One of the best methods for disposing of oil spilled on the sea is to burn it in situ. But there has never been a significant test burn of crude in open waters off the U.S. (A small, nearshore test burn was conducted during efforts to contain the 1989 Exxon Valdez oil spill, but severe weather halted a bigger trial in open waters).
That's largely because burning spilled oil transforms pollution on the water into very visible, black pollution in the sky and therefore is anathema to environmentalists.
Test burns in Russia and China and the massive burning of Kuwaiti crude during the Persian Gulf War suggest that burning crude under such circumstances has little environmental impact. That was also confirmed by a successful oil spill test burn off Newfoundland 3 years ago (OGJ, Aug. 30, 1993, Newsletter).
The Washington state Department of Ecology, concerned about the potential of spills from tankers operating off its coast and in Bellingham Bay, wanted to experiment with burning as an oil removal method.
It proposed to conduct four test burns of 2,500 gal each, contained in fire-resistant booms, about 12 nautical miles off Grayland, Wash., during September.
Oil companies would have donated the Alaskan North Slope crude, which would have been contained by fireproof booms in a 600-800 sq ft area. The test burns would have lasted only 30 min each.
The state agency wanted to hold the tests in the spring or fall, when seas and weather are the calmest, and when birds are not migrating.
Red tape, opposition
But it could not get permits from the federal Environmental Protection Agency and ran into local opposition as well.
The burn tests were sponsored by the Northwest Area Committee, which includes private spill cleanup firms and the pertinent state and federal agencies in Washington state, Oregon, and Idaho.
The Washington Ecology Department said under the right conditions, burning spilled oil would greatly reduce the spill's effects on sea life and the fouling of beaches, compared with manual recovery methods.
It said burning can remove as much as 98% of newly spilled oil, while skimmers can get only 15%.
The state said the test spills also would have provided practical experience for oil spill response crews. And if burning were approved as a response method, then spill cleanup firms would have reason to stockpile fireproof booms.
But when the Ecology Department held public hearings on the burn tests last summer, it discovered strong opposition from coastal residents and fishermen. And EPA never acted on the permit in time.
Some environmental groups are openly skeptical about the test burns, saying they will prove nothing because actual oil spills may not-and probably will not-occur during ideal weather and sea conditions.
Not giving up
But the state Ecology Department hasn't given up. It now hopes to conduct the test burns next spring or fall.
In the meantime, it will prepare an environmental impact statement that will include public comment, a review of data on burns in other nations, and a comparison of spill cleanup alternatives to burning.
And it said the tests probably will be moved further out to sea to appease the public.
Copyright 1996 Oil & Gas Journal. All Rights Reserved.
