1 / 44

Deepwater Horizon In-situ Burn

Deepwater Horizon In-situ Burn. CWO4 Tracy Allen U.S. Coast Guard Atlantic Strike Team. Background. The decision to burn by the Incident Command was made due to the fact that: Weather and Sea State didn’t allow for continuous operations.

meagan
Download Presentation

Deepwater Horizon In-situ Burn

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Deepwater HorizonIn-situ Burn CWO4 Tracy Allen U.S. Coast Guard Atlantic Strike Team

  2. Background The decision to burn by the Incident Command was made due to the fact that: • Weather and Sea State didn’t allow for continuous operations. • The amount of oil being released was too large for skimmers and dispersants alone. • IN-SITU burning when done properly is an effective way to remove large volumes of oil from the ocean.

  3. Task Force Fleet • Operational period, 28 April – 03 August 2010 • Grew from a 5 person idea to a 264 person multi task force. • In-situ burn group grew to three task forces by July 31st. • Sustainability was ordered, two task forces on the water at all times. • Was continuously staffed with technical advisors, NOAA, USEPA. • Led by USCG National Strike Force on water and at ICP, Houma.

  4. IN-SITU Task Force Fleet • In the beginning of May 2010 the Burn Task force consisted of: • One Command Vessel • Four Support Vessels • Four rigid hull inflatable igniter boats • Twenty 65-five foot shrimp vessels (VOOs- Vessels of opportunity or Private Shrimpers) • Sixty personnel under the direction of three USCG Strike Team Personnel. • Two twin engine aircraft.

  5. Burn Plan • The burn plan included: • Burn feasibility, operational checklists, and an action plan, including the “Go/No-Go” policy and burn termination criteria. • Addressed clear delegation of authority for stopping the burn. • One person (Burn Coordinator) onboard each command vessel to stop the burn should safety become jeopardized.

  6. Training All crews were trained in both class room and on water by In-situ staff.

  7. Safety Safety was paramount to the evolution. • All safety protocols, as per Site Safety plan, were strictly enforced. • Industrial hygienists were hired to monitor health & Safety. • Safety and air monitoring personnel were on each lead boat of the burn team.

  8. Safety meetings held daily @ 0530 hrs on Command vessel out at sea.

  9. Fire Booms • Several types of fire boom were tested. • Water cooled, Stainless float and ceramic exceeded service life

  10. Finding the oil • The burn teams were vectored to dark oil by the spotter aircraft. • Once they found the oil, they would begin to deploy fire boom. • Once on station, spotters observed and continued to direct the burn teams.

  11. Strategy • 500 Feet of fire boom was towed with a 300 foot tow line behind 2 shrimp vessels. • Once the oil was captured, an ignition boat would come to the boom and light a fire. • Once the fire was going, the vessels turn into the wind and keep towing very slowly gathering more oil.

  12. Ignition

  13. The BURN

  14. Air Monitoring • Average Weather conditions O/S: • Air - 100-103o F • Water – 89-90o F. • USCG Strike Team personnel conducted on surface air monitoring. • Industrial hygienists were on each lead shrimp boat . • SMART ( SPECIAL MONITORING OF APPLIED RESPONSE TECHNOLOGY ) protocol was used. • Real time particulate monitoring was one factor among several including smoke modeling and trajectory analysis, visual observations and behavior of the smoke plume.

  15. Air Monitoring • Early air monitoring had shown that particulate levels during the in-situ burns were not an issue. • The air was periodically monitored for particulates as designated by the in-situ burn safety section. • EPA set up a high resolution monitor to gather real-time measurements of hydrogen sulfide (H2S) in outdoor air near Venice. • Deployed Airborne Spectral Photometric Environmental Collection Technology (ASPECT)

  16. How Much Oil is Consumed? • Burn volume calculations for each burn included a minimum and maximum estimates. • Minimum volume estimate was based on: • Size of burn area • Duration of the burn. • Burn Rate of 0.05 gpm/sqft • Maximum volume was based on the best upper estimates of burn area: • Size of burn area • The duration of the burn. • Burn rate of 0.07gpm/sqft.

  17. This one burn consumed greater than 16,000 barrels 0r 672,000 gallons. The burn lasted 3.9 hrs.

  18. How Much Oil was Consumed From April 28th to 03 August - 411 burns were conducted; approx. 309,452 Barrels or 12,996,989 gallons were consumed and removed from the water.

  19. Results • Studies of the emissions from in-situ burning have shown fairly consistent results. • About 85 to 95% of the burned oil becomes carbon dioxide and water. • 5 to 15% of the oil is not burned efficiently and is converted to particulates, mostly soot. • 1-3%, is comprised of nitrogen dioxide, sulfur dioxide, carbon monoxide, polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons (PAH), ketones, aldehydes, and other combustion by-products. • The burning of oil on water is similar to burning the oil in a furnace or a car.

  20. Waste Operations

  21. QUESTIONS?

More Related