Report on the State of the Art

Oil Spill Response in Ice

Kari Lampela
24.8.2011
Table of Contents

1. The purpose of the report……………………………………................................ 3

2. Introduction………………………………………………………………………...…. 3
3. Special characteristics of the Baltic Sea…………………………………………… 4
4. Oil spill recovery in icy conditions…………………………………………………... 5
4.1. Differences in winter response in comparison to open waters………..…… 5
4.2. The fate and behavior of oil in ice, some key points…………..……….…… 5
5. Response………………………………………………………..…………….……… 6
5.1. Detection of oil in or under ice…………………………..……………….……. 6
5.1.1. Remote sensing……………………………………..……………..……… 6
5.1.2. Surface systems………………………………………..…………..……... 6
5.1.3. Conclusions…………………………………………..……………...…….. 7
5.2. Modeling………………………………………………………..………….…….. 7
5.3. Response methods…………………………………………..………….……… 8
5.3.1. Mechanical recovery……………………………………..………..……… 8
5.3.2. In situ burning…………………………………………..…………...……. 17
5.3.3. Chemical recovery……………………………………..……………...…. 18
5.3.4. Bioremediation………………………………………...…………..……… 19
5.3.5. Other methods…………………………………………..….………..…… 20
6. Recommendation………………………………………….................................... 20
7. Conclusions………………………………………………………………....………. 21
8. References………………………………………………………………….……….. 21
9. Bibliography………………………………………………………………....………. 22
10. Appendix………………………………………………………………..………….. 23

Cover picture. New Finnish multipurpose vessel Louhi on her ice trials spring 2011
(J. Lehtonen/ILS Oy).

2
1. The purpose of the report

This report provides an overview of the current state of knowledge in combating marine
oil spills in icy conditions. The report is based on Nordic and international conference
proceedings and reports and on experiences based from the research work and tests
performed in Nordic countries. Experiences gained in connection with accidental oil
releases in ice have been taken into account as well (fortunately, however, there have
been relatively few major oil accidents in ice on the Baltic Sea). This report is not
designed to be a comprehensive report on oil spill response in cold and icy conditions;
therefore, the bibliography lists several publications and reports, in which more complete
information can be found. We hope this report will provide information illuminating which
factors should be taken into account when oil spill response in icy and cold conditions in
the Baltic Sea area is a concern.

The recommendations, which represent only the writer’s view, are made keeping in mind
the conditions of the Baltic Sea and here commonly accepted regulations, especially the
HELCOM (Baltic Marine Environment Protection Commission) recommendations.

2. Introduction

Ice-covered waters present additional challenges for oil spill response when compared to
open waters - such as the remoteness of the area, the low temperatures, and seasonal
darkness, along with the presence of ice. At the same time, ice can aid in oil spill
response operations; it slows down oil weathering, it dampens the waves, it prevents the
oil from spreading over large distances, and it allows more response time. In some
cases, oil spill response in an ice-covered area may be easier than in open waters,
although this does not imply that it will be simple. The complexity of oil and ice interaction
is showed in Figure 1.

3
 Figure 1. Fate and behaviour of oil spilled in ice (Bobra and Fingas, 1986).

Only a few countries have been inspired in the development of response techniques for
cold and icy conditions, with the main work being done in northern Baltic Sea countries,
Norway, Canada and the USA. Norway with its research institutes has been especially
active, and Norwegian institutes also are involved in most projects sponsored by
international oil companies and Canadian and US authorities. There are only a few
consultants specializing in problems of oil in ice, with most of them situated in the Nordic
states, Canada, and the US. Germany, the US, and Norway are home to laboratories
with test basins, where it is possible to test existing and new oil spill response equipment
developments also in icy conditions.

3. Special characteristics of the Baltic Sea

The response to oil spill in ice in Baltic States is guided by following facts, co-operation
and regulations:
 The Baltic Sea is an area of brackish water; the salinity of its water is only about 10%
of ocean water´s salinity.
 The mean temperature is low.
 There is ice cover every year at least in the northern Baltic.
 HELCOM has given recommendations for oil spill response on the Baltic Sea, with the
following main principles for oil spill recovery:
 Preference for mechanical recovery.
 Non-use of the following:
 dispersants without proper consideration,
 sinking agents in any circumstances.
 Other HELCOM activities, which have an influence on oil spill recovery:
 Cooperation in airborne surveillance.
4
  Common drift modeling.
 Recommendation related to development national ability to respond to spills.
 Regional cooperation.

Because of the low salinity of the Baltic Sea´s water, Baltic ice is predominantly rather
solid, without significant brine channels. Therefore, the oil adheres to the ice blocks
rather weakly, so most oil can be removed (loosened) from the ice with only a small
amount of energy, which aids in the process of cleaning the oily ice blocks. On the other
hand, the low salinity means that heavier oils sometimes have a tendency to sink, which
makes response to such oil difficult, especially if the oil is under ice.

4. Oil spill recovery in icy conditions

4.1. Differences in winter response in comparison to open waters

The main differences and difficulties with response to oil in winter and in icy conditions
are as follows:
 The freezing environment: Temperatures in the Baltic can reach -20 to -30 degrees
Celsius, which can render methods and equipment designed for use in open water
and at temperatures above the freezing point useless.
 Darkness in winter.
 Remoteness.
 Viscous oils: Quite a few types of oil transported on the Baltic have a high viscosity,
and also many oils that are easy to collect in warmer conditions are viscous in
freezing temperatures and therefore impossible to collect with skimmers designed for
lighter oils.
 Poor buoyancy: In the brackish, low-salinity water of the Baltic Sea, oil loses some of
its buoyancy, so some types of oil have a tendency to sink and the oil under the
surface in the water column or at the bottom is difficult to find and to collect.
 Ice pressure: The response tools used in icy conditions must be designed to
withstand the pressure of the drifting ice blocks.
 The need for ice processing: The oil that has become stuck to ice or is under,
between, or on blocks of ice must be separated from the ice blocks, and this ice
processing procedure requires special methods and equipment.

However, ice often provides benefits, including the following:

 The window of opportunity may be larger than in open waters –there is more time for
response before oil reaches the shore.
 Ice prevents the oil from spreading over large distances; it acts as a physical barrier.

4.2. The fate and behaviour of oil in ice - some key points

 Ice concentrations over 60% can naturally contain oil in relatively thick films (of a
millimetre or more).
 Freeze-up oil/ice interactions are controlled by grease and ice slush.
 Encapsulation of under-ice spills stops weathering but limits access.

5
 Under-ice currents rarely suffice to move oil over any distance under the ice in Baltic
Sea conditions.
 The ice drift rate controls the thickness of the oil layer that can accumulate on the
surface with an extended release.
 Spring migration through porous ice exposes fresh oil naturally.
 Most weathering processes are substantially reduced but evaporation still significant
even with snow cover. Ice acts as a physical barrier (drift ice) or retardant (grease
ice); oil does not spread or disperse as far and ends up in a thicker layer.
 Evaporation is slower where oil spills are thickened.
 The total water uptake and rate of uptake may be reduced through dampening of
wave activity by the presence of ice. (Dickins 2008)

5. Response

5.1. Detection of oil in or under ice

The difficulties in detecting oil in or under ice are numerous. Ice is never a homogeneous
material; on the contrary, it includes air, sediment, salt, and water, many of which may
present false oil-in-ice signals to detection mechanisms. In addition, snow on top of the
ice or even incorporated into the ice adds complications. During freeze-up and thaw in
the spring, there may not be distinct layers of water and ice. There are many types of ice
and different ice crystalline orientations.

There is still much to be developed before we have truly functional detection methods for
finding oil that is released into the water during ice season. Oil located between ice
blocks or on the ice can be detected mainly with the methods used in open waters, but
finding oil that is under ice is still mainly an unsolved problem.

5.1.1. Remote sensing

Multispectral airborne remote sensing supplemented by visual observations by trained

observers has proven to be the most effective method for identifying and mapping the
presence of oil on water. A flexible combination of sensors operating from aircraft,
helicopters, vessels and satellites can be used for oil detection also in ice conditions. The
most useful remote sensors and systems applicable spills in ice are:
 Side-Looking Airborne Radar (SLAR)
 Satellite-based Synthetic Aperture Radar (SAR) and
 Aircraft and vessel-based Forward Looking Infrared (FLIR).

5.1.2. Surface systems

Laser Fluorosensors
Laser fluorosensors are active sensors that take advantage of the fact that certain
compounds in petroleum oils absorb ultraviolet light and become electronically excited.
Laser fluorosensors have significant potential for detecting oil spills as they may be the
only means to distinguish between oiled and unoiled weeds and between sediment and
6
oil on ice, and to detect oil on different types of beaches. The fluorosensor is also the
only reliable means of detecting oil in certain ice and snow situations and is a powerful
tool for a variety of oil spill applications. (Fingas, Brown et al., 2001).

Ground Penetrating Radar

Ground Penetrating Radar has been found to be the effective system for detecting oil
under ice. A series of tank tests and field experiments demonstrated that surface-based
ground-penetrating radar (GPR) can clearly detect and map the presence of oil films as
thin as 1-3 cm underneath the ice and trapped as layers within the ice. Modelling
indicated that the same system operating at low altitude from a helicopter should be able
to detect thin oil layers under cold ice in mid-winter, as well as oil on the ice surface
buried under snow. (see JIP report)

5.1.3. Conclusions

The technology for detecting oil in or under ice is still evolving. The state of the art in
technology for the detection of oil with ice is more advanced than that for oil under ice. Oil
in/with ice - optical technologies may work with limitations. Laser fluorosensors show the
greatest potential for detection of oil when the oil is exposed to the surface. The
fluorosensor is also the only reliable means of detecting oil in certain ice and show
situations.

There is also new technologies like acoustic, radar based (Ground Penetrating Radar)
and electronic gas sensors, “sniffers”. Some of these methods have shown potential to
track oil also under ice and snow, but they still need further development and testing.
Trained dogs are also able to reliably detect very small volumes of oil and to map oil
boundaries on solid ice and in sediments on Arctic shorelines under cold conditions (see
JIP report). Often the best operational method is the simplest; use of divers and ROV to
find the oil under ice.

5.2. Modelling

Many studies of the fate and behaviour of oil in ice have been conducted over the last
four decades, but quantitative understanding obtained from these has not been used to
improve existing oil-spill models. The modelling approaches used in the existing oil-spill
models to include oil-in-ice interaction are based mostly on use of models developed for
open waters but corrected by a scaling factor related to ice coverage. To offer a real
model for responders’ operations in ice-laden waters, the model should be coupled with a
robust ice model, incorporating an atmospheric model, circulation model, and wave
model that include the effect of ice. Such a complete model is not yet available (Khelifa,
2010).

But the exiting simplified models can already help responders. Trajectory models may be
used to map or predict the movement of oil and ice. In open waters, surface oil
trajectories are developed on the basis of the wind speed and direction and the current.
Modelling submerged oil is often more difficult, given the limited subsurface current data
in many geographical areas. In drift ice, surface oil usually moves in the same direction
7
and at the same speed as the ice. Predicting the movement of oil under ice can be more
complicated. There has been some work in northern countries, the US, Canada; Norway,
and Russia to develop models for estimation of oil movement in ice. The results of these
projects have been demonstrated, but the fact remains that reliable models that can
predict oil’s movement in and under ice do not exist. Some facts can, however, be noted:

 Oil between blocks of ice moves along the ice, with ice blocks acting as oil booms.
 Buoyant oil under ice will migrate to the underside of a floating ice sheet, which
typically has an uneven surface. A current of 0.4 m/s is usually required to move oil
along the underside of the ice. Oil will tend to migrate to pockets on the underside
unless ice ridges or keels stop lateral movement (see The Arctic SCAT Manual). If the
velocity is above that average threshold velocity, the speed of the oil in relation to the
ice depends on the current’s velocity and the roughness of the ice.
 Oil will drift separately from the ice at less than 30% ice coverage and with the ice at
60–70% (or greater) coverage.
 Behaviour is unpredictable in dynamic drift ice conditions.

In future also ice models should be developed so that it addresses biological impacts of
oil spills in aquatic environments. In most cases, impacts are assessed by evaluating the
presence or densities of biota in the areas exposed to oil. While this approach may be
justifiable for birds or marine mammals, the movements of wildlife have often not been
taken into account. For water column biota, a three-dimensional oil fate model must be
used for the assessment.

5.3. Response methods

There is not a universal method of responding to oil releases in cold and icy conditions.
Several skimmer types and techniques exist, but, because of variations in circumstances
and climate conditions, ice coverage varies case-specifically and conditions may change
even during response to a single incident, necessitating a toolbox of several response
tools.

5.3.1. Mechanical recovery

From the environmental point of view, the mechanical recovery is usually considered as
the most favorable oil spill combating method. Because of HELCOM recommendations
and the fact that the Baltic Sea is already heavily polluted, mechanical removal of
released oil is the most frequently used response method in Baltic Sea states. Mechanical
recovery has the following advantages and disadvantages:

Advantages
 It is environment-friendly.
 Oil is removed from nature.

Disadvantages
 It is often ineffective.
 These methods often present logistical difficulties.

8
 It is time-consuming, laborious, and costly.
 It demands special equipment and vessels.

There are two main principles for mechanical recovery in icy conditions:
 Lift the oily ice blocks from the surface water and clean them with a specially
developed cleaning device.
 Separate the oil from ice in the water.

It is, of course, possible to lift the oily ice blocks from the water and then loosen the oil
by, for example, flushing with water (cold or warm). These methods have been tested in
many countries, with perhaps the best documentation for this response method coming
as part of the Norwegian MORICE project a few years ago. In this project, conducted by
SINTEF, after theoretical studies and laboratory tests, an operational response skimmer
was built and tested in icy conditions in Svalbard. The method is still in the prototype
phase, and commercial production hasn’t begun. The main drawbacks of this method are
the large amount of energy needed in lifting the often heavy ice blocks, the need for
warming when cleaning takes place in open air and often in freezing temperatures, and
the need for a robust special recovery unit.

The latter response method is the most common in the Baltic Sea states: mechanically
separating oil from water and from ice, provided that the oil is floating on the water’s
surface or is stuck to the ice.

Depending on the ice coverage, different methods can be used:

 If the ice coverage is 0–30%, normal open-sea skimmers can be used, in awareness
that there is always a risk of damage to the skimmer due to the pressure of moving
ice and also that, even in favourable conditions, 100% recovery cannot be expected.
 If the ice coverage is between 30% and 70%, special ice skimmers are needed. If
self-floating skimmers are used, they must be specially built to withstand the ice
pressure. To facilitate movement among ice blocks, these skimmers should have their
own propulsion system or the possibility to enhance movements by the crane of the
supporting vessel.
 If ice coverage is 70% or more, specialized robust ice skimmers are needed. They
must be operated by ice going response vessels or integrated direct to the vessel.
Often there is also need of special cranes or excavator on board the vessel to be
operated effectively. Some skimmers can be used also from a vessel of opportunity
thus enlarging the usable response vessel fleet.

When skimmers are used in ice and in cold conditions, the skimmer must be modified for
these special circumstances. Heating of the skimmer and recovered oil with steam, hot
water, etc. is often needed, and the pumps used must be able to pump heavy, viscous
oil. The Nordic nations have studied how the skimmers and pumps used in these
countries behave in cold conditions.

The methods and techniques developed are based mainly on brush technology. Several
devices have been developed and then tested at laboratory scale and in real-world
conditions over the years. Many Nordic manufacturers of response equipment have
developed special skimmers for response in icy conditions, such as self-floating ice
skimmers and hanging rope mop skimmers. These are usable when the ice
9
concentration is clearly less than 100% but can be rather difficult and ineffective in cases
of a high ice concentration. In very light ice conditions, also skimmers designed for open
water can be used effectively.

Examples of skimmers and methods used and developed in Nordic countries

Rope mop skimmers

Rope mop systems are adhesion skimmers. The rope principle has demonstrated its
effectiveness in removing medium-viscosity oils in low wave conditions, at relative
velocities as high as several knots, and in debris (including ice). Vertically oriented rope
mops driven by a driver/wringer unit suspended from a crane represent an appealing
technology for removing in-ice oil, as selective positioning is possible and there is no
need for actively processing ice encountered by the recovery unit. In freezing ambient
conditions, the rope has a tendency to freeze, thus greatly reducing the recovery
capacity. Heating with warm water has been included in some rope mop skimmers, to
improve their utility in temperatures below freezing.

Figure 2. Foxtail rope-mop skimmer in ice (Alaska Clean Seas).

Lamor Arctic skimmer

The Arctic skimmer is a crane-operated system to be deployed vertically for recovering oil
in broken ice. The skimmer incorporates static ice deflection pipes and rotating brush
wheels for oil separation and collection. Recovered oil and small ice pieces are delivered
10
into a collection hopper with screw conveyors that feed the material into an Archimedes
screw pump for transfer to storage. The idea is that moving the skimmer in between
blocks of ice allows the ice surfaces to be cleaned and oil floating between the ice blocks
then can be recovered. The skimmer is equipped with a warm-water heating system to
improve recovery in Arctic conditions The Arctic skimmer is normally deployed by a crane
or davit but can be also used as a free-floating skimmer utilising its optional floats when
required.

Figure 3. Lamor Arctic skimmer (Lamor).

Specialised self-floating ice skimmers

Ro-Clean Desmi Polar Bear skimmer

The Polar Bear skimmer consists of six brush drums, in hexagonal configuration, and is a
further development of the Helix 1000 skimmer. The results from testing indicate that it
can be effective in collecting flowing oil when positioned in oil of varying slick thickness
(several millimetres to several centimetres) among ice chunks. Cohesive oil slicks can be
effectively drawn into the brushes if the drum speed is not too high and the sump lip
remains above the sea surface. The skimmer works best in the presence of low
concentrations of smaller ice pieces and slush ice (< 50–70%) and might also have
potential for application alongside larger ice floes (see the JIP report).

11
 Figure 4. Desmi Polar Bear skimmer (SINTEF.)

Framo Polaris Ice Skimmer

The Framo brush drum ice skimmer (Polaris Ice Skimmer) is triangular and features two
brush drums on each side angled towards a bow flotation chamber. The skimmer is self-
propelled through the use of two thrusters. It was concluded that a skimmer with thrusters
that utilises this technology would be a useful mechanical recovery device for oil spills in
ice. As a result of the flow created under the brush drum and rotating augers, the
skimmer exhibited good small ice processing capabilities. The triangular shape with use
of thrusters was a successful combination and allowed the skimmer to move effectively in
ice. The Framo skimmer is expected to ultimately have the potential to recover oil in small
ice concentrations up to 70% (see the JIP report).

Figure 5. Framo Polaris Ice Skimmer (Frank Mohn).

12
Developments in Finland

Following is descriptions of few skimmers, which has been developed by Finnish

Environment Institute (SYKE) in co-operation with Finnish manufacturers.

Lori Ice Cleaner

The Lori Ice Cleaner, a specialised skimmer bow, is designed to operate in broken ice at
sea, lake, river, and port locations. Its recovery process is carried out by a two-stage
brushing and water pumping system. First, high-pressure water jets loosen oil from ice
blocks, and the robust brush chains under the bow complete the cleaning of the ice
blocks. Then loose oil is separated from water with conventional oil-collecting brush
chains. The principle of operation of the Lori Ice Cleaner is shown in Figure 6. The
maximum thickness of ice blocks for which the unit can be used is about 0.5 metres. This
ice-cleaner is a removable unit and can be attached to the bow of a tugboat, icebreaker,
etc.

Figure 6. The principle of operation of the Lori Ice Cleaner (SYKE).

Oil Ice Separator – LOIS

The LOIS system consists of removable oil-in-ice separator units, which can be installed
on an oil recovery vessel with special fittings when needed. The idea of this specialised
ice skimmer is to use a vibrating grid connected to the sides of a response vessel to force
the ice blocks submerged under the recovery unit to move upside down when the vessel
is going forward and possibly rotate the ice by moving the grid. By increasing the relative
movement between the oil-covered ice blocks and water, one washes spilled oil from the
ice blocks. Oil rises through the grates to the water’s surface, which is inside the body of
13
the LOIS. The oily water is then pumped through a conventional brush chain system in
the companion response vessel, where the oil is then separated from the water. Any
small pieces of ice that enter the brush system are transferred back to the sea by
conveyor. The principle of the LOIS unit is shown in Figure 7.

Figure 7. Principle of the LOIS unit (SYKE).

Figure 8. LOIS unit installed to fairway service vessel Letto (SYKE).

14
Oil recovery bucket
The principle of the oil recovery bucket is that the oil adheres to stiff, rotating brushes of
the equipment. As the drum rotates, oil is swept from the brushes and enters the bucket.
A screw pump transfers the oil to recovery tanks. Three sizes of oil recovery bucket exist.
The smallest device has a sweeping width of 60 cm, the medium size's sweeping width is
1.6 m, and the largest has a sweeping width of 3 m. The diameter of the brush wheel has
been 800 mm. The two largest oil recovery buckets can be connected to and operated by
a hydraulic crane or hydraulic excavator. The largest bucket has been developed to be
operated by a large oil recovery vessel's crane. Figure 9 shows the oil recovery bucket
during tank tests. The oil recovery bucket has been the standard equipment in Finland for
cases of small spills in ice, and it is also used in some other Baltic Sea states.

The smallest oil recovery bucket was originally developed to clean oil from areas with soft
soil – for example, in shoreline-cleaning. For this purpose, the device can be connected
to a modified, remotely controlled forest work vehicle.

Figure 9. Oil recovery bucket collecting oil in ice (SINTEF).

15
 Figure 10. Oil recovery bucket installed on a new Swedish response vessel (Lamor).

Ship-mounted ice-cleaning brush wheels

The brush unit consists of a large brush wheel with a 1.8 m diameter and a length of
4.0 m, which is connected to a special crane. The wheel, which has stiff (steel) brushes
among normal collection brushes, rotates and cleans the oiled ice block. Normally, a
response vessel will be moving backwards and the units are installed on the aft deck with
container fastenings. There will be four brush units in the new Finnish multipurpose
vessel Louhi, so the total sweeping width in ice will be about 16 m.

Figure 11. The principle for installation of the units on multipurpose vessel (SYKE).

16
5.3.2. In situ burning

In situ burning is particularly suitable for use in icy conditions, sometimes offering the
best option for removal of surface oil. In situ burning of thick, fresh oil slicks can often be
initiated very quickly through ignition of the oil with simple devices such as an oil-soaked
sorbent pad. Oil from the water’s surface can be removed efficiently and well via in situ
burning: It is reported that the removal efficiency for thick slicks can exceed 90%. Oil
removal rates of 2,000 m3/hour can be achieved with a fire area of about 10,000 m2. This
method has been used fairly seldom in the Baltic; the last full-scale burning in Finland was
in the early ’70s. Burning is a fast way to destroy the majority of the released oil, but the
method has some serious disadvantages also. Its main advantages and disadvantages are
as follows:

Advantages
 It is easy to apply and needs only rather inexpensive tools.
 The capacity can be high.
 It is an especially suitable method in icy conditions when ice forms a barrier that
prevents the spreading of the oil.
 Is a fast and inexpensive method.

Disadvantages
 Not all of the oil is ever burned – a certain amount of oil always remains unburnable,
with the amount of residue depending on the oil type, thickness of the original oil
layer, and oil weathering rate.
 Collection of the residue can be difficult, and the residue can sink.
 Soot and smoke from the burning can be harmful.
 Limited time frame in which the oil can be ignited.
 Weathered oil can be difficult to ignite and burn.
 It often needs special igniters.
 The burning must be conducted in a controlled manner.
 Burning generally may be carried out only far from islands and the shoreline –
normally restricted to 3+ miles from populated areas.
 Special approvals are often required.

There are some useful rules of thumb for in situ burning (stated by Ian Buist of SL Ross
Environmental Research):

Minimum thickness for ignition on water

 Fresh crude oil = 1 mm
 Weathered crude, diesel (no emulsion) = 2–3 mm
 Residual fuel oils (IFO 380) = 10 mm
 Emulsions = 10+ mm

Oil removal rates on water

 Strong function of size of fire
 Weaker function of oil type and thickness
 For large crude oil fires (in boom) = 3.5 mm/min
 Slightly faster burning of lighter fuels (diesel = 4 mm/min, gasoline = 4.5 mm/min)
 Small fires (melt pools) = 1 mm/min
17
Residue remaining
 1 mm for crude oil up to 20 mm thick
 Thicker residue for thicker slicks (3–5 mm for 50 mm)
 Thicker for residual fuels and emulsions
 1 mm for distilled fuels

Factors that determine the removal efficiency

 Initial slick thickness
 Residue thickness
 Flame coverage

Factors that is especially pertinent for burning in ice

 Minimum ignitable thickness for fresh crude on slush or small brash ice = up to
double that on open water, or about 1–2 mm
 Minimum ignitable thickness for evaporated crude oil on slush or small brash ice: in
some cases greater than on open water but still within the range quoted for
weathered crude on water, about 3 mm
 Removal efficiency: residue remaining on brash or slush ice in calm conditions of
about 1.5 mm vs. 1 mm on open water (50% removal vs. 67%)

5.3.3. Chemical recovery

Dispersants
Dispersant chemicals work by enhancing the natural dispersion of the oil into the water
column. A dispersant consists of a mixture of surfactants (surface-active agents) in a
solvent. When applied to an oil slick, the surfactants will be positioned at the oil–water
interface and contribute to formation of small oil droplets that will readily be mixed into
the water column and be rapidly diluted and later biodegraded.

Advantages
 Logistics-friendly applicability and ease of deployment.
 Ability in some cases to minimise the damage, at least to the extent readily observable.

Disadvantages
 No oil is removed from the sea; on the contrary, more chemicals are added.
 Modern dispersants are no more toxic, but the oil itself is toxic and when dispersed,
the oil affects to the whole water column.
 The method is not commonly usable with high-viscosity and weathered oils.
 The decision on dispersant use must be made without delay.
 In ice, it is difficult to have enough energy for mixing the oil and dispersant.
 Special approvals are required.

In cold-water environments where there is also ice, dispersants have been viewed as
having the potential for only limited success. Concerns include the lack of natural mixing
energy due to the dampening effects of the ice, and the tendency for oils to become
viscous at low temperatures. Using icebreakers or other vessels to introduce the required
mixing energy, in combination with a dispersant formulated for longer retention by
18
viscous oils, could lead to dispersants becoming a practical response option for oil spills
in ice. In the Baltic Sea and often also in other restricted sea/lake areas there are
however justified regulations, which strongly restrict the use of this method.

Figure 12. Testing the use of the azimuth propellers of a multipurpose icebreaker,
potential for mixing the dispersant (Aker Finnyards).

Herding agents
There have been several tests of herding agents for thickening oil slicks in ice for in situ
burning (Buist, Canevari, and Netwed, 2010). The first test, in 1970, showed that with
these agents it is possible to allow thickening of the oil slick and thus enlarge the range of
possibilities for use of in situ burning in ice. Recent tests have shown that new agent
formulae work better than the old ones do and are capable of collecting oil, therefore at
least theoretically replacing booms for thickening. In spite of promising lab tests,
real-world field tests are rare and this method cannot be considered an operational
combating method yet.

5.3.4. Bioremediation

Bioremediation is natural biodegrading of spilled oil, which to a certain extent can be

accelerated through the addition of nutrients, oil-degrading bacteria, or both. Nutrient and
bacteria addition has been tested, and some positive effects have been observed. It had
been assumed that biodegrading does not occur in cold and icy conditions or is at least
very slow; however, lab and field tests have shown that a low water temperature and
even the presence of ice do not hamper the biodegrading of oil as much as expected.
Nonetheless, it should be noted that bioremediation is a slow process that very seldom, if

19
ever, can be considered as the primary countermeasure. Most likely, the most beneficial
use of bioremediation is as a secondary combating method that completes the recovery
result after application of some other cleanup method – e.g., a mechanical one
(Liukkonen, 1997). Several commercial materials, biosorbents, etc. exist for this purpose.

Advantages
 Has logistics-friendly applicability.
 Is a natural method and is possible also in low temperatures.
 Is possible as a post-treatment method.
 Is usable mainly to accelerate the shoreline-cleaning process

Disadvantages
 Is a slow method.
 Is not applicable on scales of real spills.

5.3.5. Other methods

Also, conventional techniques and methods developed for other purposes can be used
for recovering spills in ice. These include for example the following:
 Use of vacuum pumps to suck oil between and under ice blocks.
 Use of air bubbles to separate the oil and ice, with an air-induced current directing the
oil into free water between ice blocks.
 Use of propeller flow to direct oil under ice in the desired direction.
 Creation of an ice boom to prevent drifting of oil in an undesired direction.
 Use of specialized saw to cut slots in ice where oil can be removed.
These have been tested, and some test reports do exist, but these methods are generally
suitable only for small spills.

6. Recommendations

The still-increasing oil transport on the Baltic Sea and our northern situation highlight a
clear need to improve the ability to recover oil released in icy conditions. In severe
winters, ice can cover most of the Baltic Sea, but the normal variation is between 20%
and 40% of the total sea surface. The need for further development is especially
important to Finland, which is the only country where all harbours can freeze in winter.

Below are some recommendations, which should be developed further if we are to

achieve adequate capacity to respond also to spills amid ice. Success in this task
requires co-operation between Baltic Sea states and other states working in the Arctic and
Antarctic.

 Further development of mechanical methods and equipment is needed. In particular,

the capacity of the skimmers must be improved.
 More training in oil recovery in icy conditions is needed.
 There is need for a larger ice tank for testing different skimmers and methods in
real-world circumstances.

20
 Instructions in how and when in situ burning may be used should be fleshed out. For
large spills in ice on the open sea, in situ burning may sometimes be the best option.
 Work is needed to develop monitoring equipment such that the thick oil can be found
from on board the response vessel also in darkness and in conditions of low visibility.
 The existing and well functioning open sea spreading and drift models should be
developed to help responders also in connection of accidental oil releases in ice. The
future models should also give predictions of the biological impacts of oil.

7. Conclusions

Despite many attempts in laboratory and field tests to find adequate and efficient
solutions to combat oil spills in icy and cold conditions, progress has been slow. We are
still waiting for techniques and equipment that can be successfully used in a real-world
large oil spill in ice. There now has the capacity to combat small spills in icy conditions,
but in cases of a big spill, we sometimes must wait until the ice melts and then recover oil
with the aid of open-sea techniques. Hopefully the new innovations and future research
and development enable successful recovery operations also in large volume spills.
Normally, operations in icy conditions require the use of multiple response methods,
because the circumstances can vary often during long operations. Responders need
techniques to collect oil in both heavy-ice conditions and almost open-sea conditions.
The main difficulties are, therefore, as follows:
 We have techniques and methods for small spills in ice, but much work is still needed
for development of real operational response methods for large spills in ice.
 To succeed, responders must have many alternative methods from which to choose.
 Locating spilt oil under snow-covered ice is a problem.
 If the spilt oil sinks, it will be very difficult to find and collect.
 Reliable and truly functional oil/ice drift models do not exist.

8. References

Bradford, J. H., D. F. Dickins, and P. J. Brandvik. 2010. “Assessing the potential to detect
oil spills in and under snow using airborne ground-penetrating radar”. Geophysics: 75(2).
March-April. Pg G1-G12.

Buist, I., Canevari, G., Netwed, T. 2010. “New Herding Agents for Thickening Oil Slicks in
Drift Ice for In situ Burning”. AMOP Proceedings.

Deborah F., 2011 “Oil Spill Modeling for Ecological Risk and Natural Resource Damage
Assessment”. IOSC 2011 Proceedings.

Dickins, D., J.H. Andersen, P.J. Brandvik, I. Singsaas, T. Buvik, J. Bradford, R. Hall, M.
Babiker, K. Kloster, and S. Sandven. 2010. “Remote sensing for the oil in ice. Joint
Industry Program 2007-2009”. AMOP Proceedings.

Dickins, D. 2008 “Oil Behaviour in Ice” The Oil in Ice Workshop St. John’s October 21.

21
Fingas, M, Brown, C. 2001: “Survey of Applications and Developments of a Versatile
Sensor". AMOP Proceedings.

Izumiyama, K., Kanada, S. and Otsuka N. 2004 “Laboratory Test of an Oil Recovery
Device in Ice”. National Maritime Research Institute and North Japan Port Consultants,
Japan.

Khelifa, A. 2010. “A Summary Review of Modeling Oil in Ice”. AMOP proceedings.

Liukkonen S. 1997. “Oil Spill Combatting Methods for Ice-Covered Waters”. VTT.

Mullin, J.V. 2011 “Bureau of Ocean Management, Regulation, and Enforcement Arctic Oil
Spill Response Research and Development Program “Two Decades of Achievement” .
IOSC 2011 Proceedings.

SINTEF Materials and Chemistry. Marine Environmental Technology. 2006 - 2010. Joint
Industry project, JIP Publications. http://www.sintef.no/Projectweb/JIP-Oil-In-
Ice/Publications/

Sorstrom, S.E., P.J. Brandvik, I. Buist, P. Daling, D. Dickins, L. G. Faksness, S. Potter, J.

F. Rasmussen, and I.Singsaas. 2010. Joint industry program on oil spill contingency for
Arctic and ice covered Waters. Summary Report. SINTEF A14181. ISBN-nr: 978-82-14-
04759-2. Report no. 32. SINTEF Materials and Chemistry.

9. Bibliography

“Field Guide for Oil Spill Response in Arctic Waters”. EPPR publication, 1998.

“The Arctic Scat Manual; A Field Guide to the Documentation of Oiled Shorelines in
Arctic Regions”. EEPR publication 2004.

Buist, I. “In Situ Burning for Oil Spills in Ice Covered Waters: A Brief Review and Recent
Developments”. THE OIL IN ICE WORKSHOP, Anchorage, AK, USA, 2008.

Fingas, M. and Punt, M. “In-situ Burning: A Cleanup Technique for Oil Spills on Water”.
Environment Canada.

“Offshore Oil Spill Response in Dynamic Ice Conditions. A Report to WWF on

Considerations for the Sakhalin II Project”. WWF, 2006.

“Short State-of-the-art Report on Oil Spills in Ice-infested waters: Oil Behavior and
Response Options”. JIP report, 2006.

”Olja I Is. Förstärkt oljeskadeskydd I strandzonen under isförhållanden. Litteraturstudie

med underlag för saneringsinstruktioner för olja i is”. SSPA Sweden AB, 2008.

”Advancing Oil Spill Response in Ice-covered Waters”. DF Dickins Associates Ltd., 2004.

22
10. Appendix

Table showing indication of the expected effectiveness of different response methods as a function
of ice coverage (reprinted from the work of Evers et al., 2006)

23