
th
Summit in September 2007. The CTI was officially launched in December 2007 during the 1 3
Conference of the Parties to the
UN Framework Convention on Climate Change in Bali. Reaching a major milestone in May 2009, the CTIs six heads of state
signed the declaration launching the CTI and endorsed the Regional Plan of Action for the CTI.
The US Agency for International Development and the US Department of State are supporting the CTI with a $40 million, five-year
program implemented by NOAA, a consortium of nongovernmental organizations, and a Program Integrator. Collectively, this
team is called the United States Coral Triangle Initiative Support Team (US CTI). NOAA, as one of the key partners in the US
Coral Triangle Initiative Support Program, serves as the US government agency providing technical assistance, and scientific and
management capacity to the six Coral Triangle countries. The CRCP coordinates NOAAs involvement in the US CTI. NOAA
activities include technical support and capacity building in: marine protected areas (MPA); climate change adaptation; and
ecosystem approaches to fisheries management (including illegal, unreported and unregulated fisheries (IUU), highly migratory
fisheries observer programs, and live reef food fish trade). In example, NOAA will be training national level experts on coastal
climate adaptation planning, enhancing management capacity of municipal level MPA managers, and the training of trainers to
institutionalize training and curriculum. NOAA is also cooperating closely with the International Monitoring, Control and
Surveillance Network, as well as other domestic and international partners, to develop regional activities to address IUU fishing in
the CT region. NOAA will provide assistance to Indonesia in developing its early action plan for Climate Change Adaptation and
develop capacity on tools to implement the early action plan.
February 201 0 marked a significant milestone in the US CTI, when, after nearly two years of planning, the Consolidated Work
Plan for the US CTI Support Program was finalized, marking the official launch of the program.
ANNOUNCEMENTS
Applications Requested to Fill Immediate Opening for a Coral Reef Management Fellow in Florida. I.M. Systems Group, a
contractor to NOAAs CRCP, is seeking an individual to serve as a Coral Reef Management Fellow for Florida's Department of
Environmental Protection as part of the Coral Reef Management Fellowship Program . The Fellowship position, which is based in
Miami, Florida, will begin as soon as the selected candidate is available, and will end in January 201 2. To apply, click here and
follow the instructions outlined in the posted statement of work. The statement of work also includes an overview of the goals,
duties, and qualifications for the position. Applications will be accepted until the position is filled.
CHOW 201 0: Clean Energy and a Healthy Ocean: Navigating the Future. As the premier ocean-focused conference held
annually in Washington, DC, Capitol Hill Ocean Week (CHOW) brings together Members of Congress and Congressional staff;
federal, state and local government institutions; and experts from industry, academia, and the nonprofit community in an effort to
shape marine policy discussions and incite lively conversation about current ocean and coastal issues. Held in conjunction with
World Oceans Day and anchored by the National Marine Sanctuary Foundations annual Leadership Awards Dinner, CHOW
provides ocean policy professionals with unique opportunities to advance marine policy goals and interact with peers in the
nations capital.
CHOW 201 0 will focus on the intersection between ocean and energy issues, including the oceans diverse abilities to supply
energy through current and emerging technologies and the myriad ways in which energy production and consumption affect the
ocean. Click the link above to see the agenda and additional information.
Keep the Sea Free of Marine Debris Childrens Art Contest. Between Earth Day and June 1 , NOAAs Marine Debris Program
is running an art contest for students currently in Grades K-8. Titled Keep the Sea Free of Marine Debris, the contest asks
children to illustrate how marine debris affects them and what they are doing about it. For more details, instructions, and entry
form, click here . Winning artwork will be featured on the Marine Debris Program Website, newsletter, and in a 201 1
calendar/planner.
Petition to List Bumphead Parrotfish Under the ESA. On April 2, NOAAs National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS)
announced a positive 90-day finding for a petition from WildEarth Guardians to list Bumphead Parrotfish as Threatened or
Endangered under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). The petitioner also requested that critical habitat be designated for this
species concurrent with listing under the ESA. The petition asserts that overfishing is a significant threat to the bumphead
parrotfish and that this species is declining across its range and is nearly eliminated from many areas. The petition also asserts
that degradation of its coral habitat through coral bleaching and ocean acidification is a threat to this species, as coral is its
primary food source.
The positive 90-day finding means that the petition listed enough substantial scientific or commercial information indicating that
the petitioned actions may be warranted for NOAA to initiate a comprehensive status review of the best available scientific and
commercial information for the species. Subsequently, a call for additional scientific and commercial information on the species
was requested by May 3. NMFS has one year to complete the review and deliver a final finding for Bumphead Parrotfish. It
should be noted that because the full status review is more comprehensive than the 90-day review, the may be warranted finding
in April does not guarantee that the species will be listed under the ESA. For full details, download the Federal Register Notice
(Vol. 75, No. 63, pp 1 671 31 671 6, pdf 60 kb).
New Coral Ecosystem Data RSS Feed. NOAAs Coral Reef Information System (CoRIS) is the repository for all data and
products generated by the CRCP. In response to multiple requests from data providers and site users, CoRIS has made
metadata records and publications recently posted in its catalogs more easily discoverable on the CoRIS Website. CoRIS has
developed and launched a Coral Ecosystem Data Really Simple Syndication (RSS) feed. The RSS feed is a dynamic listing of the
50 most recently updated metadata records in the CoRIS repository. It is updated daily and is the first of three RSS feeds CoRIS
will be developing. Visitors to the CoRIS Website can subscribe to the Coral Ecosystem Data RSS feed or simply view the listing.
The feed is also accessible from the CoRIS homepage. User feedback is welcomed. Please send all questions and comments to
[email protected].
Launch of New Website Provides Access to Global Socioeconomic Information. The Global Socioeconomic Monitoring
Initiative for Coastal Management (SocMon) works through regional and local partners to facilitate community-based
socioeconomic monitoring. Household and community-level data are collected to inform a particular populations dependence on
coral reef resources and their perceptions of resource conditions, threats to marine and coastal resources, and support for marine
management strategies such as marine protected areas. To date, over 60 assessments have been completed in 30 countries; the
majority of these reports have been funded through the NOAA International Coral Reef Conservation Grants. SocMon fills a
critical need by advancing a global and regional understanding of human interactions with, and dependence upon, coastal
resources. This information can be used by coastal managers to modify their activities to achieve more effective management.
SocMon is coordinated and primarily funded through NOAA. On March 31 , SocMon launched a redesigned Website that is hosted
by ReefBase. One major improvement found on the new site is the inclusion of access to the new SocMon database. The
database has access to all of the SocMon site reports completed to date. The database is searchable by location, author,
monitoring purpose, and other fields. The redesigned site also includes interactive maps depicting work done at specific sites
around the world and improved access to SocMon data, publications, and images.
UPDATES FROM HEADQUARTERS
NOAA Celebrates Earth Week at Coral Restoration Sites. In
celebration of Earth Week, NOAA Administrator Dr. Jane Lubchenco, NOS
Assistant Administrator (acting) David Kennedy and others visited the
Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary to highlight coral reef restoration
projects that are employing local people.
NOAA also celebrated at eight of the 50 coastal and habitat restoration
projects funded through the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of
2009, including two coral reef restoration projects:
Threatened Coral Reef Recovery and Restoration, Florida Keys. NOAA
was able to quickly hire people collect, rear, and ultimately transplant
genetically diverse nursery-grown coral fragments to help replenish 34
degraded reefs in eight distinct areas of coral reefs in the Florida Keys and
the US Virgin Islands
Maunalua Bay Reef Restoration Project, Maunalua Bay, Hawai` i. Mudweed
is smothering shallow reef flats, killing off coral and native seagrass
meadows. The effort will restore coral reefs through manual removal of
invasive alien algae from 22 acres of nearshore waters
Recovery Act efforts are helping to jump-start the nation's economy by
supporting thousands of jobs as well as restore fish and wildlife habitat
that people often take for granted. Not only do reefs play a critical role as
habitat, they are also an integral part the economy. Reef-related
expenditures generate billions of dollars in sales in U.S. coral reef regions
annually. Learn more by reading the feature stories on the NOAA and
CRCP Websites.
CRCP Educational Tools Shared During National Educators
Conference. The CRCP participated in the Climate Change symposium
at the National Science Teacher Association's (NSTA) 201 0 national
conference in Philadelphia, PA from March 1 7-1 9. The half-day
symposium brought together experts in climate change and education from
various NOAA programs and the University of Texas. The CRCP
sponsored nearly 80 educators in attendance by covering their symposium
registration fee. The symposium covered global climate change; sea level
rise; and bleaching and ocean acidification and coral reefs. A separate
stand-alone presentation on corals and climate change was also well
attended, with over 50 educators. NOAA had one of the most heavily
trafficked booths at the conference, with many NOAA Teacher at Sea
alumni present to talk to fellow educators. CRCP products were also
present at the booth, including a coral ecosystem food web poster, coral educational CD, and the debut of the new Project WET
"Discover Coral Reefs" activity booklet. In addition, NOAA Administrator and former university professor, Dr. Lubchenco, gave a
plenary presentation that included several demonstrations related to teaching ocean science.
UPDATES FROM THE ATLANTIC/CARIBBEAN REGION
Cruise Assesses MPA Effectiveness in Restoring Seven Fish Species. The NOAA Fisheries Panama City Laboratory
conducted a CRCP-funded cruise aboard the M/VSpree to several marine protected areas (MPAs) off the coasts of Florida and
South Carolina from May 2-1 0. The goals of the cruise were to determine the presence and abundance (if present) of the seven
reef fish species for which the MPAs were established to protect and to inform the South Atlantic Fishery Management Council of
any changes in the fish assemblages over the past year. This mission is part of a project to characterize the resources of the
South Atlantic Bight (SAB) closed areas and monitor the performance of the MPAs pre- and post-closure. Results from the cruise
will help determine how effective the MPAs are in protecting the seven fish species. This project is also documenting the
proliferation, spread, and ecosystem dynamics of invasive lionfish in the South Atlantic Bight.
Due to the water depths involved, a remotely operated vehicle (ROV) from the University of North Carolina at Wilmington was
used to survey known and suspected areas of high relief habitat. Fifteen ROV dives were planned and seventeen were
completed. Two collaborators from Harbor Branch Oceanographic Institution / Cooperative Institute for Ocean Exploration,
Research & Technology also participated to assist with invertebrate identification and collect data for a separate NOAA-
sponsored mesophotic coral project. Detailed analyses of the surveys and data on fish assemblages will follow in the months
ahead. Other notable information collected include the observation of recreational fishing in some of the closed areas and data
suggesting that invasive lionfish abundance is less than in previous years.
Mapping of BUIS Shows Shallow-water Topography for Ecosystem Management. A cross-agency team of scientists from
NOAAs Center for Coastal Monitoring and Assessment, in cooperation with the NOAA Chesapeake Bay Office, and the National
Park Service (NPS), collected acoustic imagery describing the depth and physical properties of shallow -water habitats in Buck
Island Reef National Monument (BUIS). These images were collected using a multibeam sound navigation and ranging sensor
well suited for mapping marine environments between 5 and 75 m in depth. Mapping conducted on this mission fills in a critical
of imagery collected will be combined with
information gap about the topography of BUISs shallow -water areas. The 20 km
previously collected imagery to create a seamless habitat map of the entire marine protected area. This final habitat map will be
used by local NPS managers as a baseline for resource assessments, as a guide for present and future biological monitoring
efforts, and as a tool to support spatially-explicit ecosystem management decisions.
Coral Reef Fish-Habitat Modeling to Support Fisheries and Ecosystem Management. A successful
interagency workshop was held on May 4th at the University of Miamis (UM) Rosenstiel School of
Marine and Atmospheric Science to showcase the capabilities of the CRCP-funded Reef Visual Census
Program (RVC), a reef fish monitoring program that supports fisheries management. The joint UM and
NOAA program collects primarily fisheries data, along with some habitat data; it has already been adopted
by the National Park Service in Florida.
The objectives of the workshop were to bring together management clients with scientists to discuss new
reef fish-habitat utilization modeling capabilities, management implications and applications of these new
modeling capabilities, and specific scientific products that would best fulfill management needs.
Participants included seventeen scientists and mangers from Federal, State, and local organizations,
including representatives from NOAA, NPS, the state of Florida, the US Fish and Wildlife Service, and the
Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council. The workshop focused on management of Floridas coral
reef resources, but included broader applications to the US Caribbean and Pacific. This workshop provided
a direct line of communication between scientists and managers, allowing communication of the
capabilities and products of the RVC from scientists to managers, and feedback regarding specific
management needs from managers to scientists.
Deep-sea Coral Cruise to Inform Fisheries Management. From April 8-1 4, researchers aboard the NOAA Ship Pisces
explored deep-sea coral habitats off the southeastern United States, including on the continental slope east of Gray's Reef
National Marine Sanctuary, in depths from 200-600 meters (650-2000 feet). The rugged bottom topography and the coral
mounds in this region are attractive for deep-sea reef fish like wreckfish and blackbelly rosefish. In addition, large barrelfish and
red bream shelter in the rugged bottom and coral mounds, and are thought to forage up in the water column at night. Wreckfish
support an important and well-managed fishery off the coast of Georgia and South Carolina, and small amounts of barrelfish, red
bream, blackbelly rosefish and other species are incidentally caught and landed in the wreckfish and other deepwater fisheries.
In addition to the wreckfish fishery, the continental slope off the southeastern US is a trap fishery for golden crab and a trawl
fishery for royal red shrimp. These fishing gears have potential to damage the fragile coral habitat where fish, crabs, shrimp and
other animals live. In order to better manage the fisheries and their habitat for sustainable catches, more scientific information is
needed regarding where the corals are found and how the harvested animals are associated with those corals.
The results of the research expedition, which employed the ME-70 fishery acoustic system to map fish distribution and
abundance, combined with similar historical and future efforts, will result in mapping of high density coral areas and allowable
fishing zones that minimize impacts on the habitat in which many important fish species live. Researchers also collected sediment
samples and coral fragments with a remotely-operated vehicle (ROV). These samples will be used to evaluate man-made
contaminants in these deep coral areas and to test a new isotopic aging technique. In spite of marginal weather conditions and
uncommonly high currents, numerous ROV dives were made which provided approximately 1 5 hours of high resolution video
imagery and over four gigabytes of still imagery. For ship photos and crew blogs please visit the missions Website.
Researchers from two NOAA Fisheries Science Centers, NOAAs Ocean Service , NOAAs Office of National Marine Sanctuaries,
the University of Alabama, and the College of Charleston participated in this cruise, sponsored by NOAA's Deep Sea Coral
Program. This project was greatly aided by the participation of a deep ROV team from the Southwest Fishery Science Center in
La Jolla, CA.
Seafloor Mapping Mission in the USVI.
Scientists from NOAAs National Centers for Coastal Ocean Science
(NCCOS) and partners completed a seafloor mapping mission off the southern coasts of St. Thomas and St. John in the US Virgin
Islands (USVI). The scientists discovered an unexpectedly vast area of high coral cover southwest of St. Thomas, and several
schools of relatively rare groupers and snappers at spawning aggregation sites at the shelf edge. The team also spotted roughly
26 derelict fishing traps on the seafloor, as well as coral formations entangled by marine debris.
During the 20-day mission, March 1 8-April 6, aboard the NOAA Ship Nancy Foster, the team used various SONAR technologies
and a remotely operated vehicle to better understand the physical characteristics of the seafloor, locate and explore important
seafloor habitats, and study fish populations and distributions at suspected spawning aggregation sites. The data collected will
paint a much clearer picture of the USVIs underwater habitats and the animals and plants inhabiting them. Local scientists and
managers in the USVI can then use these data sets to make informed ecosystem-based management decisions to protect,
conserve, and sustainably manage these marine resources. This expedition marks the seventh year of the project and included
several outreach events attended by local students, partners and political representatives. The mission was led by NCCOS with
support from the CRCP and the Caribbean Fishery Management Council. For more details, see the mission overview and daily
logs.
Reef Connectivity Cruise in the USVI. On March 1 5, the NOAA Southeast Fisheries Science Centers (SEFSC) Early Life
History Team completed the first leg of this years US Virgin Islands (USVI) reef fish connectivity cruise, extended to include the
coral reef ledges/banks around St. Croix and the south coast of USVI ecosystem. The results of the cruise will help explain how
circulation patterns in the area affect local and regional transport as well as retention of ecologically and economically important
reef fish species.
The team deployed several satellite-tracked drifters to follow the paths of circulation patterns. The team also completed dive
operations to deploy substrate-mounted acoustic Doppler current profilers in the passages to the east of St. Thomas, between
Vieques and Culebra, and between Culebra and St. Thomas to help determine long-term regional flow/transport patterns.
This year the circulation of the area was dominated by a southward flow from the Atlantic into the Caribbean, resulting in atypical
flow patterns and easterly currents around St. Croix and south of St Thomas. By contrast, in previous years average circulation
was from east to west, then to the northeast through Virgin Passage into the Atlantic. The data collected by the team will help
determine whether this is a typical flow pattern for this time of year or simply variance in the average flow. However, early
analysis appears to indicate that the net result is transport to the east away from the Buck Island marine protected area toward
Saba Bank, a local fishing area for the Leeward Islands. In addition, there appears to be a weak gyre formed between St Thomas
and St. Croix which may provide for larval reef fish retention.
This fisheries oceanography research cruise was a NOAA collaboration between NOAA Fisheries SEFSC and the Office of
Oceanic and Atmospheric Researchs Atlantic Oceanographic and Meteorological Laboratory. Students from the University of the
Virgin Islands (UVI) and the University of Miami participated as well as a researcher from UVI.
USVI Law Enforcement Training. On March 9-1 0, NOAA Fisheries Caribbean Field Office conducted training workshops
with officers from the US Virgin Islands (USVI) Department of Planning and Natural Resources Division of Environmental
Enforcement. A NOAA Office of Law Enforcement agent trained USVI officers in evidence collection techniques and Caribbean
Field Office staff provided participants with information regarding identification of listed species, managed fishery species, and
marine habitats. The training is part of a project funded by the CRCP to create a guide for USVI law enforcement officers entitled:
Regulations & Biology of Marine Ecosystems in U.S. Virgin Islands: A guide for law enforcement officers. The purpose of this type
of training and the guide is to promote the conservation of coastal and marine resources by informing law enforcement officials
about the biology and importance of these resources and the reason laws and regulations exist for their protection. Such
educational tools for law enforcement help them more effectively complete their duties and assist them in educating the public
about regulations during their outreach or intervention activities.
Reef Fish Spawning Aggregation Research in the Florida Keys. Field work was conducted during the first week of March in
support of the reef fish spawning aggregation project in the Florida Keys. NOAA Southeast Fisheries Science Center researchers,
in close coordination with researchers and managers from NOAA Center for Coastal Fisheries and Habitat Research, the Florida
Keys National Marine Sanctuary, and the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission are continuing work in the Keys
focusing on reef fish aggregation sites. The purpose of the research is twofold: to characterize potential similarities in aggregation
site geomorphological characteristics, with a goal of identifying geomorphological signatures that could be used to identify other
potential aggregation sites; and to determine the extent to which fish are currently utilizing these sites. Some of these sites were
reported by commercial fishers to have been fished out decades ago.
Mapping work, completed in previous years at upper Keys sites, is underway at sites off Key West. Surveys utilizing split-beam
acoustics and scuba divers in 2009 indicated positive signs of aggregating snapper species at several upper Keys sites, and
winter surveys are in progress at several upper Keys sites to assess potential grouper utilization. Acoustic and diver surveys for
the lower Keys sites are planned for this summer.
UPDATES FROM THE PACIFIC REGION
Coral Ecosystem Conditions in American Samoa from 201 0 ASRAMP Observations. The 201 0 Coral Reef Ecosystem
Division Reef Assessment and Monitoring Program (RAMP) cruise to American Samoa and the Pacific Remote Islands Areas
provide valuable updates on the conditions of Central Pacific coral reef ecosystems. In late February and March the cruise visited
all islands of American Samoa and South Bank. At Rose Atoll, the lasting effects of a 1 993 shipwreck can still be seen in the coral
reef ecosystem, with up to 50 percent less coralline algae than in other parts of the atoll and only 1 percent coral cover in the
immediate area of the wreck, despite the removal of major portions of the rusting vessel by the US Fish and Wildlife Service .
However, overall there were no immediately obvious changes at Rose this year compared to previous RAMP surveys in 2008.
At the request of local agencies, South Bank, a popular fishing area 37 miles south of Tutuila, was mapped using the NOAA Ship
Hiìalakais. multibeam sonar systems; the resulting maps show that South Bank is a sunken coral atoll surrounded by a
submerged barrier reef. These maps also enabled divers to conduct Rapid Ecological Assessment and towed -diver surveys,
resulting in observations of a scoured rubble surface with low coral cover.
At Tau Island, RAMP divers revisited some of the worlds largest ancient Porites coral formationsone measures 7 m in height
and 41 m in circumference! Along the north side of Tau Island there has been a dramatic increase in the same invasive tunicate
that was recorded at in high levels at Swains Island during the 2008 RAMP cruise. Upon returning to Swains, surveys revealed
that the tunicate is no longer present in invasive amounts and the benthic cover has changed to crustose coralline algae. At a site
on northeast Tau, two survey teams recorded the presence of a 6 ft Giant Grouper. On northwest Tutuila, divers reported a rare
sighting of a 4ft-long Whitespotted Guitarfish.
This cruise marked the fifth biennial RAMP surveys to provide an on-going overview of coral reef ecosystem conditions in
American Samoa and included six weeks of work in the territory. On-going monitoring of coral reef ecosystems provides a
continuous record of how coral ecosystems change over time and how they respond to various stressors and changing
environmental conditions.
Post -Tsunami Report on Coral Ecosystem Conditions in American Samoa. On September 29, 2009 a devastating tsunami
struck American Samoa and neighboring islands. The deadly waves killed more than 1 70 people, caused severe property
damage, and swept villages out to sea. In addition, they deposited a great deal of debris on the reefs in the territory; marine debris
can cause damage to reefs as it is moved around by waves and currents. In December 2009, as part of a marine debris project ,
NOAAs Coral Reef Ecosystem Division (CRED) marine debris personnel participated in post-tsunami surveys in the waters
around the island of Tutuila, helping to remove 8000 lbs. of debris from the coral reefs, and identifying 253 additional targets for
later marine debris removal.
The 201 0 Reef Assessment and Monitoring Program (RAMP) cruise to American Samoa provided an opportunity to observe any
continued impacts to the territorys coral reefs five months after the tsunami. Towed divers specifically noted any evidence of
coral reef damage caused by the tsunami during their surveys at 40-60ft depth around several of the territorys islands. The
condition of the reefs around Tutuila was observed to be good with little evidence of tsunami impacts; coral damage in surveyed
areas appeared minor overall. Some evidence of damage was seen on all sides of the island; however, localized areas of
damage were most often observed just offshore of the villages on the southwest, west, and northwest coasts. Localized areas of
coral damage consisting of overturned Acropora tables and broken/scattered plating colonies were noted, including one instance
of a large Porites colony that had been toppled by tsunami waves but was still alive. No noticeable damage attributable to the
tsunami was recorded by the benthic towed -divers around the other islands of the territory visited during this cruise.
This cruise marked the fifth biennial RAMP surveys to provide an on-going overview of coral reef ecosystem conditions in
American Samoa and included six weeks of work in the territory. On-going monitoring of coral reef ecosystems provides a
continuous record of how coral ecosystems change over time and how they respond to stressors, such as tsunami-related
damage.
201 0 RAMP Cruise Results from PRIMNM. On April 24, a CRCP-funded Coral Reef Ecosystem Division (CRED) monitoring
cruise aboard the NOAA Ship Hiìalakai returned to Honolulu from its last cruise legconducting Reef Assessment and
Monitoring Program (RAMP) surveys in the Pacific Remote Islands Marine National Monument (PRIMNM). Biennial RAMP
cruises have monitored conditions in this region since 2000.
Formal data analysis will begin shortly and will further clarify these early reports, but preliminary outcomes include observations of
dominant coral species and overall hard coral cover on each island and comparisons of various populations with previous RAMP
surveys. For instance, on Jarvis island, hard coral dominated the reefscape and shark populations appear to have returned to
normal since the 2008 cruise, but macroinvertebrate counts were lower than normal. Low -level coral bleaching was observed at
Palmyra Atoll and macroinvertebrates were nearly absent from survey results. Kingman Reef had a dramatic increase in
cyanobacteria near a shipwreck but continues to harbor the highest concentration of giant clams observed in any of the Pacific
regions surveyed by CRED.
Monitoring of coral reef ecosystems in the islands and banks of the PRIMNMwhich are some of the last near-pristine,
unpopulated coral reefs in the worldprovides a baseline metric for ecosystem function. These remote areas are almost ideal
laboratories to study the effects of global threats on coral reef ecosystems, such as climate change and ocean acidification,
because they lack the numerous local anthropogenic impacts found in coral ecosystems closer to human populations.
Mariana Mission Provides Maps and Fisheries Information. During a 30-day cruise around Guam and the Commonwealth of
the Northern Mariana Islands (CNMI), the NOAA Ship Oscar Elton Sette completed mapping and deployed four different types of
instruments to monitor fish abundance and composition around six banks and islands. A video overview is available here . Three
popular fishing banks south of Guam, Galvez Bank, a small bank to the south of Galvez, and 1 1 -Mile Reef, were completely
mapped using a pole-mounted multibeam sonar provided by the NOAA Coral Reef Ecosystem Division (CRED). Following
mapping, two types of baited camera stationsCREDs BotCam and Baited Remote Underwater Video Stations (BRUVS) from
the University of Guam and University of Western Australiaa towed camera system, and a SeaBed autonomous underwater
vehicle (AUV) were tested to compare non-extractive methods for fish observations. During this cruise, AUV capabilities were
enhanced by adding the capability to transmit data to the surface during deployment.
Operations then moved to Rota, CNMI, where the ship mapped in 40-300 m depths to add to previous multibeam coverage;
additional BRUVS and AUV operations were also completed. After a mid -cruise stop in Saipan, mapping of Farallon de Medinilla
was completed and revealed the previously unknown extent of this large underwater feature that is of interest to CNMI fisheries
management agencies. During the final segment of the cruise, BRUVs and towed camera operations were conducted on the
extensive banks west of Saipan. BRUVS data from 1 23 deployments at Galvez Bank, Rota, and West Saipan will be used by
researchers from the University of Guam and University of Western Australia to compare fish populations and habitats in these
three areas. Towed camera operations west of Saipan confirmed the existence of a rare and protected coral, Euphyllia
paraancora, in that area. Education and outreach activities were conducted in Saipan and Guam and a NOAA Teacher at Sea
participated in the cruise.
The Pacific Islands Fisheries Science Center, in response to requests from management agencies in Guam and CNMI made
during the 2008 Pacific Coral Reef CREIOS workshop, initiated a series of four fisheries cruises in the western Pacific in 201 0.
Data from these cruises enhance the valuable on-going data set from biennial CRCP Reef Assessment and Monitoring Program
(RAMP) cruises. Fisheries-related issues have been identified as one of the three major threats to coral reef ecosystems.
Creating maps of important fisheries banks and islands and collection of fisheries data using non-extractive methods aids
jurisdictional managers in making important fisheries decisions.
INTERNATIONAL UPDATES
MPA Capacity Building and Mesoamerican Reef Connectivity Workshop. An international workshop was held from May 1 7-
1 9 in Chetumal, Mexico at the El Colegio de la Frontera Sur (ECOSUR) campus. This workshop promoted a better understanding
of the bio-physical connectivity along the Mesoamerican Reef (MAR) and its potential role in ecosystem-scale management of
associated protected areas. An exchange of experiences and ideas between management and scientific personnel at the
workshop will be used to identify long-term common goals of the participating organizations. Resource managers, scientists, and
other stakeholders from Belize, Guatemala, Honduras, Mexico and the US were invited to participate in this regional workshop;
many of the invitees work with/in prioritized marine protected areas in the MAR.
Goals of the workshop included enhancing regional capacity by creating a MAR Connectivity Coalition of managers and scientists;
providing a mechanism for on-going communications/ collaborations between participants, setting ecosystem-scale connectivity
research priorities and identifying the priority regional connectivity goals; and identifying data sources that can be shared. A
summary report will be provided to participants after the conclusion of the workshop.
CRW Participates in Australian Research Expedition. As a part of continuing collaborations between NOAA's Coral Reef
Watch (CRW) and the Australian Institute of Marine Science (AIMS) in the southern Great Barrier Reef, NOAA staff participated in
a research expedition in March 201 0. The field study deployed oceanic drifters in the vicinity of Heron Island to monitor currents.
Drifters were fitted with GPS trackers that communicate position via satellite SMS approximately every 1 0 minutes. The fieldwork
was greatly hindered by a series of inclement weather conditions; however, subsequent to the expedition, the deployment of
drifters was continued in late April 201 0. This work is part of the ongoing collaboration between NOAA, AIMS and other Australian
partners to study links between climate change and coral health, and is part of the Great Barrier Reef Ocean Observing System
within the Australian Integrated Marine Observing System.
CRW Hosts International Workshop on Reef Remote Sensing. NOAA Coral Reef Watch, in collaboration with the University
of Queensland Centre for Marine Studies, hosted an international workshop entitled "Satellite monitoring of coral reef vulnerability
in a changing climage." Held in the Lamington National Park near Brisbane, Australia, from February 1 5-1 8, the workshop
reviewed current satellite and ground -based coral reef environmental monitoring capabilities. It also reviewed the current coral
reef management and science needs, from the perspective of environmental satellite data. Via a series of invited talks and group
discussions, the workshop then investigated possible solutions to meet the identified needs, such as development of tools to
monitor water quality, reef use, oil slicks, and others.
Thirty-four participants from the US, Mexico, and Australia attended. The participants, most of whom are world leaders in their
respective fields, included a mixture of coral reef managers and scientists from relevant fields such as satellite remote sensing,
coral physiology, coral reef monitoring, oceanography, computer learning and informatics, and database management.
The workshop noted the importance of CRWs suite of satellite products to the management and science of coral bleaching.
CRWs continued partnerships with Australian scientists and government agencies in coral reef research and protection have
already leveraged Australian funds to help promote these collaborations that will ultimately help make our domestic activities more
efficient. This workshop will help NOAA develop coral reef remote sensing products and use international expertise to improve our
understanding and management of coral reef resources.
DIVE DEEPER: DEEP-SEA CORALS
Recent emphasis on the conservation of deep-sea corals and the associated new legislation have elevated awareness to the
presence of these unique deep-ocean habitats. Deep-sea corals have been the focus of dozens of large-scale expeditions, but
comparatively little attention has been given to deep-sea sponge fauna.
The first dedicated collections of deep-water (> 50 m) sponges from the central Aleutian Islands revealed a rich fauna including 28
novel species and geographical range extensions for 53 others. Based on these collections and the published literature we now
confirm the presence of 1 21 species (or subspecies) of deep-water sponges in the Aleutian Islands. Clearly the deep-water
sponge fauna of the Aleutian Islands is extraordinarily rich and largely understudied. Submersible observations revealed that
sponges, rather than deep-sea corals, are the dominant feature shaping benthic habitats in the region and that they provide
important refuge habitat for many species of fish and invertebrates including juvenile rockfish and king crabs. Examination of
video footage collected along 1 27 km of the seafloor further indicate that there are likely hundreds of species, still uncollected from
the region, that are unknown to science. Furthermore, sponges are extremely fragile and high rates of fishery bycatch clearly
indicate a strong interaction between existing fisheries and sponge habitat.
Bycatch in fisheries and fisheries independent surveys can be a major source of information on the location of the sponge fauna
but current monitoring programs are greatly hampered by the inability of deck personnel to identify bycatch. Help is on the way. A
Guide to the Deep-water Sponges of the Aleutian Island Archipelago by Robert Stone, Helmut Lehnert, and Henry Reiswig is
scheduled for publication sometime this summer. The main purpose of the guide is to provide fisheries observers and scientists
with the information necessary to adequately identify sponge fauna so that areas of high abundance can be mapped and the
locations of indicator species of vulnerable marine ecosystems can be determined. The guide is also designed for use by
scientists making observations of the fauna in situ with submersibles including remotely operated vehicles and autonomous
underwater vehicles.
The guide will be published as a NOAA Professional Paper and contains detailed species descriptions with photographs for more
than 1 1 0 sponges found in Alaskan waters. NOAAs Deep Sea Coral Research and Technology Program is providing funding for
publication of the guide.
NEW DATA IN CoRIS
Product Name
C-CAP Land Cover Data,
Hawaii
Description
This data set consists of land cover derived from high resolution
imagery and was analyzed according to the Coastal Change Analysis
Program (C-CAP) protocol to determine land cover. These datasets
utilized Quickbird multispectral scenes. All scenes were processed to
detect C-CAP land cover features.
Sample Link: http://coris.noaa.gov/metadata/records/html/ccap_2006_lanai_land_cover.html
C-CAP Land Cover Data,

American Samoa
Program (C-CAP) protocol to determine land cover. These datasets
utilized IKONOS and Quickbird multispectral scenes. All scenes were
processed to detect C-CAP land cover features.
Sample Link:
http://coris.noaa.gov/metadata/records/html/amer_samoa_swains_2002_ccap_hr_land_cover.html
Synoptic Bi-monthly and
Synoptic sampling including water column profiles and collected surface
Storm Response Water
water samples was conducted on a bi-monthly basis throughout the
Quality Sampling in
rainy season (October-May) and on a monthly basis in the dry season
Southern Kaneohe Bay, HI

(June-September) at nine locations in southern Kaneohe Bay in support
November 2007 - April 2009

of the Coral Reef Instrumented Monitoring Platform (CRIMP) program.
(NODC Accession
Another dozen or so ancillary stations were also monitored selectively.
0062644)
This is the second set of data provided to NODC. The first set
encompasses 2005 - October 2007 and is stored in NODC Accession
0060061 .
Sample Link: http://coris.noaa.gov/metadata/records/html/nodc_fgdc_metadata_0060061 .html
US Environmental
The survey sampled 49 stations on the islands of Tutuila, Aunu'u Ofu,
Protection Agency National

Olosega, Ta'u during April and August, 2004. The water quality
Coastal Assessment for
measurements data set contains two types of data: hydrologic profile
American Samoa 2004:
water quality information resulting from in-field observations of physical
water quality, sediment
data and water quality information resulting from laboratory examination
grain, and chemistry data

of water quality samples for nutrient analyses. The sediment chemistry
(NODC Accession
data set reports the contaminant name and its associated measured
0000455)
concentration, date site was visited, and the group that collected the
data. The sediment grain size data set contains sediment grain analyses
information resulting from laboratory examination of samples collected at
sites visited during probability surveys.
Sample Link: http://coris.noaa.gov/metadata/records/html/nodc_fgdcmetadata_0000455.html
Benthic Habitat Mapping off

Benthic habitats of the shallow-water and moderate-depth marine
St. John, U.S. Virgin Islands

environment in and around the Virgin Islands Coral Reef National
National Park and Virgin
Monument were mapped using a combination of semi-automated
Islands Reef National
classification and visual interpretation of remotely sensed imagery and
Monument project.
acoustic imagery. The objective of this effort, conducted by NOAA's
Center for Coastal Monitoring and Assessment - Biogeography Branch
in partnership with the U.S. National Park Service (NPS), was to provide
spatially-explicit information on the habitat types, biological cover and
live coral cover of the shallow-water and moderate-depth area south of
St. John.
Sample Link:
http://coris.noaa.gov/metadata/records/html/metadata_stjohn_moderatedepth_benthic_habitats.html
2005 Oahu/Maui LiDAR
LiDAR data are remotely sensed high-resolution elevation data
Mapping Project
collected by an airborne collection platform. These data were collected
over a portion of Maui and Oahu, Hawaii with a Leica ALS-40 Aerial
Lidar Sensor. Multiple returns were recorded for each pulse in addition
to an intensity value.
Sample Link: http://coris.noaa.gov/metadata/records/html/hi2005_template.html
2003 Oahu Coastline LiDAR

LiDAR data are remotely sensed high-resolution elevation data
Mapping Project
collected by an airborne collection platform. These data were collected
over a 1 00 meter swath of the Oahu, Hawaii coastline with a Leica ALS-
40 Aerial Lidar Sensor. Multiple returns were recorded for each pulse in
addition to an intensity value.
Sample Link: http://coris.noaa.gov/metadata/records/html/hi2005_template.html
CRED Towed -Diver Benthic

Towboard surveys are a good method for obtaining a general
Characterization Surveys
description of large reef areas, assessing the status of low-density
populations of large-bodied reef fish, large-scale disturbances (e.g.,
bleaching), general distribution and abundance patterns of macro-
invertebrates (e.g., COT, giant clams), and for assessing trends in these
populations and metrics. The benthic diver records percent cover of
coral and macroalgae, estimates benthic habitat type and complexity,
and censuses a suite of benthic macroinvertebrates including Crown of
Thorns sea stars and sea urchins. The benthic towboard is equipped
with a downward-facing digital still camera which images the benthos at
1 5 second intervals. These images are analyzed for percent cover of
coral, algae, and other benthic components.
Sample Link: http://coris.noaa.gov/metadata/records/txt/cred_towboard_benthic_rose_atoll_2006.txt
CRED Towed -Diver Fish
Towboard surveys are a good method for obtaining a general
Biomass Surveys
description of large reef areas, assessing the status of low-density
populations of large-bodied reef fish, large-scale disturbances (e.g.,
bleaching), general distribution and abundance patterns of macro-
invertebrates (e.g., COT, giant clams), and for assessing trends in these
populations and metrics. The fish diver records, to the lowest possible
taxon, all large-bodied reef fishes (>50cmTL) seen within 5m either side
and 1 0m in front of the towboard. Length of each individual is estimated
to the nearest cm. The fish towboard is also outfitted with a forward -
facing digital video camera to record the survey swath.
Sample Link:
http://coris.noaa.gov/metadata/records/txt/cred_towboard_fishbiomass_asuncion_island_2009.txt
Impervious Surfaces, Island

This is a final impervious surface layer ready for distribution through
of Saipan, Commonwealth
NOAA CSC. The data set is an inventory of impervious surfaces for
of the Northern Mariana
Saipan, Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands for the year
Islands
2005. Impervious surfaces include manmade features such as building
rooftops, parking lots and roads consisting of asphalt, concrete and/or
compacted dirt. This data set utilized Quickbird multispectral scenes
which were processed to detect impervious features on the
Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands.
Sample Link: http://coris.noaa.gov/metadata/records/txt/cnmi_saipan_2005_ccap_hr_impervious.txt
C-CAP Land Cover, Jobos

Bay, Commonwealth of
Puerto Rico 2007
Program (C-CAP) protocol to determine land cover. This data set
utilized 31 ADS40 digital orthophotos. The imagery was flown between
November 2006 and March 2007. There are no cloud obscured areas
within the base imagery. The scene was processed to detect C-CAP
land cover features within the Jobos Bay watershed located on the
southeastern coast of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico.
Sample Link: http://coris.noaa.gov/metadata/records/txt/pr_jobosbay_2007_ccap_hr_land_cover.txt
PUBLICATIONS
US Reef Jurisdictions Articulate Priority Reef Management Goals and Objectives. In May, the CRCP released seven
strategic planning documents. These seven documents respectively articulate a set of strategic coral reef management priorities
developed in consensus by the coral reef managers in each of the seven US coral reef jurisdictions. The CRCP provided support
to the jurisdictions to coordinate with the broader management community in each place to determine strategic goals and
objectives. NOAA will use these documents in conjunction with its 20102015 Coral Reef Conservation Program National Goals
and Objectives to direct its investment in each jurisdiction through grants, cooperative agreements and internal funding. NOAA will
also make the document available to other potential funders, such as non-governmental organizations and federal partners, and
encourage leveraging and new or expanded partnerships to achieve common coral reef conservation goals.
This priority setting process stems from an external review of the CRCP conducted in 2007 to independently assess how
effectively the program has met its goals. The review included recommendations for future improvements. In response to the
review, the CRCP developed a Roadmap for the Future, laying out new principles and priorities. A key part of this Roadmap
includes facilitating the development of management priorities for each of the US state and territorial coral reef jurisdictions and
conducting capacity assessments to help achieve these priorities.
The next step in the process is to complete a capacity needs assessment in each jurisdiction. These assessments will help
identify where gaps may exist in a jurisdiction's ability to achieve its management priorities. Outcomes from the capacity
assessments will also be used to inform future funding decisions. A capacity assessment will be conducted for one jurisdiction by
the end of fiscal year (FY) 201 0. The remaining assessments will be conducted in FY201 1 .
CRCP Delivers Report on 2007-2009 Activities. On April 1 2, 201 0, the CRCP delivered the Implementation of the National
Coral Reef Action Strategy: Report on NOAA Coral Reef Conservation Program Activities from 2007 to 2009 to Congress. It is the
third of the biennial progress reports to Congress required by the Coral Reef Conservation Act of 2000. The report provides
summaries and examples of the activities conducted by the CRCP and its extramural partners between 2007 and 2009 to
implement the thirteen goals addressed in the National Coral Reef Action Strategy. The report also describes the Program's
reorganization to focus its efforts to understand and address the three major threats to reefs; impacts from climate change,
fishing, and land-based sources of pollution. During the period covered by this report, the CRCP operated pursuant to thirteen
program goals organized under two themes: Understanding Coral Reef Ecosystems and Reducing the Adverse Impacts of Human
Activities. The report presents activities undertaken for each of these goals, including mapping, assessment, monitoring,
partnerships, socioeconomic research, and restoration, among others. It also includes summaries of some major reports produced
by, or in partnership with, the CRCP during this time period as well as the outcomes of an external review and subsequent shifting
of focus for the Program.
NOAA Delivers Deep-sea Coral Report to Congress. On March 3, NOAA delivered to key members of Congress a report on
the Implementation of the Deep Sea Coral Research and Technology Program 2008-2009. The report, prepared in consultation
with the Regional Fishery Management Councils, summarizes activities initiated with fiscal year 2009 Deep Sea Coral Research
and Technology Program funding. It also presents a brief synopsis of additional conservation actions that have taken place since
the first Report to Congress was submitted in 2008.
Proceedings from Second International Workshop on Red Coral Science Released. The family Coralliidae, consisting of the
genera Corallium and Paracorallium and commonly known as pink and red corals, contains the most valuable and rarest taxa of
precious corals in commerce. Seven species in this family have been intensively fished for use in jewelry, amulets, art objects,
and homeopathic medicines. In March, NOAA released a new technical memorandum, Proceedings of the International
Workshop on Red Coral Science, Management, and Trade: Lessons from the Mediterranean. Hosted by the Italian Ministry of
Agriculture and Ministry of Environment and the CRCP in September of 2009, the second international red coral workshop
provided an opportunity to discuss the best available science on the natural history of Mediterranean red coral (Corallium rubrum
L.) and how it is managed throughout the region and utilized around the world. Attendees included scientists, managers,
representatives of the coral fishery and manufacturing industries, policy makers, and environmental organizations from Europe,
Africa, Asia, and North America.
Bare AY, Grimshaw KL, Rooney RR, Sabater MG, Fenner D, Carroll B (201 0) Mesophotic communities of the insular shelf at
Tutuila, American Samoa. Coral Reefs 29 (March 8). doi:1 0.1 007/s00338-01 0 -0600-y.
Kenyon JC, Wilkinson CB, Aeby GS (2010) Community structure of hermatypic corals at Midway Atoll in
the Northwestern Hawaiian Islands: a legacy of human disturbance. Atoll Research Bulletin 581: 1-26.
Locker SD, Armstrong RA, Battista TA, Rooney JJ, Sherman C, Zawada DG (201 0) Geomorphology of mesophotic coral
ecosystems: current perspectives on morphology, distribution, and mapping strategies. Coral Reefs 29 (March 30).
doi:1 0.1 007/s00338-01 0 -061 3-6.
Rooney J, Donham E, Montgomery A, Spalding H, Parrish F, Boland R, Fenner D, Gove J, and Vetter O (201 0) Mesophotic coral
ecosystems in the Hawaiian Archipelago. Coral Reefs 29 (February 27). doi:1 0.1 007/s00338-01 0 -0596-3.
Vroom, PS and Braun, CL. 201 0. Benthic Composition of a Healthy Subtropical Reef: Baseline Species-Level Cover, with an
Emphasis on Algae, in the Northwestern Hawaiian Islands. published on-line in PLoS One, March 201 0, Vol. 5, Issue 3, e9733.
March-May Idendum.doc
Lauren_Chhay.vcf (0.3 KB)
501 W. Ocean Blvd.
Long Beach, CA 90802
[email protected]
tel 562 980-4081 ; fax 562 980-4084
--
John Cubit, Ph.D.
NOAA Assessment and Restoration Division, Suite 4470
501 W. Ocean Blvd.
Long Beach, CA 90802
[email protected]
tel 562 980-4081 ; fax 562 980-4084
Cell phone (for urgent matters and travel contact) 562 81 0-4949
From: Carys Mitchelmore B6 Privacy @umces.edu>
Date: May 20, 201 0 1 2:30:1 9 AM EDT
Subject: Re: [Coral-List] Corexit 9500 and corals
Hi,
I havn't been following very many of the threads lately. But I see
some people are asking about dispersant toxicity to corals. I would be
happy to provide my 2 pennies worth on dispersants to corals generally
(I co-wrote the NRC dispersant effect book in 2005 and wrote the
section on corals!).
In addition I carried out a 2 year study (yet to be published although
the interim reports are available from the funding agency; CRRC UNH)
specifically on Corexit 9500 on the soft coral Xenia. Bottom line is
at levels that may be environmentally relevant they were acutely
toxic, they stopped pulsing (nearly instantly), they lost algae,
ulcerated (not sure in which order) and with time (or higher doses)
simply dissolved. Short-time low dose exposures showed delayed effects
and much reduced growth after one month in recovery. Dispersed oil was
worse (affected by the dissolved and droplet phases).
I'd be happy to help with any questions. I would also like to ask
about the hydrous oxide stated to be in the dispersant? How did you
find this information?
Best wishes,
Carys
--
Carys Mitchelmore
Associate Professor
University of Maryland Center for Environmental Science
Chesapeake Biological Laboratory
PO Box 38
(1 Williams Street)
Solomons
MD 20688
USA
USA
_______________________________________________
[email protected]
B6 Privacy
From: Douglas Fenner
Date: May 20, 201 0 4:26:40 AM EDT
Subject: Re: [Coral-List] A plea to stay on topic
I was thinking we should get back on topic too.
Anybody care to speculate whether dispersant and dispersed oil may get
caught in the loop current along with the floating oil (becoming tar balls)
and be on it's way to Florida, and if it gets there will it whiz by the Keys
and reefs without stopping or will it be so diluted that it can't affect
corals? (I sure don't know)
On the other hand, the messages reporting bleaching in Thailand and the
Maldives are exactly why the question of how to reduce CO2 emissions is so
important for the future of coral reefs. If we don't get it under control,
we can kiss reefs as we know them goodby in 20-30 years or less (and say
hello to algae beds). As someone said, 'We are the first generation to see
the beauty of living coral reefs with our own eyes, it would be a tragedy if
we also were the last.'
Doug
----- Original Message -----
B6 Privacy
From: "Lescinsky, Halard L"
To: < [email protected]>
Subject: [Coral-List] A plea to stay on topic
>
Can we please use the moderator's authority to keep the discussion on
topic.. Energy futures, global warming and much of what has been coming
across lately really is pretty far removed from coral reefs. I'd love to
keep my inbox a little smaller. --- Hal Lescinsky
_______________________________________________
[email protected]
_______________________________________________
[email protected]
Date: May 20, 201 0 9:08:22 AM EDT
To: Cheryl Woodley < [email protected]>
Subject: Re: Court test of biomarkers?
Cheryl,
Thanks for putting this together. They are having another call today at 2:30EST that hopefully you can be on. I unfortunately got
pulled away from the call the other day only to find out that I will be coordinating and managing the overall restoration planning
team for this incident for the next 3-6 months. I am going to still try to be on the calls but will not be as much of the driving force
331 Fort Johnson Rd
843.762.8862 Phone
843.762.8737 Fax
[email protected]
--------------------------------------------------------
Tom Moore
263 1 3th Ave South
727-551 -571 6 Office
Cell
B6 Privacy
--
DOC/NOAA/NOS/NCCOS
331 Fort Johnson Rd
843.762.8862 Phone
843.762.8737 Fax
[email protected]
From: vassil zlatarski < B6 Privacy @yahoo.com>
Date: May 20, 201 0 9:32:1 7 AM EDT
To: Coral-List < [email protected]>
Dear Coral-Listers,
The effect of the oil dispersant Corexit is ominously hinted by its name (coral+exit).
Do we have the necessary information about the effect of all used dispersants to human body, especially to divers, working in
waters treated with oil dispersants?
Cheers,
Vassil
1 31 Fales Rd., Bristol, RI 02809, USA; tel.: +1 - B6 Privacy
--- On Thu, 5/20/1 0, Carys Mitchelmore < [email protected]> wrote:
From: Carys Mitchelmore < [email protected]>
Date: Thursday, May 20, 201 0, 1 2:30 AM
Hi,
Best wishes,
Carys
--
Carys Mitchelmore
Associate Professor
PO Box 38
(1 Williams Street)
Solomons
MD 20688
USA
_______________________________________________
[email protected]
_______________________________________________
[email protected]
From: Bill Allison

B6 Privacy @gmail.com>
Date: May 20, 201 0 9:51 :04 AM EDT
Insofar as accurate assessment of the magnitude and nature of oil masses
adrift in the Gulf have consequences for coral reef systems this, abstracted
from todays NY Times (link at end) seems relevant:
Rick Steiner, a marine biologist and a veteran of the 1 989 Exxon
Valdez<http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/subjects/e/exxon_valdez_oil_spill_1 989/index.html?inline=nyt-
classifier>disaster,
.... said the likelihood of extensive undersea plumes of oil
droplets should have been anticipated from the moment the spill began, given
that such an effect from deepwater blowouts had been predicted in the
scientific literature for more than a decade, and confirmed in a test off
the coast of Norway. An extensive sampling program to map and characterize
those plumes should have been put in place from the first days of the spill,
he said.
Ian MacDonald of Florida State
University<http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/organizations/f/florida_state_university/index.html?inline=nyt-org>,
an oceanographer who was among the first to question the official estimate
of 21 0,000 gallons a day, said he had come to the conclusion that the oil
company was bent on obstructing any accurate calculation. They want to hide
the body, he said.
Scientists have long theorized that a shallow spill and a spill in the deep
ocean this one is a mile down would behave quite differently. A 2003
report by the National Research
Council< http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/national/excerptfrom2003report.pdf>predicted
that the oil in a deepwater blowout could break into fine
droplets, forming plumes of oil mixed with water that would not quickly rise
to the surface.
That prediction appeared to be confirmed Saturday when the researchers
aboard the Pelican reported that they had detected immense plumes that they
believed were made of oil particles. The results were not final, and came as
a surprise to the government. They raise a major concern, that sea life in
concentrated areas could be exposed to a heavy load of toxic materials as
the plumes drift through the sea.
http://www.nytimes.com/201 0/05/20/science/earth/20noaa.html?hp
Also check this weeks Nature for two articles on the topic.
Regards,
Bill
On Thu, May 20, 201 0 at 1 2:30 AM, Carys Mitchelmore <[email protected]>wrote:
Hi,
Best wishes,
Carys
--
Carys Mitchelmore
Associate Professor
PO Box 38
(1 Williams Street)
Solomons
MD 20688
USA
_______________________________________________
[email protected]
--
________________________________
_______________________________________________
[email protected]
Date: May 20, 201 0 1 1 :56:1 0 AM EDT
[email protected], Cheryl Woodley < [email protected]>, Ilsa Kuffner < [email protected]>, Stephen
Blair < [email protected]>
Subject: Attn: DWH Coral Group
Coral Group:
See message below, forwarded from John Cubit.
_____
he said.
the body, he said.
to the surface.
Regards,
Bill
On Thu, May 20, 201 0 at 1 2:30 AM, Carys Mitchelmore < [email protected]>wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I havn't been following very many of the threads lately. But I see
> some people are asking about dispersant toxicity to corals. I would be
> happy to provide my 2 pennies worth on dispersants to corals generally
> (I co-wrote the NRC dispersant effect book in 2005 and wrote the
> section on corals!).
>
> In addition I carried out a 2 year study (yet to be published although
> the interim reports are available from the funding agency; CRRC UNH)
> specifically on Corexit 9500 on the soft coral Xenia. Bottom line is
> at levels that may be environmentally relevant they were acutely
> toxic, they stopped pulsing (nearly instantly), they lost algae,
> ulcerated (not sure in which order) and with time (or higher doses)
> simply dissolved. Short-time low dose exposures showed delayed effects
> and much reduced growth after one month in recovery. Dispersed oil was
> worse (affected by the dissolved and droplet phases).
>
> I'd be happy to help with any questions. I would also like to ask
> about the hydrous oxide stated to be in the dispersant? How did you
> find this information?
>
> Best wishes,
> Carys
>
> --
> Carys Mitchelmore
> Associate Professor
> University of Maryland Center for Environmental Science
> Chesapeake Biological Laboratory
> PO Box 38
> (1 Williams Street)
> Solomons
> MD 20688
> USA
>
> _______________________________________________
> Coral-List mailing list
> [email protected]
> http://coral.aoml.noaa.gov/mailman/listinfo/coral-list
>
--
________________________________
_______________________________________________
[email protected]
Date: May 20, 201 0 1 :37:05 PM EDT
Cc: [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected],
[email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], Cheryl
Woodley < [email protected]>, Ilsa Kuffner < [email protected]>, Stephen Blair < [email protected]>
Subject: Re: Attn: DWH Coral Group
All,
Unfortunately DWHNRDA did not include the header to the message. It is from the Coral-List server, not me.
It is an FYI in case you are not subscribed to Coral-List.
John
DWHNRDA wrote:
Coral Group:
_____
he said.
the body, he said.
Council<http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/national/excerptfrom2003report.pdf>predicted
to the surface.
Regards,
Bill
> Hi,
>
>
>
>
> Best wishes,
> Carys
>
> --
> Carys Mitchelmore
> PO Box 38
> Solomons
> MD 20688
> USA
>
> _______________________________________________
> [email protected]
>
--
________________________________
_______________________________________________
[email protected]
--
J oh n C u bi t , Ph. D.
Re g i ona l Re s ou rc e C oord i na t or, Sou t h w e s t Re g i on
N O A A A s s es sm e nt a nd Re s t ora t i on Di vi si on, Su i t e 4 470
50 1 W . O ce a n Bl v d .
Long Be a ch , C A 9 08 02
J oh n. C u bi t @noaa . g ov
t e l 5 62 9 8 0- 4 08 1; fa x 5 62 9 8 0 - 4 08 4
C e l l ph one ( for u rg e nt m a t t e rs a nd t ra v el cont a ct ) 5 62 8 10- 4 9 4 9
Date: May 20, 201 0 2:56:31 PM EDT
To: Cheryl Woodley < [email protected]>, Mike Buchman < [email protected]>
Subject: Fwd: Attn: DWH Coral Group
Date: May 20, 201 0 1 :37:05 PM EDT
Cc: [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected],
[email protected], Cheryl Woodley < [email protected]>, Ilsa Kuffner < [email protected]>, Stephen
Blair < [email protected]>
Subject: Re: Attn: DWH Coral Group
All,
Unfortunately DWHNRDA did not include the header to the message. It is from the Coral-List server, not me.
It is an FYI in case you are not subscribed to Coral-List.
John
DWHNRDA wrote:
Coral Group:
_____
he said.
University<http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/organizations/f/florida_state_university/index.html?inline=nyt-
org>,
the body, he said.
to the surface.
Regards,
Bill
> Hi,
>
>
>
>
> Best wishes,
> Carys
>
> --
> Carys Mitchelmore
> PO Box 38
> Solomons
> MD 20688
> USA
>
> _______________________________________________
> [email protected]
>
--
________________________________
_______________________________________________
[email protected]
--
J oh n C u bi t , Ph . D.
Re g i ona l Res ou rce C oord i nat or, S ou t h w e st Re g i on
N O A A A s se s sm e nt a nd Re s t ora t i on Di v i si on, S u i t e 4 4 70
5 0 1 W . Oc e an Bl vd .
Long Be a c h , C A 9 0 8 02
J oh n. C u bi t @noa a . g ov
t e l 5 62 9 8 0- 4 0 8 1; fa x 5 62 9 8 0- 40 8 4
C e l l ph one ( for u rg e nt m a t t e rs a nd t ra v e l c ont ac t ) 562 8 10 - 4 9 4 9
--------------------------------------------------------
Tom Moore
263 1 3th Ave South
727-551 -571 6 Office
B6 Privacy
Cell
From: Ed Blume < B6 Privacy @gmail.com>
Date: May 20, 201 0 1 :47:04 PM EDT
To: vassil zlatarski < B6 Privacy @yahoo.com>
Cc: Coral-List < [email protected]>
From a scientific point of view, which is harder on coral -- spilled oil or
Corexit? If Corexit is worse, wouldn't it be appropriate for someone(s) in
the scientific community to say so? Wouldn't it bring science to bear on a
public concern?
Ed Blume
Madison, WI
www.renewwisconsin.org
On Thu, May 20, 201 0 at 8:32 AM, vassil zlatarski <[email protected]>wrote:
Dear Coral-Listers,
The effect of the oil dispersant Corexit is ominously hinted by its name
(coral+exit).
Do we have the necessary information about the effect of all used
dispersants to human body, especially to divers, working in waters treated
with oil dispersants?
Cheers,
Vassil
1 31 Fales Rd., Bristol, RI 02809, USA; tel.: +1 -
B6 Privacy
--- On Thu, 5/20/1 0, Carys Mitchelmore <[email protected]> wrote:
From: Carys Mitchelmore <[email protected]>
Date: Thursday, May 20, 201 0, 1 2:30 AM
Hi,
Best wishes,
Carys
--
Carys Mitchelmore
Associate Professor
PO Box 38
(1 Williams Street)
Solomons
MD 20688
USA
_______________________________________________
[email protected]
_______________________________________________
[email protected]
_______________________________________________
[email protected]
From: David Evans < B6 Privacy @yahoo.com>
Date: May 20, 201 0 2:44:29 PM EDT
Subject: Re: [Coral-List] Corexit 9500 and corals (Carys Mitchelmore)
Any idea how the hard -bottom communities are fairing on the offshore platform legs in the region of the leak off Louisiana,
Mississippi, and Alabama? ... The ones that are likely being bathed currently in the surface slick of oil and dispersant... Would
that knowledge have any application to understanding the effect of this oil-dispersant mixture on the more tropical reef
communities or maybe not...? Maybe those rigs out there don't have the same communities that they do further west off Texas...
Just a thought...
Best,
David J. Evans
<<<Knock at the door: 'Have you heard the good news!' ....
SD: 'Yeah! ... There's Cookies!!!' ...
-It's all a matter of perspective->>>
by anonymous
________________________________
From: "[email protected]" < [email protected]>
Sent: Thu, May 20, 201 0 1 0:07:1 4 AM
Subject: Coral-List Digest, Vol 21 , Issue 27
Message: 6
Date: Thu, 20 May 201 0 00:30:1 9 -0400
From: "Carys Mitchelmore" < [email protected]>
Message-ID: < 201 0052000301 9.1 [email protected]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 ; DelSp="Yes";
format="flowed"
Hi,
Best wishes,
Carys
--
Carys Mitchelmore
Associate Professor
PO Box 38
(1 Williams Street)
Solomons
MD 20688
USA
[email protected]
End of Coral-List Digest, Vol 21 , Issue 27
******************************************
_______________________________________________
[email protected]
From: Rob Ricker < [email protected]>
Date: May 20, 201 0 5:27:58 PM EDT
To: Greg Baker < [email protected]>
Cc: Scott Stout < [email protected]>, Chris Reddy < [email protected]>, Daniel Hahn < [email protected]>, Laurie
Sullivan < [email protected]>, Deborah French McCay < [email protected]>, James Payne < [email protected]>,
Tom Moore < [email protected]>, Christopher Plaisted < [email protected]>, Stephanie Willis
Subject: URGENT: fielding teams for upcoming cruises
Greg,
I just got off a call with various individuals throughout NMFS and NOS and the University of South Florida (and others from various
academic institutions) for planning sampling on a couple of upcoming cruises. In short, there are two vessels preparing to go
back to sea, and we can put NRDA teams on each vessel to collect samples and data for NRDA. I believe that the Weatherbird
is supposed to head back out this weekend, and NOAA's Gordon Gunter (a 68 m long vessel) is scheduled to head to sea next
Tuesday. There is also the Jack Fitz, which I understand is scheduled to depart for another NRDA cruise tomorrow.
I would like you, Greg, to schedule a call with all of us listed on this email as soon as possible so that we can discuss the
following:
1 ) Establish a dedicated team for collecting the source oil, dispersant, and various stages of weathered oil, oil+dispersant, and
water and tarball samples. I've spoken with both Chris Reddy and Scott Stout to identify who we could assign to do this sampling.
Scott is short on staff, but Chris has three of his lab members who are up to date with 8hr HAZWOPPER, some who could be
deployed as early as tomorrow. We need to decide who will go on each vessel. I'd like Greg to compile the names of folks who
will go into the field and make sure that Troy and Ian are are of the operation plans for staffing and activity.
2) Identify the types of samples and data that we'd like to collect on these cruises. Scott is working up a list of the samples he
needs for the environmental forensics, and many of these types of samples are the same as previously identified by Jim and
Debbie for the modeling input. Debbie is organizing personnel and equipment for analyzing droplet size, which might involve a
person to use microscopy techniques of use a coulter counter. We need to determine what equipment and the number of
individuals who we'd like to get on the vessels. I understand that Dan and Tom may also have needs for getting folks out to sea
for collecting more plankton data... again -- I need to know your requirements today.
3) The Gordon Gunter is likely to get access to the hot zone and the Weatherbird is likely to work farther afield. We don't know
how close we'll be able to get to the well head because of all the response activity, but we can discuss this on the call.
Please try to make yourselves available as soon as possible. Thanks Greg for your help setting up this call. I have to be on a call
in 1 0 minutes with EPA re. coordination of their on-water efforts with ours. I'll jump off the EPA call if needed -- just call my cell or
send me an email, which I'll be monitoring.
Rob
P.S. Laurie, I know that you are shifting over to
--
Rob Ri c ker, Ph. D.
Re g i ona l M a na g e r, SW Re g i on
A s s es sm e nt & Re s t ora t i on Di v i si on
Offi c e of Re s ponse a nd Re s t orat i on,

777 S onom a A v e, Su i t e 2 19 A
Sa nt a Rosa , C A
9 5 40 4
B6 Privacy
C
B6 Privacy
F
E rob. ri c ke r@noaa . g ov
N O A A
From: Nasseer Idrisi B6 [email protected]>
Date: May 20, 201 0 4:35:1 9 PM EDT
To: Steve Mussman < B6 Priv... @earthlink.net>, "[email protected]" < [email protected]>
Subject: Re: [Coral-List] A Plea To Stay On Topic
All,
I have to agree with Steve Mussman. How is discussion of the BP blowout 'not
on topic' with regards to coral and coral reef research and interest? It
seems (my own opinion) that this disaster may cause damaging effects
throughout the Gulf of Mexico, Caribbean, and other regions of the Atlantic
before all is done. Just as ocean acidification (caused by oil after its
burnt) is an important topic to coral research, crude oil (before its burnt)
and dispersant mixtures should be of concern. Coupled to higher than average
SST in the tropical Atlantic, the BP blowout may lead to an environmental
loss greater than was seen in 2005 in the Caribbean. These stressors should
be collectively discussed and debated.
nasseer
On 5/20/1 0 3:54 PM, "Steve Mussman" <B6 Priva... @earthlink.net> wrote:
Hi Julian,
Your perspective is well supported. The fact that there seems
to be
a spontaneous increase in the number of postings related to energy
policy,
climate change and the BP oil blowout should be viewed as a
progressive
development, not something worthy of constraint. I would ask how
these
issues could not be conceived as directly relating to coral reef
science?
Are scientists so narrowly focused on their specific research fields
that
they fail to see the bigger picture ?
If the dynamics of the current
disaster doesnt energize listers to
reexamine our overall energy mix along
with the related issue of climate change,
nothing will. More and more people
are urging scientists to take advantage of
their high standing among public
figures to advocate for much needed change..
We certainly can not leave it to
political figures who are highly influenced
by institutionalized special
interests to lead the way.
We may not be able to instantaneously shift the
course to our energy future,
but we have to move to change the current
trajectory before it is too late.
Just yesterday, the National Academy of
Sciences issued its strongest warning
to date, stating that the U.S. should
act now to reduce greenhouse gas emissions
and develop a national strategy to
adapt to the inevitable impacts of climate change.
(http://www8.nationalacademies.org/onpinews/newsitem.aspx?RecordID=051 9201 0)
If we dont act soon, coral reef scientists may leave behind only a legacy of
missed opportunities.
And to Glenn MC Diver, this is not a Save the
Reefs" statement.
No one is preventing you from remaining free to form your
own
opinions.
Regards,
Steve
_______________________________________________
Cor
al-List mailing
list
[email protected]
http://coral.aoml.noaa.gov/mailman/listinf
o/coral-list
_______________________________________________
[email protected]
B6 Privacy
From: Magnus Johnson <
>
Date: May 20, 201 0 4:35:46 PM EDT
Subject: [Coral-List] ***SPAM*** Re: A Plea To Stay On Topic
I've only just joined this list but I was hoping to learn something about
the biology and ecology of tropical marine systems, for which there are few
the biology and ecology of tropical marine systems, for which there are few
fora that get beyond "coffee table book" or (often naive) environmentalist
discussions. I do not deny that these things are important but there are
many many places where these things are discussed and I nowadays find myself
filtering them out in order to get at more interesting nerdy-science posts.
How different dispersants affect coral, bleaching records in various parts
of the world, impacts of climate change on reef systems are interesting and
valid topics. Energy policy is interesting but, to me should be discussed
elsewhere.
In order to solve problems in the environment there is a need for more
information on the nitty gritty physiological and ecological details
relating to reefs. Most ecologists/marine biologists are not narrowly
focussed and are concerned about the world around them but there is room in
the tool box for arenas where we can discuss/contemplate/learn about
important details in isolation. I hoped this was one of them.
Cheers, Magnus
--
Dr Magnus Johnson
Centre for Environmental and Marine Sciences
University of Hull
http://tiny.cc/b4y7j
*****************************************************************************************
To view the terms under which this email is distributed, please go to http://www.hull.ac.uk/legal/email_disclaimer.html
*****************************************************************************************
_______________________________________________
[email protected]
B6 Privacy
From: Andrew Negri
>
Date: May 20, 201 0 5:56:25 PM EDT
Subject: [Coral-List] Corexit 9527
Good morning from the Great Barrier Reef,
Here Corexit 9527 was recently used to disperse a slick resulting from the grounding of the coal carrier Shen Neng 1 on a coral
shoal.
We also published a paper on the effects of Corexit 9527 - in this case the effects on coral fertilization and larval settlement in
Acropora.
Negri AP, Heyward AJ (2000) Inhibition of fertilization and larval metamorphosis of the coral Acropora millepora (Ehrenberg, 1 834)
by petroleum products. Marine Pollution Bulletin 41 :420-427
Cheers,
Andrew
<>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <><
Andrew Negri
Senior Research Scientist
Australian Institute of Marine Science
PMB No. 3 Townsville MC QLD 481 0 Australia
[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>
Negri CV<http://data.aims.gov.au/staffcv/jsf/external/view.jspx?partyId=1 000001 39> Publication
list<http://data.aims.gov.au/extpubs/do/extsearch.do?author=negri&initials=a>
Phone: (07) 4753 4322
Fax: (07) 4772 5852
B6 Privacy
Mob:
<>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <><
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The information contained in this communication is for the use of the
individual or entity to whom it is addressed, and may contain
information which is the subject of legal privilege and/or copyright.
If you have received this communication in error, please notify the
sender by return email and delete the transmission, together with any
attachments, from your system. Thank you.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
[email protected]
Date: May 20, 201 0 6:20:28 PM EDT
To: Rob Ricker < [email protected]>
Cc: Greg Baker < [email protected]>, Scott Stout < [email protected]>, Chris Reddy < [email protected]>, Daniel Hahn
< [email protected]>, Laurie Sullivan < [email protected]>, Deborah French McCay < [email protected]>,
James Payne <[email protected]>, Christopher Plaisted <[email protected]>, Stephanie Willis
Subject: Re: URGENT: fielding teams for upcoming cruises
We had been looking to redeploy SIPPER on the next round of the Jack Fitz but could make the Gordon Gunter deployment if we
make a decsion today/tomorrow. If we went off the Gordon Gunter we would only need one berth because ships crew could
provide the other needed support. Also all SIPPER deployments could be done at night if that would help limit impact on other
operations.
On May 20, 201 0, at 5:27 PM, Rob Ricker < [email protected]> wrote:
Greg,
I just got off a call with various individuals throughout NMFS and NOS and the University of South Florida (and others from
various academic institutions) for planning sampling on a couple of upcoming cruises. In short, there are two vessels preparing
to go back to sea, and we can put NRDA teams on each vessel to collect samples and data for NRDA. I believe that the
Weatherbird is supposed to head back out this weekend, and NOAA's Gordon Gunter (a 68 m long vessel) is scheduled to head
to sea next Tuesday. There is also the Jack Fitz, which I understand is scheduled to depart for another NRDA cruise tomorrow.
following:
water and tarball samples. I've spoken with both Chris Reddy and Scott Stout to identify who we could assign to do this
sampling. Scott is short on staff, but Chris has three of his lab members who are up to date with 8hr HAZWOPPER, some who
could be deployed as early as tomorrow. We need to decide who will go on each vessel. I'd like Greg to compile the names of
folks who will go into the field and make sure that Troy and Ian are are of the operation plans for staffing and activity.
Please try to make yourselves available as soon as possible. Thanks Greg for your help setting up this call. I have to be on a
call in 1 0 minutes with EPA re. coordination of their on-water efforts with ours. I'll jump off the EPA call if needed -- just call my
cell or send me an email, which I'll be monitoring.
Rob
--
Rob Ri c ke r, Ph . D.
Re g i ona l M ana g e r, SW Re g i on
A s se s sm e nt & Re st ora t i on Di v i s i on
O ffi c e of Re spons e a nd Re st ora t i on,

777 S onom a A v e , S u i t e 2 19 A
S a nt a Ros a , C A
9 5 4 0 4
B6 Privacy
C
B6 Privacy
F
E rob. ri c ke r@noa a . g ov
N O A A
Date: May 20, 201 0 6:28:1 9 PM EDT
Also we ran down all the traps last week to access the spill zone for the last cruise. It takes a number of steps that need to be well
coordinated but is otherwise possible and BP/source control was very supportive.
Greg,
various academic institutions) for planning sampling on a couple of upcoming cruises. In short, there are two vessels preparing
to go back to sea, and we can put NRDA teams on each vessel to collect samples and data for NRDA. I believe that the
Weatherbird is supposed to head back out this weekend, and NOAA's Gordon Gunter (a 68 m long vessel) is scheduled to head
to sea next Tuesday. There is also the Jack Fitz, which I understand is scheduled to depart for another NRDA cruise tomorrow.
following:
water and tarball samples. I've spoken with both Chris Reddy and Scott Stout to identify who we could assign to do this
sampling. Scott is short on staff, but Chris has three of his lab members who are up to date with 8hr HAZWOPPER, some who
could be deployed as early as tomorrow. We need to decide who will go on each vessel. I'd like Greg to compile the names of
folks who will go into the field and make sure that Troy and Ian are are of the operation plans for staffing and activity.
call in 1 0 minutes with EPA re. coordination of their on-water efforts with ours. I'll jump off the EPA call if needed -- just call my
cell or send me an email, which I'll be monitoring.
Rob
--
Rob Ri c ke r, Ph . D.
Re g i ona l M ana g e r, SW Re g i on
A s se s sm e nt & Re st ora t i on Di v i s i on
O ffi c e of Re spons e a nd Re st ora t i on,

777 S onom a A v e , S u i t e 2 19 A
S a nt a Ros a , C A
9 5 4 0 4
B6 Privacy
C
B6 Privacy
F
E rob. ri c ke r@noa a . g ov
N O A A
Date: May 20, 201 0 6:31 :27 PM EDT
Thanks Tom. I will ask for one berth for this SIPPER position. Would you also want to deploy on the Weatherbird... or is there
only one SIPPER instrument?
Rob
Tom Moore wrote:
We had been looking to redeploy SIPPER on the next round of the Jack Fitz but could make the Gordon Gunter deployment if
we make a decsion today/tomorrow. If we went off the Gordon Gunter we would only need one berth because ships crew could
operations.
Greg,
various academic institutions) for planning sampling on a couple of upcoming cruises. In short, there are two vessels
preparing to go back to sea, and we can put NRDA teams on each vessel to collect samples and data for NRDA. I believe
that the Weatherbird is supposed to head back out this weekend, and NOAA's Gordon Gunter (a 68 m long vessel) is
scheduled to head to sea next Tuesday. There is also the Jack Fitz, which I understand is scheduled to depart for another
NRDA cruise tomorrow.
following:
1 ) Establish a dedicated team for collecting the source oil, dispersant, and various stages of weathered oil, oil+dispersant,
and water and tarball samples. I've spoken with both Chris Reddy and Scott Stout to identify who we could assign to do this
sampling. Scott is short on staff, but Chris has three of his lab members who are up to date with 8hr HAZWOPPER, some
who could be deployed as early as tomorrow. We need to decide who will go on each vessel. I'd like Greg to compile the
names of folks who will go into the field and make sure that Troy and Ian are are of the operation plans for staffing and
activity.
individuals who we'd like to get on the vessels. I understand that Dan and Tom may also have needs for getting folks out to
sea for collecting more plankton data... again -- I need to know your requirements today.
3) The Gordon Gunter is likely to get access to the hot zone and the Weatherbird is likely to work farther afield. We don't
know how close we'll be able to get to the well head because of all the response activity, but we can discuss this on the call.
call in 1 0 minutes with EPA re. coordination of their on-water efforts with ours. I'll jump off the EPA call if needed -- just call
my cell or send me an email, which I'll be monitoring.
Rob
--
Rob Ricker, Ph.D.
B6 Privacy
C
B6 Privacy
F
E [email protected]
--
Rob Ricker, Ph.D.
B6 Privacy
C
B6 Privacy
F
E [email protected]
Date: May 20, 201 0 6:35:53 PM EDT
Only one SIPPER and the PI is still demobing data from from last cruise so couldn't make a Saturday departure but Tuesday
would work. GG is also a better ship.
Rob
Tom Moore wrote:
we make a decsion today/tomorrow. If we went off the Gordon Gunter we would only need one berth because ships crew
could provide the other needed support. Also all SIPPER deployments could be done at night if that would help limit impact
on other operations.
Greg,
following:
activity.
2) Identify the types of samples and data that we'd like to collect on these cruises. Scott is working up a list of the samples
he needs for the environmental forensics, and many of these types of samples are the same as previously identified by Jim
and Debbie for the modeling input. Debbie is organizing personnel and equipment for analyzing droplet size, which might
involve a person to use microscopy techniques of use a coulter counter. We need to determine what equipment and the
number of individuals who we'd like to get on the vessels. I understand that Dan and Tom may also have needs for getting
folks out to sea for collecting more plankton data... again -- I need to know your requirements today.
Please try to make yourselves available as soon as possible. Thanks Greg for your help setting up this call. I have to be on
a call in 1 0 minutes with EPA re. coordination of their on-water efforts with ours. I'll jump off the EPA call if needed -- just
call my cell or send me an email, which I'll be monitoring.
Rob
--
Rob Ricker, Ph.D.
B6 Privacy
C
B6 Privacy
F
E [email protected]
--
Rob Ricker, Ph.D.
B6 Privacy
C
B6 Privacy
F
E [email protected]
From: Greg Baker < [email protected]>
Date: May 20, 201 0 6:40:1 1 PM EDT
Cc: Rob Ricker < [email protected]>, Scott Stout < [email protected]>, Chris Reddy < [email protected]>, Daniel Hahn
Subject: Re: URGENT: fielding teams for upcoming cruises CALL AT 4PM Pacific, 7PM Eastern (20 minutes)
For all who can, please jump on the following conf line to discuss at 4PM Pacific:
B6 Privacy
passcode
B6 Privacy
Greg Baker
Tom Moore wrote:
we make a decsion today/tomorrow. If we went off the Gordon Gunter we would only need one berth because ships crew could
operations.
On May 20, 201 0, at 5:27 PM, Rob Ricker < [email protected] < mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
Greg,
that the /Weatherbird /is supposed to head back out this weekend, and NOAA's /Gordon Gunter/ (a 68 m long vessel) is
that the /Weatherbird /is supposed to head back out this weekend, and NOAA's /Gordon Gunter/ (a 68 m long vessel) is
scheduled to head to sea next Tuesday. There is also the /Jack Fitz/, which I understand is scheduled to depart for another
following:
activity.
Rob
--
Rob Ricker, Ph.D.
B6 Privacy
C
B6 Privacy
F
E [email protected] < mailto:[email protected]>
Date: May 20, 201 0 6:40:51 PM EDT
I raised the access issue as one of the main priorities for us on the Gordon Gunter. Because we have support for this cruise at
the highest NOAA levels, I know that this request is going through to the Response operations as a high priority.
Rob
Tom Moore wrote:
Also we ran down all the traps last week to access the spill zone for the last cruise. It takes a number of steps that need to be
well coordinated but is otherwise possible and BP/source control was very supportive.
Greg,
following:
activity.
Rob
--
Rob Ricker, Ph.D.
B6 Privacy
C
B6 Privacy
F
E [email protected]
--
Rob Ricker, Ph.D.
B6 Privacy
C
B6 Privacy
F
E [email protected]
Date: May 20, 201 0 6:51 :53 PM EDT
Cool -- we'll go with that as one part of our request. You don't need to be on the call that GB is setting up if that is all you will be
requesting, but you are welcome to join.
Rob
Tom Moore wrote:
Only one SIPPER and the PI is still demobing data from from last cruise so couldn't make a Saturday departure but Tuesday
would work. GG is also a better ship.
Rob
Tom Moore wrote:
We had been looking to redeploy SIPPER on the next round of the Jack Fitz but could make the Gordon Gunter deployment
if we make a decsion today/tomorrow. If we went off the Gordon Gunter we would only need one berth because ships crew
could provide the other needed support. Also all SIPPER deployments could be done at night if that would help limit impact
on other operations.
Greg,
preparing to go back to sea, and we can put NRDA teams on each vessel to collect samples and data for NRDA. I
believe that the Weatherbird is supposed to head back out this weekend, and NOAA's Gordon Gunter (a 68 m long vessel)
is scheduled to head to sea next Tuesday. There is also the Jack Fitz, which I understand is scheduled to depart for
another NRDA cruise tomorrow.
following:
and water and tarball samples. I've spoken with both Chris Reddy and Scott Stout to identify who we could assign to do
this sampling. Scott is short on staff, but Chris has three of his lab members who are up to date with 8hr HAZWOPPER,
some who could be deployed as early as tomorrow. We need to decide who will go on each vessel. I'd like Greg to
compile the names of folks who will go into the field and make sure that Troy and Ian are are of the operation plans for
staffing and activity.
2) Identify the types of samples and data that we'd like to collect on these cruises. Scott is working up a list of the
samples he needs for the environmental forensics, and many of these types of samples are the same as previously
identified by Jim and Debbie for the modeling input. Debbie is organizing personnel and equipment for analyzing droplet
size, which might involve a person to use microscopy techniques of use a coulter counter. We need to determine what
equipment and the number of individuals who we'd like to get on the vessels. I understand that Dan and Tom may also
have needs for getting folks out to sea for collecting more plankton data... again -- I need to know your requirements
today.
know how close we'll be able to get to the well head because of all the response activity, but we can discuss this on the
call.
Please try to make yourselves available as soon as possible. Thanks Greg for your help setting up this call. I have to be
on a call in 1 0 minutes with EPA re. coordination of their on-water efforts with ours. I'll jump off the EPA call if needed --
just call my cell or send me an email, which I'll be monitoring.
Rob
--
Rob Ricker, Ph.D.
B6 Privacy
C
B6 Privacy
F
E [email protected]
--
Rob Ricker, Ph.D.
B6 Privacy
C
B6 Privacy
F
E [email protected]
--
Rob Ricker, Ph.D.
B6 Privacy
C
B6 Privacy
F
E [email protected]
From: [email protected]
Date: May 20, 201 0 8:1 5:33 PM EDT
Cc: Tom Moore < [email protected]>, Greg Baker < [email protected]>, Scott Stout < [email protected]>, Daniel
Hahn < [email protected]>, Laurie Sullivan < [email protected]>, Deborah French McCay < [email protected]>,
Subject: Technicians available from Woods Hole
Hi All
Three people, all who have taken the 8 hr course, are available from Cape Cod
and willing to fly asap.
Catherine Carmichael--good organic geochemistry skills, organized...limited sea
time and little knowledge of sampling at sea. Would be a solid assistant.
Bob Nelson and Sean Sylva---solid organic geochemistry technicians, both have
been at sea for at least a year total, with a little training could handle
sampling operations on any platform.
yours,
Chris Reddy
Quoting Rob Ricker < [email protected]>:
Cool -- we'll go with that as one part of our request. You don't need
to be on the call that GB is setting up if that is all you will be
Rob
Tom Moore wrote:
Only one SIPPER and the PI is still demobing data from from last
cruise so couldn't make a Saturday departure but Tuesday would work.
GG is also a better ship.
Thanks Tom. I will ask for one berth for this SIPPER position.
Would you also want to deploy on the Weatherbird... or is there only
one SIPPER instrument?
Rob
Tom Moore wrote:
We had been looking to redeploy SIPPER on the next round of the Jack
Fitz but could make the Gordon Gunter deployment if we make a
decsion today/tomorrow. If we went off the Gordon Gunter we would
only need one berth because ships crew could provide the other
needed support. Also all SIPPER deployments could be done at night
if that would help limit impact on other operations.
Greg,
I just got off a call with various individuals throughout NMFS and
NOS and the University of South Florida (and others from various
academic institutions) for planning sampling on a couple of
upcoming cruises. In short, there are two vessels preparing to go
back to sea, and we can put NRDA teams on each vessel to collect
samples and data for NRDA. I believe that the Weatherbird is
supposed to head back out this weekend, and NOAA's Gordon Gunter (a
68 m long vessel) is scheduled to head to sea next Tuesday. There
is also the Jack Fitz, which I understand is scheduled to depart
for another NRDA cruise tomorrow.
I would like you, Greg, to schedule a call with all of us listed on
this email as soon as possible so that we can discuss the following:
1 ) Establish a dedicated team for collecting the source oil,
dispersant, and various stages of weathered oil, oil+dispersant,
and water and tarball samples. I've spoken with both Chris Reddy
and Scott Stout to identify who we could assign to do this
sampling. Scott is short on staff, but Chris has three of his lab
members who are up to date with 8hr HAZWOPPER, some who could be
deployed as early as tomorrow. We need to decide who will go on
each vessel. I'd like Greg to compile the names of folks who will
go into the field and make sure that Troy and Ian are are of the
operation plans for staffing and activity.
2) Identify the types of samples and data that we'd like to
collect on these cruises. Scott is working up a list of the
samples he needs for the environmental forensics, and many of these
types of samples are the same as previously identified by Jim and
Debbie for the modeling input. Debbie is organizing personnel and
equipment for analyzing droplet size, which might involve a person
to use microscopy techniques of use a coulter counter. We need to
determine what equipment and the number of individuals who we'd
like to get on the vessels. I understand that Dan and Tom may also
have needs for getting folks out to sea for collecting more
plankton data... again -- I need to know your requirements today.
3) The Gordon Gunter is likely to get access to the hot zone and
the Weatherbird is likely to work farther afield. We don't know
how close we'll be able to get to the well head because of all the
response activity, but we can discuss this on the call.
Please try to make yourselves available as soon as possible.
Thanks Greg for your help setting up this call. I have to be on a
call in 1 0 minutes with EPA re. coordination of their on-water
efforts with ours. I'll jump off the EPA call if needed -- just
Rob
--
Rob Ricker, Ph.D.
B6 Privacy
C
B6 Privacy
F
E [email protected]
--
Rob Ricker, Ph.D.
B6 Privacy
C
B6 Privacy
F
E [email protected]
--
Rob Ricker, Ph.D.
B6 Privacy
C
B6 Privacy
F
E [email protected]
----------------------------------------------------------------
This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging Program.
Date: May 20, 201 0 8:41 :22 PM EDT
Cc: Rob Ricker < [email protected]>, Tom Moore < [email protected]>, Greg Baker < [email protected]>, Scott
Stout < [email protected]>, Daniel Hahn < [email protected]>, Deborah French McCay < [email protected]>,
Subject: Re: Technicians available from Woods Hole
This should have the safety requirements for this incident. You need to sign the NOAA safety plan. I think the directions are in
the NOAA Safety Documentation Requirements attachemnt
[email protected] wrote:
Hi All
Three people, all who have taken the 8 hr course, are available from Cape Cod
and willing to fly asap.
Catherine Carmichael--good organic geochemistry skills, organized...limited sea
time and little knowledge of sampling at sea. Would be a solid assistant.
Bob Nelson and Sean Sylva---solid organic geochemistry technicians, both have
been at sea for at least a year total, with a little training could handle
sampling operations on any platform.
yours,
Chris Reddy
Quoting Rob Ricker < [email protected]>:
Cool -- we'll go with that as one part of our request. You don't need
to be on the call that GB is setting up if that is all you will be
Rob
Tom Moore wrote:
Only one SIPPER and the PI is still demobing data from from last
cruise so couldn't make a Saturday departure but Tuesday would work.
GG is also a better ship.
Thanks Tom. I will ask for one berth for this SIPPER position.
Would you also want to deploy on the Weatherbird... or is there only
one SIPPER instrument?
Rob
Tom Moore wrote:
We had been looking to redeploy SIPPER on the next round of the Jack
Fitz but could make the Gordon Gunter deployment if we make a
decsion today/tomorrow. If we went off the Gordon Gunter we would
only need one berth because ships crew could provide the other
needed support. Also all SIPPER deployments could be done at night
if that would help limit impact on other operations.
Greg,
I just got off a call with various individuals throughout NMFS and
NOS and the University of South Florida (and others from various
academic institutions) for planning sampling on a couple of
upcoming cruises. In short, there are two vessels preparing to go
back to sea, and we can put NRDA teams on each vessel to collect
samples and data for NRDA. I believe that the Weatherbird is
supposed to head back out this weekend, and NOAA's Gordon Gunter (a
68 m long vessel) is scheduled to head to sea next Tuesday. There
is also the Jack Fitz, which I understand is scheduled to depart
for another NRDA cruise tomorrow.
I would like you, Greg, to schedule a call with all of us listed on
this email as soon as possible so that we can discuss the following:
1 ) Establish a dedicated team for collecting the source oil,
dispersant, and various stages of weathered oil, oil+dispersant,
and water and tarball samples. I've spoken with both Chris Reddy
and Scott Stout to identify who we could assign to do this
sampling. Scott is short on staff, but Chris has three of his lab
deployed as early as tomorrow. We need to decide who will go on
each vessel. I'd like Greg to compile the names of folks who will
go into the field and make sure that Troy and Ian are are of the
operation plans for staffing and activity.
2) Identify the types of samples and data that we'd like to
collect on these cruises. Scott is working up a list of the
samples he needs for the environmental forensics, and many of these
types of samples are the same as previously identified by Jim and
Debbie for the modeling input. Debbie is organizing personnel and
equipment for analyzing droplet size, which might involve a person
to use microscopy techniques of use a coulter counter. We need to
determine what equipment and the number of individuals who we'd
like to get on the vessels. I understand that Dan and Tom may also
have needs for getting folks out to sea for collecting more
plankton data... again -- I need to know your requirements today.
3) The Gordon Gunter is likely to get access to the hot zone and
the Weatherbird is likely to work farther afield. We don't know
how close we'll be able to get to the well head because of all the
response activity, but we can discuss this on the call.
Please try to make yourselves available as soon as possible.
Thanks Greg for your help setting up this call. I have to be on a
call in 1 0 minutes with EPA re. coordination of their on-water
efforts with ours. I'll jump off the EPA call if needed -- just
Rob
--
Rob Ricker, Ph.D.
B6 Privacy
C
B6 Privacy
F
E [email protected]
--
Rob Ricker, Ph.D.
B6 Privacy
C
B6 Privacy
F
E [email protected]
--
Rob Ricker, Ph.D.
Office of Response & Restoration / Assessment & Restoration Division
LSU Sea Grant Building, Room 1 24B
Baton Rouge, LA 70803
B6 Privacy
(cell)
(office) B6 Privacy
B6 Privacy
(fax)
From: Cheryl Brodnax < [email protected]>
Date: May 21 , 201 0 1 1 :22:22 AM EDT
To: "'[email protected]'" < [email protected]>, "'[email protected]'" < [email protected]>,
"'[email protected]'" < [email protected]>
Subject: Fw: Long term fate and transport (incl. fractionating) of subsurface oil from GoM Deepwater Horizon leak
Interesting chain
From: Robert Jacobsen <[email protected]>
To: Schexnayder, Mark A. <[email protected]>
Cc: Jerome Zeringue <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]>;
[email protected] <[email protected]>; Todd Davison <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]>; Coreil,
Paul D. <[email protected]>; Chuck Wilson <[email protected]>; Thomas, Glenn <[email protected]>; Cheryl Brodnax
<[email protected]>; Robert Twilley <[email protected]>; Mullen, Stephen R. <[email protected]>; Wolcott, Maurice C.
<[email protected]>; Leonard Bahr <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]>; Steve Mathies
<[email protected]>; Natalie Snider <[email protected] >; Natalie Snider < [email protected] >; [email protected] <[email protected] >;
[email protected] <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]>; Paul Kemp < [email protected]>
Sent: Fri May 21 11:14:06 2010
Subject: Long term fate and transport (incl. fractionating) of subsurface oil from GoM Deepwater Horizon leak
Mark:
The discussion you forwarded me (below) on plume fractionation is an interesting attempt at a very important analysis.
Developing a reasonable notion of the volume of oil, it's potential re-distribution in the water column, and it's transport and fate--is JOB 1 for the
ecosystem response community. This is TEXTBOOK environmental protection--taught in undergraduate environmental classes for two decades and
undestood by any professional. "The man" on fate and transport is Dr. Louis Thibodeaux at the LSU Department of Chemical Engineering. He authored
the classic "Environmental Chemodynamics" and has taught the course for decades. On April 30th, one day after BP increased the leak estimate rate
from 1,000 to 5,000 BBL/day the Wall Street Journal reported that some scientists were indicating the rate could be much higher. We have lost much
valuable time in addressing this issue.
Consider this: If BP stopped the leak tomorrow it is still likely that we will have millions of BBLS of oil in the subsurface GoM. At an average
concentration of 1% (oil in water), each 1 million BBLs of "dispersed" plume is the equivalent of a toxic oil soup 20 square miles 1 foot deep. In actuality,
there will be multiple plumes, at varying specific gravities and depths, with varying concentrations and thicknesses, fractionating in the subsurface for
MONTHS to come! If substantial plugging of the leak does not occur for many more weeks, it is likely that there will be tens of millions of BBLS of
subsurface oil.
The ecosystem response community needs to get a handle on what we're dealing with ASAP and formulate reasonable "end points." We may well learn
over this summer that we will have to aim for some modest level of Delta-Wide restoration 3-5 years (it may be 10 years) down the road.
Our most significant tool may well be MASSIVE DIVERSIONS of Mississippi River water into Breton Sound and Barataria/Terrebonne Bays next spring
and for many springs to come.
Your idea about using the Bohemia Spillway will likely become critical!
Bob
From: Schexnayder, Mark A. [mailto:[email protected]]
To: Robert Jacobsen
Subject: Fwd: noladishu posts on oil complexity w/ chemical engineer info
Plume composition discussion
Mark Schexnayder
Coastal Advisor
LSU AgCenter/La. Sea Grant
From: "Picou, Stephen" < [email protected]>
Date: May 20, 201 0 1 0:07:25 AM CDT
To: "Schexnayder, Mark A." < [email protected]>
Subject: noladishu posts on oil complexity w/chemical engineer info
More scary but informative information about exactly what this stuff is and could be.
SP
B6 Privacy
From: B6 Privacy @gmail.com"
@yahoo.com>
Date: Wed, 1 9 May 201 0 1 8:1 4:59
To: NOLA Bloggers<[email protected]>
Subject: [Bloggers] Re: Fwd: Fwd: Oil on your beach? Help us document it
That's complicated. Chemical composition can change over time. Wells
can heavy-up and sour-up. Also, there's a ChemE at The Oil Drum
that's suggested that, in a nut shell, the oil is becoming
fractionated as it leaves the leak. Between hydrostatic pressure
gradients, Corexit treatment, and multiple grades of oil, there may
actually be three chemically distinct plumes of oil leaving the
wellhead all flowing in different, 3-dimensional ways.
It's possible that chemical analysis of the surface oil is leading
them to discount the heavier fractions coming from the same well.
OTOH, the article references "bilge water" as a possible source.
Bilges contain refined oil (lube oil, etc.) that is chemically quite
unique compared to raw crude. For example, Lube Oil doesn't flouresce
(sp?) under UV light. If you dig around on these guys website
( http://www.oilinwatermonitors.com/ ), you can learn a little more.
They make the overboard analyzers that the Coast Guard, et. al.
requires to be on every offshore platform's produced water leg.
In the end, this could be the same oil from a heavier fraction, or it
could be from a different source, possibly refined oil from a ship's
lube oil system.
Here's the post from The Oil Drum:
----------------
I think I can explain the fractionation of the oil from the Deepwater
Horizon spill. This is different from an ordinary blow-out in that the
methane remains supercritical all the way up the drill hole to the
blow-out preventer (BOP) the way the well is discharging now. Since
the hydrocarbon reservoir that was penetrated has a high methane
content, and is at very high pressure (~1 5000 psi), I am pretty sure
that within the reservoir the oil + gas are miscible; a "supercritical
solution." There is not a separate oil layer & gas layer until
pressure is reduced. My hypothesis can explain three subsurface oil
plumes:
1 . A preliminary phase separation occurs between the heaviest oil
components (asphaltenes) and the rest of the crude oil, which remains
in a methane-based supercritical solution, as the crude rises the
1 8000 feet from the reservoir to the bottom of the BOP. Gravitational
pressure drop depends on average density of the solution, which I
guess to be ~.6 g/cc; a pressure reduction on the order of 6000 psi
can be anticipated, and a corresponding temperature reduction and
volume increase corresponding to adiabatic expansion. The heaviest
fraction is hypothesized to have already phase separated from the
crude oil prior to reaching the BOP, and this phase forms the deepest
oil plume, floating within 40 feet of the sea floor. (In rising from
the reservoir, most of the pressure drop is due to gravitational
lifting, as the flow is too slow for much viscous dissipation. The
flow may be fast enough to sweep the phase separated asphaltenes up
the pipe, if the velocity is greater than the sedimentation velocity
of the asphaltene droplets.)
2. A very large pressure drop occurs in passing through the partially
sealed BOP. When the solution goes through the flow restriction at the
BOP, its pressure goes from ~9000 psi to near 2250 psi, causing a
phase separation in which the natural gas based phase goes subcritical
in less than a second. Even after the expansion, the two phase flow is
still very hot, high enough for the methane phase to remain a good
solvent for the light oil fractions. (The expansion should be close to
an isothermal expansion, differing only from isothermal due to the
Joule effect, and due to condensation of a liquid phase; I expect a
small increase in temperature going through the BOP orifice.) As
pressure and density are reduced, the supercritical methane phase
decomposes into two phases, a primarily heavy oil liquid phase,
saturated with methane (I expect this to be a viscous liquid, specific
gravity ~.8; still containing quite a bit of dissolved methane), and:
3. A subcritical dense gas phase solution containing most of the
gasoline and light oil fractions, and some heavy oil. This dense gas
phase also forms downstream of the BOP orifice. This dense gas phase
contains most of the methane. After this exits the pipe and mixes with
sea water, the methane separates out as this solution cools, leading
to the lowest density, lowest viscosity, fastest rising oil plume.
This fraction, the light oil/gasoline plume could have a density as
low as ~.75 g/cc) and would rise quickly; perhaps this is the only
plume to reach the surface so far.
4. A fourth subsea plume of methane hydrate is formed as the natural
gas separates from the light oil/gas phase as it cools and expands
(after exiting the riser pipe). Most of the methane forms hydrates and
slowly settles to the ocean floor (methane hydrate at this depth has
density of 1 .04 g/cc, so it sinks).
This scenario can explain four distinct plumes emanating from the
leaking Deep Horizon well head. Most of the 3-phase hydrocarbon
mixture vents out of the riser about a mile away from the BOP, while
something like 1 5% of the hydrocarbon flow exits from a kink just
above the BOP. After the three hydrocarbon phases mix with sea water,
the fourth phase (methane hydrate) forms. The asphaltenes, which form
the densest phase and the lowest plume, may take years to reach the
surface, by which time they may well have mixed with the Atlantic deep
waters via the circulation around Florida.
What is happening at the Deep Horizon oil spill is sort of a doomsday
scenario, which can only happen this way because of the unique
stepwise pressure reduction as the oil exits the reservoir. Because
the oil has been fractionated, it is not rising as a single phase, as
has been the case in all previous oil spills. If my hypothesis is
correct, most of the oil is contained in two separate plumes that have
not yet reached the ocean surface...God help us.
There are testable predictions that come out of this theory:
1 ) If there are three oil plumes as I suggest, and the oil that has
made it to the surface so far is from the "lightest" (lowest molecular
weight, lowest boiling point range). The tarballs that are forming now
will be the residue of the light fraction, after evaporation of
volatiles, and should be depleted of asphaltenes compared to the oil
samples obtained by BP before they attempted to kill the well.
2) Similarly, there should be asphaltene content differences between
each of the plume samples collected by the Pelican Research vessel
(http://news.olemiss.edu/index.php?/niustblog/) such that asphaltene
content is highest for the deepest samples.
-------------------
> To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected].
> For more options, visit this group athttp://groups.google.com/group/nola-bloggers?hl=en.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "NOLA Bloggers" group.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected].
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/nola-bloggers?hl=en.
--
" [email protected]" <NolaEngineer1 [email protected]> May 1 9 07:51 PM -0700 ^
More ChemE nerdiness:
-------------
http://www.theoildrum.com/node/6482#comment-625925
WHY IS THE OIL RED?
Just getting back online; not up on latest posts. Yesterday Alan
verified that the submerged oil looks red. I just looked at the
Greenpeace photos posted today showing reddish light colored oil clots
(not really as firm as tarballs). I suspect these are reflective
(white tone) due to entrained sea water droplets in the oil (the same
reason that mayonnaise is white: both are "water in oil" emulsions, I
think). Would someone please check that for me? If I am correct, if
you heat these clots up, boil away the water, they should look like
red oil; "maltenes" is one term applicable. If as I predict, this fits
with my hypothesis posted in detail yesterday (http://
www.theoildrum.com/node/6481 #comment-625641 )that fractionation of the
oil is occurring on or below the seafloor. The reddish snotty stuff in
the Greenpeace photos is the middle cut, the portion that drops out of
solution as the supercritical solution goes subcritical as it goes
from ~9000 psi in front of the orifice (BOP leak) to about 2250 psi
just down stream of there. This oil is colored because it has very low
content of asphaltenes (which are very black), I think because the
asphaltenes phase separated from the supercritical mixture (methane/
ethane/.../oil/) as the crude oil rose 1 8000 feet from the reservoir
to the BOP.
I note the following news from NOAA yesterday:
>6. Samples of water from the underwater "plumes" have been taken by the Pelican research ship. These samples
have been divided and sent to testing centers, but no results are yet available.
I predict that individual droplets will tend to fall in one of three
categories, asphaltenes, maltenes, or light hydrocarbons. The plumes
may contain particles of two different kinds, however; for example,
large asphaltene droplets at 1 .00 specific gravity could rise faster
than emulsified small droplet size maltenes at specific gravity 0.85
(e.g.). I expect there are likely to be five apparent plumes, two of
which are created by overlap areas of two plumes: going from the
bottom to the top: asphaltene; asphaltene + maltene; maltene; maltene
+ light hydrocarbons; light hydrocarbons. I think these are the five
plume layers detected by the Pelican.
[If samples sit around a while the light hyrocarbon phase may dissolve
back into the maltene phase (a fairly slow process because this occurs
via either brownian motion or else hexane-like molecules dissolving
into water then dissolving into the maltene droplets).]
Each phase will be slightly contaminated with the other phase, but the
composition of individual droplets will be distinctly one of the
phases (unless two or more droplets have merged to form a given
droplet), with light hydrocarbons fraction floating fastest, and
asphaltenes rising slowest (if all droplets were the same size, but of
course they are not).
I also predict that eventually the asphaltene layer will reach the
surface. The high asphaltene content phase will be reminiscent of
"stillbottoms" sort of material. It may well have a softening
temperature high enough that it will almost be like sand when it
reaches the surface. I do not believe this material (asphaltenes) will
be nearly as dangerous to sea life as the oil; mainly because these
are likely solids at sea water temperature (and if we are lucky, stay
solid in hot sun on the beach). I don't think asphaltenes will wet out
feathers or gills, whereas the emulsified oil might. Asphaltenes are
widely distributed in nature. They are found in all sedimentary rocks,
and occasionally deposits of pure asphaltenes are formed (e.g.,
Gilsonite).
---------------
Sincerely,
Steve Picou
Area Housing Agent
LSU AgCenter Crescent Region
504-838-1170 - office
B6 Privacy
- cell
[email protected]
http://www.louisianahouse.org
http://www.lsuagcenter.com/rebuilding/
http://www.lsuagcenter.com/disasterrecovery/
"Theeconomyisawhollyownedsubsidiaryoftheenvironment,
nottheotherwayaround"GaylordNelson
"Workwiththeearth,notagainstit.Fortheearthdoesnotbelongtoyou.
Youbelongtotheearth."WallaceStegner
Please consider the environment before printing this email.
Date: May 21 , 201 0 1 1 :52:59 AM EDT
Subject: Fwd: Long term fate and transport (incl. fractionating) of subsurface oil from GoM Deepwater Horizon leak
FYI...
From: Cheryl Brodnax < [email protected]>
Date: May 21 , 201 0 1 1 :22:22 AM EDT
To: "'[email protected]'" < [email protected]>, "'[email protected]'" < [email protected]>,
"'[email protected]'" < [email protected]>
Subject: Fw: Long term fate and transport (incl. fractionating) of subsurface oil from GoM Deepwater Horizon leak
Interesting chain
From: Robert Jacobsen <[email protected]>
To: Schexnayder, Mark A. <[email protected]>
Cc: Jerome Zeringue <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected] >; [email protected] <[email protected]>;
[email protected] <[email protected]>; Todd Davison <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]>; Coreil,
Paul D. <[email protected]>; Chuck Wilson <[email protected]>; Thomas, Glenn <[email protected]>; Cheryl Brodnax
<[email protected]>; Robert Twilley <[email protected]>; Mullen, Stephen R. < [email protected]>; Wolcott, Maurice C.
<[email protected]>; Leonard Bahr <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]>; Steve Mathies
<[email protected] >; Natalie Snider <[email protected] >; Natalie Snider < [email protected] >; [email protected] <[email protected] >;
[email protected] <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]>; Paul Kemp < [email protected]>
Sent: Fri May 21 11:14:06 2010
Subject: Long term fate and transport (incl. fractionating) of subsurface oil from GoM Deepwater Horizon leak
Mark:
The discussion you forwarded me (below) on plume fractionation is an interesting attempt at a very important analysis.
Developing a reasonable notion of the volume of oil, it's potential re-distribution in the water column, and it's transport and fate--is JOB 1 for the
ecosystem response community. This is TEXTBOOK environmental protection--taught in undergraduate environmental classes for two decades and
undestood by any professional. "The man" on fate and transport is Dr. Louis Thibodeaux at the LSU Department of Chemical Engineering. He
authored the classic "Environmental Chemodynamics" and has taught the course for decades. On April 30th, one day after BP increased the leak
estimate rate from 1,000 to 5,000 BBL/day the Wall Street Journal reported that some scientists were indicating the rate could be much higher. We
have lost much valuable time in addressing this issue.
Consider this: If BP stopped the leak tomorrow it is still likely that we will have millions of BBLS of oil in the subsurface GoM. At an average
concentration of 1 % (oil in water), each 1 million BBLs of "dispersed" plume is the equivalent of a toxic oil soup 20 square miles 1 foot deep. In
actuality, there will be multiple plumes, at varying specific gravities and depths, with varying concentrations and thicknesses, fractionating in the
subsurface for MONTHS to come! If substantial plugging of the leak does not occur for many more weeks, it is likely that there will be tens of millions
of BBLS of subsurface oil.
The ecosystem response community needs to get a handle on what we're dealing with ASAP and formulate reasonable "end points." We may well
learn over this summer that we will have to aim for some modest level of Delta-Wide restoration 3-5 years (it may be 10 years) down the road.
Our most significant tool may well be MASSIVE DIVERSIONS of Mississippi River water into Breton Sound and Barataria/Terrebonne Bays next spring
and for many springs to come.
Your idea about using the Bohemia Spillway will likely become critical!
Bob
From: Schexnayder, Mark A. [mailto:[email protected]]
To: Robert Jacobsen
Subject: Fwd: noladishu posts on oil complexity w/ chemical engineer info
Plume composition discussion
Mark Schexnayder
Coastal Advisor
LSU AgCenter/La. Sea Grant
From: "Picou, Stephen" < [email protected]>
Date: May 20, 201 0 1 0:07:25 AM CDT
To: "Schexnayder, Mark A." < [email protected]>
Subject: noladishu posts on oil complexity w/chemical engineer info
More scary but informative information about exactly what this stuff is and could be.
SP
B6 Privacy
From:
Date: Wed, 1 9 May 201 0 1 8:1 4:59
To: NOLA Bloggers<[email protected]>
Subject: [Bloggers] Re: Fwd: Fwd: Oil on your beach? Help us document it
That's complicated. Chemical composition can change over time. Wells
can heavy-up and sour-up. Also, there's a ChemE at The Oil Drum
that's suggested that, in a nut shell, the oil is becoming
fractionated as it leaves the leak. Between hydrostatic pressure
gradients, Corexit treatment, and multiple grades of oil, there may
actually be three chemically distinct plumes of oil leaving the
wellhead all flowing in different, 3-dimensional ways.
It's possible that chemical analysis of the surface oil is leading
them to discount the heavier fractions coming from the same well.
OTOH, the article references "bilge water" as a possible source.
Bilges contain refined oil (lube oil, etc.) that is chemically quite
unique compared to raw crude. For example, Lube Oil doesn't flouresce
(sp?) under UV light. If you dig around on these guys website
( http://www.oilinwatermonitors.com/ ), you can learn a little more.
They make the overboard analyzers that the Coast Guard, et. al.
requires to be on every offshore platform's produced water leg.
In the end, this could be the same oil from a heavier fraction, or it
could be from a different source, possibly refined oil from a ship's
lube oil system.
Here's the post from The Oil Drum:
----------------
I think I can explain the fractionation of the oil from the Deepwater
Horizon spill. This is different from an ordinary blow-out in that the
methane remains supercritical all the way up the drill hole to the
blow-out preventer (BOP) the way the well is discharging now. Since
the hydrocarbon reservoir that was penetrated has a high methane
content, and is at very high pressure (~1 5000 psi), I am pretty sure
that within the reservoir the oil + gas are miscible; a "supercritical
solution." There is not a separate oil layer & gas layer until
pressure is reduced. My hypothesis can explain three subsurface oil
plumes:
1 . A preliminary phase separation occurs between the heaviest oil
components (asphaltenes) and the rest of the crude oil, which remains
in a methane-based supercritical solution, as the crude rises the
1 8000 feet from the reservoir to the bottom of the BOP. Gravitational
pressure drop depends on average density of the solution, which I
guess to be ~.6 g/cc; a pressure reduction on the order of 6000 psi
can be anticipated, and a corresponding temperature reduction and
volume increase corresponding to adiabatic expansion. The heaviest
fraction is hypothesized to have already phase separated from the
crude oil prior to reaching the BOP, and this phase forms the deepest
oil plume, floating within 40 feet of the sea floor. (In rising from
the reservoir, most of the pressure drop is due to gravitational
lifting, as the flow is too slow for much viscous dissipation. The
flow may be fast enough to sweep the phase separated asphaltenes up
the pipe, if the velocity is greater than the sedimentation velocity
of the asphaltene droplets.)
2. A very large pressure drop occurs in passing through the partially
sealed BOP. When the solution goes through the flow restriction at the
BOP, its pressure goes from ~9000 psi to near 2250 psi, causing a
phase separation in which the natural gas based phase goes subcritical
in less than a second. Even after the expansion, the two phase flow is
still very hot, high enough for the methane phase to remain a good
solvent for the light oil fractions. (The expansion should be close to
an isothermal expansion, differing only from isothermal due to the
Joule effect, and due to condensation of a liquid phase; I expect a
small increase in temperature going through the BOP orifice.) As
pressure and density are reduced, the supercritical methane phase
decomposes into two phases, a primarily heavy oil liquid phase,
saturated with methane (I expect this to be a viscous liquid, specific
gravity ~.8; still containing quite a bit of dissolved methane), and:
3. A subcritical dense gas phase solution containing most of the
gasoline and light oil fractions, and some heavy oil. This dense gas
phase also forms downstream of the BOP orifice. This dense gas phase
contains most of the methane. After this exits the pipe and mixes with
sea water, the methane separates out as this solution cools, leading
to the lowest density, lowest viscosity, fastest rising oil plume.
This fraction, the light oil/gasoline plume could have a density as
low as ~.75 g/cc) and would rise quickly; perhaps this is the only
plume to reach the surface so far.
4. A fourth subsea plume of methane hydrate is formed as the natural
gas separates from the light oil/gas phase as it cools and expands
(after exiting the riser pipe). Most of the methane forms hydrates and
slowly settles to the ocean floor (methane hydrate at this depth has
density of 1 .04 g/cc, so it sinks).
leaking Deep Horizon well head. Most of the 3-phase hydrocarbon
mixture vents out of the riser about a mile away from the BOP, while
something like 1 5% of the hydrocarbon flow exits from a kink just
above the BOP. After the three hydrocarbon phases mix with sea water,
the fourth phase (methane hydrate) forms. The asphaltenes, which form
the densest phase and the lowest plume, may take years to reach the
surface, by which time they may well have mixed with the Atlantic deep
waters via the circulation around Florida.
What is happening at the Deep Horizon oil spill is sort of a doomsday
scenario, which can only happen this way because of the unique
stepwise pressure reduction as the oil exits the reservoir. Because
the oil has been fractionated, it is not rising as a single phase, as
has been the case in all previous oil spills. If my hypothesis is
correct, most of the oil is contained in two separate plumes that have
not yet reached the ocean surface...God help us.
There are testable predictions that come out of this theory:
made it to the surface so far is from the "lightest" (lowest molecular
weight, lowest boiling point range). The tarballs that are forming now
will be the residue of the light fraction, after evaporation of
volatiles, and should be depleted of asphaltenes compared to the oil
samples obtained by BP before they attempted to kill the well.
2) Similarly, there should be asphaltene content differences between
each of the plume samples collected by the Pelican Research vessel
(http://news.olemiss.edu/index.php?/niustblog/) such that asphaltene
content is highest for the deepest samples.
-------------------
> To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected].
> For more options, visit this group athttp://groups.google.com/group/nola-bloggers?hl=en.
--
--
" [email protected]" <NolaEngineer1 [email protected]> May 1 9 07:51 PM -0700 ^
More ChemE nerdiness:
-------------
http://www.theoildrum.com/node/6482#comment-625925
WHY IS THE OIL RED?
Just getting back online; not up on latest posts. Yesterday Alan
verified that the submerged oil looks red. I just looked at the
Greenpeace photos posted today showing reddish light colored oil clots
(not really as firm as tarballs). I suspect these are reflective
(white tone) due to entrained sea water droplets in the oil (the same
reason that mayonnaise is white: both are "water in oil" emulsions, I
think). Would someone please check that for me? If I am correct, if
you heat these clots up, boil away the water, they should look like
red oil; "maltenes" is one term applicable. If as I predict, this fits
with my hypothesis posted in detail yesterday (http://
www.theoildrum.com/node/6481 #comment-625641 )that fractionation of the
oil is occurring on or below the seafloor. The reddish snotty stuff in
the Greenpeace photos is the middle cut, the portion that drops out of
solution as the supercritical solution goes subcritical as it goes
from ~9000 psi in front of the orifice (BOP leak) to about 2250 psi
just down stream of there. This oil is colored because it has very low
content of asphaltenes (which are very black), I think because the
asphaltenes phase separated from the supercritical mixture (methane/
ethane/.../oil/) as the crude oil rose 1 8000 feet from the reservoir
to the BOP.
I note the following news from NOAA yesterday:
>6. Samples of water from the underwater "plumes" have been taken by the Pelican research ship. These samples
have been divided and sent to testing centers, but no results are yet available.
I predict that individual droplets will tend to fall in one of three
categories, asphaltenes, maltenes, or light hydrocarbons. The plumes
may contain particles of two different kinds, however; for example,
large asphaltene droplets at 1 .00 specific gravity could rise faster
than emulsified small droplet size maltenes at specific gravity 0.85
(e.g.). I expect there are likely to be five apparent plumes, two of
which are created by overlap areas of two plumes: going from the
bottom to the top: asphaltene; asphaltene + maltene; maltene; maltene
+ light hydrocarbons; light hydrocarbons. I think these are the five
plume layers detected by the Pelican.
[If samples sit around a while the light hyrocarbon phase may dissolve
back into the maltene phase (a fairly slow process because this occurs
via either brownian motion or else hexane-like molecules dissolving
into water then dissolving into the maltene droplets).]
Each phase will be slightly contaminated with the other phase, but the
composition of individual droplets will be distinctly one of the
phases (unless two or more droplets have merged to form a given
droplet), with light hydrocarbons fraction floating fastest, and
asphaltenes rising slowest (if all droplets were the same size, but of
course they are not).
I also predict that eventually the asphaltene layer will reach the
surface. The high asphaltene content phase will be reminiscent of
"stillbottoms" sort of material. It may well have a softening
temperature high enough that it will almost be like sand when it
reaches the surface. I do not believe this material (asphaltenes) will
be nearly as dangerous to sea life as the oil; mainly because these
are likely solids at sea water temperature (and if we are lucky, stay
solid in hot sun on the beach). I don't think asphaltenes will wet out
feathers or gills, whereas the emulsified oil might. Asphaltenes are
widely distributed in nature. They are found in all sedimentary rocks,
and occasionally deposits of pure asphaltenes are formed (e.g.,
Gilsonite).
---------------
Sincerely,
Steve Picou
Area Housing Agent
LSU AgCenter Crescent Region
504-838-1170 - office
B6 Privacy
- cell
[email protected]
http://www.louisianahouse.org
http://www.lsuagcenter.com/rebuilding/
http://www.lsuagcenter.com/disasterrecovery/
"Theeconomyisawhollyownedsubsidiaryoftheenvironment,
nottheotherwayaround"GaylordNelson
"Workwiththeearth,notagainstit.Fortheearthdoesnotbelongtoyou.
Youbelongtotheearth."WallaceStegner
Please consider the environment before printing this email.
--------------------------------------------------------
Tom Moore
263 1 3th Ave South
727-551
-571 6 Office
B6 Privacy
B6 Privacy
Cell
Date: May 24, 201 0 3:1 1 :1 1 PM EDT
[email protected], karen_battle [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected],
[email protected], [email protected], Cheryl Woodley < [email protected]>, Ilsa Kuffner
< [email protected]>, Stephen Blair < [email protected]>
Subject: Shallow water coral - papers and cellular physiological responses
Hi Shallow water coral group,
Please find attached several papers that have incorporated cellular physiological parameters in either coral or other organisms'
health assessment, that may be of interest. Sorry for being slow getting these to the group, I have been mobilizing my staff for the
Keys and will be traveling there today.
Best Regards
Cheryl
--
DOC/NOAA/NOS/NCCOS
331 Fort Johnson Rd
843.762.8862 Phone
B6 Privacy
Fax
[email protected]
Marine Poll B.pdf (284 KB)
MEPS 2007 3pdf (515 KB)
Ecotox 2010.pdf (526 KB)
Chapter 10 y.pdf (1.6 MB)
valdez paperpdf (76.2 KB)
Kyowa Violet.pdf (410 KB)
Oil eects o.pdf (208 KB)
From: Steve LeGore < B6 Priv... @mindspring.com>
Date: May 28, 201 0 3:50:1 3 PM EDT
To: vassil zlatarski < B6 Privacy @yahoo.com>, Coral-List <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: [Coral-List] Oil dispersants's effect on human health
Reply-To: Steve LeGore B6 [email protected]>
Vassil,
These links will likely not provide the complete information you are seeking, but perhaps they will help.
http://www.valdezlink.com/corexit/media-c/Incom001 .PDF_1 .pdf
http://www.valdezlink.com/corexit/media-c/Incom001 .PDF_1 .pdf
http://lmrk.org/corexit_9500_uscueg.539287.pdf
http://www.cleancaribbean.org/docs/COREXIT_9580_UsCuEg.PDF
http://lmrk.org/master_ec9527a_msds.539295.pdf
Steve
From: vassil zlatarski < B6 Privacy [email protected]>
Sent: May 28, 201 0 5:30 AM
To: Coral-List <[email protected]>
Subject: [Coral-List] Oil dispersants's effect on human health
Dear Coral-Listers,
What do we know about the effect of oil dispersants on human health and is the existing knowledge adequate for protection of
human body? The question is actual for everybody working in waters treated with oil dispersant, especially for divers. Sorry for
asking again, but no reply. Any contribution will be greatly appreciated.
Thanks in advance,
Vassil
1 31 Fales Rd., Bristol, RI 02809, USA; tel.:
_______________________________________________
[email protected]
Steve LeGore, Ph.D.
LeGore Environmental Associates, Inc.
2804 Gulf Drive N.
Holmes Beach, Florida 3421 7 USA
Tel: 941 /778-4650
Fax: 941 /778-4761
Cell: B6 Privacy
GMT + 4 hrs
_______________________________________________
[email protected]
Ref. No. [UMCES]CBL 08-095
Alliance for Coastal Technologies Indexing No. ACT-08-01
WorkshopProceedings
HYDROCARBON SENSORS FOR
OIL SPILL PREVENTION AND RESPONSE
Seward, Alaska
April 8-10, 2008
Funded byNOAA through the Alliance f

or Coastal Technologies (ACT)
with support f
rom the Oil Spill RecoveryInstitute (OSRI)
An ACT Workshop Report
A Workshop of Developers, Deliverers, and Users of Technologies for
Monitoring Coastal Environments:
Hydrocarbon Sensors for Oil Spill Prevention and Response
Seward, Alaska
April 8-10, 2008
Sponsored by the Alliance for Coastal Technologies (ACT) and NOAAs Center for Coastal Ocean Research in the National Ocean Ser-
vice and the Oil Spill Recovery Institute (OSRI).
Hosted byACT Partner Organizations, University of Alaska Fairbanks and the Alaska SeaLife Center.
ACT is committed to develop an active partnership of technology developers, deliverers, and users within regional, state, and federal
environmental management communities to establish a testbed for demonstrating, evaluating, and verifying innovative technologies in
monitoring sensors, platforms, and software for use in coastal habitats.
Hydrocarbon Sensors f
or Oil Spill Response . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . i
Table of ConTenTs
Executive Summary.........................................................................................................................1
Alliance for Coastal Technologies ..................................................................................................2
Hydrocarbon Sensors for Oil Spill Preventionand Response Workshop Goals .............................3
Organization of the Workshop ........................................................................................................3
Hydrocarbon Sensor Background ...................................................................................................5
Resource Manager Needs ................................................................................................................7
Developmental Challenges Toward Oil Spill Prevention and Response .........................................9
Vision and Future Developments ..................................................................................................11
Workshop Recommendations .......................................................................................................12
Acknowledgments..........................................................................................................................15
References......................................................................................................................................15
Appendix A. Workshop Participants ........................................................................................... A-i
Appendix B: Hydrocarbon Sensors for Oil Spill Preventionand Response Workshop \
Participants ............................................................................................................................ B-i
Appendix C: Current In-Situ andLaboratory Hydrocarbon Sensors Currently Used .................. C-i
Appendix D: Remote Sensing Sensors and Their Qualitative Assessments................................ D-i
or Oil Spill Response . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . 1
exeCuTive summary
During April 8th-10th, 2008, the Alliance for Coastal Technologies (ACT) partner institutions,
University of Alaska Fairbanks (UAF), Alaska SeaLife Center (ASLC), and the Oil Spill Recov-
ery Institute (OSRI) hosted a workshop entitled: Hydrocarbon Sensors for Oil Spill Prevention
and Response in Seward, Alaska. The main focus was to bring together 29 workshop participants
representing resource managers, scientists, and technology developers together to discuss cur-
rent and future hydrocarbon in-situ, laboratory, and remote sensors as they apply to oil spill pre-
vention and response.
Hydrocarbons and their derivatives still remain one of the most important energy sources in the
world. To effectively manage these energy sources, proper protocol must be implemented to en-
sure the prevention and response to oil spills, as there are signicant economic and environmental
costs when oil spills occur. Hydrocarbon sensors provide the means to detect and monitor oil
spills before, during, and after they occur. Capitalizing on the properties of oils, developers have
designed in-situ, laboratory, and remote sensors that absorb or reect the electromagnetic energy
at different spectral bands.
Workshop participants identied current hydrocarbon sensors (in-situ, laboratory, and remote sen-
sors) and their overall performance. To achieve the most comprehensive understanding of oil spills,
multiple sensors will be needed to gather oil spill extent, location, movement, thickness, condition,
and classication. No single hydrocarbon sensor has the capability to collect all this information.
Participants, therefore, suggested the development of means to combine sensor equipment to ef-
fectively and rapidly establish spill response.
As the exploration of oil continues in polar latitudes, sensor equipment must be developed to with-
stand harsh, arctic climates, be able to detect oil under ice, and reduce the need for ground teams
because ice extent is far too large of an area to cover. Participants also recognized the need for the
United States (U.S.) to adopt a multi-agency cooperation for oil spill response, as the majority of
issues surrounding oil spill response focuses not on the hydrocarbon sensors but on an effective
contingency plan adopted by all agencies. It was recommended that the U.S. could model contin-
gency planning based on other nations, such as Germany and Norway.
Workshop participants were asked to make recommendations at the conclusion of the workshop
and are summarized below without prioritization:
Outreach materials must be delivered to funding sources and Congressional delegates re-
garding the importance of oil spill prevention and response and the development of proper
sensors to achieve effective response.
Develop protocols for training resource managers as new sensors become available.
Develop or adopt standard instrument specications and testing protocols to assist manu-
facturers in further developing new sensor technologies.
As oil exploration continues in polar latitudes, more research and development should be
allocated to develop a suite of instruments that are applicable to oil detection in or under
ice.
Develop a standard GIS data management protocol to be implemented so that data can
feed directly into the Maritime Domain Awareness or Dynamic Decision Support System
(DDSS).
Resource managers proposed that hydrocarbon sensors undergo performance standards to
ensure global compliancy. It was recommended that ACT, working with various develop-
ers/manufacturers, test the ability to measure hydrocarbons on water and under ice using
both in-situ and remote sensing technologies.
Resource managers and technology developers should revisit funding sources and explore
novel approaches towards obtaining necessary support.
allianCe for CoasTal TeChnologies
The Alliance for Coastal Technologies is a NOAA-funded partnership of research institutions, re-
source managers, and private sector companies dedicated to fostering the development and adop-
tion of effective and reliable sensors and platforms. ACT is committed to providing the information
required to select the most appropriate tools for studying and monitoring coastal environments.
Program priorities include transitioning emerging technologies to operational use rapidly and ef-
fectively; maintaining a dialogue among technology users, developers, and providers; identifying
technology needs and novel technologies; documenting technology performance and potential;
and providing the Integrated Ocean Observing Sys-
tem (IOOS) with information required for the deploy-

ACT is organized to ensure geographic
and sector involvement:
ment of reliable and cost-effective networks.
To accomplish these goals, ACT provides these ser-

- Headquarters is located at the UMCES
Chesapeake Biological Laboratory, Solo-
vices to the community:
mons, MD.
Third-party testbed for quantitatively evalu-
ating the performance of new and existing

- Board of Directors includes Partner In-
coastal technologies in the laboratory and un-

stitutions, a Stakeholders Council, and
NOAA/CSC representatives to establish
der diverse environmental conditions.
Capacity building through technology-spe-
cic workshops that review the current state
of instrumentation, build consensus on future
directions, and enhance communications be-
tween users and developers.
ACT foci and program vision.
- There are currently eight ACT Partner
Institutions around the country with coast-
al technology expertise that represent a
broad range of environmental conditions
for testing.
Information clearinghouse through a search-
able online database of environmental tech-

- The ACT Stakeholder Council is com-
nologies and community discussion boards.

prised of resource managers and industry
representatives who ensure that ACT fo-
cuses on service-oriented activities.
The ACT workshops are designed to aid resource managers, coastal scientists, and private sector
companies by identifying and discussing the current status, standardization, potential advance-
ments, and obstacles in the development and use of new sensors and sensor platforms for moni-
toring, studying, and predicting the state of coastal waters. The workshops goal is to help build
consensus on the steps needed to develop and adopt useful tools, while facilitating critical com-
munication among the various groups of technology developers, manufacturers, and users.
ACT Workshop Reports are summaries of the discussions that take place between participants dur-
ing the workshops. The reports also emphasize advantages and limitations of current technologies
while making recommendations for both ACT and the broader community on the steps needed for
technology advancement in the particular topic area. Workshop organizers draft the individual
reports with input from workshop participants.
ACT is committed to exploring the application of new technologies for monitoring coastal eco-
system and studying environmental stressors that are increasingly prevalent worldwide. For more
information, please visit www.act-us.info.
hydroCarbon sensors for oil spill prevenTion
and response Workshop goals
Planning for the ACT Workshop on hydrocarbon sensors was undertaken with the following objec-
tives in mind:
to identify and summarize current hydrocarbon sensors in the in-situ, laboratory, and re-
mote sensing elds pertaining specically to oil spill prevention and response;
to elucidate the strengths and limitations of each type of hydrocarbon sensor;
to discuss the expected resource manager needs from hydrocarbon sensor technology and
scientists to ensure proper management, funding, and action;
to determine future hydrocarbon sensor technology that would enhance oil spill detection
and response;
to make recommendations and priorities for ACT and the broader community to pursue.
organizaTion of The Workshop
The two-day workshop was co-sponsored by ACT and OSRI and hosted by ASLC and UAF as
ACT partner institutes. The workshop was organized by Dr. Shannon Atkinson (UAF) and Dr.
Scott Pegau (OSRI). A stakeholder committee was assigned, which included Dr. Buzz Martin, Ms.
Chelsea Donovan, and Dr. Guy Meadows. Dr. Robert Shuchman was later assigned to the commit-
tee to replace Dr. Meadows.
On the rst evening, workshop participants convened for a reception and dinner in the Alaska
SeaLife Centers Underwater Viewing area. Dr. Shannon Atkinson delivered the workshops open-
ing remarks, along with a brief introduction about ACT and its mission. Discussing the importance
or Oil Spill Response . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . . . . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . . . . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . . . . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . 4
of under ice hydrocarbon detection using Ground Penetrating Radar (GPR) techniques was the
topic of the workshops keynote address presented by Mr. Lee Majors of Alaska Clean Seas.
The workshop commenced the following day with an introduction by Dr. Scott Pegau (OSRI) and
a series of presentations delivered by the stakeholder committee members. These presentations
included: 1) A summary by Ms. Chelsea Donovan of the most recent and available hydrocarbon
technologies; 2) Special Monitoring of Applied Response Technologies (SMART) as discussed by
Dr. Buzz Martin; and 3) The future of hydrocarbon technologies by Dr. Robert Shuchman. Work-
shop participants were then classied according to user group (technology developer, scientist, or
resource manager) for the morning and afternoon breakout sessions.
Prior to the workshop, participants were given breakout session questions that served as the frame-
work for discussion. Breakout sessions were pre-assigned based upon two categories of hydrocar-
bon technologies. The rst morning session focused on in-situand laboratory technologies, and the
afternoon session concentrated on remote sensing technology. To maintain discussion consistency,
the same breakout session questions were administered for both morning and afternoon sessions.
Workshop participants were randomly assigned to three designated conference rooms at ASLC. To
foster open and unique dialogue among workshop participants, user groups were integrated within
each conference room. A stakeholder committee member served as moderator in each of the des-
ignated conference rooms. Following both breakout sessions, each group reported their ndings in
a plenary session.
Breakout Session Questions (Morning and Afternoon Sessions)
In-Situ, Laboratory, and Remote SensingTechnologies
What hydrocarbon sensors are currently available?
What do the sensors measure, and what does this information mean?
What are their limitations and strengths?
What do resource managers need from hydrocarbon sensors?
What are the expected future needs?
What needs to be done to ensure new sensors are accepted by the resource management
community?
What are the challenges from a development standpoint to design hydrocarbon technolo-
gies?
Are there other approaches and/or technologies that are worth pursuing?
On the nal day, workshop participants met for a third breakout session discussing the future of
hydrocarbon technologies as they relate to oil spill prevention and response. Breakout session
questions for this particular session were distributed prior to the workshop and served as the frame-
work for discussion. Stakeholder committee members led a panel discussion with all workshop
participants present. During this session, participants were also asked to discuss recommendations
and priorities for ACT to pursue.
Breakout Session Questions (Final Session)
Vision and Future Developments
What areas of research and development are most needed?
What actions are needed within the next year?
What actions are needed within the next 3 years?
How might we achieve the needed actions?
hydroCarbon sensor baCkground
Hydrocarbon derivatives have remained one of the worlds most important energy sources since
the 19th century. They have helped establish global economies, drive industrialization, and fuel
transportation and heating needs to even the most remote regions on the planet. The global de-
pendence for hydrocarbons, a non-renewable resource, has triggered a growing demand that has
entrenched itself within political, socio-economic, and environmental arenas. As a result, techno-
logical advancements in areas of exploration, extraction, monitoring, detection, and renement
must meet this global demand while also reducing potential environmental consequences.
Whether extracting crude oil, rening the product, or transporting hydrocarbon derivatives, there
is an inherent risk that oil spills will happen and continue to occur. Oil spills may occur in many
environments, as oil exploration and development can be found both terrestrially and aquatically.
These environments include the nearshore, offshore, under snow and sea-ice, on land, estuarine,
and riparian habitats. Additionally, hydrocarbon derivatives are often transported overseas making
long trans-Atlantic and trans-Pacic journeys over ecologically sensitive areas. Oil spill incidents
surrounding oil tankers, however, occur at relatively low frequencies when compared to annual
global oil spills. Worldwide, fuels account for 48% of the total oil spilled into the sea worldwide,
while crude oil spills account for 29% of the total (Brekke and Solberg, 2005). Most oil spills are
diesel and hydraulics, which are aromatic hydrocarbon compounds that generally do not sink in
the water column.
Discharged oil on water is classied as an oil spill, slick, or sheen in descending order of magni-
tude. As time passes and with increased wave and wind action, oil spills will disperse and gradually
degrade. Heavier oils such as crude oil, for example, persist in the environment much longer than
lighter oils that typically evaporate. Though not as toxic as lighter oils, crude oil has far greater
environmental consequences associated with it, as it can directly and indirectly impact multiple
trophic levels such as phytoplankton, benthic invertebrates, sh, marine mammals, and sea birds.
Federal, State, and industry standards of prevention and response have shown signicant improve-
ments over the past 20 years stemming largely from incidents surrounding the 1989 Exxon Valdez
Oil Spill. In 1990, Congress passed legislation in the form of the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 (OPA
90) to improve oil spill prevention and response. The OPA expanded federal funding and resources
to facilitate oil spill response, established new requirements for national and industry contingency
plans, imposed stricter penalties for improper oil discharge, and maintained State authority to es-
tablish law governing oil spill and response (EPA 1990).
An equallyimportant aspect to spill response, aside from prevention, is the mechanism(s) by which
hydrocarbons are detected at the onset of a spill. There are a suite of hydrocarbon sensors designed
to accommodate in-situ, in-vitro, and remote sensing methods of oil spill detection. However, no
single, current hydrocarbon sensor has the capability of providing all the information required for
oil spill contingency planning (Jha et al., 2008). As a result, resource managers and scientists must
depend upon multiple technologies to arrive at sound, effective management.
Hydrocarbon detection in water has remained largely unchanged since the 1970s despite the ad-
vancements of different sensor technologies. Sensors are continuing to detect electromagnetic en-
ergy absorbed, reected, and uoresced across different wavelength spectrums or utilizing mass
spectrometry to ngerprint oil. Depending upon the sensor used, one can detect the absorption,
reectance, and uorescence by hydrocarbons at different wavelengths within the electromagnetic
spectrum. Remote sensing has shown vast improvements since thermal, visible, and aerial scan-
ning and photographysystems were used at the start of the 1970s (Jha et al. 2008). Yet these remote
scanning systems still utilize some of the same principles of detecting oil in water. Electromagnetic
absorption and emission remain as one of the most effective ways to determine the presence of oil
either remotely or in-situ.
For the purpose of this workshop, participants were asked to focus their efforts upon hydrocarbon
sensors that provide immediate, rapid response for sea-ice, snow, and water-related oil spills; es-
tuarine, nearshore, offshore, and riparian environments were considered water-related. Land-based
oil spills were not addressed in this particular workshop, as response and contingency planning
differs from that of under ice and water-related oil spills. Additionally, because the term hydro-
carbon encompasses multiple compounds and derivatives making its denition complex, partici-
pants dened hydrocarbon for this particular workshop as both crude and rened oil products.
Hydrocarbon sensor discussions, therefore, were not compound-specic, but rather addressed hy-
drocarbons in the broad contextual sense.
It should be noted that there was general consensus among all workshop participants that in order
to determine the most effective hydrocarbon technologies for oil spill prevention and response,
there was no endorsement of any specic instrument or developer.
Current Hydrocarbon Sensor Technologies:
In-Situ, Laboratory, Remote Sensing
In-Situ and LaboratorySensors
In-situ sensors were dened as any sensor that makes direct contact with the oil or the media that
the oil is in. Laboratory sensors and only in-situ sensors that were classied as rapidly deploy-
able were listed in Table 1. Much of the hydrocarbon sensor technology revolves around oils
electromagnetic absorption and emission of energy through different wavelengths within the elec-
tromagnetic spectrum. These include the visible, infrared, ultraviolet, radio wave, and microwave
wavelengths. Listed are general types of hydrocarbon sensors and, therefore, have no specic
endorsements, evaluation, or quantitative comparison. Cost was an exclusionary factor for either
strength or weakness considerations, as cost can be subjective and relative.
Remote SensingTechnology
Remote hydrocarbon sensors were dened as sensors that are not in direct contact with oil or media
that the oil is in. These technologies included airborne and satellite-based remote sensors. Another
classication that participants used was near and far range forms of indirect measurement.
Remote sensing technology enables rst response units to continuously track and stay on the oil for
proper containment. Additionally, with the exception of Synthetic Aperture Radar (SAR), remote
sensing can be recorded in real-timeSAR has this capability but is costly. Listed in Table 2 are
general types of hydrocarbon remote sensors and, therefore, have no specic endorsements, evalu-
ation, or quantitative comparison. Cost was an exclusionary factor for either strength or weakness
considerations, as cost can be subjective and relative. Jha et al. (2008) also provides a good review
on current remote sensing technologies for oil spill disaster management
resourCe manager needs
To properly assess the extent and magnitude of oil spills, there is a suite of criteria needed for
resource managers to obtain and monitor before, during, and after the spill has occurred. Synthe-
sizing these data, however, proves challenging, as information is being compiled from both in-situ
and remote sensing hydrocarbon sensors. To date, there is no composite hydrocarbon sensor that
accommodates multiple, continuous, real-time data for resource managers to use. Rather, they
must draw from multiple hydrocarbon sensor technologies to arrive at proper contingency plan-
ning. Workshop participants discussed the most important resource manager needs for proper oil
spill response (i.e., burning, dispersants, etc.). Their criteria are listed below and include sensor
data requirements and specications:
Detection
Sensors must be able to detect the presence and/or absence of oil in areas where there are potential
oil discharges. In addition, resource managers want to detect the amount of oil that is not only at
the surface but is mixed in the water column. Many in-situ and remote hydrocarbon sensors detect
wavelengths of electromagnetic energy either absorbed or reected by oil in the infrared, visible,
microwave, and ultra-violet spectrums. Limitations arise, however, when penetrating fog or con-
ducting night observationsconcerns that are especially important to resource managers located
in northern latitudes.
Location
Sensor technologies must be able to determine the location of the oil spill. This is perhaps the
single most important data point for resource managers to acquire. Response techniques may differ
depending upon the location of the spill (i.e., nearshore, offshore, riparian, under ice, etc.).
Spatial Extent and Thickness
Knowing the discharge area alone can vastly underestimate the extent of the oil spill as 90% of the
oil is generally found within 10% of the spill area. Combining both area and thickness will deter-
or Oil Spill Response . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . . . . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . . . . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . . . . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . 8
mine the best available technologies for response in different locations. Understanding these volu-
metric constraints also yields a better approximation of the quantity of oil dischargedanother
data point essential for resource managers. It was recommended that repeated thickness measure-
ments be obtained due to the dynamic and uid nature of oil on water.
Viscosity
Viscosity describes the overall uidity of a particular substance. Heavier oils are more viscous
(i.e., less uid) than lighter hydrocarbons, such as methanol, acetone, and benzene; and thus re-
quire more time and surface wave action to breakdown and disperse. Knowing the viscosity of the
discharged oil will determine the appropriate response mechanisms to be deployed.
Movement and TrackingOver Time
Discharged oil on water is a uid, dynamic substance that responds to environmental and oceano-
graphic change. Resource managers must be able to track the movements of oil on water and un-
der iceespecially in either populated or ecologically sensitive nearshore habitatsin real-time
capabilities.
State ofthe Oil
Oil is made up of many complex hydrocarbon chemicals. Each chemical compound responds dif-
ferently to the environment and degrades at various rates. Sunlight, microbes, and wave action, for
example, can all profoundly impact oil composition over time. Oil degradation or weathering
is the process from which oil loses its resemblance to a state of unspilled oil. It is important for
resource managers to continuously know the state of spilled oil as it weathers or if there is chance
for recovery.
ID Classication (Oil Fingerprinting)
Using forensic techniques, resource managers and scientists have the ability to determine the
source of oil spills in the natural environment. Hydrocarbons have specic chemical signatures
or ngerprints that reveal its specic chemical origins and geological processes it has undergone.
Crude and rened oils, therefore, have their own unique ngerprint. Not only does this provide a
framework for issuing proper contingency plans because it identies what type of oil is present,
but it also aids in legal ramications when determining perpetrators of oil spills.
Sensor requirements
The aforementioned criteria discuss the variables in-situ and remote sensors must be equipped
with in order to properly respond to oil spills. How sensors are packaged, however, is yet another
set of criteria that workshop participants discussed. The SMART protocol provided much of the
context on how sensors should be packaged (Appendix B).
Remote sensing and in-situ hydrocarbon technologies must collect data in real-time format and be
accessible to rst responders and resource managers. The overall consensus was to have inexpen-
sive, portable, and rugged units that can be deployed by rst responders. These units must be rap-
idly deployable and extremely reliable such that they can be switched on after inactivity for many
years. Hydrocarbon sensor technologists should also begin exploring the combination of multiple
sensors on one platform. Because multiple users will operate these sensors, they need to be simple,
have sufcient operating instructions, and be operational for up to 6 hours.
With respect to remote sensing systems, they must provide good coverage, discern extent and
thickness of oil, and be able to collect data at night and through fog conditions. It was also sug-
gested that these instruments be linked via GIS and have a web-based interface to remotely access
data. Remote sensors require more robustness, being eld deployable, display a 3D image, and
possess stronger resolution capabilities. Reducing the amount of false positives in oil spill detec-
tion was another key component to making remote sensing more applicable.
User FriendlyInstrumentation and Interpretation
Different users, such as rst responders, resource managers, and scientists, utilize hydrocarbon
sensors to effectively prevent, detect, and manage oil spills. Vitally important is the ability for
these users to understand how to use the equipment and, secondly, interpret the data the sensors are
collecting. With the advent of more sophisticated remote sensing equipment, resource managers
have urged the implementation of training tools to instruct the use of them, the capabilities of this
equipment, and the interpretation of results.
Data Integration
Resource managers utilize multiple hydrocarbon sensors to determine the most effective and nec-
essary response and contingency plans. Participants discussed the need for in-situ technologies and
remote sensing capabilities to be integrated, such that managers have a single interface from which
to view data. Suggestions for such integration included georeferencing and entering this informa-
tion into a real-time Geographic Information System (GIS) interface that could later feed into the
national plan to achieve Maritime Domain Awareness. Maritime Domain Awareness (MDA) has
been dened as, the effective understanding of anything associated with the global maritime
domain that could impact the security, safety, economy, or environment of the United States,
(DHS, 2005). Another integration tool beginning to emerge is the use of Dynamic Decision Sup-
port Systems (DDSS) to identify, classify, and remediate oil spills. Dynamic Decision Support
Systems utilize a new generation of smart autonomous in-situ sensing buoys, remote sensors,
and background GIS layers describing biological and oceanographic parameters (Shuchman and
Meadows, 2008).
developmenTal Challenges ToWard oil spill prevenTion and response
Workshop participants identied two types of challenges that have prohibited quick, effective oil
spill response: sensor technology issues and execution challenges. Both are addressed within the
broad context of developmental challenges to oil spill response.
Workshop participants emphasized that the difculties with oil spill response was not the tech-
nological means of gathering information. Remote and in-situ sensors have been performing to
or Oil Spill Response . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . . . . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . . . . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . . . . .. . .. . .. . .. . .10
their abilities, but scientists and resource managers would like to begin seeing the development of
integrated sensors that can perform multiple variable testing. To accomplish this task, however,
developers noted that to integrate sensors would require immense startup costs and would not
become a portable, rugged, repeatable, and easy-to-use option for many years. The Slick Sleuth
sensor, for example, has multiple sensors and linked with a GIS interface, but the equipment is still
in the research stages and not ready for quick oil spill response. The instrument is still far too large
for rst response units. Real-time GIS integration was another sensor challenge in the U.S. that
has impeded the full potential of quick response. The general complaint was that, without a GIS
interface, by the time the data processing is done, the data are no longer relevant.
Current sensor technology provides an overload of data that proves difcult for rst responders
and resource managers to synthesize into means of quick response. To develop sensors that are
more user-friendly would require a longer research and development stage. Climate and location
also play an important role in the developmental stages of sensors and can pose serious limitations
in extreme environments. Power, calibration, sensitivity, and biofouling are other problematic con-
cerns, especially with portable in-situ hydrocarbon sensors.
Oil spill response challenges at the broad management level in the U.S. include insufcient fund-
ing, multi-agencyresponsibility, environmental legislation, and federal aviation protocols. To com-
bine sensor technologies with integrated GIS interfaces would be incredibly expensive to develop
for such a small market of users. Funding for oil spill response continues to be one of the largest
challenge for proper oil spill response in the U.S. Funding for oil spill prevention and response
has remained largely in the form of prevention. The oil spill response industry is not a driver of
technology development. Federal agencies must realize the real cost of responding to an oil spill
before sound funding is allocated to effective technology and subsequent response. To date, the
U.S. has not maintained a consistent approach towards oil spill response. This is due in large part
because of multi-agency responsibility and accountability at the State and Federal levels for oil
spill response. Too many agencies are involved within the U.S. to make quick, effective decisions.
There is no common approach to response adopted in the U.S. Cohesion among agencies could
be modeled after foreign countries, such as Germany and Norway, where standardized protocols
have been adopted in the form of the Bonn Agreement. Foreign strike teams employ aircrafts that
are not used only for spills but for surveillance as well and are equipped with hydrocarbon sensors,
such as Side Looking Airborne Radar (SLAR) and Infared/Ultraviolet (IR/UV) remote sensors,
all integrated with GIS interfaces. Perhaps due to multi-agency complications or the size of the
U.S. coastline, the regional availability of sensors is limited, and no effective means of capitalizing
on existing air patrols for oil spill detection and monitoring has occurred. Additional setbacks arise
when new technology is to be equipped on xed wing or non-xed wing aircraft. Supplemental
Type Certicates (STC) must be led and approved, which may take 3-4 weeks. This delay may
impede proper contingency planning should a spill occur within that time period. The fractured
approach to spill response means that no group is able to afford the more expensive technologies.
It also slows the incorporation of new technologies that require trained users.
Environmental legislation has also impeded the ability for the U.S. to conduct sufcient and ad-
equate tests of new technologies in the eld. Foreign countries have less stringent legislation sur-
rounding the testing of sensor equipment in oiled waters. Due to the Clean Water Act (CWA)
and OPA 90, scientists cannot intentionally spill oil in U.S. waters to test the efcacy of new oil
or Oil Spill Response . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . . 11
detection technology. In other countries, however, abilities to do such testing have been more suc-
cessful.
vision and fuTure developmenTs
In a round table discussion, workshop participants discussed the future of hydrocarbon sensors as
they relate to oil spill response. Participants also sought the opportunity to discuss programmatic
objectives that may also contribute to the improvement of oil spill detection and response. The
original premise was to discuss foreseeable action within one year and three years, respectively.
As discussion unfolded, it was apparent that most development ideas would require signicant
research and development that would exceed the one-year criteria.
As oil exploration continues in the polar latitudes, the need for hydrocarbon sensors to detect oil
under ice will become increasingly important. Hydrocarbon sensors in this harsh environment
must be rugged, portable, and have low false alarm rates. Remote monitoring devices should cover
greater area and volume and, in the future, replace eld-based crews after proper ground-truthing
has been conducted. Ground Penetrating Radar (GPR) has begun to show promise in the Arctic,
but further research and development is needed to make this into a functional remote monitoring
sensor.
One of the key areas participants concentrated their discussion was the development of various
platforms for hydrocarbon sensors. These included both stationary and mobile platforms for in-situ
monitoring and detection. Existing U.S. Coast Guard buoys and channel markers were deemed a
viable stationary platform that could have in-situ uorometry devices attached to them, but these
units would have to be mass produced at a relatively low cost. It was suggested that these sensor
platforms could be concentrated around large harbors that are equipped with unmanned aerial
vehicles (UAVs) deployable via satellite or aircraft uplink, albeit at substantial cost. In-situ mass
spectrometers detecting oil thickness need to improve their range of detection to include centime-
ters to nanometers.
Mobile platform discussion included the attachment of hydrocarbon sensors on large ocean-going
vessels, the development of autonomous underwater vehicles equipped with hydrocarbon sensors,
and nanotechnology that would allow sensors to be deployed within the oil slick to track move-
ments. University of Michigan has been developing several autonomous vehicles, such as the
BathyBoat, Flying Fish, and the Automated Lagrangian Water Quality Assessment System that
could have hydrocarbon sensors attached with GPS interfaces built in. Helikites have also been de-
veloped that are either helium driven or pulled behind a vessel. Difculties in autonomous vehicles
arise in polar latitudes, however, as their reliability is reduced because of the extreme operating
conditions. The application of remotely operated underwater vehicles (ROVs) should be explored
further in polar latitudes, as they provide an opportunity to explore under the sea ice. ROVs could
be manned with various hydrocarbon sensors that measure extent and thickness.
Tracking the movements of oil could be accomplished using sensors that either oat on the oils
surface or be imbedded within the oil. Multiple sensors of this nature could be deployed quickly
and effectively and reduce the need for continuous monitoring of oil spill movements. The Argo-
or Oil Spill Response . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .12
sphere drifter developed by Norwegians has the capability to oat and stay with oil slicks track-
ing movements and thickness. The other option would be to develop nano-sensors that could be
imbedded within the oil. These could potentially have a Radio-frequency (RF) tag, such as a RF
cavity resonator with an oleophilic sensor. The ability to track and monitor oil mineral aggregates
(OMA) was also discussed. To accomplish this, participants recognized the need to have eld
based epiuorescence monitors that detect small droplets of oil possibly in the surf zone and deter-
mine if the aggregate is efciently absorbing the oil.
Future sensor development focused primarily on remote sensing capabilities, but there were some
novel approaches to in-situ technology. In-situ bioavailability and underwater in-situ techniques
utilizing different marine species, such as lter-feeding mussels or phytoplankton, may serve as
means for oil spill detection. Improvements in beach probing were also suggested as this is one
of the primary methods of detecting oil along shorelines. Flow cytometry that determines oil spill
size and ow has now become an in-situmethod of detection, but further research is needed in this
application. Time delay uorescence is another method of detection that may help tease apart dif-
ferent components within the oil compounds. There was also a recommendation to manufacture a
sensor suitcase that would have the necessary sensors to implement proper oil spill contingency
planning. This suitcase model would be rapidly deployable, rugged, and have the robustness to
withstand years of non-use. Resource managers and scientists also recommended that in-situ sen-
sors be equipped with an adapter that GPS devices could be plugged into. Remote sensor develop-
ment included the testing of GPR, Lidar scattering sensors, laser uorescence technology, Nuclear
Magnetic Resonance (NMR), SAR, Radar SAR II, and interferometric and polarimetric technolo-
gies.
Warranting further discussion during the Vision and Development Breakout Session was having an
integrated approach towards oil spill detection and response. This was discussed at the program-
matic level of multi-agency cooperation within the U.S. and the development of hydrocarbon sen-
sor combinations. Federal and State agencies should begin piggybacking on existing surveillance
and patrol missions to monitor oil spills as foreign countries such as Germany have implemented.
Accessibility to data sets should also be integrated within Federal and State agencies forming
multi-user oil reference libraries. First response strike teams assessing proper oil spill response
should also be formally trained in the operation and use of existing and future hydrocarbon tech-
nologies.
Workshop reCommendaTions
Resonating throughout the workshop was the immediate and long-term need to integrate in-situ,
laboratory, and remote hydrocarbon sensors in the U.S. There are many different sensors and man-
ufacturers that ultimately measure similar variables pertaining to hydrocarbon discharge, but lack-
ing is an effective method to bring all this information together. This issue is further compounded
due to the fact that there are multiple agencies involved with detecting oil spill discharge within
U.S. waterways. During the nal breakout session, workshop participants devised other key rec-
ommendations for ACT and the broader community to implement that addressed both short-term
and long-term objectives. These recommendations are bulleted below:
Outreach Initiatives:
It is recommended that ACT and workshop organizers distribute either the Executive
Summary or Workshop Proceedings to national and international oil spill conferences,
such as the International Oil Spill Conference. Additionally reports should be provided
to Congressional delegates, The US. Arctic Commission, the Regional Citizens Advi-
sory Councils (Prince William Sound and Cook Inlet and the Arctic Council for Emer-
gency Preparation, Prevention, and Response (EPPR).
Further dialogue between resource managers, scientists, and developers need to take
place to nd the most effective means to develop composite sensors integrated with
georeferencing or GIS interfaces.
As new in-situ and remote sensing technologies come available, a consistent approach
to use of spill sensors for training resource managers and rst responders on the use and
interpretation of the data collected must be administered.
Submit proceedings to appropriate funding sources, such as Exxon Valdez Oil Spill
Trustee Council (EVOSTC) and OSRI.
As oil exploration continues in polar latitudes, more research and development should be
conducted to develop a suite of instruments that are applicable to oil detection in or under
ice. Stemming from developments, such as GPR, it would be ideal to develop a remote
system that could be performed without signicant ground-truthing. Putting personnel on
sea ice can be dangerous and is often not the quickest way to respond. Technologies that
would measure dynamic ice conditions, be helicopter-based, and cover large areas are at
least three years from deployment and would most likely include either GPR or NMR.
It is recommended that a standard GIS data management protocol be implemented that can
feed directly into the Maritime Domain Awareness or DDSS. Further development should
also be explored into making these data management portals internet accessible, (web-
based) such that rst responders and resource managers can enter and manipulate data in
real-time. This would also reduce the amount of personnel required to be onsite.
Currently, there is no common approach to oil spill response in the U.S. Perhaps the U.S.
can draw from protocols issued by the Bonn Protocol.
Resource managers proposed that hydrocarbon sensors undergo performance standards to
ensure global compliancy. This would also allow for hydrocarbon sensor technologies to
be evaluated and compared for different response scenarios and deployment locations. To
obtain a level of standardization, the American Society of Testing Materials (ASTM) or
ACT could test hydrocarbon technologies. Although methods of data collection may vary
depending upon which in-situ or remote sensing equipment is used, ACT may be able to
undergo broad in-situ and remote sensing evaluations. Expanding upon this recommenda-
tion may include the certication of new sensor technologies by a lab, possibly ACT or
Ohmsett, the National Oil Spill Response Test Facility, in an underwriting capacity. NOTE
Ohmsett will test and evaluate equipment and sensors but will not certify equipment or sen-
sors. They only certify the test data and results provided to their customers.
One of the rst efforts towards standardization would be to adopt protocols that have al-
ready been administered, such as by the Europeans or by SMART in 2006.
It was recommended that ACT, working with different developers/manufacturers, evaluate
the ability to measure hydrocarbons on water and under ice using both in-situ and remote
sensing technologies. It is important to examin how these sensors perform under these
conditions.
Develop in-situ tracking devices such as drifters, buoys, and helicopter-deployed grabbers
that sample oil to help identify and track oil discharge movements. Discussion also sur-
rounded the improvements of uorescent dyes that are passive and can bind directly to the
oil. All of these help identify where sensors should be targeted, although they are techni-
cally not sensors themselves.
Resource managers and developers should revisit funding sources and explore novel ap-
proaches towards obtaining necessary monies. Suggestions included writing grants to the
Ofce of Technologys Small Business Innovative Research (SBIR) Program and Small
Business TechnologyTransfer (STTR) Program. Another novel approach would be to make
the polluters pay for either new technologies or the integration of existing technologies.
or Oil Spill Response . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .15
aCknoWledgmenTs
ACT, ASLC, UAF, and OSRI would like to thank everyone who attended this workshop for their
enthusiastic participation. A special thanks goes to the workshop planning committee: Dr Shan-
non Atkinson (UAF/ASLC), Dr. Scott Pegau (OSRI), Mr. Brendan Smith, and Ms. Angie Steeves;
the stakeholder committee comprised of Dr. Buzz Martin, Dr. Robert Shuchman, and Chelsea
Donovan; and ACT Executive Director Dr. Mario Tamburri. In addition, we would like to thank
Mr. Lee Majors of Alaska Clean Seas for his outstanding keynote speech. The successful logistical
organization of this workshop is credited to Mr. Brendan Smith, Ms. Angie Steeves, and Ms. Jilian
Chapman of ASLC and UAF. The workshop was supported by the Alliance for Coastal Technolo-
gies, a NOAA-sponsored program, and the Oil Spill Recovery Institute.
referenCes
Brekke, C. and A. Solberg. 2005. Oil spill detection by satellite remote sensing. Remote Sensing
of the Environment 95: 1-13.
Chase, C. R. and S. V. Bibber. 2006. Utilization of automated oil spill detection technology for
clean water compliance and spill discharge prevention. Freshwater Spills Symposium (FSS).
Portland, Oregon. 15 pgs.
Department of Homeland Security. 2005. National plan to achieve maritime domain awareness for
the national strategy for maritime security. 28 pgs.
Environmental Protection Agency. 1990. Oil Pollution Act. 66 pgs.
Jha, M. N., Levy, J., and Y. Gao. 2008. Advances in remote sensing for oil spill disaster manage-
ment: State-of-the-art sensors technology for oil spill surveillance. Sensor 8: 236-255.
Shuchman, R. A., and G. A. Meadows. 2008. Future Hydrocarbon Technologies. Hydrocarbon
Sensors for Oil Spill Response Workshop. Presentation.
or Oil Spill Response . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . A-i
appendix a. Workshop parTiCipanTs

Chris Chase
InterOcean Systems 4241 Ponderosa Avenue, Suite A
San Diego, CA 92123-6501 858-565-8400
[email protected]
Chelsea Donovan
Turner Designs 845 W. Maude Avenue Sunnyvale, CA
94085 877-316-8049 ext. 148
[email protected]
Ruediger Heuermann
TriOs Werftweg 15 26135 Oldenburg Germany +49 (0)
441 48598-0
[email protected]
Jacob Inbar
GE Analytical Instruments PO BOX 434 HERZLIA B
46103, Israel Tel Aviv 011 972-54-4585-344
[email protected]
Greg Eaton
Applied Microsystems 2071 Malaview Ave.W. Sidney,
BC, Canada V8L 5X6 250-656-771 ext. 210
[email protected]
Nils Robbe
Optimare Sensorsysteme Am Luneort 15a 27572
Bremerhaven Germany +49 471 48361-0
[email protected]
Andy Sterling
GE Analytical Instruments 6060 Spine Road Boulder,
CO 80301 303-513-2874
[email protected]
Mike Twardowski
WET Labs, Inc. 165 Knuass Drive Narragansett, RI
02882 401-783-1787
[email protected]
Theo Hengsterman
Optimare Sensorsysteme Am Luneort 15a 27572
Bremerhaven Germany +49 471 48361-0
[email protected]
Andrea Zappe
Chelsea Representative Prairie Ocean Technologies PO
Box 78 West Hawk Lake Manitoba, Canada R0E 2H0
204-349-3381
[email protected]
Bill Tink
Leak Detection Services Come Monday Leak Detection
Services 7721 Pinemont Drive Houston, TX 77040 713
580 9700
[email protected]
Mark Devries
United States Coast Guard Sector Anchorage (17-
33280) 510 L Street- Suite 100 Anchorage, AK 99501-
1946 907-271-6700
[email protected]
Kurt Hansen
United States Coast Guard Research and Development
1082 Shennecossett Road, Groton, CT 06340-6096
860-441-2600
[email protected]
Buzz Martin
Texas General Land Office
Oil Spill Prevention and Response
1700 North Congress Avenue
Austin, TX 78701-1495
[email protected]
Joe Mullin
Minerals Management Service Engineering and Re-
search Branch 381 Elden Street MS-4021 Herndon, VA
20170-4817 703-787-1556
[email protected]
Tim Nedwed
ExxonMobil Upstream Research Company
P.O. Box 2189 Houston, TX 77252 713-431-6923
[email protected]
John Engles
Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation
(ADEC) Division of Spill Prevention and Response
P.O. Box 1709 Valdez, AK 99686 907-835-4698
[email protected]
Steven Vinnie Catalano
Director of Operations Cook Inlet Regional Citizen
Advisory Council (Cook Inlet RCAC) 910 Highland
Ave. Kenai, AK 99611
(907) 283-7222
[email protected]
or Oil Spill Response . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. A-ii
appendix a. lisT of aTTendees (ConTinued)

John Whitney
NOAA Coastal Response Research 510 L St. Petersen
Tower Bldg, Ste.100 Anchorage, AK 99501 907-271-
3593
[email protected]
Scott Miles
Louisiana State University School of the Coast and
Environment 1002-Q Energy, Coast & Environment
Building Baton Rouge, LA 70803 225-578-4295
[email protected]
Lee Majors
Alaska Clean Seas 4720 Business Park Blvd. Ste G42
Anchorage, Alaska 99503 907-659-6202
[email protected]
Judd Muskat
California Department of Fish and Game 1700 K Street,
Suite 250 Sacramento, CA 95811 916-324-3411
[email protected]
907-424-5800 ext. 222
Walt Parker
Arctic Council EPPR (Emergency Preparation, Preven-
tion and Response) 907-333-5189
[email protected]
Jim Rosenberg
Alyeska Pipeline
P.O. Box 196660 Anchorage, AK, 99519 907-834-6939
[email protected]
Karl Booksh
University of Delaware 2 Lammot Dupont Laboratory
Newark, DE 19716 302-831-2561
[email protected]
Patrick Lambert
Environment Canada Emergencies Science and Tech-
nology 335 River Road Ottawa (Gloucester), Ontario
Canada K1A 0H3 613-991-1110
[email protected]
Scott Pegau
Oil Spill Recovery Institute
P.O. Box 705 Cordova, AK 99574
[email protected]
Robert Shuchman
Michigan Tech. Research Institute 3600 Green Court,
Suite 100 Ann Arbor, MI 48105 734-913-6860
[email protected]
Bob Petit
Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation
(ADEC) Division of Spill Prevention and Response 410
WilloughbyAve., Ste 303
P.O. Box 111800 Juneau, AK 99811-1801 907-262-
5210 x236
[email protected]
or Oil Spill Response . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . B-i
appendix b: hydroCarbon sensors for oil spill prevenTion
and response Workshop parTiCipanTs

Detects dissolved carbon in air and has the
potential to detect volatiles.
May detect presence of oil compounds
Performance degrades in cold weather; have to be
Saftey, field rugged, well accepted, easy
and some oil identification with
aromatically detected; battery life in cold
to use, portable.
calibration charts.
climates; analysis range is ppm.
Particle Size Analyzer
Oil droplet size; relative abundance of
Determines the distribution of sizes in a sample
particles as surface size; concentration
Not rugged or field-tested. Available
of particulate material using modern, static
Strong lab acceptance.
and the ability to differentiate between
Commerically.
light scattering instruments.
sediment.
Different sensors that detect the aborption of
oil through different wavelengths within the

Detects presence/absence of oil; can
Contact sensors good for leak detection;
Not as rugged; calibration is user specific; misses
Toxic UV & IR Absorption
electromagnetic spectrum, specifically UV and
follow thickness of oil.
groundwater capabilities.
some compounds (i.e. alcohols); low resolution.
IR frequencies.
Easy to use: easy detection system with
Detects presence/absence and
Cannot detect with a high oil flow; 6ft seas or
will detect presence up to 25mm thick;
Radiofrequency Absorption
Electromagnetic absorption within the
abundance of oil; thickness up to
more and unit loses quality; depth limitations
and Detection
radiowave wavelength part of the spectrum.
good in ports; have solar panels attached
25mm.
(cannot see underneath oil greater than 8 inches)
providing good battery life.
Some ROVs and AUVs are only equipped with
More of a sensor platform but Remotely
Imaging Sensors (Optical,
Detects presence/absence; aerial extent;
optical tools and thereby do not have quantitative
Operated Vehicles (ROVs) or Autonomous
Relatively abundant; can be used under
Thermal) equipped on
thickness via color scale method of
evaluations; need expertise in interpreting
Underwater Vehicles (AUVs) may be equipped
sea ice; easy to use.
ROVs or AUVs)
detection; quantity; recoverability.
information in sea ice condictions as few
with different electromagnetic sensors.
indiviuals have visually observed under sea ice.
Total Organic Vapor
Monitors
Table 1: Current In-Situ and laboratory hydrocarbon sensors currently used by resource managers and scientists. Qualitative assessments of their performance is provided.
Hydrocarbon Sensor Type
Measurement
Information Provided
Strengths
Weaknesses
Calibration issues because there are multiple
Detect the presence of oil by excitation and the
Rugged, easy to use, no sample prep time

compounds in the water column emitting energy;
measurement of light absorbed vs. emitted. For

Detects presence/absence of oil, oil
required, portable and in-line analyzers

back scattering and potential false positves; you
this instrument, oils typically absorb light in

classification or oil fingerprinting, and
Fluorometer
most commonly used and available

have to know what is in the water column before
the ultraviolet spectrum (300 and 400nm), and

concentration; analysis range is low
thereby increasing consistent evaluations;

sampling for oil; cannot identify specific
emit light in the visible spectrum (450 to
ppm.
single and multiband detectors.
hydrocarbons such as aliphatic vs. aromatic
650nm range; (Chase and Bibber, 2006).
hydrocarbons.
Laboratory technique that utilizes the
Evaluates the condition of the oil such
Precise measurement method with no
Fourier Transform Infrared

absorption and emittance of electromagnetic
as the degree of oxidation, nitration,
external calibration, rapid screening,
Non-portable and mainly a laboratory tool.
(FTIR) Spectrometer
wavelengths (similar to fluorometer) in the

and soot content, presence/absence, oil
increased sensitivity.
fingerprinting, concentration.
infrared spectrum.
Provides a very esoteric number because turbidity
Measures how much light is diffracted from

May show the prescence or absence of
May be a primary tool to detect oil but
Turbidity Meters
can be subjective; cannot differentiate between oil
particulates in the water column.
oil.
their applications are severely limited.
and other particulate matter.
Easy to use; classify oil; field portable;
Measures the mass to charge ratio of charged

Determines relative concentrations of
Difficulty to interpret; extensive training is
rugged; underwater sampling
Mass Spectrometers
particles which generates a mass spectrum

oil compounds; presence/absence; oil
required; analysis range is ppb; high resolution
capabilities; underwater and in air;
representing the masses of sample components.
classification.
only.
waterproof.
or Oil Spill Response . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. C-i
appendix C: CurrenT in-siTu and
laboraTory hydroCarbon sensors CurrenTly used

Airborne platform.
Course oil classification;
Has to be operated in low altitudes;
distinguish between natural oil,

cannot detect through fog and cloud
Airborne; laser acoustic
Oil classification; thickness of 0.1-
biogenic oil, mineral oils, etc.;

cover; limited to sea state; can only
sensors are available but
Illuminates the ocean surface with a UV laser oil

20!m; if a scanning device is
does not need a specialized
detect oil spill on the surface water

only in developmental stages
absorbs and emits electromagnetic energy in the

attached, one can determine aerial
aircraft; day and night monitoring;

(i.e. must obtain an oil sample to
but have similar capabilities
form of visible light.
extent and volume; detects
transect of points instead of
calculate thickness); thermal
as laser fluorosensors; near
presence/absence.
sampling; potential for submerged

acclimation of oil; needs proper
range.
oil.
ground truthing .
Same as above.
Cannot detect oil if in calm seas (i.e.
cannot detect calm inside of calm);
All-weather; exptreme far range;

sea state limitations (between 0.5-7
Airborne and satellite
May potentially show the
high resolution; big picture; day

on the Beaufort scale); potential for
platform common radar
presence/absence of oil; location
and night monitoring; can detect

false positives (i.e. wave or algal
method of detection; far
and extent of oil spill.
through clouds, rain and fog.
blooms, biogenic substances); no
range capability.
thickness detection; needs proper
ground truthing.
Can search for ships; day and
Nighttime observations can be
Thermal infrared detection method that measures
night monitoring; common
Forward Looking Infrared Radar

different heat signatures by evaluating the
presence/absence of oil; location of
slightly ambiguous; false positives;
method of detection; can detect
brightness temperature of the ocean's surface.
oil spill; oil extent; relative
unable to detect emulsions in water;
(FLIR)
through light fog; works on oil
Brightness temperature is a function of emissivity.
thickness.
needs proper ground truthing.
covered snow/ice.
Laser Fluorosensors which
include Light Detection and
Ranging (LIDAR) sensors
Synthetic Aperture Radar (SAR)
Side Looking Aerial Radar
(SLAR)
Cannot detect oil if in calm seas (i.e.
Detects electromagnetic energy that is reflected by
cannot detect calm inside of calm);
All-weather; far range (40km
sea state limitations (between 0.5-7
capillary microwave waves on the ocean and
radius); processing time; high
Airborne platform; most
on the Beaufort scale); potential for
measures the backscatter from the ocean's surface.
presence/absence of oil; location

resolution; big picture; day and
common radar method of
Oil dampens the amphitude of the capillary waves
false positives (i.e. wave or algal
and extent of oil spill.
night monitoring; can detect
detection.
hence, these sensors detect the calming of the
blooms, biogenic substances); no
through clouds, rain and fog.
ocean's surface.
thickness detection; needs proper
ground truthing.
Table 2: Current remote sensing hydrocarbon sensors currently used by resource managers and scientists. Qualitative assessments of their performance is provided.
Hydrocarbon Sensor
Type
Measurement
Strengths
Weaknesses
Remarks
or Oil Spill Response . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. D-i
appendix d: remoTe sensing sensors and Their QualiTaTive assessmenTs

Ship or helicopter.
Airborne; near range.
Limited field of view as only strong
Utilizes a camera equipped with filters that block
To help keep the response unit on

as the searchlight; use in a restricted
out parts of the electromagnetic spectrum and
Detects presence/absence of oil.

the oil for proper containment;
area not necessarily open ocean;
proper illumination either visible or UV to record
simple; low-tech; real-time.
meant only for use on a ship or
the emissivity of material.
helicopter.
All weather; day/night
observations; passes through

Sea state limitations (white caps will
Passive imaging sensor that detects the emission of

Detects presence/absence of oil;
clouds; absolute thickness (50!m-
give microwave signatures but oil
oil at the microwave wavelength in the
distribution; thickness; aerial

3mm); instantaneous information
spill will have likely dispersed at that
electromagnetic spectrum.
extent; volume.
delivered in real-time; very
sea state); dedicated aircraft; low
powerful; can calculate oil
spatial resolution; low availability.
volume.
UV Camera Illuminated
Radio microwave Imaging
System
Measures the material's ability to absorb and
radiate energy at the ultraviolet and infrared
wavelengths.
Airborne platform.
UV/IR Scanner
Ability to see very thin when it

Weather conditions such as fog or
comes to thickness; can determine

cloud cover; limited thickness; prone
different sources of oil; combining

to false positives; night observations
Oil extent; location;
presence/absence of oil; relative in

both UV/IR methods of detection
limited; not a true oil detector; need
thickness.
to negate false positives; day/night

proper ground truthing; passive
observations; easily available;

system utilizing the sun as the UV
proven; rugged; good under snow.
source.
Cannot detect oil through cloud cover
With night vision goggles can
Distribution of oil; detects
Visually detects the presence of oil in the visible
or fog; some false positives but w/

Airborne; most common
Aerial Video and Photography
absence/presence of oil; rough

detect during night; easy to use;
electromagnetic spectrum through observations of
training can reduce this; limited

method of detection; relative
(includes night vision)
thickness estimates based by color

quick response to assemble and
color change.
thickness info as color scheme is a
estimate.
get information; readily available.
scheme.
subjective method of determination
Hydrocarbon Sensor
Type
Measurement
Strengths
Weaknesses
Remarks
or Oil Spill Response . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . . D-ii
(ConTd)
Requires ground team to operate unit
Airborne (future
Geophysical method that uses radar pulses in the

Detect presence/absence of oil; oil
Possible calculation of oil volume;
above ice; not an airborne or satellite
technology); towed system
10 m microwave frequency of the electromagnetic

extent; possible thickness; location;
tested fairly well in Arctic
method yet; helicopter cannot detect
on belly of helicopter; near
spectrum to image the subsurface.
detects oil under ice.
climates.
under snow; needs proper ground
range.
truthing.
Nuclear Magnetic Resonance
(NMR)
Rather than exciting electrons of particles into a
Future applications for
Laboratory based unit; not portable
hydrocarbon sensing; In
higher energy state as in other hydrocarbon
Detect presence/absence of oil;

Potentially good detection method
but has the potential to become a
experimental testing phase
techniques, NMR excites the nucleus in its
possible thickness; classification.
under snow/ice.
remote sensing device.
magnetic field using electromagnetic radiation .
of development.
Based on theory and adapted for oil
spill response; originally intended for
the measurement of currents;
High Frequency (HF)
Measures wave state and surface current velocity
May potentially detect the
Commercially available is
Shore based 24/7 operation; all
Radar/Coastal Dynamics Radar

fields near the coast by analyzing the doppler of
presence/absence of oil; possibly
potential for false positives; need
potential issue.
weather.
(CODAR)
reflected radio waves.
movement.
proper ground truthing; need good
line of sight; weather limitations;
requires multiple base stations.
Hyperspectral Imaging
Difficult data interpretation; have to
Covers large areas; good
resolution; able to discriminate

be able to acquire the imagery; sun
Airborne platform; still in
Passive scanning system that collects emitted
radiation over the continuous spectrum, visiable
between sheens and thick oil;
angle, cloud cover limitations;
the research and
distribution; oil extent; location;

development stage; satellite
and near infared sample at very high spectral
aircraft can go under clouds,
classification.
resolution too coarse.
resolution.
potential for submerged oil
visibility.
detecting.
Difficult data interpretation; have to
be able to acquire the imagery; sun

Airborne and satellite; most
Covers large areas; good
Passive scanning system that collects emitted

resolution; able to discriminate
angle, cloud cover limitations;
commonly used scanning
Multispectral Scanning Systems

radiation over a variety of different wavelengths at
distribution; oil extent; location.

between sheens and thick oil;
system; optical near and far
several discreet spectral band.
range.
aircraft can go under clouds.

visibility.
Ground Penetrating Radar
(GPR)
Hydrocarbon Sensor
Measurement
Strengths
Weaknesses
Remarks
Type
or Oil Spill Response . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . D-iii
(ConTd)
Ref. No. [UMCES]CBL 08-095
Copies may be obtained from:
ACT Headquarters
c/o University of Maryland Center of Environmental Science
Post Ofce Box 38
Solomons, Maryland 20688-0038
Environ. Sci. Technol. 2007, 41, 5571-5574
Short and Long Term Toxicity of
Crude Oil and Oil Dispersants to
Two Representative Coral Species
, ,
JAAP VAN R I JN ,
AN D
S H AI S H AF I R , *
B AR U C H R I N K E VI C H
Israel Oceanographic and Limnological Research, National
Institute ofOceanography, Tel Shikmona, P.O. Box 8030,
Haifa 31080, Israel, and FacultyofAgriculture, Food and
Environmental QualitySciences, The Hebrew Universityof
Jerusalem, P.O.Box 12, Rehovot 76100, Israel
Oil dispersants, the tool of choice for treating oil spills in
tropical marine environments, is potentially harmful to marine
life, including reef corals. In a previous study, we found
thatdispersed oil and oil dispersants are harmful to softand
hard coral species at early life stages. In this broader
study, we employed a nubbin assay on more than 10 000
coral fragments to evaluate the short- and long-term
impacts of dispersed oil fractions (DOFs) from six commercial
dispersants, the dispersants and water-soluble-fractions
(WSFs) of Egyptian crude oil, on two Indo Pacific branching
coral species, Stylophora pistillata and Pocillopora
damicornis. Survivorship and growth of nubbins were
recorded for up to 50 days following a single, short (24 h)
exposure to toxicants in various concentrations. Manu-
facturer-recommended dispersant concentrations proved
to be highly toxic and resulted in mortality for all nubbins.
The dispersed oil and the dispersants were significantly
more toxic than crude oil WSFs. As corals are particularly
susceptible to oil detergents and dispersed oil, the
results of these assays rules outthe use of any oil dispersant
in coral reefs and in their vicinity. The ecotoxicological
impacts of the various dispersants on the corals could be
rated on a scale from the least to the most harmful
agent, as follows: Slickgone > Petrotech > Inipol )
Biorieco > Emulgal > Dispolen.
likelyto reach shore (6) . Dispersed oil is subjected to natural
forces such as waves and currents that promote dissolution
of oil droplets. Use of dispersants for treating oil spills is
governed bylocal and national regulations determining, for
instance, distance from shore and depth at which treatment
is allowed (7). However, since most oil-tanker accidents occur
near the shore, it is essential to evaluate the impacts of oil
dispersants on organisms that live on the seabed (8), including
sea grass populations and coral reefs.
Most information on ecotoxicological impacts of dis-
persants comes from studies on North American dispersants
of the Corexit family (9) . Information on other dispersants
(e.g., European manufactured dispersants) is limited and their
effects on corals is deficient (4).
Recent studies on possible toxicity of environmentally
improved third generation oil dispersants revealed that even
these improved chemicals could harm marine biota, in
general, and reef corals, in particular. For example, Negri
and Heyward (1) found that oil-dispersed Corexit 9527
inhibits fertilization of mature eggs and the metamorphosis
of Acropora millepora larvae. Harmful effects of improved
chemicals were also reported by Epstein et al. (10) in their
studyon impacts offive-third-generation dispersants (Inipol
IP-90, Petrotech PTI-25, Bioreico R-93, Biosolve and Emulgal
C-100) on planula larvae ofa stonycoral (Stylophora pistillata)
and a soft coral (Heteroxenia fuscesense). The last-mentioned
authors found that, compared to the toxicityof dissolved oil
fractions, dispersed oil causes a dramatic increase in toxicity
to larvae of both species.
In this study, we employed the nubbin bioassay (11) to
examine the effect of dispersants, oil, and dispersed oil on
mature coral colonies of two branching scleractinian corals.
We examined the long-term impacts (for up to 50 days) after
a single, short (24 h) administration of toxicant.
Materials and Methods
Colonies of Stylophora pistillata and Pocillopora damicornis
were collected from shallow waters (4-6 m depth) in Eilat,
Red Sea, and transported, immersed in seawater within
insulated containers, to the National Institute of Oceanog-
raphy, Haifa where theywere maintained under conditions
previously described in ref 12. To include a wide species-
variability, each set of assays was performed on nubbins
taken from three different genotypes per species (all nubbins
from a single colonywere geneticallyidentical, an outcome
that reduces variation within and among tests).
, ap-
Nubbins (average surface area 31.1 ( 9.7 mm
Introduction
proximately
5-10
poly
ps
each)
were
pruned
from
coral
It is estimated that 40% of global crude oil transport is
conducted offshore with much of the traffic, taking place in

colonies using an electricians wire-cutter and immediately
tropical, coral reef-rich areas (1, 2). This heavymaritime traffic

immersed in seawater to minimize stress. The exposed
ofcrude oils and their products is prone to accidents, resulting

skeletal surfaces of the freshlycut nubbins were dried with
in major or minor spillages. Although the number of major

paper towels and glued with a drop of cyanoacrylate glue
oil spills has decreased in the past decade it is still, by far,

(Super Glue 3, Loctite, Ireland) onto dry glass slides, five
the most serious threat to the marine environment (3, 4). Of

nubbins per glass (13).
Astock solution ofwater-soluble fractions (WSFs; 10) from
the three major ways for treating marine oil spills (chemicals,
Egy
ptian crude oil was prepared byadding 5 mL of crude oil
mechanical containment booms, skimmers and sorbents,
biological-biodegrading microorganisms), chemicals, mainly

to 995 mL offiltered seawater (1:200 ratio). Then, the mixture
oil dispersants (5), are probablythe most commonly used.

was shaken for 24 h at 80 rpm after which onlythe soluble
Dispersants are chemicals that contain surfactants and/or

fraction was collected in a separating funnel. The dispersed
solvent compounds that break down floating oil into small

oil fractions (DOF) stock solution was prepared according to
droplets within the water-column, which makes the spill less

the manufacturers recommendations, usually1:10 dispers-
ant:oil volume ratio. For this purpose, we added 0.5 mL of
the tested dispersant to the crude-oil-seawater mixture and
* Corresponding author phone: 972-4-8565275; fax: 972-4-
followed the above preparation methodology. The dispersant
8511911; e-mail: [email protected]; [email protected].
stock solution was prepared byadding 0.5 mL of the tested
National Institute of Oceanography.
The Hebrew University of Jerusalem.
dispersant (1:2000 ratio) to 995.5 mL of filtered seawater.
10.1021/es0704582 CCC: $37.00
Published on Web 06/26/2007
2007
American Chemical Society
9
5571
VOL. 41, NO. 15, 2007 / ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY
TABLE 1. Average Survivorship of S. Pistillata and P. Damicornis Nubbins One Week after Administration (24 h) of Nine
Graded Solutions of Crude Oil WSP and Dispersed Oil Fractions (DOF)
treatment
1 00%
75%
50%
25%
Egyptian WSF
DOF Biorieco
DOF Dispolen
DOF Emulgal
DOF Inipol
DOF Petrotech
DOF Slickgone
540
540
540
540
540
540
540
92% ( 4%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
92% ( 4%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
94% ( 3%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
95% ( 3%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
88% ( 12%
98%
96%
0%
93%
65%
85%
98%
( 2%
( 0%
P. damicornis Egyptian WSF

DOF Biorieco
DOF Dispolen
DOF Emulgal
DOF Inipol
DOF Petrotech
DOF Slickgone
540
540
540
540
540
540
540
74% ( 13%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
72% ( 5%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
71% ( 9%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
68% ( 3%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
97% ( 2%
60%
38%
0%
29%
35%
98%
92%
( 52%
( 48%
species
S. pistillata
1 0%
( 4%
( 57%
( 3%
( 3%
( 27%
( 28%
( 3%
( 11%
5%
1%
0.5%
0%
93% ( 4%
100%
98% ( 6%
91% ( %
100%
80% ( 28%
100%
93% ( 4%
96% ( 3%
98% ( 7%
100%
99% ( 2%
97% ( 6%
100%
100%
100%
98% ( 6%
99% ( 1%
100%
95% ( 5%
100%
100%
100%
98% ( 6%
96% ( 3%
100%
92% ( 11%
97% ( 6%
73% ( 16%
96% ( 7%
98% ( 2%
95% ( 6%
60% ( 8%
95% ( 9%
100%
78% ( 8%
100%
98% ( 2%
93% ( 6%
67% ( 10%
92% ( 6%
100%
71% ( 12%
97% ( 5%
97% ( 6%
92% ( 11%
85% ( 5%
93% ( 3%
100%
85% ( 5%
97% ( 5%
100%
95% ( 6%
83% ( 7%
98% ( 3%
93% ( 6%
TABLE 2. Average Survivorship of S. Pistillata Nubbins, One Week after Administration (24 h) of Nine Graded Solutions from
Each Tested Dispersant
dispersant
Biorieco
Dispolen
Emulgal
Inipol
Petrotech
Slickgone
540
540
540
540
540
540
100%
75%
50%
25%
10%
5%
1%
0.5%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
3% 6%
0%
2% ( 3%
73% ( 28%
83% ( 23%
82% ( 28%
98% ( 3%
92% ( 14%
73% ( 26%
100%
71% ( 39%
100%
100%
93% ( 3%
100%
98% ( 3%
80% ( 29%
97% ( 3%
98% ( 3%
98% ( 3%
97% ( 2%
100%
64% ( 37%
98% ( 3%
100%
98% ( 3%
94% ( 5%
98% ( 3%
79% ( 33%
100%
Six dispersants were tested: Emulgal C-100 (Amgal
Chemicals, Israel) , Dispolen 36S (SEPPIC), Inipol 90 (CECA
S.A. France), Petrotech PTI-25 (Petrotech Emergency), Slick-
gone NS (Dasic Int. Ltd. UK), Bioreico R-93 (Reico France) .
The dispersants stock solutions were considered to be at
100% concentration. In the experiment with crude oil WSFs,
nubbins were introduced into seawater with six different
concentrations of crude oil WSF: 100, 75, 50, 25, 10, and as
a control, 0% as control. Nine concentrations were tested in
both the dispersants and DOFs experiments: 100, 75, 50, 25,
10, 5, 1, 0.5, and as a control, 0%.
The above assays were performed on short- (7 days) and
long-term (50 days) acute responses to oil WSFs and dispersed
oil fractions. The dispersants impacts were tested only in
short-term assays. In each experiment, 60 nubbins (20 from
each genotype; 10 800 nubbins total) were subjected during
a 24 h period to different toxicant concentrations. The
nubbins were then washed carefullyfor several minutes under
freshlyfiltered seawater and placed in new aquaria supplied
with flowing filtered seawater. Survivorship was monitored
dailyduring the first week of the experiment, and it was then
monitored weekly. Horizontal tissue growth on the glass slide
was evaluated weekly.
For grading the relative toxicityof the tested dispersants
to corals, the results (see below) of each experiment (a) were
divided bythe control values ofthat experiment (b) and then
multiplied bythe concentration ofthe administrated toxicant
(DOF, WSF, dispersant; c). The sum value (e) ofall treatments
of each dispersant (e ) (a/b)xc) was divided by the value
of the most toxic dispersant in that experiment (f), providing
a grade (g) for dispersant toxicity(g) e/f). Average quality
of dispersant toxicity (q) was calculated from both coral
species (Stylophora, Pocillopora) . The relative toxicity (RT)
ofa specific dispersant was established as the average values
from the survivorship after 7 days (q, 7), survivorship after
50 days (q, 50), and percentages of nubbins that developed
horizontal tissues on the substrates (q, tissue), combining
short- and long-term toxicity results.
Results
Two timeframes (short and extended post treatment period)
assays were applied to evaluate various ecotoxicological
9
ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY / VOL. 41, NO. 15, 2007
5572
impacts that developed following 24 h exposure to toxicants.
The short time assays examined the survivorship of the
nubbins up to a week after exposure to various WSF and
DOF concentrations. Most results (dead vs alive) were
detectable as earlyas the end of the 24 h treatments, but in
several treatments, dead tissue lingered on the coral skeleton
for a few more days, making it difficult to determine the
status of the nubbins. Therefore, the endpoint of the short-
term experiments was confirmed within 7 days after ad-
minstering the toxicant.
None ofthe crude oil WSF concentrations had anyimpact
on the survivorship of either Stylophora pistillata or Pocil-
lopora damicornis nubbins (p > 0.05 ANOVA one-way;
Table 1). However, all 100% (stock solution) dispersed oil
DOFs (the recommended concentrations by the manufac-
turers, 1:10) , as well as the 75 and 50% (1:20) concentrations
of all dispersant-oil combinations, the 25% concentrations
of all dispersant-oil combinations (except Slickgone), and
the Dispolen DOF 10% concentration, caused 100% mortality
to nubbins ofboth coral species. Bioreico, Emulgal and Inipol
10% DWSPs showed significant mortality only in P. dami-
cornis nubbins with 38, 29, and 35% survivorship respectively,
compared to 97, 95, and 83% of the controls (p < 0.05 t test;
Table 1).
Acontrol experiment on the affect of dispersants alone
was preformed on Stylophora pistillata nubbins. As with the
DOF solutions, all 100% (stock solution; 0.05%) of the
dispersants, as well as 75, 50, and 25% concentrations of all
dispersant solutions resulted in 100% nubbins mortality.
Furthermore, Dispolen 10% concentration caused 100%
mortality to the nubbins, and Emulgal and Biorieco 10%
concentrations caused 98 and 97% mortality, respectively.
On the other hand, The results of the Inipol, Slickgone, and
Petrotech 10% concentrations showed high survivorship rates
(73, 82, and 83%, respectively; Table 2).
In the expanded experiments, nubbins were maricultured
for 50 days following acute exposure to the WSFs and DOFs
concentrations. Within this period, the cultured nubbins did
not show any delayed mortality effects (Table 3). Most
nubbins that had survived the first week continued to live.
Three weeks after toxicant administrations, nubbins attached
onto glass slides started to grow flat horizontal tissues and
TABLE 3. Average Survivorship of S. Pistillata and P. Damicornis Nubbins 50 days after Administration (24 h) of Nine Graded
Solutions of Crude Oil WSP and Dispersed Oil Fractions (DOF)
species
S. pistillata
P. damicornis
treatments
100%
75%
50%
25%
10%
5%
Egyptian WSF
DOF Biorieco
DOF Dispolen
DOF Emulgal
DOF Inipol
DOF Petrotech
DOF Slickgone
540
540
540
540
540
540
540
76% ( 30%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
82% ( 15%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
77% ( 27%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
75% ( 5%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
83% ( 11%
73%
92%
0%
91%
59%
53%
88%
( 5%
( 11%
Egyptian WSF
DOF Biorieco
DOF Dispolen
DOF Emulgal
DOF Inipol
DOF Petrotech
DOF Slickgone
540
540
540
540
540
540
540
41% ( 41%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
23% ( 24%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
36% ( 36%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
31% ( 24%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
80% ( 16%
46%
25%
0%
13%
21%
88%
68%
( 40%
( 40%
( 6%
( 51%
( 20%
( 20%
( 12%
( 26%
( 8%
( 7%
1%
0.5%
0%
78%
67%
87%
90%
96%
53%
98%
( 14%
( 36%
( 20%
( 9%
( 4%
( 45%
( 8%
80%
77%
85%
98%
96%
34%
88%
( 11%
( 36%
( 21%
( 3%
( 4%
( 27%
( 18%
76%
99%
82%
97%
99%
43%
86%
( 15%
( 2%
( 22%
( 5%
( 2%
( 42%
( 25%
83%
89%
82%
96%
88%
31%
83%
( 8%
( 10%
( 23%
( 2%
( 7%
( 28%
( 19%
43%
67%
58%
57%
26%
88%
92%
( 38%
( 41%
( 23%
( 14%
( 24%
( 13%
( 11%
47%
81%
87%
63%
21%
88%
90%
( 41%
( 20%
( 8%
( 33%
( 18%
( 8%
( 6%
45%
67%
90%
63%
54%
90%
93%
( 37%
( 16%
( 13%
( 33%
( 11%
( 5%
( 8%
48%
66%
82%
63%
62%
83%
70%
( 44%
( 12%
( 15%
( 27%
( 3%
( 8%
( 14%
TABLE 4. Percentages of Nubbins (of Total Surviving) That Developed, after 50 Days, Horizontal Tissue on the Substrate (NA, Not
Available, All Nubbins Died)
toxicantconcentration
species
S. pistillata
P. damicornis
treatments
10%
Egyptian WSF
DOF Biorieco
DOF Dispolen
DOF Emulgal
DOF Inipol
DOF Petrotech
DOF Slickgone
420
250
200
300
260
130
320
98%
11%
NA
77%
26%
91%
59%
Egyptian WSF
DOF Biorieco
DOF Dispolen
DOF Emulgal
DOF Inipol
DOF Petrotech
DOF Slickgone
220
190
190
160
190
260
300
( 2%
( 11%
5%
1%
0.5%
0%
( 22%
( 23%
( 4%
( 13%
93%
38%
49%
73%
64%
51%
63%
( 4%
( 14%
( 40%
( 4%
( 18%
( 21%
( 18%
93%
58%
47%
66%
76%
48%
65%
( 4%
( 19%
( 45%
( 15%
( 3%
( 17%
( 18%
100%
71% ( 36%
53% ( 32%
64% ( 18%
81% ( 10%
25% ( 11%
80% ( 17%
100%
64% ( 15%
45% ( 41%
91% ( 10%
77% ( 7%
59% ( 34%
60% ( 29%
65% ( 24%
36% ( 11%
NA
0%
5% ( 11%
39% ( 34%
64% ( 21%
77%
80%
88%
13%
42%
73%
70%
( 12%
( 17%
( 14%
( 26%
( 48%
( 11%
( 17%
70%
77%
90%
31%
39%
59%
69%
( 9%
( 16%
( 8%
( 18%
( 49%
( 24%
( 11%
85%
89%
91%
98%
38%
76%
85%
89%
54%
94%
82%
23%
76%
88%
skeletons on the slides as recorded earlier (11). Nubbins that
started to spread on substrates were monitored and pho-
tographed digitally, as described in ref11. After 50 days, most
surviving nubbins grew horizontal tissues but some showed
delayed effects in two parameters: percentage of nubbins
that developed horizontal tissue and onset for initial tissue
growth.
None of the crude oil WSFs had any impact on lateral
growth of either Stylophora pistillata or Pocillopora dami-
cornis nubbins (p > 0.05, one-way ANOVA; Table 4). Since
S. pistillata and P. damicornis nubbins exposed to 10%
Dipolen WSF solution had not survived after one week, they
were not taken into consideration in the growing long-term
assay. However, at least, some of the experiments with
dispersant administration revealed significant impacts on
lateral growth. S. pistillata nubbins exposed to Biorieco and
Inipol at 10% DOF concentration exhibited long-term effect
ofsuppressed growth. Under the influence ofthese materials,
only 11 and 26%, respectively, of the surviving nubbins
developed horizontal tissues after 50 days from toxin
exposure, compared to the 64 and 77%, respectively, of the
control (p < 0.05 t test; Table 4). P. damicornis nubbins
exposed to Emulgal 10% DWSP failed to grow horizontal
tissues. P. damicornis nubbins exposed to Emulgal 5 and 1%
DOFs showed suppressed development: 13 and 31%, com-
pared to 82% of the control (p < 0.05 t test; Table 4).
Furthermore, Biorieco 10 and 5% DOF caused three- and
two-week delays in S. pistillata nubbins horizontal tissues
development. Dispolen 5% DOF caused a one-week delay,
and Inipol 10 and 5% DOF caused one- and two-week delays,
respectively (Table 5). Biorieco 10%, Dispolen 5%, and
Emulgal 5% DOF caused delays to growth of P. damicornis
nubbins horizontal tissues by one week, and Inipol 10%
( 11%
( 8%
( 10%
( 3%
( 33%
( 15%
( 7%
( 8%
( 21%
( 4%
( 17%
( 25%
( 18%
( 9%
TABLE 5. Weeks Delay in Beginning of Horizontal Tissue
Growth (NA) Not Available, All Nubbins Died; NT, No
Horizontal Growth Developed)
toxicantconcentration
treatments
10%
5%
1%
0.5%
0%
S. pistillata
species
Egyptian WSF
DOF Biorieco
DOF Dispolen
DOF Emulgal
DOF Inipol
DOF Petrotech
DOF Slickgone
0
-3
NA
0
-2
0
0
0
-2
-1
0
-1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
P. damicornis
Egyptian WSF
DOF Biorieco
DOF Dispolen
DOF Emulgal
DOF Inipol
DOF Petrotech
DOF Silckgone
0
-1
NA
NT
-2
0
0
0
0
-1
-1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
DOF caused a two-week delay (Table 5).
Discussion
Oil dispersants play an important role in environmental
technologies aiming to enhance the dissolving of oil in the
water column by converting oil spills into chemically
dispersed droplets. Potential ecotoxicological effects of this
change must be taken into consideration because benthic
organisms that initiallyare not affected byoil maybe exposed
to the harmful impacts of dispersants (9, 10) . The fragile
coral reefs, and, particularly their building blocks, the
scleractinan corals, need extra care when dealing with the
devastating agents of oil and oil dispersants.
9
5573
VOL. 41, NO. 15, 2007 / ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY
In conclusion, corals are particularly susceptible to oil
detergents and dispersed oil. Consequently, decision-making
authorities should carefully consider these results when
evaluating possible use of oil dispersants as a mitigation tool
against oil pollution near coral reef areas. The results of the
present and earlier studies (10, 11) implythat the use of any
oil dispersant in coral reefs and its vicinityshould be avoided.
Chemical dispersants should be considered only in emer-
gencies, when oil slicks are shore-bound and threatens to
smother the reef flats.
Acknowledgments
FIGURE 1. Relative toxicity (RT) of the six tested dispersants on
corals (calculated form the results presented in Tables 1, 3-5).
DOF, dispersed oil fractions.
As reported earlier (10), the results of this study have
reconfirmed the increased toxicity of dispersed oil when
compared to untreated oil (but there is no synergistic
detrimental impacts from the dispersant and oil together) .
Even when dealing with improved formulas, often described
as environmentallyfriendlydispersants (4) , the high toxicity
effects of all six approved-to-use oil dispersants on corals,
strengthen the general recommendation to ban oil dispers-
ants from the vicinityof coral reefs, if possible (when the oil
slick is not stranded on the reef flat). Earlier (10), we found
that both dispersed oil and oil dispersants are harmful to
early stages of soft and hard coral species by reducing
settlement and survivorship rates and byaltering morphology
and behavior of planulae and spats. Dispersed oil revealed
synergistic detrimental impacts (10) . In the present study,
we gained knowledge on ecotoxicological impacts to corals
byemploying the nubbin assay(11), on thousands of coral
fragments taken from two coral branching species. Evaluating
the ecotoxicological impacts on coral nubbins during short
and long periods (up to 50 days after toxicant administration),
allowed us to observe the effects on the whole organism by
monitoring survivorship and the physiological parameter of
tissue growth on the substrate.
The results of the six dispersants examined here have
revealed that the manufacturers recommended usage ratio
of 1:10 dispersant:oil inflicts significant harm on coral
colonies. Epstein et al.(10) rated the dispersants theytested,
from the least to the most toxic compound, as follows:
Petrotech < Bio-solve < Emulgal < Bioreico ) Inipol. By
consolidating the parameters tested in the present studyon
both coral species into one common scale, the relative toxicity
(RT) value, we found that out of the six tested dispersants,
Slickgone is the least toxic dispersant to corals and Dispolen
is the most toxic (Figure 1) . Rating the RT values of the tested
dispersants resulted in the following order: Slickgone <
Petrotech < Inipol ) Biorieco < Emulgal < Dispolen
(Figure 1). It is interesting to note that the four dispersants
employed here and by Epstein et al. (10) were ranked, in
both experiments, bythe same toxicityhierarchy(Petrotech
< Inipol ) Biorieco < Emulgal). Ofthe two new oil dispersants
used here, one (Slickgone) emerged as the least toxic to corals,
whereas the second (Dispolen) was found to be the most
toxic to corals.
9
ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY / VOL. 41, NO. 15, 2007
5574
This study was supported by the BARD (IS 3319-02 R) and
by a grant from the Israeli Ministry of the Environment.
Thanks are due to Balachsan O., Berkovich N., Botechiano
J., Mizrachi E., and Shitrit D. for helping in different stages
of the research.
Literature Cited
(1) Negri, A. P.; Heyward, A. J. Inhibition of fertilization and larval
metamorphosis of the coral Acropora millepora (Ehrenberg,
1834) bypetroleum products oil contamination along oil tanker
routes off the United Arab Emirates (The Arabian Gulf and the
Gulf of Oman). Mar. Pollut. Bull. 2000, 7, 420-427.
(2) Prince, R. C.; Lessard, R. R.; Clark, J. R. Bioremediation ofmarine
oil spills. Oil Gas Sci. Technol. 2003, 58, 463-468.
(3) Heubeck, M.; Camphuysen, K. C. J.; Bao, R.; Humple, D.;
Sandoval Rey, A. S.; Cadiou, B.; Brager, S.; Thomas, T. Assessing
the impact ofmajor oil spills on seabird populations. Mar. Pollut.
Bull. 2003, 46, 900-902.
(4) NAS. Oil Spill Dispersants: Efficacy and Effects; National
Academy of Sciences: Washington, DC, 2005.
(5) Walker, A. H.; Kucklick, J. H.; Michel, J. Effectiveness and
environmental considerations for non-dispersant chemical
countermeasures. Pure Appl. Chem. 1999, 17, 67-81.
(6) Fiocco, R. J.; Lewis, A. Oil spill dispersants. Pure Appl. Chem.
1999, 71, 27-42.
(7) Mearns, A.; Watauayashi, G.; Lankford, J. Dispersing oil near
shore in the California current region. CalCOFl Rep. 2001, 42.
(8) McMahon, A. C.; Labelle, R. P. Update ofcomparative occurrence
rates for offshore oil spills. SpillSci. Technol. Bull. 2000, 6, 303-
321.
(9) Singer, M. M.; George, S.; Jacobson, S.; Lee, I.; Weetman, L. L.;
Tjeerdema, R. S.; Sowby, M. L. Comparison of acute aquatic
effects of the oil dispersant Corexit 9500 with those of other
Corexit series dispersants. Ecotoxicol. Environ. Safety1996, 35,
183-189.
(10) Epstein, N.; Bak, R. P. M.; Rinkevich, B. Toxicityof3rd generation
dispersants and dispersed Egyptian crude oil on Red Sea
coral larvae. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 2000, 40, 497-503.
(11) Shafir, S.; Van-Rijn, J.; Rinkevich, B. The use of coral nubbins
in coral reef ecotoxicologytesting Biomol. Eng. 2003, 20, 401-
406.
(12) Shafir, S.; Van-Rijn, J.; Rinkevich, B. Nubbins of coral colonies:
Anovel approach for the development of inland broodstocks.
Aquarium Sci. Conserv. 2001, 3, 183-190.
(13) Shafir, S.; Van Rijn, J.; Rinkevich, B. Coral nubbins as source
material for coral biological research: a prospectus. Aquaculture
2006, 259, 444-448.
Received for review February 22, 2007. Revised manuscript
received May20, 2007. Accepted May22, 2007.
ES0704582
Canadian Smart Team Update to Smart Team Coordinator
May 9
Searched for oil at location 29 40 17 / 088 54 34 but none was found. Spotter plane
provided possible oil location at 1 pm but we had already confirmed no oil at this
location.
Deployed LISST in data logger mode over side of Grand Bay. Data was collected in
heavily sediment laden water near channel entrance to test the system in data logger
mode.
AST Smart system was booted up. Had password login difficulty. Problem was the num
lock key was on and this prevented login with correct password entry. Once booted early
comms problems were encountered. Re-boots eventually corrected problems. No oil was
encountered so no C3 data was recorded.
The shift -> m key was also not functioning on the AST Smart tough book.
May 10
Possible oil locations were provided by NOAA over flight information. Traveled towards
the Chandeleur Islands.
Observed small pieces of emulsion (thumb sizes to palm sized only) surrounded by
extensive areas of sheen. Particle coverage was slight and not consistent. Some areas had
less than 10 pieces in a 5m x 5m area whiles others contained a few dozen in the same
water surface area.
Oil locations:
29 37.852 / 088 57.445
29 40.041 / 088 54.034
29 10.600 / 089 00.205
Photos of oil below.
Thumb-sized pieces of emulsion
This was one of the higher concentrations of emulsion pieces encountered.
Sheen from emulsion bits.
Instruments powered up and tested.
LISST system was deployed in data logger over side of vessel. Determined that we
needed to hold the LISST out from vessel side with outrigger.
The AST Smart system encountered problems with communications in Terminal Mode.
Multiple system re-boots did not solve the problem. Back-up plan was to log C3 data
separately through standard C3 software, log positioning through GPS software and
merge data after capture. No oil was encountered so no C3 data was recorded.
May 11
Grand Bay broke a shaft while just exiting the dock. This was fortunate timing for us as
we able to transfer equipment to the RW Armstrong and still carry out the days
activities.
Searched for oil at 29 / 089. Oil was not found at this location but large mats of floating
seaweed with a very similar color to the emulsified oil were. A false positive sight of oil
had obviously been recorded. Recommend passing on to spotter personnel that if large
areas of sheen are not seen with apparent heavy patches of oil that ground-truthing or a
closer look be taken to ensure a positive sighting.
Photos of seaweed below:
No oil was encountered on this day as closest oil found by spotter aircraft was out of our
range for the day.
LISST system was deployed in data logger mode from outrigger. Transit speed must be
about 1 knot or less to prevent LISST form planning in water.
AST smart system powered up and functioned properly without the problems that we had
encountered on earlier days.
May 12
Traveled on a trajectory direct to the spill site from South Pass. Oil was expected to be
present about 32 miles from South Pass exit based on previous days trajectory modeling
but was not found until about 5 miles from the spill site. A consistent rainbow sheen was
encountered about 3 miles from the spill site at 28 45.282 / 088 24.649. As we
approached the spill site significant quantities of rag emulsion was seen in the water
mixed in the upper meter or so by wave action.
Rag emulsion in upper water layer near spill site.
Once the spill site was reached a stretch of thick oil between the many vessels operating
in the area was selected for the dispersant tests and spraying was started. All spray
nozzles clogged on first spray attempt. Nozzles were removed and cleared.
JD 2000 was used in first spray run. It was sprayed with a vessel speed of approximately
2 knots for a total of 21 min 50 sec. Sprayed for 10 min between 28 44.460 / 088 21.963
and 28 44.256 / 088 21.632 vessel turned and sprayed back to start position parallel to
initial pass. Inner port side nozzle clogged shortly into spray run and two other nozzles
(one on starboard and one on port) were partially blocked. Some caf au lait dispersion
evident but dispersion did not seem as dramatic as previous Sea Brat test (Tom
Coolbaughs obs.)
Photos of JD 2000 test follow.
JD 2000 Application Starboard Side
JD2000 Early Dispersant Effect
LISST was deployed in real time mode so oil drop size distribution could be monitored
during sampling. After 300 data points were captured (645 seconds or about 10 minutes
of data) the communications link to the LISST failed and data capture was lost. There
was no evidence of small drop dispersion in the recorded data but this data only covered a
small portion of the instrumentation run.
The C3 was successfully deployed and data was captured as transects were conducted
tracking back and forth across the path of dispersant application. Elevated oil readings
were obtained but these might be misleading as there was a considerable amount of rag
emulsion submerged below the surface throughout the test area that could be the cause of
elevated readings rather than the presence of dispersed oil.
By the time we were finished the instrument run for the JD 2000 spray test time was not
available to complete a full test of another dispersant. A quick spray with Dispersit SPC
1000 was conducted and only visual observations of its effectiveness were made.
Dispersant was sprayed from one side of the RW Armstrong as a nozzle was lost from the
port spray arm and time was not available to effect the repair.
The Dispersit SPC 1000 application was completed in a zone of relatively thin oil so
visuals were not optimal. There was evidence of small drop dispersion (caf au lait)
during the application. We did not return to observe any long term effect.
Photos of Dispersit SPC 1000 follow.
Dispersit SPC 1000 Early Dispersant Effect
If time and priorities permit additional testing of both of these dispersants on the fresh oil
is recommended so quantitative data (oil drop size and oil fluorescence) can be collected
to validate visual observations.
Having said this it appears that both dispersants tested on this day exhibited some level of
effectiveness on the fresh crude oil.
Of the three tested on fresh oil to date, Sea Brat appeared to be the most effective
followed by Dispersit SPC 1000 and JD 2000. This is supported primarily by visual
observation only as adequate in-water data has yet to be collected.
Aquat. Living Resour. 18, 215230 (2005)
c
EDP Sciences, IFREMER, IRD 2005
DOI: 10.1051/alr:2005028
www.edpsciences.org/alr
Aquatic
Living
Resources
Human-induced physical disturbances and their indicators
on coral reef habitats: A multi-scale approach
1,2,a
1,3
, Mehdi Adjeroud
, Serge Andrfout
, Yves-Marie Bozec
, Jocelyne Ferraris
Pascale Chabanet
Jose-Antonio Garca-Charton
and Muriel Schrimm
IRD, UR CoRUs, BP A5, 98848 Nouma Cedex, Nouvelle-Caldonie, France
Universit de La Runion, ECOMAR, BP 7151, 97715 St-Denis Cedex 9, La Runion, France
EPHE, Universit de Perpignan, Laboratoire de Biologie marine et Malacologie, UMR 8046 CNRS, 66860 Perpignan Cedex, France
IRD, UR-CoRUs, Agrocampus Rennes, Dpartement halieutique UPR MESH CS 84215, 35042 Rennes Cedex, France
Dep. Ecologa e Hidrologa, Universidad de Murcia, Campus de Espinardo, 30100 Murcia, Spain
Received 22 June 2004; Accepted 27 June 2005
Abstract This article aims to review 1) the major and most frequent human-induced physical disturbances and their
consequences on coral reef habitats using a multi-scale approach, and 2) the scale-related indicators and conceptual
aspects used to detect and measure the eects of these physical impacts. By physical disturbances, we mean direct per-
turbations that lead to the destruction/erosion of the carbonate framework. Human-induced direct physical disturbances
are numerous from coastal development, tourism, harvesting, accidents and nuclear/weapon testing. Since methods for
monitoring and measuring indicators are generally scale-implicit, coral reefs are rst presented according to dierent
ecological-spatial scales of organization, from colony to region (colony, reefscape, reef zone, whole reef, island and
region). In this way, it is easier to link a couple {habitat, disturbance} to their potential indicators and to the descrip-
tors they target. Three classes of descriptors, related to the response of the living component of coral reef ecosystem,
are considered here: stony coral, reef shes and the human uses. A synthesis of the dierent options for coral habitat
assessments is proposed. We sort them according to their objectives (monitor, initial status or improvement of knowl-
edge), their specicities (identication or not of a specic disturbances) and their scale of investigation (small, meso-
or large scales). Usually, the majority of the indicators of human-induced disturbances are non-specic. They reveal
that something is happening but not the actual causality and can only detect dierences across time or space. A major
weakness lies in the diculty in deconvoluting the signals from a conjunction of stressors occurring at dierent scales.
As such, a hierarchical concept of disturbances in coral reefs would be the next logical step to enhance our capabilities
in monitoring and forecasting coral reefs status.
Key words: Coral reef /Physical disturbances /Habitat /Human-induced disturbances /Indicator
Rsum Indicateurs des perturbations physiques et anthropiques de lhabitat corallien : une approche multi
spatiale. Cet article a pour but dexaminer travers une approche multi-spatiale 1) les principales et les plus frquentes
perturbations physiques sur lhabitat corallien et leurs consquences, 2) les indicateurs de ces perturbations et les as-
pects conceptuels utiliss pour dtecter et mesurer les eets de ces impacts. Seules, les dgradations physiques ayant
un impact direct sur la destruction et lrosion de la trame carbonate du rcif corallien sont considres. Ce type
dimpact, frquent en milieu corallien, peut tre gnr par lurbanisation du littoral, les activits touristiques (plon-
ge sous-marine), la rcolte dorganismes (pitinement, pche la dynamite), les essais nuclaires ou des accidents
(chouage de navires). Les mthodes dchantillonnage et les indicateurs utiliss pour le suivi des rcifs tant relis
lchelle dobservation, les rcifs coralliens sont abords dans un premier temps en fonction de ces direntes chelles
spatiales (colonie, paysage, partie du rcif, rcif en entier, le, rgion). De cette manire, il est plus facile de relier le
tandem {habitat, perturbation} aux potentiels indicateurs et descripteurs cibls. Trois classes de descripteurs relies
la composante vivante de lcosystme rcifal sont considres : les coraux constructeurs de rcif, les poissons rcifaux
(Chaetodontidae) et lhomme travers lutilisation quil fait de lcosystme. Une synthse des direntes options pour
valuer ltat du rcif corallien est propose. Elles ont t slectionnes en fonction des objectifs (suivi, tat initial ou
amlioration des connaissances), de leurs spcicits (identicateur ou non de la perturbation) et lchelle dinvesti-
gation (petite, moyenne ou large). La majorit des indicateurs dune perturbation anthropique nest pas spcique
un type de perturbation. Ils rvlent que quelque chose sest pass, mais pas spciquement la cause actuelle de la
perturbation ; ils ne peuvent donc que dtecter des dirences au cours du temps ou de lespace. Un des obstacles pour
dtecter spciquement une perturbation rside dans la dicult de dissocier les signaux dun ensemble de stress qui
se rpercutent direntes chelles spatiales. Ainsi, une approche conceptuelle hirarchique de perturbations en milieu
corallien serait la prochaine tape franchir pour amliorer nos connaissances an de mieux suivre ltat des rcifs
coralliens et anticiper leurs dgradations.
Corresponding author: chabanet@noumea. ird. nc
Article published by EDP Sciences and available at http://www.edpsciences.org/alr or http://dx.doi.org/10.1051/alr:2005028
216
P. Chabanet et al.: Aquat. Living Resour. 18, 215230 (2005)
1 Introduction
Coral reefs are characterized by their high species diversity
and high gross productivity, among the highest of Earths ma-
rine or terrestrial ecosystems (Connell 1978; Ray 1988). Coral
reefs, frequently associated with seagrass beds and mangrove
forests on tropical shorelines, supply vast numbers of people
with goods and services such as seafood, recreational possi-
bilities, and coastal protection providing signicant aesthetic,
cultural and economical benets for many tropical countries
(Done et al. 1996; Constanza et al. 1997; Berg et al. 1998).
Scleractinians (stony corals) are the main contributor of the
reef framework since coral polyps secrete a carbonate skele-
ton at an average of 5 kg calcium carbonate per square meter
(Kinsey 1985). The high calcication rates of these organisms
are possible due to a symbiotic association with microscopic
unicellular algae, the zooxanthellae that facilitate the growth
and secretion of the calcium carbonate skeleton (Goreau 1959;
Smith 1985; Gattuso et al. 1993, 1999). Crustose coralline al-
gae, foraminifera and molluscs may also contribute signi-
cantly to the carbonate budget of a reef, which itself results
from the accretion of the carbonate material at a geologi-
cal scale. However, various agents balance continuously the
calcication process through chemical, physical or biologi-
cal erosion. As a result of a variety of environmental forcing
and the duality between coral growth and carbonate dissolu-
tion/destruction, reefs provide a variety of three-dimensional
complex habitats and niches for a variety of sh, molluscs,
crustaceans and other reef-dwelling animals. The diversity of
niches and habitats partially explain the diversity and structure
of living community that exist on many coral reefs worldwide
(Veron 1986; Done 1992).
Usually, ecologists consider as disturbances the factors that
prevent calcication or enhance destruction/erosion of the car-
bonate framework. These disturbances play an important role
in shaping continuously coral reef communities and their ar-
chitecture (Connell 1978; Grigg 1983; Brown and Howard
1985; Hughes 1989; Grigg and Dollar 1990; Done 1992;
Connell et al. 1997; Hughes and Connell 1999). Disturbances
can be natural (e.g., ingestion by parrotsh of large amounts
of coral rock, Bruggeman 1994; Peyrot-Claussade et al. 1995;
sponges and echinoids grazing, Hutchings 1986) or induced by
human activities.
Man-induced physical disturbances are numerous, includ-
ing over-harvesting of reef organisms (Grigg 1984; Wells and
Alcala 1987), coral mining (White 1987; Brown and Dunne
1988), destructive shing methods (Carpenter and Alcala
1977; Alcala and Gomezn 1987; Gomez et al. 1987; McManus
et al. 1997; Salvat et al. 2002; Erdmann 2000; Jackson et al.
2001; Fox et al. 2005) or uncontrolled land reclamation for
tourism and coastal development (Tilmant 1987; Allison 1996;
Hawkins and Roberts 1997; Guzman et al. 2003). The eects
of these disturbances can be detected at dierent scales. These
disturbances have direct consequences on stony corals rang-
ing from colony to reef zone. With the expansion of human
population on coastlines, and deforestation or intensive agri-
culture on the upstream watersheds, the increase in nutrient
delivery (Marszaleck 1981a; Bell 1992; Naim et al. 2000),
sediment and pollutant loads (Pastorok and Bilyard 1985) can
have signicant consequences at whole reef scale or even
regional scale. Finally, activities occurring very far from the
reefs may have consequences at a global scale. Indeed, green-
house warming and global change are the usual suspects to ex-
plain more frequent occurrences of coral bleaching events, and
may potentially increase hurricane frequencies and strengths
(Knutson et al. 1998; Hoegh-Guldberg 1999; Kleypas et al.
2001). Human impacts and increased fragmentation of coral
reef habitat have undermined reef resilience, making them
much more susceptible to current and future climate change
(Hughes et al. 2003). Being able to specically identify the
consequences of human actions on reef communities would be
a valuable tool in terms of management. Unfortunately, it is
not always easy to nd the right key, or indicator, that will de-
code without ambiguity the signal of a human-induced stress
on coral reefs.
This article aims to review:
the major and most frequent human-induced physical dis-
turbances and their consequences on coral reef habitats
considering dierent levels of ecological organisation as-
sociated with various spatial scales (colony scale to region
scale), and
the scale-related indicators and conceptual aspects to de-
tect and to measure the eects of these physical distur-
bances. By physical disturbances, we mean all events that
lead to destruction/erosion of the carbonate framework of
a colony, community or entire reef.
Within the limit of this article, we do not consider either
man-induced non-physical disturbances such as chemical pol-
lution, eutrophication, or thermal stress, nor non-human, natu-
ral, physical-perturbations, such as hurricanes, coral-bleaching
events, or outbreaks of predators. Furthermore we will not
address indirect perturbations such as global human induced
greenhouse warming. Only direct perturbations will be specif-
ically identied here.
2 Multi-scale habitat in coral reef
environments
The habitat of an organism can be intuitively dened as
the place where it lives, and which provides food, shelter and
living space to the organism. More formally, a habitat can be
dened as a spatially-bounded area, with a subset of physical
and biotic conditions, within which the density of interacting
individuals, and at least one of the parameters of population
growth, is dierent than in adjacent subsets (Morris 2003).
Then, habitat must be dened by the species and populations of
interest, and in a manner that reects underlying processes op-
erating at appropriate spatial and temporal scales. Coral habi-
tats can be classied according to an ecological function (e.g.,
nursery grounds) and/or according to a spatial or structural
pattern (e.g., the distribution of living and non-living com-
ponents). These approaches are not mutually exclusive, since
function and structure are intimately linked at all levels of bio-
logical organization. A particular organism can occupy dier-
ent habitats at dierent stages of its life and according to its
activity (growth, foraging, sheltering and reproduction). This
vision is compatible with a hierarchical, multi-scale presenta-
tion of reef habitats. For example, a colony is a habitat, but
it is also submitted to a specic hydroclimate, which control
a region. Since methods for monitoring and measuring indi-
cators are generally scale-implicit, we propose a presentation
by ecological-spatial scales (Fig. 1). This presentation makes
easier to link directly a couple {habitat, disturbance} with its
potential indicators (Sect. 4). Such a hierarchical decomposi-
tion is appropriate for complex systems (ONeill et al. 1989;
ONeill 2001).
2.1 Level 1 : Individual coral colony, community
and reefscape
The level of habitat can be referred as a small-scale level:
1 to 10 m spatial unit. It corresponds to what most coral reef
ecologists refer to when they use the concept of habitat. In-
dividual coral colonies create a microcosm that oers shelter
and food for various species. The success of coral recruitment
depends upon a variety of environmental factors (temperature,
light, sedimentation, salinity, nutrient regime, wave action and
type of substrate). The spatial aggregation of coral colonies
within a mono- or multi-specic community forms a reefs-
cape, which can be dened as an architectural unit. Within
this unit of typically a width of a few tens of meters, habi-
tats can be diverse, oering living space for various inhabi-
tants (molluscs, crustaceans, shes, algae, corals, etc.), which
are involved in a complex webof ecological interactions.
2.2 Level 2: Reef zone, whole reef
We refer to this level of organization as the meso-scale
level. Spatially, it typically ranges from few tens of meters to
few kilometres. Depending on depth and hydrodynamic condi-
tions, reefscape may change quickly or gradually within a reef
zone and within the whole reef (Veron 1986). A complex
reef may have several reef zones (fringing reef, barrier reef,
reef at, lagoon, patches, outer slope, channel, etc.), each of
them potentially presenting several reefscapes. Conversely, a
simple reef may have only a couple of reef zones and few reef-
scapes. Reef zones are large, yet, as a whole, they are under the
inuence of the same type of environmental or human forcing
and will reect the inuence of perturbations in a relatively
unimodal way. Thus reef zones are frequently considered as
management units in integrated coastal management or moni-
toring programs.
2.3 Level 3: Island, region
We refer to this level of organization as the large-scale
level. Spatially, it typically ranges from few hundreds of me-
ters to hundred of kilometres. It embodies reef complexes,
islands, archipelagos and groups of archipelagos belonging
to the same unit in terms of biogeography or hydroclimate.
Noteworthy at this scale is that interactions between the reef
systems and other ecosystems (land, ocean) are implicit. A
biogeography region can also be considered as one scale
of habitat, since coral distribution and diversity depend on
the environmental factors that trigger coral spawning, on the
ocean-circulation patterns that physically control the disper-
sal of passive larvae and, ultimately, evolutionary processes
217
(Veron 2000; Achituv and Dubinsky 1990). This scale is rele-
vant here because it is often considered for management pur-
poses. For instance, network of protected areas or conserva-
tion actions are dened within an island, a reef tract, or an
archipelago under the same jurisdiction.
3 Human disturbance categories
and their effects on coral habitats
The major anthropogenic disturbances aect the physi-
cal structure of coral habitats at each organisational level
(Table 1). Here, a disturbance is an event that alters the phys-
ical environment and/or limits the availability of essential re-
sources (e.g., available substrate) (Pickett and White 1985).
This inventory may not be completely exhaustive, but it high-
lights the major perturbations that have been documented in
coral reefs. Furthermore, it is not straightforward to discrimi-
nate the relative contributions of natural or man-induced per-
turbations to the resulting community structure (Grigg and
Dollar 1990; Hatcher et al. 1989) since cascading or convo-
luted eects are common at various time-scales (Quinn and
Dunham 1983; Karlson and Hurd 1993; Adjeroud 1997). This
convolution of processes explains why management decisions
and actions are not a simple endeavor (Fig. 2).
Coastal development, tourist activities, harvesting pres-
sure, accidents and nuclear/weapon testing are the main stres-
sors (Table 1). The increase of human populations on coastal
areas promotes constructions and land reclamation for air-
ports, roads, ports, marinas, houses and hotels. This does not
only sacrice reef zones (meso-scale disturbance), but often
requires the extraction of coral boulders (small-scale distur-
bance) in areas that lack alternative building material (e.g.,
Brown and Howard 1985; Salvat 1987; White 1987). Land
reclamation is not limited to modern or developing space-
limited countries. Traditional way of life of the Kuna Yala
Indians in San Blas archipelago (Panama), and limited space
on inhabited islands also result in extensive coral mining
and reef at lling (Guzman et al. 2003). At small-scale
(colony), tourists eager to enjoy coral reefs can have signicant
eects by trampling, anchoring, snorkelling, diving or boat
groundings (Tilmant 1987; Hawkins and Roberts 1992; Clarke
et al. 1993; Allison 1996; Jameson et al. 1999; Tratalos and
Austin 2001; Zakai and Chadwick-Furman 2002). At small-
scale (colony or community), harvesting using destructive sh-
ing methods, such as dynamite or cyanide shing, muro-
ami (driving of sh into large nets attached to the reef) and
traps, have a high negative impact (Alcala and Gomez 1987;
Eldredge 1987; Gomez and Alcala 1987; Munro et al. 1987;
Randall 1987; Johannes and Riepen 1995). Such practices are
prohibited in some countries (e.g., Philippines) but laws are
not always enforced (Alcala and Gomez 1987). Bombing for
military training had a great impact on the reef framework, for
instance in Los Vieques Islands (oshore Puerto-Rico). Acci-
dents, which include ship grounding, had a harmful eect on
coral reef habitat from colony scale to reef zone (Dollar and
Grigg 1981; Hatcher 1984; Hudson and Goodwin 2001). Fi-
nally, nuclear testing performed on South Pacic atolls (e.g.
Mururoa, Bikini) had signicant impacts at meso-scale level
218
Fig. 1. Multi-scale presentation of coral reef habitats. For each spatial scale (on the right), the spatial pattern (in bold), the ecological function
(in italic) and the representative scale are mentioned. Pictures illustrating the small and meso-scales present some related human-induced
physical disturbances. Namely, coral colony debris due to anchoring, shermen walking on a branching coral dominated lagoon reefscape in La
Reunion Island, crater generated by atmospheric nuclear blast on the inner slope of the rim of Bikini atoll (Marshall Islands) and land lling of
a patch reef at using coral colonies from the forereef of the same reef in San Blas island (Panama). Island-scale is illustrated by Tahiti island
where coastal barrier reefs and fringing reefs are dominant. Region scale is illustrated by the Coral Sea basin which is rimed by the major reef
systems of the western Pacic (in orange, incl. New Caledonia, Vanuatu, Salomon Islands, Papua New Guinea and the Great Barrier Reef of
Australia. Map source: Reefbase).
Table 1. Characteristics of the major anthropogenic perturbations that aect the physical structure of the habitat by mechanical destruction of stony corals. See Figure 1 for explanation of
the spatial scales. Rs: reversible in the short term (years), Rl: reversible in the long term (decades), I: irreversible. 1: punctual, 2: punctual to chronic, 3: chronic. *: speculative factor, as no
case-study was reported.

219
220
Fig. 2. Cascading causes of coral reef physical degradation. As an example of this domino eect, nuclear weapons tests done 40 years ago
have themselves directly damage the physical foundation of pinnacles or atoll rims, but they are also the initial factor that makes now possible
the lucrative wreck-diving activities in nuclear lagoons such as Bikini, which itself promote shing for feeding local and tourist populations
and tourist facilities development, which itself enhance the risks of accidents.
on the structure of several sections of the rims and large pin-
nacles. In Mururoa atoll (French Polynesia), cracks appeared
in lagoon bommies and the southern rim collapsed due to the
explosion shock wave (Bouchez and Lecomte 1995). In Bikini
atoll (Marshall Islands), the rst aerial explosions created huge
craters along the atolls rim (Fig. 1).
The human disturbances listed above have various eects
that dier in their mode of action, their spatial scale, their in-
tensity and their duration. The same exact disturbance may
have a dierent eect (or perturbation) depending on the mo-
ment it strikes the reef and where. For example, dredging and
terrigenous inputs, which have important impacts on fring-
ing reef communities of high islands, have generally a neg-
ligible impact on the outer slope of high islands and atolls
(Salvat et al. 1979; Augustin et al. 1997; Adjeroud et al. 2002;
Fabricius 2005). In contrast, diving, ship grounding and nu-
clear blast testing may aect lagoonal as well as outer reef
slope coral communities. Despite their negative eects, some
modes of perturbation may eectively create a new coral habi-
tat. This aspect is particularly important for the management
and rehabilitation of disturbed areas (Salvat et al. 2002). In
general, the eects of disturbances depend on the temporal and
spatial reference scales under consideration, their frequency,
the ecological history of the site (e.g., chronology of the pre-
vious perturbations), the structure (growth forms, etc.) of the
impacted communities, the geomorphology and depth of the
reef zone, the confounding inuence of any other physical
or biotic stresses (Connell 1978; Hughes 1989; Grigg and
Dollar 1990; Karlson and Hurd 1993; Meesters and Bak 1993;
Hughes 1994; Bak and Nieuland 1995; Connell et al. 1997).
These perturbations may have short-term or immediate
direct consequences, as well as long-term and indirect ef-
fects mostly at small and meso-scales. Most of the perturba-
tions, compiled in Table 1, aect coral habitats at these two
scales. We have not identied a direct human-induced phys-
ical perturbation that is specic to the large-scale level. It is
only through repetition or generalisation of small-scale distur-
bances, throughout a region or an island, that human induced
physical perturbations become large-scale level disturbance.
Otherwise, there are several examples of meso-scale level dis-
turbances that have second-order large-scale inuences. For
instance, the dredging of a pass in an atoll is a reef-zone phys-
ical disturbance, but the resulting modication of the water
exchanges between lagoon and ocean may have signicant
consequences on the equilibrium of the whole island. Several
anthropogenic disturbances may look relatively minor com-
pared to natural disturbances, such as cyclones or submarine
earthquakes (Hatcher et al. 1989). However, human impacts,
when combined with natural disturbances, may signicantly
aect the recovery process of a reef, particularly since they are
often chronic rather than infrequent (Connell et al. 1997).
Some of the disturbances are well documented (e.g., de-
structive shing practices), whereas other were rarely studied
(e.g., bombing or nuclear blasts testing) (Table 1). In gen-
eral, physical disturbances result in a reduction in the three
dimensional structural complexity of the reefs, reducing the
availability of shelters for associated organisms (Aroson and
Swanson 1997). Physical destruction may not necessarily kill
coral colonies entirely. However, even partial mortality and
weakening may favour pathogens infestation and reduce the
reproductive potential of individuals (Hunte and Wittenberg
1992; Ward and Harrison 2000; Hall 2001; Nugues and
Roberts 2003). Even if coral colonies are not directly dam-
aged, the sediment and rubbles produced by human activities
may cover and bury the coral community in place (smother-
ing eect). Discharge of solid wastes and oil spill may also
cover, totally or partially, the coral colonies in place. There
is no real evidence that oil oating above the corals causes
noticeable damage, but one may assume that corals living near
the surface can be coated by oil and consequently impacted
in their physical structure. For further explanations on the per-
turbations and their eects, we have listed the most relevant
literature.
It is often dicult to estimate the duration of the eects
associated to a particular perturbation. In fact, several per-
turbations, such as trampling, collecting, destructive shing
practices or bombing have eects that may be infrequent or
chronic. However, other perturbations, such as dredging and
beach construction operation, are often chronic, whereas ship
grounding can be considered as infrequent perturbations. The
impacted coral communities may be irreversibly damaged, or
221
may recover partially or totally. The resilience (i.e., capacity
to recover) of the coral community depends on the character-
istics (intensity and duration) of the perturbation and on the
initial community or colony structure (Connell et al. 1997). It
depends also on functional processes (such as herbivory), and
the functional overlap (or redundancy) of multiple species in
an ecosystem (Nystrm et al. 2000; Nystrm and Folke 2001;
Belwood et al. 2004), on the availability and abundance of lo-
cal larvae, and on the connectivity with other reef habitats and
larval supply (Obura 2005). The concept of spatial resilience
is dierentiated from that of ecological resilience by recent au-
thors (Nystrm and Folke 2001; Bengtsson et al. 2003), most
important in terms of the spatial scale over which it is applied.
Ecological resilience generally applies to properties within the
spatial boundaries of an ecosystem. In coral reef studies, this
is generally considered to extend up to tens and sometimes
hundred kilometres (Obura 2005). Spatial resilience extends
beyond this to include large scale functions and processes be-
yond boundaries of an ecosystem unit. For a coral reef, this
would include the processes of connectivity to other reefs by
currents and larval dispersal, large-scale oceanographic phe-
nomena such as upwelling in adjacent system and other fea-
tures that may occur over hundreds to thousands of kilometres
(Obura 2005). Furthermore, chronic and low level perturba-
tions may cause more damage to the reefs in the long term than
discrete and highly destructive events, because the former do
not allow sucient time for recovery (Davis 1977; Dustan and
Halas 1987; Tilmant 1987). Nevertheless, dredging, coastal
reclamation, beach construction operation, and coastal instal-
lations generally imply that impacted communities have few
chances to return to their initial state (i.e. irreversible impacts)
(Table 1). For other discrete and weak perturbations, such as
collecting, mooring and boating, or snorkelling and diving, im-
pacted communities may return rapidly (years) to their initial
structure. For larger scars, due to large ship grounding for in-
stance, recovery time may be higher (decades). In some case,
the extent of the disturbances may not prevent communities
to return to their initial structure. For destructive shing prac-
tices, small-scale impacts (e.g., individual blasts) do not al-
ter signicantly the community structure, whereas generali-
sation of these impacts at larger scale (e.g., several densely
spaced blasts over large portions of a reef) may eventually al-
ter the community structure and the environment, and thereby
greatly reduce the potential and rate of recovery (McManus
et al. 1997; Riegl and Luke 1998).
Some perturbations may create a new coral habitat
(Table 1). For example, dredging, coastal reclamation, sewage
discharge and coastal defence installations, or oshore
drilling may create a new substrate that can be colonized
by corals, thus forming a habitat for other reef species.
Trampling, displacement of coral boulders, boating/mooring,
snorkelling/diving, ship grounding, destructive shing prac-
tices, discharge of solid wastes, and nuclear blasts testing may
form accumulation of dead and live coral rubbles, which may
provide habitat for certain sh species (Riegl and Luke 1998).
In contrast, beach construction operations, terrigenous inputs,
collecting, and oil spill have never been associated with the
creation of new habitats. Historical trajectories of reef degra-
dation extending back thousands of years, provide a powerful
222
tool to explain global patterns and causes of ecosystem col-
lapse, as well to predict future ecosystem states, through an
understanding of the sequence of species and habitat loss
(Pando et al. 2003).
4 The measure of physical disturbances
on coral reef habitats
4.1 Scale-dependent indicators of disturbance
effects on coral reef habitat structure
The most usual indicators are related to habitat and/or to
physical disturbance of habitat (Table 2). Indicator variables
are listed according to the spatial scale of the descriptor they
are expected to capture. We focus on the three most common
categories of descriptors:
the stonycoral itself;
reefshes represented by Chaetodontidae among which
many species are coral feeders and dependent of the coral
reef habitat, and
the human uses which could have an impact on coral reef
habitats. Various variables are proposed as indicators to
evaluate the impact of disturbance on these descriptors.
We also indicate the methods generally used to obtain data
on these variables (see English et al. 1994 for details on
the classical methods used to monitor coral reefs), and the
sampling unit of the method.
At colony scale (stony corals descriptors), the reproduc-
tive output (number of planulae per tissue volume) could de-
crease after repeated breakage (Rinkevich and Loya 1989;
Van Veghel and Bak 1994; Rinkevich 1995). This decrease
of spawning rate could be followed by a decrease in recruit-
ment rate (number of new corals settling per substratum unit)
(Richmond 1997; Zakaet al. 2000). Recruitment intensity it-
self may be a useful measure to check if physically damaged
reefs are in a way of recovery or not (Kojis and Quinn 2001).
To date, the possibility of using other aspects of coral biol-
ogy as indicators of environmental stress has seldom been ex-
plored. Noteworthy are measurements of coral tissue abrasion
(damaged tissue that exposed the underlying intact coral skele-
ton, according to Riegl and Velmirov 1991; Hawkins et al.
1999; Zakai and Chadwick-Furman 2002) or partial mortal-
ity in massive corals (percentage of dead surface area per
colony according to Brown and Howard 1985; Nugues and
Roberts 2003). Nugues and Roberts (2003) proposed the 50%-
threshold in dead coral tissue per colony as a simple stress indi-
cator. Such variables may provide a rapid and eective means
of detecting sediment stress on coral reefs, for example after
dredging operations.
At reefscape or reef zone scale (corresponding to com-
munity/assemblage at ecological level), live coral cover and
colony number are widely used in coral reef monitoring pro-
grams to assess coral reef health (e.g., Global Coral Reef
Monitoring Program, Reef Check). The ratio of standing
dead coral cover to total cover of both live and dead corals
(Gomez et al. 1994) or linear quotes of live coral cover
(>75%: excellent, 5075%: good, 2550%: fair, <25%: poor)
(Gomez and Yap 1988) are also used. Their use as indicators
of reef condition in snapshot survey is based on the assump-
tion that healthy reefs should have high coral cover and coral
density (Gomez and Yap 1988; Aronson et al. 1994). However,
this assumption could be erroneous in some cases (Thomason
and Roberts 1992). Moreover, sites with very high percentage
of live coral cover are frequently composed of large mono-
specic stands of corals, with low coral diversity and spa-
tial complexity (Roberts and Ormond 1987). Nevertheless, in
some cases, the percentage of live branching corals or branch-
ing associated to live tabular corals has been used to charac-
terise habitat complexity (Chabanet et al. 1997; Lewis 1998).
Percentage of live coral cover could be used with other in-
dices such as conservation classes that more accurately pre-
dict habitat complexity (Edinger and Risk 2000). Conservation
value are estimated using r-K-S (ruderal/competitor/stress-
tolerators) ternary diagrams based upon the relative abundance
of standardized coral morphology categories: Acropora corals
as disturbance-adapted ruderals (r), branching non-Acropora
corals and foliose corals as competition-adapted (K) and mas-
sive and submassive corals as stress-tolerators (S ). Then, reefs
are classied from class 1 (S > 60%) to class 4 (% r, K, S
approximately equal). Other authors also estimated habitat
complexity from coral morphological diversity (Roberts and
Ormond 1987). Indexes of structural complexity or rugosity
(ratio contour tape lengtht on stretched tape lengtht) have been
also suggested (Risk 1972; Luckhurst and Luckhurst 1978;
Dahl 1988). Williams and Polunin (2000) estimated the struc-
tural complexity of the substratum on a 6 point-scale (0: no
vertical relief to 5: exceptionally complex with high coral
cover and numerous caves and over-hangs). Related also to
colony scale, breakage variables could be used as an indi-
cator of diving pressure in the form of broken coral rubble
(Hawkins and Roberts 1994, 1997) or loose fragments adjacent
to branching colonies (Zakai and Chadwick-Furman 2002).
At whole reef scale (corresponding to ecosystem at eco-
logical level), clear-cut zonation patterns in a form of serial
change in community structure with an increase of water
depth are long-established features of shallow water com-
munities. Undisturbed situations provide clear sequences of
community changes along transects, while the sequences ap-
pear disrupted after dredging operations (Clarke et al. 1993).
Following this example, Clarke et al. (1993) proposed an in-
dex (Index of Multivariate Seriation) that measures the degree
to which a coral community compares relative to a linear se-
quence. Furthermore, attributes such as Reef Quality Index
(quality not acceptable if hard coral cover < 30%, recently
broken coral >5%, recently dead coral > 3% and coral rubble
cover > 5% according to Jameson 1998) or Coral Damage
Index (quality not acceptable if broken coral colonies 4%,
coral rubble cover 3% according to Jameson et al. 1999,
2001) could be used globally to gauge the severity and extent
of physical damages, and focus managers on areas that need
dive site management programs (e.g. mooring buoys).
Using sh communities descriptors, Chaetodontidae (but-
terysh) have been proposed as indicator of coral reef vital-
ity (e.g. Reese 1981; Sano et al. 1984; hman et al. 1998).
The underlying simple hypothesis is that since some feed
on corals, if corals decline, then populations of corallivo-
rous butterysh should also decline or change their feeding
Table 2. Descriptors (stony corals, butterysh and human uses), indicators of the impact of physical disturbances related to spatial scale (and ecological function in italic). The major
references, the sampling size and the protocols usually used to obtain data of the descriptor attribute are also mentioned. LIT: Line Intercept Transect, PIT: Point Intercept Transect,
RST*: Remote Sensus Techniques in development. Ref: same ref. than for abundance except the ones in italic.

223
224
behaviour. However, in some cases, the actual correlation was
low (Roberts and Ormond 1987; Fowler 1990). Nevertheless,
species richness and abundance of chaetodontids have often
been included into monitoring programs since volunteers with-
out specic experience can easily conduct surveys on these
easy-to-identify populations (Hodgson 1999; Conand et al.
2000; Crosby and Reese 1996).
The human uses of coral reef ecosystems is represented
here by recreational scuba diving activities which is an impor-
tant and growing component of the tourism market (Moberg
and Folke 1999). The diver preferences for certain reef at-
tributes were classied by Williams and Polunin (2000). These
authors rank 14 attributes (e.g. reef structure, big sh, va-
riety of shes, variety of corals, coral cover, unusual
sh, sponges, etc.) on a scale from 0 (not at all important)
to 5 (most preferred). Furthermore, some authors used the con-
cept of diver carrying capacity which is the number of dives
per site and per year that a reef can tolerate without becoming
signicantly degraded (Dixon et al. 1993; Chadwick-Furman
1996; Hawkins and Roberts 1997). Hawkins and Roberts
(1997) suggests that reefs in the Red Sea and Caribbean
can sustainably support around 50006000 dives per site per
year, but that greater levels of use cause a rapid rise in diver
damages.
Most of the variables measure disturbance eects on scale
ranging from individual to community (Table 2). There is a
paucity of indicator variables measuring habitat attributes at
large spatial scale. These variables are less common because
of the cost linked with this kind of studies and the dicul-
ties to carry them out. Using remote sensing techniques, envi-
ronmental impacts could be easier to measure at larger scales.
For instance, remote sensing observations provide unambigu-
ous measurement of changes in shorelines and alteration of
reef zones due to land reclamation, dredging or waste disposal
(e.g. the so-called trash island in Male atoll, Maldives). Sev-
eral of these techniques are still largely exploratory and have
not been validated on a sucient number of case studies. Nev-
ertheless, we mention key reports that clearly oer interesting
perspectives in measuring synoptically coral mortality, using
airborne hyperspectral data (Mumby et al. 2001), reef rugos-
ity using LIDAR, i.e. airborne laser (Brock et al. 2004), habitat
diversity and patchiness using high resolution satellite imagery
(Andrfout et al. 2003), and changes in habitat structure us-
ing time-series of images (Palandro et al. 2003). In addition,
at colony-scale, in situ optical techniques now investigate the
possibility to diagnose early a perturbation using changes in
the reectance or uorescence of the colonies. Changes in op-
tical measurement reveal changes in pigmentation potentially
linked to a stress (Yamano et al. 2003). Finally, current re-
search also assesses the variability of colony-scale reectance
according to their morphology (Joyce and Phinn 2002).
4.2 Strategy and criteria for assessing and monitoring
coral reef habitat
Managers have to consider various options when conceiv-
ing an assessment of a coral habitat. Our goal is not to propose
an exhaustive guideline on indicator selection, but to provide
references and underline key concepts as sequentially pre-
sented (Fig. 3).
It is common sense to state that selection of the most appro-
priate bioindicators for a particular assessment or monitoring
program depends on the objectives of that program (Dale and
Beyeler 2001). We identied three broad categories of objec-
tives (Fig. 3):
To monitor trends in habitat conditions across time, in
order to measure whether specic management actions
improved habitats conditions, or whether the habitat has
reached a level of disturbance for which some type of ac-
tions are required (Objective O1). The monitoring can be
specically designed to address one pre-identied distur-
bance, or can target a wide spectrum of disturbances.
To make a single assessment of the initial status of the envi-
ronment (Objective O2). This status describes habitat con-
ditions after a perturbation has been identied (e.g. ship
grounding), or draws an initial picture of habitat condi-
tions before some type of planed disturbances occur (e.g.
dredging). This objective can be a prelude to objective O1
(monitoring).
To improve knowledge and use of existing indicators or
test new indicators (Objective O3).
This methodological objective is generally designed to im-
prove the cost-eectiveness of currently applied methods.
It aims to test experimentally some hypothesis or it tries to
identify hypotheses that will be tested afterwards.
In addition, a management plan can be designed speci-
cally to address one type of disturbance (Hypothesis H1), but
some organisations have launched general monitoring plan at
large scale for an entire region without a specic disturbance in
mind (Hypothesis H2). The objectives will have to be carefully
considered within these broad limits.
A variety of indicators with dierent generic properties
need to be considered (Jope 2001). Stressor indicators mea-
sure the stressor itself (e.g., sediments in the water column
after a dredging operation). The drawback is that there is no
indication of consequences on the habitat themselves. Expo-
sure indicators measure the amount of stressor to which the
habitat is exposed (e.g., number of reef-walkers in a tourist
area). These could be used as a diagnostic indicator as they are
specic to the stressor. Response indicators measure changes
occurring on the habitats (e.g., coral cover); however they do
not necessarily identify the cause of the changes. The speci-
city of a response indicator is a key criterion. Response indi-
cators can be specic and have a threshold or gradual response
to a specic type of disturbance. Non-specic indicators will
reveal that something is happening but not the causality. How-
ever, a range of non-specic indicators may be better than one
specic indicator to draw the status of habitats at dierent
scales. Most of the variables or attributes are response indica-
tors (Table 2) as they measure changes occurring in the system
(Jope 2001). They provide a better indication of ecological at-
tribute conditions (habitat component), than ecological eects
due to a specic disturbance. For example, by the time census
methods have detected broken corals, these corals have already
suered damage and further eorts must focus on preventing
more damage and death. Conversely, diver carrying capac-
ity may be considered as exposure indicator as it measures
225
Fig. 3. Framework of sampling design for assessing indicators (e.g. coral reef habitat).
the amount of stressor to which the system is exposed. If

4.3 A hierarchical concept of disturbance in coral
specic to the stressor, this indicator may be considered as
reefs in perspectives
a diagnostic indicator. Non-diagnostic indicators may reect
Using a multi-scale approach allows to present the various
changes (Rapport et al. 1985; Jope 2001), but not specically
indicators of (physical) disturbances in a logical suite. How-
to one of the disturbances (Table 1).
ever, there is still a lack of explicit relationship between the ob-
To complete this general classication of indicators, other

served physical impacts on reefs and what these impacts means
properties such as sensitivity (the capacity to reveal gradations

in terms of alteration of the biological processes occurring on
in response to stress) are of interest (Jameson 1998). This an-

the reef. Another framework focussing on ecosystem functions
ticipatory quality species whether the indicator can provide

and integrating the notions of disturbance, levels of organisa-
early-warning signal (useful in case of monitoring trends in

tion, scale, and indicators of perturbations could be a next log-
environmental conditions over the time), or is retrospective,

ical step. Pickett et al. (1989) have proposed such a conceptual
providing evidence of ecosystem change after the change has

framework. By organising each ecological question within a
so-called hierarchical model, they distinguish among entities
occurred (Rapport et al. 1985).
(the object of interest, susceptible of being disturbed), function
The scale of work is one of the main considerations. Scale

(set of interactions among entities), and structure (resulting
in this context depends directly on the objectives and the

complex of interacting entities). Though conceptually inter-
hypotheses which depend on the considered specic distur-

esting and theoretically better suited to analyse multi-stressor
bance. Willingness to draw a general picture of coral habi-

eects throughout dierent ranges of scales and functions,
tats (Objective O2) without specic disturbances in mind

the design and selection of indicators remain quite problem-
(Hypothesis H2) will imply that a wide range of scale needs

atic. It is denitely recommended that scientists try to visual-
to be addressed. For instance, reefscape (or community) to re-

ize the integration of methods within such conceptual frame-
gions can be studied by multiplying the numbers of regional

works (Hallock et al. 2004). However, the amount of indicators
sites where community measurements will be performed. Un-

practical for managers remains limited, but new developments
fortunately, no single indicator is applicable directly across

still occur. For instance, recent advances in molecular biol-
all spatial scales of concern (Dale and Beyeler 2001). There-

ogy should aid in the accurate diagnostic of coral condition by
fore, combining indicators at dierent levels of the biologi-

visualizing coral stress using Molecular Biomarker System
cal organisation represents an optimal strategy, because these

(MBS) or gene expression. For the rst step, MBS was use
measures serve dierent purposes, from individual to commu-

to assess the physiological status of coral challenged under
nities (Hallock et al. 2004). Measures on colony potentially

heat stress, using specic cellular and molecular parameters
provide the earliest warning of possible deterioration while

(Downs et al. 2000). However, transplantation experiments
measures on community give a better indication of the ecolog-

must be conducted to examine how stressors in natural popu-
ical importance and magnitude of the disturbances and their

lations induce gene expression and to determine whether these
consequences on communities including humans (Rapport

potential diagnostic indicators are eective and specic.
et al. 1985; Underwood and Peterson 1988). Indicator selec-
tion depends on several additional criteria: the intrinsic quality

5 Conclusion
of the measure itself (depending of the sampling techniques
Indicators are essential tools for monitoring the state of
and of the choice of the variable) and the eectiveness that
the coastal environment. They can inform managers and policy

gather sampling strategy and the statistical analysis.
226
makers of the eectiveness of strategies in achieving sustain-
ability and need to be based on rigorous scientic, social and
economic research. However, the suite of options for man-
agers is limited. This review shows that the majority of the
indicators of human-induced physical disturbances are non-
specic. They can be categorized in few categories based on
their properties, but they cant solve all problems. We followed
a multi-scale discussion which eventually shows the dicul-
ties for the managers and scientists to have a continuum of an-
swers and indicators across space and time. Tools are needed
to identify and rank coral responses to multiple stressors and
to determinate which stressors having the greatest eects. The-
oretically, a hierarchical scheme could be a logical new inte-
grating scheme since they target functions across scales, but
similar models are still in their infancy in the case of coral
reef ecosystems. On a practical standpoint, managers and pol-
icymakers still need to understand the eects of man-induced
disturbances, be able to properly assess these damages, and de-
velop subsequent restoration and conservation eorts on reefs
under their stewardship.
Acknowledgements. This review paper was initiated after a workshop
on bio-indicators (Nouma, 2002) funded by the French Programme
National dEnvironnement Ctier.
References
Achituv Y., Dubinsky Z., 1990, Evolution and zoogeography of coral
reefs. In: Dubinsky Z. (Ed.), Ecosystems of the world, Elsevier,
pp. 1-9.
Adjeroud M., 1997, Factors inuencing spatial patterns on coral reefs
around Moorea, French Polynesia. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 159,
105-119.
Adjeroud M., Augustin D., Galzin R., Salvat B., 2002, Natural distur-
bances and interannual variability of coral reef communities on
the outer slope of Tiahura (Moorea, French Polynesia): 1991 to
1997, Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 237, 121-131.
Alcala A.C., Gomez E.D., 1987, Dynamiting coral reefs for sh: a
resource-destructive shing method. In: Salvat B. (Ed.), Human
impacts on coral reefs: facts and recommendations. Antenne
Museum EPHE, French Polynesia, pp. 51-60.
Allison W.R., 1996, Snorkeler damage to reef corals in the Maldive
Islands. Coral Reefs 15, 215-218.
Andersson J., 1998, The value of coral reefs for the current and po-
tential tourism industry in Unguja. In: Johstone L., Francis C.,
Muhando C. (Eds.), Coral Reefs: values, Threats and Solutions.
Proc. Nat. Conf. on coral reefs, Nairobi, Kenya, pp. 81-90.
Andrfout S., Kramer P., Torres-Pulliza D., Joyce K.E., Hochberg
E.J., Garza-Perez R., Mumby P.J., Riegl B., Yamano H., White
W.H., Zubia M., Brock J.C., Phinn S.R., Naseer A., Hatcher B.G.,
Muller-Karger F.E., 2003, Multi-sites evaluation of IKONOS data
for classication of tropical coral reef environments. Remote
Sens. Environ. 88, 128-143.
Aroson R.B., Swanson D.W., 1997, Evolutionary paleoecology of
Caribbean reef coral. In: Allmon W.D. and Bottjer D.J. (Eds).
Evolutionary paleoecology: the ecological context of macroevo-
lutionary change. Columbia University Press, New York,
pp. 171-233.
Aroson R.B., Edmunds P.J., Precht W.F., Swanson D.W., Levitan
D.R., 1994, Large-scale, long term monitoring of Caribbean coral
reefs: simple, quick, inexpensive techniques. Atoll Res. Bull. 421.
Augustin D., Galzin R., Legendre P., Salvat B., 1997, Variation inter-
annuelle des peuplements rcifaux du rcif-barrire de Tiahura
(le de Moorea, Polynsie franaise). Oceanol. Acta 20, 743-756.
Bablet J.P., Perrault G.H., 1987, Eects on a coral environment of
a nuclear detonation. In: Salvat B. (Ed.), Human impacts on
coral reefs: facts and recommendations. Antenne Museum EPHE,
French Polynesia, pp. 151-163.
Bak R.P.M., 1978, Lethal and sublethal eects of dredging on reef
corals. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 9, 14-16.
Bak R.P.M., 1987, Eects of chronic oil pollution on a Caribbean
coral reef. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 18, 534-539.
Bak R.P.M., Nieuwland G., 1995, Long-term changes in coral
communities along depth gradients over leeward reefs in the
Netherlands Antilles. Bull. Mar. Sci. 56, 609-619.
Bell P.R.F., 1992, Eutrophication and coral reefs-some examples in
the Great Barrier Reef lagoon. Water. Res. 26, 553-568.
Bell J.D., Galzin R. 1984, Inuence of live coral cover on coral-reef
sh communities. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 15, 265-274.
Bellwood D.R., Hughes T.P., Folke C., Nystrm M., 2004,
Confronting the coral reef crisis. Nature 429, 827-833.
Bengtsson J., Angelstam P., Elmqvist T., Emanuelson U., Folke C.,
Ihse M., Moberg F., Nystrom M., 2003, Reserves, resilience and
dynamic landscape. Ambio 32, 389-396.
Berg H., hman M., Trong S., Linden O., 1998, Environmental
economics of coral reef destruction in Sri Lanka. Ambio 27,
627-634.
Bouchez J., Lecomte R., 1995, Les atolls de Mururoa et de Fangataufa
(Polynsie franaise), II : les experimentations nuclaires, eets
mcaniques, lumino-thermiques, lectromagntiques. Masson,
Paris.
Bouchon Navaro Y., Bouchon C. 1989, Correlations between
chaetodontid shes and coral communities of the Gulf of Aqaba
(Red Sea). Environ. Biol. Fish. 25, 47-60.
Brock J., Wright C., Clayton T., Nayegandhi A., 2004, Optical rugos-
ity of coral reefs in Biscayne National Park, Florida. Coral Reefs
23, 48-59.
Brown B.E., Howard L.S., 1985, Assessing the eects of stress on
reef corals. Adv. Mar. Biol. 22, 1-63.
Brown B.E., Dunne R.P., 1988, The impact of coral mining on coral
reefs in the Maldives. Environ. Conserv. 15, 159-165.
Bruckner A.W., Bruckner R.J., 2001, Condition of restored Acropora
palmata fragments o Mona Island, Puerto Rico, 2 years after the
Fortuna Reefer ship grounding. Coral Reefs 20, 235-243.
Bruggeman J.H., 1994, Parrotsh grazing on coral reefs: a trophic
novelty. PhD Univ. Groningen.
Burns K.A., Knap A.H., 1989, The Bahia Las Minas oil spill hy-
drocarbon uptake by reef building corals. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 20,
391-398.
Burns K.A., Ehrhardt M.G., Howes B.L., Taylor C.D., 1993, Subtidal
benthic community respiration and production near the heavily
oiled Gulf coast of Saudi Arabia. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 27, 199-205.
Cadoret L., Adjeroud M., Tsuchiya M. 1999, Spatial distribution of
chaetodontid sh in coral reefs of the Ryukyu Islands, southern
Japan. J. Mar. Biol. Assoc. UK 79, 725-735.
Carpenter K.E., Alcala A.C., 1977, Philippines coral reef sheries
resources. Part II. Muro-Ami and Kayakas reef sheries, benet
or bane? Philipp. J. Fish. 15, 217-235.
Chabanet P., Ralambondrainy H., Amanieu M., Faure G., 1997,
Relationship between coral reef substrata and sh. Coral Reefs
16, 93-102.
Chadwick-Furman N.E., 1996, Eects of scuba diving on coral reef
invertebrates in the U.S. Virgin Islands: implications for manage-
ment of diving tourism. Proc. 6th Int. Coelenterate Bio. Symp.,
Amsterdam.

Clarke K.R., Warwick R.M., Brow B.E., 1993, An index showing
breakdown of seriation, related to disturbance, in a coral-reef as-
semblage. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 102, 153-160.
Conand C., Chabanet P., Bigot L., Quod J.P., 2000, Guidelines for
coral reef monitoring in the south west region of the Indian
Ocean. Handbook PRE/COI, 27.
Connell J.H., 1978, Diversity in tropical rain forests and coral reefs.
Science 199, 1302-1310.
Connell J.H., Hughes T.P., Wallace C.C., 1997, A 30-year study of
coral abundance, recruitment, and disturbance at several scales in
space and time. Ecol. Monogr. 67, 461-488.
Constanza R., DArge R., deGroot R., Farber S., Grasso M., Hannon
B., Limburg K., Naeem S., ONeill R., Paruelo J., Raskin R.,
Sutton P., van den Belt M., 1997, The value of the worlds ecosys-
tem services and natural capital. Nature 387, 256.
Cox E.F., 1994, Resource use by corallivorous butteryshes (family
Chaetodontidae) in Hawaii. Bull. Mar. Sci. 54, 535-545.
Crosby M.P., Reese E.S., 1996, A manual for monitoring coral
reefs with indicator species: butteryshes as indicators of
change on Indo-Pacic reefs. Silver Spring, MD: Oce of
Ocean and Coastal Resource Management, National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration, 45 p.
Dahl A.L., 1988, Surface area in ecological analysis: quantication
of benthic coral-reef algae. Mar. Biol. 23, 239-249.
Dale V.H., Beyeler S.C., 2001, Challenges in the development and
use of ecological indicators. Ecol. Indic. 1, 3-10.
Davis G.E., 1977, Anchor damage to a coral reef on the coast of
Florida. Biol. Conserv. 11, 29-34.
De Vantier L.M., 1986, Studies in the assessmant of coral reef ecosys-
tems. In: Brown B.E. (Ed.) Human induced damage to coral
reefs. Unesco Rep. Marine Science 40, 99-111.
Dixon J.A, Scura L.F., vant Hof T., 1993, Meeting ecological and
economic goals: marine parks in the Caribbean. Ambio 22,
117-125.
Dodge R.E., Wyers S.C., Frith H.R., Knap A.H., Smith S.R., Sleeter
T.D., 1984, The eects of oil and oil dispersants on the skeletal
growth of the hermatypic coral Diploria strigosa. Coral Reefs 3,
191-198.
Dollar S.J., Grigg R.W., 1981, Impact of Kaolin clay spill on a coral
reef in Hawaii. Mar. Biol. 65, 269-276.
Done T.J., 1992, Phase shifts in coral reef communities and their eco-
logical signicance. Hydrobiologia 247, 121-132.
Done T.J., Ogden J.C., Wiebe W.J., Rosen R.B., 1996, Biodiversity
and ecosystem function of coral reefs. In: Mooney H.A., Cusman
J.H., Medina E., Sala O.E., Schulze E.D. (Eds.), Functional roles
of biodiversity: global perspectives. Wiley and Sons Ltd, London,
pp. 393-423.
Downs C.A., Mueller E., Philipps S., Fauth J.E., Woodley C.M.,
2000, A molecular biomarker system for assessing the health of
coral (Montastrea faveolata) during heat stress. Mar. Biotechnol.
2, 533-544.
Dustan P., Halas J.C., 1987, Changes in the reef-coral community of
Carysfort Reef, Key Largo, Florida, 1974 to 1982. Coral Reefs 6,
91-106.
Dustan P., 1994, Developing methods for assessing coral reef vitality:
a tale of two scales. Proc. Colloq. Global aspects of coral reefs:
health, hazards and history, pp. 38-45.
Edinger P., Risk M., 2000, Reef classication by coral morphology
predict coral reef conservation value. Biol. Conserv. 92, 1-13.
Eldredge L.G., 1987, Poisons for shing on coral reefs. In: Salvat, B.
(Ed), Human impacts on coral reefs: facts and recommendations.
Antenne Museum EPHE, French Polynesia, pp. 61-66.
227
English S., Wilkinson C., Baker V., 1994, Survey manual for tropical
marine resource. Australian Institute of Marine Science.
Epstein N., Bak R.P.M., Rinkevich B., 2000, Toxicity and third gen-
eration dispersants and dispered Egyptian crude oil on Red Sea
coral larvae. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 40, 497-503.
Erdmann M.V., 2000, Destructive shing practices in Indonesian
seas. In: Sheppard C. (Ed.), Seas at the millenium: an environ-
mental evaluation. Pergamon, Amsterdam, pp. 392-393.
Fabricius K.E., 2005, Eects of terrestrial runo on the ecology of
corals and coral reefs: review and synthesis. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 5,
125-146.
Findley J.S., Findley M.T., 1985, A search for pattern in buttery sh
communities. Am. Nat. 126, 800-816.
Fowler A.J., 1990, Spatial and temporal patterns of distribution and
abundance of chaetodontid shes at One Tree Reef, southern
GBR. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 64, 39-53.
Fox H., 2004, Coral recruitment in blasted and unblasted sites in
Indonesia: assessing rehabilitation potential. Mar. Ecol. Prog.
Ser. 269, 131-139.
Fox H.E., Mous P., Pet J., Muljadi A., Caldwell, R.L., 2005,
Experimental assessment of coral reef rehabilitation following
blast shing. Conserv. Biol.19, 98-107.
Fucik K.W., Bright T.J., Goodman K.S., 1984, Measurements of dam-
age, recovery, and rehabilitation of coral reefs exposed to oil. In:
Cairns J., Buikema A.L. (Eds.), Restoration of habitats impacted
by oil spills. Butterworth, London, pp. 115-133.
Galvez R., Sadorra M.S., 1988, Blast shing: a Philippine case study.
Trop. Coast. Area Manage. 3, 9-10.
Gattuso J.P., Pichon M., Delesalle B., Frankignoulle M., 1993,
Community metabolism and air-sea CO2 uxes in a coral reef
ecosystem (Moorea, French Polynesia). Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 96,
259-267.
Gattuso J.P., Allemand D., Frankignoulle M., 1999, Interactions be-
tween the carbon and carbonate cycles at organism and commu-
nity level in coral reefs: a review on process and control by the
carbonate chemistry. Am. Zool. 39, 160-183.
Ginsburg R.N., Bak R.P.M., Kiene W.E., Gischler E., Kosmynin V.,
1996, Rapid assessmentof of reef condition using coral vitality.
Reef Encounter 19, 12-14.
Gomez E.D., Alcala A.C., Yap H.T., 1987, Other shing meth-
ods destructive to coral. In: Salvat B. (Ed.), Human impacts on
coral reefs: facts and recommendations. Antenne Museum EPHE,
French Polynesia, pp. 67-75.
Gomez E.D., Yap H.T., 1988, Monitoring reef condition. In:
Kenchington R.A. and Hudson B. (Ed.), Coral reef management
handbook UNESCO regional oce for science and technology
for southeast Asia (ROSTSEA), Jakarta, pp. 171178.
Gomez E.D., Alino P.M., Yap H.T., Licuanan W.Y., 1994, A review
of the status of Philippines reefs. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 29, 62-68.
Goreau T.F., 1959, The physiology of skeleton formation in corals. I.
A method for measuring the rate of calcium deposition by corals
under dierent conditions. Biol. Bull. 116, 59-75.
Grigg R.W., 1983, Community structure, succession and development
of coral reefs in Hawaii. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 11, 1-14.
Grigg R.W., 1984, Resource management of precious corals: a review
and application to shallow water reef building corals. Mar. Ecol.
5, 57-74.
Grigg R.W., Dollar S.J., 1990, Natural and anthropogenic disturbance
on coral reef ecology. In: Dubinsky Z. (Eds.), Ecosystems of the
world 25, Coral reefs. Elsevier, Amsterdam, pp. 439-452.
Guzman H.M., Jimenez C.E., 1992, Contamination of coral reefs
by heavy metals along the Caribbean coast of Central America
(Costa Rica and Panama). Mar. Pollut. Bull. 24, 554-561.
228
Guzman H.M., Holst I., 1993, Eects of chronic oil-sediment pollu-
tion on the reproduction of the Caribbean reef coral Siderastrea
siderea. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 26, 282.
Guzman H.M., Castillo A., 2003, Natural disturbances and mining of
Panamanian coral reefs by indigenous people. Conserv. Biol. 17,
1396-1401.
Guzman H.M., Jackson J.B.C., Weil E., 1991, Short-term ecological
consequences of a major oil spill on Panamanian subtidal reef
corals. Coral Reefs 10, 1-12.
Hall V.R., 2001, The response of Acropora hyacinthus and Montipora
tuberculosa to three dierent types of colony damage: scraping
injury, tissue mortality and breakage. J. Exp. Mar. Biol. Ecol. 264,
209-223.
Hallock P., Barnes K., Fisher E.M., 2004, Coral-reef risk assessment
from satellites to molecules: a multi-scale approach to environ-
mental monitoring and risk assessment of coral reefs. Environ.
Micropaleont. Microbiol. Meiobenthol. 1, 11-39.
Hatcher B.G., 1984, A maritime accident provides evidence for al-
ternate stable states in benthic communities on coral reefs. Coral
Reefs 3, 199-204.
Hatcher B.G., Johannes R.E., Robertson, A.I., 1989, Review of re-
search relevant to the conservation of shallow water tropical ma-
rine ecosystems. Oceanogr. Mar. Biol. Ann. Rev. 27, 337-414.
Hawkins J.P., Roberts C.M., 1992, Eects of recreational SCUBA
diving on fore-reef slope communities of coral reefs. Biol.
Conserv. 62, 171-178.
Hawkins J.P., Roberts C.M., 1993, Eects of recreational SCUBA
diving on coral reefs: trampling on reef-at communities. J. Appl.
Ecol. 30, 25-30.
Hawkins J.P., Roberts C.M., 1994, The growth of coastal tourism in
the Red Sea: present and future eect on coral reefs. Ambio 23,
503-508.
Hawkins J.P., Roberts C.M., 1997, Estimating the carrying capacity
of coral reef for scuba diving. Proc. 8th Int. Coral Reef Symp. 2,
1923-1926.
Hawkins J.P., Roberts C.M., VanHof T., deMeyer K., Tratalos
J., Aldam C., 1999, Eects of recreational scuba diving on
Caribbean coral and sh communities. Conserv. Biol 13,
888-897.
Hodgson G., 1999, A global assessment of human eects on coral
reefs. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 38, 345-355.
Hoegh-Guldberg O., 1999, Climate change, coral bleaching and the
future of the worlds coral reefs. Mar. Freshw. Res. 50, 839-866.
Hourigan T.F., Tricas T.C., Reese E.S., 1988, Coral Reef Fishes as
Indicators of Environmental Stress in Coral Reefs. In: Soule,
D. F., Kleppel, G. S. (Eds.), Marine Organisms as Indicators.
Springer-Verlag, pp. 107-135.
Hudson J.H., Goodwin W.B., 2001, Assessment of vessel ground-
ing injury to coral reef and seagrass habitats in the Florida Keys
National Marine Sanctuary, Florida: protocol and methods. Bull.
Mar. Sci. 69, 509-516.
Hudson J.H., Shinn E.A., Robbin D.M., 1982, Eects of oshore oil
drillings on Philippine reef corals. Bull. Mar. Sci. 32, 890-908.
Hughes T.P., 1989, Community structure and diversity of coral reefs:
the role of history. Ecology 70, 275-279.
Hughes T.P., 1994, Catastrophes, phase shifts and large scale degra-
dation of a Caribbean coral reef. Science 265, 1547-1551.
Hughes T.P., Connell J.H., 1999, Multiple stressors on coral reefs: a
long-term perspective. Limnol Oceanogr 44, 932-940.
Hughes T.P., Baird A., Belwood D.R., Card M., Connolly S.R., Folke
C., Grosberg R., Hunte W., Wittenberg M., 1992, Eects of eu-
trophication and sedimentation on juvenile corals. II Settlement.
Mar. Biol. 114, 625-631.
Hutchings P., 1986, Biological destruction of coral reefs: a review.
Coral Reefs 4, 239-252.
Jackson J.B.C., Cubit J.D., Keller B.D., Batista V., Burns K., Caey
H.M., Caldwell R.L., Garrity S.D., Getter C.D., Gonzalez C.,
Guzman, E.M. Kaufmann, K.W. Knap, A.H. Levings, S.C.
Marshall, M.J. Steger R., Thompson R.C., Weil E., 1989,
Ecological eects of a major oil spill on Panamanian coastal ma-
rine communities. Science 243, 37-44.
Jackson J.B.C., Kirby M., Berger W., Bjorndal K., Botsford L.,
Bourque B., Bradbury R., Cooke R., Erlandson J., Estes J.,
Hughes T., Kidwell S., Lange C., Lenihan H., Pandol J.,
Peterson C., Steneck R., Tegner M., Warner R., 2001, Historical
overshing and the recent collapse of coastal ecosystem. Science
293, 629-638.
Jameson S.C., 1998, Twelve reefs at risk: red Sea Riviera. In: Bryant
D., Burke L., Mc Manus J., Spalding M. (Eds.), Reefs at risk: a
map based indicator of potential threats of the worlds coral reefs.
World Resources Institute, Washington DC.
Jameson S.C., Ammar M.S., Saadalla E., Mostafa H.M., Riegl B.,
1999, A coral damage index and its application to diving sites in
the Egyptian Red Sea. Coral Reefs 18, 333-339.
Jameson S.C., Erdmann M.V., Karr J.R., Potts K.W., 2001, Charting
a course toward diagnostic monitoring: a continuing review of
coral reef attributes and a research strategy for creating coral reef
indexes of biotic integrity. Bull. Mar. Sc. 69, 701-744.
Johannes R.E., Maragos J.E., Coles S.L., 1972, Oil damaged corals
exposed to air. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 3, 29-30.
Johannes R.E., Riepen M., 1995, Environmental, Economic, and
Social implications of the live reef sh trade in Asia and the
Western Pacic. Report to the Nature Conservancy and the South
Pacic Forum Fisheries Agency.
Jope K.L., 2001, An approach to identifying vital signs of ecosys-
tem health. In: Harmon D. (Ed.), Proc. 11th Conf. Research and
resource management in parks and on public lands, pp. 399-406.
Joyce K.E., Phinn S.R., 2002, Bi-directional reectance of corals. Int.
J. Remote Sensing 23, 389-394.
Karlson R.H., Hurd L.E., 1993, Disturbance, coral reef communities,
and changing ecological paradigms. Coral Reefs 12, 117-125.
Kay A.M., Liddle M.J., 1989, Impact of human trampling in dierent
zones of a coral reef at. Environ. Manage. 4, 509-520.
Kinsey D.W., 1985, Metabolism, calcication and carbon produc-
tion. I. System level studies. Proc. 5th Int. Coral Reef Symp. 4,
505-526.
Kleypas J.A., Buddemeier R.W., Gattuso J.P., 2001, The future of
coral reefs in an age of global change. Int. J. Earth Sci. 90,
426-437.
Knap A.H., Sleeter T.D., Dodge R.E., Wyers S.C., Frith H.E., Smith
S.R., 1983, The eects of oil spills and dispersant use on corals.
Oil Petrochem. Pollut. 1, 157-169.
Knutson T.R., Tuleya R.E., Kurihara Y., 1998, Simulated increase
of hurricane intensities in a CO2

warmed climate. Science 279,
1018-1019.
Kojis B.L., Quinn N.J., 2001, The importance of regional dierences
in hard coral recruitment rates for determining the need for coral
restoration. Bull. Mar. Sc. 69, 967-974.
Laist D.W., 1987, Overview of the biological eects of lost and dis-
carced plastic debris in the marine environment. Mar. Pollut. Bull.
18, 319-326.
Lewis J.B., 1971, Eects of crude oil and oil spill dispersant on reef
corals. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 2, 59-62.
Lewis A.R., 1997, Eects of experimental coral disturbance on the
structure of sh community on large patch reefs. Mar. Ecol. Prog.
Ser. 161, 37-50.

Lewis A.R., 1998, Eects of experimental coral disturbance on the
population dynamic of shes on large patch reefs. J. Exp. Mar.
Biol. Ecol. 230, 91-110.
Liddle M.J., Kay A.M., 1987, Resistance, survival and recovery of
trampled coral on the Great Barrier Reef. Biol. Conserv. 42, 1-18.
Littler M.M., Littler D.S., 1999, Disturbances due to cyclone Gavin
parallel those caused by a ship grounding. Coral Reefs 18, 146.
Loya Y., 1976, Recolonization of Red Sea corals aected by natural
catastrophes and man-made perturbations. Ecology 57, 278-289.
Loya Y., Rinkevitch B., 1980, Eects of oil pollution on coral reef
communities. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 3, 167-180.
Loya Y., Rinkevitch B., 1987, Eects of petroleum hydrocarbons on
corals. In: Salvat B (Ed.), Human impacts on coral reefs: facts and
recommendations. Antenne Museum EPHE, French Polynesia,
pp. 91-102.
Luckhurst B., Luckhurst K., 1978, Diurnal space utilization in coral
reef communities. Mar. Biol. 49, 325-332.
Marszaleck D.S., 1981a, Sewage and eutrophication. In: Salvat B.
(Ed.), Human impacts on coral reefs: facts and recommendations.
Marszaleck D.S., 1981b, Impact of dredging on a subtropical reef
community, southeast Florida, USA. Proc. 4th Int. Coral Reef
Symp. 1, 147-153.
McAllister D.E., 1988, Environmental, economic and social costs of
coral reef destruction in the Philippines. Galaxea 7, 161-178.
McManus J.W., Nanola C.L., Reyes, R.B., 1997, Eects of some de-
structive shing methods on coral cover and potential rates of
recovery. Environ. Manage. 21, 69-78.
Meesters E.H., Bak R.P.M., 1993, Eects of coral bleaching on tissue
regeneration potential and colony survival. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser.
96, 189-198.
Mergner H., 1981, Man-made inuences on and natural changes in
the settlement of the Aqaba reefs (Red Sea). Proc. 4th Int. Coral
Reef Symp. 1, 193-207.
Moberg F., Folke C., 1999, Ecological goods and services of coral
reef ecosystems. Ecol. Econ. 29, 215-233.
Morris D.W., 2003, Toward an ecological synthesis: a case for habitat
selection. Oecologia 136: 1-13.
Mumby P.J., Chisholm J.R.M., Clark C.D., Hedley J.D., Jaubert J.,
2001, A bird-eye view of the health of coral reefs. Nature 413,
36.
Munro J.L., Parrish J.D., Talbot F.H., 1987, The biological eects
of intensive shing upon coral reef communities. In: Salvat B.
(Ed.), Human impacts on coral reefs: facts and recommendations.
Naim O., 1993, Seasonal responses of a fringing reef community
to eutrophication (Reunion island, Western Indian Ocean). Mar.
Ecol. Prog . Ser. 99, 307-315.
Naim O., Cuet P., Mangar V., 2000, Coral reefs of the Mascarene
archipelago. In: McClanahan T.R., Sheppard C., Obura D.O.
(Eds.), Coral reefs of the Indian Ocean: their Ecology and
Conservation, Oxford University Press, pp. 353-381.
Neil D., 1990, Potential of corals stress due to sediment resuspension
and deposition by reef walkers. Biol. Conserv. 52, 221-227.
Nugues M.M., Roberts C.M., 2003, Partial mortality in massive reef
corals as an indicator of sediment stress on coral reefs. Mar.
Pollut. Bull. 46, 314-323.
Nystrm M., Folke C., Moberg F., 2000, Coral reef disturbance and
resilience in a human-dominated environment. Trends Ecol. Evol.
413-417.
Nystrm M., Folke C., 2001, Spatial resilience of coral reefs.
Ecosystems 4, 406-417.
229
Obura D.O., 2005, Resilience and climate change: lessons from coral
reefs and bleaching in the Western Indian Ocean. Estuar. Coast.
Shelf Sci. 63, 353-372.
ONeill R.V., Johnson A.R., King A.W., 1989, A hierarchical frame-
work for the analysis of scale. Landscape Ecol. 3, 193-205.
ONeill R.V., 2001, Is it time to bury the ecosystem concept? (with
full military honors, of course!). Ecology 82, 32753284.
hman M.C., Rajasuriya A., Svensson S. 1998, The use of buttery-
shes (Chaetodontidae) as bio-indicators of habitat structure and
human disturbance. Ambio 27, 708-716.
Palandro D., Andrfout S., Dustan P., Muller-Karger F.E., 2003,
Change detection in coral reef communities using the IKONOS
sensor and historic aerial photographs. Int. J. Remote Sensing 24,
873-878.
Pastorok R.A, Bilyard G.R., 1985, Eects of sewage pollution on
coral-reef communities. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 21, 175-189.
Pando J., Bradbury R., Sala E., Hughes T., Bjorndal K., Cooke R.,
McArdle D., McClenahan L., Newman M., Paredes G., Warner
R., Jackson J., 2003, Global trajectories of long-term decline of
coral reef ecosystems. Science 301, 955-958.
Pauly D.G., Silvestre G., Smith I.R., 1989, On development sheries
and dynamite: a brief review of tropical sheries management.
Nat. Res. Model. 3, 307-329.
Peyrot-Claussade M., Le Campion-Alsumard T., Harmelin-Vivien
M., Romano JC., Chazotte V., Pari N., Le Campion J., 1995, La
biorosion dans le cycle des carbonates: essai de quantication
des processus en Polynsie franaise. Bull. Soc. Gol. France
166, 85-94.
Pickett S.T.A., White P.S., 1985, Patch dynamics: a synthesis. In:
Pickett, S.T.A., White, P.S. (Eds.), The ecology of natural dis-
turbance and patch dynamics. Academic Press, New York, pp.
371-384.
Pickett S.T.A., Kolasa J., Armesto J.J., Collins S.L., 1989, The eco-
logical concept of disturbance and its expression at various hier-
archical levels. Oikos 54, 129-136.
Polunin N.V.C., Halim M.K., Kvalvagnaes K., 1983, Bali Barat:
an Indonesian marine protected area and its resources. Biol.
Conserv. 25, 171-191.
Porcher M., 1993, Intertropical coastal and coral reef areas and
their development: practical guide, study methodologies, techni-
cal recommendations. Ministre de lEnvironnement, Paris.
Quinn, J.F., Dunham A.E., 1993, On hypothesis testing in ecology
and evolution. Am. Nat. 122, 602-617.
Randall J.E., 1987, Collecting reef shes for aquaria. In: Salvat B
(ed) Human impacts on coral reefs: facts and recommendations.
Rapport D.J., Regier H.A., Hutchinson T.C., 1985, Ecosystem behav-
ior under stress. Am. Nat. 125, 617-640.
Ray C.G., 1988, Ecological diversity in coastal zones and oceans.
In: Wilson E.O. (Ed.), Biodiversity, National Academic Press,
Washington DC.
Reese E.S., 1981, Predation on corals by shes of the family
Chaetodontidae: implications for conservation and management
of coral rreef ecosystems. Bull. Mar. Sci. 31, 594-604.
Reimer A.A., 1975, Eects of crude oil on corals. Mar. Pollut. Bull.
6, 39-43.
Richmond R.H., 1997, Reproduction and recruitment in corals: crit-
ical links in the persistence of reefs. Chapman and Hall, New
York, pp. 175-197.
Riegl B., Luke K.E., 1998, Ecological parameters of dynamited reefs
in the northern Red Sea and their relevance to reef rehabilitation.
Mar. Pollut. Bull. 37, 488-498.
230
Riegl B., Velmirov B., 1991, How many damaged corals in Red
Sea reef systems? A quantitative survey. Hydrobiologia 216-217,
249-256.
Rinkevitch B., 1995, Restoration strategy for coral reefs damaged
by recreational activities: the use of sexual and asexual recruits.
Restoration Ecol. 3, 241-251.
Rinkevitch B., Loya Y., 1989, Reproduction in regenerating colonies
of the coral Stylophora pistillata. In: Spanier E., Steinberger Y.,
Luria M. (Eds.), Environmental quality and ecosystem stability.
ISEQES, Jerusalem, pp. 257-265.
Risk M., 1972, Fish diversity on a coral reef in the Virgin Islands.
Atoll Res. Bull. 153, 1-16.
Roberts C.M., Ormond R.F., 1987, Habitat complexity and coral reef
diversity and abundance on Red Sea fringing reefs. Mar. Ecol.
Prog. Ser. 41, 1-8.
Rogers S., Gilnack M., Fitz C., 1983, Monitoring of coral reefs with
linear transects: a case storm damage. J. Exp. Mar. Biol. Ecol. 66,
285-300.
Rubec P.J., 1988, The need for conservation and management of
Philippine coral reefs. Environ. Biol. 23, 141-154.
Saila S.B., Kocic V.L., Mac Manus J.W., 1993, Modelling the eects
of destructive shing practices on tropical coral reefs. Mar. Ecol.
Prog. Ser. 94, 51-60.
Salvat B., 1987, Dredging in coral reefs. In: Salvat B. (Ed), Human
impacts on coral reefs: facts and recommendations. Antenne
Museum EPHE, French Polynesia, pp. 166-184.
Salvat B., Vergonzanne G., Galzin R., Richard G., Chevalier J.P.,
Ricard M., Renaud-Mornant J., 1979, Consquences cologiques
des activits dune zone dextraction de sable corallien dans le
lagon de Moorea (le de la Socit, Polynsie Franaise). Cah.
Indo-Pacif. 1, 83-126.
Salvat B., Chancerelle Y., Schrimm M., Morancy R., Porcher M.,
Aubanel A., 2002, Restauration dune zone corallienne dgrade
et implantation dun jardin corallien Bora Bora, Polynsie
Franaise. Rev. Ecol. 9, 81-96.
Sano M., Shimuzu, M. Nose, Y., 1984, Changes in structure of coral
reef sh communities by destruction of hermatypic corals: obser-
vational and experimental views. Pac. Sci. 38, 51-79.
Shepherd A.R., Warwick R.M., Clarke, R.D., Brown, B.E., 1992,
An analysis of sh community responses to coral mining in the
Maldives. Environ. Biol. Fish 33, 367-380.
Smith S.V., 1985, Coral reef calcication. In: Barnes D.J. (Ed.),
Perspectives on coral reefs. Brian Clouston, A.C.T., Australia, pp.
240-247.
Stejskal I.V., 2000, Obtaining approvals for oil and gas projects in
shallow water marine areas in western Australia using an envi-
ronmental risk assessment framework. Spill Sci. Tech. Bull. 6,
69-76.
Thomason J., Roberts C.M., 1992, What is a healthy reef? Reef
Encounter 11, 8-9.
Tilmant J.T., 1987, Impacts of recreational activities on coral reefs.
In: Salvat B. (Ed.), Human impacts on coral reefs: facts and rec-
ommendations. Antenne Museum EPHE, French Polynesia, pp.
195-214.
Tratalos J.A., Austin T.J., 2001, Impacts of recreational SCUBA
diving on coral communities of the Caribbean island of Grand
Cayman. Biol. Conserv. 102, 67-75.
Underwood A.J., Peterson C.H., 1988, Towards an ecological frame-
work for investigating pollution. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 46,
227-234.
Van Veghel M.L., Bak R.P., 1994, Reproductive characteristics of the
polymorphic Caribbean reef building coral Monastrea annularis.
III. Reproduction in damaged and regenerating colonies. Mar.
Ecol. Prog. Ser. 109, 229-233.
Veron J.E., 1986, Corals of Australia and the Indo-Pacic. Angus
Robertson Publishers, Australia.
Veron J.E., 2000, Corals of the world. Australian Inst Mar Sci,
Townsville, Australia.
Ward S., Harrison P., 2000, Changes in gametogenesis and fecundity
of acroporid corals that were exposed to elevated nitrogen and
phosphorus during the ENCORE experiment. J. Exp. Mar. Biol.
Ecol. 246, 179-221.
Wells S.M., Alcala A.C., 1987, Collecting of corals and shells.
In: Salvat, B. (Ed.), Human impacts on coral reefs: facts and
recommendations. Antenne Museum EPHE, French Polynesia,
pp. 13-27.
White A.T., 1987, Eects of construction activity on coral reef and la-
goon systems. In: Salvat B. (Ed.), Human impacts on coral reefs:
facts and recommendations. Antenne Museum EPHE, French
Polynesia, pp. 185-193.
White T.J., Fouda M.M, Rajasuriya A., 1997, Status of reefs in south
Asia, Indian Ocean and Middle East seas (Red Sea and Persian
Gulf). Proc. 8th Int. Coral Reef Symp. 1, 301-306.
Williams D.M. 1986, Temporal variation in the structure of reef slope
sh communities (central Great Barrier Reef): Short-term ef-
fects of Acanthaster planci infestation. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 28,
157-164.
Williams I.D., Polunin N.V.C., 2000, Dierences between protected
and unprotected Caribbean reefs in attributes preferred by dive
tourists. Environ. Conserv. 27, 382-391.
Wolanski E., Pickard G.L., Ripp D.L., 1984, River plumes, coral reefs
and mixing in the Gulf of Papua and the northern Great Barrier
Reef. Estuar. Coast. Shelf Sci. 18, 291-314.
Woodland D.J., Hooper J.N.A., 1977, The eect of trampling on coral
reefs. Biol. Conserv. 11, 1-4.
Yamano H., Tamura M., Kunii Y., Hidaka M., 2003, Spectral re-
ectance as a potential tool for detecting stressed corals. Galaxea
5, 1-10.
Zakai D., Levy O., Chadwick-Furman N.E., 2000, Experimental frag-
mentation reduces sexual reproductive output by reef-building
coral Pocillopora damicornis. Coral Reefs 19, 185-188.
Zakai D., Chadwick-Furman N.E., 2002, Impacts of intensive recre-
ational diving on reef corals at Eilat, northern Red Sea. Biol.
Conserv. 105, 179-187.
NOAA Web Update May 4, 2010
DEEPWATER HORIZON Incident
Situation Tuesday 04 May As the weather became better throughout the day,
skimming, boom placement, aerial application of dispersants, imaging of the oil plume, in
situ burning and observation overflights all took place in an effort to handle the oil
leaking from the Deepwater Horizon Incident.
Remotely Operated Vehicles (ROVs) cut off a section at the end of the riser pipe, which
used to lead from the well to the rig, and capped it with a valve. While this stopped one
of the three leaks, oil continues to enter the Gulf of Mexico at a rate of approximately
5000 barrels (210,000 gallons) per day. Testing of a new technique that involves injecting
dispersants at the oils source - 5000 below the surface - will require further monitoring
to tell whether the sub-sea dispersants are having an effect and further analysis to ensure
effects in the water column are not worse than those from oil. If successful, the technique
could reduce or prevent an oil plume from forming at the surface. Drilling of a relief or
cut-off well got further, but will take several months to stop the flow. The first collection
dome, a large cofferdam-like structure that collects oil at the sea floor and funnels it for
collection at the surface, was deployed today. These containment chambers have never
been tried this deep - 5000 - and will take about a week to be fully rigged and functional.
Hundreds of thousands of feet of boom have been deployed to contain the spill, with
hundreds of thousands more staged and ready to be deployed.
NOAA efforts have included: modeling the trajectory and extent of the oil, getting pre-
impact samples surveys and baseline measurements, planning for open water and
shoreline remediation, supporting the Unified Command as it analyzes new techniques
for handling the spill and starting Natural Resource Damage Assessments (NRDA).
Decreasing wind and sea state should allow the full spectrum of surface
operations until the weekend. NOAAs National Weather Service has created a
special forecast for the incident area which you can access here:
http://www.srh.noaa.gov/lix/
NOAA has 3 aircraft on-scene: a King Air specially equipped for
photogrammetry and 2 Twin Otter aircraft one for marine mammal observations
The Coast Guard is using forecasts and graphics of oil movement prepared by
NOAAs Emergency Response Division (ERD) and Marine Charting Division to
keep mariners out of oil areas by depicting them on electronic charts.
NOAA restricted fishing in federal waters of the Gulf of Mexico directly
adjacent to the area closures enacted by Louisiana. The closure, which will be in
effect for at least 10 days, is to protect consumers and the seafood industry.
NOAA fisheries representatives will be meeting with fishermen this week to
assist them. Further details can be found here: http://sero.nmfs.noaa.gov/.
A Quick Explanation of NRDA for Deep and Shallow Water Corals
Injured by the Deepwater Horizon Incident
John Cubit, NOAA/ARD
19 May 2010
Draft Not for citation. Please send comments/changes to [email protected]
Introduction
BP is responsible for restoring to baseline the corals and other natural resources "injured" by the
Deepwater Horizon incident. We calculate the required amount of coral restoration based on the
quantified losses of corals. We use the natural resource damage assessment (NRDA) process to
do the quantification of coral loss caused by the incident. If a study cannot produce the answer
of how many corals and/or coral services were lost because of the Deepwater Horizon incident, it
will have little utility in our NRDA process.
"Quantification" of coral loss and "cause" of the loss are highlighted here to emphasize their
critical importance in NRDAs that are defensible in scientific peer-reviews, heavy-duty
negotiations, and litigation. Stop. Recognize that merely detecting an effect on corals is not the
same as quantified loss of corals and/or coral services in an NRDA. In designing an NRDA,
continuously ask the question, "How much coral restoration and what kinds of restoration will
this NRDA demonstrate as being needed?" If the NRDA does not inventory the total numbers,
sizes, and species of coral colonies lost, or coral services lost, how can you defensibly
demonstrate to peer reviewers, BP, or a court what kinds and scales of restoration BP is
responsible for providing?
What is "injury"? In the case of the coral resources, "injury" in the Deepwater Horizon is
incident includes any losses of the coral colonies themselves, or loss of any services or
ecological functions provided by the corals, including acute mortality, reduced long-term
survivorship, reduced growth, diminished reproductive output, harmed viewing value for divers,
etc.
What is "baseline" in NRDA? For NRDA, "baseline" is defined as the condition of the
resource that would have existed if the incident in question had not occurred. Contrary to what
you may have heard, NRDA baseline is not necessarily a flat line and is not necessarily the
average condition of the resources before the incident.
Understanding NRDA baseline is particularly important for coral populations in the Gulf
and Caribbean, where large-scale and rapid changes in baseline have been documented in certain
locations. In some locations, certain corals are going extinct, meaning baseline is declining. In
some locations, Florida corals are impacted by cold water and hot water events, causing
fluctuations in baseline. Where successful coral restoration projects or habitat protection
projects are underway, baseline for corals may be increasing. Developing a rational baseline for
specific locations is part of the NRDA process.
DWH NRDA Overview for Corals p. 1
What qualifies as "incident-caused" injury? "Causes" in this case include any aspect of the
Deepwater Horizon incident that produces coral injury, including the physical smothering and/or
chemical toxicity of the discharged oil, toxicity of dispersants, mechanical impacts of clean-up
equipment, scraping of corals by oil sorbent or containment booms, trampling by clean-up crews,
groundings of response boats, etc.
Conducting NRDAs for corals potentially impacted by the Deepwater Horizon
Incident
This is a summary conducting NRDAs for corals in this case. Note that use of exposure
gradients or impact vs control comparisons are essential to separate injuries caused by the
Deepwater Horizon incident from injuries caused by other factors.
Resource losses. A NRDA procedure for corals will quantify the loss of corals and/or coral
services and determine the cause(s) of the loss(es). This is generally accomplished (1) by
comparing amounts of coral loss over a spatial gradient of exposure to oil/dispersants, or (2)
comparing amounts of loss between oiled impact and non-oiled reference sites. Such
comparisons can be made more powerful (logically and statistically) by including before-and-
after data for the conditions of the corals at both the impact and reference sites. ("BACI"
[before-after-control-impact] survey designs and statistical analyses are well developed for
impact assessments.) This use of spatial gradients and reference sites ("controls") is a way of
eliminating the impacts of potential confounding factors, such as cold- and hot-water events in
the Keys, which are present over the gradient and present at the reference sites as well.
Causation. In this case, determination of oil and/or dispersants as being direct causal factors for
claimed coral injury requires evidence that the corals were exposed to these substances coming
from the Deepwater Horizon incident. This can be done by tracking the oil/dispersant from the
Deepwater Horizon to the injury site and/or documenting the presence of unique Deepwater
Horizon oil at the injury site (e.g., by "finger-printing" samples of oil in sediments, water, or
tissue samples from biota at the site). Contrary to assertions from some toxicologists, the
oil/dispersants do not have to be dissolved in the water to have toxic effects on the corals. For
example, corals can ingest undissolved oil from the water column or undissolved oil that is in or
on ingested food. In other words, water samples are not required to document exposure of biota
to oil at a site.
Injuries attributed to clean-up actions also need to be quantified and compared with
reference sites. For example, physical injury to corals caused by booms, tow-lines, small boats,
trampling, etc., can be documented by photographing these activities combined with photos or
other surveys of freshly abraded and broken corals at these same locations. (Use GPS markers,
landmarks, and photo scales where possible.) Similar surveys for to quantify similarly injured
corals need to be repeated at reference sites to rule out the impacts of storms, floating debris, and
other factors that could cause the same kind of injury to corals.
Sampling layouts and other design aspects for field quantification of coral injury
Sampling designs must provide scientifically defensible data to represent the area of claimed
injury. This issue is too detailed for this summary document. If this topic is outside your
expertise, work with a good quantitative ecologist and statistician to develop your scientifically
and statistically defensible NRDA survey procedure. Some of your choices in this regard may be
directed by the need to match your new data with pre-incident data for your assessment sites.
The contractor IEc has provided a statistician to advise the Trustees on these matters.
The Bottom Line: Habitat Equivalency Analysis (HEA) and restoration
quantification
NRDAs frequently use HEA (or Resource Equivalency Analysis) as the accounting method to
sum up the losses of natural resources and to convert these losses into scaling for restoration
projects. In contrast to other resource accounting methods, HEA includes duration of loss. For
example, loss of a 50 year old Acropora palmata colony will represent a much greater loss of
coral-formed habitat than the loss of an equivalent area of one-year old A. palmata. For this
reason, NOAA NRDAs for corals now measure the abundance of corals by using counts of coral
colonies by species and size categories, instead of the older measure of areal coverage (which
measures all corals as if they were flat crusts).
Work with your NRDA professional to ensure that the data you collect will work as inputs for
HEA.
Situation Sunday 02 May Today NOAA restricted fishing in federal waters of the
Gulf of Mexico threatened by the BP oil spill - from the mouth of the Mississippi to
Pensacola Bay (***click here for map***). The closure, which will be in effect for at
least 10 days, is to protect consumers and the seafood industry. Secretary of Commerce
Gary Locke said, We stand with America's fisherman, their families and businesses in
impacted coastal communities during this very challenging time. Fishing is vital to our
economy and our quality of life and we will work tirelessly protect to it". NOAA is part
of the Department of Commerce. Support came from Harlon Pearce, Chairman,
Louisiana Seafood Promotion and Marketing Board and Ewell Smith, Executive Director,
Louisiana Seafood Board who said, We Support NOAAs precautionary closure of the
affected area so that the American consumer has confidence that the seafood they eat is
safe. It is also very important to underscore the fact that this closure is only the affected
area of the Gulf of Mexico, not the entire Gulf. The state waters of Louisiana west of the
Mississippi River are still open and the seafood coming from that area is safe. Further
details can be found here: http://sero.nmfs.noaa.gov/.
The state of Louisiana has already closed vulnerable fisheries in state waters within 3
miles of the coast. NOAA is closing areas directly adjacent to the area closures enacted
by Louisiana, and is working with state governors to evaluate the need to declare a
fisheries disaster, which would facilitate federal aid to fishermen. NOAA fisheries
representatives will be meeting with fishermen this week to assist them, and BP will be
hiring fishermen to help clean up and deploy boom in the Gulf of Mexico.
President Obama was on-scene today getting a first-hand look at the spill, which is still
leaking at a rate of approximately 5000 barrels (210,000 gallons) per day from three
damaged sections of piping on the sea floor. Engineers are working to inject dispersants
at the oils source - 5000 below the surface. If successful, it could reduce or prevent an
oil plume from forming at the surface. Drilling of a relief or cut-off well started today,
but it will take several months to stop the flow. Work also continues on a collection dome
at the sea floor; this technique has never been tried at 5000. Very high winds and rough
seas curtailed surface operations, such as skimming and applying dispersant by aircraft.
NOAAs National Weather Service displayed radar data at central command
today so the command could see where thunderstorm activity was moving and
receive warnings immediately.
A forecast decrease in winds should allow the full spectrum of surface
operations starting tomorrow.
NOAAs Emergency Response Division (ERD) creates the oil trajectories that
response planners rely on.
NOAAs Assessment and Restoration Division (ARD) completed additional
baseline sampling in Gulf Islands National Seashore in conjunction with NOAA
Restoration Center, National Park Service and Florida Department of
Environmental Protection staff.
Natural resource economists from ARD also drafted plans to systematically
survey recreational users along the Gulf Coast about their use of areas affected
by the spill.
To report oil on land, or for general Community and Volunteer Information, please
call 1-866-448-5816.
To report oiled or injured wildlife, please call 1-800-557-1401.
BP is asking fishermen for their assistance in cleaning up the oil spill. BP is calling
this the Vessel of Opportunities Program and through it, BP is looking to contract
shrimp boats, oyster boats and other vessels for hire to deploy boom in the Gulf of
Mexico. Fishermen should call 425-745-8017 about this program.
NOAA Roles: NOAA is a vital part of the massive response effort on the Deepwater
Horizon incident. Many personnel are on scene and many more are engaged remotely,
as follows:
Office of Response and Restoration (OR&R)
Scientific support to the U.S. Coast Guard and Unified Command
Emergency Response Division (ERD)
Predict where the oil is going and its effects
Overflight observations and mapping
Identify resources at risk
Predict fate (chemical changes) of oil
Recommend appropriate clean-up methods
Manage data and information
Assessment and Restoration Division (ARD)
Plan for assessment of injuries to natural resources
Coordinate with state and federal trustees
Implement sampling plans
National Weather Service
Incident weather forecasts including marine and aviation
National Environmental Satellite, Data, and Information Service (NESDIS)
Experimental imagery for spill trajectory forecasts
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS)
Issues related to marine mammals, sea turtles, and fishery resources
Management of Fishery Closures
Public Affairs support to the Joint Information Center
Office of Marine and Aviation Operations (OMAO)
USCG Liaison to the DCO Incident Support Team USCG Headquarters
National Ocean Service
Oceanographic modeling support
Public Affairs support to Joint Information Center
Situation Sunday 02 May Today NOAA restricted fishing in federal waters of the
Gulf of Mexico threatened by the BP oil spill - from the mouth of the Mississippi to
Pensacola Bay (***click here for map***). The closure, which will be in effect for at
least 10 days, is to protect consumers and the seafood industry. Secretary of Commerce
Gary Locke said, We stand with America's fisherman, their families and businesses in
impacted coastal communities during this very challenging time. Fishing is vital to our
economy and our quality of life and we will work tirelessly protect to it". NOAA is part
of the Department of Commerce. Support came from Harlon Pearce, Chairman,
Louisiana Seafood Promotion and Marketing Board and Ewell Smith, Executive Director,
Louisiana Seafood Board who said, We Support NOAAs precautionary closure of the
affected area so that the American consumer has confidence that the seafood they eat is
safe. It is also very important to underscore the fact that this closure is only the affected
area of the Gulf of Mexico, not the entire Gulf. The state waters of Louisiana west of the
Mississippi River are still open and the seafood coming from that area is safe. Further
details can be found here: http://sero.nmfs.noaa.gov/.
The state of Louisiana has already closed vulnerable fisheries in state waters within 3
miles of the coast. NOAA is closing areas directly adjacent to the area closures enacted
by Louisiana, and is working with state governors to evaluate the need to declare a
fisheries disaster, which would facilitate federal aid to fishermen. NOAA fisheries
representatives will be meeting with fishermen this week to assist them, and BP will be
hiring fishermen to help clean up and deploy boom in the Gulf of Mexico.
President Obama was on-scene today getting a first-hand look at the spill, which is still
leaking at a rate of approximately 5000 barrels (210,000 gallons) per day from three
damaged sections of piping on the sea floor. Engineers are working to inject dispersants
at the oils source - 5000 below the surface. If successful, it could reduce or prevent an
oil plume from forming at the surface. Drilling of a relief or cut-off well started today,
but it will take several months to stop the flow. Work also continues on a collection dome
at the sea floor; this technique has never been tried at 5000. Very high winds and rough
seas curtailed surface operations, such as skimming and applying dispersant by aircraft.
NOAAs National Weather Service displayed radar data at central command
today so the command could see where thunderstorm activity was moving and
receive warnings immediately.
A forecast decrease in winds should allow the full spectrum of surface
operations starting tomorrow.
NOAAs Emergency Response Division (ERD) creates the oil trajectories that
response planners rely on.
NOAAs Assessment and Restoration Division (ARD) completed additional
baseline sampling in Gulf Islands National Seashore in conjunction with NOAA
Restoration Center, National Park Service and Florida Department of
Environmental Protection staff.
Natural resource economists from ARD also drafted plans to systematically
survey recreational users along the Gulf Coast about their use of areas affected
by the spill.
To report oil on land, or for general Community and Volunteer Information, please
call 1-866-448-5816.
To report oiled or injured wildlife, please call 1-800-557-1401.
BP is asking fishermen for their assistance in cleaning up the oil spill. BP is calling
this the Vessel of Opportunities Program and through it, BP is looking to contract
shrimp boats, oyster boats and other vessels for hire to deploy boom in the Gulf of
Mexico. Fishermen should call 425-745-8017 about this program.
NOAA Roles: NOAA is a vital part of the massive response effort on the Deepwater
Horizon incident. Many personnel are on scene and many more are engaged remotely,
as follows:
Office of Response and Restoration (OR&R)
Scientific support to the U.S. Coast Guard and Unified Command
Emergency Response Division (ERD)
Predict where the oil is going and its effects
Overflight observations and mapping
Identify resources at risk
Predict fate (chemical changes) of oil
Recommend appropriate clean-up methods
Manage data and information
Assessment and Restoration Division (ARD)
Plan for assessment of injuries to natural resources
Coordinate with state and federal trustees
Implement sampling plans
National Weather Service
Incident weather forecasts including marine and aviation
National Environmental Satellite, Data, and Information Service (NESDIS)
Experimental imagery for spill trajectory forecasts
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS)
Issues related to marine mammals, sea turtles, and fishery resources
Management of Fishery Closures
Public Affairs support to the Joint Information Center
Office of Marine and Aviation Operations (OMAO)
USCG Liaison to the DCO Incident Support Team USCG Headquarters
National Ocean Service
Oceanographic modeling support
Public Affairs support to Joint Information Center
Autopsy of an Oil Spill
Author(s): Linda Garmon
Source: Science News, Vol. 118, No. 17 (Oct. 25, 1980), pp. 267-270
Published by: Society for Science & the Public
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3965303
Accessed: 10/05/2010 11:24
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless
you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you
may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.
Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=sciserv.
Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed
page of such transmission.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].
Society for Science & the Public is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Science
News.
http://www.jstor.org
of
an
OIl
Spill
R esearchers hope that data
gathered from the ongoing, de-
tailed analysis ofthe Ixtoc Ioilwell
blow out w ill m inim ize the im pact
of future oilspills
0I
a:
B Y LIN D A G A R M O N
N early three m onths had passed since
the last observed tar b all w ashed onto
Padre Island beaches north of Port M ans-
field,T ex.M ore than a year had passed
since
the first oiled bird, a blue-faced
booby,w as found a nd brought to the is-
land's cleaning station. "M uch m edia a t-
tention w as given to the firstoiled bird,"a
U .S. C oast G uard on-scene

coordinator
w rote in the official activity report.
B ut this day's activity w ould pass w ith
barely a notice. It w as O ct. 1,1980,and
C aptain G erald H inson had decided to
term inate the U SC G clean-up efforts in re-
sponse to Ixtoc I,the M exican oilw ellthat
nearly 16 m onths b efore h ad blow n out in
the B ay of C am peche, spilling 140 m illion
gallons of oilinto the G ulf of M exico (SN :
12/15/79,p.405).
For the U SC G response team ,Ixtoc I is
over.ButIxtoc has left behind a legacy that
is very m uch a live in both the scientific
and political arenas of the U nited S tates
and M exico."T he Ixtoc Iis im portant... as
a case study for researchers, policy m ak-
ers and response team s," says R ichard S.
G olob, director of the C enter for S hort-
L ived Phenom ena

in C am bridge, M ass.
"T he incident has m ajor im plications for
open-ocean spill response, blow out pre-
vention technology, international pollu-
tion dam age com pensation,scientific spill
research and outer c ontinental shelf de-
velopm ent [for oila nd gas exploration]."
R esearchers are just now piecing together
the com plex Ixtoc I puzzle in an effort to
address such issues.
T he first piece to that puzzle

w as
m olded by the events leading up to the
June 3,1979,b low out of the Ixtoc 1,a P et-
roleos M exicanos (PE M E X ) exploratory
w ellabout 50 m iles offshore from C iudad
delC arm en.B y June,Ixtoc was drilling at a
depth of about 1 1,800 feet b elow the sea-
floor w ith a b it screw ed to the b ottom of
drill collars (a thick-w alled pipe) sus-
pended from the drilling rig b y the d rill
pipe (a thin-w alled pipe). D rilling fluid,
com m only know n as " drilling m ud," was
being pum ped from surface m ud tanks
dow n the inside of the d rillpipe,continu-
ing dow n the d rillcollars and out through
the b it.T he m ud then flow ed up the an-
nulus -
the a rea b etw een the outside of
the pipes a nd the inside of the casing, or
hole -
and returned to the surface m ud
tanks.
C irculating drilling m ud-com posed

of
w ater,clay and certain chem icals-lubri-
cates the drillbit,carries rock cuttings out
of the hole a nd provides a colum n of fluid
A section of T exan shore h it by Ixtoc oil.

in the hole, the w eight of w hich counter-
balances potential pressure form ations.
T he day before Ixtoc blew ,the drillbithita
pocket, or r egion of soft strata, and the
valuable circulation w as lost.T his m eant
that rather than returning to the surface,
the drilling fluid w as escaping into frac-
._
-.
_
tures in the rock atthe bottom of the hole.
PE M E X officials decided to rem ove the bit,
run the d rill pipe back into the h ole a nd
pum p m aterials dow n this open-ended
!1;~~~~~~~~
dri
.
U
'-
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~.
ll pipe in an effort to seal off the frac-
U ,
tures causing
.
,
_
^
.~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~/
the loss of circulation.
D uring this pipe-rem oval operation,
though, drilling m ud suddenly began to
flow ,w ith rapidly increasing p ressure and
speed,u p both the annulus and the inside
of the d rillpipe.N orm ally,this dangerous
flow can be stopped by activating the
shear ram s of the blow out preventer (B O P)
to sever and sealoff the drillpipe.B ut the
Ixtoc pipe
rem oval
operations
had
brought the d rillcollars in line w ith the
B O P at the tim e of the m ud flow .T he B O P
ram s sim ply w ere not designed to sever
the thick steelw alls of the drillcollars, so
the flow continued.
E ventually,the m udflow w as follow ed
by a gush of oil and gas at an ever-
increasing rate. T he oil and gas fum es
exploded on contact w ith the operating
pum p m otors, a fire broke out and the
drilling tow er collapsed, causing dam age
to u nderlying w ellstructures.
T hus began the largest oilspill in w orld
history.W ithin one w eek,Ixtoc I had lost
m ore oil than the D ecem ber 1976 A rgo
M erchantspillof 7.6 m illion gallons off the
M assachusetts coast; by late July,Ixtoc
surpassed the 68 m illion gallons of oilthat
the tanker A m oco C adiz spilled off B rit-
tany,France,in M arch of 1978.
Ixtoc's record-breaking gush gave sci-
entists the opportunity to brush up on
oil-spill behavior.W hen oilis released into
the environm ent, itis w eathered by one of
five processes: evaporation into the at-
m osphere,
dissolution
into the w ater,
em ulsification (form ation of an oil-and-
w ater
em ulsion
called
"chocolate
m ousse"), degradation
by
m icroor-
ganism s or photochem ical oxidation by
sunlight
and atm ospheric
oxygen.
T o
study this w eathering phenom enon,

a
team of N ational
O ceanic
and A tm o-
spheric A dm inistration scientists boarded
the N O A A ship R esearcher and sam pled
ocean w ater,oil, bottom sedim ents and
organism s w ithin a few hundred feet ofthe
burning w ell. T he N O A A team then sam -
pled the oil during its long journey north
tow ard the T exas coast

to study how
w eathering w ould affect the G ulf-w ater
distribution of the various hydrocarbon
com ponents in the Ixtoc oil.
T he resultofthat voyage is a "significant
contribution" to the understanding of oil
267
O il spill
N ature of
incident
A M O C O C A D IZ
stranding o
f a tanker
L ocation
B rittany coast,PO R T SA L L G ulf of M exico (M exico)
19024.5' N -92012.6'W
(France)
3/16/78
6/3/79 to 3/20/80
D ate
C rudeoils
IX T O C -I
blow out (drilling well)
"A rabian
&
L ight"
"Iranian
L ight" (about1:1)
Q uantities
discharged
Ixtoc-I
600,000 t.
223,000 t.
D ensity
Saturated
R & DM
exico,
A rom atics
T he table (center) sum m arizes

rai R esins&
som e
of the differences betw een
IJ
A sphaltens
0.85
0.84
39%
/1/
50%
/3/
34%
32%
18%
27%
the oilspills resulting from the

E pp
w reckage of the A m oco C adiz

@
N
45 ppm
(right) and the blow out of the

;
V anadium
Ixtoc I w ell (left). M ichelMarchand elal.CIR E S,Boulder,
o.
C ol
behavior,says D onald A tw ood, chief sci-
entist onboard the R esearcher.T he ship's
team discovered, for exam ple,that photo-
chem ical oxidation plays a key role in
transform ing oil droplets into m ousse.
Prior to the Ixtoc expedition,scientists be-
lieved that m ousse form s as soon as oil
enters the w ater. T he N O A A study indi-
cates,how ever,thatm ousse d oes not form
until the oil is three to 15 nauticalm iles
from the w ell and that its form ation is
driven largely b y photo-oxidation. "Sun-
light d rastically altered the oil," A tw ood
says. "It caused the hydrocarbon to lose
som e carbon atom s and take up som e
oxygen atom s, so that the oil becam e
chem ically m ore like soap and could
em ulsify." Photo-oxidation also appeared
to a lter the toxicity of the oil,m aking it
m ore toxic in som e cases and less in
others.
O ther R esearcher findings include the
observation thatthe oil-"eating" microbial
populations w ithin about 25 m iles of the
w ell head rapidly increased in size and
that these m icrobes, like sunlight, pro-
m ote m ousse form ation. In addition,the
N O A A researchers found that the m icro-
bial degradation of oil w as lim ited by the
am ount of n utrients -
particularly nitro-
gen and phosphates -in

the w ater.
B ut the finest feather in R esearcher's
cap m ay represent the w ork of Paul D .
B oehm a nd D avid L .Fiest of E nergy R e-
sources C o.Inc.A t the recent A m erican
C hem ical Society m eeting in L as V egas,
N ev.,these researchers presented their
prelim inary,though nonetheless signifi-
cant,findings based on the series of w ater
sam ples taken aboard the R esearcher as it
m oved along the axis of Ixtoc's surface
slick: a m ap contouring the subsurface
concentrations of petroleum .T his oilspill
m ap,the firstof its kind,indicates the con-
centrations
of petroleum
at particular
ocean depths and at specific distances
from the Ixtoc blow out. Such an avant
garde oil spill characterization is im por-
tant b ecause "the fate of com ponents of
55 ppm
NOAA
biological im pact of these pollutants,"
B oehm and Fiest explain.T he researchers
attribute their success to the u se of syn-
chronous scan spectrofluorom etry -

an
analytical device that identifies the com -
ponent concentrations in a sam ple b y the
tell-tale fluorescence em issions after ex-
posure to u ltraviolet light.
W
D IST A N C E F R O M
-20
-10
B L O W O U T (k.)
10
20
30
40
50
10
15
20
25
0-"
30
355
40
R l1
P7
PS PIO
Pli
P15
P8P12
Pg
R 7 P 13
P14
R lO
C oncentration contours of Ixtoc oil.
T he contour m ap study w as one of 12
presentations at the A C S m eeting included
in a special oilspill sym posium . Several
other of those presentations

looked at
m ethods of "fingerprinting," o
r identifying
the source of an oil pollutant.C rude oil is
an extrem ely com plex m ixture of hydro-
carbon com pounds m ade up predom i-
nately of h ydrogen and carbon but a lso
containing traces of sulfur,nitrogen and
oxygen.A lloils are com posed of the sam e
types of hydrocarbon com pounds and dif-
fer only in often-subtle com ponent quan-
tities.F urther blurring the picture of pol-
lutant origin is the fact that m arine oilcan
com e from several different sources: In
addition to oilspills,routine tanker traffic,
naturalseepage and land r unoffs d um p
petroleum into the ocean.
A nd therein lies a m ajor challenge for oil
spilled
oil
...
[is] closely
linked
to
the
spilla nalyzers. T o draw an a ccurate pic-
268
ture of the fate of runaw ay oil,researchers
first m ust b e a ble to confirm that the oil
slicks they a re tracing in the ocean cur-
rents,the tar balls they are observing on
shores or the petroleum concentrations
they are extracting from m arine organ-
ism s are from the suspected source.D ur-
ing the A C S oilspillsym posium , I.R.D e-
L eon and colleagues

of the C enter for
B io-O rganic Studies in N ew O rleans,L a.,
suggested
that the azaarene (nitrogen-
containing arom atics,or ringed hydrocar-
bons) content in oilsam ples " m ay serve as
useful passive tags for tracing p etroleum
sources
in the m arine environm ent."
A nalyzing oil for its azaarene content
seem ed particularly appropriate for C am -
peche B ay:W hile these com pounds gen-
erally are present in oil in very sm all
am ounts,they are found at slightly higher
concentrations in Ixtoc oil.A zaarene con-
tent also is of interest b ecause certain of
these com pounds are know n carcinogens.
A rom atic hydrocarbons, such as the
azaarenes, usually are found to b e m ore
toxic than the non-ringed,or aliphatic,hy-
drocarbons of oil. R esearchers at the
Patuxent W ildlife R esearch

C enter in
L aurel,M d.,recently lent further credence
to this canon ofpetroleum toxicity in their
studies of the effects of oilon the h atcha-
bility ofaquatic bird eggs.Sm allquantities
ofoilapplied to the eggs ofaquatic birds in
the laboratory caused em bryo m ortality.
For exam ple, as little a s 5 m icroliters of
crude oil applied to the shell surface on
the eighth day of incubation

reduced
hatching of m allard eggs by as m uch as 90
percent. B ut w hen the shellsurfaces w ere
coated w ith as m uch a s 50 m icroliters of
an aliphatic-only m ixture, em bryos did
not d ie.
T he results of studies of the effect of oil
ingestion on the physiological condition
and survivalofbirds w ere m ore encourag-
ing. T he P atuxent researchers w ere par-
ticularly interested in determ ining how
tw o endangered species -
the peregrine
falcon a nd the w hooping crane -

w ould
fare w hen Ixtoc oilreached their coastal
SC IE N C EN
E W S,V O L .118
habitats and covered their food supplies.
U nderthe direction ofL ucille F.Stickel,the
Patuxent bird w atchers studied the effect
of oil ingestion on endangered species
surrogates -
kestrels for the falcons a nd
sandhillcranes for the w hooping cranes.
A lthough data
collected from these
studies still are prelim inary, it appears
that adult b irds could survive spilllevels
of petroleum hydrocarbons in their d iet
w hen not otherw ise stressed.
B ut the finaltest never cam e. B y the
tim e the first cranes a rrived about a year
ago at their w intering areas in the A ransas
N ational W ildlife R efuge north of Port
A ransas,T ex.,the current flow along the
T exascoast h ad reversed,carrying the oil
south. N o oil reached the

refuge.
-cn
M oreover,prior to the current reversal,
only about 20 T exas coast birds w ere

Studies show that the toxicity of the oil,
know n to have died as a result of d irect

rather than blocking of the shells "breath-
oiling.
ing" pores,is w hat kills em bryo m allards.
T he im pact of the Ixtoc spillon other
w ildlife, such as turtles and fish,is still

researchers, that sim ulates the trajectory
being evaluated. T urtle authorities first

of pollutants in the ocean.T he spilltrajec-
sensed trouble for the endangered A tlan-

tory m odel, based on studies of previous
tic R idley sea turtles this sum m er w hen

spills,predicted that the Ixtoc oilprobably
scientists fed their latest d ata on G ulfcur-

w ould affect the M exican coast betw een
rents and oil patch locations into a com -

T am pico and L ow er L aguna M adre in July,
puter m odel,developed by N O A A and U SC G

threatening the R idley sea turtles that
B L O W O U T
ST A G EN O .1
B L O W O U T
ST A G EN
O .2
3 1r2r 1
drill
pipe
retary table
(drill flrl
oor).
! ,
:
.
spider
deck
w ater
ariea
m warIne
l,
drill pipe
w ater
w ater
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~dri
ll
cellars
43/4"
1||||l
s
'4'1''"''
riser
IlP
stack
M ariee
Jz
i;- 1 Z
sea
f Ieer
B LLOO WW OOUUTT
ST AA GGEEN OO ..55
1
Shortly after the pipe-rem oval
.operation had situated the
thicker-w alled drillcollars in line
w ith the B O P stack (Stage 1),dril-
ling m ud began to flow up the
annulus and also out ofthe inside
*,,.
appres. Ir-
ig
opprol12@
.

l to
,:-
A
collre
-"---..--_
O C T O B E R 25,1980
Iand
fire broke out (Stage 3). U n-
derlying support structures col-
lapsed (Stage 4), and the floating
rig w as pulled offlocation
(Stage 5).
.,
pipe11
1
I 1
pp
~~~~~~~~~~~~~dri
ll
and gas follow ed the m ud flow ,
& cellars
'.
of the drilling pipe (Stage 2). O il
pipe
drill
stacks
lled
elf
lecatlio
iser
coepletely
hn
hydri
l
4A
draw ings of the Ixtoc I w ell
7he ct
the chain of events that oc-
depi
curred in the B ay of C am peche
from J une 3 to July 12,1979.
wt
leel
level
(P
stack
sea
fleer
location at
drill kit
A GAENG NOE.
44
l
|
B lBO LW OOWU TO
U TSTST
Sepi
stack
erlek
D rikhre
D rikbre
aw ay.
~~~~~11,313'?
'
cellars
drillhit
w ater
|||s
drIll
0.P.
-164'
all
-650'
casies
riser
L I.P.
sta
-4 .
sea |Ilr
ise
,4 01u
drillC ellar
B L O W O U T
ST A G E NO 3
draw w erks
derrick
breed along a stretch of beach near R an-
cho N uevo, M exico.

T he R idley eggs
usually begin hatching in m id-June a nd
turtles continue to em erge until m id-
A ugust. T he hatchlings then sw im w est
and north in the G ulfw aters for about tw o
m onths. E xperts,fearing that these y oung
turtles m ight ingest the Ixtoc oil during
their prem iere sw im , organized a turtle
airlift that carried about 9,000 turtles to a
patch of sargassum less than 2 5 k ilom e-
ters offshore.
W hether the turtle airliftsaved the R id-
ley population from fataloil spillencoun-
ters rem ains to be seen. A ccording to U .S.
Fish and W ildlifeofficials,if the population
of adults next spring is few er than 1,500-
w hich w ould be the low est recorded popu-
lation in recent years -

then turtle a u-
thorities probably could assum e that a t
least the adults m et w ith the oilslick.Itw ill
take a bout eight years, how ever, before
the im pact of the Ixtoc b low out on this
year's hatchlings can be evaluated;at that
tim e,the hatchlings w illhave m atured and
returned hom e to R ancho N uevo.
A s w ith the R idley hatchlings,the over-
allenvironm ental im pact ofIxtoc w illtake
years to evaluate. Still,som e researchers
already say the G ulf of M exico seem s b ack
.
_
269
to norm al. "Ifyou go to the beaches of
South Padre Island today,"said A C S oilspill
sym posium participant E dw ard B . O ver-
ton, "you'llfind good sw im m ing and good
fishing." A lthough it looks like "the end of
the w orld" on the beaches during an oil
spill, "T he environm ent springs back,"
says O verton of the C enter for Bio-O rganic
Studies. "In som e people's m inds, it's as
though w e create a sterile area after w e've
had a spill. T his is n ot the case."
O ther researchers do not share O ver-
ton'soptim ism .Som e believe, forexam ple,
thatthe 37 tar m ats,or areas of buried oil,
in the subtidal region offthe coast of Texas
m ay present a continuing p ollution prob-
lem . T hese
m ats
reportedly
m easure
about 60 m eters long and 6 m eters w ide.
In addition, "Scientists still have not
been able to account for the bulk of the 140
m illion gallons of oilthat spilled from the
Ixtoc I and that, according to N O A A , had
covered up to 10 percent of the surface
area of the G ulf of M exico in the fallof
1979,"G olob reported at the A C S m eeting.
G olob says
that PE M E X unsuccessfully
used a variety of cleanup techniques, in-
cluding skim m ers, dispersants and the
Som brero oil collection device -

a 3 00-
ton octagonal steel cone sim ilar in shape
to a M exican hat-to
recover the spilled
oil. E ven though local storm s and hur-
ricanes w ere in partto blam e for the over-
allfailure of these techniques, G olob says,
"Ifthe M exicans -
w ith equipm ent from
the best m anufacturers and expertise from
the finest spillexperts w orldw ide -w ere
not able to d ealw ith the Ixtoc Ispill,then
the
cleanup
problem s
encountered
...
raise questions about the adequacy of
existing
equipm ent
and technology
to
m eet the dem ands of any m assive open-
ocean spill, w hether from a w ellb low out
or a tanker stranding."
G olob says Ixtoc I analyzers should a d-
dress not only those issues concerning
blow out prevention

and cleanup tech-
nologies, but also the politicalq uestions,
such as com pensation for dam ages from a
transboundary incident.
T hese issues w ere discussed last D e-
cem ber during the Senate hearing on the
M ussel-bound m onitors
C am peche oilspill.The hearings w ere par-
ticularly tim ely because in just 13 days the
U .S.D epartm ent of Interior intended to
hold the first lease sale for m arine oiland
gas activities on G eorges B ank -an area
off the N ew E ngland coast considered to
be the w orld's m ost productive fishing
ground a nd thought to contain only 3.4
percent of the oiland 4.4 percent ofthe gas
recoverable from the O uter C ontinental
Shelf.W hen the sale p roceeded as sched-
uled, follow ing the D ec. 11, 1979,lease
sale of a sim ilarly controversial tract off
the coast of A laska,groups that oppose
rapid developm ent of offshore drilling
feared that Ixtoc already had left the polit-
icalarena -
m onths b efore the w ellw as
capped.
O verton,though,says that w hile an in-
crease in ocean drilling,and therefore fu-
ture accidental inputs of fossil fuels in the
m arine environm ent, is inevitable, "W e
learned from the A m oco C adiz spill,w e are
learning from the Ixtoc I spilland w e w ill
learn from future spills.T his is an ongoing
study .... W e have not forgotten Ixtoc." E
C F
--- ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Si
/
r'
W here the ocean m eets the shore is a dynam ic environm ent
.highly susceptible to society's discards -

fossil fuels, trace
m etals,
halogenated
hydrocarbons
and radionuclides.
R e-
G A B
M IL SSP
PSc
PA \ NC CA AS
L H pN
B I
searchers recognizing the increasing threat to this precious
environm ent have organized "M usselW atch," asystem atic and
H SO B
SS
continuing program for m onitoring coastal contam inants.
AC
,
SC
PA N
8IL
*
R
_
PA S
PE N Y
SM
O S
FA R
M ussel W atch is a strategy of using bivalves -m ussels,

oys-
_R "
SA
PA PF
SP
AL C A L
O IL E
ters and clam s-as

vigilantes ofm arine pollutants.The program
oJ OPT
Ao
T FL L
-H PN
A N T
PA S
B E T
M A TE O P
E
C A M SA N
B .
involves periodically analyzing tissues of bivalves from specific
M ussel W atch stations to identify areas of elevated contam ina-

0
N A P
tion a nd to provide baseline data from w hich future hot spots
can be identified.A s a routine part of the program ,for exam ple,
oyster sam ples w ere taken from the shores of PortA ransas,T ex.,
before the Ixtoc Iexploratory w ell blew out in June of 1979 and
*A
A P~~A
~~FU
began spew ing oilinto the G ulf of M exico.W ith this pre-lxtoc
~~~~~~~~~~~~~A tU A S
re-
baseline data in hand, m ussel w atchers on the T exas coast
recently began analyses of post-lxtoc oyster sam ples for fossil
fuelcom pounds to aid in gauging the spill's im pact.
Ifelevated concentrations of fossil fuel com pounds are dis-
covered in these sam ples, how ever,m ussel w atchers m ust con-
sider all possible

sources of contam ination. T he N ational
A cadem y of Sciences estim ates that 6.11 m illion m etric tons of
>
~~~~A t U .S.M ussel W atch stations re-
petroleum enter the w orldw ide m arine environm ent each year
searchers find that bivalves sub-
from sources such as naturalseeps (.6 m illion m etric tons per
jected topollutants are less suscep-
year), industrial and m unicipal w astes (.6), river runoff (1.6),
tible to parasites (left) and can
U __
urban runoff (.3) and offshore production and tanker traffic
and celltrans-
r-undergodigestigl
ve
(2.21). O iled oysters can flag a problem but not its origin.
form ations (C to S above).
A nother lim itation of the M ussel W atch program is the fact
that m any different variables -bivalve

size, sex,reproductive
in the M editerranean,w hich is close to the one you see on the
state and physiological condition, for exam ple-m ay

influence
W est Coast."T he sim ilarity betw een species helps to standardize
the levels of pollutants accum ulated by m ussels.S uch observa-

the program .
tions h ave stim ulated w ork in the developm ent of an "artificial
E valuating the m erit of a global M ussel W atch program w as
m ussel," such as one m ade w ith polyurethane foam "tissues."

one concern of the recent N A S-sponsored InternationalM ussel
T hese synthetic, pollutant-concentrating tissues w ould n ot b e

W atch W orkshop in B arcelona, Spain. N ow ,a second M ussel
influenced by nature's variables.
W atch conference is in the w orks,and organizers hope to hold it
D espite the lim itations,bivalves could easily be globalpollut-

in Southeast A sia to encourage inputfrom T hird W orldcountries
ant barom eters, says M usselW atch participant John W Far-

there. Farrington says this region could benefit from M ussel
rington,because they are com posed of "cosm opolitan species."

W atch not only because the program offers a relatively sim ple
E xplainsFarrington,ofW oods H ole O ceanographic Institution in

and inexpensive screen, or first-step,analysis for pollutants,but
M assachusetts, "M ussels and oysters have cousins w orldw ide;

also because "a w hole chunk of the w orld's population is living
the m ussel you see on the E ast C oast is close to the one you see
on the coast there."
vH
SC
w 3
270
SC IE N C E NE W S,VO L .118
V IE ET M ILIEU - LIFE A ND ENV IRONM ENT, 2007, 57 (1/2) : 91-107
O I L PO L L U T IO N O N C O R A L R E E F S :
A R E V I E W O F TH E STA TE O F K N O W LED G E
A N D M A N A G E M E N T N E E D S
, F. RA MA DE
, B. SALVAT
J. HA A PKY L
1,3
L aboratoire de B iologie M arine, Ecole Pratique des Hautes Etudes, EA CN R S -EPHE 8046, R cifs coralliens,
Univ ersit de Perpignan, A v enue de V illeneuv e, 66 860 Perpignan, France
L aboratoire Ecologie, S y stm atique, Ev olution, B at. 362, Univ ersit de Paris-S ud, 91 405 Orsay , France
*Correspondence: bsalv at@ univ -perp.f r
OIL
C O RA LR EEFS
POLLUTION
HYDROCARBONS
DISPERSANTS
CLEAN-UPM ETHODS FOR OIL
A B S T R A C T. This paper reviews the current state of knowledge of the effects that oil pollu-
tion has on scleractinian corals. Areview of results obtained in laboratory as well as in field con-
ditions are given and suitable m anagem ent tools are discussed. Studies m ade in the 1970s and
1980s presented conflicting results regarding the im pacts of oil on coral physiology, but later
results confirm ed the detrim ental effect of oil on corals. The w orlds coral reefs are severely
threatened by an array of factors, one of which is oil pollution. More laboratory and field work
w ith current oils and dispersants is urgently needed in order to update our know ledge in this
field and reduce impacts in case of a major oil spill on coral reefs.
Introduction
that an im portant fraction of the 6 m illions of tonnes of
oil per year spilled into the w orlds oceans (C apone &
Coral reefs are the most diverse and complex commu-
Bauer 1992) is released into reef ecosystems (Ramade &
nities in the marine environment. Hermatypic corals play
R o c h e 2 0 0 6 ). T h e d istrib u tio n o f o il p o llu tio n in th e
a key role in forming the structure of coral reefs and pro-
w orld's oceans is show n in F ig. 1. T he polycyclic aro-
viding substrate and shelter for a wide variety of org a n-
m atic hydrocarbons, w hich are perm anent com ponents
ism s. A cute dam age to corals m ay result in a collapse of
of crude oil and are also generated in incom plete com -
this complex community.
bustions, rank am ong the m ost dangerous contam inants
C oral reefs are seriously threatened by hum an activi-
tie s in m o st p a rts o f th e w o rld . G lo b a lly , 2 0 % o f th e
d u e to th e ir a c u te a n d lo n g -te rm to x ic ity (R a m a d e &
Roche 2006).
w o r l d s coral reefs have been effectively destroyed and
O il extraction has caused incidences of severe pollu-
show no immediate prospects of recovery, approximately
tio n . In 1 9 6 6 , 4 0 0 0 0 t o f o il le a k e d o u t o f a b ro k e n
40% of the 16% that were seriously damaged in the 1998
pipeline off California. The worst pipeline accident hap-
bleaching event are either recovering well or have recov-
pened in 1979 at the Ixtoc I pipeline offshore the Mexican
e re d . It is p re d ic te d th a t 2 4 % o f th e w o rld s re e fs a re
c o a s t a n d o v e r 5 0 0 0 0 0 t o f o il w a s s p ille d (R a m a d e
under imminent risk of collapse through human pressures
2000). Five out of six of the worlds worst pipeline disas-
and a further 26% are under a long-term threat of collapse
ters have occurred in the Caribbean region (OSIR 1999).
( Wilkinson 2004). T his decline is due to increasing
T ransportation w ith ballast w ater release and tanker
hum an pressures; poor land m anagem ent releasing m ore
accidents are the second category of oil pollution. O ver
sed im ent, n u trien ts an d o th er p o llu tan ts th at stress th e
o n e b illio n to n n es o f o il is tran sp o rted an n u ally in th e
reefs; over-fishing w ith destructive fishing m ethods;
w o r l d s oceans. It is estimated that 0.1-0.3% (about 1-3
coral diseases and coral predators such as the crow n-of-
m illion t) of this oil is released into the oceans in ballast
thorns starfish and the predicted increases in ocean tem -
water (Ramade 2000).
peratures as a result of global climate change. Reef health
T h e m a jo rity o f b ig s p ills (> 7 0 0 to n n es) b etw een
varies betw een oceans and is the m ost critical in South-
1974-2005 w ere caused by tanker groundings (34.4% )
East Asia (Salvat 2005).
and collisions (28.3%) (ITOPF 2006). The average quan-
tity of oil spilled into the oceans during the 1990s w as
S ources of oil pollution in the oceans
less than a third (11 40000 t) of that witnessed during the
1 97 0s (31 4 20 0 0 t) (IT O P F 20 06 ). B etw een 1 99 9 and
The principal causes of oil pollution in the oceans are
2004 there has been less than 50000 t of oil spilt per year.
a) extraction of oil, b) transportation w ith ballast w ater
It is n o tab le, h o w ev er, th at a few v ery larg e sp ills are
release and tanker accidents and c) war-related incidents
responsible for a high percentage of the oil spilt (ITO P F
(R am ade 2000). A t a global scale, it has been estim ated
2006).
92
J. HAAPKYL, F. RAMADE, B. SALVAT
Fig. 1. Distribution of oil pollution in the oceans (Ramade 1995, p. 286 after BP, op. cit.).
Fig. 2. Major routes of oil transportation (Ramade 1995, p. 246 in OCDE, op. cit. p. 84).
No major oil pollution accidents on coral reefs have
m us crude) off Panam a in 1986 (Jackson et al. 1989).
taken place recently, but the location of coral reefs in
This was the largest recorded spill into a sheltered coastal
near-shore waters means that there is a potential danger to
habitat in the tropical Americas.
corals from tanker accidents, refinery operations, oil
The Straits of M alacca and the South China Sea are
exploration and production (IPIECA 1992). The biggest
nowadays considered as the area with the highest risk of
accidental spills in tropical seas (offshore) occurred in
tanker accidents (ITOPF 2006 pers comm). There is also
1972 in the Gulf of Oman (115000 t), in 1979 off To b a g o
a high risk for oil spillage in the Arabian Gulf which con-
( 2 87000 t), and in 1992 off M ozam bique (72000 t).
stitutes the busiest oil transport route in the world,
Smaller incidents have been recorded in 1968 from Pana-
through which more than half of the worlds oil passes
m a (2856 t of M arine D iesel and B unker-C ), in 1970
(Fucik et al. 1 9 8 1 ) (Fig. 2). South and Central A m e r i c a
from the Seychelles (20000 t of fuel), in 1970 from Saudi
and the Caribbean stand as the second largest potential
Arabia (14280 t of Arabian Light Crude Oil) (Loya &
producers of oil in the world after Saudi Arabia (OSIR
R inkevich 1980) and about 7784 t of m edium -w eight
1999). In the Red Sea, poor environmental standards in
crude oil (70% Venezuelan crude and 30% Mexican Isth-
the Egyptian oil fields of the Gulf of Suez, and deballast-
V ie Milieu, 2007, 57 (1/2)
OIL POLLUTION ON CORALREEFS
93
- 1
Table I. Concentration of some PAH in the sediments from the Australian Great Barrier Reef (in mg.kg
d . w.) (after Haynes & John-
son 2000).
ing by ships in the southern Red Sea and Gulf of A d e n
and later through sedimentation of the un-degraded com-
(Gupta & Kureishy 1981) are major factors contributing
ponents from this oil that has been incorporated into fae-
to oil pollution.
ces and dead organisms (Farrington 1989).
Acts of war are responsible for the worst oil spills in
the world. In 1983, Iraqian airforces destroyed the
Im pacts of oil pollution on corals
Nowruz oil well platforms in the war between Iran and
Iraq, and a total of 1 m illion t of hydrocarbons w ere
T he im pact of oil on coral ecosystem s depends on
released into the ocean (Ramade 2000). During the Gulf
many varying physical, chemical and biological factors
W ar (1991) the largest oil spill ever recorded (about
that influence spilled oil and tend to make each incident a
8 568 0 0 -11 42400 t) was released into the marine envi-
unique ecological problem.
ronment of the northern Gulf (e.g. Price 1998). The total
Oil is a complex mixture of several thousand diff e r e n t
leakage of oil into the marine environment was estimated
m olecular com pounds, som e of them can cause acute
to be about 1599 36000 t (Sadiq & McCain 1993), which
and/or long-term toxicity. A number of toxic molecules
was 42 times as extensive as the Exxon Valdez spill in
occur in the volatile fraction of oil, hence ecological dam-
Alaska in 1989 (Saenger 1994).
age can be lower when a spill takes place far off - s h o r e ,
since the oil has time to loose a significant part of its toxic
W ays of oil contamination in coral reef habitats
components before it reaches coastal waters. However,
the most hazardous oil components are included in the
A fter an oil spill, oil com ponents dispersed in the
heavy fractions, namely the Polycyclic Aromatic Hydro-
water column can contaminate a reef in three diff e r e n t
carbons (PAH) as well as various sulphur and nitrogen
w ays. Firstly, the surface oil at the air-w ater interface
organic derivatives of high molecular weight.
floats over the reefs and subsequently contaminates the
PAHs can occur chronically in coral reef systems
intertidal scleractinian corals as they become exposed to
(Haynes & Johnson 2000), due to tanker wreckage, de-
air at low tide. Secondly, wave action can disperse oil as
ballasting, and the deposition of atmospheric pollutants in
droplets w ithin the w ater colum n. These droplets w ill
r a i n w a t e r. Investigations have shown evidence of signifi-
sooner or later com e into contact w ith corals. In som e
cant PAH contamination in the sediments of the A u s-
cases, these droplets can sink into deeper waters as they
tralian Great Barrier Reef (Table I).
become combined with particles. Weathered oil can also
Interacting factors w hich determ ine the nature and
sink in this w ay and com e into contact w ith corals at
extent of the biological consequences of each spillage
greater depths (NOAA2003). When dispersants are used,
include: the type of oil, dosage, physical environmental
they m ay have a detrim ental effect on corals as they
factors, prevailing weather conditions, nature of the biota,
strongly increase the incorporation of oil into the water
seasonal factors, prior exposure of the area to oil, pres-
colum n and subsequently the potential of contact with
ence of other pollutants and type of rem edial action
corals. T h i r d l y, and far worse, is the long-term contami-
(Straughan 1972). The recognition of a large range of
nation due to oil incorporated into bottom sediments. This
stress responses shown by corals is complicated by the
h as a h eav y im p act o n b en th ic b io ta w ith th e cy clic
wide range of oils, oil fractions, and bioassay methodolo-
release of toxic components of the oil from the sediment,
gies used in laboratory studies to date. C onsequently,
V ie Milieu, 2007, 57 (1/2)
94
Table II. Range of property values for the lightest fraction of oils, light crude oils, medium oils with high and low pour points, and
heavy oils. Examples for each group are given in parenthesis (Cormack 1999, reproduced by ITOPF and ETC Spills Te c h n o l o g y
Databases).
identification of trends or patterns of acute and sublethal
Papers describing chronic pollution in the field (e.g.
responses of corals exposed to oil is difficult (Fucik et al.
Rinkevich & Loya 1977), as well as short-term laborato-
1981). A summary of different types of oils is given in
ry-based investigations (e.g. Harrison et al. 1990, Mercu-
Table II.
rio et al. 2004, Negri & Heyward 2000) have established
Although oil pollution in the marine environment has
been regarded as a major environmental hazard for sever-
that oil pollution m ay cause significant dam age to reef
corals.
al decades, little is known about the mechanisms in which
The aim of this review article is to summarize scientif-
crude oil affects natural marine populations and commu-
ic findings of the impacts of oil on corals both in the field
nities (Kushmaro et al. 1997). Most of the published sci-
and in the laboratory, and to suggest suitable management
entific papers date from the 1970s and 1980s. A r e v i e w
tools for oil spills on coral reefs.
article on the effects of oil pollution on corals was m ade
in 1984 by Loya & Rinkevich.
1. Field observations of oil im pacts
These earlier papers have presented contradictory
results. Johannes et al. (1972) concluded that som e reef
Field observations offer the best opportunity to under-
building corals m ay be seriously dam aged if coated with
stand the effects of oil spills, but they have been uncom -
oil when exposed to air at low tide, whereas Shinn (1972),
m on in coral reef habitats. H ere w e give an overview of
stated that it would seem safe to conclude that crude oil
the m ost im portant field studies. T able III s u m m a r i z e s
sp ills d o n o t p o se a sig n ific a n t th re a t to A tla n tic re e f
these studies.
corals. However, Shinns (1972) conclusions were based
on a qualitative study, without really measuring the rate of
In situ experiment at Enewetak Atoll, Marshall
re-colonization and without having any data on the coral
Islands
com m unity structure prior to the study. Spooner (1970)
reported no damaging effects to corals in a site chronically
Johannes et al. (1972) used Santa Maria crude oil in an
polluted by oil. It seems, however, that short-term, inciden-
in situ experiment at Enewetak Atoll, Marshall Islands.
tal or scattered observations may result in misleading con-
Twenty-two species of corals were transplanted and
clusions and Stirling (1977) argued that ecological phe-
placed on two floating frames where a proportion of the
nomena, such as those caused by oil spills in tropical seas,
corals was exposed to air. Oil was poured into the water
can be interpreted only when the physiological ecology and
around but not over the corals on one frame, producing an
population dynam ics of the fauna in relation to stability,
oil layer averaging 0.6 mm thickness. Oil adhered with
recruitment and mortality are adequately understood.
greatest affinity to branching corals of the genera
V ie Milieu, 2007, 57 (1/2)
OILPOLLUTION ON CORALREEFS
95
Table III. Summary of principal studies made on the effects of oil on corals in a natural environment.
A c ro p o r a and Po c i l l o p o r a and was visible on the corals
spp. The plots measured 2 m by 2 m, located over approx-
after four weeks of observation. However, most of the oil
imately 1-m depth at low tide, and anchored in place.
disappeared w ithin 1 day after colony subm ersion in
The intention of this treatment was to simulate condi-
clean water in corals with large and fleshy polyps and
tions of a typical Arabian Gulf oil spill and not to over-
abundant mucus, such as Fu n g i a and S y mphy l l i a. Ac o m-
whelm the corals with extraordinary and catastrophic
p lete b reak d o w n o f so ft tissu e w as seen o n areas w h ere
stresses. As such, oil was added to test plots to produce a
oil adhered to the coral. It was concluded that floating oil
slick of 0.25 mm in thickness, in the 24-h oil-only treat-
may kill coral tissue if it adheres to corals when they are
ment, and 0.10 mm thick in the 120 h-experiment. Wa t e r
exposed to air.
concentrations of hydrocarbons were measured by
infrared methods, and no water column elevations were
detected in the oil-only plots. The oil-only plots were visu-
Field experiment in the Arabian Gulf
ally inspected at the end of the 24-h and 120-h exposures,
LeGore et al. (1989) tested responses of corals to dis-
and they appeared normal. These areas were monitored for
persed oil under realistic spill conditions on Jurayd
one year, and no extraordinary changes occurred relative
Island, off the coast of Saudi Arabia. The design included
to the un-oiled plots (seasonal changes in degree of
exposure to Arabian Light crude oil with and without dis-
bleaching, however, were noted across all monitored
persants over periods of 24 h and 120 h. Study plots were
plots). While dispersed oil appeared to delay the recovery
established over existing coral reefs that were comprised
from seasonal bleaching, this was not observed in the oil-
mostly of A c ro p o r a spp. (more than 95%), with scattered
only plots. Growth rates, expressed as skeletal extension
colonies of Pl at y g y r a spp., Go n i o p o r a spp., and Po r i t e s
along branch axes, showed no correlation to treatment in
V ie Milieu, 2007, 57 (1/2)
96
the 24-h exposure. There was some indication that growth
(1993), the size of gonads is a more sensitive measure of
rates were depressed with 120-h exposure, but LeGore e t
long-term (m ore than 3 yrs in this study) sub-lethal
a l . (1989) cautioned that these were not definitive. In sum-
e ffe c ts o f o il o n re p ro d u c tio n , th a n is th e n u m b e r o f
m a r y, after one year of monitoring, the corals showed no
gonads or proportion of fertile colonies. G uzm n et al.
visible effects after exposure to surface oil for 24 hours
(1993) found that there had been virtually no recruitment
and for 120 hours. The authors concluded that healthy reef
of m ost form erly dom inant coral species, and that sub-
corals can tolerate brief (1 to 5-day) exposures to floating
lethal effects on vital processes (regeneration, grow th,
oil with no observable effect. They did note the potential
reproduction, and recruitm ent) are likely to persist for
for seasonal susceptibility to exposure in this region in the
decades. This has been reported before from other areas
wintertime when low water temperatures stress corals.
b y o th er au th o rs (L o y a & R in k ev ich 1 9 8 0 , B ak 1 9 8 7 ,
E akin et al. 1993). The causes of these effects are com -
plex, but the 2 m ost im portant factors are re-oiling and
Oil spill in Panama
sedimentation from adjacent mangroves. Estimated mini-
Jackson et al. (1989) observed extensive m ortality of
mum times for recovery of the reef after the Panamanian
subtidal reef corals and infauna of seagrass beds after an
oil spill in 1986 were 10-20 years on the assumption that
oil spill off the Panamanian coast in 1986. This spill con-
no other events w ould further depress coral populations
sisted of about 7784 t of m edium -w eight crude oil (70%
(Brown 1997).
V enezuelan, 30% M exican Isthm us crude oil). D am age
caused by the accident was most extensive at the seaward
The Gulf War,Arabian Gulf
border of the reef, where the oil accumulated at low tide.
M ost of the scleractinian corals still alive in depths less
The G ulf W ar in 1991 resulted in the largest oil spill
th a n 3 m s h o w e d s ig n s o f re c e n t s tre s s . T h e s e s ig n s
ever recorded in history (about 8568 0 0 -11 42400 t) (e.g.
included bleaching or sw elling of tissues, conspicuous
Price 1998). The type of oil spilled in the incident has not
production of mucus, recently dead areas devoid of coral
been indicated.
tissue, and globules of oil. The most common sessile ani-
Given the quantity of spilled oil, the recorded impacts
m als before the spill w ere zoanthids (Z oanthus sociatus
to the environm ent w ere surprisingly low . D ow ning and
and Pa l y t h o a sp p .), h y d ro co rals ( M i l l e p o r a spp.), and
Roberts (1993) observed som e coral m ortalities of a few
scleractinian corals (Po r i t e s spp.). At the seaward border
species (A c ro p o r a spp., Po r i t e s spp. and Pl at y g y r a s p p . )
o f th e ree f fla t, p o p u la tio n s o f a ll th ese a n im als w ere
in K uw ait affecting different reefs in different w ays, but
severely reduced, and only Z oanthus sociatus h a d
thought it w as unlikely that oil released during the w ar
returned to typical abundance after 18 months. Total coral
w as the only cause of the decline. O n the basis of video
cover decreased by 76% at depths between 0.5-3 m and
recordings made along transects between 1992 and 1994,
by 56% between depths of 3-6 m on the heavily oiled reef
V ogt (1995) concluded that live coral cover had signifi-
3 months after the accident. Average size of coral
cantly increased and that corals offshore from Saudi A r a-
colonies (all species) and species diversity also decreased
bia had survived the largest spill on record rem arkably
significantly in relation to oiling (Guzmn et al. 1 9 9 1 ) .
unscathed. These findings were in accordance with other
C o v er o f th e larg e b ran ch in g co ral A c ropora palm ata
resu lts (e.g . P rice 19 9 8 ). It m u st b e n o tified th at o th er
decreased the m ost after the accident. T his result lends
en v iro n m en tal im p acts fro m th e w ar, su ch as red u ced
further support to the claim that branching corals are most
water temperature and lowered ambient light from oil fire
sensitive to human disturbance (Brown & Howard,1985).
sm ok e, m ay h av e o b scured th e actual effects o f o il on
Frequency and size of recent injuries on m assive corals
coral (Vogt 1995).
increased with level of oiling, particularly for S i d e r as t re a
siderea (Guzmn et al. 1991).
Providing a single index as a snapshot of the health
o f a n e n v iro n m e n ta l sy ste m , w h ic h a lso c a p tu re s th e
Guzmn & Holst (1993) studied the effects of chronic
dynam ics of the different ecosystem s im pacted, rem ains
o il-se d im e n t p o llu tio n (ty p e o f o il n o t in d ic a te d , b u t
elusive, like in the Gulf War case. Additional diff i c u l t i e s
exp ected to b e th e sam e as in th e o il sp ill in 1 9 8 6 , i.e.
in clu de in co m p lete tim e-series, th e p o ssib ility o f m is-
70% Venezuelan crude and 30% Mexican Isthmus crude)
judgm ents about species abundance and m ortality from
on the reproduction on S i d e r a s t rea sidere a 5 years after
incomplete sampling, and the likelihood of synergism and
the Panam anian oil spill in 1986. Coral fecundity (num -
antagonism betw een w ar-related effects, background
ber of gonads/polyp and gonad size) was m easured from
impacts, and natural stresses (Price 1998).
h e a l t h y - l o o k i n g coral colonies, and coral colonies
T he G ulf environm ent has m any peculiarities w hich
sh o w in g recen t in ju ries o r p artial m o rtality (b leach ed
c o u ld h a v e a ffe c te d th e fa te o f th e o il. B e in g a se m i-
areas), during the peak of reproductive activity at heavily
closed w aterw ay linked to the Indian O cean by the nar-
o ile d a n d u n -o ile d re e fs o v e r a p e rio d o f 1 5 m o n th s.
row Strait of Hormuz, the turnover time for waters of the
Gonad size (area) was larger at un-oiled reefs for most of
A rabian G ulf has been estim ated to 3.5 years. A s a con-
the sam pling period. A ccording to G uzm n & H olst
sequence of this slow turnover tim e and its dim ensions,
V ie Milieu, 2007, 57 (1/2)
97
extremely adverse and long-lasting effects were expect-
T he grounding resulted in the spillage of 379 tonnes of
ed from this spill, raising considerable international con-
diesel fuel, 1895 litres of lubricating oil, and 1125 kg of
cern. Oil pollution self-purification processes are consid-
am m onia onto the reef. T he vessel eventually broke up
erably enhanced in the A rabian G ulf com pared else-
b efo re a salv ag e o p eratio n co u ld tak e p lace an d in six
w here. T he G ulf environm ent has been subjected to
w eeks, all the content of the ship w as released onto the
hydrocarbon pollution for thousands of years through
su rro u n d in g c o ral re efs. S u b stan tia l in ju rie s fro m th e
natural oil seeps originating in the seabed. T h e r e f o r e ,
physical impact of the vessel and the contaminant releas-
there is an assemblage of m icro-organism s, that are
es w ere detected (M aragos 1994). The m ost w idespread
adapted and acclimatised to oil pollution. The exception-
and severe injuries to the atoll w ere from the release of
ally high ambient temperature (reaching up to 35C dur-
diesel fuel. Amassive die-off of coralline algae and many
ing sum m er) accelerates the evaporation of light toxic
reef-dw elling invertebrates w as observed after the
fractions and some intermediate products of biodegrada-
release, blue-green algae bloom s w ere recorded w here
tion and photo-oxidation (light-induced breakdown). T h e
th ey are ty p ically n o t fo u n d , an d th e stru ctu re o f alg al
rate of photo-oxidation in the G ulf is extrem ely high
communities had shifted substantially. Green et al. (1997)
compared to data reported from other parts of the world
stated that four years after the grounding, the aff e c t e d
(Saenger 1994).
areas rem ained visibly im pacted particularly w ith
Chronic oil pollution in Aruba, Caribbean Sea
tion of the affected areas by native biota has been deemed
respect to cover of coralline algae. N atural re-coloniza-
by the preferred restoration alternative. It has been esti-
Bak (1987) & Eakin et al. (1993) showed clear evi-
m ated that the im pacted area of Rose Atoll reef will take
dence of chronic oil pollution (between 1923 and 1985)
several m ore years or perhaps decades to recover (Green
near a refinery in Aruba. Most of the oil processed was
et al. 1997).
heavy crude from Lake Maracaibo, Venezuela. However,
the dispersant Corexit had been used in clean up activities
TROPICS Experiment, Panama
since 1975 (Bak 1987). The spatial structure of the reef
had deteriorated, living coral cover was low and there
The 1984-1994 Tropical Oil Pollution Investigation in
were less juveniles in front and up to at least 9 km down-
C o astal S y stem s (T R O P IC S ) effo rt, sp o n so red b y th e
current of the refinery (Bak 1987). According to Eakin e t
A m erican Petroleum Institute, exposed a w hole ecosys-
al. (1993), M ontastrea annularis had slowed growth rates
tem (comprised of mangrove, seagrasses, and coral) to oil
in areas most affected by the refinery. A c ropora palm ata
a n d c h e m ic a lly d isp e rse d o il, in tw o se p a ra te b o o m -
w as the m ost affected species (B ak 1987), M . annularis
enclosed areas (NOAA2001).
and A garicia agaricites were absent directly downcurrent
T he oiled site w as treated w ith 953 litres of Prudhoe
of the refinery. It appeared that the gap in the distribution
B ay crude oil released onto a boom ed area of the w ater
of A . agaricites was more extensive than that of M . annu -
surface and allowed to remain for about two days. Ti d e s
l ar i s. D iploria strigosa was exceedingly dominant in the
and winds distributed the oil over the study area. After the
gap created by the absence of M . an n u laris and A .
exposure period free-floating oil w as rem oved w ith sor-
ag ar i c i t e s (Bak 1987). It was also suggested by laborato-
bents. Chemical and biological monitoring continued for
ry experim ents (D odge et al. 1985) that Di p l o r i a spp. is
tw o years. C hem ical m onitoring, conducted hourly for
possibly a hardier species w ith respect to oil pollution.
th e first 2 4 h o u rs, co n firm ed th at sed im en ts an d b io ta
According to Eakin et al. (1993), coral recruitment at the
w ere ex p osed to rising an d then rap id ly declin in g dis-
highly im pacted sites show ed hope for recovery if these
persed and undispersed oil. For coral reefs, detailed tran-
environments are protected from renewed perturbation.
sects w ere conducted to m easure abundance of epibiota
living on the reef surface. Four measurements were taken:
to tal o rg an ism s, to tal an im als, co rals, an d to tal p lan ts.
Chronic oil pollution in Eilat, Red Sea
Growth rates of four coral species (Porites porites, A gari -
Rinkevich & Loya (1977) studied the reproduction of
S ty lophora pistillata in a chronically oil-polluted area and
cia tenuif olia, M ontastrea annularis, and A c ropora cerv i -
c o r n i s) were also measured. The only statistically signifi-
a pollution free area in the northern G ulf of Eilat. In the
cant effect docum ented over the first 20 m onths at the
clean area, 75.5% of 98 colonies studied contained
oiled site w as a decrease in coral cover. N o significant
gonads in their polyps, w hile in the polluted area, only
changes in grow th rates of the four targeted corals w ere
44.6% of 103 colonies contained gonads.
noted (B allou et al. 1987). Ten years later, neither coral
Vessel grounding at Rose Atoll, American Samoa
1995). T he authors contrasted the finding of no im pact
cover nor coral growth showed oil im pacts (Dodge et al.
fro m o ilin g a lo n e to th at d e sc rib e d b y G u zm n e t al.
In O ctober 1993, a Taiw anese fishing vessel ran
(1991) at B aha Las M inas, w here significant effects of
aground on the rem ote R ose A toll in A m erican Sam oa.
oil alone were found in several of the sam e species stud-
V ie Milieu, 2007, 57 (1/2)
98
ied at TROPICS. Dodge et al. (1995) implied that these
Histopathological effects
d i fferences may have been due to the size of the spill at
Baha Las Minas and continued chronic exposure from
Peters et al. (1981) exposed the C aribbean coral
M anicina areolata to No. 2 fuel oil (Chevron/Pascagoula,
oil trapped in the sediments.
Ward et al. (2003) returned to the site in 2001 and
g r a v i t y, API = 33-39) for three months (dosage 10 ml
2002 and found that there were still visible traces of the
- 1
m i n
). T he expected concentrations w ere 0.1 ppm and
oil added in 1994 in the non-dispersed site sediments. The
0 . 5 p p m . A ltho u g h co rals rem ain ed aliv e, ev id en ce o f
authors confirmed that the effects were more serious to
pathological responses w ere found w hich included
the mangroves than to seagrass areas and corals: man-
impaired development of reproductive tissues, degenera-
grove trees showed morphological prop-root deforma-
tion and loss of sym biotic zooxanthellae, and atrophy of
tions. The coral cover had increased from a pre-treatment
mucous secretory cells and muscle bundles. Corals exam-
value of 33.5% to 67.5% in 2001.
ined after tw o, four and six w eeks after the start of the
2. Laboratory studies on oil impacts
secretory cell activity. This was indicated by a prolifera-
experim ent show ed an ex ten siv e in crease in m ucous
tion of m ucous secretory cells as w ell as an increase in
Many laboratory studies exist on the impacts of oil on
size of these cells in the epidermis and mesenteries. Many
corals. Extrapolating these results to real-life oil spill
cells had increased to such an extent that their cell w alls
scenarios is complicated by the various exposures to dif-
w ere broken and huge vacuoles w ere form ed. M any
ferent types of oil. B ecause only a fraction of the oil
m ucous secretory cells w ere also noted in the tips of the
mixes directly into the water, actual toxicity levels can
mesenterial filaments, where they are not usually present.
be assum ed to be m uch low er than reported in m any
Zooxanthellae w ere not only lost from the gastroderm is,
studies. During actual oil spills, oil is most concentrated
but also from the mesenteries.
at the very beginning of a spill and concentrations rapid-
Harrison et al. (1990) observed a dramatic decrease in
ly decline. W hen trying to estimate real-life exposures,
zooxanthellae concentrations and a thinning of the tissue
it is im portant to carefully evaluate the m ethods used
of A c ropora form osa branches after 24 h of exposure to
when extrapolating results from laboratory studies
water accommodated fractions (W AF) of marine fuel oil.
( N O A A2001). Table IV summarizes the effects of oil on
T h e re s p o n s e o f th e c o ra l w a s s im ila r in b o th 5 a n d
corals in laboratory studies and the associated refer-
10 ppm treatments.
Reimer (1975) observed tissue rupture and flaking off
e n c e s .
of tissue especially at the edges of the Pocillopora dam i -
c o r n i s co lo n ies after 1 8 , 5 5 , 7 6 an d 2 1 0 h ex p o su re to
Growth
Marine Diesel and Bunker-C oils. A massive extrusion of
Several studies suggest that exposure to hydrocarbons
zooxanthellae w as observed in P. dam icornis w h e n
a ffects coral grow th especially by decreasing calcium
exposed to M arine D iesel. This led to bleaching, w hich
d ep o sitio n in to th e p o ly p s ex o sk eleto n (D o d g e e t al.
occurred within 5-13 days of exposure to oil, and it affect-
1984). Guzmn et al. (1994) found an overall slow-down
e d m o stly th e lo w er sid e o f th e co lo n ie s. Po c i l l o p o r a
o f c o ra l g ro w th a fte r th e B a h ia L a s M in a s o il sp ill in
d a m i c o r n i s sh o w ed tissu e d e ath so o n er th a n a ll o th er
Panama.
species investigated, it was affected more by longer expo-
Table IV. Summary of the principal responses of corals to oil in laboratory.
V ie Milieu, 2007, 57 (1/2)
99
sures than by shorter ones and is more susceptible to tis-
long residue and Lagom ar short residue. Sm all drops of
sue dam age and bleaching by M arine D iesel than by
these oils were introduced in the grastrovascular cavity of
Bunker-C.
the corals. T he viscosity of these oils increased in this
Zooxanthellae expulsion was also observed in colonies
sequence at the tem perature of the experim ents (26 to
of A c ropora formosa exposed to hydrocarbon compo-
28C ) (B ak & E lgershuizen 1976). N o evidence of
nents originated from lubricating oils. A decrease of the
adsorption of oil to living coral tissue was found: if drops
maximum quantic photosynthetic efficiency (F
/ F
m )
were introduced into the gastrovascular cavity they were
- 1
occurred at concentrations ranging from 150 g.l
a n d
invariably extruded through the stom odaeum . W hen oil
drops arrived on the peristome they were removed by cil-
over (Mercurio et al. 2004).
iary currents and by tentacular and polypal m ovem ents
Chemoreception, feeding response and behaviour
(Bak & Elgershuizen 1976).
The reaction of corals to sediment is intimately linked
Crude-oil products may interfere with chemically
to the specific morphology of the coral colonies aff e c t e d .
m ediated behaviors by blocking the taste receptors of
L o n g , m ean d ro id valley s are m o re ad v antag eo u s th an
marine organisms or by mimicking natural stimuli and
short, reticulate valleys. Calical morphology also aff e c t s
thus eliciting false responses (Blumer et al. 1971).
the mobility of polyps. A garicia agaricites is an example
Cohen et al. (1977) exposed the soft coral Heterox enia
of a species depending on strong ciliary currents for sedi-
f us c e s c e ns to different concentrations of Iranian crude oil
ment rejection. A c ropora palm ata and Porites astero i d e s
- 1
in static bioassays (1-30 ml
). The initial effect of crude
are, w ithout help of w ave action or currents, unable to
oil (even in the low est concentration) w as a reduction in
remove particles of any size (Bak & Elgershuizen 1976).
pulsation rate to less than 50% of the rate in u ntreated
- 1
colonies. At concentrations of 10 ml
and greater, pulsa-
Mucus expulsion and coral reef food-web
tion stopped almost completely within 72 h. After 17 days
of recovery, the pulsation rate of treated colonies was 20-
M ucus secretion by reef corals as a protective m echa-
30% low er and less regular than in control colonies. In
nism in response to external perturbations is well known.
large tanks (1500 l, 1-2 m deep) with a continuous flow of
Johannes e t al. (1972) found that corals w ith large and
seaw ater (oil concentration of 10 m l-1), a sim ilar reduc-
fleshy polyps with abundant mucus cleaned themselves in
tion in pulsation rate was recorded.
1 day after colony submersion in clean water. Harrison e t
Som e scleractinian and zoantharian corals have been
a l . (1990) observed massive amounts of mucus discharg-
reported to respond to crude-oil pollution by mouth open-
ing from branches of A c ropora formosa when exposed to
in g (R e im e r 1 9 7 5 , L o y a & R in k e v ic h 1 9 7 9 ). R e im e r
5 and 10 ppm of marine fuel oil.
(1975) described abnormal feeding reactions in four scle-
U nder norm al conditions, m ucus loss m ay be a m ajor
ractinian corals (Pocillopora dam icornis, Pav ona gigan -
pathw ay of energy loss. T hus, 40% of the prim ary pro-
tea, Psam m ocora stellata and Porites furc a t a) elicited by
duction of a species of A c ro p o r a is rapidly lost as mucus
Marine Diesel and Bunker-C oils floating over the surface
(L o y a & R in k ev ich 1 9 8 0 ). In stressed co rals th is lo ss
water covering the corals. P. dam icornis was treated with
m ight constitute an enorm ous energy drain, which could
1 m l of M arine D iesel in a 250-m l finger bow l and w as
lead to a deterioration in general coral health.
shown to exhibit exaggerated mouth opening which last-
Knap et al. (1982) m easured the uptake and the depu-
e d u p to 1 7 d a y s. C o n tro l c o lo n ie s k e p t th e ir m o u th s
ration of (9-14C) phenanthrene (Solbakken et al. 1979) in
closed throughout 20 d of observation. M outh opening
individual colonies of the brain coral D ip lo ria strig o sa.
responses in Pav ona gigantea, Psam m ocora stellata a n d
A fte r 1 0 d a y s, a 4 0 0 0 tim e s h ig h e r c o n c e n tra tio n o f
Po r i t e s sp. w ere sustained for m uch longer periods than
phenanthrene was found in the tissue than in the mucus. It
normal after exposure to Marine Diesel.
w as concluded that the uptake of (9-14C ) phenanthrene
by D . strig o sa is sim ilar to th at o f o th er in v erteb rates
(Palm ork & Solbakken 1980, 1981). The very low con-
Oil-sediment rejection patterns in corals
centration of radioactivity in the mucus after 10 days may
The sediment rejection behaviour pattern of corals dis-
be due to a very high turnover rate of mucus by the coral
p lays m ax im u m an d m inim um rates d epen d en t o n th e
or may be due to the chemical nature of the mucus (Duck-
size and density of the oil-sediment particles. Viscosity of
low & M itchell 1979), and its inability to sorp petroleum
the oil determ ines the size of the oil-sedim ent particles
hydrocarbons to any great extent. Knap et al. (1982) stat-
(Bak & Elgershuizen 1976).
ed that the slow depuration rates exhibited by D i p l o r i a
D i fferent rejection patterns of sand-oil com binations
s t r i g o s a indicate that these organism s m ay prove to be
b y v ario u s co ral sp ecies w ere tested b y B ak & E lg er-
u se fu l b io -in d ic ato rs o f m arin e p o llu tio n in cid e n ts in
sh u iz en (1 9 7 6 ). T h e o il u se d in th e ex p e rim en t w as a
coral reef areas.
combination of Nigerian, Forcados and Tia Juana Pesado
Particulate m ucus has been shown to be consum ed by
crude oils (see T able I for details), as w ell as Forcados
a large variety of coral-reef organism s (Johannes 1967,
V ie Milieu, 2007, 57 (1/2)
100
Knudsen 1967, Benson & Muscatine 1974, Richman e t
- 1
of lubri-
M ercurio et al. (2004) stated that 150 m gL
a l . 1975, L ew is 1978). A lthough there is no conclusive
cating oil generated a 64% decrease in the fecundity of
evidence of possible transfer of oil derivatives through
gam etes of A c ropora micro p h t a l m a in comparison to the
the reef food chain, w hich originates from coral m ucus,
control.
this remains one possible route, as demonstrated in other
o rganisms, such as clams (Stainken 1975). Another way
Larval metamorphosis and recruitment
is th ro u g h d irect feed in g o n co ral tissu e, w h ich m ig h t
contain accumulated hydrocarbons.
Field documentation (Loya 1976) combined with labo-
ratory experim ents (R inkevich & L oya 1979) recorded
that chronic oil pollution inhibits successful settlement of
Effects of bacteria
coral planulae.
The relationship between mucus production and bacte-
According to Rinkevich & Loya (1979), the shedding
rial grow th w as studied on colonies of Pl a t y g y r a s p p . ,
of larvae in S . pistillata is im m ediate in the presence of
w hich w as exposed to crude oil (oil type not specified)
low concentrations of the water soluble fraction of Iranian
(M itchell & C het 1975). It w as concluded that crude oil
crude oil, during day or night. Most larvae are prematurely
alone fails to kill coral at concentrations of 100 ppm but
released (planulae without com plete m esenteries or with
the role of the bacteria which developed under such stress
2-4 pairs of com plete m esenteries). The chances of sur-
con d ition s w as d em o n strated . T h ree g rou p s of m icro -
vival of such planulae are very low, due to the high preda-
o rganisms w ere suggested to be responsible for the
tion pressure existing in the reef from a w ide variety of
observed coral death: predatory bacteria, De s u l f o v i b r i o
o rganisms. Chia (1973) demonstrated that species speci-
and B eggiatoa.
f i c i t y, in terms of survival of the larvae in oil-polluted
A significant increase in m ucus-bacteria populations
w a t e r, may be related to size; larger larvae are expected to
and a significantly higher diversity of bacterial types in
survive longer because they are more robust. Larval extru-
clean coral-m ucus than in oil-exposed m ucus w ere indi-
- 1
sion due to sublethal concentrations of crude oil (10 ml l
cated by D ucklow (1977) and D ucklow & M itchell
was also reported in the soft coral H e t e roxenia fuscescens
(1979).
after 72 h of exposure (Cohen et al. 1977). Since planulae
After the oil spill in Panama in 1986, bleached areas on
extrusion occurs during an oil spill, chances of survival
corals w ere surrounded by a black halo characteristic of
and successful larval settlement are very low. Gametes of
bacterial infection (A ntonius 1981). G arrett & D ucklow
most spawning species tend to rise to the surface just after
(1 9 7 5 ) su g g e ste d th a t n a tu ra lly o c c u rrin g d ise a se s in
spawning (Harrison et al. 1984) where they are more like-
co rals, e.g . th e b lack b an d d isease (B B D ), m ay resu lt
ly to encounter oil, and their larvae spend one to several
from stress conditions such as oil pollution. R ecent evi-
weeks in the plankton before attaining competence to set-
dence of the human impact on the occurrence of BBD has
tle (F ad lallah 1 9 8 3 , Jack so n 1 9 8 6 ). B ro o d in g sp ecies
b ee n su g g este d b y L ittler & L ittle r (1 9 9 6 ) an d F ria z-
release planulae throughout the year (Guzmn 1991). Seri-
Lopez et al. (2002).
ous im pacts on coral recruitm ent would therefore follow
in the case of a simultaneous spill and coral spawning.
N egri & H eyw ard (2000) reported the effects of the
Reproduction
w ater accom m odated fraction (W A F) of crude oil, (spe-
Rinkevich & Loya (1979) investigated the sub-lethal,
detrimental effects of Iranian crude oil on S ty lophora pis -
cific gravity of 0.93 (19.4 A PI), kinem atic viscosity of
128 cSt at 23C, pour point -39C and flash point 87.0C)
t i l l at a in a long-term laboratory experim ent. The experi-
and production form ation w ater (PFW ) on fertilization
ment consisted of four 1500-l capacity tanks with contin-
and larval metamorphosis of A cropora m illepora.A t 20%
uous flow of sea water; every week 2 of these tanks were
v / v, PFW fertilization w as inhibited by 25% . T his con-
- l
polluted by Iranian crude oil (3m l
sea w ater) for 24 h.
- l
centration was equivalent to 0.0721 mg l
of total hydro-
L a rge and mature colonies of S . p istillata w ere cut into
carbons (T H C ). In contrast, larval m etam orphosis w as
halves, at the beginning of the reproductive period; one
m ore sensitive to this effluent, with 98% m etam orphosis
h alf w as p laced in a p olluted tan k , th e o ther in a clean
inhibited at the sam e concentration. C rude oil W A F did
tank. After 2 months, a significant decrease in the number
not inhibit fertilization of gam etes until dispersant w as
of fem ale gonads per polyp w as recorded in 75% of the
introduced.
polluted halves. This experiment showed that chronic oil
-1
0.0824 mg l
THC.
pollution damages the reproductive system of scleractini-
C rude
oil
inhibited
m etam orphosis
at
K ushm aro et al. (1997) used T PA ( 1 2 - t e t r a - d e c a n o y l -
an corals, a fact that had already been shown in the field
phorbol-13-acetate) to induce metamorphosis of planulae
by the same authors (Rinkevich & Loya 1977).
of the soft coral Heteroxenia fuscescens. In the absence of
Harrison (1994) observed total sterilization of gametes
crude oil (obtained from Haifa refineries, Israel, density:
of A c ropora tenuis occurring at a concentration of 0.002
0.8497 g/ml), T PA induced m etam orphosis in 97% of
-1
mgL
of heavy fuel oil.
these planulae. Only 50% of the planulae grown in exper-
V ie Milieu, 2007, 57 (1/2)
imental vessels with crude oil at a concentration of
101
Possible clean-up methods for coral reefs
0 . 1 p p m co v erin g th e b o tto m an d w alls o f th e v essels
underw ent m etam orphosis w hen triggered by T PA . O f
B oom s and sk im m ers
those planulae exposed to 100 ppm of the pollutant only
The first stage of an effective response is to deploy a
3% metamorphosed after being induced by T PA. In addi-
boom to limit further spreading and concentrate the oil for
tio n , after m etam o rp h o sis th ere w as an in crease in th e
reco v ery (IT O P F 2 0 0 6 ). B o o m s an d sk im m ers can b e
n u m b er o f d efo rm ed p rim ary p o ly p s co m p ared to th e
used in relatively calm w aters near reefs or in lagoons,
control. T he deform ed polyps w ere elongated and had
but certain types of boom s need to be lim ited to deeper
short non pinnate tentacles. Planulae also settled less fre-
waters (greater than 3 m) to avoid direct physical impacts
quently on the oil-covered surfaces. T hus, on the reef,
to the corals.
even in the presence of low concentrations of crude oil, a
decrease in both viability and successful settlem ent of
coral planulae might occur following an oil spill.
S orbents and v acuum pum ping
Sorbents and vacuum pum ping are techniques w hich
could be used in lagoons. Vacuum pumping may be used
to re m o v e th ic k e r o il la y e rs a n d o il p o c k e ts, b u t c a re
Bioaccumulation
should be taken to avoid breaking coral heads.
A ccording to Ram ade & Roche (2006), the high lipid
content of coral polyps increases their ability to retain
h y d ro carb o n s (an d m o re b ro ad ly any lipo p h ilic p o llu -
tants). Researchers have found that petroleum hydrocar-
L ow -pressure flushing
T his technique is an effective w ay of aiding natural
removal, but care must be taken when treating reefs.
b o n s are d ep o sited in to th e calcareo u s ex o sk eleto n o f
co rals, w h ich in tro d u ces th e p o ssib ility o f u sin g co ral
skeletons as historical records of hydrocarbon contamina-
tion in an area. Field studies in Baha Las Minas indicated
N atural cleansing
This is the best m ethod in m any cases if there is high
wave action on fringing reefs.
that corals took up hydrocarbons from the water column,
as opposed to sediments (Burns & Knap 1989). Readman
A gents and nutrients
et al. (1996) analysed sections of the m assive coral
Several m ethods currently in the developm ental stage
Po rite s lu te a from the G ulf coast of K uw ait and S audi
appear to be potentially suitable for use in coral areas and
Arabia and found clear evidence of the Gulf W ar oil spill
other m arine environm ents likely to be sensitive to oil.
recorded in the skeletons of these corals.
A m ong these are agents that have been developed that,
when added to oil, gel in a semisolid form that can then be
3. O il spill m anagem ent techniques on coral reefs
recovered. Research is also being carried out to use nutri-
ents (e.g. nitrogen and phosphorous) in accelerating the
Unless otherwise stated, the following chapter is based
bacterial biodegradation of oil. A cco rd in g to ITO P F
on the inform ation found in the Field guide for oil spill
(2006), the use of nutrients has not so far been dem on-
response in tropical waters published by the Internation-
strated to be beneficial for large-scale restoration pro-
a l M a ritim e O rg a n isa tio n (IM O ) (1 9 9 7 ) a n d th e O il
jects. B iorem ediation products should be applied w ith
spills in coral reefs: Planning and R esponse C onsidera-
care and the methods used must be specifically tailored to
tions published by National Oceanographic and A t m o-
the environm ent and pollutant at each contam inated site
spheric Administration (NOAA) (2001).
because they might encourage the growth of alien species
(ITOPF 2006).
Generalities
B acterial biodegradation
The goal of spill response in coral areas is the same as
in a n y o th e r h a b ita t to m in im ize d am ag e cau sed b y
O il
degrading
m icrobes
are
w idely
distributed
throughout the w orlds coastal areas and are m ore abun-
accidents and any associated spillage. Choosing response
dant in coastlines adjacent to chronically polluted waters
methods carefully, with an understanding of the sensitivi-
such as those receiving industrial discharges and untreat-
ties of the reef environment, will minimize any additional
ed sew age. S o m e co m m ercially av ailab le p ro d u cts d o
impacts incurred from the cleanup. Variables such as type
com bine oil-degrading m icrobes collected from assorted
and amount of oil spilled, geology of the shoreline, rate of
areas of the world with nutrient supplements. Their appli-
water flow, weather, and availability of equipment for sal-
cation at a spill site can result in the introduction of alien
vage will determine which options can be considered dur-
species resulting in concerns about their potential impact.
ing a response. Problem s that have to be solved are the
However, in most cases it is likely that introduced species
possible rem oteness of the site, lack of adequate equip-
will not com pete effectively with those species naturally
m ent, the difficulty of navigation in shallow w aters, and
occurring. Although bioremediation may improve the rate
storage and disposal of collected oil.
of degradation of floating slicks the process is still too
V ie Milieu, 2007, 57 (1/2)
102
slow to prevent the vast majority of the oil reaching the
Lewis (1971) reported detrimental effects to the feed-
shoreline. One problem is that some of the more complex
ing response and tactile stimuli of four Caribbean corals,
components of the oil may remain partially or totally un-
due to Corexit. Of the four species tested (Porites porites,
degraded (NOAA2001).
M adracis
asperula,
Fav ia
f ragum
and
A g ar i c i a
agari c i t e s), M. asperu l a exhibited the greatest ill eff e c t s .
In situ burning
F eed in g activ ity d ecreased m ark ed ly u p o n ad d itio n s o f
To date, there have been no intentional large-scale i n
1 0 0 p p m o f C o re x it, a n d a t 5 0 0 p p m a ll b u t 5 % o f th e
situ burns in coral reef habitats, neither has there been any
colonies appeared m oribund w hen com pared to controls.
studies of this technique in coral regions. Results from the
A ll species w ere m ore affected by the dispersant than by
Newfoundland Offshore Burn Experiment (NOBE) indi-
the crude oil (General Crude Oil Co. of Barbados). T h i s
cate that crude oil burn residue has a low inherent toxicity
was also concluded in the case of the soft coral He t e ro x e -
to test organisms, and incurred no additional toxicity over
nia f uscescens (Eisler 1975). Cook & Knap (1985)
unburned oil (Blenkinsopp et al. 1997). Extrapolation of
observed a photosynthesis reduction of 85 % in Di p l o r i a
these results to tropical areas and coral reefs should be
s t ri gos a after an eight-hour exposure to a mixture of A r a-
done cautiously, however. The physical impacts of con-
bian crude oil (19 ppm) and of the oil dispersant Corexit
tact (such as fouling or smothering) may be a concern,
1289 (1 ppm).
since the burn residue may sink. There would be no harm
Negri & Heyward (2000) exposed corals to the disper-
to corals caused by the temperature rise because it only
sant Corexit 9527 and found that it inhibited fertilization
takes place in the first few centimeters of water.
as well as larval metamorphosis of A c ropora millepora.
But it was more toxic when combined with the crude oil.
Dispersed oil was slightly more toxic to fertilization than
Dispersants
The use of dispersants should be restricted to deep
dispersant alone, suggesting toxicity to that event may be
w a t e r, away from the shore and away from environmen-
additive. The m inim um concentration of dispersed oil
tally fragile habitats. The use of dispersants should not be
- 1
w hich inhibited fertilization w as 0.0325 m g l
T H C .
undertaken if the risk caused to the environment by dis-
A lthough crude oil and dispersant inhibited larval m eta-
persed oil is higher than the risk caused by the oil itself.
morphosis individually, this toxicity was magnified when
The decision about using a dispersant has to be m ade
larvae w ere exposed to com binations of both. C rude oil
quickly so that the oil does not have the time to reach the
- 1
inhibited metamorphosis at 0.0325 mg l
THC when dis-
shore (Merlin 2005).
persed in 10% v/v (dispersant/oil).
The use of dispersants is not recommended on coral
E ffects of the dispersant Shell LTX on the Caribbean
reefs because they are likely to increase hydrocarbon con-
coral M ad racis m irabilis w ere studied (Elgershuizen &
centration in the w ater colum n thereby increasing the
D e K ruijf 1976). T he Shell dispersant L T X , applied on
exposure of corals to oil and because of their deleterious
the surface of the coral exposed to air w as not toxic by
environmental impacts discussed in the following chapter.
itself, but mixed with seawater the toxicity increased 3-6-
fold compared to the dispersant itself. The dispersant was
added in a ratio of 1:10 (dispersant : oil). The increase in
4. Effects of dispersants
toxicity is probably caused by the increase in num ber of
Most of the research on the effects of dispersants on
o il d ro p lets an d th e refo re, a n in cre ase in co n tac t a re a
corals has been done in the laboratory. All these results
b etw een w ater, o il an d d isp ersan t. E lgershu izen & D e
conclude that chem ical dispersants are toxic to corals.
K ruijf (1976) concluded that in the case of a m ajor oil
Table V summarizes these findings.
spill, reefs are more endangered by clean-up with chemi-
In Panama in 1986, the dispersant Corexit 9527 was
both observed and reported to have been applied mostly
cal detergents than by the oil itself and the use of mechan-
ical removal of the oil is preferred.
o ffshore, and always > 2-3 km away from the heavily
H arrison et al. (1990) observed a delayed stress
oiled reef (Guzmn et al. 1991). Refinery officials report-
response am ong branches of A c ropora form osa e x p o s e d
ed spraying from aircraft of over 21000 litres of the dis-
to dispersant BPA-B. Tissues began to lose zooxanthellae
persant (Guzmn et al. 1991). It was used too late and at
during the experiment and continued to deteriorate over
concentrations too low relative to the volume of spilled
subsequent weeks resulting in death of som e branches
oil to be effective (Cormack 1983), and may have mixed
after 1-2 months. The authors recommend not to use this
directly into the w ater colum n soon after spraying, or
dispersant in the vicinity of coral reefs until its toxicity is
accumulated on top of the floating oil. Corexit has also
more thoroughly investigated.
been described as toxic to reef corals by other authors
Harrison (1994) reported inhibition of fertilization of
(Ballou et al. 1989, Thorhaug et al. 1989), or not toxic at
the coral A c ropora tenuis by fuel oil and the dispersant
concentrations up to 50 ppm (Knap et al. 1985). Ballou et
Ardrox 6120, noting that the dispersant was more toxic
al. (1989) stated that dispersants (Corexit) had less effects
towards fertilisation than the water accommodated frac-
on mangroves than on corals.
tion of fuel oil.
V ie Milieu, 2007, 57 (1/2)
103
TableV. Summary of effects of dispersants on corals
Epstein et al. (2000) carried out a laboratory study on
d atio n fractio n s (W A F ) treatm en ts cau sed larv al m o r-
the survival of the planulae of S ty lophora pistillata a n d
phology
H e t e roxenia fuscescens from the Gulf of Eilat, Red Sea.
behaviour and rapid tissue degeneration. The dispersant
Five third-generation oil dispersants, said to be environ-
Petrotech PTI-25 w as show n to be the least toxic of the
deform ations,
loss
of
norm al
sw im m ing
mentally friendly (Inipol IP-90, Petrotech PTI-25, Biore-
p ro d u cts, b u t E p stein e t al. (2 0 0 0 ) d o n o t su p p o rt th e
ic o R -9 3 , B io so lv e a n d E m u lg a l C -1 0 0 ) w e re te ste d .
application of dispersants in the vicinity of coral reefs.
C oncentrations ranging from 0.5 to 500 ppm of disper-
Ward et al. (2003) concluded that the TROPICS long-
sant com pounds w ere m ixed in 1/10 ratio with an Egyp-
term study clearly show ed the trade-off betw een using
tian crude oil. A strong decrease of survival and settle-
dispersants and not using them : efficient dispersant use
m ent rate of planulae w as observed for dispersant expo-
sav es th e m an g ro v es, b u t is h arm fu l in sh allo w w ater
sure ranging from 50 ppm and over, w hile m etam orpho-
w h ere d isp ersants are in co n tact w ith th e corals. T h e
sis rate w as affected (6 0 % to 8 4 % few er th an co n tro l
results in this study point out the trade-offs in habitat sur-
depending on the considered com pound) at concentra-
vival that different management decisions could make to
tion as low as 0.5 ppm. Dispersants and water accommo-
inter-tidal and sub-tidal habitats (IPIECA1992).
V ie Milieu, 2007, 57 (1/2)
104
shallow water where they were in contact with corals.
CONCLUSIONS
The most suitable clean-up method on shallow fring-
It has been stated that coral reefs are currently the most
ing reefs and reefs with high energy is considered to be
threatened ecosystem of the planet (W ilkinson 2004,
natural clean-up. In order to act rapidly and effectively in
Ramade 2005, Salvat 2005). Widespread occurrences of
case of an oil spill, thorough contingency plans are need-
total coral colony mortality, partial mortality, population
ed in coral reef countries. This is a challenging task con-
decline, and apparent decreases in coral recruitment have
sidering that the majority of them are Third World coun-
been reported on many reefs (Pandolfi et al. 2003). Since
tries with limited infrastructure and resources at their dis-
corals are among the most important organisms in tropi-
posal.
cal reef communities, both by providing habitat for other
So far, there has been no major oil pollution incidents
o rganisms and by entering in the overall metabolism of
on the w orlds coral reefs, but chronic pollution from
the reef community, any change in their physiology, how-
small day-to-day spills in coastal waters is large in total
ever subtle, will probably cause a very dramatic change in
volume (Guzmn 1991). Sublethal effects from this
the overall ecology of the reef (Reimer 1975). Oil pollu-
chronic pollution are extensive and may be more impor-
tion is one threat in the long list of threats to coral reefs.
tant in the long-term than initial mortality (Loya &
O ur literature review concerning oil spills on coral
Rinkevich 1980, Southward 1982).
reefs reveals that the majority of the research has been
The most extensively documented case study on the
conducted in the 1970s and 1980s. Very little research
im pacts of oil pollution on corals is that of B aha las
on this subject has been done after 1990 and an almost
M inas, Panam a, follow ing the oil spill in 1986. T h e
negligible amount after 1995. Results of the earlier stud-
TROPICS experiment, also in Panama, has so far been
ies were often contradictory. The discrepancies in these
the most extensive field study of the impacts of oil and
research findings result from the different types of corals,
dispersants on several biological habitats. A s a result
oils and dispersants studied; the wide range of exposure
from this spill, an enormous amount of oil was locked in
times, environmental conditions, and dosage concentra-
the mangrove sediments and chronic pollution due to the
tions used; the methods used to measure stress; and the
original oil spill is likely to last for many years. However,
length of time corals were monitored for recovery. Most
the chemical composition and toxicity of the oil is likely
of the research has been done in the Caribbean and in the
to have changed considerably over time, so that chronic
Red Sea. Different types of corals and corals from diff e r-
e ffects may be less than were observed after the oil spill
en t reg io n s h av e b een fo u n d to v ary g reatly in th eir
(Guzmn et al. 1991). Although petroleum released to the
response to oils and dispersants. It is therefore difficult to
sea in tropical environments generally suffers rapid
apply the results of these studies to predict the effects of
degradation, petroleum contaminants reaching intertidal
oil spills and dispersant clean-up operations in the Indo-
sediments may exhibit long-term persistence (Corredor et
Pacific (Harrison et al. 1990).
al . 1990). Loya & Rinkevich (1977) pointed out the need
Confusing results, the lack of new research, and the
for base-line biological studies in regions w ith a high
wide array of oils and dispersants available on the market
probability of future subjection to oil pollution. This will
call for a need to do further research on thresholds of
lead to better evaluation and quantification of long-term
damage of these new products to coral physiology.
e ffects of hydrocarbons on animal and plant communi-
Research conducted in field conditions is important,
ties. Various features of the life history of species com-
because the extrapolation to natural populations from lab-
posing such communities should be quantified and when
oratory-based physiological data or small-scale, short-
possible, coupled with controlled experiments in the labo-
term perturbations have proven to be dangerous.
ratory.
All efforts should be made in order to prepare the best
The responses of organisms to an oil spill, or any other
clean-up methods for the reef environment in case of an
major disturbance will depend on the conditions in which
oil spill. Studies confirm the toxicity of dispersants to
they normally live (e.g. Woodley et al. 1981). Moreover,
corals and their use is not recommended (e.g. Harrison
the suite of organisms able to survive under conditions of
et al. 1990). D uring the last few years, earlier genera-
chronic pollution, and their resistance to further stress, is
tions of oil dispersants were replaced by newly devel-
typically different from that in similar unpolluted habitats
oped, environmentally friendly third generation com-
(Southward 1982, Bak 1987). The exposure to chronic oil
pounds which were claimed to be less toxic. However,
pollution of corals in the Arabian Gulf area may therefore
as Epstein et al. (2000) point out, these new products
explain the lack of impacts on corals observed after the
have serious negative impacts on coral larvae behaviour
w o r l d s biggest oil spill resulting from the Gulf Wa r.
and recruitment. Ward et al. (2003) point out following
Observations in the Gulf indicate that coral communities
the TROPICS experiment case in Panama that the use of
exist at their ecological limits with respect to low temper-
dispersants is often a trade-off betw een the im pact on
ature (Coles & Fadlallah 1990) and high salinities (Coles
corals and mangroves. In this particular case, eff i c i e n t
& Jokiel 1991), a fact that further increases the stress tol-
dispersant use saved the mangroves, but was harmful in
erance of corals in this region.
V ie Milieu, 2007, 57 (1/2)
According to Ramade & Roche (2006), a number of
unsolved questions are still pending in the field of ecotox-
icology of coral reefs. An effective monitoring program
and standardised analytical processes for assessing the
exposure of scleractinian corals to xeniobiotics should be
put into place. There have been very few studies on accu-
mulation and biomagnification processes in the coral reef
trophic web and these studies should be undertaken as
soon as possible. Coral planulae, amphipods, larval stages
of crustaceans and echinoderms could be used for assess-
ing the toxicity of different pollutants. These young life
stages have been proven to be very useful in monitoring
pollution because of their high sensitivity to pollutants.
Studies on biomarkers in coral reefs have been rare and
should be equally put into place (Ramade & Roche 2006).
When considering the possible risks of an oil pollution
accident on a coral reef, the life cycle of the corals on site
is crucial. D etrim ental effects w ould follow if a spill
occurs during an annual coral spawning event, but also if
it occurs during the subsequent 1-3 week period during
which most larval metamorphosis and recruitment occurs
(Harrison et al. 1984).
The estim ated reef recovery tim e of 10-20 years in
Panam a in 1986 w as based on the assum ption that no
other event would further depress coral populations
(Brown 1997). In the light of the current health of corals
worldwide and the array of problems facing this ecosys-
tem (e.g. Pandolfi et al. 2003), a m ajor oil spill m ight
mean a point of no return for corals. The risk of oil pollu-
tion should therefore be taken seriously.
A C K N O W L E D G E M E N T S .- W e are very grateful for M Flavells
105
Blenkinsopp S, Sergy G, Doe K, Wo h l g e s c h a ffen G, Li K, Fin-
g a s M 1 9 9 7 . E v alu atio n o f th e to x icity o f th e w eath e re d
crude oil used at the N ew foundland O ffshore Burn Experi-
t h
ment (NOBE) and the resultant burn residue. I n Proceed 20
Arctic and Marine Oil spill Program (AMOP) Te c h n i c a l
S e m i n a r, Va n c o u v e r, British Columbia, June 11-13, 1997:
677-684.
Blumer M, Sanders HL, Grassle JF, Hampson GR 1971. Asmall
oil spill. Env ironm ent 13: 1-18.
Brown BE, Howard LS 1985. Assessing the effects of stress on
reef corals. A dv M ar Ecol 22: 1-63.
Brown BE 1997. Disturbances to reefs in recent times. In Birke-
land C ed, Life and death of coral reefs: 373-374.
B u rn s K A , K n a p A H 1 9 8 9 . T h e B a h ia L a s M in a s o il sp ill:
hydrocarbon uptake by reef building corals. M ar Poll B ull
20: 391-398.
Capone DG, Bauer JE 1992. Microbial processes in coastal pol-
lution. I n R M itchell ed, Environm ental m icrobiology, John
Wiley and Sons, New York: 191-238.
Chia FS 1973. Killing of m arine larvae by Diesel oil. M ar Poll
B ull 4: 29-30.
Cohen Y, Nissenbaum A, Eisler R 1977. Effects of Iranian crude
oil on the Red Sea Octocoral H e t e roxenia fuscescens. Envi -
ron Poll 12: 173-186.
C oles SL, Fadlallah Y H 1990. C oral survival and m ortality at
low temperatures in the Arabian Gulf: New species-specific
lower temperature limits. Coral R eef s 9: 231-237.
Coles SL, Jokiel PL 1991. Effects of salinity on coral reefs. I n
Connell DW & Hawker DW eds, Pollution in Tropical Sys-
tems. CRC Press, Florida: 147-166.
Cook CB, Knap AH 1985. Effects of crude oil and chemical dis-
persants on the photosynthesis of the brain coral D i p l o r i a
strigosa. M ar Poll B ull 78: 21-27.
C o rm a c k D 1 9 8 3 . R e sp o n se to o il a n d c h e m ic a l p o llu tio n .
Applied Science Publishers, London.
comments on the manuscript.
Cormack D 1999. Response to marine oil pollution review and
assessment. Kluwer Academic Publishers , 345 p.
REFERENCES
C orredor JE, M orell JM , del C astillo C E 1990. Persistence of
spilled crude oil in a tropical intertidal environm ent. M a r
Poll B ull 21: 385-388.
t h
Antonius A1981. Coral reef pathology: a review. I n Proceed 4
Intern Coral Reef Sympos 2: 7-14.
Bak RPM , Elgershuizen JHBW 1976. Patterns of oil-sedim ent
rejection in corals. M ar B iol 37: 105-113.
Bak RPM 1987. Effects of chronic oil pollution on a Caribbean
Coral Reef. M ar Poll B ull 18: 534-539.
B allou TG , H ess SC , D odge R E, K nap A H , Sleeter TD 1987.
E ffects of a Dispersed and Undispersed Crude Oil on M an-
groves, Seagrasses, and Corals. API Publ N 4460. Wa s h i n g-
ton, D.C: American Petroleum Institute, Health and Environ-
mental Sci Dept, 198 p.
B allou TG , H ess SC , D odge R E, K nap A H , Sleeter TD 1989.
E ffects of untreated and chemically dispersed oil on tropical
m arine com m unities: A long-term field experim ent. I n P r o-
ceed 1989 Intern O il Spill C onf, San A ntonio, Texas. A m
Petroleum Inst, Washington, DC: 447-454.
Benson A A , M uscatine L. 1974. W ax in coral m ucus: Energ y
transfer from corals to reef fishes. L im nol Oceanogr 19: 810-
814.
D odge RE, W yers SC, Frith H R, K nap A H , Sm ith SR, Sleeter
TD 1984. The effects of oil and oil dispersants on the skeletal
g ro w th o f th e h erm aty p ic co ral D ilp o ria s trig o sa. C o ral
Reefs 3:191-198.
Dodge RE, Knap AH, W yers SC, Firth HR, Sleeter TD, Sm ith
SR 1985. The effect of dispersed oil on the calcification rate
t h
of the reef-building coral D ip lo ria strig o sa. In Proceed 5
Intern Coral Reef Sympos 6: 543-457.
Dodge RE, Baca BJ, Knap AH, Snedaker SC, Sleeter TD 1995.
T he effects of oil and chem ically dispersed oil in tropical
ecosystem s: 10 years of m onitoring experim ental sites.
MSRC Tech Rep Ser 95-014. W ashington, DC: Marine Spill
Response Corporation, 93 p.
Downing N, Roberts CM 1993. Has the Gulf War affected coral
reefs of the northwestern Gulf? M ar Poll B ull 27: 149-156.
Ducklow HW 1977. Influence of sublethal pollutant concentra-
tions on the m icrobial ecology of living corals. PhD thesis,
Harvard Univ, Cambridge, Massachusetts.
Ducklow HW, Mitchell R 1979. Bacterial populations and adap-
tations in the m ucus layers on living corals. L i m n o l
O ceanogr 24: 715-725.
V ie Milieu, 2007, 57 (1/2)
106
Eakin CM, Feingold JS, Glynn PW 1993. Oil refinery impacts
on coral reefs: health, hazards and history. Rosenstiel School
of Marine and Atmospheric Sci, Univ Miami, Coral Gables:
43-49.
Eisler R 1975. Toxic, sublethal and latent effects of petroleum of
Red Sea m acrofauna. I n P ro c 1 9 7 5 C o n f P rev en tio n an d
Control of oil pollution. Am Petroleum Inst, Wa s h i n g t o n ,
DC: 535-540.
Elgershuizen JH BW , D e K ruijf H A M 1976. Toxicity of crude
oils and a dispersant to the stony coral M adracis m irabilis.
M ar Poll B ull 7: 22-25.
Epstein N, Bak RPM, Rinkevich B 2000. Toxicity of third gen-
eration dispersants and dispersed Egyptian crude oil on Red
Sea coral larvae. M ar Poll B ull 40 (6): 497-503.
Fadlallah YH 1983. Sexual reproduction, development and lar-
val biology in scleractinian corals. A r e v i e w. Coral R eef s 2 :
129-150.
Farrington JW 1989. Bioaccumulation of hydrophobic org a n i c
pollutants compounds. I n E cotoxicology: problem s and
approaches. Levin SA, Harwell M A, Kelly JR, Kimball KD
eds. Springer: 279-313.
Friaz-Lopez J, Zerkle AL, Bonheyo GT, Fouke BW 2002. Parti-
tioning of bacterial com m unities betw een seaw ater and
h e a l t h y, black band diseased and dead coral surfaces. A p p l
Env iron M icrobiol 68: 2214-2228.
Fucik KW , Bright TJ, Goodm an KS 1981. Restoration of habi-
ta ts im p a cte d b y o il sp ills S y m p o siu m , B lac k sb u rg , V A
(U SA ) 9-11 N ov 1981. Restoration of habitats im pacted by
oil spills, Cairns J, Buikema ALeds: 115-134.
Garrett P, Ducklow H 1975. Coral diseases in Bermuda. N a t u re
253: 349-350.
Green A, Burgett J, M olina M , Palawski D, Gabrielson P 1 9 9 7 .
The im pact of a ship grounding and associated fuel spill at
R o se A to ll N ational W ildlife R efuge, A m erican Sam oa.
Honolulu: US Fish W ildlife Serv, Pacific Islands Ecoregion,
60 p.
Gupta RS, Kureishy W 1981. Present state of oil pollution in the
Northern Indian Ocean. I n UNEP/IUCN (1988). Coral Reefs
of the World. Vol 2: Indian Ocean, Red Sea and Gulf. UNEP
Regional Seas Directories and Bibliographies. IUCN, Gland,
Sw itzerland and C am bridge, U .K ./U N EP, N airobi, K enya.
1+389 p, 36 maps.
Guzmn HM, Jackson JBC, Weil E 1991. Short-term ecological
consequences of a m ajor oil spill on P anam anian subtidal
reef corals. Coral R eef s 10: 1-12.
Guzmn HM, Holst I 1993. Effects of chronic oil-sediment pol-
lution on the reproduction of the C aribbean reef coral
S iderastrea siderea. M ar Poll B ull 26 (5): 276-282.
Guzmn HM, Jackson JBC, Holst I 1993. Changes and recovery
of subtidal reef corals. In Keller BD, Jackson JBC eds, Long-
term assessment of the oil spill at Bahia Las Minas, Panama,
synthesis report, Vol. II, tech rep U.S. Depart Interior, Miner-
als Manag Serv, Gulf of Mexico OCS Region, New Orleans:
361-446.
G uzm n H M , Burns K A , Jackson JBC 1994. Injury, regenera-
tion and grow th of C aribbean reef corals after a m ajor oil
spill in Panama. M ar Ecol Prog S er 105: 231-241.
H arrison P L , B abock R C , B ull G D , O liv er JK , W allace C D ,
W illis BL 1984. M ass spawning of reef corals. S c i e n c e 2 2 3 :
1186-1189.
Harrison PL, Collins JC, Alexander CG, Harrison B 1990. T h e
e ffects of fuel oil and dispersant on the tissues of a staghorn
n d
coral A c ropora form osa: a pilot study. I n Proceed 2
N a t
W orkshop on the role of scientific support co-ordinator. 26-
30 March 1990.
H arrison PL 1994. The effects of oil pollutants on fertilization
and larval settlement in the scleractinian reef coral A c ro p o r a
tenuis. In Proceed of Joint Scientific Conf Sci m anagem ent
s t
c e n t u r y.
a n d S u ta in a b ility o f M a rin e H a b ita ts in th e 2 1
Townsville, Australia.
H aynes D , Johnson JE 2000. O rganochlorines, heavy m etals
and Polycyclic aromatic Hydrocarbons in the great barrier
reef (A ustralia) environm ent: a review. M ar Poll B ull 4 1 :
267-278.
International Maritime Organization (IMO) 1997. Field Guide
for Oil Spill Response in Tropical Waters. IMO 1997, 54 p.
International Petroleum Industry Environmental Conservation
Association (IPIECA) 1992. Biological Impacts of oil pollu-
tion: coral reefs. IPIECAReport Series, Vol. 3. 1992.
International Tanker Owners Pollution Federation (ITO P F )
2006. Historical Data. http://www.itopf.org/stats.html
International Tanker Owners Pollution Federation (ITO P F )
2006. Clean-up techniques. http://www. i t o p f . o rg / c l e a n -
up.html
Jackson JBC 1986. D ispersal and distribution of clonal and
aclonal benthic invertebrates. Bull Mar Sci 39: 588-606.
Jackson JBC, Cubit JD, Keller BD, Batista V, Burns K, Caff e y
H M , C aldw ell R L , G arrity SD , G etter C D , G onzalez C ,
Guzmn HM, Kaufman KW, Knap AH, Levings SC, Mar-
shall MJ, Steger R, Thompson RC, Weil E. 1989. Ecological
e ffects of a major oil spill on Panamanian coastal marine
communities. Science 243 (4887): 37-44.
Johannes RE 1967. Ecology of organic aggregates in the vicini-
ty of a coral reef. Lim nol Oceanogr 12: 189-195.
Johannes RE, Maragos JE, Coles SL 1972. Oil damages corals
exposed to air. M ar Poll B ull 3: 29-30.
Knap AH, Solbakken JE, Dodge RE, Sleeter TD, Wyers SJ, Pal-
mork KH 1982. Accumulation and elimination of (9-14C)
Phenanthrene in the reef-building coral (Diploria strigosa) .
B ull Env iron Contam T ox icol 28: 281-284.
K nap A H , W yers SC, D odge RE, Sleeter TD , Frith H R, Sm ith
SR, Cook CB 1985. The effects of chemically and physically
dispersed oil on the brain coral D ip lo ria strigo sa. 1985 Oil
Spill Conf, Publ 4385. Am Petroleum Inst, W ashington, DC:
547-551.
Knudsen JW 1967. Tr a p e z i a and Te t r al i a (Decapoda, Brachyu-
ra, X anthidae) as obligate ectoparasites of Pocilloporid and
Acroporid corals. Pacif S ci 21: 51-57.
K u sh m aro A , H en n in g G , H o fm an D K , B e n a y ah u Y 1 9 9 7 .
M etam orphosis of H e t e roxenia f uscescens p l a n u l a e
(C n id aria: O cto corallia) is in hibited b y cru de o il: a n ov el
short term toxicity bioassay. M ar Env R es 43 (4): 295-302.
LeGore S, M arszalek DS, Danek LJ, Tomlinson M S, Hofm ann
JE, Cuddebak JE 1989. Effect of chemically dispersed oil on
A rabian G ulf corals: A field experim ent. I n Proceed 1989
Intern O il Spill C onf, San A ntonio, February 13-16, 1989:
375-381.
Lew is JB 1971. Effects of crude oil and oil spill dispersant on
reef corals. M ar Poll B ull 2: 59-62.
Lew is JB 1978. Feeding m echanism s

(Antipatharia). J Z ool 186: 393-396.
black
corals
Littler M M , Littler D S 1996. B lack band disease in the South
Pacific. Coral R eef s 15: 20.
Loya Y 1976. Recolonization of Red Sea corals affected by nat-
ural catastrophes and m an-m ade perturbations. E c o l o g y 5 7 :
278-289.
V ie Milieu, 2007, 57 (1/2)
in
Loya Y, Rinkevich B 1977. Effects of oil pollution on coral reef
communities. I n D R S toddart, R W G rig g ed s. C o ral reef
ecosystem under stress. Academic Press, London.
Loya Y, Rinkevich B 1979. Abortion effect in corals induced by
oil pollution. M ar Ecol Prog S er 1: 77-80.
Loya Y, Rinkevich B 1980. Effects of oil pollution on coral reef
communities. M ar Ecol Prog S er 3: 167-180.
Loya Y, Rinkevich B 1984. Effects of petroleum hydrocarbons
on corals. I n H um an Im pacts on Coral Reefs: facts and rec-
om m endations. Salvat B ed. A ntenne M useum EPH E,
French Polynesia, 1987.
Maragos JE 1994. Reef and coral observations on the impact of
the grounding of the longliner Jin Shiang Fa at Rose A t o l l ,
A m erican S am o a. H o n o lu lu : U S F ish an d W ild life S erv ,
Pacific Island Office, 27 p.
Mercurio P, Negri A P, Burns KA, Heyward AJ 2004. The eco-
to x icolog y o f v eg etable v ersu s m ineral b ased lu b ricatin g
oils: 3-Coral fertilization and adult coral. E n v i ron Poll 1 2 9 :
183-194.
M erlin FX ed. 2005. Traitem ent aux dispersants des nappes de
ptrole en mer. Guide oprationnel du CEDRE.
M itchell R , C het I 1975. B acterial attack of corals in polluted
sea water. M icrob Ecol 2: 227-233.
Negri A P, Heyward AJ 2000. Inhibition of fertilization and lar-
val m etam orphosis of the coral A c ropora m illepora b y
petroleum products. M ar Poll B ull 41 (7-12): 420-427.
N O A A 2001. O il spills in coral reefs: planning and response
considerations. http://response.restoration. noaa.gov. / o i l a i d s /
coral/reports.htm l. N ational O ceanic and A t m o s p h e r i c
Administration ed, report 2001 (revised in 2003).
Oil Spill Intelligence Reports (OSIR) 1999. Oil Spill risks in
L atin A m erica and C aribbean R egion. W hite Paper S er,
Techn Statist A nal Cutter Inform ation C orp, September
1999.
Palmork KH, Solbakken JE 1980. Accumulation and elimina-
tion of radioactivity in the Norway Cobster (N e p h ro p s
n o rv e g i c u s) following intragastric administration of
1 4
[ 9 -
C]phenanthrene. Bull Environ Contam To x i c o l 25: 668-
671.
Palm ork KH, Solbakken JE 1981. Distribution and elim ination
1 4
of [9-
C]phenanthrene in the horse mussel (M odiola m odio -
lus). B ull Env iron Contam T ox icol 26: 196.
Pandolfi JM , B radbury R H , Sala E, H ughes T P 2003. G lobal
trajectories of the long-term decline of coral reef ecosystems.
S cience 301: 955-958.
Peters EC, Philip AM, Yevich PP, Blake NJ 1981. Bioaccumula-
tion and histopathological effects of oil on a stony coral. M ar
Poll B ull 12 (10): 333-339.
Price A R G 1998. Im pact of the 1991 G ulf W ar on the coastal
environm ent and ecosystem s: current status and future
prospects. Env iron Int 24 (1/2): 91-96.
t h
R am ade F 1995. Elm ents dcologie : cologie applique, 5
ed, Ediscience International, Paris, 1995.
R am ade F 2000. D ictionnaire encyclopdique des pollutions.
Ediscience International, Paris, 1999, 640 p.
Ramade F 2005. Asie du Sud-Est: un cataclysme prmonitoire.
Courr N at 218: 18-26.
R am ade F, R oche H 2006. E cotoxicological im pingem ent of
pollutants on coral reefs: a review. Rev Ecol Te rre V i e 61 (1):
3-33.
107
Readman JW, Tolosa I, Law AT, Bartocci J, Azemard S, Hamil-
ton T, Mee LD, Wagener A, Le Tissier M, Roberts C, Down-
ing N, Price ARG 1996. Discrete bands of petroleum hydro-
carb o n s an d m olecular o rg an ic m ark ers id en tified w ith in
massive coral skeletons. M ar Poll B ull 32 (5): 437-443.
Reimer AA1975. Effects of crude oil on corals. M ar Poll B ull 6:
39-43.
Richman S, Loya Y, Slobodkin LB 1975. The rate of mucus pro-
duction by corals and its asim ilation by the coral reef cope-
pod A cartia negligens. L im nol Oceanogr 20: 918-923.
Rinkevich B, Loya Y1977. Harmful effects of chronic oil pollu-
r d
tio n o n a R ed S ea co ral p o p u latio n . I n P roceed 3
I n t e r n
Coral Reef Sympos: 585-591.
R inkevich B , Loya Y 1979. Laboratory experim ents on the
e ffects of crude oil on the Red Sea coral S ty lophora pistilla -
ta. M ar Poll B ull 10: 328-330.
Sadiq M, McCain JC 1993. The Gulf War aftermath: An envi-
ronmental tragedy. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers,
1993.
Saenger P1994. Aftermath of an oil spill. S earch 25 (1): 19-22.
Salvat B 2005. Les rcifs coralliens: ralit et espoirs. C o u rr
N at 219:18-27.
Shinn EA 1972. Coral reef recovery in Florida and in the Per-
sian Gulf. Report to Environmental Conservation Depart-
ment, Shell Oil Comp. Houston, Texas.
Solbakken JE, Palmork KH, Neppelberg T, Scheline RR 1979.
Distribution of radioactivity in coalfish (Pollachius vire n s)
follow ing intragastric adm inistration of [9-14C] phenan-
threne. Bull Environ Contam Toxicol 23: 100-103.
Southward, AJ 1982. The long-term effects of oil pollution on
marine populations, communities and ecosystems, London,
(UK), 28-29 Oct 1981. Philos Trans R S oc L ond Ser B 1982
297 (1087): 241-255.
Spooner M 1970. Oil spills in Tarut Bay, Saudi Arabia. M ar Poll
Bull 1: 166-167.
Stainken DM 1975. Preliminary observations on the mode of
accum ulation of No. 2 fuel oil by the soft shell clam M y a
a re n a r i a L. I n Proceed conf on prevention and control of oil
pollution. Am Petroleum Inst, Washington, DC: 463-468.
Stirling H P 1977. Effects of a spill of m arine D iesel oil on the
rocky shore fauna of L am m a Island, H ong K ong. E n v i ro n
Poll 12: 93-117.
S trau g h an D 1 9 7 2 . F acto rs cau sin g en v iro n m en tal. ch an g es
after an oil spill. J Petrol T echnol 24: 250-254.
Thorhaug A, McFarlane J, Carby B, McDonald F, Anderson M,
M iller B, Gordon V, Gayle P 1989. D ispersed oil effects on
tropical habitats: Preliminary laboratory results of dispersed
oil testing on Jam aica corals and seagrass. 1989 O il S pill
Conf. Publ 4479, Am Petroleum Inst, W ashington, DC: 455-
458.
Vogt HP 1995. C oral reefs in Saudi A rabia: 3.5 years after the
Gulf War oil spill. Coral R eef s 14: 271-273.
W ard G A , B aca B , C yriacks W , D odge R E 2003. C ontinuing
long-term studies of the TROPICS oil and dispersed oil spill
sites. 2003 Intern Oil Spill Conf.
Wilkinson C ed 2004: Status of Coral Reefs of the World: 2004.
Australian Institute of Marine Science, 557 p.
W oodley JD, Chornesky EA, Clifford PA, Jackson JCB, Kauf-
man LS. Knowlton N, Land JC, Pearson MP, Wu l ff JL, Cur-
tis A SG , D allm eyer M D , Jupp B P, K oehl M A R , N eigel J,
Sides EM 1981. Hurricane A l l e n s impact on Jamaican coral
reefs. S cience 214: 749-755.
R eceiv ed June 19, 2006
A ccepted October 26, 2006
V ie Milieu, 2007, 57 (1/2)
Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences
Ixtoc I: A Case Study of the World's Largest Oil Spill
Author(s): Arne Jernelv and Olof Lindn
Source: Ambio, Vol. 10, No. 6, The Caribbean (1981), pp. 299-306
Published by: Allen Press on behalf of Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/4312725
Accessed: 10/05/2010 10:56
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless
you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you
may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.
Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=acg.
Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed
page of such transmission.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].
A llen Press and Royal Swedish A cademy of Sciences are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and
extend access to A mbio.
http://www.jstor.org
the
SpilleJ|||
o r ld 'sL a r g e st Oil
B Y A R N EJE R N E L O AV N
D O L O F L IN D E N
O n June3, 1979,the IxtocIexploratoryw ellin the B ayof C am peche,
blew out.Itw as finallycapped on M arch23, 1980,290 dayslater,butduring
thattim e475 000 m etrictonsofoilw ere spilled into the w atersof the G ulfof
M exico.T hefullextentof the dam age is stillunknow n.
O n D ecem ber10,1978,Petr6leosM exica-
nos (PE M E X )started to drillthe Ixtoc I
exploratoryw ellatlongitude92?13'W and
latitude 19'24'N , about 80 kilom eters
north-w estof C iudad del C arm en in the
B ahiade C am peche(Figure1).T he w ater
depth atthe site is about50 m .T hedrilling
continued through the firstpartof 1979
and by the end of M ay a depth of 3600
m etershad been reached.E arlyon June2
ata depth of 3615 m eters,the w ellstarted
to loose drilling m ud; circulation w as
totallylostabout3625m eters.Severalun-
successfulattem ptsw ere m ade to regain
circulation, but as the w ell appeared
stable,it w as decided to seal itby w ith-
draw ingthe drillpipe and insertinga plug
in the em pty space.O n June3,duringthe
attem ptsto seal the w ell, the extrem ely
high pressure (about350 kg/cm 2)caused
m ud to flow up the drillpipe and onto the
platform .A t3:30am the w ellblew outand
caughtfire.T he explosion and fire des-
troyed the platform ,w hich sank to the
bottom and dam aged the stack and w ell
casing.T hisallow ed the oiland gasto m ix
w ith w ater close to the sea floor,begin-
ning the largestm arineoilspillin the his-
tory of oilexploration.
Initially the spill w as estim ated to be
about4500m etrictonsperday.H ow ever,
by the beginningof A ugustthe w ell had
lost over 225000 m etric tons-m ore

oil
than had been lost in any previous acci-
dentinvolving offshore drillingor trans-
portation.W hen the w ellw as finally cap-
ped on M arch23,1980-290 daysafterthe
blow -out-a totalof about475000 m etric
tons of oil had been lost, according to
PE M E X estim ates(1).
A M B IO , 1981
Figure1.L ocation of the Ixtoc Iblow out in the G ulfof M exico.
C orpusC hristi
/__
a-
---
C oM atasoC h
as_
Sf
/rsl~~~~~
L aPsca,
P
4t
M E
T am pC o?_
SW
M oaleB rs
L guagane
FlF~~~~~~~~~~~~
Progres
& am pico
l
EH X
IfC
L aguna de
ueboV oioac
^~~~~~~~~
L
n a e a
s~~~~~~~p
=
~
~~~~~4
I-
C oatZ acoalC F
~~~
ra4 lllT h
\/
zz
---
---
-~~~~~~~
,>t
~
B a T a
ina
t
cm
anana
~îR LF
~ ~~~
~ ~ ~&
~C oa
~~~xo
sqW
z~~~A
0cC ida
C a
A sof
299
Figures2a and b.T he blow out as seen from a helicopter.W ind and current
carried the oil in a north w esterly direction.T he rig in the foreground (left
above) is a reliefdrilling platform .2b on opposite page is a close-up of 2a.
A llphotos: O lofL inden.
Figure 3. A thick layer of "chocolate m ousse"
close to the blow out.
T he oil thatw as lost during the blow -
out polluted a considerable partof the
offshore region in the G ulfof M exico as
w ell as m uch of the coastalzone, w hich
consists prim arilyof sandy beaches and
barrierislands often enclosing extensive
shallow lagoons. A num ber of studies
w ere intitiated to assess the extentof the
dam age.O ne of these w as set up by the
U nited N ations E nvironm ent Program
(U N E P) at the requestof the M exican
governm ent.A sum m aryofthe resultsof
thatstudy (2),w hich focussed m ainly on
the acute im pactof the spill,is reported
here.
G E N E R A LB
E H A V IO R O F
T H E O IL
T heoilfrom Ixtoc Ireached the ocean ata
depth of 51 m and w as injected into the
w aterinitiallyata pressureof 350 kg/cm 2.
300
A M B IO V O L 10 N O . 6
LW
I< f-
JT I J
Figure 4. B oom s and skim m ers

in operation.
In the
background
can be seen
another
relief
drilling
platform .
T he oil w as saturated w ith gas and conse-
quently hit the surface as a three-phase
em ulsion, w ater droplets and gas bubbles
in oil, w ith a w ater content of about 50
percent. D ue to the high pressure atw hich
the em ulsion
w as
form ed the droplets
w ere sm all. M ost of the gas w as burned as
it em erged but only a very sm all fraction
of the em ulsified oil w as actually burned
(Figure 2 a, b).
T he oil w as of a lighttype. T hus, a high
proportion consisted of straight-chain and
cyclic hydrocarbons w ith less than sixteen
carbon atom s, both com paratively

vola-
tile and w ater-soluble.

D uring the first
part of the blow -out,

the em ulsified oil
form ed a surface layer 1-4 cm -thick, 0.7-5
km w ide and about60 km long (see Figure
3).
T he initial form ation of an em ulsion re-
sulted in the oil from the blow -out having
A M B IO , 1981
t:~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
301
less contactsurface w ith the atm osphere

w ell.H ow everPE M E X estim atesthatab-
early O ctober. T he theoreticalpick-up
and m ore contactsurfacew ith the ocean

out50 percentof the spilled oilburned at
capacityofthe equipm entused w as about
20 percentofthe totaloutflow ,buta num -
w ater, com pared w ith oil discharged on

the w ellsite (3).
M echanicalrecovery in the Ixtoc zone

ber of obstacles m eantthatonly 4-5 per-
the w ater surface.T hus, considering its
chem icalcom position,a largerpartofthe

rem oved 10000 m etric tons, about4-5
cent of the oil w as actually recovered.
Ixtoc oilw as dissolved in the w aterand a

percent(3).E vaporation,judgingby data
O ne m ajorproblem w as the w eather.A t
sm allerpartevaporated to the atm osphere

in the literatureand experim entsw ith the
w ave heightshigherthan 3 to 4 m etersthe
actual oil w hich took into account its

equipm entw asnotoperableatall;and the
w hen com pared to other spills.
A s the lighterfractionsof the oil w ere

physical and chem ical characteristics,
w ind speed duringthe falland w inter in
lostthrough evaporationand dissolution,

could have rem oved 45-70 percent.T he
particular
frequentlycaused w ave heights
w as likely to resultin
higherthan that.A notherm ajorproblem
and as the gas bubblesleftthe em ulsion,

initialem ulsification
the rem aining part gradually becam e

an actualfigurein the very low partofthat
w as thatitw as notconsideredfeasible to
operatethe system atnight.A thirdlim ita-
heavier.A s m ore and m orew aterw as in-

range.
corporated in the em ulsion,it gradually

T he fraction thatw entinto solution in
tion w as the difficulty of rearranging
the
changed from w aterdropletsem ulsifiedin

sea w aterw as generallyconsidered sm all.
bargesand boom s as w inds and currents
oilto oildropletsem ulsified in w ater.O w -

Itseem slikely thatless than 100ppm w as
changed.T his caused partof the oil to
ing to their surface stickiness, the oil

actually dissolved and thereforethe total
driftpasteach side ofthe boom configura-
tions.A nd finally,the oil-collectingequip-
droplets accum ulated particles from the

am ountis insignificantin this context.
w ater and thus gradually increased in

A gain takingdata in the literatureas a
m entused broke dow n on a num berof
density.M icro-organism sattached them -

basis,itis thoughtthatbiologicaldegrada-
occasions.
selves to the dropletsand zooplanktonfil-

tion, together w ith photochem ical and
In order to protectthe lagoons from
ter-feeders consum ed both the droplets

chem ical breakdow n during the acute
being contam inatedby oil, boom s w ere
and the m icroorganism s,incorporating

phaseofthe spill,w ould accountfor 10-15
placed acrossm ostof the inletsalong the
the oil residues in faecalpellets thatin-

percentof the oil.
coast.B ecauseofthe w ay the boom sw ere
creased the sinkingrate of the oil.A s the

T he oil on M exican beaches thatthe
deployed, how ever, they w ere seldom
droplets increased in density, they gra-

authorsobserved in early Septem berw as
effective (Figure 5). Frequently the cur-
dually sank through the w ater colum n.In

calculated to be about6000 m etric tons.
rentpassingthroughthe inlets eitherrup-
the G ulfofM exico thereis a stratification

M ostofithad landed duringthe preceding
tured the boom sor pressed them underor
in the w aterm assdue to tem peratureand/

four or five days.B ased on reportsfrom
over the w ater.A s a boom is norm allyan
or salinity. T his stratification is partly

variousgroupsand individuals,five tim es
effective barrieronly atvelocities below
caused by the influx of fresh w ater via

thatfigure is thoughtto representa fair
0.7 knotsatrightanglesto the boom skirt,
riversand lagoons.T here are indications

estim ate of w hathad landed on M exican
the only w ay to use boom sin m ostof the
thatpartsofthe Ixtoc Ioilsank in droplets

beaches.
inlets w ould have been as deflectors
through the less dense surfacew ater and

Investigations along the T exas coast
placed at a com parativelynarrow angle
tem porarilyaccum ulated and floated on

show thatapproxim ately4000 m etrictons
againstthedriftingdirection.A nd the con-
the strataw ith higherdensity.E ventually

of oilor less than 1 percentw as deposited
fined oil w ould have needed to be re-
the oil increased in density and sank

there(4).T he restofthe oil,about120000
covered using pum psor skim m ers,w ith-
through the denser w ater strata.If the

m etrictons or 25 percent,sank to the bot-
outtoo m uch delay.T hisw as notdone.
stratificationw as broken up due to w ave

tom ofthe G ulf.
O n
June
9
large-scale dispersant
action orchangesin tem perature,oilfloat-
spraying com m enced using specialized
ing on the sub-surfacelayer could again
fixed-w ingaircraft.T he dispersantsw ere
reach the surface.
T H E C L E A N -U P
initially sprayed in a zone 10 to 25 m iles
W hen it reached a beach, the oil w as
off the coast, but later, during the fall,
eitherdeposited there,or m adeto sink in

Ixtocarea
dispersantsw erealso sprayedclose to the
the shallow w ater,w eighed dow n by the

O perationsto com batthe oil w ithin the
beaches,near the m outhsof the lagunas,
particulatem atterin the zone w here the

Ixtoc I area w ere conducted from several
and aroundthe w ellsite.From late O cto-
w aves broke.T he oil on the beach w as

auxiliary ships and barges.For confine-
ber dispersantspraying from boats gra-
exposed to sunlightthatraised its tem per-

m ent of the oil, high sea boom s w ere
duallyreplaced sprayingfrom aeroplanes.
ature and intensified w eathering. It

anchoredin fixed positionsattachedto the
T he exactquantityof dispersantused in
form ed tarlike balls or cakes w ith little

barges(Figure4).For recovery of the oil,
the clean-up is not know n. H ow ever,
stickiness.
skim m ers and absorbentdevices w ere

according to inform ation received by
used (see Figure4).
PE M E X (3), at least 9000 m etric tons
T he recovery operationsstarted in the

w ere used. O f this, atleast 6750 m etric
FA T EO F T H E O IL
late partof June and w ere cancelled in

tons w ere C orexit products (5). T his
From the startof the blow -outon June 3,
1979,to the finalcapping on M arch 23,
1980,a totalof about475000 m etrictons
of oilw as lost(1).V ariousattem ptsw ere
T able 2. Fate of the Ixtoc I oil during the acute
m adeto stop the blow -out,and they grad-
phase.
ually reduced the flow -rate of oil (T able
1).
B ased on data from the Ixtoc I case,
analogiesw ith other oil spills and data in
the literature,an attem pthas been m ade
to estim atethe fate of the oilfrom Ixtoc I
(T able 2). T he em ulsification brought
dow n the am ountof oilthatw as burnedat
the w ell site. T he authorsestim ate that
only a very sm allfraction ofthe oil,prob-
ably less than 1 percent,w as actuallydis-
posed of w hen the gas w as burned atthe
302
Percent
M etric
T ons
T able 1. O ilreleased from Ixtoc I.
Period
D aily
loss
(m etric
tons)
3 June-12 A ugust
4 400
1 500
13A ugust-15 N ovem ber
16 N ovem ber-30 N ovem ber 600
1 D ecem ber-5 M arch
300
6 M arch-14 M arch
60
SO U R C E :R eference2.
T otal
accum u-
lated
loss
300 000
438 000
447 000
475 500
476 000
B urnedatw ellsite
M echanicallyrem oved at
w ell site
E vaporatedto the atm os-
phere
D egraded biologically and
(photo)chem ically
L anded on M exican beaches
L anded on T exas beaches
Sank to the bottom
5 000
23 000
50
238 000
12
< 1
25
57 000
29 000
4 000
120000
SO U R C E :
R ef.2.
t~~
~~~~~
''I
Figure5.A ttem pts to preventthe oilfrom entering the lagunas using boom s
often failed because of strong currents.
m eans thatthe use of dispersantduring
the Ixtoc Iblow -outw as one ofthe largest
in history.
A bout 30000 m etric tons, or about6
percentof the oilfrom Ixtoc I, landed on
the M exican beaches of the G ulf(7).N o
clean-up atallw as carried outover large
areas.H ere, the oil w as left for natural
degradation.H ow ever in som e areas a
type of clean-up techniquew as used that
involved covering the contam inatedsand
w ith clean sand;bulldozersdug a trench
som e 1.0 to 1.5 m etersdeep and the oily
sand w as then shovelled into the trench
and buried.
E FFO R T S
T O ST O P T H E FL O W O F O IL
In late June,aboutthree w eeks after the
Ixtoc I blow -out,an unsuccessfulcapping
attem ptw asm ade.T he so-called blow -out
preventer,w hich consists of valves situ-
ated on the w ell pipe over the sea floor,
w as closed. T he valves w ere situated
under the rupturedpartof the pipe and
had notbeen dam aged by the blow -out.
H ow ever, the capping failed due to the
high pressurein the w ell,w hich caused oil
and gas to leak outside the w ell casing
below the blow -outpreventer.
Several attem pts w ere m ade to de-
crease the flow of oilfrom the w ellusing
largenum bersofsteeland lead ballsw ith
A M B IO ,
1981
a w eightof 1-2 kilogram seach.T he balls

cem ber. H ow ever, it w as necessary to
w ereforced into the w ellhead butthe high

com plete the other reliefw ell before the
pressureof the leakingoiland gas ejected

pressure w as relieved. T he Ixtoc IA
them .H ow ever,using this m ethod a sub-

reached the Ixtoc I form ation in the
stantialreduction of the oil and gas flow

second w eek of February.O n M arch 23
w as obtained in the m iddle of A ugust

the pressureof the m ud thatw as pum ped
w hen the flow rate decreased from 10000

through the relief w ells and into the
m etrictons per day to about4000 m etric

form ation finally reduced the flow of oil
tons per day,accordingto PE M E X (4).
and gas to zero through the Ixtoc I w ell
N ext a funnel-shapedoil collection de-

head.A fter this w as done, the w ell w as
vice a "som brero",w as placed over the

sealed w ith severalcem entplugs.
w ellin anotherattem ptto reducethe flow
of oil. T he Som brerow eighed about310
tons in the air,w as 12 m etersw ide and 6

E X PO SE DO
R T H R E A T E N E D
m eters high. It w as positioned w ith its

E C O SY ST E M S
w ide end dow n above the w ellhead in the
m iddle of O ctober.T he oil and gas con-

O ffshore
tained under it w as pum ped through a

T he continentalshelf,extendingfrom the
flexible hose at the top to a platform .

w ide C am peche B ank in the east to the
H ow ever due to logistic problem satthe

narrow erbutlongershelfin the w estand
platform ,only a m inorpartof the oilthat

north,is flatand covered by fairlyuniform
could be recovered via the Som brerow as

sedim ents.T hese bottom areasform high-
actually disposed of. In the early partof

ly favorableenvironm entsfordiversespe-
D ecem berrough seas dam aged thedevice

cies of dem ersalfish, shrim ps,m olluscs,
and itw as rem oved from the w ellsite.
crabsand otherinvertebrates.
T he m easure that finally capped the

L ittlestudy hasbeen devoted to the fish
w ellon M arch23 w asthe pum pingofm ud

populationsbut it is believed thatthey
into the reliefw ells Ixtoc IA and IB .T he

have a com m ercialpotential(biom ass> 8
drillingof these reliefw ells w as started in

kg/hectare).H ow ever,atpresentthey are
the m iddleof Juneand the m iddleof July

notbeing exploited to a very greatextent.
respectively. T he first to be com pleted

T he shrim p populations on the con-
w asthe Ixtoc IB .A link betw een the relief

tinentalshelf are large and com m ercially
w ell and Ixtoc I w as established in D e-

very im portant,especially on the C am -
303
Figure 6. T he crab populations
along several hundred km s of
coastline w ere alm ost totally
w iped out by the lxtoc I oil.
peche B ank and in the area of T am pico.
T he three m ajor species are the pink
shrim p, Penaeus
duorarum ,
the w hite
shrim p,Penaeus setiferus, and the brow n
shrim p,Penaeus aztecus.
T he total biom ass of shrim p on the
C am peche B ank w as m easured in one
area near the Ixtoc I w ell atabout4 kg/
hectare. O f this, the w hite and pink
shrim pcom prisedapproxim ately37.5per-
centeach,w hile the pink shrim pm adeup
the rem aining25pecent,though in fishery
statisticsthe latteraccountfor 80-90 per-
centofthe catch on the bank.Since 1964,
the actualcatch has been close to 15000
m etrictons per year.
L ess is know n aboutthe shrim p stocks
in the area of T am pico,butthe present
catch (1979/80)has been roughly calcu-
lated by Pesca,the M exican D epartm ent
of Fisheries,at6000 m etrictons per year.
H erethe m ainspeciesis Penaeus aztecus.
T he pelagicecology ofthe G ulfof M ex-
ico is m arkedby high prim aryproductiv-
ity caused by nutrientinputfrom a num -
ber of largeriversdischargingintoit,and
by upw ellingthatoccurs in a num berof
places.Prim aryproduction
nearV eracruz
hasbeen m easured atas high as 5 g C /M 2/
day.Pelagicfish stocks are thoughtto be
considerable, although only a few are
fished com m ercially:bonito, m ackerel,
sardineand otherclupeids.
C oastalC oral R eefs
T herearetw o clustersofcoralreefsalong
the w estern G ulfof M exico,one situated
north and eastof T uxpan,and the other
eastof V eracruz.T he T uxpan reefs form
the m ostnortherlycluster of reefs in the
w estern partof the G ulfand are situated
som e 10-20 km from the coast.
T heT uxpanreefsgenerallyhavea sem i-
lunarshape,w ith their m ajoraxes orien-
tated north-south. M axim um develop-
m entof the reefs occurs in the south-east
sections,suggestinga strong influenceby
Figure 7. L arge and

frequent
plankton bloom s occurredafterthe
blow outboth off-shore and close
to the beaches.
**,.
304
the dom inantcurrentsfrom the south-east

poorly sorted calcareous sedim ents and
about1800 km 2 and tw o openingsto the
by
sea. B row n and w hite shrim p from the
and by the periodic destructivecyclones

shells.T hey arefrequentlyinterrupted
from the north. T he reefs rise from a

rocky headlandsand are m uch narrow er
C am pecheB ank spend the early partof
depth ofsom e 25 m to notm orethan 1.5 m

than the barrierbeaches.Prom inentsand
theirlife cycle in thislagoon andjuveniles
and som e have sandy bays rising above

dunesare also absent.T he fauna of these
are fished com m ercially.T here are large
populationsofthe oyster,C rassostreavir-
the w ater level. T he average tides are

beachesis also poorly developed.
approxim ately0.5 m and the m axim um

H um an activity on the beaches varies
ginica and the clam ,R angia cuneata, and
1.0 m .T he V eracruzreefs have m ore or

w ith the natureof the beach and its prox-
both are exploited for com m ercialpur-
less the sam e configurationas those near

im ity to tow ns and fishing areas.A long
poses.Itis clearthatthe lagoon is ofgreat
T uxpan butoccur in tw o distinctbarrier

the w estern shore,the barrierbeachesare
im portanceto the shrim p stocks of the
form ationsaw ay from the coast:an inner

used extensively forrecreationnearm ajor
C am pecheB ank and has a high potential
populationcenters(eg V eracruz,T uxpan,

for furtherfishery developm ent.
and an outer.
T he structure of the reefs is roughly

T am pico). H ow ever, aw ay from these
T he L agunade T am iahuahasan areaof
sim ilarto thatfound throughoutthe trop-

centers, the beaches are generally de-
about700 km 2w ith one openingto the sea
icalA tlantic,and the com m unitiesassoci-

serted,exceptfor som e fishingactivity.
atits southernm ostpoint(B arrade V illar-
rea).ItharborsdensepopulationsofC ras-
ated w ith them are the sam e. E rnesto
sostrea virginica, of w hich, according to
C havez has described the com m unities
the Pesca authorities,25000-30000 m et-
occurring at L obos reef, located 65 km

R ockyshores
north-eastof T uxpan (6).U sually associ-

R ocky shoresare notvery com m on along
ric tons are harvested annually by 3000
ated w ith the reefs are seagrass beds

the G ulfof M exico and are found chiefly
oysterfisherm en.T hislagoon is the m ajor
w hich harborextrem ely rich and produc-

in the area south ofC am pechew herethey
producerof oysters in M exico and m ay
tive com m unities on the leew ard side,

are form ed from raised reefs and are ex-
also be its m ostproductive.In additionto
protected against the open sea. T hese

posed to the open sea.T hefaunaand flora
oysters, juvenile w hite shrim p and tw o
seagrassbeds,dom inatedby T halassiaor

ofthese rocky headlandsarenotvery rich
species ofM ugilarefished.
turtlegrass,actas nurseriesfor com m er-

because of the high solar heatburdens.
T he L aguna M adreis a large com plex
cially im portantspecies offish and crusta-

T hey are dom inatedby sm allgastropods
system of inlets, enclosed or sem i-en-
ceans. For exam ple, the pink shrim p

and encrusting algae. Subtidally,the di-
closed lagoons, tidalflats, m arshes and
islands. Its total area is estim ated at
(Penaeus
duorarum ), the
grass
shrim p
versity increasesgreatly.
approxim ately3200 km 2.Productivity is
(Palem ouetes
pugio),
the spiny lobster,
high and oysters and shrim pare fished by
the m ud crab (N eopanope

sp), and m ol-
m orethan a thousandfisherm en from vil-
luscs such as L ucina spp and C hione spp,

M angroves
M angroveforests occur along the coast

lages and tow ns scattered around the la-
aboundin thisarea.
from the tow n of C am pecheto north of

goon.B ird life in the L agunaM adreseem s
C elestun.T hey arecom prisedofthe com -

the m ostabundantof allthe lagoons,and
Sandybeaches
m on w estern
A tlantic species,
R hi-
severalw aterbirds(especially terns,gulls
T he G ulfofM exico hastw o characteristic

zophora m angle
(red), A vicennia
nitida
and the endangered brow n pelican)nest
types of sandy beaches. T he firsttype

(black), L aguncularia
racem osa (w hite)
and feed w ithin the system .
along the entirew estern shore,are gener-

and C onocarous
erectus
(button).
T he
ally long and w ide stretchesofbeach com -

m angrovescover a w ide zone inland from
posed of fine- to m edium -grainedsedi-

the w ater's edge (up to 30 km )and show
R ivers
m ents of m ixed calcareousorigin.T hese

the characteristic zonation pattern of
In additionto the L agunas,w hich tend to
are exposed to the open sea and are

these species. T here is very little hum an
be estuarine,thereare severalreasonably
poundedby heavy w aves.T herearew ide,

penetration into these m angrove forests
large riversthatdischargedirectly to the
active surfzonesand gently slopingsw ash

and thusitis suspected thatthe standsare
sea and have estuarine conditions near
zones. T he fauna of these sandy beaches

m ature and free from any destruction.
theirm ouths.
is fairly constantin species com position

A lthoughthe m angrove'sfauna could not
T he interrelationships betw een the
buthighly variablein num bers.T he char-

be carefullyobserved,itis safe to assum e
differentoffshoreand coastalecosystem s
acteristicspeciesis the beach clam D onax

thattheirprim aryand secondary produc-
are very im portant,as can be seen,espe-
that m akes its burrow above the sw ash

tivity is very high indeed and thatm igrat-
cially for freshw ater run-offand lagoon
zone butis active in both the sw ash and

ing fauna,such as shrim pand finfish,use
hydrology,nutrientcondition and produc-
surf zones, especially during the night.

itas feeding groundsfor partof their life
tivity in the L agunade T erm inos.Sim ilar-
ly, freshw aterrun-offdirectly by the riv-
O therspecies w ere presentduringthe in-

cycle.
ers and through the lagoons affects sur-
vestigationsbutonly D onax occurred in
face sea currentsand productivityin the
very
large
num bers
(approxim ately
C am peche area and plays an im portant
10000/M 2 near R io B ravo). It is w ell

C oastallagoons
know n thatthe K em p R idly turtle,w hich

T he entireM exican coastfrom C arm ento
role in determ iningshrim p (and possibly
m ay be on the vergeofextinction,hasone
R io B ravo is punctuatedby a num berof
som e fish)m igratorypatterns.In addition
ofitsfew rem ainingnestingsites alongthe

coastallagoonsof w hich the three largest
the dependence of the com m erciallyim -
barrierbeachatR anchoN uevo nearT am -

and m ost im portantare the L aguna de
portantbrow n and w hite shrim p,atdiffe-
pico. In 1979,approxim ately10000 baby

T erm inos (C arm en), the
L aguna de
rent stages of their life cycles, on the
turtles w ere rem oved from their nests

T am iahua(betw een T uxpanand T am pico)
m arine and lagoonal system s is w ell
nearthe high-tidem ark by conservation-

and the L agunaM adre(betw een T am pico
know n and dem onstratethe integratedna-
ists and transportedto the open sea to

and M atam oros).T hese lagoonsare char-
tureof these coastalecosystem s.
avoid the possibility of contam inationby

acterizedby tW o features:each hasone or
m ore corridorsto the sea through a nar-
oil.
O F T H E O IL
L
PA C T S
T he second m ajor sand beach type

row openingacrossthe barrierbeach,and
B IO L O G IC AIM
from
t
he Ixtoc I blow -
t
he
oi
l
In
general
,
few
a
(onl
y
shal
l
ow
i
s
rel
at
i
vel
y
each
occurs along shorter stretches of the
coastline,especially in the area betw een

m etersatm ost).In som e there are exten-
out acutely affected the species and
C iudad delC arm enand C am peche.H ere

sive intertidalm ud and sand flats and all
ecosystem s in the C am peche B ay area
throughits chem icaltoxicity (in the vicin-
the beachestend to be shorter,m orecus-

arebiologicallyvery productive.
T he L agunade T erm inoshas an areaof

ity of the w ell) and through its physical
pate, partly sheltered and com posed of
A M B IO , 1981
305
properties (stickiness) in a larger area
offshore and along the coast. T horough
studiesof the long-term biologicaleffects
of the spillhave either notbeen carried
outin M exican w aters,or the results of
such studies are notyet available.A re-
cently published studyofthe spill(8)does
notprovide any answ ersto this question
either.T hereforew e w illdiscuss som e of
the effects the spill could theoretically
have caused and give exam ples of direct
observationsof effects m ade by the au-
thorsin the field.
T he com m ercially im portantspecies
and ecosystem s affected by the chem ical
toxicity ofthe oilw ere m ainlythe offshore
shrim p and fish populations. Shrim p
spaw ning in C am peche B ay m ay have
been particularlyaffected.T he pink and
brow n
shrim ps (Penaeus
duorarum , P
aztecus)
have
im portant
spaw ning
grounds south and east of Ixtoc I. T he
the larvae,are
eggs,and m oreparticularly
know n to be sensitiveto petroleum hydro-
carbons.W hen w ind and currentpatterns
changed in O ctober,the oil slick m oved
south and south-east,thereby increasing
the threatto these stagesand possibly also
to juveniles and adults. L aboratory ex-
perim entsexposing larvae and adults of
other crustaceans,including shrim p,to
crude oil show that the acute toxicity
levels are in the rangeof0.1-10 ppm total
oil. If w e assum e that0.1 ppm w as the
acute toxic concentration (Ixtoc I oil is
particularlyrich in the highly toxic, low
boilingarom aticfraction);a m ixingdepth
of25 m ;a five-daypersistencyofthetoxic
oil fractionsin the w ater solution;and a
required concentration of 0.1 ppm to
cause dam age to shrim ps,as w ell as to
planktonor otherpelagicorganism s;then
an area of 15000 km 2can be regardedas
poisoned by the Ixtoc I oil. T his is equal
to 2.5 percentof the M exican partof the
G ulf.
T he am ountof oilthatreached the bot-
tom sedim entsof the G ulfis estim ated to
be ofthe orderof 120000 m etrictons (see
T able 2).O ffshore,this oilw as m ostly in
the form of sm all droplets, w ith larger
aggregatessom etim esform ingnearerthe
shore.T heaverageconcentration overthe
entireareaw ould have been below 1 g/m 2,
w hich is not considered high enough to
cause substantialdam age to the benthic
ecosystem .T he shrim ps'habitofburrow -
ing in sedim ents and consum ing them
could have resulted in the uptake of pet-
roleum hydrocarbonsand tainting of the
shrim ps.
T here w as a lot of concern aboutthe
dam agethe oilm ightcause to the ecology
of the shallow coastal lagoons. A s it
turned out how ever, very little oil w as
actually spread into the lagoons. It w as
prevented m ainlyby the w aterflow ingout
of them ;a flow thatw as increased by the
unusuallyheavy rainsduringthis particu-
larw inter.
Itis clear thatthe oilhad a drasticim -
306
pacton the littoralcrab and on the m ol-

affected the figuresfor landingsoffish in
lusc faunaofthe beachesw hich w ere con-

M exican harbors,and therefore conclu-
tam inated.T he populationsof crabs,eg

sive judgem entsbased on statisticsalone
the ghost crab O cypode quadrata, w ere

cannotbe m ade.T he actualextentof the
alm osttotally elim inatedover a w ide area

dam agecaused by the w orld'sbiggestoil
(Figure6). T he crab populationson cor-

spillhas yetto be determ ined.
al islands along the coast w ere also re-
duced to only a few percentof norm al
about nine m onths after the spill. T he
abundantbeachclam s (D onax)as w ellas

R eferences and N otes
otherm olluscsofthe sand beachesdid not

1.A ccording to Petroleos M exicanos (PE M E X ) offi-
cial daily flow rate estim ates, the total am ount of
exhibitany drasticm ortalityfollow ingthe
oil lost from Ixtoc I w as about476 000 m etric tons.
spill.
In severalplaces in the V eracruzarea,
such as on the coral island Isla V erde,
dense m atsof green algae w ere observed
covering hard substrates such as corals
and rock form ationsabout10m onthsafter
the blow -out.It seem s likely thatthese
effects w ere caused by repeated exposure
to the oil, but it is still questionable
w hetherthey resulted from effects on the
herbivores
(m ainly gastropods)
or
w hetherthe sensitivebalancebetw een the
algae and the coralpolypes had been dis-
rupted in som e w ay. In the off-shore re-
gion there have been indications of an
adverse im pacton the base of the m arine
food-chains. U nusually large plankton
bloom s have been observed in the con-
tam inated areas,possibly indicatingeut-
rophicationeffects or thatthe zoo-plank-
ton com m unitiesm ighthave been dam -
aged (Figure 7). T his w ould very likely
affectthe exploitablepopulationsof fish
and shellfish.
Such large plankton bloom s w ere
observed north and w est of T am pico in
Septem ber 1979 and w ere very frequent
on and around the C am pecheB ank in the
beginningof 1980.
Fishingw as banned or restrictedby the
M exican authoritiesin several severely
contam inated areas north and south of
T am picoin Septem ber.Fish and octopus
catchesreportedlydropped by 50-70 per-
centfrom the 1978 levels off PortM ans-
field and PortIsabel,T exas, and off the
M exican coastfrom the U S bordersouth
to L a Pesca (9).T he overallstatisticsfor
landingfiguresfor 1979and 1980indicate
thatno decreasein the am ountoffish and
shellfish landed in
M exican harbors
occurred,com pared to figures for 1979
(10). H ow ever the fishery statistics are
nota reliableindicatorof dam ageto the
fish populations.Shifts in landingplaces
by individualboats,w hich are im possible
to see in the statistics,m ay have drastic
effectson the landingfigures,and changes
in foreign nations' fishery concessions
w ould distortthe figureson totalcatches.
For exam ple, M exico excluded foreign
fishing over her shrim pfishinggroundsin
1979.A nother shortcom ing is that new
species, previously not included in the
statistics,m ay affectthe totalfigures.For
instance,octopus landingsw ere included
in the catch figuresforthe firsttim e in the
years follow ing the blow -out.T here are
indications that all these factors have
T he figures are quoted eg in O il Spill Intelligence
R eport, M arch 28, 1980. H ow ever, after the final
capping of the w ell, another figure (430 000 m etric
tons) w as released by PE M E X as the total am ount
of lost oil.
2. T his reportis based on the findings of a m ission to
M exico by the U nited N ations E nvironm ent Pro-
gram (U N E P)
w ith the co-operation
of FA O ,
IM C O and IU C N . T he m ission had the follow ing
com position: A Jernelov (M ission leader, U N E P),
R E ngdahl (IM C O ), 0
L ind6n (FA O ), C R ees
(U N E P) and B W ade (IU C N ). T he view s express-
ed in this report are not necessarily

shared by
U N E P or the other U N agencies, nor by any of the
governm ents involved.
3. Ing G arcia-L ara, Jefe de la oficina de Proteccion
A m biental, PE M E X , private com m unication.
4. E R G undlach, K J Finkelstein,
and J L Sadd.
Im pact and persistence of Ixtoc I oil on the south
T exas coast. In Proceedings of the 1981 O il Spill
C onference,
A m erican Petroleum
Institute,
W ashington D C , 1981,p 477-485.
5. Inform ation given by G L indblom in connection
w ith the presentation of his paper at the 1981 O il
Spill C onference in A tlanta, G eorgia, M arch 2-5,
1981.
6. D r E rnesto C havez, Jefe de D epartam ento de
E cologia, E scuela N acional de C iencias B iol6gi-
cas, Instituto Polit6cnico N acional, M exico C ity.
7. In early N ovem ber, a covering of oil betw een 15
and 30 cm deep w as reported from the w estern
shore of the Y ucatan from C iudad del C arm en to
Progresso. T he reportw as m ade by the U S C oast
G uard (O il Spill Intelligence R eport, N ovem ber
16, 1979).
8. Inform e de los trabajos realizados para el control
del Pozo Ixtoc I el com bate del derram e de pet-
roleo
i determ inasi6n
de
sus efectos
sobre el
am biente m arino. Program a C oordinado de E stu-
dios E cological a la Sonda de C am peche 1980.
9. O ilSpill Intelligence R eport, January 4, 1980.
10.D r C arranza-Frazer, D irector G eneral del Institu-
to N acional de Pesca, private com m unication.
O lofL inden,Ph D in Z oologicalE colo-
gy from the U niversity of Stockholm ,
is responsible for the m arine biology
and oil pollution research program s
at the Sw edish W ater and A ir Pollu-
tion R esearch Institute (IV L ).H e is
consultant to the
U nited N ations
agencies FA O and U N E P on environ-
m entalim pactof oiland heavy m etal
pollution.H is address: Sw edish W a-
ter and A ir Pollution R esearch Insti-
tute (IV L ),U tovagen 5,S-371 37 K arl-
skrona,Sw eden.
Professor A rne Jernelov w as born
in 1941 and received his Ph D atthe
U niversity of Stockholm in 1966.H e
cam e to the Sw edish W ater and A ir
Pollution R esearch Institute (IV L )in
1967, w here
he becam e its chief
biologist. For a couple of years he
w as a senior scientist at W H O in
C openhagen. In 1975 he returned to
IV L to becom e its director of re-
search. H is address: IV L ,B ox 21060,
S-100 31 Stockholm ,Sw eden.
________________________________________________________________________
MC-252 Incident
SIMOPS Plan
4/29/201 0
Final Issued for Use
Geir Karlsen
4/28/2010
Final Issued for Comments
Geir Karlsen
Rev
Date
Document Status
Houston Incident
Commander
Houston Incident
Commander
Custodian/Owner
Authority
Document
Control
Number
Organization
Sector ID
ID
2200
T2
Discipline ID
DO
Document
Class
PN
Sequence
Document
Number
Revision
4001
______________________________________________________________________________
AMENDMENT RECORD
Revision
Number
Amender
Initials
Date
Amendment
G. Karlsen
April 24, 201 0
Initial draft.
K. Mouton
April 25,201 0
Edits
G. Karlsen
April 27, 2010
Comments incorporated.
G. Karlsen
April 28, 201 0
Comments incorporated, issued for use.
Clarified and added comment to Section 1.3: Clarified section and
added comment Source Control SIMOPS Director covers an area
of appr. 1 ,000-m from site. Added Sections 6.9 on Aviation and
Section 6.1 0 on Helicopter Refueling. Added section 1 .8 (HazID of
operating in contaminated waters and added HazID documents.
Updated contact details and general cleanup of doc. Added doc.
number from Doc. Control.
G. Karlsen
April 29, 201 0
Removed 1 000-m radius circle from map Fig. 9 and updated with
debris field.
Title of Document: MC-252 Incident SIMOPS Plan

Authority:
Houston Incident Commander
Custodian/Owner:
Geir Karlsen
Retention Code:
ADM3000
Document Number:
Revision:
Issue Date:
Next Review Date
(if applicable):
Security
Project Confidential
Classification:
Warning: Check DW Docs revision to ensure you are using the correct revision.
2200-T2-DO-PN-4001
4/30/2010
N/A
Page:
Page 2 of 55
______________________________________________________________________________
Note: No need for USCG Houma Ops. to sign off as per conversation USCG Commander Mark Shepard
and Geir Karlsen on April 29, 201 0.

Authority:
Custodian/Owner:
Geir Karlsen
Retention Code:
ADM3000
Document Number:
Revision:
Issue Date:
Next Review Date
(if applicable):
Security
Classification:
2200-T2-DO-PN-4001
4/30/2010
N/A
Page:
Page 3 of 55
______________________________________________________________________________
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1
Introduction ............................................................................................................ 7
1.1
SIMOPS Plan Objectives................................................................................... 7
1.2
What Does Success Look Like?........................................................................ 7
1.3
The SIMOPS Team ........................................................................................... 8
1 .3.1
Onshore SIMOPS Director Responsibility.................................................. 9
1 .3.2
Offshore Spill Operations SIMOPS Branch Director Responsibility ........... 9
1 .3.3
Offshore Vessel Source Control SIMOPS Branch Director Responsibility . 9
1 .3.4
Vessel Representative (VPIC) .................................................................... 9
1 .3.5
SIMOPS Interface Team (Member) ......................................................... 1 0
1.4
Management of Change (MoC)....................................................................... 1 0
1.5
HazID Assessing Operations in a Contaminated Environment........................ 1 2
2 Field Communications and Emergencies........................................................... 13
2.1
Crisis Management ......................................................................................... 1 3
2.2
Severe Weather Contingency Plan ................................................................. 1 3
2.3
Emergency Evacuation Plan............................................................................ 1 3
2.4
Incident Notification ........................................................................................ 1 3
2.5
Daily SIMOPS Conference Call ....................................................................... 1 4
2.6
SIMOPS Communication Guideline ................................................................ 1 5
2.7
Field Communications .................................................................................... 1 6
Hailing Channels VHF 15 and VHF 1 6 ...................................................... 1 6
2.7.1
2.7.2
Radio........................................................................................................ 1 7
2.7.3
Emergency Communications................................................................... 1 7
3 Acoustic Frequency Management and Position Referencing........................... 18
3.1
Enabling and Disabling of Transponders and Responders .............................. 1 8
3.2
Safe Distance.................................................................................................. 1 8
3.3
Echo Sounder Turnoff ..................................................................................... 1 8
3.4
Acoustic Frequency Coordination ................................................................... 1 9
3.4.1
Coordination of Acoustic Activities .......................................................... 1 9
3.5
Acoustic Equipment Use Notifications............................................................ 1 9
3.5.1
Acoustic Field Operations ........................................................................ 1 9
3.6
Fan Beam........................................................................................................ 20
3.7
RADius Position Reference System................................................................ 21
4
SIMOPS Events .................................................................................................... 23
4.1
SIMOPS Events .............................................................................................. 23
4.2
Emergencies during SIMOPS Events ............................................................. 24
4.3
SIMOPS Approval ........................................................................................... 24
5 Dropped Objects Prevention ............................................................................... 25
5.1
Drilling Vessels................................................................................................ 25
5.2
Source Vessels and Marine Clean-up Vessels ................................................ 25

Authority:
Custodian/Owner:
Geir Karlsen
Retention Code:
ADM3000
Document Number:
Revision:
Issue Date:
Next Review Date
(if applicable):
Security
Classification:
2200-T2-DO-PN-4001
4/30/2010
N/A
Page:
Page 4 of 55
______________________________________________________________________________
6
Area Vessel Control and Aviation....................................................................... 26
6.1
Surface Conditions .......................................................................................... 26
6.1.1
Sheen and Plume..................................................................................... 26
6.1.2
Marine Debris .......................................................................................... 26
6.2
Vessel Arrival at MC-252 Incident ................................................................... 26
6.2.1
Arrival and Departure Procedures at MC-252 Incident............................. 26
6.3
6.3.1
Staging Area ............................................................................................ 27
6.3.2
Standby Area ........................................................................................... 28
6.4
Source Control Vessels ................................................................................... 28
6.5
Oil Spill Response Vessels.............................................................................. 28
6.6
Hailing Channels VHF 1 5 and VHF 1 6 ............................................................. 28
6.7
Working Channels ........................................................................................... 28
6.8
GoM 500-Meter Zone Practice........................................................................ 29
6.9
Aviation ........................................................................................................... 29
6.10
Helicopter Fueling ........................................................................................... 29
7
References ............................................................................................................ 48
7.1.1
BP ............................................................................................................ 48
7.1.2
Transocean (TOI)...................................................................................... 48
7.2
Other References ........................................................................................... 48
7.2.1
BP ............................................................................................................ 48
Appendix A:
Contact Details MC-252 Incident.................................................... 49
FIGURES
Figure 1 : SIMOPS Communications Plan ....................................................................... 8
Figure 2: MC-252 Incident SIMOPS MOC Process ....................................................... 1 1
Figure 3: Incident Notification Chart .............................................................................. 1 4
Figure 4: Vessel Arrival and Departure Procedures ...................................................... 27
Figure 5: MC-252 Incident Regional Chart With 20-nm Restricted Zone....................... 30
Figure 6: MC-252 Incident Marine Debris Map ............................................................. 32
Figure 7: Marine Debris and Discoverer Enterprise/DD III 500-m Exclusion Zones...... 34
Figure 8: 500-m Vessel Exclusion Zone Detailed Map .................................................. 36
Figure 9: Discoverer Enterprise and DD III Transponder Grids ...................................... 38
Figure 1 0: Field Frequency Management Plan HiPAP vs. Sonardyne Digital................. 40
Figure 11 : HazID Rig Exposure to Oil Sheen or Plume Rig Operations ......................... 42
Figure 12: HazID Rig Exposure to Oil Sheen or Plume Other Issues ............................ 44
Figure 13: HazID Log Rig Exposure to Oil Sheen or Plume........................................... 46

Authority:
Custodian/Owner:
Geir Karlsen
Retention Code:
ADM3000
Document Number:
Revision:
Issue Date:
Next Review Date
(if applicable):
Security
Classification:
2200-T2-DO-PN-4001
4/30/2010
N/A
Page:
Page 5 of 55
______________________________________________________________________________
TABLES
Table 1 : HazID Action Items......................................................................................... 1 2
Table 2: Conference Call Center.................................................................................... 1 5
Table 3: VHF and UHF Working Channels ..................................................................... 1 6
Table 4: Fan Beam Height ............................................................................................. 20
Table 5: Vessels using Position Reference Systems..................................................... 21
Table 6: MC-252 Acoustic Allocation Summary ............................................................ 22
Table 7: SIMOPS Preplanning General Checklist .......................................................... 23

Authority:
Custodian/Owner:
Geir Karlsen
Retention Code:
ADM3000
Document Number:
Revision:
Issue Date:
Next Review Date
(if applicable):
Security
Classification:
2200-T2-DO-PN-4001
4/30/2010
N/A
Page:
Page 6 of 55
______________________________________________________________________________
1
Introduction
1.1
SIMOPS Plan Objectives
The goal of the MC-252 Incident Simultaneous Operations (SIMOPS) Plan is safe and efficient execution
of the SIMOPS between all marine and aviation assets deployed in support of the spill and source control
operations. The majority of the assets are provided or sourced by:
Transocean Offshore Inc.
Development Driller III (DD III) semisubmersible
Discoverer Enterprise (DEN) drillship
BP Logistics and Aviation (PHI, Chouest, Tidewater, VIH Cougar, Graham Gulf)
Marine Spill Response Corp (MSRC)
National Response Corp (NRC)
Aker Marine
Subsea 7
Airborne Services Inc (ASI)
USCG
The plan seeks to:
Inform members of the unified command involved in SIMOPS for the MC-252 Incident of the principles
required for conducting simultaneous operations.
Identify the SIMOPS hierarchy for the major scopes of work between Spill Recovery, Well Control
operations and drilling of relief wells.
Outline high-level procedural steps complimented by the detailed processes, procedures and plans (3P)
issued by the respective groups. The 3Ps are issued and reviewed in conjunction with Hazard
Identification (HazID) assessments or planning meetings just prior to the SIMOPS event.
Concurrent operations onboard the assets described above are NOT covered or included in the SIMOPS
Plan unless these activities affect other MC-252 Incident operations.
1.2
What Does Success Look Like?
Success is defined as zero SIMOPS clashes, zero SIMOPS impact to schedules and zero SIMOPS
incidents. Getting to zero is only possible by strict discipline in the part of all stakeholders to adhere to
the elements of the plan.
Remember: Good SIMOPS is all in the communications.

Authority:
Custodian/Owner:
Geir Karlsen
Retention Code:
ADM3000
Document Number:
Revision:
Issue Date:
Next Review Date
(if applicable):
Security
Classification:
2200-T2-DO-PN-4001
4/30/2010
N/A
Page:
Page 7 of 55
______________________________________________________________________________
1.3
The SIMOPS Team
SIMOPS Director - Overall responsibility for coordinating the execution of SIMOPS events.
SIMOPS Director resides in Houston.
The
Offshore Spill Operations SIMOPS Branch Director - Overall responsibility for coordinating the
execution of Spill SIMOPS events. Position resides onboard Louisiana Responder.
Offshore Source Vessel Control SIMOPS Branch Director - Overall responsibility for coordinating the
execution of Source Vessel Control SIMOPS events. Position resides offshore onboard the DD III or the
Discoverer Enterprise. The Branch Director generally controls the areas inside the rigs 500-m zone and
an area of appr. 1 ,000-m from the Macondo site. See Figure 8, page 35.
BP Logistics - Overall responsibility for providing air support to the project. Group resides in Houston.
Offshore Spill Operations Air command - Overall responsibility for coordinating and scheduling all
aircrafts including fixed wing, crew change helicopters, dispersant deployments, over flights, recons and
spotter planes. Position resides in Houma.
Vessel Person in Charge (VPIC) Is the BP Vessel Rep. onboard. Can also be the OIM or the Well Site
Leader. The VPIC is responsible for all Health, Safety, Security and Spill (HSSE) incidents. All incidents
will be reported using the Notification scheme contained within the plan.
Note: Any person involved in a SIMOPS event has the authority and obligation to discontinue
and shut down the SIMOPS event in the case of safety or operational concerns.
Figure 1: SIMOPS Communications Plan
SIMOPS events will be coordinated through daily SIMOPS call as per Section 2.5, page 1 4.

Authority:
Custodian/Owner:
Geir Karlsen
Retention Code:
ADM3000
Document Number:
Revision:
Issue Date:
Next Review Date
(if applicable):
Security
Classification:
2200-T2-DO-PN-4001
4/30/2010
N/A
Page:
Page 8 of 55
______________________________________________________________________________
1.3.1
Onshore SIMOPS Director Responsibility
Chair the daily SIMOPS call (see Section 2.5, page 1 4).
Be the overall coordinator of SIMOPS activities at MC-252 Incident.
Ensure SIMOPS events comply with HSSE guidelines.
Identify need of SIMOPS HazIDs and SIMOPS reviews prior to a SIMOPS event.
Assess potential schedule impact and associated risks from upcoming SIMOPS events.
Liaison with leadership team on SIMOPS issues, scheduling and technical conflicts.
Identify critical path and determine which operation has priority.
Assess risks of single and multiple operations and SIMOPS events.
Facilitate resolutions of any SIMOPS conflicts with the teams.
Coordinate SIMOPS issues between the Discoverer Enterprise, DD III, Marine Activities and
Aviation.
1.3.2
Offshore Spill Operations SIMOPS Branch Director Responsibility
Be the overall coordinator of the execution of SIMOPS activities in the spill clean up
operation.
Direct vessels as per the daily operating plan.
Identify resource needs.
Liaison with the vessels in the cleanup fleet.
Ensure spill cleanup SIMOPS events comply with HSSE guidelines.
Assess potential schedule impact and associated risks and convey to the SIMOPS Director.
Work with vessel Captain on all SIMOPS and HSSE.
1.3.3
Offshore Vessel Source Control SIMOPS Branch Director Responsibility
Be the overall coordinator of the execution of SIMOPS activities in the fleet of source
vessels.
Area of responsibility is in the Macondo well area and the debris field out to appr. 1,000-m
from site.
Liaison with the source vessels.
Ensure vessel activities comply with HSSE guidelines.
1.3.4
Vessel Representative (VPIC)
Source control vessels and possibly some of the spill cleanup vessels will have a vessel rep. onboard.
The vessel rep. responsibility is to:
Implement specific programs concerning ROV, salvage, search and clean-up.
Ensure HSSE and safety guidelines are followed onboard the vessel and in vessel ops.
Provide guidance for the specific operation.
Comply with operating procedures and applicable MC-252 Incident SIMOPS requirements.
Work with vessel OIM or Captain on SIMOPS issues.
Call-in on the daily SIMOPS call.

Authority:
Custodian/Owner:
Geir Karlsen
Retention Code:
ADM3000
Document Number:
Revision:
Issue Date:
Next Review Date
(if applicable):
Security
Classification:
2200-T2-DO-PN-4001
4/30/2010
N/A
Page:
Page 9 of 55
______________________________________________________________________________
1.3.5
SIMOPS Interface Team (Member)
Assigned for each area of operations, such as well operations, ROV operations, spill clean-up, AUV and
2D Seismic surveying, Salvage and Recovery operations. The position resides onshore. Responsibilities
are:
Implement specific installation and construction programs.
Arrange SIMOPS review meetings and HazIDs.
Establish communication plan between their SIMOPS supervisory personnel.
Assist the MC-252 Incident SIMOPS Director in implementing the MC-252 Incident SIMOPS
Plan.
Provide progress report to the MC-252 SIMOPS Director.
1.4
Management of Change (MoC)
The MoC process is used in conjunction with changes to procedures and the SIMOPS schedule.
Temporary and permanent changes are managed to ensure that health, safety, and spill risks remain at
acceptable levels. The plan intends to exceed BPs Operations Management system (OMS),
expectations, regulatory requirements and local needs.
Figure 2, page 1 1 shows the SIMOPS MoC procedure for changes in the MC-252 Incident program.
The GoM MoC process uses BizFlow found at the BP Intranet site:
http://gomdnc.bpweb.bp.com/bam/RP/Wiki%20Pages/Management%20of%20Change.aspx

Authority:
Custodian/Owner:
Geir Karlsen
Retention Code:
ADM3000
Document Number:
Revision:
Issue Date:
Next Review Date
(if applicable):
Security
Classification:
2200-T2-DO-PN-4001
4/30/2010
N/A
Page:
Page 1 0 of 55
______________________________________________________________________________
Figure 2: MC-252 Incident SIMOPS MOC Process

Authority:
Custodian/Owner:
Geir Karlsen
Retention Code:
ADM3000
Document Number:
Revision:
Issue Date:
Next Review Date
(if applicable):
Security
Classification:
2200-T2-DO-PN-4001
4/30/2010
N/A
Page:
Page 1 1 of 55
______________________________________________________________________________
1.5
HazID Assessing Operations in a Contaminated Environment
A HazID was held April 28, 201 0 to assess the risks of the Discoverer Enterprise and the DD III being
exposed to hydrocarbons either from a sheen or from a plume of oil. The HazID followed Trans Oceans
internal HazID the previous day.
There were no show stoppers identified during either HazID. The Operation Teams of the Discoverer
Enterprise and the DD III were tasked with the assembly of an emergency disconnect plan should the
direction of the plume change towards the rigs or should there be a catastrophic change to the volume of
released hydrocarbons.
The HazID action items are found in Table 1 below.
Table 1: HazID Action Items
Activity
Responsible
Person
Action
Develop a decision matrix for various scenarios
1
Rig Operations
of increased oil flow that could impact the drill
rig.
George Gray
Include in IAP that source control immediately
communicates any flow changes to the
SIMOPS Director
Troy Endicott
Prior to ops.
Develop a model to predict plume location
based on subsea currents. Consider the
impact of rapidly increasing flow rate.
Troy Endicott
Determine the location and density of oil/water
Troy Endicott
emulsion /mousse floating below the surface.
Convey IMT air monitoring and safety plan to
Joe Neumeyer
the vessels.
6
Other Operations
Send 500 meter zone to branch directors.
Troy Endicott
4
Due Date
Communicate to the IMT the drill rigs request
to maintain a minimum of one mile distance for
dispersant application or in situ burning.
Troy Endicott
Prior to ops.
Prior to ops.
Prior to ops.
The risk ranking and HazID results are found in Figure 1 1 , page 41 , Figure 12, page 43 and Figure 1 3,
page 45.

Authority:
Custodian/Owner:
Geir Karlsen
Retention Code:
ADM3000
Document Number:
Revision:
Issue Date:
Next Review Date
(if applicable):
Security
Classification:
2200-T2-DO-PN-4001
4/30/2010
N/A
Page:
Page 1 2 of 55
______________________________________________________________________________
2
Field Communications and Emergencies
2.1
Crisis Management
The Gulf of Mexico Deepwater Development (GoM DWD) Emergency Response Plan Guidelines are
initiated should any emergency occur during a SIMOPS event. The SIMOPS event will be terminated or
postponed until the emergency is cleared.
Any emergency onboard the Discoverer Enterprise, the DD III or associated vessels will be reported
immediately to the other vessels and the Offshore SIMOPS Branch Director to ensure necessary
precautions can be taken.
2.2
Severe Weather Contingency Plan
See GoM IMS Vol. III Severe Weather Contingency Plan (see References in Section 7, page 48).
The Crisis Center at WL-4 handles the management of severe weather planning and field evacuation
guidance.
2.3
Emergency Evacuation Plan
See GoM DWD Emergency Evacuation Plan (see References in Section 7, page 48).
2.4
Incident Notification
The Incident Notification Chart shown in Figure 3, page 1 4 is the main routing of incident notifications on
the project.
It is recognized, however, that the MC-252 Incident operation is complex and that there is a possibility of
incidents being reported through different channels.

Authority:
Custodian/Owner:
Geir Karlsen
Retention Code:
ADM3000
Document Number:
Revision:
Issue Date:
Next Review Date
(if applicable):
Security
Classification:
2200-T2-DO-PN-4001
4/30/2010
N/A
Page:
Page 1 3 of 55
______________________________________________________________________________
Figure 3: Incident Notification Chart
2.5
Daily SIMOPS Conference Call
The SIMOPS Director chairs the daily SIMOPS conference call.
The following calls in to the SIMOPS call:
1.
Each MC-252 Incident ROV and construction vessel
2.
The lead spill clean-up vessel.
3.
Houma IC.
4.
Houston IC.
5.
Discoverer Enterprise and DD III OIM and Well Site Leader (WSL) or designees.
6.
BP vessel rep. and PIC on vessel(s) performing SIMOPS in the MC-252 Incident field.
7.
Impact Weather and Horizon Marine (only if met-ocean conditions dictate).
8.
Shore-based personnel as required

Authority:
Custodian/Owner:
Geir Karlsen
Retention Code:
ADM3000
Document Number:
Revision:
Issue Date:
Next Review Date
(if applicable):
Security
Classification:
2200-T2-DO-PN-4001
4/30/2010
N/A
Page:
Page 1 4 of 55
______________________________________________________________________________
Work boats and fast boats are not required to participate.
The purpose of the daily SIMOPS conference call is to:
Provide daily SIMOPS support to all MC-252 Incident groups.
Get the latest met-ocean updates (Impact Weather and Horizon Marine to participate on an as-
needed-basis).
Ensure all activity centers are fully aware of ongoing and upcoming field activities and SIMOPS
events.
Review SIMOPS schedule issues.
Ensure activities from outside operators (such as pipe-lay and seismic operations) are flagged.
Review VHF and acoustics communication needs and clashing issues.
Ensure the SIMOPS events are planned and executed according to the program with no impact to
HSSE and minimum impact to other operations.
Table 2 below shows the details of the conference call center.
Participants call the Toll-free or the Toll numbers and then the Pass-code to get into the conference call.
Table 2: Conference Call Center
Dial-In Numbers
and Pass Codes
Toll-Free number from inside USA:
1 -866-634-1 11 0
Participant pass code:
925-727-01 45
Each operation issues a daily SIMOPS report to the SIMOPS Director that is reviewed prior to the
SIMOPS call. The report is a short synopsis of last 24-hours and the coming 24-hours utilizing Incident
Action Plan (IAP).
The SIMOPS call agenda is:
Met-ocean update (wind, waves and currents).
Sheen, plume and marine debris update.
Vessel Summary
Discoverer Enterprise Current operations, SIMOPS events, next activity, special issues, Q&A.
DD III Current operations, SIMOPS events, next activity, special issues, Q&A.
ROV vessels Current operations, special issues, Q&A.
Construction and intervention vessels Current operations, SIMOPS events, next activity,
special issues, Q&A.
Barge and tugs Update on current operations and next 24-hrs.
Spill clean-up vessels Area of operation, sheen and plume update.
SIMOPS issues, communications and VHF use, scheduling, conflicts and concerns.
2.6
SIMOPS Communication Guideline
Well-planned and established communications are keys to the successful execution of the MC-252
Incident SIMOPS. The SIMOPS Branch Directors must communicate with the respective Vessel Reps. /
OIMs / Captains prior to the start of any SIMOPS activity and during the SIMOPS event as conditions
require.

Authority:
Custodian/Owner:
Geir Karlsen
Retention Code:
ADM3000
Document Number:
Revision:
Issue Date:
Next Review Date
(if applicable):
Security
Classification:
2200-T2-DO-PN-4001
4/30/2010
N/A
Page:
Page 1 5 of 55
______________________________________________________________________________
2.7
Field Communications
2.7.1
Hailing Channels VHF 15 and VHF 16
Vessels approaching the field will use Channels 15 or channel 16 to call up the Discoverer
Enterprise or the DD III Bridge. Channel selection, following the initial hailing is agreed upon
with the respective installation.
Channel 1 5 and channel 16 are always monitored by the Discoverer Enterprise and the DD III.
See Table 3, page 1 6.
Once the appropriate MC-252 Incident facility (Discoverer Enterprise or DD III) is hailed, the
channel is switched to an agreed frequency as per Table 3. The table is a guideline and lists the
agreed MC-252 Incident VHF channels. It is anticipated that radio noise and high usage may
require selection of other channels at times.
The fleet of Source Control and Oil Spill Response vessels will work through the Onshore
SIMOPS Director to establish field radio procedures and agree on channel selections.
Radio use and frequency selection will be part of the daily SIMOPS call.
Table 3 below shows the VHF hailing and the working channels for the MC-252 Incident field.
Table 3: VHF and UHF Working Channels
Location
Discoverer
Enterprise
Discoverer
Enterprise ROV
DD III
DD III
ROV
Hailing general
16
16
NA
Bridge to Bridge
15
13
Bridge to boat
10, 11, 12
13
Port crane
10, 11, 12
67
Starboard crane
10, 11, 12
68
Crane to boat
10, 11, 12
Port: 67, Stb. 68
Bulk and liq.
Transfer
8, 15
72, 88
ROV
Discoverer
Enterprise Bridge
to maintenance
Spare channels
No radio
64
NA
NA
6, 69, 71, 73
UHF
2, 5, 9
Helicopter
123.05
Notes:
72, 88
NA
6, 69, 71, 73
3, 6, 9, 13
122.700
3, 6, 9,
13
Source control vessels and environmental cleanup vessels are
hailed on ch. 15 and ch. 16
Updated April 27, 2010

Authority:
Custodian/Owner:
Geir Karlsen
Retention Code:
ADM3000
Document Number:
Revision:
Issue Date:
Next Review Date
(if applicable):
Security
Classification:
2200-T2-DO-PN-4001
4/30/2010
N/A
Page:
Page 1 6 of 55
______________________________________________________________________________
2.7.2
Radio
Vessels and aircraft, under contract to BP, are equipped with BP radios in addition to the
contractors communication equipment.
Operators of vessels involved in SIMOPS activities must agree upon primary and secondary radio
communication frequencies prior to the start of any SIMOPS activity.
Note: Conduct radio check and confirm operability prior to start of any SIMOPS event.
2.7.3
Emergency Communications
For emergency response communication procedures and contact information, reference the
GoM DWD Emergency Response Plan (see Section 7, page 48).

Authority:
Custodian/Owner:
Geir Karlsen
Retention Code:
ADM3000
Document Number:
Revision:
Issue Date:
Next Review Date
(if applicable):
Security
Classification:
2200-T2-DO-PN-4001
4/30/2010
N/A
Page:
Page 1 7 of 55
______________________________________________________________________________
3
Acoustic Frequency Management and Position Referencing
The Acoustic Frequency Management Plan is summarized in Table 6, page 22 and in Figure 1 0, page 39.
Please note the following:
1.
Horizon DP array transponders have been recovered and are not featured in the plan.
2.
It is essential that all vessels with dual head HiPAP systems configure the system to
track all transponders from a single head (all transponders tracked from the same head).
3.1
Enabling and Disabling of Transponders and Responders
The Dynamic Positioning Operator (DPO) onboard the Discoverer Enterprise and the DD III are
responsible for the management and safe use of the acoustic frequencies at MC-252 Incident.
No acoustics will be turned on or off without the concurrence of the DPO onboard the Discoverer
Enterprise and the DD III.
The Discoverer Enterprise and the DD III DPO will manage the acoustics in the MC-
252 Incident field. There will be no enabling or disabling of acoustic channels
without the DPOs concurrence.
Warning:
Do not change allocated channels without the concurrence of the Discoverer
Enterprise and the DD III DPO. The main requirement of the Acoustic Management
Plan is to prevent frequency clashing and risk interference or loss of acoustic
position referencing for the Discoverer Enterprise and the DD III.
Note that any noise issues degrading the acoustic position reference system MUST be reported to the
OIM and the Well Site Leader. Under no circumstances should the acoustic system be disabled because
of degraded signal to noise ratio. Disabling the acoustic system would bring the rig from a DP Class II to
a DP Class I DP operation. Note: TOI approval contingent on: acoustic system may be taken out of solution
if degraded.
3.2
Safe Distance
The Frequency Management Plan assumes there is no safe distance where acoustics will not interfere,
especially with the short distance between vessels. The plan produced a set of compatible channel
allocations and guidelines that will allow each vessel to operate freely without concern as to the effect on
other vessels nearby.
3.3
Echo Sounder Turnoff
Any vessels entering the MC-252 Incident area must turn off the echo sounders within 5-nm of arriving in
the MC-252 Incident field. This is to ensure echo sounders do not create noise in the water column and

Authority:
Custodian/Owner:
Geir Karlsen
Retention Code:
ADM3000
Document Number:
Revision:
Issue Date:
Next Review Date
(if applicable):
Security
Classification:
2200-T2-DO-PN-4001
4/30/2010
N/A
Page:
Page 1 8 of 55
______________________________________________________________________________
interfere acoustically with any of the vessels using acoustic communications. Do not turn on echo
sounders until the vessel is outside this 5-nm limit.
Compliance with the echo sounder turnoff while in the MC-252 Incident field is
Caution:
mandatory.
It is the responsibility of each MC-252 Incident group contracting vessels, the Logistics Group and the
Fourchon Base to notify and inform the MC-252 Incident vessels of the Echo Sounder turnoff
requirements.
3.4
Acoustic Frequency Coordination
3.4.1
Coordination of Acoustic Activities
All information, regarding the coordination of the MC-252 Incident Acoustic Frequency
Management Plan, is directed to the respective rigs Team Leader.
Jonathan Davis with BP, Dave Ross with UTEC Survey, together with Kongsberg and Sonardyne,
will assist in troubleshooting frequency clashes and interferences (see phone list for contact
details).
3.5
Acoustic Equipment Use Notifications
Source vessels will work in close proximity to the Discoverer Enterprise and the DD III. These vessels
must follow the Frequency Management Plan and the acoustic guidelines before enabling acoustic
equipment.
3.5.1
Acoustic Field Operations
For acoustic operations at MC-252 Incident, vessels will inform the DEN and the DD III Bridge of
arrival in the field. The following must take place prior to commencement of acoustic operations:
Confirm field arrival and departure.
Confirm all frequencies in use by the Discoverer Enterprise and the DD III as per Table 6,
page 22.
Confirm pre-approved acoustic channel allocations for the upcoming operation.
Advise the Discoverer Enterprise and DD III of minimum proximity requirements between
vessels.
Advise the Discoverer Enterprise and DD III DPO when channels are enabled and disabled.
Advise the Discoverer Enterprise and DD III DPO of source vessel channel selections.
Be prepared to immediately disable acoustic channels in case of degradation of the
Discoverer Enterprise and the DD III acoustic position reference systems.
Discoverer Enterprise and DD III to advise vessel of any acoustic position reference system
response and degradation from the added acoustics in the water column.

Authority:
Custodian/Owner:
Geir Karlsen
Retention Code:
ADM3000
Document Number:
Revision:
Issue Date:
Next Review Date
(if applicable):
Security
Classification:
2200-T2-DO-PN-4001
4/30/2010
N/A
Page:
Page 1 9 of 55
______________________________________________________________________________
No vessel shall deploy transponders without first contacting the DEN and the
DD III DPO and receiving confirmation as to channels in use. The DEN and the
Caution:
DD III and any vessels using acoustics will be in continuous communications
concerning acoustic noise and frequency clashing.
3.6
Fan Beam
Fan Beam is a position reference system used while vessels are in proximity. Workboats and supply
boats, as well as vessels carrying out subsea construction, utilize Fan Beam. The systems maximum
range is 2,000-m with an accuracy of +1 0 cm during optimum conditions. The system uses a laser beam
and is, therefore, weather sensitive. The practical range for Fan Beam is in the range of 200-m to 400-m.
The key to a successful operation of the Fan Beam position reference system is to ensure the system is
maintained, fully operational and in Green status and that the Fan Beam is set up according to the
manufacturers specifications.
Particular attention is required to the system setup. The gating parameters must be set correctly to
ensure the intended target is followed. This may have been a problem in the past. There are known
instances where the laser beam has locked onto a moving object onboard the adjacent vessel. The
moving object may have been someone in coveralls with reflective tape.
Note: Any vessel working the MC-252 Incident area and using Fan Beam as a relative position
reference system, must confirm that the system is operational according to
manufacturers specifications before the system is allowed to be used near the DEN, the
DD III.
The Fan Beam User Guide v. 4.1 is listed as a reference in this document. The user, however, shall
always check with the manufacturer to ensure the correct and latest version of the user guide is utilized
for setting up the Fan Beam systems on the particular vessel.
The MC-252 Incident vessels have their Fan Beam laser units installed at different heights. Adjustments
may be required in the height of the prisms installed on the Discoverer Enterprise and the DD III to
conform to vessel requirements.
The Discoverer Enterprise and the DD III OIM should determine correct prism height and location based
on communications with the respective user of Fan Beam systems. Table 4, page 20 lists the Fan Beam
height for some vessels which may be used at MC-252 Incident.
Table 4: Fan Beam Height
MC-252 Incident Vessels
Schlumberger DeepSTIM II
Technip Deep Blue
OI1
OI3
C-Captain
Fan Beam Height

Ideal Reflector Height
above Sea Level
Above Sea Level
44-ft.
1 02-ft.
56-ft.
74-ft.
45-ft.
The reflector height is
determined by the
application and distance
between vessels and is
generally set at Fan
Beam height -0 +17-ft.

Authority:
Custodian/Owner:
Geir Karlsen
Retention Code:
ADM3000
Document Number:
Revision:
Issue Date:
Next Review Date
(if applicable):
Security
Classification:
2200-T2-DO-PN-4001
4/30/2010
N/A
Page:
Page 20 of 55
______________________________________________________________________________
There is a wide variation in Fan Beam installation heights between vessels. The Fan Beam prisms,
installed on the DEN and the DD III, will require elevation and position changes, depending on which
vessel is utilizing the system. Adjusting the height will improve the system performance and reduce Fan
Beam positioning errors.
Table 5 below lists the MC-252 Incident vessels using Position Reference systems.
Table 5: Vessels using Position Reference Systems
Discoverer Enterprise
DD III
Source control vessels
Available Position
Reference System
DGPS, Acoustics
(Sonardyne digital)
DGPS, Acoustics (HiPAP)

DGPS, Fan Beam and
RADius. Acoustics for
tracking and surveying
Spill clean-up vessels
Notes
DP Class II+
DP Class II+
DP Class I and II
Some vessels may not have
been assessed for DP class
Not assessed for DP class
3.7
RADius Position Reference System
The RADius position reference system measures relative distance between two adjacent vessels using
the Doppler principle. The adjacent vessel is equipped with RADius transponder(s). The system has a
range of approximately 1,1 00-m and is not affected by activities onboard the adjacent vessel. A
transponder system consisting of a small box is installed onboard the host vessel (i.e., Discoverer
Enterprise and DD III). The system requires a 1 20-volt power source. Range accuracy is 0.25-m.
Note: Any vessel, working the MC-252 Incident area and using RADius as a relative position
manufacturers specifications before the system is allowed used near the Discoverer

Authority:
Custodian/Owner:
Geir Karlsen
Retention Code:
ADM3000
Document Number:
Revision:
Issue Date:
Next Review Date
(if applicable):
Security
Classification:
2200-T2-DO-PN-4001
4/30/2010
N/A
Page:
Page 21 of 55
______________________________________________________________________________
Table 6: MC-252 Acoustic Allocation Summary
DP
DD III DP
ROV System
b12
b31 DP
b14 Tracking
b13
b32 DP
b28 Tracking
b15
b35 DP
b34 Tracking
b17
b48 Tracking
b51
b37 DP
DD III
b73 DP
b54 Tracking
b76 DP LIC
b68 Tracking
b52
DO NOT USE
b53
b74 Tracking
b57
Discoverer Enterprise DP array: Sonardyne wideband Family 14, CIS. Ch.
b71
1409, 1410, 1411, 1412, 1413
b18 SPARE
b27 Emergency AUV
b72
b24 CRANE 1
b42
AUV
b75
b26 DP 1
b38 MILL 36
b46 SPARE
BOA SUB C
b58 MILL 36 SPARE
GINGER
b47 SPARE
b62 SEABIRD
b67 SPARE
b82 SPARE
b64 CRANE 2
b87 SPARE
b78 MILL 37
b21 Tracking
b84 MILL 37 SPARE
b25 Tracking
b86 DP 2
b41 Tracking
b16 Tracking
OI 3
MISS
SKANDI
The acoustic allocations
for all construction
b45 Tracking
b23 Tracking
NEPTUNE
b61 Tracking
b36 Tracking
b65 Tracking
b43 Tracking
b81 Tracking
b56 Tracking
b85 Tracking
vessels are found in
Figure 10, page 34,
Figure 11, page 35 and
Figure 12, page 35.
It is imperative that the
b63 Tracking
plan is adhered to and
b83 Tracking
that there are no
Wideband Family 12 (see below)
changes without
Address 1201, CIS 1

ROV 1
OI-3
preapproval.
Address 1202, CIS 2

ROV 1 Cage
The DD III ROV channels
Address 1203, CIS 3

ROV 2
may be utilized bby
Address 1204, CIS 7

ROV 2 Cage
others if not required by
C-Express
the DD III operation.
Address 1512, CIS 4

ROV
Address 1513, CIS 5

ROV Backup
Address 1514, CIS 6

ROV TMS
CIC = Common Interrogation Signal

Authority:
Custodian/Owner:
Geir Karlsen
Retention Code:
ADM3000
Document Number:
Revision:
Issue Date:
Next Review Date
(if applicable):
Security
Classification:
2200-T2-DO-PN-4001
4/30/2010
N/A
Page:
Page 22 of 55
______________________________________________________________________________
4
SIMOPS Events
4.1
SIMOPS Events
The SIMOPS plan contains multiple events and interfaces between the Discoverer Enterprise at relief
well location RxC and DD III at relief well location RxD.
Anticipated SIMOPS events are:
Discoverer Enterprise operating at relief well location RxC and DD III at relief well location RxD.
Source control vessel activity inside the Discoverer Enterprise and the DD III 500-m exclusion
zones.
Source control vessel activity alongside the Discoverer Enterprise and the DD III.
Spill clean-up vessel activity inside the Discoverer Enterprise and the DD III 500-m exclusion zones.
Pumping vessel alongside Discoverer Enterprise or DD III.
Salvage operations.
Barge and tug boats.
Aviation.
In-situ burns (requires separate risk assessment and approval).
Note: There is no requirement to develop a separate SIMOPS procedure for any of the MC-252
SIMOPS events. Detailed project operating procedures specifically developed in
conjunction with and referring to the MC-252 SIMOPS plan are required.
Table 7: SIMOPS Preplanning General Checklist
Activity
Vessel within 500-m of
and DD III.
Well Site Leader
Fan Beam prism
installation.
Degradation in station-
keeping ability of
vessel(s).
SIMOPS with other ops.
DPO
Prepare DEN and DD III
most favorable heading.
Ensure communications
to vessel are as planned.
To be informed and approve
Approve.
arrival.
In close proximity to,
alongside or equipment
To be informed.
hooked up to DEN/DD
III.
Station-keeping
alongside.
OIM
Approve through Permit

to Work (PTW) process.

To be informed of met-
To be informed of met-ocean
ocean conditions and
Communicate with vessel
conditions and any heading
any heading change of

in SIMOPS on all DP
change of DEN/DD III and
DEN/DD III and vessel in

matters.
vessel in SIMOPS.
SIMOPS.
To determine correct
To be informed of station-
height based on vessel

Ensure fully operational.
keeping readiness.
alongside.
Vessel Captain together with DEN/DD III
To decide on further action

DPO to assess and decide on action according to
together with OIM.
WSOC. Note: TOI strike out. Approval contingent on
DPO making decision according to WSOC.
To be informed.
To approve.
Requirements as above.

Authority:
Custodian/Owner:
Geir Karlsen
Retention Code:
ADM3000
Document Number:
Revision:
Issue Date:
Next Review Date
(if applicable):
Security
Classification:
2200-T2-DO-PN-4001
4/30/2010
N/A
Page:
Page 23 of 55
______________________________________________________________________________
4.2
Emergencies during SIMOPS Events
Emergencies onboard one of the vessels involved in SIMOPS impact the ability to proceed with SIMOPS.
The SIMOPS planning should specifically address emergencies during SIMOPS events, mitigations and
restrictions associated with such emergencies.
Use the following guidelines to shut down or postpone the SIMOPS event, which may reduce the ability
of personnel to respond effectively to an emergency:
Sheen, plume or surface debris that could impact the SIMOPS event.
Any condition the OIM, Captain or the BP Well Site Leader determines to exist or develop and which
would compromise safety of crews, equipment or vessels during the SIMOPS execution.
Any event where acoustics communications are interfering with station-keeping of any vessel.
Any fire requires vessels to suspend activities except those required to handle the event.
Any hull emergency requires vessels to suspend activities except those that are required to handle
the event.
Any loss of firewater pumps requires vessel to suspend all activities at a secure point.
Any loss of communication requires vessels to suspend all activities at a secure point.
Any met-ocean event that could jeopardize station-keeping or operations during the SIMOPS event.
Any event that takes a vessel out of readiness condition such as power, cooling and fuel systems,
power management system, position reference systems and DP system.
4.3 SIMOPS Approval
The complexity of the SIMOPS activity determines the level of approval required for the work plan. Use
the following procedure as a guideline:
The SIMOPS Director has the overall responsibility for determining SIMOPS priorities and give
necessary approvals following review with Branch Directors and Air Command.
The SIMOPS Branch Directors approve SIMOPS events within their fleet after review with the
SIMOPS Director and the respective vessels.
The vessel OIM /Captain approves SIMOPS events associated with the respective vessel.
The BP Well Site Leader, with input from the respective OIMs and Branch Directors determine the
level of authority required to approve a safe work plan for a more complex activity inside the
Discoverer Enterprise and the DD III 500-m zones.

Authority:
Custodian/Owner:
Geir Karlsen
Retention Code:
ADM3000
Document Number:
Revision:
Issue Date:
Next Review Date
(if applicable):
Security
Classification:
2200-T2-DO-PN-4001
4/30/2010
N/A
Page:
Page 24 of 55
______________________________________________________________________________
5
Dropped Objects Prevention
5.1
Drilling Vessels
Any dropped object is to be reported through regular channels. There are no infrastructure concerns at
the respective well sites. There are a number of pipelines and wellheads in the area, so dropped object
prevention must have the same focus as when working in any of BPs fields.
5.2
Source Vessels and Marine Clean-up Vessels
Any dropped object must be reported as per the Incident Notification Chart. The Discoverer Enterprise
and the DD III Bridges should be notified as well on any dropped object incident.
Vessels inside the MC-252 Incident field MUST promptly report a dropped
Caution:
object incident to the DEN and the DD III Bridge.

Authority:
Custodian/Owner:
Geir Karlsen
Retention Code:
ADM3000
Document Number:
Revision:
Issue Date:
Next Review Date
(if applicable):
Security
Classification:
2200-T2-DO-PN-4001
4/30/2010
N/A
Page:
Page 25 of 55
______________________________________________________________________________
6
Area Vessel Control and Aviation
The key to vessel control is through good communications. The daily SIMOPS call is the main venue to
inform of upcoming vessel activities and requirements.
6.1
Surface Conditions
Marine debris and hydrocarbons will to a large extent determine activities at MC-252 Incident. An
assessment is being made on DEN and DD III operability while being exposed to a surface sheen or the
plume. Daily updates on sheen and plume developments together with marine debris updates are
provided to ensure appropriate marine decisions can be made.
6.1.1
Sheen and Plume
It is likely that the DEN and the DD III will be exposed to a sheen or the plume. This depends on
met-ocean conditions and the volume of hydrocarbon (HC) being released. The DEN and the
DD III bridges will stay in communications with the Spill clean-up vessels and be notified of any
changes in weather patterns that may result in HC reaching the well sites.
6.1.2
Marine Debris
Discovery of marine debris will be broadcasted to the fleet by the first observer. Recovery will
be handled by the appropriate team as required.
6.2
Vessel Arrival at MC-252 Incident
Surface and marine debris conditions determine how vessels arrive at the MC-252 Incident site. A
Marine Debris Exclusion Zone map in Figure 7, page 33.
6.2.1
Arrival and Departure Procedures at MC-252 Incident
Vessel arrival and departure will follow the procedures set up in Figure 4, page 27. The number of
vessels on DP and connected to the seabed either trough drilling risers or ROVs requires careful planning
of vessel movements.

Authority:
Custodian/Owner:
Geir Karlsen
Retention Code:
ADM3000
Document Number:
Revision:
Issue Date:
Next Review Date
(if applicable):
Security
Classification:
2200-T2-DO-PN-4001
4/30/2010
N/A
Page:
Page 26 of 55
______________________________________________________________________________
Figure 4: Vessel Arrival and Departure Procedures
MC 252 Vessel Arrival and Departure Procedures
Source
Control
Vessels
Supply Boats
and Fast Boats
DD III
There is a 20-nm, 4,000-ft. vessel and aircraft exclusion zone around the site. Vessels and aircrafts need
permission to enter. Contact respective Branch Director 20-nm and 5-nm out
Contact Offshore Spill
Operations SIMOPS
Branch Director
VHF Ch. 1 5 or Ch. 1 6
Contact Offshore
Source Control SIMOPS
Branch Director
Contact Offshore
Source Control
SIMOPS Branch
Director onboard Boa
Sub-C or onboard DD III
Contact Offshore
Source Control
SIMOPS Branch
SubC
Contact DD III and DEN
Bridge for permission
to enter 500-m zone
VHF Ch. 15 or Ch. 1 6
Vessels receive advisory on extent of sheen and plume.
Vessels receive advisory on waypoints to site if required.
Vessels receive permission to enter site.
Oil Spill Response Vessels: Execute manual mode check list in BP 500-m Zone Practice prior to site entry.
Source Vessels: Execute DP check list in BP 500-m Zone Practice prior to site entry.
DD III and Discoverer Enterprise enter site.
Vessels preparing to depart:
Contact respective SIMOPS Branch Director and receive advisory on sheen, plume and waypoints as
applicable
VHF Ch. 15 or Ch. 16
Updated April 27, 201 0
Entry inside 500-m exclusion zones of drilling rigs and source vessels
requires the approval of the respective Captain or OIM.
Oil Spill
Response
Vessels
6.3
Drilling Vessels
The DD III and the DEN are arriving from the SW and will move on to location from the standby and
staging area once receiving approval through the Team Leader.
6.3.1
Staging Area
The DD III and the Discoverer Enterprise will move to the Staging and Standby area in MC 339 as
shown in Figure 5, page 30. Preparations to start operations may be carried out at this location
until approval is received for moving to the well location or the standby area to the south of the
well location (see next section).

Authority:
Custodian/Owner:
Geir Karlsen
Retention Code:
ADM3000
Document Number:
Revision:
Issue Date:
Next Review Date
(if applicable):
Security
Classification:
2200-T2-DO-PN-4001
4/30/2010
N/A
Page:
Page 27 of 55
______________________________________________________________________________
6.3.2
Standby Area
The DD III and the Discoverer Enterprise will move to the Standby area from the Staging area
where operations will commence. The Standby areas are located 3,000-ft. to the south of the
relief well locations RxC and RxD as seen in Figure 7, page 33. Conductor and tubulars may be
deployed at this point.
The Standby areas are approximately half distance between the well centers and the ENI pipeline
to the south (see Figure 7, page 34).
6.4
Source Control Vessels
Source vessels will be directed through the Incident management Command and are not expected to
interact with the Discoverer Enterprise and the DD III to any extent.
The Discoverer Enterprise and the DD III 500-m exclusion zones will be adhered to. Entry into any of
these zones requires Discoverer Enterprise or DD III OIM approval.
Please note that the Discoverer Enterprise and the DD III 500-m exclusion zones overlap. Any
passage between the two rigs will, therefore, require Discoverer Enterprise and DD III OIM
approval.
6.5
Oil Spill Response Vessels
Oil spill response vessels will be directed through the Incident Management Command via the SIMOPS
Branch Director and are not expected to interact with the Discoverer Enterprise and the DD III unless the
plume direction changes to the south.
It is essential that the Discoverer Enterprise and the DD III are notified of any clean-up vessel
activity in the vicinity of the well operations and especially inside the rigs 500-m exclusion zones.
Note: The Discoverer Enterprise and the DD III 500-m exclusion zones will be adhered to. Entry
into any of these zones requires Discoverer Enterprise or DD III OIM approval. Please note that
the DEN and the DD III 500-m exclusion zones overlap. Any passage between the two rigs will,
therefore, require Discoverer Enterprise and DD III OIM approval.
6.6
All vessels approaching the Discoverer Enterprise and the DD III will use VHF channels 15 and channel
1 6 to call up the Discoverer Enterprise or the DD III Bridge.
6.7
Working Channels
Once the targeted rig or vessel is hailed, the channel is switched to an agreed frequency as per Section
2.7, page 1 6.

Authority:
Custodian/Owner:
Geir Karlsen
Retention Code:
ADM3000
Document Number:
Revision:
Issue Date:
Next Review Date
(if applicable):
Security
Classification:
2200-T2-DO-PN-4001
4/30/2010
N/A
Page:
Page 28 of 55
______________________________________________________________________________
6.8 GoM 500-Meter Zone Practice
Any vessel entering the 500-m exclusion zone of any MC-252 Incident vessel shall comply with the
requirements in the 500-m Zone Practice. The document is issued by the BP Marine Vessel Operations
group.
The nature of the MC-252 Incident operation, however, requires flexibility in how vessels interact. It is
anticipated that the Captains on the Source Control vessels and the Spill clean-up vessels review
proximity requirements between vessels and have an agreement in place concerning procedures and
safeties.
Entry into the DEN and the DD III 500-m exclusion zones, however, takes place according to the
500-m Zone Practice.
Critical vessel repairs and maintenance shall be performed either before or
after the SIMOPS event. No critical vessel repairs will be performed during
Caution:
the SIMOPS event or inside the DD III or the Discoverer Enterprise 500-m zone
(see details in the 500-m Zone Practice). A critical repair is defined as repair
that could lead to single point failure and loss of station or vessel integrity.
6.9
Aviation
The air command in Houma is an integrated part of the SIMOPS plan. The following types of air activities
are expected:
1 .
Helicopter crew flights to drilling rigs and source control vessels.
2.
Spotter planes and fixed wing surveillance
3.
Areal spray of dispersants (four aircrafts in one dispersant sortie, four to five sorties per day).
4.
Over-flights of fixed wing and helicopters.
5.
Drone surveillance.
6.
Press and media.
The MC252 area has a restricted airspace (TFR Temporary flight restriction) of 20-nm from site up to a
4,000-ft. elevation. Flights inside this zone are controlled by the USCG cutter Harriet Lane on site. The
air command in Houma plans all flights to the site and reports through the SIMOPS Director as shown in
Figure 1 , page 8.
6.10 Helicopter Fueling
Helicopter fueling operations will mainly take place onshore. The aviation group will arrange emergency
fueling onboard offshore facilities if needed. It is emphasized, however, that using the Discoverer
Enterprise and the DD III as fueling stations for non rig flights reduces the efficiency of the drilling
operations because of shut-down of cranes and deck activities.

Authority:
Custodian/Owner:
Geir Karlsen
Retention Code:
ADM3000
Document Number:
Revision:
Issue Date:
Next Review Date
(if applicable):
Security
Classification:
2200-T2-DO-PN-4001
4/30/2010
N/A
Page:
Page 29 of 55
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Figure 5: MC-252 Incident Regional Chart With 20-nm Restricted Zone
Title of Document:
Macondo Relief Well SIMOPS Plan
Authority: Houston Incident Commander

Custodian/Owner:
Geir Karlsen
Retention Code:
ADM3000
Security Classification:
Document Number:
Revision:
Issue Date:
Next Review Date
(if applicable):
Page:
2200-T2-DO-PN-4001
4/30/201 0
N/A
Page 30 of 55
This page intentionally left blank
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Figure 6: MC-252 Incident Marine Debris Map
Title of Document:

Custodian/Owner:
Geir Karlsen
Retention Code:
ADM3000
Document Number:
Revision:
Issue Date:
Next Review Date
(if applicable):
Page:
2200-T2-DO-PN-4001
4/30/201 0
N/A
Page 32 of 55
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Figure 7: Marine Debris and Discoverer Enterprise/DD III 500-m Exclusion Zones
Title of Document:

Custodian/Owner:
Geir Karlsen
Retention Code:
ADM3000
Document Number:
Revision:
Issue Date:
Next Review Date
(if applicable):
Page:
2200-T2-DO-PN-4001
4/30/201 0
N/A
Page 34 of 55
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Figure 8: 500-m Vessel Exclusion Zone Detailed Map
Note: The Offshore Vessel Source Control SIMOPS Coordinator controls the debris field and an area within appr. 1,000-m of the MC 252 no. 1 well site.
Title of Document:

Custodian/Owner:
Geir Karlsen
Retention Code:
ADM3000
Document Number:
Revision:
Issue Date:
Next Review Date
(if applicable):
Page:
2200-T2-DO-PN-4001
4/30/201 0
N/A
Page 36 of 55
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Figure 9: Discoverer Enterprise and DD III Transponder Grids
Title of Document:

Custodian/Owner:
Geir Karlsen
Retention Code:
ADM3000
Document Number:
Revision:
Issue Date:
Next Review Date
(if applicable):
Page:
2200-T2-DO-PN-4001
4/30/201 0
N/A
Page 38 of 55
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Figure 10: Field Frequency Management Plan HiPAP vs. Sonardyne Digital
1. Discoverer Enterprise DP Array is now operating with Sonardyne MK5 Wideband COMPATTs. The array is setup for Family 14 ; C00.
LBL arrays installed at Thunder Horse must avoid allocating this family to remain clash free with the Discoverer Enterprise.
KONGSBERG HiPAP
SONARDYNE TONE CHANNELS
CH1
CH2
CH3
CH4
CH5
CH6
CH7
CH8
CIF
CCF
CRF
CH0
CH9
DCF
CH10
CH11
CH12
CH13
CH14
19230
19841
20491
21186
21929
22522
23148
23810
24752
25510
26042
26882
27472
28090
28735
29411
30120
30864
31645
OPERATING
CONDITIONS /
VESSEL ALLOCATION
DO NOT USE
DO NOT USE
DD III (VESSEL 3)
CH #
b12
b13
b14
PARAMETERS
DO NOT USE
DO NOT USE
Tracking
TX1
TX2
RX
21000
21500
29250
21000
21000
22000
22500
29750
30250
X
X
b15
DO NOT USE
21000
23000
30750
b16
TRACKING
21000
23500
27250
DO NOT USE
b17
DO NOT USE
21000
24000
27750
BOA SUB C (VESSEL 1)
b18
SPARE
21000
24500
28250
SKANDI NEPTUNE (VESSEL 5)
b21
TRACKING
21500
21000
28500
22000
29500
b23
TRACKING
21500
b24
CRANE 1
21500
22500
30000
b25
TRACKING
21500
23000
30500
b26
DP 1
21500
23500
27000
MISS GINGER (VESSEL 2)
b27
EMERGENCY AUV
21500
24000
27500
DO NOT USE
OI 3 (VESSEL 4)
OI 3 (VESSEL 4)
X
X
21500
24500
28000
DP
22000
21000
28750
b32
DP
22000
21500
29250
DD III (VESSEL 3)
b34
Tracking
22000
22500
30250
DD III DP
b35
DP
22000
23000
30750
OI 3 (VESSEL 4)
b36
TRACKING
22000
23500
27250
DD III DP
b37
DP
22000
24000
27750
b38
MILL 36
22000
24500
28250
TRACKING
22500
21000
28500
AUV
22500
21500
29000
22000
29500
23000
30500
23500
27000
24000
27500
b46
SPARE
22500
b47
SPARE
22500
DD III (VESSEL 3)
b48
Tracking
22500
24500
28000
DO NOT USE
b51
DO NOT USE
23000
21000
28750
DO NOT USE
b52
DO NOT USE
23000
21500
29250
DO NOT USE
b53
DO NOT USE
23000
22000
29750
X
X
Tracking
23000
22500
30250
TRACKING
23000
23500
27250
b57
DO NOT USE
23000
24000
27750
b58
MILL 36 SPARE
23000
24500
28250
b61
TRACKING
23500
21000
28500
SEABIRD
23500
21500
29000
22000
29500
b62
b63
TRACKING
23500
b64
CRANE 2
23500
22500
30000
TRACKING
23500
23000
30500
b67
SPARE
23500
24000
27500
DD III (VESSEL 3)
b68
Tracking
23500
24500
28000
DO NOT USE
DO NOT USE
b71
b72
DO NOT USE
DO NOT USE
24000
24000
21000
21500
28750
b73
DP
24000
22000
29750
b74
Tracking
24000
22500
30250
DO NOT USE
b75
DO NOT USE
24000
23000
30750
24000
23500
27250
24000
24500
28250
b81
TRACKING
24500
21000
28500
b82
SPARE
24500
21500
29000
b83
TRACKING
24500
22000
29500
MILL 37 SPARE
24500
22500
30000
TRACKING
24500
23000
30500
b86
DP 2
24500
23500
27000
b87
SPARE
24500
24000
27500
DP LIC
b85
MILL 37
b84
X
X
b76
X
X
b78
OI 3 (VESSEL 4)
DD III DP
29250
DD III DP
DD III (VESSEL 3)
DO NOT USE
b65
b54
b56
X
X
OI 3 (VESSEL 4)
OI 3 (VESSEL 4)
X
X
DD III (VESSEL 3)
b41
b42
22500
22500
TRACKING
Tracking
b31
TRACKING
b28
b43
DD III DP
b45
DD III (VESSEL 3)
DD III DP
OI 3 (VESSEL 4)
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Title of Document:

Custodian/Owner:
Geir Karlsen
Retention Code:
ADM3000
Document Number:
Revision:
Issue Date:
Next Review Date
(if applicable):
Page:
2200-T2-DO-PN-4001
4/30/201 0
N/A
Page 40 of 55
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Figure 11: HazID Rig Exposure to Oil Sheen or Plume Rig Operations
The results of the TOI
Risk
Reputation
Safety
Environmenta
Financial
Frequency
Risk
Actions / Mitigation Measures
No additional mitigations
internal HAZID were
Rig
Reputation
Safeguards
Frequency
Consequences
Reputation
Causes
Post -Mitigate
Reputation
Oil Sheen
Hazard Scenario
Severity
Safety
Environmenta
Financial
Operating
Hazard
Safety
Environmenta
Financial
Phase
Safety
Environmenta
Financial
Pre -Mitigation
Severity
Assigned
Individual
Dates
Comments
Note; the rig vessel master will
have a conversation with the
recommended.
reviewed and accepted
source vessels in field on their
by the team. Included
experience working the area with
as a separate logsheet.
an oil sheen.
Note: Vessels need a plan to
flush ballast tanks prior to incident
demobilization to remove any oily
water in ballast tanks.
Plume
Plume of concentrated
Flow increases to a
environmental,
Subsea visual, real
D3
E3
2
Develop a decision matrix for various
E
oil comes up right
catastrophic rate. A
financial.
time, monitoring of the
scenarios of increased oil flow that
under the rig.
potential cause,
well site area (three
could impact the drill rig.
among others, could
vessels with multiple
be failure of BOP
ROV's). Existing TOI
stack.
emergency procedures.
E3
E3
2
George Gray
Include in IAP that source control
No
Troy Endicott
immediately communicates any flow
changes to the SIMOPS Director
Develop a model to predict plume
Troy Endicott
Note: The rig response is partially
location based on subsea currents.
based on having knowledge of
Consider the impact of rapidly
expected plume location.
increasing flow rate.
Emulsion /
Determine the location and density
Mousse
Troy Endicott
of oil/water emulsion / mousse
floating below the surface.
expected location of any
emulsion/mousse.
Convey IMT air monitoring and
Joe Neumeyer
safety plan to the vessels.
Title of Document:

Custodian/Owner:
Geir Karlsen
Retention Code:
ADM3000
Document Number:
Revision:
Issue Date:
Next Review Date
(if applicable):
Page:
2200-T2-DO-PN-4001
4/30/201 0
N/A
Page 42 of 55
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Figure 12: HazID Rig Exposure to Oil Sheen or Plume Other Issues
Historically loop currents move

-
Send 500 meter zone to

-
Risk
Financial
Safety
Reputation
Environmenta
Frequency
Measures
Financial
Environmenta
Actions/Mitigation
Safety
Financial
Risk
Reputation
identified.
Reputation
Safety
Safeguards
SIMOPS Plan is guidance
Frequency
Financial
well sites
Post -Mitigate
Consequences
Causes
Severity
Reputation
Hazard Scenario
Environmenta
Hazard
Safety
Phase
Moving to relief
No unique hazards
Environmenta
Pre -Mitigation
Severity
Assigned
Individual
Dates
Comments
document for green light to
move in.
AUV survey to confirm no
interferences at the relief well
sites.
Seasonably favorable winds
Met ocean
and currents should keep slick
away from rigs.
away from relief well drill
locations. Loop currents are
monitored daily.
Hurricane
Existing hurricane plans.
Source Control
Lose ROV and view of
Three vessels with ROV's are
vessels
source
onsite.
Acoustic conflict
SIMOPS plan defines
Troy Endicott
resolution process.
Vessels in 500
Spill response vessels
SIMOPS plan includes 500
meter zone
moving into the rig 500
meter zone requirement.
Troy Endicott
branch directors.
Note: The spill response vessels
may be less familiar with the 500
meter zone
meter zone practice. It is also in the
SIMOPS Plan.
Dead vessel
Vessel in the area has
equipment
Potential vessel
blackout
failure
collision
NGO's, media
Vessel security plans, JIC (joint
information center) to support
communications.
Oil washes on deck of
supply boat going to the rig.
Supply boats avoid transit
through oil slick if possible.
They are offloaded on the lee
side of the rig and have
existing cleaning procedures.
Note: the supply vessels have
decon procedures for leaving
the area.
Dispersant
Rigs would have little if any
Application
exposure. Airspace is
managed outside the rigs.
Troy Endicott
Communicate to the IMT
the drill rigs request to
maintain a minimum of
one mile distance for
dispersant application or
in situ burning.
Burning is not planned to be
In situ burn
done close to the rigs.
Title of Document:

Custodian/Owner:
Geir Karlsen
Retention Code:
ADM3000
Document Number:
Revision:
Issue Date:
Next Review Date
(if applicable):
Page:
2200-T2-DO-PN-4001
4/30/201 0
N/A
Page 44 of 55
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Figure 13: HazID Log Rig Exposure to Oil Sheen or Plume
HAZID Log
Node 1 : DDIII & DEN operating on Macondo (MC 252)
Property Damage
Risk
Containment
Loss of
Additional Safeguards
Personnel
Property Damage
Residual Risk
Risk
Hazard
Personnel
Operation
Containment
Risk Ranking
Loss of
Preventive Controls
Consequences
Mitigating Controls
Operating rig with oil
sheen present.
Oily water sucked up into
thruster chiller units.
Ballast down as low as
reasonably practicable.
DDIII: Ballast down to
Operating draft prior to
moving onto MC 252. Take
samples through strainers
during rounds.
DEN: Overheating and
going into power reduction
mode.
DDIII: Minimal exposure.
DEN: Continuously
monitored. Can isolate 1 aft
and 1 fwd while being
serviced depending on the
weather.
DDIII: Continous
monitoring. 2 independent
loops w/ 3 heat exchangers
each. Can put ones
needing to be serviced on
standby. Can monitor
pressure & temperature
differential via VMS. Can
acid wash offline heat
exchanger.
Ent
B4
DD
III
B4
Oily water in heat
exchangers (thruster motor,
main engines, rig air
compressor, thruster
steering, thruster lube oil,
AC units)
during rounds.
potential engine shutdown.
DEN: Continuously
monitored. Has 2 SW
cooled Heat Exchangers for
Main Engines. 1 as spare,
and 1 as backup.
DDIII: Continous
each. Can put ones
exchanger.
Ent
B4
DD
III
B4
Oily water in drawworks
cooling unit.
during rounds.
Drawworks cooler unit
overheating.
DDIII: 3 individual heat
exchangers for Drill Floor
equipment. Can take 1
offline to clean.
DEN: Has 2 for DWX
cooling. Can monitor and
service while 1 offline.
Ent
B4
DD
III
B4
Title of Document:

Custodian/Owner:
Geir Karlsen
Retention Code:
ADM3000
Comments
Document Number:
Revision:
Issue Date:
Next Review Date
(if applicable):
Page:
2200-T2-DO-PN-4001
4/30/201 0
N/A
Page 46 of 55
______________________________________________________________________________
7 References
7.1.1 BP
MC-252 Incident Offshore Coordination SIMOPS Guidelines
7.1.2 Transocean (TOI)
See TOI DEN and DD III HSE Plans
TOI WSOC for DEN and DD III
TOI Operations Manual
TOI Floating Operations Manual HQS-OPS-004, Section 4, Subsection 1 1 : DP Operations
Guidelines Close Proximity Operations.
DEN DP Capability Plots
Development Driller III DP Capability Plots
7.2
Other References
7.2.1
BP
GoM MC-252 Incident Management of Change Plan
BP GoM TOI HSE Management System Bridging Document
Emergency Response Plan (ERP) Document Number: 1440-85-OP-PR-0005
GoM Safe Practices Manual (SPM) GoM Incident Notification, Reporting and Investigation
Procedure. Document Number: CD # UPS-US-SW-GOM-HSE-DOC-001 15-2
GoM IMS Vol II Regional Oil Spill Plan
GoM IMS Vol III Severe Weather Contingency Plan
GoM Contract Aircraft Guidelines
GoM Diving Procedures
GoM Operational Guidelines for Offshore Support Vessels
GoM DEN Operations Manual
500-m Zone Practice BP Marine
VOI Vessel Operating Instructions BP Marine
Fan Beam User Manual v. 4.1
DMAC (Diving Medical Advisory Council) dated 1 979

Authority:
Custodian/Owner:
Geir Karlsen
Retention Code:
ADM3000
Document Number:
Revision:
Issue Date:
Next Review Date
(if applicable):
Security
Classification:
2200-T2-DO-PN-4001
4/30/201 0
N/A
Page:
Page 48 of 55
______________________________________________________________________________
Appendix A:
Contact Details MC-252 Incident
Name
Telephone
E-Mail
Title
Emergencies and Regulatory
Terrebonne
General Medical
Center
81 66 Main Str.
Houma
US Coast Guard
(985) 873-41 41
Oper.
(985) 873-41 50
Emerg.
(504) 589-6225
(985) 380-5320
Houston Crisis
(281) 366-0286 O
(713) 208-6173 C
Center
BP ICP 24
(800) 321-8642
Hour Number
(630) 961-6200
MMS Houma
(985) 853-5884 O
(985) 879-2738 F
District
(985) 688-6050 C
(504) 736-2814 O
MMS Pipeline
(504) 736-2408 F
Section
(504) 452-3562 C
Douglas,
(281 ) 366-6843 O
Scherie
(71 3) 702-7673 C
[email protected]
Sr. Regulatory & Advocacy
Advisor
SIMOPS Director
Endicott, troy
(281 ) 366-7687 O
[email protected]
(71 3) 409-0061 C
Deputy Marine Authority
Oil Spill Response Command
Smith, Stephen
(866) 21 5-4586
(OBrian Group)
(866) 292-1326
[email protected]
[email protected]
Sepulvado,
Murry
(31 8) 471 -1763
[email protected]
Captain
OIM
Bridge / DPO
Radio room
BP WSL
BP Clerk /
dispatch
BP Subsea
(832)-587-5530/5
(71 3) 587-5531
71 3-232-8245 ext.
2008 or 2007
(71 3) 232-8245
(281 ) 366-4504 or
(281 ) 366-4506
(281 ) 366-451 5
(281 ) 366-4536
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
Sat Telephone Bridge (voice): 0-1 1-870-353-830-
551
Sat Telephone Radio Room (voice): 0-1 1 -870-353-
830-550
Iridium Sat Phone: 1 -480-768-2500
code 881 5-4147-9794
Radio Frequency Ch 1 2 VHF (MHz) - 1 56.650
Oil Spill Response On-Scene
SIMOPS Coordinator
(onboard Louisiana
Responder 866-292-1 326)
Source Control Vessel Command
Source Control
TOI Discoverer Enterprise

Authority:
Custodian/Owner:
Geir Karlsen
Retention Code:
ADM3000
Document Number:
Revision:
Issue Date:
Next Review Date
(if applicable):
Security
Classification:
2200-T2-DO-PN-4001
4/30/2010
N/A
Page:
Page 49 of 55
______________________________________________________________________________
Telephone
Name
E-Mail
Title
Port and Stb.
ROV
(71 3) 232-8245
ext. 2229
Helicopter
VHF (MHz) 1 23.050
Call Sign
V7HD3
DD III Well Site
Leader
Radio Rm.
DD III Inmar Sat
DPO
Captain
BP Dispatcher
713-336-8218
832-587-6871 Dial
0 for operator
01 1 870
764449920
x-203 and x-204
x-206
71 3-336-821 5
71 3-336-8229
71 3-336-8201
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
Mil1 [email protected]
TOI Development Driller III
BP Discoverer Enterprise and DD III Houston Leadership
Gray, George
(281 )
(71 3)
Halvorson Dory,
(281 )
Kathleen
(71 3)
Jacobsen Plutt,
(281 )
Louise
(281)
Stoltz, Dan
(281 )
(71 3)
366-0659 O
376-1099 C
366-2626 O
206-5339 C
366-5932 O
685-2017 C
366-3424 O
805-9972 C
[email protected]
DD III Team Leader
[email protected]
Drilling Engineer DEN
[email protected]
Drilling Engineer DD III
[email protected]
DEN Team Leader
TOI Rig Support
Brekke, Jim
(281 ) 925-6676 O
[email protected]
(281) 961 -1368 C

(832) 587-8863 O
[email protected]
(71 3) 409-8217 C
Blue, Mike
Hess, Adam
King, Paul
Richards,
Ramsey
Sims, Chuck
Walker, Stephen
(832)-587-8851 O
(71 3)-204-1 837 C
(832) 587-8573 O
(71 3) 540-6332 C
(281 ) 925-6433 O
(71 3) 205-9474 M
(71 3) 782-4703 H
(281 ) 925-6581 O
(281 ) 925-6583 F
(832) 922-2633 C
(832) 587-8770 O
(281) 450-7266 C
Manager Marine Technology
Rig Manager Performance
DD II
DD III
Rig Manager, Performance
Rig Manager DD III
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
Manager DP and
Instrumentation
[email protected]
Marine and DP
Superintendent NAM
Logistics Boats and Helicopters Houston
Hollier, Jamie
(281 ) 366-0277 O
[email protected]
GoM Shelf Marine

Authority:
Custodian/Owner:
Geir Karlsen
Retention Code:
ADM3000
Document Number:
Revision:
Issue Date:
Next Review Date
(if applicable):
Security
Classification:
2200-T2-DO-PN-4001
4/30/2010
N/A
Page:
Page 50 of 55
______________________________________________________________________________
Name
Telephone
John Rougeau
Reeves, Harold
J.
Verret, Brian
Russell, Virgil
Huston, John
(281 ) 366-7946 F
(281) 703-0203 C
(281)-366-5042 O
(71 3)-201 -3081 C
(281)-366-4323 O
(71 3)-907-3739 C
(337) 735-5441 O
(337) 578-2425 C
(281 ) 366-0571 O
(281 ) 382- 371 9 C
(281 ) 366-5795 O
(71 3) 962-5927 C
E-Mail
Title
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
Coordinator
Deepwater Marine
Coordinator
Subsea Ops & Intervention
Leader
Aviation Coordinator
Aviation Team Lead
GoM Logistics and Materials
Management Manager
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
Mailing address Fourchon Base:
Fourchon Base Address:
BP /C-Port 1
1 06 9th st. Lot #1
Golden Meadow, La. 70357
PH # 337-735-5708
Logistics Coordinator
Fourchon Base
Base Supervisor
Deepwater
Dispatcher
Dartez, Bradley
Deepwater
Receiving
Shipping
Shore base
manager
Marine
Dispatcher
Production
Air Logistics
PHI (Houma)
(337) 735-5708 O
(337) 735-5701 O
(985)-396-2927 C
337-735-5726 O
(281) 705-2372 C
(337) 735-5702 O
(337) 735-5715 O
(337)-735-5703 O
337-735-5714 O
985-396-2467 C
337-735-5712 O
337-365-6771
985 868 1 705
Mailing Address:
PHI Heliport
3622 Thunderbird Rd
Houma, LA 70363
Ph.: (337) 735-5351
BP Marine
Fuller, Dan
Nichols, Scott
Polk, Daniel
(281 ) 366-631 3 O
[email protected]
(71 3) 397-4343 C
(281 ) 366-481 5 O
[email protected]
(71 3) 826-3426 C
(281 ) 366-0538
[email protected]
(71 3) 825-2657
Marine Operations
Superintendent

Authority:
Custodian/Owner:
Geir Karlsen
Retention Code:
ADM3000
Document Number:
Revision:
Issue Date:
Next Review Date
(if applicable):
Security
Classification:
2200-T2-DO-PN-4001
4/30/2010
N/A
Page:
Page 51 of 55
______________________________________________________________________________
Telephone
Name
E-Mail
Title
Vessels
Ocean
71 3-744-5929
[email protected]
Intervention - 3
71 3-744-5920
BOA Sub C
832-461 -8266
[email protected]
Client Office
832-461-8269
owner office
Boa Deep C
203-575-5434
[email protected]
client office
203-575-5431
owner office
203-575-5437
Bridge
C-Express
985-612-2301
[email protected]
Bridge
985-61 2-2304
ROV
Skandi Neptune +47 5618 1180 /

[email protected]
1 1 81
+44 7894 1 73973
Nikola
225-289-61 12
[email protected]
Miss Ginger
Data Van: (337)
[email protected]
769-9032
[email protected]
Bridge: (337)
769-9033
IP Phone: 337-
735-3695
5701 (Geophysical
Lab)
5704 (Bridge)
Bridge (Sat
Phone):
(866) 21 5-61 99
Captain Cell in
Port:
(985) 677-2582
Spill Cleanup Vessels
Joe Griffin
C-Captain
C-Commander
C-Enforcer
C-Carrier
985-61 2-241 7
254-543-7829
985-61 2-2346
254-460-9996
985-61 2-2348
254-240-1 951
985-61 2-2341
01 1 -881-651-
436535
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]

Authority:
Custodian/Owner:
Geir Karlsen
Retention Code:
ADM3000
Document Number:
Revision:
Issue Date:
Next Review Date
(if applicable):
Security
Classification:
2200-T2-DO-PN-4001
4/30/2010
N/A
Page:
Page 52 of 55
______________________________________________________________________________
Telephone
Name
C-Fighter
Dante
Kobe Chouest
C-Pacer
C-Express
Amy Chouest
C-Courageous
C-Hero
C-Freedom
Celena Chouest
C-Legacy
Fast Cajun
Fast Sailor
Pat Tillman
Damon
Bankston
Gulf Princess
Sailfish
985-612-2330
985-61 2-231 9
863-833-581 7
985-61 2-2326
254-381-2760
985-61 2-2335
254-381-3953
985-61 2-2337
Bridge 985-61 2-
2301
ROV 985-61 2-
2304
863-833-8709
985-61 2-2344
985-61 2-2322
01 1 -881-651-
436647
985-61 2-2354
985-61 2-2306
985-612-2302
254-204-3130
985-61 2-2355
01 1 -881-651-
423025
985-61 2-2357
985-612-2359
985-612-2409
E-Mail
Title
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
985-61 2-2406
985-612-2407
985-612-2408
CapRock
CapRock
Champagne,
Ken
337-593-551 4
[email protected]
C&C
Technologies
George L.
Buhler
(71 3) 468-1536 O
(281) 914-9629 C
[email protected]
[email protected]
DOF
John Roscoe-
Hudson
(71 3) 785-0788 o
[email protected]
(713) 677-4838 c

Telephone system Edison
Chouest
C&C Technologies Surveying
Survey advisor
DOF Surveying
ADCP profiling system
SROV

Authority:
Custodian/Owner:
Geir Karlsen
Retention Code:
ADM3000
Document Number:
Revision:
Issue Date:
Next Review Date
(if applicable):
Security
Classification:
2200-T2-DO-PN-4001
4/30/2010
N/A
Page:
Page 53 of 55
______________________________________________________________________________
Telephone
Name
E-Mail
Title
Edison Chouest Offshore
Edison Chouest
Offshore
Shannon
Doucet,Jr.
Michael Burke
(985)
(985)
(985)
(985)
(71 3)
(71 3)
(281)
Fugro
Larry Prewitt
Parker, Anthony
24-hour
Dispatcher
Ken Richter
337-237-1300 O
337-268-31 30 Dir
337 962- 01 08 C
337-237-1 300
800-858-5322
71 3-346-3656 O
71 3-305-4409 C
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
Oceaneering
Tony Butler
Dale Tompkins
Albert Parker
David Sheetz
Lee Willmore
Mark Van Dyke
985-395-5247 O
985-395-8501 O
Dir
985-397-1 732 C
985-395-8519 F
985-395-1 105 wk
985-518-3274 C
985-395-5247
after hours
71 3-422-5953
(71 3) 329-4271 O
(832) 444-8885 C
832-467-7734 O
71 3-430-6268 C
(281 ) 366-4271 O
(71 3) 447-6407 C
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
Driver, David B.
(281 )
(281 )
(832)
(281 )
(71 3)
601-4444 O
601 -4346 P
677-1703 C
691 -7514 C
395-4448 O
251 -6326 F
798-7880 C
[email protected]
[email protected]
Sr. Operations Manager
Operations Coordinator
Fugro Surveying
Manager Lafayette surface
systems
Supervisor Marine
Operations
Survey USBL
Oceaneering
ROV Ops. Manager
DTS Ops. Mgr.
ROV Sup. Marianas
Sr. Supervisor
Project Manager-Tooling
DW Technical Solutions
Team Lead OI1
Project Support
Frazelle,
Andrew
366-2699 O
[email protected]
366-7941 F
661 -21 83 C
366-8792 O
[email protected]
213-3505 C

Met-ocean Specialist
D&C Operations Manager

Authority:
Custodian/Owner:
Geir Karlsen
Retention Code:
ADM3000
Document Number:
Revision:
Issue Date:
Next Review Date
(if applicable):
Security
Classification:
2200-T2-DO-PN-4001
4/30/2010
N/A
Page:
Page 54 of 55
______________________________________________________________________________
Telephone
Name
Haaland, Kurt
Hafle, Mark
Hughes, John
Karlsen, Geir
Mouton, Keith
Munstereifel,
Eric
Neumeyer, Joe
Rayburn, Dean
Dave Rich
Russell, Virgil
Sanders, Robert
Sims, David
Sprague,
Jonathan
Verret, Brian
(281 ) 366-5085 O
(281 ) 366-7557 F
(281) 705-3237 C
(281 ) 366-4237 O
(281) 687-8216 C
(281 ) 249-7678 O
(71 3) 480-01 48 C
(281) 646-9956 H
(281 ) 366-4880 O
(71 3) 855-7369 C
(936) 273-9257 H
(281 ) 366-4303 O
(281) 703-9589 C
(281 ) 249-1678 O
(281) 467-5257 C
(281 ) 366-3082 O
(281) 546-4918 C
(281 ) 366-1 245 O
(71 3) 208-61 69 C
(281 ) 366-3676 O
(281 785 3676
(281 ) 366-0571 O
(281 ) 382 371 9 C
(281 ) 366-4488 O
(71 3) 301 -6514 C
(281 ) 366-0360 O
(71 3) 304-5600 C
(281 ) 366-5871 O
(281 ) 387-7509 C
(337) 735-5441 O
(337) 578-2425 C
E-Mail
Title
[email protected]
Manager fiber optics project
[email protected]
Senior Drilling Engineer
[email protected]
Well Systems Lead
[email protected]
MC-252 Incident SIMOPS
[email protected]
[email protected]
GoM SPU HSSEr Team
Leader
Subsea Lead
[email protected]
D&C HSSE Advisor
[email protected]
D&C HSSE Team Leader
[email protected]
Wells Manager
[email protected]
Aviation Team Lead
[email protected]
Team Leader DD III
[email protected]
Wells Ops. Manager
[email protected]
Drilling Engineering Manager
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
Tulsa Control Center
contacts all facilities during
an emergency.
Pipeline Control Center
Tulsa Control
Center
(91 8) 660-4451

Authority:
Custodian/Owner:
Geir Karlsen
Retention Code:
ADM3000
Document Number:
Revision:
Issue Date:
Next Review Date
(if applicable):
Security
Classification:
2200-T2-DO-PN-4001
4/30/2010
N/A
Page:
Page 55 of 55
________________________________________________________________________
MC-252 Incident
SIMOPS Plan
4/29/201 0
Final issued for Use
Geir Karlsen
4/28/2010
Geir Karlsen
Rev
Date
Document Status
Houston Incident
Commander
Houston Incident
Commander
Custodian/Owner
Authority
Document
Control
Number
Organization
Sector ID
ID
2200
T2
Discipline ID
DO
Document
Class
PN
Sequence
Document
Number
Revision
4001
______________________________________________________________________________
AMENDMENT RECORD
Revision
Number
Amender
Initials
Date
Amendment
G. Karlsen
April 24, 201 0
Initial draft.
K. Mouton
April 25,201 0
Edits
G. Karlsen
April 27, 2010
G. Karlsen
April 28, 201 0
G. Karlsen
April 29, 201 0
debris field.

Authority:
Custodian/Owner:
Geir Karlsen
Retention Code:
ADM3000
Document Number:
Revision:
Issue Date:
Next Review Date
(if applicable):
Security
Classification:
2200-T2-DO-PN-4001
4/29/2010
N/A
Page:
Page 2 of 46
______________________________________________________________________________
REVIEWER SIGN-OFF
Custodian/Owner
Reviewer (s)
Authorizer (s)
Name
Signature
(PLEASE PRINT)
Geir Karlsen
BP Marine Assurance Rep

BP Geohazards Rep (AUV,HR2D)
BP (IMT) Spill Operations
BP Wells Rep
BP (IMT) Safety Officer
BP (IMT) Source Control Operations
IC Houston
IC On-scene Houma
USCG Houston
USCG On-scene Houma
BP Discoverer Enterprise Lead

BP DD III Lead
BP GoM Marine Authority
Transocean Incident Commander
BP Incident Commander
BP On-Scene Commander
Date

Authority:
Custodian/Owner:
Geir Karlsen
Retention Code:
ADM3000
Document Number:
Revision:
Issue Date:
Next Review Date
(if applicable):
Security
Classification:
2200-T2-DO-PN-4001
4/29/2010
N/A
Page:
Page 3 of 46
______________________________________________________________________________
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1
Introduction ............................................................................................................ 7
1.1
1.2
1.3
The SIMOPS Team ........................................................................................... 8
1 .3.1
1 .3.2
1 .3.3
1 .3.4
1 .3.5
1.4
1.5
2.1
2.2
2.3
2.4
2.5
2.6
2.7
2.7.1
2.7.2
Radio........................................................................................................ 1 7
2.7.3
Emergency Communications ................................................................... 1 7
3.1
3.2
Safe Distance.................................................................................................. 1 8
3.3
3.4
3.4.1
3.5
3.5.1
3.6
Fan Beam........................................................................................................ 20
3.7
4
SIMOPS Events .................................................................................................... 23
4.1
SIMOPS Events .............................................................................................. 23
4.2
4.3
SIMOPS Approval ........................................................................................... 24
5.1
5.2

Authority:
Custodian/Owner:
Geir Karlsen
Retention Code:
ADM3000
Document Number:
Revision:
Issue Date:
Next Review Date
(if applicable):
Security
Classification:
2200-T2-DO-PN-4001
4/29/2010
N/A
Page:
Page 4 of 46
______________________________________________________________________________
6
6.1
6.1.1
Sheen and Plume..................................................................................... 26
6.1.2
Marine Debris .......................................................................................... 26
6.2
6.2.1
6.3
6.3.1
Staging Area ............................................................................................ 27
6.3.2
Standby Area ........................................................................................... 28
6.4
6.5
6.6
6.7
6.8
6.9
Aviation ........................................................................................................... 29
6.10
7
References ............................................................................................................ 39
7.1.1
BP ............................................................................................................ 39
7.1.2
Transocean (TOI)...................................................................................... 39
7.2
7.2.1
BP ............................................................................................................ 39
Appendix A:
FIGURES
Figure 7: Marine Debris and Discoverer Enterprise / DD III 500-m Exclusion Zones.... 32
Note: The Offshore Source Control SIMOPS Coordinator controls the debris field and
an area within appr. 1 ,000-m of the Macondo well site. ............................................... 33

Authority:
Custodian/Owner:
Geir Karlsen
Retention Code:
ADM3000
Document Number:
Revision:
Issue Date:
Next Review Date
(if applicable):
Security
Classification:
2200-T2-DO-PN-4001
4/29/2010
N/A
Page:
Page 5 of 46
______________________________________________________________________________
TABLES
Table 1 : HazID Action Items ......................................................................................... 1 2
Table 6: MC 252 Acoustic Allocation Summary ............................................................ 22

Authority:
Custodian/Owner:
Geir Karlsen
Retention Code:
ADM3000
Document Number:
Revision:
Issue Date:
Next Review Date
(if applicable):
Security
Classification:
2200-T2-DO-PN-4001
4/29/2010
N/A
Page:
Page 6 of 46
______________________________________________________________________________
1
Introduction
1.1
Aker Marine
Subsea 7
USCG
The plan seeks to:
1.2

Authority:
Custodian/Owner:
Geir Karlsen
Retention Code:
ADM3000
Document Number:
Revision:
Issue Date:
Next Review Date
(if applicable):
Security
Classification:
2200-T2-DO-PN-4001
4/29/2010
N/A
Page:
Page 7 of 46
______________________________________________________________________________
1.3
The SIMOPS Team
The

Authority:
Custodian/Owner:
Geir Karlsen
Retention Code:
ADM3000
Document Number:
Revision:
Issue Date:
Next Review Date
(if applicable):
Security
Classification:
2200-T2-DO-PN-4001
4/29/2010
N/A
Page:
Page 8 of 46
______________________________________________________________________________
1.3.1
Aviation.
1.3.2
operation.
1.3.3
vessels.
from site.
1.3.4

Authority:
Custodian/Owner:
Geir Karlsen
Retention Code:
ADM3000
Document Number:
Revision:
Issue Date:
Next Review Date
(if applicable):
Security
Classification:
2200-T2-DO-PN-4001
4/29/2010
N/A
Page:
Page 9 of 46
______________________________________________________________________________
1.3.5
are:
Plan.
1.4

Authority:
Custodian/Owner:
Geir Karlsen
Retention Code:
ADM3000
Document Number:
Revision:
Issue Date:
Next Review Date
(if applicable):
Security
Classification:
2200-T2-DO-PN-4001
4/29/2010
N/A
Page:
Page 1 0 of 46
______________________________________________________________________________

Authority:
Custodian/Owner:
Geir Karlsen
Retention Code:
ADM3000
Document Number:
Revision:
Issue Date:
Next Review Date
(if applicable):
Security
Classification:
2200-T2-DO-PN-4001
4/29/2010
N/A
Page:
Page 1 1 of 46
______________________________________________________________________________
1.5
Activity
Responsible
Person
Action
rig.
Due
Date
George Gray
SIMOPS Director
Troy Endicott
Prior to
ops.
Troy Endicott
emulsion / mousse floating below the surface.
Troy Endicott
Rig Operations
the vessels.
Joe Neumeyer
Other Operations
Prior to
ops.
Troy Endicott
Communicate to the IMT the drill rigs request to
maintain a minimum of one mile distance for
Troy Endicott
Prior to
ops.
Prior to
ops.
The risk ranking and HazID results are found in Figure 1 1, page 36, Figure 12, page 37 and Figure 1 3,
page 38.

Authority:
Custodian/Owner:
Geir Karlsen
Retention Code:
ADM3000
Document Number:
Revision:
Issue Date:
Next Review Date
(if applicable):
Security
Classification:
2200-T2-DO-PN-4001
4/29/2010
N/A
Page:
Page 1 2 of 46
______________________________________________________________________________
2
2.1
Crisis Management
2.2
guidance.
2.3
2.4
the project.

Authority:
Custodian/Owner:
Geir Karlsen
Retention Code:
ADM3000
Document Number:
Revision:
Issue Date:
Next Review Date
(if applicable):
Security
Classification:
2200-T2-DO-PN-4001
4/29/2010
N/A
Page:
Page 1 3 of 46
______________________________________________________________________________
2.5
1.
2.
3.
Houma IC.
4.
Houston IC.
5.
6.
7.
8.

Authority:
Custodian/Owner:
Geir Karlsen
Retention Code:
ADM3000
Document Number:
Revision:
Issue Date:
Next Review Date
(if applicable):
Security
Classification:
2200-T2-DO-PN-4001
4/29/2010
N/A
Page:
Page 1 4 of 46
______________________________________________________________________________
needed-basis).
events.
Dial-In Numbers
and Pass Codes
1 -866-634-1 11 0
925-727-01 45
Action Plan (IAP).
Vessel Summary
2.6
require.

Authority:
Custodian/Owner:
Geir Karlsen
Retention Code:
ADM3000
Document Number:
Revision:
Issue Date:
Next Review Date
(if applicable):
Security
Classification:
2200-T2-DO-PN-4001
4/29/2010
N/A
Page:
Page 1 5 of 46
______________________________________________________________________________
2.7
2.7.1
Location
Discoverer
Enterprise
Discoverer
Enterprise ROV
DD III
DD III
ROV
Hailing general
16
16
NA
Bridge to Bridge
15
13
Bridge to boat
10, 11, 12
13
Port crane
10, 11, 12
67
Starboard crane
10, 11, 12
68
Crane to boat
10, 11, 12
Port: 67, Stb. 68
Bulk and liq.
Transfer
8, 15
72, 88
ROV
Discoverer
Enterprise Bridge
to maintenance
Spare channels
No radio
64
NA
NA
6, 69, 71, 73
UHF
2, 5, 9
Helicopter
123.05
Notes:
72, 88
NA
6, 69, 71, 73
3, 6, 9, 13
122.700
3, 6, 9,
13

Authority:
Custodian/Owner:
Geir Karlsen
Retention Code:
ADM3000
Document Number:
Revision:
Issue Date:
Next Review Date
(if applicable):
Security
Classification:
2200-T2-DO-PN-4001
4/29/2010
N/A
Page:
Page 1 6 of 46
______________________________________________________________________________
2.7.2
Radio
2.7.3

Authority:
Custodian/Owner:
Geir Karlsen
Retention Code:
ADM3000
Document Number:
Revision:
Issue Date:
Next Review Date
(if applicable):
Security
Classification:
2200-T2-DO-PN-4001
4/29/2010
N/A
Page:
Page 1 7 of 46
______________________________________________________________________________
3
1.
2.
3.1
Warning:
OIM and the Well Site Leader. Under no circumstance should the acoustic system be disabled because
a DP Class I DP operation.
3.2
Safe Distance
3.3

Authority:
Custodian/Owner:
Geir Karlsen
Retention Code:
ADM3000
Document Number:
Revision:
Issue Date:
Next Review Date
(if applicable):
Security
Classification:
2200-T2-DO-PN-4001
4/29/2010
N/A
Page:
Page 1 8 of 46
______________________________________________________________________________
Caution:
mandatory.
requirements.
3.4
3.4.1
details).
3.5
equipment.
3.5.1
page 22.
vessels.

Authority:
Custodian/Owner:
Geir Karlsen
Retention Code:
ADM3000
Document Number:
Revision:
Issue Date:
Next Review Date
(if applicable):
Security
Classification:
2200-T2-DO-PN-4001
4/29/2010
N/A
Page:
Page 1 9 of 46
______________________________________________________________________________
Caution:
3.6
Fan Beam
DD III.
Technip Deep Blue
OI1
OI3
C-Captain
Fan Beam Height

above Sea Level
Above Sea Level
44-ft.
1 02-ft.
56-ft.
74-ft.
45-ft.
determined by the

Authority:
Custodian/Owner:
Geir Karlsen
Retention Code:
ADM3000
Document Number:
Revision:
Issue Date:
Next Review Date
(if applicable):
Security
Classification:
2200-T2-DO-PN-4001
4/29/2010
N/A
Page:
Page 20 of 46
______________________________________________________________________________
DD III
Available Position
Reference System
DGPS, Acoustics
(Sonardyne digital)

DGPS, Fan Beam and
Notes
DP Class II+
DP Class II+
DP Class I and II
3.7

Authority:
Custodian/Owner:
Geir Karlsen
Retention Code:
ADM3000
Document Number:
Revision:
Issue Date:
Next Review Date
(if applicable):
Security
Classification:
2200-T2-DO-PN-4001
4/29/2010
N/A
Page:
Page 21 of 46
______________________________________________________________________________
Table 6: MC 252 Acoustic Allocation Summary
DP
DD III DP
ROV System
b12
b31 DP
b14 Tracking
b13
b32 DP
b28 Tracking
b15
b35 DP
b34 Tracking
b17
b48 Tracking
b51
b73 DP
b54 Tracking
b76 DP LIC
b68 Tracking
b52
DO NOT USE
b53
b74 Tracking
b57
b37 DP
DD III
b71
1409, 1410, 1411, 1412, 1413
b18 SPARE
b27 Emergency AUV
b72
b24 CRANE 1
b42
AUV
b75
b26 DP 1
b38 MILL 36
b46 SPARE
BOA SUB C
b58 MILL 36 SPARE
MISS
GINGER
b62 SEABIRD
b67 SPARE
b82 SPARE
b64 CRANE 2
b87 SPARE
b78 MILL 37
b21 Tracking
b84 MILL 37 SPARE
b25 Tracking
b86 DP 2
b41 Tracking
b16 Tracking
OI 3
b47 SPARE
SKANDI
b45 Tracking
b23 Tracking
NEPTUNE
b61 Tracking
b36 Tracking
b65 Tracking
b43 Tracking
b81 Tracking
b56 Tracking
b85 Tracking
Figure 10, page 34,
Figure 12, page 35.
b63 Tracking
b83 Tracking
that there are no
changes without
Address 1201, CIS 1

ROV 1
OI-3
preapproval.
Address 1202, CIS 2

ROV 1 Cage
Address 1203, CIS 3

ROV 2
may be utilized bby
Address 1204, CIS 7

ROV 2 Cage
C-Express
Address 1512, CIS 4

ROV
Address 1513, CIS 5

ROV Backup
Address 1514, CIS 6

ROV TMS

Authority:
Custodian/Owner:
Geir Karlsen
Retention Code:
ADM3000
Document Number:
Revision:
Issue Date:
Next Review Date
(if applicable):
Security
Classification:
2200-T2-DO-PN-4001
4/29/2010
N/A
Page:
Page 22 of 46
______________________________________________________________________________
4
SIMOPS Events
4.1
SIMOPS Events
zones.
Salvage operations.
Aviation.
Activity
Well Site Leader
OIM
DPO
Vessel within 500-m

Approve.
of DEN and DD III.

arrival.
alongside or
To be informed.
equipment hooked
up to DEN/DD III.
Station-keeping
alongside.
Fan Beam prism
installation.



in SIMOPS on all DP

matters.
vessel in SIMOPS.
SIMOPS.

keeping readiness.
alongside.
Vessel Captain together with DEN/DD III OIM and
together with OIM.
WSOC.
Degradation in
station-keeping
ability of vessel(s).
SIMOPS with other
To be informed.
operations
To approve.

Authority:
Custodian/Owner:
Geir Karlsen
Retention Code:
ADM3000
Document Number:
Revision:
Issue Date:
Next Review Date
(if applicable):
Security
Classification:
2200-T2-DO-PN-4001
4/29/2010
N/A
Page:
Page 23 of 46
______________________________________________________________________________
4.2
the event.
4.3 SIMOPS Approval

Authority:
Custodian/Owner:
Geir Karlsen
Retention Code:
ADM3000
Document Number:
Revision:
Issue Date:
Next Review Date
(if applicable):
Security
Classification:
2200-T2-DO-PN-4001
4/29/2010
N/A
Page:
Page 24 of 46
______________________________________________________________________________
5
5.1
Drilling Vessels
5.2
Caution:

Authority:
Custodian/Owner:
Geir Karlsen
Retention Code:
ADM3000
Document Number:
Revision:
Issue Date:
Next Review Date
(if applicable):
Security
Classification:
2200-T2-DO-PN-4001
4/29/2010
N/A
Page:
Page 25 of 46
______________________________________________________________________________
6
6.1
Surface Conditions
6.1.1
Sheen and Plume
6.1.2
Marine Debris
6.2
6.2.1

Authority:
Custodian/Owner:
Geir Karlsen
Retention Code:
ADM3000
Document Number:
Revision:
Issue Date:
Next Review Date
(if applicable):
Security
Classification:
2200-T2-DO-PN-4001
4/29/2010
N/A
Page:
Page 26 of 46
______________________________________________________________________________
Source
Control
Vessels
Supply Boats
and Fast Boats
DD III
Operations SIMOPS
Branch Director
Contact Offshore
Branch Director
Contact Offshore
Source Control
SIMOPS Branch
Contact Offshore
Source Control
SIMOPS Branch
SubC
to enter 500-m zone
applicable
Oil Spill
Response
Vessels
6.3
Drilling Vessels
6.3.1
Staging Area

Authority:
Custodian/Owner:
Geir Karlsen
Retention Code:
ADM3000
Document Number:
Revision:
Issue Date:
Next Review Date
(if applicable):
Security
Classification:
2200-T2-DO-PN-4001
4/29/2010
N/A
Page:
Page 27 of 46
______________________________________________________________________________
6.3.2
Standby Area
6.4
approval.
6.5
6.6
6.7
Working Channels
2.7, page 1 6.

Authority:
Custodian/Owner:
Geir Karlsen
Retention Code:
ADM3000
Document Number:
Revision:
Issue Date:
Next Review Date
(if applicable):
Security
Classification:
2200-T2-DO-PN-4001
4/29/2010
N/A
Page:
Page 28 of 46
______________________________________________________________________________
group.
safeties.
after the SIMOPS event. No critical repairs will be performed during the
Caution:
SIMOPS event (see details in the 500-m Zone Practice). A critical repair is
defined as repair that could lead to single point failure and loss of station or
vessel integrity.
6.9
Aviation
are expected:
1 .
2.
3.
4.
5.
Drone surveillance.
6.
Press and media.
Figure 1 , page 8.

Authority:
Custodian/Owner:
Geir Karlsen
Retention Code:
ADM3000
Document Number:
Revision:
Issue Date:
Next Review Date
(if applicable):
Security
Classification:
2200-T2-DO-PN-4001
4/29/2010
N/A
Page:
Page 29 of 46
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Title of Document:

Custodian/Owner:
Geir Karlsen
Retention Code:
ADM3000
Document Number:
Revision:
Issue Date:
Next Review Date
(if applicable):
Page:
2200-T2-DO-PN-4001
4/29/201 0
N/A
Page 30 of 46
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Title of Document:

Custodian/Owner:
Geir Karlsen
Retention Code:
ADM3000
Document Number:
Revision:
Issue Date:
Next Review Date
(if applicable):
Page:
2200-T2-DO-PN-4001
4/29/201 0
N/A
Page 31 of 46
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Figure 7: Marine Debris and Discoverer Enterprise / DD III 500-m Exclusion Zones
Title of Document:

Custodian/Owner:
Geir Karlsen
Retention Code:
ADM3000
Document Number:
Revision:
Issue Date:
Next Review Date
(if applicable):
Page:
2200-T2-DO-PN-4001
4/29/201 0
N/A
Page 32 of 46
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Title of Document:

Custodian/Owner:
Geir Karlsen
Retention Code:
ADM3000
Document Number:
Revision:
Issue Date:
Next Review Date
(if applicable):
Page:
2200-T2-DO-PN-4001
4/29/201 0
N/A
Page 33 of 46
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Title of Document:

Custodian/Owner:
Geir Karlsen
Retention Code:
ADM3000
Document Number:
Revision:
Issue Date:
Next Review Date
(if applicable):
Page:
2200-T2-DO-PN-4001
4/29/201 0
N/A
Page 34 of 46
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
KONGSBERG HiPAP
CH1
CH2
CH3
CH4
CH5
CH6
CH7
CH8
CIF
CCF
CRF
CH0
CH9
DCF
CH10
CH11
CH12
CH13
CH14
19230
19841
20491
21186
21929
22522
23148
23810
24752
25510
26042
26882
27472
28090
28735
29411
30120
30864
31645
OPERATING
CONDITIONS /
VESSEL ALLOCATION
DO NOT USE
CH #
b12
PARAMETERS
DO NOT USE
TX1
21000
TX2
21500
RX
29250
DO NOT USE
b13
DO NOT USE
21000
22000
29750
DD III (VESSEL 3)
b14
Tracking
21000
22500
30250
DO NOT USE
b15
DO NOT USE
21000
23000
30750
OI 3 (VESSEL 4)
b16
TRACKING
21000
23500
27250
DO NOT USE
b17
DO NOT USE
21000
24000
27750
b18
SPARE
21000
24500
28250
b21
TRACKING
21500
21000
28500
22000
29500
OI 3 (VESSEL 4)
b23
TRACKING
21500
b24
CRANE 1
21500
22500
30000
b25
TRACKING
21500
23000
30500
b26
DP 1
21500
23500
27000
b27
EMERGENCY AUV
21500
24000
27500
DD III (VESSEL 3)
b28
Tracking
21500
24500
28000
DD III DP
b31
DP
22000
21000
28750
DD III DP
b32
DP
22000
21500
29250
DD III (VESSEL 3)
b34
Tracking
22000
22500
X
X
30250
22000
23000
30750
22000
23500
27250
DD III DP
b37
DP
22000
24000
27750
b38
MILL 36
22000
24500
28250
TRACKING
22500
21000
28500
AUV
22500
21500
29000
22000
29500
23000
30500
23500
27000
24000
27500
b46
SPARE
22500
b47
SPARE
22500
DD III (VESSEL 3)
b48
Tracking
22500
24500
28000
DO NOT USE
b51
DO NOT USE
23000
21000
28750
DO NOT USE
b52
DO NOT USE
23000
21500
29250
X
X
b53
DO NOT USE
23000
22000
29750
Tracking
23000
22500
30250
OI 3 (VESSEL 4)
b56
TRACKING
23000
23500
27250
b57
DO NOT USE
23000
24000
27750
b58
MILL 36 SPARE
23000
24500
28250
b61
TRACKING
23500
21000
28500
SEABIRD
23500
21500
29000
22000
29500
b62
b63
TRACKING
23500
b64
CRANE 2
23500
22500
30000
TRACKING
23500
23000
30500
b67
SPARE
23500
24000
27500
DD III (VESSEL 3)
b68
Tracking
23500
24500
28000
DO NOT USE
DO NOT USE
b71
b72
DO NOT USE
DO NOT USE
24000
24000
21000
21500
28750
b73
DP
24000
22000
29750
b74
Tracking
24000
22500
30250
DO NOT USE
b75
DO NOT USE
24000
23000
30750
24000
23500
27250
24000
24500
28250
b81
TRACKING
24500
21000
28500
SPARE
24500
21500
29000
TRACKING
24500
22000
29500
MILL 37 SPARE
24500
22500
30000
b85
TRACKING
24500
23000
30500
b86
DP 2
24500
23500
27000
b87
SPARE
24500
24000
27500
DP LIC
b83
MILL 37
b82
X
X
b76
b84
X
X
b78
OI 3 (VESSEL 4)
DD III DP
29250
DD III DP
DD III (VESSEL 3)
b65
DO NOT USE
b54
DD III (VESSEL 3)
OI 3 (VESSEL 4)
X
X
DO NOT USE
b41
b42
22500
22500
DP
TRACKING
TRACKING
TRACKING
b35
b43
b36
b45
DD III DP
OI 3 (VESSEL 4)
OI 3 (VESSEL 4)
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Title of Document:

Custodian/Owner:
Geir Karlsen
Retention Code:
ADM3000
Document Number:
Revision:
Issue Date:
Next Review Date
(if applicable):
Page:
2200-T2-DO-PN-4001
4/29/201 0
N/A
Page 35 of 46
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Risk
Reputation
Frequency
Safety
Environmenta
Financial
Risk
internal HAZID were
Rig
Reputation
Safeguards
Frequency
Consequences
Safety
Environmenta
Financial
Causes
Post -Mitigate
Reputation
Oil Sheen
Hazard Scenario
Severity
Safety
Environmenta
Financial
Operating
Hazard
Pre -Mitigation
Reputation
Phase
Safety
Environmenta
Financial
Severity
Assigned
Individual
Dates
Comments
recommended.
an oil sheen.
Plume
Flow increases to a
environmental,
Subsea visual, real
D3
E3
2
E
oil comes up right
financial.
under the rig.
potential cause,
among others, could
be failure of BOP
stack.
E3
E3
2
George Gray
No
Troy Endicott
Troy Endicott
Emulsion /
Mousse
Troy Endicott
emulsion/mousse.
Joe Neumeyer
Title of Document:

Custodian/Owner:
Geir Karlsen
Retention Code:
ADM3000
Document Number:
Revision:
Issue Date:
Next Review Date
(if applicable):
Page:
2200-T2-DO-PN-4001
4/29/201 0
N/A
Page 36 of 46
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

-
Risk
Financial
Reputation
Environmenta
Safety
Frequency
Measures
Actions/Mitigation
Safety
Reputation
Environmenta
Financial
identified.
Reputation
Risk
Financial
Safety
Safeguards
Frequency
Reputation
well sites
Post -Mitigate
Consequences
Causes
Severity
Financial
Hazard Scenario
Safety
Hazard
Moving to relief
No unique hazards
Environmenta
Phase
Environmenta
Pre -Mitigation
Severity
Assigned
Individual
Dates
Comments
move in.
sites.
Met ocean
away from rigs.
monitored daily.
Hurricane
Source Control
vessels
source
onsite.
Acoustic conflict
SIMOPS plan defines
Vessels in 500
meter zone

-
Troy Endicott
resolution process.
Troy Endicott
branch directors.
meter zone
SIMOPS Plan.
Dead vessel
equipment
Potential vessel
blackout
failure
collision
NGO's, media
communications.
the area.
Dispersant
Application
Troy Endicott
in situ burning.
In situ burn
Title of Document:

Custodian/Owner:
Geir Karlsen
Retention Code:
ADM3000
Document Number:
Revision:
Issue Date:
Next Review Date
(if applicable):
Page:
2200-T2-DO-PN-4001
4/29/201 0
N/A
Page 37 of 46
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
HAZID Log
Property Damage
Risk
Containment
Personnel
Loss of
Residual Risk
Risk
Property Damage
Personnel
Operation
Containment
Risk Ranking
Loss of
Hazard
Preventive Controls
Consequences
Mitigating Controls
sheen present.
during rounds.
mode.
DEN: Continuously
weather.
DDIII: Continous
each. Can put ones
exchanger.
Ent
B4
DD
III
B4
Oily water in heat
AC units)
during rounds.
DEN: Continuously
monitored. Has 2 SW
and 1 as backup.
DDIII: Continous
each. Can put ones
exchanger.
Ent
B4
DD
III
B4
cooling unit.
during rounds.
overheating.
offline to clean.
DEN: Has 2 for DWX
Ent
B4
DD
III
B4
Title of Document:

Custodian/Owner:
Geir Karlsen
Retention Code:
ADM3000
Document Number:
Revision:
Issue Date:
Next Review Date
(if applicable):
Page:
2200-T2-DO-PN-4001
4/29/201 0
N/A
Page 38 of 46
Comments
______________________________________________________________________________
7 References
7.1.1 BP
7.2
Other References
7.2.1
BP

Authority:
Custodian/Owner:
Geir Karlsen
Retention Code:
ADM3000
Document Number:
Revision:
Issue Date:
Next Review Date
(if applicable):
Security
Classification:
2200-T2-DO-PN-4001
4/29/201 0
N/A
Page:
Page 39 of 46
______________________________________________________________________________
Appendix A:
Name
Telephone
E-Mail
Title
Terrebonne
General Medical
Center
81 66 Main Str.
Houma
US Coast Guard
(985) 873-41 41
Oper.
(985) 873-41 50
Emerg.
(504) 589-6225
(985) 380-5320
Houston Crisis
(281) 366-0286 O
(713) 208-6173 C
Center
BP ICP 24
(800) 321-8642
Hour Number
(630) 961-6200
MMS Houma
(985) 853-5884 O
(985) 879-2738 F
District
(985) 688-6050 C
(504) 736-2814 O
MMS Pipeline
(504) 736-2408 F
Section
(504) 452-3562 C
Douglas,
(281 ) 366-6843 O
Scherie
(71 3) 702-7673 C
[email protected]
Advisor
SIMOPS Director
Endicott, troy
(281 ) 366-7687 O
[email protected]
(71 3) 409-0061 C
Smith, Stephen
(866) 21 5-4586
(OBrian Group)
(866) 292-1326
[email protected]
[email protected]
Sepulvado,
Murry
(31 8) 471 -1763
[email protected]
Captain
OIM
Bridge / DPO
Radio room
BP WSL
BP Clerk /
dispatch
BP Subsea
(832)-587-5530/5
(71 3) 587-5531
71 3-232-8245 ext.
2008 or 2007
(71 3) 232-8245
(281 ) 366-4504 or
(281 ) 366-4506
(281 ) 366-451 5
(281 ) 366-4536
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
551
830-550
code 881 5-4147-9794
SIMOPS Coordinator
(onboard Louisiana
Responder 866-292-1 326)
Source Control

Authority:
Custodian/Owner:
Geir Karlsen
Retention Code:
ADM3000
Document Number:
Revision:
Issue Date:
Next Review Date
(if applicable):
Security
Classification:
2200-T2-DO-PN-4001
4/29/2010
N/A
Page:
Page 40 of 46
______________________________________________________________________________
Telephone
Name
E-Mail
Title
Port and Stb.
ROV
(71 3) 232-8245
ext. 2229
Helicopter
VHF (MHz) 1 23.050
Call Sign
V7HD3
DD III Well Site
Leader
(Craig Wright,
Earnest Tate,
Wayne Purvis,
Dwight Nunley,
Tim Speirs)
Radio Rm.
DD III Inmar Sat
DPO
Captain
BP Dispatcher
713-336-8218
832-587-6871 Dial
0 for operator
01 1 870
764449920
x-203 and x-204
x-206
71 3-336-821 5
71 3-336-8229
71 3-336-8201
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
Gray, George
(281 )
(71 3)
Halvorson Dory,
(281 )
Kathleen
(71 3)
Jacobsen Plutt,
(281 )
Louise
(281)
Stoltz, Dan
(281 )
(71 3)
366-0659 O
376-1099 C
366-2626 O
206-5339 C
366-5932 O
685-2017 C
366-3424 O
805-9972 C
[email protected]
DD III Team Leader
[email protected]
[email protected]
Operations Drilling Engineer
DD III
DEN Team Leader
[email protected]
TOI Rig Support
Brekke, Jim
Blue, Mike
Hess, Adam
King, Paul
Richards,
Ramsey
Sims, Chuck
Walker, Stephen
(281 ) 925-6676 O
(281) 961 -1368 C
(832) 587-8863 O
(71 3) 409-8217 C
(832)-587-8851 O
(71 3)-204-1 837 C
(832) 587-8573 O
(71 3) 540-6332 C
(281 ) 925-6433 O
(71 3) 205-9474 M
(71 3) 782-4703 H
(281 ) 925-6581 O
(281 ) 925-6583 F
(832) 922-2633 C
(832) 587-8770 O
(281) 450-7266 C
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
Asst. Rig Manager DD III
[email protected]
Rig Manager, Performance -
TOI DD III Rig Manager
[email protected]
Manager DP and
Instrumentation
[email protected]
Marine and DP
Superintendent NAM
Hollier, Jamie
(281 ) 366-0277 O
[email protected]
GoM Shelf Marine

Authority:
Custodian/Owner:
Geir Karlsen
Retention Code:
ADM3000
Document Number:
Revision:
Issue Date:
Next Review Date
(if applicable):
Security
Classification:
2200-T2-DO-PN-4001
4/29/2010
N/A
Page:
Page 41 of 46
______________________________________________________________________________
Name
Telephone
John Rougeau
Reeves, Harold
J.
Verret, Brian
Russell, Virgil
Huston, John
(281 ) 366-7946 F
(281) 703-0203 C
(281)-366-5042 O
(71 3)-201 -3081 C
(281)-366-4323 O
(71 3)-907-3739 C
(337) 735-5441 O
(337) 578-2425 C
(281 ) 366-0571 O
(281 ) 382- 371 9 C
(281 ) 366-5795 O
(71 3) 962-5927 C
E-Mail
Title
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
Coordinator
Deepwater Marine
Coordinator
Leader
Aviation Team Lead
Management Manager
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
BP /C-Port 1
1 06 9th st. Lot #1
PH # 337-735-5708
Fourchon Base
Base Supervisor
Deepwater
Dispatcher
Dartez, Bradley
Deepwater
Receiving
Shipping
Shore base
manager
Marine
Dispatcher
Production
Air Logistics
PHI (Houma)
(337) 735-5708 O
(337) 735-5701 O
(985)-396-2927 C
337-735-5726 O
(281) 705-2372 C
(337) 735-5702 O
(337) 735-5715 O
(337)-735-5703 O
337-735-5714 O
985-396-2467 C
337-735-5712 O
337-365-6771
985 868 1 705
Mailing Address:
PHI Heliport
3622 Thunderbird Rd
Houma, LA 70363
Ph.: (337) 735-5351
BP Marine
Fuller, Dan
Nichols, Scott
Polk, Daniel
(281 )
(71 3)
(281 )
(71 3)
(281 )
(71 3)
366-631 3 O
[email protected]
397-4343 C
366-481 5 O
[email protected]
826-3426 C
366-0538
[email protected]
825-2657
Marine Operations
Superintendent

Authority:
Custodian/Owner:
Geir Karlsen
Retention Code:
ADM3000
Document Number:
Revision:
Issue Date:
Next Review Date
(if applicable):
Security
Classification:
2200-T2-DO-PN-4001
4/29/2010
N/A
Page:
Page 42 of 46
______________________________________________________________________________
Telephone
Name
E-Mail
Title
Vessels
Ocean
71 3-744-5929
[email protected]
Intervention - 3
71 3-744-5920
BOA Sub C
832-461 -8266
[email protected]
Client Office
832-461-8269
owner office
Boa Deep C
203-575-5434
[email protected]
client office
203-575-5431
owner office
203-575-5437
Bridge
C-Express
985-612-2301
[email protected]
Bridge
985-61 2-2304
ROV

[email protected]
1 1 81
+44 7894 1 73973
Nikola
225-289-61 12
[email protected]
Miss Ginger
Data Van: (337)
[email protected]
769-9032
[email protected]
Bridge: (337)
769-9033
IP Phone: 337-
735-3695
5701 (Geophysical
Lab)
5704 (Bridge)
Bridge (Sat
Phone):
(866) 21 5-61 99
Captain Cell in
Port:
(985) 677-2582
Joe Griffin
C-Captain
C-Commander
C-Enforcer
C-Carrier
985-61 2-241 7
254-543-7829
985-61 2-2346
254-460-9996
985-61 2-2348
254-240-1 951
985-61 2-2341
01 1 -881-651-
436535
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]

Authority:
Custodian/Owner:
Geir Karlsen
Retention Code:
ADM3000
Document Number:
Revision:
Issue Date:
Next Review Date
(if applicable):
Security
Classification:
2200-T2-DO-PN-4001
4/29/2010
N/A
Page:
Page 43 of 46
______________________________________________________________________________
Telephone
Name
C-Fighter
Dante
Kobe Chouest
C-Pacer
C-Express
Amy Chouest
C-Courageous
C-Hero
C-Freedom
Celena Chouest
C-Legacy
Fast Cajun
Fast Sailor
Pat Tillman
Damon
Bankston
Gulf Princess
Sailfish
985-612-2330
985-61 2-231 9
863-833-581 7
985-61 2-2326
254-381-2760
985-61 2-2335
254-381-3953
985-61 2-2337
Bridge 985-61 2-
2301
ROV 985-61 2-
2304
863-833-8709
985-61 2-2344
985-61 2-2322
01 1 -881-651-
436647
985-61 2-2354
985-61 2-2306
985-612-2302
254-204-3130
985-61 2-2355
01 1 -881-651-
423025
985-61 2-2357
985-612-2359
985-612-2409
E-Mail
Title
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
985-61 2-2406
985-612-2407
985-612-2408
CapRock
CapRock
Champagne,
Ken
337-593-551 4
[email protected]
C&C
Technologies
George L.
Buhler
(71 3) 468-1536 O
(281) 914-9629 C
[email protected]
[email protected]
DOF
John Roscoe-
Hudson
(71 3) 785-0788 o
[email protected]
(713) 677-4838 c

Chouest
Survey advisor
DOF Surveying
SROV

Authority:
Custodian/Owner:
Geir Karlsen
Retention Code:
ADM3000
Document Number:
Revision:
Issue Date:
Next Review Date
(if applicable):
Security
Classification:
2200-T2-DO-PN-4001
4/29/2010
N/A
Page:
Page 44 of 46
______________________________________________________________________________
Telephone
Name
E-Mail
Title
Edison Chouest
Offshore
Shannon
Doucet,Jr.
Michael Burke
(985)
(985)
(985)
(985)
(71 3)
(71 3)
(281)
Fugro
Larry Prewitt
Parker, Anthony
24-hour
Dispatcher
Ken Richter
337-237-1300 O
337-268-31 30 Dir
337 962- 01 08 C
337-237-1 300
800-858-5322
71 3-346-3656 O
71 3-305-4409 C
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
Oceaneering
Tony Butler
Dale Tompkins
Albert Parker
David Sheetz
Lee Willmore
Mark Van Dyke
985-395-5247 O
985-395-8501 O
Dir
985-397-1 732 C
985-395-8519 F
985-395-1 105 wk
985-518-3274 C
985-395-5247
after hours
71 3-422-5953
(71 3) 329-4271 O
(832) 444-8885 C
832-467-7734 O
71 3-430-6268 C
(281 ) 366-4271 O
(71 3) 447-6407 C
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
Driver, David B.
(281 )
(281 )
(832)
(281 )
(71 3)
601-4444 O
601 -4346 P
677-1703 C
691 -7514 C
395-4448 O
251 -6326 F
798-7880 C
[email protected]
[email protected]
Fugro Surveying
systems
Supervisor Marine
Operations
Survey USBL
Oceaneering
ROV Ops. Manager
DTS Ops. Mgr.
ROV Sup. Marianas
Sr. Supervisor
Team Lead OI1
Project Support
Frazelle,
Andrew
366-2699 O
[email protected]
366-7941 F
661 -21 83 C
366-8792 O
[email protected]
213-3505 C


Authority:
Custodian/Owner:
Geir Karlsen
Retention Code:
ADM3000
Document Number:
Revision:
Issue Date:
Next Review Date
(if applicable):
Security
Classification:
2200-T2-DO-PN-4001
4/29/2010
N/A
Page:
Page 45 of 46
______________________________________________________________________________
Telephone
Name
Haaland, Kurt
Hafle, Mark
Hughes, John
Karlsen, Geir
Mouton, Keith
Munstereifel,
Eric
Neumeyer, Joe
Rayburn, Dean
Dave Rich
Russell, Virgil
Sanders, Robert
Sims, David
Sprague,
Jonathan
Verret, Brian
(281 ) 366-5085 O
(281 ) 366-7557 F
(281) 705-3237 C
(281 ) 366-4237 O
(281) 687-8216 C
(281 ) 249-7678 O
(71 3) 480-01 48 C
(281) 646-9956 H
(281 ) 366-4880 O
(71 3) 855-7369 C
(936) 273-9257 H
(281 ) 366-4303 O
(281) 703-9589 C
(281 ) 249-1678 O
(281) 467-5257 C
(281 ) 366-3082 O
(281) 546-4918 C
(281 ) 366-1 245 O
(71 3) 208-61 69 C
(281 ) 366-3676 O
(281 785 3676
(281 ) 366-0571 O
(281 ) 382 371 9 C
(281 ) 366-4488 O
(71 3) 301 -6514 C
(281 ) 366-0360 O
(71 3) 304-5600 C
(281 ) 366-5871 O
(281 ) 387-7509 C
(337) 735-5441 O
(337) 578-2425 C
E-Mail
Title
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
Well Systems Lead
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
GoM SPU HSSEr Team
Leader
Subsea Lead
[email protected]
D&C HSSE Advisor
[email protected]
[email protected]
Wells Manager
[email protected]
Aviation Team Lead
[email protected]
Team Leader DD III
[email protected]
Wells Ops. Manager
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
an emergency.
Tulsa Control
Center
(91 8) 660-4451

Authority:
Custodian/Owner:
Geir Karlsen
Retention Code:
ADM3000
Document Number:
Revision:
Issue Date:
Next Review Date
(if applicable):
Security
Classification:
2200-T2-DO-PN-4001
4/29/2010
N/A
Page:
Page 46 of 46
NMFS Activities in Support of DEEPWATER HORIZON Oil Spill Response
April 26, 2010
Last night we had a conference call between NMFS and NOS/OR&R to coordinate
NMFS subject matter experts advising through OR&R to USCG for impacts due to large
scale dispersant application operations. Participants included;
Gary Shigenaka
Ed Levine
OR&R Seattle
OR&R On Scene
Michael Gallagher
NMFS HQ
Bonnie Ponwith
NMFS Southeast Fisheries Science Center Director
Theo Brainerd
NMFS Southeast Fisheries Science Center Deputy
Lance Garrison
NMFS SEFSC, Miami
Sheryan Epperly
NMFS SEFSC, Miami
Keith Mullin
NMFS SEFSC, Pascagoula Lab
Teri Rowles
NMFS HQ, Office of Protected Resources
Bob Hoffman
NMFS Southeast Region, St. Pete
NMFS Southeast Fisheries Science Center is rounding up their qualified marine mammal
spotters with current aircraft safety credentials to man the spotter aircraft that accompany
the dispersant application operations. The spotters will advise on the presence of marine
mammals and turtles while actively spraying dispersant. NMFS spotters should be flying
by late today or Tuesday.
Bonnie Ponwith suggested that NMFS archival marine mammal surveys for the affected
area at this time of year are not adequate to accurately assess numbers and species being
impacted by the spill. She recommends that we perform a 2 3 day synoptic aerial
survey of the affected area. NMFS personnel are presently drafting flightlines for such a
survey. NOAAs Aircraft Operations Center (AOC) has been contacted about
availability of a twin otter aircraft for the effort. If AOC cannot provide a suitable
aircraft in the next few days, NMFS will seek a charter aircraft with funding through the
responsible party.
Teri Rowles is coordinating efforts of the NMFS Gulf Marine Mammal Stranding
Network with the work of the Unified Commands Wildlife Branch to be sure affected
animals receive proper care and are accounted for NRDA purposes.
Since this appears to likely be a long term response which may involve fishery closures
next to areas with open fisheries, NMFS Office of Seafood Inspection will be reaching
out to states and local seafood processors to make sure the scope of their inspection
services are understood and utilized as needed.
ARTICLE IN PRESS
Ecotoxicology and Environmental Safety 59 (2004) 300308
Oil dispersant increases PAH uptake by sh exposed to crude oil
a,
Shahunthala D. Ramachandran,
Peter V. Hodson,
Colin W. Khan,
and Ken Lee
School ofEnvironmental Studies, Queens University, Kingston, Ont. , Canada K7L 3N6
Department ofFisheries and Oceans, Bedf

ord Institute ofOceanography, Centre f
or Of
f
shore Oil and Gas Environmental Research, Halif
ax, NS,
Canada B2Y4A2
Received 14 May 2003; received in revised form 12 August 2003; accepted 25 August 2003
Abstract
The use of oil dispersants is a controversial countermeasure in the effort to minimize the impact of oil spills. The risk of ecological
effects will depend on whether oil dispersion increases or decreases the exposure of aquatic species to the toxic components of oil. To
evaluate whether sh would be exposed to more polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon (PAH) in dispersed oil relative to equivalent
amounts of the water-accommodated fraction (WAF), measurements were made of CYP1A induction in trout exposed to the
dispersant (Corexit 9500), WAFs, and the chemically enhanced WAF (dispersant; CEWAF) of three crude oils. The crude oils
comprised the higher viscosity Mesa and Terra Nova and the less viscous Scotian Light. Total petroleum hydrocarbon and PAH
concentrations in the test media were determined to relate the observed CYP1A induction in trout to dissolved fractions of the crude
oil. CYP1A induction was 6- to 1100-fold higher in CEWAF treatments than in WAF treatments, with Terra Nova having the
greatest increase, followed by Mesa and Scotian Light. Mesa had the highest induction potential with the lowest EC50
values for
both WAF and CEWAF. The dispersant Corexit was not an inducer and it did not appear to affect the permeability of the gill
surface to known inducers such as b-napthoavone. These experiments suggest that the use of oil dispersants will increase the
exposure of sh to hydrocarbons in crude oil.
r 2003 Published by Elsevier Inc.
Keywords: Crude oils; Dispersant Corexit EC9500; CYP1A; EROD activity; Water-accommodated fraction
1. Introduction
Dispersants have been in use in oil spill clean-up since
the 1950s. Chemical dispersion of oil in spill contingency
exercises was not favored due to the toxicity of the early
dispersant formulations to aquatic organisms. Labora-
tory studies of their observed toxicity (Linden, 1974;
Hartwick et al., 1982; Carr and Linden, 1984) were
further validated by eld reports (Smith, 1968) from the
Torrey Canyon and more recently the Sea Empress oil
Aurand, 1997). However, many effective and less toxic
dispersants have since been developed.
Risks to aquatic organisms from chemical dispersion
could arise from exposure to the dispersant as well as to
the dispersed oil. Much research has been conducted on
the toxicity of dispersants (Nelson-Smith, 1977; Singer
et al., 1993; Law, 1995; Carr and Linden, 1984; Cotou
B6
Corresponding author. Fax: +1.
E-mail address: [email protected] (P.V. Hodson).
0147-6513/$ - see front matter r 2003 Published by Elsevier Inc.
doi:10.1016/j.ecoenv.2003.08.018
et al., 2001), but in general less is known about the
combined effects of oil and dispersants (Linden, 1975;
Cohen et al., 2001; Gagnon and Holdway, 2000).
Aquatic organisms are unlikely to be exposed to
dispersant alone but instead to both dispersant and oil
in combination, which may either exacerbate or mitigate
toxic effects (Getter and Baca, 1984).
Dispersants are essentially surfactants comprising
anionic and nonionic molecules in xed ratios that
render both hydrophilic and hydrophobic properties to
water interface and lower interfacial tension, thus
facilitating the formation of small (o100 mm) mixed
oilsurfactant micelles (Canevari, 1978). These oil
emulsion droplets are driven into the water column
forming a plume, thus breaking up the slick. The
observed increased toxicity of dispersed (chemically or
mechanically) oil has been attributed to particle size in
dispersion (Bobra et al., 1989) and to aromatic
hydrocarbon content (Anderson et al., 1974). The
primary route of hydrocarbon uptake is via the gills
ARTICLE IN PRESS
S. D. Ramachandran et al. / Ecotoxicology and Environmental Saf

ety 59 (2004) 300308
(Thomas and Rice, 1981); thus, the dissolved fraction
would be the most available form to animals.
The majority of studies of the toxicity of oil and oil
dispersant treatments concerns their impacts on inverte-
brate species, presumably because they are relatively
sessile compared to sh. However, recent studies of the
impacts of oil from the Exxon Valdez spill on embryonic
and larval stages of salmon and herring demonstrated
both exposure and chronic toxicity in situ. The
coincidence of spawning and oil deposition in spawning
shoals resulted in CYP1A induction, blue sac disease of
larvae, and recruitment failure, and effects were
associated with exposure to the polycyclic aromatic
hydrocarbon (PAH) fractions (Carls et al., 1999). The
risk to sh from oil and oildispersant treatments can be
assessed in terms of exposure to PAH, and changes in
exposure after the use of dispersants. PAH exposure can
be estimated by a standardized laboratory bioassay of
CYP1A induction in juvenile rainbow trout, Oncor-
hynchus mykiss (Hodson et al., 1996).
Dispersant effectiveness is usually inuenced by a
number of factors, which include sea energy, tempera-
ture, salinity, and the nature of the crude oil itself.
Crude oils are a complex matrix of organic compounds,
which, upon spilling, evaporate or dissolve and disperse
into the water column. Light oils are known to have a
higher proportion of volatile aromatics, some of which
dissolve more readily (Volkmann et al., 1994). Dis-
persant effectiveness on these oils is less noticeable than
in medium and heavy crude oils that comprise a higher
proportion of longer and branched carbon chains with
reduced solubility.
The objective of this study was to determine the
effects of the dispersant Corexit 9500 on the exposure
and toxicity to sh of hydrocarbons from three kinds of
crude oil of varying viscosities. Fish were exposed to the
water-accommodated fraction (WAF) and chemically
enhanced (dispersed) WAF (CEWAF) of the oils. The
hepatic CYP1A activity in juvenile rainbow trout
exposed to WAF and CEWAF was used to measure
the changes in exposure to dissolved and dispersed PAH
created by the use of dispersant. Lethality was used as
an index of toxicity. Total petroleum hydrocarbon
(TPH) and PAH concentrations in the test solutions
were also measured as an index of actual exposure
concentrations.
2. Materials and methods
2. 1. Experimental design
Tests (48 h) were conducted to assess the effects of
Corexit on the extent of hydrocarbon uptake, which was
indicated by CYP1A induction in sh exposed to
mixtures of WAF and CEWAF. Test conditions were
301
determined by preliminary assays to evaluate the
lethality and CYP1A induction potential of Corexit
alone, and the duration of the tests required to produce
maximal CYP1A activity.
2. 2. Crude oil and dispersant
Three kinds of weathered crude oil of varying
viscosities were tested (1) Mesa sour crude (viscosity of
42.3 cP), (2) Terra Nova crude (viscosity of 50.1 cP), and
(3) Scotian Light crude (viscosity of 3.76 cP) at 21
C.
Mesa oil was weathered by evaporation (sparging with
air for 130 h) to simulate the loss (approximately 14%)
of volatile components at sea shortly after a spill
(Hodson et al., 2002). The Terra Nova and Scotian
Light crude oils were not weathered. Dispersant-type
Corexit EC9500 was used for dispersing the oils. Corexit
9500 is a hydrocarbon-based reformulation of water-
based Corexit 9527 and is meant to be used on higher
viscosity oils and emulsions. The acute aquatic toxicity
of Corexit 9500 was reported to be not much different
from that of Corexit 9527and Corexit 9554 (Singer et al.,
1996).
2. 3. Fish stock
Juvenile rainbow trout (810 weeks of age) were
obtained from a trout farm (Rainbow Springs, Tha-
mesford, ON, Canada) and acclimatized for at least 1
week in dechlorinated water (1215
C) prior to the
bioassays. During acclimation, the trout were fed daily
with a commercial sh food (Martins Feed Mills, ON,
Canada) daily at a rate of 3% body weight per day. Feed
was withheld 48 h prior to bioassay and throughout the
exposure period.
2. 4. Exposure experiments
2. 4. 1. Preparation ofWAF and CEWAF
The WAF was prepared fresh daily by the stirring of
crude oil with dechlorinated municipal water at a ratio
of 1:9 in sealed containers with minimum head space for
18 h at 18
C. The vortex was adjusted to no more than a
third of the height of the mixture from the oilwater
interface (Singer et al., 2000). This particular ratio of oil
to water has been reported as the optimum to maximize
the TPH content of the water column (Gagnon and
Holdway, 2000). The mixture was allowed to settle for
1 h for the separation of the water and oil phases, and
the water phase was drained off for testing via a tap at
the bottom of the tank.
CEWAF was made by mixing oil and water in the
same ratio as that for WAF and by stirring for the same
duration. The dispersant Corexit 9500 was added with a
Pasteur pipette to the surface of the oilwater mixture at
the recommended ratio of 1:20 dispersant:oil (Gilbert,
ARTICLE IN PRESS

ety 59 (2004) 300308
302
1996) and allowed to stir for an additional hour. The
resulting solution contained droplets of dispersed oil,
and was allowed to settle for another hour before the
cloudy emulsion layer at the bottom was drained.
fraction (pmol/min/mg Pr). EROD values were normal-
ized to water controls. The mineral oil exposures
provided a baseline induction.
2. 6. Analysis ofhydrocarbons
2. 4. 2. Exposure group
For each oil treatment, groups of ve sh were
exposed to a series of WAF and CEWAF concentra-
tions in 10 L of water. Waterborne b-napthoavone
(10 mg/L in 10 L), a known CYP1A inducer, served as a
positive control while Corexit EC9500, mineral oil, and
dechlorinated municipal water were used as negative
controls. All solutions were renewed every 24 h.
Exposure concentrations causing CYP1A induction
and lethality were determined from range-nder tests.
Solution concentrations ranged from 0.0001 to 0.56% of
WAF or CEWAF (v/v) for Mesa, 0.00010.10% of
WAF or CEWAF (v/v) for Terra Nova; and 0.001
1.0% of WAF or CEWAF (v/v) for Scotian Light. The
exposure duration was xed at 48 h because preliminary
tests showed that 48 and 96 h of exposure caused
comparable CYP1A induction. At the end of each 48 h
test, exposed sh were sacriced and their livers
removed for the CYP1A assay. Physicochemical factors
(temperature, pH, dissolved oxygen, and conductivity)
were measured daily in each experiment. The concentra-
tion of ammonia was measured at the end of each test.
Test conditions are presented in Table 1.
2. 5. EROD assay
CYP1A activity (ethoxyresorun-o-deethylase, or
EROD, activity) was assessed by a uorometric method
that measures the rate of deethylation of ethoxyresor-
un (Hodson et al., 1996, modied by Fragoso et al.,
1998). Livers were homogenized in HEPES/KCl buffer
at pH 7.4 and centrifuged at 9000g for 20 min at 4
C to
isolate the microsomes (S9 fraction), which were quick-
frozen in liquid nitrogen and stored at 86
C until
assayed. The rate of resorun production was measured
using a microplate spectrouorometer at excitation and
emission wavelengths of 530 and 586 nm, respectively.
The values were normalized against crude protein
concentrations assayed by the Bio-Rad Protein Kit
and measured on a microplate spectrophotometer at
600 nm. All assays were performed in triplicate. EROD
activity was expressed as picomoles of resorun
produced per minute per milligram protein in the S9
Water samples of 250 and 300 mL were taken during
the daily renewal for TPH and PAH analysis, respec-
tively. Samples for PAH extraction were spiked with
1.0 mL of surrogate standard comprising nine PAHs
prior to solvent extraction. Samples for TPH analysis
were extracted in three 50-mL lots of hexane, while
those for PAH were extracted in three 20-mL lots of
AR-grade dichloromethane and dried by ltration
through sodium sulfate. The extract was concentrated
by roto-evaporation and further reduced to 1.0 mL by
drying with compressed nitrogen. TPHs were analyzed
by gas chromatography, and concentrations in three
boiling point fractions, C10C16, C 16C34, and C34
C50, were calculated from calibration curves derived for
the C10, C16, and C34 hydrocarbons. The analytical
method used was an adaptation of a Canadian Council
of Ministers of the Environment Tier 1 Method
(CCME, 2000).
Dichloromethane extracts for PAH analysis were sent
to the Centre for Offshore Oil and Gas Environmental
Research (COOGERCREPGE), Bedford Institute of
Oceanography (Nova Scotia, Canada), for analysis by
gas chromatography/mass spectrometry (Garcia-Blanco
et al., 2001).
2. 7. Statistical analysis and LC50

calculations
Statistical analyses were performed using SigmaStat
software. For each oil, EROD activity values were log
transformed to achieve a normal distribution, as
demonstrated by the KolmogorovSmirnov normality
test and the Levene median equal variance test. One-way
analysis of variance with treatment as a factor was
applied to detect differences among treatments (control,
WAF, and CEWAF). The post hoc Bonferroni multiple
comparison test was used to identify treatment concen-
trations that were signicantly different from each
another. Median effects concentrations (EC50

as percen-
tage of maximum EROD activity) for the WAF and
CEWAF exposures of each oil were calculated from
induction curves using Graph PadPrism software to t
a linear regression.
Table 1
Test conditions for juvenile trout 48-h static bioassays with daily renewal
Fish weight (g)
pH
Temperature (
C)
Conductivity (mS/cm)
Dissolved oxygen (% saturated)
Total ammonia (ppm)
2.6271.34
7.9870.31
13.771.2
265741
94.6713.7
0.5570.18
n 2 days three oils 14 buckets; mean7SD.
ARTICLE IN PRESS

ety 59 (2004) 300308
3. Results
3. 1. Toxicity ofCorexit EC9500, WAF, and CEWAF
The 96-h LC50

of Corexit EC9500 was estimated to be
between 100 and 1000 mg/L. There was no increase in
EROD activity at dispersant concentrations ranging
from 1.0 to 10,000 mg/L even though there was lethality
at the higher concentrations. In terms of toxicity,
Scotian Light was the most toxic, as 1% (v/v) CEWAF
was lethal. CEWAF treatments for both Mesa and
Terra Nova were lethal at 10% (v/v). There was no
mortality in all WAF treatments up to 100% (v/v).
3. 2. EROD activityin sh exposed to WAF and CEWAF
EROD activity in trout exposed to all three crude oils
increased in response to CEWAF exposure at concen-
trations of 0.0001 (v/v) to 0.32% (v/v) (Fig. 1). Scotian
Light concentrations above 0.32% were lethal. Fish in
both WAF and CEWAF treatments showed up to a
1000
MESA
100
BNF
CEWAF
10
EROD Activity (pmol/mg/min)
WAF
Mineral Oil
0.1
0.0001
0.001
1000
0.01
0.1
TERRA NOVA
303
60-fold higher EROD activity than sh exposed to
mineral oil and water controls (Po0:05; Bonferroni
pair-wise comparison). In both the WAF and CEWAF
treatments for all three oils, EROD activity increased in
response to increasing exposure concentrations up to
0.1% (v/v). Further increases in concentration (40.1%)
for CEWAF treatments resulted in decreased activity.
The exposureresponse curve for Mesa crude oil was
derived from three separate tests, with the second and
third added at successively lower exposure concentra-
tions to dene the EC50, as indicated in Fig. 1. There
was very good concordance in EROD activity for
overlapping concentrations among the three tests.
The consistent shift of the CEWAF induction curves
to the left of that of WAF for Mesa and Terra Nova
reects exposure to higher hydrocarbon concentrations
for CEWAF concentrations for a given percentage v/v.
In the case of Scotian Light, the curves overlapped, but
EROD activity values were signicantly higher for
CEWAF treatments than for WAF treatments.
EC50
values (Table 2) for both WAF and CEWAF of
the three oils showed the following rank order of
induction potency: Mesa CEWAF4Terra Nova CE-
WAF4Scotian Light CEWAF4Mesa WAF4Scotian
Light WAF4Terra Nova WAF. PAH concentrations
(estimated from the PAH data in Table 3) correspond-
ing to the EC50

were between 0.60 and 2.00 mg/L for
both treatments from all three oils. The difference in
induction potential calculated from the ratio of EC50
WAF: EC50
CEWAF was greatest for Terra Nova
(1090 ), followed by Mesa (110 ) and Scotian Light
(6 ). Scotian Light was more easily dissolved and
dispersed than the other two oils and was also the most
toxic (0.32% v/v CEWAF; Fig. 1).
CEWAF
100
3. 3. Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons
BNF
10
1
Mineral Oil
0.1
0.0001
WAF
0.001
1000
100
0.01
0.1
10
Scotian Light
CEWAF
BNF
10
WAF
0.1
0.0001
0.001
0.01
0.1
Percent V/V
Fig. 1. EROD activity (pmol/min/mg protein) in trout exposed to a
range of WAF or CEWAF concentrations from crude oils or to one
concentration of mineral oil or 10 mg/L b-napthoavone (BNF). Error
bars, 95% condence limits.
The PAHs shown in Table 3 were detectable in WAF
or CEWAF of Mesa, Terra Nova, and Scotian Light.
However, only three, methyluorene, dimethyldiben-
zothiophene, and methylphenanthrene, were common
and detectable among most of the exposure solutions.
More PAH compounds were detected in the higher
CEWAF concentrations, such as 0.32 and 0.56% (v/v)
of Mesa and Scotian Light crude oils, but the
concentrations were all below 2.5 mg/L (Table 3;
instrument detection limit of 50 ng/L).
PAH measurements of both WAF and CEWAF test
solutions for the three kinds of oil are shown in Fig. 2.
Increasing concentrations of some PAHs (methylphe-
nanthrene, dimethyldibenzothiophene, and methyluor-
ene) were observed at the higher concentrations (0.032,
0.056, and 0.10%) (v/v) in CEWAF from Mesa crude
oil. Concentrations of methylphenanthrene were 24
times higher in CEWAF compared to WAF, while
dimethyldibenzothiophene was 510 times higher.
ARTICLE IN PRESS
304

ety 59 (2004) 300308
Table 2
EC50
values for CYP1A induction (EROD activity) in trout exposed to WAF or CEWAF of three oils
Types of crude oil
Terra Nova
Mesa
Scotian Light
EC50
WAF
EC50
CEWAF
Induction potential
% (v/v)
PAH concentration
% (v/v)
PAH concentration
EC50
WAF
EC50
CEWAF
3.350
0.106
0.390
1.80
0.72
1.56
0.003
0.001
0.066
1.50
0.60
2.00
1116
106
5.91
EC50
values were calculated from a GraphPad Prism using percentage EROD activity values (maximum EROD activity of 100%). PAH
concentrations (mg/L) were the sum of estimated PAH concentrations (see Table 3) corresponding to the EC50s for WAF or CEWAF (% v/v).
In Terra Nova crude oil exposures, concentrations of
acenapthylene increased in CEWAF and WAF treat-
ments of 0.1% and 1.0% (v/v), respectively, with
concentrations in CEWAF being double those of
WAF at 0.1% (v/v). The concentrations of other
detected PAHs in CEWAF treatments of o0.1% were
equal to those in the more concentrated WAF treat-
ments (Fig. 2). For Scotian Light, the concentrations for
dimethyldibenzothiophene were 10 times higher in the
CEWAF than in the WAF treatments. The PAHs that
were most concentrated in oil were most concentrated in
CEWAF.
3. 4. Total petroleum hydrocarbons
Concentrations of TPH for the less concentrated
CEWAF and for all WAF treatments were below a
detection limit of 10 mg/L. Scotian Light CEWAF
treatments of 0.18, 0.32, and 0.56 (v/v) had TPH
concentrations of 30, 83, and 266 mg/L, respectively,
while Terra Nova CEWAF mixtures of 0.10% and
0.32% (v/v) had TPH concentrations of 34 and 53 mg/L
TPH.
4. Discussion
4. 1. EROD activityin sh exposed to WAF and CEWAF
EROD activity was a reliable and repeatable measure
of exposure to hydrocarbons from crude oil. The
exposure response curves for all three oils clearly
denoted a greater EROD response to CEWAF than to
WAF. PAHs responsible for CYP1A induction were
presumably at higher concentrations in CEWAF treat-
ments than in WAF treatments. CYP1A induction was
observed at very low concentrations of dispersed oil (as
little as 0.0001% (v/v)), up to 1100 less than in
nondispersed oil, suggesting that sh exposed to
dispersed oil are at greater risk of hydrocarbon toxicity.
Similar observations of higher EROD activity in sh
exposed to CEWAF versus WAF have been reported
(Gagnon and Holdway, 2000; Cohen et al., 2001).
EROD activity decreased at the highest concentra-
tions of CEWAF for all three oils, presumably arising
from liver damage (Gagnon and Holdway, 2000). The
EC50
values conrmed the higher induction potential of
CEWAF compared to WAF. Mesa oil had the lowest
EC50
for both WAF and CEWAF, suggesting the
presence of either high-potency CYP1A inducers or
inducers at higher concentrations. This was further
apparent in the higher number of PAHs detected in
Mesa oil and the correspondingly higher total PAH
concentration.
The ratio of WAF EC50

to CEWAF EC50
(for each
oil) indicates the extent of dissolution of PAH with
dispersion. Terra Nova, being the most viscous, had the
highest ratio, followed by Mesa and Scotian Light.
Thus, Corexit 9500 seems effective for its intended use
on higher viscosity oils.
PAH concentrations at the EC50

estimated for all
three oils show comparable values for WAF and
CEWAF over a narrow range (Table 2), thus lending
weight to the reliability and accuracy of EC50

values.
The nding is consistent with the assumption that PAHs
are primarily responsible for CYP1A induction in sh.
Mesa had the lowest EC50

(i.e., greatest toxicity),
conrming the presence of strong inducers.
There were no confounding factors from hydrocar-
bons present in Corexit EC9500, as it caused no
discernable increase in the EROD activity of exposed
trout. There was, however, some toxic response at
higher concentrations. LC50

values for Corexit EC9500
were similar to reported LC50

values for Corexit 9527
(Gagnon and Holdway, 2000).
EROD activity in the negative controls (water and
mineral oil) was minimal and equivalent to background
levels previously observed for trout (Fragoso et al.,
1998). Corexit EC9500 had no effect on the permeability
of gill surfaces, because EROD activity did not increase
when sh were exposed to b-napthoavone in the
presence of varying concentrations of dispersant (data
not reported). The robustness of the EROD assay for
measuring exposure was further illustrated by the tight
overlap of three separate induction curves derived from
three tests of Mesa crude oil (Fig. 1).
ARTICLE IN PRESS

ety 59 (2004) 300308
305
Table 3
PAH concentrations (mg/L) detected in WAF and CEWAF treatments for three crude oils
0.010
0.13
bdl
Mesa WAF % (v/v)

Methyluorene
Dimethyldibenzothiophene
Trimethyldibenzothiophene
Methylphenanthrene
Mesa CEWAF % (v/v)
Fluorene
Methyluorene
Dibenzothiophene
Methyldibenzothiophene
Tetramethyldibenzothiophene
Phenanthrene
Methylphenanthrene
Dimethylphenanthrene
Trimethylphenanthrene
Tetramethylphenanthrene
Methylpyrene
Trimethylpyrene
Tetramethylpyrene
Dimethylpyrene
Methylnapthobenzothiophene
Dimethylnapthobenzothiophene
Dimethylchrysene
Trimethylchrysene
0.0032
0.18
bdl
bdl
0.43
0.056
0.03
bdl
0.100
0.24
bdl
0.38
0.38
0.48
0.010
0.018
0.032
0.056
0.100
0.13
0.29
0.37
bdl
0.15
0.26
0.87
0.55
1.13
0.74
0.46
0.45
0.66
0.33
1.45
1.06
1.39
1.10
0.54
1.89
2.31
1.95
0.74
0.30
0.42
0.36
0.44
0.39
1.02
0.39
0.29
1.07
1.35
1.29
0.55
0.29
0.23
0.33
0.28
0.67
0.29
0.0032
1.65
bdl
0.01
1.72
0.008
0.032
1.76
0.04
0.10
1.37
0.056
0.32
1.40
0.07
0.02
bdl
0.04
0.03
0.09
0.001
0.0032
0.010
0.10
0.18
1.68
bdl
1.69
bdl
1.57
0.19
1.80
0.07
bdl
bdl
0.36
0.29
0.13
1.92
bdl
0.23
0.30
Scotian Light WAF % (v/v)

Acenaphthylene
Methyluorene
Methyldibenzothiphene
Dimethyldibenzothiphene
Scotian Light CEWAF %(v/v)
Naphthalene
Dimethylnaphthalene
Trimethylnaphthalene
Tetramethylnaphthalene
Acenaphthylene
Methyluorene
Methyldibenzothiphene
Anthracene
Methylpyrene
Dimethylpyrene
0.0056
0.032
0.16
bdl
0.47
0.018
0.28
bdl
0.18
0.51
0.31
Terra Nova WAF % (v/v)

Acenaphthylene
Methyluorene
Methylphenanthrene
Terra Nova CEWAF % (v/v)
Acenaphthylene
Methyluorene
Methylphenanthrene
bdl, below detection limit.
0.0001
bdl
bdl
0.0003
0.98
0.06
0.12
0.18
0.08
0.0010
0.0032
1.48
bdl
0.02
0.01
1.39
0.04
0.09
bdl
0.07
0.32
0.20
0.29
0.41
1.14
2.02
0.30
0.98
0.87
0.18
0.41
0.43
0.19
0.17
0.10
1.06
0.09
0.13
0.056
0.14
0.32
1.35
0.14
0.17
0.076
0.21
0.10
2.21
0.09
0.30
0.18
0.16
0.32
1.68
0.04
0.22
0.15
0.42
0.39
0.22
0.18
0.32
0.18
bdl
0.56
0.02
bdl
0.43
0.42
1.0
1.56
bdl
0.30
0.05
0.56
1.77
0.03
0.17
1.0
1.47
0.05
0.07
0.17
0.04
1.8
1.63
bdl
0.06
0.17
0.02
5.6
1.42
0.02
0.10
0.18
0.10
10.0
1.58
0.06
0.05
0.17
0.12
ARTICLE IN PRESS

ety 59 (2004) 300308
306
determined by the solubility of each compound, the rate
of partitioning into solution across the oilwater inter-
face, and the size of the surface area available for
partitioning, as determined by droplet size.
100
Mesa
10
4. 3. Total petroleum hydrocarbon
Concentration of PAH (ng/ml)
0.1
0.001
0.01
0.1
10
Terra Nova
WAF
CEWAF
0.0001
0.001
0.01
0.1
10
10
Scotian Light
0.001
0.01
0.1
Percent v/v
Fig. 2. Sum of polycyclic hydrocarbon concentrations detected in the
WAF and CEWAF test solutions.
4. 2. Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons
Dispersing oil markedly increased hydrocarbon con-
centrations in test solutions based on measured con-
centrations of PAH. More napthalenes were detected in
CEWAF than in WAF from Mesa crude oil. Fucik
(1994) found hydrocarbon concentrations in dispersed
Central Gulf oil four to ve times higher than WAF
with napthalenes as the dominant fraction. Cohen and
Nugegoda (2000) also reported that dispersed oil WAF
(CEWAF) had the highest concentration of TPHs
compared to crude oil WAF. The increase in hydro-
carbons could be due to the presence of oil droplets in
emulsion or increased dissolution of hydrocarbons from
the surfaces of the numerous droplets (surface area
effects). One must realized that in WAF, hydrocarbon
concentrations are determined by the solubilities of the
various compounds. Conversely, CEWAF concentra-
tions are primarily inuenced by the presence of bulk oil
droplets. This is largely due to the emulsifying action of
the dispersant that drives the oilsurfactant micelles into
solution. Therefore, the amount of PAH in solution is
For TPH, most of the concentrations were below
detection limits (3 mg/L). The more concentrated solu-
tions of CEWAF from Scotian Light crude oil (0.32 and
0.56% v/v) had TPH concentrations of 60 and 266 mg/L,
respectively, which are comparable to observations of
200 mg/L for the 0.5% (v/v) CEWAF of Bass Strait
Crude Oil (Cohen et al., 2001).
Most TPH concentrations were above the detection
limit, but because of higher blank values, they were not
quantied. Despite this, an exposureresponse relation-
ship of EROD activity with hydrocarbon concentration
was observed for C16 in WAF of Terra Nova and C10
and C16 in CEWAF of Scotian Light. A correlation
coefcient (Pearson r value) of 0.952 was calculated
between EROD activity and the C10 TPH fraction of
the CEWAF treatment of Scotian Light crude. Dis-
persant effectiveness is a major controlling factor in the
bioavailability of hydrocarbons. The higher ratio of
hydrocarbons in CEWAF versus WAF for Scotian
Light compared to Terra Nova is an indication that
lighter oils would disperse more effectively as bulk oil
droplets than heavier ones (Fingas, 1995). However, the
EROD response of sh in this experiment suggests that
Corexit EC9500 solubilizes PAH more effectively from
heavier oils than from light oils.
While the preparation of WAF and CEWAF was
carried out as prescribed in the literature, there may
have been some conditions that were overlooked.
Factors relevant to this study include the manner and
order in which the dispersant was added. When
dispersant was added to the oil layer surface and then
vortexed, the likelihood of sufcient dispersant contact
was reduced; oil can be stranded on the vessel walls
because of herding at initial dispersion (Singer et al.,
2000). This would have been especially signicant in the
case of the less viscous Scotian Light. A second factor of
relevance is the preparation of the test concentrations.
Test treatments should be derived from a range of oil
loadings and not serial dilutions, because partitioning of
compounds into the aqueous phase is not directly
correlated to the oil:water ratio (Girling et al., 1994).
The following conclusions can be drawn from this
study. Dispersing crude oil increased the bioavailability
of PAHs to sh, as reected by greater CYP1A
induction in the livers of sh exposed to CEWAF
versus WAF treatments. Second, the action of the
dispersant was inuenced by the viscosity of the crude
oils. Terra Nova, which had the highest viscosity value,
had the biggest difference in induction for CEWAF and
ARTICLE IN PRESS

ety 59 (2004) 300308
WAF treatments. Scotian Light had the lowest viscosity
value and showed the smallest difference in induction
values, while Mesa was intermediate.
While it was difcult to detect most of the PAHs and
petroleum hydrocarbons at the lower doses of WAF and
CEWAF by sensitive analytical techniques such as gas
chromatography/mass spectrometry, the EROD assay
proved to be much more reliable and sensitive for
detecting effects at low concentrations (o0.0032% v/v).
In an ecological context, this study revealed an
increase in exposure of sh to hydrocarbons with
dispersion for all three oils. Consequently, the risk of
PAH toxicity to pelagic species of sh, especially to
sensitive life stages such as eggs and larvae, is enhanced
by chemical dispersion. The effectiveness of Corexit
EC9500 was most pronounced on Terra Nova oil, while
Mesa oil had the greatest induction potential. Disper-
sing these oils would cause sublethal exposures to PAH,
with Mesa potentially having a greater sublethal effect.
Scotian Light was the most toxic by virtue of its higher
solubility and reached a lethal concentration limit
during dispersion.
Acknowledgments
The authors thank the staff at Analytical Services
Unit, Queens University, and COOGERCREPGE at
the Bedford Institute of Oceanography for their
technical support. We also thank Barbara Sobota,
Heather Orr, and Vivien Dayeh for their assistance
and contribution. We wish to extend our gratitude to
Gary Wohlgeschaffen for his prompt response to queries
and requests. The research was funded by a contract
from the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, Halifax,
Nova Scotia, Canada.
References
Anderson, J.W., Neff, J.M., Cox, B.A., Tatem, H.E., Hightower,
G.M., 1974. Characteristics of dispersions and water-soluble
extracts of crude and rened oils and their toxicity to estuarine
crustaceans and sh. Mar. Biol. 27, 7588.
Bobra, A.M., Shiu, W.Y., MacKay, D., Goodman, R.H., 1989. Acute
toxicity of dispersed fresh and weathered crude oil and dispersants
to Daphnia magna. Chemosphere 19, 11991222.
Canevari, G.P., 1978. Some observations on the mechanism and
chemistry aspects of chemical dispersion. In: McCarthy, L.T.J.,
Lindblom, G.P., Walter, H.F. (Eds.), Chemical Dispersants
for the Control of Oil Spills. Am. Soc. Testing and Materials,
Philadelphia, pp. 25.
Carls, M.G., Rice, S.D., Hose, J.E., 1999. Sensitivity of sh embryos to
weathered crude oil: Part 1. Low-level exposure during incubation
causes malformations, genetic damage, and mortality in larval
pacic herring (Clupea pallasi). Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 18,
481493.
Carr, R.S., Linden, O., 1984. Bioenergetic responses of Gammarus
salinus and Mytilus edulis to oil and oil dispersants in a model
ecosystem. Mar. Ecol. Progr. Ser. 19 (3), 285292.
307
CCME, 2000. Reference Method for the Canada Wide Standard for
Petroleum Hydrocarbons in Soil. Draft Copy of CCMETier 1
Method, Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment,
Winnipeg, Man., Canada.
Cohen, A.M., Nugegoda, D., 2000. Toxicity of three oil spill
remediation techniques to the Australian bass Macquaria novema-
culeata. Ecotoxicol. Environ. Saf. 47, 178185.
Cohen, A.M., Nugegoda, D., Gagnon, M.M., 2001. The effect of
different oil spill remediation techniques on petroleum hydro-
carbon elimination in Australian bass Macquaria novemaculeata.
Arch. Environ. Contam. Toxicol. 40, 264270.
Cotou, E., Castritsi-Catharios, I., Moraitou-Apostolopoulou, M.,
2001. Surfactant-based oil dispersant toxicity to developing nauplii
of Artemia: effects on atpase enzymatic system. Chemosphere 42,
959964.
Fingas, M., 1995. Oil spills and their cleanup. Chem. Ind. 24,
10051008.
Fragoso, N., Parrott, J.L., Hahn, M.E., Hodson, P.V., 1998. Chronic
retene exposure causes sustained induction of CYP1A activity and
protein in rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss). Environ. Toxicol.
Chem. 17, 23472353.
Fucik, K., 1994. Dispersed oil toxicity tests with species indigenous to
the Gulf of Mexico. Technical Summary: Minerals Management
Service Publication 94-0021, Gulf of Mexico Region, Environ-
mental Information, US Department of the Interior, New Orleans,
LA, USA.
Gagnon, M.M., Holdway, D.A., 2000. EROD induction and biliary
metabolite excretion following exposure to the water accomodated
fraction of crude oil and to chemically dispersed crude oil. Arch.
Environ. Contam. Toxicol. 38, 7077.
Garcia-Blanco, S., Motelab, M., Venosa, A.D., Suidan, M.T., Lee, K.,
King, D.W., 2001. Restoration of the oil contaminated St.
Lawrence River shoreline: bioremediation and phytoremediation.
In: Proceedings of the 2001 Oil Spill Conference. Am. Petroleum
Inst., Washington, DC, pp. 303308.
Getter, C.D., Baca, B.J., 1984. A laboratory approach for determining
the effects of oils and dispersants on mangroves. In: Allen, T.E.
(Ed.), Oil Spill Chemical Dispersants: Research, Experience, and
Recommendations, STP 840. Am. Soc. Testing and Materials,
Philadelphia, pp. 513.
Gilbert, T., 1996. Dispersant use/oil/sea temperature suitability matrix
and oil chemistry and the impact on the effectiveness of chemical
dispersants. Sixth Scientic Support Coordinators Workshop,
Launceston, Tasmania, Australia. Australian Maritime Safety
Authority, Canberra, ACT 2601, Australia, URL: http://www.am-
sa.gov.au/me/netplan/disper.htm
Girling, A.E., Whale, G.F., Adema, D.M.M., 1994. A guideline
supplement for determining the aquatic toxicity of poorly water-
soluble complex mixtures using water-accommodated fractions.
Chemosphere 29, 26452649.
Hartwick, E.B., Wu, R.S.S., Parker, D.B., 1982. Effects of a crude oil
and a oil dispersant (Corexit 9527) on populations of the littleneck
clam (Protothaca staminea). Mar. Environ. Res. 6, 291306.
Hodson, P.V., Eer, S., Wilson, J.Y., El-Shaarawi, A., Maj, M.,
Williams, T.G., 1996. Measuring the potency of pulp mill efuents
for induction of hepatic mixed function oxygenase activity in sh.
J. Toxicol. Environ. Health 49, 101128.
Hodson, P.V., Ibrahim, I., Zambon, S., Ewert, A., Lee, K., 2002.
Bioavailability to sh of sediment PAH as an indicator of the
success of in situ remediation treatments at an experimental oil
spill. Bioremediat. J. 6 (3), 297313.
Law, A.T., 1995. Toxicity study of the oil dispersant Corexit 9527 on
Macrobrachium rosenbergii (de Man) egg hatchability by using a
ow-through bioassay technique. Environ. Pollut. 88, 341343.
Lewis, A., Aurand, D., 1997. Putting dispersants to work: overcoming
obstacles. 1997 International Oil Spill Conference Issue Paper,
ARTICLE IN PRESS
308

ety 59 (2004) 300308
Technical Report No. IOSC-004.23. Am. Petroleum Inst.,
Washington, DC.
Linden, O., 1974. Effects of oil dispersants on the early development of
Baltic Herring. Ann. Zool. Fennici 11, 141148.
Linden, O., 1975. Acute effects of oil and oil/dispersant mixture on
larvae of Baltic herring. Ambio 4, 130133.
Nelson-Smith, A., 1977. Effects of dispersant use on shore life. In:
McCarthy Jr., L.T., Lindblom, G.P., Walter, H.F. (Eds.),
Chemical Dispersants for the Control of Oil Spills, ASTM STP
659. Am. Soc. Testing and Materials, Philadelphia, pp. 1834.
Singer, M.M., Aurand, D., Bragins, G.E., Clarks, J.R., Coelho, G.M.,
Sowby, M.L., Tjeerdema, R.S., 2000. Standardization of the
preparation and quantitation of water-accommodated frac-
tions of petroleum for toxicity testing. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 40 (11),
10071016.
Singer, M.M., George, S., Benner, D., Jacobson, S., Tjeerdema, R.S.,
Sowby, M.L., 1993. Comparative toxicity of two oil dispersants to
the early life stages of two marine species. Environ. Toxicol. Chem.
12, 18551863.
Singer, M.M., George, S., Jacobson, S., Lee, I., Weetman, L.L.,
Tjeerdema, R.S., Sowby, M.L., 1996. Comparison of acute
aquatic effects of the oil dispersant Corexit 9500 with those
of other Corexit series dispersants. Ecotoxicol. Environ. Saf. 35,
183189.
Smith, J.E., 1968. Torrey Canyon Pollution and Marine Life.
Cambridge University Press, Cambridge House, Cambridge, UK,
pp. 2325.
Thomas, R.E., Rice, S.D., 1981. Excretion of aromatic hydrocarbons
and their metabolites by freshwater and seawater Dolly Varden
char. In: Vernberg, F.J., Calabrese, A., Thurberg, F., Vernberg, W.
(Eds.), Biological Monitoring of Marine Pollutants. Academic
Press, New York, pp. 425448.
Volkmann, J.K., Miller, G.J., Revill, A.T., Connell, D.W., 1994.
Oil spills. In: Swan, J.M., Neff, J.M., Young, P.C. (Eds.),
Environmental Implications of Offshore Oil and Gas Develop-
ment in AustraliaThe Findings of an Independent Review.
Australian Petroleum Exploration Assoc., Sydney, Australia,
pp. 509695.
General Coral Reef Facts
Healthy coral reefs are among the most biologically diverse and economically valuable
ecosystems on earth, providing valuable and vital ecosystem services.
Coral ecosystems are a source of food for millions; protect coastlines from storms and erosion;
provide habitat, spawning and nursery grounds for economically important fish species; provide
jobs and income to local economies from fishing, recreation, and tourism; are a source of new
medicines, and are hotspots of marine biodiversity. They also are of great cultural importance in
many regions around the world, particularly Polynesia
Based on current estimates, shallow water coral reefs occupy approximately 284,300 square
kilometers (110,000 square miles) of the sea floor. If all of the world's shallow water coral reefs
were placed side-by-side, they would occupy an area a bit larger than the state of Texas.
The total area of coral reefs represents less than 0.015 percent of the ocean. Yet coral reefs
harbor more than one quarter of the ocean's biodiversity. No other ecosystem occupies such a
limited area with more life forms.
Reefs are often compared to rainforests, which are the only other ecosystem that can boast
anywhere near the amount of biodiversity found on a reef. Coral reefs are sometimes called
rainforests of the seas.
Oil spills and coral reefs
NOAA has produced two summary documents on corals and oil spills:
a guide for planning and incident response
(http://response.restoration.noaa.gov/book_shelf/70_coral_full_report.pdf)
and a synthesis of previous research on oil effects to corals
(http://response.restoration.noaa.gov/book_shelf/1_coral_tox.pdf).
In 2005, NOAA conducted an exercise to test emergency response to a simulated oil spill in the
Florida Keys (http://sanctuaries.noaa.gov/safeseas/pdfs/safeseas2005.pdf).
Impacts of oil spills to coral reefs are difficult to predict because each spill presents a unique set
of physical, chemical, and biological conditions. How corals are exposed to oiland the
composition of the oil at the time of impactbears directly on how serious the impact will be.
There are three primary modes of exposure for coral reefs in oil spills:
Direct oil contact is possible when surface oil is deposited on intertidal corals that live
near the surface of the water and become exposed with the tides.
Rough seas and a light, soluble oil can combine to mix the oil into the water below the
surface, where it can impact corals. Corals are exposed to less oil beneath the water
surface, but the lighter oil components that mix easily are often the most toxic.
Subsurface oiling can occur when heavy oils weather, or mix with sediment material.
This increases the density of the oil to the point where it may actually sink, potentially
smothering corals.
Oil Spill Response Strategies for Coral Reefs
Booms are sometimes used to control the movement of oil at the water surface. This should be
done carefully in coral reef areas, as boom anchors can physically impact corals, especially when
booms are moved around by waves.
Dispersants act like detergents, breaking an oil slick into droplets that mix into the water column,
where they dilute and eventually biodegrade. Dispersants work best on light oils, and are less
effective on oil that has been extensively weathered or in areas of low water movement.
Dispersants offer a trade-off of oil effects in the water versus at the shoreline. The use of
dispersants over shallow submerged reefs is generally not recommended, but the potential
impacts to the reef should be weighed against impacts that might occur to birds, mammals,
turtles, and sensitive shoreline resources (such as mangroves) where it is extremely difficult to
clean the oil.
Effects of oil and dispersants on coral reefs
Laboratory, field studies, and actual oil spill events often appear to show contradictory results for
effects of oil and dispersants on coral reefs.
The old notion that coral reefs do not suffer acute toxicity effect from oil floating over them is
probably incorrect. Direct contact with spilled oil can lead to coral death, but depends on coral
species, growth form, life stage, and type/duration of oil exposure.
Longer exposure to lower levels of oil may kill corals, as well as shorter exposure to higher
concentrations. Death may not be immediate, but rather take place long after the exposure has
ended.
Instead of acute mortality, it is more likely that oil effects occur in sublethal forms, such as
reduced photosynthesis, growth, or reproduction. Early developmental forms (like coral larvae)
are particularly sensitive to toxic effects, and oil slicks can significantly reduce larval
development and viability.
Coral communities may recover more rapidly from oil exposure alone than from mechanical
damage. Recovery of coral reefs after oil exposure, however, may depend partly on the recovery
of associated communities (e.g. nursery or foraging habitats, such as mangroves and seagrasses)
that may be more seriously affected than the reef itself. Recovery time depends on the type and
intensity of the disturbance and can range from several years to decades.
Past Oil Spills Impacts to Coral Reef Ecosystems
One extensively studied spill occurred at Bahia Las Minas, Panama in April, 1986. An estimated
60,000-100,000 barrels of medium weight crude oil spilled into the waters of the bay, causing
widespread lethal and sub-lethal effects to coral.
In contrast, in the Arabian (Persian) Gulf Spill in January 1991, the largest oil spill in history, an
estimated 6.3 million barrels of oil were released. Given the magnitude of this release and the
coral reef impacts noted at other tropical spills, there were dire expectations of severe impacts to
reefs in Kuwait and Saudi Arabia. However, to date, the extent of coral reef damage directly
attributable to the Gulf Spill has been remarkably minor.
What you can do
NOAAs comprehensive efforts in response to the Deepwater Horizon event can be found at
http://www.incidentnews.gov/incident/8220. Because oil is a hazardous material, volunteer
opportunities are limited for unaffiliated, untrained volunteers. To report oiled shorelines or
request volunteer information, please call 281-366-5511 or 866-448-5816.
Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, Vol. 25, No. 12, pp. 31813187, 2006
2006 SETAC
Printed in the USA
0730-7268/06 $12.00 .00
ALTERATION OF NORMAL CELLULAR PROFILES IN THE SCLERACTINIAN CORAL
(POCILLOPORA DAMICORNIS) FOLLOWING LABORATORY EXPOSURE TO FUEL OIL
E , C RAIG A. D OWNS , ROBERT H. RICHMOND , and GARY K. O STRANDER*
LUC ROUGE
Department of Biology, Johns Hopkins University, 3400 North Charles Street, Baltimore, Maryland 21218, USA
Haereticus Environmental Laboratory, P.O. Box 92, Clifford, Virginia 24533, USA
Kewalo Marine Laboratory, Pacic Biosciences Research Center, University of Hawaii, 41 Ahui Street, Honolulu, Hawaii 98613, USA
Department of Comparative Medicine, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Broadway Research Building,
Baltimore, Maryland 21205, USA
( Received 4 September 2005; Accepted 28 June 2006)
AbstractPetroleum contamination from oil spills is a continuing threat to our oceans fragile ecosystems. Herein, we explored
the effects of the water-soluble fraction of crude oil on a stony coral, Pocillopora damicornis (Linneaeus 1758). We developed
methods for exposing corals to various concentrations of crude oil and for assessing the potential molecular responses of the corals.
Corals were exposed to water-accommodated fraction solutions, and appropriate cellular biomarkers were quantied. When compared
to the healthy control specimens, exposed corals exhibited shifts in biomarker concentrations that were indicative of a shift from
homeostasis. Signicant changes were seen in cytochrome P450 1-class, cytochrome P450 2-class, glutathione-S-transferase-pi, and
cnidarian multixenobiotic resistance protein-1 biomarkers, which are involved the cellular response to, and manipulation and excretion
of, toxic compounds, including polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons. A shift in biomarkers necessary for porphyrin production (e.g.,
protoporphyrinogen oxidase IX and ferrochelatase) and porphyrin destruction (e.g., heme oxygenase-1 and invertebrate neuroglobin
homologue) illustrates only one of the cellular protective mechanisms. The response to oxidative stress was evaluated through
measurements of copper/zinc superoxide dismutase-1 and DNA glycosylase MutY homologue-1 concentrations. Likewise, changes
in heat shock protein 70 and small heat shock proteins indicated an adjustment in the cellular production of proteins. Finally, the
results of this laboratory study were nearly identical to what we observed previously among corals of a different species, Porites
lobata, exposed to an oil spill in the eld after the grounding of the Merchant Vessel Kyowa Violet.
KeywordsCoral
Oil spill
Biomarker
Antibody
Cellular diagnostics
INTRODUCTION
The expanding human interaction with the ocean environ-
ment has greatly affected the oceans fragile ecosystems [1,2].
Specically, petroleum contamination has beenand contin-
ues to bea serious threat. Petroleum products, such as the
petrochemicals used to make plastics and synthetic bers and
the oil and gas used for heat, energy, and fuel, are intimately
involved with todays society. Despite the practical necessities,
increased transport of petrochemicals over the worlds oceans
has the potential to affect our environment severely. In fact,
oil spills are inevitable [3]. Although rapid action usually is
taken either during or soon after spills to cleanse oil contam-
ination on the water surface, water-soluble components of the
oil remain fractionated within the water column or may be
sequestered in sediments. This water-accommodated fraction
(WAF) allows the contaminants to remain after the supercial
cleaning activities and, thereby, causes a potential disruption
in the homeostasis of any marine organisms it contacts.
It is well documented that petroleum products can affect
aquatic organisms at different levels of organization. Studies
of marine shes, following environmental or laboratory ex-
posure to petroleum products or by-products (e.g., polycyclic
aromatic hydrocarbons [PAHs]), have provided strong evi-
dence linking pollution to increases in the number of structural
anomalies [4,5], developmental complications [6,7], behav-
ioral changes [8,9], and diseases [10,11]. The time to appear-
ance of these anomalies can range from several days to months
after the initial exposure. However, cellular responses to pol-
lutants are immediate and can indicate changes in the organ-
isms cellular homeostasis.
The exposure of coral reef ecosystems to crude petroleum
and, particularly, intermediate fuel oil (IFO) grade 180, a com-
mon grade of marine fuel used in tanker transport, is of interest
following the grounding of the Merchant Vessel Kyowa Violet
in December 2002, during which approximately 55,000 to
80,000 gallons spilled into the coral reef ecosystem off Colonia
Harbor, Yap, Federated States of Micronesia. Our recent as-
sessment of the corals affected by the spill suggested that the
sublethal effects of this fuel-oil spill adversely affected coral
reef health [12]. The present study was the logical extension
of our previous in situ study and focused on whether the water-
soluble fraction of marine fuel oil can cause a rapid shift in
homeostasis of a widely distributed and well-studied coral fol-
lowing a controlled laboratory exposure. Specically, we de-
veloped a methodology to expose corals to various concen-
trations of the water-soluble components of IFO 180 marine
fuel oil, the same compounds that have been implicated in the
Kyowa Violet spill. We utilized this approach to compare and
contrast the response of exposed and reference specimens of
the reef-building coral, Pocillopora damicornis .
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Maintenance ofcorals
* To whom correspondence may be addressed ([email protected]).
The current address of G. K. Ostrander is University of Hawaii, 2500
Campus Road, Hawaii Hall 211, Honolulu, HI 96822, USA.
Pocillopora damicornis (Linnaeus 1758) colonies were ob-
tained from Aquatic Aquaculture (Mardela Springs, MD,
3181
3182
Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 25, 2006
USA). Corals were maintained in 209-L aquaria at 26C and
a salinity of 38 ppt created with Instant Ocean Sea Salt mix
(Aquarium Systems, Mentor, OH, USA) and deionized water.
The closed aquarium system was illuminated by a Coralife
metal 175-W halide bulb (Energy Savers Unlimited, Lafayette,
CA, USA) on a 10:14-h light:dark photoperiod. Water changes
of 10 L were made twice weekly with newly mixed seawater.
l of Reef Success Vita Vitamins (Red Sea,
In addition, 700
Tel Aviv, Israel), 700 l of Reef Success Iodine (Red Sea),
and 700 l of Reef Success Coral Trace (Red Sea) were added
to the tanks protein skimmer with each water change. The
corals were fed 5 ml of PhytoPlex (Kent Marine, GA, USA)
once every other day.
Once the coral colonies were acclimatized to the laboratory
setting for two weeks, 1- to 2-cm pieces were clipped from a
single coral colony and glued individually to glass microscope
slides using Instant Krazy Glue (Elmers, Columbus, OH,
USA), which caused no deleterious effect to the coral (results
not shown). The slides were returned to the aquaria, and the
corals left to stabilize for two weeks before exposure. The
experiment used a total of 16 coral fragments (i.e., four slides
per exposure concentration).
Water-accommodated fraction
The WAF was generated using IFO 180 marine fuel oil
samples, which were a generous donation from ExxonMobil
Marine Fuels (New York, NY, USA) and Oil Testing Services
(Lafayette, NJ, USA). Instant Ocean Sea Salt mix was com-
bined with distilled water to create the 38-ppm salt water.
Various concentrations of WAF were made separately using
the variable-loading method instead of diluting a higher con-
centration solution [13,14]. One liter of salt water was added
to 1-L, Teon-coated containers (Savillex, Minnetonka, MN,
USA). Appropriate quantities of crude oil (0.25, 1, and 4 g)
were weighed and added to each container along with the salt
water. The solutions were mixed with a 4-cm, Teon-coated
stirbar on a magnetic stirrer for 24 h at ambient temperature.
Additional solutions were prepared for each WAF concentra-
tion to allow water changes during the exposure period. Un-
altered salt water was used as a control.
L. Rougee et al.
Fig. 1. Exposure of corals. Four slides, each containing an individual
coral piece, were placed at the bottom of each of the exposure chamber.
The slides were arranged in a square pattern as depicted. Corals were
incubated with exposure solutions at 26 C with constant aeration.
sample powder was placed in a locking, 1.8-ml microcentrifuge
tube along with 1,400 l of a denaturing buffer consisting of 2%
sodium dodecyl sulfate (SDS), 50 mM Tris(hydroxymethyl)
aminomethane (pH 7.8), 15 mM dithiothreitol, 10 mM ethy-
lenediaminetetra-acetate, 3% (w/v) polyvinylpolypyrrolidone,
0.005 mM salicylic acid, 0.001% dimethyl sulfoxide, 0.01 mM
4-(2-aminoethyl)-benzenesulfonyl uoride, 0.04 mM bestatin,
0.001 mM E-64, 2 mM phenylmethylsulfonyl uoride, 2 mM
benzamide, 5 M amino-caproic acid, and 1 g/100 l of
pepstatin A. Samples were then vortexed for 15 s, heated at
93C for 6 min with occasional additional vortexing, and in-
cubated at 25C for 10 min. Samples were centrifuged (13,500
g for 810 min), and the middle-phase supernatant was as-
pirated and placed in a new Eppendorf tube [16] and subjected
to a protein concentration assay according to the method de-
scribed by Ghosh et al. [17].
Electrophoresis
One-liter glass beakers served as dosing chambers for the
corals. The beakers were placed in heated water baths to main-
tain water temperature at 26C, and glass Pasteur capillary
pipettes were connected to individual aquarium air pumps and
placed in each dosing chamber for aeration and water circu-
lation. Four slides, each containing an individual coral piece,
were placed at the bottom of each of the beakers. The slides
were arranged in a square formation, as shown in Figure 1.
Before addition of each WAF solution to the beaker, the so-
lutions were poured into a separatory funnel to isolate the
fraction of crude oil that did not dissolve in the seawater [14].
The coral samples were exposed to the various WAF concen-
trations for a 24-h period, with water changes performed every
8 h to avoid ammonia and nitrate accumulation for all exposed
and reference groups [15].
One-dimensional SDSpolyacrylamide gel electrophoresis
(PAGE) and Western blot analysis were used to optimize the
separation of target proteins and to validate the use of specic
antibodies with P. damicornis protein extracts [18]. Total sol-
uble protein (1540 g) from three randomly prepared samples
from the same coral colony was loaded onto a 12.5% SDS-
PAGE preparative gel. A Tris(2-carboxyethyl) phosphine (neu-
tral pH) concentration of 0.001 M was added to the gels [19].
All gels were blotted onto polyvinylidene uoride membranes
using a wet-transfer system [20,21]. The membranes were
blocked in 5% nonfat dry milk and assayed with a primary
antibody for 1 h. The blots were then washed in Tris-buffered
saline four times and incubated in a horseradish peroxidase
conjugated secondary antibody solution for 1 h at a 1:30,000
titer (Jackson ImmunoResearch Laboratories, Westport, PA,
USA). Blots were washed again four times in Tris-buffered
saline and developed using a Western Lightning Plus (New
England Nuclear, Shelton, CT, USA) luminol/hydrogen per-
oxidebased chemiluminescent solution and documented using
a Genegnome luminescent documentation system (Syngene,
Frederick, MD, USA). To ensure a minimum of nonspecic
cross-reactivity, blots were developed for at least 3 min. Cal-
ibration of a quantitative standard showed that 0.05 attomole
of target protein could be detected at this level of sensitivity
(results not shown).
Sample preparation
Enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay experiments
Samples were assayed as described previously [12,16]. Af-
ter the 24-h exposure, each of the individual coral pieces was
frozen and then ground to a ne powder in liquid nitrogen
using a mortar and pestle. Approximately 0.5 g of the ground
Once validated, antibodies and samples were optimized for
the enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay using 384-well mi-
croplates in an 8 6 4 factorial design [17,22] and assayed
using a Beckman Coulter Biomek 2000 Laboratory Automa-
Exposure
Response of coral to laboratory oil exposure
3183
Table 1. Biomarker expression
Cellular parameter
Control
Protein Metabolic Condition
Hsp70 (cnidarian)
0.077 0.019A
sHsp (cnidarian)
BDL
Oxidative Damage and Response
Cu/ZnSOD (cnidarian)
0.003 0.001A
MutY
0.004 0.001A
Porphyrin Metabolism
Protopophyrinogen oxidase IX
0.029 0.004A
Ferrochelatase (cnidarian)
0.030 0.004A
Neuroglobin (invertebrate)
2.348 0.342A
Heme oxygenase-1
0.036 0.016A
Xenobiotic Response
CYP P450 1-class
0.002 0.001A
CYP P450 2-class
0.074 0.010A
CYP P450 6-class
0.056 0.011A
GST (cnidarian)
0.0015 0.0006A
MXR-1 (cnidarian)
0.006 0.003A
0.25 g/L
1 g/L
4 g/L
0.201 0.039B
0.048 0.015B
0.253 0.055BC
0.117 0.046B
0.286 0.054C
0.113 0.034B
0.007 0.001A
0.009 0.003B
0.022 0.011B
0.013 0.003B
0.007 0.001A
0.013 0.003B
0.064
0.060
3.688
0.174

0.010B
0.004AB
0.723AB
0.150AB
0.044
0.091
4.236
0.265

0.008A
0.031B
0.830B
0.130B
0.043
0.079
4.742
0.484

0.004A
0.021B
0.725B
0.035C
0.067
0.037
0.198
0.031
0.028

0.041AB
0.015B
0.267A
0.012B
0.013B
0.116
0.052
0.038
0.035
0.054

0.053B
0.015AB
0.007A
0.010B
0.011C
0.089
0.037
0.033
0.032
0.055

0.018B
0.012B
0.008A
0.012B
0.007C
Treatment means with different uppercase letters differed signicantly at 0.05 using the three different posthoc tests described in Materials
and Methods. All units, except where noted, are expressed as femol target analyte/ng total soluble protein. Values are presented as the mean
standard error (n 4). BDL below detection limit; Cu/ZnSOD copper/zinc superoxide dismutase-1; CYP cytochrome; GST
glutathione-S-transferese; Hsp70 heat shock protein 70; MutY DNA glycosylase MutY homologue; MXR-1 multixenobiotic resistance
protein-1; sHsp small heat shock proteins.
tion Workstation (Promega, Madison, WI, USA). Algal (i.e.,
dinoagellate) and host extracts (cnidarian) were assayed using
the following antibodies (with accompanying catalog numbers)
from Envirtue Biotechnologies (Winchester, VA, USA): Algal
antiglutathione peroxidase (AB-1484), algal antimanganese
superoxide dismutase (AB-1501), algal anticopper/zinc su-
peroxide dismutase (AB-CZ1546), algal antiglutathione-S-
transferase (AB-1491), algal antiheat shock protein 60 (AB-
1506), antichloroplast small heat shock protein (AB-1), cni-
darian antiheat shock protein 60 (AB-1508), cnidarian anti
heat shock protein 70 (AB-Hsp70-1517), cnidarian antiheat
shock protein 90 (AB-Hsp90-1685), cnidarian antimanganese
superoxide dismutase (AB-1976), cnidarian anticopper/zinc
superoxide dismutase (AB-SOD-1516), cnidarian antigluta-
thione peroxidase (AB-GPX-1433), cnidarian antismall heat
shock protein (AB-H105), cnidarian antiferrochelatase (AB-
FC-1939), cnidarian anticytochrome P450 6-class homologue
(AB-C6-2), cnidarian anti-metallothionein (AB-MM-10843),
cnidarian antiheme oxygenase-1 (AB-HO-1944), anti-ubiq-
uitin (AB-U100), and antimultixenobiotic resistance protein
(ABC family of proteins). All samples were assayed in trip-
licate with intraindividual variation of less than 8% for the
entire 384-well microplate (Table 1), and in addition, an eight-
point calibration curve using a calibrant relevant to each an-
tibody was plated in sextupilicate for each plate (results not
shown). Based on data from our eld study [12] and what we
were able to detect with the antibodies listed above, we elected
to focus our efforts on those biomarkers most likely to exhibit
a response in this laboratory study.
Biomarkers
Cellular biomarkers serve as diagnostic tools to indicate
variations in the physiological condition of an organism in
response to environmental change. This is achieved by quan-
tifying changes in the cellular and molecular processes of the
cells. In the present study, certain biomarkers were grouped
together for analysis. Each category encompasses biomarkers
involved in a cellular process that would be expected to vary
in response to specic types of stressors. The four diagnostic
groups and incorporated biomarkers included Xenobiotic Re-
sponse (cnidarian cytochrome P450 1-class [CYP P450 1-
class], cnidarian cytochrome P450 2-class [CYP P450 2-class],
cnidarian cytochrome P450 6-class [CYP P450 6-class], glu-
tathione-S-transferase [GST-pi], and cnidarian multixenobiotic
resistance protein-1 [MXR-1]), Porphyrin Metabolism (pro-
toporphyrinogen oxidase IX [PPO], cnidarian ferrochelatase
[FC], invertebrate neuroglobin homologue [globin], and heme
oxygenase-1 [HO-1]), Oxidative Damage and Response (cop-
per/zinc superoxide dismutase-1 [Cu/ZnSOD] and DNA gly-
cosylase MutY homologue [MutY]), and Protein Metabolic
Condition (heat shock protein 70 [Hsp70] and cnidarian small
heat shock proteins [sHsp]).
Statistical analysis
Normality of the data was tested using the Kolmogorov
Smirnov test with Lilliefors correction, and equality of var-
iance was veried using the Levene median test. A one-way
analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used if the data were found
to be normally distributed and homogeneous. However, if the
data did not meet the requirements for homogeneity of vari-
ances for the one-way ANOVA, the KruskalWallis one-way
ANOVA on ranks was used to compensate. The TukeyKramer
honestly signicant difference method or the Dunns post hoc
test was used when signicant differences between the treat-
ment means were found, depending on the variances [23,24].
Statistical signicance was dened as p 0.05.
We used canonical correlation analysis (CCA) as a heuristic
tool to illustrate how biomarkers could be used to discriminate
among populations. The CCA is a method of eigen analysis
that reveals the basic relationship between two matricesin
our case, those of four exposures and the biomarker data. The
CCA provided an objective statistical tool for determining if
exposures were different from one another using sets of cell-
ular biomarkers indicative of a cellular process and, if so,
which biomarkers contributed to those differences. This anal-
ysis required combining data from all four exposures into one
matrix, which we did by expressing biomarker response in a
given population as a proportion of their mean levels.
3184

RESULTS
Signicant changes were seen in CYP P450 1-class, CYP
P450 2-class, GST-pi, and MXR-1, all of which are involved
in the cellular response, manipulation, and excretion of toxi-
cants. Likewise, we observed changes in the expression of
biomarkers involved in porphyrin production (e.g., PPO and
FC) and porphyrin destruction (e.g., HO-1 and globin), which
are necessary for cell protection. The corals responses to ox-
idative stress and damage were evaluated through alterations
in Cu/ZnSOD and MutY concentrations, and changes in Hsp70
and sHsp indicated an adjustment in the cells production of
proteins. Finally, the present results are consistent with pre-
liminary results from our earlier trials at these exposure levels.
Xenobiotic response
Although CYP P450 1-class expression was elevated for
all the exposure levels (Table 1), signicant differences be-
tween the control and the WAF concentrations were seen only
in the 1 and 4 g/L treatments. Levels in the 0.25 g/L exposure
were not signicantly increased. In contrast, the dose responses
for CYP P450 2-class showed a signicant decrease in ex-
pression from the control at exposures of 0.25 and 4 g/L, but
not for the 1 g/L (0.052 0.015 fmol/ng total soluble protein)
exposure (Table 1). No difference from the control was ob-
served among any of the CYP P450 6-class exposures (Table 1).
The expression of GST-pi increased signicantly for all
exposures in a nearly identical manner. The MXR-1 expression
was signicantly higher than that in the control for all the
exposures. Among the exposures, a twofold increase was ob-
served between 0.25 g/L and the two higher exposures of 1
and 4 g/L.
Porphyrin metabolism
Protoporphyrinogen oxidase IX expression among control
specimens was not signicantly different from that in corals
in the 1 and 4 g/L exposures. However, expression in the 0.25
g/L exposure was signicantly higher than that observed in
all other exposures (Table 1). Conversely, FC expression was
signicantly elevated in the 1 and 4 g/L exposures, but not in
the 0.25 g/L treatment. Likewise, globin was signicantly in-
creased in the 1 and 4 g/L exposures, but not in the 0.25 g/L
exposure (Table 1). Heme oxygenase-1 expression, despite the
apparent increase between the control and 0.25 g/L exposure,
was not signicantly different among treatments. However,
levels in corals from the 1 and 4 g/L exposures were signi-
cantly increased compared to those of the control corals and
to each other (Table 1).
Oxidative damage and response
Copper/zinc superoxide dismutase-1 control expression was
not signicantly different from corals in the 0.25 and 4 g/L
exposures. However, the 1 g/L treatment samples showed a
signicant elevation from the control and the other exposures.
The MutY expression was signicantly increased from the
control in all exposures (Table 1).
Protein metabolic condition
The Hsp70 expression was signicantly elevated for all
exposures compared to the control coral specimens. Moreover,
a statistically signicant increase was further noted at con-
centrations higher than 0.25 g/L. Despite a signicant differ-
ence from the control, the 1 g/L exposure did not differ from
L. Rougee et al.
the 0.25 and 4 g/L exposures. The sHsp expression revealed
a signicant increase in all exposures (Table 1).
DISCUSSION
Exposure to petroleum mixtures may result in a number of
pathologies, ranging from anemia (interference in heme me-
tabolism and function) to degeneration of cilia in gastrodermal
cells in both mammals and cnidarians [25]. These pathologies
arise as a result of mechanistic toxicities occurring on the
biochemical and subcellular levels. Examining biomarkers that
reect the performance of these biochemical and subcellular
processes can generate a dose-dependent prole of the types
of stressors affecting the organism and facilitate a deeper com-
prehension of the nature of the toxicological mechanisms as-
sociated with a petroleum exposure. A serial concentration-
exposure experimental design, as reported herein, allowed us
to test for the occurrence of a doseresponse behavior of the
organism to the toxicant and demonstrated the occurrence of
an emergent response to increasing concentrations (e.g., ac-
cumulation of protoporphyrin at low-concentration exposure
and hemolytic anemia at higher-concentration exposure) [26].
Furthermore, understanding how key metabolic and cellular
responses are affected by a serial exposure to IFO 180 marine
fuel also may support a more accurate prediction of how high-
er-order physiological processes may behave.
Xenobiotic response
When any noxious pollutants or xenobiotics enter a cell
and its compartments, the cell initiates the process of biotrans-
formation to avoid injury. This biological process is composed
of three sequential steps or phases, involving specic proteins.
Phase-1 responses include enzymatic reactions that alter
the xenobiotics through addition or exposure of polar groups,
such as hydroxyl, carboxyl, thiol, and amino, on the toxicant.
This is a necessary step for the phase-2 proteins to interact
with the altered xenobiotics. Reactions such as oxidation, re-
duction, and hydrolysis are used for the polar group tags [27
29]. Phase-3 enzymes allow the xenobiotics to be exported out
of the cell. However, it is possible, depending on the reaction,
that an even more toxic metabolite is formed [29]. Our study
focused predominantly on the superfamily of cytochrome
P450s, which are mainly associated with oxidative and hy-
drolytic processes during phase 1 [28].
Cytochrome P450s are heme-containing monooxygenases.
In many species, most members of this superfamily are in-
volved in the metabolism of xenobiotics; however, a limited
number of cytochrome P450s are associated with biosynthetic
pathways of steroid and bile acid production [30,31]. In the
present study, we focused on specic families of cytochrome
P450s, namely the CYP P450 1-, 2-, and 6-classes. These
particular classes were chosen because of their metabolic in-
teraction with specic kinds of molecules. Cytochrome P450
1-class associates with PAHs [31], whereas CYP P450 2-class
interacts with a wide range of steroids and xenobiotic sub-
stances [32] and CYP P450 6-class with pesticides containing
chlorinated side chains [32,33].
Canonical correlation analysis indicated signicant changes
in the response to the WAF exposure (Fig. 2). For the cyto-
chrome P450s, these changes were found in the responses of
CYP P450 1- and 2-class comparisons (Fig. 2A). In the CYP
P450 1-class, this response suggests that the corals were re-
acting to the PAH as well as to benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene,
and xylene, all of which are components of the IFO 180. It
Fig. 2. Xenobiotic response and porphyrin metabolism biomarkers.
Original variates were biomarker levels expressed as a percentage of
the control value in each treatment. Circles show the 95% condence
intervals around the distribution centroid of each stressor. Biplot rays
radiating from the grand mean show the directions of the original
biomarker responses in canonical space. Overlapping centroids in-
dicates that those populations are not signicantly different from one
another; nonoverlapping centroids indicate a statistically signicant
difference (p 0.05). (A) Canonical centroid plot of Xenobiotic
Response biomarkers (see Materials and Methods ). (B) Canonical
centroid plot of Porphyrin Metabolism biomarkers (see Materials and
Methods). CYP cytochrome; FC cnidarian ferrochelatase; GST
glutathione-S-transferase; MXR multixenobiotic resistance pro-
tein 1; PPO protoporphyrinogen oxidase IX.
also was observed that a signicant toxicity response was gen-
erated above the 1 g/L level. However, no doseresponse effect
was noticed as the WAF concentrations increased (Table 1).
The response levels could be related to the amount of WAF
3185
of the fuel oil in the solution. In the 0.25 g/L solution, the
concentration of aromatic hydrocarbons would be less than
that found in preparations at the higher concentrations. It may
be that CYP P450 1-class is a good indicator of the levels of
aromatic hydrocarbon compounds in the environment. There
also is a possibility that the cell becomes saturated in the
process of producing CYP P450 1-class regardless of an in-
crease in PAH exposure. The CYP P450 2-class levels were
decreased for all doses tested (Table 1). This decrease in ex-
pression could correspond to a shift in subcellular response
systems to compensate for the increase in the CYP P450 1-
class elevation. Some fuel oil compounds in IFO 180 also
could have adverse effects on the ability of cells to produce
CYP P450 2-class enzymes, causing the observed decrease.
No change in expression was seen for the CYP P450 6-class.
This was expected, because the exposure to IFO 180 fuel oil
lacks the chlorinated compounds that would elicit a response.
The new polar metabolites from phase 1 are a threat to the
cell, because they can interact with or become embedded in
the membrane. To prevent this, in phase 2, the metabolites are
conjugated with endogenous substrates, such as glutathione,
sulfates, acetates, and glucuronides [34]. The reactions of this
phase cause the compounds to become more water soluble
and, thus, capable of being excreted from the cell [35,36]. Of
particular interest is the enzyme family of glutathione-S-trans-
ferases, which has been associated with the detoxication pro-
cess in aerobic animals. The phase-2 enzyme, glutathione-S-
transferase, primarily catalyzes the conjugation of electrophilic
compounds, such as PAHs, with the thiol group of glutathione
[35]. This reaction decreases the reactivity of the compounds
with other molecules in the cell [37]. We focused on one of
the four main classes of glutathione-S-transferase, GST-pi,
which has been described in cnidarians [25]. Activity of GST-
pi in our experiment was signicantly elevated in response to
exposure to the WAF, revealing activation of the detoxication
response.
The third and nal phase is the elimination of the altered
metabolites. Depending on the end product, several different
pathways exist. Compounds can be transported to the lysosome
for degradation, sequestered in lysosome-like structures for
containment, or ultimately, excreted from the cell [38,39]. Spe-
cic proteins, which help in the transport of xenobiotics out
of the cell, are adenosine triphosphatebinding cassette trans-
porters. One such phase-3 enzyme is MXR-1, which is used
to export glutathione-conjugated compounds out of the cell
[38]. An increase in the CYP P450 1-class (phase-1) as well
as the GST-pi (phase-2) enzymes leads to an increase in the
expression of MXR-1, as was observed. Although no dose
response effect was observed, the signicant difference in the
highest doses of the WAF (1 and 4 g/L) is in agreement with
the responses seen in CYP P450 1-class.
Porphyrin metabolism
Is there a signicant shift in porphyrin metabolism and
catabolism as a result of increasing concentrations of IFO 180
WAF? Canonical correlation analysis indicated that the 0.25
g/L of IFO 180 WAF treatment did not cause a signicant
shift in porphyrin metabolism, but higher concentrations of
IFO 180 WAF did (Fig. 2B). Porphyrins are heterocyclic mol-
ecules consisting of four pyrrole rings joined by methane
bridges. Depending on the porphyrin, different substituents can
be found on the ring. The biomarkers assessed included en-
zymes responsible for the synthesis of porphyrins or their deg-
3186
radation. We focused on the nal two steps of the porphyrin-
synthesis pathway. Protoporphyrinogen oxidase IX is involved
with the penultimate step of porphyrin production, and FC
catalyzes the nal step. In the penultimate step of porphyrin
synthesis, coproporphyrinogen III is oxidized into protopor-
phyrin IX [40]. The nal step is the insertion of iron into the
porphyrin ring by FC to form a hemin [41]. An increase in
protein levels of PPO and FC would be indicative of an in-
creased demand in porphyrin anabolism, or it could result as
a compensatory reaction of inhibited activities of PPO and FC
enzymes. An increase in globin concentrations indicates either
an increased demand for cellular oxygen, or it reects increas-
ing inhibitory activity of globin by petroleum components.
The behavior of the protein levels of HO-1 in response to IFO
180 WAF exposure is similar to the behavior seen in other
studies of HO-1 and petroleum exposure, suggesting an in-
creased demand in heme degradation, most likely as a result
of iron/porphyrin dissociation via PAH interactions [42].
Oxidative damage and response
Reactive oxygen species, such as superoxide radical anions
and hydroxyl radicals, can stress an organism and cause cell-
ular damage. Cells respond to this stress by releasing anti-
oxidants to suppress these oxygen species [43]. Copper/zinc
superoxide dismutase-1 is an antioxidant enzyme that protects
the cell by catalyzing superoxides into hydrogen peroxide,
which is then scavenged by further antioxidant pathways for
further disposal [44]. In the present study, we observed a sig-
nicant elevation of Cu/ZnSOD in the 1 g/L exposure con-
centration, whereas corals in the other exposures only exhib-
ited a slight increase that was not statistically signicant. The
most reasonable explanation is that the cells became saturated
at higher doses, which in turn inhibited the Cu/ZnSOD mech-
anism.
Reactive oxygen species also can cause damage at the sub-
cellular level, producing lesions on the DNA. For example,
MutY is involved in the base excision repair pathway of cells,
and it is responsible for repairing oxidative damage to DNA
[45]. The signicant elevation that we observed among all the
exposures could be indicative that DNA repair is occurring.
Protein metabolic condition
Protein production and turnover is a vital part of cellular
homeostasis. Under normal conditions, when proteins leave
the ribosome, they are bound by chaperones that help to ensure
that the protein correctly folds into the native form. The chap-
erones also bind to misfolded or denatured proteins and prevent
them from aggregating and causing cell damage. However,
under stress conditions, the number of denatured proteins in-
creases. In response, the cell up-regulates the genes that ex-
press the chaperones and are indicative of protein metabolic
stress. Heat shock protein 70 is a cytosolic chaperone that
binds to denatured proteins [46]. Small heat shock proteins
are intrinsic chaperones, which are vital to protein confor-
mation. The Hsp70 exhibited a signicant doseresponse effect
as the IFO 180 WAF concentrations increased. Likewise, sHsp
expression was signicantly elevated in corals at all doses
tested. However, no differences in expression among the in-
creasing WAF concentrations were observed. Although this
can signify that the coral samples were, indeed, stressed in
their exposure to the WAF solutions and that a shift from
L. Rougee et al.
metabolic homeostasis had occurred, both heat shock protein
biomarkers are indicative of a general, nonspecic stress re-
sponse that may be caused by other environmental factors.
Although not unexpected, the present results bear a re-
markable similarity to those of our previous study of an oil
spill on a coral reef in Yap [12]. In that study, we collected
coral samples (Porites lobata ) approximately 75 d after the
spill, and we assayed a suite of biomarkers, including many
of those investigated during the present study. Among bio-
markers of xenobiotics response, we noted that all the bio-
markers that were elevated in the present study (e.g., CYP 450
1-class, CYP 450 2-class, MXR-1, and GST-pi) also were el-
evated in corals collected at Yap approximately 75 d after the
oil spill. We also noted that CYP 450 6-class was not elevated
in our present study, and the results were equivocal in the
corals collected from the impacted site at Yap. The CYP 450
6-class levels were not signicantly different from those ex-
pressed by corals at one of the reference sites. Again, this is
not surprising, in that CYP 450 6-class interacts with the chlo-
rinated side chains of pesticides [32,33]. It was expected that
the level of expression of the various biomarkers (e.g., CYP
450 1-class) would vary between our eld [12] and laboratory
studies. Such differences likely result from interspecic var-
iation, duration of exposure, laboratory versus environmental
conditions, and so on. Finally, the narrow range of biomarkers
examined in the present study was informed by the results
from the eld study and was adequate to demonstrate the im-
pact of oil on corals under laboratory conditions.
Likewise, PPO levels did not differ signicantly from con-
trol samples in our laboratory study, and the levels were not
elevated among impacted corals in Yap when compared to
corals collected from two reference sites. However, levels of
FC and HO-1 were signicantly elevated in exposed corals in
both studies. Thus, porphyrin metabolism appears to be af-
fected in a similar manner in both situations.
Our comparative evaluation of oxidative damage and re-
sponse exhibited a remarkable similarity to our observation of
xenobiotic response. In fact, MutY was elevated in both lab-
oratory-exposed corals and in situexposed corals. However,
levels of Cu/ZnSOD produced somewhat ambiguous results
in the laboratory, because control samples did not differ sig-
nicantly in corals from high and low exposure concentrations
but did differ signicantly from the intermediate exposure lev-
el. In the eld study, we observed similar ambiguity, because
the elevations observed in the exposed corals only differed
signicantly from one of the two reference sites utilized. The
low number of samples and inherent variability of the data
likely limited our ability to detect signicant differences.
Finally, levels of two key protein chaperones, Hsp70 and
sHsp, were elevated in both exposure situations compared to
levels in the control/reference corals. Again, these results also
demonstrate a remarkable similarity between independent lab-
oratory and eld studies.
These results clearly demonstrate the utility of this approach
across the two coral species. Specically, it is of considerable
signicance that almost without exception, we observed a par-
allel response in two different species of corals to laboratory
and in situ oil exposures for a variety of biomarkers, the ob-
vious implication being that biomarkers and, in particular,
suites of biomarkers have the potential to accurately predict
toxic insults in coral reef ecosystems.
AcknowledgementResearch support was provided by a National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration grant NA04NOS4260204
and EnVirtue Biotechnologies. The authors also gratefully acknowl-
edge the anonymous reviewers for their comments in improving the
manuscript. The work presented herein represent partial completion
of the requirements for a Masters Degree in the Department of Biology
at the Johns Hopkins University for Luc Rougee.
REFERENCES
1. Scheffer M, Carpenter S, Foley JA, Folke C, Walker B. 2001.
Catastrophic shifts in ecosystems. Nature 413:591596.
2. Bellwood DR, Hughes TP, Folke C, Nystrom M. 2004. Confront-
ing the coral reef crisis. Nature 429:827833.
3. Anderson CM, LaBelle RP. 2000. Update of comparative occur-
rence rates for offshore oil spills. Spill Science and Technology
Bulletin 6:303321.
4. Da Cunha PL, Antunes MM. 1999. Occurrence of vertebral de-
formities in Gobiidae (Pisces) from the Tagus estuary. Aquat Ecol
33:281285.
5. Savvaitova KA, Chebotarev YV, Pichugin MY, Maksimov SV.
1995. Anomalies in sh structure as indicators of the state of the
environment. Vopr Ikhtiol 2:182188.
6. Moiseenko TI. 2000. Morphophysiological rearrangements in sh
organism in response to pollution (in the light of S.S. Shvarts
theory). Ehkologiya 31:463472.
7. Moiseenko TI. 2002. Change in the life-cycle strategy of sh
under the effect of chronic water pollution. Ehkologiya 33:45
55.
8. Ostrander GK, Landolt ML, Kocan RM. 1988. The ontogeny of
coho salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch ) behavior following embry-
onic exposure to benzo[a ]pyrene. Aquat Toxicol 13:325346.
9. Ostrander GK, Landolt ML, Kocan RM. 1989. Life history study
of coho salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch ) following embryonic
exposure to benzo[a ]pyrene. Aquat Toxicol 15:109 126.
10. Sherwood MJ. 1977. Distribution of neoplasms and other diseases
in marine shes relative to the discharge of waste water. Ann N
Y Acad Sci 298:210224.
11. Bresler V, Bissinger V, Abelson A, Dizer H, Sturm A, Kratke R,
Fishelson L, Hansen P-D. 1999. Marine mollusks and sh as
biomarkers of pollution stress in littoral regions of the Red Sea,
Mediterranean Sea, and North Sea. Helgol Mar Res 53:219 243.
12. Downs CA, Richmond RH, Mendiola WC, Rougee L, Ostrander
GK. 2006. Cellular-physiological effects of the MV Kyowa Violet
fuel-oil spill on the hard coral. Porites lobata . Environ Toxicol
Chem 25:31713180.
13. Blenkisopp S, Boileau P, Kyle D, Sergy GA, Fingas MF. 1996.
How to prepare water accommodated fractions from petroleum
hydrocarbons for use in aquatic toxicity testingThe basics. Pro-
ceedings, 19th Arctic and Marine Oil Spill Program Technical
Seminar, Environment Canada, Calgary, AB, September 4 10,
1995, pp 515528.
14. Barron MG. 2003. Critical evaluation of CROSERF test methods
for oil dispersant toxicity testing under sub-Arctic conditions.
Contract 955.03.2. Final Report. Prince William Sound Regional
Citizens Advisory Council, Anchorage, AK, USA.
15. Pelletier MC, Burgess RM, Ho KT, Kuhn A, McKinney RA, Ryba
SA. 1997. Phototoxicity of individual polycyclic aromatic hy-
drocarbons and petroleum to marine invertebrate larvae and ju-
veniles. Environ Toxicol Chem 16:21902199.
16. Downs CA, Fauth JE, Robinson CE, Curry R, Lanzendorf B,
Halas JC, Halas J, Woodley CM. 2005. Cellular diagnostics and
coral health: Declining coral health in the Florida Keys. Mar
Pollut Bull 51:558569.
17. Ghosh S, Gepstein S, Heikkila JJ, Dumbroff EB. 1988. Use of
scanning densitometer or an ELISA plate reader for measurement
of nanogram amounts of protein in crude extracts from biological
tissue. Anal Biochem 169:227233.
18. Downs CA, Woodley CM, Richmond RH, Lanning LL, Owen R.
2005. Shifting the paradigm for coral reef health assessment.
Mar Pollut Bull 51:486494.
19. Schagger H, von Jagow G. 1987. Tricinesodium dodecyl sulfate
polyacrylamide gel electrophoresis for the separation of proteins
in the range from 1 to 100 kDa. Anal Biochem 166:368379.
20. Ploug M, Jensen AL, Barkholt V. 1989. Determination of amino
acid compositions and NH
2 -terminal sequences of peptides elec-
troblotted onto PVDF membranes from tricinesodium dodecyl
sulfatepolyacrylamide gel electrophoresis: Application to pep-
tide mapping of human complement component C3. Anal Bio-
chem 181:3339.
3187
21. Mozdzanowski J, Hembach P, Speicher DW. 1992. High-yield
electroblotting onto polyvinylidene diuoride membranes from
polyacrylamide gels. Electrophoresis 13:59 64.
22. Crowther JR. 2001. The ELISAGuidebook. Humana, Totowa, NJ,
USA.
23. Sokal RR, Rohlf FJ. 1995. Biometry: The Principles and Practice
ofStatistics in Biological Research, 3rd ed. W.H. Freeman, New
York, NY, USA.
24. Domart-Coulon IJ, Traylor-Knowles N, Peters E, Elbert D, Downs
CA, Price K, Stubbs J, McLaughlin S, Cox E, Aeby G, Brown
PR, Ostrander GK. 2006. Comprehensive characterization of skel-
etal tissue growth anomalies of the nger coral Porites com-
pressa. Coral Reefs 24:In press.
25. Norton NW, Mattie DR, Kearns CL. 1985. The cytopathologic
effects of specic aromatic hydrocarbons. Am JPathol 118:387
397.
26. Allen TFH, Starr T. 1982. Hierarchy: Perspectives for Ecological
Complexity. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL, USA.
27. Guengerich PF. 2000. Pharmacogenomics of cytochrome P450
and other enzymes involved in biotransformation of xenobiotics.
Drug Dev Res 49:4 16.
28. Leguen I, Carlsson C, Perdu-Durand E, Prunet P, Part P, Cravedi
JP. 2000. Xenobiotic and steroid biotransformation activities in
rainbow trout gill epithelial cells in culture. Aquac Toxicol 48:
165176.
29. Jokanovic M. 2001. Biotransformation of organophosphorous
compounds. Toxicology 166:139 160.
30. Synder MJ, Mulder EP. 2001. Environmental endocrine disruption
in decapod crustacean larvae: Hormone titers, cytochrome P450,
and stress protein responses to heptachlor exposure. Aquat Tox-
icol 55:177190.
31. Gonzalez FJ. 2005. Role of cytochrome P450s in chemical tox-
icity and oxidative stress: Studies with CYP2E1. Mutat Res 569:
101110.
32. Dunkov BC, Guzov VM. 1997. The Drosophila cytochrome P450
gene Cyp6a2: Structure, localization, heterologous expression,
and induction by phenobarbital. DNA Cell Biol 11:13451356.
33. Scott JG. 1999. Cytochrome P450s and insecticide resistance.
Insect Biochem Mol Biol 29:757777.
34. Sheehan D, Power A. 1999. Effects of seasonality on xenobiotic
and antioxidant defense mechanisms of bivalve mollusks. Comp
Biochem Physiol C Toxicol Pharmacol 123:193199.
35. Habig WH, Pabst MJ, Jakoby WB. 1974. Glutathione-S-trans-
ferases. The rst enzymatic step in mercapturic acid formation.
J Biol Chem 249:71307139.
36. Bard SM. 2000. Multixenobiotic resistance as a cellular defense
mechanism in aquatic organisms. Aquat Toxicol 48:357389.
37. Eaton DL, Bammler TK. 1999. Concise review of the glutathione-
S-transferases and their signicance to toxicology. Toxicol Sci
49:156164.
38. Borst P, Elferink RO. 2002. Mammalian ABC transporters in
health and disease. Ann Rev Biochem 71:537592.
39. DiPietro A, Conseil G. 2002. Modulation of avonoids of cell
multidrug resistance mediated by P-glycoprotein and related ABC
transporters. Cell Mol Life Sci 59:307322.
40. Poulson R, Polglase JW. 1975. The enzymatic conversion of pro-
toporphyrinogen IX to protoporphyrin IX. J Biol Chem 250:
1269 1274.
41. Frustaci JM, OBrain MR. 1993. The Escherichia coli visA En-
codes Ferrochelatase, the nal enzyme of the heme biosynthetic
pathway. J Bacteriol 175:2154 2156.
42. Marks GS. 1985. Exposure to toxic agents: The heme biosynthetic
pathway and hemoproteins as indicator. Crit Rev Toxicol 15:151
179.
43. Hwang C, Rhie G. 2002. Copper- and zinc-containing superoxide
dismutase (Cu/ZnSOD) is required for the protection of Candida
albicans against oxidative stresses and the expression of its full
virulence. Microbiology 148:37053713.
44. Fujs S, Gazdag Z, Poljsak B, Stibilj V, Milac ic , Pesti M, Raspor
P, Batic M. 2005. The oxidative stress response of the yeast Can-
dida intermedia to copper, zinc, and selenium exposure. JBasic
Microbiol 45:125135.
45. Croitoru ME, Cleary SP. 2004. Association between biallelic and
monoallelic germline MYH gene mutations and colorectal cancer
risk. J Natl Cancer Inst 96:16311634.
46. Tom M, Douek J. 1999. Molecular characterization of the rst
heat shock protein 70 from a reef coral. Biochem Biophys Res
Commun 262:103108.
http://www.nap.edu/catalog/11283.html
We ship printed books within 1 business day; personal PDFs are available immediately.
Understanding Oil Spill Dispersants: Efficacy and
Effects
Committee on Understanding Oil Spill Dispersants:
Efficacy and Effects, National Research Council
ISBN: 0-309-54793-8, 396 pages, 6 x 9, (2005)
This PDF is available from the National Academies Press at:
Visit the National Academies Press online, the authoritative source for all books
from the National Academy of Sciences, the National Academy of Engineering,
the Institute of Medicine, and the National Research Council:
Download hundreds of free books in PDF
Read thousands of books online for free
Explore our innovative research tools try the Research Dashboard now!
Sign up to be notified when new books are published
Purchase printed books and selected PDF files
Thank you for downloading this PDF. If you have comments, questions or
just want more information about the books published by the National
Academies Press, you may contact our customer service department toll-
free at 888-624-8373, visit us online, or send an email to
[email protected].
This book plus thousands more are available at http://www.nap.edu.
Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
Unless otherwise indicated, all materials in this PDF File are copyrighted by the National
Academy of Sciences. Distribution, posting, or copying is strictly prohibited without
written permission of the National Academies Press. Request reprint permission for this book.
Understanding Oil Spill Dispersants: Efficacy and Effects
References
Aamo, O.M., M. Reed and P. Daling. 1993. A laboratory based weathering model: PC ver-
sion for coupling to transport models. Pp. 617626 in Proceedings ofthe Sixteenth Arctic
and Marine Oil Spill Program (AMOP) Technical Seminar, Calgary, Canada. Environment
Canada, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.
Aamo, O.M., M. Reed and K. Downing. 1997. Oil Spill Contingency and Response (OSCAR)
Model System: Sensitivity Studies. Pp. 429438 in Proceedings ofthe 1997 International
Oil Spill Conference, Fort Lauderdale, Florida. American Petroleum Institute, Washing-
ton, D.C.
Adams, G.G., P.L. Klerks, S.E. Belanger and D. Dantin. 1999. The Effect of the Oil Dispersant
Omni-Clean on the Toxicity of Fuel Oil No. 2 in Two Bioassays With the Sheepshead
Minnow Cypriodon variegates. Chemosphere 39:21412157.
Addassi, Y.M. Sowby, H. Parker-Hall and W. Robberson. In press. Establishment of Dispers-
ant Use Zones in the State of California: A consensus approach for marine waters 200
nautical miles from shore. Proceedings ofthe 2005 International Oil Spill Conference, Mi-
ami Beach, Florida. American Petroleum Institute, Washington, D.C.
Agrawal, Y.C., E.A. Terray, M.A. Donelan, P.A. Hwang, A.J. Williams, W.M. Drennan, K.K.
Kahma and S.A. Kitaigorodskii. 1992. Enhanced dissipation of kinetic energy beneath
surface waves. Nature 359:219220.
Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation. 1989. Letter dated March 28, 1989 from
the State of Alaska to the U.S. Coast Guard. State of Alaska, Department of Environ-
mental Conservation, Office of the Commissioner, Juneau.
Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation. 1993. The Exxon Valdez Oil Spill: Final
Report State ofAlaska Response. State of Alaska, Department of Environmental Conser-
vation, Office of the Commissioner, Juneau.
Alaska Oil Spill Commission. 1990. The Wreck ofthe Exxon Valdez. Final report of the State of
Alaska Oil Spill Commission. State of Alaska, Office of the Governor, Juneau.
Allen, A.A. 1988. Comparison of response options for offshore oil spills. Pp. 289306 in Pro-
ceedings ofthe Eleventh Arctic and Marine Oilspill Program (AMOP) Technical Seminar,
Edmonton, Alberta, Canada. Environment Canada, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.
289
290
OIL SPILL DISPERSANTS
Allen, A.A. and J.R. Payne. 2001. Liverpool Bay crude oil discharge tests at OHMSETT Facili-
tiesDecember 26, 2000. A report prepared for BHP Petroleum Limited, Spiltec, and
Payne Environmental Consultants, Incorporated. Payne Environmental Consultants,
Incorporated, Encinitas, California.
American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) Task Committee on Modeling of Oil Spills of
the Water Resources Engineering Division. 1996. State-of-the Art Review of Modeling
Transport and Fate of Oil Spills. Journal ofHydraulic Engineering 122(11):594609.
American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM). 1992. Standard Guide for Oil Spill Dis-
persant Application Equipment: Boom and Nozzle Systems. Designation: F1413-92. Ameri-
can Society for Testing and Materials, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM). 1993. Standard Practice for Calibrating
Oil Spill Dispersant Application Equipment: Boom and Nozzle Systems. Designation: F1460-
93. American Society for Testing and Materials, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM). 1996. Standard Guide for Use ofOil Spill
Dispersant Application Equipment During Spill Response: Boom and Nozzle Systems.
Designation: F1737-96. American Society for Testing and Materials, Philadelphia,
Pennsylvania.
American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM). 2000. Standard Test Method for Labora-
tory Oil Spill Dispersant Effectiveness Using the Swirling Flask. Designation: F2059-00.
American Society for Testing and Materials, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
Ankley, G.T., S.A. Collyard, P.D. Monson and P.A. Kosian. 1994. Influence of ultraviolet
light on the toxicity of sediments contaminated with polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons.
Journal ofEnvironmental Toxicology and Chemistry 13:17911796.
Aquatic Testing Laboratories. 1994. Abalone larval development short term toxicity test for oil
spill cleanup agents. Laboratory report. Aquatic Testing Laboratories, Ventura,
California.
Aunaas, T., A. Olsen and K.E. Zachariassen. 1991. The effects of oil and oil dispersants on the
amphipod Gammarus-oceanicus from arctic waters. Polar Research 10(2)619630.
Aurand, D., G. Coelho, J. Clark and G. Bragin. 1999. Goals, objectives and design of a
mesocosm experiment on the environmental consequences of nearshore dispersant use.
Pp. 629643 in Proceedings ofthe Twenty-Second Arctic and Marine Oilspill Program
(AMOP) Technical Seminar, Calgary, Canada. Environment Canada, Ottawa, Ontario,
Canada.
Aurand, D., L. Walko and R. Pond. 2000. Developing Consensus Ecological Risk Assessments:
Environmental Protection in Oil Spill Response Planning A Guidebook. United States Coast
Guard. Washington, D.C.
Aurand, D.V., G.M. Coelho and A. Steen. 2001. Ten years of research by the U.S. oil industry
to evaluate the ecological issues of dispersant use: An overview of the past decade. Pp.
429434 in Proceedings ofthe 2001 International Oil Spill Conference, Tampa, Florida.
American Petroleum Institute, Washington, D.C.
Aurand, D., M. Hitchings, L. Walko, J. Clark, J. Bonner, C. Page, R. Jamail and R. Martin.
2001. Justification for the Proposed Texas General Land Office Spill ofOpportunity Testing
Program. EM&A Preliminary Report 01-08A. Ecosystem Management & Associates,
Incorporated, Lusby, Maryland.
Aurand, D., M. Hitchings, L. Walko, J. Clark, J. Bonner, C. Page, R. Jamail and R. Martin.
2004. Texas General Land Office Spill ofOpportunity Dispersant Demonstration Project
Description. EM&A Final Report 01-08A. Ecosystem Management & Associates, Incor-
porated, Lusby, Maryland.
Baca, B.J. and C.D. Getter. 1984. The toxicity of oil and chemically dispersed oil to the seagrass
Thalassia testudinum. Pp. 314323 in Oil Spill Chemical Dispersants: Research, Experience,
and Recommendations, T.E. Allen, Ed. American Society for Testing and Materials, Phila-
delphia, Pennsylvania.
REFERENCES
291
Baker, J.M., J.H. Cruthers, D.I. Little, J.H. Oldham and C.M. Wilson. 1984. Comparison of the
fate and ecological effects of dispersed and non-dispersed oil in a variety of marine
habitats. Pp. 239279 in Oil Spill Chemical Dispersants: Research, Experience, and Recom-
mendations, T.E. Allen, ed. American Society for Testing and Materials, Philadelphia,
Pennsylvania.
Ballou, T.G., R.E. Dodge, S.C. Hess, A.H. Knap and T.D. Sleeter. 1987. Effects ofa Dispersed
and Undispersed Crude Oil on Mangroves, Seagrasses, and Corals. American Petroleum In-
stitute Publication Number 4460. American Petroleum Institute, Washington, D.C.
Ballou, T.G., S.C. Hess, R.E. Dodge, A.H. Knap and T.D. Sleeter. 1989. Effects of untreated
and chemically dispersed oil on tropical marine communities: A long-term field experi-
ment. Pp. 447454 in Proceedings ofthe 1989 International Oil Spill Conference, San Anto-
nio, Texas. American Petroleum Institute, Washington, D.C.
Barnea, N. and R. Laferriere. 1999. SMART: Scientific monitoring of advanced response tech-
nologies. Pp.12651267 in Proceedings ofthe 1999 International Oil Spill Conference, Se-
attle, Washington. American Petroleum Institute, Washington, D.C.
Barron, M.G. 2000. Potential for photenhanced toxicity ofspilled oil in Prince William Sound and
GulfofAlaska waters. Contract No. 602.00.1. Report prepared for the Prince William
Sound Regional Citizens Advisory Council. Prince William Sound Regional Citizens
Advisory Council, Anchorage, Alaska.
Barron, M.G. and L. Kaaihue. 2001. Potential for photoenhanced toxicity of spilled oil in
Prince William Sound and Gulf of Alaska waters. Marine Pollution Bulletin 43:8692.
Barron, M.G. and L. Kaaihue. 2003. Critical evaluation of CROSERF test methods for oil
dispersant toxicity testing under subarctic conditions. Marine Pollution Bulletin 46:1191
1199.
Barron, M.G., T. Podrabasky, S. Ogle and R.W. Ricker. 1999. Are aromatic hydrocarbons the
primary determinant of petroleum toxicity to aquatic organisms? Aquatic Toxicology
46:253268.
Barron M.G., M.G. Carls, R. Heintz and S.D. Rice. 2004. Evaluation of fish early life stage
toxicity models of chronic embryonic exposures to complex polycyclic aromatic hydro-
carbon mixtures. Toxicological Sciences 78:6067.
Bassin, N.J. and T. Ichiye. 1977. Flocculation behavior of suspended sediments and oil emul-
sions. Journal ofSedimentary Petrology 47:671677.
Beaupoil, C. and D. Nedelec. 1994. Etude de la toxicite du produit de lavage Corexit 9500 vis-a-
vis de la crevette blanche Palaemonetes varians. Laboratoire de Biologie Marine, Con-
carneau, France.
Becker, K.W., M.A. Walsh, R.J. Fiocco and M.T. Curran. 1993. A new laboratory method for
evaluating oil spill dispersants. Pp. 507510 in Proceedings ofthe 1993 International Oil
Spill Conference, Tampa, Florida. American Petroleum Institute, Washington, D.C.
Belk, J.L., D.J. Elliott and L.M. Flaherty. 1989. The comparative effectiveness of dispersants
in fresh and low salinity waters. Pp. 333336 in Proceedings ofthe 1989 International Oil
Spill Conference, San Antonio, Texas. American Petroleum Institute, Washington, D.C.
Belluck, D. 1993. Defining Scientific Procedural Standards for Ecological Risk Assessment.
Pp. 440450 in Environmental Toxicology and Risk Assessment: 2nd Volume, ASTM STP
1216, J.W. Gorsuch, F.J. Dwyer, C.G. Ingersoll and T.W. LaPoint, eds., American Soci-
ety for Testing and Materials, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
Belore, R. 2003. Large wave tank dispersant effectiveness testing in cold water. Pp. 381385
in Proceedings ofthe 2003 International Oil Spill Conference, Vancouver, Canada. Ameri-
can Petroleum Institute, Washington, D.C. [Online] Available at: http://www.
slross.com/publications/IOSC.htm [February 11, 2005].
Berger, D. and D. Mackay. 1994. The evaporation of viscous or waxy oilsWhen is a liquid-
phase resistance significant? Pp. 7792 in Proceedings ofthe Seventeenth Arctic and Marine
292
Oil Spill Program (AMOP) Technical Seminar, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada.
Environment Canada, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.
Bertuccioli, L., G.I. Roth, J. Katz, and T.R. Osborn. 1999. Turbulence measurements in the
bottom boundary layer using particle image velocimetry. Journal ofAtmospheric and
Oceanic Technology 16(11):16351646.
Bhattacharyya, S., P.L. Klerks and J.A. Nyman. 2003. Toxicity to freshwater organisms from
oils and oil spill chemical treatments in laboratory microcosms. Environmental Pollution
122:205215.
Bhosle, N.B. and S. Mavinkurve. 1984. Effects of dispersants on microbial growth and bio-
degradation of crude oil. Mahasagar-Bulletin ofthe National Institute ofOceanography
17(4):233238.
Bhosle, N.B. and A. Row. 1983. Effect of dispersants on the growth of indigenous bacterial
population and biodegradation of crude oil. Indian Journal ofMarine Sciences
12(3):194196.
Blackall, P.J. and G.A. Sergy, 1981. The BIOS project-frontier oil spill countermeasures re-
search. Pp. 167172 in Proceedings ofthe 1981 International Oil Spill Conference, Atlanta,
Georgia. American Petroleum Institute, Washington, D.C.
Blondina, G.J., M.L. Sowby, M.T. Ouano, M.M. Singer and R.S. Tjeerdema. 1997. A modified
swirling flask efficacy test for oil spill dispersants. Spill Science and Technology Bulletin
4(3):177185.
Blondina, G.J., M.M. Singer, I. Lee, M.T. Ouano, M. Hodgins, R.S. Tjeerdema and M.L.
Sowby. 1999. Influence of salinity on petroleum accommodation by dispersants. Spill
Science and Technology Bulletin 5(2):127134.
Blum, D.J. and R.E. Speece. 1990. Determining chemical toxicity to aquatic species, Environ-
mental Science and Technology 24:284293.
Blumer, M., G. Souza and J. Sass. 1970. Hydrocarbon pollution of edible shellfish by an oil
spill. Marine Biology 5:195202.
Bobra, M. 1990. A study of the formation of water-in-oil emulsions. Pp. 87117 in Proceedings
ofthe Thirteenth Arctic and Marine Oil Spill Program (AMOP) Technical Seminar,
Bobra, M. 1991. Water-in-Oil Emulsification: A Physicochemical Study. Pp. 483492 in Pro-
ceedings ofthe 1991 International Oil Spill Conference, San Diego, California. American
Petroleum Institute, Washington, D.C.
Bobra, M. 1992. A Study ofthe Evaporation ofPetroleum Oils. Report No. EE-135. Report to
Environmental Emergencies Science Division of Environment Canada. Environment
Bocard, C., G. Castaing, J. Ducreux, C. Gatellier, J. Croquette and F. Merlin. 1987. PROTEC-
MAR: The French experience form a seven-year dispersant offshore trials programme.
Pp. 225229 in Proceedings ofthe 1987 International Oil Spill Conference, Baltimore, Mary-
land. American Petroleum Institute, Washington, D.C.
Boehm, P.D. 1987. Transport and Transformation Processes Regarding Hydrocarbon and
Metal Pollutants in Offshore Sedimentary Environments. Pp. 233287 in Long-Term
Environmental Effects ofOffshore Oil and Gas Development, D.F. Boesch and N.N. Rabalais,
eds. Elsevier Applied Science, New York, New York.
Boehm, P.D. and D.L. Fiest. 1980. Surface water column transport and weathering of petro-
leum hydrocarbons during the IXTOC-I blowout in the Bay of Campeche and their
relation to surface oil and microlayer compositions. Pp. 267338 in Proceedings ofthe
Symposium on Preliminary Results from the September 1979 Researcher/Pierce IXTOC-I
Cruise, Key Biscayne, Florida. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Pub-
lications Office, Boulder, Colorado.
REFERENCES
293
Boehm, P.D. and D.L. Fiest. 1982. Subsurface distribution of petroleum from an offshore
well blowout. The IXTOC-I blowout, Bay of Campeche. Environmental Science and Tech-
nology 16(2):6774.
Boese, B.L., J.O. Lamberson, R.C. Swartz and R.J. Ozretich. 1997. Photoinduced toxicity of
fluoranthene to seven marine benthic crustaceans. Archives ofEnvironmental Contamina-
tion and Toxicology 32:389393.
Bonner, J.S., C.A. Page and C.B. Fuller. 2003. Meso-scale testing and development of test
procedures to maintain mass balance. Marine Pollution Bulletin 47:406414.
Box, G.E.P., W.G. Hunter and J.S. Hunter. 1978. Statistics for Experimenters: An Introduction to
Design, Data Analysis, and Model Building. John Wiley & Sons, Incorporated, New York,
New York.
Bradbury, S., R.Carlson and T. Henry. 1989. Polar narcosis in aquatic organisms. Aquatic
Toxicology and Hazard Assessment 12:5973.
Braddock, J.F. and Z.D. Richter. 1998. Microbial degradation ofaromatic hydrocarbons in marine
sediments. Final Report OCS Study MMS 97-0041. Institute of Arctic Biology, University
of Alaska, Fairbanks.
Bragg, J.R. and E.H. Owens. 1994. Clay-oil flocculation as a natural cleansing process follow-
ing oil spills: Part 1Studies of shoreline sediments and residues from past spills. Pp.
123 in Proceedings ofthe Seventeenth Arctic and Marine Oilspill Program (AMOP) Techni-
cal Seminar, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada. Environment Canada, Ottawa,
Ontario, Canada.
Bragg, J.R. and E.H. Owens. 1995. Shoreline cleansing by interactions between oil and fine
mineral particles. Pp. 216227 in Proceedings ofthe 1995 International Oil Spill Conference,
Long Beach, California. American Petroleum Institute, Washington, D.C.
Bragg, J.R. and S.H. Yang. 1995. Clayoil flocculation and its effects on the rate of natural
cleansing in Prince William Sound following the Exxon Valdez oil spill. Pp. 178214 in
Exxon Valdez Oil SpillFate and Effects in Alaskan Waters, P.G. Wells, J.N. Butler, J.S.
Hughes eds., American Society for Testing and Materials, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
Bragin, G., G. Coelho, E. Febbo, J. Clark and D. Aurand. 1999. Coastal oilspill simulation
system comparison of oil and chemically dispersed oil released in near-shore environ-
ments: Biological effects. Pp. 671683 in Proceedings ofthe Twenty-Second Arctic and Ma-
rine Oilspill Program (AMOP) Technical Seminar, Calgary, Alberta, Canada. Environment
Brandvik, J.J. and P.S. Daling. 1990. Statistical experimental design optimization of dis-
persants performance. Pp. 243254 in Proceedings ofthe Thirteenth Arctic and Marine
Oilspill Program (AMOP) Technical Seminar, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada. Environment
Brandvik, J.J., P.S. Daling and K. Aareskjold. 1991. Chemical dispersibility testing offresh and
weathered oilsan extended study with eight oil types. DIWO Report No. 12. SINTEF
Group, Trondheim, Norway.
Brandvik, J.J., M.D. Moldestad and P.S. Daling. 1992. Laboratory testing of dispersants un-
der arctic conditions. Pp. 123134 in Proceedings ofthe Fifteenth Arctic and Marine Oilspill
Program (AMOP) Technical Seminar, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada. Environment Canada,
Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.
Brandvik, J.J., P.S. Daling, A. Lewis and T. Lunel. 1995. Measurements of dispersed oil con-
centrations by in-situ UV fluorescence during the Norwegian experimental oil spill with
Sture blend. Pp. 519535 in Proceedings ofthe Eighteenth Arctic and Marine Oilspill Pro-
gram (AMOP) Technical Seminar, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada. Environment Canada,
Brandvik, P.J., T. Strom-Kristiansen, A. Lewis, P.S. Daling, M. Reed, H. Rye and H. Jensen.
1996. The Norwegian Sea trial 1995 offshore testing of two dispersant systems in simu-
294
lation of an underwater pipeline leakage, a summary paper. Pp. 13951416 in Proceed-
ings ofthe Nineteen Arctic and Marine Oil Spill Program (AMOP) Technical Seminar,
Briceno, J., W.J. McKee, J.R. Clark and D.D. Whiting. 1992. Relative sensitivityofGulfofMexico
species and national test species in acute toxicity tests with dispersants. Poster presentation.
Paper presented at the Thirteenth Annual Meeting of the Society of Environmental
Toxicology and Chemisty (SETAC). SETAC, North America, Pensacola, Florida.
Bridie, A.L, Th.H. Wanders, W. Zegveld and H.B. Van der Heijde. 1980a. The Formation,
Prevention and Breaking ofSea-Water-in-Crude-Oil Emulsions: Chocolate Mousse. Paper
presented at International Research Symposium, Chemical Dispersion of Oil Spills,
Toronto, Canada. University of Toronto, Institute for Environmental Studies, Toronto,
Ontario, Canada.
Bridie, A.L., Th.H. Wanders, W. Zegveld and H.B. Van der Heijde. 1980b. Formation, Pre-
vention and Breaking of Sea Water in Crude Oil Emulsions: Chocolate Mousses. Ma-
rine Pollution Bulletin 2:343348.
Briggs, K.T., S.H. Yoshida and M.E. Gershwin. 1996. The influence of petrochemicals
and stress on the immune system of seabirds. Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology
23:145155.
Brochu, C., E. Pelletier, G. Caron and J.E. Desnoyers. 1986. Dispersion of crude oil in seawa-
ter: The role of synthetic surfactants. Oil & Chemical Pollution 3:257279.
Broecker, W.S. and T.-H. Peng. 1982. Tracers in the Sea. Lamont-Doherty Geological Observa-
tory, Palisades, New York.
Brooks, J.M., D.A. Weisenburg, R.A. Burke, M.C. Kenicutt and B.B. Bernard. 1980. Gaseous
and volatile hydrocarbons in the Gulf of Mexico following the IXTOC-I blowout. Pp.
5388 in Proceedings ofthe Symposium on Preliminary Results from the September 1979 Re-
searcher/Pierce IXTOC-I Cruise, Key Biscayne, Florida. National Oceanic and Atmo-
spheric Administration Publications Office, Boulder, Colorado.
Brovchenko, I., A. Kuschan, V. Maderich, M. Shlakhtun, V. Koshebutsky and M. Zheleznyak.
2003. Model of oil spill simulation in the Black Sea. Pp. 101112 in Proceedings ofthe
Third Conference on Oil Spills, Oil Pollution and Remediation, Istanbul, Turkey. Bo-azii
University, Institute of Environmental Sciences, Istanbul, Turkey.
Brown, C.E., M.F. Fingas, R.H. Goodman, J.V. Mullin, M. Choquet and J.-P. Monchalin. 2000.
Progress in achieving airborne oil slick thickness measurement. Pp. 493498 Proceed-
ings ofthe Twenty-Third Arctic and Marine Oil Spill Program (AMOP) Technical Seminar,
Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada. Environment Canada, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.
Brown, H.M. and R.H. Goodman. 1987. The Dispersion ofAlaska North Slope Oil in Wave Basin
Tests. Report to Alaska Clean Seas and Esso Imperial Oil. Alaska Clean Seas, Prudhoe
Bay, Alaska, and Esso Imperial Oil, Calgary, Alberta, Canada.
Brown, H.M. and R.H. Goodman. 1988. Dispersant tests in a wave basinfour years of
experience. Pp. 501514 in Proceedings ofthe Eleventh Arctic and Marine Oilspill Program
(AMOP) Technical Seminar, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada. Environment Canada, Ottawa,
Ontario, Canada.
Brown, H.M., R.H. Goodman and G.P. Canevari. 1987. Where has all the oil gone? Dispersed
oil detection in a wave basin and at sea. Pp. 307312 in Proceedings ofthe 1987 Interna-
tional Oil Spill Conference, Baltimore, Maryland. American Petroleum Institute, Wash-
ington, D.C.
Brown, H.M., J.S. Goudey, J.M. Foght, S.K. Cheng, M. Dale, J. Hoddinott, L.R. Quaife and
D.W.S. Westlake. 1990. Dispersion of spilled oil in freshwater systems: field trial of a
chemical dispersant. Oil and Chemical Pollution 6:3754.
Bruheim, P. and K. Eimhjellen. 2000. Effects of non-ionic surfactants on the uptake and hy-
drolysis of fluorescein diacetate by alkane-oxidizing bacteria. Canadian Journal ofMicro-
biology 46(4):387390.
REFERENCES
295
Bruheim, P., H. Bredholt and K. Eimhjellen. 1997. Bacterial degradation of emulsified crude
oil and the effect of various surfactants. Canadian Journal ofMicrobiology 43:1722.
Bruheim, P., H. Bredholt and K. Eimhjellen. 1999. Effects of surfactant mixtures, including
Corexit 9527, on bacterial oxidation of acetate and alkanes in crude oil. Applied and
Environmental Microbiology 65(4):16581661.
Burbank, D.C. 1977. Environmental studies ofKachemak Bay and lower Cook InletVolume III.
Circulation studies in Kachemak Bay and lower Cook Inlet. Alaska Department of Fish and
Game, Anchorage, Alaska.
Burns, K.A. and A.H Knap. 1989. The Bahia Las Minas oil spill: Hydrocarbon uptake by reef
building corals. Marine Pollution Bulletin 20(8):391398.
Burns, K.A., S. Codi, C. Pratt and N.C. Duke. 1999. Weathering of hydrocarbons in man-
grove sediments: testing the effects of using dispersants to treat oil spills. Organic
Geochemistry 30:12731286.
Burridge, T.R. and M. Shir. 1995. The comparative effects of oil, dispersants, and oil/dis-
persant conjugates on germination of marine macroalga Phyllospora comosa (Fucales:
Phaeophyta). Marine Pollution Bulletin 31:446452.
Bury, S.J. and C.A. Miller. 1993. Effect of micellar solubilization on biodegradation rates of
hydrocarbons. Environmental Science and Technology 27:104110.
Butler, J.N. 1975. Evaporative weathering of petroleum residues: the age of pelagic tar. Ma-
rine Chemistry 3:921.
Butler, J.N., B.F. Morris and T.D. Sleeter. 1976. The fate of petroleum in the open ocean. Pp.
287297 in Sources, effects, and sinks ofhydrocarbons in the aquatic environment. The Ameri-
can Institute of Biological Sciences, Washington, D.C.
Byford, D.C., P.J. Green and A. Lewis. 1983. Factors influencing the performance and selec-
tion of low-temperature dispersants. Pp. 140150 in Proceedings ofthe Sixth Annual Arc-
tic Marine Oilspill Program (AMOP) Technical Seminar, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada. En-
vironment Canada, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.
Byford, D.C., P.R. Laskey and A. Lewis. 1984. Effect of low temperature and varying energy
input on the droplet size distribution of oils treated with dispersants. Pp. 208228 in
Proceedings ofthe Seventh Annual Arctic Marine Oilspill Program (AMOP) Technical Semi-
nar. Environment Canada. Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
Canevari, G.P. 1969. The role of chemical dispersants in oil cleanup. Pp. 2951 in Oil on the
Sea, D.P. Hoult, Ed. Plenum Press, New York, New York.
Canevari, G.P. 1984. A review of the relationship between the characteristics of spilled oil
and dispersant effectiveness. Pp. 8793 in Oil Spill Chemical Dispersants: Research, Expe-
rience, and Recommendations, T.E. Allen, Ed. American Society for Testing and Materials.
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
Canevari, G.P., P. Calcavecchio, R.R. Lessard, K.W. Becker and R.J. Fiocco. 2001. Key param-
eters affecting the dispersion of viscous oil. Pp. 479483 in Proceedings ofthe 2001 Inter-
national Oil Spill Conference, Tampa, Florida. American Petroleum Institute, Washing-
ton, D.C.
Champ, M.A., ed. 2000. Special issue: Langmuir circulation and oil spill modeling. Spill Sci-
ence and Technology Bulletin 6(3/4):207275.
Chandrasekar, S., G. Sorial and J.W. Weaver. 2003. Determining dispersant effectiveness
data for a suite of environmental conditions. Proceedings ofthe 2003 International Oil
Spill Conference, Vancouver, Canada. American Petroleum Institute, Washington, D.C.
Choquet, M., R. Heon, G. Vaudreuil, J.-P. Monchalin, C. Padioleau and R.H. Goodman. 1993.
Remote thickness measurement of oil slicks on water by laser-ultrasonics. Pp. 531536
in Proceedings ofthe 1993 International Oil Spill Conference, Tampa, Florida. American
Chow, V.T. 1988. Open Channel Hydraulics. McGraw-Hill, Incorporated, New York, New
York.
296
Churchill, P.F. and S.A. Churchill. 1997. Surfactant-enhanced biodegradation of solid al-
kanes. Journal ofEnvironmental Science and Health, A 32(1):293306.
Clark, J.R., G.E. Bragin, R.J. Febbo and D.J. Letinski. 2001. Toxicity of physically and chemi-
cally dispersed oils under continuous and environmentally realistic exposure condi-
tions: Applicability to dispersant use decisions in spill response planning. Pp. 1249
1255 in Proceedings ofthe 2001 International Oil Spill Conference, Tampa, Florida. American
Clayton, J.R., Jr., J.R. Payne and J.S. Farlow. 1993. Oil Spill Dispersants: Mechanisms ofAction
and Laboratory Tests. CRC Press, Incorporated, Boca Raton, Florida.
Cloutier, D., C.L. Amos, P.R. Hill and K. Lee. 2002. Oil erosion in an annular flume by sea-
water of varying turbidities: a critical bed shear stress approach. Spill Science and Tech-
nology Bulletin 8(1):8393.
Coelho, G.M. and D.V. Aurand, Eds. 1996. Proceedings ofthe Fifth Meeting ofthe Chemical
Response to Oil Spills: Ecological Effects Research Forum. Ecosystem Management and
Associates, Purcellville, Virginia.
Coelho, G.M. and D.V. Aurand, Eds. 1997. Proceedings ofthe Sixth Meeting ofthe Chemical
Response to Oil Spills: Ecological Effects Research Forum. Ecosystem Management and
Associates, Purcellville, Virginia.
Coelho, G., D. Aurand and D.A. Wright. 1999. Biological uptake analysis of organisms ex-
posed to oil and chemically dispersed oil. Pp. 685694 in Proceedings ofthe Twenty-
Second Arctic and Marine Oilspill Program (AMOP) Technical Seminar, Calgary, Alberta,
Canada. Environment Canada, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.
Cohen, A.M. and D. Nugegoda. 2000. Toxicity of three oil spill remediation techniques to the
Australian bass Macquaria novemaculeata. Ecotoxicology and Environmental Safety 47(2):
178185.
Cohen, A.M., D. Nugegoda and M.M. Gagnon. 2001a. Metabolic Responses of Fish Follow-
ing Exposure to Two Different Oil Spill Remediation Techniques. Ecotoxicology and
Environmental Safety 48:306310.
Cohen, A.M., D. Nugegoda and M.M. Gagnon. 2001b. The Effect of Different Oil Spill
Remediation Techniques on Petroleum Hydrocarbon Elimination in Australian Bass
(Macquaria novemaculeata). Archives ofEnvironmental Contamination and Toxicology 40:
264270.
Cohen, A., M.M. Gagnon and D. Nugegoda. 2003. Biliary PAH metabolite elimination in
Australian bass, Macquaria novemaculeata, following exposure to bass straight crude oil
and chemically dispersed crude oil. Bulletin ofEnvironmental Contamination and Toxicol-
ogy 70(2):394400.
Conover, R.J. 1971. Some relations between zooplankton and Bunker C oil in Chedabucto
Bay following the wreck of the tanker Arrow. Journal ofthe Fisheries Research Board Canada
28:13271330.
Cook, C.B. and A.H. Knap, 1983. The effects of crude oil and chemical dispersant on photo-
synthesis in the brain coral, Diploria strigosa. Marine Biology 78:2127.
Cormack, D., B.W.J. Lynch and B.D. Dowsett. 1987. Evaluation of dispersant effectiveness.
Oil and Chemical Pollution 3:87103.
Coutou, E.I. Castritis-Catharios and M. Moraitou-Apostolopoulo. 2001. Surfactant-based oil
dispersant toxicity to developing nauplii of Artemia: effects on ATPase enzymatic sys-
tem. Chemosphere 42:959964.
CRC. 1967. CRC Handbook ofChemistry and Physics: A Ready-Reference Book ofChemical and
Physical Data. Forty-eighth edition. R.C. Weast and S.M Selby, eds. The Chemical Rub-
ber Company, Cleveland, Ohio.
Crowell, M.J. and P.A. Lane. 1988. The Effects ofCrude Oil and the Dispersant Corexit 9527 on
the Vegetation ofa Nova Scotian Saltmarsh: Impacts After Two GrowingSeasons. Report no.
EE-103, Environment Canada, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.
REFERENCES
297
Csanady, G.T. 1973. Turbulent Diffusion in the Environment. Reidel Publishing Company, Bos-
ton, Massachusetts.
Daling, P.S. 1988. A study of the chemical dispersibility of fresh and weathered crudes. Pp.
481499 in Proceedings ofthe Eleventh Arctic and Marine Oilspill Program (AMOP) Techni-
cal Seminar, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada. Environment Canada, Ottawa, Ontario,
Canada.
Daling, P.S. and P.J. Brandvik. 1989. The effects ofphotolysis on oil slicks. SINTEF Group,
Trondheim, Norway.
Daling, P.S. and R. Lichtenthaler. 1987. Chemical dispersion of oil. Comparison of the effec-
tiveness results obtained in laboratory and small-scale field tests. Oil & Chemical Pollu-
tion 3:87103.
Daling, P.S., D. Mackay, N. Mackay and P.J. Brandvik. 1990a. Droplet size distributions in
chemical dispersion of oil spills: towards a mathematical model. Oil and Chemical Pollu-
tion 7:173198.
Daling, P.S., P.J. Brandvik, D. Mackay and O. Johansen. 1990b. Characterization of crude oils
for environmental purposes. Pp. 119138 in Proceedings ofthe Thirteenth Arctic and Ma-
rine Oil Spill Program (AMOP) Technical Seminar, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada. Environ-
ment Canada, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.
Daling, P.S., O.M. Aamo, A. Lewis and T. Strom-Kritiansen. 1997. SINTEF/IKU Oil-Weath-
ering Model: Predicting Oils Properties at Sea. Pp. 297307 in Proceedings ofthe 1997
International Oil Spill Conference, Fort Lauderdale, Florida. American Petroleum Insti-
tute, Washington, D.C.
Daling, P.S., P.J. Brandvik and M. Reed. 1998. Dispersant experience in Norway: Dispersant
effectiveness, monitoring, and fate ofdispersed oil. Dispersant Application in Alaska: A Techni-
cal Update. Prince William Sound Oil Spill Recovery Institute, Cordova, Alaska.
Dames and Moore. 1978. Drilling fluid dispersion and biological effects study for the Lower Cook
Inlet C.O.S.T. well. Report prepared for the Atlantic Richfield Company. Dames and
Moore Group, Los Angeles, California.
Davies, L., F. Daniel, R.P.J. Swannell and J.F. Braddock. 2001. Biodegradability ofchemically-
dispersed oil. A report prepared for the Minerals Management Service, Alaska Depart-
ment of Environmental Conservation, and the United States Coast Guard. Minerals
Management Service, Herndon, Virginia.
Delaune, R.A., C.J. Smith, W.H. Patrick, J.W. Fleeger and M.D. Tolley. 1984. Effect of oil on
salt marsh biota: Methods for restoration. Environmental Pollution 36(3)207227.
Delvigne, G.A.L. 2002. Physical appearance of oil in oil-contaminated sediment. Spill Science
and Technology Bulletin 8(1)5563.
Delvigne, G.A.L. and C.E. Sweeney. 1988. Natural dispersion of oil. Oil and Chemical Pollu-
tion 4:281310.
Delvigne, G.A.L., J.A. Roelvink and C.E. Sweeney. 1986. Research on vertical turbulent dis-
persion of oil droplets and oiled particlesLiterature review. OCS Study MMS 86-
0029. Report to Minerals Management Service. Minerals Management Service, Anchor-
age, Alaska.
Delvigne, G.A.L., J.A.Van der Stel and C.E. Sweeney. 1987. Measurements ofvertical turbulent
dispersion and diffusion ofoil droplets and oiled particles. OCS Study MMS 87-111. Minerals
Management Service, Anchorage, Alaska.
Deneer, J.W., T. Sinnige, W. Seinen and J.L.M. Hermens. 1988. The joint acute toxicity to
Daphnia magna of industrial organic chemicals at low concentrations. Aquatic Toxicol-
ogy 12:3338.
DiToro, D.M., C.S. Zarba, D.J. Hansen, W.J. Berry, R.C. Swartz, C.E. Cowan, S.P. Pavlou,
H.E. Allen, N.A. Thomas and P.R. Paquin. 1991. Technical basis for establishing sedi-
ment quality criteria for nonionic organic chemicals using equilibrium partitioning.
Journal ofEnvironmental Toxicology and Chemistry 10:15411583.
298
DiToro, D.M., J.A. McGrath and D.J. Hansen. 2000. Technical basis for narcotic chemicals
and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon criteria. I. Water and tissue. Journal ofEnviron-
mental Toxicology and Chemistry 19:19511970.
Dodge, R.E., S.C. Wyers, H.R. Frith, A.H. Knap, S.R. Smith and T.D. Sleeter. 1984. Effects of
oil and oil dispersants on the skeletal growth of the hermatypic coral Diplora strigosa.
Coral Reefs 3(4):191198.
Dodge, R.E., B.J. Baca, A.H. Knap, S.C. Snedaker and T.D. Sleeter. 1995. The Effects ofOil and
Chemically Dispersed Oil in Tropical Ecosystems: 10 Years ofMonitoringExperimental Sites.
Technical Report Series 95-014. Marine Spill Response Corporation, Washington, D.C.
Doron, P., L. Bertuccioli, J. Katz and T.R. Osborn. 2001. Turbulence characteristics and dissi-
pation estimates in the coastal ocean bottom boundary layer from PIV data. Journal of
Physical Oceanography 31(8):21082134.
Duesterloh, W., J.W. Short and M.G. Barron. 2002. Photoenhanced toxicity of weathered
Alaska North Slope crude oil to the calanoid copepods Calanus marshallae and Metridia
okhotensis. Environmental Science and Technology 36:39533959.
Duke, N.C. and K.A. Burns. 1999. Fate and effects ofoil and dispersed oil on mangrove ecosystems
in Australia. Report to the Australian Petroleum Production Exploration Association.
Australian Institute of Marine Science, Townsville, Queensland, Australia and CRC
Reef Research Centre, James Cook University, Townsville, Queensland, Australia.
[Online] Available at: http://www.aims.gov.au/pages/research/mangroves/fae/
fae01.html [February 14, 2005].
Duke, N.C., Z.S. Pinzon and M.C. Prada T. 1997. Large-scale damage to mangrove forests
following two large oil spills in Panama. Biotropica 29:214.
Duke, N.C., K.A. Burns and O. Dalhaus. 1998a. Effects of oils and dispersed-oils on man-
grove seedlings in planthouse experiments: a preliminary assessment of results two
months after oil treatments. Australian Petroleum Production and Exploration Association
Limited Journal 38:631636.
Duke, N.C., K.A. Burns, J.C. Ellison, R.J. Rupp and O. Dalhaus. 1998b. Effects of oil and
dispersed-oil mixtures on mature mangroves in field trials at Gladstone. Australian
Petroleum Production and Exploration Association Limited Journal 38:637645.
Duke, N.C., J.C. Ellison and K.A. Burns. 1998c. Surveys of oil spill incidents affecting man-
grove habitat in Australia: a preliminary assessment of incidents, impacts on man-
groves, and recovery of deforested areas. Australian Petroleum Production and Explora-
tion Association Limited Journal 38:646654.
Duke, N.C., K.A. Burns and R.P.J. Swannell. 1999. Research into the bioremediation ofoil spills in
tropical Australia: with particular emphasis on oiled mangrove and salt marsh habitat. Final
Report to the Australian Maritime Safety Authority. Australian Institute of Marine Sci-
ence, Townsville, Queensland, Australia and AEA Technology, Oxfordshire, United
Kingdom.
Duke, N.C., K.A. Burns, R.P.J. Swannell, O. Dalhaus and R.J. Rupp. 2000. Dispersant use and
a bioremediation strategy as alternate means of reducing impacts of large oil spills on
Mangroves: The Gladstone Field Trials. Marine Pollution Bulletin 41:712, 403412.
Dutka, B.J. and K.K. Kwan. 1984. Study of long term effects of oil and oil-dispersant mix-
tures on freshwater microbial populations in man made ponds. Science ofthe Total Envi-
ronment 35:135148.
Duval, W.S., L.A. Harwood and R.P. Fink. 1982. The sublethal effects ofdispersed oil on an
estuarine isopod. Technology Development Report, EPS-4-EC-82-1. Environment Can-
ada, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.
Ecological Steering Group on the Oil Spill in Shetland. 1994. The Environmental Impact ofthe
Wreck ofthe Braer. Scottish Office, Edinburgh, United Kingdom.
REFERENCES
299
Eganhouse, R.P. and J.A. Calder. 1976. The solubility of medium molecular weight aromatic
hydrocarbons and the effects of hydrocarbon co-solutes and salinity. Geochimica et
Cosmochimica Acta 40:555561.
Elliott, A.J., N. Hurford and C.J. Penn. 1986. Shear diffusion and the spreading of oil slicks.
Marine Pollution Bulletin 17(7):308313.
Environment Canada. 2005. Oil Properties Database. Environment Canada, Ottawa, Ontario,
Canada. [Online] Available at: http://www.etcentre.org/databases/spills_e.html
[April 18, 2005].
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 1992. Peer Review Workshop Report on a Framework
for Ecological Risk Assessment. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Risk Assessment
Forum, Washington, D.C.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2001. EPA requirements for quality assurance project
plans. EPA QA/R-5, EPA/240/B-01/003. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Of-
fice of Environmental Information, Washington D.C.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2002a. Short-Term Methods for Estimatingthe Chronic
ToxicityofEffluents and ReceivingWaters to Freshwater Organisms. EPA-821-R-02-013. U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Washington D.C. [Online] Available at: http://
www.epa.gov/waterscience/WET/disk3/ [April 27, 2005].
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2002b. Methods for Measuring the Acute Toxicity of
Effluents and Receiving Waters to Freshwater and Marine Organisms. EPA-821-R-02-012.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington D.C. [Online] Available at: http:/
/www.epa.gov/waterscience/WET/disk2/ [April 27, 2005].
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2003. Swirling flask dispersant effectiveness test.
Pp. 224229 in Code ofFederal Regulations Title 40: Protection ofthe Environment (40 CFR).
Pt. 300, Appendix C. Federal Register, Washington, D.C. [Online] Available at: http://
www.epa.gov/epahome/cfr40.htm [March 23, 2005].
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2005. Terms ofEnvironment. Environmental Protec-
tion Agency, Washington, D.C. [Online] Available at: http://www.epa.gov/OCEPA
terms/ [April 27, 2005].
Epstein, N., R.P.M. Bak and B. Rinkevich. 2000. Toxicity of third generation dispersants and
dispersed Egyptian crude oil on Red Sea coral larvae. Marine Pollution Bulletin 40:497
503.
Etkin, D.S. 1999. Oil spill dispersants: From technology to policy. Cutter Information Corpora-
tion, Arlington, Massachusetts.
Exxon. 1992. Exxon Oil Spill Response Manual. Exxon Production Research Company, Hous-
ton, Texas.
Exxon Biomedical Sciences Incorporated. 1992. Microtox toxicity tests. Test material: Corexit
9527. Technical report. ExxonMobile, East Millstone, New Jersey.
Exxon Biomedical Sciences Incorporated 1993a. Mysid acute toxicitytest. Flowthrough continu-
ous exposure with Mysidopsis bahia. Test material: Corexit 9527. Technical report. Exxon-
Mobile, East Millstone, New Jersey.
Exxon Biomedical Sciences Incorporated. 1993b. Mysid acute toxicity test. Continuous exposure
with Holmesimysis costata. Test material: Corexit 9527. Technical report. ExxonMobile,
East Millstone, New Jersey.
Exxon Biomedical Sciences Incorporated. 1993c. Mysid acute toxicity test. Flowthrough con-
tinuous exposure with Holmesimysis costata. Test material: Corexit 9527. Technical report.
ExxonMobile, East Millstone, New Jersey.
Exxon Biomedical Sciences Incorporated. 1993d. Fish acute toxicity test flow-through continu-
ous exposure with Menidia beryllina. Test material: Corexit 9527. Technical report. Exxon-
Mobile, East Millstone, New Jersey.
300
ExxonMobil. 2000. Dispersant Guidelines. ExxonMobil Research and Engineering Company,
Fairfax, Virginia.
Fannelop, T.K. and K. Sjoen. 1980. Hydrodynamics of underwater blowouts. Norwegian
Maritime Researh 4:1733.
Fay, J.A. 1969. The spread of oil slicks on a calm sea. Pp. 5363 in Oil on the Sea, D.P. Hoult,
ed. Plenum Press, New York, New York.
Fiest, D.L. and P.D. Boehm. 1980. Subsurface distributions of petroleum from an offshore
well blowout, Bay of Campeche. Pp. 169185 in Symposium on Preliminary Results from
the September 1979 Researcher/Pierce IXTOC I Cruise. Key Biscayne, Florida. National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Publications Office, Boulder, Colorado.
Fingas, M. 1985. The effectiveness of oil spill dispersants. Spill Technology Newsletter 10(4-
6):4764.
Fingas, M. 1996. The evaporation of crude oil and petroleum products. Ph.D. Thesis, McGill
University, Montreal, Canada.
Fingas, M. 1997. The evaporation of oil spills: Prediction of equations using distillation data.
Pp. in 120 Proceedings ofthe Twentieth Arctic and Marine Oil Spill Program (AMOP) Tech-
nical Seminar, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada. Environment Canada, Ottawa,
Ontario, Canada.
Fingas, M. 1999a. The evaporation of oil spills: Development and implementation of new
prediction methodology. Pp. 281287 in Proceedings ofthe 1999 International Oil Spill
Conference, Seattle, Washington. American Petroleum Institute, Washington, D.C.
Fingas, M. 1999b. In-Situ Burning of Oil Spills: A Historical Perspective. Pp. 5565 in Work-
shop Proceedings In-Situ Burning ofOil Spills, New Orleans, Louisiana. NIST Special
Publication 935. National Institute of Standards and Technology, Gaithersburg, Mary-
land.
Fingas, M. 2002a. A review ofliterature related to oil spill dispersants especially relevant to Alaska.
Report prepared for the Prince William Sound Regional Citizens Advisory Council.
Prince William Sound Regional Citizens Advisory Council, Anchorage, Alaska.
Fingas, M. 2002b. A white paper on oil spill dispersant field testing. Report prepared for the
Prince William Sound Regional Citizens Advisory Council. Prince William Sound Re-
gional Citizens Advisory Council, Anchorage, Alaska.
Fingas, M. 2003. Review ofmonitoringprotocols for dispersant effectiveness. Report prepared for
the Prince William Sound Regional Citizens Advisory Council. Prince William Sound
Regional Citizens Advisory Council, Anchorage, Alaska.
Fingas, M. 2004a. Dispersant tank testingA review of procedures and considerations. Pp.
10031016 in Proceedings ofthe Twenty-Seventh Arctic Marine Oilspill Program (AMOP)
Technical Seminar, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada. Environment Canada, Ottawa, Ontario,
Canada.
Fingas, M. 2004b. Energy and work input in laboratory vessels. Pp. 118 in Proceedings ofthe
Twenty-Seventh Arctic Marine Oilspill Program (AMOP) Technical Seminar, Edmonton,
Alberta, Canada. Environment Canada, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.
Fingas, M. and B. Fieldhouse. 1994. Studies of water-in-oil emulsions and techniques to
measure emulsion treating agents. Pp. 233244 in Proceedings ofthe Seventeenth Arctic
and Marine Oilspill Program (AMOP) Technical Seminar, Vancouver, British Columbia,
Fingas, M. and B. Fieldhouse. 2003. Studies of the formation process of water-in-oil emul-
sions. Marine Pollution Bulletin 47:369396.
Fingas, M. and B. Fieldhouse. 2004a. Modeling of water-in-oil emulsions. Pp. 335350 in
Proceedings ofthe Twenty-Seventh Arctic Marine Oilspill Program (AMOP) Technical Semi-
nar, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada. Environment Canada, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.
REFERENCES
301
Fingas, M. and B. Fieldhouse. 2004b. Formation of water-in-oil emulsions and application to
oil spill modeling. Journal ofHazardous Materials 107:3750.
Fingas, M. and L. Kaaihue. 2004a. Weather windows for oil spill countermeasures. Pp. 881
955 in Proceedings ofthe Twenty-Seventh Arctic Marine Oilspill Program (AMOP) Technical
Seminar, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada. Environment Canada, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.
Fingas, M. and L. Kaaihue. 2004b. Dispersant field testinga review of procedures and
considerations. Pp. 10171046 in Proceedings ofthe Twenty-Seventh Arctic Marine Oilspill
Fingas, M. and L. Kaaihue. 2004c. Dispersant tank testinga review of procedures and
considerations. Pp. 10031016 in Proceedings ofthe Twenty-Seventh Arctic Marine Oilspill
Fingas, M. and N. Laroche. 1991. An Introduction to In-Situ Burning ofOil Spills. Paper pre-
sented at In-Situ Burning Workshop, Sacramento, California, May 2122, 1991, unpub-
lished.
Fingas, M. and M. Punt. 2000. In-situ burning: a cleanup technique for oil spills on water. Envi-
ronment Canada Special Publication, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.
Fingas, M. and M. Sydor. 1980. Development ofan Oil Spill model for the St. Lawrence River.
Technical Bulletin No. 116. Environment Canada, Inland Waters Directorate, Water
Planning and Management Branch, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.
Fingas, M.F., D.L. Munn, B. White, R.G. Stoodley and I.D. Crerar. 1989. Laboratory testing of
dispersant effectiveness: the importance of oil-to-water ratio and settling time. Pp. 365
373 in Proceedings ofthe 1989 International Oil Spill Conference, San Antonio, Texas. Ameri-
can Petroleum Institute, Washington, D.C.
Fingas, M.F., B. Kolokowski and E.J. Tennyson. 1990. Study of oil spill dispersants effective-
ness and physical studies. Pp. 265287 in Proceedings ofthe Thirteenth Arctic Marine Oil
Spill Program (AMOP) Technical Seminar. Edmonton, Alberta, Canada. Environment
Fingas, M., I. Bier, M. Bobra and S. Callaghan. 1991. Studies on the physical and chemical
behavior of oil and dispersant mixtures. Pp. 411414 in Proceedings ofthe 1991 Oil Spill
Conference, San Diego, California. American Petroleum Institute, Washington, D.C.
Fingas, M.F., D.A. Kyle, Z. Wang and F. Ackerman. 1994. Testing of oil spill dispersant
effectiveness in the laboratory. Pp. 905933 in Proceedings ofthe Seventeenth Arctic and
Marine Oilspill Program (AMOP) Technical Seminar, Vancouver, British Columbia, Can-
ada. Environment Canada, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.
Fingas, M., B. Fieldhouse and J.V. Mullin. 1995a. Water-in-oil emulsions: How they are
formed and how they are broken. Pp. 829830 in Proceedings ofthe 1995 International Oil
Spill Conference, Long Beach, California. American Petroleum Institute, Washington,
D.C.
Fingas, M., B. Fieldhouse, L. Gamble and J.V. Mullin. 1995b. Studies of water-in-oil emul-
sions: Stability, classes, and measurement. Pp. 2142 in Proceedings ofthe Seventeenth
Arctic and Marine Oilspill Program (AMOP) Technical Seminar, Vancouver, British Co-
lumbia, Canada. Environment Canada, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.
Fingas, M.F., D.A. Kyle, P. Lambert, Z. Wang and J.V. Mullin. 1995c. Analytical procedures
for measuring oil spill dispersant effectiveness in the laboratory. Pp. 339354 in Pro-
ceedings ofthe Eighteenth Arctic and Marine Oilspill Program (AMOP) Technical Seminar,
Fingas, M.F., D. Kyle and E. Tennyson. 1995d. Dispersant effectiveness: Studies into the
causes of effectiveness variations. Pp. 92132 in The Use ofChemicals in Oil Spill Re-
302
sponse, ASTM STP 1252, P. Lane, Ed. American Society for Testing and Materials, Phila-
Fingas, M.F., E. Huang, B. Fieldhouse, L. Wang and J.V. Mullin. 1996a. The effect of energy,
settling time and shaking time on the swirling flask dispersant apparatus. Spill Science
and Technology Bulletin 3(4):193194.
Fingas, M., B. Fieldhouse and J.V. Mullin. 1996b. Studies of water-in-oil emulsions: The role
of asphaltenes and resins. Pp. 7388 in Proceedings ofthe Nineteenth Arctic and Marine
Oilspill Program (AMOP) Technical Seminar, Calgary, Alberta, Canada. Environment
Fingas, M., B. Fieldhouse and J.V. Mullin. 1998. Studies of water-in-oil emulsions: Stability
and oil properties. Pp. 125 in Proceedings ofthe Twenty-First Arctic and Marine Oil Spill
Fingas, M., B. Fieldhouse and J. Mullin. 1999. Studies of water-in-oil emulsions: Energy
threshold on emulsion formation. Pp. 5768 in Proceedings ofthe Twenty-Second Arctic
and Marine Oil Spill Program (AMOP) Technical Seminar, Calgary, Alberta, Canada. En-
Fingas, M., B. Fieldhouse, J. Lane, and J. Mullin. 2000a. Studies of water-in-oil emulsions:
Long-term stability, oil properties, and emulsions formed at sea. Pp. 145160 in Pro-
ceedings ofthe Twenty-Third Arctic and Marine Oil Spill Program (AMOP) Technical Semi-
nar, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada. Environment Canada, Ottawa, Ontario,
Canada.
Fingas, M., B. Fieldhouse, J. Lane and J. Mullin. 2000b. Studies of water-in-oil emulsions:
Energy and work threshold for emulsion formation. Pp. 1936 in Proceedings ofthe
Twenty-Third Arctic and Marine Oil Spill Program (AMOP) Technical Seminar, Vancouver,
British Columbia, Canada. Environment Canada, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.
Fingas, M.F., B. Fieldhouse, P. Lambert, Z. Wang, J. Noonan, J. Lane and J.V. Mullin. 2002a.
Water-in-oil emulsions formed at sea, in test tanks, and in the laboratory. Environment
Canada Manuscript Report EE-169. Environment Canada, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.
Fingas, M.F., B. Fieldhouse, J. Noonan, P. Lambert, J. Lane and J. Mullin. 2002b. Studies of
water-in-oil emulsions: testing of emulsion formation in OHMSETT, year II. Pp. 2944
in Proceedings ofTwenty-Fifth Arctic and Marine Oilspill Technical Seminar, Calgary,
Alberta, Canada. Environment Canada. Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.
Fingas, M.F., B. Fieldhouse and Z. Wang. 2003a. The long term weathering of water-in-oil
emulsions. Spill Science and Technology Bulletin 8(2) 137143.
Fingas, M., Z. Wang, B. Fieldhouse and P. Smith. 2003b. The correlation of chemical charac-
teristics of an oil to dispersant effectiveness. Pp. 679730 in Proceedings ofthe Twenty-
Sixth Arctic and Marine Oilspill Program (AMOP) Technical Seminar, Victoria, British Co-
Fiocco, R., P.S. Daling, G. DeMarco, R.R. Lessard and G.P. Canevari. 1999. Chemical dispers-
ibility of heavy Bunker Fuel oil. Pp. 173186 in Proceedings ofthe Twenty-Second Arctic
and Marine Oil Spill Program (AMOP) Technical Seminar, Calgary, Alberta, Canada. En-
Fischer, H.B., E.J. List, R.C.Y. Koh, J. Imberger and N.H. Brooks. 1979. Mixing in Inland and
Coastal Waters, Academic Press, New York, New York.
Foght, J.M. and D.W.S. Westlake. 1982. Effect of the dispersant Corexit 9527 on the microbial
degradation of Prudhoe Bay oil. Canadian Journal ofMicrobiology 28:117122.
Foght, J.M., P.M. Fedorak and D.W.S. Westlake. 1983. Effect of the dispersant Corexit 9527
on the microbial degradation of sulfur heterocycles in Prudhoe Bay oil. Canadian Jour-
nal ofMicrobiology 61:623627.
Foght, J.M., N.J. Fairbairn and D.W.S. Westlake. 1987. Effect of oil dispersants on microbially-
mediated processes in freshwater systems. Pp. 252263 in Oil in Freshwater: Chemistry,
REFERENCES
303
Biology, Countermeasure Technology, J.H. Vandermeulen and S.E. Hrudey. Pergamon
Press, Oxford, England.
Foght, J.M., D.L. Gutnick and D.W.S. Westlake. 1989. Effect of emulsan on biodegradation of
crude oil by pure and mixed bacterial cultures. Applied and Environmental Microbiology
55(1):3642.
Foy, M.G. 1982. Acute lethal toxicity ofPrudhoe Bay Crude oil and Corexit 9527 to Arctic marine
fish and invertebrates. Technology Development Report, EPS 4-EC-82-3. Environment
Franklin, F.L. and R. Lloyd. 1986. The relationship between oil droplet size and the toxicity
of dispersant/oil mixtures in the Standard MAFF Sea test. Oil & Chemical Pollution
3:3752.
Franks, F. 1966. Solute-water interactions and the solubility behavior of long-chain paraffin
hydrocarbons. Nature 210:8788.
French-McCay, D.P. 1998. Modeling the Impacts of the North Cape Oil Spill. Pp. 378430 in
Proceedings ofthe Twenty-first Arctic and Marine Oilspill Program (AMOP) Technical Semi-
nar, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada. Environment Canada, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.
French-McCay, D.P. 2001. Development and application ofan oil toxicity and exposure model,
OilToxEx. Report prepared for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration,
Damage Assessment Center. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Sil-
ver Spring, Maryland.
French-McCay, D.P. 2002. Development and application of an oil toxicity and exposure
model, OilToxEx. Journal ofEnvironmental Toxicology and Chemistry 21:20802094.
French-McCay, D.P. 2003. Development and Application of Damage Assessment Modeling:
Example Assessment for the North Cape Oil Spill. Marine Pollution Bulletin 47(9-12):341
359.
French-McCay, D.P. 2004. Oil spill impact modeling: Development and validation. Journal of
Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry 23(10):24412456.
French-McCay, D.P. and J.R. Payne. 2001. Model of oil fate and water concentrations with
and without application of dispersants. Pp. 611645 in Proceedings ofthe Twenty-Fourth
Arctic and Marine Oilspill (AMOP) Technical Seminar, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada. Envi-
ronment Canada, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.
French-McCay, D.P. and H. Rines. 1997. Validation and use of spill impact modeling for
impact assessment. Pp. 829834 in Proceedings ofthe 1997 International Oil Spill Confer-
ence, Fort Lauderdale, Florida. American Petroleum Institute, Washington, D.C.
French-McCay, D.P., M. Reed, K. Jayko, S. Feng, H. Rines, S. Pavignano, T. Isaji, S. Puckett,
A. Keller, F.W. French III, D. Gifford, J. McCue, G. Brown, E. MacDonald, J. Quirk, S.
Natzke, R. Bishop, M. Welsh, M. Phillips and B.S. Ingram. 1996. The CERCLA Type A
Natural Resource Damage Assessment Model for Coastal and Marine Environments (NRDAM/
CME), Technical Documentation, Volume IVI. Contract No. 14-0001-91-C-11. Final Re-
port, submitted to the Office of Environmental Policy and Compliance, U.S. Depart-
ment of the Interior, Washington, D.C.
Fucik, K.W., T.J. Bright and K.S. Goodman. 1984. Measurements of damage, recovery, and
rehabilitation of coral reefs exposed to oil. Pp. 115133 in Restoration ofHabitats Impacted
by Oil Spills, J. Cairns and A.L. Buikema, eds. Butterworth Press, London, England.
Fucik, K.W., K.A. Carr and B.J. Balcom. 1994. Dispersed oil toxicity tests with biological species
indigenous to the GulfofMexico. OCS Study, MMS 94-0021, Report submitted to the
Minerals Management Service, Gulf of Mexico Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) Region,
New Orleans, Louisiana.
Fucik, K.W., K.A. Carr and B.J. Balcom. 1995. Toxicity of oil and dispersed oil to the eggs and
larvae of seven marine fish and invertebrates from the Gulf of Mexico. Pp. 135171 in
The Use ofChemicals in Oil Spill Response, P. Lane, Ed. American Society for Testing and
Materials, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
304
Fuller, C. and J.S. Bonner. 2001. Comparative Toxicity of Oil, Dispersant and Dispersed Oil
to Texas Marine Species. Pp. 12431248 in Proceedings ofthe 2001 International Oil Spill
Conference, Tampa, Florida. American Petroleum Institute, Washington, D.C.
Fuller, C., J. Bonner, T. McDonald, C. Page, G. Bragin, J. Clark, D. Aurand, A. Hernandez
and A. Ernest. 1999. Comparative toxicity of simulated beach sediments impacted with
both whole and chemical dispersions of weathered Arabian Medium crude oil. Pp.
659670 in Proceedings ofthe Twenty-Second Arctic and Marine Oil Spill Program (AMOP)
Technical Seminar, Calgary, Alberta, Canada. Environment Canada, Ottawa, Ontario,
Canada.
Fuller, C., J.S. Bonner, M.C. Sterling, T.O. Ojo and C.A. Page. 2003. Field instruments for real
time in-situ crude oil concentration measurements. Pp. 755764 in Proceedings ofthe
Twenty-Sixth Arctic and Marine Oilspill Program (AMOP) Technical Seminar, Victoria, Brit-
ish Columbia, Canada. Environment Canada, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.
Gagnon, R.M. and D.A. Holdaway. 2000. EROD induction and biliary metabolite excretion
following exposure to the water accommodated fraction of crude oil and to chemically
dispersed crude oil. Archives ofEnvironmental Contamination and Toxicology 38(1):7077.
Galt, J.A. 1995. The Integration of Trajectory Models and Analysis into Spill Response Sys-
tems: The Need for a Standard. Pp. 499507 in Proceedings ofthe Second International Oil
Spill Research and Development Forum, London England. International Maritime Organi-
zation (IMO), London, England.
Garcia, J.M., L.Y. Wick and H. Harms. 2001. Influence of the nonionic surfactant Brij 35 on
the bioavailability of solid and sorbed dibenzofuran. Environmental Science & Technol-
ogy 35(10):20332039.
Garrett, R.M., I.J. Pickering, E.H. Copper and R.C. Prince. 1998. Photooxidation of polycyclic
aromatic hydrocarbons in crude oils. Pp. 99114 in Proceedings ofthe Twenty-First Arctic
and Marine Oilspill Program (AMOP) Technical Seminar, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada.
Gearing, P.J. and J.N. Gearing. 1982a. Behavior of No. 2 fuel oil in the water column of
controlled ecosystems. Marine Environmental Research 6:115132.
Gearing, P.J. and J.N. Gearing. 1982b. Transport of No. 2 fuel oil between water column,
surface microlayer, and atmosphere in controlled ecosystems. Marine Environmental
Research 6:133143.
Gearing, P.J., J.N. Gearing, R.J. Pruell, T.L. Wade and J.G. Quinn. 1980. Partitioning of No. 2
fuel oil in controlled ecosystems: Sediments and suspended particulate matter. Envi-
ronmental Science and Technology 14:11291136.
George, S.E., G.M. Nelson, M.J. Kohan, S.H. Warren, B.T. Eischen and L.R. Brooks. 2001.
Oral treatment of Fischer 344 rats with weathered crude oil and a dispersant influences
intestinal metabolism and microbiota. Journal ofToxicology and Environmental Health,
Part A 63:297316.
George-Ares, A. and J.R. Clark. 2000. Aquatic toxicity of two Corexit dispersants. Chemo-
sphere 40:897906.
George-Ares, A., J.R. Clark, G.R. Biddinger and M.L. Hinman. 1999. Comparison of Test
Methods and Early Toxicity Characterization for Five Dispersants. Ecotoxicology and
Environmental Safety 42:138142.
Georgiades, E.T., D.A. Holdaway, S.E. Brennan, J.S. Butty and A. Temara. 2003. The impact
of oil-derived products on the behaviour and biochemistry of the eleven-armed aster-
oid Coscinasterias muricata (Echinodermata). Marine Environmental Research 55:257276.
Getter, C.D. and T.G. Ballou. 1985. Field experiments on the effects of oil and dispersant on
mangroves. Pp. 577582 in Proceedings ofthe 1985 International Oil Spill Conference, Los
Angeles, California. American Petroleum Institute, Washington, D.C.
REFERENCES
305
Gilfillan, E.S., D.S. Page and J.C. Foster. 1986. Tidal area dispersant project: Fate and Effects of
Chemically Dispersed Oil in the Nearshore Benthic Environment. Final Report, Publication
Number 4440. American Petroleum Institute, Washington, D.C.
Goodman, R.H. 2003. Is SMART Really that Smart. Pp. 779786 in Proceedings ofthe Twenty-
Goodman, R.H. and M.F. Fingas. 1988. The use of remote sensing in the determination of
dispersant effectiveness. Spill Technology Newsletter 13(3):5558.
Goodman, R.H. and M.R. MacNeill. 1984. The use of remote sensing in the determination of
dispersant effectiveness. Pp. 143160 in Oil Spill Chemical Dispersants: Research, Experi-
ence, and Recommendations, T.E. Allen, Ed. American Society for Testing and Materials,
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
Gordon, D.C., Jr., P.D. Keizer and N.J. Prouse. 1973. Laboratory studies of the accommoda-
tion of some crude and residual fuel oils in sea water. Journal ofthe Fisheries Research
Board ofCanada 30:16111618.
Gould, J.R. and J. Lindstedt-Siva. 1991. Santa Barbara to Mega Borg and beyond: A review of
APIs spill program and priorities. Pp. 341352 in Proceedings ofthe 1991 International
Oil Spill Conference, San Diego, California. American Petroleum Institute, Washington,
D.C.
Green, D.R., J. Buckley and B. Humphrey. 1982. Fate ofchemically dispersed oil in the sea: A
report on two field experiments. Environment Canada Report EPS 4-EC-82-5. Environ-
Gregory, C.L., A.A. Allen and D.H. Dale. 1999. Assessment of potential oil spill recovery
capabilities. Pp. 527534 in Proceedings ofthe 1999 International Oil Spill Conference, Se-
attle, Washington. American Petroleum Institute, Washington, D.C.
Grothe, D.R., K.L. Dickson, D.K. Reed-Judkins, Eds. 1996. Whole Effluent Toxicity Testing: An
Evaluation ofMethods and Prediction ofReceivingSystem Impacts. Society of Environmen-
tal Toxicology and Chemistry Press, Pensacola, Florida.
Gugg, P.M., C.B. Henry and S.P. Glenn. 1999. Proving dispersants work. Pp. 10071010 in
Proceedings ofthe 1999 International Oil Spill Conference, Seattle, Washington. American
Gulec, I. and D.A. Holdaway. 2000. Toxicity of crude oil and dispersed crude oil to ghost
shrimp Palaemon serenus and larvae of Australian Bass Macquaria novemaculeata. Envi-
ronmental Toxicology 15:9198.
Gulec, I., B. Leonard and D.A. Holdaway. 1997. Oil and Dispersed Oil Toxicity to Amphi-
pods and Snails. Spill Science and Technology Bulletin 4:16.
Guyomarch, J., F.X. Merlin and S. Colin. 1999a. Study of the feasibility chemical dispersion
of viscous oils and water-in-oil emulsions. Pp. 219230 in Proceedings ofthe Twenty-
Second Arctic and Marine Oil Spill Program (AMOP) Technical Seminar, Calgary, Alberta,
Guyomarch, J., F.-X. Merlin and P. Bernanose. 1999b. Oil interaction with mineral fines and
chemical dispersion: behaviour of the dispersed oil in coastal or estuarine conditions.
Pp. 137149 in Proceedings ofthe Twenty-Second Arctic and Marine Oil Spill Program
(AMOP) Technical Seminar, Calgary, Alberta, Canada. Environment Canada, Ottawa,
Ontario, Canada.
Guyomarch, J., O. Kerfourn and F.X. Merlin. 1999c. Dispersants and demulsifiers: studies in
the laboratory, harbor and polludrome. Pp. 195202 in Proceedings ofthe 1999 Interna-
tional Oil Spill Conference, Seattle, Washington. American Petroleum Institute, Wash-
ington, D.C.
306
Guyomarch, J., S. Le Floch and F.-X. Merlin. 2002. Effect of suspended mineral load, water
salinity and oil type on the size of oilmineral aggregates in the presence of chemical
dispersant. Spill Science & Technology Bulletin 8(1):95100
Hammond, T.M., C. Pattiaratchi, D. Eccles, M. Osborne, L. Nash and M. Collins. 1987. Ocean
Surface Current Radar (OSCR) Vector Measurements on Inner Continental Shelf. Con-
tinental ShelfResearch 7:411431.
Harris, C. 1997. The Sea Empress incident: overview and response at sea. Pp. 177184 in
Proceedings ofthe 1997 International Oil Spill Conference, Fort Lauderdale, Florida. Ameri-
Hartwick, E.B., R.S.S. Wu and D.B. Parker. 1982. Effects of a crude oil and an oil dispersant
Corexit 9527 on populations of the littleneck clam Protothaca staminea. Marine Environ-
mental Research 6:291306.
Henrichs, S., M. Luoma and S. Smith. 1997. A studyofthe adsorption ofaromatic hydrocarbons by
marine sediments. Final Report OCS Study MMS 97-0002. Report submitted to the Min-
erals Management Service, Gulf of Mexico Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) Region, New
Orleans, Louisiana.
Henry, C. 2004. Response goals and the role ofdispersants. Presentation to the National Research
Council Committee on Understanding Oil Spill Dispersants: Efficacy and Effects, March
1516, 2004, Washington, D.C., unpublished. National Research Council, Washington,
D.C.
Henry, C. and P.O. Roberts. 2001. Background fluorescence values and matrix effects ob-
served using SMART protocols in the Atlantic Ocean and Gulf of Mexico. Pp. 1203
1207 in Proceedings ofthe 2001 International Oil Spill Conference, Tampa, Florida. Ameri-
Henry, C.B., P.O. Roberts and E.B. Owens. 1999. A primer on in-situ fluorimetry to monitor
dispersed oil. Pp. 225228 in Proceedings ofthe 1999 International Oil Spill Conference,
Seattle, Washington. American Petroleum Institute, Washington, D.C.
Herbes, S.E. 1977. Partitioning of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons between dissolved and
particulate phases in natural waters. Water Research 11:493496.
Hill, P.S., A. Khelifa and K. Lee. 2003. Time scale for oil droplet stabilization by mineral
particles in turbulent suspensions. Spill Science and Technology Bulletin 8(1):7382.
Hillman, S.O., S.D. Hood, M.T. Bronson and G. Shufelt. 1997. Dispersant field monitoring
procedures. Pp. 521539 in Proceedings ofthe Twentieth Arctic and Marine Oil Spill Pro-
gram (AMOP) Technical Seminar, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada. Environment
Ho, K., L. Patton, J.S. Latimer, R.J. Pruell, M. Pelletier, R. McKinney and S. Jayaraman. 1999.
The chemistry and toxicity of sediment affected by oil from the North Cape spilled into
Rhode Island Sound. Marine Pollution Bulletin 38:314323.
Hodgins, D.O., R.H. Goodman and M.F. Fingas. 1993. Forcasting Surface Current Measured
with HF Radar. Pp. 10831094 in Proceedings ofthe Sixteenth Arctic and Marine Oil Spill
Program (AMOP) Technical Seminar, Calgary, Canada. Environment Canada. Ottawa,
Ontario, Canada.
Hodson, P.V., D.G. Dixon and K.L.E. Kaiser. 1988. Estimating the Acute Toxicity of Water-
borne Chemicals in Trout from Measurements of Median Lethal Dose and the Octanol-
Water Partition Coefficient. Journal ofEnvironmental Toxicologyand Chemistry7:443454.
Hoffman, E.J. and J.G. Quinn. 1978. A comparison of Argo Merchant oil and sediment hy-
drocarbons from Nantucket Shoals. Pp. 8088 in In the wake ofthe Argo MerchantPro-
ceedings ofa Symposium. University of Rhode Island, Center for Ocean Management
Studies, Kingston, Rhode Island.
Hoffman, E.J. and J.G. Quinn. 1979. Gas chromatographic analysis of Argo Merchant oil and
sediment hydrocarbons at the wreck site. Marine Pollution Bulletin 10:2024.
REFERENCES
307
Hokstad, J.N., B. Knudsen and P.S. Daling. 1996. Oil-surfactant interaction and mechanism stud-
iesPart 1: Leaching ofsurfactants form oil to water. Chemical composition ofdispersed oil.
IKU No. 22.2043.00/21/95, ESCOST report No. 21. SINTEF Group report to Esso Norge
A.S. SINTEF Group, Trondheim, Norway.
Hoult, D.P. 1972. Oil spreading on the sea. Annual Review ofFluid Mechanics 4:341367.
Howlett, E., K. Jayko and M. Spaulding. 1993. Interfacing Real-Time Information with
OILMAP. Pp. 539548 in Proceedings ofthe Sixteenth Arctic and Marine Oil Spill Program
(AMOP) Technical Seminar, Calgary, Canada. Environment Canada. Ottawa, Ontario,
Canada.
Huang, J.C. and F.C. Monastero. 1982. Review ofthe state-of-the-art ofoil spill simulation models.
Final report submitted by Raytheon Ocean Systems Company, East Providence, Rhode
Island to the American Petroleum Institute, Washington, D.C. American Petroleum
Institute, Washington, D.C.
Huang, W. and M. Spaulding. 1995. 3D model of estuarine circulation and water quality
induced by surface discharges. Journal ofHydraulic Engineering, 121(4):300311.
Humphrey, B., P.D. Boehm, M.C. Hamilton and R.J. Nordstrom. 1987. The fate of chemically
dispersed and untreated crude oil in Arctic oil spill. Arctic 40 (Supplement 1):149161.
Hurlbert, S.H. 1984. Pseudoreplication and the design of ecological field experiments. Eco-
logical Monographs 54(2):187211.
Ichiye, T. 1967. Upper ocean boundary-layer flow determined by dye diffusion. Physics of
Fluids 10:270277.
Inchcape Testing Services. 1995. Laboratorytest data for Corexit 9500 and Corexit 9527. Inchcape
Testing Services, Houston, Texas.
International Petroleum Industry Environmental Conservation Association (IPIECA). 2000.
ChoosingSpill Response Options to Minimize DamageNet Environmental Benefit Analysis.
IPIECA Report Series, Volume 10. International Petroleum Industry Environmental
Conservation Association, London, England.
Jahns, H.O., J.R. Bragg, L.C. Dash and E.H. Owens. 1991. Natural Cleaning of Shorelines
Following the Exxon Valdez Spill. Pp. 167176 in Proceedings ofthe 1991 International Oil
Spill Conference, San Diego, California. American Petroleum Institute, Washington, D.C.
Jasper, W.L., T.J. Kim and M.P. Wilson. 1978. Drop Size Distributions in a Treated Oil-Water
System. Pp. 203216 in Chemical Dispersants for the Control ofOil Spills, L.T. McCarthy,
G.P. Lindblom and H.F. Walter, Eds. American Society for Testing and Materials, Phila-
Jenssen, B.M. 1994. Review article: effects of oil pollution, chemically treated oil, and clean-
ing on the thermal balance of birds. Environmental Pollution 86:207215.
Jenssen, B.M. and M. Ekker. 1991. Effects of plumage contamination with crude oil dispers-
ant mixtures on thermoregulation in common eiders and mallards. Archives ofEnviron-
mental Contamination and Toxicology 20:398403.
Jezequel, R., S. Lefloch, F.-X. Merlin, J. Drewes and K. Lee. 1998. The influence of microor-
ganisms on oil-mineral fine interactions in low energy coastal environment: Prelimi-
nary results. Pp. 957962 in Proceedings ofthe Twenty-first Arctic and Marine Oilspill Pro-
gram (AMOP) Technical Seminar, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada. Environment Canada,
Jezequel, R., F.-X. Merlin and K. Lee. 1999. The influence of microorganisms on oil-mineral
fine interactions in low energy coastal environment. Pp. 771775 in Proceedings ofthe
1999 International Oil Spill Conference, Seattle, Washington. American Petroleum Insti-
Johannes, R.E. 1975. Pollution and degradation of coral reef communities. Pp. 1351 in Tropi-
cal Marine Pollution, E.J. Ferguson Wood and R.E. Johannes, Eds. Elsevier, New York,
New York.
308
Johansen, O. 1984. The Halten Bank experimentobservations and model studies of drift
and fate of oil in the marine environment, Pp. 1836 in Proceedings ofthe Eleventh Arctic
Johansen, O. 2000. DeepBlowa Lagrangian plume model for deep water blowouts. Spill
Science and Technology Bulletin 6(2):103111.
Johansen, O. and I.M. Carlsen. 2002. Assessment ofmethods for dispensingdispersant into subsea
blowouts. SINTEF Applied Chemistry, Trondheim, Norway.
Johansson, S.U., U. Larsson and P.D. Boehm. 1980. The Tsesis oil spill impact on the pelagic
ecosystem. Marine Pollution Bulletin 11:284293.
Jones, R.K. 1996. Method for estimating boiling temperatures of crude oils. Journal ofEnvi-
ronmental Engineering 122(8):761763.
Jones, R.K. 1997. A Simplified Pseudo-Component of Oil Evaporation Model. Pp. 4361 in
Proceedings ofthe Twentieth Arctic and Marine Oil Spill Program (AMOP) Technical Semi-
nar, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada. Environment Canada, Ottawa, Ontario,
Canada.
Jordan, R.E. and J.R. Payne. 1980. Fate and WeatheringofPetroleum Spills in the Marine Environ-
ment: A Literature Review and Synopsis. Ann Arbor Science Publishers, Incorporated,
Ann Arbor, Michigan.
Kaku, V.J., M.C. Boufadel and A.D. Venosa. 2002. Evaluation of the mixing energy in the EPA
flask tests for dispersants effectiveness. Pp. 211218 in Oil Spills 2002. Wessex Institute
of Technology, Ashurst, Southampton, United Kingdom. [Online] Available at: http://
www.temple.edu/environment/Papers/kakugreece.pdf [December 20, 2004].
Karickhoff, S.W. 1981. Semi-empirical estimation of sorption of hydrophobic pollutants on
natural sediments and soils. Chemosphere 10:833846.
Kaser, R.M., J. Gahn and C. Henry. 2001. Blue Master: Use of Corexit 9500 to Disperse IFO
180 Spill. Pp. 815819 in Proceedings ofthe 2001 International Oil Spill Conference, Tampa,
Florida. American Petroleum Institute, Washington, D.C.
Kennedy, C.J., N.J. Gassman and P.J. Walsh. 1992. The fate of benzo[a]pyrene in the sclerac-
tinian corals Favia fragrum and Montastrea annularis. Marine Biology 112:313318
Kennicutt, M.C. II, T.L. Wade, N.L. Guinasso, Jr. and J.M. Brooks. 1991. The Mega Borg
Incident: A comparison of response, mitigation and impact. Pp. 275280 in Proceedings
ofthe 1991 Offshore Technology Conference, Houston, Texas. Offshore Technology Con-
ference, Houston, Texas.
Kerr, C.L. and C.S. Barrientos, Eds. 1979. Workshop on the physical behavior ofoil in the marine
environment. Princeton University Press, Princeton, New Jersey.
Khelifa, A., P. Stoffyn-Egli, P.S. Hill and K. Lee. 2002. Characteristics of oil droplets stabi-
lized by mineral particles: effect of oil types and temperature. Spill Science and Technol-
ogy Bulletin 8(1):1930.
Khelifa, A., P.S. Hill, L.O. Ajijolaiya and K. Lee. 2004. Modeling the effect of sediment size on
OMA formation. Pp. 383395 in Proceedings ofthe Twenty-Seventh Arctic Marine Oilspill
Kiesling, R.W., S.K. Alexander and J.W. Webb. 1988. Evaluation of alternative oil-spill
cleanup techniques in a Spartina-alterniflora salt-marsh. Environmental Pollution 55(3):
221238.
Kirstein, B.E. 1992. Adaptation ofthe Minerals Management Services Oil-Weathering Model for
Use in the GulfofMexico Region. Contract No. 14-35-0001-30537. Minerals Management
Service, Gulf of Mexico Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) Region, New Orleans, Louisiana.
Knap, A.H. 1987. Effects of chemically dispersed oil on the brain coral Diploria strigosa. Ma-
rine Pollution Bulletin 18(3):119122.
REFERENCES
309
Knap, A.H., T.D. Sleeter, R.E. Dodge, S.C. Wyers, H.R. Frith and S.R. Smith. 1983. The effects
of oil spills and dispersants use on corals: A review and multidisciplinary experimental
approach. Oil and Petrochemical Pollution 1:157169.
Knap, A.H., S.C. Wyers, R.E. Dodge, T.D. Sleeter, H.R. Frith, S.R. Smith and C.B. Cook. 1985.
The effects of chemically and physically dispersed oil on the brain coral, Diploria strigosa
(Dana). Pp. 547551 in Proceedings ofthe 1985 International Oil Spill Conference, Los An-
geles, California. American Petroleum Institute, Washington, D.C.
Knudsen, O.O., P.J. Brandvik and A. Lewis. 1994. Treating oil spills with W/O emulsion
inhibitorsa laboratory study of surfactant leaching from the oil to the water phase.
Pp. 10231034 in Proceedings ofthe Seventeenth Arctic and Marine Oilspill Program (AMOP)
Technical Seminar, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada. Environment Canada. Ottawa,
Ontario, Canada.
Kochany, J. and R.J. Maguire. 1994. Abiotic Transformations of Polynuclear Aromatic Hy-
drocarbons and Polynuclear Aromatic Nitrogen Heterocycles in Aquatic Environments.
Science ofthe Total Environment 144:1731.
Koh, R.C.Y. and Fan, L-N. 1970. Mathematical models for the prediction oftemperature distribu-
tions resultingfrom the discharge ofheated water into large bodies ofwater. Report prepared
under Contract 14-12-570 by Tetra Tech, Inc., Pasadena CA, for U.S. Environmental
Protection Agencys Water Quality Office. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Of-
fice of Water, Washington, D.C.
Kolluru, V.S., M.L. Spaulding and E.L. Spaulding. 1993. Application and Verification of
Worldwide Oil Spill Model (WOSM) to Selected Spill Events. Pp. 573585 in Proceedings
ofthe Sixteenth Arctic and Marine Oil Spill Program (AMOP) Technical Seminar, Calgary,
Canada. Environment Canada. Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.
Kovats, von E. 1958. Gas-Chromatographische Charakterisierung Organischer Verbin-
dungen, Teil 1: Retentionsindices Aliphatischer Halogenide, Alkohole, Aldehyde und
Ketone. Helvetica Chimica Acta 10:19151932.
Kraly, J., R.G. Pond, D.V. Aurand, G.M. Coelho, A.H. Walker, B. Martin, J. Caplis and M.
Snowby. 2001. Ecological risk assessment principles applied to oil spill response plan-
ning. Pp. 177183 in Proceedings ofthe 2001 International Oil Spill Conference, Tampa,
Kucklick, J.H. and D. Aurand. 1997. Historical dispersant and in-situ burning opportunities
in the United States. Pp. 205210 in Proceedings ofthe 1997 International Oil Spill Confer-
ence, Fort Lauderdale, Florida. American Petroleum Institute, Washington, D.C.
LaBelle, R.P. and W.R. Johnson, 1993. Stochastic Oil Spill Analysis for Cook Inlet/Shelikof
Strait. Pp. 573585 in Proceedings ofthe Sixteenth Arctic and Marine Oil Spill Program
(AMOP) Technical Seminar, Calgary, Alberta, Canada. Environment Canada. Ottawa,
Ontario, Canada.
Lai, H.C. and C.P. Lim. 1984. Comparative toxicities of various crude oils to mangroves. Pp.
12138 in Fate and Effects ofOil in the Mangrove Environment, H.C. Lai and M.C. Feng,
Eds. Universiti Sains Malaysia, Pulau Pinang, Malaysia.
Lambert, G., D.B. Peakall, B.J.R. Philogene and F.R. Engelhardt. 1982. Effect of oil and oil
dispersant mixtures on the basal metabolic rate of ducks. Bulletin ofEnvironmental Con-
tamination and Toxicology 29:520524.
Lambert, P., B. Fieldhouse, Z. Wang, M. Fingas, M. Goldthorp, L. Pearson and E. Collazzi.
2001a. A laboratory study of a flow-through fluorometer for measuring oil-in-water
levels. Pp. 2345 in Twenty-Fourth Arctic and Marine Oilspill (AMOP) Technical Seminar,
Lambert, P., M. Goldthorp, B. Fieldhouse, Z. Wang, M.F. Fingas, L. Pearson and E. Collazzi.
2001b. A review of oil-in-water monitoring techniques. Pp. 13751380 in Proceedings of
the 2001 International Oil Spill Conference, Tampa, Florida. American Petroleum Insti-
310
Landrum, P.F., J.P. Giesy, J.T. Oris and P.M. Allred. 1987. Photoinduced toxicity of polycy-
clic aromatic hydrocarbons to aquatic organisms. Pp. 304318 in Oil in Freshwater, J.H.
Vandermeulen and S.E. Hrudey, Eds. Pergamon Press, New York, New York.
Lane, P.A., J.H. Vandermeulen, M.J. Crowell and D.G. Patriquin. 1987. Impact of experimen-
tally dispersed crude oil on vegetation in a northwestern Atlantic salt marsh-prelimi-
nary observations. Pp. 509514 in Proceedings ofthe 1987 International Oil Spill Confer-
ence, Baltimore, Maryland. American Petroleum Institute, Washington, D.C.
LaRiviere, D.J., R.L. Autenrieth and J.S. Bonner. 2003. Redox dynamics during recovery of
an oil-impacted estuarine wetland. Water Research 37:33073318.
Law, A.T. 1995. Toxicity study of the oil dispersant Corexit 9527 on Macrobrachium rosenbergii
(de Man) egg hatchability by using a flow-through bioassay technique. Environmental
Pollution 88:341343.
Law, R., C.A. Kelly, K.L. Graham, R.J. Woodhead, P.E.J. Dyrynda and E.A. Dyrynda. 1997.
Hydrocarbon and PAH in fish and shellfish from Southwest Wales following the Sea
Empress oilspill in 1996. Pp. 205211 in Proceedings ofthe 1997 International Oil Spill
Conference, Fort Lauderdale, Florida. American Petroleum Institute, Washington, D.C.
Lawrence, A.S.C. and W. Killner. 1948. Emulsions of seawater in Admiralty fuel oil with
special reference to their demulsification. Journal ofthe Institute ofPetroleum 34(299):821
857.
Ledwell, J.R., A.J. Watson and C.S. Law. 1998. Mixing of a tracer in the pycncline, Journal of
Geophysical Research 103(C10):2149921529.
Lee, H. 1992. Models, muddles and mud: Predicting bioaccumulation of sediment associ-
ated pollutants. Pp. 267293 in Sediment ToxicityAssessment, G.A. Burton, Ed. CRC Press,
Boca Raton, Florida.
Lee, H.W., N. Kobayashi and C.-R. Ryu. 1990. Review on oil spills and their effects. Report
Number CACR-90-03. Center for Applied Coastal Research, Department of Civil Engi-
neering, University of Delaware, Newark, Delaware.
Lee, K. 2002. Oil-particle interactions in aquatic environments: influence on the transport,
fate, effect and remediation of oil spills. Spill Science & Technology Bulletin 8(1):38.
Lee, K., C.S. Wong, W.J. Cretney, F.A. Whitney, T.R. Parsons, C.M. Lalli and J. Wu. 1985.
Microbial response to crude oil and Corexit 9527: SEAFLUXES enclosure study. Micro-
bial Ecology 11:337351.
Lee, K., T. Lunel, P. Wood, R. Swannell and P. Stoffyn-Egli. 1997a. Shoreline cleanup by
acceleration of clay-oil flocculation processes. Pp. 235240 in Proceedings ofthe 1997
International Oil Spill Conference, Fort Lauderdale, Florida. American Petroleum Insti-
Lee, K., S. St-Pierre and A.M. Weise. 1997b. Enhanced oil biodegradation with mineral fine
interaction. Pp. 715722 in Proceedings ofthe Twentieth Arctic and Marine Oilspill Program
(AMOP) Technical Seminar, Vancouver, British Columbia. Environment Canada, Ot-
tawa, Ontario, Canada.
Lee, K., P. Stoffyn-Egli, P.A. Wood and T. Lunel. 1998. Formation and structure of oil-min-
eral fines aggregates in coastal environments. Pp. 911921 in Proceedings ofthe Twenty-
First Arctic and Marine Oilspill Program (AMOP) Technical Seminar, Edmonton, Alberta,
Lee, K., P. Stoffyn-Egli and E.H. Owens. 2001. Natural dispersion of oil in a freshwater eco-
system: Desaguadero pipeline spill, Bolivia. Pp. 14451448 in Proceedings ofthe 2001
International Oil Spill Conference, Tampa, Florida. American Petroleum Institute, Wash-
ington, D.C.
Lee, K., P. Stoffyn-Egli and E.H. Owens. 2002. The OSSA II pipeline oil spill: natural mitiga-
tion of a riverine oil spill by oilmineral aggregate formation. Spill Science and Technol-
ogy Bulletin 7(34):149154.
REFERENCES
311
Leech, M., M. Walker, M. Wiltshire and A. Tyler. 1993. OSIS: A Windows 3 Oil Spill Informa-
tion System. Pp. 549572 in Proceedings ofthe Sixteenth Arctic and Marine Oil Spill Pro-
gram (AMOP) Technical Seminar, Calgary, Alberta, Canada. Environment Canada. Ot-
tawa, Ontario, Canada.
Le Floch, S., J. Guyomarch, F.-X. Merlin, P. Stoffyn-Egli, J. Dixon and K. Lee. 2002. The influ-
ence of salinity on oil-mineral aggregate formation. Spill Science & Technology Bulletin
8(1):6571.
Legore, R.S., D.S. Marzalek, J.E. Hoffman and J.E. Cuddeback. 1983. A field experiment to
assess impact of chemically dispersed oil on Arabian Gulf corals. Pp. 5160 in Proceed-
ings ofthe Middle East Oil Technical Conference, Manama, Bahrain. Society of Petroleum
Engineers, Richardson, Texas.
Legore, S., D.S. Marszalek, L.J. Danek, M.S. Tomlinson, J.E. Hoffman and J.E. Cuddeback.
1989. Effect of chemically dispersed oil on Arabian Gulf corals: A field experiment. Pp.
375380 in Proceedings ofthe 1989 International Oil Spill Conference, San Antonio, Texas.
Lehr, W. 1996. Progress in Oil Spread Modeling. Pp. 889894 in Proceedings ofthe Nineteenth
Arctic and Marine Oilspill Program (AMOP) Technical Seminar, Calgary, Alberta, Canada.
Lehr, W.J., H.M. Cekirge, R.J. Fraga and M.S. Belen. 1984. Empirical studies of the spreading
of oil spills. Oil and Petrochemical Pollution 2:712.
Lehr, W.J., R. Overstreet, R. Jones and G. Watabayashi. 1992. ADIOS-Automatic Data In-
quiry for Oil Spills. Pp. 3145 in Proceedings ofthe Fifteenth Arctic and Marine Oilspill
Lehr, W.J., D. Wesley, D. Simecek-Beatty, R. Jones, G. Kachook and J. Lankford. 2000. Algo-
rithm and interface modifications of the NOAA oil spill behavior model. Pp. 525539 in
Proceedings ofthe Twenty-Third Arctic and Marine Oil Spill Program (AMOP) Technical
Seminar, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada. Environment Canada, Ottawa, On-
tario, Canada.
Lehr, W., R. Jones, M. Evans, D. Simecek-Beatty and R. Overtreet. 2002. Revisions of the
ADIOS oil spill model. Environmental Modeling and Software 17:191199.
Leibovich, S. and J.L. Lumley. 1982. Interaction of turbulence and Langmuir cells in vertical
transport of oil droplets. Pp. 271276 in Proceedings ofthe First International Conference on
Meteorology and Air/Sea Interaction ofthe Coastal Zone, The Hague, Netherlands. Ameri-
can Meteorological Society, Boston, Massachusetts.
Lessard, R.R., D.V. Aurand, G. Coelho, J.C. Clark, G. Bragin, C.M. Fuller, T.J. McDonald, R.
Jamail and A. Steen. 1999. Design and implementation of a mesocosm experiment on
the environmental consequences of nearshore dispersant use. Pp. 10271030 in Proceed-
ings ofthe 1999 International Oil Spill Conference, Seattle, Washington. American Petro-
leum Institute, Washington, D.C.
Levine, E. 1999. Development and implementation of the dispersant observation job aid. Pp.
10151018 in Proceedings ofthe 1999 International Oil Spill Conference, Seattle, Washing-
ton. American Petroleum Institute, Washington, D.C.
Lewis, A. 2004. Experimental and field case studies in dispersant effectiveness. Presentation to the
National Research Council Committee on Understanding Oil Spill Dispersants: Effi-
cacy and Effects, March 1516, 2004, Washington, D.C., unpublished. National Research
Council, Washington, D.C.
Lewis, A. and D. Aurand. 1997. Putting Dispersants to work: Overcoming obstacles. Pp.
157164 in Proceedings ofthe 1997 International Oil Spill Conference, Fort Lauderdale,
Lewis, A., P.S. Daling, R. Fiocco and A.B. Nordvik. 1994. Chemical dispersion of oil and
water-in-oil emulsionsA comparison of bench-scale test methods and dispersant
312
treatment in meso-scale flume. Pp. 9791010 in Proceedings ofthe Seventeenth Arctic and
Marine Oilspill Program (AMOP) Technical Seminar, Vancouver, British Columbia, Can-
ada. Environment Canada. Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.
Lewis, A., P.S. Daling, T. Strom-Kristiansen, A.B. Nordvik and R. Fiocco. 1995a. Weathering
and chemical dispersion of oil at sea. Pp. 157164 in Proceedings ofthe 1995 International
Oil Spill Conference, Long Beach, California. American Petroleum Institute, Washing-
ton, D.C.
Lewis, A., P.S. Daling, T. Strom-Kristiansen and P.J. Brandvik. 1995b. The behavior of Sture
blend crude oil spilled at sea and treated with dispersant. Pp. 453469 in Proceedings of
the Eighteenth Arctic and Marine Oilspill Program (AMOP) Technical Seminar, Edmonton,
Lewis, A., A. Crosbie, L. Davies and T. Lunel. 1998a. Large scale field experiments into oil
weathering at sea and aerial application of dispersants. Pp. 319343 in Proceedings ofthe
Twenty-first Arctic and Marine Oilspill Program (AMOP) Technical Seminar, Edmonton,
Lewis A., A. Crosbie, L. Davies and T. Lunel. 1998b. Dispersion of emulsified oil at sea. AEA
Technology report. AEAT-3475. AEA Technology, National Environmental Technol-
ogy Centre (NETCEN, Didcot, Oxfordshire, England.
Li, M. and C. Garrett. 1998. The relationship between oil droplet size and upper ocean turbu-
lence. Marine Pollution Bulletin 36(12):961970.
Linden, O., A. Rosemarin, A. Lindskog, C. Hoglund and S. Johansson. 1987. Effects of oil
and oil dispersant on an enclosed marine ecosystem. Environmental Science and Technol-
ogy 2:374382.
Lindstedt-Siva, J. 1987. Advance planning for dispersant use. Pp. 329333 in Proceedings of
the 1987 International Oil Spill Conference, Baltimore, Maryland. American Petroleum
Lindstedt-Siva J. 1991. U.S. oil spill policy hampers response and hurts science. Pp. 349352
in Proceedings ofthe 1991 International Oil Spill Conference, San Diego, California. Ameri-
Lindstrom, J.E. and J.F. Braddock. 2002. Biodegradation of petroleum hydrocarbons at low
temperature in the presence of the dispersant Corexit 9500. Marine Pollution Bulletin
44(8):739747.
Lindstrom, J.E., D.M. White and J.F. Braddock. 1999. Biodegradation ofdispersed oil using
Corexit 9500. Report to the Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation, Divi-
sion of Spill Prevention and Response. Alaska Department of Environmental Conser-
vation, Juneau, Alaska.
Literathy, P., S. Haider, O. Samhan and G. Morel. 1989. Experimental studies on biological
and chemical oxidation of dispersed oil in seawater. Water Science and Technology21:845
856.
Little, D.I. and D.L. Scales. 1987a. Effectiveness of a type III dispersant on low-energy shore-
lines. Proceedings ofthe 1987 International Oil Spill Conference, Baltimore, Maryland.
Little, D.I. and D.L. Scales. 1987b. The persistence of oil stranded on sediment shorelines.
Proceedings ofthe 1987 International Oil Spill Conference, Baltimore, Maryland. American
Little, D.I. and D.L. Scales. 1987c. The effectiveness of a new type III dispersant in the treat-
ment of weathered crude and emulsified fuel oils on saltmarshes and sandflats. Pp.
217219 in Fate and Effects ofOil in Marine Ecosystems, J. Kuiper and W.J. Van Den Brink,
Eds. Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, Dordrecht, The Netherlands.
Long, S.M. and D.A. Holdaway. 2002. Acute toxicity of crude and dispersed oil to Octopus
pallidus (Hoyle, 1885) hatchlings. Water Research 36:27692776.
REFERENCES
313
Louchouarn, P., J.S. Bonner, P. Tissot, T.J. McDonald, C.B. Fuller and C.A. Page. 2000. Quan-
titative determination of oil films/slicks from water surfaces using a modified solid-
phase extraction (SPE) sampling method. Pp. 5968 in Proceedings ofthe Twenty-Third
Arctic and Marine Oil Spill Program (AMOP) Technical Seminar, Vancouver, British Co-
Lunel, T. 1993. Dispersion: Oil droplet size measurement at sea. Pp. 10231056 in Proceedings
ofthe Sixteenth Arctic and Marine Oil Spill Program (AMOP) Technical Seminar, Calgary,
Lunel, T. 1994a. Dispersion of a large experimental slick by aerial application of dispersant.
Pp. 951979 in Proceedings ofthe Seventeenth Arctic and Marine Oilspill Program (AMOP)
Technical Seminar, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada. Environment Canada. Ottawa,
Ontario, Canada.
Lunel, T. 1994b. Field trials to determine quantitative estimates of dispersant efficiency at
sea. Pp. 10111022 in Proceedings ofthe Seventeenth Arctic and Marine Oilspill Program
(AMOP) Technical Seminar, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada. Environment Can-
ada. Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.
Lunel, T. 1995a. Dispersant effectiveness at sea. Pp. 147155 in Proceedings ofthe 1995 Interna-
tional Oil Spill Conference, Long Beach, California. American Petroleum Institute, Wash-
ington, D.C.
Lunel, T. 1995b. Understanding the mechanism of dispersion through oil droplet size mea-
surements at sea. Pp. 240285 in The Use ofChemicals in Oil Spill Response, ASTM STP
1252, P. Lane, Ed. American Society for Testing and Materials, Philadelphia, Pennsyl-
vania.
Lunel, T. 1998. Sea Empress spill: Dispersant operations, effectiveness, and effectiveness
monitoring. Pp. 5978 in Proceedings ofthe Dispersant Use in Alaska: A Technical Update,
Anchorage, Alaska. Prince William Sound Oil Spill Recovery Institute, Cordova,
Alaska.
Lunel, T. and L. Davies. 1996. Dispersant effectiveness in the field on fresh oils and emul-
sions. Pp. 13551394 in Proceedings ofthe Nineteenth Arctic and Marine Oilspill Program
(AMOP) Technical Seminar, Calgary, Alberta, Canada. Environment Canada, Ottawa,
Ontario, Canada.
Lunel, T. and A. Lewis. 1993a. Effectiveness of demulsifiers in sea trials: The use of fluorom-
etry, surface sampling, and remote sensing to determine effectiveness. Pp. 179202 in
Formation and Breaking ofWater-in-Oil Emulsions: Workshop Proceedings, A.H. Walker,
D.L. Ducey, Jr, J.R. Gould and A.B. Nordvik, Eds. Marine Spill Response Corporation,
Washington, D.C.
Lunel, T. and A. Lewis. 1993b. Oil concentrations below a demulsifier-treated slick. Pp. 955
972 in Proceedings ofthe Sixteenth Arctic and Marine Oil Spill Program (AMOP) Technical
Seminar, Calgary, Alberta, Canada. Environment Canada. Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.
Lunel, T., G. Baldwin and F. Merlin. 1995a. Comparison of meso-scale and laboratory dis-
persant tests with dispersant effectiveness measured at sea. Pp. 629651 in Proceedings
ofthe Eighteenth Arctic and Marine Oilspill Program (AMOP) Technical Seminar, Edmonton,
Lunel, T., L. Davies and P.J. Brandvik. 1995b. Field trials to determine dispersant effective-
ness at sea. Pp. 603627 in Proceedings ofthe Eighteenth Arctic and Marine Oilspill Program
(AMOP) Technical Seminar, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada. Environment Canada. Ottawa,
Ontario, Canada.
Lunel, T., L. Davies, A.C.T. Chen and R.A. Major. 1995c. Field test of dispersant application
by fire monitor. Pp. 559574 in Proceedings ofthe Eighteenth Arctic and Marine Oilspill
Program (AMOP) Technical Seminar, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada. Environment Canada.
314
Lunel, T.J., J. Rusin, N. Bailey, C. Halliwell and L. Davies. 1996. A successful at-sea response
to the Sea Empress spill. Pp. 14991520 in Proceedings ofthe Nineteenth Arctic and Marine
Oilspill Program (AMOP) Technical Seminar, Calgary, Alberta, Canada. Environment
Lunel, T.J. Rusin, N. Bailey, C. Halliwell and L. Davies. 1997a. The net environmental benefit
of a successful dispersant application at the Sea Empress incident. Pp. 185194 in Pro-
ceedings ofthe 1997 International Oil Spill Conference, Fort Lauderdale, Florida. American
Lunel, T., P. Wood and L. Davies, 1997b. Dispersant effectiveness in field trials and in opera-
tional response. Pp. 923926 in Proceedings ofthe 1997 International Oil Spill Conference,
Fort Lauderdale, Florida. American Petroleum Institute, Washington, D.C.
Lyklema, J. 2000. Fundamentals ofInterface and Colloid Science, Volume III: Liquid-Fluid Inter-
faces. Academic Press, Incorporated, San Diego, California.
Mackay, D. 1987. Formation and stability ofwater-in-oil emulsions. DIWO Report No. 1. IKU.
SINTEF Group, Trondheim, Norway.
Mackay, D. 1993. Effectiveness ofdispersants applied following the Exxon Valdez spill. Report
from the University of Toronto for Exxon Company. ExxonMobil Research and Engi-
neering Company, Fairfax, Virginia.
Mackay, D. 1995. Effectiveness ofchemical dispersants under breaking wave conditions. Pp. 310
340 in Use ofChemicals in Oil Spill Response. ASTM special technical publication 1252.
American Society of Testing Materials, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
Mackay, D. and A. Chau. 1986. The effectiveness of chemical dispersants: a discussion of
laboratory and field tests results. Oil and Chemical Pollution 3:405415.
Mackay, D. and K. Hossain. 1982. An exploratory study ofnaturally and chemically dispersed oil.
EE-35. Report to Environment Canada. Environment Canada, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.
Mackay, D. and P.J. Leinonen. 1977. Mathematical model ofthe behavior ofoil spills on water with
natural and chemical dispersion. Economic and Technical Review Report EPS-3-EC-77-19.
Prepared Environment Canada. Environment Canada, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.
Mackay, D. and R.M. Matsugu. 1973. Evaporation rates of liquid hydrocarbon spills on land
and water. Canadian Journal ofChemical Engineering 8:434439.
Mackay, D. and W.Y. Shiu. 1976. Aqueous solubilities of weathered northern crude oils.
Bulletin ofEnvironmental Contamination and Toxicology 15(1):101109.
Mackay, D. and P.G. Wells. 1983. Effectiveness, behavior, and toxicity of dispersants. Pp. 65
71 in Proceedings ofthe 1983 International Oil Spill Conference, San Antonio, Texas. Ameri-
Mackay, D., J.S. Nadeau and C. Ng. 1978. A small-scale laboratory dispersant effectiveness
test. Pp. 3549 in Chemical Dispersants for the Control ofOil Spills, L.T. McCarthy, G.P.
Lindblom and H.F. Walter, Eds. American Society for Testing and Materials, Philadel-
phia, Pennsylvania.
Mackay, D., S. Paterson and K. Trudel. 1980a. A mathematical model ofoil spill behavior. Publi-
cation EE-7. Report for Environment Canada. Department of Chemical and Applied
Chemistry, University of Toronto, Canada.
Mackay, D., I. Buist, R. Mascarenhas and S. Paterson. 1980b. Oil spill processes and models.
Publication EE-8. Report for Environment Canada. Environment Canada, Ottawa,
Ontario, Canada.
Mackay, D, W.Y. Shiu, K. Hossain, W. Stiver, D. McCurdy and S. Peterson. 1982. Develop-
ment and Calibration ofan Oil Spill Behavior Model. Report No. CG-D-27-83. U.S. Coast
Guard, Research and Development Center, Groton, Connecticut.
Mackay, D.A., A. Chau, K. Hossain and M. Bobra. 1984. Measurement and prediction of the
effectiveness of oil spill chemical dispersants. Oil Spill Chemical Dispersants, Research
Experience and Recommendations, T.E. Allen, Ed. ASTM special technical publication 840.
American Society of Testing Materials, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
REFERENCES
315
Mackay, D., H. Puig and L.S. McCarty. 1992. An equation describing the time course and
variability in uptake and toxicity of narcotic chemicals to fish. Journal ofJournal ofEnvi-
ronmental Toxicology and Chemistry 11:941951.
MacKinnon, D.S. and P.A. Lane. 1993. Saltmarsh revisitedThe long-term effects ofoil and dis-
persant on saltmarsh vegetation. Environmental Studies Research Fund, Report No. 122.
National Energy Board, Calgary, Alberta, Canada.
MacNaughton, S.J., R.P.J. Swannell, F. Daniel and L. Bristow. 2003. Biodegradation of dis-
persed Forties crude and Alaskan North Slope oils in microcosms under simulated
marine conditions. Spill Science and Technology Bulletin 8(2):179186.
Major, R.A., A.C.T. Chen and P. Nicholson. 1994. Wave basin tests of boat dispersant appli-
cation systems. Pp 10351051 in Proceedings ofthe Seventeenth Arctic and Marine Oilspill
Program (AMOP) Technical Seminar, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada. Environ-
ment Canada. Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.
Malinky, G., and D.G. Shaw. 1979. Modeling the association of petroleum hydrocarbons and
sub-arctic sediments. Pp. 621623 in Proceedings ofthe 1979 International Oil Spill Confer-
ence, Los Angeles, California. American Petroleum Institute, Washington, D.C.
Marine and Freshwater Resources Institute. 1998. Toxicity and effectiveness ofthe oil spill dis-
persant Corexit 9500. Laboratory report. Marine and Freshwater Resources Institute,
Queenscliff, Australia.
Masutani, S. and E. Adams. 2004. Liquid droplet contaminant plumes in the deep ocean.
Japanese Journal ofMultiphase Flow 18(2):135152.
McAuliffe, C.D. 1963. Solubility in water of C1-C9 hydrocarbons. Nature 200:10921093.
McAuliffe, C.D. 1966. Solubility in water of paraffin, cycloparaffin, olefin, acetylene, cy-
cloolefin, and aromatic hydrocarbons. Journal ofPhysical Chemistry 70:12671275.
McAuliffe, C.D. 1989. The weathering of volatile hydrocarbons from crude oil slicks on wa-
ter. Pp. 357364 in Proceedings ofthe 1989 International Oil Spill Conference, San Antonio,
Texas. American Petroleum Institute, Washington, D.C.
McAuliffe, C.D., B.L. Steelman, W.R. Leek, D.E. Fitzgerald, J.P. Ray and C.D. Barker. 1981.
The 1979 Southern California Dispersant Treated Research Oil Spills. Pp. 269282 in
Proceedings ofthe 1981 International Oil Spill Conference, Atlanta, Georgia. American Pe-
troleum Institute, Washington, D.C.
McCarty, L.S. 1986. The relationship between aquatic toxicity QSARs and bioconcentration
for some organic chemicals. Journal ofEnvironmental Toxicology and Chemistry 5:1071
1080.
McCarty, L.S. and D. Mackay. 1993. Enhancing ecotoxicological modeling and assessment.
Environmental Science and Technology 27(9):17191728.
McCarty, L.S., D. Mackay, A.D. Smith, G.W. Ozburn and D.G. Dixon. 1992. Residue-based
Interpretation of Toxicity and Bioconcentration QSARs from Aquatic Bioassays: Neu-
tral Narcotic Organics. Journal ofEnvironmental Toxicology and Chemistry 11:917930.
McDonagh, M. and K. Colcomb-Heiliger. 1992. Aerial spraying of demulsifiers to enhance
the natural dispersion of oil slicks. Pp. 107122 in Proceedings ofthe Fifteenth Arctic and
Marine Oilspill Program (AMOP) Technical Seminar, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada. Envi-
ronment Canada, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.
McGrath, J.A., F.L. Hellweger, T.F. Parkerton and D.M. Di Toro. 2003. Application ofthe Nar-
cosis Target Lipid Model to Complex Mixtures Using Gasolines as a Case Study. Paper pre-
sented at the Annual Meeting of the Society of Environmental Toxicology and Chemis-
try (SETAC), Austin, Texas. Society of Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry,
Pensacola, Florida.
McGrath, J.A., T.F. Parkerton and D.M. DiToro. 2004. Application of the narcosis target lipid
model to algal toxicity and deriving predicted no-effect concentrations. Journal ofEnvi-
ronmental Toxicology and Chemistry 23:25032517.
316
McLean, J.D. and P.K. Kilpatrick. 1997a. Effects of asphaltene solvency on stability of water-
in-crude-oil emulsions. Journal ofColloidal and Interfacial Science 189:242255.
McLean, J.D. and P.K. Kilpatrick. 1997b. Effects of asphaltene aggregation in model heptane-
toluene mixtures on stability of water-in-oil emulsions. Journal ofColloid and Interface
Science 196:2334.
McLean, J.D., P.M. Spiecker, A.P. Sullivan and P.K. Kilpatrick. 1998. The role of petroleum
asphaltenes in the stabilization of water-in-oil emulsions. Pp. 377422 in Structure and
Dynamics ofAsphaltenes, O.C. Mullins and E.Y. Sheu, Eds., Plenum Press, New York,
New York.
McNaughton, S.J., R. Swannell, F. Daniel and L. Bristow. 2003. Biodegradation of dispersed
Forties crude and Alaskan North Slope oils in microcosms under simulated marine
conditions. Spill Science and Technology Bulletin 8:179186.
Meeks, D.G. 1981. A view on the laboratory testing and assessment of oil spill dispersant
efficiency. Pp. 1929 in Proceedings ofthe 1981 International Oil Spill Conference, Atlanta,
Georgia. American Petroleum Institute, Washington, D.C.
Menon, N.N. and N.R. Menon. 1999. Uptake of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons from sus-
pended oil borne sediments by the marine bivalve Sunetta scripta. Aquatic Toxicology
45:6369.
Michel, J. and C.B. Henry. 1997. Oil uptake and depuration in oysters after use of dispersants
in shallow water in El Salvador. Spill Science and Technology Bulletin 4:5770.
Michel, J., D. Scholz, S.R. Warren Jr. and A.H. Walker. 2004. A Decision-Makers Guide to In-
situ Burning. American Petroleum Institute, Washington, D.C.
Middaugh, D.P. and D.D. Whiting. 1995. Responses of embryonic and larval inland silver-
sides, Menidia beryllina, to No.-2 Fuel-oil and oil dispersants in seawater. Archives of
Environmental Contamination and Toxicology 29(4):535539.
Miller, R.M. and R. Bartha. 1989. Evidence from liposome encapsulation for transport-lim-
ited microbial metabolism of solid alkanes. Applied and Environmental Microbiology
55(2):269274.
Mitchell, F.M. and D.A. Holdaway. 2000. The acute and chronic toxicity of the dispersants
Corexit 9527 and 9500, water accommodated fraction (WAF) of crude oil and
dispersant enhanced WAF (DEWAF) to Hydra viridissima (green hydra). Water
Research 34:343348.
Miura, Y., M. Okazaki, S.-I. Hamada, S.-I. Murakawa and R. Yugen. 1977. Assimilation of
liquid hydrocarbons by microorganisms. I. Mechanism of hydrocarbon uptake. Biotech-
nology and Bioengineering 19:701714.
Moles, A., L. Holland and J. Short. 2002. Effectiveness in the laboratory of Corexit 9527 and
9500 in dispersing fresh, weathered, and emulsion of Alaska North Slope crude oil
under subarctic conditions. Spill Science and Technology Bulletin 7(5-6):241247.
Montgomery, D.C. 1997. Design and Analysis ofExperiments, Fourth Edition. John Wiley &
Sons, Incorporated. New York, New York.
Morales, R.A., A.J. Elliot and T. Lunel. 1997. The Influence of Tidal Currents and Wind on
Mixing in the Surface Layers on the Sea. Marine Pollution Bulletin 34(1):1525.
Mulkins-Phillips, G.J. and J.E. Stewart. 1974. Effect of four dispersants on biodegradation
and growth of bacteria on crude oil. Applied Microbiology 28(4):547552.
Mulyono, M., E. Jasjfi and M. Maloringan. 1994. Oil dispersants: do they do any good? Pp.
539549 in Proceedingofthe Second International Conference on Health, Safety and Environ-
ment in Oil and Gas Exploration and Production, Jakarta, Indonesia. Society of Petroleum
Engineers, Richardson, Texas.
Muschenheim, D.K. and K. Lee. 2002. Removal of oil from the sea surface through particu-
late interactions: review and prospectus. Spill Science and Technology Bulletin 8, 918.
REFERENCES
317
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). 1994. ADIOS, Automated Data
Injury for Oil Spills, Users Manual. NOAA/Hazardous Materials Response and Assess-
ment Division, Seattle, Washington.
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). 1999. Dispersant application ob-
server job aid. NOAA Hazardous Materials Response Division, Seattle, WA.
National Research Council (NRC). 1985. Oil in the Sea: Inputs, Fates, and Effects. National
Academy Press, Washington, D.C.
National Research Council (NRC). 1989. UsingOil Spill Dispersants on the Sea. National Acad-
emy Press, Washington, D.C.
National Research Council (NRC) 1999. Spills ofNonfloatingOils, Risks and Response. National
Academy Press, Washington, D.C.
National Research Council (NRC). 2003. Oil in the Sea III: Inputs, Fates and Effects. National
Academies Press, Washington, D.C.
National Response Team Response Committee. 2002. NRT-RRT Fact Sheet. U.S. National
Response Team, Washington, D.C. [Online] Available at: http://www.nrt.org/Produc-
tion/NRT/NRTWeb.nsf/AllAttachmentsByTitle/A-58Riskcomm1/$File/riskcomm1.
pdf?OpenElement [January 14, 2005].
Neff, J.M. 2002. Bioaccumulation in Marine Organisms: Effect ofContaminants from Oil Well
Produced Water. Elsevier Science Publishers, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Neff, J.M. and Burns, W.A. 1996. Estimation of Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbon Concen-
trations in the Water Column Based on Tissue Residues in Mussels and Salmon: An
Equilibrium Partitioning Approach. Journal ofEnvironmental Toxicology and Chemistry
15(12):22402253.
Neff, J.M. and W.E. Haensly. 1982. Long-term impact of the Amoco Cadiz crude oil spill on
oysters Crassostrea gigas and plaice Pleuronectes platessa from Aber Benoit and Aber
Wrach, Brittany, France. Pp. 269327 in Report ofthe NOAA-CNEXO Joint Scientific Com-
mission, Ecological Study ofAmoco Cadiz Oil Spill. U.S. Department of Commerce, Na-
tional Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Boulder, Colorado.
Negri, A.P. and A.J. Heyward. 2000. Inhibition of fertilization and larval metamorphosis of
the coral Acropora millepora (Ehrenberg, 1834) by petroleum products. Marine Pollution
Bulletin 41:420427.
New York Department of Health. 2005. Glossary ofEnvironmental Health Terms. New York
Department of State, New York, New York. [Online]. Available at: http://www.
health.state.ny.us/nysdoh/consumer/environ/toxglos.htm [April 27, 2005].
Newsted, J.L. and J.P. Giesy. 1987. Predictive models for photoinduced acute toxicity of
polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons to Daphnia magna. Journal ofEnvironmental Toxicology
and Chemistry 6:445461.
Nichols, J.A. and H.D. Parker. 1985. Dispersants: Comparison of laboratory tests and field
trials with practical experience at spills. Pp. 421427 in Proceedings ofthe 1985 Interna-
tional Oil Spill Conference, Los Angeles, California. American Petroleum Institute, Wash-
ington, D.C.
Nilsen, J., A. Naess and Z. Volent. 1985. Measurements ofoil concentrations in the water column,
under breaking waves. Report STF 60 A 85079, Norwegian Hydrotechnical Laboratory.
SINTEF Trondheim, Norway.
Nirmalakhandan, N. and R.E. Speece. 1988. Structure-Activity Relationships, Quantitative
Techniques for Predicting the Behavior of Chemicals in the Ecosystem. Journal ofEnvi-
ronmental Science Technology 22(6):606615.
Norwegian Institute for Water Research. 1994. Marine algal growth inhibition test. Laboratory
Report. Norwegian Institute for Water Research, Oslo, Norway.
Nyman, J.A. 1999. Effect of crude oil and chemical additives on metabolic activity of mixed
microbial populations in fresh marsh soils. Microbial Ecology 37:152162.
318
Ohwada, K., M. Nishimura, M. Wada, H. Nomura, A. Shibata, K. Okamoto, K. Toyoda, A.
Yoshida, H. Takada and M. Yamada. 2003. Study of the effect of water-soluble fractions
of heavy-oil on coastal marine organisms using enclosed ecosystems, mesocosms. Ma-
rine Pollution Bulletin 47:7884.
Ojo, T.O. and J.S. Bonner. 2002. Three-Dimensional Self-Calibrating Coastal Oil Spill Trajec-
tory Tracking and Contaminant Transport using HF Radar. Pp. 215226 in Proceedings
ofTwenty-Fifth Arctic and Marine Oilspill Technical Seminar, Calgary, Alberta, Canada.
Environment Canada. Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
Ojo, T.O., J.S. Bonner, C.A. Page, M. Sterling, C. Fuller and F.J. Kelly. 2003. Field simulation
experiment of aerial dispersant application for spill of opportunity. Pp. 813824 in Pro-
ceedings ofthe Twenty-Sixth Arctic and Marine Oilspill Program (AMOP) Technical Seminar,
Victoria, British Columbia, Canada. Environment Canada, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.
Okubo, A. 1971. Oceanic diffusion diagrams. Deep Sea Research 18:789802.
Omotoso, O.E., V.A. Munoz, R.J. Mikula. 2002. Mechanisms of crude oilmineral interac-
tions. Spill Science and Technology Bulletin 8(1):4554.
Onishi, Y., D.S. Trent, T.E. Michener, J.E. Van Beek and C.A. Rieck. 1999. Simulation of
Radioactive Tank Waste Mixing with Chemical Reactions, FEDSM99-7786. In Proceed-
ings ofThird American Society ofMechanical Engineers/Japan Society ofMechanical Engi-
neers (ASME/JSME) Joint Fluids EngineeringConference, San Francisco, California. Ameri-
can Society of Mechanical Engineers, New York, New York.
Ordsie, C.J. and G.C. Garofalo. 1981. Lethal and sublethal effects of short term acute doses of
Kuwait crude oil and a dispersant Corexit 9527 on bay scallops Argopecten irradians and
two predators at different temperatures. Marine Environmental Research 5:195210.
Osborn, T.R. 1974. Vertical profiling of velocity microstructure. Journal ofPhysical Oceanogra-
phy 4:109115.
Owens, E.H. and K. Lee. 2003. Interaction of oil and mineral fines on shorelines: Review and
assessment. Spill Science and Technology Bulletin 47(9-12):397405.
Pace, C.B. and J.R. Clark. 1993. Evaluation ofa toxicity test method used for dispersant screening
in California. MSRC Technical Report Series 93-028. Marine Spill Response Corporation,
Washington, D.C.
Pace, C.B., J.R. Clark and G.E. Bragin. 1995. Comparing crude oil toxicity under standard
and environmentally realistic exposures. Pp. 10031004 in Proceedings ofthe 1995 Inter-
national Oil Spill Conference, Long Beach, California. American Petroleum Institute,
Washington, D.C.
Page, C., P. Sumner, R. Autenrieth, J. Bonner and T. McDonald. 1999. Materials balance on a
chemically dispersed oil and a whole oil exposed to an experimental beach front. Pp.
645658 in Proceedings ofthe Twenty-Second Arctic and Marine Oil Spill Program (AMOP)
Technical Seminar, Calgary, Alberta, Canada. Environment Canada, Ottawa, Ontario,
Canada.
Page, C.A., J.S. Bonner, P.L. Sumner, T.J. McDonald, R.L. Autenrieth and C.B. Fuller. 2000a.
Behaviour of a chemically-dispersed oil and a whole oil on a near-shore environment.
Water Research 34:25072516.
Page, C.A., J.S. Bonner, P.L. Sumner and R.L. Autenrieth. 2000b. Solubility of petroleum
hydrocarbons in oil/water systems. Marine Chemistry 70:7987.
Page, C.A., R.L. Autenrieth, J.S. Bonner and T. McDonald. 2001. Behaviour of chemically
dispersed oil in a wetland environment. Pp. 821823 in Proceedings ofthe 2001 Interna-
tional Oil Spill Conference, Tampa, Florida. American Petroleum Institute, Washington,
D.C.
Page, C.A., J.S. Bonner, T.J. McDonald and R.L. Autenrieth. 2002. Behavior of a chemically
dispersed oil in a wetland environment. Water Research 36:38213833.
Parker, P.L. and S. Macko. 1978. An intensive study of the heavy hydrocarbons in the sus-
pended particulate matter of seawater. Chapter 11 in Environmental studies, south Texas
REFERENCES
319
outer continental shelf, biology and chemistry. BLM Contract AA550-CT7-11. U.S. Depart-
ment of Interior, Bureau of Land Management (BLM), Washington, D.C.
Parker, C.A., M. Freegarde and C.G. Hatchard. 1971. The effect of some chemical and bio-
logical factors on the degradation of crude oil at sea. Pp. 237244 in Water Pollution by
Oil, P. Hepple, Ed. Institute of Petroleum, London, United Kingdom.
Payne, J.R. and A.A. Allen. 2004. Use ofnatural oil seeps for evaluation ofdispersant application
and monitoring techniques. Final report for Cooperative Institute for Coastal and Estua-
rine Environmental Technology /University of New Hampshire (UNH) Subcontract
number 03-690. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration/UNH Coopera-
tive Institute for Coastal and Estuarine Environmental Technology, Durham, New
Hampshire. [Online] Available at: www.crrc.unh.edu. [April 22, 2005].
Payne, J.R. and A.A. Allen. In press. Use of natural oil seeps for evaluation of dispersant
application and monitoring techniques. Proceedings ofthe 2005 International Oil Spill
Conference, Miami Beach, Florida. American Petroleum Institute, Washington, D.C.
Payne, J.R. and W.B. Driskell. 2001. Source characterization and identification of New Carissa
oil in NRDA environmental samples using a combined statistical and fingerprinting
approach. Pp. 14031409 in Proceedings ofthe 2001 International Oil Spill Conference,
Tampa, Florida. American Petroleum Institute, Washington, D.C.
Payne, J.R. and W.B. Driskell. 2003. The importance of distinguishing dissolved- versus oil-
droplet phases in assessing the fate, transport, and toxic effects of marine oil pollution.
Pp. 771778 in Proceedings ofthe 2003 International Oil Spill Conference, Vancouver,
Canada. American Petroleum Institute. Washington, D.C.
Payne, J.R. and French-McCay, D. 2001. Development ofa conceptual model for predictingpollut-
ant movement from an oil spill with and without dispersant treatment: background informa-
tion/literature review and oil spill modeling conceptualization. Draft prepared for Environ-
mental Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development, National Exposure
Research Laboratory, Ecosystems Research Division. Environmental Protection Agency,
Athens, Georgia.
Payne, J.R. and McNabb, G.D., Jr. 1984. Weathering of petroleum in the marine environ-
ment. Marine Technology Society Journal 18(3):2440.
Payne, J.R. and C.R. Phillips. 1985a. Photochemistry of petroleum in water. Environmental
Science and Technology 19(7):569579.
Payne, J.R. and C.R. Phillips. 1985b. Petroleum Spills in the Marine Environment: The Chemistry
and Formation ofWater-in-Oil Emulsions and Tar Balls. Lewis Publishers, Incorporated,
Chelsea, Michigan.
Payne, J.R., N.W. Flynn, P.J. Mankiewicz and G.S. Smith. 1980a. Surface evaporation/disso-
lution partitioning of lower-molecular-weight aromatic hydrocarbons in a down-plume
transect from the IXTOC I wellhead. Pp. 119166 in Proceedings ofthe Symposium on
Preliminary Results from the September 1979 Researcher/Pierce IXTOC-I Cruise, Key Bis-
cayne, Florida. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Publications Office,
Boulder, Colorado.
Payne, J.R., G.S. Smith, P.J. Mankiewicz, R.F. Shokes, N.W. Flynn, W. Moreno and J.
Altamirano. 1980b. Horizontal and vertical transport of dissolved and particulate-
bound higher-molecular-weight hydrocarbons from the IXTOC I blowout. Pp. 239263
in Proceedings ofthe Symposium on Preliminary Results from the September 1979 Researcher/
Pierce IXTOC-I Cruise, Key Biscayne, Florida. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Ad-
ministration Publications Office, Boulder, Colorado.
Payne, J.R., B.E. Kirstein, G.D. McNabb Jr., J.L. Lambach, C. de Oliveira, R.E. Jordan and W.
Hom. 1983. Multivariate analysis of petroleum hydrocarbon weathering in the subarc-
tic marine environment. Pp. 423434 in Proceedings ofthe 1983 International Oil Spill
Conference, San Antonio, Texas. American Petroleum Institute, Washington, D.C.,
320
Payne, J.R., B.E. Kirstein, G.D. McNabb, Jr., J.L. Lambach, R. Redding, R.E. Jordan, W. Hom,
C. de Oliveira, G.S. Smith, D.M. Baxter and R. Geagel. 1984. Multivariate analysis of
petroleum weathering in the marine environmentsubarctic. Volume I, Technical Re-
sults; Volume II, Appendices in Outer Continental ShelfEnvironmental Assessment Pro-
gram, Final Reports ofPrincipal Investigators, Volume 21 and 22. Volume 21 NTIS Acces-
sion Number PB85-215796; Volume 22 NTIS Accession Number PB85-215739. Report to
the U.S. Department of Commerce. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administra-
tion, Ocean Assessment Division, Juneau, Alaska.
Payne, J.R., B.E. Kirstein, J.R. Clayton, Jr., C. Clary, R. Redding, Jr., G.D. McNabb and G.H.
Farmer. 1987a. Integration ofsuspended particulate matter and oil transportation study. Final
Report submitted to Minerals Management Service. Minerals Management Service,
Environmental Studies Branch, Anchorage, Alaska.
Payne, J.R., C.R. Phillips and W. Hom. 1987b. Transport and Transformations: Water Col-
umn Processes. Pp. 175232 in Long Term Environmental Effects ofOffshore Oil and Gas
Development, D.F. Boesch and N.N. Rabelais, Eds. Elsevier Applied Science, New York,
New York.
Payne, J.R., G.D. McNabb, Jr., L.E. Hachmeister, B.E. Kirstein, J.R. Clayton, Jr., C.R. Phillips,
R.T. Redding, C.L. Clary, G.S. Smith and G.H. Farmer. 1987c. Development of a Predic-
tive Model for the Weathering of Oil in the Presence of Sea Ice. Pp. 147465 in Outer
Continental ShelfEnvironmental Assessment Program, Final Reports ofPrincipal Investiga-
tors. NTIS Accession Number PB-89-159776. Report to the U.S. Department of Com-
merce. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Ocean Assessment Divi-
sion, Juneau, Alaska.
Payne, J.R., J.R. Clayton, Jr., G.D. McNabb, Jr., B.E. Kirstein, C.L. Clary, R.T. Redding, J.S.
Evans, E. Reimnitz and E.W. Kempema. 1989. Oil-Ice-Sediment Interactions During
Freezeup and Breakup. Pp. 1382 in Outer Continental ShelfEnvironmental Assessment
Program, Final Reports ofPrincipal Investigators. NTIS Accession Number PB-90-156217.
Report to the U.S. Department of Commerce. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Ad-
ministration, Ocean Assessment Division, Juneau, Alaska.
Payne, J.R., J.R. Clayton, Jr., G.D. McNabb, Jr. and B.E. Kirstein. 1991a. Exxon Valdez oil
weathering fate and behavior: Model predictions and field observations. Pp. 641654 in
Proceedings ofthe 1991 International Oil Spill Conference, San Diego, California. American
Payne, J.R., G.D. McNabb, Jr. and J.R. Clayton, Jr. 1991b. Oil-weathering behavior in arctic
environments. Polar Research 10(2):631662.
Payne, J.R., J.R. Clayton, Jr., C.R. Phillips, J. Robinson, D. Kennedy, J. Talbot, G. Petrae, J.
Michel, T. Ballou and S. Onstad. 1991c. Dispersant trials using the Pac Baroness, a spill
of opportunity. Pp. 427433 in Proceedings ofthe 1991 International Oil Spill Conference,
San Diego, California. American Petroleum Institute, Washington, D.C.
Payne, J.R., L.E. Hachmeister, G.D. McNabb, Jr., H.E. Sharpe, G.S. Smith and C.A. Manen.
1991d. Brine-induced advection of dissolved aromatic hydrocarbons to arctic bottom
waters. Environmental Science and Technology 25(5):940951.
Payne, J.R., T.J. Reilly, R.J. Martrano, G.P. Lindblom, M.C. Kennicutt II and J.M. Brooks.
1993. Spill-of-opportunity testing of dispersant effectiveness at the Mega Borg oil spill.
Pp. 791793 in Proceedings ofthe 1993 International Oil Spill Conference, Tampa, Florida.
Payne, J.R., T.J. Reilly and D.P. French-McCay. 1999. Fabrication of a portable large-volume
water sampling system to support oil spill NRDA efforts. Pp. 11791184 in Proceedings
ofthe 1999 International Oil Spill Conference, Seattle, Washington. American Petroleum
Payne, J.R., J.R. Clayton, Jr. and B.E. Kirstein. 2003. Oil/suspended particulate material in-
teractions and sedimentation. Spill Science & Technology 8(2):201221.
REFERENCES
321
Peakall, D.B., P.G. Wells and D. Mackay. 1987. A hazard assessment of chemically dispersed
oil spills and seabirds. Marine Environmental Research 22:91106.
Pelletier, M.C., R.M. Burgess, K.T. Ho, A. Kuhn, R.A. McKinney and S.A. Ryba. 1997.
Phototoxicity of individual polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons and petroleum to marine
invertebrate larvae and juveniles. Journal ofEnvironmental Toxicology and Chemistry
16:21902199.
Peters, E.C., P.A. Meyers, P.P. Yevich and N.J. Blake. 1981. Bioaccumulation and histo-
pathological effects of oil on a stony coral. Marine Pollution Bulletin 12(10):333339.
Peters, E.C., N.J. Gassman, J.C. Firman, R.H. Richmond and E.A. Power. 1997. Ecotoxicology
of tropical marine ecosystems. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry 16(1):1240.
Pezeshki, S.R., M.W. Hester, Q. Lin and J.A. Nyman. 2000. The effects of oil spill and clean-
up on dominant US Gulf coast marsh macrophytes: a review. Environmental Pollution
108(2):129139.
Pittinger, C.A., R. Bachman, A.L. Barton, J.R. Clark, P.L. deFur, S.J. Ellis, M.W. Slimak, R.G.
Stahl and R.S. Wentzel. 1998. A multi-stakeholder framework for ecological risk assess-
mentSummary of a SETAC technical workshop. Pp. 2325 in Summary ofSETAC
Workshop on Framework for Ecological Risk Management, Williamsburg, Virginia. Society
of Environmental Toxiciology and Chemistry, Pensacola, Florida.
Pollino, C.A. and D.A. Holdaway. 2002a. Reproductive potential of crimson-spotted rain-
bowfish (Melanotaenia fluviatilis) following short-term exposure to bass strait crude oil
and dispersed crude oil. Environmental Toxicology 17:138145.
Pollino, C.A. and D.A. Holdaway. 2002b. Toxicity testing of crude oil and related compounds
using early life stages of the crimson-spotted rainbowfish (Melanotaenia fluviatilis).
Ecotoxicology and Environmental Safety 52:180189.
Pollino, C.A. and D.A. Holdaway. 2003. Hydrocarbon-induced changes to metabolic and
detoxification enzymes of the Australian Crimson-Spotted rainbowfish (Melanotaenia
fluviatilis). Environmental Toxicology 18:2128.
Pond, R., J.H. Kucklick and A.H. Walker. 1997. Dispersant use: Real-time operational monitoring
and long-term data gathering. Prepared by Scientific and Environmental Associates, In-
corporated for the Marine Preservation Association. Marine Preservation Association,
Scottsdale, Arizona.
Pond, R.G., D.V. Aurand and J.A. Kraly (compilers). 2000. Ecological Risk Assessment Prin-
ciples Applied to Oil Spill Response Planningin the Galveston BayArea. Texas General Land
Office, Austin, Texas.
Poremba, K. 1993. Influence of synthetic and biogenic surfactants on the toxicity of water-
soluble fractions of hydrocarbons in sea water determined with the bioluminescence
inhibition test. Environmental Pollution 80:2529.
Poremba, K. and W. Gunkel. 1990. Marine Biosurfactants, III. Toxicity Testing with Marine
Microorganisms and Comparison with Synthetic Surfactants. Verlag der Zeitschrift fur
Naturforschung 46c:210216.
Porter, M.R. 1991. Handbook ofSurfactants. Blackie and Sons, Ltd., Glasgow, Scotland.
Prince William Sound Regional Citizens Advisory Council (PWSRCAC). 2004. Heated oil
and under-reported dispersant volumes MAR MMS/Exxon cold water dispersant tests at
OHMSETT. Report prepared by the PWSRCAC. Prince William Sound Regional Citi-
zens Advisory Council, Anchorage, Alaska.
Proctor, R., A. Elliot and R. Flather. 1994. Forecast and hindcast simulations of the Braer oil-
spill. Marine Pollution Bulletin 28(4):219229.
Proctor, R., R. Flather, A. Roger and A.J. Elliott. 1994. Modeling tides and surface drift in the
Arabian Gulfapplication to the Gulf oil spill. Continental ShelfResearch 14(5):531545.
Ramachandran, S.D., P.V. Hodson, C.W. Khan and K. Lee. 2003. PAH uptake by juvenile
rainbow trout exposed to dispersed crude oil. Pp. 743754 in Proceedings ofthe Twenty-
322
Ramachandran, S.D., C.W. Khan, P.V. Hodson, K. Lee and T. King. 2004. Role of droplets in
promoting uptake of PAHs by fish exposed to chemically dispersed crude oil. Pp. 765
772 in Proceedings ofthe Twenty-Seventh Arctic Marine Oilspill Program (AMOP) Technical
Seminar, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada. Environment Canada, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.
Rand, G.M., Ed. 1995. Fundamentals ofaquatic toxicology: Effects, environmental fate, and risk
assessment. CRC Press, Incorporated, Boca Raton, Florida.
Reddy, P.G., H.D. Singh, M.G. Pathak, S.D. Bhagat and J.N. Baruah. 1983. Isolation and
functional characterization of hydrocarbon emulsifying and solubilizing factors pro-
duced by a Pseudomonas species. Biotechnology and Bioengineering 25:387401.
Reed, M., D. French-McCay, S. Feng and W. Knauss. 1991. A Three-Dimensional Natural
Resource Damage Assessment and Coupled Geographical Information System. Pp. 631
637 in Proceedings of1991 National Conference ofthe American Society ofCivil Engineers
(ASCE) Hydraulic Engineering, Nashville, Tennessee. American Society of Civil Engi-
neers, Reston, Virginia.
Reed, M., O. Johansen, P.J. Brandvik, P. Daling, A. Lewis, R. Fiocco, D. Mackay and R.
Prentki. 1999. Review: Oil Spill Modeling Toward the Close of the 20th Century: Over-
view of the State of the Art. Spill Sciences and Technology Bulletin 5(1):316.
Reed, M., P.S. Daling, A. Lewis, M.K. Ditlevsen, B. Brrs, J. Clark and D. Aurand. 2004.
Modeling of Dispersant Application to Oil Spills in Shallow Coastal Waters. Environ-
mental Modeling and Software 19(7-8):681690.
Rewick, R.T., K.A. Sabo, J. Gates, J.H. Smith and L.T. McCarthy. 1981. An evaluation of oil
spill dispersant testing requirements. Pp. 510 in Proceedings ofthe 1981 International Oil
Spill Conference, Atlanta, Georgia. American Petroleum Institute, Washington, D.C.
Rhoton, S.L., R.A. Perkins, J.F. Braddock and C. Behr-Andres. 2001. A cold-weather species
response to chemically dispersed fresh and weathered Alaska North Slope crude oil.
Pp. 12311236 in Proceedings ofthe 2001 International Oil Spill Conference, Tampa, Florida.
Ritchie, W. and M. OSullivan. 1994. The environmental impact ofthe wreck ofthe Braer. The
Scottish Office, Edinburgh, Scotland.
Rogers, R.D., J.C. McFarlane and A.J. Cross. 1980. Adsorption and desorption of benzene in
two soils and montmorillonite clay. Environmental Science and Technology 14:457461.
Rosenberg, M. and E. Rosenberg. 1981. Role of adherence in growth of Acinetobacter calco-
aceticus RAG-1 on hexadecane. Journal ofBacteriology 148(1):5157.
Ross, S. and R. Belore. 1993. Effectiveness of dispersants on thick oil slicks. Pp. 10111022 in
Proceedings ofthe Sixteenth Arctic and Marine Oil Spill Program (AMOP) Technical Semi-
nar, Calgary, Alberta, Canada. Environment Canada. Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.
Ross, S. and I. Buist. 1995. Preliminary laboratory study to determine the effect of emulsifi-
cation on oil spill evaporation. Pp. 91312 in Proceedings ofthe Eighteenth Arctic and
Marine Oilspill Program (AMOP) Technical Seminar, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada. Envi-
ronment Canada. Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.
Ruxton, G.D. and N. Colegrave. 2003. Experimental Design for the Life Sciences. Oxford Uni-
versity Press, Incorporated, New York, New York.
Schippers, C., K. Gebner, T. Muller and T. Scheper. 2000. Microbial degradation of phenan-
threne by addition of a sophorolipid mixture. Journal ofBiotechnology 83:189198.
Schlautman, M.A. and J.J. Morgan. 1993. Effects of aqueous chemistry on the binding of
polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons by dissolved humic materials. Environmental Science
and Technology 27(5):961969.
Schroh, K. 1995. Advanced aerial surveillance system for detection of marine pollution and
international aerial surveillance cooperation in the North and Baltic Seas. Pp. 2126 in
REFERENCES
323
Proceedings ofthe 1995 International Oil Spill Conference, Long Beach, California. Ameri-
Schwarzenbach, R.P., P.M. Gschwend and D.M. Imaboden. 1993. Pp. 436484 in Environmen-
tal Organic Chemistry. Wiley Interscience, New York, New York.
Sea Empress Environmental Evaluation Committee (SEEEC). 1996. Sea Empress Environmen-
tal Evaluation Committee (SEEEC) Initial Report. SEEEC Secretariat, Cardiff, Wales,
United Kingdom.
Shafir, S., J.V. Rijnb and B. Rinkevicha. 2003. The use of coral nubbins in coral reef eco-
toxicology testing. Biomolecular Engineering 20(4-6):401406.
Shigenaka, G. 2001. Toxicity ofOil to Reef-BuildingCorals: A Spill Response Perspective. NOAA
Technical Memorandum NOA OR&R 8. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Adminis-
tration, Hazardous Materials Response Division, Seattle, Washington.
Short, J.W. and P.M. Harris. 1996. Chemical sampling and analysis of petroleum hydrocar-
bons in near-surface seawater of Prince William Sound after the Exxon Valdez oil spill.
American Fisheries Society Symposium 18:1728.
Sigman, M.E., P.F. Schuler, M.M. Gosh and R.T. Dabestani. 1998. Mechanism of Pyrene Pho-
tochemical Oxidation in Aqueous and Surfactant Solutions. Environmental Science and
Technology 32:39803985.
Simecek-Beatty, D., C. OConner and W.J. Lehr. 2002. 3-D Modeling of Chemically Dispersed
Oil. Pp. 11491159 in Proceedings ofTwenty-Fifth Arctic and Marine Oilspill Technical Semi-
nar, Calgary, Alberta, Canada. Environment Canada. Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.
Singer, M.E. and W.R. Finnerty. 1984. Microbial metabolism of straight-chain and branched
alkanes. Pp. 159 in Petroleum Microbiology, R.M. Atlas, Ed. Macmillan Publishing Com-
pany, New York, New York.
Singer, M.M., D.L. Smalheer, R.S. Tjeerdema and M. Martin. 1990. Toxicity of an oil dispers-
ant to the early life stages of four California marine species. Journal ofEnvironmental
Toxicology and Chemistry 9:13891397.
Singer, M., D.L. Smalheer, R.S. Tjeerdema and M. Martin. 1991. Effects of spiked exposure to
an oil dispersant on the early life stages of four marine species. Journal ofEnvironmental
Singer, M.M., S. George, D. Benner, S. Jacobson, R.S. Tjeerdema and M.L. Sowby. 1993. Com-
parative toxicity of 2 oil dispersants to the early-life stages of 2 marine species. Journal
ofEnvironmental Toxicology and Chemistry 12(10):18551863.
Singer, M.M., S. George, S. Jacobson, I. Lee, R.S. Tjeerdema and M.L. Sowby. 1994a. Com-
parative effects of oil dispersants to the early-life stages of topsmelt (Atherinops-affinis)
and kelp (Macrocystis-pyrifera). Journal ofEnvironmental Toxicology and Chemistry 13(4):
649655.
Singer, M.M., S. George, S. Jacobson, I. Lee, R.S. Tjeerdema and M.L. Sowby. 1994b. Com-
parative toxicity of Corexit(R)-7664 to the early-life stages of 4 marine species. Archives
ofEnvironmental Contamination and Toxicology 27(1):130136.
Singer, M.M., S. George and R.S. Tjeerdema. 1995. Relationship of some physical-properties
of oil dispersants and their toxicity to marine organisms. Archives ofEnvironmental Con-
tamination and Toxicology 29(1):3338.
Singer, M.M., S. George, S. Jacobson, I. Lee, L.L. Weetman, R.S. Tjeerdema and M.L. Sowby.
1996. Comparison of acute aquatic effects of the oil dispersant Corexit 9500 with those
of other Corexit series dispersants. Ecotoxicologyand Environmental Safety35(2):183189.
Singer, M.M., S.George, I. Lee, S. Jacobson, L.L. Weetman, G. Blondina, R.S. Tjerdeema, D.
Aurand and M.L. Sowby. 1998. Effects of dispersant treatment on the acute toxicity of
petroleum hydrocarbons. Archives ofEnvironmental Contamination and Toxicology 34(2):
17787.
324
Singer, M.M., D. Aurand, G.E. Bragins, J.R. Clark, G.M. Coelho, M.L. Sowby and R.S.
Tjeerdema. 2000. Standardization of the preparation and quantitation of water-
accommodated fractions of petroleum for toxicity testing. Marine Pollution Bulletin
40(11):10071016.
Singer, M.M., D. Aurand, G. Coelho, G.E. Bragin, J.R. Clark, S. Jacobson, M.L. Sowby and
R.S. Tjeerdema. 2001a. Making, measuring, and using water-accommodated fractions
of petroleum for toxicity testing. Pp. 12691274 in Proceedings ofthe 2001 International
Oil Spill Conference, Tampa, Florida. American Petroleum Institute, Washington, D.C.
Singer, M.M., S. Jacobson, R.S. Tjeerdema and M.L. Sowby. 2001b. Acute effects of fresh
versus weathered oil to marine organisms: California findings. Pp. 12631268 in Pro-
ceedings ofthe 2001 International Oil Spill Conference, Tampa, Florida. American Petro-
leum Institute, Washington, D.C.
Sjoblom, J., N. Aske, I.H. Auflem, O. Brandal, T.E. Harve, O. Saether, A. Westvik, E.E.
Johnsen and H. Kallevik. 2003. Our current understanding of water-in-crude oil emul-
sions. Recent characterization techniques and high pressure performance. Advances in
Colloid and Interface Science 100-102:399473.
Slade, G.J. 1982. Effect of Ixtoc I crude oil and Corexit 9527 on spot (Leiostomus xanthurus)
egg mortality. Bulletin ofEnvironmental Contamination and Toxicology 29:525530.
S.L. Ross. 1997. A review ofdispersant use on spills ofNorth Slope crude oil in Prince William
Sound and the GulfofAlaska. Report No. C\634.96.1. Report by S.L. Ross Environmental
Research Ltd. for Prince William Sound Regional Citizens Advisory Council, Anchor-
age, Alaska.
S.L. Ross. 2000. Feasibility ofusingOHMSETT for dispersant testing. Report to the MAR, Incor-
porated. MAR, Incorporated, Atlantic Highlands, New Jersey.
S.L. Ross. 2002. Dispersant Effectiveness Testing in Cold Water. Report by S.L. Ross Environ-
mental Research Ltd. for the Minerals Management Service and ExxonMobil Research
and Engineering Company. S.L. Ross, Ottawa, Ontario Canada.
S.L. Ross and MAR Incorporated. 2003. Dispersant Effectiveness Testingon Alaskan Oils in Cold
Water. Report by S.L. Ross Environmental Research Ltd. and MAR Incorporated for the
Minerals Management Service. S.L. Ross, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada; MAR Incorporated,
Leonardo, New Jersey.
Smith, C.J., R.D. Delaune, W.H. Patrick, Jr. and J.W. Fleeger. 1984. Impact of dispersed and
undispersed oil entering a Gulf Coast salt marsh. Journal ofEnvironmental Toxicologyand
Chemistry 3(4):609616.
Smith, J.E. 1968. Torrey Canyon Pollution and Marine Life. Cambridge University Press, New
York, New York.
Society of Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry (SETAC). 2003. Population-Level Eco-
logical Risk Assessment. Workshop held in Roskilde, Denmark, 2327 August 2003.
SETAC, Pensacola, Florida.
Socolofsky, S.A. and E.E. Adams. 2002. Multi-phase plumes in uniform and stratified
crossflow. Journal ofHydraulic Research, 40(6):661672.
Sorial, G.A., K.M. Koran, E. Holder, A.D. Venosa and D.W. King. 2001. Development of a
rational oil spill dispersant effectiveness protocol. Pp. 471478 in Proceedings ofthe 2001
International Oil Spill Conference, Tampa, Florida. American Petroleum Institute, Wash-
ington, D.C.
Sorial, G.A., A.D. Venosa, K.M. Koran, E. Holder and D.W. King. 2004a. Oil spill dispersant
effectiveness protocol. I: Impact of operational variables. Journal ofEnvironmental Engi-
neering 130:10731084.
Sorial, G.A., A.D. Venosa, K.M. Koran, E. Holder and D.W. King. 2004b. Oil spill dispersant
effectiveness protocol. II: Performance of revised protocol. Journal ofEnvironmental En-
gineering 130:10851093.
REFERENCES
325
Spaulding, M. 1988. A state-of-the-art review of oil spill trajectory and fate modeling. Oil and
Chemical Pollution 4:3955.
Spaulding, M.L., E. Howlett, E.L. Anderson and K. Jayko. 1992. OILMAP: A Global Ap-
proach to Spill Modeling. Pp. 1521 in Proceedings ofthe Fifteenth Arctic and Marine
Oilspill Program (AMOP) Technical Seminar, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada. Environment
Spaulding, M., V. Kolluru, E. Anderson and E. Howlett. 1994. Application of a 3-dimen-
sional oil spill model to hindcast the Braer spill. Spill Science and Technology Bulletin
1(1):2335.
Speight, J.G. 1991. The Chemistry and Technology ofPetroleum. Marcel Dekker, Incorporated,
New York, New York.
Stephens, F.L., J.S. Bonner, R.L. Autenrieth and T.J. McDonald. 1999. TLC/FID analysis of
compositional hydrocarbon changes associated with bioremediation. Pp. 219224 in
Proceedings ofthe 1999 International Oil Spill Conference, Seattle, Washington. American
Stephenson, R. 1997. Effects of oil and other surface-active organic pollutants on aquatic
birds. Environmental Conservation 24:121129.
Stephenson, R. and C.A. Andrews. 1997. The effect of water surface tension on feather
wettability in aquatic birds. Canadian Journal ofZoology 74:288294.
Sterling, M.C., J.S. Bonner, C.A. Page, C.B. Fuller, A.N.S. Ernest and R.L Autenrieth. 2003.
Partitioning of crude oil polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons in aquatic systems. Environ-
Sterling, M.C., Jr., J.S. Bonner, A.N.S. Ernest, C.A. Page and R.L. Autenrieth. 2004a. Charac-
terizing aquatic sediment-oil aggregates using in-situ instruments. Marine Pollution
Bulletin 48:533542.
Sterling, M.C., Jr., J.S. Bonner, C.A. Page, C.B. Fuller, A.N.S. Ernest and R.L. Autenrieth.
2004b. Modeling crude oil droplet-sediment aggregation in nearshore waters. Environ-
Sterling, M.C., J.S. Bonner, A.N.S. Ernest, C.A. Page and R.L. Autenrieth. 2004c. Chemical
dispersant effectiveness testing: influence of droplet coalescence. Marine Pollution Bul-
letin 48:969977.
Stevens, L. and J. Roberts. 2003. Dispersant effectiveness on heavy fuel oil and crude oil in
New Zealand. Pp. 15 in Proceedings ofthe 2003 International Oil Spill Conference,
Vancouver, Canada. American Petroleum Institute. Washington, D.C.
Stiver, W. and D. Mackay. 1984. Evaporation rate of oil spills of hydrocarbons and petro-
leum mixtures. Environmental Science and Technology 18:834840.
Stoermer, S., G. Butler, C. Henry. 2001. Application of Dispersants to Mitigate Oil Spills in
the Gulf of Mexico: The Poseidon Pipeline Spill Case Study. Pp. 12271299 in Proceed-
ings ofthe 2001 International Oil Spill Conference, Tampa, Florida. American Petroleum
Stoffyn-Egli, P. and K. Lee. 2002. Observation and characterization of oilmineral aggre-
gates. Spill Science and Technology 8(1):3144.
Stolzenbach, K.D., O.S. Madsen, E.E. Adams, A.M. Pollack and C.K. Cooper. 1977. A Review
and Evaluation ofBasic Techniques Predicting the Behavior ofSurface Oil Slicks. Report No.
222 of the Ralph M. Parsons Laboratory for Water Resources and Hydrodynamics.
Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, Massachusetts.
Strom-Kristiansen, T., P.S. Daling, A. Lewis and A.B. Nordvik. 1994. Weathering properties
and chemical dispersibility ofcrude oils transported in U.S. waters. Technical Report Series
93-032. Marine Spill Response Corporation, Washington, D.C.
Strom-Kristiansen, T., P.S. Daling, P.J. Brandvik and H. Jensen. 1995. Mechanical recovery of
chemically-treated oil slicks. Pp. 407421 in Proceedings ofthe Nineteenth Arctic and Ma-
326
rine Oilspill Program (AMOP) Technical Seminar, Calgary, Alberta, Canada. Environment
Subba-Rao and M. Alexander. 1982. Effects of sorption on mineralization of low concentra-
tions of aromatic hydrocarbons in lake water. Applied Environmental Microbiology44:659
668.
Suter, G.W., II. 1993. Ecological Risk Assessment. Lewis Publishers, Boca Raton, Florida.
Sutton, C. and J.A. Calder. 1974. Solubility of higher-molecular-weight n-paraffins in dis-
tilled water and seawater. Environmental Science and Technology 8:654657.
Sutton, C. and J.A. Calder. 1975a. Reply to correspondence to the editor. Environmental Sci-
ence and Technology 9:3546.
Sutton, C. and J.A. Calder. 1975b. Solubility of alkylbenzenes in distilled water and seawater
at 25.0 C. Journal ofChemical and Engineering Data 20(3):320322.
Swannell, R.P.J. and F. Daniel. 1999. Effect of dispersants on oil biodegradation under simu-
lated marine conditions. Pp. 166176 in Proceedings ofthe 1999 International Oil Spill
Conference, Seattle, Washington. American Petroleum Institute, Washington, D.C.
Swannell, R.J.P., F. Daniel, B.C. Croft, M.A. Englehardt, S. Wilson, D.J. Mitchell and T. Lunel.
1997. Influence of physical and chemical dispersion on the biodegradation of oil under
simulated marine conditions. Pp. 617641 in Proceedings ofthe Twentieth Arctic and Ma-
rine Oilspill Program (AMOP) Technical Seminar, Vancouver, British Columbia. Environ-
Swartz, R.C., D.W. Schults, R.O. Ozretich, J.O. Lamberson, F.A. Cole, T.H. DeWitt, M.S.
Redmond and S.P. Ferraro. 1995. S PAH: A model to predict the toxicity of polynuclear
aromatic hydrocarbon mixtures in field collected sediments. Journal ofEnvironmental
Tang, L. 2004. Cylindrical liquid-liquid jet instability. Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Ha-
waii, Manoa.
Tasaki, R. and A. Ogawa. 1999. Emulsification of crude oil: A new equation and governing
parameters. Pp. 10111014 in Proceedings ofthe 1999 International Oil Spill Conference,
Seattle, Washington. American Petroleum Institute, Washington, D.C.
Tennekes, H. and J.L. Lumley. 1972. A First Course in Turbulence. Massachusetts Institute of
Technology Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts.
Terray, E.A., M.A. Donelan, Y.C. Agrawal, W.M. Drennan, K.K. Kahma, A.J. Williams, III,
P.A. Hwang and S.A. Kitaigorodskii. 1996. Estimates of kinetic energy dissipation un-
der breaking waves. Journal ofPhysical Oceanography 26:792807.
Thomas, D. and T. Lunel. 1993. The Braer incident: Dispersion in action. Pp. 843-859 in Pro-
ceedings ofthe Sixteenth Arctic and Marine Oil Spill Program (AMOP) Technical Seminar,
Calgary, Alberta, Canada. Environment Canada. Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.
Thorhaug, A., K. Aiken, M. Anderson, B. Carby, V. Gordon, F. McDonald, J. McFarlane, B.
Miller, R. Reese, M. Rodriquez, G. Sidrak, H. Teas and W. Walker. 1989. Dispersant
Use for Tropical Nearshore Waters: Jamaica. Pp. 415-418 in Proceedings ofthe 1989
International Oil Spill Conference, San Antonio, Texas. American Petroleum Institute,
Washington, D.C.
Transtronics. 2000. Viscosity. Transtronics, Lawrence, Kansas. [Online] Available at: http://
xtronics.com/reference/viscosity.htm [January 18, 2005].
Traxler, R.W. and L.S. Bhattacharya. 1978. Effect of a chemical dispersant on microbial utili-
zation of petroleum hydrocarbons. Pp. 181187 in Chemical Dispersants for the Control of
Oil Spills, L.T. McCarthy, G.P. Lindblom and H.F. Walter, Eds. American Society for
Testing and Materials. Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
Trudel, B.K, Ed. 1998. Dispersant Use in Alaska: A Technical Update, Conference Proceedings.
Prince William Sound Oil Spill Recovery Institute, Cordova, Alaska.
Trudel, K. 2002. Lecture Notes, Oil Spill Dispersant Course for Supervisors. S.L. Ross Environ-
mental Research, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada, Unpublished.
REFERENCES
327
Tsahalis, D.T. 1979. Contingency Planning for Oil Spills: RiverSpillA River Simulation
Model. Pp. 2736 in Proceedings ofthe 1979 International Oil Spill Conference, Los Ange-
les, California. American Petroleum Institute, Washington, D.C.
Twardus, E.M. 1980. A Study to Evaluate the Combustibility and Other Physical and Chemical
Properties ofAged Oils and Emulsions. Report of Environment Canada, Research and
Development Division, Environmental Emergency Branch, Environmental Impact Con-
trol Directorate, Environmental Protection Service, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.
Underwood, A.J. 1994. On beyond BACI: Sampling designs that might reliably detect envi-
ronmental disturbances. Ecological Applications 4(1):315.
Unsal, M. 1991. Comparative toxicity of crude-oil, dispersant and oil-dispersant mixture to
prawn Palaemon-elegans. Toxicology and Environmental Chemistry 31-2:451459.
U.S. Coast Guard, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Environmental Pro-
tection Agency, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and Minerals Management
Service. 2001. Special monitoring ofapplied response technologies (SMART). U.S. Coast
Guard, Washington, D.C. [Online] Available at: http://response.restoration.noaa.gov/
oilaids/SMART/SMART.html [March 17, 2005].
Valiela I. 1984. Marine Ecological Processes. Springer-Verlag, New York, Inc.
Van Hamme, J.D. and O.P. Ward. 1999. Influence of chemical surfactants on the biodegrada-
tion of crude oil by a mixed bacterial culture. Canadian Journal ofMicrobiology 45:130
137.
Van Hamme, J.D. and O.P. Ward. 2001. Physical and metabolic interactions of Pseudomonas
sp strain JA5-B45 and Rhodococcus sp strain F9-D79 during growth on crude oil and
effect of a chemical surfactant on them. Applied and Environmental Microbiology 67(10):
48744879.
van Loosdrecht, M.C.M., J. Lyklema, W. Norde and A.J.B. Zehnder. 1990. Influence of inter-
faces on microbial activity. Microbiolological Reviews 54:7587.
van Wezel, A., D. de Vries, D. Sijm and A. Opperhuizen. 1996. Use of the lethal body burden
in the evaluation of mixture toxicity. Ecotoxicology and Environmental Safety 35:236241.
Vandermeulen, J.H. 1980. Chemical dispersion of oil in coastal low-energy systems: salt-
marshes and Tidal Rivers. Pp. 2729 in Chemical Dispersion ofOil Spills: An International
Research Symposium, D. Mackay, P.G. Wells and S. Paterson, Eds. Publication number
EE-17. University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Varadaraj, R., M.L. Robbins, J. Bock, S. Pace and D. MacDonald. 1995. Dispersion and bio-
degradation of oil spills on water. Pp. 101106 in Proceedings ofthe 1995 International Oil
Spill Conference, Long Beach, California. American Petroleum Institute, Washington,
D.C.
Varhaar, H.J.M, C.J. VanLeeuwen and J.L.M. Hermens. 1992. Classifying Environmental
Pollutants, 1: Structure-activity Relationships for Prediction of Aquatic Toxicity. Chemo-
sphere 25:471491.
Venosa, A.D., G.A. Sorial, T.L. Richardson, F. Uraizee and M.T. Suidan. 1999. Research lead-
ing to revisions in EPAs dispersant effectiveness protocol. Pp. 10191022 in Proceedings
ofthe 1999 International Oil Spill Conference, Seattle, Washington. American Petroleum
Venosa, A.D., G.A. Sorial and D.W. King. 2001. Round-robin testing of a new EPA dispers-
ant effectiveness protocol. Pp. 467470 in Proceedings ofthe 2001 International Oil Spill
Conference, Tampa, Florida. American Petroleum Institute, Washington, D.C.
Venosa, A.D., D.W. King and G.A. Sorial. 2002. The baffled flask test for dispersant effective-
ness: a round robin evaluation of reproducibility and repeatability. Spill Science and
Technology Bulletin 7(5-6):299308.
Veron, F. and W.K. Melville. 2001. Pulse-to-pulse coherent Doppler measurements of waves
and turbulence. Journal ofAtmospheric and Oceanic Technology 16(11):15801597.
328
Volkman, J.K., G.J. Miller, A.T. Revill and D.W. Connell. 1994. Oil spills, Part 6. Pp. 509695
in Environmental Implications ofOffshore Oil and Gas Development in AustraliaThe Find-
ings ofan Independent Scientific Review, J.M. Swan, J.M. Neff and P.C. Young, Eds. Aus-
tralian Petroleum Exploration Association (APEA) and Energy Research and Develop-
ment Corporation (ERDC), Sydney, Australia.
Wade, T.L. and J.G. Quinn. 1980. Incorporation, distribution and fate of saturated petroleum
hydrocarbons in sediments from a controlled marine ecosystem. Marine Environmental
Research 3:1533.
Walker, A.H. and D.R. Henne. 1991. The Region III Regional Response Team technical sym-
posium on dispersants: An interactive, educational approach to enlightened decision
making. Pp. 405410 in Proceedings ofthe 1991 International Oil Spill Conference, San Di-
ego, California. American Petroleum Institute, Washington, D.C.
Walker, M.I. and T. Lunel. 1995. Response to oil spills at sea using both demulsifiers and
dispersants. Pp. 537558 in Proceedings ofthe Eighteenth Arctic and Marine Oilspill Pro-
gram (AMOP) Technical Seminar, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada. Environment Canada.
Walker, A.H., D.L. Ducey, Jr., J.R. Gould and A.B. Nordvik, Eds. 1993a. Formation and Break-
ingofWater-in-Oil Emulsions: Workshop Proceedings. Marine Spill Response Corporation,
Washington, D.C.
Walker, M., M. McDonaugh, D. Albone, S. Grigson, A. Wilkinson and G. Baron. 1993b. Com-
parison of observed and predicted changes to oil after spills. Pp. 389393 in Proceedings
ofthe 1993 International Oil Spill Conference, Tampa, Florida. American Petroleum Insti-
Walker, A.H., T. Lunel, P.J. Brandvik and A. Lewis. 1995. Emulsification processes at sea
Forties crude oil. Pp. 471491 in Proceedings ofthe Eighteenth Arctic and Marine Oilspill
Program (AMOP) Technical Seminar, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada. Environment Canada.
Ward, G.A., B. Baca, W. Cyriacks, R.E. Dodge, A. Knap. 2003. Continuing long-term studies
of the TROPICS Panama oil and dispersed oil spill sites. Pp.19 in Proceedings ofthe
2003 International Oil Spill Conference, Vancouver, Canada. American Petroleum Insti-
tute. Washington, D.C.
Wardrup, J.A. 1987. The effects ofoils and dispersants on mangroves: a review and bibliography.
Occasional paper no. 2. University of Adelaide, Environmental Studies, Adelaide, Aus-
tralia.
Watkinson, R.J. and P. Morgan. 1990. Physiology of aliphatic hydrocarbon-degrading mi-
croorganisms. Biodegradation 1:7992.
Weise, A.M., C. Nalewajko and K. Lee. 1999. Oil-mineral fine interactions facilitate oil bio-
degradation in seawater. Environmental Technology 20:811824.
Wells, P. and K.G. Doe. 1976. Results of the E.P.S. oil dispersant testing program: concen-
trates, effectiveness testing, and toxicity to marine organisms. Spill Technology Newslet-
ter 1:916.
Wells, P.G., S. Abernethy and D. Mackay. 1982. Study of oil water partitioning of a chemical
dispersant using an acute bioassay with marine crustaceans. Chemosphere 11:10711086.
Wells, P.G., S. Abernathy and D. Mackay. 1985. Acute toxicity of solvents and surfactants of
dispersants in two planktonic crustaceans. Pp. 228240 in Proceedings ofthe Eighth Arctic
Wetzel, D.L. and E.S. Van Fleet. 2001. Cooperative studies on the toxicity of dispersants and
dispersed oil to marine organisms: A 3-year Florida study. Pp. 12371241 in Proceedings
ofthe 2001 International Oil Spill Conference, Tampa, Florida. American Petroleum Insti-
REFERENCES
329
Wheelock, C.E., T.A. Baumgartner, J.W. Newman, M.F. Wolfe and R.S. Tjeerdema. 2002.
Effect of nutritional state on Hsp60 levels in the rotifer Brachionus plicatilis following
toxicant exposure. Aquatic Toxicology 61:8993.
White, D.M., I. Ask and C. Behr-Andres. 2002. Laboratory study on dispersant effectiveness
in Alaskan seawater. Journal ofCold Regions Engineering 16(1):1727.
Wiechart, J., M.L. Rideout, D.I. Little, M. McCormick, E.H. Owens and B.K. Trudel. 1991.
Development of dispersant pre-approval for Washington and Oregon coastal waters.
Pp. 435438 in Proceedings ofthe 1991 International Oil Spill Conference, San Diego, Cali-
fornia. American Petroleum Institute, Washington, D.C.
Winters, J.K. 1978. Fate of petroleum-derived aromatic compounds in seawater held in out-
door tanks. Chapter 12 in Environmental studies, south Texas outer continental shelf,biology
and chemistry. BLM Contract AA550-CT7-11. U.S. Department of Interior, Bureau of
Land Management (BLM), Washington, D.C.
Wodzinski, R.S. and D. Bertolini. 1972. Physical state in which naphthalene and bibenzyl are
utilized by bacteria. Applied Microbiology 23(6):10771081.
Wodzinski, R.S. and J.E. Coyle. 1974. Physical state of phenanthrene for utilization by bacte-
ria. Applied Microbiology 27(6):10811084.
Wolfe, M.F., J.A. Schlosser, G.J.B. Schwartz, S. Singaram, E.E. Mielbrecht, R.S. Tjeerdema
and M.L. Sowby. 1998a. Influence of dispersants on the bioavailability and trophic
transfer of petroleum hydrocarbons to primary levels of a marine food chain. Aquatic
Toxicology 42:211227.
Wolfe, M.F., G.J.B. Schwartz, S. Singaram, E.E. Mielbrecht, R.S. Tjeerdema and M.L. Sowby.
1998b. Effects of salinity and temperature on the bioavailability of dispersed petroleum
hydrocarbons to the Golden-Brown Algae, Isochrysis galbana. Archives ofEnvironmental
Contamination and Toxicology 35:268273.
1998c. Influence of dispersants on the bioavailability of napthalene from the water-
accommodated fraction of crude oil to the Golden-Brown Algae, Isochrysis galbana.
Archives ofEnvironmental Contamination and Toxicology 35:274280.
1999a. Influence of dispersants on the bioavailability and trophic transfer of phenan-
threne to algae and rotifers. Aquatic Toxicology 48:1324.
Wolfe, M.F., H.E. Olsen, K.A. Gasuad, R.S. Tjeerdema and M.L. Sowby. 1999b. Induction of
heat shock protein (hsp)60 in Isochrysis galbana exposed to sublethal preparations of
dispersant and Prudhoe Bay crude oil. Marine Environmental Research 47:473489.
2001. Influence of dispersants on the bioavailability and trophic transfer of petroleum
hydrocarbons to larval topsmelt (Atherinops affinis). Aquatic Toxicology 52:4960.
Wood, P.A., T. Lunel, F. Daniel, R. Swannell, K. Lee and P. Stoffyn-Egli. 1998. Influence of oil
and mineral characteristics on oil-mineral interaction. Pp. 5177 in Proceedings ofthe
Twenty-first Arctic and Marine Oilspill Program (AMOP) Technical Seminar, Edmonton,
Wright, A.L., R.W. Weaver and J.W. Webb. 1997. Oil bioremediation in salt marsh mesocosms
as influenced by N and P fertilization, flooding, and season. Water Air and Soil Pollution
95(1-4):179191.
Wright, D.A. and G.M. Coehlo. 1996. Dispersed oil and dispersant fate and effects research: MD
program results for 1995. MSRC Technical Report Series 95-013, Draft report. Marine
Spill Response Corporation, Washington, D.C.
Wu, R.S.S., P.K.S. Lam and B.S. Zhou. 1997. Effects of two oil dispersants on phototaxis and
swimming behaviour of barnacle larvae. Hydrobiologia 352:916.
330
Wyers, S.C. 1985. Sexual reproduction of the coral Diploria strigosa (Scleratinia, Faviidae) in
Bermuda: Research in progress. Proceedings ofthe Fifth International Coral ReefCongress,
Tahiti 5:301502.
Wyers, S.C., H.R. Frith, R.E. Dodge, S.R. Smith, A.H. Knap and T.D. Sleeter. 1986. Behavioral
effects of chemically dispersed oil and subsequent recovery in Diploria strigosa (DANA).
Marine Ecology 7:2342.
Yamada, M., H. Takada, K. Toyoda, A. Yoshida, A. Shibata, H. Nomura, M. Wada, M.
Nishimura, K. Okamoto and K. Ohwada. 2003. Study on the fate of petroleum-derived
polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) and the effect of chemical dispersant using
an enclosed ecosystem mesocosm. Marine Pollution Bulletin 47:105113.
Yapa, P.D. and H.T. Shen. 1994. Modeling of river oil spills: a review. Journal ofHydraulic
Research 32(5):765782.
Yapa, P.D. and L. Zheng. 1997. Simulation of oil spills from underwater accidents I: model
development. Journal ofHydraulic Research 35(5):673687.
Yapa, P.D. and L. Zheng. 1999. Modeling underwater oil/gas jets and plumes. Journal of
Hydraulic Engineering 125(5):481491.
Yapa, P.D., H.T. Shen, D.S. Wang and K. Angammana. 1992. An Integrated Computer Model
for Simulating Oil Spills in the St. Lawrence River. Journal ofGreat Lakes Research
18(2):3451.
Yapa, P.D., H.T. Shen and K.S. Angammana. 1994. Modeling Oil Spills in a River-Lake Sys-
tem. Journal ofMarine Systems 4:453471.
Youssef, M. and M. Spaulding. 1993. Drift current under the action of wind and waves, Pp.
587615 in Proceedings ofthe Sixteenth Arctic and Marine Oil Spill Program (AMOP) Tech-
nical Seminar, Calgary, Alberta, Canada. Environment Canada. Ottawa, Ontario,
Canada.
Zachleder, V. and Z. Tukaj. 1993. Effect of fuel-oil and dispersant on cell-cycle and macro-
molecular-synthesis in the chlorococcal alga Scenedesmus-armatus. Marine Biology117(2):
347353.
Zagorski, W. and D. Mackay. 1982. Studies ofwater-in-oil emulsions. EPS Report EE-34. Envi-
ronment Canada. Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.
Zhang, D.F., A.K. Easton and J.M. Steiner. 1997. Simulation of Coastal Oil Spills Using the
Random Walk Particle Method with Gaussian Kernel Weighting. Spill Sciences and Tech-
nology Bulletin 4(2):7188.
Zhang, Y. and R.M. Miller. 1992. Enhanced octadecane dispersion and biodegradation by a
Pseudomonas rhamnolipid surfactant (biosurfactant). Applied and Environmental Microbi-
ology 58(10):32763282.
Zhang, Y. and R.M. Miller. 1994. Effect of a Pseudomonas rhamnolipid biosurfactant on cell
hydrophobicity and biodegradation of octadecane. Applied and Environmental Microbiol-
ogy 60(6):21012106.
Zurcher, F. and M. Thuer. 1978. Rapid weathering processes of fuel oil in natural waters
analysis and interpretations. Environmental Science and Technology 12:838843.
Field Plan for Water-Column Profiling to Measure Dissolved-Phase Aromatic Hydrocarbons
and Free Oil Droplets as a Function of Depth and Location Relative to the Subsurface Oil Release
May 3, 2010 (Revised May 5, 2010)
Prepared by: James R. Payne, Ph.D. (PECI, for NOAA)
Reviewed by W. Barry Gillespie, Jr., Ph.D. (ENTRIX, for BP)
Objectives
1.
Use data collected during this cruise to calibrate 3-dimensional modeling of subsurface oil
plume structure, fate (dissolution behavior), and transport, by:
a.
Measuring discrete, free-oil droplet concentrations at multiple depths 2 Km up-current
from the release site and at three locations (2, 4, and 8 km) down-current, or further as
needed to collect water samples beyond the apparent leading edge of the plume based
on updated and most accurate information at the time of sampling), and
b.
Measuring dissolved phase (BTEX and water-soluble lower-molecular-weight PAH
(naphthalenes and phenanthrenes/anthracenes) at the same stations (nominally 2 Km
up-current and 2, 4, and 8 Km down-current).
2.
In subsequent cruise(s), use the same approach to obtain data on the effects of in situ
dispersant injection on water quality and exposure issues. If possible, this effort will be
combined with the proposed sampling associated with response monitoring undertaken for the
testing of dispersant injected at depth.
Approach
1.
All operations will be completed from a CSA International, Inc. (a Continental Shelf Associates
company) chartered 180 ft vessel capable of working in the oiled zone (all personnel PB Safety
or HAZWOPER trained). The vessel is capable of dynamic positioning and will remain in the area
overnight to facilitate operations (reducing transit time from port), but due to safety and cost
considerations, sampling operations will not be undertaken after dark.
2.
Vessels will not operate closer than approximately 2 km of the release site, and a BP industrial
hygienist will be present to ensure that OHSA-permitted exposures to benzene and other
volatile hydrocarbons will not be exceeded. If levels are observed to spike above regulated
levels, sampling operations will be safely terminated and the vessel will be repositioned further
from the release point before sampling is resumed.
3.
Upon arrival at the station locations up-current of the release site, a series of continuous
Conductivity-Temperature-Depth (CTD) casts will be completed to determine the water column
structure (vertical profile) for selection of water-sampling depths.
4. Water samples will be collected at four depths (near bottom, just below the thermocline, mid
mixed-layer (between thermocline and surface), and just below water surface, (a total of 4
samples at 4 stations = 16 total)
using:
a.
A remotely operated vehicle (ROV) for collecting the near-bottom samples with a 4-5 L
Go Flow Bottle and
b.
A conventional hydrowire with six 5 L Go Flow Bottles and pressure controlled trip
mechanisms (certified to 0.05% of specified sampling depth) to collect water samples
just below the surface, in the middle of the upper mixed layer, and just below the
thermocline (see separate QA Plan for NRDA Chemistry Cruise).
c.
Split or duplicate samples will be collected on 50% of the samples (VOAs (x2), dissolved-
phase, and filtered oil) as specified in the QA Plan for NRDA Chemistry Cruise. These will
be transferred to Entirx/BP under full chain-of-custody at the conclusion of the sampling
effort. With these duplicates the total number of samples will be 24 plus associated
trip, field, and equipment blanks as specified in Table 1 and the QA Plan.
d.
As available, occasional grab samples of surface oil/mousse will be collected with a jar
or bucket from the sampling vessel. This will assess surface oil weathering behavior as a
function of distance from the release point.
5.
Immediately after sample retrieval a Portable Large Volume Water Sampling System (PLVWSS)
(Payne et al., 1999; see separate PLVWSS Sampling Protocol and Water Sample Handling
Procedures) will be employed on the research vessel to separate the particulate/oil phase
trapped on 0.7 m glass fiber filter and capture the dissolved phase (filtrate) in 3.8 L (1 gal)
I-Chem Certified Clean amber glass jugs.
If available, a series of telemetry-equipped Acoustic Doppler Current Profilers (ADCPs) will be deployed 24 hours
before the cruise to provide near-real time data on currents in the area to further guide sample station selection
and positioning.
It would be ideal if we could increase sampling frequency in known biologically active layers where impacts to
plankton, turtles, fish, and mammals might be. If time and supplies permit, this will be attempted by increasing
sampling intensity in the upper 40 feet of water or an appropriate depth based on previous data sets. This will be
facilitated by an in situ fluorometer (with telemetry back to the sampling vessel) placed on the hydrowire just
below the Go Flow Bottle.
6.
The PLVWSS requires ~3.5 L of sample (for enhanced detection limits above the usual 1 L sample
size, see Water Sample Handling Procedures), so before filter processing the bulk of the sample,
duplicate 40 mL aliquots will be drained from the Go Flow bottle directly into VOA vials for
analysis of BTEX and other alkylated benzenes. Then, after the majority of the rest of the
sample is processed through the PLVWSS, the remaining 4-500 mL will be saved unfiltered for
microscopic (or other) enumeration of droplet sizes and number density.
7.
Maintaining complete Chain-of-Custody, freeze the filter containing the finite oil droplets and
refrigerate the water sample on the research vessel.
8.
Upon returning to port, transfer the NRDA samples under complete chain-of-custody to Alpha
Analytical Laboratories in Mansfield, MA and the BP/Entirx duplicate/splits to B&B Laboratories
[or if needed, to another lab similarly selected by the trustees and the responsible party (BP
represented by ENTRIX)] for analyses of alkylated PAH by Selected Ion Monitoring and Volatile
Organic Analytes (VOA) by purge and trap GC/MS.
Vessel:
All operations will be completed on the M/V Green Provider (180 ft) operated by Coastal Marine
Logistics out of Golden Meadow, LA (see attached document for . This vessel has been chartered by CSA
International, Inc. The ROV is a Super Mohawk 10,000 fsw rated ROV with twin manipulators, and a
tether management system. It is based in Morgan City, LA and is available at this time.
The cruise is planned for Thursday and Friday (May 6 and 7, 2010).
Safety Plan:
A separate operations and safety plan has been prepared for review and approval before any planned
operations.
Estimated Total Costs for Equipment and Ship time:
M/V Green Provider ~$24K per day (assuming 12 hr/day operations)
ROV ~$14K per day (assuming 12 hr/day operations)
The sampling activities are currently planned for daylight operations only. Additional boat personnel
(crew and captain/pilot) would be required for 24 hr/day operations and this would increase the daily
costs by ~$4-5K. ROV operation costs would also significantly increase for 24 hr/day operations. We will
remain on station at night, but sampling activities will be curtailed with only a skeleton crew manning
the vessel for safety.
Reference:
Payne, J.R., T.J. Reilly, and D.P. French, Fabrication of a Portable Large-volume Water
Sampling System to Support Oil Spill NRDA Efforts, in Proceedings ofthe 1999 Oil Spill Conference,
American Petroleum Institute, Washington, D.C., pp. 1179-1184, 1999.
PORTABLE LARGE-VOLUME SEAWATER SAMPLING SYSTEM
(PLVWSS)
05/05/1 0
PLVWSS Specifications, Sampling Protocols, and Power Requirements
Container
Contents
Dimensions
(inches)
Weight
Power
(lbs)
Requirements
Cruise Box
Vacuum pump, in-line charcoal filter and water trap,
24 W x 21 D x
No.1
vacuum gauge, support rack for 1 gallon amber-
19 H
glass bottles, Teflon
stopper and suction tubing
60
filter holder,
Cruise Box
14.2 cm stainless steel Millipore
23 W x 23 D x
No. 2
Tygon
tubing, Teflon
solvent squirt bottles for
21 H
equipment rinsing, Pall-Gelman Sciences 14.2 cm
glass fiber filters, electrical extension cord, stainless
steel forceps and spatula for filter manipulation
50
110 volts AC
(from ships AC
outlet or portable
generator)
None
INSTRUCTIONS FOR SAMPLE COLLECTION AND FILTRATION
1) Place the Tygon
sampling tubing attached to the upper side of the filtration unit into the
water (for near-surface samples if direct suction sampling is desired) or attach to the
sampling port of the Go Flow Bottle used to collect samples at depth.
stopper firmly
2) Plug in the vacuum pump (there is no on/off switch), and hold the Teflon
in the neck of the sample bottle. DO NOT FORCE THE STOPPER COMPLETELY
INTO THE BOTTLE. The Viton
O-ring on the stopper is intended to make the seal
with the upper lip of the sample bottle. Forcing the stopper into the neck of the bottle
may cause the bottle to break, and it will certainly make it difficult to remove the stopper
at the termination of sampling operations.
3) Press the Viton
O-ring on the stopper onto the top lip of the amber-glass bottle until a
vacuum reading of 20 to 24 inches of Hg is obtained on the vacuum gauge attached to the
pump. If the stopper starts to get sucked into the sample bottle, gently pull it out part way
while still maintaining 20 to 24 inches of vacuum. Hold the stopper in place until water
can be observed bubbling about 3 to 4 inches from the top of the amber glass bottle. This
entire process may take from 5 to 7 minutes.
4) At this point, carefully watch the upper water level to ensure that the bottle does not
become completely filled. Also, watch the vacuum tubing running from the Teflon
stopper to the in-line charcoal filter and water trap to see signs of water droplets starting
to be drawn across into the trap. Stop collecting the sample when the water level is about
2 to 3 inches from the top of the 1-gallon bottle or when frequent water droplets are
observed going over into the in-line trap.
5) To stop sampling, simply pull up on the Teflon
stopper to break the vacuum seal with
the sample bottle. DO NOT TURN OFF THE VACUUM PUMP FIRST. This can
damage the vacuum pump, and cause back diffusion of materials trapped in the in-line
water trap back into the sample.
6) After the seal with the sample bottle is broken and the vacuum pressure has dropped back
to ambient, unplug the vacuum pump.
7) Disconnect the Teflon
stopper from the transfer tubing coming from the bottom of the
Millipore
filtration unit and wrap both ends of the tubes from the two-holed Teflon
stopper with aluminum foil. Place the original cap from the amber-glass bottle back on
the bottle to seal it. Leave the sample in the pump box for safe storage until all other
sampling operations are secure.
8) Drain any excess water from the tube running from the bottom of the filtration unit before
filter housing. This will prevent any of the filtered material
opening the Millipore
(SPM, sand, and free oil droplets) from being washed off the filter when the unit is
opened. After all the water has drained from the bottom of the filtration unit, cap the
tubing with aluminum foil and wrap the tubing around the legs for temporary storage.
filtration unit and carefully remove the outer -inch circle of the
9) Open the Millipore
glass-fiber filter from the perforated blue support base. Discard the outer edge of the
filter. Using the stainless steel forceps and spatula provided with the PLVWSS, carefully
fold the filter (while still on the blue support base) in half (and then in half again) to make
a quarter-pie shape and then one more time making an eighth of a pie wedge. This entire
operation should be done with the filter still resting on the perforated blue support base.
10) Place the folded filter wedge into a 125 mL Certified-Clean I-Chem bottle, seal and label
it. The filters may be stored on ice or frozen in the field, if dry ice is available. Store
frozen.
11) If another water sample is to be collected right away, place another glass-fiber filter into
the Millipore
filtration unit, return the filtration unit to the cruise box/container, and
proceed to the next station.
Finally, put the filtered water sample in the 1-gallor amber glass jug in a refrigerator (4
C) or
cooler with frozen Blue Ice packs for storage before transfer to the analytical laboratory.
Alternatively, the dissolved-phase water sample may be preserved by acidification (pH < 2
with HCl) or poisoned with 50 to 100 mL of methylene chloride. Because of air-freight
shipping considerations, preservation with refrigeration and shipment with Blue Ice is
preferred, particularly if next-day air delivery to the laboratory is available.
Contact James R. Payne at PECI for questions or additional information
[email protected] personal informati... ; cell personal inform...

Water Sampling Protocols in Support of the NRDA Cruise
WATER SAMPLES

!!"

#$#%
%&'!!
(
Analysis
Sample Volume
Reporting Limit
()*%&()*'+%
,-$.-&'
/0120&'

$-.-&'
*%&*2'%123/4
5)*&"%5)*'%/0120 $-.-

6-6.-
+()789%
8:2
;<4)255-(=5-(
=%&5-(='$%
%
2()*&;'%%
&,-1$3'*2$,-$
8&!'
2*25)*!$$
&')--
/5-(=%&5-(='!
%>.
1 3 7 & 5-(=
5'
/"!&?)5;<4)
2'=%$!$
&@%!$4/
/!A"B$$
%/%"!)"#
% & ' %
&?)5":%'
2
20
2%
"AB#%C"AB


:0D%)
%
!%!
E
2""%:!%
%%
%
5*
()*&()'F=%>%,G2
")*2#,%,G2"
%
*25)*F;2,G2">%
2&E'
/%",
D""
%))522%%
#
Volatile hydrocarbons&E!!%E!#%!789'3
!85)0H,&I'%
120#&
'"%&262,'E4
%C
Total hydrocarbons&*2'%!
!!%
*2%12$3/4&3/4
%'
&*2'%
&$2H'3;<4)!*2
%%#
5)*#!:5)**2!
!##
!!%12AB
4%:%
Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons&5)*'#%
5)*!%;<4)*!5)*#
:%"/5)*!
%"%$5)*!5)*
A%B085)0H>!
5)*#"%!120
&/0'45)*
%#%*
2
2%"4"!!
!#

7&#!
%!%'="$%#%-%
":%
2"$!
%
5%
D # $
0
%#$%)!
#E
#
Contact James R. Payne at PECI for questions or additional information
[email protected]
personal informati...
6
; cell
personal inform...
Data Quality Assurance Plan for NRDA Water Column Chemistry Cruise
Purpose
This document provides general guidance for field sampling data quality assurance for the collection of
NRDA field samples for planned sampling cruise on May 6 and May 7, 2010 to assist in the validation of
3-dimensional modeling of subsurface plume structure aboard the M/V Green Provider,
The current sampling plan involves sampling 4 depths at 4 stations for BTEX, THC, PAHs and free oil
droplet size. Sampling requirements as outlined for basic sampling to address field program objectives
for adequate description of locations are presented in Table 1. This sampling scheme is derived from
the Field Plan and Sampling Protocol documents.
Table 1: Required Analytical Samples for 3-dimensional modeling data support
Sample Type
BTEX
THC and PAH
Oil Droplet distribution
Volume Needed
40 mL
1 gallon
10 mL
Minimum # of samples per location
2 per depth
10 per sample depth
In addition to basic site description, additional sampling requirements for data verification and
validation, as well as equipment and procedural validation are required. These samples and the
suggested frequency are described below.
Laboratory Notebook
All errata and observations that do not have a logical spot on the Chain of Custody form shall be
documented in a bound lab notebook with numbered pages. Additional notation shall be written in
black or blue ink. Entry errors shall be crossed out with a single line, initialed, and dated.
Blank Samples
Laboratory Grade de-ionized (DI) water in certified clean glass containers will be provided by Pace
Laboratories. 5 DI water samples shall be collected, where practical, using the laboratory provided
water, according to the described methodology for BTEX and THC/PAH analyses (including filtration) at
each sample location. These samples shall be handled and stored in accordance with the accepted
methodology for each sample type. At stations where two DI samples are collected, one shall be
collected before Go-Flo bottle sample collection, and one shall be collected after the last seawater
sample is collected.
Guided by fluorescence measurements from the upwind site (which is presumed to be representative of
seawater not impacted by oil) the depth of minimum fluorescence will be used for the collection of a
volume of background seawater. This seawater will be stored in sealed amber glass jars. Background
sample blank collection shall be done in the same manner as outlined for DI sample blanks above.
Storage Procedure Monitoring
Aqueous samples shall be refrigerated to 4 C (+/- 0.5 C). DO NOT FREEZE. Refrigeration temperature
shall be recorded when samples are stored, and periodically monitored and recorded to ensure proper
refrigeration. A thermometer will be available to remain with the aqueous samples in storage for
monitoring purposes.
Filter samples shall be frozen for storage. Storage temperature shall be kept at 0 C or below.
Refrigeration temperature shall be recorded when samples are stored, and periodically monitored and
recorded to ensure proper refrigeration. A thermometer will be available to remain with the filter
samples in storage for monitoring purposes.
Methods for sample replicates/splits
To accomplish sample splits, two methods can be employed during the cruise. Method One will be
simultaneous deployment of two 5 L Go-Flo bottles which will be closed at the same depth in order to
collect sample water as similar as practical. Method Two involves deploying a single 10 L Go-Flo bottle
and collecting samples in series from the same bottle upon retrieval. Method One will be the preferred
method. Method choice must be documented on the Chain of Custody form as Replicate (Method One)
or Split (Method Two).
Sampling Equipment Monitoring
All tubing and shall be visually inspected before sampling. Sampling tubing shall be changed when
contamination is visually obvious. Tubing changes shall be documented in a separate laboratory
notebook (date, time, location).
Sample Depth Determination and Verification
Where practical, sample depths shall be chosen to best elucidate modeling data needs. For all samples
except ROV collected samples (where depth is distance from the bottom (is fixed by the tethering
equipment apparatus), depths must be preset and the depth selections recorded. Verification of
triggering sequence of the CTD shall be made and documented in order to verify samples were collected
as expected. Go-Flo bottles shall be numbered and numbers documented with sample station and on
Chain of Custody forms. Any malfunction of the triggering of the Go-Flo bottle operation shall be
documented.
General Sampling Plan for Shipboard Execution
Plan, by station and depth, to ensure the acquisition of sufficient samples, replicates, DI blanks, and
seawater blanks.
Station 1 is designated as the collection point for additional background seawater samples. A 10 L Go-
Flo bottle shall be used to collect seawater which will be stored in the refrigerator between uses.
Additional seawater shall be collected after rosette deployment as needed.

2
Deep
Mid Depth
Mixed Layer
Surface
Table 2: Sampling Schedule for NRDA Cruise May 2010
NRDA
Entrix Rep
DI Blank
Seawater Background
NRDA
Entrix Dupe/Split
DI Blank
Seawater Background
NRDA
Entrix Dupe/Split
DI Blank
Seawater Background
NRDA
Entrix Dupe/Split
DI Blank
Seawater Background
NRDA Samples
BP/Entrix Samples
DI Water Blank Samples
Seawater Background Samples
Station 1
VOA
THC/PAH
2
1
2
Station 2
VOA
THC/PAH
2
1
2
1
1
2
2
1
1
2
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
1
1
1
2
2
1
1
2
2
1
1
4
2
1
0
4
1
0
1
Station 3
VOA
THC/PAH
2
1
4
2
2
2
Station 4
VOA
THC/PAH
2
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
4
3
2
2
Total
16
ENTRIX
Document No.:
GOM Block MC252
Date:
Environmental Impact Assessment Services
Acquisition and Analysis of Environmental Baseline Data

Page No:
Project HSE Plan
4-May-2010
13 of 56
In general, all sampling equipment uses the same type of marine hardware to attach to the appropriate
lifting device. Periodically, all connections (e.g., cabling, shackles, pins, swivels, etc.) should be
inspected to ensure the integrity of all points along the sampling assembly. The placement of the survey
equipment on the deck will be discussed with the captain to assure safety and structural concerns are
addressed. Welders attaching equipment to the vessel need to be certified in the operation of the welding
and cutting equipment as well as using the appropriate materials to secure the equipment to the vessel.
Tag lines will be attached to all equipment when it is being placed on or removed from the vessel.
Concern: Lifting equipment onto vessel.
Precaution(s): Lift with legs, back straight, good footing, and avoid twisting. Get help if load is too heavy.
Avoid pushing, pulling, or prying while working aloft. Approved hard hats and safety boots/shoes with toe
protection should be worn while working on the fantail.
Concern: Slippery deck.
Precaution(s): Guard rails; shoes, boots with sufficient anti-skid soles to minimize potential for slippage;
employees to wear personal floatation device (PFD) while on the work deck at sea and if transfers are
required.
Concern: Installation of equipment.
Precaution(s): Secure all equipment in case of rough seas. In the case of installation of navigational
antenna and cables, two people will be on hand at all times for this part of the mobilization and will inform
vessel captain of antenna installation and positioning and have the radar unit switched off (antennae
should not be moving).
Concern: Loose containers.
Precaution(s): Secure all shipping containers to ensure they cannot break loose and cause physical
harm during rough sea condition.
Concern: Confined space.
Precaution(s): Keep clean and ventilated. Check for proper lighting. Conform to vessel permit to work
and confined space entry requirements
Concern: Lock out/tag out procedures (faulty equipment).
Precaution(s): Unplug equipment before doing repair and tag it as such. Reactivate the system only
through an established and published procedure that ensures each person has removed his own lock and
tag first.
Concern: Installation of first aid kit.
Precaution(s): Ensure all personnel are aware of the location of the first aid kit on the vessel.
Concern: Location of fire extinguishers.
Precaution(s): Ensure all personnel are aware of the location of the fire extinguishers on the vessel.
3.4.2
Offshore
A sampling device is least secure while suspended in the air during the transitional period between the
deck of a vessel and the surface of the water; a pitching and/or rolling deck during rough weather will
aggravate this situation. Care must be taken to ensure that sufficient restraining, or tag lines or other
devices are in place to meet these conditions. Because of the increased potential for damage or injury,
all personnel on deck and in the wheelhouse must be notified before a sampling device leaves the deck
during deployment or breaks the surface upon retrieval. If the winch operator is remotely located from the
ENTRIX
Document No.:
GOM Block MC252
Date:

Page No:
Project HSE Plan
4-May-2010
14 of 56
scene of operations, a clear system of signals must be established between the lead deck person and the
winch operator, usually via hand signals or electronic communication.
OSHA requires that hard hats be worn when working beneath suspended equipment, or when the
potential of injury to the head exists due to lateral impact. All crew members should have a suitable level
of seamanship skills, based upon their level of responsibility. Listed below are some of the items related
to seamanship and gear-handling that, when overlooked, have been known to cause serious accidents on
board ship.
A capstan is potentially more dangerous than a winch drum, as the wraps are not enclosed and could
instantly slip off the end if not handled properly.
If a hydraulic hose fails, winches can free-wheel, and load-bearing rams can collapse under a load
unless backed up with balance-check valves.
Different kinds of line and wire rope have different characteristics, which may not be suitable for all
applications (e.g., nylon is 25 percent stronger than polypropylene, but it is much more elastic and
can be lethal if parted under a strain; polypropylene will float, making it less susceptible to propeller
entanglement).
An eye splice over a thimble will only cause a 5 percent reduction in line strength, but a knot
(depending on type) can reduce the strength in a line by as much as 55 percent due to unequal strain
on the fibers (a line will usually break under a strain at that point where it is forced to bend).
Theoretically, the longer a line under a strain, the weaker it is when compared against its rated
breaking strength (the chances are statistically greater of encountering a section weaker than the last
as line length increases).
The recommended working load-to-breaking strain for wire rope and line is typically 1 to 5. If the load
ever exceeds 75 percent of the breaking strength, permanent damage could result, which can lead to
unexpected breakage.
Topside operations may be more dangerous on larger ships than smaller vessels because it is harder
to keep track of safety concerns when activities are spread over a larger area of deck.
Crew members should always stand clear of slack or looped line lying on deck to avoid entanglement.
A sudden strain on slack line can entrap arms and legs; personnel may be severely injured or carried
overboard.
In the event the sediment grab or winch wire becomes entangled in an object on the bottom, in the ships
propellers, or as a result of a malfunction in the winch or a-frame, the personnel on the bridge will be
notified immediately.
The Operations Manager conducting sampling operations will confer with the ships master and will direct
the survey team members and vessel personnel in order that the situation is safely resolved.
Inclement weather may introduce additional hazards. Heavy equipment can be much more difficult to
manage, and footing may become unsure due to slippery decks and/or increased vessel motion, and the
risk of falling overboard may increase. Some state agencies requires that all railings be a minimum of
36 inches in height, and OSHA requires that an approved life vest be donned when working over the
water or if there is an increased risk of falling overboard. A safety line will be secured across the opening
from which the survey equipment will be deployed and retrieved. Vessel accommodations should be able
to provide relief to crew members in case of cold or heat stress.
The vessels Captain is responsible for determining the relative safety due to inclement weather on all
operations. If necessary, survey operations will be suspended. The Captain will decide whether to stay
on station or transit to port until weather conditions improve. If operations are suspended the Operations
Manager will direct the movement and securing of equipment and materials until sampling resumes.
ENTRIX
Document No.:
GOM Block MC252
Date:

Page No:
Project HSE Plan
4-May-2010
15 of 56
Concern: Chemicals.
Precaution(s): Familiarization with use and handling of chemicals to be used on project. Splash-proof
goggles, organic vapor masks, and protective gloves will be used when handling chemicals. Chemicals
will only be used in well-ventilated areas.
Concern: Acids, bases, and other hazardous chemicals.
Precaution(s): Briefing and MSDS sheets regarding all hazardous chemicals. Use of rubber gloves
when handling dangerous chemicals such as water quality fixatives. Availability of first aid kits, eye wash
kits, and spill kits. Prior to applicable activities, the Site Safety Coordinator will remind survey team
members of the location of first aid kits, eye wash kits, and spill kits.
Precautions should be taken when handling hazardous materials during sampling and sample
processing. Gloves and safety glasses should be worn as needed.
Concern: Man overboard.
Precaution(s): Single (one) employee is not allowed on rear deck of the vessel alone two men or more
are required on deck during at-sea operations. All employees are to wear PFDs while on deck of the
vessel.
3.4.3
Winch and Davit Operations and Safety Procedures
CSA will be utilizing the services of Coastal Marine Logistics (CML) who will provide the vessel M/V
Green Provider to facilitate the sampling effort. An a-frame/davit was constructed to serve as the
deployment/retrieval system for the rosette water sampler. The a-frame/davit is welded to the gunwale
and deck and exceeds any loads anticipated for the field survey tasks. The winch will be the CSA
deepwater electro-hydraulic unit manufactured by Sea-Mac.
CSA and CML are responsible for training field personnel in the safe working procedures of the
equipment being utilized for this project. Under the terms of the contract, CSA and CML will provide
competent personnel to carry out the work. As such CSA and CML will address the a-frame, davit, and
winch systems which include electro-hydraulic winches and hydraulic power units (HPU). The purpose of
this document is to outline a systematic approach to mobilization, training, and standards which will
optimize safety and program efficiency.
Systems safety and operational planning and implementation are a two-tier function:
1.
2.
Pre-cruise planning will address the specific operational requirements associated with the equipment.
It is the responsibility of the Operations Manager to ensure that all requirements relative to
mobilization, operation, and maintenance are implemented through in-house planning and discussion.
On-board, prior to the actual operation, it is the Operations Managers responsibility to coordinate
mobilization, training, and operational procedures with the ships Captain and crew, CSA Technicians,
Project Scientist, and Operations group. This is to ensure that all individuals involved clearly
understand what is required of them and that all equipment is appropriate and have been inspected.
The following points will be addressed during the Pre-mobilization Safety Briefing and Operations
Training:
Read all warning tag information and become familiar with all controls before operating winch.
Never attempt to clean, oil, or perform any maintenance on a machine with the engine or prime mover
running, unless instructed to do so.
ENTRIX
Document No.:
GOM Block MC252
Date:

Page No:
Project HSE Plan
4-May-2010
16 of 56
Never operate winch controls unless you are properly positioned at the operators station and you are
sure personnel are clear of the work area.
Assure that personnel who are responsible for hand signals are clearly visible and that the signals to
be used are thoroughly understood by everyone.
Ground personnel should stay in view of the operator and clear of winch drum. Do not allow ground
personnel near winch line under tension. A safe distance of at least 1-1/2 times the length of the
unspooled cable should be maintained.
Inspect rigging and winch at the beginning of each work shift. Defects should be corrected
immediately.
Keep equipment in good operating condition.
Match winch line speeds to job conditions.
Do not exceed the maximum pressure, PSI (kPa), or flow, GPM (LPM), stated in the winch
specifications for hydraulically driven winches.
Leather gloves should be used when handling winch cable.
Never attempt to handle winch cable when the hook end is not free. Keep all parts of body and
clothing clear of cable rollers, cable entry area of fairleads and the winch drum.
When winding winch cable on the winch drum, never attempt to maintain tension by allowing winch
cable to slip through hands. Always use "hand-over-hand" techniques, being careful to keep hands
and clothing away from winch drum and fairlead rollers.
Never use winch cable with broken strands. Replace winch cable.
Do not weld on any part of the winch.
Use recommended hydraulic oil and gear lubricant.
Install guarding to prevent personnel from getting any part of body or clothing caught at a point where
the cable is wrapped onto the drum or drawn through guide rollers.
Install switches or valves which will shut off power to the winch in locations where they can be
reached by anyone entangled in the cable before being drawn into the winch or any "pinch-point."
"Deadman" controls, which automatically shut off power to the winch whenever the operator leaves
his station, should be installed whenever practical.
Never allow anyone to stand under a suspended load.
Avoid sudden "shock" loads or attempting to "jerk" load free. This type of operation may cause heavy
loads in excess of rated capacity, which may result in failure of cable and winch.
It is imperative that the person operating the unit follow directions while maintaining situational
awareness for the task at hand.
Never put your hands into, around, or near the spool or rollers when operating.
Serious injury can occur!
3.4.4
Demobilization
At the completion of all planned survey tasks there can exist the opportunity for injury due to survey team
members and ships crew rushing demobilization efforts. When these demobilization procedures are
performed too quickly the risk of an accident is increased.
3.4.4.1
Offshore
Concern: Personnel anxious to disembark vessel.
Precaution(s): Must use cautious, methodical procedures.
Concern: Loose trash/debris.
Precaution(s): All trash/debris will be stored and removed.
ENTRIX
Document No.:
GOM Block MC252
Date:

Page No:
Project HSE Plan
4-May-2010
17 of 56
Concern: Transferring equipment/personnel from vessel to dock. Dropped objects
Precaution(s): PFDs required (see also slippery deck hazard).
3.4.4.2
Onshore
Concern: Personnel anxious to disembark.
Precaution(s): Must use cautious, methodical procedures.
Concern: Loose trash/debris.
Precaution(s): All trash/debris will be stored and removed.
Concern: Safe disposal of trash, hazardous chemicals, fixatives, etc.
Precaution(s): Careful identification, marking, disposal, packing, and transport (if required) of hazardous
materials. Proper neutralization of chemicals will be completed if required.
Concern: Leakage of sample preservatives (mostly formaldehyde).
Precautions: Briefing on safe handling of formaldehyde and other possible fixatives. Double bagging of
fixed samples, eyewash capabilities, flushing of neutralization of skin contact.
3.5
Emergency Program
The vessel master has a direct responsibility for the health, safety and welfare of all persons on board
and for dealing with the immediate response to emergencies. In the event of an emergency CSA will
provide emergency response management in cooperation with the vessels captain to insure the health,
safety, and welfare of all persons on board. The Site Safety Coordinator will work along side the captain
in the event of a medical emergency.
In the event of injury or illness to personnel, CSA have responsibility for the evacuation of any person on
board from the vessel to the nearest port or heliport, depending upon the nature and severity of injuries.
From there CSA have responsibility to transfer their own and subcontractor personnel to hospital for
treatment. ENTRIX has responsibility for the transfer, hospitalization and ongoing welfare of their own
personnel. CSA and their subcontractors have full responsibility for the response to and management of
all emergencies arising onboard or involving the vessel.
CSA will mobilize an AED and First Aid Kit for the survey. All CSA personnel are trained in the proper
use of an AED and First Aid administration.
3.5.1
Personnel on Board (POB)/Next of Kin (NOK)
A POB/NOK list for the vessel shall be issued prior to departure from the harbor and will be updated
should personnel change out, which is not currently planned. Copies of the vessel POB/NOK lists will be
transmitted to CSA and ENTRIX offices. All parties will undertake to keep the NOK information
confidential.
In the event of an emergency, CSA where necessary shall liaise with the relevant authorities and provide
rd
a verified POB list. The onshore response personnel of CSA (and 3

party contractors if necessary), will
be responsible for providing support to relatives of CSA personnel and subcontractors on board during an
emergency. The ENTRIX response team would take this responsibility for ENTRIX vessel personnel.
ENTRIX
Document No.:
GOM Block MC252
Date:

Page No:
Project HSE Plan
4-May-2010
18 of 56
Prior to vessel mobilization medical evacuation support services were researched in south Louisiana. A
hospital and helicopter service, identified prior to mobilization, will be contacted in the event of an
emergency.
3.5.2
Overall Strategy
An emergency is defined as an unplanned event, or situation, which poses an actual or potential threat to
the safety or integrity of:
Life and limb or health of personnel on board the vessel
The environment or,
The reputation of CSA or ENTRIX
An emergency can be further defined as any event, incident or situation, which poses a continuing threat
and requires the mobilization of assistance or support from sources external to the affected party.
Both offshore and onshore emergency response actions will be clear, co-coordinated and will be based
on the agreed arrangements listed in this document.
CSA emergency response team will take the lead role in responding to all emergencies.
Local services will respond in an emergency to provide support to CSA. Depending upon the nature and
scale of the emergency, the CSA shore support may also respond.
In event of an emergency, a number of CSA personnel will remain on call for the duration of the ENTRIX
contract. CSA will have a team on standby in Florida to provide support, consisting of the CSA HSE
Manager, an Operations Manager, and other support personnel as required.
Vessel
The vessel captain and the CSA Site Safety Coordinator in cooperation with the ENTRIX HSE field
representative will insure Muster, Fire, MOB, loss of power, and Communication drills will be run before
beginning field tasks. The Fire drill will include pressure to and discharge of the fire hoses.
3.5.3
Post Event Incident Reporting
Formal written reports will be prepared by CSA after an emergency has been resolved. A report need not
be final, but may be an interim or preliminary document. A report should not only identify the sequence of
events and causes of the incident, but also the adequacy of the response and corrective actions.
3.5.4
Emergency Response
Responsibilities during an emergency include the following:
ENTRIX
Document No.:
GOM Block MC252
Date:

Page No:
Project HSE Plan
4-May-2010
19 of 56
Offshore Response
Vessel Master-M/V Green Provider
Responsibility:
Safety of all persons on board the vessel
Overall control of the vessel Emergency Response Team
On-scene commander
Liaison with other vessels if in the survey area
Obtaining medical advice as required
Actions:
Controlling emergency and safeguarding personnel
Notify the relevant authorities, if necessary
Notify CSA On-Duty Operations
Notify the ENTRIX representative on the vessel
Calling onshore medical authorities
ENTRIX HSE Representative
Responsibility:
Providing assistance to the Vessel Master as requested
Initial notification of ENTRIX HSE Manager
Actions:
Call duty person as above and inform them of nature of emergency and onshore
assistance if required.
Local Onshore Response
CSA Project Manager
Responsibility:
Primacy for supporting the vessel and coordinating the onshore emergency
response in accordance with CSA Emergency Response procedures.
Actions:
Coordination of emergency response via the existing CSA emergency response
organisation and arrangements, including provision of logistical support
Notification of and Liaison with external agencies including Medical Support
Notification and regular updating of ENTRIX representative.
Informing CSA personnel and subcontractor NOK of injuries etc.
Arranging medivacs to shore in response to injuries, illness or other incidents on
board for all POB.
Arranging reception and transfer to hospital for any injured CSA or subcontractor
personnel
ENTRIX HSE Manager
Responsibility:
The health, safety and welfare of ENTRIX personnel involved in any emergency,
once they have returned to shore.
The reputation and standing of ENTRIX
Actions:
Mobilize to ENTRIX offices in response to call out from ENTRIX Survey Rep.
Keep updated of events via CSA emergency personnel
Make arrangements to meet and greet any injured or affected ENTRIX personnel in
port or heliport as required
Arrange transfer and hospitalization of injured ENTRIX personnel as required
Arrange for medivacs as required for ENTRIX personnel
Ensure notification of NOK for any affected ENTRIX personnel.
Seek support on preparation and issue of media statements as required, in
conjunction with CSA.
ENTRIX
Document No.:
GOM Block MC252
Date:

Page No:
Project HSE Plan
4-May-2010
20 of 56
3.5.5
Emergency Response Organization
The response organization for the baseline environmental survey is shown in Figure 2 below. Call out
and communication routes are also shown in this figure.
Figure 2. Emergency Response Organization Flowchart
ENTRIX
Document No.:
GOM Block MC252
Date:

Page No:
Project HSE Plan
4-May-2010
21 of 56
3.5.6
Medivac Plan
Should a medical emergency require the immediate evacuation of a person or persons from the survey
vessel, the vessel should immediately head toward the nearest shore facility. The Coast Guard should be
contacted immediately on VHF channel 16. The Coast Guard air station is located approximately 13
miles south of New Orleans in Belle Chasse, La
Any applicable client transport coordinators or helicopter dispatchers should be contacted by either
satellite phone or cellular telephone for assistance with the emergency. They will arrange helicopter
evacuation of the injured person(s) from the platform or shore facility to the nearest emergency medical
facility. If medical treatment is needed for a non-life threatening situation, the vessel should head to the
nearest shore facility from which the injured person(s) can then travel to the nearest medical facility to
obtain necessary medical treatment.
The arrangements listed in this document shall apply to the Emergency Response Procedures for the
period that the vessel is contracted for the purpose of completing the survey.
Emergency contact numbers for communications during emergency situations are provided below.
Vessel Emergency Contact Numbers
Vessel-M/V Green Provider
Master
Satellite Phone
Vessel Call Sign
Thomas Tunstall, Coastal Marine
Logistics
+1
personal information
CSA Emergency Contact Numbers
CSA
Satellite Phone-OnBoard Vessel

Fred Ayer, CSA Project Manager
Gordon Stevens, CSA Operations
Lynwood Powell, HSE Manager
+1 881-631-614-566
+1
(Office)
+1
(Mobile)
+1
(Office)
+1
(Mobile)
+1
(Office)
+1
(Mobile)
ENTRIX Emergency Contact Numbers
ENTRIX
Ryan Holem, HSE Manager
+1
(Direct Office)
+1
(Mobile)
ENTRIX
Document No.:
GOM Block MC252
Date:

Page No:
Project HSE Plan
4-May-2010
22 of 56
4.0
MEDICAL/FIRST AID PROGRAM
CSA personnel are all properly trained in cardio-pulmonary resuscitation (CPR) and first aid. Training
allows CSA personnel to give immediate and temporary care to a victim of an accident or sudden illness
until a physician can be obtained. This effective first aid consists of common sense, training, and
knowledge of the following:
Procedures for treating bleeding;
Procedures for heart attack victims;
Procedures for choking victims;
Procedures for treating victims of burns;
Procedures for treating electric shock victims;
Procedures for treating victims of exposure to chemicals;
Procedures for treating victims of inhalation of toxic gas or smoke;
Procedures for treating shock victims;
Procedures for treating victims of heat exhaustion;
Procedures for treating victims of heat stroke;
Procedures for treating victims of frostbite;
Procedures for treating victims of hyperthermia; and
Procedures for treating victims of skin poisoning or swallowed poisons.
ENTRIX
Document No.:
GOM Block MC252
Date:

Page No:
Project HSE Plan
4-May-2010
23 of 56
5.0
SUBSTANCE ABUSE PROGRAM
CSA is committed to maintaining a drug-free workplace. In recognition of the dangers to our employees
and the company of drug abuse in the workplace, and pursuant to the provisions of the U.S. Drug-Free
Workplace Act of 1988 and Federal Acquisition Regulation 23.504, all employees are subject to the
following:
Unlawfully manufacturing, distributing, dispensing, possessing, or using a controlled substance is
prohibited in the workplace.
Any employee who unlawfully manufactures, distributes, dispenses, possesses or uses a controlled
substance in the workplace will be subject to discipline up to and including dismissal.
All employees, as a condition of continued employment, must abide by the statement and are
required to notify the company of any criminal drug statute conviction for a violation occurring in the
workplace no later than five days after such conviction.
This Drug-Free Workplace Statement does not amend, limit, restrict, modify or otherwise alter any
other company rules, regulations, procedures or policies.
CSA employees tested for substance abuse must meet the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT)
standards for drug and alcohol testing to be able to work as CSA's representatives on designated
projects. The medical forms may be made available for the client's inspection with prior approval from the
employee.
DOT regulations require screening for the following drugs (known as the NIDA 5 Panel):
Marijuana;
Barbiturates;
Opiates;
Amphetamines;
PCP; and
Cocaine.
ENTRIX
Document No.:
GOM Block MC252
Date:

Page No:
Project HSE Plan
4-May-2010
24 of 56
6.0
PERSONAL PROTECTIVE EQUIPMENT SAFETY PROGRAM
The following outlines CSA policy pertaining to the issuance and use of certain personal protective
equipment (PPE) that will be issued by CSA. Each employee will be responsible for ensuring his PPE is
kept clean and in good working condition.
Protective gear for sampling personnel should include the following:
a hard hat;
steel-toe shoe/boots;
equipment handling and chemical-resistant gloves (e.g., leather or Nitrile);
safety glasses/goggles;
respiratory protection;
rain gear (if necessary);
coldwater survival gear (if necessary); and
hearing protection (if safe noise levels are exceeded).
In addition to the above PPE personnel deploying and retrieving equipment over the side of the vessel will
be required to wear a safety harness and utilize a retractable lifeline securely connected to a point on the
vessel.
It is important to note that the ships captain has the ultimate responsibility and authority to immediately
override the authority of all other on board personnel, especially where the general welfare of crew and
vessel are concerned.
During the dockside mobilization, the Site Safety Coordinator will conduct an inventory of the
safety-related equipment and materials and provide a report to the Project Scientist and Operation
Manager of their status, location, and availability.
Hard Hats. Each employee will be expected to wear a hard hat at all times when working out on deck.
These safety hats will meet the specifications contained in American National Standards Institute,
Z89.1-1969, Safety Requirements for Industrial Head Protection.
Steel-toed Shoes/Boots. Steel-toed shoes or boots will be required while outside of office area or on any
work site, e.g., work deck.
Gloves Work and Chemical. Work gloves will be provided for handling of equipment and supplies to
reduce the potential of hand injuries. Nitrile, rubber, gloves will be provided for the handling of all
chemicals and solvents.
Safety Glasses/Goggles. All employees will be issued and must wear approved safety glasses with side
shields at all times while in the work area. Those employees who wear prescription glasses will wear
safety glasses over their glasses. This also applies to those employees who wear contact lenses.
All employees will be issued and expected to wear 1) approved impact-type goggles with side shields
when engaging in any activity that involves hazards to the unprotected eye from chipped or flying
particles; and 2) approved splash proof goggles when they are handling hazardous chemical liquids,
powders, or vapors as well as when they are in the vicinity of these chemicals.
ENTRIX
Document No.:
GOM Block MC252
Date:

Page No:
Project HSE Plan
4-May-2010
25 of 56
Employees who wear prescription glasses will wear goggles over their glasses. This also applies to
employees who wear contact lenses; these employees must make it apparent that they do wear contact
lenses.
Respiratory masks
Protective respiratory mask will be provided to all employees. Any employee handling chemicals or
solvents is required to wear a respiratory mask in addition to gloves and goggles.
Protective Outerwear
An outerwear capable of protecting the employee from oily products will be worn during all sampling
operations. A Tyvek or suitable alternative is required.
Rain gear
Rain gear is not provided for most offshore surveys. It is the responsibility of the employee to provide
adequate protection when working outside of the confines of the vessel.
Cold water survival gear
Cold water survival gear will not be necessary for this survey due to the time of year and the location of
the survey area.
Hearing protection
Hearing protection is mandatory in all designated high noise areas. Ear plugs and ear muffs will be
provided.
During operations which require special equipment and outerwear, the previously mentioned mandatory
equipment and requirements pertaining to the equipment may be voided or amended.
ENTRIX
Document No.:
GOM Block MC252
Date:

Page No:
Project HSE Plan
4-May-2010
26 of 56
7.0
HEARING CONSERVATION PROGRAM
All employees will wear the appropriate hearing protection provided by CSA while in a high noise area
(85 decibels [dBA] or above for an 8-hour time period). A sign will be posted in high noise areas.
The Site Safety Coordinator will ensure any employees working in a high noise area are wearing hearing
protection.
CSA also urges its employees to use common sense in a "noisy environment." If it is necessary to shout
to communicate, an area is considered a high noise area whether or not signs are posted.
ENTRIX
Document No.:
GOM Block MC252
Date:

Page No:
Project HSE Plan
4-May-2010
27 of 56
8.0
LIFE SAVING EQUIPMENT
All personnel working or riding on the deck of a boat or barge, or when transferring between vessels or
onto a platform, must wear a U.S. Coast Guard (USCG)-approved PFD with reflector tape strips. There
will be one PFD for each employee. On-board personnel should familiarize themselves with the ship's
man overboard procedures and the vessel's life saving equipment location.
ENTRIX
Document No.:
GOM Block MC252
Date:

Page No:
Project HSE Plan
4-May-2010
28 of 56
9.0
9.1
MOB AND FIRE EMERGENCY PROCEDURES
MAN OVERBOARD
Throw a ring buoy overboard as close to the person as possible.
Notify the personnel on the bridge immediately; bridge records vessel position.
Post a lookout to keep the person overboard in sight.
Maneuver the vessel to pick up the person in the water.
Crew member wearing a PFD attaches a safety line and stands by to jump into the water to assist the
person overboard if necessary.
If person is not immediately located, notify Coast Guard and other vessels in the area by radio
telephone.
Continue search until released by the Coast Guard.
RULES FOR ABANDONMENT
9.2
Review rules posted on vessel prior to vessel leaving dock.
Take instructions from vessel's captain and proceed to pre-assigned station on the vessel.
9.3
FIRE ON BOARD
Review rules posted on vessel prior to vessel leaving dock.
When alarm sounds proceed to pre-assigned station on the vessel.
Vessels captain will instruct survey team members.
ENTRIX
Document No.:
GOM Block MC252
Date:

Page No:
Project HSE Plan
4-May-2010
29 of 56
10.0 WATER SURVIVAL PLAN
All employees must become familiar with the use and operation of survival gear and emergency
instructions posted on the vessel.
In case of vessel evacuation:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
Put on a PFD and remove your safety hat.
Do not dive into the water but jump in feet first.
If swimming in rough water, turn your back to the wind or waves. Keep your head out of water and
use a breast stroke.
If there is an oil or fuel fire on the water, swim UNDER the water. Before surfacing, use your hands to
splash a breathing hole above your head. Close your eyes before surfacing, take a breath, and then
resubmerge (feet first).
If there is oil and/or debris on the water surface, keep your head up and out of the water. Push the
oil/debris away from you as you swim. Protect eyes, nose, and mouth.
If swimming in cold water, conserve body heat, and help to prevent hypothermia by minimizing
movement.
Do not swim to rescuers let them come to you.
CONSERVE YOUR ENERGY! YOUR SURVIVAL MAY DEPEND ON IT!
ENTRIX
Document No.:
GOM Block MC252
Date:

Page No:
Project HSE Plan
4-May-2010
30 of 56
11.0 EQUIPMENT INSPECTION PROGRAM
CSA will insure the following equipment is aboard the vessel:
Fire extinguishers;
PFDs;
Safety Harnesses;
Retractable lifelines;
Ear protectors;
Hard hats;
Safety glasses;
Safety shoes;
Organic vapor masks; and
Protective gloves.
The above equipment shall be inspected daily prior to use for wear and tear and so noted by the
designated CSA safety person in his Project Log. During daily inspections, emphasis will be put on
equipment security (i.e., safely secured for rough seas), and equipment maintenance.
The safety person will be knowledgeable with U.S. 29 CFR 1926 (Subparts E, F, I, J, K, L, N, and O):
Personal Protective and Life Saving Equipment; Fire Protection and Prevention; Tools (Hand/Power);
Welding and Cutting; Electrical; Ladders and Scaffolding; Cranes, Derricks, Hoists, Elevators, and
Conveyors; Motor Vehicles, Mechanized Equipment, and Marine Operations.
ENTRIX
Document No.:
GOM Block MC252
Date:

Page No:
Project HSE Plan
12.1
4-May-2010
31 of 56
12.0 ELECTRICAL SAFETY PROGRAM
INSTALLATION AND MAINTENANCE OF ELECTRICAL EQUIPMENT
All installation and maintenance of electrical equipment must comply with the pertinent provisions of the
national electrical code. All electrical work will be performed by competent personnel who are familiar
with code requirements and qualified for the class of work to be performed. All applicable electrical wire,
apparatus, and equipment will be of a type approved by Underwriters Laboratories, Inc., Factory Mutual
Engineering Corp., or any other nationally recognized testing laboratory.
12.2
ELECTRICAL ACCIDENT PREVENTION PROCEDURES
The best qualified available employee will be appointed to be the electrical job supervisor. That person
will have total responsibility for the electrical work.
Each job should be thoroughly planned, making sure that adequate and proper equipment and sufficient
personnel are available to perform the job safely. No job is to be rushed to completion at the expense of
safety.
A special safety meeting will be conducted before starting a job to brief all workers involved to make sure
all questions are answered and that no confusion exists among the workers.
All possible circuits in the vicinity of the work area should be de-energized and secured in this condition
by grounding, locking, and tagging. If it is not possible to de-energize all circuits, use barriers, rubber
goods, or any other protective equipment necessary to make the work area safe. Danger signs will be
displayed in appropriate locations and on associated equipment as required to afford maximum personnel
protection.
Complete attention should be devoted to the job at hand. Preoccupation or day-dreaming cannot be
tolerated while working with electrical equipment.
Even low voltage (e.g., 32 volts AC) as well as many battery-powered systems are hazardous and require
proper precautions.
All unsafe electrical equipment should be de-energized immediately and tagged "unsafe for use." This
action and also notification of inoperable or damaged electrical tools, appliances, etc., should be reported
to the immediate supervisor at once. Unqualified persons should not attempt to repair such equipment.
Under no circumstances should the hand or finger be used to test for voltage in a circuit. Only proper and
safe test instruments should be used.
In case of an accident or an electrical fire, all power should be cut off immediately. Emergency switches
are generally installed at convenient locations to stop electrical machinery. Know where these switches
are. Use only fire extinguishers which have been approved for use on an electrical fire. Foamite or other
conductive fluids, including water, must not be used on an electrical fire under any circumstances.
Electrical work of any kind will not be performed if an electrical storm is in progress in the immediate
vicinity.
ENTRIX
Document No.:
GOM Block MC252
Date:

Page No:
Project HSE Plan
4-May-2010
32 of 56
Adverse conditions such as darkness, poor weather, isolation, or any abnormal situations may make
working alone unduly hazardous. These occasions should be identified by established management
guidelines from which the employee can carefully assess the task to be performed and determine
whatever assistance might be necessary to perform the job safely. All electrical conductors and
equipment will be approved and meet the standards in 29 CFR Subpart K covering the electrical
equipment and work practices for this project (copy follows).
ENTRIX
Document No.:
GOM Block MC252
Date:

Page No:
Project HSE Plan
4-May-2010
33 of 56
13.0 SPILL PREVENTIVE/CLEANUP PLAN
All personnel involved on a project should be aware of all possible polluting situations and take steps to
prevent such occurrences.
CSA Operations Managers will insure the MARPOL rules and regulations are posted on the vessel and
are followed by all members of the survey team.
Should a spill occur, the following will be available:
Absorbent pads for use on local spills on vessel and, if necessary, small discharges into the water;
Absorbent booms for installation around drums and apparatus that could cause a spill on vessel;
Should portable generators/winches be used that involve fueling, a catchment tray will be provided to
prevent gasoline/oil or other fluids from being spilled;
Shore personnel to locate suitable disposal container close to dock for trash removal from vessel; and
Trash bags and ties for general trash storage will be provided on vessel.
In case of large spills, the vessel is to cease operations, stay in the area and call in to the local client
base, local Coast Guard, or other appropriate regulatory agency.
PICK UP ANY TRASH YOU SEE -- NOT JUST YOUR OWN.
AND REMEMBER NO TRASH/DEBRIS/WASTE/POLLUTANT IS TO BE DEPOSITED
ANYWHERE BUT IN THE CORRECT RECEPTACLE.
ENTRIX
Document No.:
GOM Block MC252
Date:

Page No:
Project HSE Plan
4-May-2010
34 of 56
14.0 SHORT-TERM EMPLOYEE PROGRAM
Any CSA employees that have been with the company less than six months will be identified as
"Short-Term Employees" to all personnel including the client or its agent prior to start-up and mobilization
of project.
Short-term employees will be given a job-specific orientation prior to the general job safety meeting
dealing with the client's site safety expectations and procedures and hands-on training by CSA for
upcoming job assignments.
Short-term employees will expect to be given special supervision during their 90-day probationary period
with the orientation reinforced at the end of their first week's employment with CSA and at the end of their
first month's employment. The employee will then be evaluated by their supervisor monthly for the next
three months. It is implied here and to be understood by the short-term employee that he will be teamed
with an experienced employee whenever possible. Under no circumstances will two short-term
employees be teamed on a job without approval.
ENTRIX
Document No.:
GOM Block MC252
Date:

Page No:
Project HSE Plan
APPENDIX
4-May-2010
35 of 56
ENTRIX
Document No.:
GOM Block MC252
Date:

Page No:
Project HSE Plan
APPENDIX A
Hazards Analysis/Risk Assessment
4-May-2010
36 of 56
ENTRIX
Document No.:
GOM Block MC252
Date:

Page No:
Project HSE Plan
4-May-2010
37 of 56
HAZARDS ANALYSIS/RISK ASSESSMENT
Hazard
Lifting accidents,
dropped equipment
Consequences/Risk
Injuries, damage to or
loss of
equipment/material
Trips, falls, injuries,
Boarding/loading boats
damage to or loss of
equipment
Navigation and
positioning control
Wrong locations, work
delays, impact to work
productivity
Severity
Safeguard(s)/Control Measure(s)
Review procedures in
toolbox meeting prior to
activity
Operations
Supervisor
Open
Minor
Designated boarding/ loading
areas and procedures, first aid,
clear work procedures
Infrequent
activity
Operations
Supervisor
Open
Remote
Confirm accuracy of
coordinates through
backup GPS
Project
Scientist
Open
Infrequent
activity
Operations
Supervisor
Open
Infrequent
activity
Operations
Supervisor
Open
Infrequent
Review during HSE
induction
Operations
Supervisor
Open
Infrequent
activity
Operations
Supervisor
Open
Infrequent
Review during HSE
induction
Operations
Supervisor
Open
activity
Operations
Supervisor
Open
Obtain latest nautical charts, set
up and check CSA vessel GPS
navigation during mobilization,
Moderate
prepare pre-plots, provide
accurate locations, provide
coordinates in a digital exchange
file
Major
PFDs, work deck rules, safety
chain, MOB procedures
Adequate drinking water
Heat exhaustion and
available, sunscreen, light
overheating, exposure,
Moderate
clothing, clear decks, designated
dehydration, minor
work areas and clear work
injuries
procedures, first aid
Status
General health and
safety (offshore/on
water)
Responsibility
Remote
Loss of personnel
Major
Refueling on land or in port only,
adequate capacity for full-day
operations
Adequate shade, adequate
drinking water available,
sunscreen, light clothing,
Exposure, dehydration,
Moderate
minor injury
clear/designated work areas,
clear work procedures, work
breaks
Collisions, damage to
Road/driving accidents
vehicles or equipment,
injury
Recommendations
Lifting procedures, lift plan,
worker awareness,
qualified/experienced personnel
Man overboard (MOB)
General health and
safety (onshore)
Risk Rank
Major
Deployment/handling
Pinching injury,
Worker training, established
of sample collection
impact/crushing injury,
Moderate
procedures, work gloves, HSE
equipment
entanglement, MOB
briefing
Environmental
Spillage of fuels, oils,

degradation, regulatory
fines, damage to
and lubricants
reputation
Risk Matrix
Likelihood
Major
Use of licensed and experienced
drivers, safe driving at posted
speeds, seatbelts
Remote
ENTRIX
Document No.:
GOM Block MC252
Date:

Page No:
Project HSE Plan
4-May-2010
38 of 56
Hazard
Food-/water-/blood-
borne pathogens
Unsafe weather/sea
state conditions
Consequences/Risk
Debilitating illness,
impacts to productivity
Damage to vessels
Severity
Moderate
Worker training, HSE briefing,
emergency response plan
Major
Weather forecast reviews,
continuous monitoring of local
weather, ongoing
communications,
delay/cancel/abort weather
thresholds
Injuries, MOB, damage
Check for secure deck and
Rough sea conditions

to or loss of
Moderate
equipment/materials before
equipment/materials
getting underway, use of PFDs
Risk Matrix
Responsibility
Status
Review during HSE
induction
Operations
Supervisor
Open
Conduct continuous
monitoring of weather
while on site, morning
forecast reviews and
postpone mobilization if
predicted to exceed
limitations
Operations
Supervisor
Open
Infrequent
Cross check for clear
deck prior to getting
underway
Operations
Supervisor
Open
Remote
Ensure valid vessel
inspections, pre-day
vessel checklists
Vessel
Master
Open
Frequent
Review procedures and
PPE requirements in
activity; install safety line
across stern
Vessel
Master
Open
Likelihood
Risk Rank
Infrequent
Remote
Recommendations
Major
Rigorous vessel maintenance
and inspection, standby vessel,
float plan, established
communications
Major
Clear decks, designated work
areas, clear work procedures,
emergency response plan
Damage to seabed
Underwater
features/organisms,
obstructions, contact
damage to boats/
with bottom, grounding
equipment, injuries
Major
Review of nautical charts,
mapping of navigation hazards,
experienced boat operators
Remote
Review transit route for
obstructions, shallow
water
Vessel
Master
Open
Other vessel/traffic
shipping
Collisions
Major
Deck watch
Remote
Review of shipping
patterns, contact any
vessels in vicinity
Vessel
Master
Open
Medical emergencies
(injured/unconscious
worker), limited timely
medical
access/support
Lack of/late medical
attention leading to
medical complications,
possibly disablement/
fatality
Major
Emergency procedures for
worker extraction, established
communications to shore,
standby vessel, local emergency
support, emergency response
plan, emergency oxygen on-
board, comprehensive first aid
equipment
Remote
Prior arrangements with
Port/ambulance, advice to
Navy and/or Coast Guard;
post-emergency contact
infomation readily
available on all
vessels/boats
Operations
Supervisor
Open
Emergency
preparedness
Inadequate response to
emergencies
Minor
Conduct weekly drills, HSE
inspection to review emergency
systems
Infrequent
activity
Operations
Supervisor
Open
Vessel mechanical
failure or damage
Loss of vessel, vessel
adrift, stranded divers
Unsafe deck
conditions (e.g., wet,
cluttered)
Slips, trips, falls, MOB,
damage to equipment
ENTRIX
Document No.:
GOM Block MC252
Date:

Page No:
Project HSE Plan
4-May-2010
39 of 56
Hazard
Consequences/Risk
Loss of consciousness,
Confined Space Entry

fatality, impact to work
productivity
Severity
Major
Real-time air monitoring, forced
air ventilation, full body harness,
rescue tri-pod
Risk Matrix
Likelihood
Risk Rank
Remote
Recommendations
activity
Responsibility
Site Safety
Officer
Status
Open
ENTRIX
Document No.:
GOM Block MC252
Date:

Page No:
Project HSE Plan
APPENDIX B
MSDS for Project chemicals
Project Chemicals:
Liquinox
Isopropyl Alcohol
Hexane
4-May-2010
40 of 56
msds_liquinox_english_ansi
LIQUINOX MSDS
Section 1 : PRODUCT AND COMPANY IDENTIFICATION
Chemical family: Detergent.
Manufacturer: Alconox, Inc.
30 Glenn St.
Suite 309
White Plains, NY 10603.
Manufacturer emergency
personal information .
phone number:
(outside of the United States).
Supplier: Same
as manufacturer.
Product name: Liquinox
Section 2 : INGREDIENT INFORMATIO N
C.A.S.
CONCENTRATION
Ingredient Name
T.L.V.
LD/50
LC/50
25155-
10-30
SODIUM
NOT
438
NOT
30-0
DODECYLBENZENESULFONATE
AVAILABLE
MG/KG
AVAILABLE
RAT
ORAL
1330
MG/KG
MOUSE
ORAL
Section 3 : HAZARD IDENTIFICATION
contact, eye contact, inhalation and ingestion.
Route of entry: Skin
Effects of acute
exposure
Eye contact: May

cause irritation.
Skin contact: Prolonged

and repeated contact may cause irritation.
Inhalation: May
cause headache and nausea.
Ingestion: May cause vomiting and diarrhea.
May
cause gastric distress.
Effects of chronic
See
effects of acute exposure.
exposure:
Section 4 : FIRST AID MEASURES
Skin contact: Remove contaminated clothing.
Wash thoroughly with soap and water.
Seek medical attention if irritation persists.
Eye contact: Check for and remove contact lenses.
Flush eyes with clear, running water for 15 minutes while holding
eyelids open: if irritation persists, consult a physician.
Inhalation: Remove victim to fresh air.
If irritation persists, seek medical attention.
MS 01.40.01.01.06.1
Page 1 of 5
Ingestion: Do not induce vomiting, seek medical attention.
Dilute with two glasses of water.
Never
give anything by mouth to an unconscious person.
Section 5 : FIRE FIGHTING MEASURES
Flammability: Not
flammable.
Conditions of
Surrounding
fire.
flammability:
Extinguishing media: Carbon dioxide, dry chemical, foam.
Water
Water fog.
Special procedures: Self-contained breathing apparatus required.
Firefighters should wear the usual protective gear.
Use
water spray to cool fire exposed containers.
Auto-ignition
Not
available.
temperature:
Flash point (C),
None
method:
Lower flammability
Not
applicable.
limit (% vol):
Upper flammability
Not
applicable.
limit (% vol):
Explosion Data
Sensitivity to static
Not
available.
discharge:
Sensitivity to mechanical
Not
available.
impact:
Hazardous combustion
Oxides of carbon (COx).
products:
Hydrocarbons.
Rate of burning: Not
available.
Explosive power: Containers

may rupture if exposed to heat or fire.
Section 6 : ACCIDENTAL RELEASE MEASURES
Leak/Spill: Contain the spill.
Prevent entry into drains, sewers, and other waterways.
Wear appropriate protective equipment.
Small amounts may be flushed to sewer with water.
Soak up with an absorbent material.
Place in appropriate container for disposal.
Notify the appropriate authorities as required.
Section 7 : HANDLING AND STORAGE
Handling procedures and
Protect against physical damage.
equipment:
Avoid breathing vapors/mists.
Wear personal protective equipment appropriate to task.
Wash thoroughly after handling.
Keep out of reach of children.
Avoid contact with skin, eyes and clothing.
Avoid extreme temperatures.
Launder
contaminated clothing prior to reuse.
Storage requirements: Store away from incompatible materials.
Keep
containers closed when not in use.
MS 01.40.01.01.06.1
Page 2 of 5
Section 8 : EXPOSURE CONTROLS / PERSONAL PROTECTION
Precautionary Measures
Gloves/Type:
Wear appropriate gloves.
Respiratory/Type: None
required under normal use.
Eye/Type:
Safety glasses recommended.
Footw ear/Type: Safety

shoes per local regulations.
Clothing/Type: As
required to prevent skin contact.
Other/Type: Eye wash facility should be in close proximity.
Emergency
shower should be in close proximity.
Ventilation
Local exhaust at points of emission.
requirem ents:
Exposure lim it of
Not
available.
m aterial:
Section 9 : PHYSICAL AND CHEMICAL PROPERTIES
Physical state: Liquid.
Appearance & odor: Odourless.
Pale
yellow.
Odor threshold (ppm ): Not
available.
Vapour pressure
@ 20C (68F).
(mmHg):
17
Vapour density (air=1): >1
Volatiles (% )
By volum e: Not
available.
Evaporation rate
<
1.
(butyl acetate = 1):
Boiling point (C): 100

(212F)
Freezing point (C): Not
available.
pH: 8.5
Specific gravity @ 20 C: (water = 1).
1.083
Solubility in water (% ): Com

plete.
Coefficient of w ater\oil
Not
available.
dist.:
VOC: None
Chem ical fam ily: Detergent.
Section 10 : STABILITY AND REACTIVITY
Chem ical stability: Product

is stable under normal handling and storage conditions.
Conditions of instability: Extreme temperatures.
MS 01.40.01.01.06.1
Page 3 of 5
Hazardous
Will
not occur.
polymerization:
Incompatible
Strong acids.
substances:
Strong oxidizing agents.
Hazardous
See
hazardous combustion products.
decomposition products:
Section 11 : TOXICOLOGICAL INFORMATION
LD50 of product, species
>
5000 mg/kg rat oral.
& route:
LC50 of product, species
Not
available.
& route:
Sensitization to product: Not
available.
Carcinogenic effects: Not
listed as a carcinogen.
Reproductive effects: Not
available.
Teratogenicity: Not
available.
Mutagenicity: Not
available.
Synergistic materials: Not
available.
Section 12 : ECOLOGICAL INFORMATION
Environmental toxicity: No
data at this time.
Environmental fate: No
data at this time.
Section 13 : DISPOSAL CONSIDERATIONS
Waste disposal: In
accordance with local and federal regulations.
Section 14 : TRANSPORT INFORMATION
D.O.T. CLASSIFICATION: Not
regulated.
Special shipping
Not
regulated.
information:
Section 15 : REGULATORY INFORMATION
Canadian Regulatory
Information
WHMIS classification:
Not controlled.
DSL status: Not
available.
USA Regulatory
Inform ation
SARA hazard catagories

Immediate (Acute) Health Hazard: No.
sections 311/312:
Delayed (Chronic) Health Hazard: No.
Fire Hazard: No.
Sudden Release of Pressure: No.
Reactive: No.
SARA Section 313: None
TSCA inventory: All components of this product are listed on the TSCA inventory.
MS 01.40.01.01.06.1
Page 4 of 5
NFPA
Health Hazard: 1
Flammability: 0
Reactivity: 0
HMIS
Health Hazard: 1
Flammability: 0
Physical hazard: 0
PPE: A
Section 16 : OTHER INFORMATION
Supplier MSDS date: 2006/07/14
Data prepared by: Global Safety Management
3340 Peachtree Road, #1800
Atlanta, GA 30326
Phone: personal information
Fax:
Web: www.globalsafetynet.com
Email:
[email protected].
General note: This material safety data sheet was prepared from information
obtained from various sources, including product suppliers and
the
Canadian Center for Occupational Health and Safety.
MS 01.40.01.01.06.1
Page 5 of 5
Material Safety Data Sheet
Isopropyl Alcohol, 70% MSDS
Section 1: Chemical Product and Company Identification
Product Name: Isopropyl Alcohol, 70%
Contact Information:
Sciencelab.com, Inc.
14025 Smith Rd.
Houston, Texas 77396
Catalog Codes: SLI1669
CAS#: Mixture.
RTECS: Not applicable.
US Sales: 1- personal information

International Sales: 1- personal information
TSCA: TSCA 8(b) inventory: Isopropyl alcohol; Water
Order Online: ScienceLab.com
CI#: Not available.
CHEMTREC (24HR Emergency Telephone), call:
1- personal information
Synonym: 2-Propanol, 70%; Isoprpanol, 70%; Isopropyl
Rubbing Alcohol
International CHEMTREC, call: 1- personal information
Chemical Name: Not applicable.
For non-emergency assistance, call: 1- personal information
Chemical Formula: Not applicable.
Section 2: Composition and Information on Ingredients
Composition:
Name
CAS #
% by Weight
Isopropyl alcohol
67-63-0
70
Water
7732-18-5
30
Toxicological Data on Ingredients: Isopropyl alcohol: ORAL (LD50): Acute: 5045 mg/kg [Rat]. 3600 mg/kg [Mouse]. 6410
mg/kg [Rabbit]. DERMAL (LD50): Acute: 12800 mg/kg [Rabbit].
Section 3: Hazards Identification
Potential Acute Health Effects:
Hazardous in case of skin contact (irritant), of eye contact (irritant), of ingestion, . Slightly hazardous in case of
skin contact (sensitizer, permeator). Non-corrosive for skin. Non-corrosive to the eyes. Non-corrosive for lungs.
Potential Chronic Health Effects:
CARCINOGENIC EFFECTS: Classified A4 (Not classifiable for human or animal.) by ACGIH, 3 (Not classifiable
for human.) by IARC [Isopropyl alcohol].
MUTAGENIC EFFECTS: Not available.
TERATOGENIC EFFECTS: Not available.
DEVELOPMENTAL TOXICITY: Classified Reproductive system/toxin/female, Development toxin [POSSIBLE]
[Isopropyl alcohol].
p. 1
The substance may be toxic to kidneys, liver, skin, central nervous system (CNS).
Repeated or prolonged exposure to the substance can produce target organs damage.
Section 4: First Aid Measures
Eye Contact:
Check for and remove any contact lenses. In case of contact, immediately flush eyes with plenty of water for at
least 15 minutes. Cold water may be used. Get medical attention.
Skin Contact:
In case of contact, immediately flush skin with plenty of water. Cover the irritated skin with an emollient. Remove
contaminated clothing and shoes. Cold water may be used.Wash clothing before reuse. Thoroughly clean shoes
before reuse. Get medical attention.
Serious Skin Contact:
Wash with a disinfectant soap and cover the contaminated skin with an anti-bacterial cream. Seek medical
attention.
Inhalation:
If inhaled, remove to fresh air. If not breathing, give artificial respiration. If breathing is difficult, give oxygen. Get
medical attention if symptoms appear.
Serious Inhalation:
Evacuate the victim to a safe area as soon as possible. Loosen tight clothing such as a collar, tie, belt or
waistband. If breathing is difficult, administer oxygen. If the victim is not breathing, perform mouth-to-mouth
resuscitation. Seek medical attention.
Ingestion:
Do NOT induce vomiting unless directed to do so by medical personnel. Never give anything by mouth to an
unconscious person. Loosen tight clothing such as a collar, tie, belt or waistband. Get medical attention if
symptoms appear.
Serious Ingestion: Not available.
Section 5: Fire and Explosion Data
Flammability of the Product: Flammable.
Auto-Ignition Temperature: The lowest known value is 399C (750.2F) (Isopropyl alcohol).
Flash Points: CLOSED CUP: 18.3C (64.9F) - 24 deg. C (75 deg. F)
Flammable Limits: The greatest known range is LOWER: 2% UPPER: 12.7% (Isopropyl alcohol)
Products of Combustion: These products are carbon oxides (CO, CO2).
Fire Hazards in Presence of Various Substances:
Highly flammable in presence of open flames and sparks, of heat.
Flammable in presence of oxidizing materials.
Non-flammable in presence of shocks
Explosion Hazards in Presence of Various Substances:
Slightly explosive in presence of open flames and sparks, of heat.
Non-explosive in presence of shocks.
Fire Fighting Media and Instructions:
Flammable liquid, soluble or dispersed in water.
SMALL FIRE: Use DRY chemical powder.
LARGE FIRE: Use alcohol foam, water spray or fog.
p. 2
Special Remarks on Fire Hazards:
Vapor may travel considerable distance to source of ignition and flash back. CAUTION: MAY BURN WITH
NEAR INVISIBLE FLAME.
Hydrogen peroxide sharply reduces the autoignition temperature of Isopropyl alcohol.
After a delay, Isopropyl alcohol ignites on contact with dioxgenyl tetrafluorborate, chromium trioxide, and
potassium tert-butoxide. When heated to decomposition it emits acrid smoke and fumes. (Isopropyl alcohol)
Special Remarks on Explosion Hazards:
Secondary alcohols are readily autooxidized in contact with oxygen or air, forming ketones and hydrogen peroxide.
It can become potentially explosive.
It reacts with oxygen to form dangerously unstable peroxides which can concentrate and explode during distillation
or evaporation. The presence of 2-butanone increases the reaction rate for peroxide formation.
Explosive in the form of vapor when exposed to heat or flame. May form explosive mixtures with air.
Isopropyl alcohol + phosgene forms isopropyl chloroformate and hydrogen chloride.
In the presence of iron salts, thermal decompositon can occur, whicn in some cases can become explosive.
A homogeneous mixture of concentrated peroxides + isopropyl alcohol are capable of detonation by shock or heat.
Barium perchlorate + isopropyl alcohol gives the highly explosive alkyl perchlorates.
It forms explosive mixtures with trinitormethane and hydrogen peroxide.
It produces a violent explosive reaction when heated with aluminum isopropoxide + crotonaldehyde.
Mixtures of isopropyl alcohol + nitroform are explosive.
(Isopropyl alcohol)
Section 6: Accidental Release Measures
Small Spill:
Dilute with water and mop up, or absorb with an inert dry material and place in an appropriate waste disposal
container.
Large Spill:
Flammable liquid.
Keep away from heat. Keep away from sources of ignition. Stop leak if without risk. Absorb with DRY earth,
sand or other non-combustible material. Do not touch spilled material. Prevent entry into sewers, basements or
confined areas; dike if needed. Be careful that the product is not present at a concentration level above TLV.
Check TLV on the MSDS and with local authorities.
Section 7: Handling and Storage
Precautions:
Keep away from heat. Keep away from sources of ignition. Ground all equipment containing material. Do not
ingest. Do not breathe gas/fumes/ vapor/spray. Wear suitable protective clothing. In case of insufficient
ventilation, wear suitable respiratory equipment. If ingested, seek medical advice immediately and show the
container or the label. Avoid contact with skin and eyes. Keep away from incompatibles such as oxidizing agents,
acids.
Storage:
Store in a segregated and approved area. Keep container in a cool, well-ventilated area. Keep container tightly
closed and sealed until ready for use. Avoid all possible sources of ignition (spark or flame).
Section 8: Exposure Controls/Personal Protection
Engineering Controls:
Provide exhaust ventilation or other engineering controls to keep the airborne concentrations of vapors below their
respective threshold limit value. Ensure that eyewash stations and safety showers are proximal to the
work-station location.
Personal Protection:
Safety glasses. Lab coat. Dust respirator. Be sure to use an approved/certified respirator or equivalent. Gloves
(impervious).
p. 3
Personal Protection in Case of a Large Spill:
Splash goggles. Full suit. Dust respirator. Boots. Gloves. A self contained breathing apparatus should be used
to avoid inhalation of the product. Suggested protective clothing might not be sufficient; consult a specialist
BEFORE handling this product.
Exposure Limits:
Isopropyl alcohol
TWA: 983 STEL: 1230 (mg/m3) [Australia]
TWA: 200 STEL: 400 (ppm) from ACGIH (TLV) [United States] [1999]
TWA: 980 STEL: 1225 (mg/m3) from NIOSH
TWA: 400 STEL: 500 (ppm) from NIOSH
TWA: 400 STEL: 500 (ppm) [United Kingdom (UK)]
TWA: 999 STEL: 1259 (mg/m3) [United Kingdom (UK)]
TWA: 400 STEL: 500 (ppm) from OSHA (PEL) [United States]
TWA: 980 STEL: 1225 (mg/m3) from OSHA (PEL) [United States]Consult local authorities for acceptable exposure limits.
Section 9: Physical and Chemical Properties
Physical state and appearance: Liquid.
Odor: Alcohol like.
Taste: Not available.
Molecular Weight: Not applicable.
Color: Clear Colorless.
pH (1% soln/water): Neutral.
Boiling Point: The lowest known value is 82.5C (180.5F) (Isopropyl alcohol). Weighted average: 87.75C (189.9F)
Melting Point: May start to solidify at -88.5C (-127.3F) based on data for: Isopropyl alcohol.
Critical Temperature: The lowest known value is 235C (455F) (Isopropyl alcohol).
Specific Gravity: Weighted average: 0.84 (Water = 1)
Vapor Pressure: The highest known value is 4.4 kPa (@ 20C) (Isopropyl alcohol). Weighted average: 3.77 kPa (@ 20C)
Vapor Density: The highest known value is 2.07 (Air = 1) (Isopropyl alcohol). Weighted average: 1.63 (Air = 1)
Volatility: Not available.
Odor Threshold: The highest known value is 22 ppm (Isopropyl alcohol)
Water/Oil Dist. Coeff.: The product is equally soluble in oil and water.
Ionicity (in Water): Not available.
Dispersion Properties: See solubility in water, methanol, diethyl ether, n-octanol, acetone.
Solubility: Easily soluble in cold water, hot water, methanol, diethyl ether, n-octanol, acetone.
Section 10: Stability and Reactivity Data
Stability: The product is stable.
Instability Temperature: Not available.
p. 4
Conditions of Instability: Heat, flame, ignition sources, incompatible materials
Incompatibility with various substances: Reactive with oxidizing agents, acids, alkalis.
Corrosivity: Non-corrosive in presence of glass.
Special Remarks on Reactivity:
Reacts violently with hydrogen + palladium combination, nitroform, oleum, COCl2, aluminum triisopropoxide,
oxidants
Incompatible with acetaldehyde, chlorine, ethylene oxide, isocyanates, acids, alkaline earth, alkali metals, caustics,
amines, crotonaldehyde, phosgene, ammonia.
Isopropyl alcohol reacts with metallic aluminum at high temperatures.
Isopropyl alcohol attacks some plastics, rubber, and coatings.
Vigorous reaction with sodium dichromate + sulfuric acid. (Isopropyl alcohol)
Special Remarks on Corrosivity: Not available.
Polymerization: Will not occur.
Section 11: Toxicological Information
Routes of Entry: Absorbed through skin. Eye contact. Inhalation.
Toxicity to Animals:
Acute oral toxicity (LD50): 5143 mg/kg (Mouse) (Calculated value for the mixture).
Acute dermal toxicity (LD50): 18286 mg/kg (Rabbit) (Calculated value for the mixture).
Chronic Effects on Humans:
CARCINOGENIC EFFECTS: Classified A4 (Not classifiable for human or animal.) by ACGIH, 3 (Not classifiable
for human.) by IARC [Isopropyl alcohol].
DEVELOPMENTAL TOXICITY: Classified Reproductive system/toxin/female, Development toxin [POSSIBLE]
[Isopropyl alcohol].
Contains material which may cause damage to the following organs: kidneys, liver, skin, central nervous system
(CNS).
Other Toxic Effects on Humans:
Hazardous in case of skin contact (irritant), of ingestion, of inhalation.
Slightly hazardous in case of skin contact (sensitizer, permeator).
Special Remarks on Toxicity to Animals: Not available.
Special Remarks on Chronic Effects on Humans:
M a y c a u s e a d v e r s e r e p r o d u c t i v e / t e r a t o g e n i c e f f e c t s ( f e r t i l i t y , f e t o x i c i t y , d e v e l o p m e
n t a l
abnormalities(developmental toxin)) based on animal studies.
Detected in maternal milk in human. (Isopropyl alcohol)
Special Remarks on other Toxic Effects on Humans:
Acute Potential Health Effects:
Skin: May cause mild skin irritation, and sensitization.
Eyes: Can cause eye irritation.
Inhalation: Breathing in small amounts of this material during normal handling is not likely to cause harmful
effects. However, breathing large amounts may be harmful and may affect the respiratory system and mucous
membranes (irritation), behavior and brain (Central nervous system depression - headache, dizziness,
drowsiness, stupor, incoordination, unconciousness, coma and possible death), peripheral nerve and senstation,
blood, urinary system, and liver.
Ingestion: Swallowing small amouts during normal handling is not likely to cause harmful effects. Swallowing
large amounts may be harmful. Swallowing large amounts may cause gastrointestinal tract irritation with nausea,
vomiting and diarrhea, abdominal pain. It also may affect the urinary system, cardiovascular system, sense
p. 5
Section 12: Ecological Information
Ecotoxicity: Not available.
BOD5 and COD: Not available.
Products of Biodegradation:
Possibly hazardous short term degradation products are not likely. However, long term degradation products may
arise.
Toxicity of the Products of Biodegradation: The product itself and its products of degradation are not toxic.
Special Remarks on the Products of Biodegradation: Not available.
Section 13: Disposal Considerations
Waste Disposal:
Waste must be disposed of in accordance with federal, state and local environmental
control regulations.
Section 14: Transport Information
DOT Classification: CLASS 3: Flammable liquid.
Identification: : Isopropanol, solution (Isopropyl alcohol) UNNA: 1219 PG: II
Special Provisions for Transport: Not available.
Section 15: Other Regulatory Information
Federal and State Regulations:
Connecticut hazardous material survey.: Isopropyl alcohol
Illinois toxic substances disclosure to employee act: Isopropyl alcohol
Rhode Island RTK hazardous substances: Isopropyl alcohol
Pennsylvania RTK: Isopropyl alcohol
Florida: Isopropyl alcohol
Minnesota: Isopropyl alcohol
Massachusetts RTK: Isopropyl alcohol
New Jersey: Isopropyl alcohol
New Jersey spill list: Isopropyl alcohol
TSCA 8(b) inventory: Isopropyl alcohol; Water
TSCA 4(a) final testing order: Isopropyl alcohol
TSCA 8(a) IUR: Isopropyl alcohol
TSCA 8(d) H and S data reporting: Isopropyl alcohol: Effective date: 12/15/86 Sunset Date: 12/15/96
TSCA 12(b) one time export: Isopropyl alcohol
SARA 313 toxic chemical notification and release reporting: Isopropyl alcohol 70%
Other Regulations: OSHA: Hazardous by definition of Hazard Communication Standard (29 CFR 1910.1200).
Other Classifications:
WHMIS (Canada):
CLASS B-2: Flammable liquid with a flash point lower than 37.8C (100F).
CLASS D-2B: Material causing other toxic effects (TOXIC).
DSCL (EEC):
R11- Highly flammable.
R36- Irritating to eyes.
p. 6
S2- Keep out of the reach of children.
S46- If swallowed, seek medical advice
immediately and show this container or label.
HMIS (U.S.A.):
Health Hazard: 2
Fire Hazard: 3
Reactivity: 0
Personal Protection: E
National Fire Protection Association (U.S.A.):
Health: 1
Flammability: 3
Reactivity: 0
Specific hazard:
Protective Equipment:
Gloves (impervious).
Lab coat.
Dust respirator. Be sure to use an
approved/certified respirator or
equivalent. Wear appropriate respirator
when ventilation is inadequate.
Safety glasses.
Section 16: Other Information
References: Not available.
Other Special Considerations: Not available.
Created: 10/09/2005 05:53 PM
Last Updated: 11/06/2008 12:00 PM
The information above is believed to be accurate and represents the best information currently available to us. However, we
make no warranty of merchantability or any other warranty, express or implied, with respect to such information, and we
assume no liability resulting from its use. Users should make their own investigations to determine the suitability of the
information for their particular purposes. In no event shall ScienceLab.com be liable for any claims, losses, or damages of any
third party or for lost profits or any special, indirect, incidental, consequential or exemplary damages, howsoever arising, even
if ScienceLab.com has been advised of the possibility of such damages.
p. 7
Instant FAME/Instant Anaerobe Methods
Hexane
SECTION 1 CHEMICAL PRODUCT AND COMPANY IDENTIFICATION
MSDS Name: Hexane
MSDS Preparation Date: 06/19/2009
Synonyms or Generic ID: n-Hexane, Hexyl-hydride, Dipropyl, normal-Hexane, Hex.
PIN (UN#/ NA#): UN1208
Company Identification:
Microbial ID
125 Sandy Drive
Newark Delaware 19711
For Information, call: personal information , personal information
For Domestic CHEMTREC assistance, call: personal information
For International CHEMTREC assistance, call: personal information
SECTION 2 COMPOSITION, INFORMATION ON INGREDIENTS
CAS #
110-54-3
Chemical
Name
Percent
EINECS/ELINCS
ACGIH TLV
Hazards
Hexane
100
203-777-6
50 ppm
Flammable, mild
(contains a
irritant
mixture of
isomers)
State: Liquid
Appearance: colorless
Odor: Gasoline Like
Boiling Point (C): 62-69C
pH: not available
Specific Gravity: 0.678
760mm HG
Vapor Pressure (mm Hg): 151mm Hg @ 25C
Vapor Density (AIR=1): 2.97
Solubility in Water: insoluble
SECTION 3 HAZARDS IDENTIFICATION
Appearance: clear, colorless.
DANGER! Extremely flammable liquid and vapor. Vapor may cause flash fire. Breathing vapors may
cause drowsiness and dizziness. Causes eye, skin, and respiratory tract irritation. May be harmful if
absorbed through the skin. Aspiration hazard if swallowed. Can enter lungs and cause damage. Possible
risk of impaired fertility. Long-term exposure may cause damage to the nervous system of the extremities
(the hands, arms, legs and feet). Dangerous for the environment.
Target Organs: Central nervous system, respiratory system, eyes, skin, peripheral nervous system, testes.
Potential Health Effects
Eye: Causes mild eye irritation.
Skin: Prolonged and/or repeated contact may cause defatting of the skin and dermatitis. Causes irritation
with burning pain, itching, and redness. Absorbed through the skin. There have been no reports of skin
sensitization in people occupationally exposed to n-hexane. Skin sensitization was not observed in a
maximization test using 25 volunteers.
Ingestion: May cause gastrointestinal irritation with nausea, vomiting and diarrhea. Aspiration of material
into the lungs may cause chemical pneumonitis, which may be fatal. May cause central nervous system
depression.
Inhalation: Causes respiratory tract irritation. Exposure produces central nervous system depression.
Vapors may cause dizziness or suffocation. n-Hexane vapor concentrations can become so high that oxygen
is displaced, especially in confined spaces.
Microbial ID Chemicals
MSDS Hexane
Hexane
Chronic: Prolonged or repeated skin contact may cause defatting and dermatitis. Prolonged or repeated
exposure may cause adverse reproductive effects. Chronic exposure may cause visual disturbances.
Laboratory experiments have resulted in mutagenic effects. Peripheral neuropathy symptoms include:
muscular weakness, paresthesia, numbing of the hands, feet, legs and arms, unsteadiness, and difficulty in
walking and standing. Repeated exposure may cause nervous system abnormalities with muscle weakness
and damage, motor incoordination, and sensation disturbances. Chronic exposure produces peripheral
neuropathy.
SECTION 4 FIRST AID MEASURES
Eyes: In case of contact, immediately flush eyes with plenty of water for at least 15 minutes. Get medical
aid.
Skin: In case of contact, flush skin with plenty of water. Remove contaminated clothing and shoes. Get
medical aid if irritation develops and persists. Wash clothing before reuse.
Ingestion: Potential for aspiration if swallowed. Get medical aid immediately. Do not induce vomiting
unless directed to do so by medical personnel. Never give anything by mouth to an unconscious person. If
vomiting occurs naturally, have victim lean forward.
Inhalation: If inhaled, remove to fresh air. If not breathing, give artificial respiration. If breathing is
difficult, give oxygen. Get medical aid.
Notes to Physician: Treat symptomatically and supportively. For ingestion, the stomach should be
intubated, aspirated, and lavaged with a slurry of activated charcoal--protect the airway from aspiration of
gastric contents. Monitor arterial blood gases in cases of severe aspiration.
SECTION 5 FIRE FIGHTING MEASURES
General Information: As in any fire, wear a self-contained breathing apparatus in pressure-demand,
MSHA/NIOSH (approved or equivalent), and full protective gear. During a fire, irritating and highly toxic
gases may be generated by thermal decomposition or combustion. Use water spray to keep fire-exposed
containers cool. May accumulate static electrical charges, and may cause ignition of its own vapors.
Extremely flammable liquid and vapor. Vapor may cause flash fire. Vapors are heavier than air and may
travel to a source of ignition and flash back. Vapors can spread along the ground and collect in low or
confined areas. This liquid floats on water and may travel to a source of ignition and spread fire.
Extinguishing Media: Use dry chemical, carbon dioxide, or appropriate foam. Solid streams of water may
be ineffective and spread material. Water may be ineffective because it will not cool material below its
flash point.
Flash Point: -7.6 to -15C
Autoignition Temperature: 225 deg C ( 437.00F)
Explosion Limits, Lower:1.2 vol %
Upper: 7.7 vol %
NFPA Rating: (estimated) Health: 1; Flammability: 3; Instability: 0
SECTION 6 ACCIDENTAL RELEASE MEASURES
General Information: Use proper personal protective equipment as indicated in Section 8.
Spills/Leaks: Large spills may be neutralized with dilute alkaline solutions of soda ash, or lime. Avoid
runoff into storm sewers and ditches which lead to waterways. Clean up spills immediately, observing
precautions in the Protective Equipment section. Remove all sources of ignition. Provide ventilation. Do
not get water inside containers. A vapor suppressing foam may be used to reduce vapors. Absorb spill using
an absorbent, non-combustible material such as earth, sand or vermiculite.
MSDS Hexane
Hexane
SECTION 7-HANDLING AND STORAGE
Handling: Wash thoroughly after handling. Remove contaminated clothing and wash before reuse. Ground
and bond containers when transferring material. Avoid contact with eyes, skin, and clothing. Empty
containers retain product residue, (liquid and/or vapor), and can be dangerous. Take precautionary
measures against static discharges. Keep away from heat, sparks and flame. Do not pressurize, cut, weld,
braze, solder, drill, grind, or expose empty containers to heat, sparks or open flames. Use only with
adequate ventilation. Avoid breathing vapor or mist.
Storage: Keep away from heat and flame. Keep away from sources of ignition. Store in a tightly closed
container. Keep from contact with oxidizing materials. Store in a cool, dry, well ventilated area away from
incompatible substances.
SECTION 8 EXPOSURE CONTROL/ PERSONAL PROTECTION
Engineering Controls: Facilities storing or utilizing this material should be equipped with an eyewash
facility and a safety shower. Use adequate general or local explosion-proof ventilation to keep airborne
levels to acceptable levels.
Exposure limits:
Chemical Name
ACGH
NIOSH
OSHA
Hexane (contains a
50 ppm TWA; Skin-
50 ppm TWA; 180
500 ppm TWA; 1800
mixture of isomers)
potential significant
mg/m3 TWA 1100 ppm

mg/m3 TWA
contribution to overall
IDLH
exposure by the
cutaneous route
OSHA Vacated PELs: Hexane (contains a mixture of isomers): 50 ppm TWA; 180 mg/m3 TWA
Personal Protective Equipment
Eyes: Wear chemical splash goggles.
Skin: Wear appropriate protective gloves to prevent skin exposure.
Clothing: Wear appropriate protective clothing to prevent skin exposure.
Respirators: A respiratory protection program that meets OSHA's 29 CFR 1910.134 and ANSI Z88.2
requirements or European Standard EN 149 must be followed whenever workplace conditions warrant
respiratory use.
Other Protective Equipment: Make eye bath and emergency shower available.
SECTION 9 PHYSICAL AND CHEMICAL PROPERTIES
Physical State: Liquid
Appearance: Clear colorless
Odor: Gasoline-like
pH: Not available.
Vapor Pressure: 151 mm Hg @ 25C
Vapor Density: 2.97(Air = 1)
Evaporation Rate: Not available.
Viscosity: 0.31 mPas 20C
Boiling Point: 62 - 69C @ 760 mmHg
Freezing/Melting Point:-95 C
Decomposition Temperature: Not available.
Solubility: Insoluble.
Specific Gravity/Density:0.678
Molecular Formula:C6H14
Molecular Weight:86.18
MSDS Hexane
Hexane
SECTON 10 STABILITY AND REACTIVITY
Chemical Stability: Stable under normal temperatures and pressures.
Conditions to Avoid: Ignition sources, excess heat, electrical sparks, confined spaces.
Incompatibilities with Other Materials: Strong oxidizing agents.
Hazardous Decomposition Products: Carbon monoxide, carbon dioxide.
Hazardous Polymerization: Will not occur.
SECTION 11 TOXICOLOGICAL INFORMATION
CAS# 110-54-3: MN9275000
LD50/LC50:
CAS# 110-54-3:
Draize test, rabbit, eye: 10 mg Mild;
Inhalation, mouse: LC50 = 150000 mg/m3/2H;
Inhalation, rat: LC50 = 48000 ppm/4H;
Inhalation, rat: LC50 = 627000 mg/m3/3M;
Oral, rat: LD50 = 25 gm/kg;
Carcinogenicity:
CAS# 110-54-3: Not listed by ACGIH, IARC, NTP, or CA Prop 65.
Epidemiology: Occupational polyneuropathy has resulted from hexane exposures as low as 500 ppm, but
the minimum levels of n-hexane that are neurotoxic in humans haven't been established. Nearly continuous
exposure of animals at 250 ppm has caused neurotoxic effects.
Teratogenicity: No evidence of teratogenicity or embryotoxicity in anmial studies with hexane.
Fetotoxicity has been observed in the presence of maternal toxicity.
Reproductive Effects: Severe testicular damage has been observed in rats exposed to hexane at
concentrations which have produced other significant toxicity. Although subneurotoxic doses of its
principle toxic metabolite, 2,5-hexanedione, can induce progressive testiculartoxicity in rats, there have
been no reports of human sterility or other reproductive toxicity associated with n-hexane exposures.
Mutagenicity: Positive results (chromosomal damage in the bone marrow cells) obtained for rats exposed
by inhalation to n-hexane.
Neurotoxicity: n-Hexane is a mild irritant and CNS depressant in acute exposure, but its principal effects
are damage to the sensory and motor peripheral nerves, particularly in chronic exposure.
SECTION 12 ECOLOGICAL INFORMATION
Ecotoxicity: No data available. Estimated BCF values = 2.24 and 2.89. These values suggest that hexane
will show low bioconcentration in aquatic organisms. Estimated Koc value = 4.11. This product will show
slight soil mobility and is expected to rapidly volatilize from moist surface soils.
Environmental: Terrestrial: Volatilization and adsorption are expected to be the most important fate
processes. Aquatic: Photolysis or hydrolysis are not expected to be important. Atmospheric: Expected to
exist entirely in the vapor phase in ambient air, expected half life 2.8 days. Expected to biodegrade but not
bioconcentrate.
Physical: No information available.
Other: No information available.
MSDS Hexane
Hexane
SECTION 13 DISPOSAL CONSIDERATIONS
Chemical waste generators must determine whether a discarded chemical is classified as a hazardous waste.
US EPA guidelines for the classification determination are listed in 40 CFR Parts 261.3. Additionally,
waste generators must consult state and local hazardous waste regulations to ensure complete and accurate
classification.
RCRA P-Series: None listed.
RCRA U-Series: None listed.
SECTION 14 TRANSPORT INFORMATION
Proper Shipping Name: Hexanes
Hazard Class: 3
UN Number: UN1208
Packing Group: II
Flash Point: -22
SECTION 15 REGULATORY INFORMATION
US FEDERAL
TSCA
CAS# 110-54-3 is listed on the TSCA inventory.
Health & Safety Reporting List
None of the chemicals are on the Health & Safety Reporting List.
Chemical Test Rules
None of the chemicals in this product are under a Chemical Test Rule.
Section 12b
None of the chemicals are listed under TSCA Section 12b.
TSCA Significant New Use Rule
None of the chemicals in this material have a SNUR under TSCA.
CERCLA Hazardous Substances and corresponding RQs
CAS# 110-54-3: 5000 lb final RQ; 2270 kg final RQ.
SARA Section 302 Extremely Hazardous Substances
None of the chemicals in this product have a TPQ.
SARA Codes
CAS # 110-54-3: immediate, delayed, fire.
Section 313
This material contains Hexane (contains a mixture of (CAS# 110-54-3, 100%),which is subject to the
reporting requirements of Section 313 of SARA Title III and 40 CFR Parts 261.3
Clean Air Act:
CAS# 110-54-3 is listed as a hazardous air pollutant (HAP).
This material does not contain any Class 1 Ozone depletors.
This material does not contain any Class 2 Ozone depletors.
Clean Water Act:
None of the chemicals in this product are listed as Hazardous Substances under the CWA.
None of the chemicals in this product are listed as Priority Pollutants under the CWA.
None of the chemicals in this product are listed as Toxic Pollutants under the CWA.
OSHA:
None of the chemicals in this product are considered highly hazardous by OSHA.
STATE
CAS# 110-54-3 can be found on the following state right to know lists: New Jersey, Pennsylvania,
Minnesota, Massachusetts.
MSDS Hexane
Hexane
California Prop 65
California No Significant Risk Level: None of the chemicals in this product are listed.
European/International Regulations
European Labeling in Accordance with EC Directives
Hazard Symbols:
XN F N
Risk Phrases:
R 11 Highly flammable.
R 38 Irritating to skin.
R 48/20 Harmful : danger of serious damage to health by prolonged exposure through inhalation.
R 62 Possible risk of impaired fertility.
R 51/53 Toxic to aquatic organisms, may cause long-term adverse effects in the aquatic environment.
R 65 Harmful: may cause lung damage if swallowed.
R 67 Vapours may cause drowsiness and dizziness.
Safety Phrases:
S 16 Keep away from sources of ignition - No smoking.
S 29 Do not empty into drains.
S 33 Take precautionary measures against static discharges.
S 36/37 Wear suitable protective clothing and gloves.
S 9 Keep container in a well-ventilated place.
S 61 Avoid release to the environment. Refer to special instructions /safety data sheets.
S 62 If swallowed, do not induce vomiting: seek medical advice immediately and show this container or
label.
WGK (Water Danger/Protection)
CAS# 110-54-3: 1
Canada - DSL/NDSL
CAS# 110-54-3 is listed on Canada's DSL List.
Canada - WHMIS
This product has a WHMIS classification of B2, D2B.
This product has been classified in accordance with the hazard criteria of the Controlled Products
Regulations and the MSDS contains all of the information required by those regulations.
Canadian Ingredient Disclosure List
CAS# 110-54-3 is listed on the Canadian Ingredient Disclosure List.
SECTION 16 Other Information
This Material Safety Data Sheet has been prepared in accordance with 29 CFR 1910.1200 and contains
information believed to be accurate and complete at the date of preparation. The statements contained
herein are offered for informational purposes only. MIDI Inc. believes them to be accurate but does not
purport to be all-inclusive. The above-stated product is intended for use only by persons having the
necessary technical skills and facilities for handling the product at their discretion and risk. Since
conditions and manner of use are outside our control, we (MIDI Inc.) make no warranty of merchantability
or any such warranty, express or implied with respect to information and we assume no liability resulting
from the above product or its use. Users should make their own investigations to determine suitability of
information and product for their particular purposes.
MSDS Hexane
ENTRIX
Document No.:
GOM Block MC252
Date:

Page No:
Project HSE Plan
4-May-2010
41 of 56
APPENDIX C
FORMS
Pre-Mobilization Safety Briefing
HSE Indoctrination Record
Job Safety Hazard Analysis
Hazard Analysis/Risk Assessment Acknowledgement
Daily Safety Meeting
Incident/Accident Notification
Next of Kin Information
Daily Survey Report
Management of Change Order
ENTRIX
Document No.:
GOM Block MC252
Date:

Page No:
Project HSE Plan
4-May-2010
42 of 56
CSA INTERNATIONAL, INC.
PRE-MOBILIZATION SAFETY BRIEFING (PMSB)
A PMSB will be conducted by the CSA Site Safety Coordinator
The following is a summary of items to be discussed:
1) Description of project and goals
Sediment & Water collection, hydrographic profiler casts, ADCP, ROV Ops
2) Communications key to acquiring goals
Accident prevention - safe and healthy environment
3) Team members, assignments, and shifts
CSA, ENTRIX, and M/V Green Provider crew
4) Coordination with boat driver/vessels crew
Efficient procedures
Emergencies - medical, fire, man overboard (MOB), abandon ship
5) Designation of person in charge on deck
Shift leader
6) Complexity of the operations
Mobilization, Field, Demobilization
Collection Processes
7) Pre-operation checks
Vessel preparation
Location of vessel safety equipment
8) Safety equipment
Vessel
Sampling
First-aid
9) Hazards
Vessel operations
Sampling operations
Vessel and equipment: slips, trips, falls, bumps, pinching;
10) Limitations of personnel and equipment
Lifting, rigging, and safe working loads
Personal protective equipment
11) Environmental conditions
Wind, sea state, etc.
The PMSB/HSE induction for all personnel involved with the field activities will be conducted prior to
vessel mobilization. Daily briefings will be conducted for survey personnel. All vessel crew members will
be briefed on the operation of all primary and support equipment and primary sampling equipment
(especially the winch, blocks, cable, and A-frame) prior to mobilization. It is the responsibility of the survey
team members to ensure that proper rigging and lifting procedures are used. The vessels Masters will
be responsible for conducting the following drills: MOB, fire, abandon ship, and medical emergency.
These drills will be conducted once before the survey begins and weekly thereafter.
ENTRIX
Document No.:
GOM Block MC252
Date:

Page No:
Project HSE Plan
4-May-2010
43 of 56
HEALTH, SAFETY, AND ENVIRONMENTAL
INDOCTRINATION RECORD
Name:
Date:
Employer:
I have received indoctrination and training for following:
1.
Company safety policies of CSA, ENTRIX, and CML safety requirements, and the names
of persons assigned to safety supervision duties.
2.
Requirements and my individual responsibilities for accident prevention, maintaining a
safe and healthy work environment, preventing damage to property, and protecting safety
of others.
3.
Provisions for medical facilities and procedures for reporting or correcting unsafe
conditions and practices, and reporting accidents.
4.
Job hazards and means used to control or eliminate those hazards, including applicable
"Job Safety Analyses (JSA)" (major activity, locations, hazards, controls).
5.
Accident Reporting - Both my individual and my Supervisor's responsibilities for reporting
all accidents, even minor.
6.
Sanitation - Water, toilet facilities.
7.
Medical Facilities - Location of nearest medical emergency facilities, emergency phone
numbers, first-aid kits and material data safety sheets.
8.
Emergency Plans man overboard, fire, medical, severe weather, spill response, and
other emergency procedures.
9.
Personal protective equipment.
10. Daily housekeeping requirements.
11. Fire prevention.
12. Policy on use of ropes, slings, and chains.
ENTRIX
Document No.:
GOM Block MC252
Date:

Page No:
Project HSE Plan
4-May-2010
44 of 56
13. Hazards of floor and wall openings.
14. Hearing protection.
15. Requirements when working around hot substances.
16. Precautions with welding, cutting, and grounding of machinery.
17. Temporary electrical requirements.
18. Proper use of hand tools and power tools.
19. Proper precautions with compressed gas cylinders.
20. Requirements for ramps, runways, platforms, and scaffolds.
21. Clear access and ladder safety.
22. Material handling, storage, and disposal.
23. Hazardous materials.
24. If I am injured I (do) (do not) want the following person notified:
Name:
Phone:
Signature: __________________________ Date _______________
Safety Officer Signature: _______________________

Date _______________
ENTRIX
Document No.:
GOM Block MC252
Date:

Page No:
Project HSE Plan
4-May-2010
45 of 56
JOB SAFETY HAZARD ANALYSIS FORM
JOB TITLE:
JSHA No.____
Employer:
Facility:
Location:
Classification(s)
Doing Job:
Supervisor:
Sequence of Basic Job Steps
.
.
DATE:
New___
Revised___
Page___of___
Required /Recommended
Analysis by:
Personal Protective
Equipment:
Reviewed by:
Approved by:
Potential Hazards
.
.
Recommended Action
or Procedure
.
.
ENTRIX
Document No.:
GOM Block MC252
Date:

Page No:
Project HSE Plan
4-May-2010
46 of 56
HAZARDS ANALYSIS/RISK ASSESSMENT ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
My supervisor has reviewed this hazard analysis with me, and I understand the hazards and
required precautionary actions. I will follow the requirements of this hazard analysis or notify my
supervisor if I am unable to do so. I understand that there are Environmental, Safety, and Health
professionals on staff if I need further assistance or clarification.
Name (please print)
Signature
Date
ENTRIX
Document No.:
GOM Block MC252
Date:

Page No:
Project HSE Plan
4-May-2010
47 of 56
DAILY SAFETY MEETING FORM
DATE:____________
PROJECT TITLE:
CONDUCTED BY:
IN ATTENDANCE:
Print Name
Sign Name
SUBJECT(S) DISCUSSED: Potential Safety Hazards and Resolutions
ENTRIX
Document No.:
GOM Block MC252
Date:

Page No:
Project HSE Plan
4-May-2010
48 of 56
INCIDENT/ACCIDENT NOTIFICATION FORM Directions for filling out form
Email within 24 hrs to Lynwood Powell, CSA Stuart Office [email protected]
Originators Reference No:
summary
Date of Incident:
Number assigned by project/asset as in its incident
Time:
Exact Location:
Location of the incident/Project Group
Name of Person(s) involved:

Employing Company:
Type of Incident:
Injured party, any other people involved
Injured party and all people involved
LTI, Near Miss, RWC, Medical Treatment, etc.
Initial Potential Consequence:

Matrix
Description of
Incident:
Assign initial potential consequence as per The Risk Assessment
Where, when, what, how, who, operation in progress at
the time (only factual)
Provide details of the incident including:
timing,
order of events,
Personnel involved their position, company, etc.
their role in the incident,
any relevant information available at the time of reporting
medical/emergency response details
any other important information
Immediate Action:
Immediate remedial action and actions to prevent
reoccurrence or escalation
In this section provide only immediate remedial actions (corrective) and actions TO PREVENT REOCCURRENCE.
Do not include medical response into this section
Remedial Actions:
Provide long term remedial actions (if identified at the stage of reporting). For the incidents requiring further
investigation do not include remedial actions. Those will have to be reported as a part of a final investigation report
Name:
Signature:
Title:
Date:
ENTRIX
Document No.:
GOM Block MC252
Date:

Page No:
Project HSE Plan
4-May-2010
49 of 56
CSA International, Inc.
INCIDENT NOTIFICATION FORM
E-mail/Fax within 24 hrs to Lynwood Powell, CSA Stuart Office [email protected]
Originators Reference No:

Date of Incident:
Project/Asset Group:
Exact Location:
Time:
Client/Employing Company:
Type of Incident:
Initial Potential Consequence:
Description of Incident:
Where, when, what, how, who, and the operation in progress at the time (only factual).
Immediate Action:
Immediate remedial action and actions to prevent reoccurrence or escalation.
Remedial Actions:
Name:
Signature:
Title:
Date:
ENTRIX
Document No.:
GOM Block MC252
Date:

Page No:
Project HSE Plan
4-May-2010
50 of 56
CSA International, Inc.
NEXT-OF-KIN INFORMATION
Person
Name
Relationship
Bruce Graham
Joey Graham
Spouse
Frank Johnson
Beth Johnson
Spouse
Tony Wadley
Pauline Wadley
Mother
Terry Stevens
Sue Stevens
Mother
Phone
ENTRIX
Document No.:
GOM Block MC252
Date:

Page No:
Project HSE Plan
4-May-2010
51 of 56
DAILY SURVEY REPORT
Client:
Project:
Location:
Job Number:
Date:
ENTRIX
Water Column Profiling Survey
GOM; MC Block 252
CSA2290
Weather Report
M/V Green
Provider
Vessel:
Client Rep:
Current location:
Satellite Phone #:
Onboard Email:
Wind speed/dir:
Wave height:
General:
PERSONNEL ON BOARD
CSA
Vessel
Client
ENTRIX
Document No.:
GOM Block MC252
Date:

Page No:
Project HSE Plan
4-May-2010
52 of 56
Daily Survey Report (Contd)
SAMPLE
SUMMARY
Total Stations:
# Complete:
% Complete:
Total Stations:
# Complete:
% Complete:
0
0.00%
DAILY ACTIVITIES LOG
Time
0.00%
Description
SUMMARY OF PROJECT TIME
Operation
today
previous total
Mob/Demob
Operations
Standby Weather
Standby Other
Standby in Port
Standby Client
Technical
Downtime
Vessel Downtime
Maintenance Time
TOTAL
Total
ENTRIX
Document No.:
GOM Block MC252
Date:

Page No:
Project HSE Plan
4-May-2010
53 of 56
PLANNED ACTIVITY FOR NEXT 24 HOURS
ACCIDENTS/INCIDENTS

HAZARDS REPORTS
AUDITS COMPLETED
SIGHTINGS OF/INTERACTIONS WITH FISHERMEN
EMERGENCY DRILLS
COMPLETED
HSE ISSUES/CONCERNS
MARINE MAMMAL/SEA TURTLE SIGHTINGS
CURRENT ESTIMATE OF COMPLETION DATE
ENTRIX
Document No.:
GOM Block MC252
Date:

Page No:
Project HSE Plan
4-May-2010
54 of 56
MONTHLY EVENTS
Quantity
Event
Number of Fatalities
Number of Lost Time Injuries
Number of Restricted Work Injuries
Number of Medial Treatment Injuries
Number of First Aid Injuries
Number of Fires and Explosions
Number Incidents involving Equipment Damage
Number of Near Misses
Number of Spills (to sea or land)
Number of Security Incidents
Number of hazard reports /STOP cards or safety observations
Number of incidents involving stakeholder complaints
Amount of waste generated, categorized by type. (monthly only)
Amount of fuel oil / diesel used
At the completion of the survey a report on injury absences and details of ongoing HSE
Programs/Initiatives will be completed.
ENTRIX
Document No.:
GOM Block MC252
Date:

Page No:
Project HSE Plan
4-May-2010
55 of 56
Management of Change Order
Date:
To:
Subject:
Comments:
Project Change
Reason for Change
Approved by:
CSA Project Manager
_______________________________________
Client Representative
_______________________________________
ENTRIX
Document No.:
GOM Block MC252
Date:

Page No:
Project HSE Plan
ATTACHMENTS
4-May-2010
56 of 56
We ship printed books within 1 business day; personal PDFs are available immediately.
Understanding Oil Spill Dispersants: Efficacy and
Effects
Committee on Understanding Oil Spill Dispersants:
Efficacy and Effects, National Research Council
ISBN: 0-309-54793-8, 396 pages, 6 x 9, (2005)
This PDF is available from the National Academies Press at:
Visit the National Academies Press online, the authoritative source for all books
from the National Academy of Sciences, the National Academy of Engineering,
the Institute of Medicine, and the National Research Council:
Download hundreds of free books in PDF
Read thousands of books online for free
Explore our innovative research tools try the Research Dashboard now!
Sign up to be notified when new books are published
Purchase printed books and selected PDF files
Thank you for downloading this PDF. If you have comments, questions or
just want more information about the books published by the National
Academies Press, you may contact our customer service department toll-
free at 888-624-8373, visit us online, or send an email to
[email protected].
This book plus thousands more are available at http://www.nap.edu.
Unless otherwise indicated, all materials in this PDF File are copyrighted by the National
Academy of Sciences. Distribution, posting, or copying is strictly prohibited without
written permission of the National Academies Press. Request reprint permission for this book.
Toxicological Effects of Dispersants
and Dispersed Oil
ne of the most difficult decisions that oil spill responders and
natural resources managers face during a spill is evaluating the
environmental trade-offs associated with dispersant use. The ob-
jective of dispersant use is to transfer oil from the water surface into the
water column. When applied before spills reach the coastline, dispersants
will potentially decrease exposure for surface dwelling organisms (e.g.,
seabirds) and intertidal species (e.g., mangroves, salt marshes), while in-
creasing it for water-column (e.g., fish) and benthic species (e.g., corals,
oysters). Decisions should be made regarding the impact to the ecosystem
as a whole, and this often represents a trade-off among different habitats
and species that will be dictated by a full range of ecological, social, and
economic values associated with the potentially affected resources. Com-
paring the possible ecological consequences and toxicological impacts of
these trade-offs is difficult. First, each oil spill represents a unique situa-
tion and second, it is often difficult to extrapolate from published research
data into field predictions, especially regarding the possibility of long-
term, sublethal toxicological impacts to resident species (Box 5-1 provides
definitions for most the common terms used in discussions of toxicologi-
cal effects).
Historically, the use of dispersants in the United States has been re-
stricted primarily to deepwater (>10 m), offshore spills. In addition, the
focus and the recommendations of the 1989 NRC report on oil dispersants
were based on expected impacts of dispersants and dispersed oil during
open ocean spills (NRC, 1989). As the potential use of dispersants is ex-
panded into nearshore, estuarine, and perhaps even freshwater systems,
193
194
BOX 5-1
Common Toxicological Terms Related to
Dispersant Toxicity Testing
ExposureContact with a chemical by swallowing, breathing, or direct
contact (such as through the skin or eyes). Exposure may be either acute or
chronic.
AcuteAn intense event occurring over a short time, usually a few min-
utes or hours. An acute exposure can result in short-term or long-term
health effects. An acute effect happens within a short time after exposure.
Acute toxicity to aquatic organisms can be estimated from relatively short
exposures (i.e., 24, 48, or 96 hr) with death as the typical endpoint.
ChronicOccurring over a long period of time, generally several weeks,
months or years. Chronic exposures occur over an extended period of time
or over a significant fraction of a lifetime. Chronic toxicity to aquatic or-
ganisms can be estimated from partial life-cycle tests of relatively short
duration (i.e., 7 days).
SublethalBelow the concentration that directly causes death. Exposure
to sublethal concentrations of a material may produce less obvious effects
on behavior, biochemical and/or physiological function (i.e., growth and
reproduction), and histology of organisms.
Delayed EffectsEffects or responses that occur some extended time after
exposure.
Static ExposuresExposures for aquatic toxicity tests in which the test or-
ganisms are exposed to the same test solution for the duration of the test
(static non-renewal) or to a fresh solution of the same concentration or
sample at prescribed intervals such as every 24 hr (static renewal). The
concentration of the test material may change during the test due to bio-
the trade-offs become even more complex. For example, the protection of
sensitive habitats, such as tropical coral reefs and mangroves, is a priority
in oil spill response decisions. Many studies have shown that oil, floating
above subtidal reefs, has no adverse effects on the coral; however, if al-
lowed to reach the shoreline, the oil may have long-term impacts to a
nearby mangrove system. In addition, oil may persist in the mangrove
system creating a chronic source of oil pollution in the adjacent coral reefs.
The trade-off would be to consider the use of dispersants. Application of
TOXICOLOGICAL EFFECTS OF DISPERSANTS AND DISPERSED OIL
195
logical uptake, volatilization, adherence to the test vessel, chemical degra-
dation, etc.
Flow-Through ExposuresSample to be tested is pumped continuously
into a dilutor system and then to the test vessels. This method is used to
control sample concentration throughout the duration of the test.
Spiked ExposuresSpiked Declining (SD) Exposures: Concentration of dis-
persant sample is highest at start and then declines to non-detectable levels
after 68 hr using a flow-through exposures protocol developed by Chemi-
cal Response to Oil Spills Environmental Research Forum (CROSERF) par-
ticipants.
LC
pLethal Concentration: The toxicant concentration that would cause
death in a given percent (p) of the test population. For example, the LC
50 is
the concentration that would cause death in 50 percent of the population.
The lower the LC, the greater the toxicity.
EC
pEffective Concentration: A point estimate of the toxicant concentra-
tion that would cause an observable adverse effect on a quantal (all or
nothing) response in a given percent (p) of the population.
IC
pInhibition Concentration: A point estimate of the toxicant concentra-
tion that would cause a given percent (p) reduction in a non-quantal bio-
logical measurement such as reproduction or growth.
NOECNo-Observed-Effect-Concentration: The highest concentration of
toxicant to which organisms are exposed in a full or partial (short-term) life-
cycle test that causes no observable adverse effects on the test organisms
(i.e., the highest concentration of toxicant at which the values for the ob-
served responses are not statistically different from the control).
SOURCES: Singer et al., 1 991 ; Rand, 1 995; Grothe et al., 1 996; EPA,
2002a,b, 2005; New York Department of Health, 2005.
dispersant would result in dispersion of the oil in the water column and
so provide some degree of protection to the mangroves; however, the reef
system would now have to endure the consequences of an increase in
dispersed oil in the water column (see section on coral reefs later in this
chapter). Therefore, for oil spill responders to decide upon appropriate
response strategies, it is important that decisions are based on sound sci-
entific data. Ecological factors that go into this decision include: expected
sensitivity of exposed resources, proportion of the resource that would be
196
affected, and recovery rates (Pond et al., 2000). There is a tremendous
need to reduce the uncertainty associated with each of these decision
criteria.
This chapter reviews recent laboratory, mesocosm, and field studies
on the toxicological effects of dispersants and dispersed oil, particularly
those published since the 1989 NRC report on oil dispersants (NRC, 1989).
The intention is first to summarize the current state of understanding re-
garding the biological effects of dispersants and dispersed oil, and second
to make recommendations for additional studies that will help fill critical
data gaps in the knowledge and understanding of the behavior and inter-
action of dispersed oil and the biotic components of ecosystems. The fol-
lowing discussion is limited primarily to studies of the toxicological effects
on individual organisms, as opposed to populations or communities. This
narrower scope reflects the current state of science in ecotoxicology (see
Box 5-2). Although the research and management communities recognize
the importance of considering higher order ecological effects, not enough
is known to extrapolate from toxicity tests to population or community-
level impactsan issue that concerns all applications of ecotoxicology.
Consequently, the explicit consideration of these impacts, and formula-
tion of research to address them, is beyond the scope of this report on the
application of ecotoxicological principles to oil spill research.
Due to implementation of several of the recommendations made in
1989 (NRC, 1989), particularly the standardization of toxicity testing meth-
ods and information garnered from long-term monitoring of field studies,
some general conclusions about the toxicity of dispersants and dispersed
oil can be reached. However, there are still areas of uncertainty that will
take on greater importance as the use of dispersants is considered in shal-
low water systems. Specifically, there is insufficient understanding of the
fate of dispersed oil in aquatic systems, particularly interactions with sedi-
ment particles and subsequent effects on biotic components of exposed
ecosystems. In addition, the relative importance of different routes of ex-
posure, that is, the uptake and associated toxicity of oil in the dissolved
phase versus dispersed oil droplets versus particulate-associated phase,
is poorly understood and not explicitly considered in exposure models.
Photoenhanced toxicity has the potential to increase the impact foot-
print of dispersed oil in aquatic organisms, but has only recently received
consideration in the assessment of risk associated with spilled oil. One of
the widely held assumptions is that chemical dispersion of oil will dra-
matically reduce the impact to seabirds and aquatic mammals. However,
few studies have been conducted since 1989 to validate this assumption.
Finally, more work is needed to assess the long-term environmental ef-
fects of dispersed oil through monitoring and analysis of spills on which
197
BOX 5-2
Assessing Population and Community-Level Impacts:
A Central Issue in Ecotoxicology
The decision of whether or not to use chemical dispersants in aquatic
systems involves evaluation of the trade-offs between potential impacts on
various natural resources. Toxicity tests are one of the primary tools that
are used to predict these impacts. Much of the toxicological literature fo-
cuses on the effects of dispersed oil on individual organisms, because this
is the level of biological organization that is most readily studied. Of far
greater significanceand of far greater complexity as wellare the effects
of dispersed oil on populations and communities of organisms. How to
make meaningful predictions about toxicological effects on populations or
communities is a problem that is not unique to the assessment of the im-
pacts of an oil spill, but rather is a central question in the field of eco-
toxicology. How does the loss or impairment of one or more individual
organisms impact a population? How does damage to single or multiple
populations impact a community? In the case of dispersed oil, numerous
ecological factors may affect the impacts to, and recovery of, these higher
levels of biological organization, including the proportion of the resource
affected (which in turn involves an understanding of the toxicological sen-
sitivity of organisms as well as the behavior, habits, and habitats that will
affect the probability of a species being exposed to oil), birth and death
rates of the affected species, the current status of the population (e.g., en-
dangered or common species), life stages that are present, and time of year
(e.g., nesting or spawning season, seasonal migration).
Population and community models are tools that show promise in
enhancing our understanding of the toxicological impacts to these higher
levels of biological organization. Despite recent efforts to advance these
approaches (SETAC, 2003), there is no scientific consensus on this issue.
Consequently, the majority of ecological risk assessments of environmental
chemicals are still based on species-specific tests of toxicological effects on
individual organisms. Until population and community-level approaches
are more widely accepted and utilized in ecotoxicology, evaluations re-
garding the impacts of oil spills will remain largely based on qualitative
assessments and best professional judgment. However, progress has been
made in our understanding of the long-term effects of oil spills on biologi-
cal communities. The NRC (2003) report on Oil in the Sea III: Inputs, Fates
and Effects provides a good summary of some of the long-term studies that
have been conducted after oil spills, especially those assessing effects on
benthic communities and seabirds. For the moment, these types of studies
represent the best chance of improving our understanding of the effects of
spilled and dispersed oil on biological populations and communities.
SOURCE: SETAC, 2003.
198
dispersants have been used. Interestingly, several of these data gaps were
also identified in 1989 (NRC, 1989).
TESTING PROCEDURES FOR DISPERSANT
AND DISPERSED OIL TOXICITY
Toxicity Tests
Much that is currently known about the toxicity and biological effects
of dispersants and dispersed oil has been derived from bench-scale acute
toxicity tests. These tests typically consist of exposing a single species to
varying dilutions of dispersant or dispersed oil preparations under care-
fully controlled laboratory conditions. Factors that influence such tests
include:
choice of test organism and life stage
condition of oil (fresh versus weathered)
method of preparing test solutions
exposure conditions
choice of response parameters
Commonly used test organisms include fish, mollusks, arthropods,
annelids, and algae. The choice of test organism is dictated by a combina-
tion of factors including potential risk, comparative sensitivity, suitability
of the species to the testing conditions, and relative ecological and eco-
nomic significance. An additional consideration is the specific life stage to
be tested, because larvae and adults may respond to exposure in signifi-
cantly different ways.
The method of preparing test solutions is particularly important in
the case of dispersed oil testing. Water and oil are not easily miscible, so
factors such as mixing energy and loading method can readily affect the
relative concentrations of oil components to which test organisms are ex-
posed. Dispersants can also separate and form films on water unless test
solutions are properly prepared and mixed.
Exposure conditions in toxicity tests for dispersants and dispersed oil
vary with the choice of test chamber (e.g., open or closed), the exposure
model (e.g., static or flow-through, spiked or continuous), route of expo-
sure (e.g., water or food), test duration, and other factors such as tempera-
ture, salinity, and buffering capacity. The choice of test duration alone can
significantly overestimate or underestimate toxicity depending on the ac-
tual oil spill situation being simulated.
The choice of response parameters measured in a test can be signifi-
cant as well. Current generation dispersants appear to cause toxicity
199
through disruptive effects on membrane integrity and a generalized nar-
cosis mechanism (NRC, 1989). Dispersed oil, on the other hand, exerts a
toxic effect through multiple pathways including narcosis, more specific
receptor-mediated pathways associated with elevated dissolved phase
exposures, and possibly by additional pathways such as smothering by
dispersed oil droplets. The presence of receptor-mediated pathways sug-
gests that relatively short-term toxicity tests with death as the primary or
sole endpoint may not be sufficient to adequately assess the potential risks
of dispersed oil. Short-term tests are also incapable of addressing poten-
tial delayed effects due to metabolism of oil constituents, bioaccumulation,
or possible photoenhanced toxicity.
Although much of the literature on the toxicity of dispersants and
dispersed oil is based on typical static exposures of 4896 hr duration,
such tests have been criticized as potentially overestimating the toxicity
of oil and dispersed oil in actual spill scenarios (NRC, 1989; George-Ares,
et al., 1999). In response to these concerns, a university-industry-govern-
ment working group, the Chemical Response to Oil Spills Environmental
Research Forum (CROSERF), was organized to coordinate and dissemi-
nate research on oil spill dispersant use. CROSERF developed toxicity test
protocols involving spiked exposures of shorter durations and standard-
ized preparations of water accommodated fractions (WAF) of oil and
chemically enhanced water accommodated fractions of dispersed oil
(CEWAF) (Singer et al., 1991, 1993, 1994a,b, 1995, 2000, 2001a,b; Clark et
al., 2001; Rhoton et al., 2001). For clarity, the term CEWAF will only be
used in this chapter when referring to a dispersed oil water accommo-
dated fraction that is prepared using the CROSERF protocols. Chemi-
cally dispersed oil will be used to describe non-CROSERF preparation
methods. The CROSERF test methods are summarized in Table 5-1.
The main focus of CROSERF was to standardize methods (i.e., prepa-
ration and quantification of fractions and exposure protocols) to allow for
greater comparability of toxicological data. In this regard, CROSERF was
quite successful. Significant toxicological information was generated us-
ing these protocols that successfully addressed the relative toxicity of
different dispersants and oil, as well as the relative sensitivity of test
organisms.
Refinements to the CROSERF protocols may be warranted for future
toxicity testing of dispersants and dispersed oil, either to address specific
concerns with the current test procedures (as highlighted below) or to
provide greater site-specificity for risk assessment purposes (e.g., dispers-
ant use in nearshore areas). For example, several refinements to the
CROSERF procedures have been proposed to adapt the test to subarctic
conditions, including changes in WAF preparation, exposure and light
regimes, analytical chemistry, and use of subarctic test organisms (Barron
200
TABLE 5-1 CROSERF Toxicity Test Specifications
Parameter
CROSERF Procedure
WAF and CEWAF Preparation
Water
Local seawater recommended; minimal 0.45 m filtration
Oil
Fresh and artificially weathered
Oil loading
Variable loading (0.0125 g of oil per liter of water); serial
dilution not recommended
Vessel
120 L carboys or aspirator bottles as appropriate for
amount of solution required
Head space
2025% by volume
Mixing energy/duration
Original: 1824 h at low mixing energy (approximately 200
rpm with no vortex) and no settling time for WAF, and
moderate mixing energy (2025% vortex) with 36 h settling
d: WAF and CEWAF both
time for CEWAF; Modified
prepared with moderate mixing energy and settling
Mixing conditions
Sealed in dark at test temperatures
Analytical chemistry
TPH and <C
10 volatile hydrocarbons required, other
analyses optional; TPH, alkanes measured by GC/FID;
VOCs and PAHs measured by GC/MS
Dispersant (dispersant:oil)
Primarily Corexit 9500 and/or 9527 (1:10); occasionally
Corexit 9554 and others
Dispersant concentration
verification
UVspectroscopy
Test Procedures
Test design
Five treatments plus control, each with three replicates
Test concentrations
Exposure concentrations derived from a series of
geometrically progressing oil loading rates; for toxicity
comparisons, total hydrocarbon content (THC: TPH plus
<C
10 volatile hydrocarbons) recommended as concentration
endpoint
Exposure regime
48 or 96 h tests in sealed vessels; static-renewal exposures
for duration of test, aeration discouraged; flow-through
spiked exposures with concentrations decreasing to non-
detectable levels in <8 h
Test maintenance
Renew solutions at unspecified intervals for static renewal
tests, removing dead organisms; dead organisms not
removed in flow-through exposures; feeding as specified
for test species, with food amount adjusted for loss of test
organisms
201
TABLE 5-1 Continued
Parameter
CROSERF Procedure
Species/life stage
Temperate aquatic species/early life stages
Temperature; salinity
Temperatures appropriate to species; salinity full-strength
seawater
Light regime
Laboratory lighting (fluorescent)
Toxicity endpoint
Lethality assessed daily for length of test; sublethal
endpoints assessed as appropriate for test organism
Bioaccumulation
Not measured
SOURCE: Singer et al. (1991); Singer et al. (2000); Clark et al. (2001), Rhoton et al. (2001),
Singer et al. (2001a).
bModified ASTM Method D-86 (1990 modification); oil topped by distillation to 200 C
roughly simulating 1 day at sea (Daling et al. 1990; Singer et al., 2001b).
cWAF=Water accommodated fraction; CEWAF=Chemically enhaced WAF, or chemically
dispersed oil; stir bar size 12 in as appropriate.
dClark et al. (2001) modification of standard CROSERF mixing energy protocol for physi-
cally dispersed oil (WAF) using 2025% vortex, followed by 6 h settling time.
eTPH: total petroleum hydrocarbons; alkanes: >10 carbon alkanes; VOC: volatile organic
compounds (<10 carbon alkanes and MAHs); PAHs: polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons; GC:
gas chromatography; FID: flame ionization detection; MS: mass spectrometry
and Kaaihue, 2003). However, the potential benefits of altering test pro-
tocols from the CROSERF procedures should be carefully weighed against
the implications for potential loss of data comparability and reproducibil-
ity.
Some factors to consider in possible refinements to the current CRO-
SERF test protocols for future testing efforts include:
procedures for making dilutions to be tested
exposure regimes, including test chambers
methods for quantifying petroleum exposure
chemical measurements
response parameters
potential photoenhanced toxicity
Two alternate methods for preparing WAF and CEWAF fractions
have been suggested, discussed at great length, and remain the subject of
scientific debate (see Singer et al., 2000; 2001a; Barron and Kaaihue, 2003)
The CROSERF protocols recommend preparation of toxicity test solutions
202
by variable loading using a series of decreasing concentrations of applied
oil and dispersant (Figure 5-1). Other researchers (for example see Barron
and Kaaihue, 2003) have proposed the use of a single oil:water loading
rate and the preparation of test solutions using various dilutions of the
stock preparation. The decision of which method to use may depend ulti-
mately on the specific scientific question being addressed. Singer et al.
(2001a) argue for the variable loading method because they believe it is
more field relevant since spilled oil slicks tend to be dynamic, continu-
Variable Loading
Variable ratio
of toxic components
WAF 1
WAF 2
WAF 3
Variable Dilution
Same ratio
of toxic components
WAF 1
WAF 2
WAF 3
FIGURE 5-1 Comparison of variable loading and variable dilution methods of
preparing toxicity test solutions.
SOURCE: Barron and Kaaihue, 2003; courtesy of Elsevier.
203
ally changing in size, shape, and thickness. Consequently, these tests ad-
dress the question: At what oil to water loading ratio is WAF (CEWAF)
toxic? Barron and Kaaihue (2003) advocate a variable dilution method
for preparing a WAF for testing dispersant that standardizes the oil:water
ratio and provides a consistent chemical concentration in a test-series for
each oil-dispersant combination (Figure 5-1). This approach answers the
question: At what dilution is a given oil:water ratio of WAF (CEWAF)
toxic? Because it has not been conclusively demonstrated that either
method more accurately simulates the temporal dilution of dispersed oil
under actual spill conditions, we do not endorse one method over the
other. As noted below, there are drawbacks to both approaches.
In the variable loading method, the dispersant:oil ratios do not change
and, therefore, each test preparation will have different amounts of oil
and dispersant relative to the volume of water in the test chamber. As a
result mixing energies change as loading rate (Singer et al., 2000), poten-
tially affecting droplet size or coalescence. The drawback of the variable
dilution method has been described as the production of the equal ratio of
each specific PAH across the dilution range (Barron and Kaaihue, 2003).
WAF and CEWAF produce significant proportions of oil in the droplet
phase, such that increasing dilution may differentially affect the partition-
ing of the PAH into the aqueous phase. In addition, Barron and Kaaihue
(2003) have argued that the variable dilution approach provides econo-
mies in analytical costs by reducing the need to analyze the composition
of every tested concentration. However, if chemical analyses were limited
to stock solutions, inaccuracies may occur due to differential partitioning
in the test dilutions, adsorption of compounds onto test chambers, or loss
to the gaseous phase.
The interpretation of the results of toxicity tests can be significantly
affected by the method of WAF and CEWAF preparation because of the
variable solubilities of the many components in oil. For example, the vari-
able loading method yields different mixtures of petroleum hydrocarbons
at different loading rates (see Figure 5-1). The problems that arise between
the two methods are due to the fact that often both methods report their
data in the same form (i.e., in ppm of some overall metric, such as TPH or
tPAH). Therefore, the elimination of any fractional characteristics can lead
to a misunderstanding of what that concentration actually represents. For
example, LC
50 data derived from tPAH or TPH alone may result in under-
or overestimation of toxicity depending on test preparation method used.
Hence, more complete characterizations of chemical analytes are needed.
Another issue with the CROSERF protocols concerns the mixing ener-
gies involved in the process of preparing test solutions. The various
CROSERF protocols employ equal mixing energies for the production of
CEWAF, but differ in the approaches for the production of WAF. For ex-
204
ample, initial CROSERF protocols (e.g., Singer et al., 2000) used slow mix-
ing (200 rpm) with no vortex for WAF and a vortex of 2025 percent for
CEWAF preparations. Additional modifications of the method were made
(e.g., Clark et al., 2001) so that CEWAF and WAF were prepared using
equal mixing energies and a 2025 percent vortex. Unless a clear rationale
can be provided for doing otherwise, it is recommended that equal mix-
ing energies for both WAF and CEWAF be considered for standardization
purposes.
A potential issue with the exposure regimes of the CROSERF test is
the use of airtight test chambers for flow-through tests. Volatiles, although
highly toxic, tend to evaporate very rapidly from spilled oil (NRC, 2003)
but are retained in the CROSERF test with unweathered oil because of the
sealed nature of the test chamber. The advantage of this approach is that it
attempts to standardize the exposure regime, but the drawback is that it
may result in an overestimation of toxicity. In most instances, the applica-
tion of dispersant during an oil spill will happen at least several hours
after the initiation of the spill, such that substantial weathering of spilled
oil will have occurred (see modeling results in Appendix E). In order to
better reflect actual exposure scenarios, open chambers could be consid-
ered for use with unweathered oil. Alternatively, tests with closed cham-
bers could be conducted with weathered oil. The choice of experimental
protocol will depend on the purpose of the experiment (e.g., standardiza-
tion or site-specific assessment). Similarly, the temporal exposure regimes
of the CROSERF test may not provide an appropriate simulation for some
spill situations. For instance, spiked, flow-through exposures in the rec-
ommended CROSERF test protocols have oil concentrations decreasing
by half about every 2 hr with nondetectable concentrations being reached
at about 8 hr. This exposure regime may be a relatively accurate approxi-
mation of the exposure situation for the majority of offshore spills in tem-
perate climes. However other temperate zone oil spills (French-McCay,
1998), especially subarctic spills (Neff and Burns, 1996; Short and Harris,
1996), may cause much longer periods of elevated PAH, compounds that
contribute significantly to the toxicity of chemically and physically dis-
persed oil. Furthermore, future potential uses of dispersants in either
semi-enclosed inshore waters or freshwater situations could conceivably
result in much longer exposure durations than originally envisioned by
the CROSERF working group. Thus, the CROSERF spiked protocol may
reflect the typical offshore, open-water spill conditions relatively accu-
rately, but longer test durations may yield exposure scenarios that more
realistically recreate certain spill conditions. Spiked exposure data yield
significantly lower toxicity values than standard constant exposure tests
of longer duration (Figure 5-2; also, Clark et al., 2001; Fuller and Bonner,
2001). Consequently, the use of CROSERF spiked exposure data in risk
205
FIGURE 5-2 Comparison of the LC
50s for continuous versus spiked exposure re-
gimes using chemically enhanced water accommodated fraction (CEWAF) of dif-
ferent oils. Continuous exposures were 96 hours in duration, except for tests with
oyster larvae that were 48 hours. Spiked tests represented an 8-hour declining
exposure. Species were exposed to fresh Forties crude oil and Corexit 9500, except
for topsmelt, which were exposed to fresh Prudhoe Bay crude oil, and kelp mysid,
which were exposed to fresh Kuwait crude oil and Corexit 9527. LC
50s for spiked
exposures were based on the initial total petroleum hydrocarbon concentration of
the CEWAF.
SOURCE: Data are from Clark et al. (2001) and Singer et al. (2001b).
assessment should be evaluated in the context of the specific spill sce-
narios under consideration.
Additionally, the literature calls for better exposure quantification in
testing protocols, moving away from nominal doses and simple estimates
of total petroleum hydrocarbon (TPH) to the measurement of specific toxi-
cants in the exposure media, both dissolved and suspended (NRC, 1989;
Singer et al., 2000; Shigenaka, 2001; Barron and Kaaihue, 2003). The
CROSERF protocol recommends the measurement of TPH and volatile
organic compound (VOC) concentrations in test mixtures, as well as anal-
ysis of each PAH in some instances. In comparison with many of the pre-
vious studies that reported only nominal concentrations of petroleum
products in the test mixtures, the CROSERF protocols were a major im-
provement. However, future studies should clearly specify at what point
during the toxicity test chemical analyses were performed and explain
how these measurements were used to calculate the toxicological end-
points. In addition, other methods of quantifying exposure deserve fur-
ther consideration, including the potential use of toxic units to summarize
the toxicity of the various active components of dispersed oil prepara-
tions (see discussion under Mode of Action). The primary impediment to
206
applying the toxic unit approach is that not all of the toxic components of
petroleum are well-characterized. However, when this issue is better re-
solved, the toxic unit approach holds considerable promise for more accu-
rately relating exposure and toxicity.
Photoenhanced toxicity is another factor that has not been adequately
considered in dispersant and dispersed oil toxicity testing under either
CROSERF or non-CROSERF protocols. The toxicity of oil dispersed in
water has been shown in some studies to be many times higher in the
presence of the ultraviolet radiation from sunlight, yet to date only a single
study has examined the photoenhanced toxicity of chemically dispersed
oil (Barron et al., 2004). Photoenhanced toxicity as it relates to the effects
of dispersed oil is discussed later in the chapter.
Mesocosms
Laboratory experimentation, field trials, and monitoring of spills of
opportunity have supplied much of what is currently known of the po-
tential toxicological consequences of oil spills and oil spill response mea-
sures. Laboratory experiments cannot adequately address the scale or
complexity of actual spills. Field studies to better simulate actual oil spill
conditions are restricted by high costs, difficulties in replicating experi-
ments, and regulatory restrictions. Mesocosm-scale tests have been pro-
posed as a way to bridge the gap between laboratory and field studies for
testing purposes (Coelho et al., 1999). However, mesocosms have been
employed in only a limited number of such studies to date.
The Shoreline Environmental Research Facility (SERF; formerly
Coastal Oil Spill Simulation System) in Corpus Christi, Texas discussed in
Chapter 3 was used in a series of oil spill experiments to examine bio-
accumulation (Coelho et al., 1999) and in-situ toxicological responses of
various coastal organisms, including fish and various invertebrate species
(Lessard et al., 1999; Bragin et al., 1999). Also, laboratory tests were used
to evaluate the toxicity of test sediments from these experiments (Fuller et
al., 1999). More recently, Ohwada et al. (2003) employed a small-scale
mesocosm facility in Japan to examine the fate of soluble fractions of oil
and measure their effect on several marine coastal microorganisms, in-
cluding bacteria, viruses, and heterotrophic nano-flagellates.
The SERF tests indicate both the potential and the limitations of
mesocosms in helping explain and predict the ecological effects of oil spill
response measures. However, such studies are not as readily controlled
as laboratory experiments nor are they as realistic as spill-of-opportunity
studies. Additional mesoscale investigations of toxicological responses to
oil spill response measures are therefore considered a lower priority for
future funding compared to targeted laboratory experimentation and
207
spill-of-opportunity studies. However, if mesocosm studies are conducted
for other dispersant-related purposes, consideration should be given to
the addition of carefully designed studies that examine the effects of dis-
persants or dispersed oil on organisms or groups of organisms that can-
not be readily studied in laboratory-scale tests.
DISPERSANT TOXICITY
Early dispersant formulations (prior to 1970) were essentially solvent-
based degreasing agents adapted from other uses. These early dispers-
ants proved to be highly toxic to aquatic organisms, as seen following
treatment of the Torrey Canyon spill, resulting in an unfavorable public
impression of dispersant use that persists today. Concerns about dispers-
ant use after the Torrey Canyon spill were summarized in the previous
NRC dispersant review as toxicity of the products themselves, and con-
cern that effective dispersant use would make oil constituents more
bioavailable enhancing their toxicity (NRC, 1989). However, the previous
NRC report concluded that the acute lethal toxicity of chemically dis-
persed oil is primarily associated not with the current generation of dis-
persants but with the dispersed oil and dissolved oil constituents fol-
lowing dispersion (NRC, 1989). There has been little evidence in the
intervening years to support a different conclusion.
Dispersants in use today are much less toxic than early generation
dispersants, with acute toxicity values (measured in standard 96 h LC
50
tests) typically in the range of approximately 190500 mg/L (Fingas,
2002a) as compared with dispersed oil values in the typical range of 2050
mg/L. An abundant literature exists on the toxicity of the Corexit dispers-
ants currently approved for use in the United States (Tables 5-2 and 5-3;
George-Ares and Clark, 2000). Numerous studies have found current dis-
persants to be significantly less toxic than oil or dispersed oil in direct
comparisons (Figure 5-3; also Adams et al., 1999; Mitchell and Holdaway,
2000; Clark et al., 2001; Fingas, 2002a), although a few studies have re-
ported greater dispersant toxicity compared with oil or dispersed oil tox-
icity (Gulec et al., 1997). Sensitivity to dispersants and dispersed oil can
vary significantly by species and life stage. Embryonic and larval stages
appear to be more sensitive than adults to both dispersants and dispersed
oil (Clark et al., 2001), with LC
50 s for both oyster and fish larvae reported
to be as low as 3 mg/L for dispersant alone and about 1 mg/L for dis-
persed oil. However, some studies report higher larval toxicity values (i.e.,
lower sensitivity) for both dispersant and dispersed oil that are closer to
the adult values (Coutou et al., 2001). Variable sensitivity of early life
stages to dispersants could be related to species-dependent variability in
egg permeability (Georges-Ares and Clark, 2000).
208
TABLE 5-2 Aquatic Toxicity of Corexit 9527 (Adapted from George-
Ares and Clark, 2000)
Common Name
Species
Exposure
(h)
Endpoint
Cnidarians
Green Hydra
Green Hydra
Hydra viridissima
Hydra viridissima
96
168
LC
50
NOEC
Artemia sp.
Artemia salina
Gnorimospaeroma oregonensis
Anonyx laticoxae
Anonyx nugax
Boeckosimus sp.
Boeckosimus edwardsi
Onisimus litoralis
Gammarus oceanicus
Allorchestes compressa
Pseudocalanus minutus
Pseudocalanus minutus
Palaemonetes pugio
Palaemonetes pugio
Palaemon serenus
Macrobrachium rosenbergii
48
48
96
96
96
96
96
96
96
96
48
96
96
96
96
288
LC
50
LC
50
LC
50
LC
50
LC
50
LC
50
LC
50
LC
50
LC
50
LC
50
LC
50
LC
50
LC
50
LC
50
LC
50
EC
50 Hatching
Penaeus monodon
Penaeus vannemai
Penaeus setiferus
Mysidopsis bahia
96
96
96
96
LC
50
LC
50
LC
50
LC
50
Gulf mysid
Gulf mysid
Kelp forest mysid, F
Mysidopsis bahia
Mysidopsis bahia
Holmesimysis costata
48
SD
96
LC
50
LC
50
LC
50

Kelp forest mysid
Blue crab (larvae), F
Callinectes sapidus
SD
96
SD
96
96
LC
50
LC
50
LC
50
LC
50
LC
50
Molluscs
Scallop, F
Scallop, F
Scallop, F
Red abalone (embryos)
Argopecten irradians
Haliotis rufescens
Haliotis rufescens
6
6
6
48
SD
LC
50
LC
50
LC
50
EC
50
EC
50
Crustaceans
Brine shrimp
Brine shrimp
Isopod, F
Amphipod, F
Amphipod, F
Amphipod, F
Amphipod, F
Amphipod, F
Amphipod, (juvenile), F
Amphipod, F
Copepod, F
Copepod, F
Grass shrimp, F
Grass shrimp, F
Ghost shrimp
Giant freshwater prawn
(embryo-larval)
Prawn
Shrimp
White shrimp (postlarvae), F
Gulf mysid
209
Effect
Concentration
(ppm)
References
230
<15
Mitchell and Holdaway (2000)
52104
5384
>1000
>140
97111
>175
>80
80160
>80
3.0
812
525
640 (27C)
840 (17C)
49.4 f
80.4
Wells et al. (1982)
Briceno et al. (1992)
Duval et al. (1982)
Foy (1982)
Foy (1982)
Foy (1982)
Foy (1982)
Foy (1982)
Foy (1982)
Gulec et al. (1997)
Wells et al. (1982)
Wells et al. (1982)
National Research Council (1989)
National Research Council (1989)
Gulec and Holdaway (2000)
Law (1995)
3545
3545
11.9
d 1934
29.2,
195
d
d
4.3
7.3
d
d
120
163
15.3
77.981.2
Fucik et al. (1995)
Fucik et al. (1995)
Fucik et al. (1995)
Briceno et al. (1992); George-Ares et al. (1999); Exxon Biomedical
Sciences (1993a); Pace and Clark (1993)
Inchcape Testing Services (1995); Clark et al. 2001
Pace et al. (1995); Clark et al. (2001)
Pace and Clark (1993); Exxon Biomedical Sciences (1993b,c); Clark
et al. 2001
George-Ares and Clark (2000); Clark et al. (2001)
Singer et al. (1990, 1991)
Singer et al. (1991)
Coelho and Aurand (1996)
Fucik et al. (1995)
200 (20C)
1800 (10C)
2500 (2C)
d2.2
1.6
d
d
13.6
18.1
Ordsie and Garofalo (1981)
Singer et al. (1990, 1991)
d,f
24.129.2
>1014
2.4 d
10.1
continues
210
TABLE 5-2 Continued
Species
Exposure
(h)
Endpoint
Clam, F
Pacific oyster (embryos)
Pacific oyster (embryos)
Marine sand snail, F
Protothaca stamiea
Crassostrea gigas
Crassostrea gigas
Polinices conicus
96
48
SD
24
LC
50
LC
50
LC
50
EC
50
Fish
Medaka
Oryzias latipes
24
LC
50
Rainbow trout
Spot (embryos)
Spot (embryo-larval), F
Top smelt (larvae)
Top smelt (larvae)
Fourhorn sculpin, F
Mummichog
Inland silverside (larvae)
Oncorhynchus mykiss
Leiostomus xanthurus
Leiostomus xanthurus
Atherinops affinis
Atherinops affinis
Myoxocephalus quadricornis
Fundulus heteroclitus
Menidia beryllina
96
48
48
96
SD
96
96
96
LC
50
LC
50
LC
50
LC
50
LC
50
LC
50
LC
50
LC
50

Inland silverside (embryos)
Red drum (embryo-larval), F
Sheepshead minnow
Atlantic menhaden
(embryo-larval), F
Australian bass (larvae)
Menidia beryllina
Menidia beryllina
Sciaenops ocellatus
Cyprinodon variegatus
Brevoortia tyrannus
SD
96
48
96
48
LC
50
LC
50
LC
50
LC
50
LC
50
Macquaria novemaculeata
96
LC
50
Seagrass
Turtlegrass, F
Thalassia tesudimum
96
LC
50
Macroalgae
Giant kelp (zoospores), F

Brown alga
Macrocystis pyrifera
Phyllospora comosa
48
SD
SD
48
NOEC
NOEC
IC
50
EC
50
Bacteria
Microtox
Vibrio fisheri
0.25
EC
50
Common
Name
F:
field collected.
spiked, declining exposure (107 min half-life).
cEC
: concentrations causing effect in 50% of organisms; LC
: concentration causing
50
50
mortality in 50% of organisms; IC
50 : concentration causing inhibition in 50% of organisms;
NOEC: no effect concentration.
dMeasured values.
eListed as Gulec et al., 1994 in George-Ares and Clark (2000).
Updated entries not provided in George-Ares and Clark (2000).
bSD:
Effect
Concentration
(ppm)
References
ca. 100
d
3.1
13.9
33.8
Hartwick et al. (1982)
Gulec et al. (1997)
130150
seawater
400 freshwater
96293
61.262.3
27.4
d40.6
25.5
d
d
59.2
104
<40
99124
d 14.657
52.3,
George-Ares and Clark (2000)
58.3
>100
52.6
74152
42.4
Wells and Doe (1976)
Slade (1982)
Fucik et al. (1995)
Singer et al (1990, 1991)
Foy (1982)
Briceno et al. (1992); Fucik et al. (1995); Pace and Clark (1993);
Inchcape Testing Services (1995); Exxon Biomedical Sciences
(1993d); Clark et al. (2001)
Fucik et al. (1995)
Fucik et al. (1995)
Fucik et al. (1995)
14.3
200
Baca and Getter (1984)
d2.1
1.3
d
d
12.2
16.4
d
d
102
86.6
30
Singer et al. (1990, 1991)
Burridge and Shir (1995)
4.912.8
George-Ares et al. (1999); Exxon Biomedical Sciences (1992)
211
212
TABLE 5-3 Aquatic Toxicity of Corexit 9500 (adapted from George-
Ares and Clark, 2000)
Common Name
Species
Exposure
(h)
Endpoint
Cnidarians
Green Hydra
Green Hydra
Hydra viridissima
Hydra viridissima
96
168
LC
50
NOEC
Crustaceans
Amphipod, F
Brine shrimp
White shrimp, F
Ghost shrimp
Gulf mysid
Gulf mysid
Artemia salina
Palaemonetes varians
Palaemon serenus
Mysidopsis bahia
Mysidopsis bahia
96
48
6
96
48
96
LC
50
LC
50
LC
50
LC
50
LC
50
LC
50
Gulf mysid
Mysidopsis bahia
SD
LC
50
Copepod (adult)
Prawn (larval), F
Tanner crab (larvae), F
Tanner crab (larvae), F
Eurytemora affinis
Penaeus monodon
Chionoecetes bairdi
Chionoecetes bairdi
96
SD
SD
96
96
SD
LC
50
LC
50
NOEC
LC
50
EC
50
EC
50
Molluscs
Marine sand snail, F

Polinices conicus
Haliotis rufescens
Haliotis rufescens
Haliotis rufescens
24
48
SD
SD
EC
50
NOEC
NOEC
LC
50
Fish
Barramundi (juvenile)
Turbot (yolk-sac larvae)
Turbot (yolk-sac larvae)
Rainbow trout
Mummichog
Sheepshead minnow (larvae)
Sheepshead minnow (larvae)
Mozambique tilapia
Zebra danio
Lates calcarifer
Scophthalmus maximus
Scophthalmus maximus
Oncorhynchus mykiss
Fundulus heteroclitus
Sarotherodon mozambicus
Brachydanio rerio
Menidia beryllina
96
48
SD
96
96
96
SD
96
24
96
LC
50
LC
50
LC
50
LC
50
LC
50
LC
50
LC
50
LC
50
LC
50
LC
50
Menidia beryllina
SD
LC
50
213
Effect
Concentration
(ppm)
References
160
13
3.5
21
8103
f
83.1
32.2
d
31.4 d,f
35.9
d,f
d,f
1305,
500
d,f
>789
5.2
d245
158
41.4 d
142
48
d,f
5.6
d,f
355
Gulec et al. (1997)
Beaupoil and Nedelec (1994)
Inchcape Testing Services (1995)
George-Ares and Clark (2000); Fuller and Bonner (2001)
; Clark et al.
(2001)
; Rhoton et al. (2001)
Coehlo and Aurand (1997); Fuller and Bonner (2001)
; Clark et al.
(2001)
Wright and Coehlo (1996)
Singer et al (1996)
Marine and Freshwater Resources Institute (1998)
Rhoton et al. (2001)
Rhoton et al. (2001)
42.3
d
0.7
d
d
9.7
5.7
d19.7
12.8
Gulec et al. (1997)
Aquatic Testing Laboratories (1994)
143
d
74.7
>1055
354
140
d,f
170193
d,f
593750
150
>400
25.285.4 d,f
Fuller and Bonner (2001)
Inchcape Testing Services (1995); Fuller and Bonner (2001)
; Rhoton
et al., 2001
d,f
d,f
40.7
116.6,
d,f
205
continues
214
TABLE 5-3 Continued
Species
Exposure
(h)
Endpoint
Hardy heads (juvenile), F

Australian bass (larvae)
Atherinosoma microstoma
Macquaria novemaculeata
96
96
LC
50
LC
50
Algae
Diatom
Brown alga (zygotes), F
Skeletonema costatum
Phyllospora comosa
72
48
EC
50
EC
50
Bacteria
Microtox
Vibrio fisheri
0.25
EC
50
Common
Name
F:
field collected.
spiked, declining exposure (107 min half-life).
cEC
: concentrations causing effect in 50% of test organisms; LC
: concentration causing
50
50
mortality in 50% of test organisms; NOEC: no effect concentration.
dMeasured values.
eListed as Gulec et al 1994 in George-Ares and Clark (2000).
Updated entries not provided in George-Ares and Clark (2000).
bSD:
195
LC50 (ppm)
100.0
672
>1014
>1055
744
WAF
90.0
CEWAF
80.0
Dispersant
70.0
60.0
48.6
50.0
40.0
35.7
30.0
20.0
10.0
2.3
>1.8
21.6
18.1
17.2
13.9
1.8
>2.8
5.9
>2.9
>1.3
0.0
C. gigas
H. costata
(oyster embryo)
(kelp mysid)
C. varigatus
M. bahia
S. maximus
(sheepshead
(gulf mysid)
(turbot larvae)
4.2
0.9
S. ocellatus
(redfish)
>6.9
M. berylina
(silversides)
larvae)
Species
FIGURE 5-3 Comparison of the LC
50s derived from spiked exposures of water
accommodated fractions (WAF), chemically enhanced water accommodated frac-
tion (CEWAF), and dispersants using either fresh crude oil (Kuwait, Forties,
Prudhoe Bay, and Venezuela), weathered-crude oil (Arabian medium) or fresh
Medium Fuel Oil, and Corexit 9500 or Corexit 9527. LC
50s were based on initial
concentrations of total petroleum hydrocarbons.
SOURCE: Data are from Clark et al. (2001); Fuller and Bonner (2001); and Wetzel
and Van Fleet (2001).
Effect
Concentration
(ppm)
References
50
19.8
20
0.7
Norwegian Institute for Water Research (1994)
Burridge and Shir (1995)
d,f
104 d,f
242
215
In addition to acute toxicity, dispersants may have more subtle effects
that influence organism health. Dispersant has been reported to signifi-
cantly affect the uptake, but not necessarily bioaccumulation, of oil con-
stituents (Wolfe et al., 1998a,b,c; 1999a,b; 2001). In addition, dispersants
have been reported to have toxic effects on microbial processes that could
potentially interfere with oil decomposition (Varadaraj et al., 1995), but
this effect may be offset by other factors that appear to promote oil bio-
degradation (Swannell and Daniel, 1999). For further discussion on the
effect of dispersants and dispersed oil on microbial processes, see section
on Microbial Communities (found later in this chapter) and Chapter 4.
TOXICITY OF DISPERSED OIL
Oils are a complex mixture of literally thousands of compounds of
varying volatility, water solubility, and toxicity. The purpose of chemical
dispersants is to facilitate the movement of oil into the water column. The
result is a complex, multi-phase mixture composed of dissolved dispers-
ant, dissolved petroleum hydrocarbons, oil/dispersant droplets, and bulk,
undispersed oil. Consequently, aquatic organisms are potentially exposed
to many toxicants with different modes of action and through different
216
routes of exposure. Toxicity of dispersed oil in the environment will de-
pend on many factors, including the effectiveness of the dispersion, mix-
ing energy, type of oil, the degree of weathering, type of dispersant, tem-
perature, salinity, duration of exposure, and degree of light penetration
into the water column. There is a wealth of information on the biological
effects, particularly acute toxicity, associated with exposure to different
types of oil (summarized in NRC, 2003). Rather than review these find-
ings, the purpose here is to focus on the issues that are pertinent to under-
standing the bioavailability and toxicity of chemically dispersed oil.
Route of Exposure
Acute toxicity of oil is the result of a number of interacting chemical,
physical, and physiological factors. Thus, toxicity is highly dependent on
the conditions of constantly changing exposure. Adverse effects resulting
from dispersed oil can be a result of: (1) dissolved materials (e.g., aromatic
petroleum hydrocarbons, or dispersant), (2) physical effects due to con-
tact with oil droplets, (3) enhanced uptake of petroleum hydrocarbons
through oil/organism interactions, or (4) a combination of these factors
(Singer et al., 1998). In general, bioavailability and toxicity of individual
hydrocarbons are related to their solubility in water because dissolved
hydrocarbons diffuse across the gills, skin, and other exposed membranes
of aquatic organisms. The compounds of most concern are the low-
molecular-weight alkanes and monocyclic, polycyclic, and heterocyclic
aromatic hydrocarbons (Lewis and Aurand, 1997). The monocyclic aro-
matic hydrocarbons (e.g., benzene, toluene, ethylbenzenes, and xylenes)
and low-molecular-weight alkanes are soluble and toxic to aquatic organ-
isms, but these compounds are also very volatile, typically vaporizing
rapidly (see Figures 4-2, 4-5, and 4-6 in Chapter 4). As the oil weathers, the
concentrations of PAH in the oil plume (including the parent compounds
and alkyl substituted homologues) will become relatively enriched com-
pared to the low-molecular-weight alkanes and monocyclic aromatics con-
tributing more to the longer-term toxicity of oil. Because substantial
weathering of oil may occur before dispersant is applied (typically at least
several hours after the spill), the consequent enrichment of PAH may be
particularly important for evaluating the potential toxicity of dispersed
oil. Although PAH may drive the toxicity of oil in many instances, some
studies have found stronger relationships between TPH concentrations
and toxicity than between PAH and toxicity. For example, Barron et al.
(1999) conducted studies on the effects of WAF from three different weath-
ered oils on the mysid shrimp, Mysidopsis bahia. The median lethal con-
centrations for the three oils were within a factor of two when expressed
as TPH (range from 0.88 to 1.5 mg/L TPH), but differed by nearly a factor
217
of five when expressed as total PAH (range from 2.2 to 9.2 /L). Similarly,
Clark et al. (2001) found a significant association with TPH, but not PAH
or volatiles, in experiments comparing the toxicity of dispersed and un-
treated oil to early life stages of several marine organisms. McGrath et al.
(2003) evaluated the toxicity of various types of gasoline in WAF prepara-
tions using an alga, a fish, and a daphnid, and found that both aromatic
and aliphatic hydrocarbons contributed to toxicity, with the relative im-
portance of the fractions dependent on the type of gasoline. Furthermore,
other components of oil, for example the heterocyclic aromatics, also may
be contributing to toxicity (Barron et al., 1999). Some of these fractions are
not typically measured in laboratory or field studies, but may be toxico-
logically important depending on the type of oil and amount of weather-
ing. Another confounding factor in determining the cause of toxicity is
that chemical analyses typically measure concentrations in whole samples
that include hydrocarbons in the dissolved, colloidal, and particulate
phases while the bioavailability of these phases may differ (Fuller et al.,
1999). As highlighted below, distinguishing among these phases is impor-
tant for understanding the fate and effects of dispersed oil.
Oil droplets can physically affect exposed organisms, for example by
smothering through the physical coating of gills and other body surfaces.
For some organisms, dispersed oil droplets may also be an important
route of exposure to petroleum hydrocarbons, through either oil droplet/
gill interactions or ingestion of oil droplets. Ramachandran et al. (2004)
exposed juvenile rainbow trout to chemically dispersed oil and WAF us-
1 to
ing Corexit 9500 and Mesa crude oil and then used epifluorescence
microscopically observe PAH uptake in the fish gills. Uptake of PAH from
WAF was manifested as an even background of fluorescence on the fish
gill with occasional bright spots. Gills of fish exposed to chemically dis-
persed oil showed localized focal fluorescence (i.e., bright spots), suggest-
ing oil droplets on the gill surface. The authors hypothesized that oil drop-
lets on the fish gill could facilitate uptake of dissolved hydrocarbons.
If dispersion is effective, oil droplets generally range in size from <3
to 80 m (Franklin and Lloyd, 1986; Lunel, 1993, 1995b). The particle-size
distribution of dispersed oil overlaps with the preferred size range of food
ingested by many suspension-feeding organisms. For example, common
zooplankton, such as copepods, feed on particles in the range of 5 to 60
m, often switching their preferred particle size depending on the size
distribution of available particles (Valiela, 1984). Similarly, benthic and
1 Method
of fluorescence microscopy in which the excitatory light is transmitted through
the objective onto the specimen rather than through the specimen; only reflected excitatory
light needs to be filtered out rather than transmitted light, which would be of much higher
intensity.
218
epibenthic suspension feeders such as oysters, amphipods, and polycha-
etes are also known to select particles in size ranges that overlap with
dispersed oil droplets, similar to the sizes of some common phytoplank-
ton cells such as Isochrysis galbana (48 m), Chaetocerus spp. (1517 m),
and Skeletonema spp. (2025 m).
The importance of PAH uptake via ingestion of particulate-bound
PAH is well known (e.g., Menon and Menon, 1999; Lee, 1992). For ex-
ample, during the New Carissa oil spill near Coos Bay, Oregon, Payne and
Driskell (2003) collected dissolved and oil droplet/suspended particulate
material (SPM) phase water samples of physically dispersed oil and com-
pared the PAH profiles with those of tissue samples from mussels (a sus-
pension feeder) and Dungeness crabs (an omnivore). The results sug-
gested that mussels accumulated PAH from both the dissolved and the oil
droplet/SPM phases, with the latter predominating, while crabs accumu-
lated PAH primarily from the dissolved phase (Figure 5-4). In addition,
body burdens of mussels were approximately 500 times greater than those
of crabs, indicating the relative importance of these routes of exposure.
Estimating the relative contribution of oil droplets versus particulate-
bound oil to total oil exposure is problematic due to the difficulty in dis-
tinguishing uptake of these two phases. For physically dispersed oil, in-
teractions with SPM can be very important in the ultimate fate and
transport of bulk oil through the formation of oil/SPM agglomerates (see
discussion in Chapter 4). Although a limited amount of work has been
conducted on the interactions between chemically dispersed oil and SPM,
more data are clearly needed to better understand and model the fate and
effects of dispersed oil, particularly in shallow water systems with high
suspended solids. The limited information available suggests that fairly
high oil and SPM concentrations are required before chemically dispersed
oil interacts with SPM, and that chemically dispersed oil has a much lower
tendency to form SPM agglomerates compared to physically dispersed oil.
Aquatic organisms may also be exposed to oil due to contamination
of their food. Wolfe et al. (1998a) evaluated the bioavailability and trophic
transfer of PAH from dispersed (Corexit 9527) and untreated Prudhoe
Bay crude oil in a simple marine food chain: from phytoplankton, Iso-
14 C] naphthalene as
chrysis galbana, to a rotifer, Branhionus plicatilis. Using [
a model PAH, direct aqueous exposure was compared to dietary expo-
sure by allowing the rotifers to feed on algae that had been pre-exposed to
either WAF or chemically dispersed oil. Results indicated that approxi-
mately 20 to 45 percent of uptake was due to dietary exposure, but there
was no difference in uptake via the diet between WAF and chemically
dispersed oil. Information related to trophic transfer of contaminants is
relevant to evaluating the risk of oil exposure, because models based solely
on dissolved concentrations may substantially underestimate exposure.
219
In general, there is insufficient understanding of the fate of dispersed
oil in aquatic systems, including interactions with sediment particles and
biotic components of ecosystems. In order to better understand the fate
and effects of dispersed oil, studies should be conducted to estimate the
relative contribution to toxicity of dissolved-, colloidal-, and particulate-
phase oil (including an evaluation of oil droplets versus oil/SPM ag-
glomerates) in representative species. Chemical characterization should
accompany these tests, including analysis of dissolved and particulate oil
concentrations and bioaccumulation. The ability of decisionmakers to es-
timate the impacts of dispersants on aquatic organisms would be en-
hanced through greater understanding of these variables used in deci-
sion-making tools such as fate and effects models and risk rankings.
Mode of Action
Many oil constituents, most notably the PAH and monoaromatics, are
Type I narcotics (DiToro et al., 2000). Narcosis is defined as a reversible
state of arrested activity of protoplasmic structures (Bradbury et al., 1989)
and is thought to be the primary mechanism of acute toxicity of oil. Often
the terms narcotic and anesthetic are used interchangeably. Type I
narcotics are non-polar organic chemicals with a similar mode of action,
i.e., narcosis, such that toxicological effects are additive. On the other
hand, Type II narcotics, also called polar narcotics, have a different mode
of action than the Type I narcotics, and tend to be more toxic. Examples of
polar narcotics include nitrogen heterocycles (DiToro et al., 2000). Hence,
in oil the heterocyclic aromatics may act as Type II narcotics.
Regardless of their Type I or Type II classification, all organic chemi-
cals in a field mixture contribute to toxicity by narcosis (Deneer et al.,
1988); therefore, mixtures of organic chemicals, such as found during an
oil spill, would be expected to exhibit additive toxicity over a range of
composition ratios (van Wezel et al., 1996). Toxic unit models have been
applied to estimate the acute toxicity of PAH and other oil components
(Swartz et al., 1995; DiToro et al., 2000; French-McCay, 2002). A toxic unit
is the ratio of the measured concentration of a chemical and the corre-
sponding effective concentration in the same medium. Assuming toxicity
is additive, the toxic unit value for individual constituents can be summed
to estimate acute toxicity of the mixture. DiToro et al. (2000) and French-
McCay (2002) incorporated the critical body residue (i.e., lethal body bur-
den) concept into the narcosis toxic unit model. The assumption for this
toxicological model, known as the narcosis target lipid model (McGrath
et al., 2004), is that mortality occurs when the concentration of narcotic
chemicals in the target lipid reaches a threshold concentration. The acute
toxicity threshold is assumed to be species specific.
BP
BP
IP
BAP
BK
C4
C2
F/P3
F/P1
FL
D2
P/A3
P/A1
F2
AE
N4
N2
8000
6000
4000
2000
ng/L
16000
14000
12000
10000
IP
BAP
BK
C4
C2
F/P3
F/P1
FL
D2
P/A3
P/A1
F2
AE
N4
N2
900
800
700
600
500
400
300
200
100
mg/kg
220
100000
ng/L
80000
60000
40000
BP
IP
BAP
BK
C4
C2
F/P3
F/P1
FL
D2
P/A3
P/A1
F2
AE
N4
N2
20000
6000
ug/Kg
5000
4000
3000
2000
BP
IP
BAP
BK
C4
C2
F/P3
F/P1
FL
D2
P/A3
P/A1
F2
AE
N4
N2
1000
12
ug/Kg
10
BP
IP
BAP
BK
C4
C2
F/P3
F/P1
FL
D2
P/A3
P/A1
F2
AE
N4
N2
FIGURE 5-4 PAH histograms for: (A) mixed M/V New Carissa source oil blend
(ET-2) collected from the beach adjacent to the vessel on 2/11/99; (B) dissolved-
and (C) oil droplet-phase samples collected in the surf zone with the portable
large volume water sampling system (PLVWSS) on 2/12/99; (D) mussels collected
from the outside north jetty entrance to Coos Bay on 2/14/99; and (E) Dungeness
crab collected inside Coos Bay midway up the main channel on 2/19/99. The
diamonds connected by the horizontal line represent the sample-specific method
detection limits. Note: Also provided is a complete list of analytes and abbrevia-
tions, in order, presented in Figure 5-4.
continued
221
Analytes
Abbreviation
Naphthalene
N
C1-Naphthalenes
N1
C2-Naphthalenes
N2
C3-Naphthalenes
N3
C4-Naphthalenes
N4
Biphenyl
BI
Acenaphthylene
AC
Acenaphthene
AE
Fluorene
F
C1-Fluorenes
F1
C2-Fluorenes
F2
C3-Fluorenes
F3
Anthracene
Phenanthrene
P
C1-Phenanthrene/Anthracenes
P/A1
P/A2
P/A3
P/A4
Dibenzothiophene
D
C1-Dibenzothiophenes
D1
D2
D3
Fluoranthene
FL
Pyrene
PYR
C1-Fluoranthene/Pyrenes
F/P1
F/P2
F/P3
Benzo(a)Anthracene
BA
Chrysene
C
C1-Chrysenes
C1
C2
C2-Chrysenes
C3-Chrysenes
C3
C4-Chrysenes
C4
BB
Benzo(b)fluoranthene
Benzo(k)fluoranthene
BK
Benzo(e)pyrene
BEP
Benzo(a)pyrene
BAP
Perylene
PER
Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene
IP
Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene
DA
Benzo(g,h,i)perylene
BP
SOURCE: Data from Payne and Driskell, 2003; courtesy of the American Petro-
leum Institute.
222
The accuracy of toxic unit models is typically based on three as-
sumptions: (1) all the constituents contributing to toxicity are known and
measured; (2) effects concentrations of the constituents are known; and
(3) chemical equilibrium exists between the organism and the exposure
media (but see French-McCay, 2002). Clearly, under dispersed oil sce-
narios, whether in the laboratory or the field, these assumptions are not
apt to be met. Nonetheless, the narcosis model may provide a better esti-
mate of the potential acute effects of oil or dispersed oil than existing mea-
sures that rely on determining relationships between toxicity and mix-
tures of total volatiles, PAH, and/or TPH.
One advantage of the narcosis target lipid model is that it can and has
been incorporated into oil fate models to allow estimation of toxicity to
aquatic organisms (e.g., French-McCay, 2002, 2004; McGrath et al., 2003).
For example, French-McCay (2002) developed an oil toxicity and expo-
sure model, OilToxEx, as a submodel of the Spill Impact Model Applica-
tion Program (SIMAP). In this model, oil toxicity is predicted by applying
the narcosis target lipid model to the predicted concentrations of dissolved
aromatic constituents of spilled oil. In a wide range of laboratory expo-
sures with WAF, French-McCay (2002) found good agreement between
the narcosis target lipid model predicted LC
50 s and measured LC
50 s.
McGrath et al. (2003) used the narcosis target lipid model to estimate labo-
ratory toxicity of different gasoline blends. Their model estimated the fate
and effects of hydrocarbon blocks, rather than tracking individual hy-
drocarbon components (e.g., individual aromatics). The hydrocarbon
blocks represented pseudo-components with similar physical chemical
properties (usually boiling point as reflected by distillate cut ranges; see
Chapter 4). Their analysis indicated that reliable toxicity predictions could
be achieved by modeling the fate and toxicity of the hydrocarbon blocks.
The utility of this approach is being further explored to predict the fate
and effects of spilled oil by incorporation into current models (e.g., GNU
Network Object Model Environment) for use in pre-spill planning as well
as real-time spill modeling. Nevertheless, more work needs to be done to
link the additive compound-specific toxicity data with the component con-
centrations and mixtures within each hydrocarbon block or pseudo-
component.
It should be noted that narcosis may not account for all the toxic ef-
fects due to exposure to oil or dispersed oil, particularly sublethal or long-
term effects. Barron et al. (2004) evaluated the ability of four mechanism-
based toxicity models, including narcosis, to predict chronic toxicity of oil
to early life stage fish. They found that the narcosis model underpredicted
the observed toxicity and appeared to be mechanistically inconsistent with
many of the observed effects of early life stage toxicity in PAH-exposed
embryos, including edema, deformities, and cardiovascular dysfunction.
223
Hence, in these chronic (16 to 35 days) exposures, narcosis appeared not
to be the primary mode of action. In conclusion, narcosis models have
utility in predicting acute mortality due to exposure to dispersed oil, but
may underestimate toxicity in cases where petroleum compounds with
non-narcotic modes of action are important components (e.g., alkyl phen-
anthrenes, heterocyclic aromatics) and where sublethal or delayed effects
are manifested (Barron et al., 1999, 2004).
Photoenhanced Toxicity
A number of laboratory studies have indicated that toxicity due to
PAH increases significantly (from 12 to 50,000 times) in exposures con-
ducted under ultraviolet light, compared to exposures under the more
typical conditions of fluorescent lights (e.g., Landrum et al., 1987; Ankley
et al., 1994; Boese et al., 1997; Pelletier et al., 1997). This phenomenon,
known as photoenhanced toxicity or phototoxicity, occurs through two
mechanisms: photomodification and photosensitization (Neff, 2002; Fig-
ure 5-5). Both mechanisms result from the absorption of ultraviolet (UV)
radiation by the conjugated double bonds of PAH, exciting them to the
triplet state. With photomodification, the excited PAH molecule leads to
the formation of highly reactive free radicals that oxidize to form prod-
ucts that are often more toxic than the parent PAH. As described earlier in
Chapter 4, photomodification of PAH produces a wide variety of oxygen-
ated products, including quinones, peroxides, and ketones, all of which
are more water soluble than the parent PAH (Neff, 2002). Photosensitiza-
tion occurs when the excited PAH transfers the energy to dissolved oxy-
gen, forming reactive oxygen species. Because of the short-half life of these
photoproducts in water, these reactions are only important when prod-
ucts bioaccumulate in the tissues of aquatic organisms (Newsted and
Giesy, 1987) and attack cell membranes, bind DNA, or generate second-
ary radicals. Hence, photosensitization, the primary mechanism of photo-
enhanced toxicity, causes impacts that differ from the narcosis effects typi-
cally associated with PAH toxicity.
Photoenhanced toxicity has only recently received consideration in
the assessment of risk associated with spilled oil (Pelletier et al., 1997; Ho
et al., 1999; Barron and Kaaihue, 2001; Duesterloh et al., 2002; Barron et
al., 2004). This phenomenon has the potential to increase toxicity under
spill scenarios where the opportunity for UV exposure is greatest, e.g., oil
stranded on the shoreline, in a surface slick, or in shallow water. Because
dispersants generally increase the water-column concentrations of dis-
solved and particulate petroleum hydrocarbons (including the photo-
active compounds) relative to undispersed oil, photoenhanced toxicity of
some PAH is an important consideration for evaluating toxicity associ-
224
FIGURE 5-5 Mechanisms of photoenhanced toxicity.
SOURCE: Barron, 2000; courtesy of the Prince William Sound Regional Citizens
Advisory Council.
ated with water-column exposure to dispersed oil (Barron and Kaaihue,
2001; Barron et al., 2004). Photoenhanced toxicity also has implications for
the toxicological testing of spilled and dispersed oil. For example, Dues-
terloh et al. (2002) found that the toxicity of weathered Alaska North Slope
crude oil for two calanoid copepod species was dramatically increased
upon exposure of the copepods to natural sunlight. In this experiment,
Calanus marhallae and Metridia okhotensis were exposed for 24 hr to low
levels of oil in seawater and then exposed to different levels of natural
sunlight for 3.8 to 8.2 hr. Toxicity to the copepods increased by up to 80
percent after exposure to UV in sunlight. Similarly, Pelletier et al. (1997)
investigated phototoxicity in larvae and juveniles of the bivalve, Mulinia
lateralis, and juvenile mysid shrimp, Mysidopsis bahia, exposed to WAF of
several different petroleum products (No. 2 fuel oil, Arabian Light crude,
Prudhoe Bay crude, No. 6 fuel oil). Large increases in toxicity (from 2 to
100-fold) in UV light exposures were seen in tests with Arabian Light
crude, Prudhoe Bay crude, and No. 6 fuel oil, with the predominant in-
creases found in heavier crudes corresponding to increases in the amount
of higher-molecular-weight phototoxic PAH. In contrast, No. 2 fuel oil
was highly toxic under both fluorescent and UV light. Finally, Barron et al.
(2004) investigated the photoenhanced toxicity of weathered Alaska North
Slope crude with and without dispersant (Corexit 9527) to eggs and larvae
225
of the Pacific herring, Clupea pallasi. Brief exposure to sunlight (~ 2.5 hr per
day for 2 days) increased toxicity from 1.5 to 48-fold over control lighting.
In addition, the toxicity of chemically dispersed oil was similar to oil alone
in the control treatment, but was significantly more toxic than oil alone in
the treatments exposed to sunlight. Accumulation of even small amounts
of PAH may make translucent organisms susceptible to toxicological
effects if these animals are subsequently exposed to sunlight in the upper
part of the water column. Organisms most susceptible to photoenhanced
toxicity include translucent pelagic larvae and epibenthic or benthic
organisms living in shallow water areas. This phenomenon may not be
important for organisms that are opaque (e.g., adult fish, crabs) or avoid
sunlight through vertical migration below the photic zone (Valiela, 1984).
Current dispersed oil testing protocols do not typically include expo-
sure to natural sunlight as a factor in evaluating toxicity; thus they may
underestimate toxicity for some species, and hence underestimate the
footprint of toxicological effects on aquatic organisms in the field. Ad-
ditional toxicological studies are needed to incorporate phototoxicity into
effects models, including the identification of phototoxic compounds.
Models can be used to overlay this information with expected species dis-
tribution in the water column to estimate potential impacts.
Toxicity ofChemically Versus Physically Dispersed Oil
A review of the recent literature (since the publication of the 1989
NRC report on oil dispersants) reveals no consensus in the evaluation of
the relative toxicities of chemically dispersed and physically dispersed oil
(Clark et al., 2001; Singer et al., 1998; Fingas, 2002a; Fucik et al,. 1994).
Some of the inconsistency can be attributed to studies that have drawn
conclusions about relative toxicity based on comparing nominal loading
rates of oil and dispersant, not on measured concentrations of dissolved
hydrocarbons (e.g., Epstein et al., 2000; Adams et al., 1999; Bhattacharyya
et al., 2003; Gulec et al., 1997). Loading rate data are useful for comparing
the toxicity of different oils when dispersed, different dispersants with
the same oil, or sensitivity comparisons among species. However, this
approach has limited utility in evaluating the relative toxicity of chemi-
cally dispersed versus untreated oil based on exposure to oil in the water
column. The degree to which a dispersant facilitates dissolution of petro-
leum hydrocarbons into the water column will influence the resulting
degree of toxicity observed. Many studies have found that the concentra-
tions of PAH are higher in the chemically dispersed oil than in WAF for
equal loading of oil. This is likely due to partitioning kinetics between the
dispersed oil droplets and water. That is, the increased number of oil drop-
lets and smaller droplet diameters increase the surface area to volume
226
ratio such that more of the hydrocarbon components enter the dissolved
phase. Consequently, it is essential to measure actual exposure concentra-
tions to evaluate whether the bioavailability and toxicity of dispersed oil
is greater than what would be expected based on the amount of oil in the
water column.
Clark et al. (2001) tested three types of crude oil (Kuwait, weathered
Kuwait, and Forties) and two dispersants (Corexit 9500 and 9527) in con-
tinuous and short-term spiked exposures using the early life stages of sev-
eral marine species. They found that physically dispersed oil appears less
toxic than chemically dispersed oil when LC
50 is expressed as the nominal
loading concentration (Figure 5-6), but when effects are based on the
amount of oil measured in water (i.e., TPH), dose-response relationships
are similar between chemically and physically dispersed oil.
Similarly, Ramachandran et al. (2004) measured induction of CYP1A
(the liver enzyme ethoxyresorufin-O-deethylase or EROD) in rainbow
trout to WAF and chemically dispersed oil (using Corexit 9500) made from
three types of crude oil. They found that EROD activity was as much as
1,100 times higher in chemically dispersed oil treatments compared to
WAF when results were expressed on percent (v/v) basis; however, when
expressed as measured PAH concentrations, there was little difference
between the EC
50 values for EROD activity.
In contrast, Singer et al. (1998) concluded that the relative toxicity of
CEWAF versus WAF was dependent on the test species, exposure time,
and endpoint evaluated. In a series of tests, they evaluated the acute ef-
fects of untreated and dispersant-treated (Corexit 9527) Prudhoe Bay
crude oil on early life stages of three Pacific marine species: red abalone,
Haliotis rufescens, kelp forest mysid shrimp, Holmesimysis costata, and
topsmelt, Atherinops affinis. Experiments were conducted using CROSERF
spiked exposure protocols, including standard preparation of WAF and
CEWAF. In addition to the standard toxicity test endpoints, Singer et al.
(1998) evaluated initial narcosis in the exposures with H. costata and A.
affinis by making behavioral observations during the first 67 hr of expo-
sure and tallying the number of inactive and active animals. Narcosis was
defined as those animals initially affected, but that recovered to an active
state later in the exposure. Results are summarized in Table 5-4 (taken
from Singer et al., 1998) and expressed as EC
50 or LC
50 values based on
total hydrocarbon content (THC
(C7-C30) ) measured at the beginning of the
exposures. In tests with H. rufescens and H. costata, significant effects were
seen in the CEWAF exposures at total hydrocarbon concentrations (THC)
two to three times lower than in WAF tests (Table 5-4). In contrast, effects
on mortality of the topsmelt, A. affinis, and initial narcosis were more
severe in WAF exposures. Singer et al. (1998) suggest that a likely expla-
nation for these results is compositional differences in dissolved petro-
227

1.2
LC
50
(mg/L)
WAF
CEWAF
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
H. costata
M. bahia
S. maximus
M. beryllina
1000
LC
50
(mg/L)
900
800
700
600
500
400
300
200
100
H. costata
M. bahia
S. maxiumus
M. beryllina*
FIGURE 5-6 Comparison of expressing toxicity in terms of measured lethal con-
centrations (LC) of total petroleum hydrocarbons (TPH) or lethal loading (LL)
concentrations based on nominal oil added values. Tests were constant 96-hour
static-renewal tests with Kuwait oil and Corexit 9527 for the mysids (Holmesimysis
costata and Mysidopsis bahia) and silversides (Menidia beryllina). Exposures of turbot
(Scophthalmus maximus) were 48 hour exposures with Forties crude oil and Corexit
9500. Data expressed as LL imply that CEWAF is more toxic than WAF, but when
expressed as measured TPH, toxicities are roughly equivalent.* The LL
50 for M.
beryllina exposed to WAF was 5,020 mg/L, but was not displayed for scaling pur-
poses.
SOURCE: Data are from Clark et al., 2001.
228
TABLE 5-4 Results of Spiked Exposure Toxicity Tests Using Prudhoe
Bay Crude Oil Alone and Combined with Corexit 9527 (O:D ratio = 10:1)
from Singer et al., 1998 (Results are expressed as the EC or LC
50 in
mg/L of THC
(C7C30)
WAF
CEWAF
Species/Endpoint
Test 1
Test 2
Test 3
Test 1
Test 2
Test 3
Haliotis
Larval abnormality
>34.03
>46.99
>33.58
19.09
32.70
17.80
Holmesimysis
96-h mortality
Initial narcosis
>34.68
11.31
>25.45
11.58
>28.55
15.90
10.54
11.07
10.75
>38.33
10.83
48.03
Atherinops
96-h mortality
Initial narcosis
16.34
26.63
40.20
>48.22
35.73
31.76
28.60
>101.82
74.73
>140.97
34.06
>62.22
aEC/LC
estimated
50
to be above the highest test concentration.
leum hydrocarbons between CEWAF and WAF due to differences in mixing
energy and loading rates used to prepare the exposure media. For example,
WAF solutions were found to have a larger proportion of volatiles (96
percent) as compared to the CEWAF (67 percent). They conclude that dif-
ferent fractions of oil may drive toxicity in different types of solutions.
Consequently, reporting toxicity based on only a few of the oil compo-
nents may make comparisons across studies difficult (see Figure 5-6).
A similar conclusion was drawn by Fucik et al. (1994) in a series of
tests comparing the toxicity of chemically dispersed oil, dispersant (Cor-
exit 9527), and WAF to a variety of fish and invertebrate species and life
stages from the Gulf of Mexico. Fucik et al. (1994) reported that the toxic-
ity of dispersed oil was proportionately less than WAF when results were
compared using a Toxicity Index (TI) applied to the measured TPH data.
The TI expresses toxicity as a function of concentration and duration of
exposure (e.g., ppm-h). Experiments included both static renewal and
flow-through exposures in open containers that allowed significant vola-
tilization of the petroleum constituents. To explain this result, Fucik et al.
(1994) speculated that volatilization from dispersed oil was enhanced
compared to WAF. Therefore, concentrations of benzene, toluene, ethyl-
benzene, and xylenes (BTEX) were higher in WAF, potentially enhancing
toxicity in these exposures. Alternatively, they suggested that oil droplets
229
or emulsions in the chemically dispersed oil may have lower bioavail-
ability than the dissolved hydrocarbons. This explanation seems unlikely
given recent studies suggesting that oil droplets may enhance uptake of
petroleum hydrocarbons (Payne and Driskell, 2003; Ramachandran et al.,
2004).
In conclusion, there is no compelling evidence that the toxicity of
chemically dispersed oil is enhanced over physically dispersed oil if com-
parisons are based on measured concentrations of petroleum hydrocar-
bons in the water column. This conclusion is further discussed in the sec-
tion on toxicological effects of dispersed oil on water column organisms.
A similar conclusion was reached in the NRC (1989) review of oil dispers-
ants. CROSERF testing protocols recommend analyzing total hydrocar-
bon content (composed of total petroleum hydrocarbons and volatile hy-
drocarbons) at a minimum, but also suggest in-depth investigations
include the analysis of PAH (Singer et al., 2000; Table 5-5). The studies
reviewed above clearly indicated that measuring fractional components
of aqueous oil (e.g., TPH, total PAH, total volatiles) may not give the reso-
lution necessary to adequately interpret toxicity test data. Consequently,
it is recommended that chemical analyses in conjunction with toxicity tests
should routinely include dissolved- and oil droplet-phase analyses of the
full suite of parent and alkyl-substituted PAH and heterocyclics as well as
the n-alkanes that typically comprise the THC. In addition, application of
additive toxicity models for PAH and other petroleum constituents may
facilitate the interpretation of toxicity test results.
Although acute toxicity studies do not indicate differences in the le-
thal or sublethal responses of organisms exposed to chemically dispersed
or untreated oil, some studies have suggested that the bioaccumulation
kinetics of PAH from dispersed oil may differ from those for undispersed
oil. In a series of experiments, Wolfe et al. (1998a,b,c; 1999a; 2001) have
investigated the bioavailability of naphthalene and phenanthrene in
chemically dispersed oil versus WAF, including an assessment of uptake
and depuration kinetics, to address the question of whether dispersants
alter bioavailability of compounds. The premise of these experiments was
that the bioavailability of dispersed oil may be enhanced due to interac-
tions between dispersant, oil, and biological membranes, possibly as a
result of dispersant-mediated changes in membrane permeability, osmo-
regulation, or other cellular mechanisms. Several experiments examined
bioaccumulation of naphthalene as a model PAH by the microalga Iso-
chrysis galbana. Naphthalene was selected because it has negligible dis-
persant facilitated solubility such that changes in bioavailability could be
examined in the absence of differences in dissolved-phase concentrations
between dispersed and untreated oil. In these experiments, algal cells were
exposed to laboratory preparations of either WAF of Prudhoe Bay crude
230
TABLE 5-5 Recommended Target Analyte List for PAH from Singer et
al. (2000)
Naphthalene
C-1 naphthalenes
C-2 naphthalenes
C-3 naphthalenes
C-4 naphthalenes
Biphenyl
Fluorene
C-1 fluorenes
C-2 flurorenes
C-3 fluorenes
Dibenzothiophene
C-1 dibenzothiophenes
Phenanthrene
C-1 phenanthrenes
C-2 phenanthrenes
C-3 phenanthrenes
C-4 phenanthrenes
Fluoranthene
Pyrene
C-1 pyrenes
C-2 pyrenes
C-3 pyrenes
C-4 pyrenes
Benzo(a,h)anthracene
Chrysene
C-1 chrysenes
C-2 chrysenes
C-3 chrysenes
C-4 chrysenes
Benzo(b)fluoranthene
Benzo(k)fluoranthene
Benzo(e)pyrene
Benzo(a)pyrene
Perylene
Indeno(g,h,i)pyrene
Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene
Benzo(1,2,3-cd)perylene
oil (PBCO) or dispersed oil mixture of PBCO and Corexit 9527 spiked
14 C] naphthalene. Results suggest that dispersants enhanced the
with [U-
initial uptake of naphthalene by microalgae under a variety of tempera-
ture and salinity conditions. However, there were no differences in bio-
accumulation as indicated by similarity in bioaccumulation factors be-
tween dispersed oil and WAF, suggesting that depuration rates were also
enhanced. Wolfe et al. (1998a,b,c; 1999a,b; 2001) extended these experi-
ments to a model food chain, including I. galbana, the rotifer Brachionus
plicatilis, and larval topsmelt, Atherinops affinis. Direct aqueous exposures
to phenanthrene and naphthalene were compared with aqueous plus di-
etary exposures. Depuration of phenanthrene by rotifers decreased sig-
nificantly following dispersed oil exposures, while uptake and depura-
tion of naphthalene by larval topsmelt significantly increased in both
aqueous and dietary exposures to dispersed oil. These detailed and el-
egant experiments have enhanced our understanding of the bioaccumu-
lation kinetics of dispersed oil PAH. These studies should be expanded to
include other organisms and PAH. In addition, this model food chain
could also be used to answer questions related to the importance of PAH
uptake via the dissolved versus oil droplet phases.
231
EFFECTS ON BIOLOGICAL COMMUNITIES
In the sections that follow, the recent (post-1989) literature on the toxi-
cological effects of chemically dispersed oil is reviewed by habitat type. A
detailed review on dispersant toxicity studies pre-1989 was provided in
NRC (1989). Besides avoiding duplication, for the most part these earlier
studies are not included because many were based on comparisons using
the older dispersant formulations and limited by the use of nominal expo-
sures. Studies from freshwater systems are included where possible. It is
noted, however, that the amount of literature concerned with dispersants
and chemically dispersed oil effects on freshwater organisms is sparse,
most likely a function of the fact that the most common U.S. dispersants,
Corexit 9500 and 9527, have low efficacy in freshwater. Furthermore, the
use of dispersants in freshwater is assumed to be unlikely because the
increase in water-column burden of hydrocarbons would preclude their
use in freshwater systems that provide a source of drinking water.
Water-Column Organisms
This section reviews the literature pertaining to dispersed oil effects
on water column organisms, including larval stages of benthic organisms
(Tables 5-6, 5-7, and 5-8). The review was limited by many studies that are
still based on comparisons of nominal concentrations, despite the recom-
mendation made in NRC (1989) that future studies include chemical
analyses of the exposure media. One common technique is to measure
TPH (and /or VOC and PAH) in the stock solutions and infer TPH levels
upon serial dilutions of these solutions. While this is an improvement over
the use of purely nominal values, it still limits the interpretation of the
results unless some minimal and random sampling of test exposures pro-
vides confirmation that expected concentrations approximate measured
concentrations. It is extremely important to provide an estimate of expo-
sure based on measured concentrations when conducting toxicity tests.
In general, studies that concluded that chemically dispersed oil was
more toxic were based on nominal loading of oil, not measured concen-
trations. For example, Clark et al. (2001) using three types of oil (variable
loadings), two dispersants (Corexit 9500 and 9527), continuous and short-
term spiked exposures, and early life stages of several marine organisms
in 46 and 96 hr tests found that physically dispersed oil appears less toxic
than chemically dispersed oil when LC
50s were expressed as nominal load-
ing concentrations (see earlier in Chapter 5). When toxicity effects were
based on measured TPH, no difference between chemically and physi-
cally dispersed oil was observed using continuous exposures. In an expo-
sure study using freshwater fish, Pollino and Holdaway (2002b) con-
232
TABLE 5-6 Acute Effects of Chemically Dispersed Oil in Comparison to
Physically Dispersed Oil in Water-Column Organisms (studies since
1989)
Species
Exposure
(hr)
Type of Exposure
(static/flow-through)
Oil (D:O ratio)
Dispersant
Kuwait (1:10)
Corexit 9527 48
constant
Kuwait (1:10)
Forties crude
(1:10)
Forties crude
(1:10)
Medium fuel
oil (1:10)
Medium fuel
oil (1:10)
BSC (1:50)
Corexit 9527 48
Corexit 9500 48
spiked
constant
Corexit 9500 48
spiked
Corexit 9527 48
constant
Corexit 9527 48
spiked
Corexit 9527 24
semi-static
BSC (1:50)
Corexit 9527 48
semi-static
Balanus amphitrite
(barnacle)
Balanus amphitrite
Diesel oil (1:10)
24
static
48
static
Balanus amphitrite
Diesel oil (1:10)
24
static
Balanus amphitrite
Diesel oil (1:10)
48
static
Palaemon serenus
(ghost shrimp)
Palaemon serenus
BSC (1:10)
Vecom
B-1425
Vecom
B-1425
Norchem
OSD-570
Norchem
OSD-570
Corexit 9500
96
BSC (1:10)
Corexit 9527 96
Palaemon elegans
(prawn)
(Amphipod)
Middle East
Crude Oil
BSC (1:10)
Not
24
disclosed
Corexit 9527 96
static (50% daily
renewal)
static (50% daily
renewal)
static
BSC (1:10)
Corexit 9500 96
(1) Marine studies:
MOLLUSCS
Crassostrea gigas
(Pacific oyster)
Crassostrea gigas
Crassostrea gigas
Crassostrea gigas
Crassostrea gigas
Crassostrea gigas
Octopus pallidus
(octopus)
Octopus pallidus
CRUSTACEANS
Diesel oil (1:10)
Mysidopsis bahia
Kuwait (1:10)
(gulf mysid shrimp)
Mysidopsis bahia
Kuwait (1:10)
Mysidopsis bahia
Kuwait (W)
(1:10)
Corexit 9527 96
static (60% daily
renewal)
static (60% daily
renewal)
constant
Corexit 9527 96
Corexit 9527 96
spiked
constant
233
Endpoint
Oil Treatment
Effect Conc.
(LC
50) mg/L
Dispersed Oil
Effect Conc.
Concentration
(LC
Estimate
Reference
)
mg/L
50
larval mortality
NA
0.5
Initial TPH
Clark et al., 2001
larval mortality
larval mortality
NA
NA
1.92
0.81
Initial TPH
Initial TPH
Clark et al., 2001
Clark et al., 2001
larval mortality
NA
3.99
Initial TPH
Clark et al., 2001
larval mortality
>1.14
0.53
Initial TPH
Clark et al., 2001
larval mortality
>1.83
2.28
Initial TPH
Clark et al., 2001
hatchling
mortality
hatchling
mortality
0.51
3.11
0.39
1.8
Average TPH
over 24 hr
Average TPH
over 24 hr
Long and Holdaway,
2002
Long and Holdaway,
2002
larval mortality
NA
514
Wu et al., 1997
larval mortality
NA
48
larval mortality
NA
505
larval mortality
NA
71
mortality
258,000
3.6
Initial
a
nominal
Initial
a
nominal
Initial
a
nominal
Initial
a
nominal
Initial nominal
mortality
258,000
8.1
Initial nominal
mortality
83.5
1.1
Initial nominal
Gulec and Holdaway,
2000
Gulec and Holdaway,
2000
Unsal, 1991
mortality
311,000
16.2
Initial nominal
Gulec et al., 1997
mortality
311,000
14.8
Initial nominal
Gulec et al., 1997
mortality
0.63
0.65
Initial TPH
Clark et al., 2001
mortality
mortality
>2.93
NA
17.2
0.11
Initial TPH
Initial TPH
Clark et al., 2001
Clark et al., 2001
Wu et al., 1997
Wu et al., 1997
Wu et al., 1997
continues
234
TABLE 5-6 Continued
Exposure
(hr)
Type of Exposure
Species
Oil (D:O ratio)
Dispersant
Mysidopsis bahia
Corexit 9527 96
spiked
Corexit 9500 96
constant
Corexit 9500 96
spiked
Mysidopsis bahia
Kuwait (W)
(1:10)
Forties crude
(1:10)
Forties crude
(1:10)
AMC (W) (1:10)
Corexit 9500 96
spiked
Mysidopsis bahia
AMC (W) (1:10)
Corexit 9500 96
Mysidopsis bahia
Mysidopsis bahia
Mysidopsis bahia
ANS (1:10)
ANS (1:10)
VCO (1:10)
Corexit 9500 96
Corexit 9500 96
Corexit 9500 96
Mysidopsis bahia
VCO (1:10)
Corexit 9500 96
static (75% daily
renewal), sealed
spiked
continuous
static (90% daily
renewal), sealed
spiked
Mysidopsis bahia
PBCO (1:10)
Corexit 9500 96
spiked
Mysidopsis bahia
VCO (W) (1:10)
Corexit 9500 96
spiked
Mysidopsis bahia
Mysidopsis bahia
KCO (1:10)
KCO (1:10)
Corexit 9527 96
Corexit 9527 96
Mysidopsis bahia
Mysidopsis bahia
Kuwait (1:10)
(kelp mysid shrimp)
Kuwait (1:10)
PBCO (1:10)
Corexit 9527 96
spiked
static daily renewal,
sealed
constant
Corexit 9527 96
Corexit 9527 96
spiked
spiked
Americamysis
PCBO (1:10)
(Holmesimysis)
costata (kelp forest
mysid)
Americamysis
PCBO (W)
(Holmesimysis)
(1:10)
costata
Corexit 9500 96
spiked
Corexit 9500 96
spiked
BSC (1:29)
Corexit 9527 96
static
BSC (1:29)
Corexit 9500 96
static
Weathered
ANS (1:25)
Corexit 9527 24
static
CNIDARIANS
Hydra viridissima
(green hydra)
Hydra viridissima
FISH
Clupea pallasi
(Pacific herring)
235
Endpoint
Oil Treatment
Effect Conc.
(LC
50) mg/L
Dispersed Oil
Effect Conc.
Concentration
Reference
(LC
Estimate
)
mg/L
50
mortality
>0.17
111
Initial TPH
Clark et al., 2001
mortality
NA
0.42
Initial TPH
Clark et al., 2001
mortality
NA
15.3
Initial TPH
Clark et al., 2001
larval mortality
26.183.1
56.560.8
Initial TPH
larval mortality
0.560.67
0.640.65
Initial TPH
larval mortality
larval mortality
larval mortality
8.21
2.61
0.150.4
5.08
1.4
0.500.53
Initial THC
Initial THC
Average TPH
larval mortality
0.590.89
10.218.1
Average TPH
larval mortality
>6.86
15.9
Average TPH
larval mortality
>0.63>0.83
72.6120.8
Average TPH
mortality
mortality
>2.9
0.78
17.7
0.98
Initial TPH
Initial TPH
Fuller and Bonner,
2001
Fuller and Bonner,
2001
Rhoton et al., 2001
Rhoton et al., 2001
Wetzel and van Fleet,
2001
2001
2001
2001
Pace et al., 1995
Pace et al., 1995
mortality
0.1
0.17
Initial TPH
Clark et al., 2001
mortality
juvenile
mortality
early-life stage
mortality
>2.76
>25.45>34.68
1.8
10.5410.83
Initial TPH
c
Initial THC
Clark et al., 2001
Singer et al., 1998
14.23>17.5
9.4614.40
Initial THC
Singer et al., 2001
early-life stage
mortality
0.951>1.03
5.7233.27
Initial THC
Singer et al., 2001
mortality
0.7
mortality
0.7
7.2
Initial stock
TPH
Initial stock
TPH
Mitchell and Holdaway,
2000
2000
larval mortality
~0.045
0.199
Initial tPAH
Barron et al., 2004
continues
236
TABLE 5-6 Continued
Species
Oil (D:O ratio)
Dispersant
Exposure
(hr)
Type of Exposure
Omniclean
96
static
Cyprinodon variegatus No. 2 fuel oil

(sheepshead minnow) (1:1 to 1:10)
Cyprinodon variegatus AMC (W) (1:10)
Corexit 9500 96
spiked
AMC (W) (1:10)
Corexit 9500 96
Atherinops affinis
(topsmelt)
Atherinops affinis
PBCO (1:10)
Corexit 9527 96
static (75% daily
renewal), sealed
spiked
PBCO (1:10)
Corexit 9500 96
spiked
Atherinops affinis
PBCO (W)
(1:10)
Kuwait (1:10)
Corexit 9500 96
spiked
Corexit 9527 48
constant
Kuwait (1:10)
Corexit 9527 48
spiked
Forties (1:10)
Corexit 9500 48
constant
Forties (1:10)
Corexit 9500 48
spiked
Kuwait (1:10)
Corexit 9527 96
constant
Corexit 9527 96
Corexit 9527 96
spiked
constant
Corexit 9527 96
spiked
Menidia beryllina
Menidia beryllina
Menidia beryllina
Kuwait (1:10)
Kuwait (W)
(1:10)
Kuwait (W)
(1:10)
Forties (1:10)
Forties (1:10)
PBCO (1:10)
Corexit 9500 96
Corexit 9500 96
Corexit 9500 96
constant
spiked
spiked
Menidia beryllina
ALC (W) (1:10)
Corexit 9500 96
spiked
Menidia beryllina
ALC (W) (1:10)
Corexit 9500 96
Menidia beryllina
Corexit 9500 96
Menidia beryllina
Menidia beryllina
Menidia beryllina
Menidia beryllina
Menidia beryllina
PBCO (W)
(1:10)
ANS (1:10)
ANS (1:10)
PBCO (1:10)
PBCO (1:10)
VCO (1:10)
static (75% daily
renewal), sealed
spiked
Corexit 9500
Corexit 9500
Corexit 9500
Corexit 9500
Corexit 9500
Menidia beryllina
VCO (1:10)
Corexit 9500 96
spiked
continuous
spiked
continuous
static (90% daily
renewal), sealed
spiked
Menidia beryllina
PBCO (1:10)
Corexit 9500 96
spiked
Scophthalamus
maxiumus (turbot)
Scophthalamus
maxiumus
Scophthalamus
maxiumus
Scophthalamus
maxiumus
Menidia beryllina
(Inland silveride)
Menidia beryllina
Menidia beryllina
Menidia beryllina
96
96
96
96
96
237
Endpoint
Oil Treatment
Effect Conc.
(LC
50) mg/L
Dispersed Oil
Effect Conc.
Concentration
Reference
(LC
Estimate
)
mg/L
50
larval mortality
94
~ 80165
larval mortality
>5.76.1
31.939.5
larval mortality
3.94.2
>9.710.8
larval
mortality
early life stage

mortality
early life stage

mortality
mortality
16.3440.20
28.674.73
Nominal
Adams et al., 1999
initial mg/L
Initial TPH
Fuller and Bonner,
2001
Initial TPH
Fuller and Bonner,
2001
Initial THC
Singer et al., 1998
9.3512.13
7.2717.70
Initial THC
Singer et al., 2001
>1.45>1.60
16.8618.06
Initial THC
Singer et al., 2001
NA
Initial TPH
Clark et al., 2001
mortality
NA
16.5
Initial TPH
Clark et al., 2001
mortality
0.35
0.44
Initial TPH
Clark et al., 2001
mortality
>1.33
48.6
Initial TPH
Clark et al., 2001
mortality
0.97
0.55
Initial TPH
Clark et al., 2001
mortality
mortality
>1.32
0.14
6.45
1.09
Initial TPH
Initial TPH
Clark et al., 2001
Clark et al., 2001
mortality
>0.66
10.9
Initial TPH
Clark et al., 2001
mortality
mortality
early life stage
mortality
larval mortality
NA
NA
11.83
0.49
9.05
32.47
Initial TPH
Initial TPH
Initial THC
Clark et al., 2001
Clark et al., 2001
Singer et al., 2001
>14.532.3
24.936.9
Initial TPH
larval mortality
4.95.5
1.52.5
Initial TPH
early life stage

mortality
larval mortality
larval mortality
larval mortality
larval mortality
larval mortality
NA
20.28
Initial THC
Fuller and Bonner,
2001
Fuller and Bonner,
2001
Singer et al., 2001
26.36
15.59
>19.86
14.81
<0.11
12.22
12.42
12.29
4.57
0.68
Initial THC
Initial THC
Initial THC
Initial THC
Average TPH
larval mortality
0.63
2.84
Average TPH
larval mortality
>6.86
18.1
Average TPH
Rhoton et al., 2001
Rhoton et al., 2001
Rhoton et al., 2001
Rhoton et al., 2001
2001
2001
2001
continues
238
TABLE 5-6 Continued
Exposure
(hr)
Type of Exposure
Species
Oil (D:O ratio)
Dispersant
Menidia beryllina
VCO (W) (1:10)
Corexit 9500 96
spiked
Menidia beryllina
Menidia beryllina
Sciaenops ocellatus
(Red drum)
Macquaria
novemaculeata
(Australian bass)
Macquaria
novemaculeata
Macquaria
novemaculeata
ANS (W) (1:10)

ANS (W) (1:10)
VCO (1:10)
Corexit 9500 96
Corexit 9500 96
Corexit 9500 96
continuous
spiked
spiked
BSC (1:10)
Corexit 9500 96
static (50% daily
renewal)
BSC (1:10)
Corexit 9527 96
BSC (1:50)
Corexit 9527 96
static (50% daily
renewal)
static daily renewal
BSC (1:29)
Corexit 9527 96
static
BSC (1:29)
Corexit 9500 96
static
Melanotaenia fluviatilis BSC (1:50)

(crimson-spotted
rainbowfish)
Corexit 9500 24
static, daily renewal
Corexit 9500 48
Corexit 9500 72
Corexit 9500 96
Corexit 9527 48
Corexit 9527 72
Corexit 9527 96
(2) Freshwater studies:
CNIDARIANS
Hydra viridissima
(green hydra)
Hydra viridissima
FISH
Nominal;
concentrations refer to the quantity of dispersant:diesal mixture.
of stock solution.
cTHC, total hydrocarbon content of C

to C
compounds.
7
30
dDepending on dispersant concentration from 1:1 to 1:10 dispersant to oil ratio.
eEffects concentrations based on initial chemical quantiations (measured or nominal).
bPercent
Endpoint
Oil Treatment
Effect Conc.
(LC
50) mg/L
Dispersed Oil
Effect Conc.
Concentration
Reference
(LC
Estimate
)
mg/L
50
larval mortality
>1.06
30.8
Average TPH
larval mortality
larval mortality
larval mortality
0.79
>1.13
0.85
0.65
18.89
4.23
Initial THC
Initial THC
Average TPH
larval mortality
465,000
14.1
Initial nominal
larval mortality
465,000
28.5
Initial nominal
mortalilty
239
2001
Rhoton et al., 2001
Rhoton et al., 2001
2001
Gulec and Holdaway,
2000
Initial TPH on
stocks
Gulec and Holdaway,
2000
Cohen and Nugegoda,
2000
Initial stock
TPH
Initial stock
TPH
2000
2000
mortality
0.7
mortality
0.7
7.2
embryo
mortality
4.48
2.62
Initial stock
TPH
Pollino and Holdaway,
2002b
embryo
mortality
embryo
mortality
embryo
mortality
embryo
mortality
embryo
mortality
embryo
mortality
3.38
1.94
2.1
1.67
1.28
1.37
3.38
2.92
2.1
1.25
1.28
0.74
Initial stock
TPH
Initial stock
TPH
Initial stock
TPH
Initial stock
TPH
Initial stock
TPH
Initial stock
TPH
2002b
2002b
2002b
2002b
2002b
2002b
NOTE: THC, summation of total hydrocarbon content C
6 to C
36; (W), weathered; ANS,
Alaska North Slope crude oil; PBCO, Prudhoe Bay crude oil; BSC, Bass Strait crude oil; ALC,
Arabian light crude; VCO, Venezuelan medium crude oil.
240
TABLE 5-7 Sublethal Effects of Chemically Dispersed Oil in
Comparison to Physically Dispersed Oil in Water-Column Organisms
(studies since 1989)
Life
Stage
Species
Oil
Dispersant
(D:O ratio)
Exposure
(hr)
Type of
Exposure
(Static/Flow-
through)
Endpoint
(1) Marine studies:
CRUSTACEANS
Holmesimysis Adult
costata (kelp
mysid
shrimp)
PBCO
Corexit
9527 (1:10)
96
spiked-flow
through
initial
narcosis
Balanus
amphitrite
(barnacle)
Larvae
Diesel
oil
Vecom
B-1425
(1:10)
24
static
phototaxis
inhibition
Balanus
amphitrite
(barnacle)
Larvae
Diesel
oil
Vecom
B-1425
(1:10)
48
static
phototaxis
inhibition
Balanus
amphitrite
(barnacle)
Larvae
Diesel
oil
Norchem
OSD-570
(1:10)
24
static
phototaxis
inhibition
static
Diesel
oil
Norchem
OSD-570
(1:10)
48
Larvae
phototaxis
inhibition
Corexit
9527 (1:10)
48
spiked-flow
through
larval
abnormality
PBCO
Corexit
(variable) 9527 (1:10)
96
spiked-flow
through
initial
narcosis
ANS (W)
24
static. Daily
hatching
a
renewal (for
(larval),
time
96
egg studies)
(eggs)
Balanus
amphitrite
(barnacle)
MOLLUSCS
Haliotis
Adult
rufescens
(red abalone)
PBCO
FISH
Atherinops
affinis
(topsmelt)
Adult
Clupea pallasi embryos/

(Pacific
larvae
herring)
Corexit
9257 (1:25)
241
Oil
Treatment
Effect
Conc.
Dispersed
(EC
Oil Effect Concentration
)
50
c
mg/L
Conc.
Estimate
Comments
Reference
11.31
15.90
111.07
48.03
Initial THC
Singer et al.,
1998
NA
LOEC;
b
400
Initial
nominal
NA
LOEC;
b
60L
Initial
nominal
Wu et al., 1997
NA
LOEC;
b
400
Initial
nominal
Wu et al., 1997
NA
LOEC;
b
80
Initial
nominal
Wu et al., 1997
> 33.58
>46.99
17.81
32.70
Initial THC
Singer et al.,
1998
16.34
40.20
>62.22
>140.97
Initial THC
Singer et al.,
1998
NA
NA
Initial tPAH
No oil alone comparison.
Wu et al., 1997
1 m filtering of WAF/DO.
Barron et al.,
Similar toxicity WAF & DO in

2003
control and UVA treatments
but DO more toxic in sunlight.
continues
242
TABLE 5-7 Continued
Species
Life
Stage
Oil
Dispersant
(D:O ratio)
Exposure
(hr)
Type of
Exposure
(Static/Flow-
through)
Endpoint
Clupea pallasi Embryos/

larvae
ANS (W)
Corexit
9257 (1:25)
24
static. Daily
Hatching
a
renewal (for
(larval),
success
96
egg studies)
(eggs)
Clupea pallasi Embryos/

larvae
ANS (W)
Corexit
9257 (1:25)
24
static. Daily
Larval
a
renewal (for
(larval),
abnormalities
96
egg studies)
(eggs)
Macquaria
Juvenile
novemaculeata
(Australian
bass)
BSC
Corexit
9527 (1:30)
96
constant
Cytochrome C
flowoxidase (CCO)
through
(2% of stock
prepared
daily)
Macquaria
Juvenile
novemaculeata
BSC
Corexit
9527 (1:30)
96
constant
Lactate
flowdehydrogenase
through
(LDH)
(2% of stock
prepared
daily)
Macquaria
Juvenile
novemaculeata
BSC
Corexit
9527 (1:30)
96
constant
Oxygen
flowconsumption
through
rate
(2% of stock
prepared
daily)
Menidia
beryllina
(Inland
silversides)
Embryonic/
larval
No. 2
Fuel Oil
Corexit
240
7664 (1:40)
and 9527
(1:50)
static
Teratogenic
endponts
Salmo salar
(Atlantic
salmon)
Immature
BSC
Corexit
9527 (1:50)
constant
flowthrough
(1% of stock
WAF)
Serum sorbitol
dehydrogenase
(SDH;
indicator of
liver damage)
144 (plus
29 days
recovery)
243
Oil
Treatment
Effect
Conc.
Dispersed
(EC
)
50
c
mg/L
Conc.
Estimate
Comments
Reference
NA
NA
Initial tPAH
Barron et al.,

2003
NA
NA
Initial tPAH
Barron et al.,

2003
NA
NA
Initial TPH
on stocks
Stimulated activity if DO cf
WAF in gills; in livers
stimulated in both WAF and
DO WAF. DO WAF
concentrations >5x higher cf.
WAF
Cohen et al.,
2001a
NA
NA
Initial TPH
on stocks
LDH activity higher in DO

WAF cf WAF. DO WAF
WAF
Cohen et al.,
2001a
NA
NA
Initial TPH
on stocks
Oxygen consumption higher in

DO WAF cf WAF. DO WAF
WAF
Cohen et al.,
2001a
NA
NA
Initial THC
on stocks
WAF effect only at 100% stock

Middaugh
solution; WAF 7664 effects at

and Whiting,
1% stock and WAF 9527 at 10%. 1995
NA
NA
Initial TPH
No change with any treatment.
Gagnon and
Holdaway,
1999
continues
244
TABLE 5-7 Continued
Type of
Exposure
(Static/Flow-
through)
Endpoint
Dispersant
(D:O ratio)
Exposure
(hr)
BSC
Corexit
9527 (1:50)
144 (plus
29 days
recovery)
constant
Hepatic
flowEROD
through
activity
(1% of stock
WAF)
No. 2
Fuel oil
Omniclean
(1:1 to
1:10)
168 (ELS)
static
Biomass
Scenedesmus NA
armatus
(chlorococcal
alga)
No. 2
Fuel oil
DP 105
(1:20)
24
static
Variety of
growth and
reproductive
endpoints
Isochrysis
galbana
PBCO
Corexit
9527
(1:100)
24
static
HSP60
BSC
Corexit
9500 (1:10)
96
Daily static
renewal
Alkaline
phosphatase
activity (AP),
cytochrome
P450,
behavioral
assays
PBCO
Corexit
(1:50)
8 to 24
static
Heat-shock 60
Species
Life
Stage
Oil
Salmo salar
Immature
Cyprinodon
variegatus
(sheepshead
minnow)
024 h old
fry
ALGAE
NA
ECHINODERM
Coscinasterias Adult
muricata
(elevenarmed
asteroid)
ROTIFERA
Brachionus
plicatilis
(rotifer)
Adult
245
Oil
Treatment
Effect
Conc.
Dispersed
(EC
)
50
c
mg/L
Conc.
Estimate
Comments
Reference
NA
NA
Initial TPH
Induction of EROD by 2 days in Gagnon and
WAF and DO WAFinduction Holdaway,
levels higher and more

2000
persistent in DO WAF.
NA
25
Initial
nominal
EC
50 s reported as nominal
mixed (oil and/or dispersant)
mg/L values. Oil/dispersant
mixtures equal or more toxic
than oil alone.
Adams et al.,
1999
NA
NA
Initial
nominal
No clear difference between O

and DO mixes. Nominal
exposures.
Zachleder and
Tukaj, 1993
NA
NA
Initial
nominal
No differnce between WAF or

DO
Wolfe et al.,
1999
NA
NA
Initial PAH
tPAH in stocks WAF 1.8mg/L

Georgiades
and dispersed oil 3.5 mg/L. AP et al., 2003
no differences. P450 decreased
in dispersed oil cf control or
WAF. WAF and dispersed oil
impacted behavior.
NA
NA
Initial
nominal
8 h significant elevations in
HSP60 in WAF, only elevated
in DO exposures in unfed
exposures.
Wheelock
et al., 2002
continues
246
TABLE 5-7 Continued
Species
Life
Stage
Oil
Dispersant
(D:O ratio)
Exposure
(hr)
Type of
Exposure
(Static/Flow-
through)
Endpoint
(2) Freshwater studies:
CNIDARIANS
Hydra
viridissima
(green
hydra)
Adult
BSC
Corexit
9527 (1:29)
168
static
renewal
population
growth rate
Hydra
viridissima
(green
hydra)
Adult
BSC
Corexit
9500 (1:29)
168
static
renewal
population
growth rate
Salmar salmar Juvenile

(rainbow
trout)
Mesa
sour
crude
(W)
Corexit
9500 (1:20)
48
static daily
renewal
EROD activity
(CYP1A
induction)
Tera
Nova
Corexit
9500 (1:20)
48
static daily
renewal
EROD activity
(CYP1A
induction)
Scotian
light
Corexit
9500 (1:20)
48
static daily
renewal
EROD activity
(CYP1A
induction)
Melanotaenia Adult
fluviatilis
(Australian
crimson-
spotted
rainbowfish)
BSC
Corexit
9500 (1:50)
72
50% daily
static
renewal
EROD activity
Melanotaenia Adult
fluviatilis
BSC
Corexit
9500 (1:50)
72
50% daily
static
renewal
Citrate
synthase
activity
Melanotaenia Adult
fluviatilis
BSC
Corexit
9500 (1:50)
72
50% daily
static
renewal
LDH activity
FISH
247
Oil
Treatment
Effect
Conc.
Dispersed
(EC
)
50
c
mg/L
Conc.
Estimate
Comments
Reference
>0.6
0.6
Initial stock
TPH
Mitchell and
Holdaway,
2000
>0.6
Initial stock
TPH
Mitchell and
Holdaway,
2000
0.00072
0.0006
Initial TPH
and PAH
CYP1A induction x106 in

CEWAF (if expressed as
% v/v ratio)
Ramachandran
et al., 2004
0.0018
0.0015
Initial TPH
and PAH
CYP1A induction x1116 in

CEWAF (if expressed as
% v/v ratio)
Ramachandran
et al., 2004
0.00156
0.002
Initial TPH
and PAH
CYP1A induction x6 in CEWAF

(if expressed as % v/v ratio)
Ramachandran
et al., 2004
NA
NA
Initial (daily
averages)
TPH
Higher activity cf controls in

males at 0.8, 2.6, & 7.8 mg/L
TPH WAF and in males and
females at 14.5 mg/L TPH
DCWAF.
Pollino and
Holdaway,
2003
NA
NA
Initial (daily
averages)
TPH
Higher activity cf controls at

2.6 & 7.8 mg/L TPH WAF and
1.4 & 14.5 mg/L TPH DCWAF.
Pollino and
Holdaway,
2003
NA
NA
Initial (daily
averages)
TPH
Higher activity cf controls at

7.8 mg/L TPH WAF and
14.5 mg/L TPH DCWAF.
Pollino and
Holdaway,
2003
continues
248
TABLE 5-7 Continued
Life
Stage
Species
Oil
Dispersant
(D:O ratio)
Exposure
(hr)
Type of
Exposure
(Static/Flow-
through)
Endpoint
Melanotaenia Adult
fluviatilis
BSC
Corexit
9500 (1:50)
72
50% daily
static
renewal
Plasma
estradiol/
testosterone;
GSI and
histopathology
Melanotaenia Adult
fluviatilis
BSC
Corexit
9500 (1:50)
72
50% daily
static
renewal
Egg
production,
% hatch and
larval lengths
aFollowed by UV exposures and assessment of combined effects of PAH accumulation
and UV exposure.
bRepresents mg/l value of oil and/or dispersant mixture.
cEffects concentrations based on initial chemical quantiations (measured or nominal).
TABLE 5-8 Dispersed Oil Effects on Water Column OrganismsField
Studies
Species
Treatment
Plankton,
bioassays
(Daphnia,
rainbow trout,
and microtox)
O: NWC
D: Corexit 9550
(1:10 D/O ratio)
Details: Fen lake plots,
monitored 29 days
before exposure and 30
days post-exposure
Response: plankton
counts, metabolic rate,
aqueous microbial
counts, bioassays
(Daphnia, rainbow trout,
and microtox)
Nominal/
Measured
Concentrations Results
Measured
(fluorescence
in field); TPH
in lab
Bioassays no
toxicity for O or
DO plots
Reference
Brown
et al.,
1990
No change in
phyto- or zoo-
plankton density,
planktonic biomass,
metabolic rates,
or microbial
populations with
O or DO plots
NOTE: O, oil; D, dispersant; DO, chemically dispersed oil; NWC, Norman Wells Crude Oil.
249
Oil
Treatment
Effect
Conc.
Dispersed
(EC
)
50
c
mg/L
Conc.
Estimate
Comments
Reference
NA
NA
Initial (daily
averages)
TPH
No significant differences
between WAF or DC WAF.
NA
NA
Initial (daily
averages)
TPH
No significant differences
Pollino and
betweenWAF or DC WAF
Holdaway,
(high variability), although DC 2002a
WAF exposure caused cessation
in egg production at 14.5 mg/L.
Pollino and
Holdaway,
2002a
NOTE: ANS, Alaska North Slope Crude Oil; BSC, Bass Strait Crude Oil; PBCO, Prudhoe Bay
Crude Oil; (W), weathered.
cluded that 96-hr LC
50s for WAF and chemically dispersed oil were similar
for both first- and second-generation fish based on measured TPH con-
centrations. It should be noted that a complex preparation of the chemi-
cally dispersed oil using Corexit 9527 and 9500 was used. The chemically
dispersed oil was prepared by mixing oil and water for 24 hr, removing
crude oil from the top, and then applying the dispersant to this oil. The
chemically dispersed oil was then prepared by adding 1 mL of this mix-
ture to 1L of WAF.
Singer et al. (1998) evaluated the acute effects of untreated and dis-
persant-treated (Corexit 9527) Prudhoe Bay crude oil on early life stages
of three Pacific marine species: the red abalone, Haliotis rufescens, a kelp
forest mysid shrimp, Holmesimysis costata, and the topsmelt, Atherinops
affinis and concluded that CEWAF versus WAF toxicity was dependent
upon test species and exposure time (also see earlier in Chapter 5). Results
were expressed as measured THC concentrations and it was observed that
WAF was more toxic at early time points (<1 hr), but in tests with H.
rufescens and H. costata significant effects were seen in the CEWAF expo-
sures at THC concentrations two to three times lower than in WAF tests
(Table 5-4). Cohen and Nugegoda (2000) exposed fish to Bass Straight
crude oil and Corexit 9527 and found that the chemically dispersed oil
250
was more toxic than WAF, based on a comparison of measured TPH val-
ues. As noted previously (see earlier section in this chapter on toxicity of
chemically versus physically dispersed oil), these results are likely due to
compositional differences in dissolved petroleum hydrocarbons in chemi-
cally dispersed oil compared to WAF and argue for more detailed chemi-
cal evaluations of exposure. Other studies that indicate an enhanced acute
toxicity from dispersed oil on a variety of marine and freshwater organ-
isms are listed in Table 5-6, but are not discussed because they employed
nominal exposures.
Since the NRC (1989) recommendation for increased investigations of
chronic and sublethal effects of dispersed oil, many studies have been
undertaken (sublethal studies summarized in Table 5-7). Many endpoints
including molecular targets through behavioral responses have been as-
sessed in a variety of species from phytoplankton to various early life
stages of common nearshore benthic and water-column species. Again,
several of these studies report nominal exposures (e.g., all of the phy-
toplankton reports, which demonstrate no effect of chemically dispersed
oil versus WAF), although the majority of studies do evaluate at least TPH.
Ramachandran et al. (2003) measured induction of hepatic CYP1A in ju-
venile rainbow trout in WAF and chemically dispersed oil (using Corexit
9500) using three types of crude oil. They found that CYP1A expression
(measured as EROD activity) was as much as 1,100 times higher in the
CEWAF exposures compared with WAF when results were expressed on
a percent (v/v) basis; however, when expressed as measured PAH con-
centrations there was little difference between the EC
50 values for EROD
activity. Similarly, Cohen et al. (2001a,b) using juvenile fish exposed to
Bass Straight crude oil and Corexit 9527 found that chemically dispersed
oil increased the response in many of the biochemical indicators exam-
ined (e.g., cytochrome C oxidase). Barron et al. (2004) demonstrated that
CEWAF and WAF toxicity were similar in exposed fish eggs and larvae.
Other studies have demonstrated mixed responses (depending on metrics
chosen) or decreased effects of chemically dispersed oil compared to WAF
in both marine and freshwater species (e.g., Pollino and Holdaway, 2003;
Gagnon and Holdaway, 2000; Wheelock et al., 2002; Georgiades et al.,
2003).
Intertidal and Subtidal Habitats
These habitats include benthic invertebrates and plants inhabiting
subtidal and intertidal areas in both hard and soft-bottom environments,
as well as intertidal wetlands. Under most deepwater spill scenarios (>10
m), use of dispersants is thought to present minimal risk to benthic
subtidal communities because water-column concentrations of petroleum
251
hydrocarbon will be sufficiently dilute (McAuliffe et al., 1981; Mackay
and Wells, 1983). In shallow-water systems, these organisms are more
likely to be exposed to and affected by dispersed rather than floating oil.
Consequently, increased impacts on subtidal benthic resources may be
one of the environmental trade-offs of using dispersants. Intertidal areas,
such as salt marshes and mangroves, are often considered sensitive areas
because they serve as habitat for many adult, juvenile, and larval organ-
isms. Hence, if valuable resources exist in the intertidal area, dispersing
oil before it reaches this habitat may be preferable. In terms of short-term
effects, an extensive evaluation of the relative acute sensitivities of benthic
and water-column species to a variety of chemicals, including PAH, sug-
gests that the toxicity of dispersed oil to benthic organisms would be simi-
lar to that on water-column organisms (DiToro et al., 1991). However, this
evaluation does not consider the potential for long-term exposure to oil
that may occur as a result of the persistence of oil in sediments, particu-
larly in low-energy areas with minimal flushing. Thus, in order to ad-
equately evaluate the potential effects on subtidal and intertidal temper-
ate communities in shallow water systems, the persistence and behavior
of dispersed oil versus untreated oil in benthic sediments and on the
shoreline should be assessed. Field studies conducted in the 1980s still
constitute much of what is known about these fate and effects processes
and are summarized below.
In 1981, a field study in Long Cove, Searsport, Maine compared the
fate and effects of dispersed and undispersed crude oil on nearshore tem-
perate habitats (Gilfillan et al., 1986). The cove was divided into three
areas: a control, dispersed oil (using Corexit 9527), and untreated oil. The
spill of 250 gallons of untreated oil was released during high tide in water
approximately 1.5 to 2.0 m deep. The oil was allowed to coat the beach
and after two tidal cycles, oil was cleansed from the beach using conven-
tional methods. The dispersed oil (10:1, O:D) was mixed and released into
approximately 2.5 to 3.0 m. The deepest samples were taken near the
center of the cove, in approximately 18 m depth. The treated oil quickly
dispersed into the water column, reaching concentrations of 1520 ppm
near the bottom. However, this short-term exposure appeared to have
little effect on the benthic community in this treatment. On the other hand,
significant amounts of oil remained in the intertidal sediments exposed to
untreated oil, but not in sediments exposed to the dispersed oil. In addi-
tion, hydrocarbons were found in clams and mussels near the untreated
oil site, but were not detected in similar species collected at the dispersed
oil site. Finally, effects on infaunal benthic communities were found in the
untreated oil site but not in the area exposed to dispersed oil. Researchers
attributed these differences to the greater persistence of undispersed oil
in the intertidal sediments.
252
Similar results were seen in the Baffin Island Oil Spill Project (BIOS)
initiated in 1980 (Blackall and Sergy, 1981). This large-scale field project
consisted of four bays, two of which received either 94 barrels of un-
treated, partly weathered crude oil released on the surface or an under-
water release of oil and dispersant (10:1). The untreated oil caused no
immediate effects on benthic organisms, but some intertidal amphipods
and larval fish were affected by physical coating. Oil concentrations in the
top 1 m of water ranged from 0.01 to 2.8 ppm. In the dispersed oil treat-
ment, concentrations of oil on the bottom (approximately 10 m) ranged
from approximately 50 ppm to a high of 167 ppm. Benthic organisms ap-
peared stressed in this treatment, most likely due to narcotic effects. How-
ever, systematic monitoring of benthic populations demonstrated that
exposure to dispersed oil did not cause large-scale mortality. After one
year, there was no statistical difference in benthic community composi-
tion between the dispersed oil treatment and the control bays. As in the
Searsport study, the persistence of dispersed oil in subtidal sediments was
much less (approaching background after 1 year) than at the untreated oil
site. However, in this study there was no attempt to recover oil from the
untreated oil site; hence, amounts of residual oil were likely higher than
would have occurred had some recovery been attempted.
Michel and Henry (1997) evaluated PAH uptake and depuration by
oysters after use of dispersants on a shallow water oil spill in El Salvador
(see Box 5-3). Because the PAH levels dropped to nearly background
within three weeks after application of dispersant, the authors concluded
that the subtidal sediments in the spill site did not contain residual oil and
therefore did not constitute a continuing source of oil to coastal resources.
Studies in which the sediments were a major reservoir for spilled oil have
reported elevated levels of PAH in oysters for months to years after the
spill (Neff and Haensly, 1982; Blumer et al., 1970). Because most of the oil
in the El Salvador spill was dispersed there was no opportunity to com-
pare uptake and depuration of dispersed oil versus untreated oil. Thus, it
was not possible to determine if the use of dispersants increased the
amount of oil that reached benthic habitats. However, a qualitative com-
parison of PAH measurements in oysters collected during other oil spills
where dispersants were not applied, does not suggest any dramatic dif-
ference in uptake (Michel and Henry, 1997). The SERF in Corpus Christi,
Texas, was used in a series of mesocosm experiments to evaluate the eco-
logical effects of shorelines impacted by oil and chemically dispersed oil
(Coelho et al., 1999; Fuller et al., 1999; Bragin et al., 1999). Simulated
beaches were constructed in experimental wave tanks (described in detail
in Chapter 3) with fine sand. Treatments included artificially weathered
Arabian medium crude oil, oil premixed with Corexit 9500, and controls.
Six liters of oil or oil-dispersant mixture were poured onto the surface of
253
the tanks. After an initial mixing period of one hour, fresh sea water was
circulated continuously through the wave tanks to simulate tides with a
12-hour period. A variety of organisms (fiddler crabs, polychaete worms,
amphipods, fish, and oysters) were exposed in situ in the wave-tank
mesocosms or ex-situ in laboratory toxicity tests. In the oil-only treatment,
the TPH concentrations in water peaked at 15,360 g/L at 6 hr and then
declined to a concentration of 2,948 g/L at 24 hr (Coelho et al., 1999). The
resulting total PAH concentrations in fish (Cyprinodon variegatus) and oys-
ters (Crassostrea virginica) in the wave tanks at 24 hr were 8,420 and 8,590
g/g, respectively. In the dispersed oil treatment, the TPH concentrations
in water peaked at one hour at 48,580 g/L and declined to 5,258 g/L
after 24 hr. The total PAH concentrations in fish and oysters were 18,440
and 3,550 g/g, respectively after 24 hr. The similarity in PAH concentra-
tions in oysters under the two treatments may be related to the oil-only
exposure being limited to certain phases of the tidal cycle. As has been
documented in field studies, sediment concentrations of TPH in the dis-
persed oil treatments were very low compared to the oil-only treatment, a
consequence of the untreated oil becoming trapped in the mesocosm wave
tank (Coelho et al., 1999). Interpretation of toxicological evaluations was
confounded, in some instances, by unacceptable control mortality. How-
ever, in general, results suggested comparable toxicity of chemically and
physically dispersed oil in these mesocosm experiments (Fuller et al., 1999;
Bragin et al., 1999).
In general, the available information from field and mesocosm stud-
ies seems to indicate that dispersants will reduce the persistence of oil in
subtidal and intertidal sediments compared to untreated oil. Conse-
quently, there may be a trade-off between short-term acute effects due to
increased concentrations of petroleum hydrocarbons in the water column
countered by the reduction in long-term chronic exposure to petroleum
hydrocarbons from stranded oil. However, this conclusion is based on
limited information, and the interactions between dispersed oil and sedi-
ments are still poorly understood. For example, Ho et al. (1999) found that
toxicity of sediments in the vicinity of the North Cape spill (a spill that had
incredibly high physical dispersion of home heating oil) lasted for more
than 6 months in some areas. Sediments in this study were fine grained,
unlike those in the SERF mesocosms that were sandy. Consequently, a
focused series of experiments should be conducted to quantify the final
fate of chemically dispersed oil droplets compared to undispersed oil, in-
cluding an evaluation of the interaction with a broader range of sediment
types.
254
BOX 5-3
Case Study: Acajutla, El Salvador
Spilled Oil Type/Volume/Conditions. An estimated 400 1 00 barrels of a
blended crude oil called Venezuela Recon was released about 1 km off-
shore at the mooring buoy off the Refineria de Acajutla, El Salvador on 23
June 1 994. Venezuela Recon is a 50:50 blend of a heavy Venezuelan crude
and light, intermediate products such as naphtha and gas oil. It appeared
much like a black diesel. Properties were: API gravity of 34.9; viscosity of
4.38 cSt; and pour point of 1 5C. It would be readily dispersible.
Physical and Biological Setting. The spill affected open, exposed coastline
consisting of rocky shores and sand beaches. Water depths were 46 m
over mixed sand and rock bottom. Winds were high during the spill, but
calm during dispersant applications over the next few days. There are in-
shore fisheries both for finfish (by boat) and for benthic oysters attached to
rock outcrops (by free diving).
Dispersant Application. Thirty barrels of Corexit 9527 were applied over a
3-day period, for an application rate of 1 :1 3. Applications followed guide-
lines in the facilitys oil spill contingency plan. Dispersant was first applied
on 2 4 June within 1 21 5 hr after the spill by fixed wing aircraft and
workboats. Some Corexit 7664 was applied from shore to oil in the surf
zone. Small nearshore slicks were treated with Corexit 9527 sprayed by
workboats for two more days. On the morning of 27 June, no visible slicks
were reported.
Wildlife
One of the widely held assumptions concerning the use of dispers-
ants is that chemically dispersion of oil will dramatically reduce the im-
pacts to seabirds and aquatic mammals, primarily by reducing their expo-
sure to petroleum hydrocarbons (e.g., French-McCay, 2004). Evaluating
the validity of this assumption is critical because it is often a key factor in
the decision on whether or not to use dispersants on a particular spill.
Unfortunately, little is known about the effects of dispersed oil on wild-
life, especially aquatic mammals. Oil can affect wildlife through a combi-
nation of effects: toxicity due to ingestion of oil or contaminated prey;
inhalation of petroleum vapors; and loss of thermoregulatory capacity due
to physical oiling of feathers and fur. In addition, adults that become oiled
may transfer oil from their plumage to their more sensitive eggs or
255
Monitoring Results. Effectiveness: Monitors conducting visual observations
during overflights reported that the application was highly effective. The
small amount of oil that stranded onshore was removed manually. Effects:
Because of concern over potential impacts of the spill and dispersant use
on fisheries, a monitoring plan was developed. Fishermen were queried to
determine if they had encountered any oil on their nets or catch or any
dead organisms. No encounters were reported. Commercial fishermen were
hired to free-dive for oysters at four locations (included two background
locations). Whole oysters (including the gut) were analyzed for PAH to
fingerprint the oil and monitor for the presence and bioavailability of oil to
benthic resources at 7, 28, 1 85, and 280 days post-spill (though there was
another small spill reported just prior to the 1 85 day sampling event).
Two samples of oysters from the area where the oil was dispersed in
46 m of water contained total PAH of 1 47 and 1 64 ppm, dry weight,
compared to background levels less than 1 .0 ppm. The PAH patterns indi-
cated that the oil in the oysters was slightly weathered whole oil. Since the
oysters had been exposed to clean water for at least five days, it is likely
that they were already depurating the oil and the oil measured represents a
body burden rather than oil in the digestive glands. Four weeks post-spill,
PAH levels in oysters from these areas decreased by 9498 percent. Half-
lives for 2- and 3-ringed PAH were calculated to range from 2.8 to 4.7
days, and 4- to 6-ringed PAH ranged from 3.7 to 30 days. These values
were similar to results of laboratory studies. These studies showed that
dispersed oil did reach benthic communities when dispersed in 46 m of
water in open-water conditions. Uptake by oysters was rapid, and depura-
tion was complete within 28 days.
SOURCE: Summary based on Michel and Henry (1 997).
hatchlingsrefined oil is highly toxic to avian embryos. The limited avail-
able information suggests comparable toxicity of dispersed and untreated
oil to seabirds and mammals. A literature review by Peakall et al. (1987)
concluded that, from the toxicological perspective, the effects of oil and
chemically dispersed oil on seabirds were similar, based on sublethal re-
sponses at the biochemical and physiological level. Similarly, studies on
the effects of oil on the hatching success of bird eggs (summarized in NRC,
1989) also indicated that toxicities of oil and dispersed oil were similar.
Hence, the main concern for the impacts of dispersed oil and dispers-
ants is in the physical loss of insulative properties of the feathers and fur
of wildlife when coated with oil, which in turn can lead to hypothermia,
stress, starvation, and ultimately death of the animal. The effect of exter-
nal oiling on the thermal insulation of plumage has been shown to be
256
dependent on the amount of water that is absorbed into the plumage as a
function of the amount of oil exposure. Peakall et al. (1987) derived a math-
ematical model to estimate the amount of dispersed oil to which seabirds
would be exposed. The risk of exposure to oil is dependent on the behav-
ioral characteristics of birds. Because the purpose of dispersants is to drive
oil into the water column, only those activities that cause seabirds to sub-
merge, such as feeding, would lead to an increased exposure to oil. Based
on their modeling analysis, Peakall et al. (1987) concluded that there is no
significant exposure of birds to oil in the water column, rather, the highest
exposure occurs when the bird dives or returns to the water-oil surface.
They concluded that the assumption that dispersing oil benefits seabirds
depends on the efficiency of the dispersion. However, several later evalu-
ations have challenged this assumption, asserting that exposure to even
small amounts of organic petroleum compounds and surfactants may re-
sult in adverse effects to birds and potentially bird populations (Jenssen,
1994; Briggs et al., 1996; Stephenson, 1997).
The waterproof properties of feathers and their value as thermal insu-
lators are due to their composition and their structure. The keratin of
feathers is inherently water repellant. In addition, the lattice structure and
contour of feathers promote the shedding of water droplets from the sur-
face of the feather (Stephenson, 1997). Thus, it is reasonable to predict that
any factors that compromise the integrity of the plumage, such as expo-
sure to oil or dispersants, will affect thermoregulation and result in a
physiological cost to the animal. Similar effects would be expected in
aquatic mammals, such as otters, that rely on water-repellant fur to main-
tain normal thermal regulation (Jenssen, 1994).
As noted previously, very few studies have evaluated the effects of
dispersed oil on thermoregulation. Lambert et al. (1982) compared meta-
bolic rates of mallards exposed to Prudhoe Bay crude oil and Corexit 9527.
They found higher metabolic rates in birds exposed to dispersant, pre-
sumably due to increased energy expended to maintain a normal body
temperature. Jenssen and Ekker (1991) reported that a much smaller vol-
ume of chemically treated oil compared to crude oil was required to cause
significant effects on plumage insulation and thermoregulation in eiders.
Because dispersants are surface active agents that reduce water surface
tension, they may also increase the wettability of bird feathers and hence
disrupt their insulation properties (Stephenson, 1997). Stephenson and
Andrews (1997) concluded that adult bird feathers could be wetted when
the surface tension of water is reduced below a certain threshold. In addi-
tion, Stephenson (1997) indicates that a multitude of surface-active or-
ganic contaminants, including petroleum compounds and detergents,
may have detrimental effects on aquatic birds due to alterations in water
surface tension. Application of chemical dispersants during an oil spill
257
may lower the amount of oil to which a bird or aquatic mammal is ex-
posed while at the same time increasing the potential loss of the insulative
properties of feathers or fur through reduction of surface tension at the
feather/fur-water interface. Clearly, more studies are needed to address
the uncertainties associated with the impacts of dispersants and dispersed
oil on wildlife. A similar conclusion was also reached by NRC (1989), and
very few studies have been conducted since that initial recommendation.
Microbial Communities
During the decision-making process an important factor to be consid-
ered is whether degradation of the spilled oil will be enhanced or inhib-
ited using dispersants, thereby affecting the ultimate fate of the oil. As
discussed in Chapter 4, there is no conclusive evidence demonstrating
either the enhancement or the inhibition of microbial biodegradation
when dispersants are used. Studies specifically addressing the toxic effects
of dispersants or dispersed oil on microorganisms are limited and effects
are often inferred from inhibited rates of oil biodegradation (see Chapter
4 and Table 5-9). To determine toxic effects to bacterial populations as a
result of dispersant use, consideration should be given as to the transport
mechanism involved for oil uptake by the particular species under study.
Transport mechanisms include uptake from the dissolved phase or via a
direct contact mechanism. Addition of dispersants can alter the con-
centration of dissolved phase hydrocarbons and interfere with normal
bacteria-oil droplet attachment mechanisms (Zhang and Miller, 1994) as
discussed in Chapter 4. These changes could result in enhanced or de-
creased exposure of the bacteria to particular hydrocarbons, which may
be either advantageous or detrimental (toxic) to the microbe. There are
few studies that directly examine routes of exposure and toxicity to
microorganisms.
Inhibition of biodegradation rates may be caused by a variety of fac-
tors, including toxicity, though it could also result from the fact that the
dispersant may substitute for the oil as the carbon source. However, it is
also possible that an increased concentration of dispersed oil (or dispers-
ant) could cause temporary toxic effects to natural microbial populations.
Studies of biodegradation rates that report changes in bacterial growth
(numbers) or uptake of glucose as indicators of toxic effects should be
interpreted with caution. Many other factors could be limiting, such as
nutrients and other growth factors. Extrapolating data from laboratory
tests is difficult because hydrocarbon degradation rates are often several
orders of magnitude higher compared with in-situ rates. Conversely, any
toxic or inhibitory effects are also likely to be magnified in the laboratory
setting (NRC, 1989).
258
Studies addressing specific toxicity issues in microbial communities
are very limited, with the majority being an indirect observation from
biodegradation studies using enhanced or inhibited growth of microbial
populations. For example, Linden et al. (1987), in a microcosm system
aimed at modeling the littoral ecosystem of the Baltic Sea, demonstrated
elevated numbers of water-borne heterotrophic bacteria after 30 hr in dis-
persed oil treatments relative to oil alone. After 7 days post-exposure, the
differences between treatments were not significant. This study indicates
no toxic effect to the microbial population as a whole with the use of dis-
persants; however, growth as measured by bacterial counts may mask
selective toxicity to some bacterial strains concordant with elevations in
numbers of tolerant or specific hydrocarbon degrading strains. It should
be noted that a 100-fold increase of C
16-specific organisms was observed
after 30 hr in the dispersant-oil treatment compared with oil alone (Lin-
den et al., 1987). A similar elevation in bacterial numbers in response to
chemical (Corexit 9500) versus physical dispersion was observed by
MacNaughton et al. (2003), again measured by total bacterial counts. Some
dispersant studies have demonstrated that when microbial processes are
inhibited, rates of oil decomposition decline (see Chapter 4; NRC, 1989;
Mulyono et al., 1994; Varadaraj et al., 1995).
Although there are a few studies specifically on microbial toxicity,
none examined natural marine microbial populations. George et al. (2001)
indirectly addressed the toxicity of oil and oil plus dispersant treatments
to microbes by determining effects on the intestinal flora of rats and the
mutagenic potential of these mixtures using an assay on bacteria (see be-
low). The reasoning behind this study was to determine the adverse health
effects of cleanup options on marine mammals. It was hypothesized that
even low levels of oil (with or without dispersant) may cause toxic effects
following ingestion due to the alteration in gastrointestinal tract meta-
bolic processes. The rat was used as a model organism to determine if co-
administration of Corexit 9527 enhanced oil toxicity or mutagenicity. The
study demonstrated that oil exposure reduced several cecal microflora
populations (see Table 5-9 and 5-10), and Corexit alone reduced the lac-
tose-fermenting enterobacteria Conversely, the oil plus dispersant treat-
ment increased the lactose fermenting group with no changes in other
bacterial populations. It should be noted that these data were derived from
only three rats. In test treatments, the authors found that both dispersants
(Corexit 9500 and 9527) were mutagenic in various strains of Salmonella
typhimurium (employed for the Ames histidine reversion bioassay), using
dilutions up to 1:1,000, but weathered Nigerian crude oil was not mu-
tagenic. No data were available for the dispersed oil mixture. A similar
study also found Corexit 9527 alone to be toxic in the Microtox assay with
an EC
20 of 1 ppm (Poremba and Gunkel, 1990). Although both studies
259
demonstrated the toxic effects of dispersant, dispersed oil was not investi-
gated. Because these studies examined a single laboratory species exposed
to relatively high levels of dispersant, the potential effects on natural
mixed, marine bacterial populations cannot be assessed.
There are a multitude of implications regarding the effects of dispers-
ant and dispersed oil on microbial communities. A lack of toxicity is often
inferred in studies that show increases in numbers of bacteria. However,
this may not accurately reflect the entire microbial community because
elevations in some bacterial (tolerant) species may mask the inhibition
(toxicity) of other types. A lack of inhibition observed at the community
levels does not necessarily indicate the absence of toxicity. Elevated num-
bers of bacteria may also reflect an indirect enhancement if dispersant or
dispersed oil is toxic to bacteriovores (Lee et al., 1985). The removal of the
bacterial grazers would also cause elevated bacterial counts, although
these would probably be temporary. Alterations in bacterial species com-
position may have severe consequences for the ecosystem as a whole. In
addition, elevated numbers of bacteria may result in toxic effects to other
forms of life. For example, elevated bacterial numbers may deplete oxy-
gen levels in benthic substrates, resulting in indirect toxic effects to organ-
isms inhabiting this environment. Additionally, some microbial pathways
may lead to transformation of the oil into more toxic byproducts. The
impact of dispersants and/or dispersed oil on gut microflora, particularly
in relation to ingestion by marine mammals, has been discussed above.
Because of their importance in aquatic systems, targeted toxicity studies
should be conducted to address the effects of dispersant and dispersed oil
on the composition and metabolic activities of mixed microbial popula-
tions representing marine (or estuarine/freshwater) communities.
Coral Reefs
Compared with other test species, data on the effects of dispersants
and/or chemically dispersed oil and comparisons with physically dis-
persed oil on coral species are even more limited. The majority of research
was conducted in the 1970s and 1980s, and these studies (field and labora-
tory based) have been adequately discussed and summarized in NRC
(1989). Many of the early studies were conducted by researchers at the
Bermuda Biological Station (e.g., Cook and Knap, 1983; Dodge et al., 1984,
1995; Knap, 1987; Knap et al., 1983, 1985; Wyers, 1985; Wyers et al., 1986)
who conducted an extensive series of laboratory and field based studies
on the effects of dispersants (e.g., Corexit 9527 and BP1100WD) and dis-
persed oil (Arabian light crude) on the brain coral Diploria strigosa. These
studies were based on 6 to 24 hr exposures followed by recovery in clean
seawater. They found no significant differences between the oil and the
260
TABLE 5-9 Detail of Studies Addressing Effects of Dispersant/
Dispersed Oil on Microbial Populations
Microbial sps./Community
Dispersant/Oil (D:O ratio)
Metrics Used
Indigenous mixed microbial

population
D; Corexit 8666, Gamlen Sea

Clean, GH Woods degreaser,
Formula 11470, Sugee 2
O; Arabian Crude (1:1)
Bacterial no. (growth; drop-
plate method).
Species diversity.
D; Corexit 8666, Shell oil

herder #3, Smith oil herder
O; Crude oil
CO
2 evolution
Arthrobacter simplex
Candida tropicalis
D; ONGC-1, ONGC-2,
ONGC-3, ONGC-4
O; Saudi Arabian Crude,
Bombay high crude (1:5)
Growth (turbidity)
Indigenous mixed bacterial

population
D; IB 2/80, IB 1/80,
Bacterial no. (spread plate
IB 11/80, IB 12/80, IB 13/80, method)
BP 1100WD, BP 1100
O; Saudi Arabian Crude (1:1)
Mixed population
D; Corexit 9500
O; Forties crude (W),
ANS (W) (1:10)
Bacterial no.
Mixed culture of oil

degrading bacteria
D; 15 FW dispersants
O; Newman-wells
(D:O various)
Bacterial no.s
CO
2 evolution
Photobacterium phosphoreum
D; E09, DK50, DK 160

O; Ekofisk crude ( W)
(1:10010,000)
Microtox assay (loss of
bacterial bioluminescence
indicates toxicity)
Rat intestinal bacterial

mixed population
Salmonella typhimimurium
(mutagenicity study)
D; Corexit 9527, Corexit 9500

O; Weathered Bonnie light
Nigerian crude oil
Bacterial no.s
Species diversity
Bacterial enzymes
quantitation
Natural flora (from pond)
D; Corexit 9550
O; Forties North Sea (1:10)
No. heterotrophic bacteria,
plus 4 specific-species
counts
Acinetobacter calcoaceticus,
Photobacterium phosphoreum
and Serratia marioruba
P.phosphoreum (microtox test)
D; Finasol OSR-5, Corexit

9527 (plus biosurfactants
and other synthetic
surfactants)
O; none
Bacterial no.s
Bacterial bioluminescense
(microtox test)
Natural flora (enclosed

ecosystemSEAFLUXES)
D; Corexit 9527
O; Prudhoe Bay Crude
Oil (1:10)
(No oil alone test)
Heterotrophic bacterial
production (thymidine
incorporation)
Direct counts (epifluor.
microscope)
Bacterial biomass (electron
micros.)
261
Finding
Reference
Increased no.s with D alone Elevated no.s in DO c.f. O alone

Changes in species diversity with DO (genus level).
Mulkins-Phillips
& Stewart, 1974
Increased CO
2 evolution in DO c.f. O
D non-toxic (growth).
Increased growth DO c.f. O alone
Bhosle &
Mavinkurve, 1984
Only D toxic was IB 2/80.

No difference in growth with D c.f. DO.
O alone toxic.
Bhosle & Row,
1983
Bacterial no.s increase with DO c.f. O (forties).
ANS study, DO bacterial no.s initial elevation (quick colonization),

no difference c.f. O alone at later time-points
aMacNaughton
Changes in no.s and species diversity is D dependent, some toxic,
others no-effect or increase growth
b Foght
Decreased toxicity of DO c.f. O.
High levels of D toxic.
cPoremba,
Treatment changes in bacterial enzyme activities.

Oil reduction of microflora in 3 populations;
D alone 1 reduction and DO slight elevation (1 population)
Species composition changes. D toxic to S. typhimum (O alone not).
George et al., 2001
30 hr-increase bacterial no.s in DO c.f. O; no differences at 7 days

C
16-organisms 100x in DO c.f. O, other species same
Linden et al., 1987
No inhibition of growth, some elevated.
EC
20 Corexit and Finasol at 1mg/L
dPoremba,
Elevated bacterial production by D and highest in DO test.

Toxicity to bacteriovors
Lee et al., 1985
et al., 2003
et al., 1987
1993
1993
continues
262
TABLE 5-9 Continued
Microbial sps./Community
Dispersant/Oil (D:O ratio)
Metrics Used
Soil bacteria; mixed

microbial population
D; Corexit 9550
O; Arabian crude,
Louisiana crude (1:5)
Gross metabolic capacity
(CO
2 , CH
4 )
Pond natural bacterial

population
Salmonella typhimimurium
(mutagenicity study)
Spirillum volutans
(toxicity test)
D; Corexit 9527
O; Fresh Norman Wells
Crude
General biomass
(microscope enumeration
and ATP levels),
heterotrophic plate count,
MPN
NOTE: ANS, Alaskan North Slope crude oil; ATP, adenosine triphosphate; D, dispersant;
DO, chemically dispersed oil; FW, freshwater; MPN, most probable numbers; O, oil; W,
weathered.
Biodegradation
bFreshwater
study with indirect toxicity observations.
study.
TABLE 5-10 Cecal microflora Effects Following 5 Weeks of Nigerian
Crude Oil and Corexit 9527 Treatment of F344 Rats
Microflora Population
Enterocci
Lactose-fermenting enterobacteria
Lactose-nonfermenting enterobacteria
Total anaerobic count
Obligately anaerobic Gram-negative
rods
Lactobactilli
Selective
Medium
a
Oil
Control
KF
MacConkey +
MacConkey
Blood agar
VK
4.72
3.25
4.92
8.46
8.19
Rogosa
7.73
Corexit
Oil +
Corexit
0.00
0.00
0.00
8.32
8.12
4.90
b
2.59
4.71
8.39
8.13
4.74
4.10
4.90
8.42
8.24
7.81
7.78
7.64
aMale Fischer 344 rats were gavaged for 5 weeks with Nigerian crude oil (1:20) with and
without Corexit 9527 (1:50). The cecum was removed from each animal, homogenized under
CO
2, and diluted and plated anaerobically on selective media for enumeration. Results are
an average from three rats.
bSignificant at p < 0.05, one-way ANOVA.
SOURCE: modified from George et al., 2001.
263
Finding
Reference
No inhibition, some elevations (temporary)
e Nyman,
No toxicity/mutagenicity of O or DO, slight short-term effects, i.e.,

O decreased no.s but DO elevated no.s (7 days)
Dutka & Kwan,
1984
1999
cDispersants
alone.
Microtox toxicity test bacteria.
eSoil study.
dUsing
dispersed oil treatments using an array of biometrics including tentacle
extension, mucus production, pigmentation loss, tissue swelling, and skel-
etal growth. Any stress effects were transient and recovery occurred
within one week post-exposure. However, they did note reduced photo-
synthesis of the zooxanthellae (symbiotic algae) within the coral resulting
from 8 hr exposure to 19 ppm dispersed oil, whereas this was not appar-
ent in treatments with either oil or dispersant alone. Carbon fixation and
lipid synthesis recovered to normal levels within 24 hr.
One of the more robust and extensive studies on early life stages of
corals was undertaken by Negri and Heyward (2000). They exposed
Acropora millepora eggs and sperm to WAF (heavy crude oil) and chemi-
cally dispersed oil (using Corexit 9527; dispersant to oil ratio at1:100 and
1:10) or dispersant alone for 4 hr and assessed fertilization rates. They
found no inhibition of fertilization at >0.165 ppm THC in WAF exposures
(>10 percent dilution of stock WAF) but significant inhibition for expo-
sure to dispersed oil (1:10 DOR) at 0.0325 ppm (equal to a 1 percent dilu-
tion). Exposure concentrations were estimates based on measured con-
centrations of THC in the stock solutions used to make the dilutions.
Dispersants alone resulted in significant inhibition (final dilution of 0.1
percent), although at a lower magnitude than dispersed oil at the same
dispersant concentrations. Although fertilization in this species appeared
to be relatively insensitive to naturally dispersed oil droplets, crude oil
264
and dispersant alone inhibited larval metamorphosis, with the greatest
inhibition observed when larvae were exposed to chemically dispersed
oil. Metamorphosis was inhibited at 0.0824 ppm THC and 0.0325 ppm
THC for crude oil and chemically dispersed oil (1:10 DOR), respectively.
The authors concluded that there may be additive toxicity of dispersants
and oil and recommended that the timing of spawning events be consid-
ered in management decisions on dispersant use in coralline environ-
ments. However, as noted previously, without evaluation of specific
chemical constituents in the various exposures regimes, conclusions re-
garding relative toxicity of chemically dispersed versus physically dis-
persed oil are tenuous.
A study by Epstein et al. (2000) investigated the toxicity of five third-
generation dispersants to early life stages of coral. Planula larvae of stony
coral (Stylophora pistillata) and soft coral (Heteroxenia fuscesense) were ex-
posed to varying concentrations of WAF, chemically dispersed oil (1:10,
DOR), and dispersants alone (0.5500 ppm) using short-term (296 hr)
bioassays. WAF treatments resulted in a concentration-dependent reduction
in planulae settlement, but no mortality. All the tested dispersants also
decreased settlement rates, even at the lowest tested concentrations (0.5
ppm). In addition, larval survival at 50 and 500 ppm after 96 hr was com-
pletely or significantly reduced in most of the dispersants tested. Chemi-
cally dispersed oil exposures resulted in a dramatic increase in acute tox-
icity to both coral species larvae. In addition, the authors reported that
dispersants and dispersed oil treatments caused larval morphological de-
formations, loss of normal swimming behavior, and rapid tissue degen-
eration. Interpretations of physically versus chemically dispersed oil tox-
icities in this study are hampered by the use of nominal exposures.
A recent study investigating the effects of dispersant and dispersed
oil by Shafir et al. (2003) using coral nubbins of the hard coral Stylophora
pistillata exposed to water-soluble fractions (WSF), dispersant, and chemi-
cally dispersed oil for 24 hr (static exposures) followed by recovery for
long-term assessments in clean seawater. No mortality was observed at
any of the WSF concentrations, but extensive mortality was observed with
dispersant alone (at 24 hr all doses including 1 percent stock dilution)
with a delayed enhanced mortality occurring at the 0.1 percent concentra-
tion after 6 days. Survivorship of chemically dispersed oil exposed corals
was similar to that described for dispersant alone.
The Tropical Oil Pollution Investigations in Coastal Systems (TROP-
ICS) field experiments are particularly useful in evaluating the impacts
and trade-offs of dispersants and dispersed oil on corals, seagrasses, and
mangroves (Ballou et al., 1987, 1989; Dodge et al., 1995). In these field
experiments in Panama, corals were exposed to oil and chemically dis-
persed oil for relatively short periods (15 days) followed by extensive
265
monitoring for 110 years post-exposure (see Box 5-4). Sites were moni-
tored repeatedly in the first two years, and at two later dates (ten years
final). At the untreated oil site no significant impacts to corals were ob-
served at any of the time points (Dodge et al., 1995). At the dispersed oil
site, corals were exposed to higher concentrations of oil (i.e., 24 hr aver-
ages of 5.1 ppm vs. 0.14 ppm at the untreated oil site). Significant impacts
to the coral reef were observed and at two-years post-exposure these in-
cluded reduced coral coverage and reduced growth in two hard coral spe-
cies (Agaricia tennuifolia and Porites porites) with no reduction in two other
species (Montastrea annularis and Acropora cervicornis). However, at the 10
year monitoring time point, recovery was complete and comparable to
pre-spill conditions and conditions at the control site (Dodge et al., 1995).
Another field experiment using two oil exposure regimes was con-
ducted in the Arabian Gulf by LeGore et al. (1983, 1989). Exposures con-
sisted of oil alone (Arabian light crude), dispersant alone (Corexit 9527),
and oil/dispersant mixtures with analysis of water chemistry. The two
series of experiments consisted of a 24 hr or 5 day (120 hr) exposure pe-
riod. The authors concluded that coral growth appeared to be unaffected
by exposure to the toxicants, although some Acropora sp. exposed to the
dispersed oil for 5 days did exhibit delayed, but minor effects, that became
apparent only during the relatively cold and stressful winter season.
Corals are particularly susceptible to PAH dissolved in seawater or
adsorbed to particles because the layer of tissue covering the coral skel-
eton is thin (approximately 100 m; Peters et al., 1997). Also, coral tissue is
rich in lipids (high lipid/protein ratios), facilitating the direct uptake and
bioaccumulation of lipophilic chemicals, including PAH found in oil (Pe-
ters et al., 1981). Indeed, it has been observed that oil is quickly and readily
bioaccumulated in coral tissues and is slow to depurate, possibly reflect-
ing inefficient contaminant metabolism or lack of detoxification pathways
(see Shigenaka, 2001). Long residence times of PAH were indicated by
high PAH concentrations found in oiled corals (up to 50 mg hydrocarbon
1 ) from Panama as long as 5 months after the original spill (Burns
g lipid
and Knap, 1989). A laboratory study by Kennedy et al. (1992) demon-
strated a linear uptake rate of benzo(a)pyrene in corals and their zooxan-
thellae. Accumulated levels were slowly eliminated with 3865 percent of
the accumulated benzo(a)pyrene remaining after 144 hr depuration (re-
covery) in clean seawater (Kennedy et al., 1992). This rapid uptake and
slow depuration may be of particular relevance to oil toxicity mechanisms
in corals. Many studies have shown that a brief exposure to oil may not
result in immediate death to coral species (acute oil toxicity), but induces
mortality over an extended period of time (delayed effects) (see Shigenaka,
2001 for a summary). On a similar theme, Fucik et al. (1984) suggested
that acute toxicity is probably not a good indicator of oil impact, stating
266
that it is much more likely that adverse effects to coral species would be
manifested at sublethal levels.
One relatively unstudied hypothesis that could explain delayed ef-
fects is that most of the toxicity is derived from exposure to the UV radia-
tion in sunlight (see earlier section on Phototoxicity in this chapter). This
phenomenon may be of particular relevance in explaining the high toxic-
ity of accumulated oil in corals, species that are slow to depurate PAH.
BOX 5-4
Case Study: TROPICS, Panama
Spilled Oil Type/Volume/Conditions. In 1 984, a field oil experiment called
the Tropical Oil Pollution Investigations in Coastal Systems (TROPICS) was
conducted in Panama. The objective of the TROPICS experiment was to
evaluate the relative impacts of oil and dispersed oil on mangroves, sea-
grasses, and corals. Exposure concentrations were targeted to be as high as
50 ppm, in a worst-case scenario, with dispersants applied to oil directly
over corals.
Physical and Biological Setting. Sheltered shallow area near Bocas del
Toro, Panama (Figures 5-7 and 5-8). Mature mangroves with extensive
seagrass beds (water depth average about 40 cm), and coral reefs (water
depth average 60 cm).
Oil and Dispersed Oil Application. The oil, or dispersed oil, was applied
inside boomed areas 30 m wide and 30 m deep, extending across all three
habitats. The pre-mixed dispersed oil (4.5 barrels) was released over a 24-
hour period so that the dispersed oil concentrations would stay elevated
over the exposure period. The untreated whole oil (6 barrels) was released
2 . After one
in two periods over the 24 hr, at an application rate of 1 liter/m
more day, the remaining floating oil was removed with sorbents.
Monitoring Results. Water Column Monitoring: Oil concentrations at each
treatment site (oil or dispersed oil) were monitored continuously for 24 hr
using a field fluorometer that was calibrated to convert fluorescence into
the concentration of physically and chemically dispersed oil. Discrete and
unfiltered water samples were collected for chemical analysis by gas chro-
matography (GC). In comparing the oil concentrations in the water as mea-
sured by both approaches, the field fluorometer readings were 3 times
higher that the GC concentration for samples from the dispersed oil site,
and they were 1 7 times higher than the samples from the undispersed oil
site. Therefore, the oil concentrations as measured in the discrete water
samples by GC were used to calculate the oil exposures because these
results are more quantitative.
267
Not only are corals in high-light environments, they are translucent and
seek high intensity light environments (by regulating pigments or alter-
ing their position with respect to the sun) to foster the symbiotic relation-
ship with photosynthetic algae.
An additional stress for corals may be attributed to the physical toxic-
ity of oil droplets. It has been observed that oil droplets adhere to the
surface of the coral, which results in a complete breakdown of the under-
FIGURE 5-7 Case study: (TROPICS, Panama) Map of TROPICS study
sites near Bocas del Toro, Panama.
SOURCE: Ward et al., 2003; courtesy of the American Petroleum Insti-
tute.
Effects: The sites were monitored five times in the first two years and
once in 1 994, ten years later. At the oil-only site, the corals were exposed
to a 24-hour average of 0.1 4 ppm and a 48-hour average of 0.1 4 ppm. No
significant impacts to corals were observed during any monitoring period.
At the dispersed oil site, the corals were exposed to a 24-hour average
of 5.1 ppm (with a 1 hr maximum of 1 4.8 ppm) and 1 .6 ppm at 48 hr. The
average exposure over the 48-hour period was 3.4 ppm. At these expo-
268
FIGURE 5-8 Case study: (TROPICS, Panama) Aerial view of whole oil
and dispersed oil sites.
SOURCE: Coastal Science Associates, Southern Affiliate, Incorporated.
sures, there were significant impacts to the shallow coral reef communities.
Impacts observed at two years post-exposure included: reduced coverage
by the major categories of all organisms (30 percent), hard corals (1 0 per-
cent), all animals (30 percent), and plants (1 0 percent); reduced growth of
the two most important hard coral species (Agaricia tennuifolia and Porites
porites) but not two others (Montastrea annularis and Acropora cervicornis);
and mortality of binding sponges. Studies conducted ten years post-expo-
sure showed full recovery of coral coverage to levels equal those present
pre-spill at the dispersed site and equal to conditions at the non-oiled con-
trol site.
Dispersed oil concentrations over the shallower seagrass (Thalassia
testudinum) habitat were five times higher than over the coral habitat, av-
lying tissues (Johannes, 1975). Again this phenomenon may be of direct
relevance in interpreting physically versus chemically dispersed oil tox-
icities. NRC (1989) stated that the smaller droplets in chemically dispersed
oil did not adhere to the corals, in contrast to the larger, physically dis-
persed oil droplets, some of which were found on coral a few weeks after
269
eraging 22 ppm over 24 hr with a maximum of 70 ppm as measured in
discrete water samples analyzed by GC. Even at these high exposures (the
maximum likely oil concentrations), no negative effects were observed for
plant survival, growth rates, or leaf blade area at the dispersed oil treatment
site compared to the non-oiled reference site.
Untreated, whole oil caused significant impacts to mangrove habitats
with high levels of defoliation and 1 7 percent mortality of adult mangroves
after 2 years. After 1 0 years, mangrove mortality increased to 46 percent
and some subsidence of the sediment surface was observed at the oiled
site. After 1 8 years, the oiled site started to show some recovery as new
trees replaced the dead trees (Figure 5-9; Ward et al., 2003). This field
experiment clearly demonstrates the trade-offs associated with dispersant
use in shallow tropical settings.
160
140
120
100
80
60
40
20
R (# Trees)
R (#Seedlings)
O (# Trees)
O (#Seedlings)
D (# Trees)
D (#Seedlings)
FIGURE 5-9 Results of 18 years of monitoring impacts to mangroves in
Panama as part of TROPICS. Histograms reflect mangrove tree or seed-
ling population counts (19842001) from whole oil (Site O) and dispersed
oil (Site D) compared to a reference site (Site R). SOURCE: Ward et al.,
2003; courtesy of the American Petroleum Institute.
SOURCE: Summary compiled from Ballou et al. (1 987), Dodge et al. (1 995),
and Ward et al. (2003).
exposure to oil. In addition, a common stress response to oil pollution that
has repeatedly been observed in coral species is the excessive production
of mucus (see Shigenaka, 2001). This protective response can reduce the
bioaccumulation of chemical contaminants by binding them in this lipid-
rich mucus matrix that is ultimately sloughed off (or eaten by grazing
270
fish) the surface of the coral, so protecting the underlying tissues. It is
unclear whether chemically dispersed droplets or physically dispersed
droplets or accumulation of dissolved components could alter this response.
The excessive production of mucus takes energy away from normal cellu-
lar processes potentially reducing the overall health and fitness of the
coral. In the case of chronic oil pollution events, such as continued leach-
ing from mangrove sediments, excess mucus production could ultimately
lead to coral death.
In conclusion, recent studies of coral larvae clearly demonstrate im-
pacts of dispersants and dispersed oil on corals and, because of their life
history and habitat characteristics, these species may be especially sus-
ceptible (Table 5-11). Consequently, decisions concerning dispersant use
should take coral toxicity studies into consideration. In addition, labora-
tory studies are needed to estimate the relative contribution of dissolved-
and particulate-phase oil to toxicity in representative coral species. Be-
cause corals typically experience high levels of natural sunlight, these tox-
icity tests should include an evaluation of delayed effects and photo-
enhanced toxicity.
Mangroves
Few reports have been published that address the use of dispersants
in treating oil spills close to mangroves. Early work by Getter and Ballou
(1985) used an experimental spill at a site in Panama and concluded that
dispersant use reduced the overall impact of oil on mangroves. This was a
long-term project (10 years), but lacked replication of study sites (Dodge
et al., 1995). In order to investigate the types of oil spill responses that
might reduce the impact of oil spills and to address the need for more
relevant information on the effects of oil spills on mangroves, Duke, Burns
and co-workers carried out a number of field trials to assess the benefits of
two remediation strategies for mangrove forests (see Burns et al., 1999;
Duke and Burns, 1999; Duke et al., 1998a,b,c, 1999, 2000). These experi-
ments were aimed at bridging the gap between surveys of real spill inci-
dents (e.g., Volkman et al., 1994; Duke et al., 1997, 1998c) and those ob-
tained from seedling laboratory experiments (Lai and Lim, 1984; Wardrup,
1987; Duke et al., 1998a). Field experiments, named the Gladstone trials,
investigated the effects of different oils and remediation strategies on
mangroves over both short and long-term time scales (19951998) utiliz-
ing a variety of replicated trials. One study compared the effects of dis-
persant (Corexit 9527) or bioremediation (aeration plus nutrients) strate-
gies on a controlled spill using pre-weathered (24 hr) Gippsland light
crude oil. It should be noted that the dispersant Corexit 9527 was pre-
mixed and weathered with the oil mixture before application. There were
271
no differences observed between oil alone and dispersed oil treatments
on resident fauna. Death of mangrove trees, however, was significantly
lower in the plots treated with dispersant, similar to data previously ob-
tained from laboratory and field studies (Duke et al., 1998a,c; Duke and
Burns, 1999). With oil alone, long-term impacts on the fauna and little
sign of recovery of trees led the authors to conclude that dispersion of
spilled oil before it reaches mangroves should be considered for reducing
the long-term impact of oil on mangrove habitat. It was interesting to note
that the use of Corexit 9527 resulted in no difference in the amount of oil
absorbed by the sediments, the penetration of oil to depth, or the weather-
ing patterns of the oil over time.
IMPROVING THE USE OF INFORMATION
ABOUT EFFECTS IN DECISIONMAKING
As discussed in Chapter 2, the ultimate decision regarding the use of
dispersants in spill response generally rests upon answering the question
as to whether use of dispersants will reduce the overall impact (Figure 2-
4 in Chapter 2) by reducing the effects on some specific and sensitive spe-
cies or habitat, without causing unacceptable harm to another specific and
sensitive species or habitat. This decision represents a trade-off that will
be dictated by a range of ecological, social, and economic values associ-
ated with the potentially affected resources. When spills occur offshore,
where the potential magnitude and duration of impacts on organisms in
the water column or seafloor can be assumed to be minimal, a decision to
use dispersant can be made with information that is generally available.
As the capability to deploy dispersants offshore increases, however, the
capability to use dispersants in nearshore and shallower water settings
will also increase. At the present time, the current understanding of the
risk of dispersant use to shallow water or benthic species during a given
spill is typically not adequate to allow rapid and confident decision-
making. Several factors contribute to this uncertainty.
The rate of processes controlling the ultimate fate of dispersed oil is
poorly understood. Of particular concern is the fate of dispersed oil in
areas with high suspended solids and areas of low flushing rates. There is
insufficient information to determine how chemically dispersed oil inter-
acts with suspended sediments, as well as biotic components of aquatic
systems, both short- and long-term, compared to naturally dispersed oil.
Relevant state and federal agencies, industry, and appropriate interna-
tional partners should develop and implement a focused series of ex-
periments to quantify the weathering rates and final fate of chemically
dispersed oil droplets compared to undispersed oil. Results from these
experiments could be integrated with results from biological exposures
272
TABLE 5-11 Toxicity Studies of Chemically Dispersed Oil (or Dispersant
Alone) to Coral Species in Laboratory and Field Studies (since 1988)
Species
Oil (D:O ratio)
Dispersant
Exposure
Coral reef (primarily

Porites porites and
Agaricia tennuifolia)
PBCO (1:20)
Commercial
24 hr continuous release
nonionic glycol
ether-based
Acropora spp. (growth),

variety of corals visually
assessed
Arabian light
crude (1:20)
Corexit 9527
24 hr and 120 hr exposures
plus 1 year recovery.
Growth assessed.
Acropora palmata,
Montastrea annularis,
Porites porites
Oil (W) not

detailed (1:10)
12 D including
Corexit 9527,
Corexit 9550,
Finasol OSR7
DO and O, 610 hr, 2 week
recovery and delayed
assessments in clean SW.
Larvae of Stylophora
pistillata and
Heteroxenia fuscescense
Egyptian
crude (1:10)
Inipol IP-90,
Petrotech PTI-25,
Biosolve,
Bioreico R-93,
Emulgal C-100
WSF (of O), DO WAF and
D (5500 ppm). 296 hr,
static
Acropora millepora
(eggs and larvae)
Heavy crude
oil (1:10/100)
Corexit 9527
WAF, DO and D alone.
Exposures; 4 hr fertilization
assays (FA), 24 hr larval
metamorphosis assay (LM);
static
Stylophora pistillata
(adult)
Egyptian
crude (1:10)
Emulgal C-100
WSF (of O), D and DO
WAF. 24 hr, static with
recovery in clean SW.
NOTE: D, dispersant; DO, chemically dispersed oil; D:O, dispersant:oil ratio; HC, Hydrocarbon
concentration (ppb); O, oil; PBCO, Prudhoe Bay Crude Oil; SW, seawater; TPH, total petro-
leum hydrocarbons; WAF, water-accommodated fraction; WSF, water soluble fraction.
comparing uptake of dissolved, colloidal, and particulate oil to provide a
comprehensive model of the fate of dispersed oil in aquatic systems.
There is insufficient understanding of the actual concentrations and
temporal/spatial distributions and behavior of chemically dispersed oil
from field settings (from either controlled experiments or actual spills).
Data from field studies (both with and without dispersants) are needed to
validate models, provide real-world data to improve knowledge of oil
fate and effects, and fulfill other information needs. Relevant state and
federal agencies, industry, and appropriate international partners
should develop and implement steps to ensure that future wave-tank or
spill-of-opportunity studies (or during the Natural Resource Damage
273
Response
Comments
DO decrease in coral covercomplete

elimination of A. tennuifolia.
aBallou et al.,
Continuous field
measurement of TPH
1989
and C
1 -C
10 hydrocarbons
Delayed sublethal impacts in all plots

(bleaching); DO 120 hr exposure plots
recovery less. No difference in growth rates.
HC concentrations
measured over time

(to 120 hr)
Legore
Mortality was D dependent.
Nominal exposures
Thorhaug
et al., 1989
Varied with exposurefrom unsuccessful

larval settlement to death. D toxic, DO WAF
more toxic cf. WSF (and D alone).
Nominal exposures
(dilutions of stocks)
Epstein et al.,
2000
FA; WAF no effect. DO slight more toxic

c.f. D alone. LM; DO more toxic cf. WAF,
D toxic but at higher levels cf. [D] in DO.
Measured THC mg/L

Negri and
in stocks. Nominal
Heyward,
concentrations
2000
calculated for dilutions.
No death in WSF. D alone (1% or >) very toxic

within 24 hr, delayed death (day 6) at 0.1%.
DO WAF similar to D alone.
Nominal exposures
(dilutions of stocks)
Field
Reference
et al.,
1989
Shafir et al.,
2003
study.
Assessment investigations of oil spills that are not treated with dispers-
ants) implement a field program to measure both dissolved-phase PAH
and particulate/oil-droplet phase PAH concentrations for comparison
to PAH thresholds measured in toxicity tests and predicted by computer
models for oil spill fate and behavior. Accomplishing this will require
the development and implementation of detailed plans (including prepo-
sition of sufficient equipment and human resources) for rapid deploy-
ment of a well-designed monitoring plan for actual dispersant applica-
tions in the United States. The RRT Region 6 Spill of Opportunity
Monitoring Plan for dispersant application in the Gulf of Mexico should
be finalized and implemented at the appropriate time. In addition, con-
274
sideration should be given to long-term monitoring of sensitive habitats
and species (e.g., mangroves, corals, sea grasses) after dispersant applica-
tion to assess chronic effects and long-term recovery. These data will be
valuable in validating the assumptions associated with environmental
trade-offs of using dispersants.
One of the widely held assumptions concerning the use of dispers-
ants is that chemical dispersion of oil will dramatically reduce the impacts
of oil to seabirds and aquatic mammals, primarily by reducing their expo-
sure to petroleum hydrocarbons. Evaluating the validity of this assump-
tion is critical, because it is often a key factor in the decision on whether or
not to use dispersants on a particular spill (e.g., in the ecological risk as-
sessment workshop analyses). In addition, populations of waterfowl and
some aquatic mammals may be higher in nearshore and estuarine areas;
therefore, validating this assumption becomes even more important. Un-
fortunately, there is very little available information on the effects of dis-
persed oil on wildlife, especially aquatic mammals. Of additional concern
is the effect of dispersed oil and dispersants on the waterproof properties
of feathers and their role as thermal insulators. One of the recommenda-
tions of the NRC (1989) report was that studies be undertaken to assess
the ability of fur and feathers to maintain the water-repellency critical
for thermal insulation under dispersed oil exposure conditions compa-
rable to those expected in the field. This recommendation is reaffirmed
because of the importance of this assumption in evaluating the environ-
mental trade-offs associated with the use of oil dispersants in nearshore
and estuarine systems and because it has not been adequately addressed.
The primary assumption for models predicting acute toxicity of physi-
cally and chemically dispersed oil is additive effects of dissolved-phase
aromatic hydrocarbons. However, the possibility of photoenhanced toxic-
ity and particulate/oil droplet phase exposure is generally not consid-
ered. A number of laboratory studies have indicated toxicity due to PAH
increases significantly (from 12 to 50,000 times) for sensitive species in
exposures conducted under ultraviolet light (representative of natural
sunlight), compared to those conducted under the more traditional labo-
ratory conditions of fluorescent lights. In addition, the toxicity tests typi-
cally do not consider delayed acute or sublethal effects. Consequently,
current testing protocols may significantly underestimate toxicity for
some species. For example, corals appear to be particularly sensitive to
dispersants and dispersed oil due to the potential for photoenhanced tox-
icity and delayed effects. Similarly, toxicological effects due to increased
exposure to oil from smothering, ingestion, or enhanced uptake are not
explicitly considered in exposure models. Better understanding of these
variables will decrease the uncertainty associated with predicting ecologi-
cal effects of dispersed oil. Relevant state and federal agencies, industry,
275
and appropriate international partners should develop and implement
a series of focused toxicity studies to: (1) provide data that can be used
to parameterize models to predict photoenhanced toxicity; (2) estimate
the relative contribution of dissolved and particulate oil phases to tox-
icity with representative species, including sensitive species and life
stages; and (3) expand toxicity tests to include an evaluation of delayed
effects. Detailed chemical analyses should accompany these tests, includ-
ing characterization of dissolved and particulate oil composition and con-
centrations, as well as bioaccumulation. By refining our understanding of
these variables, and incorporating them into decision-making tools, such
as fate and effects models and risk rankings, the ability of decisionmakers
to estimate the impacts of dispersants on aquatic organisms will be
enhanced.
NOAA representatives to the fisheries and water/chemistry technical working groups
have been actively discussing the potential of the SIPPER (Shadowed Image Particle
Profiling and Evaluation Recorder) system, used in conjunction with standard SEAMAP
sampling, as a means of assessing characteristics of the rising oil plume and several
categories of injury to the offshore system. Technical concerns regarding the capability
of this combined sampling platform appear to have been resolved to the satisfaction of
NOAA representatives to these technical groups, and NOAA technical representatives are
seeking co-Trustee and management authority to proceed cooperatively with the RP and
its representatives to develop a formal cruise plan, QA/QC plan, and data/sample
handling plan for deployment of this integrated sampling approach within the next couple
of days.
SIPPER is an in-situ suspended particle imaging system capable of collecting high
resolution information on the distribution of zooplankton, phytoplankton, larval fish and
detritus, and can provide data on oil droplet size distribution in the surface portion of the
rising plume. It uses a high speed line scan camera to continuously image a 100 cm
sampling area as it moves through the water. This portable system is mounted on a small
532 towed body that contains a conductivity, temperature and depth probe, a
chlorophyll fluorometer, turbidity sensor and a transmissometer. Given the logistical
constraints of sampling large areas using nets (i.e., SEAMAP protocols), and the large
spatial variability in 3d (as well as variation on a daily cycle, as some species vertically
migrate in and out of the surface layer on a daily basis), the SIPPER technology allows
comprehensive sampling in space (horizontally and vertically), which can be ground-
truthed with the SEAMAP samples. Image analysis of plankton has been developed over
some 20 yrs now and is used in many plankton studies (as documented in the peer-
reviewed literature). The continuous sampling makes the SIPPER uniquely efficient.
Thus, with the SIPPER we can greatly expand the data set obtained by the nets. The
system is towed through the water at speeds between 1-4 knots and can sample down to
depths of 350 m. A comprehensive analysis software package is then used to extract, size,
classify and manage the image and environmental data.
NOAA technical staff anticipate that this sampling regime will resolve questions
regarding oil droplet size and contribute significantly to understanding water column
injury. This will support calculations of dissolution rate (a function of droplet size) and
so toxicity of the plume.
Depending on the assumptions made about release rate and the rise rate of the oil, the
dimensions of the rising toxic plume are the order of 2km

to 15 km
near the water
surface. Thus, a water column injury from deepwater to surface in a cylinder defined by
a circle of this area and a height of the entire water column (1600m could be on the order
. The exposed volume will be replaced continually with new water
of 3 24 billion m
(with newly exposed biota) as the currents flow past the release site. If dispersants are
added at the source of the leak, the plume at depth will be larger and more toxic.
Floating oil will also entrain into the water when winds exceed 12 kts, and some toxicity
likely exists in the surface mixed layer. This will be enhanced by the dispersant
applications, to the extent these are effective. However, as the oil weathers, the (acutely)
toxic components will evaporate off the surface and so there is less chance of this water
column injury with distance from the source.
The combined sampling should help quantify neuston exposures to toxicity from the
release. This includes many species of fish eggs and larvae, decapod larvae, and other
invertebrates. Not only would neuston be exposed to the oil on the surface (and
entraining with wave action), but any PAH exposure there would be enhanced by
phototoxicity (UV light, which is high at this latitude near the water surface). NOAA can
model the concentrations of exposure and dose (assuming a spill rate and droplet size
distribution), and so toxicity. However, densities of biota are required to quantify the
injury. The most exposed biota are then: neuston, ichthyoplankton, and pelagic fishes
occupying the surface mixed layer. The NMFS SEAMAP cruises have sampled neuston
and ichthyoplankton in the area of concern only since 2008. Also, these plankton have
highly variable densities over time and space. NOAA does not have data that can
identify on surface pelagic fish densities, or any of the decapod larvae in the pelagic area
affected.
Taking neuston and ichthyoplankton samples using SEAMAP protocols in 2010 May will
be very important. If the spill continues into June and July, the species distributions and
densities of those groups will change considerably. Thus, monthly sampling is indicated
and important.
NOAA also has not identified any density data for fish or invertebrates in mid or deep
water depths. As much of the rising toxic plume volume is in deep water, we will need to
address this with sampling and/or other sources of information not yet identified. NOAA
continues to research available data available for model inputs. NMFS SEFC notes that
sperm whales use the spill area in spring to feed on giant squid at depth. This should be
considered, particularly if a large amount of dispersant is injected at the leak such that
much of the oil is dispersed at depth.
Pending management and RP approval, Trustees will coordinate with RP technical
representatives to initiate an initial 10-day deployment beginning 5-4 or 5-5 from ST.
Petersburg, FL. The three primary objectives of this deployment will be to better
characterize NMFS statistical zones 8 & 9; undertake targeted sampling the area
southeast of the wellhead (upstream water that will move through the plume); and to
sample the plume itself, pending authorization from appropriate officials to enter the area
with sampling equipment.
________________________________________________________________________
MC-252 Incident
SIMOPS Plan
4/29/201 0
Final Issued for Use
Geir Karlsen
4/28/2010
Geir Karlsen
Rev
Date
Document Status
Houston Incident
Commander
Houston Incident
Commander
Custodian/Owner
Authority
Document
Control
Number
Organization
Sector ID
ID
2200
T2
Discipline ID
DO
Document
Class
PN
Sequence
Document
Number
Revision
4001
______________________________________________________________________________
AMENDMENT RECORD
Revision
Number
Amender
Initials
Date
Amendment
G. Karlsen
April 24, 201 0
Initial draft.
K. Mouton
April 25,201 0
Edits
G. Karlsen
April 27, 2010
G. Karlsen
April 28, 201 0
G. Karlsen
April 29, 201 0
debris field.

Authority:
Custodian/Owner:
Geir Karlsen
Retention Code:
ADM3000
Document Number:
Revision:
Issue Date:
Next Review Date
(if applicable):
Security
Classification:
2200-T2-DO-PN-4001
4/30/2010
N/A
Page:
Page 2 of 55
______________________________________________________________________________
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1
Introduction ............................................................................................................ 7
1.1
1.2
1.3
The SIMOPS Team ........................................................................................... 8
1 .3.1
1 .3.2
1 .3.3
1 .3.4
1 .3.5
1.4
1.5
2.1
2.2
2.3
2.4
2.5
2.6
2.7
2.7.1
2.7.2
Radio........................................................................................................ 1 7
2.7.3
Emergency Communications................................................................... 1 7
3.1
3.2
Safe Distance.................................................................................................. 1 8
3.3
3.4
3.4.1
3.5
3.5.1
3.6
Fan Beam........................................................................................................ 20
3.7
4
SIMOPS Events .................................................................................................... 23
4.1
SIMOPS Events .............................................................................................. 23
4.2
4.3
SIMOPS Approval ........................................................................................... 24
5.1
5.2

Authority:
Custodian/Owner:
Geir Karlsen
Retention Code:
ADM3000
Document Number:
Revision:
Issue Date:
Next Review Date
(if applicable):
Security
Classification:
2200-T2-DO-PN-4001
4/30/2010
N/A
Page:
Page 4 of 55
______________________________________________________________________________
6
6.1
6.1.1
Sheen and Plume..................................................................................... 26
6.1.2
Marine Debris .......................................................................................... 26
6.2
6.2.1
6.3
6.3.1
Staging Area ............................................................................................ 27
6.3.2
Standby Area ........................................................................................... 28
6.4
6.5
6.6
6.7
6.8
6.9
Aviation ........................................................................................................... 29
6.10
7
References ............................................................................................................ 48
7.1.1
BP ............................................................................................................ 48
7.1.2
Transocean (TOI)...................................................................................... 48
7.2
7.2.1
BP ............................................................................................................ 48
Appendix A:
FIGURES
Figure 7: Marine Debris and Discoverer Enterprise/DD III 500-m Exclusion Zones...... 34

Authority:
Custodian/Owner:
Geir Karlsen
Retention Code:
ADM3000
Document Number:
Revision:
Issue Date:
Next Review Date
(if applicable):
Security
Classification:
2200-T2-DO-PN-4001
4/30/2010
N/A
Page:
Page 5 of 55
______________________________________________________________________________
TABLES
Table 1 : HazID Action Items......................................................................................... 1 2
Table 6: MC-252 Acoustic Allocation Summary ............................................................ 22

Authority:
Custodian/Owner:
Geir Karlsen
Retention Code:
ADM3000
Document Number:
Revision:
Issue Date:
Next Review Date
(if applicable):
Security
Classification:
2200-T2-DO-PN-4001
4/30/2010
N/A
Page:
Page 6 of 55
______________________________________________________________________________
1
Introduction
1.1
Aker Marine
Subsea 7
USCG
The plan seeks to:
1.2

Authority:
Custodian/Owner:
Geir Karlsen
Retention Code:
ADM3000
Document Number:
Revision:
Issue Date:
Next Review Date
(if applicable):
Security
Classification:
2200-T2-DO-PN-4001
4/30/2010
N/A
Page:
Page 7 of 55
______________________________________________________________________________
1.3
The SIMOPS Team
The

Authority:
Custodian/Owner:
Geir Karlsen
Retention Code:
ADM3000
Document Number:
Revision:
Issue Date:
Next Review Date
(if applicable):
Security
Classification:
2200-T2-DO-PN-4001
4/30/2010
N/A
Page:
Page 8 of 55
______________________________________________________________________________
1.3.1
Aviation.
1.3.2
operation.
1.3.3
vessels.
from site.
1.3.4

Authority:
Custodian/Owner:
Geir Karlsen
Retention Code:
ADM3000
Document Number:
Revision:
Issue Date:
Next Review Date
(if applicable):
Security
Classification:
2200-T2-DO-PN-4001
4/30/2010
N/A
Page:
Page 9 of 55
______________________________________________________________________________
1.3.5
are:
Plan.
1.4

Authority:
Custodian/Owner:
Geir Karlsen
Retention Code:
ADM3000
Document Number:
Revision:
Issue Date:
Next Review Date
(if applicable):
Security
Classification:
2200-T2-DO-PN-4001
4/30/2010
N/A
Page:
Page 1 0 of 55
______________________________________________________________________________

Authority:
Custodian/Owner:
Geir Karlsen
Retention Code:
ADM3000
Document Number:
Revision:
Issue Date:
Next Review Date
(if applicable):
Security
Classification:
2200-T2-DO-PN-4001
4/30/2010
N/A
Page:
Page 1 1 of 55
______________________________________________________________________________
1.5
Activity
Responsible
Person
Action
1
Rig Operations
rig.
George Gray
SIMOPS Director
Troy Endicott
Prior to ops.
Troy Endicott
Troy Endicott
emulsion /mousse floating below the surface.
Joe Neumeyer
the vessels.
6
Other Operations
Troy Endicott
4
Due Date
Communicate to the IMT the drill rigs request
to maintain a minimum of one mile distance for
Troy Endicott
Prior to ops.
Prior to ops.
Prior to ops.
The risk ranking and HazID results are found in Figure 1 1 , page 41 , Figure 12, page 43 and Figure 1 3,
page 45.

Authority:
Custodian/Owner:
Geir Karlsen
Retention Code:
ADM3000
Document Number:
Revision:
Issue Date:
Next Review Date
(if applicable):
Security
Classification:
2200-T2-DO-PN-4001
4/30/2010
N/A
Page:
Page 1 2 of 55
______________________________________________________________________________
2
2.1
Crisis Management
2.2
guidance.
2.3
2.4
the project.

Authority:
Custodian/Owner:
Geir Karlsen
Retention Code:
ADM3000
Document Number:
Revision:
Issue Date:
Next Review Date
(if applicable):
Security
Classification:
2200-T2-DO-PN-4001
4/30/2010
N/A
Page:
Page 1 3 of 55
______________________________________________________________________________
2.5
1.
2.
3.
Houma IC.
4.
Houston IC.
5.
6.
7.
8.

Authority:
Custodian/Owner:
Geir Karlsen
Retention Code:
ADM3000
Document Number:
Revision:
Issue Date:
Next Review Date
(if applicable):
Security
Classification:
2200-T2-DO-PN-4001
4/30/2010
N/A
Page:
Page 1 4 of 55
______________________________________________________________________________
needed-basis).
events.
Dial-In Numbers
and Pass Codes
1 -866-634-1 11 0
925-727-01 45
Action Plan (IAP).
Vessel Summary
2.6
require.

Authority:
Custodian/Owner:
Geir Karlsen
Retention Code:
ADM3000
Document Number:
Revision:
Issue Date:
Next Review Date
(if applicable):
Security
Classification:
2200-T2-DO-PN-4001
4/30/2010
N/A
Page:
Page 1 5 of 55
______________________________________________________________________________
2.7
2.7.1
Location
Discoverer
Enterprise
Discoverer
Enterprise ROV
DD III
DD III
ROV
Hailing general
16
16
NA
Bridge to Bridge
15
13
Bridge to boat
10, 11, 12
13
Port crane
10, 11, 12
67
Starboard crane
10, 11, 12
68
Crane to boat
10, 11, 12
Port: 67, Stb. 68
Bulk and liq.
Transfer
8, 15
72, 88
ROV
Discoverer
Enterprise Bridge
to maintenance
Spare channels
No radio
64
NA
NA
6, 69, 71, 73
UHF
2, 5, 9
Helicopter
123.05
Notes:
72, 88
NA
6, 69, 71, 73
3, 6, 9, 13
122.700
3, 6, 9,
13

Authority:
Custodian/Owner:
Geir Karlsen
Retention Code:
ADM3000
Document Number:
Revision:
Issue Date:
Next Review Date
(if applicable):
Security
Classification:
2200-T2-DO-PN-4001
4/30/2010
N/A
Page:
Page 1 6 of 55
______________________________________________________________________________
2.7.2
Radio
2.7.3

Authority:
Custodian/Owner:
Geir Karlsen
Retention Code:
ADM3000
Document Number:
Revision:
Issue Date:
Next Review Date
(if applicable):
Security
Classification:
2200-T2-DO-PN-4001
4/30/2010
N/A
Page:
Page 1 7 of 55
______________________________________________________________________________
3
1.
2.
3.1
Warning:
OIM and the Well Site Leader. Under no circumstances should the acoustic system be disabled because
a DP Class I DP operation. Note: TOI approval contingent on: acoustic system may be taken out of solution
if degraded.
3.2
Safe Distance
3.3

Authority:
Custodian/Owner:
Geir Karlsen
Retention Code:
ADM3000
Document Number:
Revision:
Issue Date:
Next Review Date
(if applicable):
Security
Classification:
2200-T2-DO-PN-4001
4/30/2010
N/A
Page:
Page 1 8 of 55
______________________________________________________________________________
Caution:
mandatory.
requirements.
3.4
3.4.1
details).
3.5
equipment.
3.5.1
page 22.
vessels.

Authority:
Custodian/Owner:
Geir Karlsen
Retention Code:
ADM3000
Document Number:
Revision:
Issue Date:
Next Review Date
(if applicable):
Security
Classification:
2200-T2-DO-PN-4001
4/30/2010
N/A
Page:
Page 1 9 of 55
______________________________________________________________________________
Caution:
3.6
Fan Beam
DD III.
Technip Deep Blue
OI1
OI3
C-Captain
Fan Beam Height

above Sea Level
Above Sea Level
44-ft.
1 02-ft.
56-ft.
74-ft.
45-ft.
determined by the

Authority:
Custodian/Owner:
Geir Karlsen
Retention Code:
ADM3000
Document Number:
Revision:
Issue Date:
Next Review Date
(if applicable):
Security
Classification:
2200-T2-DO-PN-4001
4/30/2010
N/A
Page:
Page 20 of 55
______________________________________________________________________________
DD III
Available Position
Reference System
DGPS, Acoustics
(Sonardyne digital)

DGPS, Fan Beam and
Notes
DP Class II+
DP Class II+
DP Class I and II
3.7

Authority:
Custodian/Owner:
Geir Karlsen
Retention Code:
ADM3000
Document Number:
Revision:
Issue Date:
Next Review Date
(if applicable):
Security
Classification:
2200-T2-DO-PN-4001
4/30/2010
N/A
Page:
Page 21 of 55
______________________________________________________________________________
Table 6: MC-252 Acoustic Allocation Summary
DP
DD III DP
ROV System
b12
b31 DP
b14 Tracking
b13
b32 DP
b28 Tracking
b15
b35 DP
b34 Tracking
b17
b48 Tracking
b51
b37 DP
DD III
b73 DP
b54 Tracking
b76 DP LIC
b68 Tracking
b52
DO NOT USE
b53
b74 Tracking
b57
b71
1409, 1410, 1411, 1412, 1413
b18 SPARE
b27 Emergency AUV
b72
b24 CRANE 1
b42
AUV
b75
b26 DP 1
b38 MILL 36
b46 SPARE
BOA SUB C
b58 MILL 36 SPARE
GINGER
b47 SPARE
b62 SEABIRD
b67 SPARE
b82 SPARE
b64 CRANE 2
b87 SPARE
b78 MILL 37
b21 Tracking
b84 MILL 37 SPARE
b25 Tracking
b86 DP 2
b41 Tracking
b16 Tracking
OI 3
MISS
SKANDI
b45 Tracking
b23 Tracking
NEPTUNE
b61 Tracking
b36 Tracking
b65 Tracking
b43 Tracking
b81 Tracking
b56 Tracking
b85 Tracking
Figure 10, page 34,
Figure 12, page 35.
b63 Tracking
b83 Tracking
that there are no
changes without
Address 1201, CIS 1

ROV 1
OI-3
preapproval.
Address 1202, CIS 2

ROV 1 Cage
Address 1203, CIS 3

ROV 2
may be utilized bby
Address 1204, CIS 7

ROV 2 Cage
C-Express
Address 1512, CIS 4

ROV
Address 1513, CIS 5

ROV Backup
Address 1514, CIS 6

ROV TMS

Authority:
Custodian/Owner:
Geir Karlsen
Retention Code:
ADM3000
Document Number:
Revision:
Issue Date:
Next Review Date
(if applicable):
Security
Classification:
2200-T2-DO-PN-4001
4/30/2010
N/A
Page:
Page 22 of 55
______________________________________________________________________________
4
SIMOPS Events
4.1
SIMOPS Events
zones.
Salvage operations.
Aviation.
Activity
Vessel within 500-m of
and DD III.
Well Site Leader
Fan Beam prism
installation.
Degradation in station-
keeping ability of
vessel(s).
SIMOPS with other ops.
DPO
Approve.
arrival.
alongside or equipment
To be informed.
hooked up to DEN/DD
III.
Station-keeping
alongside.
OIM



in SIMOPS on all DP

matters.
vessel in SIMOPS.
SIMOPS.

keeping readiness.
alongside.
Vessel Captain together with DEN/DD III

together with OIM.
WSOC. Note: TOI strike out. Approval contingent on
DPO making decision according to WSOC.
To be informed.
To approve.

Authority:
Custodian/Owner:
Geir Karlsen
Retention Code:
ADM3000
Document Number:
Revision:
Issue Date:
Next Review Date
(if applicable):
Security
Classification:
2200-T2-DO-PN-4001
4/30/2010
N/A
Page:
Page 23 of 55
______________________________________________________________________________
4.2
the event.
4.3 SIMOPS Approval

Authority:
Custodian/Owner:
Geir Karlsen
Retention Code:
ADM3000
Document Number:
Revision:
Issue Date:
Next Review Date
(if applicable):
Security
Classification:
2200-T2-DO-PN-4001
4/30/2010
N/A
Page:
Page 24 of 55
______________________________________________________________________________
5
5.1
Drilling Vessels
5.2
Caution:

Authority:
Custodian/Owner:
Geir Karlsen
Retention Code:
ADM3000
Document Number:
Revision:
Issue Date:
Next Review Date
(if applicable):
Security
Classification:
2200-T2-DO-PN-4001
4/30/2010
N/A
Page:
Page 25 of 55
______________________________________________________________________________
6
6.1
Surface Conditions
6.1.1
Sheen and Plume
6.1.2
Marine Debris
6.2
6.2.1

Authority:
Custodian/Owner:
Geir Karlsen
Retention Code:
ADM3000
Document Number:
Revision:
Issue Date:
Next Review Date
(if applicable):
Security
Classification:
2200-T2-DO-PN-4001
4/30/2010
N/A
Page:
Page 26 of 55
______________________________________________________________________________
Source
Control
Vessels
Supply Boats
and Fast Boats
DD III
Operations SIMOPS
Branch Director
Contact Offshore
Branch Director
Contact Offshore
Source Control
SIMOPS Branch
Contact Offshore
Source Control
SIMOPS Branch
SubC
to enter 500-m zone
applicable
Oil Spill
Response
Vessels
6.3
Drilling Vessels
6.3.1
Staging Area

Authority:
Custodian/Owner:
Geir Karlsen
Retention Code:
ADM3000
Document Number:
Revision:
Issue Date:
Next Review Date
(if applicable):
Security
Classification:
2200-T2-DO-PN-4001
4/30/2010
N/A
Page:
Page 27 of 55
______________________________________________________________________________
6.3.2
Standby Area
6.4
approval.
6.5
6.6
6.7
Working Channels
2.7, page 1 6.

Authority:
Custodian/Owner:
Geir Karlsen
Retention Code:
ADM3000
Document Number:
Revision:
Issue Date:
Next Review Date
(if applicable):
Security
Classification:
2200-T2-DO-PN-4001
4/30/2010
N/A
Page:
Page 28 of 55
______________________________________________________________________________
group.
safeties.
after the SIMOPS event. No critical vessel repairs will be performed during
Caution:
the SIMOPS event or inside the DD III or the Discoverer Enterprise 500-m zone
(see details in the 500-m Zone Practice). A critical repair is defined as repair
that could lead to single point failure and loss of station or vessel integrity.
6.9
Aviation
are expected:
1 .
2.
3.
4.
5.
Drone surveillance.
6.
Press and media.
Figure 1 , page 8.

Authority:
Custodian/Owner:
Geir Karlsen
Retention Code:
ADM3000
Document Number:
Revision:
Issue Date:
Next Review Date
(if applicable):
Security
Classification:
2200-T2-DO-PN-4001
4/30/2010
N/A
Page:
Page 29 of 55
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Title of Document:

Custodian/Owner:
Geir Karlsen
Retention Code:
ADM3000
Document Number:
Revision:
Issue Date:
Next Review Date
(if applicable):
Page:
2200-T2-DO-PN-4001
4/30/201 0
N/A
Page 30 of 55
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Title of Document:

Custodian/Owner:
Geir Karlsen
Retention Code:
ADM3000
Document Number:
Revision:
Issue Date:
Next Review Date
(if applicable):
Page:
2200-T2-DO-PN-4001
4/30/201 0
N/A
Page 32 of 55
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Figure 7: Marine Debris and Discoverer Enterprise/DD III 500-m Exclusion Zones
Title of Document:

Custodian/Owner:
Geir Karlsen
Retention Code:
ADM3000
Document Number:
Revision:
Issue Date:
Next Review Date
(if applicable):
Page:
2200-T2-DO-PN-4001
4/30/201 0
N/A
Page 34 of 55
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Title of Document:

Custodian/Owner:
Geir Karlsen
Retention Code:
ADM3000
Document Number:
Revision:
Issue Date:
Next Review Date
(if applicable):
Page:
2200-T2-DO-PN-4001
4/30/201 0
N/A
Page 36 of 55
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Title of Document:

Custodian/Owner:
Geir Karlsen
Retention Code:
ADM3000
Document Number:
Revision:
Issue Date:
Next Review Date
(if applicable):
Page:
2200-T2-DO-PN-4001
4/30/201 0
N/A
Page 38 of 55
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
KONGSBERG HiPAP
CH1
CH2
CH3
CH4
CH5
CH6
CH7
CH8
CIF
CCF
CRF
CH0
CH9
DCF
CH10
CH11
CH12
CH13
CH14
19230
19841
20491
21186
21929
22522
23148
23810
24752
25510
26042
26882
27472
28090
28735
29411
30120
30864
31645
OPERATING
CONDITIONS /
VESSEL ALLOCATION
DO NOT USE
DO NOT USE
DD III (VESSEL 3)
CH #
b12
b13
b14
PARAMETERS
DO NOT USE
DO NOT USE
Tracking
TX1
TX2
RX
21000
21500
29250
21000
21000
22000
22500
29750
30250
X
X
b15
DO NOT USE
21000
23000
30750
b16
TRACKING
21000
23500
27250
DO NOT USE
b17
DO NOT USE
21000
24000
27750
b18
SPARE
21000
24500
28250
b21
TRACKING
21500
21000
28500
22000
29500
b23
TRACKING
21500
b24
CRANE 1
21500
22500
30000
b25
TRACKING
21500
23000
30500
b26
DP 1
21500
23500
27000
b27
EMERGENCY AUV
21500
24000
27500
DO NOT USE
OI 3 (VESSEL 4)
OI 3 (VESSEL 4)
X
X
21500
24500
28000
DP
22000
21000
28750
b32
DP
22000
21500
29250
DD III (VESSEL 3)
b34
Tracking
22000
22500
30250
DD III DP
b35
DP
22000
23000
30750
OI 3 (VESSEL 4)
b36
TRACKING
22000
23500
27250
DD III DP
b37
DP
22000
24000
27750
b38
MILL 36
22000
24500
28250
TRACKING
22500
21000
28500
AUV
22500
21500
29000
22000
29500
23000
30500
23500
27000
24000
27500
b46
SPARE
22500
b47
SPARE
22500
DD III (VESSEL 3)
b48
Tracking
22500
24500
28000
DO NOT USE
b51
DO NOT USE
23000
21000
28750
DO NOT USE
b52
DO NOT USE
23000
21500
29250
DO NOT USE
b53
DO NOT USE
23000
22000
29750
X
X
Tracking
23000
22500
30250
TRACKING
23000
23500
27250
b57
DO NOT USE
23000
24000
27750
b58
MILL 36 SPARE
23000
24500
28250
b61
TRACKING
23500
21000
28500
SEABIRD
23500
21500
29000
22000
29500
b62
b63
TRACKING
23500
b64
CRANE 2
23500
22500
30000
TRACKING
23500
23000
30500
b67
SPARE
23500
24000
27500
DD III (VESSEL 3)
b68
Tracking
23500
24500
28000
DO NOT USE
DO NOT USE
b71
b72
DO NOT USE
DO NOT USE
24000
24000
21000
21500
28750
b73
DP
24000
22000
29750
b74
Tracking
24000
22500
30250
DO NOT USE
b75
DO NOT USE
24000
23000
30750
24000
23500
27250
24000
24500
28250
b81
TRACKING
24500
21000
28500
b82
SPARE
24500
21500
29000
b83
TRACKING
24500
22000
29500
MILL 37 SPARE
24500
22500
30000
TRACKING
24500
23000
30500
b86
DP 2
24500
23500
27000
b87
SPARE
24500
24000
27500
DP LIC
b85
MILL 37
b84
X
X
b76
X
X
b78
OI 3 (VESSEL 4)
DD III DP
29250
DD III DP
DD III (VESSEL 3)
DO NOT USE
b65
b54
b56
X
X
OI 3 (VESSEL 4)
OI 3 (VESSEL 4)
X
X
DD III (VESSEL 3)
b41
b42
22500
22500
TRACKING
Tracking
b31
TRACKING
b28
b43
DD III DP
b45
DD III (VESSEL 3)
DD III DP
OI 3 (VESSEL 4)
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Title of Document:

Custodian/Owner:
Geir Karlsen
Retention Code:
ADM3000
Document Number:
Revision:
Issue Date:
Next Review Date
(if applicable):
Page:
2200-T2-DO-PN-4001
4/30/201 0
N/A
Page 40 of 55
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Risk
Reputation
Safety
Environmenta
Financial
Frequency
Risk
internal HAZID were
Rig
Reputation
Safeguards
Frequency
Consequences
Reputation
Causes
Post -Mitigate
Reputation
Oil Sheen
Hazard Scenario
Severity
Safety
Environmenta
Financial
Operating
Hazard
Safety
Environmenta
Financial
Phase
Safety
Environmenta
Financial
Pre -Mitigation
Severity
Assigned
Individual
Dates
Comments
recommended.
an oil sheen.
Plume
Flow increases to a
environmental,
Subsea visual, real
D3
E3
2
E
oil comes up right
financial.
under the rig.
potential cause,
among others, could
be failure of BOP
stack.
E3
E3
2
George Gray
No
Troy Endicott
Troy Endicott
Emulsion /
Mousse
Troy Endicott
emulsion/mousse.
Joe Neumeyer
Title of Document:

Custodian/Owner:
Geir Karlsen
Retention Code:
ADM3000
Document Number:
Revision:
Issue Date:
Next Review Date
(if applicable):
Page:
2200-T2-DO-PN-4001
4/30/201 0
N/A
Page 42 of 55
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

-

-
Risk
Financial
Safety
Reputation
Environmenta
Frequency
Measures
Financial
Environmenta
Actions/Mitigation
Safety
Financial
Risk
Reputation
identified.
Reputation
Safety
Safeguards
Frequency
Financial
well sites
Post -Mitigate
Consequences
Causes
Severity
Reputation
Hazard Scenario
Environmenta
Hazard
Safety
Phase
Moving to relief
No unique hazards
Environmenta
Pre -Mitigation
Severity
Assigned
Individual
Dates
Comments
move in.
sites.
Met ocean
away from rigs.
monitored daily.
Hurricane
Source Control
vessels
source
onsite.
Acoustic conflict
SIMOPS plan defines
Troy Endicott
resolution process.
Vessels in 500
meter zone
Troy Endicott
branch directors.
meter zone
SIMOPS Plan.
Dead vessel
equipment
Potential vessel
blackout
failure
collision
NGO's, media
communications.
the area.
Dispersant
Application
Troy Endicott
in situ burning.
In situ burn
Title of Document:

Custodian/Owner:
Geir Karlsen
Retention Code:
ADM3000
Document Number:
Revision:
Issue Date:
Next Review Date
(if applicable):
Page:
2200-T2-DO-PN-4001
4/30/201 0
N/A
Page 44 of 55
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
HAZID Log
Property Damage
Risk
Containment
Loss of
Personnel
Property Damage
Residual Risk
Risk
Hazard
Personnel
Operation
Containment
Risk Ranking
Loss of
Preventive Controls
Consequences
Mitigating Controls
sheen present.
during rounds.
mode.
DEN: Continuously
weather.
DDIII: Continous
each. Can put ones
exchanger.
Ent
B4
DD
III
B4
Oily water in heat
AC units)
during rounds.
DEN: Continuously
monitored. Has 2 SW
and 1 as backup.
DDIII: Continous
each. Can put ones
exchanger.
Ent
B4
DD
III
B4
cooling unit.
during rounds.
overheating.
offline to clean.
DEN: Has 2 for DWX
Ent
B4
DD
III
B4
Title of Document:

Custodian/Owner:
Geir Karlsen
Retention Code:
ADM3000
Comments
Document Number:
Revision:
Issue Date:
Next Review Date
(if applicable):
Page:
2200-T2-DO-PN-4001
4/30/201 0
N/A
Page 46 of 55
______________________________________________________________________________
7 References
7.1.1 BP
7.2
Other References
7.2.1
BP

Authority:
Custodian/Owner:
Geir Karlsen
Retention Code:
ADM3000
Document Number:
Revision:
Issue Date:
Next Review Date
(if applicable):
Security
Classification:
2200-T2-DO-PN-4001
4/30/201 0
N/A
Page:
Page 48 of 55
______________________________________________________________________________
Appendix A:
Name
Telephone
E-Mail
Title
Terrebonne
General Medical
Center
81 66 Main Str.
Houma
US Coast Guard
(985) 873-41 41
Oper.
(985) 873-41 50
Emerg.
(504) 589-6225
(985) 380-5320
Houston Crisis
(281) 366-0286 O
(713) 208-6173 C
Center
BP ICP 24
(800) 321-8642
Hour Number
(630) 961-6200
MMS Houma
(985) 853-5884 O
(985) 879-2738 F
District
(985) 688-6050 C
(504) 736-2814 O
MMS Pipeline
(504) 736-2408 F
Section
(504) 452-3562 C
Douglas,
(281 ) 366-6843 O
Scherie
(71 3) 702-7673 C
[email protected]
Advisor
SIMOPS Director
Endicott, troy
(281 ) 366-7687 O
[email protected]
(71 3) 409-0061 C
Smith, Stephen
(866) 21 5-4586
(OBrian Group)
(866) 292-1326
[email protected]
[email protected]
Sepulvado,
Murry
(31 8) 471 -1763
[email protected]
Captain
OIM
Bridge / DPO
Radio room
BP WSL
BP Clerk /
dispatch
BP Subsea
(832)-587-5530/5
(71 3) 587-5531
71 3-232-8245 ext.
2008 or 2007
(71 3) 232-8245
(281 ) 366-4504 or
(281 ) 366-4506
(281 ) 366-451 5
(281 ) 366-4536
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
551
830-550
code 881 5-4147-9794
SIMOPS Coordinator
(onboard Louisiana
Responder 866-292-1 326)
Source Control

Authority:
Custodian/Owner:
Geir Karlsen
Retention Code:
ADM3000
Document Number:
Revision:
Issue Date:
Next Review Date
(if applicable):
Security
Classification:
2200-T2-DO-PN-4001
4/30/2010
N/A
Page:
Page 49 of 55
______________________________________________________________________________
Telephone
Name
E-Mail
Title
Port and Stb.
ROV
(71 3) 232-8245
ext. 2229
Helicopter
VHF (MHz) 1 23.050
Call Sign
V7HD3
DD III Well Site
Leader
Radio Rm.
DD III Inmar Sat
DPO
Captain
BP Dispatcher
713-336-8218
832-587-6871 Dial
0 for operator
01 1 870
764449920
x-203 and x-204
x-206
71 3-336-821 5
71 3-336-8229
71 3-336-8201
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
Gray, George
(281 )
(71 3)
Halvorson Dory,
(281 )
Kathleen
(71 3)
Jacobsen Plutt,
(281 )
Louise
(281)
Stoltz, Dan
(281 )
(71 3)
366-0659 O
376-1099 C
366-2626 O
206-5339 C
366-5932 O
685-2017 C
366-3424 O
805-9972 C
[email protected]
DD III Team Leader
[email protected]
[email protected]
Drilling Engineer DD III
[email protected]
DEN Team Leader
TOI Rig Support
Brekke, Jim
(281 ) 925-6676 O
[email protected]
(281) 961 -1368 C

(832) 587-8863 O
[email protected]
(71 3) 409-8217 C
Blue, Mike
Hess, Adam
King, Paul
Richards,
Ramsey
Sims, Chuck
Walker, Stephen
(832)-587-8851 O
(71 3)-204-1 837 C
(832) 587-8573 O
(71 3) 540-6332 C
(281 ) 925-6433 O
(71 3) 205-9474 M
(71 3) 782-4703 H
(281 ) 925-6581 O
(281 ) 925-6583 F
(832) 922-2633 C
(832) 587-8770 O
(281) 450-7266 C
DD II
DD III
Rig Manager, Performance
Rig Manager DD III
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
Manager DP and
Instrumentation
[email protected]
Marine and DP
Superintendent NAM
Hollier, Jamie
(281 ) 366-0277 O
[email protected]
GoM Shelf Marine

Authority:
Custodian/Owner:
Geir Karlsen
Retention Code:
ADM3000
Document Number:
Revision:
Issue Date:
Next Review Date
(if applicable):
Security
Classification:
2200-T2-DO-PN-4001
4/30/2010
N/A
Page:
Page 50 of 55
______________________________________________________________________________
Name
Telephone
John Rougeau
Reeves, Harold
J.
Verret, Brian
Russell, Virgil
Huston, John
(281 ) 366-7946 F
(281) 703-0203 C
(281)-366-5042 O
(71 3)-201 -3081 C
(281)-366-4323 O
(71 3)-907-3739 C
(337) 735-5441 O
(337) 578-2425 C
(281 ) 366-0571 O
(281 ) 382- 371 9 C
(281 ) 366-5795 O
(71 3) 962-5927 C
E-Mail
Title
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
Coordinator
Deepwater Marine
Coordinator
Leader
Aviation Team Lead
Management Manager
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
BP /C-Port 1
1 06 9th st. Lot #1
PH # 337-735-5708
Fourchon Base
Base Supervisor
Deepwater
Dispatcher
Dartez, Bradley
Deepwater
Receiving
Shipping
Shore base
manager
Marine
Dispatcher
Production
Air Logistics
PHI (Houma)
(337) 735-5708 O
(337) 735-5701 O
(985)-396-2927 C
337-735-5726 O
(281) 705-2372 C
(337) 735-5702 O
(337) 735-5715 O
(337)-735-5703 O
337-735-5714 O
985-396-2467 C
337-735-5712 O
337-365-6771
985 868 1 705
Mailing Address:
PHI Heliport
3622 Thunderbird Rd
Houma, LA 70363
Ph.: (337) 735-5351
BP Marine
Fuller, Dan
Nichols, Scott
Polk, Daniel
(281 ) 366-631 3 O
[email protected]
(71 3) 397-4343 C
(281 ) 366-481 5 O
[email protected]
(71 3) 826-3426 C
(281 ) 366-0538
[email protected]
(71 3) 825-2657
Marine Operations
Superintendent

Authority:
Custodian/Owner:
Geir Karlsen
Retention Code:
ADM3000
Document Number:
Revision:
Issue Date:
Next Review Date
(if applicable):
Security
Classification:
2200-T2-DO-PN-4001
4/30/2010
N/A
Page:
Page 51 of 55
______________________________________________________________________________
Telephone
Name
E-Mail
Title
Vessels
Ocean
71 3-744-5929
[email protected]
Intervention - 3
71 3-744-5920
BOA Sub C
832-461 -8266
[email protected]
Client Office
832-461-8269
owner office
Boa Deep C
203-575-5434
[email protected]
client office
203-575-5431
owner office
203-575-5437
Bridge
C-Express
985-612-2301
[email protected]
Bridge
985-61 2-2304
ROV

[email protected]
1 1 81
+44 7894 1 73973
Nikola
225-289-61 12
[email protected]
Miss Ginger
Data Van: (337)
[email protected]
769-9032
[email protected]
Bridge: (337)
769-9033
IP Phone: 337-
735-3695
5701 (Geophysical
Lab)
5704 (Bridge)
Bridge (Sat
Phone):
(866) 21 5-61 99
Captain Cell in
Port:
(985) 677-2582
Joe Griffin
C-Captain
C-Commander
C-Enforcer
C-Carrier
985-61 2-241 7
254-543-7829
985-61 2-2346
254-460-9996
985-61 2-2348
254-240-1 951
985-61 2-2341
01 1 -881-651-
436535
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]

Authority:
Custodian/Owner:
Geir Karlsen
Retention Code:
ADM3000
Document Number:
Revision:
Issue Date:
Next Review Date
(if applicable):
Security
Classification:
2200-T2-DO-PN-4001
4/30/2010
N/A
Page:
Page 52 of 55
______________________________________________________________________________
Telephone
Name
C-Fighter
Dante
Kobe Chouest
C-Pacer
C-Express
Amy Chouest
C-Courageous
C-Hero
C-Freedom
Celena Chouest
C-Legacy
Fast Cajun
Fast Sailor
Pat Tillman
Damon
Bankston
Gulf Princess
Sailfish
985-612-2330
985-61 2-231 9
863-833-581 7
985-61 2-2326
254-381-2760
985-61 2-2335
254-381-3953
985-61 2-2337
Bridge 985-61 2-
2301
ROV 985-61 2-
2304
863-833-8709
985-61 2-2344
985-61 2-2322
01 1 -881-651-
436647
985-61 2-2354
985-61 2-2306
985-612-2302
254-204-3130
985-61 2-2355
01 1 -881-651-
423025
985-61 2-2357
985-612-2359
985-612-2409
E-Mail
Title
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
985-61 2-2406
985-612-2407
985-612-2408
CapRock
CapRock
Champagne,
Ken
337-593-551 4
[email protected]
C&C
Technologies
George L.
Buhler
(71 3) 468-1536 O
(281) 914-9629 C
[email protected]
[email protected]
DOF
John Roscoe-
Hudson
(71 3) 785-0788 o
[email protected]
(713) 677-4838 c

Chouest
Survey advisor
DOF Surveying
SROV

Authority:
Custodian/Owner:
Geir Karlsen
Retention Code:
ADM3000
Document Number:
Revision:
Issue Date:
Next Review Date
(if applicable):
Security
Classification:
2200-T2-DO-PN-4001
4/30/2010
N/A
Page:
Page 53 of 55
______________________________________________________________________________
Telephone
Name
E-Mail
Title
Edison Chouest
Offshore
Shannon
Doucet,Jr.
Michael Burke
(985)
(985)
(985)
(985)
(71 3)
(71 3)
(281)
Fugro
Larry Prewitt
Parker, Anthony
24-hour
Dispatcher
Ken Richter
337-237-1300 O
337-268-31 30 Dir
337 962- 01 08 C
337-237-1 300
800-858-5322
71 3-346-3656 O
71 3-305-4409 C
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
Oceaneering
Tony Butler
Dale Tompkins
Albert Parker
David Sheetz
Lee Willmore
Mark Van Dyke
985-395-5247 O
985-395-8501 O
Dir
985-397-1 732 C
985-395-8519 F
985-395-1 105 wk
985-518-3274 C
985-395-5247
after hours
71 3-422-5953
(71 3) 329-4271 O
(832) 444-8885 C
832-467-7734 O
71 3-430-6268 C
(281 ) 366-4271 O
(71 3) 447-6407 C
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
Driver, David B.
(281 )
(281 )
(832)
(281 )
(71 3)
601-4444 O
601 -4346 P
677-1703 C
691 -7514 C
395-4448 O
251 -6326 F
798-7880 C
[email protected]
[email protected]
Fugro Surveying
systems
Supervisor Marine
Operations
Survey USBL
Oceaneering
ROV Ops. Manager
DTS Ops. Mgr.
ROV Sup. Marianas
Sr. Supervisor
Team Lead OI1
Project Support
Frazelle,
Andrew
366-2699 O
[email protected]
366-7941 F
661 -21 83 C
366-8792 O
[email protected]
213-3505 C


Authority:
Custodian/Owner:
Geir Karlsen
Retention Code:
ADM3000
Document Number:
Revision:
Issue Date:
Next Review Date
(if applicable):
Security
Classification:
2200-T2-DO-PN-4001
4/30/2010
N/A
Page:
Page 54 of 55
______________________________________________________________________________
Telephone
Name
Haaland, Kurt
Hafle, Mark
Hughes, John
Karlsen, Geir
Mouton, Keith
Munstereifel,
Eric
Neumeyer, Joe
Rayburn, Dean
Dave Rich
Russell, Virgil
Sanders, Robert
Sims, David
Sprague,
Jonathan
Verret, Brian
(281 ) 366-5085 O
(281 ) 366-7557 F
(281) 705-3237 C
(281 ) 366-4237 O
(281) 687-8216 C
(281 ) 249-7678 O
(71 3) 480-01 48 C
(281) 646-9956 H
(281 ) 366-4880 O
(71 3) 855-7369 C
(936) 273-9257 H
(281 ) 366-4303 O
(281) 703-9589 C
(281 ) 249-1678 O
(281) 467-5257 C
(281 ) 366-3082 O
(281) 546-4918 C
(281 ) 366-1 245 O
(71 3) 208-61 69 C
(281 ) 366-3676 O
(281 785 3676
(281 ) 366-0571 O
(281 ) 382 371 9 C
(281 ) 366-4488 O
(71 3) 301 -6514 C
(281 ) 366-0360 O
(71 3) 304-5600 C
(281 ) 366-5871 O
(281 ) 387-7509 C
(337) 735-5441 O
(337) 578-2425 C
E-Mail
Title
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
Well Systems Lead
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
GoM SPU HSSEr Team
Leader
Subsea Lead
[email protected]
D&C HSSE Advisor
[email protected]
[email protected]
Wells Manager
[email protected]
Aviation Team Lead
[email protected]
Team Leader DD III
[email protected]
Wells Ops. Manager
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
an emergency.
Tulsa Control
Center
(91 8) 660-4451

Authority:
Custodian/Owner:
Geir Karlsen
Retention Code:
ADM3000
Document Number:
Revision:
Issue Date:
Next Review Date
(if applicable):
Security
Classification:
2200-T2-DO-PN-4001
4/30/2010
N/A
Page:
Page 55 of 55
SMART Tier 1 overflight report for 26Apr10
Prepared by Jim Jeansonne, NOAA, observer. The second observer was Jeremy Oneal, USCG PAC.
Departed Houma at 1016, arrived in oil dispersant area around 1100. Two dispersant aircraft had been
dispersing prior to our arrival and were still spraying. This area was around N28-44.743, W88-08.190.
The oil being sprayed was long windrows of emulsified oil (bright orange) and we observed some
effectiveness as evidenced by the tan clouds of dispersed oil forming in the path of the spraying. Images
11, 12, 28, 29, 32 and 34 were taken in this area.
After refueling at a platform (BP Marlin, VK915 at N29-06.475, W87-56.572) about 45 mile to the NE, we
then monitored spraying around the source. Aircraft were spraying areas of dark brown oil (fresh oil
surfacing) 80-100% coverage. Again, we observed clouds of tan dispersed oil forming in 15-30 minutes
after being sprayed. Images 54, 55, 57, 63, 64, 77 and 80 were taken in this area.
Photos and flight track are available and linked, and will be loaded into R-L.
Our altitude for both areas during observation was mostly between 500-1000
Although we all (pilots and observers) looked for marine mammals in all areas flown, none were
observed.
We departed the source area for Houma at 1338, arriving at Houma at 1445.
Using EK60 to assess acoustic abundance of marine organisms in the water column
We propose to study the distribution and abundance of marine organisms in the water column
as part of the damage assessments that are being conducted in the Gulf of Mexico to assess the
negative effects of the Deepwater BP Oil Spill.
This study will help to determine the distribution of acoustic backscatter relative to the
footprint of the oil spill and to evaluate the potential effects of the use of dispersants as this get
mixed in the upper water column.
We will measure acoustic signals (to estimate biomass of krill-like and forage fish-like
organisms). We will integrate this information with other measures of physical oceanographic
parameters (ocean conditions, nutrients), measures phytoplankton standing stock (to calibrate
fluorescence measurements), sample the overall zooplankton community (to identify indicator
species), and counts of marine bird and mammal community.
1) Krill-like biomass and net sampling
We will use acoustic methods to obtain vertical and horizontal distributions and net sampling
to confirm the identity, size classes and sexual maturity of krill located acoustically. Acoustic
techniques are recognized as a tool for the detection and quantification of euphausiids (Cockrane
et al. 1991, Coyle et al. 1992, Coyle and Cooney 1993). Though a featured component of the
U.S. Antarctic program (www.ccamlr.org), this technique has received criticism, especially when
used without net sampling. Therefore, our approach is to combine acoustic and net sampling
procedures. We will sample the distribution of euphausiids using a multi-beam hull-mounted
SIMRAD EK-60 Echosounder, equipped with 38, 120 and 200 kHz transducers. The
echosounder will be calibrated twice-yearly using standard sphere procedures (Johannesson and
Mitson 1983, Traynor and Ehrenberg, 1990). GPS-tagged raw EK-60 ping data will be logged to
disk for post-cruise analysis.
) measured at multiple frequencies will be used to
Differences in volume backscattering ( Sv
classify acoustic targets. To eliminate noise from the data (e..g, non-biological echos from the
bottom and/or bubbles), we will exclude acoustic backscatter at a threshold of -81 dB (Cockrane
et al. 1991, Coyle et al. 1992, Coyle and Cooney 1993, Croll et al. 1998). Sound scattering by
euphausiids (size 10-30 mm) produces Rayleigh scattering at 38 kHz, causing little backscatter,
whilst these animals reflect and produce high acoustic backscatter at 120 and 200 kHz (Fiedler et
between multiple frequencies, along with visual inspection of the
al. 1998). The difference in Sv
scattering layers and targeted net tows, can be used to distinguish euphausiids from other
Sv
Sv
0 .
Sv
Sv
scatterers. We will begin with the relationship [
] used by Fiedler
120
200
38
et al. (1998) to define euphausiid scattering layers, and then work to further refine the
relationship to animals in the study area through our net-sampling efforts (see below).
Euphausiid abundance will be averaged over the depth range and horizontal intervals of interest
for analysis and plotting.
We will estimate euphausiid biomass along survey transects using methods for acoustic
biomass estimation from Hewitt et al. (2002) and Demer and Conti (2005). Echograms will be
gridded and integrated in regions identified as krill using Echoview software (Sonardata Pty.
Ltd.). Time-varying noise will be subtracted, and the resulting backscatter will be multiplied
with a target strength (TS) model in order to derive euphausiid biomass. The most detailed
euphausiid TS models incorporate probabilities to describe length-weight relationships, average
body angle, and other species-specific attributes (Demer and Conti 2005). Many of these
parameters have not yet been determined for our study species. Therefore, as part of this project
we will develop a TS model; we will build upon the results of Green et al. (1988, 1989), and will
model TS using data from our Tucker trawls (see below). Providing that a comparison of
volume scattering and TS (net) data indicate little net avoidance, we will estimate biomass
directly from by linear regression, using volume backscatter and species-specific biomass from
net samples as parameters (Pieper 1979, 1983),
A net-sampling effort will be critical for (i) ground-truthing acoustic signatures of apparent
krill, (ii) deriving krill age/size structure and body measurements for TS and biomass equations,
and (iii) description of the zooplankton community in general. We will sample euphausiids and
other zooplankton using a 1-m

Tucker trawl equipped with three 333-m mesh nets; we will
tow at 2.5 knots. A messenger-release mechanism will allow us to target specific layers, while
Sv
to be converted to euphausiid biomass, net sampling needs
being guided by acoustics. For
to be controlled well enough to precisely match net catches to observed backscatter in targeted
patches or layers of high backscatter (Fiedler et al. 1998). To ensure that the net and acoustic
data sets are matched as accurately as possible in space and time, GPS position and time data
from the ship's navigation system will be written to each acoustic and net sampling data record.
There will be a depth profiler attached to the frame of the net to track the position of the net
relative to the acoustics, and General Oceanics digital flowmeters will measure the volume of
seawater sampled. Net samples will be collected at the shelf break in each oceanographic line
and in areas where high acoustic backscatter is recorded. Day and night time net sampling may
reveal different patterns in krill due to vertical migration; we will target acoustic layers during
the day. Large gelatinous zooplankton will be removed from the samples and discarded. The
rest of the material will be preserved in 10% formalin and stored until processing. Processing
will involve two procedures, one to sort euphausiids and one to process the entire sample for the
analysis of community structure. Euphausiid material will be sub-sampled, then sorted,
identified, counted, and weighed; length will be measured. Euphausiids will be classified
following Kathman et al. (1986).
2) Forage fish-like biomass
We will use hydroacoustic surveys to estimate forage fish biomass (Watkins & Brierley 1996,
Horne & Clay 1998). Fish avoids nets making it difficult to determine the composition of
acoustic biomass with net sampling especially during the day time. Therefore, descriptions of
the local fish community and size and composition of fish captured during the Rockfish Cruise
(NMFS) will be used to determine appropriate target strengths. Iinformation on local bird diets
suggest fish have acoustic signals greater than 60 dB (decibels) (Vlietstra 2005, Morejohn et al.
1978, Caillet et al. 1979, Ainley et al. 1981, 1996, Croll 1989, H. Nevins unpubl. data). As most
euphausiids have low target strengths (TS < 70 dB animal1 at 120 kHz frequency) relative to
fish and squid (TS > 55 dB animal 1), removing backscatter below 60 dB should exclud most
plankton, leaving acoustic biomass pertaining to fish with swim bladders (Vlietstra 2005, Pieper
1979, Vaughan & Recksiek 1979, Barange et al. 1996, Misund & Beltestad 1996, Brierley et al.
1998, McGehee et al. 1998, Kawabata 1999, Coyle & Pinchuk 2002).
3) Physical oceanography
We will collect continuous underway data and vertical profiles at stations to determine
horizontal and vertical gradients in water properties and flow. Continuous underway data on
near surface temperature, salinity, and fluorescence will be sampled using a Sea-Bird Electronics
SBE21 SEACAT thermosalinograph and a WET Labs fluorometer installed in the sea-chest of
the ship. Conductivity-Temperature-Depth (CTD) vertical profiles will be sampled by deploying
a Sea-Bird Electronics SBE 19Plus SEACAT Profiler equipped with a WET Labs WETStar
fluorometer to 200-m (or within 10-m of the seafloor if the seafloor is less than 200-m) at
predetermined locations along oceanographic lines (Fig. 1). We will use SBE Data Processing
Software from Sea-Bird Electronics Inc., Bellevue, Washington to process and bin downcast data
to 1-m depth intervals.
Further, ongoing analysis of oceanographic data from a major NOAA-funded study (WEST)
will be combined to obtain a mechanistic understanding of oceanographic structures for which
krill exhibit affinities: (i) the upwelling plume extending south from Pt Arena; (ii) a shear zone
where upwelling flow separates from the coast near Pt Reyes; and (iii) wake, cones, and other
sub-surface flow features associated with Cordell seamount and adjacent canyons. Surface HF-
radar data from WEST will be used to determine pathways along which surface waters are
advected from Pt Arena/Reyes upwelling centers to Cordell Bank/Farallon Archipelago, and a
combination of survey and satellite data will be used to assess phytoplankton food content south
of Cordell Bank.
4) Marine bird and mammal community
We will use standardized strip and line transect survey methods to determine the distribution
and abundance of marine birds and mammals. Marine bird and mammal distribution, densities,
and behavior will be recorded along transects. Counts of birds and mammals will be made from
the flying bridge of the ship while underway at ~10 knots. Birds will be counted continuously in
a 100-m arc from directly ahead of the vessel to 90 off the side with the best visibility (least
glare). Mammals will be counted continuously by scanning to the horizon directly ahead of the
vessel to 90 off both sides; distances to mammals will be estimated using range-finding
binoculars. A continuous count of flying seabirds (as opposed to a snap shot method) may
overestimate densities of birds in the region (van Franeker 1994), but provides an estimate of
flux through the region (Hunt et al. 1994). Flying birds may also have recently been feeding.
Therefore, we will use the continuous method. Seabird behaviors will be recorded as flying
(with flight direction), sitting on the water, and feeding. For our analyses of predator-prey
distributions, we will focus on birds actively foraging and/or sitting on the water. We define
feeding birds as those observed plunging at sharp angles into the water, or involved in pursuit-
diving from the surface. For the purpose of this analysis, we will assume that birds sitting on the
water have recently fed in the vicinity. Although euphausiids exhibit diel migration, daytime
surveys have been used to detect euphausiid seabird spatial associations in the Bering Sea
(Hunt et al. 1996) and elsewhere in the California Current (Ainley et al. 2005).
References:
Ainley DG, Anderson DW, Kelly PR (1981) Feeding ecology of marine cormorants in
southwestern North America. Condor 83:120131
Ainley DG, Spear LB, Allen SG, Ribic CA (1996) Temporal and spatial patterns in the diet of
the common murre in California waters. Condor 98:691705
Ainley DG, Spear LB, Tynan CT, Barth JA, Pierce SD, Ford RG, Cowles TJ (2005) Physical and
biological variables affecting seabird distributions during the upwelling season of the
northern California Current. Deep Sea Research Part II: Topical Studies in Oceanography
52:123-143
Barange M, Hampton I, Soule M (1996) Empirical determination of in situ target strengths of
three loosely aggregated pelagic fish species. ICES J Mar Sci 53:225232
Brierley AS, Ward P, Watkins JL, Goss C (1998) Acoustic discrimination of Southern Ocean
zooplankton. Deep-Sea Res II 45:11551173
Cailliet GM, Karpov KA, Ambrose DA (1979) Pelagic assemblages as determined from purse
seine and large midwater trawl catches in Monterey Bay and their affinities with the market
squid, Loligo opalescens. CalCOFI Rep 20: 2130
Cockrane, NA, Sameoto, D, Herman, AW, Neilson, J (1991) Multiple-frequency acoustic
backscattering and zooplankton aggregations in the inner Scotian shelf basins. Can. J. Fish.
Aquat. Sci., 48: 340-355
Coyle, KO, Cooney, RT (1993) Water column sound scattering and hydrography around the
Pribilof Islands, Bering Sea. Cont. Shelf Res. 13: 803-827
Coyle, KO, Hunt, GL, Jr., Decker, MB, Weingartner, TJ (1992) Murre foraging, epibenthic
sound scattering and tidal advection over a shoal near St. George Island, Bering Sea. Mar.
Ecol. Prog. Ser. 83: 1-14
Croll DA (1989) Determinants of the diet and distribution of the common murre (Uria aalge) in
Monterey Bay, California. MSc thesis, California State University, Fresno, CA
Croll DA, Marinovic B, Benson S, Chavez FP, Black N, Ternullo R, Tershy BR (2005) From
wind to whales: trophic links in a coastal upwelling system. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 289:117130
Demer DA, Conti SG (2005) New target-strength model indicates more krill in the Southern
Ocean. ICES Journal of Marine Science 62:25-32 Dorman JG, Bollens SM, Slaughter AM
(2005) Population biology of euphausiids off northern California and effects of short time-
scale wind events on Euphausia pacifica. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 288:183198
Fiedler PC, Reilly SB, Hewitt RP, Demer D, Philbrick VA, Smith S, Armstrong W, Croll DA,
Tershy BR, Mate BR (1998) Blue whale habitat and prey in the California Channel Islands.
Deep Sea Research Part II: Topical Studies in Oceanography 45:1781-1801
Greene, CH, Wiebe, PH, Burczynski, J, Yougbluth, MJ (1988) Acoustic detection of high-
density krill demersal layers in the submarine canyons off Georges Bank. Science 241:359-
361
Greene, CH, Wiebe, PH, Burczynski, J. (1989) Analyzing zooplankton size distribution using
high-frequency sound. Limnol. Oceanogr. 34:163-178
Hewitt, RP, Watkins, JL, Naganobu, M, Tshernyshkov, AS, Brierley, AS, Demer, DA,
Kasatkina, S, Takao, Y, Goss, C, Malyshko, A, Brandon, MA, Kawaguchi, S, Siegel, V,
Trathan, PN, Emery, JH, Everson, I, Miller, DGM (2002). Setting a precautionary catch limit
for Antarctic krill. Oceanogr., 15, 2633
Horne J, Clay CS (1998) Sonar systems and aquatic organisms: matching equipment and model
parameters. Can J Fish Aquat Sci 55:12961306
Hunt GL, Jr., Coyle KO, Hoffman S, Decker MB, Flint EN (1996) Foraging ecology of short-
tailed shearwaters near the Pribilof Islands, Bering Sea. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 141:1-11
Hunt, GL, Jr., Croxall, JP, Trathan, PN (1994) Marine Ornithology in the southern Drake
Passage and Bransfield Strait during the BIOMASS Programme. Pp. 231-245 in S.Z. El-
Sayed, ed. Southern Ocean Ecology: The BIOMASS perspective. Cambridge U. Press.
Johannesson, KA, Mitson, RB (1983) Fisheries acoustics: a practical manual for aquatic biomass
estimation. FAO Fisheries Technical Paper. 240:249
Kathman, RD, Austin, WC, Saltman, JC, Fulton, JD (1986) Identification manual to the
Mysidacea and Euphausiacea of the northeast Pacific. Dept. Fisheries and Oceans, Ottawa,
411 p.
Kawabata A (1999) Measurement of the target strength of Japanese flying squid, Todarodes
pacificus Steenstrup. Bull Tohoku Nat Fish Res Inst 61:2940
McGegee DE, ODriscoll RL, Traykovski LV (1998) Effects of orientation on acoustic scattering
from Antarctic krill at 120 kHz. Deep-Sea Res II 45:12731294
Misund OA, Beltestad AK (1996) Target-strength estimates of schooling herring and mackerel
using the comparison methods. ICES J Mar Sci 53:281284
Morejohn GV, Harvey JT, Kransnow LT (1978) The importance of Loligo opalescens in the
food web of marine vertebrates in Monterey Bay, California. In: Recksiek CW, Frey HW
(eds) Biological, oceanographic, and acoustic aspects of the market squid, Loligo opalescens
Berry. Calif Dep Fish Game Game Bull 169:67185
Pieper, RE (1979) Euphausiid distribution and biomass determined acoustically at 102 kHz.
Deep-Sea Res. 26/6A: 687-702
Pieper, RE (1983) Quantitative estimates of euphausiid biomass determined by high-frequency
acoustics. Biological Oceanography, 2: 133-149
Traynor, JJ, Ehrenberg, JE (1990) Fish and standard-sphere target-strength measurements
obtained with a dual-beam and split-beam echo-sounding system. Tapp. P.-v. Reun. Cons.
int. Explor. Mer. 189: 325-335
Van Franeker, JA (1994) A comparison of methods for counting seabirds at sea in the Southern
Ocean. J. Field Ornithol. 65: 96-108
Vaughan DL, Recksiek CW (1979) Detection of market squid, Loligo opalescens, with echo
sounders. CalCOFI Rep 20: 4050
Vlietstra, LS (2005) Spatial associations between seabirds and prey: effects of large-scale prey
abundance on small scale seabird distribution. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 291: 275287
Watkins JL, Brierley AS (1996) A post-processing technique to remove background noise from
echo integration data. ICES J Mar Sci 53:339344
Subject: Re: MC252 - ERD Talk on Subsurface - redeux - TODAY at 1600 central
From: Ian Zelo
Date: Wed, 11 Aug 2010 14:31:20 -0500
To: Ian Zelo
CC: Alyce Fritz , Amy Merten , Anthony Dvarskas , Benjamin Shorr , Branden S Blum , Brendan
Bray , Brian Hostetter , Charlene Andrade , Cheryl Brodnax , Chris Doley , Christopher Plaisted ,
Courtney Groeneveld , Craig R O'Connor , Dan Rutz , Daniel Hahn , Daphne Macfarlan , David
Witting , Dolores Toscano , Gabrielle Dorr , Gail E Siani , George Graettinger , Greg Baker ,
Gwendolyn McCarthy , Jack Terrill , James G Turek , Jay Field , Jean Cowan , Jeff Shenot , Jennifer
Boyce , Jessica White , Jessica Winter , Jill Bodnar , Joe Inslee , John Cubit , John Iliff , John Kern ,
John Rapp , Kate Barfield , Kate Clark , Katherine Pease , Ken Finkelstein , Kevin Kirsch mich ,
Kristopher Benson , Laurie Lee , Laurie Sullivan , Leslie Craig , Linda B Burlington , Lisa Dipinto ,
Lisa Pelstring , Lisa Rosman , Lynne Barre , Marguerite Matera , Marie Bundy , Marjorie Sams , Marla
Steinhoff , Marti McGuire , Mary Baker , MaryElliott Rolle , Michael Greer , Michel Gielazyn , Michele
Jacobi , Nancy A Berube , Nancy Beckvar , Natalie C-Manning , Norman Meade , Peter Knight ,
Rebecca Hoff , Reyhan Mehran , Rob Ricker , Robert A Taylor , Robert Haddad , Robert Neely , Robert
Wolotira , Scott Hecht , Sean Meehan , Sheila O'Brien , Simeon Hahn , Stephanie Willis , Terri Lewis ,
Todd Goeks , Tom Brosnan , Tom Dillon , Tom Moore , Tony Penn , Tracy Minick , Troy Baker ,
Whitley Saumweber , John Whitney

Folks, Sorry for the delay but here is the information on the talk this afternoon.
IZ
Greetings,
There was a request for a repeat of the subsurface oil discussion from last week. We are going to do that
today at 1600 CDT. We will be using the following webex and conference call numbers. I am not sure
who all was requesting the repeat, please forward if appropriate.
Debbie
CALL IN INFORMATION:
- Passcode
B6 Privacy
WEBINAR INFORMATION:
Meeting Date: 081110
Meeting Time: 4:00 PM CENTRAL TIME
Instant Net Conference Details:
-------------------------------
Meeting Number:
744613511
Meeting Passcode:
Meeting Host:
MARK MILLER
Join Instructions for Instant Net Conference:
1. Join the meeting now:
http://www.mymeetings.com/nc/join.php?sigKey=mymeetings&i=744613511&p=&t=c
2. Enter the required fields.
3. Indicate that you have read the Privacy Policy.
4. Click on Proceed.
Note: When you click on the weblink the seattle screen will show up. If you haven't used webinar before
and would like to make sure your system can access it, the webinar it will be activated at 1530 CDT.
Discussion will be at 1600 CDT.
On 8/10/2010 10:43 AM, Ian Zelo wrote:
Folks,
I will bring this up again on the call tonight but I wanted to get the word out a little earlier
so that people had time to adapt their schedules etc. The story in a nutshell is that ERD put
on a short (<1 hour) presentation about deep sea releases and dispersant etc. It was very
informative and there were a number of people who were interested in hearing it.
I have talked to Bob Pavia and it looks like we are on for Tomorrow at 1600 Central. We'll
get call in / webinar info out.
Hope you all can make it.
IZ
John Whitney / Bob - can you get this out to the ERD side of the house for those who
missed it before?
--
================================================
Ian Zelo
Oil Spill Coordinator
NOAA - Assessment and Restoration Division
7600 Sand Point Way NE
Seattle, WA
98115
(cell - Emergencies Only)
(fax)
[email protected]
------------------------------------------------
http://response.restoration.noaa.gov/
------------------------------------------------
Received(Date):
Fri, 14 May 2010 23:05:08 +0100
From:
"St John, Karen" <[email protected]>
Subject: BP Gulf of Mexico Update: May 14, 2010
Slide Pack 5-14-10.ZIP
In addition to todays update (below) you will find attached a slide deck which highlights the subsurface
options currently being considered and deployed.
Please let me know if you have questions.
Gulf of Mexico Oil Spill Response Update
05/14/2010 3:00pm EDT
BP is working as part of the Unified Command to accomplish three main objectives in the Gulf of Mexico:
1.
On the Sea Floor to stop the flow of oil through various strategies;
2.
On the Surface to minimize impacts of the spill; and
3.
Onshore to protect the shoreline and keep the public informed.
Highlights
x
17,444 personnel responding as part of the Command, plus volunteers.
x
Training expanded, more than 10,000 volunteers trained this week.
x
Riser insertion tool ready for placement into the end of the leaking riser pipe.
x
Relief well at 9,000 feet running riser to continue drilling.
x
2 new claims offices open in Florida and 1 in Louisiana.
Offshore Sea Floor
BPs priority is to reduce and stop the flow of oil subsea and minimize environmental impacts. 4 vessels
and 9 Remote-Operated Vehicles continue subsea work on the following operations:
1. Riser Insertion Tube A tool has been fabricated and lowered to the sea floor. One end will be
attached to the riser and drill pipe which run to the Transocean Enterprise, on the surface. The
other end will be inserted into the ruptured riser pipe that is the primary source of the leak. All
necessary equipment is on location and engineers plan to move them into place Friday night.
2. Containment Recovery System
x
A containment dome, called a top hat, has been deployed to the sea floor and is being readied to
be placed over the main leak, if needed. It is designed with injection ports that can accommodate anti-
freeze in order to mitigate the formation of frozen hydrates.
x
It is important to note that this technology has never been done at this water depth. Significant
technical and operational challenges must be overcome for it to be successful.
3. Top Kill Activities
Equipment has been fabricated and moved to location near the blowout
preventer in order to work on killing the well from the top. Manifold and bypass lines are in place to
provide access to valves on the BOP. A junk shot of shredded fibrous material will be injected
into the BOP through these lines. The objective is for the material to travel up the BOP and clog
the flow of the well at the pinch point. Once the pressure is controlled, heavy fluids and cement will
be pumped down the well to kill it. This procedure is ongoing.
4. Drilling relief wells Transocean Development Driller III spudded the first relief well on Sunday,
May 2 in a water depth of roughly 5,000 feet. This relief well is one-half mile from the Macondo well
and will attempt to intercept the existing wellbore at approximately 18,000 feet below sea level. As
of today, the well has been drilled to 9,000 feet below sea level. Casing was run and cemented to
that depth. The BOP is tested and riser is being run so drilling can continue, sometime this
weekend. It is estimated the total drilling process will take at least 90 days. Once that is
accomplished, heavy fluids and cement can be pumped downhole to kill the well. A second relief
well has been permitted and the Transocean Development Driller II is on location with drilling
expected to begin on May 16.
5. Dispersant injection at the sea floor BP has conducted a third round of injecting dispersant
directly at the leak site on the sea floor using Remote Operated Vehicles (ROVs). Dispersant acts
by separating the oil into small droplets that can break down more easily through natural processes
before it reaches the surface. Sonar testing and aerial photographs show encouraging results. The
Environmental Protection Agency and other state and federal agencies, operating as part of the
National Response Team, have approved additional subsea application subject to ongoing
protocols.
Offshore Surface Spill Response
x
Cleanup Vessels 559 specialty response vessels are deployed, including tugs, barges and
recovery boats. 30 of the boats are Oil Spill Response Vessels that are designed to separate the oil from
water. Approximately 151,391 barrels of oil-water mix (6.35 million gallons) have been recovered and
treated, a reported increase of nearly 50,000 barrels since Wednesday.
x
Surface Dispersant 517,577 gallons of dispersant have been applied on the surface by aircraft.
The dispersant is a biodegradable chemical that works like soap by separating the oil into small droplets
that can be more easily broken down by natural processes. An additional 258,000 gallons are available
for deployment. The Unified Command has three teams of vessels in place to apply dispersant on the
surface, weather permitting.
x
In-Situ Burning The Unified Command has teams in place prepared to continue in-situ
burning,depending on the weather. The in-situ burning is conducted on the surface using special fire-
boom that collects surface hydrocarbons which are then burned off.
Onshore - Shoreline Protection and Community Outreach
x
$25 Million Block Grants to 4 States Louisiana, Florida, Mississippi and Alabama have each
received a $25 million block grant. The grants were offered by BP to help local agencies upfront to
implement the States approved Area Contingency Plans. The Contingency Plans address removal of a
worst case spill and are designed to mitigate or prevent a substantial threat to sensitive areas. The
money will enable local businesses to immediately support clean-up and recovery efforts. The grant is
supplemental to BPs private claims process, which remains unchanged
x
Oil Containment and Shoreline Protection More than 1,600,000 feet of both sorbent and barrier
boom have been deployed or staged to protect sensitive coastal areas. BP is working to procure an
additional 3,500,000 feet of boom. Boom is now in place to protect nearly all Tier 1 shoreline in each of
the four states, and teams are now working on Tier 2 areas.
x
Vessels of Opportunity Program
Nearly 3,200 applications have been approved and
approximately 1,150 vessels are active an increase of 450 since Wednesday. Participating vessels are
being organized into 25-boat task force teams to help with a variety of clean-up activities, including
transporting supplies, performing wildlife rescue, and towing and deploying booms. To qualify for the
program, operators need to meet several key requirements, including attending a four-hour hazardous
waste training session, passing a dockside examination by the U.S. Coast Guard, and meeting crewing
requirements based on the size of the vessel provided. The contact number for people interested in
registering for the program is (281) 366-5511. Information about training can be found on the incident
website at www.deepwaterhorizonresponse.com under volunteers. For additional information about
training call (866) 905-4492.
x
Volunteers and Training BP has opened 22 Community Outreach Centers across the Gulf where
people can go for more information, to find out about the spill, and to connect with volunteer
opportunities. Training ramped up significantly this week, with sessions held at multiple locations across
the Gulf. As of today, more than 15,000 volunteers have been trained in five different training modules
that range from safety for beach clean-up, to wildlife monitoring, handling of hazardous materials and
vessel operation for laying boom. This is an increase of more than 10,000 for the week. Information
about training can be found on the incident website at www.deepwaterhorizonresponse.com under
v o lu n te e rs .
x
Informing Community Leaders The Unified Command is currently holding twice-daily
teleconferences with mayors and community leaders across Mississippi, Alabama and Florida to ensure
that elected officials have an opportunity to be updated on Command activities and to ask questions.
Additionally, BP has deployed local government affairs specialists to respond directly to local
governments.
x
Wildlife Activities 2 additional reports of impacted wildlife. Wildlife rehabilitation sites are located
in Venice, LA and Mobile, AL.
x
Claims for Damages - BP has opened 12 claims offices to help claimants through the process.
Vietnamese and Spanish translators are in some offices. 10,500 claims have been filed and 2,200 of
them have been paid--doubling the amount of claims paid since Wednesday. The contact number for
claims is (800) 440-0858. Claims office locations are listed below.
Summary of Regional Operations and Outreach
Robert Unified Area Command
Louisiana
Sites:
Houma Incident Command Post
Pointe A La Hache Community Outreach Center
Venice Community Outreach Center, Staging Area
Grand Isle Staging Area
Port Fourchon Staging Area
Cocodrie Staging Area
Shell Beach Staging Area
Slidell Staging Area
Amelia Staging Area
Belle Chasse Claims Office
2766 Belle Chasse Hwy
Belle Chasse, LA 70037
Grand Isle Claims Office
3811 LA 1
Grand Isle, LA 70358
Hammond Claims Office
Worley Operations Center
303 Timber Creek
Hammond, LA 70404
Pointe A La Hache Claims Office
1553 Hwy 15
Pointe A La Hache, LA
St. Bernard Claims Office
1345 Bayou Rd
Saint Bernard, LA 70085
Venice Claims Office
41093 Hwy LA 23
Boothville, LA 70038
x
Bringing in additional adjusters to help process claims and working with translators to ensure that
Vietnamese and Spanish speaking communities are served.
x
Continued work with parish presidents and opening new community outreach centers. Helping
communities deal with increased traffic due to media and governmental interest.
x
Working with Catholic Charities to assist with immediate community needs of food and clothing.
Mississippi
Sites:
Pascagoula Community Outreach Center, Staging Area
Biloxi Community Outreach Center, Staging Area
Waveland Community Outreach Center
Pass Christian Staging Area
Biloxi Claims Office
920 Cedar Lake Rd, Suite K
Biloxi, MS 39532
Pascagoula Claims Office
5912 Old Mobile Hwy
Suite 4
Pascagoula, MS 39563
x
Community outreach centers are now in all three coastal counties.
x
Continuing to coordinate training for vessel operators and working through Vessels of Opportunity
contracts.
x
No oil has been reported in Mississippi state waters.
Alabama Sites:
Mobile Incident Command Post, Community Outreach Center
Theodore Staging Area
Orange Beach Staging Area
Dauphin Staging Area
Bayou LaBatre Claims Office
290 N. Wintzell Avenue
Bayou LaBatre, AL 36509
Foley Claims Office
(Orange Beach/Gulf Shores/Bon Secour)
1506 North McKenzie Street (HWY 59),
Suite 104
Foley, AL 36535
x
Staffing claims centers with adjusters to process claims.
x
Working with Governors office and non profit organizations to coordinate volunteers and identify
volunteer opportunities.
x
Collected tarballs on Dauphin Island -- analyzing source.
Florida Sites:
St. Petersburg Incident Command Post
Pensacola Community Outreach Center, Staging Area
Panama City Staging Area
Gulf
Breeze
Claims
Office
5668 Gulf
Breeze
Pkwy
Unit B-9
Gulf
Breeze,
FL 32563
Pensacola Claims Office
3960 Navy Boulevard
Suite 16-17
Pensacola, FL 32507
x
Holding townhall meetings with vessel owners and coordinating training for Vessels of Opportunity
volunteers.
x
Working with counties to engage volunteers in additional beach clean ups.
x
Engaged eight Gulf coast counties with outreach coordinators, government affairs specialists, and
training providers.
Contact Information
Environment / Community Hotline to report oil on the beach or shoreline
(866) 448-5816
or other environment or community impacts and access the Rapid Response
Team
Wildlife to report and access care for impacted, i.e. oil wildlife
(866) 557-1401
Volunteers to request volunteer information

Services to register as consultant, contractor, vendor, or submit
information on alternative response technology, services, products or
(866) 448-5816
(281) 366-5511
suggestions
Vessels of Opportunity to report and register boats available to assist
(281) 366-5511
with response
Training for questions about training requirements, times and locations,

(866) 905-4492 or (866) 647-
and to sign up\
2338
Ideas to Submit email suggestions to [email protected]
Investor Relations
(281) 366-3123
Claims
Joint Information Center Media and governmental inquiries
(800) 440-0858
(985) 902-5231 or (985) 902-
Transocean Hotline
(832) 587-8554
MI Swaco Hotline
(888) 318-6765
BP Family and third-party contractor hotline
(281) 366-5578
5240
Twitter: Oil_Spill_2010
Facebook: Deepwater Horizon Response
Joint Incident Command website: www.deepwaterhorizonresponse.com
Karen St John
BP America
Sr. Director, Regulatory Affairs
(202) 457-6594
(202) 351-1399 (cell)
[email protected]
Document ID: 0.7.19.1946.1
Document ID: 0.7.19.1946.1
Document ID: 0.7.19.1946.1
Document ID: 0.7.19.1946.1
Received(Date):
Sat, 15 May 2010 07:07:02 -0400
From:
Andrew Winer <[email protected]>
Subject: 2:30pm NGO Outreach Call
To:
"[email protected]" <[email protected]>,"[email protected]"
<[email protected]>
157758.doc
These are notes from the weekly 2:30 pm NGO status call sponsored by CEQ. Doug Helton
represented NOAA and did a fantastic job.
Caren Madsen will be working on identifying a NOAA representative who can participate on
this call. There were over 100 individuals on this call.
Andy W iner
Director of External Affairs
NOAA
(202) 482-4640
2:30 p.m. NGO call:
Speakers:
Greg Nelson, W HO
Amy Salzman, CEQ
Doug Helton, Incident Operations Coordinator, Ocean Service Office of Response and
Restoration, NOAA
Lisa Garcia, Senior Advisor to EPA Administrator on Environmental Justice
Q&A:
Eleanor Huffines, Pew asked about receiving details on recovery estimates or the input parameters
to compute estimates from Unified Command (see email below)
Follow-up needed from Coast Guard/DHS (see email below).
Bob Irvin, Defenders of W ildlife asked about the dredging situation in Mississippi and further
information about the barrier island plan, including any plans for public comment and review by Fish and
W ildlife Service
Greg Nelson: Application has been submitted to Army Corps and is in the review process right now.
o Need Follow-up re: public comment. Attached is a letter from Defenders' President Rodger
Schlickeisen to the President regarding his supplemental budget request.
David Underhill, Mobile Sierra Club asked about the possibility of a supertanker/ large suction
pump to remove the oil from the surface of the water. Are the dispersants making it more difficult? Are
there pockets of oil underwater?
NOAA: The oil at sea is very thin and they cannot use a vacuum.
Chris Mann, Pew asked about an accurate estimate on the leak flow. Even though the video was
just released, we now know that BP had the video for a while
NOAA: Nothing would be different in our response.
Monica Gardhert, Equity Inclusion Campaign asked about the legislative package, one stop
assistance, case management, money from the state governments, and if there will be federal oversight.
Greg answered. Need Follow-up re: money from state governments?
Sarah Chasis, NRDC asked about studies re: impacts of the spill in the water column and on marine
life. Is there an action plan that can be reviewed by the public?
Greg answered: the process has started and the process will include public comment period.
o EPA: has enhanced monitoring of dispersants posted on website- FDA also monitoring health of
consuming fish. NMFS also monitoring seafood safety
John Lopez, Lake Pontchartrain Basin Foundation asked about the submerged plume of oil moving
onto coast and how to prepare for response.
Need follow-up (Coast Guard/DHS/NOAA)
Sean Saville, National Audubon Society is working on the ground transport system; volunteered to
help FWS, BP, and state agencies- Is there increased capacity to expand volunteer services to other
coastal states (outside tri-state facilities). Mentioned challenges with putting volunteers to work. They
have 20,000 volunteers on their website.
DOI (Ray Rivera) will follow up re: volunteer opportunities
NOAA (Caren Madsen) agreed to receive emails re: training and volunteerism
From: Susan Harvey [mailto:[email protected]]
To: Harold Curran (NSB); Andy Mack (NSB); Eleanor Huffines; Marilyn Heiman; Peter Van Tuyn
Cc: Ben Greene (NSB); Tom Lohman (NSB)
Subject: GOM Spill Recovery Estimates
Importance: High
We are getting very little detail on recovery estimates or the input parameters to compute them
from Unified Command.
I wanted to alert you to a few issues in case you have access to the right folks to improve the
data reporting.
A few days ago I submitted a request to Unified Command via their suggestion web page asking
them to provide more information on a few specific parameters, but I havent seen any
improvement yet.
I did listen to the UC Update yesterday; they reported the recovery volumes were being
questioned and the USCG was being tasked with an oil spill recovery budget estimate Maybe
improvements are coming? Hard to tell yet.
ISB:
The data on in-situ burning is extremely sparse. The Unified Command Operational Update
Summary for each days recovery and tools in place does not address ISB at all. There is no
listing for the amount of ISB boom, ISB equipment, and ISB crews deployed. There is no
information on the number of burns or removal rate.
The only way I can find out what has happened on ISB removal is to listen to the video press
release updates, and every 3-4 days there is a brief mention.
Unified Command did post a ISB fact sheet a few days ago but it is unreadable. We have tried
opening it on multiple computers with the same result.
http://www.deepwaterhorizonresponse.com/posted/2931/In Situ Burning in Oil Spill Respons
e.536615.pdf
The last burn data shows 13,000 bbls removed which still puts removal efficiency at 10-11%.
There is no data or information provided to support this estimate.
We really need more information on:
1.
the number of burns,
2.
locations of burns,
3.
burn rate efficiency,
4.
amount of accelerant used on burn (how much more pollution is added to start and sustain
the burn), and
5.
where burns have been successfully attempted and where they have been unable to sustain
a burn.
This information is really critical to us for Arctic work. As you know industry currently
estimates 90%+ burn removal. Actual field data from the GOM spill is showing 10-11% (if
accurate) and the Macondo well oil at 35 API should burn much better than a number of our
offshore crude oils that have lower API gravities (except Northstar that is higher).
Mechanical Recovery :
Unified Command is reporting the combined oily-water mix at 5 million gallons this morning,
but they are not providing any data on the percentage of oil in the emulsion.
Getting an accurate amount of oil in the mixture is a simple matter of grabbing some emulsion
samples and spinning them out in a centrifuge. We really need that number to estimate a more
accurate oil recovery number. I have yet to see any reporting on that.
Eventually, they will run the oily water recovered mixture through and oil water separator to
recover the oil and they can get a % oil number from that process. No data on that yet either.
For very rough calculations I have been assuming 40% oil content, but that is probably too
conservative. It could be as low as 20%. This will swing the mechanical recovery estimate from
20-40%. So it would be very useful to get better data on this.
Unified Command is also showing that they are essentially picking up 5000 barrels of oily water
each day (keeping up with the spill rate). This seems very high, and there isnt enough detail to
support this pickup rate. Hopefully this new USCG oil recovery budget they are working on
will provide better detail.
Total Spill Rate:
Of course the denominator in all the recovery calculations is based on a 5000 bopd leak rate
assumption. If that is incorrect then that will also reduce all the recovery numbers. I did read that
scientists are examining this number more carefully, so hopefully we will be getting better data
on this.
For every 1000 bopd increase in oil spill volume the mechanical recovery rates drop by 3-7%.
And the ISB removal drops by 2% for every 1000 bopd increase in oil spill volume.
For example if the oil spill rate is actually 8,000 bopd (not 5,000 bopd) then mechanical recovery
drops to 12-25% and ISB removal to 7%.
Susan Harvey
Harvey Consulting, LLC
PO Box 771026
Eagle River, Alaska 99577
(907) 694-7994 Phone
(907) 694-7995 Fax
(907) 854-8998 Cell
[email protected]
AT&T TeleConference Services
Special Services Center
800 932-1100 E-mail: [email protected]
Conference Participant List
28.
29.
30.
31.
32.
33.
34.
35.
36.
37.
38.
39.
40.
41.
42.
43.
44.
45.
46.
47.
48.
49.
50.
LOWELL, BETH
LYON, JIM
MANN, CHRISTOPHER
MATHIAS, JAIME
MONJE, CARLOS
NAZAR, HASAN
OLSON, JODIE
OWENS, STEPHANIE
PARSONS-DRAKE, DEBRA
PHAM, DAVID
PRIOR, MELISSA
PUSKAR, DAN
RIVERA, ROGER
SALZMAN, AMELIA - HOST
SAVILLE, SEAN
SAVITZ, JACKIE
SCHILBWACHTER, GREG
SPRUILL, VIKKI
ST.MARTIN, MARCIA
TINNING, MATTHEW
UNDERHILL, DAVID
VENKER, TED
WINER, ANDY
OCEANA
NATIONAL WILDLIFE FEDERATION
PEW ENVIRONMENT GROUP
NATIONAL WILDLIFE FEDERATION
WHITE HOUSE DOMESTIC POLICY COUNCIL
THE LEAGUE OF CONSERVATION VOTERS
NATIONAL FISH & WILDLIFE
DEPA
THE HUMANE SOCIETY OF US
BPSOF
PEW ENVIRONMENT GROUP
NATIONAL PARK FOUNDATION
ENVIRONMENTAL COUNCIL
202 456-7436
NATIONAL AUDOBON SOCIEY
OCEANA
WATERSHED RESULTS
OCEAN CONSERVANCY
SEWERADE WATER OF NEW ORLEANS
NATURE CONSERVANCY
MOBILE BASED SIERRA CLUB
COASTAL CONSERVATION ASSOCIATION
NOAA
In order to expedite the assembly of your call, some names may have been spelled phonetically.
Please feel free to contact us at 1-800-932-1100 if you have any questions or if we can be of further assistance.
Thank you for using AT&T Executive TeleConference Service.
Page 2
Document ID: 0.7.19.1716.1
Received(Date):
Sat, 15 May 2010 09:48:25 -0400
From:
Beth Dieveney <[email protected]>
Subject: May 15 NOAA Deepwater Horizon Call Actions
To:
Deepwater <[email protected]>
BISCO Town Hall Meeting 5-13-10.docx
Port Sulfer Community Meeting on 5-13-10.doc
NGO Call 5-14-10.doc
NIC DC Org Chart12May.xlsx
NOAA Daily DeepWater Horizon Call
Saturday, May 15, 2010
b6
Call Guidelines:
Place your phone on mute at all times unless you are speaking
Do not place your phone on hold
Other Attachments
report from BISCO community meeting (5/13)
report from Port Sulfer community meeting (5/13)
report from weekly NGO call (5/14)
NIC structure diagram
Action Items
ADML Landry request 30-day ship time, use of the Gordon Gunther for dispersant
modeling, paperwork is being processed. Assess what asset is needed as the Gordon
Gunther is currently being used for larvae sampling and impacts of oil on larvae
(particularly blue-fin).
Identify what other NOAA/academic assets has that are comparable and go through
(Kenul)
Connect with Unified Area Command to determine needs and how needs could be
met by other NOAA /academic assets (W esterholm)
Overview of sampling that is not being done, broad issues related to understanding where
the oil is and what its impact is (all assets, not exclusive to NOAA assets) Requested to
send this to the NIC (Murawski and team)
Report on marine mammals and turtles be clearer regarding how many are deceased due
to oil and what is not known; share a total each day (ORR/ICC reports)
NOAA requested to create daily chart showing mortality in relation to: #of total dead
turtles, # sent for necropsies, # necropsies completed, and # dead due to oil.
DOI asked to do the same for birds
Assess capacity to conduct work needed request to review this and if more people are
needed (marine mammal stranding, necropsy processing, seafood safety testing, etc)
NMFS to develop timeline of seafood safety testing in advance of Monday Meeting/call at
W H.
Ensure routine updates on 0800 calls on key issues NOAA is working on
Ensure clear lines of communication and updates between NOAA and NIC, etc.
(Dieveney/W esterholm)
Follow-up call regarding engaging NOAA more effectively in NIC process (Lubchenco,
Spring, Sarri)
Reconstruct process of how NOAA has been engaged with developing/communicating
release rate (ORR Seattle)
Contact sheet for where to refer constituents to for key information (Dieveney/Winer)
Strategies to communicate our issues, particularly NMFS closures to public (Sutter/Winer)
Assign lead technical expert for LA barrier island issue (Yozell)
Check in on monitoring plan regarding use of sub-sea dispersants (Westerholm/Henry)
Develop product for what our NERR and NM Sanctuary sites are seeing (NOS)
Follow-up on release of chemical contents of dispersants for seafood safety testing needs
(Kennedy/Westerholm)
Updates of Interest
Information on the Loop current to the NIC through the Environmental Assessment Work-
Group need to push back on this, NOAA needs a higher level presence of this
ACOE and fill-in on barrier islands will be referred to legal committee on NRT to ensure
all Federal agency issues are considered; going to legal due to the question of if this is
really a response issue
Documents cleared through WH clearance process for 5/11/10
(currently, this list is incomplete but will be updated on a daily basis)
FACT SHEETS CLEARED & POSTED ONLINE
Booms
Coral reefs & oil
Marine mammals and sea turtles
Gulf of Mexico Oil Spill General (Fish)
Fish stocks in the Gulf of Mexico
Seafood safety
Impact of crude oil on seafood
Natural Resources Damage Assessment
Shorelines and coastal habitats in the Gulf of Mexico
Dispersants (OR&R sheet)
Shoreline & habitats (OR&R sheet)
Shoreline Cleanup and Assessment Technique (SCAT) (OR&R sheet)
FACT SHEETS IN CLEARANCE/WORK
Sheen (cleared/not posted)
Oil weathering/types
Loop current
Mussel Watch
NOS activities
Hypoxia (dead zone) & oil
Websites for more information:
OR&R Response Outreach http://response.restoration.noaa.gov/deepwaterhorizon (cleared fact
sheets)
(cleared factsheets)
Deepwater Horizon JIC www.deepwaterhorizonresponse.com

ResponseLink https://responselink.orr.noaa.gov
NOAA ICC Sitreps - https://www.homelandsecurity.noaa.gov/icc sitreps.html
Updates on Fisheries Closure http://sero.nmfs.noaa.gov/
Daily updates to NOAA nautical charts: http://www.nauticalcharts.noaa.gov/.
Joint Information Center Contacts (as of 5/11/10)
th
David Miller / 202-329-4030 (LA) [email protected] (through Monday, May 17
Connie Barclay / 202-441-2398.
th
Replacement: Rachel Wilhelm arrives Sat., May 15
/ 202-657-9816.
NOAA Scientific Scientist Coordination on site (as of 5/7/10)
Charlie Henry (206-849-9928) - Robert
Steve Lehman (617-877-2806) - Robert
Jordan Stout (206-321-3320) - Houma
John Tarpley (206-526-6338) - Houma
Mary Gill (206-849-9953) - Mobile
Ruth Yender (206-89-9926) - Mobile
Brad Benggio (206-849-9923) - St. Pete
Carl Jochums NOAA contractor boom expert on site.
Beth Dieveney
NOAA Program Coordination Office
Office of the Under Secretary
14th & Constitution Ave., NW, Room 5811
Washington, DC 20230
phone: 202 482 1281
cell:
240 328 4812
fax:
202 482 4116
For Official Use Only
Last Updated 5/13/10
HOUMA, LA COMMUNITY MEETING, BISCO, TERREBONNE PARISH
MAY, 13, 2010 DULOUC, LA
Principal Attendee: David Kennedy
Representatives from various Federal and State agencies, BP representative, as well
as Local leaders.
Attendees: approximately 100 125 people
FEDERAL/STATE/LOCAL REPS:
NOAA
USCG
SCAT Team lead
EPA, senior advisor to Lisa Jackson
EPA Assistant Secretary of Solid Waste / Emergency Response
ATSDR / CDC - toxicologist
DOI
BP Representative
Terrebonne Parrish President

GENERAL SENTIMENT:
Fear
Worry
Uncertainty
Anger
Lack clear understanding of the situation / potential impacts
WHAT THE COMMUNITY WOULD LIKE:
PROCESS / CLAIMS: want BP rep in the community to be on hand for
processing of claims, general explanations and updates. People feel they were
not being communicated with.
ECONOMIC IMPACT: Community fears BP will fulfill fiduciary
HEALTH IMPACT: Information on what the short and long term health
EDUCATION / INFORMATION: Want information not just posted on the
EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITIES: Vessels of Opportunity. Not enough
responsibilities
effects are going to be.
web not everyone has access to the internet.
boom available to utilize private vessels
WHAT NOAA CAN PROVIDE:
INFORMATION
Factsheets
Printed and delivered to the community as well as online.
Information for students / educators
Trajectories
Updates / Centrally located, up to date
Document ID: 0.7.19.1920.1
Safety
Seafood
Operational Vessels / Human use
Wildlife
Dispersants provide information >what is it? What is it used for?
What are the long term effects?
PRESENCE
Would like to have people on the ground / need to know what is going on,
when can they fish, for how long, want people to get information from,
not have to use the telephone / internet.
LONG TERM PLAN WANT A LONG TERM PLAN
QUESTIONS / ANSWERS
1.
When oil is displaced, it has been proved by two colleges to cause cancer
what effect is this going to have on the environment in the future years. As
dispersant is being used, require monitoring for impacts. Tar can be
irritating dispersant / application no concern to people on shore
2.
As a community dont need feel good speeches want an outlined, long term
plan of what BP is going to do (applause) sickness?
partial payment
not enough info.
3.
Want a long term plan, want to know whats going to happen to the
4.
vessels of opportunities employment $1,000 / day for use of boats > have
community.
claims available > get up to $5,000 not limited to one claim. BP we
want to do right by this community. Fed agencies will assure this will
never happen again. Community some people dont have two weeks. Need
immediate assistance.
5.
Do you know where the dispersant are in the deep water?
6.
Are they going to be moving inland with the tides?
7.
Need to know whats underwater
8.
Need to know how our fisherman are going to know, if they are being
9.
Need to know what the health effects are dermal contact, what they are
10.
Want test results posted publicly.
11.
BP needs to focus on shutting the faucet off.
where is the dispersant?
exposed to dispersants.
inhaling?
more of a statement / request
than question.
12.
Feds needs to be taking care of the people.
13.
What is the name of the dispersant?
14.
Is there an expiration date for the dispersant?
15.
Can you guarantee us you are going to pay us?
16.
We've heard you can file a $5,000 claim once you sign it, you cant get
more money. Is this true? BP, has been asked to set up a claim center
should be accommodated BP rep looking into it
17.
What is the dispersant called? Corexit results of testing EPA are the
results available?
Document ID: 0.7.19.1920.1
18.
State Legislation being held up? BP holding up in baton rouge state
19.
Oysters does bp or epa have a way of testing to see if there is any mercury
legislature BP will only pay 72%
DNA test or some other type of testing? DK noted food safety report
coming out
20.
Our nation benefits in and from our communities but we bear the brunt of
it through land loss issues, seafood industry, what can we as a community
do and what can we expect to be done economically, socially, and
environmentally to mitigate?????
21.
Getting mixed information how do you inform teachers and students
about the oil spill?
Document ID: 0.7.19.1920.1
Last Updated: 5-14-10
Port Sulfer Community Meeting on 5-13-10
Principal Attendee: Mary Glackin
GENERAL SENTIMENT::
* Fear of the unknown
* Frustration
* Anxiety
Anger and distrust primarily aimed at BP but included the Federal Agencies, i.e., EPA, USCG, and OSHA. I
have to state while in the Port Sulphur and Boothville-Venice community, NOAA was clearly appreciated
and we were personally thanked and welcomed by individuals for the effort and products, e.g., the
Situation Status Map and folks on the ground.
The fear and anxiety was focused on (1) The long-term health effects of the dispersants, both to marine
life and the community. Local commercial fishermen were comparing the EXXON VALDEZ incident with
the current situation citing Alaskan sources claiming the permanent loss of the herring runs due to the
use of dispersants (citing a neurotoxin threat) during the VALDEZ cleanup; (2) The President of the
Plaquemines Parish Oystermen's Association compared the use of dispersants and the potential of
unknown long-term effects to the use of Agent Orange in Vietnam, which the US government assured
was not toxic. This is a critical community issue that needs to be addressed; (3) The air quality was
repeatedly voiced as a major concern to children and those individuals affected with asthma and other
related respiratory ailments. Air quality was a major issue with the Louisiana Bucket
Brigade a 501(c)(3) environmental health and justice organization working with communities that
neighbor the state's oil refineries and chemical plants.(http://www.labucketbrigade.org/); EPA needs to
articulate a consistent message and define the "standards" used for air quality to allay the communities
anxiety.
WHAT THE COMMUNITY WOULD LIKE:
Issues are related to BP claims and programs to put fishermen to work. (1) The BP process is not
working and immediate compensation is needed for the commercial fishermen. The system of
classification re who can file a claim does not guarantee those applying are truly commercial, i.e.,
suggestions of improprieties- commercial vice recreational making claims. The $5K limit on expedited
compensation claims is not enough to pay monthly bills during the peak of their season. The "Vessels of
Opportunity" BP program is not working. It was intimated the preference locally, is to hire out charter
boats (used by recreational fishermen) for BP hosted activities rather than the artisanal vessels; (3) the
community attorneys are asking for graduated compensation claims for workers based on their roles,
e.g., vessel owner, deckhands, processors etc for a period of at least 6 months.
SOCIO-ECONOMIC AND CULTURAL IMPACT
There was great concern expressed over the loss of the cultural heritage associated with artisanal fishing
and literally, cultural genocide- the generational impact on the ability to make a living on the water and
the contamination of marine life for generations to come.
Document ID: 0.7.19.1920.2
Last Updated: 5-14-10
EDUCATION AND INFORMATION:
The Internet and URL addresses are not enough. More printed material and handouts would be of great
use to the affected communities.
Attached is a copy of the NOAA Extreme Weather Information Sheet (NEWIS) for an example template
that could be modified to identify activities, POCs, and the appropriate agencies associated with
response related to the DW HORIZON spill event.
WHAT CAN NOAA/FEDS PROVIDE:
How can NOAA verify BP environmental reports? What can NOAA do get an accurate measurement of
the flow rate of the leaks. Community participants cited news articles from the academic community
indicating the flow rate may be 5 times greater than reported causing distrust of the BP and federal
numbers. Participants also cited EPA data indicating elevated levels of hydrogen sulfide. Can NOAA give
an estimate on the total number of gallons at the bottom of the Gulf, and water column estimates?
How many miles offshore is the extent of the spill? How many miles of the coastline have been
affected? And, lastly consistent, understandable communications to the public coordinated through the
federal activities involved.
Document ID: 0.7.19.1920.2
Last Updated: 5/14/10
Friday, May 14 2:30 p.m. NGO call:
Greg Nelson, WHO
Speakers:
Amy Salzman, CEQ
Doug Helton, Incident Operations Coordinator, Ocean Service Office of
Response and Restoration, NOAA
Lisa Garcia, Senior Advisor to EPA Administrator on Environmental Justice
Q&A:
Eleanor Huffines, Pew asked about receiving details on recovery estimates or the input parameters
to compute estimates from Unified Command (see email below)
o Follow-up needed from Coast Guard/DHS (see email below).
Bob Irvin, Defenders of Wildlife asked about the dredging situation in Mississippi and further
information about the barrier island plan, including any plans for public comment and review by
Fish and Wildlife Service
o Greg Nelson: Application has been submitted to Army Corps and is in the review
process right now.
o Need Follow-up re: public comment. Attached is a letter from Defenders'
President Rodger Schlickeisen to the President regarding his supplemental
budget request.
David Underhill, Mobile Sierra Club asked about the possibility of a supertanker/ large suction
pump to remove the oil from the surface of the water. Are the dispersants making it more difficult?
Are there pockets of oil underwater?
o NOAA: The oil at sea is very thin and they cannot use a vacuum.
Chris Mann, Pew asked about an accurate estimate on the leak flow. Even though the video was
just released, we now know that BP had the video for a while
o NOAA: Nothing would be different in our response.
Monica Gardhert, Equity Inclusion Campaign asked about the legislative package, one stop
assistance, case management, money from the state governments, and if there will be federal
oversight.
o Greg answered. Need Follow-up re: money from state governments?
Sarah Chasis, NRDC asked about studies re: impacts of the spill in the water column and on marine
life. Is there an action plan that can be reviewed by the public?
o Greg answered: the process has started and the process will include public comment
period.
o EPA: has enhanced monitoring of dispersants posted on website- FDA also
monitoring health of consuming fish. NMFS also monitoring seafood safety
John Lopez, Lake Pontchartrain Basin Foundation asked about the submerged plume of oil moving
onto coast and how to prepare for response.
o Need follow-up (Coast Guard/DHS/NOAA)
Sean Saville, National Audubon Society is working on the ground transport system; volunteered to
help FWS, BP, and state agencies- Is there increased capacity to expand volunteer services to other
coastal states (outside tri-state facilities). Mentioned challenges with putting volunteers to work.
They have 20,000 volunteers on their website.
o DOI (Ray Rivera) will follow up re: volunteer opportunities
o NOAA (Caren Madsen) agreed to receive emails re: training and volunteerism
Document ID: 0.7.19.1920.3
S 1
NIC
NRT
ADM Allen
Deputy NIC
RDML Neffenger
NIC COS
Interagency Strategic P ans
NIC DC COS
NIC NOLA COS
Capt Wh te
Capt Haynes
Capt Beeson
Capt Gautier
Room 3104
Room 3604
NIC Coord staff
Mr Grawe
CDR Rooke
External Affairs
Deputy
Deputy
CDR Argu n
CDR White
Press Ass't
Logistics
Legal
Planning
Claims
Room 3500
Strategic Resources
P anner
PA
DHS LNO
Interagency Situation
LCDR Hutley
Scott Lundgren
CDR LaGuardia
CDR Penoyer
LCDR Baer
P anner
Strateg c Comms
LEGIS & RFI
LCDR Merchant
LCDR O'Ne ll
CDR Offutt
LT Embry
CWO Brown
MMS
SITL
Situation Leader Unit
HSIN
Info Mgr
David Moore
LT Rooke
Legal
P anner
Support
LT Hynes
LCDR Wheatley
MTSRU
HITRAC
NGA
CDR Emerick
RFI
Documentation
CDR Bruen
DHS
Terry Dybvik
Chris Ja karn
Personnel
& Adm n
LT
Finance
F oretine
Adv sors
YN1 Heinzl
Bob Pond
LCDR Messenger
Director
Interagency & Intergovernmental Affairs
Ms Jul ette Kayyem
Deputy Intergovernmental
Deputy Intergency
CDR Tob asz
EPA
Mark Mjoness
Jim Knoy
DOD
DOC (NOAA)
DOI
David Moore
Document ID: 0.7.19.1920.4
Ralph Lopez
Mark Mi ler
CDR W ngrove
CDR Gelzer
FEMA
Lee Foresman
USDA
Salvage
Rich Buckingham
Brenda Styer Gee
HHS
RM 3208
GSA
DOL
Denise Matthews
DOE
USCG
Scott Lundgren
Scheduler
Received(Date):
Sat, 15 May 2010 10:46:45 -0400
From:
[email protected]
Subject: Fwd: 9:05 a.m. Pre-Brief Call on Sunday
To:
[email protected], [email protected],
[email protected],[email protected]
Cc:
Attachment
Received(Date):
Sat, 15 May 2010 10:41:29 -0400
From:
"McGrath, Shaun L." <[email protected]>
Subject: 9:05 a.m. Pre-Brief Call on Sunday
To:
"McGrath, Shaun L." <[email protected]>,"Belton, Linda"
<[email protected]>,Monica Medina <[email protected]>,
[email protected],"Tennyson, Stephanie L"
<[email protected]>,[email protected], Lori_Faeth
<[email protected]>,"Kayyem, Juliette" <[email protected]>,"Murk, David CDR"
<[email protected]>
All,
Daft agenda for the call tomorrow is below. Please let me know if there are any changes.
Sunday, May 16 Call with Governors
9:05 a.m. pre-brief; 9:15 Governors
b6
Speakers
b6
[Guest Pin:
b6
Please lim it participation in the pre-conf erence to speak ers and essential staf f .
DRAFT AGENDA
Opening remarks (Valerie Jarrett)
Observations and Trajectory Monica Medina, NOAA
NOAA will provide the latest observations and trajectories
Situation and Leak Stabilization Update Adm Landry
o Latest information from National Incident Command, including current status of efforts to
stabilize the leaks.
O perations R eport Adm Landry, UAC
Document ID: 0.7.19.1923.1
Response Plans and Boom
o Landry riser insertion tube is the big event for today. Jindal asked about its effectiveness.
Answer is 100% for the large leak. (the small leak will be treated by dispersant). Action item:
report on success of insertion.Subsea dispersant EPA reported that dispersant had been
authorized for application with strict protocols. Landry reported that they will begin application
today. Action item: report out on the success of the application. Ongoing testing of the dilution
effect and the environmental impact.
o Landry gave cleanup report: crews working on Port Fouchon; Whiskey Island; had trouble
getting to Chaneleur. 90 vessels in MS; 64 in AL. Boom positioned; 75,000 feet in LA
yesterday to close the gap in need.
o Riley asked about the cleanup and the importance of being sensitive to the public need to
show we are open for business. He suggested that the cleanup crew take off the HazMat suits on
the beaches. Landry said will try to get the crews out earlier before the tourists start arriving.
Riley urged more boom in Marlin County (sp?)
Jindal urged more boom Westward Terrebonne; St. Marys; Labouche (sp?)
Wildlife Impacts Eileen Sobeck, FWS
Fisheries Closures Monica Medina, NOAA
o Monica said NOAA is working on a seafood safety statement that they will share with the
Governors. They hope to release it soon.
Open discussion and Q&A with Governors and state officials
Next call 9:15 a.m. EDT (8:15 CDT) Monday, May 17, 2010
Document ID: 0.7.19.1923.1
Document ID: 0.7.19.1923.2
Received(Date):
Sat, 15 May 2010 10:55:05 -0400
From:
[email protected]
Subject: Notes from Governor's Call Saturday May 15
To:
[email protected],[email protected], [email protected]
Cc:
Dredging process TPs.docx
Notes from Governor's Call: Saturday May 15
Moderator: Cecelia Munoz- WH Intergovernmental Affairs
Governors: Riley, Jindal
Admiral Landry riser insertion tube is the big event for
today. Governor Jindal asked about its effectiveness.
Answer is 100% for the large leak. (the small leak will be
treated by dispersant). Action item: report on success of
insertion.
Subsea dispersant EPA Administrator Jackson reported
that dispersant had been authorized for application with strict
protocols. Adm. Landry reported that they will begin
application today. Action item: report out on the success of
the application. Ongoing testing of the dilution effect and the
environmental impact.
Adm. Landry gave cleanup report: crews working on Port
Fouchon; Whiskey Island; had trouble getting to Chaneleur.
90 vessels in MS; 64 in AL. Boom positioned; 75,000 feet in
LA yesterday to close the gap in need.
Gov. Riley asked about the cleanup and the importance of
being sensitive to the public need to show we are open for
business. Responding to a photo he saw in this mornings
New York Times, he suggested that the cleanup crew take off
the HazMat suits on the beaches. Adm. Landry said will try to
get the crews out earlier before the tourists start arriving.
Gov. Riley urged more boom in Baldwin County.
Gov. Jindal urged more boom Westward Terrebonne; St.
M arys; Labouche (sp?)
Monica Medina said NOAA is working on a seafood safety
statement that they will share with the Governors.
Additional Items:
Attached are draft talking points and the process description
of the dredging approval process that was developed by the
USA COE and the NIC.
Language Translation of documents: White House Office of
Asian Affairs and the State Department (with BP) are
providing translation services of documents (press releases,
Q&A, etc.) into Vietnamese and other languages. Please
contact Miya Chen ([email protected]) or Audrey Buehring
at 202-453-5506 ([email protected]). They will
facilitate the process with State Department translators.
Please see below the TPs and Process developed by USACE and the NIC Interagency Group
regarding the dredging proposal in Louisiana.
High level talking points:
The dredging proposal submitted to the USACE by the State of LA is currently
undergoing expedited review for engineering and environmental feasibility in
coordination with NOAA, EPA, DOI, USDA and other affected federal, state, local and
tribal entities.
Once the proposal review is complete, the Federal On-Scene Coordinator, with advice
from the National Incident Commander and input from BP as the responsible party, will
assess the proposal's effectiveness in mitigating oil damages and decide whether to go
forward with the proposal.
The ongoing Administration-wide response organization shares the State and local
interest in a quick decision.
USACE process flow:
Permit work flow in response to Deepwater Horizon Incident
1. Pre-application meeting held ( 11 May)
2. Original permit application received by Corps District (12 May)
3. Interagency application review meeting held (12 May)
a.
DOI(HQ), FWS, NMFS, EPA, State of Louisiana, Consultant
4. Reviewed and disseminated proposal to Federal Agencies (12 May)
a.
Solicit comments and requested emergency consultation procedures for
endangered species(12 May)
b. Evaluate agency comments for immediate "Stoppers" ( 13 May)
i. EPA review of the site barrier Island site and borrow area (veto authority)
ii. DOI/FWS National Wildlife Refuge restrictions (restricted work)
iii. DOI/FWS Endangered Species (comments not received)
iv. DOI/MMS Borrow site prohibitions (informal comments on restrictions)
v. DHS/USCG
vi. State of Louisiana
c.
Corps Engineering Review
If any comments require changes to the proposed project
Example: DOI restrictions on the placement of material or the use of equipment in
the National Wildlife Refuge proper required the revision of the application and
resubmittal to the Corps. (13 May-Jane Lyder Deputy Assistant i@ DOI)
5. Forward all comments received to applicant (State of Louisiana, 14 May) (CURRENT
STEP)
6. Revised Application submittal ( expected 14 may )
a.
Re-coordination of any outstanding comments with agencies and update
consultation for endangered species
b. Evaluate agency's revised comments for immediate "Stoppers"
Document ID: 0.7.19.2150.1
Repeat steps 5 and 6 as needed
7. EIS needs determination
8. Coordination with CEQ on "alternative procedures" for NEPA( if required)
9. Draft Permit Decision - Corps New Orleans Project Manager ( Martin Mayer)
a.
Permit conditions will waive or require the State to Gain any other
Authorizations
i. DOI/MMS/FWS
ii. DHS/USCG
iii. State
10. Final Federal Agency coordination of draft permit
a.
Permit Decision Stoppers
i. EPA Veto of the site of the barrier or borrow area
ii. EPA Elevation ( 404q)
iii. DOI/FWS Endangered Species
11. Permit Decision -Corps New Orleans District Engineer (Col. Lee)
12. Forward decision to Federal On Scene Coordinator and for approval
13. Provide to financier (BP) for acceptance
14. Applicant Gains other Authorizations as needed (may occur at any time)
15. Work may begin.
Document ID: 0.7.19.2150.1
Notes from Governor's Call: Saturday May 15
Moderator: Cecelia Munoz- WH Intergovernmental Affairs
Governors: Riley, Jindal
Admiral Landry riser insertion tube is the big event for today.
Governor Jindal asked about its effectiveness. Answer is
100% for the large leak. (the small leak will be treated by
dispersant). Action item: report on success of insertion.
Subsea dispersant EPA Administrator Jackson reported that
dispersant had been authorized for application with strict
protocols. Adm. Landry reported that they will begin
application today. Action item: report out on the success of
the application. Ongoing testing of the dilution effect and the
environmental impact.
Adm. Landry gave cleanup report: crews working on Port
Fouchon; Whiskey Island; had trouble getting to Chaneleur.
90 vessels in MS; 64 in AL. Boom positioned; 75,000 feet in
LA yesterday to close the gap in need.
Gov. Riley asked about the cleanup and the importance of
being sensitive to the public need to show we are open for
business. Responding to a photo he saw in this mornings
New York Times, he suggested that the cleanup crew take off
the HazMat suits on the beaches. Adm. Landry said will try to
get the crews out earlier before the tourists start arriving.
Gov. Riley urged more boom in Baldwin County.
Gov. Jindal urged more boom Westward Terrebonne; St.
Marys; Labouche (sp?)
Monica Medina said NOAA is working on a seafood safety
statement that they will share with the Governors.
Additional Items:
Attached are draft talking points and the process description
of the dredging approval process that was developed by the
USA COE and the NIC.
Document ID: 0.7.19.2150.2
Language Translation of documents: White House Office of
Asian Affairs and the State Department (with BP) are
providing translation services of documents (press releases,
Q&A, etc.) into Vietnamese and other languages. Please
contact Miya Chen ([email protected]) or Audrey Buehring
at 202-453-5506 ([email protected]). They will
facilitate the process with State Department translators.
Document ID: 0.7.19.2150.2
Received(Date):
Sat, 15 May 2010 10:56:26 -0400
From:
[email protected]
Subject: Fwd: FW: 05152010 DHR Daily External Affairs Summary
To:
[email protected]
Attachment
If you already receive this please pardon. Thanks
Received(Date):
Sat, 15 May 2010 09:32:48 -0400
From:
HQS-PF-fldr-NIC HQ Situation Unit <[email protected]>
Subject: FW: 05152010 DHR Daily External Affairs Summary
To:
[email protected],[email protected],
[email protected],[email protected], [email protected],
[email protected],[email protected], [email protected], [email protected],"Zichal,
Heather" <[email protected]>, [email protected],[email protected], [email protected],
[email protected],[email protected], "Murk, David CDR"
<[email protected]>,"LaGuardia, Martha CDR" <[email protected]>,"Gelzer, Claudia
CDR" <[email protected]>,"Tobiasz, Tim CDR" <[email protected]>,"White, Casey
CDR" <[email protected]>,"O'Neil, Christopher LCDR" <christopher.t.o'[email protected]>,"White,
Ryan LTJG" <[email protected]>
DWHR UAC DAILY EXT AFFRS SUM 2010 05 15.doc
From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Saturday, May 15, 2010 9:15 AM
To: HQS-PF-fldr-NIC HQ Situation Unit
Cc: Blossom, Kellyn; Bernstein, Jarrod; Schneider, Drew; Murk, David CDR
Subject: FW: 05152010 DHR Daily External Affairs Summary
Please forward to Interagency IGA list. Thanks!
From: Smith, Heather R [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Saturday, May 15, 2010 8:14 AM
To: Carl Kuehn - Mobile IGA; Donaldson, Jean CDR; Clinton, Jonathan; David Gray - EPA; Gail Tate ;
Glenn DaGain - BP; Heather Smith - IGA lead; Hubble, Solange; Harper, Jerald; Ensley, Kristopher LT;
Kristi Watkins - Congressional/VIP; Kreischer, Jon; Lisa Hough - BP Operations Manager; Lori Faeth -
Interior IGA; Miya Chen - Education; Murk, David CDR; Sara Tumen - DOI; Morrison, Stephanie LCDR;
McCullough, Victoria
Subject: 05152010 DHR Daily External Affairs Summary
FOR INTERNAL USE ONLY
UNIFIED AREA COMMAND EXTERNAL AFFAIRS SUMMARY
Document ID: 0.7.19.2101.1
SATURDAY, MAY 15
FLOW
As said by USCG COMDT Admiral Allen, National Incident Commander, 14May10
*
Whether it's one, five, 10 or 15, our mobilization of resources is far beyond that. We're always
prepared for a catastrophic event.
*
We have not been contained in our resources or our tactics by flow estimates. I urge us all to
remember we're operating in environment where there's no human access.
*
The only parameters we have are two-dimensional video presentation and any remote sensing we
can do down there.
*
While all that goes on, ultimately we're going to have to know the extent of the spill to natural
resources and economy.
*
As far as the current response we're doing a great deal to break this slick up offshore. We're
attacking it as if it were a much larger spill.
SUBSEA DISPERSANTS
*
The Coast Guard and Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announced they have authorized
BP to use dispersants underwater, at the source of the Deepwater Horizon leak. The use of the
dispersant at the source of the leak represents a novel approach to addressing the significant
environmental threat posed by the spill.
*
Oil spill dispersants are chemicals that attempt to break down the oil into small drops and prevent
it from reaching the surface or the U.S. shoreline. While they are not a silver bullet, dispersants are
generally less harmful than the highly toxic oil leaking from the source and they biodegrade in a much
shorter time span.
Document ID: 0.7.19.2101.1
Preliminary testing results indicate that subsea use of the dispersant is effective at reducing the
*
amount of oil from reaching the surface - and can do so with the use of less dispersant than is needed
when the oil does reach the surface. This is an important step to reduce the potential for damage from oil
reaching fragile wetlands and coastal areas.
*
This course of action was decided upon with thorough evaluation and consideration of many
factors as well as consultation with stakeholders. Because subsea use of dispersants is a novel
approach, several tests were done to determine if the dispersant would be effective in breaking up the oil
and helping to control the leaks.
*
While BP pursues the use of subsea dispersants, the federal government will require regular
analysis of its effectiveness and impact on the environment, water and air quality, and human health
through a rigorous monitoring program. EPA's directive to BP, including the monitoring plan the company
must adhere to in order to ensure the protection of the environment and public health, is publicly available
at www.epa.gov/bpspill/dispersants.
*
The federal government will work with caution and strong oversight and reserves the right to
discontinue the use of this dispersant method if any negative impacts on the environment outweigh the
benefits.
RISER INSERTION TUBE
*
BP will attempt to install a riser insertion tube, which can capture the oil before it mixes with the
water and carry it to the drillship.
*
BP is also prepared to attempt to install a "top hat" dome over the main source of the leak. The "top
hat" is a smaller containment dome, designed to mitigate the formation of hydrates, which prevented the
success of the first containment dome. The "top hat" currently sits on the sea floor and remains an
alternative choice to stop the flow.
*
We said from the beginning that there is no silver bullet to stop this leak. We were moving forward
from the beginning under the assumption this tactic may not be successful.
BP will continue to drill the relief well to permanently stop the leak.
*
BP and industry partners have a team of experts from across the private sector working around the
clock in Houston with one responsibility: discover alternative solutions to permanently stop this leak.
Document ID: 0.7.19.2101.1
*
DOI Secretary Ken Salazar dispatched U.S. Geological Survey Director Marcia McNutt to oversee
this process.
*
On May 12, at the request of the President, Secretary Salazar
and Secretary Chu traveled to Houston to participate in meetings with DOE and national lab staff, industry
officials and other engineers and scientists involved in finding solutions to cap the flow of oil and contain
the spill.
*
Secretary Salazar and Secretary Chu conferred at the BP Command Center in Houston with teams
of federal and industry scientists and engineers who are using cutting-edge technological resources and
innovative ideas to find solutions to containing the oil spill and protecting Gulf Coast communities.
They will continue to work hard to provide BP with alternative ideas.
BOOM
*
As of the end of May 14, more than 1.25 million feet of containment boom has been deployed and
nearly 200,000 feet of containment boom available that will continue to be strategically deployed.
*
As of last night, more than 415,000 feet of sorbent boom has been deployed and more than
870,000 feet of sorbent boom available that will continue to be strategically deployed.
We continue to work to identify additional sources of boom for delivery.
*
The Coast Guard is aggressively overseeing BP efforts to ensure the appropriate type of boom is
available for approved deployments as dictated by this dynamic situation.
*
The Unified Command will continue to work with state, local and community leadership to ensure
that needs are met and that appropriate steps are taken to stop the source of the leak, mitigate the spill
and deploy the necessary resources in the Gulf.
If asked about boom shortage:
"As of last night there was more than 1.6 million feet of boom deployed and more than 1 million feet
Document ID: 0.7.19.2101.1
available that will continue to be strategically deployed. The Unified Command is aggressively
overseeing BP efforts to ensure the appropriate type of boom is available for approved deployments as
dictated by this dynamic situation. The Coast Guard will continue to work with state, local, and community
leadership to ensure that needs are met and urge BP to take the appropriate steps to stop the source of
the leak, mitigate the spill and deploy the necessary resources in the gulf."
FRIDAY, MAY 14 STATISTICS
Total response vessels: 627
Containment Boom deployed: more than 1.25 million feet
Containment boom available: more than 270,000 feet
Sorbent boom deployed: more than 415,000 feet
Sorbent boom available: more than 870,000 feet Boom deployed: more than 1.65 million feet (regular plus
sorbent boom) Boom available: nearly 1.15 million feet (regular plus sorbent boom) Oily water recovered:
more than 6.3 million gallons Dispersant used: more than 560,000 gallons Dispersant available: more
than 260,000 gallons Overall personnel responding: nearly 17,500
SATURDAY, MAY 15 EVENTS (all times CST)
0815
Governors' teleconference - RADM Landry
1100
Louisiana officials - U.S. Representative Melancon, State Senators Gautreaux and
Chabert, and State Representative St. Germain-will go on an overflight with CAPT Stanton
1300
DOI Secretary Salazar will visit Robert UAC and hold press conference
with ADM Landry
1400
Local Official's teleconference - CAPT Hanzalik
1400
Congressional teleconference
TBD
U.S. Representative Taylor (MS) will go on an overflight
TBD
Senate Homeland Security Staff will visit Houma ICP
METRICS
*
19,500 Facebook followers the Deepwater Horizon Response Facebook page.
*
Twitter has 3,953 followers.
*
The www.deepwaterhorizonresponse.com <http://www.deepwaterhorizonresponse.com/> site
has over 19 million hits since it was initiated.
Document ID: 0.7.19.2101.1
Top Topics via website:
*
Jobs
*
Booming
*
Dispersants
*
1193 media queries; 4 fact sheets; 3 media advisories; 1 press release; 2 image
releases, 2 images uploaded.
FRIDAY, MAY 14 EVENTS
Engagement with Government Officials
Governors' Call: Governors Jindal and Riley participated
o Monica Medina of NOAA provided an update on observations trajectory projections, and fisheries
closures
ADM Allen provided an update on the situation and leak stabilization efforts
ADM Allen provided an update on operations
FWS Deputy Asst. Secretary Sobeck provided an update on wildlife impacts
*
Governor Jindal, New Orleans Mayor Landrieu, and St. Tammany Parish President Davis held a
press conference in Slidell, LA
*
Governor Jindal visited St. Tammany Parish and met with local, state, and BP officials to discuss
operations within the parish
*
Governor Jindal spoke with the USCG liaison and requested additional boom for St. Tammany
and Terrebonne parishes
*
New Orleans Mayor Landrieu and St. Tammany Parish President Davis visited the BP Community
Outreach Center in New Orleans
Florida Attorney General McCollum visited the St. Petersburg ICP
*
The Louisiana State Department of Fish and Wildlife offered vessels and personnel in support of oil
spill response operations
*
State of Louisiana filed a permit request with the Army Corps of Engineers to dredge areas and
build a berm in front of the Chandeleur Islands
*
USCG and BP briefed elected officials of Mobile and Baldwin Counties (AL) regarding shore clean-
up plans
Mobile and Baldwin County, AL mayors visited the Mobile ICP
Local Official's teleconference: CAPT Hanzalik provided an update on operations
Houma ICP Louisiana Parish Presidents' Call-report out provided on operations, including:
Tarball landfall and cleanup efforts in Whiskey Island, Trinity Island, and South Pass
Document ID: 0.7.19.2101.1
*
Congressional teleconference: Congressman Bill Cassidy (LA) and staff from the offices of Senator
Landrieu, Senator Sessions (AL), Congressman Hastings (FL), the House Transportation and
Infrastructure Committee, the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, and the House
Appropriations Committee asked questions asked questions
*
*
Senate Homeland Security Staff visited Robert UAC
Congressman Miller (FL) and State Representative Gaetz (FL) visited USCG Station Destin
Representative Castor's (FL) DC staff visited St. Petersburg ICP
*
Mobile ICP sent BP requests submitted by Senator Shelby (AL) and Congressman Bonner (AL)
regarding companies seeking consideration for providing services in the response effort
FUTURE EVENTS AND ISSUES (all times CST)
Monday, May 17
0830
Congressman Cummings (MD), Chairman of Subcommittee on Coast Guard and
Maritime Transportation briefing in New Orleans, LA
1430
Congressman Meek (Florida) visit to Mobile ICP
TBD
Governor Riley visit to Mobile ICP
1600
Congressman Young (FL) to visit St. Petersburg ICP
Thursday, May 20
TBD
and Houma IPC
DOI Deputy Secretary Hayes and DHS Deputy Secretary Lute visit to Robert UAC
June
TBD
House Natural Resources STAFFDEL
Heather Smith
Intergovernmental Affairs
Deepwater Horizon Response Unified Area Command
713-323-0468
202-380-2339 cell
Document ID: 0.7.19.2101.1
www.deepwaterhorizonresponse.com
www.google.com/crisisresponse/oilspill
Document ID: 0.7.19.2101.1
FOR INTERNAL USE ONLY
UNIFIED AREA COMMAND EXTERNAL AFFAIRS SUMMARY
SATURDAY, MAY 15
FLOW
As said by USCG COMDT Admiral Allen, National Incident Commander, 14May10
Whether it's one, five, 10 or 15, our mobilization of resources is far beyond that. We're
always prepared for a catastrophic event.
We have not been contained in our resources or our tactics by flow estimates. I urge us
all to remember we're operating in environment where there's no human access.
The only parameters we have are two-dimensional video presentation and any remote
sensing we can do down there.
While all that goes on, ultimately we're going to have to know the extent of the spill to
natural resources and economy.
As far as the current response we're doing a great deal to break this slick up offshore.
We're attacking it as if it were a much larger spill.
SUBSEA DISPERSANTS
The Coast Guard and Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announced they
have authorized BP to use dispersants underwater, at the source of the Deepwater
Horizon leak. The use of the dispersant at the source of the leak represents a novel
approach to addressing the significant environmental threat posed by the spill.
Oil spill dispersants are chemicals that attempt to break down the oil into small
drops and prevent it from reaching the surface or the U.S. shoreline. While they are
not a silver bullet, dispersants are generally less harmful than the highly toxic oil
leaking from the source and they biodegrade in a much shorter time span.
Preliminary testing results indicate that subsea use of the dispersant is effective at
reducing the amount of oil from reaching the surface and can do so with the use of
less dispersant than is needed when the oil does reach the surface. This is an
important step to reduce the potential for damage from oil reaching fragile wetlands
and coastal areas.
This course of action was decided upon with thorough evaluation and consideration
of many factors as well as consultation with stakeholders. Because subsea use of
dispersants is a novel approach, several tests were done to determine if the
dispersant would be effective in breaking up the oil and helping to control the leaks.
Document ID: 0.7.19.2101.1.1
While BP pursues the use of subsea dispersants, the federal government will require
regular analysis of its effectiveness and impact on the environment, water and air
quality, and human health through a rigorous monitoring program. EPA's directive
to BP, including the monitoring plan the company must adhere to in order to ensure
the protection of the environment and public health, is publicly available at
www.epa.gov/bpspill/dispersants.
The federal government will work with caution and strong oversight and reserves
the right to discontinue the use of this dispersant method if any negative impacts on
the environment outweigh the benefits.
RISER INSERTION TUBE
BP will attempt to install a riser insertion tube, which can capture the oil before it mixes
with the water and carry it to the drillship.
BP is also prepared to attempt to install a top hat dome over the main source of the
leak. The top hat is a smaller containment dome, designed to mitigate the formation
of hydrates, which prevented the success of the first containment dome. The top hat
currently sits on the sea floor and remains an alternative choice to stop the flow.
We said from the beginning that there is no silver bullet to stop this leak. We were
moving forward from the beginning under the assumption this tactic may not be
successful.
BP will continue to drill the relief well to permanently stop the leak.
BP and industry partners have a team of experts from across the private sector working
around the clock in Houston with one responsibility: discover alternative solutions to
permanently stop this leak.
DOI Secretary Ken Salazar dispatched U.S. Geological Survey Director Marcia McNutt
to oversee this process.
On May 12, at the request of the President, Secretary Salazar and Secretary Chu
traveled to Houston to participate in meetings with DOE and national lab staff, industry
officials and other engineers and scientists involved in finding solutions to cap the flow
of oil and contain the spill.
Secretary Salazar and Secretary Chu conferred at the BP Command Center in Houston
with teams of federal and industry scientists and engineers who are using cutting-edge
technological resources and innovative ideas to find solutions to containing the oil spill
and protecting Gulf Coast communities.
Document ID: 0.7.19.2101.1.1
They will continue to work hard to provide BP with alternative ideas.
BOOM
As of the end of May 14, more than 1.25 million feet of containment boom has been
deployed and nearly 200,000 feet of containment boom available that will continue to
be strategically deployed.
As of last night, more than 415,000 feet of sorbent boom has been deployed and more
than 870,000 feet of sorbent boom available that will continue to be strategically
deployed.
We continue to work to identify additional sources of boom for delivery.
The Coast Guard is aggressively overseeing BP efforts to ensure the appropriate type of
boom is available for approved deployments as dictated by this dynamic situation.
The Unified Command will continue to work with state, local and community
leadership to ensure that needs are met and that appropriate steps are taken to stop the
source of the leak, mitigate the spill and deploy the necessary resources in the Gulf.
If asked about boom shortage:
"As of last night there was more than 1.6 million feet of boom deployed and more than 1
million feet available that will continue to be strategically deployed. The Unified
Command is aggressively overseeing BP efforts to ensure the appropriate type of boom is
available for approved deployments as dictated by this dynamic situation. The Coast Guard
will continue to work with state, local, and community leadership to ensure that needs are
met and urge BP to take the appropriate steps to stop the source of the leak, mitigate the
spill and deploy the necessary resources in the gulf."
FRIDAY, MAY 14 STATISTICS
Total response vessels: 627
Containment Boom deployed: more than 1.25 million feet
Containment boom available: more than 270,000 feet
Sorbent boom deployed: more than 415,000 feet
Sorbent boom available: more than 870,000 feet
Boom deployed: more than 1.65 million feet (regular plus sorbent boom)
Boom available: nearly 1.15 million feet (regular plus sorbent boom)
Oily water recovered: more than 6.3 million gallons
Dispersant used: more than 560,000 gallons
Dispersant available: more than 260,000 gallons
Overall personnel responding: nearly 17,500
SATURDAY, MAY 15 EVENTS (all times CST)
0815
Governors teleconference RADM Landry
Document ID: 0.7.19.2101.1.1
1100
Louisiana officials U.S. Representative Melancon, State Senators
Gautreaux and Chabert, and State Representative St. Germainwill go on
an overflight with CAPT Stanton
1300
DOI Secretary Salazar will visit Robert UAC and hold press conference
1400
Local Officials teleconference CAPT Hanzalik
1400
Congressional teleconference
TBD
U.S. Representative Taylor (MS) will go on an overflight
TBD
Senate Homeland Security Staff will visit Houma ICP
with ADM Landry
METRICS
19,500 Facebook followers the Deepwater Horizon Response Facebook page.
Twitter has 3,953 followers.
The www.deepwaterhorizonresponse.com site has over 19 million hits since it was
initiated.
Top Topics via website:
o Jobs
Booming
Dispersants
1193 media queries; 4 fact sheets; 3 media advisories; 1 press release; 2
image releases, 2 images uploaded.
FRIDAY, MAY 14 EVENTS
Engagement with Government Officials
Governors Call: Governors Jindal and Riley participated
o Monica Medina of NOAA provided an update on observations trajectory
projections, and fisheries closures
ADM Allen provided an update on the situation and leak stabilization efforts
ADM Allen provided an update on operations
FWS Deputy Asst. Secretary Sobeck provided an update on wildlife impacts
Governor Jindal, New Orleans Mayor Landrieu, and St. Tammany Parish President
Davis held a press conference in Slidell, LA
Governor Jindal visited St. Tammany Parish and met with local, state, and BP
Governor Jindal spoke with the USCG liaison and requested additional boom for St.
Tammany and Terrebonne parishes
New Orleans Mayor Landrieu and St. Tammany Parish President Davis visited the
BP Community Outreach Center in New Orleans
Florida Attorney General McCollum visited the St. Petersburg ICP
The Louisiana State Department of Fish and Wildlife offered vessels and personnel
in support of oil spill response operations
officials to discuss operations within the parish
Document ID: 0.7.19.2101.1.1
State of Louisiana filed a permit request with the Army Corps of Engineers to
dredge areas and build a berm in front of the Chandeleur Islands
USCG and BP briefed elected officials of Mobile and Baldwin Counties (AL)
regarding shore clean-up plans
Mobile and Baldwin County, AL mayors visited the Mobile ICP
Local Officials teleconference: CAPT Hanzalik provided an update on operations
Houma ICP Louisiana Parish Presidents Callreport out provided on operations,
including:
Tarball landfall and cleanup efforts in Whiskey Island, Trinity Island, and
South Pass
Congressional teleconference: Congressman Bill Cassidy (LA) and staff from the
offices of Senator Landrieu, Senator Sessions (AL), Congressman Hastings (FL),
the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, the Senate Environment
and Public Works Committee, and the House Appropriations Committee asked
questions asked questions
Senate Homeland Security Staff visited Robert UAC
Congressman Miller (FL) and State Representative Gaetz (FL) visited USCG
Station Destin
Representative Castors (FL) DC staff visited St. Petersburg ICP
Mobile ICP sent BP requests submitted by Senator Shelby (AL) and Congressman
Bonner (AL) regarding companies seeking consideration for providing services in
the response effort
FUTURE EVENTS AND ISSUES (all times CST)
Monday, May 17
0830
Congressman Cummings (MD), Chairman of Subcommittee on Coast Guard
and Maritime Transportation briefing in New Orleans, LA
1430
Congressman Meek (Florida) visit to Mobile ICP
TBD
Governor Riley visit to Mobile ICP
Congressman Young (FL) to visit St. Petersburg ICP
1600
Thursday, May 20
TBD
DOI Deputy Secretary Hayes and DHS Deputy Secretary Lute visit to
Robert UAC and Houma IPC
June
TBD
Document ID: 0.7.19.2101.1.1
House Natural Resources STAFFDEL
If you already receive this please pardon. Thanks
Document ID: 0.7.19.2101.2
Received(Date):
Sun, 16 May 2010 14:11:42 +0100
From:
Subject: BP Gulf of Mexcido Update: May 15 8 pm EDT
Gulf of Mexico Oil Spill Response Update - 05/15/2010 8:00pm EDT
1.
2.
3.
Onshore to protect the shoreline and engage the public.
Highlights
x
x
Subsea dispersant application recommenced early Saturday.
x
14 air sorties successfully apply an additional 44,000 gallons of dispersant.
x
68 additional specialty response vessels at work today.
x
1 new claims office opens in Florida.
Offshore Sea Floor
BPs priority is to reduce and stop the flow of oil subsea and minimize environmental impacts. 4 vessels
and 9 Remote-Operated Vehicles continue subsea work on the following operations:
1. Riser Insertion Tube The riser insertion tool was brought back to the surface for a refitting.
Once back on the sea floor, crews will attempt to insert the tool into the ruptured leaking riser. The
riser insertion tube is connected to a drill pipe and riser that run to the Transocean Enterprise, on
the surface. All necessary equipment is on location and engineers will move the tool back to the
sea floor as soon as refitting is complete, sometime over the weekend.
2. Top K ill A ctivities
x
Equipment has been fabricated and moved to location near the blowout preventer in order to work
on killing the well from the top. Manifold and bypass lines are in place to provide access to valves on the
BOP. A junk shot of shredded fibrous material will be injected into the BOP through these lines. The
objective is for the material to travel up the BOP and clog the flow of the well at the pinch point. Once the
pressure is controlled, heavy fluids and cement will be pumped down the well to kill it.
x
Diagnostics are ongoing. Gamma ray surveys are being conducted to help determine the status of
internal components in the blowout preventer. Valves are being prepared to connect choke and kill
lines to the manifold.
x
A containment dome, called a top hat, has been deployed to the sea floor and is readied to be
placed over the main leak, if needed. It is designed with injection ports that can accommodate anti-
freeze in order to mitigate the formation of frozen hydrates.
x
It is important to note that this technology has never been done at this water depth. Significant
4. Drilling relief wells Transocean Development Driller III spudded the first relief well on Sunday,
May 2 in a water depth of roughly 5,000 feet. This relief well is one-half mile from the Macondo well
and will attempt to intercept the existing wellbore at approximately 18,000 feet below sea level. As
of today, the well has been drilled to 9,000 feet below sea level. Casing was run and cemented to
that depth. The BOP is tested and riser is being run so drilling can continue, sometime this
weekend. It is estimated the total drilling process will take at least 90 days. Once that is
accomplished, heavy fluids and cement can be pumped downhole to kill the well. A second relief
well has been permitted and the Transocean Development Driller II is on location with drilling
expected to begin on May 16.
5. Dispersant injection at the sea floor After receiving approval from federal agencies, on
Saturday, recommenced application of dispersant directly at the leak site on the sea floor using
Remote Operated Vehicles (ROVs). Dispersant acts by separating the oil into small droplets that
can break down more easily through natural processes before it reaches the surface. Sonar testing
and aerial photographs show encouraging results. The additional subsea application is subject to
ongoing testing protocols developed with the Environmental Protection Agency and other federal
and state agencies.
x
Cleanup Vessels 627 specialty response vessels are now deployed, including tugs, barges
andrecovery boats. 30 of the boats are Oil Spill Response Vessels that are designed to separate the oil
from water. Approximately 151,391 barrels of oil-water mix (6.35 million gallons) have been recovered
and treated.
x
Surface Dispersant 561,608 gallons of dispersant have been applied on the surface by aircraft,
with an additional 44,000 applied since Thursday. The dispersant is a biodegradable chemical that works
like soap by separating the oil into small droplets that can be more easily broken down by natural
processes. An additional 263,000 gallons are available for deployment. The Unified Command has three
teams of vessels in place to apply dispersant on the surface, weather permitting.
x
In-Situ Burning The Unified Command has teams in place prepared to continue in-situ
burning,depending on the weather. The in-situ burning is conducted on the surface using special fire-
boom that collects surface hydrocarbons which are then burned off.
x
$25 Million Block Grants to 4 States Louisiana, Florida, Mississippi and Alabama have each
received a $25 million block grant. The grants were offered by BP to help local agencies upfront to
implement the States approved Area Contingency Plans. The Contingency Plans address removal of a
worst case spill and are designed to mitigate or prevent a substantial threat to sensitive areas. The
money will enable local businesses to immediately support clean-up and recovery efforts. The grant is
supplemental to BPs private claims process, which remains unchanged
x
additional 3,500,000 feet of boom. Boom is now in place or staged to protect nearly all Tier 1 shoreline
in each of the four states. Some teams are starting to work on Tier 2 areas.
3,300 applications have been approved and approximately
x
1,300 vessels are active an increase of 150 since Thursday. Participating vessels are being organized
into 25-boat task force teams to help with a variety of clean-up activities, including transporting supplies,
performing wildlife rescue, and towing and deploying booms. To qualify for the program, operators need
to meet several key requirements, including attending a four-hour hazardous waste training session,
passing a dockside examination by the U.S. Coast Guard, and meeting crewing requirements based on
the size of the vessel provided. The contact number for people interested in registering for the program is
(281) 366-5511. Information about training can be found on the incident website at
www.deepwaterhorizonresponse.com under volunteers. For additional information about training call
(866) 905-4492.
x
vessel operation for laying boom. Information about training can be found on the incident website at
www.deepwaterhorizonresponse.com under volunteers.
x
Informing Community Leaders The Unified Command is currently holding twice-daily
Additionally, BP has deployed local government affairs specialists to respond directly to local
governments.
x
Wildlife Activities 6 additional reports of impacted wildlife. Wildlife rehabilitation sites are located
in Venice, LA and Mobile, AL.
x
Vietnamese and Spanish translators are in some offices. 13,000 claims have been filed and 2,500 of
them have been paid. More than $9 million has been paid out, most of which is for loss of income for
commercial fishing and loss of wages. The contact number for claims is (800) 440-0858. Claims office
locations are listed below.
Louisiana
Sites:
Amelia Staging Area
3811 LA 1
303 Timber Creek
Hammond, LA 70404
1553 Hwy 15
1345 Bayou Rd
41093 Hwy LA 23
x
Community Outreach Centers open in 7 parishes.
x
x
Meeting with large seafood processors to determine best way to work claims.
x
Continued work with parish presidents and opening new community outreach centers. Helping
communities deal with increased traffic due to media and governmental interest.
x
Working with Catholic Charities to deliver immediate community needs of food and clothing.
x
Some fishing areas are reopening.
Mississippi
Sites:
Biloxi, MS 39532
5912 Old Mobile Hwy
Suite 4
x
Community outreach centers are now in all three coastal counties.
x
Continuing to coordinate training for vessel operators and working on Vessels of Opportunity
deployment.
x
No oil has been reported in Mississippi state waters.
Alabama Sites:
Bayou LaBatre Claims Office
290 N. Wintzell Avenue
Bayou LaBatre, AL 36509
Foley Claims Office
Suite 104
Foley, AL 36535
x
Community Outreach Centers open in 2 counties.
x
Staffing claims centers with adjusters to process claims.
x
Working with Governors office and non profit organizations to coordinate volunteers and identify
volunteer opportunities.
Florida Sites:
Ft. Walton Claims Office (open Satur

348 SW Miracle Strip Pkwy
Suite 13
Fort Walton Beach, FL 32548
Gulf Breeze Claims Office
5668 Gulf Breeze Pkwy
Unit B-9
Gulf Breeze, FL 32563
3960 Navy Boulevard
Suite 16-17
Pensacola, FL 32507
x
Community Outreach Centers open in 7 counties.
x
Holding townhall meetings with vessel owners and coordinating training for Vessels of Opportunity
volunteers.
x
Working with counties to engage volunteers in additional beach clean ups.
Contact Information
(866) 448-5816
Team
(866) 557-1401

(866) 448-5816
(281) 366-5511
suggestions
(281) 366-5511
with response

(866) 905-4492 or (866) 647-
and to sign up\
2338
Investor Relations
(281) 366-3123
Claims
Joint Information Center Media and governmental inquiries
(800) 440-0858
(985) 902-5231 or (985) 902-
Transocean Hotline
(832) 587-8554
MI Swaco Hotline
(888) 318-6765
(281) 366-5578
5240
Karen St John
BP America
(202) 457-6594
(202) 351-1399 (cell)
[email protected]
Received(Date):
Sun, 16 May 2010 09:49:37 -0400
From:
To:
For Official Use Only/Not for Public Release
Sunday, May 16, 2010
b6
Call Guidelines:
Action Items
Verify how long has NOAA had access to BP video (Miller)
Follow-up on NOAA representation at NIC and if Mark Miller and Ralph Lopez need
additional support (Miller to assess with leadership)
Communication plan for loop current, ensure have same story for all constituents. Talking
points for leadership (Kenney)
Identify Loop current team of experts for media outreach: Murawski, Lubchenco
Move loop current one-pager through clearance ASAP (Murawski/Dieveney/leadership
clearance)
Change loop current map: oil portion stippled to indicate that the oil is not uniform across
the spill, show loop current as a somewhat more varied flow (Haddad)
Tuesday, 2-3 meeting hosted by OMB for bi-cameral Congressional meeting to review
legislation that has been introduced who should participate on behalf of NOAA
(Spring/NMFS(Reisner)/NOS (W esterholm and Kennedy)
Formal request needed through NIC for chemical components of dispersants, assistance
from GC if needed (Miller/Lopez)
Dispersant Monitoring plan should include efficacy of dispersant on oil, and
biological/ecological impacts (Gallagher to follow-up with Henry/Lehmann)
Status of request for Gordon Gunther (Gallagher)
LA Barrier Island dredge and fill proposal (follow-up call on Monday 10 am Croom and
Doley to participate)
Hurricane outlook interactions with oil spill talking points and Tuesday 8am briefing
(NW S)
Booms
Coral reefs & oil
Seafood safety
Loop current
Mussel Watch
NOS activities
sheets)

th
Rachel Wilhelm / 202-657-9816.
Charlie Henry (206-849-9928) - Robert
Steve Lehman (617-877-2806) - Robert
Jordan Stout (206-321-3320) - Houma
John Tarpley (206-526-6338) - Houma
Ruth Yender (206-89-9926) - Mobile
Beth Dieveney
phone: 202 482 1281
cell:
240 328 4812
fax:
202 482 4116
Received(Date):
Mon, 17 May 2010 12:50:22 +0100
From:
Subject: BP Gulf of Mexico Update: May 16
On Sunday, an important step was reached in containing and reducing the amount of oil being released
into the Gulf of Mexico.
Overnight the riser insertion tube tool was successfully tested and inserted into the leaking riser, capturing
some oil and gas. Although the test was temporarily halted when the tube was dislodged, we have since
re-inserted the tool and are currently processing oil and gas onboard the Discoverer Enterprise drill ship
five thousand feet above on the waters surface. The natural gas is being burned through a flare system
on the ship and the oil will be shipped to shore and processed. We will continue to optimize the
containment system over time.
Plans to stop the flow of oil in the blowout preventer continue and we hope to move forward with these
options in the next 7-10 days.
In addition, we have been authorized by the US Coast Guard and the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency to use subsea dispersants at the source of the leak. Upon thorough evaluation, the chemical has
been found to be effective in breaking up the oil and reducing the amount of oil on the surface.
Work on the second relief well began today on the Development Driller II and progress continues to be
made on the first relief well.
Other tactics to remove oil from the water surface using booming, skimming, and controlled burn
operations are ongoing as favorable weather permits.
Incident Update :
x
More than 1.7 million feet of boom (barrier) has been deployed to contain the spill.
x
To date, the oil spill response team has recovered 6.3 million gallons of oil-water mix.
x
More than 656 total response vessels are being used including skimmers, tugs, barges and recovery
vessels.
x
Approximately 19,000 personnel are responding overall.
x
17 staging areas are in place and ready to protect sensitive shorelines along Louisiana, Mississippi,
Alabama, and Florida coastline.
Karen St John
BP America
(202) 457-6594
(202) 351-1399 (cell)
[email protected]
Received(Date):
Mon, 17 May 2010 10:49:23 -0400
From:
Subject: May 17 NOAA Deepwater Call Actions
To:
deepwater <[email protected]>
Monday, May 17, 2010
b6
Call Guidelines:
Action Items
Develop talking points for issue of Pelican cruise and scientific statements asserted in press
(Kenney/McLean)
Line Office assess participation in 3 technical working groups that are stood up by the
Interagency Solutions group (LO leadership - see below for details on working groups and
ORR identified technical participants)
Concerted effort to reach out to the academic community; elevate the science that is
informing the actions in a more open and transparent way; work with other agencies
through NIC process to engage/reach out to scientists. Small team to brainstorm how to
engage other agencies and academic community. (Use Interagency Coordinating
Committee for Oil Spill Research (under OPA) and UNH; involve OSTP, NIST, USGS,
Chu, Holdren). Develop proposal for review today. (Murawski/Conner, others as
appropriate)
Reconsider fisheries closure in light of data provided from Pelican cruise. Also conducting
random dock-side sampling to ensure seafood safety. (Oliver/Murawksi/NMFS)
Expedited review of Loop 101 and Talking Points internal by 0930
Expedited review of Long-Term Transport of Oil and Talking Points internal by 1100
Return to discussion regarding how much dispersant is too much (issue for Science
Summit)
Follow-up on request for BP video (Conner to follow-up with Steve Lehmann and
determine next steps, Spring to follow-up with DHS)
Significant Issues to Note
Interagency Solutions W orking Group ADML Allen established this group to have better
access to Federal agency technical expertise. Majority of issues brought to this group are NOAA
related issues.
Today, they Establish 3 work teams
Discharge Rate technical team potential participants: Dr. Bill Lehr, OAR (Dr. Ned
Cokelet, PMEL)
Loop current team potential participants: Dr. Jerry Galt, Dr. Rich Patchen
(Environmental Assessment Group has also taken this issue on)
Subsea Dispersant Characteristics potential participants: Dr. CJ Beegle-Krausen, Dr.
Alan Mearns
Broader NOAA participation propose that OAR join the team of NOAA staff at the NIC; this
individual would sit at the NIC
Booms
Coral reefs & oil
Seafood safety
Loop current
Mussel Watch
NOS activities
sheets)

th
th
Replacement: Rachel Wilhelm arrives Sat., May 15
/ 202-657-9816.
Charlie Henry (206-849-9928) Robert
Frank Csulak - Houma
Ruth Yender (206-89-9926) Mobile
John Whitney - Mobile
LTJG Josh Slater Venice, LA
Mark Miller - NIC
Beth Dieveney
phone: 202 482 1281
cell:
240 328 4812
fax:
202 482 4116
Received(Date):
Mon, 17 May 2010 13:04:15 -0400
From:
Justin Kenney <[email protected]>
Subject: Lubchenco statement on R/V Pelican
To:
_NOAA HQ leadership <[email protected]>,"Deepwater Staff
([email protected])" <[email protected]>,David Kennedy
<[email protected]>,"[email protected]" <[email protected]>
image001.png
In response to media reports about a NOAA-funded research cruise on the R/V Pelican, Dr. Jane
Lubchenco, NOAA administrator, issued the following statement:
"Media reports related to the research work conducted aboard the R/V Pelican included
information that was misleading, premature and, in some cases, inaccurate. Yesterday the
independent scientists clarified three important points:
1. No definitive conclusions have been reached by this research team about the composition of
the undersea layers they discovered. Characterization of these layers will require analysis of
samples and calibration of key instruments. The hypothesis that the layers consist of oil remains
to be verified.
2. W hile oxygen levels detected in the layers were somewhat below normal, they are not low
enough to be a source of concern at this time.
3. Although their initial interest in searching for subsurface oil was motivated by consideration
of subsurface use of dispersants, there is no information to connect use of dispersants to the
subsurface layers they discovered.
NOAA congratulates the Pelican scientists and crew for repurposing their previously scheduled
mission to gather information about possible impacts of the BP oil spill. W e eagerly await results
from their analyses and share with them the goal of disseminating accurate information
NOAA continues to work closely with EPA and the federal response team to monitor the
presence of oil and the use of surface and sub-surface dispersants. As we have emphasized,
dispersants are not a silver bullet. They are used to move us towards the lesser of two
environmental outcomes. Until the flow of oil is stemmed, we must take every responsible action
to reduce the im pact of the oil.
Justin Kenney
NOAA Director of Communications & External Affairs
Office: 202-482-6090
Cell: 202-821-6310
http://www.noaa.gov/socialmedia/
Document ID: 0.7.19.1809.1
Received(Date):
Mon, 17 May 2010 16:19:03 -0400
From:
Linda belton <[email protected]>
Subject: FW: Tueday pre-brief call at 9:05
To:
[email protected], 'John Gray' <[email protected]>,'Monica Medina'
<[email protected]>,'Sally Yozell' <[email protected]>,'Amanda Hallberg Greenwell'
<[email protected]>,'Margaret Spring' <[email protected]>
Cc:
'Justin kenney' <[email protected]>
Here are the notes from this mornings Governors call and the agenda for Tuesdays call.
Sally, would you be able to lead participate in this weeks calls? If not, dwh.staff,
please advise on suggested NOAA principal.
It would be great if David Kennedy or Dave W esterholm (or both) could join again to
discuss the loop current.
During WH-IGA 10:00am call, it has been suggested that because of the recent
reports on the current, that there be another briefing to the Atlantic coast Governors this
week.
Notes and action items from todays Governors call:
Administrator Jackson discussed the recent reports by scientists of giant dispersal
plumes of subsea oil. The Administrator said we are in the process now of balancing that
academic science with real world facts. W e are tracking the scientists data closely, and trying to
verify their conclusions. It may be 1-2 weeks before we know the answers, but we are fast-
tracking our analysis. NOAA and EPA are coordinating. Action: Updates between now and
when the final analysis is completed.
Adm. Neffenger gave the regular report on the leak stabilization efforts. This will
continue to be an important update over the next few days.
Adm. Landry said weather conditions will allow burns, skimming and dispersants
application over the next few days. Action: updates on the success of these actions.
Adm. Landry discussed the crab pot/dip stick testing of sub-surface oil. Given the
weather, we should be able to conduct this testing. Action: update on the success of the
sampling efforts and the findings.
Adm. Landry mentioned that we have changed our visible imprint on the beaches, i.e.,
not using haz mat suits unless it is called for. Action: Communicate this information to Gov.
Riley.

Adm. Landry mentioned that boom deployment has continued, including westward as
requested by Gov. Jindal. (Jindal did not raise the issue of more boom today for the first time.
Is he now satisfied?)
Loop Current Adm. Landry/NOAA discussed the loop current. Action: We need
to continue to watch this closely, and keep Governors apprised. (There is a request from
WH IGA to update the Atlantic Coast Governors )
Sobeck said wildlife crews were not able to get out much over the weekend. They
should be able to get out in the coming days. Action: continued update on their findings.
Dept. of Labor/OSHA reported on workforce issues, worker training, and translation.
Action: can we send the Governors written materials on the information presented on the call?
Tuesday, May 18 Call with Governors
HOST Pi
Speakers
Please lim it participation in the pre-conference to speakers and essential staff.
DRAFT AGENDA
EPA Update EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson (or Dep Admin Bob Perciasepe)
o Discussed the recent reports by scientists of giant dispersal plumes of subsea oil. The
Administrator said we are in the process now of balancing that academic science with real world
facts. We are tracking the scientists data closely, and trying to verify their conclusions. It may
be 1-2 weeks before we know the answers, but we are fast-tracking our analysis. NOAA and
EPA are coordinating. Action: Updates between now and when the final analysis is completed.
Observations and Trajectory- NOAA
o Loop Current There was a lot of discussion by Landry/NOAA about the loop current.
Action: We need to continue to watch this closely, and keep Governors apprised. (WH-IGA
would like to brief the Atlantic Coast Governors with an update this week)
Situation and Leak Stabilization Update Adm Landry and Adm Watson
Operations Report Adm Landry Landry and Adm Watson, UAC
o Landry said weather conditions will allow burns, skimming and dispersants application over
the next few days. Action: updates on the success.
o Landry discussed the crab pot/dip stick testing of sub-surface oil. Given the weather, we
should be able to conduct this testing. Action: update on the success of the sampling efforts and
the findings.
o Landry mentioned that we have changed our visible imprint on the beaches, i.e., not using
haz mat suits unless it is called for. Action: Communicate this information to Gov. Riley.
o Landry mentioned that boom deployment has continued, including westward as requested
by Gov. Jindal. (Jindal did not raise the issue of more boom today for the first time. Is he now
satisfied?)
o Wildlife crews were not able to get out much over the weekend. They should be able to get
out in the coming days. Action: continued update on their findings.
Fisheries Closures and Seafood Safety (if there is an update) NOAA
Next call 9:15 a.m. EDT (8:15 CDT) Monday, May 18, 2010
Received(Date):
Tue, 18 May 2010 14:20:02 +0100
From:
Please let me know if you have any questions. Karen (contact details at the end)
05/17/2010 9:00pm EDT
1.
2.
3.
Onshore to protect the shoreline and keep the public informed.
Highlights
x
x
Riser Insertion Tube successfully deployed to collect oil at the primary leak.
x
Drilling begins on second relief well.
x
BP makes additional $70 million available to states to support tourism.
x
Subsea dispersant application resumed, 7,500 gallons injected on Sunday.
x
x
Four new claims centers open More than $11 million in claims paid.
Offshore Sea Floor
BPs priority is to reduce and stop the flow of oil subsea and minimize environmental impacts. 8 Remote-
Operated Vehicles continue subsea work on the following operations:
1. Riser Insertion Tube The riser insertion tool was successfully placed into the leaking riser and
the tube is capturing some of the oil and gas. This remains a new technology and both its
continued operation and its effectiveness in capturing the oil and gas remain uncertain.
x
Equipment has been fabricated and moved to location near the blowout preventer in order to work
on killing the well from the top. Manifold and bypass lines are in place to provide access to valves on the
BOP. Through these valves, engineers will attempt first to pump heavy fluids and cement directly
downhole to kill the well.
x
An additional option to control pressure is to inject a junk shot of shredded fibrous material into the
BOP through these lines. The material will travel up the BOP and clog the flow of the well. Once the
pressure is controlled, heavy fluids and cement can then be pumped down the well to kill it.
x
Diagnostics are ongoing. Surveys have been conducted to determine the status of internal
components and pressures inside the blowout preventer.
3. Dispersant injection at the sea floor Application of dispersant directly at the leak site on the sea
floor resumed on Sunday. 7,500 gallons were applied using Remote Operated Vehicles (ROVs).
The dispersant acts by separating the oil into small droplets that can break down more easily
through natural processes before it reaches the surface. Sonar testing and aerial photographs
show encouraging results. The additional subsea application is subject to ongoing testing protocols
developed with the Environmental Protection Agency and other federal and state agencies.
4. Drilling relief wells On Sunday, Transoceans drillship,
Development Driller II, began drilling the
second relief well. Like the first relief well, this one is approximately one-half mile from the Macondo
well and will attempt to intercept the existing wellbore at approximately 18,000 feet below seal
level. The first relief well was spudded by Transocean
Development Driller III on Sunday, May 2,
in a water depth of roughly 5,000 feet. This well has been drilled to 9,000 feet below sea level. It
has been cased and cemented to that depth. Testing of the BOP is continuing and drilling should
resume again within a couple of days. It is estimated the total drilling process will take at least 90
days. Once that is accomplished, and the original well has been penetrated, heavy fluids and
cement can be pumped downhole to kill the well.
x
A containment dome, called a top hat, has been deployed to the sea floor and is ready to be placed
over the main leak, if needed. It is designed with injection ports that can accommodate anti-freeze in
order to mitigate the formation of large volumes of frozen hydrates.
x
It is important to note that this technology has never been used at this water depth. Significant
x
andrecovery boats. 32 of the boats are Oil Spill Response Vessels that are designed to separate the oil
from water. Approximately 158,370 barrels of oil-water mix (6.65 million gallons) have been recovered
and treated.
x
including an additional 20,000 applied on Sunday. The dispersant is a biodegradable chemical that works
like soap by separating the oil into small droplets that can be more easily broken down by natural
processes. An additional 390,000 gallons are available for deployment.
x
In-Situ Burning The Unified Command has teams in place prepared to continue in-situ burning,
depending on the weather. The in-situ burning is conducted on the surface using special fire-boom that
collects surface hydrocarbons which are then burned off.
x
BP Announces $70 million in Tourism Grants to States On Monday, BP CEO Tony Hayward
announced the company will make an additional $70 million available to Gulf Coast states to promote
tourism. The company will give $25 million to Florida and $15 million each to Alabama, Mississippi and
Louisiana. The grants are in response to governors concerns that the tourism industry is being
impacted. It will be used to promote area tourism and to provide accurate information about beach
impacts. This money is in addition to the $100 million block grants for accelerated implementation of Area
Contingency Plans announced on May 4. It is also supplemental to BPs private claims process, which
remains unchanged.
x
$25 Million Block Grants to 4 States On May 4, BP announced it would provide Louisiana,
Florida, Mississippi and Alabama $25 million each to accelerate implementation of the States approved
Area Contingency Plans. The Contingency Plans address removal of a worst case spill and are designed
to mitigate or prevent a substantial threat to sensitive areas. The money will enable local businesses to
immediately support clean-up and recovery efforts. The grant is supplemental to BPs private claims
process, which remains unchanged.
x
additional 3,500,000 feet of boom. Boom is now in place or staged to protect nearly all Tier 1 shoreline
in each of the four states. Some teams are starting to work on Tier 2 areas.
3,962 applications have been approved and approximately
x
1,330 vessels are active and being paid. Participating vessels are being organized into 25-boat task force
teams to help with a variety of clean-up activities, including transporting supplies, performing wildlife
rescue, and towing and deploying booms. To qualify for the program, operators need to meet several key
requirements, including attending a four-hour hazardous waste training session, passing a dockside
examination by the U.S. Coast Guard, and meeting crewing requirements based on the size of the vessel
provided. The contact number for people interested in registering for the program is (281) 366-5511.
Information about training can be found on the incident website at www.deepwaterhorizonresponse.com
under volunteers. For additional information about training call (866) 905-4492.
x
vessel operation for laying boom. Information about training can be found on the incident website at
x
Informing Community Leaders The Unified Command continues to hold twice-daily
x
Wildlife Activities 3 additional reports of impacted wildlife were received, bringing the total to 35.
Wildlife rehabilitation sites are located in Venice, LA and Mobile, AL.
x
Vietnamese and Spanish translators are in some offices. 15,600 claims have been filed and
approximately 2,700 of them have been paid. More than $11 million has been paid out an increase of
$2 million since Saturday most of which is for loss of income or wages in commercial fishing. The
contact number for claims is (800) 440-0858. Claims office locations are listed below.
Louisiana
Sites:
St. Mary Staging Area
Amelia Staging Area
Cut Off Claims Office
Tarpon Heights Shopping Center
Unit 2
16263 E. Main Street
Cut Off, LA 70345
3811 LA 1
303 Timber Creek
Hammond, LA 70404
1553 Hwy 15
1345 Bayou Rd
41093 Hwy LA 23
x
Community Outreach Centers now open in 8 parishes.
x
New Staging Area opened at St. Mary.
x
New Claims Office for Lafourche Parish opened at Cut Off.
x
x
Town hall meeting in Belle Chasse.
x
Mississippi
Sites:
Biloxi, MS 39532
5912 Old Mobile Hwy
Suite 4
x
Community outreach centers are now open in all three coastal counties.
x
deployment.
Alabama Sites:
Bayou
LaBatre
Claims
Office
290 N.
Wintzell
Avenue
Bayou
LaBatre,
AL 36509
Foley Claims Office
Suite 104
Foley, AL 36535
Gulf Shores / Orange Beach Claims Office
24039 Perdido Beach Blvd
Suite 1
Orange Beach, AL 36561
x
Community Outreach Centers now open in 2 counties.
x
New Claims Office for Baldwin County opened at Orange Beach.
x
Staffing claims centers with adjusters to process claims, looking at opening additional claims offices.
Florida Sites:
St. Joe Staging Area
St. Marks Staging Area
Ft. Walton
Claims
Office
(open
Saturday)
348 SW
Miracle
Strip Pkwy
Suite 13
Fort
Walton
Beach, FL
32548
Unit B-9
Panama City Claims Office
7938 Front Beach Road
Panama City Beach, FL 32408
3960 Navy Boulevard
Suite 16-17
Pensacola, FL 32507
x
Community Outreach Centers are now open in 7 counties.
x
New Staging Areas at St. Joe and St. Marks.
x
New Claims Office for Bay County opened at Panama City Beach.
x
Holding town hall meetings with vessel owners and coordinating training for Vessels of Opportunity
volunteers.
x
Working with counties to review Area Contingency Plans and identify booming and beach clean up
priorities.
Contact Information
(866) 448-5816
Team
(866) 557-1401

(866) 448-5816
(281) 366-5511
suggestions
(281) 366-5511
with response

(866) 905-4492 or (866) 647-
and to sign up\
2338
Investor Relations
(281) 366-3123
Claims
Joint Information Center Robert, LA Media and information center
(800) 440-0858
(985) 902-5231 or (985) 902-
Joint Information Center Mobile, AL Media and information center
(251) 445-8965
Transocean Hotline
(832) 587-8554
MI Swaco Hotline
(888) 318-6765
(281) 366-5578
5240
Karen St John
BP America
(202) 457-6594
(202) 351-1399 (cell)
[email protected]
Received(Date):
Tue, 18 May 2010 11:53:12 -0400
From:
[email protected]
To:
[email protected]
task list-5-18-10.xlsx
Tuesday, May 18, 2010; 0800
b6
Call Guidelines:
Additional Attachments
Task list record of actions from 0800 Daily NOAA calls as of 5/18 (this is for reference only)
Action Items
Follow-up on research platforms that could be deployed and sampling plan from all assets (Murawski
and team, report in advance of afternoon testimony)
Expert briefing for Loop Current (Kenney)
Histogram by day for turtle strandings (NMFS)
Request for talking points for turtle strandings (NMFS)
Precautionary closure of fisheries due to potential of oil in the loop current (NMFS)
Assign technical point for OMB, DOC, FDA group regarding seafood safety; Steve Wilson and Tim
Hansen can serve this role.
Need to have talking points and alert Cuba and Mexico regarding fishe
ry closure and potential of oil in loop current (Turner)
Alert W H of fishery closure change (Sarri)
Talking points on loop current, fishery closure, international, states what we are doing to address the
potential that oil is in the loop current (Murawski, Mclean, Turner to send to Kenney by 10am)
Documents cleared through WH clearance process for 5/11/10 (currently, this list is incomplete but will be
updated on a daily basis)
B o o m s
C oral reefs & oil
M arine m am m als and sea turtles
Fish stocks in the G ulf of M exico Seafood safety
Im pact of crude oil on seafood Natural Resources Dam age Assessm ent
Dispersants (O R&R sheet)
O il w eathering/types
Loop current
M ussel W atch
N O S activities
OR&R Response Outreach http://response.restoration.noaa.gov/deepwaterhorizon (cleared fact sheets)

NOAA ICC Sitreps - https://www.homelandsecurity.noaa.gov/icc_sitreps.html
David Miller / 202-329-4030 (LA) [email protected] (through Monday, May 17th)
Monica Allen (NOAA Fisheries Communications) is there this week (5/15-20). Her cell # is 202/379-6693.
Replacement: Rachel Wilhelm arrives Sat., May 15th / 202-657-9816.NOAA Scientific Scientist
Coordination on site (as of 5/17/10) Charlie Henry (206-849-9928) Robert, LA
LCDR Demian Bailey (206-518-1941) - Robert, LA
Ed Levine (206-849-9941) - Houma, LA
Jordon Stout (206-321-3320) - Houma, LA
Frank Csulak (732-371-1005) - Houma, LA Ruth Yender (206-849-9926) Mobile, AL
LCDR Liz Jones (206-849-9918) - Mobile, AL John Whitney (907-440-8109)- Mobile, AL Brad Benggio
(206-849-9923) - St. Petersburg, FL LTJG Josh Slater (206-462-0710) Mobile, AL Mark Miller (206-713-
0640) - NIC, Washington DC
TASK
litigation hold on all documenets
DEADLINE
on-going
LEAD
ALL
talking points/on-pager Impacts to marine mammals
and turtles
4/27/2010 NMFS
Fisheries report and economic statistics
4/28/2010 James
Role, Schedule document
4/29/2010 Dieveney
Email Distribution List
4/29/2010 Love
fishery closure disaster FAQs (can fishermen receive
compensation near real-time?)
4/29/2010 NMFS
Request for economic impacts to fisheries
4/29/2010
fisheries issues white paper as relates to spill
4/29/2010 NMFS through ICC
Develop a long-term staffing plan
4/30/2010 Moore
White House White paper - OCS and OSLTF
4/30/2010 Lukens, Bavishi, Holst
Develop plan for ICC to be 24 hrs
4/30/2010 Moore
Use of Satellite Imagery
4/30/2010 Holst
oil spill impacts, hurricances, and other weather
systems
4/30/2010 NWS
provide trajectory information to DOT
4/30/2010 ICC
List of NMAO vessels in area
4/30/2010 Taggert
Impacts to NOAA equipment (tide guages, etc)
4/30/2010 Moore
Unified Command locations
4/30/2010 Holst
Map of NOAA facilities in area
4/30/2010 Taggart
contact info to send new ideas/technologies
4/30/2010 ORR
Worst Case Scenario briefing for Deputies
5/1/2010 Conner, Helton
assessment of historical weather in Gulf
5/1/2010 NWS
Prioritized list of Congressional of overflights
5/1/2010 Gray, Bagley
policy decision -economic implications for WH
5/1/2010 Doremus
Winer to serve as POC for NGO engagement
5/1/2010 Winer
Resources at Risk and accompanying FAQs about roles
responsibiliites, and what we are actually doing
5/1/2010 NMFS
follow-up with UNH science contacts, particularly in
relation to dispersants
5/1/2010 kennedy request
one-pager biological impact from sheen and
dispersants
5/2/2010 Holst
NOAA role in oil spills
5/3/2010 Holst
Turtle talking points
5/3/2010 NMFS
legal record of use of dispersant at source
5/3/2010 ORR
work force mgt explore how to engage support of
other agencies, states, etc
5/3/2010 Taggart
Contingency Plan for Gordon Gunther
5/3/2010 OMAO
Official Tasking for vessel allocation
5/4/2010 Conner
Loop Current Tps
5/4/2010 ORR Seattle
Verify NIST engaged in specimen collection
5/4/2010 ORR
Document ID: 0.7.19.1728.1
understanding of safety of environment
5/4/2010 Broglie
Safety of staff working on the ground
5/4/2010 Nyr B
catch & release in closed area tps
5/4/2010 NMFS
recreational & commercial fishing data
5/4/2010 James, Plummer
NASA to provide high spectral imaging
5/4/2010 Glackin
Legal questions for response to Governors
5/4/2010 Schiffer, GC
LO engagement training fishermen
5/4/2010 PCO
loop current factsheet
5/5/2010 ORR Seattle
High level worst case tps
5/5/2010 Holst
worst case web-ex meeting
5/5/2010 Conner
partner with google on product
on-going
Klimavicz, Akamine
NMFS updated info available for Govs. Calls
5/6/2010 NMFS, Rapp
best case scenario
5/6/2010 Conner
Request from DOI for assistance in chain of custody,
storage procedures, laboratories that can do anaylysis,
etc.
5/6/2010 NIST/Pedro Espina
Review EPA Dispersant Q&A
5/7/2010 Holst, ORR
info on how volunteers can get involved
5/7/2010 Madsen
mechanism for small grants to academics
5/7/2010
Briefing for Francis Beinecke, CEO NRDC
5/7/2010 Winer
industry validator list for efforts in Gulf for Adm Allen
phone call on 4/9
Document ID: 0.7.19.1728.1
5/8/2010 Winer
Q&A on Sea Food Safety - NOAA/FDA authorities, roles,
on-ground coordination, NMFS
5/9/2010 NMFS
Assess NOAA to serve as lead for SCATs
5/9/2010 Conner
Compacted oil bricks collected at Dauphin Island, what
NOAA scientist received, what info is known
5/9/2010 Conner
NOAA all hands message on gulf
5/9/2010 Kenney
Rep. Cassidy requested info on testing/monitoring of
the impacted fisheries areas and how it is determined
what areas should be closed (or re-opened) and how
that information is relayed with the public.
5/9/2010 OLA/NMFS
analysis of "red-tide" samples
5/9/2010 ORR
NOAA Research Council oil and science coordination
across NOAA; outcome actions for team and Larry
Robinson
5/9/2010 Murawski
Gov. LA request to dredge and fill for keeping oil off-
shore
5/9/2010 Bavishi
follow-up on cooperative MOU and BP science sharing,
and ability for contract academic scientist to share data
5/10/2010 Schiffer, GC
Identify NOAA Scientist to serve as lead for our
scientific activities and liaison for the academic
community
5/10/2010 Kennedy/Glackin/ORR
Follow up with MS and AL regarding fisheries closure.
NMFS has call today with State Directors
5/10/2010 NMFS
subject matter expert briefings
5/10/2010 Comms with JIC
Ensure we are adequately ramping up our capacity to
analyze seafood safety issues
5/10/2010 Murawski/Thompson
Review DOS Embassy cable
5/10/2010 DWH, ORR
Document ID: 0.7.19.1728.1
OMB request that NOAA serve as Federal lead for
Deepwater Horizon consolidated website
Sarri to follow-up with OMB,
5/11/2010
Klimavicz
Provide guidance to staff regarding tracking hours,
expenses, etc in relation to this event
5/11/2010 Gallagher/all staff
NOAA SSC /RRT efforts to host workshop on
dispersants, region-wide assessment, impacts, long-
term fate, etc.
5/11/2010 conner
Seafood Sampling plan details for DOC
5/11/2010 NMFS
Fisheries Disaster Declaration
Apparently the
Governor sent a letter to Sec. Locke on April 30 seeking
a disaster declaration for MS fisheries due to the leak.
They have not heard anything about their request and
asked for a status update.
5/11/2010 NMFS
Process for forwarding funding requests to Unified
Command or other leads
5/12/2010 ORR/Gallagher
Move proposals for IOOS HFR and second flight of P-3
through approval process
5/12/2010 ORR/OAR/Gallagher
Prepare request to Mary Landry regarding NOAAs
research/scientific requests, ceiling of requests, and
streamlined process for making requests
5/12/2010 ORR/Gallagher
Guidance for staff on congressional town halls,
local/regional meetings with congress
ensure
consistent messaging
5/12/2010 Gray, Bagley
Request rough estimate for number of NOAA staff in
the region, distinct from those on TDY
5/13/2010 Taggart
Follow-up today for science coordination across NOAA
and engagement/coordination with Navy
5/13/2010
Murawksi as lead, Zdenka,others
Request for time on aircraft for NMFS enforcement
5/13/2010 Oliver/Kenul
Follow-up regarding interview scheduled for today in
Houma
Media protocol
5/13/2010 Kenney/Westerholm/Conner
work through Office of
Communications and External Affairs on all media
requests.
External constituent engagement protocol
5/13/2010 All staff
work
through appropriate offices: Office of Communication
and External Affairs and o Office of Legislative and
Intergovernmental Affairs
Document ID: 0.7.19.1728.1
5/13/2010 All staff
When you meet with external groups, please send a
brief report out of the meeting and interests of the
public (all)
5/13/2010 All staff
Barrier Island fill-in follow-up today, ensure Habitat
Office is engaged; host call today with NOAA HQ and
staff ASAP today (5/13)
5/13/2010 Yozell
Request for data on normal numbers of turtle and
dolphin strandings/deaths for the longest historical
data
5/13/2010 NMFS
Follow-up on flow-rate estimates
5/14/2010 Murawski and team
NOAA needs to step out in a stronger way regarding
our science and examining the whole ecosystem; air
quality and water quality.
5/14/2010
Utilize Sea Grant more effectively to serve as our
liaison for engaging with the community
McLean, Winer, Kennedy,
5/14/2010
Murawski
Engage external scientific community to validate
videos from BP
5/14/2010 Beaverson
ADML Landry request 30-day ship time, use of the
Gordon Gunther
5/15/2010 Kenul/westerholm
Overview of sampling that is not being done, broad
issues related to understanding where the oil is and
what its impact is (all assets, not exclusive to NOAA
assets) Requested to send this to the NIC
5/15/2010 Murawksi and team
Clear Daily report on status of marine mammals and
turtles
5/15/2010 ORR/ICC
Create daily chart showing mortality in relation to: #of
total dead turtles, # sent for necropsies, # necropsies
completed, and # dead due to oil.
Assess capacity to conduct work needed
5/15/2010 NMFS
request to
review this and if more people are needed
5/15/2010 NMFS/ORR
develop timeline of seafood safety testing in advance
of Monday Meeting/call at WH
5/15/2010 NMFS
Ensure routine updates on 0800 calls on key issues
NOAA is working on
5/15/2010 Dieveney/Kennedy
Ensure clear lines of communication and updates
between NOAA and NIC
5/15/2010 Dieveney/Westerholm/Miller
Reconstruct process of how NOAA has been engaged
with developing/communicating release rate
Document ID: 0.7.19.1728.1
5/15/2010 ORR-Seattle
Contact sheet for where to refer constituents to for
key information
5/15/2010 Dieveney/Winer team
Strategies to communicate our issues, particularly
NMFS closures to public
5/15/2010 Sutter/Winer
Assign lead technical expert for LA barrier island issue
5/15/2010 Yozell
Check in on monitoring plan regarding use of sub-sea
dispersants
5/15/2010 Westerholm/Henry
Develop product for what our NERR and NM Sanctuary
sites are seeing
5/15/2010 NOS
Follow-up on release of chemical contents of
dispersants for seafood safety testing needs
5/15/2010 Kennedy/Westerholm
Identify mechanism to follow-up with attendees at
community meetings
5/15/2010 McLean/Winer/Bamford/Gray
Follow-up on NOAA representation at NIC and if Mark
Miller and Ralph Lopez need additional support
5/16/2010 Miller with leadership
Communication plan for loop current, ensure have
same story for all constituents. Talking points for
leadership
5/16/2010 Kenney
Move loop current one-pager through clearance ASAP
5/16/2010
clearance
Murawski/Dieveney/leadership
Change loop current map: oil portion stippled to
indicate that the oil is not uniform across the spill,
show loop current as a somewhat more varied flow
5/16/2010 Haddad
Tuesday, 2-3 meeting hosted by OMB for bi-cameral
Congressional meeting to review legislation that has
been introduced
who should participate on behalf of
NOAA
5/16/2010 Gray
Formal request needed through NIC for chemical
components of dispersants, assistance from GC if
needed
5/16/2010 Tim Gallagher
Dispersant Monitoring plan should include efficacy of
dispersant on oil, and biological/ecological impacts
5/16/2010 Tim Gallagher
Hurricane outlook interactions with oil spill talking
points and Tuesday 8am briefing
5/16/2010 NWS
Develop talking points for issue of Pelican cruise and
scientific statements asserted in press
5/17/2010 Kenney/McLean
Line Office assess participation in 3 technical working
groups that are stood up by the Interagency Solutions
group
Document ID: 0.7.19.1728.1
5/17/2010 LO Leadership
Develop proposal for engaging academic community
(for review today)
Murawski/Sandifer/Haddad,
5/17/2010
others
Reconsider fisheries closure in light of data provided
from Pelican cruise. Also conducting random dock-side
sampling to ensure seafood safety.
5/17/2010 NMFS
Expedited review of Loop 101 and Talking Points
internal by 0930
5/17/2010 HQ clearance
Expedited review of Long-Term Transport of Oil and
Talking Points
internal by 1100
5/17/2010 HQ clearance
Follow-up on research platforms that could be
deployed and sampling plan from all assets
5/18/2010 Murawski/McLean
Expert briefing for Loop Current
5/18/2010 Kenney
Histogram by day for turtle strandings
5/18/2010 NMFS
Request for talking points for turtle strandings
5/18/2010 NMFS
Precautionary closure of fisheries due to potential of
oil in the loop current
5/18/2010 NMFS
Assign technical point for OMB, DOC, FDA group
regarding seafood safety; .
5/18/2010 NMFS
Need to have talking points and alert Cuba and Mexico
regarding fishery closure and potential of oil in loop
current
5/18/2010
Alert WH of fishery closure change
5/18/2010 Sarri
Talking points on loop current, fishery closure,
international, states
what we are doing to address
the potential that oil is in the loop current
Document ID: 0.7.19.1728.1
5/18/2010 DWH Team with experts
Status
Outcome
On-going
Completed
Completed
Completed
Completed
questions from WH
Completed
Completed
Submitted through JIC process, not a NOAA product
Completed
Completed
Completed
briefing to take place on 5/18
Completed
http://www.charts.noaa.gov/ENCs/?M D
Completed
map is now created periodically showing all NOAA assets in the region
Completed
Completed
Completed
Have one-pager with info for use
Completed
one-pager developed and sent for clearance on 5/17
Completed
Completed
being coordinated through Unified Command
On-going
External Affairs team in place to support
Completed
cleared and posted on-line
request to engage UNH through the science summit proposal and
Completed
engaging academic scientists
Completed
complete and posted on-line
Completed
Completed
On-going
requested by GC
Completed
BP not requesting
Completed
BP not requesting
Completed
5/7 version completed and available for use internally
need follow-up
what is NIST concern?
working on IPA
Document ID: 0.7.19.1728.1
On-going
On-going
Birnea to travel 5/10 to review situation and develop a plan
Completed
Completed
vendor AIRINC could also serve this role
Completed
Completed
info sent to John Rapp for use
Completed
completed, needs to be posted on-line
Completed
OBE
Dr. L to call google colleagues to follow up
On-going
www.google.com/crisisresponse/oilspill
On-going
will be built into every days tps
Experience tells me that the response would go on for 45-60 more
Completed
days, but the oil will all be beached or dispersed within about 30
Completed
Need to have final Q&A
Pedro to close loop with NOAA and DOI
On the guidance for volunteer issue, Caren and I are working with BP's
volunteer coordination program coordinators to establish a protocol
for providing information to BP about organizations that have
volunteer resources and organizations in the Gulf that are capable of
accepting volunteers. Based on my discussions, BP should be ready to
discuss these protocols by Wednesday/Thursday, and we are planning
a call with BP's volunteer coordinators and the external affairs working
group organized by CEQ. In addition, the Fish and Wildlife Service and
NOAA are working together to take the various lists of entities offering
volunteers and organizations in the Gulf seeking volunteers and create
a working document. After we determine the best way to interface
with BP, we will likely send the document to JIC and get approval to
Completed
share it with BP.
there is a mechanism in place (LA Sea Grant), for which funds if
available could always be added, other regional Sea Grants following
suit. Sea Grant should be included in the suite of granting mechanisms
On-going
engaged, but not be sole route
To follow-up with Michele Finn to identify SSC or other to brief
list sent to Justin on Sat. No known outcomes from Adm Allen phone
Completed
Document ID: 0.7.19.1728.1
call
Determine that we could coordinate Federal participation on SCAT (as
Completed
of 5/10/10: 4 out of Houma; 5 out of Mobile)
analysis shows this is from Mississippi 252; likely sourced from initial
Completed
blast
completed
sent with notice of confirmation of AS Dr. Larry Robinson
Completed
Talking points cleared and delivered
Analysis being done 5/10 by LUMCON, should have information today
activities on-going to engage scientific community across NOAA and
Completed
external partners
call taking place on 5/12 (EPA, NOAA, DOI)
Gary Matlock - intra-agency; Murawski - interagency; Sandifer -
completed
academic liaison
Completed/but
continued engagement
needed
NMFS has call today with State Directors
On-going
Disperants, Hurricanes, Seafood Safety, etc.
NMFS text has been provided regarding fish closures and seafood
Completed
Document ID: 0.7.19.1728.1
safety
contact made to DOC CFO to take action to follow-up with OMB to
make a formal request of Randy Lyon,
[email protected], and ask about a possible DOC
leadership role perhaps through multi-agency coordination with SBA to
explore further what is required for physical one-stop locations.
Completed
guidance distributed on 5/12
Charlie Henry is trying to push forward with this using BP funding. He
requested that Dave Kennedy support the concept to BP while he is in
Louisiana. We should also start to support the idea in NRT calls and
in progress
discussions with EPA.
draft developed
Meeting with OMB, DOC, and FDA Monday, 5/17
Completed
FTEs in 5 regional states: 1400; within 20 miles of coastline: ~750
Completed
activities on-going
Completed
interview was canceled
Contact: Justin Kenney ([email protected]), Scott Smullen
([email protected]) and Jennifer Austin
On-going
Office of Communication and External Affairs (Andy Winer:
[email protected]); Office of Legislative and Intergovernmental
On-going
Document ID: 0.7.19.1728.1
Affairs ([email protected])
On-going
send to [email protected] and [email protected]
meeting happening in region today: rachel sweeney, pat williams to
On-going
participate on behalf of NMFS
outstanding
data received by NMFS on 5/17, in process
(updated 5/14) WHOI scientists are capable of deploying instruments
on one of the working ROVs. We discussed making multiple acoustic
measurements to assess the degree of variability. This looks to be
doable
Regional meeting with all Sea Grant Directors scheduled for Monday,
5/17
request for longer piece of video is still outstanding (5/17)
Identify what other NOAA/academic assets has that are comparable; o
Connect with Unified Area Command to determine needs and how
Completed
needs could be met by other NOAA /academic assets
Request from WH Principals meeting on 5/14 - note that if more
resources are needed we should ensure we have them
Report for daily situation report
Request from WH Principals meeting on 5/14; DoI requested to do
same for birds
Request from WH Principals meeting on 5/14 - note that if more
resources are needed we should ensure we have them
On-going
NOAA contacts at NIC: Mark Miller ([email protected]); Ralph
On-going
Document ID: 0.7.19.1728.1
Lopez ([email protected])
Has polled team for technical expert engagement (Miles Croom, Chris
Doley, others)
completed
On-going
Contact made to NERR and ONMS on 5/14 for follow-up
outstanding
NOAA NIC contacts tracking this down today 5/14
assessing additional full-time science staff
Completed
Completed
Completed
Spring/NMFS(Reisner)/NOS (Westerholm and Kennedy)
completed
completed
will be given to team on 5/18
Completed
Proposal from Mark Miller: Discharge Rate technical team
potential
participants: Dr. Bill Lehr, OAR (Dr. Ned Cokelet, PMEL); Loop current
team
potential participants: Dr. Jerry Galt, Dr. Rich Patchen
(Environmental Assessment Group has also taken this issue on);
Subsea Dispersant Characteristics

Beegle-Krausen, Dr. Alan Mearns
Document ID: 0.7.19.1728.1
potential participants: Dr. CJ
draft submitted 5/17
verified that the area in which the Pelican was working is within the
Completed
closed area
Completed
JIC cleared (5/17) OMB/WH pending
outstanding
Closing larger area of fishery will be announed 1300 today, in effect
1600 today
Steve Wilson and Tim Hansen can serve this role
completed
Document ID: 0.7.19.1728.1
press briefing on loop current conducted 5/18 at 1100.
NOTES
Document ID: 0.7.19.1728.1
Document ID: 0.7.19.1728.1
Mussel Watch (John Christensen in NCCOS)
is sampling for chemicals in shellfish along
the coast to establish new base lines before
oil hits and will be testing during and after spil
hits shorelines. It is nation's longest continual
water quality/shellfish monitoring program.
NCCOS scientists (Rick Stumpf) on what red
tides/ algae they have IDed in Gulf.
no specific criteria they are using NOAAs 3
day traj's like us
Dispersants (5/12)
Document ID: 0.7.19.1728.1
Deepwater Integrated Services Team led by
Tracy Wareing, DHS, and Daniel Werfel,
OMB. Leon Cammen, NOAA Sea Grant,
Document ID: 0.7.19.1728.1
NIST: Flow Metrology Group and the POC
there is Pedro Espina
([email protected], 301-975-5444)
USCG is using contract vessel. No need for
NOAA to reallocate the Gunther (reported
on 5/17)
Document ID: 0.7.19.1728.1
Document ID: 0.7.19.1728.1
Document ID: 0.7.19.1728.1
Daily briefing books
every day
NRT talking points
every day
Conner
DOC Secretary call talking poin every
day
Bavishi
NRT action items
Holst, Bavishi, Rapp
Document ID: 0.7.19.1728.1
every day
McClurkin
Document ID: 0.7.19.1728.1
Tuesday, May 18, 2010; 0800
Telephone
Call Guidelines:
Action Items
Need to have talking points and alert Cuba and Mexico regarding fishery closure and potential of oil in
loop current (Turner)
B o o m s
C oral reefs & oil
Fish stocks in the Gulf of M exico
S eafood safety
Im pact of crude oil on seafood
Loop current
M ussel W atch
N O S activities

Document ID: 0.7.19.1728.2
Replacement: Rachel Wilhelm arrives Sat., May 15th / 202-657-9816.
Charlie Henry (206-849-9928) Robert, LA
Frank Csulak (732-371-1005) - Houma, LA
Ruth Yender (206-849-9926) Mobile, AL
LCDR Liz Jones (206-849-9918) - Mobile, AL
John Whitney (907-440-8109)- Mobile, AL
Brad Benggio (206-849-9923) - St. Petersburg, FL
LTJG Josh Slater (206-462-0710) Mobile, AL
Mark Miller (206-713-0640) - NIC, Washington DC
Document ID: 0.7.19.1728.2
Received(Date):
Tue, 18 May 2010 12:00:22 -0400
From:
"Jainey.Bavishi" <[email protected]>
Subject: Notes from May 18, 11 AM NRT Call
To:
_NOAA HQ leadership <[email protected]>,_HDQ Policy Contacts
<[email protected]>,_HDQ PCO Contacts <[email protected]>, "Sarri, Kristen"
<[email protected]>,David Kennedy <[email protected]>,"'[email protected]'"
<[email protected]>
Below are notes from the May 18, 11 AM NRT call.
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
National Response Team Call
May 18, 2010
11:00 AM
The next NRT meeting is May 19 at 11 AM.
Situation Status:
-Riser insertion tool is capturing about 2,000 barrels/day and has been successful for the past
24 hours. A second tool is in place in case first tool fails.
-Window of opportunity for top kill is between now and May 25. The window of opportunity is
dependent on pressure and temperatures. Still trying to get a better handle on associate risks.
-Third option for release control is stacking a second BOP.
-Four burns were conducted yesterday. The good weather window continues to continue
surface operations with more burns and aerial dispersant application today.
-Subsurface dispersant injection is pending until monitoring vessel is on scene.
-Great deal of reporting on undersea plume and interaction with loop current --- need more
focused messaging to explain what is happening subsurface and what happens to oil in loop
current.
-Analysis of tarballs is being expedited.
-Interactions with Cuba and Caribbean are being initiated through Dept. of State.
-Proactive messaging today will be focused on managing impacts in Florida and a confident and
agreed upon position on subsurface plume. Story tomorrow will be about Cuba.
-DHS offered to help to make sure NOAA has all of the aerial capabilities it needs.
Communications:
-Multiple people testifying today.
-Proactively analyzing tarballs and communicating that information (we expect results from
tarballs found in Keys in 12 hours).
-Dr. Lubchenco is on media call to address the loop current --- significant news coverage today
that oil is in loop current.
-FWS will hold a press call later today on impacts on turtles and other wildlife.
Legal:
-Briefing on Hill on current legislative proposal which will include proposed changes to Oil Spill
Liability Trust Fund.
Intergovernmental:
-Email going out to all 50 states with information on loop current.
-Plan to also address loop current issue on the county/local call later today.
Congressional Affairs:
-Getting ready for hearings today and tomorrow.
-Coordinated plan needed for CODEL visits.
Dredging Proposal:
-Army Corps is playing out permitting process for viability of berm project --- this does not
ensure funding or follow on of project implementation.
-While process is playing out, Gov. Jindal is talking to the press about the high likelihood of the
project being approved.
-BP does not consider this project a response cost.
-NIC also believes that this is not an appropriate response mechanism.
Received(Date):
Tue, 18 May 2010 13:14:31 -0400
From:
Andrew Winer <[email protected]>
Subject: NGO Letter to President
To:
"[email protected]" <[email protected]>,"[email protected]"
<[email protected]>
FYI.
From: Jeremy Symons [mailto:[email protected]]
To: Salzman, Amelia S.; [email protected]; Nelson, Gregory S.; Zichal, Heather R.
Subject: Heads Up: Letter to the President
I want to give you a heads up that a letter is being finalized in the next 24 hours to the President requesting that the
federal government take over all environmental, wildlife and safety testing and monitoring from BP, that all testing
and monitoring information be disclosed to the public, and that the federal government ensure appropriate safety
measures for fishermen volunteers.
Also, you are probably aware that fishermen in Louisiana held a press conference yesterday calling for halting the
use of dispersants. They feel the dispersants are unsafe and that they aren't being protected with appropriate gear.
W e didn't have a role in yesterday's event, but we listen closely to these local responders, and we are concerned that
insufficient public information has been provided to gauge the safety and impacts of these chemicals and dispersed
oil.
In short, we recognize that these are tough no win decisions, but we believe the data that is informing the
decisions needs to be shared with everyone. The fact that the responsible party, BP, is in the middle of these
decisions and monitoring the damage from their spill at this stage simply heightens the need for transparency.
Thanks,
Jeremy
Jeremy Symons
Senior Vice President, Conservation and Education
National W ildlife Federation
Mobile: (202) 306 7902
Twitter: @JeremySymons
National Wildlife Federation inspires Americans to protect wildlife for our children's future.
Received(Date):
Tue, 18 May 2010 18:39:58 -0400
From:
Subject: FW: Pre-brief at 9:05 on Wed.
To:
[email protected], 'Monica Medina' <[email protected]>,[email protected],
[email protected], [email protected],'Adele Stevens' <[email protected]>,
[email protected]
Here is the information for tomorrows Governors call and pre-brief.
From: McGrath, Shaun L. [mailto:Shaun L. [email protected]]
To: McGrath, Shaun L.; Belton, Linda; Monica Medina; [email protected]; Tennyson, Stephanie L;
[email protected]; Lori Faeth; Kayyem, Juliette; Murk, David CDR
Subject: Pre brief at 9:05 on W ed.
All,
Draft agenda for the call tomorrow is below. Please let me know if there are any changes.
Wednesday, May 19 Call with Governors
b6
b6
Speakers
DRAFT AGENDA
o
o
Observations and Trajectory Monica Medina, NOAA
Loop Current
o Jindal questioned the accuracy of the trajectories he noted that there was significantly
more oil along the shoreline than what had been projected.
o Jindal did the burning, skimming and surface dispersants application get factored into to
todays trajectory?
Situation and Leak Stabilization Update Adm Mary Landry
Operations Report Adm Mary Landry
Jindal what is the report from the SCAT teams?
o Watson Do not yet have the estimates of oil burned, skimmed and dispersed from
yesterday. Can we get estimate of both days for tomorrow?
o Watson did not yet have the tests back from the crab pot dip stick testing of the subsurface
oil.
o Jindal asked whether the tarballs recovered from Marsh Is. in Iberia have been tested yet to
see whether they are from the BP spill? (no) If it is related, it would be the furthest west that the
oil has travelled.
o Jindal Monica mentioned that oil has moved passed booms and gotten into the marshes.
What are the reasons for the oil getting past the boom? Failed boom; too much oil; subsea oil;
improperly placed boom? David Kennedy did not know the answer in this case, but said boom is
never a fail-safe solution.
o Jindal wants more boom moved to the West (although he acknowledged the 1000 new feet
that arrived in Terrebonne
o Jindal said he met with Col Lee of USACE yesterday to discuss barrier proposal. Col Lee
was positive about the comments received on the proposal; and the Governor said that Adm.
Landry has been supportive of the proposal. He urged us to expedite the barrier.
o Wildlife crews were not able to get out much over the weekend. They should be able to get
out in the coming days. Action: continued update on their findings.
Marine Wildlife Impacts and Fisheries Closures Monica Medina, NOAA
o Monica NOAA seeing increased turtle strandings. Looking to see if there is a pattern that is
related to the oil.
o Monica NOAA expanded fisheries closure yesterday. NOAA is watching the loop current
issue closely. If oil moves into the loop current, there will likely be a large expansion of closed
fisheries.
EPA Update EPA Dep Admin Bob Perciasepe
Next call 9:15 a.m. EDT (8:15 CDT) Thursday, May 20, 2010
Received(Date):
Tue, 18 May 2010 18:50:09 -0400
From:
Subject: FW: 5/18/2010 Local Government Call Report
To:
Here are the notes from the local officials call at 3:00pm today
Conference Call with Local Government Officials
Tuesday, May 18, 2010
3:00PM (EST)
Total Callers: 29 (includes moderators and conferees)
BRIEFING:
Coast Guard Captain James Hanzalik
Riser insertion tube into the riser gathering 2,000 barrels per day
Subsea dispersant activity continuing into this morning 8 million gallons
4 Controlled burns yesterday and today was a good burn day as well reports can be
expected tomorrow
Boom update for Gulf States
Charlie Henry, NOAA
Expectations on loop current and slick:
o Bulk of oil is north of current
o Limited amount of oil susceptible to the current
o Reviewing transport pattern, looking at 10 or more days
QUESTIONS/COMMENTS:
Michele Tassin, Emergency Operations Center Director, Plaquemines Parish
Question: Is satellite imagery available online?
o Lori Faeth Answer: Good information is available at www.deepwaterhorizonresponse.com
o Dan Dealy, Mobile, Alabama, Answer: www.skytruth.org also has useful information
Dan Dealy, Mobile, Alabama
Question: Do you have a further update on the research being conducted on underwater
plumes?
o Charlie Henry Answer: Samples are not accurate due to the way the droplets disperse. Larger
droplets rise quickly to the surface while the smaller droplets stay below. NOAA does not view
underwater plumes as a significant threat at this time and is working to get a better projection on
deep water currents to determine short and long-term implications. This analysis will be
forthcoming in the days ahead. With regard to concerns that subsea dispersants are correlated to
underwater plume, NOAA does not see a correlation. At the time of the inquiry, there were only
a few days of subsea dispersant activity, so NOAA does not think subsea dispersant was a
significant driver.
Bill Melton, Environmental Services Director, Mobile County Public Works
Question: Following up on yesterdays question on economic impact loss for impacted areas.
o Captain Hanzalik: Also will make sure that commerce is on the phone to answer the question
tomorrow.
Jane, SBA: Working on declarations for small business loans
Heather Smith, DHS: This info is available on www.deepwaterhorizonresponse.com
o Nandi Chhabra, WH: We will follow up with Melton individually, and also on the call
tomorrow.
Received(Date):
Wed, 19 May 2010 00:36:38 -0400
From:
[email protected]
Subject: 5.18.2010 noaa leadership meeting notes - recap.
To:
[email protected],"'[email protected]'"
<[email protected]>,"'[email protected]'"
<[email protected]>,[email protected],"'[email protected]'"
<[email protected]>,"'[email protected]'" <[email protected]>,Robert
Haddad <[email protected]>, [email protected],[email protected],
[email protected], [email protected],[email protected],
[email protected], [email protected],[email protected], [email protected],
DWH NOAA DAILY MEETINGRECAP 5.18.2010.docx
good evening everyone,
attached is a compilation of notes from noaa leadership meetings on tuesday, may 18, 2010.
let me know if there are any modifications necessary.
best,
jen
SUMMARY OF NOAA LEADERSHIP DAILY DEEPWATER HORIZON 8 AM BRIEFING
TUESDAY, MAY 18, 2010
Call Guidelines:
Action Items
Documents cleared through WH clearance process for 5/11/10 (currently, this list is incomplete but will be
updated on a daily basis)
B o o m s
C oral reefs & oil
Fish stocks in the G ulf of M exico Seafood safety
Im pact of crude oil on seafood Natural Resources Dam age Assessm ent
Loop current
Mussel WatchNOS activities

Replacement: Rachel Wilhelm arrives Sat., May 15th / 202-657-9816.NOAA Scientific Scientist
Coordination on site (as of 5/17/10) Charlie Henry (206-849-9928) Robert, LA
Frank Csulak (732-371-1005) - Houma, LA Ruth Yender (206-849-9926) Mobile, AL
LCDR Liz Jones (206-849-9918) - Mobile, AL John Whitney (907-440-8109)- Mobile, AL Brad Benggio
(206-849-9923) - St. Petersburg, FL LTJG Josh Slater (206-462-0710) Mobile, AL Mark Miller (206-713-
0640) - NIC, Washington DC
SUMMARY OF DAILY CALLS WITH THE GOVERNORS: DEEPWATER HORIZON UPDATE MEETING:
TUESDAY, MAY 18, 2010, Moderator: Valerie Jarrett
Governors: Jindal
EPA applying subsea dispersant (when monitoring ship is in place). Will switch dispersants
today based on toxicity. (Action: provide info on new dispersants and reasons)
Gov. Jindal questioned the accuracy of the trajectories he noted that there was significantly
more oil along the shoreline than what had been projected. Why is that? Monica
Gov. Jindal did
the burning, skimming and surface dispersants application get factored into to todays trajectory? (NOAA
response for tomorrow)

Gov. Jindal asked about reports from the SCAT teams
Adm. Watson Do not yet have the estimates of oil burned, skimmed and dispersed from
yesterday. Will continue those operations today. Can we get estimate of both days for tomorrow?
Adm. Watson did not yet have the tests back from the crab pot dip stick testing of the subsurface
oil.
Gov. Jindal have the tarballs recovered from Marsh Is. in Iberia get tested yet to see whether
they are from the BP spill? (no) If it is related, it would be the furthest west that the oil has travelled.
Eileen Sobeck (FWS) wildlife teams out yesterday and again today. (Report on wildlife impacts
tomorrow?)
Monica Medina NOAA seeing increased turtle strandings. Looking to see if there is a pattern that
is related to the oil.
Fish closures - NOAA expanded fisheries closure yesterday; watching the loop current issue
closely. If oil moves into the loop current, there will likely be a large expansion of closed fisheries.
(NOAA wants to maintain the safety and confidence in the seafood industry.)
Gov. Jindal Monica mentioned that oil has moved passed booms and gotten into the marshes.
What are the reasons for the oil getting past the boom? Failed boom; too much oil; subsea oil; improperly
placed boom? David Kennedy did not know the answer in this case, but said boom is never a fail-safe
solution.
Gov. Jindal wants more boom moved to the West (although he acknowledged the 1000 new feet

Gov Jindal said he met with Col Lee of USACE yesterday to discuss barrier proposal. Col Lee
was positive about the comments received on the proposal; and the Governor said that Adm. Landry has
been supportive of the proposal. He urged us to expedite the barrier. Do we need to manage
expectations?
SUMMARY OF NATIONAL RESPONSE TEAM CALL TUESDAY, MAY 18, 2010
Situation Status:
-Riser insertion tool is capturing about 2,000 barrels/day and has been successful for the past 24 hours.
A second tool is in place in case first tool fails.
-Window of opportunity for top kill is between now and May 25. The window of opportunity is dependent
on pressure and temperatures. Still trying to get a better handle on associate risks.
-Four burns were conducted yesterday. The good weather window continues to continue surface
operations with more burns and aerial dispersant application today.
-Great deal of reporting on undersea plume and interaction with loop current --- need more focused
messaging to explain what is happening subsurface and what happens to oil in loop current.
-Proactive messaging today will be focused on managing impacts in Florida and a confident and agreed
upon position on subsurface plume. Story tomorrow will be about Cuba.
Communications:
-Proactively analyzing tarballs and communicating that information (we expect results from tarballs found
in Keys in 12 hours).
-Dr. Lubchenco is on media call to address the loop current --- significant news coverage today that oil is
in loop current.
-FWS will hold a press call later today on impacts on turtles and other
wildlife.
Legal:
-Briefing on Hill on current legislative proposal which will include proposed changes to Oil Spill Liability
Trust Fund.
Intergovernmental:
Dredging Proposal:
-Army Corps is playing out permitting process for viability of berm project --- this does not ensure funding
or follow on of project implementation.
-While process is playing out, Gov. Jindal is talking to the press about the high likelihood of the project
being approved.
-NIC also believes that this is not an appropriate response mechanism.SUMMARY OF DOC-NOAA
DEEPWATER HORIZON UPDATE MEETING: TUESDAY MAY 18, 2010,
ACTIONS:
Dispersant Workshop planning
Hurricane/oil talking points, briefing at tomorrows meeting
Strategies to respond to the many requests for NOAA leadership to be at meetings in the Gulf
530 pm meeting is on for today.
MEETING MINUTES: DISPERSANT ISSUES
Planning by RRT/NOAA is underway for a Dispersant Workshop, to discuss the long term
impacts of applying dispersant. Intent is to have this soon, within a few days. This would include not only
government but also representatives from academia.
Discussion about the long term costs and personnel needs for testing and monitoring. NOAA is
developing a plan.
Use of subsurface dispersant is much more effective than using dispersants on the surface oil.
FISHING CLOSURES
30-day closure rule will allow NOAA to amend closures simply by updating the maps online,
instead of having to go through formal approval processes. OMB is examining this at the moment. This
would be analogous to the online trajectory maps.
No press release would be broadcast with each closure update; just the maps. Discussions are
ongoing with FDA and NOAA on the closures relating to health impacts.
HURRICANES & OIL SPILL
OMB has approved talking points developed in NOAA for how hurricanes would affect and be
affected by the oil spill.

Concern was raised about evacuating the thousands of people involved
in the cleanup should a hurricane move into the spill area.
Ahsha Tribble and Chris Smallcomb will brief the group tomorrow/1030am on the Hurricane
Seasonal Outlook Press Conference that Dr. Lubchenco will participate in next week.
COMMUNICATIONS & OUTREACH
Many requests for NOAA leadership to be at meetings in the Gulf region, both technical and
political people.
Proposal to have at least one political in the Gulf region each week. Another strategy would be to
use leadership from other DOC bureaus.
Bilingual capabilities are important for some of these meetings, where fishermen speak other
languages (e.g. Vietnamese)
Discussion about an interactive, multi-agency website providing resources and information for
A few challenges described
those impacted by the oil spill. This would be a major undertaking.

keeping coordinated with White House on talking points and press releases.
SUMMARY OF CONGRESSIONAL STAFF CONFERENCE CALL ON THE GULF OF MEXICO OIL
SPILL Facilitator
Chani Wiggins, Asst. Sec. of Legislative Affairs, U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS)
Speakers/Agency Representatives Included:
Rear Adm. Cook, USCG Director of Prevention Policy
Walter Cruickshank, MMS Deputy Director
Doug Helton, NOAA OR&R Incident Operations Coordinator
Roy Crabtree, NMFS Regional Administrator, SE Region
Greg Siekaniec, Chief, National Wildlife Refuge System, US F&W Service
Congressional Participants Included (Not all participants were announced)
Staff with House Energy and Commerce Committee
Staff with House Science and Technology Committee
Staff with Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee
Staff for Rep. Gus Bilirakis (R-9th, FL)
Staff for Rep. Kendrick Meek (D-17th, FL)
Staff for Rep. Bill Cassidy (R-6th, LA)
Remarks from Rear Admiral Cook
- The riser insertion tool has effectively relieved some pressure on the well head and the tool is assisting
in the recovery of approximately 2,000 barrels of oil per day - There have been no changes to oil
expressions on the surface as a result of using the riser
8,000 gal. of subsurface dispersants have been applied in the last 24 hrs.
- Dispersant application is currently on hold; we are waiting for a vessel to arrive on site to monitor
dispersant application.
- Overall dispersants applied: 588,000 gal on the surface 50,000 gal subsurface
- 1.7 million feet of boom have been deployed overall
- 4 in-situ burns occurred yesterday - 20 tarballs washed ashore in Key West, FL yesterday. Samples of
these balls were sent off for processing to determine if their chemical signature matches that of oil in the
Deepwater Horizon spill. Results should be received in the next day or two.
- Tarballs have also been recovered in Pascagoula, MS and at other locations in the Delta region
- Tarballs are easier to recover from shore, but if they are suspended in the water column, there is the
potential for them to bypass booms- 36 wildlife impacts reported thus far
- Tally of responders associated with spill has increased to 20,000 people and 1,000 vessels - Over
15,000 total claims filed to date, BP has approved all claims submitted to date and almost 400 people at
work performing claims processing
Remarks from Walter Cruickshank
- Reiterated the effectiveness of the insertion tool, recovering on average 2,000 barrels of oil per day
- Recovery is a mix of oil and natural gas
- We are recovering an increasing in amount of natural gas
- We are continuing preparations for the top kill
- The pod is being reset and the remainder of the necessary equipment should be in place by weekend.
We should be able to begin operations early next week.
- Relief well drilling is moving forward, 85,000 ft total depth of well thus far
Remarks from Doug Helton
- The newest 72-hr trajectory indicates that the plume continues to move west to southwest from the
source.
- We note that the oil sheen is moving toward the edge of the loop current; right now oil appears to have
entered a loop current boundary gyre.
- We cannot confirm whether or not the oil plume is entrained in the loop current itself at this point.
Aircraft flyovers scheduled in the next few days should help inform this effort.
- Oil impacts on shore have been noted in the Delta region, and approximately 2 km of oiled marshes
have been observed. The Shoreline Cleanup Assessment Team has been deployed.
Remarks from Roy Crabtree
- As of 6:00pm today, NOAA Fisheries is expanding the eastern and southern boundaries of the closure
to encompass the reported actual location and projected path of the oil based on initialization data and
the 72-hour trajectory to incorporate full extent of trajectory and to address the possibility of oil entry into
the loop current. - The closure measures 45,728 sq mi (118,435 sq km), which is approximately double
the closure area that was previously in effect. - The majority of the expansion area is approximately 150
mi offshore, meaning that the pelagic longline fishery (which includes swordfish and tuna fisheries) is
likely the fishery most affected by this change.
Remarks from Greg Siekaniec
- Fish and Wildlife Service has continued response activities and monitoring surveys.
- We continue to collect reports of affected sea turtles and other wildlife through our hotline.
- Oil has thus far been observed on 4 National Wildlife Refuges.
Questions Raised by Congressional Members and Staff
How many gallons of dispersant has been released to date? How large is the stream of oil near the loop
current? What does the oil in the relief tube look like? Does the volume of flow in relief tube give any
indication of overall flow leakage rate? Can you use flow rate from relief tube to estimate flow rate out of
riser? Dr. Lubchenco mentioned in an earlier public/press statement that NOAA has been working right
from the start on this spill, but needs more assets. What assets was she referring to? Getbacks for
NOAA
- Provide context and more information regarding the assets NOAA needs that Dr. Lubchenco referred to
in her earlier statement. (OLA to coordinate with NOAA Communications on where this statement may
have come up and what was said)
SUMMARY OF DOC-NOAA DEEPWATER HORIZON UPDATE MEETING: TUESDAY, MAY 18, 2010,
ACTIONS:
Need to determine the chemical composition of the dispersants so that we can definitively
know what we are testing for.
Need to determine what is the tipping point for calling a fisheries disaster. This should include
implications and public perception ramifications.
NOAA needs to ensure that there are adequate resources to analyze the plume to properly define
the characteristics (where is it, where is it going, extent, depth, etc.)
DOC and NOAA need to establish a protocol for expanding fisheries closures that includes
notification of OMB, preparing talking points, but is still responsive enough to stay ahead of the spill. If the
reporting deadline is noon, then the protocol has to allow for posting then. A 24-hour lag is not responsive
enough and is not acceptable.

NOAA should post maps of where fisheries sampling is taking
place.
UPDATES:
ADM Allen will not back the Louisiana governors proposal. BP has also determined that this is
not an appropriate response mechanism, so will not fund it.
A meeting is being held next week, hosted by the new NOAA assistant secretary to address
concerns from civilian scientists who feel left out of the spill reaction.
SCHEDULING NOTES:
The group will meet tomorrow at 5 p.m
DHS SENIOR LEADERSHIP BRIEF: DEEPWATER HORIZON RESPONSE GULF OF MEXICO 1200
EDT 18 MAY 2010
UPDATES IN BOLD BLUE
SECRETARY OF HOMELAND SECURITY PRIORITIES
Ensure Responsible Party (RP) is doing everything it can to stop the oil leak.
Ensure all capabilities (government, private, and commercial) and resources are being leveraged
to protect the environment and facilitate a rapid, robust cleanup effort.
Ensure every effort is being made to include and inform the local communities in support of
response operations. CURRENT SITUATION
OIL STOPPAGE
RISER INSERTION TUBE TOOL (RITT)
RITT remains inserted into riser. (USCG)
Drill Rig ENTERPRISE continuing recovery of an oil and gas mixture with no water. (USCG)
Recovery rate is estimated at 2,000 barrels per day. (USCG/UAC)
RITT-2 is being constructed and will be ready for deployment to the sea floor on 19 May. (NICC)
o
RITT-2 will be used if current RITT fails.(NICC)
TOP HAT CONTAINMENT SYSTEM
Top Hat remains on the seabed; standing-by pending effectiveness of the RITT. (USCG)
TO P KILL
Top Kill equipment being staged; commencement of operation no sooner than 23-
25 May. (USCG)
Commencement pushed back due to ongoing preparations.
RELIEF WELL
Drill Rig DDII drilling operations scheduled to resume 18 May; current drill depth is 253 ft below
the sea floor. (USCG)
Drill Rig DDIII drilling operations scheduled to resume 18 May; current drill depth remains 3,537 ft
below sea floor. (USCG)
BLOW OUT PREVENTER (BOP)
Performing maintenance to BOP stack 18 May. (USCG)

OIL LANDFALL
Unconfirmed reports of oil and tar balls at the following locations: East Dauphin Island, AL; Little
Lagoon, AL; Fort Zachary State Park, Key West, FL; Panama City Beach, FL; Grand Isle, LA; Biloxi, MS;
East Ship Island, MS; Long Beach, MS; Pascagoula, MS; and West Ship Island, MS. (USCG)
SHIPPING CHANNELS/PORTS
All shipping channels and ports remain open in the Gulf Coast Region. (USCG)
No vessels have required cleaning or decontamination. (USCG)

OPERATIONS
Oily water mixture recovered to date: 182,251 barrels. (USCG)
Booming operations continue, weather permitting. (USCG)
DISPERSANTS
3 surface dispersant sorties completed 17 May. (USCG)
ASSETS ON SCENE:
Personnel: 20,281 (USCG/UAC)
Boom deployed: 1,782,900 ft (1,364,510 ft regular /418,390 ft sorbent) (USCG)
Dispersants deployed to date: 641,639 gallons (588,490 gallons surface/53,149 gallons subsea)
(USCG)
Total Vessels Assigned: 1013* (USCG/NIC)
Remotely Operated Vehicles: 12* (USCG)
Fixed-wing Aircraft: 17* (USCG/NIC)
Helicopters: 26* (USCG/NIC)
*Number does not include staged or ordered assets.
AUTHORITIES
Homeland Security Presidential Directive 5 (HSPD 5).
Oil Pollution Act of 1990 (OPA 90).
National Response Framework (NRF).
National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan - 40 CFR 300.300.
KEY SENIOR LEADERSHIP
Principal Federal Official: Secretary Napolitano, U.S. Department of Homeland Security.
Secretary Salazar: U.S. Department of the Interior.

Director Birnbaum: U.S. Minerals
Management Service (MMS).
Administrator Jackson: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
National Incident Commander: Admiral Allen, Commandant, USCG.
Federal On-Scene Coordinator (FOSC): Rear Admiral Landry, Commander, USCG, District 8,
New Orleans, LA.

Responsible Party: British Petroleum (BP) and Transocean.FEDERAL
AGENCIES/DEPARTMENTS
U.S. Coast Guard (USCG)
Shoreline Cleanup and Assessment Teams (SCAT) are sampling oil and tar balls; clean up action
being taken by BPs oil spill recovery organization.

CUSTOMS AND BORDER PROTECTION
(CBP)
OAM continues to provide 2 aircraft to provide advisory information to spotter and tanker aircraft
conducting spray operations.
FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY (FEMA)
Region IV at Level IV operations (Steady-State).
Has not received any requests for Federal assistance.
TRANSPORTATION SECURITY ADMINISTRATION (TSA)
TSA continues to monitor the situation for any potential impact to transportation.
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE (USDA)
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service supporting wildlife activities in LA. DEPARTMENT
OF DEFENSE (DOD)
2 Vessel Skimming Systems being shipped from AK; ETA 22 May.

3 civilian offshore
support vessels (OSV), OVS WES BORDELON, OSV JOHN COGHILL, and OSV VANGUARD have
been contracted by DoD.
1,632 associated personnel deployed in support of spill response.
100 Title 10 personnel and 1,441 Title 32 National Guard members deployed.
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY (EPA)
USCG and EPA authorized BP to use subsea dispersants.

Continuing monitoring and
sampling of air, water and sediment.

HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES (HHS)
National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) established plans to visit BP
worker training staging areas in AL, FL, LA and MS.
Agency for Toxic Substance Disease Registry provided a draft document entitled Dispersants &
Safety in Seafood to the Food and Drug Administration for review.
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR (DOI)
MMS reports some success is being achieved through the use of the RITT and that a larger tool
is being constructed to siphon oil from the leaking riser.
NATIONAL OCEANIC AND ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATION (NOAA)
Weather forecast:
Tuesday, 18 May: West winds 5-10 knots; seas 2 ft or less.
Wednesday, 19 May: Northeast winds 5-10 knots (am)/southeast winds 5-10 knots (pm); seas 2
ft or less.
Thursday, 20 May: Southeast winds 5-10 knots; seas 2-3 ft. CRITICAL
INFRASTRUCTURE KEY RESOURCES (CIKR)
National Infrastructure Coordinating Center (NICC)
Revisions to the Federal closure in the exclusive economic zone allowed reopening of some
oyster harvesting areas in Terrebonne Parish, LA. STATE AND LOCAL AGENCIES
Louisiana,
Mississippi, Alabama, Texas, and Florida communicating daily with DHS. NATIONAL OPERATIONS
CENTER
Current Posture: Phase 2 Concern; Crisis Action Team activated.
The next SLB is scheduled for 1800 EDT 18 May
SUMMARY:
TELECON WITH LOCAL OFFICIALS
BRIEFING:
Riser insertion tube into the riser - gathering 2,000 barrels per day.
Controlled burns yesterday and today was a good burn day as well - reports can be expected tomorrow.
Charlie Henry, NOAA
o
o
Bulk of oil is north of currento Limited amount of oil susceptible to the current
Reviewing transport pattern, looking at 10 or more days
QUESTIONS/COMMENTS:
.
o Lori Faeth Answer: Good information is available at
o Dan Dealy, Mobile, Alabama, Answer: www.skytruth.org
8e&URL=https%3a%2f%2ffanyv88.com%3a443%2fhttp%2fwww.skytruth.org> also has useful information Dan Dealy, Mobile, Alabama
Question: Do you have a further update on the research being conducted on underwater plumes?
underwater plumes as a significant threat at this time and is working to get a better projection on deep
water currents to determine short and long-term implications. This analysis will be forthcoming in the
days ahead. With regard to concerns that subsea dispersants are correlated to underwater plume, NOAA
does not see a correlation. At the time of the inquiry, there were only a few days of
subsea dispersant activity, so NOAA does not think subsea dispersant was a significant driver.
Question: Following up on yesterday's question on economic impact loss for impacted areas. o
Captain Hanzalik: Also will make sure that commerce is on the phone to answer the question tomorrow.
Heather Smith, DHS: This info is available on
www.deepwaterhorizonresponse.com o Nandi Chhabra, WH: We will follow up with Melton
individually, and also on the call tomorrow.
NOAA DAILY RECAP OF DEEPWATER HORIZON MEETINGS
May 18, 2010
NOS activities
OR&R Response Outreach http://response.restoration.noaa.gov/deepwaterhorizon
(cleared fact sheets)

(cleared
factsheets)
David Miller / 202-329-4030 (LA) [email protected] (through Monday, May
17th)
Monica Allen (NOAA Fisheries Communications) is there this week (5/15-20). Her cell
# is 202/379-6693.
Document ID: 0.7.19.1942.1
May 18, 2010
SUMMARY OF DAILY CALLS WITH THE GOVERNORS:DEEPWATER HORIZON UPDATE
MEETING: TUESDAY, MAY 18, 2010,
Moderator: Valerie Jarrett
Governors: Jindal
EPA applying subsea dispersant (when monitoring ship is in place). Will switch
dispersants today based on toxicity. (Action: provide info on new dispersants and
reasons)
Gov. Jindal questioned the accuracy of the trajectories he noted that there was
significantly more oil along the shoreline than what had been projected. Why is that?
Monica
Gov. Jindal did the burning, skimming and surface dispersants application get
factored into to todays trajectory? (NOAA response for tomorrow)
Gov. Jindal
asked about reports from the SCAT teams
Adm. Watson Do not yet have the estimates of oil burned, skimmed and dispersed
from yesterday. Will continue those operations today. Can we get estimate of both
days for tomorrow?
Adm. Watson did not yet have the tests back from the crab pot dip stick testing of
the subsurface oil.
Gov. Jindal have the tarballs recovered from Marsh Is. in Iberia get tested yet to see
whether they are from the BP spill? (no) If it is related, it would be the furthest west
that the oil has travelled.
Eileen Sobeck (FWS) wildlife teams out yesterday and again today. (Report on
wildlife impacts tomorrow?)
Monica Medina NOAA seeing increased turtle strandings. Looking to see if there is
a pattern that is related to the oil.
Fish closures - NOAA expanded fisheries closure yesterday; watching the loop
current issue closely. If oil moves into the loop current, there will likely be a large
expansion of closed fisheries. (NOAA wants to maintain the safety and confidence in
the seafood industry.)
Gov. Jindal Monica mentioned that oil has moved passed booms and gotten into
the marshes. What are the reasons for the oil getting past the boom? Failed boom; too
much oil; subsea oil; improperly placed boom? David Kennedy did not know the
answer in this case, but said boom is never a fail-safe solution.
Gov. Jindal wants more boom moved to the West (although he acknowledged the
1000 new feet that arrived in Terrebonne
Gov Jindal said he met with Col Lee of USACE yesterday to discuss barrier
proposal. Col Lee was positive about the comments received on the proposal; and the
Governor said that Adm. Landry has been supportive of the proposal. He urged us to
expedite the barrier. Do we need to manage expectations?
Document ID: 0.7.19.1942.1
May 18, 2010
SUMMARY OF NATIONAL RESPONSE TEAM CALL
Situation Status:
-Riser insertion tool is capturing about 2,000 barrels/day and has been successful for
the past 24 hours. A second tool is in place in case first tool fails.
-Window of opportunity for top kill is between now and May 25. The window of
opportunity is dependent on pressure and temperatures. Still trying to get a better
handle on associate risks.
-Four burns were conducted yesterday. The good weather window continues to
continue surface operations with more burns and aerial dispersant application today.
-Great deal of reporting on undersea plume and interaction with loop current --- need
more focused messaging to explain what is happening subsurface and what happens to
oil in loop current.
-Proactive messaging today will be focused on managing impacts in Florida and a
confident and agreed upon position on subsurface plume. Story tomorrow will be
about Cuba.
Communications:
-Proactively analyzing tarballs and communicating that information (we expect results
from tarballs found in Keys in 12 hours).
-Dr. Lubchenco is on media call to address the loop current --- significant news
coverage today that oil is in loop current.
Legal:
-Briefing on Hill on current legislative proposal which will include proposed changes
to Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund.
Intergovernmental:
Dredging Proposal:
Document ID: 0.7.19.1942.1
May 18, 2010
-Army Corps is playing out permitting process for viability of berm project --- this does
not ensure funding or follow on of project implementation.
-While process is playing out, Gov. Jindal is talking to the press about the high
likelihood of the project being approved.
SUMMARY OF DOC-NOAA DEEPWATER HORIZON UPDATE MEETING: TUESDAY
MAY 18, 2010,
ACTIONS:
Strategies to respond to the many requests for NOAA leadership to be at
meetings in the Gulf
MEETING MINUTES:
DISPERSANT ISSUES
Planning by RRT/NOAA is underway for a Dispersant Workshop, to discuss the
long term impacts of applying dispersant. Intent is to have this soon, within a
few days. This would include not only government but also representatives
from academia.
Discussion about the long term costs and personnel needs for testing and
monitoring. NOAA is developing a plan.
Use of subsurface dispersant is much more effective than using dispersants on
the surface oil.
FISHING CLOSURES
30-day closure rule will allow NOAA to amend closures simply by updating the
maps online, instead of having to go through formal approval processes. OMB
is examining this at the moment. This would be analogous to the online
trajectory maps.
No press release would be broadcast with each closure update; just the maps.
Discussions are ongoing with FDA and NOAA on the closures relating to health
impacts.
Document ID: 0.7.19.1942.1
May 18, 2010
OMB has approved talking points developed in NOAA for how hurricanes
would affect and be affected by the oil spill.
Concern was raised about evacuating the thousands of people involved in the
cleanup should a hurricane move into the spill area.
Ahsha Tribble and Chris Smallcomb will brief the group tomorrow/1030am on
the Hurricane Seasonal Outlook Press Conference that Dr. Lubchenco will
participate in next week.
Many requests for NOAA leadership to be at meetings in the Gulf region, both
technical and political people.
Proposal to have at least one political in the Gulf region each week. Another
strategy would be to use leadership from other DOC bureaus.
Bilingual capabilities are important for some of these meetings, where fishermen
speak other languages (e.g. Vietnamese)
Discussion about an interactive, multi-agency website providing resources and
information for those impacted by the oil spill. This would be a major
undertaking.
A few challenges described keeping coordinated with White House on talking
points and press releases.
Document ID: 0.7.19.1942.1
May 18, 2010
SUMMARY OF CONGRESSIONAL STAFF CONFERENCE CALL ON THE GULF OF
MEXICO OIL SPILL
Facilitator
Chani Wiggins, Asst. Sec. of Legislative Affairs, U.S. Department of Homeland Security
(DHS)
Staff with House Science and Technology Committee
Staff with Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee
Staff for Rep. Gus Bilirakis (R-9th, FL)
Staff for Rep. Kendrick Meek (D-17th, FL)
Staff for Rep. Bill Cassidy (R-6th, LA)
- The riser insertion tool has effectively relieved some pressure on the well head and the
tool is assisting in the recovery of approximately 2,000 barrels of oil per day
Document ID: 0.7.19.1942.1
May 18, 2010
- There have been no changes to oil expressions on the surface as a result of using the
riser
- Dispersant application is currently on hold; we are waiting for a vessel to arrive on
site to monitor dispersant application.
- 4 in-situ burns occurred yesterday
- 20 tarballs washed ashore in Key West, FL yesterday. Samples of these balls were sent
off for processing to determine if their chemical signature matches that of oil in the
Deepwater Horizon spill. Results should be received in the next day or two.
- Tarballs have also been recovered in Pascagoula, MS and at other locations in the
Delta region
- Tarballs are easier to recover from shore, but if they are suspended in the water
column, there is the potential for them to bypass booms
- 36 wildlife impacts reported thus far
- Tally of responders associated with spill has increased to 20,000 people and 1,000
vessels
- Over 15,000 total claims filed to date, BP has approved all claims submitted to date
and almost 400 people at work performing claims processing
- Reiterated the effectiveness of the insertion tool, recovering on average 2,000 barrels
of oil per day
- The pod is being reset and the remainder of the necessary equipment should be in
place by weekend. We should be able to begin operations early next week.
- The newest 72-hr trajectory indicates that the plume continues to move west to
southwest from the source.
- We note that the oil sheen is moving toward the edge of the loop current; right now
oil appears to have entered a loop current boundary gyre.
- We cannot confirm whether or not the oil plume is entrained in the loop current
itself at this point. Aircraft flyovers scheduled in the next few days should help inform
this effort.
- Oil impacts on shore have been noted in the Delta region, and approximately 2 km of
oiled marshes have been observed. The Shoreline Cleanup Assessment Team has been
deployed.
- As of 6:00pm today, NOAA Fisheries is expanding the eastern and southern
boundaries of the closure to encompass the reported actual location and projected path
of the oil based on initialization data and the 72-hour trajectory to incorporate full
extent of trajectory and to address the possibility of oil entry into the loop current.
- The closure measures 45,728 sq mi (118,435 sq km), which is approximately double
the closure area that was previously in effect.
Document ID: 0.7.19.1942.1
May 18, 2010
- The majority of the expansion area is approximately 150 mi offshore, meaning that
the pelagic longline fishery (which includes swordfish and tuna fisheries) is likely the
fishery most affected by this change.
- We continue to collect reports of affected sea turtles and other wildlife through our
hotline.
How many gallons of dispersant has been released to date?
How large is the stream of oil near the loop current?
What does the oil in the relief tube look like?
Does the volume of flow in relief tube give any indication of overall flow leakage rate?
Can you use flow rate from relief tube to estimate flow rate out of riser?
Dr. Lubchenco mentioned in an earlier public/press statement that NOAA has been
working right from the start on this spill, but needs more assets. What assets was she
referring to?
Getbacks for NOAA
- Provide context and more information regarding the assets NOAA needs that Dr.
Lubchenco referred to in her earlier statement. (OLA to coordinate with NOAA
Communications on where this statement may have come up and what was said)
SUMMARY OF DOC-NOAA DEEPWATER HORIZON UPDATE MEETING: TUESDAY,
MAY 18, 2010,
ACTIONS:
Need to determine the chemical composition of the dispersants so that we can
definitively know what we are testing for.
Need to determine what is the tipping point for calling a fisheries disaster.
This should include implications and public perception ramifications.
Document ID: 0.7.19.1942.1
May 18, 2010
NOAA needs to ensure that there are adequate resources to analyze the plume to
properly define the characteristics (where is it, where is it going, extent, depth,
etc.)
DOC and NOAA need to establish a protocol for expanding fisheries closures
that includes notification of OMB, preparing talking points, but is still
responsive enough to stay ahead of the spill. If the reporting deadline is noon,
then the protocol has to allow for posting then. A 24-hour lag is not responsive
NOAA should post maps of where fisheries sampling is taking place.
UPDATES:
ADM Allen will not back the Louisiana governors proposal. BP has also
determined that this is not an appropriate response mechanism, so will not fund
it.
A meeting is being held next week, hosted by the new NOAA assistant secretary
to address concerns from civilian scientists who feel left out of the spill reaction.
SCHEDULING NOTES:
The group will meet tomorrow at 5 p.m.
DHS SENIOR LEADERSHIP BRIEF: DEEPWATER HORIZON RESPONSE
10
Document ID: 0.7.19.1942.1
May 18, 2010
GULF OF MEXICO 1200 EDT 18 MAY 2010
Ensure all capabilities (government, private, and commercial) and resources are being
leveraged to protect the environment and facilitate a rapid, robust cleanup effort.
Ensure every effort is being made to include and inform the local communities in support
of response operations.
CURRENT SITUATION
OIL STOPPAGE
Drill Rig ENTERPRISE continuing recovery of an oil and gas
mixture with no water. (USCG)
RITT-2 is being constructed and will be ready for deployment
to the sea floor on 19 May. (NICC)
Top Hat remains on the seabed; standing-by pending effectiveness of
the RITT. (USCG)
TOP KILL
Top Kill equipment being staged; commencement of operation no
sooner than 23-25 May. (USCG)
RELIEF WELL
Drill Rig DDII drilling operations scheduled to resume 18 May; current
drill depth is 253 ft below the sea floor. (USCG)
Drill Rig DDIII drilling operations scheduled to resume 18 May;
current drill depth remains 3,537 ft below sea floor. (USCG)
OIL LANDFALL
Unconfirmed reports of oil and tar balls at the following locations: East
Dauphin Island, AL; Little Lagoon, AL; Fort Zachary State Park, Key West, FL;
Panama City Beach, FL; Grand Isle, LA; Biloxi, MS; East Ship Island, MS; Long
Beach, MS; Pascagoula, MS; and West Ship Island, MS. (USCG)
11
Document ID: 0.7.19.1942.1
May 18, 2010
OPERATIONS
DISPERSANTS
ASSETS ON SCENE:
Dispersants deployed to date: 641,639 gallons(588,490 gallons surface/53,149
gallons subsea) (USCG)
Total Vessels Assigned:1013* (USCG/NIC)
AUTHORITIES
Homeland Security Presidential Directive
5 (HSPD
5).
National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan - 40 CFR
300.300.
Director Birnbaum: U.S. Minerals Management Service (MMS).
Federal On-Scene Coordinator (FOSC): Rear Admiral Landry, Commander, USCG,
District 8, New Orleans, LA.
Responsible Party: British Petroleum (BP) and Transocean.
FEDERAL AGENCIES/DEPARTMENTS
12
Document ID: 0.7.19.1942.1
May 18, 2010
Shoreline Cleanup and Assessment Teams (SCAT) are sampling oil and tar balls;
clean up action being taken by BPs oil spill recovery organization.
CUSTOMS AND BORDER PROTECTION (CBP)
OAM continues to provide 2 aircraft to provide advisory information to spotter and
tanker aircraft conducting spray operations.
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service supporting wildlife activities in LA.
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE (DOD)
3 civilian offshore support vessels (OSV), OVS WES BORDELON, OSV JOHN
1,632associated personnel deployed in support of spill response.
100 Title 10 personnel and 1,441Title 32 National Guard members deployed.
COGHILL, and OSV VANGUARD have been contracted by DoD.
Continuing monitoring and sampling of air, water and sediment.
National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) established
plans to visit BP worker training staging areas in AL, FL, LA and MS.
Agency for Toxic Substance Disease Registry provided a draft document
entitled Dispersants & Safety in Seafood to the Food and Drug Administration
for review.
MMS reports some success is being achieved through the use of the RITT and that a
larger tool is being constructed to siphon oil from the leaking riser.
Weather forecast:
13
Document ID: 0.7.19.1942.1
May 18, 2010
Wednesday, 19 May: Northeast winds 5-10 knots (am)/southeast
winds 5-10 knots (pm); seas 2 ft or less.
Thursday, 20 May: Southeast winds 5-10 knots; seas 2-3 ft.
CRITICAL INFRASTRUCTURE KEY RESOURCES (CIKR)
Revisions to the Federal closure in the exclusive economic zone allowed reopening
of some oyster harvesting areas in Terrebonne Parish, LA.
STATE AND LOCAL AGENCIES
Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, Texas, and Florida communicating daily with DHS.
NATIONAL OPERATIONS CENTER
14
Document ID: 0.7.19.1942.1
May 18, 2010
SUMMARY:
BRIEFING:
Riser insertion tube into the riser - gathering 2,000
barrels per day.
Controlled burns yesterday and today was a good burn day
as well - reports can be expected tomorrow.
Charlie Henry, NOAA
o Bulk of oil is north of current
o Limited amount of oil susceptible to the current
o Reviewing transport pattern, looking at 10 or more days
QUESTIONS/COMMENTS:
8e&URL=https%3a%2f%2ffanyv88.com%3a443%2fhttp%2fwww.skytruth.org> also has useful information
15
Document ID: 0.7.19.1942.1
May 18, 2010
Question: Do you have a further update on the research being conducted on
underwater plumes?
o Charlie Henry Answer: Samples are not accurate due to the way the droplets
disperse. Larger droplets rise quickly to the surface while the smaller droplets stay
below. NOAA does not view underwater plumes as a significant threat at this time and
is working to get a better projection on deep water currents to determine short and
long-term implications. This analysis will be forthcoming in the days ahead. With
regard to concerns that subsea dispersants are correlated to underwater plume, NOAA
does notsee a correlation. At the time of the inquiry, there were only a few days of
subsea dispersant activity, so NOAA does not think subsea dispersant was a significant
driver.
Question: Following up on yesterday's question on economic impact loss for
impacted areas.
o Captain Hanzalik: Also will make sure that commerce is on the phone to answer
the question tomorrow.
o Jane, SBA: Working on declarations for small business loans
o Heather Smith, DHS: This info is available on
o Nandi Chhabra, WH: We will follow up with Melton individually, and also on the
call tomorrow.
16
Document ID: 0.7.19.1942.1
good evening everyone,
attached is a compilation of notes from noaa leadership meetings on tuesday, may 18, 2010.
let me know if there are any modifications necessary.
best,
jen
SUMMARY OF NOAA LEADERSHIP DAILY DEEPWATER HORIZON 8 AM BRIEFING
Call Guidelines:
Action Items
B o o m s
C oral reefs & oil
Fish stocks in the Gulf of M exico
S eafood safety
Im pact of crude oil on seafood
Loop current
M ussel W atch
N O S activities
Document ID: 0.7.19.1942.2

SUMMARY OF DAILY CALLS WITH THE GOVERNORS: DEEPWATER HORIZON UPDATE MEETING:
TUESDAY, MAY 18, 2010,
Governors: Jindal
EPA applying subsea dispersant (when monitoring ship is in place). Will switch dispersants
today based on toxicity. (Action: provide info on new dispersants and reasons)
Gov. Jindal questioned the accuracy of the trajectories he noted that there was significantly
more oil along the shoreline than what had been projected. Why is that? Monica
Gov. Jindal did the burning, skimming and surface dispersants application get factored into to
todays trajectory? (NOAA response for tomorrow)
Gov. Jindal asked about reports from the SCAT teams
Adm. Watson Do not yet have the estimates of oil burned, skimmed and dispersed from
yesterday. Will continue those operations today. Can we get estimate of both days for tomorrow?
Adm. Watson did not yet have the tests back from the crab pot dip stick testing of the subsurface
oil.
Gov. Jindal have the tarballs recovered from Marsh Is. in Iberia get tested yet to see whether
they are from the BP spill? (no) If it is related, it would be the furthest west that the oil has travelled.
Eileen Sobeck (FWS) wildlife teams out yesterday and again today. (Report on wildlife impacts
tomorrow?)
Monica Medina NOAA seeing increased turtle strandings. Looking to see if there is a pattern that
is related to the oil.
Fish closures - NOAA expanded fisheries closure yesterday; watching the loop current issue
closely. If oil moves into the loop current, there will likely be a large expansion of closed fisheries.
(NOAA wants to maintain the safety and confidence in the seafood industry.)
Gov. Jindal Monica mentioned that oil has moved passed booms and gotten into the marshes.
What are the reasons for the oil getting past the boom? Failed boom; too much oil; subsea oil; improperly
placed boom? David Kennedy did not know the answer in this case, but said boom is never a fail-safe
solution.
Gov. Jindal wants more boom moved to the West (although he acknowledged the 1000 new feet
Document ID: 0.7.19.1942.2

Gov Jindal said he met with Col Lee of USACE yesterday to discuss barrier proposal. Col Lee
was positive about the comments received on the proposal; and the Governor said that Adm. Landry has
been supportive of the proposal. He urged us to expedite the barrier. Do we need to manage
expectations?
SUMMARY OF NATIONAL RESPONSE TEAM CALL
Situation Status:
-Riser insertion tool is capturing about 2,000 barrels/day and has been successful for the past 24 hours.
A second tool is in place in case first tool fails.
-Window of opportunity for top kill is between now and May 25. The window of opportunity is dependent
on pressure and temperatures. Still trying to get a better handle on associate risks.
-Four burns were conducted yesterday. The good weather window continues to continue surface
operations with more burns and aerial dispersant application today.
-Great deal of reporting on undersea plume and interaction with loop current --- need more focused
messaging to explain what is happening subsurface and what happens to oil in loop current.
-Proactive messaging today will be focused on managing impacts in Florida and a confident and agreed
upon position on subsurface plume. Story tomorrow will be about Cuba.
Communications:
-Proactively analyzing tarballs and communicating that information (we expect results from tarballs found
in Keys in 12 hours).
-Dr. Lubchenco is on media call to address the loop current --- significant news coverage today that oil is
in loop current.
Legal:
-Briefing on Hill on current legislative proposal which will include proposed changes to Oil Spill Liability
Trust Fund.
Intergovernmental:
Dredging Proposal:
-Army Corps is playing out permitting process for viability of berm project --- this does not ensure funding
or follow on of project implementation.
-While process is playing out, Gov. Jindal is talking to the press about the high likelihood of the project
being approved.
SUMMARY OF DOC-NOAA DEEPWATER HORIZON UPDATE MEETING: TUESDAY
MAY 18, 2010,
Document ID: 0.7.19.1942.2
ACTIONS:
Strategies to respond to the many requests for NOAA leadership to be at meetings in the Gulf
MEETING MINUTES:
DISPERSANT ISSUES
Planning by RRT/NOAA is underway for a Dispersant Workshop, to discuss the long term
impacts of applying dispersant. Intent is to have this soon, within a few days. This would include not only
government but also representatives from academia.
Discussion about the long term costs and personnel needs for testing and monitoring. NOAA is
developing a plan.
Use of subsurface dispersant is much more effective than using dispersants on the surface oil.
FISHING CLOSURES
30-day closure rule will allow NOAA to amend closures simply by updating the maps online,
instead of having to go through formal approval processes. OMB is examining this at the moment. This
would be analogous to the online trajectory maps.
No press release would be broadcast with each closure update; just the maps.
Discussions are ongoing with FDA and NOAA on the closures relating to health impacts.
OMB has approved talking points developed in NOAA for how hurricanes would affect and be
affected by the oil spill.
Concern was raised about evacuating the thousands of people involved in the cleanup should a
hurricane move into the spill area.
Ahsha Tribble and Chris Smallcomb will brief the group tomorrow/1030am on the Hurricane
Seasonal Outlook Press Conference that Dr. Lubchenco will participate in next week.
Many requests for NOAA leadership to be at meetings in the Gulf region, both technical and
political people.
Proposal to have at least one political in the Gulf region each week. Another strategy would be to
use leadership from other DOC bureaus.
Bilingual capabilities are important for some of these meetings, where fishermen speak other
languages (e.g. Vietnamese)
Discussion about an interactive, multi-agency website providing resources and information for
those impacted by the oil spill. This would be a major undertaking.
A few challenges described keeping coordinated with White House on talking points and press
releases.
SUMMARY OF CONGRESSIONAL STAFF CONFERENCE CALL ON THE GULF OF MEXICO OIL
SPILL
Facilitator
Chani Wiggins, Asst. Sec. of Legislative Affairs, U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS)
Document ID: 0.7.19.1942.2
Staff
Staff
Staff
Staff
Staff
with House Science and Technology Committee
with Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee
for Rep. Gus Bilirakis (R-9th, FL)
for Rep. Kendrick Meek (D-17th, FL)
for Rep. Bill Cassidy (R-6th, LA)
- The riser insertion tool has effectively relieved some pressure on the well head and the tool is assisting
in the recovery of approximately 2,000 barrels of oil per day
- There have been no changes to oil expressions on the surface as a result of using the riser
- Dispersant application is currently on hold; we are waiting for a vessel to arrive on site to monitor
dispersant application.
- 4 in-situ burns occurred yesterday
- 20 tarballs washed ashore in Key West, FL yesterday. Samples of these balls were sent off for
processing to determine if their chemical signature matches that of oil in the Deepwater Horizon spill.
Results should be received in the next day or two.
- Tarballs have also been recovered in Pascagoula, MS and at other locations in the Delta region
- Tarballs are easier to recover from shore, but if they are suspended in the water column, there is the
potential for them to bypass booms
- 36 wildlife impacts reported thus far
- Tally of responders associated with spill has increased to 20,000 people and 1,000 vessels
- Over 15,000 total claims filed to date, BP has approved all claims submitted to date and almost 400
people at work performing claims processing
- Reiterated the effectiveness of the insertion tool, recovering on average 2,000 barrels of oil per day
- The pod is being reset and the remainder of the necessary equipment should be in place by weekend.
We should be able to begin operations early next week.
- The newest 72-hr trajectory indicates that the plume continues to move west to southwest from the
source.
- We note that the oil sheen is moving toward the edge of the loop current; right now oil appears to have
entered a loop current boundary gyre.
- We cannot confirm whether or not the oil plume is entrained in the loop current itself at this point.
Aircraft flyovers scheduled in the next few days should help inform this effort.
- Oil impacts on shore have been noted in the Delta region, and approximately 2 km of oiled marshes
have been observed. The Shoreline Cleanup Assessment Team has been deployed.
- As of 6:00pm today, NOAA Fisheries is expanding the eastern and southern boundaries of the closure
to encompass the reported actual location and projected path of the oil based on initialization data and
the 72-hour trajectory to incorporate full extent of trajectory and to address the possibility of oil entry into
the loop current.
- The closure measures 45,728 sq mi (118,435 sq km), which is approximately double the closure area
that was previously in effect.
- The majority of the expansion area is approximately 150 mi offshore, meaning that the pelagic longline
fishery (which includes swordfish and tuna fisheries) is likely the fishery most affected by this change.
- We continue to collect reports of affected sea turtles and other wildlife through our hotline.
Document ID: 0.7.19.1942.2
How many gallons of dispersant has been released to date?
How large is the stream of oil near the loop current?
What does the oil in the relief tube look like?
Does the volume of flow in relief tube give any indication of overall flow leakage rate? Can you use flow
rate from relief tube to estimate flow rate out of riser?
Dr. Lubchenco mentioned in an earlier public/press statement that NOAA has been working right from the
start on this spill, but needs more assets. What assets was she referring to?
Getbacks for NOAA
- Provide context and more information regarding the assets NOAA needs that Dr. Lubchenco referred to
in her earlier statement. (OLA to coordinate with NOAA Communications on where this statement may
have come up and what was said)
SUMMARY OF DOC-NOAA DEEPWATER HORIZON UPDATE MEETING: TUESDAY,
MAY 18, 2010,
ACTIONS:
Need to determine the chemical composition of the dispersants so that we can definitively know
what we are testing for.
Need to determine what is the tipping point for calling a fisheries disaster. This should include
implications and public perception ramifications.
NOAA needs to ensure that there are adequate resources to analyze the plume to properly define
the characteristics (where is it, where is it going, extent, depth, etc.)
DOC and NOAA need to establish a protocol for expanding fisheries closures that includes
notification of OMB, preparing talking points, but is still responsive enough to stay ahead of the spill. If the
reporting deadline is noon, then the protocol has to allow for posting then. A 24-hour lag is not responsive
NOAA should post maps of where fisheries sampling is taking place.
UPDATES:
ADM Allen will not back the Louisiana governors proposal. BP has also determined that this is
not an appropriate response mechanism, so will not fund it.
A meeting is being held next week, hosted by the new NOAA assistant secretary to address
concerns from civilian scientists who feel left out of the spill reaction.
SCHEDULING NOTES:
The group will meet tomorrow at 5 p.m
DHS SENIOR LEADERSHIP BRIEF: DEEPWATER HORIZON RESPONSE
GULF OF MEXICO 1200 EDT 18 MAY 2010
Ensure all capabilities (government, private, and commercial) and resources are being leveraged
to protect the environment and facilitate a rapid, robust cleanup effort.
Ensure every effort is being made to include and inform the local communities in support of
response operations.
CURRENT SITUATION
OIL STOPPAGE
Drill Rig ENTERPRISE continuing recovery of an oil and gas mixture with no water. (USCG)
RITT-2 is being constructed and will be ready for deployment to the sea floor on 19 May. (NICC)
Document ID: 0.7.19.1942.2
Top Hat remains on the seabed; standing-by pending effectiveness of the RITT. (USCG)
TOP KILL
Top Kill equipment being staged; commencement of operation no sooner than 23-25 May.
(USCG)
RELIEF WELL
Drill Rig DDII drilling operations scheduled to resume 18 May; current drill depth is 253 ft below
the sea floor. (USCG)
Drill Rig DDIII drilling operations scheduled to resume 18 May; current drill depth remains 3,537 ft
below sea floor. (USCG)
OIL LANDFALL
Unconfirmed reports of oil and tar balls at the following locations: East Dauphin Island, AL; Little
Lagoon, AL; Fort Zachary State Park, Key West, FL; Panama City Beach, FL; Grand Isle, LA; Biloxi, MS;
East Ship Island, MS; Long Beach, MS; Pascagoula, MS; and West Ship Island, MS. (USCG)
OPERATIONS
DISPERSANTS
ASSETS ON SCENE:
Dispersants deployed to date: 641,639 gallons (588,490 gallons surface/53,149 gallons subsea)
(USCG)
Total Vessels Assigned: 1013* (USCG/NIC)
AUTHORITIES
Homeland Security Presidential Directive 5 (HSPD 5).
National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan - 40 CFR 300.300.
Director Birnbaum: U.S. Minerals Management Service (MMS).
Federal On-Scene Coordinator (FOSC): Rear Admiral Landry, Commander, USCG, District 8,
New Orleans, LA.
Responsible Party: British Petroleum (BP) and Transocean.
Document ID: 0.7.19.1942.2
FEDERAL AGENCIES/DEPARTMENTS
Shoreline Cleanup and Assessment Teams (SCAT) are sampling oil and tar balls; clean up action
being taken by BPs oil spill recovery organization.
CUSTOMS AND BORDER PROTECTION (CBP)
OAM continues to provide 2 aircraft to provide advisory information to spotter and tanker aircraft
conducting spray operations.
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service supporting wildlife activities in LA.
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE (DOD)
3 civilian offshore support vessels (OSV), OVS WES BORDELON, OSV JOHN COGHILL, and
OSV VANGUARD have been contracted by DoD.
1,632 associated personnel deployed in support of spill response.
100 Title 10 personnel and 1,441 Title 32 National Guard members deployed.
Continuing monitoring and sampling of air, water and sediment.
National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) established plans to visit BP
worker training staging areas in AL, FL, LA and MS.
Agency for Toxic Substance Disease Registry provided a draft document entitled Dispersants &
Safety in Seafood to the Food and Drug Administration for review.
MMS reports some success is being achieved through the use of the RITT and that a larger tool
is being constructed to siphon oil from the leaking riser.
Weather forecast:
Wednesday, 19 May: Northeast winds 5-10 knots (am)/southeast winds 5-10 knots (pm); seas 2
ft or less.
Thursday, 20 May: Southeast winds 5-10 knots; seas 2-3 ft.
CRITICAL INFRASTRUCTURE KEY RESOURCES (CIKR)
Revisions to the Federal closure in the exclusive economic zone allowed reopening of some
oyster harvesting areas in Terrebonne Parish, LA.
STATE AND LOCAL AGENCIES
Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, Texas, and Florida communicating daily with DHS.
NATIONAL OPERATIONS CENTER
Document ID: 0.7.19.1942.2
SUMMARY:
BRIEFING:
Riser insertion tube into the riser - gathering 2,000
barrels per day.
Controlled burns yesterday and today was a good burn day
as well - reports can be expected tomorrow.
Charlie Henry, NOAA
o
o
o
Bulk of oil is north of current
Limited amount of oil susceptible to the current
Reviewing transport pattern, looking at 10 or more days
QUESTIONS/COMMENTS:
8e&URL=https%3a%2f%2ffanyv88.com%3a443%2fhttp%2fwww.skytruth.org> also has useful information
Question: Do you have a further update on the research being conducted on underwater plumes?
underwater plumes as a significant threat at this time and is working to get a better projection on deep
water currents to determine short and long-term implications. This analysis will be forthcoming in the
days ahead. With regard to concerns that subsea dispersants are correlated to underwater plume, NOAA
does not see a correlation. At the time of the inquiry, there were only a few days of
subsea dispersant activity, so NOAA does not think subsea dispersant was a significant driver.
Question: Following up on yesterday's question on economic impact loss for impacted areas.
o Captain Hanzalik: Also will make sure that commerce is on the phone to answer the question
tomorrow.
o Heather Smith, DHS: This info is available on
Nandi Chhabra, WH: We will follow up with Melton individually, and also on the call tomorrow.
Document ID: 0.7.19.1942.2
Received(Date):
Wed, 19 May 2010 12:46:43 +0100
From:
Subject: BP GUlf of Mexico Update: May 18, 2010
To:
[email protected],[email protected], [email protected],Andrea Bleistein
<[email protected]>, [email protected],[email protected],
[email protected], [email protected],"Boots, Michael J."
<[email protected]>, [email protected],[email protected],
[email protected], [email protected],[email protected],
[email protected], [email protected],[email protected], [email protected],
[email protected],[email protected], "Jourdane, Jonathan"
<[email protected]>,[email protected],
[email protected],"Modi, Kalpen S." <[email protected]>,
05/18/2010
BP is working as part of the Unified Command to accomplish three main objectives in
the Gulf of Mexico:
1.
2.
3.
Onshore to protect the shoreline and inform the public.
Highlights
x
20,281 personnel responding as part of the Unified Command, plus volunteers. An
increase of more than 3,000 since Sunday.
x
Subsea dispersant application continues, 8,000 gallons injected on Monday.
x
x
1,000,000 gallons of oily water recovered and treated since yesterday.
x
Three new claims centers open
More than $12 million in claims paid.
Offshore Sea Floor
BPs priority is to reduce and stop the flow of oil subsea and minimize environmental
impacts through multiple strategies:
1. Riser Insertion Tube The riser insertion tool was successfully placed into the
leaking riser on Monday, and the tube is capturing some of the oil and gas. Crews on
the surface are working to optimize recovery rates. This remains a new technology and
both its continued operation and its effectiveness in capturing the oil and gas remain
uncertain.
2. Dispersant injection at the sea floor Dispersant was applied directly at the leak
site on Sunday and again on Monday night. Roughly 15,500 gallons were applied
during the two periods using Remote Operated Vehicles (ROVs). The dispersant acts
by separating the oil into small droplets that can break down more easily through natural
processes before it reaches the surface. Sonar testing and aerial photographs show
encouraging results. Additional subsea applications are subject to ongoing testing
protocols developed with the Environmental Protection Agency and other federal and
state agencies.
x
Equipment is on location near the blowout preventer (BOP) to begin work on killing
the well from the top. Manifold and bypass lines are in place to connect to valves on the
BOP. Through these valves, engineers will attempt first to pump heavy fluids and
cement directly downhole to kill the well.
x
An additional option to control pressure is to inject a junk shot of shredded fibrous
material into the BOP through these lines. The material will travel up the BOP and clog
the flow of the well. Once the pressure is controlled, heavy fluids and cement can be
pumped down the well to kill it.
x
Diagnostics are ongoing. Gamma ray surveys have been conducted to determine
the status of internal components and pressures inside the blowout preventer.
4. Drilling relief wells

On Sunday, Transoceans drillship,
Development Driller II,
began drilling the second relief well. Like the first relief well, this one is approximately
one-half mile from the Macondo well and will attempt to intercept the existing wellbore at
approximately 18,000 feet below seal level. The first relief well was spudded by
Transocean Development Driller III on Sunday, May 2, in a water depth of roughly 5,000
feet. This well has been drilled to 9,000 feet below sea level. It has been cased and
cemented to that depth. Testing of the BOP is continuing and drilling should begin
again within a couple of days. It is estimated the total drilling process will take at least
90 days. Once that is accomplished, and the original well has been penetrated, heavy
fluids and cement can be pumped downhole to kill the well.
x
A containment dome, called a top hat, has been deployed to the sea floor and is
readied to be placed over the main leak, if needed. It is designed with injection ports
that can accommodate anti-freeze in order to mitigate the formation of large volumes
of frozen hydrates.
x
It is important to note that this technology has never been used at this water depth.
Significant technical and operational challenges must be overcome for it to be
successful.
x
Cleanup Vessels 950 specialty response vessels are now deployed, including
tugs, barges and recovery boats. 46 of the boats are skimmers, designed to separate
oil from water. Approximately 182,251 barrels of oil-water mix (7.65 million gallons)
have been recovered and treated.
x
Surface Dispersant 588,416 gallons of dispersant have been applied on the
surface by aircraft. The dispersant is a biodegradable chemical that works like soap by
separating the oil into small droplets that can be more easily broken down by natural
processes. An additional 308,000 gallons are available for deployment.
x
In-Situ Burning The Unified Command conducted four in-situ burns on Monday.
The in-situ burning occurs on the surface using special fire-boom that collects surface
hydrocarbons which are then burned off.
x
BP Announces $70 million in Tourism Grants to States On Monday, BP CEO
Tony Hayward announced the company will make an additional $70 million available to
Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama and Florida to promote tourism. This money is in
addition to the $100 million in block grants for accelerated implementation of Area
Contingency Plans announced on May 4. It is also supplemental to BPs private claims
x
$25 Million Block Grants to 4 States On May 4, BP announced it would provide
Louisiana, Florida, Mississippi and Alabama $25 million each to accelerate
implementation of the States approved Area Contingency Plans. The Contingency
Plans address removal of a worst case spill and are designed to mitigate or prevent a
substantial threat to sensitive areas. The money will enable local businesses to
immediately support clean-up and recovery efforts. The grant is supplemental to BPs
private claims process, which remains unchanged.
x
Oil Containment and Shoreline Protection 1,800,000 feet of both sorbent and
barrier boom have been deployed or staged to protect sensitive coastal areas. An
additional 1,150,000 feet of boom is being directed to staging areas.
x
4,581 contracts have been approved and
1,339 vessels are active and getting paid. Participating vessels are being organized
into 25-boat task force teams to help with a variety of clean-up activities, including
transporting supplies, performing wildlife rescue, and towing and deploying booms. To
qualify for the program, operators need to meet several key requirements, including
attending a four-hour hazardous waste training session, passing a dockside
examination by the U.S. Coast Guard, and meeting crewing requirements based on the
size of the vessel provided. 54 training sessions have been held across the four states.
The contact number for people interested in registering for the program is (281) 366-
5511 and information about training can be found on the incident website at
www.deepwaterhorizonresponse.com under volunteers. For additional information
about training call (866) 905-4492.
x
Volunteers and Training BP has opened 22 Community Outreach Centers
across the Gulf where people can go for more information, to find out about the spill,
and to connect with volunteer opportunities. Training ramped up significantly this week,
with sessions held at multiple locations across the Gulf. As of today, more than 15,000
volunteers have been trained in five different training modules that range from safety for
beach clean-up, to wildlife monitoring, handling of hazardous materials and vessel
operation for laying boom. Information about training can be found on the incident
website at www.deepwaterhorizonresponse.com under volunteers.
x
Informing Community Leaders The Unified Command continues to hold twice-
daily teleconferences with mayors and community leaders across Mississippi, Alabama
and Florida to ensure that elected officials have an opportunity to be updated on
Command activities and to ask questions.
x
Wildlife Activities 1 additional report of impacted wildlife was received, bringing
the total to 36. Wildlife rehabilitation sites are located in Venice, LA and Mobile, AL.
x
Claims for Damages - BP has opened 17 claims offices to help claimants through
the process. Vietnamese and Spanish translators are in some offices. 17,000 claims
have been filed and approximately 3,400 of them have been paid, an increase of 700
since Monday. Approximately $12 million has been paid out. Most of the claims are for
loss of income or wages in commercial fishing, shrimping and oyster harvest, and
associated processing facilities. The contact number for claims is (800) 440-0858.
Claims office locations are listed below.
Robert
Louisiana
Sites:
Unified Area Command
Houma
Incident Command Post
Pointe A La Hache
Venice
Community Outreach Center, Staging
Grand Isle
Staging Area
Port Fourchon
Community Outreach Cen
Staging Area
Cocodrie
Staging Area
Shell Beach
Slidell
Staging Area
Staging Area
St. Mary
Staging Area
Amelia
Staging Area
Belle Chasse
Claims Office
Cut Off
Claims Office
Unit 2
Cut Off, LA 70345
Grand Isle
Claims Office
3811 LA 1
Hammond
Claims Office
303 Timber Creek
Hammond, LA 70404
Houma
Claims Office
Plaza Caillou Shopping Center
814 Grand Caillou Road
Suite 2 & 3
Houma, LA 70363
Pointe A La Hache
Claims Office
1553 Hwy 15
St. Bernard
Claims Office
1345 Bayou Rd
Venice
Claims Office
41093 Hwy LA 23
x
x
New Claims Office for Terrebonne Parish opened at Houma.
x
Continuing to add adjusters to help process claims and working with translators to
ensure that Vietnamese and Spanish speaking communities are served.
x
Working with the State to coordinate food stamp programs.
x
Working with Catholic Charities to deliver immediate community needs of food and
clothing.
Mississippi
Pascagoula
Area
Sites:
Community Outreach Center, Staging
Biloxi
Community Outreach Center, Staging Area
Waveland
Community Outreach Center
Pass Christian
Staging Area
Bay St. Louis
Claims Office
1171 Highway
90
Bay St. Louis,
MS 39520
Biloxi
Claims Office
Biloxi, MS 39532
Pascagoula
Claims Office
5912 Old Mobile Hwy
Suite 4
x
x
New Claims Office for Hancock County opened in Bay St. Louis.
x
Continuing to coordinate training for vessel operators and working on Vessels of
Opportunity deployment.
Alabama Sites:
Mobile
Theodore
Incident Command Post, Community Outreach Center
Staging Area
Orange Beach
Dauphin
Staging Area
Staging Area
Bayou
LaBatre
Claims
Office
290 N.
Wintzell
Avenue
Bayou
LaBatre,
AL
36509
Foley
Claims Office
Suite 104
Foley, AL 36535
Gulf Shores / Orange Beach

Office
Suite 1
Claims
x
x
New Claims Office for Baldwin County opened at Orange Beach.
x
Volunteer update includes 59 miles of beach cleaned up.
x
Staffing claims centers with adjusters to process claims, looking at opening
additional claims offices.
x
Working with Vessels of Opportunity volunteers on training, and repaired deployed
booms at three sites that were damaged by storm.
Florida Sites:
St. Petersburg
Pensacola
Incident Command Post
Community Outreach Center, Staging Area
Panama City
St. Joe
Staging Area
Staging Area
St. Marks
Ft. Walton
Staging Area
Claims Office
348 SW Miracle Strip Pkwy
Suite 13
Fort Walton Beach, FL 32548
Gulf Breeze
Claims Office
Unit B-9
Panama City
Claims Office
Pensacola
Claims Office
3960 Navy Boulevard
Suite 16-17
Pensacola, FL 32507
Port St. Joe
Claims Office
106 Trade Circle
Suite A
Port St. Joe, FL 32456
x
x
New Claims Office for Gulf County opened at Port St. Joe.
x
x
Holding town hall meetings with vessel owners and coordinating training for Vessels
of Opportunity volunteers.
x
Working with counties to review Area Contingency Plans and identify booming and
beach clean up priorities.
Contact Information
Environment / Community Hotline to report oil on the beach
(866) 448-5816
or shoreline or other environment or community impacts and
access the Rapid Response Team
Wildlife
to report and access care for impacted, i.e. oil wildlife (866) 557-1401
Volunteers
to request volunteer information
(866) 448-5816
Services to register as consultant, contractor, vendor, or
(281) 366-5511
submit information on alternative response technology, services,
products or suggestions
Vessels of Opportunity
to assist with response
to report and register boats available
(281) 366-5511
Training for questions about training requirements, times and
(866) 905-4492 or (866)
locations, and to sign up\
647-2338
Ideas to Submit
email suggestions to horizonresponse@piersystemcom
(281) 366-3123
Investor Relations
(800) 440-0858
Claims
Joint Information Center
center
Robert, LA
Media and information
(985) 902-5231 or (985)
902-5240
Joint Information Center

center
Mobile, AL
Media and information
(251) 445-8965
Transocean Hotline
(832) 587-8554
MI Swaco Hotline
(888) 318-6765
BP Family
and third-party contractor hotline
(281) 366-5578
Twitter: Oil Spill 2010
Karen St John
BP America
(202) 457-6594
(202) 351-1399 (cell)
[email protected]
Received(Date):
Wed, 19 May 2010 10:18:37 -0400
From:
John Rapp <[email protected]>
Subject: Interagency Seafood Safety Call - Notes
To:
"Sarri, Kristen" <[email protected]>
Cc:
_HQ Deep Water Horizon Staff <[email protected]>,Monica Medina
<[email protected]>
Kris,
Here are a few points on what was discussed after you left the meeting. Please let me know if
you have any questions.
Chris
Baseline data:
Discussion focused on what efforts have been or are being used to collect baseline
information. NOAAs Mussel W atch Program, vessel sampling by Federal and State
agencies, and data collected post Katrina are among the efforts are being used. NMFS will
send a paper that includes toxicity levels measured post Katrina to interested members on
the call.
Dispersants:
NOAA will be looking for dispersants in testing. EPA was asked to provide the chemical
makeup of the dispersant as FDA and NOAA indicated that this is necessary for testing.
Samples of the dispersant have been sent to NOAA labs.
Future sampling:
W ater sampling both on the surface and the subsurface should be used to inform fishing
closures.
NOAA is conducting waters samples as are the States
Toxicity levels:
There will be a call today to discuss toxicity levels and appropriate contaminant exposures
levels. OMB will set up this call. A time has not be set.
Received(Date):
Wed, 19 May 2010 10:32:46 -0400
From:
[email protected]
Subject: Dispersant make-up
To:
[email protected]
Cc:
[email protected], [email protected], [email protected]
Lois,
Per your voice mail on a phone call to discuss the makeup of
dispersants, I recommend that Steve Murawski be on the call. I also
understand that Robert Haddad of OR&R should be included
Chris
Lois,
Per your voice mail on a phone call to discuss the makeup of
dispersants, I recommend that Steve Murawski be on the call. I also
understand that Robert Haddad of OR&R should be included
Chris
Document ID: 0.7.19.1667.1
Received(Date):
Wed, 19 May 2010 11:21:37 -0400
From:
Jason Rolfe <[email protected]>
Subject: NIC Request
To:
_HQ Deep Water Horizon Staff <[email protected]>,Dave Westerholm
<[email protected]>,William Conner <[email protected]>,Roger L Parsons
<[email protected]>,Robert Pavia <[email protected]>, Charlie Henry
<[email protected]>,Demian Bailey <[email protected]>
Cc:
Mark W Miller <[email protected]>, [email protected],ICC Deputy
<[email protected]>
Mark Miller and I just met with CAPT Scott Beeson, NIC Situation Unit Chief of Staff. He's
concerned that there is a large number of academic science vessels operating in the Gulf
attempting to gather information on the existance/location of subsurface oil. The number of
research vessels offering assistance will likely increase and as we understood it, their activities
could impact response actions.
CAPT Beeson thought that Area Command might benefit from a single NOAA "Surface
Platform Czar" who works with all vessels including these academic vessels to ensure their
activities are known, the cruise results and data are made available to Unified Command/NOAA
in a coordinated way; parallel position to NOAA CAPT Michelle Finn (Air Czar).
Charlie and Demian, we know you have been looking at this. Any luck in identifying
someone? Can we here at the NIC help to find an appropriate NOAA person to help coordinate
academic science vessels? Roger Parsons is on board as NIC Chief of Staff.
Second request - CAPT Beeson suggested that the NIC, NOAA and Coast Guard would benefit
from a senior NOAA scientist who could be the single senior Science point of contact to the
NIC. The issue was that there were some very complex issues that we are being pressed on that
involves multiple agencies as well as varied academic connections - subsurface oil, loop current,
dispersants, and This person would need to be conversant in NOAA science assets as well as
broad agency and academic experience . He also requested that this person brief ADM Allen
within the next day or so. W e can work with CAPT Beeson on specific issues to be discussed.
Can the folks on this email at HCHB consider this single POC for NOAA science?
Received(Date):
Wed, 19 May 2010 18:09:55 -0400
From:
Subject: Atlantic Coast Governor's Call
To:
[email protected], 'John Gray' <[email protected]>,'Monica Medina'
<[email protected]>,"'Jacqueline J. Rousseau'"
<[email protected]>,[email protected], "'Robert.Haddad'"
<[email protected]>,[email protected], [email protected]
Cc:
"'Ramos, William'" <[email protected]>
3:00pm
Agency Representatives:
Adm. Watson- NIC
Monica Medina and Bob Haddad- NOAA
John Perciasepe-EPA
Governors:
Crist- Florida
Sanford- South Carolina
Perdue North Carolina
McDonald-Virginia
Adm. W atson: gave the NIC situation and leak stabilization report
Monica Medina gave an update on the oils potential into the loop current
EPA Deputy Administrator Perciasepe gave a report on dispersants and toxicity
Questions:
Governor Crist: wanted clarification when there would be actual sighting on the Florida coast.
Answer: In 8-10 days.
Lisa Capone- Massachusetts Office of Energy (?)
Question: Do we expect the oil in New England?
Answer: No
Delaware Dept. of Natural Resources representative
Question: Wanted to know why we cant get a handle on how much oil is in the actual flow
from the well?
Answer: -
Linda D. Belton
NOAA Office of Legislative and Intergovernmental Affairs
Phone: (202) 482-5447
Cell: (202) 302-7148
Fax: (202) 482-4960
Received(Date):
Thu, 20 May 2010 13:59:17 +0100
From:
Subject: BP Gulf of Mexico Update: May 19
Apologies for late arrival of this update for Wednesday, May 19.
Please let us know if you have questions.
Brian Miller and Chad Calvert
05/19/2010 9:00pm EDT
1.
2.
3.
Highlights
x
19,403 personnel responding as part of the Unified Command, plus volunteers.
x
Subsea dispersant application continues, 5,250 gallons injected on Tuesday.
x
218,000 gallons of oily water recovered and treated.
x
New claims center opened in Florida.
x
$4 million in additional claims paid since Monday.
Offshore Sea Floor
BPs priority is to reduce and stop the flow of oil subsea and minimize environmental impacts through
multiple strategies:
1.
Riser Insertion Tube The riser insertion tool was successfully placed into the leaking riser on
Monday, and the tube is capturing approximately 3,000 barrels of oil per day. Crews on the surface are
working to optimize recovery rates. This remains a new technology and both its continued operation and
its effectiveness in capturing the oil and gas remain uncertain.
2. Dispersant injection at the sea floor Dispersant application at the main leak continued on
Tuesday with 5,250 gallons injected into the flow using Remote Operated Vehicles (ROVs). The
dispersant acts by separating the oil into small droplets that can break down more easily through natural
processes before it reaches the surface. Sonar testing and aerial photographs show encouraging
results. Additional subsea applications are subject to ongoing testing protocols developed with the
Environmental Protection Agency and other federal and state agencies.
3.
Top Kill Activities
x
Equipment is on location near the blowout preventer (BOP) to work on killing the well from the top.
Manifold and bypass lines are connected to valves on the BOP. Through these valves, engineers will
attempt first to pump heavy fluids and cement directly downhole to kill the well.
x
The control yellow pod was deployed and riser connectors are on location and prepared for
deployment.
x
pressure is controlled, heavy fluids and cement can be pumped down the well to kill it.
x
Diagnostics are ongoing. Gamma ray surveys have been completed to determine the status of
internal components and pressures inside the blowout preventer.
second relief well. Like the first relief well, this one is approximately one-half mile from the Macondo well
and will attempt to intercept the existing wellbore at approximately 18,000 feet below seal level. The first
relief well was spudded by Transocean
Development Driller III on Sunday, May 2, in a water depth of
roughly 5,000 feet. This well has been drilled to 9,000 feet below sea level. It has been cased and
cemented to that depth. Testing of the BOP is continuing and drilling should begin again within a couple
of days. It is estimated the total drilling process will take at least 90 days. Once that is accomplished,
and the original well has been penetrated, heavy fluids and cement can be pumped downhole to kill the
well.
5.
Containment Recovery System
x
freeze in order to mitigate the formation of large volumes of frozen hydrates.
x
x
andrecovery boats. 46 of the boats are skimmers, designed to separate oil from water. Approximately
187,476 barrels of oil-water mix (7.87 million gallons) have been recovered and treated.
x
an increase of 11,709 gallons since Monday. The dispersant is a biodegradable chemical that works like
soap by separating the oil into small droplets that can be more easily broken down by natural processes.
An additional 320,000 gallons are available for deployment.
x
In-Situ Burning The Unified Command conducted 5 additional in-situ burns on Tuesday. The in-
situ burning occurs on the surface using special fire-boom that collects surface hydrocarbons which are
then burned off.
x
BP Announces $70 million in Tourism Grants to States On Monday, BP CEO Tony Hayward
announced the company will make an additional $70 million available to Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama
and Florida to promote tourism. This money is in addition to the $100 million in block grants for
accelerated implementation of Area Contingency Plans announced on May 4. It is also supplemental to
BPs private claims process, which remains unchanged
x
to mitigate or prevent a substantial threat to sensitive areas. The money will enable local businesses to
immediately support clean-up and recovery efforts. The grant is supplemental to BPs private claims
x
Oil Containment and Shoreline Protection 1,925,000 feet of both sorbent and barrier boom
have been deployed or staged to protect sensitive coastal areas. An additional 1,150,000 feet of boom is
being directed to staging areas.
4,581 contracts have been approved and 1,339 vessels are
x
active and getting paid. Participating vessels are being organized into 25-boat task force teams to help
with a variety of clean-up activities, including transporting supplies, performing wildlife rescue, and towing
and deploying booms. To qualify for the program, operators need to meet several key requirements,
including attending a four-hour hazardous waste training session, passing a dockside examination by the
U.S. Coast Guard, and meeting crewing requirements based on the size of the vessel provided. 54
training sessions have been held across the four states. The contact number for people interested in
registering for the program is (281) 366-5511 and information about training can be found on the incident
website at www.deepwaterhorizonresponse.com under volunteers. For additional information about
training call (866) 905-4492.
x
the Gulf. As of today, 13,339 volunteers have been trained in five different training modules that range
from safety for beach clean-up, to wildlife monitoring, handling of hazardous materials and vessel
operation for laying boom. Information about training can be found on the incident website at
x
x
Wildlife Activities 2 additional reports of impacted wildlife were received, bringing the total to 38.
x
Vietnamese and Spanish translators are in some offices. 19,000 claims have been filed and
approximately $16 million has been paid out, an increase of $4 million since Monday. Most of the claims
are for loss of income or wages in commercial fishing, shrimping and oyster harvest, and associated
processing facilities. Note: No person asserting a claim or receiving payment for interim benefits will be
asked or required to sign a release or waive any rights to assert additional claims, to file an individual
legal action, or to participate in other legal actions associated with the Deepwater Horizon incident. The
contact number for claims is (800) 440-0858. In person claims can be filed at office locations listed
below. Claims can also be filed online at:
http://www.bp.com/iframe.do?categoryId=9033722&contentId=7062138
Louisiana
Sites:
Amelia Staging
Area
Unit 2
Cut Off, LA 70345
3811 LA 1
303 Timber Creek
Hammond, LA 70404
Houma Claims Office
Suite 2 & 3
Houma, LA 70363
1553 Hwy 15
1345 Bayou Rd
41093 Hwy LA 23
x
x
Continuing to add adjusters to help process claims and working with translators to ensure that
x
Working with the State to coordinate food stamp programs.
x
Mississippi
Sites:
Bay St. Louis
Claims Office
1171 Highway 90
Bay St. Louis, MS
39520
Biloxi, MS 39532
5912 Old Mobile Hwy
Suite 4
x
x
x
deployment.
Alabama Sites:
Bayou
LaBatre
Claims
Office
290 N.
Wintzell
Avenue
Bayou
LaBatre,
AL 36509
Foley Claims Office
Suite 104
Foley, AL 36535
Suite 1
x
x
x
x
Working with Vessels of Opportunity volunteers on training, and repaired deployed booms at three
sites that were damaged by storm.
Florida Sites:
Apalachicola Claims Office
th
194 14
Street
Suite 105
Apalachicola, FL 32320
Ft. Walton
Claims
Office
348 SW
Miracle
Strip Pkwy
Suite 13
Fort
Walton
Beach, FL
32548
Unit B-9
3960 Navy Boulevard
Suite 16-17
Pensacola, FL 32507
Port St. Joe Claims Office
106 Trade Circle
Suite A
x
x
New Claims Office for Franklin County opened at Apalachicola.
x
x
Holding town hall meetings with vessel owners and coordinating training for Vessels of Opportunity
volunteers.
x
priorities.
Contact Information
(866) 448-5816
Team
(866) 557-1401
(866) 448-5816
(281) 366-5511
suggestions
with response
(281) 366-5511

(866) 905-4492 or (866) 647-
and to sign up\
2338
Ideas to Submit email suggestions to horizonresponse@piersystemcom
Investor Relations
(281) 366-3123
Claims by phone
(800) 440-0858
Claims http://www.bp.com/iframe.do?categoryId=9033722&contentId=7062138
(985) 902-5231 or (985) 902-
(251) 445-8965
Transocean Hotline
(832) 587-8554
MI Swaco Hotline
(888) 318-6765
(281) 366-5578
5240
Karen St John
BP America
(202) 457-6594
(202) 351-1399 (cell)
[email protected]
Received(Date):
Thu, 20 May 2010 19:15:21 -0400
From:
Subject: FW: Pre-brief at 9:05 on Friday
To:
[email protected], 'John Gray' <[email protected]>,[email protected],
As noted, John Gray has again agreed to do the calls in the morning. Again, it is requested if Dave
W esterholm, or one of his staff, could talk about the loop current.
Beth, I will let you know tomorrow who will do the calls Saturday, Sunday and Monday.
Sent: Thursday, May 20, 2010 4:26 PM
Subject: Pre brief at 9:05 on Friday
All,
Friday, May 21 Call with Governors
b6
b6
Speakers
DRAFT AGENDA
Observations and Trajectory John Gray, NOAA
Loop Current
o Barbour how close does the loop current get to the Gulf Coast? (have we sent out pictures
of the loop current trajectories?)
Jindal what is the form of the oil as it moves West? How far inland will it move?
Situation and Leak Stabilization Update RADM Peter Neffenger, NIC
Operations Report RADM Mary Landry, UAC
o Jindal have we confirmed the oil in Marsh Is. is BP? (Landry we will get you that
answer)
Jindal pay particularly close attention to Terrebonne and Timbalier Bay
o Jindal Again urged approval of the barrier. Neffenger said that Adm Allen is trying to
schedule a call with him today. (We need to circulate the latest talking points, and be prepared
on messaging after that conversation.)
EPA Update EPA Dep Admin BobPerciasepe
Barbour If data is showing that the current dispersant is effective, why are we changing it?
Marine Wildlife Impacts and Fisheries Closures John Gray, NOAA
Next call 9:15 a.m. EDT (8:15 CDT) Saturday, May 22, 2010
Received(Date):
Fri, 21 May 2010 13:33:42 +0100
From:
Subject: BP Gulf of Mexico Update
BP issued the following press release this morning regarding live feed of the riser leak source. I also
attach last nights update.
Please let me know if you have questions, Karen.
BP Press Release
May 21, 2010
BP LAUNCHES LIVE WEBCAM OF RISER FLOW
Today BP launched a live webcam of the riser flow. The webcam can be viewed at www.bp.com.
BP has been providing a live feed to government entities over the last two weeks including the US
Department of the Interior, US Coast Guard, Minerals Management Service (MMS) through the Unified
Area Command center in Louisiana as well as to BP and industry scientists and engineers involved in
the effort to stop the spill.
BP continues its work to collect oil by the riser insertion tube tool (RITT) containment system. Once on
the drillship Discoverer Enterprise, the oil is then being stored and gas is being flared. The RITT remains
a new technology and both its continued operation and its effectiveness in capturing the oil and gas
remain uncertain.
BP has, and will continue, to support the governments work to determine the rate of flow from the well.
Since the Deepwater Horizon accident, the flow rate estimate has been established by the Unified
Command. Throughout the process, BP has made it a priority to quickly and consistently provide the
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and the Coast Guard with requested
information for the joint command structure to make as accurate an assessment as possible of the rate of
flow.
The rate of flow from the riser is determined in a number of ways and by a number of variables. For
instance, while the original riser was 19.5 inches in diameter prior to the Deepwater Horizon accident,
damage sustained during the accident distorted the diameter at the end of the pipe by about 30 per cent.
In addition, a drill pipe currently trapped inside the riser has reduced the flow area by an additional 10 per
cent. Thus, some third party estimates of flow, which assume a 19.5 inch diameter, are inaccurate. As
well, there is natural gas in the riser. Data on the hydrocarbons recovered to date suggests that the
proportion of gas in the plume exiting the riser is, on average, approximately 50 percent.
To provide further specificity on the flow rate, the US government has created a Flow Rate Technical
Team (FRTT) to develop a more precise estimate. The FRTT includes the US Coast Guard, NOAA, MMS,
Department of Energy (DOE) and the US Geological Survey. The FRTT is mandated to produce a report
by close of business on Saturday, May 22.
To support this, BP is in the process of providing FRTT with all requested information, including diagrams
and schematics showing release points, amounts of oil and gas currently being collected on the
Discoverer Enterprise, and subsea video of the oil release point.
----
BP Press Office London: +44 20 7496 4076
BP Press office, US: +1 281 366 0265
Unified Command Joint Information Center:+1 985-902-5231
www.bp.com/gulfofmexicoresponse
___________________________________________________________________________
05/20/2010 8:00pm EDT
1.
2.
3.
Highlights
x
24,759 personnel responding as part of the Unified Command, plus volunteers, an increase of more
than 5,000 since Tuesday.
x
Riser Insertion Tube continues to capture oil and natural gas from the primary leak.
x
50 additional specialty cleanup vessels were deployed on Thursday.
x
Subsea dispersant application continued, 3,463 gallons injected Wednesday.
x
497,000 gallons of oily water recovered and treated since Tuesday.
x
$4 million in additional claims paid on Wednesday.
Offshore Sea Floor
1.
Riser Insertion Tube The riser insertion tool was successfully placed into the leaking riser on
Monday, and is consistency capturing oil and natural gas. Crews on the surface continue to work to
optimize recovery rates. This remains a new technology and both its continued operation and its
effectiveness in capturing the oil and gas remain uncertain.
Tuesday with 3,463 gallons injected into the flow using Remote Operated Vehicles (ROVs). The
results. Additional subsea applications are subject to ongoing testing protocols developed with the
Environmental Protection Agency and other federal and state agencies.
3.
Top Kill Activities
x
Equipment is on location near the blowout preventer (BOP) to work on killing the well from the top.
Manifold and bypass lines are connected to valves on the BOP. Through these valves, engineers will
attempt first to pump heavy fluids and cement directly downhole to kill the well.
x
The control yellow pod was deployed and riser connectors are on location and being connected.
Engineers will pressure test the system and are prepared to make a first attempt to top kill the well
sometime this weekend.
x
x
Diagnostics are ongoing. Gamma ray surveys have been completed to determine the status of
internal components and pressures inside the blowout preventer.
second relief well. Like the first relief well, this one is approximately one-half mile from the Macondo well
and will attempt to intercept the existing wellbore at approximately 18,000 feet below seal level. The first
relief well was spudded by Transocean
Development Driller III on Sunday, May 2, in a water depth of
roughly 5,000 feet. This well has been drilled to 9,000 feet below sea level. It has been cased and
cemented to that depth. Testing of the BOP is complete and drilling began again on Thursday. It is
estimated the total drilling process will take at least 90 days. Once that is accomplished, and the original
well has been penetrated, heavy fluids and cement can be pumped downhole to kill the well.
5.
x
freeze in order to mitigate the formation of large volumes of frozen hydrates.
x
x
andrecovery boats. 54 of the boats are skimmers, designed to separate oil from water. Approximately
199,325 barrels of oil-water mix (8.37 million gallons) have been recovered and treated, an increase of
nearly 500,000 gallons.
x
an increase of 3,350 gallons since Tuesday. The dispersant is a biodegradable chemical that works like
soap by separating the oil into small droplets that can be more easily broken down by natural processes.
An additional 346,000 gallons are available for deployment. BP is working with the EPA to identify
alternative effective dispersants for deployment.
x
In-Situ Burning The Unified Command conducted an additional 6 in-situ burns on Wednesday.
The in-situ burning occurs on the surface using special fire-boom that collects surface hydrocarbons
which are then burned off.
x
BP Provides $70 million in Tourism Grants to States On Monday, BP made $70 million
available to Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama and Florida to promote tourism. This money is in addition to
the $100 million in block grants for accelerated implementation of Area Contingency Plans announced on
May 4. It is also supplemental to BPs private claims process, which remains unchanged
x
to mitigate or prevent a substantial threat to sensitive areas. The money is supporting businesses in
clean-up and recovery efforts. The grant is supplemental to BPs private claims process, which remains
unchanged.
x
Oil Containment and Shoreline Protection 1,925,000 feet of both sorbent and barrier boom
have been deployed or staged to protect sensitive coastal areas. An additional 1,150,000 feet of boom is
being directed to staging areas.
x
Nearly 5,000 contracts have been approved and 1,340
vessels are active and getting paid.
x
opportunities. Volunteers are being trained in five different modules that range from safety for beach
clean-up, to wildlife monitoring, handling of hazardous materials and vessel operation for laying boom.
Information about training can be found on the incident website at www.deepwaterhorizonresponse.com
under volunteers.
x
x
Wildlife Activities 13 additional reports of impacted wildlife were received, bringing the total to
51. One turtle has been recovered and cleaned that was affected by oil. Wildlife rehabilitation sites are
located in Venice, LA and Mobile, AL.
x
Vietnamese and Spanish translators are in some offices. 20,000 claims have been filed and more than
9,000 paid, totalling approximately $20 million, an increase of $4 million since Tuesday. Most of the
claims are for loss of income or wages in commercial fishing, shrimping and oyster harvest, and
associated processing facilities. Note: No person asserting a claim or receiving payment for interim
benefits will be asked or required to sign a release or waive any rights to assert additional claims, to file
an individual legal action, or to participate in other legal actions associated with the Deepwater Horizon
incident. The contact number for claims is (800) 440-0858. In person claims can be filed at office
locations listed below. Claims can also be filed online at:
Louisiana
Sites:
Amelia Staging
Area
Unit 2
Cut Off, LA 70345
3811 LA 1
303 Timber Creek
Hammond, LA 70404
Houma Claims Office
Suite 2 & 3
Houma, LA 70363
1553 Hwy 15
1345 Bayou Rd
41093 Hwy LA 23
x
x
Continuing to add adjusters to help process claims and working with translators to ensure that
Mississippi
Sites:
Bay St. Louis
Claims Office
1171 Highway 90
Bay St. Louis, MS
39520
Biloxi, MS 39532
5912 Old Mobile Hwy
Suite 4
x
x
x
deployment.
x
Opened a new community outreach office in Gulfport to serve Harrison County.
Mobile
Incident
Alabama
Sites:
Command Post,
Community Outreach
Center
Bayou
LaBatre
Claims
Office
290 N.
Wintzell
Avenue
Bayou
LaBatre,
AL 36509
Foley Claims Office
Suite 104
Foley, AL 36535
Suite 1
x
x
x
x
New training for shoreline protection organized in Mobile and Robertsdale.
Florida Sites:
th
Street
194 14
Suite 105
Ft. Walton
Claims
Office
348 SW
Miracle
Strip Pkwy
Suite 13
Fort
Walton
Beach, FL
32548
Unit B-9
3960 Navy Boulevard
Suite 16-17
Pensacola, FL 32507
106 Trade Circle
Suite A
x
x
New Claims Office for Franklin County opened at Apalachicola.
x
x
priorities.
Contact Information
(866) 448-5816
Team
(866) 557-1401
(866) 448-5816
(281) 366-5511
suggestions
with response
(281) 366-5511

(866) 905-4492 or (866) 647-
and to sign up\
2338
Investor Relations
(281) 366-3123
Claims by phone
(800) 440-0858
(985) 902-5231 or (985) 902-
5240
(251) 445-8965
Transocean Hotline
(832) 587-8554
MI Swaco Hotline
(888) 318-6765
(281) 366-5578
Karen St John
BP America
(202) 457-6594
(202) 351-1399 (cell)
[email protected]
Received(Date):
Fri, 21 May 2010 11:12:46 -0400
From:
Subject: Notes from Governors Call May 21
To:
[email protected],'Monica Medina' <[email protected]>,'Amanda Hallberg'
<[email protected]>,'Margaret Spring' <[email protected]>,
[email protected],"'Jacqueline J. Rousseau'" <[email protected]>,'John Oliver'
<[email protected]>
Governors: Jindal
David Westerholm mentioned that the crab traps were neg on subsurface oil. (Action
item: are these results available to give to the Governors and local officials?)
Gov. Jindal asked about how far we can expect the oil to move west. Westerholm said
that currents are keeping it east of Atchafalya and do not see anything to keep it further
west that will depend on the winds.
Adm. Neffenger top kill commences on May 25; will take 2-3 days.
Adm. Neffenger also reported on the establishment of a team to determine the flow rate.
W ill be an independent, peer-reviewed study to determine following:
Actual daily flow
Looking at plume and where it goes
Total volume released
o Total reservoir capacity (long-term implications how long can this flow if not capped?) this
is important for claims
W e will let Govs know as soon as we have the findings.
Adm. Landry we will keep Gov apprised of the impacts of oil on shoreline we can
expect (when, where and type of oil) based on our trajectories
Adm. Landry we put pressure on BP to increase the focus on Terrebonne; Landry
hopefully we will see today whether we are successful in mitigating the oils movement into the
marshes
Adm. Landry employing more fishermen. Said Gov would hopefully see that today on
his flight. Said to let us know if not seeing it.

Gov. Jindal what is flow out ofinsertion tube 2200 or 5000 barrels per day. When will
there be a better quantification of much is actually being released? There is a mixture of
liquefied gas and oil.
Gov. Jindal are we changing subsea dispersant? EPA continuing to monitor dispersant
toxicity
Gov. Jindal thanks for talking to BP. We need more boom and also someone there to
release the boom already stockpiled
Linda D. Belton
NOAA Office of Legislative and Intergovernmental Affairs
Phone: (202) 482-5447
Cell: (202) 302-7148
Fax: (202) 482-4960
Received(Date):
Fri, 21 May 2010 14:33:16 -0400
From:
Subject: Bullets on the Gunter cruise
To:
Justin Kenney <[email protected]>,Scott Smullen <[email protected]>,Jennifer
Austin <[email protected]>
Cc:
Jessica Kondel <[email protected]>,Samuel Rauch <[email protected]>,
John Oliver <[email protected]>,Eric Schwaab <[email protected]>,'Steve Murawski'
<[email protected]>,Jenni Wallace <[email protected]>,Brian Pawlak
<[email protected]>,Lauren B Lugo <[email protected]>,Rebecca Chiampi
<[email protected]>,Gloria Thompson <[email protected]>,_HQ Deep Water
Horizon Staff <[email protected]>,Christopher Meaney <[email protected]>
Justin, Scott, and Jen:
Talking points on the Gunter and W eatherbird cruises were requested on this mornings 8am call.
The points below have been cleared by Steve Murawski (NMFS) and are ready for your review
and clearance (should you feel that's necessary).
Knowledge of the extent and density of subsurface plumes is vital to NOAAs response
activities including development of fishery closures, rescue of marine wildlife, and
protection of human health.
The R/V Gordon Gunter and R/V W eatherbird II will embark on a cruise to map the 3
dimensional
structure of the plume of sub surface
oil and dispersants. Scientists on the
vessels will also characterize the rates and directions of flows including the possibility of
entrainment into the Loop Current.
An additional component of the cruises is the sampling of sub surface
biological
communities. This information will help NOAA and its partners understand the potential
impacts of sub surface
oil and dispersants on affected ecosystems.
The R/V Gordon Gunter and R/V W eatherbird II will embark on a 7-day proof-of-concept
study. Should the technology prove effective, the effort could be expanded to more vessels
and for increased durations.
There is great interest in verifying the hypothesis that layers of oil, or plumes, exist at
depth in the Gulf of Mexico. Should they be present, more questions about the nature and
extent of the layers exist. This partnership among federal, academic and industry employs
several technologies to address these questions.
John
Received(Date):
Fri, 21 May 2010 15:22:12 -0400
From:
Subject: FW: Pre-brief at 9:05 on Saturday
To:
[email protected],'Monica Medina' <[email protected]>,'Margaret Spring'
<[email protected]>
Cc:
"'Jacqueline J. Rousseau'" <[email protected]>,[email protected], 'John
Oliver' <[email protected]>,[email protected]
Beth, John Gray will do the Governors calls on Saturday and Sunday; with David Kennedy.
I believe Monica will be back on Monday. Monica please let me know if this is not correct.
You will notice that fishery closure and wildlife impacts report have been removed from the
agenda; we do not have to report on this unless there is a significant change or request.
Sent: Friday, May 21, 2010 12:27 PM
Subject: Pre brief at 9:05 on Saturday
All,
Saturday, May 22 Call with Governors
b6
Speakers
b6
[Guest Pin:
b6
DRAFT AGENDA
o
o
Observations and Trajectory John Gray and David Kennedy, NOAA
Loop Current
o David Westerholm mentioned that the crab traps were neg on subsurface oil. We need a
report out on the findings from all of the crab trap tests.
Jindal asked about how far we can expect the oil to move West.
Situation and Leak Stabilization Update RADM Peter Neffenger, NIC
Neffenger top kill commences on May 25; will take 2-3 days
o Neffenger have established a team to determine the flow rate. Will be an independent, peer-
reviewed study to determine actual daily flow, plume movement, total volume, and total
reservoir capacity. We will let Govs know as soon as we have the findings.
Jindal what is flow out of insertion tube 2200 or 5000 barrels per day
o Jindal Urged decision on the barrier proposal. Mentioned that he will talk to Adm Allen at
10:00 today (NOTE: that is the wrong time)
Operations Report RADM Mary Landry, UAC
o Landry we will keep Gov apprised of the impacts he can expect (when, where and type of
oil) based on our trajectories
Landry we put pressure on BP to increase the focus on Terrebonne. We will see today
whether BP follows.
o Landry hopefully we will see today whether we are successful in mitigating the oils
movement into the marshes
o Landry employing more fisherman. Said Gov would hopefully see that today on his flight.
Said to let us know if not seeing it.
o Jindal thanks for talking to BP. We need more boom and also someone there to release the
boom already stockpiled
EPA Update EPA Dep Admin BobPerciasepe
Jindal are we changing subsea dispersant?
Next call 9:15 a.m. EDT (8:15 CDT) Sunday, May 23, 2010
Received(Date):
Fri, 21 May 2010 16:40:29 -0400
From:
David Holst <[email protected]>
Subject: DOC meeting
To:
Jainey Bavishi <[email protected]>, John Rapp <[email protected]>
Jainey and John,
Some items to mention at the DOC Coordination meeting. Not sure if you were on the Science
summit call today, but below are some highlights.
Flow Rate
Flow Rate Technical Group received new ROV video from BP Thursday evening. The
videos are specific to April 30, May 1, May 2. These videos will be used by the Plume
Analysis Team to produce a revised estimate of flow rate. They are planning to have a
flow rate by this weekend (maybe early next week).
The collection rate of 5,000 barrels reported yesterday was an instantaneous rate, not a per
day output. A constant (per day) collection rate of 2,200 barrels is considered to be more
accurate.
Science Summit
Gabriele has put together a paper that describes this. Key points:
will take place in two weeks in LA;
COL and UH will organize it;
W ill consist of the smaller dispersants workshop followed by the larger one-day
science summit the following day;
1/2 day of fed presentations on current status and science, followed by 1/2 day of
breakouts focused on specific issues
Dr. L will be discussing with principals this weekend. Likely announced next week.
Justin is working the communication side.
Received(Date):
Fri, 21 May 2010 17:50:13 -0400
From:
Subject: [Fwd: Bullets on the Gunter cruise]
To:
"Reich, Jay" <[email protected]>, "Sarri, Kristen" <[email protected]>
Cc:
Margaret Spring <[email protected]>,Monica Medina <[email protected]>,
Sally Yozell <[email protected]>,_HQ Deep Water Horizon Staff <[email protected]>
Jay,
Per your request during the DOC/NOAA Coordination meeting, I'm sending you information for
Secretary Locke's situational awareness regarding the Gunter and W eatherbird cruises. This
information has not been cleared by the W hite House and is only meant for internal use.
John
Subject: Bullets on the Gunter cruise
Date:Fri, 21 May 2010 14:33:16 -0400
From:John Rapp <[email protected]>
To:Justin Kenney <[email protected]>,
Scott Smullen <[email protected]>,
Jennifer Austin <[email protected]>
CC:Jessica Kondel <[email protected]>,
Samuel Rauch <[email protected]>,
John Oliver <[email protected]>, Eric
Schwaab <[email protected]>, 'Steve
Murawski' <[email protected]>, Jenni
W allace <Jenni.W [email protected]>, Brian
Pawlak <[email protected]>, Lauren B
Lugo <[email protected]>, Rebecca
Chiampi <[email protected]>,
Gloria Thompson
<[email protected]>, HQ Deep
W ater Horizon Staff <[email protected]>,
Christopher Meaney
<[email protected]>
Justin, Scott, and Jen:
Talking points on the Gunter and W eatherbird cruises were requested on this mornings 8am call.
The points below have been cleared by Steve Murawski (NMFS) and are ready for your review
and clearance (should you feel that's necessary).
Knowledge of the extent and density of subsurface plumes is vital to NOAAs response
activities including development of fishery closures, rescue of marine wildlife, and
protection of human health.
The R/V Gordon Gunter and R/V W eatherbird II will embark on a cruise to map the 3
dimensional
structure of the plume of sub surface
oil and dispersants. Scientists on the
vessels will also characterize the rates and directions of flows including the possibility of
entrainment into the Loop Current.
An additional component of the cruises is the sampling of sub surface
biological
communities. This information will help NOAA and its partners understand the potential
impacts of sub surface
oil and dispersants on affected ecosystems.
The R/V Gordon Gunter and R/V Weatherbird II will embark on a 7-day proof-of-concept
study. Should the technology prove effective, the effort could be expanded to more vessels
and for increased durations.
There is great interest in verifying the hypothesis that layers of oil, or plumes, exist at
depth in the Gulf of Mexico. Should they be present, more questions about the nature and
extent of the layers exist. This partnership among federal, academic and industry employs
several technologies to address these questions.
John
Received(Date):
Fri, 21 May 2010 18:31:34 -0400
From:
Subject: Fishermen getting sick from dispersants
To:
"'[email protected]'" <[email protected]>,"'[email protected]'"
<[email protected]>,"'[email protected]'" <[email protected]>
Scott and Jen,
At the DOC Coordination Meeting today, Jen Costanza mentioned that she saw a headline on
CNN that read "Fishermen getting sick from dispersants." She was wondering if we had
received any press inquiries on this. Could you let me know so that I can get back to her?
Thanks!
Jainey
Received(Date):
Sat, 22 May 2010 01:39:33 +0100
From:
05/21/2010 5:00pm EDT
1.
2.
3.
Highlights
23,997

personnel responding as part of the Unified Command, plus volunteers.
100 additional

specialty cleanup vessels deployed, 1,085 vessels active.
Subsea

dispersant application is ongoing, 14,210 gallons injected Thursday.
571,000

gallons of additional oily water recovered and treated on Thursday.
Nearly
$5
million in additional claims paid on Thursday.
Drilling

of relief wells continues.
Live video

link from the ROV monitoring the damaged riser
www.bp.com
http://www.bp.com/liveassets/bp internet/globalbp/globalbp uk english/homepage/STA
GING/local assets/bp homepage/html/rov stream.html
Offshore Sea Floor
1. Riser Insertion Tube The riser insertion tool was successfully placed into the leaking riser on
Monday. Over the last twenty-four hours it collected approximately 2,200 barrels of oil and 15 million
standard cubic feet of natural gas. Crews on the surface continue to work to optimize recovery rates.
This remains a new technology and both its continued operation and its effectiveness in capturing the oil
and gas remain uncertain.
Thursday with 14,210 gallons injected into the flow using Remote Operated Vehicles (ROVs). The
results.
3.
Top Kill Activities
x
The manifold

and bypass lines are connected to valves on the blowout preventer (BOP).
Through these valves, engineers will attempt first to pump heavy fluids and cement directly downhole to
kill the well.
x
The control

yellow pod was deployed and riser connectors are on location and being
connected. Engineers will pressure test the system and are prepared to make a first attempt to top kill
the well sometime in the next few days.
An additional

option to control pressure is to inject a junk shot of shredded fibrous material into
x
the BOP through these lines. The material will travel up the BOP and clog the flow of the well. Once the
4.
Drilling relief wells Drilling of both relief wells is proceeding.
x
The first

relief well (work being performed by the Development Driller III) is at approximately
10,000 feet below sea level.
x
The second

relief well (work being performed by Development Driller II) is at approximately 6,800
feet below sea level.
x
Both
wells
are situated approximately one-half mile from the Macondo well and will attempt to
intercept the existing wellbore at approximately 18,000 feet below seal level. It is estimated the total
drilling process for each well will take at least 90 days. Once that is accomplished, and the original well
has been penetrated, heavy fluids and cement can be pumped downhole to kill the well.
5.
x
A containment

dome, called a top hat, is deployed on the sea floor and readied to be placed
over the main leak, if needed. It is designed with injection ports that can accommodate anti-freeze in
order to mitigate the formation of large volumes of frozen hydrates. This technology has never been
used at this water depth. Significant technical and operational challenges must be overcome for it to be
successful.
Cleanup

Vessels 1,085 specialty response vessels are now deployed, including tugs, barges
x
and recovery boats. 56 of the boats are skimmers, designed to separate oil from water.
x
Skimming

On Thursday, approximately 13,600 barrels (571,000 gallons) of oil-water mix were
recovered. To date, approximately 213,000 barrels of oil-water mix (8.95 million gallons) have been
recovered and treated.
x
Surface

Dispersant 604,066 gallons of dispersant have been applied on the surface by
aircraft. The dispersant is a biodegradable chemical that works like soap by separating the oil into small
droplets that can be more easily broken down by natural processes. An additional 348,000 gallons are
available for deployment. BP is working with the Environmental Protection Agency to identify alternative
effective dispersants for deployment.
x
In-Situ

Burning The Unified Command conducted an additional 6 in-situ burns on Thursday.
The in-situ burning occurs on the surface using special fire-boom that collects surface hydrocarbons
which are then burned off. Note: approximately 23,000 barrels of oil were burned on Wednesday.
x
Oil Containment and Shoreline Protection No new locations for oil ashore reported in the last
24 hours. A total of 2,030,000 feet of both sorbent and barrier boom have been deployed or staged to
protect sensitive coastal areas. This is an increase of 100,000 feet since Wednesday.
x
Wildlife Activities No additional reports of impacted wildlife were received in the past 24 hours.
x
Vietnamese and Spanish translators are in some offices. 21,540 claims have been filed and nearly $25
million has been paid, an increase of $5 million since Wednesday. Most of the claims are for loss of
income or wages in commercial fishing, shrimping and oyster harvest, and associated processing
facilities. Note: No person asserting a claim or receiving payment for interim benefits will be asked or
required to sign a release or waive any rights to assert additional claims, to file an individual legal action,
or to participate in other legal actions associated with the Deepwater Horizon incident. The contact
number for claims is (800) 440-0858. In person claims can be filed at office locations listed below.
Claims can also be filed online at:
x
BP Provides $70 million in Tourism Grants to States On Monday, BP CEO Tony Hayward
made $70 million available to Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama and Florida to promote tourism. This
money is in addition to the $100 million in block grants for accelerated implementation of Area
Contingency Plans announced on May 4. It is also supplemental to BPs private claims process, which
remains unchanged.
x
to mitigate or prevent a substantial threat to sensitive areas. The money is supporting businesses in
clean-up and recovery efforts. The grant is supplemental to BPs private claims process, which remains
unchanged.
x
Vessels

of Opportunity Program
vessels are currently active.
To qualify for the program, operators need to meet several key requirements, including attending a four-
hour hazardous waste training session, passing a dockside examination by the U.S. Coast Guard, and
meeting crewing requirements based on the size of the vessel provided. The contact number for people
interested in registering for the program is (281) 366-5511 and information about training can be found on
the incident website at www.deepwaterhorizonresponse.com under volunteers. For additional
information about training call (866) 905-4492.
x
Volunteers and

Training BP has opened 22 Community Outreach Centers across
the Gulf where people can go for more information, to find out about the spill, and to connect with
volunteer opportunities. Volunteers are being trained in five different modules that range from safety for
beach clean-up, to wildlife monitoring, handling of hazardous materials and vessel operation for laying
boom. As of Thursday, 13,514 individual training modules had been completed. Information about
training can be found on the incident website at

v o lu n te e rs .
www.deepwaterhorizonresponse.com under
Louisiana
Sites:
Amelia Staging
Area
Unit 2
Cut Off, LA 70345
3811 LA 1
303 Timber Creek
Hammond, LA 70404
Houma Claims Office
Suite 2 & 3
Houma, LA 70363
1553 Hwy 15
1345 Bayou Rd
41093 Hwy LA 23
Community

Outreach Centers now open in 8 parishes.
x
BP donated

$1 million and is working with Catholic Charities and Second Harvest Food Bank in
St. Bernard, Plaquemines and Orleans Parishes to deliver humanitarian assistance.
Continuing

to add adjusters to help process claims and working with translators to ensure that
x
Mississippi
Sites:
Bay St. Louis
Claims Office
1171 Highway 90
Bay St. Louis, MS
39520
Biloxi, MS 39532
5912 Old Mobile Hwy
Suite 4
Community

outreach centers are now open in all three coastal counties.
Volunteer

update includes 37 miles of beach cleaned up.
x
Continuing

to coordinate training for vessel operators and working on Vessels of Opportunity
deployment.
Alabama Sites:
Bayou
LaBatre
Claims
Office
290 N.
Wintzell
Avenue
Bayou
LaBatre,
AL 36509
Foley Claims Office
Suite 104
Foley, AL 36535
Suite 1
Community

Outreach Centers now open in 2 counties.
Volunteer

x
Staffing

claims centers with adjusters to process claims, looking at opening additional claims
offices.
Karen St John
BP America
(202) 457-6594
(202) 351-1399 (cell)
[email protected]
Received(Date):
Mon, 24 May 2010 10:28:20 -0400
From:
To:
Monday, May 24, 2010; 0800
b6
Call Guidelines:
Action Items
Engage oil spill community and hurricane community to familiarize on data, processes,
communication strategies so that if hurricanes occur in the gulf, we can have a coordinated
message and approach; include EPA in conversations and follow-up actions (NW S, ORR)
Consider deploying ORR staff to sit in the NHC to support FEMA on the ground (ORR)
Do a briefing for meteorologists on the ground in the coastal states that are prepared with
information and talking points regarding oil spill and hurricanes (ORR, NW S)
Identify what our hurricane response plan is in light of a hurricane, both Unified Command
and NOAA assets (W esterholm/ICC)
Follow-up for 3pm Oil Spill 101 W H Press Briefing (Kenney/ORR)
Dispersant workshop provide information on plans, who is invited, etc. for outreach to
public and federal agencies, etc. (Gray/Kenney)
Follow-up on EPA water quality monitoring plan (Rolfe at NIC/W esterholm), potentially
item to be raised at a Principal call.
Follow-up meeting among science players to ensure tight coordination across NOAA
(Kennedy, team)
Succinct email for where we are on making data public and where that data will be housed
(Klimavicz)
Rolling out seafood safety results this week, ensure is well coordinated (NMFS)
Beth Dieveney
phone: 202 482 1281
cell:
240 328 4812
fax:
202 482 4116
Received(Date):
Mon, 24 May 2010 19:00:45 +0100
From:
Attached you will find three items:
1.
BP Press Release: Update on Gulf of Mexico Oil Spill Response
2. BP Press Release: BP Pledges $500 million for Independent Research into Impact of Oil Spill on
Marine Environment
3.
Communications regarding dispersant use in the Gulf of Mexico
Please let me know if you have questions. Karen
1.
Press Release
May 24, 2010
UPDATE ON GULF OF MEXICO OIL SPILL RESPONSE
BP today provided an update on developments in the response to the MC252 oil well incident in the Gulf
of Mexico.
Subsea Source Control and Containment
Subsea efforts continue to focus on progressing options to stop the flow of oil from the well through
interventions via the blow out preventer (BOP) and to collect the flow of oil from the leak points. These
efforts are being carried out in conjunction with governmental authorities and other industry experts.
Plans continue to develop a so called top kill operation where heavy drilling fluids are injected into the
well to stem the flow of oil and gas and ultimately kill the well. Successfully killing the well may be
followed by cement to seal the well. Most of the equipment is on site and preparations continue for this
operation, with a view to deployment in a few days.
This is a complex operation requiring sophisticated diagnostic work and precise execution. As a result, it
involves significant uncertainties and it is not possible to assure its success or to put a definite timescale
on its deployment.
Drilling of the first relief well, which began on May 2 continues as does drilling of a second relief well,
begun on May 16. Each of these wells is estimated to take some three months to complete from the
commencement of drilling.
Work goes on to optimize the oil and gas collected from the damaged riser through the riser insertion tube
tool (RITT). The collection rate continues to vary, primarily due to the flow parameters and physical
characteristics within the riser.
th
In the period from May 17
to May 23rd, the daily oil rate collected by the RITT has ranged from 1,360
barrels of oil per day (b/d) to 3,000 b/d, and the daily gas rate has ranged from 4 million cubic feet per day
(MMCFD) to 17 MMCFD.
In the same period, the average daily rate of oil and gas collected by the RITT containment system at the
end of the leaking riser has been 2,010 barrels of oil per day (BOPD) and 10 MMCFD of gas. The oil is
being stored and gas is being flared on the drillship Discoverer Enterprise, on the surface 5,000 feet
above.
The RITT remains a new technology and both its continued operation and its effectiveness in capturing
the oil and gas remain uncertain.
The US Government has appointed a flow rate technical team (FRTT) to determine the well flow rate. The
FRTT includes the US Coast Guard, NOAA, MMS, Department of Energy and the US Geological Survey.
BP will continue to promptly provide all information necessary to make as accurate an assessment as
possible of the rate of flow.
Surface Spill Response and Containment
Work continues to collect and disperse oil that has reached the surface of the sea. Over 1,100 vessels
are involved in the response effort, including skimmers, tugs, barges and recovery vessels.
Intensive operations to skim oil from the surface of the water have now recovered, in total, some 243,000
barrels (10.2 million gallons) of oily liquid. The total length of boom deployed as part of efforts to prevent
oil reaching the coast is now nearly 2.5 million feet, including over 730,000 feet of sorbent boom.
In total, over 22,000 personnel from BP, other companies and government agencies are currently
involved in the response to this incident. So far 23,000 claims have been filed and 9,000 have already
been paid.
The cost of the response to date amounts to about $760 million, including the cost of the spill response,
containment, relief well drilling, grants to the Gulf states, claims paid and federal costs. It is too early to
quantify other potential costs and liabilities associated with the incident.
2.
Press Release
May 24, 2010
BP PLEDGES $500 MILLION FOR INDEPENDENT RESEARCH INTO IMPACT OF SPILL ON MARINE
ENVIRONMENT
BP today announced a commitment of up to $500 million to an open research program studying the
impact of the Deepwater Horizon incident, and its associated response, on the marine and shoreline
environment of the Gulf of Mexico.
BP has made a commitment to doing everything we can to lessen the impact of this tragic incident on the
people and environment of the Gulf Coast. We must make every effort to understand that impact. This will
be a key part of the process of restoration, and for improving the industry response capability for the
future. There is an urgent need to ensure that the scientific community has access to the samples and the
raw data it needs to begin this work, said Tony Hayward, BPs chief executive.
The key questions to be addressed by this 10-year research program reflect discussions with the US
government and academic scientists in Washington DC last week. BP will fund research to examine
topics including:
Where are the oil, the dispersed oil, and the dispersant going under the action of ocean currents?
How do oil, the dispersed oil and the dispersant behave on the seabed, in the water column, on the
surface, and on the shoreline?
What are the impacts of the oil, the dispersed oil, and the dispersant on the biota of the seabed, the
water column, the surface, and the shoreline?
How do accidental releases of oil compare to natural seepage from the seabed?
What is the impact of dispersant on the oil? Does it help or hinder biodegradation?
How will the oil, the dispersed oil, and the dispersant interact with tropical storms, and will this
interaction impact the seabed, the water column and the shoreline?
What can be done to improve technology:
- To detect oil, dispersed oil, and dispersant on the seabed, in the water column, and on the surface?
- For remediating the impact of oil accidently released to the ocean?
BP already has ongoing marine research programs in the Gulf of Mexico. Building on these, BP will
appoint an independent advisory panel to construct the long term research program. Where appropriate,
the studies may be coordinated with the ongoing natural resources damages assessment. The program
will engage some of the best marine biologists and oceanographers in the world. More immediately, a
baseline of information for the long term research program is needed. A first grant to Louisiana State
University will help kick start this work.
LSU has a significant amount of experience in dealing with the oil and gas industry and deep knowledge
pertaining to the Gulf of Mexico across numerous topical disciplines. The first part of the program is about
obtaining and analyzing samples and assessing immediate impacts. Other areas of importance will
emerge as researchers become engaged and the potential impacts from the spill are better understood,
said Professor Christopher dElia, Dean of the School of the Coast and Environment.
Subsequent awards will be controlled by the independent advisory board.
Notes to editors:
x
BP has
been
collaborating with the Scripps Institution of Oceanography since 2004 in a
program aimed at gaining a better understanding of the environment and hazards in oceans, including
marine electromagnetic research. The focus of oceanography efforts has been loop currents in the Gulf
of Mexico.
x
In 2008,

as part of the Deepwater Environmental Long-term Observatory System (DELOS), BP
installed the worlds first system designed to monitor deep-sea marine life. DELOS is supported by Texas
A&M in Galveston, Scripps Institution of Oceanography, Monterey Bay Aquarium Research Institute,
University of Aberdeen, National Oceanography Centre in Southampton and the University of Glasgow.
3.
Dispersant Use in the Gulf of Mexico
BP, in conjunction with the Unified Command, has been utilizing two types of dispersant for both air-
based and subsea applications, Corexit 9500 and Corexit 9527. Nearly 705,000 gallons of dispersant
have been applied on the surface, and 116,000 gallons have been applied directly to the subsea location
of the primary leak. Dispersants are a chemical used to break up oil into small droplets that can be
broken down and degraded more easily through natural processes.
Last week, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) directed BP to identify one or more pre-approved
dispersant products that are available in sufficient quantities, are as effective at dispersing oil as the
Corexit products, and have generally lower toxicity levels. BP completed that review and sent a letter to
EPA on Thursday, which can be found here: http://www.epa.gov/bpspill/dispersants/5-21bp-response.pdf
In brief, the alternative approved dispersants were either not available in sufficient quantities, or contained
certain detergents that may degrade into compounds known as endocrine disruptors that have been
linked to potential human health risks by some authorities. BP continues to work closely with EPA and
the Coast Guard to monitor the effect of dispersants on the environment.
On Saturday, the Deepwater Horizon Unified Command issued a press release on the subject, which can
found at the following link: http://www.deepwaterhorizonresponse.com/go/doc/2931/559595/
Karen St John
BP America
(202) 457-6594
(202) 351-1399 (cell)
[email protected]
Received(Date):
Mon, 24 May 2010 14:24:13 -0400
From:
Subject: BP Oil Dispersants
To:
_NOAA HQ leadership <[email protected]>,David Kennedy
<[email protected]>,Dave Westerholm <[email protected]>,Craig McLean
<[email protected]>, Judy Gray <[email protected]>,Eric Schwaab
<[email protected]>, 'John Oliver' <[email protected]>,Brian T Pawlak
<[email protected]>,Steve Murawski <[email protected]>,_HQ Deep Water Horizon
Staff <[email protected]>
4distribution-1.doc
All~
Attached is a partial list of ingredients for both corexit products. The list is a combined list for both Corexit
9500 and Corexit 9527. At this point, a detailed formula will not be available from EPA until May 29th, and
that list would be subject to CBI rules. We are working on getting the detailed list to you faster and without
the CBI limitation.
Please forward to those in NOAA that needs this data.
Regards,
Beth
>
>
--
Beth Dieveney
phone: 202-482-1281
cell: 240-328-4812
fax: 202-482-4116
The following list of chemicals has been developed for distribution by EPA.
Item
CAS
Registry
Number
57-55-6
111-76-2
577-11-7
Chemical Name (TSCA Inventory)
1,2-Propanediol
Ethanol, 2-butoxy-
Butanedioic acid, 2-sulfo-, 1,4-bis(2-ethylhexyl) ester, sodium salt (1:1)
1338-43-8
Sorbitan, mono-(9Z)-9-octadecenoate
9005-65-6
Sorbitan, mono-(9Z)-9-octadecenoate, poly(oxy-1,2-ethanediyl) derivs.
9005-70-3
Sorbitan, tri-(9Z)-9-octadecenoate, poly(oxy-1,2-ethanediyl) derivs
29911-28-2
2-Propanol, 1-(2-butoxy-1-methylethoxy)-
64742-47-8
Distillates (petroleum), hydrotreated light
Document ID: 0.7.19.1919.1
Received(Date):
Tue, 25 May 2010 12:34:23 +0100
From:
Subject: BP Gulf of Mexico Update May 24, 2010
Attached you will find two items:
1.
Press release regarding BPs ongoing review of potential causes of the Deepwater Horizon incident
2.
T odays update
Please let me know if you have questions.
Press Release
BP Briefs Government on Initial Perspectives of Deepwater Horizon Investigation
Focus is on Seven Control Mechanisms
Release Date: 24 May 2010
BP announced today that its internal investigation team began sharing initial perspectives of its review of
the causes of the tragic Deepwater Horizon fire and oil spill. The investigation is a fact-finding effort that
has not reached final conclusions, but has identified various issues for further inquiry. BP has shared
these early perspectives with the Department of the Interior and will do so with all official regulatory
inquiries into the accident as requested.
This is an internal investigation. There is extensive further work to do including further interviews, and
in addition full forensic examinations of the Blow Out Preventer (BOP), the wellhead, and the rig itself - all
of which are still currently on the sea bed. The internal investigation was launched on April 21, 2010 and
is being conducted by BPs Head of Group Safety and Operations. He has an independent reporting line
to the Group Chief Executive.
The investigation teams work thus far shows that this accident was brought about by the failure of a
number of processes, systems and equipment. There were multiple control mechanisms procedures
and equipmentin place that should have prevented this accident or reduced the impact of the spill: the
investigation is focused on the following seven mechanisms.
1. The cement that seals the reservoir from the well;
2. The casing system, which seals the well bore;
3. The pressure tests to confirm the well is sealed;
4. The execution of procedures to detect and control hydrocarbons in the well, including the use of the
BOP;
5. The BOP Emergency Disconnect System, which can be activated by pushing a button at multiple
locations on the rig;
6. The automatic closure of the BOP after its connection is lost with the rig; and
7. Features in the BOP to allow Remotely Operated Vehicles (ROV) to close the BOP and thereby seal
the well at the seabed after a blow out.
I understand people want a simple answer about why this happened and who is to blame. The honest
truth is that this is a complex accident, caused by an unprecedented combination of failures, said Chief
Executive Tony Hayward. A number of companies are involved, including BP, and it is simply too early
and not up to us to say who is at fault.
This is a basic summary of the facts as gathered by the investigation team to date. A lot remains
unknown, but we hope that the briefings will help the governments inquiries. This was a tragic accident
and we need to understand the causes of it to try to ensure that nothing like it ever happens again.
For further information:
BP Gulf of Mexico response: www.bp.com/gulfofmexico
Telephone:
BP Press Office London +44 20 7496 4076
BP Press office, US: +1 281 366 0265
05/24/2010 8:00pm EDT
1.
2.
3.
Highlights
17,840

personnel responding as part of the Unified Command, plus volunteers.
1,167cleanup
vessels deployed, including 80 skimmers.
592,000

gallons of additional oily water recovered and treated on Sunday.
Decision

from EPA allows subsea dispersant application to continue.
$28 million

in total claims paid to date.
Offshore Sea Floor
1. Riser Insertion Tube The riser insertion tool is now capturing an average of approximately 2,000
barrels of oil per day. This remains a new technology and both its continued operation and its
effectiveness in capturing the oil and gas remain uncertain.
2. Dispersant injection on the sea floor Today, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
determined that subsea application of the currently-used dispersant could continue. EPA also announced
it would conduct additional toxicity tests of available dispersant types and continue working to identify
alternatives. Remote Operated Vehicles (ROVs) injected approximately 14,400 gallons of dispersant
today at main riser leak source. Dispersant acts by separating the oil into small droplets that can break
down more easily through natural processes before it reaches the surface. Successful application of
dispersant on the sea floor can dramatically reduce the need for dispersant use on the surface.
3.
Top Kill activities
x
The top

kill system which consists of system includes bypass lines, valves, and a manifold is
currently being pressure tested.
Final
preparations
and safety reviews will continue through tomorrow.
x
After
diagnostics
are completed, engineers expect to begin pumping heavy fluids and/or fibrous
materials directly through the blowout preventer in an attempt to kill the well.
4.
Drilling relief wells
x
The first

relief well (work being performed by the Development Driller III) is at approximately
11,100 feet below sea level. This well was spudded on May 2.
x
The second

relief well (work being performed by Development Driller II) is at approximately 8,600
feet below sea level. Drilling began on May 16.
x
Both
wells
are situated approximately one-half mile from the Macondo well and will attempt to
intercept the existing wellbore at approximately 18,000 feet below seal level. It is estimated the total
drilling process for each well will take at least 90 days
5. Containment Recovery System A containment dome, called a top hat, is deployed on the sea
floor and readied to be placed over the main leak, if needed.
x
Cleanup

Vessels 1,167 specialty response vessels are now deployed, including tugs, barges
and recovery boats.
Skimming

Vessels 80 of the cleanup boats are skimmers, designed to separate oil from
x
water. Approximately 258,000 barrels of oil-water mix (10.84 million gallons) have been recovered and
treated, an increase of more than 1 million gallons since Friday.
x
Surface

Dispersant More than 705,000 gallons of dispersant have been applied on the
surface by aircraft. BP is working with the EPA to identify alternative effective dispersants for
deployment.
x
In-Situ

Burning The Unified Command conducted an additional 8 in-situ burns on Sunday. In-
situ burning occurs on the surface using special fire-boom that collects surface hydrocarbons which are
then burned off.
Oil Containment and Shoreline Protection 2,750,000 feet of both sorbent and barrier boom have
been deployed or staged to protect sensitive coastal areas in Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, and
Florida. Nearly 1.5 million feet of barrier boom is on order.
Vietnamese and Spanish translators are in some offices. 23,500 claims have been filed and 9,000 claims
paid totalling $28 million. Most of the claims are for loss of income or wages in commercial fishing,
shrimping, oyster harvesting, and associated activities. The contact number for claims is (800) 440-
0858. In person claims can be filed at office locations listed below. Claims can also be filed online at:
x
$500 million
for a ten-year research program to study impacts of the Deepwater Horizon
incident, and its associated response, on the marine and shoreline environment of the Gulf of Mexico.
BP Provides $70 million in Tourism Grants to States BP has made $70 million available to
Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama and Florida to promote tourism.
$25 Million Block Grants to 4 States On May 4, BP announced it would provide Louisiana, Florida,
Mississippi and Alabama $25 million each to accelerate implementation of the States approved Area
Contingency Plans.
x
Vessels

of Opportunity Program
vessels are currently active. Community Outreach Centers are working with the contractors to ensure
they have the appropriate training.
x
Volunteers and

Training BP has opened 22 Community Outreach Centers across
the Gulf where people can go for more information, to find out about the spill, and to connect with
volunteer opportunities. Volunteers are being trained in five different modules that range from safety for
beach clean-up, to wildlife monitoring, handling of hazardous materials and vessel operation for laying
boom. As of today, 14,628 individual training modules had been completed. Information about training
can be found on the incident website at www.deepwaterhorizonresponse.com under volunteers.
x
Wildlife

Activities 21 additional reports of impacted wildlife were received in the past 24 hours,
bringing the total number to 132. Wildlife rehabilitation sites are located in Venice, LA and Mobile, AL.
Louisiana
Sites:
Amelia Staging
Area
Unit 2
Cut Off, LA 70345
3811 LA 1
303 Timber Creek
Hammond, LA 70404
Houma Claims Office
Suite 2 & 3
Houma, LA 70363
1553 Hwy 15
1345 Bayou Rd
41093 Hwy LA 23
Community

Outreach Centers now open in 8 parishes.
x
BP donated

$1 million and is working with Catholic Charities and Second Harvest Food Bank in
St. Bernard, Plaquemines and Orleans Parishes to deliver humanitarian assistance.
Mississippi
Sites:
Bay St. Louis
Claims Office
1171 Highway 90
Bay St. Louis, MS
39520
Biloxi, MS 39532
5912 Old Mobile Hwy
Suite 4
Community

outreach centers are now open in all three coastal counties.
Volunteer

Alabama Sites:
Bayou
LaBatre
Claims
Office
290 N.
Wintzell
Avenue
Bayou
LaBatre,
AL 36509
Foley Claims Office
Suite 104
Foley, AL 36535
Suite 1
Community

Outreach Centers now open in 2 counties.
Volunteer

Florida Sites:
th
Street
194 14
Suite 105
Ft. Walton
Claims
Office
348 SW
Miracle
Strip Pkwy
Suite 13
Fort
Walton
Beach, FL
32548
Unit B-9
3960 Navy Boulevard
Suite 16-17
Pensacola, FL 32507
106 Trade Circle
Suite A
Community

Outreach Centers are now open in 7 counties.
Volunteer

x
Working

with counties to review Area Contingency Plans and identify booming and beach clean
up priorities.
Contact Information
(866) 448-5816
Team
(866) 557-1401
(866) 448-5816
(281) 366-5511
suggestions
with response
(281) 366-5511

(866) 905-4492 or (866) 647-
and to sign up\
2338
Investor Relations
(281) 366-3123
Claims by phone
(800) 440-0858
(985) 902-5231 or (985) 902-
5240
(251) 445-8965
Transocean Hotline
(832) 587-8554
MI Swaco Hotline
(888) 318-6765
(281) 366-5578
Karen St John
BP America
(202) 457-6594
(202) 351-1399 (cell)
[email protected]
Received(Date):
Tue, 25 May 2010 16:07:06 -0400
From:
Subject: Briefing Paper
To:
"Sarri, Kristen" <[email protected]>,"'[email protected]'" <[email protected]>
May 25 Deepwater Horizon Update.doc
Kris,
The briefing paper is attached. Let me know if there are additional
topics or information you would like to see included.
Thanks,
Jainey
UPDATE ON DEEPWATER HORIZON RESPONSE
DATE:
Tuesday, May 25, 2010
PURPOSE:
To provide brief updates on hot topics related to Deepwater Horizon response and
NOAAs continuing role.
BACKGROUND:
Flow Rate:
The National Incident Commands Flow Rate Technical Group (FRTG) is
expected to deliver a flow rate no later than May 26.
The FRTG is already pointing to a release rate that is greater than 5,000
barrels/day, and BP concedes that the 5,000 barrels/day estimate is too low.
NOAA scientists are participating in the FRTG to develop a scientifically valid
estimate of the leak rate.
Video image quality has been an issue, and NOAA and USCG are working with
BP to secure high quality footage of the riser flow. It is anticipated that the new
footage will allow a better estimate of release rate.
Subsurface Plume:
Subsurface surveillance sampling continues off Mississippi, Alabama and Florida,
and no oil has been detected.
Multiple research cruises are underway to better characterize the fate and
distribution in the water column.
NOAA Ship Gordon Gunter will depart on Thursday, May 27 to
characterize the water column in the vicinity of the main release to inform
response and fishery closure decisions.
NOAA Ship Thomas Jefferson departed Sunday to monitor the surface
NOAA Research Vessel Weatherbird has been deployed to conduct water
and deep currents distributing the oil.
sampling and depth and deploy gliders to see if sub-surface materials have
entered the loop current in dispersed but detectable quantities.
Dispersed Oil Workshop:
NOAA is sponsoring a workshop on the long-term use of dispersants, which will
be held on May 26 and 27 at Louisiana State University.
Thirty-forty people, including federal, state and academic experts, will be
attending.
Dispersants are one of several response tools, approved by the Regional Response
Team, used at this spill. To date, a large quantify of dispersants have been
applied (approximately 700,000 gallons) for the Deepwater Horizon response.
The use of dispersants pose an environmental tradeoff, as dispersing the oil in the
water column reduces the environmental risks to the shorelines.
The purpose of this meeting is to assess the overall use of dispersants, the
environmental tradeoffs, and provide recommendations to the Region 4 and 6
SENSITIVE AND PRIVILEGED: DO NOT COPY WITHOUT PERMISSION
Document ID: 0.7.19.1779.1

Responsive Document - CREW: NOAA: Regarding BP Oil Spill: 4/3/2012 - (Part 1) Foia 2010-377 Orr Ohc Interim 4 1 To 3596 Final

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Responsive Document - CREW: NOAA: Regarding BP Oil Spill: 4/3/2012 - (Part 1) Foia 2010-377 Orr Ohc Interim 4 1 To 3596 Final

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Responsive Document - CREW: NOAA: Regarding BP Oil Spill: 4/3/2012 - (Part 1) Foia 2010-377 Orr Ohc Interim 4 1 To 3596 Final

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

From: Tom Moore <Tom.Moore@noaa.

Date: October 29, 201 0 1 0:1 8:53 AM EDT

Begin forwarded message:

From: Chris Doley < [email protected]>

Date: April 27, 201 0 1 :1 9:53 PM EDT

To: Brian Hostetter < [email protected]>

Subject: Re: DR L TASKER #5

result. Something like the following:

Brian Hostetter wrote:

would be DBL 1 52 and Lake Barre (settled 1 5 Nov 99).

was also not an issue with DBL-1 52:

Document ID: 0.7.19.240

vessels were observed in the vicinity of the spill."

From Lake Barre EA:

Aquatic Fauna Injury Assessment

Aquatic fauna, including blue crabs, squid, and

shrimp, and different species of fish were affected by

the discharge of oil. Water samples collected close to

the time of the spill indicated that polycyclic aromatic

hydrocarbons (PAHs) were present in the water column

for a few days at levels known to be toxic to aquatic

organisms in laboratory tests. As evidence of the oils

impact, dead shrimp were collected in a Louisiana Department

of Wildlife and Fisheries trawl and dead

juvenile crabs were found in a crab pot. A few dead

forage fish were observed shortly after the spill.

The trustees employed a site-specific modeling approach

to assess the aquatic fauna impacts. The employed

model includes algorithms from the Natural

Resource Damage Assessment Model for Coastal and

Marine Habitats (version 2.4, 1 996) and new algorithms

and data to account for habitats and fauna

specific to the Lake Barre incident. The model estimates

the aquatic injury that resulted from death due

to exposure to concentrations of low -molecular-weight

PAHs in the water column. The model also estimates

the resulting loss in growth of the organisms predicted

to have died from exposure to PAHs. Based on the

model, approximately 7465 kg of fish, decapods, and

other invertebrates were lostdue to direct mortality

and lost growthas a result of the discharge. The

mortality number does not account for a reduction in

aquatic faunal production that resulted from a reduction

in marsh service flows supporting aquatic fauna;

thus, there is no double counting of the aquatic faunal

Please advise if you need more.

Begin forwarded message:

From: Tom Moore < [email protected]>

Date: April 29, 201 0 9:46:40 AM EDT

To: Daniel Hahn < [email protected]>

Cc: Troy Baker < [email protected]>

Subject: Re: SIPPER paragraph

On Apr 29, 201 0, at 9:43 AM, Daniel Hahn wrote:

Document ID: 0.7.19.240

On Apr 29, 201 0, at 9:43 AM, Daniel Hahn wrote:

Tom Moore wrote:

between live and dead organisms in the water column.

Begin forwarded message:

From: Drew Remsen < [email protected]>